JohnfromUK

He is (was) an M.P. Such quality would be unknown to him, but I try to take people at their word. To be fair, he did resign when he was defeated saying as a remainer he would be the wrong person to carry out a 'leave'. That shows integrity in defeat! The fact that it has resulted in many of the mistakes I have made in life perhaps should teach me a lesson, but then - old dog, new trick? Thank you - I have tried to state facts not opinions

Cameron, who called the referendum was VERY clear; Leave means leave were his words I think. Nevertheless, it was, still is and was FULLY AGREED by Parliament You cannot put genies back in boxes - no more can you just 'ignore' a democratic referendum result. No, it hasn't been 'normal', but it has been very long - and with a new P.M in place - 'a stop and restart' with a new Queens speech seems good sound sense to me. Well - they should be able to - like they should have seen and understood the backstop (bad word - I mean 'no deal') in article 50. Never underestimate an MP's stupidity - that way they will never catch you by surprise!

My point was that they only planned to win - and that didn't need much of plan as it was 'status quo'. Typical complacency of bullies like the EU and lazy slackers like Cameron But the process involved Parliament at ALL stages; this idea now that they have had no time to discuss it, or "No deal" wasn't ever a 'real option' is absolute rubbish in polite terms! You cannot just 'pull the plug' - because a promise was made - and has to be carried through. This idea that "it all got a bit hard, so we cancelled it" is nonsense. When it gets hard, you have to get in some hard nosed operators and get a bit hard with the obstacles - in this case Parliament. The truth is that by proroguing, Johnson has cost Parliament about 4 or 5 days of business - because they would have recessed anyway for the party conference season for 3 weeks. It is normal to prorogue after a session - and this last session has been the longest since the 18th century. Normally Parliamentary sessions finish annually with a new session starting by a Queens speech - just as Johnson has arranged this time. He has not 'taken over like a dictator' as McDonnell claims, Parliament will reopen with a Queens speech in the normal way on 14th October. It just happens that this end of session coincides with the party conference season, making it a longer closure than usual. It is the Prime Minister's choice when he wants a new session and Johnson has very sensibly used it to his advantage. That is within the power of the Prime Minister - who is the only Government or Parliament official who can 'advise' the Queen as I understand the way it works. That is what Prime Ministers do. Corbyn, Swinson, or Uncle Tom Cobleigh M.P. and all cannot simply get an audience and 'advise' the Queen. They are simply M.Ps.

The whole referendum process was approved by Parliament. Cameron made the pledge to hold a referendum if he won in order to gain/hold seats he thought he might loose due to influence of UKIP splitting leave votes Cameron tried to negotiate some concessions from the EU to enable him to win the referendum based on a remain campaign The EU gave virtually nothing and showed him the door (something I suspect they now regret) with smug grins Cameron held the referendum (June 2016) expecting remain to win despite having the ground pulled from under him by Juncker & Co. The bill to hold it, the detailed question and all the process was fully agreed by Parliament. We were clearly told that "leave meant leave", customs union, single market and all. Remain lost Cameron resigned May came to be P.M. Promises to honour the referendum result - with the phrase "no deal is better than a bad deal" Parliament passes the Article 50 bill, by a decent majority with again full oversight and approval by Parliament. It clearly contains a fixed end date of March 2019 May hold a General Election on with Labour and Tory both campaign promising to leave. Tory minority government results with Labour (who campaigned on a leaving ticket) the second biggest party. BY FAR the majority of all MPs had campaigned on a promise to honour the referendum result. May gets a 'deal' from the EU, but it is rejected - she goes back to the EU who show her the door (rather as they did with Cameron) and her deal fails twice more despite trying to work with Labour who also show her the door. A new date is set of 31st October 2019 (date set by the EU) May resigns to be succeeded by Johnson who promises to leave "deal or no deal" by 31st October 2019. Parliament tries repeatedly to derail Johnsons promise claiming; They had insufficient time No deal wasn't ever an option (despite 'taking it off' being rejected) Johnson prorogues Parliament How can they claim that the question weren't 'clear' and another referendum is needed? They agreed the question at the time How can the claim they have had insufficient time when they have had 3 years? How can they claim 'no deal' wasn't an option when they passed the Article 50 bill and we had very clearly been told the "no deal was better than a bad deal"

and that from a party that campaigned on an election manifesto to see the referendum result carried through - and led (nominally anyway though I believe he is just a tired and rather 'dim' old man put up a a front by McDonnell, Len McLusky, Seaumus Milne, Jon Lansman, Jennie Formby and the Momentum group etc.) by a lifelong leaver.

Parliament has had 3 years during which time they have none nothing but block progress and hamper the negotiations by removing 'no deal'. I don't believe a new Parliament gets to elects a new speaker - but I may be wrong. He may have been a Tory, but he doesn't fit with the current Tory party. The EU have flatly refused to discuss any post Brexit trade deals - so that is simply not correct. No attempt at discussing a post Brexit deal has taken place. Whilst true - lets not forget that they also promised to honour the referendum result in their manifesto. Now they are saying they will hold a new referendum and campaign for Remaining - How is that "honouring the referendum result"? As usual manifesto torn up post election.

Provided the WA 'deal' only lasts to December 2020, then I don't think that is desirable, but I don't see it as a show stopper providing the backstop is removed. With the backstop in - we could (possibly) never escape - and that is a complete No No. Whether £39 billion is good value is another matter. No one has yet told me what the £39 billion is for?

Key to all of this is what is meant by "a deal". Currently we are in the EU, including the single market and customs union Eventually we are to be (all being well) outside the EU, including outside the single market and customs union. How we are able to trade then is what is really important - not the transition period from March (now October) 2019 to December 2020 - which is something of a short term 'red herring'. The May 'deal' was ONLY for a transition period intended to last from March 2019 to December 2020 that kept us (pretty much) in the single market and customs union for that period whilst we regained some control in others, notably immigration. During the transition, trade deals, fishing rights, long term residence rights etc. would be negotiated for trading post the full leave of December 2020. The 'elephant in the room' that was the red line for many was the so called 'backstop' that meant that the full exit in December 2020 could be prevented at the EU (only) discretion, so in theory we could never leave if they said not. That was totally unacceptable. It also involved paying £39 billion for those roughly 20 months as well which was pretty unacceptable too. To get a transition arrangement, you need to know where you are starting from (which we all do) and where you are to finish - which no one does. The SENSIBLE thing would have been to discuss the post December 2020 trade deals so that everyone knew where we would finish. The EU flatly refused to discuss this until the transition deal was signed. That should have been a BIG red flag. The 'deal' so called is really a red herring - what is important is the post leaving arrangements (i.e. those that would apply after December 2020 in the event of a deal) because that is the long term future.

100% agreed; listening to the various interviews on Radio 4 this morning, apart from Jacob Reece Mogg everyone was totally 'outraged' in some cases such as Labours Barry Gardener, so totally outraged he could hardly utter any other word. It reminded me of the sketch in "Yes Minister" where they were all so 'outraged', though I can't remember what that was about!

Whilst I agree, I'm not sure that the 'general public' do. The first poll result I have seen suggests not.

There have been rumours that Her Majesty was a leaver - and rumours that she was a remainer. Truth is she is far to experienced to give any real insight. She will always do her duty correctly with no bias and no interference. She has always been a been stickler for above any 'politics' even when (as in the hunting fiasco) her views were well known.

I like the analogy, but Corbyn could (and would) back out of anything and still claim he has 'the moral high ground'

Labour backed leaving the EU at the last election. Labour has now decided to campaign for remain in a 'peoples vote' which they propose. Labour promised a vote of no confidence as soon as Johnson was elected - but didn't as they know they would probably loose a resultant election Labour cannot be trusted to do anything they say. They will not trigger an election unless they are pretty certain they can win. Corbyn's lefty masters (Momentum and Union bosses) know that they would likely loose votes and control of the party if they keep loosing elections. They have to be confident of a win if they trigger an election.

The Courts CANNOT challenge the Queen (in her capacity as Sovereign) - as they are upholding her law as she is Head of State and Head of the Judiciary. They can only challenge the advice given to the queen. Incidentally, calling for the abolition of the Monarchy (as some might think to do) in print is still technically illegal - sentence life imprisonment under the Treason Felony Act of 1848.

Boris can't simply do that. He needs a 2/3 majority (I think) under the fixed term Parliament Act. If it looked like he might win (which if Farage plays ball is highly likely) - then Labour and SNP might not vote for an election ........ in which case I don't quite know what happens. I guess he has to get one of his own side to call a vote of no confidence - and loose it - then prevent anyone else being able to form a government within 14 days - at which time he gets an election. But he has to EITHER loose a vote of no confidence AND no one else be able to get confidence - OR get a 2/3 majority to disolve Parliament and call an election.

Of course there are views on both sides, and there are a number of senior business people who would see failure to enact the referendum result in a very poor light. The key here is that whether you wish to remain or leave (and I originally voted for remain), once the result is in - you cannot pretend it didn't happen the moment things don't go well - you have to get down and follow through; it's about trust. A major lesson that should be learned is that ANY government making promises needs to be prepared to deliver on those promises - even if the going is tough. You don't (or at least shouldn't) gain respect by simply following the path of lowest resistance. That is where I believe Teresa May fell down badly in her negotiations - and managed to satisfy no one.

I don't agree at all. If we had a referendum ........ and our leaders totally fail to carry out it's result - that would be true, but if we now get on and clearly leave we will be seen to be standing up for ourselves and siezing back the control that was promised.

I am also in exactly that position (though I would prefer a 'decent deal').

Bercow is expressing "outrage". Well - in my view, it has been Bercow's clear bias and his stated aims of preventing 'no deal' that has probably lead to the timing of this action, which whilst not an everyday occurrence, is usually done annually to close a Parliamentary session - followed by a new 'State Opening" in which the Governments business programme is set out. The present Parliament has been in session for longer than usual, and so it is not an untypical measure. A new Parliament should really have a new speaker - since the present incumbent has shown himself to have his own (biassed) agenda - and NOT be the unbiased chairman needed. Those currently expressing 'outrage' include those who were planning to replace the Leader of the largest party by "another" as Prime Minister (possibly Ken Clarke, or Harriet Harman) - a tactic in my view much less 'democratic' and far more 'outrageous' than closing the old Parliamentary session and starting a new one. I read that owing to the practice of shutting over the party conference season anyway, the Prime Ministers move will only loose 4 or 5 days of 'sitting time' anyway.

Sufficiently extended for what? Parliament has been involved in this all along; Parliament agreed to have a referendum Parliament agreed the question to be asked Parliament passed the Article 50 bill which included the original deadline (March 2019) and leaving with no deal if no deal was in place by that date There was a general election - in which BOTH main parties (Labour and Tory) agreed to carry out the referendum result (in their manifestos) - Labour and Tory won a large majority of the seats between them on manifestos promising to leave. ALL (except I think Onasanya's replacement actually) Labour and Tory MPs in Parliament now stood on that manifesto - PROMISING to carry out the referendum result. We failed to leave on 31st March with an extension to 31st October There were European Elections - in which the clear feelings of discontent with not having already left were made very clear (to both main parties) There is NOTHING to be gained by a further extension. Parliament has had over 3 years to get this through ......... and achieved nothing other than confusion and delay. Brexit hasn't happened yet - mainly because Parliament have been completely incompetent, our negotiators have been weak, and their position has been continuously undermined by Parliament taking swipes like removing no deal - which is a vital part of the negotiation position. On this basis - I believe the Prime Minister has done the right thing in taking the best measures he can to fulfil the referendum result and the manifesto promise - and carry through Article 50 AS PASSED BY PARLIAMENT already.

There is an older thread here which tells you who has one.

The BBC is reporting this now. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49493632?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics&link_location=live-reporting-story It is sure to provoke a huge 'row'. (Mods, Please remove if the topic of 'Brexit' is now 'banned', but I hope that this can be a civilised non personal thread on an important topic)

Agreed; there are many many old guns, clocks, other mechanical contrivances in which the springs are in place and working after (in some cases literally hundreds of) years. If a spring is used by design in a way that it needs regular replacement, it is the wrong spring, wrong material, whatever.

What is your age? 62 How frequently do you come into contact with gates and stiles? Weekly Sometimes are the stiles hard to get over? No, generally OK Have you ever not been able to access somewhere because of the stiles? No Why do you go on walks? I like to walk daily How often do you walk? Daily Would you consider using a light weight portable object to help you get over gates and stiles? I have no need for anything

There is a border now; different currency, different VAT rates, different taxation systems/rates etc., different country. It is a border between countries, but it has always (including pre EU times) been quite a 'porous' border. We have clearly stated that we don't intend any 'extra' border facilities. If the EU want some, they/Ireland must install whatever they want. That would be the EU/Ireland's decision - and up to them to implement what they want/consider necessary. If they want more than that - I believe Donald Trump has some designs he might license ........ but again - that is up to the EU.