Brexit #2

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 - 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 - 03:47 AM

And by way of light relief...

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Jan 19 - 04:48 AM

That was for DMcG, by the way.

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: 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: 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: 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: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Jan 19 - 03:29 AM

And 2500!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Jan 19 - 03:17 AM

No worse than them telling me - as they have on a number of occasions, one of them in the past few weeks on another forum - that I'm a 'traitor who should be arrested, marched out and shot' because I voted Remain. If those loons want to be taken seriously, they should stop that kind of nonsense.

As someone said earlier, 'sauce', 'goose', 'gander'...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Jan 19 - 03:04 AM

A very belated word of caution. If there were to be a second referendum and Remain wants to win it, characterizing Leave voters as all idiots, racists, illogical, devious scumbags and so on is not a very good way of proceeding.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Jan 19 - 03:00 AM

You're wasting your time, Steve - it's absolutely useless presenting logic to BrexShiteers, and you'll frazzle their brains and cause their Union-Flag boxers to spontaneously combust with a complicated concept like yours.

But, as someone said earlier, sauce, goose, gander....

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 08:52 PM

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!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 06:50 PM

In some things one has to think 'globally'. We all live on one planet with finite resources and an increasingly devastated natural world. 'Think globally, act locally'.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 04:07 PM

Whether Bercow acted in accord with the advice he was given by the Commons Clerk is not the relevant thing. It would appear he acted in accordance with the wishes of the House, and that is his job.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 03:51 PM

I posted this on the precious thread:

====
Subject: RE: BS: Post Brexit life in the UK
From: DMcG - PM 
Date: 17 Jan 18 - 09:18 AM 

I have to say I have been impressed with Dominic Grieve throughout the debates this week. He has spoken with great clarity and considered insight
=====

Apart from that time he was persuaded not to vote for his own amendment, my view has not changed.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 02:54 PM

The BBC is popping up above the parapet with an unusually honest appraisal of squeaker Bercow. He apparently acted contrary to the advice of the Commons Clerk, Sir David Natzler.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-parliaments-46810616

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 02:10 PM

What on earth is wrong with being a globalist?
A few postings on the subject covering a wide spetrum

https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/5f880y/what_is_globalism_and_why_does_the_altright_view/
views both strongly in favour and against. Interesting views on Unions and mega Corporations.

What it all means is largely dependent on who is in the driving seat.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 02:07 PM

It is pretty good, Steve, but remember that all publications show some bias. It is always worth quoting as a cure for an overdose of faux giddiness though :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 01:56 PM

I'll keep an eye on it then. At first sight it seems to be somewhat more measured than the usual, ranting outpourings of Giddy Faux.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 01:31 PM

I have quoted from The London Economic a few times, Steve. It is a good counter to nonsense from right wing sources and about as biased :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 01:06 PM

"Rats leaving the sinking ship" is a link to an article in The London Economic (TLE), a left-wing digital newspaper.

"TLE? Never heard of it. Had a quick look. Won't be quoting from it any time soon. Has anyone else here? "

Obviously Dave the Gnome has or he would not have provided the link
- PM Date: 09 Jan 19 - 08:46 AM

The actual title of the original article was:
$1 trillion leaves British shores ahead of Brexit D-day.

Needless to say no evidence is provided to back up the assertion!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 11:45 AM

Ok, didn't know that. Even so, I see nothing wrong inbeing one.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Mossback
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 11:40 AM

Well, in the US of A, at least, "globalist" is a right-wing dog-whistle for "Jew".

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 10:56 AM

What on earth is wrong with being a globalist?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 10:29 AM

TLE? Never heard of it. Had a quick look. Won't be quoting from it any time soon. Has anyone else here? If not, I don't see your point about geese, whatever that meant. Just heard a faint echo of your mate Mr Woodcock there!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 10:11 AM

"Is Macron not a globalist with all that it entails?"

While we are a member of be EU, Macron can attempt only to impose French policies on behalf of France that are nothing to do with the EU. Should he attempt to impose globalist policies that do impinge on the EU, the UK won't let him. We have the veto. So, whatever your point is, it falls. I don't know how many times I have to say this: flagging up issues that have no chance of coming about while the UK is a member is nobbut vacuous, pointless scaremongering. You are a leaver ignorantly straying on to remain territory without realising it. You'd be a damn sight more relevant if you were flagging up the undesirable things that could come about once we leave that can't happen now. A European army, for example, which we've vetoed. Maybe even moves towards your dreaded "ever-closer union." We will have no say in those two areas, among many others. And to add insult to injury, we would have to be part of that army and we'd be even more adrift from the EU should they come about. And with no control. Enjoy your new-found "sovereignty." Perhaps Trump or China or Vlad The Lad would let you have a little bit if you grovel nicely.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 09:43 AM

The London Economic (TLE) is a left-wing digital newspaper.
Guido's leftwing counterpart. Does that mean we have to treat everything it says with the uttermost contempt?

and refusing to respond to his more egregiously silly posts (which in my book would automatically include any with reference to Guido Fawkes)

Sauce for the goose............... !

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 08:46 AM

Rats leaving the sinking ship

This is now, not in the future. It is a direct result of the UK saying it will leave the EU. Things will get worse if and when we do leave.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 08:30 AM

Obviously the issue of being in or out of the EU is very much still with us. And it is also obvious that the 2016 referendum did not determine that. That is the very basis for the case that a fresh popular vote is needed, and this time on a clear choice, rather than a fuzzy and ambiguous one like last time.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: bobad
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 08:23 AM

I promised I wasn't going to post again

Lololol!!!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 08:18 AM

It helps to complete Mr Blairs little gem: the implications went far wider: "It is time to resolve once and for all whether this country, Britain, wants to be at the centre and heart of European decision-making."

The issue of being in or out of the EU did not go away on account of the constitution no longer being an issue. The core issue was to remain or stay.
and looking at the clip below out is better than in!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noR_7BOeU20

Is Macron not a globalist with all that it entails?

You may not agree with the content but it covers some awkward ground.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 08:16 AM

"The way you play the victim is an embarrassment."And the way you have used this forum is sickening
It is not the first time that this forum has overstepped the line of illegality on the issue of racism, taking refuge in the immunity that the internet allows to direct hate mail at racial and cultural groups , but you are the most persistent and in my experience, the one who has targeted one of the most vulnerable cultural groups in Britain
I saw up close over thirty years, the misery and the harm resulting on racism towards Travellers... demonstrations, firebombings, harassment, physical assault and state persecution of people who showed only friendship and generosity towards our quest for songs and tales
Your latest crusade is the straw that broke the camels back for me
If my going draws in more of your ilk, in a sad way, my point will have been made
Off out for some fresh air
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 08:08 AM

@KarenH - thanks for your response to my post, very interesting. I'm thinking on your post for a while, not at all in disagreement with you, but I need to consider the content of any reply I may, or may not, make, and how to deliver it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 07:58 AM

"The electorate should be asked for their opinion when all our questions have been answered, when all the details are known, when the legislation has been finally tempered and scrutinised."

For once Tony Blair was spot on in laying down the basic terms for a referendum on this issue. Though of course he was talking about a referendum that could only have taken place if the proposed EU Constitution had still been there to vote about.

And this quote sums up the things that were completely lacking in Cameron's botched referendum. It is bizarre for it to be deployed by an opponent of a fresh "people's vote" when it actually serves to lay down the basic requirements for such a vote.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 07:42 AM

"racist tirades against Travellers"?
Let me be the first to congratulate you on your departure. We may attract more people below the line as a result. The way you play the victim is an embarrassment.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 07:03 AM

What's the point Baccy - you can see the rection from Karen here and from his posting on the other hread Iains sees no harm in his tirades racist tirades against Travellers
I really don't with to be associated with a forum that gives a platform to this filth
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 06:50 AM

Sorry, the word 'mug' was insulting, though if Jim had written it he would be denying that. I maybe should have said 'victim'.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 06:48 AM

Backwoodsman, I give up trying to talk sense into Jim.

As I have said before he cannot or will not accept the fact that his posts come across as insulting and unpleasant.

He asked me for quotations. I provided them while predicting accurately that he would try to argue that they were not abusive, an argument I don't believe even he would accept in an objective way as some of his comments on song lyrics have demonstrated that he is capable of understanding how language works.

He represents himself as a misunderstood crusader, but for me being a jack in the box toy for provocative right=wing posters to amuse themselves with does not further his cause and puts people off. And the latest post in which he seems to feel himself betrayed by his allies seems to show that sadly, he still doesn't get it.

I never believed for one moment he would stay away, and was not prepared to humour him by asking him to return. Sadly, I am guessing that if Jim stayed away Iains would find another mug on another thread to wind up. Then maybe we might get some more interesting discussion.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 06:17 AM

"Cannot happen soon enough!"

                                  :-) :-) :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 06:09 AM

What DtG said.

Jim, there really is no point arguing ad infinitum with those whose wiring is so completely fucked-up (suck it up, Nigs and Iains) that they feel compelled and permitted to preach their bigoted message anywhere they choose. You cannot 'win' with these people and, by continuing to argue with them, rather than preventing them from spouting their vileness, you both encourage and enable them in their endeavours.

Ignore them. It's perfectly obvious to anyone reading this and the other threads they infest what they are, and there is no need for anyone else to comment. They are what they are, and they will continue to expose their obnoxious personae whether you argue with them or not.

Talk around them, but don't talk to them. That will disturb them far more than losing your rag and allowing them to get a huge hard-on from winding you up.

Now, any good news about BrexShit?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 05:46 AM

This will probably be deleted - perhaps it should be

Cannot happen soon enough!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 04:49 AM

There is really no need for drastic action, Jim. Things offend and upset me as much as they do you (I am the son of one of those thieving, trouble making, scrounging, job-taking immigrants, remember) but I have found the way to reduce it that will eventually eliminate it. I have told you many times to talk round them and completely ignore the more stupid posts. Try it for a while.