Politics

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Escobarp said:

I don’t believe he has a realistic chance of getting that deal through in the current parliament. There will be too many amendments and ultimately it would need us to go back again to the eu for a revised deal which simply won’t be tolerated. 

I’m not saying it’s the way it should be or that a bad deal should be forced through what I’m saying is there are too many ulterior motives in the HoC for any deal to get through unscathed despite the vote last week. 

As I said the other day boris is now delaying to suit his own political agenda but the precedent has already been set by the other democracy deniers in there. And only way this gets sorted is by a GE now. 

Like I say Sebastian Payne of the FT - got the votes on 2nd reading and timetabling right - he was 1 out each time. And he thinks there is a majority of 3 for Boris' deal and no majority for any major amendments that would kill it. 

That's very narrow but there is a chance. And he should have pursued that chance immediately and first. 

[Salford Trotter]

5 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

You seem to think I care about Labour's electoral chances. I don't. 

I'd prefer a situation where neither Tories nor Labour can win a majority as I don't trust either front bench. I fundamentally am at odds with the political positions of the Tory front bench. But beyond that I'm not at all interested in Labour winning. And I suspect you are correct that they will do very badly as they've lost huge chunks of their support over their ineptitude on Brexit - both ways. 

We need a period of consensus politics to get us through this mess

[Mounts Kipper]

8 minutes ago, Sweep said:

Can you imagine that cretin, Farage, getting into the HoC? - what a nightmare that would be.

This "deal" that Johnson want's to get through, we'll find out in the next few days how popular it really is, when it's fully scrutinised. People on here saying it's a good deal or a bad deal, are being a bit daft really............unless they've actually sat and read the full document. Listening to Farage on LBC, he reckons that it's a terrible deal, and when the "house" scrutinises it, that many will be against it, which is why Johnson wanted to rush it through quickly (although, I appreciate it is Farage saying this, and hes a massive cunt)

 To have a parliament that represents the electorate it’s vital farage wins some seats, there are many many bigger cunts in this parliament than him and his views are shared by a reasonably large part of the electorate. 

[Mounts Kipper]

Just now, Salford Trotter said:

We need a period of consensus politics to get us through this mess

Consensus means that the losers give their consent, it ain’t happening any time soon. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

How can you trust lib dems which is what you imply by not mentioning them in the mistrust? As a nation we voted to leave. That vote is still valid. Yet the lib undems want to ignore it and deny the ability for the result to Be enacted. I for one wouldn’t trust anybody like that but you seem to want to?

I've never thought leaving was a good opinion. The LD's never thought leaving was a good option. 

They've been consistent in what they think. And ultimately there are many people who want a 2nd referendum or to remain - and always have and always will. 

I would prioritise the economic stability and benefits we get from remaining over and above anything. But personally where I differ from the LD's is that I think there has to be a 2nd referendum - and it has to be legally binding. So that whatever the vote is the next day is automatically put into law. That way the people provide consent for the deal or consent for remaining or leaving sans deal - not a straight 3 way split. But I do think that is the only way to do this properly to get a mandate for anything. My personal view is there is nothing, not a single thing, more democratic than finding out the public view on the specific options in front of us and seeing what has the mandate. You and I will disagree on this and I fully respect your arguments. Its not something I've favoured really most of the time but I've slowly come round to this conclusion. 

To say I "trust" the LD's is somewhat strong but I think that they represent my views most closely - I'm a centrist economically and I guess socially centre left - I'm sympathetic with some of Corbyn's program but not in support of renationalising lots of industries because whilst I might have opposed their privatisation - I don't see nationalising them is a magic bullet answer (trains are possibly my one exception given the utter failure of private providers). 

 

[Salford Trotter]

6 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Consensus means that the losers give their consent, it ain’t happening any time soon. 

If we get a hung parliament then that is exactly what we will have

[Escobarp]

6 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

I've never thought leaving was a good opinion. The LD's never thought leaving was a good option. 

They've been consistent in what they think. And ultimately there are many people who want a 2nd referendum or to remain - and always have and always will. 

I would prioritise the economic stability and benefits we get from remaining over and above anything. But personally where I differ from the LD's is that I think there has to be a 2nd referendum - and it has to be legally binding. So that whatever the vote is the next day is automatically put into law. That way the people provide consent for the deal or consent for remaining or leaving sans deal - not a straight 3 way split. But I do think that is the only way to do this properly to get a mandate for anything. My personal view is there is nothing, not a single thing, more democratic than finding out the public view on the specific options in front of us and seeing what has the mandate. You and I will disagree on this and I fully respect your arguments. Its not something I've favoured really most of the time but I've slowly come round to this conclusion. 

To say I "trust" the LD's is somewhat strong but I think that they represent my views most closely - I'm a centrist economically and I guess socially centre left - I'm sympathetic with some of Corbyn's program but not in support of renationalising lots of industries because whilst I might have opposed their privatisation - I don't see nationalising them is a magic bullet answer (trains are possibly my one exception given the utter failure of private providers). 

 

We will disagree you are correct and nothing either of us will say will change the others viewpoint and that’s fine. 

But my opinion remains the same that all there has been is excuses and blockages to stop the vote being enacted. It’s been like this since day one and it continues today

i hope the lib undems and all those on that side of the fence find themselves one day in a scenario where they are stopped from Delivering democracy. Because this is what is going to happen now the precedent has been set. No votes are ever going to be respected we may as well rip it all up and start again as democracy is now dead in the UK 

Edited October 25, 2019 by Escobarp

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

We will disagree you are correct and nothing either of us will say will change the others viewpoint and that’s fine. 

But my opinion remains the same that all there has been is excuses and blockages to stop the vote being enacted. It’s been like this since day one and it continues today

i hope the lib undems and all those on that side of the fence find themselves one day in a scenario where they are stopped from Delivering democracy. Because this is what is going to happen now the precedent has been set. No votes are ever going to be respected we may as well rip it all up and start again as democracy is now dead in the UK 

I totally see that point of view - it is where I was up until the WA was rejected a 2nd time. You had to honour what people voted for even though it was going to be harmful. And I said on here I wanted MPs to vote for that deal.

However, what happened was Brexiteers effectively could have passed it - but didn't - claiming it "wasn't Brexit" even though it patently was - a relatively hard one at that. And at that stage I started to think that the Brexit politicians were simply going to shift the goalposts constantly on what they claimed "Brexit was" and we moved away from "clear mandates" into territory where nothing said from the Brexit side during the referendum was true. From then on I've thought that the original vote didn't have much meaning in that - take away all the lies and bluster - the constant Brexit message was that we'd absolutely not be losing the SM benefits - we'd not have to sacrifice them. When it became patently clear that a deal that tried to preserve a few of those benefits was being described by Brexiteers as "not real Brexit" and the horrendous language that went with it - I felt that they wanted to use an answer to a question to answer a different one. And that the question needed to be asked. 

[Sweep]

37 minutes ago, Salford Trotter said:

If we get a hung parliament then that is exactly what we will have

Indeed, but the Boris fan club won't have any talk of a hung Parliament, as they reckon it'll be a fairly easy job (I think Tory would win the most seats, still not convinced they get a majority Government though)

[Guest]

Tories have had to row back on their government "strike" they threatened yesterday after Tory MPs said that was completely unacceptable. Now they say they will push domestic agenda forward if they can't get GE. 

 

 

[athywhite1958]

1 hour ago, bwfcfan5 said:

I've never thought leaving was a good opinion. The LD's never thought leaving was a good option. 

They've been consistent in what they think. And ultimately there are many people who want a 2nd referendum or to remain - and always have and always will. 

I would prioritise the economic stability and benefits we get from remaining over and above anything. But personally where I differ from the LD's is that I think there has to be a 2nd referendum - and it has to be legally binding. So that whatever the vote is the next day is automatically put into law. That way the people provide consent for the deal or consent for remaining or leaving sans deal - not a straight 3 way split. But I do think that is the only way to do this properly to get a mandate for anything. My personal view is there is nothing, not a single thing, more democratic than finding out the public view on the specific options in front of us and seeing what has the mandate. You and I will disagree on this and I fully respect your arguments. Its not something I've favoured really most of the time but I've slowly come round to this conclusion. 

To say I "trust" the LD's is somewhat strong but I think that they represent my views most closely - I'm a centrist economically and I guess socially centre left - I'm sympathetic with some of Corbyn's program but not in support of renationalising lots of industries because whilst I might have opposed their privatisation - I don't see nationalising them is a magic bullet answer (trains are possibly my one exception given the utter failure of private providers). 

 

So was the first time a practice to see what happens?  because I personally differ from the remainer moaning losing cunts that there should not be second referendum as there has been a referendum that was legally binding in that 17.2 million people legally voted for it

[Escobarp]

1 minute ago, athywhite1958 said:

So was the first time a practice to see what happens?  because I personally differ from the remainer moaning losing cunts that there should not be second referendum as there has been a referendum that was legally binding in that 17.2 million people legally voted for it

Wasting your breath pal on this one 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, athywhite1958 said:

So was the first time a practice to see what happens?  because I personally differ from the remainer moaning losing cunts that there should not be second referendum as there has been a referendum that was legally binding in that 17.2 million people legally voted for it

The first time people voted for a vague notion. It wasn’t a specific thing. Theresa May’s deal delivered what people voted for but Brexiteers claimed it didn’t.

My point is that any vote now would be on very specific definite options. 

I get why people disagree. It’s what I think is all. 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

1 hour ago, Sweep said:

Indeed, but the Boris fan club won't have any talk of a hung Parliament, as they reckon it'll be a fairly easy job (I think Tory would win the most seats, still not convinced they get a majority Government though)

Always a chance. I think that's why they may well try again with the bill first.

If it gets amended to fuck then the government would pull it or the EU reject it.

A bit more power to Boris's elbow then at a general election.

Not sure what's happened since his idea of giving more time in return for 12/12 election.

[Rudy]

3 hours ago, boltondiver said:

forced to?

perhaps she shoud have been forced to visit a food bank?

That’s what made me laugh

[Sweep]

2 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

 

If it gets amended to fuck then the government would pull it or the EU reject it.

A bit more power to Boris's elbow then at a general election.

 

Or, if under scrutiny it gets absolutely pulled apart, and then weakens Johnsons hand........I feel a lot of the public are behind it now because of general "Brexit fatigue" and general apathy, they don't know what's actually in it. If it was to transpire that half the shit that Farage reckons is in it, actually is in it, then the general public wouldn't necessarily be all that happy with it, and we could start on the merry go round again

[Spider]

You can have an election every week for the next 2 years, I'm telling you it'll be a hung parliament every time.

No way will the main 2 get a majority.

This will rumble on for ages now, and I did think we'd be out next week to be honest.

It's superb, it really is.

[frank_spencer]

57 minutes ago, athywhite1958 said:

So was the first time a practice to see what happens?  because I personally differ from the remainer moaning losing cunts that there should not be second referendum as there has been a referendum that was legally binding in that 17.2 million people legally voted for it

Surely a 2nd vote would confirm that Britain wants brexit and would give more power to those wanting to push Brexit through regardless of what way it happens.

If the will of the people is so strongly in favour of brexit I can't see what harm a vote would do to the cause.

[Spider]

4 minutes ago, frank_spencer said:

Surely a 2nd vote would confirm that Britain wants brexit and would give more power to those wanting to push Brexit through regardless of what way it happens.

If the will of the people is so strongly in favour of brexit I can't see what harm a vote would do to the cause.

Mounts, Royal, Moon Boy etc.. seem convinced a second vote would be a landslide for leave.

Therefore, nothing to lose and everything to gain.

A second victory would shut all but the most rabid remainers up.

I see no issue with a second vote if that's what happens.

I do think it would be the same result, possibly a slimmer margin.

[Escobarp]

6 minutes ago, frank_spencer said:

Surely a 2nd vote would confirm that Britain wants brexit and would give more power to those wanting to push Brexit through regardless of what way it happens.

If the will of the people is so strongly in favour of brexit I can't see what harm a vote would do to the cause.

Genuine question.  You believe the likes of Gina miller, jo Swinson and the buffoons standing outside Westminster shouting Boris out and shame on you would stop their actions if a second referendum showed leave and even more so if a smaller winning margin? 

I certainly don’t 

[Spider]

6 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

Genuine question.  You believe the likes of Gina miller, jo Swinson and the buffoons standing outside Westminster shouting Boris out and shame on you would stop their actions if a second referendum showed leave and even more so if a smaller winning margin? 

I certainly don’t 

They'd lose a lot of the support they have.

2 wins would put most protests to bed. There'll always be people moaning, but a follow up win would nail it.

[frank_spencer]

8 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

Genuine question.  You believe the likes of Gina miller, jo Swinson and the buffoons standing outside Westminster shouting Boris out and shame on you would stop their actions if a second referendum showed leave and even more so if a smaller winning margin? 

I certainly don’t 

No but the lunatic fringe will always be that way.

Farage himself said before the referendum that a close result wouldn't stop his campaign.

[Escobarp]

3 minutes ago, frank_spencer said:

No but the lunatic fringe will always be that way.

Farage himself said before the referendum that a close result wouldn't stop his campaign.

So you would class the leader of the lib undems as lunatic fringe?

[Sweep]

5 minutes ago, frank_spencer said:

 

Farage himself said before the referendum that a close result wouldn't stop his campaign.

Farage has said that he'll still be campaigning if we leave with the "deal" that Johnson is trying to push through. So after campaigning to leave for twenty years, after getting it, he won't be happy as it's not "Brexity" enough for him, so he'll be around for a bit longer yet on the campaign trail

[darwen_white]

1 minute ago, Spider said:

They'd lose a lot of the support they have.

2 wins would put most protests to bed. There'll always be people moaning, but a follow up win would nail it.

But it wouldn't though.

We'd still have knobheads organising marches and petitions. Not to mention the BBC initiated shouting at College Green