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

[Opl]

9 minutes ago, nauseus said:

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

[evadgib]

2 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

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

I haven't stated otherwise. My concern is for the elastic band around UKs gonads...

Edited October 29, 2019 by evadgib

[NanLaew]

6 minutes ago, rhyddid said:

BJ shall resign immediately, Tories shall go back and re think Brexit at all !

 

From your stated location, I take it you're toking already?

Edited October 29, 2019 by NanLaew

[NanLaew]

36 minutes ago, Blue Muton said:

the Leave campaign that was found guilty of multiple counts of "most serious" electoral fraud.

Citation?

 

Anyway, how can you possibly have 'electoral fraud' during a referendum? They are two distinctly different breeds of political sacred cow.

[RuamRudy]

2 hours ago, NanLaew said:

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.

Do you think it acceptable that different parts of the UK operate under very different agreements? Would you not prefer that your representatives were looking out for your best interests rather than offering you up as a sacrifice in the name of Brexit?

Edited October 29, 2019 by RuamRudy

[evadgib]

24 minutes ago, rhyddid said:

BJ shall resign immediately, Tories shall go back and re think Brexit at all !

<deleted post>

 

Edited October 29, 2019 by evadgib

[NanLaew]

8 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Do you think it acceptable that different parts of the UK operate under very different agreements? Would you not prefer that your best representatives were looking out for your best interests rather than offering you up as a sacrifice in the name of Brexit?

Since there are unique differences between the frankly disparate parts of the UK, I find it acceptable but the SNP doesn't. Their "haun's oot" all the time which is another reason they crave the EU as a surrogate tit; an endless source of unaccountable lucre if they have 'independence'.

 

What isn't acceptable is any elected regional or local representatives of the people selling their soul (or letting it be bought) so that a third party benefits. Horse trading... coalition... confidence and supply... hoodwinking...

Edited October 29, 2019 by NanLaew

[stephenterry]

33 minutes ago, nauseus said:

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.

Most certainly accurate. Particularly self-interest. But we're not naive enough to believe that brexit is THE solution. Which rather defeats the unrelenting leaver's rhetoric regarding respecting the referendum result.

 

It also undermines my insistence that MP's are demonstrating democracy, albeit they have to live with their lies, I don't.

[NanLaew]

1 minute ago, stephenterry said:

Most certainly accurate. Particularly self-interest. But we're not naive enough to believe that brexit is THE solution. Which rather defeats the unrelenting leaver's rhetoric regarding respecting the referendum result.

 

It also undermines my insistence that MP's are demonstrating democracy, albeit they have to live with their lies, I don't.

Good points except it would upset me to be forced to live with the results of the MP's lies.

[brewsterbudgen]

42 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Eh?

Sorry if it's confusing.  Which bit don't you understand?  "Hung parliament"?  "Compromise"?

[RuamRudy]

5 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Since there are unique differences between the frankly disparate parts of the UK, I find it acceptable but the SNP doesn't. Their "haun's oot" all the time which is another reason they crave the EU as a surrogate tit; an endless source of unaccountable lucre if they have 'independence'.

 

So you would not object to the Scottish parliament being given control of all the levers currently denied of them? I mean, you are happy with current disparities, let's go the whole hog and allow Scots to take decisions to the betterment of Scotland in Scotland.

8 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

What isn't acceptable is any elected regional or local representatives of the people selling their soul (or letting it be bought) so that a third party benefits. Horse trading... coalition... confidence and supply... hoodwinking...

Edited 2 minutes ago by NanLaew

We wouldn't be here if it wasn't for TM jumping into bed with the creationist terrorist sympathisers that are the DUP; this Brexit stupidity would have been put in the trash a long time ago if those corrupt regressives hadn't interfered. 

[JonnyF]

44 minutes 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.

I'm not talking about Labour vs Conservative. I'm talking about Leave vs. Remain. People voted for MP's for parties who stood on manifestos to honour the result of the referendum and now they have reneged on that promise. The country is 52% Leave and now Parliament is about 70% Remain. So no, it is not representative because MP's said one thing to get elected and then broke their promises to the electorate.

 

May's deal wasn't Brexit. You can't have a vote for Brexit, then create a treaty that makes us a vassal state, call it "soft Brexit" and then blame Leavers for not voting for it. Besides, it was a record defeat in HOC, Remainers rejected it as well. Both sides hated it.

[stephenterry]

2 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Good points except it would upset me to be forced to live with the results of the MP's lies.

Not my constituency MP. He is genuinely concerned in representing his flock, having the least expenses in the HoC, and riding around town on his bicycle. One of Corbyn's rural people, an honest man who cares about jobs and welfare.  

[vogie]

1 hour 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.   

I wouldn't have thought that ignoring what the electorate vote for is very democratic, why don't we abolish voting altogether if our votes don't count.

 

"The basic rule of democracy is, you vote and you accept the result, otherwise where are we."

[sawadee1947]

8 hours ago, webfact said:

EU agrees Brexit delay as British parliament blocks December election

By William James, Kylie MacLellan and Elizabeth Piper

 

Britain's Prime Minister Boris Johnson speaks at the House of Commons in London, Britain, October 28, 2019, in this screen grab taken from video. Parliament TV via REUTERS

 

LONDON (Reuters) - The European Union agreed to a Brexit delay of up to three months on Monday, as Prime Minister Boris Johnson said he would push on with his bid to end Britain's political paralysis with an election on Dec. 12.

 

With the United Kingdom's scheduled Oct. 31 departure from the EU now virtually certain to be postponed, Brexit hangs in the balance, with British politicians still arguing over how, when or even whether the divorce should take place at all.

 

Johnson, who had loudly promised to deliver Brexit on Oct. 31, "do or die", has repeatedly demanded an election to end what he casts as a nightmare political deadlock that is sapping public trust by preventing any Brexit outcome at all.

 

Hours after the 27 countries remaining in the EU backed his reluctant request for a delay, Johnson attempted to force a snap election on Dec. 12 in the hope of finally winning a majority to pass the divorce deal he has negotiated with Brussels.

 

But his third attempt to call such an election gathered only 299 votes in parliament, short of the 424 - or two-thirds of the house - that he needed.

 

After the vote, Johnson said he would try again, by a legislative route that would only require a simple majority.

 

"We will not allow this paralysis to continue and, one way or another, we must proceed straight to an election," Johnson told parliament. "This House cannot any longer keep this country hostage."

 

To follow this route, Johnson will need the support of opposition parties such as the Scottish National Party (SNP) and the Liberal Democrats.

 

These have been pushing for a Dec. 9 election, aiming to ensure that Johnson cannot try again to rush his divorce deal through.

 

The BBC's political editor said Johnson's office had confirmed that the government would not bring the deal back to parliament - potentially opening the way for the SNP and LibDems to back a snap poll on Johnson's preferred date of Dec. 12.

 

DIVIDED KINGDOM

After almost four years of tortuous discussion, the United Kingdom remains divided over a divorce that removes what was once considered to be one of the West's most stable democracies from the European project.

 

While almost all British politicians agree that an election is needed, they want to inflict maximum political damage on Johnson - who leads in opinion polls - by preventing his last-minute deal from being ratified before the poll.

 

Johnson, in turn, is trying to shift the blame for failing to deliver Brexit by Oct. 31 onto parliament.

 

"We have a great new deal, and it's time for the voters to have a chance to pronounce on that deal, and to replace this dysfunctional parliament with a new parliament that can get Brexit done so the country can move on," Johnson said.

 

Britain's departure has already been delayed twice - from March 29 and April 12 - after Johnson's predecessor, Theresa May, failed three times to get her deal ratified by parliament.

 

In a letter to European Council President Donald Tusk, Johnson reluctantly accepted the delay agreed in Brussels, saying he had no choice under British law.

 

"This unwanted prolongation of the UK's membership of the EU is damaging to our democracy," he said.

 

"I would also urge EU member states to make clear that a further extension after 31st January is not possible. This is plenty of time to ratify our deal."

 

If no EU country objects within 24 hours - by Tuesday afternoon - the delay will have been formally adopted.

 

The EU, forged from the ruins of World War Two as a way to prevent another ruinous conflict in Europe, is fatigued by Britain's protracted crisis but keen not to be held responsible for an economically tumultuous "no-deal" rupture.

 

(Additional reporting by Kate Holton, Alistair Smout, Andrew MacAskill, Costas Pitas and Paul Sandle; Writing by Guy Faulconbridge; Editing by Mark Heinrich and Kevin Liffey)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-10-29

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

replace this dysfunctional parliament with ......

 

Well, there would be no problem with a functional trustworthy honest PM. ????????

[NanLaew]

12 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

So you would not object to the Scottish parliament being given control of all the levers currently denied of them? I mean, you are happy with current disparities, let's go the whole hog and allow Scots to take decisions to the betterment of Scotland in Scotland.

I am not happy with the current devolved powers and I have absolutely NO issues with a more thorough devolution at all. Of Westminster's 'reserved' powers listed here, I reckon at a minimum, the ones in bold should be in Holyrood. But the SNP have so badly mismanaged their golden opportunities to date, they would probably royally stuff things up with more on their wee, 'whaur's mine' plate.

 

• benefits and social security
• immigration
• defence
• foreign policy
• employment
• broadcasting
• trade and industry
• nuclear energy, oil, coal, gas and electricity
• consumer rights
• data protection
• the Constitution

Wales and Northern Ireland too.... but the latter haven't been much good at compromise with their kith and kin even during the few years they actually legislated from Stormont.

 

Scottish Independence? Not a bloody chance.

 

16 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

We wouldn't be here if it wasn't for TM jumping into bed with the creationist terrorist sympathisers that are the DUP; this Brexit stupidity would have been put in the trash a long time ago if those corrupt regressives hadn't interfered. 

Amen.

[Bruntoid]

27 minutes ago, vogie said:

I wouldn't have thought that ignoring what the electorate vote for is very democratic, why don't we abolish voting altogether if our votes don't count.

 

"The basic rule of democracy is, you vote and you accept the result, otherwise where are we."

But there was no vote cast for a no deal Brexit causing widespread calamity. Brexit has not been cancelled, a calamitous Brexit has. It is baffling how many times you need this pointing out. 
 

The MP’s are elected to do, rightly or wrongly, in this case rightly what they believe to be in the best interests of the country, not pander to 17 million people who had no clue of the consequences of what they were voting for. 
 

 

[nauseus]

44 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Most certainly accurate. Particularly self-interest. But we're not naive enough to believe that brexit is THE solution. Which rather defeats the unrelenting leaver's rhetoric regarding respecting the referendum result.

 

It also undermines my insistence that MP's are demonstrating democracy, albeit they have to live with their lies, I don't.

Brexit is not the solution to the problem caused by the self-interests of the majority of current MP's, I agree. Brexit is just the elected democratic outcome of the 2016 referendum.

[Bruntoid]

Calamity Update 

 

Fresh from the £100,000,000 wasted on telling businesses to get ready for October 31st Brexit - today the Mint have announced they will be melting down the 50p coins minted to ‘celebrate’ this. ????????

 

Arrogance seems to come with a big price tag 

 

 

[nauseus]

50 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Sorry if it's confusing.  Which bit don't you understand?  "Hung parliament"?  "Compromise"?

Big words. Like patronizing!

 

You said that May had a majority for her deal. I would have thought if that were the case then it would have passed months ago.

Edited October 29, 2019 by nauseus
May

[sandyf]

1 hour ago, NanLaew said:

Anyway, how can you possibly have 'electoral fraud' during a referendum? They are two distinctly different breeds of political sacred cow.

That being the case the result of the referendum should be declared invalid, the question on the ballot paper came from the Electoral Commission not a Referendum Commission..

Of course you are wrong, both come under the Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and any breach of the ECs rules on voting is Electoral Fraud.

[yodsak]

5 hours ago, Thingamabob said:

Labour gradually being cornered. They will get hammered in an election.

 

Indeed.       Oddschecker.  Jez was ahead in June.  Not too popular now.

[sandyf]

4 hours ago, evadgib said:

As I've said before if EU had implemented reforms from the onset we might never have voted to leave.

Probably true, but hardly a valid reason for changing the elastic band for an even tighter one.

[DannyCarlton]

2 minutes ago, sandyf said:

That being the case the result of the referendum should be declared invalid, the question on the ballot paper came from the Electoral Commission not a Referendum Commission..

Of course you are wrong, both come under the Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and any breach of the ECs rules on voting is Electoral Fraud.

The decision was that, as the referendum was advisory, it didn't come under normal EC rules.

[sandyf]

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

What are you on about now?

You obviously have a problem relating a response to a comment, explains a lot.

[sandyf]

11 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

The decision was that, as the referendum was advisory, it didn't come under normal EC rules.

There was no decision per se, national referendums are non binding and come under PPERA.

 

 National referendums can be permitted by an Act of Parliament and regulated through the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, but they are by tradition extremely rare due to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty meaning that they cannot be constitutionally binding on either the Government or Parliament, although they usually have a persuasive political effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_the_United_Kingdom

[nauseus]

32 minutes ago, sandyf said:

You obviously have a problem relating a response to a comment, explains a lot.

That reaction was all your "comment" deserved. What is it that you assume I voted for?

Edited October 29, 2019 by nauseus

[dunroaming]

8 hours ago, kingdong said:

The government has offered a general election and the remainer s keep bottling it,how many more times

The Lib Dems and the SNP are offering to help Boris get his December election.  Because Johnson is forever on the backfoot he may well go with that.  Probably know later today.  With their plan he would just need a majority and they would give him that.

 

Everybody wants an election as soon as possible but nobody trusts Boris an inch.

[sandyf]

13 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 What is it that you assume I voted for?

Your considered assessment.

 

"Unfortunately, under this (and May's) "agreement", the EU will control the iron and the UK will end up becoming a flattened, singed and steaming pair of Y-fronts. "

[jak2002003]

And this just goes on and no indefinitely.... year after year, more and more extensions and time wasting, squabbling and ruining the British economy.  So pathetic these so called educated intelligent politicians that all want the 'best for the public and country' are so incapable of sorting this out by now.