Jump to content
LOTROCommunity
Sign in to follow this  
Doro

Brexit

Recommended Posts

We'll be 7 months late but, providing there's no unseen traitorous push from the MPs that failed us in March, we'll be out of the EU come the end of October.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49493632

And the hysteria from the "liberal" side has been beautiful today. There's talk of storming Parliament because they, the vocal minority, aren't getting their way. Off with the Queen's head for letting fascism take over!!! It's all a coup for BoJo to finally give the Leave voters what they voted for, but having a bunch of self-righteous ass holes organise themselves as a "People's Parliament" to try to undermine Brexit wasn't an attempt at a coup at all, right? BoJo can't be PM and do this, no one voted for him... so let's get rid of him and put Corbyn, and man who even fewer voted for, into power so that Brexit can be extended even fucking further. Yeah, makes sense /sarc.

Honestly, the level of dramatics is going off the charts. All these mentions of Hitler, acting like they're fighting against Nazis, it's absolutely brilliant. And they STILL think they're backed up by a majority, because in their little echo chambers on social media all they hear is people agreeing with them. Every 100,000 signatures they get on some shitty petition, they hold up as if that matters against 17.4 million voters.

Fingers crossed that things do pan out smoothly with a No Deal Brexit and these sneaky MPs don't pull a fast one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter if you are anti brexit, pro brexit or pro no deal, what is happening is an unelected PM is suspending the democratic parliament to try and push thought a policy that he knows MP's would vote to stop.  This sets a dangerous precedent 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

It doesn't matter if you are anti brexit, pro brexit or pro no deal, what is happening is an unelected PM is suspending the democratic parliament to try and push thought a policy that he knows MP's would vote to stop.  This sets a dangerous precedent

That dangerous precedent being that maybe the will of the majority will finally get delivered when the MPs that keep getting in the way are told to fuck off. There's no democracy while MPs keep refusing to deliver Brexit, so Parliament might as well get suspended until we can restart outside of the EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Doro said:

That dangerous precedent being that maybe the will of the majority will finally get delivered when the MPs that keep getting in the way are told to fuck off. There's no democracy while MPs keep refusing to deliver Brexit, so Parliament might as well get suspended until we can restart outside of the EU.

I doubt the will of the people is a no deal brexit.  Not one brexit mp of senor member of any of the leave groups campaigned for a no deal brexit, they all said that we would get a good deal.  Now the same people are saying that we must leave come hell or high water, with some saying that no deal is the only acceptable option.

Put the options to the public and see what they want, No deal, some deal or no brexit.  Make the referendum binding unlike the last one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

I doubt the will of the people is a no deal brexit.  Not one brexit mp of senor member of any of the leave groups campaigned for a no deal brexit, they all said that we would get a good deal.  Now the same people are saying that we must leave come hell or high water, with some saying that no deal is the only acceptable option.

Put the options to the public and see what they want, No deal, some deal or no brexit.  Make the referendum binding unlike the last one

I don't recall any mention on the ballot of "Leave (but only with a deal)", or any other stipulations. In fact, I don't recall much of the various Leave campaigns at all (outside of the sensationalised stuff that kept getting rinsed on the news for). I got a hell of a lot of pro-EU propaganda through the door, but then again my area is apparently considered a Labour stronghold so I guess they were trying to preach to the choir.

Four problems with putting the options to the public again:

1. There's multiple options for Leaving that they could put on there, but one option for staying, so immediately that's dividing up the opposition to the EU to make it easier for Remain to get a "majority" over the smaller groups.

2. We've had three years of fear-mongering and anti-Brexit rhetoric, which is obviously going to impact a margin of people who are going to swallow that as though it was Brexit's fault, which is what the Remain crowd have been wanting all along. They want the false equivalency of delays and hysteria to be considered "Brexit", without it actually happening.

3. At the very least, we need the results of the first referendum honoured, otherwise what's the point of it at all? Indefinitely delaying it and then overturning it would be a bigger nail in the coffin of democracy than a Queen's speech is.

4. When do we stop with referendums? Only when we get a Remain (or Re-join) vote that's considered acceptable to the establishment? Best of three? Five? Or do we simply have a referendum every few years forever because things change over 3 years and people might want something different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Doro said:

1. There's multiple options for Leaving that they could put on there, but one option for staying, so immediately that's dividing up the opposition to the EU to make it easier for Remain to get a "majority" over the smaller groups.

Multi question referendum.  First question, Leave or Stay.  Second Question, if leave then deal or no deal.  Second question only counts if first question gets leave

14 minutes ago, Doro said:

2. We've had three years of fear-mongering and anti-Brexit rhetoric, which is obviously going to impact a margin of people who are going to swallow that as though it was Brexit's fault, which is what the Remain crowd have been wanting all along. They want the false equivalency of delays and hysteria to be considered "Brexit", without it actually happening.

We have had 3 years of lies about how once we leave everything will be so much better.  So many lies about the EU.  I hate that anytime anyone points out a negative about leaving the EU it is called scare-mongering.  The last 3 years have been about 2 sides shouting at each other and no body talking about the real issues about brexit.

13 minutes ago, Doro said:

3. At the very least, we need the results of the first referendum honoured, otherwise what's the point of it at all? Indefinitely delaying it and then overturning it would be a bigger nail in the coffin of democracy than a Queen's speech is.

The referendum was advisory so there was never any need to follow the result.

14 minutes ago, Doro said:

4. When do we stop with referendums? Only when we get a Remain (or Re-join) vote that's considered acceptable to the establishment? Best of three? Five? Or do we simply have a referendum every few years forever because things change over 3 years and people might want something different?

How about when we have a referendum where neither side breach electoral law.  Leading to a judge declaring that have the referendum being binding he would have had to overturn the result do the the illegal actions of the leave campaign.  Remember the bus with £350 million for the NHS which was a massive lie

 

16 minutes ago, Doro said:

I don't recall any mention on the ballot of "Leave (but only with a deal)", or any other stipulations. In fact, I don't recall much of the various Leave campaigns at all (outside of the sensationalised stuff that kept getting rinsed on the news for). I got a hell of a lot of pro-EU propaganda through the door, but then again my area is apparently considered a Labour stronghold so I guess they were trying to preach to the choir.

Might not have been on the ballot, but the leave campaign constantly said we would get a deal.  No one was talking about no deal.  Many people have expressed since that they only wanted out with a deal

I got little from either side, being in Scotland that is not really a surprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

Multi question referendum.  First question, Leave or Stay.  Second Question, if leave then deal or no deal.  Second question only counts if first question gets leave

And then what? If the first option is Leave, then the second option is Deal, but MPs refuse the deal (our current situation, really), where does that leave us? A third question where it's "no deal or remain", all because MPs won't take a deal? Well, remain was already dismissed in the first question, but it's back again in the third because the previous two questions are being ignored. We're pretty much there already but with fewer questions.

7 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

We have had 3 years of lies about how once we leave everything will be so much better.  So many lies about the EU.  I hate that anytime anyone points out a negative about leaving the EU it is called scare-mongering.  The last 3 years have been about 2 sides shouting at each other and no body talking about the real issues about brexit.

We haven't, though. Media in general has demonised Leave to the point where anything good mentioned about it is immediately drowned out by the scare-mongering from Remain about things that either haven't happened or won't happen (one recent story that springs to mind is the idea that suddenly cattle farmers are going to cull loads of animals because they wouldn't be able to afford them any more). It's been fairly common for even pro-Leave commentators to admit it's going to be initially rocky while we find our feet, but there's optimism for the future. For some reason, that stance is considered a lie, but the constant speculative doom-saying of Remainers isn't?

7 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

The referendum was advisory so there was never any need to follow the result.

But if Remain had won but it was ignored and we left anyway, that wouldn't be acceptable either. Whether it is advisory or not, a referendum was given, and it's being hijacked.

7 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

How about when we have a referendum where neither side breach electoral law.  Leading to a judge declaring that have the referendum being binding he would have had to overturn the result do the the illegal actions of the leave campaign. 

The same illegal actions (over-spending due funding of a sub-group) found on parts of the Remain campaign, too. I think too much importance is laid at the feet of those campaigns.

7 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

Remember the bus with £350 million for the NHS which was a massive lie

It wasn't a massive lie, though. We did send £350 million a week to the EU, and it would be nice to put some of that into the NHS. Where's the lie there?

7 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

Might not have been on the ballot, but the leave campaign constantly said we would get a deal.  No one was talking about no deal.  Many people have expressed since that they only wanted out with a deal

I got little from either side, being in Scotland that is not really a surprise.

We do have a deal, though. Not a deal I personally like, and I'd prefer No Deal myself, but it's still there. The MPs don't want it, though. No Deal has only become the most likely option because the MPs have been intentionally dragging things out in the hopes of overturning Brexit. If they don't want a No Deal, they have a Deal available, but they won't pick that because they don't want Brexit at all. And the only reason we got a shitty deal was because the EU wouldn't offer anything better, being fairly confident it would get overturned if it only offered shit. The whole thing has been very orchestrated, designed to manipulate events to get the outcome they want: the UK staying. Hopefully, BoJo has put pin in that particular balloon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just watching from the sidelines, but I'm hoping for the health of your democracy that the government follows the will of the people or there WILL be violence once the average person has had enough and feels disenfranchised enough that they turn to revolution.

'Tis far better to let everyone discuss this without demonizing a side, but the reality is that that's not going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Doro said:

It wasn't a massive lie, though. We did send £350 million a week to the EU, and it would be nice to put some of that into the NHS. Where's the lie there?

Except the £350 million figure is a lie.  It 2018 we paid around £13 billion to the EU, this is after the rebate which is deducted before we pay anything, this is £250 million a week.  In the EU spent around £4.2 billion in the public sector in the UK in 2018.  I can only find a figure from 2016 for what they pay to the private sector which is £2.3 billion, if we assume this is a average yearly amount then the UK has a net contribution of £6.5 billion or £125 million a week.  The figure was a lie which many people still believe.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really doubt if you can say it's the will of the people if people on both sides on the spectrum are ill-informed and the final resultis 52/48. I still believe it was a mistake from the UK to vote leave, but the current situation really isn't healthy and no matter what happens - No Brexit, Hard-Brexit or May-deal (though it will probably be altered by changing a . or , somewhere and rebranded "Great Johnson Deal") I fear there will be no winners in the UK because a large part won't like the result. 

And the EU is an easy enemy to blame from all the mistakes, even if a lot of rules are ideas from the UK and the UK could have vetood almost everything. 

I fear the UK and the rest of the EU will suffer from this compared to the rest of the world, because both will lose a lot of bargaining power. It's easier to blackmail a small country than a large country. The rest of the World will profit from this and I think the UK and Western Europe will enter a long recession because of this. I really hope it's not too bad but I think people really underestimated the importance of frictionless trade on their common lives and the importance of being part of a large group of countries to withstand other large countries in the world

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, cossieuk said:

Except the £350 million figure is a lie.  It 2018 we paid around £13 billion to the EU, this is after the rebate which is deducted before we pay anything, this is £250 million a week.  In the EU spent around £4.2 billion in the public sector in the UK in 2018.  I can only find a figure from 2016 for what they pay to the private sector which is £2.3 billion, if we assume this is a average yearly amount then the UK has a net contribution of £6.5 billion or £125 million a week.  The figure was a lie which many people still believe.  

It's not a lie, though. We paid around £18 billion to the EU before the rebate, and that's £350 million a week. The bus didn't mention anything about whether that was net or gross.

24 minutes ago, Thrabath said:

I really doubt if you can say it's the will of the people if people on both sides on the spectrum are ill-informed and the final resultis 52/48. I still believe it was a mistake from the UK to vote leave, but the current situation really isn't healthy and no matter what happens - No Brexit, Hard-Brexit or May-deal (though it will probably be altered by changing a . or , somewhere and rebranded "Great Johnson Deal") I fear there will be no winners in the UK because a large part won't like the result. 

And the EU is an easy enemy to blame from all the mistakes, even if a lot of rules are ideas from the UK and the UK could have vetood almost everything. 

I fear the UK and the rest of the EU will suffer from this compared to the rest of the world, because both will lose a lot of bargaining power. It's easier to blackmail a small country than a large country. The rest of the World will profit from this and I think the UK and Western Europe will enter a long recession because of this. I really hope it's not too bad but I think people really underestimated the importance of frictionless trade on their common lives and the importance of being part of a large group of countries to withstand other large countries in the world

52/48 seems close, but the difference was something like 1.3 million people, which isn't a particularly slim margin.

I don't see this as the start of a recession in the UK, I see it as the potential start of economic growth after the initial period of uncertainty (though the EU might go into a recession, since they will have lost one of the few members that pays in more than it takes out, in order to prop up poorer members). There's a lot of talk that the UK won't be able to get certain products as easily any more, which to me sounds like a gap in the market waiting to be filled by a new native business providing those very products. Which obviously means more jobs. A push for more self-reliance as a nation would help generate wealth and drive innovation, something we've been lacking for a while now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Doro said:

It's not a lie, though. We paid around £18 billion to the EU before the rebate, and that's £350 million a week. The bus didn't mention anything about whether that was net or gross.

The rebate is taken off what we are due to pay before we pay anything.  So we at no point ever sent £350 million per week.  Just like if you buy something that is on sale, you dont pay the full price then have them refund your money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like the Queen's Speech gambit did something.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49515489

All this time the EU has said it refused to negotiate any more and would stick to May's shitty deal, and suddenly they're fine with negotiators meeting more often. And Merkel, the de facto leader of the EU, has said they are up for an alternative to the backstop if BoJo can work one out, something they were adamant they wouldn't budge on.

14 hours ago, cossieuk said:

The rebate is taken off what we are due to pay before we pay anything.  So we at no point ever sent £350 million per week.  Just like if you buy something that is on sale, you dont pay the full price then have them refund your money

Considering the rebate is something that can be altered at any point up to 4 years after the year it's applied (meaning the EU can ask for more to be paid if needed), I don't consider that akin to a sale or a discount in that regard. It's effectively something that needs to be budgeted for just in case, so the entire amount is £350 million a week before any calculations are made.

Edit: an example of how I view it would be similar to a payslip from an employer, where you have a total amount paid but the actual amount you receive is less due to tax and national insurance. You're still treated financially by the pre-tax amount, but you only actually get less. And if you underpaid tax one year, they'll ask for it back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting to read on this subject. Having intended, limited knowledge about the subject as a whole, some uses of abbreviation led me to search further beyond these postings for confirmations. While not having any dog in this fight, as an American, I find my interest lies more in the history than the making of the history. So, in that effect, I don't have a relevant opinion one way or the other. Still, reading the linked articles has incite and value as a whole to build a picture beyond what the common person living elsewhere may have on the matter.

Reading as one does, following links , citations ect. led me to this page below. Why? Because I noticed this body in your countries Parliament didn't seem to have any bearing, sway, or even a mention, and I wondered about this truth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords

And, what an official name.

Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.

Maybe they could add a few more words to that to make it even more official?

Anyway, the link answered my question as to why this body doesn't seem to have much mention as a whole. The article has some length and I've only read the history to the current date. I'll read the remainder later today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Splay said:

Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.

Maybe they could add a few more words to that to make it even more official?

Yeah, they're an outdated bunch of poncey unelected political-elite fags that need to fuck off. The idea of a group that holds the government accountable is fine, but one that the population didn't vote for and also directly impacts what laws come into effect is way too fucking much. Lords and royalty in general are outdated concepts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Doro said:

Yeah, they're an outdated bunch of poncey unelected political-elite fags that need to fuck off. The idea of a group that holds the government accountable is fine, but one that the population didn't vote for and also directly impacts what laws come into effect is way too fucking much. Lords and royalty in general are outdated concepts.

So assuming if they can actually create a cohesive long term agenda for the UK, that could be a huge advantage over the US as our legal system is akin to a cat that has ADD in the room of mouse traps and ping pong balls trying to catch all the ping pong balls after the chain reaction has started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's been a tumultuous couple of weeks, and the traitorous MPs are really giving it their all to fuck this country over to keep us in the EU and ignore the referendum. Now we have the release of this whole Yellowhammer thing, and the sky is suddenly falling because the hysterical are once again incapable of thinking logically and rely solely on screaming emotions.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49671566

  • a "decrease" in certain types of fresh food and "shorter supply" of key ingredients
  • price rises for food and fuel, which would "disproportionately" affect those with low incomes
  • "disruption lasting up to six months" potentially affecting medicines and medical supplies
  • protests and counter-protests across the UK
  • lorries waiting for more than two days to cross the English Channel

 

Now, remember that this is a worst case scenario for what happens after a No Deal Brexit, where the government does nothing to mitigate these issues. Worst case. We end up with maybe 6 months of minor difficulties that won't actually come to fruition. That's it? After years of fear-mongering and acting like the UK is going to collapse, this was what was finally revealed as the maximum apocalypse actually available. And when it comes to GDP, some predict as much as a 1.5% decrease next year because of no deal. Not exactly a daunting price to pay for freedom from the EU experiment, and that's without any need to get a deal (with the only deal available a much worse option for both Leave and Remain).

The closer we get to leaving, the more it seems their campaign of managed hysteria isn't a proper reflection of the consequences at all. It's all been propaganda to try to convince the gullible that it's practically the end of the world, so that they can overturn the vote and keep their globalist masters happy. And it seems there's a lot of emotional drones with moral superiority complexes willing to make a load of noise on social media for them, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the large number of people already having to use food banks, an estimated 590,000 in 2016-2017, and the large number of people in fuel poverty, around 11.1% of homes in England in 2016 which is around 2.55 million people any policy that is going to increase them is just stupid.  

https://news.sky.com/story/operation-yellowhammer-government-no-deal-brexit-documents-released-11807339

Lets not forget 

Medicine supplies will be "particularly vulnerable to severe extended delays" - Sorry folks that medicine you need it is stuck at the border 

Possible clashes between UK and EU fishing vessels

The possibility of urgent action to ensure access to clean water if there is a failure in the supply of chemicals - although the likelihood of this is considered "low" - Might be low but not work risking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

Given the large number of people already having to use food banks, an estimated 590,000 in 2016-2017, and the large number of people in fuel poverty, around 11.1% of homes in England in 2016 which is around 2.55 million people any policy that is going to increase them is just stupid.  

https://news.sky.com/story/operation-yellowhammer-government-no-deal-brexit-documents-released-11807339

Not at the cost of escaping the EU it's not, however it's not an actual concern to start with.

Food issues centre around fresh produce from the EU, but anything with a longer shelf life or sold from other countries aren't a problem, so it's just a case of a decline in variety. I don't think spaghetti hoops, crinkle cut chips, and chicken dippers are going to be at risk.

Fuel I'm thinking refers to petrol, not household gas use for heating and the like, considering they say there's no disruption predicted at all for gas supplies, but possible increases in electricity costs (something that's been happening regardless). Petrol already costs me 50% more than it did 5 years ago, so there's no surprise there.

15 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

Lets not forget 

Medicine supplies will be "particularly vulnerable to severe extended delays" - Sorry folks that medicine you need it is stuck at the border 

Not likely, since that's an unmitigated prediction, i.e. if the government does absolutely nothing to facilitate transport of medicines. Not to mention that most of the border issues seem to be going from UK to France, not the other way around, since the EU has a lot of checks to make on their end.

15 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

Possible clashes between UK and EU fishing vessels

Not really much of a reason to forgo escape from the EU's stranglehold, to be honest. If the EU keep out of UK waters, there won't be an issue.

15 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

The possibility of urgent action to ensure access to clean water if there is a failure in the supply of chemicals - although the likelihood of this is considered "low" - Might be low but not work risking

There's literally no concern at all about the chemical supply to clean water. It's already been stockpiled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

Medicine supplies will be "particularly vulnerable to severe extended delays" 

 

This is already an issue now, the possibility it could get worse is mental.  Granted, only those who are in need or have family members in need of medicine will give a shit.  Until something directly affects them, people tend to hide behind a blanket of "you're overreacting!"

And look at the pound rate--give it time and it will be one for one with the U.S. dollar.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Flipflop at it again.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49735938

Doesn't want to fly his colours and alienate any potential labour supporters who voted to Leave. The sheer irony of him saying he'll offer only the choices of Remain or some non-existent deal he hopes he could possibly one day hash out with the EU, despite that exact same thing being what May had attempted and also failed at.

He keeps saying he wants to give people a choice, except the choice people already made isn't apparently good enough for him. Here's an idea Jezza, you should've backed the General Election when Bojo offered one. We can make it really clear then: if you want to overturn the referendum, vote Lib Dem; if you want to Leave with No Deal, vote Tory; and if you want to have a second referendum that may or may not be followed or just not sure what you want and maybe possibly want a deal, vote Labour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now there's a fucking surprise.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49810261

Supreme Court says a completely lawful proroguing of parliament was "unlawful" because they say it will stop ministers from scrutinising a Brexit deal. Bullshit. They had 3 years to scrutinise, and all they did was get in the way. That's why the Supreme Court wants them back, to keep up with all the fiddly little hurdles they can throw in the way of getting us to actually leave the EU experiment. Gotta keep those globalist masters happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Doro said:

Now there's a fucking surprise.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49810261

Supreme Court says a completely lawful proroguing of parliament was "unlawful" because they say it will stop ministers from scrutinising a Brexit deal. Bullshit. They had 3 years to scrutinise, and all they did was get in the way. That's why the Supreme Court wants them back, to keep up with all the fiddly little hurdles they can throw in the way of getting us to actually leave the EU experiment. Gotta keep those globalist masters happy.

This was not a lawful proroguing of Parliament, it was unlawful as all 11 law lords have ruled

This is Parliamentary Sovereignty in action.  We heard all through the referendum campaign that we had to take back our Parliamentary Sovereignty but now it is action it wrong.

We have not had 3 years to scrtuinise a deal, there is currently no deal on offer as the one the May got is gone.  Boris is trying to get a new deal and if he does it will be for Parliament to scrutinise that.

If Boris was honest about this only being about a Queens speech them he could have prorogued Parliament for the normal 5-6 days but he did it for 5 weeks to run down the clock on Brexit.  He has given unlawful advise to the Queen and should do the decent thing, which would be a first for him, and resign.  Hell he is still saying that the law says we must leave on 31st deal or no deal when only a few weeks ago a law was past to say that no deal can't happen unless Parliament votes for it and that he must seek an extension if they wont.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

This was not a lawful proroguing of Parliament, it was unlawful as all 11 law lords have ruled

And they could rule a parrot is a dog, but it wouldn't make it true. There's nothing unlawful with a prorogation in this context, it's just another case of unelected pro-EU forces trying to do what they can to stack against Bojo, who seems to be one of the only politicians willing to deliver Brexit.

5 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

This is Parliamentary Sovereignty in action.  We heard all through the referendum campaign that we had to take back our Parliamentary Sovereignty but now it is action it wrong.

This is not sovereignty in action while we're still tied to the EU. While that link is still there, the people at the top have a conflict of interest in favour of the EU. There's a very good reason why Brenda Hale wore that spider brooch.

5 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

We have not had 3 years to scrtuinise a deal, there is currently no deal on offer as the one the May got is gone.  Boris is trying to get a new deal and if he does it will be for Parliament to scrutinise that.

We have had 3 years. 3 years of them getting in the way, making up apocalyptic scenarios, and trying to overturn the referendum result. They had more than enough time to work out a deal, and they failed. Now they just want parliament back so they can continue getting in the way for even longer.

5 minutes ago, cossieuk said:

If Boris was honest about this only being about a Queens speech them he could have prorogued Parliament for the normal 5-6 days but he did it for 5 weeks to run down the clock on Brexit.  He has given unlawful advise to the Queen and should do the decent thing, which would be a first for him, and resign.  Hell he is still saying that the law says we must leave on 31st deal or no deal when only a few weeks ago a law was past to say that no deal can't happen unless Parliament votes for it and that he must seek an extension if they wont.  

It was effectively 5 - 6 days, though. It was done over a recess period when the government wouldn't even be in parliament anyway for most of it.

As far as I remember, there's nothing in the no deal law that says parliament must vote for it, only that Bojo has to formally request an extension. The EU could turn that down, or it seems Bojo has found a way around the wording of the article.

How's about instead of resigning, the other parties can back a General Election? They're so up for democracy and think they know the will of the people, let us decide who should be PM. Methinks they're afraid of losing their seats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×