Question About People Who Spit A Lot
Body & Soul0 min ago
Does The Treachery Of The V B Q Know No Bounds?
74 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Andrew Roberts, writing an open letter to Boris (Telegraph 29th June) writes;
.......... 'I have been advocating prorogation since February, as the obvious way out of a situation in which the sovereign will of the people is being thwarted by the non-sovereign will of MPs. When you prorogue parliament – as I believe you will ultimately have to given the alternatives - you will be likened to King Charles I, although he did it for 11 years whereas you will hopefully only need to do it for a few weeks. Parliament is prorogued three times a year for Recess anyhow; this one will simply be for a month or so longer.' ...........
Boris, like us all, wants a deal which is good for the country, but if it isn't possible I believe he will as Churchill said, 'Put his head in the lion's mouth' and as he said, it's 'do or die'.
.......... 'I have been advocating prorogation since February, as the obvious way out of a situation in which the sovereign will of the people is being thwarted by the non-sovereign will of MPs. When you prorogue parliament – as I believe you will ultimately have to given the alternatives - you will be likened to King Charles I, although he did it for 11 years whereas you will hopefully only need to do it for a few weeks. Parliament is prorogued three times a year for Recess anyhow; this one will simply be for a month or so longer.' ...........
Boris, like us all, wants a deal which is good for the country, but if it isn't possible I believe he will as Churchill said, 'Put his head in the lion's mouth' and as he said, it's 'do or die'.
//yes but what would be the legislation?//
Exactly the same as last time with the Cooper/Letwin shenanigans, 3Ts. As I repeatedly have said, there is no way that the Commons will allow a "No Deal" exit to go through by default. Messrs Hunt and Johnson are suffering delusions (or, at least, trying to delude the electorate) if they believe that No Deal will occur either on Halloween or at any time in the future.
Nobody wishes it more than me. The recent "appointments" to the top table in the EU have demonstrated exactly which way it is heading (take note those who believe to Remain is to continue with the status quo). The agreement between the EU Parliament and the Commission has been unceremoniously ditched because the Parliament is no longer "on side". But more than that, the EU's treatment of Switzerland over the last few weeks portrays exactly what non-member nations with bilateral agreements with the EU face. They face the jurisdiction of the ECJ, they face bilateral agreements being torn up and they face forced "equivalence" with the EU and all its mantras or be cast adrift. Any agreement that we forge will not be worth the paper it is written on because, the parts to our advantage will be, bit by bit, dismantled.
The EU doesn't do consensus. It rules from the centre and from the top down. We need to leave, we need to leave now and we need to leave properly. Only then will we be able to make our way in the world as an independent trading nation free to trade with whom we wish on the terms that suit us. The Commons will not allow it and they will never be forgiven. But they don't care a toss.
Exactly the same as last time with the Cooper/Letwin shenanigans, 3Ts. As I repeatedly have said, there is no way that the Commons will allow a "No Deal" exit to go through by default. Messrs Hunt and Johnson are suffering delusions (or, at least, trying to delude the electorate) if they believe that No Deal will occur either on Halloween or at any time in the future.
Nobody wishes it more than me. The recent "appointments" to the top table in the EU have demonstrated exactly which way it is heading (take note those who believe to Remain is to continue with the status quo). The agreement between the EU Parliament and the Commission has been unceremoniously ditched because the Parliament is no longer "on side". But more than that, the EU's treatment of Switzerland over the last few weeks portrays exactly what non-member nations with bilateral agreements with the EU face. They face the jurisdiction of the ECJ, they face bilateral agreements being torn up and they face forced "equivalence" with the EU and all its mantras or be cast adrift. Any agreement that we forge will not be worth the paper it is written on because, the parts to our advantage will be, bit by bit, dismantled.
The EU doesn't do consensus. It rules from the centre and from the top down. We need to leave, we need to leave now and we need to leave properly. Only then will we be able to make our way in the world as an independent trading nation free to trade with whom we wish on the terms that suit us. The Commons will not allow it and they will never be forgiven. But they don't care a toss.
judge: "Exactly the same as last time with the Cooper/Letwin shenanigans, 3Ts. As I repeatedly have said, there is no way that the Commons will allow a "No Deal" exit to go through by default. " - that was to take control of the timetable. What specifically would be the content of a legal device to stop brexit even if they did get control of the time table?
There has never been a democratic vote in favour of a No Deal Brexit, and indeed it's been rejected in Parliament several times (as, to be fair, have most other solutions, including a second referendum). As long as that remains the case then it is far more undemocratic, not to mention utterly ruinous to the country, to try and force a No Deal Brexit through without support.
It's not a war. Such flawed thinking explains a lot. It's about democracy and accepting when one is of the minority opinion and therefore opting to support the majority decision. Otherwise there is never a decision made as apparently one is allowed to bich and delay to one's heart's content and treat democracy with as much disdain as one can muster. If one uses the minority percentage as if it were some kind of justification then maybe one should be thinking of emigrating to a non-democratic part of the world.
"There has never been a democratic vote in favour of a No Deal Brexit"
There's never been a need for one. The vote was to leave. The implication being of the best terms we can get. Given that we all agree (don't we) that no deal is better than a bad deal, and vastly better than an appalling deal, then given no good deal has been offered nor accepted, no deal it automatically is.
There's never been a need for one. The vote was to leave. The implication being of the best terms we can get. Given that we all agree (don't we) that no deal is better than a bad deal, and vastly better than an appalling deal, then given no good deal has been offered nor accepted, no deal it automatically is.
-- answer removed --
Even if you have a point legally, it's simply not sensible to leave the EU without establishing sensible alternative arrangements -- on security, trade, politics, travel, and so on. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves. The UK is far too interlinked with the EU for a "clean break" to be even feasible.
Haha the Remoaniacs squirm and plot as ever. Notice the latest justification for their treacherous behaviour, in that "no deal" was not part of the vote? Can any of you imagine how it would have gone if there had been such a codicil, and we had still voted to leave, I can. The V B Q would have made damn sure that no deal could ever be agreed, and that if it was, the "deal" would have been(as is the one that May has tried to foist on us) written in Strasbourg. No deal is OUR "backstop" and we can make it stick. Unlike the imaginary one cooked up by the Remainiac vassals.
//As it happens, a great deal of the important stuff has been agreed -- or did you think the 585-page withdrawal agreement was only about the Irish border?//
The problem is, Jim, much of it has not been agreed. The EU’s insistence on imposing unacceptable conditions on the UK within the “agreement” and refusing to negotiate on any of the unacceptable aspects inevitably (and thankfully) consigned it to the dustbin.
Of course people want to trade with their nearest neighbours and want to visit each other’s countries without too much hindrance. Unfortunately the EU (endorsed by most of its members) sees the only way to achieve this as being by virtue of an all-encompassing treaty which effectively treats the entire bloc as a single nation with a single government. Other countries manage without such arrangements - which compromise the ability of domestic governments to govern - and there is simply no need for them. The EU thinks differently and that is why many people who voted to leave did so. The treaty that you say has been agreed (which I have read about 60% of) has only been agreed by Mrs May. I’m thankful to Parliament for blocking its implementation because it contains passages which no self-respecting country could possibly agree to. But Parliament has an obligation to ensure that Brexit is delivered (for reasons we’ve discussed before). Simply refusing to agree to any arrangement that is put before it (mainly because the majority of members do want to see it implemented at all and see that tactic as an ideal solution) is an abrogation of that responsibility.
However, I think we’ve done this once or twice before. :-)
The problem is, Jim, much of it has not been agreed. The EU’s insistence on imposing unacceptable conditions on the UK within the “agreement” and refusing to negotiate on any of the unacceptable aspects inevitably (and thankfully) consigned it to the dustbin.
Of course people want to trade with their nearest neighbours and want to visit each other’s countries without too much hindrance. Unfortunately the EU (endorsed by most of its members) sees the only way to achieve this as being by virtue of an all-encompassing treaty which effectively treats the entire bloc as a single nation with a single government. Other countries manage without such arrangements - which compromise the ability of domestic governments to govern - and there is simply no need for them. The EU thinks differently and that is why many people who voted to leave did so. The treaty that you say has been agreed (which I have read about 60% of) has only been agreed by Mrs May. I’m thankful to Parliament for blocking its implementation because it contains passages which no self-respecting country could possibly agree to. But Parliament has an obligation to ensure that Brexit is delivered (for reasons we’ve discussed before). Simply refusing to agree to any arrangement that is put before it (mainly because the majority of members do want to see it implemented at all and see that tactic as an ideal solution) is an abrogation of that responsibility.
However, I think we’ve done this once or twice before. :-)
The 585-page withdrawal agreement had the border as the obvious major flaw, but was hardly the pnly problem with it. Hardly call the rest of it ok either. https:/
Latest Posts
Law2 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Crosswords5 mins ago
'They' Is Irritating Me Immensely
ChatterBank12 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.