This "people v parliament" malarky

Now Salvini is chanting this mantra and Johnson. No doubt, Russia has taught all of them well. Either you are with us or against us - all within the same country.  

This assumes that people want one solution only. No difference of opinion is allowed. How did we end up in fascist territory?

It's just such a load of bollocks, isn't it?

A lot of people in parliament (especially the rebels) are out there sticking up for democracy and basically the overwhelming majority of people in this country who didn't vote for and don't want no deal.

Bodge Job is enemy of the people no.1 as far as I'm concerned.

In part because the BBC keeps plugging this narrative too

"How did we end up in fascist territory?"

It was when a minority thought that they knew better and tried to prevent the democratic outcome of the majority from being achived. 

HTH

 

No deal is not the "democratic outcome of the majority"

HTH (ps - stop trolling!!)

"majority of people in this country who didn't vote for and don't want no deal"

No fcuker voted for a "deal" either, did they!

Seriously, does anyone actually believe this rubbish?

Lady Penelope10 Sep 19 10:54

A lot of people in parliament (especially the rebels) are out there sticking up for democracy and basically the overwhelming majority of people in this country who didn't vote for and don't want no deal.

This Lady P - as I said yesterday, please do point to the evidence to back up this assertion (other than your own belief and opinion)...

No fcuker voted for a "deal" either, did they!

No, they voted against the status quo and in favour of the unknown, to be decided later by politicians.

That said, since every lying fucking wanker associated with every single one of the law breaking collaborating leave campaigns assured us that there would be a deal, and that it would be a wonderful deal which would deliver all the same benefits as being in without any of the obligations, and that any talk of not getting a good deal (much less of leaving without one) was just "Project Fear", I think it's fair to say that most people who voted leave assumed there would be a deal.

The fact that they have now been convinced by Dominic Cummings and his propaganda machine that no deal was exactly what they were voting for does not change the facts.

Coffers 10 Sep 19 10:52

This assumes that people want one solution only. No difference of opinion is allowed. How did we end up in fascist territory?

_____________________________________________________________________________

conservatives are conservative non shocker

are you suggesting that of the 52% who voted to leave more than 96% of them wanted there not to be a deal?

If that is to me Supes, I'm not suggesting anything.  I am merely pointing to an issue raised yesterday that opinion and polling means nothing (when not in Lady P's favour)...

A lot of people in parliament (especially the rebels) are out there sticking up for democracy and basically the overwhelming majority of people in this country who didn't vote for and don't want no deal.

This Lady P - as I said yesterday, please do point to the evidence to back up this assertion (other than your own belief and opinion)...

It's quite simple really.

A very slim majority of those who were eligible to and could be bothered to get out and vote on one day in 2016 voted to leave the EU. That includes an unknown number of people who thought there would be a soft Brexit, and an unknown number of people who thought there would be a magical unicorn deal with all the benefits of the single market without any of the obligations, because they were assured by the lying fucking wankers I referred to above that such a deal would be on offer because "we hold all the cards" and "they need us more than we need them".

That 52% of voters amounts to 37% of the eligible electorate and about 26% of the population.

That means that 63% of the eligible electorate and 74% of the population (which I am sure you will agree is a majority) did not vote for a Brexit of any kind, not even the magical unicorn one which sounded so great but (surprise, surprise!) turned out not to be on offer. So clearly the majority of people in this country did not even vote for Brexit, let alone a no deal Brexit.

You might not like this fact, but it is simple mathematics, so suck it the fuck up.

"are you suggesting that of the 52% who voted to leave more than 96% of them wanted there not to be a deal?"

This question is posed by Remainers every day on here, with increasing levels of faux incredulity.

Yes I am suggesting that.

It was more than reasonably foreseeable that we'd leave without a deal so, if there was any doubt in their minds and they cared about it, why on earth would they vote Leave?! It should logically be 100% but I accept that you need a 4%-5% idiot margin for anything.

Oh and it goes without saying that whether you believe the polls and consider them to be reliable evidence of the "will of the people" or not, there is no reliable evidence of any kind suggesting that a majority of the people want to leave the EU with no deal.

I should say that they were prepared not to have a "deal". Obviously, not everyone would have wanted that outcome.

Leavers want to leave. 

Remainers want us not to leave. 

Its not very complicated. 

Remainers are facist haters of democracy and will do down in history as truly facist. 

 

It was more than reasonably foreseeable that we'd leave without a deal so, if there was any doubt in their minds and they cared about it, why on earth would they vote Leave?! It should logically be 100% but I accept that you need a 4%-5% idiot margin for anything.

Literally everyone connected with the leave campaign assured voters that there would be, so I disagree that it was "more than reasonably foreseeable". And given what we know about the respective intelligence and educational achievements of leave voters versus remain voters, I suspect the "idiot margin" among leave voters is at least 50%, not 5%.

One thing I will concede actually is that the propaganda on both sides may have been more influential than I initially gave credit for. As with elections, I completely zoned out. I knew how I was voting, I've been waiting all my adult life for the opportunity, so didn't really care. However, I realise other people might actually have read the leaflets, listening to the hot air from the politicians, etc, and been misled.

Literally no one makes voting decsions on what the political parties say. 

That's what I thought at first, but now I think I underestimated how little people knew about the situation, and so to a degree did listen to the claptrap, manifestos, etc.

Literally no one makes voting decsions on what the political parties say. 

Tell that to Dominic Cummings. 

Genuine q - do people think the EU will still be going 5 years after the UK has left? 

Genuine q - do people think the EU will still be going 5 years after the UK has left? 

Yes, of course it will

Lady P:

That means that 63% of the eligible electorate and 74% of the population (which I am sure you will agree is a majority) did not vote for a Brexit of any kind

And in the same premise - an even greater proportion of the population (who didn't bother to go out to vote etc) arguably don't want to remain.

So, my point stands - you are choosing to bend figures to fit your opinion on the matter.  This isn't fact.  The only fact is the total electorate who did vote - and Leave won.

Similarly, your confidence in the intentions, understanding and comprehension of a leave voter is no better than your understanding of the mindset of the remain voter. 

So do jog on and stop stating your opinion as FACT...

And in the same premise - an even greater proportion of the population (who didn't bother to go out to vote etc) arguably don't want to remain.

So, my point stands - you are choosing to bend figures to fit your opinion on the matter.  This isn't fact.  The only fact is the total electorate who did vote - and Leave won.

Similarly, your confidence in the intentions, understanding and comprehension of a leave voter is no better than your understanding of the mindset of the remain voter. 

So do jog on and stop stating your opinion as FACT...

If we are talking about population then that includes anyone who was under 18 on the day of the referendum, who are far more likely than not to want to remain. This is beyond any real argument.

If we are talking about electorate then those who couldn't be arsed to get out and vote can be assumed to have been reasonably happy with the status quo, or at least neutral about it.

And then of course, as I spelled out before, even among the people who did vote leave there will have been a certain number who assumed we would end up with a Norway type deal, or that we would get a great deal of the kind promised by basically everyone connected with the leave campaigns.

It is beyond absurd to suggest that any of those people want a no deal Brexit.

If we are talking about population then that includes anyone who was under 18 on the day of the referendum, who are far more likely than not to want to remain. This is beyond any real argument.

 

Have you asked many 2 year olds?

Even most of those who profess to want no deal mostly don't understand that there is no such thing - it just means we start negotiating outside the EU rather from within it.  Which is a far weaker position.    People are being misled into the view that we can live without doing any deals with the EU.  We cant.  Simple as that.

Even most of those who profess to want no deal mostly don't understand that there is no such thing

Most of those who profess to want no deal don't understand anything much, including the difference between their arse and their elbow.

“it was more than reasonably foreseeable that we’d leave without a deal”

No it wasn’t, because it was assumed (and indeed expressly stated by the Leave campaign) that we would get a deal. 

And here’s the thing, buttercup. THERE IS A FUCKING DEAL. The idea of leaving without a deal is not some base necessity that we’ve been forced back to and that should be accepted because it was the last resort implication of the referendum vote. THERE IS A DEAL and the only thing that could possibly claim to be a faithful implementation of the 2016 referendum is to SIGN THE FUCKING WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT.

The EU will continue in 5 years, 20 years and thereafter. It will be even more successful than it is now without the British and it is once again a sign of hubris to assume it won’t work without you muppets 

Why is wibble frothing so much and that too without any merit in his argument?

Is he a 10 year old?

I assume (or rather hope) he is a lawyer of some capability. That doesn't seem to come across here. 

Gove himself said "we didn't vote to leave without a deal" and he led the fucking campaign.

We voted to leave. 

Parliament  blocked the leave deal. 

Therefore we leave with no deal. 

Anything else is simply antidemocratic. 

If Parliament  did not want no deal they should have negotiated and agreed a deal. 

hth

 

Parliament was not involved in negotiating the deal because Theresa May didn't see fit to involve them.

But luckily for her, her shitness is quickly going to fade into obscurity next to Bodge.

heh

And then even more eclipsed if Corbo gets into power. 

 

FFS, wibble, Parliament can’t negotiate a deal. All it can do is approve or reject the Govts policies. 

It has rejected May’s deal, the new Govt proposed no deal - it has rejected no deal.

The proper course is 1) Govt goes away and comes up with a deal that the majority of Parliament will accept 2) A new Govt with a different policy for Brexit is appointed or 3) A new Parliament is elected which will hopefully approve something else. 

Of course Boris wants everyone to go with 4) Just push through the current Govt’s Brexit policy and ignore Parliament, but that is self-evidently the wrong answer, not least because it is completely undemocratic.  

"Of course Boris wants everyone to go with 4) "

 

which is why he tried to call an election you huge fat hmong? 

a new election may yet again deliver a hung parliament. 

real solution is a binding referendum. Does bojo have an appetite for that? No. Because he knows no-deal brexit will lose. 

a new election may yet again deliver a hung parliament

Heh @ "may".

The best thing about this shitshow is that the FPTP system appears to be broken.

*remainer alert*

I'm yet to see (probably because I don't pay much attention) any particularly compelling evidence as to why no deal is such an economically bad idea. It's a stop-gap until a trade deal is negotiated. I don't see the basis for there being major shortages of stuff (I see the major insulin distributor confirms such). Sure there'd be a bit of pain, but most version of Brexit involve that, and I sense most Brexit voters accepted that.

Nobody has any particular mandate for the type of Brexit we get. If Parliament can't agree, there has to be a default option. Whilst it would represent a colossal failure of parliament to agree on something, it seems we ought now to accept that they won't, so we have to use the default option.

Just because we couldn't agree a better deal, doesn't mean we should remain. No deal was within the range of reasonable responses that were on the table, however much one hoped for better.

Also, we had a binding referendum. Irrespective of what the legislation said, given it was [i]stated[/i] by the government to be binding, remain arguments that it was not binding are silly.

The people v Parliament thing is jumped up guff, but nonetheless D Cummings vaguely has a point with his "you guys need to go talk to some people outside London who aren't rich remainers" thing.

Hooting and hollering at Boris for lying and being a shambles and getting uglypwn3d left, right and centre by Parliament is basically a chattering class hobby (not exclusively in London, mind you). A lot of men/women in the street, while probably agreeing that Boris is a naked careerist, a shambles and a bit embarassing, basically think: but he's right, we need to get Brexit done, and "they" are trying to stop him. I don't think such people amount to a majority, but they are numerous and collectively they represent a motivated and formidable lobby.

A new election.

May yet again deliver

a hung parliament.

 

Nice haiku

It's a stop-gap until a trade deal is negotiated.

It's not a stop gap, it's a gap.

Twelve - the government can promise whatever it wants. The government lost its majority. 

If it had wanted to follow through on its promise it should have come up with a Brexit policy that had the support of the majority of Parliament. But it didn’t. 

Do you believe there is a policy that would have had the support of the majority? The various meaningful votes suggest not.

People vs Parliament is misleading. Parliament IS the people. It is Nationalism vs Parliament (democracy or people)

Twelve - immediately after the referendum I would have said yes, now I am not so sure. Either way it is the government’s job to propose policies that will pass in Parliament, not Parliament’s job to rubber-stamp whatever the government proposes that says “Leave” on it. 

Do you believe there is a policy that would have had the support of the majority?

Good question.

The answer depends on why the MPs rejected Theresa May's deal.

Was it because it is a shit deal, or because it was Theresa May's deal?

If it was because it was Theresa May's deal, then the fault lies with Theresa May for not involving Parliament in the process, but if that is Parliament's only objection to it, then objecting to it (after having fought so hard for a "meaningful vote") is disingenuous and they probably are guilty of thwarting Brexit for political reasons.

If it was because it is a shitty deal, why do they think it is shit? If it's shit because they don't believe it delivers the benefits of Brexit that were promised to the electorate, then they need to have an honest conversation about what needs to change.

The EU's red lines are very clear. So why did Parliament, having seen what those red lines are, not have a debate about what sort of deal, from the options that are actually available, would be acceptable?

A Northern Ireland only backstop would probably have been acceptable to a majority of UK voters, so if MPs object to a Northern Ireland only backstop, it would have to be on the basis that it would threaten the union and cause an unacceptable level of harm to a small minority of UK citizens, which would be potentially severe enough to override the assumed wishes of the rest of the country with regard to Brexit.

A UK-wide single market and customs union relationship with the EU would anger a certain faction of those who voted leave (a minority of the electorate, but nonetheless a significant one), but it would resolve the Irish border issue.

I think that is where Parliament has gone wrong on this. It is no use trying to wrestle back control from the government in order to prevent a no deal Brexit unless you have a plan for establishing what sort of deal you would support. The indicative votes were an attempt to do that, but the results were chaos. The indicative votes should have been held in a much more organised way, and excluding options which were clearly not real options, such as the "Malthouse Compromise" or the "magical unicorn deal that Jeremy Corbyn will negotiate".

At this point, an extension is necessary in order to prevent us from crashing out, but it ultimately doesn't move us any further forward.

The only options really are to have a general election, with each party setting out exactly what (viable and achievable) deal it will seek with the EU, and parties which might conceivably end up in a coalition setting out what their shared approach would be, or putting it back to the people in a further referendum.

Parliament needs to shit or get off the pot. They can't just keep blocking everything and forcing the PM to request further extensions.

A referendum would be better than a general election at this point, but if there is a general election, I would like to know, for example, what Labour will do if they get a majority, what the Lib Dems will do if they get a majority, and what Labour and the Lib Dems (and, if necessary, the SNP/Greens/Plaid) will do if they are forced to work together.

If the Lib Dems said their position is to revoke and Labour said their position is to seek a single market and customs union relationship with the EU, but Labour and the Lib Dems said that if neither gets a majority they would enter into a coalition or a confidence and supply arrangement and commit to a second referendum with options X and Y on the ballot paper, for example, then people could vote for the party of their choosing whilst still having some visibility over what would happen in the (likely) event that the party of their choosing might have to team up with another party.

"At this point, an extension is necessary in order to prevent us from crashing out, but it ultimately doesn't move us any further forward."

Was with you until this point.

Because, as I said, I've not yet seen compelling evidence as to why No Deal is such a bad outcome. That's not to say I'm in favour, but I don't find the 'food and medicine shortages' argument to be particularly coherent.

I mean, it's essentially all the people who actually know what the fuck they're talking about making these arguments and all the people who don't know what the fuck they're talking about going, "mweh mweh mweh SCAREMONGERING" but OK.

If that were true we wouldn't still be talking about eg insulin, and food shortages.

The experts thing is a tough one though. I accept that I'm sufficiently intellectually limited that I can't critically scrutinise much of what I'm told to accept as fact, so I rely on what 'experts' tell me. But nobody is an expert in what will happen in this scenario, since it's not happened before. Also nobody seems to appreciate that we're not stuck with WTO terms indefinitely (assuming we can actually agree something - do trade deals need to be approved by Parliament?)

But nobody is an expert in what will happen in this scenario, since it's not happened before.

True, but they can make a pretty educated guess, based on the known legal consequences of crashing out of all our trade deals overnight and what that is likely to mean in practical terms.

Also nobody seems to appreciate that we're not stuck with WTO terms indefinitely (assuming we can actually agree something - do trade deals need to be approved by Parliament?)

No, we're not. But there are a few problems here. If we are trading on WTO rules then in the immediate term we are going to be crippled by tariffs on imports and exports. The only way to provide some relief in relation to imports is to not apply the tariffs, but then we create more problems for ourselves because (1) we have to disapply the tariffs across the board due to the MFN rules; (2) this will disincentivise other countries from doing FTAs with us because they will already have essentially free access to our market; and (3) this will cripple UK production (already being hit by export tariffs which we can do nothing about) even more.

Against that backdrop we will be hurrying to negotiate FTAs without the kind of negotiating power we had as part of the EU. There is no realistic prospect of us being able to negotiate terms as good as the ones we had before. And we are going to be beholden to more powerful partners such as the EU and USA who will want to impose terms of their own, including in relation to the Irish border and other matters such as the planned digital tax.

Have we not already agreed various continuity deals though?

None covering our most significant trading partners.

But hey, maybe this is a golden opportunity to increase our trade with the Faroe Islands and Liechtenstein.