Political Discussions And Ranting Thread

[Deathray 2,940]

2 hours ago, Thatcher said:

If legislated for and Boris is mandated to do so, he could always go to the meeting on 17th October to request an extension, then since the UK remains a member of the EU, the government could use their veto to block our own request for an extension.

 

There is also an easier way around calling an election. If the Government fails to get the 2/3 supermajority for an election, they can do a simple 'notwithstanding FTPA' Bill which would require a simple majority. 

 

He can't would be in contempt of parliament. Article 50 clearly states within the constitution of the UK Brexit must be enacted, so the EU can decline that veto on the grounds of it not being in keeping with Art 50.

 

Regards the bill, which can be amended, crucially amended to fix the date and get Labour's support anyway. 

[YoungWillz 21,057]

Jezza having his first good day of the Bawjaws premiership.

 

Ripping the Government to bits and barely shouted down compared with the PM.

 

Btw, now a minority Government. Bawjaws lost his majority without a ballot having been cast.

[Thatcher 2,417]

2 hours ago, Deathray said:

He can't would be in contempt of parliament. Article 50 clearly states within the constitution of the UK Brexit must be enacted, so the EU can decline that veto on the grounds of it not being in keeping with Art 50.

 

Regards the bill, which can be amended, crucially amended to fix the date and get Labour's support anyway. 

 

He gets held in contempt of Parliament. What next? Remind me what happened when Theresa May's Government was held in contempt of Parliament? And you think Boris will be arsed about it?

 

Yes, the Bill would be subject to amendments. But honestly, Labour and the other opposition parties have spent the past two years standing at the despatch box demanding an election, talking about 'unelected' PMs (when in a parliamentary democracy none of our PMs are actually elected), mouthing off about coups and being general whingey twats. Now, a Government who has lost their majority goes for an election and they back off because they're cowards? A fantastic look. Not just illogical but showing them up for the democracy despisers they really are. "Take it to the people" they moaned for the past two years. They are about to be given their chance on a plate and they turn their nose up at it? Pathetic. 

[Sean 6,330]

5 hours ago, Thatcher said:

If legislated for and Boris is mandated to do so, he could always go to the meeting on 17th October to request an extension, then since the UK remains a member of the EU, the government could use their veto to block our own request for an extension.

 

There is also an easier way around calling an election. If the Government fails to get the 2/3 supermajority for an election, they can do a simple 'notwithstanding FTPA' Bill which would require a simple majority. 

Or he could resign as prime minister just before he is required to sign the extension.

[Deathray 2,940]

1 hour ago, Thatcher said:

 

He gets held in contempt of Parliament. What next? Remind me what happened when Theresa May's Government was held in contempt of Parliament? And you think Boris will be arsed about it?

 

Yes, the Bill would be subject to amendments. But honestly, Labour and the other opposition parties have spent the past two years standing at the despatch box demanding an election, talking about 'unelected' PMs (when in a parliamentary democracy none of our PMs are actually elected), mouthing off about coups and being general whingey twats. Now, a Government who has lost their majority goes for an election and they back off because they're cowards? A fantastic look. Not just illogical but showing them up for the democracy despisers they really are. "Take it to the people" they moaned for the past two years. They are about to be given their chance on a plate and they turn their nose up at it? Pathetic. 

 

Labour are happy with an election once the no deal vote goes through. This is the exact line they've had since 2017.

[YoungWillz 21,057]

Still find it fascinating that most of the discussion is about tactics, plans or the lack of them, the break up of the Tory party, deselections, appointment of lords and all round process.

 

Indeed, very little about the national interest or the country. That's the sad truth about Westminster. It's about which party gets power.

 

 

[Thatcher 2,417]

26 minutes ago, Deathray said:

 

Labour are happy with an election once the no deal vote goes through. This is the exact line they've had since 2017.

That's just a blatant mistruth. As soon as Boris was elected they demanded an immediate election with no preconditions about no deal. 

[Deathray 2,940]

1 minute ago, Thatcher said:

That's just a blatant mistruth. As soon as Boris was elected they demanded an immediate election with no preconditions about no deal. 

 

Nope it's you spreading the mistruth. The process has always been no deal not an imminent threat, which it now is. A VoNC and then an election.

[Thatcher 2,417]

4 minutes ago, Deathray said:

 

Nope it's you spreading the mistruth. The process has always been no deal not an imminent threat, which it now is. A VoNC and then an election.

 

You said Labour's position has always been since 2017 that they're happy with an election once legislation about no deal goes through. Don't chat shit. Here's Corbyn in May after Theresa resigned and he doesn't mention blocking a no deal before demanding an election. The circumstances have only just changed in the past weeks. You're honestly either deluded, misunderstanding the situation, misrepresenting the facts or a mixture of all three. I'm not disputing that the process and calculations amongst Labour have changed because of the threat of no deal, but don't say they've had this exact position since 2017 because it's straight up bullshit. 

[Deathray 2,940]

5 minutes ago, Thatcher said:

 

You said Labour's position has always been since 2017 that they're happy with an election once legislation about no deal goes through. Don't chat shit. Here's Corbyn in May after Theresa resigned and he doesn't mention blocking a no deal before demanding an election. The circumstances have only just changed in the past weeks. You're honestly either deluded, misunderstanding the situation, misrepresenting the facts or a mixture of all three. I'm not disputing that the process and calculations amongst Labour have changed because of the threat of no deal, but don't say they've had this exact position since 2017 because it's straight up bullshit. 

 

There was no threat of no deal at that point, so why would he mention it?

 

Anyone with half a brain knew Labour wouldn't back a suicide election, except BoJo it seems.

[Thatcher 2,417]

2 minutes ago, Deathray said:

 

There was no threat of no deal at that point, so why would he mention it?

 

Anyone with half a brain knew Labour wouldn't back a suicide election, except BoJo it seems.

There was a threat of no deal at that point because as of yet it hasn't been taken of the table. You should then accept that Labour's position has changed since 2017. You also didn't mention what happens once Boris is held in contempt of Parliament as you suggested. When Theresa May's Government was I fail to remember any consequence at all so perhaps you can enlighten me. 

[Deathray 2,940]

1 minute ago, Thatcher said:

There was a threat of no deal at that point because as of yet it hasn't been taken of the table. You should then accept that Labour's position has changed since 2017. You also didn't mention what happens once Boris is held in contempt of Parliament as you suggested. When Theresa May's Government was I fail to remember any consequence at all so perhaps you can enlighten me. 

 

a Vote of No Confidence as as of today one would actually pass.

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,219]

31 minutes ago, Thatcher said:

There was a threat of no deal at that point because as of yet it hasn't been taken of the table. You should then accept that Labour's position has changed since 2017. You also didn't mention what happens once Boris is held in contempt of Parliament as you suggested. When Theresa May's Government was I fail to remember any consequence at all so perhaps you can enlighten me. 

Fuck, you are good!

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,219]

Just to clarify.

Corbyn did want an election as Bo Jo was not an elected PM.

Corbyn STILL wants an election , like, now but the Lib Dems  don't want one and neither do members of his own party.

 

 

[Sean 6,330]

52 minutes ago, YoungWillz said:

Still find it fascinating that most of the discussion is about tactics, plans or the lack of them, the break up of the Tory party, deselections, appointment of lords and all round process.

 

Indeed, very little about the national interest or the country. That's the sad truth about Westminster. It's about which party gets power.

 

 

Issue is that the national interest is perceived differently by different people I guess

[Sean 6,330]

44 minutes ago, Thatcher said:

There was a threat of no deal at that point because as of yet it hasn't been taken of the table. You should then accept that Labour's position has changed since 2017. You also didn't mention what happens once Boris is held in contempt of Parliament as you suggested. When Theresa May's Government was I fail to remember any consequence at all so perhaps you can enlighten me. 

You are correct the threat of no deal was always there.Labour went from ambiguous in 2017 to full on remain in 2019.The reason Corbyn is backing out of a general election at the moment is he knows Boris will change the date to November if he possibly can.

[YoungWillz 21,057]

8 minutes ago, Sean said:

Issue is that the national interest is perceived differently by different people I guess

I'd at least like to hear someone articulate what it means to them or their party, whether that is agreeable or not. I do find that I'd probably disagree with both major Westminster parties in either event, due to their vested interest representation.

 

Truth is both have rarely acted in a truly national interest. And we are seeing the worst of both played out right now.

 

 

[Toast 16,144]

We desperately need a Guy Fawkes.   

[Sean 6,330]

28 minutes ago, YoungWillz said:

I'd at least like to hear someone articulate what it means to them or their party, whether that is agreeable or not. I do find that I'd probably disagree with both major Westminster parties in either event, due to their vested interest representation.

 

Truth is both have rarely acted in a truly national interest. And we are seeing the worst of both played out right now.

 

 

I suspect we disagree on most political matters but can't disagree with a word of that.The main political parties are cliques.You to the line and change it until you get where you want.Hardly any MPs have a shread of integrity.Was probably always that way but Brexit has shone a light on it as did the expenses scandal.

[gcreptile 10,978]

11 minutes ago, Toast said:

We desperately need a Guy Fawkes.   

I've heard the argument that Boris is right to shut down Parliament because they voted down every possible solution. 

I actually like that. This parliament has been quite useless.

 

Some might prefer new elections over Guy Fawkes though.

[Toast 16,144]

30 minutes ago, gcreptile said:

Some might prefer new elections over Guy Fawkes though.

 

Only if there was somebody capable of running the country, which there doesn't seem to have been for quite some time.

[TQR 14,400]

Yeah, Johnson lost. Quelle surprise. 

 

Make sure you're registered to vote.

[Deathray 2,940]

All 21 MPs who voted against the government have been expelled from the party.

 

Leaves the government with 289 MPs. or 299 with the DUP.

 

An election is absolutely necessary but Corbyn won't bloody vote for it for fucks sake. He's trapping himself and handing the power play to Boris for the upcoming election. He needs to tell the rebel alliance to fuck off and back the FTPA motion tomorrow or he loses the election, with Boris playing the "Corbyn took the opportunity for the country to decide who to send to the EU Summit off the table by voting against a necessary election." card. Can't believe Labour have fell for this rubbish.

 

We've spent two years demanding an election.

[Thatcher 2,417]

Yet another critical blunder from Corbyn. Not only will Labour get a battering for being a full up remain/referendum party now, but after whingeing for an election for so long he rejects the chance to go to the people. And what for? To pass urgent no-deal legislation. Legislation which requires the Prime Minister of the day to go to the EU and request an extension. But obviously, having an election on the 15th October means that should Boris get in with a majority he can repeal that legislation straight away and not even bother asking for any extension, crack on with no-deal and make Corbyn look like an idiotic coward who faffed around for no reason at all. Quite the gamble. 

[Toast 16,144]

1 hour ago, Deathray said:

All 21 MPs who voted against the government have been expelled from the party.

 

Including mine