Kermit.de.frog wrote: » Boris Johnson just told the DUP - "if you don't like the arrangements then gather a majority in the assembley to change them".
Enzokk wrote: » The Wild Animals in Circuses Act were given a longer time in the House of Commons than this bill. Anyone saying there is enough time for scrutiny is lying to themselves about what is happening here.https://twitter.com/jl_owen/status/1186336047975809030?s=20
GM228 wrote: » 3 days have been allocated. In total there are only 8 sitting days to allow the readings, the committee stage and the report stage in the Commons, then the same in the Lords and then the Parliamentary Ping-Pong session. For comparison:- The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 which was only 62 pages of a Bill had 36 days for the above (allocated 12 days in the Commons). The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 had 11 days (allocated 5 days in the Commons) for the process - it contained the grand of of 5 sentences in the Bill and still had greater debate.
Akrasia wrote: » Article 50 was invoked. The referendum was honoured The fact that the brexiters can't agree on how to leave is because the referendum was so poorly thought out that the side that won don't share the same objectives and cannot agree on how to deliver it. Referendums are not some kind of divine gospel that can never be questioned or changed. If there is a vote, and the outcome of that vote leads to political instability and paralasis, then it is stupid to keep trying to implement that vote for years and years regardless of the consequences
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » Spot on. The remainers have tried every trick in the book to overturn the result of a democratic vote in which the majority voted to leave. It's disgraceful really. The biased refuse to see it. The remainers don't mind because they never accepted the vote.
Enzokk wrote: » I don't know if this has been highlighted but if MPs vote through the WAB then the next deadline isn't in 8 months time to decide on an extension, it will be in 14 months time when the next cliff edge approaches and that time there will be no parliament intervention to decide on a extension or force one it seems.
PropJoe10 wrote: » I saw she was wearing a top with the stars of the EU on it so maybe that's an indication of her thinking today
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » The remainers don't mind because they never accepted the vote.
Joe_ Public wrote: » "Fundamental issue of trust in his word", Melanie Onn just tells PM in the house. One of the 6 rebel lab voters on saturday, doesnt sound like she's on board the boris bus today.
Letwin_Larry wrote: » the longer this nonsense goes on the more it comes back to the fundamental question,are MPs prepared to honour the decision of the Referendum or not? regardless of what you think about the result of the referendum, the wisdom of calling it, or how it was fought and argued, how informed or not the voter were, how intelligent, educated, rich or poor they were, how much you like, trust or detest the protagonists, that is the real question, that is the bottom line. and that will be the basis of the GE when it is fought.
Kuenssberg is therefore open to the criticism that she was being manipulated by Downing Street. Her tweets to her 1.1 million followers meant there were two government positions. One for the courts: that the government would obey the law. One passed on uncritically by the BBC political editor: that it would find a way to get round it. Kuenssberg’s tweets carried with them the implication that Johnson was deliberately deceiving a British court. This compliance is part of a pattern. Political editors are so pleased to be given ‘insider’ or ‘exclusive’ information that they report it without challenge or question
“It should go without saying that reporting comments from anyone, be they source or named individual, is not the same as endorsing those comments. Similarly, taking a single Twitter thread out of context to try to prove a point is disingenuous and does a disservice to your readers. “Laura Kuenssberg is a fantastic journalist who helps audiences make sense of the Brexit story with her in-depth analysis and expertise.”
Shelga wrote: » How can they have an amendment to have a customs union when this is a non-negotiable, finalised deal with a third party? (Ie outside the UK)
Joe_ Public wrote: » Absolutely spot on. Just Guto Bebb to be fair, is a well known tory rebel and Boris Johnson hater. I dont know is he actually an erg member but i have a feeling he wont back the deal today.
prawnsambo wrote: » Except it was the hard leavers that actually brought down May's deal. In the first MV 118 Tories and all the DUP voted against it. In the second, 75 Tories and all the DUP and in the third 34 Tories and all the DUP. In all cases, if the so called pro-leave Tory party and the DUP had voted for it, it would have passed. Among those who voted against MV3 (not including the DUP) were: Steve Baker, Priti Patel, Andrew Bridgen, Mark Francois, Peter Bone, Guto Bebb, Theresa Villiers, Bill Cash, Christopher Chope, Suella Braverman, Adam Holloway, David Jones, Julian Lewis, Marcus Fysh, John Baron, Andrea Jenkyns, Bernard Jenkin, John Redwood and Owen Paterson. That's 19 hard brexiters by my count. 24 of them plus the DUP would have carried it.
Originally Posted by Letwin_Larry View Post personally i feel they are just hell bent on frustrating the referendum vote. that's just my opinion of course (before you all attack me).
Enzokk wrote: » Screw it, if this is the people looking out for their voters let them screw themselves over. I cannot muster any sympathy if this is what voters want.https://twitter.com/AyoCaesar/status/1186606116567953408?s=20 Hasn't ready anything of the bill but will vote for it.
Soft-Brexit Conservatives could back Boris Johnson’s plan to push through his deal in three days if he agrees to close a loophole that would allow the UK to crash out on World Trade Organization terms at the end of next year, the Guardian’s political team reports. It is understood No 10 is preparing to concede on some amendments but is putting pressure on the former Tories not to block the programme motion, arguing this would delay Brexit. There are believed to be only a handful of the group of former Tory MPs still threatening to vote with the opposition parties to give parliament more time to scrutinise the bill.
Letwin_Larry wrote: » personally i feel they are just hell bent on frustrating the referendum vote. that's just my opinion of course (before you all attack me).
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/23cbe5e5e50cebb31e4a86160a77c62d.svg)