Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

[Deleted member 16999]

Wrong!

Cameron started it by calling the Referendum!

May took over and realised she wouldn't be able to win votes with the slim majority she had, so called another election. That move backfired - badly!

The fact is that MPs are about as divided on the issue as the rest of the country, so it was always going to be a 'tough ask' to get legislation through! And the EU negotiators knew/know this, so adjust their approach accordingly.

No Deal, via Article 50's default, has always looked the most likely 'result' to me! And future negotiations will be just as difficult imo. EU will continue to insist on an arrangement that maintains their control of agenda and agreements!

Only Wrong in your opinion.

Cameron carried out a manifesto pledge, now we have people on here criticise parties for not carrying out their manifesto promises, you can’t have it both ways.

May then activated Art 50, then called a snap election for no more than vanity reasons, Cameron had gone by then so no blame can be put on him for this reason.

The 2017 created no clear winner, 98 new MP’s were elected (none of whom were in position when Art 50 was voted on and they were voted in by us in full knowledge of referendum result.

May stayed in Government by paying a bung to the DUP, she then had all sorts of issues with her negotiation team, didn’t disclose the plan to many tory MP’s and took no input from any other party during the negotiation process.

You then brought the deal and was voted down by the highest loss in history, spent 3 months trying to bring it back and continually refusing to speak to other parties, finally spoke to them and changed nothing.

We are were we are today because TM and the tory party(who also gave her a vote of confidence but couldn’t back her deal).

The rest, imo, is smoke and mirrors, Labour, Lib Dems, SNP etc have never had any control over the negotiations nor any input to them, yet people expect them to bend over and take one for the tories without the tories expected to do the same.

 

[SocketRocket]

Only Wrong in your opinion.

Cameron carried out a manifesto pledge, now we have people on here criticise parties for not carrying out their manifesto promises, you can’t have it both ways.

May then activated Art 50, then called a snap election for no more than vanity reasons, Cameron had gone by then so no blame can be put on him for this reason.

The 2017 created no clear winner, 98 new MP’s were elected (none of whom were in position when Art 50 was voted on and they were voted in by us in full knowledge of referendum result.

May stayed in Government by paying a bung to the DUP, she then had all sorts of issues with her negotiation team, didn’t disclose the plan to many tory MP’s and took no input from any other party during the negotiation process.

You then brought the deal and was voted down by the highest loss in history, spent 3 months trying to bring it back and continually refusing to speak to other parties, finally spoke to them and changed nothing.

We are were we are today because TM and the tory party(who also gave her a vote of confidence but couldn’t back her deal).

The rest, imo, is smoke and mirrors, Labour, Lib Dems, SNP etc have never had any control over the negotiations nor any input to them, yet people expect them to bend over and take one for the tories without the tories expected to do the same.

You missed the bit where they voted for article 50 and all said they would respect the referendum result then worked against it.AND ONCE MORE FOR CLARITY THIS INCLUDES CONSERVATIVES

 

[Deleted member 16999]

You missed the bit where they voted for article 50 and all said they would respect the referendum result then worked against it.AND ONCE MORE FOR CLARITY THIS INCLUDES CONSERVATIVES

But if the party that controlled and negotiated the deal can’t back it, why should anyone else, plus the 98 new MP’s didn’t vote for Art 50.
She had a decent majority, enough to get any deal through prior to calling the GE.
The result of that completely undermind her.

 

[Hobbit]

But if the party that controlled and negotiated the deal can’t back it, why should anyone else, plus the 98 new MP’s didn’t vote for Art 50.
She had a decent majority, enough to get any deal through prior to calling the GE.
The result of that completely undermind her.

She didn’t have a decent enough majority to get a deal through. You’ve only got to look at how many Tories voted against her deal to realise that without the 2017 GE she still would have lost.

 

[ColchesterFC]

That you are using an ISA as an example of tax avoidance in the context of this suggests that you don’t really want to have a serious discussion.

Clearly in any case potential tax lost on ISA interest is not included in any estimates of tax avoidance.

For the first part - ISAs are a legitimate way for people to avoid tax which is tax avoidance. It is just one of a number of ways to reduce your tax bill. Paying into a pension is another. And tax avoidance isn't just about looking for loopholes in the laws, it's also about using the tax laws as they are written to reduce your tax bill.

For the second part - Why is it clearly not included? As you haven't produced any links or evidence to back up your original statement we are left with no idea what is or isn't included in the £7 billion figure that you came up with.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

She didn’t have a decent enough majority to get a deal through. You’ve only got to look at how many Tories voted against her deal to realise that without the 2017 GE she still would have lost.

It was a gamble she took and lost, but she still failed to take her party with her, then what were saying is she negotiated a deal which she knew she would have to rely on opposition MP’s to support, but at no time gave them any input or insight in to what she was negotiating.
Then blame them for not supporting it!

 

[ColchesterFC]

It was a gamble she took and lost, but she still failed to take her party with her, then what were saying is she negotiated a deal which she knew she would have to rely on opposition MP’s to support, but at no time gave them any input or insight in to what she was negotiating.
Then blame them for not supporting it!

I assume that as a remainer herself TM was hoping to get the support of opposition remainers to get her deal through as what her team negotiated wasn't going to be Brexity enough for most leave supporters on her side.

 

[robinthehood]

re france blocking an extension

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49640344

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I assume that as a remainer herself TM was hoping to get the support of opposition remainers to get her deal through as what her team negotiated wasn't going to be Brexity enough for most leave supporters on her side.

But as the deal has pleased virtually no one, everyone else is to blame.

That’s why I said the other day I’d have no problem with the PM offering to rip her deal up and negotiate properly over a decent period with a No Deal option, ie New deal or No deal by 31st March 2020.
Part of the current issue is that no one trusts him and even Amber Rudd has stated she doubts he’s actually trying to get a deal done.

 

[ColchesterFC]

But as the deal has pleased virtually no one, everyone else is to blame.

That’s why I said the other day I’d have no problem with the PM offering to rip her deal up and negotiate properly over a decent period with a No Deal option, ie New deal or No deal by 31st March 2020.
Part of the current issue is that no one trusts him and even Amber Rudd has stated she doubts he’s actually trying to get a deal done.

There doesn't seem much point. The EU have repeatedly said that the deal is the only one they will offer and it can't be renegotiated and our MPs have refused that deal three times (so far). It will be another 6 months of kicking the, by now very battered, can down the road and we'll end up right back where we are now with remainers wanting legislation brought in to stop a No Deal. It would just lead to another 6 months of uncertainty for businesses and individuals.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

There doesn't seem much point. The EU have repeatedly said that the deal is the only one they will offer and it can't be renegotiated and our MPs have refused that deal three times (so far). It will be another 6 months of kicking the, by now very battered, can down the road and we'll end up right back where we are now with remainers wanting legislation brought in to stop a No Deal. It would just lead to another 6 months of uncertainty for businesses and individuals.

Right now the Government are being forced in to taking no deal off the table because the opposition and some of his own party don’t trust him.

Make it a cross party negotiation team and make sure they have the scope to succeed, I also cannot believe for 1 minute the EU want a No Deal.

 

[Tashyboy]

Only Wrong in your opinion.

Cameron carried out a manifesto pledge, now we have people on here criticise parties for not carrying out their manifesto promises, you can’t have it both ways.

May then activated Art 50, then called a snap election for no more than vanity reasons, Cameron had gone by then so no blame can be put on him for this reason.

The 2017 created no clear winner, 98 new MP’s were elected (none of whom were in position when Art 50 was voted on and they were voted in by us in full knowledge of referendum result.

May stayed in Government by paying a bung to the DUP, she then had all sorts of issues with her negotiation team, didn’t disclose the plan to many tory MP’s and took no input from any other party during the negotiation process.

You then brought the deal and was voted down by the highest loss in history, spent 3 months trying to bring it back and continually refusing to speak to other parties, finally spoke to them and changed nothing.

We are were we are today because TM and the tory party(who also gave her a vote of confidence but couldn’t back her deal).

The rest, imo, is smoke and mirrors, Labour, Lib Dems, SNP etc have never had any control over the negotiations nor any input to them, yet people expect them to bend over and take one for the tories without the tories expected to do the same.

I actually think this is a good post.

However it should include that if Labour was only half decent, in fact I would go so far as saying that if Labour did not have Jezza and Abacus on the front row. They would of defeated the Tories at the 2017 GE. The very fact that the worst government in living history has an opposition that is the worst in anyone's living memory has helped to make this Brexit a cluster of muck.

 

[Old Skier]

But as the deal has pleased virtually no one, everyone else is to blame.

That’s why I said the other day I’d have no problem with the PM offering to rip her deal up and negotiate properly over a decent period with a No Deal option, ie New deal or No deal by 31st March 2020.
Part of the current issue is that no one trusts him and even Amber Rudd has stated she doubts he’s actually trying to get a deal done.

How do you square the circle when the EU has continually stated they have no intention of offering another deal?

 

[Deleted member 16999]

How do you square the circle when the EU has continually stated they have no intention of offering another deal?

Because I genuinely don’t believe they want a No Deal, at the moment we don’t know how long or how many times the PM will be forced to ask for extensions, so come up with a scenario which has a sensible time frame and lays out the final options.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I actually think this is a good post.

However it should include that if Labour was only half decent, in fact I would go so far as saying that if Labour did not have Jezza and Abacus on the front row. They would of defeated the Tories at the 2017 GE. The very fact that the worst government in living history has an opposition that is the worst in anyone's living memory has helped to make this Brexit a cluster of muck.

I don’t think you’ve remembered the 2017 GE properly mate:

Opinion polls had consistently shown strong leads for the Conservatives over Labour. From a 21-point lead, the Conservatives' lead began to diminish in the final weeks of the campaign. In a surprising result, the Conservative Party made a net loss of 13 seats with 42.4% of the vote (its highest share of the vote since 1983), whereas Labour made a net gain of 30 seats with 40.0% (its highest vote share since 2001 and the first time the party had gained seats since 1997). That is the largest increase in the share of the vote by a Labour leader since Clement Attlee in 1945. This was the closest result between the two major parties since February 1974, and their highest combined vote share since 1970.

The big lead in the polls is what led to TM thinking it was good idea to call it.

 

[Old Skier]

Because I genuinely don’t believe they want a No Deal, at the moment we don’t know how long or how many times the PM will be forced to ask for extensions, so come up with a scenario which has a sensible time frame and lays out the final options.

But they knew months ago that the deal wasn't acceptable and wouldn't get through our Parliament so no deal was the only option yet continued to say that is the only deal on offer.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

But they knew months ago that the deal wasn't acceptable and wouldn't get through our Parliament so no deal was the only option yet continued to say that is the only deal on offer.

Months ago TM was still flogging a dead horse and we didn’t know what her next step was. She had surrendered all control to them.

Do you think they want a Non Deal.

 

[ColchesterFC]

Months ago TM was still flogging a dead horse and we didn’t know what her next step was. She had surrendered all control to them.

Do you think they want a Non Deal.

Only the French. The Germans want a Nein Deal and the Dutch want a Nee Deal.

 

[Old Skier]

Months ago TM was still flogging a dead horse and we didn’t know what her next step was. She had surrendered all control to them.

Do you think they want a Non Deal.

German industrial leaders appear to be suggesting that no deal and out suits them better than more months of uncertainty which is what business in this country is saying.

 

[Taz]

Downing Street has confirmed Parliament is to be prorogued after the close of business tonight, with MPs to return on the 14th October for a Queen’s Speech.
The Queen’s original order allowed Boris to pick any time between today and the 12th. Hilariously, Bercow has to announce the prorogation order in Parliament, which he won’t be too pleased about…