British lawmakers instruct May to demand EU reopen Brexitdeal; EU says 'No'

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, Laughing Gravy said:

I do know how it works. Maybe you should shout about your grammar school education? Haven't heard that one for a while.

 

So as the definition below states that members are to promote their constituents interests. This is not happening from the referendum result and the last GE when Labour and Conservatives manifestos both stated they would respect the referendum result.

 

"The main roles of a Member of Parliament are to review legislation and to represent local interests in Parliament at Westminster. In the House of Commons, MPs scrutinise legislation, attend debates and committees, and generally protect, advocate and promote the interests of their constituency at a national level".

 

Either way I look forward to all those MP's who defy their constituents and lets see who will be smiling at the next GE.

What you say is correct

 

Do you not see that acting in constituents best interest is not necessarily the same as agreeing exactly with what every constituent says?

 

Incidentally, in the 2017 election, Labour stated in their manifesto that they would respect the referendum result but wished to remain in a CU and SM. That is EEC2 or B+ to me.

 

Parliament does not want a no deal Brexit so EEA plus CU solves everything.

[Retiredandhappyhere]

2 minutes ago, Enoon said:

 

No it did not, it 100% did not.

 

Why do you people keep saying that when it is historically and demonstrably not true?

 

It only ever "subcontracts" during a General Election, when the results must, in law, be acted upon.

 

The terms of the Referendum Act quite specifically stated that the Referendum was advisory only with no obligation or expectations for the Government or Parliament to act upon the result.

 

Did you not trouble yourself to read the "normally sized print":

 

European Union Referendum Act 2015 - Wikipedia

 

"3.1 Limitation

The bill did not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions. The referendums held in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 1997 and 1998 are examples of this type, where opinion was tested before legislation was introduced. The UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented"

 

The "promise" made to you, on the ballot paper, was, in fact, only a hope.

 

Because the government said it would do something in full knowledge that, in fact, it could do something, but only with the approval of Parliament.

 

Which is the case with every government (or would-be government) promise to the electorate.

 

The electorate are only given one opportunity to control the democratic process........that day was not it.

 

It was always going to be down to Parliament.

 

 

 

 

 

Whichever way you choose to describe the process, the fact remains that the UK will be leaving the EU on the 29th March of this year, whether you like it or not and, in all probability, the UK will leave with an agreement, as it is in the UK's interests and the interests of the EU that an agreement be reached.

[Baerboxer]

5 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

"...British lawmakers on Tuesday instructed Prime Minister Theresa May to demand that Brussels replace the Irish border arrangement known as the "backstop", in a last-ditch attempt to renegotiate an exit treaty that the European Union says it will not change..."

 

Why would the EU re-open the negotiations? How is it in their benefit? And what will the UK do if the EU says "No!"; will you leave then?

 

Bloody hell, UK, you said that you were going to leave, so leave already. In my view leaving the EU is a terrible policy, one of the worst public policy decisions I have seen in my lifetime, but you said you were going to go, so go. Suffer the consequences and go. Pay the price and go.

 

Stop whingeing and go.

 

Just go.

 

 

The EU want the GBP 39 billion "divorce settlement" - no deal, no pay. That is the only reason they have to consider rewording what the keep saying is a done deal. 

 

The UK is very divided on the whole subject of Brexit; and many Europeans including senior politicians and leaders would prefer the UK to revoke Article 50 and remain.

 

So not sure remarks from a non EU citizen about "stop whingeing' have any relevance.

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, tomacht8 said:

You should stop explaining that. Some just do not understand it. You choose a chief whom you trust. One gives his voice into the hands of one leader whom you trust. Normally, he knows better about politics than you do yourself. Alternative would be everyone has a button with which he can vote permanently. 

But that did not work out. Who has the time to deep down and comprehensively in all questions too inform? That's why the politicians and mps get paid, in order to , that they act well of my interest.

 

Well put! Thanks!

[Laughing Gravy]

2 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

 

So where exactly on the ballot paper that you just posted did you vote on what has to happen after the UK has left the EU, I.e. April 2019 onwards? Because it seems Brexiteers feel they are entitled to have a say on all that, with some demanding that the UK must not do any post-leave agreement, and other demanding specific post-leave agreements.

 

So, apart from the referendum not being binding anyways, you only voted to leave. Never and nowhere did you vote on any post-leave relationship between the UK and EU. Thus, it is quite astonishing how Brexiteers make demands with regards to post-Brexit relationships, whereas all they have is an opinion poll favoring leave.

 

If you don’t want the UK do to any post-leave agreement with the EU, or if you want a specific post-leave agreement with the EU, I suggest you hold a referendum about that; just make sure this time it’s binding and actually can be implemented. 

The usual remainer talk, Not Binding, advisory, post agreement. I gave you your answer which you don't like. As for holding another referendum we had one so keep your suggestion. You know that outcome.

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Oh dear. Here it is again for you. For the last time.

 

Norway isn't in the EU

[welovesundaysatspace]

1 minute ago, Retiredandhappyhere said:

in all probability, the UK will leave with an agreement, as it is in the UK's interests and the interests of the EU that an agreement be reached.

I’m still wondering what the UK will bring to the table to make that happen, both in terms of an acceptable solution for Ireland as well as something to convince the EU27 to open the agreement again. Like I said, throwing in Gibraltar and fishing rights could satisfy some of the biggest opponents of a renegotiation, it still doesn’t solve the Ireland disagreement. If Nay is asking for pink unicorns again “because the UK voted for pink unicorns”, I’m afraid you’re wrong and Brussels will just send her back again like a small girl. 

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, grumpy 4680 said:

      Please, just let's leave the EU, pay them nothing (cos they have done now't for us in the last 2 years)  Then demand compensation for all the damage they have done after years of asset stripping, and poached business's

 

 

Thank you for demonstrating so clearly why representative democracy is a good thing!

[welovesundaysatspace]

2 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

The usual remainer talk, Not Binding, advisory, post agreement.

Someone posted the referendum act. It clearly says it’s not binding. So it’s not “remainer talk”; it’s the law. 

 

2 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

I gave you your answer which you don't like. As for holding another referendum we had one so keep your suggestion. You know that outcome.

You only had a (non-binding) referendum whether to end EU membership or not. You never had a referendum about any post-leave relationship or agreements. 

[Laughing Gravy]

11 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Do you not see that acting in constituents best interest is not necessarily the same as agreeing exactly with what every constituent says?

It is actually saying I know better than you. I will not act upon what the majority in my constituents voted for. arrogance at its best and where I come from you would be called a word that rhymes with bat.

 

11 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Parliament does not want a no deal Brexit so EEA plus CU solves everything.

It may solve it for you and many remainers but not for those that voted to leave. It wasn't what was promised by DC the prime minister and leader of the remain campaign

 

11 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Incidentally, in the 2017 election, Labour stated in their manifesto that they would respect the referendum result but wished to remain in a CU and SM. That is EEC2 or B+ to me.

Thankfully they didn't get into power although they claim they won.???? But the way those clowns change their mind who knows what they will state today or next week.

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, vogie said:

Parliament actually had a vote and agreed by a large majority to sub contract Parliamentary Democracy to its people for that day and agreed to abide by the decision their citizens chose on that day. But people that don't want to hear this will argue against it, at the end of the day it is common sense. It is no good the remainers just sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending it didn't happen, it did. But their continuous mantra of 'Parliamentary Democracy' is wearing quite thin.

Nope. Read the act. Quite clearly states non binding. Only Cameron bound the Tories.

[evadgib]

This latest edition of 'The Moggcast' was recorded before these latest votes but is still worth a listen. He's on Talkradio shortly too ????

 

[Baerboxer]

1 hour ago, vogie said:

Parliament actually had a vote and agreed by a large majority to sub contract Parliamentary Democracy to its people for that day and agreed to abide by the decision their citizens chose on that day. But people that don't want to hear this will argue against it, at the end of the day it is common sense. It is no good the remainers just sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending it didn't happen, it did. But their continuous mantra of 'Parliamentary Democracy' is wearing quite thin.

 

Parliament didn't do that at all. Read the posts explaining what the bill to enact the Referendum into law actually said. And then read up on Britain's constitution and how parliament can only act withing that constitution.

 

Cameron, a fool of great magnitude, foolishly promised to abide by the result. That was the personal statement of a man, and had no legal binding on parliament of the government.

May despicable tried to avoid the constitutional parliamentary process by illegally using the Royal Prerogative. Thankfully she was challenged and although she went all the way to the Supreme Court she lost. Had she got her way her cabinet would have imposed any <deleted> deal on the UK contrary to it's constitution. But being a thick skinned hypocrite she clings to power.

 

The result of the referendum was the result. But those that insist, and keep insisting it was legally binding, that the government or parliament had to implement it, are talking popycock and showing an ignorance of the British constitution and parliamentary process.

[Baerboxer]

2 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Nope. Read the act. Quite clearly states non binding. Only Cameron bound the Tories.

 

Yep. And actually had zero authority to try and do so.

[Laughing Gravy]

9 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Norway isn't in the EU

Have you been on the sauce or am I missing something.

[melvinmelvin]

23 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Once again, please name this 'anointed one'?

 

In a few hours Brussels may wake up and look at comments offered by parliament and , maybee, assess possible options.

However, don't hold your breath - patience is wearing thin now.

[Baerboxer]

4 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

It is actually saying I know better than you. I will not act upon what the majority in my constituents voted for. arrogance at its best and where I come from you would be called a word that rhymes with bat.

 

It may solve it for you and many remainers but not for those that voted to leave. It wasn't what was promised by DC the prime minister and leader of the remain campaign

 

Thankfully they didn't get into power although they claim they won.???? But the way those clowns change their mind who knows what they will state today or next week.

 

Regarding your first point. If Parliament had done it's job, a full debate, including giving full attention to the results should have happened. Then a free vote of MP's.

 

Each MP could then have voted in accordance with the wishes, and where a conflict the majority wishes, of his/her constituents. Or chosen to vote on personal judgement and risked deselection or the ire of the electorate at the next election. That way, British constitutional representative parliamentary process would have been upheld. 

There is a reason why areas are allocated MP's - to ensure all are represented and not just the simple majority view whilst ignoring all others. 

 

Had the parliamentary process been followed, whatever the outcome, no one could deny it. But it wasn't.

[david555]

5 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

"...British lawmakers on Tuesday instructed Prime Minister Theresa May to demand that Brussels replace the Irish border arrangement known as the "backstop", in a last-ditch attempt to renegotiate an exit treaty that the European Union says it will not change..."

 

Why would the EU re-open the negotiations? How is it in their benefit? And what will the UK do if the EU says "No!"; will you leave then?

 

Bloody hell, UK, you said that you were going to leave, so leave already. In my view leaving the EU is a terrible policy, one of the worst public policy decisions I have seen in my lifetime, but you said you were going to go, so go. Suffer the consequences and go. Pay the price and go.

 

Stop whingeing and go.

 

Just go.

 

Just they are suffering from P.E.S …..(Post Empire.Syndrome….???? )  Can't have a NO ! as they are Brits 

[Baerboxer]

6 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

In a few hours Brussels may wake up and look at comments offered by parliament and , maybee, assess possible options.

However, don't hold your breath - patience is wearing thin now.

 

Patience, arrogance, ineptitude - whatever.

 

Some want that GBP 39 Billion more than other. Like net contributor Germany who will have to fork out if they don't get it. Others like negative contributor France aren't so bothered as long as someone else pays! 

 

German leader want the UK to remain. The ever ambitious little French Napoleon sees a chance to increase French influence in the EU whilst weakening German and getting rid of British influence.

 

Interesting to see what happens and if the drunk Juncker can come up with a solution that suits all.

[Baerboxer]

2 minutes ago, david555 said:

Just they are suffering from P.E.S …..(Post Empire.Syndrome….???? )  Can't have a NO ! as they are Brits 

 

Still living in the past - about 70 years! 

 

How quickly ingratitude and jealousy prompt lingering resentment.

[ballpoint]

[melvinmelvin]

2 hours ago, grumpy 4680 said:

      Please, just let's leave the EU, pay them nothing (cos they have done now't for us in the last 2 years)  Then demand compensation for all the damage they have done after years of asset stripping, and poached business's

 

 

 

2 hours ago, grumpy 4680 said:

      Please, just let's leave the EU, pay them nothing (cos they have done now't for us in the last 2 years)  Then demand compensation for all the damage they have done after years of asset stripping, and poached business's

 

 

 

leavers sport confidence

 

[Kwasaki]

4 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

This Brexiteer is not blaming everyone. Just the MP's who should be doing there job, especially Mrs May who is supposedly in charge. Clear enough!

No this is one of the people in charge of the UK the European Council President Donald Tusk just one of the reasons to just leave and get on with it.

[vogie]

1 hour ago, tomacht8 said:

So what is the problem then?

Clear up ur St.. t and stop waisting time.

 

The majority wants to get out. The eu does not obstruct anyone. How the UK deals with the 48% of " losers " is their business. Democracy also means respecting the right of the minority. Hey this is almost a 50 - 50 split. Whether the conditions have not changed since 2016? That is a matter of the independent uk to state that. 

There is no problem this end, and your end?

[Grouse]

29 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Have you been on the sauce or am I missing something.

You're missing something

 

 

Shall I explain?

 

or would that be arrogant?

[Mike Teavee]

5 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

"...British lawmakers on Tuesday instructed Prime Minister Theresa May to demand that Brussels replace the Irish border arrangement known as the "backstop", in a last-ditch attempt to renegotiate an exit treaty that the European Union says it will not change..."

 

Why would the EU re-open the negotiations? How is it in their benefit? And what will the UK do if the EU says "No!"; will you leave then?

 

Bloody hell, UK, you said that you were going to leave, so leave already. In my view leaving the EU is a terrible policy, one of the worst public policy decisions I have seen in my lifetime, but you said you were going to go, so go. Suffer the consequences and go. Pay the price and go.

 

Stop whingeing and go.

 

Just go.

 

What I don't understand is if the EU won't budge on the Backstop as it's the safety measure to prevent a "Hard Border" in Ireland, exactly what do they think is going to happen in the event of a "No Deal" Brexit? or will the problem magically disappear in that event?

 

A solution has to be found to the Irish Border problem no matter what the exit terms are so whilst I can understand the EU not wanting to open negotiations again, I don't see how they have any choice if they genuinely want to avoid a Hard Border in Ireland.

 

 

 

[Grouse]

10 minutes ago, Mike Teavee said:

What I don't understand is if the EU won't budge on the Backstop as it's the safety measure to prevent a "Hard Border" in Ireland, exactly what do they think is going to happen in the event of a "No Deal" Brexit? or will the problem magically disappear in that event?

 

A solution has to be found to the Irish Border problem no matter what the exit terms are so whilst I can understand the EU not wanting to open negotiations again, I don't see how they have any choice if they genuinely want to avoid a Hard Border in Ireland.

 

 

 

CU

[Basil B]

5 hours ago, soalbundy said:

Meet the gang, cos the boys are here

the boys to entertain you

with music and laughter to help you on your way

raising the rafters with a hey hey hey

...........

Tragic but it has its funny side, brexit means brexit, leave means leave, why is the world shaking with laughter?

There is nothing funny about it.

 

It is a horror movie, with on big difference, many of us are on the train that is going to crash. 

[Basil B]

11 minutes ago, Grouse said:

22 minutes ago, Mike Teavee said:

What I don't understand is if the EU won't budge on the Backstop as it's the safety measure to prevent a "Hard Border" in Ireland, exactly what do they think is going to happen in the event of a "No Deal" Brexit? or will the problem magically disappear in that event?

 

A solution has to be found to the Irish Border problem no matter what the exit terms are so whilst I can understand the EU not wanting to open negotiations again, I don't see how they have any choice if they genuinely want to avoid a Hard Border in Ireland.

 

 

 

CU

Exactly that, to avoid a the back stop, but was not the back stop a customs union by another name that was intended to be temporary, and the argument, temporary could be indefinite.

 

So now now TM suggested that we could stay in the CU, does she not realize what baggage comes with a CU, all the rules and regulations? we certainly could not enter into free trade agreement with any other country.

 

It will be a soft Brexit, where we still have to make payments to the EU, abide by the rules, and hve no say...

 

We would be better off cancelling Brexit. 

[RuamRudy]

5 hours ago, tomacht8 said:

The tariff war with the clown trump has led to, that all US bourbon whiskeys have become significantly more expensive. The same thing will happen with the delicious scotch whiskey soon. But there are still very good Irish brands. I hope the remaining 27 EU states will stand firmly on the side of ireland.

One of the Brexit bonuses is that the term Scotch will be whored out to all and sundry, so your Scotch can be as cheap as the Ukranians or whoever can produce it.