The Politics Thread 2019

[alexxxxx]

11 hours ago, Highgate said:

Well the EU are adamant that the Withdrawal Agreement isn't up for re-negotiating. However given that a N.Ireland only backstop was the EU's original  suggestion and it was only extended to all of the UK at the request of the UK government (at the insistence of the DUP) then you would think the EU should agree to the change.  While they are at it, they might agree to some other superficial changes just so Bojo could claim his deal isn't really like May's at all.

If Boris goes this route, the DUP will surely see this as an unforgivable betrayal. and hard-line Brexiteers may still consider the arrangement an inadequate Brexit.  For many others it may be the most sensible option,

If this happens though I do wonder if Boris' government would struggle in a general election if Labour commits to brexit. 

[Gritstone Ram]

1 hour ago, SchtivePesley said:

Except an election would just be a proxy referendum anyway.

I think Corbyn’s plan is the most pragmatic approach available.

We’ve pretty much all agreed at various points on this thread that Cameron should never have called the referendum based on such an open ended idea of leaving, and with no clear achievable plan of how to leave the EU (because he banked it all on Remain winning)

So if the pledge is to go back to the drawing board and come up with a Withdrawal agreement that can command a majority and can be clearly articulated to the public exactly what “leave” means – then a second referendum would be precisely what the original referendum should have been.

Not sure why Leave voters would have a problem with this approach – in theory Leave should win by an even greater margin if it can explain the leaving process in real detail rather than just populist gut feelings and anger driving the vote

Or you renegotiate a worse deal than May, if there is one, although I reckon Labour could do one. Then campaign to remain with what rubbish is on the table. Farage would have a field day in places like Mansfield, Ashfield areas. 

[Wolfie]

9 minutes ago, alexxxxx said:

If this happens though I do wonder if Boris' government would struggle in a general election if Labour commits to brexit. 

Labour can't really win either way, as I see it, and is why they still won't commit to Leave or Remain.

1. "Brexit Labour" - Labour wins Leave votes back from Brexit Party but Tories win because remain Labour voters go to Lib Dems.

2. "Remain Labour" - Leave voters go to Brexit Party and Remain vote split between Labour & Lib Dems. Tories win (on condition of a pact between them & Brexit Party)

This is why I'd rather have a referendum before an election. I just don't like a single issue being the deciding factor in chossing the government for the next 5 years.

[SSD]

Regarding the ruling of suspending parliament being unlawful, If the law was clear, you wouldn't get two totally opposing verdicts from the same court.

Another reason to p*ss off the general public who're a sick of this mess. I'm reading tweets from MP's thanking their legal team on this etc etc. What they've done is waste more tax payer money on solving nothing. I agree with Boris suspending parliament (shock coming from a liberal), it is written in the law that he was allowed to do so. MP's on both sides have had 3 years to try to come to an agreement on Brexit and we've got nowhere. We've had the debates, allow the government to form another plan. The opposition can happily throw the deal out the window as they have the numbers. So why bother spending all this money on a ruling that means nothing, because the Tories are going nowhere with their deal. Wouldn't it be more satisfying for the remain MP's to allow the suspending of parliament, then reject the deal? You're allowing the government to do what they want, and then throwing it back in their tory faces in a months time.     

[AndyinLiverpool]

2 minutes ago, SouthStandDan said:

Regarding the ruling of suspending parliament being unlawful, If the law was clear, you wouldn't get two totally opposing verdicts from the same court.

Another reason to p*ss off the general public who're a sick of this mess. I'm reading tweets from MP's thanking their legal team on this etc etc. What they've done is waste more tax payer money on solving nothing. I agree with Boris suspending parliament (shock coming from a liberal), it is written in the law that he was allowed to do so. MP's on both sides have had 3 years to try to come to an agreement on Brexit and we've got nowhere. We've had the debates, allow the government to form another plan. The opposition can happily throw the deal out the window as they have the numbers. So why bother spending all this money on a ruling that means nothing, because the Tories are going nowhere with their deal. Wouldn't it be more satisfying for the remain MP's to allow the suspending of parliament, then reject the deal? You're allowing the government to do what they want, and then throwing it back in their tory faces in a months time.     

That assumes that all remainer MPs want to overturn the referendum result band that they would rather watch the Tory party burn and the country sink deeper into this mess than to sort it out.

Neither of which is true.

[Stive Pesley]

36 minutes ago, Van Gritters said:

Or you renegotiate a worse deal than May, if there is one

What were your specific issues with Theresa May's deal? I assume you voted Leave?

[alexxxxx]

39 minutes ago, SouthStandDan said:

Regarding the ruling of suspending parliament being unlawful, If the law was clear, you wouldn't get two totally opposing verdicts from the same court.

Another reason to p*ss off the general public who're a sick of this mess. I'm reading tweets from MP's thanking their legal team on this etc etc. What they've done is waste more tax payer money on solving nothing. I agree with Boris suspending parliament (shock coming from a liberal), it is written in the law that he was allowed to do so. MP's on both sides have had 3 years to try to come to an agreement on Brexit and we've got nowhere. We've had the debates, allow the government to form another plan. The opposition can happily throw the deal out the window as they have the numbers. So why bother spending all this money on a ruling that means nothing, because the Tories are going nowhere with their deal. Wouldn't it be more satisfying for the remain MP's to allow the suspending of parliament, then reject the deal? You're allowing the government to do what they want, and then throwing it back in their tory faces in a months time.     

I think that's the point, that prorogation isn't based on an actual written law but is more based on precedent as is a lot of the British constitution. As far as I'm aware theres just a procedure that should be followed for prorogation rather than a defined point when and for how long. In the past it has been used to end  parliamentary sessions for a short period to prepare for a new one. This time however it appears that the prorogation is not being used for this purpose. 

The English Court said they weren't in a position to judge on it, but the scottish court, under a different legal system, thought it was. 

I expect it will be thrown out by the Supreme Court, though. 

[Gritstone Ram]

2 hours ago, SchtivePesley said:

What were your specific issues with Theresa May's deal? I assume you voted Leave?

I haven’t got any real issues doubt they would effect me apart from there is a chance we would remain tied into the EU indefinitely 

[Stive Pesley]

4 minutes ago, Van Gritters said:

I haven’t got any real issues doubt they would effect me apart from there is a chance we would remain tied into the EU indefinitely 

And No Deal? Do you doubt that would effect you too?

[Gritstone Ram]

12 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

And No Deal? Do you doubt that would effect you too?

It may or may not It would be a guess if I said either way. The feeling I get is a deal or withdrawal agreement would be better all a round but I don’t think we should be afraid of leaving with no deal like some people/ politicians have shown and voted for. 

[Wolfie]

Tories rule out a pact with Nigel Farage

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49665789

Boris Johnson will not make an election pact with Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage, Downing Street has said.

Mr Farage said his party and the Conservatives should make a deal and "together we would be unstoppable".

Two newspaper adverts set out his offer to help "secure a big Brexit majority" and to "destroy Corbyn's Labour".

But a senior Conservative source said Mr Farage was "not a fit and proper person" and "should never be allowed anywhere near government".

 

That last sentence made me laugh out loud.

.....and yet Boris is fine?!. Have they been using the EFL definition of "Fit and proper"?

[Stive Pesley]

45 minutes ago, Van Gritters said:

It may or may not It would be a guess if I said either way.

That's a fancy way of saying you have absolutely no idea. Yet still you express very forthright opinions. Weird innit?

[TuffLuff]

2 hours ago, alexxxxx said:

I think that's the point, that prorogation isn't based on an actual written law but is more based on precedent as is a lot of the British constitution. As far as I'm aware theres just a procedure that should be followed for prorogation rather than a defined point when and for how long. In the past it has been used to end  parliamentary sessions for a short period to prepare for a new one. This time however it appears that the prorogation is not being used for this purpose. 

The English Court said they weren't in a position to judge on it, but the scottish court, under a different legal system, thought it was. 

I expect it will be thrown out by the Supreme Court, though. 

Unfortunately for Johnson the damage may already be done. He’s not only brought the government into disrepute but also the monarchy. Doesn’t look good, his days could be numbered.

[Gritstone Ram]

14 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

That's a fancy way of saying you have absolutely no idea. Yet still you express very forthright opinions. Weird innit?

How can anyone know? if they did I’m sure we wouldn’t be debating it now.

[Highgate]

7 hours ago, Van Wolfie said:

Interesting isn't it?. The fact that Boris has lost his majority anyway - does that make the DUP more or less important to him?

I would say less, as he can't control a majority in the commons with or without them at the moment. All things being equal he would prefer to have them onside, but I think he is far more concerned about winning the next election and being the PM long-term. He probably sees delivering Brexit as the best path to that personal goal. 

[bigbadbob]

11 hours ago, McRamFan said:

Try harder and stop relying on google.

  @G STAR RAM thought you had quit this thread? Short chain?

Oh right. So you don't actually know this then. Opinion as fact etc. Oh we'll never mind. Cheers anyway

[AndyinLiverpool]

Come on everyone. We disagree but we can still be civil about it. 

[RamNut]

The Queen has got Boris into a right mess here.

I bet Phil is creasing himself.

more fun than wringing the necks of a few grouse.. 

 

[dog]

Just been reading the doc released this evening. Obviously it's worrying, obviously the redacted section is more worrying .....

but most worrying of all is that this document has been created by the most incompetent government I have lived under. And I lived under the Callaghan regime.

So.....

So to continue that worrying, I wonder what this incompetent sack of bamford bamford sacks have missed.....

[dog]

Forgot to ask, after austerity Britain, who is willing to say that they are not part of a vulnerable group?