Cyprus-Forum.com

[Lordo]

its ok folks the brexshitters like to claim that 17.4 million people voted for brexit and it was all no-deal. they forget that it was tories who said brexit means brexit, not even brexit means no deal, and of course let us not forget that tories got 13 milion in 2017 and lost their majority too.

they are now running around like headless chickens trying to find some loop hole to help manchild avoid going to the eu for extension on the 19th of october. it will be alright though as he comes back on the 18th without a deal, their goose is cooked bejing style.

once it is established that it is not an easy deal and it will not be better than being in the eu and we do not have all the cards in our hands, that is the time that their whole world will colapse on their heads.

in reality we cannot even have a no-deal option in 31st of october becasue the governent is unable to pass a single legislation between now and then.

just relux and enjoy the show.

[Lordo]

anyway so it seems manchild molested a newspaper reporter or two but wait cumings's wife believes that as manchild never molested her so he could not have molested these girls.

oh well there is the proof if you ever needed any. he couldn't have done it.

[Kikapu]

The problem is, the "leave vote" is a two headed monster.

1. leave with a deal
2. leave without a deal

So who chooses which one and why?

Surely the people should choose which one, just as they chose to leave or remain.

If the remain vote had won, then it would have been just one headed monster, which would have been "status quo". Easy!

Therefore, at this point in time, majority of parliaments and MPs time is spent on "deal or no deal" question, and I do not mean the TV games show.

So the question stands, who is to decide which deal we get Brexit if not the people, since the parliament has failed three times to do it.

You Remainers are trying to re-write history.

Politicians on both sides of the argument pointed out that a 'Leave' vote meant leaving all of the institutions of the EU including the Single Market, ECJ, Customs Union, etc.

Nobody knows exactly which bit of the campaign on either side persuaded people to vote as they did, but ultimately it was a binary vote and the people voted Leave overwhelmingly...

Sure, a FTA would have been nice and most Leave voters believe as I do that if a different approach to negotiations had been taken the EU would have offered it...

But we voted Leave and we have to Leave.

Subsequent to Leaving we can (and will I'm sure) negotiate 'deals' with the EU as we have already done in so many areas (flights for one).

You could turn it round and say what sort of Remain did people vote for...?

I'm guessing that many voted for the status quo... But it is clear that the EU is evolving on a daily basis and many are calling for a 'European Empire, an 'European Army', etc. etc.

So it is clear that 'The Remain vote' is also a two headed monster...

1) Remain with the status quo
2) Remain with the EU evolving into a superstate with its own army and Brussels taking ever greater control and being forced into the €uro and Schengen, etc,

See how it works...?

Story but, you did not answer the question, which is, who decides to leave with a deal or leave without a deal? The only thing the referendum decided was to leave or remain and nothing else, but 3 years down the road, the arguments are not about should we leave or not, but how do we leave. To quote you, “you remainers” has no part in this since they lost. The arguments in the parliament is all about leave or not to leave with or without a deal. Please answer the question.

[Pyrpolizer]

There can only be one option. That is the way it is suppose to be.

the minute you differentiate between the different types of Republic, the Republicans have lost. How? I will explain.

If there were multiple options for a republic, let's say the following:
1) USA style Republic,
2) French Style republic,
3) Greek Styles Republic,
4) you can add any other country of your choosing. etc etc

The Republican Vote has lost hands down.

Because there are republicans like myself who would vote for the Monarchy just to avoid a USA style Republic.

Don't get me wrong, the USA in my opinion is a model democracy. Everything from the way it was founded to the core of its constitution is a level of democracy that is unmatched by any country. But who in their right mind would want to endure the debauchery of a long and drawn out USA style presidential election? Not me. And many Republicans won't go for it.

People will not go for the French model just because its French and Aussies are a bit like that.

Greek model - well the Monarchists will say Greece isn't a good model because they are a dysfunctional and failed state and they had a fascist dictatorship. Plus Aussies associate Greece with things like Yiros and Souvlaki but not necessary look at Greece as a model of running Australia.

The Monarchists will therefore win with 90% of all the votes. I too would vote for the Monarchy because the system we have has proven to be a workable system whilst the USA system is chaotic, the French System is French and the Greeks don't look like they even function.

A referendum like that would be the Monarchists dream.

That is what I would call a rigged referendum that isn't fair.

Realistically, what the Republicans had in mind when voting for a Republic was just some cosmetic changes. In other words, maintaining the British Westminster System and just replacing a couple of the ceremonial entities with a non elected President that is appointed to conduct ceremonial duties in place of the Monarch. This could not be mentioned because the minute you mention it the Monarchist campaigners will accuse the Republicans of wanting a dictatorship (scare campaign). The only other alternative to that is the politicized USA campaign for POTUS, which is again something most republicans in Australia would not want. So the Republican Campaign is 1000% doomed to fail with no hope in hell.

You can't complicate referendums. if you complicate it, then the odds are stacked in favor of no change.

You also have no clue on how the Anglos think and operate.

I think you missed the point. The point was not whether you should ask 2 questions but whether each of those 2 questions could be implemented in a single way already known to the voters. The Leave question could not be implemented in a single way. Furthermore the outcome of the various ways of leaving was unknown. And it wasn't just deal-no deal, it was far more options than that. This article explains it clearly:

https://www.maastrichtuniversity.nl/blo ... eferendums

The question was: ‘Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?’ and the alternative answers to appear on the ballot paper were ‘Remain a member of the European Union’ and ‘Leave the European Union’. This is perfectly intelligible. However, the respective preferred outcomes were very different in their knowability. Remain was relatively clearly defined as the status quo regarding the UK’s EU membership. Leave, on the other hand, could be understood to refer to a wide range of outcomes. For example, the UK could leave the EU, but join the EEA instead. Or the UK could seek a bespoke association agreement. This could range from an agreement to remain in the Single Market and the Customs Union to a very loose association or trade agreements as entered into by, say, Turkey or Canada. Or it could mean none of the above. In short, ‘Leave’ had the potential to mean all sorts of things to all sorts of people in ways ‘Remain’ did not.


This referendum would be declared void by most Supreme courts around the world because the Leave voters were asked to vote for unknown ways of leaving.
Did you know that the Swiss court declared void a referendum they had, just because the voters did not have enough information about the 2 options?

Btw didn't you guys in Australia had a multiple choice referendum in which you were given 4 choices to chose your national anthem?

[Kikapu]

anyway so it seems manchild molested a newspaper reporter or two but wait cumings's wife believes that as manchild never molested her so he could not have molested these girls.

oh well there is the proof if you ever needed any. he couldn't have done it.

That’s what Hillary Clinton said about Bill, that it was not possible for him to have left his DNA on Monica’s blue dress, just because Bill has not left any DNA with Hillary for a long time, then he must be innocent.

[Pyrpolizer]

Just read this comment elsewhere...

Brexit isn’t a modern phenomenon: you’d have got pretty much the same result if you’d asked the question of the British electorate any time from the beginning of the EU.

If there had been a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty in the UK, it never would have been ratified (it was barely ratified in Parliament and John Major’s tricks to get it through were as dirty as anything Boris has done) and the UK would never have been in the EU to start with. That’s why there wasn’t one.

In truth the 2016 referendum was just that referendum we should have had in 1992, delayed.

So no, Brexit is nothing to do with Trump, Salvini, the growth of the internet, and so on and so forth. Those are modern phenomena of the inter-net age, but Brexit happened because over twenty-five years ago, Parliament fundamentally altered the UK’s constitution without seeking the electorate’s consent and against its will. That’s not a sustainable situation, and the bubble had to burst sometime.

Perfect summary IMHO...

Clicky...

Claiming that your parliament altered the constitution when you do not even have a written constitution is weird to say the least.

[cyprusgrump]

The problem is, the "leave vote" is a two headed monster.

1. leave with a deal
2. leave without a deal

So who chooses which one and why?

Surely the people should choose which one, just as they chose to leave or remain.

If the remain vote had won, then it would have been just one headed monster, which would have been "status quo". Easy!

Therefore, at this point in time, majority of parliaments and MPs time is spent on "deal or no deal" question, and I do not mean the TV games show.

So the question stands, who is to decide which deal we get Brexit if not the people, since the parliament has failed three times to do it.

You Remainers are trying to re-write history.

Politicians on both sides of the argument pointed out that a 'Leave' vote meant leaving all of the institutions of the EU including the Single Market, ECJ, Customs Union, etc.

Nobody knows exactly which bit of the campaign on either side persuaded people to vote as they did, but ultimately it was a binary vote and the people voted Leave overwhelmingly...

Sure, a FTA would have been nice and most Leave voters believe as I do that if a different approach to negotiations had been taken the EU would have offered it...

But we voted Leave and we have to Leave.

Subsequent to Leaving we can (and will I'm sure) negotiate 'deals' with the EU as we have already done in so many areas (flights for one).

You could turn it round and say what sort of Remain did people vote for...?

I'm guessing that many voted for the status quo... But it is clear that the EU is evolving on a daily basis and many are calling for a 'European Empire, an 'European Army', etc. etc.

So it is clear that 'The Remain vote' is also a two headed monster...

1) Remain with the status quo
2) Remain with the EU evolving into a superstate with its own army and Brussels taking ever greater control and being forced into the €uro and Schengen, etc,

See how it works...?

Story but, you did not answer the question, which is, who decides to leave with a deal or leave without a deal? The only thing the referendum decided was to leave or remain and nothing else, but 3 years down the road, the arguments are not about should we leave or not, but how do we leave. To quote you, “you remainers” has no part in this since they lost. The arguments in the parliament is all about leave or not to leave with or without a deal. Please answer the question.

I answered the question...

You are either unable to comprehend the answer or choose to ignore it (a common Remoaner tactic)....

Read my answer again, especially about the part that both sides declared that a Leave vote would mean leaving all the institutions of the EU and then apply that to your question...

So in simple terms, both sides argued that a Leave vote would mean leaving the EU completely... One side argued it as an advantage and the other as a disadvantage but it was clear to everybody what 'Leave' meant...

So, the answer to your question: -

who decides to leave with a deal or leave without a deal?

Is that politicians of both sides decided that 'Leave' meant leave all of the institutions of the EU...

'No Deal' as I have mentioned multiple times before is a post-Referendum invention of loser Remoaners...

Is that clear to you now...?

[Lordo]

oh dear me, did you have your hearing aid on at the time?

where were you when everytime that was said your bumchums said
1. of course we will have a deal it will not be no deal
2. once we vote to leave we have all the cards in our hands
3. our deal will be better than when we were in.

where were you when your bumchums were were saying that and acusing the remainers as project fearing to scare people by saying we will end up with no deal.

you really are a prize ass

it really is not a rocket science that of the 17.4 million people who voted brexit sizeable chunk voted for a softer brexit. 4 million labour voters of the 17.4 were voting for customs union ffs and a third of tory voters alsovoted for soft brexit. thats another 4 million or so. so take out 8 million and how many left for hard brexit, about 9 million. thats ok that is significant majority right?
you really are one stupid dickhead.

why the hell did tories get only 13 million votes in 2017 ffs.

your 2016 vote was killed by may when she held the election in 17. you cannot go past the last election. by all means fight to have another referendum and insist that it has remain and no-deal on it. I would support you 100 percent in your effort to get that. and then watch you cry away after you get about 9 million votes or less for your no deal. you really are a prize ass

[Londonrake]

anyway so it seems manchild molested a newspaper reporter or two but wait cumings's wife believes that as manchild never molested her so he could not have molested these girls.

oh well there is the proof if you ever needed any. he couldn't have done it.

[Kikapu]

The problem is, the "leave vote" is a two headed monster.

1. leave with a deal
2. leave without a deal

So who chooses which one and why?

Surely the people should choose which one, just as they chose to leave or remain.

If the remain vote had won, then it would have been just one headed monster, which would have been "status quo". Easy!

Therefore, at this point in time, majority of parliaments and MPs time is spent on "deal or no deal" question, and I do not mean the TV games show.

So the question stands, who is to decide which deal we get Brexit if not the people, since the parliament has failed three times to do it.

You Remainers are trying to re-write history.

Politicians on both sides of the argument pointed out that a 'Leave' vote meant leaving all of the institutions of the EU including the Single Market, ECJ, Customs Union, etc.

Nobody knows exactly which bit of the campaign on either side persuaded people to vote as they did, but ultimately it was a binary vote and the people voted Leave overwhelmingly...

Sure, a FTA would have been nice and most Leave voters believe as I do that if a different approach to negotiations had been taken the EU would have offered it...

But we voted Leave and we have to Leave.

Subsequent to Leaving we can (and will I'm sure) negotiate 'deals' with the EU as we have already done in so many areas (flights for one).

You could turn it round and say what sort of Remain did people vote for...?

I'm guessing that many voted for the status quo... But it is clear that the EU is evolving on a daily basis and many are calling for a 'European Empire, an 'European Army', etc. etc.

So it is clear that 'The Remain vote' is also a two headed monster...

1) Remain with the status quo
2) Remain with the EU evolving into a superstate with its own army and Brussels taking ever greater control and being forced into the €uro and Schengen, etc,

See how it works...?

Story but, you did not answer the question, which is, who decides to leave with a deal or leave without a deal? The only thing the referendum decided was to leave or remain and nothing else, but 3 years down the road, the arguments are not about should we leave or not, but how do we leave. To quote you, “you remainers” has no part in this since they lost. The arguments in the parliament is all about leave or not to leave with or without a deal. Please answer the question.

I answered the question...

You are either unable to comprehend the answer or choose to ignore it (a common Remoaner tactic)....

Read my answer again, especially about the part that both sides declared that a Leave vote would mean leaving all the institutions of the EU and then apply that to your question...

So in simple terms, both sides argued that a Leave vote would mean leaving the EU completely... One side argued it as an advantage and the other as a disadvantage but it was clear to everybody what 'Leave' meant...

So, the answer to your question: -

who decides to leave with a deal or leave without a deal?

Is that politicians of both sides decided that 'Leave' meant leave all of the institutions of the EU...

'No Deal' as I have mentioned multiple times before is a post-Referendum invention of loser Remoaners...

Is that clear to you now...?

I know you think you have answered the question, but you really haven’t, because to leave with a deal or leave without a deal still continues 3 years past the referendum. The government has tried to leave with a deal and the parliament has also tried to leave with a deal, but they have both failed, but neither has tried to leave without a deal. In fact, it has become illegal to leave without a deal, therefore, the government is not able to decide on the matter despite what May has said, despite what Boris and Parliament is saying, which leaves the people to decide on how to leave, which means another referendum for people to decide on how to leave. This is not about whether to leave or stay since that has already been decided by the people. This is about on how to leave. Very simple really.