Brexit!

[simFox]

5 hours ago, Sly said:

A friend explain it like this to me: 

1. You all decide to go out for a meal on Saturday. You put it to a vote and Nando’s wins, 7 votes to 6. You don’t agree but heah, that’s what the majority want, so you’ll run with it.

 

2. On the Tuesday, it comes out that Nando’s has had a major bout of food poisoning and the place has been labelled “crazy if you go there”. You contact your friends to advise and suggest having another vote, as you don’t want to be Ill. 
 

3. Crazy Bill is a Nando’s radical and will only eat their or he isn’t coming. Jane believes they were dupped and wasn’t aware of the situation however the original vote should stand (so let’s just go and get unwell, shall we guys). 

 

...... would you still go to Nando’s, or would you look at having a re-vote?! 

Then one of the group (who wants to go to nandos) has found out the food poisoning was a scare tactic and completely untrue. Infact they are having a special offer that night with topless waitresses and free beer.

[Salisbury Fox]

7 minutes ago, Donk said:

Given labour arent going to win an election id stop getting so hung up on their positions to be honest

I agree that they are unlikely to gain a majority, but there is a chance that they could be a major player in a coalition.  

[SouthStandUpperTier]

1 minute ago, simFox said:

Then one of the group (who wants to go to nandos) has found out the food poisoning was a scare tactic and completely untrue. Infact they are having a special offer that night with topless waitresses and free beer.

It wouldn't matter if it was or wasn't true. Crazy Bill is pushing us through the entrance door whilst shouting, "NANDO'S MEANS NANDO'S!"

 

I wanted to go to Pizza Express.

[SheppyFox]

This debate can’t be solved with words. If it could have been it would have been by now. 

[Jon the Hat]

3 hours ago, Dames said:

Its as clear as day they want a dictatorship where they can put anything through unopposed regardless to existing rules or laws.

 

Leavers are always on Bercows case calling him undemocratic when in fact all he is doing is obeying and enforcing the rules of the land. Its not his fault that this and the previous Conservative Government has been trying to subvert the rules and laws. 

Bercow is an appalling Speaker.  Go for it I say.

[Sly]

If a 2nd referendum to leave / remain can’t be agreed upon.

 

Cant we just have a “Join the EU” referendum!?! 
 

[Spiritwalker]

1 hour ago, SheppyFox said:

This debate can’t be solved with words. If it could have been it would have been by now. 

Are you suggesting a fight?

[Sly]

1 hour ago, Donk said:

Dare i ask what you had in mind?

Swords, or pistols? 

[SheppyFox]

Luckily the EU is finally tiring of our politicians, they’ll hopefully refuse to delay brexit, nullifying this silly law the alliance of remain MPs have come up with.

 

The time for talk will be over/is over. It’s true though if the EU do deny yet another extension, the divisions that No Deal will cause will last a generation, remain will finally be forced to admit defeat.

[Mike Oxlong]

Johnson or Corbyn 

 

That’s no choice at all

[bovril]

1 hour ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Johnson or Corbyn 

 

That’s no choice at all

Well there's also Swins...

Oh, yeah. 

[The Horse's Mouth]

Bercow is a pretty awful speaker and I say that as a labour member who voted remain, I think his somewhat cult popularity has really gone to his head in recent years.

[Legend_in_blue]

1 hour ago, SheppyFox said:

 

 

Luckily the EU is finally tiring of our politicians, they’ll hopefully refuse to delay brexit, nullifying this silly law the alliance of remain MPs have come up with.

 

The time for talk will be over/is over. It’s true though if the EU do deny yet another extension, the divisions that No Deal will cause will last a generation, remain will finally be forced to admit defeat.

 

If the EU refuse an extension, the default position is that Article 50 is revoked since No Deal cannot happen.

 

Javid this morning on Marr had me in stitches.  The bloke is clueless.  So assuming this deal does not materialise on Oct 17/18, you'll ask for this extension...  Well, we'll consider our options, he said it time and time again.  What options?  There is only one option.  The extension or Boris walks.  

[StanSP]

10 hours ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

Bercow is a pretty awful speaker and I say that as a labour member who voted remain, I think his somewhat cult popularity has really gone to his head in recent years.

He's been speaker for 9 years (?) and only come to light and gained popularity with the way he carries out his duties since the referendum. I don't ever remember anyone saying anything about him before it. So I'd say the cult popularity is through the media and social media. 

 

I'll be honest I barely paid attention to who the speaker was as well until all the Brexit votes happened. And to be honest I don't mind him. It seems he does his job a bit eccentrically and the Tories don't like it so have decided to go on some kind of witch hunt against him just because they don't like the decisions made by him. All he's doing is following parliamentary processes, no? 

[Focks]

9 hours ago, Legend_in_blue said:

 

If the EU refuse an extension, the default position is that Article 50 is revoked since No Deal cannot happen.

 

No deal can still happen as the recent law passed doesn't cover the EU only the UK govt

[Foxxed]

Complete mess.

 

Boris has purged all dissent and all the moderates from the party.

 

And Boris gave up negotiating an EU deal. He's just preparing for his election.

 

I miss when politicians used to talk about law and order, the economy, jobs, industry, education...

[Finnaldo]

17 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Bercow is an appalling Speaker.  Go for it I say.

 

As a genuine question, what do you think has made him so appalling a Speaker? To be honest it's only since 2015 I've really come to understand the role to it's full extent and I've never really had much of an opinion on him.

 

It seems rather dangerous to be setting precedents like this though. I've always believed there's plenty of Parliamentary reform to be done and Brexit has really shone a spotlight on those issues, but it seems rather than inspect what rotten beams need replacing, a lot of people are happy to kick the whole thing in and send it crumbling down for whatever quick gains can be made.

 

Whether Boris ultimately wins or not, there's been so much damage done to the party that it's hard to see it ever functioning as it did before 2015. It's been accelerated from it's natural centre-right 'stability and order' platform to a reactionary populist platform available to whoever can win the social darwinist 'who'll win us the most votes immediately' leadership contests rather than having any real introspective on their current situation or their long term sustainability post-Brexit.

 

Labour are nowhere near those dire straits but they aren't healthy.  Corbyn was the right leader in 2015 to bring up the issues he did around nationalisation amongst other talking points but 2017 was his time and he's only stagnated the party since. A fresh face with an updated foreign policy and a similar if not AS drastic domestic policy (marijuana legalisation as well please) I feel would gain any lost ground over the last few years.

 

Either way, on either side, we'll be looking at a very new state of politics in the near future. I just hope democratic tendencies prevail.

[simFox]

3 hours ago, StanSP said:

He's been speaker for 9 years (?) and only come to light and gained popularity with the way he carries out his duties since the referendum. I don't ever remember anyone saying anything about him before it. So I'd say the cult popularity is through the media and social media. 

 

I'll be honest I barely paid attention to who the speaker was as well until all the Brexit votes happened. And to be honest I don't mind him. It seems he does his job a bit eccentrically and the Tories don't like it so have decided to go on some kind of witch hunt against him just because they don't like the decisions made by him. All he's doing is following parliamentary processes, no? 

He's been biased to remain and going beyond precedent to get his way. It's ok when it suits, but can easily bite later, or can be used for business by the less scrupulous in the future.

[Finnaldo]

6 minutes ago, simFox said:

He's been biased to remain and going beyond precedent to get his way. It's ok when it suits, but can easily bite later, or can be used for business by the less scrupulous in the future.

 

In what ways has he been biased or gone beyond precedent? (as with Jon, its a genuine question, not meant to be a gotcha)

[simFox]

2 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

 

In what ways has he been biased or gone beyond precedent? (as with Jon, its a genuine question, not meant to be a gotcha)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/voices/john-bercow-brexit-speaker-grieve-amendment-commons-mps-bullying-a8719641.html%3famp

 

As you know Grieve is a remainer. Bercow didn't publish the advice he was given.

 

Only last week there was the misuse of SO24

 

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-09-08/tories-to-stand-against-speaker-john-bercow-at-next-election-leadsom-says/

 

Sure there are more, he's a remainer. And he's been bending the rules to favour his cause from the start.

 

[Finnaldo]

12 minutes ago, simFox said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/voices/john-bercow-brexit-speaker-grieve-amendment-commons-mps-bullying-a8719641.html%3famp

 

As you know Grieve is a remainer. Bercow didn't publish the advice he was given.

 

Only last week there was the misuse of SO24

 

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-09-08/tories-to-stand-against-speaker-john-bercow-at-next-election-leadsom-says/

 

Sure there are more, he's a remainer. And he's been bending the rules to favour his cause from the start.

 

 

Interesting, thanks for the links.

 

I've took a dig into the Leadsom issue, obviously there's always been an issue between the two and the SO24 issue seems very complex.

 

Namely, because the latest edition of 'Erskine May: Parliamentary Practices' seems to phrases it as:

 

"If assent is given, the debate takes place on a motion that the House has considered the specified matter. This is normally expressed in neutral terms rendering the motion incapable of amendment by virtue of Standing Order No 24B.20" (link: https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/4710/proposals-to-hold-an-emergency-debate-under-standing-order-no-24/?highlight=normally expressed in neutral terms rendering the motion incapable of amendment#footnote-item-20)

 

The issue is the wording suggests exceptions can be made, and in the event of Brexit, I guess that argument can be made that it is therefore a worthy case even if unprecedented.

 

It seems like a peculiarity worthy of a political science debate. But as I said earlier, there's a lot of corners being cut for gain here. 

[simFox]

20 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

 

Interesting, thanks for the links.

 

I've took a dig into the Leadsom issue, obviously there's always been an issue between the two and the SO24 issue seems very complex.

 

Namely, because the latest edition of 'Erskine May: Parliamentary Practices' seems to phrases it as:

 

"If assent is given, the debate takes place on a motion that the House has considered the specified matter. This is normally expressed in neutral terms rendering the motion incapable of amendment by virtue of Standing Order No 24B.20" (link: https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/4710/proposals-to-hold-an-emergency-debate-under-standing-order-no-24/?highlight=normally expressed in neutral terms rendering the motion incapable of amendment#footnote-item-20)

 

The issue is the wording suggests exceptions can be made, and in the event of Brexit, I guess that argument can be made that it is therefore a worthy case even if unprecedented.

 

It seems like a peculiarity worthy of a political science debate. But as I said earlier, there's a lot of corners being cut for gain here. 

As well as being an internet constitutional expert, you can now understand why the supposedly impartial speaker Bercow is considered to be overstepping his mark.

[Finnaldo]

5 minutes ago, simFox said:

As well as being an internet constitutional expert, you can now understand why the supposedly impartial speaker Bercow is considered to be overstepping his mark.

 

I wouldn't consider myself an 'expert' in anything to be honest.

 

Arguably, part of the reason we're in this predicament is far too many people are quick to assume they're experts in matters they don't truly fully understand or comprehend.

[ozleicester]

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

 

I wouldn't consider myself an 'expert' in anything to be honest.

 

Arguably, part of the reason we're in this predicament is far too many people are quick to assume they're experts in matters they don't truly fully understand or comprehend.

Or don't trust experts in areas that aren't quite as subjective.

 

Anti-intellectualism has been rife and showing its hand across the world for the last few years.