|
Post by PetrolEd on Aug 29, 2019 10:42:31 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. I'd forgotten about that booklet. No arguments can be taken from not knowing what we voted for. A damning booklet in clear language explaining just what will and has happened since the vote.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Aug 29, 2019 10:49:47 GMT
That's the one. It was also quite clear that the referendum result would be respected. Lets be honest, the only reason people are pissed off is because they were hoping to game the system with the aid of the speaker to force a further extension on article 50. The hysteria that it's to force no deal is as hypercritical as it is cynical.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Aug 29, 2019 11:01:22 GMT
There's an interesting bit in that booklet (well there are lots of interesting bits, actually):
What value does this statement have in light of us now being told that the referendum in 2016 was only advisory and not binding?
It seems to be that if the vote decision had been to remain then any future Government could have transferred any number of powers to the EU despite any referendum vote on the matter on the basis that it was non-binding anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Aug 29, 2019 11:19:52 GMT
The booklet's all well and good but unless the Daily Mail, Sun, Telegraph (highly unlikely!) and Facebook had splashed the warnings across the front page and then I suspect it was a complete waste of time bothering to print it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2019 11:40:24 GMT
Let's not forget who was overseeing said document and what he did when he lost the referendum. Is it a surprise that a pro eu pm led his parliament to write a scare mongering document? What have the remainers done ever since? Exactly the bloody same thing. Project fear is a gross disservice to the country as a whole and is anti democratic. Project remain could even lead to a corbyn parliament and that would be the bloody end.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2019 12:17:31 GMT
Remain did a bad job. But at least they didn't drive around in a bus with a big fib on the side...
|
|
|
Post by PG on Aug 29, 2019 12:23:33 GMT
This opposition up in arms over the prorogation would be the same opposition - not just Labour, but Limp Dem, SNP, Clyd etc etc - who would do anything to stop no deal, except voting for the deal contained in the Withdrawal Agreement (on three occasions). A Withdrawal Agreement whose likely outcome would have been a long-time customs union with the EU (due to the backstop) which is the softest possible Brexit going. THeir actions just gives pretty much unlimited ammunition to Boris's stance that what the "we can't have no deal" group really want is no Brexit, thus pitching it as Parliament v the people.
If the opposition had voted the WA through, that would probably have split the Conservatives apart as the ERG would not accept that; May would still be in power. And as the 2017 election showed, May was a useless campaigner (to add to her useless PM moniker) and that Corbyn's best chance of actually getting near number 10 in a Labour-SNP coalition was in an election against May. Especially as the Brexit party would have come about in that situation and taken a lot of votes off the Conservatives.
But no, all the opposition would go on about was a "Tory Brexit".
So right now, they only have themselves to blame for what Boris has done (which of course they will never admit). Boris is just playing by the same dirty set of rules that they have played by the last three years. The biter bit.....
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Aug 29, 2019 12:51:24 GMT
Having failed to agree to anything over the last 3 years I'm struggling to see what could be achieved in the missing 4 days?
|
|
|
Post by scouse on Aug 29, 2019 12:55:30 GMT
For a man who once called me a cunt for the sin of holding a different point of view, that's going some. No, I called you a cunt for the constant low level belittling of Leave voters as thick/racist/xenophobic/etc, not because you have a different point of view. You may choose to believe it or not, but I really do like you and actually agree with you on most things aside from Brexit/politics.
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Aug 29, 2019 13:10:39 GMT
Boris, the man who put the "rogue" in "proroging"
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Aug 29, 2019 13:17:36 GMT
This opposition up in arms over the prorogation would be the same opposition - not just Labour, but Limp Dem, SNP, Clyd etc etc - who would do anything to stop no deal, except voting for the deal contained in the Withdrawal Agreement (on three occasions). A Withdrawal Agreement whose likely outcome would have been a long-time customs union with the EU (due to the backstop) which is the softest possible Brexit going. THeir actions just gives pretty much unlimited ammunition to Boris's stance that what the "we can't have no deal" group really want is no Brexit, thus pitching it as Parliament v the people. If the opposition had voted the WA through, that would probably have split the Conservatives apart as the ERG would not accept that; May would still be in power. And as the 2017 election showed, May was a useless campaigner (to add to her useless PM moniker) and that Corbyn's best chance of actually getting near number 10 in a Labour-SNP coalition was in an election against May. Especially as the Brexit party would have come about in that situation and taken a lot of votes off the Conservatives. But no, all the opposition would go on about was a "Tory Brexit". So right now, they only have themselves to blame for what Boris has done (which of course they will never admit). Boris is just playing by the same dirty set of rules that they have played by the last three years. The biter bit..... Er, the loudest voices of protest that I've heard are coming from Tories - Michael Heseltine, John Major, etc. It's all a complete cluster fuck. Presumably a lot of those in the Tory party that are complaiining today voted against the withdrawal agreement without actually offering a sensible alternative (omething that the ERG types are also guilty of). However, one thing that isn't being considered in all the coverage of the latest argument is that the choice is being put forward as No Deal vs Remain. However, I'm sure that plenty of the 17M who voted to leave did so in the clear assumption that there would be a deal thrashed out so when Farage, for example, stands up and says No Deal is the only possible outcome he's misrepresenting a lot of voters.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Aug 29, 2019 13:37:13 GMT
For a man who once called me a cunt for the sin of holding a different point of view, that's going some. No, I called you a cunt for the constant low level belittling of Leave voters as thick/racist/xenophobic/etc, not because you have a different point of view. You may choose to believe it or not, but I really do like you and actually agree with you on most things aside from Brexit/politics. Christ, I'd hate to see what you call someone you really dislike then!
I do not belittle Leave voters as thick/racist/xenophobic. However, I have noticed that Leave voters are extremely sensitive about this, and as a result it's extremely difficult to criticise the Leave position without someone leaping down your throat accusing you of accusing them of being a brain-dead bigot.
I do, nevertheless, heavily criticise Leave voters for continuing to pursue a course of action which all the reliable evidence suggests will result in, at best, net damage to our country, and at worst, very serious long-term damage. That doesn't mean I think they are all stupid or racist. I do, however, think that there is some stubborn and selective ignoring of reality going on.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Aug 29, 2019 13:58:56 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. Yes, but Michael asserted that the "eventuality of potentially leaving without a deal is detailed quite clearly in the booklet that was sent to every home". I completely dispute that - I've read it again now several times. Where does it actually say anything about leaving without a deal or actually focus on what happens if there is no deal? I cannot see that it does. It merely talks about the difficulty or unlikelihood of striking the good deal promised by Brexiters.
It's all couched in vague terms like "Some argue little would change if we left the EU. But there are no guarantees UK customers would keep these benefits if we left."
|
|
|
Post by michael on Aug 29, 2019 14:17:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by scouse on Aug 29, 2019 14:32:29 GMT
No, I called you a cunt for the constant low level belittling of Leave voters as thick/racist/xenophobic/etc, not because you have a different point of view. You may choose to believe it or not, but I really do like you and actually agree with you on most things aside from Brexit/politics. Christ, I'd hate to see what you call someone you really dislike then!
I do not belittle Leave voters as thick/racist/xenophobic. However, I have noticed that Leave voters are extremely sensitive about this, and as a result it's extremely difficult to criticise the Leave position without someone leaping down your throat accusing you of accusing them of being a brain-dead bigot.
I do, nevertheless, heavily criticise Leave voters for continuing to pursue a course of action which all the reliable evidence suggests will result in, at best, net damage to our country, and at worst, very serious long-term damage. That doesn't mean I think they are all stupid or racist. I do, however, think that there is some stubborn and selective ignoring of reality going on.
Oddly enough I am unfailingly polite with people I despise and rarely resort to invective.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Aug 29, 2019 14:33:32 GMT
None of that is specific to No Deal. That happens, Deal or No Deal.
And I'd strongly question how many people really read the leaflet, got to the end, then decided to go and look at that website on the internet, read and then digested fully the WTO bit. I certainly didn't.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Aug 29, 2019 14:35:12 GMT
Christ, I'd hate to see what you call someone you really dislike then!
I do not belittle Leave voters as thick/racist/xenophobic. However, I have noticed that Leave voters are extremely sensitive about this, and as a result it's extremely difficult to criticise the Leave position without someone leaping down your throat accusing you of accusing them of being a brain-dead bigot.
I do, nevertheless, heavily criticise Leave voters for continuing to pursue a course of action which all the reliable evidence suggests will result in, at best, net damage to our country, and at worst, very serious long-term damage. That doesn't mean I think they are all stupid or racist. I do, however, think that there is some stubborn and selective ignoring of reality going on.
Oddly enough I am unfailingly polite with people I despise and rarely resort to invective. Ahh... That, combined with being apparently very rude to people you like, makes you, beyond all shadow of doubt, truly British! It will eternally puzzle nearly all Americans.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Aug 29, 2019 14:49:13 GMT
None of that is specific to No Deal. That happens, Deal or No Deal. And I'd strongly question how many people really read the leaflet, got to the end, then decided to go and look at that website on the internet, read and then digested fully the WTO bit. I certainly didn't. That's like saying ignorance of the law is a valid defence.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Aug 29, 2019 14:57:55 GMT
None of that is specific to No Deal. That happens, Deal or No Deal. And I'd strongly question how many people really read the leaflet, got to the end, then decided to go and look at that website on the internet, read and then digested fully the WTO bit. I certainly didn't. That's like saying ignorance of the law is a valid defence. I'm not sure it is!
|
|
|
Post by michael on Aug 29, 2019 15:06:56 GMT
"Boris made a critical error not calling it a People’s Prorogation." One of the funniest things I've read today but then you realise it's probably true.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Aug 29, 2019 15:19:49 GMT
"Boris made a critical error not calling it a People’s Prorogation." One of the funniest things I've read today but then you realise it's probably true. There is indeed a knife edge between laughter and tears these days.
|
|
|
Post by Stuntman on Aug 29, 2019 20:37:02 GMT
I understand why it's been done, but it sits very uneasily with me. I expect my (and everyone else's) Parliamentary representative to have the opportunity to ask questions of the Government, particularly at this time in our history.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Aug 30, 2019 8:28:37 GMT
There's what appears to be a simple question (to me at least) that I haven't heard asked yet:-
It appears that the current thinking is that Parliament doesn't sit for the whole of the Conference Season and when it returns after that it is then being Prorogued for the Government to prepare its Queens Speech.
So, given that each party holds their conference for a few days and then, presumably, sits on their thumb for the other 2 weeks (I'm joking), why hasn't it been suggested that the Proroguing occurs concurrently?
I mean, if you were changing your carpets at home AND planning to paint the walls you wouldn't move your furniture out to do one, then move it back in again and then move it out to do the 2nd part would you?
Clearly all the above notwithstanding that games are being played to some extent.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Aug 30, 2019 8:52:56 GMT
Parliament has been suspended for the past 6 weeks while MPs were on holiday and nobody is making an issues of that. It would have also been the perfect time for conferences to be held.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Aug 30, 2019 9:16:21 GMT
I agree but sadly it would get in the way of their annual freebie fact-finding trips to sunnier climes.....
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Aug 30, 2019 9:20:48 GMT
Parliament has been suspended for the past 6 weeks while MPs were on holiday and nobody is making an issues of that. It would have also been the perfect time for conferences to be held. Well actually it was pointed out a number of times that it seemed highly inappropriate under the current circumstances and several calls were made for Parliament to be recalled early, but the Government ignored them.
Agree on the conferences.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Aug 30, 2019 9:21:47 GMT
I agree but sadly it would get in the way of their annual freebie fact-finding trips to sunnier climes..... That's priti cynical of you...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2019 10:48:19 GMT
But probably true. Sad to say.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2019 11:51:20 GMT
A quote from another forum, accurate in my opinion.
"It's simples !
BoJo has prorogued [suspended] Parliament from ~10 Sept in the time honored way, before a Queen's Speech planned in the middle of Oct.
An incoming government/PM usually does this. It resets everything, cancels any ongoing processes and the speech itself outlines what the 'new' government intends to do in the coming months.
However, the time between prorogation and the speech is usually a few weeks, pushing it to about five weeks, which hasn't happened for a generation.
To balance this parliament was to go into recess for three weeks in the middle of this anyway ['conference-season'], so not so much time to debate has been lost.
Also parliament is long overdue a reset speech - by a factor of about 160%.
PM May took power when Conservative-leader and PM Campbell resigned after the Brexit referendum vote didn't go as he had foolishly hoped [and hadn't planned for!] Although there was a contest for the role other runners withdrew and so Mat became leader/PM without challenge [BoJo dropped out very early on]. After many trials and tribulations, PM May resigned because she could no longer rely on support of her colleagues, let alone parliament. Her proposed Withdrawal Agreement has so many problems not enough of parliament's MPs supported it [3 goes] The new party-leader, and by inference the PM, is chosen by the party with the most votes [in this case it's usually the Conservative MPs]. But when there is a change of PM mid-term the Conservatives choose a new leader by votes from their wider public membership - not just the MPs [other parties have different processes!]. So BoJo got the job.
The Queen does what is advised by the PM and other 'Privy Counselors' [government ministers].
Parliament has been split along party-lines and pro/anti-brexit factions for some years. Weirdly many MPs are strongly anti-brexit, when there constituencies voted clearly for brexit, and so they choose to ignore the wishes of those who voted for them as MPs.
However, parliament did pass an Act starting the Brexit process [aka Article-50], this was due to have a cut off in late March, but because a Withdrawal-Agreement could not be agreed by parliament, PM May somewhat pathetically got the EU to extent it until the end of October [the EU itself is in flux and has a whole new set of guys after that date] - it proved a dead-duck.
The Act covering Article-50 does make it very clear that if there is no Withdrawal-Agreement by the end of the time limit then the UK leaves the EU without a deal. MPs wrote it into law and it stands unless repealed. There has been some objections to the 'no-deal', but that's what the MPs enacted. To placate those, PM May had done little 'no-deal' planning, preferring to try for a deal - any-deal, no matter how bad !
When BoJo became PM [chosen as leader of the Conservatives] he changed tack. He's trying to get a revised Withdrawal-Agreement agreed with the EU, which parliament might then pass in October - it would address the key issues [Irish-border***/backstop etc], but without the threat of a possible no-deal the EU is unlikely to budge. A no-deal Brexit would damage the UK and the EU, but the EU is dogmatic and will adversely affect its members to protect its political aims - which the majority of the UK have rejected.
The BOJo 'cunning-plan' reduces the amount of time for parliament to try and block his no-deal planning - although he would prefer a deal, he needs the backstop of a no-deal in his negotiations with the EU. If parliament block this, then it is tying his hands too much. If he does get a deal [by some miracle] there are a few days to get it accepted by parliament after the Queen's Speech and before 31 Oct. At least if we end up with no-deal the government is doing some proper planning to address problems, the EU need to do the same !
What BoJo has done is sneaky, but it's not illegal [at least not yet - there are several court-cases trying to establish this...] What parliament is doing is also disruptive to the process of government. Who 'governs' the UK? Parliament or the Government/PM ?
***The GFA [Good Friday Agreement] is between UK and RoI [with USA involvement], the EU is NOT involved at all. Put simply it says there will be no security installation etc on the border [from either side]. These were removed by the UK [having been put there to try and limit terrorists from RoI entering NI]. it also covers choice of passport etc... The freedom of movement between RoI and the UK has existed since RoI chose to split from the UK almost a century ago. Although the RoI and UK have different currencies, VAT-rates and so on, being in th EU has over time allowed relatively seamless movement of goods, food and animals between the RoI and NI. In the spirit of the GFA the UK has stated that there will be no 'hard-border' between RoI and NI. Processes to make trade etc as friction-less as possible will be used [whatever that means!]. The RoI has made similar assertions. However, the EU will insist on a 'border' between the Roi [EU] and UK [to-be-non-EU]. It is likely they will force RoI to do this - making the RoI break the GFA. The UK have said they will not have a 'border', whatever happens. To avoid the impasse the EU's cunning-plan is that NI [and/or the rest of the UK] remain within the EU's custom area etc, until there's an alternative agreed - the 'backstop'. Given that every alternative suggested by the UK has been rubbished by the EU [and RoI] IF the UK did accept the backstop, then there is no unilateral 'exit' mechanism - so the EU's solution is that the UK does NOT really leave the EU at all, it continues to accept all of the EU rules etc without any EU-parliamentary representation. This is unacceptable since it imposes rules on NI without them having any respite - which is itself against the GFA !
If you really want a mess get some lawyers and politicians involved" !!!
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Aug 30, 2019 12:04:45 GMT
And there was me thinking we are in this mess because an arrogant Tory PM unwisely chose to ask voters a very dangerous question in a vain attempt to restore unity to his party.
|
|