Jump to content

The now-enacted will of (some of) the people


blandy

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

MV3 not happening tomorrow

thats what i meant by my comment about being suspicious over MPs changing their minds, the MV has failed twice already its now been pulled because she knows it wont pass, if by some miracle it passes by the end of this week we are supposed to believe the line that MPs changed their mind on it? thats bullshit, if MV ever passes its either because she's ran down the clock leaving us with a pick your poison scenario or she's made some promises behind closed doors that we will never know the details of

its borderline corruption

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

No Plan at all...

Really hope this is taken away from her tonight. She's a pathetic oxygen thief.

Apparently she'll whip against Letwin 🤔

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Apparently she'll whip against Letwin 🤔

Of course she will. If she doesn't she'd surely have to resign. There seem to be more and more MP's willing to defy and 3-line-whip which in normal times means you're basically resigning the whip but we've already established she's completely toothless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NurembergVillan said:

Schrödinger's Brexit.

We should do this. 

Tell people we’ve left, sell them blue passport covers with EU removed and tax them more due to the ‘divorce bill’ 

Meanwhile, for sane people, life goes on as normal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

We should do this. 

Tell people we’ve left, sell them blue passport covers with EU removed and tax them more due to the ‘divorce bill’ 

Meanwhile, for sane people, life goes on as normal. 

Special queues for Blue Passport holders at airports

Special Supermarkets with added shortages

All leave voters to be made redundant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

MV3 not happening tomorrow

 

It leaves us with "no deal" because that is the default position.

Discussion here about what would need to happen to put into effect parliament's wish to take no deal off the table.

Quote

...Conclusion

The enactment of legislation along the lines outlined in this post is doubtless highly unlikely. However, if Parliament really does wish to wrest control of the Brexit process from the Government, and if it really does wish to guarantee against a no-deal Brexit, it may have little option but to contemplate enacting such legislation. If it is introduced into Parliament and voted on, it will force lawmakers to confront matters with a degree of directness that has so far been wholly lacking.

It is one thing to ‘rule out’ a no-deal Brexit by means of supporting an amendment to a motion or disapproving of a no-deal Brexit by means of an ‘indicative vote’. But such interventions by Parliament do not alter the legal position, and therefore leave the Article 50 clock undisturbed as it ticks towards a default no-deal Brexit on 12 April. Instead, it is only by means of a Bill along the lines set out above that Parliament could truly rule out a no-deal Brexit. There has been a great deal of noise in recent weeks about Parliament’s desire to ‘take charge’ of Brexit given the Government’s apparent paralysis. The introduction of a Bill ruling out a no-deal Brexit would be an interesting acid test of the genuineness of that desire.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Deal isn't really "no deal" though, is it?  It's just a different kind of deal because we'll still have a deal with the WTO.

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the avoidance of doubt, these aren't my words - this is Kate Hoey MP, a few moments ago in the House of Commons.  We pay these **** idiots to represent us and they haven't got a **** Scooby.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today was never going to go any differently to this; the only question is whether she has enough votes to get MV3 passed or not. She will run the clock down on any extension, no matter what it is, so nothing matters until the EU tie an extension to a new ballot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, villa4europe said:

we're not allowed to change our minds after 3 years of having our eyes opened to how inept our negotiators are but within the space of 2 weeks after getting their bollocks tickled in a way that we will never be told the details of MPs can change theirs?

The actual negotiators have done a perfectly sound job. They've basically done everything that is possible with the huge mess of contradictions that is Government policy.

The only thing for people's eyes to now be opened to is what a dim idea it was in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just utterly bonkers.

A few people are standing up and saying that if only the government would assure them that the House of Commons (and Parliament) will have an important part to play in the discussions about the future relationship then they'd vote for the withdrawal agreement.

This is what some MPs feel able to say in public not long after the Prime Minister has just specifically said that she wouldn't necessarily take any notice of indicative votes even if the House of Commons expressed an agreed opinion.

If this PM and her government have made anything clear, they have made one thing clear: they have absolutely no intention, unless it is absolutely necessary (for which mostly read, it is demanded of them by statute), to give weight to the thoughts and desires of the House of Commons.

Madness, madness, madness.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either the Deal is good or the Deal is bad. Who the PM is or what MPs future role is irrelevant.

So MPs are openly admitting they are more interested in party politics than the good of the country. If your vote is dependent on anything other than the deal in hand you shouldn't be voting. Disgraceful. I can't believe this is seen as a ligitimate line of thought; if May quits I'll back the deal?! What has that got to do with a generation plus of being out of Europe?!

Politics doesn't solve anything. If this was a business issue then a concensus would have been reached by now, but it's all about scratching backs, keeping affiliations, jostling for power. So infuriating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, jackbauer24 said:

Either the Deal is good or the Deal is bad. Who the PM is or what MPs future role is irrelevant.

So MPs are openly admitting they are more interested in party politics than the good of the country. If your vote is dependent on anything other than the deal in hand you shouldn't be voting. Disgraceful. I can't believe this is seen as a ligitimate line of thought; if May quits I'll back the deal?! What has that got to do with a generation plus of being out of Europe?!

Politics doesn't solve anything. If this was a business issue then a concensus would have been reached by now, but it's all about scratching backs, keeping affiliations, jostling for power. So infuriating.

The Withdrawal Agreement is not the end of the matter. It is merely the first part. Future roles are important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, snowychap said:

This is just utterly bonkers.

A few people are standing up and saying that if only the government would assure them that the House of Commons (and Parliament) will have an important part to play in the discussions about the future relationship then they'd vote for the withdrawal agreement.

This is what some MPs feel able to say in public not long after the Prime Minister has just specifically said that she wouldn't necessarily take any notice of indicative votes even if the House of Commons expressed an agreed opinion.

If this PM and her government have made anything clear, they have made one thing clear: they have absolutely no intention, unless it is absolutely necessary (for which mostly read, it is demanded of them by statute), to give weight to the thoughts and desires of the House of Commons.

Madness, madness, madness.

See also this:

A 'tacit understanding' is it? Might want to get that down on paper lads. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NurembergVillan said:

No Deal isn't really "no deal" though, is it?  It's just a different kind of deal because we'll still have a deal with the WTO.

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the avoidance of doubt, these aren't my words - this is Kate Hoey MP, a few moments ago in the House of Commons.  We pay these **** idiots to represent us and they haven't got a **** Scooby.

I'm really not sure why she's in the Labour Party. The best thing for her to do would be to cross the floor and join the DUP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

There is a significant difference in opinion on Brexit between different age groups in the UK, with older citizens generally exhibiting more negative attitudes toward the EU than younger ones. But as Kieran Devine writes, while over 65s are typically treated as a single category in opinion polls, there are substantial generational differences within this group, with those who lived through the Second World War being far more likely to oppose Brexit.

The EU was set up in response to the horrors and destruction of the Second World War. In the wake of the Brexit referendum result, it was oft repeated that the older generations were more likely to have voted for Britain to leave the European Union. This presents something of a puzzle; why would older generations, likely to have experienced the impact of the war first-hand, seek to remove Britain from an institution that has helped maintain peace in Europe for more than seven decades? Might it be that the ‘over 65s’ category, containing individuals several decades apart in age, conceals distinct generational differences amongst this group?

Much much more on link - LSE

It seems that those who actually survived the war don't vote the same as the one that weren't born until after

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â