50 mps going to vote no to article 50

[Justin Smith]

Brexit will happen: 'Arrogant' Remoaners told nothing will derail article 50= http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/731456/Brexit-Article-50-Remoaners-Lib-Dems-referendum

 

I`ve never really had much time for the Express, but since their hysterical (and incorrect) reaction to the appeal court ruling I have no time for it (or the Mail or The Sun) at all. So I really wouldn`t be linking to anything in the Express, it doesn`t actually mean much. Now if it were in the Times or even in the Daily Telegraph (news section not editorial) that`d be different.

 

---------- Post added 12-11-2016 at 13:31 ----------

 

Brexit will happen: 'Arrogant' Remoaners told nothing will derail article 50= http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/731456/Brexit-Article-50-Remoaners-Lib-Dems-referendum

 

The most arrogant people are the Brexiteers who put their words into the mouths of the electorate (as to what Brexit they actually voted for)......

[unbeliever]

I didn't think we'd vote leave but here we are. Anything is possible, at least until we get to the negotiating table.

 

I'm not voting for an MP who supports ejecting law-abiding Europeans from the country, even in retaliation for Britons being eject from the mainland. That's just not what decent people do. It's not the Uk resident Europeans' fault if their governments decide to throw their toys out of the pram.

 

---------- Post added 12-11-2016 at 13:33 ----------

 

The most arrogant people are the Brexiteers who put their words into the mouths of the electorate (as to what Brexit they actually voted for)......

 

They were told what they were voting for by BOTH campaigns.

This kind of [expletive deleted] is exactly how democracies fall. The arrogance and dishonestly of your case is absolutely staggering.

[999tigger]

In this case we can because the design of the rerendum was deeply flawed.

 

You really cant. It was a referendum on the question asked. people voted and there was a result. no minimum voting criteria.

 

---------- Post added 12-11-2016 at 13:43 ----------

 

None of the above is remotely true.

Half-Brexit is a half betrayal of the vote. It's that simple.

 

The only thing coted on was whether we leave the EU or not.

The government gets to decide the rest.

Nothing else was voted on. No promises were made.

 

Brexit is menaingless beyond leaving the EU as in ceasing to be a formal member.

 

All of what I posted is ofc true, ridiculous you deny what has actually happened.

[unbeliever]

You really cant. It was a referendum on the question asked. people voted and there was a result. no minimum voting criteria.

 

---------- Post added 12-11-2016 at 13:43 ----------

 

 

The only thing coted on was whether we leave the EU or not.

The government gets to decide the rest.

Nothing else was voted on. No promises were made.

 

Brexit is menaingless beyond leaving the EU as in ceasing to be a formal member.

 

All of what I posted is ofc true, ridiculous you deny what has actually happened.

 

 

The campaigns made promises. The Prime Minister himself on behalf of the remain campaign promised full Brexit. Gisela Stewart, leader of the elave campaign promised the same. As did all the major figures: Gove, Boris, IDS etc.

 

Full-Brexit is the only legitimate interpretation of the result. You're just wrong. There's no mandate for a half/soft Brexit as that was not the options presented to the electorate by the campaigns.

You're trying to use the letter of the law to defeat the spirit and whilst you might not understand that, it's pretty clear that the vast majority of MPs do, so it doesn't really matter what you think.

[999tigger]

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 ?

 

What are you going on about? I dont believe I have written anything to proboke your response? Not sure why you quieted me at all?

 

Where have I said I had no faith?

 

---------- Post added 12-11-2016 at 13:55 ----------

 

The campaigns made promises. The Prime Minister himself on behalf of the remain campaign promised full Brexit. Gisela Stewart, leader of the elave campaign promised the same. As did all the major figures: Gove, Boris, IDS etc.

 

Full-Brexit is the only legitimate interpretation of the result. You're just wrong. There's no mandate for a half/soft Brexit as that was not the options presented to the electorate by the campaigns.

You're trying to use the letter of the law to defeat the spirit and whilst you might not understand that, it's pretty clear that the vast majority of MPs do, so it doesn't really matter what you think.

 

You mean the letter of the law as in the actual law. ok how remiss of me. Im just stating it as it is. You are really trying to ask for things that were never voted on.

 

No doubt someone will try and take it to the courts, but then ofc they will say nothing was actually there as terms of leaving in the event of a leave vote.

 

The only option was to remain or leave as a member. Nothing else. I didnt design the referendum. It's just weak trying to impute terms that were never there. It would have been better for all had there been clear choices.

 

As for the idea that the vast majority of MPs want hard brexit, where did you get that notion from? I would have thought the vast majority of MPS want to see what is negotiated and wnat what the best deal for the UK is.

 

Why bother negotiating at all if minds are already made up? We can just cease interacting with the EU now am sure that would work out.

 

---------- Post added 12-11-2016 at 14:01 ----------

 

Its being made more complicated by the remoaners, once they get their heads round the fact that the majority voted to leave, and not stay half in, it will be much easier.

 

The possibility of a soft brexit was always there, hence the numerous discussions about the Norwegian and Swiss models.

 

It would seem quite stupid of the UK doesnt decide what sort of interaction it wants with the EU upon leaving. Its still our most important trade partner and many jobs depend upon it. If you wnat to rule that out and just ignore the single market, then that will affect ,any businesses negatively and that will have knock on effects for the economy.

 

Its for the government to sort out exacly what brexit means becayse brexit means brexit is a pretty meaningless phrase.

[unbeliever]

What are you going on about? I dont believe I have written anything to proboke your response? Not sure why you quieted me at all?

 

Where have I said I had no faith?

 

---------- Post added 12-11-2016 at 13:55 ----------

 

 

You mean the letter of the law as in the actual law. ok how remiss of me. Im just stating it as it is. You are really trying to ask for things that were never voted on.

 

No doubt someone will try and take it to the courts, but then ofc they will say nothing was actually there as terms of leaving in the event of a leave vote.

 

The only option was to remain or leave as a member. Nothing else. I didnt design the referendum. It's just weak trying to impute terms that were never there. It would have been better for all had there been clear choices.

 

As for the idea that the vast majority of MPs want hard brexit, where did you get that notion from? I would have thought the vast majority of MPS want to see what is negotiated and wnat what the best deal for the UK is.

 

Why bother negotiating at all if minds are already made up? We can just cease interacting with the EU now am sure that would work out.

 

---------- Post added 12-11-2016 at 14:01 ----------

 

 

The possibility of a soft brexit was always there, hence the numerous discussions about the Norwegian and Swiss models.

 

It would seem quite stupid of the UK doesnt decide what sort of interaction it wants with the EU upon leaving. Its still our most important trade partner and many jobs depend upon it. If you wnat to rule that out and just ignore the single market, then that will affect ,any businesses negatively and that will have knock on effects for the economy.

 

Its for the government to sort out exacly what brexit means becayse brexit means brexit is a pretty meaningless phrase.

 

 

 

We're just going round in circles. You've abandoned all the supporting principles and practises which make democracy function in the real world and your only defence is that it would not be illegal. It's just not good enough.

[*_ash_*]

It depends how the vote breaks down. If an MP "defies" his/her constituents, will it change their votes. Not all presumably.

Don't forget also that under FPTP, an MP can get elected with 40% of the vote, now suppose that the 55% of leave voters in his/her constituency weren't likely to vote for them anyway.

 

I think the pressure to respect the spirit of the vote, and the fear of their electors turning against then is strong enough to push through something close to a full Brexit. But we shall have to see.

 

I agree. It would be political suicide for a party to defy the vote of the people.

 

Though Labour might think, well what the hell, we're finished anyway!

[tinfoilhat]

I'm not voting for an MP who supports ejecting law-abiding Europeans from the country, even in retaliation for Britons being eject from the mainland. That's just not what decent people do. It's not the Uk resident Europeans' fault if their governments decide to throw their toys out of the pram.

 

---------- Post added 12-11-2016 at 13:33 ----------

 

 

They were told what they were voting for by BOTH campaigns.

This kind of [expletive deleted] is exactly how democracies fall. The arrogance and dishonestly of your case is absolutely staggering.

 

But what if that MP also supports full brexit, and he other candidates want soft brexit or no brexit? Yes, it's an unlikely scenario but we've got a republic president elect talking about replacing free health care with better free health care!

 

So we won't (you hope) throw out the EU nationals already here but we might end up with a load of expats at our door none the less. So I'm getting my Amazon order delivered but we've got lots more people here now. That's going to put pressure on services, infrastructure, housing.

 

I know we're well into the realms if what if but this year has been filled with them. We can't just rock up to Brussels and say goodbye and that's it. It's going to be way more complex than that. If it was such a piece of ****, wouldn't Cameron have come back with more than he got - and that's when we were paying them!

[999tigger]

We're just going round in circles. You've abandoned all the supporting principles and practises which make democracy function in the real world and your only defence is that it would not be illegal. It's just not good enough.

 

Again you are making it up.

 

Im pointing out the referendum was only on a single question and the government (whether you like it or not) gets to deide the terms of exit. That is what you have negotiations for.

 

Sorry its not ood enough for you, but that is the reality of the situation. No idea why you should have such a hard time with that and just let the government get on with it. Brexit means Brexit ofc.

[apelike]

Do the MP's that vote to block the Article 50 vote against the publics wish on Brexit think they will get in at the next election?

 

I dont know what constituency these 50 MP's represent but its probably in the areas that had a big no vote anyway. But, it will take a great deal more MP's voting no to make a difference and actually block A50.