Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

[Mikey1874]

1 minute ago, manaliveits105 said:

Correct but in our brave new world everyone must be offended by everything until we become like Stepford 

 

Offended by being threatened with rape or murder? 

[Boris]

6 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

Correct but in our brave new world everyone must be offended by everything until we become like Stepford 

 

Sounds like your offended by that...

 

[Cade]

Dinnae feed the trolls

 

[DETTY29]

3 hours ago, Dirty Deeds said:

Time for a Vote of Confidence 

 

The coalition has to stick someone else in, even Corbyn.  

 

Get the delay, then do the election.

 

Can't leave Boris in there any longer. 

A weak Boris just now v. a one policy general election that a joint Tory / Brexit Party coalition likely win.

 

Tories putting some vile policies in their manifesto that don't get discussed or are ignored.  No manifesto Brexit Party agreeing coalition on basis that all that is left of the NHS is a carcus.

 

Mmmmm

[Jambo-Jimbo]

27 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

I think a bit of a change partly since the Me Too movement is in people talking about it.

 

Which I think is healthy.

 

Black people have suffered racism for years but generally have taken the position getting on with things is better. That is starting to change. 

 

But I have always said for 40 years that if you break down the position of consent and treating people reasonably you open to different possibilities. People are assuming it's the Brexit supporters people should be afraid of. A counter reaction is equally possible.

 

I do though believe the Referendum result should be implemented and that not doing so is dangerous. But not respecting the position of Remain supporters is equally dangerous. 

 

I think we have both been on this Earth long enough to know that both the right & the left have enough crazies within their ranks too worry everyone, neither have a monoploy on that score.

 

I've always been an advocate that you treat people how you would like to be treated yourself, Wednesday's shenanigans within the chamber were always likely to get out of hand, such was the highly charged atmosphere in which the house was reconvened, it doesn't excuse them though, but I just hope this few days away will give everyone the chance to calm down a bit.

 

Your last sentence is spot on, and I have said before and I'll state it again, that from day one there should have been a cross-party committee set up, one which the views of everyside was taken into account. 

I also believe that we wouldn't be seeing such divisions and indeed anger across the country if there had been a cross-party committee, it would have brought the country together, well most of it, there will also be some on either side which you can't bring together.

But that golden chance was wasted.

[jake]

14 hours ago, XB52 said:

Must admit I don't know what I want. The more the UK parliament dissolves into a shit show I despair for the people of the UK but know it brings our independence nearer

Not so sure .

We wont leave the EU imo.

I didnt ever think we would be allowed to.

And if you think the daily onslaught of scaremongering and the attempts (legimate) by those in parliament and through the courts to halt brexit is bad.

 

Then just be prepared for that x 2 in the event Scottish voters grow a pair.

[Mikey1874]

3 minutes ago, jake said:

Not so sure .

We wont leave the EU imo.

I didnt ever think we would be allowed to.

And if you think the daily onslaught of scaremongering and the attempts (legimate) by those in parliament and through the courts to halt brexit is bad.

 

Then just be prepared for that x 2 in the event Scottish voters grow a pair.

 

So the DUP and pro Brexit hard liners that stopped us leaving the EU are a cunning Remain plot? 

[Governor Tarkin]

2 hours ago, manaliveits105 said:

the consequences of the language Boris is using 

Really ? these snowflakes need to get on with their job and stop bleating and putting themselves and their parties first at the expense of the electorate - the country is sick of them and they know they can’t  can’t win an election

Mon Boris

 

Those snowflakes are not the full shilling eh. Need brought down a peg or two.

[The Real Maroonblood]

3 minutes ago, Governor Tarkin said:

 

Those snowflakes are not the full shilling eh. Need brought down a peg or two.

[Ron Burgundy]

1 hour ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Politicians have been receiving death & rape threats for decades and decades, it used to be the anonymous letter, now it's a post on social media.

 

You have, you're entire life, been living in a World of people being threatened, so have I, so have we all, the only thing that's changed is the delivery method.

Not true, nothing bad ever happened before the people of Britain voted to leave the EU.

[Cade]

Interest rate cut imminent, pound sliding.

 

Unicorns and rainbows all round.

[Cade]

Johnson Press selling " i " to the Daily Mail.

 

 

[I P Knightley]

2 hours ago, manaliveits105 said:

the consequences of the language Boris is using 

Really ? these snowflakes need to get on with their job and stop bleating and putting themselves and their parties first at the expense of the electorate - the country is sick of them and they know they can’t  can’t win an election

Mon Boris

"Snowflake" is about the most pathetic insult that I hear nowadays; confirmed when I heard Rees-Mogg using it the other week. 

 

Using it as above (or at all) is a symbol of much that is wrong with current 'debate'. Johnson has caused offence to some people. He may or may not have meant to but any decent, civil person who discovers that something he's said would pause to take on board how his language had caused that offence and try to moderate future discussion. Johnson is neither decent nor civil so he, his cronies and his equally ignorant followers come up with a justification that the other person should not have taken offence. 

 

Obviously, there are occasions when the offence is faux and the response is to just get on with it (thinking of the supporters of various football teams, here) but when there is a murder fresh in the memory which involved use of similar rhetoric, to call those concerned about it "snowflakes" is just callous and sub-human. 

 

The inability to punctuate or use good, British grammar (over which, incidentally, we have full sovereignty) is just sub-intelligent. 

[ri Alban]

Mon Boris, one last push for Scottish Independence!

 

 

Tick Tock!!!

 

[Cade]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_5_of_the_Public_Order_Act_1986

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_harassment,_alarm_or_distress

 

Boris gets away with it because he says it in Parliament.

[Victorian]

 

The use of key buzzword phrases such as surrender act,  etc,   are clearly designed to instill certain emotions and opinions against opponents.    

 

Boris is continually insistent that threats and abuse directed against MPs are deplorable.

 

Yet he's not going to tone it down.

 

What that is is abdication of responsibility.    He accepts the principle of cause and effect,    but wont alter the cause,   therefore he accepts the effect.

 

Or does he accept the cause and effect?    Maybe the implication is that the threats and abuse are caused by some other factor.      The MPs actions themselves?     If so,    he should come out and say so.    But he wont because he's a bully,   therefore utterly cowardly.

[Don Dan]

Dementia Tax what was it originally called again? (It was bonkers by the way to think that policy would fly)!

These political/media title alterations to policies, legislation or manifesto commitments has always happened. 

These sound bite titles are designed to be emotive. Like them or loath them. 

 

Edited September 27, 2019 by Dannie Boy

[jake]

 

2 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Mon Boris, one last push for Scottish Independence!

 

 

Tick Tock!!!

 

Unfortunately there will be a few more ticks and tocks . 

Brexit wont happen.

And the very same arguments will be used against independence.

 

2 hours ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

So the DUP and pro Brexit hard liners that stopped us leaving the EU are a cunning Remain plot? 

Both had their reasons .

It stopped May's deal .

Regardless  .

I find the scaremongering extreme .

It's right to raise legitimate concerns but surely you must recognise the overdrive of propaganda?

And if the propaganda is to be believed then its self evident that we cannot leave because we are so entwined .

 

 

 

 

[ri Alban]

Just now, jake said:

 

Unfortunately there will be a few more ticks and tocks . 

Brexit wont happen.

And the very same arguments will be used against independence.

 

Both had their reasons .

It stopped May's deal .

Regardless  .

I find the scaremongering extreme .

It's right to raise legitimate concerns but surely you must recognise the overdrive of propaganda?

And if the propaganda is to be believed then its self evident that we cannot leave because we are so entwined .

 

 

 

 

EU exit will happen and independence will be immediate and negotiations will happen post Independence.

[jake]

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

 

The use of key buzzword phrases such as surrender act,  etc,   are clearly designed to instill certain emotions and opinions against opponents.    

 

Boris is continually insistent that threats and abuse directed against MPs are deplorable.

 

Yet he's not going to tone it down.

 

What that is is abdication of responsibility.    He accepts the principle of cause and effect,    but wont alter the cause,   therefore he accepts the effect.

 

Or does he accept the cause and effect?    Maybe the implication is that the threats and abuse are caused by some other factor.      The MPs actions themselves?     If so,    he should come out and say so.    But he wont because he's a bully,   therefore utterly cowardly.

Language is important and the surrender crack is going for Labour heartlands no doubt.

 

But it's a two way thing.

These same voters that Boris is going after have been on the end of some dodgy language  also.

One needs only read some posts on here to get an idea.

I've been guilty of it to .

And I've been on the receiving end

 

Both sides are as bad.

 

[jake]

2 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

EU exit will happen and independence will be immediate and negotiations will happen post Independence.

We will see.

 

[ri Alban]

2 minutes ago, jake said:

We will see.

 

👍

[dobmisterdobster]

He said Surrender Act.

I am literally crying and shaking right now.

Never heard so much vile language in my entire life.

Edited September 27, 2019 by dobmisterdobster

[Governor Tarkin]

30 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

He said Surrender Act.

I am literally crying and shaking right now.

Never heard so much vile language in my entire life.

 

You would be if some easily-led crackpot just chibbed your Ma to death calling her traitor.

[Adam Murray]

32 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

He said Surrender Act.

I am literally crying and shaking right now.

Never heard so much vile language in my entire life.

 

So you should be, you thick, far-right, fascist, neo- Nazi, weatherspoons knuckle dragging (new one today), gammon baby eater (I made that one up......I think)!

[sadj]

3 minutes ago, Governor Tarkin said:

 

You would be if some easily-led crackpot just chibbed your Ma to death calling her traitor.

 

There just seems no accountability for these comments and the position these people hold to make them. The world is such a media driven

place and people hear these things and the extremist part of the sides run with them as they can’t see past the comments. When that leads to death threats or acts of violence there people have to be accountable for what they say. 

 

Saw today a Tory had also said blacking up is just a bit of fun , Trump said yesterday something along the lines of how they used to deal with people who were spy’s. Its ridiculous in such an impressionable age as we are in that people in these places of power and influence make comments like these.

 

Brexit has been turned into such a point scoring exercise that the actual fundamentals of how it will affect individual people good or bad are lost amongst the rabble rousing and lunacy of MPs and commentators. 

[shaun.lawson]

42 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

He said Surrender Act.

I am literally crying and shaking right now.

Never heard so much vile language in my entire life.

 

So - just to confirm whether you're consistent, or a gigantic hypocrite, what was your opinion of Abu Hamza and the likes using language to radicalise Muslims? Freedom of speech issue for you, I assume? Upset at all the snowflakes who were none too impressed with him? Or is that different, because it was about brown people? 

 

As the security forces would themselves confirm, far right terrorism is a serious and growing problem. Johnson's words encourage and radicalise current and potential far right terrorists. Not that people like you give a shit, clearly.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

1 hour ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

So - just to confirm whether you're consistent, or a gigantic hypocrite, what was your opinion of Abu Hamza and the likes using language to radicalise Muslims? Freedom of speech issue for you, I assume? Upset at all the snowflakes who were none too impressed with him? Or is that different, because it was about brown people? 

 

As the security forces would themselves confirm, far right terrorism is a serious and growing problem. Johnson's words encourage and radicalise current and potential far right terrorists. Not that people like you give a shit, clearly.

 

Much as Johnson needs to stop what he’s doing, it’s not remotely comparable to abu hamza.

[Australis]

The good thing about it all is that people will have had enough of referendums and the hate they cause.

 

[dobmisterdobster]

Boris hasn't incited violence against anybody. He is highly critical of a law passed by the opposition and he is letting everyone know about it. I happen to agree with him. His language while provocative is not particularly offensive or inappropriate in my opinion.

 

2 hours ago, Adam Murray said:

 

So you should be, you thick, far-right, fascist, neo- Nazi, weatherspoons knuckle dragging (new one today), gammon baby eater (I made that one up......I think)!

Never heard a more accurate description of myself.

[Adam Murray]

25 minutes ago, Australis...... said:

The good thing about it all is that people will have had enough of referendums and the hate they cause.

 

 

It's also obvious that the public aren't bright enough to come to the right decision.

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Adam Murray said:

 

It's also obvious that the public aren't bright enough to come to the right decision.

 

Not quite.    The public are not open minded enough to consider that the decision should be revisited and reaffirmed.

[Adam Murray]

Just now, Victorian said:

 

Not quite.    The public are not open minded enough to consider that the decision should be revisited and reaffirmed.

 

How many times?

[Victorian]

Just now, Adam Murray said:

 

How many times?

 

The logical answer is surely 2 votes.    First one to vote for the principle.    The second to confirm,   based on the huge national 'conversation' that has resulted.    What would a third add?   We're not likely to learn anything more that would change the circumstances between verdict #2 and a future time.

 

The answer to the obvious objection is this.    No,   I know people were not informed of a second vote when they were asked to vote the first time.    But hey... there's a lot that people weren't told about.    Plus,    why should a confirmatory vote not be retrospectively introduced?     What practical obstable prevents it?     

 

If doesn't betray the democratic choice of the first vote.     That's just a tenet of convenience for people who tolerate corrupted democracy.   

[Cade]

"If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy."

David Davis, arch Brexiteer.

 

He also said:

"There is a proper role for referendums in constitutional change, but only if done properly.

If it is not done properly, it can be a dangerous tool.

Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment.

They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested.

In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting.

We should not ask people to vote on a blank sheet of paper and tell them to trust us to fill in the details afterwards.

For referendums to be fair and compatible with our parliamentary process, we need the electors to be as well informed as possible and to know exactly what they are voting for.

Referendums need to be treated as an addition to the parliamentary process, not as a substitute for it."

 

[DETTY29]

7 minutes ago, Cade said:

"If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy."

David Davis, arch Brexiteer.

 

He also said:

"There is a proper role for referendums in constitutional change, but only if done properly.

If it is not done properly, it can be a dangerous tool.

Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment.

They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested.

In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting.

We should not ask people to vote on a blank sheet of paper and tell them to trust us to fill in the details afterwards.

For referendums to be fair and compatible with our parliamentary process, we need the electors to be as well informed as possible and to know exactly what they are voting for.

Referendums need to be treated as an addition to the parliamentary process, not as a substitute for it."

 

Lady Hale said that the government's position was indeed a blank sheet of paper.

 

The country voted Brexit  but dear god make it the softest Brexit possible.

Edited September 27, 2019 by DETTY29

[Victorian]

9 minutes ago, Cade said:

"If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy."

David Davis, arch Brexiteer.

 

He also said:

"There is a proper role for referendums in constitutional change, but only if done properly.

If it is not done properly, it can be a dangerous tool.

Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment.

They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested.

In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting.

We should not ask people to vote on a blank sheet of paper and tell them to trust us to fill in the details afterwards.

For referendums to be fair and compatible with our parliamentary process, we need the electors to be as well informed as possible and to know exactly what they are voting for.

Referendums need to be treated as an addition to the parliamentary process, not as a substitute for it."

 

 

Comprehensive argument.   Well well...

 

Plus,   prominent hard Brexit advocate,   Bernard Jenkin insists that he urged David Cameron not to hold a simple in-out referendum.     But hey... he got the result he wanted (says he didn't) so why bother sticking to his principles.

 

Likes to contradict himself does Jenkin.    An all bases coverer (aka desperate to demonstrate he was right).

Edited September 27, 2019 by Victorian

[Victorian]

Johnson referred to police investigation over Jennifer Arcuri issue.    

 

If later to be arrested,  will he SURRENDER himself to the plod station or will he dig a trench in his garden for the do or die battle?

 

[Victorian]

Is it a liberal elite conspiracy yet?    

[Justin Z]

17 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Is it a liberal elite conspiracy yet?    

 

Always.

[Cade]

Active serving soldier investigated over death threat sent to Labour MP.

 

 

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Cade said:

Active serving soldier investigated over death threat sent to Labour MP.

 

 

 

Sound.    Guess who's on Irish hard border patrol duty.

[manaliveits105]

Jimmy Krankie lower than a snakes belly 

[RobboM]

57 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Comprehensive argument.   Well well...

 

Plus,   prominent hard Brexit advocate,   Bernard Jenkin insists that he urged David Cameron not to hold a simple in-out referendum.     But hey... he got the result he wanted (says he didn't) so why bother sticking to his principles.

 

Likes to contradict himself does Jenkin.    An all bases coverer (aka desperate to demonstrate he was right).

I've wondered about this. I guess Cameron's gamble was that simple Leave/Remain would be much easier to win and therefore put to bed the whole EU question. If the question had been along the lines of Do You Want To Negotiate Terms for Exiting the EU, the answer would have been a more decisive YES .... but the subsequent negotiations leading to a Theresa May deal OR a No Deal woud have been comprehensively defeated in a confirmatory referendum.

Just imo obviously!

[The Real Maroonblood]

40 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

Jimmy Krankie lower than a snakes belly 

[Francis Albert]

37 minutes ago, RobboM said:

I've wondered about this. I guess Cameron's gamble was that simple Leave/Remain would be much easier to win and therefore put to bed the whole EU question. If the question had been along the lines of Do You Want To Negotiate Terms for Exiting the EU, the answer would have been a more decisive YES .... but the subsequent negotiations leading to a Theresa May deal OR a No Deal woud have been comprehensively defeated in a confirmatory referendum.

Just imo obviously!

It  would not exactly be a  strong starting point for entering a negotiation would it? And of course Cameron had already tried the renegotiation route on immigration controls with pathetically meaningless results.

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

 

Sound.    Guess who's on Irish hard border patrol duty.

The so called hard border would consist of number plate recognition cameras and spot checks. It is not the UK that is threatening use of violence.

[Victorian]

3 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

The so called hard border would consist of number plate recognition cameras and spot checks. It is not the UK that is threatening use of violence.

 

Shit.   There was me making a serious comment anaw.

[Cade]

FA returns for another episode of "I know nothing about the Irish border"

[Francis Albert]

2 hours ago, Victorian said:

 

The logical answer is surely 2 votes.    First one to vote for the principle.    The second to confirm,   based on the huge national 'conversation' that has resulted.    What would a third add?   We're not likely to learn anything more that would change the circumstances between verdict #2 and a future time.

 

The answer to the obvious objection is this.    No,   I know people were not informed of a second vote when they were asked to vote the first time.    But hey... there's a lot that people weren't told about.    Plus,    why should a confirmatory vote not be retrospectively introduced?     What practical obstable prevents it?     

 

If doesn't betray the democratic choice of the first vote.     That's just a tenet of convenience for people who tolerate corrupted democracy.   

Shame no-one argued this before the vote went the wrong way. 80% of MPs went along with the simple binary  one-off referendum. And a similar proportion were then elected on a promise to "respect the vote".  Which left them free rein to approve any form of Leave they chose. But they have failed to agree any form of Leave. I think I know who is corrupting democracy.