-
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)
- Thread starter SpurMeUp
- Start date
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Labour MP Caroline Flint says her party colleagues should consider voting for a general election before the Brexit deadline even if they don't want one
"My concern is, Parliament doesn't give the two-thirds majority [needed to hold an election], and it is my understanding that in that instance, the prime minister, any prime minister, could still go to the Queen and seek to have a general election.
"In that situation, my fear is that we could actually have a date for the polls not before the 31 October, but on the 3 November, which means we will bow out of the European Union with no deal whatsoever."
Not sure how true this is, but it adds an interesting complexion...
"My concern is, Parliament doesn't give the two-thirds majority [needed to hold an election], and it is my understanding that in that instance, the prime minister, any prime minister, could still go to the Queen and seek to have a general election.
"In that situation, my fear is that we could actually have a date for the polls not before the 31 October, but on the 3 November, which means we will bow out of the European Union with no deal whatsoever."
Not sure how true this is, but it adds an interesting complexion...
Parklaner81
Steve Hodge
Living in la la land.
And brexit'll be another day of sun...!
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
It's how the 2016 referendum looked on constituency lines. But all the evidence is that there's been no movement of opinion since then
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
That's exactly what the Brexit party will be used for. Presumably the election pack with the Tories will be that they will only stand in north and midland Labour seats, not in shire Tory areas.
Interesting to read this question - it gives me a lot of insight into your viewpoint.
At the risk of answering someone else's question and, worse, answering it with another question; Why the hell would anyone want to level the playing field in trading bloc? Why neuter competition, damage the consumer and remove incentives to improvement? Everyone should be competing the best they can without artificial impediment.
That's the most accurate summary of the current position that I've read.Interesting peice by Bryan Gould, ex-Labour MP who i think now lives in New Zealand:
====
We are where we are because Remainers have collaborated with the EU to prevent an acceptable deal
What an extraordinarily depressing experience it is to be compelled to watch, at 12,000 miles distance, the contortions and machinations of the British political class as they set about their determined attempt to overturn the decision taken by the British people that they wish to leave the European Union.
The pages of publications like The Guardian are replete with articles by “constitutional experts”, exploring the various arcane ways in which so-called “democrats” could manipulate constitutional and parliamentary rules and practice so as to frustrate the will of the people by preventing a “no deal” Brexit — and all this supposedly in the name of democracy!
Let us be quite clear. The rearguard campaign to prevent a “no-deal” Brexit is merely a smokescreen for the real objective, which is to frustrate any Brexit at all and, in effect, overturn the referendum outcome. Despite protestations that they are committed to giving effect to the referendum, the Remainers’ actions tell a different story.
They calculate that, if the EU can be persuaded not to budge on negotiations for a deal, there will be sufficient opposition to a “no-deal” Brexit to mean that Parliament will find a way to stop it.
The contempt they show for democracy is exceeded only by their arrogance – their conviction that they alone know best – and by their readiness to demonstrate that their true allegiance is not to British democracy and self-government but to the “ideal” of European union – and, in the interests of that ideal, that they are prepared to collaborate with the EU to ensure that no acceptable deal for Brexit is available.
Let us again be clear. A “no-deal” Brexit arises as a possibility only because the EU, in pursuance of their unspoken arrangement with Remainers, refuses to talk to, let alone negotiate with, a British government committed to withdrawal – a dramatic illustration of the extent to which, when we cannot even secure a position as a valid interlocutor on the issue of our own decision to withdraw, EU membership continues to mean a status of vassalage for the UK.
The EU are encouraged in this unreasonable intransigence by the continued efforts from Remainers to convince them that the battle to overturn the referendum result is not over and could yet be won if a deal is placed beyond reach. Defeated in the referendum and professing to abide by its outcome, they nevertheless demonstrate continually – and particularly to the EU – their determination at whatever cost to make it as difficult as possible.
What are the British people to make of this demonstration of contempt for them by their supposed leaders? For many, the sense that they are not being listened to – which, many believe, lay behind the referendum result – will simply have been confirmed.
Their confidence in democratic institutions and in their leaders will be further undermined. Their sense of being mere pawns, manipulated under a cloak of democracy in the interests of the political class, will have been validated.
What else are they to think, when so much effort is devoted by politicians to frustrating their wishes, and when what should be a reasonably straightforward proposition, that our EU membership should end, seems to be beyond our institutions to deliver and is not something that the EU is even prepared to discuss with those primarily involved?
Whatever we may think of a Boris Johnson Government, there must be some sympathy with its position that terminating our EU membership, in its essence, must surely be something that is within the remit and power of the UK government – deal or no deal.
Whether or not there is a “deal” is as much the responsibility of the EU as it is of the UK. In the absence of any EU willingness to negotiate a deal, it cannot be the case that the UK is locked in – prisoners who cannot escape. A “no-deal” Brexit, when and if it happens, will have been engineered, not by Leavers, but by the absence of any alternative, bought about as a consequence of the Remainers’ collaboration with the EU to prevent an acceptable deal being agreed.
URL: https://brexitcentral.com/we-are-wh...ed-with-the-eu-to-prevent-an-acceptable-deal/
SpurMeUp
Gary Stevens
It is quite simple (despite your efforst to muddy it). If your factory in England has to pay people more becuase of a minium wage, or has to spend more on worker care because of UK laws protecting workers than another factory in Europe which doesn't, that is not fair and does not help competition.
Or if your factory is permitted to use cheaper polluting materials, but another factory in another nation can not use such materials because of environmental laws, then the free market would be undermined. Parity allows fair competition.
SpurMeUp
Gary Stevens
If that is the case, can you outline what the "acceptable deal" that would have happened is?
What exactly is it that so called remainers have prevented?
SpurMeUp
Gary Stevens
So under Boris the Torys will be borrowing to spend.
It is interesting. People wanted things to be shaken up and on the face of it they are. The Cummings-Boris setup is a change. We also have the most right wing government we've probably ever seen (because of brexit). Yet Cummings is no Tory and wants to spend spend spend. If it wasn't for this brexit charade, Boris would be quite an exciting PM.
It is interesting. People wanted things to be shaken up and on the face of it they are. The Cummings-Boris setup is a change. We also have the most right wing government we've probably ever seen (because of brexit). Yet Cummings is no Tory and wants to spend spend spend. If it wasn't for this brexit charade, Boris would be quite an exciting PM.
That's the very description of fair. You can't artificially prop up unprofitable markets - otherwise we'd still be paying 10x our energy costs to support empty mines. If one country can produce a product or service cheaper than another then they absolutely deserve all of that trade - that's the entire point of having trade that stretches further than the outskirts of one's own village.
SpurMeUp
Gary Stevens
Even if it meant polluting? The notion that there is a hidden hand that ballances markets and all else takes care of itself, is still useful, but horribly outdated now. post fiancial crash where the pepople paid billions to bail out unregulated banks...it doesn't stack up. Neither does your argument that you could have a single market with differing regulations on production.
They have prevented the EU offering any kind of deal at all.If that is the case, can you outline what the "acceptable deal" that would have happened is?
What exactly is it that so called remainers have prevented?
Please don't make me yet again repeat what I went through only a couple of pages ago. The only possible result of blocking No Deal is remaining - just step the logic through yourself and see what you come up with.
If people care enough then they won't buy from polluting businesses/countries.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
How can a right wing government be spending more? The very definition of right wing is using the state to promote inequality (or equality of opportunity, but not result). Surely the Thatcherite Europhiles who were culled last night are the more right wing ones?
Parklaner81
Steve Hodge
In that case, where are the Tories going to win the additional seats that they need to win for a majority? 4 million UKIP votes translated into 1 seat in 2015, didn't it? I'm not sure I can see the brexit party vote playing out significantly differently to that.
Last edited:
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Mr McDonnell noted both he and Mr Javid had bus driver fathers.
"You wait ages for one son of a bus driver to become chancellor of the exchequer only to be followed soon after by another."
Mr McDonnell branded Mr Javid's speech "a compendium of meaningless platitudes", and suggested it had been written by No 10 adviser Dominic Cummings.
"Could I ask him to take a message back to the person who obviously drafted this statement. So if he could tell Mr Cummings, the man who cancels the chancellor's own speeches, sacks his staff without telling him..."
The remark caused Boris Johnson to shout from the frontbench about spending on education - prompting Mr McDonnell to refer to the PM's reported row with girlfriend Carrie Symonds.
Mr McDonnell also accused Mr Javid of trying to dupe the public in his spending plans
"The Tories have checked what are the top three or four issues in the polls and cynically judged just how little money they have to throw around to try and neutralise the concerns people.
"So to come here and then try to fool us with references to people's priorities is beyond irony.
"When did this extremist right-wing Tory party ever put the people first?
"Were they putting the people first when they froze child benefit, year after year?
Is it just me, or is this sort of thing simply embarrassing?
McDonnell fancies himself as leadership in this country, and conducts himself like this. Its shameful.
The greater concern to me is though, they are all like it, arent they? PMQs is a fudging farce. All it does it promote this childish gonads from people who should really be above that. Or a the very least conduct themselves in a statesman like manner.
"You wait ages for one son of a bus driver to become chancellor of the exchequer only to be followed soon after by another."
Mr McDonnell branded Mr Javid's speech "a compendium of meaningless platitudes", and suggested it had been written by No 10 adviser Dominic Cummings.
"Could I ask him to take a message back to the person who obviously drafted this statement. So if he could tell Mr Cummings, the man who cancels the chancellor's own speeches, sacks his staff without telling him..."
The remark caused Boris Johnson to shout from the frontbench about spending on education - prompting Mr McDonnell to refer to the PM's reported row with girlfriend Carrie Symonds.
Mr McDonnell also accused Mr Javid of trying to dupe the public in his spending plans
"The Tories have checked what are the top three or four issues in the polls and cynically judged just how little money they have to throw around to try and neutralise the concerns people.
"So to come here and then try to fool us with references to people's priorities is beyond irony.
"When did this extremist right-wing Tory party ever put the people first?
"Were they putting the people first when they froze child benefit, year after year?
Is it just me, or is this sort of thing simply embarrassing?
McDonnell fancies himself as leadership in this country, and conducts himself like this. Its shameful.
The greater concern to me is though, they are all like it, arent they? PMQs is a fudging farce. All it does it promote this childish gonads from people who should really be above that. Or a the very least conduct themselves in a statesman like manner.
Parklaner81
Steve Hodge
He can't/won't do that, because he knows full well that he'll arrive at a position that clashes with his entrenched view on the matter.
Her and a few others are in massively leave voting constituencies and in danger of being voted out if they delay things or go with a referendum is the only reason they're doing it. Gareth Snell is another one. Their amendment should be accepted though - it's right MP's should get the opportunity to vote again on the updated bill.
Parklaner81
Steve Hodge
Yeah, I didn't really have any issue with the points she raised, it was more comparing it back to her faux-outraged, foot-stamping, 'well I'm not going to vote for it now' party political behaviour aimed at May the last time it got voted on.