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.
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.
But he doesn't want one more than he wants what he campaigned for. Quite right too.
If MPs wanted to avoid no deal they had three chances to do so. You don't get to three times reject a deal then be horrified there's no deal. MPs who rejected the deal three times who are now crying there might be no deal are like the fable of God and The Drowning Man:
A fellow was stuck on his rooftop in a flood. He was praying to God for help.
Soon a man in a rowboat came by and the fellow shouted to the man on the roof, "Jump in, I can save you."
The stranded fellow shouted back, "No, it's OK, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me."
So the rowboat went on.
Then a motorboat came by. "The fellow in the motorboat shouted, "Jump in, I can save you."
To this the stranded man said, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith."
So the motorboat went on.
Then a helicopter came by and the pilot shouted down, "Grab this rope and I will lift you to safety."
To this the stranded man again replied, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith."
So the helicopter reluctantly flew away.
Soon the water rose above the rooftop and the man drowned. He went to Heaven. He finally got his chance to discuss this whole situation with God, at which point he exclaimed, "I had faith in you but you didn't save me, you let me drown. I don't understand why!"
To this God replied, "I sent you a rowboat and a motorboat and a helicopter, what more did you expect?"
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.
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.
I look forward to you accepting Parliament's choice to extend Article 50 in preference to no deal.
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.
Your "death cult" obsession gives cause for concern
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.
Stop claiming a fake mandate for something that Leavers angrily denied during the referendum campaign was going to happen.
I’ve already explained why no deal was not the default then. As per usual, you ignored an inconvenient fact. If Leavers find it too difficult to deliver on their mandate - which would be unsurprising because it was an entirely negative impulse built on xenophobic lies - they should give up rather than inflict lasting damage on the country. Or seek a fresh mandate for their deranged obsession.
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 EU has said no
No it hasn’t. It has repeatedly said that different deals are available.
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.
I wasn't aware that you spoke for Business (like the cap). I should pay more attention
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.
That is the fault of the ballot paper, not the leave campaigners.
The executive can't renegotiate because there is no deal which will make MPs "see sense" and vote it through. Not with the current parliamentary arithmetic.
No deal is likely to do huge damage to the United Kingdom but it will have been arrived at democratically. The elected PM of the governing party has decided upon it. I welcome all legal and procedural efforts to stop it but Johnson doesn't have to do anything but leave the EU at a time of their mutual agreement, namely October 31st.
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 EU has said no
No it hasn’t. It has repeatedly said that different deals are available.
No it hasn't - it stated ad nauseam that they're not re-opening WA, i.e not renegotiating.
Stop claiming a fake mandate for something that Leavers angrily denied during the referendum campaign was going to happen.
I’ve already explained why no deal was not the default then. As per usual, you ignored an inconvenient fact. If Leavers find it too difficult to deliver on their mandate - which would be unsurprising because it was an entirely negative impulse built on xenophobic lies - they should give up rather than inflict lasting damage on the country. Or seek a fresh mandate for their deranged obsession.
Leavers aren't finding it too difficult to deliver on their mandate. The mandate was to leave, and we are leaving. Parliament chose to reject the deal and if the EU chooses not to offer an alternative deal in the days remaining then that closes our options down to just the one. No need for a fresh mandate when the existing one hasn't been implemented.
You still haven't said what unicorn you expected when Parliament rejected the deal? I mean it should have been blindingly obvious what the Tories would do next once May was gone, she was your best bet at a soft Brexit and you spat it out and threw it in our face. So be it, your choice.
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 EU has said no
No it hasn’t. It has repeatedly said that different deals are available.
No it hasn't - it stated ad nauseam that they're not re-opening WA, i.e not renegotiating.
They won’t tweak the current deal. But different deals are available.
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..
I was at a dinner party a few days ago with one (now retired, but very senior). He was commendably indiscreet about some of the more interesting cases he'd dealt with.
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
If you can't be bothered to read what people are talking about, what on earth is the point of replying to it. You're just wasting your time and everyone else's.
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 EU has said no
No it hasn’t. It has repeatedly said that different deals are available.
No it hasn't - it stated ad nauseam that they're not re-opening WA, i.e not renegotiating.
They won’t tweak the current deal. But different deals are available.
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.
I wish it was otherwise.
The Tory manifesto on which every single member of this Cabinet was elected promised an orderly withdrawal. A No Deal exit breaks that promise.
Alternative deals are available as the EU has made clear. It is this government which is refusing to negotiate. It is this government’s Foreign Secretary who has told bare-faced lies about the mandate from the referendum.
I am pretty annoyed at MPs who voted down the Deal. But that does not entitle this government now to do something for which it has no mandate.
Anyway, I need some beauty sleep so goodnight to all.
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’m saying that voters were given a simple choice of Leave vs Remain. Anything else is conjecture.
Stop claiming a fake mandate for something that Leavers angrily denied during the referendum campaign was going to happen.
I’ve already explained why no deal was not the default then. As per usual, you ignored an inconvenient fact. If Leavers find it too difficult to deliver on their mandate - which would be unsurprising because it was an entirely negative impulse built on xenophobic lies - they should give up rather than inflict lasting damage on the country. Or seek a fresh mandate for their deranged obsession.
Leavers aren't finding it too difficult to deliver on their mandate. The mandate was to leave, and we are leaving. Parliament chose to reject the deal and if the EU chooses not to offer an alternative deal in the days remaining then that closes our options down to just the one. No need for a fresh mandate when the existing one hasn't been implemented.
You still haven't said what unicorn you expected when Parliament rejected the deal? I mean it should have been blindingly obvious what the Tories would do next once May was gone, she was your best bet at a soft Brexit and you spat it out and threw it in our face. So be it, your choice.
Second time tonight you’ve made something up about me. Your acquaintance with reality is getting steadily more distant.
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 EU has said no
No it hasn’t. It has repeatedly said that different deals are available.
No it hasn't - it stated ad nauseam that they're not re-opening WA, i.e not renegotiating.
They won’t tweak the current deal. But different deals are available.
But there aren't, really, if they insist on the backstop. The Deal is the only deal which preserves that red line. e.g. EFTA or EEA membership, for the UK, would not solve the Irish border problem.
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 is no NI executive, and hasn't been for 2 years. Otherwise decent enough idea. There is little evidence the population of NI, as opposed to the DUP, don't like the backstop.
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’m saying that voters were given a simple choice of Leave vs Remain. Anything else is conjecture.
Stop claiming a fake mandate for something that Leavers angrily denied during the referendum campaign was going to happen.
I’ve already explained why no deal was not the default then. As per usual, you ignored an inconvenient fact. If Leavers find it too difficult to deliver on their mandate - which would be unsurprising because it was an entirely negative impulse built on xenophobic lies - they should give up rather than inflict lasting damage on the country. Or seek a fresh mandate for their deranged obsession.
I am afraid you emit an awful lot of heat but not much in the way of light.
It has been explained to you repeatedly why you are wrong and, whilst I understand you appear to be stuck at Stage 2 of Grief and Loss, it is doing you no no good in terms of your mental health if not your physical well being.
If I could offer you a piece of unsolicited advice it would be to focus your energies (and obvious enthusiasm for the EU) in to a future campaign to rejoin with the LD's.
Stop claiming a fake mandate for something that Leavers angrily denied during the referendum campaign was going to happen.
I’ve already explained why no deal was not the default then. As per usual, you ignored an inconvenient fact. If Leavers find it too difficult to deliver on their mandate - which would be unsurprising because it was an entirely negative impulse built on xenophobic lies - they should give up rather than inflict lasting damage on the country. Or seek a fresh mandate for their deranged obsession.
Leavers aren't finding it too difficult to deliver on their mandate. The mandate was to leave, and we are leaving. Parliament chose to reject the deal and if the EU chooses not to offer an alternative deal in the days remaining then that closes our options down to just the one. No need for a fresh mandate when the existing one hasn't been implemented.
You still haven't said what unicorn you expected when Parliament rejected the deal? I mean it should have been blindingly obvious what the Tories would do next once May was gone, she was your best bet at a soft Brexit and you spat it out and threw it in our face. So be it, your choice.
Second time tonight you’ve made something up about me. Your acquaintance with reality is getting steadily more distant.
A collective you meaning the Remainers who rejected the deal. I do seem to believe you were against the deal, but if I was wrong I apologise. If you did back the deal direct your ire at the hundreds of Remain supporting MPs who chose to keep No Deal on the table by rejected the deal having invoked Article 50 and made no deal our legal default.
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.
I wasn't aware that you spoke for Business (like the cap). I should pay more attention
Try reading the newspapers. You will find lots of statements from people in business there. No need to involve me at all unless of course you just want to make snide comments.
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 EU has said no
No it hasn’t. It has repeatedly said that different deals are available.
They’ve repeatedly said the deal is done and cannot be reopened
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 EU has said no
No it hasn’t. It has repeatedly said that different deals are available.
No it hasn't - it stated ad nauseam that they're not re-opening WA, i.e not renegotiating.
They won’t tweak the current deal. But different deals are available.
Stop claiming a fake mandate for something that Leavers angrily denied during the referendum campaign was going to happen.
I’ve already explained why no deal was not the default then. As per usual, you ignored an inconvenient fact. If Leavers find it too difficult to deliver on their mandate - which would be unsurprising because it was an entirely negative impulse built on xenophobic lies - they should give up rather than inflict lasting damage on the country. Or seek a fresh mandate for their deranged obsession.
Leavers aren't finding it too difficult to deliver on their mandate. The mandate was to leave, and we are leaving. Parliament chose to reject the deal and if the EU chooses not to offer an alternative deal in the days remaining then that closes our options down to just the one. No need for a fresh mandate when the existing one hasn't been implemented.
You still haven't said what unicorn you expected when Parliament rejected the deal? I mean it should have been blindingly obvious what the Tories would do next once May was gone, she was your best bet at a soft Brexit and you spat it out and threw it in our face. So be it, your choice.
Second time tonight you’ve made something up about me. Your acquaintance with reality is getting steadily more distant.
A collective you meaning the Remainers who rejected the deal. I do seem to believe you were against the deal, but if I was wrong I apologise. If you did back the deal direct your ire at the hundreds of Remain supporting MPs who chose to keep No Deal on the table by rejected the deal having invoked Article 50 and made no deal our legal default.
I have repeatedly said I would have backed the deal. I will direct my ire at the cretins who voted Leave, regjected the deal and now have the effrontery to claim that rejection as a mandate for a chaotic no deal Brexit.
It would be good if PB's ultra-Remainers could outline what these Alternative Deals might be, and why they would be more acceptable to the UK parliament than TMay's unhappy botch-job.
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 EU has said no
No it hasn’t. It has repeatedly said that different deals are available.
No it hasn't - it stated ad nauseam that they're not re-opening WA, i.e not renegotiating.
They won’t tweak the current deal. But different deals are available.
Pathetic
“Different deals” except ones which the U.K. government is open to because in those cases the “deal is the deal and will not be reopened”
Do realise how much of an idiot you make yourself appear? I know it’s guilt swirling around that your machinations have led to this, but it really isn’t healthy
Zephyr “Did they think Saxon Britannia wasn’t Christian enough? Not enough burning and drowning of pagans?”
ydoethur “The Pope considered it was (a) not following his instructions and (b) should be. Nothing more or less than that. Friendly hint - that's twice you've now actually embarrassed yourself while talking about religious history. Maybe stop doing it?”
Friendly reply , how can I be embarrassing myself by putting thoughts out there and learning from your answers 🙂
What were those Papal instructions? You saying Not at all similar to the Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae of Charlemagne?
Stop claiming a fake mandate for something that Leavers angrily denied during the referendum campaign was going to happen.
I’ve already explained why no deal was not the default then. As per usual, you ignored an inconvenient fact. If Leavers find it too difficult to deliver on their mandate - which would be unsurprising because it was an entirely negative impulse built on xenophobic lies - they should give up rather than inflict lasting damage on the country. Or seek a fresh mandate for their deranged obsession.
Leavers aren't finding it too difficult to deliver on their mandate. The mandate was to leave, and we are leaving. Parliament chose to reject the deal and if the EU chooses not to offer an alternative deal in the days remaining then that closes our options down to just the one. No need for a fresh mandate when the existing one hasn't been implemented.
You still haven't said what unicorn you expected when Parliament rejected the deal? I mean it should have been blindingly obvious what the Tories would do next once May was gone, she was your best bet at a soft Brexit and you spat it out and threw it in our face. So be it, your choice.
Second time tonight you’ve made something up about me. Your acquaintance with reality is getting steadily more distant.
A collective you meaning the Remainers who rejected the deal. I do seem to believe you were against the deal, but if I was wrong I apologise. If you did back the deal direct your ire at the hundreds of Remain supporting MPs who chose to keep No Deal on the table by rejected the deal having invoked Article 50 and made no deal our legal default.
I have repeatedly said I would have backed the deal. I will direct my ire at the cretins who voted Leave, regjected the deal and now have the effrontery to claim that rejection as a mandate for a chaotic no deal Brexit.
Can you tell me which if any of these statements is wrong: Parliament voted to authorise invoking Article 50. Article 50 made a no deal Brexit our default if we didn't get a deal. Parliament rejected a deal. Parliament was advised rejecting the deal risked no deal at all.
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’m saying that voters were given a simple choice of Leave vs Remain. Anything else is conjecture.
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 EU has said no
No it hasn’t. It has repeatedly said that different deals are available.
No it hasn't - it stated ad nauseam that they're not re-opening WA, i.e not renegotiating.
They won’t tweak the current deal. But different deals are available.
Pathetic
“Different deals” except ones which the U.K. government is open to because in those cases the “deal is the deal and will not be reopened”
Do realise how much of an idiot you make yourself appear? I know it’s guilt swirling around that your machinations have led to this, but it really isn’t healthy
I’m sorry that a straightforward statement of fact riles you so. If you googled instead of throwing out incoherent abuse, you might educate yourself. But since you still haven’t deigned to answer a simple yes/no question because you know it holes you beneath the waterline, graduating to analysis of the EU’s negotiating position is too much to hope for.
If there is a GE soon, and they are this incoherent on Brexit, they might actually come third in votes.
Yes, but. An election is going to be after Brexit, isn't it?
It does seem that Labour is playing a very shrewd game, one which very much depends on Brexit going away and people then crying for social government. I wonder if this will go like the Churchill Atley election with the statesman ultimately deemed incapable of looking after the people (at least for a bit).
If there is a GE soon, and they are this incoherent on Brexit, they might actually come third in votes.
Do you think Corbyn could lose in Islington North?
No. But I can see rock solid Labour seats disappearing like Arctic ice in global warming.
I suspect individual constituency demographics will be more significant than usual. Corbyn will be safely safe.
The perception of 2017 was that May and her Svengali’s messed up, but the truth is once the election was called the Labour tribe started seeing Labour and their MPs name on the ballot not Corbyn.
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’m saying that voters were given a simple choice of Leave vs Remain. Anything else is conjecture.
Answer the question.
Please and thank you go a long way.
And are unnecessary when someone is prevaricating.
The Tory manifesto on which every single member of this Cabinet was elected promised an orderly withdrawal. A No Deal exit breaks that promise.
Alternative deals are available as the EU has made clear. It is this government which is refusing to negotiate. It is this government’s Foreign Secretary who has told bare-faced lies about the mandate from the referendum.
I am pretty annoyed at MPs who voted down the Deal. But that does not entitle this government now to do something for which it has no mandate.
Anyway, I need some beauty sleep so goodnight to all.
The are many holes to pick with your reply but I will limit my response to just one...
The mandate for no deal was parliament invoking A50 and then repeatedly voting down the deals offered leaving only the default option.
Remainer MP's need to take the lions share of the responsibility for no deal by trying to stop Brexit.
It was gross stupidity and it would seem it is a cognitive failure that is still manifest even in the face of the impending result of their own decisions.
It would be good if PB's ultra-Remainers could outline what these Alternative Deals might be, and why they would be more acceptable to the UK parliament than TMay's unhappy botch-job.
Labour has proposed Customs Union, Single Market alignment and close alignment on environmental and social policy.
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.
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.
I wasn't aware that you spoke for Business (like the cap). I should pay more attention
Try reading the newspapers. You will find lots of statements from people in business there. No need to involve me at all unless of course you just want to make snide comments.
So the newspapers you read speak for business and you believe that they do? That is not snide, that is simply pointing out that I believe that you, as I believe you are, being a legal professional, should be more precise with your language. Not that you are alone on here.
If there is a GE soon, and they are this incoherent on Brexit, they might actually come third in votes.
Yes, but. An election is going to be after Brexit, isn't it?
Even then I believe Corbyn would prevaricate on Brexit, or Rejoin etc etc. He really hates the EU, and he is an ornery old git with very fixed views.
Yes. Assuming we Leave, though, the entire psychodynamics change. The question will be what comes next? Trump and John Bolton or not? That is an entirely different matter, on which Labour will be fully United. If we don't Leave and have an election, Corbyn minority at least, as Boris exits pursued by a barely able to believe his luck Farage.
It would be good if PB's ultra-Remainers could outline what these Alternative Deals might be, and why they would be more acceptable to the UK parliament than TMay's unhappy botch-job.
It's incredibly simple. Those of us who voted Remain, but accepted (and still accept) that the referendum result should be respected and implemented, as best it can be, in accordance with the Leave campaign's platform, were gobsmacked when Steve Baker, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and others gratuitously trashed the deal which had been painstakingly negotiated, and which would have met ALL of their original demands. Since these nutjobs suddenly decided that leaving in the terms they had advocated was worse than remaining, why in the name of heaven should those of us who thought all along that remaining was a better option suddenly switch into becoming supporters of a no-deal crash-out, the most brain-dead, damaging, irresponsible, economically insane and dangerous version of Brexit imaginable? If Leavers don't want to leave in an orderly fashion, fine, let's remain then.
It would be good if PB's ultra-Remainers could outline what these Alternative Deals might be, and why they would be more acceptable to the UK parliament than TMay's unhappy botch-job.
It's incredibly simple. Those of us who voted Remain, but accepted (and still accept) that the referendum result should be respected and implemented, as best it can be, in accordance with the Leave campaign's platform, were gobsmacked when Steve Baker, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and others gratuitously trashed the deal which had been painstakingly negotiated, and which would have met ALL of their original demands. Since these nutjobs suddenly decided that leaving in the terms they had advocated was worse than remaining, why in the name of heaven should those of us who thought all along that remaining was a better option suddenly switch into becoming supporters of the most brain-dead, damaging, irresponsible, economically insane and dangerous version of Brexit imaginable? If Leavers don't want to leave in an orderly fashion, fine, let's remain then.
It would be good if PB's ultra-Remainers could outline what these Alternative Deals might be, and why they would be more acceptable to the UK parliament than TMay's unhappy botch-job.
Labour has proposed Customs Union, Single Market alignment and close alignment on environmental and social policy.
But the country didn't vote for Labour so so what?
It would be good if PB's ultra-Remainers could outline what these Alternative Deals might be, and why they would be more acceptable to the UK parliament than TMay's unhappy botch-job.
It's incredibly simple. Those of us who voted Remain, but accepted (and still accept) that the referendum result should be respected and implemented, as best it can be, in accordance with the Leave campaign's platform, were gobsmacked when Steve Baker, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and others gratuitously trashed the deal which had been painstakingly negotiated, and which would have met ALL of their original demands. Since these nutjobs suddenly decided that leaving in the terms they had advocated was worse than remaining, why in the name of heaven should those of us who thought all along that remaining was a better option suddenly switch into becoming supporters of a no-deal crash-out, the most brain-dead, damaging, irresponsible, economically insane and dangerous version of Brexit imaginable? If Leavers don't want to leave in an orderly fashion, fine, let's remain then.
That's not remotely an answer, it's just a rant. But fair enough. Ranting is on trend.
It would be good if PB's ultra-Remainers could outline what these Alternative Deals might be, and why they would be more acceptable to the UK parliament than TMay's unhappy botch-job.
It's incredibly simple. Those of us who voted Remain, but accepted (and still accept) that the referendum result should be respected and implemented, as best it can be, in accordance with the Leave campaign's platform, were gobsmacked when Steve Baker, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and others gratuitously trashed the deal which had been painstakingly negotiated, and which would have met ALL of their original demands. Since these nutjobs suddenly decided that leaving in the terms they had advocated was worse than remaining, why in the name of heaven should those of us who thought all along that remaining was a better option suddenly switch into becoming supporters of a no-deal crash-out, the most brain-dead, damaging, irresponsible, economically insane and dangerous version of Brexit imaginable? If Leavers don't want to leave in an orderly fashion, fine, let's remain then.
It would be good if PB's ultra-Remainers could outline what these Alternative Deals might be, and why they would be more acceptable to the UK parliament than TMay's unhappy botch-job.
It's incredibly simple. Those of us who voted Remain, but accepted (and still accept) that the referendum result should be respected and implemented, as best it can be, in accordance with the Leave campaign's platform, were gobsmacked when Steve Baker, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and others gratuitously trashed the deal which had been painstakingly negotiated, and which would have met ALL of their original demands. Since these nutjobs suddenly decided that leaving in the terms they had advocated was worse than remaining, why in the name of heaven should those of us who thought all along that remaining was a better option suddenly switch into becoming supporters of a no-deal crash-out, the most brain-dead, damaging, irresponsible, economically insane and dangerous version of Brexit imaginable? If Leavers don't want to leave in an orderly fashion, fine, let's remain then.
The backstop did not mean the original demands. The original demands are we take back control of our laws and customs and exit the jurisdiction of the ECJ. The backstop meant we were subject to but had no control over EU laws and customs and were still under the jurisdiction of the ECJ.
How can the backstop mean the demands of us controlling our own laws, or our own customs and exiting the ECJ?
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.
Are you saying we pooled 100% of parliamentary sovereignty? 50%? What percentage makes it merely a rubber stamp for laws originated elsewhere?
Are you saying we cannot pool any sovereignty at all anywhere to put it to better use to us?
It would be good if PB's ultra-Remainers could outline what these Alternative Deals might be, and why they would be more acceptable to the UK parliament than TMay's unhappy botch-job.
It's incredibly simple. Those of us who voted Remain, but accepted (and still accept) that the referendum result should be respected and implemented, as best it can be, in accordance with the Leave campaign's platform, were gobsmacked when Steve Baker, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and others gratuitously trashed the deal which had been painstakingly negotiated, and which would have met ALL of their original demands. Since these nutjobs suddenly decided that leaving in the terms they had advocated was worse than remaining, why in the name of heaven should those of us who thought all along that remaining was a better option suddenly switch into becoming supporters of a no-deal crash-out, the most brain-dead, damaging, irresponsible, economically insane and dangerous version of Brexit imaginable? If Leavers don't want to leave in an orderly fashion, fine, let's remain then.
All of that is true but the process has been completed such that we would legitimately, if madly, leave on October 31st.
It would be good if PB's ultra-Remainers could outline what these Alternative Deals might be, and why they would be more acceptable to the UK parliament than TMay's unhappy botch-job.
Labour has proposed Customs Union, Single Market alignment and close alignment on environmental and social policy.
But the country didn't vote for Labour so so what?
I am not advocating it, but it is a perfectly viable option for an alternative deal.
Maybe if MPs thought that remaining was better than the deal or no deal, they should have voted on whether to revoke? Instead they voted to reject the deal, maintain no deal as our legal default. That was like voting to remove the safety net.
It would be good if PB's ultra-Remainers could outline what these Alternative Deals might be, and why they would be more acceptable to the UK parliament than TMay's unhappy botch-job.
It's incredibly simple. Those of us who voted Remain, but accepted (and still accept) that the referendum result should be respected and implemented, as best it can be, in accordance with the Leave campaign's platform, were gobsmacked when Steve Baker, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and others gratuitously trashed the deal which had been painstakingly negotiated, and which would have met ALL of their original demands. Since these nutjobs suddenly decided that leaving in the terms they had advocated was worse than remaining, why in the name of heaven should those of us who thought all along that remaining was a better option suddenly switch into becoming supporters of a no-deal crash-out, the most brain-dead, damaging, irresponsible, economically insane and dangerous version of Brexit imaginable? If Leavers don't want to leave in an orderly fashion, fine, let's remain then.
That's not remotely an answer, it's just a rant. But fair enough. Ranting is on trend.
It's entirely an answer. If the Leavers in parliament want us to leave, they should have voted - three times - for the deal. They can't blame anyone else for their actions. If it were purely the cynical Labour Party and other 'Remainiacs' who blocked the deal, they'd have a point. But it wasn't. They should address their own part in the disaster before blaming others - no-one forced them to go through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell.
It would be good if PB's ultra-Remainers could outline what these Alternative Deals might be, and why they would be more acceptable to the UK parliament than TMay's unhappy botch-job.
Labour has proposed Customs Union, Single Market alignment and close alignment on environmental and social policy.
But the country didn't vote for Labour so so what?
I am not advocating it, but it is a perfectly viable option for an alternative deal.
Maybe that could have been voted on before rejecting the deal? Oh wait, it was before the third meaningful vote and it was rejected.
The Tory manifesto on which every single member of this Cabinet was elected promised an orderly withdrawal. A No Deal exit breaks that promise.
Alternative deals are available as the EU has made clear. It is this government which is refusing to negotiate. It is this government’s Foreign Secretary who has told bare-faced lies about the mandate from the referendum.
I am pretty annoyed at MPs who voted down the Deal. But that does not entitle this government now to do something for which it has no mandate.
Anyway, I need some beauty sleep so goodnight to all.
The are many holes to pick with your reply but I will limit my response to just one...
The mandate for no deal was parliament invoking A50 and then repeatedly voting down the deals offered leaving only the default option.
Remainer MP's need to take the lions share of the responsibility for no deal by trying to stop Brexit.
It was gross stupidity and it would seem it is a cognitive failure that is still manifest even in the face of the impending result of their own decisions.
If you're going for the grandiloquent turn of phrase, you need to make sure those pesky apostrophes don't spoil the effect.
It would be good if PB's ultra-Remainers could outline what these Alternative Deals might be, and why they would be more acceptable to the UK parliament than TMay's unhappy botch-job.
Labour has proposed Customs Union, Single Market alignment and close alignment on environmental and social policy.
But the country didn't vote for Labour so so what?
I am not advocating it, but it is a perfectly viable option for an alternative deal.
But the whole problem is that we have had the mother of all direct vs representative democracy clashes and at this stage what any parliamentary faction wants is irrelevant.
It would be good if PB's ultra-Remainers could outline what these Alternative Deals might be, and why they would be more acceptable to the UK parliament than TMay's unhappy botch-job.
It's incredibly simple. Those of us who voted Remain, but accepted (and still accept) that the referendum result should be respected and implemented, as best it can be, in accordance with the Leave campaign's platform, were gobsmacked when Steve Baker, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and others gratuitously trashed the deal which had been painstakingly negotiated, and which would have met ALL of their original demands. Since these nutjobs suddenly decided that leaving in the terms they had advocated was worse than remaining, why in the name of heaven should those of us who thought all along that remaining was a better option suddenly switch into becoming supporters of a no-deal crash-out, the most brain-dead, damaging, irresponsible, economically insane and dangerous version of Brexit imaginable? If Leavers don't want to leave in an orderly fashion, fine, let's remain then.
I don't think that many on here would expect many people to change their minds based on the kind of logic that you express, but then, each to their own.
It would be good if PB's ultra-Remainers could outline what these Alternative Deals might be, and why they would be more acceptable to the UK parliament than TMay's unhappy botch-job.
Labour has proposed Customs Union, Single Market alignment and close alignment on environmental and social policy.
Except they haven't really. Because that would almost certainly require freedom of movement, which they've ruled out. And budgetary contributions, which would go down extremely badly with pretty much all groups of voters.
All of that is true but the process has been completed such that we would legitimately, if madly, leave on October 31st.
Yes, unless parliament finds the will and the means to stop that, in which case we legitimately won't leave on October 31st. The only suggestion of illegitimate courses of action comes from the Boris camp.
It would be good if PB's ultra-Remainers could outline what these Alternative Deals might be, and why they would be more acceptable to the UK parliament than TMay's unhappy botch-job.
It's incredibly simple. Those of us who voted Remain, but accepted (and still accept) that the referendum result should be respected and implemented, as best it can be, in accordance with the Leave campaign's platform, were gobsmacked when Steve Baker, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and others gratuitously trashed the deal which had been painstakingly negotiated, and which would have met ALL of their original demands. Since these nutjobs suddenly decided that leaving in the terms they had advocated was worse than remaining, why in the name of heaven should those of us who thought all along that remaining was a better option suddenly switch into becoming supporters of a no-deal crash-out, the most brain-dead, damaging, irresponsible, economically insane and dangerous version of Brexit imaginable? If Leavers don't want to leave in an orderly fashion, fine, let's remain then.
I don't think that many on here would expect many people to change their minds based on the kind of logic that you express, but then, each to their own.
I don't think anyone here would expect No Dealers to change their minds based on any kind of logic!
It would be good if PB's ultra-Remainers could outline what these Alternative Deals might be, and why they would be more acceptable to the UK parliament than TMay's unhappy botch-job.
It's incredibly simple. Those of us who voted Remain, but accepted (and still accept) that the referendum result should be respected and implemented, as best it can be, in accordance with the Leave campaign's platform, were gobsmacked when Steve Baker, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and others gratuitously trashed the deal which had been painstakingly negotiated, and which would have met ALL of their original demands. Since these nutjobs suddenly decided that leaving in the terms they had advocated was worse than remaining, why in the name of heaven should those of us who thought all along that remaining was a better option suddenly switch into becoming supporters of a no-deal crash-out, the most brain-dead, damaging, irresponsible, economically insane and dangerous version of Brexit imaginable? If Leavers don't want to leave in an orderly fashion, fine, let's remain then.
That's not remotely an answer, it's just a rant. But fair enough. Ranting is on trend.
It's entirely an answer. If the Leavers in parliament want us to leave, they should have voted - three times - for the deal. They can't blame anyone else for their actions. If it were purely the cynical Labour Party and other 'Remainiacs' who blocked the deal, they'd have a point. But it wasn't. They should address their own part in the disaster before blaming others - no-one forced them to go through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell.
You're acting like leaving is being frustrated by not getting a deal. We've moved on now though.
Parliament already voted to leave when it voted to invoke Article 50. Parliament doesn't need any more votes for us to leave, it is already the law.
The only question then is whether we left with or without a deal. The deal was an awful deal that violated what we had campaigned for, but despite being so soft even Ken Clarke could back it hundreds of Remainers chose to walk through the Nay lobbies with JRM etc without revoking Article 50 first.
So great job, you left no deal as the legal default and removed the deal from the table. Well done, so smart!
It would be good if PB's ultra-Remainers could outline what these Alternative Deals might be, and why they would be more acceptable to the UK parliament than TMay's unhappy botch-job.
It's incredibly simple. Those of us who voted Remain, but accepted (and still accept) that the referendum result should be respected and implemented, as best it can be, in accordance with the Leave campaign's platform, were gobsmacked when Steve Baker, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and others gratuitously trashed the deal which had been painstakingly negotiated, and which would have met ALL of their original demands. Since these nutjobs suddenly decided that leaving in the terms they had advocated was worse than remaining, why in the name of heaven should those of us who thought all along that remaining was a better option suddenly switch into becoming supporters of a no-deal crash-out, the most brain-dead, damaging, irresponsible, economically insane and dangerous version of Brexit imaginable? If Leavers don't want to leave in an orderly fashion, fine, let's remain then.
That's not remotely an answer, it's just a rant. But fair enough. Ranting is on trend.
It's entirely an answer. If the Leavers in parliament want us to leave, they should have voted - three times - for the deal. They can't blame anyone else for their actions. If it were purely the cynical Labour Party and other 'Remainiacs' who blocked the deal, they'd have a point. But it wasn't. They should address their own part in the disaster before blaming others - no-one forced them to go through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell.
How many Leavers are there in Parliament who both voted against the Deal (let's say more than once) and think No Deal is a disaster?
It would be good if PB's ultra-Remainers could outline what these Alternative Deals might be, and why they would be more acceptable to the UK parliament than TMay's unhappy botch-job.
It's incredibly simple. Those of us who voted Remain, but accepted (and still accept) that the referendum result should be respected and implemented, as best it can be, in accordance with the Leave campaign's platform, were gobsmacked when Steve Baker, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and others gratuitously trashed the deal which had been painstakingly negotiated, and which would have met ALL of their original demands. Since these nutjobs suddenly decided that leaving in the terms they had advocated was worse than remaining, why in the name of heaven should those of us who thought all along that remaining was a better option suddenly switch into becoming supporters of a no-deal crash-out, the most brain-dead, damaging, irresponsible, economically insane and dangerous version of Brexit imaginable? If Leavers don't want to leave in an orderly fashion, fine, let's remain then.
That's not remotely an answer, it's just a rant. But fair enough. Ranting is on trend.
It's entirely an answer. If the Leavers in parliament want us to leave, they should have voted - three times - for the deal. They can't blame anyone else for their actions. If it were purely the cynical Labour Party and other 'Remainiacs' who blocked the deal, they'd have a point. But it wasn't. They should address their own part in the disaster before blaming others - no-one forced them to go through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell.
How many Leavers are there in Parliament who both voted against the Deal (let's say more than once) and think No Deal is a disaster?
It would be good if PB's ultra-Remainers could outline what these Alternative Deals might be, and why they would be more acceptable to the UK parliament than TMay's unhappy botch-job.
Labour has proposed Customs Union, Single Market alignment and close alignment on environmental and social policy.
But the country didn't vote for Labour so so what?
I am not advocating it, but it is a perfectly viable option for an alternative deal.
Maybe that could have been voted on before rejecting the deal? Oh wait, it was before the third meaningful vote and it was rejected.
Sure, but everything was voted down, including No Deal.
So great job, you left no deal as the legal default and removed the deal from the table. Well done, so smart!
Well, don't blame me, I'm not an MP. If I were, then like the 21 signatories of Phil Hammond's excellent letter then I would have voted for us to leave in an orderly fashion in accordance with the referendum result, and like them I would therefore have been entirely blameless for the economic, political and constitutional crisis which we now face.
It would be good if PB's ultra-Remainers could outline what these Alternative Deals might be, and why they would be more acceptable to the UK parliament than TMay's unhappy botch-job.
Labour has proposed Customs Union, Single Market alignment and close alignment on environmental and social policy.
But the country didn't vote for Labour so so what?
I am not advocating it, but it is a perfectly viable option for an alternative deal.
But the whole problem is that we have had the mother of all direct vs representative democracy clashes and at this stage what any parliamentary faction wants is irrelevant.
Yep, a #peoplesvote with all three options is the only way out.
It would be good if PB's ultra-Remainers could outline what these Alternative Deals might be, and why they would be more acceptable to the UK parliament than TMay's unhappy botch-job.
Labour has proposed Customs Union, Single Market alignment and close alignment on environmental and social policy.
But the country didn't vote for Labour so so what?
I am not advocating it, but it is a perfectly viable option for an alternative deal.
Maybe that could have been voted on before rejecting the deal? Oh wait, it was before the third meaningful vote and it was rejected.
Sure, but everything was voted down, including No Deal.
Except No Deal was voted through, by invoking Article 50.
It doesn't matter how many motions to reject No Deal Parliament passes, without a deal or revocation that is what occurs automatically and extending just keeps repeating the stockpiling pain without ending this.
So the only way to avoid No Deal was to agree a deal or revoke and Parliament has done neither.
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?
If a patient could bounce back from their half an hour of oxygen deprivation, large as life and twice as ugly, and enjoy greater capability than before, your metaphor might have some merit.
It would be good if PB's ultra-Remainers could outline what these Alternative Deals might be, and why they would be more acceptable to the UK parliament than TMay's unhappy botch-job.
It's incredibly simple. Those of us who voted Remain, but accepted (and still accept) that the referendum result should be respected and implemented, as best it can be, in accordance with the Leave campaign's platform, were gobsmacked when Steve Baker, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and others gratuitously trashed the deal which had been painstakingly negotiated, and which would have met ALL of their original demands. Since these nutjobs suddenly decided that leaving in the terms they had advocated was worse than remaining, why in the name of heaven should those of us who thought all along that remaining was a better option suddenly switch into becoming supporters of a no-deal crash-out, the most brain-dead, damaging, irresponsible, economically insane and dangerous version of Brexit imaginable? If Leavers don't want to leave in an orderly fashion, fine, let's remain then.
That's not remotely an answer, it's just a rant. But fair enough. Ranting is on trend.
It's entirely an answer. If the Leavers in parliament want us to leave, they should have voted - three times - for the deal. They can't blame anyone else for their actions. If it were purely the cynical Labour Party and other 'Remainiacs' who blocked the deal, they'd have a point. But it wasn't. They should address their own part in the disaster before blaming others - no-one forced them to go through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell.
How many Leavers are there in Parliament who both voted against the Deal (let's say more than once) and think No Deal is a disaster?
I can't think of any honest ones, who made it clear before the referendum that they advocated crashing out in chaos. Can you? If so, please point to your evidence.
It would be good if PB's ultra-Remainers could outline what these Alternative Deals might be, and why they would be more acceptable to the UK parliament than TMay's unhappy botch-job.
It's incredibly simple. Those of us who voted Remain, but accepted (and still accept) that the referendum result should be respected and implemented, as best it can be, in accordance with the Leave campaign's platform, were gobsmacked when Steve Baker, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and others gratuitously trashed the deal which had been painstakingly negotiated, and which would have met ALL of their original demands. Since these nutjobs suddenly decided that leaving in the terms they had advocated was worse than remaining, why in the name of heaven should those of us who thought all along that remaining was a better option suddenly switch into becoming supporters of a no-deal crash-out, the most brain-dead, damaging, irresponsible, economically insane and dangerous version of Brexit imaginable? If Leavers don't want to leave in an orderly fashion, fine, let's remain then.
I don't think that many on here would expect many people to change their minds based on the kind of logic that you express, but then, each to their own.
It was pretty much how I changed my mind a year ago.
It would be good if PB's ultra-Remainers could outline what these Alternative Deals might be, and why they would be more acceptable to the UK parliament than TMay's unhappy botch-job.
It's incredibly simple. Those of us who voted Remain, but accepted (and still accept) that the referendum result should be respected and implemented, as best it can be, in accordance with the Leave campaign's platform, were gobsmacked when Steve Baker, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and others gratuitously trashed the deal which had been painstakingly negotiated, and which would have met ALL of their original demands. Since these nutjobs suddenly decided that leaving in the terms they had advocated was worse than remaining, why in the name of heaven should those of us who thought all along that remaining was a better option suddenly switch into becoming supporters of a no-deal crash-out, the most brain-dead, damaging, irresponsible, economically insane and dangerous version of Brexit imaginable? If Leavers don't want to leave in an orderly fashion, fine, let's remain then.
That's not remotely an answer, it's just a rant. But fair enough. Ranting is on trend.
It's entirely an answer. If the Leavers in parliament want us to leave, they should have voted - three times - for the deal. They can't blame anyone else for their actions. If it were purely the cynical Labour Party and other 'Remainiacs' who blocked the deal, they'd have a point. But it wasn't. They should address their own part in the disaster before blaming others - no-one forced them to go through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell.
How many Leavers are there in Parliament who both voted against the Deal (let's say more than once) and think No Deal is a disaster?
Exactly!
Oh, sorry.
Exactly how many Leavers are there in Parliament who both voted against the Deal (let's say more than once) and think No Deal is a disaster?
All of that is true but the process has been completed such that we would legitimately, if madly, leave on October 31st.
Yes, unless parliament finds the wil and the means to stop that, in which case we legitimately won't leave on October 31st. The only suggestion of illegitimate courses of action comes from the Boris camp.
Oh absolutely. I am as intrigued as anyone to see if parliament can come up with a legitimate way of stopping no deal. Or whether proroguing parliament is in fact legitimate.
We seem a long way from Boris will force a deal through but it's still a possibility I suppose.
So great job, you left no deal as the legal default and removed the deal from the table. Well done, so smart!
Well, don't blame me, I'm not an MP. If I were, then like the 21 signatories of Phil Hammond's excellent letter then I would have voted for us to leave in an orderly fashion in accordance with the referendum result, and like them I would therefore have been entirely blameless for the economic, political and constitutional crisis which we now face.
If you consider Hammond sabotageing our negotiations so we got such an awful deal it couldn't get through Parliament entirely blameless then sure. Certainly more blameless than people like Hilary Benn who voted to have a referendum, voted to invoke Article 50, then voted to reject a deal every time, only to act horrified no deal might now occur. Its literally what you voted for Benn!
It would be good if PB's ultra-Remainers could outline what these Alternative Deals might be, and why they would be more acceptable to the UK parliament than TMay's unhappy botch-job.
It's incredibly simple. Those of us who voted Remain, but accepted (and still accept) that the referendum result should be respected and implemented, as best it can be, in accordance with the Leave campaign's platform, were gobsmacked when Steve Baker, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and others gratuitously trashed the deal which had been painstakingly negotiated, and which would have met ALL of their original demands. Since these nutjobs suddenly decided that leaving in the terms they had advocated was worse than remaining, why in the name of heaven should those of us who thought all along that remaining was a better option suddenly switch into becoming supporters of a no-deal crash-out, the most brain-dead, damaging, irresponsible, economically insane and dangerous version of Brexit imaginable? If Leavers don't want to leave in an orderly fashion, fine, let's remain then.
I don't think that many on here would expect many people to change their minds based on the kind of logic that you express, but then, each to their own.
It was pretty much how I changed my mind a year ago.
It would be good if PB's ultra-Remainers could outline what these Alternative Deals might be, and why they would be more acceptable to the UK parliament than TMay's unhappy botch-job.
It's incredibly simple. Those of us who voted Remain, but accepted (and still accept) that the referendum result should be respected and implemented, as best it can be, in accordance with the Leave campaign's platform, were gobsmacked when Steve Baker, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and others gratuitously trashed the deal which had been painstakingly negotiated, and which would have met ALL of their original demands. Since these nutjobs suddenly decided that leaving in the terms they had advocated was worse than remaining, why in the name of heaven should those of us who thought all along that remaining was a better option suddenly switch into becoming supporters of a no-deal crash-out, the most brain-dead, damaging, irresponsible, economically insane and dangerous version of Brexit imaginable? If Leavers don't want to leave in an orderly fashion, fine, let's remain then.
I don't think that many on here would expect many people to change their minds based on the kind of logic that you express, but then, each to their own.
It was pretty much how I changed my mind a year ago.
So great job, you left no deal as the legal default and removed the deal from the table. Well done, so smart!
Well, don't blame me, I'm not an MP. If I were, then like the 21 signatories of Phil Hammond's excellent letter then I would have voted for us to leave in an orderly fashion in accordance with the referendum result, and like them I would therefore have been entirely blameless for the economic, political and constitutional crisis which we now face.
If you consider Hammond sabotageing our negotiations so we got such an awful deal it couldn't get through Parliament entirely blameless then sure. Certainly more blameless than people like Hilary Benn who voted to have a referendum, voted to invoke Article 50, then voted to reject a deal every time, only to act horrified no deal might now occur. Its literally what you voted for Benn!
"Hammond sabotageing our negotiations so we got such an awful deal"
Do you really believe that he deliberately set out to hobble the UK in negotiations with the EU?
It would be good if PB's ultra-Remainers could outline what these Alternative Deals might be, and why they would be more acceptable to the UK parliament than TMay's unhappy botch-job.
It's incredibly simple. Those of us who voted Remain, but accepted (and still accept) that the referendum result should be respected and implemented, as best it can be, in accordance with the Leave campaign's platform, were gobsmacked when Steve Baker, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and others gratuitously trashed the deal which had been painstakingly negotiated. Since these nutjobs suddenly decided that leaving in the terms they had advocated was worse than remaining, why in the name of heaven should those of us who thought all along that remaining was a better option suddenly switch into becoming supporters of a no-deal crash-out, the most brain-dead, damaging, irresponsible, economically insane and dangerous version of Brexit imaginable? If Leavers don't want to leave in an orderly fashion, fine, let's remain then.
That's not remotely an answer, it's just a rant. But fair enough. Ranting is on trend.
It's entirely an answer. If the Leavers in parliament want us to leave, they should have voted - three times - for the deal. They can't blame anyone else for their actions. If it were purely the cynical Labour Party and other 'Remainiacs' who blocked the deal, they'd have a point. But it wasn't. They should address their own part in the disaster before blaming others - no-one forced them to go through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell.
You're acting like leaving is being frustrated by not getting a deal. We've moved on now though.
Parliament already voted to leave when it voted to invoke Article 50. Parliament doesn't need any more votes for us to leave, it is already the law.
The only question then is whether we left with or without a deal. The deal was an awful deal that violated what we had campaigned for, but despite being so soft even Ken Clarke could back it hundreds of Remainers chose to walk through the Nay lobbies with JRM etc without revoking Article 50 first.
So great job, you left no deal as the legal default and removed the deal from the table. Well done, so smart!
Revisionism as usual. ‘Hard’ and ‘Soft’ Brexits were defined soon after the vote as meaning outside or inside the SM and CU. May’s deal is therefore Hard. Norway Plus would be Soft.
No Deal is off the Mohs scale of hardness, notwithstanding the call of Byronic (or some other poster, maybe Sean something) for ‘Diamond Hard’ Brexit.
Anyhoo, seems the fellow’s got his wish, unless the unlikely figure of Hammond can lead us to salvation.
So great job, you left no deal as the legal default and removed the deal from the table. Well done, so smart!
Well, don't blame me, I'm not an MP. If I were, then like the 21 signatories of Phil Hammond's excellent letter then I would have voted for us to leave in an orderly fashion in accordance with the referendum result, and like them I would therefore have been entirely blameless for the economic, political and constitutional crisis which we now face.
If you consider Hammond sabotageing our negotiations so we got such an awful deal it couldn't get through Parliament entirely blameless then sure. Certainly more blameless than people like Hilary Benn who voted to have a referendum, voted to invoke Article 50, then voted to reject a deal every time, only to act horrified no deal might now occur. Its literally what you voted for Benn!
Yawn. Yeah, sure, if only Hammond had invoked the Dunkirk spirit, it would all have been OK.
If I were you I'd give up that bonkers argument, because by October 31st it will bump up against the reality that shouting louder and threatening to wreck our own economy, even if done by Boris, Raab etc, doesn't actually impress the EU.
It would be good if PB's ultra-Remainers could outline what these Alternative Deals might be, and why they would be more acceptable to the UK parliament than TMay's unhappy botch-job.
It's incredibly simple. Those of us who voted Remain, but accepted (and still accept) that the referendum result should be respected and implemented, as best it can be, in accordance with the Leave campaign's platform, were gobsmacked when Steve Baker, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and others gratuitously trashed the deal which had been painstakingly negotiated, and which would have met ALL of their original demands. Since these nutjobs suddenly decided that leaving in the terms they had advocated was worse than remaining, why in the name of heaven should those of us who thought all along that remaining was a better option suddenly switch into becoming supporters of a no-deal crash-out, the most brain-dead, damaging, irresponsible, economically insane and dangerous version of Brexit imaginable? If Leavers don't want to leave in an orderly fashion, fine, let's remain then.
I don't think that many on here would expect many people to change their minds based on the kind of logic that you express, but then, each to their own.
I don't think anyone here would expect No Dealers to change their minds based on any kind of logic!
Maybe, but I try not to be all embracing when exceptions are possible. 😉
So great job, you left no deal as the legal default and removed the deal from the table. Well done, so smart!
Well, don't blame me, I'm not an MP. If I were, then like the 21 signatories of Phil Hammond's excellent letter then I would have voted for us to leave in an orderly fashion in accordance with the referendum result, and like them I would therefore have been entirely blameless for the economic, political and constitutional crisis which we now face.
If you consider Hammond sabotageing our negotiations so we got such an awful deal it couldn't get through Parliament entirely blameless then sure. Certainly more blameless than people like Hilary Benn who voted to have a referendum, voted to invoke Article 50, then voted to reject a deal every time, only to act horrified no deal might now occur. Its literally what you voted for Benn!
Hammond was the only adult in the room. It Lord of the Flies in cabinet now.
So great job, you left no deal as the legal default and removed the deal from the table. Well done, so smart!
Well, don't blame me, I'm not an MP. If I were, then like the 21 signatories of Phil Hammond's excellent letter then I would have voted for us to leave in an orderly fashion in accordance with the referendum result, and like them I would therefore have been entirely blameless for the economic, political and constitutional crisis which we now face.
If you consider Hammond sabotageing our negotiations so we got such an awful deal it couldn't get through Parliament entirely blameless then sure. Certainly more blameless than people like Hilary Benn who voted to have a referendum, voted to invoke Article 50, then voted to reject a deal every time, only to act horrified no deal might now occur. Its literally what you voted for Benn!
"Hammond sabotageing our negotiations so we got such an awful deal"
Do you really believe that he deliberately set out to hobble the UK in negotiations with the EU?
No of course not! No more than an incompetent batsman deliberately seeks to get his partner ran out.
I think he was that blinded by his own personal prejudices that he did so unwittingly.
So great job, you left no deal as the legal default and removed the deal from the table. Well done, so smart!
Well, don't blame me, I'm not an MP. If I were, then like the 21 signatories of Phil Hammond's excellent letter then I would have voted for us to leave in an orderly fashion in accordance with the referendum result, and like them I would therefore have been entirely blameless for the economic, political and constitutional crisis which we now face.
If you consider Hammond sabotageing our negotiations so we got such an awful deal it couldn't get through Parliament entirely blameless then sure. Certainly more blameless than people like Hilary Benn who voted to have a referendum, voted to invoke Article 50, then voted to reject a deal every time, only to act horrified no deal might now occur. Its literally what you voted for Benn!
"Hammond sabotageing our negotiations so we got such an awful deal"
Do you really believe that he deliberately set out to hobble the UK in negotiations with the EU?
No of course not! No more than an incompetent batsman deliberately seeks to get his partner ran out.
I think he was that blinded by his own personal prejudices that he did so unwittingly.
This is true of 90% of the major actors in Brexit - on both sides.
Comments
If MPs wanted to avoid no deal they had three chances to do so. You don't get to three times reject a deal then be horrified there's no deal. MPs who rejected the deal three times who are now crying there might be no deal are like the fable of God and The Drowning Man:
A fellow was stuck on his rooftop in a flood. He was praying to God for help.
Soon a man in a rowboat came by and the fellow shouted to the man on the roof, "Jump in, I can save you."
The stranded fellow shouted back, "No, it's OK, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me."
So the rowboat went on.
Then a motorboat came by. "The fellow in the motorboat shouted, "Jump in, I can save you."
To this the stranded man said, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith."
So the motorboat went on.
Then a helicopter came by and the pilot shouted down, "Grab this rope and I will lift you to safety."
To this the stranded man again replied, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith."
So the helicopter reluctantly flew away.
Soon the water rose above the rooftop and the man drowned. He went to Heaven. He finally got his chance to discuss this whole situation with God, at which point he exclaimed, "I had faith in you but you didn't save me, you let me drown. I don't understand why!"
To this God replied, "I sent you a rowboat and a motorboat and a helicopter, what more did you expect?"
If there is a GE soon, and they are this incoherent on Brexit, they might actually come third in votes.
I’ve already explained why no deal was not the default then. As per usual, you ignored an inconvenient fact. If Leavers find it too difficult to deliver on their mandate - which would be unsurprising because it was an entirely negative impulse built on xenophobic lies - they should give up rather than inflict lasting damage on the country. Or seek a fresh mandate for their deranged obsession.
The executive can't renegotiate because there is no deal which will make MPs "see sense" and vote it through. Not with the current parliamentary arithmetic.
No deal is likely to do huge damage to the United Kingdom but it will have been arrived at democratically. The elected PM of the governing party has decided upon it. I welcome all legal and procedural efforts to stop it but Johnson doesn't have to do anything but leave the EU at a time of their mutual agreement, namely October 31st.
You still haven't said what unicorn you expected when Parliament rejected the deal? I mean it should have been blindingly obvious what the Tories would do next once May was gone, she was your best bet at a soft Brexit and you spat it out and threw it in our face. So be it, your choice.
https://twitter.com/nytpolitics/status/1161390235344936967?s=19
Alternative deals are available as the EU has made clear. It is this government which is refusing to negotiate. It is this government’s Foreign Secretary who has told bare-faced lies about the mandate from the referendum.
I am pretty annoyed at MPs who voted down the Deal. But that does not entitle this government now to do something for which it has no mandate.
Anyway, I need some beauty sleep so goodnight to all.
It has been explained to you repeatedly why you are wrong and, whilst I understand you appear to be stuck at Stage 2 of Grief and Loss, it is doing you no no good in terms of your mental health if not your physical well being.
If I could offer you a piece of unsolicited advice it would be to focus your energies (and obvious enthusiasm for the EU) in to a future campaign to rejoin with the LD's.
Good luck.
This is from July but the headline sums it up
https://www.apnews.com/684d9ba48ad54c1f81a1e3146209003f
“Different deals” except ones which the U.K. government is open to because in those cases the “deal is the deal and will not be reopened”
Do realise how much of an idiot you make yourself appear? I know it’s guilt swirling around that your machinations have led to this, but it really isn’t healthy
“Did they think Saxon Britannia wasn’t Christian enough? Not enough burning and drowning of pagans?”
ydoethur
“The Pope considered it was (a) not following his instructions and (b) should be. Nothing more or less than that.
Friendly hint - that's twice you've now actually embarrassed yourself while talking about religious history. Maybe stop doing it?”
Friendly reply , how can I be embarrassing myself by putting thoughts out there and learning from your answers 🙂
What were those Papal instructions? You saying Not at all similar to the Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae of Charlemagne?
Parliament voted to authorise invoking Article 50.
Article 50 made a no deal Brexit our default if we didn't get a deal.
Parliament rejected a deal.
Parliament was advised rejecting the deal risked no deal at all.
Which statement is wrong?
The mandate for no deal was parliament invoking A50 and then repeatedly voting down the deals offered leaving only the default option.
Remainer MP's need to take the lions share of the responsibility for no deal by trying to stop Brexit.
It was gross stupidity and it would seem it is a cognitive failure that is still manifest even in the face of the impending result of their own decisions.
If we don't Leave and have an election, Corbyn minority at least, as Boris exits pursued by a barely able to believe his luck Farage.
https://twitter.com/DJJudd/status/1161353495775272960
https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/1161385928172216321
How can the backstop mean the demands of us controlling our own laws, or our own customs and exiting the ECJ?
Are you saying we cannot pool any sovereignty at all anywhere to put it to better use to us?
Parliament already voted to leave when it voted to invoke Article 50. Parliament doesn't need any more votes for us to leave, it is already the law.
The only question then is whether we left with or without a deal. The deal was an awful deal that violated what we had campaigned for, but despite being so soft even Ken Clarke could back it hundreds of Remainers chose to walk through the Nay lobbies with JRM etc without revoking Article 50 first.
So great job, you left no deal as the legal default and removed the deal from the table. Well done, so smart!
It doesn't matter how many motions to reject No Deal Parliament passes, without a deal or revocation that is what occurs automatically and extending just keeps repeating the stockpiling pain without ending this.
So the only way to avoid No Deal was to agree a deal or revoke and Parliament has done neither.
Exactly how many Leavers are there in Parliament who both voted against the Deal (let's say more than once) and think No Deal is a disaster?
We seem a long way from Boris will force a deal through but it's still a possibility I suppose.
Do you really believe that he deliberately set out to hobble the UK in negotiations with the EU?
No Deal is off the Mohs scale of hardness, notwithstanding the call of Byronic (or some other poster, maybe Sean something) for ‘Diamond Hard’ Brexit.
Anyhoo, seems the fellow’s got his wish, unless the unlikely figure of Hammond can lead us to salvation.
If I were you I'd give up that bonkers argument, because by October 31st it will bump up against the reality that shouting louder and threatening to wreck our own economy, even if done by Boris, Raab etc, doesn't actually impress the EU.
I think he was that blinded by his own personal prejudices that he did so unwittingly.