Another new Brexit thread

[Vic]

Because you can table a law which is an exception to another law.

It seems odd, but Parliament can override itself. Sovereignty!

So all the time and cost of getting the FTP act through was pointless....

Can our sovereign Parliament pass a law that makes Johnson resign?

 

[Vic]

It's a frightening prospect.

If anyone has a parent with a (say) £500,000 house, how long do they think McDonnell it will take before McDonnell drops inheritence tax back down to £300,000 or lower? Kerrching - another £80,000 in tax for his spending spree.

People talk about them only being in for 5 years. How long will it take you to get your £80,000 back? Guess what, you're NEVER getting it back.

Now you're making stuff up.

 

[hilts]

If, I have to vote for a fuckwit, then, unlike many who voted for this shitshow, I will admit to a share of responsibility for empowering said fuckwit.

I can't think of a better use of the vote which people fought for, than stopping cunts like Reece Mogg & Farage, so I'll do it. They would have been on the other side, in the war. Boris would be in Switzerland.

You didn’t read it properly fella you ain’t stopping anyone just supporting another set of cunts.

 

[Vic]

Seeing Thornberry tie herself up in knots last night on QT actually saying she would negotiate a great deal with Brussels and then actively campaign to remain ...that’s enough to frighten anyone, the sheer lunacy of what she was saying?

Corbyn knows it as well else he’d be pushing for a GE

Not saying Boris is the answer for one minute mind. A real sorry state of affairs

It was once Johnson's policy. That's where Labour got the idea.

 

[robbieh]

Both parties will try to use Brexit as a tool to gain/remain in power. This is bollocks and anyway will likely end up in a similar stalemate.

A general election should have a much wider remit.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

So all the time and cost of getting the FTP act through was pointless....

Can our sovereign Parliament pass a law that makes Johnson resign?

Chippy pointed out the drawbacks of doing it this way, so no, it wasn't pointless.

 

[Vic]

Presumably the 6th point is unenforceable, which is problematic.

Make 2nd ref binding rather than advisory

Yes. Then after the referendum our sovereign Parliament can pass a law to unbind it.

That seems to be the Johnson way of getting round things. Live and learn.

 

[Vic]

Radio 4 this a.m. interviewing Polish politicians.

Not having sovereignty is when you can't have a referendum to leave the Warsaw Pact.

They're just treaties. You co-operate with others for the benefits.

Emotional not pragmatic.

Why just be a small island?

 

[joe123]

Radio 4 this a.m. interviewing Polish politicians.

Not having sovereignty is when you can't have a referendum to leave the Warsaw Pact.

They're just treaties. You co-operate with others for the benefits.

Emotional not pragmatic.

Why just be a small island?

i shamefully found myself warming to Klopp the other night when he was saying similar stuff.

 

[Mon Autre]

No it’s logical.

Labour want to remain but appreciate the public voted to leave. They will negotiate a better deal than the current WA and then will give the people a chance to decide whether they now actually want to leave, whilst Labour will inform them remaining is better.

It’s the fairest way of doing it and will do a lot to bridge the divide in the country.

Thornberry is spot on.

I thought this too. Not really sure what else you can expect her to say. Her point is that there will pay a price for leaving but they will do their best to minimise it. Then the public can decide whether or not hey're happy to pay that price to get their "sovereignty" back. In her view it probably isn't worth it if we can remain in the EU and also still have a say in it, but if the public wants to leave they'll do it in a less damaging way. At least they actually want to get a deal.

 

[Metal Biker]

No it’s logical.

Labour want to remain but appreciate the public voted to leave. They will negotiate a better deal than the current WA and then will give the people a chance to decide whether they now actually want to leave, whilst Labour will inform them remaining is better.

It’s the fairest way of doing it and will do a lot to bridge the divide in the country.

Thornberry is spot on.

Which she will then actively campaign to tell people not to vote for something that she herself was involved with agreeing. All that time, money and effort spent on resolving something that she doesn't even agree with, so how can we possibly expect that she will have done her best to get "the best deal" she could, when she has admitted that whatever the Labour deal is, she herself would not even support it when it is put to the public?

It is absolute lunacy!

 

[Mon Autre]

Which she will then actively campaign to tell people not to vote for something that she herself was involved with agreeing. All that time, money and effort spent on resolving something that she doesn't even agree with, so how can we possibly expect that she will have done her best to get "the best deal" she could, when she has admitted that whatever the Labour deal is, she herself would not even support it?

It is absolute lunacy!

Makes more sense then actively lying about wanting a deal, lying about how easy it would be, lying about what would be achieved and then openly doing everything that's possible to leave without one.

 

[Metal Biker]

I thought this too. Not really sure what else you can expect her to say. Her point is that there will pay a price for leaving but they will do their best to minimise it. Then the public can decide whether or not hey're happy to pay that price to get their "sovereignty" back. In her view it probably isn't worth it if we can remain in the EU and also still have a say in it, but if the public wants to leave they'll do it in a less damaging way. At least they actually want to get a deal.

Here's an option "No, I would not advocate going to the EU to get a deal; i'd just campaign to remain".

That would be the most honest answer, like the Lib Dems have done, but she and other Labour MP's know that that stance will not get them what they crave, No. 10. So they're going to try and slime thier way in by promising "we do want to arrange a deal, a better one than the Tories managed" and then when voted in power to do so, would not support they deal that they themselves arranged, because they don't actually support leaving.

There's a reason so many people mocked her last night when she said it.

 

[TheRemainsOfTheDave]

Both parties will try to use Brexit as a tool to gain/remain in power. This is bollocks and anyway will likely end up in a similar stalemate.

A general election should have a much wider remit.

As much as this is true, if the parties stand down their candidates to help other parties, a GE becomes a farce. I find myself in the unusual position of having voted leave but would prefer to vote Lib Dem (probably) based on the fact that I will not be able to vote for Corbyn nor Johnson. Much worse I will probably get a choice of Corbyn or Farage. It will become just a re-run of the referendum as voters are forced to choose one or the other or neither. I'd rather not give this Labour party the chance to run the country based simply on the country's wish for our trading relationship with the EU. It's Johnson that's being trapped, not Corbyn.

I've been suggesting a GE should be the way forward but am beginning to prefer a referendum instead, and at this stage it should be No Deal (or any better negotiated deal) vs Revoke (and run that at the same time as a GE where parties stand candidates as per normal, possibly).

 

[Metal Biker]

Makes more sense then actively lying about wanting a deal, lying about how easy it would be, lying about what would be achieved and then openly doing everything that's possible to leave without one.

Just as bad, she lied about wanting to reach a deal to leave the EU, solely to try and gain support for putting Labour into power.

She's a self-centered snake.

 

[Ban-jani]

Which she will then actively campaign to tell people not to vote for something that she herself was involved with agreeing. All that time, money and effort spent on resolving something that she doesn't even agree with, so how can we possibly expect that she will have done her best to get "the best deal" she could, when she has admitted that whatever the Labour deal is, she herself would not even support it when it is put to the public?

It is absolute lunacy!

No it isn’t. It’s pretty straight forward when you think about it.

She’s going to negotiate a deal that doesn’t have May’s red lines, present it to the public and say choose this or remain.

She will say remain is better but it’s honouring the fact that the public voted to leave in 2016.

It’s giving the public a chance to decide and will end this once and for all but she’ll advise on which is better.

I can’t see another way out.

 

[Metal Biker]

No it isn’t. It’s pretty straight forward when you think about it.

She’s going to negotiate a deal that doesn’t have May’s red lines, present it to the public and say choose this or remain.

She will say remain is better but it’s honouring the fact that the public voted to leave in 2016.

It’s giving the public a chance to decide and will end this once and for all but she’ll advise on which is better.

I can’t see another way out.

And then, once she's negotiated a deal that doesn't have May's red lines, agrees said deal with the EU, she will present this new deal to Parliament and the public... and then tell everyone not to vote for it.

If she wanted to be honest with people, she should just say "No, if in power I would not renegotiate with the EU, I would revoke A50 and we'd stay in the EU". That is her actual position but she knows it's not popular and would lose her party votes in a GE, which is why she won't come out and say what she really feels, but she exposed her true position last night, finally.

She just wants Labour in power, she doesn't give a flying fuck about respecting the referendum result or leave voters.

 

[Ban-jani]

And then, once she's negotiated a deal that doesn't have May's red lines, agrees said deal with the EU, she will present this new deal to Parliament and the public... and then tell everyone not to vote for it.

If she wanted to be honest with people, she should just say "No, if in power I would not renegotiate with the EU, I would revoke A50 and we'd stay in the EU". That is her actual position but she knows it's not popular and would lose her party votes in a GE, which is why she won't come out and say what she really feels, but she exposed her true position last night, finally.

She just wants Labour in power, she doesn't give a flying fuck about respecting the referendum result or leave voters.

You’re getting angry over nothing here.

As I say, she’ll negotiate the deal and will say “in 2016 people voted to leave and we get a poor WA through May. We’ve negotiated a better deal here and now it’s up to the public to decide again whether they take it or remain. We think remaining is the best option but it’s the public’s decision”.

Then whichever wins, it’ll be implemented.

It’s how the Tories should have done it.

 

[Mon Autre]

Here's an option "No, I would not advocate going to the EU to get a deal; i'd just campaign to remain".

That would be the most honest answer, like the Lib Dems have done, but she and other Labour MP's know that that stance will not get them what they crave, No. 10. So they're going to try and slime thier way in by promising "we do want to arrange a deal, a better one than the Tories managed" and then when voted in power to do so, would not support they deal that they themselves arranged, because they don't actually support leaving.

There's a reason so many people mocked her last night when she said it.

They're trying to respect the result of the referendum and regardless of whether or not they support leaving, it's quite likely they will offer a form of leaving that represents a better outcome for people in this country than what the passionate Brexiteers are able to deliver. It might sound a bit weird to say they'd argue remaining is still the better option, bu i still think they're proposing a better way forward than the tories right now. Compromise and pragmatism have been seriously lacking in this debate and now someone is offering it we're being told it's "lunacy".

 

[Metal Biker]

You’re getting angry over nothing here.

As I say, she’ll negotiate the deal and will say “in 2016 people voted to leave and we get a poor WA through May. We’ve negotiated a better deal here and now it’s up to the public to decide again whether they take it or remain. We think remaining is the best option but it’s the public’s decision”.

Then whichever wins, it’ll be implemented.

It’s how the Tories should have done it.

I'm actually laughing at how you're trying to justify her ridiculous repsonse to the question we've all been trying to get her to answer and last night we got a glimpse into how she actuall would deal with the situation.

Waste time, money and effort renegotiating a new arrangement with the EU that she would then not support in Parliament. "I made this new WA... nobody vote for it!"

Why spend all that time making a new deal if you don't even support it? How can we trust that she made every effort to reach the best deal possible, if she doesn't support it and instead believes remaining is better? The whole argument and position is nonsense. Just be honest with people that you wouldn't renegotiate. It'll lose her many labour leave votes in a GE, but at least she won't be lying to get into power.