politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the Article 50 exit date gets deferred it could raise doubt
Comments
-
The Labour manifesto explicitly rules out no deal and explicitly rules out supporting the Conservative Brexit policy.Richard_Tyndall said:
Then they have no claim to have a mandate.IanB2 said:
If you read the Labour manifesto it is very carefully worded. And, anyhow, the formal position is that we were each electing individuals to represent us, and collectively they don't seem to like either the deal or no deal.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Now William - that is naughty. Both major parties manifestos committed to leaving the EU as you well know. TM deal leaves the EUwilliamglenn said:
Over 17 million people voted against May's Brexit in 2017. There is no mandate for it at all.Richard_Tyndall said:
There is both a direct mandate (2016) and an indirect mandate (2017). You just don't like it and so are thrashing around for ways to legitimise your dislike of democracy.IanB2 said:
Going ahead with this nonsense and damaging the country without a direct mandate would certainly be both undemocratic and undermine voters' faith, once they feel the consequences.RobD said:
Keeping voter’s faith in democracy is.williamglenn said:
Protecting the image of politicians is the worst possible reason for going ahead with Brexit. The national interest comes ahead of the vanity of a few hundred people.Black_Rook said:
I very much doubt that cancelling Brexit will lead to any serious outbreaks of violence.williamglenn said:
In would also completely neuter the project fear about civil unrest after revocation. Either the extension will happen without disorder, and the bluff will have been called, or there will be disorder, and we'll then be in a position were anything other than a subsequent revocation will be seen as caving in to the mob.AlastairMeeks said:On topic, any delay will show that Brexit is a movable body. It would also cripple the confidence of many Leavers. Everything would feel much more contingent.
In other words, I agree with OGH and it would be a very big moment.
Quite what it will do to the public's already low opinion of politicians, and to levels of political engagement and electoral participation, is another matter.0 -
That may well be so but a poll would be interesting. Also Lewis Goodall commenting on Sky that as he travels the Country he is surprised how much support TM has for her dealFoxy said:
We know they do not want No Deal, which is what sticking to the date means.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It would be interesting to see polling on whether voters want A50 extended or just to get on with itkle4 said:
It's a very smart thing to call for because it works for people who genuinely think we need more time to sort something out, but also works for people who just want to remain but are not yet confident enough to just come out and say so yet.AlastairMeeks said:On topic, any delay will show that Brexit is a movable body. It would also cripple the confidence of many Leavers. Everything would feel much more contingent.
0 -
They want to get on with Unicorn Brexit.kle4 said:
I actually disagree, because voters might say they want to just get on with it, but still vehemently oppose anything that is actually proposed to get on with it.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It would be interesting to see polling on whether voters want A50 extended or just to get on with itkle4 said:
It's a very smart thing to call for because it works for people who genuinely think we need more time to sort something out, but also works for people who just want to remain but are not yet confident enough to just come out and say so yet.AlastairMeeks said:On topic, any delay will show that Brexit is a movable body. It would also cripple the confidence of many Leavers. Everything would feel much more contingent.
0 -
In which case, they should not ask the voters to give their views in referenda. Nor should they make promises they don't mean to keep.grabcocque said:
I guess we'll find out on Tuesday just how big May's mandate is...Richard_Tyndall said:
There is both a direct mandate (2016) and an indirect mandate (2017). You just don't like it and so are thrashing around for ways to legitimise your dislike of democracy.
I find it kind of cute that the very dimmest Brexiteers still haven't figured out that MPs are not delegates, and are not bound by their manifestoes but by their consciences and the effectiveness of the whips.
0 -
It also cannot be read as an endorsement of remain, yet that doesn't stop you.williamglenn said:
When May called the election her main justification was this:Big_G_NorthWales said:
Now William - that is naughty. Both major parties manifestos committed to leaving the EU as you well know. TM deal leaves the EUwilliamglenn said:
Over 17 million people voted against May's Brexit in 2017. There is no mandate for it at all.Richard_Tyndall said:
There is both a direct mandate (2016) and an indirect mandate (2017). You just don't like it and so are thrashing around for ways to legitimise your dislike of democracy.IanB2 said:
Going ahead with this nonsense and damaging the country without a direct mandate would certainly be both undemocratic and undermine voters' faith, once they feel the consequences.RobD said:
Keeping voter’s faith in democracy is.williamglenn said:
Protecting the image of politicians is the worst possible reason for going ahead with Brexit. The national interest comes ahead of the vanity of a few hundred people.Black_Rook said:
I very much doubt that cancelling Brexit will lead to any serious outbreaks of violence.williamglenn said:
In would also completely neuter the project fear about civil unrest after revocation. Either the extension will happen without disorder, and the bluff will have been called, or there will be disorder, and we'll then be in a position were anything other than a subsequent revocation will be seen as caving in to the mob.AlastairMeeks said:On topic, any delay will show that Brexit is a movable body. It would also cripple the confidence of many Leavers. Everything would feel much more contingent.
In other words, I agree with OGH and it would be a very big moment.
Quite what it will do to the public's already low opinion of politicians, and to levels of political engagement and electoral participation, is another matter.
"In recent weeks, Labour have threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union, the Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill, the S.N.P. say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain’s membership of the European Union and unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way. Our opponents believe because the government’s majority is so small that our resolve will weaken and that they can force us to change course."
There's no way the 2017 election result can be read as an endorsement of Brexit.0 -
Yes.saddo said:
Usual EU tactics. Dictate things behind the scenes, get idiot national politicians to front things. Easy deniability.RobD said:
I know, it’s shocking that remainers are stooping to the EU’s level.Black_Rook said:
I don't think we can justifiably pin this one on Brussels. If there is a second referendum, it'll be the work of Parliament and Parliament alone.RobD said:
Ah, the old EU gambit. Keep them voting until you get the right answer.Barnesian said:
In the event of her deal being defeated, I think Mrs May will throw in the towel and say it is up to parliament to decide and enable, as government, whatever the majority of MPs decide. I think there would be a large majority supporting her deal or remain and could agree to her Deal subject to a Deal/Remain referendum. The EU would agree to an extension for that.RobD said:
If the deal is not agreed it is very likely there won’t be a Brexit.Yellow_Submarine said:Forgive my cynicism but all this talk of A50 being extended is very conveniently timed re Tuesday's vote. It smacks of the Tory whips to panic Brexiter deal refusniks that there will be no Brexit at all.
Can anyone believe the remain efforts since the vote haven't been organised in complete alignment with the EU?0 -
You know nothing of the sort. There was apparently a sizeable majority in favour of Remain prior to the referendum, until of course there wasn't. Once we have left you can campaign to rejoin. For now we need to enact what was promised by both parties at the last election and what people voted for both then and in 2016.grabcocque said:
We now know a sizable majority in the country now wish to remain. I certainly imagine the electorate's revenge to an MP that allowed Brexit to happen when the people have changed their minds would be brutal.Richard_Tyndall said:
If you are going to channel Burke then you should remember what the electorate did to him him at the first opportunity after he decided to ignore their wishes.grabcocque said:
I guess we'll find out on Tuesday just how big May's mandate is...Richard_Tyndall said:
There is both a direct mandate (2016) and an indirect mandate (2017). You just don't like it and so are thrashing around for ways to legitimise your dislike of democracy.
I find it kind of cute that the very dimmest Brexiteers still haven't figured out that MPs are not delegates, and are not bound by their manifestoes but by their consciences and the effectiveness of the whips.
The thought of going into the next election having enabled Magic Grandpa to deliver his unicorn Brexit seems to be weighing particularly heavily on the minds of Labour MPs.0 -
They have released a plan, based upon what Davis & Baker were working on to deliver against May's public pledges. With May's duplicity & no civil service support, it's no wonder it's not 500 pages long.IanB2 said:
And where is their alternative plan?saddo said:
Leavers have been completely played by May running parallel negotiations in secret, under the cover of her lying big set piece speeches. Chequers was the big reveal when the leavers knew she'd stitched them up.IanB2 said:
So the leavers expected not to have to work up and build public support for any sort of realistic plan, and to be able to resign and run away from taking any responsibility, yet somehow the magic elves would do it all for them?saddo said:
Usual EU tactics. Dictate things behind the scenes, get idiot national politicians to front things. Easy deniability.RobD said:
I know, it’s shocking that remainers are stooping to the EU’s level.Black_Rook said:
I don't think we can justifiably pin this one on Brussels. If there is a second referendum, it'll be the work of Parliament and Parliament alone.RobD said:
Ah, the old EU gambit. Keep them voting until you get the right answer.Barnesian said:
In the event of her deal being defeated, I think Mrs May will throw in the towel and say it is up to parliament to decide and enable, as government, whatever the majority of MPs decide. I think there would be a large majority supporting her deal or remain and could agree to her Deal subject to a Deal/Remain referendum. The EU would agree to an extension for that.RobD said:
If the deal is not agreed it is very likely there won’t be a Brexit.Yellow_Submarine said:Forgive my cynicism but all this talk of A50 being extended is very conveniently timed re Tuesday's vote. It smacks of the Tory whips to panic Brexiter deal refusniks that there will be no Brexit at all.
Can anyone believe the remain efforts since the vote haven't been organised in complete alignment with the EU?
Even now very many of them won't vote for the only Brexit plan on offer.
Her deal being crap is solely down to her.
If they are that useless and easily led, just as well we didn't rely solely on them to negotiate with the EU, eh?
Closer to the truth is that May has got the least damaging deal she could, in the circumstances. Worse than where we are, but better than going cold turkey. Leavers know it won't deliver the unicorns and are covering their asses rather than taking any responsibility, let alone control.0 -
I'm sure you're right. Deal goes down on Tuesday. Maybe it wins later on in the season when the going suits better, to torture the horse racing analogy.Black_Rook said:Possible but unlikely. It would require both a mass capitulation by the ERG and forbearance from Labour: both through voting for or abstaining on the WA, and then refusing the temptation to trigger a VoNC that would be facilitated by the DUP until the WA had made it safely onto the statute book.
My main beef is the illogicality of the decision making process being followed.
When you have a deal on the table - and the only one ever likely to be on the table - which albeit not popular allows an orderly implementation of the 2016 referendum vote to leave the European Union, what do you do.
(i) Do you first review the alternatives and if there is one that is more popular (or less unpopular) implement that instead, otherwise do the deal.
(ii) Or do you just kill the deal and THEN run around in a flap looking for those alternatives.
??
For me, (i) is quite obviously the way to go.
Parliament seems to be opting for (ii).
Poor show.0 -
No, we're not going to do that because MPs don't want to, because everyone has realised the idea is stupid.Richard_Tyndall said:
You know nothing of the sort. There was apparently a sizeable majority in favour of Remain prior to the referendum, until of course there wasn't. Once we have left you can campaign to rejoin. For now we need to enact what was promised by both parties at the last election and what people voted for both then and in 2016.
0 -
Hard line no deal brexiteers don’t want Brexit? You learn something new every day.williamglenn said:
Her deal is what Brexit means. If people want "Brexit" in abstract but reject its concrete form then they don't really want it.Sean_F said:
But support for Brexit runs at 46-52%, according to poling taken since the deal was published. And, her deal delivers Brexit.williamglenn said:
Active support for May's deal is in the teens. It's nowhere close to 50%-1.Sean_F said:
Not if there's mandate for it. Ditching a policy because you think 50% -1 are opposed to it would be a strange way for a government to act.williamglenn said:
Going ahead with something that the majority of people do not want, or no longer want, just makes a mockery of democracy.RobD said:
Keeping voter’s faith in democracy is.williamglenn said:
Protecting the image of politicians is the worst possible reason for going ahead with Brexit. The national interest comes ahead of the vanity of a few hundred people.Black_Rook said:
I very much doubt that cancelling Brexit will lead to any serious outbreaks of violence.williamglenn said:
In would also completely neuter the project fear about civil unrest after revocation. Either the extension will happen without disorder, and the bluff will have been called, or there will be disorder, and we'll then be in a position were anything other than a subsequent revocation will be seen as caving in to the mob.AlastairMeeks said:On topic, any delay will show that Brexit is a movable body. It would also cripple the confidence of many Leavers. Everything would feel much more contingent.
In other words, I agree with OGH and it would be a very big moment.
Quite what it will do to the public's already low opinion of politicians, and to levels of political engagement and electoral participation, is another matter.0 -
I did laugh a little to myself at your reponse as it probably sums up the confusion the country is going throughkle4 said:
I actually disagree, because voters might say they want to just get on with it, but still vehemently oppose anything that is actually proposed to get on with it.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It would be interesting to see polling on whether voters want A50 extended or just to get on with itkle4 said:
It's a very smart thing to call for because it works for people who genuinely think we need more time to sort something out, but also works for people who just want to remain but are not yet confident enough to just come out and say so yet.AlastairMeeks said:On topic, any delay will show that Brexit is a movable body. It would also cripple the confidence of many Leavers. Everything would feel much more contingent.
0 -
“Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.”williamglenn said:
When May called the election her main justification was this:
"In recent weeks, Labour have threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union, the Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill, the S.N.P. say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain’s membership of the European Union and unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way. Our opponents believe because the government’s majority is so small that our resolve will weaken and that they can force us to change course."
There's no way the 2017 election result can be read as an endorsement of Brexit.
No ifs, no buts.0 -
In fairness if after all the negotiation the deal was not even voted on because Norway+ or whatever was considered first and won, what a bloody waste of time that would have been.kinabalu said:
I'm sure you're right. Deal goes down on Tuesday. Maybe it wins later on in the season when the going suits better, to torture the horse racing analogy.Black_Rook said:Possible but unlikely. It would require both a mass capitulation by the ERG and forbearance from Labour: both through voting for or abstaining on the WA, and then refusing the temptation to trigger a VoNC that would be facilitated by the DUP until the WA had made it safely onto the statute book.
My main beef is the illogicality of the decision-making process being followed.
When you have a deal on the table - and the only one ever likely to be on the table - which albeit not popular allows an orderly implementation of the 2016 referendum vote to leave the European Union, what do you do?
(i) Do you first review the alternatives and if there is one that is more popular (or less unpopular) implement that instead, otherwise do the deal?
(ii) Or do you just kill the deal and THEN run around in a flap looking for those alternatives?
For me, (i) is quite obviously the way to go.
Parliament seems to be opting for (ii).
Poor show.0 -
If people are sure, you have nothing to fear.Richard_Tyndall said:
They already gave their answer. You just didn't like it.IanB2 said:
Now that we have potential answers on offer, the sooner that is done, the better.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope. The essence of democracy is the people decide what the right answer is and then the politicians act on that.williamglenn said:
Isn't the essence of democracy that people have the right to keep voting until they find the right answer?RobD said:
Ah, the old EU gambit. Keep them voting until you get the right answer.Barnesian said:
In the event of her deal being defeated, I think Mrs May will throw in the towel and say it is up to parliament to decide and enable, as government, whatever the majority of MPs decide. I think there would be a large majority supporting her deal or remain and could agree to her Deal subject to a Deal/Remain referendum. The EU would agree to an extension for that.RobD said:
If the deal is not agreed it is very likely there won’t be a Brexit.Yellow_Submarine said:Forgive my cynicism but all this talk of A50 being extended is very conveniently timed re Tuesday's vote. It smacks of the Tory whips to panic Brexiter deal refusniks that there will be no Brexit at all.
0 -
Looks like every party has stuck to their word, except the Tories.kle4 said:
"In recent weeks, Labour have threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union, the Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill, the S.N.P. say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain’s membership of the European Union and unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way. Our opponents believe because the government’s majority is so small that our resolve will weaken and that they can force us to change course."
There's no way the 2017 election result can be read as an endorsement of Brexit.
0 -
Well if you want to be argumentative you can easily argue they do accept the outcome was leave, and that Labour government will put the national interest first, and the latter part leaves everything including remain on the table.Richard_Tyndall said:
“Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.”williamglenn said:
When May called the election her main justification was this:
"In recent weeks, Labour have threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union, the Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill, the S.N.P. say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain’s membership of the European Union and unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way. Our opponents believe because the government’s majority is so small that our resolve will weaken and that they can force us to change course."
There's no way the 2017 election result can be read as an endorsement of Brexit.
No ifs, no buts.
Remainers bought it in droves apparently,0 -
They are opting for (ii) because it leads to Remain. Thank god.kinabalu said:
I'm sure you're right. Deal goes down on Tuesday. Maybe it wins later on in the season when the going suits better, to torture the horse racing analogy.Black_Rook said:Possible but unlikely. It would require both a mass capitulation by the ERG and forbearance from Labour: both through voting for or abstaining on the WA, and then refusing the temptation to trigger a VoNC that would be facilitated by the DUP until the WA had made it safely onto the statute book.
My main beef is the illogicality of the decision making process being followed.
When you have a deal on the table - and the only one ever likely to be on the table - which albeit not popular allows an orderly implementation of the 2016 referendum vote to leave the European Union, what do you do.
(i) Do you first review the alternatives and if there is one that is more popular (or less unpopular) implement that instead, otherwise do the deal.
(ii) Or do you just kill the deal and THEN run around in a flap looking for those alternatives.
??
For me, (i) is quite obviously the way to go.
Parliament seems to be opting for (ii).
Poor show.0 -
In fact we don't know at all whether a majority wish to remain, let alone a sizeable one. Polling currently has 48-54%grabcocque said:
We now know a sizable majority in the country now wish to remain. I certainly imagine the electorate's revenge to an MP that allowed Brexit to happen when the people have changed their minds would be brutal.Richard_Tyndall said:
If you are going to channel Burke then you should remember what the electorate did to him him at the first opportunity after he decided to ignore their wishes.grabcocque said:
I guess we'll find out on Tuesday just how big May's mandate is...Richard_Tyndall said:
There is both a direct mandate (2016) and an indirect mandate (2017). You just don't like it and so are thrashing around for ways to legitimise your dislike of democracy.
I find it kind of cute that the very dimmest Brexiteers still haven't figured out that MPs are not delegates, and are not bound by their manifestoes but by their consciences and the effectiveness of the whips.
The thought of going into the next election having enabled Magic Grandpa to deliver his unicorn Brexit seems to be weighing particularly heavily on the minds of Labour MPs.0 -
Sure, Labour will have negotiated a different deal though. They are not obliged to back a Tory one.Richard_Tyndall said:
“Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.”williamglenn said:
When May called the election her main justification was this:
"In recent weeks, Labour have threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union, the Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill, the S.N.P. say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain’s membership of the European Union and unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way. Our opponents believe because the government’s majority is so small that our resolve will weaken and that they can force us to change course."
There's no way the 2017 election result can be read as an endorsement of Brexit.
No ifs, no buts.0 -
Ah, but what is in the national interest?Richard_Tyndall said:
“Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.”williamglenn said:
When May called the election her main justification was this:
"In recent weeks, Labour have threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union, the Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill, the S.N.P. say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain’s membership of the European Union and unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way. Our opponents believe because the government’s majority is so small that our resolve will weaken and that they can force us to change course."
There's no way the 2017 election result can be read as an endorsement of Brexit.
No ifs, no buts.0 -
They're putting the national interest first by rejecting May's terrible deal, certainly. They'd also be putting the national interest first if they stop May from crashing the UK out without a deal, even though chaos and ruin is what the gammons voted for.Richard_Tyndall said:
“Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.”
No ifs, no buts.0 -
I think the vast majority of MPs voting against do have a preferred alternative. It's just that they don't all have the same preferred alternative.kinabalu said:
I'm sure you're right. Deal goes down on Tuesday. Maybe it wins later on in the season when the going suits better, to torture the horse racing analogy.Black_Rook said:Possible but unlikely. It would require both a mass capitulation by the ERG and forbearance from Labour: both through voting for or abstaining on the WA, and then refusing the temptation to trigger a VoNC that would be facilitated by the DUP until the WA had made it safely onto the statute book.
My main beef is the illogicality of the decision making process being followed.
When you have a deal on the table - and the only one ever likely to be on the table - which albeit not popular allows an orderly implementation of the 2016 referendum vote to leave the European Union, what do you do.
(i) Do you first review the alternatives and if there is one that is more popular (or less unpopular) implement that instead, otherwise do the deal.
(ii) Or do you just kill the deal and THEN run around in a flap looking for those alternatives.
??
For me, (i) is quite obviously the way to go.
Parliament seems to be opting for (ii).
Poor show.0 -
I accept the result too. That doesn't mean I think it binds me to support leaving the EU.Richard_Tyndall said:
“Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.”williamglenn said:
When May called the election her main justification was this:
"In recent weeks, Labour have threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union, the Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill, the S.N.P. say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain’s membership of the European Union and unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way. Our opponents believe because the government’s majority is so small that our resolve will weaken and that they can force us to change course."
There's no way the 2017 election result can be read as an endorsement of Brexit.
No ifs, no buts.
Labour's manifesto also says:
"We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union"
"We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option"0 -
As a Remainer I would have an accepted a close Swiss/Norway style Brexit but as that is not the deal, Remain it is. May had the opportunity to pursue a soft Brexit that genuinely was a compromise but she chose to pander to the far-right, the bigots and the ERG.0
-
“Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.”williamglenn said:
The Labour manifesto explicitly rules out no deal and explicitly rules out supporting the Conservative Brexit policy.Richard_Tyndall said:
Then they have no claim to have a mandate.IanB2 said:
If you read the Labour manifesto it is very carefully worded. And, anyhow, the formal position is that we were each electing individuals to represent us, and collectively they don't seem to like either the deal or no deal.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Now William - that is naughty. Both major parties manifestos committed to leaving the EU as you well know. TM deal leaves the EUwilliamglenn said:
Over 17 million people voted against May's Brexit in 2017. There is no mandate for it at all.Richard_Tyndall said:
There is both a direct mandate (2016) and an indirect mandate (2017). You just don't like it and so are thrashing around for ways to legitimise your dislike of democracy.IanB2 said:
Going ahead with this nonsense and damaging the country without a direct mandate would certainly be both undemocratic and undermine voters' faith, once they feel the consequences.RobD said:
Keeping voter’s faith in democracy is.williamglenn said:
Protecting the image of politicians is the worst possible reason for going ahead with Brexit. The national interest comes ahead of the vanity of a few hundred people.Black_Rook said:
I very much doubt that cancelling Brexit will lead to any serious outbreaks of violence.williamglenn said:
In would also completely neuter the project fear about civil unrest after revocation. Either the extension will happen without disorder, and the bluff will have been called, or there will be disorder, and we'll then be in a position were anything other than a subsequent revocation will be seen as caving in to the mob.AlastairMeeks said:On topic, any delay will show that Brexit is a movable body. It would also cripple the confidence of many Leavers. Everything would feel much more contingent.
In other words, I agree with OGH and it would be a very big moment.
Quite what it will do to the public's already low opinion of politicians, and to levels of political engagement and electoral participation, is another matter.0 -
There's a broad cross-party consensus that May's deal is bad and no deal is bad, and stopping either of them is therefore in the national interest.IanB2 said:
Ah, but what is in the national interest?0 -
I thought you wanted chaos and ruin.grabcocque said:
They're putting the national interest first by rejecting May's terrible deal, certainly. They'd also be putting the national interest first if they stop May from crashing the UK out without a deal, even though chaos and ruin is what the gammons voted for.Richard_Tyndall said:
“Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.”
No ifs, no buts.0 -
Um no they haven't. The people holding this up are the MPs. And most of them never wanted to leave in the first place.grabcocque said:
No, we're not going to do that because MPs don't want to, because everyone has realised the idea is stupid.Richard_Tyndall said:
You know nothing of the sort. There was apparently a sizeable majority in favour of Remain prior to the referendum, until of course there wasn't. Once we have left you can campaign to rejoin. For now we need to enact what was promised by both parties at the last election and what people voted for both then and in 2016.0 -
I do, because I'm a democrat, and I wish to respect the insane economic self harm that Leavers voted for.Sean_F said:
I thought you wanted chaos and ruin.grabcocque said:
They're putting the national interest first by rejecting May's terrible deal, certainly. They'd also be putting the national interest first if they stop May from crashing the UK out without a deal, even though chaos and ruin is what the gammons voted for.Richard_Tyndall said:
“Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.”
No ifs, no buts.
But I wouldn't pretend for a second it's in the national interest. Millions will suffer.0 -
Certainly not, but Mr Remain is seemingly trying to suggest that Labour's position cannot be taken as endorsing leave, in some way.Foxy said:
Sure, Labour will have negotiated a different deal though. They are not obliged to back a Tory one.Richard_Tyndall said:
“Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.”williamglenn said:
When May called the election her main justification was this:
"In recent weeks, Labour have threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union, the Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill, the S.N.P. say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain’s membership of the European Union and unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way. Our opponents believe because the government’s majority is so small that our resolve will weaken and that they can force us to change course."
There's no way the 2017 election result can be read as an endorsement of Brexit.
No ifs, no buts.
If Labour's position changes to remain that's one thing, it may even be justifiable and it is certainly what they want to do, but I am not getting convinced by this argument that they did not go into 2017 arguing they were intending to leave, and therefore that one cannot take the votes of the main parties together as an endorsement of leave generally.0 -
But what it explicitly rejects is remaining. So I assume you reject remaining as well?williamglenn said:
I accept the result too. That doesn't mean I think it binds me to support leaving the EU.Richard_Tyndall said:
“Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.”williamglenn said:
When May called the election her main justification was this:
"In recent weeks, Labour have threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union, the Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill, the S.N.P. say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain’s membership of the European Union and unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way. Our opponents believe because the government’s majority is so small that our resolve will weaken and that they can force us to change course."
There's no way the 2017 election result can be read as an endorsement of Brexit.
No ifs, no buts.
Labour's manifesto also says:
"We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union"
"We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option"0 -
Apparently wine wholesalers are stockpiling wine because of Brexit. Coincidentally I'm also stockpiling wine and blaming Brexit. It's Brexit's fault. I don't need the wine. It's Brexit.
https://munchies.vice.com/en_uk/article/zmdpy4/wholesalers-are-stockpiling-wine-in-fears-that-brexit-will-spike-wine-prices0 -
Abandoning Brexit will disfigure Britain for decades. It’s still probably better than actually Brexitinggrabcocque said:
Once again we are lead inexorably back to the conclusion that the single best public policy in terms of increasing the overall wellbeing of the nation would be a cull of Boomers.TheScreamingEagles said:This will in no way lead to controversy
https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1083789149986082816
Not a very cheering conclusion, but probably on the money.0 -
But they are obliged to reject the option of remaining.Foxy said:
Sure, Labour will have negotiated a different deal though. They are not obliged to back a Tory one.Richard_Tyndall said:
“Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.”williamglenn said:
When May called the election her main justification was this:
"In recent weeks, Labour have threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union, the Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill, the S.N.P. say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain’s membership of the European Union and unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way. Our opponents believe because the government’s majority is so small that our resolve will weaken and that they can force us to change course."
There's no way the 2017 election result can be read as an endorsement of Brexit.
No ifs, no buts.0 -
Because the idea is stupid, yes.Richard_Tyndall said:
Um no they haven't. The people holding this up are the MPs. And most of them never wanted to leave in the first place.grabcocque said:
No, we're not going to do that because MPs don't want to, because everyone has realised the idea is stupid.Richard_Tyndall said:
You know nothing of the sort. There was apparently a sizeable majority in favour of Remain prior to the referendum, until of course there wasn't. Once we have left you can campaign to rejoin. For now we need to enact what was promised by both parties at the last election and what people voted for both then and in 2016.
Brexiteers perhaps should reflect that if they had really wanted to deliver Brexit, they shouldn't have run away at the first opportunity and left picking up the pieces to MPs, civil servants and diplomats who though the whole idea was stupid from the start.0 -
Things change, parties are not bound by their manifestoes etc etc. What they cannot do, and I actually don't see many of them doing it, is suggest their position could not be taken as brexit backing.Richard_Tyndall said:
But they are obliged to reject the option of remaining.Foxy said:
Sure, Labour will have negotiated a different deal though. They are not obliged to back a Tory one.Richard_Tyndall said:
“Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.”williamglenn said:
When May called the election her main justification was this:
"In recent weeks, Labour have threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union, the Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill, the S.N.P. say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain’s membership of the European Union and unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way. Our opponents believe because the government’s majority is so small that our resolve will weaken and that they can force us to change course."
There's no way the 2017 election result can be read as an endorsement of Brexit.
No ifs, no buts.
And I keep harping on that since Mr Remain is not restricting his comments to saying how it was not an endorsement of Tory Brexit, but Brexit generally, which it did back.0 -
Delivering Brexit would have required some sort of accommodation with the real world. Which means compromise. Which means that other Brexiters would accuse them of treachery. Far easier to join the mob than do the job.grabcocque said:
Because the idea is stupid, yes.Richard_Tyndall said:
Um no they haven't. The people holding this up are the MPs. And most of them never wanted to leave in the first place.grabcocque said:
No, we're not going to do that because MPs don't want to, because everyone has realised the idea is stupid.Richard_Tyndall said:
You know nothing of the sort. There was apparently a sizeable majority in favour of Remain prior to the referendum, until of course there wasn't. Once we have left you can campaign to rejoin. For now we need to enact what was promised by both parties at the last election and what people voted for both then and in 2016.
Brexiteers perhaps should reflect that if they had really wanted to deliver Brexit, they shouldn't have run away at the first opportunity and left picking up the pieces to MPs, civil servants and diplomats who though the whole idea was stupid from the start.0 -
Anti-Brexit tactical voting for Labour was the most effective weapon against a Brexiteer majority in parliament and many Remainers took advantage of it. The Labour party was merely a tool.Richard_Tyndall said:
But what it explicitly rejects is remaining. So I assume you reject remaining as well?williamglenn said:
I accept the result too. That doesn't mean I think it binds me to support leaving the EU.Richard_Tyndall said:
“Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.”williamglenn said:
When May called the election her main justification was this:
"In recent weeks, Labour have threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union, the Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill, the S.N.P. say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain’s membership of the European Union and unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way. Our opponents believe because the government’s majority is so small that our resolve will weaken and that they can force us to change course."
There's no way the 2017 election result can be read as an endorsement of Brexit.
No ifs, no buts.
Labour's manifesto also says:
"We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union"
"We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option"0 -
I understand why many Remainers want a second referendum - it gives them a second chance but spare us the crocodile tears for democracy. Democracy is nice when it suits you, but terrible when it doesn't. Why not admit it? Go on, you'll feel better.
I know a few Remainers who'll accept a second referendum, but will feel guilty and slightly grubby. At least they still have scruples. They'll hope it doesn't cause problems later, but I suspect it will. It will mean no more votes on EU membership, whatever they do. We'll be locking ourselves in and throwing away the key. And we'll be the laughing stock of the world.
0 -
Well, maybe if a softer-than-soft Brexit like that were on the table, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But it's not, and we are where we are: forced to engage with May's terrible deal, the chaos and ruin of a no-deal crash out, or doing the sensible thing, cancelling Brexit and promising never to speak of it again.Richard_Tyndall said:
But what it explicitly rejects is remaining. So I assume you reject remaining as well?williamglenn said:
Labour's manifesto also says:
"We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union"
"We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option"0 -
I do get the May and co love to kick the can, but if they seriously think a delay helps their position I, well, not begin to question their judgement, but my questioning of it will really increase0
-
We're probably past the point of no return on that last one, anyway. Some humble pie is a better way to cut our losses than throwing ourselves over the edge just because.CD13 said:I understand why many Remainers want a second referendum - it gives them a second chance but spare us the crocodile tears for democracy. Democracy is nice when it suits you, but terrible when it doesn't. Why not admit it? Go on, you'll feel better.
I know a few Remainers who'll accept a second referendum, but will feel guilty and slightly grubby. At least they still have scruples. They'll hope it doesn't cause problems later, but I suspect it will. It will mean no more votes on EU membership, whatever they do. We'll be locking ourselves in and throwing away the key. And we'll be the laughing stock of the world.0 -
Stop with the hyperbole will you.CD13 said:I understand why many Remainers want a second referendum - it gives them a second chance but spare us the crocodile tears for democracy. Democracy is nice when it suits you, but terrible when it doesn't. Why not admit it? Go on, you'll feel better.
I know a few Remainers who'll accept a second referendum, but will feel guilty and slightly grubby. At least they still have scruples. They'll hope it doesn't cause problems later, but I suspect it will. It will mean no more votes on EU membership, whatever they do. We'll be locking ourselves in and throwing away the key. And we'll be the laughing stock of the world.0 -
This May's Judgement of which you speak, what is it?kle4 said:I do get the May and co love to kick the can, but if they seriously think a delay helps their position I, well, not begin to question their judgement, but my questioning of it will really increase
0 -
That depends on the Brexit.IanB2 said:
Abandoning Brexit will disfigure Britain for decades. It’s still probably better than actually Brexitinggrabcocque said:
Once again we are lead inexorably back to the conclusion that the single best public policy in terms of increasing the overall wellbeing of the nation would be a cull of Boomers.TheScreamingEagles said:This will in no way lead to controversy
https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1083789149986082816
Not a very cheering conclusion, but probably on the money.0 -
On the contrary, we'll lead the world by being the first country to address the convulsions affecting the West with a successful grassroots-led democratic response.CD13 said:And we'll be the laughing stock of the world.
0 -
Although of course Norway IS the Deal.kle4 said:In fairness if after all the negotiation the deal was not even voted on because Norway+ or whatever was considered first and won, what a bloody waste of time that would have been.
So is JC's Jobs First Brexit and so is BoJo's super Canada. All flavours of feasible Brexit require the Withdrawal Treaty. If we are leaving the EU we need to sign it. Or put another way, we need to sign it in order to leave the EU.
And we are leaving, aren't we? Course we are! We had a referendum on the matter.
So let's sign it.0 -
Nah. Brexit is bleeding. Let's put it out of its misery.kinabalu said:
Although of course Norway IS the Deal.kle4 said:In fairness if after all the negotiation the deal was not even voted on because Norway+ or whatever was considered first and won, what a bloody waste of time that would have been.
So is JC's Jobs First Brexit and so is BoJo's super Canada. All flavours of feasible Brexit require the Withdrawal Treaty. If we are leaving the EU we need to sign it. Or put another way, we need to sign it in order to leave the EU.
And we are leaving, aren't we? Course we are! We had a referendum on the matter.
So let's sign it.0 -
Losing parties are obliged to stick to their manifestos, which the electorate rejected? Doesn't that mean they'll keep losing forever?Richard_Tyndall said:
But they are obliged to reject the option of remaining.Foxy said:
Sure, Labour will have negotiated a different deal though. They are not obliged to back a Tory one.Richard_Tyndall said:
“Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.”williamglenn said:
When May called the election her main justification was this:
"In recent weeks, Labour have threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union, the Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill, the S.N.P. say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain’s membership of the European Union and unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way. Our opponents believe because the government’s majority is so small that our resolve will weaken and that they can force us to change course."
There's no way the 2017 election result can be read as an endorsement of Brexit.
No ifs, no buts.0 -
Despite your having voted for it, in the hope that it would damage your fellow citizensgrabcocque said:
Well, maybe if a softer-than-soft Brexit like that were on the table, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But it's not, and we are where we are: forced to engage with May's terrible deal, the chaos and ruin of a no-deal crash out, or doing the sensible thing, cancelling Brexit and promising never to speak of it again.Richard_Tyndall said:
But what it explicitly rejects is remaining. So I assume you reject remaining as well?williamglenn said:
Labour's manifesto also says:
"We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union"
"We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option"0 -
I believe it is one of the circles of hell, quite devious really, where you are placed in a room with a judge who announces they are to announce something incredibly important about your fate, but every time they seem like they are about to clarify it they pause, cough, and drag it out, essentially leaving you on metaphorical tenterhooks for eternity, constantly thinking you will get closure but never actually doing so.grabcocque said:
This May's Judgement of which you speak, what is it?kle4 said:I do get the May and co love to kick the can, but if they seriously think a delay helps their position I, well, not begin to question their judgement, but my questioning of it will really increase
0 -
Hence the option of a GE and a fresh Labour government led negotiation.Richard_Tyndall said:
But they are obliged to reject the option of remaining.Foxy said:
Sure, Labour will have negotiated a different deal though. They are not obliged to back a Tory one.Richard_Tyndall said:
“Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.”williamglenn said:
When May called the election her main justification was this:
"In recent weeks, Labour have threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union, the Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill, the S.N.P. say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain’s membership of the European Union and unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way. Our opponents believe because the government’s majority is so small that our resolve will weaken and that they can force us to change course."
There's no way the 2017 election result can be read as an endorsement of Brexit.
No ifs, no buts.0 -
By ignoring them?williamglenn said:
On the contrary, we'll lead the world by being the first country to address the convulsions affecting the West with a successful grassroots-led democratic response.CD13 said:And we'll be the laughing stock of the world.
0 -
No, but people voted for it in the 2017 election. I think that is what the discussion is about.Stereotomy said:
Losing parties are obliged to stick to their manifestos, which the electorate rejected? Doesn't that mean they'll keep losing forever?Richard_Tyndall said:
But they are obliged to reject the option of remaining.Foxy said:
Sure, Labour will have negotiated a different deal though. They are not obliged to back a Tory one.Richard_Tyndall said:
“Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.”williamglenn said:
When May called the election her main justification was this:
"In recent weeks, Labour have threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union, the Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill, the S.N.P. say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain’s membership of the European Union and unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way. Our opponents believe because the government’s majority is so small that our resolve will weaken and that they can force us to change course."
There's no way the 2017 election result can be read as an endorsement of Brexit.
No ifs, no buts.0 -
Mike said:
Just when you think Brexit cannot get any dumber....
Maybe you could even have a situation whereby the UK is permanently in the EU and permanently trying but failing to set up the institutions and other issues that will be required for an actual exit to happen in order to meet the terms of the referendum outcome.
How would multinationals view Britain for stability?0 -
Mr cocque,
"they shouldn't have run away at the first opportunity and left picking up the pieces to MPs, civil servants and diplomats who though the whole idea was stupid from the start."
You're young and unlearned (as Bob Dylan used to sing), so I'll forgive your ignorance. We have a system where only the Government of the day wield executive power. Only they can get things done. Even HM opposition can only jump up and down in Parliament and hope to get noticed.
I'd have happily suggested to Mrs May that I steer Brexit through. I'm sure she'd be keen, but I fear it wouldn't be allowed. Only HM Government can do that. The civil service etc only take orders from appointed ministers under the direction of the PM.
This lesson was brought to you in the spirit of compromise and to help out deluded Remainers.0 -
My fellow citizens have brought this on themselves. My interest is if, in unravelling the lies and cherished national delusions, we emerge from the other side of the chaos, stronger and wiser.Sean_F said:
Despite your having voted for it, in the hope that it would damage your fellow citizensgrabcocque said:
Well, maybe if a softer-than-soft Brexit like that were on the table, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But it's not, and we are where we are: forced to engage with May's terrible deal, the chaos and ruin of a no-deal crash out, or doing the sensible thing, cancelling Brexit and promising never to speak of it again.Richard_Tyndall said:
But what it explicitly rejects is remaining. So I assume you reject remaining as well?williamglenn said:
Labour's manifesto also says:
"We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union"
"We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option"
A crisis is a moment of transformation. We must adapt or die. I wonder which we'll choose?0 -
About as stable as Trump's genius.Beverley_C said:Mike said:
Maybe you could even have a situation whereby the UK is permanently in the EU and permanently trying but failing to set up the institutions and other issues that will be required for an actual exit to happen in order to meet the terms of the referendum outcome.
Just when you think Brexit cannot get any dumber....
How would multinationals view Britain for stability?
Edit: avoid using blockquotes when quoting things manually, it really messes up replies.0 -
Both probably, but in which order?grabcocque said:
My fellow citizens have brought this on themselves. My interest is if, in unravelling the lies and cherished national delusions, we emerge from the other side of the chaos, stronger and wiser.Sean_F said:
Despite your having voted for it, in the hope that it would damage your fellow citizensgrabcocque said:
Well, maybe if a softer-than-soft Brexit like that were on the table, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But it's not, and we are where we are: forced to engage with May's terrible deal, the chaos and ruin of a no-deal crash out, or doing the sensible thing, cancelling Brexit and promising never to speak of it again.Richard_Tyndall said:
But what it explicitly rejects is remaining. So I assume you reject remaining as well?williamglenn said:
Labour's manifesto also says:
"We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union"
"We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option"
A crisis is a moment of transformation. We must adapt or die. I wonder which we'll choose?0 -
Sudan protests: Amnesty decries government attack on hospital
"Rights groups accuse the Sudanese government of using excessive force against demonstrators. Sudanese security forces have used tear gas to disperse hundreds of people taking part in anti-government protests in the capital Khartoum and other parts of the country.
Rights groups have accused Sudan's government of resorting to using excessive force against demonstrators, including some who were receiving medical treatment at a hospital in Omdurman."
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/01/sudan-protests-amnesty-decries-government-attack-hospital-190111151704646.html0 -
I was responding specifically to Richard saying they're obliged by their manifesto to reject RemainRobD said:
No, but people voted for it in the 2017 election. I think that is what the discussion is about.Stereotomy said:
Losing parties are obliged to stick to their manifestos, which the electorate rejected? Doesn't that mean they'll keep losing forever?Richard_Tyndall said:
But they are obliged to reject the option of remaining.Foxy said:
Sure, Labour will have negotiated a different deal though. They are not obliged to back a Tory one.Richard_Tyndall said:
“Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.”williamglenn said:
When May called the election her main justification was this:
"In recent weeks, Labour have threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union, the Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill, the S.N.P. say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain’s membership of the European Union and unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way. Our opponents believe because the government’s majority is so small that our resolve will weaken and that they can force us to change course."
There's no way the 2017 election result can be read as an endorsement of Brexit.
No ifs, no buts.0 -
The former option. If the EU are to give an extension surely, comments to the contrary notwithstanding, it needs to be on a GE? As even if Labour win, they could negotiate something new, which depending on numbers in parliament, still won't get through, and the EU must want a more certain outcome than that?Foxy said:
Hence the option of a GE and a fresh Labour government led negotiation.Richard_Tyndall said:
But they are obliged to reject the option of remaining.Foxy said:
Sure, Labour will have negotiated a different deal though. They are not obliged to back a Tory one.Richard_Tyndall said:
“Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.”williamglenn said:
When May called the election her main justification was this:
"In recent weeks, Labour have threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union, the Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill, the S.N.P. say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain’s membership of the European Union and unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way. Our opponents believe because the government’s majority is so small that our resolve will weaken and that they can force us to change course."
There's no way the 2017 election result can be read as an endorsement of Brexit.
No ifs, no buts.0 -
Formally we have a system of cabinet government, and has the Brexit chickens not resigned it is quite likely that May's deal would have been voted down by Cabinet by now, probably late last year, getting us to where we are likely to be next week a lot earlier.CD13 said:Mr cocque,
"they shouldn't have run away at the first opportunity and left picking up the pieces to MPs, civil servants and diplomats who though the whole idea was stupid from the start."
You're young and unlearned (as Bob Dylan used to sing), so I'll forgive your ignorance. We have a system where only the Government of the day wield executive power. Only they can get things done. Even HM opposition can only jump up and down in Parliament and hope to get noticed.
I'd have happily suggested to Mrs May that I steer Brexit through. I'm sure she'd be keen, but I fear it wouldn't be allowed. Only HM Government can do that. The civil service etc only take orders from appointed ministers under the direction of the PM.
This lesson was brought to you in the spirit of compromise and to help out deluded Remainers.0 -
Brexit-tears?Gallowgate said:
Nah. Brexit is bleeding. Let's put it out of its misery.kinabalu said:
Although of course Norway IS the Deal.kle4 said:In fairness if after all the negotiation the deal was not even voted on because Norway+ or whatever was considered first and won, what a bloody waste of time that would have been.
So is JC's Jobs First Brexit and so is BoJo's super Canada. All flavours of feasible Brexit require the Withdrawal Treaty. If we are leaving the EU we need to sign it. Or put another way, we need to sign it in order to leave the EU.
And we are leaving, aren't we? Course we are! We had a referendum on the matter.
So let's sign it.0 -
Yeah, only if they ran again with the same manifesto and won would they be obliged to do that.Stereotomy said:
I was responding specifically to Richard saying they're obliged by their manifesto to reject RemainRobD said:
No, but people voted for it in the 2017 election. I think that is what the discussion is about.Stereotomy said:
Losing parties are obliged to stick to their manifestos, which the electorate rejected? Doesn't that mean they'll keep losing forever?Richard_Tyndall said:
But they are obliged to reject the option of remaining.Foxy said:
Sure, Labour will have negotiated a different deal though. They are not obliged to back a Tory one.Richard_Tyndall said:
“Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.”williamglenn said:
When May called the election her main justification was this:
"In recent weeks, Labour have threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union, the Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill, the S.N.P. say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain’s membership of the European Union and unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way. Our opponents believe because the government’s majority is so small that our resolve will weaken and that they can force us to change course."
There's no way the 2017 election result can be read as an endorsement of Brexit.
No ifs, no buts.0 -
Most of the can-kicking has been done by the ERG, who took months to work out what the backstop meant.kle4 said:I do get the May and co love to kick the can, but if they seriously think a delay helps their position I, well, not begin to question their judgement, but my questioning of it will really increase
0 -
So come clean. Motion to revoke. Big majority. We stay in the EU. If that is the ultimate outcome after much ado, I will put a Parliament poster on my bedroom wall.Gallowgate said:They are opting for (ii) because it leads to Remain. Thank god.
Perhaps that is where this is leading. And perhaps the 'ado' is in some way necessary. Yes, ok, perhaps so.
But do NOT come back with another referendum. If they do that, I'm going to just ... well I'd better not say.0 -
My Brexit PagesCD13 said:You're young and unlearned (as Bob Dylan used to sing), so I'll forgive your ignorance.
Half-wracked prejudice leaped forth
“No ECJ,” I screamed
Lies that life is black and white
Spoke from my skull. I dreamed
Romantic facts of Brexiteers
Foundationed deep, somehow
Ah, but I was so much older then
I’m younger than that now
A self-ordained professor’s tongue
Too serious to fool
Spouted out that democracy
Is just sovereignty of rules
“Sovereignty,” I spoke the word
As if a wedding vow
Ah, but I was so much older then
I’m younger than that now
In a soldier’s stance, I aimed my hand
At the bureaucrats who spun
Fearing not that I’d become my enemy
In the instant that I won
My pathway led by confusion boats
Mutiny from stern to bow
Ah, but I was so much older then
I’m younger than that now0 -
Evening Sunil. Red pen action for me this week: Hitchin to CambridgeSunil_Prasannan said:
Brexit-tears?Gallowgate said:
Nah. Brexit is bleeding. Let's put it out of its misery.kinabalu said:
Although of course Norway IS the Deal.kle4 said:In fairness if after all the negotiation the deal was not even voted on because Norway+ or whatever was considered first and won, what a bloody waste of time that would have been.
So is JC's Jobs First Brexit and so is BoJo's super Canada. All flavours of feasible Brexit require the Withdrawal Treaty. If we are leaving the EU we need to sign it. Or put another way, we need to sign it in order to leave the EU.
And we are leaving, aren't we? Course we are! We had a referendum on the matter.
So let's sign it.0 -
Well not necessarily, the public might be more amenable next time, but no, no one is obliged to stick to manifestos forever. I do think it helpful, particularly if elections are close together, to explain why the change in position though, just as governments should justify u-turns. Sometimes they are very necessary and not unreasonable.Stereotomy said:
Losing parties are obliged to stick to their manifestos, which the electorate rejected? Doesn't that mean they'll keep losing forever?Richard_Tyndall said:
But they are obliged to reject the option of remaining.Foxy said:
Sure, Labour will have negotiated a different deal though. They are not obliged to back a Tory one.Richard_Tyndall said:
“Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.”williamglenn said:
When May called the election her main justification was this:
"In recent weeks, Labour have threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union, the Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill, the S.N.P. say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain’s membership of the European Union and unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way. Our opponents believe because the government’s majority is so small that our resolve will weaken and that they can force us to change course."
There's no way the 2017 election result can be read as an endorsement of Brexit.
No ifs, no buts.0 -
Remind me why the vehement opposition to a second referendum, beyond any of the individual options on it?kinabalu said:
So come clean. Motion to revoke. Big majority. We stay in the EU. If that is the ultimate outcome after much ado, I will put a Parliament poster on my bedroom wall.Gallowgate said:They are opting for (ii) because it leads to Remain. Thank god.
Perhaps that is where this is leading. And perhaps the 'ado' is in some way necessary. Yes, ok, perhaps so.
But do NOT come back with another referendum. If they do that, I'm going to just ... well I'd better not say.0 -
I have to stick up for the ERG on that score, and I shudder to say that. Up to Chequers not even the Cabinet had chosen an overall direction even if certain things, like the backstop, had been agreed previously and the general direction of travel should have been clear. And every stage of the process May has equivocated, pushed it back, hedged her bets, trying to keep on board sides which are simply incompatible. Fair play to her for fighting hard once she did finally pick something, but she has avoided moments like the plague.No_Offence_Alan said:
Most of the can-kicking has been done by the ERG, who took months to work out what the backstop meant.kle4 said:I do get the May and co love to kick the can, but if they seriously think a delay helps their position I, well, not begin to question their judgement, but my questioning of it will really increase
0 -
But that would require them to own a decision that would cost some of them their careers.kinabalu said:
So come clean. Motion to revoke. Big majority. We stay in the EU. If that is the ultimate outcome after much ado, I will put a Parliament poster on my bedroom wall.Gallowgate said:They are opting for (ii) because it leads to Remain. Thank god.
Perhaps that is where this is leading. And perhaps the 'ado' is in some way necessary. Yes, ok, perhaps so.
But do NOT come back with another referendum. If they do that, I'm going to just ... well I'd better not say.
They long to wound, but fear to strike.0 -
We need a Labour government. Hell, we need a government full stop at the moment. But I can't see the negotiation lasting very long. Labour keep insisting the problem is May's red lines. I disagree - the problem is the EU red lines and they show zero interest in bending. Nor does a change in PM affect their position - they told Cameron he could go swivel, they told May, they would tell Corbyn.Foxy said:
Hence the option of a GE and a fresh Labour government led negotiation.Richard_Tyndall said:
But they are obliged to reject the option of remaining.Foxy said:
Sure, Labour will have negotiated a different deal though. They are not obliged to back a Tory one.Richard_Tyndall said:
“Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.”williamglenn said:
When May called the election her main justification was this:
"In recent weeks, Labour have threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union, the Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill, the S.N.P. say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain’s membership of the European Union and unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way. Our opponents believe because the government’s majority is so small that our resolve will weaken and that they can force us to change course."
There's no way the 2017 election result can be read as an endorsement of Brexit.
No ifs, no buts.
Labour's 6 tests were designed to scupper the Tory deal. They would also scupper whatever scraps Corbyn may be thrown by Barnier. For all that Jezbollah hates the EU because he thinks it will stop him renationalising British Telecom, the only option available to him to fulfil policy will be to remain. The problem is that the bearded wazzock will put in the manifesto that we will leave.
The 2019 general election will be which party loses the most support. May will put her deal in her manifesto, we will see scores of Tory MPs openly denounce it pleading with Brexit loons to still come out and vote - which they won't. Corbyn will state we leave, and a significant number of activists will have something better to do and a significant number of our voters will go Green, Yellow, or stay home.
Blair won a majority on 35%. How low could 2019 be?0 -
I don't see how Parliament would have the guts to revoke without public input, but it is a logical thing for them to do if things go as they appear to, massive majorities against no deal and the deal, with far from easy alternatives.kinabalu said:
So come clean. Motion to revoke. Big majority. We stay in the EU. If that is the ultimate outcome after much ado, I will put a Parliament poster on my bedroom wall.Gallowgate said:They are opting for (ii) because it leads to Remain. Thank god.
Perhaps that is where this is leading. And perhaps the 'ado' is in some way necessary. Yes, ok, perhaps so.
But do NOT come back with another referendum. If they do that, I'm going to just ... well I'd better not say.0 -
There is something to be said for politicians owning the mess and just resolving it quickly and cleanly. Rather than putting us through all the grief and division of another campaign. On the other hand there is something to be said for securing a mandate to put the issue to bed. Or giving people the chance to override the politicians and proceed with the deal.Stereotomy said:
Remind me why the vehement opposition to a second referendum, beyond any of the individual options on it?kinabalu said:
So come clean. Motion to revoke. Big majority. We stay in the EU. If that is the ultimate outcome after much ado, I will put a Parliament poster on my bedroom wall.Gallowgate said:They are opting for (ii) because it leads to Remain. Thank god.
Perhaps that is where this is leading. And perhaps the 'ado' is in some way necessary. Yes, ok, perhaps so.
But do NOT come back with another referendum. If they do that, I'm going to just ... well I'd better not say.0 -
Ironically this may be the biggest reason why the DUP would prefer to leave May in the hot seat.RochdalePioneers said:The problem is that the bearded wazzock will put in the manifesto that we will leave.
0 -
At least they eventually tried to change direction through a vote of no confidence, but it was almost amusing to see people resigning saying the direction chosen by May was unacceptable and terribly awful...but we'll just ask if she can change direction even though she is swearing blind that she will not.IanB2 said:
Formally we have a system of cabinet government, and has the Brexit chickens not resigned it is quite likely that May's deal would have been voted down by Cabinet by now, probably late last year, getting us to where we are likely to be next week a lot earlier.CD13 said:Mr cocque,
"they shouldn't have run away at the first opportunity and left picking up the pieces to MPs, civil servants and diplomats who though the whole idea was stupid from the start."
You're young and unlearned (as Bob Dylan used to sing), so I'll forgive your ignorance. We have a system where only the Government of the day wield executive power. Only they can get things done. Even HM opposition can only jump up and down in Parliament and hope to get noticed.
I'd have happily suggested to Mrs May that I steer Brexit through. I'm sure she'd be keen, but I fear it wouldn't be allowed. Only HM Government can do that. The civil service etc only take orders from appointed ministers under the direction of the PM.
This lesson was brought to you in the spirit of compromise and to help out deluded Remainers.0 -
From your summary the government we would get if Corbyn wins would be no more effective or united than the current one.RochdalePioneers said:
We need a Labour government. Hell, we need a government full stop at the moment. But I can't see the negotiation lasting very long. Labour keep insisting the problem is May's red lines. I disagree - the problem is the EU red lines and they show zero interest in bending. Nor does a change in PM affect their position - they told Cameron he could go swivel, they told May, they would tell Corbyn.Foxy said:
Hence the option of a GE and a fresh Labour government led negotiation.Richard_Tyndall said:
But they are obliged to reject the option of remaining.Foxy said:
Sure, Labour will have negotiated a different deal though. They are not obliged to back a Tory one.Richard_Tyndall said:
“Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.”williamglenn said:
When May called the election her main justification was this:
"In recent weeks, Labour have threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union, the Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill, the S.N.P. say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain’s membership of the European Union and unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way. Our opponents believe because the government’s majority is so small that our resolve will weaken and that they can force us to change course."
There's no way the 2017 election result can be read as an endorsement of Brexit.
No ifs, no buts.
Labour's 6 tests were designed to scupper the Tory deal. They would also scupper whatever scraps Corbyn may be thrown by Barnier. For all that Jezbollah hates the EU because he thinks it will stop him renationalising British Telecom, the only option available to him to fulfil policy will be to remain. The problem is that the bearded wazzock will put in the manifesto that we will leave.
The 2019 general election will be which party loses the most support. May will put her deal in her manifesto, we will see scores of Tory MPs openly denounce it pleading with Brexit loons to still come out and vote - which they won't. Corbyn will state we leave, and a significant number of activists will have something better to do and a significant number of our voters will go Green, Yellow, or stay home.
Blair won a majority on 35%. How low could 2019 be?0 -
Ah, but as you say the tests were to scupper the Tory deal, they can come up with tests for Labour's deal.RochdalePioneers said:
We need a Labour government. Hell, we need a government full stop at the moment. But I can't see the negotiation lasting very long. Labour keep insisting the problem is May's red lines. I disagree - the problem is the EU red lines and they show zero interest in bending. Nor does a change in PM affect their position - they told Cameron he could go swivel, they told May, they would tell Corbyn.Foxy said:
Hence the option of a GE and a fresh Labour government led negotiation.Richard_Tyndall said:
But they are obliged to reject the option of remaining.Foxy said:
Sure, Labour will have negotiated a different deal though. They are not obliged to back a Tory one.Richard_Tyndall said:
“Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.”williamglenn said:
When May called the election her main justification was this:
"In recent weeks, Labour have threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union, the Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill, the S.N.P. say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain’s membership of the European Union and unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way. Our opponents believe because the government’s majority is so small that our resolve will weaken and that they can force us to change course."
There's no way the 2017 election result can be read as an endorsement of Brexit.
No ifs, no buts.
Labour's 6 tests were designed to scupper the Tory deal. They would also scupper whatever scraps Corbyn may be thrown by Barnier.0 -
Indeed. It could be another well hung parliament. Could be a chunky Tory or Labour majority. Who knows. From my perspective what baffles me are the newer members insisting Brexit is a distraction from the New Socialism they want to build. When I point out that crash Brexit will create more harm than all the other atrocities like UC we campaign against and thus cripple a Labour government, I get called a Blairite.IanB2 said:From your summary the government we would get if Corbyn wins would be no more effective or united than the current one.
Whatever. Its Friday night. I'm tired after a week and a half of my fabulous new job (after 10 weeks out of use), I've got a cough that isn't enough to put me to bed but enough to make me tired, so when I get off this train its a vat of whisky on the sofa under the duvet with Mrs P for me.
Brexit smexit.0 -
Because it is worse than useless. A second referendum would be nothing more than an arse-covering exercise for cowardly MPs, who want to palm off responsibility for the eventual outcome of the Brexit process on the electorate, rather than doing what they're paid for and fixing the mess themselves. It would be a national festival of mass public eye-gouging, which would also have no more success in resolving the arguments it was intended to put to bed than the first one did.Stereotomy said:
Remind me why the vehement opposition to a second referendum, beyond any of the individual options on it?kinabalu said:
So come clean. Motion to revoke. Big majority. We stay in the EU. If that is the ultimate outcome after much ado, I will put a Parliament poster on my bedroom wall.Gallowgate said:They are opting for (ii) because it leads to Remain. Thank god.
Perhaps that is where this is leading. And perhaps the 'ado' is in some way necessary. Yes, ok, perhaps so.
But do NOT come back with another referendum. If they do that, I'm going to just ... well I'd better not say.0 -
Congratulations on the new job!RochdalePioneers said:
Indeed. It could be another well hung parliament. Could be a chunky Tory or Labour majority. Who knows. From my perspective what baffles me are the newer members insisting Brexit is a distraction from the New Socialism they want to build. When I point out that crash Brexit will create more harm than all the other atrocities like UC we campaign against and thus cripple a Labour government, I get called a Blairite.IanB2 said:From your summary the government we would get if Corbyn wins would be no more effective or united than the current one.
Whatever. Its Friday night. I'm tired after a week and a half of my fabulous new job (after 10 weeks out of use), I've got a cough that isn't enough to put me to bed but enough to make me tired, so when I get off this train its a vat of whisky on the sofa under the duvet with Mrs P for me.
Brexit smexit.0 -
:-)Stereotomy said:I think the vast majority of MPs voting against do have a preferred alternative. It's just that they don't all have the same preferred alternative.
The only clear and natural majority is for Remain. They should do that and apologize profusely for tormenting everybody with the referendum in 2016. Personally, forgetting about national interest and all that nonsense, I am happy with anything except another one of those horrors.0 -
It 's easy for Parliament, if the public vote to Remain in a second referendum. If if they don't, then Parliament is stuck with something it doesn't want and will again try to frustrate.kle4 said:
I don't see how Parliament would have the guts to revoke without public input, but it is a logical thing for them to do if things go as they appear to, massive majorities against no deal and the deal, with far from easy alternatives.kinabalu said:
So come clean. Motion to revoke. Big majority. We stay in the EU. If that is the ultimate outcome after much ado, I will put a Parliament poster on my bedroom wall.Gallowgate said:They are opting for (ii) because it leads to Remain. Thank god.
Perhaps that is where this is leading. And perhaps the 'ado' is in some way necessary. Yes, ok, perhaps so.
But do NOT come back with another referendum. If they do that, I'm going to just ... well I'd better not say.0 -
To return the compliment from yesterday... pitiful.IanB2 said:
Abandoning Brexit will disfigure Britain for decades. It’s still probably better than actually Brexitinggrabcocque said:
Once again we are lead inexorably back to the conclusion that the single best public policy in terms of increasing the overall wellbeing of the nation would be a cull of Boomers.TheScreamingEagles said:This will in no way lead to controversy
https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1083789149986082816
Not a very cheering conclusion, but probably on the money.0 -
That, and the closer we get to March 29th without any kind of resolution, the more likely it becomes that Hard Brexit and Revoke become the only two remaining options.kle4 said:
I don't see how Parliament would have the guts to revoke without public input, but it is a logical thing for them to do if things go as they appear to, massive majorities against no deal and the deal, with far from easy alternatives.kinabalu said:
So come clean. Motion to revoke. Big majority. We stay in the EU. If that is the ultimate outcome after much ado, I will put a Parliament poster on my bedroom wall.Gallowgate said:They are opting for (ii) because it leads to Remain. Thank god.
Perhaps that is where this is leading. And perhaps the 'ado' is in some way necessary. Yes, ok, perhaps so.
But do NOT come back with another referendum. If they do that, I'm going to just ... well I'd better not say.0 -
There is no good outcome for this mess. The only thing worse than a #peoplesvote is no #peoplesvote.Black_Rook said:
Because it is worse than useless. A second referendum would be nothing more than an arse-covering exercise for cowardly MPs, who want to palm off responsibility for the eventual outcome of the Brexit process on the electorate, rather than doing what they're paid for and fixing the mess themselves. It would be a national festival of mass public eye-gouging, which would also have no more success in resolving the arguments it was intended to put to bed than the first one did.Stereotomy said:
Remind me why the vehement opposition to a second referendum, beyond any of the individual options on it?kinabalu said:
So come clean. Motion to revoke. Big majority. We stay in the EU. If that is the ultimate outcome after much ado, I will put a Parliament poster on my bedroom wall.Gallowgate said:They are opting for (ii) because it leads to Remain. Thank god.
Perhaps that is where this is leading. And perhaps the 'ado' is in some way necessary. Yes, ok, perhaps so.
But do NOT come back with another referendum. If they do that, I'm going to just ... well I'd better not say.
If people do not like what is proposed (and the evidence is that they do not) then denying a vote is at least as poisonous as a vote to Remain.0 -
But that just brings us back to all the obstacles blocking the way to a second referendum. There's probably not enough time to organise one properly if Parliament decided to start tomorrow. Leave it another few weeks whilst they try to thrash out their options and then how's it supposed to happen?Sean_F said:
It 's easy for Parliament, if the public vote to Remain in a second referendum. If if they don't, then Parliament is stuck with something it doesn't want and will again try to frustrate.kle4 said:
I don't see how Parliament would have the guts to revoke without public input, but it is a logical thing for them to do if things go as they appear to, massive majorities against no deal and the deal, with far from easy alternatives.kinabalu said:
So come clean. Motion to revoke. Big majority. We stay in the EU. If that is the ultimate outcome after much ado, I will put a Parliament poster on my bedroom wall.Gallowgate said:They are opting for (ii) because it leads to Remain. Thank god.
Perhaps that is where this is leading. And perhaps the 'ado' is in some way necessary. Yes, ok, perhaps so.
But do NOT come back with another referendum. If they do that, I'm going to just ... well I'd better not say.0 -
An enterprising journalists could ask Corbyn about his policy; and then ask what success would look like. I honestly don't know what Labour want from the Brexit negotiations that they can achieve. I can understand the methodology for TMay - no FoM, protect Irish border, close alignment for business. What would a labour Brexit look like? Would they hav any chance of achieving itkle4 said:
Ah, but as you say the tests were to scupper the Tory deal, they can come up with tests for Labour's deal.RochdalePioneers said:
We need a Labour government. Hell, we need a government full stop at the moment. But I can't see the negotiation lasting very long. Labour keep insisting the problem is May's red lines. I disagree - the problem is the EU red lines and they show zero interest in bending. Nor does a change in PM affect their position - they told Cameron he could go swivel, they told May, they would tell Corbyn.Foxy said:
Hence the option of a GE and a fresh Labour government led negotiation.Richard_Tyndall said:
But they are obliged to reject the option of remaining.Foxy said:
Sure, Labour will have negotiated a different deal though. They are not obliged to back a Tory one.Richard_Tyndall said:
“Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.”williamglenn said:
When May called the election her main justification was this:
"In recent weeks, Labour have threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union, the Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill, the S.N.P. say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain’s membership of the European Union and unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way. Our opponents believe because the government’s majority is so small that our resolve will weaken and that they can force us to change course."
There's no way the 2017 election result can be read as an endorsement of Brexit.
No ifs, no buts.
Labour's 6 tests were designed to scupper the Tory deal. They would also scupper whatever scraps Corbyn may be thrown by Barnier.
0 -
And you think a Labour Government would dare go into a GE with anything other than a commitment to Leave still in its manifesto? They would be committing electoral suicide.Foxy said:
Hence the option of a GE and a fresh Labour government led negotiation.Richard_Tyndall said:
But they are obliged to reject the option of remaining.Foxy said:
Sure, Labour will have negotiated a different deal though. They are not obliged to back a Tory one.Richard_Tyndall said:
“Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.”williamglenn said:
When May called the election her main justification was this:
"In recent weeks, Labour have threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union, the Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill, the S.N.P. say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain’s membership of the European Union and unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way. Our opponents believe because the government’s majority is so small that our resolve will weaken and that they can force us to change course."
There's no way the 2017 election result can be read as an endorsement of Brexit.
No ifs, no buts.
Moreover they would leave themselves open to the very obvious and correct claim that the EU has already said it will not reopen negotiations.0 -
-
Time is a red herring imv. If Parliament decided on a referendum then the EU would allow an extension to enact.Black_Rook said:
But that just brings us back to all the obstacles blocking the way to a second referendum. There's probably not enough time to organise one properly if Parliament decided to start tomorrow. Leave it another few weeks whilst they try to thrash out their options and then how's it supposed to happen?Sean_F said:
It 's easy for Parliament, if the public vote to Remain in a second referendum. If if they don't, then Parliament is stuck with something it doesn't want and will again try to frustrate.kle4 said:
I don't see how Parliament would have the guts to revoke without public input, but it is a logical thing for them to do if things go as they appear to, massive majorities against no deal and the deal, with far from easy alternatives.kinabalu said:
So come clean. Motion to revoke. Big majority. We stay in the EU. If that is the ultimate outcome after much ado, I will put a Parliament poster on my bedroom wall.Gallowgate said:They are opting for (ii) because it leads to Remain. Thank god.
Perhaps that is where this is leading. And perhaps the 'ado' is in some way necessary. Yes, ok, perhaps so.
But do NOT come back with another referendum. If they do that, I'm going to just ... well I'd better not say.0 -
If the majority in Parliament is completely convinced that Hard Brexit is a disaster *and* it can't agree on an alternative (or won't, because MPs really think we should stay in the EU) then it should have the courage of its convictions and ask the Government to revoke under its own authority. If May refuses to do so then they should vote her out and vote in a caretaker to do the business.Foxy said:
There is no good outcome for this mess. The only thing worse than a #peoplesvote is no #peoplesvote.Black_Rook said:
Because it is worse than useless. A second referendum would be nothing more than an arse-covering exercise for cowardly MPs, who want to palm off responsibility for the eventual outcome of the Brexit process on the electorate, rather than doing what they're paid for and fixing the mess themselves. It would be a national festival of mass public eye-gouging, which would also have no more success in resolving the arguments it was intended to put to bed than the first one did.Stereotomy said:
Remind me why the vehement opposition to a second referendum, beyond any of the individual options on it?kinabalu said:
So come clean. Motion to revoke. Big majority. We stay in the EU. If that is the ultimate outcome after much ado, I will put a Parliament poster on my bedroom wall.Gallowgate said:They are opting for (ii) because it leads to Remain. Thank god.
Perhaps that is where this is leading. And perhaps the 'ado' is in some way necessary. Yes, ok, perhaps so.
But do NOT come back with another referendum. If they do that, I'm going to just ... well I'd better not say.
If people do not like what is proposed (and the evidence is that they do not) then denying a vote is at least as poisonous as a vote to Remain.
Then we can have a people's vote held in accordance with our established constitutional norms, i.e. a General Election.0 -
It's a quote from the Financial Times. Experts, I know, but still.Richard_Tyndall said:
To return the compliment from yesterday... pitiful.IanB2 said:
Abandoning Brexit will disfigure Britain for decades. It’s still probably better than actually Brexitinggrabcocque said:
Once again we are lead inexorably back to the conclusion that the single best public policy in terms of increasing the overall wellbeing of the nation would be a cull of Boomers.TheScreamingEagles said:This will in no way lead to controversy
https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1083789149986082816
Not a very cheering conclusion, but probably on the money.0 -
I was talking to a Sudanese friend, who was there for the holidays. It is a diffuse Social Media rebellion against the governing kleptocracy, fueled by inflation. We may be about to see another failed state.Sunil_Prasannan said:Sudan protests: Amnesty decries government attack on hospital
"Rights groups accuse the Sudanese government of using excessive force against demonstrators. Sudanese security forces have used tear gas to disperse hundreds of people taking part in anti-government protests in the capital Khartoum and other parts of the country.
Rights groups have accused Sudan's government of resorting to using excessive force against demonstrators, including some who were receiving medical treatment at a hospital in Omdurman."
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/01/sudan-protests-amnesty-decries-government-attack-hospital-190111151704646.html0 -
Just watched "Stan and Ollie". A really, really good movie. Faultless performances, a great script telling a very poignant story.0
-
Nope. You don't get to make that claim as you have no evidence for it. There was an obvious party that Remainers could have voted for - one that had been in Government up until only 2 years previously. And in Scotland they could have voted for the party that was far and away ahead in the polls. But in both cases those parties actually lost share of the vote rather than gaining it. If nothing else, 2017 was an utter rejection of Remain.williamglenn said:
Anti-Brexit tactical voting for Labour was the most effective weapon against a Brexiteer majority in parliament and many Remainers took advantage of it. The Labour party was merely a tool.Richard_Tyndall said:
But what it explicitly rejects is remaining. So I assume you reject remaining as well?williamglenn said:
I accept the result too. That doesn't mean I think it binds me to support leaving the EU.Richard_Tyndall said:
“Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.”williamglenn said:
When May called the election her main justification was this:
"In recent weeks, Labour have threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union, the Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill, the S.N.P. say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain’s membership of the European Union and unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way. Our opponents believe because the government’s majority is so small that our resolve will weaken and that they can force us to change course."
There's no way the 2017 election result can be read as an endorsement of Brexit.
No ifs, no buts.
Labour's manifesto also says:
"We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union"
"We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option"0
