Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[If it be your will]

.

[RingoMcCartney]

Genuine questions:

Had parliament not attained a meaningful vote, would the withdrawal agreement still have been the same as it is now?
If so, it's reasonable to suppose May's withdrawal agreement would have now come into law (without parliament ever voting on it). Would you consider this a good outcome? Do you like May's withdrawal agreement?

Hypertheticals.

It's a Soft Remain.

No I don't like it.

I voted Leave.

[Spiral]

Hypertheticals.

Hypothetical, hyperthetical, hypestthetical.

[If it be your will]

.

[Jakubclaret]

May deserves to be placed in the stocks with rotten fruit & vegetables thrown at her or tarred & feathered.

[AndrewJB]

The argument has come down to 2 sides.

On one side. Those whose position is based on maintining the status quo and preserving their privilege , while pointing to economic forecasts to justify it. Plus naive, gullible millenials who have fallen for Project Fears "the sky's going to fall in" shtick.

On the other. Those whose position is based on the principle that democracy should be respected and results as expressions of that democracy, must be implemented.

Bring it on!!!

[nil_desperandum]

I've never really understood the dislike of Gina Miller by leavers, that's all. On the one hand, May's deal is widely despised by leavers, yet on the other, it was the meaningful vote that stopped it happening (so far, at least).

I'm a leaver, too. I think there are merits to leaving the EU. I think there are merits to remaining in the EU. I consider May's deal to be entirely and utterly meritless, and would profoundly prefer to remain than this. I thank God parliament was given the opportunity to stop May's deal coming into law.

Thanks for responding anyway.

Really excellent post proving that despite the incoherent rantings of a vociferous minority hardcore, a large number of "leavers" are thoughtful, intelligent and capable of processing information to reach rational conclusions.
Who knows what "deal" May's team would have pushed through without the vital intervention of Gina Miller? And it should also be said that if Mr Corbyn gets into power, the Tory press, Tory voters, Tory MPs, and indeed a large proportion of the country will suddenly appreciate that the principle established in law by the Miller case is one that is worth upholding. We can't have decisions forced through by an executive against the will of an elected Parliament, and the way our system works the judiciary are there to balance any potential excess or abuse of power by the government or PM.

[Burnley Ace]

You can claim someone is a "dullard" a "buffoon" "ignorant" etc etc.

But when you fail to comprehend the simplest of straight forward questions namely "Did the majority of Labour MPs vote to have an eu referendum?". While displaying cringe worthy desperation to avoid admitting you were wrong when you incorrectly answered "no"

There is only one person who's a "dullard" a "buffoon" and "ignorant" and unable to fathom out that when
MPs voted by 544 to 53 in favour of the bill.". It means the majority of Labour MPs voted to have an EU referendum.

You do comprehension of straight forward questions and maths like you do admitting you're wrong.

You don't!

But the squirming your only to willing to do , is a joy to behold!

Please, please, please come back and try to claim the majority of Labour MPs didn't vote to have an eu referendum, while subconsciously admitting they did by actually including the phrase "The VOTE, which followed the first debate on the EU Referendum Bill!"

Promise me you will. It's like shooting fish in a barrel!

150 pages in and, amongst other things, you still don’t understand the Parliamentary process that makes aBill into an Act!!

Labour MPs voted on the second reading of the Bill on 9th June 2015 (544-53) however they withdrew their support on the FINAL decisive vote on the 7th September (326-53).

1. Does a Bill go for Royal Assent after the second vote?
2. Does a Bill go for Royal Assent after the third vote?

All you have is Labour voting to start the Parliamentary process of determining whether to make legal provisions for a pre-legislative referendum.

You can wriggle and squirm, block bold and underline but the evidence (and we all know how you struggle with that concept) is there.

It’s the final decisive third vote that shows support for an Act not the preliminary votes.

[SmudgetheClaret]

How did we get to the point where Labour and Conservative manifestos mean nothing? well done anti democratic remainers all you need to do now is own what you have done ...I won’t hold my breath

[martin_p]

How did we get to the point where Labour and Conservative manifestos mean nothing? well done anti democratic remainers all you need to do now is own what you have done ...I won’t hold my breath

When there isn’t a majority government, simple really. The same happened in 2010 when the Tories has to drop manifesto promises to work with the Lib Dems, it’s hardly a new situation.

[Lord Beamish]

When there isn’t a majority government, simple really. The same happened in 2010 when the Tories has to drop manifesto promises to work with the Lib Dems, it’s hardly a new situation.

Don’t stop him, Martin_P. Smudge’s little breathless tirades about the injustice of our Parliamentary Democracy are a highlight of this otherwise tedious thread.

Oh, and Wrongo is always value for money.

[RingoMcCartney]

A bit melodramatic by CrosspoolClarets, but not especially unsurprising considering the tendency for a lot or brexiteers to use the language of 'protecting democratic integrity' as a means of halting the entire process; paralysis being the most (only?) effective way of bringing about the no-deal brexit they fetishise. The strength and rigour of parliamentary procedure, to say nothing of your overblown 'concerns' about democracy as a whole, isn't judged by how many minds are changed between readings of a bill. It could equally be viewed that the fact so few minds were changed attests to the soundness of the initial bill. I'm not necessarily making that claim, but pointing out the flaw in your measure for rigour. There are quite a few other metrics that need to be considered before writing the UK off as sliding towards a banana republic. Considering the unique time constraints, it's not difficult for a rational observer to see why a sovereign parliament acted to give itself a bit more breathing space.

We've had a disgraced MP fresh out of prison. Going into the voting lobby casting the binding vote on the biggest constitutional decision the country has made for decades. Wearing a tag

And now we have the Remoaner Prime Minister seeking EU parliamentary elections that will see prospective MEPs running campaigns and costing the tax payer millions. Hoping that they will never take their seat in Brussels if her plan comes to fruition.

If her plan (Treaty drafted by the EU) gets through, before the EU parliamentary elections, does she simply call a halt to campaigning!?

What if Corbyn see polling running upto the EU elections showing CUK expecting to overtake labour for their Europhile stance. We could see labour panic and agree to Mays deal and pull the rug from under the entire EU parliamentary elections campaign!

A democratic election campaign being stopped in its tracks by the leader of the opposition!?

And presumably the electoral commission, such an august and venerable body, approves all of this!

British democracy 2019 - Banana Republic

[RingoMcCartney]

150 pages in and, amongst other things, you still don’t understand the Parliamentary process that makes aBill into an Act!!

Labour MPs voted on the second reading of the Bill on 9th June 2015 (544-53) however they withdrew their support on the FINAL decisive vote on the 7th September (326-53).

1. Does a Bill go for Royal Assent after the second vote?
2. Does a Bill go for Royal Assent after the third vote?

All you have is LABOUR VOTING to start the Parliamentary process of determining whether to make legal provisions for a pre-legislative referendum.

You can wriggle and squirm, block bold and underline but the evidence (and we all know how you struggle with that concept) is there.

It’s the final decisive third vote that shows support for an Act not the preliminary votes.

"LABOUR VOTING"

The simple question was -

"Did the vast majority of Labour MPs vote to have an eu referendum? "

Read those words. There were no caveats. No small print. No mention of at what stage they voted. No terms and conditions attached to a very simple basic question.

Just the simple question-

Did the vast majority of labour MPs vote to have an eu referendum "?

You replied previously said "No"

Now read your own words above!

"All you have is LABOUR VOTING to start the Parliamentary process of determining whether to make legal provisions for a pre-legislative referendum"

Hoist by your own petard.!

Please come back and wriggle and try and rewrite the question again. Those gallows you insist on hanging yourself really do suit you!

[Spijed]

We've had a disgraced MP fresh out of prison. Going into the voting lobby casting the binding vote on the biggest constitutional decision the country has made for decades. Wearing a tag

You do realise this has nothing to do with current politics.

Any MP in the same position would have been able to do the same thing 10,20,30,40, 50 years ago!

Are you saying that rules within Parliament that have been in place for decades should be changed simply because of Brexit?

[RingoMcCartney]

You do realise this has nothing to do with current politics.

Any MP in the same position would have been able to do the same thing 10,20,30,40, 50 years ago!

Are you saying that rules within Parliament that have been in place for decades should be changed simply because of Brexit?

A woman out on licence still wearing a tag having the casting vote on the country's future is not Banana Republicesque!?

Years of wrongs don't make it right.

And it's not just me saying rules have have been changed cos of Brexit

The Speaker of the house, proudly boasted that "I will not be bound by precedent " as he drove a coach and horses through centuries of parliamentary procedural protocol as he aided and abetted his co-conspirator against democracy, Dominic Grieve.

He's still to publish the advice he was given by his clerks. Despite repeated requests to do so.

[CrosspoolClarets]

When there isn’t a majority government, simple really. The same happened in 2010 when the Tories has to drop manifesto promises to work with the Lib Dems, it’s hardly a new situation.

Just a quick one on this - the Labour manifesto Brexit section opened with "Labour accepts the referendum result" and the Conservative manifesto has a similar theme, so logically, while I understand Labour (daftly) pushing for a Customs Union it is disingenuous for them to even entertain the idea of a 2nd Referendum or Revoking. I don't see how the lack of a majority affects this - Labour are playing political games to try to engineer a way into power. They should simply add a CU to the political declaration and then agree with her deal, as the closest thing to their manifesto they can manage.

[claret2018]

I for one am shocked that political parties are saying one thing, and then later doing another.

This has never happened before.

[Mala591]

May's Brexit deal:

Free trade deal (tariff free) with the EU
Independent international trade deals
Independent immigration policy
Independent agricultural policy
Independent fisheries policy
Independent legal system (independence from ECJ)

Why are our MPs so reluctant to support it ?

[RingoMcCartney]

Just a quick one on this - the Labour manifesto Brexit section opened with "Labour accepts the referendum result" and the Conservative manifesto has a similar theme, so logically, while I understand Labour (daftly) pushing for a Customs Union it is disingenuous for them to even entertain the idea of a 2nd Referendum or Revoking. I don't see how the lack of a majority affects this - Labour are playing political games to try to engineer a way into power. They should simply add a CU to the political declaration and then agree with her deal, as the closest thing to their manifesto they can manage.

"MPs must respect the referendum result – even if it leads to hard Brexit", says Yvette Cooper . January 2017


https://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/news/2017/ ... ooper.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;






Duplicitous liar and betrayer of her constituents.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Genuine questions:

Had parliament not attained a meaningful vote, would the withdrawal agreement still have been the same as it is now?
If so, it's reasonable to suppose May's withdrawal agreement would have now come into law (without parliament ever voting on it). Would you consider this a good outcome? Do you like May's withdrawal agreement?

Good question, and I think we should look at the timeline.

17 Jan 2017 - Lancaster House speech, big on red lines and a "real" Brexit
24 Jan 2017 - Gina Millar wins her case
8 Jun 2017 - May messes up the election she called
22 Sep 2017 - Florence speech, May softens her tone
13 Dec 2017 - Rebel Tory MPs force a Meaningful Vote
12 July 2018 - Chequers plan, red lines almost disappear

So I would suggest the actions in bold above are the ones that have completely changed what the Withdrawal Agreement contains (in fact, there may not even have been one, we could have held out for a simultaneous trade deal). I suspect that but for Millar, May wouldn't even have called her election, but at that point she knew the numbers were tricky (she obviously didn't plan on making them worse).

A combination of May's incompetence and an outrageous intervention by Gina Millar (making parliament decide a foreign treaty for the first time) encouraged rebellious behaviour by a dozen Tories (now two or three dozen). Without these things, I suspect the Brexit would have been a better one, better prepared, with less Parliamentary distractions, and we would now be deep into trade talks.

We all knew of course that the establishment would stitch this up, we just didn't know how.

[dsr]

May's Brexit deal:

Free trade deal (tariff free) with the EU
Independent international trade deals
Independent immigration policy
Independent agricultural policy
Independent fisheries policy
Independent legal system (independence from ECJ)

Why are our MPs so reluctant to support it ?

Because your summary isn't accurate. Try this one:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -agreement" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RingoMcCartney]

I for one am shocked that political parties are saying one thing, and then later doing another.

This has never happened before.

84% of MPs, elected on manifestos pledged to leave the European Union, yet the majority of them working tirelessly, to ensure the result of a referendum is never implamented is a first, I'll give you that!

[dsr]

Good question, and I think we should look at the timeline.

17 Jan 2017 - Lancaster House speech, big on red lines and a "real" Brexit
24 Jan 2017 - Gina Millar wins her case
8 Jun 2017 - May messes up the election she called
22 Sep 2017 - Florence speech, May softens her tone
13 Dec 2017 - Rebel Tory MPs force a Meaningful Vote
12 July 2018 - Chequers plan, red lines almost disappear

So I would suggest the actions in bold above are the ones that have completely changed what the Withdrawal Agreement contains (in fact, there may not even have been one, we could have held out for a simultaneous trade deal). I suspect that but for Millar, May wouldn't even have called her election, but at that point she knew the numbers were tricky (she obviously didn't plan on making them worse).

A combination of May's incompetence and an outrageous intervention by Gina Millar (making parliament decide a foreign treaty for the first time) encouraged rebellious behaviour by a dozen Tories (now two or three dozen). Without these things, I suspect the Brexit would have been a better one, better prepared, with less Parliamentary distractions, and we would now be deep into trade talks.

We all knew of course that the establishment would stitch this up, we just didn't know how.

I wouldn't agree. I reckon May would have been just as incompetent and unprincipled without the Commons in the background, so we would have been stuck with her pathetic "deal".

[CrosspoolClarets]

May's Brexit deal:

Free trade deal (tariff free) with the EU
Independent international trade deals
Independent immigration policy
Independent agricultural policy
Independent fisheries policy
Independent legal system (independence from ECJ)

Why are our MPs so reluctant to support it ?

That's questionable. The independence of trade and legal system are both at risk under the backstop, and tariff free trade with the EU is fine and dandy but not if the EU change tariffs with the rest of the world in a way that disadvantages us (I accept the latter is a Customs Union risk with the Labour change to the Withdrawal Agreement, May's deal would avoid that).

I agree with the ERG - the backstop is something no sovereign nation of our status should ever be asked to accept, and May / Robbins should have rejected this at every stage in the negotiations (and, if it was them who suggested it, resign).

The question is though, should the ERG vote for it anyway as the least bad option? I think they should. Not hard then to imagine the DUP coming over too to get it over the line, they need friends in Westminster and can't alienate the entire Tory party.

[Clarethalffull]

How did we get to the point where Labour and Conservative manifestos mean nothing? well done anti democratic remainers all you need to do now is own what you have done ...I won’t hold my breath

We got here because of a fraudulent campaign that would have deemed any result void had the vote been binding rather than advisory, lies on buses, broken promises, the ERG voting against the government deal, the failure of the media to challenge liars across all parties during interviews before & after the referendum and lastly because of people across all political leanings re evaluating previous decisions based on unavoidable facts.

I am not sure how you justify laying this at the door of people who actually voted against it, but then again it is quite difficult to admit a mistake when you can see that your decision is ripping the country apart whilst ******* millions down the drain.

[claret2018]

We got here because of a fraudulent campaign that would have deemed any result void had the vote been binding rather than advisory, lies on buses, broken promises, the ERG voting against the government deal, the failure of the media to challenge liars across all parties during interviews before & after the referendum and lastly because of people across all political leanings re evaluating previous decisions based on unavoidable facts.

I am not sure how you justify laying this at the door of people who actually voted against it, but then again it is quite difficult to admit a mistake when you can see that your decision is ripping the country apart whilst ******* millions down the drain.

It's difficult to admit a mistake when you've based your life and personality around that mistake for the last few years.

[Burnley Ace]

"LABOUR VOTING"

The simple question was -

"Did the vast majority of Labour MPs vote to have an eu referendum? "

Read those words. There were no caveats. No small print. No mention of at what stage they voted. No terms and conditions attached to a very simple basic question.

Just the simple question-

Did the vast majority of labour MPs vote to have an eu referendum "?

You replied previously said "No"

Now read your own words above!

"All you have is LABOUR VOTING to start the Parliamentary process of determining whether to make legal provisions for a pre-legislative referendum"

Hoist by your own petard.!

Please come back and wriggle and try and rewrite the question again. Those gallows you insist on hanging yourself really do suit you!

They voted to start the process. I hope you are never sitting on a jury where there is a question of consent.as you would say well she started the process!

Keep waffling Ringo and every time I will ask you if understand how a Bill becomes an Act.

1. Did Labour MPs vote after the 3rd reading of the Bill?
2. Did Labour withdraw it’s support?

Dullard is an apt description and there pages of evidence to support that.

[TheFamilyCat]

They voted to start the process. I hope you are never sitting on a jury where there is a question of consent.as you would say well she started the process!

Keep waffling Ringo and every time I will ask you if understand how a Bill becomes an Act.

1. Did Labour MPs vote after the 3rd reading of the Bill?
2. Did Labour withdraw it’s support?

Dullard is an apt description and there pages of evidence to support that.

Ringo is many things but he’s certainly not dull!

[TheFamilyCat]

84% of MPs, elected on manifestos pledged to leave the European Union, yet the majority of them working tirelessly, to ensure the result of a referendum is never implamented is a first, I'll give you that!

Throwing that 84% figure about makes it out as if people were only voting for a party based on their pledge on Brexit. I think you know as well as anyone that that wasn’t the case which makes it an irrelevant statistic to use.

Edit: I do realise that I will end up having to explain the above in a way that a two year old would understand but i’ve not much on this afternoon so it should kill a couple of hours.

[RingoMcCartney]

They voted to start the process. I hope you are never sitting on a jury where there is a question of consent.as you would say well she started the process!

Keep waffling Ringo and every time I will ask you if understand how a Bill becomes an Act.

1. Did Labour MPs vote after the 3rd reading of the Bill?
2. Did Labour withdraw it’s support?

Dullard is an apt description and there pages of evidence to support that.

He's back for more!

And he's even adding more of his own questions in a vain attempt to some pretend he answered a simple question incorrectly!

The simple question I asked you was -

" Did the vast majority of labour MPs vote to have an eu referendum ?"

You answered "no"

In your latest, squirming from admitting you are wrong, tantrum. You include the line admitting this -

"They voted to start the proces"

If you weren't hell bent on trying to rewrite your mistake, till the cows come home. You'd see that means a "yes"!

But hey, on what would otherwise be a mundane Wednesday, listening to the pantomime that is PMQS you're really brightening up my day like a ray of deluded and mutton headed, but nonetheless, bright golden sunshine!

Please continue with the hilarious masochistic shooting yourself in the foot lark! And don't forget to include the line "they voted" or words to that effect! You should have been a sitcom script writer!

Please restock the barrel with fish!

[RingoMcCartney]

Throwing that 84% figure about makes it out as if people were only voting for a party based on their pledge on Brexit. I think you know as well as anyone that that wasn’t the case which makes it an irrelevant statistic to use.

Edit: I do realise that I will end up having to explain the above in a way that a two year old would understand but i’ve not much on this afternoon so it should kill a couple of hours.

Ignoring that fact almost makes acceptable for MPs and parties to stand on manifesto pledges on which they were elected then do a complete about face on them once elected.

Whether you think that's what's happened is entirely irrelevant. Because, If you've listened to the radio, watched TV or read on line comments in the last year or so. It's what millions and millions of voters now believe.

And as I predicted many of them are now saying, "I'll never vote again. There's no point"

Dont let me interrupt the rest of your afternoon. Mine and your opinion on a football message board, on millions feeling betrayed, is totally peripheral to its long term effect on democracy.

Have a great afternoon.

[Tall Paul]

A woman out on licence still wearing a tag having the casting vote on the country's future is not Banana Republicesque!?

It wasn't the casting vote.

[If it be your will]

.

[RingoMcCartney]

It wasn't the casting vote.

Trust you Paul.

Ignore the fact she was fresh out the nick. Ignore she was shamelessly wearing a tag while casting , what would prove to be, the deciding vote. Ignore it's like something out of a banana republic.

But zoom in on the fact that I used the incorrect terminology to describe the democratically expressed wishes of 17,410,742 million people being usurped by 312 MPs.

And completely ignore the fact that millions of pounds of tax payers money could be spent on EU parliamentary elections campaigns that could be brought to an abrupt halt by either the inept PM or the leader of the opposition. If the former gets the EU Treaty she's wedded to or the latter gets spooked by opinion polls showing the CUKs out gunning labour!

Tall Paul - The go to guy for pedantry.

[Imploding Turtle]

politics.co.uk finally say what we all are thinking.

Brexiters oppose a second referendum for one simple reason: They think they'll lose

https://www.politics.co.uk/comment-anal ... e-reason-t" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


People like Ringo throw around the word "democracy" as if they value it, but they don't. He knows that the corrupt Leave campaign won on a foundation of lies and fear of foreigners and are **** scared that if we measure the will of the people again that the people are much better informed as to their lies, corruption and fearmongering.

Don't listen to Ringo. He's an enemy of democracy, just like anyone else who thinks that making sure the public hasn't changed its mind is some how anti-democratic.

[RingoMcCartney]

politics.co.uk finally say what we all are thinking.

Brexiters oppose a second referendum for one simple reason: They think they'll lose

https://www.politics.co.uk/comment-anal ... e-reason-t" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


People like Ringo throw around the word "democracy" as if they value it, but they don't. He knows that the corrupt Leave campaign won on a foundation of lies and fear of foreigners and are **** scared that if we measure the will of the people again that the people are much better informed as to their lies, corruption and fearmongering.

Don't listen to Ringo. He's an enemy of democracy, just like anyone else who thinks that making sure the public hasn't changed its mind is some how anti-democratic.

[aggi]

If we get a Labour Party Brexit, which appears to be May's ambition this week, then we are in a Customs Union with no mechanism for getting out of it. The EU will have the rights to set our trade policy for ever, without having to consider what is best for our economy. And we will be technically out of the EU, so Remainers will be able to say Brexiters got their way, and they can then ensure that nothing so crass as a democratic vote should ever happen again.

Wheras if we don't leave at all, it will be clear that the Remainers are fundamentally opposed to democracy and the issue will not be over.

I hope we do have European elections. I'll be voting in them, even if I miss (or spoil my ballot paper) in the locals. I really don't want to throw out the sitting councillor, but then again, I really don't want to vote Conservative. The European elections would be a "free hit". No consequences to Tory or Labour supporters if our "own" party loses out, especially as both Tory and Labour are working hard to ensure the MEPs lose even the little relevance they have now.

I'd say that if the ERG had been a bit less dogmatic then we wouldn't have reached the point where May would have been sitting down with Corbyn and the possibility of a Customs Union though.

[aggi]

If everyone in the ERG voted for the withdrawal agreement, it still wouldn't go through, it's just counting my friend.

True, although it would have been very close. It's not just the votes though, it's the constant briefing against the deal and May as well.

As above though, it wasn't just May's deal, it was the whole process where they pushed for a hard Brexit and caused far greater divisions.

[Tall Paul]

Trust you Paul.

Ignore the fact she was fresh out the nick. Ignore she was shamelessly wearing a tag while casting , what would prove to be, the deciding vote. Ignore it's like something out of a banana republic.

But zoom in on the fact that I used the incorrect terminology to describe the democratically expressed wishes of 17,410,742 million people being usurped by 312 MPs.

And completely ignore the fact that millions of pounds of tax payers money could be spent on EU parliamentary elections campaigns that could be brought to an abrupt halt by either the inept PM or the leader of the opposition. If the former gets the EU Treaty she's wedded to or the latter gets spooked by opinion polls showing the CUKs out gunning labour!

Tall Paul - The go to guy for pedantry.

No. It's a fact.

You may not like it.

But it's a fact.

[aggi]

Funny how your memory fails at the most convenient time. Coincidence I guess.

I was right though wasn't I!?

You tried to brush it off as just "contingency plans".

The establishment and political class have had a well organised, well choreographed and very well financed operation to thwart the biggest single expression of democracy the nation has ever witnessed. As I pointed out in September/ October, Bercows announcement back in March last year, that millions had been earmarked (You even picked me up on the fact I'd said a million and you pedantically jumped down my throat pointing to the exact figure of around 850,000 ) was more proof of my claim.

Another one that can't bring them self round to admitting old Ringo was right again.

I can't remember this so if you'd just like to put a link so I can see the post and the context then we can see what you're talking about. I'm aware that what you remember in hindsight doesn't always tally with what was posted at the time.

[aggi]

Good question, and I think we should look at the timeline.

17 Jan 2017 - Lancaster House speech, big on red lines and a "real" Brexit
24 Jan 2017 - Gina Millar wins her case
8 Jun 2017 - May messes up the election she called
22 Sep 2017 - Florence speech, May softens her tone
13 Dec 2017 - Rebel Tory MPs force a Meaningful Vote
12 July 2018 - Chequers plan, red lines almost disappear

So I would suggest the actions in bold above are the ones that have completely changed what the Withdrawal Agreement contains (in fact, there may not even have been one, we could have held out for a simultaneous trade deal). I suspect that but for Millar, May wouldn't even have called her election, but at that point she knew the numbers were tricky (she obviously didn't plan on making them worse).

A combination of May's incompetence and an outrageous intervention by Gina Millar (making parliament decide a foreign treaty for the first time) encouraged rebellious behaviour by a dozen Tories (now two or three dozen). Without these things, I suspect the Brexit would have been a better one, better prepared, with less Parliamentary distractions, and we would now be deep into trade talks.

We all knew of course that the establishment would stitch this up, we just didn't know how.

I think I've mentioned before that a friend of a friend was involved in the negotiations with Brussels, one of the dozen or so sitting down with the EU counterparts to thrash out how the big picture instructions actually became a deal.

Their view was that May's deal was really the only possible outcome after May had set those red lines, there wasn't really much alternative that wouldn't cut across the Good Friday Agreement (and let's be honest, that's still the case given that the other options are either a softer Brexit or a No Deal {which still would breach GFA}).

If Gina Millar hadn't won her case do we really think a less accountable May would have got a better deal? What would that have been?

[RingoMcCartney]

No. It's a fact.

You may not like it.

But it's a fact.

And what I described as to the unedifying spectacle that took place in parliament is a fact.

You may not like it.

But it's a fact that millions of leave voters witnessed as well.

[RingoMcCartney]

I can't remember this so if you'd just like to put a link so I can see the post and the context then we can see what you're talking about. I'm aware that what you remember in hindsight doesn't always tally with what was posted at the time.

As you know only too well . I'm not technology savvy enough trawl back through this site. And your insistance that I need to produce the said posts doesn't wash. You know I said , millions put to one side, for elections that we should not be taking part in was proof of an establishment and political class plan to thwart democracy.

"Just contingency plans" you said.

I know it and you know it.

[CrosspoolClarets]

I think I've mentioned before that a friend of a friend was involved in the negotiations with Brussels, one of the dozen or so sitting down with the EU counterparts to thrash out how the big picture instructions actually became a deal.

Their view was that May's deal was really the only possible outcome after May had set those red lines, there wasn't really much alternative that wouldn't cut across the Good Friday Agreement (and let's be honest, that's still the case given that the other options are either a softer Brexit or a No Deal {which still would breach GFA}).

If Gina Millar hadn't won her case do we really think a less accountable May would have got a better deal? What would that have been?

I don't think I've read you say that, but if I'm on-site with a client on a busy Brexit day I can miss 500 posts.

It just seems to me that human nature would mean that if: a) May retained more power due to a majority and no Commons vote, and b) she used this power to continue to use "no deal" as a bargaining chip, that would have been bound to lead to a different Brussels offer. It's a negotiation, not a fait accompli. Most people now accept that the Irish issue is a political construct not a legal one. The GFA agreement is delicate, but not unsolvable.

For example, as I have mentioned a couple of time in recent days in reference to German interviews, Brussels could have offered a new type of Customs Union for a totally new "outer ring" of the EU, one in which we have much more power than Turkey, and even more power than small EU members. That would be conceivable, because the EU needs our soft power, money, security and intelligence more than it needs the likes of Romania to be a member state. I bet then even many Brexiteers may have supported it (not even the ERG wanted a "hard Brexit" at the time, but they did want a FTA, and maybe only them would have been in opposition). That's why Germany are panicking now, they see these advantages from the UK disappearing.

So yes, maybe May's red lines would have had to shift to some degree, but a stronger stance in negotiations would I feel sure have led to different possibilities opening up and a different Withdrawal Agreement as a result.

[Mala591]

It would seem 'rational' to request a 12 month extension in order to negotiate a draft trade deal with the EU. When we have a draft withdrawal agreement and a draft trade deal on the table then we can sign them both off at the same time.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

It would seem 'rational' to request a 12 month extension in order to negotiate a draft trade deal with the EU. When we have a draft withdrawal agreement and a draft trade deal on the table then we can sign them both off at the same time.

Given we've been dicking about for the last few years, what makes you think that we can negotiate a draft trade deal in 12 months?

[Burnley Ace]

He's back for more!

And he's even adding more of his own questions in a vain attempt to some pretend he answered a simple question incorrectly!

The simple question I asked you was -

" Did the vast majority of labour MPs vote to have an eu referendum ?"

You answered "no"

In your latest, squirming from admitting you are wrong, tantrum. You include the line admitting this -

"They voted to start the proces"

If you weren't hell bent on trying to rewrite your mistake, till the cows come home. You'd see that means a "yes"!

But hey, on what would otherwise be a mundane Wednesday, listening to the pantomime that is PMQS you're really brightening up my day like a ray of deluded and mutton headed, but nonetheless, bright golden sunshine!

Please continue with the hilarious masochistic shooting yourself in the foot lark! And don't forget to include the line "they voted" or words to that effect! You should have been a sitcom script writer!

Please restock the barrel with fish!

I note how you have to keep repeating yourself and not answering even the most simple question. Even you, the dullard, must have recognised how imprecise your question was. Consent to start something isn’t consent to finish (ask your wife if that’s another concept you struggle to understand.

[LeuvenClaret]

Ringo I’m sure you voted for the wrong side.

[Steve1956]

God loves a trier

FB_IMG_1554916804622.jpg (21.06 KiB) Viewed 1486 times

[aggi]

As you know only too well . I'm not technology savvy enough trawl back through this site. And your insistance that I need to produce the said posts doesn't wash. You know I said , millions put to one side, for elections that we should not be taking part in was proof of an establishment and political class plan to thwart democracy.

"Just contingency plans" you said.

I know it and you know it.

I don't remember it and searches on here and google don't throw anything up. I think you've shown enough times that when things are filtered through your understanding what comes out the other end as what you remember isn't always the same as what was written.