Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:46 pm

Sid/dsr

If remain had won, then 52% would have wanted to stay, 48% would have wanted to leave.

Farage et al would be demanded a 3rd referendum as its "not over".

Regarding what I do if that happened? Hope that we'd remain the force in the EU opposed to greater integration, and concentrating on the economic and social benefits like we always have done.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:46 pm

Cryssys wrote:It was an advisory referendum. Given how close the result was it would be undemocratic to ignore the views of those who voted to remain. The deal on offer meets some, not all, of the wishes of those who wanted to leave. It's a compromise. You get some of what you asked for but not everything. Did you really expect it to be anything else?

What we have at the moment is a group of people who think that they should get everything they wanted and that those who disagree with them are being undemocratic. That’s a dictatorship.

The 1975 referendum was advisory. It was enacted.

Was there some preset criteria that stipulated that the margin of the winning vote had to be greater than the losing vote ?

No.

Stop sounding like the bloke in the pub weeks after a 1.0 defeat whining on about an it.

Listen to what paddy ashdown said on the night of the 2016 Peoples Vote

"
“I will forgive no one who does not respect the sovereign voice of the British people once it has spoken, whether it is a majority of one per cent or twenty per cent. When the British people have spoken you do what they command. Either you believe in democracy or you don’t.”

Well said Paddy lad.

claret_in_exile · Post by **claret_in_exile** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:49 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:I get you are annoyed btw, but this is what you get when you don't try to push a unilateral 52% only through.

That's not how votes work, though. The winner of the vote gets the mandate. The Tories didn't have to agree to 40% of the Labour party manifesto in 2017 just because they got 40% of the vote.

The problem is that the Tories can't tell their arse from their elbow.

Claret-On-A-T-Rex · Post by **Claret-On-A-T-Rex** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:51 pm

Oh my lord, it gets better.

Now the Tories, the ERG and the DUP are lying to themselves that they can use some obscure treaty to terminate the backstop whenever they like!

Get ready Brexiters, it's coming on Tuesday, May's Brexit with the eternal backstop!

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:51 pm

android wrote:No question that Bercow is meddling to suit his agenda.

Outrageous that he has chosen the Bryant amendment seeking to prevent May's deal being tabled again. Only reason to do this would be fear that it may well pass if tabled again as the wire approaches.

Bercow certainly seems to be dancing to the tune of Benn, Cooper and Grieve.

Yes, credit it where it is due for the open minded - Ringo was right about this all along.

It’s certainly not outrageous, in fact from his point of view it’s very sensible. The guidance does say that more than one vote on the same motion shouldn’t be allowed in a single parliamentary session, but it’s down to the speaker to decide. What he’s done is delegate that decision to the house so he can’t be accused of favouring one side over the other.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:55 pm

That's not how votes work, though. The winner of the vote gets the mandate. The Tories didn't have to agree to 40% of the Labour party manifesto in 2017 just because they got 40% of the vote.

The problem is that the Tories can't tell their arse from their elbow.

Because they tried to pretend that the 52% was everybody that mattered. For about a year the 48% (well, most of them) were going to go "well, lets see what they came up with".

And they then fought a completely unnecessary election that proved that the Hard Brexit wouldn't work, so they had to change tack, and they had a deal that is ok (ok but shite!) but by then they'd lost a lot of the those who accepted the result.

Its now worse than it was in 2016. And they still are trying to push stuff that won't go through, through*

*all sides are guilty of this now, the trick is finding one result that will go through. Whatever that is, no one has suggested it yet!

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:55 pm

martin_p wrote:It’s certainly not outrageous, in fact from his point of view it’s very sensible. The guidance does say that more than one vote on the same motion shouldn’t be allowed in a single parliamentary session, but it’s down to the speaker to decide. What he’s done is delegate that decision to the house so he can’t be accused of favouring one side over the other.

he picked the wollaston amendment which has less support than the other one, Labour are going to whip to abstain so it will be defeated anyway.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:57 pm

Yes, but you are all getting your knickers in a twist over procedure. Which is why I asked you all to read his reasons. Which none of you did.

He's trying to be fair, in an atmosphere in which no one wants him to be fair and they want him to favour their side and no one else's.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:06 pm

GREAT TRADE NEWS!

Papua New Guinea and Fiji signed up!

https://twitter.com/LiamFox/status/1106190636850561025" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cryssys · Post by **Cryssys** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:08 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:
Was there some preset criteria that stipulated that the margin of the winning vote had to be greater than the losing vote ? .

Was there some preset criteria that said the result of the referendum had to be enacted? No.

Stop sounding like the bloke in the pub weeks after a 1.0 defeat whining on about an it. (sic)

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:08 pm

There's an amendment asking for a 2nd referendum.

The 2016 Peoples Vote, was only brought about by the Conservative party winning the 2015 election on a manifesto that pledged to give the country a referendum.

Which party's MPs stood on a manifesto in 2017, on that pledged to give the country a 2nd referendum.

Where is the, democratically achieved, mandate to have a 2nd referendum?

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:11 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:Have a word with aggi.

He claimed that the losing parties manifestos were put into laws and legislation.

Well I didn't say that but I know that when you don't understand something you just reinterpret it to fit your narrative and spout out something unrelated to what was originally said (and then complain that people are being pedantic as you don't understand the difference) so there isn't much point in debating it other than to point out you're making stuff up again.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:14 pm

Cryssys wrote:Was there some preset criteria that said the result of the referendum had to be enacted? No.

Stop sounding like the bloke in the pub weeks after a 1.0 defeat whining on about an it. (sic)

Do you genuinely believe that if the government had said "we're going to give you a referendum. However , we're not obliged to take a blind bit of notice of the result", a record number of people would have voted. Many for the first time in decades?

Course not !

There was a booklet that was sent to every household.

The wording was approved by the electoral commission.

It stated -

"It's your decision. The government will enact that decision"

Being a claret - it means sometimes you lose.

Democracy- it means sometimes you lose.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:15 pm

dsr wrote:I presume if the referendum had been 52% in favour of Remain, you would equally have been pushing for something like May's deal on the grounds of not ignoring the 48% who wanted to leave? Or would you?

I would have thought that if 52% had voted Remain, we would have carried on on the same terms with no concession at all to the 48%. Don't you agree?

This was discussed yesterday I think. If it had been 52% in favour of Remain I would certainly have expected that to have a bearing on our future relationship. Things like schengen, watering down the vetoes, the UK joining the Euro, some aspects of immigration, etc would have been pushed back on resulting in less integration than if it had been 80% in favour of Remain for instance.

Cryssys · Post by **Cryssys** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:16 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:There's an amendment asking for a 2nd referendum.

Where is the, democratically achieved, mandate to have a 2nd referendum?

Parliament is sovereign. I thought you were in favour of British sovereignty?

claret_in_exile · Post by **claret_in_exile** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:17 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Because they tried to pretend that the 52% was everybody that mattered. For about a year the 48% (well, most of them) were going to go "well, lets see what they came up with".

And they then fought a completely unnecessary election that proved that the Hard Brexit wouldn't work, so they had to change tack, and they had a deal that is ok (ok but shite!) but by then they'd lost a lot of the those who accepted the result.

Its now worse than it was in 2016. And they still are trying to push stuff that won't go through, through*

*all sides are guilty of this now, the trick is finding one result that will go through. Whatever that is, no one has suggested it yet!

To be fair on Theresa May (again, I can't believe I'm saying this of a Tory PM!), her calling the General Election of 2017 was a legitimate decision. Arguably, she didn't have the mandate as Prime Minister herself and, politically, she thought that with Labour in such disarray, she could increase the majority and have a much easier time in getting Brexit through. She just forgot to campaign!

While I agree with you that the most ideal outcome is a compromise deal that no-one really likes, but that most can tolerate, I simply don't think that's an option now.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:18 pm

martin_p wrote:It’s certainly not outrageous, in fact from his point of view it’s very sensible. The guidance does say that more than one vote on the same motion shouldn’t be allowed in a single parliamentary session, but it’s down to the speaker to decide. What he’s done is delegate that decision to the house so he can’t be accused of favouring one side over the other.

The one and only person he's delegated to is his snivelling, supercilious self.!!!!

It's HIS decision!

Wrong again Marty!!!

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:21 pm

While I agree with you that the most ideal outcome is a compromise deal that no-one really likes, but that most can tolerate, I simply don't think that's an option now.

Aye, unless the MPs get their act together, then they will be left with the option of "No Deal" or revoking Article 50.

I hope it never gets to that.

Cryssys · Post by **Cryssys** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:21 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote: Do you genuinely believe that if the government had said "we're going to give you a referendum. However , we're not obliged to take a blind bit of notice of the result", a record number of people would have voted. Many for the first time in decades?

They said it was advisory. There is a deal on the table that gives you a lot of what you asked for.

Democracy, it means that sometimes you don't get everything that you asked for.

Just like being a Burnley fan means you win some, you lose some.

android · Post by **android** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:24 pm

martin_p wrote:It’s certainly not outrageous, in fact from his point of view it’s very sensible. The guidance does say that more than one vote on the same motion shouldn’t be allowed in a single parliamentary session, but it’s down to the speaker to decide. What he’s done is delegate that decision to the house so he can’t be accused of favouring one side over the other.

From his point of view - yes. The guidance is probably there to prevent the house wasting time on endless debates about whether litter bins should be black or green or some such nonsense. We are talking about the government of the day trying to deliver Brexit and he had no need at all to create an opportunity for it to be blocked a week before it might get to the stage where it can be passed. It is not surprising that ardent remainers think he is marvellously independent.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:26 pm

He's supposed to be independent, he's not favouring either side.

I get that you lot are annoyed, but that is 100% what he is doing.

Mala591 · Post by **Mala591** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:31 pm

My prediction for indicative votes outcome:

In the customs union
Closely aligned to the single market (but not in it)
Independent immigration policy
Independent agricultural policy
Independent fisheries policy
Largely independent financial policy
Largely independent legal policy

android · Post by **android** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:40 pm

"You lot" - nice one! In that case Lancs I refer you to my first post on this topic where I said it was for the open minded! 100% indeed.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:42 pm

Its just an expression!

What would you like me to call you?

"Android and friends"?

keith1879 · Post by **keith1879** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:49 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Aye, unless the MPs get their act together, then they will be left with the option of "No Deal" or revoking Article 50.

I hope it never gets to that.

Spot on ....I would always vote remain but the only people who can legitimately reverse the referendum decision are the electorate - NOT parliament. We need Parliament to agree on a sensible course ....and it's the ultra-brexiteers who are preventing that from happening for the most part. I have no sympathy for May - if she had engaged in proper consultations 2 years ago we would have the I's dotted and T's crossed by now and be on the way to the exit door. (Not that it would make me happy but at least the country would be less divided).

android · Post by **android** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:51 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Its just an expression!

What would you like me to call you?

"Android and friends"?

No worries. I suppose I had not considered myself as part of a faction but in reality I'm probably about as independent as John Bercow.

keith1879 · Post by **keith1879** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:53 pm

android wrote:From his point of view - yes. The guidance is probably there to prevent the house wasting time on endless debates about whether litter bins should be black or green or some such nonsense. We are talking about the government of the day trying to deliver Brexit and he had no need at all to create an opportunity for it to be blocked a week before it might get to the stage where it can be passed. It is not surprising that ardent remainers think he is marvellously independent.

If there is a potential majority for May's deal then they will obviously vote so that it can be debated ......not exactly difficult - although the level of intelligence among some of the leave supporting MPs does seem to be at rock bottom.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:58 pm

Cryssys wrote:It was an advisory referendum. Given how close the result was it would be undemocratic to ignore the views of those who voted to remain. The deal on offer meets some, not all, of the wishes of those who wanted to leave. It's a compromise. You get some of what you asked for but not everything. Did you really expect it to be anything else?

What we have at the moment is a group of people who think that they should get everything they wanted and that those who disagree with them are being undemocratic. That’s a dictatorship.

And you are saying that if 48% had voted leave, then we would have got a similar deal to this? No suggestion that if Remain had won 52-48, we would have stayed as full members?

Cryssys · Post by **Cryssys** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:05 pm

keith1879 wrote: I would always vote remain but the only people who can legitimately reverse the referendum decision are the electorate - NOT parliament.

Incorrect. The vote was advisory. No one can reverse the outcome of the vote because that's history but Parliament is within it's legal rights to ignore it.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:08 pm

Cryssys wrote:Incorrect. The vote was advisory. No one can reverse the outcome of the vote because that's history but Parliament is within it's legal rights to ignore it.

And that would be your attitude if Remain had won and the government had decided to leave anyway?

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:11 pm

android wrote:From his point of view - yes. The guidance is probably there to prevent the house wasting time on endless debates about whether litter bins should be black or green or some such nonsense. We are talking about the government of the day trying to deliver Brexit and he had no need at all to create an opportunity for it to be blocked a week before it might get to the stage where it can be passed. It is not surprising that ardent remainers think he is marvellously independent.

Spectacularly missing the point already made.
Based on precedent and procedures, he probably shouldn't be allowing the government to bring forward the same motion 3 times in one Parliamentary session, but because of the seriousness of the situation he is allowing Parliament the opportunity to decide whether it should be debated.
Don't see how he can be criticised for this.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:13 pm

No worries. I suppose I had not considered myself as part of a faction but in reality I'm probably about as independent as John Bercow.

There are either leavers or remainers sadly.

I'm a remainer with a pragmatic view of what happens, but I'm still a remainer.

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:18 pm

334 vote against a second referendum, an overall majority.

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:19 pm

Mala591 wrote:My prediction for indicative votes outcome:

In the customs union
Closely aligned to the single market (but not in it)
Independent immigration policy
Independent agricultural policy
Independent fisheries policy
Largely independent financial policy
Largely independent legal policy

You cannot be in the customs union and have the rest of what you want.

That’s cherry picking the EU said we cannot have.

Cryssys · Post by **Cryssys** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:19 pm

dsr wrote:And you are saying that if 48% had voted leave, then we would have got a similar deal to this? No suggestion that if Remain had won 52-48, we would have stayed as full members?

If remain had won 52:48 then I'm sure leavers would be campaigning for changes to our terms of membership every bit as much as remainers are campaigning for changes in the way we leave.

Democracy doesn't mean you get everything you asked for. We all have to compromise. There is a deal on the table that satisfies many, but not all, of leavers wishes.

If this were an industrial dispute where the membership was as divided as this country is how would you view those who refused to compromise and held out for everything they had asked for?

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:21 pm

Lancaster,
Strange result on the 2nd ref.

We will be kicking the can down the road for two years.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:23 pm

334 vote against a second referendum, an overall majority.

Yup, but it wasn't backed by any of the people votes or Labour.

Either way, its a sensible way of going through all the options to try to find one they can agree on!

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:24 pm

Not really Lowbank, see previous post.

I'm not 100% sure what is going on, but it looks like Parliament are trying to control the process so we can come up with something enough agree on.

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:25 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Yup, but it wasn't backed by any of the people votes or Labour.

Either way, its a sensible way of going through all the options to try to find one they can agree on!

even if labour had backed, it would have still lost, like i told you this morning, there is no majority for a losers vote.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:26 pm

There isn't a majority for anything Andy

Thats the whole point. They have to find something to agree on.

If they can't, then it will go back to the people.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:27 pm

AndyClaret wrote:334 vote against a second referendum, an overall majority.

It is, but not much of one.
To be honest at this stage of the process, and in context of today's vote I'm rather surprised that there are only just over 50% of MPs who are prepared to vote against it.
The majority of MPs would quite rightly only vote for a referendum as an absolute last resort.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:29 pm

AndyClaret wrote:even if labour had backed, it would have still lost, like i told you this morning, there is no majority for a losers vote.

Not yet there isn't. If I were in the business of reversing brexit with any 'semblance' of legitimacy, I'd be going through the theatrics of delivering something the house can agree on, pitching that inevitable softer brexit to the EU which they would likely accept (it negated the need for the backstop), before allowing the commons to reject it for being BINO. Then and only then do you legislate for a 2nd ref with soft brexit vs remain on the ballot.

claret_in_exile · Post by **claret_in_exile** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:30 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Not really Lowbank, see previous post.

I'm not 100% sure what is going on, but it looks like Parliament are trying to control the process so we can come up with something enough agree on.

I think that what Parliament is trying to do is shift the responsibility of agreeing a deal to Parliament and taking it away from the Cabinet.

This assumes they have the slightest idea what they're doing, of course.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:31 pm

Course, what the Magic Grandpa and Seamus Milne are up to is anyones guess.

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:33 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:There isn't a majority for anything Andy

Thats the whole point. They have to find something to agree on.

If they can't, then it will go back to the people.

It won't if there's no majority for it, a general election is more likely if the ERG decide to pull the plug on May.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:33 pm

Next amendment bloody close 311-314

I honestly have no clue what that would have done!

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:34 pm

It won't if there's no majority for it, a general election is more likely if the ERG decide to pull the plug on May.

I don't think they would ever be forgiven by the centre and the left of the party. That would split the party and guarantee a Corbyn premiership.

Or the mad ******* could just vote for Mays deal! Hows that for an idea?

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:35 pm

18 labour mp's defied the whip and voted against a losers vote.
25 labour mp's defied the whip to vote for a losers vote.

1 shadow minister defied the whip to vote against a losers vote. Will corbyn sack her ?

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:36 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Next amendment bloody close 311-314

I honestly have no clue what that would have done!

that was to extend article 50 to 30 june, defeated.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:37 pm

aggi wrote:Well I didn't say that but I know that when you don't understand something you just reinterpret it to fit your narrative and spout out something unrelated to what was originally said (and then complain that people are being pedantic as you don't understand the difference) so there isn't much point in debating it other than to point out you're making stuff up again.

Aggi you and I both know you spent days arguing the toss when Keighley claret attempted to link what happens after a general election to the referendum.

He said the opposition don't just pack up and sit in silence.

I said with a binary in/out referendum only the winning sides manifesto can ever be enacted. To try and accommodate remain would like trying to be half pregnant.

I then said in a general election only the winning party is allowed to enact it's manifesto into legislation and law.

You then stepped in and argued for days on end claiming it was. Attempting to say that when the Tories had stolen a libdems idea it was evidence of a losing party having its manifesto pledge enacted.

I pointed out it was nothing of the sort. It was in fact just political opportunistism to gain popularity.

So my memory is clearly better at recalling what was said and by whom.

You're just as wrong then as you are now!

Anyway you carry on arguing with Turtles head. See if you can lose the argument with him. You lost it with me a long time ago. Despite what your dodgy memory tells you!