|
Post by racingteatray on Aug 28, 2019 10:59:36 GMT
So our complete Johnson of an unelected leader is going to prorogue Parliament after all.
Simple question - do you approve or not?
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Aug 28, 2019 11:16:13 GMT
Not that it's any of my business, but BoJo seems like an utter pillock.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Aug 28, 2019 11:19:37 GMT
So, remember Andrea Dreadful, Gisella Bundchen and BoJo all standing on platforms in 2016 harping on about 'Taking Back Control' and returning Sovereignty to Parliament?
That's lasted 3 weeks under Johnson.
No doubt the ERG and Brexit Party are coming in their pants at this moment.
What a fuckup.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Aug 28, 2019 11:48:41 GMT
I'm fine with it. There have been tactics deployed on both sides, only yesterdays the other parties were together trying to subvert the outcome of the referendum, it's hardly surprising this card has been played. The unelected leader bit is a complete red-herring.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Aug 28, 2019 11:58:31 GMT
faced with the choice of a the prorogation of Parliament or an attempted bloodless coup by Jeremy Corbyn, which one will deliver what the electorate voted for in 2016?
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Aug 28, 2019 12:11:58 GMT
I don't agree with it and consider it a gross abuse of power and a danger to democracy.
However due to the Political mess we find ourselves in we basically have the choice of getting on board with pirate Boris or allowing Captain Pugwash and his merry band of Marxist lunatics to take the helm. Capt Pugwash has no charts, has never been to sea before and thinks the decks will make good fire wood to keep us warm so I am leaning towards the possibility that I might live longer with the Pirate and I might get a chance to jump ship, whereas Pugwash will have us sailing into the hidden rocks with the decks ablaze and no chance of saviour.
It's every man for himself and good luck to you all!
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Aug 28, 2019 12:30:44 GMT
I don't agree with it and consider it a gross abuse of power and a danger to democracy. However due to the Political mess we find ourselves in we basically have the choice of getting on board with pirate Boris or allowing Captain Pugwash and his merry band of Marxist lunatics to take the helm. Capt Pugwash has no charts, has never been to sea before and thinks the decks will make good fire wood to keep us warm so I am leaning towards the possibility that I might live longer with the Pirate and I might get a chance to jump ship, whereas Pugwash will have us sailing into the hidden rocks with the decks ablaze and no chance of saviour. It's every man for himself and good luck to you all! What a brilliant summing-up of the current situation !
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Aug 28, 2019 12:33:22 GMT
The unelected leader bit is a complete red-herring. It's only there because I refuse to acknowledge him as PM.
I think it's a gigantic gamble aimed at convincing the EU that No Deal is for real. If he can tie the hands of the rebels, then the EU is forced to acknowledge that there will not be any cavalry riding to the rescue via the UK legislature, and is forced to decide between (a) giving Boris a figleaf to hide behind on the Irish backstop and (b) No Deal.
I have no doubt that Boris badly wants a deal. The problem is that which way the EU jumps is not in our control. And if they decide to make us swallow our own medicine, then we won't be able to do anything about it, absent a last minute climb-down by the blonde one.
Boris will argue that the end justifies the means. But I find side-stepping Parliament on the single most important decision this country has taken in nearly half a decade to be utterly unacceptable.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Aug 28, 2019 12:35:06 GMT
By the way, there's another one of those petitions up and running on the topic: petition.parliament.uk/petitions/269157It might seem rather pointless given that it will certainly be ignored, but I think that registering a protest is important.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Aug 28, 2019 12:41:22 GMT
I can appreciate your frustration as a remain voter but I can also see why this action is inevitable and necessary to move things forward given remain lost the referendum. I don't see this being any different to the remain chicanery that has gone on via Bercow and others in parliament over the last year. Either side can brand it as a coup, subverting democracy but the truth is each manoeuvrer has a for and against - either side is using the levers they have at their disposal. However, this had to happen in order that the withdrawal agreement can be brought back to parliament in what I assume BoJo hopes will be an amended form. I think the whole thing is being blown out of proportion for cynical means.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Aug 28, 2019 13:38:31 GMT
I'm not sure yet another petition is the answer, especially as those signed by thousands to leave the EU in March and then Oct were similarly ignored. I would support the suspension of Parliament if only to move us on from this circle of inertia we're stuck in. Move the process on, we've made our bed and now we have to lie in it. The vote was to leave, the deadline is 31st Oct, I can't see any value in extending it further and continuing this death by a thousand cuts.
|
|
|
Post by scouse on Aug 28, 2019 13:48:37 GMT
Since he hasn't *actually* prorogued parliament in the way the Remainiacs claim, rather he asked the Queen for the usual suspension as: A) it's conference season so Parliament doesn't traditionally sit B) this is the longest parliament has sat in a single session since, well, forever and C) it's the only way to introdce a new Queens speech
Also, what exactly can the Remainiacs do that doesn't either bend the rules like that pompous little prick Bercow has been doing for them or outright break them and declare an 'alternative government'?
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Aug 28, 2019 13:58:11 GMT
I am 100% certain that Boris wants a deal - he's not as idealistic as the staunch Brexiteers and if the no deal went ahead with the kind of results that many people who actually have some idea what they're talking about think then he knows that he'll be out of power in short order as normal people who wanted out get hammered hard in the pocket and then turn on him.
There's only so much support he could get from the hedge fund gamblers and when it comes to a vote there are far fewer of them than the rest of the population.
Here's hoping it is a big gamble and that it works.
|
|
|
Post by PetrolEd on Aug 28, 2019 14:00:44 GMT
In this instance I don't see another route that the PM could have gone down.
Its clear parliament can't act on our behalf where Brexit is concerned and we need a "benevolent dictator" to force us through.
Yes I see this as a bluff to the EU and just hope we don't have to show our hand.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Aug 28, 2019 14:05:56 GMT
There's nothing dictatorial about it. This action is long overdue to start a new session of parliament, it usually to happen annually without complaint. The blessed relief here is that there's now light at the end of the tunnel and we might have an outcome so we can get on with our lives one way or another.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Aug 28, 2019 14:47:40 GMT
Since he hasn't *actually* prorogued parliament in the way the Remainiacs claim, rather he asked the Queen for the usual suspension as: A) it's conference season so Parliament doesn't traditionally sit B) this is the longest parliament has sat in a single session since, well, forever and C) it's the only way to introdce a new Queens speech Ah yes, sending Jacob Rees-Mogg up to Balmoral for an emergency sitting of the Privy Counsel without prior discussion in Cabinet - now that's entirely normal.
A) Conference season will be over by 2 October according to the internet; B) That's entirely irrelevant; and C) Yes, but there is no absolute need for a new Queens Speech at the moment.
And, while of course we know that the Brexit tendency dislikes "experts" and "facts" but apparently those experts who are experts on constitutional matters are saying that proroguing parliament for five weeks will be the longest suspension of the British legislature since 1945 and "appeared to be designed to evade scrutiny of his plans for Brexit or any new deal with the EU".
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Aug 28, 2019 14:48:15 GMT
There's nothing dictatorial about it. This action is long overdue to start a new session of parliament, it usually to happen annually without complaint. Sorry, that's utter rubbish in my view.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Aug 28, 2019 14:50:11 GMT
The problem with experts and facts is that each side rolls out the experts that support the facts they wish to promote.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Aug 28, 2019 14:56:01 GMT
There's nothing dictatorial about it. This action is long overdue to start a new session of parliament, it usually to happen annually without complaint. Sorry, that's utter rubbish in my view. Why? It's standard procedure in terms of starting a new parliamentary session. The loss is three days of time vs. 15 for conference season and is the only way to achieve a deal before the end of the Article 50 extension.
|
|
|
Post by LandieMark on Aug 28, 2019 15:01:29 GMT
I'm not sure yet another petition is the answer, especially as those signed by thousands to leave the EU in March and then Oct were similarly ignored. I would support the suspension of Parliament if only to move us on from this circle of inertia we're stuck in. Move the process on, we've made our bed and now we have to lie in it. The vote was to leave, the deadline is 31st Oct, I can't see any value in extending it further and continuing this death by a thousand cuts. In this instance I don't see another route that the PM could have gone down. Its clear parliament can't act on our behalf where Brexit is concerned and we need a "benevolent dictator" to force us through. Yes I see this as a bluff to the EU and just hope we don't have to show our hand. Both of these posts are kind of where I am at. I have had enough of the whole thing and somethings needs to happen.
|
|
|
Post by scouse on Aug 28, 2019 15:43:51 GMT
Since he hasn't *actually* prorogued parliament in the way the Remainiacs claim, rather he asked the Queen for the usual suspension as: A) it's conference season so Parliament doesn't traditionally sit B) this is the longest parliament has sat in a single session since, well, forever and C) it's the only way to introdce a new Queens speech Ah yes, sending Jacob Rees-Mogg up to Balmoral for an emergency sitting of the Privy Counsel without prior discussion in Cabinet - now that's entirely normal.
A) Conference season will be over by 2 October according to the internet; B) That's entirely irrelevant; and C) Yes, but there is no absolute need for a new Queens Speech at the moment.
And, while of course we know that the Brexit tendency dislikes "experts" and "facts" but apparently those experts who are experts on constitutional matters are saying that proroguing parliament for five weeks will be the longest suspension of the British legislature since 1945 and "appeared to be designed to evade scrutiny of his plans for Brexit or any new deal with the EU". As Micahel points out it is only 3 days of parliamentary time, asopposed to John Major doing it for 12 days to avoid Commons scrutiny of a report into his MP's taking cash for questions when an election due. Do you ever stop and think 'Yep, that's just what I want to say' when you post about this stuff? 'I refuse to acknowledge him as PM'? You sound like those dopy yanks giving it 'Not my President!'
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Aug 28, 2019 16:41:59 GMT
Sorry, that's utter rubbish in my view. Why? It's standard procedure in terms of starting a new parliamentary session. The loss is three days of time vs. 15 for conference season and is the only way to achieve a deal before the end of the Article 50 extension.
You've holed your own argument there. It may be the standard procedure in terms of starting a new parliamentary session, but (and it's an important but) that isn't why they are doing it.
The reason is almost certainly as I set out above - high stakes gamble to persuade the EU that we are serious about No Deal and that there is no parliamentary Get-out-of-Jail card.
The means are only justified by the end. And since I think the end is a terrible idea, for me it doesn't justify the means, which are extreme.
The best way to look at this is to imagine the howls of outraged protest that would emanate from Brexiters if the very same tactic had been used in order to, say, prevent Parliament voting for No Deal.
As Robert Shrimsley points out in a good and balanced piece in the FT: "It is a useful rule that governments should not abuse the rules in ways they would describe as undemocratic if done by the opposition"
See article here: www.ft.com/content/75cc6aea-c977-11e9-a1f4-3669401ba76f (should be visible - non-subscribers can usually view the first article or two free per month).
He ends by saying "The correct step for a government frustrated by parliament is to go to the people in an election. If Brexiters are unwilling to do so, it must be because they are not quite as confident that they speak for the people as they would have us believe".
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Aug 28, 2019 16:43:51 GMT
Do you ever stop and think 'Yep, that's just what I want to say' when you post about this stuff? 'I refuse to acknowledge him as PM'? You sound like those dopy yanks giving it 'Not my President!' For a man who once called me a cunt for the sin of holding a different point of view, that's going some.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Aug 28, 2019 19:50:58 GMT
Why? It's standard procedure in terms of starting a new parliamentary session. The loss is three days of time vs. 15 for conference season and is the only way to achieve a deal before the end of the Article 50 extension.
You've holed your own argument there. It may be the standard procedure in terms of starting a new parliamentary session, but (and it's an important but) that isn't why they are doing it.
The reason is almost certainly as I set out above - high stakes gamble to persuade the EU that we are serious about No Deal and that there is no parliamentary Get-out-of-Jail card.
The means are only justified by the end. And since I think the end is a terrible idea, for me it doesn't justify the means, which are extreme.
The best way to look at this is to imagine the howls of outraged protest that would emanate from Brexiters if the very same tactic had been used in order to, say, prevent Parliament voting for No Deal.
As Robert Shrimsley points out in a good and balanced piece in the FT: "It is a useful rule that governments should not abuse the rules in ways they would describe as undemocratic if done by the opposition"
See article here: www.ft.com/content/75cc6aea-c977-11e9-a1f4-3669401ba76f (should be visible - non-subscribers can usually view the first article or two free per month).
He ends by saying "The correct step for a government frustrated by parliament is to go to the people in an election. If Brexiters are unwilling to do so, it must be because they are not quite as confident that they speak for the people as they would have us believe".
I’m afraid that’s an argument constructed entirely through the unrealistic prism of remain. In terms of the point about going to the people, that happened in 2017 when the majority of votes were cast for parties who promised to respect the result of the referendum. Beyond that the referendum was clear in what people voted for. This eventuality of potentially leaving without a deal is detailed quite clearly in the booklet that was sent to every home. What this action does is reduce the options from three, delay, deal and no deal to the latter two. Delay is definitely not what people voted for, leave won and one way or another that’s what will now happen. I would have thought most people would be glad that the chance of a deal is now higher given that the withdrawal agreement can now be brought back hopefully amended sufficiently to allow it to pass as otherwise we are faced with no deal. Remain was never an option after that argument lost in 2016. Like a lot of people an glad that efforts are being made to move things on rather than kicking the can down the road for perpetual paralysis.
|
|
|
Post by PG on Aug 28, 2019 20:01:04 GMT
To add a lighter note to the debate, I see that Corbyn wants to see the Queen to get her on side. This seemed rather relevant, as posted by a friend on facebook:
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Aug 29, 2019 8:07:32 GMT
To add a lighter note to the debate, I see that Corbyn wants to see the Queen to get her on side. This seemed rather relevant, as posted by a friend on facebook: Excellent. It reminds me, though, that if the opposition had even a half decent leader then we probably wouldn't be quite so far in the shit as we are now. He's a complete waste of space who only appears to have one, utterly unachieveable, goal - to get into No 10. His recent never-ending pronouncements on a Government of National Unity with him in charge have sounded like the utterings of an old man on the verge of needing full time care......
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Aug 29, 2019 10:06:17 GMT
This ^^
Grandpa Semtex and Boris the Menace are two sides of the same unpalatable coin.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Aug 29, 2019 10:12:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Aug 29, 2019 10:29:19 GMT
I'd forgotten how strongly that booklet warned of the consequences of leaving the EU and that it was a once in a generation vote. And still they voted out.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Aug 29, 2019 10:32:55 GMT
Excellent. It reminds me, though, that if the opposition had even a half decent leader then we probably wouldn't be quite so far in the shit as we are now. He's a complete waste of space who only appears to have one, utterly unachieveable, goal - to get into No 10. His recent never-ending pronouncements on a Government of National Unity with him in charge have sounded like the utterings of an old man on the verge of needing full time care...... I think a lot of people feel the same Tim.
|
|