Will Brexit happen?

Fran_Klee

Sailtheworld wrote: »

If you think these MPs have committed treason or treachery (no such crime) pop yourself down to your local police station and report them. Please post a photo of the desk Sergeant's face.

Your knowledge is obviously limited so I will help you out.
Oh and BTW if I'm right these treacherous MP's will soon enough get their comeuppance, won't they - that is democracy.

Treason laws are to be updated in the UK to cover terrorists and “hostile state activity”, the home secretary has announced.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-treason-laws-sajid-javid-terrorism-syria-isis-bride-home-office-a8921616.html
There you go, just to start your education off.
Not bad for a crime that you think doesn't exist.
:rotfl:

Sailtheworld

Fran_Klee wrote: »

Your knowledge is obviously limited so I will help you out.
Oh and BTW if I'm right these treacherous MP's will soon enough get their comeuppance, won't they - that is democracy.

Losing their seat in parliament and getting a job on the board of a plc seems a little short of hanging.

Fran_Klee wrote: »

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-treason-laws-sajid-javid-terrorism-syria-isis-bride-home-office-a8921616.html
There you go, just to start your education off.
Not bad for a crime that you think doesn't exist.
:rotfl:

You said this sort of treachery would have seen them hang in the good old days (WWII presumably). Google all you like but there's no crime of treachery.

So when you report them for treason (which is a crime) please report back how it went. In fact why don't you pop off down to the police station now - I'll wait here for you to get back.

Take a deep breath and a step back.

Fran_Klee

Sailtheworld wrote: »

Losing their seat in parliament and getting a job on the board of a plc seems a little short of hanging.

Isn't it just; thankfully for these treacherous MP's they are in office today and not two hundred years ago.

Sailtheworld wrote: »

You said this sort of treachery would have seen them hang in the good old days (WWII presumably). Google all you like but there's no crime of treachery.

Making up your own story and then presenting it as historical fact is never a good idea when the real historical fact is only a few posts above.
Nowhere did I mention any "good old days" and similarly nowhere did I say that there was a British crime of "treachery".
What I did say is that treachery "would have led to".
I then linked a crime to which treachery may be linked since you first used the word "treason".

Sailtheworld wrote: »

So when you report them for treason (which is a crime) please report back how it went. In fact why don't you pop off down to the police station now - I'll wait here for you to get back.

Oh so now, after saying it was not a crime until I provided evidence that it is, you accept that treason is a crime?
:rotfl:
Again you are making up your own story and then presenting it as historical fact.
Nowhere have I said that I would report these people.
Show me where I said that?
Or stop attributing to me that which I have not said.

Sailtheworld wrote: »

Take a deep breath and a step back.

I think you should.
If for no other reason than that you are mostly arguing with yourself, since you're arguing about what I have not said.
Perhaps a good sit down would not go amiss after your deep breath and step back.

BikingBud

MobileSaver wrote: »

When half the country voted for it and half against, that was never going to happen.

Easy to say in hindsight but if a threshold of, say, 66% (i.e. a super-majority or two-thirds of voters) was needed to enact change we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.

Two thirds of voters or two thirds of those that can be bothered to vote?

Very rarely do we see the former achieved and I feel as more people will become disenfranchised with politics and politicians after their recent performances we may never see 2/3 of the voters going to the polls again.

BikingBud

MobileSaver wrote: »

A tiny majority voted to leave.

As I said, in hindsight, if a super-majority had been needed to enact change we wouldn't be in the mess we are now. Do you disagree with this statement?

Could be the teeniest tiniest majority but the fact its a majority gets it over the line

JoeyG

BikingBud wrote: »

Could be the teeniest tiniest majority but the fact its a majority gets it over the line

Clearly 'getting it over the line' hasn't actually achieved anything

Any idiot could have predicted with a split like that, some effort would be needed to unite the country again.

Kohoutek

Thrugelmir wrote: »

1.2 million to be precise.

The mess exists because people aren't accepting majority decisions. Society is broken. Personal interests come first.

So do you not blame the ERG that voted repeatedly against the May deal that would have implemented Brexit?

Tromking

Interesting to see that after what many in the MSM are calling a horrendous week for BJ, the polls are still showing a two digit plus lead for the Tories. If they ever left the Westminster village they might understand !!!!!! is going on in this country.

MobileSaver

MobileSaver wrote: »

As I said, in hindsight, if a super-majority had been needed to enact change we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.

BikingBud wrote: »

Could be the teeniest tiniest majority but the fact its a majority gets it over the line

Er, yes, that's the point. A simple majority has left us with the mess we are now in, a super-majority threshold would have alleviated many, if not all, of the problems.

MisterMotivated

What has left us in the mess we are in now, is politicians who don't want Brexit, trying to pretend that they will accept the vote and deliver Brexit, while secretly trying to undermine the whole process to the point where they hope people will say "oh just forget it, it's not worth the bother". Though at least the Lib Dems are open enough to admit they'd just ignore the result of the referendum altogether and cancel the whole thing.

They [say that they] want to deliver Brexit, but 'no deal' is apparently not an option, so there needs to be a deal, but they refuse to accept the deal that's on the table even though Brussels says no alternative deal will be offered, because our own politicians are doing their utmost to sabotage the negotiations by saying 'no deal' is not an option, leaving the only options being getting a better deal or just not leaving at all.

With no 'no deal', no acceptance of existing deal and no prospect of an alternative deal being offered, I expect it won't be long until some in Westminster mutter "oh that's a shame, I suppose we have no choice but to cancel Brexit"