Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[Lancasterclaret]

Do you think the EU will allow it without May's deal being passed? I don't.

Depends.

But I do take your point. But if we don't get a deal, then we will end up revoking (186 votes tonight from absolutely nowhere)

[dsr]

They didn't vote for any deal, they just voted to leave. If the type of deal was relevant, then it should have been an issue when politicians on both sides were campaigning prior to the referendum. I dont recall it being mentioned once. It might be frustrating, but politicians bleating after the horse has bolted is pathetic.
I still feel a certain sympathy for TM, she was always in a no win situation, trying to keep everybody happy, but that attempt at conciliation has just buggered the job up. It doesn't look like anyone is going to get what they fully wanted.

Theresa May's effort to keep everyone happy, both Brexiters and Remainers, was as doomed to failure as if she was tossing a coin and trying to keep both team captains happy, the one who said heads and the one who said tails. Can't be done.

[Lancasterclaret]

Would have worked if she had tried to compromise in 2016 and early 2017.

She didn't, and her and Brexit are paying the price.

[Lancasterclaret]

And in case you haven't noticed, the geeky political me is absolutely loving this.

[taio]

Would have worked if she had tried to compromise in 2016 and early 2017.

She didn't, and her and Brexit are paying the price.

Do you really believe that when the HoC is so divided?

Interesting that people believe that the situation is so complex it makes it near impossible for the situation to be resolved and delivered effectively, yet also say May has done an appalling job trying to do so.

[Lancasterclaret]

Interesting

"DUP opposed Customs Union but abstained on CU + Single Market, which would solve border almost completely.
Inching towards a soft Brexit stance?"

[Elizabeth]

The SNP will not accept the result of their referendum, ring any bells?
They have not helped the argument for having cross party debate on this Brexit problem because they only want one thing which we all know.
Lancaster, you really fear we will get a No Deal exit don't you, its becoming an obsession with you

[Lancasterclaret]

Do you really believe that when the HoC is so divided?

Interesting that people believe that the situation is so complex it makes it near impossible for the situation to be resolved and delivered effectively, yet also say May has done an appalling job trying to do so.

Yes, because she had the parliamentary numbers to push one through, and the population would have backed it.

But she went for an election and the rest is history.

I'm a remainer, but I've backed the deal as a compromise. I'm in a bigger and bigger minority every day.

[taio]

Yes, because she had the parliamentary numbers to push one through, and the population would have backed it.

But she went for an election and the rest is history.

I'm a remainer, but I've backed the deal as a compromise. I'm in a bigger and bigger minority every day.

There's zero evidence she had the parliamentary numbers to reach early agreement.

[elwaclaret]

Yes but it’s not an issue of left and right. It is national issue. If nationalists rule Europe you have a nationalist polarisation and the strongest comes to the top. Be interesting to say the least... Ww1 rerun alert

[dsr]

Would have worked if she had tried to compromise in 2016 and early 2017.

She didn't, and her and Brexit are paying the price.

By "compromise", you mean she should have agreed to everything the EU asked for, a lot sooner? Because I didn't see much compromise coming from the EU side. What did they ask for that May hasn't tried to give them?

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

She went for an election which backfired and then has spent the rest of the time since then trying to appease the ultra right wing of the Tory Party.

If she’d worked with the rest of the house and come to a consensus she would have got a deal through by now.

[Elizabeth]

I like your humour South West.
DA you are a lost cause as your posts prove. I have seen comments that you have outlived your poster handle and can't disagree.

[Lancasterclaret]

There's zero evidence she had the parliamentary numbers to reach early agreement.

She had a majority and a sensible withdrawal agreement and remainers (in the main) where willing to compromise.

Once she started banging on about a hard brexit, then people started to drift away.

[Lancasterclaret]

By "compromise", you mean she should have agreed to everything the EU asked for, a lot sooner? Because I didn't see much compromise coming from the EU side. What did they ask for that May hasn't tried to give them?

I mean compromise. Finding a way through this.

Look at yourself, look at Colburn, look at crosspool. You've not compromised one iota. You refuse to. This clearly means a lot more to you than it does to me, as I'm willing to leave.

[elwaclaret]

Just as likely that it could be a groundswell against the right. Hungary went right, Spain went left. Swings and roundabouts and all that.

Sorry missed putting the quote on.

But it’s not about left or right it’s about nationissm once nationalists have control it gets a lot more polarised. Europe is suddenly a very different place... ww1, Cold War spring to mind for those who say it can’t happen why else did napoleon invent federalism?

[taio]

She had a majority and a sensible withdrawal agreement and remainers (in the main) where willing to compromise.

Once she started banging on about a hard brexit, then people started to drift away.

As the numbers and division in the two main parties show it's irrelevant.

[Cryssys]

No Lancaster, I'm asking Labour MPs to respect the clear voting intentions of their constituents in the referendum.

On that basis where do you stand on the DUP? Remember that the vote in NI was 56 - 44 in favour of remaining yet here we have a Brexit deal being blocked because of a party that doesn't represent the views of it's constituents.

The DUP are, and always have been, a rag tag alliance of petty small minded people incapable of seeing beyond their own narrow minded agenda. One of the worst mistakes the Tories ever made was getting into bed with them.

Who could have imagined that the future of the country would be dependent on the support of an such an unrepresentative minority? Why do JRM et al accord them such importance? Why will he only vote for the deal if the DUP support it?

[Lancasterclaret]

Lancaster, you really fear we will get a No Deal exit don't you, its becoming an obsession with you

Because I've worked in EU-UK shipping and transport. I've got a fair idea about how bad delays affect stuff. Important stuff.

[Lancasterclaret]

As the numbers and division in the two main parties show it's irrelevant.

Sure, if todays figures are used.

But in 2016/17? Not so sure

And as i've said, revoke Article 50 or even a PV was absolutely nowhere to be seen in 2016 and 17.

There was a chance, but its fair to say we've missed it!

Anyway, off to bed. Doubt it will be sorted by the morning!

[elwaclaret]

It is against the constitution some say for there to be a referendum on a referendum. Until the mandate has been implemented I.e Brexit has occurred to hold a second referendum would be extremely dodgy ground, as I’m pretty sure the speaker is very much more aware than I am.

[Cryssys]

By "compromise", you mean she should have agreed to everything the EU asked for, a lot sooner? Because I didn't see much compromise coming from the EU side. What did they ask for that May hasn't tried to give them?

The deal on offer gives us control of immigration, the right to make our own laws, out of the CAP, out of of fisheries control and the freedom to make our own trade deals. What else did you want? I bet the NI backstop issue never entered your head until the DUP started whining about it?

What did you expect, what compromises have you made?

[elwaclaret]

I bet the speaker is not sleeping, it is coming to the time he has to declare times up. He is more than aware that constitutionally there is no room for a second referendum. That is why referendums are so rare. People are calling it a vote, it stopped being a vote. It became a decision. In the first past the post finish there is no second prize. Just to put it in perspective, they are at risk of opening up the most successful parliamentary system ever to potential dictatorship. Bercoe is about to become someone your grandchildren will learn about in class.

[martin_p]

This just shows exactly why the HOC washed its hands of the decision 4 years ago and gave it to the people. There is no consensus in Parliament, there never will be.
It also shows exactly why it shouldnt have been given back to them when leave won the day.

The only mandate the government had was to deliver Brexit. A No Deal Brexit is the only honourable thing to do. Both parties agreed to abide by the referendum, if they are going to do that then they have no options left.
It wont please a lot of people, but as the fiasco of the last 3 months have shown NOTHING is going to please a lot of people.

Labour also promised to reject no deal in their manifesto, so it isn’t an option for them.

[martin_p]

It is against the constitution some say for there to be a referendum on a referendum. Until the mandate has been implemented I.e Brexit has occurred to hold a second referendum would be extremely dodgy ground, as I’m pretty sure the speaker is very much more aware than I am.

What constitution?

[dsr]

The deal on offer gives us control of immigration, the right to make our own laws, out of the CAP, out of of fisheries control and the freedom to make our own trade deals. What else did you want? I bet the NI backstop issue never entered your head until the DUP started whining about it?

What did you expect, what compromises have you made?

You're right that the Northern Ireland backstop never entered my head until I realised that someone (May) was stupid enough to fall for the EU's ridiculous claims to have rights to dictate policy in part of the UK. That had never occurred to me. And for that matter, I don't recall anyone on the Remain side putting forward as part of their manifesto that Northern Ireland would be no longer a full member of the United Kingdom.

We already have the right to make some of our own laws, and we will still have the right to make some of them. I wanted the right to make all of them, as independent countries throughout the world do successfully. And to do it without paying a ridiculous £10bn per year for mutual free trade of pretty much equal mutual value with the EU.

[elwaclaret]

Labour also promised to reject no deal in their manifesto, so it isn’t an option for them.

But as I suspect Burcoe is going to be forced to make perfectly clear they cannot a. Constitutionally go for another referendum, without breaking rules that have always been a cornerstone of parliament since The reformation for the very reason it prevents parliament becoming a dictatorship.

The speaker knows he is going to have to give some lectures out before the vote. Parliaments choice is deal or no deal, he is going into the history books that is for sure, he either causes a constitutional crisis that could open us up to dictatorship, even from Europe or he says parliaments times up.

[Elizabeth]

Cryssys having had a free today I have been on the forum quite a bit. It's rare for me to get the time. I know it's difficult to read all the posts because there are so many, and there is a tendency for the same old arguments to be repeated.
On the DUP, I find it unhelpful that the PM seems to need their support to get her deal through. A big understatement if ever there was one.
NI did vote overwhelmingly to remain and since I don't have the breakdown to how each of their constituencies voted I don't know how many of the DUP MPs had leave voting constituencies. I suspect not many but they do have leave voting MPs and made noises in some quarters that No Deal did not deter them.
The opposition to the backstop is something I have ever been able to get my head fully around.
I don't like the block voting principle they adhere to but guess there must be reasons it's like that but again it's unhelpful. However they stick together which is more than can be said for Tory MPs and the cabinet.
The day is ending with the power apparently in the hands of Labour MPs which is not a good thing for the PMs deal judging by how they have on the whole behaved disgracefully through this Brexit crisis by putting personal interest and thirst for power first before the 17.4

[elwaclaret]

What constitution?

Because it’s not a formal constitution does not mean it does not exist... that is why the Speaker is there.

[martin_p]

But as I suspect Burcoe is going to be forced to make perfectly clear they cannot a. Constitutionally go for another referendum, without breaking rules that have always been a cornerstone of parliament since The reformation for the very reason it prevents parliament becoming a dictatorship.

The speaker knows he is going to have to give some lectures out before the vote. Parliaments choice is deal or no deal, he is going into the history books that is for sure, he either causes a constitutional crisis that could open us up to dictatorship, even from Europe or he says parliaments times up.

The referendum was advisory, it has no legal weight.

[martin_p]

Cryssys having had a free today I have been on the forum quite a bit. It's rare for me to get the time.

Back to the full time job that is Wrongo tomorrow?

[DCWat]

Because I've worked in EU-UK shipping and transport. I've got a fair idea about how bad delays affect stuff. Important stuff.

Which is why planning for no deal should have been there from the get go.

Both sides of the debate will question who a no deal will hurt the most, which is why it should have been kept on the table, with it being apparent that it would be an option that we were prepared for.

Anyone would be foolish to think that no deal would not cause problems and it may we’ll take time to recover from. What I’m not sure anyone can say, is whether in the long term, it’s the better or worse option.

It’s been a debacle since invoking article 50.

[elwaclaret]

The referendum was advisory, it has no legal weight.

We’ll see, I guess. (Not being a smart a btw)

[dsr]

I mean compromise. Finding a way through this.

Look at yourself, look at Colburn, look at crosspool. You've not compromised one iota. You refuse to. This clearly means a lot more to you than it does to me, as I'm willing to leave.

There is very little moral high ground in claiming to be willing to respect a democratic vote even when you lose. Even someone like you, rabidly pro-EU that you are, still has a tiny shred of an idea that in a referendum, the side with most votes gets to have its way.

Democracy means a lot to me. If Leave had lost the vote, I would not still be boring on about how wrong it was that we are still in the EU. Because to me, getting the vote to go the way I want it to is important; but applying the result of the vote is more important still, because democracy is more important than me getting my own way.

To you, democracy is less important. You're willing to accept that it has its place, but you'll fight tooth and nail to stop it being put into action if you can. You would much rather stay in the EU than give democracy its head; it's only because Brexiters have fought against it that Remainers like you grudgingly accept that leave is an option.

Democracy means a lot more to me than it does to you. That, I can agree.

[summitclaret]

Julie Cooper abstained on a referendum and revoking.

[martin_p]

We’ll see, I guess. (Not being a smart a btw)

Neither am I, but it is a fact that legally the government didn’t have to act of the result of the referendum. So I’m not sure how the first referendum not having been ‘enacted’ would stop a second.

[dsr]

What constitution?

You never realised the UK has a constitution? It makes all your other constitutional arguments a bit suspect.

[dsr]

The referendum was advisory, it has no legal weight.

The argument that the House of Commons had its fingers crossed when it agreed to implement it, so the promise doesn't count, is pretty thin.

[martin_p]

You never realised the UK has a constitution? It makes all your other constitutional arguments a bit suspect.

It doesn’t have a formal constitution. We have a number of rules and acts that effectively act as a constitution.

[martin_p]

The argument that the House of Commons had its fingers crossed when it agreed to implement it, so the promise doesn't count, is pretty thin.

So you agree with elwaclaret then that there’s a legal case for not holding a second referendum then, on the basis the first hasn’t been enacted?

[dsr]

So you agree with elwaclaret then that there’s a legal case for not holding a second referendum then, on the basis the first hasn’t been enacted?

There's certainly a moral case. I've never been a fan of the "keep voting till you get it right" school of thought.

[martin_p]

There's certainly a moral case. I've never been a fan of the "keep voting till you get it right" school of thought.

So despite your carping you agree the referendum has no legal basis.

No deal defeated twice now, let’s not vote on it again then.

[dsr]

It doesn’t have a formal constitution. We have a number of rules and acts that effectively act as a constitution.

We have a number of rules and conventions that are a constitution. They don't just act as one. It's a written constitution that we don't have.

[elwaclaret]

If I was a remainder I’d certainly want to wait until after the Euro elections before any change. If left and right nationalists split Europe it’s only going to go one way. And it will not be about federalism.

[dsr]

So despite your carping you agree the referendum has no legal basis.

In the same way as you believe that the moon is made of blue cheese? You're making things up.

Of course the referendum has a legal basis. It was provided for in the Conservative party referendum which won the election, it was voted for by both main parties and passed through Parliament by a huge majority, the result was accepted by both main parties, both main parties promised in their manifestos to abide by the result, and the vote to put the result into practice was again passed by a huge majority with both main parties supporting it. That's a legal basis.

What I said was, that I don't know whether there is a legal basis to stop the Houses of Parliament demanding referendum after referendum, without ever putting the result in practice until they get the result they want. But there is a moral basis against it.

[Jakubclaret]

They didn't vote for any deal, they just voted to leave. If the type of deal was relevant, then it should have been an issue when politicians on both sides were campaigning prior to the referendum. I dont recall it being mentioned once. It might be frustrating, but politicians bleating after the horse has bolted is pathetic.
I still feel a certain sympathy for TM, she was always in a no win situation, trying to keep everybody happy, but that attempt at conciliation has just buggered the job up. It doesn't look like anyone is going to get what they fully wanted.

The norm is to try to silence the opposition by putting words into mouths & create divisions & transmit the impression we can't think independently when its the opposite.

[Damo]

So despite your carping you agree the referendum has no legal basis.

No deal defeated twice now, let’s not vote on it again then.

Second referendum defeated 3 times.
Yet your still in favour
So much for Bercows 1604 rule

[Damo]

The norm is to try to silence the opposition by putting words into mouths & create divisions & transmit the impression we can't think independently when its the opposite.

That's basically the theme of this thread. And every other since we voted to leave

[elwaclaret]

That's basically the theme of this thread. And every other since we voted to leave

Why I’m interested more how this is playing for history, the answers to all the issues is nicely boxed if anyone bothers to look hard enough. We have rules and politicians who don’t know them.... time for the speaker to point the way, as eventually he surely must.

[AndyClaret]

The default legal option is still no deal, apparently EU sentiment is hardening and the last thing they want is us taking part in EU elections, word is they are starting to this no deal is better than a long extension.