Should the UK remain a member of the EU

[Skidfingers McGonical]

So they’ve given out £75 Million to the likes of Deloitte without publicly announcing it. 

 

So so where’s this magic money tree sprung up from? 

[Denny Crane]

Well this doesn't tally with the FBPE army's interpretation of PMQs. This from total questions asked by Corbyn in 2018. 

 

[Denny Crane]

Hmmm. 

 

[Spy Bee]

Oh fuck off Daily Mail!

[Chairman Meow]

On 1/7/2019 at 6:06 PM, Tyler Durden said:

I can't believe Grayling isn't going to jail over that ferry contract.

Quote

DEAR GRAYLING SIR. MY NAME IS PRINCE SEABORNE OF NIGERIA. I HAVE RECENTLY RECEIVED MANY FINE SHIPS AND WISH TO SHARE THEM. IF YOU CAN SEND £13,800,000 BY BANK TRANSFER, THIS WILL RELEASE THE SHIPS. THE TRANSACTION IS 100% SAFE. PLEASE RESPOND URGENTLY.

 

[Chairman Meow]

Some nice balanced reporting from the Mail there as ever. 

[cloggypop]

The Daily Mail complaining about flagrant prejudice is fairly amusing. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Imagine the Speaker of the House of Commons allowing the House of Commons to speak.

 

Disgraceful stuff.  Hang the treasonous bastard.

[Stickman]

Brilliant from Bercow

 

 

[Boss]

It was a disgrace what he did. It's an un-amendable motion and he allowed an amendment specifically designed to destroy any possibility of a re-negotiation. I'm against May's deal as much as anyone, but overruling parliamentary procedure in that way is a flagrant misuse of power. Regardless of whether it was his wife who had the sticker on their car, or himself, he clearly and self evidently harbours the same views when it comes to Brexit. The only task of the speaker is maintain impartiality. It's the political equivalent of a ref celebrating a teams victory on the pitch. 

[magicrat]

7 minutes ago, Boss said:

It was a disgrace what he did. It's an un-amendable motion and he allowed an amendment specifically designed to destroy any possibility of a re-negotiation. I'm against May's deal as much as anyone, but overruling parliamentary procedure in that way is a flagrant misuse of power. Regardless of whether it was his wife who had the sticker on their car, or himself, he clearly and self evidently harbours the same views when it comes to Brexit. The only task of the speaker is maintain impartiality. It's the political equivalent of a ref celebrating a teams victory on the pitch. 

I think it was very marginal but the main offenders in all of this where abuse of power in Parliament is concerned are the Government. If Bercow is checking their antics he has my support

[Anny Road]

Whilst the Speaker may have overstepped the mark I do find it funny that the Tories are crying foul. The fact that he has reduced the time to re-present the bill from 21 days to 3 would not be an issue if May had had the vote 5 fucking weeks ago.

[deiseach]

David Allen Green:

Quote

The faux constitutional outrage of the government supporting press and punditry this morning is quite a marvel.

Let's see what constitutional outrages they have so far not cared about.

1.
The government prolongs the current parliamentary session over two years, so that there will not be a Queen's Speech.

Response of government supporting press and punditry?

- Shrug.

2.
The government packs the select committees with Tory majorities, even though it is a hung parliament by procedural sleight of hand.

Response of government supporting press and punditry?

- Shrug.

3.
A secretary of state repeatedly misleads the House and its committees over the extent and existence of Brexit sector analyses reports.

Response of government supporting press and punditry?

- Shrug.

4.
Government repeatedly ignores and does not even participate in votes on opposition motions.

Response of government supporting press and punditry?

- Shrug.

5.
Government sought to make the Article 50 notification without any parliamentary approval whatsoever, and forced litigation to go all the way tot eh Supreme Court so that parliament could have that approval.

Response of government supporting press and punditry?

- Shrug.

6.
Government commits itself to billions of pounds of public expenditure in a blatant bribe to the DUP for support in a supply and confidence vote.

Response of government supporting press and punditry?

- Shrug.

7.
Government repeatedly seeks to circumvent or abuse the Sewell convention in its dealings with the devolved administrations.

Response of government supporting press and punditry?

- Shrug.

8.
Government seeks to legislate for staggeringly wider "Henry VIII powers" so that it can legislate and even repeal Acts without any recourse to parliament.

Response of government supporting press and punditry?

- Shrug.

9.
Government becomes first administration in parliamentary history to be held to be in contempt of parliament.

Response of government supporting press and punditry?

- Shrug.

10.
Government stands by as there are attacks on the independent judiciary and the independent civil service?

Response of government supporting press and punditry?

- To lead those attacks, while the government shrugs.

11.
But for the Speaker to allow an amendment on business motion so that the will of elected MPs can be carried?

Loud outrage and front page screaming headlines.

*Shrug*

12 and ends.
ps

Footnote on (3) - the reference should be to standing committees - the ones which scrutinise legislation - not select committees.

(Which is worse.)

Apologies for the error.
ps 2

Added by popular request:

14. The government deliberately breaking the pairing convention, in respect of an MP on maternity leave, so that the the government could win a vote

Response of government supporting press and punditry?

- Shrug.

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

44 minutes ago, Boss said:

It was a disgrace what he did. It's an un-amendable motion and he allowed an amendment specifically designed to destroy any possibility of a re-negotiation. I'm against May's deal as much as anyone, but overruling parliamentary procedure in that way is a flagrant misuse of power. Regardless of whether it was his wife who had the sticker on their car, or himself, he clearly and self evidently harbours the same views when it comes to Brexit. The only task of the speaker is maintain impartiality. It's the political equivalent of a ref celebrating a teams victory on the pitch. 

The effect of Bercow allowing the amendment was that Parliament was able to fulfil its proper role of holding the Government to account.  That has to be a good thing, in any democracy. 

[Manny]

48 minutes ago, Boss said:

It was a disgrace what he did. It's an un-amendable motion and he allowed an amendment specifically designed to destroy any possibility of a re-negotiation. I'm against May's deal as much as anyone, but overruling parliamentary procedure in that way is a flagrant misuse of power. Regardless of whether it was his wife who had the sticker on their car, or himself, he clearly and self evidently harbours the same views when it comes to Brexit. The only task of the speaker is maintain impartiality. It's the political equivalent of a ref celebrating a teams victory on the pitch. 

 

Not for me, it isn't. It's the political equivalent of a referee sending off a player for blatant and persistent timewasting - unprecedented and not strictly speaking within the "rules", but not entirely outside of his role and remit (and footie has much stricter rules than Parliamentary convention).

 

This Executive treats Parliament with utter contempt - literally in contempt of Parliament a few weeks ago, pulling votes at the drop of a hat before Christmas, initially wanting to use Henry VIII powers to bypass Parliament altogether before the courts told them to fuck off and so on. In the face of all that, I don't think that the Speaker putting the Executive back on the timetable that they set out is a particularly gross abuse of his powers and is in keeping with the spirit of his role of ensuring Parliament's voice, and it's particularly enjoyable to see swathes of newspapers and the population were nobly trying to ensure Parliament's sovereignty crying foul of Parliament asserting its sovereignty.

[cloggypop]

I thought the sovereignty of Parliament was a big thing for Brexiteers. 

[Boss]

33 minutes ago, Manny said:

 

Not for me, it isn't. It's the political equivalent of a referee sending off a player for blatant and persistent timewasting - unprecedented, but not entirely outside of his role (and footie has much stricter rules than Parliamentary convention).

 

This Executive treats Parliament with utter contempt - literally in contempt of Parliament a few weeks ago, pulling votes at the drop of a hat before Christmas, initially wanting to use Henry VIII powers to bypass Parliament altogether before the courts told them to fuck off and so on. In the face of all that, I don't think that the Speaker putting the Executive back on the timetable that they set out is a particularly gross abuse of his powers and is in keeping with the spirit of his role of ensuring Parliament's voice, and it's particularly enjoyable to see swathes of newspapers and the population were nobly trying to ensure Parliament's sovereignty crying foul of Parliament asserting its sovereignty.

 

It wasn't a gross misuse of power in the terms you set out, it was a gross misuse of power because he allowed an amendment of an un-amendable motion - which is unprecedented. He defied the legal advice of the clerks of the house and refused to make public what the clerks told him. By doing so he made a mockery of his duty to impartiality.

 

When people say he's allowing parliament to assert it's sovereignty, I hope they stay consistent in that viewpoint if the no confidence motion is voted down, and or amended in a way to stop it transpiring.

 

The majority of the support for Bercow is simply whataboutery - which tells you everything you need to know about his actions being wrong. If you can't excuse his actions without attacking the other side, then his actions are inherently inexcusable. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

I'm no expert, so I've never heard of an unamendable bill. It doesn't sound like the kind of instrument that should exist in a democracy. 

[Anny Road]

He was out of line but this is unprecedented circumstances. We are not privy to the discussions and meetings which have gone on behind closed doors. He may have warned the executive that any delays to the proposed vote would be dealt with from the chair. We are due to leave in however many days yet the PM wants another 21 days to amend a vote which everyone knows is doomed. He has told them to get the fuck on with it they have had plenty of time.

[skend04]

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/jeremy-corbyn-and-labour-should-not-back-brexit-says-david-lammy-1-5847370

 

Lammy gives the speech a leader should be giving every time they are speaking about Brexit. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Some fine ranting from Another Angry Voice, about the Tories' handling of the whole shitshow.

 

Yesterday the Labour Brexit minister Keir Starmer revealed something absolutely telling about the Tories' disgraceful approach to Brexit.

In the two and a half years they've been at it, not a single one of the three (!!!) Tory Brexit ministers ever reached out to him to discuss what parliament could broadly agree on in regards to Brexit.

The Tories didn't even once reach out to the main opposition party to discuss shared priorities in favour of running Brexit as a closed Tory shop to be run exclusively for the benefit of the Tory party.

This Tory-centric "party before country" approach to a crisis that they themselves inflicted on the nation thanks to David Cameron's reckless gamble in 2016 is a shocking indictment of their entire approach to politics.

But things are even worse than that. Aside from the fact that the Tories outright refused to seek political consensus about how to deal with their own Brexit mess (by ignoring opposition parties and deliberately sidelining the devolved parliaments) they also took the same kind of belligerent approach with the EU.

Instead of reaching out to the EU to discuss what they could broadly agree on in order to develop a fail safe contingency plan should the withdrawal agreement fail to be ratified by the March 2019 deadline (in the UK parliament, the EU parliament, and the national parliaments of the 27 remaining EU states), they opted for an absurd toddler tantrum of a negotiating strategy based on the threat that the UK government would deliberately crap its own pants with a "no deal" catastrophe if the EU refused to cave into their demands.

This obscene display of Tory belligerence both at home and abroad has resulted in a doomed-to-fail withdrawal plan designed solely for the benefit of the Tory party that is even more unpopular outside of parliament than it is within.

A plan so shit that Theresa May humiliated Britain on the World stage by chickening out of the parliamentary vote in December because she knew she was going to lose it.

And these self-serving delaying tactics from Theresa May have left us just weeks away from the Tories being backed into actually following through on their absurd threat to crap their own pants in the ridiculous hope that the absolute stink of the socio-economic mess will somehow upset the EU more than it upsets the British public.

But what else would you expect when you elect a bunch of callous, self-serving, and unbelievably incompetent Tories to clean up a mess created by the previous bunch of callous, self-serving, and unbelievably incompetent Tories?

A mind-boggling 13.6 million people flocked to the polls in 2017 to endorse Theresa May, and the Tories, and their absurdly belligerent and self-serving approach to dealing with their own Brexit farce.

These Tory voters should be absolutely ashamed of themselves for (knowingly or otherwise) choosing to put the narrow selfish political interests of the Tory party above the social and economic interests of our nation.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

2 hours ago, skend04 said:

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/jeremy-corbyn-and-labour-should-not-back-brexit-says-david-lammy-1-5847370

 

Lammy gives the speech a leader should be giving every time they are speaking about Brexit. 

It's a speech that needs making, but not by a leader of a party that hopes to ever win anything.

 

If you try to "tell them the truth - you were sold a lie" half the population of the country will just hear you calling them stupid; and they will then vote against you, however damaging to themselves that may be.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

36 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

It's a speech that needs making, but not by a leader of a party that hopes to ever win anything.

 

If you try to "tell them the truth - you were sold a lie" half the population of the country will just hear you calling them stupid; and they will then vote against you, however damaging to themselves that may be.

And that is why all this peoples vote and #FBPE bollocks is exactly that. Bollocks.

[Strontium]

Truth has objective value, and not telling the truth because the truth will be hard for some people to hear is pure cowardice.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

Just now, Strontium Dog said:

Truth has objective value, and not telling the truth because the truth will be hard for some people to hear is pure cowardice.

Thing is though, the truth has been told, people just refuse to accept it. On both sides.

 

And a second referendum will never take place while May and The Tories are in power. She is the one who has to sign it off, anyone else wanting to do so must have a majority. And that's the truth.