Jump to content

Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )


jumpship

Recommended Posts

Seymour M Hersh
1 minute ago, Cade said:

 

Unicorns and rainbows for everybody.

 

WTO tariffs are harsh as feck and will cripple this nation.

 

Absolute rubbish. Stick to the Beano and Dandy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 25.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Mikey1874

    1494

  • ri Alban

    1425

  • Cade

    1385

  • Victorian

    1348

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

The Mighty Thor
43 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Not necessarily if we leave with no deal there are huge opportunities for the country. May's deal ties us into the EU for as long as they decide so has to be rejected imo. Labour is just as split as the Conservatives btw which is beginning to show with some of their MP's going against the politburo and voting for May's deal. Since Leave won it's been handled appallingly from Cameron running for the hills the morning after to a remainer leading the leave negotiations. 

I'm afraid I don't see the opportunities presented by leaving with no deal. Then again I'm not a speculator likely to make huge amounts of cash from the ensuing chaos. 

Labour are finished. Absolutely finished. 

It's been badly handled from the framing of the initial question, through the vote and the aftermath. That we're 31 months down the line and still have no cohesive plan is shameful. Westminster politics is bankrupt.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Absolute rubbish. Stick to the Beano and Dandy. 

 

I don't think they'll cripple the country but there would certainly be logistical issues with delays at ports etc. There would also be a spike in inflation with biggish increases in food prices. Just in time manufacturing processes would certainly be affected.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are 2 Tory parties who cannot agree with each other never mind other parties

 

Influenced by tin pot Irish politicians who represent a tiny % of the people and yet wield great power never mind the few politicians  who seek glory for themselves and not the interests of the country

 

You have to simply laugh at those who voted for Brexit being led by Boris the buffoon, Jacob 'the man who has no idea about the average man or woman' Res-Mogg…..imagine being duped by them.

 

They like it or not they had an agenda regarding immigration and prayed on fears of the population never mind the farcical financial promises made.

 

Now of course they are running scared as the lies are being unveiled one by one to the public

 

They know it will be rejected in a second vote and the only argument they put forward is we voted once and that's it for ever..total rubbish.

 

May has been caught out today and she has to go.....Corbyn has acted like a wimp and not a leader.

 

A second vote is the right option but politicians are not to be trusted one inch and will seek any way out if they can avoid having to face up to their responsibilities and we'll see if their bottle crashes

 

If this deal was on the table  time of the vote it would never have been accepted but when you listen to people saying 'my nana told me what it was like before the EU and she said it was much better so I voted to leave'...total hogwash

 

I said it before but those over 75 should not have had a vote for they are the past on this topic and not the future......many think only of themselves and wave the Union Flag as if we are In the 50' and 60's.....indeed those over 16 should have had the vote

 

Most of all I want to see those fishermen and women who voted to leave thinking they would be  ruling the waves round the UK facing up to the realities

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem originates from the obvious fact that what the majority of people of voted for (brexit), means a bunch of different things to different people. What they were promising was different things to different people, it's not surprising now that some aren't happy. The referendum was fundamentally flawed in that aspect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Toggie88 said:

The problem originates from the obvious fact that what the majority of people of voted for (brexit), means a bunch of different things to different people. What they were promising was different things to different people, it's not surprising now that some aren't happy. The referendum was fundamentally flawed in that aspect. 

 

Brexiters were in no position to promise anything beyond a no  deal Brexit in the run up to the referendum , because they would have had to have had advance agreement from the EU that what they were promising was possible, which of course would not have been forthcoming.

 

The referendum should have been straight Remain v No Deal Brexit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, SwindonJambo said:

 

Brexiters were in no position to promise anything beyond a no  deal Brexit in the run up to the referendum , because they would have had to have had advance agreement from the EU that what they were promising was possible, which of course would not have been forthcoming.

 

The referendum should have been straight Remain v No Deal Brexit.

This is exactly what I thought were the options when I voted. Although I understand why others may have thought differently. 

 

If this is the argument for another Vote then I think the ‘people’s vote campaign’ are going about it all wrong! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seymour M Hersh
1 hour ago, SwindonJambo said:

 

Brexiters were in no position to promise anything beyond a no  deal Brexit in the run up to the referendum , because they would have had to have had advance agreement from the EU that what they were promising was possible, which of course would not have been forthcoming.

 

The referendum should have been straight Remain v No Deal Brexit.

 

It was. Remain or Leave. The (remain) booklet that went to everyones home made it very clear what leaving meant. There was no ambiguity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jambo89 said:

This is exactly what I thought were the options when I voted. Although I understand why others may have thought differently. 

 

I understood it this way too but I would caveat this outlook by saying that I thought a lot of the “leave” message was multifaceted and designed to appeal to multiple agendas. Quite simply “all thing to all men.”

 

For example -

I believe that there are people who want greater control of immigration but not leave the EU.

 

I also believe there are people who who don’t have a problem with immigration but are concerned over the cost of being an EU member. 

 

There are groups of people who voted leave for a myriad of different outlooks but I don’t believe there is a majority who want a Brexit that will leave us worse off. I think a few will have changed their outlook if offered 3 options (remain, hard Brexit or May’s EU deal).

 

I know I’m repeating observations others have made and I make no apologies for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CJGJ said:

There are 2 Tory parties who cannot agree with each other never mind other parties

 

Influenced by tin pot Irish politicians who represent a tiny % of the people and yet wield great power never mind the few politicians  who seek glory for themselves and not the interests of the country

 

You have to simply laugh at those who voted for Brexit being led by Boris the buffoon, Jacob 'the man who has no idea about the average man or woman' Res-Mogg…..imagine being duped by them.

 

They like it or not they had an agenda regarding immigration and prayed on fears of the population never mind the farcical financial promises made.

 

Now of course they are running scared as the lies are being unveiled one by one to the public

 

They know it will be rejected in a second vote and the only argument they put forward is we voted once and that's it for ever..total rubbish.

 

May has been caught out today and she has to go.....Corbyn has acted like a wimp and not a leader.

 

A second vote is the right option but politicians are not to be trusted one inch and will seek any way out if they can avoid having to face up to their responsibilities and we'll see if their bottle crashes

 

If this deal was on the table  time of the vote it would never have been accepted but when you listen to people saying 'my nana told me what it was like before the EU and she said it was much better so I voted to leave'...total hogwash

 

I said it before but those over 75 should not have had a vote for they are the past on this topic and not the future......many think only of themselves and wave the Union Flag as if we are In the 50' and 60's.....indeed those over 16 should have had the vote

 

Most of all I want to see those fishermen and women who voted to leave thinking they would be  ruling the waves round the UK facing up to the realities

 

 

????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

It was. Remain or Leave. The (remain) booklet that went to everyones home made it very clear what leaving meant. There was no ambiguity. 

It can't be project fear and true. Easiest deal in history. No-one is saying we should leave the customs union. We hold all the cards. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

It was. Remain or Leave. The (remain) booklet that went to everyones home made it very clear what leaving meant. There was no ambiguity. 

And the Leave booklet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thunderstruck
3 hours ago, jambo89 said:

This is exactly what I thought were the options when I voted. Although I understand why others may have thought differently. 

 

If this is the argument for another Vote then I think the ‘people’s vote campaign’ are going about it all wrong! 

 

They have already had a second vote - a vote of the type favoured by Corbyn. 80% of the votes cast were for Parties (Tories and Labour) that intended to follow through with the result of the Referendum. 

 

It was the 2017 UKPGE. 

 

Of course, it can be said that other reasons for voting for these Parties were in play at that election so taking any single inference from the outcome would be wrong. Would that be saying that a General Election can deliver a decision of such import?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Cade said:

 

Unicorns and rainbows for everybody.

 

WTO tariffs are harsh as feck and will cripple this nation.

:yas:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, gedster said:

 

Time to move into the 21st Century, maybe lower your blood pressure a bit.

Well she brought it up. And I notice you have nothing to say on the lie. You do happen to be a no voting Brexiteer, by any chance.

 

Oh and The Tory is filth in every Century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seymour M Hersh
6 hours ago, SwindonJambo said:

And the Leave booklet?

 

The booklet I am referring to was the Official Government booklet paid for by the tax payer. There was no such corresponding leave document. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seymour M Hersh
6 hours ago, IMac said:

It can't be project fear and true. Easiest deal in history. No-one is saying we should leave the customs union. We hold all the cards. 

 

Have you put anything in context there or just random quotes? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

It was. Remain or Leave. The (remain) booklet that went to everyones home made it very clear what leaving meant. There was no ambiguity. 

 

Like Norway? They're not in the EU. We could be like them.

 

Oh, wait...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mighty Thor
56 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Have you put anything in context there or just random quotes? 

What context us there to apply?

Off the top of my head those are quotes from prominent Leave campaigners; Fox, Johnson & Gove.

Easiest trade deal in history. Really?

No one is saying we should leave the customs union. *cough*

We hold all the cards. Clearly.

 

It is worth revisiting these things and applying the context that these charlatans are lying ***** every time they open their mouths. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Governor Tarkin
22 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

What context us there to apply?

Off the top of my head those are quotes from prominent Leave campaigners; Fox, Johnson & Gove.

Easiest trade deal in history. Really?

No one is saying we should leave the customs union. *cough*

We hold all the cards. Clearly.

 

It is worth revisiting these things and applying the context that these charlatans are lying ***** every time they open their mouths. 

 

Spot on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Easiest trade deal in history. Really?

 

I’m not sure we’ll even get to that point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Mighty Thor said:

 

Easiest trade deal in history. Really?

 

They haven't started talking about the trade deal yet, and the reason why is because, the EU have refused to discuss a trade deal until they got their divorce settlement.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

They haven't started talking about the trade deal yet, and the reason why is because, the EU have refused to discuss a trade deal until they got their divorce settlement.

 

 

Weird, almost like it wasn't the easiest trade deal in history then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Weird, almost like it wasn't the easiest trade deal in history then.

 

Until they actually start the talks then who knows, maybe they will be the easiest in history, maybe they won't be.

But I'm not the one making assumptions about the outcome of talks which haven't begun yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Brexit is the will of the people, given we know more about it now than we did in 2016, then why not have another referendum?

 

If Leave wins again, then great, carry on and expect a no-deal exit.

 

If remain wins, then the "will of the people" has changed and should be respected.

 

If remain were to win, then I would imagine that there would still be political movements advocating leave, that's fine.  A bit like the SNP wanting independence.  That's democracy at work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Boris said:

If Brexit is the will of the people, given we know more about it now than we did in 2016, then why not have another referendum?

 

If Leave wins again, then great, carry on and expect a no-deal exit.

 

If remain wins, then the "will of the people" has changed and should be respected.

 

If remain were to win, then I would imagine that there would still be political movements advocating leave, that's fine.  A bit like the SNP wanting independence.  That's democracy at work.

We really shouldn't hold referenda.

The "will of the people" is fickle, at least with an election you can reverse in 5 years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
1 hour ago, Justin Z said:

 

Weird, almost like it wasn't the easiest trade deal in history then.

It is impossible to do a deal until you start talking about it. Which takes two.

It then needs good faith. It took the French President only a few hours to renege on part of the "non-binding" political declaration as it related to fishing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, doctor jambo said:

We really shouldn't hold referenda.

The "will of the people" is fickle, at least with an election you can reverse in 5 years

 

Almost agree with you, but given we had a non binding vote on EU membership, and given we now know more than we did in 2016, perhaps we should ask the question again? I admit that what I have just written proves the point regards referenda!

 

But on that note, and to segue slightly, if Scotland returned a majority of SNP MP's at a Westminster election, this would be ok to declare independence then?  Given your antipathy to referenda?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
15 hours ago, Cade said:

 

Unicorns and rainbows for everybody.

 

WTO tariffs are harsh as feck and will cripple this nation.

UK trade with USA in goods and services £150bn pounds with a £30bn surplus. With Germany £120bn with a £30bn deficit.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Until they actually start the talks then who knows, maybe they will be the easiest in history, maybe they won't be.

But I'm not the one making assumptions about the outcome of talks which haven't begun yet.

 

No, that was the people claiming it would be the easiest trade deal in history in order to swindle votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Boris said:

If Brexit is the will of the people, given we know more about it now than we did in 2016, then why not have another referendum?

 

If Leave wins again, then great, carry on and expect a no-deal exit.

 

If remain wins, then the "will of the people" has changed and should be respected.

 

If remain were to win, then I would imagine that there would still be political movements advocating leave, that's fine.  A bit like the SNP wanting independence.  That's democracy at work.

This.

 

It's almost as if those so against a second referendum are acutely aware that the public in the main are now far more aware of what is at stake. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Almost agree with you, but given we had a non binding vote on EU membership, and given we now know more than we did in 2016, perhaps we should ask the question again? I admit that what I have just written proves the point regards referenda!

 

But on that note, and to segue slightly, if Scotland returned a majority of SNP MP's at a Westminster election, this would be ok to declare independence then?  Given your antipathy to referenda?

I don't think politicians should do anything that has permanent repercussions for its populace.

Things with a generational impact.

 

That aside, if the SNP won a WM majority, then as long as it was stated clearly on its manifesto that they would unilaterally declare independence, then yes, that would be reasonable

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rab87 said:

This.

 

It's almost as if those so against a second referendum are acutely aware that the public in the main are now far more aware of what is at stake. 

 

Shocking, eh? :smuggy:

 

Class yesterday was very enlightening. I was still finding my feet in a big way when it comes to British politics in the summer of 2016 (and it's still a struggle), so I wasn't all that aware of the extremely carefully crafted and vetted, gone to every effort not to be biased/slanted reports that were commissioned by the government and produced by experts that basically said exactly the opposite of what all the leavers were saying: that by every objective measure, the UK benefited from EU membership. This does fit nicely with the recent theme of the thread, and Michael Gove's "Britain has had enough of experts" pish. Indeed.

 

Nor did I really understand the implications of Cameron's Bloomberg speech and the concessions he managed to get from the EU. Ironically, there were many insiders saying that much of what was given to the UK actually violated the treaty--that's how much the EU was bending over backwards to appease and try to be reasonable and find a solution that was beneficial for all (and even more beneficial to the UK than it already was). They were thanked for this with two fingers and a leave vote, so it's hardly any surprise they've had enough and will now be looking out only for themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
23 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Almost agree with you, but given we had a non binding vote on EU membership, and given we now know more than we did in 2016, perhaps we should ask the question again? I admit that what I have just written proves the point regards referenda!

 

But on that note, and to segue slightly, if Scotland returned a majority of SNP MP's at a Westminster election, this would be ok to declare independence then?  Given your antipathy to referenda?

Independence should be devolved issue. The principle has already been accepted in that the referenda devolved the decision to Scotland. Of course it would weaken the SNP's position in elections to Holyrood.

2 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Shocking, eh? :smuggy:

 

Class yesterday was very enlightening. I was still finding my feet in a big way when it comes to British politics in the summer of 2016 (and it's still a struggle), so I wasn't all that aware of the extremely carefully crafted and vetted, gone to every effort not to be biased/slanted reports that were commissioned by the government and produced by experts that basically said exactly the opposite of what all the leavers were saying: that by every objective measure, the UK benefited from EU membership. This does fit nicely with the recent theme of the thread, and Michael Gove's "Britain has had enough of experts" pish. Indeed.

 

Nor did I really understand the implications of Cameron's Bloomberg speech and the concessions he managed to get from the EU. Ironically, there were many insiders saying that much of what was given to the UK actually violated the treaty--that's how much the EU was bending over backwards to appease and try to be reasonable and find a solution that was beneficial for all (and even more beneficial to the UK than it already was). They were thanked for this with two fingers and a leave vote, so it's hardly any surprise they've had enough and will now be looking out only for themselves.

Your class sounds like it has rather predictable content.

The idea that the UK government went to every effort and bent over backwards  not to be biased is absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

No, that was the people claiming it would be the easiest trade deal in history in order to swindle votes.

 

Politicians saying things, maybe even telling the odd wee porky or two, in order to try and get your vote, whatever next, what's the world coming too?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should add that the academic paper we read for class #1 was quite engaging, especially for that kind if writing. It's titled Brexit: A Drama in Six Acts and can be googled easily to download for free. The instructor called the author the "leading expert on UK civil law".

 

The author was highly complimentary of the UK Civil Service, which produced the reports I mentioned, and their commitment to doing an unbiased, bang-up job. He was not so complimentary about the machinations and bias of the government. Just wanted to clarify in case anyone for some reason intentionally misread my previous post in order to troll (heavens, who would do that?).

--

There is little doubt that the review was launched with the hope by Eurosceptics that it
would provide the substance for subsequent renegotiation of the Treaties. The government
would then have the ammunition to take to the bargaining table, whereby it could claim that
the UK had carried out an unimpeachable, detailed inquiry that revealed the excess of EU
competence. Matters turned out rather differently. The inquiry conducted by government departments was indeed unimpeachable in terms of process, and well-judged in terms of substance, but it did not produce the ammunition that the Eurosceptics had hoped for. All of which goes to show that the best laid plans often go off the tracks.

 

In terms of process, it showed the UK civil service at its very best. It was told to
conduct the review and did so. The civil service was, however, determined to ensure that the
outcome would withstand serious scrutiny. It was not about to sully its reputation by
authoring reports that might be regarded as politically biased. The process was therefore
unimpeachable and uniform throughout. The lead department for the particular topic engaged in broad consultation. This took the form of publicising the review process; receiving written consultations; undertaking town-hall type meetings; soliciting views of experts in day long discussions held in the department with those responsible for the report; and studying the relevant literature. The lead department produced a draft report based on the results of the consultation, including research that it had done. This draft report was then subject to
rigorous scrutiny in a face to face meeting with a team from the Cabinet Office, which tested
its compatibility against the evidence. This team was reinforced by two ‘external
challengers’. They were, as the title suggests, people from outside government with expertise
in the area, who brought a critical eye to the draft report. The external challengers often had very different views concerning the EU. It was only after this process that the report was
submitted to ministers for approval, which was generally given, the exception being the
report on free movement that was subject to lengthy delays in the Home Office.

 

 

Edit: Sorry for the weird line breaks. The phone interface is gash.

 

 

Edited by Justin Z
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Politicians saying things, maybe even telling the odd wee porky or two, in order to try and get your vote, whatever next, what's the world coming too?

 

 

I appreciate your concession of the point. Top man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

I should add that the academic paper we read for class #1 was quite engaging, especially for that kind if writing. It's titled Brexit: A Drama in Six Acts and can be googled easily to download for free. The instructor called the author the "leading expert on UK civil law".

 

The author was highly complimentary of the UK Civil Service, which produced the reports I mentioned, and their commitment to doing an unbiased, bang-up job. He was not so complimentary about the machinations and bias of the government. Just wanted to clarify in case anyone for some reason intentionally misread my previous post in order to troll (heavens, who would do that?).

--

There is little doubt that the review was launched with the hope by Eurosceptics that it
would provide the substance for subsequent renegotiation of the Treaties. The government
would then have the ammunition to take to the bargaining table, whereby it could claim that
the UK had carried out an unimpeachable, detailed inquiry that revealed the excess of EU
competence. Matters turned out rather differently. The inquiry conducted by government departments was indeed unimpeachable in terms of process, and well-judged in terms of substance, but it did not produce the ammunition that the Eurosceptics had hoped for. All of which goes to show that the best laid plans often go off the tracks.

 

In terms of process, it showed the UK civil service at its very best. It was told to
conduct the review and did so. The civil service was, however, determined to ensure that the
outcome would withstand serious scrutiny. It was not about to sully its reputation by
authoring reports that might be regarded as politically biased. The process was therefore
unimpeachable and uniform throughout. The lead department for the particular topic engaged in broad consultation. This took the form of publicising the review process; receiving written consultations; undertaking town-hall type meetings; soliciting views of experts in day long discussions held in the department with those responsible for the report; and studying the relevant literature. The lead department produced a draft report based on the results of the consultation, including research that it had done. This draft report was then subject to
rigorous scrutiny in a face to face meeting with a team from the Cabinet Office, which tested
its compatibility against the evidence. This team was reinforced by two ‘external
challengers’. They were, as the title suggests, people from outside government with expertise
in the area, who brought a critical eye to the draft report. The external challengers often had very different views concerning the EU. It was only after this process that the report was
submitted to ministers for approval, which was generally given, the exception being the
report on free movement that was subject to lengthy delays in the Home Office.

 

 

Edit: Sorry for the weird line breaks. The phone interface is gash.

 

 

Will have a read of this later on.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jake said:

Will have a read of this later on.

 

 

Probably worth just skimming--it's typically long-winded for an academic. :lol:But still quite decent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really expecting much to immediately change after this vote tonight.      Labour will table the no confidence motion and it will almost certainly fall,   changing nothing.      There will be a flurry of activity to supposedly coalesce around a theoretical deal that would be capable of passing through parliament and it will be taken back to the EU.     There may well be moves made to attempt to postpone article 50 but the government will resist.     May will run down the clock still further and come back with a similar vote,   based on a revised deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thunderstruck
44 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

I don't think politicians should do anything that has permanent repercussions for its populace.

Things with a generational impact.

 

That aside, if the SNP won a WM majority, then as long as it was stated clearly on its manifesto that they would unilaterally declare independence, then yes, that would be reasonable

 

 

On FPTP? A system notorious for awarding seats out of all proportion to the share of the vote. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
16 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

. Just wanted to clarify in case anyone for some reason intentionally misread my previous post in order to troll (heavens, who would do that?).

--

 

Thanks I'll read the paper and try not to intentionally misread it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

On FPTP? A system notorious for awarding seats out of all proportion to the share of the vote. 

 

Dem da rools...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

I appreciate your concession of the point. Top man.

 

Your welcome, and now that we have established that politicians lie, then I'm glad that I didn't repeat nor use the claims made by a politician. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Your welcome, and now that we have established that politicians lie, then I'm glad that I didn't repeat nor use the claims made by a politician. :thumbsup:

I mean, yeah. It's certainly nothing to aspire to :lol: But it's a platitude that will always remain the status quo if you just say it happens and don't hold them accountable when they do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seymour M Hersh
48 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Dem da rools...

 

Every system has it's faults but at least with fptp you are less likely to get unelected but appointed MSP's (all 6 Greens iirc) creating a tail wagging the dog situation as they are with Nippy's government. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • davemclaren changed the title to Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...