Baldseagull
Well-known member
Other deals can be made, if we do not keep TM's red lines.
[Politics] Brexit
- Thread starter KingstonSeagull
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Other deals can be made, if we do not keep TM's red lines.
kevo
Well-known member
- Mar 8, 2008
- 9,809
Do you post anything on this board that isn't politics related? Looking back through your old posts, you've hardly posted ANYTHING about Brighton FC (slightly more about England, surprise, surprise). But all the usual tropes are there - misogyny, return of capital punishment and national service, and of course no-deal Brexit whatever the cost. Do you even follow the Albion - or are you just a far-right troll?
Grombleton
Surrounded by <div>s
- Dec 31, 2011
- 7,356
They add nothing to the forum aside from the odd remark; i imagine they are the child that hangs with the school bully, but is too weak to be the bully for fear of being called out. It's why it needs to quote itself, to try and stay relevant.
Problem being is that your factual post has one very vital fact missing .... I assume on purpose ..... that after the shock result ( a result neither the UK government nor the EU expected ) the EU refused to discuss anything until Article 50 was invoked - i.e. we had started the legal process to leave.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,026
anyone else think placards saying "Bring Down Boris" and "Remain Reform Revolt" at a rally tagged as "Stop the coup" are a little misguided? i dont like it but its not a coup, the same government is in place like it or not. a lot of protest leaders have another agenda, especially those upset that this has shot Corbyn's fox to become PM.
Flex Your Head
Well-known member
Well known leftie agitators - The Financial Times - take a very dim view of Johnson's flagrant disregard for democracy:
"Boris Johnson has detonated a bomb under the constitutional apparatus of the United Kingdom. The prime minister’s request to the Queen to suspend parliament for up to five weeks, ostensibly to prepare a new legislative programme, is without modern precedent. It is an intolerable attempt to silence parliament until it can no longer halt a disastrous crash-out by the UK from the EU on October 31. The seat of British democracy, long admired worldwide, is being denied a say on the most consequential decision facing the country in more than four decades. So, too, are the British people — in whose name Mr Johnson claims to be acting. It is time for parliamentarians to bring down his government in a no-confidence vote, paving the way for an election in which the people can express their will.
Britain’s representative government is an exercise in deliberative democracy which involves discussion, negotiation and inevitable compromises. It vests the power to take decisions on behalf of voters in MPs, and allows them to deliberate on matters of detail — and in the case of Brexit, the most complex demerger in postwar history, detail matters. As John Stuart Mill wrote of representative democracy: “Their part is to indicate wants, to be an organ for popular demands, and a place of adverse discussion for all opinions relating to public matters . . . and, to check by criticism, and eventually by withdrawing their support, those high public officers who really conduct the public business.”
History has shown that charlatans, demagogues and would-be dictators have little time for representative government. They seek ways around parliament before concluding it is an inconvenience. Mr Johnson may not be a tyrant, but he has set a dangerous precedent. He and the cabal around him who have chosen this revolutionary path should be careful what they wish for.
The prime minister’s protestations that he is doing nothing abnormal are as disingenuous as the claims plastered across the bus from which he fronted the Leave campaign in 2016. Proroguing parliament ahead of a Queen’s Speech is established procedure, but for one or two weeks, not five. A temporary recess during September’s party conferences is normal — though some parliamentary business continues even then. A brief prorogation could have been timed to coincide with conference season.
There is no legal or administrative justification for a complete five-week cessation of parliament’s activities ahead of a Queen’s Speech. Mr Johnson is using constitutional chicanery to thwart a parliament that he knows has a majority against his chosen policy. The prime minister will argue that the credibility of his threat to leave the EU without an accord unless Brussels agrees to rewrite Britain’s withdrawal deal is undermined if MPs are doing their best to stop him. Yet to muzzle parliament as part of a reckless negotiating ploy is an act of constitutional vandalism.
While this newspaper is no supporter of plebiscites, it has maintained the view that the outcome of the 2016 referendum should be implemented, but in a way that limits as far as possible the harm to the UK’s economy, security and national standing. The referendum delivered no mandate to ram through the most extreme form of Brexit. The Conservative party’s 2017 election manifesto, while repeating the misguided mantra that “no deal is better than a bad deal”, pledged to secure “the best possible deal for Britain . . . delivered by a smooth, orderly Brexit”. Mr Johnson became prime minister thanks only to the votes of 92,000 Tory party members. No premier who has assumed power outside a general election has ever deviated so radically from his party’s previous platform, nor sought to pursue a step with such grave implications.
If Mr Johnson’s prorogation ploy succeeds, Britain will forfeit any right to lecture other countries on their democratic shortcomings. The UK’s constitutional arrangements have long relied on conventions. The danger existed that an unscrupulous leader could trample on such conventions. That has not happened, in the modern era, until now.
Parliamentarians must seize their opportunity next week to assert the will of the Commons against that of the prime minister. The brief period for which they will sit may be too short to pass legislation demanding a delay to the UK’s EU departure. Those opposed to a no-deal Brexit must then cast aside their differences and pass a motion of no confidence in the government. This is unpalatable for even the most ardent Tory Remainers, and others such as the Liberal Democrats, since ousting Mr Johnson in time to affect the Brexit process may also require the creation of a caretaker government under Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn — an outcome they rightly fear. The overriding priority, however, must be to safeguard British democracy. Mr Johnson might seek to ignore such a vote and try to hang on until after Brexit. This would be an even greater constitutional affront than his actions this week. It would confirm that Britain has a despot in Downing Street.
The standard path for governments facing parliaments that prevent them from implementing their policies is to take the matter to the country. The prime minister might then stand on a “no deal” platform, potentially in a pact with the Brexit party. If he won, Britain would have to respect the result and live with the consequences. Opposition parties would have to use their own strenuous campaigning and electoral pacts to prevent such an outcome. Mr Johnson is framing the current battle as one between parliament and the people. If he is confident of the people’s backing, he should be ready to test this with voters in an election — rather than making a cavalier attempt to frustrate the parliamentary democracy that has been the foundation of Britain’s prosperity and stability."
Would love to know what your thoughts are, [MENTION=28109]Wellesley[/MENTION] [MENTION=1365]Westdene Seagull[/MENTION] [MENTION=22389]bashlsdir[/MENTION] [MENTION=14132]Two Professors[/MENTION] [MENTION=33253]JC Footy Genius[/MENTION] [MENTION=2719]Mouldy Boots[/MENTION]
https://www.ft.com/content/9dbc7852-c9b2-11e9-af46-b09e8bfe60c0
"Boris Johnson has detonated a bomb under the constitutional apparatus of the United Kingdom. The prime minister’s request to the Queen to suspend parliament for up to five weeks, ostensibly to prepare a new legislative programme, is without modern precedent. It is an intolerable attempt to silence parliament until it can no longer halt a disastrous crash-out by the UK from the EU on October 31. The seat of British democracy, long admired worldwide, is being denied a say on the most consequential decision facing the country in more than four decades. So, too, are the British people — in whose name Mr Johnson claims to be acting. It is time for parliamentarians to bring down his government in a no-confidence vote, paving the way for an election in which the people can express their will.
Britain’s representative government is an exercise in deliberative democracy which involves discussion, negotiation and inevitable compromises. It vests the power to take decisions on behalf of voters in MPs, and allows them to deliberate on matters of detail — and in the case of Brexit, the most complex demerger in postwar history, detail matters. As John Stuart Mill wrote of representative democracy: “Their part is to indicate wants, to be an organ for popular demands, and a place of adverse discussion for all opinions relating to public matters . . . and, to check by criticism, and eventually by withdrawing their support, those high public officers who really conduct the public business.”
History has shown that charlatans, demagogues and would-be dictators have little time for representative government. They seek ways around parliament before concluding it is an inconvenience. Mr Johnson may not be a tyrant, but he has set a dangerous precedent. He and the cabal around him who have chosen this revolutionary path should be careful what they wish for.
The prime minister’s protestations that he is doing nothing abnormal are as disingenuous as the claims plastered across the bus from which he fronted the Leave campaign in 2016. Proroguing parliament ahead of a Queen’s Speech is established procedure, but for one or two weeks, not five. A temporary recess during September’s party conferences is normal — though some parliamentary business continues even then. A brief prorogation could have been timed to coincide with conference season.
There is no legal or administrative justification for a complete five-week cessation of parliament’s activities ahead of a Queen’s Speech. Mr Johnson is using constitutional chicanery to thwart a parliament that he knows has a majority against his chosen policy. The prime minister will argue that the credibility of his threat to leave the EU without an accord unless Brussels agrees to rewrite Britain’s withdrawal deal is undermined if MPs are doing their best to stop him. Yet to muzzle parliament as part of a reckless negotiating ploy is an act of constitutional vandalism.
While this newspaper is no supporter of plebiscites, it has maintained the view that the outcome of the 2016 referendum should be implemented, but in a way that limits as far as possible the harm to the UK’s economy, security and national standing. The referendum delivered no mandate to ram through the most extreme form of Brexit. The Conservative party’s 2017 election manifesto, while repeating the misguided mantra that “no deal is better than a bad deal”, pledged to secure “the best possible deal for Britain . . . delivered by a smooth, orderly Brexit”. Mr Johnson became prime minister thanks only to the votes of 92,000 Tory party members. No premier who has assumed power outside a general election has ever deviated so radically from his party’s previous platform, nor sought to pursue a step with such grave implications.
If Mr Johnson’s prorogation ploy succeeds, Britain will forfeit any right to lecture other countries on their democratic shortcomings. The UK’s constitutional arrangements have long relied on conventions. The danger existed that an unscrupulous leader could trample on such conventions. That has not happened, in the modern era, until now.
Parliamentarians must seize their opportunity next week to assert the will of the Commons against that of the prime minister. The brief period for which they will sit may be too short to pass legislation demanding a delay to the UK’s EU departure. Those opposed to a no-deal Brexit must then cast aside their differences and pass a motion of no confidence in the government. This is unpalatable for even the most ardent Tory Remainers, and others such as the Liberal Democrats, since ousting Mr Johnson in time to affect the Brexit process may also require the creation of a caretaker government under Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn — an outcome they rightly fear. The overriding priority, however, must be to safeguard British democracy. Mr Johnson might seek to ignore such a vote and try to hang on until after Brexit. This would be an even greater constitutional affront than his actions this week. It would confirm that Britain has a despot in Downing Street.
The standard path for governments facing parliaments that prevent them from implementing their policies is to take the matter to the country. The prime minister might then stand on a “no deal” platform, potentially in a pact with the Brexit party. If he won, Britain would have to respect the result and live with the consequences. Opposition parties would have to use their own strenuous campaigning and electoral pacts to prevent such an outcome. Mr Johnson is framing the current battle as one between parliament and the people. If he is confident of the people’s backing, he should be ready to test this with voters in an election — rather than making a cavalier attempt to frustrate the parliamentary democracy that has been the foundation of Britain’s prosperity and stability."
Would love to know what your thoughts are, [MENTION=28109]Wellesley[/MENTION] [MENTION=1365]Westdene Seagull[/MENTION] [MENTION=22389]bashlsdir[/MENTION] [MENTION=14132]Two Professors[/MENTION] [MENTION=33253]JC Footy Genius[/MENTION] [MENTION=2719]Mouldy Boots[/MENTION]
https://www.ft.com/content/9dbc7852-c9b2-11e9-af46-b09e8bfe60c0
I thought it very telling how many left wing banners there were and the singing of 'oh Jeremy Corbyn'. Not quite the mixed bag of people some might have you believe. Yes, I think many were upset that it blows Corbyn's plan to become PM right out of the water.
Ernest
Stupid IDIOT
Hampster Gull
Well-known member
- Dec 22, 2010
- 13,465
Are you saying Rivet could be a spotty teenager in Russia’s Internet Research Agency warehouse? Or someone who missed the educational boat?
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,026
How
there isnt enough parliamentary time to go through the no confidence process. they could start with the initial vote but not have enough time to follow up. would be better spending the few days of parliament passing a bill to revoke article 50.
Garry Nelson's teacher
Well-known member
I think we are at a stage (as a country and on this thread) where we are painting ourselves into corners. By this I mean that there is a total refusal to acknowledge the flaws in 'our sides' arguments and tactics. More specifically the outrage of Leavers (which some would say is OTT) on the Johnson's Parliamentary ploy (which is clearly what it is) is met by total denial (laced with insults) by Brexiteers. It's as if the 'end' (leaving the EU) justifies just about any means adopted for its achievements.
I find this to be highly unpleasant and toxic. There must be some on the Leave side who both recognise and criticise the tactics adopted by Johnson? Would it hurt them to say so? Where would they draw the line on what is acceptable? Is there a line - or is it Brexit at any cost? OK - we know that it will cost us in economic terms, but riding roughshod over the constitution takes it to another level. At worst this is sinister.
I find this to be highly unpleasant and toxic. There must be some on the Leave side who both recognise and criticise the tactics adopted by Johnson? Would it hurt them to say so? Where would they draw the line on what is acceptable? Is there a line - or is it Brexit at any cost? OK - we know that it will cost us in economic terms, but riding roughshod over the constitution takes it to another level. At worst this is sinister.
midnight_rendezvous
Well-known member
It’s called fact and political analysis, seemingly concepts a lot of a Brexiteers seem to struggle with.
Let me break it down for you:
In the GE in 2017 the votes were as follows
CON Conservative 42.4
LAB Labour 40.0
LD Liberal Democrat 7.4
SNP Scottish National Party 3.0
UKIP UKIP 1.8
GRN Green Party 1.6
So right off the bat, 52% of the electorate voted for either a soft Brexit (Labour - 40%) or to Remain (Lib Dems - 7.4%, SNP - 3%, Greens - 1.6%)
In the EU elections;
Graphics like the above, whilst sidelining both the Tories and Labour (don't worry we'll come back to them two in a minute) show that 5.9 million voting unambiguously pro-Brexit and 6.8 million voting for remain parties, including 884,000 from the SNP, Plaid, Sinn Fein and the Alliance Party in Northern Ireland. So, that's 40.4% to remain and 34.9% in favour of a 'hard' Brexit.
Thing's get trickier when you factor in both the Tories and Labour. As I said in a previous post, it can be argued that both parties retain some support across the Brexit divide. Various pollsters came up with their own formula for how to account for those who stubbornly stuck to the traditional two main parties. It has been suggested, and this is where that political analysis comes in, that Tory voters were 80% pro-leave and that a majority of Labour voters – 60% – supported remain, and even if that figure is skewed, Labour are still a 'soft' Brexit option at the very least.
That yields 2.1 million more for leave composed of 1.2 million Conservatives and 938,000 Labour voters and 1.7 million more for remain made up from 302,000 Tories and 1.4 million for Jeremy Corbyn’s party. Applying that to the totals, that would produce 8.1m votes for leave and 8.7m to remain.
Or to put that another way: 47% for leave and a fraction over 50% for remain (the exclusion of minor parties with less than 100,000 votes nationwide is why the figures don’t add up to 100%): a narrow remain win by 586,000 votes.
Last edited:
GrizzlingGammon
Well-known member
- Dec 15, 2018
- 1,997
Something that the EU said from the start. But, the leave campaign still included
That FT piece is extraordinary. Just think about it for a second; the FT, the FT, the bastion of Conservatism and the voice of business is calling for, however temporary, a Labour government led by the most left-wing leader the party has had for 35 years. I think that's the most profound indication of how bad Johnson's move has been.
Dorset Seagull
Once Dolphin, Now Seagull
The EU have said they will not open up the WA or at best it seems they may allow a bit of tinkering around the edges. What deal is anticipated by those championing the cause of preventing leaving without a deal?
No, the EU only said that AFTER the vote.
That's a long article to dissect !
As I posted yesterday, I'm uncomfortable with prorogue and would be furious if it was used to force something through I didn't agree with.
That said, it's not an illegal action, some might argue immoral, but definitely not illegal. Equally, it was Parliament that passed the law that means we leave on the 31st Oct regardless of a deal or not. Yet now Parliament doesn't like it. Why did they pass such a law if they were so against it happening ?
Let's also take into account it only reduces sitting days by 4 - it's hardly many days is it ?
Chief Wiggum
New member
- Apr 30, 2009
- 518
So it's ok for Gina Millar, John Berkow, Dominic Grieve etc etc to use any legal and/or procedural means to try to frustrate the Brexit process, but when the leave camp do the same to assist it, it is an outrage?
Johnson appears to have delivered a haymaker to the remainers who are now punch drunk and staggering around the ring.
I predict Johnson will eventually come back with a revised last minute deal, leaving Parliament with a take it or no deal scenario. We will leave the EU and can then move on eh?
Johnson appears to have delivered a haymaker to the remainers who are now punch drunk and staggering around the ring.
I predict Johnson will eventually come back with a revised last minute deal, leaving Parliament with a take it or no deal scenario. We will leave the EU and can then move on eh?
Last edited:
Neville's Breakfast
Well-known member
Or of how much the journalist and his business friends want to remain in the EU ? I’m surprised you are surprised.