The Bloke On Who Wants To Be A...
Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
Indicative Votes Point Nowhere
94 Answers
No alternative model attracted a majority.
The House was agreed, however, that there'll be no fireworks and festivity on the 29th and reiterates its determination that under no circumstances will it allow a "No Deal" Brexit
The House was agreed, however, that there'll be no fireworks and festivity on the 29th and reiterates its determination that under no circumstances will it allow a "No Deal" Brexit
Answers
If over half the people in a room want a switch turned off and the rest want it left on then there is no resolution whereby the split can be reflected. Although I'm sure the minority will suggest leaving it on but painting it so it looks off. Or claiming it's off but welding it open. Or maybe removing the cover but leaving it operating. Perhaps taking another vote,...
08:37 Thu 28th Mar 2019
I think the idea was to fly a few kites tonight, and then next week to rank them in order.
Some rather unintentionally amusing reaction from a few of the MPs. Mr Mark Francois claiming that “Revoke Article 50” had been “smashed”: compared to the “No Deal” option which he supports it was quite close ;-)
Mr Julian Lewis (in jest) saying that all backbenchers should therefore resign. What, just like the PM did?
Some rather unintentionally amusing reaction from a few of the MPs. Mr Mark Francois claiming that “Revoke Article 50” had been “smashed”: compared to the “No Deal” option which he supports it was quite close ;-)
Mr Julian Lewis (in jest) saying that all backbenchers should therefore resign. What, just like the PM did?
Compromise, Jim?
The 2016 referendum presented a binary (and therefore a necessarily deeply divisive) choice. The determination to stay or leave was delegated freely and willingly (or, as it now turns out, hypocrically and deceitfully) by a Parliament which overwhelmingly supported just one of those choices.
"Compromise", now that Parliament has "seized back control", is a competition to find the best formulation of words which "delivers" Brexit while, at the same time preventing it.
It's an exercise in casuistry which Jesuits may enjoy, but honest men should avoid.
The 2016 referendum presented a binary (and therefore a necessarily deeply divisive) choice. The determination to stay or leave was delegated freely and willingly (or, as it now turns out, hypocrically and deceitfully) by a Parliament which overwhelmingly supported just one of those choices.
"Compromise", now that Parliament has "seized back control", is a competition to find the best formulation of words which "delivers" Brexit while, at the same time preventing it.
It's an exercise in casuistry which Jesuits may enjoy, but honest men should avoid.
No Jim it isn’t complicated. Parliment and the MPs have made it complicated. Getting out is not as complicated as one might think (or have been convinced of) the complication is only because MPs won’t agree.
If they were all told the only options NOT available was to revoke A50 or stay in the EU in BRINO Type things they would have to work a bit harder to get it done.
The EU have said the people of the UK don’t want to leave!!! That’s told us then! The EU have said countries should be forced to hand over more sovereignty to the EU.
If they were all told the only options NOT available was to revoke A50 or stay in the EU in BRINO Type things they would have to work a bit harder to get it done.
The EU have said the people of the UK don’t want to leave!!! That’s told us then! The EU have said countries should be forced to hand over more sovereignty to the EU.
If you are referring you to the statutory instrument vote OG that was never going to fail.
MPs voted last week to extend the deadline so they weren’t going to then vote against now.
Arguably in any case given that there had the been a formal agreement between the government and the EU to an extension, that validated the extension in any case in international law.
MPs voted last week to extend the deadline so they weren’t going to then vote against now.
Arguably in any case given that there had the been a formal agreement between the government and the EU to an extension, that validated the extension in any case in international law.
//"Compromise", now that Parliament has "seized back control", is a competition to find the best formulation of words which "delivers" Brexit while, at the same time preventing it.//
Couldn't have put it better myself, v_e.
The idea that compromise is necessary because a sizeable number of people voted for the losing option is ludicrous and is simply smoke and mirrors. The task of MPs is to take the country out of the EU. There were four principle results of that which were well enunciated in the referendum campaign. They were control of borders, money and trade and the end to the jurisdiction of the ECJ. This means leaving the single market and the customs union as an absolute minimum. All the options debated tonight fail to deliver those requirements in one way or another and so does Mrs May's dire deal.
It strikes me (as if I didn't know) that MPs are intent on refusing to countenance our departure under any circumstances.
Couldn't have put it better myself, v_e.
The idea that compromise is necessary because a sizeable number of people voted for the losing option is ludicrous and is simply smoke and mirrors. The task of MPs is to take the country out of the EU. There were four principle results of that which were well enunciated in the referendum campaign. They were control of borders, money and trade and the end to the jurisdiction of the ECJ. This means leaving the single market and the customs union as an absolute minimum. All the options debated tonight fail to deliver those requirements in one way or another and so does Mrs May's dire deal.
It strikes me (as if I didn't know) that MPs are intent on refusing to countenance our departure under any circumstances.
// No Jim it isn’t complicated. Parliment and the MPs have made it complicated. Getting out is not as complicated as one might think... //
I don't understand how anyone can reasonably believe that. We have been part of the EU for over 40 years. On every level we have been integrated with them. Indeed, by Brexit supporters' own motivations for leaving, that has to be true, for otherwise what would be the point of leaving in the first place if not to escape this? It doesn't take any time at all to realise that a 40-year process much take at least some time and effort to undo, at least if you don't wish to cause a great deal of harm and chaos in the process.
I don't understand how anyone can reasonably believe that. We have been part of the EU for over 40 years. On every level we have been integrated with them. Indeed, by Brexit supporters' own motivations for leaving, that has to be true, for otherwise what would be the point of leaving in the first place if not to escape this? It doesn't take any time at all to realise that a 40-year process much take at least some time and effort to undo, at least if you don't wish to cause a great deal of harm and chaos in the process.
/It doesn't take any time at all to realise that a 40-year process much take at least some time and effort to undo, at least if you don't wish to cause a great deal of harm and chaos in the proces//
Put that statement in the context of, say, divorce.
You can (or can you not?) quit an abusive long-term relationship. Or one which is miserable and unsatisfactory for one or both of the partners. (I've seen many - too many, in fact - such splits with friends and family).
To leave on good terms which prevent "harm and chaos" - especially true if children are involved - requires good will, commitment and decency on both sides. Angling for advantage in the division of spoils with the aid of shyster lawyers doesn't conduce to the best outcome.
In the Brexit context we could do with fewer shyster lawyers. Or, if the divorce has to be bitter and vindictive (as the EU has determined from the outset it must be), then at least it would be good to know that we have shyster lawyers on our side are not in collusion with the other party's.
Put that statement in the context of, say, divorce.
You can (or can you not?) quit an abusive long-term relationship. Or one which is miserable and unsatisfactory for one or both of the partners. (I've seen many - too many, in fact - such splits with friends and family).
To leave on good terms which prevent "harm and chaos" - especially true if children are involved - requires good will, commitment and decency on both sides. Angling for advantage in the division of spoils with the aid of shyster lawyers doesn't conduce to the best outcome.
In the Brexit context we could do with fewer shyster lawyers. Or, if the divorce has to be bitter and vindictive (as the EU has determined from the outset it must be), then at least it would be good to know that we have shyster lawyers on our side are not in collusion with the other party's.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.