No deal won’t be allowed to happen

But it’s the system you are wanting to take control. They are democratically elected and now your wanting them removed .
This is part of taking back control .
I personally think the EU have made better decisions for this country than any parliamentarian but that is just my view .
But you wanted parliament to be sovereign and remove democratically elected people ?
You asked how many referendums do remainers till they get the right result they want ,well I ask how many democratically elected MPs do you want forcibly removing to achieve Brexit and from the very people you want to take control.

 

I love lamb so I hope so

 

No offence, but there’s a bit more to my life than watching football and supping beer.

 

Are you for real? Good grief.

 

There are quite a number of people to blame....responsible might be a better word, and it's cross party and for varying reasons.
I appear to be in a small minority that didn't think May's deal was a disaster...it wasn't a million miles from Keir Starmer's six tests, but failed to get through for a variety of reasons.
Nothing would have got the hardcore of the ERG to vote for it because it wasn't hard enough....nothing would have got the Greens, Lib Dems and Scotnat's to vote for it because they wouldn't vote for anything that resulted in leaving the EU...that left the rest, most of the Tories eventually acquiesced as did a number of Labour rebels who defied the whip....but interestingly Stephen Kinnock said today that he and a group of Labour MP's ( said to be around fifty in number) would have voted for the deal had they suspected that no deal would have been the result of voting against.

 

As I said before Farage like Sturgeon is a one trick pony, they will carry on the life's work...the rest of us accept the result.

 

To be fair though Marlon, many of those MP's both before and after the vote promised to respect the result of the referendum, including Dominic Grieve, Anna Soubry, Chukka Umunna and Vince Cable...since then they have clearly done the opposite.

 

But it’s not up to us though is it ?
The people you mention can’t be dismissed as unimportant and not relevant to our democracy .
All these people you mention and many more on both sides are making a mess of our country .
We can whoever we want but it won’t matter because it’s the system not individuals.
We can say one MP is blocking Brexit etc and being a nuiscance but if they are elected again what can be done ?
If all these MPs were to go to election and got voted back on with the same stance we feked.
My MP is for Brexit as most of her constituents voted leave I am a remainer but I would vote her because I cannot vote on one policy ,
However many will and we could end up with same again or even more remainders .
Whether it happens or not imo another referendum will sort it as I don’t think it will be as close but I couldn’t say which way.

 

I agree and I’m not saying they’re wrong or right that’s up to opinion but if the democratically elected and continue to be do with the same stance there’s nowt to be done it’s our democratic system , and one the leave campaign wanted to govern us .
The fact it’s a shitfest is by the by it’s what was wanted but some are now saying bypass them wtf

 

Why not respect the result and have the referendum on deal or no deal...I would vote for the deal and I have a suspicion the majority probably would.

 

I’ve just said that it’s not up to us .
I’m not holding up Brexit nor anybody on the bbs it’s the MPs . It’s part of taking back control I’m afraid .

 

I take the point you're making, but what I would say is that the disingenuous way John Bercow has driven a coach and horses through accepted precedence in the name of Remain should worry those (I'm not saying you) who are currently supporting his version of the process...if they can overturn this referendum they are setting the precedent that any future referendum or decision can be overturned.

 

Exactly why we shouldn’t be advocating letting these take back control .
Better in the EU they make better judgement .
Seriously though most MPs from both sides of argument are doing what they think is best .
Obviously there’s a few on both sides that will gain if there side of argument win .
We can argue debate all day on here or other SM but end of the day the country’s poorer neither in nor out as we are now and I think we’ll end up in recession.

 

The democracy argument keeps getting thrown up. A further confirmatory referendum involves more democracy, not less. Furthermore, it's a matter of public record that a no-deal Brexit was not the version sold to the public before the 2016 vote. The choice in essence has really always been between a no-deal (hard) Brexit and remaining. That is a starker choice than the one which promised we could enjoy "the exact same benefits". The last three years have shown that we can't. It may well be that the public at large would go for the full-fat Brexit option, but that needs to be tested before we commit ourselves. I don't think that that is an unreasonable position.

Having said all that, I have come to the conclusion that the statement contained in the thread title is wrong. I don't want no deal to happen, but I am afraid that is where we are headed. The opposition parties are not in agreement about how they take their opposition to no deal forward. There is squabbling over a 'leader' (fiddling while Rome burns). If they do get their act together then it would seem that their ambitions are limited to imposing a requirement to seek a further extension to the Article 50 notice period to permit a general election to be held. That will do little because even if it passed it does not command the prime minister to wholeheartedly seek or justify an extension. The application could (and probably will) be presented in such lukewarm terms by the PM that the EU, whose consent is also required, will refuse to entertain it - particularly if Johnson accompanies the application to extend with a re-iteration of his unwillingness to countenance the withdrawal agreement as it stands. In that case, we would likely fall out with no deal.

The alternative proposition is that a no confidence vote in the government is called. It's a very big call for the Tory rebels to step up to the plate and vote down their newly-installed government. There are some people on the Labour side who could conceivably vote with Johnson on this one because they are committed brexiteers, or because they believe the original referendum result should be actioned, notwithstanding what we have learnt since it was held. But consider this. Even if the vote of no confidence is successful, there is nothing in Section 2 of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 that requires the prime minister to resign. What it does stipulate is that if there is not then a vote of confidence in 'the government' within 14 days then a general election must be called by royal proclamation on a date recommended to Her Majesty by the prime minister. A grouping of opposition MP's which showed it could command the confidence of the House would not be "the government" unless or until the sitting prime minister resigned and recommended that the Queen invite it's leader to form a government. I repeat, there is nothing in the 2011 Act which requires him to do so - it is purely a matter of custom and practice. Such customs and practices form part of our unwritten constitution, but they have never been enshrined in law. So Johnson could (and would) simply refuse to resign, allow the 14 days to elapse, and then recommend to HM that an election is called which falls beyond the departure date. He would then fight that election unencumbered by the Farage phalanx and stand as the prime minister "who delivered your Brexit". His other promises would not by that stage have been proved to be unfundable and probably undeliverable, and he would in all likelihood be swept to power amid a blitz of patriotism, fuelled by the Tory media's exaggerated claims of the danger a Corbyn government would pose.

It's a grim scenario my friends, but I strongly fear we are headed for no deal, and thence to becoming the 51st state.

 

Yes it would. As i've said many times. You wouldn't have expected that marginal win to ratify joining the Euro, Schengen, giving away vetoes, allowing Turkish accession, doubling our fees etc.

Aside from the lies and the result being illegal if binding, and the racist and ignorant aspect of it and the new PM being unelected and the cabinet being the most two faced and fanatical we've ever had... I would have accepted leaving the EU if it was in proportion with the slender victory margin it secured.

Just like I would have accepted if the vote had positioned no deal and it was as huge margin as secured in the EU vote 40+ years ago.

For over 3 years, the fanatics have distorted what the vote was and pushed for the maverick utopia of walking away with absolutely nothing. If they want no deal, ask the public. If that vote ratifies a no deal, fine. Let the refugee outflow begin. I'll likely be one of them.

 

Which pub will you be drinking in? Will it be a yuppy one in Leeds?

 

Agreed, but please don’t forget, we wouldn’t be enacting the first referendum, this is the second one.

 

This is the line that really shows how ridiculous the leavers mindset is.

When you voted to leave, you weren’t voting for an idyllic post Brexit paradise. You were voting to instruct the government to organise leaving the EU and negotiate not just with the EU but anyone else we’d need trade agreements with.

You were voting to make our politicians responsible for these very complex issues that we’d had no experience of for 40 years.

So the current **** shower is exactly what you voted for. You’re responsible for this, own the responsibility for the outcome of your decision.

OTOH it comes as no surprise to me that people who ‘believed’ many of the country’s problems were the fault of the EU, now believe that the problems we face leaving are ‘someone else’s’ fault too.

 

When Gordon Brown made the Bank of England independent of government, it became the independent arbiter of government policy. Its primary objective was to keep inflation under control through the use of interest rates, but it acquired the right to comment upon the effects of government policy.

The Bank of England has said that a No Deal Brexit would initiate a 20 year recession, the depth of which would exceed that of the recent recession when the government had to bail out the banks. Philip Hammond, the ex-chancellor, who should also know a thing or two about the economy has declared a No Deal Brexit to be a disaster and he looks to be in full revolt against the new PM. It is not exactly going to be a picnic for the EU either, and as a result, our new PM thinks that he can play chicken with them. The only response from Brexiteers is that the whole thing is scaremongering. Frankly, the fact that everyone will suffer is not a great outcome for the great experiment in democracy.

My question is this. Did those who voted to leave the EU vote to be worse off for 20 years.