BREAKING NEWS EU grants UK a Brexit extension until 31 January 2020

[yodsak]

 

 Jez not happy. Opposition fractured.   Jo Swinson joins with SNP in ditching an opposition party agreement to oppose a snap election.  Now a cheerleader for the right, shaking her pompoms to the bozo tune. Wants to hoover up Labour votes. SNP want an election before the Salmond court case.

 

How times change.

Peoples vote now dead in a ditch.   Bye bye Bercow. He retires on Thursday.  Brexit day. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DannyCarlton]

11 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

So why not respect the result of the first one?

 

It's only pure when your side wins?

They did respect the result of the first one. they invoked Article 50.

 

From that point onwards MPs had the ability to act as per their roles, ie act in the best interests of the country. As it became obvius from the deals/no deals that were proposed to parliament, it became obvious, even to a blind man, that leaving under any of the scenarios on offer wasn't in the best interests of the country. Ergo remain.

[AussieBob18]

38 minutes ago, Enoon said:

The politicians are elected on the basis of what they say they are going to do (in their Election Manifesto).

Not on what an opinion poll might subsequently reveal a percentage of the "people" would like them to do.

That is the way the UK has been run, by "Prollies", for over 300 years.

 

A Referendum means nothing then ??  Hilarious ????

[NanLaew]

13 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

I've answered tis once already but here's another "puerile" response for you.

 

The hapless fools who voted to invoke Article 50, did so in a misguided attempt to protect their own seats in the upcoming election. They have now seen the light and the majority of them are now voting in the best interests of the country and our futures.

Theresa May's June 2017 snap election... the key word here is snap, was called on 18th April 2017. You can write that date down for future reference in case you need it.

 

The Commons passed the Article 50 bill on its third reading by 494 to 122 on 8 February 2017.  The Lords completed third reading on 7 March and voted to return the bill to the Commons with the two amendments. On 13 March the Commons voted against the first Lords amendment by 335 to 287 and against the second by 331 to 286. Thus the bill passed both Houses of Parliament unamended. The act came into effect when royal assent was signified on the morning of 16 March 2017.

 

Therefore the surprise (sic) election was called 37 days AFTER both houses of parliament had passed the Bill.

 

Hapless. Quite apropos I think... but not with respect to the MP's who, despite your assertion, are not blessed with any semblance of clairvoyance.

[melvinmelvin]

1 hour ago, evadgib said:

Wot? May's 'deal' (eternal vassalage treaty) had more comebacks than Gary Glitter ????

re vassalage,

 

Do you await the glory of the British Empire, where the sun never sets?

 

If UK should do a no deal/clean Brexit do you actually think that UK i practice would

be independent of EU?

 

EU is a fairly mighty trading power,  hence, will be a major factor in UK's life

whether EU member or not

[NanLaew]

59 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

Just the opposite. A GE is a multi issue election, a people's vote is a single issue vote. Can't get purer than that.

Suggesting that the impending British General Election will be prioritizing ANY ISSUE above the long overdue departure of the UK from the EU is simply... hapless.

 

Of course the SNP have already started carrying on about the unspoken benefits that the DUP has already wrung out of #10 in their classic, hands out, "Whaur's mine?" style. The Predictably Parochial Party would be a far more appropriate moniker for them.

[Opl]

It's getting so incomprehensible by the day, that maybe to maintain the status quo would be the most evolutive solution

[NanLaew]

2 hours ago, DannyCarlton said:

2 hours ago, luckyluke said:

Of course the U.K. is not really the place where people express their opinion in the street.

Neither do we urinate in the street. Parisian pissoires, yuk.

You obviously haven't seen the front entrance of [insert name of shop still trading in your local UK high street here] on a Sunday morning then?

[JonnyF]

23 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

They did respect the result of the first one. they invoked Article 50.

 

From that point onwards MPs had the ability to act as per their roles, ie act in the best interests of the country. As it became obvius from the deals/no deals that were proposed to parliament, it became obvious, even to a blind man, that leaving under any of the scenarios on offer wasn't in the best interests of the country. Ergo remain.

So you think standing and being elected on a manifesto to respect the vote, enacting article 50 and then immediately doing a 180 and plotting for 2 years to stop Brexit is respecting the result? What a twisted view you have.

 

PS there is not a deal of any kind proposed. There is a treaty. Any "deal" will come later, after we have left. 

 

[NanLaew]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And yet were denied a vote in the referendum.

I voted. Leave.

 

But I was denied a vote in the Scottish Independence one which is why I celebrated raucously when Alex Salmond lost his seat in Westminster in the 2017 snap election... just about the only bright spot in that wee fustercluck.

[JonnyF]

5 minutes ago, Opl said:

It's getting so incomprehensible by the day, that maybe to maintain the status quo would be the most evolutive solution

You mean simply give up on Democracy because a few hundred MP's are bringing the country to it's knees because they won't accept losing? If everyone was that weak there would be no Democracy to give up on.

[NanLaew]

35 minutes ago, yodsak said:

Jo Swinson joins with SNP in ditching an opposition party agreement to oppose a snap election.  Now a cheerleader for the right, shaking her pompoms to the bozo tune. 

She does seem to have a rather large pair of pompoms though, no?

[Opl]

15 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

You mean simply give up on Democracy because a few hundred MP's are bringing the country to it's knees because they won't accept losing? If everyone was that weak there would be no Democracy to give up on.

Sorry I would'nt qualify calling people to vote for a "blind" Brexit the Paramount of  Democracy but rather more, the expression of Populism .  

Edited October 29, 2019 by Opl

[Mike Teavee]

15 hours ago, CNXexpat said:

World: Electing Trump is the stupidest thing we’ve ever seen.

Britain: Hold my beer!

Shouldn't that be the other way round seeing as the Brexit vote was in June 2016, & Trump was elected in November 2016.

 

I said at the time that Trump was only elected because the US wanted the title of "Dumbest Nation on the Planet" back from us Brits after Brexit... 

 

Bit like the Ryder cup really ???? 

 

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, sandyf said:

But you knew that when you voted for it.

What are you on about now?

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, stephenterry said:

Whichever way you look at it, it's the government and parliament's responsibility to resolve the biggest folly ever inflicted on Britain. Not yours, not mine, nor the kitchen sink.

 

As far as the men in the street is concerned, they couldn't give a toss about brexit except for it to go away, as there are more important things in life that could adversely affect them. This includes most, if not all, of the posters on here, who aren't going to be rattled one way or another, except possibly to be UK taxed to pay for it.

Fair enough. But it is obvious that this particular parliament is incapable of being democratically responsible.

 

My view of the "man in the street", however, is that he does "give a toss" about Brexit, especially after the shenanigans of the last 3 years. This is why Boris does have a lead in the polls, despite his own shenanigans. 

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, flossie35 said:

So your idea of democracy means illegally shutting down parliament to stifle discussion of a rather important issue? Etc etc. And what you leavers have failed to grasp is that the referendum was advisory, not legally binding, putting responsibility for deciding whether or not to take the advice onto MPs. By trying to stop MPs doing their democratic duty as required by the Referendum Act it's you that is being undemocratic. MPs have to act in the national interest and they are free to decide that that does not mean "leave", if that's the way they see it. And perhaps you can explain how leave could possibly in the national interest? JRM said all would be well in 50 years; is that the best you can do?

By its recent actions, this parliament has effectively shut itself down.

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, DannyCarlton said:

Just the opposite. A GE is a multi issue election, a people's vote is a single issue vote. Can't get purer than that.

As long as it's pure remain?

 

2 hours ago, DannyCarlton said:

I've answered tis once already but here's another "puerile" response for you.

 

The hapless fools who voted to invoke Article 50, did so in a misguided attempt to protect their own seats in the upcoming election. They have now seen the light and the majority of them are now voting in the best interests of the country and our futures.

You mean they got as far as actually reading Article 50? 

Edited October 29, 2019 by nauseus

[stephenterry]

17 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Fair enough. But it is obvious that this particular parliament is incapable of being democratically responsible.

 

My view of the "man in the street", however, is that he does "give a toss" about Brexit, especially after the shenanigans of the last 3 years. This is why Boris does have a lead in the polls, despite his own shenanigans. 

There is a truth behind both statements. MP's are divided - there's no doubt about that. If it was all possible they should look for a better solution, than what johnson is determining.

 

Which leads on to the second point. IMO, the main rationale is that the British public, at least in little england, just want brexit out of the way for good - and the polls denote that johnson is best placed to achieve that. Which is not to say that they do give a toss about brexit, quite the opposite, IMO.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

So you think standing and being elected on a manifesto to respect the vote, enacting article 50 and then immediately doing a 180 and plotting for 2 years to stop Brexit is respecting the result? What a twisted view you have.

 

PS there is not a deal of any kind proposed. There is a treaty. Any "deal" will come later, after we have left. 

 

The problem is that this "treaty" will guarantee the EU control of any further trade deal negotiations, without the possibility of any third party arbiter. Pretty much as it has been so far, really. We can see how well that has worked for the UK, eh?

Edited October 29, 2019 by nauseus

[stephenterry]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

You mean simply give up on Democracy because a few hundred MP's are bringing the country to it's knees because they won't accept losing? If everyone was that weak there would be no Democracy to give up on.

Why keep rabbiting on about what you consider to be democracy?  Because it's in Britain's interest for MPs to decide what's best. That's democracy in action.   

[Blue Muton]

19 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

It lost  more than 3 places in the "democracy"ranking this year that's for sure. By rejecting democracy the remainers have opened a can of worms I believe they will come to very much regret opening.

But of course as we all know it was the Leave campaign that was found guilty of multiple counts of "most serious" electoral fraud. That is truly rejecting democracy.

[david555]

6 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The problem is that this "treaty" will guarantee the EU control of any further trade deal negotiations, without the possibility of any third party arbiter. Pretty much as it has been so far, really. We can see how well that has worked for the UK, eh?

Yes , and with same E.U. head negotiator in charge , appointed already for years to come,..... earned his appointment with ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ rating ….

[nauseus]

8 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

There is a truth behind both statements. MP's are divided - there's no doubt about that. If it was all possible they should look for a better solution, than what johnson is determining.

 

Which leads on to the second point. IMO, the main rationale is that the British public, at least in little england, just want brexit out of the way for good - and the polls denote that johnson is best placed to achieve that. Which is not to say that they do give a toss about brexit, quite the opposite, IMO.

Ah, LIttle England! Great summer camps there near the Landsker Line. 

[JonnyF]

9 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Why keep rabbiting on about what you consider to be democracy?  Because it's in Britain's interest for MPs to decide what's best. That's democracy in action.   

Because I enjoy watching anti democrats tying themselves in knots to try and justify overturning the biggest Democratic exercise in UK history, simply because they lost the vote and refuse to accept it.

[nauseus]

12 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Why keep rabbiting on about what you consider to be democracy?  Because it's in Britain's interest for MPs to decide what's best. That's democracy in action.   

Just as there is wide distrust in Bojo, there is also a wide distrust of most of the other MPs, as it is perceived that their own self-interest may be conflicting with the UK's best interests.

[JonnyF]

17 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The problem is that this "treaty" will guarantee the EU control of any further trade deal negotiations, without the possibility of any third party arbiter. Pretty much as it has been so far, really. We can see how well that has worked for the UK, eh?

Totally agree. Then they will start making more ridiculous demands from us in order to get the trade deal. One of the reasons I prefer to leave with a clean break and give them absolutely nothing until we get something in return on trade. We are basically paying up front for nothing. 

[brewsterbudgen]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

So you think standing and being elected on a manifesto to respect the vote, enacting article 50 and then immediately doing a 180 and plotting for 2 years to stop Brexit is respecting the result? What a twisted view you have.

 

PS there is not a deal of any kind proposed. There is a treaty. Any "deal" will come later, after we have left. 

 

The result of the 2017 General Election was a hung parliament - the people voted that way, and it's reflected in the House seeking a compromise Brexit.  Unfortunately the hardcore Leavers wouldn't accept a compromise "soft" Brexit, and we are therefore where we are today.   Theresa May had a majority for her Deal (with the DUP) but the militant hard-core Brexiteers wouldn't accept it.

[nauseus]

7 minutes ago, david555 said:

Yes , and with same E.U. head negotiator in charge , appointed already for years to come,..... earned his appointment with ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ rating ….

I could call him a *****, yes. 

[nauseus]

1 minute ago, brewsterbudgen said:

The result of the 2017 General Election was a hung parliament - the people voted that way, and it's reflected in the House seeking a compromise Brexit.  Unfortunately the hardcore Leavers wouldn't accept a compromise "soft" Brexit, and we are therefore where we are today.   Theresa May had a majority for her Deal (with the DUP) but the militant hard-core Brexiteers wouldn't accept it.

Eh?