Brexit (Old) - Page 317

jfman · 10-12-2018, 20:13

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.

denphone · 10-12-2018, 20:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

It's been announced by the BBC that, due to today's events, there will be a change to the BBC1 schedule at 8:30pm. There will be a special programme regarding 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.

**Damien** · 10-12-2018, 20:44

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!

TheDaddy · 10-12-2018, 20:44

Something is afoot in the commons...

**Damien** · 10-12-2018, 20:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Something is afoot in the commons...

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.

denphone · 10-12-2018, 20:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Something is afoot in the commons...

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”

**Damien** · 10-12-2018, 20:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by denphone

Corbyn launches challenge to May's Brexit vote postponemnt.

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

denphone · 10-12-2018, 20:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

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

Absolutely.

jfman · 10-12-2018, 21:02

It furthers the rhetoric of a constitutional crisis though.

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

Pierre · 10-12-2018, 21:49

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

djfunkdup · 10-12-2018, 22:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

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

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

jfman · 10-12-2018, 22:02

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.

Pierre · 10-12-2018, 22:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman

In fairness, May didn’t.

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?

Quote:

He’s as entitled as anyone else to try and control the agenda,

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.

Quote:

our constitution is about who can command a majority in the House.

not him then

jfman · 10-12-2018, 22:25

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.

**Chris** · 10-12-2018, 22:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

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.