Block capitals do not make something true. On 23 June 2016 this was not true.
Its the EU's own constitution, adopted by the Treaty of Lisbon, as you supported getting ratified that makes it true. Its the EU's own insistence we must leave via Article 50 that makes it true.
Article 50 means we leave automatically without a deal, unless a deal is agreed. A deal - the only deal the EU says is available - was agreed and rejected, that leaves just no deal remaining. Parliament's choice.
Unless the EU was lying and there's another deal available.
1) stop making things up about me. Stick to inventing government policy.
2) Article 50 was not triggered on 23 June 2016. And Vote Leave campaigned on the basis that it would not be triggered until a deal was reached.
There is a mandate for 'Brexit'. No flavour was specified. I think you can safely say that any flavour counts. What doesn't count is not leaving the EU.
I have enormous sympathy, and mostly I may even agree with the remain view, but I have far more alignment with things like the respect of the wishes of the people.
If it's not to be democracy in the future then so be it. Not being democracy is your choice.
No one campaigned for no deal Brexit. If you want it, you need a mandate for it. You haven’t got it yet.
We have to leave the EU. That was the decision. (And it was a decision)
I'm not entirely sure that no-one campaigned for no-deal. But certainly few did, if any.
You are trying to overturn the wishes of the people and introduce your own policy ideas, and merely on the basis that you wish it was so. Ambitious certainly, but hardly coherent.
No, I’m trying to get Leavers to acknowledge that they are now claiming a mandate for a form of Brexit that they not only did not campaign for but that they expressly disavowed.
There's no mandate beyond leaving the EU. So we must leave the EU. Then we can get back to normal.
I think that the pro-EU camp (although i equivocated in the referendum I am somewhat more anti-EU) may well be better fighting for future closer ties than trying to hang on to what we have. (I actually think that's better for the EU too)
Once again, you’re claiming a mandate for something that during the referendum campaign Leavers not only did not campaign for but disavowed.
The deal on the table has been sabotaged and now abandoned by Leavers. They have no mandate for their actions now.
Remainers gave them the mandate by rejecting the deal. They could have permanently taken no deal off the table, but they got greedy and its backfired.
You don’t get to claim a mandate for something that you actively disavowed. Black is not white. You want no deal Brexit, you need a mandate for it. You haven’t got one.
This is not difficult stuff but Leavers are determined to undermine Britain’s democracy because they hate the EU so much.
IT'S THE DEFAULT, STUPID!
Block capitals do not make something true. On 23 June 2016 this was not true.
Sorry about the caps, I thought you might be deaf. What was not true on 23.06.16?
The squeezed Labour vote may well be already in the figures with the residual vote being ultra loyalist and much less amenable to tactical voting for a Tory Little Helper.Several of the seats - in addition to St Albans - have seen substantial Labour votes in the past - indeed Labour was in contention in Cheltenham, Taunton and Yeovil in 1966.Any tactical shift has probably already occurred - as has happened in Brecon & Radnor.
I know you are a Labour supporter. Would you get some satisfaction if the Tories little helpers did not win and the Tories won instead ?
I will be spoiling my ballot paper next time - despite living in a key Tory-Labour marginal. I did vote LibDem at the elections of 2001 and 2005 - but have no inclination to vote tactically.
It would be interesting if Hammond sketched out the deal he thinks is available, and would clear Parliament. The deal May negotiated was heavily defeated thrice, and the EU say it was the only deal available. If Hammond knows otherwise he should give the details.
‘There are certain individuals in the UK who are whipping up this catastrophism for their own reasons,’ - must read PB.
He's broadly correct.
The issues will be with British (and EU) firms who have never exported beyond the bloc before, and who are unaware how the forms work. This will be especially acute in agriculture.
There will also be issues for sectors with tight supply chain timings, and also for people who export to places outside the EU, who will need documentation around Rules of Origin.
Basically, there will be problems, especially in the first few weeks. But it will not be the end of the world.
The real question is not about whether there is some initial disruption (there will but it will be annoying rather than terminal), it's about whether certain businesses with cross border supply chains deal well with things crossing the border multiple times, accumulating tariffs every time. My guess is that UK auto suppliers will struggle, and if they do, it may cast into doubt the long term future of car making in the UK.
Block capitals do not make something true. On 23 June 2016 this was not true.
Its the EU's own constitution, adopted by the Treaty of Lisbon, as you supported getting ratified that makes it true. Its the EU's own insistence we must leave via Article 50 that makes it true.
Article 50 means we leave automatically without a deal, unless a deal is agreed. A deal - the only deal the EU says is available - was agreed and rejected, that leaves just no deal remaining. Parliament's choice.
Unless the EU was lying and there's another deal available.
1) stop making things up about me. Stick to inventing government policy.
2) Article 50 was not triggered on 23 June 2016. And Vote Leave campaigned on the basis that it would not be triggered until a deal was reached.
In short, you are just plain wrong.
Vote Leave were not the government.
Remainer May invoked Article 50, as authorised to do so by our Parliament including hundreds of Remainer MPs who then blocked the deal.
In short, you are plain wrong. You claim to back Parliament, but you seem to hold no truck in what Parliament has actually voted to do. Parliament chose to authorise invoking Article 50, Parliament chose to reject a deal, Parliament left no deal as all that remains.
Anyone know what the average margin was in these seats in GE2017?
Richmond Park 0.07% St Ives 0.61% Cheltenham 4.51% North Devon 7.78% Cheadle 8.26% Lewes 10.16% St Albans 10.72% Wells 12.46% Hazel Grove 12.49% North Cornwall 14.13% Winchester 17.49% Brecon & Radnorshire 19.45% Thornbury & Yate 23.81% Yeovil 24.78% Taunton Deane 25.20% Sutton & Cheam 24.43% Eastleigh 24.75% Montgomeryshire 26.61% Torbay 27.91% Chippenham 29.10%
Are, I think, the 20 most marginal straight Con/LD seats but there's also Southport where the LDs are in 3rd place but only about 12% off the lead.
Looks like an average lead of about 16% to the Conservatives in these seats in 2017.
Labour would mount a serious campaign in St Albans given that it held the seat 1997 - 2005.
What would Labour campaign on ? 2nd referendum, if there is a Tory deal or No deal. But Brexit if a Labour deal. But Labour members and supporters [ 80% of them ] do not want a fucking deal. WE want to REMAIN.
What does it matter what you want? The Stalinists want crash Brexit. They want disaster capitalism so as the intelligentsia can lead the urban proles like you into socialist victory
Brexit: It really is as simple as delivering on a democratic mandate. There are no ifs or buts. How much clearer could the instruction be?
Meeks; You are fighting against democracy. You have so much more to lose than you have to gain. If you and the other remainders fight with Democracy then who knows.
There is no mandate for no deal Brexit. I have no idea how you can imagine that there is.
Then you are lacking in imagination
There was a vote to leave
It is a reasonable assumption that most believed a deal was likely.
But the instruction was to leave. There was no caveat saying “but only if you negotiate a deal”
Was that how the referendum campaign was fought by Leave, what they argued for?
Doesn’t matter the question was Leave/Remain
It’s up to the Executive to interpret it and the voters get to judge them in due course
Brexit: It really is as simple as delivering on a democratic mandate. There are no ifs or buts. How much clearer could the instruction be?
Meeks; You are fighting against democracy. You have so much more to lose than you have to gain. If you and the other remainders fight with Democracy then who knows.
There is no mandate for no deal Brexit. I have no idea how you can imagine that there is.
Then you are lacking in imagination
There was a vote to leave
It is a reasonable assumption that most believed a deal was likely.
But the instruction was to leave. There was no caveat saying “but only if you negotiate a deal”
Was that how the referendum campaign was fought by Leave, what they argued for?
It’s no use, Alastair. You could quote all the statements made by Johnson, Gove, Raab and the rest of the Cabinet and it would all be ignored.
You could even, as I have done in a thread header, quote the specific words in the Tory manifesto of 2017, on which all these lying halfwits were elected, which says that they will have an orderly exit and that too will be ignored.
Remainer MPs rejected an orderly exit deal 3 times. ERG was irrelevant as were the other Tory rebels.
May's deal was a pretty hard version of Brexit. You can hardly blame Labour MPs for not supporting it. The situation we are in is pretty much down to the Tories.
Can you count?
I can count that the Conservatives were in government because they had enough MPs to support it. They failed to pass the deal their leader had negotiated. If that doesn't make it a failing of the Conservative Party you are going to have to show me your working.
Throughout the history of Wikipedia - irrespective of the country - it's always done on seats won, not on vote share.
Well it's been reverted and all I've done is show of my IP.
At least I was trying to take a stand for democracy.
Wikipedia has a style guide.
The style guide for elections has - and has always had - seats above votes.
If you don't like it, you can engage with the 300 odd Wikipedia editors who police the style guides.
They will probably not be as polite to you as I am.
That's the last piece of help that Wikipedia is going to get from me anyway.
Is this some new meaning of the word "help" that I was previously unaware of?
So apparently it wasn't in the style guide. I was only trying to help them be more relevant. If it wasn't for that 3rd place we might not have had the EU ref.
Anyone know what the average margin was in these seats in GE2017?
Richmond Park 0.07% St Ives 0.61% Cheltenham 4.51% North Devon 7.78% Cheadle 8.26% Lewes 10.16% St Albans 10.72% Wells 12.46% Hazel Grove 12.49% North Cornwall 14.13% Winchester 17.49% Brecon & Radnorshire 19.45% Thornbury & Yate 23.81% Yeovil 24.78% Taunton Deane 25.20% Sutton & Cheam 24.43% Eastleigh 24.75% Montgomeryshire 26.61% Torbay 27.91% Chippenham 29.10%
Are, I think, the 20 most marginal straight Con/LD seats but there's also Southport where the LDs are in 3rd place but only about 12% off the lead.
Looks like an average lead of about 16% to the Conservatives in these seats in 2017.
Labour would mount a serious campaign in St Albans given that it held the seat 1997 - 2005.
2005 is a lifetime ago in political terms. Corbyn isn't Blair in terms of who he's appealing to, and St Albans was massively Remain. Labour will be sub 15%.
To repeat a point made before - I don't accept that any GE will turn out to be a Brexit election , anymore than was the case in 2017. Labour will seek to change the subject - and in doing so will face a very receptive audience!. Have to go out now!
May's deal was a pretty hard version of Brexit. You can hardly blame Labour MPs for not supporting it. The situation we are in is pretty much down to the Tories.
Labour's own policy was to pass the Withdrawal Agreement, unchanged.
Brexit: It really is as simple as delivering on a democratic mandate. There are no ifs or buts. How much clearer could the instruction be?
Meeks; You are fighting against democracy. You have so much more to lose than you have to gain. If you and the other remainders fight with Democracy then who knows.
There is no mandate for no deal Brexit. I have no idea how you can imagine that there is.
Then you are lacking in imagination
There was a vote to leave
It is a reasonable assumption that most believed a deal was likely.
But the instruction was to leave. There was no caveat saying “but only if you negotiate a deal”
Was that how the referendum campaign was fought by Leave, what they argued for?
Doesn’t matter the question was Leave/Remain
It’s up to the Executive to interpret it and the voters get to judge them in due course
Of course it matters. Leavers are now claiming a mandate for something they angrily rejected during the referendum campaign. The idea they have a mandate for it is ridiculous.
Throughout the history of Wikipedia - irrespective of the country - it's always done on seats won, not on vote share.
Well it's been reverted and all I've done is show of my IP.
At least I was trying to take a stand for democracy.
Wikipedia has a style guide.
The style guide for elections has - and has always had - seats above votes.
If you don't like it, you can engage with the 300 odd Wikipedia editors who police the style guides.
They will probably not be as polite to you as I am.
That's the last piece of help that Wikipedia is going to get from me anyway.
Is this some new meaning of the word "help" that I was previously unaware of?
So apparently it wasn't in the style guide. I was only trying to help them be more relevant. If it wasn't for that 3rd place we might not have had the EU ref.
10th place.
The Tories were the ones who won a majority. The Tories had a manifesto commitment to having an EU referendum.
The 1 seat that UKIP won in their 10th place is not responsible for the referendum, the Tories coming in 1st place with 330 is what got it.
Brexit: It really is as simple as delivering on a democratic mandate. There are no ifs or buts. How much clearer could the instruction be?
Meeks; You are fighting against democracy. You have so much more to lose than you have to gain. If you and the other remainders fight with Democracy then who knows.
There is no mandate for no deal Brexit. I have no idea how you can imagine that there is.
Then you are lacking in imagination
There was a vote to leave
It is a reasonable assumption that most believed a deal was likely.
But the instruction was to leave. There was no caveat saying “but only if you negotiate a deal”
Was that how the referendum campaign was fought by Leave, what they argued for?
Doesn’t matter the question was Leave/Remain
It’s up to the Executive to interpret it and the voters get to judge them in due course
Of course it matters. Leavers are now claiming a mandate for something they angrily rejected during the referendum campaign. The idea they have a mandate for it is ridiculous.
They have a mandate for leaving, That should have been done with a deal, but Parliament rejected the deal. We are a Parliamentary democracy so respect Parliament and see leave through as Parliament has decided by its actions.
Throughout the history of Wikipedia - irrespective of the country - it's always done on seats won, not on vote share.
Well it's been reverted and all I've done is show of my IP.
At least I was trying to take a stand for democracy.
Wikipedia has a style guide.
The style guide for elections has - and has always had - seats above votes.
If you don't like it, you can engage with the 300 odd Wikipedia editors who police the style guides.
They will probably not be as polite to you as I am.
That's the last piece of help that Wikipedia is going to get from me anyway.
Is this some new meaning of the word "help" that I was previously unaware of?
So apparently it wasn't in the style guide. I was only trying to help them be more relevant. If it wasn't for that 3rd place we might not have had the EU ref.
10th place.
The Tories were the ones who won a majority. The Tories had a manifesto commitment to having an EU referendum.
The 1 seat that UKIP won in their 10th place is not responsible for the referendum, the Tories coming in 1st place with 330 is what got it.
So if UKIP polled 2pc there would have been a referendum? Don't think so.
I'm clearly not an expert, but no matter how undesirable No Deal is, I had it in my mind that it was always an option, albeit one that no sane Prime Minister would want to pursue. I also have no idea who has a mandate for what, and I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of the public are in the same boat as me. It's all getting a bit chaotic, but it is always pleasant to see Tories at each other's throat so I can't complain too much.
Brexit: It really is as simple as delivering on a democratic mandate. There are no ifs or buts. How much clearer could the instruction be?
Meeks; You are fighting against democracy. You have so much more to lose than you have to gain. If you and the other remainders fight with Democracy then who knows.
There is no mandate for no deal Brexit. I have no idea how you can imagine that there is.
Then you are lacking in imagination
There was a vote to leave
It is a reasonable assumption that most believed a deal was likely.
But the instruction was to leave. There was no caveat saying “but only if you negotiate a deal”
Was that how the referendum campaign was fought by Leave, what they argued for?
Leave was the vote. No deal is the only way we can leave if we can't get a deal through Parliament, and the Remainers were largely responsible for that failure.
That's not true. The UK could also leave by holding a border poll resulting in the dissolution of the UK.
All roads now lead to the end of the UK. We would be wise to choose the least disruptive.
That's tosh, utter tosh
No Deal = quick disorderly break up of the UK Deal = slow orderly break up of the UK Revocation = polarisation of UK politics along nationalist lines leading to the break up of the UK
Brexit: It really is as simple as delivering on a democratic mandate. There are no ifs or buts. How much clearer could the instruction be?
Meeks; You are fighting against democracy. You have so much more to lose than you have to gain. If you and the other remainders fight with Democracy then who knows.
There is no mandate for no deal Brexit. I have no idea how you can imagine that there is.
Then you are lacking in imagination
There was a vote to leave
It is a reasonable assumption that most believed a deal was likely.
But the instruction was to leave. There was no caveat saying “but only if you negotiate a deal”
Was that how the referendum campaign was fought by Leave, what they argued for?
It’s no use, Alastair. You could quote all the statements made by Johnson, Gove, Raab and the rest of the Cabinet and it would all be ignored.
You could even, as I have done in a thread header, quote the specific words in the Tory manifesto of 2017, on which all these lying halfwits were elected, which says that they will have an orderly exit and that too will be ignored.
Remainer MPs rejected an orderly exit deal 3 times. ERG was irrelevant as were the other Tory rebels.
So get a mandate for No Deal or for a different deal. But don’t go round claiming a mandate you don’t have or lying, as Raab has, about what was said during the referendum campaign.
The mandate, if you need one for an agreed default option, is the referendum result. Remainers look like they have foist that default on us. I want a deal.
Brexit: It really is as simple as delivering on a democratic mandate. There are no ifs or buts. How much clearer could the instruction be?
Meeks; You are fighting against democracy. You have so much more to lose than you have to gain. If you and the other remainders fight with Democracy then who knows.
There is no mandate for no deal Brexit. I have no idea how you can imagine that there is.
Then you are lacking in imagination
There was a vote to leave
It is a reasonable assumption that most believed a deal was likely.
But the instruction was to leave. There was no caveat saying “but only if you negotiate a deal”
Was that how the referendum campaign was fought by Leave, what they argued for?
Doesn’t matter the question was Leave/Remain
It’s up to the Executive to interpret it and the voters get to judge them in due course
Of course it matters. Leavers are now claiming a mandate for something they angrily rejected during the referendum campaign. The idea they have a mandate for it is ridiculous.
They have a mandate for leaving, That should have been done with a deal, but Parliament rejected the deal. We are a Parliamentary democracy so respect Parliament and see leave through as Parliament has decided by its actions.
Not sure still what other unicorn you see?
There’s no need for unicorns. The options from here are:
1) revert to the deal on the table
2) seek to negotiate a new deal
3) now seek a mandate for no deal
It’s not Remainers’ fault that Leavers’ prospectus was full of flaws.
Do tell me where the mandate for 31 October do or die comes from?
Throughout the history of Wikipedia - irrespective of the country - it's always done on seats won, not on vote share.
Well it's been reverted and all I've done is show of my IP.
At least I was trying to take a stand for democracy.
Wikipedia has a style guide.
The style guide for elections has - and has always had - seats above votes.
If you don't like it, you can engage with the 300 odd Wikipedia editors who police the style guides.
They will probably not be as polite to you as I am.
That's the last piece of help that Wikipedia is going to get from me anyway.
Is this some new meaning of the word "help" that I was previously unaware of?
So apparently it wasn't in the style guide. I was only trying to help them be more relevant. If it wasn't for that 3rd place we might not have had the EU ref.
Brexit: It really is as simple as delivering on a democratic mandate. There are no ifs or buts. How much clearer could the instruction be?
Meeks; You are fighting against democracy. You have so much more to lose than you have to gain. If you and the other remainders fight with Democracy then who knows.
There is no mandate for no deal Brexit. I have no idea how you can imagine that there is.
Then you are lacking in imagination
There was a vote to leave
It is a reasonable assumption that most believed a deal was likely.
But the instruction was to leave. There was no caveat saying “but only if you negotiate a deal”
Was that how the referendum campaign was fought by Leave, what they argued for?
Leave was the vote. No deal is the only way we can leave if we can't get a deal through Parliament, and the Remainers were largely responsible for that failure.
That's not true. The UK could also leave by holding a border poll resulting in the dissolution of the UK.
All roads now lead to the end of the UK. We would be wise to choose the least disruptive.
That's tosh, utter tosh
No Deal = quick disorderly break up of the UK Deal = slow orderly break up of the UK Revocation = polarisation of UK politics along nationalist lines leading to the break up of the UK
The UK is done.
Dream on
It is done. Cracks that were always there have been widened by Brexit. Well, not actually Brexit, but the totally amateur and incompetent way it has been handled. If we go out No Deal, I can't see Scotland voting to stay with us if English Westminster grants them another referendum. We're heading for a long stint of wankiness.
It's not done. But if South Sudan mk 2 does appear on England's doorstep I agree it will be wanky.
I'm not getting the South Sudan mk2 thingy.
A failed State that claimed ownership of Sudan’s oil?
Looks like it's time to start my No Deal stockpiling. I already have enough loo roll. Just need to buy an enormous bag of rice and fill the freezer up with chilli, curry and cottage pie. All I need after that is a suitcase full of Euros and a lengthy project abroad starting in late October. Maybe it's time to take those LinkedIn messages about jobs in the Gulf a bit more seriously - it's starting to not sound as bad as it did a few years ago after the rhetoric since 2016.
Brexit: It really is as simple as delivering on a democratic mandate. There are no ifs or buts. How much clearer could the instruction be?
Meeks; You are fighting against democracy. You have so much more to lose than you have to gain. If you and the other remainders fight with Democracy then who knows.
There is no mandate for no deal Brexit. I have no idea how you can imagine that there is.
Then you are lacking in imagination
There was a vote to leave
It is a reasonable assumption that most believed a deal was likely.
But the instruction was to leave. There was no caveat saying “but only if you negotiate a deal”
Was that how the referendum campaign was fought by Leave, what they argued for?
Doesn’t matter the question was Leave/Remain
It’s up to the Executive to interpret it and the voters get to judge them in due course
Of course it matters. Leavers are now claiming a mandate for something they angrily rejected during the referendum campaign. The idea they have a mandate for it is ridiculous.
They have a mandate for leaving, That should have been done with a deal, but Parliament rejected the deal. We are a Parliamentary democracy so respect Parliament and see leave through as Parliament has decided by its actions.
Not sure still what other unicorn you see?
There’s no need for unicorns. The options from here are:
1) revert to the deal on the table
2) seek to negotiate a new deal
3) now seek a mandate for no deal
It’s not Remainers’ fault that Leavers’ prospectus was full of flaws.
Do tell me where the mandate for 31 October do or die comes from?
1) This is dead, Parliament rejected it. 2) This is dead, the EU rejected it. 3) No need, this is the only option left. By Parliament and the EU's choice.
It comes from Parliament and the EU. There's nothing left to drag out, all other options are deceased so this is all that is left. There's literally nothing else left.
Remainers were full of glee the deal was dead. Remainers were full of glee calling alternative deals "unicorns". Now they're horrified to be taken at their word.
To every Remain MP and Remain supporter that wished the deal dead: Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it.
Brexit: It really is as simple as delivering on a democratic mandate. There are no ifs or buts. How much clearer could the instruction be?
Meeks; You are fighting against democracy. You have so much more to lose than you have to gain. If you and the other remainders fight with Democracy then who knows.
There is no mandate for no deal Brexit. I have no idea how you can imagine that there is.
Then you are lacking in imagination
There was a vote to leave
It is a reasonable assumption that most believed a deal was likely.
But the instruction was to leave. There was no caveat saying “but only if you negotiate a deal”
Was that how the referendum campaign was fought by Leave, what they argued for?
Leave was the vote. No deal is the only way we can leave if we can't get a deal through Parliament, and the Remainers were largely responsible for that failure.
That's not true. The UK could also leave by holding a border poll resulting in the dissolution of the UK.
All roads now lead to the end of the UK. We would be wise to choose the least disruptive.
That's tosh, utter tosh
No Deal = quick disorderly break up of the UK Deal = slow orderly break up of the UK Revocation = polarisation of UK politics along nationalist lines leading to the break up of the UK
The UK is done.
Dream on
It is done. Cracks that were always there have been widened by Brexit. Well, not actually Brexit, but the totally amateur and incompetent way it has been handled. If we go out No Deal, I can't see Scotland voting to stay with us if English Westminster grants them another referendum. We're heading for a long stint of wankiness.
It's not done. But if South Sudan mk 2 does appear on England's doorstep I agree it will be wanky.
I'm not getting the South Sudan mk2 thingy.
A failed State that claimed ownership of Sudan’s oil?
Sorry missed this question. the basket case that is South Sudan is the world's newest country. It may be replaced in that status by the basket case that would be iScot
Brexit: It really is as simple as delivering on a democratic mandate. There are no ifs or buts. How much clearer could the instruction be?
Meeks; You are fighting against democracy. You have so much more to lose than you have to gain. If you and the other remainders fight with Democracy then who knows.
There is no mandate for no deal Brexit. I have no idea how you can imagine that there is.
Then you are lacking in imagination
There was a vote to leave
It is a reasonable assumption that most believed a deal was likely.
But the instruction was to leave. There was no caveat saying “but only if you negotiate a deal”
Was that how the referendum campaign was fought by Leave, what they argued for?
Doesn’t matter the question was Leave/Remain
It’s up to the Executive to interpret it and the voters get to judge them in due course
Of course it matters. Leavers are now claiming a mandate for something they angrily rejected during the referendum campaign. The idea they have a mandate for it is ridiculous.
I fear I’m the only leave voter I’ve yet met whose preferred outcome was to revoke Article 50 and reject the premise of this approach to leaving. I think the argument for that position was winnable, but the time has passed, not least because none of us now trust we’d still leave if we don’t leave on 31 October.
Leaving on 31 October now means no deal, so we will have to live with whatever temporary disruption that causes. It’s the game playing in Parliament, and as much as anything the refusal of remainers to cooperate and compromise, that’s got us to this point. Sadly we also now seemed doomed to live out an American style culture war for the rest of my days, because remainers now view leavers as beyond the pale. Hey ho, I’ll get over it by stepping back from politics and concentrating on more interesting and less vitriolic things.
Brexit: It really is as simple as delivering on a democratic mandate. There are no ifs or buts. How much clearer could the instruction be?
Meeks; You are fighting against democracy. You have so much more to lose than you have to gain. If you and the other remainders fight with Democracy then who knows.
There is no mandate for no deal Brexit. I have no idea how you can imagine that there is.
Then you are lacking in imagination
There was a vote to leave
It is a reasonable assumption that most believed a deal was likely.
But the instruction was to leave. There was no caveat saying “but only if you negotiate a deal”
Was that how the referendum campaign was fought by Leave, what they argued for?
It’s no use, Alastair. You could quote all the statements made by Johnson, Gove, Raab and the rest of the Cabinet and it would all be ignored.
You could even, as I have done in a thread header, quote the specific words in the Tory manifesto of 2017, on which all these lying halfwits were elected, which says that they will have an orderly exit and that too will be ignored.
Remainer MPs rejected an orderly exit deal 3 times. ERG was irrelevant as were the other Tory rebels.
May's deal was a pretty hard version of Brexit. You can hardly blame Labour MPs for not supporting it. The situation we are in is pretty much down to the Tories.
Can you count?
I can count that the Conservatives were in government because they had enough MPs to support it. They failed to pass the deal their leader had negotiated. If that doesn't make it a failing of the Conservative Party you are going to have to show me your working.
I don't intend to waste time on educating the uneducable.
It would be interesting if Hammond sketched out the deal he thinks is available, and would clear Parliament. The deal May negotiated was heavily defeated thrice, and the EU say it was the only deal available. If Hammond knows otherwise he should give the details.
The EU has repeatedly said that this is the deal available based on Mrs May’s red lines. Change those and it would be possible to negotiate a different deal.
For instance, you could have a Deal which takes Britain out of the EU but keeps it in the Single Market, for instance. That would be fulfilling the Leave mandate, using the logic put forward by some Leavers on here. (I wonder what the reaction of Leavers would be if that were to be suggested. I suspect there would be a lot of claims that this was not the Leave mandate. Or would that be too cynical?)
But Johnson is simply refusing to come up with any sort of negotiating strategy at all. The fact that the previous deal has been defeated does not prevent him from putting forward his own suggestions.
This really bugs me. He had nine points already, and was too stupid and arrogant to slow down. Then he bleats that his job will be in affected if he gets a longer ban. The judge is a wanker!
Brexit: It really is as simple as delivering on a democratic mandate. There are no ifs or buts. How much clearer could the instruction be?
Meeks; You are fighting against democracy. You have so much more to lose than you have to gain. If you and the other remainders fight with Democracy then who knows.
There is no mandate for no deal Brexit. I have no idea how you can imagine that there is.
Then you are lacking in imagination
There was a vote to leave
It is a reasonable assumption that most believed a deal was likely.
But the instruction was to leave. There was no caveat saying “but only if you negotiate a deal”
Was that how the referendum campaign was fought by Leave, what they argued for?
Doesn’t matter the question was Leave/Remain
It’s up to the Executive to interpret it and the voters get to judge them in due course
Of course it matters. Leavers are now claiming a mandate for something they angrily rejected during the referendum campaign. The idea they have a mandate for it is ridiculous.
They have a mandate for leaving, That should have been done with a deal, but Parliament rejected the deal. We are a Parliamentary democracy so respect Parliament and see leave through as Parliament has decided by its actions.
Not sure still what other unicorn you see?
There’s no need for unicorns. The options from here are:
1) revert to the deal on the table
2) seek to negotiate a new deal
3) now seek a mandate for no deal
It’s not Remainers’ fault that Leavers’ prospectus was full of flaws.
Do tell me where the mandate for 31 October do or die comes from?
The public voted to leave and Parliament voted to leave on 31 October. What more mandate do you need?
It would be interesting if Hammond sketched out the deal he thinks is available, and would clear Parliament. The deal May negotiated was heavily defeated thrice, and the EU say it was the only deal available. If Hammond knows otherwise he should give the details.
The EU has repeatedly said that this is the deal available based on Mrs May’s red lines. Change those and it would be possible to negotiate a different deal.
For instance, you could have a Deal which takes Britain out of the EU but keeps it in the Single Market, for instance. That would be fulfilling the Leave mandate, using the logic put forward by some Leavers on here. (I wonder what the reaction of Leavers would be if that were to be suggested. I suspect there would be a lot of claims that this was not the Leave mandate. Or would that be too cynical?)
But Johnson is simply refusing to come up with any sort of negotiating strategy at all. The fact that the previous deal has been defeated does not prevent him from putting forward his own suggestions.
But his self-imposed 31 October deadline does prevent him negotiating a new deal.
Looks like it's time to start my No Deal stockpiling. I already have enough loo roll. Just need to buy an enormous bag of rice and fill the freezer up with chilli, curry and cottage pie. All I need after that is a suitcase full of Euros and a lengthy project abroad starting in late October. Maybe it's time to take those LinkedIn messages about jobs in the Gulf a bit more seriously - it's starting to not sound as bad as it did a few years ago after the rhetoric since 2016.
I was contemplating the possibility of some work in HK. I’m going to have to think again.
They’ve pictures the top 4 by seats (excluding NI?). That’s what matters
It's top 6 (including NI) for 2017 - basically they're all over the shop trying to write UKIP out of history.
UKIP didn't even win any seats in 2017!
And they got a lot lower share of the vote - but if Terrorist Adams can get his photo up there in 2017 then our patriotic Nigel should be up there for 2015
I believe it was actually a JP. But I'm intrigued. The basic tenor of that comment implies you have met a judge who is NOT a wanker. Who was it and when?
I'm happy to say I have never met an actual Judge, unless you count the Loughborough Monitor annual christmas colouring competition from 48 years ago. I'm told the Judge was some Coronation Street star.
There is no mandate for no deal Brexit. I have no idea how you can imagine that there is.
Then you are lacking in imagination
There was a vote to leave
It is a reasonable assumption that most believed a deal was likely.
But the instruction was to leave. There was no caveat saying “but only if you negotiate a deal”
Was that how the referendum campaign was fought by Leave, what they argued for?
Doesn’t matter the question was Leave/Remain
It’s up to the Executive to interpret it and the voters get to judge them in due course
Of course it matters. Leavers are now claiming a mandate for something they angrily rejected during the referendum campaign. The idea they have a mandate for it is ridiculous.
They have a mandate for leaving, That should have been done with a deal, but Parliament rejected the deal. We are a Parliamentary democracy so respect Parliament and see leave through as Parliament has decided by its actions.
Not sure still what other unicorn you see?
There’s no need for unicorns. The options from here are:
1) revert to the deal on the table
2) seek to negotiate a new deal
3) now seek a mandate for no deal
It’s not Remainers’ fault that Leavers’ prospectus was full of flaws.
Do tell me where the mandate for 31 October do or die comes from?
1) This is dead, Parliament rejected it. 2) This is dead, the EU rejected it. 3) No need, this is the only option left. By Parliament and the EU's choice.
It comes from Parliament and the EU. There's nothing left to drag out, all other options are deceased so this is all that is left. There's literally nothing else left.
Remainers were full of glee the deal was dead. Remainers were full of glee calling alternative deals "unicorns". Now they're horrified to be taken at their word.
To every Remain MP and Remain supporter that wished the deal dead: Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it.
As usual, you have a desired outcome and make up facts to suit your outcome.
1) is only dead because Leavers like you will not consider it. 2) is not dead, the EU have consistently said that if Britain changes its negotiating aims then different deals are on the table. 3) requires a mandate.
Try dealing with reality instead of your death cult delusions.
It would be interesting if Hammond sketched out the deal he thinks is available, and would clear Parliament. The deal May negotiated was heavily defeated thrice, and the EU say it was the only deal available. If Hammond knows otherwise he should give the details.
The EU has repeatedly said that this is the deal available based on Mrs May’s red lines. Change those and it would be possible to negotiate a different deal.
For instance, you could have a Deal which takes Britain out of the EU but keeps it in the Single Market, for instance. That would be fulfilling the Leave mandate, using the logic put forward by some Leavers on here. (I wonder what the reaction of Leavers would be if that were to be suggested. I suspect there would be a lot of claims that this was not the Leave mandate. Or would that be too cynical?)
But Johnson is simply refusing to come up with any sort of negotiating strategy at all. The fact that the previous deal has been defeated does not prevent him from putting forward his own suggestions.
Any form of Leave that ends with us not being in the EU fills the referendum mandate. I would happily support any deal.
That said, I don't see why the EU gets to set the terms and the UK gets to choose within these. It has been obstinacy on both sides.
Remainers gave them the mandate by rejecting the deal. They could have permanently taken no deal off the table, but they got greedy and its backfired.
You don’t get to claim a mandate for something that you actively disavowed. Black is not white. You want no deal Brexit, you need a mandate for it. You haven’t got one.
This is not difficult stuff but Leavers are determined to undermine Britain’s democracy because they hate the EU so much.
We have a mandate to leave.
No deal is not a thing. It is just an absence of a deal, since you guys rejected the deal we have no choice, the only way to leave left open to us now is without a deal.
The deal is still there. It has been abandoned - without mandate - by the death cult.
Just respecting the clearly expressed view of Parliament which said an emphatic no, even when given the opportunity to reconsider
It would be interesting if Hammond sketched out the deal he thinks is available, and would clear Parliament. The deal May negotiated was heavily defeated thrice, and the EU say it was the only deal available. If Hammond knows otherwise he should give the details.
The EU has repeatedly said that this is the deal available based on Mrs May’s red lines. Change those and it would be possible to negotiate a different deal.
For instance, you could have a Deal which takes Britain out of the EU but keeps it in the Single Market, for instance. That would be fulfilling the Leave mandate, using the logic put forward by some Leavers on here. (I wonder what the reaction of Leavers would be if that were to be suggested. I suspect there would be a lot of claims that this was not the Leave mandate. Or would that be too cynical?)
But Johnson is simply refusing to come up with any sort of negotiating strategy at all. The fact that the previous deal has been defeated does not prevent him from putting forward his own suggestions.
But his self-imposed 31 October deadline does prevent him negotiating a new deal.
Indeed. It’s not even self-imposed, really. It’s been imposed by the EU. By the French.
And as @AlistairM has pointed out, that deadline has no mandate from anyone.
In order to TAKE BACK CONTROL and ensure that Parliament is once again sovereign, it has become clear that we need to, errr, shut down Parliament for a few weeks.
Catch 22 is not a comedy.
What is comical to me is that remainers are APOPLECTIC about a temporary suspension of parliament, but entirely comfortable with the permanent erosion of its powers, and the fact that it had become a rubber stamp for laws that originated elsewhere. Their concern for parliament's sovereignty is so breathtakingly self-serving it's astonishing that they expect to be heard out without derision.
It would be interesting if Hammond sketched out the deal he thinks is available, and would clear Parliament. The deal May negotiated was heavily defeated thrice, and the EU say it was the only deal available. If Hammond knows otherwise he should give the details.
The EU has repeatedly said that this is the deal available based on Mrs May’s red lines. Change those and it would be possible to negotiate a different deal.
For instance, you could have a Deal which takes Britain out of the EU but keeps it in the Single Market, for instance. That would be fulfilling the Leave mandate, using the logic put forward by some Leavers on here. (I wonder what the reaction of Leavers would be if that were to be suggested. I suspect there would be a lot of claims that this was not the Leave mandate. Or would that be too cynical?)
But Johnson is simply refusing to come up with any sort of negotiating strategy at all. The fact that the previous deal has been defeated does not prevent him from putting forward his own suggestions.
It would be interesting if Hammond sketched out the deal he thinks is available, and would clear Parliament. The deal May negotiated was heavily defeated thrice, and the EU say it was the only deal available. If Hammond knows otherwise he should give the details.
The EU has repeatedly said that this is the deal available based on Mrs May’s red lines. Change those and it would be possible to negotiate a different deal.
For instance, you could have a Deal which takes Britain out of the EU but keeps it in the Single Market, for instance. That would be fulfilling the Leave mandate, using the logic put forward by some Leavers on here. (I wonder what the reaction of Leavers would be if that were to be suggested. I suspect there would be a lot of claims that this was not the Leave mandate. Or would that be too cynical?)
But Johnson is simply refusing to come up with any sort of negotiating strategy at all. The fact that the previous deal has been defeated does not prevent him from putting forward his own suggestions.
The red lines didn't come from nowhere, ever single one of them is a Vote Leave commitment. The red lines are the one thing May didn't do wrong and Johnson has no reason to change any of them. Can you name one red line to change that he didn't rule out during the referendum? He explicitly for instance said leaving meant leaving the Single Market.
The negotiating strategy is the EU drops the backstop then we talk. They've said no. Oh well, time's nearly up, default it is then since the EU won't talk and Parliament rejected the original deal.
Remainers gave them the mandate by rejecting the deal. They could have permanently taken no deal off the table, but they got greedy and its backfired.
You don’t get to claim a mandate for something that you actively disavowed. Black is not white. You want no deal Brexit, you need a mandate for it. You haven’t got one.
This is not difficult stuff but Leavers are determined to undermine Britain’s democracy because they hate the EU so much.
We have a mandate to leave.
No deal is not a thing. It is just an absence of a deal, since you guys rejected the deal we have no choice, the only way to leave left open to us now is without a deal.
The deal is still there. It has been abandoned - without mandate - by the death cult.
Just respecting the clearly expressed view of Parliament which said an emphatic no, even when given the opportunity to reconsider
Then the executive need to renegotiate. There is no mandate for a no deal that was expressly and angrily rejected by Leave campaigners.
Unelected people pushed May towards a crap deal, namely Robbins. If the best Hammond can do is blame SPADs he's losing the argument.
It's the medieval myth of the king being led astray by his advisors. It's a useful device because it makes easier for the king to change course without losing face than if you blame him directly.
The EU should offer a new deal with a NI-only backstop, with the right of the NI executive to opt out via calling an NI only referendum at any time. Parliament should pass this over the heads of Boris and the DUP.
If Boris then wants to No Deal, it will be entirely on him.
Remainers gave them the mandate by rejecting the deal. They could have permanently taken no deal off the table, but they got greedy and its backfired.
You don’t get to claim a mandate for something that you actively disavowed. Black is not white. You want no deal Brexit, you need a mandate for it. You haven’t got one.
This is not difficult stuff but Leavers are determined to undermine Britain’s democracy because they hate the EU so much.
We have a mandate to leave.
No deal is not a thing. It is just an absence of a deal, since you guys rejected the deal we have no choice, the only way to leave left open to us now is without a deal.
The deal is still there. It has been abandoned - without mandate - by the death cult.
Just respecting the clearly expressed view of Parliament which said an emphatic no, even when given the opportunity to reconsider
Then the executive need to renegotiate. There is no mandate for a no deal that was expressly and angrily rejected by Leave campaigners.
The executive are open to renegotiation - the EU are saying non
Brexit: It really is as simple as delivering on a democratic mandate. There are no ifs or buts. How much clearer could the instruction be?
Meeks; You are fighting against democracy. You have so much more to lose than you have to gain. If you and the other remainders fight with Democracy then who knows.
There is no mandate for no deal Brexit. I have no idea how you can imagine that there is.
Then you are lacking in imagination
There was a vote to leave
It is a reasonable assumption that most believed a deal was likely.
But the instruction was to leave. There was no caveat saying “but only if you negotiate a deal”
Was that how the referendum campaign was fought by Leave, what they argued for?
Doesn’t matter the question was Leave/Remain
It’s up to the Executive to interpret it and the voters get to judge them in due course
Of course it matters. Leavers are now claiming a mandate for something they angrily rejected during the referendum campaign. The idea they have a mandate for it is ridiculous.
They have a mandate for leaving, That should have been done with a deal, but Parliament rejected the deal. We are a Parliamentary democracy so respect Parliament and see leave through as Parliament has decided by its actions.
Not sure still what other unicorn you see?
There’s no need for unicorns. The options from here are:
1) revert to the deal on the table
2) seek to negotiate a new deal
3) now seek a mandate for no deal
It’s not Remainers’ fault that Leavers’ prospectus was full of flaws.
Do tell me where the mandate for 31 October do or die comes from?
The public voted to leave and Parliament voted to leave on 31 October. What more mandate do you need?
I may be wrong but I don’t think Parliament did vote on the 31/10 date. Wasn’t that done via an exchange of letters?
And what about the manifesto on which the government was elected, you know where they talk about an orderly withdrawal? Or does that not count because it is now inconvenient?
It would be interesting if Hammond sketched out the deal he thinks is available, and would clear Parliament. The deal May negotiated was heavily defeated thrice, and the EU say it was the only deal available. If Hammond knows otherwise he should give the details.
The EU has repeatedly said that this is the deal available based on Mrs May’s red lines. Change those and it would be possible to negotiate a different deal.
For instance, you could have a Deal which takes Britain out of the EU but keeps it in the Single Market, for instance. That would be fulfilling the Leave mandate, using the logic put forward by some Leavers on here. (I wonder what the reaction of Leavers would be if that were to be suggested. I suspect there would be a lot of claims that this was not the Leave mandate. Or would that be too cynical?)
But Johnson is simply refusing to come up with any sort of negotiating strategy at all. The fact that the previous deal has been defeated does not prevent him from putting forward his own suggestions.
But his self-imposed 31 October deadline does prevent him negotiating a new deal.
Indeed. It’s not even self-imposed, really. It’s been imposed by the EU. By the French.
And as @AlistairM has pointed out, that deadline has no mandate from anyone.
Extending extends uncertainty for businesses. It is highly irresponsible, unless there is a very good reason to do so. Businesses have prepared and stockpiled for 31 October, if we extend all that was done for nothing and then they have to do that all over again.
It doesn't matter who chose the date, what matters is everyone knows the date and is preparing for that date. Unless you can guarantee an actual deal, delaying and bringing about a third date businesses will have to stockpile for is preposterous.
it is time for us to explain why — by busting two great myths.
The first is that to reject a no-deal exit is somehow to challenge the expressed will of the British people. It is not. In 2016 the British people were invited to vote for a Brexit with a deal, and by a small margin they did so. They were told that a deal to protect Britain’s trade with the EU — our largest export market by far — would be “easy” to do. To pretend now that 2016 Leave voters voted for a hard no-deal Brexit is a total travesty of the truth. As the BBC’s “reality check” had to remind Dominic Raab, now the foreign secretary, the possibility of no-deal was not “regularly raised” during the referendum campaign. Michael Gove put it best in March this year when he said: “We didn’t vote to leave without a deal. That wasn’t the message of the campaign I helped lead”.
So let’s be clear: as things stand today there is no popular mandate for a no-deal Brexit and no parliamentary mandate for one either. The hardliners may make the most noise but they are not the most numerous. Most people in this country want to see us leave in a smooth and orderly fashion that will not disrupt lives, cost jobs or diminish living standards, whether they voted Leave or Remain in 2016. Parliament faithfully reflects the view of that majority and it will make its voice heard. No-deal would be a betrayal of the 2016 referendum result. It must not happen.
Throughout the history of Wikipedia - irrespective of the country - it's always done on seats won, not on vote share.
Well it's been reverted and all I've done is show of my IP.
At least I was trying to take a stand for democracy.
Democracy is seats won.
Oh do shut up. I was only trying to make wiki less biased.
Actually you were doing precisely the opposite. They have a common standard for all parliamentary elections in all countries. You wanted to introduce a bias in one case
As usual, you have a desired outcome and make up facts to suit your outcome.
1) is only dead because Leavers like you will not consider it. 2) is not dead, the EU have consistently said that if Britain changes its negotiating aims then different deals are on the table. 3) requires a mandate.
Try dealing with reality instead of your death cult delusions.
1) No it is dead due to over 400 MPs rejecting it. Do you think every one of those MPs is a Leaver? 2) We aren't changing our aims though, so no there is no other deal. 3) No it doesn't. We have a mandate to leave, we now leave with the best deal available - which thanks to Parliament is no deal at all. Thanks guys.
You claim to respect Parliament but don't want to accept that it was Parliament that chose to reject the deal. Since no magical unicorn alternative deals have been discovered that leaves only one option remaining. As MPs knew could happen when they chose to reject the deal three times.
The EU should offer a new deal with a NI-only backstop, with the right of the NI executive to opt out via calling an NI only referendum at any time. Parliament should pass this over the heads of Boris and the DUP.
If Boris then wants to No Deal, it will be entirely on him.
There isn’t a majority for that in parliament. Unless the speakers vote now counts for 100.
Unelected people pushed May towards a crap deal, namely Robbins. If the best Hammond can do is blame SPADs he's losing the argument.
It's the medieval myth of the king being led astray by his advisors. It's a useful device because it makes easier for the king to change course without losing face than if you blame him directly.
Yes, the exact same emotions protected Mao and Stalin, and right now they protect Corbyn. It's not Jeremy who's a mad anti-Semite, it's his advisors Seamus and Formby etc etc
Brexit: It really is as simple as delivering on a democratic mandate. There are no ifs or buts. How much clearer could the instruction be?
Meeks; You are fighting against democracy. You have so much more to lose than you have to gain. If you and the other remainders fight with Democracy then who knows.
There is no mandate for no deal Brexit. I have no idea how you can imagine that there is.
Then you are lacking in imagination
There was a vote to leave
It is a reasonable assumption that most believed a deal was likely.
But the instruction was to leave. There was no caveat saying “but only if you negotiate a deal”
Was that how the referendum campaign was fought by Leave, what they argued for?
Doesn’t matter the question was Leave/Remain
It’s up to the Executive to interpret it and the voters get to judge them in due course
Of course it matters. Leavers are now claiming a mandate for something they angrily rejected during the referendum campaign. The idea they have a mandate for it is ridiculous.
They have a mandate for leaving, That should have been done with a deal, but Parliament rejected the deal. We are a Parliamentary democracy so respect Parliament and see leave through as Parliament has decided by its actions.
Not sure still what other unicorn you see?
There’s no need for unicorns. The options from here are:
1) revert to the deal on the table
2) seek to negotiate a new deal
3) now seek a mandate for no deal
It’s not Remainers’ fault that Leavers’ prospectus was full of flaws.
Do tell me where the mandate for 31 October do or die comes from?
The public voted to leave and Parliament voted to leave on 31 October. What more mandate do you need?
I may be wrong but I don’t think Parliament did vote on the 31/10 date. Wasn’t that done via an exchange of letters?
And what about the manifesto on which the government was elected, you know where they talk about an orderly withdrawal? Or does that not count because it is now inconvenient?
We are honouring the manifesto.
Thanks to the actions of Parliament, this is now the most orderly withdrawal possible.
The EU should offer a new deal with a NI-only backstop, with the right of the NI executive to opt out via calling an NI only referendum at any time. Parliament should pass this over the heads of Boris and the DUP.
It's a neat solution …… but Labour would vote against.
Corbyn isn't going to support any deal, under any circumstance. A crash exit hurts the Tories, and that's all he cares about.
Throughout the history of Wikipedia - irrespective of the country - it's always done on seats won, not on vote share.
Well it's been reverted and all I've done is show of my IP.
At least I was trying to take a stand for democracy.
Democracy is seats won.
Oh do shut up. I was only trying to make wiki less biased.
Actually you were doing precisely the opposite. They have a common standard for all parliamentary elections in all countries. You wanted to introduce a bias in one case
It would be interesting if Hammond sketched out the deal he thinks is available, and would clear Parliament. The deal May negotiated was heavily defeated thrice, and the EU say it was the only deal available. If Hammond knows otherwise he should give the details.
The EU has repeatedly said that this is the deal available based on Mrs May’s red lines. Change those and it would be possible to negotiate a different deal.
For instance, you could have a Deal which takes Britain out of the EU but keeps it in the Single Market, for instance. That would be fulfilling the Leave mandate, using the logic put forward by some Leavers on here. (I wonder what the reaction of Leavers would be if that were to be suggested. I suspect there would be a lot of claims that this was not the Leave mandate. Or would that be too cynical?)
But Johnson is simply refusing to come up with any sort of negotiating strategy at all. The fact that the previous deal has been defeated does not prevent him from putting forward his own suggestions.
The red lines didn't come from nowhere, ever single one of them is a Vote Leave commitment. The red lines are the one thing May didn't do wrong and Johnson has no reason to change any of them. Can you name one red line to change that he didn't rule out during the referendum? He explicitly for instance said leaving meant leaving the Single Market.
The negotiating strategy is the EU drops the backstop then we talk. They've said no. Oh well, time's nearly up, default it is then since the EU won't talk and Parliament rejected the original deal.
Leaving with a Deal was also a Vote Leave commitment during the campaign.
Apparently, that has now been abandoned. So other commitments can also be abandoned. Leaving the EU and remaining in the Single Market is by Leavers’ own logic complying with the referendum result. So the PM is well able to get a deal if he really wanted one.
As usual, you have a desired outcome and make up facts to suit your outcome.
1) is only dead because Leavers like you will not consider it. 2) is not dead, the EU have consistently said that if Britain changes its negotiating aims then different deals are on the table. 3) requires a mandate.
Try dealing with reality instead of your death cult delusions.
1) No it is dead due to over 400 MPs rejecting it. Do you think every one of those MPs is a Leaver? 2) We aren't changing our aims though, so no there is no other deal. 3) No it doesn't. We have a mandate to leave, we now leave with the best deal available - which thanks to Parliament is no deal at all. Thanks guys.
You claim to respect Parliament but don't want to accept that it was Parliament that chose to reject the deal. Since no magical unicorn alternative deals have been discovered that leaves only one option remaining. As MPs knew could happen when they chose to reject the deal three times.
Yet again, you invent facts to create an argument. No one voted for no deal. There are deals available. The government is unwilling either to advocate for the existing one or seek a new one. That does not give a mandate for no deal. It just means that Brexit is collapsing under its internal contradictions.
Until you start dealing with facts rather than working backwards from your millenarian death cult, you’re going to continue spouting nonsense.
Brexit: It really is as simple as delivering on a democratic mandate. There are no ifs or buts. How much clearer could the instruction be?
Meeks; You are fighting against democracy. You have so much more to lose than you have to gain. If you and the other remainders fight with Democracy then who knows.
There is no mandate for no deal Brexit. I have no idea how you can imagine that there is.
Then you are lacking in imagination
There was a vote to leave
It is a reasonable assumption that most believed a deal was likely.
But the instruction was to leave. There was no caveat saying “but only if you negotiate a deal”
Was that how the referendum campaign was fought by Leave, what they argued for?
Doesn’t matter the question was Leave/Remain
It’s up to the Executive to interpret it and the voters get to judge them in due course
Of course it matters. Leavers are now claiming a mandate for something they angrily rejected during the referendum campaign. The idea they have a mandate for it is ridiculous.
Brexit: It really is as simple as delivering on a democratic mandate. There are no ifs or buts. How much clearer could the instruction be?
Meeks; You are fighting against democracy. You have so much more to lose than you have to gain. If you and the other remainders fight with Democracy then who knows.
There is no mandate for no deal Brexit. I have no idea how you can imagine that there is.
Then you are lacking in imagination
There was a vote to leave
It is a reasonable assumption that most believed a deal was likely.
But the instruction was to leave. There was no caveat saying “but only if you negotiate a deal”
Was that how the referendum campaign was fought by Leave, what they argued for?
Doesn’t matter the question was Leave/Remain
It’s up to the Executive to interpret it and the voters get to judge them in due course
Of course it matters. Leavers are now claiming a mandate for something they angrily rejected during the referendum campaign. The idea they have a mandate for it is ridiculous.
They have a mandate for leaving, That should have been done with a deal, but Parliament rejected the deal. We are a Parliamentary democracy so respect Parliament and see leave through as Parliament has decided by its actions.
Not sure still what other unicorn you see?
There’s no need for unicorns. The options from here are:
1) revert to the deal on the table
2) seek to negotiate a new deal
3) now seek a mandate for no deal
It’s not Remainers’ fault that Leavers’ prospectus was full of flaws.
Do tell me where the mandate for 31 October do or die comes from?
The public voted to leave and Parliament voted to leave on 31 October. What more mandate do you need?
I may be wrong but I don’t think Parliament did vote on the 31/10 date. Wasn’t that done via an exchange of letters?
And what about the manifesto on which the government was elected, you know where they talk about an orderly withdrawal? Or does that not count because it is now inconvenient?
Orderly = Neatly and methodically arranged (OED). "No Deal" can manage that.
Brexit: It really is as simple as delivering on a democratic mandate. There are no ifs or buts. How much clearer could the instruction be?
Meeks; You are fighting against democracy. You have so much more to lose than you have to gain. If you and the other remainders fight with Democracy then who knows.
There is no mandate for no deal Brexit. I have no idea how you can imagine that there is.
Then you are lacking in imagination
There was a vote to leave
It is a reasonable assumption that most believed a deal was likely.
But the instruction was to leave. There was no caveat saying “but only if you negotiate a deal”
Was that how the referendum campaign was fought by Leave, what they argued for?
Doesn’t matter the question was Leave/Remain
It’s up to the Executive to interpret it and the voters get to judge them in due course
Of course it matters. Leavers are now claiming a mandate for something they angrily rejected during the referendum campaign. The idea they have a mandate for it is ridiculous.
You continue to assert as fact an opinion
Are you suggesting that Leavers did not angrily reject the idea of no deal during the referendum campaign?
Remainers gave them the mandate by rejecting the deal. They could have permanently taken no deal off the table, but they got greedy and its backfired.
You don’t get to claim a mandate for something that you actively disavowed. Black is not white. You want no deal Brexit, you need a mandate for it. You haven’t got one.
This is not difficult stuff but Leavers are determined to undermine Britain’s democracy because they hate the EU so much.
We have a mandate to leave.
No deal is not a thing. It is just an absence of a deal, since you guys rejected the deal we have no choice, the only way to leave left open to us now is without a deal.
The deal is still there. It has been abandoned - without mandate - by the death cult.
Just respecting the clearly expressed view of Parliament which said an emphatic no, even when given the opportunity to reconsider
Then the executive need to renegotiate. There is no mandate for a no deal that was expressly and angrily rejected by Leave campaigners.
No deal isn't a choice, its a default.
Its like saying I don't have a mandate for no jackpot in this weeks lottery, since I want the jackpot. A good deal would have been nice, but Parliament rejected it [quite rightly IMO but that's another matter] so now we are left without one. That's Parliament's decision.
Brexit: It really is as simple as delivering on a democratic mandate. There are no ifs or buts. How much clearer could the instruction be?
Meeks; You are fighting against democracy. You have so much more to lose than you have to gain. If you and the other remainders fight with Democracy then who knows.
There is no mandate for no deal Brexit. I have no idea how you can imagine that there is.
Then you are lacking in imagination
There was a vote to leave
It is a reasonable assumption that most believed a deal was likely.
But the instruction was to leave. There was no caveat saying “but only if you negotiate a deal”
Was that how the referendum campaign was fought by Leave, what they argued for?
Doesn’t matter the question was Leave/Remain
It’s up to the Executive to interpret it and the voters get to judge them in due course
Of course it matters. Leavers are now claiming a mandate for something they angrily rejected during the referendum campaign. The idea they have a mandate for it is ridiculous.
You continue to assert as fact an opinion
Are you suggesting that Leavers did not angrily reject the idea of no deal during the referendum campaign?
I for one didn't foresee Remainers in Parliament rejecting a deal when the alternative was no deal. I'm shocked they chose to do that, but they did.
It would be interesting if Hammond sketched out the deal he thinks is available, and would clear Parliament. The deal May negotiated was heavily defeated thrice, and the EU say it was the only deal available. If Hammond knows otherwise he should give the details.
The EU has repeatedly said that this is the deal available based on Mrs May’s red lines. Change those and it would be possible to negotiate a different deal.
For instance, you could have a Deal which takes Britain out of the EU but keeps it in the Single Market, for instance. That would be fulfilling the Leave mandate, using the logic put forward by some Leavers on here. (I wonder what the reaction of Leavers would be if that were to be suggested. I suspect there would be a lot of claims that this was not the Leave mandate. Or would that be too cynical?)
But Johnson is simply refusing to come up with any sort of negotiating strategy at all. The fact that the previous deal has been defeated does not prevent him from putting forward his own suggestions.
But his self-imposed 31 October deadline does prevent him negotiating a new deal.
Indeed. It’s not even self-imposed, really. It’s been imposed by the EU. By the French.
And as @AlistairM has pointed out, that deadline has no mandate from anyone.
Extending extends uncertainty for businesses. It is highly irresponsible, unless there is a very good reason to do so. Businesses have prepared and stockpiled for 31 October, if we extend all that was done for nothing and then they have to do that all over again.
It doesn't matter who chose the date, what matters is everyone knows the date and is preparing for that date. Unless you can guarantee an actual deal, delaying and bringing about a third date businesses will have to stockpile for is preposterous.
Spare me the faux concern for business. Business has been saying for ages now that No Deal is not what they want and that it will be damaging. Business is only listened to when it says something the No Dealers want to hear.
Brexit: It really is as simple as delivering on a democratic mandate. There are no ifs or buts. How much clearer could the instruction be?
Meeks; You are fighting against democracy. You have so much more to lose than you have to gain. If you and the other remainders fight with Democracy then who knows.
There is no mandate for no deal Brexit. I have no idea how you can imagine that there is.
Then you are lacking in imagination
There was a vote to leave
It is a reasonable assumption that most believed a deal was likely.
But the instruction was to leave. There was no caveat saying “but only if you negotiate a deal”
Was that how the referendum campaign was fought by Leave, what they argued for?
Leave was the vote. No deal is the only way we can leave if we can't get a deal through Parliament, and the Remainers were largely responsible for that failure.
That's not true. The UK could also leave by holding a border poll resulting in the dissolution of the UK.
All roads now lead to the end of the UK. We would be wise to choose the least disruptive.
That's tosh, utter tosh
No Deal = quick disorderly break up of the UK Deal = slow orderly break up of the UK Revocation = polarisation of UK politics along nationalist lines leading to the break up of the UK
The UK is done.
Dream on
It is done. Cracks that were always there have been widened by Brexit. Well, not actually Brexit, but the totally amateur and incompetent way it has been handled. If we go out No Deal, I can't see Scotland voting to stay with us if English Westminster grants them another referendum. We're heading for a long stint of wankiness.
It's not done. But if South Sudan mk 2 does appear on England's doorstep I agree it will be wanky.
I'm not getting the South Sudan mk2 thingy.
A failed State that claimed ownership of Sudan’s oil?
Sorry missed this question. the basket case that is South Sudan is the world's newest country. It may be replaced in that status by the basket case that would be iScot
In order to TAKE BACK CONTROL and ensure that Parliament is once again sovereign, it has become clear that we need to, errr, shut down Parliament for a few weeks.
Catch 22 is not a comedy.
What is comical to me is that remainers are APOPLECTIC about a temporary suspension of parliament, but entirely comfortable with the permanent erosion of its powers, and the fact that it had become a rubber stamp for laws that originated elsewhere. Their concern for parliament's sovereignty is so breathtakingly self-serving it's astonishing that they expect to be heard out without derision.
Loving the sophistry of the temporary vs permanent bit. Are you worse off if I temporarily deprive you of oxygen, say for 30 minutes, or permanently deprive you of £5?
Congratulations to all those Corbyn fans who voted for Brexit. The US Trump representative on Newsnight has just said 'we want a trade deal with the UK to reward them for doing the right thing by leaving this left wing organisation the EU'
As usual, you have a desired outcome and make up facts to suit your outcome.
1) is only dead because Leavers like you will not consider it. 2) is not dead, the EU have consistently said that if Britain changes its negotiating aims then different deals are on the table. 3) requires a mandate.
Try dealing with reality instead of your death cult delusions.
1) No it is dead due to over 400 MPs rejecting it. Do you think every one of those MPs is a Leaver? 2) We aren't changing our aims though, so no there is no other deal. 3) No it doesn't. We have a mandate to leave, we now leave with the best deal available - which thanks to Parliament is no deal at all. Thanks guys.
You claim to respect Parliament but don't want to accept that it was Parliament that chose to reject the deal. Since no magical unicorn alternative deals have been discovered that leaves only one option remaining. As MPs knew could happen when they chose to reject the deal three times.
Yet again, you invent facts to create an argument. No one voted for no deal. There are deals available. The government is unwilling either to advocate for the existing one or seek a new one. That does not give a mandate for no deal. It just means that Brexit is collapsing under its internal contradictions.
Until you start dealing with facts rather than working backwards from your millenarian death cult, you’re going to continue spouting nonsense.
You don't need to vote for no deal! No deal is the default that was created by invoking Article 50.
The government got a couple of years then to negotiate a deal, it managed to, but Parliament thrice rejected it. That was Parliament's choice. Doesn't change the default, doesn't change the EU's constitution, doesn't change the law. If you reject the deal, you are left with no deal.
You are the one working backwards assuming no deal is an actual choice rather than the natural state of NOT HAVING A DEAL because Parliament rejected it.
So get a mandate for No Deal or for a different deal. But don’t go round claiming a mandate you don’t have or lying, as Raab has, about what was said during the referendum campaign.
You would perhaps be well served by revisiting the wording of the EU referendum rather than ascribing legislative significance to the campaigning of individual groups.
Parliament invoked Article 50 in the full knowledge that, in the absence of an alternative, the UK would leave the EU without a deal.
Your anger should be directed at the remainers in parliament who have driven the UK to this point by voting down the available deals in the hope that Brexit itself would be stopped.
It would appear this has backfired spectacularly and no amount of wailing that there wasn't a mandate or it was the ERG's fault will change that.
Unelected people pushed May towards a crap deal, namely Robbins. If the best Hammond can do is blame SPADs he's losing the argument.
It's the medieval myth of the king being led astray by his advisors. It's a useful device because it makes easier for the king to change course without losing face than if you blame him directly.
Yes, the exact same emotions protected Mao and Stalin, and right now they protect Corbyn. It's not Jeremy who's a mad anti-Semite, it's his advisors Seamus and Formby etc etc
But doing nothing calls your assertion into question. Being a passive anti-Semite is not not being anti-Semite.
It would be interesting if Hammond sketched out the deal he thinks is available, and would clear Parliament. The deal May negotiated was heavily defeated thrice, and the EU say it was the only deal available. If Hammond knows otherwise he should give the details.
The EU has repeatedly said that this is the deal available based on Mrs May’s red lines. Change those and it would be possible to negotiate a different deal.
For instance, you could have a Deal which takes Britain out of the EU but keeps it in the Single Market, for instance. That would be fulfilling the Leave mandate, using the logic put forward by some Leavers on here. (I wonder what the reaction of Leavers would be if that were to be suggested. I suspect there would be a lot of claims that this was not the Leave mandate. Or would that be too cynical?)
But Johnson is simply refusing to come up with any sort of negotiating strategy at all. The fact that the previous deal has been defeated does not prevent him from putting forward his own suggestions.
But his self-imposed 31 October deadline does prevent him negotiating a new deal.
The EU chose the date. He’s just said this is a waste of time: the deal isn’t acceptable to the U.K. and the EU says there is no alternative so there’s no point to an extension
Comments
The style guide for elections has - and has always had - seats above votes.
If you don't like it, you can engage with the 300 odd Wikipedia editors who police the style guides.
They will probably not be as polite to you as I am.
2) Article 50 was not triggered on 23 June 2016. And Vote Leave campaigned on the basis that it would not be triggered until a deal was reached.
In short, you are just plain wrong.
Remainer May invoked Article 50, as authorised to do so by our Parliament including hundreds of Remainer MPs who then blocked the deal.
In short, you are plain wrong. You claim to back Parliament, but you seem to hold no truck in what Parliament has actually voted to do. Parliament chose to authorise invoking Article 50, Parliament chose to reject a deal, Parliament left no deal as all that remains.
It’s up to the Executive to interpret it and the voters get to judge them in due course
Have to go out now!
20 is a sizeable group. There will be twice as many who are sympathetic but who did not want to stick their heads above the parapet
The Tories were the ones who won a majority. The Tories had a manifesto commitment to having an EU referendum.
The 1 seat that UKIP won in their 10th place is not responsible for the referendum, the Tories coming in 1st place with 330 is what got it.
Not sure still what other unicorn you see?
1) revert to the deal on the table
2) seek to negotiate a new deal
3) now seek a mandate for no deal
It’s not Remainers’ fault that Leavers’ prospectus was full of flaws.
Do tell me where the mandate for 31 October do or die comes from?
2) This is dead, the EU rejected it.
3) No need, this is the only option left. By Parliament and the EU's choice.
It comes from Parliament and the EU. There's nothing left to drag out, all other options are deceased so this is all that is left. There's literally nothing else left.
Remainers were full of glee the deal was dead. Remainers were full of glee calling alternative deals "unicorns". Now they're horrified to be taken at their word.
To every Remain MP and Remain supporter that wished the deal dead: Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it.
Leaving on 31 October now means no deal, so we will have to live with whatever temporary disruption that causes. It’s the game playing in Parliament, and as much as anything the refusal of remainers to cooperate and compromise, that’s got us to this point. Sadly we also now seemed doomed to live out an American style culture war for the rest of my days, because remainers now view leavers as beyond the pale. Hey ho, I’ll get over it by stepping back from politics and concentrating on more interesting and less vitriolic things.
For instance, you could have a Deal which takes Britain out of the EU but keeps it in the Single Market, for instance. That would be fulfilling the Leave mandate, using the logic put forward by some Leavers on here. (I wonder what the reaction of Leavers would be if that were to be suggested. I suspect there would be a lot of claims that this was not the Leave mandate. Or would that be too cynical?)
But Johnson is simply refusing to come up with any sort of negotiating strategy at all. The fact that the previous deal has been defeated does not prevent him from putting forward his own suggestions.
Who says UNS is dead?
1) is only dead because Leavers like you will not consider it.
2) is not dead, the EU have consistently said that if Britain changes its negotiating aims then different deals are on the table.
3) requires a mandate.
Try dealing with reality instead of your death cult delusions.
That said, I don't see why the EU gets to set the terms and the UK gets to choose within these. It has been obstinacy on both sides.
And as @AlistairM has pointed out, that deadline has no mandate from anyone.
The negotiating strategy is the EU drops the backstop then we talk. They've said no. Oh well, time's nearly up, default it is then since the EU won't talk and Parliament rejected the original deal.
His whole analysis will now be dismissed because of that idiotic and clueless phrase, used by Cameron in his failed referendum.
If Boris then wants to No Deal, it will be entirely on him.
And what about the manifesto on which the government was elected, you know where they talk about an orderly withdrawal? Or does that not count because it is now inconvenient?
It doesn't matter who chose the date, what matters is everyone knows the date and is preparing for that date. Unless you can guarantee an actual deal, delaying and bringing about a third date businesses will have to stockpile for is preposterous.
The first is that to reject a no-deal exit is somehow to challenge the expressed will of the British people. It is not. In 2016 the British people were invited to vote for a Brexit with a deal, and by a small margin they did so. They were told that a deal to protect Britain’s trade with the EU — our largest export market by far — would be “easy” to do. To pretend now that 2016 Leave voters voted for a hard no-deal Brexit is a total travesty of the truth. As the BBC’s “reality check” had to remind Dominic Raab, now the foreign secretary, the possibility of no-deal was not “regularly raised” during the referendum campaign. Michael Gove put it best in March this year when he said: “We didn’t vote to leave without a deal. That wasn’t the message of the campaign I helped lead”.
So let’s be clear: as things stand today there is no popular mandate for a no-deal Brexit and no parliamentary mandate for one either. The hardliners may make the most noise but they are not the most numerous. Most people in this country want to see us leave in a smooth and orderly fashion that will not disrupt lives, cost jobs or diminish living standards, whether they voted Leave or Remain in 2016. Parliament faithfully reflects the view of that majority and it will make its voice heard. No-deal would be a betrayal of the 2016 referendum result. It must not happen.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/philip-hammond-to-say-that-people-voted-for-hard-brexit-simply-isnt-true-l82rhd3cm
Get him in the bin - as much use as a chocolate tea pot.
2) We aren't changing our aims though, so no there is no other deal.
3) No it doesn't. We have a mandate to leave, we now leave with the best deal available - which thanks to Parliament is no deal at all. Thanks guys.
You claim to respect Parliament but don't want to accept that it was Parliament that chose to reject the deal. Since no magical unicorn alternative deals have been discovered that leaves only one option remaining. As MPs knew could happen when they chose to reject the deal three times.
Thanks to the actions of Parliament, this is now the most orderly withdrawal possible.
Corbyn isn't going to support any deal, under any circumstance. A crash exit hurts the Tories, and that's all he cares about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold
Apparently, that has now been abandoned. So other commitments can also be abandoned. Leaving the EU and remaining in the Single Market is by Leavers’ own logic complying with the referendum result. So the PM is well able to get a deal if he really wanted one.
Until you start dealing with facts rather than working backwards from your millenarian death cult, you’re going to continue spouting nonsense.
Its like saying I don't have a mandate for no jackpot in this weeks lottery, since I want the jackpot. A good deal would have been nice, but Parliament rejected it [quite rightly IMO but that's another matter] so now we are left without one. That's Parliament's decision.
Spare me the faux concern for business. Business has been saying for ages now that No Deal is not what they want and that it will be damaging. Business is only listened to when it says something the No Dealers want to hear.
BJO....Sandy Rentoul...Stodge?
The government got a couple of years then to negotiate a deal, it managed to, but Parliament thrice rejected it. That was Parliament's choice. Doesn't change the default, doesn't change the EU's constitution, doesn't change the law. If you reject the deal, you are left with no deal.
You are the one working backwards assuming no deal is an actual choice rather than the natural state of NOT HAVING A DEAL because Parliament rejected it.
Parliament invoked Article 50 in the full knowledge that, in the absence of an alternative, the UK would leave the EU without a deal.
Your anger should be directed at the remainers in parliament who have driven the UK to this point by voting down the available deals in the hope that Brexit itself would be stopped.
It would appear this has backfired spectacularly and no amount of wailing that there wasn't a mandate or it was the ERG's fault will change that.
I wish it was otherwise.