I'm going to do the washing up.

>>86507

Any precedent for her telling him to go get a mandate for this?

>>86510
It's alright, I'm sure Jez has everything under control.

We've known about this for a long time so I hardly think its worth a new thread, there is obvious need for a new legislative programme to be set. What Boris has done is cut Parliamentary time by 4 days as MPs are heading off for conference season.

It's irrelevant though. Next week Commons will either pass a vote of No Confidence or MPs will have to accept that there is no majority for any position and face the default.

Has this been sensationalised by those unfamiliar with parliamentary process? I've read a few articles on this and it's said that parliament was going to enter a recess that week anyway for conference season and most new governments prorogue parliament before the Queen's speech.

>>86513
>I hardly think its worth a new thread

The last two pages or so on /pol/ are primarily various fragmented and piecemeal threads related to IIIWW. I think we've all lost the plot a bit.

>>86513
>there is obvious need for a new legislative programme to be set.
Yes, but it can wait until the instant crisis is dealt with. Quite simply, there is no reason why he couldn't have asked for a prorogration and a new session for the first couple of weeks of November instead.

>What Boris has done is cut Parliamentary time by 4 days as MPs are heading off for conference season.
That's a bit misleading. While it does technically remove an additional four sitting days from the Parliamentary calendar, being prorogued is very different from being in recess. Parliament can be recalled from recess, but prorogation is final.

>>86516
We've been in crisis mode for over 2 years now. Obviously the government does need to establish its legislative programme sharpish given events and the direction it needs to take. I'm surprised you didn't see this coming, especially as The Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill 2019 has deliberately bound the governments hands between October and December to avoid this.

>That's a bit misleading.

No it's not. We've been here before and, if MPs have the balls, a Surrogate Parliament can be held. MPs can still pull the pin and do a vote of no confidence with the hope the EU will grant a further extension given we're already out of time.

>>86517
>Obviously the government does need to establish its legislative programme sharpish given events and the direction it needs to take.
Which events would those be? As far as I can tell, nobody without a vested interest in ramming an exit through ASAP has suggested the need for a programme before EU Transfer Deadline Day. In fact, it would seem rather silly given the need to plan for and potentially execute no-deal to suddenly decide to lay out what you're going to do after it.

>No it's not.
Yes, it is. A motion in Parliament would be binding. A motion in a parallel body would be persuasive but not binding. Thanks to the Maybot, Boris has plenty of precedent for disregarding it, and a solid Parliamentary scholar as his Leader to back him up.

>>86518
>As far as I can tell, nobody without a vested interest in ramming an exit through ASAP has suggested the need for a programme before EU Transfer Deadline Day

Hasn't the position from Corbyn over the past couple of years been that IIIWW is a secondary issue, other than an excuse to make a power grab, compared with tackling austerity and other domestic issues?

>>86519
>Hasn't the position from Corbyn over the past couple of years been that IIIWW is a secondary issue, other than an excuse to make a power grab, compared with tackling austerity and other domestic issues?
Right, and how well has that worked out for him in the last 12 months?

Brenda has accepted the request.

I'd like to see as a result of the petition a debate next parliament about not ending the previous session.

Defend migrants!

Why don't migrants just wear a hi-vis jacket when trying to enter a country illegally? Aren't you supposed to be able to get in anywhere like that?

>>86523>>86526
What the fuck are you arseholes talking about?

>>86526
I read something one time, it might have been on here, about a group of burglars who wore hi-vis jackets before removing someone's front door and clearing the place out; people thought they were workmen so they went completely unchallenged. If a bunch of illegal immigrants came into the county wearing hi-vis jackets and carrying clipboards I doubt anyone would suspect a thing.

>>86528

I worked at a port for a bit and I can confirm it would help.

Grant Shapp's tired eyes say more than I ever could.

>>86531

They say "I'm sick to death of being mistaken for Warwick Davis"

Survation polling done this week, after the announcement that parliament will be suspended, has support for the Tories going up.

>>86534

Just goes to show.

There was a woman on that radio 4 panel show earlier today who said something along the lines of "people who want to stop the third world war- which means, normal people" and I just had to shake my head.

Just encapsulates that perceived moral high ground which has entirely undermined the remain case from the beginning. Remain is outnumbered. Remain has to appeal to people and persuade them, which should be common sense when you're the minority group and you need more support for your cause. But most remainers are happier to belittle and patronise.

Polling like that shows how oblivious they are. People who wanted a second referendum would be in for a rude awakening when it came back as an even bigger Leave victory. The ignorance of people like that is why we're so fucked right now- Instead of mounting an effective and pragmatic campaign to gain a level of control, and push for damage mitigation and contingency planning, they've done basically nothing for three years.

>>86535

You can't win a political campaign by offering the status quo when your opponent has free reign to make up any bullshit and promise they want stick it on the side of a bus and never be held accountable for if it is true.

The only solution is to tell an equal amount of bullshit about the exagerated horrors that the unknown will bring and that we are safer where we are.

>>86536
That wouldn't work and hasn't worked to date.

Many people who voted leave did not do so for economic reasons, citing something like "taking back control" or immigration as their primary concern; the areas voting leave tended to have the greatest change in demographics since 2001.

One of the reasons the remain campaign failed is because they largely ignored this and focused almost exclusively on the economic effects of leaving the EU. The so-called Project Fear heavily backfired in the Scottish independence referendum yet it was complacently adopted for the EU referendum.

The leave campaign, if you ignore the unofficial one run by Are Nige, was a largely positive message even if it was pandering to notions of British exceptionalism about how we can stand on our own two feet. The remain campaign was negative, didn't address the priorities of the people it actually needed to get the message across to and was fixated on why we shouldn't leave rather than the benefits of remaining. A lot of the negative growth forecasts have ended up being revised up as the economy has generally been a lot more resilient than expected since the referendum result, which is now taken as evidence by leave voters that every single piece of bad news, particularly if it is a forecast or includes the words 'if' or 'may', is hyperbolic bollocks so can be easily dismissed.

Insulting them and creating bullshit will only make them more deeply entrenched in their views.

>>86537

The problem with british exceptionalism, and taking back control is that they are intangible feel good positions you can't really dismantle them with logic. They are just hype like the easily duped carried away mobs in the Simpsons.

People will just assume you hate Britain if you argue we aren't exceptional that you hate Britain and become more entrenched, and taking back control is so nebulous in this context as to not mean anything and if it doesn't mean anything you can't argue against it. And you can't argue for how great the status quo is because these people are already dissatisfied with that. So you are stuck telling them either they are mistaken (I.e stupid) or that the results will be really bad.

You can't make a proactive campaign for the status quo.

>>86538
>they are intangible feel good positions you can't really dismantle them with logic

Have you tried? Your posts just oozes of arrogance for positions that ordinary people find hard to articulate. Britain is exceptional because our constitutional makeup built on Parliamentary Sovereignty doesn't mesh at all well with European conceptions of government which we deliberately avoided taking part in designing at the start. Normally people put it in words of bringing power back and in our unique conception of Parliament they are absolutely right, even if you scoff at this, the EU bureaucracy is not a better answer.

If you understood this you can then grasp that Remain was never a status quo position. Britain's interaction with Europe of the past few decades has already bought constitutional tension and if we remain these tensions will need resolving. You could instead argue for greater judicial oversight or that EU immigration at least gives us people of a somewhat similar cultural background but no, you'd rather pretend the European Union is static and not a project.

I suggest reading the attached book. Vernon seems to be what everyone goes off this days when it comes to IIIWW.

>>86539
Oh look, it's this nonsense again.

Deltapoll polling Thursday to Saturday has the Tories on course for a majority.

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1167928278402748417

YouGov has the Tories on 33%, Labour on 22% and the Lib Dems on 21%.

>>86542
Remember when the polls said Theresa May would get a majority if she called a snap election?

>>86543
Yes, but so do the people who conduct the polls.

>>86544
What?

>>86545
What what?

>>86543
Survation were the most accurate polling company for the 2017 general election by some distance. They were also the most accurate polling company for the Scottish Independence referendum and ran two polls prior to the EU referendum which came out 52% in favour of leave.

https://www.survation.com/survation-most-accurate-pollster/

As you will see above (>>86534) their polling has found that support for the Tories has gone up since the prorogation was agreed.

Why does Tony Blair get uninterupted coverage of another milquetoast, out of touch, non-committal speech on BBC News? He just told people protesting is bad, mmm'kay WHILE HONG KONG IS IN THE MIDDLE OF A GENERAL STRIKE!

>>86548

>Why does Tony Blair get uninterupted coverage [telling] people protesting is bad

Why'd you think?

The beeb is the elite, don't forget.

>>86540

first time poster in this thread.
I've no idea which part of the country you live in, I live in the North Midlands in an area which has seen huge numbers of Eastern European immigrants settle and voted overwhelmingly to leave.
It wasn't dolphin rape that caused this, it was the flooding of the lower end of labour market combined with zero hour contracts and minimum wage which caused this.
Yes its arguable the EU tried to protect this labour market with legislation against zero hour contracts but when your stuck in a job without even the prospect of a permanent contract and earning so little you struggle with even the basics of life and seeing massive immigration saturating the labour market destroying any chance of this changing you start seeing the enshrining of freedom of movement as destroying any chance of a comfortable life.
This has been a labour safe seat going back nearly a century, which I find interesting when compared with the framing of leave/don't leave as a battle between right and left. The people around here aren't particularly political but unsurprisingly they do want a comfortable life and see this prevented by both government and the EU.

This is what is meant by elitism, the political left are traditionally seen to be protectors of the working person, these same people feel betrayed and have done so for years. Vote leave was seen as the only way to improve lives and left wing lovies proclaiming anyone who did so is racist/thick/gammon/lied to etc only encourages this and leaves you seen as elitist.

>>86551
>anyone who did so is racist/thick/gammon/lied to etc
I'm sorry if the truth makes you uncomfortable.

>>86552

The part you don't seem able to get your head around is that wether it's the truth or not, we're leaving the EU because of it.

Was it really worth pushing us over the edge of what could be the worst economic disaster this country has ever seen, just to keep your seat on your high horse?

>>86553

This is the exact same reasoning as "I'm only alt-right because some Paul Joseph Watsons told me not to say the n-word". Are the working people thick? Do they lack agency? Do they only act in response to the middle classes?

>>86553
Have a word with yourself, lad.

>>86554

>Are the working people thick? Do they lack agency?

Pretty much yeah

>>86556>>86556all those gas plumber s and electricians must be thick, it's not like they deal with complex systems capable of causing death

>>86552
Economic lesson
An excess of something causes the price to drop
Potatoes or people this holds true

>>86557
Primary school children can competently play games where you have to arrange pipes from A to B such that their contents don't escape.

>>86559

Yes that is exactly like installing a boiler. Buy yourself a pint, lad.

This is a really weird cunt-off.

>>86554

>Are the working people thick? Do they lack agency? Do they only act in response to the middle classes?

Britain has had a long, long cultural history of deference to the upper classes, and I think the echoes of that still remain to this day. Many people simply are born and raised to trust someone who went to Eton or Oxbridge because surely they must know what they're on about, or to support the monarchy because that what Britain Is All About. We, as a country, have always looked up to the upper classes, aspired towards it, and assumed that they were our betters. Even those who don't really like a posho will still seem to assume they are better qualified to run the country, back when Labour courted proper union lads they still didn't want the fat yorkshire bloke in charge, and indeed ridiculed him for having ideas (and cars) above his station.

We're still very set in our ways in this country, at least the older generations (i.e most of the voting population) and I think that also goes to explain why we do have such a crab bucket mentality in this country too - the lines of class are still clearly marked for many and crossing them is either traitorous or courts extreme jealousy.

Maybe they're thick too, I don't know.

What needs to be acknowledged is that pretty much everyone is thick. Most people I know who voted Remain did so because it's what everyone else they knew was planning on doing so they'd rather go with the flow, pretend it's because they're enlightened and avoid being a social pariah; they couldn't articulate why they voted the way they did or the benefits of remaining in the EU unless it was parroting an image they'd seen on social media.

A lot of remain voters were thick. A lot of leave voters were thick. The major difference is that voting remain because you're an airhead is a lot more palatable than voting leave because you hate brown-eyed people.

Yeah, a lot of working class people are thick. That's why they work at the checkout in Iceland instead of a design consultancy agency or whatever it is us lot do for a living.

The fact is the left hasn't been saying anything they want to listen to. In the absence of an appealing left, the lesser educated masses have been very easily swayed by far right populism pandering to their fears and insecurities.

How do you people find it so hard to understand that nobody is going to vote for the guy who tells them they're wrong, when there's another guy promising to solve all their problems? People are thick. People are selfish. People vote for the guy who tells them they're right.

This is how the Tories have won for the last decade. It's how Leave won the referendum. It's not rocket science.

>>86551
Don't bother, the best you'll get from him are edgy replies.

>>86562
What about Major?

>>86558
Because a national economy is exactly that simple. Boy, why don't they just put you in charge so you can fix everything instead of the shower we currently have? With insights like that how can we possibly go wrong?

>>86566
>Don't bother, the best you'll get from him are edgy replies.
If he wants better replies, he'll have to earn them.

>>86565
>The fact is the left hasn't been saying anything they want to listen to. In the absence of an appealing left, the lesser educated masses have been very easily swayed by far right populism pandering to their fears and insecurities.

Are you trying to abdicate any responsibility on the left for abandoning the traditional working class values and groups they used to represent? I mean, voters have said for decades that they don't want immigration, don't like the idea of the EU and whatever else you want to berate people for. Maybe you have just have shit for brains if you won't listen to that.

>>86569
Wicked fable, blud.

>>86568
You tell 'em m7. Everyone enjoys your edgy brand of trolling that stops us discussing politics on here.

>>86571
It doesn't stop us those of us who aren't spewing brain-dead pseudointellectual rubbish discussing politics.

>>86569

What?

That's pretty much exactly what I'm criticising the left for in the first place you daft sod.

>>86574
Not bad, but the hammer needs to be yellow.

Oh, look, Owen Smith is briefing against the party again, what a suprise...

>>86576
It might be that, unlike his leader, he's not that stupid.

>>86576
Remember when he tried dubbing himself 'Remoaner-in-Chief' but it never caught on because everyone thinks he's insignificant? Owen Smith's top priority is always Owen Smith.

I'm disappointed in the crowds trying to drown out Johnson's speech that they're just chanting "Stop. The. Coup." as it reads, rather than to the tune of The KLF's Doctorin' the TARDIS.

>>86577
Corbyn's present position is that he want's to stop no-deal and subsequently hold a GE. If you're just a person doing person things I can understand not knowing, because for various reason Labour struggle to get their message out. However, if you're a Labour MP pretending not to know you're just playing stupid, which is a risky business for someone like Smith who's already quite thick. Case in point >>86578

>>86580
>Corbyn's present position is that he want's to stop no-deal and subsequently hold a GE
No, the "subsequently" isn't his position. That's the position of most of the rest of his MPs, Owen Smith included.

>>86580
Corbyn's solution for 99.99% of matters is to call for a general election.

>>86581
That simply isn't the case. See pic related.

>>86582
I don't know if this is Corbyn's thinking on the matter, but we should have had one the moment it was obvious May could not get her deal through Parliament. Instead the Conservatives made a cack-handed play at brinksmanship and only managed to exhaust themselves in the process. The reason no one party can do anything in Parliament regarding IIIWW is in part that none of them are entirely sure what their voters want and, more importantly, none of them have a majority.

The Conservatives have treated the IIIWW process, and by extension to country, with more contempt than I treated my GCSEs, but you can't resit IIIWW.

>>86582
I can entirely believe the following would be a real conversation in the Corbyn household:
>Laura: The upstairs toilet is blocked again!
>Jeremy: Right, the only way out of this is an immediate general election!

Conservative MP Phillip Lee has defected to the Liberal Democrats ahead of a showdown between Boris Johnson and Tory rebels over IIIWW.

Dr Lee, the MP for Bracknell, took his seat on the opposition benches as the PM addressed the Commons. His defection means that Boris Johnson no longer has a working majority in the Commons.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49570682

>>86585
As far as Boris is concerned, he has a majority of 1.

Boris: 1
Opposition: 0

>>86584

Proper knee-slapper, that one.

Ohhhhh, Konnie.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y8dCCDi31E

>>86575

I tried

I got an email from my MP saying he's headed in to Parliament today to vote for Hilary Benn's Bill to stop the UK crashing out of the EU with no deal. I'm guessing he's emailed all his constituents with the same thing as I've never expressed anything about it to him. Seems weird.

>>86590
>crashing out

What exactly is 'crashing out' about it?

>>86590

Out of the ordinary sure, but at least it makes you aware of what he stands for. What is probably weirder is that we don't know more about our MPs and what they care about when you think about it.

>>86592
Get on their mailing list and you'll get an opportunity to find out what they want you to think they care about and maybe you'll have an opportunity to meet them and get a feel for what they're really like.

>>86590
I got the forms through to confirm voters roll the other day, too.

It's election time.

>>86594
>I got the forms through to confirm voters roll the other day, too.
They do that every year.

The Leader of the House of Commons is pretending to be asleep. I did that once at a "party" when I was 13 and I didn't want to talk to anyone. Utterly embarrassing.

>>86596
Is he not simply doing his usual thing of lounging on the bench when someone behind him is speaking?

>>86597
He's enjoying being on the government benches for one of the last times.

Looks like Boris is off to a good start. Played 1, lost 1.

So, is this prorogure (prorogation?) still happening then? I'm confused.

>>86600
Unless the legal challenges succeed, or the House passes a Humble Address, yes.

The vote tonight was a repeat of the tactic used to introduce the bill that forced May to request an extension. A similar bill will be introduced tomorrow. The whole thing about threatening de-whipping has almost certainly backfired, since if they carry it out as advertised the rebels will have no incentive to back the government tomorrow, and if they don't carry it out the threat is no longer credible and the rebels will rebel again.

>>86601
22 MP's gone in a day.

The Cons are fucked and it's all Bojos fault.

>>86602
Imagine spending 40 years of your life chasing your dream job only to shit the bed on your first day in the office.

>>86602
I wouldn't go that far. For now they might be, but I couldn't tell you a thing about how a post GE parliament might look, and if enough of these 22 are in safe Tory seats they might not become a long term loss. However, figuring that out is for a me who isn't quite so tired.

>>86604
Some of them are big enough names that they'd easily be competitive running as an independent. If you've voted for Nicholas Soames for the last 30 years and you see his name on the ballot again, it's going to be a tough choice between him and an official Tory candidate.

FWIW, some of them have already been re-selected by their constituency associations, which means that the whips will have missed the boat on de-selecting them.

I know the LibDems don't have a brain cell between them, but would they want a bunch of ex-Tories rocking up on their ballots? Slightly off topic I know.

>>86599
John Crace?

>>86608
Given the context, this comic is a little ridiculous.

Just in case anyone hasn't caught up, in the elected chamber decided not to give us a vote, while in the unelected chamber they've spent most of the evening going through a cycle of having a vote on whether to have a vote, and then having a vote.

>>86612
Also something about Kinnock's amendment. I don't know what's going on any more.

>>86613
The working theory is that Boris did not want evidence of support for an alternative to his own plans on the record. No tellers means no division, so the amendment was adopted by default, whereas if the amendment had passed by division his critics could claim there was a consensus forming in the House when his entire act at the moment relies on the premise that the House is paralysed.

There's a business motion currently pending in the Lords, as a counterpart to the one that went through the Commons on Tuesday. Pro-IIIWW Lords have basically mounted a brute-force attack on it.

At the part where there it says that the bill from the Commons should take priority over all other business, there are 20 amendments trying to add exceptions for individual bills.

There are a couple of references to Friday. There are amendments for each of these references to change them to several days next week. There are multiple amendments to change the cut-off time from 5pm to some other time of day.

There are 11 paragraphs. There is an amendment to leave out paragraphs 2-11, and another to leave out 3-11, etc. There are a couple more of this form that also want to add a few words further up.

Right now, they're currently wading through a set of three amendments wanting to put the matter on hold until each of the three court cases currently under way is resolved.

A few more amendment have been added as "manuscript amendments" after the order paper was printed. Once the current batch of MSAs have been dealt with, they'll move on to amendment 3 of 86.

>>86615

If the Lords debate continues until 10:30 AM tomorrow, it'll still technically be Wednesday for parliamentary purposes. It could still be Wednesday on Monday. I am trapped in a nightmare, please send help.

Remember before all this.

>>86616
That might be a problem, because the business motion calls for things to be brought to a close on Friday.

Official Tory party Twitter account.

https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1169928730652733440/photo/1

Look everyone, some completely normal UK politicking.

Marg bar Europa!

So he's throwing in the towel already? Good grief. What happened to the bloke who was going to just get things done, it's barely been what, a fortnight? Absolute fucking pansy.

You know, I reckon the media and leavers in general are genuinely a bit scared, under the surface, that Corbyn would make a better job of it. Who does the Tory party have left? Rees Mogg?

>>86639
Rees-Mogg doesn't strike me as having much desire for leadership. Prominance, yes, but I don't think he could motivate himself to be a Tory party leader; he simply isn't arsed. I thought the recent declarations that IIIWW could spell the end for the Conservatives were a bit OTT at the time, but really where do they go from here? They've hit peak Tory now and if that doesn't work, as you say, they don't have much left. I suppose they could manage an about turn and have another crack at Cameronism. Nicky Morgan maybe? She doesn't seem overly mental.

>>86639
>So he's throwing in the towel already?

Boris is taking the UK out of the EU against the wishes of a Parliament by any means, up-to and including prison, to deliver his core election pledge. I'm not sure what 'towel' you're referring to.

>Corbyn would make a better job of it

Is that why everyone outside of Labour is constantly referring to him? Nevermind a general election, can you imagine him trying to polish Theresa May's deal as his own and the trying to sell it to his inevitable coalition partners in the SNP. Scotland would be joining the EU before we ever reach a majority on leaving.

At any rate my money is on Gove pulling a party coup. He seems to have gotten much better in recent years and more popular as a kind of moderate candidate between MPs and membership.

>>86639
You ain't got no problem, Boris. I'm on the motherfucker. Go back in there, chill them tories out and wait for the saville, who should be coming directly.

Why can't we just admit that this whole shitshow isn't working, and isn't ever going to work, knock the whole thing on the head and get back to the domestic agenda?

>>86643
I think we've already seen enough of that with the Spending Review.

>Two bus driver's sons as successive chancellors, taking the public for a ride must be in our DNA ahahaha!
>That money was Scotland's anyway because the EU said so but you stole it - just think of how much more red-tape the Scottish people deserve
>This is just money the Conservatives took from the police in 2010. Vote Labour and we'll assign a policeman to live in every home.

etc. etc.

>>86644
... which was immediately overshadowed by the timetable bill and the election motion.

>>86643

Because it opens the door to ignoring election results and referendums

For shits and giggles ask any Tory or Labour supporters wanting a second IIIWW referendum why they won't rerun the fptp/ proportional representation referendum

>>86646
>Because it opens the door to ignoring election results and referendums
Comedy gold, lad.

On the off chance that you were serious, you know we already set that precedent in 2017, right?

>>86648

Coalition government is legal and with president

>>86646

The referendum was a terrible mistake - our constitution simply wasn't designed to accommodate them, as we're seeing now. I think the only way out of this impasse is either a three-way referendum on deal/no deal/remain or a people's assembly. As has been said many times, the result of the referendum is only a partial mandate - it says that we should leave, but it doesn't say how.

>>86650
I think you mean deal or no deal. We've already decided we're leaving.

>>86651

Now that we know the options, it's perfectly reasonable for the electorate to say "actually, we've decided not to bother". The referendum was fundamentally flawed because it lacked a meaningful consultation period on what IIIWW would actually look like; removing the option of remain is just doubling down on that error.

>>86651
This. Also why are we bothering with an election? We already decided in 2010 that the Tories were going to be in charge.

>>86653
The Tories? I thought we decided that some random celtic warchief was going to be king in 38 BC when he fucked that horse.

>>86654
Nah, Claudius beat him in a game of backgammon in 43AD. Doubled the poor bastard out of the game.

>>86655
Yes but 38BC happened before that.

>>86656
If a king can't even gamble away his crown, what on earth can he do?

>>86650
>>86652
Do you seriously think you're going to win a second referendum?

>>86652
How exactly is it fair for you to split the winning side's vote down the middle and pit it against the losing side with its vote intact? And what happens when no deal plus deal beats the hypothetically victorious remain?

That sounds like the absolute worst thing you could do to unambiguously resolve the impasse.

>>86658
That depends. Who do you mean by "we" and are you planning to hold it before or after April 2018?

>>86659
>How exactly is it fair for you to split the winning side's vote down the middle and pit it against the losing side with its vote intact?
So you're saying that elections in Scotland aren't fair?

>>86657
He can't make new decisions that alter or go back on old decisions, that's for sure. You know how the old saying goes; you can lead a horse to water but you can't un-fuck it.

>>86662
On the upside, that suits give us a pretext for revoking America's independence. After all, we decided it was British, and we're owed a fuckload of back taxes on all that tea.

>>86663
Absolutely. Can't un-fuck that horse.

Opinium polling for the Graun has the Tories extending their lead.

https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1170392501091491840

>>86665
What the fuck is wrong with people? Apart from Corbyn, we all know what's wrong with him.

>>86666
I think it's more the paucity of other choices.

>>86659

Ironically, this problem is easily solved with the Alternative Vote system.

>>86667
When I voted in 2017, there were seven candidates on the ballot. There are plenty of other choices.

>>86666
I'll give you four reasons, off the top of my head.

• IIIWW fatigue. Many people are fed up of the current limbo dragging on and simply want it resolved one way or another.

• You don't give people like Boris or Nige the opportunity to paint themselves as victims because they feed off this and thrive.

• The current situation has enabled Boris to pitch it as 'parliament vs. the public'. He's on the side of the public.

• Jeremy flaccid cock Corbyn.

>>86670
>• The current situation has enabled Boris to pitch it as 'parliament vs. the public'. He's on the side of the public.
>• Jeremy flaccid cock Corbyn.

>>86670
Let's be clear. When you have two choices and one of them is a fascist, you're supposed to pick the other one.

>>86671

I thought the Sun were supposed to be tories now? Are they just angry Bojo hasn't torched the jigaboos yet?

>>86673
I don't know but I like their punning today. If he gets his election he'll try to IIIWW through the back door.

>>86674
In short, Boris is asking the country to try anal?

>>86660
I'm not sure what local elections in England have to do with this but your concept of non-linear democracy intrigues me. Shall we go back to 1999 EU parliamentary elections and take another stab at the 21st century? The voters will be more informed this time and I'm sure the rest of the world will go along with it.

>>86676
>I'm not sure what local elections in England have to do with this
Nor am I, since nobody mentioned them.

>>86675
He is a public schoolboy.

>>86673
The Scottish Sun isn't, The Sun is.

Can't trust that Murdoch fella'.

>>86679
I'd rather trust him than Johnson.

>>86679
We both have the same sun, idiot

>>86681
Speak for yourself, m7.

>>86682

Some potential context on the back-channel deal to end the Lords filibuster:

The Times reported that the Rebel Alliance cleared their plans with European Council officials before putting it to the Imperial forces.

Election on the 14th/15th isn't going to happen. It's becoming clear that the opposition won't agree to it unless and until Boris is forced to either request the extension or resign, and even if he resigns with immediate effect his successor will be bound to make the request. If a motion does get passed in Parliament, and there is still to be a Queen's Speech, realistically the election isn't going to happen before December.

>>86690
The first point makes complete sense and that's weird. The European Union locked out the shadow cabinet while negotiations were ongoing because you would be mental to do otherwise. It makes you wonder whether the EU has been in regular contact with friendly voices and at what point that would've started, possibly when BoJo made clear his negotiations were a sham.

>If a motion does get passed in Parliament, and there is still to be a Queen's Speech, realistically the election isn't going to happen before December.

I think this was always going to be on the cards. Leaving in October was an absolutely impossible option in terms of warehousing space for both sides.

>>86691
The EU have been clear that, as things stand, the negotiations are closed. It's now a matter of implementing them. In the same way that the EU would be mental to let the opposition negotiate, they'd be mental to not to talk to the opposition when the government is effectively ignoring them.

Legally speaking, this Monday is the last possible date to bring a motion for an election if you wanted it on the 15th. There are 650 writs that need to be moved, and there is a mandatory five-week minimum election period. With that failing, the Queen's Speech debate typically takes up the entirety of the first week of the new session, though it would be interesting to see what happened if that gets voted down. Assuming it doesn't, the motion for an election would be brought again on the 21st or 22nd of October, and five weeks after that would make the first Thursday possible the 28th November. Thankfully students should still be around, so that particular plan to disenfranchise voters that don't agree with Boris is unlikely to succeed. Some have suggested that many millions of middle-aged adults voted for the first time in 2016 and might not ever vote again if IIIWW isn't delivered by Halloween, and I'm conflicted over this. Part of me thinks it's a shame that a whole sector of the country becomes disengaged with the process, but a more cynical part of me can't help but think that their votes won't be missed.

YouGov also have the Tories extending their lead.

A fair bit of polling recently has found that more people think Jeremy Corbyn as PM would be worse than a no deal IIIWW.

>>86693
Lib Dems are going to do really well in the next election.

>>86694
The surge is real.

Labour are such a set of fuck ups. They've had every chance to seize power from a helpless and incompetent Tory party and look at them.

The working class of this county deserve better than them. Jeremy Corbyn was great as the idealised figure of a rare politician who actually stands for his beliefs, but he's been a shit leader. The spineless careerists who are so weak and incompetent that they've failed to take down a leader as weak as him should just have fucking hung themselves already, they're beyond a disgrace. And what does the labour party have left beyond that?

Their problem is much the same as the Tories, only worse. At least cruel Etonian bastards like Rees Mogg are actually Tories, and if you vote for him you'll get a Tory. With the likes of Owen Smith or Dianne Abbot on the other side, what are you getting? You're not getting a Labour politician, you're definitely not getting a socialist, you're barely even getting a social democrat. You're getting a fat bint with a chip on her shoulder and a supermarket manager with ideas above his station, respectively.

What hope is there to defeat the Tories in my lifetime?

>>86696
Could you stop trying for force shitty memes please? We've got a crisis on our hands, you know.

>>86696
What the actual fuck are you on about? In what way are Smith and Abbott not social democratic Labour politicians? Did you just want to call Diane Abbott a fat bint?

>>86698
>>86697

What meme am I forcing?

They're just shit politicians who turn whichever way the wind blows. Are you trying to suggest pricks like them are a better alternative to the Conservative party? Clearly that's why Labour is doing so well in the polls.

Britfags politics is wierd sometimes.

>>86699
n8 m1

Johnson looks like a bewildered alky stood next to the Irish PM.

>>86702
That takes some doing in Ireland.

Sorry for double-posting, but I can't get over how shit he is at this. Where's this famous oratory and rhetorical ability I heard about? He sounds thicker than Trump, sans the ability to hype his base, and is actually quite slow and meandering in his speaking. Leo Varadkar looks like he's taken his senile uncle for a walk.

>>86704
Why is anybody surprised at this though?

>>86705
I'm not so much suprised as I am shocked. Johnson was supposed to be the Tory big top's ringmaster, but on current form he couldn't whip up a bowl of double cream if you plugged in the electric whisk for him.

>>86706

Why are you shocked?

Maybe you wanted to believe he was some sort of Batman villain, playing up the role of a buffoon and a moron in order to disguise his razor sharp intellect.

But it turns out he really is just a window licker.

>>86707

1:12

>>86707
I explained why I was shocked in the rest of my post: "Johnson was supposed to be the Tory big top's ringmaster". The whole reason he was elected by Conservative MPs was because they thought he was their "break glass to win over base" candidate, but there's just nothing to him.

>Maybe you wanted to believe he was some sort of Batman villain

No, why would I? I've just been watching the PM flounder about for the last week and saw it yet again this morning. Also your sentence was a question and should have ended in a question mark.

>>86712

He's polling well enough for a majority, at least for the moment. There's a big difference between a candidate who can win back BxP supporters and a candidate who's actually competent.

>>86713
I just wonder how long he can schlep around this tiresome performance of his before even the no-dealers get fed up. Perhaps never because they're nearing a cult-like fanatacism, but if he continues to achieve absolutely nothing and he only gets more popular I might have to phone the mothership to come and take me home. It's not even like he has some grand vision, like I've said, there's nothing to him. He might as well have been a silly wig on a stick during that presser with Varadkar today.

Boris Johnson was more than happy to vote on whether or not to send a Brenda a memo, but for some reason didn't appear to defend himself in a debate on the rule of law.

Starting to believe that theory that the only ones pushing for IIIWW anymore are the top dogs trying to escape the new anti-money laundering directive the EU is putting into effect in January and that this has been the main problem all along.

>>86716
No shit.

>>86716

It's the British populist equivalent of Trump's border wall - costly, useless, almost impossible to realise, but a powerful rallying point for a political tribe. To many IIIWWeers, the symbolic value of IIIWW is infinitely more important than any of the practical implications.

>>86716
It seems like the majority of the public are (still) pushing for it as well.

>>86719
Afraid not, old chap.

>>86720
Fuck anyone who answers Don't Know to this kind of thing.

Shit's kicking off in the Commons. Bit of a scuffle around the Speaker's chair, order papers used as placards, Bercow standing up to Black Rod.

>>86720
TRAITORS AND SABOTEURS.

https://twitter.com/marcowenjones/status/1171001029476986881
Interesting thread analysing the content of accounts retweeting saville's tweets.

>>86721
Why? For being honest? I hate to sound like a cheesy inspirational Instagram post but it's occasionally a perfectly sound idea to say "I don't know".

>>86727

I think it is a perfectly intellectually honest idea. Could you imagine being expected to have a position on something you don't full understand? I doubt many people could explain to you the effect of the Common Agricultural Policy, or the level of daily trade with EU and if it works out as a surplus or a deficit, or even how articles and directives are integrated into UK law and yet they are expected to have a stance that balances all those subjects and concludes if it is beneficial or negative. And then you get some arsehole straight up lying and sticking it on the side of a tour bus and he wins and becomes PM, frankly the number of I don't knows should be a lot higher and >>86721 is the biggest most arrogant idiot of them all for assuming people have to have an opinion. Imagine how much better the world would be if people only had control over decisions they understood.

>>86726
Shocker.

>>86728

We here both sides accusing the other of lying but where are the actual figures in black and white
Perhaps I'm being naive but shouldn't transparent figures for the EU and UK be in the public domain

>>86716
>the new anti-money laundering directive .. has been the main problem all along.

I haven't read the thing yet but it looks as though the directive was proposed (or whatever) only a few months ago. Unless you mean backroom talks overheard before the actual referendum.

>https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/criminal-justice/anti-money-laundering-and-counter-daft militant wog-financing_en
>https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/communication_from_the_commission_to_the_european_parliament_towards_better_implementation_of_the_eus_anti-money_laundering_and_countering_the_financing_of_terrorism_framework.pdf

>>86731
I think he's got his directives mixed up, and means the one on tax avoidance. ATAD II comes into force in January.

>>86730

They are there is a site called Europa run by the EU that has all the public records a large amount of it for years has been spent pointing out when British papers print absolute bollocks. Who almost certainly have been a key factor in our leaving. The same way that America doesn't have a decent healthcare system because their media has no issue spouting pure lies about the effects of state controlled services.

>>86733
Here's the European Commission's site debunking a load of "Euromyths". You'll find all the classics there, including the banana thing and that time we were apparently supposed to rename Waterloo station.

https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/

>>86734

Thanks for doing the reseach I was too lazy to do on my mobile earlier lad, much appriciated.

Jeremy Corbyn has promised a further referendum on IIIWW with a "credible Leave option" versus Remain if his party wins the next general election.

He said Labour was "ready" for the campaign, but its "priority" was to stop a no-deal IIIWW. Its manifesto will promise to reach a better IIIWW deal, but is not expected to commit to either Leave or Remain.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49646544

Labour still unable to commit to a position on IIIWW. They're going to end up behind the Lib Dems at this rate.

>>86738
As long as the Tories don't end up with a majority, it's fine.

>>86738

How exactly is "let the people decide" not a position?

Stop trying to push this narrative that Labour don't have a position. The Tories want to push ahead and damn the consequences, the LibDems want to tear up the referendum we had in the first place. The Labour position is clearly the most democratic of the lot.

If I was a leaver I'd be voting Labour. Then we can have a second referendum and when it comes back with an even larger majority in favour of leave, despite the chaos of the last three years, every single sanctimonious remainer prick has been well and truly told and can shut their fucking mouths to let us get on with it. If by some miracle it comes back in favour of remain, we can see that people have seen the chaos and changed their minds, very sensibly.

What's not to like.

>>86734
Not saying the papers don't have a transparent agenda but debunking "Euromyths" with a website funded and run by the European Union seems a bit much.

>>86738
Imagine how much this issue will tear the party apart if they get into government.
>No you can't put this deal to the public because we don't support it

And then the Monster Raving Loony Party will win and implode over whether we're having a Al dente IIIWW or the more populist ready-IIIWW.

>>86739
How has that been working out for you since 2017?

>>86740
>the LibDems want to tear up the referendum we had in the first place

The LibDems want a second referendum.

>>86740
>the LibDems want to tear up the referendum we had in the first place
And Boris wants to tear up the election we had after that. What's your point?

>>86740
Lib Dems: Second referendum.

Labour: Limbo dragging on for months whilst they attempt to negotiate a new deal with the EU before putting that to a second referendum.

Given those two options, Lib Dems win.

>>86742

They say they want to revoke article 50 if they win a majority. But they also say they want a people's vote. Why aren't people slating the LibDem's message as being confusing? Which is it?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/IIIWW-lib-dems-revoke-article-50-jo-swinson-peoples-vote-final-say-a9098461.html

Even Radio 4, who I trust as a bastion of complete impartiality, British rationality, and mediocre topical comedy amidst a sea of madness, told me they want to revoke and made no mention of the vote.

Is it perhaps because they're not a threat so the media hasn't been firing on all cyclinders against them like it always does for Labour?

>>86740
>Stop trying to push this narrative that Labour don't have a position.

Their position is currently against no deal. I struggle to understand what sort of deal they want or whether they want another referendum etc.

6 months ago I had absolutely no fucking idea what they wanted. Instead of making solid arguments and getting his position across, 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.

Whoevers side you're on, it's an absolute fucking joke that rebels within the Governments own party have been far more instrumental in trying to block IIIWW than the opposition.

Eh whatever I'm voting green anyway.

I'm confused.
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?

>>86745
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.

>>86749

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?

>>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.

>>86746

>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.

>>86749
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.

>>86753
>He's been supporting a second referendum since at least May, if not longer.
Your memory only stretches back a month and half?

>>86749
People would be pissed off and start restricting what the executive in this country can and can't do. We probably wouldn't even be allowed to bomb countries before Parliament provides authorisation. Complete anarchy.

>>86753
Get a new act:
https://political-generator.herokuapp.com

>>86749

>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.

>>86758
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.

>>86758
Wouldn't this require that all the EU member states meet again and vote? Presuming that Johnson doesn't play ball at the summit.

>>86745


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.

>>86764
>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.

Andrea Leadsom has suggested that ministers will not release documents demanded by MPs on the impact of a no-deal IIIWW because they would “concern” the public.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/foreign-affairs/IIIWW/news/106465/andrea-leadsom-suggests-no-deal-documents-will-not-be?

We can't let the public see the impact of a no deal IIIWW because the public want IIIWW and if they see these they'll no longer want IIIWW.

>>86766
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.

>>86768
People stock up on things when faced with a disaster shocker.

>>86769

What's your point? Why would the obviousness of people panic buying change the logic of her thinking?

>>86770
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?