ChatterBank1 min ago
Do You Think Boris Should Resign.
I don’t , Why?
Because he’s the only one who knows where he’s going, he has no majority in the HoC so he should call a GE now, we couldn’t be in a worse position than we are now, let Corbyn put his money where his mouth is, I’m not suggesting he’ll win a GE because the whole thing is a mess, everyone is sick of the last 3 .3 years, we need to get leadership like never before in our once very proud country
Because he’s the only one who knows where he’s going, he has no majority in the HoC so he should call a GE now, we couldn’t be in a worse position than we are now, let Corbyn put his money where his mouth is, I’m not suggesting he’ll win a GE because the whole thing is a mess, everyone is sick of the last 3 .3 years, we need to get leadership like never before in our once very proud country
Answers
Not in the slightest. He's trying to force through our democratic decision against a tide of folk who treat democracy and the public with disdain, and who will use every trap, loophole, and trick they can find to thwart the nation. Boris deserves a medal for what he has tried and put up with, and should only resign if there is something to gain from it. Presently...
10:10 Wed 25th Sep 2019
Johnson's entire approach seems to be to double down on divisive tactics that are simply doomed to fail. They failed when Theresa May tried them, they have already failed even more spectacularly when Johnson tried them, and they will continue to fail. I don't overly see the point in his resignation because in no way does that lead anywhere useful either. But if Johnson doesn't change he approach then he will fail in ways that cost us all.
What is so difficult about accepting the legitimacy of the Court ruling, and leaving it at that? What is so difficult about accepting that only Parliament can approve a Withdrawal Agreement, and drawing the logical conclusion that maybe you should check with them what will be acceptable before pressing ahead without that consultation?
This isn't about forcing through Brexit, or trying to deliver it, either. That is clearly shown when, as the first excuse, Johnson tried to call a snap election. To do so would automatically end the negotiations, that Johnson claims to be conducting in good faith, because the business of government would naturally come to a pause -- thus destroying any possibility there was of reaching a new agreement before October 31st.
What is sad is that a lie so manifest has nevertheless suckered so many into believing he is genuine in his desire to "force through the democratic decision". He is not. He wants to win the next election; Brexit is a means to that end, and in Johnson's current strategy, it is not even clear that he cares one way or the other if it is delivered. For, if it is, then he will try to claim all the credit. And, if it is not, then he will blame everyone but itself.
Can people not see through this lie? Anyone who genuinely wished to deliver Brexit, and deliver it in a way that was successful, would work with Parliament and not against it. No date would be so sacred as to be worth preserving if to do so meant chaos.
What is so difficult about accepting the legitimacy of the Court ruling, and leaving it at that? What is so difficult about accepting that only Parliament can approve a Withdrawal Agreement, and drawing the logical conclusion that maybe you should check with them what will be acceptable before pressing ahead without that consultation?
This isn't about forcing through Brexit, or trying to deliver it, either. That is clearly shown when, as the first excuse, Johnson tried to call a snap election. To do so would automatically end the negotiations, that Johnson claims to be conducting in good faith, because the business of government would naturally come to a pause -- thus destroying any possibility there was of reaching a new agreement before October 31st.
What is sad is that a lie so manifest has nevertheless suckered so many into believing he is genuine in his desire to "force through the democratic decision". He is not. He wants to win the next election; Brexit is a means to that end, and in Johnson's current strategy, it is not even clear that he cares one way or the other if it is delivered. For, if it is, then he will try to claim all the credit. And, if it is not, then he will blame everyone but itself.
Can people not see through this lie? Anyone who genuinely wished to deliver Brexit, and deliver it in a way that was successful, would work with Parliament and not against it. No date would be so sacred as to be worth preserving if to do so meant chaos.
That Johnson and others have hijacked the Brexit issue for their own ends; not for its own sake but wholly out of manifest self-interest. The negotiations he claims to be conducting are clearly not being performed in good faith, as he has so far neglected to tell the EU what he wants instead of the stuff he doesn't want, except in bits and bobs in a way that makes no progress and no attempt to address their concerns. And his performance in Parliament today and earlier should leave all observers in no doubt that his entire ruse has always been to force an election, and use the rallying cry of Brexit as an excuse to deliver whatever the hell else he wants.
Clearly this is an interpretation rather than a matter of fact, but given the scant regard Johnson has shown for all of the institutions of the UK, institutions that he would need to work with to deliver Brexit; given the near-certainty that he will fail to achieve a deal that is acceptable to either Remainers or Brexiters alike in time; and given, therefore, that he will be forced to miss his self-imposed deadline, can anyone doubt that the real aim here is to use "Parliament v. the People" as a rallying cry not to deliver what the People want, but to con the people into letting Johnson do as he wants. Luckily, the Courts have shown Johnson that he cannot disregard the rule of law, and Parliament have shown him that he cannot ignore the democratically-elected body whose consent to govern he needs. But the strategy continues nonetheless. He's in too deep for anything else. But the fact that he hasn't shown contrition for those blunders shows that Brexit isn't the objective here. On his current path, he must see that his current approach, creating new enemies at every turn, is doomed to fail.
Clearly this is an interpretation rather than a matter of fact, but given the scant regard Johnson has shown for all of the institutions of the UK, institutions that he would need to work with to deliver Brexit; given the near-certainty that he will fail to achieve a deal that is acceptable to either Remainers or Brexiters alike in time; and given, therefore, that he will be forced to miss his self-imposed deadline, can anyone doubt that the real aim here is to use "Parliament v. the People" as a rallying cry not to deliver what the People want, but to con the people into letting Johnson do as he wants. Luckily, the Courts have shown Johnson that he cannot disregard the rule of law, and Parliament have shown him that he cannot ignore the democratically-elected body whose consent to govern he needs. But the strategy continues nonetheless. He's in too deep for anything else. But the fact that he hasn't shown contrition for those blunders shows that Brexit isn't the objective here. On his current path, he must see that his current approach, creating new enemies at every turn, is doomed to fail.
As one further point, it's inappropriate to confuse blocking a No-Deal exit with blocking Brexit altogether. If a miracle occurs and Johnson comes back with a deal that is broadly acceptable, then it has a reasonable chance of passing (albeit possibly with the caveat that a confirmatory referendum will be required to secure the support of some MPs in approving the deal). Nor is blocking a No-Deal Exit thwarting the nation. It wasn't on the agenda in 2016, and it is revisionism to suggest that it was. Remain campaigners warned against it, and Brexit supporters dismissed even the possibility of a No Deal as part of Project Fear. It says a lot that a warning that was ignored is now an aspiration.
And, in any case, there is no crime, no treachery, in thinking that it is best for the UK to either stay in the EU or at the very least to seek a smooth and orderly transition out of it. Those MPs who wish for such a transition are thwarting nothing other than a ruinous Brexit that would satisfy nobody. It is a tragedy of our modern politics that there is so little respect, and so much shameful use of rhetoric of treason, surrender, treachery, an establishment coup, and other such utterly divisive and wrong criticisms.
In Parliament yesterday Geoffrey Cox made the point that he strongly disagreed with the judgement of the Supreme Court, but would never seek to question the motives or the impartiality of the eleven justices who reached that judgement. He was speaking of judges, but it is a principle that should be extended to far more people. We may disagree about the best future for the UK, but what should never be in doubt is that people are wanting to make the best decisions for their country.
And, in any case, there is no crime, no treachery, in thinking that it is best for the UK to either stay in the EU or at the very least to seek a smooth and orderly transition out of it. Those MPs who wish for such a transition are thwarting nothing other than a ruinous Brexit that would satisfy nobody. It is a tragedy of our modern politics that there is so little respect, and so much shameful use of rhetoric of treason, surrender, treachery, an establishment coup, and other such utterly divisive and wrong criticisms.
In Parliament yesterday Geoffrey Cox made the point that he strongly disagreed with the judgement of the Supreme Court, but would never seek to question the motives or the impartiality of the eleven justices who reached that judgement. He was speaking of judges, but it is a principle that should be extended to far more people. We may disagree about the best future for the UK, but what should never be in doubt is that people are wanting to make the best decisions for their country.
“What do we want in parliament: nodding dogs and slimy snails, or real people with feelings”
Neither.
How about someone who can act with a bit of decorum and self respect and get their message across without looking like a thug.
Big ask, I know, but there is a difference between passion and aggression and most of us know how to get a message across without being belligerent.
Neither.
How about someone who can act with a bit of decorum and self respect and get their message across without looking like a thug.
Big ask, I know, but there is a difference between passion and aggression and most of us know how to get a message across without being belligerent.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank9 mins ago
Crosswords11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles21 mins ago
ChatterBank48 mins ago
News50 mins ago