desensitized43

15 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Bercow has just gone in dry on the government. Refused to allow a third vote on the deal unless it significantly changes.

Given that it isn't going to change any time soon, it'you have to suspect the argument is going to be made that the situation changing (i.e. time running out) is enough to see it come back.

Wow. That's explosive it really it. Bercow has just nuked May's entire 2 and half year negotiation...well played, sir. Well played.

Yet more MP's switching to back the deal...surely she can't get this through? It's astonishing the amount of MPs saying publicly they'll back it even though they know it's a bad deal/wrong for the country. It's like a choice between being kicked in the head or kicked in the balls.

28 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

this was supposed to be the easy bit!!!

The people that told you that lied to you...we've been trying to tell you for 2 years and if that still hasn't dawned on you I really don't know what to say anymore.

7 minutes ago, Chindie said:

The Brexiteers are fuming the second referendum one has been accepted, while their one insisting the first referendum is respected hasn't been.

The sight of Francois visibly red and foaming with rage has to be made into a gif.

Interesting (and highly explosive) suggestion that Bercow might rule that the same deal can't be brought back for a 3rd vote

The following extract from Erskin May is doing the rounds to suggest that what May is doing shouldn't be allowed.

Quote

A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session

2 hours ago, foreveryoung said:

We need to keep it on the table cause the EU are shitting themselves we may actually go that way. If we take it off the table the EU will have the upper hand to carry on blackmailing us into this shit deal.

 

How are they blackmailing us? Genuine question as I can't add up your logic there. Surely if they're "shitting themselves" about the prospect of a no deal and we're keeping it on the table it's us blackmailing them...

Just now, bickster said:

I'll go 220

She lost by 230 last time and 11 Tory's have said they'll switch to for + the vile creature that is Caroline Flint.

15 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Sweepstake? I'll go defeat by 75 due to abstentions. And it being held up as virtually a victory considering how bad it could have been.

Defeat by 170

1 minute ago, bickster said:

So which bit of Jon Snow's tweet was bollocks then?

Turns out Jon Snow doesn't know nothing 

1 minute ago, bickster said:

I'm not sure it matters, there's absolutely nothing there to change a 200 vote deficit

You clearly have more faith in politicians than I do...I think it could be close tonight if the attorney general decides to stand up and lie through his teeth. The ERG are profiteering cowards but they're sensing a change in the mood and their fear of no Brexit at all might be enough to make them swallow some manure.

1 minute ago, bickster said:

Nothing to scrutinise, absolutely nothing has changed

There kind of is really. They need to read the document and compare it to the original in order to make that assessment. You also need to read this addendum to assess whether it's what we suspect, complete arsewater...that's scrutinisation, surely?

The more you read about this the more it looks like dirty tricks again, or an ambush.

The announcement coming so late, without the opportunity to allow MP's (or anyone really) to properly scrutinise the deal. Pretty despicable, isn't it? 

46 minutes ago, blandy said:

 

I love that first clip so much. Will Self can be (and tbh, is) a massive dick (no pun intended) but he's 100% correct there. Francois knew exactly what he said the first time he said it, pretended to be offended and completely misrepresented what was said to suit his own agenda....Brexit in a nutshell. People on my facebook timeline and twitter that I know personally, though their views I have no time or respect for at all who constantly post "Tommy Robinson" rubbish all voted out. I don't know a racist bigot that didn't.

4 minutes ago, Paddywhack said:

I'm surprised he's been sentenced just over 24 hours later, I thought these kind of things dragged out for months.

I overheard a Wednesday fan at work today, "Did you see that absolute idiot who punched Grealish last night? Mind you, Grealish invites it doesn't he?"

What!? I can't see how that justifies it, but also...does he? What has he done that makes him a target, is it his haircut?

 

I've thought this a couple of times. It helps that the Mrs is a nose (Witch! burn her! etc etc) so I can ask her. Apparently they think he's "cocky". So naturally I ask "in what way" and the basic gist (after wading through nonsense), is that they don't like the swagger he plays with and the fact he draws so many fouls (he dives apparently).

At it's core I believe it's pure jealousy and hatred that we've got a proper player, arguably the best in the division but certainly one of them. He plays with a confidence and is able to draw players in thinking they can take the ball and has the ability to take it away from them, often taking lumps for his trouble. He's a local lad who came up through the academy which doesn't help him in this regard as he's seen as "Mr Aston Villa" which obviously leads to even more hatred.

30 minutes ago, snowychap said:

It's looking like a possibility:

If she does try any smoke and mirrors to save face Corbyn should be dusting off his VONC motion.

28 minutes ago, blandy said:

I think that other tube, George Galloway is also on his way back in to Labour, isn't he?

Probably. When you're constantly being painted as the party that trashes the economy and you do mental things like this to prove them right.

https://news.sky.com/story/former-militant-figure-derek-hatton-readmitted-to-labour-33-years-after-being-kicked-out-11641528

Quote

Former hard left politician Derek "Degsy" Hatton has told Sky News he has been readmitted to the Labour Party.

The 71-year-old, a member of the Militant tendency that infiltrated Labour in the 1970s and 1980s, was expelled from the party in 1986 after being found in breach of their rules.

Mr Hatton was deputy leader of Liverpool City Council, which Militant took control of in 1983.

Under the Trotskyist group's direction, the council set an illegal budget in 1985 - spending more than its income - in a stand against Margaret Thatcher's government.

Crazy stuff

15 minutes ago, Chindie said:

I think you'd get very short odds on Bentley and Toyota making moves. Bentley is entirely reliant on components coming from the continent (owned by VW, the engines are for instance built in Germany as I recall). And Toyota is basically in the same situation as Honda.

I'd be very surprised if neither have made any decisions in the near future.

Brexit - **** excellent mate!

All about diesel though isn't it?

3 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I mean, this is just not true. 

Which part?

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

Definitely. Catweazle wants both Brexit and a painful Brexit. Same as the throbbers in the ERG and a handful of other dullards in Labour.

He wants Brexit because he believes in a barmpot version of socialism and because ideally the nastier Brexit is, the more "people will hate the tories and let me have a go". Ignoring the membership he promised not to ignore, to seek power through helping the tories and their Brexit madness. Principled politician my arse. **** wit more like

Realistically it should be ringing huge alarm bells for those in Labour that they arent showing miles ahead in the poles now. The Tories have completely **** Brexit up, **** up the transport system, **** up the benefits system, **** up the NHS.

The fact that there are poles as recent as a few weeks old showing people believe May is more capable than Corbyn shows that he's not going to get in under all but the most dire of circumstances for the country. We've got throbbers on both the Tory and Labour side who want to burn the whole thing to ashes so they can remake the country in their own fantasy image.

5 minutes ago, peterms said:

They didn't.

Two motions for a vote of no confidence were laid.

Deselection is something else altogether.

The effect is the same! Hounding out members who they don't agree with is the same regardless of how you do it. 

10 minutes ago, peterms said:

Which MPs do you think have been deselected?

If MPs are deselected, it means the party wants to choose someone else for the coming election when it happens, not that they have been expelled from the party and cease to represent it.  What would be the reason for holding a by-election in those circumstances?

It's not a job for life, or shouldn't be.  The idea of being selected once and then continuing as the representative for 30 or 40 years on the strength of that is a very odd one, and doesn't apply to, for example, councillors, who go through selection each time there's an election, quite reasonably.

He's referring to LB and her local party starting the process to deselect before being called off by Corbyn as it opened him up to further accusations that he's a raging anti-semite.

I suppose this depends on the basis for which the deselection was taking place. The process is usually reserved for those who've done major wrong (the recent MP who broke the law when she lied to police following an accident being a prime example). Disagreeing with the leader doesn't qualify. In this case it's clear that there were anti-semetic undertones...see the following...

Quote

A no-confidence motion in the Labour MP Luciana Berger has been withdrawn and a meeting to discuss her future has been cancelled after it emerged that one of her key opponents within the local party called her a “disruptive Zionist”.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/08/labour-withdraws-luciana-berger-mp-no-confidence-motion

9 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said:

Project "Fear"?

I know right? I'm not sure you need an economics doctorate to understand that someone representing a market of 500 million consumers would be able to extract a more favourable trade agreement than one representing 66 million.

I'll say it...we told you so, morons.

1 minute ago, blandy said:

Thus as the Adviser implies, May's deal (in his view and hers) will get through. But while that's her aim, it's not actually a binary choice. Parliament can reject her deal (again) and then (for example) direct a softer brexit (with SM or CU or both) membership, or this 2nd Ref thing, or just kick the can down the road a bit. They'll kick the can and the EU will let them. May's deal is terrible.

1

Is there time for this?

If we assume that they'll be directed to go back and discuss a softer brexit it will require either an extension of A50 or it's withdrawal entirely. They won't withdraw it so that leaves extension. That'll require time for the EU to discuss the reasons why we need this, discuss with the 27 at which point it's possible some of the 27 won't agree. If we assume that we won't request an extension before week 2 of March (date plucked out of thin air based on how I interpret May's last-gasp blackmail vote), can we be confident the particulars can be done in 2 weeks?!