• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

Need to read your post tomorrow GB and see if I can understand it then!

In the meantime, watch this. A whole lot of truth about the past and insight into the future.


Boris to promise 350m a week to the NHS in the election campaign then. And the big motivator that Cummings, Boris and the Torys share? Getting rid of Farrage. Why has Boris been so staunchly leave? To stop Farage and the Brexit party.

Despite being highly intelligent, using his experience campaigning against the Euro, and his gift to find messages that people pick up on, Cummings has flaws and oversights:

1. to laud himself candidly like that. Yes it was an amazing victory, but he should learn to have some aplomb.

2. The EU doesn't drive protectionism and extremism. Agents like him do. Or agents via Russia. Interesting that Cummings lived in Russia for 3 years. He failed at setting up an airline business. His new airline had one empty flight and then closed down. To me he is a character who is good at exciting people, and throwing things up in the air, but not delivering. We all know people like that. All talk no content.

The EU was born out of a need to never have extremism like the Nazis again. And at its heart is free an open trade. The largest free market on the planet. So to suggest it is protectionist really shows up his failings. Popularism happened in the US and Brazil without any EU. He's amazing at getting people excited, but deluded at the same time.

Still he'll be drawing up the Boris campaign as we speak. Corbyn looks a pale opponent.
 
Last edited:
Robspur12 said:
The deal May put forward, the one that would have ended Freedom of movement which was the major reason for people voting out, was rejected by Brexiteers too. Those brexiteers have wanted no deal from the off which they do not have a mandate for. It's absolutely correct that the "no deal" scenario that only the Tory right and extreme brexiteers want, is opposed. I was a remain voter, but I accepted the referendum result wanting us to leave with a deal with the EU. May got that but people including the current PM undermined it. So it's a bit rich to blame remainers within his own party who supported the deal.
Click to expand...
That deal was worse than what we had from inside the EU - of course it was rejected.

As I've already stated in this thread, even a halfwit can war game the outcome with no deal blocked and come to the conclusion that the only result will be to remain
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Twitter is literally the worst format for this kind of thing.

Why not just link to a bloody blog page or something?!
Click to expand...
I immediately ignore anyone using a thread in Twitter - it's entirely the wrong format for it.

He's written the same article for the Telegraph in a proper publication in its proper form. Twitter should be used to link to the article.
 
scaramanga said:
I immediately ignore anyone using a thread in Twitter - it's entirely the wrong format for it.

He's written the same article for the Telegraph in a proper publication in its proper form. Twitter should be used to link to the article.
Click to expand...

Ill try and read some bits if it looks like it might be informative, but I usually end up giving up.


milo said:
Because his story will be sat behind the Telegraph paywall.
Click to expand...

So stick it somewhere else. Or, at least, all the comment that follows - which is the bit he is trying to Twitter.

He even ballsed it up himself and ended up with two threads.

I dont subscribe to Twitte, have no time for most social media, but whenever Im linked to anything on there its is striking just how awful it is for anything other than a punchline.
 
scaramanga said:
That deal was worse than what we had from inside the EU - of course it was rejected.

As I've already stated in this thread, even a halfwit can war game the outcome with no deal blocked and come to the conclusion that the only result will be to remain
Click to expand...

Its baffling to me that MPs are able to raise this issue in court and make it illegal to leave with no deal.

The more I think about it, the less it seems like it should even be possible - and the more it tinkles me off.

Principally it just doesnt sit well that renegade MPs can lawfully fudge the sitting government like that. Be that Tory/Labour/Monster raving loony, it just seems wrong.

More specifically, this just screws us with the EU and likely saddles the country as being the EUs subservient bitch for generations. How can that happen against the will of the government?
 
SpurMeUp said:
No deal has not been chosen as a prefered option, it has been foisted on people who did not have the intelligence to model what would happen. That is the sorry truth of it.
Click to expand...

I'd suggest the variable that was omitted or most significantly underestimated was the one that represented just how much certain UK players would actively work against their own country/government post-referendum.

That's the sorry truth to me.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Its baffling to me that MPs are able to raise this issue in court and make it illegal to leave with no deal.

The more I think about it, the less it seems like it should even be possible - and the more it tinkles me off.

Principally it just doesnt sit well that renegade MPs can lawfully fudge the sitting government like that. Be that Tory/Labour/Monster raving loony, it just seems wrong.

More specifically, this just screws us with the EU and likely saddles the country as being the EUs subservient bitch for generations. How can that happen against the will of the government?
Click to expand...
They pretty much can't - which hopefully will be made clear during the next few days.

Foreign affairs are an executive function and the executive cannot be bound by parliament on them. Parliament is able to express its wishes (as it currently is), the executive is able to ignore them. There has been recourse for this for centuries - they can show that he or she no longer has the confidence of parliament. Corbyn's refusal to step down as opposition leader has already put paid to that. By the time this bill has been fully debated, there will be no time for another no confidence vote to take place before Oct 31st - that's why proroguing was required.

Parliament can try to pass a bill that removes executive power and passes it to parliament. I believe that's what they're trying to do at the start of this bill with the strangely worded "must" instead of the standard "shall" or "will." In that case, the Queen must give royal assent to the bill as it affects prerogative. So no matter how much the Speaker abuses his position (and it's clear the little Hobbit clam will) it will have to go in front of the Queen. She is certainly bound by tradition, and the majority opinion appears to be that she's also bound by law, to follow the advice given to her by the PM. He will almost certainly advise her to withhold her assent.
 
I certainly hope you are right, but have to doubt its that cut and dried considering they have taken this all to court anyway.

They must think they have a shot at it.

Which sets a very unsettling precedent. Opposition dont like what the government is doing? Just take it to court and cut them off at the knees...
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
I certainly hope you are right, but have to doubt its that cut and dried considering they have taken this all to court anyway.

They must think they have a shot at it.

Which sets a very unsettling precedent. Opposition dont like what the government is doing? Just take it to court and cut them off at the knees...
Click to expand...
The court can only rule that Johnson's advice to HM was unlawful - it's 40:60 that they can IMO.

That being said, the courts have consistently shown themselves to lean heavily towards Remain in their recent dealings - see the case brought by that clam Miller. So they may find in favour of the traitors. Even so, they'll still need to show that Johnson doesn't have parliament's confidence (reasonably easy) and then find someone in whom they do have confidence (not so easy). Remember - the government only has to listen to a VONC brought by the leader of the opposition, they can ignore all others.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
I certainly hope you are right, but have to doubt its that cut and dried considering they have taken this all to court anyway.

They must think they have a shot at it.

Which sets a very unsettling precedent. Opposition dont like what the government is doing? Just take it to court and cut them off at the knees...
Click to expand...
That's one of the basic principles that's at question - whether the government governs with the advice of parliament of if parliament governs. Tradition would suggest the former, a biased court would suggest the latter. Whether they want to destroy centuries of protocol over as single issue like this, I don't know.

I'm reasonably comfortable with parliament enforcing the government if they are working to the will of the people. Unfortunately, the opposite is the case. The government is attempting to put forward the will of the people and parliament is attempting to subvert it.
 
Parklaner81 said:
I'd suggest the variable that was omitted or most significantly underestimated was the one that represented just how much certain UK players would actively work against their own country/government post-referendum.

That's the sorry truth to me.
Click to expand...

Amen to that, shows just how much the self serving arseholes value public opinion.
 
Jeremy Corbyn has said he “fully expects” no-deal Brexit prevention legislation to be passed by Parliament.

The Labour leader, in an interview after cross-party talks over stopping no-deal, said: “It was a very good meeting. We met in my office and had a very good discussion.

“People were in good humour because we are working together to try to stop this government crashing out on October 31.

“Today, the priority is the application has been made for the order paper to be handed over to the Commons tomorrow in order to introduce legislation which we fully expect to pass through all its stages in the House of Commons tomorrow, and it will then go to the Lords and hopefully becomes law very quickly.”

Asked if he has the number of MPs to pass the legislation, Mr Corbyn said: “Yes. We do believe we have the MPs here and ready to support that legislation because many are alarmed at the consequences for jobs, for our economy, of crashing out on October 31 without a deal, which is what the Prime Minister seems determined to try to do, riding roughshod over Parliament and democracy in the process.

“That’s why Parliament asserting itself on behalf of those people who don’t want us to crash out is important.”

Mr Corbyn expressed confidence that every Labour MP will back the legislation. He said: “I expect and hope that every Labour MP will support that legislation.”


And what about this one?

Much less a legal issue, but the same point as above.
 
Parklaner81 said:
I'd suggest the variable that was omitted or most significantly underestimated was the one that represented just how much certain UK players would actively work against their own country/government post-referendum.

That's the sorry truth to me.
Click to expand...

The blame game? The equation has been really simple for a while:

1. Soft Brexit aka Norway derivative = no one wins. Like being in the EU with less say for the UK. Funnily enough Farage was all over this option pre-vote he was into it in a big way, and clearly didn't fully understand it.

2. Harder Brexit - no FoM into the UK, which then means no free access to the EU single market to trade. This means our trade suffers (is less optimal/free than now), we have to negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU which takes time. We create tension/violence in Ireland as there has to be some kind of border. Also gives Scotland a good reason to split from the UK.

3. No Deal - Same problems as #2 harder brexit, but without a planned transition period, or mechanism to allow goods to move freely from the EU-UK which could impact food supply, medicines, parts for manufacturing etc instant tarrifs and would put a lot of jobs at risk.


There might be small changes to the above options. But there is nothing anyone - people working for or 'against' Brexit - could do to change these options. If the options don't stack up in the UKs favour that is not the fault of remainers. To then blame them is a massive cop out. That people warned it would be difficult to get a benificial setup for the UK post brexit is now held against them? Are you saying these people's who shared insight that brexit would be a suboptimal setup for the UK are actually at fault for it not working? That if they'd not said anything brexit would have worked? That is a nonsense. What exit option would have worked well!?
 
Last edited:
scaramanga said:
I'm fairly sure that no matter what the traitors do, 52% will always be > 48%. Their mandate is solid, unlike the backbones of many of our MPs.
Click to expand...
As far as Brexit goes, the make up of the house isn't relevant in such binary terms.

I would commenting on the lack of confidence in the Govt.
Interesting you made it solely related to Brexit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back