Queen Elizabeth Tells Parliament That Going Thru With BREXIT Is Her “Priority” [Archive] - Debate Policy

Drummond

10-16-2019, 10:10 AM

Yeah says me, someone who is not ignorant of British politics :rolleyes:

Are you familiar enough with British politics to conclude that the Left's agenda-driven obstruction of the Will of the People, substituted brazenly and contemptuously in Parliament on an almost daily basis, is 'par for the course' where the Labour Party is concerned ?

I'm not following the current shenanigans regarding 'breakneck, 11th hour' negotiations with the EU particularly closely. There doesn't seem to be a lot of point to it. If, in fact, Boris's people DO have a deal to present to Parliament days from now, Labour's voting down of it is assured (regardless of what that deal says). Then, again, it'll all be up to the numbers game as to who and what rebels will decide to vote on, as to what'll actually transpire.

The Left are wreckers. Vandals. Parliamentary, control-freak trash .. who'll disregard anything The People want, as it suits them to.

The one really good aspect to all this is that, come election time, the voting public will make their displeasure known. Oh, yes !!

Kathianne

10-16-2019, 10:15 AM

Are you familiar enough with British politics to conclude that the Left's agenda-driven obstruction of the Will of the People, substituted brazenly and contemptuously in Parliament on an almost daily basis, is 'par for the course' where the Labour Party is concerned ?

I'm not following the current shenanigans regarding 'breakneck, 11th hour' negotiations with the EU particularly closely. There doesn't seem to be a lot of point to it. If, in fact, Boris's people DO have a deal to present to Parliament days from now, Labour's voting down of it is assured (regardless of what that deal says). Then, again, it'll all be up to the numbers game as to who and what rebels will decide to vote on, as to what'll actually transpire.

The Left are wreckers. Vandals. Parliamentary, control-freak trash .. who'll disregard anything The People want, as it suits them to.

The one really good aspect to all this is that, come election time, the voting public will make their displeasure known. Oh, yes !!

That certainly seems what is happening over there, by what I've read over here. ;)

Drummond

10-16-2019, 10:16 AM

Consider even us shoddy Americans supply links to backup what we say, then I don't blame you for expecting to see a link though. It's normal and polite action to provide such.

Quite.

Noir was correct. Even so, what will be common knowledge to Brits is likely not to be, to Americans (just as there must be enormous gaps in my knowledge of American political procedures, & suchlike). Noir should've taken that into account when replying.

Drummond

10-16-2019, 10:26 AM

That certainly seems what is happening over there, by what I've read over here. ;)

Yes. Labour will always find a 'reason' for refusing to cooperate with the Government (in this case, also the Will of the People) if they possibly can.

https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/labour-leader-jeremy-corbyn-unlikely-to-back-british-pm-boris-johnsons-brexit-deal

While his opening bid in the latest phase of negotiations with the EU received cautious endorsement at home that suggested it could find the necessary support in Parliament, much will depend on the final shape of any deal.

The three main opposition parties – Labour, the Scottish National Party and Liberal Democrats – are expected to oppose it.

“I think the problem areas are of regulation and deregulation which come from whatever trade arrangement there is with Europe and the wider world but also perhaps, very seriously, the Irish border issue”, Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn told Sky News in an interview on Sunday.

“And if it creates a border down the Irish Sea rather than on the Irish border itself, I can see that bringing problems”, Corbyn said, adding that he will caution British lawmakers against backing a confirmatory referendum on a deal.

Labour absolutely insist that if we're going to leave the EU, it must be through a deal with them. They've even legislated to make that position law. YET ... they voted down Theresa May's deal, THREE times. They're set to do the same with anything Boris can agree with the EU. So, we have Labour persisting with their imposition of total dysfunctionality of Parliament.

The British system is not at fault; it's a tried and tested one, over centuries !! No. The problem is Labour's persistent acts of vandalism against it.

Kathianne

10-16-2019, 12:02 PM

SassyLady

10-16-2019, 11:56 PM

For anyone unsure - The Queens Speech at the state opening of Parliament is written for her, by the executive, she does not have a say in what she is going to say.

Are you saying this is not what she wants personally? Would she read it if she didn't agree with it?

NightTrain

10-17-2019, 12:19 AM

Are you saying this is not what she wants personally? Would she read it if she didn't agree with it?

Indeed... just when I think I have the barest grasp on British politics, something like this crops up and I'm completely lost again.

I kind of assumed that the Queen would have some sort of input in the business of running the government.

Noir

10-17-2019, 02:39 AM

Are you saying this is not what she wants personally? Would she read it if she didn't agree with it?

Yes. She has no choice.
The Queens speech is a purely ceremonial event in which the executive states it’s intentions, through the Queen.

If there was a general election and a Remain government was formed then the Queen would be stood in the same spot declaring her first priority would be to stop Brexit.

(Not that you would know that from the video published by ‘Gateway Pundit’ which was completely misleading.)

Drummond

10-17-2019, 06:30 AM

Indeed... just when I think I have the barest grasp on British politics, something like this crops up and I'm completely lost again.

I kind of assumed that the Queen would have some sort of input in the business of running the government.

Sorry to disappoint you, NightTrain, but I have to (- basically -) endorse what Noir's telling you on this. The Queen doesn't have the power you've thought she might have had.

What highly limited power she would have / can ever have, would be grounded entirely in procedural application. Her duties are very clearly and rigidly defined. She cannot be seen to be exercising personal latitude with any of them: her mandatory duty to be overtly politically neutral is, I believe, absolute.

The Queen does not run our Government. She cannot. What duties she appears to have could be fairly described as 'ceremonial', albeit grounded also in law.

Noir

10-17-2019, 06:34 AM

I'm not following the current shenanigans regarding 'breakneck, 11th hour' negotiations with the EU particularly closely. There doesn't seem to be a lot of point to it. If, in fact, Boris's people DO have a deal to present to Parliament days from now, Labour's voting down of it is assured (regardless of what that deal says). Then, again, it'll all be up to the numbers game as to who and what rebels will decide to vote on, as to what'll actually transpire.

Well the words coming out of the Brexit supporters (all unionists) at my workplace this morning were of betrayal, and ‘this isn’t what I voted for’ etc regarding an Irish Sea border. It’s not even clear if such a border would be legal by the UKs own laws, but hey-ho.

The British system is not at fault; it's a tried and tested one, over centuries !!

That system being Parliamentary democracy?

Drummond

10-17-2019, 06:38 AM

https://order-order.com/2019/10/16/huge-poll-shows-britons-want-brexit-delivered/

https://i0.wp.com/order-order.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/poll-1.png?resize=540%2C308&ssl=1

The biggest poll since the referendum itself, conducted for ITN by ComRes with 26,000 Britons, conclusively shows the public want Brexit sorted, with 54% of respondents saying we should support abiding by the referendum result and leave the EU. Even greater than the original 52:48 split…When ‘don’t knows’ are included, leaving still has a majority, with 50% wanting to leave (30% with a deal and 20% with no deal) versus only 42% wanting to remain. The Brexit train rolls on…

This looks great.

I've learned, though, to take polls with a hefty pinch of salt. Theresa May believed polls when they told her that if she called an election, she could significantly improve on the slim majority she then had in Parliament. She held her election, and saw it wiped out !

I could give you other UK-based examples of political disasters that rode on the back of trust in polls.

I am reasonably confident of one thing. Labour's shenanigans do not command the public support that Corbyn believes they do ... SOME support, maybe, though nothing like as great as he himself believes. I think he's on course for one massive political humiliation when we have our next election.

It may be so massive a humiliation as to threaten Labour's very viability as a political Party.

I'm looking forward to all this with great satisfaction !!

Drummond

10-17-2019, 07:13 AM

Heh heh. You're not 'a happy bunny', are you, Noir, this sunny afternoon ? Can't say I'm surpised.

Well the words coming out of the Brexit supporters (all unionists) at my workplace this morning were of betrayal, and Â‘this isnÂ’t what I voted forÂ’ etc regarding an Irish Sea border. ItÂ’s not even clear if such a border would be legal by the UKs own laws, but hey-ho.

It's not ideal. In fact, it's far from ideal. I'd go along with you on that.

In reply, I'd just have to ask you what YOUR political solution to all this would've been !! After all, the 'backstop' was more trouble than it was worth .. even being in prospect as being used by the EU, in future, to stop a complete Brexit !

So, it was stopped in Parliament (multiples of times) and has now been junked.

What's your answer, then ? I'd be willing to bet that you don't have one. And in the absence of one, tell me, why do you insist upon being so negative when other, better minds than yours or mine, have come up with one, in the shape of this new 'deal' ?

Let me tell you.

Regardless of any other answer you might offer, your chief motivation is a Leftie one ... you want Boris humiliated, you want him discredited ... and for a Leftie victory to come of that.

Unfortunately for you, this UK-EU deal knocks back your ambition in that regard. ;)

That system being Parliamentary democracy?

If Labour (and all of the opposition the Conservatives have encountered, in the Commons) have proved anything, it's that our system of Parliamentary democracy is open to vandalism.

This is no more the fault of the system, than is the persistence of criminal activity in societies across the world. Labour wants damage, stagnation, dysfunctionality, and it'll continue to want it until THEIR ambitions near fruition. [Then, suddenly, if they were met with comparable opposition, they'd be outraged by it .....]

Here's the point. Years ago, votes passed in the Commons paved the way (supposedly !!) for the Commons to RESPECT and HEED the outcome of the 2016 Referendum. There was the fact of the Referendum in the first place, sanctioned by Parliament.

Following its outcome, we had the Article 50 step ... where it was necessary to invoke it, according to EU rules and procedures, in order to commence the Brexit process. This was sanctioned by Parliament.

But, where are we, now ? Where we are, is seeing individual, self-serving agendas take over, with total dysfunctionality following. THE FAULT OF OUR TROUBLES IS THE DIVERGENCE FROM RATIFYING THE PROCESS OF BREXIT, TOWARDS SOMETHING INFINITELY LESS RESPECTFUL OF THE BRITISH PUBLIC.

Forget any thoughts you have of 'the system' being at fault. Its functionality has been corrupted by self-serving opportunists who refuse to respect or serve the national interest.

Vandalism is vandalism. That's the beginning and 'end' of our troubles.

Labour will, of course, continue to vandalise. There's no propect of Labour agreeing this new deal. They must be hopping mad, to see the chance of Boris humiliated into sending his 'We need an extension beyond October' letter pass them by, at least for now.

But, they'll press on .. vandalising all the more. I guarantee it.

Tell me I'm wrong, @Noir (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=517) ......

Noir

10-17-2019, 07:31 AM

I don’t think Boris could be humiliated any more than he already has the past few weeks.

Personally I don’t think any good options are left, Another general election may be the best of all outcomes, but that itself is shoddy, and likely just to cause more problems on both sides.

Though I think it’s pretty clear that the government proposing a deal that they themselves have legislated against is not the way forward, though apparently it’s the best they can come up with.

Drummond

10-17-2019, 08:20 AM

I don’t think Boris could be humiliated any more than he already has the past few weeks.

He's been true to his word, true to the democratically-expressed Will of the People. What makes you think that his sense of 'humiliation' is at all acute ?

Sure, he could've wished for a smoother Premiership. But, Boris is up for these battles. We've seen that, in his various Commons appearances. But don't kid yourself .. Boris's so-called 'humiliation' will be as nothing ... compared to what Corbyn and his ilk are in for, in the not too distant future.

I'm sure that Corbyn himself is blind to that, which will make his ultimate humiliation that much greater, when it happens.

Personally I don’t think any good options are left

EXACTLY. Which means but one thing: Boris has done the best that he could've hoped to do.

Another general election may be the best of all outcomes, but that itself is shoddy, and likely just to cause more problems on both sides.

No doubt ... and I'm sure Corbyn will have more descriptive words than 'shoddy', once the general Public makes plain to him what they think of his shenanigans !!

Though I think it’s pretty clear that the government proposing a deal that they themselves have legislated against is not the way forward, though apparently it’s the best they can come up with.

As I said, Boris has done the best he could have done. I remind you (if you need to be reminded ?) of just how disgustingly, disreputably obstructive the EU has been, throughout.

But then ... that was always their plan. How could it have been in their interest to make Brexit a smooth, easy process ?? They'd badly need to dissuade other Member States from ever following the UK's example.

Kathianne

10-17-2019, 08:24 AM

He's been true to his word, true to the democratically-expressed Will of the People. What makes you think that his sense of 'humiliation' is at all acute ?

Sure, he could've wished for a smoother Premiership. But, Boris is up for these battles. We've seen that, in his various Commons appearances. But don't kid yourself .. Boris's so-called 'humiliation' will be as nothing ... compared to what Corbyn and his ilk are in for, in the not too distant future.

I'm sure that Corbyn himself is blind to that, which will make his ultimate humiliation that much greater, when it happens.

EXACTLY. Which means but one thing: Boris has done the best that he could've hoped to do.

No doubt ... and I'm sure Corbyn will have more descriptive words than 'shoddy', once the general Public makes plain to him what they think of his shenanigans !!

As I said, Boris has done the best he could have done. I remind you (if you need to be reminded ?) of just how disgustingly, disreputably obstructive the EU has been, throughout.

But then ... that was always their plan. How could it have been in their interest to make Brexit a smooth, easy process ?? They'd badly need to dissuade other Member States from ever following the UK's example.

Now then, will this get done? If it doesn't, then will it just be a break off? Will Parliament be able to stop the ultimate finish for Brexit?

Drummond

10-17-2019, 11:45 AM

Now then, will this get done? If it doesn't, then will it just be a break off? Will Parliament be able to stop the ultimate finish for Brexit?

I've been trying to answer that. It's POSSIBLE that, finally, this'll all get done. It is unlikely, though.

Assuming the 27 EU States agree (this is almost certain), then, the UK Parliament will need to vote to ratify the deal.

The LibDems won't vote for it (or any deal, or anything at all which permits Brexit).

The DUP don't like the deal. As of right now, their final decision isn't known .. they might realise that they can't expect a deal to ever emerge that'll be to their liking. If they stick to their principles, they will vote against it.

Boris is short of a majority, now substantially so. I think his shortfall is 21 MP's. He may yet have more rebels who'll resist the deal.

Labour will find excuses to reject it ... from 'It doesn't meet our red line demands' .. to .. 'Any deal must be ratified by a Peoples' Vote' (i.e, they'll insist on a second Referendum before backing it. This will require an extension (surprise, surprise !). Labour's initial rejection is guaranteed, because they want Boris humiliated before election time (as, you'll note, Noir is fixated upon ..).

Put all the 'NO' votes together, and I think Boris will lose, and we'll be no further forward. Labour will then try to take charge, insisting on a Referendum (or an election), demanding the further extension beyond October.

In such a case ... I'm thinking that, after all the intensive talks there have been, the EU will be inclined to say 'no' to an extension. They'll be too fed up with the dysfunctionality on the UK side to grant anything. They'll also claim that nothing better can possibly be offered to us, therefore, no extension would serve any purpose.

Then again ... they might grant one. It's possible ... because .... they might yet hope for the collapse of Brexit entirely, as a product of Labour's vandalism. In such a circumstance, they'd wait for a vote from the general Public, one reversing the 2016 Referendum.

Noir

10-17-2019, 12:08 PM

Drummond

10-17-2019, 01:04 PM

It’s quite impressive that Johnson and his team have come up with a deal which is almost identical to the one proposed by May (which Johnson et all voted against) except for a few distinctions such as a Irish Sea border, which guarantees him the loss of his only other party support (the DUP) in the House.

The Irish Sea Border is also in defiance of the Rees-Mogg amendment to the Taxation act (article 55) which was championed an put into law by Rees-Mogg, Johnson, and other member of the ERG to stop exactly this kind of deal happening.

As I said, the deal is not ideal, not by a long shot.

But be honest, Noir. Do you really think Boris had any chance of arranging a deal better than the one he's got ?

The DUP, naturally, won't like a deal which treats Northern Ireland differently to the rest of the UK. Their opposition to Boris's deal wasn't, therefore, hard to foresee. Then again ... they refused to back Theresa May's deal, too ... so in that sense, I'm not sure that anything's been 'lost' in all this. Yes, Boris would've wanted their backing, but their lack of one is no surprise. Their expectations were always in excess of anything the EU was willing to permit them.

The whole 'border in the Irish Sea' issue amounts to a concession to Brussels. To get Brussels to budge on anything, concessions had to be given. In return, at least the EU has itself budged in ways it said it never would. It said for a long time that the original deal would not be reconsidered. It said that the backstop HAD to remain. Boris has managed to get reversals from the EU on both of those pledges ... no mean feat.

But, yes, it's come at a cost. That's undeniable.

Now .. will Labour acknowledge the ground given, in an effort to find an equitable solution ?? Will they acknowledge, and appreciate, all the work that's gone into trying to deliver a deal which THEY insist HAD to be delivered ??? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

LIKE HELL THEY WILL.

They'll just tear it to shreds.

Fact is that, though they SAY they want a deal, they WILL ALWAYS OPPOSE ONE.

Be honest, Noir, and admit that to be true.

Labour are vandals. They are wreckers. I don't think they'll ever stop being that, in opposition .. even an abject humiliation in an election might teach them nothing.

Nothing short of Governmental power will put an end to their dysfunctional ways.

They are trash.

Kathianne

10-17-2019, 02:04 PM

So, if eu doesn’t grant an extension, will that mean the hard exit or whatever it’s called?

STTAB

10-17-2019, 02:09 PM

Yeah says me, someone who is not ignorant of British politics :rolleyes:

Psst , some people in no way limit their ignorance to British politics :laugh2:

Drummond

10-17-2019, 02:39 PM

So, if eu doesn’t grant an extension, will that mean the hard exit or whatever it’s called?

That IS the default position. This can only go one of two ways: an extension is granted, or, we leave by 31st October.

With Parliament failing to ratify the latest deal, should that happen, then it'd be up to the EU as to what it's prepared to do (such is our enslavement to EU law, as a member, that the EU has always had the upper hand in that sense). The EU could decide that it's gone as far as it possibly can in supplying a deal. In that case, they could say there's no point in granting any extension. Or, they could say that they'll just wait for our Parliament to give up its dysfunctionality, and ratify it.

Without hope of ratification being evident .. I think they'll just refuse to grant an extension .. so, if we've not ratified by Halloween, we crash out.

If Labour stops its vandalism, and reconsiders its position, AND the EU believes they may .. then, I believe that we'd get a small extension, if needed. [Though ... Boris has always said he'd never agree to one willingly.]

But, I don't think Labour will ever be constructive enough to reconsider. They'll just go on insisting that 'no deal' is not an option, simultaneously refusing (insanely and vandalistically) to ever agree one !! In order to fend off accusations of being undemocratic, they'll push for another Referendum. Or agree an election. And expect the EU to wait around to witness the outcome of either.

In reality, though, and outside of Labour's delusional state ... I think this is 'make or break' time. The EU expects this latest deal to be ratified. If it isn't .. game over, and we crash out.

That's my belief. But, as I say, the final decision lies with the EU. I think that Labour's arrogance fails to permit them the understanding that the EU's patience is wearing thin. Short of Labour somehow finding a way of showing them they can derail Brexit entirely, they'll say 'game over', and we will leave on the due date.

Kathianne

10-17-2019, 02:42 PM

That IS the default position. This can only go one of two ways: an extension is granted, or, we leave by 31st October.

With Parliament failing to ratify the latest deal, should that happen, then it'd be up to the EU as to what it's prepared to do (such is our enslavement to EU law, as a member, that the EU has always had the upper hand in that sense). The EU could decide that it's gone as far as it possibly can in supplying a deal. In that case, they could say there's no point in granting any extension. Or, they could say that they'll just wait for our Parliament to give up its dysfunctionality, and ratify it.

Without hope of ratification being evident .. I think they'll just refuse to grant an extension .. so, if we've not ratified by Halloween, we crash out.

If Labour stops its vandalism, and reconsiders its position, AND the EU believes they may .. then, I believe that we'd get that extension.

But, I don't think Labour will ever be constructive enough to reconsider. They'll just go on insisting that 'no deal' is not an option, simultaneously refusing (insanely and vandalistically) to ever agree one !! In order to fend off accusations of being undemocratic, they'll push for another Referendum. Or agree an election. And expect the EU to wait around to witness the outcome of either.

In reality, though, I think this is 'make or break' time. The EU expects this latest deal to be ratified. If it isn't .. game over, and we crash out.

That's my belief. But, as I say, the final decision lies with the EU. I think that Labour's arrogance fails to permit them the understanding that the EU's patience is wearing thin. Short of Labour somehow finding a way of showing them they can derail Brexit entirely, they'll say 'game over', and we will leave on the due date.
Is not the deal better than crashing out? Won’t the people punish Parliament for that?

Noir

10-17-2019, 03:40 PM

Drummond

10-17-2019, 03:43 PM

Is not the deal better than crashing out? Won’t the people punish Parliament for that?

My answers to your questions, in the order you ask them:

1. Yes.

2. Yes.

I've always wanted the UK to leave under favourable terms ... why wouldn't I ? That would absolutely necessitate agreeing a deal that provided them.

Labour's position has never been that honest, however. They SAY they want a deal, to protect the UK's economy from damage, and yet, no matter what they're presented with, they immediately reject it. I think their only agenda can be to arrange matters so that we cancel Brexit.

Thanks to a mixture of Left wing vandalism and the EU's stubborn intransigence ... we are where we are. A good deal is better than no deal. But, we DID vote to LEAVE the EU, and nothing was ever said about how we did !! The important goal is to see that the 2016 Referendum is honoured, and we are shown to be the democracy we profess to be !!

If Labour vandalism will permit no ratification of any deal, then, we must leave without one. The alternative is to give up our very existence, ultimately, as an autonomous Nation State.

Drummond

10-17-2019, 04:24 PM

“I want to make it absolutely clear, that under no circumstances, whatever happens, will I allow the EU or anyone else to create any kind of division down the Irish Sea, or to attenuate our union and that is why I so bitterly opposed the withdrawal agreement you may recall...and that’s why i resigned over Chequers you may recall. It’s a terrible moral blackmail it puts on the U.K. government, you can’t have that, you can’t have that approach.”

Boris Johnson speaking in Belfast, July 2019.

Today, Johnson announced a border in the Irish Sea. :rolleyes:

So, what are you saying ?

Thanks to a mixture of intransigence and sheer arrogance, the EU required concessions from us, before they'd give any. Now, I daresay Boris could've given none .. resulting in no deal being forthcoming.

THEN, what would've happened ?

Boris would've been mandated by Parliament to ask for an extension. THAT, TOO, would've seen Boris being forced to renege on his absolute assurance (on pain of dying in a ditch) that he'd not ask for one.

So, we know what Boris chose. He chose, as he saw it, the lesser of two evils ... the one which permitted him to try and deliver Brexit by 31st October, versus one that would have forced him to defy the electorate, and FAIL to do so.

You tell me, Noir. Which of those choices, according to you, should Boris have opted for ? If you think he could've avoided both, fine ... tell me HOW !!

Noir, you're just continuing on with attack-dog posts. You want to denigrate Boris any way you think you can, but, you offer no alternatives to what's occurring. Fact is, Boris is doing his best, playing a very bad hand as well as possible -- in such a way that he can keep faith, as much as possible, with the peoples of the United Kingdom.

All the while, of course, Labour do what you're doing .. offering no good alternatives, just attacking (and vandalising). Labour 'want us to leave with a deal, rather than without one' .. they SAY. In truth, they shoot down any AND ALL deals out there.

Non-dictatorial, honest politics, where MP's SERVE those who elect them. Noir, when was it that Labour abandoned such principles ?

Or did they never really believe in them, only now, it's become particularly apparent ?

... H'mm .. ?

Noir

10-18-2019, 02:13 AM

So, what are you saying ?

Im saying that something that Johnson promised he would never do to Northern Ireland in July, he did in October.

You tell me, Noir. Which of those choices, according to you, should Boris have opted for ? If you think he could've avoided both, fine ... tell me HOW !!

He could not of avoided both, because he backed himself into a corner from which either path forward would of contradicted statements he has made in the past few weeks. Johnson putting himself in that position in the first place doesn’t seem very smart.

Noir, you're just continuing on with attack-dog posts. You want to denigrate Boris any way you think you can, but, you offer no alternatives to what's occurring. Fact is, Boris is doing his best, playing a very bad hand as well as possible -- in such a way that he can keep faith, as much as possible, with the peoples of the United Kingdom.

If by ‘denigrate Boris in anyway you can think of’ you mean ‘compare the actions of Boris today to the words he stated a few weeks ago’ then Johnson has brought that on himself by saying one thing, and then doing another, like a liar.

He has not kept the faith of the Leave voters of Northern Ireland.

Drummond

10-18-2019, 09:52 AM

Im saying that something that Johnson promised he would never do to Northern Ireland in July, he did in October.

He could not of avoided both, because he backed himself into a corner from which either path forward would of contradicted statements he has made in the past few weeks. Johnson putting himself in that position in the first place doesn’t seem very smart.

If by ‘denigrate Boris in anyway you can think of’ you mean ‘compare the actions of Boris today to the words he stated a few weeks ago’ then Johnson has brought that on himself by saying one thing, and then doing another, like a liar.

He has not kept the faith of the Leave voters of Northern Ireland.

I see a great deal in your post, Noir, that's critical of Boris. 'Strangely', though, I see nothing that's critical of the EU. Now, why is that ?

It's not as though you lack a basis for that criticism !!!

So, in considering your words:

.. something that Johnson promised he would never do to Northern Ireland in July, he did in October.

... I think you should also consider how it was that the EU insisted that he renege on his word.

Does that tell you anything GOOD about the EU's principles in all this ? Does it suggest to you that the EU had any respect for our side in the negotiations ?? To demand what they have, and to get Boris to break his word into the bargain .. what conceivable basis could anybody have for trusting, or feeling 'good about', a power that plays these games with our very borders, and is happy to force our PM into a position his critics could claim held a measure of disreputability ?

AND THESE ARE PEOPLE WE'RE SUPPOSED TO ENTRUST POROUS BORDERS TO, TO THINK NOTHING OF PERMITTING THE FREE MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE FROM THE EU TO OUR SHORES ??

The real truth, Noir, is this: the EU has contempt for the rights of Nation States. They consider borders held by EU members, THEIRS to do just what they like with ! What ELSE explains the EU's sheer arrogance in suggesting we keep to the border arrangements now insisted upon ?

So, Noir, learn the real lesson here !! [Not that you'll be willing to, though, eh, Noir ??]

As for:

He could not of avoided both, because he backed himself into a corner from which either path forward would of contradicted statements he has made in the past few weeks. Johnson putting himself in that position in the first place doesn’t seem very smart

I suggest to you that to break faith with the UK electorate to such a degree that he refused to respect the 2016 Referendum, to the point where he happily asked for another extension, would've been so disreputable and contemptuous of the People, that he couldn't possibly have chosen to go that far. Whatever else you want to wallop Boris for, you cannot claim that he hasn't fought hard to see that the Referendum's outcome is respected.

Keeping to his pledge to leave by 31st October was a definite line in the sand. He didn't 'box himself in' ... he has been keeping a highly necessary and laudable pledge to the peoples of the United Kingdom.

Consider Theresa May's fate. She asked for an extension, and got it. What happened to her career, not very long afterwards ? What has been the mood of the electorate towards politicians, since ? They want Brexit DEALT WITH ..

... and this is where Boris came in .....

Absurdly, you said:

He has not kept the faith of the Leave voters of Northern Ireland.

He has done his best, Noir, for all those who voted 'Leave'. He holds responsibility for all UK members.

Here's a point which Lefties studiously ignore ... stupidly ...

The 2016 Referendum, Noir, was a UK-WIDE VOTE. No one country voted AS a country, but rather, as part of a UK-wide vote where all votes, no matter where they came from in the UK, were treated equally, holding equal significance and context.

What changes to the ballot paper do you claim existed on those used by NI citizens ? Didn't you vote on EXACTLY the same terms, as everybody else in the other UK countries ?

Take Scotland .. they, as a country, voted to 'Remain'. BUT .. they were part of a much wider overall vote which, when added up, produce a 'Leave' result. They are therefore tied into that 'Leave' vote, because, in voting, they didn't vote as a separate national entity.

Neither did Northern Ireland. So, Noir, in the sense of NI voters being NI voters, none held any special significance in the Referendum. They didn't have (nor could claim) any special 'rights'.

So, you're talking rot. Aren't you ?

Here's one more point for you to mull over.

If Saturday's Commons voting goes as many expect it to, and Boris finds himself in a position of needing yet more time from the EU as a consequence ... consider that, if that request is made, Boris's opposition will COMPEL HIM TO BREAK HIS PLEDGE TO THE PEOPLES OF THE UK, BY LAW.

WHY ?

Because, Noir, his truly DISGUSTING Labour opposition will have FORCED him into it.

I ask this:

What's any less than shameful about a political force which forces ANYBODY to LIE, and to incur legal punishment if they refuse to ???

Labour thinks itself fit to govern us. Yet, they'll force the most powerful figure in the land to LIE, and BETRAY THE PEOPLE, and punish him through the force of law if he refuses to !! How on earth can anybody willing to stoop to that, ever be fit for Government ????!?

Noir

10-18-2019, 11:21 AM

Off topic - Sometimes less is more Drummond, you’ve got over a dozen sentences there that end in a question mark, navigating a post like that is not something I’m going to invest time into doing.

- - -

As for my point - Northern Irish leave voters (such as the people I work with) were very abusive in their choice of language to describe what Johnson has offered in his deal, because they were lied to.

This is particularly insulting to them because he promised only two months ago that he would do this under “no circumstances”.

This is also particularly funny to me, because Johnson, Rees-Mogg, and the ERG as a whole legislated an amendment into law to stop this exact proposal being legal.

Drummond

10-18-2019, 12:17 PM

Off topic - Sometimes less is more Drummond, you’ve got over a dozen sentences there that end in a question mark, navigating a post like that is not something I’m going to invest time into doing.

Hah !!! Who do you think you're kidding ??

I'm posting points you're having difficulty with. You're evading them, because you are ! Can't you be honest enough to admit it ?

Do I understand that you will expect answers to your points, while you lamely evade mine ?

As for my point - Northern Irish leave voters (such as the people I work with) were very abusive in their choice of language to describe what Johnson has offered in his deal, because they were lied to.

This is particularly insulting to them because he promised only two months ago that he would do this under “no circumstances”.

Well, you can use my earlier post (the one you've evaded answering in any detail at all) to answer your work colleagues, can't you ?

This is also particularly funny to me, because Johnson, Rees-Mogg, and the ERG as a whole legislated an amendment into law to stop this exact proposal being legal.

Enjoy your humour. I understand your focus, though. There's absolutely nothing funny about what the EU has been up to. Their shenanigans are too arrogantly shabby and shameful, not to mention downright abusive, to find anything funny about. So, steadfastly turn away from being critical of the EU. Try HARD ... you'll need to, to avoid facing nasty truths.

If your co-workers really do feel the anger you claim ... tell them to place themselves in Boris's position. Point out to them that the EU wouldn't have given any ground unless Boris himself had (and tell them that discussions were tough, even so !). Get them to see that it's the EU's arrogance and intransigence that forced this whole situation upon them. Explain that the EU's own disreputability, its contempt, its arrogance, has forced ALL of this upon them. Get them to understand that negotiations needed an impetus, and the EU wouldn't have given ground unless they'd felt they could.

Tell them that, since all that's so, their instinct to vote 'Leave' has been proven as justified as it possibly could have been. Tell them that Boris is as much a victim of EU arrogance as THEY are.

Enjoy your misplaced humour, then. It has as its origin-point the EU's disreputable arrogance, and their unfitness to be a part of.

Noir

10-18-2019, 12:38 PM

Hah !!! Who do you think you're kidding ??

I'm posting points you're having difficulty with. You're evading them, because you are ! Can't you be honest enough to admit it ?

Do I understand that you will expect answers to your points, while you lamely evade mine ?

Having a single statement be respond to with 5 or 6 questions is not conducive to a good discussion, nor does it make easy reading.

Well, you can use my earlier post (the one you've evaded answering in any detail at all) to answer your work colleagues, can't you ?

No.

Enjoy your humour. I understand your focus, though. There's absolutely nothing funny about what the EU has been up to...

But there is something very funny about Johnson proposing a solution which is legally contradictory to an amendment which he (and other hard Brexit conservatives) got enshrined into law.

Drummond

10-18-2019, 01:54 PM

Having a single statement be respond to with 5 or 6 questions is not conducive to a good discussion, nor does it make easy reading.

Whether or not you find it easy to read, doesn't concern me. If your points require detailed rebuttal, that's what they'll get.

That you can't handle (or is it, 'prefer' not to handle ?) what you get, isn't my issue. Rather, it's yours.

No.

What do you mean, 'no' .. ?

What's the problem ? Do you balk at giving your co-workers all the evidence they could ever need that their instinct to leave the EU was 100% justified, AND, that Boris being forced to accept that border down the Irish Sea (& all that this involves) is the EU's fault ??

The one helps to justify the other. The EU expects, & is content with, disreputable results from negotiations. That's because it speaks to what they are, and what they'll happily force others to do. It says all that's required as to what THEY, and not what their negotiating VICTIMS, ARE.

But there is something very funny about Johnson proposing a solution which is legally contradictory to an amendment which he (and other hard Brexit conservatives) got enshrined into law.

Was this done before the EU made him a victim of their negotiating ploys, or afterwards ?

Here's a challenge. If or when you reply, try saying SOMETHING that is critical of the EU.

Not Boris. The EU. Go on, Noir.

Try.

Noir

10-18-2019, 06:42 PM

Whether or not you find it easy to read, doesn't concern me. If your points require detailed rebuttal, that's what they'll get.

That you can't handle (or is it, 'prefer' not to handle ?) what you get, isn't my issue. Rather, it's yours.

Fair enough, whatever you chose to spend your time doing.

What do you mean, 'no' .. ?

I mean -try and follow me on this- no.

Here's a challenge. If or when you reply, try saying SOMETHING that is critical of the EU.

Not Boris. The EU. Go on, Noir.

Try.

The EU is a god-awful organ - bloated, wasteful, overly bureaucratic, and insufficiently democratic.

Drummond

10-18-2019, 08:12 PM

Fair enough, whatever you chose to spend your time doing.

You have a point, I suppose. It's not as though you even choose to learn anything.

I mean -try and follow me on this- no.

In the absence of an answer, I have to assume one ... as I already have.

Of course, another explanation could be that you don't talk freely to your co-workers. If it's because you once told them you were a Leftie ... I can understand.

The EU is a god-awful organ - bloated, wasteful, overly bureaucratic, and insufficiently democratic.

Some actual TRUTH here !! Congrats on meeting my challenge, even if a bit belatedly. :clap::clap:

I'm not sure they're at all democratic, though, in any way that counts for anything. They like to claim they are ... but .. their own Parliament is an autonomy-demolishing monstrosity. The laws they pass on a daily basis, with the imperative that Member States MUST incorporate them into their own legislative machinery .. makes a mockery of their claims for respecting 'democracy'.

Kathianne

10-18-2019, 09:35 PM

Drummond Noir

True?

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/10/18/hmmmm-bojos-brexit-deal-set-pass-parliament-tomorrow/

The situation has been fluid all day in Westminster, but The Guardian’s calculations (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/oct/18/boris-johnson-launches-frantic-sales-pitch-of-brexit-deal-ahead-of-commons-vote-politics-live) suggest Boris Johnson just might get his Brexit deal passed. Ten Labour MPs have declared their intention to support the proposal, along with enough Tory rebels returning to get to a majority of two, even without the DUP. That’s an early assumption, however, and a key loss on a procedural motion might throw a spanner into the works for Johnson tomorrow.

...

Noir

10-19-2019, 02:48 AM

Some actual TRUTH here !! Congrats on meeting my challenge, even if a bit belatedly. :clap::clap:

I don’t see in what sense it’s belated, these have always been some of my opinions on the EU for many years now, in all honesty I should of been the easiest vote for the Leave campaign to of won, but no, the campaign from the start was a disaster, poor arguments backed up by ignorant and naive policy predictions. Indeed it was so bad that not only did the Leave campaign stop me from voting for them, but they convinced me to vote against leaving the EU, and I have not been surprised to see them amble from failure to failure (and lie to lie) since they won the vote, because based on their conduct before the vote this was always going to be the way it went.

@Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287) @Noir (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=517)

True?

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/10/18/hmmmm-bojos-brexit-deal-set-pass-parliament-tomorrow/

It’s certainly possible, many on the Left/Labour (such as Corbyn) want out of the EU, and have done for a long time, though Johnson has made the maths much more difficult for himself over the treatment of Northern Ireland, losing the Conservatives 10 DUP votes that they paid for a few years ago.

Drummond

10-19-2019, 06:42 AM

@Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287) @Noir (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=517)

True?

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/10/18/hmmmm-bojos-brexit-deal-set-pass-parliament-tomorrow/

The honest answer is that, right now, nobody really knows. Thinking on this WAS that Boris was bound to lose ... but, he's been winning support from ex-Conservative MP's to whom Boris said 'Goodbye' fairly recently, when he had his rebel MP clearout. He's also getting some rebel Labour MP support (something Corbyn's hopping mad about ... days ago, fearing that was a possibility, he made a coded speech claiming 'No Labour MP' could countenance what was emerging from Brussels).

Boris may well win, but it's just too close to call. Nobody in the media is giving a hard prediction. As I'm typing, I've got today's Commons debate playing, live, in the background. Boris has given a sterling performance, now Labour Ministers are debating (Keir Starmer speaking) ...

If Boris loses, it looks like he'll be compelled to send the law-enforced, pre-drafted letter prepared to ask the EU for an extension. Rumour has it that if that happens, he'll do precisely nothing to follow it up with Brussels, with behind-the-scenes conversations or suggestions .......

Drummond

10-19-2019, 07:12 AM

I don’t see in what sense it’s belated, these have always been some of my opinions on the EU for many years now, in all honesty I should of been the easiest vote for the Leave campaign to of won, but no, the campaign from the start was a disaster, poor arguments backed up by ignorant and naive policy predictions. Indeed it was so bad that not only did the Leave campaign stop me from voting for them, but they convinced me to vote against leaving the EU, and I have not been surprised to see them amble from failure to failure (and lie to lie) since they won the vote, because based on their conduct before the vote this was always going to be the way it went.

Noir, I don't know about you, but when I have an online conversation with someone, I don't feel obliged to thumb through years' worth of posts from the person I'm debating with as a preparation. All well and good, if my memory aids me: if it doesn't, I just go with the conversation, debating honestly and if need be, 'by the seat of my pants'.

If I have confidence in my views and arguments (I invariably do), I don't feel the need for massive research in preparation. With commonsense and material supporting me, my combination of each usually allows me to win through.

I can't really comment on your internal thought processes ! Some may have reacted as you did, to what you saw and heard. Others, witnessing exactly the same, might (and doubtless did) react in precisely the opposite way.

For myself, I'd have believed that being guided by media pundit offerings, or even the musings of MP's or Ministers, wasn't a productive exercise. You can't predict with any precision at all what may occur in the political world of two & fro discussions, early in the process !

You talk of 'lie to lie', but give no detail on that. What are you thinking of, when you claim this ?

I'd say this: the Brexit Referendum had to be held before we discussed anything with the EU (but of course !). Nobody could predict, before any negotiations began, how they'd go !!

Now, with much hindsight and commonsense applied, one might presume that the EU would make discussions difficult, since, after all, WHY would the EU allow it all to be a smooth process ? It was firmly in their interests to deter any other Brexit equivalents from any other Member State. That said ... little if anything could've been predicted. We know what we know, now, because we DO know it !!

It’s certainly possible, many on the Left/Labour (such as Corbyn) want out of the EU, and have done for a long time, though Johnson has made the maths much more difficult for himself over the treatment of Northern Ireland, losing the Conservatives 10 DUP votes that they paid for a few years ago.

It was Theresa May who sought their support. Thanks to an election where her misplaced faith in polls saw her lose a majority she'd expected to bolster (!), she had no choice but to obtain whatever Commons support she could. Happily for her, for a long time, the DUP fitted the bill.

As for what you call 'Johnson's ... treatment of Northern Ireland' ... Noir, you're falling back on bad habits once more. I did get you to say something non-supportive about the EU, in this thread ... which surprised me, when I read your response. Now, once again, you've fallen silent in holding the EU responsible for its part in this affair !! BORIS HAS ONLY GIVEN GROUND ON N IRELAND BECAUSE THE EU BACKED HIM INTO THAT CORNER.

What conceivable reason can you have for supposing that Boris gave ground on that, without being MADE to, from hard, aggressive, EU bargaining ?? Our media was reporting that the negotiations were difficult, and they significantly overran Barnier's cutoff time for them.

So please be honest with your reviews, Noir. Boris only gave ground on the N Ireland border issue, because of THE EU.

Blame WHERE IT'S DUE.

As for Corbyn ... their conduct has reeked of dishonesty, fudge, and above all, sheer vandalism borne of an insistence to follow THEIR agenda, not that of respect for the 2016 Referendum. Their current policy is an outright insult to the 17.4 million people who voted for Brexit, believing that their votes should count for something !!!

Drummond

10-19-2019, 07:30 AM

Noir, I've just watched a live speech from Theresa May, passionately arguing for a YES vote to the current deal.

It was an impressive speech. It's good to see her be so supportive of Boris's deal.

Considering Theresa's past speeches on the issue of the NI border issue ... note that her support for the current deal, exactly as it stands, was unequivocal. Do you accept what this implies, namely, that today's deal represents the best outcome that could've been reached with the EU (within the context of a deal they'll be prepared to agree with us) .. ?

Drummond

10-19-2019, 09:44 AM

So much for a meaningful vote happening today !! It is NOT happening today.

Oliver Letwin is a Conservative MP (a one-time senior one, going back to the Margaret Thatcher days).

He's proposed, and had passed, a vote on an amendment of his. The Amendment requires that no vote be taken on the current Brexit deal in the Commons until it becomes law (i.e legislation must be introduced first, rather than this being cleared from a simple vote).

The Amendment was passed by 322 votes to 306.

According to the media (I'm watching BBC-1 Wales on TV) ... this now forces Boris Johnson to send a letter to Brussels to request an extension beyond October. One serious question is whether or not the legislation that must now be put before Parliament can, and will, clear the House, be decisively voted on and everything tied off, by 31st October .. hence the extension request.

The intention is to place said legislation for the House's consideration next week.

Huw Edwards (BBC commentator) offered a statement 'from an un-named source within 10 Downing Street', to the effect that Boris considers the extention-request letter that must be sent to Brussels to be 'Parliament's letter', & is not actually HIS letter ... even though he's required to sign it, and send it no later than 11PM tonight. Boris will do nothing himself to back what the letter says in any way.

So ... confusion reigns, once more. More delay is happening. If the Commons finds ways of procedurally delaying the forthcoming legislation, possibly use of the extension will be unavoidable. Then again ... the EU, after getting the letter, may swiftly respond and tell us that 'yes, you have your extension, until .. xxxx'. That'll make delay unavoidable, of course.

As for 'Why legislation ?'. The argument is that this gives the Commons more time to consider the detail of the deal. One might argue also about how, exactly, that legislation is worded ... will it include a means of querying detail of the deal ?

And will the Commons vote it in, anyway ? No guarantee exists saying they will.

So, there it is. House of Commons MP's have contrived to inject yet more delay and uncertainty into this whole business, folks ! STILL, they show, as a whole, scant consideration for having the 2016 Referendum result HONOURED, not FRUSTRATED !

Yes. Labour's vandalism continues.

Kathianne

10-19-2019, 09:52 AM

Drummond

10-19-2019, 10:04 AM

:chocolate::alcoholic::cheers2:Insane.

Completely insane. Yes. :alcoholic::alcoholic::cuckoo::cuckoo::poop::confu sed::confused::confused:

What I'm incredulous about .. almost to the point of 'admiration', at the sheer unmitigated gall of it !! ... is that Labour, in persistently applying all this stagnation and dysfunctionality to Parliament, to ensure that as little progress as possible is made on satisfying the 2016 Referendum ... will strongly, loudly, proclaim it's done IN THE SERVICE OF DEMOCRACY !

The business of Parliament is stalled, and has been for a very long time. If Parliament is meant to represent democratic machinery, how does it serve democracy by jamming its gears, converting the process of Government into a dysfunctional quagmire ?

Well over 3 years, and counting, since the Referendum vote ... and it's being frustrated, hopes being kept alive that it can be derailed entirely. Once a General Election happens ... Labour are in for one hell of a shock, in my opinion, when the general Public hold them accountable for their disgusting arrogance.

Noir

10-19-2019, 11:09 AM

Kathianne

10-19-2019, 11:25 AM

Noir Drummond

What?!? https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/10/19/letwin-let-parliament-shuts-brexit-approval-key-procedural-vote/

Noir

10-19-2019, 11:27 AM

I'd say this: the Brexit Referendum had to be held before we discussed anything with the EU (but of course !). Nobody could predict, before any negotiations began, how they'd go !!

Really? Because I remember Leave campaigners, and politicians, predicting that the Brexit negotiations would be the easiest in history, don’t you?

So please be honest with your reviews, Noir. Boris only gave ground on the N Ireland border issue, because of THE EU.

So what Johnson meant to say when he told us that there would be a sea border under “no circumstances” was actually that there would be a sea border under “no circumstances unless the EU want it” ?

Also take note that Johnson is not talking about the sea border as a concession to the EU, but as a win for the U.K. from the EU.

Noir

10-19-2019, 11:30 AM

@Noir (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=517) @Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287)

What?!? https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/10/19/letwin-let-parliament-shuts-brexit-approval-key-procedural-vote/

This was the vote held today that Drummond referred to a few posts ago.

Once the vote was lost the Conservative MPs were sent home as was expected, had Johnson of won the vote Parliament would of stayed on to vote further on the current deal, but it fell at the first hurdle.

Kathianne

10-19-2019, 11:36 AM

This was the vote held today that Drummond referred to a few posts ago.

Once the vote was lost the Conservative MPs were sent home as was expected, had Johnson of won the vote Parliament would of stayed on to vote further on the current deal, but it fell at the first hurdle.
Thanks, I got that, more about the update. Seriously this is all very confusing. 😆

Kathianne

10-19-2019, 05:25 PM

https://spectator.us/boris-johnson-72-hours-12-mps-brexit/

Ofds?

Drummond

10-19-2019, 06:54 PM

Johnson lost the vote (now the 8th vote he has lost?) by 322 to 306.

If he had kept the DUP onside there was a chance he could of won the vote, but his Irish Sea border proposal was guaranteed to lose him their 10 votes, that he was never going to make up elsewhere.

Noir ... you really need to provide some balance with these comments of yours.

You talk as though Boris was the one and only person who agreed to the new border proposal. In fact -- and as I've explained ! -- negotiations were tough, and were only concluded with an alternative agreement in place for submission to Parliament, reached by MUTUAL agreement. Both sides compromised. The new arrangement that you're so keen to blame Boris for, and ONLY him, was something that both sides agreed to see happen.

The only way the DUP would've remained 'on side', would've been if the new arrangement had NOT been agreed, as the agreed substitution for the backstop. Without that agreement ... NO DEAL ... so, there'd be nothing for the DUP to be required to support !!!

The sticking point from the old agreement was always the backstop. If it was to be dispensed with, something had to take its place. We see what that was. The DUP's reaction to it is what they hold responsibility for ... not 'just' Boris.

Drummond

10-19-2019, 07:05 PM

https://spectator.us/boris-johnson-72-hours-12-mps-brexit/

Ofds?

Yes, Boris is going to have another crack at this, on Monday.

Reactions of his opposition to the most recent development will be interesting, and quite possibly funny.

The 'most recent development', is this ....

Boris was required, by legal mandate, to send a letter (pre-drafted) to the EU to request an extension beyond October, if Parliament hadn't agreed the latest deal by today.

He did send a letter. He sent a photocopy of the formal request-draft to Donald Tusk ... but ... UNSIGNED.

There was at least one other letter accompanying that one, which Boris did sign. The accompanying text said that he 'didn't mean it' ... he advised in the extra correspondence that no extension should be given, that it'd be a mistake to grant one, that neither the interests of the UK nor those of the EU would be served if it was.

Good ol' Boris. He carried out his legal duty, i.e he did what official 'duty' dictated ... BUT ... didn't let it stop there. Yes, Noir ... Boris is STILL fighting for the democratic rights of those who voted in the 2016 Referendum !!

https://www.euronews.com/2019/10/19/boris-johnson-will-ask-for-brexit-delay-after-losing-parliament-vote

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson sent an unsigned letter to the European Union on Saturday requesting a Brexit delay and a separate note saying that he did not want an extension, a British government source said.

Johnson was required to ask for a Brexit extension beyond October 31 until the end of January after he missed a deadline on Saturday to secure backing for a deal in parliament or support from lawmakers for leaving without a deal. The source said a third document was also sent to Brussels on Saturday, signed by Britain's top envoy to the European

Johnson had hoped that Saturday would see recalcitrant lawmakers support the divorce deal he agreed with EU leaders this week and finally end three years of political deadlock since the 2016 referendum vote to leave the bloc.

Instead, lawmakers voted 322 to 306 in favour of an amendment that turned Johnson's planned finale on its head by leaving the prime minister exposed to a humiliating obligation to ask the EU for a delay until the end of January 2020, and increasing the opportunity for opponents to frustrate Brexit.

Johnson has been promising that he will take the country out of the bloc on Oct. 31, come what may, and after the amendment passed, he struck a defiant tone.

"I will not negotiate a delay with the EU and neither does the law compel me to do so," he told parliament. "I will tell our friends and colleagues in the EU exactly what I have told everyone else in the last 88 days that I have served as prime minister: that further delay would be bad for this country, bad for the European Union and bad for democracy."

However, he appeared to acknowledge in a letter sent later to lawmakers that he would ask for a Brexit extension - as called by for an earlier law passed by his opponents."It is quite possible that our friends in the European Union will reject parliament's request for further delay (or not takea decision quickly)," Johnson wrote.

European Council President Donald Tusk said he had spoken to Johnson and an EU official said Johnson had confirmed in that call that the letter asking the EU for an extension would indeed be sent. The deadline for the letter to be sent was 2300 GMT on Saturday.

"Tusk will on that basis start consulting EU leaders on how to react. This may take a few days," the official said.

Drummond

10-19-2019, 07:17 PM

Really? Because I remember Leave campaigners, and politicians, predicting that the Brexit negotiations would be the easiest in history, don’t you?

So, what are those campaigners and politicians 'guilty' of, in your estimation ? Would you conclude that they 'lied' .. ?

They were perhaps guilty of not possessing perfect prediction abilities, &/or sheer naivety.

As for why they've been so difficult, we know why that was. The EU arrogantly wasted a great deal of time. When they did get down to serious negotiation, it was to rush a deal through ... one fatally flawed, sufficiently dodgy for Parliament to reject it THREE times.

Leave campaigners & politicians, if they were guilty of anything, was having misplaced faith in the reputability of the EU's negotiators. For which, if 'guilt' is appropriate, it lies with the EU for trying to shaft us !

So what Johnson meant to say when he told us that there would be a sea border under “no circumstances” was actually that there would be a sea border under “no circumstances unless the EU want it” ?

Also take note that Johnson is not talking about the sea border as a concession to the EU, but as a win for the U.K. from the EU.

You gloss over the fact that something like this had to be agreed as a substitute for the backstop, and that it was the EU who were doing the insisting.

Why, Noir, are you so at pains to protect the EU from criticism ? Is it because walloping Boris instead is a much-preferred pastime of yours ?

Noir

10-20-2019, 09:16 AM

Drummond

10-20-2019, 10:23 AM

Nigel Farage, leader of the Brexit Party, on Johnson’s deal

”This is a rotten deal. If Boris Johnson has presented this 6 months ago to the House of Commons the ERG -every man and woman- would have voted against it. I do understand because of Brexit fatigue, and anger in the country, the temptation to vote for it, but it is nothing more than Brexit in name only. It will not solve anything.”

Farage has two objectives. One, he wants Brexit done & dusted (I'm tempted to say 'don't we all !!'). Two ... I think he's livid over the way the EU has tried its utmost to sell us dodgy exit-terms.

After much needless delay and prevarication, the EU rushed through its original Dodgy Deal, containing its backstop clause which had the legal potential for stopping, possibly indefinitely, our 'departure' ever becoming a total one. Time constraints were there, adding to pressure upon us to accept it just as it stood.

But, Parliament refused to, THREE times.

The EU tried blackmail as a strong-arm tactic. The deal wouldn't be revisited, nothing would be changed, the backstop was an essential element of a deal ... they said.

Along came Boris, who achieved something of a miracle. He got them to budge !! The deal WAS revisited. The backstop WAS dispensed with.

Now, you may argue about how imperfect the alternative to it is, and certainly, Farage would !! That might well be seen to be a very reasonable objection. BUT, if we are to Brexit with a deal, imperfect terms have to be tolerated .. unfortunately.

Farage doesn't like that, & so thinks 'no deal' is ultimately better. I sympathise !! But, we WILL be better off WITH a deal, than without one. Therefore, Boris needs to succeed.

In any case: we don't KNOW that the EU will grant an extension. I believe they will, but what if they refuse to ?

In that event .. Labour's current vandalism will be responsible for OUR CRASHING OUT ON 31ST OCTOBER, MINUS A DEAL.

Labour, being Labour, would never take responsibility for that outcome, though they would've engineered it that way.

================================================== ===================

There is, of course, another potential prospect in all of this.

Parliament, courtesy of Saturday's vote, is committed (unless it's overturned) to an examination of the legislation needed in order to make the new deal legally work, in UK terms. Now ... what if Labour propose amendments .. and get them passed ? An amended deal, with just DAYS before the deadline looming ... would the EU accept any amendments ??

They strongly resisted changes to the original deal. Now, with added exasperation playing its part, WHY would the EU feel like accommodating us ??

I think that Parliament (doubtless from Labour) might be stupid enough to tinker with the agreement, and in so doing, force us to crash out of the EU.

And everyone will try to blame BORIS for it (starting with you, eh, Noir) !!!

Drummond

10-20-2019, 07:47 PM

All I've seen on this, so far, is the link I'm posting.

Seems that Boris's enemies are leaving no stone unturned in their efforts to punish him for the strenuous pro-Brexit efforts he's making. The latest move is an attempt to penalise him for failing to sign the Brexit Extension Letter, and sending contradictory advice along with it ...

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/boris-johnsons-letters-to-brussels-may-be-in-contempt-of-parliament-labours-john-mcdonnell-says/ar-AAJ3V38?ocid=mailsignout

Boris Johnson’s two letters to the EU may be in contempt of parliament, Labour’s shadow chancellor John McDonnell has said.

The prime minister is facing court action on Monday after his letters to European Council president Donald Tusk were branded “pathetic” by the MP who led a successful legal challenge against his unlawful suspension of parliament.

Johnson was forced by a humiliating defeat in the House of Commons on Saturday to submit a request to Brussels for an extension of the Brexit process beyond his 31 October deadline.

But he insisted he would not negotiate an extension, and sent two letters to Mr Tusk – an unsigned message relaying parliament’s request for an extension to and a signed letter from him setting out why he does not believe delay would be in the interests of the EU or UK.

Downing Street said it believes the move fulfils the requirements of the Benn Act, which required the prime minister to seek an extension if he was unable to secure parliamentary approval of his Brexit deal by the end of Saturday.

But Scottish National Party MP Joanna Cherry dismissed the PM’s gambit as “pathetic” and said she would be pushing for legal action in Scotland’s highest court on Monday.

And Mr McDonnell told Sky News’ Sophy Ridge on Sunday: “It may well be in contempt of parliament or of the courts themselves, because they’re clearly trying to undermine the first letter.

“Not signing the letter is behaving a bit like a spoilt brat. Parliament made a decision and he should abide by it.”

Kathianne

10-20-2019, 09:08 PM

Drummond

10-21-2019, 09:05 AM

I saw this morning he’d sent a second letter. I wondered about that!

Yes, exactly. As well as the UNSIGNED letter 'requesting' an extension .. was another accompanying it, which of course he did sign, saying that he thought granting an extension would be a mistake, not doing the interests of either the UK or the EU any favours.

In the meantime .. we're waiting to see if Boris's second attempt to get the Commons to vote in principle to accept the latest deal this afternoon will even be permitted to happen. The Speaker of the House, John Bercow, may well rule against permitting it (the media's speculating that he'll do this). The argument he'll put, if he does, is that to submit a second vote on an identical proposition within so short a time (the same Parliamentary session, normally lasting a year) violates procedural convention.

Mrs May managed three votes on her deal, within months of each other, because minor but significant changes were made to each submission. Boris hasn't arranged that, not least because time is too short for that to be worked on.

This'll force the current status quo to continue unimpeded; where the House examines the legislation proposed in detail, before agreeing anything about the deal. My guess .. Labour will submit amendments, possibly major enough to make their finished product unacceptable to Brussels ... which will (they hope) force Brussels to grant the extension, if they haven't already done so.

Of course .. Labour is acting, as it has throughout, as though THEY can govern the ultimate outcome. In reality, the EU need not grant an extension. They may decide they've had enough of all the dysfunctional nonsense, that a fully agreed deal is unreachable, and just let us crash out on 31st October.

Drummond

10-21-2019, 10:16 AM

Development ... Bercow (the Speaker) has ruled against permitting the Government to re-submit last Saturday's Bill. So, we're now in for days of debate on aspects of the legislation itself, before anything conclusive about the deal is decided.

Now, I'll just sit back, for the hours and days ahead, to see what efforts at further vandalism / sabotage Labour will enter into.

One already being suggested in the media is that Labour may press for a Referendum (so-called 'Peoples' Vote) to be undertaken. Naturally, an extension would absolutely HAVE to be granted to allow time for that. [... and, equally 'naturally' (for Labour) is their presumption that THEY have a decisive say on that, and not the EU !! ..]

Anyway ... so much of what's about to follow is speculative in nature. I think that Labour will vandalise to the hilt in the coming days ... let's see if I'm right, or not .....

Drummond

10-22-2019, 09:01 AM

... Some fun & games in the Commons this lunchtime !!

Following Boris's failure to get Parliament to get his deal agreed in principle last Saturday, and his further failure to repeat its submission for a vote yesterday (Speaker Bercow ruled its re-submission procedurally inadmissible), Parliament has before it a three day period to scrutinise the legislation necessary for Parliament to agree to for ratification by that path to succeed .. starting today.

Labour's lost no time in dreaming up some wrecking tactics. Two were in mind (up to now, anyway): one, to say that three days was far too short a time to properly check out the legislation drafted (.. so, we'd need the extension beyond October to do it).

Two ... that an Amendment be made, tying the WHOLE of the UK to a Customs Union with the EU (this 'remedying' the contention over the 'border in the Irish Sea' prospect). Of course, if that were agreed, it'd be a way of compromising Brexit itself, because we'd be maintaining ties with the EU that it was intended from the beginning that we break !!

Labour have had the nerve to insist that the proposed Customs Union be PERMANENT.

Boris, clearly, has had enough.

So a short time ago, he's said that if the Brexit deal isn't passed (and WITHOUT AMENDMENTS TO IT) within these three days, AND if the EU delivers the much-anticipated extension for after October .. he'll just call a General Election, instead. That would divert away from Labour's ability to tie Brexit up for yet longer with more vandalistic measures, and in fact stop consideration of it for however long the election proceedings last.

Boris has two ways of calling an election. One is to call one, & put it to a ratifying vote in the Commons, this requiring a two-thirds majority vote to pass. That'd be interesting, because Labour have been clamouring for an election for literally years ... YET ... have been resisting agreeing to one, more recently.

If Labour want to perpetuate their derailing tactics over Brexit, though, an election would stall them, at minimum !! So, they might not - AGAIN - choose to vote for one, in which case, attaining the 66.6% majority vote would be difficult to impossible.

This leaves the one other election option ... the 'joke' one ... that Boris's Government formally declares it has no confidence in itself. THAT would only require a simple majority ... and it'd truly be a fun result to see Labour vote in favour of its CONFIDENCE in Boris, where Boris would be voting that he had none, in himself !!!

I told you that this could be funny, folks .... :laugh::rolleyes:

Gunny

10-22-2019, 09:08 AM

Imagine that, someone more interested in the will of the people! Unlike those who work against those people from the get go.

--

Queen Elizabeth Tells Parliament That Going Thru With BREXIT Is Her “Priority”

Queen Elizabeth II told Parliament that her “priority” is to honor the will of British patriots and go through with leaving the European Union.

God save the Queen!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kgpImp5WvE

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/10/watch-queen-elizabeth-tells-parliament-that-going-thru-with-brexit-is-her-priority/I asked the "what if?" about this before the fact. Regardless who wrote her speech, does anyone think the Queen is going to say something she is against? I just do not believe she has as little input as some would have the rest of us believe.

BREXIT IS an extraordinary circumstance.

Drummond

10-22-2019, 09:20 AM

I asked the "what if?" about this before the fact. Regardless who wrote her speech, does anyone think the Queen is going to say something she is against? I just do not believe she has as little input as some would have the rest of us believe.

BREXIT IS an extraordinary circumstance.

As much as it irks me to do it, I'm in the position of having to back what Noir said about this earlier in this thread. The Queen cannot refuse to read out any Queen's Speech that's been drafted for her to announce ! That's just a simple fact.

Imagine this: Jeremy Corbyn wins our next election. He sets forth a programme of policy objectives his Government would be committing itself to work towards. That programme is very likely indeed to be more Left wing than anything the UK has seen since the 1960's, when Harold Wilson's Government was in charge (some would say borderline Marxist, and others would say no so borderlne).

Now, how on earth could she refuse to read it ?? She didn't refuse to read out Wilson's Leftie rot !! Likewise ... she can't inject any commentary of her own into it, either, when she did. If she did either of these things, Gunny, we'd instantly be plunged into a Constitutional crisis.

How would that play out ? I've absolutely no idea. It's literally unprecedented, ever since our monarchs ceased to be our outright rulers !!

Brexit is, indeed, an extraordinary circumstance ! Labour are doing a great job of turning it into a farce. So, if the Queen has any power to speak out, why hasn't she already done so ?

Gunny

10-22-2019, 09:37 AM

Drummond

10-22-2019, 10:07 AM

So then my next question would be: WHO wrote the Queen's speech? It is direct support for the will of the people; which, Mr Johnson's agenda also supports. The Queen has no impact on public opinion? If the lefties and fence-riders start fearing for their bureaucratic retirement checks that wouldn't change a few votes? It will here.

Who writes her speeches ?

Her speeches are the finished product of work undertaken by her personal Private Secretary. He, however, has the duty of incorporating drafts from Government Ministers and then 'knitting them together' into one finished composition.

Whether or not, somehow, the Queen has any impact on public opinion, this cannot be seen to come from anything she says. The British monarchy is required in public to maintain absolute neutrality.

I believe this is also true for all members of the Royal Family (so it's not as though she could use Prince Charles as a mouthpiece, for example ...).

Consider a scenario where a Corbyn Government became a reality. She can't stand in opposition to it, in any way. I cited the example of Harold Wilson's Premiership ... his was a very Left wing agenda. The Queen did not, and could not, oppose it.

A Government is democratically elected. A Corbyn Government getting that electoral support would immediately react to the smallest intervention by the Queen by saying that it was not only unconstitutional, but an insult to the intentions of the voting Public. Here, all Parties set out manifesto pledges and pledge to carry them out, if elected. If the Queen voiced an objection, she'd be seen (it could be argued) as her defying democracy itself.

This might be of interest; not only because of the fact that it happened, but also because of the furore caused by its becoming public knowledge !

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9965808/the-queen-david-cameron-blabbing-scottish-referendum/

The Queen issued an extraordinary slap down to David Cameron yesterday for blabbing about her intervention in the Scots referendum.

In an unprecedented rebuke, a Buckingham Palace source said the former PM's admission had caused a "an amount of displeasure” with the 93-year-old monarch.

A source also told the BBC that "it serves no one's interests" for conversations between the prime minister and the Queen to be made public and "it makes it very hard for the relationship to thrive".

Mr Cameron himself admitted yesterday that he should not have broken long-standing Royal protocol to reveal he had lobbied Her Majesty to make her controversial intervention just days before the knife-edge poll in September 2014.

Quizzed about it, Mr Cameron revealed he wanted Her Majesty to hit back at then-SNP boss Alex Salmond’s claim that the Queen would be happy to rule over an independent Scotland.

He said he had asked whether the Queen could “raise an eyebrow” ahead of the referendum - and days later Her Majesty said people should “think carefully about the future”.

Yesterday Mr Cameron admitted he had revealed "perhaps a little bit too much" about the controversial request to intervene.

He told BBC Radio 4’S Today programme: “Some people would think, possibly even me, that I’ve already said too much about this”.

But in an attempt to play down the row over his revelation, Mr Cameron later insisted he did not ask the Queen to do "anything improper" during the referendum on Scottish independence.

The former prime minister - who has been carrying out a media blitz to promote his memoirs - said: "I never asked for anything improper to be said or done."

Mr Cameron sought support from the Queen after a poll predicting a Yes victory "panicked" him.

He was also forced to apologise to the Queen after being overheard boasting that the Queen had “purred” down the phone when he told he had won the referendum.

Yesterday the former First Minister Alex Salmond revealed that the Queen had summoned him to Balmoral to assure him those “purring” comments were wrong.

As I say: the Queen CANNOT be seen to be less than politically neutral at all times.

Drummond

10-22-2019, 10:14 AM

The Queen's ceremonial and Constitutional roles: this may make it clearer .....

http://www.monarchist.org.uk/the-queen-in-government.html

Kathianne

10-22-2019, 01:32 PM

Drummond Noir

This?

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/10/22/bojo-eu-parliament-no-delay-deal-gets/

Drummond

10-22-2019, 03:44 PM

@Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287) @Noir (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=517)

This?

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/10/22/bojo-eu-parliament-no-delay-deal-gets/

... yes ....

More fun & games from Parliament, this evening ...

What's happening in Parliament right now is a curious mixture of unprecedented success, with abject failure as its outcome.

Theresa May got precisely nowhere in getting the Commons to make the smallest concession to her over her Brexit deal. Submitted for ratification, in principle, three times: rejected outright, with thumping great majorities to reject, three times.

Boris has had success by comparison. He's had two votes in the House tonight, the first being to see the Commons ACCEPT its second reading of the Brexit Bill (this one was to approve scrutiny of the Brexit legislation, meaning that the Commons is committed to going through it with the purpose of producing an approved-of final agreement).

But the second vote has brought defeat (snatching defeat from the jaws of victory ?). It was to vote on the timetable for examining that legislation. After today, the Commons had TWO days to go through it and approve the final product. But the vote was lost, meaning, that the Commons rejected being constrained to the stipulated timetable for examination. Result: Boris's opposition was insisting upon examining it for an indeterminate period.

This, in terms of the time constraint involved, was a total nonsense. It means that the Commons wanted to take longer than they had available to them, before the deadline expired (they were talking of taking weeks with it).

This has two effects, if accepted:

1. The deadline of 31st October is effectively breached, i.e, actually ignored.
2. Though the Commons is committed to examining the legislation, if no extension is granted, we'll crash out before our side can finish its business in ratifying the deal.

With this madness continuing on unopposed, Labour would've been able to examine the legislation in such detail that it would've given them the maximum unencumbered opportunity to invent wrecking amendments. We could've ended up with legislation incompatible with the terms of the deal agreed, meaning, that yet further negotiation could've resulted (IF the EU agreed to it !!).

Well ... Boris has had enough of these games.

He did have it in mind to pull the legislation entirely, if Labour continued with its vandalism. He's not quite done that. Since no timetable was agreed, he's taken the opportunity to put everything in limbo. Which means that we've virtually no chance at all, now, of getting this all tied off by Halloween.

No further consideration of the Bill will now occur, until Boris hears from the EU, to see if they'll grant an extension. If they don't, then, goodbye Brexit with a deal, regardless of how it is that everyone SAYS they want a deal.

It's nuts. Isn't it ?

If we do crash out minus a deal, I think it'll be nearly impossible for LABOUR to avoid blame for it (though they'll never, ever, accept that).

I think that we're moving close to a General Election, now. This dysfunctional lunacy makes a mockery of even trying to pretend that we've a coherent Governmental machinery in place, doing its job ....

Kathianne

10-22-2019, 03:50 PM

... yes ....

More fun & games from Parliament, this evening ...

What's happening in Parliament right now is a curious mixture of unprecedented success, with abject failure as its outcome.

Theresa May got precisely nowhere in getting the Commons to make the smallest concession to her over her Brexit deal. Submitted for ratification, in principle, three times: rejected outright, with thumping great majorities to reject, three times.

Boris has had success by comparison. He's had two votes in the House tonight, the first being to see the Commons ACCEPT its second reading of the Brexit Bill (this one was to approve scrutiny of the Brexit legislation, meaning that the Commons is committed to going through it with the purpose of producing an approved-of final agreement).

But the second vote has brought defeat (snatching defeat from the jaws of victory ?). It was to vote on the timetable for examining that legislation. After today, the Commons had TWO days to go through it and approve the final product. But the vote was lost, meaning, that the Commons rejected being constrained to the stipulated timetable for examination. Result: Boris's opposition was insisting upon examining it for an indeterminate period.

This, in terms of the time constraint involved, was a total nonsense. It means that the Commons wanted to take longer than they had available to them, before the deadline expired (they were talking of taking weeks with it).

This has two effects, if accepted:

1. The deadline of 31st October is effectively breached, i.e, actually ignored.
2. Though the Commons is committed to examining the legislation, if no extension is granted, we'll crash out before our side can finish its business in ratifying the deal.

With this madness continuing on unopposed, Labour would've been able to examine the legislation in such detail that it would've given them the maximum unencumbered opportunity to invent wrecking amendments. We could've ended up with legislation incompatible with the terms of the deal agreed, meaning, that yet further negotiation could've resulted (IF the EU agreed to it !!).

Well ... Boris has had enough of these games.

He did have it in mind to pull the legislation entirely, if Labour continued with its vandalism. He's not quite done that. Since no timetable was agreed, he's taken the opportunity to put everything in limbo. Which means that we've virtually no chance at all, now, of getting this all tied off by Halloween.

No further consideration of the Bill will now occur, until Boris hears from the EU, to see if they'll grant an extension. If they don't, then, goodbye Brexit with a deal, regardless of how it is that everyone SAYS they want a deal.

It's nuts. Isn't it ?

If we do crash out minus a deal, I think it'll be nearly impossible for LABOUR to avoid blame for it (though they'll never, ever, accept that).

I think that we're moving close to a General Election, now. This dysfunctional lunacy makes a mockery of even trying to pretend that we've a coherent Governmental machinery in place, doing its job ....

If I were the EU, with all this going on, I'd give no extension. Now with that said, maybe the EU has more patience than an American? LOL!

Drummond

10-22-2019, 04:06 PM

If I were the EU, with all this going on, I'd give no extension. Now with that said, maybe the EU has more patience than an American? LOL!

Likewise ! I'd conclude that the UK side was far too mired in chaos to be worthy of further consideration. I'd be thoroughly fed up with them.

I believe that this precisely mirrors Macron's own view (from the French President). This is interesting, because if the EU is to grant a further extension, each and every other Member State has to agree. Macron could veto giving it.

Then again .. seeing the UK exit the EU has never been the EU's position, at least, up to now. Why would it be ? Quite apart from the unwelcome precedent a successful Brexit brings the EU, they stand to lose out, 'big time', if they terminate our membership of them, minus any deal.

As matters stand, each Member State pays hefty sums to the EU, just as a result of membership. We leave ... that revenue no longer goes into EU coffers. Worse, though, we've agreed a £39 billion 'divorce deal settlement', if we leave under mutually agreed terms (the EU demanded £100 billion, but never explained their reasoning). The EU says it wants that money (settling for £39 bn !) no matter what. Boris has always said that if we leave minus a deal, we'd be paying for nothing at all ... so, he'll refuse payment.

So, if the EU kicks us out on 31st October without a deal, it'll cost them that sum of money.

We'll see which way the EU jumps. Will exasperation win out ? Or will the EU still seek to earn their £39 billion ?

From the EU's side, their ideal is to make things so difficult that we revoke Article 50, and give up on leaving !

Drummond

10-22-2019, 04:20 PM

I don't know if this'll be of interest. Conservative Central Office has issued an email to all its known supporters (of which, of course, I am one !). Its purpose is to ask for a donation. But it has interesting text revealing the official Conservative reaction (and description) of tonight's chaos.

Here's an edited version of its text.

Dear xxxxx,

Last week, we finally secured a great new Brexit deal for Britain and for the first time in three years a deal has passed Parliament.

But tonight Labour have voted to delay it.

Jeremy Corbyn and Labour have voted for more delay and more uncertainty. They have humiliated the country again.

I’m determined to get Brexit done. But I need your help ....

[donation request followed !]

Jeremy Corbyn and Labour will ensure all we keep talking about is delaying Brexit and more referendums – on Brexit and Scotland.

We are the only thing standing between Jeremy Corbyn and Downing Street and another [I]year or more of talking about Brexit. I’m asking you to stand with us.

[signed, Boris Johnson]

Gunny

10-22-2019, 04:43 PM

Who writes her speeches ?

Her speeches are the finished product of work undertaken by her personal Private Secretary. He, however, has the duty of incorporating drafts from Government Ministers and then 'knitting them together' into one finished composition.

Whether or not, somehow, the Queen has any impact on public opinion, this cannot be seen to come from anything she says. The British monarchy is required in public to maintain absolute neutrality.

I believe this is also true for all members of the Royal Family (so it's not as though she could use Prince Charles as a mouthpiece, for example ...).

Consider a scenario where a Corbyn Government became a reality. She can't stand in opposition to it, in any way. I cited the example of Harold Wilson's Premiership ... his was a very Left wing agenda. The Queen did not, and could not, oppose it.

A Government is democratically elected. A Corbyn Government getting that electoral support would immediately react to the smallest intervention by the Queen by saying that it was not only unconstitutional, but an insult to the intentions of the voting Public. Here, all Parties set out manifesto pledges and pledge to carry them out, if elected. If the Queen voiced an objection, she'd be seen (it could be argued) as her defying democracy itself.

This might be of interest; not only because of the fact that it happened, but also because of the furore caused by its becoming public knowledge !

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9965808/the-queen-david-cameron-blabbing-scottish-referendum/

As I say: the Queen CANNOT be seen to be less than politically neutral at all times.Here's what I am saying, and in response to you last statement/sentence: You say the Queen must be seen as politically neutral at all time; yet, her statement is far from politically neutral. It takes a political stance on BREXIT.

So I don't get it. What is the point to the Queen making a statement at all if it stands for nothing? To give something legitimacy, no? The Queen's "stamp". It has to mean something to someone or something.

I'm not a Brit, but it would mean something to me if I was. ESPECIALLY since I agree with Her Majesty :)

Drummond

10-22-2019, 05:35 PM

Here's what I am saying, and in response to you last statement/sentence: You say the Queen must be seen as politically neutral at all time; yet, her statement is far from politically neutral. It takes a political stance on BREXIT.

So I don't get it. What is the point to the Queen making a statement at all if it stands for nothing? To give something legitimacy, no? The Queen's "stamp". It has to mean something to someone or something.

I'm not a Brit, but it would mean something to me if I was. ESPECIALLY since I agree with Her Majesty :)

You're getting a little too fixated on the title 'The Queen's Speech'.

It is a speech she makes, to satisfy constitutional procedure. But it's a product of ritual, and is not her draft. It's written for her. What she reads are not HER words. They're just written as though they are.

It's all really a throwback to eras ago, when our monarchy retained real power. The ritual remains, its constitutional duty remains law. But as I say, she doesn't write those speeches. They're not her words. It's all drafted for her, by a Private Secretary, who in turn has to gather drafts of intent written by Government Ministers, each representing their own Departments. The speeches she reads are political speeches .. of course they are. But she's conveying no words of her own, confirming no personally-held views, when she reads them out.

The point of a Queens Speech is that the Government of the day is telling its people what Governmental objectives will be pursued over the coming Parliamentary Session. That is its purpose, and that is its reason for being voiced. The Queen refers to HER Government, because protocol that's never been done away with says that's so ... officially, 'Constitutionally', the UK is a monarchy. But she retains no real power. Our monarchy lost that power long ago. Now, it's a ritual, but a convenient one serving a political purpose she's had no hand in shaping.

I assure you, if Corbyn won an election, and you were to listen to the Queen's Speech following from it ... if you remained convinced that she was uttering HER words, you'd suddenly believe she had become a radical Socialist !

The law, as it stands, provides for the Queen operating as an official stamp for certain duties. Legal protocol is satisfied when she completes those duties. But she lacks authoritarian autonomy, far more completely than you think.

I'm sorry if you're inclined to disagree. But, I know my own country. I assure you I'm right.

Gunny

10-22-2019, 05:45 PM

You're getting a little too fixated on the title 'The Queen's Speech'.

It is a speech she makes, to satisfy constitutional procedure. But it's a product of ritual, and is not her draft. It's written for her. What she reads are not HER words. They're just written as though they are.

It's all really a throwback to eras ago, when our monarchy retained real power. The ritual remains, its constitutional duty remains law. But as I say, she doesn't write those speeches. They're not her words. It's all drafted for her, by a Private Secretary, who in turn has to gather drafts of intent written by Government Ministers, each representing their own Departments. The speeches she reads are political speeches .. of course they are. But she's conveying no words of her own, confirming no personally-held views, when she reads them out.

I assure you, if Corbyn won an election, and you were to listen to the Queen's Speech following from it ... if you remained convinced that she was uttering HER words, you'd suddenly believe she had become a radical Socialist !

The law, as it stands, provides for the Queen operating as an official stamp for certain duties. Legal protocol is satisfied when she completes those duties. But she lacks authoritarian autonomy, far more completely than you think.

I'm sorry if you're inclined to disagree. But, I know my own country. I assure you I'm right.I do not disagree with anything you have stated. BUT... I'm saying the words are there. If the words are the wish of the majority of whatever ministers or ministries or whoever it is the data represents, then there should be no problem with BREXIT, right? I ask that facetiously :)

Drummond

10-22-2019, 06:24 PM

I do not disagree with anything you have stated. BUT... I'm saying the words are there. If the words are the wish of the majority of whatever ministers or ministries or whoever it is the data represents, then there should be no problem with BREXIT, right? I ask that facetiously :)

Agreed !!! There should be no problem with Brexit. None at all. :rolleyes:

Unfortunately ... realities intervene. A reality where Socialist wreckers show complete contempt for the result of a Referendum in which well over 30 million people voted. A reality where a couple of hundred Leftie power-mad MP's think that THEIR wishes and agenda should outweigh those expressed by the UK's many millions of voters.

They claim to act in the service of 'democracy' when they do this.

Why ?

Because they're SCUM, that's why.:mad::mad:

Latest development: the BBC says that Donald Tusk, the EU official who received Boris's literature about the extension / non-extension request made days ago, is recommending to the other Member States to offer the UK an extension (again).

Looks like the Labour trash have won this round. May they enjoy the General Election to follow !!

Noir

10-23-2019, 05:00 AM

Drummond

10-23-2019, 07:42 AM

It might be the expression of the government, however it is a minority government and needs support from other parties to pass legislation.

The only other party that was supporting the conservatives was the DUP, Theresa Mays government gave the DUP £1 billion in funding to get the DUPs 10 votes. However, Johnson’s latest deal, with an Irish Sea border, is not something the DUP can support, so they haven’t.

Yes. There are some truths here ... unfortunately.

By the way, the Daily Mirror claimed it was £1.5 billion, not £1bn. But then, the Mirror is an especially hardline Leftie rag, so their wish to exaggerate for an agenda's sake is, I suppose, hardly surprising.

What will interest me now is what's about to happen, on two fronts. Firstly, will Tusk and his merry band of compliant EU Drone-States rubber-stamp the granting of a further extension ? A report just claimed that Labour (who were SO keen on wanting an election for literally years, but chickened out when offered one !) will only agree to an election if Tusk & Co give the UK a minimum three month extension ... they'll not agree to one if it's just for a few weeks.

[Just as Labour wanted the maximum possible time-latitude to submit wrecking amendments when scrutinising the Deal legislation .. so, also, they want an unencumbered path towards killing off the progress of Brexit entirely, should 'they win the election'.]

Secondly ... if/when faced with the prospect of a imminent election, what steps will Labour take to sanitise their official position, when they begin their campaigning ? If they do nothing about that, they're in for - I believe - one hell of a shock when they start to confront the electorate.

I wonder if they're so far removed from reality, so introspectively obsessed with their preferred political machinations, that they've genuinely no concept of the depth of anger out there !

Gunny

10-23-2019, 08:10 AM

Agreed !!! There should be no problem with Brexit. None at all. :rolleyes:

Unfortunately ... realities intervene. A reality where Socialist wreckers show complete contempt for the result of a Referendum in which well over 30 million people voted. A reality where a couple of hundred Leftie power-mad MP's think that THEIR wishes and agenda should outweigh those expressed by the UK's many millions of voters.

They claim to act in the service of 'democracy' when they do this.

Why ?

Because they're SCUM, that's why.:mad::mad:

Latest development: the BBC says that Donald Tusk, the EU official who received Boris's literature about the extension / non-extension request made days ago, is recommending to the other Member States to offer the UK an extension (again).

Looks like the Labour trash have won this round. May they enjoy the General Election to follow !!Your words appear to be describing the Democratic Party in the US. Our entire country should change for the desires of the few.

I find it absurd the vast majority sit silently by as it comes to pass. More absurd is the behavior of the left who would rather destroy nations than lose any of its feeble power.

Drummond

10-23-2019, 09:47 AM

Your words appear to be describing the Democratic Party in the US. Our entire country should change for the desires of the few.

I find it absurd the vast majority sit silently by as it comes to pass. More absurd is the behavior of the left who would rather destroy nations than lose any of its feeble power.

The problem is one of perception, and the very natural fact that people will perceive realities in their own terms.

I believe that what I call 'The Left', or 'Lefties' .. might refer to a particular set of people within any one context I happen (or you happen) to be considering at any moment in time, as though they were a distinct group with aims and ambitions, and a methodology, specific to that group. I also think, however, that it's not, in wider terms, anything like that simple ....

'The Left', or 'Lefties', I think share common psychological attributes. The result is that they think and act more similarly than you'd at first expect, given dissimilarities between events, societies, imperatives ... BUT ... since they all have similar hopes and ambitions, since the overall political 'nirvanas' they strive for are similar in nature, so their behaviours will be similar as well. So what if our relative societies have significant differences .. the 'Leftie vision' is still a shared vision, and the Left, being the Left, will exhibit similar characteristics when combatting societies' challenges to it.

The Left is obsessed with power, and commonly seeks to not only attain it, but concentrate it, so as to best wield it. The Left will see individualism, and individuals' wishes, as an unwelcome interference in that process. So it is that they ignore individuals, and why their system of rule veers towards proactive actions rather than reactive ones. They speak ... but it's mono-directional. They don't listen, not if they don't like what they hear.

The further Left the regime ... the less democratic its nature. Who has seen a Communist State that's fully democratic ? That's not true just in one place ... but in all places.

Certainly in my country, but perhaps increasingly in yours, the Left relies on propaganda. Its method and purpose ... see things OUR way, think that OUR way is the ONLY way. Adopt OUR values, believe what OUR people tell you. Reject everything else as undesirable.

I've always found this informative:

My boss (one of them) at my former place of work had a clear Left wing vision. He wanted the death of all Nation States, and for humanity to essentially exist as one nation only, unified in purpose, aspirations ... individual divergence to die a death. He hated America because its reverence for the individual spirit stood in defiance of such unity. He hated its power, because its power was not only applied in particular ways, but existed as a force distinct from many others. He hated its Capitalism, not only because of what it was, but because of its very success. Its success stood in opposition to others' receptiveness to what he insisted was a 'better way'.

I think that if Left wing movements, everywhere, enjoyed unprecedented success, they'd all end up joining up to each other, rather like a virus that spreads until everywhere is equally infected by it. The infection would have precisely the same characteristics, no matter where it had taken hold.

The Left is nothing more than a pernicious virus that exists to dominate in its own terms, making everyone subservient to it. Its central battle is ... individualism versus uniformity. Enterprise versus the death of aspiration.

Those who'd equivocate in the face of the Left, do the Left's work for them. See what the Left sees. Be persuaded by them. Because if you're not, the Left won't listen to your opposing view. You must see things their way.:no: Or else.:no::no:

Sieg Heil !!

Drummond

10-24-2019, 04:22 PM

Firstly .. we're waiting to see if the EU grants the expected extension of pulling out of the EU to 31st January. Most commentators believe that the UK will get it.

Tonight's development: Boris is offering a General Election, to happen on 12th December. Corbyn's been approached about it .. Labour has to agree if Boris will get the two thirds majority needed to enact one.

Boris has threatened that the business of Government 'goes on strike' if agreement isn't reached. Meaning, among other things, that all progress towards moving the Brexit deal forward is stalled.

Corbyn has responded by saying he'll agree nothing unless all possibility of a no-deal Brexit is 'taken off of the table' (this ignoring, as ever, that the EU has a lot of input in all of this, and that in fact they could guarantee that outcome if they felt like it !).

The Liberal Democrat Party (current leader Jo Swinson) sent a letter to Corbyn, suggesting another wrecking measure. She suggests that the Queens Speech pledges are tinkered with, to include an amendment committing the Government to take on a policy commitment to institute a 'Peoples' Vote' ... i.e ... commit to a Second Referendum on Brexit (its purpose being to stamp on the decision from the first one).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50174402

The PM has said he will give MPs more time to debate his Brexit deal, if they agree to a 12 December election.

Boris Johnson told the BBC he expected the EU to grant an extension to his 31 October deadline, even though he "really" did not want one.

But Jeremy Corbyn said he would not support an election until a no-deal Brexit is "off the table".

EU leaders are expected to give their verdict on delaying Brexit for up to three months on Friday.

Commons leader Jacob Rees-Mogg told MPs the government would on Monday table a motion calling for a general election.

Under the 2011 Fixed-Term Parliament Act, two-thirds of MPs must vote for a general election before one can be held.

Kathianne

10-24-2019, 10:00 PM

Drummond Noir

If this article has it right, I just cannot imagine what Americans would do under these circumstances. Truly, it makes our system seem coherent.

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/10/24/bojo-deal-parliament-lets-trade-deal-debate-time-election-seven-weeks/

Drummond

10-25-2019, 08:49 AM

@Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287) @Noir (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=517)

If this article has it right, I just cannot imagine what Americans would do under these circumstances. Truly, it makes our system seem coherent.

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/10/24/bojo-deal-parliament-lets-trade-deal-debate-time-election-seven-weeks/

My post #84 covers this already.

In fact, though, both my post and the article are outdated. A further development: the EU intends, now, to delay telling us what extension they'll grant until Monday next week. They say that before announcing an agreed period of extension, they want to see how the offer Boris made to Corbyn to give more examination time to the Deal legislation in return for an agreed 12th December election, plays out.

This makes things awkward for Corbyn ! :dance::coffee::coffee:

Given that we'd been given a three month extension, and that Corbyn would've known that today, he'd be in a comfortable position to decide on his tactics ... potentially, he could've said 'no' to the election immediately, then committed the Commons to several more weeks of scrutiny-time (calling Boris's bluff, and making Boris waste time in limbo ... the more time wasted, the more time there could've been the need for, in yet ANOTHER extension !).

But with the EU's announcement, the pressure is on Corbyn to get things done (or to be prepared to, anyway) far more quickly and completely. From the EU's side of things, they'll want to know what an extension is for ... how it'll be used, against what political conditions. If Corbyn agreed to a 12th December election, the EU could grant a lengthy extension to allow that to be done, & to see where everybody stood otherwise, afterwards. If he doesn't agree to one ... then uncertainty, confusion, continues on for everybody. The EU, in granting the extension, will see time wasted and have no idea how this will progress.

Macron (French President) is keen to only grant an extension to mid-November ! If he digs his heels in, he'd be able to veto any longer extension ... since EVERY other Member State must agree the period of extension.

Corbyn argues that he'll only agree to an election if Boris guarantees that 'no deal' is an impossibility ... he claims that legislation contained in the Bill includes that provision. If he gets his way, the UK will be legally incapable of having a Brexit without one.

Here's the thing: amendments can be made to our legislation radical enough to force us to change provisions in the deal (for example, a PERMANENT Customs Union has already been suggested, which itself would change the deal). Changes to the deal would involve further negotiation ... what if another measure was suggested that the EU wouldn't agree to ? It took them many months to agree to drop the backstop provision !!

Amendments proposed ... further negotiation ... further stalling ... combined with being legally bound to ONLY leave, WITH a deal ... all that could drag on indefinitely !! This is the chaotic uncertainty ruling out 'no deal' would produce, all of it authored BY LABOUR.

So, we've got to see what happens on Monday. We'll not have the luxury of knowing the EU's intention before then, so Corbyn will have to give way if we're to have progress. If he does, we'll probably have our election and the Brexit deal will be revisited afterwards (UNLESS Corbyn's people use time granted by Boris, and use it productively and well, and without wrecking amendments getting in the way ... not likely, if Corbyn remains obstructive).

If the situation arises (unlikely, yet very possible) of Corbyn agreeing to an election, then Macron gets his way and the extension runs out, BEFORE IT ... then Corbyn will probably have to agree to ratify .. at breakneck speed. Either that, or, we crash out minus a deal.

... Or, Corbyn's stupid and arrogant enough to order a further extension request in defiance of it .....

If the EU grants no extension, it seems we'll do that anyway.

[Kathianne, on your point about 'coherence' .. I'd simply say that all this comes from two factors: our stupidity for ever having being tied to the EU at any time (!!) ... combined with all the monumental chaos Corbyn & his ilk have created, and are continuing to create. If he'd truly been committed to respecting the 2016 Referendum, and, had he been as keen on seeing us leave with a deal as he's said, we could've been out already, by last March ! Our system is fine -- it's knowing unprecedented chaos because THAT CHAOS IS BEING MANUFACTURED, in defiance of democratic will.]

Drummond

10-25-2019, 09:15 AM

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/eu-poised-to-agree-in-principle-on-brexit-delay-but-wait-to-set-date-a4270646.html

EU leaders have postponed deciding on the length of a possible Brexit delay as Boris Johnson struggled to gain opposition support for a pre-Christmas election.

The decision came after the 27 EU ambassadors met on Friday to discuss granting the UK an extension past the current October 31 deadline.

They have agreed that a Brexit extension is needed, with a diplomat saying they will decide on its length next week, which will follow Monday's vote in the Commons on holding a snap election on December 12.

Following the decision, Mr Johnson said: "Parliament, as you know, has decided that they want to ask Brussels to keep us in the EU... At the moment the EU is trying to make up its mind what to do. We should be leaving on October 31.”

It comes as the Prime Minister admitted on Thursday that he would not meet his "do or die" Halloween deadline and demanded a pre-Christmas poll to end the "nightmare" Brexit crisis.

In an interview with Sky News on Friday, Mr Johnson said his offer for more time on the Brexit deal in exchange for a new election is "reasonable" and it is up to Jeremy Corbyn to "decide whether he wants to get this deal done or not".

He added: “It’s in (the EU's) power now to decide whether or not to have an extension. What we have is a great deal on the table.

“It’s a deal that’s been approved by Parliament, and what I’m saying is that it’s up to the Opposition, it’s up to Jeremy Corbyn, to decide whether he wants to get this deal done or not.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/brexit-update-eu-leaders-delay-giving-britain-extension-until-after-its-decision-on-holding-snap-general-election/ar-AAJkeWi?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=mailsignout

Jeremy Corbyn has said he wants to see the terms of any Brexit extension offered by the EU before deciding which way to vote on Monday.

Meanwhile, Chancellor Sajid Javid has said the Government will push "again and again" for a general election if the opposition denies Mr Johnson a pre-Christmas election.

Mr Javid said the stalemate over Brexit had reduced Westminster to a "zombie parliament", and that it was now up to Labour to end the deadlock by agreeing to go back to the country.

With the Budget scheduled for November 6 having already been cancelled, the Chancellor suggested ministers would put other government business on hold until the issue was resolved.

"The Opposition have said, week after week, that if there is a delay of three months, which is what they requested through Parliament, then they will vote for a general election, so let's see if they keep their word," he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.

"And if they don't then we will keep bringing back to Parliament a motion to have an election - and we will keep doing that again and again.

"As for other parliamentary business, we'll have to wait and see what that is, and we will react to it at that time."

While some around Mr Corbyn back a snap election, many Labour MPs are bitterly opposed to a poll, fearing confusion over the party's position on Brexit will cost them at the ballot box.

Shadow home secretary Diane Abbott said they needed an "explicit commitment" that a no-deal Brexit was off the table before they would be prepared to back an election.

EU envoys to Brussels were due to discuss the length a third delay to Brexit on Friday, though officials said they would be reluctant to set a date because it could dictate the direction of political events in London.

According to a draft decision by the 27, which was seen by Reuters on Thursday evening, a delay would be granted "with the view to allowing for the finalisation of the ratification" of the divorce agreement sealed with Mr Johnson last week.

The draft text left the new Brexit date blank, but said the split could take place earlier if ratification was completed earlier - an idea known as "flextension", an amalgamation of the words "flexible" and "extension".

An EU official explained: "It's basically between a three-month flextension or a two-tier one."

Under the first idea, Britain would leave on January 31, three months after the current departure date, but earlier if it and the EU ratify an agreement before that.

The second one would include a second specific date when Britain could leave.

Drummond

10-25-2019, 01:02 PM

https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/25/france-wants-britain-eu-within-two-weeks-brexit-fatigue-kicks-10979784/?ito=article.desktop.share.top.facebook&fbclid=IwAR1W8qRaqHcRLwvUig3ysQ376H_xIScmfOECR8yPw ErUVTc-XER5deYMx2s

European officials are meeting today to discuss the length of the latest delay to Brexit with the choice between a three-month wait and a two-tier exit.

However, they may not actually decide today and a result could be expected on Monday. It has emerged that France is leading calls for the UK to leave within the next two weeks after Boris Johnson lost crucial votes in Parliament, leaving the decision over a delay to EU leaders.

European Council president Donald Tusk has said that he would push for a three-month delay. However, French President Emmanuel Macron is said to be leading a rebellion that includes Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain and possibly the Netherlands calling for a shorter extension.

Mr Tusk has the backing of Germany and Ireland for the longer extension.

Drummond

10-25-2019, 05:58 PM

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/10/25/labour-opens-door-indefinite-brexit-delay-jeremy-corbyn-rules/?fbclid=IwAR3PZ3IcBTt_YW8Fz7Rxdui3pHAqRMNuXHF0LrIM evXe0MkT1QBZhgwMucc

Labour opens the door to indefinite Brexit delay as Jeremy Corbyn rules out an election until no deal is 'off the table'

Jeremy Corbyn has left the door open to a Brexit delay beyond Jan 31, as his allies last night warned that Labour would block an election until no deal was ruled out by law.

The Labour leader signalled he will order his MPs to vote down Boris Johnson’s request next week for a poll on 12 December, describing the proposal as “really odd so near Christmas”.

While he refused to rule out backing the motion, he claimed that Labour’s support would be conditional on the Prime Minister providing safeguards against no deal to his “satisfaction”.

What have I said in other posts ?

This is all about VANDALISM.

There are forces wanting Brexit stalled or even derailed entirely. Labour leads them.

It'd be fascinating to see Corbyn's refusal to move forward as interpreted in EU eyes as proof that granting an extension probably served no quantifiable purpose .. so, they refuse to grant one, on that basis !! If that happened, we'd most likely be bounced into an enforced 'no deal' Brexit, and if so, CORBYN will be at fault !

Noir

10-28-2019, 03:37 PM

The EU has accepted the UKs extension request to 31st January 2020.

Drummond

10-28-2019, 06:28 PM

The EU has accepted the UKs extension request to 31st January 2020.

Yes. The EU has acted on the enforced extension request .. the one Boris was legally compelled to send, which he did, in an UNSIGNED letter.

They apparently ignored the accompanying letter (SIGNED by Boris) requesting that it not be acted upon.

I believe the buzz-word for this latest one is 'Flextension' ... in that, though it extends to 31st January, we could leave before that date (Leftie vandalism permitting, of course).

The current issue is Boris's attempts to get a General Election process up and running. He set a date of 12th December for it. So, this was put to a vote this evening. It needed a two-thirds majority of ALL MP's for it to pass. But this figure wasn't reached, because Labour (who else ??) ABSTAINED, meaning their votes were absent. So, goodbye, two-thirds majority, automatically.

Boris is plugging on. He's now going to try (I hadn't heard of this myself, until now !) for getting a 'ONE LINE BILL' passed, which only needs a simple majority to pass. Again, he's trying for a 12th December election.

Not to be outdone .. the LibDems, with SNP support requested, want their own One Line Bill passed, this one asking for an election on 9th December !!

Are they doing this to be childishly petty, just to spite Boris, as if to say 'WE are in charge of this' .. ? No doubt. They argue that 12th December is too near Christmas, whereas the 9th is not (! :rolleyes:) ... that students will be moving from college and university areas to home .. this mattering, because they can only be registered to vote in ONE locality .. and, that the earlier date of 9th December makes it far harder for Boris to get all Brexit legislation through, to pass all three Readings in the House (the LibDems have a hard policy of stopping Brexit entirely, clearly stated).

This is where we now stand, with Boris pushing hard for his 12th December election. One attempt to get it has failed (... because 'Labour really WANT AN ELECTION' :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:). Another one is to be attempted. And, Labour's vandalism continues on.

As I posted before: Labour resist election moves by arguing that all possibility of a Brexit enacted devoid of a deal, must go .. it must be impossible to attain one without a deal, they say, before they'll be 'bounced' into an election. This is despite the fact that whenever a deal appears, they vote against it !!!

So, they're wreckers, pure & simple.

But then ... they are creatures of the Left.

Enough said.

Drummond

10-28-2019, 06:38 PM

One other small detail ....

Boris communicated with the EU, to ask them to ensure that this latest extension (.. sorry, 'Flextension' ..) will be the last one they'll be prepared to grant us.

The EU has REFUSED to agree to this.

Kathianne

10-28-2019, 07:19 PM

Drummond

10-28-2019, 10:24 PM

It seems to me that Boris should say, "Ok, let's go with the 9th, if that's what it takes to give the people their say and get something done."

Not 'caving,' rather an example of compromise to get the work done.

Seems reasonable.

Then again .. doing that would see him side with two Parties who both have long-term aims to see the UK's Brexit to be reversed. Doing that could anger some in Boris's own Party. That, in turn, could see them rebel against their own Party, causing a fresh rebellion, and a critical loss of needed votes.

Boris has already had to disenfranchise (i.e kick out) around 20 of his own MP's from the Party for rebelling against him in critical voting. The last thing he needs is to cause another rebellion.

I think Boris should try things his way, first, and if he doesn't succeed, he might try your alternative, having proved he can't do anything else.

Drummond

10-29-2019, 05:41 AM

An 'unconfirmed rumour' being reported this morning .. that Boris & his LibDem opposition (not to be confused with Labour vandals) may settle on 11th December for election day.

Today's Bill asking for a Dec 12th date will probably proceed, though ... it has a greater chance of succeeding, as the form of Bill only needs a simple majority.

Labour will, but of course, oppose it (.. because they 'really want' an election :rolleyes:....).

[I will probably not be posting, now, for a few days ... I'm traveling, so I'm away from my home computer. I'm sure Noir will keep folks apprised of developments ...]

Noir

10-29-2019, 08:07 AM

Labour will, but of course, oppose it (.. because they 'really want' an election :rolleyes:....).

Labour are supporting the December election.

STTAB

10-29-2019, 10:47 AM

Noir

10-29-2019, 10:58 AM

So, I havent really been keeping up with British politics, so someone correct me if I'm wrong, but am I too understand that there will now be an election on whether or not the British government should actually do what the British people voted for it to do 3 years ago?

If that's the case , I'd be pissed if I were British.

Not quite.

We will have a general election, and Brexit certainly be the spotlight issue. However election campaigns cover a vast array of topics and can not be considered as just a ‘Brexit yes or no’ vote. Which is why some want a second referendum instead of (or aswell as) a general
election.

It’s also worth pointing out that we had an election in 2017 (when one wasn’t due until 2020) when the conservatives under May thought that they would win more seats and push through Brexit, in the end they lost seats, to the point which they lost a majority in the house, which is why they are now a minority government.

This election will almost certainly lose the conservatives more seats. They’re just hoping the other major parties lose more.

Noir

10-31-2019, 07:34 AM

Another promise broken.

12229

CSM

11-01-2019, 06:47 AM

So...

What impact (if any) will John Bercow's "retirement" have on the Brexit controversy? From what I understand, he was very vocal in his opposition to the UK leaving the EU.

Noir

11-01-2019, 07:05 AM

So...

What impact (if any) will John Bercow's "retirement" have on the Brexit controversy? From what I understand, he was very vocal in his opposition to the UK leaving the EU.

Bercow put a high degree of importance on the legislature being able to scrutinise the executive, this was not welcomed by the executive. We do not yet know who the next speaker will be, but it will be a high priority of Johnson to get a speaker that is more supportive of executive power.

CSM

11-01-2019, 07:18 AM

Bercow put a high degree of importance on the legislature being able to scrutinise the executive, this was not welcomed by the executive. We do not yet know who the next speaker will be, but it will be a high priority of Johnson to get a speaker that is more supportive of executive power.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Drummond

11-01-2019, 08:45 AM

Labour are supporting the December election.

Truly amazing.

What came over them ???

Kathianne

11-01-2019, 08:50 AM

Truly amazing.

What came over them ???
Hope you had a nice trip, glad you're back!

Drummond

11-01-2019, 08:52 AM

So, I havent really been keeping up with British politics, so someone correct me if I'm wrong, but am I too understand that there will now be an election on whether or not the British government should actually do what the British people voted for it to do 3 years ago?

If that's the case , I'd be pissed if I were British.

This is very near the truth of it.

Noir is 'technically' correct, of course. However, Brexit has dominated everything in British politics for many months.

I think it'll play out as you summarise it, STTAB. YES, there are a great number of people 'pissed' at how Brexit has remained stalled, how the wishes of the UK's people have been treated with utter contempt by the Left. For me ... the best thing about these coming weeks will be when hopeful Labour candidates for election speak to the ordinary person on the street, canvassing for votes. They'll be left in no doubt how people feel. That's a given.

Party tactics are beginning to play out. Boris is treating it as a 'Brexit' election. Corbyn, by contrast, is trying to take the spotlight off of Brexit and cover other issues. Not too surprising, that, because he'd rather people were diverted from their feelings of betrayal ... how else is Labour going to have a prayer of getting elected ??

Drummond

11-01-2019, 08:52 AM

It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

.. and then some !!! :rolleyes:

Drummond

11-01-2019, 08:54 AM

Hope you had a nice trip, glad you're back!

I'm actually 'not'. Still travelling ... I'm typing this in an Internet Cafe in north London.

I'll be returning home to Wales in around 24 hours .. and can spend more time here once that's done.

Noir

11-01-2019, 08:55 AM

Truly amazing.

What came over them ???

They got confirmation from the EU of the extension date, which removed the possibility of a no deal, allowing them to commit to an election without fear of the Benn act being undermined.

Drummond

11-01-2019, 09:10 AM

There's been a development that might be of interest.

Nigel Farage is head of our 'Brexit Party' (it exists for just that one purpose). Nigel has been pushing for Brexit for a great many years, first as head of UKIP, now head of the far newer Brexit Party.

Well ... he's a friend of Donald Trump. Nigel also has a broadcasting slot on LBC, a London-based radio station ... it broadcasts news and phone-in programmes. Trump phoned the station last night, and the British people heard a long conversation between the two.

Trump has caused a stir. He's expressed support for Boris Johnson, BUT, has also said that the Brexit deal Boris is standing by is one where the US won't be able to give us the level of future trade we were hoping for and expecting.

This, of course, puts a dent in Boris's election campaign. You'd naturally expect Boris to say that the UK will have a bright trading future, once Brexit is 'done 'n' dusted'. With Trump intervening as he has, it has to follow that Boris's job will be made harder.

Corbyn might have felt like celebrating ... were it not for Trump's condemnation of him in the same conversation ....

We'll have to see how this plays out. When Obama intervened in another of our elections, when he said that if people voted for Brexit, the UK would be put at the back of the trading queue with the US .. it played very badly. Some people who thought highly of Obama before, had to reconsider their viewpoint out of it. Now, with Trump's intervention on LBC ... we may see a repeat of the voter resentment over what will be seen as unwelcome interfering arrogance.

Needless to say, the BBC is currently concentrating on this in their news broadcasts. And Corbyn is seeking to capitalise on it all.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50258139

The government has defended the UK's Brexit deal with the EU, following criticism from the US president.

Donald Trump said the US "can't make a trade deal with the UK" under Boris Johnson's EU withdrawal agreement.

But Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick said the PM's plan was a "good deal" that allows the UK to "strike free trade deals around the world".

Other comments made by Mr Trump led Labour to accuse him of trying to "interfere" in the election.

Speaking to LBC, the president said Mr Corbyn would be "so bad" as prime minister and that Mr Johnson was "the exact right guy for the times".

Mr Corbyn accused him of "trying to interfere" in the UK general election to boost "his friend Boris Johnson".

Drummond

11-01-2019, 09:17 AM

They got confirmation from the EU of the extension date, which removed the possibility of a no deal, allowing them to commit to an election without fear of the Benn act being undermined.

So, Noir (I'll probably see your reply late tomorrow. BTW).

I'm looking forward to the British electorate telling Labour candidates, in no uncertain terms, that DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY should mean something !! It shouldn't be for Labour to decide that they will stall progress towards Brexit until or unless it happens to meet THEIR terms for it !!

The terms they've insisted upon were not voted for by the British people ... NOBODY voted for a specific version of Brexit being sacrosanct over all others. Any and all stalling there's been, has been because Labour has twisted Brexit into being a creature of its own shaping and preference.

Will Corbyn listen to the electorate in the coming weeks ?

Of course not.

Labour doesn't listen. It DICTATES.

Sieg Heil .....

Gunny

11-01-2019, 09:08 PM

So, Noir (I'll probably see your reply late tomorrow. BTW).

I'm looking forward to the British electorate telling Labour candidates, in no uncertain terms, that DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY should mean something !! It shouldn't be for Labour to decide that they will stall progress towards Brexit until or unless it happens to meet THEIR terms for it !!

The terms they've insisted upon were not voted for by the British people ... NOBODY voted for a specific version of Brexit being sacrosanct over all others. Any and all stalling there's been, has been because Labour has twisted Brexit into being a creature of its own shaping and preference.

Will Corbyn listen to the electorate in the coming weeks ?

Of course not.

Labour doesn't listen. It DICTATES.

Sieg Heil .....That's the way the Democrats here are playing the game. They know what's best for the people and what the people "really want":rolleyes:

Drummond

11-02-2019, 03:55 PM

They got confirmation from the EU of the extension date, which removed the possibility of a no deal, allowing them to commit to an election without fear of the Benn act being undermined.

Ok, my travels are over, I'm back home using my own computer ... so, I've more time to consider what I read here.

Noir .. I'm well aware that Corbyn said he'd not agree to an election until 'the possibility of no deal was off the table'. But I'm failing to see how it is that he's sure a no deal Brexit is not still a possibility.

Scenarios come to mind, Noir.

For example: what if Farage had succeeded in his ploy ? He offered Boris a pact, didn't he ? In return for Boris agreeing to rethink the Brexit approach, so that instead of the current deal going through, Nigel Farage wanted a cleaner and altogether more complete break with the EU .. well, didn't he ? In return, he was offering not to contest seats where to do so would give Labour a greater chance of success through an otherwise splitting of votes ranged against Labour election candidates.

Boris didn't go for it. But, he could have. The possibility existed.

We also don't know that the latest extension given to us won't be the last we get (remember Macron's power of veto, for example, or any one country's power of veto). YES, Boris wanted a commitment that the 31st January deadline would be the last the EU would offer, and yes, they refused to confirm it would be. But, this falls short of a promise that they'll definitely grant more, if we ask for them !

Consider that the election we're going to have doesn't have a certain outcome, and therefore, we don't know where we will stand at the end of it. Labour, God forbid (!!!) could actually win it !!:terror: What happens then ... will we have to undergo a second Referendum, which will take time to arrange, and what if its outcome is also a game changer (... and do we know for certain what will be offered in one .. what its wording will be)? We may find that the time a Referendum takes will ITSELF require another extension, which again, the EU has not GUARANTEED to give us.

Say that the Conservatives win outright, and we're back to the current status quo. Labour may tie up the Brexit process for yet longer, dreaming up amendments to the legislation, which are radical enough to force a renegotiation (.. again !!). What if the EU refuses that, and so believes that no further extensions should be granted ?

So you see, Noir, Corbyn can't KNOW that 'no deal' is off the table as an eventual outcome.

No.

Corbyn decided to agree an election, because he knew how much more of a ludicrous farce he'd be creating if he continued to hold out against one, that earning him a public backlash. It's that simple.