Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

[SocketRocket]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but can you please show me where they committed to do that?

Btw. It's STILL not 'undemocratic' - at least not in UK's version of 'democracy'! As that's how (UK's version of) democracy works!

They pledged in their manifestos. Asking the voting public to make a democratic decision and saying it would be respected, then working against it is undemocratic. Never mind playing around with the semantics we all know right from wrong and this is wrong.

 

[Foxholer]

There is another positive, in that whatever happens after a 'no deal' withdrawal... The only difference being that on 31/10 the country, business, industry, finance and all services should be in a better position to manage the withdrawal than they would have been on any earlier date. I look forward to it.

Now there's a 'positive' response.

Shame all the Financial indicators are that it will, at least initially, be hugely negative! But at last it will be both decisive and will 'respect the referendum result'!

 

[Foxholer]

They pledged in their manifestos. Asking the voting public to make a democratic decision and saying it would be respected, then working against it is undemocratic. Never mind playing around with the semantics we all know right from wrong and this is wrong.

Please quote the clause(s)! At least from the Conservatives. Labour's manifesto is now null and void as that only applied if they were elected to govern!

 

[SocketRocket]

Please quote the clauses! At least from the Conservatives. Labour's manifesto is now null and void as that only applied if they were elected to govern!

Take a look here at the Brexit commitments:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39960311

If you want to see Labours stance in their manifesto:
https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/negotiating-brexit/

 

[Foxholer]

Take a look here at the Brexit commitments:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39960311

Nothing in there actually commits MPs to enact legislation, or simply vote, for something their consciences (well, opinions/beliefs, as 'MP' and 'conscience' are too often mutually exclusive!) tell them is not in the interest of the country! It's up to th PM, Cabinet and the Whips to 'manage' that essential aspect of UK Democracy!

That's why No Deal, hopefully with actual deals being negotiated shortly afterward, seems to me to be the most likely ourcome. It seems to me that that would also satisfy the EU Commission, as they are seen to have 'stood firm' and can let others sort out the mess! It also complies with Article 50 clauses.

The major sticking point I see is the commitment for 'Vote in both Houses of Parliament on "final agreement" for Brexit'. I can't see a No Deal vote (or any other for that matter) being successful.

Though, of course, the Manifesto doesn't state that the result of such a vote has to be accepted - only that there will be one!!

 

[SocketRocket]

Nothing in there actually commits MPs to enact legislation, or simply vote, for something their consciences (well, opinions/beliefs, as 'MP' and 'conscience' are too often mutually exclusive!) tell them is not in the interest of the country! It's up to th PM, Cabinet and the Whips to 'manage' that essential aspect of UK Democracy!

That's why No Deal, hopefully with actual deals being negotiated shortly afterward, seems to me to be the most likely ourcome. It seems to me that that would also satisfy the EU Commission, as they are seen to have 'stood firm' and can let others sort out the mess! It also complies with Article 50 clauses.

The major sticking point I see is the commitment for 'Vote in both Houses of Parliament on "final agreement" for Brexit'. I can't see a No Deal vote (or any other for that matter) being successful.

Though, of course, the Manifesto doesn't state that the result of such a vote has to be accepted - only that there will be one!!

I commented previously they said they would respect the referendum outcome in their manifestos. Are you suggesting they didnt?

 

[Foxholer]

I commented previously they said they would respect the referendum outcome in their manifestos. Are you suggesting they didnt?

I'll repeat the question I asked you several posts ago.....Please quote the clause(s) in their manifesto where they (the Conservatives) comnmitted to do that! You have, so far, failed to do so! You may have interpreted what they have stated as 'commitment', but that's simply YOUR interpretation! That's part of the askill of writing manifestos!

 

[Kellfire]

Saw this on Facebook earlier. Very simple but so conclusive.

 

[SocketRocket]

I'll repeat the question I asked you several posts ago.....Please quote the clause(s) in their manifesto where they (the Conservatives) comnmitted to do that! You have, so far, failed to do so! You may have interpreted what they have stated as 'commitment', but that's simply YOUR interpretation! That's part of the askill of writing manifestos!

You're talking Twaddle now.
Here's their manifesto, look at the section on 'Leaving the European Union' although you were quite capable of doing that anyway but prefer to play your silly games.

https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto

 

[drdel]

I'll repeat the question I asked you several posts ago.....Please quote the clause(s) in their manifesto where they (the Conservatives) comnmitted to do that! You have, so far, failed to do so! You may have interpreted what they have stated as 'commitment', but that's simply YOUR interpretation! That's part of the askill of writing manifestos!

Plenty of statements made in the House. Check Hansard.

 

[Foxholer]

Plenty of statements made in the House. Check Hansard.

But NOT in the Manifesto - as claimed by SR!

And it's (only) the Manifesto (or The Queens Speech) that truly commits an elected party to a particular course of action! THAT's how (UK's version of) Democracy works!

Hansard only reflects statements made by individual Members, who may be influential in some cases perhaps others merely hopeful.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I read in my paper this morning a FT columnist opining that a No Deal Brexit would be far from a clean break - but that it would be a tripwire into economic chaos for years to come; then I read that the President of the NFU warns that a No Deal Brexit would be "absolutely disastrous" for agriculture. And then Janet Daly tells us that that talk of No Deal Brexit is all absurd trash - that the major economic players in Europe will not be prepared to jump off a cliff.

Since when was a No Deal Brexit equivalent to jumping off a cliff? I thought we'd got rid of that Project Fear nonsense - but still with JD, the FT and the NFU we get Project Fear.

 

[SocketRocket]

But NOT in the Manifesto - as claimed by SR!

And it's (only) the Manifesto (or The Queens Speech) that truly commits an elected party to a particular course of action! THAT's how (UK's version of) Democracy works!

Hansard only reflects statements made by individual Members, who may be influential in some cases perhaps others merely hopeful.

Just read the link to their manifesto and go to the section 'Leaving the Europiean Union' it starts by saying 'When we leave the Europiean Union ' I dont know what silly game your playing but if you won't read it then theres no point in further discussion.

 

[Foxholer]

You're talking Twaddle now.
Here's their manifesto, look at the section on 'Leaving the European Union' although you were quite capable of doing that anyway but prefer to play your silly games.

https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto

Of course I had already done that! That's how I knew that your interpretation was merely that - an interpretation! There is no 'We will implement the referendum result' statement in that Manifesto!

That whole 'Leaving the European Union' section is merely the road map about how they, under May, planned to leave. And it was May's inability to implement that plan that prompted her to resign when she did!

Of course, Johnson HAS committed to implementing 'Leave', via No Deal if necessary! So if, as expected, he wins, then that's what he must do! And, to me, No Deal is the most likely outcome irrespective of any objection within Parliament, as, somewhat ironically, EU Law is 'superior' to UK Law so Article 50's default No Deal clause WILL apply. I don't believe there's either the time or the inclination (from EU Commission) for further negotiations to resolve the 'bad' parts of 'May's deal' before 31/10.

 

[Hobbit]

Of course I had already done that! That's how I knew that your interpretation was merely that - an interpretation! There is no 'We will implement the referendum result' statement in that Manifesto!

That whole 'Leaving the European Union' section is merely the road map about how they, under May, planned to leave. And it was May's inability to implement that plan that prompted her to resign when she did!

Of course, Johnson HAS committed to implementing 'Leave', via No Deal if necessary! So if, as expected, he wins, then that's what he must do! And, to me, No Deal is the most likely outcome irrespective of any objection within Parliament, as, somewhat ironically, EU Law is 'superior' to UK Law so Article 50's default No Deal clause WILL apply. I don't believe there's either the time or the inclination (from EU Commission) for further negotiations to resolve the 'bad' parts of 'May's deal' before 31/10.

Sorry Foxy, but I'm with SR on this one. Its in their manifesto and you're playing word games with it - and that's your interpretation... sound familiar. I do agree with what you think Johnson will do, or try to do, now he's committed to it.... or is he just buying member's votes so that he'll become PM?

 

[Foxholer]

...I do agree with what you think Johnson will do, or try to do, now he's committed to it.... or is he just buying member's votes so that he'll become PM?

He's certainly ambitious, but I don't think he's that foolish! In fact I don't believe he's foolish at all, just not particularly quick thinking, so some/many of his 'off-the-cuff' replies come across as poor.

Not bidding to be PM when May took over was a smart move imo. That poisoned chalice was always going to bring May down while she pushed 'her deal' - which was not really a deal worth having at all! Boris can now use the 'Even with No Deal' (which will be chaotically bad, certainly initially, for UK for so many reasons) approach as a threat/fallback that will be accepted as a 'good' result rather than the calamity for so much of the UK economy that it really is!

He'll then have an extended 'honeymoon' period where he can pass any other failings off as part of the 'adjustment after Brexit' process, irrespective of whether they are or not! It'll only be an internal revolution that will bring him down and I don't believe that will happen in this election cycle. Labour, led by Corbyn, is not capable of defeating the Conservatives, so there's another term to get things right! He's timed it well imo!

Of course, all the above depends on his winning the Tory membership vote!

Btw. No need to apologise for having a different view!

 

[SocketRocket]

I read in my paper this morning a FT columnist opining that a No Deal Brexit would be far from a clean break - but that it would be a tripwire into economic chaos for years to come; then I read that the President of the NFU warns that a No Deal Brexit would be "absolutely disastrous" for agriculture. And then Janet Daly tells us that that talk of No Deal Brexit is all absurd trash - that the major economic players in Europe will not be prepared to jump off a cliff.

Since when was a No Deal Brexit equivalent to jumping off a cliff? I thought we'd got rid of that Project Fear nonsense - but still with JD, the FT and the NFU we get Project Fear.

Put a sock in it mate.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Put a sock in it mate.

Sorry? What I have posted is exactly what I have read today. What of it do you have an issue with...? It would be more useful to have your take on these three comments rather than you just fling a silly personal dismissal.

In any case - and I shall repeat - if we are to be leaving, then I'm expecting and hoping that we leave on 31/10 without an agreement being reached with the EU and BJ as PM taking us out. In that way we'll all know exactly who to thank.

 

[SocketRocket]

Sorry? What I have posted is exactly what I have read today. What of it do you have an issue with...? It would be more useful to have your take on these three comments rather than you just fling a stupid personal dismissal.

You are just regurgitating the same old anti Brexit dogma we have suffered for years. On the lookout for any snippets you can gather to support your opinion. You dont need to, we know what your opinion is, you have trumpeted it from the heights of Remainer Towers so often that it is just a pearcing white noise now.

No one is going to change their opinion by it so best to insert the old sock.

 

[Old Skier]

Sorry? What I have posted is exactly what I have read today. What of it do you have an issue with...? It would be more useful to have your take on these three comments rather than you just fling a silly personal dismissal.

In any case - and I shall repeat - if we are to be leaving, then I'm expecting and hoping that we leave on 31/10 without an agreement being reached with the EU and BJ as PM taking us out. In that way we'll all know exactly who to thank.

Instead of just printing things you read, how about giving us an insight on the article.

We can all just regurgitate items from the media.