SeaBreezes wrote: » Meanwhile back in the real world and saner politics our own Taoiseach is out there making friends a drumming up business. I suppose it's no co-incidence it coincided with Boris's visit to the US..https://www.thejournal.ie/leo-varadkar-jimmy-fallon-4825376-Sep2019/
Forty Seven wrote: » What was appalling about it? He said the best thing would be to finish brexit. What's appalling about that? He has always had the same position. Is he supposed to change it because someone attempts to tie a name painted in emotion onto it?
Deleted User wrote: » Fourtyseven, i find it crazy that anyway can defend Johnson's performance last night, especially at the disrespect shown to Jo Cox's memory. She was an ardent remainder slayed by an English right wing thug. To say the best way to honour her is to get Brexit done is utterly appalling. Do you support Johnson's comments from last night?
Forty Seven wrote: » I can't recall a prime minister who's career did not ultimately end in failure. That's the job. It's not for life, you push your policies and hope they stick.
Forty Seven wrote: » We could be facing a civil and/or a European war here. Jo Cox should not be bandied around like archduke Franz Ferdinand to score cheap, emotive political points.
VinLieger wrote: » He literally wrote 2 different articles for the Telegraph because he couldn't decide if he wanted the referendum to pass or fail.https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/16/secret-boris-johnson-column-favoured-uk-remaining-in-eu
Forty Seven wrote: » Yes. He didn't dig her up. Her own successor did. In a bid to score emotive points. We could be facing a civil and/or a European war here. Jo Cox should not be bandied around like archduke Franz Ferdinand to score cheap, emotive political points. He did not start it. He had to reply. It would be controversial whatever he said. An abhorrent tactic by his opponent.
Bannasidhe wrote: » ... still will never vote for FG mind you... or FF for that matter...or the LP....
FrancieBrady wrote: » Johnson's goal was to defend by trying to rile everybody yesterday, in the hope of sparking a VoNC or an election, it is all he has left. He has shown before he doesn't care how he does that, he respects nothing.
Peregrinus wrote: » There's always Renua.
Fionn1952 wrote: » Forty Seven wrote: » prawnsambo wrote: » Forty Seven wrote: » Who has to be ratified with a queens speech. That means an election. You are absolutely wrong here. A Queen's speech opens a new session of parliament. A new PM elected by the current parliament is not a new session of parliament and the new PM just goes to the queen and tells her that he can form a government. Job done. And none of that requires an election. But there is not one person who could get enough votes to be elected pm outside of boris. Nor could any opposition form a government. A coalition? Good luck bringing that shower together. Especially now Labour have gone full open borders socialist. You have to be taking the proverbial?! The goalposts have shifted from, 'it would require army intervention to install a new PM without an election' to 'well they'd require a Queen's Speech' over to, 'well the opposition wouldn't be able to agree on a PM'. Could you not just acknowledge you were mistaken about the parliamentary procedure which follows a VONC, and move on? You're entitled to be anti-EU, but at least get a basic grasp of the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, which you think is being diluted by the EU. Having a VONC and installing a new PM isn't a coup, it isn't unusual, it's one of the basic principles behind British parliamentary politics.
Forty Seven wrote: » prawnsambo wrote: » Forty Seven wrote: » Who has to be ratified with a queens speech. That means an election. You are absolutely wrong here. A Queen's speech opens a new session of parliament. A new PM elected by the current parliament is not a new session of parliament and the new PM just goes to the queen and tells her that he can form a government. Job done. And none of that requires an election. But there is not one person who could get enough votes to be elected pm outside of boris. Nor could any opposition form a government. A coalition? Good luck bringing that shower together. Especially now Labour have gone full open borders socialist.
prawnsambo wrote: » Forty Seven wrote: » Who has to be ratified with a queens speech. That means an election. You are absolutely wrong here. A Queen's speech opens a new session of parliament. A new PM elected by the current parliament is not a new session of parliament and the new PM just goes to the queen and tells her that he can form a government. Job done. And none of that requires an election.
Forty Seven wrote: » Who has to be ratified with a queens speech. That means an election.
dinorebel wrote: » Forty Seven wrote: » What was appalling about it? He said the best thing would be to finish brexit. What's appalling about that? He has always had the same position. Is he supposed to change it because someone attempts to tie a name painted in emotion onto it? Well that's utterly wrong his only ever position has been to be Prime Minister he was pro Europe for years until he saw Brexit as his means to get the job.
Forty Seven wrote: » Nobody knows what will happen under the new fixed term act.
Forty Seven wrote: » Clearly he is acting in the countries best interest.
Forty Seven wrote: » If it is so easy to overthrow the pm and government then why are they still there?
Forty Seven wrote: » He was answering as prime minister. As prime minister he has always had the same position. Personal views are not relevant to his platform. Clearly he is acting in the countries best interest. He stood on a platform and was elected. His views before that are irrelevant.
dinorebel wrote: » Well that's utterly wrong his only ever position has been to be Prime Minister he was pro Europe for years until he saw Brexit as his means to get the job.
Enzokk wrote: » Because they are powerless and the longer they are left and shown to be powerless the worse it is for him. The only way Johnson gets an election from his own actions is by resigning as PM, which means he cannot be PM again so he is left to try and goad the opposition into an election.
ArmaniJeanss wrote: » From perusing various UK political message boards, poster Forty Sevens lack of knowledge of how the procedures work in his own political system is pretty much par for the course. Frighteningly, he's still probably in the top 10% of 'most-clued-in' despite some of this mornings nonsense.
MrMusician18 wrote: » There is no rule prohibiting him from being PM again if he resigns.
robinph wrote: » Forty Seven wrote: » Yes. He didn't dig her up. Her own successor did. In a bid to score emotive points. We could be facing a civil and/or a European war here. Jo Cox should not be bandied around like archduke Franz Ferdinand to score cheap, emotive political points. He did not start it. He had to reply. It would be controversial whatever he said. An abhorrent tactic by his opponent. Was actually a different MP that Johnson was responding to. That MP had asked for Johnson to mind his language as it was being used by extremists and as justification for violence and threats towards MP's and their families, and then she reminded him that similar language was used by the murderer of Jo Cox. Johnsons response to that was essentially to say bolix and that Jo Cox would be honoured to have a no deal Brexit in her name. But yeah, it was clearly the MP who was pointing out that language matters who was at fault.
robinph wrote: » Forty Seven wrote: » Nobody knows what will happen under the new fixed term act. Yes we do, it's written in the act. Which of the options is eventually used to trigger the next election is still up in the air, but May has already made use of the get 2/3rds of MP to support an early election option so it has certainly already been tested.
