For those against this there is no need to blame the EU, BJ or anyone else it seems. See:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49234603
A bit crazy how our country's future has been affected by so few opposition MPs (voting against their own party)!
"Eight Labour MPs voted against the motion tabled by their party - had they voted in favour the motion would have passed with a majority of five."
https://www.itv.com/news/2019-06-12/mps-vote-labour-bill-block-no-deal-b...
Replies (28)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
This isn't a question and it isn't about accounting.
There are plenty of places you can post about politics if you want but I assume it's not what most people visit this site for.
No-different to you blaming the Labour MPs and no-one else for voting the same way. What about the 6 Tory and/or other MPs that could also have secured the "desired" outcome?
MSN headline yesterday (next to a picture of the PM) was "too late to stop no-deal Brexit" or similar.
I read it as "too late to get a deal". It meant "Parliament can no longer stop no deal". Headlines are a crap way of getting your news. (That comment is aimed at me, not you.)
But... in my tiny little mind, if there isn't a deal to be had, stopping "no deal" means stopping Brexit. To pick up on the theme of some of the comments, this wouldn't involve ignoring (half?) a million votes - it would involve ignoring 17 million.
It was a misguided, stupid referendum - but that horse has bolted.
Why- there is a facility to post questions labelled" Time Out" .
I ,for one, have made use of this and posted non accountancy "Any Answers" questions/points in the past.
Frankly if Sift decide they get to choose what is posted and removes these sorts of posts when there is nothing offensive about the post, then posting on here becomes pointless.
Free Justin. Free Justin. Free Justin....................
Much as it pains me to say it.... free Just... free Ju....
I can't quite get it out of my fingers, but I agre...
I've always been [***] at numbers - silly old me, thinking that all 309 noes were jointly and severally responsible for the rejected motion. Now I see that actually they could have all stayed at home as it is only the votes of 6* labour MPs that actually matter.
*Six. or Eight. The OP is a little unclear on this.
Yes, he obviously never had to work out whether overtime was an overhead or a direct cost ... same principle.
It's no more crazy than allowing the country's future to be decided by a single voter (as could have happened).
if only 1.2 million people hadn't been deluded into thinking Brexit was a good idea....we can ignore the other 32 million.....yeah that makes complete sense.....
We don't at this stage know what is going to happen when parliament resits or indeed whether or not an emergency meeting of parliament will be called in some way.
There'll be a no deal Brexit only if a deal isn't made (and ratified on both sides) before Brexit happens.
The default was always no deal, because reaching a deal requires agreement (that's just a synonym, of course).
We are past the anniversary of the Chequers agreement - and almost at the anniversary of "chuck Chequers". What a waste of a year.
And what a further waste of parliamentary time trying to block the default position.
Am I alone in being confused as to why politicians used to think that they could force Teresa May to make a deal with the EU that the EU didn’t want?
And parliament regularly refused not making a deal, just didn’t like the only deal she could get?
Cake, eat? Or hardball negotiating from the weak position? Or just plain stupidity?
As is too often the case, Justin's headline belies the content of his post by promoting his own biased view.
There are two things wrong with his analysis. Firstly, the implication that all the Tory MPs that voted for to block this motion are blameless. Secondly that MPs should be automatons that always vote in the party line.
Only those two?
Oh, you mean "two more", some of the others already having being listed above.
A no deal Brexit hasn't happened. Even if it does happen, it won't be the "fault" of six Labour MPs. If it doesn't happen, you might have to thank those same six MPs.
(as you can hardly blame Tories for voting for their own Government can you?),
Therein lies the problem - they shouldn't have been voting for their Government. The future (uncertainty) of this country as a consequence of Brexit has nothing to do with politics (I have said all along that the process should have been in the hands of Parliament from the start - although the chances of that having expedited any agreement would have been slim).
The point is that when the public voted in the referendum they were not voting for a political outcome. As a consequence politicians of all colours should have been allowed to vote with their conscience and not forced to vote along party lines. Some did, and paid a price. So I refuse to blame one politician any more or less than any other for getting us into this mess - except perhaps for Messrs Blair and Cameron. And the person in the Referendum Commission or whatever it is called that thought it a good idea to allow such an important issue to be determined by, potentially, a single voter. That voter could have been me, as I was undecided until the very last minute.
I suspect a lot of "leave" voters voted that way because the EU had become political... so you could say that they were indeed voting for a non-political outcome.
(I'm playing with your words, of course - but I reckon there's truth in the play.)
What do you think the Commissioner should have said?
I believe that in any situation where there is the possibility of such a significant and permanent departure from the status quo then a 'super' majority is required, say 60% of those voting, and/or a minimum % of the total electorate. I seem to recall that such a condition was imposed in a previous referendum in Scotland (well before the 2014 one). I'm not saying that the result would be any more right than a simple majority but it would at least, in the event of such a majority win, leave the 'losers' with the solace that the result is what the country really wants.
"The Scottish referendum of 1979 was a post-legislative referendum to decide whether there was sufficient support for a Scottish Assembly proposed in the Scotland Act 1978 among the Scottish electorate. This was an act to create a devolved deliberative assembly for Scotland. An amendment to the Act stipulated that it would be repealed if less than 40% of the total electorate voted "Yes" in the referendum. The result was that 51.6% supported the proposal, but with a turnout of 64%, this represented only 32.9% of the registered electorate.The Act was subsequently repealed."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_Scottish_devolution_referendum
Yet another one I am old enough to both remember and have voted in at the time.
2/3rds used to be a standard (in some organisations - I don't know about the UK) for constitutional change.
I can see the logic.
But we joined a Common Market (on the basis that it was about trade - and trade alone). When were "the people" consulted about joining the EU? Where was the 2/3rds/60%/whatever majority requirement post Maastricht? It didn't really get to a constitutional level of involvement until 1993 (I accept I may need to be corrected on what happened when, but the points stand).
"I grew so rich that I was sent
By a pocket borough into Parliament.
I always voted at my party's call,
And I never thought of thinking for myself at all.
I thought so little, they rewarded me
By making me the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!"