Jump to content

Brexit slowly becoming a Farce.


John Lambies Doos

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

Bring back Blair or Thatcher - leaders who actually led

Things are bad, but they're not that bad..............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I genuinely don't think there was an alternative to this.

Brexit as a concept is so fucking devisive. May is absolutely mental. Surely there can't ever have been a more stubborn leader?

Corbyn has a very difficult fence to try and sit on. He can't come down on one side or the other (as his party and their voters are as divided as the Tories) - but he's fucking up the pr.

It was always going to be this depressing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

I genuinely don't think there was an alternative to this.

Brexit as a concept is so fucking devisive. May is absolutely mental. Surely there can't ever have been a more stubborn leader?

Corbyn has a very difficult fence to try and sit on. He can't come down on one side or the other (as his party and their voters are as divided as the Tories) - but he's fucking up the pr.

It was always going to be this depressing.

May and Corbyn are being blamed for it all, but the individual MPs are doing fuckall apart from complaining how shite things are, Tony Benn's son does my head in with his indicative votes shite, why doesn't he just suggest something better than May and persuade people to vote for it? He doesn't have to be on telly to do it. Same as that oh so reasonable Dominic Grieve c**t. 

Edited by welshbairn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair play to Comrade Jezza for not meeting TIG until they are transparent about who is funding them. I'm sure Hezbollah and the IRA provided him with a detailed hierarchy of leadership and a full set of audited accounts before he met with them.

Anyway, we all know who really funds TIG:

aiEJH.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair play to Comrade Jezza for not meeting TIG until they are transparent about who is funding them. I'm sure Hezbollah and the IRA provided him with a detailed hierarchy of leadership and a full set of audited accounts before he met with them.
Anyway, we all know who really funds TIG:

aiEJH.gif&key=99a6ee48971c51c29c481024f94b96467b6f43a81cc57f1f5f354e43fba63cac
That's a weak comparison though.

These are entirely different contexts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sherrif John Bunnell said:

Fair play to Comrade Jezza for not meeting TIG until they are transparent about who is funding them. I'm sure Hezbollah and the IRA provided him with a detailed hierarchy of leadership and a full set of audited accounts before he met with them.

Anyway, we all know who really funds TIG:

 

  Hide contents

aiEJH.gif

 

The absolute nick of this post btw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May and Corbyn are being blamed for it all, but the individual MPs are doing fuckall apart from complaining how shite things are, Tony Benn's son does my head in with his indicative votes shite, why doesn't he just suggest something better than May and persuade people to vote for it? He doesn't have to be on telly to do it. Same as that oh so reasonable Dominic Grieve c**t. 
The indicative votes thing is hugely important though.

Parliament can't do anything as the government set the agenda so it's really just a case of trying to find whatever relevance they can to bills and trying to produce substantial amendments. That's then hugely difficult when you consider that the government can control the timing of what is going - opposition leaders can't always whip in an instant, they've got their own internal challenges and pressures.

If Benn's amendment went through, parliament could have voted on a declaration on a single outcome and actually had the ability to legislate to match it. A team could have went to Brussels if they could demonstrate their plan had support and actually do something tangible.

The big problem for Labour and their plan is whilst it's viable to attach to the WA deal in theory, the next stage of negotiations is going to be very challenging so there's a lot more they'd like in there now as it may be harder in the future (e.g. Corbyn fancies this workers alignment, there could maybe have been something drawn up which gives some level of decision making).

If May's deal goes through, it just means we'll spend another couple of years of a new Tory PM pandering to all sides of parliament and then failing to beat the backstop loop and us just continuing the uncertainty for the next decade. If parliament get the mechanism to vote on something tangible as a basis to go back into the WA and/or declare a goal for the next process, it's actually a solution and gives us a chance to close it.

What I think people forget is this is meant to be the easy stage. I'd prefer May's deal to nothing but if we're entering the difficult part with no agreed framework that can pass the Commons, it's not going to go top well.

I suspect that the compromise is maybe almost there in principle but it's been difficult to express will and losing that Benn amendment has maybe fucked it, even if they can get a really solid majority on it in favour.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, harry94 said:

The indicative votes thing is hugely important though.

Parliament can't do anything as the government set the agenda so it's really just a case of trying to find whatever relevance they can to bills and trying to produce substantial amendments. That's then hugely difficult when you consider that the government can control the timing of what is going - opposition leaders can't always whip in an instant, they've got their own internal challenges and pressures.

If Benn's amendment went through, parliament could have voted on a declaration on a single outcome and actually had the ability to legislate to match it. A team could have went to Brussels if they could demonstrate their plan had support and actually do something tangible.

The big problem for Labour and their plan is whilst it's viable to attach to the WA deal in theory, the next stage of negotiations is going to be very challenging so there's a lot more they'd like in there now as it may be harder in the future (e.g. Corbyn fancies this workers alignment, there could maybe have been something drawn up which gives some level of decision making).

If May's deal goes through, it just means we'll spend another couple of years of a new Tory PM pandering to all sides of parliament and then failing to beat the backstop loop and us just continuing the uncertainty for the next decade. If parliament get the mechanism to vote on something tangible as a basis to go back into the WA and/or declare a goal for the next process, it's actually a solution and gives us a chance to close it.

What I think people forget is this is meant to be the easy stage. I'd prefer May's deal to nothing but if we're entering the difficult part with no agreed framework that can pass the Commons, it's not going to go top well.

I suspect that the compromise is maybe almost there in principle but it's been difficult to express will and losing that Benn amendment has maybe fucked it, even if they can get a really solid majority on it in favour.

There's no reason why MPs who are against No Deal and May's deal couldn't have got together and agreed a common alternative, and brought it in as a binding amendment or something. All they're interested in is spouting off on TV and in Parliament. All Labour's plan would take is an adjustment to the Political Declaration. 

Edited by welshbairn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Sherrif John Bunnell said:

Fair play to Comrade Jezza for not meeting TIG until they are transparent about who is funding them. I'm sure Hezbollah and the IRA provided him with a detailed hierarchy of leadership and a full set of audited accounts before he met with them.

Anyway, we all know who really funds TIG:

  Reveal hidden contents

aiEJH.gif

 

wiggo.png.4b4f196228c6d4db398ce9fe8fa6a8e7.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no reason why MPs who are against No Deal and May's deal couldn't have got together and agreed a common alternative, and brought it in as a binding amendment or something. All they're interested in is spouting off on TV and in Parliament.
The issue is that if they want a particular solution, there isn't really a way that they have to guarantee it as binding and even amendments themselves are a complex science.

Then the big killer is that this isn't the UK government negotiating with itself, there's an external party involved and even with deceleration of a position, it will require other bits of negotiation that will need legislated on here. If there's no power to do that and no way to demonstrate confidence for an idea, it's hard to see how it proceeds.

I'm not saying they've handled the process well but they are very restricted and although we've got a parliamentary democracy, it is hugely reliant on a functional government that can command confidence on key votes. The coalition bringing in FTPA, and how it impacts this situation, will be the subject of a PhD thesis or two in years to come I'm sure.

I think if they weren't worried about their own career aspirations, the common sense thing would have been a cross party government to sort it out with a compromise quickly but human nature is that people don't like voting to kill their careers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...