Guest Kopfkino Posted 12 June 2018 Posted 12 June 2018 22 minutes ago, toddybad said: But the idea that the government should be able to go away and do what in wants in the event that parliament says no to the deal is akin to a banana republic. It's shameful. Of course it should be for parliament to determine. As Ken Clarke pointed out, whatever deal is reached with the EU will need to be signed off by 27 different EU parliaments, each of whom retains absolute sovereignty over whether the deal proceeds or not. Our government is being forced to not act like a dictatorship. On the Trump thread Matt possibly had a point when mentioning that many in there have argued against Trump for threatening nuclear war and then again when meeting to hold talks. Many in here rightly criticise despots and dictators around the world but then, when it comes to Brexit - which is happening - decry any discussion of parliament properly holding the government to account. That really is such a poor argument. This amendment is not to do with holding the government to account nor does its absence prevent parliament scrutinising and holding the government to account. Firstly, it goes back to the argument that you don't enter a negotiation by showing the other side that 'no deal' is off the table and in fact you will accept any deal. That's effectively what this amendment does, although I figure eventually parliament would have to vote for no deal if the EU refuses to budge. Secondly, parliament voted to trigger Article 50 and the default position at the end of the two years after Article 50 is no deal. That was done to stop a member state trying to leave but ending up being a lame duck not able to leave if a deal isn't reached and again because it's useful in a negotiation to not have to accept anything offered. Added to that, but most importantly for me, representative democracy and parliamentary sovereignty does not equate to parliament having executive powers. Again this amendment, in my view (I'm happy to be shown otherwise), takes 'no deal' off the table, limits the government's negotiating power and effectively gives parliament power to direct negotiations but also hamstring itself. Parliament does not come above the executive and its up to the executive to conduct these negotiations and put the outcome of those to parliament. I appreciate that means that it looks like the government is acting as dictator and at the end it puts parliament between a rock and a hard place, but parliament voted to trigger Article 50 and that is the position of Article 50. You vote on the deal negotiated or you get no deal. Seriously what do you expect the EU to do any different if parliament says no go back.
Guest Posted 12 June 2018 Posted 12 June 2018 6 minutes ago, Kopfkino said: That really is such a poor argument. This amendment is not to do with holding the government to account nor does its absence prevent parliament scrutinising and holding the government to account. Firstly, it goes back to the argument that you don't enter a negotiation by showing the other side that 'no deal' is off the table and in fact you will accept any deal. That's effectively what this amendment does, although I figure eventually parliament would have to vote for no deal if the EU refuses to budge. Secondly, parliament voted to trigger Article 50 and the default position at the end of the two years after Article 50 is no deal. That was done to stop a member state trying to leave but ending up being a lame duck not able to leave if a deal isn't reached and again because it's useful in a negotiation to not have to accept anything offered. Added to that, but most importantly for me, representative democracy and parliamentary sovereignty does not equate to parliament having executive powers. Again this amendment, in my view (I'm happy to be shown otherwise), takes 'no deal' off the table, limits the government's negotiating power and effectively gives parliament power to direct negotiations but also hamstring itself. Parliament does not come above the executive and its up to the executive to conduct these negotiations and put the outcome of those to parliament. I appreciate that means that it looks like the government is acting as dictator and at the end it puts parliament between a rock and a hard place, but parliament voted to trigger Article 50 and that is the position of Article 50. You vote on the deal negotiated or you get no deal. Seriously what do you expect the EU to do any different if parliament says no go back. Hold on there are multiple amendments being voted on. Saying that the government would have to put a plan before parliament to be voted on in the event that parliament said no to the first deal would have no impact on the negotiations whatsoever.
Guest Posted 12 June 2018 Posted 12 June 2018 Looks like the government has negotiated another fudge on the only significant amendment (the DG one) anyway and the can's being kicked down the road back to the lords again.
Guest Kopfkino Posted 12 June 2018 Posted 12 June 2018 (edited) 21 minutes ago, toddybad said: Hold on there are multiple amendments being voted on. Saying that the government would have to put a plan before parliament to be voted on in the event that parliament said no to the first deal would have no impact on the negotiations whatsoever. Given your post and given the coverage of the day has been on 19, and to an extent 20, I thought it safe to assume my post could just address that. I hadn't seen Grieve's thing which is indeed the second part of your post but is not relevant to what I said as its different goalposts. It certainly still won't help negotiations but won't be as detrimental as 19 as of this morning. Edited 12 June 2018 by Kopfkino
Guest MattP Posted 12 June 2018 Posted 12 June 2018 2 hours ago, toddybad said: Looks like the government has negotiated another fudge on the only significant amendment (the DG one) anyway and the can's being kicked down the road back to the lords again. Negotiated another fudge? I presume you mean skilfully passed a motion through parliament?
Guest Posted 12 June 2018 Posted 12 June 2018 1 hour ago, MattP said: Negotiated another fudge? I presume you mean skilfully passed a motion through parliament? You're like a one man party political broadcast aren't you? It's another fudge where they've given in on two of the three points and have agreed to discuss the third and consequent amendments in the lords. If it comes out anything like it was proposed then it's the definitive end of no deal so the government has kicked the can down the road to try to avoid having another round of hard Brexiteer nonsense. When will we ever find out what the government's actual position is on anything?
Sharpe's Fox Posted 12 June 2018 Posted 12 June 2018 1 hour ago, MattP said: Negotiated another fudge? I presume you mean skilfully passed a motion through parliament? Aye lad just like when you’ve had a massive shit “skilfully” keeping the tip of yer willy from touching the peak of the shite mountain 1 1
purpleronnie Posted 12 June 2018 Posted 12 June 2018 8 hours ago, ealingfox said: Can't remember any of the Remain-supporting press putting an equivalent of Enemies of the People or Crush the Saboteurs on their front pages tbh. Look at the state of the right wing rags this morning ffs. The will of the people has to be one of the most overly used and misleading phrases of the past few years. And of course whack the union jack on the front too, which is one of the reasons that the flag has been tainted. 2
Donut Posted 12 June 2018 Posted 12 June 2018 (edited) Seeing as my quote function doesnt work, MattP says: "Do you actually hold the EU responsible for any of the ill-feeling towards them?" Some of it yes, but it is far outweighed by the press creating a culture that foreigners and the EU are a scapegoat for all your problems and all the failings of the government, punting out utterly meaningless shit slogans like "taking back control" and "brexit means brexit" so gammons dont have to think about anything, they can just utter these pointless slogans and think that in itself justifies their vote, creating a culture that has made racial tension legitimate and facts utterly irrelevant to the debate, and now using an inferiority complex because theyre scared of people making up their own minds or opinions shifting to point out at every opportunity do not go against the will of the people, do not block democracy at the slightest hint of anything other than the hardest brexit imaginable might be negotiated. Thats the major part of the ill feeling.....punting out shit to convert the gullible, the racist, the old and the complete gammon into making the whole nation poorer. Edited 12 June 2018 by Donut 4
Alf Bentley Posted 12 June 2018 Posted 12 June 2018 2 hours ago, purpleronnie said: The will of the people has to be one of the most overly used and misleading phrases of the past few years. "Respect the will of the people", they say. But who's going to act as executor of that will?
Donut Posted 12 June 2018 Posted 12 June 2018 On the other page, two of the prominent brexiters said any brexit will do. The ones that spend all day giving each other thumbs up and having a little love in together. So for them, brexit does mean brexit, in respects that they couldnt give a shit if we go for over a cliff edge no deal brexit, or softest possible vassal state in the customs union brexit in name only brexit.... But as both are brexit, it fulfills their ambitions. Get on with it and fulfill the will of the people. Interesting how many times democracy comes into these discussions, yet all the brexiters are scared stiff of a peoples vote on the terms of brexit or the threat of parliamentary debate on the brexit deal. Why would you be scared stiff? The type of brexit we get is irrelevant to you as long as its brexit, anything will do, and assuming as you say that public opinion hasnt changed, then asking a question of "do you accept these terms" as a peoples vote question, youll "win" (in the loosest possible sense of the word "winning" as you cant tell what youve "won") again. So whats the opposition to going back to the people and asking them to decide if the terms are acceptable to them? if theyre not, theyll have to renegotiate better terms until people are satisfied with them. And how can a democratic peoples vote undermine democracy? Just as you say youll "boot out" a government if you dont like what they try to implement with this new found "sovereignty", people who oppose your ideas wont just stand by idle forever and not expose the flaws in your arguments and campaign for their own views. Thats what democracy is. All this will of the people stuff.......its code word for "get this bloody thing whatever it is implemented as fast as possible before any more people start to think about what theyve done and change their mind, get it done before new people reach voting age, and get it done before our oldie voters start dying off" 1 1
Webbo Posted 12 June 2018 Posted 12 June 2018 3 minutes ago, Donut said: On the other page, two of the prominent brexiters said any brexit will do. The ones that spend all day giving each other thumbs up and having a little love in together. So for them, brexit does mean brexit, in respects that they couldnt give a shit if we go for over a cliff edge no deal brexit, or softest possible vassal state in the customs union brexit in name only brexit.... But as both are brexit, it fulfills their ambitions. Get on with it and fulfill the will of the people. Interesting how many times democracy comes into these discussions, yet all the brexiters are scared stiff of a peoples vote on the terms of brexit or the threat of parliamentary debate on the brexit deal. Why would you be scared stiff? The type of brexit we get is irrelevant to you as long as its brexit, anything will do, and assuming as you say that public opinion hasnt changed, then asking a question of "do you accept these terms" as a peoples vote question, youll "win" (in the loosest possible sense of the word "winning" as you cant tell what youve "won") again. So whats the opposition to going back to the people and asking them to decide if the terms are acceptable to them? if theyre not, theyll have to renegotiate better terms until people are satisfied with them. And how can a democratic peoples vote undermine democracy? Just as you say youll "boot out" a government if you dont like what they try to implement with this new found "sovereignty", people who oppose your ideas wont just stand by idle forever and not expose the flaws in your arguments and campaign for their own views. Thats what democracy is. All this will of the people stuff.......its code word for "get this bloody thing whatever it is implemented as fast as possible before any more people start to think about what theyve done and change their mind, get it done before new people reach voting age, and get it done before our oldie voters start dying off" And if you lose again will you accept the result this time? What will the campaign slogan be " get it right this time you thick racist pensioners"?And what if remain win by 52-48% will you be up for yet another referendum so the people can decide again? It's been 2 years mate, get over it.
Donut Posted 12 June 2018 Posted 12 June 2018 It had been a little while since we had a "you lost get over it" we were certainly due one. We will keep campaigning for what WE believe in and what OUR views are. It doesnt matter how many times we "lose" .....just like it doesnt matter how many times a party loses. They dont just sit there with their fingers on their lips and never challenge anything ever again. Nor will people who will be adversely affected. And if you werent worried about this prospect, just like the media outlets, they wouldnt be bleating on about "the will of the people" constantly. Been two years and weve got absolutely nowhere whilst looking like a global embarrasment. Thats "winning" for you aint it. 3
Webbo Posted 13 June 2018 Posted 13 June 2018 7 hours ago, Donut said: It had been a little while since we had a "you lost get over it" we were certainly due one. We will keep campaigning for what WE believe in and what OUR views are. It doesnt matter how many times we "lose" .....just like it doesnt matter how many times a party loses. They dont just sit there with their fingers on their lips and never challenge anything ever again. Nor will people who will be adversely affected. And if you werent worried about this prospect, just like the media outlets, they wouldnt be bleating on about "the will of the people" constantly. Been two years and weve got absolutely nowhere whilst looking like a global embarrasment. Thats "winning" for you aint it. But we did win.
Alf Bentley Posted 13 June 2018 Posted 13 June 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Webbo said: But we did win. #pyrrhicvictory "Made it, Ma! Top of the world!" Edited 13 June 2018 by Alf Bentley 3
Guest MattP Posted 13 June 2018 Posted 13 June 2018 11 hours ago, toddybad said: You're like a one man party political broadcast aren't you? It's another fudge where they've given in on two of the three points and have agreed to discuss the third and consequent amendments in the lords. If it comes out anything like it was proposed then it's the definitive end of no deal so the government has kicked the can down the road to try to avoid having another round of hard Brexiteer nonsense. When will we ever find out what the government's actual position is on anything? To say that opening line without a hint of irony takes some balls, well played. You speak like this stuff isn't normal, this is a minority government in a support deal with the DUP, virtually everything that goes through the commons that has any division with the party is going to have to be altered, that's the power that the backbenchers have now, as I say yet again, the government position is still exactly the same as it has been from Lancaster House speech, we leave the single market and the customs union. Exactly the same position the Labour party currently holds. The way you talk about parliamentary procedure it's like you think they have a 100 majority. 10 hours ago, Donut said: Some of it yes, but it is far outweighed by the press creating a culture that foreigners and the EU are a scapegoat for all your problems and all the failings of the government, punting out utterly meaningless shit slogans like "taking back control" and "brexit means brexit" so gammons dont have to think about anything, they can just utter these pointless slogans and think that in itself justifies their vote, creating a culture that has made racial tension legitimate and facts utterly irrelevant to the debate, and now using an inferiority complex because theyre scared of people making up their own minds or opinions shifting to point out at every opportunity do not go against the will of the people, do not block democracy at the slightest hint of anything other than the hardest brexit imaginable might be negotiated. Thats the major part of the ill feeling.....punting out shit to convert the gullible, the racist, the old and the complete gammon into making the whole nation poorer. You just can't understand why people voted to leave can you? "Taking Back Control" was obviously a basic election type slogan that was there to grab votes (a bit like "for the many, not the few") but to say it was nonsense and pointless fails to see the other side of the argument, the idea of leaving the European Union is to do just that, for some voters it's about taking back complete control of our borders, for some it's about us doing our own independent trade and for some it's about not being under the jurisdiction of the ECJ - all of those things come under our own parliament taking back more control from the commission, that's not really up for dispute. You are perfectly entitled to the opinion that the vote wasn't the right thing to do, but don't keep coming on here complaining that no one is giving a reason for Brexit just because you can't understand the reasons that they did. You clearly believe in shared democracy, many people don't.
Popular Post Nick Posted 13 June 2018 Popular Post Posted 13 June 2018 8 hours ago, Webbo said: And if you lose again will you accept the result this time? What will the campaign slogan be " get it right this time you thick racist pensioners"?And what if remain win by 52-48% will you be up for yet another referendum so the people can decide again? It's been 2 years mate, get over it. I'm off to to buy a bus. 8
Donut Posted 13 June 2018 Posted 13 June 2018 1 hour ago, Webbo said: But we did win. And you STILL don't know what you've won. TWO YEARS later. 3
Donut Posted 13 June 2018 Posted 13 June 2018 1 hour ago, MattP said: To say that opening line without a hint of irony takes some balls, well played. You speak like this stuff isn't normal, this is a minority government in a support deal with the DUP, virtually everything that goes through the commons that has any division with the party is going to have to be altered, that's the power that the backbenchers have now, as I say yet again, the government position is still exactly the same as it has been from Lancaster House speech, we leave the single market and the customs union. Exactly the same position the Labour party currently holds. The way you talk about parliamentary procedure it's like you think they have a 100 majority. You just can't understand why people voted to leave can you? "Taking Back Control" was obviously a basic election type slogan that was there to grab votes (a bit like "for the many, not the few") but to say it was nonsense and pointless fails to see the other side of the argument, the idea of leaving the European Union is to do just that, for some voters it's about taking back complete control of our borders, for some it's about us doing our own independent trade and for some it's about not being under the jurisdiction of the ECJ - all of those things come under our own parliament taking back more control from the commission, that's not really up for dispute. You are perfectly entitled to the opinion that the vote wasn't the right thing to do, but don't keep coming on here complaining that no one is giving a reason for Brexit just because you can't understand the reasons that they did. You clearly believe in shared democracy, many people don't. So "taking back control" can mean whatever you want it to mean. Even if its completely wrong like the idea that we send £350 million to the EU and its a waste, the idea that we are totally powerless to control our borders when we aren't and other countries in the EU have stricter immigration policies, the idea we wouldn't be under the ECJ when youre average gammon hasn't got a clue what it even is, blah blah blah. But just keep punting stories out in the news that foreigners and the EU are wrecking their life, they'll lap it up. Cant get a doctors appointment because of the foreigners. Send £350 mil to Brussels what a waste. Yeah go out with no deal it don't matter. Whole worlds gonna sell us all their stuff, itll be amazing. Its because "taking back control" sounds like a positive, strong slogan, even if its pure hot air and has no substance to it whatsoever. Its like "we got our country back". Pointless, ambiguous shit. That's why its a shambles, and that's why the conservative party is split, because they all want something different, no one agrees what they want out of brexit even if another of their shit empty slogans is "brexit means brexit"......well if it did Rees Mogg wouldn't be having a paddy and David Davis threatening to resign, members of the government wouldn't be resigning and using the issue to try and further their own careers rather than implement the "will of the people" and no one knows if any of the reasons they voted brexit are implementable. And then we all lose. 2
Guest MattP Posted 13 June 2018 Posted 13 June 2018 7 minutes ago, Donut said: So "taking back control" can mean whatever you want it to mean. Even if its completely wrong like the idea that we send £350 million to the EU and its a waste, the idea that we are totally powerless to control our borders when we aren't and other countries in the EU have stricter immigration policies, the idea we wouldn't be under the ECJ when youre average gammon hasn't got a clue what it even is, blah blah blah. But just keep punting stories out in the news that foreigners and the EU are wrecking their life, they'll lap it up. Cant get a doctors appointment because of the foreigners. Send £350 mil to Brussels what a waste. Yeah go out with no deal it don't matter. Whole worlds gonna sell us all their stuff, itll be amazing. Its because "taking back control" sounds like a positive, strong slogan, even if its pure hot air and has no substance to it whatsoever. Its like "we got our country back". Pointless, ambiguous shit. That's why its a shambles, and that's why the conservative party is split, because they all want something different, no one agrees what they want out of brexit even if another of their shit empty slogans is "brexit means brexit"......well if it did Rees Mogg wouldn't be having a paddy and David Davis threatening to resign, members of the government wouldn't be resigning and using the issue to try and further their own careers rather than implement the "will of the people" and no one knows if any of the reasons they voted brexit are implementable. And then we all lose. This is just an incoherant rant about Brexit, not a political argument. I haven't put any stories out there at all about doctors appointments, foreigners etc - if you go back to my post on the day of the referendum I even made sure when making my pitch to leave that I didn't even mention immigration, I realise many voted on that basis, but I tried to centre my arguments on the basis of independent trade and court jurisdiction, two things the vast majority of countries in the World have control over, immigration is a supply and demand business anyway most of the time. Taking back control quite clearly meant taking back control of borders, laws and trade - that was the basis behind it, that's why (eventually when pushed) Gideon, Call me Dave Boris and Gove all had to say in the final stages of the referendum campaign meant that leaving meant leaving the single market and the customs union barring the European Union being extremely nice and bending the rules of either of them for us. All parties are split over this aside from the minority ones, the election produced a result that meant passing any legislation was going to be tricky and for some bizarre reason the Tory party allowed candidates to stand against the main promise of the manifesto they were on, although as I've said before, I'm certain after reading Fall Out by Tim Shipman that May wanted that large majority to seek a softer Brexit, the blocking of Eurosceptic candidates like Dan Hannan for ones who'll follow the party whip tells me that.
Donut Posted 13 June 2018 Posted 13 June 2018 12 minutes ago, MattP said: This is just an incoherant rant about Brexit, not a political argument. I haven't put any stories out there at all about doctors appointments, foreigners etc - if you go back to my post on the day of the referendum I even made sure when making my pitch to leave that I didn't even mention immigration, I realise many voted on that basis, but I tried to centre my arguments on the basis of independent trade and court jurisdiction, two things the vast majority of countries in the World have control over, immigration is a supply and demand business anyway most of the time. Taking back control quite clearly meant taking back control of borders, laws and trade - that was the basis behind it, that's why (eventually when pushed) Gideon, Call me Dave Boris and Gove all had to say in the final stages of the referendum campaign meant that leaving meant leaving the single market and the customs union barring the European Union being extremely nice and bending the rules of either of them for us. All parties are split over this aside from the minority ones, the election produced a result that meant passing any legislation was going to be tricky and for some bizarre reason the Tory party allowed candidates to stand against the main promise of the manifesto they were on, although as I've said before, I'm certain after reading Fall Out by Tim Shipman that May wanted that large majority to seek a softer Brexit, the blocking of Eurosceptic candidates like Dan Hannan for ones who'll follow the party whip tells me that. Ill tell you what, even though we might disagree, you, Alf Bentley and Toddy are this thread. Its interesting reading your thoughts. 1
Guest MattP Posted 13 June 2018 Posted 13 June 2018 3 minutes ago, Donut said: Ill tell you what, even though we might disagree, you, Alf Bentley and Toddy are this thread. Its interesting reading your thoughts. Thank you, kind words are always appreciated.
Nick Posted 13 June 2018 Posted 13 June 2018 56 minutes ago, MattP said: Thank you, kind words are always appreciated. I sometimes don't want to bludgeon you to death shortly after reading your posts. 1
Guest MattP Posted 13 June 2018 Posted 13 June 2018 19 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said: I sometimes don't want to bludgeon you to death shortly after reading your posts. I'm overwhelmed. Next we'll have Toddy offering to send me a tenner through PayPal for a nice bottle of wine for myself.
Recommended Posts