50 mps going to vote no to article 50

[tinfoilhat]

Nigel Farage answered all questions on the subject of the EU and leaving it over the years.

 

So what? He's not even an MP. I'd rather listen to a hammer drill. And a hammer doesn't lie or change its mind.

[I1L2T3]

Like this?

 

 

You all told people to ignore it because everything in the remain campaign was scaremongering. Remember?

 

Now you interpret it as solid policy.

 

Incredible!

 

---------- Post added 12-11-2016 at 19:44 ----------

 

Nigel Farage answered all questions on the subject of the EU and leaving it over the years.

 

Actually for most of the first six months of 2016 he avoided discussion about the economic impact. Both the leave campaigns avoided that discussion.

Edited November 12, 2016 by I1L2T3

[Dardandec]

Like this?

 

 

George also said there would be an emergency (AKA Punishment) budget, and David Cameron said he wouldn't quit. So you work that out. As I've already said on another thread, Wrexiters aren't gonna get a hard Brexit, the country can't afford it.

[999tigger]

I dont think there was any such term as soft or hard Brexit before the referendum as those term were coined later. Given that then it is obvious that the the majority were happy just to vote remain or leave and whatever that entailed.

 

So that would mean letting the government decide? I agree with you. I dont think it was discussed except insofar as different modles were considered about how the UK might interact with the EU after i.e the Swiss or Norwegian models.

 

The task of sorting it out lies to the government and they have a relative free hand. Considering the fact they Have Boris and Davies in there, then I cant see the fuss. As leaders of the Brexit campaign then if it had meant only hard Brexit they would have declared so long ago.

 

---------- Post added 12-11-2016 at 20:27 ----------

 

I will go by what the leaders of each campaign said and not what someone on here thought would happen.

 

The question was based on an IN and an OUT campaign, and they both agreed that a vote to leave was vote to leave the single market, take control of immigration, take control of the money we send, and take control of our law making. Remoaners don't like the idea they lost so want to rewrite history.

 

---------- Post added 12-11-2016 at 19:12 ----------

 

 

That's the one, I think from now on the best approach is to post that link in response to everything the remoaners say on the matter.

 

What an odd point to pick. I merely pointed out that nobody was discussing what the implications of an exit vote was. The vote was to leave the EU as that was the only question asked. Everything else was and is being decided by the government.

 

You dont seem to comprehend that you can be outside the EU, but still within the single market. Thats what any negotiations might be about. They want a deal, which is in the best interests of the country. They may or may not be able to reach one. It seems a bit stupid to reject something out of hand if it is advantageous to the UK. Little to worry about as davies and Boris are leading the negotiations.

[Fogey]

I will go by what the leaders of each campaign said and not what someone on here thought would happen.

 

The question was based on an IN and an OUT campaign, and they both agreed that a vote to leave was vote to leave the single market, take control of immigration, take control of the money we send, and take control of our law making. Remoaners don't like the idea they lost so want to rewrite history.

 

---------- Post added 12-11-2016 at 19:12 ----------

 

 

That's the one, I think from now on the best approach is to post that link in response to everything the remoaners say on the matter.

 

Good link, it puts the question of what the leaders of the remain campaign perhaps intended. Here's the problem though for the leavers.

 

The referendum was always clearly not actually binding on the Government, - it was stated as such, although I think its fair to say that most didn't think MP's would dare defy the result. But then that is the difference between believing something and it actually being correct. Because the referendum was not binding it doesn't prevent the government from negotiating a deal if the government wants to, it doesn't stop the government from saying sod off we're not doing it, -if they dare. People in the Leave side of the vote have continued to believe what they want to believe, because the politicians involved have looked to curry favour with the electorate by telling them what they want to hear all through this campaign, just as they always do.

 

The only people who seem to have really know and understood what they were actually voting for are those who voted to remain, those that voted leave have for the most part simply believed what they were told by people manipulating them to pursue their own agenda, even when its been explained to them at great length.

 

---------- Post added 12-11-2016 at 20:40 ----------

 

Nigel Farage answered all questions on the subject of the EU and leaving it over the years.

 

Was Nigel Farrage part of the leave campaign? Leading it? or setting its agenda?

[phil752]

I think the nation should be asked if it wants an Australian style immigration policy.

That should have been on the original ballot paper. The single market and free trade are less important.

 

But it wasn't

[Petminder]

You all told people to ignore it because everything in the remain campaign was scaremongering. Remember?

 

Now you interpret it as solid policy.

 

Incredible!

 

---------- Post added 12-11-2016 at 19:44 ----------

 

 

Actually for most of the first six months of 2016 he avoided discussion about the economic impact. Both the leave campaigns avoided that discussion.

 

You still don't know the difference between scaremongering and promise, he could promise to take us out of the EU and single market but he couldn't promise to loose every household £4000. The former is something he could do and the later was just an opinion of what might happen when he does the former.

[harvey19]

[/color]

 

Was Nigel Farrage part of the leave campaign? Leading it? or setting its agenda?

 

Surely you can't have missed hearing his views over the years.

[phil752]

Good link, it puts the question of what the leaders of the remain campaign perhaps intended. Here's the problem though for the leavers.

 

The referendum was always clearly not actually binding on the Government, - it was stated as such, although I think its fair to say that most didn't think MP's would dare defy the result. But then that is the difference between believing something and it actually being correct. Because the referendum was not binding it doesn't prevent the government from negotiating a deal if the government wants to, it doesn't stop the government from saying sod off we're not doing it, -if they dare. People in the Leave side of the vote have continued to believe what they want to believe, because the politicians involved have looked to curry favour with the electorate by telling them what they want to hear all through this campaign, just as they always do.

 

The only people who seem to have really know and understood what they were actually voting for are those who voted to remain, those that voted leave have for the most part simply believed what they were told by people manipulating them to pursue their own agenda, even when its been explained to them at great length.

 

---------- Post added 12-11-2016 at 20:40 ----------

 

 

Was Nigel Farrage part of the leave campaign? Leading it? or setting its agenda?

 

The ill-informed card again.

[Petminder]

 

What an odd point to pick. I merely pointed out that nobody was discussing what the implications of an exit vote was. The vote was to leave the EU as that was the only question asked. Everything else was and is being decided by the government.

 

You dont seem to comprehend that you can be outside the EU, but still within the single market. Thats what any negotiations might be about. They want a deal, which is in the best interests of the country. They may or may not be able to reach one. It seems a bit stupid to reject something out of hand if it is advantageous to the UK. Little to worry about as davies and Boris are leading the negotiations.

Everyone was discussing the implications and explaining that a vote to leave the EU was a vote the leave the single market, regain control of our borders, take control of the money and all our own law making. I reject it because it isn't in the UK's best interest and it isn't something that anyone voted for.

The free movement of people, EU laws overriding UK laws and sending money to the EU were clearly rejected by the majority.