brickster69 wrote: » All the remainers running around like headless chickens now because they know Boris won't resign and the Benn - Dover bill has more holes in it than a block of gouda. They know that if the Govt loses that vote, it could, under the FTPA, remain in office for 14 days, propose a vote of confidence, and, if it loses, a GE is automatically triggered. the speaker this week confirmed that an election could not be held before 31/10.
A Shropshire Lad wrote: » Hearing today a few Brexiteers mention that 'all 27 members have to agree to the extension beyond October 31st' Is there a possibility theres some pressure being put on individual countries behind the scenes to veto ?
Enzokk wrote: » It would take a very brave or stupid EU leader to veto the extension, especially when one of the EU will take a bad hit and a bunch more will be quite hard hit in a no-deal Brexit. How would they justify it to the other 26 nations and you can bet once it comes back to their country there will be people with long memories who will remember if one does something so stupid.
Bannasidhe wrote: » That is the system in the UK. It is the system everyone is expected to work within. The LibDems have been trying for decades to get PR introduced. There was even a referendum in 2011 and 67% chose to stay with the current system. It favoured their Whig forerunners - whom the LibDems are eager to use to demonstrate their place at the heart of British politics - and they never sought to change the voting system until they lost ground to Labour. So, it's fair to say that the Liberal Party had no issue with FPTP while it worked in their favour but now it's an issue.
CelticRambler wrote: » the objective for all opposition parties at the moment is to prevent a crash-out Brexit, if necessary through a short-term government of national unity.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Polish born Tory MP Daniel Kawczynski has repeatedly asked Poland to veto an extension.
brickster69 wrote: » All the remainers running around like headless chickens now because they know Boris won't resign and the Benn - Dover bill has more holes in it than a block of gouda. .
prawnsambo wrote: » If i remember correctly, the type of PR suggested was a STV type which was damaged by misinformation claiming that it would allow people have more than one vote. Yep, having your vote live through a first count meant you had more than one vote.
ZX7R wrote: » Polish government won't it would be political suiside for them , the main government group called law and order I believe did well in resent elections only because they back off trying to put to the eu. Plus national government polls show a whopping 90% support for the eu from there electoral public. Surprisingly there seems to be big support from all government party's for a European army/ security force
prawnsambo wrote: » If Corbyn can get the support of all the MPs; who currently align against the government, then well and good. But if not, all this posturing about who's the big boy with the 'right' to head a GNU is just so much dust in the wind. And that's his job according to you and 'convention'. So let's see him do what's necessary to get that support...
ZX7R wrote: » Surprisingly there seems to be big support from all government party's for a European army/ security force
prawnsambo wrote: » That's not a surprise for countries bordering on Russia. Ukraine is an example to all of them.
Bannasidhe wrote: » And again when trying to find out why is it apparently ok for Swinson to flout the conventions I am told about about Corbyn. It's quite a remarkable phenomimom.
devnull wrote: » Law and Justice they are and they are quite right wing, certainly could see many similarities with the Conservative Party and them, hate the judiciary and trying to turn the courts political, trying to control media and spreading propaganda. They are not quite so anti EU as the Tories but really don't like LGBTQ+ rights.
CelticRambler wrote: » The Whigs? Are you really suggesting that Swinson should be applying the values and practices of the Whigs coming up to the end of 2019? :eek: They had a referendum? Yes. And we all know how great the Brits are at making rational decisions through the use of referendums. And alas, we know from recent utterances that the result of a referendum, once held (even if not binding) cannot be challenged ... :rolleyes: You argue that "everyone is expected to work within" the system ... while the party in government flout the rules day after day after day? And yet you complain that one of the parties holds a position that might allow it to be come the Official Opposition within that same system after the next election? As Charles Babbage remarks above, the objective for all opposition parties at the moment is to prevent a crash-out Brexit, if necessary through a short-term government of national unity. There is no convention in the UK for that, so the Lib Dems are legitimately playing by rules that have yet to be made up.
prawnsambo wrote: » You seem to be stuck in some kind of procedural wrangle instead of looking at the objective. It's to get a GNU running to stop the Tories getting their hard brexit. There seems to be an unhealthy obsession about Jo Swinson amongst Labour supporters. As phenomenon's go.
eire4 wrote: » Plus you have the fact that the US cannot be trusted and or relied on any more so makes sense really given the very real threat that Putin's authoritarian Russian state pose to all of Europe to a greater or lesser extent.
Bannasidhe wrote: » No. I am stuck in perplexed as to why nobody wants to discuss the policies of the LibDems in any depth or why mention of Swinson morphs into 'but Corbyn'. How could I be a Labour supporter when I don't even live in the UK, haven't lived in the UK for over 25 years, and will never again live in the UK? I literally have zero skin in the game.
josip wrote: » Is there any possibility France might say that the UK can have an extension but it has to be 12 months? That would allow the rest of us to get on with life while the UK can continue to infight and remain toxic for inward investment. Rolling 3 month extensions are too short.
prawnsambo wrote: » So the question remains. Which is more important, stopping a hard brexit or pandering to Corbyn's ego? And it seems from your posts that it's Corbyn's ego that matters more. That clear enough for you?