50 mps going to vote no to article 50

[Gamston]

 

That is silly thinking.

 

The government have to deal with reality and decide what is best for the UK including how it wishes to interact with the EU and the single market. A lot of things didnt exist when we joined, but that doesnt mean we have to ignore them. The vote was simply to leave, but the terms and future re-engagement were left undecided. It would be stupid to not get the best deal for the UK possible.

You are very silly and clearly have no respect for the democratic wishes of the people.

 

---------- Post added 12-11-2016 at 11:19 ----------

 

Absolutely. Both campaigns were absolutely crystal clear that exit meant full exit including the internal market and customs union.

It's a bit like Scotland refusing to accept the result of the football match last night, because no one told them England were going to score all their goals by heading the ball into the back of the net.

[999tigger]

You are very silly and clearly have no respect for the democratic wishes of the people.

 

---------- Post added 12-11-2016 at 11:19 ----------

 

It's a bit like Scotland refusing to accept the result of the football match last night, because no one told them England were going to score all their goals by heading the ball into the back of the net.

 

At least I can explain things a rationally.

 

Referendums are not binding.

 

We will leave but the terms of that leaving or terms of re-engagement were not decided.

Only a fool would not obtain the best deal possible.

[harvey19]

At least I can explain things a rationally.

 

Referendums are not binding.

 

We will leave but the terms of that leaving or terms of re-engagement were not decided.

Only a fool would not obtain the best deal possible.

 

Our politicians, parliament and advisors are in post to get us the best deal possible.

Have you no confidence at all in the democratic process ?

[unbeliever]

At least I can explain things a rationally.

 

Referendums are not binding.

 

We will leave but the terms of that leaving or terms of re-engagement were not decided.

Only a fool would not obtain the best deal possible.

 

Depends.

There's a technical exit mode in which the UK is still bound by EU law, operates under the jurisdiction of the ECJ and has no more sovereignty than it had before. This would be a clear betrayal of the vote.

To put it simply, if we get a half-Brexit (some have been calling it a soft Brexit), then we've only half obeyed the will of the people.

 

You give yourself away with this "Referendums are not binding". You want the UK government to pay lip service to the referendum result and, execute a de-jure Brexit whilst keeping us de-facto inside the EU.

Edited November 12, 2016 by unbeliever

[Petminder]

What does "Brexit" mean?

 

"Article 50 would proceed but only if there is a referendum on the terms of the deal", then people would know what they voted for, they did not vote for the Tories version of "Brexit".

 

Of cause they voted for the Tories version, the Tories gave people the vote and said they would implement the wishes of the people, its time for the remoaners to get that into their heads.

 

---------- Post added 12-11-2016 at 11:52 ----------

 

Absolutely. Both campaigns were absolutely crystal clear that exit meant full exit including the internal market and customs union.

 

All that banging your head on a brick wall must be giving you an headache by now.

[I1L2T3]

The best deal for the population is the result I expect our chosen representatives and their advisors to get for us when negotiating new terms.

 

What if it isn't as good as remaining in the EU?

 

If it isn't then what is the point in agreeing to it?

 

If it wasn't as good as the current situation, and it did get voted through by MPs, then what is the point in having MPs that are supposed to do what is best for the country? They wouldn't be doing their job!

 

This whole thing really hinges on whether the deal that is agreed is actually good or better for us.

 

There is no evidence it will be good or better for us. So a lot of us, and presumably a lot of MPs, are quite rightly going to reserve the right to give the proverbial two fingured salute to a bad deal.

[Petminder]

What if it isn't as good as remaining in the EU?

 

If it isn't then what is the point in agreeing to it?

 

If it wasn't as good as the current situation, and it did get voted through by MPs, then what is the point in having MPs that are supposed to do what is best for the country? They wouldn't be doing their job!

 

This whole thing really hinges on whether the deal that is agreed is actually good or better for us.

 

There is no evidence it will be good or better for us. So a lot of us, and presumably a lot of MPs, are quite rightly going to reserve the right to give the proverbial two fingured salute to a bad deal.

 

The only deal which will be worse than being in the EU is a deal that leaves us paying, accepting their laws and the free movement of people but with no representation in the EU. The best deal is the deal that takes us fully out of the EU and allows us to control our borders, our laws and the money we give to the EU.

[999tigger]

Depends.

There's a technical exit mode in which the UK is still bound by EU law, operates under the jurisdiction of the ECJ and has no more sovereignty than it had before. This would be a clear betrayal of the vote.

To put it simply, if we get a half-Brexit (some have been calling it a soft Brexit), then we've only half obeyed the will of the people.

 

You give yourself away with this "Referendums are not binding". You want the UK government to pay lip service to the referendum result and, execute a de-jure Brexit whilst keeping us de-facto inside the EU.

 

1. All it says is we should leave. To me that simply means cease being a member of the EU. There was nthing else beyond that voted on. Thet terms on which we leave are up to the government. Not a betrayal of the vote at all, but a flaw in the original referendum about what it meant.

 

2. A soft Brexit isnt only half obeying. the only requirement was to cease being a member.

 

3. You did make me laugh. No I didnt give myself away as you put it. I was merely responding to the point that Gamston made about who decides. As a matter of law and fact that is what referendums are. I dont have to have any view on this or any other.

 

Soft Brexit was always contemplated as being a strong possibility, because whether we are in or out, then some people would be deciding what terms of exit would be the best for the economic interests of the UK. If the referendum meant hard Brexit, then it should have been included in the referendum question.

[El Cid]

It's a bit like Scotland refusing to accept the result of the football match last night, because no one told them England were going to score all their goals by heading the ball into the back of the net.

 

What ever they do, all sides will be forced to play by the rules. There is no court case for the England match; but the referendum will be told by the Supreme court.

The England match was not really a good example at all, although it could make it in the Daily Mail.

[tinfoilhat]

Depends.

There's a technical exit mode in which the UK is still bound by EU law, operates under the jurisdiction of the ECJ and has no more sovereignty than it had before. This would be a clear betrayal of the vote.

To put it simply, if we get a half-Brexit (some have been calling it a soft Brexit), then we've only half obeyed the will of the people.

 

You give yourself away with this "Referendums are not binding". You want the UK government to pay lip service to the referendum result and, execute a de-jure Brexit whilst keeping us de-facto inside the EU.

 

Well if they go hard brexit they only followed the will of half the people. All the hoohah of some MPs voting against brexit when that's what their constituents might want. Really?

 

There can't be any idiots who expect brexit to sail through with a near 100% majority surely.