Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[RingoMcCartney]

Just listened to an interview on LBCs Sheila Foggerty Show, with a Labour Party / momentum spokesman.

He's threatening widespread national "civil disobedience" and God knows what and, any means necessary-style, plans are already being drawn up , in light of the PMs decision to follow constitutional norms and prorogue Parliament.

We were ,mockingly, told by the far left and Remoaners, that it would be the "xenophobes", the "nazis" the "uneducated knuckle draggers " turning to their pitch forks. We were told the geriatrics would be getting their Zinmer frames out, if the referendum result wasn't implemented.

29th March came and passed.

Fast forward to today.

Well it looks like the far left remainiacs are ready to cause chaos and mayhem if the referendum result is implemented.

[RingoMcCartney]

Remoaners - "The prorogation of parliament is clearly an attempt to force through a No Deal Brexit"

Brexiteers - "Remoamers who want to stop a no deal Brexit simply want to stop democracy"

[Colburn_Claret]

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

Theres a lot of what you say that I can agree with, but a lot you either dont understand or choose to ignore.
If TM only said no deal is better than a bad deal in order to convince the EU we would leave with no deal if necessary, why did she just capitulate the negotiations. The EU expected a lot of table thumping and arguments over each little detail, instead SHE just gave them the lot, they didn't have to haggle over her WA agreement, because it was more than they could ever hope for.

The Tory Party hosted her in because they wanted a leader to unite the party, and a remainer who promised to deliver Brexit was the ideal candidate. Only once she got the power she turned tail and screwed up Brexit. Dont forget, the same Tories who voted her in, voted her out, for that very fact.

You say there was no suggestion of leaving with no deal, well there was no suggestion that we might not leave with no deal. As I've said on other posts leaving with no deal was NEVER an issue, until remainers tried to use it as an excuse to overturn the original vote. You can say Leavers promised to get a deal, they believed they would, they believed TM would deliver it for them, they'd have needed a crystal ball to know she would stab them in the back. You say the Brexit secretary was always a Brexiteer, but he never wrote May's WA. Anything he wrote would have been laid before the Cabinet and voted on, a cabinet remainer heavy. Which is why the Cabinet agreed to May's WA, and also why Boris walked away.
With a Brexiteer as PM, with Brexit heavy Cabinet, negotiations with the EU could have been honest, and meaningful. They would have got a deal with the EU. It might not have made me completely happy, or you, but they would have got a deal.

I'm not happy about poroguing Parliament, but I can understand why. If he sat on his hands and allowed remain MPs to dictate government negotiations, that would have been really dishonest. I liken it to playing poker, where the people behind you are telling your opponent what cards you have, because they want you to lose. They dont even want to give Boris a chance of getting a better deal, because even if he got the best deal imaginable, they'd still conspire to vote it down. This isnt about insisting on a deal, or even a good deal, it's about reversing the referendum. If you dont understand that, or understand how that undermines an honest negotiation with the EU, then you haven't been listening, or you always wanted to remain anyway.

The picture is no clearer now than it was on day one. The scaremongering tactics, that proved to be false after the vote, are just as likely to be false post Brexit. No one has a crystal ball, just what you feel or believe. There are experts who say it would be a disaster. There are also experts that say it will be beneficial, especially long term. They cant both be right. Either way too many of these experts have a vested interest. It isnt things becoming clearer, just more and more confused, which is no problem to remainers, as that confusion plays into their hands.

You say Boris is using it to further his own agenda, I see him using it to deliver what he argued for at the Hustings 3 years ago and what the people voted for.

You say there is still a chance of delivering that better deal that was promised. That is the silliest argument of all. If the House gets it's way, they will say it's a better deal, or remain. Knowing full well, why would the EU offer a better deal prior to us leaving if not doing so means we remain. It wouldnt happen, everybody knows that. You want a better deal, the truth is the only way to get a better deal is to leave first. The only way to leave first is to stop the house from undermining the referendum.

I'll say again hoping you're honest and sitting in the middle on this. It isnt about getting a better deal, it's about preventing Brexit.

[RingoMcCartney]

Remoaners- " brexit is divisive and causing uncertainty"

Solution?

Remoaners- "Lets force the PM to seek an extension and drag it out even further !"

You could not make it up!

[Greenmile]

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?

Correct me if Im wrong, but I believe that if the referendum had been set up to be binding rather than advisory, the result would have been cancelled due to electoral fraud, lies, and the paper thin majority which leave ended up winning by.

Why do you care so much about the present govt keeping to the promises made in a previous govt’s leaflet (not a manifesto, a leaflet), when they’re so happy to lie about everything else?

[RingoMcCartney]

Remoaners- "But no deal was not on the ballot paper!!!"

Of course it wasnt.

Had it been , the EU, who did not want the UK to leave the European union, would simply have to never agree to any deal, giving it a perpetual veto!!!

Funny isn't it. There were no complaints , from europhiles , about the ballot paper wording before the referendum they lost . Only after.

Remoaners- the bloke in the pub, whining on about a debatable off side , long after the match is finished and every body else has moved on.

[dsr]

Correct me if Im wrong, but I believe that if the referendum had been set up to be binding rather than advisory, the result would have bee cancelled due to electoral fraud, lies, and the paper thin majority which leave ended up winning by.

Why do you care so much about the present govt keeping to the promises made in a previous govt’s leaflet (not a manifesto, a leaflet), when they’re so happy to lie about everything else?

You're wrong. When has an election been cancelled because of electoral fraud? Even more risibly, when has an election ever been cancelled because a politician lied? And still laughing, when has over a million majority been paper-thin?

All governments should keep promises. I dare say that in principle you would have been equally happy, if the government had won the referendum and we had voted Remain by over a million votes, for Johnson to take us out anyway under the same principle. Well, I wouldn't. I reckon the referendum result should stand, either way.

[Colburn_Claret]

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.

Davis was Brexit minister, he didn't write, or set the agenda, for negotiations, he was just a figure head. A token one in hindsight.
There were no meaningful negotiations. We have had that confirmed by people in Brussels, who have admitted they got more than they dared hope for, offered on a platter. They left the meeting elated, and ******* themselves laughing.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Remoaners- "But no deal was not on the ballot paper!!!"

Of course it wasnt.

Had it been , the EU, who did not want the UK to leave the European union, would simply have to never agree to any deal, giving it a perpetual veto!!!

Funny isn't it. There were no complaints , from europhiles , about the ballot paper wording before the referendum they lost . Only after.

Remoaners- the bloke in the pub, whining on about a debatable off side , long after the match is finished and every body else has moved on.

They didn't care what was on the ballot prior to the vote because they, and the polls, expected them to win if I remember rightly.

[Colburn_Claret]

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

Her idea was based on opinion polls, not a vote.

[Greenmile]

You're wrong. When has an election been cancelled because of electoral fraud? Even more risibly, when has an election ever been cancelled because a politician lied? And still laughing, when has over a million majority been paper-thin?

All governments should keep promises. I dare say that in principle you would have been equally happy, if the government had won the referendum and we had voted Remain by over a million votes, for Johnson to take us out anyway under the same principle. Well, I wouldn't. I reckon the referendum result should stand, either way.

It wasn’t an election though, was it?

Why aren’t you bothered about Johnson lying about his reasons for proroguing parliament, to name just one recent example?

[Greenmile]

Davis was Brexit minister, he didn't write, or set the agenda, for negotiations, he was just a figure head. A token one in hindsight...

Davis didn’t even turn up with any notes or paperwork. I put it down to a misplaced sense of English exceptionalism, which is personified by the likes of Johnson and Rees-Mogg.

[RingoMcCartney]

The 1975 Common Market referendum result was not legally binding; however, it was widely accepted that the vote would be politically binding on future Westminster Parliaments.

It was implemented. That's democracy.


The 2016 Peoples Vote must be implemented. That's democracy.

[RingoMcCartney]

The illiberal anti Democrats- " How very dare you suspend parliament. We'd planned to use it to suspend democracy!"

[Spijed]

Davis didn’t even turn up with any notes or paperwork. I put it down to a misplaced sense of English exceptionalism, which is personified by the likes of Johnson and Rees-Mogg.

Is there anyone who actually thinks David Davis is a good politician?

What has he ever done that's been good for politics?

[RingoMcCartney]

Brexiteers and Remainers who respect democracy -"its just a load of old cobblers that you want to stop a no deal brexit isn't it. As sore losers, just dont accept the result of the referendum result and want to stop brexit, dont you"


Remoaners- " Its not that we actually want to thwart the will of the People and stop brexit. We just want to stop an apocalyptic, cliff edge, calamitous and disastrous for those regions that will be worst affected, by a no deal Brexit. That's all"


Brexiteers and Remainers who respect democracy - "Why didn't you stop no deal by voting for Teresa May's "deal" then?"








Remoaners - " Erm..........."

[android]

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”

Easy answer to this aggi and others. They were talking about parliament being prorogued beyond 31 Oct - so not sitting before we had left. Here are some boring dates to put it in context:

2017 recess for conference season 14/9/17 to 9/10/17
2018 recess for conference season 13/9/18 to 9/10/18
Equivalent dates for 2019 (same days) 12/9/19 to 8/10/19
New proposed dates for conference season recess and Queens Speech prorogation: 12/9/19 to 14/10/19

I'm really struggling to see constitutional outrage or a coup or a dictatorship but maybe I just lack imagination! I do share your pain in missing out on 4 days of hearing our politicians repeating the same things about Brexit that they have been saying for 3 years!

[Colburn_Claret]

Is there anyone who actually thinks David Davis is a good politician?

What has he ever done that's been good for politics?

Come on, is there anyone who thinks any politician is good.
The more honest and true to yourself you are, the more you fall foul of the party whip. Or are you suggesting all remainers are honest, but all leavers are liars

[Spijed]

Come on, is there anyone who thinks any politician is good.
The more honest and true to yourself you are, the more you fall foul of the party whip. Or are you suggesting all remainers are honest, but all leavers are liars

Do you think it was a deliberate ploy to send someone to Brussels who was so incompetent at negotiations?

He makes a village idiot look intelligent.

Likewise, I can't believe anyone thought Boris Johnson would make a good Foreign Secretary. He was utterly useless, and very dangerous with it. Because of his words he has put Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe in grave danger!

[Roosterbooster]

Theres a lot of what you say that I can agree with, but a lot you either dont understand or choose to ignore.
If TM only said no deal is better than a bad deal in order to convince the EU we would leave with no deal if necessary, why did she just capitulate the negotiations. The EU expected a lot of table thumping and arguments over each little detail, instead SHE just gave them the lot, they didn't have to haggle over her WA agreement, because it was more than they could ever hope for.

The Tory Party hosted her in because they wanted a leader to unite the party, and a remainer who promised to deliver Brexit was the ideal candidate. Only once she got the power she turned tail and screwed up Brexit. Dont forget, the same Tories who voted her in, voted her out, for that very fact.

You say there was no suggestion of leaving with no deal, well there was no suggestion that we might not leave with no deal. As I've said on other posts leaving with no deal was NEVER an issue, until remainers tried to use it as an excuse to overturn the original vote. You can say Leavers promised to get a deal, they believed they would, they believed TM would deliver it for them, they'd have needed a crystal ball to know she would stab them in the back. You say the Brexit secretary was always a Brexiteer, but he never wrote May's WA. Anything he wrote would have been laid before the Cabinet and voted on, a cabinet remainer heavy. Which is why the Cabinet agreed to May's WA, and also why Boris walked away.
With a Brexiteer as PM, with Brexit heavy Cabinet, negotiations with the EU could have been honest, and meaningful. They would have got a deal with the EU. It might not have made me completely happy, or you, but they would have got a deal.

I'm not happy about poroguing Parliament, but I can understand why. If he sat on his hands and allowed remain MPs to dictate government negotiations, that would have been really dishonest. I liken it to playing poker, where the people behind you are telling your opponent what cards you have, because they want you to lose. They dont even want to give Boris a chance of getting a better deal, because even if he got the best deal imaginable, they'd still conspire to vote it down. This isnt about insisting on a deal, or even a good deal, it's about reversing the referendum. If you dont understand that, or understand how that undermines an honest negotiation with the EU, then you haven't been listening, or you always wanted to remain anyway.

The picture is no clearer now than it was on day one. The scaremongering tactics, that proved to be false after the vote, are just as likely to be false post Brexit. No one has a crystal ball, just what you feel or believe. There are experts who say it would be a disaster. There are also experts that say it will be beneficial, especially long term. They cant both be right. Either way too many of these experts have a vested interest. It isnt things becoming clearer, just more and more confused, which is no problem to remainers, as that confusion plays into their hands.

You say Boris is using it to further his own agenda, I see him using it to deliver what he argued for at the Hustings 3 years ago and what the people voted for.

You say there is still a chance of delivering that better deal that was promised. That is the silliest argument of all. If the House gets it's way, they will say it's a better deal, or remain. Knowing full well, why would the EU offer a better deal prior to us leaving if not doing so means we remain. It wouldnt happen, everybody knows that. You want a better deal, the truth is the only way to get a better deal is to leave first. The only way to leave first is to stop the house from undermining the referendum.

I'll say again hoping you're honest and sitting in the middle on this. It isnt about getting a better deal, it's about preventing Brexit.

I dont think this forum is the place for this discussion, it's too difficult to use a keyboard to discuss all the relevant points. You are clearly intelligent, and the response is well thought through, measured, and addresses many of the grey areas. I have to be honest, it's a bit strange to find well reasoned arguments from leave supporters. Before, during, and after the campaign, most sensible points of view came from remainer acquaintances. A sensible reason for leaving was scarce. I had one friend who gave a sensible, logical reason. Only one. I suspect you would be a second. But everyone elses argument seems to be "we won, so we are leaving. The consequences are irrelevent". And that is what scares me...

[aggi]

Easy answer to this aggi and others. They were talking about parliament being prorogued beyond 31 Oct - so not sitting before we had left. Here are some boring dates to put it in context:

2017 recess for conference season 14/9/17 to 9/10/17
2018 recess for conference season 13/9/18 to 9/10/18
Equivalent dates for 2019 (same days) 12/9/19 to 8/10/19
New proposed dates for conference season recess and Queens Speech prorogation: 12/9/19 to 14/10/19

I'm really struggling to see constitutional outrage or a coup or a dictatorship but maybe I just lack imagination! I do share your pain in missing out on 4 days of hearing our politicians repeating the same things about Brexit that they have been saying for 3 years!

The issue there is you're comparing two entirely different things. A recess isn't a close down of parliament like a prorogation. Parliament is still open for business, just no business is generally done. Forcing a prorogation doesn't give that option.

Also, the indicators were that the recess for conference season this year would be significantly shorter (if it happened at all).

[dsr]

Easy answer to this aggi and others. They were talking about parliament being prorogued beyond 31 Oct - so not sitting before we had left. Here are some boring dates to put it in context:

2017 recess for conference season 14/9/17 to 9/10/17
2018 recess for conference season 13/9/18 to 9/10/18
Equivalent dates for 2019 (same days) 12/9/19 to 8/10/19
New proposed dates for conference season recess and Queens Speech prorogation: 12/9/19 to 14/10/19

I'm really struggling to see constitutional outrage or a coup or a dictatorship but maybe I just lack imagination! I do share your pain in missing out on 4 days of hearing our politicians repeating the same things about Brexit that they have been saying for 3 years!

I think the point is that the MPs could have decided to sit in conference season if they had wanted to; in between Parliaments, they can't. It's been exactly the same for the last 6 weeks. If the MPs had been stopped from sitting by Boris Johnson, it would have been seen as a constitutional outrage. But because they themselves chose to clear off for 6 weeks because they had more important things to do than Brexit (ie. holidays), then no-one is outraged.

[nil_desperandum]

I think the point is that the MPs could have decided to sit in conference season if they had wanted to; in between Parliaments, they can't. It's been exactly the same for the last 6 weeks. If the MPs had been stopped from sitting by Boris Johnson, it would have been seen as a constitutional outrage. But because they themselves chose to clear off for 6 weeks because they had more important things to do than Brexit (ie. holidays), then no-one is outraged.

There's a significant difference there though since the EU was also in recess over the summer, so there was relatively little point in MPs sitting. Once May agreed to step down and we had a protracted Tory leadership campaign it became clear that September and early October would be the key time for negotiations. Hence the general feeling / understanding that the recess for the Conference season may either be curtailed or maybe even cancelled.

[Elizabeth]

The Remain side were given the opportunity to persuade the country that we needed to stay in the EU.
It failed to do so , therefore any talk of reasons people voted to leave is worthless in my opinion.
Again I read such condescending rubbish on a daily basis on this thread from remoaners , including those who have posted today and don't come on regularly.

[Elizabeth]

If May had remained PM there would have been none of this phoney indignation.
Johnson is feared by everyone who is fighting to overturn the 2016 verdict of the people and everyone knows this .No matter what insults are thrown at him.

[Spijed]

Ringo by day
Elizabeth by night

[Elizabeth]

Another ball boy. Go fetch the ball sonny, there's a man's game going on here

[dsr]

There's a significant difference there though since the EU was also in recess over the summer, so there was relatively little point in MPs sitting. Once May agreed to step down and we had a protracted Tory leadership campaign it became clear that September and early October would be the key time for negotiations. Hence the general feeling / understanding that the recess for the Conference season may either be curtailed or maybe even cancelled.

The Remainers aren't interested in negotiations. What they are trying to do now is to prevent negotiations, not to support them.

If they wanted to get rid of Boris Johnson in time to change things, they had to do it sooner than now. It's a minimum 8 weeks to a general election, which takes us to 31st October - so unless they count the votes before midnight, it's too late. They should have got busy in summer. Unless Parliament can find someone else to command majority support in the H of C, for however short a time, they're pretty much snookered. They can tell Boris to go and ask for extra time, but if he goes and asks for extra time and offers no more money the EU will turn him down. They can tell Boris to withdraw Article 50, but if he treats that as a vote of confidence and chooses to stand down instead and call a general election, nothing will happen until it's too late.

I know the Speaker, a man who takes his salary as a neutral arbiter, is one of the leaders of the Remain party and will invent all the protocols he can to try and stay in the EU. (Now there's dishonesty.) But even he can't make the Prime Minister do things.

Parliament has already voted to leave the EU and due notice has been given. If they want to reverse all of that, I suggest they start in July; not in September. If they want to have their holiday first and then try and reverse all of that, then I suppose that's their choice.

[Swizzlestick]

Another ball boy. Go fetch the ball sonny, there's a man's game going on here

At least you’re managing to stay on brand tonight. You’ve had a few lapses recently. Though running two crank accounts on here must be a full time job.

[Elizabeth]

Lapses maybe only for those lacking in intelligence and unable to read properly

[Devils_Advocate]

Lapses maybe only for those lacking in intelligence and unable to read properly

So for yourselves then

[Elizabeth]

I read your posts and that is enough for me

[android]

The issue there is you're comparing two entirely different things. A recess isn't a close down of parliament like a prorogation. Parliament is still open for business, just no business is generally done. Forcing a prorogation doesn't give that option.

Also, the indicators were that the recess for conference season this year would be significantly shorter (if it happened at all).

I take your point aggi but I think it was unlikely that the recess would have been cancelled or even shortened. Far too late to cancel the party conferences and I can't see parliament functioning with one of the major parties absent.

As dsr has pointed out a) much more could have been done over the summer but there seemed to be little concern over that recess and b) the remainer mps priority between now and 31 Oct is to prevent negotiations with the EU not support them - their goal being further delay and ultimate cancellation of Brexit. At least the govt proposal gives us a chance that the impasse might finally be broken and we might finally leave but who knows. Will be interesting to see what tricks our impartial Speaker has up his sleeve...

[martin_p]

I take your point aggi but I think it was unlikely that the recess would have been cancelled or even shortened. Far too late to cancel the party conferences and I can't see parliament functioning with one of the major parties absent.

As dsr has pointed out a) much more could have been done over the summer but there seemed to be little concern over that recess and b) the remainer mps priority between now and 31 Oct is to prevent negotiations with the EU not support them - their goal being further delay and ultimate cancellation of Brexit. At least the govt proposal gives us a chance that the impasse might finally be broken and we might finally leave but who knows. Will be interesting to see what tricks our impartial Speaker has up his sleeve...

Please tell me how remainers are going to prevent negotiations with the EU.

[dsr]

Please tell me how remainers are going to prevent negotiations with the EU.

They are trying to persuade the EU that they need make no further concessions by making removing any possible leverage that the UK has in negotiations.

At the moment the EU has a deal which gives them everything they asked for. What Remain MPs are trying to do is to tell the EU that the UK will accept that deal come what may. And if Remain MPs can succeed in doing that, then Boris isn't going to get any change out of the EU, is he.

[martin_p]

They are trying to persuade the EU that they need make no further concessions by making removing any possible leverage that the UK has in negotiations.

At the moment the EU has a deal which gives them everything they asked for. What Remain MPs are trying to do is to tell the EU that the UK will accept that deal come what may. And if Remain MPs can succeed in doing that, then Boris isn't going to get any change out of the EU, is he.

Ah, the negotiation by threat. Maybe we should try something else.

[AndrewJB]

Theres a lot of what you say that I can agree with, but a lot you either dont understand or choose to ignore.
If TM only said no deal is better than a bad deal in order to convince the EU we would leave with no deal if necessary, why did she just capitulate the negotiations. The EU expected a lot of table thumping and arguments over each little detail, instead SHE just gave them the lot, they didn't have to haggle over her WA agreement, because it was more than they could ever hope for.

The Tory Party hosted her in because they wanted a leader to unite the party, and a remainer who promised to deliver Brexit was the ideal candidate. Only once she got the power she turned tail and screwed up Brexit. Dont forget, the same Tories who voted her in, voted her out, for that very fact.

You say there was no suggestion of leaving with no deal, well there was no suggestion that we might not leave with no deal. As I've said on other posts leaving with no deal was NEVER an issue, until remainers tried to use it as an excuse to overturn the original vote. You can say Leavers promised to get a deal, they believed they would, they believed TM would deliver it for them, they'd have needed a crystal ball to know she would stab them in the back. You say the Brexit secretary was always a Brexiteer, but he never wrote May's WA. Anything he wrote would have been laid before the Cabinet and voted on, a cabinet remainer heavy. Which is why the Cabinet agreed to May's WA, and also why Boris walked away.
With a Brexiteer as PM, with Brexit heavy Cabinet, negotiations with the EU could have been honest, and meaningful. They would have got a deal with the EU. It might not have made me completely happy, or you, but they would have got a deal.

I'm not happy about poroguing Parliament, but I can understand why. If he sat on his hands and allowed remain MPs to dictate government negotiations, that would have been really dishonest. I liken it to playing poker, where the people behind you are telling your opponent what cards you have, because they want you to lose. They dont even want to give Boris a chance of getting a better deal, because even if he got the best deal imaginable, they'd still conspire to vote it down. This isnt about insisting on a deal, or even a good deal, it's about reversing the referendum. If you dont understand that, or understand how that undermines an honest negotiation with the EU, then you haven't been listening, or you always wanted to remain anyway.

The picture is no clearer now than it was on day one. The scaremongering tactics, that proved to be false after the vote, are just as likely to be false post Brexit. No one has a crystal ball, just what you feel or believe. There are experts who say it would be a disaster. There are also experts that say it will be beneficial, especially long term. They cant both be right. Either way too many of these experts have a vested interest. It isnt things becoming clearer, just more and more confused, which is no problem to remainers, as that confusion plays into their hands.

You say Boris is using it to further his own agenda, I see him using it to deliver what he argued for at the Hustings 3 years ago and what the people voted for.

You say there is still a chance of delivering that better deal that was promised. That is the silliest argument of all. If the House gets it's way, they will say it's a better deal, or remain. Knowing full well, why would the EU offer a better deal prior to us leaving if not doing so means we remain. It wouldnt happen, everybody knows that. You want a better deal, the truth is the only way to get a better deal is to leave first. The only way to leave first is to stop the house from undermining the referendum.

I'll say again hoping you're honest and sitting in the middle on this. It isnt about getting a better deal, it's about preventing Brexit.

What kind of better deal do you think a 'brexit PM with a brexit heavy cabinet' would have got? Are you still clinging to the idea that threatening a no deal would have caused the EU to cave? There's no evidence to suggest a Johnson led government would have walked away with anything different to what May did.

Nothing has gone as the leave campaign predicted (or promised) it would. Three years after leave won the referendum, and a party that is heavily pro leave has been in government this whole time (supported in parliament by another leave party), and we're at this crappy juncture now where we're about to just crash out without any kind of deal. I know that you point the finger for this at a shadowy cabal of remainers, but the truth is it's not happened as it was supposed to, because what they promised was impossible.

[dsr]

Ah, the negotiation by threat. Maybe we should try something else.

We've tried the "negotiation by rolling over and having our tummy tickled" for three years. It didn't work.

[martin_p]

We've tried the "negotiation by rolling over and having our tummy tickled" for three years. It didn't work.

Really? How many of the May red lines have we budged an inch on? It’s been ‘give us what we want or we’ll hurt you’ (economically in this case) pretty much from day one. And the thing that’s undermined that threat isn’t remainers in parliament but the fact that everyone knows that carrying out the threat will hurt us most!

[dsr]

Really? How many of the May red lines have we budged an inch on? It’s been ‘give us what we want or we’ll hurt you’ (economically in this case) pretty much from day one. And the thing that’s undermined that threat isn’t remainers in parliament but the fact that everyone knows that carrying out the threat will hurt us most!

If you're trying to say that the EU has been the side giving concessions and being nice while we've been intransigent and have given up nothing, then I'm afraid we'll just have to accept that we are living in different realities.

Theresa May's red lines were that we would stay out of the customs union, stay out of the single market, would not allow EU immigration except on our own terms, and would not pay into the ongoing EU budget. Her deal was that we should be in the customs union, in the single market, allow unfettered EU immigration, and continue to pay in to the EU. It can't be easy to claim that she hasn't budged on the red lines.

https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-picki ... n-10732511" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[nil_desperandum]

Her deal was that we should be in the customs union, in the single market, allow unfettered EU immigration, and continue to pay in to the EU. It can't be easy to claim that she hasn't budged on the red lines.

It absolutely wasn't. Why do you make stuff up like this?
Even the most basic check reveals that the main reason why the cross-party talks broke down is that May wouldn't budge one inch on the CU or SM, and it was frequently made clear by Keir Starmer that the Labour Party could not support May's deal because it kept us out of the CU and they favoured some regulatory alignment with the SM.
And she wouldn't concede any ground over Freedom of Movt either.

[Burnley Ace]

You're wrong. When has an election been cancelled because of electoral fraud? Even more risibly, when has an election ever been cancelled because a politician lied? And still laughing, when has over a million majority been paper-thin?

All governments should keep promises. I dare say that in principle you would have been equally happy, if the government had won the referendum and we had voted Remain by over a million votes, for Johnson to take us out anyway under the same principle. Well, I wouldn't. I reckon the referendum result should stand, either way.

Whether the result should stand is not the same as pretending it is legally binding. This question was put to bed 200 pages ago with Ringo and his pamphlet promise. It’s as much a technicality as speeding is a technicality. When does the legality os something become “technical” when it’s too complicated or just when it doesn’t fit the narrative?

[Colburn_Claret]

What kind of better deal do you think a 'brexit PM with a brexit heavy cabinet' would have got? Are you still clinging to the idea that threatening a no deal would have caused the EU to cave? There's no evidence to suggest a Johnson led government would have walked away with anything different to what May did.

Nothing has gone as the leave campaign predicted (or promised) it would. Three years after leave won the referendum, and a party that is heavily pro leave has been in government this whole time (supported in parliament by another leave party), and we're at this crappy juncture now where we're about to just crash out without any kind of deal. I know that you point the finger for this at a shadowy cabal of remainers, but the truth is it's not happened as it was supposed to, because what they promised was impossible.

There's no evidence that they wouldnt have got a better deal either. At least you cant deny that a Brexit cabinet would have argued for more, TM just waved the white flag before a bullet had been fired. As I said in the post, May was elected to unite the Tories. A remainer delivering Brexit. Leavers who voted for her, could never have foreseen that she would betray them. If there was evidence to say she tried her best, fought the good fight but lost you might have had a point, but all the evidence, from Brexiteers within her cabinet, and people on the other side in Brussels, show that she didn't even bloody try. She gave them her WA agreement without hardly a discussion, nevermind a negotiation. Brussels was expecting a hard time, and she gave them more than they could have prayed for. So to claim that what Leavers promised was impossible is a lie. Even if you believe it, theres no evidence at all to support your claim.

There is this preposterous scare story put about by remainers, that leaving with no deal would lead to chaos. Its ********. Leaving with no deal means that for the short term at least we would trade under WTO rules. That may not be as good as the present trade agreement, but it certainly isnt chaos. It's a long established way of trading that is used world wide. If 3 years on, exporters and importers dont understand them, then they have themselves to blame. Although its undeniable that May could have done a lot more to smooth that road, but deliberately told Civil Servants not to prepare for that scenario. So all this terminology remainers love, CRASHING OUT without a deal. It's designed to make people panic, which has obviously worked in your case. We aren't CRASHING OUT, we're Leaving, with or without a deal. Leaving with no deal, means trading under long established principles and guidelines.

[Bfcboyo]

Boris is showing the character to be a strong leader. It looks like he is going to deliver what the country voted for with nothing to stand in his way ,dragging all of us out including the petulant remainers kicking and screaming.

Spit your dummy out protest and march , kick off and get tear gassed and cry a little more.

Adio Euro.

[AlargeClaret]

Davis didn’t even turn up with any notes or paperwork. I put it down to a misplaced sense of English exceptionalism, which is personified by the likes of Johnson and Rees-Mogg.

While I’ve little time for David Davis , to compare him politically and ability wise to JRM is nothing short of insane ,JRM would eat DD for breakfast on pretty much any political task or arena . That said I’d rather Boris ate them both , not politically but literally

[AndrewJB]

There's no evidence that they wouldnt have got a better deal either. At least you cant deny that a Brexit cabinet would have argued for more, TM just waved the white flag before a bullet had been fired. As I said in the post, May was elected to unite the Tories. A remainer delivering Brexit. Leavers who voted for her, could never have foreseen that she would betray them. If there was evidence to say she tried her best, fought the good fight but lost you might have had a point, but all the evidence, from Brexiteers within her cabinet, and people on the other side in Brussels, show that she didn't even bloody try. She gave them her WA agreement without hardly a discussion, nevermind a negotiation. Brussels was expecting a hard time, and she gave them more than they could have prayed for. So to claim that what Leavers promised was impossible is a lie. Even if you believe it, theres no evidence at all to support your claim.

There is this preposterous scare story put about by remainers, that leaving with no deal would lead to chaos. Its ********. Leaving with no deal means that for the short term at least we would trade under WTO rules. That may not be as good as the present trade agreement, but it certainly isnt chaos. It's a long established way of trading that is used world wide. If 3 years on, exporters and importers dont understand them, then they have themselves to blame. Although its undeniable that May could have done a lot more to smooth that road, but deliberately told Civil Servants not to prepare for that scenario. So all this terminology remainers love, CRASHING OUT without a deal. It's designed to make people panic, which has obviously worked in your case. We aren't CRASHING OUT, we're Leaving, with or without a deal. Leaving with no deal, means trading under long established principles and guidelines.

I'm no fan of Theresa May, but I think she's a lot more competent than Johnson. And competence is all we're talking about here. When it comes down to sitting with other people and thrashing out an agreement, it doesn't matter how strongly you "believe" in something, but how competent you are. The EU has said since the beginning that it will not change its core principles even if its most significant member wants them changed. With our red lines and those of the EU, no deal is possible.

And you think it won't be chaos if we leave without a deal? This is open to debate, but what isn't is the fact we are doing this to ourselves. Those people who told us we will be fine, and that we'll get the best deal in the world - better somehow than the one we had. Those people were either stupid, or they lied.

[Colburn_Claret]

Do you think it was a deliberate ploy to send someone to Brussels who was so incompetent at negotiations?

He makes a village idiot look intelligent.

Likewise, I can't believe anyone thought Boris Johnson would make a good Foreign Secretary. He was utterly useless, and very dangerous with it. Because of his words he has put Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe in grave danger!

I dont disagree with what you say, I'm a Socialist, and never been a Boris fan.
BUT you cant deny that hes done more in 2.5 months to push for a deal and prepare the country for no deal, than Thersa may did in 2.5 years. The rhetoric he has used to date, both with Leavers and the people he has to treat with in Brussels, has been faultless. I'm sure as a remainer that doesn't please, but it cant be denied.
Pick him to pieces afterwards by all means, if its warranted, but why pick him to pieces before hes proved, or failed the country. After all, if he fails you should be delighted, remain could have won the day.

[AndrewJB]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... parliament" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; MPs and their principles...

[Devils_Advocate]

I dont disagree with what you say, I'm a Socialist, and never been a Boris fan.

[Colburn_Claret]

I'm no fan of Theresa May, but I think she's a lot more competent than Johnson. And competence is all we're talking about here. When it comes down to sitting with other people and thrashing out an agreement, it doesn't matter how strongly you "believe" in something, but how competent you are. The EU has said since the beginning that it will not change its core principles even if its most significant member wants them changed. With our red lines and those of the EU, no deal is possible.

And you think it won't be chaos if we leave without a deal? This is open to debate, but what isn't is the fact we are doing this to ourselves. Those people who told us we will be fine, and that we'll get the best deal in the world - better somehow than the one we had. Those people were either stupid, or they lied.

As I just said to Spijed, if he proves incompetent you should be happy it means remainers may well win with the scare tactics.
I think what you really fear is that he isnt as incompetent as you hoped, and he might just succeed.
Those people who told you wed get a good deal, didn't lie to anybody. They could only do that if they knew they couldn't get one. That's yet to be proved because May never even tried.
The real liars here, are those claiming that TMs WA was the best we could get. As I've shown lots of times, there is no evidence for that. Just the repeated rantings of people who never wanted to leave in the first place, and still hope not to leave now.