Baldseagull
Well-known member
I notice your concern over risk to life and limb is much higher in the "rioting due to Brexit delay" scenario, than it was in the "shortage of medicines due to no deal" scenario.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Brexit
- Thread starter KingstonSeagull
- Start date
I notice your concern over risk to life and limb is much higher in the "rioting due to Brexit delay" scenario, than it was in the "shortage of medicines due to no deal" scenario.
Pretty pink fairy
Banned
- Jan 30, 2008
- 31,981
you talk of democracy and you have people like this trying to destroy it,I'm looking forward to an election soon not in a few years
regards
DT
they've ignored the public time and time again, can't you see that ,DID THE PUBLIC VOTE TO STOP THE COUNTRY FROM LEAVING THE EU............. no though not, they voted to leave it
regards
DR
Silly little racist.
Baldseagull
Well-known member
Pritti Patel is saying she is going to get tough on criminals, so he might be made an example of to deter other Prime Ministers from breaking the law.
So, you're accusing them of destroying your version of democracy, by using a democratic process. I see.
Do you have a shred of an idea how ridiculous you are?
D
Deleted member 2719
Guest
midnight_rendezvous
Well-known member
they've ignored the public time and time again, can't you see that ,DID THE PUBLIC VOTE TO STOP THE COUNTRY FROM LEAVING THE EU............. no though not, they voted to leave it
regards
DR
Firstly, thank you for proving my point. Secondly, the referendum wasn’t legally binding. It was merely advisory. Thirdly, leave winning the referendum vote doesn’t suddenly mean that remainers and MPs suddenly stop the holding the government to account and using their DEMOCRATIC RIGHT to oppose bad deals and no deal.
You see, in the UK we regularly have a vote, reach an outcome, then at a later stage we challenge that outcome with another vote and can, if we wish, overturn it. That is our electoral cycle. We have a general election and elect a government. They have a go at implementing their policies. At some point later there is another election, and if those policies aren’t working and the will of the people has changed, we elect a different government. We change the outcome of the previous vote in a new vote. That is how our entire system works. It’s called democracy.
I’m sorry if that comes across as patronising but, from experience, some Brexiteers seem to struggle with what democracy actually means.
lawros left foot
Glory hunting since 1969
I think Gina Miller is trying to ensure that Johnson’s Government doesn’t subvert democracy, not the other way round. As I explained in an earlier post,we are a constitutional Monarchy, but, even the Government of the day is subservient to the rule of Law which along with Parliamentary sovereignty , and Court rulings, is the fundamental defining principles of our unwritten constitution.
Simplified, this means every individual, group, and even Government has to operate within the law of the land,Gina Millers group is just trying to ensure that Johnson’s Government is , in fact , operating within the Law. It may piss you off, but, I’m afraid, that’s democracy.
BensGrandad
New member
Been down near The Lizard since last Sunday and wifi was very poor as was the TV reception so not able to keep up very well.
theonlymikey
New member
- Apr 21, 2016
- 789
Assume timmy is a vague reference to the lad in a wheel chair from southpark who has mental difficulties and can only say "timmy".
Wouldn't expect anything else from a knuckle dragging racist.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
- Jul 10, 2003
- 25,849
Oh, I never watched that, nor understood the reference, but yes, that's about his level.
Lawro, the point I am making is that a Unity Government, if it is ever seriously mooted, would have far more chance of succeeding if someone other than Corbyn were to lead it; a less divisive figure such as Harriet Harman, Ken Clarke, David Liddington or Yvette Cooper, say.
As you so politely put it, it is f--k all to do with me, but it is all to do with the MPs who may want to join forces and many will be less likely to do so if Corbyn is the leader.
Put aside your party political hat and face reality.
By the way, I am no Johnson fan and voted remain.
Last edited:
BensGrandad
New member
Thart therrre TV not made it to Cornwall yet BG?
We was staying in a caravan and the communal aerial kept fading due to weather I was told.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,310
first why note 0.1% to about 0.45% as if the latter is justification?
second and more importantly, the point of a unity government is the attempt to be politically neutral. having Corbyn is handing PM and government to leader of oppostion who lost the last election. any leader of opposition would be inappropriate. it needs someone who can command authority from both sides of the house, to administrate rather than lead a temporary government for a short period, until a full election is called.
I hope Lawro gets the point that both you and I are making, despite his knee-jerk response to my post.
We'll have to wait and see!
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
lawros left foot
Glory hunting since 1969
U
I am facing reality, Labour members are never going to be happy with any of the four MPs you mention there. Labour MPs maybe, but not the members.
Clarke, although a more acceptable Tory than most of them, has nearly always voted against any kind of improvement of welfare benefits for anyone including the disabled. Nearly always voted for every austerity measure. Always voted against increase in taxation for those earning over £150,000.
David Liddington, was Mays defacto deputy,voted for austerity, for welfare and benefits cuts, voted against EU membership, more often than not. Voted against tax increases for those earning over £150,000.
Yvette Cooper, and Harriett Harmsn would never unite the left of the Labour Party behind them, and, although you may not like it, the left is in the ascent in the party at the moment. As Labour would bring the largest number of MPs to a Unity Government, I assume that, to a certain extent they would call the shots.
I really can’t see a Government of national unity anyway, I don’t think even the more Blairite members of the LP would be happy sharing a platform with Jo Swinson, a politician nearly as mendacious as Johnson.
I am facing reality, Labour members are never going to be happy with any of the four MPs you mention there. Labour MPs maybe, but not the members.
Clarke, although a more acceptable Tory than most of them, has nearly always voted against any kind of improvement of welfare benefits for anyone including the disabled. Nearly always voted for every austerity measure. Always voted against increase in taxation for those earning over £150,000.
David Liddington, was Mays defacto deputy,voted for austerity, for welfare and benefits cuts, voted against EU membership, more often than not. Voted against tax increases for those earning over £150,000.
Yvette Cooper, and Harriett Harmsn would never unite the left of the Labour Party behind them, and, although you may not like it, the left is in the ascent in the party at the moment. As Labour would bring the largest number of MPs to a Unity Government, I assume that, to a certain extent they would call the shots.
I really can’t see a Government of national unity anyway, I don’t think even the more Blairite members of the LP would be happy sharing a platform with Jo Swinson, a politician nearly as mendacious as Johnson.