Off Topic Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Sky paper review should be good. Frothing at the mouth Tory and Labour press in Andrew Pierce and Kevin MacGuire.
 
VocalMinority said:
Theres nothing stopping them from changing the legal default to revoke or many other things in UK law if they agree to. Very much in their power.

Majority of people don't want to default to no deal by the same poll you posted earlier.
Click to expand...

It would require a majority to fall on their swords if either the government....or those who have taken hold of procedure were to put forward a process to change the default to revoke because it would undoubtedly bring the government down from within, helped by the opposition because it would be a carrot they could not ignore. To ignore that carrot of utilising help to bring the government down would be an admittance they don't want to be in power/have confidence in the government.

It would be a free for all at a GE in that scenario. Loads of leave votes up for grabs.
 
ChilcoSaint said:
Bill passes Third Reading by 313-312.
Click to expand...

All that wins is a vote to extend being put on the list. Long assumption to think that 313 thinking there should be a vote on it actually will vote for that extension.

EDIT: I've got that wrong. That was another one of the amendments. lol.

What confuses me about this bill is why they debated it and why they voted on it in the first place? May said last night "We will no have to ask for a further extension." So they just voted to force the PM to do what she already said she was going to do?
 
Last edited:
I notice the Lincolnshire Tories are vocal in their disagreement. Karen Lee (the lone Labour representative for Lincoln's Uni students) sat there very quietly on the opposition benches. Keeping her head down.
 
ImpSaint said:
All that wins is a vote to extend being put on the list. Long assumption to think that 313 thinking there should be a vote on it actually will vote for that extension.
Click to expand...
How many times does No Deal have to be voted down before you accept that this Parliament will never allow it to happen?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archers Road
ImpSaint said:
No, I think a more sensible deal that actually got close to honouring the referendum would've been better. I've been pretty clear about that. However this is the only option left available now that gets anywhere near because it is the only one the MPs haven't (and cannot) got rid of, no matter how many times they vote on it because it is not in their power to change the article 50 legal default. That default is in EU law and applies to all EU countries via the Lisbon Treaty. WE can continue voting on it and it will still be there. They have voted on all other options and ended up leaving a single option as the only option for many people.

Your point about the "supposedly grassroots" unrelated groups also leads back into the referendum itself where leave have got into trouble for not being as professional as the remain groups when they were pushing money off into the side project groups. Remain had many more of them than leave, spent more, co-ordinated daily with conference calls but were slick and professional in avoiding it "crossing the line."

The only point you have there is about funding. Yes it should be transparent and it will have to be once it is campaign time. Only during the campaign do political donations and funding have to be disclosed. Outside of that period it is a free for all and I daresay people's vote and those affiliated with (but of course not part of) also have their fair share of non disclosed funding.
Click to expand...

What do you have to say about the police contacting their local MP (I can’t remember which region it was now) directly, to say that a no deal would make their job much harder?

Do you still think it’s project fear, now that it’s actually becoming a reality?

How can you justify a no deal under such circumstances? What are the benefits to risk this outcome?
 
ImpSaint said:
Southampton poster in the replies about 5 down.

You must log in or register to see media
Click to expand...
This is what we voted for.

UK makes it's own decidions without EUs say.
EU makes it's own decisions without our say.

Did people not realise that many of these decisions, like turning down a deal, would affect us whether we are in the EU or not?

Making laws apply equally is what being in the EU does.
 
VocalMinority said:
This is what we voted for.

UK makes it's own decidions without EUs say.
EU makes it's own decisions without our say.

Did people not realise that many of these decisions, like turning down a deal, would affect us whether we are in the EU or not?

Making laws apply equally is what being in the EU does.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the EU isn't "'making" the UK leave with no deal. Once Article 50 was invoked, you moved into bilateral negotiations as two (eventually) separate entities, neither of whom owe each other anything beyond attempting to secure the best deal for themselves. And if the EU decides that the best deal *for the EU* is no deal at all, guess what? That's what you get, because that's the default state. If the EU decided day one that they simply weren't going to negotiate, that's just the way it would be, because the EU owes the UK absolutely no favours in this.

This is what independence looks like: the right to try to negotiate as best you can, and the right to be told to go piss off by your opposite number if it suits them. Something the EU hasn't done to date solely because it's been to their benefit to put up with this clown show, at least to date.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saint Helen, VocalMinority and StJabbo
Osvaldorama said:
What do you have to say about the police contacting their local MP (I can’t remember which region it was now) directly, to say that a no deal would make their job much harder?

Do you still think it’s project fear, now that it’s actually becoming a reality?

How can you justify a no deal under such circumstances? What are the benefits to risk this outcome?
Click to expand...

The benefit would be we were out. I'm not getting drawn into this argument again. Yadda, yadda, all the experts say we're doomed. all leavers are racists blah, blah. No point. I will just cheer IF the ERG grow some balls and bring the government down to stop this charade of democracy. We need new MPs in there that represent much better the feeling in the country. Put PR up and I will vote for it. Just not the stupid AV thing that was offered last time. No point having 2 behemoths that are "big churches" when they insist on whipping everything yet can't control their MPs.

Will they? Of course not, they love first past the post. Put all this lot to the public. Whoever wins their seat back fair enough. Whoever doesn't Tough wotsits.

It is funny how all these people who cry about 52:48 not being a large enough majority are such happy people about this 1 vote being "a significant win."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brinkworth Saint
Schad said:
Yeah, the EU isn't "'making" the UK leave with no deal. Once Article 50 was invoked, you moved into bilateral negotiations as two (eventually) separate entities, neither of whom owe each other anything beyond attempting to secure the best deal for themselves. And if the EU decides that the best deal *for the EU* is no deal at all, guess what? That's what you get, because that's the default state. If the EU decided day one that they simply weren't going to negotiate, that's just the way it would be, because the EU owes the UK absolutely no favours in this.

This is what independence looks like: the right to try to negotiate as best you can, and the right to be told to go piss off by your opposite number if it suits them. Something the EU hasn't done to date solely because it's been to their benefit to put up with this clown show, at least to date.
Click to expand...

So lets hope they do just say "enough."

Local election candidates are announced tomorrow aren't they!!! Worth looking at the options :)
 
ImpSaint said:
Probably because he's not an MP representing a London constituency?
You must log in or register to see media
Click to expand...
I've looked at the various polls and results and have come up with my succinct and insightful conclusion.

You can stick yer poll up yer hole, they are wrong on the whole. it doesn't matter left or right yer bloody poll's a load of ****e!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archers Road, ImpSaint and ChilcoSaint
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back