Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Fuzzar

OT - EU straw poll...

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

But only when it has become obvious that our Parliament is totally dysfunctional on the major issue of our time is anyone starting to talk seriously about change.

True @Creative Midfielder Parliament is a failing instituition and the two big parties are struggling with this. Corbyn the old Bennite thinks he remains in the eighties and May is quite possiblt the worst Prime Minister ever. Tories are really struggling with their geratric membership and UKIP entryists. They are powerless but at least Labour have some talent and a vibrant membership but they are shackled by the old left. However, if you want dim the ERG really take the biscuit - the diminished Johnson, the increasingly error prone JRM, Davis for God's sake. They really don't have a clue, and if they get their way I suspect the UK will collapse in its own contradictions.

It is worth pointing out that the economy is also up the creek, with only two areas being net contributors to the Exchequer - London/SE & East of England. It is the Leave voting areas sponging off the Remain voting workers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't confuse Parliament with the Conservative Government or Labour leadership. The strength of Parliament is its sovereignty and I believe we will see Parliament exert that over Teresa May's administration over the next few weeks. It could be a very positive turning point in our history - and a similar trend would be welcome here in the US as well regarding the legislative branch (i.e. Congress) taking back powers from the administrative branch (i.e. the President) -witness The Wall which is another National Soveriegnity and Safety slogan looking for a problem to solve. 

There are people who want to see a loss of faith in Parliament and Congress, don't let that happen as their goals are not to devolve more power to the people - quite the opposite in fact. 

Edited by Surfer
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Van wink said:

It would be galling if it were true, but as it's  not its all rather sad.

Feel free to point out where I have got it wrong RTB - something you have singularly failed to do even once over the past two years

Whereas you have demonstrated umpteen times that you have very little understanding of this by your use of words and phrases that have no bearing on the point at hand. Like this bit of meaningless guff

" Much depends on Corbyn. The logic of the composite motion would see a VONC, which will fail, and then a switch to supporting a second referendum. That may carry a majority and gives them all a cop out. "

So jog along RTB and maybe go have a look a Dean Coney's knee - something (one) you are more familiar with.

Edited by Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bill said:

Feel free to point out where I have got it wrong RTB - something you have singularly failed to do even once over the past two years

Whereas you have demonstrated umpteen times that you have very little understanding of this by your use of words and phrases that have no bearing on the point at hand. Like this bit of meaningless guff

" Much depends on Corbyn. The logic of the composite motion would see a VONC, which will fail, and then a switch to supporting a second referendum. That may carry a majority and gives them all a cop out. "

So jog along RTB and maybe go have a look a Dean Coney's knee - something (one) you are more familiar with.

Thanks for highlighting that for me, it all seems to be quite accurate and is developing as described.

Whereas we have your yards of tripe which are more akin to shifting sands, and yet in your head you think people are impressed.

Still carry on if you find it self gratifying, we know how needy you are.🍺

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Surfer said:

There are people who want to see a loss of faith in Parliament and Congress, don't let that happen as their goals are not to devolve more power to the people - quite the opposite in fact. 

Obviously I can only speak for myself but I lost faith in Parliament a long time ago - long before Brexit but Brexit seems to have finally concentrated a few minds on just how dysfunctional our system is.

Although it would certainly be a positive for Parliament to exercise its authority over the government regarding Brexit I suspect it will be a one-off rather than any sort of turning point - it has taken a combination of our worse ever Prime Minister, our most talentless government and a massive complicated issue to provoke even thought of change, so I imagine once that fairly unique combination of circumstances passes we will revert to the status quo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Obviously I can only speak for myself but I lost faith in Parliament a long time ago - long before Brexit but Brexit seems to have finally concentrated a few minds on just how dysfunctional our system is.

Although it would certainly be a positive for Parliament to exercise its authority over the government regarding Brexit I suspect it will be a one-off rather than any sort of turning point - it has taken a combination of our worse ever Prime Minister, our most talentless government and a massive complicated issue to provoke even thought of change, so I imagine once that fairly unique combination of circumstances passes we will revert to the status quo.

Minority government is the big point here CM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Minority government is the big point here CM

Doubtless it is a factor in the current mess but in the bigger picture it is a symptom rather than a cause.

As Surfer said we are governed by in a way that is essentially unchanged since the 18th century, and arguably earlier. Whether it be our electoral system, the working of our Parliament or having a hereditary monarch as Head of State very little has changed in hundreds of years - universal suffrage is the only thing that springs to mind and even that is of limited effect in our first past the post two party system.

If we put Brexit on one side for a minute (however difficult that may be!) and look back at the UK's record for the past 100 years (purely arbitrary figure), do we believe that overall we have been well governed? My answer would be an unequivocable no - I would say there have only been two administrations during all that time that rated as extremely competent (the War time coalition and the post war Labour government). There were maybe two or three others moderately successful but the general standard of governance has been pretty dismal, dipping to totally abysmal for the last eight years.

The UK has been in decline for around 140 years, some of the causes are inevitable and completely outside our control but our generally poor standard of governance relative to other countries has to be right up there as a factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Van wink said:

Thanks for highlighting that for me, it all seems to be quite accurate and is developing as described.

Whereas we have your yards of tripe which are more akin to shifting sands, and yet in your head you think people are impressed.

Still carry on if you find it self gratifying, we know how needy you are.🍺

 

 

Nope, that's just you lying yet account. Your guff about a'composite motion' had NO relevance hear. You just added some phrase that might suggest you new what you were talking about. May not losing the vote of no confidence is hardly anything to do with your understanding any of this, as no one commentating thought she would.

What next, a stunning revelation that tomorrow will be Monday ?

"... and then a switch to supporting a second referendum. That may carry a majority and gives them all a cop out. "

So when is that 'switch '? Given that there has been no vote on another referendum then how on earth can there be a switch. ?

A switch from what exactly ? That may carry a majority  ? Vacuous guff, that ignores the requirements of Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

Your hapless twaddle makes no mention of the various amendments that will be voted on, or what is likely to happen with the vote on the ingeniously named Plan B. Nope nothing.

Just as you never have been able to put up any evidence of where have been wrong, instead hiding behind some snidey lie that I am an alcoholic living in France. Just as you repeatedly posted that I had stolen money from the Royal British Legion. Another sick and libelous lie.

I don't what motivates you to be here pretty much all day, every day posting under a variety of names. However that is your problem, as is your need to repeatedly lie so as to smear others. To sink to foul and abusive language towards others on here.

Sadly for you the evidence is here for others to read. And to read what contribution you and your various alter egos ever make to this thread.  Absolutely nothing. Which I might suggest is what is going on in your life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

but our generally poor standard of governance relative to other countries has to be right up there as a factor.

That is quite astounding. As about one thing I believe that most commentators would agree on is how well the UK comes out when compared o others.

The Uk Parliament functions exceedingly well, more so how it is dealing with this idiocy that has been foisted upon it. Something that has been described as someone trying to play another football match directly across the one already playing.

Take a good look at Parliaments around the world and see how many are modeled on the UK Parliament. Take a closer look and recognise how silly you comment is in regard to no change. parliament changes as does law, by precedent and adapting to contemporary needs.

Ironically those Parliaments that are constantly falling down are the very ones that so many who complain about the UK model want it to follow. Some absurd notion of PR. We as good as have a slight nod in that direction with 10 DUO fundamentalists (or just menatalists0 holding the country to ransome.

What has not changed is the sheer stupidity of a number of the populace. Have a read of The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists to see how little has changed in the way of ignorance - or look through some of the posts on here.

Perhaps if voters did a bit more thinking and a lot less whining then maybe things might just be less complicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Bill said:

Nope, that's just you lying yet account. Your guff about a'composite motion' had NO relevance hear. You just added some phrase that might suggest you new what you were talking about. May not losing the vote of no confidence is hardly anything to do with your understanding any of this, as no one commentating thought she would.

What next, a stunning revelation that tomorrow will be Monday ?

"... and then a switch to supporting a second referendum. That may carry a majority and gives them all a cop out. "

So when is that 'switch '? Given that there has been no vote on another referendum then how on earth can there be a switch. ?

A switch from what exactly ? That may carry a majority  ? Vacuous guff, that ignores the requirements of Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

Your hapless twaddle makes no mention of the various amendments that will be voted on, or what is likely to happen with the vote on the ingeniously named Plan B. Nope nothing.

Just as you never have been able to put up any evidence of where have been wrong, instead hiding behind some snidey lie that I am an alcoholic living in France. Just as you repeatedly posted that I had stolen money from the Royal British Legion. Another sick and libelous lie.

I don't what motivates you to be here pretty much all day, every day posting under a variety of names. However that is your problem, as is your need to repeatedly lie so as to smear others. To sink to foul and abusive language towards others on here.

Sadly for you the evidence is here for others to read. And to read what contribution you and your various alter egos ever make to this thread.  Absolutely nothing. Which I might suggest is what is going on in your life.

more yards of tripe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Bill said:

That is quite astounding. As about one thing I believe that most commentators would agree on is how well the UK comes out when compared o others.

The Uk Parliament functions exceedingly well, more so how it is dealing with this idiocy that has been foisted upon it. Something that has been described as someone trying to play another football match directly across the one already playing.

Take a good look at Parliaments around the world and see how many are modeled on the UK Parliament. Take a closer look and recognise how silly you comment is in regard to no change. parliament changes as does law, by precedent and adapting to contemporary needs.

Ironically those Parliaments that are constantly falling down are the very ones that so many who complain about the UK model want it to follow. Some absurd notion of PR. We as good as have a slight nod in that direction with 10 DUO fundamentalists (or just menatalists0 holding the country to ransome.

What has not changed is the sheer stupidity of a number of the populace. Have a read of The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists to see how little has changed in the way of ignorance - or look through some of the posts on here.

Perhaps if voters did a bit more thinking and a lot less whining then maybe things might just be less complicated.

would you feel the same about parliament if you lived in Buckingham?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

" would you feel the same about parliament if you lived in Buckingham? "

In the 2017 general election UKIP came a very poor fourth behind Bercow  in Buckingham . Farage didn't do much better in 2010 . The speaker can't vote unless there is a tied vote , otherwise he can be voted out like any MP .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Doubtless it is a factor in the current mess but in the bigger picture it is a symptom rather than a cause.

As Surfer said we are governed by in a way that is essentially unchanged since the 18th century, and arguably earlier. Whether it be our electoral system, the working of our Parliament or having a hereditary monarch as Head of State very little has changed in hundreds of years - universal suffrage is the only thing that springs to mind and even that is of limited effect in our first past the post two party system.

If we put Brexit on one side for a minute (however difficult that may be!) and look back at the UK's record for the past 100 years (purely arbitrary figure), do we believe that overall we have been well governed? My answer would be an unequivocable no - I would say there have only been two administrations during all that time that rated as extremely competent (the War time coalition and the post war Labour government). There were maybe two or three others moderately successful but the general standard of governance has been pretty dismal, dipping to totally abysmal for the last eight years.

The UK has been in decline for around 140 years, some of the causes are inevitable and completely outside our control but our generally poor standard of governance relative to other countries has to be right up there as a factor.

If you look at the short to the medium term (let's say less than 200 years in historical terms), I think that the biggest problem the country faces is the party system and the adversarial nature of British politics. 

The Brexit case is an example in extremis - but the desire to govern for the "winners" of a vote, rather than the people as a whole must inevitably polarise and lead to instability and a lack of long-term planning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MooreMarriot said:

In the 2017 general election UKIP came a very poor fourth behind Bercow  in Buckingham . Farage didn't do much better in 2010 . The speaker can't vote unless there is a tied vote , otherwise he can be voted out like any MP .

Sure he can be voted out. But the 2 main political parties don´t oppose a sitting speaker, making that unlikely

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Doubtless it is a factor in the current mess but in the bigger picture it is a symptom rather than a cause.

As Surfer said we are governed by in a way that is essentially unchanged since the 18th century, and arguably earlier. Whether it be our electoral system, the working of our Parliament or having a hereditary monarch as Head of State very little has changed in hundreds of years - universal suffrage is the only thing that springs to mind and even that is of limited effect in our first past the post two party system.

If we put Brexit on one side for a minute (however difficult that may be!) and look back at the UK's record for the past 100 years (purely arbitrary figure), do we believe that overall we have been well governed? My answer would be an unequivocable no - I would say there have only been two administrations during all that time that rated as extremely competent (the War time coalition and the post war Labour government). There were maybe two or three others moderately successful but the general standard of governance has been pretty dismal, dipping to totally abysmal for the last eight years.

The UK has been in decline for around 140 years, some of the causes are inevitable and completely outside our control but our generally poor standard of governance relative to other countries has to be right up there as a factor.

I half agree and half do not. Brexit, for all sorts of reasons, is a very odd case, and I wouldn't draw conclusions from it. I would add a few more postwar administrations to those that have been competent - Macmillan's, until later on, Thatcher's, Major's (under very trying circumstances), possibly Wilson's, and certainly Blair's (you just have to forget foreign policy).

The point being that, as you say, the UK has been in decline for if not 140 years then certainly since the end of world war one, with world war two applying the coup de grace. Since then every government has been trying to make matters not get any worse than they might be.

Which, of course, was why far-sighted and realistic British politicians decided, quite correctly, that the way to at least slow that decline was to align the UK with the EU.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BREXIT EXPLAINED....
David Cameron made a promise he didn't think he'd have to keep to have a referendum he didn't think he would lose. Boris Johnson decided to back the side he didn't believe in because he didn't think it would win. Then Gove, who said he wouldn't run, did, and Boris who said he would run, said he wouldn't, and Theresa May who didn't vote for Brexit got the job of making it happen. She called the election she said she wouldn't and lost the majority David Cameron hadn't expected to win in the first place. She triggered Article 50 when we didn't need to and said we would talk about trade at the same time as the divorce deal and the EU said they wouldn't so we didn't. People thought she wouldn't get the divorce settled but she did, but only by agreeing to separate arrangements for Northern Ireland when she had promised the DUP she wouldn't. Then the Cabinet agreed a deal but they hadn't, and David Davis who was Brexit Secretary but wasn't said it wasn't what people had voted for and he couldn't support what he had just supported and left. Boris Johnson who hadn't left then wished that he had and did, but it was a bit late for that. Dominic Raab become the new Brexit secretary. People thought Theresa May wouldn't get a withdrawal agreement negotiated, but once she had they wished that she hadn't, because hardly anybody liked it whether they wanted to leave or not. Jacob Rees-Mogg kept threatening a vote of no confidence in her but not enough people were confident enough people would not have confidence in her to confidently call a no confidence vote. Dominic Raab said he hadn't really been Brexit Secretary either and resigned, and somebody else took the job but it probably isn't worth remembering who they are as they're not really doing the job either as Olly Robbins is. Then she said she would call a vote and didn't, that she wouldn't release some legal advice but had to, that she would get some concessions but didn't, and got cross that Juncker was calling her nebulous when he wasn't but probably should have been. At some point Jacob Rees Mogg and others called a vote of no confidence in her, which she won by promising to leave, so she can stay. But they said she had really lost it and should go, at the same time as saying that people who voted Leave knew what they were voting for which they couldn't possibly have because we still don't know now, and that we should leave the vote to Leave vote alone but have no confidence in the no-confidence vote which won by more. The government also argued in court against us being able to say we didn't want to leave after all but it turned out we could. She named a date for the vote on her agreement which nobody expected to pass while pretending that no deal which nobody wants is still possible (even though we know we can just say we are not leaving), and that we can't have a second referendum because having a democratic vote is undemocratic. And of course as expected she loses. Some people are talking about a managed no-deal which is not a deal but is not no-deal either.
Simple really, isn’t it?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bill said:

That is quite astounding. As about one thing I believe that most commentators would agree on is how well the UK comes out when compared o others.

The Uk Parliament functions exceedingly well, more so how it is dealing with this idiocy that has been foisted upon it. Something that has been described as someone trying to play another football match directly across the one already playing.

Take a good look at Parliaments around the world and see how many are modeled on the UK Parliament. Take a closer look and recognise how silly you comment is in regard to no change. parliament changes as does law, by precedent and adapting to contemporary needs.

Ironically those Parliaments that are constantly falling down are the very ones that so many who complain about the UK model want it to follow. Some absurd notion of PR. We as good as have a slight nod in that direction with 10 DUO fundamentalists (or just menatalists0 holding the country to ransome.

What has not changed is the sheer stupidity of a number of the populace. Have a read of The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists to see how little has changed in the way of ignorance - or look through some of the posts on here.

Perhaps if voters did a bit more thinking and a lot less whining then maybe things might just be less complicated.

I would say I am confused, but of course I am not. The DUP holding the country to ransome is not an argument against PR; it has happpened as a direct result of the UK's specifically non-PR system.

That party ended up with 0.9 per cent of the votes but 10 MPs, while the Lib-Dems got 7.4 per cent of the votes but only two more MPs. The Greens got nearly twice as many votes ar the DUP, but one MP. All because of first-past-the post.

There are all sorts of PR systems, but in general, based on the percentages of the vote for all the parties, if there has been PR in 2017 then the DUP would not have ended up in that position of power. In crude terms there would have been an anti-Tory majority of MPs.

Still, as the adage has it, never eat at a restaurant named Ma's, never play poker with a man called Doc, never start a land war in Asia, and never try to convince someone who claims they have been right all the time that they have erred.

Edited by PurpleCanary
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are getting there RTB. And not once did any remain advocate get blamed for this fiasco. There's hope for you yet👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

I half agree and half do not. Brexit, for all sorts of reasons, is a very odd case, and I wouldn't draw conclusions from it. I would add a few more postwar administrations to those that have been competent - Macmillan's, until later on, Thatcher's, Major's (under very trying circumstances), possibly Wilson's, and certainly Blair's (you just have to forget foreign policy).

The point being that, as you say, the UK has been in decline for if not 140 years then certainly since the end of world war one, with world war two applying the coup de grace. Since then every government has been trying to make matters not get any worse than they might be.

Which, of course, was why far-sighted and realistic British politicians decided, quite correctly, that the way to at least slow that decline was to align the UK with the EU.

 

I almost included Macmillan and Blair because, as you say, both were initially pretty successful but then messed up. Wilson, I'm still not sure - he certainly had a cabinet of well above average calibre (as did Blair initially) but strangely I don't think that overall the Wilson governments were particularly effective.

And our membership of the EU has certainly slowed down our decline, probably even reversed it slightly and briefly, so doubly ironic that we've now turned the country into an international laughing stock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice treatment from the Government for pensioners.

If any pensioner claims pensioner credit, which I hope none of us do or ever have to, but their spouse is below the official state pension age, then they will not be able to claim it any more as it will expected that their spouse is able to work.

Yet it will be OK for other people to claim they cannot work any more than 16 hours a week and claim some very nice benefits, whether or not they have ever paid made any contribution.

I am a socialist and a great believer and supporter of the welfare state. But it was not created as an income and an excuse not to contribute to our better lifestyle and country whether it be not working or having several children. It was there to say to someone who had fallen on hard times that they shouldn't have to worry. The rest of us will support them until they get back on their feet.

Many younger groups say that us pensioners are getting a good deal that they will never get. My argument is that I had to wait until I was 65 to get anything but have paid in for such a long time.

I am surprised the government has done this and I am shocked that the excuse is that it makes it fair!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh great. Judging from commentary, Theresa May is going to use the General Melchett tactics of doing exactly the same thing, for plan B, to try and get this thing through. She's an idiot!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Herman said:

Oh great. Judging from commentary, Theresa May is going to use the General Melchett tactics of doing exactly the same thing, for plan B, to try and get this thing through. She's an idiot!

What else could she do?  The situation is impossible.  There is basically a three way split in parliament.  Those that want to remain, those that want to leave and a mid-ground of people who accept the referendum and the deal May has agreed. 

That works out roughly at around 200 each. So the May deal is not so bad as people make out. Each of the three basic sides of the debate have fairly equal numbers - it's just that the loudest voices come from the two extreme sides. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, lake district canary said:

What else could she do?  The situation is impossible.  There is basically a three way split in parliament.  Those that want to remain, those that want to leave and a mid-ground of people who accept the referendum and the deal May has agreed. 

That works out roughly at around 200 each. So the May deal is not so bad as people make out. Each of the three basic sides of the debate have fairly equal numbers - it's just that the loudest voices come from the two extreme sides.

What on earth are you bleating about now ?

The house is overwhelmingly Remain (around 500 plus0)with there being around 80 rightwing nutjobs at the most,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

What else could she do?  The situation is impossible.  There is basically a three way split in parliament.  Those that want to remain, those that want to leave and a mid-ground of people who accept the referendum and the deal May has agreed. 

That works out roughly at around 200 each. So the May deal is not so bad as people make out. Each of the three basic sides of the debate have fairly equal numbers - it's just that the loudest voices come from the two extreme sides. 

 

What else could she do? Show some leadership. At the moment she is purely focusing on what the ERG/DUP want. Her deal, I would say, is about 90% hard brexit at the moment, she can't go any further far right without just simply calling for a no deal.

If she wants she could soften/erase her red lines and take the majority of the country with her, but as has been the case all along, she is putting party before country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

 

That works out roughly at around 200 each. So the May deal is not so bad as people make out. Each of the three basic sides of the debate have fairly equal numbers - it's just that the loudest voices come from the two extreme sides. 

 

That is pure guesswork on your part, nobody really knows what the numbers because most of the questions haven't even been asked!!

All we know is that a majority of MPs have backed an amendment that is anti-no deal and a couple of hundred backed TM's deal - which suggests that her plan is as bad and worse than people suggest because nearly 150 of the MPs that voted for her have some kind of government post that they don't want to give up. So the number of 'free' votes that it attracted about  was about 60 and if you listened to any of the debate you would have heard that many of them were extremely reluctant and did so only out of party loyalty and the wish to avoid a GE.

Theresa May may or may not be an idiot - her actions and statements as PM seem pretty convincing evidence that she is. If her Plan B is to double down on Plan A, as is being suggested, then that is QED as far as I'm concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Herman said:

Oh great. Judging from commentary, Theresa May is going to use the General Melchett tactics of doing exactly the same thing, for plan B, to try and get this thing through. She's an idiot!

err,that is the point.

Push for what will not work so guarantee failure, but with the defence o 'don't bame me I did try'

Meanwhile this morning we have

" A senior Labour MP leading a backbench effort to rule out a no-deal Brexit has argued that much of the government, including Theresa May, privately want this to happen, and are relying on parliament to take action "

"Blaming May for consistently avoiding cross-party talks on Brexit since losing her majority in the 2017 election, Cooper said she believed much of the government wanted the extension option but could not seek it for political reasons.

“My sense is that there are government ministers, including cabinet ministers, and I suspect even the prime minister herself, who want parliament to do this,” she told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme."

 

And that is the reason why the referendum was such a resinous idea, never mind the absurdity behind it. Being advisory it was always going to be down to Parliament to decide. A parliament with MP's who may have a different agenda to that of the advice.

From wanting to be seen as 'loyal' to wanting to be part of a breakaway group hoping for advancement within that group or further to those with an eye on their constituency majority.

So we are left witha situation where MPs are not voting as their brain tells them but where their career might take them.

If the vote in the house had been a secret ballot as was the referendim then this nonsense would not have got past the summer of 2016. Whereas the UK has wasted billions, lost umpteen jobs and businesses so as to keep MPs in their jobs.

History will certainly judge this as their 'stupidest hour'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

 Plan B is to double down on Plan A,

is that some kind of quilt ?

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

×