Its not an offence to think it, just one if you enact on it
Off Topic Politics Thread
- Thread starter ChilcoSaint
- Start date
-
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
-
Its not an offence to think it, just one if you enact on it
Misleading, in fact untrue statements such as the above should have legally enforced penalties. A second referendum would be littered with similar lies and deceits.
Jab
yup, will be many lies about the affects of Brexit both ways but at least we would know what we are voting for as that's been written down and agreed on, which is a massive improvement on the previous one.
Enjoy the weekend before the storm begins. If May does not get the support of the MPs, what is the betting she will form a National Government and ask for an extensión to Article 50 indefinitely? It would give everyone a chance to clear their heads and get on with the real business of Government such as Health, Education, policing, transport, support for industry and training, restoring handouts to local Governments to levels last seen in the Brown years,
There is the saying that "History repeats itself." It happened in the late 1840s when many elements in the ruling Conservative party were very hostile to the repeal of the Corn Laws, while today we have elements within this same party advocating the madness of a "No Deal." We saw it in the late 1920s. I am sure we will see it this year.
There is the saying that "History repeats itself." It happened in the late 1840s when many elements in the ruling Conservative party were very hostile to the repeal of the Corn Laws, while today we have elements within this same party advocating the madness of a "No Deal." We saw it in the late 1920s. I am sure we will see it this year.
I predicted an extension weeks/months ago. You are pretty much on the money there. She will lose the vote. She won't resign. Corbyn won't know what to do. She'll come back with a suggestion of what she will try to do which will be "beg for a concession."
Corbyn won't know what to do because he still won't have the numbers for a confidence vote and he is hoping she will just resign.
But the extension won't be requested until much closer to the deadline in March (I would guess) and there is no way the EU will accept the "indefinite" part. It will be a fixed extension which is really just a paper title because any deal they do make was going to have a transitional period anyway.
May won’t do anything of the sort, as nobody would support her as PM in a National Government. She has achieved the unique position in our history of becoming an authoritarian dictator without even the support of a huge section of her own party. The only legitimate action she can take following defeat on Tuesday is to resign and call a General Election.
I do agree something has to be done about Article 50, but the EU won’t allow extension on any terms, we have to have specific grounds for thinking that a new deal can be negotiated. A General Election followed by a Labour government would mean this is possible, without the iniquitous red lines that May has strangled herself with.
Personally, I would rather Parliament votes through an amendment to revoke Article 50 unilaterally, which is a legally valid move. That would allow time for a General Election and/or a second referendum. If, after all the potential chaos and hardship of Brexit which we now know awaits us the people still want to leave, then Article 50 can be triggered again, but only after a new trading and political relationship has already been agreed, with a full Customs Union in place.
If you're interested in a response, this article counters that exact thread
"Yet in his analysis, DAG consistently elevates the ends over the means. He attacks as “constitutional outrages” Government actions of which he disapproves, despite their being within the rules, and defends Bercow’s shattering precedents in pursuit of a cause which he supports as fine constitutional conduct.":
https://www.conservativehome.com/th...abit-of-constitutional-outrages-is-false.html
Interesting language.
"very bad form." "You might count it poor sportsmanship"
Indeed, you might. Or, you might see something a little more serious than someone bending the rules in a cricket match.
This is a government trampling (OK, if you insist when it comes to Henry VIII power, "trying to trample") on Parliament. And then that same government's acting all hurt when the speaker, one of whose jobs is to protect parliament from overreach by the executive, does just that. As it happens, I dislike the fact that Bercow overreached. However, I'm much more bothered that he had to.
Your glorious leader has a tactic to kick the most important postwar decision of this country down the road until the pressure builds and she gets her way. There's not a single ounce of public interest in so doing; it's purely to keep your party in government. She's been stopped by Parliament and she's grinding her teeth in public. Bollocks to her.
Vin
Chilcs Do you think Europe will consider a new trading agreement/relationship?
With a different government yes. It’s in their interests as much as ours to keep a trading relationship going, and they’re only saying the current deal is the only possible one because of May’s red lines which ruled out so many factors, notably a Customs Union.
I just feel they may just draw time on us. It’s still the UK, even with different leader or party. We’ve had nearly three years.
We can still revoke Article 50 unilaterally if that happens. No way the current Parliament allows us to crash out, that’s been made very clear.
Edit: And I would guess a new Parliament wouldn’t either.
The only challenge there is that the ruling was pretty clear. It has to be a genuine revocation. It can't be revoked in order to get Brexit back on track.
The wording of the judgment includes this section: "The revocation must be decided following a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements. This unequivocal and unconditional decision must be communicated in writing to the European Council." (my bold, from document at the ECJ website: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2018-12/cp180191en.pdf)
So it can't be used if there's a sign that the decision itself is not unequivocal or unconditional. i.e. it can't be used to kick the can further down the road.
Vin
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...r-claim-blocking-brexit-could-boost-far-right
Project fear from failing Grayling. Any right wing street "protests" would be greatly outnumbered by "counter protesters"
Bit late for that https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ed-water-cannon-sold-for-scrap-at-300000-loss.Time to dust off those water canon Boris squandered my poll tax money on
You must log in or register to see media
. Mrs Jab is out, time to up the volume and bring on the revolution!
Understood. But that in no way prevents Parliament from triggering it again a couple of years down the line if, say, Rees-Mogg won the hearts of his party and the nation enough to become PM.
If that happens I will emigrate to Ireland.
Last edited: