Brexit (Old)

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I think Oliver Cromwell sorted that argument out.

Was representative democracy a big thing in the 17th Century?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Dave42

[/B]

there a chance it will be after deal get defeated in parliament you must admit there a chance it will be

Can’t deny Dave, anything is possible, is it probable?...........

Bottom line is this:

Article 50 was voted through parliament because there was a mandate from the electorate to do so. MPs that voted remain still voted A50 because they knew they had too.

Fast forward nothing has changed. There is lots of discussion but there is no overwhelming mandate to overturn A50.

Unless something happens between now and March, that Parliament thinks would result in turning around the A50 vote it won’t happen.

---------- Post added at 23:35 ---------- Previous post was at 23:33 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Was representative democracy a big thing in the 17th Century?

Ha, is that the best you can do? Time for bed sunshine, do you want me to tuck you in?

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Can’t deny Dave, anything is possible, is it probable?...........

Bottom line is this:

Article 50 was voted through parliament because there was a mandate from the electorate to do so. MPs that voted remain still voted A50 because they knew they had too.

Fast forward nothing has changed. There is lots of discussion but there is no overwhelming mandate to overturn A50.

Unless something happens between now and March, that Parliament thinks would result in turning around the A50 vote it won’t happen.

---------- Post added at 23:35 ---------- Previous post was at 23:33 ----------



Ha, is that the best you can do? Time for bed sunshine, do you want me to tuck you in?

only thing that's certain is they be lots more chaos when deal gets voted down in parliament

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Dave42

only think that's certain is they be lots more chaos when deal gets voted down in parliament

No doubt.

Politicians and civil servants will have to earn their pensions.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Ha, is that the best you can do? Time for bed sunshine, do you want me to tuck you in?

That’ll be no, then. Cromwell fought against the Crown to establish Parliament as the supreme authority, centuries before the extension of the franchise beyond land owners.

It’s entertaining that spending half of the evening claiming people are sovereign you are now accepting Parliament can change it’s mind but you don’t think it will happen, which is what I have been saying all along.

Thank you for finally accepting my point.

Unless something happens between now and March, that Parliament thinks would result in turning around the A50 vote it won’t happen.

Your only difference is what you consider a threshold for “something happens”. In my view the ball is rolling already, and you can’t yet prove otherwise because it’s a subjective opinion on the political climate. It’s not at your threshold because you wish to leave regardless of economic consequences. It’s beyond my threshold because I consider economics to be important. Politicians tend to too.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Can’t deny Dave, anything is possible, is it probable?...........

Bottom line is this:

Article 50 was voted through parliament because there was a mandate from the electorate to do so. MPs that voted remain still voted A50 because they knew they had too.

Fast forward nothing has changed. There is lots of discussion but there is no overwhelming mandate to overturn A50.

Unless something happens between now and March, that Parliament thinks would result in turning around the A50 vote it won’t happen.

I think there does seem to be a change in rhetoric as jfman has highlighted. I definitely had not heard no Brexit being mentioned by the Government until recently. Whether this is a case of promoting the current deal to Brexit MPs as "May's deal or no Brexit" (and to Remain MPs as "May's deal or a no-deal Brexit") or whether there's something more substantive behind it, I don't know.

On another note, popcorn tomorrow, folks! In the afternoon, Geoffrey Cox, the attorney-general, will give his statement on the government's legal advice on the withdrawal agreement.

[jfman]

Or, not give much of a statement!

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jfman

Or, not give much of a statement!

Apparently, he's said he'll answer every question put to him, so it could be a long session!

[Gavin78]

I thought he was just brushing over it and not giving the full book?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Gavin78

I thought he was just brushing over it and not giving the full book?

Maybe he'll just say "no comment" to the questions after a short statement. Maybe he'll show and tell. Time will tell.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I think there does seem to be a change in rhetoric as jfman has highlighted. I definitely had not heard no Brexit being mentioned by the Government until recently. Whether this is a case of promoting the current deal to Brexit MPs as "May's deal or no Brexit" (and to Remain MPs as "May's deal or a no-deal Brexit") or whether there's something more substantive behind it, I don't know.

On another note, popcorn tomorrow, folks! In the afternoon, Geoffrey Cox, the attorney-general, will give his statement on the government's legal advice on the withdrawal agreement.

it very interesting even Michael Gove said it too

Security cooperation with Europe is ‘imperative’, MI6 chief to warn as no-deal Brexit threat grows
Warning comes after security minister says no-deal would have 'real impact' on ability to protect public


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8664231.html

before anyone says project fear I remind you to read 3rd paragraph of article 50 and that is legal document about leaving EU

[Sephiroth]

In the early morning news, there was a suggestion that the 'Meaningful Vote' would not be tested next week because of the certainty of defeat for May. The BBC report suggested that May would go back to Brussels to renegotiate.

Will the EU be reasonable? Indeed, what is reasonable? Pretend that the backstop is important for Irish peace (when it's really there just to protect the Irish economy)? Value the UK as a decent partner into the future? Openly espouse the EEA route (we are a current member due to the EU) which doesn't need EU permission afaik?

If the EU remains intransigent, then it's No Deal or EEA, in my eyes. I'd take either.

But can we stay in the EEA? There's an interesting view on that: https://esharp.eu/debates/the-uk-and...r-after-brexit

But I think that the Attorney General thinks that we don't drop out of the EEA after we leave the EU. So a potentially interesting bun fight there.


---------- Post added at 06:42 ---------- Previous post was at 06:40 ----------

Originally Posted by Dave42

<SNIP>

before anyone says project fear I remind you to read 3rd paragraph of article 50 and that is legal document about leaving EU

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Dave42

[/B]

there a chance it will be after deal get defeated in parliament you must admit there a chance it will be

I see no reason why Theresa May needs to put any further votes to Parliament if the Withdrawal Agreement is voted down. Just let the no-deal Brexit happen. The legislation is already passed and Article 50 is in place.

It was Theresa May's idea to have this bridge between membership and non-membership. Parliament either accepts it or they don't.

---------- Post added at 07:45 ---------- Previous post was at 07:39 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I think there does seem to be a change in rhetoric as jfman has highlighted. I definitely had not heard no Brexit being mentioned by the Government until recently. Whether this is a case of promoting the current deal to Brexit MPs as "May's deal or no Brexit" (and to Remain MPs as "May's deal or a no-deal Brexit") or whether there's something more substantive behind it, I don't know.

On another note, popcorn tomorrow, folks! In the afternoon, Geoffrey Cox, the attorney-general, will give his statement on the government's legal advice on the withdrawal agreement.

I don't see 'no Brexit' as an option. As you intimate, this threat was aimed at the 'hard' Brexiteers.

Before May's idea about a transitional arrangement, most people just thought we would be leaving, full stop. So if the Withdrawal Agreement doesn't pass, we are just back to our original expectations.

The Withdrawal Agreement has certainly succeeded in muddying the waters, but it hasn't reduced the enthusiasm of those who voted to leave.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I see no reason why Theresa May needs to put any further votes to Parliament if the Withdrawal Agreement is voted down. Just let the no-deal Brexit happen. The legislation is already passed and Article 50 is in place.

It was Theresa May's idea to have this bridge between membership and non-membership. Parliament either accepts it or they don't.

---------- Post added at 07:45 ---------- Previous post was at 07:39 ----------



I don't see 'no Brexit' as an option. As you intimate, this threat was aimed at the 'hard' Brexiteers.

Before May's idea about a transitional arrangement, most people just thought we would be leaving, full stop. So if the Withdrawal Agreement doesn't pass, we are just back to our original expectations.

The Withdrawal Agreement has certainly succeeded in muddying the waters, but it hasn't reduced the enthusiasm of those who voted to leave.

they don't want country to fall of cliff edge OB it be utter chaos with no deal

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Dave42

they don't want country to fall of cliff edge OB it be utter chaos with no deal

A 'no deal' would not bring the chaos that some predict, but the Withdrawal Agreement is designed to smooth the way.