Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[Damo]

You're literally a moron if you think that 65 people were all that was polled. Honestly. Stupid as ****.

You are literally a moron for suggesting that is what I think

[martin_p]

"Everyone who upsets me is Wrongo"

No, Elizabeth is Wrongo. Keep up!

[dsr]

I think you need to look up the word ‘deal’. Of course the EU has to agree the terms of departure, as does the U.K., that’s what a deal is! If leave voters thought we could unilaterally define and agree what the deal was then the stereotypes are true.

Yes, but the Remain argument is that the UK cannot leave under the terms of the referendum except by agreeing to whatever the EU wants.

No, I know what a deal is. The point is that the EU should not be able to have a veto over our terms of departure. The departure should be based on agreeing the terms in advance if we can, but leaving anyway if we can't.

The referendum vote was for leave, in spite of all the uncertainties that might bring, ahead of Remain and keep things (roughly) as they are. And if some people didn't listen to all the doom-mongers telling them of the disasters that would happen and so voted Leave in ignorance, they will be countered by the people who did leave to the doom-mongers and believed them and so voted Remain in equal ignorance. Just because the Leave campaign didn't point out the immediate recession and massive job losses that might have happened after the vote (but didn't), doesn't mean they weren't pointed out. There were plenty of authoritative voices telling us that a deal wouldn't be easy. I, for one, believed them. It took 7 years to agree a deal with Canada and that was with goodwill on both sides. It was clear from the start that the EU wasn't going into this with goodwill.

Remain's position was and is that we should go to the negotiating table saying that we will sign anything you ask, and we won't leave without signing whatever you ask. And then when we did use that as a basis for negotiation, the deal wass so awful that every single party in the House of Commons opposed it. And the Remainers were surprised.

[martin_p]

Remain's position was and is that we should go to the negotiating table saying that we will sign anything you ask, and we won't leave without signing whatever you ask. And then when we did use that as a basis for negotiation, the deal wass so awful that every single party in the House of Commons opposed it. And the Remainers were surprised.

Excuse the language, but that’s just ********. The remain position is to stay in the EU. The lack of a deal is down to a mutually exclusive set of red lines/negotiating positions. As soon as these became apparent it was clear there was no room for any negotiation and there’d be no satisfactory deal, this was pointed out by many at the time. Under the circumstances May’s deal probably was the best on offer. And the Leavers were surprised.

[dsr]

Excuse the language, but that’s just [deleted]. The remain position is to stay in the EU. The lack of a deal is down to a mutually exclusive set of red lines/negotiating positions. As soon as these became apparent it was clear there was no room for any negotiation and there’d be no satisfactory deal, this was pointed out by many at the time. Under the circumstances May’s deal probably was the best on offer. And the Leavers were surprised.

The Leavers were surprised that it would put forward as a viable deal. Which is presumably why everyone, Remainers and Leavers alike, oppose it.

I agree your first paragraph, apart from the last sentence. The reason there is no viable deal is because the EU doesn't want a fair deal that benefits both sides, as has often been pointed out. The EU want a punitive deal that will deter other countries from leaving. May was willing to sign a punitive deal, but fortunately (and I never thought I would appreciate what Gina Miller did, but it has worked) Parliament has repeatedly rejected it. The Tories were its only supporter, and now even they have seen the light.

Basically, the UK decided to leave as a political decision but was negotiating for the future financial relationship; there wasn't supposed to be any political symbiosis. The EU was negotiating purely on political grounds and finance was incidental. There was no common grounds on the terms of reference because they had entirely different aims.

Where I would disagree is that May's deal is the best option. The best option for the EU, certainly, which is why all the EU countries are in favour. But not the best option for the UK, which is why all the UK political parties (apart from perhaps Sinn Fein) are against.

Most Remainers have accepted the result of the referendum. There are plenty who would wish to stay in the EU but accept that they lost the vote and we're leaving. Only a relative few are open about saying that the referendum shouldn't count.

[martin_p]

The Leavers were surprised that it would put forward as a viable deal. Which is presumably why everyone, Remainers and Leavers alike, oppose it.

I agree your first paragraph, apart from the last sentence. The reason there is no viable deal is because the EU doesn't want a fair deal that benefits both sides, as has often been pointed out. The EU want a punitive deal that will deter other countries from leaving. May was willing to sign a punitive deal, but fortunately (and I never thought I would appreciate what Gina Miller did, but it has worked) Parliament has repeatedly rejected it. The Tories were its only supporter, and now even they have seen the light.

Basically, the UK decided to leave as a political decision but was negotiating for the future financial relationship; there wasn't supposed to be any political symbiosis. The EU was negotiating purely on political grounds and finance was incidental. There was no common grounds on the terms of reference because they had entirely different aims.

Where I would disagree is that May's deal is the best option. The best option for the EU, certainly, which is why all the EU countries are in favour. But not the best option for the UK, which is why all the UK political parties (apart from perhaps Sinn Fein) are against.

Most Remainers have accepted the result of the referendum. There are plenty who would wish to stay in the EU but accept that they lost the vote and we're leaving. Only a relative few are open about saying that the referendum shouldn't count.

Apart from the backstop what was there in the Withdrawal Agreement that upset leavers? The backstop is all about protecting the Irish border not punishing the U.K.

[dsr]

Apart from the backstop what was there in the Withdrawal Agreement that upset leavers? The backstop is all about protecting the Irish border not punishing the U.K.

The ECJ having control over UK law. The rules on UK production and sales, even domestic production and sales, being decided by Brussels. The way May's deal can only be ended when the EU wants it to and we have no escape mechanism. And for some, though I'm not so bothered about this, the continued unrestricted immigration from EU countries. The way agriculture will still be under CAP rules. The way the EU's moronic fishing policy (catch as many as you like, but throw back the dead ones of the wrong species) will continue. Our inability to negotiate trade deals with the Commonwealth and elsewhere. The vast annual payments which we would have to make, with the EU having absolute discretion over how much. Being subject to all EU laws and treaties even though we have no say in what is in them.

[Roosterbooster]

Can you point out just one single occurrence where anyone on either side suggested that voting leave meant leaving only on terms dictated by the EU? I know Remainers do tend towards the idea that the vote meant Leave only if the EU would agree to sign off on the terms

The question was "Should the UK remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union". There is a school of thought that says the terms of leaving should have been put on the ballot paper. It would have made it facile for the EU to block the departure

We all knew a deal needed to be agreed by both sides. But we were promised a much better deal than we got. I'm not sure why you would criticise the remain side over something they weren't campaigning for. The remain side wanted to stay. Had they won, they would have done this. It was up to the leave side to portray a realistic leaving position, which they failed miserably at.
As for the referendum question, yes, it was a terrible choice to ask this specific question before we actually knew what would happen. But it isn't legally binding. So it doesnt matter what the question was, the EU has no legal basis to block a decision made by the UK Parliament

The Remainer campaign tried to sell us a reformed EU

The vote was " leave " or " remain ", and Britains remainer Politicians have dilly-dallyed for over three years to get us to this point, " negotiating " a dreadful " withdrawal agreement " , that not one leader of the other EU nations would dare take back to their own voters ! In May and Corbyn, the two major parties had saddled themselves with two of the worst political leaders in living memory, excepting Michael Foot and Ian Duncan Smith, perhaps.

This is already the longest Parliament since the war, so proroguing is well overdue
Parliament hasn't sat during the " Conference " season in living memory
All manner of bi-lateral agreements are in place already to cover a " no-deal " scenario.

I agree with quite a bit of your reply. I think the EU is quite a poorly managed institution, where progress is difficult and authority is misplaced. But I dont remember the remain campaign promising a REFORMED EU. I'd rather we had a seat at the table, given our veto status.
You might blame remain politicians, but our Brexit secretaries have all been staunch leavers. And May's initial cabinet had Boris in as foreign secretary. Plus other Brexiteers. And most of those Brexiteers voted against leaving time and time again...
But May and Corbyn are terrible party leaders. As, I am sure, Boris will turn out to be.
As for proroguing Parliament, of course nobody expected no recess over conference season (although postponing it until November should have been considered), but proroguing Parliament and a recess are different. Proroguing is a unilateral decision. Recesses are decided by the house. And the length of time Parliament has sat is almost irrelevant now. We are so far over the previous longest term, that there was no need to do it now. It could have waited. But it happened just after a plan to topple Boris had come to light. And everyone knows it was done just to scupper that plan.
And ALL agreements in place is not quite true, I believe There is a plan, but some things still need to be finalised, and time is of the essence.

Nobody needed to point out that no deal was a possibility

People voted to leave.

I believe we will get a deal that suits most people

Actually, despite the simple question on the ballot paper, the vote was cast based upon the campaign lodged by each side - that's why each side had an official campaign. And the leave side did not say the vote was for no deal. So although we all knew it was possible, it is certainly not what people voted for. There is no mandate for a no deal brexit. People voted to leave, yes, but only based on the campaign, which we now know was full of deceit. As for getting a deal which suits most people, I cannot believe is possible between now and 31 Oct. And even then, it wont suit most people, it will be a wishy washy compromise which pleases nobody.

[martin_p]

The ECJ having control over UK law. The rules on UK production and sales, even domestic production and sales, being decided by Brussels. The way May's deal can only be ended when the EU wants it to and we have no escape mechanism. And for some, though I'm not so bothered about this, the continued unrestricted immigration from EU countries. The way agriculture will still be under CAP rules. The way the EU's moronic fishing policy (catch as many as you like, but throw back the dead ones of the wrong species) will continue. Our inability to negotiate trade deals with the Commonwealth and elsewhere. The vast annual payments which we would have to make, with the EU having absolute discretion over how much. Being subject to all EU laws and treaties even though we have no say in what is in them.

So it’s the transition period you’ve a problem with?

[Spijed]

So Ruth Davidson quits of the Scottish Conservatives which means Independence is now inevitable.

[Imploding Turtle]

Does anyone remember when the brexiteers used to complain about how undemocratic the EU is supposed to be?

[Billy Balfour]

What a **** sandwich and absolute madness.

I'm so glad that a company I'm 'involved' with had the foresight to make contingency plans and relocated the main part of their business to The Netherlands . No Deal would screw over them within six months along with everything we have worked for over the years.

I first mentioned this on here over a year ago.

Capture123.JPG (70.89 KiB) Viewed 1585 times

[dsr]

So it’s the transition period you’ve a problem with?

There is no transition period. May's deal ends when the EU says it does.

[aggi]

There is no transition period. May's deal ends when the EU says it does.

May's deal ends when the EU AND the UK say it does.

[dsr]

We all knew a deal needed to be agreed by both sides. But we were promised a much better deal than we got. I'm not sure why you would criticise the remain side over something they weren't campaigning for. The remain side wanted to stay. Had they won, they would have done this. It was up to the leave side to portray a realistic leaving position, which they failed miserably at.
As for the referendum question, yes, it was a terrible choice to ask this specific question before we actually knew what would happen. But it isn't legally binding. So it doesnt matter what the question was, the EU has no legal basis to block a decision made by the UK Parliament


I agree with quite a bit of your reply. I think the EU is quite a poorly managed institution, where progress is difficult and authority is misplaced. But I dont remember the remain campaign promising a REFORMED EU. I'd rather we had a seat at the table, given our veto status.
You might blame remain politicians, but our Brexit secretaries have all been staunch leavers. And May's initial cabinet had Boris in as foreign secretary. Plus other Brexiteers. And most of those Brexiteers voted against leaving time and time again...
But May and Corbyn are terrible party leaders. As, I am sure, Boris will turn out to be.
As for proroguing Parliament, of course nobody expected no recess over conference season (although postponing it until November should have been considered), but proroguing Parliament and a recess are different. Proroguing is a unilateral decision. Recesses are decided by the house. And the length of time Parliament has sat is almost irrelevant now. We are so far over the previous longest term, that there was no need to do it now. It could have waited. But it happened just after a plan to topple Boris had come to light. And everyone knows it was done just to scupper that plan.
And ALL agreements in place is not quite true, I believe There is a plan, but some things still need to be finalised, and time is of the essence.


Actually, despite the simple question on the ballot paper, the vote was cast based upon the campaign lodged by each side - that's why each side had an official campaign. And the leave side did not say the vote was for no deal. So although we all knew it was possible, it is certainly not what people voted for. There is no mandate for a no deal brexit. People voted to leave, yes, but only based on the campaign, which we now know was full of deceit. As for getting a deal which suits most people, I cannot believe is possible between now and 31 Oct. And even then, it wont suit most people, it will be a wishy washy compromise which pleases nobody.

I didn't say the EU has a legal basis to block Parliament's decision. What I said was that the Remain side wants to tell the EU that we will not leave without a deal, thereby giving them the ability to put anything they want in the deal.

I get the point about MPs having no choice about the timing of the (normally) annual prorogation. But they have just spent 6 weeks off by their own choice, so the outrage about spending 5 weeks off at not their own choice, seems a bit overdone.

If there is no mandate for a no deal Brexit, what is there a mandate for? Remain are working to stay in the EU. Is that because they think there is a mandate for that? There is a mandate for Brexit. It was never said that we would leave only if the EU'agreed.

[dsr]

May's deal ends when the EU AND the UK say it does.

Yes. The point being, that we can say till we are blue in the face that we want this agreement to end, and we can't do anything about it. This agreement does not end until the EU says it can.

[Billy Balfour]

Businesses holding off investment and multinationals getting ready to pack their bags. Many medium size businesses, well those that can do so, will do the same and some indeed already have.

Anyway, let's not be sad. We can suck up to Trump, decimate British faming, eat bleached chicken and sell off the NHS while watching the pound tank and food costs rise. Taking back control eh? More like Poundshop UK and the 51st State. Taking back control, eh?

[martin_p]

There is no transition period. May's deal ends when the EU says it does.

There is a transition period, then the backstop kicks in if things haven’t been sorted by the end of it. You’ve been the main poster on here promoting the view that the Irish border issue is easy to solve so we’d never need the backstop.

[martin_p]

I get the point about MPs having no choice about the timing of the (normally) annual prorogation. But they have just spent 6 weeks off by their own choice, so the outrage about spending 5 weeks off at not their own choice, seems a bit overdone.

Prorogation and recess are very different things. Recess is just a holiday, prorogation resets parliament so nothing carries over. Plus MPs took their holidays working on the assumption of a particular timetable when they returned, that has now been hijacked.

[dsr]

There is a transition period, then the backstop kicks in if things haven’t been sorted by the end of it. You’ve been the main poster on here promoting the view that the Irish border issue is easy to solve so we’d never need the backstop.

It solvable, as long as you don't treat the smuggling issue as paramount over the Brecit referendum and the Good Friday agreement. It isn't possible to have optimal solutions to the three ideas of the Good Friday agreement, the Brexit referendum, and petty smuggling over the Irish border. One of those issues has to be treated as less important. And as long as it's the smuggling issue that's seen as less important, then it's doable.

There is a nominal "transition period" in May's deal, but it automatically rolls forwards into an indefinite period regardless of what the UK wants, unless the EU decrees it can stop.

[aggi]

Yes. The point being, that we can say till we are blue in the face that we want this agreement to end, and we can't do anything about it. This agreement does not end until the EU says it can.

And similarly, the EU can say till they are blue in the face that they want this agreement to end, and they can't do anything about it. I know it doesn't fit your agenda but at least try and be factual. Or I guess I could just start saying this agreement does not end until the UK says it can which is as correct as your statement.

An agreement that could have been unilaterally ended by one party at any point would have been pointless. The change I would have had was that if the parties couldn't come to an agreement the position should be assessed by an independent arbitrator.

[Colburn_Claret]

Could you point out just one single occurrence where the leave campaign suggested voting to leave meant a no deal Brexit?? Because I remember them telling us a very different story. So next time you fool yourself into thinking this is what the country voted for, just think back to all those times you slated a politician for not delivering on their promise. Nobody is getting what was promised here. Instead, Boris is dictating his way around democracy, jumping off a cliff, and taking us all with him. There are only 2 sets of people who think today's actions are justified. Hardcore Tories, and hardcore brexiteers. And neither of those groups give a rats @*** about what really happens. As long as Corbyn stays out of number 10, and we leave the EU, then they are happy, irrespective of the repercussions. It's a sad, sad story.....

Theresa May herself said No deal was better than a bad deal, and she is a remainer.
If negotiations had been carried out by some who believed in Brexit we wouldnt even be having these disagreements.
You claim Boris is dictating his way around democracy the majority that voted leave would say hes dictating his way around the undemocratic House.
How many MPs said Brexit means Brexit, none of them even remainers said Brexit means Brexit (but only with a good deal). That's just a bandwagon the remainers built to undermine the vote of the people. They then compound it by encouraging the EU not to to do a deal with us, in the hope that if they get second bite of the apple, with another referendum, they might win.


It all has nothing to do with anyone's feelings on Boris's actions, it's totally split on those who want to remain and those that want to leave.

The remainers think it's right for Politicians to renege on the peoples vote, just because they lost, but it's wrong for Boris to porogue parliament.
Leavers think it's wrong for politicians to renege on the peoples vote, because we won, and Boris is right to porogue Parliament, if that's the only way to deliver on the promises made.

So all this higher than thou bullshitting about democracy is just that bullshit.

[Colburn_Claret]

The polls

Polls had Kinnock in Downing street, they also had TM increasing her majority. Do you think she lost that lead because people wanted her non withdrawal agreement.
Theres only one poll that matters the one that invites you into a booth, to place your cross against your preference.

Even in that selection of polls, its 2.5 years post the referendum before the wrong side became a majority, even then a slender majority , so even according to those polls, it took 2.5 years of negative, campaigning to have the desired affect. It only took people on this board a day to start complaining.

I can only speak of the people I know friends, neighbours, work colleagues. The vast majority of them voted leave, far greater than the actual vote split. I dont know anyone who has changed their mind. I know people who are concerned about leaving on a no deal, most couldn't care less, but even those who have concerns still want to leave.


If it turns out where we have a GE before we get the chance to leave, and that GE turns into a poll on leave or remain, I have no doubt that under our present FPP system, leavers would win a landslide, just as the 51.3% measured in constituencies would have been a landslide.

[martin_p]

Theresa May herself said No deal was better than a bad deal, and she is a remainer.
If negotiations had been carried out by some who believed in Brexit we wouldnt even be having these disagreements.

Like every single Brexit minister you mean?

[Spijed]

I can only speak of the people I know friends, neighbours, work colleagues. The vast majority of them voted leave, far greater than the actual vote split.

So are you saying they miscounted the votes?

It was verified as 52-48 to leave. How can it be far greater as you say?

As for a landslide, you do realise that the Conservatives have now lost all 13 seats in Scotland, plus a few others in the South West of England.

[CombatClaret]

Could you point out just one single occurrence where the leave campaign suggested voting to leave meant a no deal Brexit?

Theresa May herself said No deal was better than a bad deal, and she is a remainer.
If negotiations had been carried out by some who believed in Brexit we wouldnt even be having these disagreements.
You claim Boris is dictating his way around democracy the majority that voted leave would say hes dictating his way around the undemocratic House.
How many MPs said Brexit means Brexit, none of them even remainers said Brexit means Brexit (but only with a good deal). That's just a bandwagon the remainers built to undermine the vote of the people. They then compound it by encouraging the EU not to to do a deal with us, in the hope that if they get second bite of the apple, with another referendum, they might win.


It all has nothing to do with anyone's feelings on Boris's actions, it's totally split on those who want to remain and those that want to leave.

The remainers think it's right for Politicians to renege on the peoples vote, just because they lost, but it's wrong for Boris to porogue parliament.
Leavers think it's wrong for politicians to renege on the peoples vote, because we won, and Boris is right to porogue Parliament, if that's the only way to deliver on the promises made.

So all this higher than thou bullshitting about democracy is just that bullshit.

So no then?

[aggi]

The FT isn't normally a paper for hyperbole but it really wasn't impressed by Johnson's actions
https://www.ft.com/content/9dbc7852-c9b ... 9e8bfe60c0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Personally, quite apart from the democratic implications, the most galling thing is the way that Johnson has lied about the suspension.Trying to frame it as a standard part of parliamentary process and nothing to do with the Brexit/No Deal debate is just cowardly.

If he believes that this is the correct approach then he should have the balls to own it, not lie about it (admittedly if you have a PM who has been repeatedly sacked for lying it shouldn't be that much of a surprise that he's going to be dishonest).

[Colburn_Claret]

So no then?

Ok then

Can you point out one instance that remainers, who all said they would stand by the peoples decision, added a codicil that it was dependent on us getting a deal.
No one, even after the vote to leave it took over a year for the no one voted for a no deal bandwagon to emerge. A bandwagon of convenience.

[Erasmus]

Yes, I agree entirely Aggi. Perhaps I am naive but I was genuinely shocked to hear Johnson, Gove and Rees-Mogg stand there and tell bare faced lies about what has been done. How could they say that their latest moves weren't about Brexit? I wouldn't accuse the campaigns for leave or remain before the referendum of lying because that was just exaggerated predictions. But our PM and ministers just stand there and tell us lies straight into the camera.

I had previously regarded Rees-Mogg as something of patrician buffoon, but at least a person of principle, so to watch him repeating the lie in that way came as something of a shock. What are these people like? Are they really such unprincipled scoundrels? Or is it just that they see this as part of the job and not real lying? Like Premier League footballers who don't regard diving as really cheating.

[Colburn_Claret]

So are you saying they miscounted the votes?

It was verified as 52-48 to leave. How can it be far greater as you say?

As for a landslide, you do realise that the Conservatives have now lost all 13 seats in Scotland, plus a few others in the South West of England.

That would only be true if I was a friend, neighbour or work colleague of all 35 million who voted.......
As for losing all 13 seats in Scotland, it's not long ago since they were down to one.
Its paltry compared to how many seats Labour have lost in Scotland.
They cod fail to win a single seat in Scotland, and still achieve a landslide. That's what the projection of the leave vote, by constituencies, showed. I dont see anything changing.

[Colburn_Claret]

Like every single Brexit minister you mean?

You're being silly, or living in denial, if you think that the WA was written by anyone other than a remainer. You can put tags, or titles on people 'involved' in the process, but their fingerprints are all over it. It's why Boris quit the government. Just because others remained doesn't mean they wrote it. Maybe they thought they'd have more chance of fighting the good fight from the inside, even if it ended in failure. Who knows? It was still written by somebody who didn't want to leave.

[Spijed]

That's what the projection of the leave vote, by constituencies, showed. I dont see anything changing.

Didn't Teresa May expect the same when she went to the polls?

[Lancasterclaret]

Keep going Colburn this is comedy gold (apart from the blatant racism of course!)

[martin_p]

You're being silly, or living in denial, if you think that the WA was written by anyone other than a remainer. You can put tags, or titles on people 'involved' in the process, but their fingerprints are all over it. It's why Boris quit the government. Just because others remained doesn't mean they wrote it. Maybe they thought they'd have more chance of fighting the good fight from the inside, even if it ended in failure. Who knows? It was still written by somebody who didn't want to leave.

I’m talking about the two years when Davies was minister and zero progress was made. The actual deal was cut when May realised that the ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ approach the government was taking was going to lead to exactly that, no deal. The facts are as they have been from day one, Leavers don’t have a plan/idea to cut a deal other than threats.

[dsr]

I’m talking about the two years when Davies was minister and zero progress was made. The actual deal was cut when May realised that the ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ approach the government was taking was going to lead to exactly that, no deal. The facts are as they have been from day one, Leavers don’t have a plan/idea to cut a deal other than threats.

Hardly a threat. More of a statement - "This deal is so bad that every party in the House of Commons opposes it. If further negotiations don't lead to anything better, or further negotiations don't even happen, then we won't have a deal".

If someone tries to sell you a car at a ridiculous price, and you say "lower your price or I walk away", that can't be sensibly called a threat.

[Spijed]

That would only be true if I was a friend, neighbour or work colleague of all 35 million who voted.......
As for losing all 13 seats in Scotland, it's not long ago since they were down to one.
Its paltry compared to how many seats Labour have lost in Scotland.
They cod fail to win a single seat in Scotland, and still achieve a landslide. That's what the projection of the leave vote, by constituencies, showed. I dont see anything changing.

And the campaign Boris is likely to run looks very similar:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40237833" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CombatClaret]

I’m talking about the two years when Davies was minister and zero progress was made. The actual deal was cut when May realised that the ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ approach the government was taking was going to lead to exactly that, no deal. The facts are as they have been from day one, Leavers don’t have a plan/idea to cut a deal other than threats.

That's why No Deal is so appealing to the Brexiters who promised so much and drew up unachievable red lines, no deal doesn't require any pesky details or a plan, it just happens and we try as best to pick up the pieces after the fact.
Then once it happened they can say well at least we delivered Brexit, it was the EU's fault we couldn't get a deal.

[dsr]

And the campaign Boris is likely to run looks very similar:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40237833" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You think the next campaign will see Boris described as a n introverted person who doesn't like talking? I have my doubts.

[CombatClaret]

Hardly a threat. More of a statement - "This deal is so bad that every party in the House of Commons opposes it. If further negotiations don't lead to anything better, or further negotiations don't even happen, then we won't have a deal".

If someone tries to sell you a car at a ridiculous price, and you say "lower your price or I walk away", that can't be sensibly called a threat.

Except in this negotiation If we don't agree on a price for the car, we have to go home and set fire to the car we already have.

[Roosterbooster]

Theresa May herself said No deal was better than a bad deal, and she is a remainer.
If negotiations had been carried out by some who believed in Brexit we wouldnt even be having these disagreements.
You claim Boris is dictating his way around democracy the majority that voted leave would say hes dictating his way around the undemocratic House.
How many MPs said Brexit means Brexit, none of them even remainers said Brexit means Brexit (but only with a good deal). That's just a bandwagon the remainers built to undermine the vote of the people. They then compound it by encouraging the EU not to to do a deal with us, in the hope that if they get second bite of the apple, with another referendum, they might win.


It all has nothing to do with anyone's feelings on Boris's actions, it's totally split on those who want to remain and those that want to leave.

The remainers think it's right for Politicians to renege on the peoples vote, just because they lost, but it's wrong for Boris to porogue parliament.
Leavers think it's wrong for politicians to renege on the peoples vote, because we won, and Boris is right to porogue Parliament, if that's the only way to deliver on the promises made.

So all this higher than thou bullshitting about democracy is just that bullshit.

I'm sorry, but most of your points here ignore the specifics. Theresa May said No deal is better than a bad deal. But only after she was PM. Which was AFTER the vote. And she only said it to convince the EU that we would leave with no deal if needs be. Which clearly is untrue, because she asked for extensions to avoid no deal. And let's not forget who put her in power - the Tory party. They could have voted in a leave supporter, but they didnt. And if you look at the Tory membership, they are mainly leavers. So the decision was made by leavers. Plus her brexit secretary was always a Brexiteer. Boris is now leader, and we are closer to no deal now than we ever were. So the argument that a leaver would get us a better deal is lacking evidence.

There is an argument to suggest that the decision to prorogue parliament is just jn order to uphold the referendum result. But we are not going down the leave campaign's route of exiting the EU. As I, and many others, have said, there was NO suggestion that leave meant no deal during the campaign. And as such there is no mandate for it. That would require a general election putting a majority of no deal supporting MPs in the house, opinion polls suggesting a bias to no deal, or a further referendum. But that is not the case. The MPs in the house are representatives of the people. They are there to act in their interests, and not necessarily follow their wishes. If constituents don't like it, they always have the option to get a new MP at a general election. But the current cohort of MPs strongly oppose no deal. And as such, the strongest democratic mandate for anything at the moment is avoiding no deal. The democratic path isn't always an absolute. And at the moment, there is a standoff between the non-binding referendum result, and the opinion of the legally binding , democratically selected cohort of MPs.
Many of them might have said Brexit means Brexit. But if we think why, then it becomes much clearer. Politicians would have been committing career suicide if they were to come out and suggest anything but following the referendum resulting the immediate aftermath. But as more information comes to light, it becomes clearer and clearer that the leave we will likely end up with will be catastrophic. And an MP has to act as they see fit. This has migrated from a dedication to pursuing the referendum result, to highlighting the inevitable truths. I know many people who voted to remain, and accepted the result, only to now push for a people's vote due to the chaos experienced over the last 2-3 years. Why is it so bad to change your mind, when you are better informed, especially when you think the consequences of such a decision would be so disastrous. And before anyone starts arguing otherwise, it is the CURRENT government who produced the recently leaked documents spelling out the expected nightmare fallout of a no deal brexit.
People want to renege on the referendum result because they think it would be a disaster, not because they lost. And they are using legal and constitutional means to do so. Boris Johnson's latest action is unconstitutional. We all know why he has done it. And we all know he is clouding the reasons behind it. He is not delivering on the promises made by the leave campaign. He is not delivering on the promises made by a PM voted in by a the country. He is delivering on the personal ambition of himself. Voted in by a non-representative minority. And the promise of a PM, who most remainers and leavers will agree was a failure, voted in by the same minority, and then propped up by a morally challenged party who did so after being paid off.
Who is better or worse here? Leavers or remainers? Who knows. Both groups have loathsome personalities within them. But to think Boris Johnson has a right to shut down parliament without any sort of agreement by the house, at a time of such importance, is just absurd. He didnt have to do it. He could have waited a few weeks. But he didnt. Because he wants to plough on with his leave at all costs agenda. There is no mandate for that sort of negligence. We still have a chance to get closer to the leave campaigns version of brexit. And if we dont then we have to consider the alternatives. But unless there is evidence to suggest so, no deal should not be an option. It is rash, reckless and foolish. And it goes against pretty much every expert opinion out there. All for the sake of taking the words of a non binding referendum question literally?? I mean, is it really worth it?? When did we start ignoring the big picture??

I'm done

[Spijed]

You think the next campaign will see Boris described as a n introverted person who doesn't like talking? I have my doubts.

The one criticism that both May and Johnson share is that they shy away from public debates.

[dsr]

Can't we hold up politicians to some sort of standard? Remain voters (the same ones who complain about Boris Johnson's honesty) are saying that the government can say anything - even "This is your decision. The government will do what you decide." and then ignore that promise because it wasn't "legally binding". Would they be happy with that in any other walk of life?

Are people who complain that the referendum wasn't legally binding, doing so because they think this is a legal technicality and any legal technicality is acceptable if it helps overturn the referendum result? Or do they genuinely believe that the referendum was flawed and voters didn't think it mattered because it was advisory?

[dsr]

I'm sorry, but most of your points here ignore the specifics. Theresa May said No deal is better than a bad deal. But only after she was PM. Which was AFTER the vote. And she only said it to convince the EU that we would leave with no deal if needs be. Which clearly is untrue, because she asked for extensions to avoid no deal. And let's not forget who put her in power - the Tory party. They could have voted in a leave supporter, but they didnt. And if you look at the Tory membership, they are mainly leavers. So the decision was made by leavers. Plus her brexit secretary was always a Brexiteer. Boris is now leader, and we are closer to no deal now than we ever were. So the argument that a leaver would get us a better deal is lacking evidence.

There is an argument to suggest that the decision to prorogue parliament is just jn order to uphold the referendum result. But we are not going down the leave campaign's route of exiting the EU. As I, and many others, have said, there was NO suggestion that leave meant no deal during the campaign. And as such there is no mandate for it. That would require a general election putting a majority of no deal supporting MPs in the house, opinion polls suggesting a bias to no deal, or a further referendum. But that is not the case. The MPs in the house are representatives of the people. They are there to act in their interests, and not necessarily follow their wishes. If constituents don't like it, they always have the option to get a new MP at a general election. But the current cohort of MPs strongly oppose no deal. And as such, the strongest democratic mandate for anything at the moment is avoiding no deal. The democratic path isn't always an absolute. And at the moment, there is a standoff between the non-binding referendum result, and the opinion of the legally binding , democratically selected cohort of MPs.
Many of them might have said Brexit means Brexit. But if we think why, then it becomes much clearer. Politicians would have been committing career suicide if they were to come out and suggest anything but following the referendum resulting the immediate aftermath. But as more information comes to light, it becomes clearer and clearer that the leave we will likely end up with will be catastrophic. And an MP has to act as they see fit. This has migrated from a dedication to pursuing the referendum result, to highlighting the inevitable truths. I know many people who voted to remain, and accepted the result, only to now push for a people's vote due to the chaos experienced over the last 2-3 years. Why is it so bad to change your mind, when you are better informed, especially when you think the consequences of such a decision would be so disastrous. And before anyone starts arguing otherwise, it is the CURRENT government who produced the recently leaked documents spelling out the expected nightmare fallout of a no deal brexit.
People want to renege on the referendum result because they think it would be a disaster, not because they lost. And they are using legal and constitutional means to do so. Boris Johnson's latest action is unconstitutional. We all know why he has done it. And we all know he is clouding the reasons behind it. He is not delivering on the promises made by the leave campaign. He is not delivering on the promises made by a PM voted in by a the country. He is delivering on the personal ambition of himself. Voted in by a non-representative minority. And the promise of a PM, who most remainers and leavers will agree was a failure, voted in by the same minority, and then propped up by a morally challenged party who did so after being paid off.
Who is better or worse here? Leavers or remainers? Who knows. Both groups have loathsome personalities within them. But to think Boris Johnson has a right to shut down parliament without any sort of agreement by the house, at a time of such importance, is just absurd. He didnt have to do it. He could have waited a few weeks. But he didnt. Because he wants to plough on with his leave at all costs agenda. There is no mandate for that sort of negligence. We still have a chance to get closer to the leave campaigns version of brexit. And if we dont then we have to consider the alternatives. But unless there is evidence to suggest so, no deal should not be an option. It is rash, reckless and foolish. And it goes against pretty much every expert opinion out there. All for the sake of taking the words of a non binding referendum question literally?? I mean, is it really worth it?? When did we start ignoring the big picture??

I'm done

1, The government didn't produce leaked documents of an expected scenario, but a wrost-case scenario done on the basis that no preparations were made.

2. Johnson's latest move isn't unconstitutional; Major, for example, did it as well.

3. Isn't it a bit inconsistent to say that the referendum could be ignored on a technicality and then complain about Johnson using a technicality to implement the referendum result?

[Billy Balfour]

Rees-Mogg reckons that a hard Brexit with strengthen the Union. What planet are these people actually on? They're either utterly deluded or playing their core-supporters for fools.

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

Will there not be quite a few cabinet resignations soon? A lot of them like Hancock and Javid a few weeks ago were saying what a disgrace suspending parliament would be. Sure they are all men and women of their word.

[CombatClaret]

1, The government didn't produce leaked documents of an expected scenario, but a wrost-case scenario done on the basis that no preparations were made.

The Yellowhammer leaked docs were not the worst case scenarios, as Gove tried to spin it (also lying about them being old when they were dated August), they were in fact base line expected they're working to at present.

The worst case scenario are in documents labeled 'Black Swan', currently unseen.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/this ... -3p2cdq9zd" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

2. Johnson's latest move isn't unconstitutional; Major, for example, did it as well.

Since we have no written constitution that will be a matter for the courts to decide.

[dsr]

The Yellowhammer leaked docs were not the worst case scenarios, as Gove tried to spin it (also lying about them being old when they were dated August), they were in fact base line expected they're working to at present.

The worst case scenario are in documents labeled 'Black Swan', currently unseen.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/this ... -3p2cdq9zd" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Since we have no written constitution that will be a matter for the courts to decide.

How can the courts rule on it? Proroguing Parliament typically happens every year, and until recently it was at this time of year, and it's overdue. How can a court overturn it?

[CombatClaret]

How can the courts rule on it? Proroguing Parliament typically happens every year, and until recently it was at this time of year, and it's overdue. How can a court overturn it?

A little thing call context, upon which almost all of our rulings, laws, conventions etc are based.

[aggi]

Will there not be quite a few cabinet resignations soon? A lot of them like Hancock and Javid a few weeks ago were saying what a disgrace suspending parliament would be. Sure they are all men and women of their word.

Nah, just because Hancock said that prorogation would go against "everything that those men [WWII soldiers] who waded onto those beaches fought and died for" doesn't mean he disagrees with it. It just means he doesn't care about those veterans.

Similarly Amber Rudd saying “The idea of leaving the EU to take back more control into parliament and to consider the idea of closing parliament to do that is the most extraordinary idea I’ve ever heard,” doesn't mean she was against it. Maybe the extraordinary part was how good she thought the idea was.

And obviously when Nicky Morgan said “clearly a mad suggestion” she meant "mad" as in "good". I believe the full quote was “clearly a mad suggestion bruv”. (Admittedly I'm not sure how that ties in her saying she'd back a legal challenge to prorogation, maybe she's a double agent collecting information for the court case)

Not sure what Gove meant by “I think it will be wrong for many reasons. I think it would not be true to the best traditions of British democracy”

[Spiral]

If they (Hancock, Gove etc) were to be given the benefit of the doubt of playing cynical politics rather than standing against everything they claim to believe in, they know that the aim isn't to prorogue parliament, the aim is to make an elaborate display of attempting to prorogue parliament in an unconstitutional manner as a piece of elaborate political theatre, knowing that the act will be quashed by the judiciary/parliament, thus giving rise to the manufactured but false narrative along the lines of 'the elite frustrating brexit' and using it as defining an election issue. They're attempting to increase their majorities, this is why they behave this way.