Should the UK remain a member of the EU - Page 937 - GF - General Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content
Anny Road

Should the UK remain a member of the EU


310 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the UK remain a member of the EU

    • Yes
    • No

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Anny Road said:

I’m a weirdo I would get rid of Parliament and have decisions made on a parish level.

So you don't have an answer, then.  Duly noted.


It's almost like you're voting leave for some other undisclosed reason, and it has nothing to do with a "political union".  

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Anny Road said:

Castigate me as stupid or racist but my tick in the box is worth exactly the same as yours. Superb as you are.

I'd say ours is worth markedly less.  Our opinion has been wholly shown to mean nothing to the executive for the last three years.


You are everything to them.  Congrats.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Anny Road said:

Albania, Greece, Italy wherever. Live your lives, It has no relevance to where I live.

Yeah, the rest of Europe. Completely irrelevant to where you live. On some distant planet, presumably. In the pre-capitalist era.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

God knows the histories of those nations have had zero influence over the development of our own culture...

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Anny Road said:

Albania, Greece, Italy wherever. Live your lives, It has no relevance to where I live.

You won, get over it.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Anny Road said:

Albania, Greece, Italy wherever. Live your lives, It has no relevance to where I live.

It has some. But you believe in a nation state, which is fine. Doesn't make you racist or stupid.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, clangers said:

Racist. It's true though none of the remain side have reached across attempting to understand why people object to the status quo.


It's because they're moronic racist idiots. HTH.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anny Road doing a terrific job of proving that leavers aren't uninformed, simplistic morons that boil huge decisions down to uninformed, simplistic choices. 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good mate of mine is Albanian.


He’s not a farmer but he did lay my back lawn using a bread knife.


Hope this helps.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good read this from Lewis Goodall of Sky News on May's undermining of parliament.




The PM's conduct puts parliament's long-term vitality in peril


The constitutional wreckage of Theresa May's approach to Brexit is all around us, writes Sky's Lewis Goodall.


By Lewis Goodall, political correspondent

Thursday 21 March 2019 09:32, UK


"A major constitutional crisis" screamed the headline of The Daily Telegraph on Tuesday. It was joined by a cacophony of others on Fleet Street excoriating parliament and its most senior representative.


Downing Street briefed that the speaker was seeking to subvert or prevent Brexit. The prime minister lectured the Commons that it must "face the consequences of its actions".


On Wednesday, her latest peroration was that the chamber was "indulging itself over Europe" and that this had led to our country's deep travails.


This is displacement activity of the highest order. Not only from these newspapers (all of which until recently were urging MPs to reject the deal they now endorse) but also the government and prime minister herself. For nearly all roads of the current crisis lead to the front door of 10 Downing Street.


No one can doubt the prime minister's determination and fortitude. She worked tirelessly to secure her deal and in so doing implement the result of the referendum as she saw it.


Do the PM's words reveal anything else about her strategy as she battles through the ongoing crisis at Westminster?


The problem is that vision was rejected - twice and by the biggest margins in history. Yet the prime minister has simply not responded, politically, intellectually or possibly even personally.


She seems to have dug a psychological bunker so profound that the reality of her defeats has been unable to reach its depths.


She has reacted not with humility or contrition or openness, but with a tone so lecturing and hubristic that many MPs have thought her deeply arrogant. Her spokesman explains this by saying she is frustrated with parliament's "inability to take a decision".


The truth is it has, repeatedly on all manner of things - they're just not decisions to her liking.


Mrs May is unique in our constitutional history in refusing to accept the will of the House of Commons. This streak was most clearly on display on Wednesday when she refused to act on her own motion from last week which said she would seek a long extension to Article 50 if her deal had not passed by now.


She has also reneged on the idea of indicative votes to determine the will of the House, something her deputy promised only days ago. She has repeatedly flouted convention by not resigning after the major defeat of legislation.


She thought she could just ignore the rules of the Commons which say they must not vote on something more than once. She has refused to rule out no deal despite the fact that, again, the House of Commons voted for such a move twice.


It's no wonder that MPs on all sides of the House think she treats them with little or no respect. Her message is that they must travel with her because she says so, because they must.


But parliamentary democracy does not work in such a fashion, especially if you lead a minority government.


Mrs May acts as if she has an enormous majority and that she can bend them to her will - but she has not and she cannot. It is no surprise hers is the first government in history to be found in contempt of parliament.


The tone was set after the 2017 election when she walked up Downing Street, deprived by the British people of her majority.


The early scaffolding of the bunker was already in place - she did not reference the election result once but merely spoke of the referendum.


She attempted to anchor her political legitimacy in its deep sea. Before and since her, rhetoric tells us she believes her authority rests not on the Commons' confidence but from 2016.


Mrs May portrays herself as its defender against a malign and devious parliament which seeks at all costs to annul Brexit. In believing this and taking up this mantle, she is not only wrong but deeply misguided.


She is wrong because there is a majority for Brexit in parliament, just not hers - and misguided because her conduct threatens not just our leaving the EU and her government.


As a broadcast journalist I am rightly bound by strict rules of impartiality when it comes to party politics. But I am not impartial about our parliamentary democracy; for that I am a fully signed up evangelical.


I believe it is one of Britain's greatest inventions, exported and emulated across the globe, that it has served our country - under both Conservative and Labour administrations - well.


It has proved flexible when necessary, cautious when required and managed, for the most part, to scrape off the froth of the hottest political debate.


The conduct of the prime minister and her ministers imperil its long-term vitality, undermine its authority and threaten to unstitch the seams between people and parliament. They have been insufficiently temperate or careful with their tone and rhetoric - they talk incessantly of "the will of the people".


That mandate was a powerful one and if it can be implemented in any way which parliament finds acceptable, then it should be. But by contrast the PM, the head of a parliamentary democracy, seems to think the "will of parliament" is of trifling importance.


But if we have to choose direct or representative democracy, it must be the latter every time. We cannot govern by direct democracy. It will be parliament, our representative body, which long after she has gone must act as the conduit between the government and governed.


It is the first duty of any administration to ensure that the authority of parliament is beyond question. Someone must make that case and it should be the prime minister, but she is nowhere to be seen.


Not all of this is Theresa May's fault. The insertion of a hefty dose of direct democracy was always one which our representative democracy would find difficult to swallow. But Theresa May is making its digestion far more difficult.


Parliament is not blameless - but in recent weeks it has desperately wanted to try and seek a compromise. It is the prime minister's own red lines and truculence which prevents that compromise emerging.


I repeat: there is a majority for Brexit, just not her Brexit, and certainly not hers if it is with a gun to MPs' heads.


There are so many other options she could legitimately pursue, if only she had the political agility to avail herself of them.


She could embrace the Kyle-Wilson amendment, which would provide the votes to pass her deal subject to a ratification referendum (one I suspect she would win).


She could soften her red lines, add to the political declaration, offer Labour MPs what they want on a customs union and call their bluff and publicly call for them to back it.


Or if she really cannot tolerate the current House of Commons (a perfectly legitimate and not unprecedented situation for a prime minister) she could call an election.


What she cannot do and should not do, for the long-term health of our democracy, is bully parliament - nor should she give succour to those (already ubiquitous) who claim that its will is somehow illegitimate, that the democratic process, when it goes against her and them, is wrong.


The constitutional wreckage of her approach is all around us. Her refusal to allow an inch of compromise from her vision means the executive and legislature are daggers drawn. Precedent is going down the drain. Collective responsibility has gone.


The speaker is implicated because of her insistence on bringing the same thing back again and again and showing no regard or even awareness of the precedent which should prevent it.


MPs are considering transforming the standing orders of the Commons to seize control of the order paper. Our constitution is being rewritten before our eyes - and no one really wants it.


And the irony is, her battering ram approach will not serve Brexit well even if parliament finally buckles.


Consider what is now her plan. She would like to bring her deal back to the House next Thursday - Brexit eve.


I have long thought there isn't a cat in hell's chance of her deal having the numbers to get through. But if I'm wrong and she passes it with a tiny majority, by holding a gun to parliament's head, forcing MPs to choose between that and no deal with hours to go, imagine the result.


For a start, that would be no stable majority for the necessary EU Withdrawal Bill (which will be amended to high heaven). Secondly, the legitimacy of such a result, in such circumstances, having lost twice, would be near nil, on both sides.


Then, the withdrawal agreement would doubtless be picked apart as soon as Mrs May had left and was succeeded by a hard Brexiter. She fails to see that the implementation of the referendum result is reliant upon the perception of a fair and just parliamentary process.


As Edmund Burke, the father of the philosophy of conservatism once wrote: "Make the Revolution a parent of settlement, and not a nursery of future revolutions."


Her cardinal aim since becoming prime minister has been to avoid the damage to the political system which would inevitably come if the referendum result was seen to be overturned. But her medicine may yet prove worse than the disease.


Her intransigence renders parliament impotent, her stubbornness is fraying the relationships between the key bodies of our constitution and her active connivance and encouragement in a narrative which suggests that parliament is seeking to subvert "the will of the people" threatens to permanently stain our democracy.


How ironic, given many Brexiters claim that their project is about the restoration and rejuvenation of parliamentary democracy itself: for what is the point of "restoring" parliament if in the process the popular will on which parliamentary democracy must rest is destroyed, damaged or tarnished nearly beyond repair?


Quite the legacy, quite the irony, for a Conservative prime minister, of all sorts of prime ministers, whose forebears beyond all else cherished our democratic institutions and revered parliament.


Edmund Burke, for one definitely did. He famously said: "Society is indeed a contract... it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born."


Government and our institutions are the same. Theresa May's most solemn duty as prime minister, the current custodian of our democracy, is to respect the past, our political institutions, how they operate and crucially bequeath a functioning political system to its future tenants.


That is more important than delivering her version of Brexit or keeping the Tory party together. It is more important than anything. I deeply worry that this thought might never to have occurred to her.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

If anything this shambles has shown us the death of a Statesman / Stateswoman. There are no politicians standing for the public interest anymore. It's just endless shades of self interested careerists that'll saddle up to whichever doctrine affords them an easy life, or whichever lobby or organisation offers the most lucrative rewards. It's brought parliament itself into disrepute. What's interesting is although all sides snipe at each other to apportion blame, nobody has accepted any for themselves. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leadsom on the petition, which has now reached over 1 million signatures-



Should the petition reach more than 17.4m signatures [ie, the number of people who voted leave], there would be a very clear case for taking action.

I know petitions are pretty much wank, but what a cunty reply.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Mudface said:

Leadsom on the petition, which has now reached over 1 million signatures-


I know petitions are pretty much wank, but what a cunty reply.

I just went to sign the petition. It’s down ‘for maintenance’

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Available Subscriptions

  • Last Match Report

  • Latest Posts

    • Gini Wijnaldum has attracted further interest on the continent with Paris Saint Germain and Inter Milan reportedly very keen on signing the midfielder.   It is common knowledge that the Dutchman’s current contract expires in June, but to this point there has been no movement on a new deal leading to strong speculation that the very popular figure will be departing come the end of this campaign.   The most recent comment by either party came last month with Wijnaldum rather blunt about how things stand.   "There is no update yet. I also think I’m not the one who should give the update.   "The club should do that. So if there is an update, the club will give it."     The 30 year-old came very close to departing in the past off-season as new Barcelona manager Ronald Koeman had identified his countryman as a key part of his rebuilding plan, however Jurgen Klopp was able to hang to a key member of his squad.   And it is a good thing too as Wijnaldum has been at his consistent best and his durability has been a godsend for the manager in a squad wrecked by significant injuries.   He has made 37 appearances in all competitions and is set to lead the team in Jordan Henderson’s absence.   The Mirror ( via French publication Le Parisien) reports that  PSG have made it known that they are particularly interested in landing Wijnaldum on a free transfer while Inter Milan are monitoring the situation.   It is clear that if the Dutchman does depart Liverpool after five seasons and over 200 appearances, he will leave a sizable hole in the Liverpool midfield as well as his general impact in and around the squad.    
      View full article
    • Surprised the Brazilian PM didn't get involved to be honest. He's a massive twat and was fully expecting to make differenent rules for the National keeper. 
    • Still no official word on his injury after a week.  That makes me nervous.
    • I was a huge fan but he just cannot hack it unfortunately, as has been mentioned many times he might not fancy it or it could be too physical. I think it could be a psychological thing. 
  • Latest Round Up

  • Popular Contributors

  • top casino sites
  • new UK casino