Brexit: Parliament Suspended

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Tiassa, Aug 29, 2019.

  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    (What? I don't have a photo of Boris, for some reason.) Trooping the Colour, 10 June 2010.

    So ... this is how it reads on the west side of the Pond:

    With scarce time to unify parliament behind a Brexit deal, why would Boris Johnson take an action that reduces the available time further still, while uniting parliament in opposition to him?

    One answer is that Johnson believes the suspension will leave parliament with insufficient time to pass legislation forbidding a "no deal" Brexit. Johnson's official position is that the U.K. must leave the E.U. on October 31, with a deal or without one. Theoretically, tying parliament's hands strengthens the credibility of Johnson's hardline position, both in the eyes of his supporters, and in those of E.U. negotiators: If the Europeans decide Johnson isn't bluffing, perhaps fear of a hard Brexit's collateral damage will lead E.U. officials to soften their opposition to various British demands, including the removal of the "Irish backstop" provision from a final agreement.

    But economists at Berenberg Bank note that there are at least three flaws in this logic:

    1. The E.U. is already taking the hard-Brexit risk seriously.

    2. Even if Johnson tries to ramp up the pressure, the much bigger E.U. would still believe that the U.K. has much more to lose from a hard Brexit than the E.U.

    3. The move strengthens the E.U.'s suspicion that Johnson's prime motive is to win a snap election shortly after Brexit rather than to conclude a deal with the E.U.​

    That third point gestures towards an alternative explanation for Johnson's action: It is intended to spark a parliamentary revolt — so as to trigger a new general election. In this view, the suspension of parliament will force lawmakers to accelerate their plans for legislatively preempting a "no deal" Brexit, and/or organizing a vote of no confidence in the government, which would clear the way for Johnson to run a populist campaign against the parliamentary Establishment this fall.


    And here's the thing about the American view: We're also a society in which our conservative movement has long complained that government just doesn't work, and there's a joke nigh on thirty years old about it, that Republicans get elected and then prove it.

    And in a way, it seems almost like the whole point of what our conservatives are on about is trying to kick and stomp and piss all over everything in a neurotic-rupture temper tantrum because they don't get their way. Greater than is not equal, we tell them, and they cry about elitists violating their rights. The Constitution, says the Supreme Court, is not a suicide pact; conservatives respond with a sneer, "Wanna bet?"

    This is one of the reasons why I keep pointing out the Gay Fray was about women; they really are pissed; they really weren't kidding when they said they felt offended. Think of when traditional supremacism lost in these United States: Civil War, Brown, Loving, Roe ... and then something of a gap, a period in which our laws muddled around, and even the One-Drop Rule found affirmation. Berhanu hit white supremacism; Romer v. Evans buried Christian supremacism, and after Lawrence, in 2003, things were so dire, Ted Cruz could be found at a federal court in Texas, arguing against the people's right to access dildos. But then came Windsor, and then Obergefell, as if electing a black president wasn't enough.

    I get what is happening in these United States: Traditional supremacism is attempting to take back what it considers its rightful dominion over these United States, and if it can't have them, no one can.

    And I promise, that really does explain the ginormous fahqueue coming from American conservatives.

    But what the hell is up with the UK?

    I mean, I can think back, over a decade, and chuckling as Mark Steel noted the astounding turnout for fox hunting, but, seriously, really? Boris just went and put USC II.3 on the clock in the U.S., because this is, after all, Donald Trump. We will deal with that when Republicans get around to it, but in the meantime, wow, okay, so, the Prime Minister wants to shut down Parliament.

    That's the thing about II.3; under no circumstances should I suggest imagining Majority Leader McConnell appealing to President Trump to adjourn the Congress, but, hey, we all know it's coming, right?

    Meanwhile, the British Prime Minister would very much appreciate if Parliament would simply shut the holy living hell up; or, the view from our side of the Pond is cynical as hell, to the point that we might wonder if a failure to forestall a hard Brexit will be what finally shatters the British love affair with its monarchy.

    But, still, what is actually happening?


    Levitz, Eric. "Brexit: Why Boris Johnson Just Asked the Queen to Suspend Parliament". New York. 28 August 2019. 28 August 2019.
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    that was well defined inside the old guard tory camp around 1.5 years ago.

    they were having rebel tea partys on their autumn garden lawns in protest & not inviting their local made-man tory pie eater
    it was all very french revolution of them.

    They asked for roast lamb & cucumber sandwiches, and got smashed avocado with mushy peas(& no spoon to eat it with).

    all Boris the boar has to do is stick it to the toffs & the man and he will get the BREXIT vote in an election.
    less the incumbent party stallwarts, which should be enough to sail in well ahead of the pack

    some side mouth comments about lazy government and 5 weeks paid holiday for free would probably secure some good public support.
    suggesting local tory MP's need to put their wellies on and get into helping their local communities with some real work for a change.
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2019
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    any _ock in a storm Teddy the Cruiser ...(any excuse is good enough to collect gay porn & sex toys)
    Teddys house in the hamptons has cottage appeal

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. LaurieAG Registered Senior Member

    LOL, the last time the parliamentarians took control under Oliver Cromwell the monarch, Charles I, got the chop.
  8. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    my goodness SeventySix PageS ... thats some very comprehensive product testing

    spending working class poor health care money wisely ...

    i respectfully insert my oppulent interjection into due process your honour
    may the court please observe me ...slowly & with all cost... paid by the tax payer...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    "cruiser" is the slang term for a person who drives around between public places looking for other people who are looking for casual sexual encounters in public places.
    the english term is called cottaging
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2019
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    [#antisocial | #suicidepact]

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Amy Davidson Sorkin↱, for the New Yorker:

    Boris Johnson, who replaced Theresa May as Prime Minister last month, has applied all of his cleverness to move the definition and practice of time-wasting to new extremes. In a particularly patience-smashing move, earlier this week, he requested and received Queen Elizabeth II's consent for a “prorogation” of the current session of the House of Commons, which means that it would be suspended as soon as September 9th, with no parliamentary business to be conducted between then and October 14th. The practical effect is that Parliament will have even less time to do anything before the October 31st deadline, such as blocking a no-deal Brexit. And some of the scarce remaining time will be filled with the centuries-old rituals that attend the reopening of Parliament—waste camouflaged by ceremonial frippery.

    Johnson claimed that proroguing Parliament was just an efficient way to get the government organized regarding its domestic agenda, such as new plans for the National Health Service and strategies for fighting crime. It had nothing to do, he claimed, with his stated intention to take the U.K. out of the E.U. on October 31st, “come what may.” Very few people buy this explanation (only about thirteen per cent of the public, according to an Ipsos mori poll). And so a certain amount of time is also due to be expended arguing a point that is already clear: Boris Johnson is a liar. This is not simply a matter of honor. Prime Ministers have a lot of latitude in proroguing Parliament, but doing so in bad faith, for false reasons that hide the true goal of evading Parliament in order to carry out a program that runs against the wishes of a majority of M.P.s, may well violate the strictures of British constitutionalism. (Johnson's cynical maneuver parallels the Trump Administration's attempt to use a made-up pretext to insert a citizenship question from the census, which the Supreme Court rejected.)

    John Bercow, the Speaker of the House of Commons, has called the move a “constitutional outrage”; Jacob Rees-Mogg, an arch Brexiteer who is now the leader of the House of Commons, said that Bercow and others were “crying Constitutional wolf,” whatever that means. Because the U.K.'s constitution is largely uncodified, and reliant on practice and precedent, there is some genuine uncertainty about what is being set in motion. The Prime Minister's power relies on the presumption that he can, when it comes down to it, muster a majority in Parliament, and it's not at all clear that Johnson does. Possible outcomes include a no-confidence vote or a new general election, at some point—but, meanwhile, October 31st is getting closer.

    Three major court challenges to the prorogation have already been launched in separate courts in three of the U.K.'s constituent parts: England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. The case in Scotland was brought by Joanna Cherry, an M.P. with the Scottish National Party, who was joined by dozens of other legislators. On Friday, a judge denied them an immediate injunction but set a further hearing for Tuesday, saying that it was “in the interest of justice that it proceeds sooner rather than later.” The English plaintiffs include John Major, a former Prime Minister from Johnson's own party, and Jo Swinson, the leader of the Liberal Democrats; they'll have a hearing on Thursday. And there will be yet another hearing on Friday, in Belfast; there, the case has been brought by Raymond McCord, a peace activist who argues that a no-deal Brexit would violate the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. (He has a point.)

    Ireland remains at the heart of the problem, because Brexiteers can't seem to accept that leaving the E.U. will also change the U.K.'s relationship with the Republic of Ireland, which will remain an E.U. member, and thus change the nature of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. The agreement that Johnson's predecessor, Theresa May, negotiated with the E.U. included what is called the “Irish backstop”—basically, it allowed time to figure out how the border would work, and put in place what amounted to an insurance policy to make sure it would get done. This would involve keeping the U.K. in line with the E.U.'s customs regime and rules until a final deal is worked out. Johnson insists that the backstop be scrapped but has no plan to replace it with anything but an assurance that, with a little time, he'll figure it all out. On Friday, Ireland's deputy Prime Minister observed that this was not a serious suggestion. Johnson, he said, had yet to offer “any credible” alternative to the backstop.

    Buried in the middle of that anlysis is an echo of something we heard before:

    • The move strengthens the E.U.'s suspicion that Johnson's prime motive is to win a snap election shortly after Brexit rather than to conclude a deal with the E.U. That … point gestures towards an alternative explanation for Johnson's action: It is intended to spark a parliamentary revolt — so as to trigger a new general election. In this view, the suspension of parliament will force lawmakers to accelerate their plans for legislatively preempting a "no deal" Brexit, and/or organizing a vote of no confidence in the government, which would clear the way for Johnson to run a populist campaign against the parliamentary Establishment this fall. (Levitz↱)

    • The Prime Minister's power relies on the presumption that he can, when it comes down to it, muster a majority in Parliament, and it's not at all clear that Johnson does. Possible outcomes include a no-confidence vote or a new general election, at some point—but, meanwhile, October 31st is getting closer. (Davidson Sorkin)


    Someone recently wondered my use of the word, "antisocial", and while I thought the answer, that words like "bigotry", "racism", and "misogyny", apparently offend delicate sensibilities, was pretty straightforward; they are, in the end, antisocial behaviors.

    Still, though, if the answer is so straightforward, nigh on obvious, what is the confusion?

    Another way of looking at it is an American concept known as the Suicide Pact.

    It's a simple saying: The Constitution is not a suicide pact. What this means should be pretty easy to comprehend, that the Constitution is not to be used to destroy itself. What part of this isn't obvious: A system given to particular obligations cannot fulfill itself by failing.

    Failure is a resolution, an outcome; abnegation is an outcome; dereliction is an outcome. These resolutions, these outcomes, are not fulfillment. Furthermore, such abandonment, and betrayal, is a choice.


    Much like the Trump administration and Beltway Republicans can be seen as trying to wreck American governance, Prime Minister Johnson's maneuvering seems to describe a threat of wreckage, as if he wants disaster. Brinksmanship is what it is, and it sure as hell isn't a model bus. Just how obscure a question is it to wonder who benefits from a hard Brexit?


    Davidson Sorkin, Amy. "Boris Johnson's Parliamentary Runaround". The New Yorker. 30 August 2019. 30 August 2019.

    Levitz, Eric. "Brexit: Why Boris Johnson Just Asked the Queen to Suspend Parliament". New York. 28 August 2019. 30 August 2019.
  10. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    keeping in mind the populace masses voted for an action that he is seeking to force through by removing administrative action being designed and carried out be MP's to prevent it.

    Assigning some type of moral culpability for the MP's ineptness to run the peoples will to the Queen who is assisting to align the government with the peoples democratic vote seems a little disingenuous.

    it is meme negative name dropping
    attempting to create a political grumpy cat emotional diversion from facts.
    poor show
    populist for tory ass kissing im sure...
    i hope its 2 weeks unpaid leave for all those earning over 65,000.00 pounds a year
  11. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    no such thing as tin-pot fascist lawmakers in Britain.
    "Lawmakers" is an American bastardization of democracy and morality
    it has become normalized as a fascist apologist propaganda label to reinforce fascist control of government administrative power over the democratic freedom of the people.

    we will call you Toby
    Toby the law maker
    now whip dem niggas boy !
    "whats your name? LAWMAKERS!"
  12. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    I'll see you Kunta Kinte and raise you Lord Iffy Boatrace.


    —this approach seems to rely on a problematic foundation; my critique for this form tends to run, ceteris paribus is not in effect.

    In the U.S., the tax bill was written in crayon. Well, part of it was. But the most part of Trump voters didn't get what they voted for. Yes, Republicans passed a tax bill. We can call that a reflection of the people's democratic vote, even if it did the opposite of what they wanted, right?

    How badly is any leader allowed to damage the society on behalf of the people's ostensible will?

    It happened that I was able to make a weird joke, today, about how, "Revolutionaries Call for Revolution", isn't a headline; then I reminded that while sticking it to the bourgeoisie feels good, this brexit shit is going to fuck people up. And for our moment, that is the thing. Brexit is going to hurt.

    Going about it in a way to maximize chaos and pain is either the voters' will, or not.

    How badly did brexit voters intend to harm themselves?
  13. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    it is cold irony that the people did not vote labour, however, that was the voting cycle.
    Labour had been in and not delivered enough to keep the masses voting for them.
    given that would be a hard task for the UK when the banking sectors were down sizing and outsourcing as fast as possible.

    The loss of administrative and financial sector jobs to down sizing, automation and outsourcing to 3rd world countrys is the globalization they all purchased as plastic single use toys made in china.

    it is a global issue
    usa has the trade war, UK has brexit

    i personally support the re-negotiation of the UK trade deals as the swing toward nationalism undermines the nations ability to secure a stable national profitability as outsourcing starves the working class to death.

    i am not pro a hard brexit
    however i worry that allowing the UK parliament to continue to stab each other in the back endlessly at the tax payers expense while they watch their working class become unemployed is more soo a pre ww1 germany economy look.

    better the plaster is ripped off fast than to slowly bleed to death so the wound can be fixed.

    the tory ideology of just do nothing doesn't work
    Labour allowed themselves to become the big business apologists

    it is certainly a long way from ideal
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Not likely.
    Complex working systems, once destroyed, seldom can be put together again.
  15. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    There is no intention to put them back together again, but instead to build new ones that do as close a job to the original while still allowing the UK it’s sovereignty, no free movement, and all the other bits and bobs that Brexit voters might have wanted.
    And since there will be a desire on both sides of the issue to work together, those new systems will be put in place. It won’t be as sleek and efficient as the system we had before, but will also probably not be as bloated, and might give us more freedom to do what the UK government wants. Or that’s the idea.

    Personally I’m all for scrapping the whole Brexit thing and chalking it up as a bad hair day. New election, hung parliament, referendum, Brexit cancelled. Handshakes and apologies for wasting everyone’s time. Jobs a good ‘un.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  16. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member


    The EU is bloated bureaucracy run amok designed to suck money from functioning countries into failed counties

    Lots more but it's 1am here now and have a few more emails before back to sleep

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  17. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    thank goodness the handbag fight at tax payers expense among the rich toffs has stopped

    spending all those millions sitting around saying "no" like a small child refusing to eat its dinner.

    Grown adults lavishly spending working class tax money while they cut funding to disabled benefits and the elderly.

    miserable bastards !
  18. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Isn't that to some degree part of the problem?

    The American analog would be Republicans shifting to "socialism" in order to rebuild the Company Store.

    Even if we leave out the language that so offends delicate sensibilities, about immigration, racism, and supremacism, we're still left with a dysfunctional idea: "We don't want to compromise with people we don't like, no matter how much compromise we demand of them, so what we're going to do is just replace what disappoints us with something that we think looks better, pretend it's just that simple, and, well, everything oughta work, because why wouldn't it, because the only reason it wouldn't is the terrible people who won't give us every last thing we demand."

    I say, quarantine the island and leave them to it.

    And in that, we also find a solution to the Irish question, which is that the British finally get the hell out.

    That is to say, there are potential useful outcomes to this disaster.

    And if they eat the royalty, yeah, actually, "Sorry about that, we'll try to not be such racist, greedy fucks in the future," will probably suffice for reconciliation with the world.

    In that, the English ought to count themselves lucky. We Americans aren't escaping ourselves so easily. And as it is, it won't be so long an isolation in that case, because you'll have a bunch of Brits fleeing North Ireland and unable to go through Scotland, who in turn is utterly pissed off at England for getting them and Wales quarantined. Will London be able to do anything better than wax nostalgic about the days when snobby Northerners were the problem?

    In the U.S., one benefit we might get from the collapse of international trade, for instance, since it is now a thing conservatives seem to be after, would a sudden dearth of exotic salsas nobody will waste time making if mangoes get too expensive. While it is hard to see what the British get out of their departure and isolation from Europe, there is, however, the possibility that Edinburgh will look south to London, crack its knuckles, and say, "Oi! nae it jus'you 'n' me." Wales won't bother clearing its throat, at that point, but wisely pull back to the pub for another pint, and watch the bankers and inbred continentals get their teeth kicked in, proverbially if not literally.

    And think of what happens, then. German peacekeepers? Okay, okay, but seriously: If Americans speak up against Scottish reprisal, everyone will rightly shout us down per our apparent hypocrisy. If the Irish speak up, everyone will tell them to shut up on the grounds that they are Ireland, and that just means shut the effall up, because you're Irish, and nobody listens to you, anyway. When the French speak up, the Gilles Jaunt will accuse Macron of being Jewish. As far as moral authority goes, it's kind of a mess right now. To the other, though, that's also kind of what brexiteers wanted.

    Which, brings us back, in its way, back 'round:

    When I was young, the capitalist rebuttal to socialist and communist revolutionary theses relied in large part on the idea that society worked a certain way, and you couldn't just pull out one cog here or there and replace it with some other device and expect everything to keep working; whatever is wrong must be identified very carefully and repaired very painstakingly, so that things go on as much like they did, before, as possible. In this way, reds and pinkos were denounced and dismissed as naïve. And that was what it was. However, if we follow American history, this heritage leads directly to the American version we now see in play; that is, British conservatives are attempting for the right what their American fellows used to wield against the left and liberalizing hopes for the potential of society. It would be uncanny, but they're conservatives°.

    One thing about the bad hair day sounds like a joke in itself: People would need to go that sort of route in order to avoid brexiteers' delicate oversensitivities and proclivity toward imagining themselves victimized. That is, it would be impolite to discuss the supremacism and greed driving the movement, as doing would only further alienate the hurt feelings of the greedy; after a generation of politely avoiding the subject on their behalf, though, their children will hate you for ridiculing their feelings as a bad hair day.

    Also, it's kind of hard to explain, but our American, post-British experience led to a decades-long human rights fight most easily recognized by the name Miranda. Part of that rhetoric, especially during the Eighties, when our society chose a militant sort of tough-on-crime policy, including the rise of infamous "three-strikes" laws now facing dismantlement in courts and legislatures for excessive cruelty, involved an accusation of caring more about the rights of criminals than victims. It was always a ridiculous projection suggesting either willful lawlessness or else outright ignorance driving the conservative accusation, and history shows it was easily both.

    But in both the U.S. and U.K., it seems likely conservatives will appeal to this very idea, that when it comes time to reconicle, everyone is supposed to just give over and not give a damn about the people hurt; it's as if traditional empowerment majorities jealously want what they imagine feminists and nonwhites and Muslims and queers get.

    No, really, it's part of the conservative victim complex.

    And, yes, it's also an institutional thing, sort of. People who think we're a bunch of coffee-sipping liberals in the Seattle area have never seen us up close; it sounds like a ridiculous comparison, but it took over a decade to start building the light rail system people voted for because the city government, ostensibly liberal but largely "neoliberal", as the complaint goes, just didn't want to do it. And every time they thought they won a round, they tried to call off the rest of the process.

    But there is a certain amount of this that simply goes on in our society because it always has, and regardless of what label it has when it happens, it favors conservative, or, more appropriately, antisocial°°, outcomes.

    Think of the idea of forgiving brexiteers: The prospect that anyone might have any moral authority, or even reasonable cause, to judge the words and actions of supremacists and separatists offends the separatists and supremacists; that is what it is, but there remains a question to what degree the rest of society will shrug and agree because, well, the only fair thing to do is not ask these people to think anything negative about themselves. There can be neither peace nor justice if these are not allowed to harm the hell out of everyone else for the hell of it. As approximate ideas go, that's a version of how it looks from the outside.

    But I'm also considering the idea of hardliners, as if proroguing isn't simply about frustrating anti-brexit, but forcing a hard brexit because British antieuropeans find some value in it.


    ° There is an underlying pathology we can wait for another occasion to discuss, because it's long, deep, and messy. The underlying principles involve conceding conservatives were correct about certain aspects of their psychoanalyses of the world around them; the easiest generalization is to suggest they were correct because they were talking about their own. It is the underlying question of this pathology, and what it means for how these people perceive, acknowledge, and classify other people, even the mere fact that others exist, since what that otherness has to say never really seems to count for anything. It's almost like wondering what happens if gaslighting is actually an ingrained cultural trait. But what does it mean when, for years, and observably, as such, inherited by progeny, the only way these seem able to account for the fact that something or someone they might disagree with, or fail to understand, or simply find unsuitable to their own aesthetics, exists, is to project that existence in order to respond to the convenient fallacy instead of the real person, people, or circumstance? Indeed, in the U.S., such transgenerational fallacy is part of what has led us to the trumpswindle rupture. British iterations will be, well, fascinatingly British.

    °° Every once in a while, it is worth remembering that "conservative" only equals "antisocial" as it does, right now, because that is how things work out in the current phase. What worries me about leftist policy is when it forgets history; this feels like its own extraordinary danger, right now, but that's just me. The point is, we can screw up our retort badly enough—it is, after all, retort—to establish a properly conservative position defending functional, sociable governance. When we speak of political labels, yes, there are descriptions, but there are also functions, and there are also the underlying dialectics.
  19. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

  20. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    and all cabinet ministers PM's and whips etc... & house of lords get 2 years salary taken off them.

    the selfish whiny self entitled privilege that seem to think everything is ok as long as they get what they want join the pro user pays morality bandwagon.

    it is hard to perceive the EU union parliament to NOT be just another gold tooth banking cartel.
    however, the message is confused amongst selfish self interest that only wants certain aspects of the culture and laws and ideologies to be percieved by other states that do not share the same cultural values (Universal Health Care... Gun wage...unemployment universal salaries... compulsory work schemes...)

    the culture is quite different to a homogonised US pro machine gun school yard bully model of Egos & gang normalisation.

    the corporate Tory is a prison yard bitch to american bastardised moral values as a colonial cannibal.

    like slave markets ?
    international slave trading ?
    nuclear weapons treatys ?
    cease fires ?

    or ... do you mean privatised monopoly control of international government subsidized markets ?
  21. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Well, yes, to some degree. But that’s only once you get past the problem that there is no majority for any idea yet put forward, other than not to have a “no-deal” exit... you know, the one we’re actually heading for.
    48.1% of the country voted for exactly the same outcome. 51.9% voted for an array of different ideas, none of which have any actual majority. Yet we’re heading for the one option that fewest people it seems would have willingly expressed a desire for, had the options been spelt out. It’s like you have the option between white and non-white, with just over half saying they want non-white, and yet we end up with black.
    Maybe in their minds they honestly think it really is that simple, and that everything really ought to be smooth sailing. Although they do caveat the whole thing with words like “turbulence” or “choppy waters” being ahead.
    That really is the main problem: to quarantine the island will have to include NI, and that would mean hard-borders on the island of Ireland, the very thing neither side wants to do, yet the very thing that will inevitably happen without a deal....
    Which leads to...
    That’s a solution, much like Mexico having a solution to their people being stopped at the US borders by simply asking the US to leave.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The thing is, it’s not the British that are in Northern Ireland, but it’s that Northern Ireland wants to remain part of the UK. As soon as they pass a referendum that says that the majority in NI want to join with Ireland, the UK government will accede to the request. Just like they will when Scotland finally decide to split.
    The same with Gibraltar. And the Falkland Islands, and the rest of the mighty British Empire.
    We are nothing in Britain if we don’t have out stiff upper lip to fall back on (although only metaphorically, as otherwise it would certainly hurt!). It would all be over with a handshake, and a promise never to mention it again, before retiring to the Gentleman’s club for a port and cigar, while the wound across the rest of the country, those that actually work for their living, remains painful for decades, patched up with a makeshift sticking plaster, and the wishes for it not to fester. And don’t forget the lollipop on the way out.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Oh, there are some who actively favour a hard Brexit over any other kind. They want out but didn’t vote for the current agreement as it wasn’t hard enough.
    And to be honest, had we said from the outset, in triggering Article 50, that in 2 years time we will leave without a deal and trade on WTO terms, we would have had 2 years to put things in place to cope with the date of exit, and everyone would have had some degree of certainty about where they stood. As it is, the macabre dance being performed simply creates uncertainty, and that has been the most damaging so far, which when coupled with the woeful preparations for a hard Brexit... well, we live in interesting times.[/quote]
  22. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    at the risk of offending Sophie(no association intended)
    its murder on the parliament floor
  23. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    in reality of global politics that is exactly how the game is played
    they lie about tax cuts for the working class, and making new jobs and invigorating new industry yet they just give tax cuts to the rich and undermine regulation.
    same ol same ol ...
    absolutely no difference what so ever.
    this time has one huge difference
    instead of just the working class copping it in the larder & the wallet AND the doctors office
    it is the rich corporates copping it in the net profit margin by 5 to 10% in the mid to short term.
    THAT is the only thing that is driving the rich gold toilet seat toff MP's to slowly bleed the country to death to pay the piper who calls their dance tunes..
    the big corporates.

    if it was just mass unemployment for working class it would have gone through without a sniff from the rich selfish torys and turn coat labour & liberals
    as it stands the turn coat labour MP's and the liberal double dealing vacuum cleaner sales MP's are eating high tea with the Tory corporates

    nothing has changed at all.
    it is the fact that the bluff has been called
    now you can see the real cards on the table.

    i wonder if David Cameron knew what he was doing with this ?
    if he did then he is a master mind and though im dead broke poor i would still buy him a drink for it because it is one of the best wake-up calls for Labour and Liberals in the history of the UK parliament since WWII ended
    and all credit to him for exposing the sell-out greedy MP's who are just dancing to their corporate masters.

Share This Page