desensitized43

Full Members
  • Content Count

    112
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

72 Excellent

About desensitized43

  • Rank
    Academy

Profile Information

  • Location
    Halesowen

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Fair point. I think there's been evidence out there (not that I can directly cite it now as I'm supposed to be working !) that international investment in the UK dropped markedly as a result of the current situation.
  2. I agree he needs to have some kind of dialogue especially when one is offered but I think this is far too late now. She needed to do this right after the election disaster because it was obvious she would need some support from the labour benches to get anything through. Doing it at this late stage strikes me as an attempt to shift some of the blame to the labour side "look, I tried to deliver something but the opposition wouldn't back it so it's their fault you can't get your medicines, your house is worth less than you paid for it and your company is shifting production to Lithuania". It's a game, a stunt by the government, but by not at least being seen to want to talk he's reinforcing a narrative that will play very nicely to a certain crowd who will be looking for someone to blame for the shitshow we might be about to see.
  3. So to summarise the government position "we're willing to compromise, just not on the stuff that's important to us"...great
  4. No it doesn't but you also have a bunch of people using inflammatory language like "betrayal", "enemies of the people" and talking about "civil war". The whole thing is a tinderbox waiting for the match right now. One side are getting angrier because they feel they've won the argument and aren't being listened to. The other side are getting angrier because they feel their hard-won rights are about to be taken away and they are going to be materially poorer because the government are pandering to a bunch of closet (and not so closet) racists.
  5. I've definitely heard worse ways to reunite the country.
  6. Just don't get how it can be anti-democratic to hold another democratic vote. We hold elections every 4 years (sometimes sooner) ffs. People change their minds, new facts come to light, politicians lie.
  7. Yep. It plays very nicely into the narrative that it's some "metropolitan elitist" bogeymen that are trying to "frustrate brexit and the will of the people". Lots of foaming at the mouth racists will lap it up.
  8. To the tories, DUP or to me? To the tories he wants to undo 30 years of Thatcherite policy of privatisation of pretty much our entire national infrastructure. To the DUP he's pretty much Satan-made-flesh because he dared to speak to the IRA decades before it became government policy to do so. To me, he's a relic of a bygone era. I like a lot of what he says and does but you can't just wish away the modern capitalist world. He's a fantasist but he's not entirely wrong.
  9. Got to wonder what the margin of defeat would have been if she'd gone for it in December. No wonder she pulled it last minute as she'd have definitely lost the party vonc with that scale of defeat. The only reason she'll be allowed to go on is because the tories are terrified if comrade corbyn. Hardly a ringing endorsement from your own lot.
  10. I miss the good old days where a loss of this scale, on the only issue the government has been looking at for 2 years would be enough to see a government fall. **** the fixed term parliament act.
  11. 86 because cowards gonna be cowardly
  12. There's a multitude of different reasons why some of them don't like it. Some of them want to stay in, some of them want to have another vote, some of them want to force a no deal scenario, the DUP want to take out the bits about the backstop and the irish border, some of them want a deal but with a closer relationship, some of them want a deal but with a less close relationship, some of them want to force a general election, some of them don't like that NI is being treated differently to their part of the UK. When you list all the different view/factions/agenda's it becomes quite easy to see why May was always onto a fools errand and Cameron decided to ride off into the sunset.
  13. It keeps us tied in perpetuity to rules and regulations on tariffs and goods standards we'll have no say at all in making, made by those who might not have our best interests at heart anymore. If the backstop comes into force it'll essentially mean a part of the country has been economically annexed. We'll be paying £39 billion for no other reason than to enter "best endeavours" trade discussions. We'll potentially be unable to conduct an independant trade policy as we'll be tied to the aforementioned rules on standards and tariffs. Democratically-speaking it's awful. All the arguments from the (in my opinion) sensible non-racist Brexiteers about the whole thing being about "sovereignty of our parliament" will be completely bogus as we'll be less sovereign under this agreement. Edit: In defence of the agreement it probably will stave off economic armageddon, but imo the price is too high and it's a million times worse than the current arrangement.
  14. Jess Philips correctly pointed out that even the amended version is factually incorrect as the people of Birmingham rejected a city mayor and one was imposed by parliament anyway.
  15. She can't just ask the same question again and again. Parliament already voted. She's subverting the will of Parliament. It's anti-democratic. Shall we have a 'best of 3' votes?