Ad7 wrote:I saw some classic banana split on the tv this morning expressing his amazing views on all of this.
Fat, bald, tattoos on his knuckles. Cockney accent.
"We've got to get aaaat of you rup. It's a bust. Need to get aaat."
Well there you have it.
I saw that. strawberry floating idiot. Thinking the EU is bust
I suspect the vote will end up being lost by less than 100 in the end. I just can't trust over a hundred Tory MPs will vote against when the time comes if there's a risk of a General Election coming.
All those Tory "no" votes will abstain. There's less reason for them to vote if it's already going to be a crushing defeat. That will make it a low narrower.
Last month Theresa May decided to defer the vote on her deal to leave the European Union because, she said, it would be “rejected by a significant margin”. A month later nothing has changed. The prime minister did secure a letter of warm words from Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European commission, and Donald Tusk, European council president, but it contained no significant revisions to the terms of Britain’s Brexit package. The upshot is that parliament has lost a month of valuable time and on Tuesday MPs will almost certainly vote down Mrs May’s withdrawal agreement in overwhelming numbers. The prime minister has only herself to blame. Mrs May’s deal cannot command a majority in the Conservative party, let alone a majority in the Commons. She sheepishly told MPs her deal is not perfect. Others, perhaps, would have reached for a more pungent phrase.
Judging by her performance at the dispatch box on Monday afternoon Mrs May will seek to diminish the chances of other potential outcomes. She gave a preview of her arguments in parliament which focus on the downsides of other options. Mrs May is gambling that all her adversaries will prove by voting against her deal is that they have the numbers to block it, but not the numbers in favour of an alternative – nor crucially the time for that to become a reality. The UK, Mrs May reminds us, will leave without a deal after 29 March unless that deadline is extended by mutual consent with the EU. This is a mistake. Mrs May has driven her party to resignations and recriminations. It would be better for her to realise the error of her ways and adopt a different, more inclusive approach within – and without – the Conservative party.
If the prime minister ought to change tack, then so ought her opponents. If they are serious about pursuing a different strategy to that recommended by the prime minister, MPs must think not just of winning a Commons battle but also public opinion. To increase the chances of other potential outcomes, MPs have to change the optics over the Brexit debate. The public currently see the two major parties riven by dissent and offering little more than partisan pot shots at their opponents. It is hard to see in that context how voters will be happy to be told that they will have to vote again in another referendum on whether this country stays in or out of the EU because squabbling politicians have been unable to resolve the matter. Or for that matter be enthused about another general election that gets turned into a single-issue plebiscite. That is why there needs to be a change of tone in our politics: to lower the levels of conflict, cynicism and confrontation. What is required is space for consideration of evidence, meaningful debate and negotiation in good faith. Without it the probability of other potential outcomes from this Brexit process shrinks.
There is also a need to understand that the drivers of the Brexit vote – stagnant wages, inequality and feelings of powerlessness – were not caused by the European Union. They will not be solved by leaving it. What will be needed is bold new policies that respond to these challenges. These will not be forthcoming if MPs descend in the coming weeks to intra-party bickering and power grabs. This newspaper has made the case before that once Mrs May loses her vote, her first act ought to be to ask the EU to allow an extension of the Brexit deadline. We need a real dialogue via a citizens’ assembly about where the country should go. There is a danger that the parliamentary introspection blinds us to the road ahead. We ought not to conduct our policies on the assumption that the world is waiting for us interminably to solve our problems. It is not. Other nations have their own interests. Brexit has taught Britain’s political class one important lesson: we should not start battles we are likely to lose.
On Tuesday night, MPs hold the future of this country in their hands.
They will have the opportunity to back Theresa May’s deal or seek to find a better way forward.
The Mirror strongly urges them to do the latter.
The turbulent Brexit debate has consumed the nation for more than two years.
Energy that should have been spent on addressing our neglected public services, tackling regional inequality, ending the housing crisis and improving skills and education has been exhausted on the tortuous process of trying to engineer our EU departure.
A nation that used to be at ease with itself has become bitter and distrustful.
Rather than seek to celebrate the things we have in common we now turn too quickly to the issues that divide us.
Little wonder many people are sick to the back teeth with the whole thing and just want it over.
This paper shares that frustration. But the ability to tackle the issues that matter depends on getting a Brexit resolution that satisfies most of the 52% who voted Leave and most of the 48% who backed Remain.
And that will require those most British of virtues: compromise and pragmatism.
If our politicians are willing to co-operate rather than conspire, reason rather than spread rancour, then there is a way forward that can unite our troubled land and secure our future prosperity.
With reservations, the Mirror backed Remain because we feared the economic consequences of Brexit would hit our readers the hardest.
The same argument applies today.
We cannot endorse a Brexit deal that would mean less money for things such as public services, the welfare state and more housing.
And that is why MPs should not be panicked into accepting Mrs May’s plan just because it is the only offer currently on the table.
If you are going to live in a house for the next 40 years you would not snap up the first property to go on the market, especially if it came with a surveyor’s report warning it could be uninhabitable within months.
That is what the Prime Minister is trying to sell us.
Even with the last minute concessions, her deal offers no legally binding protections for workers’ rights and the environment.
Hard won benefits – such as paid holidays, protection for agency workers and parental leave – that are so important to Mirror readers could all be put at risk.
Mrs May is also gambling the UK’s prosperity on securing a trade deal with the EU that would be negotiated from a position of weakness.
We would enter these trade talks having thrown away all our bargaining chips and with the EU able to veto any of our demands.
We will have gone from sitting at the top table to living in a Brussels dog basket.
The only option worse than Mrs May’s proposal is crashing out without a deal.
Consider those who are in favour of a no deal – the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg, Iain Duncan Smith and Sir John Redwood – and ask yourself if they would ever be on your side.
They may be rich enough to cope with the economic catastrophe that would ensue; but others will be much less fortunate, especially if they lose their job and find prices rising.
If, as expected, Mrs May loses the vote today then it is time for Parliament to take control.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s preferred option is for a general election.
While we would love to see Labour back in power, the parliamentary arithmetic suggests that this is unlikely to happen.
And even if we had another election there is a strong possibility it would result in another hung parliament that is no better placed to sort out this Brexit mess.
An alternative solution is to inflict a second referendum on a weary electorate.
While this option remains on the table we should think carefully before embarking on a course that could further divide a country whose social fabric is already fraying at the edges.
A far better course would be to honour the result of the 2016 referendum in a way that would reflect the 52% to 48% result.
By joining the European Free Trade Association alongside Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein the UK can fulfil the obligation to leave in a way that causes the least economic damage.
We would regain sovereignty over food and fisheries and would be no longer beholden to EU courts.
Environmental protections and workers’ rights would be safeguarded.
And if a customs arrangement could be agreed it would solve at a stroke the Irish border question.
The Mirror is the first to accept that this option is flawed.
We would still be in the single market, which means accepting freedom of movement, and we would still have to make a contribution to the EU budget – though substantially less than the amount we pay at the moment.
However, as a member of EFTA we would be allowed to impose an emergency brake on immigration should it be shown to be causing social or economic problems.
The people who are concerned about the level of migration should remember EU nationals only make up a third of those coming to this country each year, and we already have measures in place to prevent benefit tourism.
We respect those readers who will hold different views.
We understand those who want a clean Brexit and we sympathise with those who would dearly love to see us remain in the EU.
There is, ultimately, no perfect Brexit. It is impossible to find a solution which will satisfy everyone.
Whichever course we take will require concessions and cause disappointment.
Having found ourselves in such a predicament we should pursue the least damaging outcome.
In our view, that means a sovereign UK remaining in the single market while free from EU control.
Only then can we move forward and start to address the problems that drove people to vote leave in the first place: the outrage over inequality; the lack of opportunity; entrenched regional divides; the sense of being ignored by an out-of-touch political class; and the lack of power to change their lives for the better.
We all deserve a better future. We all deserve our voices to be heard.
And that is exactly the cause we should all be fighting for.
After all the endless months of bickering, braggadocio and blatant attention-seeking, the day of destiny for British democracy has finally arrived.
Today, the Commons votes on Theresa May's plan to secure an orderly withdrawal from the EU.
In the Mail's view, the choice before MPs is simple: accept a deal which delivers the main planks of Brexit — and provides the stability the nation yearns for. Or lead us into a dark and hazardous unknown.
So to honourable members of all stripes, we make this plea. Before entering the division lobby at such a pivotal moment in our constitutional history, put personal prejudice aside and think very hard about where the overriding national interest lies.
This country stands on the edge of a precipice — social as well as economic. MPs have the power today to pull us back from the brink — or push us over.
The stakes could hardly be higher. If they fail now, public trust in our political class may be shattered beyond redemption. It is already at a dangerously low ebb.
For more than two years, the Brexit debate has sucked every ounce of political energy from both Westminster and Whitehall, leaving domestic policy in a state of suspended animation. Violent crime spirals, we have a looming energy gap, the railways are manifestly failing, fast broadband roll-out has stalled and the prison system has descended into squalor and chaos.
There is still no resolution in sight to the acute elderly care crisis, and the NHS — despite a huge new injection of cash — remains in desperate need of reform and renewal.
Yet vital as these issues are to the well-being of our society, they have been neglected as MPs have obsessed over Brexit, and Brexit alone.
And with no viable alternative on offer, if Theresa May's deal is rejected this appalling policy vacuum will go on, with Parliament plunged into even greater paralysis than now.
Doesn't the British public deserve better from those they pay to govern? Tired of the constant squabbling, they long for a return to stability so they can get on with their lives.
In every recent poll, a majority of Tory voters have backed Mrs May's deal, and support among other parties also appears to be on the rise. Unlike our stubborn Parliamentarians, ordinary voters see the virtue of compromise and common sense.
The polls also show how much the public admire the Prime Minister's resolve and tenacity, as she has worked tirelessly to achieve an agreement which — while far from ideal — would deliver Brexit without the economic chaos that crashing out with no deal would bring. And be under no illusion, economic chaos there would be. No deal is the outcome British business fears most of all.
Although our employment, inflation and growth figures have been among the best in Europe since the 2008 crash, business leaders believe leaving the EU with no agreement on trade and borders would bring that recovery shuddering to a halt.
Investment has already dried up in anticipation of problems, and a disorderly exit could prompt a hugely damaging flight of capital and jobs.
Yet despite the dire warnings, all the predictions are that Mrs May's deal will be heavily defeated today, as purists on both sides of the argument put perfection before pragmatism.
On one hand, the hard Brexiteers want a clean break, with little or no transition period and no £39 billion divorce payment. This would inevitably lead to hard borders and damaging WTO tariffs on British goods and services being sold to the EU.
On the other, committed Remainers want the closest possible relationship with Brussels. Indeed, some would like to overturn the referendum result completely — which Mrs May rightly said yesterday would be 'a perversion of democracy'.
But instead of constantly carping about the flaws in Mrs May's deal, perhaps her critics should take a close look at what it does offer.
On March 29, the UK would leave the European Union, as requested by an overwhelming Commons majority when it voted to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.
To avoid any economic cliff-edge, there would be a bedding-in period of at least 21 months. During that time, we would remain in the customs union and single market while preparations were made for new trading relationships to be introduced.
At the end of the process, we would be back in charge of our own immigration policy, would no longer be subservient to EU law and would stop having to pay vast annual subscriptions to Brussels.
In other words, we would regain control of our borders, laws and money. Wasn't that what Brexit was supposed to be about?
None of the other suggested options comes close to matching the benefits (quite apart from the fact that none of them could command a Commons majority).
The so-called Norway option concedes freedom of movement and the primacy of EU law. Permanent membership of the customs union would also leave us in thrall to the European Court and with even less control over our own trade policy than we have now. The perils of no deal need no further explanation.
Then there's the so-called 'People's Vote', promoted almost exclusively by those who want to stay in the EU. But we've already had a people's vote and Remain lost. What legitimacy could a second referendum have? What would be the question? Should there be more than one option?
In any case, it would probably be another close vote — proving that the country is as divided as ever, but solving nothing.
True, there is still the vexed question of the backstop. Under Mrs May's deal, if, at the end of the implementation period, a trading agreement has not been finalised, Northern Ireland could effectively remain in the single market after the rest of the country leaves.
Naturally, the DUP (on whose support the Government relies for its majority), opposes any measure which treats the Province differently from the rest of the UK. This is why Mrs May secured further written guarantees from Brussels yesterday that the backstop is a last resort and, if entered into, would be temporary.
Meanwhile, there were other glimmers of hope for Mrs May yesterday. Several committed Tory Eurosceptics said they would support the deal rather than risk no Brexit. Tory Remainers including Nick Boles, Oliver Letwin and Nicky Morgan (who only two days ago were alleged to be plotting a coup) said they would support it in the first instance rather than risk no deal.
Even some Labour MPs, despairing of their leader's utter cluelessness, conceded it was the best (indeed the only) deal on offer.
But almost everyone involved in this unedifying saga has had a vested interest in taking it to the brink, and to hell with what's really best for Britain.
The 'People's Vote' brigade hope that if we get to March 29 with no deal, they may achieve their second referendum. Some Tory Remainers hope that if Mrs May's deal goes down, Parliament may be able to take over the Brexit process and dilute it until it's virtually meaningless.
And those hardest of hard Brexiteers, the European Research Group, believe that if this deal is killed off, Britain will eventually leave without a deal by default.
It's almost as if they are treating this country's destiny as some sort of parlour game. It's not. Their actions today will affect real people, with real families and real jobs, and that should be at the forefront of their minds.
If this agreement does fall, the ERG must understand that the most likely scenario is no Brexit at all — or one so weak that it would leave us in a far worse position than we are in now.
Is that really a risk they are prepared to take?
For the sake of their party — which risks being torn apart by this visceral feuding — and their country, they should take another hard look at the deal, put their pride behind them and reflect on its merits. A compromise Brexit is surely better than no Brexit.
As Mrs May said yesterday: 'When the history books are written, people will look at the decision of this House and ask: "Did we deliver on the country's vote to leave the EU — or did we let the British people down?" '
The Mail wholeheartedly agrees. And to all MPs on this momentous day we make this passionate and heartfelt call: Put your country first.
There is no clear alternative to Theresa May’s deal that could command a majority in parliament. Defeat is a recipe for chaos
Whatever Theresa May hoped to achieve by delaying the parliamentary vote on her Brexit deal for five weeks, it plainly hasn’t worked. If she thought she could use the time to secure better terms from Brussels, she got her answer yesterday. A letter from Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker offered nothing that might win over hardline Brexiteers: no time limit on the backstop or unilateral exit mechanism.
The council and commission presidents simply confirmed that Brussels wants the backstop to be replaced as soon as possible by a new relationship. In the absence of fantastical solutions, the only way to guarantee continued frictionless trade in Ireland will be to turn the backstop’s temporary all-UK customs union into a permanent one. No one is fooled...
Today, the House of Commons finally holds its “meaningful” vote on the Withdrawal Agreement negotiated between the Government and the EU. Ever since Theresa May peremptorily pulled the vote that was meant to take place before Christmas, political debate has been dominated by everything apart from the detail of the agreement itself. There have been attempts to scare MPs into thinking that a no-deal Brexit would be so terrible that Mrs May’s deal should be accepted, warts and all. But that backfired when it became clear that no-deal planning was more advanced, in the UK and EU, than many had been led to believe. In any case, as the Prime Minister once used to say, no deal is better than a bad deal,...
IF the EU hadn’t repeatedly boasted that it now had us over a barrel, yesterday’s last-gasp letter from Juncker and Tusk might have carried some weight with MPs.
Why would we trust Brussels now?
Its earnest promises that the Irish backstop would only be temporary are not legally binding — and Theresa May will still lose heavily tonight.
This destruction of good faith is the EU’s fault.
Immediately after the PM made her deal, President Macron bragged that Brussels would now blackmail us over fishing rights.
EU chief Martin Selmayr reportedly said “losing Northern Ireland was the price the UK would pay for Brexit”.
Brussels has told EU members the deal would shackle us to its laws for years.
Their motivation all along was to punish Britain — and they’re lining up more for the future trade talks.
Mrs May needs more than a promise. Maybe it will come after her defeat.
TORY lIAR Dominic Grieve is setting fire to our Parliament and democracy.
Here is a man who promised voters in 2017 that the referendum verdict “must be respected” and any fears that Parliament would thwart it “were entirely misplaced”. He meant none of it.
Parliament is not only plotting to thwart Brexit, Grieve is behind it.
Always a rabid Remainer, he is the architect of a sickening ruse to strip the Government of power and halt Brexit.
It is an act of naked contempt for 17.4million ordinary people. An attempt by a sneering elite to nullify their decision so the “right people” can get their way.
They are saying: democracy is worthless. Your votes only count if we agree.
Anyone in Cabinet backing this insanity should be fired. They would destroy Brexit and gift power to Corbyn.
We have never seen any political act as dangerous.
Kremlin dupes
WHAT a surprise. Young lefties have queued up to be the useful idiots in Britain-bashing propaganda films being secretly funded by the Kremlin.
Russia cannot believe its luck finding so many unwitting hard-left posers eager to spew out their grudges and aid its campaign to destabilise the West.
One is pretend journalist Owen Jones — a dim, breathtakingly unpleasant and hypocritical troll who criticises the morality of others while campaigning to install Jeremy Corbyn, the anti-Semitic terrorists’ stooge, in Downing Street.
The same Corbyn who made money on the state channel of Iran’s monstrously oppressive and homophobic rulers.
Odd how the left-wing mob, who hold to a childlike view of politics as a simple battle between good and evil, never seem to worry they’re on the wrong side.
If all it takes for Tesco to start selling cheap chocolate is the complete collapse of our political system then maybe we should just have brexit every 3 years.
Peter Crisp wrote:If all it takes for Tesco to start selling cheap chocolate is the complete collapse of our political system then maybe we should just have brexit every 3 years.
Once we crash out and Fox/JRM get their American free trade deal we will all be forced to eat Hershey's.
IF the EU hadn’t repeatedly boasted that it now had us over a barrel, yesterday’s last-gasp letter from Juncker and Tusk might have carried some weight with MPs.
Why would we trust Brussels now?
Its earnest promises that the Irish backstop would only be temporary are not legally binding — and Theresa May will still lose heavily tonight.
This destruction of good faith is the EU’s fault.
Immediately after the PM made her deal, President Macron bragged that Brussels would now blackmail us over fishing rights.
EU chief Martin Selmayr reportedly said “losing Northern Ireland was the price the UK would pay for Brexit”.
Brussels has told EU members the deal would shackle us to its laws for years.
Their motivation all along was to punish Britain — and they’re lining up more for the future trade talks.
Mrs May needs more than a promise. Maybe it will come after her defeat.
TORY lIAR Dominic Grieve is setting fire to our Parliament and democracy.
Here is a man who promised voters in 2017 that the referendum verdict “must be respected” and any fears that Parliament would thwart it “were entirely misplaced”. He meant none of it.
Parliament is not only plotting to thwart Brexit, Grieve is behind it.
Always a rabid Remainer, he is the architect of a sickening ruse to strip the Government of power and halt Brexit.
It is an act of naked contempt for 17.4million ordinary people. An attempt by a sneering elite to nullify their decision so the “right people” can get their way.
They are saying: democracy is worthless. Your votes only count if we agree.
Anyone in Cabinet backing this insanity should be fired. They would destroy Brexit and gift power to Corbyn.
We have never seen any political act as dangerous.
Kremlin dupes
WHAT a surprise. Young lefties have queued up to be the useful idiots in Britain-bashing propaganda films being secretly funded by the Kremlin.
Russia cannot believe its luck finding so many unwitting hard-left posers eager to spew out their grudges and aid its campaign to destabilise the West.
One is pretend journalist Owen Jones — a dim, breathtakingly unpleasant and hypocritical troll who criticises the morality of others while campaigning to install Jeremy Corbyn, the anti-Semitic terrorists’ stooge, in Downing Street.
The same Corbyn who made money on the state channel of Iran’s monstrously oppressive and homophobic rulers.
Odd how the left-wing mob, who hold to a childlike view of politics as a simple battle between good and evil, never seem to worry they’re on the wrong side.
All I had to do was read that Sun article and suddenly everything makes sense. It comes across as someone practically foaming at the mouth pointing at their perceived "enemies" and screaming "THEM! IT'S THEM! THEY ARE THE CAUSE OF ALL YOUR MISERY! TRAITORS!". To have articles with that kind of tone and bile in a national "newspaper" and it's no wonder we are where we are.
