Brexit deal

[Boomstick]

TRB

The EU cannot require us to do any such thing.

What they can and absolutely SHOULD do is require our Govt to have a clear strategy for what it is going to do with the delay, so that we don't end up in the same shit show in 1, 3, 6, 12 or 24 months time.

If the Govt decides that it can't do that without a Ref2 or a GE, that is entirely the Govt's choice.

Equally, the Govt could choose to rescind A50. What it can't do is to decide to crash out with No Deal, because Parliament has instructed it not to do so in any circumstances.

Be clear about this, because the nutter Right will start the lies very soon. Whatever we do after May goes to Brussels will be OUR decision. WE have brought this f**king mess on ourselves. None of it is the fault of the EU.

We can leave without a deal, that vote wasn't legally binding.
If the one of the EU countries veto any extension to article 50 then it probably will happen.
What's more likely is they vote for mays deal, and tell bercow to do one. 

I understand what yiyr saying is what you want to happen in that circumstance, but in reality it won't.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I see you're one of these "Take Back Control" wags who interpret that to mean "drive a coach and horses through our democratic processes."

If the Govt ignored a vote by Parliament on such a historically important issue, you're into the biggest constitutional crisis of all time, because you'd have a Govt deliberately going against the will of the Sovereign body of the country. The Government rules with Parliament's consent. The Speaker is there to see that all sides operate according to established precedent. The Govt isn't some omnipotent dictator that can ram through whatever actions it wishes. That system has served us well for centuries. You seem to think it's dispensible. Fascinating. I don't recall that being on the ballot paper in 2016.

As for any EU country blocking an extension of A50 and thereby wrecking the policy established by our Parliament, I assume that you, great patriot that you are, would be infuriated by that, and would demand answers from any British national who'd helped facilitate it?

Or doesn't it matter as long as you can troll the libs?

[Boomstick]

So your saying the government should ignore the will of the people and rekoke article 50?

That would remove all semblance of democracy, government and rule of law.
We really would be in the realms of the unknown.
It certainly isn't a solution.

After all this You've STILL got your remain tinted specs on. It's time to remove them, and think rationally.

[Donnywolf]

Or May could grab the spirit of the proposed Kyle / Wilson amendment (which won't happen now that MV3 won't happen) and propose a Referendum of her dead vs. Remain.

Now there's something I could vote for!

That WOULD be a divisive referendum...

To be fair we could try each for 5 years to see which works best !

[RedJ]

Or May could grab the spirit of the proposed Kyle / Wilson amendment (which won't happen now that MV3 won't happen) and propose a Referendum of her dead vs. Remain.

Now there's something I could vote for!

That WOULD be a divisive referendum...

To be fair we could try each for 5 years to see which works best !

I think if we did that, Father Time would take the decision for us...

[Donnywolf]

Our leaving the EU Minister says " Bercow has decided that the Deal cant come back to Parliament based on a precedent set in 1604"

However there have been such rulings since BUT he failed to mention that most people when their Bills get voted down do not have the "brass neck" to try them again EVEN if they have lost by just 1 vote rather than it getting hammered twice *

* I said twice even though technically it is only once as the Speaker ruled that the Second attempt to get it passed was fundamentally different from the first. Very generous of him

[BillyStubbsTears]

BS.

I'm saying that the Govt doesn't have the right to ride roughshod over the opinion of Parliament. Not practically. Not morally. Not constitutionally. Full stop.

Parliament has not, by the way, done anything to stop Brexit. It has simply blocked two specific forms of Brexit. Neither of which has ever had anything remotely approaching majority support in the general population in poll after poll after poll. I fail to see why that is a democratic outrage.

Now, if the 2016 vote had come out in favour of a defined and specific form of Brexit, and Parliament rejected that, then yes, I'd entirely agree that that would be a very, very bad thing for our democracy. But the 2016 vote didn't specify that, did it. In fact, last night I posted a video from 2016 with many prominent Leave supporters stating explicitly that we could have a firm of Brexit which every one of them now says would be a betrayal.

Hey! Here's a thought! Now that we all know a lot more about the intricacies of the different forms of Brexit, and the pros and cons of each of them, why don't we have another referendum, with multiple options and transferrable votes? Then we can REALLY find out what The Will of The People is.

Can't think why anyone would be against that.

[wing commander]

   In principal I wouldn't be against that but for me it would have to be 2 votes,the first to see if we remain or stay and if its still leave the second on the different options of brexit which Parliament have to proceed with...
   I'm not sure how you can do it in one vote.You cant have Remain,Soft brexit,Hard Brexit,no deal brexit on the same paper as the leave option will be diluted away...

[RedJ]

Not really. If you'd prefer a no deal but put hard Brexit as second choice then they'd get some of that vote too for example.

[BillyStubbsTears]

WingCo.

But that's a flawed process.

The first vote you suggest would have the same flaw as the 2016 vote. It lumps together everyone whose first preference is a specific form of Brexit as having their second choice being ANY form of Brexit. It assumes that someone who wants a very soft, Norway-style Brexit as preferring No Deal to Remain as their second choice. In reality, there would be people who would like a Norway deal ideally, but would reluctantly support Remain rather than a very Hard Brexit.

That's PRECISELY the problem with the 2016 vote. It's because there is ONE thing called Remain, but there is no one thing called Leave . Leave is an umbrella term covering many possible things.

You want proof of that? Farage and many others in 2016 were touting a Norway Brexit. Now the very same people are saying that wouldn't be Brexit at all.

So the ONLY way you can properly do this is to have multiple options in a single vote.

No Deal
May Deal
Norway Deal
Remain.

You rank each one 1-4.

You add up all the first preference votes. If one option gets 50.01%, that wins.
Otherwise you eliminate the choice that comes last, then reallocate all the second choices of the people who voted for that one.

You carry on until an option hits 50.01%

I genuinely cannot see why anyone would not see that as an entirely fair way of really finding out what the country wants.

[BillyStubbsTears]

As expected. The EU are gearing up to politely ask May specifically what the f**k we are planning to do, rather than just give us an extension to allow this shit show to barrel on for another few months.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Peston/status/1107933596701114368

[BillyStubbsTears]

Wing Co.

As I was saying...

https://mobile.twitter.com/GwynneMP/status/1107741970141798401

Complicated, int it?

[RedJ]

https://mobile.twitter.com/Fransfedup/status/1107767663583993859

This sums it up pretty well...

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Wing Co.

As I was saying...

https://mobile.twitter.com/GwynneMP/status/1107741970141798401

Complicated, int it?

This is the problem either way.  On remain it wasn't just remain as is remember, the remain camp had promised and Cameron had agreed changes with the EU already - people seem to forget that bit.  Remain didn't just mean carry on, many wanted a change who voted that way and remain meant many things to many people.  As does leave clearly.  I want us to leave but not on a car crash of a deal and no deal exit.  This is the inherent problem, there is not and never will be a majority for one choice in this situation.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BFYP
Which is why offering a binary referendum on such a nuanced issue was the biggest strategic mistake by our Govt since Suez. It's why Cameron will sit in the bottom handful of PMs in future lists.

Utter stupidity, done for party political reasons, and it's tipped us into this crisis.

[wing commander]

Billy you are going to love this..A reply from my local Mp on the subject of brexit when I mailed him..


Brexit - What the flip is going on?

Residents have been emailing to ask what is happening so here goes.

A few weeks ago I posted a clip of me speaking in the House of Commons in which I stated that residents could see there was a stitch up in Parliament taking place to deny the people what they voted for.

The intervention yesterday of our Remain-supporting Speaker was a further example of this. The Speaker, who has prided himself on being a modernising Speaker prepared to dispense with precedent regularly, decided to rely on a ruling from 1604 to prevent the Government getting us out of the EU via the PM's deal at the very point it looked like it was about to gain the required support.

Why is this important and why now?

In short, the reason this was done is because last week the Commons voted to compel the Prime Minister to seek an extension to Brexit. That motion required only a short extension if the PM had secured backing for her deal before next week, and a much longer one if not. By attempting to take her deal off the table altogether, the Speaker has ensured that a very long extension may need to be negotiated, something the Remainers are clamoring for because they feel the longer the delay, the less likely we are to ever get Brexit.

As for the Speaker, he has twice allowed MPs who are opposed to Brexit to move an amendment known as Cooper-Boles, which is a Brexit wrecking amendment. Apparently, the ruling that you can't bring the same issue twice in one parliamentary session is a selective one. The House of Commons voted down a second referendum last week, but I suspect the Speaker will allow that to be brought back too! Indeed, when he selected the amendment on a second referendum last week, he overlooked one signed by members of 3 parties and over 120 MPs, mainly Brexit supporters seeking to rule out a second referendum, in favour of one moved by a narrow group of Remainer MPs - I wonder why?

I say this with no joy. I supported Speaker Bercow when I was elected, I liked his modernising ways, his commitment to defending the rights of backbenchers and I personally found him a supportive Speaker. In recent years he has overstepped the mark in his dealings with members, he is openly offensive to MPs he personally doesn't like or who dare to question him. He clearly dislikes the Government front bench and seems to have committed himself to making life as difficult as possible for the Government - no bad thing sometimes, but not to the point that the Speaker is no longer an independent arbiter of affairs. Moreover, by declaring himself as anti-Brexit, he has broken the centuries old convention that the Chair remains independent. An irony that a man who has broken so many precedents relied on one from 1604 yesterday to try to 'do a job' on Brexit.

Why are we here?

Well, that is partly on the shoulders of Brexiteers. For months I have been warning that the Commons will never allow a no deal Brexit, as confirmed in the huge vote last week against no deal, and that the only way out was via the PM's deal. That deal, remember, only covers an 18 month period and would have gotten us out legally. In heated discussions with fellow Brexiteers in recent months, I have explained to them my view that the Speaker would make leaving as tricky as possible, Parliament would never allow a no deal Brexit and that the Government would not be able to agree on a no deal Brexit either.

The Government may find a way around this ruling, time will tell, but it is evidence of what I warned about.
 If it wasn't so sad and depressing, I'd be doing the told you so dance right now. I am not though, as I am disgusted at the stitch-up taking place to deny you, me and nearly 70% of local people the thing it is they voted for in a democratic process! I am genuinely appalled!

[ravenrover]

Genuine question, by revoking article 50 now what is there to stop it being resurrected further down the line? Or is it a case of you only get 1 go?

[Boomstick]

Be a back door extension? 

[RedJ]

Genuine question, by revoking article 50 now what is there to stop it being resurrected further down the line? Or is it a case of you only get 1 go?

No reason why it couldn't be invoked again.

[Glyn_Wigley]

So your saying the government should ignore the will of the people and rekoke article 50?

That would remove all semblance of democracy, government and rule of law.
We really would be in the realms of the unknown.
It certainly isn't a solution.

After all this You've STILL got your remain tinted specs on. It's time to remove them, and think rationally.

To quote your own words back at you:

that vote wasn't legally binding

I'm glad you finally appreciated what that phrase means.

[Boomstick]

So your saying the government should ignore the will of the people and rekoke article 50?

That would remove all semblance of democracy, government and rule of law.
We really would be in the realms of the unknown.
It certainly isn't a solution.

After all this You've STILL got your remain tinted specs on. It's time to remove them, and think rationally.

To quote your own words back at you:

that vote wasn't legally binding

I'm glad you finally appreciated what that phrase means.

Maybe, let's see what happens if they revoke it then.

[Glyn_Wigley]

So your saying the government should ignore the will of the people and rekoke article 50?

That would remove all semblance of democracy, government and rule of law.
We really would be in the realms of the unknown.
It certainly isn't a solution.

After all this You've STILL got your remain tinted specs on. It's time to remove them, and think rationally.

To quote your own words back at you:

that vote wasn't legally binding

I'm glad you finally appreciated what that phrase means.

Maybe, let's see what happens if they revoke it then.

What'll happen? Brexit will stop, that's what'll happen.

[Dutch Uncle]

It isn't its the minority shouting there mouths of but a vote is a vote is a vote END OF weather you like it or not

True and you may have seen me post this before on here

A vote is a vote is a vote - so what happened in 1976 ? 66% voted Remain 34 % voted Leave. Thats a 10 times bigger majority than 2016

The Tory euro sceptics never respected it and their spawn are still at it 40 years later
So is that a vote you accept whether you voted for Leave or Remain ?

I am going to put my own point of view that many on here will strongly disagree with, as is their absolute right. I am not trying to 'convert' anyone.

After a criminal conviction, if new evidence comes to light an appeal is usually allowed involving a re-trial.

I see similarities here. Since the 2016 referendum much information not widely known at the time has become available. This includes the real pros and cons of Brexit versus remain - all those useful little organisations we will be leaving and the real net financial costs once EU regional and educational benefits are taken into account. The time consuming and non trivial nature of setting up Trade Agreements with other countries. Also now known are irregularities in the leave campaign and possible outside interference. Not least we now all know the real threat to peace in Northern Ireland and the 1998 Good Friday agreement that a hard border would present.

Above all we now have a good idea of what sort of deal is achievable, whereas at the time of the referendum we had absolutely no idea.   

For me that is reasonable grounds for a second vote on something we now all know much more about.

Just my opinion - I believe in democracy, but also in pragmatism.

[Donnywolf]

Nowt wrong with that for me

a) Very reasonable grounds for a second vote (third I would say but better not quote 76 again)

b) I too believe in democracy (could be improved by PR)

c) Also it would be pragmatic - I mean we simply NEED to solve this soon !

Perhaps Cameron made a second mistake when calling his Referendum by not saying for anything to change the Leave vote must be at least 66% rather than allowing there to be a Vote that could have ended 50.1 v 49.9 and very nearly did

[BillyStubbsTears]

Genuine question, by revoking article 50 now what is there to stop it being resurrected further down the line? Or is it a case of you only get 1 go?

No reason why it couldn't be invoked again.

Any country can invoke  and rescind A50 whenever it pleases and as often as it pleases.

Whether it's sensible to dick around with the EU like that when our future security and prosperity depends on a grown up and sensible relationship with them is another question altogether.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Couldn't agree more Dutch. Very firmly and sensibly put.

The only thing I'd add (and frankly, it beggars belief that neither Corbyn nor May have once raised this) is that the man who put the highest personal political donation of all time into the Leave campaign is currently being investigated by the National Crime Agency, after being referred by the Electoral Commission who found reasonable grounds to believe that he had committed multiple criminal actions in respect of that donation. Specifically, that he broke the law by feeding money into the Leave campaign from non-UK (read: "Russian") sources.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/our-work/roles-and-responsibilities/our-role-as-regulator-of-political-party-finances/sanctions/report-on-investigation-into-payments-made-to-better-for-the-country-and-leave.eu

That alone is an open and shut case for discounting the 2016 vote and re-starting the process.

[Donnywolf]

Is that what would have happened as of right BST IF the Referendum had been "binding" or "mandatory"

BUT

because it was only advisory the misbehaviour / crime can be ignored

[BillyStubbsTears]

Read this thread.

https://mobile.twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1107988238118121472

Jesus wept. We're 7 working days from leaving and that void that calls itself PM can't even decide what to ask the EU for an extension.

A career made of non-decisions. Never committing to anything.

She's the political equivalent of Mark Wilson.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Dunno Wolf.

What I do know is that in 2016, before the vote, Theresa May as Home Secretary is believed to have vetoed a request by MI6 to be allowed to investigate Arron Banks, due to their suspicions that he was a Russian agent.

She's been asked to confirm or deny this time and time again in the House. Every time she's used a preposterous excuse to avoid answering.

[BillyStubbsTears]

EU: Your Parliament has voted to delay Brexit. What length of delay would you like Mrs May? Long or short?

May: Long AND short.

EU: And what do you plan to do during the extension Mrs May, to bring this issue to a close?

May: Strong AND stable.

EU: What sort of deal do you think would be acceptable to your Parliament Mrs May?

May: No Deal is better than a bad deal.

EU: Come on! It's been nearly three years now. You MUST have some idea what Brexit you want?

May: Brexit means Brexit. My mind is going. I can feel it. I learned a little song. Would you like to hear it? Daisy.....Daaaaaiiiiizzzzeeee...giiiiiiivvvvve meeeee yooooooouuuuurrrrr....