SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
He's trying to do as much damage as possible before he goes next week
The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (51 Viewers)
- Thread starter jimmyhillsfanclub
- Start date
Grendel
Well-Known Member
the Eu would have had to if we didn’t as that’s the rule of Belgium
You have no argument against my points. Fair enough live with the ultimate consequences
Grendel
Well-Known Member
He will be going nowhere
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
But he's done nothing illegal. This is the equivalent of what Alexander did in proroguing parliament, a move which you wholeheartedly supported.
Personally I think this is also a bit of a dick move and the vote should've gone ahead today. But as I say he's not done anything illegal or he is not permitted to do in his remit.
Impartial in parliament. He is allowed an opinion and a vote in elections and referenda as a normal citizen. BTW you do realsie before becoming speaker he was a Tory? And hardly a liberal one at that.
Nope it’s nothing to do with the EU specifically as you well know after having it explained to you. That is why you’re not now daily repeating the rubbish of “we won’t be putting up a border”.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Like they did in 2017.....?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I don’t need anything explaining - if the uk government refused to actually put up a border you know full well the EU would need to - as I’m sure you also are aware the Surrender Agreement of 1998 will not be breached either
I can’t wait for the general election and the inevitable manifesto commitment by Mr Corbyn regarding the union
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
Couldn't become a bigger wanker if he tried, Boris was literally forced to send it... Corbyn is the conservatives best asset mind
Agree SBD...not a great move and as someone said earlier will be used by government (to gain sympathy)
As speaker, and supposedly impartial, he should be keeping his opinion neutral in public (which he hasn’t and is my main issue with him).
And as I’m sure you’re aware you are being intentionally disingenuous once again. Of course the EU would need a border, for the same reasons we would.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Well given labours stance changes daily on this issue and the Ieader and the Brexit spokesman seem at odds with each other I’d say it’s very different to 2017 when the Labour Party opposed a second referendum and supported an exit from the EU
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I’m hardly being disingenuous am I? Also if there was a border as long everyone respects the law what’s the issue? Also read the Surrender Act - this is covered by the act of appeasement
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
You brought up something that you thought would change if we’d voted remain. I brought the veto up because we had already taken the measure required to make sure it didn’t happen. You then accuse me of denying that the EU had a plan to achieve something that I’d already acknowledged they had by pointing out we’d vetoed it. I never said it or you was wrong or anything remotely close to it. I merely pointed out we had vetoed it. The rest is in your head.
Well yes you are. As was explained to you a few weeks ago clearly everyone won’t respect the law and it isn’t just about law but also meeting obligations of the various trade agreements and being a position to negotiate new ones.
As I’ve said, we’ve been through all this so please stop playing these silly games.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I don’t see why you keep saying explained to you and why you refuse to answer my points
what page of the surrender agreement resolved the issue out of interest?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
That's exactly the point. He was legally required to send it yet kept claiming he wouldn't. Playing to the gallery again while saying something different in private as was revealed in the Scottish courts.
Not sure how many times that has to happen before the penny will finally drop for some people.
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
Virtually everything the govt have done has been called beforehand too.
People are underestimated "stupid" Boris & his team of advisors. I reckon at the moment (for the foreseeable future) in the eyes of the majority the govt is entirely justified in blaming parliament should we leave without a deal! That equals sympathy vote come the GE
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
What points? You haven’t raised any, you just keep banging on about not having a border when this was patiently explained to you weeks ago.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Want a general election? Also still waiting for a response to a question I asked earlier.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
You've sort of backed up my point because the complaint was about a parliament full of Remainers. I was just pointing out that their election occurred after the referendum (which supposedly had an 'overwhelming majority' in favour of leaving) and the two main parties stood on policy of exiting the EU. So this should be a parliament of Leavers. If it's not then the people who want to leave were duped by the politicians. But we all know that can't happen because they know what they're voting for....
I admit it would be interesting to see what would happen if there were a new election, but I also feel far more strongly that an election should not be turned into a one-issue vote as it encourages extreme policies in other areas on both sides because so much focus is on the single issue. That is why we have referenda.
SIR ERNIE
Well-Known Member
Spot on.
The likes of Tony who gloats every time Boris suffers a Brexit setback don’t seem to grasp the fact that the real prize up for grabs in Parliament right now is five years of government, preferably with a solid majority.
And the more the Labour Party alienate the electorate with their pathetic Brexit games, the more likely it becomes that they’ll be sitting helplessly on the opposition benches for years to come. No wonder Boris continued to look upbeat even when Corbyn was gloating after the Letwin vote passed on Saturday. Bet he had a secret chuckle to himself that evening.
I want to see Brexit delivered but much more than that I want a Tory government with a solid majority for the next five years.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
No I raised 3 points today. Now one asked which page of the surrender agreement covers this border issue - so that’s 4 oh wise one
Parliament who keep trying to legislate to stop no deal? Yes definitely their fault if we leave without one...
I mean for fucks sake man
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
According to Kiar Starmer on Andrew Marr yesterday the opposition believes that the deal has a trap door for a no deal brexit and as Boris and co’s reputations go before them no one trusts them to vote for the deal and then the legislation required to complete it. Thus forcing a no deal brexit, by “accident” of course.
Boris has done nothing by choice to speed the Brexit process up, just the opposite. We could be a lot further down the road now if he’d have treated Brexit with the urgency needed to give the Halloween deadline a chance. We’d probably still have had the bill blocking no deal and the Letwin bill but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say we could have been a week or maybe 2 ahead of where we are today had Boris not pissed around. Today is just another example of that and that’s before you even get into the illegal proroguing of Parliament which if he had have gotten away with it would have put us even further back.
I’m not wasting my time arguing your conspiracy theories about the Supreme Court.
I don’t know what agreement you’re referring to as you insist on acting like a petulant child and calling it the “surrender agreement”. Regardless, it doesn’t matter because I haven’t claimed any agreement covers a border issue. I merely pointed out that a few of us explained the border issues to you a few weeks ago. I know it finally hit home because you were very quiet for a few days afterwards.
I have shown you plenty of patience on numerous occasions but today I am done with your nonsense.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
This is the difficult point. If he ignored the bill passed on super Saturday and allowed the vote to take place that would not have been demonstrating impartiality either.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
No deal is a playground term that has no meaning
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
So is Brexit......
Grendel
Well-Known Member
So when confronted with facts you cannot answer - well done
Grendel
Well-Known Member
well it means leave the EU
Well you’re right about one thing yet your heroes keep using it anyway.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
and no deal means leave the EU without any withdrawal agreement or other type of deal and use WTO standards unless/until a future trade deal is struck.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
It’s the opposition that often use it
Grendel
Well-Known Member
So perhaps you’d like to explain how the withdrawal of the order paper from the government and today’s reasons by the speaker for not allowing the reading of the act are reconcilable under his justification today?
