[Politics] Brexit

[Mellotron]

No MP should go against the public.

Actually, we vote in MPs to do precisely that. They make decisions to protect the British public, often from itself.

Also, again, it’s not “the public”. About 30% of “the public” wanted Brexit, and it’s almost certainly quite a lot less now. So they’d probably be going against the wishes of about 20-25% of the public.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

We voted to leave 3 years ago. No MP should go against the public.

MPs are elected to vote on our behalf as they see fit. This is how it has always worked.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

MPs are elected to vote on our behalf as they see fit. This is how it has always worked.

They are employed to get Brexit done, not disrupt the process just because they don't like the result, it doesn't work like that. It's a bloody disgrace and everyone knows it.

 

[pastafarian]

The house voted against a no-deal a few months ago. No PM should go against the house.

But as you know even if the house says they do not wish a no-deal they cannot unilaterally change the contents of the Lisbon treaty which provides the treaties to expire and the notifying leaving country to leave without a withdrawal agreement in place. The PM has every right, the protestations of the house against no deal are not law. It is impossible to make a no deal scenario illegal without ripping up the Lisbon Treaty first and causing the mother of all constitutional crisis.

 

[melias shoes]

Leave then, what is stopping you?

The remainers.

 

[melias shoes]

Actually, we vote in MPs to do precisely that. They make decisions to protect the British public, often from itself.

Also, again, it’s not “the public”. About 30% of “the public” wanted Brexit, and it’s almost certainly quite a lot less now. So they’d probably be going against the wishes of about 20-25% of the public.

Clutching at straws.

 

[pastafarian]

Leave then, what is stopping you?

you suggested just after the vote on here that the UK should just fruck off without any negotiations and just leave, plenty of people since looking at the backstop protocol in the draft withdrawal agreement are coming round to your no-deal thinking......you were a pioneer and you didnt even realise it.

 

[ManOfSussex]

They are employed to get Brexit done, not disrupt the process just because they don't like the result, it doesn't work like that. It's a bloody disgrace and everyone knows it.

If the eclectic assortment of cranks, oddballs, toffs, English eccentrics and Orangeman creationists stuck in the 1690s and 1930s AKA The ERG and The DUP had voted for The Withdrawal Agreement, we'd have left by now. Instead, they developed faux outrage that Johnny Foreigner in Brussels and the Fenian devil himself - The Irish Taoiseach - had stitched them all up.

 

[WATFORD zero]

The remainers.

Nope, I'll give you a clue

you suggested just after the vote on here that the UK should just fruck off without any negotiations and just leave, plenty of people since looking at the backstop protocol in the draft withdrawal agreement are coming round to your no-deal thinking......you were a pioneer and you didnt even realise it.

The unpalatable versus the unimplementable ?



That's the reason why the Leave voters have spent the last 3 years arguing about what they want and voting against one another

The remainers, just like the EU, have been little more than bemused bystanders

 

[melias shoes]

you suggested just after the vote on here that the UK should just fruck off without any negotiations and just leave, plenty of people since looking at the backstop protocol in the draft withdrawal agreement are coming round to your no-deal thinking......you were a pioneer and you didnt even realise it.

 

[Baldseagull]

But as you know even if the house says they do not wish a no-deal they cannot unilaterally change the contents of the Lisbon treaty which provides the treaties to expire and the notifying leaving country to leave without a withdrawal agreement in place. The PM has every right, the protestations of the house against no deal are not law. It is impossible to make a no deal scenario illegal without ripping up the Lisbon Treaty first and causing the mother of all constitutional crisis.

They don't need to change the Lisbon treaty, (which also provides for extensions to the deadline if all parties are in agreement). It is within UK parliaments sovereignty to say that to leave without a deal would not be legal for the UK Prime minister to allow. There are 3 ways in which it can be avoided, 2 of which require agreement with the EU, but the third is a unilateral revocation of A50, and is entirely within the power of the UK to do so, whether the EU like it or not.

 

[pastafarian]

The unpalatable versus the unimplementable ?

View attachment 112531

That's the reason why the Leave voters have spent the last 3 years arguing about what they want and voting against one another

Dont fret ,we will leave the European Union.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

They are employed to get Brexit done, not disrupt the process just because they don't like the result, it doesn't work like that. It's a bloody disgrace and everyone knows it.

The House of Commons very duty is “disrupt the process” if they see fit. This is from their website “Parliament is an essential part of UK politics. Its main roles are examining and challenging the work of the government, debating and passing all laws and enabling the Government to raise taxes”

https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/

It’s no wonder the country is such a mess when people are so ignorant about how their own country operates. You voted to regain sovereignty....and you don’t even know what this basic fundamental of British politics is.

 

[Baldseagull]

They are employed to get Brexit done, not disrupt the process just because they don't like the result, it doesn't work like that. It's a bloody disgrace and everyone knows it.

Are you saying they should have voted Mays deal through?

 

[Mellotron]

Clutching at straws.

Facts and figures aren’t really “clutching at straws”, buddy.

I would’ve been fine with a soft Brexit, which would’ve been the fairest compromise. It’s the hardliners/ERG etc who have stopped Brexit.

 

[Mellotron]

They are employed to get Brexit done, not disrupt the process just because they don't like the result, it doesn't work like that. It's a bloody disgrace and everyone knows it.

Sorry but this is nonsense and suggests you don’t understand how the parliamentary process works. They are not “employed to get Brexit done”, what bollocks.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

They are employed to get Brexit done, not disrupt the process just because they don't like the result, it doesn't work like that. It's a bloody disgrace and everyone knows it.

MPs are elected to run the country in the best interests of all the country. Brexit is part of the procedure, but there are a lot of considerations to be taken into account. The Nationl Farmers Union are saying a no deal would be disastrous for their members, for example, as is the CBI.
Life isn't as simple as get on with it.

 

[pastafarian]

If the eclectic assortment of cranks, oddballs, toffs, English eccentrics and Orangeman creationists stuck in the 1690s and 1930s AKA The ERG and The DUP had voted for The Withdrawal Agreement, we'd have left by now. Instead, they developed faux outrage that Johnny Foreigner in Brussels and the Fenian devil himself - The Irish Taoiseach - had stitched them all up.

I dont like applauding class warriors generally but for you my little class warrior i will make an exception. You are one of the few on here to recognise that it would have needed both the ERG and The DUP to have voted for the withdrawal deal to make it happen-this is correct voting mathematics when you look at the individuals who voted against the deal. Those that say its the fault solely of The ERG simply havnt done their parliamentary arithmetic and just make themselves look at a bit stupid. Especially when you look at the numbers of the first and second meaningful vote, which are in effect the only meaningful votes that matter.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Dont fret ,we will leave the European Union.

That's almost as reassuring as these posts when you insisted we would leave on March 31st 2019

Then vote in a political party in government that promises a referendum and then will start the process of legislation for another European Union Referendum Act. This is how the first referendum was achieved democratically.
Don’t forget to get all this done by march 2019, when we are out anyway.

Have any of you second referendumers factored in Gina Miller? She will go batshit crazy if parliament is taken out the loop. She will have any vote up in front of the courts, that delay will ensure the March deadline expires and no time for anything except all the treaties cease to apply and we are OUT.

If there is no withdrawal agreement in place the treaties cease to apply on march 30, we have therefore left with no withdrawal deal in place.
Stop believing idiots on twitter. A deal or no deal referendum would still be legally non binding, it would not force other legislation to be renaged on. Parliament is sovereign, if Parliament acted on its result, they would legislate for it and repeal where necessary.

But, I'm sure that this time, just like Johnson, you REALLY mean it

 

[Mellotron]

Be interesting to see if any Leavers are willing to take this quandary on, although I doubt it;

As we all know, at the time of the Brexit vote it was confirmed to be advisory and non-binding legally. Of course, the Government later went against their own word and changed the outcome of the vote to binding. We also know that it was confirmed by the official Leave campaign that we would “only leave with a negotiated deal in place”. Again, went back on it and no doubt a fair few Leavers appear to be fine with this duplicity.

As a Leaver, are you therefore either -

A) Fine with the Government going back on their word when it suits you, but not ok with them going back on it when it doesn’t, thus rendering you a massive hypocrite and losing any credibility in debate.

Or

B) Fine for the Government to change its mind again, and have a 2nd ref or even just stop Brexit altogether.

Which is it - massive hypocrite with no credibility who just cares about some childish notion of “winning”, or happy to acknowledge that MPs have the power to stop Brexit and that it’s within their right as our elected representatives?