Politics

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

It’s not about winning it’s about democracy. 

And democracy means anyone can question the government and oppose them. Regardless of anything else. And doing so doesn't make you "treasonous". Unless you fancy becoming an authoritarian state?

Edited October 29, 2019 by bwfcfan5

[Escobarp]

21 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

And democracy means anyone can question the government and oppose them. Regardless of anything else. And doing so doesn't make you "treasonous". Unless you fancy becoming an authoritarian state?

But the point you are missing here is what exactly is being questioned is the majority that voted for leave. 

Current government is simply trying to carry out the result of the referendum and are being stopped. 

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

But the point you are missing here is what exactly is being questioned is the majority that voted for leave. 

Current government is simply trying to carry out the result of the referendum and are being stopped. 

 

Well they, the government have stopped Brexit currently. And IMHO the narrative that they are being "stopped" is dangerous and wrong. 

Boris has done as much to block Brexit as anyone else. He voted against it twice. And conveniently has come with the narrative of "parliament is blocking Brexit" when in fact they were (by a majority) blocking a no deal but NOT blocking his deal as of yet. And most analysis suggests his deal would squeak through unamended - so I refute the "they're blocking Brexit line". 

But even if some (who don't want Brexit) are - that is absolutely their right to do what they think is best. Call them out and disagree with them - its what I'm doing the other way. But the whole "treasonous" stuff is just plainly wrong and poisonous. Once you start down that sort of line you're headed in one direction. People voted for Brexit but even Brexiteers haven't been able to agree what Brexit is - and have voted against it three times - so lets not pretend its as simple as the narrative wants to make it seem. 

[Moon boy]

1 hour ago, bwfcfan5 said:

Well they, the government have stopped Brexit currently. And IMHO the narrative that they are being "stopped" is dangerous and wrong. 

Boris has done as much to block Brexit as anyone else. He voted against it twice. And conveniently has come with the narrative of "parliament is blocking Brexit" when in fact they were (by a majority) blocking a no deal but NOT blocking his deal as of yet. And most analysis suggests his deal would squeak through unamended - so I refute the "they're blocking Brexit line". 

But even if some (who don't want Brexit) are - that is absolutely their right to do what they think is best. Call them out and disagree with them - its what I'm doing the other way. But the whole "treasonous" stuff is just plainly wrong and poisonous. Once you start down that sort of line you're headed in one direction. People voted for Brexit but even Brexiteers haven't been able to agree what Brexit is - and have voted against it three times - so lets not pretend its as simple as the narrative wants to make it seem. 

‘Boris has blocked Brexit’ , what planet are you on?

[athywhite1958]

If the will of the people had been carried out when it should have been the last 3 years would have been used to iron out the detail as we grow into life outside the EU, the remainer moaning fuckers stopped that happening.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, athywhite1958 said:

If the will of the people had been carried out when it should have been the last 3 years would have been used to iron out the detail as we grow into life outside the EU, the remainer moaning fuckers stopped that happening.

This is just wrong. The vote happened. Parliament voted to enact article 50. May's government spent a year negotiating. We got a deal. She couldn't get it through parliament because the Brexit mob in her own party screeched "its not Brexit". Even though they couldn't define what Brexit was - nor agree. Parliament has now provisionally agreed to a new deal (albeit one that Boris and the ERG told May was completely unacceptable) and yet Boris decides to instead delay for months to have a GE.

All of that is fact. Had the ERG and DUP voted for May's deal it would have passed. They didn't like it so refused. Now they have a deal they initially hated but have accepted - it did pass - by 30 votes - but they've stalled it to hold an election. 

Suggesting that its the fault of someone else is a con-trick, to disguise the fact that the Brexit they promised us simply wasn't ever possible and has subsequently never materialised. 

[Salford Trotter]

9 minutes ago, athywhite1958 said:

If the will of the people had been carried out when it should have been the last 3 years would have been used to iron out the detail as we grow into life outside the EU, the remainer moaning fuckers stopped that happening.

but we were only due to come out in March this year?

[Moon boy]

3 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

This is just wrong. The vote happened. Parliament voted to enact article 50. May's government spent a year negotiating. We got a deal. She couldn't get it through parliament because the Brexit mob in her own party screeched "its not Brexit". Even though they couldn't define what Brexit was - nor agree. Parliament has now provisionally agreed to a new deal (albeit one that Boris and the ERG told May was completely unacceptable) and yet Boris decides to instead delay for months to have a GE.

All of that is fact. Had the ERG and DUP voted for May's deal it would have passed. They didn't like it so refused. Now they have a deal they initially hated but have accepted - it did pass - by 30 votes - but they've stalled it to hold an election. 

Suggesting that its the fault of someone else is a con-trick, to disguise the fact that the Brexit they promised us simply wasn't ever possible and has subsequently never materialised. 

A fantasy story

[athywhite1958]

3 minutes ago, Salford Trotter said:

but we were only due to come out in March this year?

Exactly, 3 years that could have been used creating a seamless transition have been wasted by fighting to keep the will of the people on track

[Salford Trotter]

10 minutes ago, athywhite1958 said:

Exactly, 3 years that could have been used creating a seamless transition have been wasted by fighting to keep the will of the people on track

The vote for May's withdrawal deal only came to parliament this year though and we couldn't discuss anything but the WA with the EU until that was passed. I accept that from March this there have been delays but for the right reasons i.e.to ensure we leave with a deal and that pressure forced Johnson to get that deal. If WAB gets through parliament then we will have another 2 years agreeing a FTA with the EU and possibly the next 5/7 years agreeing other FTA deals. There is a long way to go yet    

[Mounts Kipper]

The Turkeys have now voted for Christmas. Obliterated.  

 

[Sweep]

1 minute ago, Mounts Kipper said:

The Turkeys have now voted for Christmas. Obliterated.  

 

You said Labour would be obliterated last time, and they weren't  -  believe me, I hope they are, but I wouldn't take it for granted, these are crazy times, anything is possible, especially now that cretin Farage is going to be milling around, and actually has a chance of winning a couple of seats this time. Both Farage and Johnson have said they won't work together, if they don't then it could be really interesting, I suspect they will come to some agreement though

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, Moon boy said:

A fantasy story

Everything in there is fact. As much as that must be hard to swallow. 

In 2017 you posted that we should all support May as she was doing a great job getting a good deal against the EU enemy. Given that - I'm not sure you do anything other than regurgitate whatever nonsense the likes of Brexitcentral and the Mail tell you to at any single time. 

[Winchester White]

1 hour ago, Moon boy said:

A fantasy story

Not sure if serious...

[Tonge moor green jacket]

2 hours ago, Mounts Kipper said:

The Turkeys have now voted for Christmas. Obliterated.  

 

An amendment for 16 & 17 olds to vote.

A strange one this, not legally old enough to take a drink, not allowed to fight on the frontline (used to be but I think not so now) and not allowed to get wed without parental approval, but mature enough to cast a vote.

This argument that it's their future that is being affected doesn't hold water: it potentially affects everyone irrespective of age, we have to draw a line somewhere. So what do we think; 16, 17, 18?

[L/H White]

9 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

An amendment for 16 & 17 olds to vote.

A strange one this, not legally old enough to take a drink, not allowed to fight on the frontline (used to be but I think not so now) and not allowed to get wed without parental approval, but mature enough to cast a vote.

This argument that it's their future that is being affected doesn't hold water: it potentially affects everyone irrespective of age, we have to draw a line somewhere. So what do we think; 16, 17, 18?

at what age can you have a full time job?

[Salford Trotter]

10 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

An amendment for 16 & 17 olds to vote.

A strange one this, not legally old enough to take a drink, not allowed to fight on the frontline (used to be but I think not so now) and not allowed to get wed without parental approval, but mature enough to cast a vote.

This argument that it's their future that is being affected doesn't hold water: it potentially affects everyone irrespective of age, we have to draw a line somewhere. So what do we think; 16, 17, 18?

many more remainers now in that younger age bracket than there was in 2016, I read somewhere around 1 million more

[Salford Trotter]

Jessica O'Reilly of Ladbrokes said: "The Tories currently edge the betting to win an overall majority at December's election, but it wouldn't be a huge surprise if there isn't an overall majority as the betting is incredibly tight."

[Mounts Kipper]

1 minute ago, Salford Trotter said:

many more remainers now in that younger age bracket than there was in 2016, I read somewhere around 1 million more

Perhaps they should stop over 55s voting they might get the result they want then. 

[MalcolmW]

in 1975 two thirds voted to stay in.

41 years later the majority voted to leave.

This suggests that a lot of those who wanted to stay in first time around have changed their minds. New innocents have taken their place.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

1 hour ago, L/H White said:

at what age can you have a full time job?

Youths have to be in education up to 18 unless on apprenticeship or some such, or full time work iirc.

[royal white]

1 hour ago, Salford Trotter said:

many more remainers now in that younger age bracket than there was in 2016, I read somewhere around 1 million more

Where do you read this shite? 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

6 minutes ago, royal white said:

Where do you read this shite? 

Perhaps some of those younger voters from a few years ago may now have matured and learned that, irrespective of personal views, parliament has a duty to uphold laws it introduces.

[Salford Trotter]

8 minutes ago, royal white said:

Where do you read this shite? 

google it you might learn something

[Salford Trotter]

1 minute ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Perhaps some of those younger voters from a few years ago may now have matured and learned that, irrespective of personal views, parliament has a duty to uphold laws it introduces.

the research was quite definitive, about 75% of the 1.8m voters would vote for remain in another referendum. I assume they would also vote for remain supporting parties in the forthcoming election