OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[swaledale]

They promised sovereignty, but at first it was unclear which variety of sovereignty they meant. Were the politicians who swore we would regain it when we left the European Union referring to parliamentary or popular sovereignty? Now we know they didn’t mean parliamentary sovereignty. Boris Johnson’s government has sought to trick, rush, ignore and prorogue parliament at every turn.

[swaledale]

The reason why Brexit has taken so long is because the Conservative party consistently ignored the nearly half of the country that voted to remain, and instead demanded the hardest Brexit terms. When Theresa May finally returned with a hard Brexit deal, Mr Johnson was one of many Tories who voted against it. Culpability for the Brexit delays lie squarely at the Tory party’s door.

[ramAnag]

So the Chancellor says a Halloween Brexit is cancelled while Johnson tells us it’s still possible but threatens to go ‘on strike’ if Parliament doesn’t agree to his call for a 12th December election!
You honestly couldn’t make it up. Is there no end to this insanity?

[Geoff Parkstone]

The reason why Brexit has taken so long is because the Conservative party consistently ignored the nearly half of the country that voted to remain, and instead demanded the hardest Brexit terms. When Theresa May finally returned with a hard Brexit deal, Mr Johnson was one of many Tories who voted against it. Culpability for the Brexit delays lie squarely at the Tory party’s door.

It is in the nature of 2 party politics to ignore the (usually more than) half of the country that voted against the party garnering the most delegates. Why are you surprised it happened re Brexit

[swaledale]

It is in the nature of 2 party politics to ignore the (usually more than) half of the country that voted against the party garnering the most delegates. Why are you surprised it happened re Brexit

I'm not surprised just pointing out that in this single issue, where even the Tory party is split nearly 50 50, the mindless gimps who aren't eurosceptics are still prepared to back a form of Brexit which for which there is no overwhelming mandate for it!

Actually the nature of two party politics, or it certainly has been over the last decade, does not ignore the other 50 - 60% who didn't vote for the winning party. That is because there is a more centrist view taken which actually sees policies and actions which do take account of overall citizens needs, in fact very often they have adopted policies put forward by the losing party, in an attempt to garner votes from them next time, or because they seem to be popular with voters In the case of New Labour you could argue they actually went further and adopted an approach which probably (and this is an opinion) encompassed most voters aspirations.

[swaledale]

That bloody awful and useless MP Liz Truss (the one that didn't realise when the WTO was set up!) and is our so called International Trade Secretary Liz Truss has said that MPs will not get to vote on post-Brexit trade deals, despite their potential impact on the future of the country.

Speaking to the International Trade Committee this morning, Truss was asked by Labour MP Owen Smith whether she will provide Parliament with a yes/no vote on future trade agreements.


However, Truss flatly rejected this idea, saying that international treaties are an “executive prerogative” (i.e. they are negotiated and approved by the government alone).

This would essentially mean that the Prime Minister and a small group of Cabinet ministers would be free to fundamentally restructure Britain’s economy, without asking for Parliament’s consent.

Reacting to Truss’s statement, trade expert David Henig was not too impressed with this idea. He tweeted: “If you should learn at least one thing about the last three years it would be that government cannot ignore Parliament in making international treaties, particularly those with wide public interest.”

If Truss gets her way, and if Parliament approves Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal, MPs will be granting the Prime Minister absolute control to shape Britain’s economy for decades.

[swaledale]

That bloody awful and useless MP Liz Truss (the one that didn't realise when the WTO was set up!) and is our so called International Trade Secretary has said that MPs will not get to vote on post-Brexit trade deals, despite their potential impact on the future of the country.

Speaking to the International Trade Committee this morning, Truss was asked by Labour MP Owen Smith whether she will provide Parliament with a yes/no vote on future trade agreements.


However, Truss flatly rejected this idea, saying that international treaties are an “executive prerogative” (i.e. they are negotiated and approved by the government alone).

This would essentially mean that the Prime Minister and a small group of Cabinet ministers would be free to fundamentally restructure Britain’s economy, without asking for Parliament’s consent.

Reacting to Truss’s statement, trade expert David Henig was not too impressed with this idea. He tweeted: “If you should learn at least one thing about the last three years it would be that government cannot ignore Parliament in making international treaties, particularly those with wide public interest.”

If Truss gets her way, and if Parliament approves Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal, MPs will be granting the Prime Minister absolute control to shape Britain’s economy for decades.

[MadAmster]

I saw a video on Youtube with the "such a ****er" heard comment when Bercow was putiing a Tory MP straight. The poster and the people who commented all seemed to think it was aimed at Bercow. I thought, and still do, that it was aimed at the MP (Swayne) who was being put straight.

My comment was "Has it occurred to nobody that the muttering MP made his comment at the point that Bercow mentioned "the right hon. member for [constituency name]", aka Swayne, and that it is highly likely the slight was aimed at Swayne, not Mr Speaker?"

One reply to me was "You can string a sentence together in English - you're probably a Remainer traitor"

[ramAnag]

I saw a video on Youtube with the "such a ****er" heard comment when Bercow was putiing a Tory MP straight. The poster and the people who commented all seemed to think it was aimed at Bercow. I thought, and still do, that it was aimed at the MP (Swayne) who was being put straight.

My comment was "Has it occurred to nobody that the muttering MP made his comment at the point that Bercow mentioned "the right hon. member for [constituency name]", aka Swayne, and that it is highly likely the slight was aimed at Swayne, not Mr Speaker?"

One reply to me was "You can string a sentence together in English - you're probably a Remainer traitor"

That’s what the atmosphere is like here at the moment MA.
I know Leavers got fed up with suggestions that they were thick and didn’t understand from some quarters but I am well and truly pissed off with the repeated accusations that Remainers are ‘traitors’ or ‘collaborators’.
It’s an accusation that originated from Johnson and his ERG supporters. Listening to them you’d think we were trying to make a deal with enemies rather than neighbours and allies.
I had a very respectful, polite and reasonable discussion with a Leave supporter a couple of days ago but generally the atmosphere surrounding Brexit in this country has been turned toxic.

[Andy_Faber]

I am well and truly pissed off with the repeated accusations that Remainers are ‘traitors’ or ‘collaborators’.

I agree that’s wrong, but what single word WOULD you use to describe someone who Perpetually refused to accept the result of a vote they freely entered Into and lost? The most appropriate one of course is ‘losers’ but that has connotations of its own. Serious question, and finding an answer to that may go some way towards healing the wounds.