BoJo loses again?
feck knows what we are going to do after 31 October, when Bercow retires.
feck knows what we are going to do after 31 October, when Bercow retires.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Take that you grease piglet.
The only reason they wanted this today was to cancel the extension request. Now onto tomorrow....
The only reason they wanted this today was to cancel the extension request. Now onto tomorrow....
John Bercow is an absolute boss! 
does he have to retire? Is it a personal choice, or do you have to leave after x yearsJohn Bercow is an absolute boss!
Bercow eviscerating Jenkins 
They change after a general election I believe or they can retire. They still have to be elected by the House though. I don't know how he does it but he's been awesome in that role.
He's a career diplomat. It's probably the pinnacle of his career no matter how difficult it is.
I thought he was staying up to the next election no?
The vast majority of deals that are in force are with wealthy first world nations with majority white (and South East Asian) populace. Onerous regulations are also designed to exclude poor countries who do not have the infrastructure to compete with countries inside the EU. Take a quick look at the Common Agricultural Policy if you're in doubt.
I didn't vote for Brexit for immigration purposes but believe free movement but only within a white country only block is again racist. Although as a democrat if the party in government had this in their manifesto and were voted in on this platform then I'd have to respect that.
I find support for the EU and equality of races to be a fundamentally inconsistent position.
Last edited:
Finneh I would love to know what you think Britain is going to do differently to combat these issues when they're outside the EU and going it alone. You think they'll prioritise these African countries over the richer nations? You think they'll increase immigration from these countries as opposed to countries where far more skilled workers would come from?
This is a country who largely voted to leave because of xenophobic reasons, and you think that by leaving, you are going to do better than the EU did at helping out the poorer nations? What sort of logic is that?
Don't get me wrong, it's an incredible twist, calling the EU racist and using that as your excuse for leaving. Bravo.
I love the post Bercow ruling points of order and he so eloquently slaps them down every time.
Some of these anti-Bercow MPs make Klopp seem like the world's most sporting loser.
Cheers mate.
I would hope to abolish all agricultural subsidies and have worldwide tariff free trade. Irrespective of the colour of your skin you should have the opportunity to sell your goods into the UK without prejudice. I don't believe Europeans have the right to enrich themselves at the expense of poorer people; however this viewpoint is naturally incompatible with EU membership.
Any political party that wanted to unilaterally extend freedom of trade, particularly with poor countries who're currently starved and impoverished by EU trade policy, would have my vote. I also never said I think this would be achieved by leaving the EU. However leaving the EU is a necessary first step.
As an aside I'd point to the UK 0.7% of GDP being guaranteed to foreign aid as an example that our country tends to be at the forefront (50% more than Germany, double France, triple Italy, quadruple Portugal etc)
Yeah that's a nice dream, but none of it will happen, and the UK won't be the ones doing it.
I'm still failing to see what the EU have done to these African nations, can you clarify? A few articles or something maybe? I'm not dismissing your opinion here and I don't disagree that European nations have a loooong history of fecking up African nations but I've genuinely never seen anything regarding the EU being discriminatory towards them so more info would be nice.
My argument is democratic not economic. I agree there are no economic benefits to leaving. I'm saying we should suck it up and do it, then change it when we don't like it. We don't re-run or overturn GE's because the wrong party won do we? For example I see total economic disaster if the current Labour party are given the chance to implement their policies. A lot of analysts including the City feel the same. So there is analytical evidence that a Labour government will lead to an economic hit on the country. If Labour won the election, the notion of the losers trying to overturn that vote on the basis of said economic analysis would be preposterous. The way would be to vote them out in 5 years, or earlier if those economic forecast were seen to be coming true. Why is that not the right way now?
Again I'm not saying it'll happen, but it's a necessary step to get closer to that ideal. If you're a communist then voting for Corbyn isn't going to achieve your ideal, but it would be a step towards it.
Not the best article (especially as I'm anti trade union) but I'm leaving work now so don't have hours to post better articles http://www.tuaeu.co.uk/how-the-eu-starves-africa/
It's not difficult to find information regarding EU protectionism and the effect it has on the third world. A good start is the Common Agriculture Policy.
It's been 3 years not 3 weeks. The determination of whether something has been given a chance isn't just whether it's been committed to or not but surely also whether it has been given due consideration?
The City favours Corbyn over Boris at least as reported by the FT.
We literally do overturn the results of GE if the wrong party has been elected by holding another election as you rightly point out.
I have spent over 30 years of my life trading with African countries importing and exporting to and from the EU and the rest of the world. You argue for tariff free trade and then quote an article which without knowing it actually argues the opposite.
But the wrong party were at least allowed to take office and given a chance to make their policies work.
Nearly five years on since Hague's ill-fated attempt to unseat Bercow at the eleventh hour and the speaker remains a thorn in the side the Conservatives.
Yes you are correct that Europe has a long history of taking from poor countries without giving back. The problem though is that Europe has also shown far more willingness than the UK to give back to former colonies.
Brexit isn't going to cause the Britian to reach out if you thought it would you would be very wrong. Xenophobia is literally the main reason this happened.
It's his wife's decision so yes he has to leave.
Honestly I’m sick that my future will be worse off because of a slim majority of people voting for an idiotic decision.
However if the government had been sensible & thought ‘ hmm ok so it was a very close vote, so let’s implement a soft brexit’ Such as a Norway model etc I’m sure that would have gone easily through Parliament & even I begrudgingly would have accepted it.
But I don’t accept some far right hard brexit wet dream for their own benefit which will make this country & it’s people (including 48% of those who voted totally against this & just get ignored when they say ‘Will of the people’ ) much worse off in every possible way.
Probably not. Any idea why that might be?
Actually although logically it should have - i dont actually think it would have
the opposition would have opposed because its a conservative deal
to get the ERG onside they would have had to make the deal more brexity...
logically it would seem the best solution though
You can't have a referendum and say the winners haven't won. If they cheated you need to prove that to be so. If you can't then that is it. Or we just tear up the democratic rule book.
What if remain had won and the Government had said 'ahh it's only an indicative vote, remain told lies about an economical crash, its not legally binding so we think we'll leave anyway'?
Doesn’t answer my question but yeah good to know you have a low opinion of Remain people and think of a referendum that has a massive impact on people’s lives as a case of winners and losers.
Nobody knew what it meant? I did and I don’t even live in the uk anymore. Of course some people knew. It’s all in deadlock as the government never thought people would vote yes. Had Cameron and co wanted it, it would have happened a long time ago.
What did it mean?
Enlighten us, what did it mean then ?
Tbf farage did say that he’d keep going until he got the result he wanted. It’s the biggest political decision of many people’s lives so it’s not unexpected that people will change their minds especially as they find out the full implications and lies away from the catchy sound bites
I think farrage actually said if its 52%-48% then its not over by a long way ... so yeah I don't think they would have stopped
Look I hate it as much as you and I too have skin in the game as far as my Company and it's staff are concerned. I wrote to my local MP detailing those concerns. However this has gone way too far. The precedents now being set (courts getting involved etc.) will have a lasting effect for your generation and beyond. I don't have a low opinion of Remain voters (I was one of them ffs). However, if you deploy the blunt instrument which is direct democracy then you have to implement the result if you ever envisage using that method to decide things again. In this case the softer the better but it has to be implemented in my view.
Well, again, that is completely not true.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2011/11/21/understanding-margin-error
The "WhatTheUKThinks" poll of polls seems to have been made up of
a YouGov Poll - 3,766 people
an IpsosMori poll - 1,592 people
A populous poll - 4,700 people
etc
A 10k person poll would give us a margin of error of around 1%
What happened here is NON RANDOM ERROR. This is systemic error within the polls. This is why reports were published after the failure to predict the 2015 result even with exit polls, and better models were created.
But isn’t it something like 10+ years before the UK could reapply again (and maybe not get accepted after the way they’ve behaved). Also you’d have to pay out a shit load more money to get in
for feck sake man, all you can find me is an article from a pro-leave website?They would have been seriously set back and there would not have been shed loads of MP's trawling parliamentary procedure to overturn it or a million marching in London. The result would have been largely accepted and Cameron would have succeeded in putting both the Scottish and EU questions to bed for a generation. Another referendum would have been a million miles away.