Uk politics is in dissaray, is there anyone fit to lead the country?

a reply to: DISRAELI

Maybe something like "Forthwith I shall burn this place down!"

a reply to: Identified
Thank you for the translation. I can understand that version.

a reply to: eletheia

Two years?
Seriously if anyone in Parliament votes for that it should be automatic political suicide because that's just crazy to push back a democratic vote for 5 years!

What the hell are you all whining about, MPs not obeying a vote!!!! Can anyone tell me when EVER have MPs listened and voted for their constituents? The words NEVER, NEVER and NEVER comes to mind. And nothings changed.
Boris is acting like a dictator and if given the chance would be one.
Yes, let's all vote for the Brexit party and when we have Brexit what then? What do they stand for? What's their agenda after Brexit?
Every 4 years we get a vote on who rules us, MPs. So it's 3 years since a Brexit vote, let's have another one now and see how that goes. People are allowed to change their minds. Or is it all you Brexiteers keep shouting "but we've had one vote and it was a majority so obey the people" BS. Afraid are you of another vote and find out the people now realise they were lied to and vote differently?

originally posted by: crayzeed
Brexiteers keep shouting "but we've had one vote and it was a majority so obey the people" BS.

Have the people been obeyed? Has the result of the vote been implemented -NO.

Whats the point of having another vote? Why would they honour that when they

haven't honoured the first one?

Afraid are you of another vote and find out the people now realise they were lied to and vote differently?

Not at all...... but the principal of a second is you need to have had the first.

Personally I believe the leave vote would be greater on a second vote .......

But as a principal a second comes after a first.

a reply to: crayzeed

Elections have consequences. People are whining now because they lost or didn't vote at all.

Too bad, so sad. You don't get to keep having revotes until one side gives in. That is not how a democratic vote works.

Accept it and deal with it; not everything will always be to your choosing, that's not how life works.

a reply to: crayzeed

What the hell are you all whining about, MPs not obeying a vote!!!! Can anyone tell me when EVER have MPs listened and voted for their constituents?

They listened when we voted to join the European Economic Community in 1973 so they should listen when we vote to leave the European Superstate.

a reply to: Masterjaden

Really? So fracking has nothing to do with 'the town that caught Tourette's ' or the recent quakes that yet again have happened around the site when Cuadrilla has been fracking or the fact that fracking uses up huge amounts of fresh water which are then contamination with with chemicals and are then pumped at pressure back into the ground where they can then contaminate the other fresh water pockets or the methane gas or othe flammable substances that end up in local water supplies to the point of it being able to be set on fire? Don't see ANY of that in the mms. Check Ian R Crane videos and other ones from the USA or Australia on the effects fracking has had on the local environment and the health of the people not to mention that insurance companies have refused house insurance for houses in a fracking area. You might be a drilling engineer, but that doesn't mean you know the harm that fracking causes, you might only know what your company is telling you.

a reply to: 83Liberty
if i lived in the uk he'd get my vote for sure

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: djz3ro
Last weekend, Gove refused to rule out disobedience. "Will you obey the legislation?" "Let's see what it says". It's the line Boris would have to take to retain any credibility, and I think he's the kind of person who would do it. Is there actually any penalty incorporated into the bill?

An update. According to latest reports (mine came from aol with my e-mails), Boris has already wriiten to Conservative M.P.'s telling them he won't ask for an extension whatever the law says. I would have delayed that message for a couple of days, though they should have seen it coming anyway.

He could go to jail for ignoring this, what an interesting [yet scary] time in U.K Politics...

a reply to: djz3ro
Has that penalty been included in the bill?
In any case, Brexit could be a fait accompli by the time they managed to arrange that, in which case it would do them no good.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: djz3ro
Has that penalty been included in the bill?
In any case, Brexit could be a fait accompli by the time they managed to arrange that, in which case it would do them no good.

I believe the legal argument is that the court would order him to request the extension in line with the law and if Boris refused it would be contempt.

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: djz3ro
Last weekend, Gove refused to rule out disobedience. "Will you obey the legislation?" "Let's see what it says". It's the line Boris would have to take to retain any credibility, and I think he's the kind of person who would do it. Is there actually any penalty incorporated into the bill?

An update. According to latest reports (mine came from aol with my e-mails), Boris has already wriiten to Conservative M.P.'s telling them he won't ask for an extension whatever the law says. I would have delayed that message for a couple of days, though they should have seen it coming anyway.

He could go to jail for ignoring this, what an interesting [yet scary] time in U.K Politics...

...unless there is a deal being done and acceptable to all sides.....OR as it will/has become a legal issue...Article 50 clearly says that a deal before we leave is NOT required....therefore no extension required....I am no lawyer, but that's the way I see it.

Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: angelchemuel

On the previous page I explained to you what a Demarchy is, you can also look it up for a more detailed explanation. Would you care to add your thoughts about it now or are you still going to try and claim it’s like how the EU is run?

I find it odd that people moan so much about the current system but when an alternative is presented it is just ignored. Hmm..

originally posted by: angelchemuel

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: djz3ro
Last weekend, Gove refused to rule out disobedience. "Will you obey the legislation?" "Let's see what it says". It's the line Boris would have to take to retain any credibility, and I think he's the kind of person who would do it. Is there actually any penalty incorporated into the bill?

An update. According to latest reports (mine came from aol with my e-mails), Boris has already wriiten to Conservative M.P.'s telling them he won't ask for an extension whatever the law says. I would have delayed that message for a couple of days, though they should have seen it coming anyway.

He could go to jail for ignoring this, what an interesting [yet scary] time in U.K Politics...

...unless there is a deal being done and acceptable to all sides.....OR as it will/has become a legal issue...Article 50 clearly says that a deal before we leave is NOT required....therefore no extension required....I am no lawyer, but that's the way I see it.

Rainbows
Jane

There seems to be so much misunderstanding about this. Article 50 is not the legislation but rather the mechanism by which we leave, the relevant legislation is the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 which gave authority to the then PM, May, to submit a article 50 declaration to the EU stating that we would be leaving the EU. This was done under Article 50 section 2 of the Treaty on European Union.

Then there is also the European Union (withdrawal) Act of 2018 which basically says that the government must seek parliamentary approval before any agreement on withdrawal between the UK and EU is reached and deals with the separation of EU and UK law. In the UK Parliament is sovereign therefore has the final say on matters such as this, to facilitate this the section 13 of the act includes a clause regrading parliamentary meaningful votes which allow for the tabling of amendable motions in the house of commons in relations to the act. This act also defines exit day, it supersedes the aforementioned European Union (Notification of withdrawal) Act 2017. What's been happening is that parliament is blocking no deal by tabling amendable motions under this act to change the date. This is what happened under the Cooper-Letwin bill where they used this to facilitate passing a new law requiring the then PM to request an extension.

They have just done it again with the passing of the Benn Bill which again requires the PM to legally request extension if no deal is agreed upon by both the Government, the EU and the UK parliament by October 19 2019. Under this legislation then actually, yes a deal is required contrary to what you might believe. It is now a legal requirement that should the UK not have a deal in place with the EU by the 19th of October then legally the PM must request an extension. It doesn't really matter what the article 50 declaration stipulates is exit day, exit day is defined under the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the Benn bill legally amends this law. Basically these two bills are laws which amend the EU withdraw act 2018 to change exit day. Confused yet?

I totally understand that this is a total mind # and is extremely complex but the up shot of it that you need to takeaway is this; When you say that article 50 doesn't say anything about you are correct however that doesn't matter because subsequent legislation has made it a legal requirement that to exit the EU the UK must have a agreed deal by the 19th of October otherwise Boris has to request an extension.

Should he fail to do this then MPs would take him to court, given that the law had royal accent (or will have come Monday) then the courts will have no other legal option but to order the PM to head off to request the extension, if he refuses to obey the ruling of the courts then he would be in contempt of court.

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: djz3ro
Last weekend, Gove refused to rule out disobedience. "Will you obey the legislation?" "Let's see what it says". It's the line Boris would have to take to retain any credibility, and I think he's the kind of person who would do it. Is there actually any penalty incorporated into the bill?

An update. According to latest reports (mine came from aol with my e-mails), Boris has already wriiten to Conservative M.P.'s telling them he won't ask for an extension whatever the law says. I would have delayed that message for a couple of days, though they should have seen it coming anyway.

He could go to jail for ignoring this, what an interesting [yet scary] time in U.K Politics...

as I have mentioned above, MPs would take him to court, assuming that the bill receives royal assent it would leave no other option but for the courts to order him to go to the EU requesting an extension should he refuse to do this he would then be technically in contempt of court for failing to obey a lawful court order.

Its #ing crazy but possible.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
The thought has just occurred to me; if, on the relevant date, he refuses to announce whether he has asked for an extension or not, it might take some time to prove that he hasn't. Subpoena the EU's negotiator? And the clock ticks down...

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
The thought has just occurred to me; if, on the relavnt date, he refuses to announce whether he has asked for an extension or not, it might take some time to prove that he hasn't. Subpoena the EU's negotiator? And the clock ticks down...

It would have to be a mater of public record that he has requested it I would imagine. Back in April when this happened the letter requesting the extension was on the public record and I cannot see any reason why this would be any different.

So if he refuses to publicly acknowledge the extension then that would trigger the MPs to start court proceedings, the government would then need to provide proof the they have requested the extension and if they were to fail to do so then he, as the head of the government would be ordered by the court to ask for the extension and if he refused.....it gets ugly.

Its a very interesting legal predicament they find themselves in now given that today a member of the government basically said they were prepared to stretch the law to its limits.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
All that I can add is this;
We know that he knows that he loses all credibility if he doesn't go for broke.
Therefore we have to calculate that he will go for broke.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
So if he refuses to publicly acknowledge the extension then that would trigger the MPs to start court proceedings,

The politics here are very poor. The opposition who are refusing to call a general election are trying to force the PM to do something he has said he won't. Even with an extension, what do they think they will get? Parliament has failed to agree anything in three years. We are in the politics of vindictiveness, with the national good being side-lined. Very poor behaviour from the opposition parties.