Brexit Begins

[RandBlade]

"Fascist far right rhetoric"? What absolute claptrap!

What is fascist or far right for accurately nicknaming the Surrender Act which is a disgraceful bill passed by a bunch of cowards and charlatans who refuse to implement Brexit or respect democracy or take control of Downing Street or face the voters even, which quite literally forces the PM to surrender all executive authority and accept ANY decision the EU Council makes with us outside the room?

You talk about "No Deal" but we've had the spectacle of Lib Dem MEPs writing to EU leaders begging that they refuse to give a deal to the UK in order to try and revoke Brexit. A party that now wants to revoke Brexit without a second referendum isn't about preventing No Deal at all, they want there to be No Deal.

[gogobongopop]

The Benn Bill is a Surrender Act, that is exactly what it is. It literally meets the definition of surrender.

No. You're missing the point.

It's not about whether the term could technically be argued as being accurate or not. It's about its context and connotations.

Leaders must choose their language carefully and considerately.

The term "surrender" for, I would wager the vast majority of people all over the world, implies images of war, and submitting to an enemy.

Surely you can recognise this? Surely you can understand why language like that would invoke a negative response? We have a rich and vibrant language, and any decent statesman not peddling the "enemy" strategy would use language that unites, not divides us.

But this doesn't seem to matter to you. You don't seem to care if people get upset, anxious or offended by the manner in which our leaders behave.

[RandBlade]

The EU are the opposite side in this divorce. They are making their decisions with us outside the room and this Act literally says the PM must accept whatever it is the EU decides with us out of the room.

Provocative nicknames that strike a chord are not a Trumpism they are long established a part and parcel of British politics and have been for decades - see the "dementia tax" [which was neither a tax, nor a tax on dementia] designed to scare people, or the "bedroom tax" [also neither a tax, nor a tax on bedrooms] or "death tax" as examples. These nicknames were coined to make people upset, anxious or offended. The surrender act is far more literally accurate than any of those.

These cries of losers seeking to obstruct Brexit to "unite" is disingenuous bullshit. There is nothing to unite us until Brexit is implemented. If MPs respect democracy, implement Brexit, then campaign to rejoin that could bring us back together. Trying to tell the majority of the voters in this country they got us wrong is not uniting.

And no I don't care if people get upset, anxious or offended. That is politics. People have always got upset, anxious or offended. It has been deliberate techniques for as long as I've been alive to try and get people upset, anxious or offended.

[Loki]

"Fascist far right rhetoric"? What absolute claptrap!

What is fascist or far right for accurately nicknaming the Surrender Act which is a disgraceful bill passed by a bunch of cowards and charlatans who refuse to implement Brexit or respect democracy or take control of Downing Street or face the voters even, which quite literally forces the PM to surrender all executive authority and accept ANY decision the EU Council makes with us outside the room?

You talk about "No Deal" but we've had the spectacle of Lib Dem MEPs writing to EU leaders begging that they refuse to give a deal to the UK in order to try and revoke Brexit. A party that now wants to revoke Brexit without a second referendum isn't about preventing No Deal at all, they want there to be No Deal.

Not Trumpist at all.

[Timbuk2]

Boris loses yet again.

Oh dear.

[gogobongopop]

The EU are the opposite side in this divorce. They are making their decisions with us outside the room and this Act literally says the PM must accept whatever it is the EU decides with us out of the room.

I'm not disagreeing with that. Again, that's not my point.

Provocative nicknames that strike a chord are not a Trumpism

I never said they were.

they are long established a part and parcel of British politics and have been for decades - see the "dementia tax" [which was neither a tax, nor a tax on dementia] designed to scare people, or the "bedroom tax" [also neither a tax, nor a tax on bedrooms] or "death tax" as examples. These nicknames were coined to make people upset, anxious or offended. The surrender act is far more literally accurate than any of those.

Neither of those examples are comparable with the use of the term "surrender"; especially in the current "war/enemy/traitor" climate created and carefully nurtured by certain newspapers (e.g. Express), political bodies (e.g. Leave.eu), certain MPs (e.g. Mark Francois), where MPs have been recently murdered for not "putting the country first", and where MPs continue to receive regular death threats.

Language cannot be just used in a vacuum. Our leader's choice of words must be considered within the context of the public and societal climate. It's basic leadership. It's basic decency.

These cries of losers seeking to obstruct Brexit to "unite" is disingenuous bullshit. There is nothing to unite us until Brexit is implemented. If MPs respect democracy, implement Brexit, then campaign to rejoin that could bring us back together. Trying to tell the majority of the voters in this country they got us wrong is not uniting.

I disagree, and consider that to be an attitude of somebody who should never attempt to lead a group of people. It's perfectly reasonable and possible to unite the country now. It just takes strong, decent and compassionate leadership with an ability to analyse, collaborate and empathise. Something we haven't yet had during this turmoil.

And which MPs, in particular are not "respecting" democracy? All of them? Just some? Maybe those that voted to trigger A50 but voted against the WA? And what do you mean by "respecting"? Do you even know or are you just falling more and more for the "parliament are the enemy" line?

And no I don't care if people get upset, anxious or offended. That is politics. People have always got upset, anxious or offended. It has been deliberate techniques for as long as I've been alive to try and get people upset, anxious or offended.

I phrased this badly. I don't expect you to personally care, no. But I do expect you to care if our PM is intentionally trying to upset and offend people.

[RandBlade]

Not Trumpist at all.

Absolutely not I agree.

[RandBlade]

Neither of those examples are comparable with the use of the term "surrender"; especially in the current "war/enemy/traitor" climate created and carefully nurtured by certain newspapers (e.g. Express), political bodies (e.g. Leave.eu), certain MPs (e.g. Mark Francois), where MPs have been recently murdered for not "putting the country first", and where MPs continue to receive regular death threats.

If MPs don't want terms like surrender to be used, maybe they shouldn't demand the executive quite literally surrender its authority? That would be a start.

That's like saying that because people are agitated about global warming, that opponents of taking action demand we stop using words like "pollution". Its absurd!

Language cannot be just used in a vacuum. Our leader's choice of words must be considered within the context of the public and societal climate. It's basic leadership. It's basic decency.

Absolutely agreed.

I disagree, and consider that to be an attitude of somebody who should never attempt to lead a group of people. It's perfectly reasonable and possible to unite the country now. It just takes strong, decent and compassionate leadership with an ability to analyse, collaborate and empathise. Something we haven't yet had during this turmoil.

How? How exactly do you propose a strong leader can unite the country when the majority has voted to leave the EU and a majority of Parliament is obstructing it.

And which MPs, in particular are not "respecting" democracy? All of them? Just some? Maybe those that voted to trigger A50 but voted against the WA? And what do you mean by "respecting"? Do you even know or are you just falling more and more for the "parliament are the enemy" line?

Everyone who voted to extend Article 50. Especially everyone who has voted both against the deal and to extend.

I phrased this badly. I don't expect you to personally care, no. But I do expect you to care if our PM is intentionally trying to upset and offend people.

I expect politicians to upset and offend their opponents. Its been the case all my lifetime and for decades prior I expect nothing different.

But you are getting cause and effect wrong. What is upsetting people isn't the Surrender Act being called the Surrender Act. What is upsetting people is MPs in Parliament obstructing Brexit and passing the Surrender Act. To paraphrase the bard, a thorn by any other name would still sting.

What is upsetting the opposition MPs is not that words like Surrender are being used, it is that they realise that accurately describing what they are doing as such cuts through to the public in a way that can be easily understood. They're worried the public could side with and vote for Boris, that's all they give a shit about.

[gogobongopop]

If MPs don't want terms like surrender to be used, maybe they shouldn't demand the executive quite literally surrender its authority? That would be a start.

That's like saying that because people are agitated about global warming, that opponents of taking action demand we stop using words like "pollution". Its absurd!

Your example is absurd. You again seem unable to grasp my point.

How? How exactly do you propose a strong leader can unite the country when the majority has voted to leave the EU and a majority of Parliament is obstructing it.

The basic underlying problem is that Boris has no credibility. He's not trusted and demonstrates on a daily basis that he knows very little about, well, anything and it's a problem entirely of his own making.

From day one, his strategy of attacking MPs and blaming parliament has caused a problem and its his fault that parliament was forced to act to block a no deal. They've done it because they see no evidence and/or do not trust Johnson to really try for a deal. He's got no plan and no ideas. He doesn't know how to solve the Irish border problem and I imagine most believe he hasn't even read the WA, let alone really understand what issues prevented it from being voted down. He's not working collaboratively and has alienated the very people he needs to be working work and bring on board.

Parliament were right to stop him. He needs to be working much harder on a deal and he needs to bring that back to parliament.

If Johnson's strategy was one of cross party collaboration to ascertain how the WA should be changed, and then really showing he was working hard for a deal that could be brought back for a vote - we'd never be in this position. If he'd made that effort, and either parliament felt the deal wasn't right or the EU refused to budge, then I'm confident we would leave on a no deal. But he didn't do that. He acted like a child; consistently showed his ignorance on the subject and played the "us vs them" card to try and portray himself as the hero of the people.

That's just my view. There's a million other ways that Johnson could have played this; but he literally chose the worst.

Everyone who voted to extend Article 50. Especially everyone who has voted both against the deal and to extend.

I've explained why it's Johnson you should be angry at; not those MPs who have helped prevent us leave on a no deal whilst there's still opportunity for us to exit with a deal.

I expect politicians to upset and offend their opponents. Its been the case all my lifetime and for decades prior I expect nothing different.

I don't disagree with this, but again that wasn't my point.

But you are getting cause and effect wrong. What is upsetting people isn't the Surrender Act being called the Surrender Act. What is upsetting people is MPs in Parliament obstructing Brexit and passing the Surrender Act. To paraphrase the bard, a thorn by any other name would still sting.

What is upsetting the opposition MPs is not that words like Surrender are being used, it is that they realise that accurately describing what they are doing as such cuts through to the public in a way that can be easily understood. They're worried the public could side with and vote for Boris, that's all they give a shit about.

Please don't pretend you can tell me what "the people" want or how they feel. It's incredibly arrogant. You can't even tell me what Brexit voters voted for in terms of what outcome they wanted beyond leaving the EU.

Twitter Link

[RandBlade]

Your example is absurd. You again seem unable to grasp my point.

I grasp your point. I disagree with it.

The basic underlying problem is that Boris has no credibility. He's not trusted and demonstrates on a daily basis that he knows very little about, well, anything and it's a problem entirely of his own making.

From day one, his strategy of attacking MPs and blaming parliament has caused a problem and its his fault that parliament was forced to act to block a no deal. They've done it because they see no evidence and/or do not trust Johnson to really try for a deal. He's got no plan and no ideas. He doesn't know how to solve the Irish border problem and I imagine most believe he hasn't even read the WA, let alone really understand what issues prevented it from being voted down. He's not working collaboratively and has alienated the very people he needs to be working work and bring on board.

His strategy of attacking MPs and blaming Parliament is entirely appropriate because this Parliament is a shambolic mess and it will take winning an election to clear it up. It is utter codswallop to say it is his fault that Parliament "was forced to act", they acted how they wanted as they have all year. Parliament has all year collectively been acting like immature children saying "I don't want that, I don't want that" without agreeing anything. It is a mess. They didn't just reject May's deal, or Boris's plans, they've rejected Corbyn's plans and the Lib Dems plans. They had indicative votes to decide what they could back and the answer was nothing. They rejected everything. Before Boris was elected.

Boris was elected to clean up the mess, he didn't create it.

As for "the very people he needs to bring on board" - who is that exactly? Dominic Grieve? Jeremy Corbyn? Jo Swinson? Nicola Sturgeon? You think any of them will ever get on board with Boris Johnson? The people he needs to get on board are the voters at the election.

He needs to be working much harder on a deal and he needs to bring that back to parliament.

He can't get a deal when Parliament has cut him off at the knee. Parliament could have acted after the European Council meeting when there was still another fortnight to go before Brexit.

If Johnson's strategy was one of cross party collaboration to ascertain how the WA should be changed, and then really showing he was working hard for a deal that could be brought back for a vote - we'd never be in this position. If he'd made that effort, and either parliament felt the deal wasn't right or the EU refused to budge, then I'm confident we would leave on a no deal. But he didn't do that. He acted like a child; consistently showed his ignorance on the subject and played the "us vs them" card to try and portray himself as the hero of the people.

"Cross party collaboration" you must be joking! Why not ask Santa Claus for a deal? May tried collaboration with Corbyn, she brought back a ludicrously soft deal that was everything the EU wanted, soft enough that even Ken Clarke liked it and Brexiteers found it a betrayal - and Parliament still rejected it out of hand and everything else.

That's just my view. There's a million other ways that Johnson could have played this; but he literally chose the worst.

No he chose the only one that didn't involve unicorns and pixie dust.

I've explained why it's Johnson you should be angry at; not those MPs who have helped prevent us leave on a no deal whilst there's still opportunity for us to exit with a deal.

There isn't, because those MPs opposite will never back any deal a Tory PM comes up with. Not even May's betrayal. Not even any indicative vote.

Please don't pretend you can tell me what "the people" want or how they feel. It's incredibly arrogant. You can't even tell me what Brexit voters voted for in terms of what outcome they wanted beyond leaving the EU.

Twitter Link

You think that shows some great insight? About what?

Everyone claims they want a better tone, everyone says they want an "end to punch and judy politics" and that's been the case for so long its ridiculous. But they also mean they want other people to change. Their opponents to be nicer. In this thread I've routinely been called aggressive names even vile slurs like racist which couldn't be further from the truth and had ill will wished upon me just because I voted with the majority of this country.

[gogobongopop]

His strategy of attacking MPs and blaming Parliament is entirely appropriate because this Parliament is a shambolic mess and it will take winning an election to clear it up. It is utter codswallop to say it is his fault that Parliament "was forced to act", they acted how they wanted as they have all year. Parliament has all year collectively been acting like immature children saying "I don't want that, I don't want that" without agreeing anything. It is a mess. They didn't just reject May's deal, or Boris's plans, they've rejected Corbyn's plans and the Lib Dems plans. They had indicative votes to decide what they could back and the answer was nothing. They rejected everything. Before Boris was elected.

Boris was elected to clean up the mess, he didn't create it.

Oh, he created it all right. He created the mess when he led the campaign to leave the EU without having a shred of a plan, strategy of vision about how to successfully implement it. I imagine his time and focus was more concentrated on how to get into No. 10.

It's a mess, but it was always going to be a mess. It's the most complex thing any nation has ever undertaken, for which the final destination is unknown. We can leave the road - but nobody knows whether we're supposed to be leaving at the next junction, the services, the hard shoulder or to just veer off into a field. When you decided to vote for Brexit, and when parliament foolishly decided to trigger A50 so soon, all without a plan, you set the wheels in motion for a long, painful and complex period of parliamentary procedure and scrutiny and to expect a process like this to be done in a few years is naive. It's going exactly as I predicted: we have no plan and therefor we cannot collectively agree on a way forward. The root of this problem is firmly at Johnson's feet, as leader of the official Leave campaign.

This just literally just the beginning of decades of costly and tiresome proceedings, and will set the tone for the future of this venture. We have a choice: either we work together or we don't. What worries me is that we have a PM who has defaulted to a strategy of not wanting to work together, without even trying; and not only that - but attempting to demonise and blame parliament for his failure to lead. And what worries me more is that people, like your good self, who seem comfortable with it.

And you defend his strategy - but it's not exactly working is it? He's lost every vote and the fragile majority he had. He's a complete failure.

As for "the very people he needs to bring on board" - who is that exactly? Dominic Grieve? Jeremy Corbyn? Jo Swinson? Nicola Sturgeon? You think any of them will ever get on board with Boris Johnson? The people he needs to get on board are the voters at the election.

I can see why you might think that. Given that Johnson has no credibility and his colleagues and political opponents don't like or trust him, who would agree to collaborate with him? That's a possibility but it's unlikely in my view. We don't know though do we - because he hasn't taken that strategy.

He can't get a deal when Parliament has cut him off at the knee. Parliament could have acted after the European Council meeting when there was still another fortnight to go before Brexit.
"Cross party collaboration" you must be joking! Why not ask Santa Claus for a deal? May tried collaboration with Corbyn, she brought back a ludicrously soft deal that was everything the EU wanted, soft enough that even Ken Clarke liked it and Brexiteers found it a betrayal - and Parliament still rejected it out of hand and everything else.
No he chose the only one that didn't involve unicorns and pixie dust.
There isn't, because those MPs opposite will never back any deal a Tory PM comes up with. Not even May's betrayal. Not even any indicative vote.

Well I disagree with all of this; but I find it interesting. You're just "doom saying". You're being far too pessimistic. You need to change your attitude and be more positive, like our PM. He thinks he can get a deal and bring it back; perhaps you should as well - or are you being a traitor for not believing in the great Boris Johnson?

Needing no-deal on the table to get a deal that works for everyone is one of the biggest myths peddled in this entire affair.

You think that shows some great insight?

No; I didn't say it did.

About what?

I just thought it was a cute and timely rebuttal to you claiming to know what the "people" want and how they feel.

Everyone claims they want a better tone, everyone says they want an "end to punch and judy politics" and that's been the case for so long its ridiculous. But they also mean they want other people to change. Their opponents to be nicer. In this thread I've routinely been called aggressive names even vile slurs like racist which couldn't be further from the truth and had ill will wished upon me just because I voted with the majority of this country.

I know - I think some of the attacks on you are unjustified, and I've been rude to you at times unnecessarily as well, for which I'll apologise for. Sometimes I don't think you do yourself any favors, by saying things like you don't care if you upset or offend people, or often showing a lack of empathy; but I agree with the sentiment here. Forum anonymity can often be a barrier to courteous behaviour.

But this isn't about us. It's about the standards and tone we expect from the leader of our great nation; a responsibility I fear Mr Johnson is completely unfit for. He has neither the smarts or the emotional intelligence for even a parliamentary position (IMO), let alone PM. Being strong in one can sometimes be enough, but he's not that fortunate.

[Aimless]

Creepy little thieves:

Twitter Link

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...b0ac3cddaa1d91

Brazenly steal someone else's property, runs off with it, refuses to return it until the police intervene, at which point they attempt to evade accountability by paying them a few pounds. Is that how the law works for Tories in Little England?

[RandBlade]

Stealing is never acceptable. No excuses.

Smith told the Gedling Eye: “I saw and removed what I believed were a couple of EU flags left abandoned from a protest.


“When we were told they belonged to someone I gave them back and they were given a small sum in recompense.

Placards and flags are frequently littered around and left, if that's what he genuinely thought it was then removing litter isn't a crime. I'm skeptical about that though.

[RandBlade]

No. You're missing the point.

It's not about whether the term could technically be argued as being accurate or not. It's about its context and connotations.

Leaders must choose their language carefully and considerately.

The term "surrender" for, I would wager the vast majority of people all over the world, implies images of war, and submitting to an enemy.

Surely you can recognise this? Surely you can understand why language like that would invoke a negative response? We have a rich and vibrant language, and any decent statesman not peddling the "enemy" strategy would use language that unites, not divides us.

But this doesn't seem to matter to you. You don't seem to care if people get upset, anxious or offended by the manner in which our leaders behave.

Funny how "surrender" to you is only about war, I really hope for your sake you're not a Spurs fan as the media are all using words like surrender to describe Spurs conceding seven goals at home!

Though its far from the first time Spurs have surrendered. If you Google for 'Spurs surrender' it brings up roughly a million hits. Who knew they were so involved in war?

[Aimless]

No Lewkblade, from context it's clear that the appropriate comparison for the govt's rhetoric is with war rather than with sports.

[RandBlade]

No Lewkblade, from context it's clear that the appropriate comparison for the govt's rhetoric is with war rather than with sports.

No, the word is a perfectly standard word used in every day context and doesn't mean war.

[Aimless]

No, the word is a perfectly standard word used in every day context and doesn't mean war.

No Lewkblade, the rhetorical context in which these remarks were made is not an "everyday context", nor was it a sports context.

[RandBlade]

No Lewkblade, the rhetorical context in which these remarks were made is not an "everyday context", nor was it a sports context.

Nor a war context.

[gogobongopop]

Funny how "surrender" to you is only about war, I really hope for your sake you're not a Spurs fan as the media are all using words like surrender to describe Spurs conceding seven goals at home!

Though its far from the first time Spurs have surrendered. If you Google for 'Spurs surrender' it brings up roughly a million hits. Who knew they were so involved in war?

I didn't say it was "only about war" to me.

I'm saying that it's not an appropriate term when you factor in the context, climate and political strategy adopted by No. 10.

Had I not already made that clear to you?

[RandBlade]

I didn't say it was "only about war" to me.

I'm saying that it's not an appropriate term when you factor in the context, climate and political strategy adopted by No. 10.

Had I not already made that clear to you?

You said it was about war, that it was a war term. These were your exact words: "The term "surrender" for, I would wager the vast majority of people all over the world, implies images of war, and submitting to an enemy." That is not what the word implies. There were no bombs going off at the Tottenham Hotspur stadium last night, but they did surrender and the word was used because the word doesn't mean war.

The word was both figuratively and literally accurate. It is a bizarre form of Newspeak to criticise words that are literally accurate.

As for the context, climate and political strategy - what is that in your eyes? The context and climate is one where the country was asked to make its mind up, we had a long debate with many warnings, then we made a considered decision. Years later that decision still hasn't been implemented and there is genuine anger and frustration and a sense of betrayal about that. What is the point of asking us to vote, what is the point of politics and democracy, if what we vote for gets ignored?

That is the context and climate. The political strategy from Boris is an entirely considered, rational and reasonable one: he is against betraying the voters, he is in favour of implementing what we democratically chose to do and if the voters get betrayed again, he wants to get Brexit done and if there is yet another extension forced by MPs he wants to make it clear he did everything possible to prevent that and does not agree with it. Entirely reasonable.

[Aimless]

Nor a war context.

Contextually, the Brexiter rhetoric is (and has been throughout this comedy of unforced errors) more akin to the rhetoric of war against a dangerous and hated enemy than it is to sports or anything more mundane. Constant comparisons to enemies such as the USSR, references to WWII which cast the EU as the foreign enemy, the rhetoric about traitors evoking a globalist fifth column "enemy within" more loyal to Brussels than to Little England, the rhetoric of expediency over the rule of law that portrays judges as traitors, fascistoid "will of the people" rhetoric, etc. Nothing about this context can be described as "everyday" except from the perspective of an authoritarian derphead that views the war-framing as normal and has grown inured to the increasingly aggressive discourse that has fired up far-right extremists in England. I do not hold your ability to understand context in particularly high regard; what little regard I had for your ability to function as a thinking person has been almost completely eroded away by successive shameful incidents of the "Irish accents" and "Lol what Islamophobia? 0" variety. So, when you say you can't see why some particular conduct is problematic, it's almost as if we can safely assume that the conduct in question is probably even more reprehensible than we previously believed it to be. Hence: Lewkblade.

[gogobongopop]

You said it was about war, that it was a war term. These were your exact words: "The term "surrender" for, I would wager the vast majority of people all over the world, implies images of war, and submitting to an enemy." That is not what the word implies. There were no bombs going off at the Tottenham Hotspur stadium last night, but they did surrender and the word was used because the word doesn't mean war.

The word was both figuratively and literally accurate. It is a bizarre form of Newspeak to criticise words that are literally accurate.

As for the context, climate and political strategy - what is that in your eyes? The context and climate is one where the country was asked to make its mind up, we had a long debate with many warnings, then we made a considered decision. Years later that decision still hasn't been implemented and there is genuine anger and frustration and a sense of betrayal about that. What is the point of asking us to vote, what is the point of politics and democracy, if what we vote for gets ignored?

That is the context and climate. The political strategy from Boris is an entirely considered, rational and reasonable one: he is against betraying the voters, he is in favour of implementing what we democratically chose to do and if the voters get betrayed again, he wants to get Brexit done and if there is yet another extension forced by MPs he wants to make it clear he did everything possible to prevent that and does not agree with it. Entirely reasonable.

Yes, so I didn't say it was "only" about war.

You've already said you agree with this:

Language cannot be just used in a vacuum. Our leader's choice of words must be considered within the context of the public and societal climate. It's basic leadership. It's basic decency.

If you agree with that, don't twist my words.

And I've already explained what I think the climate is.

[RandBlade]

Yes, so I didn't say it was "only" about war.

You've already said you agree with this:



If you agree with that, don't twist my words.

And I've already explained what I think the climate is.

You're welcome to say what you think the climate is. Others are welcome to disagree.

The best way to resolve the current climate is to get Brexit done then we can move on with the referendum and democracy having been respected. If afterwards you don't like Brexit you can campaign to rejoin. The problem is those in Parliament who wish to betray what we voted for by voting against a deal, voting against no deal and voting to extend.

[RandBlade]

The government's put forward its proposals to replace the backstop, seem like a reasonable compromise that deals with the democratic abomination that was the old system and respects democracy on an ongoing basis. Hopefully it can be the basis to get a rational compromise and move forwards but I'm not holding my breath.

[gogobongopop]

You're welcome to say what you think the climate is. Others are welcome to disagree.

I'm well aware of that, thank you.

The best way to resolve the current climate is to get Brexit done

I disagree. The best way to resolve the current climate is for our politicians to start behaving as role models, the media to stop exaggerating rhetoric, and journalists to start doing a better job at scrutinising bullshit.

The problem is those in Parliament who wish to betray what we voted for by voting against a deal, voting against no deal and voting to extend.

The -problem- in Parliament is a lack of leadership. With no vision of where we want this country to go, Parliament will never agree on anything.

[Aimless]

Twitter Link

lol

[RandBlade]

Quite right

[Hazir]

Do you see anyone giving a damn? The proposal is dead and can be buried.

[RandBlade]

I hope not, you're not going to get a better deal. The undemocratic backstop is dead and buried.

[Aimless]

Quite right

Settle down Lewkblade