O/T DDay for Brexit..well sort of...

[millmoormagic]

He didn't call it, did he, no amount of politicking changes that fact and this deflection being carried out by yourself, and others, being influenced by the msm, is frankly pathetic.

[KerrAvon]

Parliament called the referendum when it enacted the European Union Referendum Act 2015. Corbyn is a member of Parliament and voted in favour of it. He then voted in favour of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017, which empowered the government to trigger Article 50.

Those are the facts, MMM, no matter how inconvenient for you.

Not sure where the media comes into it...

[Exiletyke]

Lots of moving parts but only one in reality

Just watch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6pwZ1saqBc

[millmoormagic]

Parliament called the referendum when it enacted the European Union Referendum Act 2015. Corbyn is a member of Parliament and voted in favour of it. He then voted in favour of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017, which empowered the government to trigger Article 50.

Those are the facts, MMM, no matter how inconvenient for you.

Not sure where the media comes into it...

You can play politics with this as much as you want, he followed party policy, part of his role as an mp is to vote, one way or the other, if we're being pedantic do you want to post all the other things he's voted for or against, you know, like against the various wars, against just about every act that the tories have brought in punishing the poorest, what about those votes, that's the inconvenient thing for you and your ilk, isn't it....the fact is that without your boy Cameron calling the referendum then it wouldn't have taken place, fact, we wouldn't be in this absolute debacle crushing the country right now, fact, your party and it's right wing tendency is deliberatley forcing us down this route, and you're party to that.

[KerrAvon]

You can play politics with this as much as you want, he followed party policy, part of his role as an mp is to vote, one way or the other, if we're being pedantic do you want to post all the other things he's voted for or against, you know, like against the various wars, against just about every act that the tories have brought in punishing the poorest, what about those votes, that's the inconvenient thing for you and your ilk, isn't it....the fact is that without your boy Cameron calling the referendum then it wouldn't have taken place, fact, we wouldn't be in this absolute debacle crushing the country right now, fact, your party and it's right wing tendency is deliberatley forcing us down this route, and you're party to that.

And you aren’t playing politics when you try to brush Corbyn’s role in Brexit under the carpet? Lol.

So when you said that Corbyn had no input in the referendum what you meant is that he voted for it, but he was only following party policy? The party of which he was leader? How does that work for the 2011 vote when he rebelled against the Labour whip in a failed attempt to get a referendum?

Part of being an MP is indeed to vote. Cameron did not call the Referendum. He had no power to do so. Parliament did. Corbyn along with the majority of Parliament voted for the Referendum and to trigger Article 50. Which bits of that don't you get?

Stop digging, MMM. I get no pleasure from this.

[ragingpup]

Trying to align yourself with Labour's proposals probably explains why you are perceived as a ditherer with a view that 'meanders from one argument to the other'. Their strategy seemed to have been a wholly unrealistic one to engineer a general election. It has become somewhat muddy since that hope was (inevitably) dashed.

A deal with 'environment, customer and employment rights embedded' means accepting the jurisdiction of a supra-national court - the ECJ - as rights without a body to enforce them are meaningless. I agree that there are many different versions of what Brexit is, but I suspect that many people who voted Leave did not envisage the continued jurisdiction of a foreign court applying rules over which this country would have no say. Given that the extract from the (presumably left wing) blogger that you posted earlier with approval criticised the May deal for risking being subject to rules over which we have no say, its surprising that you have meandered to your view here.

You know as well as I do that I've argued the same line throughout. I'm being pragmatic that I support a solution that most closely reflects the vast majority of people in the country, and most likely in parliament. That is the % of people who voted Leave wanting above all else to leave with a deal to be free of the EU but keep close ties so as to minimise the economical impact as well as the 48% of people who voted Remain. Ie the vast majority of the country.

What part of that do you dispute?

If May and Corbyn can agree on the basis of a deal around that, then - as I've told you many times before, they can secure a majority of MPs to take that principle to the EU to negotiate the best deal in this direction that we can from the EU on FoM and ECJ. Yes, this will involve concessions, it will not please the hard Leave camp, but it will mean leaving the EU and will lesson economic damage. I would like us to negotiate from this PoV than the current one, which you support, simply because we have tried your one, and it doesn't work. The MPs rejected it, sent the poor bugger back to the EU and lo! it's rejected again.

So what do you suggest we do now?

At least I have a suggestion that might work. Yes, it will involve compromise, but a) I'm willing to make some compromise on the FoM issue as I'm repeatedly told many Leave voters didn't vote purely on FoM so there's a % of compromise there and b) despite me asking repeatedly on this and other threads, no one has explained how any of our own laws are compromised by the ECJ in any meaningful way in order for that t matter to me.

That's me. Now that May has returned empty handed again, and with the MPs unanimously trashing the deal you argued on here supporting - what do you suggest we should do now?

[ragingpup]

The problem that you, many MPs and I suspect, the EU are ignoring is that no deal is most definitely on the table. Parliament enacted the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 which by virtue of sections 1 and 20, provides that we leave the EU at 11:00pm on 29th March 2019. It could be that many MPs regret doing that, but they did. Only one deal has the approval of the EU and parliament have said they don't like it. It follows that parliament have in effect - and irrespective of intention - voted for a no deal at the present time.

The EU say they don't want no deal with the sticking point being the backstop. As I mentioned earlier, refusing to shift means that they too are enabling a no deal and the hard border they say that they don't want.

Hopefully MPs and the EU are going to wake up to reality at some point.

Do you think,hand on heart, that Parliament will allow that to happen?

Key question (come on! you can do it!): with May returning, shock horror, empty handed from Brussels and with her only deal on the table (you know, the one that you supported) being hugely defeated in the commons, what would you personally like to see happen now?

(I've answered this tonight and been up for the stick so why shouldn't you? (as ever, I know why you won't, and I think most boys and girls reading this do too!)) x

[Exiletyke]

And you aren’t playing politics when you try to brush Corbyn’s role in Brexit under the carpet? Lol.

So when you said that Corbyn had no input in the referendum what you meant is that he voted for it, but he was only following party policy? The party of which he was leader? How does that work for the 2011 vote when he rebelled against the Labour whip in a failed attempt to get a referendum?

Part of being an MP is indeed to vote. Cameron did not call the Referendum. He had no power to do so. Parliament did. Corbyn along with the majority of Parliament voted for the Referendum and to trigger Article 50. Which bits of that don't you get?

Stop digging, MMM. I get no pleasure from this.

Are you for real Kerr
Cameron did not call the Referendum. [/Quote]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46891771


Speaking to the BBC as he headed off for a run as he headed off for a run on Wednesday morning, he said: "I hope she wins the vote tonight, I'm sure she will.

"I hope then that Parliament can come together and find an alternative partnership agreement with the European Union, that's the right way forward, that's what her deal was about last night and she has my support as she does this."

Asked if regretted calling the referendum, he said: "I don't regret calling the referendum - it was a promise I made two years before the 2015 general election - it was included in the manifesto, it was legislated for in parliament - six out of seven members of all parties voted for that referendum.

"Obviously I regret that we lost the referendum - I deeply regret that - I was leading the campaign to stay in the European Union and obviously I regret the difficulties and the problems we've been having trying to implement the result of that referendum.But I don't think it's going to be helped by me giving a running commentary.
Your boy certainly seems to prefer running

[WanChaiMiller]

Well I'm not too sure maybe we could leave with no deal or perhaps leave with a deal along the lines indicated but then again I might prefer something in the middle or perhaps we could remain
What about freedom of movement, making our own laws,
You're neither in nor out

Ok so we leave with no deal to trade under WTO regulation. In this situation we will not have made any of the trade rules, we have no influence iver how those trade laws are made and the final court of arbitration is in Switzerland not the UK.

Explain how that brings sovereignty back to the UK?

Maybe it does away with free movement (but that works both ways as a huge number of Brits enjoy the freedom to live wherever they want within the EU).

[KerrAvon]

You know as well as I do that I've argued the same line throughout. I'm being pragmatic that I support a solution that most closely reflects the vast majority of people in the country, and most likely in parliament. That is the % of people who voted Leave wanting above all else to leave with a deal to be free of the EU but keep close ties so as to minimise the economical impact as well as the 48% of people who voted Remain. Ie the vast majority of the country.

What part of that do you dispute?

If May and Corbyn can agree on the basis of a deal around that, then - as I've told you many times before, they can secure a majority of MPs to take that principle to the EU to negotiate the best deal in this direction that we can from the EU on FoM and ECJ. Yes, this will involve concessions, it will not please the hard Leave camp, but it will mean leaving the EU and will lesson economic damage. I would like us to negotiate from this PoV than the current one, which you support, simply because we have tried your one, and it doesn't work. The MPs rejected it, sent the poor bugger back to the EU and lo! it's rejected again.

So what do you suggest we do now?

At least I have a suggestion that might work. Yes, it will involve compromise, but a) I'm willing to make some compromise on the FoM issue as I'm repeatedly told many Leave voters didn't vote purely on FoM so there's a % of compromise there and b) despite me asking repeatedly on this and other threads, no one has explained how any of our own laws are compromised by the ECJ in any meaningful way in order for that t matter to me.

That's me. Now that May has returned empty handed again, and with the MPs unanimously trashing the deal you argued on here supporting - what do you suggest we should do now?

To be fair, you did start out by making numerous posts that suggested that the self-contradictory six conditions that Labour talked about were not actually Labour Party policy, but were, in fact, some sort of weird political game.

You then decided that you were a fan of the truly awful Norway model.

Your position then morphed into that you weren’t: suggesting that we remain in the SM and CU, but that we have a deal that aligns with it, that takes in some benefits but obviously makes some concessions. In return, we ask for concessions from them on FoM and ECJ. When repeatedly pressed upon what you meant by alignment you eventually admitted, in terms, that you hadn’t got a clue because you were a drama graduate...

More recently you have adopted a very soft Brexit (back to Norway?) that you say reflects the very close nature of the vote with the alignment that you can’t explain creeping back in.

So no, I don’t know that you’ve argued the same line throughout.

I don’t agree that we should give ground on FoM and the ECJ. Whatever you or I might think about it, FoM was quite clearly the largest driver for Leave voters and the Leave vote won the referendum. I don’t think that it would or should be politically acceptable to ignore that in a clumsy attempt to try to ‘reflect the closeness of the vote’.

Your position on the ECJ seems a bit confused. Yesterday (post 1279) you reproduced a Left wing blog that you said summed everything up nicely for you. The opening sentence of that criticised the May deal, saying that it would mean that the UK would effectively remains in the EU without representation. And yet your position, about 12 hours later appears to be that you want exactly that. You want the UK to be subject to EU produced law over which we would have no say enforced by a court that we are not members of. With all due respect, what that sums up for me is that you don’t have clue what you are talking about and that you are just regurgitating whatever comes in on your Momentum twitter feed.

What we should do now is what is being done by Geoffrey Cox, which is an attempt to time limit the backstop or incorporate into it a mechanism by which we can unilaterally leave. Given that the UK parliament and the EU seem to be playing a game of chicken on the issue, we also need to step up preparations for a no deal exit by seeking a series of temporary mini-deals on issues such as air travel and policing and security.