Another new Brexit thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BobKowalski said:
Not that bollocks again. All Major did was ensure he got hammered over cash for questions (and everything else) at the GE that took place during progogation. Also why the hell do you think a Tory PM pulling a cheap stunt is a defence for another Tory PM pulling the same cheap stunt but this time during a time of crisis? Jeez you guys have really lost the plot.
Click to expand...
His intention was exactly the opposite of the result but he was doing precisely the same thing as Bojo. The hypocrisy meter is at full swing here your "time of crisis" = failure to stop "No Deal Brexit" = failure to stop "Brexit" = failure of Remainer abuse of parliamentary process = failure to overturn the result of the referendum ..... losers every time.
 
Last edited:
Len Rum said:
Why not?
I thought as a minimum her role was to question and advise.
We're told she can't go against what the PM recommends.
Whatabout 'in extremis' when she knows she is being lied to?
Click to expand...

I did ask the question at the time....
Who advised the Queen. Serious question.
 
inbetween said:
The burden on MP's for the last three years has been to deliver the better outcome you are talking about. The biggest example of a good outcome as a remainer like me is EFTA, I would of fully supported that, wouldn't you?

You can't just say there is no alternative, it isn't about finding a better one than what we have because obviously there clearly isn't one. This however is pre-referendum language, we knew all this before the referendum, as a result I voted remain but more people voted to leave.

MP's could of proposed the best case alternatives like EFTA which would of directly prevented no deal, reunited the country AND delivered Brexit. Where have these alternatives been? In fact where has remain been for the ENTIRE debate on alternatives?

Remain hasn't been present at this debate because remain won't debate, remain is only interested in the opposite of what most people voted for. Remain is only interested in the most anti-democratic element which is to refuse debate and accept one option only.

The end result is that a government has to assert itself for the good of the majority or it isn't a government and unfortunately this government has woken up and is using all avenues it has available.

For remain this isn't the death of democracy, it is the slow death of hope. A slow death of hope to rather ironically overturn democracy. I don't like it but I'm a democrat and I'm starting to accept it is the only way we will be able to leave.
Click to expand...
But it’s not undemocratic to continue to believe in something surely. As long as following those beliefs stay within the confines of the law. Remainers continuing to believe and to campaign that remaining in the EU is the best option for them, their family and the U.K. is their democratic right.
 
west didsblue said:
I'm sure Scotland will be fine.
As it will be only the second English speaking (after a fashion) country in the EU it will be attractive for financial services and manufacturing companies to relocate staff and assets into Scotland which will all help the Scottish economy.
Click to expand...
Would attract many businesses especially from the North of England, who'll see free and open access to the EU just up the road.
 
hilts said:
We are where we are because of remainers and the Eu, throw in a bit of political self interest from Jezza, krankie and the inability of a small minority of the Irish to grow up. Whatever happens will still be argued over.

Personally I think it’s an opportunity, will that opportunity be taken? Very doubtful. But that’s our choice.
Click to expand...
I'd be interested to hear who the small minority of Irish are.
 
mcfc1632 said:
I am still confused though

Yes - I could see that risk - but it could surely only be for the term of a parliament - then we can opt for a genuinely Socialist alternative if it was proven to be that bad

So either 5 years max if we leave - or never ever having the chance if we Remain

Still not seeing why the genuine left-leaning posters are not queuing up to support leaving​
Click to expand...


5 years is quite long enough to damage all sorts of things.

3 years is all it's took to bring us to this.
 
Vic said:
But that would seem to contradict what I suggested and someone posted that the BBC expert said, that nothing in prorogation stops the 14 day clock ticking on the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. If Johnson loses a vote of no confidence next week, the Act says if there isn't a vote of confidence passed within 14 days (whether in his government or a caretaker government) there has to be a GE, and I can't see anything to say that the 14 days stops just because Parliament is prorogued. It would be even more of an outrage if a PM who lost a no-confidence vote could then prorogue Parliament to avoid the fallout enshrined in law.
Click to expand...
Yes, I probably misinterpreted her. The clock definitely keeps ticking. I think she was really saying that it would be more difficult for an alternative government to be formed once prorogation kicked in.
 
BobKowalski said:
This won’t be decided in the courts although it hasn’t been kicked out just the immediate stay. Full hearing is now Tuesday. Our constitution relies on a degree of ‘good faith’ and people not abusing it but if they want to abuse it they can.

I agree that this has galvanised the Remain side and for what a week or so without extra Parliamentary scrutiny? And I agree this needs bringing to a head one way or the other.
Click to expand...
I would still be surprised if the court overruled prorogation. More interesting is whether they agree to the application to require Johnson to sign an affidavit specifying the reasons for the advice he gave to the Queen. Now that would be fun, if it were granted.

It’s not just about an extra week of extra scrutiny. Without prorogation, parliament would have the option to vote to sit during the conference season. That could be critical if legislation were to be subject to filibustering in the Lords.
 
Strong rumours that the EU at a meeting next week will withdraw the 31 October deadline and unilaterally offer a further extension.
Interesting Jeff, very interesting.
Could shoot Johnson's 'do or die' fox.
 
cibaman said:
I would still be surprised if the court overruled prorogation. More interesting is whether they agree to the application to require Johnson to sign an affidavit specifying the reasons for the advice he gave to the Queen. Now that would be fun, if it were granted.

It’s not just about an extra week of extra scrutiny. Without prorogation, parliament would have the option to vote to sit during the conference season. That could be critical if legislation were to be subject to filibustering in the Lords.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I forgot about the option to sit during conference season.
 
Len Rum said:
Strong rumours that the EU at a meeting next week will withdraw the 31 October deadline and unilaterally offer a further extension.
Interesting Jeff, very interesting.
Could shoot Johnson's 'do or die' fox.
Click to expand...

They should cite the inability of Parliament to sit and debate during this crucial time and offer a 60 day extension to allow democracy to be heard. Would be epic trolling :)
 
Len Rum said:
Strong rumours that the EU at a meeting next week will withdraw the 31 October deadline and unilaterally offer a further extension.
Interesting Jeff, very interesting.
Could shoot Johnson's 'do or die' fox.
Click to expand...
Would that offer have to be accepted?
 
BobKowalski said:
Kind of getting a ‘German car makers’ vibe from this reply.

The real world isn’t what you think should happen. It’s determined by law. We have voted to remove our rights and protections under EU law. This makes U.K. citizens residing in EU countries subject to national law which is always subject to change whether that change be for good or ill. If the Spanish Govt change the Health care rules for non EU citizens residing in Spain making it more costly then they will be subject to that change.

This is not about spite or any of that Brexit nonsense about being ‘punished’ it’s simply a consequence of removing protections and rights from a group of citizens residing in a country. Spain didn’t demand we do this or ask us to do this. We voted to do this. We volunteered to do this. Therefore U.K. citizens in Spain or wherever are now subject to national law and do not have any protection under EU law.

That is the reality.
Click to expand...
Strange thing to say IMO

I was responding to someone stating that the Spanish government is going 'do something bad' to ex-pats residing there - as if it was a fact

I suggest that is pretty doubtful - given the country's reliance on the direct benefits those ex pats bring and the very large indirect benefits to the country that they get from its position as the UK's #1 holiday destination

But - heh - crack on - I can understand that the important thing about Project Fear is to keep pushing the narrative - no matter how unlikely and silly it seems

You guys need to keep this up but, for me, such narratives seem to have a whiff of WW3 immediate mass job losses etc. - it did not work then either
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top