Brexit

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Mar 14, 2019 9:02 pm

First topic message reminder :

Duty281 wrote:So a good day for the Prime Minister, at last. Motion carried and some pesky amendments defeated.

Yes folks a good day for the PM is telling the Country over 50 times in the Commons the UK is leaving on the 29th March and then winning an extension..

What a low bar..

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:33 pm

Duty21, from 606v2, says "It's normal."

Professor Colin Talbot, from Cambridge University, says the government's decision to prorogue Parliament at this time is "absolutely not normal and pretending it is is frankly nonsense".
"The longest prorogation we've had in the last 40 years was three weeks - and that was due to very specific circumstances," he says.
"To prorogue Parliament for four and half weeks in the run up to what is arguably the biggest political crisis since the Second World War is quite extraordinary."

Let me take some time to weigh up those two arguments....

by Duty281 Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:48 pm

Yeah, but Professor Colin Talbot is an Arsenal supporter, which is very suspect.

We're leaving with a no-deal Brexit and it's because of Parliament. They voted through the referendum, voted to trigger article 50, and rejected the withdrawal agreement three times. Nothing has come through in the last two and a half years years to prevent this course of action (no-deal), and now some Remain-MPs are in hysterics because they're losing a few days of Parliamentary time in which they wouldn't have done anything anyway.

by BamBam Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:50 pm

Bring on no deal. Looking forward to some food shortage riots!

Anyone who gets any good video footage of leave voters fighting over the juiciest rat in the dumpster, make sure to send it to me, I reckon there's a few websites that would pay a pretty penny for that sort of entertainment.

by **navyblueshorts** Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:53 pm

Soul Requiem wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Soul Requiem wrote:Trumps in power so says everything you need to know about the 48% who voted for him.

Truman? First and only world leader to ever authorise a nuclear attack, yes that's the one.
Suggest you go away and learn about the times/circumstances in which Truman made that decision.

I'm well aware of the circumstances and there is no justification for ever using nuclear weapons against another country.

If you say so...

by Soul Requiem Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:55 pm

navyblueshorts wrote:
Soul Requiem wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Soul Requiem wrote:Trumps in power so says everything you need to know about the 48% who voted for him.

Truman? First and only world leader to ever authorise a nuclear attack, yes that's the one.
Suggest you go away and learn about the times/circumstances in which Truman made that decision.

I'm well aware of the circumstances and there is no justification for ever using nuclear weapons against another country.
If you say so...

Personal opinion is it not? If you're happy with the use of nuclear weapons then well...

by **navyblueshorts** Wed Aug 28, 2019 5:01 pm

Soul Requiem wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Soul Requiem wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Soul Requiem wrote:Trumps in power so says everything you need to know about the 48% who voted for him.

Truman? First and only world leader to ever authorise a nuclear attack, yes that's the one.
Suggest you go away and learn about the times/circumstances in which Truman made that decision.

I'm well aware of the circumstances and there is no justification for ever using nuclear weapons against another country.
If you say so...

Personal opinion is it not? If you're happy with the use of nuclear weapons then well...

Of course it's your opinion; wrong, but definitely your opinion. As I said, you weren't there then, you almost certainly don't know enough about why Truman agreed to drop them and, given the man, I reckon he would have done so only in extremis. Given what we know of the weaponry and the modern power thereof, I'd probably agree with you going forward, but then? At that moment in time? Glad you're so morally perfect - must be easy to sleep at night.

by **navyblueshorts** Wed Aug 28, 2019 5:10 pm

Duty281 wrote:Yeah, but Professor Colin Talbot is an Arsenal supporter, which is very suspect.

We're leaving with a no-deal Brexit and it's because of Parliament. They voted through the referendum, voted to trigger article 50, and rejected the withdrawal agreement three times. Nothing has come through in the last two and a half years years to prevent this course of action (no-deal), and now some Remain-MPs are in hysterics because they're losing a few days of Parliamentary time in which they wouldn't have done anything anyway.

You know that's bunkum and yet you still spout it? You think they would have done nothing re. Brexit in the time Parliament is now to be suspended???

This whole débacle has f*cked Britain up for the foreseeable future. Look at the HYS threads on the BBC web site. Look at the venom. Look at the insults. That's to say nothing of the lost trust in these political cretins.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed Aug 28, 2019 5:14 pm

Duty281 wrote:We're leaving with a no-deal Brexit and it's because of Parliament.

Which has nothing to do with proroguing Parliament to ensure MPs can't vote against the Government's will. Interesting to see you give up a sovereign Parliament without protest.

by Duty281 Wed Aug 28, 2019 5:15 pm

navyblueshorts wrote:
Duty281 wrote:Yeah, but Professor Colin Talbot is an Arsenal supporter, which is very suspect.

We're leaving with a no-deal Brexit and it's because of Parliament. They voted through the referendum, voted to trigger article 50, and rejected the withdrawal agreement three times. Nothing has come through in the last two and a half years years to prevent this course of action (no-deal), and now some Remain-MPs are in hysterics because they're losing a few days of Parliamentary time in which they wouldn't have done anything anyway.
You know that's bunkum and yet you still spout it? You think they would have done nothing re. Brexit in the time Parliament is now to be suspended???

This whole débacle has f*cked Britain up for the foreseeable future. Look at the HYS thread on the BBC web site. Look at the venom. Look at the insults. That's to say nothing of the lost trust in these political cretins.

They've had 100s of days to do something and failed. Why would those few lost days be any different?

by MrInvisible Wed Aug 28, 2019 5:15 pm

Even *if* this is merely a gambit to lead to VONC and election a line has been crossed here in sidelining parliament and therefore democracy - feels like start of a slippery slope and hope this galvanises opposition to no deal Brexit.

by Duty281 Wed Aug 28, 2019 5:21 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Duty281 wrote:We're leaving with a no-deal Brexit and it's because of Parliament.

Which has nothing to do with proroguing Parliament to ensure MPs can't vote against the Government's will. Interesting to see you give up a sovereign Parliament without protest.

As mentioned, Parliament voted for the referendum and for the triggering of Article 50 and against the withdrawal agreement (three times). Parliament has also voted against a second referendum and against revoking article 50.

The only path left is a no-deal exit. If Parliament didn't want this to happen, they shouldn't have voted for the triggering of article 50 *or* they should have voted for the withdrawal agreement. They've had ample time for alternatives to no-deal.

by **navyblueshorts** Wed Aug 28, 2019 5:22 pm

Duty281 wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Duty281 wrote:Yeah, but Professor Colin Talbot is an Arsenal supporter, which is very suspect.

We're leaving with a no-deal Brexit and it's because of Parliament. They voted through the referendum, voted to trigger article 50, and rejected the withdrawal agreement three times. Nothing has come through in the last two and a half years years to prevent this course of action (no-deal), and now some Remain-MPs are in hysterics because they're losing a few days of Parliamentary time in which they wouldn't have done anything anyway.
You know that's bunkum and yet you still spout it? You think they would have done nothing re. Brexit in the time Parliament is now to be suspended???

This whole débacle has f*cked Britain up for the foreseeable future. Look at the HYS thread on the BBC web site. Look at the venom. Look at the insults. That's to say nothing of the lost trust in these political cretins.

They've had 100s of days to do something and failed. Why would those few lost days be any different?

Well, duh! Maybe because the next chuffing deadline is approaching? The specious excuse that this is 'normal' is another lie. Yet another one. This is specifically to prevent pro-EU MPs from possibly preventing a no deal outcome. Even you don't believe it's anything else.
Screw the lot of them. BlowJob better hope the outcome is worth it, because he may well have killed the Tories for years to come. Then again, he doesn't give a flying, sideways **** does he? Neither does Rees-Mogg etc. I wouldn't want to be any of these a***holes if it's subsequently found they've been speculating financially re. a no deal outcome.

by **navyblueshorts** Wed Aug 28, 2019 5:25 pm

Duty281 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
Duty281 wrote:We're leaving with a no-deal Brexit and it's because of Parliament.

Which has nothing to do with proroguing Parliament to ensure MPs can't vote against the Government's will. Interesting to see you give up a sovereign Parliament without protest.

As mentioned, Parliament voted for the referendum and for the triggering of Article 50 and against the withdrawal agreement (three times). Parliament has also voted against a second referendum and against revoking article 50.

The only path left is a no-deal exit. If Parliament didn't want this to happen, they shouldn't have voted for the triggering of article 50 *or* they should have voted for the withdrawal agreement. They've had ample time for alternatives to no-deal.

This may well be true and is a function of our scheisse political class these days, but I suggest that's different from actively interfering to prevent anything blocking no deal.

When I think about it, I find it quite embarrassing to say I'm the same nationality as these useless goons. Never has the phrase "Couldn't organise a p**s-up in a brewery" seemed more apt.

On that note, I'm off for a drink...

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed Aug 28, 2019 5:31 pm

Duty281 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
Duty281 wrote:We're leaving with a no-deal Brexit and it's because of Parliament.

Which has nothing to do with proroguing Parliament to ensure MPs can't vote against the Government's will. Interesting to see you give up a sovereign Parliament without protest.

As mentioned, Parliament voted for the referendum and for the triggering of Article 50 and against the withdrawal agreement (three times). Parliament has also voted against a second referendum and against revoking article 50.

The only path left is a no-deal exit. If Parliament didn't want this to happen, they shouldn't have voted for the triggering of article 50 *or* they should have voted for the withdrawal agreement. They've had ample time for alternatives to no-deal.

Which has nothing to do with proroguing Parliament to ensure MPs can't vote against the Government's will. Interesting to see you give up a sovereign Parliament without protest.

by Duty281 Wed Aug 28, 2019 5:33 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
Duty281 wrote:We're leaving with a no-deal Brexit and it's because of Parliament.

Which has nothing to do with proroguing Parliament to ensure MPs can't vote against the Government's will. Interesting to see you give up a sovereign Parliament without protest.

As mentioned, Parliament voted for the referendum and for the triggering of Article 50 and against the withdrawal agreement (three times). Parliament has also voted against a second referendum and against revoking article 50.

The only path left is a no-deal exit. If Parliament didn't want this to happen, they shouldn't have voted for the triggering of article 50 *or* they should have voted for the withdrawal agreement. They've had ample time for alternatives to no-deal.

Which has nothing to do with proroguing Parliament to ensure MPs can't vote against the Government's will. Interesting to see you give up a sovereign Parliament without protest.

The point clearly being that MPs have had numerous chances to vote against the government's will.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed Aug 28, 2019 5:42 pm

Duty281 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
Duty281 wrote:We're leaving with a no-deal Brexit and it's because of Parliament.

Which has nothing to do with proroguing Parliament to ensure MPs can't vote against the Government's will. Interesting to see you give up a sovereign Parliament without protest.

As mentioned, Parliament voted for the referendum and for the triggering of Article 50 and against the withdrawal agreement (three times). Parliament has also voted against a second referendum and against revoking article 50.

The only path left is a no-deal exit. If Parliament didn't want this to happen, they shouldn't have voted for the triggering of article 50 *or* they should have voted for the withdrawal agreement. They've had ample time for alternatives to no-deal.

Which has nothing to do with proroguing Parliament to ensure MPs can't vote against the Government's will. Interesting to see you give up a sovereign Parliament without protest.

The point clearly being that MPs have had numerous chances to vote against the government's will.

Your point has nothing to do with proroguing Parliament to ensure MPs can't vote against the Government's will. Interesting to see you give up a sovereign Parliament without protest.

by Luckless Pedestrian Wed Aug 28, 2019 5:45 pm

MrInvisible wrote:Even *if* this is merely a gambit to lead to VONC and election a line has been crossed here in sidelining parliament and therefore democracy - feels like start of a slippery slope and hope this galvanises opposition to no deal Brexit.

Absolutely. This is slash and burn politics (if it can be called politics) and if there were any sane MPs left in the cabinet they'd have resigned.

As I said earlier, there are plenty of Tory MPs up in arms about this, never mind opposition MPs.

by Duty281 Wed Aug 28, 2019 5:49 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
Duty281 wrote:We're leaving with a no-deal Brexit and it's because of Parliament.

Which has nothing to do with proroguing Parliament to ensure MPs can't vote against the Government's will. Interesting to see you give up a sovereign Parliament without protest.

As mentioned, Parliament voted for the referendum and for the triggering of Article 50 and against the withdrawal agreement (three times). Parliament has also voted against a second referendum and against revoking article 50.

The only path left is a no-deal exit. If Parliament didn't want this to happen, they shouldn't have voted for the triggering of article 50 *or* they should have voted for the withdrawal agreement. They've had ample time for alternatives to no-deal.

Which has nothing to do with proroguing Parliament to ensure MPs can't vote against the Government's will. Interesting to see you give up a sovereign Parliament without protest.

The point clearly being that MPs have had numerous chances to vote against the government's will.

Your point has nothing to do with proroguing Parliament to ensure MPs can't vote against the Government's will. Interesting to see you give up a sovereign Parliament without protest.

Ok, well I can't help you with reading comprehension, so I'll just leave it at that.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed Aug 28, 2019 5:57 pm

And I can't help it if you choose to keep avoiding the issue of whether it is acceptable for a PM to prorogue Parliament to help ensure his agenda succeeds, when he fears Parliament will thwart it.

by Duty281 Wed Aug 28, 2019 6:07 pm

If by 'his agenda' you mean a no-deal exit, then proroguing parliament is making zero difference to the chances of that outcome.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed Aug 28, 2019 6:09 pm

Cool, so anytime a PM feels like suspending Parliament to suit his cause, it's OK by Duty. Now we know.

by Duty281 Wed Aug 28, 2019 6:18 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:Cool, so anytime a PM feels like suspending Parliament to suit his cause, it's OK by Duty. Now we know.

You know perfectly well that's not what I've said, but misrepresentation is your usual suit, so sadly I've come to expect it.

When you are able to converse at an adult level again, do let me know. thumbsup

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed Aug 28, 2019 6:24 pm

By 'adult level' do you mean someone raises an issue and you repeatedly avoid answering it directly? That sort of 'adult level'?

by Duty281 Wed Aug 28, 2019 6:30 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:By 'adult level' do you mean someone raises an issue and you repeatedly avoid answering it directly? That sort of 'adult level'?

I have answered your questions, Julius, I'm very happy to, but you have a frequent habit of either ignoring what I've said or lying about what I've said (case in point about 20 minutes ago), which isn't very conducive to an adult conversation about anything.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed Aug 28, 2019 6:36 pm

Duty, you clearly don't share my sense of humour. I will happily admit to lying about what you said in a what was obviously (to most people, I would think) a joking manner.

However, you have repeatedly failed to give your view on whether or not it is a good thing for a PM to prorogue Parliament, in a wholly abnormal manner, for his/her own political gain. (Because that is certainly what BJ is doing, and everyone knows that, even those that deny it, unless they are nigh on impossibly naive.)

by Duty281 Wed Aug 28, 2019 6:52 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty, you clearly don't share my sense of humour. I will happily admit to lying about what you said in a what was obviously (to most people, I would think) a joking manner.

However, you have repeatedly failed to give your view on whether or not it is a good thing for a PM to prorogue Parliament, in a wholly abnormal manner, for his/her own political gain. (Because that is certainly what BJ is doing, and everyone knows that, even those that deny it, unless they are nigh on impossibly naive.)

Yes I know, sweetie, it's a joke. That's your usual and most visited get-out when I pull you up on misrepresentation.

As I've said before, we will lose 3 or 4 days of Parliamentary time. Nothing of any substance would have happened in this time anyway, so there's no advantage or disadvantage to be had for Johnson and his supposed 'no-deal' agenda. It doesn't increase or decrease the chances of a 'no-deal' exit happening. No change. No gain to be had. Your question is flawed.

And it's neither a good thing or a bad thing for Parliament to be prorogued. It just happens. Most years, it happens.

by Samo Wed Aug 28, 2019 6:58 pm

Duty281 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty, you clearly don't share my sense of humour. I will happily admit to lying about what you said in a what was obviously (to most people, I would think) a joking manner.

However, you have repeatedly failed to give your view on whether or not it is a good thing for a PM to prorogue Parliament, in a wholly abnormal manner, for his/her own political gain. (Because that is certainly what BJ is doing, and everyone knows that, even those that deny it, unless they are nigh on impossibly naive.)

Yes I know, sweetie, it's a joke. That's your usual and most visited get-out when I pull you up on misrepresentation.

As I've said before, we will lose 3 or 4 days of Parliamentary time. Nothing of any substance would have happened in this time anyway, so there's no advantage or disadvantage to be had for Johnson and his supposed 'no-deal' agenda. It doesn't increase or decrease the chances of a 'no-deal' exit happening. No change. No gain to be had. Your question is flawed.

And it's neither a good thing or a bad thing for Parliament to be prorogued. It just happens. Most years, it happens.

Doesnt normally happen by an unelected PM while facing a massive constitutional crisis without first calling a GE. MP's still have access to a wide range of things needed to do their daily work during the conference recession, which they wont have now because of the prorogation.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed Aug 28, 2019 7:06 pm

Duty281 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty, you clearly don't share my sense of humour. I will happily admit to lying about what you said in a what was obviously (to most people, I would think) a joking manner.

However, you have repeatedly failed to give your view on whether or not it is a good thing for a PM to prorogue Parliament, in a wholly abnormal manner, for his/her own political gain. (Because that is certainly what BJ is doing, and everyone knows that, even those that deny it, unless they are nigh on impossibly naive.)

Yes I know, sweetie, it's a joke. That's your usual and most visited get-out when I pull you up on misrepresentation.

As I've said before, we will lose 3 or 4 days of Parliamentary time. Nothing of any substance would have happened in this time anyway, so there's no advantage or disadvantage to be had for Johnson and his supposed 'no-deal' agenda. It doesn't increase or decrease the chances of a 'no-deal' exit happening. No change. No gain to be had. Your question is flawed.

And it's neither a good thing or a bad thing for Parliament to be prorogued. It just happens. Most years, it happens.

Well, if you know it's a joke, my love, you won't mind when I next do it, as I most surely will.

As usual, you avoid an answer to simple question. It was a general question, but let's make it more specific. You may think it makes no difference to the chances of no-deal, but fail to consider that BJ may not share your point of view. Let us assume he DOES think it makes a difference, however small (since that is most likely what he does believe). Is it a good thing for BJ to prorogue Parliament, in a wholly abnormal manner, for what he believes to be his own political gain, however small he believes that gain may be?

Come on Duty, surprise me. Answer a question for a change.

by No name Bertie Wed Aug 28, 2019 7:23 pm

Has it come to this? Looking at the latest comments in this thread it seems like a small group of like minded individuals have turned all inquisitorial to "out" and "morally condemn" a fellow poster for not conforming to their group think. Meanwhile beyond any of our individual miniscule and negligible powers major political movements are afoot. Why not focus on the political process and processes rather than turning ones emotional anger onto fellow 606 posters?

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed Aug 28, 2019 7:29 pm

I can't find any evidence of anger towards other posters Bertie. Which posts do you refer to?

If, say, three people agree, but one does not, do you always demonise those three as a group?

by No name Bertie Wed Aug 28, 2019 7:35 pm

Apparently there are at least two possible types of challenges against this decision. Let's see what is done.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:17 pm

Sir John Major said he had "no doubt" Mr Johnson's motive was to "bypass a sovereign Parliament that opposes his policy on Brexit".

I agree. What do other people think? (Agree/Do not agree)

by SecretFly Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:15 am

Let's re-word Major's comment a little bit to change its inference but remain in agreement with his opinion of Boris Johnson's motives:

Mr Johnson's motive was to "bypass a sovereign Parliament that opposes [the people's expressed desire for] Brexit."

The eye of the beholder. Corbyn earlier proposes a 'coup' - and now Boris is accused of one. Was Corbyn's idea (proposed to champion a certain Brexit policy) legal under the laws of the UK? Is Boris's 'coup' (enacted to champion a certain Brexit policy) legal under the laws of the UK ?

Is the argument against Johnson now an argument against the supremacy of the Queen? An argument for the dissolution of the Monarchy? Interesting times.

by No name Bertie Thu Aug 29, 2019 1:14 am

One of the options available is for Jeremy Corbyn to call a vote of no confidence in Boris Johnson within the next few days.

Does Corbyn have any leadership qualities to call it and win it? Some political commentators have said he should have called one earlier.

Has Boris Johnson shown any leadership qualities since his election to Party Leader of the Conservatives? Some political commentators have said that he has.

by **Pr4wn** Thu Aug 29, 2019 2:04 am

SecretFly wrote:Let's re-word Major's comment a little bit to change its inference but remain in agreement with his opinion of Boris Johnson's motives:

Mr Johnson's motive was to "bypass a sovereign Parliament that opposes [the people's expressed desire for] Brexit." That's not what he said, nor is it what he meant.

The eye of the beholder. Corbyn earlier proposes a 'coup' - and now Boris is accused of one. Was Corbyn's idea (proposed to champion a certain Brexit policy) legal under the laws of the UK? Yes it was. Is Boris's 'coup' (enacted to champion a certain Brexit policy) legal under the laws of the UK ? That remains to be seen.

Is the argument against Johnson now an argument against the supremacy of the Queen? No. An argument for the dissolution of the Monarchy? No. Interesting times.

by It Must Be Love Thu Aug 29, 2019 5:30 am

@Duty281

There are 2 main reasons why I am strongly opposed to this move by Boris, and was wondering if anyone could address these issues:

1/ Firstly, let's not pretend that this is a normal suspension of parliament just like any Queen's Speech. It is obviously a (clever?) tactical manoeuvre by Cummings and Boris. Parliament could have shortened the time of conference season, so this suspension takes away 4-8 parliamentary days. Considering the MPs were already running out of time to stop No Deal, this cut makes it less likely that legislation to stop no deal will be successfully passed.
That's what makes this situation unique compared to normal Queen's Speech. Boris chose the timing in October, and not Nov/Dec, for a reason, be reasonable rather than disingenuous.
I don't think it's right in a parliamentary democracy that parliament is suspended when MPs could change one of the biggest policy decisions of the UK.

2/ During the referendum campaign both the Brexit campaigns, Vote Leave and Leave.EU, proposed that we should leave the EU with a trade deal. Spokespeople for Vote Leave such as David Davis said it would be one of the easiest trade deals in history. Boris said we can have our cake and eat it regarding a trade deal. Richard Tice, the current head of the Brexit Party, even went as far as to say that the EU are legally obliged to agree a trade deal under article 50. Thus leaving without a deal is not respecting the promises of the referendum campaign.

I don't support a 2nd referendum because I believe it's not democratic, the people have had a say and rejected Remain. However both sides have to be fair- if a type of Brexit which was not argued for during the referendum campaign is chosen while MPs voted for by the public in 2017 are shackled by a technicality- surely all reasonable people can see why this sets a dark precedent?

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Aug 29, 2019 9:08 am

No name Bertie wrote:One of the options available is for Jeremy Corbyn to call a vote of no confidence in Boris Johnson within the next few days.

Does Corbyn have any leadership qualities to call it and win it? Some political commentators have said he should have called one earlier.

.

More to it than that....If Johnson is successfully No confidenced...He gets to name the date of the subsequent Election...Which will give him the chance to guarantee No Deal..By taking Parliamentary time off the clock..Have it on the 31 October.

At the moment Corbyn or a surrogate don't have the numbers for a Unity Govt..

Your post is too simplistic..

by Soul Requiem Thu Aug 29, 2019 9:19 am

So basically the man derided as being incompetent has outmanoeuvred the opposition exactly how he wanted to?

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Aug 29, 2019 9:27 am

Let's applaud him for lying when he promised four weeks ago he wouldn't pro-rogue..

Applaud too.. When the US gulps up an isolated UK in a trade deal...When Manufacturers relocate abroad and good Families start suffering the cost...While Johnson's mates hide money offshore..

It's not a game Sunshine in the real World.

by **Pr4wn** Thu Aug 29, 2019 9:27 am

Soul Requiem wrote:So basically the man derided as being incompetent has outmanoeuvred the opposition exactly how he wanted to?

That remains to be seen.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu Aug 29, 2019 9:37 am

Johnson knows he only needs Brexit Party votes to win a GE....So by going for No deal....He figures a Temporary Govt run by anyone but Corbyn will make it legitimate for him to say I would have got you No Deal whether he wanted it or not.

However If Corbyn runs the Govt for six weeks and looks Prime Ministerial and stops the dreaded No deal it could be a problem..

Nice to know that with 14m in Poverty...Social Housing crisis...Struggling schools struggling to buy books..

It's all a game to Claudius and his friends.

-------

https://www.606v2.com/viewtopic.forum?t=69021

by Sponsored content