zugzwang Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 1 minute ago, Bruce Banner said: Yes, he got a deal, although it's not a deal until it's accepted by Parliament. But at what cost? Anyone can sell a new Rolls Royce for £50k Hang on, let me guess: Another ten years of neoliberal economic dementia A bonfire of workers' rights The privatisation of the NHS and the creeping extinction of UK public services The dissolution of the United Kingdom A sovereign debt crisis and national bankruptcy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zugzwang Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 11 minutes ago, thehowler said: Then why don't MPs vote the deal down? They've got the extension request now. They might yet. These Blairite fifth columnists make the arithmetic uncertain, however. They should be ashamed of themselves. The 6 Labour MPs who voted against the Letwin Amendment: Kevin Barron Ronnie Campbell Jim Fitzpatrick Caroline Flint Kate Hoey John Mann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pebbles Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 (edited) 24 minutes ago, zugzwang said: Hang on, let me guess: Another ten years of neoliberal economic dementia A bonfire of workers' rights The privatisation of the NHS and the creeping extinction of UK public services The dissolution of the United Kingdom A sovereign debt crisis and national bankruptcy we have a democracy and will have an election soon if we get this it is because the people have voted for it twice. Are you saying europeans running our country are preferable because you don't trust your countrymen? Edited October 20, 2019 by Pebbles typo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pebbles Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 12 minutes ago, zugzwang said: They might yet. These Blairite fifth columnists make the arithmetic uncertain, however. They should be ashamed of themselves. The 6 Labour MPs who voted against the Letwin Amendment: Kevin Barron Ronnie Campbell Jim Fitzpatrick Caroline Flint Kate Hoey John Mann i remember the old euroskeptic anti globalist labour the proper old labour. In the working mens clubs it is abacus Abbot who is the disliked ones. I see the above as principled like Jeremy was (a long time ago) when he voted against his party Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehowler Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 (edited) Looks like Letwin is done. I think we'll now hear calls/amendments for six months of scrutiny... Edited October 20, 2019 by thehowler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pebbles Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 1 minute ago, thehowler said: Looks like Letwin is done. I think we'll now hear calls/amendments for six months of scrutiny... Good Lets get this done then crack on with other parliamentary business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PalmerEldritch Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 26 minutes ago, zugzwang said: They might yet. These Blairite fifth columnists make the arithmetic uncertain, however. They should be ashamed of themselves. The 6 Labour MPs who voted against the Letwin Amendment: Kevin Barron Ronnie Campbell Jim Fitzpatrick Caroline Flint Kate Hoey John Mann Ashamed of themselves? As opposed to their true socialist comrades who were elected on the mandate of delivering Brexit but who now want a 2nd referendum? Despite the fact that in many cases their electorate voted overwhelmingly to leave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikhail Liebenstein Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 11 hours ago, wish I could afford one said: His letters behaviour also just reinforces that parliament were right to pass the Letwin amendment today. Indeed, that was the precise reason the Benn act was worded as it was. This was even explained at the time. I am waiting for the Black Maria to turn up at number 10, Full US Perp Walk Style. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecrashingisles Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 14 minutes ago, PalmerEldritch said: Ashamed of themselves? As opposed to their true socialist comrades who were elected on the mandate of delivering Brexit but who now want a 2nd referendum? Despite the fact that in many cases their electorate voted overwhelmingly to leave. The Labour manifesto is inconsistent with facilitating Boris Johnson's deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrizzlyDave Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 19 minutes ago, Pebbles said: Good Lets get this done then crack on with other parliamentary business. If the deal goes through; it will be with a ‘losers referendum’ attached to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arpeggio Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 The main reasons Cameron called a ref in the first place was Nigel Farage success in EU MEP elections and how the general election of 2015 was the most disproportionate in U.K. history (even remainer newspapers say so! ) in which the UKIP of 2015 would have got up to 80 seats under Proportional representation. The longer he left it, the “worse” it could have got. Bearing that in mind and imagining we end up with a 2nd ref with remain vs some kind of deal and remain wins (due to the Leave vote being narrowed down and / or leave being BRINO) or they just revoke article 50. What would they expect to happen after that would be different to 2015 on steroids? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wish I could afford one Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 1 hour ago, crouch said: No, there are many who simply don't want Brexit at any price and would vote against it in principle. The LibDems are an outlier in their view that A50 should be revoked in flagrant disregard of the 2016 referendum. No, there are many who simply don't want a hard Brexit at any price and would vote against it in principle. The ERG LibDems are an outlier in their view that we should leave with no WA A50 should be revoked in flagrant disregard of the 2016 referendum. It works both ways. Back to my point about the initial question being the root cause of the problem. I would guess that if the WA and PD was heading us into a LPF/EEA/EFTA arrangement a lot of labour and maybe some others would vote for it. The ERG of course wouldn't but I think they would get a majority of that. Again poor clarification of what was being voted for on day 0. The question was Brexit unicorn or remain. It should have been this is the Brexit we as a political class propose vs remain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikhail Liebenstein Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 26 minutes ago, Pebbles said: Good Let's get this done then crack on with other parliamentary business. Sorry, but it will be more like paramilitary business I am afraid. I really cannot believe the Conservative and Unionist Party is throwing Northern Ireland under a bus for this stupid undefined thing called Brexit. This is essentially treasonous and undermines the Good Friday Agreement. I really do think we are going to live to regret this. Scotland will separate next. So in the end Brexit, if it does happen, will be remembered as a continuation of our loss of Empire. 1773 – The Boston Tea Party 1813 – English East India Company lost its trading monopoly with India. 1931 – The Statute of Westminster gave Dominions constitutional autonomy. 1947 – Declaration of Indian Independence and the partitioning of India and Pakistan. 1948 – British withdrawal from Palestine 1952 – Mau Mau Rebellion 1956 – Sudan gained independence and Suez 1997 – Hong Kong handed back to Chinese 2016 - UK electors marginally vote to diminish themselves 2020 - Brexit/UK breaks into various pieces. 2050 - Some bloke in Mansfield declares UDI from the rest of the town. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wish I could afford one Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 8 minutes ago, Arpeggio said: The main reasons Cameron called a ref in the first place was Nigel Farage success in EU MEP elections and how the general election of 2015 was the most disproportionate in U.K. history (even remainer newspapers say so! ) in which the UKIP of 2015 would have got up to 80 seats under Proportional representation. The longer he left it, the “worse” it could have got. Bearing that in mind and imagining we end up with a 2nd ref with remain vs some kind of deal and remain wins (due to the Leave vote being narrowed down and / or leave being BRINO) or they just revoke article 50. What would they expect to happen after that would be different to 2015 on steroids? 80 seats is still a long way from the 300 odd needed to pass any legislation. So what happens? Maybe a coalition which would maybe see things moderated. The system would almost work. Cameron was not doing what was right for the country when he called the election. He was trying to save his political party which is a very different thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 55 minutes ago, Pebbles said: we have a democracy and will have an election soon if we get this it is because the people have voted for it twice. Are you saying europeans running our country are preferable because you don't trust your countrymen? Yes, given our inability to elect a decent government for the last twenty years, I would definitely say that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crouch Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 3 minutes ago, wish I could afford one said: I would guess that if the WA and PD was heading us into a LPF/EEA/EFTA arrangement a lot of labour and maybe some others would vote for it. The ERG of course wouldn't but I think they would get a majority of that. Again poor clarification of what was being voted for on day 0. The question was Brexit unicorn or remain. It should have been this is the Brexit we as a political class propose vs remain. I'm not sure what you're talking about here. The PD in BJ's deal puts us further out of the EU than TM's; the ERG have said they'll vote for it. The unicorn argument doesn't stack up. We could have put a version on the 2016 referendum paper; but how do we know the EU would agree a deal on that basis? Is that any less of a unicorn than what was actually on the ballot paper? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arpeggio Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 (edited) 42 minutes ago, PalmerEldritch said: Ashamed of themselves? As opposed to their true socialist comrades who were elected on the mandate of delivering Brexit but who now want a 2nd referendum? Despite the fact that in many cases their electorate voted overwhelmingly to leave. Remainer argument I’ve seen in past: “referendums are the tool of dictators looking to consolidate their position” Strange argument I never understood. David Cameron (a remainer) called the referendum. Remainers now want a second referendum and so does Cameron. Edited October 20, 2019 by Arpeggio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 (edited) 38 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said: If the deal goes through; it will be with a ‘losers referendum’ attached to it. Despite your provocative language, I hope you're right on that one. Edited October 20, 2019 by Bruce Banner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A17 Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 8 minutes ago, wish I could afford one said: 80 seats is still a long way from the 300 odd needed to pass any legislation. So what happens? Maybe a coalition which would maybe see things moderated. The system would almost work. Cameron was not doing what was right for the country when he called the election. He was trying to save his political party which is a very different thing. Cameron wasn't scared about Ukip winning seats. At most, they would have only one a couple. He was scared about Conservative voters switching to Ukip, causing them to lose marginal seats. Multiple constituencies with C=55 L=45 turning to C=44 Ukip=11 L=45 was his nightmare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arpeggio Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 10 minutes ago, wish I could afford one said: 80 seats is still a long way from the 300 odd needed to pass any legislation. So what happens? Maybe a coalition which would maybe see things moderated. The system would almost work. Cameron was not doing what was right for the country when he called the election. He was trying to save his political party which is a very different thing. In such a scenario I wonder if the referendum may not have happened. The referendum was supposed to consolidate a remain position (before it was too late) in light of what was going on with regards to the 2015 election being the most disproportionate in history. A real vote in response to something that was coming under question for actually being democratic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allfiredup Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 31 minutes ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said: Sorry, but it will be more like paramilitary business I am afraid. I really cannot believe the Conservative and Unionist Party is throwing Northern Ireland under a bus for this stupid undefined thing called Brexit. This is essentially treasonous and undermines the Good Friday Agreement. I really do think we are going to live to regret this. Scotland will separate next. So in the end Brexit, if it does happen, will be remembered as a continuation of our loss of Empire. 1773 – The Boston Tea Party 1813 – English East India Company lost its trading monopoly with India. 1931 – The Statute of Westminster gave Dominions constitutional autonomy. 1947 – Declaration of Indian Independence and the partitioning of India and Pakistan. 1948 – British withdrawal from Palestine 1952 – Mau Mau Rebellion 1956 – Sudan gained independence and Suez 1997 – Hong Kong handed back to Chinese 2016 - UK electors marginally vote to diminish themselves 2020 - Brexit/UK breaks into various pieces. 2050 - Some bloke in Mansfield declares UDI from the rest of the town. So you're a proponent of the British Empire now? And staying in the EU is the loss of our country, never mind 'empire' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allfiredup Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 42 minutes ago, Arpeggio said: The main reasons Cameron called a ref in the first place was Nigel Farage success in EU MEP elections and how the general election of 2015 was the most disproportionate in U.K. history (even remainer newspapers say so! ) in which the UKIP of 2015 would have got up to 80 seats under Proportional representation. The longer he left it, the “worse” it could have got. Bearing that in mind and imagining we end up with a 2nd ref with remain vs some kind of deal and remain wins (due to the Leave vote being narrowed down and / or leave being BRINO) or they just revoke article 50. What would they expect to happen after that would be different to 2015 on steroids? They're not bright enough to see that far forward Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arpeggio Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 Quote we have a democracy and will have an election soon if we get this it is because the people have voted for it twice. Are you saying europeans running our country are preferable because you don't trust your countrymen? 31 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said: Yes, given our inability to elect a decent government for the last twenty years, I would definitely say that. There’s saying young people and future generations are screwed because of a brexit vote that happened in 2016. Then there’s saying your OK not to give them a chance in the future due to activities of past decades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simvastatin Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 51 minutes ago, Arpeggio said: The main reasons Cameron called a ref in the first place was Nigel Farage success in EU MEP elections and how the general election of 2015 was the most disproportionate in U.K. history (even remainer newspapers say so! ) in which the UKIP of 2015 would have got up to 80 seats under Proportional representation. The longer he left it, the “worse” it could have got. The vote for UKIP is a cry for help, people hate the existing politicians "not fit for purpose" at the same time in my opinion our standard of living is going to go down, regardless of who is in power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 6 minutes ago, Arpeggio said: There’s saying young people and future generations are screwed because of a brexit vote that happened in 2016. Then there’s saying your OK not to give them a chance in the future due to activities of past decades. Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.