Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

[dobmisterdobster]

14 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Parliament supported the government in order to enact leaving the EU as mandated by the referendum.    It was the right and democratic path based on the government acting in best faith to leave on reasonable terms (avoiding economic self harm,  etc).      Eventually the penny dropped that the government never have conducted this process in best faith and parliament quite righly withdrew their consent.

 

Easy concept to understand.    Or easy to ignore.    You choose.

That's not how it works. Parliament approved Article 50 and repealing the European Communities Act.

That means we either leave with a deal (which parliament has rejected three times) or we leave with no deal.

[Victorian]

22 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

That's not how it works. Parliament approved Article 50 and repealing the European Communities Act.

That means we either leave with a deal (which parliament has rejected three times) or we leave with no deal.

 

That is how it works.    Parliament votes on bills, etc.     Brought forward by the government.      The government governs within the confidence of parliament.     The government controls parliamentary business but only with the ongoing consent of parliament.    Article 50 was voted on and passed by parliament with the tacit confidence of parliament.     Parliament (individual MPs) is perfectly entitled to change it's mind regarding how confident it is in the government's business.     If parliament expresses a will to prevent the government from pursuing no deal,    that is entirely legitimate,     because the bill and debate to enact article 50 did not implictly contain no deal as a credible or satisfactory 'deal'.

[Victorian]

22 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

That's not how it works. Parliament approved Article 50 and repealing the European Communities Act.

That means we either leave with a deal (which parliament has rejected three times) or we leave with no deal.

 

That is how it works.    Parliament votes on bills, etc.     Brought forward by the government.      The government governs within the confidence of parliament.     The government controls parliamentary business but only with the ongoing consent of parliament.    Article 50 was voted on and passed by parliament with the tacit confidence of parliament.     Parliament (individual MPs) is perfectly entitled to change it's mind regarding how confident it is in the government's business.     If parliament expresses a will to prevent the government from pursuing no deal,    that is entirely legitimate,     because the bill and debate to enact article 50 did not implictly contain no deal as a credible or satisfactory 'deal'.

[Victorian]

33 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

So why did parliament vote against every leave option? Even the one the EU went along with. And you could even say dictated.

 

Because it was not a satisfactory outcome from any reasonable measure of best faith negotiations.      May severely handicapped the prospect of a good deal by imposing her red lines.     The negotiations towards a deal were doomed from the outset.

[Francis Albert]

12 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Because it was not a satisfactory outcome from any reasonable measure of best faith negotiations.      May severely handicapped the prospect of a good deal by imposing her red lines.     The negotiations towards a deal were doomed from the outset.

The EU agreed to it. All 27 of them

 

 

[Victorian]

3 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

The EU agreed to it. All 27 of them

 

 

 

So?     It didn't satisfy parliament.     It is supposedly really, really, really important for the UK to regain sovereignty... our sovereign parliament rejected May's deal.     Perfectly legitimate.    

[Francis Albert]

4 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

So?     It didn't satisfy parliament.     It is supposedly really, really, really important for the UK to regain sovereignty... our sovereign parliament rejected May's deal.     Perfectly legitimate.    

It chose by an overwhelmingly majority to hold a supposedly binding refrendum. It then got re-elected on a commitment to respect the referendum vote.

 Sovereignty?  Every dictator and feudal king would go along with your definition

 

[redjambo]

3 hours ago, dobmisterdobster said:

Parliament might be supreme whatever that means but they cannot govern. Only the government can govern.

 

"A Parliamentary democracy is where the democratic governance of a state features an executive branch (the part of government with the authority and responsibility for the daily administration of the state) which derives legitimacy from, and is held accountable to, the legislature (Parliament, with the power to enact, amend and repeal laws)."

[Unknown user]

12 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

Do people think the house will be able to pass legislation to prevent a no deal and the government will act on it?

**** knows what will happen B, but it'll twist and turn like a twisty turny thing

[Costanza]

17 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

It chose by an overwhelmingly majority to hold a supposedly binding refrendum. It then got re-elected on a commitment to respect the referendum vote.

 Sovereignty?  Every dictator and feudal king would go along with your definition

 

The referendum wasn't binding, it was advisory. A small point but an accurate one. 

 

As for the election, over 50% of the votes were for parties who ruled out no deal.

There is no mandate for leaving with no deal.

 

What there is a mandate for is a soft leave based on the narrow Leave vote. 

We can argue about politicians playing games on either side but no deal should not be an option. 

Unless you want to make money shorting Sterling of course.

[dobmisterdobster]

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

 

That is how it works.    Parliament votes on bills, etc.     Brought forward by the government.      The government governs within the confidence of parliament.     The government controls parliamentary business but only with the ongoing consent of parliament.    Article 50 was voted on and passed by parliament with the tacit confidence of parliament.     Parliament (individual MPs) is perfectly entitled to change it's mind regarding how confident it is in the government's business.     If parliament expresses a will to prevent the government from pursuing no deal,    that is entirely legitimate,     because the bill and debate to enact article 50 did not implictly contain no deal as a credible or satisfactory 'deal'.

That's where you are wrong. No deal is the legal default of Article 50. It's up to parliament to accept a deal but they rejected one three times.

It is written into law that we leave the EU on October 31st unless the Prime Minister successfully negotiates an extension.

[dobmisterdobster]

31 minutes ago, Costanza said:

The referendum wasn't binding, it was advisory. A small point but an accurate one. 

 

As for the election, over 50% of the votes were for parties who ruled out no deal.

There is no mandate for leaving with no deal.

 

What there is a mandate for is a soft leave based on the narrow Leave vote. 

We can argue about politicians playing games on either side but no deal should not be an option. 

Unless you want to make money shorting Sterling of course.

The referendum wasn't binding. That doesn't matter.

It gave the government of the time permission to pursue legislation to invoke Article 50 and trigger a repeal of the European Communities Act on exit day.

 

Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty defaults to a no deal if time runs out and a deal isn't ratified in time. It doesn't matter what the manifestos of the major political parties say.

[Costanza]

1 minute ago, dobmisterdobster said:

The referendum wasn't binding. That doesn't matter.

It gave the government of the time permission to pursue legislation to invoke Article 50 and trigger a repeal of the European Communities Act on exit day.

 

Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty defaults to a no deal if time runs out and a deal isn't ratified in time. It doesn't matter what the manifestos of the major political parties say.

Technically yes but you're not going to tell me that No Deal is the best outcome for the UK, nor that it carries a majority in any vote taken in the last 3 years.

Article 50 should never have been triggered or approved in Parliament until an agreed deal was arrived at.

More fool any MP who voted to trigger it.

 

[Victorian]

3 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

That's where you are wrong. No deal is the legal default of Article 50. It's up to parliament to accept a deal but they rejected one three times.

It is written into law that we leave the EU on October 31st unless the Prime Minister successfully negotiates an extension.

 

Not the point.

 

Parliament approved article 50 within the normal parameters of confidence in the government.      The government was mandated to deliver the Brexit that was described by the leave campaign during the referendum campaign,    as well as afterwards.     The majority of parliament were profoundly against a no deal outcome.     The government was not issued with a blank cheque to grossly mismanage the negotiations.    The current government has absolutely no mandate to pursue no deal,    although it dishonestly insists otherwise.

 

The government was entrusted with the process and no deal was naturally set as the legal default to maximise the strength of it's hand.     That government and this one have both abused their respective briefs.     Mandates are being abused,  twisted and invented.     The public and parliament are being mugged off as simpletons.     Past their use to the hardline zealots.     Thankfully it might not be too late.

[Boris]

3 hours ago, dobmisterdobster said:

They refused to support a deal three times. Therefore no deal.

Huge difference between being defeated on legislation and in a no confidence vote.

Bit of a leap!

[Cade]

Boris expected to ask the Privy Council to prorogue Parliament today.

 

 

[The Mighty Thor]

6 minutes ago, Cade said:

Boris expected to ask the Privy Council to prorogue Parliament today.

 

 

[Don Dan]

This is about to get interesting, sailing uncharted waters without a map or a rudder!

 

[Don Dan]

3 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

Proroguing Parliament will not end well. It will result in a epic mess. 

 

It’s short sighted beyond belief.

 

The tories are getting ready for an election imo.

 

All the signs are there for an early election. There will be some difficult decisions for the electorate at this GE.

[gashauskis9]

The cross party clown show’s decision yesterday to take a vote of no confidence off the table and pursue alternative proceedings instead has played right into Boris’ hands here.  They can’t really take control of the order paper if parliament is suspended.  No time to fix it now, they had the chance and ****ed it up multiple times.  History will be harsher on them than it will be on May, Boris etc sadly.  They should be ashamed of themselves.

[Brighton Jambo]

No deal it is then.  

 

All of a sudden Teresa’s deal looks like utopia.  It makes me so so mad that Corbyn and labour didn’t vote for that deal.  Even Jacob Reese Mogg voted for it for gods sake but because he wanted to play politics this is where we end up.

 

Its all very well all these parties getting together yesterday to avoid No deal but they have had three chances to vote through a deal and haven’t done every time.  When the day comes they take more blame than anyone for us not having a deal.

 

p.s.  I fully recognise the Tories and BJ are responsible for the overall mess but at least they voted for the damn deal.  

Edited August 28, 2019 by Brighton Jambo

[Victorian]

Gangsterism at it's most overt.     Dictatorship of a kind.     Not of one single figure but of a small gang of zealots with little more than self interest as a motivation.     What an abomination.

[kingantti1874]

5 minutes ago, Brighton Jambo said:

No deal it is then.  

 

All of a sudden Teresa’s deal looks like utopia.  It makes me so so mad that Corbyn and labour didn’t vote for that deal.  Even Jacob Reese Mogg voted for it for gods sake but because he wanted to play politics this is where we end up.

 

Its all very well all these parties getting together yesterday to avoid No deal but they have had three chances to vote through a deal and haven’t done every time.  When the day comes they take more blame than anyone for us not having a deal.

 

p.s.  I fully recognise the Tories and BJ are responsible for the overall mess but at least they voted for the damn deal.  

Imagine holding a referrendum and defining th question afterwards.. this will not end well, do people seriously believe the aggro will stop if we leave 😆

 

 

[Brighton Jambo]

Assuming they-can still have a vote of no confidence let’s see f Corbyn will do what’s in the best interests of this country and step aside to let a unity government be headed up by people the majority of parliament would back.

i bet you any money he won’t as all the way through this he desperation to get into number ten has taken precedence over the good of the country.

[kingantti1874]

10 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

 

All the signs are there for an early election. There will be some difficult decisions for the electorate at this GE.

tactical voting all over the shop.. 

[Don Dan]

3 minutes ago, Brighton Jambo said:

No deal it is then.  

 

All of a sudden Teresa’s deal looks like utopia.  It makes me so so mad that Corbyn and labour didn’t vote for that deal.  Even Jacob Reese Mogg voted for it for gods sake but because he wanted to play politics this is where we end up.

 

Its all very well all these parties getting together yesterday to avoid No deal but they have had three chances to vote through a deal and haven’t done every time.  When the day comes they take more blame than anyone for us not having a deal.

 

p.s.  I fully recognise the Tories and BJ are responsible for the overall mess but at least they voted for the damn deal.  

 

I’m of the opinion that there will be a deal. The backstop will go and replaced with goodness knows what. It will go though. 

Remember this is a transition deal the real deal is yet to be done. 

[Brighton Jambo]

3 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Gangsterism at it's most overt.     Dictatorship of a kind.     Not of one single figure but of a small gang of zealots with little more than self interest as a motivation.     What an abomination.

Maybe but if other parties had voted through the deal on offer we wouldn’t be in this position.  But for the same reasons of self interest they didn’t.  

Edited August 28, 2019 by Brighton Jambo

[kingantti1874]

2 minutes ago, Brighton Jambo said:

Maybe but if other parties had voted through the deal on offer we wouldn’t be in this position.  But for the same reasons of self interest they didn’t.  

maybe if we’d defined what the actual deal was before asking people to vote on it we wouldn’t have this problem. 

[Don Dan]

4 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

 

The tories are already amping up their traditional values ie. tough on crime, tax cuts, promises to spend. Whilst, if they are forced to have a GE, prior to any deal/leaving the tories will frame it as people v politicians and probably be quite successful in selling that narrative. 

 

This is a fecking joke and carnage will ensue from it. 

 

I’m far from convinced corbyn and co even win a no confidence vote.

 

Corbyn for me is the problem. If Labour had another leader who wasn’t so far to the left none of this would have happened. But that’s a different political discussion regarding his policies. An Yvette Cooper type leader would have garnered more support. Imo 

[Don Dan]

1 minute ago, kingantti1874 said:

maybe if we’d defined what the actual deal was before asking people to vote on it we wouldn’t have this problem. 

 

That would have be the ideal position but we would never have come up with a deal in a month of Sunday’s. What we need to do now is agree a deal then ask the people. Deal or no Deal or Revoke. 

[Justin Z]

The lengths some people are willing to go to, to blame others in order to give their favoured leaders a pass is honestly astonishing.

[Brighton Jambo]

3 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

The lengths some people are willing to go to, to blame others in order to give their favoured leaders a pass is honestly astonishing.

There is literally not one leader here who isn’t to blame in some form or another.  Not one.

 

BJ - goes without saying what his part in this shambles is

Corbyn - as culpable as BJ for the mess

Sturgeon - could have voted for the deal and so avoid no deal - didnt do so

 

etc etc 

 

Edited August 28, 2019 by Brighton Jambo

[Unknown user]

3 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

The lengths some people are willing to go to, to blame others in order to give their favoured leaders a pass is honestly astonishing.

☝️

[AlphonseCapone]

Any 2014 no voters wanting independence yet? 

[Don Dan]

I’ve plenty of stocks 50p each or 2 for a £1. I accept American Express or Paypal.

 

 

 

 

[redjambo]

Just now, AlphonseCapone said:

Any 2014 no voters wanting independence yet? 

 

I am, but I wouldn't necessarily say that this is reflective of the greater electorate.

[Unknown user]

Just now, redjambo said:

 

I am, but I wouldn't necessarily say that this is reflective of the greater electorate.

 

It doesn't need to be, only a small swing is needed

[Victorian]

There's definitely an election happening and it'll be an insufferable mushroom cloud of shit.       We'll have already been crashed out with no deal and this monstrosity will still be rumbling on.      The new battlegound will be over the future trading deal with the EU.     Soft Brexit / Hard Brexit moves on a stage.     Brexit Party trying to take advantage by menacing the government into an even worse situation than is necessary,  etc.

[AlphonseCapone]

5 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

I am, but I wouldn't necessarily say that this is reflective of the greater electorate.

 

I'm surprised there hasn't been more polls since the last swing to Yes. 

[Justin Z]

[Brighton Jambo]

5 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

I'm surprised there hasn't been more polls since the last swing to Yes. 

At the risk of de-railing the thread so am I.  It’s an almost perfect storm right now and there has been one poll that showed only a slight majority for independence.  By rights it should be above the 60% mark given everything.  

 

 

[Justin Z]

5 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

 

Thats the thing thats that’s surprises me, there hasn’t been a major shift from no to yes. I don’t really get why.

 

Every reasonable no voter I have ever spoken to was just basically a big fearty. Doubt that's changed much.

[Who_put_the_ball_in...]

Go on Boris let the will of he people be heard and down with the traitors that try and block democracy. We voted to remain in the Uk and we will. We the British people voted to leave the EU now let’s see it happen. 

[Ibrahim Tall]

11 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

 

Thats the thing thats that’s surprises me, there hasn’t been a major shift from no to yes. I don’t really get why.

 

 

 

Tbh there’s a good number who’ll never change their opinion whatever the consequences or benefits. Being ‘British’ is their entire identity and no argument will ever change that, likewise there’s a number on the ‘yes’ side that would never change.

 

For the remainder, things haven’t greatly changed yet tbh. We’ve still not left, the economy hasn’t completely collapsed(yet), there isn’t mass unemployment(yet) etc. For a lot people brexit isn’t really a reality yet and the huge delays are part of that. If it does happen you’ll probably start getting far more movement I’d imagine.

[Cade]

Bercow is livid.

 

He'll now let Parliament do anything.

 

 

[1953]

Suspend parliament for a month to prevent yesterday's proposed legislation going through, good grief, how about they all go back early and work together to sort out this monumental mess, should have done this 3 years ago and didn't so won't happen now. They are all complicit in this but whenever the next election happens we'll no doubt have the same incompetents to choose from.

[redjambo]

33 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Every reasonable no voter I have ever spoken to was just basically a big fearty. Doubt that's changed much.

 

You're normally an excellent poster. Not with this one though.

[Brighton Jambo]

1.  No time to introduce legislation blocking 'no deal' now

2.  Boris now saying he wont resign immediately in event of no confidence vote meaning election would be after the leave date. So means no deal.

3.  If he is bluffing with EU he is doing a good job, they may move they may not.

 

If they don't and we have general election after we have left:

 

4.  Brexit party disintegrates and all leavers vote for Conservatives

5.  All 'remain' votes split between other parties who would be forced to declare whether they would apply to rejoin EU as part of manifesto (will get so messy for them as Tories can just talk about local issues and they will be stuck in Brexit muck still)

 

Tories win a majority, Boris has made it clear he wont allow another Scottish referendum until 2021 at earliest and so on we go.

 

That's my predictions....

 

 

[Brighton Jambo]

1 minute ago, Lord BJ said:

 

I think your probably not a million miles away. 

 

Though I suspect we will see things like legal challenges, mp’s sitting in a church, widespread protests and politicians taking all manner of unheard actions which may change the goalposts. I wouldn’t be surprised if we ended up in space where we weren’t sure if we were in the EU or not!

 

I wonder what the EU make of all this?

 

 

That's an interesting point.  Imagine if the EU said that although technically and legally you are out as far as we are concerned all this carry on as normal until the outcome of your general election (which would only be days away).  The Tories would then have no choice but to stand on a no deal brexit manifesto as it would be clear a deal couldn't be reached and suddenly they are up against it.  They would still win though as remain will be split amongst all the other parties.

[Ibrahim Tall]

1 minute ago, Brighton Jambo said:

That's an interesting point.  Imagine if the EU said that although technically and legally you are out as far as we are concerned all this carry on as normal until the outcome of your general election (which would only be days away).  The Tories would then have no choice but to stand on a no deal brexit manifesto as it would be clear a deal couldn't be reached and suddenly they are up against it.  They would still win though as remain will be split amongst all the other parties.

 

Not necessarily if they don’t get a majority. If the ‘split’ is enough for a Labour/Lib Dem/SNP coalition for example calling for another referendum that could derail things potentially. 

Could easily see a ‘no deal’ Tory party dropping more seats than it picks up.