There were not a single person campaigning for no-deal brexit during the referendum. Boris would violate the will of the people if he tried to use the referendum to justify a no-deal brexit.
@Soteris It doesn't make any difference what so ever what anyone was campaigning for.This is just more bullshit spat out by people who cannot accept the outcome of the vote.It isn't more complicated than that.Boris is not violating the will of the people he is honouring the vote, as you should be.
It makes all the difference in the world since there is a world of difference between a no-deal brexit and a deal brexit. They are not at all the same.
@Soteris The vote was in or out, thats the whole situation.How was always a wildcard. There may have been an assumption that the European leaders would be able to act like mature and civilised human beings but apparently that isn't the case so at this point there is only hard brexit or fucked by our so called friends.Frankly that being the case i think it shows with certainty that out is the right thing to be doing, who needs fucking enemies with friends like these?
Yes, the vote was "in or out" but the voters were not voting on that, they were voting on what they were shown by the leave and stay campaigns. The same campaigns that promised that they would never leave the single market for example and that a "no deal" was impossible. They voted on the idea that there would not be a "no deal".Also the EU has been far more fair and patient with the UK than it deserves. You were never going to get a good deal from the UK's point of view, not because the EU was mean or unreasonable but because it is impossible to meet the demands that the UK has for a "good deal". If you remember Mays deal then that is the absolute best that the UK can do for a deal with the EU. Again this is not because the EU is going after the UK but a simple fact that the UK's position is that poor to start with.
@Soteris I am one of the voters you claim to know all about and I didn't listen to or care about any of the bullshit that comes out of the mouths of politicians.I voted out because I am an anarchist and smaller more local government is closer to my politicial ideals that larger centralised government.Simple.Now I might be unusual in that I am an anarchist but I am certainly not unusual in not believing a damn word that politicians say, so to claim that people in the UK generally trust politicians could not be further from the truth, so it really doesn't matter what any of them campaigned for.All of your arguments are complete bullshit and I dont know why you think that you know you dont even fucking live here.We knew that there was no certainity of any kind of deal when we voted. I know that because I was on the street talking about it at the time, there were no guarantees about what would happened. The question was and is as simple as in or out and it was answered.If want to consider the that the UK has been offered better deals that it deserves I really dont care, Im not even going to argue the point, I dont even know what we have been offered, you could probably count on 2 hands the amount of people in this country who do.Article 50 states that if a state wants to leave there will be a 2 year period in which to work things out and transition out of the EU after which time if nothing has been sorted out it will simply hard brexit out, we are 3 years into that 2 year window and we shouldn't be having this conversation.The only people delaying it are the people who dont respect the vote.
@Soteris I couldnt care less about the deal, I dont care about money, I dont care what happens as a consequence of leaving.What I care about is my freedom and the sovereignty of my country and I have no doubt that you will say that Boris is a dictator because he has peroroged the parliment but I really dont give a crap about that at all. Maybe it was a bad choice, maybe it wasn't but its just a game like all the other games that politicians play. Is that a bad thing? Yes it probably is but that is an argument for another day.If the vote had gone the other way, we wouldn't be having this conversation. There wouldn't be people in the EU wanting to make sure that we really wanted to stay, it would all be long forgotten about.If you have a fucking referendum and then ignore the outcome then what is the fucking point in democracy anyway?How many votes should we have?Are we just going to keep having them until the result comes out the way YOU want it to go?This isn't complicated.From the beginning the outcome was not respected and there has been a ceaseless campaign to undermine it to the point where we are now on the verge of a civil war and lets be clear about this, the people who are causing the fuss are people who do not respect democracy and the views of others, they are by definition the enemies of the civilised world.So I am supposed to care about what these ignorant warmongering fucktards want because why?
The leave or stay campaign was by no means limited to just politicians and also involved the experts in various fields etc.. But again, everyone said and thought that "no deal" was impossible. Because of that you can't use the referendum to support a no-deal brexit not to mention that public support has shifted massively since and made the vote outdated in the first place.The public opinion at the time of the referendum was split between either thinking brexit was stupid and dangerous or that leaving would be super easy and you could get whatever deal you wanted with the EU. That said lets just reconsider this for a moment. I assume you do not think that everyone that voted leave in the referendum wanted a no-deal brexit but that the "leave" option promised a "soft brexit" that appealed to them yes? Consider also how close the vote was. Now finally you need to divide the "leave" vote between those who wanted a deal and those who you think wanted a no-deal. Do you still think that there are over 50% who voted for "no deal"? If so then you are simply not honest with yourself.As for article 50 lets talk a bit about that. The EU can not throw a member out, it is simply not part of their power. Once you are in you are in. Likewise in the UK the Prime minister do not have the power to leave the EU either, that power is exclusive to Parliament. Now you can argue that hey voted to start article 50 however.. that is just an announcement of intent. Its not actually voting to leave the EU. As such legally speaking the end of the time line does not necessarily mean the UK has left or has to leave because to do so needs a separate majority vote in Parliament. This is just facts, no one else can make that decision aside from maybe the Queen if she wants to resume her position as the regent.
@Soteris Lol you didn't even read article 50 huh?
@Soteris There isn't really much point talking to you about this because you dont know what the fuck you are talking about.You just make up a load of shit because it suits you.Going off what you think you know people who have voted to remain in the referendum, but in fact they didn't.We dont know anything about how public opinion may or may not have changed since the vote but quite why you think that the result of a second vote should be more valid that the result of the first vote is mindboggling, I will return you to the idea of how many votes are you going to have until you get the answer that YOU want.You have no fucking idea how a second vote would go, no idea at all. Because it isn't knowable.All you can do is make guesses just like guesses were made before which were wrong and that is generally the case.The conservates thought they they would gain a stronger majority by having an election, guess what? They didn't, they made their position worse.So just shut the fuck up about what you think you know, you dont know shit.
You think that public opinion was split neatly down 2 lines of thinking that you just pulled out of your ass at random, just now?BULLSHIT.The world isn't like that you dumb cunt.There are tens of millions of people here and there are not 2 in the whole fucking bunch of them who agree about everything so how you can imagine that everyone thinks either A or B is astonishingly ignorant.
*sigh* Have YOU read article 50 or EU law at all for that matter? If not then something like this might be informative for you:legalresearch.blogs.bris.ac.uk/.../
@Soteris So as we both understand that there is no reason to believe that any sort of deal would be a requirement for a member state leaving the EU under article 50 we can conclude that I am right and you are an asshat.
You do not need to trigger article 50 to leave the EU, it is just here to assist the exit. The actual act of leaving is done through the legislative body of the country in question which is the Parliament in the case of the UK. The Parliament has voted to trigger article 50 but they have not voted on either a deal to leave or a no-deal exit both of which are required to actually leave. As such the time limit will not trigger them leaving according to UK and International law. This is just facts.
@Soteris Apparently even if you do trigger article 50 you cannot leave the EU.you'll notice that you have accepted that your argument about a deal being a requirement is bullshit.We are left with what we started with, that there has been a vote and you either respect it or you dont.The UK government in power since the referendum has consisently supported the outcome and has been trying to leave the EU, there have been 2 general elections since the referendum and the ruling party has remained unchanged, despite having the worst leader in the history of the world.So if your idea that 3/4's of the people wanted to remain they would have voted someone else into power in one or both of the 2 opportunities that they have had to do so, wouldn't they?But they didn't.You think that public opinion has shifted massively?But it hasn't, the majority of voters still dont care enough to even tick a box.Amoung those who did vote the overwhelming majority, about 80% voted the same way that the presumably always have and there fore couldnt give a fuck about the EU vote or trust their chosen party to do whatever they want.So this massive and supposedly important shifting of views you are talking about is maybe 1 or 2 people in 10 and most of that movement is support or not for UKIP, there was some other tactical voting from people who normally mess around with ideas of backing the lib dems or greens backing one of the main 2 instead but that hasn't changed the outcome.So that being said I am going to withdraw my concern about a civil war, we clearly dont give enough shits for that to happen.
Article 50 is not to leave the EU, it is for starting up the dialogue so you can figure out what happens after you leave. Leaving the EU has always been as simple as doing a yes or no vote in your legislative body (in this case Parliament in the UK). Something which has not happened yet.As for the whole deal with the general elections its not actually been that clear. The conservative party has obviously been for leaving with first Theresa May trying to push her deal and then Boris trying to push for no-deal but if we look at the opposition then it has not strictly been for remaining either.Corbin himself has been a supported of leaving and suppressed his party from becoming the party of remain for the longest time which means that the general elections did not really have two sides of the argument on the topic of Brexit. Of course some remainers did go over to lesser parties but the fact that both the Conservative and the opposition was either for or at least not in favor of remaining means it was more a popularity contest of which leader they liked the least.
@Soteris Of course article 50 is about leaving, why would you talk about what happens after you leave if you aren't leaving?If you talk about article 50 in the UK what you are talking about is leaving the EU, they are synonymous so lets not get bogged down in pointless semantics.Quote: Of course some remainers did go over to lesser partiesNO THEY didn't.ALL or almost all support for all minority parties disappeared as people voted tactically for the 2 main parties.Futhermore Support for UKIP literally disappeared in a fucking instant the moment that the referendum was passed, thats not because everyone suddenly changed their minds its because the purpose of the party had been served and was no longer a requirement.You point out that no party has been a party of remain..Well why not?You think that there has been a massive shift in opinion and that the referendum isn't valid because of it, but if that were the case then there would be a party running as the remain party and they would have won or there would have been a party similar to but opposite of UKIP who would have seen some significant though minority support.Neither of these things happened.It has been made clear that there are no better deals coming and you yourself have stated that we shouldn't even have been given the offer that we have been.So if all of the evidence, as I have demonstrated to you and which as of you last post you are not disagreeing with is that the choice is between taking a deal or not taking a deal but in all scenarios leaving then what I have been saying since the beginning is correct.If we are going to take a deal we take the deal on the table, we apparently dont want to do that so we should just be leaving, which is exactly what the elected leader of the majority leader in power is doing in alignment with the result of the referendum.
You really do not seam to get it do you? There is nothing that stops the UK from leaving the EU at any time. The Parliament can at any time have a simple "yes or no" vote and be out of the EU in 10 minutes flat. That is not what Article 50 is about. Article 50 is for the benefit of both the EU and the UK to prepare for an exit that does not take anyone by surprise. It does not have the power in and of itself to force the UK out even after it has been triggered because that is not what it is for.The idea about Article 50 is that whoever triggers it already have a plan of action and the determination to leave. It is not there to force anyone out or something stupid like that. The fact that the UK triggered Article 50 without any preparations or commitment is way outside the expectations of the people who wrote article 50 because they did not think anyone would be that stupid.The fact that article 50 and leaving the EU has become synonymous in the UK means jack shit back in the real world because that connection is built on pure misunderstanding and has no factual basis.Another thing you have to realize is that UKIP and the Brexit party is two completely different beasts. While UKIP was a bit of a mess and did indeed fall apart after the unifying force of the Brexit campaign died off the Brexit party is built to go beyond that and exist even after the UK leaves the EU. Of course we can argue about how well that will go but they are at least going to try and they are very good at stealing voters from the conservative party.
@Soteris You are the one who doesn't get it.www.europarl.europa.eu/.../...I(2016)577971_EN.pdfPoint 2: A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. Point 3: The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force ofthe withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.This is the reason that article 50 and leaving the EU are synonymous because in fact article 50 IS ABOUT LEAVING.The moment that ANY member state gets tired of talking about it NO DEAL BREXIT HAPPENS.Im not quite sure why you are talking about the brexit party, it hasn't taken part in any national elections so it remains to be seen if it is able to take any votes from anyone, even if it did its still not going to be in opposition to Brexiting is it? So what does it matter?What do you think is going to happen? Labour take power having lost the conservatives their majority? Then what? Labour pass a deal against the opposition of Brexit and Conservatives?Even if that did happen, why would you want that? It wouldn't be evidence of majority support for the outcome, it would be evidence of the opposite, that minority opinion can get their way when votes are diluted. That seems unlikely anyway based on the voting behavior already described where support for minority parties dissolves in favour of the main 2 parties when the electorate understands the need for tactical voting over virtue signal voting.So again, what the actual fuck are you talking about?
How many times do I have to tell you that Article 50 does not have the power to remove a country from the EU? It simply does not. What you are proposing is literally for the UK to lose the ability to control their own destiny.
@Soteris It doesn't matter how many times you tell me that article 50 isn't about leaving when I read the words of the article myself and it states explictly this:The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force ofthe withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.Because the actual document itself tells me the answer.Why would i give a fuck what some random internet guy said over the actual fucking document?Are you fucking mentally retarded or do you think i am?
You know, even if it says that it would just mean its wrong. It does not have the legal powers to do such a thing. It would literally be against both the UK's constitution and the EU laws and treaties and they have far more weight than article 50 in TEU.
@Soteris Uh huh..But you can't provide any evidence to support that claim i am simply expected to take your word for it because?
www.headoflegal.com/.../Seems ok according to whoever this dude is..
This goes over it in quite the detail:legalresearch.blogs.bris.ac.uk/.../
and according to this the governments right to invoke was challenged and subsequently laws were passed empowering the gov / pm to invoke article 50 which then happened.en.wikipedia.org/.../United_Kingdom_invocation_of_Article_50_of_the_Treaty_on_European_Union
That is also covered in my link.
@Soteris Well, we will see perhaps, that is not a judgement its an argument.
When it comes to legal matters its a lot less of an argument since there is a right and wrong answer. Its just a matter of understanding it.
@Soteris Yeah... and what that guy wrote in your link is the most ridiculous and dishonest way you could possibly try to interpret what happened.Maybe it will stand up in court, but that remains to be seen.The law is unique and untested so we dont know how a judge will view it, he may decide that if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck that it is in fact a fucking duck.As of right now, everyone seems to want to talk about it so the exiting part of the article 50 hasn't been tested.But it doesn't change anything, the situation is still that we can take or leave the deal, its not going to get better and removing the no deal exiting option from the government just hurts us more, it can't help us.I just think that if they didn't figure it out in 3 years they aren't going to this has become a farce.
I think having your prime minister act like a dictator and undermining the parliament is one of the most worrying development in British politics and is far worse than Brexit, which is saying something. While Brexit is a big deal what Boris did is showing a fatal flaw in your democracy.As for article 50 it appears Boris has lost the battle and it does not look good for him staying prime minister for very much longer. As things are going currently Boris will be forced by law to send a pre-written letter to the EU which will almost certainly extend the deadline. After that it is very likely that there will be a vote of no confidence and a neutral guy is put in charge who then triggers a general election.At this point Boris political career would be over as he got nothing to run on since he already showed that parliament will run him over and the conservatives and brexit party will split the leave vote to the point where they both become virtually irrelevant.
@Soteris I dont think we care really, democracy is extremely over rated.I dont buy that shit myself, Im not sure if that was a miscalculation or if they are playing a deeper game because it really is being blown massively out of proportion, it was a dick move for sure and what annoyed me about it was that he didn't own it, I think it would have served him much better if he just said that what the country needs is strong leadership, decisive action and for us all to pull in the same direction, because thats true.Did you really take our version of democracy seriously up to this point?First past the post, BBC propaganda machine, censorship of the media and effectively 2 party system both of which just talk bullshit the entire time, a long history of poor voter turn out.there's no fucking representation here, that referendum was the first fucking time in 50 years that the people of this country have had any kind of say about anything.You think you know about this country? You dont know shit about it.You think any one here honestly gives a fuck about the perorogation of parliament? They dont. Complaining about it is every bit as much a fucking game as peroroguing it the first place was.
@Soteris And that might have been the point all along, as I say, I dont know if they are playing a deep game or not but it could have been like a double bluff right, on the one hand maybe they can push through their agenda unopposed but more importantly they now have a massive spotlight on them they are showing up Corbyn as being every bit the bullshiting game player than Boris is because he won't do the election that he claims he wants without the timing being in his favour so he is full of shit too and everyone is talking about not respecting the democratic process, but trying to ignore and overturn the result of the referendum is exactly the same thing, so I dont know, maybe its supposed to be clever.Maybe its nothing to do with Brexit and everything to do with cleaning house, cutting the dead wood because the party is divided and they dont know who the fuck they are.I dont think Boris is going anywhere, he is a big personality and they dont have anyone to replace him with anyway, if they had an all star bench then ok sure, take one for the team and maybe wash away the shame right but I dont think its going to go like that.The brother has taken the fall, thats the sacrifice.you're right the deadline will get extended and we will go into an election, I dont think there will be a vote of no confidence thats a bit strong.Im not expecting the Brexit party to achieve anything, maybe they will but they will take voters from both sides of it if anything.
@Soteris I wouldn't be surprised if the conservatives rekt labour with Boris as the front man.But if they lose Boris it will go labours way and they will drop on their knees choke down a huge length of EU dick and this country will be wrecked.Im not a tory, I fucking hate the Tories but there are times when its best that you all go in the same direction, even if its the wrong direction and this is one of those times, for whatever his faults are and frankly I think he is best described as fucking clown shoes, Boris is the only fucking guy who can get us out of this shit.
I am pretty sure that it would be illegal to own up to it. After all its not actually the Prime minister that has the power to prorogue parliament but the Queen and she does it on the advice of the Prime minister. That said there are many things restricting what the Queen can and can't do which this little stunt technically broke not to mention all the issues with trying to exploit the Queen in the first place.As for British democracy it has been.. well subpar to most other countries for a long time but there is a good reason why Democracy is so popular around the world, it works the best.As for the referendum you have to realize that it is not actually legally binding right? Its a glorified opinion poll that they can ignore if they want. It is there simply as a way to measure what the people think on a given subject and most of them (yes they are actually fairly common) are completely and utterly ignored.As for the public view on things in the UK? Its one of the main issues actually.As for Corbin wanting a general election but needing to do something before he triggers it, is that really so strange? To start with triggering a general election means parliament is disbanded and can't do anything about Brexit and Boris gets to set or even change the dates for the election so he could easily put it after the Brexit deadline. You would be stupid if you blindly agreed to it during these situations.As for Boris being their only "leader" thats a laugh. The only reason they pushed Boris forward is because he is not well liked in the party and they view him as disposable. They aim for him to take the fall and none of them will shed a tear for it as they attempt to return to "normalcy".
@Soteris lol if you think democracy works any differently to a dictatorship you truly are a fool.
Well it does work differently from a dictatorship. That is just a fact.
@Soteris There are technical differences but not much in the way of functional differences.
Depends on how you see it. A Democracy and a Dictatorship obviously wields the same power of state but its in the how that they differ. Where as Dictatorships aims to gather that power to use the full potential of their country for the leaders aims the Democracy instead aims to remove the direct access to that power or even divide it up.
Well technically he can't make the decision himself, he is simply counting on the time limit to do it for him. As for shutting down Parliament that is part of how their parliament functions. They assemble the parliament in a session to focus on a given topic for around a year or so and then they shut it down for like 2 weeks and get back onto a new priority.Now he is trying to use his powers to schedule these end of session and beginning of session dates to interfere with Parliaments ability to seek an extension for the brexit time limit.
In short the Queen holds the power but, if asked by the Prime Minister, doesn’t have the political power to refuse the request. She can’t weigh in on political matters nor can any British Royal. Thankfully the MP’s in Britain have the political backbone to stand up to a tyrant that is found lacking in the US.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Boris Johnson is doing all he can to respect democracy while surrounded by traitors.
You mean in the referendum that was non binding and it’s non binding status was legally used as a reason in handwaving away irregularities? The one that was vague about what exactly Brexit would entail? But that now having a binding referendum on nodeal vs stay would be undemocratic somehow?
@0112358 You are correct that the referendum wasn't blinding in law, but when the MP's voted to implement article50, it was, you seem to have forgotten that little fact. The trust between the people and those we elect is binding in that most powerful of senses.If you voted for Brexit you understood clearly what you wanted from the referendum. Leaving all the EU's bodies and institutions, our law being sovereign and zero political ties. As I have been following and campaigning to leave the EU since 2004, I always knew no deal was an option and highly likely. The European Union is politically minded, they would rather give us a bad deal to strike fear into other member states, whom are also inclined to want to exit themselves.As we trade at a £90B deficit with the EU, leaving on no deal would mean short term lost for long term gain. Also the EU would come knocking on our door for a trade deal as they have more to lose then we do.
Having a trade deficit doesn't mean they need you more than you need them. That means they've been sending you free stuff while investing in UK assets.The reversal of that is dumping UK assets and the UK effectively paying everyone back in goods and services for nothing in return.
@0112358 Yes almost 80% of our economy is services. In 2017, the EU sold about £67B more to us in goods and services than we sold to them, so the UK runs a “trade deficit" with the EU.Exports of goods and services to other EU countries were worth £274B in 2017, while exports from the rest of the EU to the UK were worth about £341B. Germany alone sells the UK £21B more then we sell them. Germany who are already on the brick of recession, with Deutsche Bank almost crashing, £1B per day being withdrawn, rely on the UK for many jobs within their car industry. A no deal effects them badly and could push them over that "cliff" remainers bang on about.The UK is the third biggest trade partner of the EU, 16% along with the United States. You are simply being dishonest to argue we are not a big player.
Oh, no question, the global economy is possibly IN recession, if not it's headed to it. Manufacturing slowing all over, US yield curve inverting, etc.But saying 'things will be better if we stop trading with a country with whom we have a trade deficit' is not remotely true.Generally speaking, trade in the long run doesn't have employment affects at the national level, rather it has impacts on wealth and productivity. However changing trade arrangements has a hump of unemployment as economy's change. So integrating with the European economy is short term pain for long term wealth increase. De-coupling would be short term pain for long term wealth decrease.
The UK doesn’t have a Constitution, I’ve never actually heard a British person refer to one though Common Law developed upon the Magna Carts serves as your living basis for a Constitutional Power of sorts. How odd...
@sjoes006 The British constitution primarily draws from four sources: statute law (laws passed by Parliament), common law (laws established through court rulings), parliamentary conventions, and works of authority. The UK constitution is not contained in a single code but principles have emerged over the centuries from statute, case law, political conventions and social consensus.Sovereignty is the principle that the authority of a state and its government are created and sustained by the consent of its people, through their elected representatives (Rule by the People), who are the source of all political power. Quite simply how policing works in the UK, "Policing by consent" It expresses that the legitimacy of policing in the eyes of the public is based upon a general consensus of support that follows from transparency about their powers, their integrity in exercising those powers and their accountability for doing so. Sovereignty lies with the people.
Wouldn't a second referendum, now we have an idea of what might actually happen, also be democratic?FWIW, I fully agree with you about the police, and the Peelian principles, but they rely on a much greater majority than 52%.
There won't be a general election before the end of October, because nobody in their right mind would trust Johnson not to choose a November date for it, rendering the fight over Brexit moot. (He needs 2/3rds of the commons to vote to allow one.)
@goaded I understood that Boris himself had named the date as October 14th but I could be mistaken. The government has been less than transparent recently.
Unless the date was stated in the bill (or whatever it is) voted for, would you trust him?
@goaded I wouldn't trust Boris to do my laundry.
Yes Cameron... fool. The bill passedToday will have to become law prior to an election. Labor won’t allow for it before then.
He was elected, but not as Prime Minister. Don’t get cute, you can surely appreciate the difference. Some showman rising up the ranks to a position of power that needs to be elected by the people for the current position to have legitimacy to make such sweeping decisions.
You do not elect anyone as Prime minister in the UK, or rather you do not do it directly. You elect representatives in a party who then becomes an extension of your will that then has the power to decide a prime minister on your behalf. As part of a representative democracy that is how it works and by extension why your vote in the general election is connected to who becomes the prime minister. You are ideally supposed to vote for those that you think understand what you want and can champion your voice in parliament because of this.
Yes and no. Parliaments are basically assembled to deal with an issue and as you might imagine "Brexit" is the reason for this one. Since they have not succeeded there is no reason to open a new session currently. That said he does have some going for him since the parliament was put in session during his predecessors term so he could ask for a new session for a bunch of those formality stuff but the problem is you can't really use this for a political move. In this case he specifically disbands parliament to sabotage them which is not okey since they are technically the ones who rule the country and not him. He has stepped well outside the bounds.
Ah, thanks for explaining.
It is precisely unprecedented and the equivalent of a coup. @Soteris provides some good generalities but as a Swedish National his country doesn’t have a dog in the fight as Sweden isn’t part of the Euro-zone. Sweden still uses their own currency and has much less to lose. Parliament passed a bill prohibiting a no deal Brexit yesterday and sent it to the House of Lords where it should be ratified. Swift and quick measure to say No Thank You Borris. One simply cannot allow Ireland to have a hard border, that’s a dereliction of duty.
Sweden is in the E. U. just not the EMU.
The Queen can't say no because that would be a political move. The monarchy is simply a rubber stamp in this case and breaking this is a threat to the very monarchy itself not to mention the country.
She’s head of state but has no actual say over politics. She can’t say no.
That requires a certain amount of competency that I just dont see either of them having to be honest.
@Soteris truest of true.
I’ll pray for you.
Cool thanks my neck has been hurting hope your prayers help
You’re not old enough to remember The Troubles and they don’t teach you about it in schools. Peace in Ireland was hard achieved. You think Scotland won’t break off? You’ll sink the stock market and send the West back into a deep recession. But you aren’t quite old enough to remember that either.
Really now? Because to me it looks like he can't get democratic support so he decided to act like a tyrant. Not something I would personally be proud of even if it was to my political benefit.
@Soteris the parliament was not elected when he ran a general election.The parliament doesn’t want a new election because they know they will be replaced. People complained that there was no general election bringing Boris, and now they are opposing?At least Boris isn’t as spineless.
The prime minister does not run a general election, the parties does and then the prime minister is picked from the party with the majority. That is why they can switch prime minister without having a general election because the parliament is the elected representatives and not the prime minister.Also they are actually not against a general election, they just want to pass a specific legislation before that.
@Soteris because they know the outcome would be that the conservatives get a majority again. I voted Boris, and I am proud, and we will make him a majority again, and again over the girls that sit across the house
Quick question: Why did not Boris trigger an election then?
@Soteris he can’t.He needs 2/3 majority and without labour backing a general election he cannot.
He could have earlier but he didn't.
@Soteris Jeremy Corbyn is the first opposition in history to reject a general election. First time they know very well that they will lose. Why deny the chance to go in power?Well because they know Boris will wipe the floor with Corbyn.
Of course he is not, dont be absurd and its not like he is rejecting it either just saying that there are more urgent matters to attend to before a general election. Also technically from the view of the opposition if they can deal more damage to Boris like for example stopping the whole no-deal nonsense then that would directly result in an even bigger advantage during a general election so it makes strategic sense to postpone it until after the extension of the deadline.
@Soteris postponing and rejecting a general election hurts BJ but remember, just as not all conservatives are leavers, not all Labour chaps are remainers either. This will cost labour more than it will cost BJ. Also, publically Jeremy is not helping himself, he’s just going to face a more angry and more fierce BJ in the next election. Jeremy will be crushed.
Boris has proven himself to be a pretty ineffective leader so far especially since he has been the first Prime minister to lose his first vote in like 300 years and if he also fails to deliver a no deal brexit.. well he might be the first Prime minister in history to not have a single successful vote which is a really heavy blow. You also have to consider that the Brexit party will cannibalize the leave voters. a lot of leavers will simply see the Brexit party as the obvious choice to deliver Brexit compared to Boris.
@Soteris you forgotettint the polls that they prefer Boris over Johnson and this lead has been higher than Theresa. Boris is unpopular in parliament. He is still popular in the public, probably the most popular in recent years
The polls currently do not actually mean much because the parties are not out campaigning. This gives Boris a natural advantage of having been in the news a whole bunch but that advantage as a general rule does not carry over into campaign season where Boris's flaws such as if he fails to deliver brexit on the deadline will be a huge blow to his numbers.