Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Now I've never listened to JO'B, who ever he is, but I really dont want to listen to interviewers who only have THEIR agenda and try and force a committed leavers or remainers to be forced to troll out JO'Bs mantra by badgering or hectoring. Most interviewers I see now on the, deeply one sided, BBC dont let people they are interviewing answer the question if it doesn't fit in with the BBC bias.

Well maybe you could try listening to the views of committed leave voters who phone in...quite awful/awesome at times.

 

[chrisd]

Well maybe you could try listening to the views of committed leave voters who phone in...quite awful/awesome at times.

The views of leavers and remainers are often equally poorly argued I've no plan to listen to any on a radio station as I've heard pretty well every argument over 3 years and know exactly what I believe and what I dont

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

The counter argument is that the decision to leave on the 31st October has already been taken, as per current UK and EU legislation already in place.

I very much doubt the objection under purdah rules will fly IMO as the opposition want to change current legislation as opposed to stopping the government taking decisions. The HoC's has already voted to leave on 31st October.

When was that - can't remember that happening.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

The views of leavers and remainers are often equally poorly argued I've no plan to listen to any on a radio station as I've heard pretty well every argument over 3 years and know exactly what I believe and what I dont

Well maybe you could try sometime listening to the logic of why some of the electorate voted to leave - and you will hear how uninformed and misguided their views can be - not their fault - and it doesn't make them stupid - but the fault of those who spun the misinformation and deceits over the years and decades. And maybe then you'll understand a bit better why folks like me think as we do.

 

[ger147]

When was that - can't remember that happening.

The HoC's voted in favour of legislation to leave the EU on 29th March. They subsequently voted in favour of changing that date to 31st October.

As someone who has followed this process very closely, I know you already know that. If you claim that you don't know that then you are a liar.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

The HoC's voted in favour of legislation to leave the EU on 29th March. They subsequently voted in favour of changing that date to 31st October.

As someone who has followed this process very closely, I know you already know that. If you claim that you don't know that then you are a liar.

I had forgotten. I am not a liar.

 

[ger147]

I had forgotten. I am not a liar.

You had NOT forgotten...

 

[chrisd]

Well maybe you could try sometime listening to the logic of why some of the electorate voted to leave - and you will hear how uninformed and misguided their views can be - not their fault - and it doesn't make them stupid - but the fault of those who spun the misinformation and deceits over the years and decades. And maybe then you'll understand a bit better why folks like me think as we do.

I know why you think the way you do - you believed the remain campaign lies

 

[Taz]

Meanwhile on planet libdumb :
Jo Swinson says - borrowing the No 10 phrase - that the Lib Dems will do “whatever it takes” to stop no deal Brexit. She says she will “work with anyone” to block no deal.
Swinson unveils her preferred plan to block no deal - parliament forces govt to extent A50 and then hold a 2nd Brexit referendum. Would do this via no-confidence vote and some sort of national unity government. She’s criticising Corbyn’s own stop Brexit plan.
Swinson says there is “no way” Corbyn could lead a government of national unity, as could not attract rebel Tories, or even all Labour MPs. She suggests Ken Clarke or Harriet Harman - respectively the father and mother of house. Says neither want to be in No 10 long term.

She forgot to add the only option on the 2nd referendum would be remain.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

You had NOT forgotten...

I had. I'd rather you didn't blithely make such accusations.

 

[ger147]

I had. I'd rather you didn't blithely make such accusations.

You did not forget...

Evidence? Your post where you quoted the cabinet manual had the date of the 31st October included, the date that came about as a result of the vote you claim to have forgotten about. So where did you think that date had come from?

I repeat, you did NOT forget!!

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

You did not forget...

Evidence? Your post where you quoted the cabinet manual had the date of the 31st October included, the date that came about as a result of the vote you claim to have forgotten about. So where did you think that date had come from?

I repeat, you did NOT forget!!

I think you may have forgotten that I was in NZ, Australia and SE Asia from 1st Feb until 8th June. Over that period I largely disconnected from UK politics and news. Of course I heard that the UK did not leave and was aware of the extension from Australian TV news, but I did not get the detail or the debate over the extension and so don't actually know anything about the debate and the vote.

So when I said I could not remember, that was because I do not actually know about the nature of the debate and the vote on the extension, or indeed whether there had been any other vote subsequent to that one that you were referring to. You have said that there was a further vote on the date - until you told me I did not know that.

 

[ger147]

I think you may have forgotten that I was in NZ, Australia and SE Asia from 1st Feb until 8th June. Over that period I largely disconnected from UK politics and news. Of course I heard that the UK did not leave and was aware of the extension from Australian TV news, but I did not get the detail or the debate over the extension and so don't actually know anything about the debate and the vote.

So when I said I could not remember, that was because I do not actually know about the nature of the debate and the vote on the extension, or indeed whether there had been any other vote subsequent to that one that you were referring to. You have said that there was a further vote on the date - until you told me I did not know that.

We will have to agree to disagree, I do not believe you.

 

[Hobbit]

Which may be true - sometimes - but most of the time he interrupts is when the caller is talking unfounded or incorrect tripe, and he will continue to ask the salient question when a caller refuses to answer it, and there is noting wrong with that. So his style is more to let such Leave callers 'dig their own grave', or let them argue their own way to the Remain position. And that actually happens quite a lot or the caller gets very angry as he or she finds themselves heading that way.

I'm all for idiots of any persuasion being pulled up. But have a think about what you've posted there. You're quite happy for him to pull up the idiots, and why wouldn't anyone look to stop them. However, you have be inference, "which may be true," agreed that he isn't great with decent debaters. Seriously, step outside your zealot Remainer position and ask yourself does he really treat people respectfully.

He's a nasty piece of work and doesn't do the Remain position any good whatsoever. Anyone on the fence, looking to be persuaded either way will see a bully, and people seeing bullies often side with the person on the receiving end.

You need to find a better source.

 

[drdel]

The thinking is that they WILL argue that leaving is in the 'National Interest'...well maybe at some time it might be - but during an election period...little bit harder to argue that just because it is politically expedient to do something does not mean that it is necessarily in the National Interest

Well I guess the referendum result is a fair indication of the public's view on what is in their interests.

 

[Mudball]

Stats and lies? Looks like everyone will be hit. Leavers can claim that Germany & France wont let it happen so a deal is around the corner.. Remainers dont need to prove much

Source: https://www.statista.com/chart/1896...u-member-states-in-the-case-of-a-hard-brexit/

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

We will have to agree to disagree, I do not believe you.

No we don't. I am telling you honestly that as I was not paying that much attention to UK politics whilst I was away I did not know what vote you were referring to. That is all I was saying when you mentioned that the HoC had voted to leave on 31/10.

Of course I knew that we did not leave of the 23rd March, and of course I knew that an extension had been offered and accepted. I did not, and actually still do not, know of the process, debates and votes around that time in respect of the extension.

As it happens - and not knowing anything about the debate - I suggest that the vote would have been to accept the extension to 31/10 - nothing more than that. And that many, if not most, who would have voted to accept that change of date would have done so on the basis of giving more time for the government to negotiate a deal - not to leave on that date without a deal. In fact they would have voted for the extension specifically with the aim of avoiding a no deal exit.

But I was not aware of the debate and of all subsequent votes relating to it. I'm sure there is clear indication from the motion voted on, that the extension was voted through on the understanding that no further extension would be sought?

 

[Foxholer]

The counter argument is that the decision to leave on the 31st October has already been taken, as per current UK and EU legislation already in place.

I very much doubt the objection under purdah rules will fly IMO as the opposition want to change current legislation as opposed to stopping the government taking decisions. The HoC's has already voted to leave on 31st October.

Er. Can you please provide a link showing that VOTE!

As far as I am aware, there has bee no such (actual/specific) vote to do so. Though the EFFECT of HoC votes - to invoke Article 50, then to request an extension (twice?) is to set a (default/no deal) leave date. And both dates were actually 'set' by the EU, not HoC.

So to call SILH a liar - as, I believe, you have done - for 'not remembering a vote' that never happened seems to me rather obscene!

 

[clubchamp98]

Well maybe you could try sometime listening to the logic of why some of the electorate voted to Remain ,and you will hear how uninformed and misguided their views can be - not their fault - and it doesn't make them stupid - but the fault of those who spun the misinformation and deceits over the years and decades. And maybe then you'll understand a bit better why folks like me think as we do.

Fixed that.

 

[ger147]

Er. Can you please provide a link showing that VOTE!

As far as I am aware, there has bee no such (actual/specific) vote to do so. Though the EFFECT of HoC votes - to invoke Article 50, then to request an extension (twice?) is to set a (default/no deal) leave date. And both dates were actually 'set' by the EU, not HoC.

So to call SILH a liar - as, I believe, you have done - for 'not remembering a vote' that never happened seems to me rather obscene!

The votes to update the leaving date in the European Withdrawal Act in the HoC's can be found on the HoC's website. The date is included in the 2018 Withdrawal act and has been updated twice via secondary legislation to the current date of 31st October.

https://commonsvotes.digiminster.com