|
Post by Northy on Oct 21, 2019 11:53:57 GMT
An example of the quality of many modern politicians. Serious question, is this woman there on merit, or because of box-ticking? Box ticking, you have to worry about the local committee's who select them for this role.
|
|
|
Post by M on Oct 21, 2019 11:54:23 GMT
The thread's too big to go back over to see previous comments, so I apologise if this has already been mentioned or even done to death, but does anyone else see the Brexit Party as potentially being the biggest threat to Brexit? Yes. That said right now, when we have a GE I only really see Brexit happening in one of two scenarios and that's either the Tories getting a substantial majority (which I don't believe is remotely likely) as that is the only way we won't see Brexit stopped or another referendum (and I think that would basically just be this deal or the May one); or Labour having a majority, negotiating a Norway style deal that could then actually win in another referendum. Anything that results in a hung parliament other than Labour would leave it being a straight referendum between stay and go which I believe based on the current atmosphere would result in it being overturned. I think the BP will be counter productive to the Tories especially in the cities they think Labour are most at threat as they would split the leave vote still...
|
|
|
Post by Frogger Theft Auto on Oct 21, 2019 12:28:37 GMT
Look, I'm just a simple ( leave it) man, and we all had a democratic vote, which ended in a leave majority. I've tried to adhere to the rules throughout my life. Did we get asked to leave with a deal? No. IMHO we should have told them we're leaving, as per the vote. Those people would then have had to decide how to do it, the Europeans that is, These clowns got us into this absolute mess, with their pandering to said Europeans. It's nothing short of a disgrace. The people voted out. Respect the vote. As I've said before, there would have been none of this, had the vote gone the other way. It stinks! I know you've said that you're a simple man and I'm guessing you're after a simple solution but what is it that you actually expect by leaving without a deal? Leaving with no deal (no trading relationship with the EU) doesn't just mean that 'we're out, that's what people voted for, that's that, full stop, simple, the end', it means that we don't have any trade agreements with our nearest neighbours and biggest market, and the first thing that we're going to be looking for (and need) is a trade agreement (deal) with our nearest neighbours and biggest market. But now we're in a far weaker position to negotiate, because our strongest card in the negotiations is the 'call my bluff' threat of no deal - that's gone, so has the urgency for the negotiations so they could drag on for years whilst we're worse off economically. So leaving with some kind of trading relationship in place is the best kind of deal that we'd ever get. Leaving with no deal benefits absolutely nobody, apart from a handful of disaster capitalists that have probably funded a bit of the shit that has made you think that leaving without any kind of relationship with the EU in place is preferential, or simple.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2019 13:05:35 GMT
Well if that's the case dirtygarry, they should do what I suggested on another post. Have another referendum with the true story, and add a signing point on said referendum, to say that you will respect the vote, which ever way it turns out. I would agree to that. Very democratic IMHO. I'm, along with a lot of people sick to death of this shambles. You can bet your bottom dollar though, some people will not be happy! As I say, shambles of the highest order. P.S. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, so if this leaving malarkey is going to make us worse off, why do it? Does not make sense to me. At all. I've never called anyone a crying dickhead by the way.
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Oct 21, 2019 13:25:38 GMT
Look, I'm just a simple ( leave it) man, and we all had a democratic vote, which ended in a leave majority. I've tried to adhere to the rules throughout my life. Did we get asked to leave with a deal? No. IMHO we should have told them we're leaving, as per the vote. Those people would then have had to decide how to do it, the Europeans that is, These clowns got us into this absolute mess, with their pandering to said Europeans. It's nothing short of a disgrace. The people voted out. Respect the vote. As I've said before, there would have been none of this, had the vote gone the other way. It stinks! I know you've said that you're a simple man and I'm guessing you're after a simple solution but what is it that you actually expect by leaving without a deal? Leaving with no deal (no trading relationship with the EU) doesn't just mean that 'we're out, that's what people voted for, that's that, full stop, simple, the end', it means that we don't have any trade agreements with our nearest neighbours and biggest market, and the first thing that we're going to be looking for (and need) is a trade agreement (deal) with our nearest neighbours and biggest market. But now we're in a far weaker position to negotiate, because our strongest card in the negotiations is the 'call my bluff' threat of no deal - that's gone, so has the urgency for the negotiations so they could drag on for years whilst we're worse off economically. So leaving with some kind of trading relationship in place is the best kind of deal that we'd ever get. Leaving with no deal benefits absolutely nobody, apart from a handful of disaster capitalists that have probably funded a bit of the shit that has made you think that leaving without any kind of relationship with the EU in place is preferential, or simple. It's worth remembering this deal Boris has negotiate d is only a transitional arrangement until the end of 2020 . The EU repeated refused to negotiate any future free trade arrangement until the £39 billions and the exit deal has been agreed .
|
|
|
Post by mattyd on Oct 21, 2019 14:44:34 GMT
I thought parliament got a say on workers rights ? in mays deal workers rights were in the main agreement under johnsons they have been removed and put in the political aims section. so any workers rights that you have now because of European law can be removed by a uk government as was pointed out earlier rabe is in favour of a lot of laws that restrict the worker and give power to the rich owners for example he wants it easier to sack anyone so you would not have stability in your job, all the power would be with the owners (rich) Another literary masterpiece from Joey.
|
|
|
Post by mattyd on Oct 21, 2019 14:47:53 GMT
The Traitor Bercow has rejected the " Meaningful Vote"
A bigger remoaner you will not find.
Here today, gone tomorrow, he should be nowhere near the decision process, and should be removed immediately from his post.
For the last 18 months all that he has done is try to scupper Brexit.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 21, 2019 15:00:14 GMT
The Traitor Bercow has rejected the " Meaningful Vote" A bigger remoaner you will not find. Here today, gone tomorrow, he should be nowhere near the decision process, and should be removed immediately from his post. For the last 18 months all that he has done is try to scupper Brexit. There is no way the speaker is being impartial
|
|
|
Post by Eggybread on Oct 21, 2019 15:04:24 GMT
So the speaker of the house follows British custom and law what dates back to 1604 and prevents a brexit vote and the brexiteers have all called foul.Just couldn't make it up,brilliant.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Oct 21, 2019 15:14:48 GMT
So the speaker of the house follows British custom and law what dates back to 1604 and prevents a brexit vote and the brexiteers have all called foul.Just couldn't make it up,brilliant. The point is that Bercow applies precedent when it suits Reman and creates precedent when it suits Remain. The damage Bercow has done in abandoning the impartiality of the role of Speaker could be far more damaging in the long run than Brexit.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2019 15:15:20 GMT
Frigger I see your and other's posts. They should have another referendum, but tell the truth, as they haven't in the original one. Have the second referendum and everyone has to sign to agree to it, whether it's in or out! This could go on forever! It's getting on my wick! If they had or have the second referendum with the truth told, I'll possibly change my mind. I keep saying also, why vote for something that will make us worse off? It doesn't make any sense. Don't just pick on some of the words in my posts, that suit your agenda!
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 21, 2019 15:17:45 GMT
Plenty of Tory MP's (including leave ones) accepting that Bercow's judgement is fair.
However, as the ruling has been made in order not to waste the House's time, you can't help thinking that considering Bercow made his announcement 50 mins ago and that they're still debating his judgement now ... well surely they could have had the actual bloomin' vote in less time than that!
|
|
|
Post by Eggybread on Oct 21, 2019 15:18:34 GMT
So the speaker of the house follows British custom and law what dates back to 1604 and prevents a brexit vote and the brexiteers have all called foul.Just couldn't make it up,brilliant. The point is that Bercow applies precedent when it suits Reman and creates precedent when it suits Remain. The damage Bercow has done in abandoning the impartiality of the role of Speaker could be far more damaging in the long run than Brexit. Does anyone play by the rules nowadays?I dont think so.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Oct 21, 2019 15:26:10 GMT
they've all made their mind up which way they're going to vote already anyway, might as get on with it.
|
|
|
Post by danceswithclams on Oct 21, 2019 15:28:12 GMT
So the speaker of the house follows British custom and law what dates back to 1604 and prevents a brexit vote and the brexiteers have all called foul.Just couldn't make it up,brilliant. The point is that Bercow applies precedent when it suits Reman and creates precedent when it suits Remain. Those noodles?
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Oct 21, 2019 15:30:50 GMT
The Traitor Bercow has rejected the " Meaningful Vote" A bigger remoaner you will not find. Here today, gone tomorrow, he should be nowhere near the decision process, and should be removed immediately from his post. For the last 18 months all that he has done is try to scupper Brexit. Personally I hope the odious smug fucking dwarf gets what’s coming to him And if that upsets some of the passive types on here so be it I believe in peaceful protest but for him I would happily forego such niceties
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2019 15:34:15 GMT
Well played Bercow
|
|
|
Post by chad on Oct 21, 2019 15:40:49 GMT
This situation can’t possibly be resolved without an electionThe sooner we have one and Corbyn and his momentum left wing supporters get wiped out the better for everybody. Especially the Labour Party
|
|
|
Post by maxplonk on Oct 21, 2019 15:58:41 GMT
The Traitor Bercow has rejected the " Meaningful Vote" A bigger remoaner you will not find. Here today, gone tomorrow, he should be nowhere near the decision process, and should be removed immediately from his post. For the last 18 months all that he has done is try to scupper Brexit. There is no way the speaker is being impartial But he is being consistent.
|
|
|
Post by numpty40 on Oct 21, 2019 16:15:07 GMT
Whatever your views are on Brexit I can't believe that people are so happy to see the Establishment riding roughshod over the biggest democratic vote this country has ever seen. Not only happy to see it but actually revelling in it. Incredible.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Oct 21, 2019 16:15:31 GMT
So the speaker of the house follows British custom and law what dates back to 1604 and prevents a brexit vote and the brexiteers have all called foul.Just couldn't make it up,brilliant. What precedent was that, the same as the supreme court did recently he stopped the meaningful vote, but only the process was voted on on Saturday as Letwin amendment was altered. Good to see an investigation into him is going ahead.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Oct 21, 2019 16:16:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by 4372 on Oct 21, 2019 16:23:13 GMT
Bercow did his job today, and is getting slated for it. The PM failed to do his job on Saturday (when he pulled the same vote as he wanted to hold today), and is getting lauded. Strange world.
|
|
|
Post by 4372 on Oct 21, 2019 16:24:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Oct 21, 2019 16:32:11 GMT
The devil is always in the detail.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Oct 21, 2019 16:32:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Oct 21, 2019 16:39:02 GMT
The devil is always in the detail. But it’s what is unsaid that often makes the difference. I wonder, as you suggested last week, how much this raised its head last week and if this wasn’t the crucial factor in the DUP withdrawing its support from the Brexit deal. (Oh - you’ve become a fan of Farage suddenly?)
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Oct 21, 2019 16:41:18 GMT
The Traitor Bercow has rejected the " Meaningful Vote" A bigger remoaner you will not find. Here today, gone tomorrow, he should be nowhere near the decision process, and should be removed immediately from his post. For the last 18 months all that he has done is try to scupper Brexit. Having watched the whole debate and then all the ‘points of order’ and other stuff afterwards on Saturday, I feel I must say, speaking as a ‘leaver’ that this is the govt’s own fault and was only to be expected. Once the amendment had been passed on Saturday, the government could still have proceeded to put the substantive motion (Boris’ deal) to the vote but chose not to. They chose that in spite of many MPs saying that as well as voting for the amendment, they would vote for the substantive motion. Once most MPs had drifted away, JRM raised a ‘point of order’ giving notice that the main motion would be put to the vote on Monday. That is not the correct way to have done it and he, of all people, definitely knows that. The speaker made it plain that this procedure was well out of order and that if they wished the whole thing to be debated again, and voted on they should have requested an emergency debate (or something like that) which would then have been entered as parliamentary business in the usual way. Instead of which, the Gov’t, and JRM in particular, were trying to be a bit too clever by half. Looking at what happened, once the amendment was won it became inevitable that Boris would have to send the letter he was mandated to send. But, he didn’t want to do that having had his original deal approved so they didn’t put it to the vote. Then he sent the letter and was able to claim that the delay wasn’t down to him, but was down to the amendment. And now, even if his deal gets approved, it will still be delayed so he saves face by being able to say to the EU & the UK that he’s done ‘his bit’ by getting this approved as he said he could, but that ‘remainers’ and the EU have conspired to bring forth the delay in any case. But it hasn’t worked because anyone with a few functioning brain cells (sadly, that rules you out Essex) could see through the plan and the clever games that the public school old boys were trying to play. This is not, for once, Bercow’s fault. All he is doing is applying the rules as they have been applied for the past few hundred years, and has told JRM to go and stick his ‘Point of Order’ up his arse, pointed end first and come back and do the job properly according to normal procedure. That’s how I see it, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Oct 21, 2019 16:45:46 GMT
The Traitor Bercow has rejected the " Meaningful Vote" A bigger remoaner you will not find. Here today, gone tomorrow, he should be nowhere near the decision process, and should be removed immediately from his post. For the last 18 months all that he has done is try to scupper Brexit. Having watched the whole debate and then all the ‘points of order’ and other stuff afterwards on Saturday, I feel I must say, speaking as a ‘leaver’ that this is the govt’s own fault and was only to be expected. Once the amendment had been passed on Saturday, the government could still have proceeded to put the substantive motion (Boris’ deal) to the vote but chose not to. They chose that in spite of many MPs saying that as well as voting for the amendment, they would vote for the substantive motion. Once most MPs had drifted away, JRM raised a ‘point of order’ giving notice that the main motion would be put to the vote on Monday. That is not the correct way to have done it and he, of all people, definitely knows that. The speaker made it plain that this procedure was well out of order and that if they wished the whole thing to be debated again, and voted on they should have requested an emergency debate (or something like that) which would then have been entered as parliamentary business in the usual way. Instead of which, the Gov’t, and JRM in particular, were trying to be a bit too clever by half. Looking at what happened, once the amendment was won it became inevitable that Boris would have to send the letter he was mandated to send. But, he didn’t want to do that having had his original deal approved so they didn’t put it to the vote. Then he sent the letter and was able to claim that the delay wasn’t down to him, but was down to the amendment. And now, even if his deal gets approved, it will still be delayed so he saves face by being able to say to the EU & the UK that he’s done ‘his bit’ by getting this approved as he said he could, but that ‘remainers’ and the EU have conspired to bring forth the delay in any case. But it hasn’t worked because anyone with a few functioning brain cells (sadly, that rules you out Essex) could see through the plan and the clever games that the public school old boys were trying to play. This is not, for once, Bercow’s fault. All he is doing is applying the rules as they have been applied for the past few hundred years, and has told JRM to go and stick his ‘Point of Order’ up his arse, pointed end first and come back and do the job properly according to normal procedure. That’s how I see it, anyway. I think the Government were having a bit of fun with Bercow today. They’ve got a vote tomorrow that suits their purposes. Today, IMO, was an opportunity to add to the “people vs parliament” narrative they have been creating since Johnson became PM.
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Oct 21, 2019 16:54:05 GMT
Having watched the whole debate and then all the ‘points of order’ and other stuff afterwards on Saturday, I feel I must say, speaking as a ‘leaver’ that this is the govt’s own fault and was only to be expected. Once the amendment had been passed on Saturday, the government could still have proceeded to put the substantive motion (Boris’ deal) to the vote but chose not to. They chose that in spite of many MPs saying that as well as voting for the amendment, they would vote for the substantive motion. Once most MPs had drifted away, JRM raised a ‘point of order’ giving notice that the main motion would be put to the vote on Monday. That is not the correct way to have done it and he, of all people, definitely knows that. The speaker made it plain that this procedure was well out of order and that if they wished the whole thing to be debated again, and voted on they should have requested an emergency debate (or something like that) which would then have been entered as parliamentary business in the usual way. Instead of which, the Gov’t, and JRM in particular, were trying to be a bit too clever by half. Looking at what happened, once the amendment was won it became inevitable that Boris would have to send the letter he was mandated to send. But, he didn’t want to do that having had his original deal approved so they didn’t put it to the vote. Then he sent the letter and was able to claim that the delay wasn’t down to him, but was down to the amendment. And now, even if his deal gets approved, it will still be delayed so he saves face by being able to say to the EU & the UK that he’s done ‘his bit’ by getting this approved as he said he could, but that ‘remainers’ and the EU have conspired to bring forth the delay in any case. But it hasn’t worked because anyone with a few functioning brain cells (sadly, that rules you out Essex) could see through the plan and the clever games that the public school old boys were trying to play. This is not, for once, Bercow’s fault. All he is doing is applying the rules as they have been applied for the past few hundred years, and has told JRM to go and stick his ‘Point of Order’ up his arse, pointed end first and come back and do the job properly according to normal procedure. That’s how I see it, anyway. I think the Government were having a bit of fun with Bercow today. They’ve got a vote tomorrow that suits their purposes. Today, IMO, was an opportunity to add to the “people vs parliament” narrative they have been creating since Johnson became PM. I haven't heard or seen any of what has been said today, but they (Boris, JRM, etc) have definitely manoeuvred things around so that it appears that this delay is down to the likes of Bercow when, in reality, it isn’t. So yes, I agree, it is building their narrative.
|
|