Jump to content
blandy

Should I stay or should I go now - U.K. in/out of the EU (contd.)

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Xann said:

Pretense in tatters the Eton boys and the disaster capitalists make a break for the loot.

The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle but with politics except where  inexplicably Malcolm Mclaren actually becomes the head of E     M     i at the end.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, desensitized43 said:

She may be the only hope here.

She has the power but has chosen not to wield it during her lifetime to keep her above politics but when you've got a PM like Johnson who's complete lack of decency and respect for that lifetime of discipline she has to act.

She won't stop it. Parliament is to a greater or lesser extent a puppet show - This doesn't threaten the established order.

Share this post


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

Recent history of prorogation:

2016 - 15th Sept to 10th Oct

2017 - 14th Sept to 9th Oct

2018 - 13th Sept to 9th Oct

2019 - 9th Sept to 14th Oct - IT’S A COUP!

Lol. 

To state the obvious, none of those others were an attempt to frustrate the will of parliament over an important constitutional issue.

Which is why even tories are saying it's a constitutional outrage.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, peterms said:

To state the obvious, none of those others were an attempt to frustrate the will of parliament over an important constitutional issue.

Which is why even tories are saying it's a constitutional outrage.

Correction: Tories set on preventing Brexit say it’s a constitutional outrage. Matt Chorley, a Remainer on a Remain newspaper nails it in the thread below:

Sneaky, but not unconstitutional.  Much the way Remainer MPs have behaved for the last year. What’s good for the goose...

Share this post


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

Correction: Tories set on preventing Brexit say it’s a constitutional outrage. Matt Chorley, a Remainer on a Remain newspaper nails it in the thread below:

Sneaky, but not unconstitutional.  Much the way Remainer MPs have behaved for the last year. What’s good for the goose...

Did you vote for more control or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Awol said:

Correction: Tories set on preventing No Deal say it’s a constitutional outrage. 

 

Corrected for you.

But anyway, No Deal is the only Brexit. Pure Brexit, if you will. Anything else is a betrayal of the will of the people bla bla bla.

Share this post


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

Sneaky, but not unconstitutional.  Much the way Remainer MPs have behaved for the last year. What’s good for the goose...

So do you think that an attempt to use procedural means to prevent the will of parliament being expressed is ok?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, desensitized43 said:

Did you vote for more control or not?

I voted to leave on a prospectus of taking back control of laws, borders & money. What flows from that is leaving the SM, CU and writ of the ECJ. An FTA would’ve been great and May mucked it up by agreeing to sequencing that separated the trade relationship from withdrawal talks - contrary to Article 50. That allowed the EU to leverage the NI border to keep UK in the CU & SM. If the EU refuses to compromise on the backstop & we leave with no deal, that’s fine. The point is to leave, as it said on the ballot paper. 

Share this post


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

The point is to leave, as it said on the ballot paper. 

Then what happens when we want to trade with the EU? WTO terms forever?

Because the basis of a deal will be both divorce bill, and something very similar to the withdrawal agreement.

Just leaving is not an option, I'm sorry. Regardless of how many times Leavers say it.

Edited by StefanAVFC

Share this post


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

So do you think that an attempt to use procedural means to prevent the will of parliament being expressed is ok?

Using procedural means to prevent Parliament overturning a decision they delegated to the people is ok with me. 

MPs have the option to bring down Johnson’s government, forcing a GE. I’m cool with that, too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Awol said:

I voted to leave on a prospectus of taking back control of laws, borders & money.

Ah  :crylaugh:

****ing clueless then.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Awol said:

Using procedural means to prevent Parliament overturning a decision they delegated to the people is ok with me. 

As has been discussed at length, what people thought was meant by "leave" varies quite a bit, and the proposal was not to leave on the terms and in the way now thought likely.

Even three or four weeks ago, the prospect of no-deal was stated by the current PM as being "a million to one".  Now it is evidently what he is going for.

This course of events can in no sensible way be described as a decision delegated to the people.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said:

Then what happens when we want to trade with the EU? WTO terms forever?

Because the basis of a deal will be both divorce bill, and something very similar to the withdrawal agreement.

Just leaving is not an option, I'm sorry. Regardless of how many times Leavers say it.

We’ll do a trade deal at some point, if it’s not negotiated immediately then so what? 

May lay down like a dog & was happy to let the EU walk all over this country. Once we are out the imperative of blocking Brexit dissolves, then we’ll have an election and the voters will decide what happens next. 

It’s ace. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Awol said:

I voted to leave on a prospectus of taking back control of laws, borders & money. What flows from that is leaving the SM, CU and writ of the ECJ. An FTA would’ve been great and May mucked it up by agreeing to sequencing that separated the trade relationship from withdrawal talks - contrary to Article 50. That allowed the EU to leverage the NI border to keep UK in the CU & SM. If the EU refuses to compromise on the backstop & we leave with no deal, that’s fine. The point is to leave, as it said on the ballot paper. 

I didn't ask you about DU, SM, ECJ or anything else. Frankly I'm not interested in that and it's not that's up for debate.

I asked you about control. Your answer is yes. So...where do you want that control to lie? Our laws are made in parliament, our borders in the form of immigration laws are made in parliament. Our money is controlled by parliament in the form of a vote on the budget.

There's a key word in there.

We've had a sovereign parliament in one form or another since 1215. You either want to live in a country with an elected parliament or you don't....and we all know what don't means...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Xann said:

Ah  :crylaugh:

****ing clueless then.

Cheers for that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also this narrative that it's the big bad EU's fault is maddening.

WE voted to leave. WE triggered Article 50. They didn't kick us out. WE came up with the backstop.

Goalposts moved further and further.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, desensitized43 said:

I didn't ask you about DU, SM, ECJ or anything else. Frankly I'm not interested in that and it's not that's up for debate.

I asked you about control. Your answer is yes. So...where do you want that control to lie? Our laws are made in parliament, our borders in the form of immigration laws are made in parliament. Our money is controlled by parliament in the form of a vote on the budget.

There's a key word in there.

We've had a sovereign parliament in one form or another since 1215. You either want to live in a country with an elected parliament or you don't....and we all know what don't means...

Well he supports proroguing Parliament to ensure leaving (with No Deal too!), so I would argue he doesn't give two hoots about sovereignty. 

Edited by StefanAVFC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Awol said:

Cheers for that. 

Has it not sunk in, Patriot?

You've been played like a balalaika.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â