Body & Soul1 min ago
Rejected
34 Answers
On we go. :-(
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by douglas9401. 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.
I suppose the concern is that the EU don't want to be seen to have triggered No Deal. This is a tactic the UK could have used before -- I even suggested as much. Instead the UK makes a big song and dance *at home* about meeting an arbitrary deadline to approve a rotten deal.
Even Johnson is doing is electioneering. He wants to win big at the next election, and has decided to hijack Brexit for those ends. Nothing more and nothing less. I would hope that Leavers on this site and across the country see through that.
Even Johnson is doing is electioneering. He wants to win big at the next election, and has decided to hijack Brexit for those ends. Nothing more and nothing less. I would hope that Leavers on this site and across the country see through that.
//Every day in politics right now is interesting in one way or another.//
No it's not, Jim. It's infuriating, exasperating and is becoming increasingly tedious and boring. The notion that Parliament is only concerned with the method of our departure has long been exposed for the deceit that it is. Every twist and turn that has occurred since our first planned departure date last March has been designed with just one purpose - to kick Brexit into the long grass in a determined effort to find a way to abandon it entirely. They have effectively everything that might move the issue forward, including a General Election.
Every news item is accompanied by tales of "Remainer" MPs. There should be no significant Remainer element in Parliament. The electorate took the decision to leave, it was endorsed by Parliament when they triggered A50 and any Remainer element had the opportunity in 2017 to stand for election on that position. 80% of those elected chose not to do so.
The current situation is preposterous. Whatever the motives of those involved it needs to stop. The electorate is fed up with it, business is tired of it and the EU is weary of it (not that I care one jot about that but I can see their point). It is no longer interesting, it is a joke - a joke where the uncertainty is costing the country far more than even the "hardest" of hard Brexits ever will.
No it's not, Jim. It's infuriating, exasperating and is becoming increasingly tedious and boring. The notion that Parliament is only concerned with the method of our departure has long been exposed for the deceit that it is. Every twist and turn that has occurred since our first planned departure date last March has been designed with just one purpose - to kick Brexit into the long grass in a determined effort to find a way to abandon it entirely. They have effectively everything that might move the issue forward, including a General Election.
Every news item is accompanied by tales of "Remainer" MPs. There should be no significant Remainer element in Parliament. The electorate took the decision to leave, it was endorsed by Parliament when they triggered A50 and any Remainer element had the opportunity in 2017 to stand for election on that position. 80% of those elected chose not to do so.
The current situation is preposterous. Whatever the motives of those involved it needs to stop. The electorate is fed up with it, business is tired of it and the EU is weary of it (not that I care one jot about that but I can see their point). It is no longer interesting, it is a joke - a joke where the uncertainty is costing the country far more than even the "hardest" of hard Brexits ever will.
You must already have gathered by now, TTT, that Johnson's idea of Brexit is different from yours. No Deal was just a tactic. The WA is just a tactic. Proposing a Queen's Speech, for no other reason than to eat up time, was just a tactic. Pausing the Withdrawal Agreement Bill, after it had passed Second Reading, is just a tactic.
Johnson cares only about one person's fortunes.
Johnson cares only about one person's fortunes.
Well, I find it interesting, in albeit a fairly morbid way.
A second interpretation of the problem we are facing is that, after the UK voted *narrowly* to Leave in 2016, the obvious solution was to set aside Party Politics and create a cross-party Government dedicated to delivering this. Whether it succeeded or not is, of course, moot, as this was ruled out from Day 1. May, and then Johnson, have decided that Brexit was an excuse for the Conservatives to force through various long-standing priorities that actually have nothing whatever to do with Brexit but suddenly become acceptable once that's in the title. And so they have decided to set Parliament, the Courts, and everybody who isn't strictly "Tory" against the people.
Yes, it takes both sides to join this dance, and Labour in particular have played the Party issue quite strongly; but the blame game starts with Theresa May, and in particular with her reckless and disastrous decision to call an early election on the flimsiest of excuses. Johnson is, in that sense, merely following the same path.
As an aside, the Programme Motion was defeated by a majority of 14. There are 10 DUP MPs, all of whom voted against the Government. The DUP, whatever else you may think of them, have been the most consistent champions of Brexit. They are not Remain MPs. They have no part in any plot to kick Brexit into the long grass. They want what you want, and perhaps even more so. That they have voted against the Government at this late stage shows just how far-removed what Johnson is doing from anything Brexit-related.
Look to the Government if you want to find fault for this mess. By constantly trying to set up everybody else as the enemy, they have only succeeded in creating enemies where they could, had they been more pragmatic, have found allies. Again, tonight's victory for the government in the Second Reading vote speaks to this.
And, as a final point, Parliamentary Sovereignty means nothing if Parliament is reduced to a role of rubber-stamping what the executive presents it. That is precisely what was being proposed, and it deserved all the rejections it got. That has nothing to do with Brexit, either.
A second interpretation of the problem we are facing is that, after the UK voted *narrowly* to Leave in 2016, the obvious solution was to set aside Party Politics and create a cross-party Government dedicated to delivering this. Whether it succeeded or not is, of course, moot, as this was ruled out from Day 1. May, and then Johnson, have decided that Brexit was an excuse for the Conservatives to force through various long-standing priorities that actually have nothing whatever to do with Brexit but suddenly become acceptable once that's in the title. And so they have decided to set Parliament, the Courts, and everybody who isn't strictly "Tory" against the people.
Yes, it takes both sides to join this dance, and Labour in particular have played the Party issue quite strongly; but the blame game starts with Theresa May, and in particular with her reckless and disastrous decision to call an early election on the flimsiest of excuses. Johnson is, in that sense, merely following the same path.
As an aside, the Programme Motion was defeated by a majority of 14. There are 10 DUP MPs, all of whom voted against the Government. The DUP, whatever else you may think of them, have been the most consistent champions of Brexit. They are not Remain MPs. They have no part in any plot to kick Brexit into the long grass. They want what you want, and perhaps even more so. That they have voted against the Government at this late stage shows just how far-removed what Johnson is doing from anything Brexit-related.
Look to the Government if you want to find fault for this mess. By constantly trying to set up everybody else as the enemy, they have only succeeded in creating enemies where they could, had they been more pragmatic, have found allies. Again, tonight's victory for the government in the Second Reading vote speaks to this.
And, as a final point, Parliamentary Sovereignty means nothing if Parliament is reduced to a role of rubber-stamping what the executive presents it. That is precisely what was being proposed, and it deserved all the rejections it got. That has nothing to do with Brexit, either.
Parliament has had their role to play, I'll admit. Theresa May was, at least, correct to say that the House voted several times for what it did not want, but never for something. On the other hand, this is still primarily because at every opportunity Government has tried to sideline Parliament from the process. Exactly who could be surprised that Parliament has reacted to this by asserting their authority?
// ... at every opportunity parliament is trying to thwart Brexit. //
Stuff and nonsense. Parliament voted for the legislation to implement the referendum, Parliament voted for the legislation to give notice under Article 50, Parliament passed the Withdrawal Act 2018, and Parliament would have passed the Withdrawal Agreement Bill through -- albeit with some amendments -- had Johnson not decided that an arbitrary deadline was a matter of life or death.
Indeed, at every opportunity, Parliament has, however reluctantly, conceded the principle of Brexit. What they object to is the detail. They objected, for example, to the principle of the UK being locked inside the dreaded "Backstop"; they objected to the principle of a customs border being drawn down the middle of our country, and they then objected to legislation running to over a hundred pages being forced through inside just a couple of days. None of these objections is even remotely unreasonable.
Stuff and nonsense. Parliament voted for the legislation to implement the referendum, Parliament voted for the legislation to give notice under Article 50, Parliament passed the Withdrawal Act 2018, and Parliament would have passed the Withdrawal Agreement Bill through -- albeit with some amendments -- had Johnson not decided that an arbitrary deadline was a matter of life or death.
Indeed, at every opportunity, Parliament has, however reluctantly, conceded the principle of Brexit. What they object to is the detail. They objected, for example, to the principle of the UK being locked inside the dreaded "Backstop"; they objected to the principle of a customs border being drawn down the middle of our country, and they then objected to legislation running to over a hundred pages being forced through inside just a couple of days. None of these objections is even remotely unreasonable.
