Britain's May defeated in parliament over Brexit blueprint

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Nigel Farage has never been in government, and was not involved in the wording of the referendum.

No, but he said a 52 to 48 percent vote against brexit wouldn't be enough to stop Brexit from being tried again. And I have found no record of any Brexiter disagreeing with him. Was that because he wasn't a prominent enough player in the Brexit movement?

[dunroaming]

7 hours ago, Grouse said:

Burke explains this far more eloquently than I can

 

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html

 

Rather old English but worth persevering with ?

 

Members of parliament are NOT there merely to present the wishes of a majority of their constituents. They are there to represent their constituents best interests and those of the country as a whole. A far more onerous task!

Precisely.  We cannot stand by and see May and Davis screw up Britain's future for our children and grandchildren.  Apparently an unprecedented amount of people wrote to their respective MPs over Brexit from both sides of the track. I encourage as many people as possible to contact their MPs (no matter which side you are on) and let your feelings be known. This matters and people should not be prepared to just roll over and accept a destructive deal.

[Khun Han]

16 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

No, but he said a 52 to 48 percent vote against brexit wouldn't be enough to stop Brexit from being tried again. And I have found no record of any Brexiter disagreeing with him. Was that because he wasn't a prominent enough player in the Brexit movement?

 

No, it's because nobody (except you and a few fellow remainers) could care less. Once the referendum was achieved, Farage and UKIP were a spent force, as evidenced by the recent general election. But feel free to keep clinging to his empty words as proof of the necessity of having another referendum, ok?

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

No, it's because nobody (except you and a few fellow remainers) could care less. Once the referendum was achieved, Farage and UKIP were a spent force, as evidenced by the recent general election. But feel free to keep clinging to his empty words as proof of the necessity of having another referendum, ok?

No, I didn't cite it as proof of the necessity of having another referendum. I did cite it as proof of the hypocrisy of Brexiters. And the article was dated May 16, 2016. So was Farage a spent force before the referendum, too? Pesky things, facts.

Edited December 14, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[dunroaming]

4 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

No, it's because nobody (except you and a few fellow remainers) could care less. Once the referendum was achieved, Farage and UKIP were a spent force, as evidenced by the recent general election. But feel free to keep clinging to his empty words as proof of the necessity of having another referendum, ok?

There doesn't need to be a second referendum.  The result will be a soft, watered down, totally compromised Brexit or it will be scrapped altogether.  Unfortunately it cannot be any other way.

[CG1 Blue]

9 hours ago, Orac said:

I may be somewhat old fashioned and rather cynical, but I can't help wondering why elected politicians who are there to implement the wishes of the electorate who put them there in the first place, can decide to stop something happening that the people voted for in a free and democratic process. 

Primarily because they have huge egos, and they need to be in control. Career politicians are so power hungry by the time they make it as senior MPs, they just can't help themselves. Local councillors are bad enough!

[CG1 Blue]

While I'm a big supporter of democracy (which is why I don't like the EU), I don't understand what last night's vote will achieve. So let's say the UK government complete all negotiations with the EU, in say Jan 2019. The EU member states all agree on the terms. So we're all good.

 

What happens if Ken Clarke and his greedy chums decide to vote against the deal?  It will be too late to renegotiate with the EU.  So will we leave without a deal and revert to WTO rules? Do we get our €45bn back? That sounds pretty good to me.

[mrfill]

1 hour ago, citybiker said:

Total Absurdity to consider a 2nd referendum just because the minority disagree with the result, the U.K. is not Eire just because Brussels disapproves of the result too.

All the doom & gloom of the U.K. is yet more project fear and so far proved not only inaccurate & also highlights and focuses on experts models and forecasts as questionable.

The HoC defeat is part of democracy, I don’t agree the way the Tory (reman element) done this however overall, that’s still democracy for you.

Not directed at you per se however some people really need to get a grip, time to move on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Eire case you cite was the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. When first presented to the Irish, the deal was very poor and was rejected. The deal was then improved considerably (to the extent it led to Ireland being regarded as a tiger economy for many years) and a second vote on this totally different deal was done. The Irish, wisely, chose to accept this and prospered.

 

Surely, even the maddest Brexiter should welcome a second referendum so they can approve or reject the deal before taking the plunge. After all, it may not be to their tastes and it would allow them to reject the deal and force a better one, or at least one that appeals to their nature more.

[CG1 Blue]

29 minutes ago, mrfill said:

Surely, even the maddest Brexiter should welcome a second referendum so they can approve or reject the deal before taking the plunge. After all, it may not be to their tastes and it would allow them to reject the deal and force a better one, or at least one that appeals to their nature more.

If the deal was rejected in a 2nd referendum, we'd be forced to re-join the EU under much worse terms. Our negotiating hand would be massively weaker, and the EU would take full advantage.

[Orac]

While I'm a big supporter of democracy (which is why I don't like the EU), I don't understand what last night's vote will achieve. So let's say the UK government complete all negotiations with the EU, in say Jan 2019. The EU member states all agree on the terms. So we're all good.
 
What happens if Ken Clarke and his greedy chums decide to vote against the deal?  It will be too late to renegotiate with the EU.  So will we leave without a deal and revert to WTO rules? Do we get our €45bn back? That sounds pretty good to me.

I doubt there is enough time on the clock to negotiate a trade deal in time so the exit deal/bill will have to be confirmed as a legal text and ratified by both UK and EU parliaments before we know what the future holds.

My guess is that next year will be taken up by negotiating a transition agreement which will go down to the wire and the EU will use it as the carrot to get the official sign off of the exit deal and then that interim period will be used to negotiate the future free trade deal.

If the EU negotiators are smart, which so far they have appeared to be, then they will get most of this money before a final trade deal is agreed but, even if they do not, the moral hazard of not paying the bill would damage the UKs reputation considerably and make negotiations with any other countries difficult as we would inevitably be seen as less trustworthy.

It would also allow the EU to impose punitive tariffs on any of our exports to them in excess of any WTO tariffs though I would also question the long term viability of the WTO which is very much an old, analogue organisation in a digital age.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[citybiker]

While I'm a big supporter of democracy (which is why I don't like the EU), I don't understand what last night's vote will achieve. So let's say the UK government complete all negotiations with the EU, in say Jan 2019. The EU member states all agree on the terms. So we're all good.
 
What happens if Ken Clarke and his greedy chums decide to vote against the deal?  It will be too late to renegotiate with the EU.  So will we leave without a deal and revert to WTO rules? Do we get our €45bn back? That sounds pretty good to me.

IIRC the figures quoted for the Brexit Bill (methodology) hasn’t been mutually finalised it’s simply the U.K’s outstanding liabilities.

Besides, anything else also comes with conditions attached so the EU are fully aware they’re not getting it all there own way.

Especially as Brussels we’re attempting €70-80 (est) even though it wasn’t legally enforceable.

A HoC final Brexit vote will also be accountable, transparent as its taxpayers money & the government are fully aware everything is in the small print, along with any caveats.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dunroaming]

56 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

While I'm a big supporter of democracy (which is why I don't like the EU), I don't understand what last night's vote will achieve. So let's say the UK government complete all negotiations with the EU, in say Jan 2019. The EU member states all agree on the terms. So we're all good.

 

What happens if Ken Clarke and his greedy chums decide to vote against the deal?  It will be too late to renegotiate with the EU.  So will we leave without a deal and revert to WTO rules? Do we get our €45bn back? That sounds pretty good to me.

Well last night's vote was democracy in action.  As all the 27 EU countries have to agree any deals then I would argue that that is democracy too.

 

I do think you make a valid point about the final agreements being rejected.  Clearly you seem to be in favour of May, Davis and the Brexit negotiators having the final say rather than it being put to parliament and the peoples representatives.  Is that really democracy? If there was ever a time when we need real democracy then it is surely now!

 

10 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

If the deal was rejected in a 2nd referendum, we'd be forced to re-join the EU under much worse terms. Our negotiating hand would be massively weaker, and the EU would take full advantage.

We are not out of the EU yet so we wouldn't be re-joining, just not leaving.

[citybiker]

The Eire case you cite was the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. When first presented to the Irish, the deal was very poor and was rejected. The deal was then improved considerably (to the extent it led to Ireland being regarded as a tiger economy for many years) and a second vote on this totally different deal was done. The Irish, wisely, chose to accept this and prospered.
 
Surely, even the maddest Brexiter should welcome a second referendum so they can approve or reject the deal before taking the plunge. After all, it may not be to their tastes and it would allow them to reject the deal and force a better one, or at least one that appeals to their nature more.

The EU had an opportunity when CMD went to Brussels, admittingly both sides were arrogant enough to believe it would be business as usual, so his deal proposal was treated in contempt & virtually laughed st behind closed doors.

The EU have learnt a harsh lesson, it’s 2nd largest net contributor won’t be taken for a ride, the ‘majority’ of the YK voting electorate made its decision, as for mad Brexiteers?

That’s a typical stamping its feet Anti-Brexit remainer mindset, as I’ve previously stated no 2nd referendum required.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CG1 Blue]

31 minutes ago, Orac said:

even if they do not, the moral hazard of not paying the bill would damage the UKs reputation considerably and make negotiations with any other countries difficult as we would inevitably be seen as less trustworthy.

It would also allow the EU to impose punitive tariffs on any of our exports to them in excess of any WTO tariffs though I would also question the long term viability of the WTO which is very much an old, analogue organisation in a digital age.

I disagree about the moral hazard of not paying the bill. Legally the UK owes nothing. Morally the UK perhaps should pay something like €19bn, i.e. contributions for the remainder of the EU budget cycle. €45bn is a huge overpayment in exchange for goodwill (I would hope). In other words, if we paid zero we would not be defaulting on anything - and other countries would understand that.

It was my understanding that the EU would not be allowed to impose punitive tariffs in excess of WTO tariffs. This is under the most favoured nation (MFN) clause I believe?

[CG1 Blue]

36 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

We are not out of the EU yet so we wouldn't be re-joining, just not leaving.

The EU would decide on this, as Article 50 was triggered already. They can (and would) alter the membership terms for the UK if the process was cancelled.  Examples would be scrapping our rebate, and forcing us to join the Euro. Senior EU officials have already indicated this.

[evadgib]

2 hours ago, dunroaming said:

Precisely.  We cannot stand by and see May and Davis screw up Britain's future for our children and grandchildren.  Apparently an unprecedented amount of people wrote to their respective MPs over Brexit from both sides of the track. I encourage as many people as possible to contact their MPs (no matter which side you are on) and let your feelings be known. This matters and people should not be prepared to just roll over and accept a destructive deal.

Having fallen foul of that '15-year' lark for the referendum and the 2nd GE I frankly can no longer be bothered. 

[Enoon]

8 hours ago, vogie said:

Please point out where it says "advisory" infact it states quite the opposite.

A sad day for democracy.

 

The "Government" is not Parliament.

 

The "Government" was making a promise that it knew it could not deliver.

 

Because:

 

No Government can pass any law or enact any policy without the consent of Parliament.

 

The Conservative Government gambled that they could by-pass Parliament.

 

They were wrong.

 

Anyone who had taken the trouble to study the Constitution would have known that.

 

You were fooled.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[evadgib]

1 hour ago, CG1 Blue said:

While I'm a big supporter of democracy (which is why I don't like the EU), I don't understand what last night's vote will achieve. So let's say the UK government complete all negotiations with the EU, in say Jan 2019. The EU member states all agree on the terms. So we're all good.

 

What happens if Ken Clarke and his greedy chums decide to vote against the deal?  It will be too late to renegotiate with the EU.  So will we leave without a deal and revert to WTO rules? Do we get our €45bn back? That sounds pretty good to me.

Cameron should have pulled us out on the first Monday after the vote & THEN started talking from what would have been a much stronger starting position.

Edited December 14, 2017 by evadgib

[nauseus]

10 hours ago, flossie35 said:

Why do people keep referring to a mandate? There wasn't one: the referendum was advisory; only 37% of registered voters voted "leave"; and anyway it's for Parliament to decide whether to take the advice or not. If you get bad advice you don't take it if you have any sense.

If it had been advisory it would have been ignored. But it wasn't. Was it? 

[dunroaming]

14 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

The EU would decide on this, as Article 50 was triggered already. They can (and would) alter the membership terms for the UK if the process was cancelled.  Examples would be scrapping our rebate, and forcing us to join the Euro. Senior EU officials have already indicated this.

No they wouldn't do that.   Pure speculation without any foundation.  The UK is a very important member of the EU and they are gutted that we are leaving.  As for money payable, the figure of £45 billion includes the transition period that May put at 20 billion.

[nauseus]

14 minutes ago, Enoon said:

 

The "Government" is not Parliament.

 

The "Government" was making a promise that it knew it could not deliver.

 

Because:

 

No Government can pass any law or enact any policy without the consent of Parliament.

 

The Conservative Government gambled that they could by-pass Parliament.

 

They were wrong.

 

Anyone who had taken the trouble to study the Constitution would have known that.

 

You were fooled.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fooling was done by Heath in 1972.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

If it had been advisory it would have been ignored. But it wasn't. Was it? 

No. what would be accurate is: If it had been advisory, it could have been ignored.  But it wasn't. Was it?

 

[dunroaming]

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

If it had been advisory it would have been ignored. But it wasn't. Was it? 

It was politically motivated by Johnson and friends.

[Enoon]

8 minutes ago, nauseus said:

If it had been advisory it would have been ignored. But it wasn't. Was it? 

 

See post 47.

 

 

[nauseus]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

No. what would be accurate is: If it had been advisory, it could have been ignored.  But it wasn't. Was it?

 

Whatever. The referendum result was a mandate from the people to the government of the day to leave the EU.

[nauseus]

2 minutes ago, Enoon said:

 

See post 47.

 

 

I did  I wrote it! 

[dunroaming]

7 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The fooling was done by Heath in 1972.

Never trust a sailor!

[Orac]

I disagree about the moral hazard of not paying the bill. Legally the UK owes nothing. Morally the UK perhaps should pay something like €19bn, i.e. contributions for the remainder of the EU budget cycle. €45bn is a huge overpayment in exchange for goodwill (I would hope). In other words, if we paid zero we would not be defaulting on anything - and other countries would understand that.
It was my understanding that the EU would not be allowed to impose punitive tariffs in excess of WTO tariffs. This is under the most favoured nation (MFN) clause I believe?

The U.K. has already agreed to the payment and, as I suggested previously, it is to be expected that the EU will insist on this being more formally recognised in some way prior to March 2019 to make it more ‘legal’ using an transition deal as its bargaining chip.

My point about the WTO rules would be that they have less and less teeth now as the structure of global trade and its players have changed and its relevance is dwindling. It used to be a fairly level playing field with the US sitting as a dominant but benign policeman, however, with the rise of China and negotiating power of the EU acting as one state it has become far less effective and much more political hence the lack of progress in new global trade deals and increase in regional multi-trade agreements.




Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[CG1 Blue]

15 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

No they wouldn't do that.   Pure speculation without any foundation.  The UK is a very important member of the EU and they are gutted that we are leaving.  As for money payable, the figure of £45 billion includes the transition period that May put at 20 billion.

I would like to think you are right, but the following quote from Verhofstadt suggests otherwise:

 

"He told the parliament: "Yesterday, Emmanuel Macron, the new French president, spoke about an open door. That if Britain changes its mind it would find an open door.

"I agree. But like Alice in Wonderland, not all the doors are the same.

"It will be a brand new door, with a new Europe, a Europe without rebates, without complexity, with real powers and with unity."

[nauseus]

2 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

I would like to think you are right, but the following quote from Verhofstadt suggests otherwise:

 

"He told the parliament: "Yesterday, Emmanuel Macron, the new French president, spoke about an open door. That if Britain changes its mind it would find an open door.

"I agree. But like Alice in Wonderland, not all the doors are the same.

"It will be a brand new door, with a new Europe, a Europe without rebates, without complexity, with real powers and with unity."

Yep..brand new door with zero rebate off a bigger net contribution.....just a token of appreciation.