Brexit

[pete]

At least the brixiteers have a plan all the remainers have is no to everything

[C8RKH]

40 minutes ago, pete said:

At least the brixiteers have a plan all the remainers have is no to everything

No deal. No plan. No clue. No problem. Just get on with it. It will be what it will be.  None of us have a fully functioning crystal ball to see into the future.

I'm also getting a tad fed ul with people hiding behind "bullying" comments when actually all the Government is actually trying to do is follow the current legislation enacted after a democratic vote!

Remainers have been the bullies, led by Bercow.  They have consistently bullied their point and have point blank refused to acknowledge the will of their constituents as well articulated above.

 

[SFO]

they don’t want a no deal Brexit but don’t say what deal they would like or do or what deal the EU would agree to. 

they forget that May’s deal was rejected 3x!

media never follow up no deal supporters with questions on what happens after a further extension .. 

no one talks about what a deal actually looks like .. just that there must be deal

it’s like saying: I am hungry but I won’t eat!

I reckon Johnson will win a strong majority to allow him to finally sort out Brexit 

[PaulCP]

I see that Mr Blocker is at it again. He is now being presented with the election he has been craving for the past 12 months and wants to block the motion. Jeez, what a prat that guy is. An opposition party without a leader, just a blocker.

One Labour MP suggested this morning that Corbyn is running scared of a GE since they would be 30 points up in opinion polls if it wasn’t for Corbyn, and that he needs to step aside to enable Labour to govern.

What is that Labour slogan “Labour for the many not the few” It needs extending by “and Corbyn all for himself”

[martynw]

17 hours ago, Steve V8 said:

I

Not at all Martin, I see you are from London, your view is probably hugely fashionable there, as it would be in Scotland. The problem seems to be most of our broadcasting associations and media are based in London, most of our MP's live part time work and socialise in London, but London does not share the opinion of the rest of the country, we the majority outside the M25 are sick to death of hearing the doom and gloom, Brexit car crash, off the cliff, do or die propaganda coming from within the capitol every day.

Please take a look at the voting map of the UK to see the huge proportion of the country that voted to leave, those MP's who represent that huge proportion should do so, and if they have lost their careers and salaries for refusing to uphold a referendum result, then that's the least they deserve.

Let me give you another example of how out of touch London is with the rest of the country... Anti semitism within the labour party, that was headline news for weeks, as if it were the end of the world. Being from outside London it means absolutely nothing, I don't think I've ever even seen a Jew let alone needed to hear about anti semitism every day.

Wonder if I wasn't being clear enough. I didn't express a view - fashionable or otherwise - on Brexit itself.

The unfashionable bit was sticking up for MPs who I still believe usually do what they think is best, not what lines their pockets/advances their careers etc etc. It's true that it was triggered by things written about the 21 yesterday who far from benefitting have likely ended their careers, but I also think it applies to most of those taking exactly the opposite view.  I'm pretty sure sticking up for MPs isn't fashionable inside or outside of the M25.

And on Labour/AS, the idea it was in the headlines because it was tearing the capital apart is nonsense. It was in the headlines because powerful people in the media and politics made sure it was there.

[march]

https://news.sky.com/story/bank-no-deal-brexit-not-as-bad-as-we-predicted-11802146

[Barrykearley]

Maybe it’s about time there was a serious case of rioting outside the Houses of Parliament to stop these wankers getting in to vote

[mayevora]

[Barrykearley]

354 could be bothered to vote tonight on the question of should there be a general election. 

So where are the rest of these work shy skiving bunch of self serving arseholes??

[oilmagnet477]

In a General Election, irrespective of turnout, the majority wins, assuming the winning party wins over 50% of seats (ie a clear majority over everyone else.)

So within Parliament, to call a GE (under the Fixed Term Parliament Act) a majority of 2/3rds is required.

Pardon me for not understanding how yet again it is one set of rules for us and another complete set of rules for those in Parliament but how is

298 v 56 not a significant amount over 2/3rds of those who bothered to vote?

Christ on a bike, we need some MASSIVE reform of our political system in this Country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[pete]

Labour abstained

[oilmagnet477]

Just now, pete said:

Labour abstained

A large percentage of the population 'abstain' during most voting opportunities in this United Kingdom.

I am however reminded that the BEST turnout in a recent vote was for leaving the EU. Fat lot of fucking good that did!

[Barrykearley]

[gregs24]

5 hours ago, PaulCP said:

I see that Mr Blocker is at it again. He is now being presented with the election he has been craving for the past 12 months and wants to block the motion. Jeez, what a prat that guy is. An opposition party without a leader, just a blocker.

One Labour MP suggested this morning that Corbyn is running scared of a GE since they would be 30 points up in opinion polls if it wasn’t for Corbyn, and that he needs to step aside to enable Labour to govern.

What is that Labour slogan “Labour for the many not the few” It needs extending by “and Corbyn all for himself”

As I pointed out yesterday Corbyn was always going to block a Johnson initiated election for the simple reason Boris could move the date of the election at will to post 31/10. Corbyn does not trust Boris. The election will come from a vote of no confidence in all likelihood so that the opposition control the date of the election. No poultry involved !

There is a difference between abstaining (which is a positive action) and not bothering to vote. Barry - lovely meme but factually incorrect.

Marc - your figures are incorrect for Bracknell - it was 54% leave not 70% and there is no SDP any more

Votes for Remain were: 29,888

Votes for Leave were: 35,002

 

35 minutes ago, oilmagnet477 said:

In a General Election, irrespective of turnout, the majority wins, assuming the winning party wins over 50% of seats (ie a clear majority over everyone else.)

So within Parliament, to call a GE (under the Fixed Term Parliament Act) a majority of 2/3rds is required.

Pardon me for not understanding how yet again it is one set of rules for us and another complete set of rules for those in Parliament but how is

298 v 56 not a significant amount over 2/3rds of those who bothered to vote?

Christ on a bike, we need some MASSIVE reform of our political system in this Country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How is this one set of rules for us and another for them. Both apply to parliament and both are enshrined in law passed by parliament. 298 v 56 has already been answered above re abstentions.

I actually find the whole process fascinating at present (OK I should get out more) Watching Ken Clarke lambasting Boris this evening really does show just how big a hole Boris is in now. If I was a betting man I would say there will be an election in November and the new PM will end up negotiating a mildly revised transition deal with the EU over a few months, leading on to a trade deal negotiated over 2 years or so. As to who that PM will be …..

 

[oilmagnet477]

8 minutes ago, gregs24 said:

How is this one set of rules for us and another for them. Both apply to parliament and both are enshrined in law passed by parliament. 298 v 56 has already been answered above re abstentions.

Sorry, I'd have thought it was obvious! They may both be enshrined in Law, it's just their law is different, or interpreted differently to us. Is an 'abstention' a vote? It isn't in my book, you appear to imply differently.

Abstention is a term in election procedure for when a participant in a vote either does not go to vote (on election day) or, in parliamentary procedure, is present during the vote, but does not cast a ballot.

so therefore tonight's vote was won by more than 2/3rd of those who voted. That is how public elections in the UK work so for Parliament to insist on a different set of rules means that there is a difference between us and them

[march]

24 minutes ago, gregs24 said:

Marc - your figures are incorrect for Bracknell - it was 54% leave not 70% and there is no SDP any more

Sorry just quoting the figures stated by Sky or BBC News (Can't remember which) - anyway still more Leave than Remain so the point stands. OK Lib Dems not SDP, I think most people got what I was stating.

[Steve V8]

6 hours ago, martynw said:

It was in the headlines because powerful people in the media and politics made sure it was there.

Please elaborate... You hold some diverse and interesting points of view, who are these people, and what is their agenda? 

[C8RKH]

5 hours ago, Steve V8 said:

Please elaborate... You hold some diverse and interesting points of view, who are these people, and what is their agenda? 

[gregs24]

18 hours ago, oilmagnet477 said:

Sorry, I'd have thought it was obvious! They may both be enshrined in Law, it's just their law is different, or interpreted differently to us. Is an 'abstention' a vote? It isn't in my book, you appear to imply differently.

Abstention is a term in election procedure for when a participant in a vote either does not go to vote (on election day) or, in parliamentary procedure, is present during the vote, but does not cast a ballot.

so therefore tonight's vote was won by more than 2/3rd of those who voted. That is how public elections in the UK work so for Parliament to insist on a different set of rules means that there is a difference between us and them

Labour whipped to abstain so it was a deliberate act that influenced the outcome - if you like it, it was neither for nor against but by abstaining en masse it prevented the motion carrying. Very different to just not bothering to vote in parliamentary terms. General election is a first past the post system (simple majority) but FTPA specifies 2/3 of eligible voters. There are many different methods of conducting votes which are not any more or less valid - just different. There were various reasons the FTPA was introduced and one of them was to remove the PM's ability to call a snap election against the will of parliament. There is no their law and our law, just the law and differing methods of determining the results.

[DaveyT]

My take fwiw.

Neither side could organise the proverbial, and with Boris now being effectively hamstrung and likely to not get his election, it's time for a second referendum before the 15 th October. 

Put it to us plebs again, with all the knowledge that we now have after 3 years of dicking about, with only one simple question :

1- should we revoke Article 50

2- should we come out of the EU on 31st October with no deal if one cannot be agreed.

Not sure if a referendum can be called more easily than a GE, or how this No Deal bill (if made law) would be effectively overridden by the new referendum

Half the country is gonna be pissed off anyway, so lets just get the fecker over and done with

rant over

[oilmagnet477]

Greg, as before, there's little point in arguing with your obvious knowledge of the system and I don't think we will ever agree.

However I'm sorry, but I have to have one more go! - there is SO definitely a 'them and us' at play here. Whips aside, how can you not see that we have to put up with a voting system where the absolute majority wins, irrespective of the number of people who vote, versus a Parliamentary system that doesn't follow the same convention. If Labour were going to vote against the Govt, therefore clearly killing off the 2/3rd majority rule (a rule which doesn't apply to the general population when we vote), then why not vote? Abstaining is pointless.

Slightly off topic, if it weren't the case that there is a 'them and us' culture, how come Civil Servants who earn over £150k have their pension contributions capped at 7% whereas Doctors, on the same earning basis have to pay 14%.

How come a Civil Servant on £150k+ is 'poorer' than a Hospital Doctor (working all hours) on the same money? Don't get me started on MPs pensions!!!!!!

It's those with their noses in the trough who look after their own interests.

[mayevora]

1 hour ago, oilmagnet477 said:

 

It's those with their noses in the trough who look after their own interests.

And that, right there, says everything anyone needs to know. A bottomless pit of where does all the money go.

[Barrykearley]

 

[gregs24]

3 hours ago, oilmagnet477 said:

Greg, as before, there's little point in arguing with your obvious knowledge of the system and I don't think we will ever agree.

However I'm sorry, but I have to have one more go! - there is SO definitely a 'them and us' at play here. Whips aside, how can you not see that we have to put up with a voting system where the absolute majority wins, irrespective of the number of people who vote, versus a Parliamentary system that doesn't follow the same convention. If Labour were going to vote against the Govt, therefore clearly killing off the 2/3rd majority rule (a rule which doesn't apply to the general population when we vote), then why not vote? Abstaining is pointless.

 

I don't make the rules and FTPA is actually relatively recent and was seen as a positive step forward at the time. It really isn't them and us as parliament decide on all the laws so it is all them if you like. We elect them.

Labour abstained because they are in favour of an election and didn't want to be seen to vote against the motion. There will be an election soon once the no deal cliff has been deferred and Boris isn't calling the shots on a date. It may actually only make a couple of weeks difference in the end. Crucially all the opposition parties don't trust Boris to stick to an election date and currently no deal will still happen on the 31/10 so you can understand their concerns.

Dave - a referendum has to have a several stages of preparation from passing the primary legislation to confirming what the question is and then time for campaigning. All this would take 6 months at least so a GE is much quicker. Even the question asked can take time to agree as it can be very difficult to define. As an example it would be very difficult to have a three way question such as remain, leave with a deal or leave without a deal as the leave campaigners would argue it would split their vote.

 

[ChrisJ]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/29/parliament-brexit-prorogue-mps-alternative-no-deal