- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 3006 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
196 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 86507
Government asks Queen to suspend Parliament
The government has asked the Queen to suspend Parliament just days after MPs return to work in September - and only a few weeks before the IIIWW deadline.
Boris Johnson said a Queen's Speech would take place after the suspension, on 14 October, to outline his "very exciting agenda". But it means MPs are unlikely to have time to pass laws to stop a no-deal IIIWW on 31 October.
The ride never ends!
|>>|| No. 86749
While no-deal IIIWW may be forbidden by law, what's the punishment? Why won't Boris just do it? Limelight for a while, adoration from enough people to fund him for the rest of his life. Seems like a fair trade? If it gets revoked from under him, same applies. He's got nothing to lose, has he?
All the current flapping is just for show, to get us to that point.
Should I put a bet on?
|>>|| No. 86750
Revoking Article 50 would return us to the status quo membership without negotiations. It wouldn't change anything beyond resetting the clock on the notification period if Lib Dems did it in that order and mean a referendum would be remain/no-deal rather than drawing out negotiations on a third option.
|>>|| No. 86751
I don't suppose there's anything stopping him from proposing a deal that just entirely describes a no-deal scenario, and calling that the deal. "we give nothing, and get nothing" written down and signed is a deal, right?
|>>|| No. 86752
>>86751 Possible, but I don't think that'll work, as it'd still need to be voted on, as it's a deal.
If he just saunters into a meeting, saying 'yeah, I've got a deal, you'll love it', then says 'fuck you, no deal, we're out, no time to do anything else, clock's run out, bring on no-deal IIIWW', smirks and fucks off, is he going to get arrested, jailed, or told he's a naughty boy? Would it being illegal invalidate it, or just get him in trouble of some sort?
Please tell me I'm missing the point here.
|>>|| No. 86753
>I struggle to understand what sort of deal they want or whether they want another referendum etc
He's been supporting a second referendum since at least May, if not longer. That's just as far as my memory goes. The speech I heard from him earlier was pretty explicit about that too.
>Corbyn spent all his time trying to relate to the normal clueless members of the public who don't really know what they want themselves.
Imagine trying to relate to voters. You're right, that's a sure fire way to lose elections if I've ever heard of one.
Now, I'm not the massive Corbynista I'm probably coming across as, I think he's really done a shit job as leader. But people are being very unfair on him and his party's position. They are the opposition and they are being exactly the kind of contrary, obstinate fucks you're supposed to be in opposition.
|>>|| No. 86754
I would assume, and it is an assumption, that the law he'd be breaking wouldn't be "letting IIIWW happen without a deal", but would be something like "ignoring the will of Parliament", and he'd probably be remembered as a massive bastard for the rest of time.
|>>|| No. 86756
>He's been supporting a second referendum since at least May, if not longer.
Your memory only stretches back a month and half?
|>>|| No. 86758
>While no-deal IIIWW may be forbidden by law, what's the punishment?
If Johnson doesn't request the extension, MPs can apply for a court order requiring him to do so. If he fails to comply with that order, he can be convicted of contempt and sentenced to a maximum of two years imprisonment. With the expedient help of a sympathetic judge, all of that could happen with time to spare before the 31st of October deadline.
|>>|| No. 86759
Additionally, if a prosecutor were minded to take it up, there's a very strong case that openly defying the law amounts to misconduct in public office, which carries a maximum sentence of life, and could be charged against him and anyone else considered to be conspiring with him (including employees not themselves in public office). The last case against him found that he was not considered to have told the 350m lie in his official capacity, but clearly that defence wouldn't be open to him given he's made statements inside and outside the House in his official capacity as PM.
Worth noting that he's also publicly said he doesn't intend to resign, but nowhere near as stridently as his other refusal. That said, May also openly defied Parliament, and Cummings still has an unpurged contempt, so it's possible Boris just sees the potential threats as entirely toothless.
|>>|| No. 86760
Wouldn't this require that all the EU member states meet again and vote? Presuming that Johnson doesn't play ball at the summit.
|>>|| No. 86764
It is very simple really, Liberal democrats have always been the pro-Europe party, they aren't one of the 2 major parties, they can run a manifesto entirely to the effect of 'we will stay in Europe' and if they win, that will be considered a demonstration of the will of the people to stay in Europe, as opposed to where labour and the conservatives win where you can argue all sorts of other reasons and the party lines are all over the place on the issue, the motive for voting Liberal would be very clear, the same way if UKIP won an election it would be self-evident what that meant.
|>>|| No. 86765
>the same way if UKIP won an election it would be self-evident what that meant
In other words, Nige's performance at the last European elections is proof that people want to leave the EU so there's no need for another referendum.
|>>|| No. 86768
To an extent, I can see her thinking. The resultant panic buying would only serve to make any shortages worse which would be fanned by those with a clear agenda in making No Deal sound as bad as possible.
There's probably some middle ground but we're about to go into an election and 'you can see but can't tell anyone' doesn't even work in Cabinet these days.
|>>|| No. 86770
What's your point? Why would the obviousness of people panic buying change the logic of her thinking?
|>>|| No. 86771
So what you're saying is that if we're facing imminent shortages of vital supplies we shouldn't tell people in case they decide to prepare themselves?
|>>|| No. 86772
A document has been published.
The redacted section is thought to be this:
>Tariffs make UK petrol exports to the EU uncompetitive. Industry had plans to mitigate the impact on refinery margins and profitability, but UK government policy to set petrol import tariffs at 0% inadvertently undermines these plans. This leads to big financial losses and the closure of two refineries (which are converted to import terminals) with about 2,000 direct job losses. Resulting strike action at refineries would lead to disruptions to fuel availability for 1-2 weeks in the regions they directly supply. Government analysis of the impact of no-deal on refineries continues.
|>>|| No. 86773
I think what you're saying is that if we're facing imminent shortages of vital supplies, we shouldn't tell people because that would cause an immediate shortage of supplies.
Unless you think the best move a government can make is to shout 'every man for himself' and duck behind a desk.
|>>|| No. 86774
Sorta like when you go into sepsis innit. Your body thinks it's doing the right thing by sending everything it has at the infection but in the end it raises your core temperature and kills you fucking dead mate. So doctors have to get your body to stop being a prick for it's own good.
|>>|| No. 86776
They should at least admit that we may face shortages and rationing may be necessary. It's completely irresponsible to just keep the risk secret and hope that it all blows over.
|>>|| No. 86777
If people are going to panic buy either way, it's probably better that they do it while we're still in a position to restock the shelves.
|>>|| No. 86778
You can, as a government prepare for rationing secretly and quietly. You cannot if you've already told everyone to run out and buy thirty loaves of bread each.
I'm not saying it's pleasant, or even morally correct, but it is, in fact, sensible.
That being said, I don't want it to appear I'm defending the very people that got us to this fucking point in the first place. I truly, genuinely hope that this is a big enough collapse that we finally eat the rich. and the workers can seize the control and ownership of the means of production
|>>|| No. 86779
Once a run on shops starts, it doesn't just stop when everyone's pantry is full, that's not how it works and even with restocking you can't keep up with that sort of demand. I'm old enough to remember how quickly this sort of thing goes downhill, how quickly the queues outside of petrol stations started to form.
|>>|| No. 86780
>Once a run on shops starts, it doesn't just stop when everyone's pantry is full, that's not how it works
When did you become an expert on this sort of thing? If the public has three months' notice, at least some people will get in early, and so the increase in demand is spread, and retailers will already be trying to increase stock levels in anticipation. Throw in the fact that half the population thinks this is just "Project Fear" and really doesn't work out anywhere near as badly as you're making it out to be. Whereas if we just wait until November, even the idiots are panic buying when they realise that they fucked up, and when the shelves are empty we aren't able to find supplies to replace them.
>I'm old enough to remember how quickly this sort of thing goes downhill, how quickly the queues outside of petrol stations started to form.
Whenever we've had petrol rationing, it was precisely because we couldn't restock. During the fuel protests, filling stations couldn't get supplies because the refineries were blockaded.
|>>|| No. 86781
>During the fuel protests, filling stations couldn't get supplies because the refineries were blockaded.
|>>|| No. 86783
No deal wouldn't be an unavoidable happenstance, but a deliberate decision by HM Government. If the Prime Minister wants to tell the public that no deal would be an acceptable outcome, then the public have the right to know the whole truth.
Secretive preparations would be perfectly legitimate if we were preparing for an invasion or a nuclear attack, but the harms of no deal would be entirely self-inflicted. The risk of those harms could be entirely eliminated by either signing the WA or revoking A50. If telling the public the truth about no deal would make no deal more damaging, that's not an argument for secrecy - it's an argument for avoiding no deal.
|>>|| No. 86784
But if they sign the WA or revoke A50 then ATAD2 will apply in the UK and Boris, Jacob and all their mates won't be able to dodge taxes by hiding their money offshore, and we can't have that, can we?
|>>|| No. 86785
Today I went on a walk, when I got back I saw our PM had been diplomogged. What a sorry state.
|>>|| No. 86787
The whole thing was just farcical.
>Let's go outside and do this.
>Oh no, there are hecklers. Can we do this inside?
>We could try, but this is a press event and there's no room inside for all that press.
>Oh, erm ...
>Look, I'm going outside with or without you. Your call.
Who's the "big girl's blouse" again? What an embarrassment.
|>>|| No. 86800
Corbyn suggests UK could be better off after IIIWW if deal is right
When asked whether it was in Britain’s long-term interests to remain in the EU, the Labour leader said: “It depends on the agreement you have with the European Union outside.”
His suggestion that a Labour government could negotiate an exit deal that would be preferable to EU membership – and that he will reserve judgment until those negotiations are complete – will infuriate anti-IIIWW activists.
He said: “We have consistently put forward what I believe to be a credible option, which is based on five pillars – the customs union, the trade relationship, protection of consumer and environmental rights, and of course the Good Friday agreement.” If the EU27 agree to those demands, he said, “that would be a credible offer to put before the British people”.
More than 90 local constituency Labour parties (CLPs) have submitted motions on IIIWW to the conference, most demanding their party support remain. These are due to be hammered out into a “composite” at a late-night meeting on Sunday. But the national executive committee (NEC) is threatening to pre-empt those discussions by tabling its own policy statement – a draft version of which suggests deferring the decision on whether to support remain until a special conference to be held after a Labour government has negotiated a IIIWW deal.
Corbyn made clear that was his position. “We would put both views and say look, this is the best deal we could get; this is the remain and hopefully reform option. These are the choices before you.”
|>>|| No. 86801
>He said: “We have consistently put forward what I believe to be a credible option, which is based on five pillars – the customs union, the trade relationship, protection of consumer and environmental rights, and of course the Good Friday agreement.”
So remaining without voting rights. I get why Labour has been in a tight spot about this but they always seem to suggest the worst possible option based on headlines rather than boring policy changes at the EU-Level such as Common Fisheries. I mean, even if we do end up remaining, there's going to be some very detailed negotiations on our future relationship. That we'll likely fudge completely and do nothing to address the left-behind towns that voted leave.
|>>|| No. 86802
They've created about the worst possible offering. Nobody wants there to be a renegotiation with the EU. Nobody wants this limbo to drag on for months and months.
|>>|| No. 86803
>So remaining without voting rights.
Not as bad as leaving but having to obey all the rules anyway.
But yeah, Labour really need to actually find a clear position on this. (No, Momentumlad, what they've articulated to date is not a clear position.)
|>>|| No. 86804
>Not as bad as leaving but having to obey all the rules anyway.
Who is talking about that?
|>>|| No. 86805
Those in various shades of blue and marple. They don't like to mention the part where we have to obey the rules anyway, because it doesn't fit their narrative.
|>>|| No. 86806
Seems pretty clear-cut that we're taking back control of our fisheries and immigration at the very least in the blue and marple scenarios. That much seems to be agreed in May's deal that the EU refuse to renegotiate on.
|>>|| No. 86808
Well, I guess if we can overfish the North Sea and tell darkies to go home, that must make up for all the other rules we'll still have to obey.
Bless their little cotton socks for thinking we will be able to set our own rules independently of anyone else. If we buy goods from the EU, they'll still be compliant with EU rules, and if we sell goods into the EU, they'll have to comply with those rules. The same goes for any agreement with the US, or China, or whatever other major trading nation we want to deal with. We will be the junior partner, and in no position to make demands.
FWIW, it's entirely their right to refuse to renegotiate, since we initially set the terms. If we want a different agreement, then we have to change the terms of the negotiation. That means the red lines have to either move or become less red.
|>>|| No. 86809
>Well, I guess if we can overfish the North Sea and tell darkies to go home, that must make up for all the other rules we'll still have to obey.
So you agree that we can set our own rules in these areas under blue and marple. Good, I can put the kettle on then.
|>>|| No. 86810
If it tickles your prostate, then sure. I'm not sure what relevance it has though.
|>>|| No. 86811
Labour delegates have voted for Corbyn's fudge rather than outright Remain. Bonkers.
|>>|| No. 86812
Don't worry. Our resident Corbynisti will be along soon enough to tick us off for daring to suggest that Labour don't have a clear IIIWW position despite having just "clearly carried" a motion to not adopt a position.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]