Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Jan 19 - 03:37 AM

TBH, DMcG, I neither want a second referendum, nor a GE. I want the 650 MPs we elected to Parliament to do their jobs for which they are handsomely rewarded, recognise what is best for the UK as a whole - not just the tiny, immensely wealthy minority - and reject the entire, ridiculous, dangerous project.

This is a Representative Democracy, it's high time our Representatives started shouldering their responsibilities and doing what's best for everyone.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Jan 19 - 04:12 AM

I totally agree with that. I have said several times in the past that I don't think referendums and our system of government fit together - countries with a written constitution have been able to define rules for it, but we have an ad-hoc, hope the best approach. Then there is the level of understanding of the voters: even at this stage I suspect few people - leavers or remainers - could reliably say whether particular things relate to the single market or the customs union.

But if Parliament cannot come to agreement we may be forced down that route. I am convinced it would deepen the divisions but that may the price Parliament's failure would make us pay.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 10 Jan 19 - 04:42 AM

There may be cheering on this forum as a result of the Speakers actions yesterday.
However this overlooks the fact that not onlyis the speaker highly partisan(why else a "bollocks to brexit" in his car) but on procedural matters he is "guided" by the clerk of the house.viz.
Chief procedural adviser

In the absence of a Speaker vested with formal powers of order the Clerk of the Parliaments is expected actively to provide authoritative advice on procedural matters on a daily basis to the Lord Speaker, the Leader of the House and other Members of the frontbenches, the Chairman of Committees and individual Members.

The Clerk of Parliaments sits for a significant proportion of each day in the Chamber of the House, and keeps a supervisory watch over its proceedings. He calls on the business of the House and participates in certain ceremonial occasions.

The fact the speaker is rather coy on the matter of either accepting or disregarding the advice of the clerk is significant.
He has done no favours to himself, Parliament or democracy.

Ex-ministers, constitutional experts and respected former Speaker Betty Boothroyd united in a chorus of anger over the Commons "stitch-up" that led to a Government defeat. COMMONS Speaker John Bercow was last night told to quit after "disgracefully" flouting parliamentary rules to help Remainers seize more control over Brexit.

The above could be regarded as "sour grapes" but when the highly respected former speaker Betty Boothroyd joins the chorus,I feel the allegations have substance.

or as another sees it:
A few weeks ago I made reference in an article to the fact that the Speaker’s car sported a sticker declaring “Bollocks to Brexit”. Within minutes, his defenders had got in touch to inform me that the sticker was affixed to his wife’s car, not his. This seemed to matter. It does not. No one surely now claims that Bercow is anything other than an anti-Brexit partisan cheering his side’s efforts to thwart our departure from the European Union from the safety of the Commons chair.

His bizarre and dangerous ruling in the Commons today, in favour of selecting an amendment by former Attorney General (and arch Remainer) Dominic Grieve, proposing that the Prime Minister be given a maximum of three days (instead of the current 21) to return to the Commons with a plan B if her withdrawal agreement is rejected by MPs next week, is proof positive of his political position. It is now accepted that his own clerk advised against the constitutionality of allowing the amendment to proceed, and that Bercow overruled him and others of the same opinion.

In some senses the fact of selecting the amendment, and the effect it would have if passed, change very little. On the first point, it will come as no surprise that Bercow opposes Britain’s exit from the EU and is comfortable using his authority in order to prevent it happening. This has been an accepted fact of life at Westminster since before the 2016 referendum.

Virtually every Labour MP in the Commons, formerly proud advocates of women’s and workers’ rights to workplaces free from bullying, chose to suspend that particular principle last year when serious accusations against the Speaker, from more than one reliable source, emerged. Normally – and especially if such allegations had involved a Conservative minister – Labour would have demanded immediate action. But in Bercow’s case – as lucidly explained by Dame Margaret Beckett MP – the cause of opposing Brexit trumps any less important issue such as the rights of Commons members of staff.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Jan 19 - 04:48 AM

Yep, I'm absolutely with you there.

FWIW, whatever I might say on here (and much of it is actually a particularly wicked SoH which I inherited from my mother's side of the family) I don't regard the majority of Leavers as swivel-eyed, Union-Jack boxer-clad, unicorn-awaiting loons - I understand that many, probably most, are just like me but with a different PoV. Unfortunately though, the vocal minority who do fall into the 'loon' category are also the ones who seem to be 'angry winners, and post the venomous, threatening stuff on social media. I do get very tired of being told to 'get over it', and that I should be executed, and hence I frequently feel inclined to express my disdain for those types.

Just thought I'd say that.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Jan 19 - 04:48 AM

That was for DMcG, by the way.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 10 Jan 19 - 04:58 AM

I need to correct the Parliamentary clerk. It should of course be The Clerk of the House who advises the Speaker and MPs on the formal and informal rules of the House of Commons.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Jan 19 - 05:10 AM

There may be cheering from me - quietly, I am not given to such exuberance! - but it is about rebalancing the relative power of Parliament and the Executive, not just about Brexit. I want a Labour government, whenever it may be we next have one, to have its business motions subject to amendments by the House as well. And the house as a whole decides if those amendments are accepted. That moves us towards a truly representative democracy and away from an elected dictatorship. Many years ago now I heard Robin Cook saying he was sick of an approach where a government can do what it likes with almost no effective opposition for years, then the other party gets in and equally ineffectually unopposed undoes all that and does what it wants, then another reversal when the first party gets back in. In order to get a truly lasting change you need a broad consensus across parties. And making Parliament more in control of what government can do helps.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jan 19 - 01:45 PM

Parliament is now at war with government

Interesting points from politics.co.uk

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 10 Jan 19 - 03:27 PM

The referendum result created something of a constitutional problem because the required legislation, to honour the totally unexpected outcome, was not passed. All along this has created a problem of different groups arguing what is paramount- The referendum outcome, or parliament.
The majority that voted for brexit rightly feel cheated by Parliament, who have shown their disdain for the outcome by constantly thwarting it. The linked article above raises some interesting points that could be argued as positives.
What Bercow has done is truncated the time for the boil to be lanced. The present situation is intolerable.   The PM's present course of action is a progressive watering down of the departure terms to the extent that it will be a brexit in name only. Tied to the EU legislation with no seat at the table to dispute it.
May needs to call a snap election. Any other path of action will leave the electorate feeling alienated from their representatives for a long time into the future.
It will be interesting to see how it pans out.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jan 19 - 05:38 PM

It wasn't the Speaker's car. Comment is free but facts are sacred.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jan 19 - 07:30 PM

Well wasn't Fiona Bruce excellent on Question Time. She had three arseholes on the panel (plus Jo Swinson and Nish Kumar, definitely not arseholes), but she still managed to keep the atmosphere reasonably sweet, and the audience reacted well. Makes you realise what a tedious fart Dimbleby's too-long stewardship was. But why we give the crypto-fascist Melanie Phillips airtime is beyond me. Free speech I suppose.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 01:58 AM

She was far more prepared to challenge what people said than Dimbleby was.   The 'Plan B' sequence was revealing - or at least showed what we knew. It would have been easy to let it go, or keep pushing it once the lack of a plan was obvious without letting others speak, but for me she got that balance right.

There was an excellent camera shot of Melanie Phillips collapsed on the desk. I felt sh3 was signalling she wanted to be called to give a rant, and wasn't.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 03:47 AM

And by way of light relief...

Theresa May hires Baldrick to discuss ‘cunning plan’ for Brexit

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 03:52 AM

"It wasn't the Speaker's car. Comment is free but facts are sacred."
Hmmm! I wonder who the car is registered to?

In my view the point is irrelevant, In his role as speaker Bercowis expected to show decorum and impartiality in all aspects of his public life.
Many would see a car belonging to the Bercow family with a bollocks to brexit sticker attached to be not simply raising two fingers to those that voted leave, but a direct display of his partisanship. If he and his wife are not capable of making that connection, then perhaps the speaker is unsuited to his role.The sticker incident is but one of numerous actions where his impartiality can be questioned.
I am afraid to excuse it as being purely the actions of a totally independent person, namely his wife, does not diminish the affront, or his demeaning of his office.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 04:24 AM

Am I my brother's (or wife's) keeper?

Surely it is rather old fashioned to expect anyone's wife to fall in with their husbands politics.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 04:48 AM

If the sticker had said "rollocks to remainers" would your response be identical? Are not assets in marriage jointly owned?


"Am I my brother's (or wife's) keeper?"

Were a prominent male politician to have a porn actress as a wife,
I wonder what giddy heights his subsequent career would rise to?

Also Profumo's career was destroyed by a "bit on the side".

In certain spheres of public life the behaviour of the individual cannot always be separated from that of the spouse or close associates.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 07:45 AM

We are getting a string of sexist irrelevancies here. Move on, Dave.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 07:46 AM

If the sticker had said "rollocks to remainers" would your response be identical?

Yes.

Are not assets in marriage jointly owned?

What his wife does with her own car is entirely her own business.

Were a prominent male politician to have a porn actress as a wife,
I wonder what giddy heights his subsequent career would rise to?

President of the USA I would guess.

Also Profumo's career was destroyed by a "bit on the side".

Nothing to do with anything whatsoever. Just like this exchange has nothing to do with brexit. I suggest it ends here although I accept you will probably want the last word. You are welcome to it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 07:48 AM

"President of the USA I would guess."

Bugger! Beat me to it! :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 08:27 AM

I don't actually imagine that being married to a porn actress would necessarily in any way automatically impede a politicians career. It might even help advance it, if spun the right way.

This is a very strange comment, which seems to imply that those who oppose Brexit - probably a significant majority of the population now, going by recent polls, are equivalent to porn entertainers.

I sometimes wish we had a facility on Mudcat enabling us to filter out some people's posts.
..............
"No worse than", backwoodsman, is also a way of saying "no better than". It can provide an explanation for doing something silly, but never a justification or excuse.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 10:47 AM

""No worse than", backwoodsman, is also a way of saying "no better than". It can provide an explanation for doing something silly, but never a justification or excuse."

No it isn't. Except to those with a very perverse view of the world. What I said is what I meant, and I'm disappointed that you have decided to join the group of word-twisters and nit-pickers who have caused so much ill-feeling here at times.

If you regard a bit of fun-poking about Leavers' intelligence as being as bad as the suggestions that I should be 'arrested, marched out, and shot' - tantamount to a death-threat - that I've received from some of them, then your view is very perverse indeed.

Or you're just being a smart-arse.

You decide which.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 10:52 AM

30 months ago I posted that numerous banking, finance and insurance companies where considering moving some of their operations out of the UK to locations that would remain within the EU post Brexit.

At the time I was told, more or less, that I was talking bollocks.

Today I received a letter from one of my insurance companies it reads:

' We are writing to you regarding your active ********** insurance policy that you purchased from our partner ******** company. We *********** Insurance are the underwriter and administrator of this policy. Currently this policy is underwritten from the UK.

As a result of the UK's decision to withdraw from the EU, we intend to transfer your policy to our new insurance company in Germany whch will be withing the *********** group of companies.

The transfer is being undertaken to allow us to continue to service your policy and write business in Europe after the Brexit date'

So now some people will probably be out of work due to this, the revenue to the UK goverment from various taxation will not be forthcoming more people will probably be reliant on the welfare state and someone is probably looking for new tenants.

I don't like to tell you I told you so but ............

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 11:01 AM

It can't be true, Raggy. You must have dreamt it. Just like I dreamt that 1 trillion dollars has already left these shores in anticipation of brexit. Just project fear...

:D tG

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 11:14 AM

Those brexiteers who are attacking John Bercow...wassup with them! The amendment was carried, even though they thought it shouldn't have been brought. So why can't they just accept the will of the 308/650 people? After all, I've been told to accept the will of the 38% (a far weaker percentage) of the people, even though I think the vote should never have been called - and told to accept it, what's more, by the self-same buggers who are attacking the Speaker!

Yes, 38% of the electorate is less than 47.3% of the available electorate of the House of Commons.
But as with the referendum, when you look at the percentage of those who actually voted, you will find the vote was even closer than the referendum result. 51% to 49%.

Parliamentary votes are never decided on a basis of what percentage was scored against a possible 100% turnout, but as a percentage of those actually voting. And all that is required is a majority. The majority, in this case, supported Dominic Greives' amendment.

Any complaints about the Speaker's actions relate to whether the matter should, legitimately, have been before the Commons.
The referendum was brought forward legally, with the prior agreement of the House of Commons. A totally different proposition.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 11:15 AM

That is what bothers me when Leave supporters say things like "I can foresee there may be some hardships in the short term but believe it will be better in the long run" (that is not a direct quotation, but Leavers have said very similar things on this site and elsewhere)

It is so abstract isn't it? As if 'hardships' exist in splendid isolation. Had they said "some people may suffer hardship" it is rather less comfortable. "some people, even perhaps my friends and family may suffer hardship" - now it is getting really uncomfortable, but it is still saying the same thing. Let's just say "there may be some hardship" and not think about what that means....

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 12:36 PM

Yes, Nigel, but as you brexiteers keep saying, it was carried by a majority. Get over it ;-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 01:29 PM

I was making the point that a lot of brexiteers were squealing that the Commons vote should never have been brought. Well I was squealing nearly three years ago that the referendum should never have been brought. So when I lost I was told by the brexiteers to get over myself, etc, and accept the will of the people and stop being a remoaner. So I say to you brexiteers, you lost, so get over yourselves and accept the will of the Commons - and stop moaning about Bercow. And don't be such whited sepulchres.

Oh, and by the way, bollocks to brexit!

Oh, and by the way mk II, Iains, nothing original about calling Bercow the "Squeaker", was there? I happened to read Quentin Letts yesterday too, in the spirit of know-thine-enemy...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 02:45 PM

Were a prominent male politician to have a porn actress as a wife,
I wonder what giddy heights his subsequent career would rise to?

This is a very strange comment, which seems to imply that those who oppose Brexit - probably a significant majority of the population now, going by recent polls, are equivalent to porn entertainers.

I must congratulate you on being able to create a unique spin and extremely contorted interpretation of a very simple sentence.

Until now I thought that such a 'talent' was possessed by only one on this forum. Are you due a hardware update?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 04:22 PM

whatever....

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 07:01 PM

Too much meta-communication here. Though perhaps meta-noncommunication might be a better term.

By which I mean concentrating attention on how we are talking to and at each other, and virtually ignoring the actual subject.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 07:27 PM

I have said an awful lot about brexit, Kevin. On any internet forum there will be sidetracks. I'm trying to use them as a fun diversion and will no longer get into spats with the problematics. Let's me and you see who can get another letter into the Guardian first. The only rule is that it must be brexit-related. Are you on? :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Jan 19 - 01:05 AM

Agree about that, Steve. They add flavour, like salt or pepper. But the flavourings shouldn't become the main ingredient. And some of the flavours we've been getting are pretty unpleasant.

You're on. I'm always sending in letters anyway, though most never get in. Their criteria for publication is pretty weird, considering some of the ones they use. Anything even mildly critical of anything the Guardian has written hasn't a chance.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Jan 19 - 03:57 AM

I write to the Guardian very occasionally indeed, and have had two, or perhaps three, published over the years, so I guess my success rate is perhaps 10-15%. Who knows what Keith Flett's success rate is? Or is he the Guardian equivalent of Alan Smithee?


Still all to play for in the predictions Nigel and I made over ofn the predictions for 2019, but I suspect mine is more likely at the moment. (Nigel's wwe leave March 29 on WTO rules, mine was come April 1st we will still not know what we are doing)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jan 19 - 06:17 PM

I've had a lot of letters printed, many of a slightly trivial nature (as per some of my asides here), but a good few serious ones too. My mum always looks out for one from me but I've disappointed her in recent years, as I haven't sent any for ages. I understand that the Guardian receives about ten times or more as many letters as they print. They like you to follow the format of the letters you see printed, so no fluff and nearly always that reference to a previous letter or an item in the paper in the form you see in other letters. And if you send it after about 2pm you haven't got much of a chance. You can be unlucky in that you can send in a letter on a topic that they're not including in the letters column the next day. If they've covered it today, there's a good chance they won't cover it tomorrow, depending. You won't get in if you're discursive or if a lot of editing is required. Play their game and you up your chances!

I've had a couple printed in the Saturday mag and I got my entry in "that's my pet" in 2002 with my cat Toots, photo of both me and Toots. I shared the column that day with Catherine Zeta-Jones! I've had a couple of contributions to Notes & Queries printed too. But perhaps my greatest achievement was a letter in the Radio Times praising a radio programme about wine. :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 07:34 AM

I'm beginning to get very tired indeed of hearing Tory Leavers complaining about Labour 'not supporting May's Deal', or demanding to know 'what Labour's position is', or asking JC to 'get off the fence'.

How perverse that the same party who opened us up to the Brexit debacle by calling a referendum, then made things worse by calling a GE in 2016 and had to jump into the very dirty bed of the DUP in order to try to hang on to power by their fingertips, and during the entire Brexit negotiations steadfastly refused to involve the other parties in talks with the EU, preferring instead to keep everything to themselves, are now trying to dump the blame for their own abject failures on Labour.

Nobody to blame but the Tories themselves. Man up and face it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 09:43 AM

I'm beginning to get very tired indeed of hearing Tory Leavers complaining about Labour 'not supporting May's Deal', or demanding to know 'what Labour's position is', or asking JC to 'get off the fence'.

How perverse that the same party who opened us up to the Brexit debacle by calling a referendum,

No, the Tories included the promise for a referendum in their manifesto, and kept that promise. The referendum was 'called' by Parliament, with a majority of labour MPs also voting to hold a referendum. To say that the Conservative Party called the referendum is disingenuous.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 11:45 AM

"No, the Tories included the promise for a referendum in their manifesto, and kept that promise. The referendum was 'called' by Parliament, with a majority of labour MPs also voting to hold a referendum. To say that the Conservative Party called the referendum is disingenuous."

Still nitpicking I see, Nigs? And it's you who is being disingenuous of course. The Referendum was proposed and sponsored by the Tory government of the day, led by Cameron. It was in their manifesto, as you very well know, because they were terrified of losing votes to UKIP in the 2015 election - it was a political move in the interests of the Tory Party, not the interests of the country as a whole.

Having been proposed and sponsored by the Tory government, it is true that it was ratified by parliament, but the fact remains that, had the Tory government not chosen to serve their own party interests by putting the referendum in their manifesto and then before Parliament, it would never have taken place, there would have been no reason for May's half-cocked, near-suicidal 2016 GE, nor her disgraceful decision to jump into bed with the dreadful DUP, and the government could have spent the past two-and-a-half years concentrating on dealing with things that would have been in the best interests of the country as a whole, instead of making a complete pig's-ear of their so-called 'negotiations' on BrexShit.

And for the Tories to now demand Labour's input and support, having kept every party except themselves out of the process from day one, and for them and their supporters to howl for JC to declare his, and Labour's, position re BrexShit is not because they believe it's in the interests of the BrexShit process - it's simply another party-political manœuvre by the dishonest May and her followers in order to try to discredit Labour ahead of what looks more and more like an inevitable GE, because they are defecating building-blocks that they'll lose.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 12:52 PM

Now we have it. The truth is 'Nit Picking'. So says the in articulate left.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 01:30 PM

Just a few simple questions, Stanron.

Who had the majority when the referendum was called?
Who invoked article 50 even though the referendum result was only advisory?
Who tried to get that passed through parliament without involving a vote?
Who called the last general election after stating there would not be one?
Who is in charge of the negotiations for brexit?

If the answer to any of the above is Labour then please feel free to blame Corbyn.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 01:48 PM

Your 'not getting it' is well expressed. Calling the referendum and declaring article 50 were passed by majority votes in the House of Commons. They were Parliamentary decisions. The fact that Labour did not5 out vote those decisions does not make them Tory. They are parliamentary.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 01:58 PM

Although I know that Mudcat has been down for some time, 48 hours have elapsed since I posted that one of my insurance companies are relocating some of their operations to Germany, as I suggested they would 30 months ago.

30 Thirty months ago I was told, more or less, that I was talking bollocks.

Now the topic has been ignored ........... hmmmm ....... wonder why

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 02:01 PM

Well the one and only reason that the Tory referendum, then Article 50, were ratified is that the steamroller was already in full flow and that any party which voted against either would have been toast. We call it realpolitik. I state this to explain it, not excuse it, which I definitely don't. And please give over about politicians' "promises." Anyone using that to cast the Tories as the noble beasts in all this are exhibiting the very epitome of disingenuousness. To the point of dishonesty, actually.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 02:05 PM

And who, exactly, has used 'politicians' "promises."' to be dishonest?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 02:06 PM

Read more carefully, please.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 02:16 PM

"Although I know that Mudcat has been down for some time"

Raggy, when it's down, try logging in using https://http://awe.mudcat.org/index.cfm#top
Often works when the usual server is out of order.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 02:34 PM

Thanks I'll try that

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 03:53 PM

Calling the referendum and declaring article 50 were passed by majority votes in the House of Commons.

Which party had the overall majority in the house of commons when those items were passed, Stanron? I think it could be you not getting that a party with an overall majority in the commons is quite capable of passing legislation with no help from the rest of parliament. The opposition when these things were passed could moan and whinge as much as they wanted but they had no teeth and could not have stopped them if they tried.

I suppose that when we are out of the EU in the deep shit you will blame Jeremy Corbyn. Taking a leaf out of the Daily Mail or Trump's alt truth book? Unfuckingbelievable.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 03:55 PM

Of course we'll blame Jeremy Corbyn. What else is he there for?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 04:02 PM

"Of course we'll blame Jeremy Corbyn. What else is he there for?"

And ther we have it in two short sentences - the dishonesty of the Right, from a Righty who accused the Left of dishonesty.

You should hang your head in shame, you despicable zit on the face of humanity.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 19 - 04:03 PM

I'm just waiting for someone to assert that Labour's attitude to brexit is antisemitic. :-)