British Politics

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, soon said:

Do y'all raise enough of your own chicken to keep your famous chicken takeout so inexpensive in a no deal Brexit?

Id base my vote on that.

Darn tootin' we do.

[Dazey]

15 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You are incorrect.

Revoking Article 50,

184 For

293 Against

- Indicative Votes, 27th March 2019

Disagree. As I see it remain is the status quo and as long as the government can't figure out a decent way to leave we should stay as we are.

[Dazey]

10 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Labour bringing back Clause 4. Bet that will please Dazey. 

See I know you're being mean to me here but I'm not quite sure how.

[SoulMonster]

18 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Nothing has been passed to them that they have agreed to. 

Because all that has been passed to them have been bad for you. They are doing their job. Don't blame them for protecting you.

[bucketfoot]

The Great Brexit Betrayal by the Establishment against the British people continues.

[DieselDaisy]

2 hours ago, Dazey said:

Disagree. As I see it remain is the status quo and as long as the government can't figure out a decent way to leave we should stay as we are.

There is nothing to disagree with me on. What I posted, the Commons rejecting the revocation of Article 50, 184 For, 293 Against (Indicative Votes, 27th March 2019), is indisputable fact. They actually originally voted for triggering Article 50, 494 For 122 Against (European Union [Notification of Withdrawal] Act 2017, 8 February 2017).

PS

The default position is actually withdrawing the EU on the 31st October. That is what needs to be overturned, either through another extension or deal. That is what the MPs voted for 494/122. 

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

Because all that has been passed to them have been bad for you. They are doing their job. Don't blame them for protecting you.

Do you including the vote against revocation of Article 50 in that, as I disagree with the revocation of Article 50 thus paying lie to your theory?

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

12 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Do you including the vote against revocation of Article 50 in that, as I disagree with the revocation of Article 50 thus paying lie to your theory?

I was talking about Brexit agreements, not reversing the process by revoking Article 50. Of course they shouldn't revoke Article 50 when there still is a chance to obtain a good Brexit agreement, that would be contradictory to the will of the people. Now, with a No Deal Brexit, something no one voted for, fast approaching, I think it would have been better to revoke although it does come with its own problems. 

[DieselDaisy]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I was talking about Brexit agreements, not reversing the process by revoking Article 50. Of course they shouldn't revoke Article 50 when there still is a chance to obtain a good Brexit agreement, that would be contradictory to the will of the people. Now, with a No Deal Brexit, something no one voted for, fast approaching, I think it would have been better to revoke although it does come with its own problems. 

The only possible agreement, at least according to the organisation you so admire, is the one currently on the table, the (Barnier-May) Withdrawal Agreement.

Nope, they voted that down three times also.

 

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

The only possible agreement, at least according to the organisation you so admire, is the one currently on the table, the (Barnier-May) Withdrawal Agreement.

Nope, they voted that down three times also.

Then I trust it isn't good enough for the UK. So again, it is possible there is no theoretical agreement that would be good enough and hence it was a fools errand to even start this farce.

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Then I trust it isn't good enough for the UK. So again, it is possible there is no theoretical agreement that would be good enough and hence it was a fools errand to even start this farce.

I have said it once and I've said it before. We need a general election. 

 

[bucketfoot]

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Those 17.4 million said they wanted out of the EU and they are not being ignored. There has been a continuous process these last three years trying to come to an agreement with the EU about an exit that isn't terrible. As it is, no such agreement has been reached and hence it is the politicians duty to not accept it. If the 17.4 million has said, "we want out at any cost" it would have been different through. But alas, they didn't and hence it is the politicians' duty to await an exit deal that is not terrible for you.

And it is not an elite. It is your own politicians. Basically, a democratic extension of your own vote. You cannot blame them, blame the majority of your fellow men who voted for them and put them in office. 

Complaining about the "elite" is such a childish thing. It's what the have-nots do. They blame others except look at themselves. The losers and incels, the far-right adolescents,, the gammons and racists. Blame others! Always the others. "They" killed our fisheries, "they" took our soverignty, "they" won't sleep with me, "they" stopped an exit from the EU. Complain, complain, complain. So much easier to live your lives when you have someone else to blame for all the bad stuff that happens.

'They' shouldn't have offered a referendum to the people, to make a decision on an issue and promise to implement the result, if 'they' didn't really intend to respect and honour that decision, when 'they' didn't agree with the outcome. Democracy is everything and 'they' shouldn't be allowed to steal it away when it suits them.

You also seem to be putting anyone who chose to vote Leave into a box marked 'losers', 'racist' and 'gammons' (whatever the fuck that means?) why not go for the full set and add 'stupid' and 'old' to the mix? Condescension is, after all, what self-righteous Remainers do best.

 

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, bucketfoot said:

'They' shouldn't have offered a referendum to the people, to make a decision on an issue and promise to implement the result, if 'they' didn't really intend to respect and honour that decision, when 'they' didn't agree with the outcome. Democracy is everything and 'they' shouldn't be allowed to steal it away when it suits them.

You also seem to be putting anyone who chose to vote Leave into a box marked 'losers', 'racist' and 'gammons' (whatever the fuck that means?) why not go for the full set and add 'stupid' and 'old' to the mix? Condescension is, after all, what self-righteous Remainers do best.

But the referendum didn't say, "Exit EU under any circumstance". It just said "Exit". This leaves it up to the politicians to find an agreement that is good for the Brits AND results in Brexit. It would be wrong for politicians to accept any shitty deal just to get an exit when people didn't give them the mandate to accept any shitty deal.

I didn't, that was in relation to people who complain about the "elite" and it had actually nothing to do with Brexit. And I also didn't say that everybody who complains about the "elite" was fitting those descriptions.

[Padme]

33 minutes ago, bucketfoot said:

'They' shouldn't have offered a referendum to the people, to make a decision on an issue and promise to implement the result, if 'they' didn't really intend to respect and honour that decision, when 'they' didn't agree with the outcome. Democracy is everything and 'they' shouldn't be allowed to steal it away when it suits them.

Why are you suprised? That's what politicians do all the time. They make promises they never keep. If you really want Brexit, forget about Boris and Corbyn. Vote UKIP or this new Brexit Party. Still I can't guarantee you that you will have the Brexit deal and the Paradise City type of country you are hoping to get. I'm afraid there is a romantic view about Brexit.

[DieselDaisy]

UKIP are utterly dead - I have already explained this.

A Brexit Party/Conservative ticket is the solution for leavers. That would contest the election with the Lib Dems, the party of remain. It will be hilarious watching Labour tank.

[Padme]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

UKIP are utterly dead - I have already explained this.

A Brexit Party/Conservative ticket is the solution for leavers. That would contest the election with the Lib Dems, the party of remain. It will be hilarious watching Labour tank.

Why Conservative? They are divided over Brexit. Brexit never was their priority nor it is something they really believe in. Just look at the revolt they have been in since the referendum. If Boris, Gove and others are so in favour of Brexit. They better join the Brexit Party.

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, Padme said:

Why Conservative? They are divided over Brexit. Brexit never was their priority nor it is something they really believe in. Just look at the revolt they have been in since the referendum. If Boris, Gove and others are so in favour of Brexit. They better join the Brexit Party.

I would say the Conservatives have swung considerably towards Brexit since Boris's appointment - haven't you see all of the deselections/defections (to Lib Dems)? In actually fact this precedes Boris as it began with the defections to The Independence Group. Essentially the Tories are being cleansed of their Euroists.

[bucketfoot]

24 minutes ago, Padme said:

Why are you suprised? That's what politicians do all the time. They make promises they never keep. If you really want Brexit, forget about Boris and Corbyn. Vote UKIP or this new Brexit Party. Still I can't guarantee you that you will have the Brexit deal and the Paradise City type of country you are hoping to get. I'm afraid there is a romantic view about Brexit.

I'm not surprised in the slightest. Our politicians disgust me.

[Padme]

9 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I would say the Conservatives have swung considerably towards Brexit since Boris's appointment - haven't you see all of the deselections/defections (to Lib Dems)? In actually fact this precedes Boris as it began with the defections to The Independence Group. Essentially the Tories are being cleansed of their Euroists.

What if those former Tories who are now independent or joined Lib. Dem. still keep their seat in a general election? That means they will be back in Parliament. Also it means stronger Lib. Dem and weaker Tories.

[Dazey]

4 minutes ago, bucketfoot said:

I'm not surprised in the slightest. Our politicians disgust me.

Me too. Especially when they break the law and lie to the queen. 

[DieselDaisy]

5 minutes ago, Padme said:

What if those former Tories who are now independent or joined Lib. Dem. still keep their seat in a general election? That means they will be back in Parliament. Also it means stronger Lib. Dem and weaker Tories.

Some of them are from leave constituencies.

 

[DieselDaisy]

7 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Me too. Especially when they break the law and lie to the queen. 

Did you not find it a bit hypocritical of Major bringing proceedings against Boris for the exact same thing he did in 1997 during the cash for questions saga?

[Dazey]

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Did you not find it a bit hypocritical of Major bringing proceedings against Boris for the exact same thing he did in 1997 during the cash for questions saga?

A little yeah but there is a bit of a difference here. Cash for questions was shit but it wasn’t going to cause serious damage to the country in the way that a no deal Brexit would. 

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Dazey said:

A little yeah but there is a bit of a difference here. Cash for questions was shit but it wasn’t going to cause serious damage to the country in the way that a no deal Brexit would. 

...in your opinion.

Major did the exact same thing Boris's stands convicted of, namely using prorogation to shut down debate and parliamentary scrutiny. Utter hypocrisy.

[Dazey]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

...in your opinion.

Major did the exact same thing Boris's stands convicted of, namely using prorogation to shut down debate and parliamentary scrutiny. Utter hypocrisy.

Yeah, I don’t really care about John Major though. Maybe if the Supreme Court existed back then somebody could have brought a case against him but it speaks volumes of the order of magnitude difference between the two scenarios that nobody could be arsed. 

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Dazey said:

Yeah, I don’t really care about John Major though. Maybe if the Supreme Court existed back then somebody could have brought a case against him but it speaks volumes of the order of magnitude difference between the two scenarios that nobody could be arsed. 

You waitrosey types are full of hypocrisy.