Search results

Yet you back those who are using processes to deny democracy. Then bleat about undemocratic decisions. And this is the problem that I have. I want to see a democratic decision to be kept to. Because if it doesn't happen we would end up like the EU and push through whatever they want. We could...

How many times? Evidence? You have none. Because it was in or out. Full stop.

1, There are several ways that an early general election can be called. But they all depend on the situation. 2, The queen never gets involved in politics. She needs to be seen as impartial. 3, The Lords would stop Brexit if they could. 4, I don't think BJ should have suspended parliament to...

What kind of Brexit was voted for? I don't remember seeing hard or soft Brexit. Just yes or no.

Both sides? Someone who is ignoring the majority gets pissed off because they are getting ignored themself yet they can't understand why so many people are pissed off.

They always have. Then gang up on anyone who dares to sgow them to be wrong.

So why are they trying to stop Brexit then?

But BJ could ignore the result of a no confidence vote if it went against him and call an election himself. This could be designed to take us past the leaving date.

I had to laugh when MP's called it an affront to democracy. If this is true what do you call MP's going against the wishes of the electorate? Some of them need a total reality check. They might want what is best. But they don't like being ignored yet ignore the majority.

The so called May deal was all about compromise. And nobody wanted it. Not even yourself. Hard nosed? No. They said what they wanted and expected it because of May. And they can afford to do it as they make the rules up as they go along. If they fail to get what they want they then have another...

When you voted remain what did you vote for? To me it was to remain in the EU. Keep to their rules and regulations. So what did those who voted to leave for? The question was in or out. Of course there should be some kind of compromise. But would you like to point out who it is that doesn't...

Exactly. A way for the rich to feed the poor and most probably get richer in the process.

If we suffer disruption so will others. If the ports get blocked for us they get blocked for everyone else. France will suffer the most out of all of them and they didn't start this shitfest.

That is the problem I have with the press. They aim for their target depending on what point they want to put across. But if they were doing their job right they would go for all of those who hold the power from all sides of the arguments.

Half of me thinks that we should have the choice of the quality of the food we consume. The other half thinks we shouldn't allow a lower grade for the poor.

So the plans of the EU to stop disruption and hardship won't work?

No. Certain people have nowhere near as much power as you think. Or do you think people like Patel has 100% of the decision making and there are no discussions beforehand. And they cynic in me says she got the position because of her name more than anything else. Someone called Smith would get...

And foodbanks. There are more people that are needy but can't get past the shame of going to one than thise who waste their money so need one. Modern society is fucked up. The rich are winning.

Yes it is shameful. But cheap food is needed for those who can't afford free range. Or do we stop paying farmers for not farming? This would bring prices down as there would then be a plentiful supply and ban intensive farming of all kinds.

Not understanding what? You are always at the front of the queue to have a go at me but never explain yourself. You think it is OK to throw insults about instead. How about explaining yourself and if you are correct I won't show you where you are wrong for once.