Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

[Touring Mars]

Be careful what you find funny. May is a remainer. That's the ONLY reason we didn't leave on the original date. She's never managed to get herself to win because that means leaving.

If she is replaced by someone who does actually want to leave then we leave. On the given day. Deal or no deal.

With all respect, I don't agree with this. Theresa May was a Remain supporter, but arguably she has done about as well as anyone else could have in terms of negotiating a way out of the EU.

Among the biggest mistakes she made were trying to please too many people and believing (to the bitter end) that it was possible to leave the EU with a negotiated deal that would be acceptable to a majority of MPs/people. Unfortunately she was wrong and that is the reason why she is now about to be forced out.

But... far from being the beginning of the end, and paving the way for someone else to take command of the situation and 'deliver Brexit', May's resignation is only likely to pave the way for a chaotic mess that will make the previous Brexit negotiations look like a walk in the park.

The unfortunate (and slightly scary) reality is that there is still no clear majority (anywhere) for any one type of exit from the EU, and so putting a staunch Leaver in charge (like Raab or Johnson) is not going to make a 'No Deal' exit any more likely or possible. What it will do, however, is make a negotiated exit from the EU all but impossible too (although that is already pretty much the case already).

The more people that make a mess of Brexit, the more likely it is not to happen at all... but at this rate, that would probably be no bad thing. Remain has always had a very strong trump card - singularity of purpose. Arguably, the single biggest factor that has derailed Brexit is the multiplicity of options that have 'split the vote' to the point where Remain (as a singular option) is more popular than any one Brexit option, even if (and it is a big if) more people still favour leaving the EU than remaining inside.

All I can say is 'Good luck' to whoever succeeds Theresa May, because they are going to need it.

 

[Tired Tyres]

With all respect, I don't agree with this. Theresa May was a Remain supporter, but arguably she has done about as well as anyone else could have in terms of negotiating a way out of the EU.

Among the biggest mistakes she made were trying to please too many people and believing (to the bitter end) that it was possible to leave the EU with a negotiated deal that would be acceptable to a majority of MPs/people. Unfortunately she was wrong and that is the reason why she is now about to be forced out.

But... far from being the beginning of the end, and paving the way for someone else to take command of the situation and 'deliver Brexit', May's resignation is only likely to pave the way for a chaotic mess that will make the previous Brexit negotiations look like a walk in the park.

The unfortunate (and slightly scary) reality is that there is still no clear majority (anywhere) for any one type of exit from the EU, and so putting a staunch Leaver in charge (like Raab or Johnson) is not going to make a 'No Deal' exit any more likely or possible. What it will do, however, is make a negotiated exit from the EU all but impossible too (although that is already pretty much the case already).

The more people that make a mess of Brexit, the more likely it is not to happen at all... but at this rate, that would probably be no bad thing. Remain has always had a very strong trump card - singularity of purpose. Arguably, the single biggest factor that has derailed Brexit is the multiplicity of options that have 'split the vote' to the point where Remain (as a singular option) is more popular than any one Brexit option, even if (and it is a big if) more people still favour leaving the EU than remaining inside.

All I can say is 'Good luck' to whoever succeeds Theresa May, because they are going to need it.

She is a Remainer. She took on the task of leaving the EU when she became PM.

If she had told Parliament that we ARE leaving on the given day. Default position IS no deal. The only way to avoid that is to leave with the deal she'd agreed with the EU.

Name an MP that would tolerate being blamed for Hard Brexit by the voting public other that the looney right of the conservative party.

She couldn't bring herself to do that. She is a Remainer.

 

[TenEightyOne]

If she had told Parliament that we ARE leaving on the given day.

Umm... what makes you think a Prime Minister simply tells parliament what to do? That isn't the case. What is the case is that the elected parliament has made their feelings clear on a number of scenarios and a number of proposed deals.

I get that you just want out of the EU (thanks for asking me whether my citizenship was important to me or not) but I think you're confusing democracy with a dictatorship. I accept it's arguable how much closer we are to the former than the latter but we are closer.

 

[Touring Mars]

If she had told Parliament that we ARE leaving on the given day.

To be fair, she has said that ad nauseum - but Parliament was always going to have the final say on anything.

Default position IS no deal. The only way to avoid that is to leave with the deal she'd agreed with the EU.

The trouble is that the second bit isn't true - there are other ways to avoid a No Deal exit. Ironically, Theresa May's line has been something close to what you have said - she has stuck to the mantra that it is her deal or No Deal, but the reality is that this clearly isn't (and never was) the case, hence why here plan has failed.

While the legal default may be No Deal, No Deal can still be avoided quite easily and it already has been - and until there is a clear majority of MPs in favour of a No Deal exit, it will likely not happen.


edit: Ironically, the best (and perhaps only) hope now for Hard Brexiteers would be a second referendum giving the UK Parliament a clear instruction/mandate for a No Deal exit (as opposed to simply delivering an instruction to 'Leave the EU').

 

[baldgye]

She is a Remainer. She took on the task of leaving the EU when she became PM.

If she had told Parliament that we ARE leaving on the given day. Default position IS no deal. The only way to avoid that is to leave with the deal she'd agreed with the EU.

Name an MP that would tolerate being blamed for Hard Brexit by the voting public other that the looney right of the conservative party.

She couldn't bring herself to do that. She is a Remainer.

When and where was this what people voted for? Brexit was promised to be better than Remaining and a better deal was always promised. Why, if failing that is the default No Deal Brexit? That would make us categorically worse off than Remaining and not what people voted on (no deal was part of Remains 'project fear' if i remember correctly).

 

[Tired Tyres]

When and where was this what people voted for? Brexit was promised to be better than Remaining and a better deal was always promised. Why, if failing that is the default No Deal Brexit? That would make us categorically worse off than Remaining and not what people voted on (no deal was part of Remains 'project fear' if i remember correctly).

We either voted to leave or to remain. It was always going to be the politicians to work out how.

 

[baldgye]

We either voted to leave or to remain. It was always going to be the politicians to work out how.

Ok, but what ever we do*, should be for the best of the country, right?
So after all the **** that has gone on, it's clear that no deal can be made to make us better off... and no deal would make us worse off... so remain is the only clear option that prevents us from being any worse off than we currently are...

So what are you chatting about May being the only reason Brexit hasn't happened?????

 

[Touring Mars]

Ok, but what ever we did, should be for the best of the country, right?

Arguably - but it is also difficult to compare the likely costs and potential benefits - is the likely economic damage caused by Brexit (esp. a No Deal Brexit) a price worth paying for regaining powers from Brussels? And, in spite of the pain/damage of leaving the EU now, how might that compare to the pain of leaving later, if/when the EU pushes for further integration that may require all EU member states to cede considerably more control to Brussels? That's a very difficult one to answer.

it's clear that no deal can be made to make us better off... and no deal would make us worse off... so remain is the only clear option that prevents us from being any worse off than we currently are...

I think it should be remembered that the phrase 'better off' is a relative term, and it is not nearly as straightforward as 'leaving is bad, remaining is good'... The UK probably will be 'worse off' economically if we leave the EU, but the UK economy is still likely to continue growing and the country can still be 'better off' in the future, only not as much as if had we stayed in the EU... (provided the EU doesn't go belly up in the next decade, that is).

My inclination, however, is that Sir Vince Cable is correct in his assessment that the most prominent Brexiteers have a dangerously naïve and woefully optimistic sense of how the global market place will accommodate the UK cut loose from the shackles of EU membership... in principle the UK could flourish and Brexit could (and still may) bring great opportunities for some, but times are changing fast and even relatively large individual economies (such as the UK) stand little chance against the growing behemoths of the US, China, the BRICS and of course, the biggest trading bloc of them all, the EU...

I'm minded of the old Bill Hicks joke about the Iraqis boasting of the 4th largest army in the world...

"...Iraq has the fourth-largest army in the world." Yeah, well, maybe, but, you know what? After the first three largest armies there's a really big 🤬 drop-off, okay? The Hare Krishnas are the fifth largest army in the world

 

[Liquid]

We either voted to leave or to remain. It was always going to be the politicians to work out how.

Doing it this way round was wrong from the very start; working out how after the fact just cannot work.

 

[baldgye]

I think it should be remembered that the phrase 'better off' is a relative term, and it is not nearly as straightforward as 'leaving is bad, remaining is good'... The UK probably will be 'worse off' economically if we leave the EU, but the UK economy is still likely to continue growing and the country can still be 'better off' in the future, only not as much as if had we stayed in the EU... (provided the EU doesn't go belly up in the next decade, that is).

Granted, but I was aiming to simplify the situation as most as possible.

Due to the vote our we are already worse off than we would have been had no vote taken place (or if Remain had won). Yes maybe we'll be better off down the line. But the evidence for it is even less certain that the evidence of us being worse off (compared to the vote having not taken place), which is often mocked and belittled as part of 'project fear'.

My inclination, however, is the Vince Cable is correct in his assessment that Brexiteers have a dangerously naive and woefully optimistic sense of how the global market place will accommodate the UK cut loose from the shackles of EU membership... in principle the UK could flourish and Brexit could (and still may) bring great opportunities for some, but times are changing fast and even relatively large individual economies (such as the UK) stand little chance against the growing behemoths of the US, China, the BRICS and of course, the biggest trading bloc of them all, the EU...

I honestly don't think the Brexiteers care. They are already set for life and Brexit stands to make them wealthier... if not, *shrug* don't worry we can move elsewhere and be paid to spread right-wing extremism around the world. It literally doesn't matter.

• Peter Dyson, a business man who voted for Brexit is moving it's HO abroad, right after voting for Brexit...
• Farage, the banner-man for Brexit, after the vote went on a world tour promoting right-wing politics and dining with other right wing world leaders.
• Reese-Mogg, his investment company moved to Ireland after Brexit.
• Sir Jim Ratcliffe, the richest Brit is moving to Monaco, after supporting Brexit.

Brexit is just a means of making money and short term gains for these people, they don't care.

 

[MaxAttack]

@baldgye

So, I seem to still owe you an explanation - I guess 2 pages of discussion didn't give you a satisfactory answer.

Let me preface with this - I was very close to abstaining, but low voter turnouts have screwed us in the past and I've been vocal about it. I voted on principle, but I've always (and still do) viewed Brexit as a very complicated issue that neither side has the absolute right of. There's no truly correct answer as the union has benefits and drawbacks, not just for the UK.

So, why leave? Well, as I've said, I don't think these kinds of massive conglomerate superstates are good. I think the nature of politics and politicians will always steer those unions away from their intended purpose. To my eyes, the EU is just as full of self-serving, pocket-lining bastards that you think our government is full of (no surprises here, it is)

To my mind, a government that is only beholden to the people that elect it can perform more effectively than a government that has to balance that responsibility with another governing body, that the populace only elects a small percentage of (not that they vote for MEP, because by and large they don't understand or care)

My vote had nothing to do with deals or no deals. It was based on my principles of what I think makes an effective government. Need I remind you, all this favourable deal business has come around after the fact. It is not what either party was told - we vote remain, we remain, we vote leave, trigger article 50 and leave on March 29th. That's the choice everyone was sold in the campaign. All of this deal business has been created by the politicians. Blaming people who voted leave, whatever the reason, is completely misplaced and immature and comes across badly. Blame the government.

My ideal situation following all this mess would have been Corbyn in number 10, delivering Brexit. Corbyn is traditionally in favour of leaving, but imagine my surprise when rogue (Blairite) elements within his party who cannot handle the fact his leadership is the will of the people engineer a power struggle and absolutely undermine his position. All this anti-semite ********, and campaigns against him, have certainly come from his opponents within the party, if you ask me, and these are the same people who completely ruined the party during the Blair/Brown years (centrists who start illegal wars)

Why Corbyn? Because I hate the tories, because I am a young person with any sense whatsoever. Cameron/Clegg was the greatest political travesty of this young millenium, in my view, and May, much as I feel bad for her (I imagine she cries herself to sleep, to be quite honest) is clearly not the one for the job as, as someone said above, her personal views utterly contradict the task she faces.

If an election had been forced, as it should have been, and people had the sense to vote labour, I believe Brexit would have been delivered already on decent terms.

This deal or no deal **** has nothing to do with yours, mine or anybody else's wellbeing or best interests. It's a fight for influence on all sides. It is our politicians squabbling amongst themselves and whooping like kids in the playground instead of acting on the will of the people. You should be used to the sight of it by now.

I am almost certain this answer won't satisfy you, but, hey, neither did the referendum result, and it is what it is.

 

[Robin]

Ironically, the best (and perhaps only) hope now for Hard Brexiteers would be a second referendum giving the UK Parliament a clear instruction/mandate for a No Deal exit (as opposed to simply delivering an instruction to 'Leave the EU').

I would say it's more likely that all roads lead to no deal now without a second referendum. Theresa May sticking around messing things up was actually the only thing keeping remain options alive. Her leaving paves the way for a Brexiteer Tory party under Boris that will go no deal or a coalition government between whoever is in charge and the Brexit Party with no deal front and centre. The Brexit Party are polling at around 24% of a GE vote so even if they put no deal to a parliament vote with that many Brexiteer MP's in the house it would likely pass.

 

[TenEightyOne]

There seem to be a lot of tweets about EU nationals of other countries who are resident here with the right to vote... but who are being turned away from polling stations at the last minute. It seems many of them have checked their eligibility in advance (several tweets showing written confirmation) but are being denied the vote nonetheless.

 

[baldgye]

@MaxAttack my summary after our chat did seem to suggest that your responses where a little confused.

Need I remind you, all this favourable deal business has come around after the fact.

This, isn’t true, couple of examples;
(There are quite a few, so I just googled a couple)

Spoiler

And

David Davis, the former Brexit secretary, made similar claims during the referendum campaign and said that Britain would negotiate individual trade deals with other EU countries.

“Post Brexit a UK-German deal would include free access for their cars and industrial goods, in exchange for a deal on everything else,” he said in May.

“Similar deals would be reached with other key EU nations. France would want to protect £3bn of food and wine exports. Italy, its £1bn fashion exports. Poland its £3bn manufacturing exports.”

Via

As an independent country we would be free to cooperate and trade with our European neighbours whilst re-engaging with the wider world including our kith and kin in the Commonwealth.

via

“If Norway, Iceland and Switzerland can get deals that suit them, we can do something far better than that.”

via

So, why leave? Well, as I've said, I don't think these kinds of massive conglomerate superstates are good. I think the nature of politics and politicians will always steer those unions away from their intended purpose. To my eyes, the EU is just as full of self-serving, pocket-lining bastards that you think our government is full of (no surprises here, it is)

To my mind, a government that is only beholden to the people that elect it can perform more effectively than a government that has to balance that responsibility with another governing body, that the populace only elects a small percentage of (not that they vote for MEP, because by and large they don't understand or care)

Ok, so you don’t trust the EU because it’s full of politicians. But you put more trust in a government with no outside regulator (I’m drawing a blank on the correct word).

One example I have is that outside the EU the U.K. government has said it would like our own and different human rights laws. Given that the government has been so aggressive against people’s access to the internet (the new porn ban), why would we trust them over the EU, who’s human rights laws apply to hundreds of millions of people?

I believe Brexit would have been delivered already on decent terms.

What terms?
The only terms available to us are to make us subservient to EU laws and have no power to influence them... and Parliament has already voted against those terms... three times.


The reason you voted to leave seems to stem from a mistrust of large political entities... yet you are fairly ok (it seems) with our own large political entity and seemingly trust it. Our government will be less accountable without the EU, not more so.

If this is why you chose to leave, I’m just sad because you seem to not fully understand how the government or the EU functions.

There seem to be a lot of tweets about EU nationals of other countries who are resident here with the right to vote... but who are being turned away from polling stations at the last minute. It seems many of them have checked their eligibility in advance (several tweets showing written confirmation) but are being denied the vote nonetheless.

This was a problem the government knew about in advance and was warned about. Yet they did nothing.

 

[UKMikey]

(no deal was part of Remains 'project fear' if i remember correctly).

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/project-fear-no-deal-brexit_uk_5c52e376e4b04f8645c80f9b

 

[baldgye]

I am almost certain this answer won't satisfy you, but, hey, neither did the referendum result, and it is what it is.

I feel I've been pretty fair with your comments/replies and have tried to get a straight answer out of you without being rude(for what should be a pretty easy thing for you to do). So this feels like a pretty low blow and monumentally dismissive.

 

[MaxAttack]

I feel I've been pretty fair with your comments/replies and have tried to get a straight answer out of you without being rude(for what should be a pretty easy thing for you to do). So this feels like a pretty low blow and monumentally dismissive.

Sorry you feel that way, not my intention. If I felt this discussion had no purpose and there was no value to anything you're saying, I simply wouldn't have engaged with you in the first place.

I imagine it frustrates you that someone would vote based on broad, vague political notions, but I can hardly hide the fact that that's why I voted leave. It's better to be honest than pretend I understand everything.

I still don't feel like I/leave voters have doomed the country. My biggest concern is that there's a huge wedge of distrust and judgement going both ways, making real discourse and understanding of each other impossible. It concerns me that a lot of people with essentially similar values are now diametrically opposed somehow, purely because of this vote.

With that in mind I try to accept being wrong - but I can't undo my vote and wouldn't if I could. A second referendum sets a dangerous precedent for future reversals of the people's will, which could easily be manipulated by unpleasant elements within government.

 

[baldgye]

I imagine it frustrates you that someone would vote based on broad, vague political notions, but I can hardly hide the fact that that's why I voted leave. It's better to be honest than pretend I understand everything.

It doesn't to be honest. The two other people I've asked in this thread who are pro-brexit voted for reasons that don't exist, so it's nice to meet someone who voted for a fair enough reason. I might not agree with it, but I can at least understand the logical decision.

I still don't feel like I/leave voters have doomed the country. My biggest concern is that there's a huge wedge of distrust and judgement going both ways, making real discourse and understanding of each other impossible. It concerns me that a lot of people with essentially similar values are now diametrically opposed somehow, purely because of this vote.

See, I think the opposite. People are so trusting of 'salesman' politicians; Farage, Clegg etc... these are politicians that people don't back because they support their idea's and plans... but because they seem like good-trust worthy people.

Prior to the vote the electorate was lied to over and over, about immigration, about the NHS... and people believed it, some still do. Yet when it came out that Leave lied, repeatedly, all you hear is how "well of course, no one actually believes these politicians!".

A second referendum sets a dangerous precedent for future reversals of the people's will, which could easily be manipulated by unpleasant elements within government.

This is a bit silly, a second referendum doesn't set a dangerous precedent at all. Is it dangerous for people to have a second thought about something? Parliament was allowed three votes, why wasn't that dangerous?
How is less than half the population the "will of the people"? How do you even know the "will of the people" was for the deal we have, no deal or somewhere in the middle?

How can you manipulate it? I don't understand what this means

 

[Hun200kmh]

I don't think Theresa May advocating "Remain" during the referendum campaign has nothing to do with her being unable to deliver Brexit. The way I see this, it's a lot simpler than that. Here is the conundrum:

1 - The UK's Government reached a brexit deal with the EU.

2 - That deal wasn't accepted or approved by the UK's Parliament.

(pause for reflection now)

Such a situation would lead, in a normal democratic country, to the resignation of the Government. Someone new comes up, tries a renegotiation and if that fails accepts that brexit will happen without a deal.

So, why didn't this happen?

(end of pause)


3 reasons:

1 - Because the PM of the Government in question doesn't want to leave office (it could be for many reasons, including some sort of patriotism because she knows the calamity that will follow. But that's not her problem to solve)

2 - Because the Labour opposition doesn't know what it wants apart from calling a GE to try to get to that office

3 - Because her own party brexiteers have been cowards and managed to act in a way that made her stay in office for as long as it was possible to get her blamed for everything that was, is and will be wrong about Brexit.


So, with a deluded PM, a clueless opposition and a bunch of cowards leading the brexiteer charge for the last 3 years … it's no wonder the UK's political system is now in meltdown. I wish you all (and myself, because I have personal reasons to be worried here) good luck and I do think you (and I) will need it.

 

[Robin]

Such a situation would lead, in a normal democratic country, to the resignation of the Government. Someone new comes up, tries a renegotiation and if that fails accepts that brexit will happen without a deal.

So, why didn't this happen?

Well it's happening now.

By all accounts tomorrow May and her government will be gone and the 'someone new' (likely Boris Johnson) will come in, either through a GE or whatever and as the EU has said many times there will be no more renegotiation on a deal, Brexit will indeed then happen without one. It took so long because a bad deal was flogged to death trying to appease Remainers and in the end it didn't. If May had given up pushing it earlier and we had left on the original date none of this trouble would have ever happened.

 

[baldgye]

...bad deal was flogged to death trying to appease Remainers...

But Steve Baker, the deputy chair of the ERG, called on the prime minister to step down immediately after he and 33 fellow Tories voted against the deal alongside the government’s partners in the Democratic Unionist party (DUP).

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-may-deal-exposes-splits-among-tory-brexiters

 

[MaxAttack]

It doesn't to be honest. The two other people I've asked in this thread who are pro-brexit voted for reasons that don't exist, so it's nice to meet someone who voted for a fair enough reason. I might not agree with it, but I can at least understand the logical decision.

I appreciate that, and the same to you.

See, I think the opposite. People are so trusting of 'salesman' politicians; Farage, Clegg etc... these are politicians that people don't back because they support their idea's and plans... but because they seem like good-trust worthy people.

I also agree here. Those who know how to game the system and use rhetoric to win over emotions will always win out against those playing by the rules and presenting purely reasoned viewpoints. Shakespeare made this point excellently in Julius Caesar. I have never been a Farage fan, not only because of his prior career as I've said, but also his dangerous divisive rhetoric and refusal to address the negative aspects of his supporter base. I will, however, defend his right to speak, because freedom of speech is at the core of my values.

Prior to the vote the electorate was lied to over and over, about immigration, about the NHS... and people believed it, some still do. Yet when it came out that Leave lied, repeatedly, all you hear is how "well of course, no one actually believes these politicians!".

I can't remember an election campaign of any type in my lifetime that wasn't rife with lies. Even my local elections have scandals. Even the green party will act underhandedly if they think it gives them a chance to influence policy. That is just the game at this point - maybe we just have to live with it and pick the best-intentioned liar. Lies on both sides, every time. We can only encourage people to think for themselves, but with the levels of disinformation that exist, that's easier said than done. I'm sure many Trump voters would tell you their decision wasn't influenced from outside themselves, but we could make a trivial case of disproving it in many cases. The internet is as much a front as anything physical now - just ask the military.

This is a bit silly, a second referendum doesn't set a dangerous precedent at all. Is it dangerous for people to have a second thought about something? Parliament was allowed three votes, why wasn't that dangerous?
How is less than half the population the "will of the people"? How do you even know the "will of the people" was for the deal we have, no deal or somewhere in the middle?

How can you manipulate it? I don't understand what this means

This is my concern; if the vote was overturned, whatever the result of the 2nd ref, it would be a democratic process that's been ignored. I worry that once this is justified, it might justify the overturning of others, and where does that stop? A close local election? The GE? 50.001% is a majority and it's important that that's respected.

Not that I expect everyone to shut up and accept it - I am absolutely certain that in the reverse situation, there would be as much outcry and bitching from the leave camp as there has been from some Remainers.

 

[baldgye]

I can't remember an election campaign of any type in my lifetime that wasn't rife with lies. Even my local elections have scandals. Even the green party will act underhandedly if they think it gives them a chance to influence policy. That is just the game at this point - maybe we just have to live with it and pick the best-intentioned liar. Lies on both sides, every time. We can only encourage people to think for themselves, but with the levels of disinformation that exist, that's easier said than done. I'm sure many Trump voters would tell you their decision wasn't influenced from outside themselves, but we could make a trivial case of disproving it in many cases. The internet is as much a front as anything physical now - just ask the military.

I've voted in 3-4(?) (I don't remember) GE's and many local/EU elections etc and I don't remember anything like the Brexit vote and the campaigning that went on. I also don't know of anything this major with the winning side found guilty of braking election law to the extent that Leave did.

This is my concern; if the vote was overturned, whatever the result of the 2nd ref, it would be a democratic process that's been ignored.

This is incorrect. A referendum is not a binding decision, it's an advisory. The result advised the government that a majority wanted to leave the EU and they carried that out as best they could. The end.

The GE? 50.001% is a majority and it's important that that's respected.

GE's have been won by parties with far FAR less than 50% of the vote. Again, you are misunderstanding what a Referendum is.

Not that I expect everyone to shut up and accept it - I am absolutely certain that in the reverse situation, there would be as much outcry and bitching from the leave camp as there has been from some Remainers.

Nigel Farage: Narrow Remain win may lead to second referendum

 

[Robin]

But Steve Baker, the deputy chair of the ERG, called on the prime minister to step down immediately after he and 33 fellow Tories voted against the deal alongside the government’s partners in the Democratic Unionist party (DUP).

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-may-deal-exposes-splits-among-tory-brexiters

Your article highlights what exactly? The majority of leavers and remainers voted against the deal because it doesn't please either of them (whats your point?) but the deal itself was created with a very pro EU slant (the only one the EU would back) and that was to appease remainers because it sure wasn't created for Brexiteers who wanted and still want a clean break.

If your trying to insinuate that the handful of MP's that eventually backed the deal out of sheer frustration over the whole thing in some twisted logic means everyone loved it then your ignoring parliamentary voting numbers and the fact that it was one of the biggest defeats for a bill in history. Also people like Mogg have since said he doesn't support May's deal and I can imagine he never really did for that one time he tactically voted for it.

 

[baldgye]

Your article highlights what exactly?

In your post you pinned the blame on the deal not being taken on remainers;

trying to appease Remainers

Yet the ERG helped prevent the bill from going through...

 

[Robin]

In your post you pinned the blame on the deal not being taken on remainers;

Yet the ERG helped prevent the bill from going through...

What about the other 400 people that voted against it?

 

[TenEightyOne]

What about the other 400 people that voted against it?

You think only Remainers voted against that bill? Try again. "Remain" has a fairly solid single vision, "Leave" is made up of many differing camps (and sub-camps), the deal they voted on was evidently unpalatable to the majority of them.

 

[Robin]

You think only Remainers voted against that bill? Try again. "Remain" has a fairly solid single vision, "Leave" is made up of many differing camps (and sub-camps), the deal they voted on was evidently unpalatable to the majority of them.

The majority of leavers and remainers voted against the deal because it doesn't please either of them

What the bill was created for and who voted on it are two different things but it was created with remainer principles in mind (closer ties etc). The deal was unacceptable to the majority of leavers because it wasn't in their eyes leaving the EU.

 

[baldgye]

What about the other 400 people that voted against it?

What about them?
You pinned the blame solely on remainers, yet the most ardent leavers also voted against it. Thus your statement is categorically false.

 

[Robin]

What about them?
You pinned the blame solely on remainers, yet the most ardent leavers also voted against it. Thus your statement is categorically false.

Show me where I solely pinned the blame on remainers for voting down the deal.