Brexit!

[Guest MattP]

22 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

He's very calculated.  This is clearly a calculated move on his part.  Clever.  Wouldn't expect any less - he knows how to drum up a reaction.

Wow.

 

He has his child, officers and min at the ready. 

 

And @Facecloth -  one of the better posters, actually repped this.

[Alf Bentley]

10 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

What happens if he hands in his letter 14 seconds late? 

 

 

Instant No Deal Brexit leads to the termination of Adrien Silva's work permit so he cannot return to LCFC and has to stay in Monaco or return to Sporting. 

[Facecloth]

7 minutes ago, MattP said:

Wow.

 

He has his child, officers and min at the ready. 

 

And @Facecloth -  one of the better posters, actually repped this.

I'm not agreeing with people shouting at him whilst he had his child, but that's exactly why he had his child with him. Knowing he's a devisive character he know a few idiots might shout insults at him, maybe not even noticing the kid, and he knew that would gain sympathy.

Edited 19 October 2019 by Facecloth

[lgfualol]

Using his kid as a shield

[Milo]

Hey @Toddybad, what are so confused about, bud?

[bovril]

20 minutes ago, MattP said:

Wow.

 

He has his child, officers and min at the ready. 

 

And @Facecloth -  one of the better posters, actually repped this.

And saying "good luck to these people when they meet football fans" is any better? You really lack self-awareness at times. 

[reynard]

21 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

If the main vote on the deal had passed today, that would have satisfied the Benn Act and Johnson wouldn't have had to request an extension.

As parliament seems split almost 50-50 on the deal, a handful of MPs (e.g. ERG hardliners) could then have obstructed the legislation for the deal.....taking us to No Deal on 31/10.

So, there clearly WAS a risk of imminent No Deal - and Letwin's amendment addressed that.

 

Of course, it's no secret that most of the opposition want to obstruct this particular deal or, in some cases, make it subject to a referendum.

They'd have voted for that in the main vote - and will whenever it happens. Some might hope that the extra time will allow persuasion or new info to turn some MPs' votes. But massive decisions deserve proper consideration.

If there's a majority for Johnson's deal, then it will be voted through - and the EU, or particular EU nations, may yet influence that decision in his favour.

 

For the record, Letwin himself voted for May's Deal on all 3 occasions - and said he intended to vote for Johnson's Deal. Avoiding No Deal was clearly his aim, even if others had the extra aim of securing a softer deal or a referendum.

Spot on as usual. If the likes of Johnson and Rees-Mogg had supported May's deal from the start we may well not be in this position. The unpalatable truth for many supporters of Brexit is that the whole country is and continues largely to be held to ransom by a few extreme members of the largely Tory ERG. Extremeists who want us to Brexit but are largely the reason we are not yet out.

Frankly if Boris is so confident that this is such a fine deal he should have the confidence to put it to the people. Winning that would sort it once and for all. Though recent polls for the last 2 years are now showing a majority to remain so he may not find it so easy.

 

Just a mess. General election needed rally but if held now would solely be about Brexit.

[Milo]

1 minute ago, reynard said:

Spot on as usual. If the likes of Johnson and Rees-Mogg had supported May's deal from the start we may well not be in this position. The unpalatable truth for many supporters of Brexit is that the whole country is and continues largely to be held to ransom by a few extreme members of the largely Tory ERG. Extremeists who want us to Brexit but are largely the reason we are not yet out.

Frankly if Boris is so confident that this is such a fine deal he should have the confidence to put it to the people. Winning that would sort it once and for all. Though recent polls for the last 2 years are now showing a majority to remain so he may not find it so easy.

 

Just a mess. General election needed rally but if held now would solely be about Brexit.

Course it would! 

[reynard]

1 minute ago, Milo said:

Course it would! 

I know what you mean!  But if Parliament passed a law ensuring that the vote was not merely advisory as referenda are in this country, but actually legally binding, Parliament would have no choice but to follow it.

[Milo]

5 minutes ago, reynard said:

I know what you mean!  But if Parliament passed a law ensuring that the vote was not merely advisory as referenda are in this country, but actually legally binding, Parliament would have no choice but to follow it.

I think Parliament have shown over the past few years that they will do whatever the fvck they want, regardless.  

[reynard]

1 minute ago, Milo said:

I think Parliament have shown over the past few years that they will do whatever the fvck they want, regardless.  

I have more fatih in them. If it is the law they will have to follow it.

[Strokes]

2 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

How many MPs did UKIP have? Might as well ban cars to appease the Green Party. 

In 2015 they had a lot more votes than the Lib Dem’s.

[Carl the Llama]

@MattP Regarding the Mogg and little Mogg incident, perhaps you need reminding of your own words about the guy from ER getting kicked about on the ground:

On 17/10/2019 at 09:49, MattP said:

His own fault. His own responsibility. No sympathy whatsoever.

 

Everything that happened here was completely of his own making. 

[Legend_in_blue]

I know we can only comment on what is reported in the news, the BBC for me primarily (criticism of this is entirely valid I admit, but that is another story), but I didn't see clips of over 600 MPs walking out of parliament today knowing that the atmosphere on the outside was toxic and unforgiving, no matter what side of the argument they found themselves on.  Giving the impression that Gove, Leadsom and RM were leading the charge was purely driven by the media no doubt.  However, you'd expect high profile educated people such as them to find a more astute way of exiting the building without causing unnecessary fuss.  Unless it was a deliberate act of course.

 

 

Edited 19 October 2019 by Legend_in_blue

[RobHawk]

If the Benn act is the surrender act, then letwins amendment must be the due diligence amendment. 

 

 

[Guesty]

I know people are saying he had his child there on purpose. But Jo Swinson also had her child there today (maybe other MP's too).

 

Sometimes people look too much into things and forget it's the weekend; these MP's are parents; this is one time maybe they could bring them into work and show them what they do on a unique day. 

 

Even if you think someone's the biggest **** going, they have the right to walk down the street with their child without being abused by middle-aged adults.

 

With something like this, isn't better not to condone, mitigate or try to spin it - just condem it (even if it was a cynical stunt).

 

But we do live in world of outrage and hypocrisy.

[WigstonWanderer]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

Wow.

 

He has his child, officers and min at the ready. 

 

And @Facecloth -  one of the better posters, actually repped this.

You get worked up about this but cheer on a guy lying on the floor while a bunch of thugs try to kick him in the head 

 

The old “sticks and stones...” rhyme is stood on its head in modern Britain.

[m4DD0gg]

If any of these clowns think the electorate will ever trust them ever again they have another thing coming. Absolute farce and scandal what our pathetic and embarrassing political system in this country has become.

[Legend_in_blue]

So he's sent the letter in unsigned together with a letter he's signed not agreeing with what is contained in the unsigned letter.

 

 

Legal?

[Innovindil]

20 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

So he's sent the letter in unsigned together with a letter he's signed not agreeing with what is contained in the unsigned letter.

 

 

Legal?

Don't see why it wouldn't be, he was legally bound to send a letter requesting an extension, which he has done. As far as I'm aware, there is no law saying he's not allowed to express his personal opinion about it.

[Magictv]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

Don't see why it wouldn't be, he was legally bound to send a letter requesting an extension, which he has done. As far as I'm aware, there is no law saying he's not allowed to express his personal opinion about it.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/26

"(4)The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50..."

 

 

By my reading he's obliged to try and get an extension, so shouldn't be sending letters to discourage the EU from granting one.

 

Although tbh I can't see his second letter makes any difference to anything anyway.

 

Also, not signing the Benn letter

Edited 19 October 2019 by Magictv

[Guest MattP]

8 hours ago, Legend_in_blue said:

So he's sent the letter in unsigned together with a letter he's signed not agreeing with what is contained in the unsigned letter.

 

 

Legal?

I imagine we'll see in court

 

From my reading of it the surrender bill says he has to send a letter, doesn't say he has to sign it or not send any else with it.

[Voll Blau]

17 hours ago, Salisbury Fox said:

To be fair, if they say the deal is pretty much the same as May’s then it is a bit of a disingenuous excuse. 

Not really. Don't know about you, but I'd like to think the people we elect as legislators should actually be informing themselves properly and paying attention to the finest detail of such things, rather than skimming them because they might be "pretty much the same" as documents they've read in the past.

 

It's what they're paid to do and as an electorate we should demand they scrutinise these things to the best of their abilities. If they need time to do that, especially with legislation of this magnitude, so be it. I'd rather they did their jobs properly than cut corners.

[The Guvnor]

1 hour ago, Voll Blau said:

Not really. Don't know about you, but I'd like to think the people we elect as legislators should actually be informing themselves properly and paying attention to the finest detail of such things, rather than skimming them because they might be "pretty much the same" as documents they've read in the past.

 

It's what they're paid to do and as an electorate we should demand they scrutinise these things to the best of their abilities. If they need time to do that, especially with legislation of this magnitude, so be it. I'd rather they did their jobs properly than cut corners.

The problem of course is a large part of the scrutineers aren't intrrested in the detail because they dont want to leave.

[Salisbury Fox]

1 hour ago, Voll Blau said:

Not really. Don't know about you, but I'd like to think the people we elect as legislators should actually be informing themselves properly and paying attention to the finest detail of such things, rather than skimming them because they might be "pretty much the same" as documents they've read in the past.

 

It's what they're paid to do and as an electorate we should demand they scrutinise these things to the best of their abilities. If they need time to do that, especially with legislation of this magnitude, so be it. I'd rather they did their jobs properly than cut corners.

Of course, but then equally do not claim that it is a rehash of May’s deal without scrutinising it.