Thread: Brexit - It's Still On!

Originally Posted by NigelFarage

Labour have hijacked brexit to try to get into power.

The Tories refuse to compromise their form of brexit in a cross-party compromise.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

It works by being a representative democracy, a concept that even after 200 years many people cannot seem to get their heads around. MPs are not there to do what constituents tell them. That has never been the way in the UK system. If there's one thing clear from this mess it is that most Brexiters have no idea at all how British politics and the British Constitution works.

indeed, it's about electing competent members to represent dumb and incapable people in parliament and vote on decisions that dumb people don't understand or are not interested

Brexit: No-deal more likely but can be avoided - Barnier
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47783127

A no-deal Brexit is now more likely but can still be avoided, the EU's chief negotiator has said.

On Monday night, MPs voted on four alternatives to the PM's withdrawal deal, but none gained a majority.

Michel Barnier said a long extension to the UK's current 12 April exit date carried "significant risks for the EU" and that a "strong justification would be needed" before the EU would agree.

Theresa May is set for five hours of cabinet talks to tackle the deadlock.

MPs rejected a customs union with the EU by three votes while a motion for another referendum got the most votes in favour, but still lost.

The so-called indicative votes were not legally binding, but they had been billed as the moment when Parliament might finally compromise.

That did not happen, however, and one Tory MP - Nick Boles, who was behind one of the proposals - resigned the whip in frustration.

Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay told MPs that if they wanted to secure a further delay from the EU, the government must be able to put forward a "credible proposition" as to what it would do.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

It works by being a representative democracy, a concept that even after 200 years many people cannot seem to get their heads around. MPs are not there to do what constituents tell them. That has never been the way in the UK system. If there's one thing clear from this mess it is that most Brexiters have no idea at all how British politics and the British Constitution works.

We do know we can deselect them though if like naughty children they won't do as they are told by those people who actually elect them.

Explaining anything more complex than having a dump to the British lower end, a group so ably represented by the Brexit constituency, is utterly futile and somewhat redolent of teaching hibernating gerbils the mechanics of quantum physics.
Essentially, the inability of parliament and the cabinet to strike a deal that meets a majority approval clearly indicates that a satisfactory Brexit is by its very nature impossible. There is no such thing as a "good" Brexit in much the same way there is no good way to conduct stomach surgery with a sharp stick.

Communicating something as obvious as this to the stupid British is impossible, they are just too dumb.

the plan is to have votes in the people best interests, even if it means going against people instincts and fools wishes, like Brexit

Sadly there will never be a no deal Brexit, if Doris cant get her deal through at the 4th or 5th attempt there will be a long extension, plans are already underway for the Euro elections.

With the gains anti EU parties are making all over the EU, make up of the next Euro parliament should be fun.

Originally Posted by NigelFarage

What we have is hundreds of remainer MPs of leave constituencies trying to figure out how to soften or reverse brexit without losing their jobs. That's the entire cause of the impasse.

It's called damage limitation since no form of brexit is good for the country. Are you sure those leave constituencies still support leave and haven't changed their minds?

There are different forms of brexit and they can't all be lumped as the same. A pity the referendum didn't specify what the people really wanted. I very much doubt it was no-deal.

Suspend brexit for a couple of years, have a GE and plan before you leap next time.

Originally Posted by buriramboy

Sadly there will never be a no deal Brexit, if Doris cant get her deal through at the 4th or 5th attempt there will be a long extension, plans are already underway for the Euro elections.

With the gains anti EU parties are making all over the EU, make up of the next Euro parliament should be fun.

The correct and democratic way of changing the direction the EU is going. Leaving in a hissy fit because you can't get your way is embarrassing.

Originally Posted by buriramboy

We do know we can deselect them though if like naughty children they won't do as they are told by those people who actually elect them.

The Party can deselect them, yes. But, again, British MPs are representatives and not delegates. This is is a Constitutional fundamental. They are not elected just to do what they're told, they're not puppets.

More than 100 parliamentary constituencies which backed Leave in the 2016 referendum would now vote to remain in the European Union, according to new analysis of polling.

The findings suggested that most seats in England, Scotland and Wales now contain a majority of voters who want to stay in the EU.

Although told in no uncertain terms by our expert TD board it would never happen, my money is on a 2nd referendum.

Originally Posted by Norton

Although told in no uncertain terms by our expert TD board it would never happen, my money is on a 2nd referendum.

There will be a general election, possibly followed by another referendum.

Originally Posted by Norton

Although told in no uncertain terms by our expert TD board it would never happen, my money is on a 2nd referendum.

Have we time for a poll? Either way I'm up for a 'Hard Brexit'. Have been since day one.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

The Party can deselect them, yes. But, again, British MPs are representatives and not delegates. This is is a Constitutional fundamental. They are not elected just to do what they're told, they're not puppets.

Christ you're tedious, and like most remainers you chose to twist or reinterpret things to suit your own agenda or start abusing leavers as racists and other fairly despicable labels.

MPs are elected to deliver on the promises they stood for in their election manifesto, failing to deliver or altering what they stood for violates the fundamental tenet of the British Democratic System and the trust of the voter. They only occupy their position so long as the electorate decide they should do so - most of these MPs in the house are a self serving affront to democracy; most seeing their lucrative future MEP positions swirling down the plug hole - fuk em.

Originally Posted by NamPikToot

Christ you're tedious, and like most remainers you chose to twist or reinterpret things to suit your own agenda or start abusing leavers as racists and other fairly despicable labels.

1) make wild generalisations, look up at clouds, shout. Check.

Originally Posted by NamPikToot

MPs are elected to deliver on the promises they stood for in their election manifesto, failing to deliver or altering what they stood for violates the fundamental tenet of the British Democratic System and the trust of the voter. They only occupy their position so long as the electorate decide they should do so

2) Display utter ignorance of Constitution and law. Check.

Originally Posted by NamPikToot

most of these MPs in the house are a self serving affront to democracy; most seeing their lucrative future MEP positions swirling down the plug hole - .

3) Repeat claims made by voices in head. Categorically state that something that doesn't happen happens all the time. Check

Originally Posted by NamPikToot

fuk em

4) Finish with colloquialism clearly showing lack of education and inability to express opinions lucidly. Wipe spittle from chin. Check.

Originally Posted by NigelFarage

Precisely.

5) Have Smeg agree with you. Check.

I'm afraid the rigorous scientific methodology I've used to analyse you post proves beyond any doubt that you're an utter tit. Back to guzzling special brew outside Greggs and the bookies for you.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

I'm afraid the rigorous scientific methodology I've used to analyse you post proves beyond any doubt that you're an utter tit. Back to guzzling special brew outside Greggs and the bookies for you.

The Gent has hacked your login again Bob. Now why don't you explain how MPs should conduct their elected duties verses doing what they like

UK is most deeply flawed democracy in the West’ – Ken Livingstone on chaos in Parliament
1 Apr 2019​For two and a half years, the British people were promised that we were leaving the European Union on March 29. But we’re still there.
Theresa May’s government suffered another humiliating defeat last Friday when for the third time Parliament rejected her deeply flawed exit deal with the EU.

In all my life I have never seen our Parliament in such a state of chaos. Every single proposal about leaving the EU has been rejected by the majority of MPs, not just Theresa May’s deal, but all the alternatives that were put forward last week. The only majority in the House of Commons is for not leaving without a deal, but MPs can’t agree on what the deal should be.

Britain could leave in just under two weeks without a deal, but the EU may grant an extension of our remaining until the end of June or even into next year. Nobody knows and Theresa May is flying off to meet the other 27 EU governments to try and sort this out next week.

I can’t walk down the street without people stopping to ask me about the chaos and what is going to happen. The other 27 European nations look on in disbelief at Parliament’s failure after nearly three years to come up with a solution. I think the cause of this problem is the fact that our democracy is the most deeply flawed of all those in the West. I was first elected to the House of Commons as MP for Brent East in 1987, and for the next 13 years until I became the Mayor of London, I served as an MP. But I couldn’t believe how dysfunctional our parliamentary system is.

Most parliaments are set out in a semi-circle in which the members sit at a desk and often do paperwork while the debates drone on. But in ours, we just have five rows of seats on each side of a chamber and members aren’t allowed to do any work. Instead, they spend much of their time shouting and jeering at the MPs on the other side. The worst chaos came during regular Prime Minister’s Question Time, when the shouting and jeering meant that half the time I couldn’t hear what was being said. The other problem is that we have 650 MPs, but there is only space for 420 to sit on the benches, so the house is often crowded, worse than a raucous football match.

All these problems go back hundreds of years. Although politicians boast that we are the oldest democracy in the world, the truth is that back in the middle ages, power slowly seeped away from the monarch to Parliament. This was long before most people had a right to vote. One hundred and fifty years ago, they were only allowed a vote if they owned property and were male. As power shifted to Parliament, initially it was in the hands of members, but with the passage of time it was sucked up into the hands of the prime minister.

Whichever party is in government, the prime minister has the power to appoint over 100 MPs into well-paid ministerial positions. This creates a climate in which the vast majority of MPs do what the prime minister wants because they want a job.

As other countries became democracies, they didn’t just have a more orderly debating chamber, they all had written constitutions under the rule of law. One of the only other countries I know of that doesn’t have a written constitution is Israel. The lack of a written constitution means that prime ministers, as long as they have a working majority, can impose any changes they want and even go to war without allowing MPs to vote on whether this should happen.

Another big flaw in our democracy is our electoral system, called first past the post. Most European parliaments have a form of proportional representation, so the composition of the parliament reflects how the people voted. At least twice in my lifetime a British government came to power even though their opponents had won more votes. At my first election to Parliament in 1987, the Conservatives won 42 percent of the vote, but won 375 seats. Labour won 31 percent of the vote and got 229 seats. The Lib Dem coalition won 23 percent of the vote, but only got 22 seats. This allowed Thatcher to carry on with her years of reactionary legislation, but if we had had proportional representation, she would have had just 273 seats. Labour would have had 201, and the Lib Dems 143, so there could easily have been a Labour/Lib Dem coalition governing Britain and reflecting the view of the people.

Often an election is won after the constituency boundaries have been redrawn. Because most Labour voters were concentrated in poorer areas, Labour lost because they had huge majorities concentrated in their seats whilst the Tory vote was more evenly spread. This is one of the reasons why people don’t bother to vote, because they know their vote will make no difference if they live in a safe Labour or a safe Tory seat.

Back in that election in 1987, only three quarters of the public bothered to vote, and in a safe Labour seat like Hackney South, just 55 percent turned out. Whereas, in the crucial three-way marginal of Brecon, the turnout reached 84 percent. So if Britain adopted a fairer electoral system, many more voters would turn out because every vote would be of equal value.

It’s not just that our voting system is flawed, but so many of our newspapers are in the hands of billionaires like Rupert Murdoch, so their coverage of the elections is wildly dishonest. Back in that first election of mine, the Tories promised to introduce laws banning schools from promoting homosexuality – even though the government couldn’t find a single school anywhere in Britain where that was happening – but in our right-wing press, these scare stories filled page after page, and I remember one traditional Labour voter telling me, “I’ve always voted Labour but with all this teaching lesbianism in the schools I can’t this time.”

The papers were also filled with the story that I was planning to overthrow the Labour leader in a left-wing coup once the election was over. The Daily Express, on 9 June 1987, warned, “Fighting this election is the largest collection of left-wing nasties west of the Berlin Wall. Kinnock will be their prisoner in the Commons.”

At the same time, papers were filled with stories that Bernie Grant, one of the first black candidates to stand for Parliament, was a threat to our way of life. These lies and smears had quite an impact, with both Bernie and myself getting much worse results than many of our colleagues.

Things got much worse when Tony Blair became leader of the Labour party. Up until that point, a local Labour party was free to choose the candidate it wanted, but Blair introduced a new rule that anyone planning to stand as Labour MP had to be vetted, and the panel he set up to do the vetting was dominated by right-wing bureaucrats who barred a vast number of left-wingers from standing. Fortunately, Blair didn’t introduce this new rule for sitting members, so people like me and Bernie Grant were able to continue, but the influx of new members in the 1997 election was the most unrepresentative in the history of the Labour party.

When I was first elected to Parliament, there were many ordinary people on the Labour and the Tory side who had worked their way up through a small family business, the trade unions, or by serving on local councils. Now, 90 percent of all MPs have a university degree and a quarter of all MPs have one from Oxford or Cambridge, two of the most elite universities in the world.

If you read the diaries of former Tory prime ministers like Harold Macmillan and Ted Heath, they understand the working class because they fought side by side with them in two world wars. Now many of our MPs have had no contact with the working class except with the servants their parents employed.

If we want to end the chaos in our dysfunctional democracy, we need several radical changes. Firstly, there should be a new law that ensures that each newspaper has to give fair and equal coverage to each of the parties in an election. More importantly, a fair voting system based on proportional representation should be introduced.

We also need a devolution of powers from Westminster to local councils and regional government, and that would mean we would need far less MPs. Although Britain has barely a 10th of the population of India, we have almost the same number of MPs. We also need to give members of local political parties the right to deselect a sitting MP if they no longer agree with what they stand for. In America, every politician, from the president down to the mayor of the smallest town, is subject to a challenge in the run-up to each election by America’s primary system. And finally, let’s have a proper semi-circular chamber in the hope that this will reduce all the shouting and jeering.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/455266-chao...ocracy-brexit/

Originally Posted by NigelFarage

Why are so many remainers angry bigots who rely on insults to make their points?

It is incredible hypocrisy that they view Leavers as Racists, narrow minded et al yet i see very few comments on here from Leavers to support such labels whilst Remainers use the self same language directed at Leavers who they don't even know. Who was that chap?; Scottish, Prime Minister for a brief period, Chancellor, commented on a lady he came across on a walk about - he displayed the same arrogance.

But carry on Bob.

Originally Posted by NigelFarage

They don't seem to understand that the easiest way to show the weakness of a point of view is to fill it with insults. It's almost as if they're begging for their responses to not be read so they can claim a win due the tedium of having to trawl through the insults to find the topical points.

The Gent and his reincarnation SeekingAss have been posting that way for years, most just glaze over and move on to the next post. It is bit sad really because he clearly invests quite a bit of time and effort in concocting his paragraphs. It now appears Bob, who I formerly viewed a having a fairly balanced stance has had some life event which has affected him so much he too is becoming a parody of Genticles; Brexit has a lot to answer for

Originally Posted by Norton

Although told in no uncertain terms by our expert TD board it would never happen, my money is on a 2nd referendum.

To ask what question?

Originally Posted by NigelFarage

They don't seem to understand that the easiest way to show the weakness of a point of view is to fill it with insults.

The easiest way to show the weakness of a point of view is to be shallow, inaccurate, and evasive, as you are. The easiest way to show weakness of mind is to believe such childish tropes as insult invalidating argument, only an idiot could possibly believe adding insults to an argument makes it invalid. If I refer to the The Motherfucking cocksucker theory of relativity does that invalidate it? Of course it doesn't, you fool. Crying about insults invalidating an argument is a getout clause for people incapable of presenting a coherent argument in the first place.

Next you'll be telling us you automatically win an argument if someone brings Hitler into the conversation. You mong!

Originally Posted by Neverna

To ask what question?

Exit with May's deal, exit with no deal knowing what we now know, revoke a50 and remain.