Remoaners Revenge...

waamo

Fran_Klee wrote: »

No, really it isn't more than that.
Article 50 is very clear; read it.
After two years of negotiating the EU's treaties shall cease to apply to the departing member, it says.

Just because our duplicitous MP's have decided that they want a deal does not mean that they can change their vote after they have made it; it has been done.
Imagine voting on any other once-in-a-generation matter and then trying to renege; chaos would ensue and quite rightly too.
THAT is where our parliament are trying to ride rough-shod over what has been decided, nowhere else.

"Sorry we voted to nuke Iran but don't worry because we've changed our minds! We didn't think it meant 'NOW'!"
See?
Too late after the button has been pressed.
If they were not prepared for the consequences of implementing Article 50 they should not have voted yes.
It really is that simple, and no amount of squirming will ever change that.


As for another election well we've been here so many times.
It won't change anything.
Why?
Because largely the parties are not (maybe "were not" might be more accurate) split along lines of pro- or anti-Brexit.
Think how many Labour constituencies voted to leave or how many Tory constituencies voted to remain.

No, you'd end up either further in the doo-doo and with (as has been suggested) the Tories and The Brexit Party forming a coalition that would still see the UK leaving.
There's not a hope in hell of Labour getting anywhere near enough seats for an outright majority, LibDems either and since we know how effective Farage is as a campaigner we also know that the very most will be made of this farce.

If Brexit is still thwarted by those duplicitous MP's that refuse to honour the result of a referendum where the British public were promised that the result would be honoured the backlash will still ensure that Brexit goes ahead; it will just take a little longer and cause more hurt to those that refuse to accept the result of a democratic vote.
Especially the MP's in that group, because it will change politics in this country forever and ensure that many of them never have a seat as an MP again.

Just think:
Had this country had the government and cabinet three years ago that we have now, the probability is that the UK would by now be out of the EU and the resulting hoo-hah would largely have settled to nothing.

Parliament has voted that we do not leave without a deal. Are you suggesting that vote be ignored?

Fran_Klee

waamo wrote: »

Parliament has voted that we do not leave without a deal. Are you suggesting that vote be ignored?

Are you suggesting that they can freely ignore the original vote they made to implement Article 50?
If so, explain how please?

Also be kind enough to explain how they can prevent leaving without a deal if the EU will not do a deal, especially in light of Parliament's repeated refusals to accept the so-called "deal" which is on offer?

waamo

Fran_Klee wrote: »

Are you suggesting that they can freely ignore the original vote they made to implement Article 50?
If so, explain how please?

Also be kind enough to explain how they can prevent leaving without a deal if the EU will not do a deal, especially in light of Parliament's repeated refusals to accept the so-called "deal" which is on offer?

The original vote didn't mention anything about a deal or not. Parliament has voted that we should leave and that we should negotiate a deal to leave.

The solution is simple. Negotiate a deal that Parliament approves of and leave. That's parliamentary sovereignty.

What is your proposal?

custardy

Fran_Klee wrote: »

You must show us where that has been said by anybody of influence.


You're (deliberately?) misunderstanding, probably as a result of your personal hatred of Brexit.
Britain has relied upon imports to survive for centuries, even now being reliant upon imports for a large and diverse range such as foodstuffs to machinery and pharmaceuticals to vehicles.


Do you honestly and seriously imagine that nowhere beyond the boundaries of the EU27 would anybody like to tap into the UK import market which, I will remind you, is worth some $673 billion per year?
Nobody globally would rather sell us butter and bacon cheaper than the Danish - with equally high standards and less hassle?
Nobody globally would like to sell us motor vehicles of a better quality and at a better price than BMW, Volkswagen-Audi, Peugeot/Citroen etc?
Nobody globally would like to sell us high-quality ethically-sourced and maybe even organic fruit and veg in huge quantities at similar or better prices than the EU?

Presumably you also don't think that there would ever be any degree of reciprocation for access to our huge market either?
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:


Maybe not necessarily desperate to deal with the UK then (though I'm waiting for you to provide evidence of who said that) but thinking that outside the EU nobody wants access to our huge market isn't just being in denial, it's delusional.

FYI there are already multiple overseas producers who quite literally bend over backwards to comply with UK supermarkets requirements, seeing regular visits and checks together with very strict requirements as to all stages of the production process.
This for deals often worth £ tens of millions.


Do you really not think you'll see similar for repeat contracts worth hundreds of millions or billions?

My,thats a big fluffy reply.
By your own words,theres no need for leverage it seems.

Fran_Klee

waamo wrote: »

The original vote didn't mention anything about a deal or not. Parliament has voted that we should leave and that we should negotiate a deal to leave.

The solution is simple. Negotiate a deal that Parliament approves of and leave. That's parliamentary sovereignty.

What is your proposal?

At last you accept that there was no mention of deal or not when voting to implement Article 50.
:T

Next: we negotiated (allegedly).
The deal was proposed.
More than once.
Each time it was rejected by these MP's who say they want a deal.
Well, what comes next once a deal is offered which they reject?
What comes next when no further deal is forthcoming?
You cannot keep trying to negotiate a longed-for deal when the other party tell you repeatedly that one will not be forthcoming.
That's beyond stubborn, it is delusional.

Since they voted to implement Article 50 the future is clear; to maintain the parliamentary sovereignty of their vote these MP's must accept that - since no deal acceptable to them is available - we must leave as agreed in their original vote.

By 31st October there will have been well over three years from the implementation of Article 50 to get the deal these MP's hoped for.
If there is still no acceptable deal on the table by then it must be quite obvious that no deal will be forthcoming, and these MP's should abide by their vote and accept that the UK will leave.

It is unacceptable to keep the country tied to the EU for longer than necessary purely to accede to the vain hopes of some MP's that blindly dream of a non-existent deal.

Again, if our MP's did not accept that this was possible they should not have either accepted the result of the referendum or agreed to put forward Article 50.

They had their chance to stop Brexit then and did not choose to take that opportunity.
Now is too late.

waamo

Fran_Klee wrote: »

At last you accept that there was no mention of deal or not when voting to implement Article 50.
:T

Next: we negotiated (allegedly).
The deal was proposed.
More than once.
Each time it was rejected by these MP's who say they want a deal.
Well, what comes next once a deal is offered which they reject?
What comes next when no further deal is forthcoming?
You cannot keep trying to negotiate a longed-for deal when the other party tell you repeatedly that one will not be forthcoming.
That's beyond stubborn, it is delusional.

Since they voted to implement Article 50 the future is clear; to maintain the parliamentary sovereignty of their vote these MP's must accept that - since no deal acceptable to them is available - we must leave as agreed in their original vote.

By 31st October there will have been well over three years from the implementation of Article 50 to get the deal these MP's hoped for.
If there is still no acceptable deal on the table by then it must be quite obvious that no deal will be forthcoming, and these MP's should abide by their vote and accept that the UK will leave.

It is unacceptable to keep the country tied to the EU for longer than necessary purely to accede to the vain hopes of some MP's that blindly dream of a non-existent deal.

Again, if our MP's did not accept that this was possible they should not have either accepted the result of the referendum or agreed to put forward Article 50.

They had their chance to stop Brexit then and did not choose to take that opportunity.
Now is too late.

I've never stated there was a mention of a deal on the original vote therefore I cannot be accepting of that "at last". I've always accepted that.

Nonetheless I fail to see what you are saying. The position is clear. Leave with a deal. That is the wish of Parliament.

You seem very reluctant to explain your solution despite being asked multiple times so I will ask again. Should the wishes of Parliament be ignored?

Fran_Klee

waamo wrote: »

I've never stated there was a mention of a deal on the original vote therefore I cannot be accepting of that "at last". I've always accepted that.

Nonetheless I fail to see what you are saying. The position is clear. Leave with a deal. That is the wish of Parliament.

You seem very reluctant to explain your solution despite being asked multiple times so I will ask again. Should the wishes of Parliament be ignored?

Simply then since that seems necessary:

Parliament is not being ignored.
Parliament has repeatedly refused the only deal on offer.
That repeated refusal was, fairly obviously, the wish of parliament.

The only available option now is to leave*, as parliament voted for twice and agreed by a huge majority prior to Article 50 being put forward.

There is no other deal.




*
Yes we know that there are more options but we can at least make an attempt at reality, just this once.

Fran_Klee

custardy wrote: »

My,thats a big fluffy reply.
By your own words,theres no need for leverage it seems.

If that's your quote of who said there would be queues waiting for deals I think I missed it.

waamo

Fran_Klee wrote: »

Simply then since that seems necessary:

Parliament is not being ignored.
Parliament has repeatedly refused the only deal on offer.
That repeated refusal was, fairly obviously, the wish of parliament.

The only available option now is to leave*, as parliament voted for twice and agreed by a huge majority prior to Article 50 being put forward.

There is no other deal.





*
Yes we know that there are more options but we can at least make an attempt at reality, just this once.

So you would dispense with parliamentary sovereignty and leave against the express terms set out by Parliament?

Fran_Klee

waamo wrote: »

So you would dispense with parliamentary sovereignty and leave against the express terms set out by Parliament?

You seem to have difficulty with basic comprehension; I politely suggest you re-read the preceding posts and pay particular attention to the parts of those posts clearly pointing out to you where parliament has repeatedly already made the relevant decisions.

Since you choose to ignore what's been posted your opinion is fairly obvious so may I suggest you read the following:

All these people who witter on about No Deal really don’t want to leave the European Union at all. It’s just code for saying they don’t want to leave and they think the referendum is a mistake. But they are not daring to put down a motion to revoke Article 50, are they?’

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/revoke-article-50-or-stop-complaining-about-no-deal-brexit-jacob-rees-mogg-warns-tory-rebels/ar-AAEV6U5

Read the rest too; the real "clincher" is in The Telegraph & goes:

"The key is that the law has already been passed. We’re leaving.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/07/26/jacob-rees-mogg-dares-remainer-rebels-revoke-article-50-way/

Now by all means disagree all you want, but going around in circles as you seem to be doing serves no purpose.
As our parliament will soon see.

I have politely responded to your questions.
Now are you prepared to respond to the questions I posed in post number 53?

Fran_Klee wrote: »

Are you suggesting that they (parliament) can freely ignore the original vote they made to implement Article 50?
If so, explain how please?

Also be kind enough to explain how they (parliament) can prevent leaving without a deal if the EU will not do a deal, especially in light of Parliament's repeated refusals to accept the so-called "deal" which is on offer?