Re: Brexit
 

Just what the country needs... the BBC to give us more useless information.

Apparently according to the PM a statement must be made by 21st January outlining the way forward if there’s no deal. This is set in legislation. ;)

Re: Brexit
 

The programme was already factored in to their schedules but alas because the vote has been cancelled until a new date has been given one suspects we might be having another programme possibly sometime in the future on Brexit.

Re: Brexit
 

The BBC should do more about Brexit.

Doctor Who does Brexit
Brexit narrated by David Attenborough
Only Fools and Horses: Brexit Union
Strictly Come Brexit - where each dancer or dancer couple, whatever it is, represents an EU country but try as we might we can't vote out the UK entrant.
Brexit Wars - Like robot wars expect it's Remainers and Brexiters fighting.

All Brexit, all the time. There will never not be Brexit. Brexit! Brexit! Brexit!

Re: Brexit
 

Something is afoot in the commons...

Re: Brexit
 

Probably my Brexit idea

---------- Post added at 20:49 ---------- Previous post was at 20:48 ----------

Emergency Debate on Brexit (mostly on the vote being pulled).

It looks like grandstanding. Corbyn doesn't want to rock the boat.

Re: Brexit
 

Corbyn launches challenge to May's Brexit vote postponemnt.

The Speaker, John Bercow, allows Corbyn’s application for an emergency debate, saying it is “absolutely proper to be discussed”

Re: Brexit
 

As far as I can tell it won't force her to hold the vote

Re: Brexit
 

Absolutely.

Re: Brexit
 

It furthers the rhetoric of a constitutional crisis though.

A three hour debate on a Government, already in contempt, in hiding.

Re: Brexit
 

Corbyn is a prize dick. He keeps on forgetting that to be in government usually means you have to win an election first.

Re: Brexit
 

He is yes 100% Correct.That's why he is the topman in the labour party .Kinda says it all really ;)

Re: Brexit
 

In fairness, May didn’t. Cameron didn’t (the first time).

He’s as entitled as anyone else to try and control the agenda, our constitution is about who can command a majority in the House. Not which party won the most votes, or the most seats. Although usually that person is from a party that meets both criteria, it’s not a requirement.

Re: Brexit
 

No, she did. By 56 votes to be exact. The Tories won that election. They got more votes than any other party.

It it enough for a majority, no. But more than anyone else. However, I agree in this of democracy meaning nothing, who gives a shit?



no he isn’t

He can oppose, moan, offer alternatives for the next election.

But if he wants to govern he has to win an election and a mandate from the people, which hecwas no where near last year and the poles suggest he has made no ground. So no.

not him then

Re: Brexit
 

He may be able to command a majority on these issues. If it’s obvious the Government can’t.

Are you advocating a one party state for the period between general elections? If not then you are dangerously close.

Re: Brexit
 

Technically the person asked by Her Maj to form a government is the one most likely to enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons. A majority of MPs being from your party is the surest way to achieve that, but it’s not essential.