|
The question comes if they get a 52:48 style majority. Surely that can't be enough to allow them to pass whatever it is, given the same MPs don't think 52:48 is enough to leave the EU legally.
|
|
|
To be fair three of the four options discussed last night are within hailing distance of a majority. Only in last week have MPs been given the option to properly discuss the proposal with proper indicative votes.
If only May had reached out for consensus as soon as she was elected......
The fundamental problem is that we voted to Leave, and most MPs voted to remain. Their aim is to frustrate Brexit, and ensure we get Brexit in name only, but in practice it will be little different from remaining, apart from the lack of voting rights. It will make no one happy, except the EU.
|
|
The fundamental problem is that we voted to Leave, and most MPs voted to remain. Their aim is to frustrate Brexit, and ensure we get Brexit in name only,
What you say about a remain majority in Commons is absolutely correct. Those that push for remain while representing leave constituencies are accountable to their electorate - thweir call to vote as they have. There are also plenty, on both sides of house, who although remainers on principle accept the referendum result and, at least on Tory side, support May's deal - Nicky Morgan is a case in point.
The irony though is that the 'saboteurs' who've stymied Mays deal are the arch brexiters like Mark Francois and John Redwood together with the DUP.
Interesting debate here (Guardian) between two Labour MPs, Jess Phillips and Gloria de Piero, on merit or otherwise of another referendum. Meanwhile Phill Hammond's PPS was on radio this morning also advocating a referendum as a deadlock breaking tool - and he's a leaver.
|
|
The problem, as I see it, is that the 2016 referendum, because of Cameron's naive assumption that a vote in favour of Remain would be the outcome, simply asked voters to choose between Remain and Leave.
Given that everyone knew (more or less) what Remain looked like, but that Leave - in its detail - meant many different things to different people, it was inevitable that politicians would put their own interpretation on it. There have even been such absurd statements as "This is not what people voted for". Well - nobody knows exactly what people voted for, as it was a negative.
Had the referendum specified different scenarios under the "Leave" heading then I guarantee that no single option would have produced a meaningful Leave majority. The winner would have been Remain.
The position after the referendum was that the democratic decision to leave the EU meant that parliament was entrusted to arrive at terms of exit that were in the best interests of the country. It is the magnitude of the failure of parliament to carry out their duty that now confronts us. Individual ambitions, inability to compromise and petty-mindedness have resulted in a deadlock that has damaged the electorate's trust in politicians and has exposed the appalling disorganisation and fragmentation of the two main parties.
A significant number of our MPs cannot see the bigger picture, or do not care about it.
If there is another referendum I cannot see which questions can be asked that would avoid further confusion. Are people to be asked again to decide between Remain and Leave - simply? If so, what an admission this would be of the failure of the last few years, and if the result again is Leave, where do we go from there?
Or are people to be asked to assume the UK is leaving and to decide between different "flavours" of Brexit? If so, it's asking the electorate to do the job parliament was mandated to do.
|
The problem, as I see it, is that the 2016 referendum, because of Cameron's naive assumption that a vote in favour of Remain would be the outcome, simply asked voters to choose between Remain and Leave.
I'd agree with generality of that; Remain was 'steady state while Leave had several interpretations.
Nobody on the Leave side spelled out the fact that there were different sorts of leave. Single Market v Customs Union was not given much exposure. Also true to say that Leave campaign, presumably consciously, avoided frightening the horses by giving impression that a Norway or Switzerland type Brexit would give them what they wanted. Although some now say the soft hard Brexit choice is a false one created by remain hardly anybody in the referendum openly suggested totally detaching ourselves and going to WTO terms. Liam Fox and Gove, both Atlanticists, might have mentioned such a thing but it was a minority pursuit.
Parliament might have arrived at terms of exit if it had been allowed to. If, after winning the leadership or at least after the 2017 election, Mrs May had taken a consensual approach to devising a route to exit then we might be somewhere now. Instead she set out red lines that appealed to the Tory Party and in doing so ruled out compromises like Norway or Customs Union. Furthermore she ran the negotiations herself without delegation or much involvement of rest of cabinet.
Not really a surprise that, when Parliament finally seize the process (and they should have done so sooner, certainly after MV1 was pulled) they're taking a while to find where consensus lies. Idiots like Mark Francois don't help one bit.
Referendum should surely be May's deal or remain. Problem of course is we still don't know what May's deal looks like, never mind what Boris or Michael's version of it might be.
Quite clear, as i said three years ago, that even if a case economic gains from leave can be made, it's quite clearly incerdibly difficult to untangle 40 years of integration. Even 'Codpiece' Cox recognises that now. Any rational cost benefit analysis says 'it's too much bother' on top of that it's using valuable time in Parliament that could be devoteted to worthwhile stuff like divorce reform, digitisation of the Courts and putting Universal Credit right.
Let us vote to remain and have done with it.
|
Referendum should surely be May's deal or remain. Problem of course is we still don't know what May's deal looks like, never mind what Boris or Michael's version of it might be.
Why? Leave won, so surely in a binary vote, it should be between WTO and May's WA, if anything. It's a bit like Wolves saying they should be allowed to have a go at the FA Cup final because they only lost to Watford 3-2.
This is the exact sort of shennanigans the Remain ccampaign always wanted, so that they can put a rubbish deal up against Remain, and who engotiated the deal - remainers behind the back of the Leave Brexit Sec., with the go ahead by the remianer PM.
Quite clear, as i said three years ago, that even if a case economic gains from leave can be made, it's quite clearly incerdibly difficult to untangle 40 years of integration. Even 'Codpiece' Cox recognises that now. Any rational cost benefit analysis says 'it's too much bother' on top of that it's using valuable time in Parliament that could be devoteted to worthwhile stuff like divorce reform, digitisation of the Courts and putting Universal Credit right.
Let us vote to remain and have done with it.
Best 2 out of 3? Sorry, they don't work like that. Could you honestly tell me that had the 2016 referendum been the exact other way around, you'd be fine with another vote within 3 years, rather than 25+? This dishonesty from the Remain camp is why those of them voting for the original Brexit bill, saying they'd support it 100% then turn on it straight after the 2017GE despite the manifestos voted for by 80%+ of voters saying they would honour IN FULL this.
Even Corbyn himself would rather gain office by embarking on playing politics with all this than admit he hates the EU and has done his entire political life, and, IMHO, voted Leave (despite his weak pronouncements during the referendum campaign, and why he doesn't support a second ref) and still, if he was in No. 10, would want to leave the EU.
Honourable members my eye!
|
|
|
|
Dup post deleted
Edited by Bromptonaut on 09/04/2019 at 13:59
|
|
|
The problem, as I see it, is that the 2016 referendum, because of Cameron's naive assumption that a vote in favour of Remain would be the outcome, simply asked voters to choose between Remain and Leave.
Given that everyone knew (more or less) what Remain looked like, but that Leave - in its detail - meant many different things to different people, it was inevitable that politicians would put their own interpretation on it. There have even been such absurd statements as "This is not what people voted for". Well - nobody knows exactly what people voted for, as it was a negative.
Had the referendum specified different scenarios under the "Leave" heading then I guarantee that no single option would have produced a meaningful Leave majority. The winner would have been Remain.
The position after the referendum was that the democratic decision to leave the EU meant that parliament was entrusted to arrive at terms of exit that were in the best interests of the country. It is the magnitude of the failure of parliament to carry out their duty that now confronts us. Individual ambitions, inability to compromise and petty-mindedness have resulted in a deadlock that has damaged the electorate's trust in politicians and has exposed the appalling disorganisation and fragmentation of the two main parties.
A significant number of our MPs cannot see the bigger picture, or do not care about it.
If there is another referendum I cannot see which questions can be asked that would avoid further confusion. Are people to be asked again to decide between Remain and Leave - simply? If so, what an admission this would be of the failure of the last few years, and if the result again is Leave, where do we go from there?
Or are people to be asked to assume the UK is leaving and to decide between different "flavours" of Brexit? If so, it's asking the electorate to do the job parliament was mandated to do.
You are putting forward remainer arguments which in effect mean that we could never leave. I do find the word games being played quite extraordinary.
As for we know what stay means, nope. We actually don't know how the EU will change and how we will benefit or otherwise.
|
|
"You are putting forward remainer arguments which in effect mean that we could never leave. I do find the word games being played quite extraordinary.
As for we know what stay means, nope. We actually don't know how the EU will change and how we will benefit or otherwise."
I find these comments bizarre, Leif. As I voted Leave, I'm stumped as to what you think are my "Remainer arguments". And is the "word games" accusation aimed at what I put? I'd love to know what you mean.
Of course we don't know (and didn't know when the referendum was held) what the future of the EU would be, but we did know what the situation was at the time, whereas leaving the EU can take many forms, unless you have the view that Brexit without a deal is the only way to go. But that was not what we voted on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry Bromp, but May's 'deal' is nothing of the sort (it's a capitulation worse than staying, and probably a deliberate incentive for doing so), and you know it. Please show me anyone who voted Leav in 2016 who was told beforehand and then said 'I want a withdrawal agreement that's worse than the status quo'?
Form Day 1, remoaner politicians and establishment figures have consipred to stop or water down Brexit by any and all means. The ERG Brexiteers have ONLY ever wanted May to honour the commitment of both her predecessor, May herself and through the Tory (and Labour) 2017 General Election manifestos (which is more than I can say for the blatant lies of Heidi Allen [on camera] and many others - Tory and Labour) to honour the outcome of the 2016 vote IN FULL and 'just LEAVE' - any TFA was always going to be either last minute (if they'd bothered to negotiate properly, which they would've done had May not sidelined Davis behind his back) or following a manged WTO exit, which is what the vast majority of Leavers want and expected.
If ALL MPs had been entirely truthful about what they really believed in would do after the 2017GE as regards Brexit, then parliament would look a LOT different to what it is now. For one, many current MPs would never have got on the ballot as they would've been deselected for wanting to reneg on the referndum result. If we go back further, May would never got into No.10 as her real motives would've been on display for all to see, as would Corbyn's and many of both's lying toe-rag senior colleagues. Both Letwin and Cooper would never be in the positions they are now; that vote squeaked through on the vote of a convicted fraudster wearing an electronic tag.
I would also note that many MPs 'say' they support Leave, but many are 'in name only' (e.g. Gove and Hammond's PPS) and are more interested in climbing the greasy pole than follwing any honourable course because of a heart-felt belief.
I wasn't aware that debates happened in the Guardian, unless it was within the Leftist bubble. Note also that they banned reader commentary on articles some time ago and actively advocate censorship as well as the overthrowing of referenda. A real bastion of democracy.
|
|
@ Engineer Andy and replying to both your 13:19 and 16:58 posts.
First of all I'm not going to engage in detail with conspiracy theories. There is not and never was a conspiracy apart from those involving money from Aaron Banks and others who stand to gain. We are where we are and that's down to cock-up and incompetence on part of the Government elected to deliver Brexit.
Why use the silly word 'Remoaner'. It would have been funny in a stand up piece in July 2016 when the referendum was still a shock. Nearly three years on it's lost any currency. Those of us who thin the decision of referendum was wrong and bought with lies and suspect money are entitled to campaign for a reversal. It's one thing whether, 52/48 to remain, I'd have been happy with another referendum in three years but it would still be game on for Farage, Rees Mogg and, I venture to suggest, your good self.
As you will surely recognise from our previous discussions I like argument around facts. The 2017 election came out of the blue. No opportunity for deselections, the rush was to get candidates in place. That's why Fiona Onasanya got selected but whether you like it or not her vote is legitimate until the petition unseats her. Theresa May always struck me as Eurosceptic, she was a sleeping partner in the remain campaign so she could play the loyalty card when, as pre-announced, Cameron stood down and there was a leadership contest..
You favour a referendum on leaving on Remain v WTO terms and claim that was what people voted for. Can you name one campaigner in the public debates or during the wider referendum campaign who consistently argued for WTO as way forward?
And the 80% voted for leave candidates canard is nonsense. We vote for the party we favour, even if there are aspects of its manifesto contains things we disagree with. I voted Labour and I'd wager John Major voted Conservative; neither of us endorsed Brexit.
I recognise the arguments against another referendum but believe it's a way forward for three reasons:
(a) It breaks the parliamentary deadlock (itself a consequence of May's handling of issue)
(b) If gives the country an opportunity to see it's happy with way out that's agreed, even JRM once favoured that
(c) It's becoming clearer by the day that 2016 referendum was corrupted by lies, dodgy money, downright illegality and foreign interference.
|
|
Conspiracy theories? That's a bit rich, coming from someone who believes everything the Guardian espouses.
I would've accepted a Remain vote in 2016, because I have some integrity and honour, unlike some people. And BTW, no-one voting leave voted for another vote with a 'WA' vs Remain. Not ONE - we just voted TO LEAVE (all the EU's institutions, as it said in the government's own [biased] pamphlet). Nor is May a Eurosceptic - if she was, we'd already be out, but we're not. She's just a useless PM and is more concerned about her position than what she does with it/policies, hence her frequent climbdowns when she can't win. As Corbyn would be, but far more dangerous to this nation.
There were dodgy things going on on both sides of the referendum campaign (overspending on both sides), but your claims are conspiracy theories. I know what these people are like, as they try and stir the pot ON BOTH SIDES in the Telegraph comments sections on a daily basis.
Sorry, but none of arguments fly. At all. Next you'll be saying that Owen Jones is of sound mind...
|
Conspiracy theories? That's a bit rich, coming from someone who believes everything the Guardian espouses.
I would've accepted a Remain vote in 2016, because I have some integrity and honour, unlike some people.
I'll ignore the comment about integrity. Owen Jones isn't my cup of tea either but I've no reason to doubt his soundness ant more than I'd be sceptical of yours.
But I'll try again with Question about who was clearly and consistently advocating leaving on WTO terms during the referendum
|
Conspiracy theories? That's a bit rich, coming from someone who believes everything the Guardian espouses.
I would've accepted a Remain vote in 2016, because I have some integrity and honour, unlike some people.
I'll ignore the comment about integrity. Owen Jones isn't my cup of tea either but I've no reason to doubt his soundness ant more than I'd be sceptical of yours.
But I'll try again with Question about who was clearly and consistently advocating leaving on WTO terms during the referendum
Actually, everyone I know who voted leave just wanted...TO LEAVE. Which is essentially what WTO is all about. The 'deal' was all about trade, and we can leave under GATT until that's agreed which means we can still trade tarriff free with the EU. Noticeably the German industrialists are now clambering for May's WA deal to be heavily revised because THEY fear losing 100k jobs+ because they will lose sales to the UK because we'll be able to strike FTAs with other countries around the world very soon. And apparently, according to the news, we're now ready for:
- No grounded planes;
- No disruption to medical supplies;
- No disruption to food supplies (including fish and chips - how pathetic of Project Fear II to try that on this week);
- No problems travelling or driving abroad on the Continent;
- Minimal problems with the container ports;
- No hard border from Northern Ireland to the Republic (from the lips of the Irish and EU Commission [despite all the contrary for ages now] - funny how that got 'sorted' without any more work after the UK's original proposals by...the Leave campaign team);
- Hundreds of thousands more jobs since June 2016, 'despite Brexit' (as opposed to how many redundancies that Project Fear forecast?);
- The economy still growing (and better than forecast - see todays' Telegraph), 'despite Brexit' and the government's inept handling of it and parliament doing nothing else for months other than trying to scupper it;
- Airbus or Nissan NOT leaving the UK;
- Honda's plant closure being proved to do with EU sales figures and nothing to do with Brexit, plus BMW wanting to buy up the factory, 'despite Brexit';
- PSA buying/investing in Vauxhall and not closing all the UK plants, 'despite Brexit';
- No significant (or net) job losses or movements abroad for financial firms in the City, 'despite Brexit'.
Need I go on?
|
Need I go on?
Not sure what point of all those items is, as we've not (yet) left/crashed the triggering event has yet to happen. However i thin you need to be careful of the propaganda Lord Lilley and his mates circulate.
I'm not sure how you thing GATT/WTO would allow tariff free trade with EU. It's certainly not what experts, including former officials of WTO say. Also WTO doesn't cover services which is a huge part of our economy.
Issue with planes would be triggered by leaving w/out agreement. That's not happened. Airlines were prepared though - Easy Jet has moved a lot of it's fleet out of UK and onto the Austrian register. Ryanair have plans for a UK subsidiary. There are widespread reports of disruption to medical and other supplies due to stockpiling and suppliers reluctance to embark product on long journeys not knowing what tariff might apply on arrival. That might well include imported fish.
No problems with UK cars in EU, container ports, Dover or Irish Border becuase we have not left. yet. Anybody who left for Easter Holidays last weekend would have been wise to get green card/IDP etc lined up and extra Health insurance in case of EHIC issues.
New jobs? Mostly low skill/low wage?
Honda Swindon closed because of end of Civic line and moves to hybrid/electric and EU's treaty with Japan - which we will be outside of. If we'd not been leaving perhaps Honda would have been prepared to re-purpose the factory.
Airbus and Nissan is still game on - see where wings for next model are built.
As for Vauxhall PSA have bought all of GM's Europe operation. Ellesmere Port and the van plant at Luton will compete for investment plants in the Single market. Tariff or regulatory hurdles will play against them.
Oh, and you still have not named the people advocatiing GATT/WTO during the referendum.
|
|
Close your eyes to reality if that gives comfort to you.
|
Close your eyes to reality if that gives comfort to you.
I would argue that you have beaten Bromptonaut to it Andy?
|
Close your eyes to reality if that gives comfort to you.
I would argue that you have beaten Bromptonaut to it Andy?
Not really - I report factual information and give my opinion about them. IMHO, Bromp gives opinions (and often presents them as facts) to justify how he would like the world to be like. His (IMHO) condescending establishment view is part of why we're in the mess we currently find ourselves.
I'm a general skeptic and want to see firm evidence before making decisions, for the most part, especially very important ones.
|
Not really - I report factual information and give my opinion about them. IMHO, Bromp gives opinions (and often presents them as facts) to justify how he would like the world to be like.
Sorry Andy but I'm not seeing much fact in your posts. Your list of items this morning are by no means all facts and some of those that are are only so because we've not actually left. It's simply not true that Brexit has no effect on supply of medicines and there have been substantial moves of money out of London to Frankfurt, Paris and Dublin
https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-damaged-city-of-london-2018-11?r=US&IR=T
http://www.lse.ac.uk/fmg/assets/documents/events/past-events/BrexitCityOfLondonSlides.pdf
https://www.ft.com/content/94d7d596-f961-11e8-af46-2022a0b02a6c
You've still not named the people openly campaigning for GATT/WTO during the referendum. I'd also challenge you to stand up the statement that we can trade tariff free with EU under GATT, or rather that we can do so without offering same concession to all and sundry.
How does GATT/WTO work for services?
|
|
I have to admit that cancelling Brexit and restoring the status-quo would be a dream personally. I work for myself providing engineering services & support to the pharmaceutical sector. >20% of my income came from working in mainland Europe last year and no one can tell me I will still be able to do this come 1st November.
Frankly the ongoing correspondence I receive from HMRC telling me to "be prepared" is a b***** insult!
|
|
Oh dear - quoting the leftist FT and LSE. BI is hardly an unbiased source either (owned by Jeff Bezos).
The GATT solution to a temporary and not that bad of a trade problem with the EU is one that many people on the Leave side have advocated. And as I've said many times before, people JUST voted to LEAVE and regain sovereignty, and accepted some temporary disruption to trade. I could quote the Telegraph, but you wouldn't read that, would you. Again, if Brexit was so bad, then why haven't we seen tens of thousands of City workers been made redundant or transferred to the Continent? Airbus can't just up sticks and leave either. The EU has already conceded that trade will continue as before; the French ports operators have said much the same.
The problem is that you like to distort the debate at hand (we were actually talking about our useless MPs, on ALL sides of the HoC) to try and fit your blame game, especially when our biased Civil Service (mates of yours) is up to their necks in the establishment take down of Brexit.
As much as you have time to peddle opinions as facts all day, I don't have the time or inclination to endlessly keep trawling the web to keep showing they aren't correct, or at the very least are not proven.
I accept that people have different viewpoints on Brexit as well as other issues, but unless you are willing to entertain that many people hold perfectly valid opposing viewpoints, often backed up by facts (often mentioned on this forum many times before) and then I don't see any point in debating them further, as doing so with you is beginning to leave a rather bad taste in my mouth.
This isn't a politics forum, and given the choice, I'd rather we stick to motoring-related issues than it decend into the chaos of the former, as often seems to happen nowadays.
Edited by Engineer Andy on 11/04/2019 at 14:46
|
|
Andy,
I'll ignore most of the personal barbs in there but for the record I was a junior Civil Servant from 1979 to 2013. I was never close to Ministers and my only involvement with MP's was occasionally drafting responses to their questions. Other than meeting former colleagues for a pint I've no ongoing connection. I now work in the advice sector.
You are of course entitled to your opinions on Brexit and other matters. However if you choose, as you do, to espouse them at length on a public forum as though they were facts you should expect to be rigorously challenged. It is not, for example, a proven fact that people voted to leave and regain sovereignty accepting some disruption to trade. Sure some did but not in sufficient numbers to drag the result over the line. We know this from surveys and vox pops since the referendum, Many beleived the assurances of Boris and others that we could leave and retain the self same benefits.
Quite happy to leave this aspect where it is but I reserve right to weigh in later in response to ongoing developments.
|
Andy,
I'll ignore most of the personal barbs in there but for the record I was a junior Civil Servant from 1979 to 2013. I was never close to Ministers and my only involvement with MP's was occasionally drafting responses to their questions. Other than meeting former colleagues for a pint I've no ongoing connection. I now work in the advice sector.
You are of course entitled to your opinions on Brexit and other matters. However if you choose, as you do, to espouse them at length on a public forum as though they were facts you should expect to be rigorously challenged. It is not, for example, a proven fact that people voted to leave and regain sovereignty accepting some disruption to trade. Sure some did but not in sufficient numbers to drag the result over the line. We know this from surveys and vox pops since the referendum, Many beleived the assurances of Boris and others that we could leave and retain the self same benefits.
Quite happy to leave this aspect where it is but I reserve right to weigh in later in response to ongoing developments.
Sir - this isn't a political discussion website/forum: it's a motoring website/forum. Like many people here, I have political views, but I'm not here for that, but to discuss motoring-related issues.
I do not mind reasonable debate, but I believe you want to take things further, as seems to often happen on newspaper websites and political forums, often ending up in mutual resentment. I do not want that to happen here, and for my part in making our debate personal, I apologise.
That being said, I don't appreciate many of your remarks that appear, to me at least, to be condescending and dismissive of myself and others, even sometimes wishing to prolong arguments through goading and the use of your own opinion dressed up as facts.
This isn't a hardcore political forum such as politicalbetting or suchlike where people verbally lay into eachother every few minutes because they like it, even if it eventually gets them banned. I won't be rising to the bait any more, as I want to stick mainly to motoring, as I suspect, do most members.
|
|
Sir - this isn't a political discussion website/forum: it's a motoring website/forum. Like many people here, I have political views, but I'm not here for that, but to discuss motoring-related issues.
This section is called General Discussion (Non-Motoring) - for somebody who is only here to discuss motoring you're pretty quick to weigh in in other subjects.
We're clearly at opposite ends of the spectrum on Brexit and politics in general. It follows that you will challenge my views and I will challenge yours. Personally I'm quite happy with that.
The purpose of debate is to persuade the floor not to convert the motion's proposer!!
|
Sir - this isn't a political discussion website/forum: it's a motoring website/forum. Like many people here, I have political views, but I'm not here for that, but to discuss motoring-related issues.
This section is called General Discussion (Non-Motoring) - for somebody who is only here to discuss motoring you're pretty quick to weigh in in other subjects.
We're clearly at opposite ends of the spectrum on Brexit and politics in general. It follows that you will challenge my views and I will challenge yours. Personally I'm quite happy with that.
The purpose of debate is to persuade the floor not to convert the motion's proposer!!
True, but it's also not a boxing match or PMQs, nor is it a party political broadcast. This section should also be a lesser used one, IMHO covering subjects that members can help eachother, such as the 'Which Boiler' one which I've contributed to.
As I said, anyone saying this is a political website with a motoring section maybe needs to consider frequenting a newspaper or dedicated politcal website instead.
|
As I said, anyone saying this is a political website with a motoring section maybe needs to consider frequenting a newspaper or dedicated politcal website instead.
I never suggested this was a political website. I contribute to Motoring and Legal sections of this site too.
But I don't see why a bit of robust debate on matters of the day does any harm.
|
|
The fundamental problem is that we voted to Leave, and most MPs voted to remain. Their aim is to frustrate Brexit, and ensure we get Brexit in name only,
What you say about a remain majority in Commons is absolutely correct. Those that push for remain while representing leave constituencies are accountable to their electorate - thweir call to vote as they have. There are also plenty, on both sides of house, who although remainers on principle accept the referendum result and, at least on Tory side, support May's deal - Nicky Morgan is a case in point.
The irony though is that the 'saboteurs' who've stymied Mays deal are the arch brexiters like Mark Francois and John Redwood together with the DUP.
Interesting debate here (Guardian) between two Labour MPs, Jess Phillips and Gloria de Piero, on merit or otherwise of another referendum. Meanwhile Phill Hammond's PPS was on radio this morning also advocating a referendum as a deadlock breaking tool - and he's a leaver.
All but 3 Labour MPs voted against Mays deal second time round, and yet a lot of them are in Leave constituencies. Also Labour said they agreed with the non political part of May's deal, and yet voted against that part. Political opportunism trumps the good of the country. I don't doubt that the hard code head bangers - Rees Mogg et al - are causing trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
|
