failing upwards is basically life for these people
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
failing upwards is basically life for these people
love that.Don't worry guys, I listened to LBC earlier and Julie from Canterbury says we will be okay because we get to keep the 39 billion divorce bill in a no deal. She was told that might not actually be the case, even in a no deal scenario, but she still says it'll all be okay.
Screaming Lord Sutch will be turning in his grave at the joke British politics has become.
The UK has taken back is out of control.
Better than Susan on BBC 5 Live yesterday who said "I don't care what happens as long as all the immigration is stopped. Not that I have any problems with black people or the coloured..."
That's when you realize that people are out of touch with reality, 39 billion doesn't represent much for the UK and it's even less when you consider that it's not a recurring "gain".
At least it's better than thinking the rabbits will save us:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sou...aw0UyICDs8Gg6PyCbhn6WJbC&ust=1552603145185538
Not just in Britain mate, it's the same over here in the Netherlands (though Universities and schools are open to everyone not just the elite, and they charge no or very low tuition fees, yet the elite still group together in special clubs and fraternities and end up later ruling the country).
Same in the USA as well, Washington Post did an article earlier about KellyAnne Conway and her husband, in between the lines it showed very nicely how intertwined the Washington Political elite is regardless of party.
Been out all night and just seen the vote result, a bit bloody close!
To be fair Rabbits are tasty and roasted potatoes good with everything. If you add some pigeons, you could land a Michelin star.
I’ve noticed that a lot of them like to say “we will all pull together” like they’ve been indoctrinated
NEWSCASTER: "So, the all-important vote is at half-ten."
MRS GERRONWIVIT: "What...five?"
They were spouting that shite during the referendum. I had Leave mates posting shit on FB about how ‘we need to leave and work together to build a better country’. While they sat on their arses at home, with absolutely no intention of doing anything to change anything. It’s always some mythical others who are supposed to actually do the graft after these numpties vote us into chaos.
Whether intentional or not, seems to be a case where everyone will be backed into a corner where there will be no option other than Mays deal. Seems crazy to have 3 votes on it but 2nd referendum is completely out the question.
The commoners don’t matter, just the people who went to the right schools. We should know that by now.
Parliament's next vote: Is Captain Marvel going to beat Thanos?
Fortunately, the vote result is not binding.
Fortunately, the vote result is not binding.
May voted for there to be no no-deal Brexit right? If so, how is it a defeat for her?
And there we have it folks. Godwin’s Law.
I don't understand how, the same people who argue against a final OK from a better informed British public, say "but, that would result in no BREXIT – which is simply revoting until you get the outcome that suits you".
Isn't this what exactly what May is doing by going back to vote again on her plan that has been more than unanimously rejected twice already?
"She's losing her way to victory" I read somewhere here this morning and it seems that nothing could be more true:
Even if this happens, surely it has to be put back to the country as accepting something crap "because there is a gun to my head" is not what anyone voted for? Or very few anyway.
If the options on the original ballot had read:
1. An extremely bad BREXIT deal
2. No BREXIT
we wouldn't be in this mess, would we?
Everyone keeps talking about honouring the wishes of the British voting public but they seem loath to actually put those words to the test. All because they know that, in all likelihood, the outcome would not suit their personal agenda.
Isn't this what exactly what May is doing by going back to vote again on her plan that has been more than unanimously rejected twice already?
"She's losing her way to victory" I read somewhere here this morning and it seems that nothing could be more true:
Even if this happens, surely it has to be put back to the country as accepting something crap "because there is a gun to my head" is not what anyone voted for? Or very few anyway.
If the options on the original ballot had read:
1. An extremely bad BREXIT deal
2. No BREXIT
we wouldn't be in this mess, would we?
Everyone keeps talking about honouring the wishes of the British voting public but they seem loath to actually put those words to the test. All because they know that, in all likelihood, the outcome would not suit their personal agenda.
Last edited:
Perhaps May is some House of Cards-esque genius, who just railroaded democracy into accepting something no one wanted with some long-term 4d chess?
She voted against her own motion.
Once the WA was agreed, there were always only three options against a rapidly closing window.
- Accept the deal
- No Deal
- Revoke A50.
In the end, she actually voted against no-deal being ruled out because she didn't like the amendment that had been tacked onto her motion.
Are who wrong mate?
It's about time for a change, no more of these assholes who role out of university, into some cushy little research job mummy.or daddy sorted for them then into politics
The people running the country should have actually done something in life. Worked their way up a career ladder not involved in politics, run a business (not just sat on the board of directors)
Put a former doctor in charge of the NHS, an account in charge of the excheqor etc. And send these inbred halfwits back to their country estates out of the way. Or give them a nice wall to lean against, a cigarette and a blindfold.
So let me get this straight - ministers are in trouble because they defied the whip and voted for the proposal put forward by their own prime minister that she wanted to defeat?
How has she not been toppled yet?
Won't be the last time she puts forward her deal to vote on either.
How has she not been toppled yet?
Won't be the last time she puts forward her deal to vote on either.
With any luck the speaker will declare another deal vote attempt out of order and it won't even be able to take place. Bercow more than entitled to do that, the rules are there to stop the government browbeating parliament, exactly what they are attempting.
Parliament already rejected no deal, twice.
That would only leave option than number 3.
I don't think he'll do it and if he did wouldn't it leave 2 & 3 as options given that no deal is still the legal default in the event of no other alternative being agreed?
There’s a decent chance that he might do it too. He’s not usually afraid to stand up to the government, why is why his former party hate him so much.
Hammond sometimes comes across as the sensible voice within his parliament but his interviews this morning on why he didn't vote against no deal is pathetic.
He now says no deal isn't enough and they need to say what they're for, yeah well get your government to actually ask then dickhead you control the business!
He now says no deal isn't enough and they need to say what they're for, yeah well get your government to actually ask then dickhead you control the business!
If there's a chance it will pass (I think it will), I don't think there a hope in hell, he'll block it.
Yes no deal is default without parliament action.
However, given parliament has clearly expressed it will not accept no deal, if Bercow applies the rules properly and declares another deal vote out of order, the government (with or without May as leader) would be forced to have a vote on 3. I wouldn't even see it as Bercow standing up to the government, the rules are clear. Even allowing the second vote with such minor tweaks was generous.
If you read the procedure for it in the erksine May, if he follows procedure he should refuse it. That does not mean it would definitely happen though obviously. I can't see how the potential result of the vote is relevant in the slightest. Main thing is does Bercow want to allow the government to break the rules and does he want another 2+ years of this nonsense?
Other possibility is maybe ask for an extension for a second referendum, parliament hopefully more likely to go for straight revocation though.
However, given parliament has clearly expressed it will not accept no deal, if Bercow applies the rules properly and declares another deal vote out of order, the government (with or without May as leader) would be forced to have a vote on 3. I wouldn't even see it as Bercow standing up to the government, the rules are clear. Even allowing the second vote with such minor tweaks was generous.
If you read the procedure for it in the erksine May, if he follows procedure he should refuse it. That does not mean it would definitely happen though obviously. I can't see how the potential result of the vote is relevant in the slightest. Main thing is does Bercow want to allow the government to break the rules and does he want another 2+ years of this nonsense?
Other possibility is maybe ask for an extension for a second referendum, parliament hopefully more likely to go for straight revocation though.
No chance Bercow doesn't allow it. The discretionary power isn't one thats intended to be used for business of this scale and they'll find an adjustment to put it to the house if neccesary.
EU should offer a long extension (with full participation in the EU elections) or no extension at all. This might force the issue.
On the one hand it might bring the ERG/DUP on board for her deal. On the other it will make no-deal (the legal default) more likely and Labour MPs could be minded to support her.
She needs at least 75 MPs to change their minds and I don't think she really cares now where they come from.
On the one hand it might bring the ERG/DUP on board for her deal. On the other it will make no-deal (the legal default) more likely and Labour MPs could be minded to support her.
She needs at least 75 MPs to change their minds and I don't think she really cares now where they come from.
Will May need Parliament to approve a long extension? Tusk has said he will persuade leaders to approve a long extension if MPs don't approve a deal.
I think it will be approve May's deal or face a long extension. Question is, will this be enough to give May a majority?
Furthermore, will Bercow allow a 3rd vote. If May doesn't amend the deal and there is little to indication that a significant amount of MPs will vote differently then it shouldn't go ahead. Not sure what Bercow will base his decision on but if a 3rd vote will have the same outcome as the other 2 then it is a waste of time.
I think it will be approve May's deal or face a long extension. Question is, will this be enough to give May a majority?
Furthermore, will Bercow allow a 3rd vote. If May doesn't amend the deal and there is little to indication that a significant amount of MPs will vote differently then it shouldn't go ahead. Not sure what Bercow will base his decision on but if a 3rd vote will have the same outcome as the other 2 then it is a waste of time.