[Politics] Brexit

[WATFORD zero]

Mildly amusing but the credit should go to the person who thought of it ..

https://twitter.com/julianpopov/status/1185664196178042880

On the same basis, this 'good deal' of Johnson's that you have been waiting so patiently for, was the deal Theresa May had outlined before she decided to call an election and then had to rely on the DUP.

Shouldn't you be giving credit to the person who thought of your 'good deal' ?

 

[clapham_gull]

Yet once again The Speaker stops the government from doing the duty as per the wishes of the people.

Making it up as you go along as usual.

Unfortunately your Masters cocked it up again. This is typical Cummings, drop a bomb walk off and try and blame someone else.

It was CLEAR on Saturday there wouldn't be a vote today after the Tories walked out.

Typical Tory, blame someone else.

 

[Wardy's twin]

I find it bizarre how remainers fail to understand that the referendum was advisory but MPs ( of different parties ) decided to accept that advise and vote through ( with a decent majority ) the triggering of Article 50. So Parliament approved of Brexit.

thats simple they made a mistake the same as those who voted leave because they believed the hype. In the cold light of day they have seen that Brexit as described was a sham and they have changed their minds. A second referendum or election will reflect current thinking not something which is now 3 years out of date. IF the country voted leave now that's what we would have to do.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Yet once again The Speaker stops the government from doing the duty as per the wishes of the people.

Some of your 'could do a job' signing suggestions are looking far more sensible than the complete uninformed bollox you are posting on this thread

 

[BensGrandad]

thats simple they made a mistake the same as those who voted leave because they believed the hype. In the cold light of day they have seen that Brexit as described was a sham and they have changed their minds. A second referendum or election will reflect current thinking not something which is now 3 years out of date. IF the country voted leave now that's what we would have to do.

The problem wouldn't have existed if we had left in 2016 as per the referendum and if another was held now with the same result we would be back here in 2022 arguing the same points if the MPs do what they want and not what the electorate want

 

[WATFORD zero]

They will do whatever they can to thwart Brexit. Won't allow the public to give their verdict on this failed zombie parliament, running away from a General election, won't allow a vote when they think they might lose. Also amusing to see so many 2nd referendum remainers supporting the idea that it's wrong to keep voting on the same issue ....

Voting on something that even the Government front bench by their own admittance and as displayed today, haven't read and are unable to answer questions on. And a 'plan' and for which there has been no economic impact analysis and for which the Government don't want to conduct an economic analysis. Wonder why that may be ?

Because it all went so well last time there was a vote based on so little information

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Where's the tangible benefit i.e. what EU law has been implemented without GB's approval? At the moment the Brexiteer's main argument is 'leave means leave' and ignores compromise and consensus. What you are talking about is potentail future situations not something that actually benefits people in the here and now.

The point made by yourself ( and dingodan) is that you don't trust Europeans (including our UK elected MEPs) to do the right thing but you are happy for people like Rees-Mogg etc to make decisions for you. Rees-Mogg who still goes out fox hunting despite it being against the law and that 85% of the population want it to stop. He does not believe in consensus , he believes in self improvement at the expense of anyone else.

I don't know your background. I voted remain, not because I believe the EU to be perfect but because I saw no gain from leaving and only risks. i also know that people talking about WTO as way forward really don't understand that few countries rely on WTO , most join some form of trade association. i also know that we will get no favours from the US so staying in a European power block gives us other advantages.

Each to his own I guess.

Of course WTO is a disasterous way to proceed. No one should want to rush into that for the sake of it.

I'd join EFTA and inherit their 29 FTAs on day 1, replacing them as and when it is advantageous. I'd also negotiate some level of EEA access.

Of course being in the EU customs union - if that is amended onto the deal - would kybosh all the above - an EFTA state cannot be in the EU CU - and would, in my opinion, bungle brexit.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

thats simple they made a mistake the same as those who voted leave because they believed the hype. In the cold light of day they have seen that Brexit as described was a sham and they have changed their minds. A second referendum or election will reflect current thinking not something which is now 3 years out of date. IF the country voted leave now that's what we would have to do.

More than happy for a GE ….. now if only Corbyn had some balls !!!!

 

[Happy Exile]

Yet once again The Speaker stops the government from doing the duty as per the wishes of the people.

I get that people are frustrated, and that people naturally gravitate towards views and news sites and papers that reinforce their opinion rather than make them question things, and that Brexit tends to make people turn off their ability to judge facts, but surely there's a point where natural intelligence, or the human will to have knowledge, or a desire to argue from a foundation of incontrovertible fact instead of unthinkingly repeating nonsense kicks in and those same people might take a step back and look rationally at what's happening? I know this sounds patronising but I feel a bit sorry for people that can't do that.

Believing Bercow is the problem doesn't make it true, and stating that he is the problem or he's stopping anything just shows ignorance of how our democracy, something Leavers apparently love, actually works and stops Governments from breaking the law.

He's upholding and protecting democracy, despite the efforts of the government to weasel their way around it. Not believing that is a choice, but it doesn't alter the fact that its reality and objective truth. Rejecting truth and favouring opinion is what's caused every single one of the Brexit problems so far, so it's not proving a great strategy and it's incredible people are so entrenched they refuse to see it.

 

[Baldseagull]

Fine. But the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. We leave as instructed, then move on.

The journey of a thousand miles begins with a forward step, not a backward one.

 

[Baldseagull]

Aaaah, I see your point now. Wish you'd got to it a little quicker.

By using the example of Brexit, I was showing that the Speaker had appeared to intervene on the result of a referendum which Parliament had agreed by 6:1 to adhere to. The interventions were in some areas unprecedented and APPEARED to be led by his own views on the subject in hand.

Happy to hear of any other past incidents as such.

A minority Government is a rare thing, they don't usually last long because they can't get stuff done. Bercow did one thing that was out of the ordinary, he made time for non government proposals, because he felt there was a majority of the house in favour of those bills, normally this is not something that arises as Governments hold the majority, but it was in the interests of Parliamentary sovereignty to allow them.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Yet once again The Speaker stops the government from doing the duty as per the wishes of the people.

This parliament has already voted 334/85 against holding a second referendum yet I am certain Labour will be allowed by the speaker to have a vote on holding a second referendum in the very near future ....

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Voting on something that even the Government front bench by their own admittance and as displayed today, haven't read and are unable to answer questions on. And a 'plan' and for which there has been no economic impact analysis and for which the Government don't want to conduct an economic analysis. Wonder why that may be ?

Because it all went so well last time there was a vote based on so little information

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ poor, poor, excuse, all this crap about people didn't know why they were voting leave is a remainer invention to somehow give themselves a credible excuse to try and thwart the referendum result, , leave means leave, always has always will
get ready for Brexit
regards
DF

 

[Motogull]

I get that people are frustrated, and that people naturally gravitate towards views and news sites and papers that reinforce their opinion rather than make them question things, and that Brexit tends to make people turn off their ability to judge facts, but surely there's a point where natural intelligence, or the human will to have knowledge, or a desire to argue from a foundation of incontrovertible fact instead of unthinkingly repeating nonsense kicks in and those same people might take a step back and look rationally at what's happening? I know this sounds patronising but I feel a bit sorry for people that can't do that.

Believing Bercow is the problem doesn't make it true, and stating that he is the problem or he's stopping anything just shows ignorance of how our democracy, something Leavers apparently love, actually works and stops Governments from breaking the law.

He's upholding and protecting democracy, despite the efforts of the government to weasel their way around it. Not believing that is a choice, but it doesn't alter the fact that its reality and objective truth. Rejecting truth and favouring opinion is what's caused every single one of the Brexit problems so far, so it's not proving a great strategy and it's incredible people are so entrenched they refuse to see it.

I've just had another interesting chat with my father in law. I had to point out that today's and Saturday's brexit bungling was instigated by a senior Conservative MP. He got that but then refused to accept that it was driven by distrust. Some people will latch on to anything that meets their versions of facts.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Like I said, do let me know when I can vote to elect or remove the EU Commission won't you. Or when any of them stood for and won an election in the first place.

If the UK Parliament operated like the EU does, then it would work something like this:

Boris Johnsons Cabinet (the executive branch) are the only people in the HoC allowed to propose legislation. Others can vote it up or down, but they cannot propose anything themselves.

Oh wait, the Cabinet at least consists of elected MPs. We need to change that.

Appointees like Dominic Cummings are the only people in the HoC allowed to propose legislation. Others can vote it up or down, but they cannot propose anything themselves.

Keep defending it if you want, keep pretending it's perfectly fine, but the fact is people don't like it. They want their Democracy back. That's why people voted to leave.

Whilst me may disagree on this particular point I would never say the EU is perfect, nor that it’s perfectly fine. It has issues for sure that are hugely frustrating for me. But in the round I prefer to be in the EU than out and I expect now the facts are coming out on leaving I suspect the majority of this country will as well. One way to prove it.

 

[vegster]

A minority Government is a rare thing, they don't usually last long because they can't get stuff done. Bercow did one thing that was out of the ordinary, he made time for non government proposals, because he felt there was a majority of the house in favour of those bills, normally this is not something that arises as Governments hold the majority, but it was in the interests of Parliamentary sovereignty to allow them.

Indeed, If May hadn't spaffed her majority trying for a bigger one, this might well have been hammered through. Since then the whole Brexit saga has become like peeling an Onion, every layer seems to reveal another layer of complications and problems.

 

[Hampster Gull]

To be fair, you are on the same page as the tone of my post. You agree with some of what I said and not with other parts ie a debate but without abuse. I will try and respond in the same way (If that all sounds a bit patronising I don't mean it to be!)

I have long supported a second referendum but Parliament had the chance to vote for one (or at least the first steps towards one) but voted against. I cant see how that will change and so that ship has sailed. The next opportunity was the call for a General Election. The opposition refused to demand one and so that ship sailed too. Yesterday was the opportunity for Parliament to move forward and that ship has sailed too.

The only 'solution' now is an immediate General Election and hope to goodness that we don't end up with another hung Parliament. I think maybe all sides of the Brexit argument will be OK with an election but I think a referendum now (prior to an election) would be horribly divisive. However it again rests with the opposition to agree to an election and despite everything and their own rhetoric, there are no signs that they will do so.

When I look it like that, I cant see how we will ever resolve this until an election is due under the fixed term time scale

A general election is now redundant for this purpose, it’s gone to the people and now everyone has more insight into the relative merits they should vote on them. Then we get on with the NHS and stabbing etc. I think anyway, regardless of the merits of the views ,that is where it will end up. But I wouldn’t gamble on it!

 

[beorhthelm]

thats simple they made a mistake the same as those who voted leave because they believed the hype. In the cold light of day they have seen that Brexit as described was a sham and they have changed their minds. A second referendum or election will reflect current thinking not something which is now 3 years out of date. IF the country voted leave now that's what we would have to do.

good luck with that, people are still voting thing happening decades ago, or simply tradition.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ poor, poor, excuse, all this crap about people didn't know why they were voting leave is a remainer invention to somehow give themselves a credible excuse to try and thwart the referendum result, , leave means leave, always has always will
get ready for Brexit
regards
DF

Actually, Leave can mean anything from Theresa May's Deal, Johnson’s Deal, No Deal, a Norway style deal and all the things in between. If there were any evidence to suggest that the 17 million leave voters all wanted the same alternative relationship with the EU, there would be a mandate to leave the EU. But as Leave voters can’t even agree on which version of Leave they want, it stands to reason that, now that we actually know what Leave might look like (if you claim you knew before you’re frankly delusional), the vote should be put back to the people as Johnson’s deal vs Remain.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

The problem wouldn't have existed if we had left in 2016 as per the referendum and if another was held now with the same result we would be back here in 2022 arguing the same points if the MPs do what they want and not what the electorate want

We were never going to leave in 2016. The shower in Westminster can't sort themselves out in three YEARS, let alone the six months left in the year after the referendum!!

What DO the electorate want? And I'm talking NOW, not the 52%/14.7 million or whatever it was? Because there are a few different versions of Brexit knocking around, alongside the option of remaining.

What would be the harm in another referendum, given that this time (in theory) people would be better informed?