Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?


  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
So meaningful vote 3 on Tuesday 19th (probably looses)
Asks for short extension on Wednesday 20th and is probably told no... Must be longer and for a specific reason
Thursday... Announces meaningful vote 4 as she does not want a long extension.
Presumably Tuesday 26th or Wednesday 27th for a final Mays deal or no deal vote...
Shambolic
 
I wonder how young you have to go to find a school class who would tackle the issue with less maturity than this parliament has.
 
I'm at a loss tbh. We are probably going to end up having four votes on the same deal.
 
So in order to extend the deadline they either have to approve the deal May gave them, which they've already declined, or accept new terms and conditions that the EU will set, which they will no doubt also decline?

It's like when I ask the kids to clean their room and they keep asking if they can do it tomorrow, every. single. day.
 
Condemning an MP for saying that investigating MP Child sex abuse was a waste of money.
Well. The Tories have a history of fecking over kids.
 
I mean come on. Really?

How can people in parliament continually back this woman and what she is doing?
It's not just her though is it? Just like in the US there's a bunch of cnuts propping her up...
 
Can someone explain why so many labour voters abstained to vote on the second referendum? Is it because they want the referendum to be laid out with proper alternatives?

Also does today's overwhelming defeat for a peoples vote completely rule it out? If May's deal can come back thrice I'm assuming the second referendum vote can come in again?
 
I mean come on. Really?

How can people in parliament continually back this woman and what she is doing?
It’s fascinating. They’ll vote against the deals...

...But then when it comes to a vote of confidence they’ll back her. Why? Two reasons I see:

1. Nobody else wants to take over the reigns of this collosal shitshow

2. A vote of no confidence may trigger a general election - these cowards wouldn’t vote themselves out of a job in a sitting government.
 
Can someone explain why so many labour voters abstained to vote on the second referendum? Is it because they want the referendum to be laid out with proper alternatives?

Also does today's overwhelming defeat for a peoples vote completely rule it out? If May's deal can come back thrice I'm assuming the second referendum vote can come in again?
They evidently want to keep it back for later in the process. Today was really about the extension to Article 50.

If the new amendment is substantially different from the one that's lost today, it will probably be tabled.
 
I know the Brits aren't big on taking cues from the US, but...

We've got electronic voting buttons at the tables the Congressmen sit at.
There is a ceremonial mace in the commons , without which the parliament cannot legally function...and you are talking about electronic voting..
 
There is a ceremonial mace in the commons

Apparently there's one in the House of Representatives too.

When the House is in session, the mace stands in a cylindrical pedestal of green marble to the right of the chair of the Speaker of the House. When the House is meeting as the Committee of the Whole, the mace is moved to a pedestal next to the desk of the Sergeant at Arms. Thus Representatives entering the chamber know with a glance whether the House is in session or in committee.
 
There is a ceremonial mace in the commons , without which the parliament cannot legally function...and you are talking about electronic voting..

Apparently there's one in the House of Representatives too.
220px-MACE_OF_HOUSE_OF_REPRESENTATIVES_LCCN2016866217_%28cropped%29.jpg
 
Apparently there's one in the House of Representatives too.
Skimmed the article but didn't see that it's legally required to be present for the house to function though . But found this:

In accordance with the House Rules, on the rare occasion that a member becomes unruly, the Sergeant at Arms, upon order of the Speaker, lifts the mace from its pedestal and presents it before the offenders, thereby restoring order.

So the mace acts as some sort of cryptonite for unruly lawmakers or the SoA is supposed to beat the shite out of them with it ?
 
Skimmed the article but didn't see that it's legally required to be present for the house to function though . But found this:



So the mace acts as some sort of cryptonite for unruly lawmakers or the SoA is supposed to beat the shite out of them with it ?
The latter. We started this parliament with 700 MPs but that's slowly been whittled down thanks to the mace.