Dulwich MP Helen Hayes votes against the Brexit Bill

[Otta]

For what it's worth, I think your post was basically very good. But using the "stupid" bit from the start probably lost you your audience before you'd got your point across.

[JoeLeg]

I'm not sorry about it.

Ice tried, I've really tried for months now. Once the initial shock wore off, I accepted the result, and started to look to the future. And anytime I've pointed out how things could go wrong I was told I'm talking down Britain, that I should get behind it all, that we have to work together. I'm so fed up of being asked to display this blind faith that our government will deliver a deal which is better for England and to not question anything! Why can't I question if? Why does voting Remain mean that I'm not allowed to be part of what happens now?

So when I see someone saying that MP's shouldn't vote against Art. 50, despite their constituency voting to Remain, I get really angry. We're being asked to pretend that we never felt how we did, to abandon values we hold dear.

I can live in a country which moves in a different direction to the one I asked for - that's part of democracy - but don't ask me to shut up and stop questioning things. Don't call judges enemies of the people. Don't tell us the will of the people is being ignored - because it isn't.

I've had enough. If people want to continue telling me my opinion doesn't count, then I will continue to tell them they are stupid when they say stupid things.

Who the hell do you all think we clean hospitals and offices, pick fruit and veg, wash dishes and sweep streets? Because young, white, British people too often (not always) don't want those jobs. And soon we won't be able to blame the EU for our problems and we'll have to ask ourselves some hard questions about who we are.

I'd rather ask those questions now. So how about some Brexit supporters stop slapping us down as soon as we open our mouths and start listening to our concerns?

Also, you want the first use of the word stupid? It's right here, from Stringvest...

"

If remain had won, would all the leavers be kicking up such a fuss and saying its not fair? Do it again? Best of 3 .. STUPIDITY."

Well, two points. Firstly Nigel Farage openly stated that a 52% victory for Remain would not be enough, that it "would not be over". So yes, there's s prominent leave voter right there would not have accepted a Remain win under identical conditions to the Leave win that occurred.

Also, no, I don't believe for one moment that Leave voters would have shut up and gone quietly into the night. And not should they have. They are allowed to fight for what they believe in, as are we all.

[Zebedee Tring]

And what happened to the Tory 2015 manifesto commitment which was worded something along the lines of "We say yes to the Single Market"?

[red devil]

Breaking news from The Guardian...

Government makes concession on article 50 giving MPs vote on final Brexit deal before it is signed

Starmer says the central point he is making is that a vote in the Commons must be before the deal is concluded.

David Jones, the Brexit minister, gets up. He hopes to be helpful, he says. He says in his speech later he will talk about how the vote will work. But he can make some announcements now.

Jones says the government?s vote will cover withdrawal from the EU, and the UK?s future relationship with the EU.

He says both Houses of Parliament will get a vote on the final deal before the deal is concluded.

He says parliament will vote on the deal before the European parliament does.

Starmer says this is an important concession. He welcomes it.

[jaywalker]

I am speechless.

Is parliament really this craven and stupid?

The government has made perfectly clear that this promise will be a 'take it or leave it' vote: when the time comes, vote against it and all the negotiations will be null and void and there will be a vanilla break (the dream of the swivel-eyed members of her cabinet - still actually a minority but the rest are running scared).

The only hope is that there will be a general election before this vote.

[Abe_froeman]

Were you hoping the option would be to vote to reject the deal and then just carry on as if the referendum had never happened?

[jaywalker]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Were you hoping the option would be to vote to

> reject the deal and then just carry on as if the

> referendum had never happened?

I was hoping that there would be a democratic (in the sense of representative government) review of what it would mean were we to take the course negotiated by the government.

It is absolutely undemocratic to rely on a referendum vote (or to have a referendum) - and Parliament is being supine in the face of that monstrosity.

[Abe_froeman]

The concession referred to above came out today on the fourth day on which parliament has debated our exit after the referendum and after the highest court in the land ordered them to talk about it. It's anythimg but supine.

[Otta]

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm not sorry about it.

Never said you should be. I basically agree with you, I am fed up with being told that because I was part of the 48% (tiny insignificant minority which that seems to be apparently),I should just shut up.

My point really was just that if you wanted to say "stupid idiot", you might have been better off putting it at the end rather than beginning of your rant ;-)

[jaywalker]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The concession referred to above came out today on

> the fourth day on which parliament has debated our

> exit after the referendum and after the highest

> court in the land ordered them to talk about it.

> It's anythimg but supine.

It is not a concession, it is game of chicken. (see game theory 'game of chicken').

It is increasingly likely that we will not brexit. Independently 1. there may well not be an EU to exit (see Greek gilt prices and the Fallon scandal) 2. the house of lords 3. no agreement will be made by the EU (whatever our own dreams) before the next general election (the lib-dems will then rightly reverse the undemocratic referendum nonsense).

[Abe_froeman]

We'll see, but the lords and the lib dems are toothless. The parliament act deals with the lords and the lib dems have 10 votes out of 650.

The prime minister is determined and no one argues that once article 50 notice has been served (before the end of March) it is irrevocable and our exit is set in stone.

[????]

jaywalker Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Abe_froeman Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > The concession referred to above came out today

> on

> > the fourth day on which parliament has debated

> our

> > exit after the referendum and after the highest

> > court in the land ordered them to talk about

> it.

> > It's anythimg but supine.

>

> It is not a concession, it is game of chicken.

> (see game theory 'game of chicken').

>

> It is increasingly likely that we will not brexit.

> Independently 1. there may well not be an EU to

> exit (see Greek gilt prices and the Fallon

> scandal) 2. the house of lords 3. no agreement

> will be made by the EU (whatever our own dreams)

> before the next general election (the lib-dems

> will then rightly reverse the undemocratic

> referendum nonsense).

You honestly believe a LD going to the country with a manifesto commitment to reverse Brexit will get elected....you're bonkers.

[jaywalker]

I think it is 50:50 whether they will hold the balance of power: they do not need a majority.

Why do you always go for the absolute dismissal ("bonkers") rather than engaging with the points being made?

[????]

I think it's about 1/4 they'll hold the balance of power

And you think that a Labour Party will support "a reverse the referendum" line? Really? Bonkers was a lighthearted way of saying delusional, which you are on this. There is no way the referendum get's reversed - even with the LDs holding balance of power ...i think your scenario that the EU doesn't exist in its current state is a more likely halt to Brexit.

[Zebedee Tring]

The supine behaviour of supposedly pro Remain Labour, whose Leader is basically pro Brexit, has been miserable. Just when an effective opposition is needed, with a nominally pro Remain PM running scared and afraid not to indulge the extreme right of her party, we have the chaos that is Corbyn Labour and the almost literally decimated Lib Dems with only 8/9 MPs left.

[red devil]

Way too little, way too late... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/09/real-fight-starts-now-jeremy-corbyn-brexit-tweet

[Jenny1]

I don't imagine he's had a minute to think about it. He's been far too busy sorting out the Suez Crisis and the Vietnam War.

[Zebedee Tring]

When he isn't busy in his allotment or making jam.

[Jenny1]

It's clearly a full schedule.

[derwentgrove]

Comrade Corbyn aside, I see that Helen Hayes again defied the Labour whip yesterday. Specifically, during the committee stage of the Bill, she supported the doomed Liberal Democrat amendment that there be a second referendum on the terms of the Brexit deal.

I'm struggling to understand the logic/consistency in the following sequence:

1. Voting to support a national referendum Bill on whether to remain in the EU.

2. Deciding not to respect the national referendum result on the basis that it is important to respect the result

in one constituency (Dulwich & W Norwood)

3. Supporting a second national referendum.

I accept that all of 1, 2 and 3 above are absolutely HH's prerogative and that she is entitled to take a view on what she perceives to be the best interests of her constituents or the country at any given time. However I can't help thinking that she might have been better off voting against the first referendum being held at all if she wanted to remain in the EU. Having now decided to ignore the result of one national vote it seems bizarre that she should now support another one.

[Abe_froeman]

I think some Labour party members wanted the referendum because they were confident Remain would win and hopeful that the fallout and subsequent loss of support to UKIP would tear the tories apart.

They never contemplated the possibility Leave could win.

[red devil]

derwentgrove Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> However I can't help thinking that she might have been better off

> voting against the first referendum being held at

> all if she wanted to remain in the EU.

In hindsight yes, but she probably felt at the time like a lot of Remainers, that Remain would win a referendum. Cameron obviously did. Something tells ne you would've been complaining had she voted against having a referendum, ''undemocratic etc etc''

> Having now decided to ignore the result of one national vote

> it seems bizarre that she should now support

> another one.

Not really, with the first referendum it was a simplistic, binary choice of in or out, but now we know much more about what Brexit actually entails, in particular that it will be a hard Brexit, a second referendum would've been a vote on the actual Brexit deal, not on a load of scaremongering/broken promises which plagued the first referendum...

[Otta]

He is the most unfunny joke in the history of jokes.

[Otta]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think some Labour party members wanted the

> referendum because they were confident Remain

> would win and hopeful that the fallout and

> subsequent loss of support to UKIP would tear the

> tories apart.

>

> They never contemplated the possibility Leave

> could win.

I think that's a pretty sound theory.

[jaywalker]

Huge thanks to the House of Lords for showing some resistance this evening.