Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[AndrewJB]

Yes I didn't check the facts, I've admitted that, just accepted them at face value, just like every remainer knows exactly what every leave voter didn't vote for..... as long as they keep telling each other 'perceived known facts' over biased media, within Unrepresentative Parliaments & umpteen Social media networks all is good.

Fair play for owning a mistake. I think whatever someone’s persuasion, facts can be tricky things to handle. People zoom in on mistakes, and sometimes otherwise very well argued points can be undone by that.

[Lancasterclaret]

A question for those who are clued up on this sort of thing:

Now that the opposition coalition effectively have a majority in Parliament, is there anything that could stop them from tabling a bill to call a new EU referendum?

I understand that Standing Order 24 is a route they’ve taken twice to control the order paper, and for the second time this year they will have passed legislation forcing the government to request an extension from the EU. So what is stop them from using the same method to legislate for a new referendum?

As things stand it makes complete sense for Labour and the SNP to reject a general election, while they are pretty much in control of things in opposition.

Don't think so, as Labour and SNPs policy is a GE first.

In reality, Lab/Lib/SNP should do a VONC, then arrange a coalition (v tough) and see the Queen.

That would hamstring the Conservatives completely, but I think the timescale is just too tight (and the differences too great)

[Devils_Advocate]

A question for those who are clued up on this sort of thing:

Now that the opposition coalition effectively have a majority in Parliament, is there anything that could stop them from tabling a bill to call a new EU referendum?

I understand that Standing Order 24 is a route they’ve taken twice to control the order paper, and for the second time this year they will have passed legislation forcing the government to request an extension from the EU. So what is to stop them from using the same method to legislate for a new referendum?

As things stand it makes complete sense for Labour and the SNP to reject a general election, while they are pretty much in control of things in opposition.

Whilst there is a majority to vote down No Deal, I dont think there would be anywhere near a majority to support a bill calling for a new EU referendum.

[dsr]

The ERG blocked Mays Deal.

I do wish you stop doing this.

What do you wish I would stop doing?

[aggi]

So why are they doing all they can to block us leaving? Whether the election is before or after 31st October, the Brexit issue won't have gone away unless we leave without a deal. So then we have a general election, where the Tories are campaigning on the basis of implementing Brexit, and the Liberals are campaigning on the basis of scrapping Brexit, and the Labour party are campaigning on the basis of doing nothing but dither about Brexit because they don't know what they want. That isn't going to win many votes.

And while everyone else is talking about the number one issue, Brexit, Labour will be talking about the NHS and foodbanks. And no-one will be listening.

I'd say that's a pretty naive perspective.

The "how we're leaving" issue might have gone away but there's still going to be a huge "what happens next" issue with arguments about the Irish border, the £39bn, regulatory alignment, customs unions, etc

[aggi]

A question for those who are clued up on this sort of thing:

Now that the opposition coalition effectively have a majority in Parliament, is there anything that could stop them from tabling a bill to call a new EU referendum?

I understand that Standing Order 24 is a route they’ve taken twice to control the order paper, and for the second time this year they will have passed legislation forcing the government to request an extension from the EU. So what is to stop them from using the same method to legislate for a new referendum?

As things stand it makes complete sense for Labour and the SNP to reject a general election, while they are pretty much in control of things in opposition.

I imagine the main reason is that they wouldn't get the votes for a second referendum. Only the Lib Dems and maybe the SNP would be up for it.

[dsr]

I'd say that's a pretty naive perspective.

The "how we're leaving" issue might have gone away but there's still going to be a huge "what happens next" issue with arguments about the Irish border, the £39bn, regulatory alignment, customs unions, etc

Yes, huge "what happens next", but the issue won't be a matter of deciding what to do - that decision will have finally been made. The issue will be how to deal with the issues, which would be much less of a polarising factor in an election.

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

Don't think so, as Labour and SNPs policy is a GE first.

In reality, Lab/Lib/SNP should do a VONC, then arrange a coalition (v tough) and see the Queen.

That would hamstring the Conservatives completely, but I think the timescale is just too tight (and the differences too great)

That's the card to play if Johnson initiates a vote of confidence in himself, it requires Jo Swinson to be a little more realistic though.

[Lancasterclaret]

What do you wish I would stop doing?

Ignoring that Conservative MPs were the ones who actually stopped us leaving the EU.

[Lancasterclaret]

That's the card to play if Johnson initiates a vote of confidence in himself, it requires Jo Swinson to be a little more realistic though.

It would require all of them to be realistic, which is why its not going to happen.

[dsr]

Ignoring that Conservative MPs were the ones who actually stopped us leaving the EU.

So when I'm making a post talking about Labour's position on Brexit in relation to Labour's chances in the general election, you think it is important that I should mention that although Labour were the largest group to oppose May's deal, they were joined by the Liberals, the SNP, the DUP, the Green, Plaid Cymru, Change UK, several independents, and quite a large number of Conservatives? Don't be silly.

Labour have had three chances to put May's deal through Parliament and have voted it down every time. If they had voted in favour, the efforts of the ERG would have come to nothing.

[martin_p]

So when I'm making a post talking about Labour's position on Brexit in relation to Labour's chances in the general election, you think it is important that I should mention that although Labour were the largest group to oppose May's deal, they were joined by the Liberals, the SNP, the DUP, the Green, Plaid Cymru, Change UK, several independents, and quite a large number of Conservatives? Don't be silly.

Labour have had three chances to put May's deal through Parliament and have voted it down every time. If they had voted in favour, the efforts of the ERG would have come to nothing.

Is the truth important? You should really know the answer to that already!

[Lancasterclaret]

So when I'm making a post talking about Labour's position on Brexit in relation to Labour's chances in the general election, you think it is important that I should mention that although Labour were the largest group to oppose May's deal, they were joined by the Liberals, the SNP, the DUP, the Green, Plaid Cymru, Change UK, several independents, and quite a large number of Conservatives? Don't be silly.

Labour have had three chances to put May's deal through Parliament and have voted it down every time. If they had voted in favour, the efforts of the ERG would have come to nothing.

The ERG stopped the Conservatives getting Brexit through.

You can say what you like, but the reason we are in this mess is that a bunch of about 30+ fanatics on the right of the Conservative Party can see a chance of getting their Brexit through and won't stop at anything to do it.

So far they have done three years of damage to the country, forced one PM to step down and have resulted in 26 Conservative MPs no longer being Conservative MPs.

And when those Conservative MPs include Sir Nicholas Soames and Ken Clarke (amongst others) then you can see why I think its important that you don't get away with pretending that its all remainers fault.

Basically,

Stop lying.

[AndrewJB]

A question for those who are clued up on this sort of thing:

Now that the opposition coalition effectively have a majority in Parliament, is there anything that could stop them from tabling a bill to call a new EU referendum?

I understand that Standing Order 24 is a route they’ve taken twice to control the order paper, and for the second time this year they will have passed legislation forcing the government to request an extension from the EU. So what is to stop them from using the same method to legislate for a new referendum?

As things stand it makes complete sense for Labour and the SNP to reject a general election, while they are pretty much in control of things in opposition.

In some respects, what all the opposition leaders now have is a once in a lifetime parliamentary situation in which the PM can be framed as a hapless gimp every day he sits in Parliament. And the fact he’s prorogued Parliament means he’ll have to endure this for longer. Having taken the “king John” approach to leading he’ll have to climb down from this macho stance, or his own party might pot him. Either is good for the opposition.

[dsr]

The ERG stopped the Conservatives getting Brexit through.

You can say what you like, but the reason we are in this mess is that a bunch of about 30+ fanatics on the right of the Conservative Party can see a chance of getting their Brexit through and won't stop at anything to do it.

So far they have done three years of damage to the country, forced one PM to step down and have resulted in 26 Conservative MPs no longer being Conservative MPs.

And when those Conservative MPs include Sir Nicholas Soames and Ken Clarke (amongst others) then you can see why I think its important that you don't get away with pretending that its all remainers fault.

Basically,

Stop lying.

You think it's a lie to say that the Labour party blocked May's deal?

[summitclaret]

Again, haven't you been paying attention? Labour is the opposition, of course they voted against it.

What happened to acting in the best interests of the country?

[AndrewJB]

So when I'm making a post talking about Labour's position on Brexit in relation to Labour's chances in the general election, you think it is important that I should mention that although Labour were the largest group to oppose May's deal, they were joined by the Liberals, the SNP, the DUP, the Green, Plaid Cymru, Change UK, several independents, and quite a large number of Conservatives? Don't be silly.

Labour have had three chances to put May's deal through Parliament and have voted it down every time. If they had voted in favour, the efforts of the ERG would have come to nothing.

Labour’s Brexit wouldn’t have included all of May’s red lines (which were forced on her by ERG thinking). So it shouldn’t be too hard to see why they would oppose May’s deal (which they disagreed with), because they had a fundamentally different kind of Brexit in mind.

[Lancasterclaret]

You think it's a lie to say that the Labour party blocked May's deal?

I think its a massive whopper to be perfectly honest.

So do you

But keep doing it, it completely devalues your argument.

[summitclaret]

Why would Hammond back a no deal Brexit? He isn't stupid.

Thd tory mos were asked not to rule out a no deal Brexit

[BleedingClaret]

Fair play for owning a mistake. I think whatever someone’s persuasion, facts can be tricky things to handle. People zoom in on mistakes, and sometimes otherwise very well argued points can be undone by that.

I'm really quite lazy on here, it's the only social media I do and I tend to just reply to posts that irk me and rarely proof read my responses. I should stick to footy.... I know more about that, orat least I think I do

[dsr]

I think its a massive whopper to be perfectly honest.

So do you

But keep doing it, it completely devalues your argument.

In January 2019, 202 Tories voted for May's deal, 118 Tories voted against. I am being honest when I say that I believe that those 118 Tories voting against were not enough to defeat the deal. I am not lying. You may think I am mistaken, but I am not lying.

If Labour votes are discounted altogether, then there were 199 in favour, 184 against. So all the ERG plus the Liberals, DUP, SNP, Plaid Cymru, Green, and Independents all together were not enough to defeat the deal. Again, I go on record as saying I believe that to be true.

Labour voted 3 in favour of May's deal, 248 against. The majority against was 230. Now, you are perfectly entitled to think that Labour's votes were not the reason why the bill was defeated, and that even if they had voted in favour the bill would still have failed. It's a stupid thing to think, but there is no rule against being stupid. But to accuse someone of lying for thinking the opposite? For thinking that those 248 votes made a difference? That's beyond stupid. That's farcical.

[AndyClaret]

Nope, what I'm trying to do is remind everyone that the Conservative party has a right wing group called the ERG who voted against the deal three times.

Some of those members are now in government, so the chances are that they are still against that deal.

Johnson is not interested in a deal, because his power base is the ERG, who want the most destructive Brexit possible.

But it would have passed on its 3rd reading if the ERG hadn't voted it down.

All I'm saying is that people who are in the ERG will not change. This is their only chance to get the complete **** show brexit they want. They won't stop at anything to get it.

The only thing worse would be a vote for the racism and xenophobia of Farages Brexit Party.

This is untrue, even if all the ERG voted for it, it still wouldn't have got through.

[CrosspoolClarets]

But would it stop you voting for him?

And you are being ridiculous, Farage is marmite.

He's loved by those that love him, and absolutely loathed by everybody else.

I actually like many of the BP candidates but they are like us - articulate and clever people but not ones who would know how to run a country, I know there are civil servants to help but even so.....

But most of us believe we always have to cast our vote, and for a Brexiteer (17m of them) options start to run out. If there is a level of disgust with the Tories that would bring them down below 20% it is not inconceivable that Farage could get 30% of the vote and be the largest party. Not this time, but soon. I really do think history will judge somebody on one side or the other to massively overplay their hand and cause a 100yr+ party to collapse. I wonder who?

p.s. I saw the untested and raw Jo Swinson given a complete roasting by Andrew Neil at lunchtime. She isn’t a grown adult at this leadership lark, she couldn’t be PM, but she refused to put Corbyn in, so it was all murky as hell given we may need an interim PM if Boris loses a vote of no confidence.

[Burnley Ace]

You think it's a lie to say that the Labour party blocked May's deal?

It’s not a lie it’s a misunderstanding of the reality. If all the Tory MPs and DUP had voted for Mays deal then it wouldn’t matter what Labour MPs vote it would have passed. The first question therefore is “did all Tory MPs vote for the deal?” - no they didn’t therefore they blocked the deal

[JohnMcGreal]

What happened to acting in the best interests of the country?

By voting down the WA, which is worse than our current EU membership, and by voting down no deal, which is much worse than our current EU membership, they are acting in the best interests of the country.

[JohnMcGreal]

The answers from Lancaster, Devils_Advocate and aggi are all around party policy and numbers, which is perfectly reasonable. If the numbers aren't there, it isn't going to happen.

But are we right in saying that legally, if policy and numbers did change so that the majority of the Commons ends up being in favour of calling a referendum, there's nothing that could stop them? They could take control of the order paper and pass a bill that forces the government to call one, just like the extension request?

[Lancasterclaret]

I actually like many of the BP candidates but they are like us - articulate and clever people but not ones who would know how to run a country, I know there are civil servants to help but even so.....

But most of us believe we always have to cast our vote, and for a Brexiteer (17m of them) options start to run out. If there is a level of disgust with the Tories that would bring them down below 20% it is not inconceivable that Farage could get 30% of the vote and be the largest party. Not this time, but soon. I really do think history will judge somebody on one side or the other to massively overplay their hand and cause a 100yr+ party to collapse. I wonder who?

p.s. I saw the untested and raw Jo Swinson given a complete roasting by Andrew Neil at lunchtime. She isn’t a grown adult at this leadership lark, she couldn’t be PM, but she refused to put Corbyn in, so it was all murky as hell given we may need an interim PM if Boris loses a vote of no confidence.

Brexit Party candidates are the sort of people who sit in pubs and talk in the corner about how everything would be better if it was just some good old fashioned common sense was used.

Great if that is your thing, but I suspect they'd be as bad at running the country as Johnston is currently proving.

You need to know what you are doing, and you need to have a track record of knowing what you are doing.

Regarding Andrew Neil, no one beats him at the questions lark to be fair, and he's left many politicians in pieces.

Farage doesn't go near him for example.

[atlantalad]

I understand the Benn Bill ( aka Flowerpot ) requires Boris to go the the EU and request a further Article 50 extension to sort out a Brexit deal ( again). What are the chances of the EU declining this request? After all, according to the media reports at the time Macron was dead set against giving the previous extension to 31 October and I believe the agreement to extend is needed by all EU27.

Reuters reported 3 June " Macron was among those EU leaders opposed to granting Britain a long extension of its date for divorce when it was moved from March until the end of October."

[tiger76]

I understand the Benn Bill ( aka Flowerpot ) requires Boris to go the the EU and request a further Article 50 extension to sort out a Brexit deal ( again). What are the chances of the EU declining this request? After all, according to the media reports at the time Macron was dead set against giving the previous extension to 31 October and I believe the agreement to extend is needed by all EU27.

Reuters reported 3 June " Macron was among those EU leaders opposed to granting Britain a long extension of its date for divorce when it was moved from March until the end of October."

They likely will grant an extension,and if they do the UK has to use the time available wisely,not run down the clock as Boris has been doing.

Belgian MEP Philippe Lamberts is on the European Parliament's Brexit steering group.

He tells The World at One that he does not believe the EU would refuse an extension to Article 50, despite some claims to the contrary.

"I do not believe that the [EU]27 would take responsibility for pulling the plug and thereby provoking no-deal Brexit at this point in time.

"I think this will not happen so whatever British government comes back with a request for an extension, it will be granted."

[martin_p]

They likely will grant an extension,and if they do the UK has to use the time available wisely,not run down the clock as Boris has been doing.

Belgian MEP Philippe Lamberts is on the European Parliament's Brexit steering group.

He tells The World at One that he does not believe the EU would refuse an extension to Article 50, despite some claims to the contrary.

"I do not believe that the [EU]27 would take responsibility for pulling the plug and thereby provoking no-deal Brexit at this point in time.

"I think this will not happen so whatever British government comes back with a request for an extension, it will be granted."

The BBC Brussels correspondent (Katya what’s her name) was pretty sure than any extension request would be granted.

[martin_p]

Edit - duplicate post

[martin_p]

In January 2019, 202 Tories voted for May's deal, 118 Tories voted against. I am being honest when I say that I believe that those 118 Tories voting against were not enough to defeat the deal. I am not lying. You may think I am mistaken, but I am not lying.

If Labour votes are discounted altogether, then there were 199 in favour, 184 against. So all the ERG plus the Liberals, DUP, SNP, Plaid Cymru, Green, and Independents all together were not enough to defeat the deal. Again, I go on record as saying I believe that to be true.

Labour voted 3 in favour of May's deal, 248 against. The majority against was 230. Now, you are perfectly entitled to think that Labour's votes were not the reason why the bill was defeated, and that even if they had voted in favour the bill would still have failed. It's a stupid thing to think, but there is no rule against being stupid. But to accuse someone of lying for thinking the opposite? For thinking that those 248 votes made a difference? That's beyond stupid. That's farcical.

I haven’t checked your figures so I’ll take them at face value, but if you’re saying the losing margin was 230 and 118 Tories voted against then the WA would have been carried by six votes had the whole Tory party supported it. So it was the Tories that scuppered May’s deal.

[dsr]

I haven’t checked your figures so I’ll take them at face value, but if you’re saying the losing margin was 230 and 118 Tories voted against then the WA would have been carried by six votes had the whole Tory party supported it. So it was the Tories that scuppered May’s deal.

Lancaster will definitely accuse you of lying if you forget to mention that Labour also scuppered the deal. Oh, hang on - that would be being fair and even-handed. Not something you are likely to accuse Lancaster of. (it would still be wrong, but it would be fair and even-handed.)

All 422 votes were of equal value. If all Tories had voted for it, it would have been passed. If all Labour had voted for it of if all Labour had abstained, it would have been passed. So that means that Labour voted down the deal - which is the issue that Lancaster was wittering on about. He reckons that Labour did not vote down the deal and anyone who says they did is lying - not mistaken, but lying.

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

In some respects, what all the opposition leaders now have is a once in a lifetime parliamentary situation in which the PM can be framed as a hapless gimp every day he sits in Parliament. And the fact he’s prorogued Parliament means he’ll have to endure this for longer. Having taken the “king John” approach to leading he’ll have to climb down from this macho stance, or his own party might pot him. Either is good for the opposition.

Yep, I'd leave him there until he resigns, even if it takes a year. I doubt he'll be very happy shuffling off to beg for an extension more than once or twice before he quits.

I'd propose a law so he had to come to work every day in a chicken suit.

[Lancasterclaret]

Lancaster will definitely accuse you of lying if you forget to mention that Labour also scuppered the deal. Oh, hang on - that would be being fair and even-handed. Not something you are likely to accuse Lancaster of. (it would still be wrong, but it would be fair and even-handed.)

All 422 votes were of equal value. If all Tories had voted for it, it would have been passed. If all Labour had voted for it of if all Labour had abstained, it would have been passed. So that means that Labour voted down the deal - which is the issue that Lancaster was wittering on about. He reckons that Labour did not vote down the deal and anyone who says they did is lying - not mistaken, but lying.

Don't worry I won't!

I only accuse people of lying when they have done it lots of times before.

The Prime Minister isn't the only one who has a track record of being "economical with the truth"

[dsr]

Don't worry I won't!

I only accuse people of lying when they have done it lots of times before.

The Prime Minister isn't the only one who has a track record of being "economical with the truth"

No, you only accuse someone of lying when they don't agree with your world view. And you have a very peculiar world view.

[Darthlaw]

I'd propose a law so he had to come to work every day in a chicken suit.

Did I miss it when they passed one for Jezza's hobo suit?

[Lancasterclaret]

No, you only accuse someone of lying when they don't agree with your world view. And you have a very peculiar world view.

Nope,

This is a very long thread, and you've been caught out a lot.

[dsr]

Nope,

This is a very long thread, and you've been caught out a lot.

As you and your foul-mouthed friend both think that "disagreeing with me" and "lying" are the same thing, you are bound to think that.

[Lowbankclaret]

One Brexiteers prediction, not mine but very interesting.


I've been pretty good at predicting what is going to happen on Brexit.
So this is what I now predict;
Corbyn will not support a General election, instead once the Brexit extension is passed into law a motion will be put forward by Corbyn for a referendum.
Motion for a referendum will be passed by MPs and ratified by Lords.
Timescale for the referendum will be either within the 3 month extension period, or another extension will be passed by parliament.
EU will agree to extension requests
Referendum will be May's deal or Remain
Referendum will be won by Remain, because the media for 3.5 years, and even more so during 2019 has done it's utmost to brain wash people
By the time a new GE is run, Brexit party will be too late, there will be insufficient public desire for another referendum.

Brexit Party will have left it too late to convince people who were leavers who have since been brainwashed into Remain to change their minds.

Parliament is just far too strongly Remain and have now come out blazing to stop it all together. They are now no longer even trying to pretend to honour the referendum result.
Phillip Hammond is the biggest traitor and has taken on the anti Brexit leadership role within Parliament. The scheming creature had even preempted Boris's position to remove the whip and GE announcement, by colluding in secret with his constituency executive to get him reselected without consultation with the local membership.
Another disregard for democracy for self interest.
I'm so frustrated and mad I honestly feel like I could punch everyone of them on the nose, gggggrrrrrr!

[Greenmile]

The ERG stopped the Conservatives getting Brexit through.

You can say what you like, but the reason we are in this mess is that a bunch of about 30+ fanatics on the right of the Conservative Party can see a chance of getting their Brexit through and won't stop at anything to do it.

So far they have done three years of damage to the country, forced one PM to step down and have resulted in 26 Conservative MPs no longer being Conservative MPs.

And when those Conservative MPs include Sir Nicholas Soames and Ken Clarke (amongst others) then you can see why I think its important that you don't get away with pretending that its all remainers fault.

Basically,

Stop lying.

Asking dsr to stop lying is a pretty Cnut-ish thing to do.

(That’s not a typo or an attempt to bypass the swearing filter, btw.)

[Lowbankclaret]

On the subject of an extension.

This is a transcript of Ursula Van Der Leyen’s opening speech .

628216C0-6F67-4A54-94B8-C350D92AB8FD.png (199.68 KiB) Viewed 1712 times

[HunterST_BFC]

BREAKING: Jo Johnson resigns to spend less time with his family.

[Lowbankclaret]

NATO troops on exercise doesn't mean NATO is an army. It is an alliance of armies.

It's a shame there's nothing in the name that could give you a clue.

So it’s an army then, really some people just want an argument for the sake of it.

Of course I know it’s a multinational army.

[claretonthecoast1882]

Well it is breaking somewhere

[Lancasterclaret]

As you and your foul-mouthed friend both think that "disagreeing with me" and "lying" are the same thing, you are bound to think that.

Its not though is it?

Your desire to have the last word all the time and argue that black is white rather than going "Ok, I was wrong" is coming back to haunt you here.

[CombatClaret]

Referendum will be won by Remain, because the media for 3.5 years, and even more so during 2019 has done it's utmost to brain wash people

Yes, I'm sick of the UK top selling newspapers like
The Sun
Daily Mail
The Daily Telegraph
All pushing their pro-remain headlines down our throats for the last 1168 days!

[CrosspoolClarets]

Lancaster will definitely accuse you of lying if you forget to mention that Labour also scuppered the deal. Oh, hang on - that would be being fair and even-handed. Not something you are likely to accuse Lancaster of. (it would still be wrong, but it would be fair and even-handed.)

All 422 votes were of equal value. If all Tories had voted for it, it would have been passed. If all Labour had voted for it of if all Labour had abstained, it would have been passed. So that means that Labour voted down the deal - which is the issue that Lancaster was wittering on about. He reckons that Labour did not vote down the deal and anyone who says they did is lying - not mistaken, but lying.

From memory (I checked this a month or two ago) the Withdrawal Agreement would still have been voted down if the ERG and all other Brexit voting Tories had voted for it. Without doubt, and it is plain wrong if anyone claims otherwise, it is Remain voting MPs who caused it to be voted down.

It is being reported this evening that the EU will refuse any changes to the WA because we are asking for divergence on regulatory issues, which terrifies them because they fear Singapore On Thames (though actually that isn’t something that many of our voters would support). This divergence is important because of areas where EU law is daft, like bits (only bits) of the Working Time Directive but it seems like we would need no deal to achieve it.

[martin_p]

Lancaster will definitely accuse you of lying if you forget to mention that Labour also scuppered the deal. Oh, hang on - that would be being fair and even-handed. Not something you are likely to accuse Lancaster of. (it would still be wrong, but it would be fair and even-handed.)

All 422 votes were of equal value. If all Tories had voted for it, it would have been passed. If all Labour had voted for it of if all Labour had abstained, it would have been passed. So that means that Labour voted down the deal - which is the issue that Lancaster was wittering on about. He reckons that Labour did not vote down the deal and anyone who says they did is lying - not mistaken, but lying.

You said Labour were ‘blocking the deal’. They weren’t, they didn’t have the numbers to block the deal themselves. It was a lie.

[martin_p]

From memory (I checked this a month or two ago) the Withdrawal Agreement would still have been voted down if the ERG and all other Brexit voting Tories had voted for it. Without doubt, and it is plain wrong if anyone claims otherwise

Not according to dsr’s figures above.