Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[aintforever]

But a second referendum can't be organised that quickly, so they will have to extend.

 

Yep, they would extend it for a second referendum but not just for May to sort her sh!t out.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

The EU will grant an extension if there’s a second referendum and it breaks the impasse. They won’t grant an extension if it’s simply to go round the same old circles and kick the can.

 

Indeed.

 

Let's be clear here, the EU want us to remain - of that there is no doubt - so they will push every button on making an exit from the EU an 'impossible' task.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Yep, they would extend it for a second referendum but not just for May to sort her sh!t out.

 

Yeah, agreed.

[Wes Tender]

So it looks like the EU have played a blinder here, no further negotiations allowed, an unpalatable deal, no deal won't be voted for parliament, hence no Brexit. Also means Corbyn has nothing to campaign on now...

 

It's a bit too early to claim that the EU have played a blinder. They are playing high stakes poker on us not leaving on WTO terms, which they certainly don't want, so it could end up with them having shot themselves in the foot. Unless May is unseated as PM, the "meaningful vote" on her so-called deal might drag on until 21st January, or some say even later, and then there will be very little time for other options. The more May kicks the can down the road, the less time there is for other options to be put in place. Extending the Article 50 period, preparing another referendum, or negotiating other alternative deals are all fraught with problems and repercussions, lack of time being one of the major ones.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

It's a bit too early to claim that the EU have played a blinder. They are playing high stakes poker on us not leaving on WTO terms, which they certainly don't want, so it could end up with them having shot themselves in the foot. Unless May is unseated as PM, the "meaningful vote" on her so-called deal might drag on until 21st January, or some say even later, and then there will be very little time for other options. The more May kicks the can down the road, the less time there is for other options to be put in place. Extending the Article 50 period, preparing another referendum, or negotiating other alternative deals are all fraught with problems and repercussions, lack of time being one of the major ones.

 

Alternative Deals is a red-herring, there isn't one and the EU won't negotiate one.

 

If preparing another referendum we will be given an extension to Article 50.

[Cabbage_Face]

I cannot be arsed to vote again. Really can't.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I cannot be arsed to vote again. Really can't.

 

We have been inundated with them, I do agree. Easier would just be to say no Brexit. May is going down anyway.

[hypochondriac]

Indeed.

 

Let's be clear here, the EU want us to remain - of that there is no doubt - so they will push every button on making an exit from the EU an 'impossible' task.

Very true but to some weirdos on here that amounts to a mad conspiracy theory.

[Guided Missile]

Let's be clear here, the EU want us to remain - of that there is no doubt - so they will push every button on making an exit from the EU an 'impossible' task.

 

#StockholmSyndrome

 

Stockholm syndrome is a condition that causes hostages to develop a psychological alliance with their captors as a survival strategy during captivity. These alliances, resulting from a bond formed between captor and captives during intimate time spent together, are generally considered irrational...

[shurlock]

It's a bit too early to claim that the EU have played a blinder. They are playing high stakes poker on us not leaving on WTO terms, which they certainly don't want, so it could end up with them having shot themselves in the foot. Unless May is unseated as PM, the "meaningful vote" on her so-called deal might drag on until 21st January, or some say even later, and then there will be very little time for other options. The more May kicks the can down the road, the less time there is for other options to be put in place. Extending the Article 50 period, preparing another referendum, or negotiating other alternative deals are all fraught with problems and repercussions, lack of time being one of the major ones.

 

Afternoon Les. Sorry to play the role of the parent who tells their child that Santa doesn’t exist but there is no parliamentary support for a no deal. If it happens, it’ll happen via a second referendum. Otherwise it’s dead.

 

Chin up little fella.

[shurlock]

Indeed.

 

Let's be clear here, the EU want us to remain - of that there is no doubt - so they will push every button on making an exit from the EU an 'impossible' task.

 

Disagree with the latter. Only weirdos and their conspiracy theories believe the latter.

[Cabbage_Face]

Afternoon Les. Sorry to play the role of the parent who tells their child that Santa doesn’t exist but there is no parliamentary support for a no deal. If it happens, it’ll happen via a second referendum. Otherwise it’s dead.

 

Chin up little fella.

 

So there is a chance? Don't be so smug, remember when they said "The public won't vote to leave", "Trump won't win the election".........

 

#MSSS

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Very true but to some weirdos on here that amounts to a mad conspiracy theory.

 

It's not a mad conspiracy theory - but the EU are also working within their frameworks - now whether that automatically means that for a balanced democratic nation like ourselves (congrats May for calling that snap GE) it is difficult to leave due to the likely disagreements within parliament, or whether May's hurried Article 50 trigger has produced this situation, I don't know.

 

I don't think the EU are doing anything wrong with making it difficult to leave (and maybe that's where I'm mistaken - they're not making it difficult, but the fact that we will become poorer makes it difficult), especially when it is going to make people from all sides poorer (except for those shorting the UK stocks and use their companies currency exchanges to make money - looking at you JRM).

Edited 11 December, 2018 by Unbelievable Jeff

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Disagree with the latter. Only weirdos and their conspiracy theories believe the latter.

 

Maybe not impossible, but certainly very difficult unless that nation wants to be a lot poorer. That is what makes it difficult (perhaps incorrect projecting that onto the EU).

Edited 11 December, 2018 by Unbelievable Jeff

[Cabbage_Face]

I'm surprised old Macron is being so cocky about it all, considering he can't even sort his own shiz out.

[shurlock]

So there is a chance? Don't be so smug, remember when they said "The public won't vote to leave", "Trump won't win the election".........

 

#MSSS

 

Try reading coleslaw. Slowly. I didn’t say it wouldn’t happen. I said as long as the decision is solely in Parliament’s hands (i.e. no second referendum), I don’t see it happening.

[RedArmy]

I cannot be arsed to vote again. Really can't.

I wouldn't bother pal, votes are worthless these days.

[Cabbage_Face]

Try reading coleslaw. Slowly. I didn’t say it wouldn’t happen. I said as long as the decision is solely in Parliament’s hands (i.e. no second referendum), I don’t see it happening.

 

"Chin up little fella."

 

Of course that's not a smug reply.

 

"Santa doesn't exist"

 

So are you saying there is a chance he does?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Listening to the always excellent James O'Brien on LBC this morning, he was inviting callers from outside of the UK shores to phone in and give their opinions on what it looks like from the outside looking in. The vast majority of people were commenting that it just looked like the main Brexiteers had made mugs of the public, and that it's now come to the point where Brexiteers will continue to chase the rainbow instead of admit they were wrong.

 

“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”

 

Mark Twain

[shurlock]

Maybe not impossible, but certainly very difficult unless that nation wants to be a lot poorer. That is what makes it difficult (perhaps incorrect projecting that onto the EU).

 

 

That it is in the UK’s economic self-interest to stay close to the EU is quite different from the swivel-eyed claim that May and EU were secretly in cahoots to scheme up a deal they knew had no chance of getting through Parliament and are using the threat of no deal Armageddon to bully the UK to stay in the against its democratic wish.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

"Chin up little fella."

 

Of course that's not a smug reply.

 

"Santa doesn't exist"

 

So are you saying there is a chance he does?

 

TBF, that's not smug, that's patronising.

[RedArmy]

Wouldn't it be funny if the government announce a second* vote and the remoaners get all excited and smug, and then they announce the two options are either May's deal or No deal.

Heads would explode.

 

*fourth

[Unbelievable Jeff]

That it is in the UK’s economic self-interest to stay close to the EU is quite different from the swivel-eyed claim that May and EU were secretly in cahoots to scheme up a deal they knew had no chance of getting through Parliament and are using the threat of no deal Armageddon to bully the UK to stay in the against its democratic wish.

 

Ok, that was certainly not what I was proposing, just that it is very difficult to extricate a country from the EU due to the frameworks in place, and that of course the EU would make us follow those frameworks the whole way.

[Cabbage_Face]

TBF, that's not smug, that's patronising.

 

He comes across as both, TBF.

[shurlock]

"Chin up little fella."

 

Of course that's not a smug reply.

 

"Santa doesn't exist"

 

So are you saying there is a chance he does?

 

It’s clear what I said pal.

 

You should ask Santa for some reading lessons along with the sammy saint undies

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Wouldn't it be funny if the government announce a second* vote and the remoaners get all excited and smug, and then they announce the two options are either May's deal or No deal.

Heads would explode.

 

*fourth

 

Yes they would. But I would expect the options to be explored would also be voted on...

[Cabbage_Face]

It’s clear what I said pal.

 

You should ask Santa for some reading lessons along with the sammy saint undies

 

It's not clear at all. Why would you use Santa? There is no chance Santa exists yet there is a chance of a No Deal scenario.

 

You should think about changing your username.

[Wes Tender]

We have been inundated with them, I do agree. Easier would just be to say no Brexit. May is going down anyway.

 

Easiest not to get out of bed in the morning too. It isn't a matter of what is easiest, but of doing what is democratic. You might be happy to ignore the democratic will of the electorate in the largest vote for anything in our political history, but the repercussions for our system of democracy would receive a major blow, resulting quite possibly in severe civil unrest and distrust in our politicians for year to come.

 

Yes, May is going down, whether by a vote of no confidence in Parliament or by her own Party, which is the more likely scenario. Postponing the meaningful vote on her so-called deal has put things in limbo temporarily. Although her bargaining position would have been strengthened with the EU from the evidence of the dissent to the backstop in Parliament, it is debatable whether her humiliation was greater from chickening out of holding the vote, or of postponing it. In any even, the existing situation has put the vote of no confidence from her Party on temporary hold, as the Leavers aren't against the clock ticking down towards the 29th March next year, when the default position of WTO terms clicks in. If Labour were to put forward a motion of no confidence in her, they would not achieve a majority, as the DUP and the Conservatives would unite against it.

 

May is unlikely to get the EU to amend the backstop deal to remove the clauses that do not time limit it, or allow us to leave it unilaterally. The crunch comes for her if she mistakenly believes in her bone-headiness that Parliament would vote the deal through with the additional feeble amendments the EU might offer. That is when she will be toast and the Conservatives will attempt to elect another leader and go from there

[Cabbage_Face]

Wouldn't it be funny if the government announce a second* vote and the remoaners get all excited and smug, and then they announce the two options are either May's deal or No deal.

Heads would explode.

 

*fourth

 

This would be great.

 

Shurlock would cry into his EU Y-Fronts.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Easiest not to get out of bed in the morning too. It isn't a matter of what is easiest, but of doing what is democratic. You might be happy to ignore the democratic will of the electorate in the largest vote for anything in our political history, but the repercussions for our system of democracy would receive a major blow, resulting quite possibly in severe civil unrest and distrust in our politicians for year to come.

 

Yes, May is going down, whether by a vote of no confidence in Parliament or by her own Party, which is the more likely scenario. Postponing the meaningful vote on her so-called deal has put things in limbo temporarily. Although her bargaining position would have been strengthened with the EU from the evidence of the dissent to the backstop in Parliament, it is debatable whether her humiliation was greater from chickening out of holding the vote, or of postponing it. In any even, the existing situation has put the vote of no confidence from her Party on temporary hold, as the Leavers aren't against the clock ticking down towards the 29th March next year, when the default position of WTO terms clicks in. If Labour were to put forward a motion of no confidence in her, they would not achieve a majority, as the DUP and the Conservatives would unite against it.

 

May is unlikely to get the EU to amend the backstop deal to remove the clauses that do not time limit it, or allow us to leave it unilaterally. The crunch comes for her if she mistakenly believes in her bone-headiness that Parliament would vote the deal through with the additional feeble amendments the EU might offer. That is when she will be toast and the Conservatives will attempt to elect another leader and go from there

 

Not too bothered about the severe civil unrest to be honest - it's taken so long to get to this I am sure most people are bored to death with it and won't be bothered.

[shurlock]

It's not clear at all. Why would you use Santa? There is no chance Santa exists yet there is a chance of a No Deal scenario.

 

You should think about changing your username.

 

I used Santa in the context of there being parliamentary support for no deal. There is no majority in parliament. I also said that a no deal could nonetheless happen if the option went to the public in a second referendum.

 

I understand it’s difficult for some to hold or think through more than one idea at a time

 

Always HTH pal.

Edited 11 December, 2018 by shurlock

[Cabbage_Face]

I used Santa in the context of there being parliamentary support for no deal. There is no majority in parliament. I also said that a no deal could nonetheless happen if the option went to the public in a second referendum.

 

Always happy to help at this time of year pal.

 

Has it gone to Parliamentary vote then, this No Deal? When did i miss that?

[Cabbage_Face]

Jezza does my head in. Bangs on about it all being a #mess, but whats his views on it? What deal would he negotiate?

[Guided Missile]

Sorry to play the role of the parent who tells their child that Santa doesn’t exist but there is no parliamentary support for a no deal. If it happens, it’ll happen via a second referendum. Otherwise it’s dead.

As someone quoted you Herbert, I read your arrogant post and thought I'd teach you a bit about the Withdrawal Act and Parliamentary Democracy, as it is apparent you are clueless. In leaving without a deal, the Government does not require Parliamentary Approval to enforce the Withdrawal Act as it is for the Government to enact the laws passed by Parliament, not seek Parliamentary approval for every act of Governance. Specifically, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 states:

 

 

(10) Subsection (11) applies if, at the end of 21 January 2019, there is no agreement in principle in negotiations under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union on the substance of—

(a) the arrangements for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU, and

(b) the framework for the future relationship between the EU and the United Kingdom after withdrawal.

(11) A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of five days beginning with the end of 21 January 2019—

(a) make a statement setting out how Her Majesty’s Government proposes to proceed, and

(b) make arrangements for—

(i) *a motion in neutral terms, to the effect that the House of Commons has considered the matter of the statement mentioned in paragraph (a), to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of five Commons sitting days beginning with the end of 21 January 2019, and

(ii) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the statement mentioned in paragraph (a) to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of five Lords sitting days beginning with the end of 21 January 2019.

(12) A statement under subsection (11)(a) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate

 

*The vote would be on "a motion in neutral terms", merely stating that the House has considered the statement. It does not require the government to seek the approval of Parliament for its course of action.

 

In other words, traitor Dominic Grieve's amendment means f*** all, as does your post.

 

HTH

[shurlock]

Edit

[Unbelievable Jeff]

As someone quoted you Herbert, I read your arrogant post and thought I'd teach you a bit about the Withdrawal Act and Parliamentary Democracy, as it is apparent you are clueless. In leaving without a deal, the Government does not require Parliamentary Approval to enforce the Withdrawal Act as it is for the Government to enact the laws passed by Parliament, not seek Parliamentary approval for every act of Governance. Specifically, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 states:

 

 

 

 

*The vote would be on "a motion in neutral terms", merely stating that the House has considered the statement. It does not require the government to seek the approval of Parliament for its course of action.

 

In other words, traitor Dominic Grieve's amendment means f*** all, as does your post.

 

HTH

 

Yes, but haven't we said that we require a vote to put that motion in, errr, motion? Won't it therefore be undemocratic to do that?

[shurlock]

As someone quoted you Herbert, I read your arrogant post and thought I'd teach you a bit about the Withdrawal Act and Parliamentary Democracy, as it is apparent you are clueless. In leaving without a deal, the Government does not require Parliamentary Approval to enforce the Withdrawal Act as it is for the Government to enact the laws passed by Parliament, not seek Parliamentary approval for every act of Governance. Specifically, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 states:

 

 

 

 

*The vote would be on "a motion in neutral terms", merely stating that the House has considered the statement. It does not require the government to seek the approval of Parliament for its course of action.

 

In other words, traitor Dominic Grieve's amendment means f*** all, as does your post.

 

HTH

 

r Grieve pushed the motion to a vote shortly before Ms May opened five days of debate on her proposed withdrawal agreement.

 

The amendment will fundamentally alter the sequence of events that will follow if the prime minister's deal is rejected by MPs.

 

Under the terms of the EU Withdrawal Act, the government must publish a statement within 21 days of the deal being voted down outlining how it plans to proceed, and MPs must be given a vote on this within a week.

 

The vote, though, would only be on a "neutral motion" simply saying the Commons had considered the matter. Crucially, MPs would not be able to amend the motion in order to express a view on what action ministers should take.

 

Mr Grieve's amendment changes that. It says parliamentary rules stating that neutral motions cannot be amended should not be applied to government motions on Brexit.

 

That means MPs will be able to order ministers to change tack, for example by extending Article 50, reopening negotiations with the EU or calling another referendum.

 

 

The Grieve amendment is not legally binding but it is effectively politically binding and would be virtually impossible to ignore (read up on the UK's unwritten or uncodified constitution if you want understand how many of parliament's conventions and customs are not law but for practical purposes are treated as law because they are politically binding).

 

And the fact remains there is no parliamentary majority for no deal. Just as Santa doesn't exist.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-deal-vote-parliament-conservatives-labour-dup-commons-a8666846.html

Edited 11 December, 2018 by shurlock

[Cabbage_Face]

So Jezza doesn't even have the balls to call for a vote of no confidence. He is the worst.

Edited 11 December, 2018 by Cabbage_Face

[Unbelievable Jeff]

So Jezza doesn't even have no balls to call for a vote of no confidence. He is the worst.

 

I love how all the Corbynista's see him as an honest, caring, principled man, when in actual fact he is a contradictory, weasily **** like the rest of them.

 

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

[Wes Tender]

Afternoon Les. Sorry to play the role of the parent who tells their child that Santa doesn’t exist but there is no parliamentary support for a no deal. If it happens, it’ll happen via a second referendum. Otherwise it’s dead.

 

Chin up little fella.

 

You're far better at playing the role of the arrogant, insufferable, patronising tw*t.

 

If there is a second/third referendum, it will have to be between May's deal or no deal, as the decision to leave has already been made in the first/second referendum. I thought that somebody of your supposed intellect would have realised that. No deal is the default position on 29th March. Extending the Article 50 period requires a change of law, a statutory instrument. It can't be achieved by just a simple vote. The majority of MPs in the House represent Leave voting constituencies who would take a keen interest in how their MPs vote to betray their wishes in the referendum. It depends on how many would like to be out of a job come the next election.

[Guided Missile]

Yes, but haven't we said that we require a vote to put that motion in, errr, motion? Won't it therefore be undemocratic to do that?

Parliament get's a vote, but it's advisory. The Government can chose to ignore it. It's why it's called "a motion in neutral terms."

[hypochondriac]

...

[benjii]

What does "well before" mean?

 

Couple of hours? A day? Months?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Parliament get's a vote, but it's advisory. The Government can chose to ignore it. It's why it's called "a motion in neutral terms."

 

So it's the same as the original Brexit vote being advisory then? So you're all for that being overturned then as it's advisory, and you won't complain about it being undemocratic? Also worth reading this from further up the thread:

 

Grieve pushed the motion to a vote shortly before Ms May opened five days of debate on her proposed withdrawal agreement.

 

The amendment will fundamentally alter the sequence of events that will follow if the prime minister's deal is rejected by MPs.

 

Under the terms of the EU Withdrawal Act, the government must publish a statement within 21 days of the deal being voted down outlining how it plans to proceed, and MPs must be given a vote on this within a week.

 

The vote, though, would only be on a "neutral motion" simply saying the Commons had considered the matter. Crucially, MPs would not be able to amend the motion in order to express a view on what action ministers should take.

 

Mr Grieve's amendment changes that. It says parliamentary rules stating that neutral motions cannot be amended should not be applied to government motions on Brexit.

 

That means MPs will be able to order ministers to change tack, for example by extending Article 50, reopening negotiations with the EU or calling another referendum.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8666846.html

[Unbelievable Jeff]

What does "well before" mean?

 

Couple of hours? A day? Months?

 

3 weeks or something like that.

[Wes Tender]

Not too bothered about the severe civil unrest to be honest - it's taken so long to get to this I am sure most people are bored to death with it and won't be bothered.

Well, you're a remoaner, probably like most of them who have no idea at all; you know, the metropolitan establishment elite, those within the M25 bubble whose main concern with Brexit is that they might be deprived of their eastern European barrista or nanny. I'm sure that you won't be bothered and are bored, but you make a grave error of judgement if you believe that the majority of leave voters would just shrug their shoulders at a government betrayal of Brexit.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Well, you're a remoaner, probably like most of them who have no idea at all; you know, the metropolitan establishment elite, those within the M25 bubble whose main concern with Brexit is that they might be deprived of their eastern European barrista or nanny. I'm sure that you won't be bothered and are bored, but you make a grave error of judgement if you believe that the majority of leave voters would just shrug their shoulders at a government betrayal of Brexit.

 

Well, let's just wait and see. Hopefully we'll see that £350m a week spent on prisons instead.

[Wes Tender]

The Grieve amendment is not legally binding but it is effectively politically binding and would be virtually impossible to ignore (read up on the UK's unwritten or uncodified constitution if you want understand how many of parliament's conventions and customs are not law but for practical purposes are treated as law because they are politically binding).

 

 

What does our unwritten or uncodified constitution say about Parliament's obligations regarding referenda and manifesto policies?

[Guided Missile]

So it's the same as the original Brexit vote being advisory then? So you're all for that being overturned then as it's advisory, and you won't complain about it being undemocratic?

Sorry, mate, I don't know what you're talking about. The referendum was a vote, informing Parliament of the will of the people and is thus advisory, a "motion in neutral terms" is a motion voted on by Parliament and is advisory and an Act of Parliament, as in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is the law, which the Government enforces. Any change to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 requires, not surprisingly, an Act of Parliament, after it has passed though both Houses and received Royal Assent.

Personally, I think the Government, whether it is Labour or Conservative, would be more concerned with ignoring the advice of 17.4 million than Dominic f***ing Grieve....

[Guided Missile]

What does our unwritten or uncodified constitution say about Parliament's obligations regarding referenda and manifesto policies?

Exactly...