Jump to content

UK Politics: A Third Meaningful Thread


mormont

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

Well, no - the first one is renegotiating the WA with closer ties and less obstinacy.

Different WAs might have been possible in the past. However, you just have to take a look at the calender to realize that ship has sailed.

You effectively would need to ditch May (or at the very least her red lines), decide what outcome you want and what you are willing to sacrifice for it, and then send a negotiation team to Brussels. Then you'd need to get the deal thru Westminster, all that has to happen within three weeks. That is simply not realistic.

I mean we will reach a cross road in three weeks.

Then it's either participating in the EU elections, with either revoking article 50 or at the very least proposing a second referendum.

Or not participating in the EU election with either accepting May's deal or crash. Any scenario with a brand new different WA is not realistic scenario.

Next week you will be busy with May's deal (accept or more likely reject) and (hopefully) passing legislation for parliament to take charge. Then it's just two more weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

This why police grudgingly respect armed robbers, but hate street robbers  

Armed robbers were once the aristocracy of crime, although it rarely happens now, because so little cash is kept in banks and post offices now.

Davis has been referred to the Crown Court for sentencing, so he must be looking at a suspended prison sentence at least.

The seat has been a Conservative/Liberal marginal since 1985, so it will be an interesting by-election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Pebble said:

its up to 2.75M now.   

And ignoring the illegality and lies surrounding the 2016 referendum is causing irreparable damage to public trust.  But then the views of those She has broken that trust with don't count.

Yeah I almost snorted when I read

 “potentially irreparable damage to public trust”

like the way she has conducted this entire process hasn't already thoroughly destroyed public trust for people on all sides of the issue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, as usual, I will link Ian Dunt's take on what's happened and what's going on.

He is more or less on the same page as sincerely yours, with regards to the deadline.

My outlook is a bit darker, as I still think it's either May's deal or no-deal, only Winter Brexit is certain. I simply don't see MPs being brave enough to seize the opportunity and go for a longer extension with a participation in the EU election. I hope to be proven wrong on that account though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He makes a lot of sense, but I would quibble about:

Quote

This week, she alienated the MPs she needs to pass her deal, in a bid to appeal to a public who she will not allow to vote on it. That is simply nuts. It makes no sense.

I suspect that she knew exactly what she was doing there at least on some level. It was an attempt to put pressure on MPs. The subtext was: vote for my deal or risk being lynched, literally, by Brexit supporters. After all one MP has already been murdered by a Brexit extremist.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, A wilding said:

He makes a lot of sense, but I would quibble about:

I suspect that she knew exactly what she was doing there at least on some level. It was an attempt to put pressure on MPs. The subtext was: vote for my deal or risk being lynched, literally, by Brexit supporters. After all one MP has already been murdered by a Brexit extremist.

 

He is refering to the logical incoherencies of her actions, and the strategical flaws (of you can use the term strategy in relation to her).

She needs the votes of MPs, so the logical thing would be to court them, instead she delivers a speech that could only ever have one logical outcome, piss them off big time. Then she claims she is on the side of the people (public), whose opinion she is not interested in.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Pebble said:

The party in power.  so the Conservatives.   (I know there are some wanting to remain, but most voters are unlikely to know if there local MP is a remainer, and still may end up getting punished as they are part of the Torry Party)      I would also add that due to Corbyns lack of any opposition then Labour should also get punished in any election by remainers.

Yes, of course. I'm very sorry I shot that off in a hurry, it was meant to be rhetorical- as in the Tories are so paralyzed and polarised, with neither camp having any faith in May, but Leavers unable to push her out until  the 1yr since last party no confidence motion and Remainers unwilling to try any unofficial moves to force her out as we may end up with  BJ or Gove, so there is not much of a government around to act on the petition, or on anything else for that matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

We'll go to EFTA whilst conducting the next decade of talks

I'm not sure the entire Union can go EFTA without breaking the Good Friday Agreement about an open border in Ireland, in the absence of technological solutions. Hence the backstop in the WA that ties NI to the single market and the bigger Island to the east to a customs union. Unless you are happy to allow NI to do it's own thing and have a potential border across the Irish Sea (depending on what arrangement the bigger Island decides on eventually with the EU), any WA will have this backstop, and the DUP and many others will not support it.

It's infuriating that this issue was not properly highlighted to the public and debated in HOC at the start of the process rather than MPs pretending to be surprised by 'vassal state stuff' and 'separate treatment of NI to the test of the Union' only when the final WA popped up late last year - this constraint was known from the time May committed to the backstop in 2016.

Also why did May agree to restrict the scope of the negotiations with the EU to the WA without discussing the future relationship in parallel, or even first.

What a shambles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're saved. Uri Geller's gonna boggle May's mind in order to thwart her madness.

 
 
 
Quote

As much as I admire you, I will stop you telepathically from doing this - and believe me I am capable of executing it. Before I take this drastic action, I appeal to you to stop the process immediately, while you still have a chance. 

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is Geller's MO. He gets exposed as a liar, goes away until things die down, then pops up in connection with something high-profile (world cup etc.) and gets a bunch more media coverage which he attempts to parlay into money, the only thing he is genuinely interested in.

Strangely his psychic powers did not reveal to him that his best pal Michael Jackson was abusing children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mormont said:

This is Geller's MO. He gets exposed as a liar, goes away until things die down, then pops up in connection with something high-profile (world cup etc.) and gets a bunch more media coverage which he attempts to parlay into money, the only thing he is genuinely interested in.

Strangely his psychic powers did not reveal to him that his best pal Michael Jackson was abusing children.

Ah you cynic. His incredible powers have shielded Jacko from prosecution and kept the media silent for decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Will we all be out in April marching against the new porn laws being introduced in April though..?

https://news.sky.com/story/porn-websites-to-check-uk-users-ages-as-law-passes-11604331

As porn doesn't cross the channel on trains or ships, unlike Brexit, it is easy enough to ignore when a government gets silly ideas about what do do with it. There are so many ways to get anything from the internet, let alone porn, that any such legislation is akin to trying to empty the ocean with a fork. 

If Brexit also means cutting off internet access to the EU, then I suppose people would be furious at the government for doing so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, maarsen said:

As porn doesn't cross the channel on trains or ships, unlike Brexit, it is easy enough to ignore when a government gets silly ideas about what do do with it. There are so many ways to get anything from the internet, let alone porn, that any such legislation is akin to trying to empty the ocean with a fork. 

You won't be saying that when you are fighting off rioters who are trying to break into your house to get at your stockpile of naughty pics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...