Another new Brexit thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
1948 Atlee because the Lords were blocking their legislation.

That i could understand, it is not the Lords place to block, it is there to amend and scrutinise. I dont know the details but in 1948 i cant think of a national crisis. ……………… Just looked it up and the Lords were trying to block legislation, Atlee used it to shorten the session according to Wiki and also on Wiki John Major did it in 1997 over the cash for questions scandal. That cost him his job.
 
I really no longer give a fuck - I genuinely look forward to their lifestyle and life expectancy returning to 1970-72 levels - can't come soon enough for me so they learn some fucking home truths.

Nice to see what caring and looking after the poorest in society looks like.
 
1948 Attlee because the Lords were blocking their legislation.
It’s not quite the same thing and isn’t really a precedent. Attlee had won a landslide election victory and had a majority of 145. The government wanted to revise the terms of the 1911 Parliament Act to bring down the delaying power of the House of Lords to two years. The proposed legislation was passed by a thumping majority in the Commons and no protest came from the Opposition about using prorogation to expedite its passage into law.
 
I fail to see why an agreement that we'd leave the EU and join EFTA would be an approach not allowed.

because JRM - Bridgen - Francios and the like will only accept No Deal - many many other Tories are shit scared of the Farage threat ( again ) as are a number leave area voting Labour MP's. They like to dress it up as a failure for the UK to have left is all a Remoaner issue when in fact they are just as culpable.
 
Nothing will change my mind that Brexit was and is a dumb idea, deeply damaging to the UK's interests.

But then there is zero evidence that can prove otherwise.

Yet Leavers (who were / are leavers for various reasons) are now getting triumphalist about the possibility of that damage happening.

But again you have missed the point about the original exchange.

So we are similar

Except that we have had 3 years of you guys whinging like fuck and now that there is an actual outside chance that we might really leave the EU

Fuck - what a bunch of tarts
 
It’s not quite the same thing and isn’t really a precedent. Attlee had won a landslide election victory and had a majority of 145. The government wanted to revise the terms of the 1911 Parliament Act to bring down the delaying power of the House of Lords to two years. The proposed legislation was passed by a thumping majority in the Commons and no protest came from the Opposition about using prorogation to expedite its passage into law.
The Lords were delaying legislation that restricted their powers - Turkeys not voting for Christmas - so if nobody complains it's OK?
 
I find it difficult to believe that you don’t trust that BJ, Mogg, IDS, Redwood and Farage won’t have the interests of the poor and disenfranchised who got them over the line, at the forefront of all their thinking, in a post Brexit, no-deal world.
I dont trust them at all but there is one upside to a no deal arrangement. It opens up the possibility of a proper Socialist government. I don't think we would be able to have that with a deal as the EU as it stands is anti Socialist.
 
I want to leave with a deal that allows us to trade with the European markets and the rest of the world.

A no deal should be the last choice.

I must be in a minority.
You're not alone, you see... THIS is all I ever wanted from a relationship with the EU.

No political bullshit. No "flags", no EU Parliament. Just a trade deal that protects the Four Freedoms for the people of Europe and zero tarriffs on trade and gives us the freedom to forge other trade alliances, without their interference, for the benefit of the taxpaying, hardworking people of the UK.

It's achievable, but not to those who want Europe to be "more". This "more" is what I disagreed with, and many others did to. We didn't want "that" Europe, we were happy with the one we had. But for others in the EU, it wasn't enough... they wanted "more".
 
That i could understand, it is not the Lords place to block, it is there to amend and scrutinise. I dont know the details but in 1948 i cant think of a national crisis. ……………… Just looked it up and the Lords were trying to block legislation, Atlee used it to shorten the session according to Wiki and also on Wiki John Major did it in 1997 over the cash for questions scandal. That cost him his job.
Blair won because of the Cash for Questions scandal ? Corbynista revisionism at its finest lol
 
Corbyn? Who would overthrow the elected government and demands to be made PM without any elections.

This Govt wasn’t directly elected. It has no majority. To govern it did a deal with the DUP to get the required majority. If it falls tomorrow and Corbyn can do deals with other parties to govern then he will be PM. This is how our constitution works.

Do you know how many times this Govt has been tested in votes in Parliament since Johnson was appointed PM? Zero. Do you know why? Because it doesn’t have votes. Which is why he is suspending Parliament. To stop the people we elected to represent us from doing just that.
 
Blair won because of the Cash for Questions scandal ? Corbynista revisionism at its finest lol

No revisionism, just a fact. I was delighted that day, I had high hopes as Blair was the 1st Labour leader since I got the vote. Sadly although he did do a lot of good things, his reputation is in tatters and now I am older and a little wiser (not a lot) I see him for the neo-liberal shill he always was. My hero's were Tony Benn and Michael Foot but anybody to the left of the Tories would have done for me at that time as I had learned to despise the Tories. ;))
 
You arrive.
source.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top