[Cherie]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i would rather revoke than go no deal, and push the thing back to a referendum

that would be okay, but to revoke it without a plan about what to do if it was revoked would be as bad as anything we have seen so far

[arista]

Labour's Leader Jeremy Corbyn does not want Revoke
he says he can get a deal?

Live in Brussels on all media.

[Cherie]

I have been harping on about a 2nd ref since the day of the first result I must HAVE MY WAY.... sorry Arista

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by arista

Labour's Leader Jeremy Corbyn does not want Revoke
he says he can get a deal?

Live on all media.

So he wants a general election so he can get a deal?

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by Cherie

that would be okay, but to revoke it without a plan about what to do if it was revoked would be as bad as anything we have seen so far

the true choice of a referendum should be hard brexit or remain, then people are in no doubt what they are voting for, and that is what it should have been first time around

[arista]

Originally Posted by Cherie

I have been harping on about a 2nd ref since the day of the first result I must HAVE MY WAY.... sorry Arista

No he wants to leave
under his Labour rules



It would be a Rigged 2nd Referendum, anyway,
as no one wants her treaty deal.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Not as far as I know but this reminds me of when a petition for a second referendum just after the vote got 2m signatures or something but then thousands of them were found to be fake

Revoking article 50 without even having a public vote on it? How is that democratic? At least before the argument was that 'it needs to go back to the people' rather than just 'cancel Brexit'

How about this, we revoke A50 to give those in favour of brexit to actually get a proper plan together that would pass and then put that plan on a ref with remain?

Could equally be argued that 35% of the possible electorate and 25% of the population also isn't a democratic process, especially when voting on the futures of those too young to vote, and A50 was never a legally binding resolution.

I'd rather have a new vote on it, but we're getting worryingly close to committing an act of extreme stupidity.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Cherie

So he wants a general election so he can get a deal?

Yes he is there in Brussels to get his plan ready.
And a General Election would wash away all those in the Indie group MP's - that are not a party

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Cherie

You seem be be forgetting the EU's involvement in this, they wont change the deal and have said so many times?

May chose her red lines and got the deal based on that. It's like choosing one colour in a rainbow for everybody without consulting and then throwing a strop others prefer a different one. Well, you should have asked first shouldn't you.

Same with May, she should have made it a cross-party issue at the start and build consensus in parliament and then negotiated based on that.
Instead she chose party politics, established her red lines based on appeasing Tory hardliners and DUP and now she's hostage to their approval or lack of. A stupid game if your majority is so slim.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

How about this, we revoke A50 to give those in favour of brexit to actually get a proper plan together that would pass and then put that plan on a ref with remain?

Could equally be argued that 35% of the possible electorate and 25% of the population also isn't a democratic process, especially when voting on the futures of those too young to vote, and A50 was never a legally binding resolution.

I'd rather have a new vote on it, but we're getting worryingly close to committing an act of extreme stupidity.

Well that stance would invalidate the vast majority of democratic votes but more people voted in this referendum than on anything else in our history and the turnout was greater than the vote which originally took us into the common market

I think the idea that 'a proper plan' could form following a revoking of article 50 is unrealistic and it's pretty clear that's not the agenda of those in favour of this petition anyway

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

they want a customs union, and a safeguard on workers rights ... thats my understanding.

The best way to protect workers rights is to get an electable labour party, and if they are not in the EU, they can protect workers without permission from the EU .... its basically saying ... the EU would do it better than the labour party, which is astonishing.

Your argument would be true if Labour could guaranteed being in power for ever.
Whis obviously it is not. So of course EU-enforced workers protection is better bc it can't be unpicked on a whim of a next government.

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

May chose her red lines and got the deal based on that. It's like choosing one colour in a rainbow for everybody without consulting and then throwing a strop others prefer a different one. Well, you should have asked first shouldn't you.

Same with May, she should have made it a cross-party issue at the start and build consensus in parliament and then negotiated based on that.
Instead she chose party politics, established her red lines based on appeasing Tory hardliners and DUP and now she's hostage to their approval or lack of. A stupid game if your majority is so slim.

From the moment of the election result, May knew what she was going to do. People can criticise her, but there is no consensus, that's pretty obvious to everyone by now. Each has their own agenda, so she has to stick with the deal that meets with EU conditions and satisfies her political leanings. No-one else could do it differently.

We have a deal, that is for the transition period. It is of no consequence to serious politicians are lawyers, provided it allows a smooth transition.

People are being hoodwinked by MP's and believing the bull that one particular perspective is better than another. They don't matter at all. The are just showing how to play political games, nothing more, and the people have woken up to it now and see it for what it is.

In my opinion, both the tories and the labour party have ****ed themselves good and proper with their behaviour, and its unlikely that either party is sustainable going forward with their current makeup.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Well that stance would invalidate the vast majority of democratic votes but more people voted in this referendum than on anything else in our history and the turnout was greater than the vote which originally took us into the common market

I think the idea that 'a proper plan' could form following a revoking of article 50 is unrealistic and it's pretty clear that's not the agenda of those in favour of this petition anyway

So democracy is imperfect? Agreed.

What is unrealistic about it? It would actually be the sensible thing to do. Brexiteers all voted for different reasons and different results, so it would also be democratic to give those people a chance to vote for something concrete as opposed to lies and false promises of the original Brexit.

The agenda's of people isn't the issue, we all have agendas. What I don't get is the desire to force something through immediately with absolutely no regards for the consequences, just because. That seems absurd to me.

[Twosugars]

It is an idiotic situation.
Let's remember that simply saying we would remain in the customs union would get rid of the effing backstop and probably pass the deal no problem.
During the ref, among many things people wanted in brexit, I don't recall anybody calling for tariffs with Europe or saying European goods are no good.
The only reason for this is hardliners dreaming of free trade. I doubt that dream is widely shared by voters. So May's red line on the customs union for example is purely political party issue, not something people asked for. A clear example of her not being on the people's side.

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

It is an idiotic situation.
Let's remember that simply saying we would remain in the customs union would get rid of the effing backstop and probably pass the deal no problem.
During the ref, among many things people wanted in brexit, I don't recall anybody calling for tariffs with Europe or saying European goods are no good.
The only reason for this is hardliners dreaming of free trade. I doubt that dream is widely shared by voters. So May's red line on the customs union for example is purely political party issue, not something people asked for. A clear example of her not being on the people's side.

there is no consensus for a customs union, Labour tried to get it through twice and were defeated twice.

The backstop is a complete red herring, no-one seriously not wanting to break the political system would have rejected the agreement.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

From the moment of the election result, May knew what she was going to do. People can criticise her, but there is no consensus, that's pretty obvious to everyone by now. Each has their own agenda, so she has to stick with the deal that meets with EU conditions and satisfies her political leanings. No-one else could do it differently.

We have a deal, that is for the transition period. It is of no consequence to serious politicians are lawyers, provided it allows a smooth transition.

People are being hoodwinked by MP's and believing the bull that one particular perspective is better than another. They don't matter at all. The are just showing how to play political games, nothing more, and the people have woken up to it now and see it for what it is.

In my opinion, both the tories and the labour party have ****ed themselves good and proper with their behaviour, and its unlikely that either party is sustainable going forward with their current makeup.

May's role was to negotatie the thing successfully. It was not for her to narrowly interpret the ref result and negotiate herself out of the deal bc that's what she effectively done.
It's not good negotiating something most people don't want. She had almost 3 years to make sure whatever she's cooking up with the EU will pass in parliament. It was her duty as pm to build a wide enough support in the parliament along the way.
She failed. That's why she will never be called a statesman (or stateswoman). She's ****ed it up and is too stubborn, even now. She needs to go.

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

May's role was to negotatie the thing successfully. It was not for her to narrowly interpret the ref result and negotiate herself out of the deal bc that's what she effectively done.
It's not good negotiating something most people don't want. She had almost 3 years to make sure whatever she's cooking up with the EU will pass in parliament. It was her duty as pm to build a wide enough support in the parliament along the way.
She failed. That's why she will never be called a statesman (or stateswoman). She's ****ed it up and is too stubborn, even now. She needs to go.

i think you have missed the point, what May has done was planned by her from the beginning. As the government and as prime minister she has the right to negotiate on the country's behalf. She has the right to pick the direction. The opposition can object, that's all good, but they can't do anything else unless they make amendments or whatever, which is what they have attempted.

One has to put politics aside, realise that this brexit deal lasts 2 years only, by which time a labour government could come in to power and say, ok, we are joining the customs union. If they won the next election, that would be their right. This is NOT some end of days deal where things cant change when the transition period is over.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

there is no consensus for a customs union, Labour tried to get it through twice and were defeated twice.

The backstop is a complete red herring, no-one seriously not wanting to break the political system would have rejected the agreement.

Bc they voted on party lines. That's been the problem from the start.
It could have been avoided by making it a non-party issue from the start.
The best example of how party politics poisoned the issue were last week's votes where Labour voted against 2nd ref and Tories voted for no deal. It's party politics.

[Cherie]

Whatever happens, MPs need to spell out the plan they have for after

No point revoking article 50 and then running around like headless chickens

Same with No deal....what is the plan for after no deal

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i think you have missed the point, what May has done was planned by her from the beginning. As the government and as prime minister she has the right to negotiate on the country's behalf. She has the right to pick the direction. The opposition can object, that's all good, but they can't do anything else unless they make amendments or whatever, which is what they have attempted.

One has to put politics aside, realise that this brexit deal lasts 2 years only, by which time a labour government could come in to power and say, ok, we are joining the customs union. If they won the next election, that would be their right. This is NOT some end of days deal where things cant change when the transition period is over.

Let me repeat: it's no good negotiating something not enough people want. Forget Labour. Even her own party doesn't agree in enough numbers.
An outstanding PM would realize Brexit is for life not for the term of this or that government. Therefore it needs to be based on a broad consensus of all parties in parliament. She didn't do that, played party politics and now is a victim of party politics. Serves her right. That woman has always been a pedestrian, unimaginative politician. Her 6 years at the HO proved that. No surprise she turned out to be a pedestrian and unimaginative PM.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

So democracy is imperfect? Agreed.

What is unrealistic about it? It would actually be the sensible thing to do. Brexiteers all voted for different reasons and different results, so it would also be democratic to give those people a chance to vote for something concrete as opposed to lies and false promises of the original Brexit.

The agenda's of people isn't the issue, we all have agendas. What I don't get is the desire to force something through immediately with absolutely no regards for the consequences, just because. That seems absurd to me.

Well if the purpose of revoking article 50 is in order to hold a referendum that's one thing but I can't see the EU then being prepared to restart negotiations for another 2 years with a different PM and I can't see what other plan of Brexit could carry enough MPs with it. In any case the petition does make clear that the intention of revoking article 50 is to 'remain in the EU'. If we don't leave then it won't solve anything, Brexit will still loom over our politics for decades and define pretty much every general election we have in the future.

[reece(:]

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Well if the purpose of revoking article 50 is in order to hold a referendum that's one thing but I can't see the EU then being prepared to restart negotiations for another 2 years with a different PM and I can't see what other plan of Brexit could carry enough MPs with it. In any case the petition does make clear that the intention of revoking article 50 is to 'remain in the EU'. If we don't leave then it won't solve anything, Brexit will still loom over our politics for decades and define pretty much every general election we have in the future.

We can revoke A50 at any time though. If we can't negotiate another deal then we can hard brexit anytime we want to, so I don't get the desire to force something through now, when we know that people weren't given a choice of what they would be voting for/against. It's not a now or never situation.

The deal we have now is better than any of the brexit deals, so we're already trying to force through a best of the rest kind of deal. Sometimes there just isn't a deal to be made and we either walk away from the EU or we stay.

Brexit will loom over our politics for decades regardless of whichever way this process goes. The referendum has achieved little else other than dividing the country completely at this stage.

It basically comes down to what people think is the least damaging proposition at this stage. There is no part of me that believes leaving the EU was ever the right thing to do, and even the most stringent of leavers must admit that the whole situation is a complete and unsatisfactory mess that no one can be happy with. It needs to be rethought.

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

It basically comes down to what people think is the least damaging proposition at this stage. There is no part of me that believes leaving the EU was ever the right thing to do, and even the most stringent of leavers must admit that the whole situation is a complete and unsatisfactory mess that no one can be happy with. It needs to be rethought.

Appearances can be very deceptive. If there was an ounce of honesty among MP's they would have gotten behind the deal, if they were actually concerned with the democracy of the referendum.

There is a sea change going on in politics around the world driven by foreign government interference. May has not once mentioned that Russia were caught red handed interfering in the referendum .... why not? because she would probably destroy her party, and labour are infected just as badly

These forces thrive and encourage upheaval, just like Trumps doing.

I cn tell you straight, that what we have witnessed in parliament over the last 2 years has nothing to do with brexit, if it were, it would have been approved on the first vote.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Appearances can be very deceptive. If there was an ounce of honesty among MP's they would have gotten behind the deal, if they were actually concerned with the democracy of the referendum.

There is a sea change going on in politics around the world driven by foreign government interference. May has not once mentioned that Russia were caught red handed interfering in the referendum .... why not? because she would probably destroy her party, and labour are infected just as badly

These forces thrive and encourage upheaval, just like Trumps doing.

I cn tell you straight, that what we have witnessed in parliament over the last 2 years has nothing to do with brexit, if it were, it would have been approved on the first vote.

Except there is no evidence of Russia helping left wing politicians in any way, and we've actually seen the opposite in France, USA, and they even funded a politicians election campaign in Italy.

Not sure you can remove brexit from the mess of the last 2 years; it actually seems pretty integral, and I completely disagree that people should just be expected to hop on board with a deal they think is bad. If anything it just highlights the false advertising of the brexit campaign, who were telling everyone that Germany would be begging us for a deal the day after the referendum.