[Politics] Brexit

[pastafarian]

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.

where does it say their duty is to "disrupt the process", examining and challenging is not disrupt. Seems you have applied what you want personally to process with no proven justification.

 

[ManOfSussex]

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.

Lovely stuff pasta, thanks. In a nutshell, this thread this morning, and the contribution by you and the 2 other leave voters sums up Brexit perfectly and is why I despair at the whole thing. We've got :

An arrogant, public school pervert who thinks the world dances to our tune just because we're English and it's all tremendous, jolly good fun.
A pair of sound-bite users, bereft of any coherent details because they're not important, who blame parliament for not getting on with it and 'betraying' them because leave means leave/Brexit means Brexit and it's a disgrace/outrage.

You've all got something in common though that's very important - you 'believe.'

 

[Is it PotG?]

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?

Either/either.

Whichever the route, many folks' views on voting, UK democracy and our MPs will be fooked for many years.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Either/either.

Whichever the route, many folks' views on voting, UK democracy and our MPs will be fooked for many years.

Indeed. I've given up on it all - well, not strictly true as I've separated out the greens from all the others as still worth voting for.

In the meantime I am sitting back, devoid of any caring, and waiting to have a hearty laugh when Boris ruins the country ( not in my name ).

 

[Westdene Seagull]

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

I could of course use the remainers argument around the referendum being advisory and point out the vote in the house was only indicative and not binding.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

where does it say their duty is to "disrupt the process", examining and challenging is not disrupt. Seems you have applied what you want personally to process with no proven justification.

One person’s “examining and challenging” is another’s “disrupt the process”.

 

[pastafarian]

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?

The government didnt change the non binding nature of the referendum to be a binding referendum

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Here is a question for you Lincoln Imp how will remainer's stop Brexit in its extreme form. Serious question, Spell it out step by step if you would. Thanks in advance.

Johnson will be hoping for a new manager bounce and with a Tory Party transfixed by the success of the Brexit Party may well get a variant of May's deal through. If he doesn't, the default of no-deal will await and the best way for Johnson to achieve it would be to suspend parliament. This could be headed off by a procedural device which would require the House to sit during mid autumn (e.g.: Dominic Grieve's N Ireland ploy) or a motion of no confidence tabled immediately after the recess to allow enough time for a general election to be held before 31 October.

 

[Mellotron]

The government didnt change the non binding nature of the referendum to be a binding referendum

....Eh? Unless you're being a pedant, in which case yes invoking Article 50 is the "legally binding" bit. Or you're just confirming that it was advisory all along and so can be disregarded.

Regardless, are you willing to respond to the quandary?

 

[pastafarian]

One person’s “examining and challenging” is another’s “disrupt the process”.

you could have simply said .....my bad,ok hold my hands up......it doesnt say anywhere their duty is to disrupt the process.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I could of course use the remainers argument around the referendum being advisory and point out the vote in the house was only indicative and not binding.

Ha. I was waiting for someone to step into my trap. Thanks.

So, if you feel the advisory referendum should be respected then you should also feel the advisory no no-deal should be respected.

 

[Mellotron]

I could of course use the remainers argument around the referendum being advisory and point out the vote in the house was only indicative and not binding.

Ah, so you agree with my point that the Gov can go back on it's own word, and therefore you would have no issue with them doing this yet again if it meant cancelling Brexit. Useful to know, and good to have you on board!

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

you could have simply said .....my bad,ok hold my hands up......it doesnt say anywhere their duty is to disrupt the process.

Stop being deliberately obtuse.

 

[Mellotron]

you could have simply said .....my bad,ok hold my hands up......it doesnt say anywhere their duty is to disrupt the process.

Forget disrupt for a second - if MPs as a whole realise that it would be massively to the detriment of the country to have a No Deal Brexit, then by definition they are doing their job by voting to stop it. That's how parliament works. That's how politics works.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

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.

I thought people have been saying that it has been Brexiteers in general stopping the withdrawal agreement going through rather than specifically the ERG. But if one or two have used 'ERG' as a catch-all I'm not sure it matters greatly. The ERG won't complain.

 

[pastafarian]

....Eh? Unless you're being a pedant, in which case yes invoking Article 50 is the "legally binding" bit. Or you're just confirming that it was advisory all along and so can be disregarded.

Regardless, are you willing to respond to the quandary?

But invoking A50 does not make the referendum binding, it is still an advisory referendum.
Parliament decided to invoke A50 because it offered the country a deciding vote on whether to be in or out of the European Union and the voters decided they wanted the UK to be out of the European Union. Parliament triggering A50 is simply accepting the will of the people and triggering the process that accepts the vote and sees us leaving the European Union with or without a deal according to A50. The only binding thing under A50 is that, if leaving according to it, we ultimately leave at a determined point with or without a deal. But A50 is not binding, if parliament has the balls it can revoke A50, cancel brexit for good, remain in the EU and watch the fireworks rip the country to pieces.

 

[pastafarian]

Forget disrupt for a second - if MPs as a whole realise that it would be massively to the detriment of the country to have a No Deal Brexit, then by definition they are doing their job by voting to stop it. That's how parliament works. That's how politics works.

I cant forget disrupt for a second, he said it was their job to "disrupt". the word disrupt is what we are arguing about

 

[A1X]

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

It seems you're still assuming that No Deal and leaving are the same thing. Almost all of those MPs who don't want to leave with No Deal would be happy to vote through a deal which didn't destroy everything in doing so. Hell even I'd be happy to leave if I thought it was in a way which wasn't extremely damaging (Norway for example).

 

[A1X]

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.

By this logic no MP should ever vote against the Government on anything, as to do so is "disrupting the process because they don't like the result".

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Ha. I was waiting for someone to step into my trap. Thanks.

So, if you feel the advisory referendum should be respected then you should also feel the advisory no no-deal should be respected.

Ah, so you agree with my point that the Gov can go back on it's own word, and therefore you would have no issue with them doing this yet again if it meant cancelling Brexit. Useful to know, and good to have you on board!

The government said it would adhere to the result of the referendum - it has never said it would adhere to the results of the indicative votes. Trap avoided