The Brexit Negotiations

If we were to have a 2nd Referendum, how would you vote?


  • Total voters
    54
Mar 6, 2014
7,618
3,342
So all the ammendments were shot down tonight. Does that mean article 50 cannot be extended? Or only extended for certain reasons?

This shit is so confusing.
It means we now request an extension until June 30th.
 

Setanta

BAD MOTHERFUCKER
May 24, 2013
6,370
1,996
Emain Macha
anybody notice the stitch up there?

Bryant withrew his amendment that the "Mays deal may not be bought back again for another vote"

That amendment would have been rejected indicating the house wished to vote on it again...

Who wants a bet the speaker asked him to withdraw it so that HE can refuse to bring it back?

Fucking disgrace
A bit of a paradox there, Dom ?

Many of the same folks who argue that a second referendum would be undemocratic (preposterous proposition !) seem to have no trouble with a second vote on the May deal and....
even a third vote.....or a fourth vote !
 

Ernest Shackleton

Moderate Assadist
Jun 8, 2013
14,768
5,264
Bercow has chosen the following amendments to be voted on tonight:
  • AMENDMENT H: Wollaston - Instructs the PM to request an extension of Article 50 in order to hold a second referendum.
  • AMENDMENT I: Benn - Extend Article 50 to find a way forward with majority support, by taking control of parliamentary time on 20th March.
  • AMENDMENT E: Corbyn - Extend Article 50 to avoid leaving without a deal, and to provide parliamentary time for the House to find a majority for a different approach.
  • AMENDMENT J: Bryant - Prevent the government from holding another Meaningful Vote as it has already been rejected by parliament.
The slag refused to call an amendment with 160 signatories, cross party, ruling out a 2nd Ref...completely shameless at this point
Quality our forum. Debating amendment by amendment.

Who would have thought it!
 
Reactions: Dazl1212
Mar 6, 2014
7,618
3,342
Brexit secretary Steve Barclay closing the debate..

"it is time for the house to act in the national interest, it is time to put forward an extension that is realistic"

Then he voted against it :lol:

And now he's trotting off to Brussels to arrange it :lol:

Meanwhile the ex Brexit secretary voted for it. :lol:
 
Mar 6, 2014
7,618
3,342
A bit of a paradox there, Dom ?

Many of the same folks who argue that a second referendum would be undemocratic (preposterous proposition !) seem to have no trouble with a second vote on the May deal and....
even a third vote.....or a fourth vote !
Not comparable for me sir
 
Jun 28, 2013
2,671
1,179
UK
The government are just fucking cuntish aren't they. A government should act in the national interest. If they felt it's in the national interest to stay in the EU then they should have put the argument forward and arranged a second referendum. At the moment they are wasting time and causing more uncertainty.
 

Dazl1212

Ripley, strong independent woman who don't no man
May 16, 2013
18,897
5,384
UK
The government are just fucking cuntish aren't they. A government should act in the national interest. If they felt it's in the national interest to stay in the EU then they should have put the argument forward and arranged a second referendum. At the moment they are wasting time and causing more uncertainty.
If they felt that way, it may have been useful for them to make a decent argument before the first referendum.
 
Reactions: mandela
Nov 19, 2018
1,861
1,146
35
A bit of a paradox there, Dom ?

Many of the same folks who argue that a second referendum would be undemocratic (preposterous proposition !) seem to have no trouble with a second vote on the May deal and....
even a third vote.....or a fourth vote !
such as who?!
 
May 16, 2013
7,377
5,467
Richard Littlejohn in today's Daily Fail:
Any chance of securing a dignified exit from the EU was scuppered on Wednesday night, when MPs voted to take No Deal off the table.

What’s the point of entering any kind of negotiation when your opponents know there’s no chance of you walking away without a deal, no matter how derisory?

About the same as agreeing to pay a £39 billion bill up front, I guess, without knowing what you’re going to get in return. If you’re not prepared to walk away empty-handed, you’re going to get taken to the cleaners.'
Seriously, why the fuck would anyone of sound mind be happy with this?
 
Reactions: Clarence Worley

mandela

CHB Führer
May 16, 2013
21,290
9,340
Scotland
Richard Littlejohn in today's Daily Fail:

Seriously, why the fuck would anyone of sound mind be happy with this?
The 39b was never up for negotiation.

They owed the fuckin' money, ffs.

If you're arguing that a union of countries such as the so called UK should threaten to default on a 39b liability then then you've literally no clue about politics or finance.

There's about a trillion things you could highlight to shame how that government handled this situation but the 39b is probably the only honorable things they actually have done.
 
Mar 6, 2014
7,618
3,342
The 39b was never up for negotiation.

They owed the fuckin' money, ffs.

If you're arguing that a union of countries such as the so called UK should threaten to default on a 39b liability then then you've literally no clue about politics or finance.

There's about a trillion things you could highlight to shame how that government handled this situation but the 39b is probably the only honorable things they actually have done.
The bulk of the 39 billion isn't 'owed'... Its effectively membership fees for the transition period.
 
Reactions: Clarence Worley
Nov 19, 2018
1,861
1,146
35
The 39b was never up for negotiation.

They owed the fuckin' money, ffs.

If you're arguing that a union of countries such as the so called UK should threaten to default on a 39b liability then then you've literally no clue about politics or finance.

There's about a trillion things you could highlight to shame how that government handled this situation but the 39b is probably the only honorable things they actually have done.
Its more like 50 and no they dont and its not legally due a penny

There is no doubt you are wrong. Legal and finance professionals know better than you.

As usual you just want whats bad for the UK - thats all you are about
 
Reactions: beat down
May 16, 2013
7,377
5,467
The 39b was never up for negotiation.

They owed the fuckin' money, ffs.

If you're arguing that a union of countries such as the so called UK should threaten to default on a 39b liability then then you've literally no clue about politics or finance.

There's about a trillion things you could highlight to shame how that government handled this situation but the 39b is probably the only honorable things they actually have done.
It was part of his quote, blame him. Never said I was clever.