Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,887
In fairness that required all Tory MPs to vote for the deal. It wasn’t just the ERG that rebelled.
Another new Brexit thread
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
- Status
In fairness that required all Tory MPs to vote for the deal. It wasn’t just the ERG that rebelled.
west didsblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 34,082
Only one deal, May’s deal, was put forward as a binding vote. The indicative votes to which you are probably referring were not binding, and quite a few of them were voted for by the vast majority of Labour MPs.
Maybe the government should have gone through that process right at the start as a couple of them were only a few votes short. I’m sure a consensus could have been reached before invoking A50 and starting negotiations with Brussels without any input from Parliament. It’s not Parliament’s fault it’s a fuck up. The blame lies fairly and squarely with 3 successive Tory administrations.
meltonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2013
- Messages
- 8,723
Their policy isn’t to remain by default, their policy is a confirmatory referendum and they haven’t chosen their position on that yet. Backing remain got blocked at their party conference.
That is fair.
For clarity, I've not seen anyone suggest it should be ignored. Nor is that what is happening, not in the slightest. that is just farage rhetoric to fire up people and distract from looking at the implications, and many echo it. the reality is different.
I'd have happily seen may's deal implenented, said as much already. now, i'd still see it inplemented, but i'd absolutely want to see a confirmatory referendum on it. with a choice between the deal, and remain. Because even that deal, which honours the referendum result, is already being used to cry 'betrayal' and 'brexit in name only' and 'not what we voted for', by, ironically, brexit supporters.
so this polarized view that it is somehow the 'remainers' undermining democracy is just not true. Neither in parliament nor public.
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
You get fucking dizzy with the constant circular arguments on here lol and yes, both sides the exact same.
Ancient Citizen
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 15,712
Good point actually, I can't
confirm it, if indeed it happens.If the surrender, sorry Benn act, hasn't been used by the poison dwarf speaker to stymie it, then I would absolutely be overjoyed to be corrected.
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,887
If an extension is sought, as a result of the Benn Act or otherwise, the referendum result still hasn’t been ignored, has it?
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
Hmmm.........
My opinion of remain MP's and parties like the Lib dems is to frustrate and seek extension until such a point either we revoke or a GE somehow miraculously puts them into power at which point they have said they will revoke.
That in my book is very much ignoring the result of the referendum.
Churchlawtonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2009
- Messages
- 16,617
Missing the point yet again ! never mind.
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
I will wager with great certainty that if you had voted to leave you wouldn't be saying that.
George Hannah
Well-Known Member
for your information
Brexit is a journey without end for Britain
No majority exists for any deal option with the EU.
Brexiters are as much to blame as Remainers
MARTIN WOLF Financial Times
In 1933, Joseph Goebbels stated that, “The modern structure of the German State is a higher form of democracy in which, by virtue of the people’s mandate, the government is exercised authoritatively while there is no possibility for parliamentary interference, to obliterate and render ineffective the execution of the nation’s will.” It is a measure of how far the UK has fallen that Boris Johnson, the prime minister, often sounds rather like this.
Mr Johnson sought to prevent “parliamentary interference” in Brexit negotiations, by proroguing (or suspending) it for five crucial weeks. He dissented from the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision that this was unlawful. He has suggested he could ignore the Benn Act requiring him to seek an extension to the Article 50 deadline, should he not achieve a deal. He condemned this legislation as the “surrender act”. Worst of all, he plans to frame the next election as a battle of “people versus parliament”.
How did the UK reach a position in which its prime minister regards parliament as an obstacle to be ignored? The simple answer is that it decided to insert a particularly ill-considered referendum on an exceptionally contentious subject into a parliamentary system. This created conflicting sources of legitimacy. Worse, the meaning of the option that won a small majority in that referendum was ill-defined. “Brexit means Brexit” is perhaps the silliest sentence ever uttered by a British prime minister. But it was also all that could be said.
Contrary to what Brexiters insist, parliamentary involvement is not an unwarranted intrusion. Any referendum requires legislation. This one also required negotiation and agreement. Alas, no majority exists for any option for a deal with the EU. Brexiters are as much to blame for this as Remainers.
Consequently, “no deal” has emerged as the fallback position. But the Leave campaign said essentially nothing about a no-deal exit. There is no mandate for what every informed observer, including the civil service, knows would be a disruptive and costly result. It would also be just the beginning of negotiations, not their end. But those talks would occur in worse circumstances. There would be pervasive economic uncertainty. This would be a mad choice. Governments exist to help their countries, not harm them deliberately.
Among the most important reasons for this outcome is the refusal, especially on the Brexit side, to try to understand the EU. They needed to comprehend that the EU is an existential project for its members, not just a trade deal. Application of European law, under the European Court of Justice, is a central part of that project. The EU, with 27 remaining members, was also sure to be an inflexible counterparty.
What next? The government’s Heath Robinson-esque plan, in which Northern Ireland is to be inside the EU’s regulatory system for goods but not its customs area, will be rejected as leaky, legally unenforceable and incompatible with border-free trade in Ireland. It also represents a rejection of the UK’s 2017 commitments on the Irish border. This is sure to have further weakened trust in Britain’s reliability. Remember, too, that the EU has long land borders. It will not allow the precedent of intentionally porous borders.
Some believe this plan ought to fly with the EU. It will not. If Northern Ireland were inside the EU’s customs area, too, it could work. But, if the rest of the UK is to have its own trade and regulatory policies, this would make the Irish Sea the UK’s customs and regulatory border with the EU. That would be unacceptable to the Democratic Unionist party and the Conservatives. It might reignite violence in Northern Ireland.
So what happens if no deal can be agreed before October 31?
One question is whether the EU agrees to another extension when the British government clearly does not want one. Assume that it does, but only with conditions. What might those be?
One possibility would be to try to ratify Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement. That would allow the UK and the EU to move on to negotiating a new relationship. This would also mean a compromise between Brexiters and Remainers, itself highly desirable. But it seems impossible. For Remainers, it is too little; for Brexiters, it is too much. Remainers want to stay in the EU. Brexiters reject the Irish backstop that would keep the UK in the EU’s customs area and restrict its trade policy indefinitely.
A second possibility is another referendum, probably on a choice between no deal and Remain. Such a vote should be legitimate since no deal played so little part in the referendum. But it would require creation of a caretaker government. That would be hard enough to do. It might also be impossible to agree a question and then carry out a referendum, without large-scale violence. To me, another referendum is the least bad option. But it creates great risks.
Finally, there could be an early general election. A drawback is that this would involve many issues apart from Brexit and might lead to another hung parliament. With Mr Johnson campaigning against parliament, it could have dire consequences in both the short and long runs. But it might resolve the Brexit issue, temporarily.
Yet the issue now is not just Brexit. It is far deeper. The Conservative party has become an English nationalist party, busily stoking populist resentment. Meanwhile, the hard left has seized the Labour party. The curse of extremist politics has only just begun.
Once people see opponents as “traitors” to an imaginary “people”, demons of hatred are unleashed. Brexit awoke those demons. Mr Johnson, aided by Nigel Farage and his Brexit party, will seek to win by freeing them. They are sure to wreak havoc for a very long time.
martin.wolf@ft.com
it's important to see the case from both sides when put clearly
Brexit is a journey without end for Britain
No majority exists for any deal option with the EU.
Brexiters are as much to blame as Remainers
MARTIN WOLF Financial Times
In 1933, Joseph Goebbels stated that, “The modern structure of the German State is a higher form of democracy in which, by virtue of the people’s mandate, the government is exercised authoritatively while there is no possibility for parliamentary interference, to obliterate and render ineffective the execution of the nation’s will.” It is a measure of how far the UK has fallen that Boris Johnson, the prime minister, often sounds rather like this.
Mr Johnson sought to prevent “parliamentary interference” in Brexit negotiations, by proroguing (or suspending) it for five crucial weeks. He dissented from the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision that this was unlawful. He has suggested he could ignore the Benn Act requiring him to seek an extension to the Article 50 deadline, should he not achieve a deal. He condemned this legislation as the “surrender act”. Worst of all, he plans to frame the next election as a battle of “people versus parliament”.
How did the UK reach a position in which its prime minister regards parliament as an obstacle to be ignored? The simple answer is that it decided to insert a particularly ill-considered referendum on an exceptionally contentious subject into a parliamentary system. This created conflicting sources of legitimacy. Worse, the meaning of the option that won a small majority in that referendum was ill-defined. “Brexit means Brexit” is perhaps the silliest sentence ever uttered by a British prime minister. But it was also all that could be said.
Contrary to what Brexiters insist, parliamentary involvement is not an unwarranted intrusion. Any referendum requires legislation. This one also required negotiation and agreement. Alas, no majority exists for any option for a deal with the EU. Brexiters are as much to blame for this as Remainers.
Consequently, “no deal” has emerged as the fallback position. But the Leave campaign said essentially nothing about a no-deal exit. There is no mandate for what every informed observer, including the civil service, knows would be a disruptive and costly result. It would also be just the beginning of negotiations, not their end. But those talks would occur in worse circumstances. There would be pervasive economic uncertainty. This would be a mad choice. Governments exist to help their countries, not harm them deliberately.
Among the most important reasons for this outcome is the refusal, especially on the Brexit side, to try to understand the EU. They needed to comprehend that the EU is an existential project for its members, not just a trade deal. Application of European law, under the European Court of Justice, is a central part of that project. The EU, with 27 remaining members, was also sure to be an inflexible counterparty.
What next? The government’s Heath Robinson-esque plan, in which Northern Ireland is to be inside the EU’s regulatory system for goods but not its customs area, will be rejected as leaky, legally unenforceable and incompatible with border-free trade in Ireland. It also represents a rejection of the UK’s 2017 commitments on the Irish border. This is sure to have further weakened trust in Britain’s reliability. Remember, too, that the EU has long land borders. It will not allow the precedent of intentionally porous borders.
Some believe this plan ought to fly with the EU. It will not. If Northern Ireland were inside the EU’s customs area, too, it could work. But, if the rest of the UK is to have its own trade and regulatory policies, this would make the Irish Sea the UK’s customs and regulatory border with the EU. That would be unacceptable to the Democratic Unionist party and the Conservatives. It might reignite violence in Northern Ireland.
So what happens if no deal can be agreed before October 31?
One question is whether the EU agrees to another extension when the British government clearly does not want one. Assume that it does, but only with conditions. What might those be?
One possibility would be to try to ratify Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement. That would allow the UK and the EU to move on to negotiating a new relationship. This would also mean a compromise between Brexiters and Remainers, itself highly desirable. But it seems impossible. For Remainers, it is too little; for Brexiters, it is too much. Remainers want to stay in the EU. Brexiters reject the Irish backstop that would keep the UK in the EU’s customs area and restrict its trade policy indefinitely.
A second possibility is another referendum, probably on a choice between no deal and Remain. Such a vote should be legitimate since no deal played so little part in the referendum. But it would require creation of a caretaker government. That would be hard enough to do. It might also be impossible to agree a question and then carry out a referendum, without large-scale violence. To me, another referendum is the least bad option. But it creates great risks.
Finally, there could be an early general election. A drawback is that this would involve many issues apart from Brexit and might lead to another hung parliament. With Mr Johnson campaigning against parliament, it could have dire consequences in both the short and long runs. But it might resolve the Brexit issue, temporarily.
Yet the issue now is not just Brexit. It is far deeper. The Conservative party has become an English nationalist party, busily stoking populist resentment. Meanwhile, the hard left has seized the Labour party. The curse of extremist politics has only just begun.
Once people see opponents as “traitors” to an imaginary “people”, demons of hatred are unleashed. Brexit awoke those demons. Mr Johnson, aided by Nigel Farage and his Brexit party, will seek to win by freeing them. They are sure to wreak havoc for a very long time.
martin.wolf@ft.com
it's important to see the case from both sides when put clearly
Last edited:
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,887
You’d lose your money then ;)
David Cameron saying the morning after the referendum ‘the votes of racist idiots don’t count so remain won’ would be ignoring it. The abortion of the last three years has come about precisely because the result wasn’t ignored.
Saddleworth2
Well-Known Member
Just add that lie to all the others that were told. Why hold that that one as sacrosanct.
Ancient Citizen
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 15,712
Ah, now your getting into ignore/ delay territory.
We should have left on 29 March, deal or not, because of a remain fixated PM, it didn't happen. We can't let that happen again, I know you're probably OK with such a scenario, but no, not my stance at all.
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
It has by a parliament that suddenly forgot its promise to the electorate which was to abide by and enact the result.
They asked us if we wanted to leave and leave we said by majority.
Too many then decided they didn't want to leave which is why we have had a shit show.
Churchlawtonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2009
- Messages
- 16,617
Have another vote with the options being Leave on the best terms offered by the EU, which they have rejected! or remain, No that clear cut is it lol They have unanimously rejected leaving every time, their policy is to remain, they clearly just dont want to say it as they know they will loose votes in a GE.
Bob the poor fellow has convinced himself that its only the DUP and Torries that have rejected leaving! YCMIU
FlemishDuck
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2015
- Messages
- 1,806
It's about critical thought and measured Languaghe George. I don't nessecarily disrespect you but i typicly scrutinise assertions which i'd think i could prove as wrong, all the while trying to maintain critical thought and thus scrutinising my own assertions. Noone is perfect George, as long as one atleast honestly tries to maintain critical thought making wrong assertions can be much easier forgiven, less so when someone does not even try.
It's simple to analyse how youre provably wrong in 2 paragraphs of you by all norms of wisdom and critical thinking.
You make this assertion
and further note regarding this assertion that it's:
And this is easily and very obviously proven as wrong. You aregue that youre assertion is beyond rational dispute but it is emmediatly subjected to scrutiny trough rational dispute by serveral posters, so clearly it isn't "beyond rational dispute"... provable FACT
And again,no indication is given why the EU's obective's would orient itself towards a totalitarian state whereas counterintuitivly the EU shows the typical democratic features that could not even be allowed to exist in a theoretic totalitarian state. Afcourse as you present it it's not nessecarily aboutwhat the EU is now but what it would become and yet neither is there any indication for that.
So the problem George is that everyone with a critical mind irrespective of ideological preference must come to the conclusion that what you present as fact are actualy distortions of truth. Furthermore not only are their that, but to give some respect for the message George Orwell wanted to give us, the way you appeared to reframe the message that George wanted to give us ppears as one that is quite contrary to what Orwell wanted to warn us about, and therefore imho a great disservice to Orwell imho. And believe me, i could have said the latter paragraph in a much harder tone even, i think there is argument to give that i'm being "overly patient" with you here in fact.
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,887
No, I’m getting into territory where I’m picking you up on your use of the word ‘ignored’ when the referendum result has been anything but ignored.
If your complaint is that it hasn’t been implemented then that’s fair enough, but why use the word ‘ignored’? I’d suggest because it’s more emotive, but it’s also completely inaccurate.
Churchlawtonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2009
- Messages
- 16,617
Clearly its doesn't! please take off your party political specs just for a second. Im no fan of this or the previous administration but they are not the only ones that have agreed one thing and done another. Massive party politics going on in Westminster and also on this forum!
Ancient Citizen
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 15,712
I've recently had a similar conversation on here, I wasn't told any lies that affected my vote, I'm sure you weren't.
What I did believe, was that the vote would be respected, as yet, it hasn't, after over 3 years.
For now, we wait another couple of weeks to find out.
- Status