EU-BREXIT - Page 294 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15044167
JohnRawls wrote:You said that he has the majority. Now he withdrew the bill. Why didn't he pass it then if he has the majority?


On announcement of the result,CORBYN offered,through the usual channels, to discuss the 'details' with the government, in order to progress the Bill through to the next stage,but BoJo is not stupid,because the 'devil' is in the 'details'.

Those 'details', in CORBYN's eyes, are in fact,tanks that would roll over BoJo in his ditch,because CORBYN would then begin talking about the Customs Union, Single Market, workers 'rights', blah,blah,blah.

I see absolutely no reason at all for the government to engage in discussions with CORBYN, he is not to be trusted at all, he was just playing around with Theresa MAY,in order to stall Brexit & he's still doing that now.

CORBYN is going down, he wants to make a phoney attempt at making some rescue bid on his real position, by 'engaging' with the government to save his own face, he is a born loser, destined to remain on the opposition benches along with his cohorts.
By Rich
#15044173
I think the most likely outcome now is extension, a pre Christmas election, the Tories win an overall majority and the deal is pushed through fairly swiftly afterwards. Well hopefully at least it will be the end of Anna Soubry's political career.
User avatar
By Beren
#15044181
Rich wrote:I think the most likely outcome now is extension, a pre Christmas election, the Tories win an overall majority and the deal is pushed through fairly swiftly afterwards.

That's the most likely outcome at the moment indeed, although I wonder if this withdrawal agreement is really such a winner and the get-Brexit-done hype endures until Xmas. However, the best that can be said about that agreement is that it could be achieved and didn't get brutally killed off in parliament as May's deal regularly did, so the ratification process could be "paused" by the government.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15044184
Rich wrote:I think the most likely outcome now is extension, a pre Christmas election, the Tories win an overall majority and the deal is pushed through fairly swiftly afterwards. Well hopefully at least it will be the end of Anna Soubry's political career.


I don't think(at the moment)that you are too far off there Rich.
I would say that it's no shame to BoJo in accepting a very short extension,I would have preferred the E.U to have announced prior to the vote that they would not grant an extension,or a very short one, as that would have forced the issue in Westminster to complete the process by the default date.

By having a longer extension, that will enable the games in Westminster to continue,begging the overdue question,"how long is a piece of string"?
User avatar
By Beren
#15044246
BoJo's stuck-in-the-mud withdrawal bill is under heavy fire by Farage, the DUP, as well as the Scottish and the Welsh assemblies while the EU is considering an extension. Meanwhile,
By Rich
#15044258
I think we might be seeing a moderate democratic consensus emerging. We should have an election at the earliest possibility that can include 16 and 17 year olds. Now obviously a lot of fascists will object to this and will say old people, no matter how senile, no matter how advanced their dementia must have the right to vote, but 16 and 17 years must not because they might vote the wrong way.

One thing that should be clear to even the marginally intelligent is that Boris's deal puts Northern Ireland business into a place of permanent uncertainty.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15044440
@B0ycey

Beren wrote:a pre Christmas election

respectfully regrets that the Gracious Speech does not repeal the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to restore a publicly provided and administered National Health Service and protect it from future trade agreements that would allow private companies competing for services who put profit before public health and that could restrict policy decisions taken in the public interest.

-- Labour amendment to Queen's Speech

Last night, the 'Yellow Tories' abstained to defeat Labour's amendment to the Queen's Speech which would have protected the NHS under a hard brexit.


Déjà vu?

Nick Clegg wrote: A new politics where the national interest is more important than party interest

It looks like the Swinson "I'll do anything, but I won't do that"* bitch is positioning LD to be Johnson's coalition partner in a hung parliament.


:lol:


* GNU reference
By Rich
#15044448
So the idea of trying to get Brexit done before an election doesn't carry a lot of credibility with me. If Boris gets a majority, cest la vie. He can push through his Brexit deal. If the election produces another Brexit stalemate that's fine. The parliament will have a renewed mandate for Brexit paralysis, and the British electorate will have no excuse for whining. An election should only be delayed to institute one or more of the 4 democratic reforms.

1 Proportional Representation. We can start with a 100 MP proportional top up, so its not like this is a major or difficult change.
2 Reduction of the five year limit on parliaments. Brexiteers reveal their hypocrisy by not demanding this.
3 Removal of the oath of allegiance allowing principled Republicans and principled Greens who oppose Harry and Megan's public financed jet setter preaching life style, to tak up their seats.
4 Giving the vote to 16 and 17 years old. Aside from the hypocrisy of those who oppose this, while supporting the massive expansion of the dementia electorate, allowing people to vote at 16 and 17 encourages them to become regular voters when older. This helps to build an engaged citizenry, something Brexocrites say they are all about.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15044462
Rich wrote:Giving the vote to 16 and 17 years old.

Good wheeze (84% remain) but it wouldn't give them the vote at a pre Christmas election. They are not on the electoral roll and there is no time to register them.


:lol:
By snapdragon
#15044464
@ingliz

Not so. Most 16/17 year olds are already registered, but even if not, it wouldn't take very long at all. A couple of weeks at the most.
User avatar
By Beren
#15044469
The Guardian wrote:At Wednesday’s meeting with Jeremy Corbyn – and the pair’s chief advisers, Dominic Cummings and Seumas Milne – the government side expressed the hope that a new timetable could be agreed in time to leave by Halloween.

Why did Johnson and Corbyn bring their chief advisers rather than the Leader and the Shadow Leader of the House to the meeting if they meant to agree on a new timetable? I wonder if they actually agreed on a snap election.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15044474
snapdragon wrote:Most 16/17 year olds are already registered

Following the introduction of individual registration in 2014, the number of school leavers on the electoral roll in England fell by 25%.

And it has only got worse over time.

Using 2017 numbers for Westmorland and Lonsdale - the constituency held by the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron - the number of attainers on the register has dropped by over 75% .
By Rich
#15044476
ingliz wrote:Good wheeze (84% remain) but it wouldn't give them the vote at a pre Christmas election. They are not on the electoral roll and there is no time to register them.

That's what I'm saying, delay the election for any electoral reforms. Waiting to get Brexit done does not seem a legitimate reason, but waiting for electoral reform is totally the right thing to do. In fact I would suggest that the first Thursday in May would be a good date to go for and then the election could be held on that date every two years. With election campaigns reduced to no longer than a week. This could mean every 16/17 year old could be guaranteed to get the chance to vote once before they were 18. As well as helping to create an engaged citizenry, this might do something to stop the whole university, student loan, finance pyramid scheme, that is seriously exacerbating inequality in this country.

Of course that might not appeal to many Brexocrites who are desperate to see cuts in Capital gains / corporation, inheritance and mansion taxes, so more of the tax burden can be pushed on to lower / middle class people. This is why its wrong to see Brexocrites as selfish nationalists, if they are successful it could also mean significant gains for the super rich of Europe as the race to the bottom on rich peoples taxes picks up pace. Brexocrites care deeply about the super rich of all nations regardless of race, sex, sexual preference or creed.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15044505
The 'remainers',CORBYN,SWINSON,SNP,Lib Dems, are now to have their 'bluff' called by the P.M on Monday in the Commons, when a debate on a call for an early general election by 12 December will be voted on.

Of course, the repeated calls by the other parties to hold an election, will be exposed for what it was, just bluff.

They cannot have it one way, then oppose the other way, which is that, at one moment they are in the media saying that they should get rid of the Tories or JOHNSON,as soon as possible, then, when the opportunity arises, they run for the hills in fright.

We shall see on Monday, which way the wind blows,one thing is almost certain, there will be as many 'excuses' not to have an election, as there are votes against the motion.

Indications are so far, that the remainer headless chickens are running around with their exuses not to vote for an election already.
Last edited by Nonsense on 24 Oct 2019 19:00, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15044512
Rich wrote:That's what I'm saying, delay the election for any electoral reforms. Waiting to get Brexit done does not seem a legitimate reason, but waiting for electoral reform is totally the right thing to do. In fact I would suggest that the first Thursday in May would be a good date to go for and then the election could be held on that date every two years. With election campaigns reduced to no longer than a week. This could mean every 16/17 year old could be guaranteed to get the chance to vote once before they were 18. As well as helping to create an engaged citizenry, this might do something to stop the whole university, student loan, finance pyramid scheme, that is seriously exacerbating inequality in this country.

Of course that might not appeal to many Brexocrites who are desperate to see cuts in Capital gains / corporation, inheritance and mansion taxes, so more of the tax burden can be pushed on to lower / middle class people. This is why its wrong to see Brexocrites as selfish nationalists, if they are successful it could also mean significant gains for the super rich of Europe as the race to the bottom on rich peoples taxes picks up pace. Brexocrites care deeply about the super rich of all nations regardless of race, sex, sexual preference or creed.



'Waiting' for 'electoral reforms', as much as they are needed to avoid a repetition of the current situation in parliament, as worthy as it is, is not the right approach Rich.

The referendum,in conjunction with political 'mishaps' by Theresa MAY, along with previous legislative policies, that have contributed to the situation, the Fixed Term Parliament Act, being one that you mention,which CAMERON brought in.
Unfortunately for the Tories(perhaps luckily for Labour), the Tory policy of Boundary Changes reform, failed to materialise, which, again, helps Labour & that policy was supposed to reinforce the FTPA as a way of eliminating popular democratic 'anomalies' at election time.

As for '16-17 year olds' in respect of elections, although I agree that democracy should there for all as a way of demonstrating their will,apart from the policy anomalies above, there is an accepted principle of, 'no taxation, without representaion', which, in the case of 16-17 year olds,should apply as, 'no representation, without taxation'.

Now, having said that, everybody that is in posession of one or both of the following, a Tax Reference Number,along with a National Insurance Number, is subject to taxation or entitlement receive state benefits once any income in excess of the Personal Allowance is achieved or not, as the case may be.

From that point of view, there should be no reason why theu should not be allowed to vote.

That presentation though,in effect, applies to few in the age up to 17 years, which rather negates the legitimacy of the demand that they should have the vote & is just an unfortunate reality.

I can't accept what you say on Brexiteers expecting reduced taxes of various sorts, or any of the other things Rich, that's because they are not related to Brexit, rather, they are the effects of Fiscal Policy post-war (1945),by both main political parties,also with the Lib Dems under the 'Coalition', but, I do concur with your sentiment on such things.

In fact, Labour agreed with CAMERON's government, on the need for 'austerity', indeeed, Gordon BROWN's government,with Alistair DARLING,as Chancellor, waged their own war of attrition against benefit dependents, not unreasonably at that time, although, those efforts were undermined completely by unmitigated migration into the country under their watch & ever since.
Last edited by Nonsense on 24 Oct 2019 18:50, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#15044513
Again the extension thing. We should give a 200 year extension to Brexit with "Flextention" conditions. So basically UK has 200 years to decide if it wants to leave, stay, do a deal, crash out with no deal or whatever else so long as its ratified or done by British decision to crash out. Then never have this talk again. Just leave it to the UK to decide and then move on doing our EU things.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15044514
JohnRawls wrote:Again the extension thing. We should give a 200 year extension to Brexit with "Flextention" conditions. So basically UK has 200 years to decide if it wants to leave, stay, do a deal, crash out with no deal or whatever else so long as its ratified or done by British decision to crash out. Then never have this talk again. Just leave it to the UK to decide and then move on doing our EU things.



That must your version of a 'short' extension then JR. :lol: :lol:
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#15044516
Nonsense wrote:That must your version of a 'short' extension then JR. :lol: :lol:


Flextention rules are basically that the extension ends when something is decided: Deal? No Deal? Whatever else? and ratified obviously. No Deal can be done by one-sided UK decision.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15044517
JohnRawls wrote:Flextention rules are basically that the extension ends when something is decided: Deal? No Deal? Whatever else? and ratified obviously. No Deal can be done by one-sided UK decision.


That's true, provided both sides accept any extension on that basis.

Personally, I think that the european council of ministers, should have made plain before this weeks vote, that they would not grant the extension request, that would have focused MP's minds enough to settle the whole issue, 'lock-stock & two smoking barrels'.
  • 1
  • 292
  • 293
  • 294
  • 295
  • 296
  • 305
EU-BREXIT

The paradox of politics is rather like the parado[…]

The clue is that free market capitalism in the pa[…]

1) Wrong. 2) Ok. Then cite a clause in the c[…]