Family & Relationships0 min ago
Phillip Hammond
46 Answers
Hammond, after trying to stop a no deal option is the same cabinet minister who introduced the the second reading of the Referendum bill in June 2015. The the Foreign secretary declared that the EU had changed almost beyond recognition from what ad been endorsed in 1975.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by lindapalmara. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//And he voted three times for Brexit while others played for time by insisting unicorns exist.//
No he didn’t, ikky. He voted for what Mrs May tried to convince the country was “Brexit”. In fact all it entailed was crossing our name off the list of members. Unicorns didn’t come into it.
//Hammond and others have sacrificed their long careers,…//
How noble.
//…in order stop a no deal brexit (which nobody voted for)//
Nobody voted for Brexit with a deal either. They simply voted to leave.
I don't know where the outrage stems from about these MPs losing the Tory whip. They voted against the government run by their party on the most important issue of the day. None of them should be surprised or outraged by this.
I also don't understand the viewpoint of No Deal opponents (other than to suggest that their opposition is simply camouflage for their opposition to Brexit). If the EU refuses to countenance anything other than the totally unacceptable deal they have concocted Are they saying that we simply cannot leave? (Answers on a postcard). If not, how do they suppose the EU will react if, or rather when, No Deal is permanently taken off the table?
No he didn’t, ikky. He voted for what Mrs May tried to convince the country was “Brexit”. In fact all it entailed was crossing our name off the list of members. Unicorns didn’t come into it.
//Hammond and others have sacrificed their long careers,…//
How noble.
//…in order stop a no deal brexit (which nobody voted for)//
Nobody voted for Brexit with a deal either. They simply voted to leave.
I don't know where the outrage stems from about these MPs losing the Tory whip. They voted against the government run by their party on the most important issue of the day. None of them should be surprised or outraged by this.
I also don't understand the viewpoint of No Deal opponents (other than to suggest that their opposition is simply camouflage for their opposition to Brexit). If the EU refuses to countenance anything other than the totally unacceptable deal they have concocted Are they saying that we simply cannot leave? (Answers on a postcard). If not, how do they suppose the EU will react if, or rather when, No Deal is permanently taken off the table?
He voted for Brexit.
Boris Johnson voted against it twice.
It’s not Brexit ... “in your opinion”
And as I keep saying that is the whole problem: there’s no coherent idea or consensus about what Brexit means. But the most concrete version we have is the one that was negotiated and I note that the latest amended version of it (never voted on) will now have to be published and possibly voted on in the next parliament
Boris Johnson voted against it twice.
It’s not Brexit ... “in your opinion”
And as I keep saying that is the whole problem: there’s no coherent idea or consensus about what Brexit means. But the most concrete version we have is the one that was negotiated and I note that the latest amended version of it (never voted on) will now have to be published and possibly voted on in the next parliament
//It’s not Brexit ... “in your opinion”
And as I keep saying that is the whole problem: there’s no coherent idea or consensus about what Brexit means.//
It was well elucidated in the referendum campaign (by both sides) that Brexit would involve - as a minimum - the end of free movement, withdrawal from the Customs Union and Single Market and no longer being subject to the jurisdiction of the ECJ.
//But the most concrete version we have is the one that was negotiated //
Mrs May's deal guaranteed none of those things and was not "Brexit" by any stretch of anybody's imagination (however vivid) and in fact tied the UK to its conditions in perpetuity (which the Treaty of Lisbon doe not). That's why it was rejected and the "Irish Backstop" (mistakenly cited as the sole sticking point) was just one of the reasons it is totally unacceptable.
And as I keep saying that is the whole problem: there’s no coherent idea or consensus about what Brexit means.//
It was well elucidated in the referendum campaign (by both sides) that Brexit would involve - as a minimum - the end of free movement, withdrawal from the Customs Union and Single Market and no longer being subject to the jurisdiction of the ECJ.
//But the most concrete version we have is the one that was negotiated //
Mrs May's deal guaranteed none of those things and was not "Brexit" by any stretch of anybody's imagination (however vivid) and in fact tied the UK to its conditions in perpetuity (which the Treaty of Lisbon doe not). That's why it was rejected and the "Irish Backstop" (mistakenly cited as the sole sticking point) was just one of the reasons it is totally unacceptable.
