The Politics Thread 2019

[the fox]

40 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

I've been into a prison and spoken to a prisoner as part of job, the gentleman in question was serving 9 years for his involvement in the murder/manslaughter of somebody in a pub. Prior to meeting him I was somewhat daunted by him and didn't particularly want to go, but even from a brief conversation with him you could sense that he had genuine remorse for his actions. Sure nothing will bring back the deceased, but taking his life serves as nothing but petty retaliation and that's a dangerous precedent for a forward thinking nation to set. 

Don't think anyone is calling for people who committed manslaughter to be put to death. It is called manslaughter and not contemplated murder for a reason. I doubt you would feel the same about a person who raped and killed little kids. Manslaughter isn't nearly as bad as some of those ugly crimes and the 9 years sentence is evidence.

 

 

40 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

It's impossible to give somebody like Barry George back the 4/5/6 years or whatever it was that he spent in prison for a crime he didn't commit, but having the rest of his life as a free man is a damn sight better than having his conviction overturned from beyond the grave. I understand he was compensated for the same (not as much as he perhaps could have been due to some peculiarities) 

Should he be happy because he didn't spend his life in prison for a crime he didn't do? 

 

40 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

The concept of prison is not just locking bad people away, it's about rehabilitating them into society.

Again my point stands, what about people who are doing lifetime? Will they rehabilitate them into a new cell?

 

40 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

2. I don't quite get your point here? Apologies

Where is the proof for both arguments? (The death penalty and lifetime imprisonment)

 

40 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

There arguably isn't a completely moral and just way to counteract an offence in reality, real and true justice is almost impossible to achieve on the basis that good things will often happen to bad people and bad things to good.

Then why put people in prison for the rest of their life if the above things don't exist?

 

40 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

They're not really 'jammed in a cage' though are they? Prisoners are treated better than almost all factory farmed animals, but that's another debate 

The social awareness of humans and their intelligence is far greater than animal's. Putting people in a cage is much worse in comparison to animals. (BTW, I disagree with how a lot of animals are treated, they don't belong in cages and captivity)

 

40 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

. Because, personally, I don't want to the UK to align with countries that hold the death penalty, many of which have it for utterly ridiculous things like being gay, being a witch etc. I much prefer to be in agreement with other forward thinking nations. 

The death penalty is too much but what about UK aligning with countries who promote war, abuse 3rd world countries and their resource, pay absolutely criminally low wages to workers (which BTW resulted in many death and human rights violations) and profit over the death of innocent people who died because of the instigation of some countries who wanted that oil money. 

 

 

Edited 14 August 2019 by the fox

[The People's Hero]

Even the President of the United States must sometimes stand naked.

[Buce]

6 minutes ago, the fox said:

The death penalty is too much but you don't mind the UK aligning with countries who promote war, abuse 3rd world countries and their resource, pay absolutely criminally low wages to workers (which BTW resulted in many death and human rights violations) and profit over the death of innocent people who died because of the instigation of some countries who wanted that oil money. That isn't a very moral stans to take if you ask me.

 

 

 

That's rather presumptious considering you don't know him.

 

In fact, judging by his posting record, I doubt if he is in favour of any of those things.

Edited 14 August 2019 by Buce

[the fox]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

That's rather presumptious considering you don't know him.

 

In fact, judging by his posting record, I doubt if he is ok with any of those things.

I edited it out before you replied because I didn't mean to put it that way. I don't know him and that is why I changed my post. Got nothing against the man and see him as a good poster with no bad intent

[Buce]

9 minutes ago, The People's Hero said:

Even the President of the United States must sometimes stand naked.

 

Gross.

 

I don't think anyone wanted that image in their head...

[David Guiza]

6 minutes ago, the fox said:

Don't think anyone is calling for people who committed manslaughter to be put to death. It is called manslaughter and not contemplated murder for a reason. I doubt you would feel the same about a person who raped and killed little kids. Manslaughter isn't nearly as bad as some of those ugly crimes and the 9 years sentence is evidence.

 

 

Should he be happy because he didn't spend his life in prison for a crime he didn't do? 

 

Again my point stands, what about people who are doing lifetime? Will they rehabilitate them into a new cell?

 

Where is the proof for both arguments? (The death penalty and lifetime imprisonment)

 

Then why put people in prison for the rest of their life if the above things don't exist?

 

The social awareness of humans and their intelligence is far greater than animal's. Putting people in a cage is much worse in comparison to animals. (BTW, I disagree with how a lot of animals are treated, they don't belong in cages and captivity)

 

The death penalty is too much but what about UK aligning with countries who promote war, abuse 3rd world countries and their resource, pay absolutely criminally low wages to workers (which BTW resulted in many death and human rights violations) and profit over the death of innocent people who died because of the instigation of some countries who wanted that oil money. 

 

 

Manslaughter and murder aren't always as distinct as you may think. The gentleman in question could quite easily have gone down for murder, the length of sentence I think was due to his age (not exactly a spring chicken) and the fact that he wasn't the main aggressor. I've never met anybody who matches the description that you give, but I imagine it would be a completely different circumstance yes. I do, as an aside, have a friend who lectures in Human Rights Law and she has been over to the US to visit death row inmates to hear firsthand about their individual cases, it's fascinating and I think that experience would change your perception.  

I still wouldn't want the example you give to be murdered though, because for me ultimately any death penalty is wrong regardless of crime or circumstance. I could never be comfortable living in a society where the state sanctioned murder of citizens is permitted. 

 

As has been said over and over, it's awful to spend your life imprisoned for a crime you didn't commit - but it's far worse to be killed for it, surely? Dying with your name never have been cleared. Not being able to appeal, to have a voice and challenge your conviction? You have numerous opportunities to challenge whilst you're a prisoner, either through the courts or just through the media etc. You can't do that from the grave. 

 

Ultimately people need to be punished for numerous reasons, ranging from some sort of justice for the victim/victim's family etc to the state showing society that said crime is wrong. However, I will always believe that prison, whilst not ideal, is better than death. It is punishment enough to have your basic rights stripped away and taken out of society, but not so drastic that there is no turning back and there isn't a moral conundrum about the state authorising murder.

 

As for your final point, there is plenty that this country do or omit from doing that I am not comfortable with, but our legal system is something that I am proud of in comparison to a host of other nations. I am absolutely against the UK involvement with countries like Saudi Arabia for the exact same reasons you cite. I have even said on this forum before that I am not comfortable with out relationship with a country that kills it's citizens for a host of backward reasons. Joining them and other nations in having the death penalty is a backward step and it will never happen, even if somebody like Farage was in charge, thankfully.  More nations are taking away the death penalty than are re-instating it so far as I am aware.  

[the fox]

32 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

Manslaughter and murder aren't always as distinct as you may think. The gentleman in question could quite easily have gone down for murder, the length of sentence I think was due to his age (not exactly a spring chicken) and the fact that he wasn't the main aggressor. I've never met anybody who matches the description that you give, but I imagine it would be a completely different circumstance yes. I do, as an aside, have a friend who lectures in Human Rights Law and she has been over to the US to visit death row inmates to hear firsthand about their individual cases, it's fascinating and I think that experience would change your perception.  

There are people on death row who committed crimes related to gang violence and such things that I can see myself emphasizing with. Some people make mistakes and can change. Mistakes are made but I won't, not even for one second change my perception on those who rape and kill kids. Not a chance. There is a line between being a murderer and being an animal in human skin.

 

32 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

still wouldn't want the example you give to be murdered though, because for me ultimately any death penalty is wrong regardless of crime or circumstance. I could never be comfortable living in a society where the state sanctioned murder of citizens is permitted. 

 

I said in a previous post that I have no problem with people who refuse the concept of the death penalty. My problem is, for the last few pages is the criteria that is used to judge who deserves life in prison.

32 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

As has been said over and over, it's awful to spend your life imprisoned for a crime you didn't commit - but it's far worse to be killed for it, surely?

I am in agreement with you here.

 

32 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

You have numerous opportunities to challenge whilst you're a prisoner, either through the courts or just through the media etc. You can't do that from the grave. 

That is also one of the problems I have with the subject. When did it turn from proving guilt to proving innocence? A person shouldn't be standing there already looked at as guilty instead of trying to prove he is guilty(or innocent).

 

32 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

 

Ultimately people need to be punished for numerous reasons, ranging from some sort of justice for the victim/victim's family etc to the state showing society that said crime is wrong. However, I will always believe that prison, whilst not ideal, is better than death. It is punishment enough to have your basic rights stripped away and taken out of society, but not so drastic that there is no turning back and there isn't a moral conundrum about the state authorising murder.

This aligns with my point. Why is it OK to put people in prison for life without an absolute proof? 

 

32 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

As for your final point, there is plenty that this country do or omit from doing that I am not comfortable with,

I like to apologize for going too far with the comment I edited. I mean no harm and in no way was that based on any comments I read from you because I didn't read a post by you condoning those actions. 

Edited 14 August 2019 by the fox

[davieG]

Brexit: Corbyn plans to call no-confidence vote to defeat no-deal

4 minutes ago

 

Jeremy Corbyn aims to stop a no-deal Brexit by becoming the head of a caretaker government after winning a no-confidence vote in the government.

The Labour leader then plans to delay the UK's exit from the European Union to make time for a general election.

Mr Corbyn outlined his plan in a letter to Westminster's opposition party leaders and Tory rebels on Wednesday.

Downing Street said Mr Corbyn would "overrule the referendum and wreck the economy" if he became prime minister.

Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson dismissed the Labour leader's plans as "nonsense".

Prime Minister Boris Johnson said he wants a deal with the EU, but insists the UK must leave the bloc by 31 October "do or die".

Mr Corbyn said he would seek to call a no-confidence vote at the "earliest opportunity when we can be confident of success".

To defeat the government he would have to secure the backing of a majority of MPs.

 

In his letter, Mr Corbyn wrote: "This government has no mandate for no-deal, and the 2016 EU referendum provided no mandate for no-deal.

"Following a successful vote of no confidence in the government, I would then, as Leader of the Opposition, seek the confidence of the House for a strictly time-limited temporary government with the aim of calling a general election, and securing the necessary extension of Article 50 to do so."

If he were to succeed in calling a general election - which would require the support of two-thirds of MPs - Labour would campaign for a second referendum with the option to remain in the EU, he said.

How have the party leaders responded?

Ms Swinson outright rejected his proposals, saying: "Jeremy Corbyn is not the person who is going to be able to build an even temporary majority in the House of Commons for this task"

Green MP Caroline Lucas welcomed Mr Corbyn's call for a vote of no confidence but insisted a referendum must be held before any general election

Plaid Cymru's Westminster Leader, Liz Saville Roberts MP said she welcomed any attempt to stop no-deal as "disappointing" that he would not commit to calling a referendum before an election

The SNP's Westminster leader Ian Blackford said he was willing to meet with the Labour leader "at the earliest opportunity".

Also receiving the letter were Tory MPs Dominic Grieve, Sir Oliver Letwin and Dame Caroline Spelman, Green MP Caroline Lucas and Nick Boles, the independent MP who quit the Tory Party over Brexit. 

In response to the letter, a No 10 spokesman said: "There is a clear choice: Either Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister who will overrule the referendum and wreck the economy, or Boris Johnson as prime minister who will respect the referendum and deliver more money for the NHS and more police on our streets. 

"This government believes the people are the masters and votes should be respected. Jeremy Corbyn believes that the people are the servants and politicians can cancel public votes they don't like."

It comes after the prime minister accused MPs "who think they can block Brexit" of a "terrible collaboration" with the EU.

Mr Johnson said the EU had become less willing to compromise on a new deal with the UK because of the opposition to leaving in Parliament.

He said this increased the likelihood of the UK being "forced to leave with a no-deal" in October.

Mr Johnson wants the EU to ditch the Irish border backstop plan from his predecessor Theresa May's deal, which was rejected three times by Parliament

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49352250

[BlueSi13]

15 minutes ago, davieG said:

Brexit: Corbyn plans to call no-confidence vote to defeat no-deal

4 minutes ago

 

Jeremy Corbyn aims to stop a no-deal Brexit by becoming the head of a caretaker government after winning a no-confidence vote in the government.

The Labour leader then plans to delay the UK's exit from the European Union to make time for a general election.

Mr Corbyn outlined his plan in a letter to Westminster's opposition party leaders and Tory rebels on Wednesday.

Downing Street said Mr Corbyn would "overrule the referendum and wreck the economy" if he became prime minister.

Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson dismissed the Labour leader's plans as "nonsense".

Prime Minister Boris Johnson said he wants a deal with the EU, but insists the UK must leave the bloc by 31 October "do or die".

Mr Corbyn said he would seek to call a no-confidence vote at the "earliest opportunity when we can be confident of success".

To defeat the government he would have to secure the backing of a majority of MPs.

 

In his letter, Mr Corbyn wrote: "This government has no mandate for no-deal, and the 2016 EU referendum provided no mandate for no-deal.

"Following a successful vote of no confidence in the government, I would then, as Leader of the Opposition, seek the confidence of the House for a strictly time-limited temporary government with the aim of calling a general election, and securing the necessary extension of Article 50 to do so."

If he were to succeed in calling a general election - which would require the support of two-thirds of MPs - Labour would campaign for a second referendum with the option to remain in the EU, he said.

How have the party leaders responded?

Ms Swinson outright rejected his proposals, saying: "Jeremy Corbyn is not the person who is going to be able to build an even temporary majority in the House of Commons for this task"

Green MP Caroline Lucas welcomed Mr Corbyn's call for a vote of no confidence but insisted a referendum must be held before any general election

Plaid Cymru's Westminster Leader, Liz Saville Roberts MP said she welcomed any attempt to stop no-deal as "disappointing" that he would not commit to calling a referendum before an election

The SNP's Westminster leader Ian Blackford said he was willing to meet with the Labour leader "at the earliest opportunity".

Also receiving the letter were Tory MPs Dominic Grieve, Sir Oliver Letwin and Dame Caroline Spelman, Green MP Caroline Lucas and Nick Boles, the independent MP who quit the Tory Party over Brexit. 

In response to the letter, a No 10 spokesman said: "There is a clear choice: Either Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister who will overrule the referendum and wreck the economy, or Boris Johnson as prime minister who will respect the referendum and deliver more money for the NHS and more police on our streets. 

"This government believes the people are the masters and votes should be respected. Jeremy Corbyn believes that the people are the servants and politicians can cancel public votes they don't like."

It comes after the prime minister accused MPs "who think they can block Brexit" of a "terrible collaboration" with the EU.

Mr Johnson said the EU had become less willing to compromise on a new deal with the UK because of the opposition to leaving in Parliament.

He said this increased the likelihood of the UK being "forced to leave with a no-deal" in October.

Mr Johnson wants the EU to ditch the Irish border backstop plan from his predecessor Theresa May's deal, which was rejected three times by Parliament

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49352250

If I'm right, I believe the Prime Minister can refuse to resign and instead call a General Election which would then automatically take place after the 31st of October and after Brexit?

 

Either way it's put up or shut up time for the Conservative remainer rebels, which is worse, no-deal?  Or ushering in a marxist government through the back door?

 

[Buce]

7 hours ago, BlueSi13 said:

If I'm right, I believe the Prime Minister can refuse to resign and instead call a General Election which would then automatically take place after the 31st of October and after Brexit?

 

No, you're not right.

 

If Johnson receives a vote of no confidence, there is a fourteen day period during which another government can be formed if a majority is found.

 

7 hours ago, BlueSi13 said:

 

Either way it's put up or shut up time for the Conservative remainer rebels, which is worse, no-deal?  Or ushering in a marxist government through the back door?

 

 

It wouldn't be 'ushering in a marxist govt' - it would be a temporary government that would have one purpose, that is to extend article 50 long enough to enable an election to take place.

[LiberalFox]

Surely even Corbyn knows he isn't the man to lead such a government, this is all about stalling. 

[Buce]

15 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

Surely even Corbyn knows he isn't the man to lead such a government, this is all about stalling. 

 

He isn't, you're right - for a unity government to be a viable option it needs someone who the rebel Tories can get on board with, but I don't think it's about stalling, I think it's just hubris.
 

[LiberalFox]

2 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

He isn't, you're right - for a unity government to be a viable option it needs someone who the rebel Tories can get on board with, but I don't think it's about stalling, I think it's just hubris.
 

I guess it's both, I really don't believe Corbyn has any intention to see a unity government or a second referendum.

[WigstonWanderer]

I can’t see the problem with Corbyn in charge on a strictly temporary basis with a limited pre agreed agenda. If he reneges on anything Parliament could trigger a vote of no confidence.

Edited 15 August 2019 by WigstonWanderer

[Alf Bentley]

9 hours ago, BlueSi13 said:

If I'm right, I believe the Prime Minister can refuse to resign and instead call a General Election which would then automatically take place after the 31st of October and after Brexit?

 

Either way it's put up or shut up time for the Conservative remainer rebels, which is worse, no-deal?  Or ushering in a marxist government through the back door?

 

 

Buce has largely answered this. But also....

 

If no alternative govt can be formed within the 14 days that Buce mentions, it is true that Boris could stay in post pending a general election.

It also seems to be the case that, if that happened, he could decide (within certain limits, presumably) when the general election would happen - and could schedule it for after 31st Oct.

 

However, that would not happen "automatically". It would be a deliberately anti-democratic decision by Boris.

If the confidence vote happens in early Sept, as expected, even after a 14-day delay looking for an alternative govt, there'd be ample time to call an election for mid/late October (about 4 weeks is the minimum needed, I think).

 

If we end up with an election in early Nov, this will be because:

- Parliament hasn't got its act together to establish an alternative, interim govt to handle the immediate crisis

- Boris & the Tories have expressed their utter contempt for democracy & have successfully & deliberately bypassed parliamentary democracy so as to impose a policy that they fear lacks democratic support

 

This could reasonably be seen as a potential collapse or subversion of democracy.

 

Hopefully either democracy or the courts will prevent these attempts at subverting our democracy.

 

If not, I hope that everyone will be on the streets to bring the whole fvcking country to a standstill so as to protect our democracy.

 

Ain't it amazing. 3 years ago, the Brexiteers were calling for our "sovereign, democratic British parliament to take back control" etc.

Now that they fear that our democratic parliament might vote for something they don't want and prevent their vile abuse of the referendum vote by imposing No Deal.....they're happy to close down our "sovereign, democratic British parliament".

 

People voted Leave for all sorts of reasons, many of them honourable. But there is no mandate for No Deal - either in the referendum result or in the 2017 manifestos of the parties.

The only possible mandate would be for parliament to be allowed to properly consider the matter - and either vote for No Deal or act to allow it to happen. 

The plans of Boris, Cummings & co are, at the least, anti-democratic....if not pre-fascist.

 

 

[Innovindil]

25 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Buce has largely answered this. But also....

 

If no alternative govt can be formed within the 14 days that Buce mentions, it is true that Boris could stay in post pending a general election.

It also seems to be the case that, if that happened, he could decide (within certain limits, presumably) when the general election would happen - and could schedule it for after 31st Oct.

 

However, that would not happen "automatically". It would be a deliberately anti-democratic decision by Boris.

If the confidence vote happens in early Sept, as expected, even after a 14-day delay looking for an alternative govt, there'd be ample time to call an election for mid/late October (about 4 weeks is the minimum needed, I think).

 

If we end up with an election in early Nov, this will be because:

- Parliament hasn't got its act together to establish an alternative, interim govt to handle the immediate crisis

- Boris & the Tories have expressed their utter contempt for democracy & have successfully & deliberately bypassed parliamentary democracy so as to impose a policy that they fear lacks democratic support

 

This could reasonably be seen as a potential collapse or subversion of democracy.

 

Hopefully either democracy or the courts will prevent these attempts at subverting our democracy.

 

If not, I hope that everyone will be on the streets to bring the whole fvcking country to a standstill so as to protect our democracy.

 

Ain't it amazing. 3 years ago, the Brexiteers were calling for our "sovereign, democratic British parliament to take back control" etc.

Now that they fear that our democratic parliament might vote for something they don't want and prevent their vile abuse of the referendum vote by imposing No Deal.....they're happy to close down our "sovereign, democratic British parliament".

 

People voted Leave for all sorts of reasons, many of them honourable. But there is no mandate for No Deal - either in the referendum result or in the 2017 manifestos of the parties.

The only possible mandate would be for parliament to be allowed to properly consider the matter - and either vote for No Deal or act to allow it to happen. 

The plans of Boris, Cummings & co are, at the least, anti-democratic....if not pre-fascist.

 

 

But Alf, we didn't decide what brexit we voted for, remember? So how can you say there isn't a mandate for no deal? No deal is leaving the eu, which also happens to be the automatic starting (and potentially ending) point. Didn't MP's already vote for no deal when rejecting May's deal 6 billion times, you know, the only deal we're ever going to get? 

[davieG]

Why do they need an interim government. If there are enough MPs to form that haven’t they got enough to vote it out anyway?

 

Genuine question.

[WigstonWanderer]

1 hour ago, davieG said:

Why do they need an interim government. If there are enough MPs to form that haven’t they got enough to vote it out anyway?

 

Genuine question.

Doesn’t the government (executive) control the agenda? To be able to put forward bills, such as to delay Brexit, it needs to come from the government.

Edited 15 August 2019 by WigstonWanderer

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

But Alf, we didn't decide what brexit we voted for, remember? So how can you say there isn't a mandate for no deal? No deal is leaving the eu, which also happens to be the automatic starting (and potentially ending) point. Didn't MP's already vote for no deal when rejecting May's deal 6 billion times, you know, the only deal we're ever going to get? 

 

Correct, we didn't decide what Brexit we voted for. We voted to Leave, for parliament to trigger the 2-year negotiating period & Govt to negotiate a deal - or to leave with No Deal if nothing was agreed & parliament continued to accept that.

There is no mandate for No Deal, Hard Brexit or Soft Brexit until parliament approves it - or accepts it by default. There is only an unspecific mandate to leave the EU.

 

Morally, there is even less of a mandate for No Deal than Hard or Soft Brexit. At least, during the referendum, some people argued for Hard or Soft Brexit Deals. But a Deal was the expectation among almost all Leavers. Indeed, it was supposed to be "the easiest deal ever" because we were supposedly in a much stronger position than the EU due to our trade deficit, their need to sell German cars, Italian wine, bullshit, bullshit....

 

However, I do accept that if parliament continues to approve nothing and allows the extended 2-year period to expire so that No Deal happens as default - or if parliament actively votes for No Deal - then there IS a mandate for No Deal. Because we live in a parliamentary democracy (for now, at least). I'd deplore that as utter madness, potentially doing massive damage to the UK. But it would be a democratic decision by the rule of law.

 

But what Boris & Cummings are considering is suspending democracy (let's get rid of this "proroguing parliament" euphemism) so as to use executive powers like a temporary dictator. They see a risk that if parliament is allowed to take decisions on Brexit, it might prevent No Deal or force another extension or referendum - or an election with Brexit undone.  They don't want to run the risk of democratic decisions going against them, so they are considering the suspension of democracy.

 

Stop and think about that a minute. If Corbyn does end up as temporary PM in September (highly unlikely), should he adopt a similar policy? As PM, he could call an election for November, then use his executive powers to launch wide-ranging nationalisations without compensation, which he knows he couldn't get through parliament.....all's fair in love and war when you don't give a shit about democracy, eh? 

 

People have all sorts of reasons for supporting or opposing Brexit. People are entitled to make a case for No Deal and to seek to have it democratically approved.

 

But suspending parliament to force through a controversial policy without any popular or democratic mandate is an abuse of democracy that any budding fascist or Stalinist dictator would be proud of.

If the Govt pursues that course and this country still has any character, it should lead to mass civil disobedience bringing the country to a standstill. Democracy fvcking matters!!!

Incidentally, that's another reason why it would be utterly irresponsible of Boris to pursue that course - the risk of major public disorder during an election campaign, not to mention the potential mayhem when No Deal happened just before election day.

 

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49353220

 

Good to see the head of the US farming lobby telling the truth about how any trade deal between the US and UK would actually work.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

10 hours ago, Innovindil said:

But Alf, we didn't decide what brexit we voted for, remember? So how can you say there isn't a mandate for no deal? No deal is leaving the eu, which also happens to be the automatic starting (and potentially ending) point. Didn't MP's already vote for no deal when rejecting May's deal 6 billion times, you know, the only deal we're ever going to get? 

Well said, and so true.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

Capital punishment for Marxists is about right, eh Corbyn?

[Alf Bentley]

37 minutes ago, DANGEROUS TIGER said:

Well said, and so true.

 

There you go, @Innovindil. There are people applauding your post.

 

Did someone suggest that the Politics Thread had become a left-wing echo chamber?

 

I bet DT loved my reply to your post, too, though..... 

[SpacedX]

On 14/08/2019 at 15:42, The People's Hero said:

Even the President of the United States must sometimes stand naked.

Precisely - and I call upon all Americans to do the right thing come Tuesday 3rd November 2020...

 

[Paninistickers]

21 hours ago, BlueSi13 said:

If I'm right, I believe the Prime Minister can refuse to resign and instead call a General Election which would then automatically take place after the 31st of October and after Brexit?

 

Either way it's put up or shut up time for the Conservative remainer rebels, which is worse, no-deal?  Or ushering in a marxist government through the back door?

 

I think Johnson is bluffing.

 

He doesn't want no deal, nor even brexit, any more than the Dominic Grieves & co. He's a careerist. Not a brexiteer.

 

I'm wagering that, he'll wriggle out of it by 'nobly' saying he respects the will of parliament and will put an article 50 extension to a vote - and then feebly canvas for a rejection of the extension...