[Politics] A thread of things that our hapless Parliament COULD actually agree on

[Norman Potting]

....and it was all Bong's fault.......

 

[Pavilionaire]

Great thread. John Bercow could use some of these suggestions as a form of "limbering up" for the main vote, just to take the edge off things

Personally, if you want the house to come together, I prefer the 'Ali G Indahouse' method of putting some weed in the HoC tea.

 

[Lindfield23]

That Scott McGleish is a is a

 

[Timbo]

Ideally I wouldn't really want them to agree on anything as that's sort of their purpose.

But, you know, there's ways of going about these things....

 

[Tim Over Whelmed]

That it's PotG

 

[Tooting Gull]

Flasks should be banned in the House.

 

[Cozzy]

I bet if they had a 3 line whip they could agree an apple is an orange in certain circumstances

 

[Taybha]

That if they all had to live on a minimum wage they wouldn't be politicians .

 

[Gritt23]

That they shouldn't let a heated debate get in the way of breaking for tea and tiffin, although they probably wouldn't be able to agree on the time to take it.

 

[Notters]

I'm confused really. We remainers all said that "leave" was too vague to mean anything, could mean all manner of things, and was essentially unworkable. Now this has been proven true and yet a new referendum would be undemocratic?

I'm assuming this thread will be merged with the others btw.

 

[Hamilton]

Night follows day.

Or does it precede day?

DIVISION!!!

 

[raymondo]

That their personal needs outweigh those of the population most (possibly all) of the time

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I'm confused really. We remainers all said that "leave" was too vague to mean anything, could mean all manner of things, and was essentially unworkable. Now this has been proven true and yet a new referendum would be undemocratic?

I'm assuming this thread will be merged with the others btw.

When you leave the house (say to go to work) do you end up saying that it's too vague a term and refuse to go out?

We have a Parliament where the majority of MPs appear to be against leaving the EU.

One party is playing party politics over this issue and are only interested in trying to force a general election as they are desperate to try to get into power and they see sabotaging Brexit as a way to try to force an election.

Those MPs who are opposed to the outcome of the Brexit vote are doing everything they can to try to prevent it from happening, despite the vote showing a majority outcome for the opposite from their own views / wishes.

Politicians are normally elected on many issues and with many different proposals and ideas about a lot of different areas (like public spending plans, taxation, etc) and not on a single issue. Voters may vote for an MP and their party that have have a manifesto where the voter may not agree with all their proposals and plans, but decide that, out of all the options available, that that MP and that political party is the best fit for their views.

The Brexit vote was on a single issue, Leave or remain. It was not remain or leave but only as long as we have a certain deal in place that the MP's agree with (which isn't going to happen as too many are so opposed to the whole thing as dictated by their own political agenda)

Those against leaving are doing everything in their power (including making the whole thing as big a mess as possible) to try to prevent our leaving and in the hope that a 2nd referendum could be held and in the hope that the 2nd vote then has a different outcome helped by the chaos that they are helping to create in trying to get out.

Businesses need to be able to plan for the future and the way this is being handled is making it extremely difficult for businesses as we are now a few weeks away from when we should be leaving and they will have no idea how we will leave so how can they prepare and plan for the future (do they need to stockpile materials, will they be able to sign new trade deals with countries outside the EU or would our continued EU membership mean that they can't be struck or enacted, etc) - what ever was to happen, business wants to know whats going to happen next with as much notice as possible so they can react to these changes beforehand and put new measures in place, creating a smoother transition for them and their customers.

The Politicians are the ones making the mess and creating this uncertainty which is harmful and sadly i can't see it changing any time soon.

The best thing, imo, is if the EU now reject the extending of the Brexit date (only takes 1 country to object) so it finally happens and we know where we stand and the whole sorry affair can be put to bed and the real deals for our future trading, etc can be worked upon rather than just our transition deal which is causing this headache

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Anyway, getting back on topic

The answer to the OP's question is nothing if there is a political advantage to be gained by opposing it as party politics outweigh everything, even if the thing is for the good of the country (extra money for public services gets met with it's not enough, etc and there has to be a negative slant to everything in an effort to undermine them)

Even if it was to pay themselves more money, there would be those who would think it wasn't enough so as i said, nothing they can agree on

 

[Notters]

When you leave the house (say to go to work) do you end up saying that it's too vague a term and refuse to go out?

I think you've proven my point there. When I leave the house I leave at 7:35 (not some unknown time) to get the 7:52 Train to work (not some unknown route). I know I'm going to stay at work until 5 or so then get the 17:33 Train back again.