Re: Brexit Anyone? (part 4) : Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:06 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

The party has an agreed policy - in voting Boris as the leader they knew what they were getting. You can't have a situation whereby every MP does their own thing it would be complete chaos. There would be no point of party politics if no MP followed the party line. Also what would the public be voting for? guarantee there wasn't one Tory candidate who said on their manifesto that they would actively fight against Brexit at the last GE.

You can disagree and have your say but once the decision is made by the majority then surely you have to support that majority that's the democratic way. So in your world if all the MPs decided Corbyn would be a better PM they should do that even if the Tories won a huge majority?

The ruling party had a majority of one not such a big achievement when faced with such a decisive issue. Let's see how many of the 21 would vote for Corbyn as a short term leader - the government's majority would hold up on that issue. I bet more than 21 Labour MPs would not vote for Corbyn on that issue.

What a terribly odd view you have of how a Parliamentary representative democracy works.

By your view half the current cabinet would have been kicked out because they voted against Brexit earlier in the year (a manifesto commitment no less, upon which they were elected, unlike what the 21 were axed for). How peculiar that this doesn't appear to have been your stance then.

Just as pertinently, people who didn't vote for something which was government policy but adversely affected their constituents would also get the chop in your view. Like the current Prime Minister and the Heathrow airport runway votes.

Re: Brexit Anyone? (part 4) : Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:17 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

The party has an agreed policy - in voting Boris as the leader they knew what they were getting. You can't have a situation whereby every MP does their own thing it would be complete chaos. There would be no point of party politics if no MP followed the party line. Also what would the public be voting for? guarantee there wasn't one Tory candidate who said on their manifesto that they would actively fight against Brexit at the last GE.

You can disagree and have your say but once the decision is made by the majority then surely you have to support that majority that's the democratic way. So in your world if all the MPs decided Corbyn would be a better PM they should do that even if the Tories won a huge majority?

The ruling party had a majority of one not such a big achievement when faced with such a decisive issue. Let's see how many of the 21 would vote for Corbyn as a short term leader - the government's majority would hold up on that issue. I bet more than 21 Labour MPs would not vote for Corbyn on that issue.

There you go again "You can disagree and have your say but once the decision is made by the majority then surely you have to support that majority that's the democratic way."
Where were your (or the Tory cabinets) principles of democracy when Mrs May was the leader. Hypocrites all of them (and you).

As for Corbyn, he is leader of the second largest parliamentary party so not in a position to run the country BUT, if Boris were to resign and Corbyn could form a coalition to run the country, then why not.
If Tory MP's carry on defecting at their current rate then who knows what may happen.
I'm no spring chicken but, I certainly cant remember a time when the Prime Minister of the ruling party was begging for the opposition to agree to an election (mind you the rules were different back then).
Unless there really is a grand plan, Boris has made more of a balls of things than May and she, for all of her many faults, was a damn sight more honest.
Johnson wouldn't know what integrity was if a lorry load came over from the EU and dropped its load all over him. Although if it happened near a ditch, maybe we would all get our wishes at once.

Re: Brexit Anyone? (part 4) : Mon Sep 09, 2019 8:12 am  

There may be a late plot twist in the Brexit saga.
If the EU say "non" to a further extension, what happens then
On the basis that the EU couldnt force the current deal upon us, would that leave us with only a no deal exit ?

[Mild Rover]

Re: Brexit Anyone? (part 4) : Mon Sep 09, 2019 11:16 am  

wrencat1873 wrote:

There may be a late plot twist in the Brexit saga.
If the EU say "non" to a further extension, what happens then
On the basis that the EU couldnt force the current deal upon us, would that leave us with only a no deal exit ?

We could still pass May’s bill as the lesser of two evils.

Politically expedient as well.

I suspect if we get an initial extension, they’ll say it is the last. Then, following the election if we’re still not able to offer anything different, that’ll be the choice.

Re: Brexit Anyone? (part 4) : Mon Sep 09, 2019 11:42 am  

Such an interesting and infuriating level of solipsism going on with the hard Brexiteers at the moment - in that they are making furious logical contortions to justify the expulsion of rebel MP's who wouldn't support the plotting of Cummings and Johnson; but had no issue at all with the hard line ERG doing exactly the same thing to May - most of whom have now, as Soames, Heseltine and others have pointed out, moved into the cabinet and turned the Tory party into a hardline Brexit sect.

Equally irritating is the spin and bluster that is going on around Labour's refusal to support an instant GE; it's as plain as the nose on anyone's face why timing is important to prevent no deal, but so long as the chicken narrative, together with the lack of clarity narrative, is parroted in the media, that's the view that people are left with.

As it stands, for a group of people who claimed to want to restore the sovereignty of the UK HoP, they seem surprisingly sanguine about Machiavellian levels of skulduggery to deny it having a voice; and for those who bleat about MP's enacting the will of the people and the death of democracy - I would suggest that what's being played out in the HoP right now (until it was suspended) is a perfect reflection of our system of democracy, and proof positive that it *is* working exactly as intended - the country is split and factional on Brexit, as are MP's - what a surprise! For one party, even Labour, who seem to be required to act as one homogenous hive mind to be considered legitimate, to speak in a unified voice on this matter, would require significant numbers of MP's to lie, or ignore the national interest - and that would be a genuine subversion of parliamentary democracy.

I have no idea what will happen next - no doubt it will involve some unholy alliance between Johnson and Farage - but whatever happens, this will take generations to get over; all because David Cameron thought he could see off UKIP with a referendum he never expected to lose. The internecine battle over Europe that has played out within the Tory party for decades has come to a head, and reduced us to an international laughing stock in the process. We will be forever diminished on the world stage after this - demoted to a small, relatively insignificant island nation, with ideas above its station.

Re: Brexit Anyone? (part 4) : Mon Sep 09, 2019 1:26 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

There you go again "You can disagree and have your say but once the decision is made by the majority then surely you have to support that majority that's the democratic way."
Where were your (or the Tory cabinets) principles of democracy when Mrs May was the leader. Hypocrites all of them (and you).

As for Corbyn, he is leader of the second largest parliamentary party so not in a position to run the country BUT, if Boris were to resign and Corbyn could form a coalition to run the country, then why not.
If Tory MP's carry on defecting at their current rate then who knows what may happen.
I'm no spring chicken but, I certainly cant remember a time when the Prime Minister of the ruling party was begging for the opposition to agree to an election (mind you the rules were different back then).
Unless there really is a grand plan, Boris has made more of a balls of things than May and she, for all of her many faults, was a damn sight more honest.
Johnson wouldn't know what integrity was if a lorry load came over from the EU and dropped its load all over him. Although if it happened near a ditch, maybe we would all get our wishes at once.

May was a disaster but if her position was the agreed majority within the Tory party it should have been supported - sadly I am not sure she had a majority for her vision of Brexit. Let's face she was much more of a dictator than Boris - the Tory manifesto was her and her two advisors, the 2017 campaign was all her doing and the Brexit negotiations were all her no discussions within the party on any of that.

So you actually think it would be OK for Corbyn to form a government and implement things like re-nationalisation without an election? really wow!!

To me all Johnson is trying to do is deliver Brexit - he knows he could never get it through parliament MP's have shown no appetite for a deal and no appetite for no deal so how does he deliver on the referendum.

Fortunately it would appear the notion of an impending recession has been overblown given July's growth figures. Time for a GE - perhaps this is more to do with why Labour don't want a GE - No deal Brexit is a convenient excuse - and you say Boris has no integrity!!

[Bullseye]

Re: Brexit Anyone? (part 4) : Mon Sep 09, 2019 2:47 pm  

There are 7 possible types of Brexit –

No deal with the EU
1-page FTA
Complex FTA only in goods
Complex FTA mainly in goods (Canada)
Customs union (Turkey)
Complex bilaterals (Switzerland)
EFTA/EEA (Norway)

These all require the UK to leave the EU. The referendum didn’t make clear which of the seven options “leave” meant. Before the vote I recall Farage, Hannan and others often talk up Norwegian and Swiss options then post referendum say these “weren’t Brexit”.

Article 50 shouldn’t have been triggered until the type of Brexit wanted had been agreed in Parliament.

Re: Brexit Anyone? (part 4) : Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:42 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

May was a disaster but if her position was the agreed majority within the Tory party it should have been supported - sadly I am not sure she had a majority for her vision of Brexit. Let's face she was much more of a dictator than Boris - the Tory manifesto was her and her two advisors, the 2017 campaign was all her doing and the Brexit negotiations were all her no discussions within the party on any of that.

So you actually think it would be OK for Corbyn to form a government and implement things like re-nationalisation without an election? really wow!!

To me all Johnson is trying to do is deliver Brexit - he knows he could never get it through parliament MP's have shown no appetite for a deal and no appetite for no deal so how does he deliver on the referendum.

Fortunately it would appear the notion of an impending recession has been overblown given July's growth figures. Time for a GE - perhaps this is more to do with why Labour don't want a GE - No deal Brexit is a convenient excuse - and you say Boris has no integrity!!

No party can pass ANY law without the majority of MP's voting for it, not even Corbyn.
In fairness, even when the Tories cam into power, they didn't have an overall majority but, you seem happy enough for them to team up with the DUP and "rule" over the country WOW.-( I dont remember that option being on any ballet paper or even being muted during the election campaign, do you ?).
Had Mrs May not got into bed with her Irish friends, Corbyn, if he thought he could muster a coalition with an overall majority could have tried to form a government and in that respect, little has changed.
In fact, you could argue that having sacked 21 of his own MP's and with it, his very slim majority, Boris shouldn't have the right to govern anyway.
Now, in minority government, he's is doing everything possible to force the population to accept something that Parliament has passed a law to forbid, not bad for the new party in favour of law and order, eh

If the government is happy to ride roughshod all over the law, then, why the hell should the populous be expected to stay within it.
As usual, two sets of rules. One for the lawmakers and one for the riff raff. It's a fecking joke.

[Mild Rover]

Re: Brexit Anyone? (part 4) : Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:48 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

There are 7 possible types of Brexit –

No deal with the EU
1-page FTA
Complex FTA only in goods
Complex FTA mainly in goods (Canada)
Customs union (Turkey)
Complex bilaterals (Switzerland)
EFTA/EEA (Norway)

These all require the UK to leave the EU. The referendum didn’t make clear which of the seven options “leave” meant. Before the vote I recall Farage, Hannan and others often talk up Norwegian and Swiss options then post referendum say these “weren’t Brexit”.

Article 50 shouldn’t have been triggered until the type of Brexit wanted had been agreed in Parliament.

From what i’ve read, the EU would be very wary of having another Swiss-style deal. May’s red lines rule out everything below Canada anyway, of course.

I can see why you’d want some flexibility in your negotiating position without being too tied to a single predetermined set of objectives that have been announced publicly. Although May herself clearly felt differently and chucked that away as she charged off in her own direction with not many feeling obliged or minded to follow.

Re: Brexit Anyone? (part 4) : Mon Sep 09, 2019 6:21 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

No party can pass ANY law without the majority of MP's voting for it, not even Corbyn.
In fairness, even when the Tories cam into power, they didn't have an overall majority but, you seem happy enough for them to team up with the DUP and "rule" over the country WOW.-( I dont remember that option being on any ballet paper or even being muted during the election campaign, do you ?).
Had Mrs May not got into bed with her Irish friends, Corbyn, if he thought he could muster a coalition with an overall majority could have tried to form a government and in that respect, little has changed.
In fact, you could argue that having sacked 21 of his own MP's and with it, his very slim majority, Boris shouldn't have the right to govern anyway.
Now, in minority government, he's is doing everything possible to force the population to accept something that Parliament has passed a law to forbid, not bad for the new party in favour of law and order, eh

If the government is happy to ride roughshod all over the law, then, why the hell should the populous be expected to stay within it.
As usual, two sets of rules. One for the lawmakers and one for the riff raff. It's a fecking joke.

I completely agree Boris has no majority/right to govern which is why we need a GE.

The Tories beat Labour by over 50 seats and 1 million votes they were by far the biggest party so for me in those circumstances they had every right to rule - that you think in those circumstances Corbyn could adopt power wow
!!

I see you neglected to comment on your hoped-for recession