Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

[Crazyface]

OK,I am more than a little confused now and am playing catch up a bit. From what I can see:

Parlliament agreed that it would have a vote on the final brexit decision
Parliament has voted that there will not be an agreement on no deal.
There is only 1 deal on the table and that cannot be voted on again unless changed and the EU will not change it.

So, we cannot have no deal and we cannot vote on the only deal on the table.

Whilst not that appealing, my view is that we need a 6-12 month delay on Brexit and an immdediate general election whereby all parties must make clear their intentions on the current deal, no deal and no brexit. That would, hopefully, give a workable parliament on brexit as those there would be a majority (even by coalition) who had been elected on the same Brexit message.

Er, we did that 2 years ago. Both Tories and Labour stood on policies that said they will take us out. So that's not a good idea. They just lie to us, surprise surprise.

 

[jp5]

This petition has gone viral and has attracted around 1 million responses. As Dan Walker pointed out on Twitter, there was a guy that wanted free chicken nuggets and got 3.5 million retweets. So far, 3.5 times the number of people that want Article 50 revoked wanted a guy they didn't know to get free chicken nuggets.

Not quite comparing like for like though is it.

 

[GB72]

The issue is that the Parties are themselves split. All the parties voted for a Referendum, they all supported Art 50 - more time = more fighting not less = more entrenchment = more uncertainty for business/people.

The referendum was voted through with a strong Government majority and, in any event, the remainers never envisaged a loss (massive hubris there). Article 50, again, was voted for at a time with a strong majority plus, so near to the initial vote, it would have been political suicide to vote against. The only way to get this through parliament is to have

Er, we did that 2 years ago. Both Tories and Labour stood on policies that said they will take us out. So that's not a good idea. They just lie to us, surprise surprise.

Different question now though. Neither party has put their head above the parapet and said out and out to remain and so both, in technical terms, have been good to their word. The issue is about how we leave (I only mentioned remain as an option as the libdema and TIG will stand on that basis irrespective). As all the cards are now on the table, an election could be fought on no deal or the deal on the table. It is a massive red herring to pretend that there is another deal around the corner. Not having an intentional go at Corbyn but he is bringing up options in parliament that are just no on the table. Any vote has to be based on the realistic options that we now have, of which there are 3 that are clear and defined.

 

[GB72]

I don’t have any issue with that, but we find ourselves in this position because of TM’s negotiating stance, she should of been more open to cross party or internal party politics.
I know it’s simplistic, but if she’d of sorted her own party out she may of got the support to get the deal done.

I do agree that as soon as the result was known, this should have been addressed as a cross party matter rather than be dealt with and negotiated by one side. I would say that hindsight is a wonderful thing but this was obviosu from the start

 

[Foxholer]

...I still don’t get why everytime there’s an issue over the present Government and their performance we get Corbyn brought in to it and use him as the bogeyman....

Because he'd be the 'natural' alternative to a Tory government.

...
I dread JC becoming PM, but if he is elected then surely we’ll get the same people on here saying democracy has spoken and we should accept it.

It would, in fact, make no difference either way - as, given a sufficient majority, UK would be lumbered with him/his party.

But Labour has changed from the party it was in the Blair days. It seems to have gone back to the 'old' style Unions driven Labour, that was simply unelectable!

 

[Foxholer]

OK,I am more than a little confused now and am playing catch up a bit. From what I can see:

Parlliament agreed that it would have a vote on the final brexit decision
Parliament has voted that there will not be an agreement on no deal.
There is only 1 deal on the table and that cannot be voted on again unless changed and the EU will not change it.

So, we cannot have no deal and we cannot vote on the only deal on the table.

Whilst not that appealing, my view is that we need a 6-12 month delay on Brexit and an immdediate general election whereby all parties must make clear their intentions on the current deal, no deal and no brexit. That would, hopefully, give a workable parliament on brexit as those there would be a majority (even by coalition) who had been elected on the same Brexit message.

Parliament might not like it, but No Deal happens on March 29 by default unless a deal or a delay is agreed!

I'm certain that a General Election would not solve this 'crisis'! In all likelihood, it would, imo, make it worse!

 

[GB72]

Parliament might not like it, but No Deal happens on March 29 by default unless a deal or a delay is agreed!

I'm certain that a General Election would not solve this 'crisis'! In all likelihood, it would, imo, make it worse!

Motion in parliament to repeal article 50 would end that and then we have a real constitutional crisis. A general election would remove all of the current facades and force parties and politicians to front up with their real thoughts

 

[ColchesterFC]

Not quite comparing like for like though is it.

Absolutely not. Free chicken nuggets is far more important.

 

[Foxholer]

...
I know it’s simplistic, but if she’d of sorted her own party out she may of got the support to get the deal done.

Indeed (too) simplistic!

1. 'Sorting her own party out' was never going to happen! Too many are simply Remainers!
2. The EU negotiating team was, quite deliberately, never going to come up with a deal that was 'sellable'!

 

[Mudball]

Indeed (too) simplistic!

1. 'Sorting her own party out' was never going to happen! Too many are simply Remainers!
2. The EU negotiating team was, quite deliberately, never going to come up with a deal that was 'sellable'!

Stop blaming the EU for the incompetence of our lot.

I went to the Ferrari showroom, really loved the car but the idiot salesman said I cant own it because i dont have the money. Surely, some money is better than his car sitting in the forecourt. It is his loss.. I was willing.

 

[GB72]

Indeed (too) simplistic!

1. 'Sorting her own party out' was never going to happen! Too many are simply Remainers!
2. The EU negotiating team was, quite deliberately, never going to come up with a deal that was 'sellable'!

Actually it is the die hard no dealers who are the main issue not the remainers though no doubt both are an issue.

 

[Foxholer]

Motion in parliament to repeal article 50 would end that and then we have a real constitutional crisis. A general election would remove all of the current facades and force parties and politicians to front up with their real thoughts

Agreed, but that motion would 'defy the will of the people's referendum' result - and would also require the repeal of the Withdrawal act.

I'm almost certain that a GE would NOT solve anything wrt leaving the EU - unless a majority of Remainers could defy party commitments and, likewise, 'defy the will of the people's referendum result'!

 

[Foxholer]

Actually it is the die hard no dealers who are the main issue not the remainers though no doubt both are an issue.

On this matter, we will have to disagree - though the likes of ERG are a definite (but, imo, reasonably correct) thorn in her side. They were certainly not reluctant (and totally correct imo) to point out the potential trap in an earlier version of 'the deal' that tied UK permanently to the EU! Their 'rule' about the supremacy of ECJ meaning haven't (fully) left is quite correct. Just too black/white for practicality imo.

 

[GB72]

Agreed, but that motion would 'defy the will of the people's referendum' result - and would also require the repeal of the Withdrawal act.

I'm almost certain that a GE would NOT solve anything wrt leaving the EU - unless a majority of Remainers could defy party commitments and, likewise, 'defy the will of the people's referendum result'!

The problem with having 2 types of voting system. It would, for example be possible to get voted in on a remain ticket despite the region voting generally for leave. There is also the issue of views changing.

As for the referendum result, that is being used as a political football qnd I am not sure, in truth, that many politicians care about it beyond an excuse to rally support for their own ideas.

 

[Foxholer]

Stop blaming the EU for the incompetence of our lot.

I went to the Ferrari showroom, really loved the car but the idiot salesman said I cant own it because i dont have the money. Surely, some money is better than his car sitting in the forecourt. It is his loss.. I was willing.

Ridiculous analogy!

Btw. There's absolutely no 'blame' by me on either party! Except, perhaps, on their inability to get a deal that defined the EU/UK border properly and wasn't 'hard'!

 

[GB72]

On this matter, we will have to disagree - though the likes of ERG are a definite (but, imo, reasonably correct) thorn in her side. They were certainly not reluctant (and totally correct imo) to point out the potential trap in an earlier version of 'the deal' that tied UK permanently to the EU! Their 'rule' about the supremacy of ECJ meaning haven't (fully) left is quite correct. Just too black/white for practicality imo.

So they are ignoring the voice if the people. If we agree that the type of brexit was not specified then they have blocked Brexit happening next week because it is not the Brexit they want.

 

[Crazyface]

The referendum was voted through with a strong Government majority and, in any event, the remainers never envisaged a loss (massive hubris there). Article 50, again, was voted for at a time with a strong majority plus, so near to the initial vote, it would have been political suicide to vote against. The only way to get this through parliament is to have


Different question now though. Neither party has put their head above the parapet and said out and out to remain and so both, in technical terms, have been good to their word. The issue is about how we leave (I only mentioned remain as an option as the libdema and TIG will stand on that basis irrespective). As all the cards are now on the table, an election could be fought on no deal or the deal on the table. It is a massive red herring to pretend that there is another deal around the corner. Not having an intentional go at Corbyn but he is bringing up options in parliament that are just no on the table. Any vote has to be based on the realistic options that we now have, of which there are 3 that are clear and defined.

They can ONLY fight on the terms of the withdrawal, we've voted on that. They can only offer ways to withdraw. That would be a fun thing to watch!

 

[Crazyface]

And also All Labour voters up North who voted out ( and eee bye gum there were a lot of them) who haven't had their wishes met should vote...er er. Nige! Nige! are you starting that party of your's mate?

 

[GB72]

They can ONLY fight on the terms of the withdrawal, we've voted on that. They can only offer ways to withdraw. That would be a fun thing to watch!

I disagree, if enough people want the question asked again then it would be undemocratic not to do so. The electorate can change its mind. If the will of the people is still to leave, leave will clearly win so no issue there

 

[drdel]

I disagree, if enough people want the question asked again then it would be undemocratic not to do so. The electorate can change its mind. If the will of the people is still to leave, leave will clearly win so no issue there

But, and its a big but - you're assuming the EU would have been happy to have a completely different deal where the Irish issue was not on the table but leaving to customs union, freedom of movement etc was.

Negotiation is by definition between to opposing factions yet you seem to give no credence to the EU's stance of protecting the political project at all cost and thereby its stonewalling of anything from the UK (irrespective of Political doctrine or personalities)