seahawk wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

what is the problem of showing your passport when crossing a border or declaring the goods you transport? .

that is the Problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaBQfSA ... u.be&t=406

best regards
Thomas

Well, one can not hand the sovereignty of the UK to some extremists. (Disclaimer: post might contain some irony)

nah.. that would just be one party to the treaty enforcing it....

best regards
Thomas

Loew wrote:

However hard border is not just about papers, it is also about checks of goods, it´s about facilities at the border, it´s about equipment, it´s about number of officers at the border. At this time, the UK doesn´t have manpower to maintain hard border and it doesn´t have facilities nor equipment to keep the hard border running.

Get the IRA to do the border checks.

Well today's actions are the final straw for me. Any Brexiteer who says those of us fighting for remain are against democracy are getting it full guns from here on.

This is so completely undemocratic. I think it just goes to show how badly UK Govenment needs bringing up to date. Processes, votes, qualified super majority for referendums, get the Queen completely out of it ,have a written constitution and somehow ensure the likes of JRM have nothing to do with a 'Privy Council' and people who refuse to give evidence to a select committee surrounding illegal spending and end up being vritually the second most powerful person in the country.

So angry. Hopefully in the few days Parliament will sit there is enough concensus to quickly get a vote on stopping this nonsense.

Reinhardt wrote:

Well today's actions are the final straw for me. Any Brexiteer who says those of us fighting for remain are against democracy are getting it full guns from here on.

A question, the Remain supporters had the parliament take over the process, they held their string of indicative votes and passed none of them, all they had to do even before that process was to pass the bill that TM bought to the floor, they rejected that 3 times, not sure why the speaker rejected the 4th based on the bill being unchanged but that is another story.
My question is since they took over the process and their indicative votes went nowhere, what was their new proposal, we know what the government stance is under the new PM, but as the parliament took over some of the process what were they proposing to avoid a No Deal Brexit?

zkojq wrote:

Loew wrote:

However hard border is not just about papers, it is also about checks of goods, it´s about facilities at the border, it´s about equipment, it´s about number of officers at the border. At this time, the UK doesn´t have manpower to maintain hard border and it doesn´t have facilities nor equipment to keep the hard border running.

Get the IRA to do the border checks.

Again, do you think this is funny? Do you normally support terrorism?

BestWestern wrote:

zkojq wrote:

Loew wrote:

However hard border is not just about papers, it is also about checks of goods, it´s about facilities at the border, it´s about equipment, it´s about number of officers at the border. At this time, the UK doesn´t have manpower to maintain hard border and it doesn´t have facilities nor equipment to keep the hard border running.

Get the IRA to do the border checks.

Again, do you think this is funny? Do you normally support terrorism?

You mean the US government allowed open terror financing for decades, with the only problem it had with the Irish Northern Aid Committee was that they register the IRA as their foreign principal? I am shocked....

Best regards
Thomas

Months ago, I asked is if the Queen could do something to possibly stop the Brexit process. Guess with what has happened today with the actions of the Queen as to suspend a sitting Parliament, I guess I got my answer. It is a dark day in the history of the UK, perhaps the worst since the bombings in WW II.

ltbewr wrote:

Months ago, I asked is if the Queen could do something to possibly stop the Brexit process. Guess with what has happened today with the actions of the Queen as to suspend a sitting Parliament, I guess I got my answer. It is a dark day in the history of the UK, perhaps the worst since the bombings in WW II.

It is a sad day for all democratic loving people. No matter what side you are on the brexit debate, we can all agree that we want to live in a democracy.

If you had made a prediction that the UK would take democracy out of the picture because it was too difficult to get something past the parliament, you would have been laughed at, today it happened. We live in strange times, very strange times.

I very much doubt the the crown made this decision without the advice of very senior legal people, who probably advised that otherwise would create a crisis of the crown's making.

ltbewr wrote:

Months ago, I asked is if the Queen could do something to possibly stop the Brexit process. Guess with what has happened today with the actions of the Queen as to suspend a sitting Parliament, I guess I got my answer. It is a dark day in the history of the UK, perhaps the worst since the bombings in WW II.

The Queen was never going to do anything other than agree to the PM's request.

Politically, she's nothing more than a figurehead and a rubber stamp. I'm not sure what you think she could, or would, do.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

I very much doubt the the crown made this decision without the advice of very senior legal people, who probably advised that otherwise would create a crisis of the crown's making.

Sure, but the act itself of the prime minister Johnson to ask the Queen to do this, made the Queen political. Johnson should never have placed the Crown in such a position. So the act of asking in itself creates a crisis in the crown. But the Brexitremist don't care what it takes to get the UK out of the EU. They are fundamentalists, to reach their goal everything is allowed, nothing is sacred anymore. Crazy.

Since prorogation is just ending one parliamentary session, then opening another, something that happens in many democratic countries without fuss, most people not even noticing as it's during some holiday or another, couldn't the Queen have prorogued, but set the timetable herself, as the usual one or two weeks ?

par13del wrote:

Reinhardt wrote:

Well today's actions are the final straw for me. Any Brexiteer who says those of us fighting for remain are against democracy are getting it full guns from here on.

A question, the Remain supporters had the parliament take over the process, they held their string of indicative votes and passed none of them, all they had to do even before that process was to pass the bill that TM bought to the floor, they rejected that 3 times, not sure why the speaker rejected the 4th based on the bill being unchanged but that is another story.
My question is since they took over the process and their indicative votes went nowhere, what was their new proposal, we know what the government stance is under the new PM, but as the parliament took over some of the process what were they proposing to avoid a No Deal Brexit?

Parliment actully can’t make or amend an international agreement, all the can do is either not ratify it indefinitely or tell the government to make amendments and bring it back to the house to consider.

The problem here is Parilment had ample opportunity to legislate against no deal and that if a deal could not be reached that parliament agrees with then either vote for the WA or revoke A50 if they didn’t want to leave without a deal. There is no point in saying we can’t leave without a deal and not vote for either of those things, and no I still do not believe a second referenda should take place parliment only had two choice to make and was to gutless to make the distinctions then suffer the wrath at the next general election

sometimes it is good to look back a bit



Bye, the consequences are yours. No special treatment anymore.

A101 wrote:

par13del wrote:

Reinhardt wrote:

Well today's actions are the final straw for me. Any Brexiteer who says those of us fighting for remain are against democracy are getting it full guns from here on.

A question, the Remain supporters had the parliament take over the process, they held their string of indicative votes and passed none of them, all they had to do even before that process was to pass the bill that TM bought to the floor, they rejected that 3 times, not sure why the speaker rejected the 4th based on the bill being unchanged but that is another story.
My question is since they took over the process and their indicative votes went nowhere, what was their new proposal, we know what the government stance is under the new PM, but as the parliament took over some of the process what were they proposing to avoid a No Deal Brexit?

Parliment actully can’t make or amend an international agreement, all the can do is either not ratify it indefinitely or tell the government to make amendments and bring it back to the house to consider.

The problem here is Parilment had ample opportunity to legislate against no deal and that if a deal could not be reached that parliament agrees with then either vote for the WA or revoke A50 if they didn’t want to leave without a deal. There is no point in saying we can’t leave without a deal and not vote for either of those things, and no I still do not believe a second referenda should take place parliment only had two choice to make and was to gutless to make the distinctions then suffer the wrath at the next general election

Sure, you defend postponing democracy itself..............

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

par13del wrote:

A question, the Remain supporters had the parliament take over the process, they held their string of indicative votes and passed none of them, all they had to do even before that process was to pass the bill that TM bought to the floor, they rejected that 3 times, not sure why the speaker rejected the 4th based on the bill being unchanged but that is another story.
My question is since they took over the process and their indicative votes went nowhere, what was their new proposal, we know what the government stance is under the new PM, but as the parliament took over some of the process what were they proposing to avoid a No Deal Brexit?

Parliment actully can’t make or amend an international agreement, all the can do is either not ratify it indefinitely or tell the government to make amendments and bring it back to the house to consider.

The problem here is Parilment had ample opportunity to legislate against no deal and that if a deal could not be reached that parliament agrees with then either vote for the WA or revoke A50 if they didn’t want to leave without a deal. There is no point in saying we can’t leave without a deal and not vote for either of those things, and no I still do not believe a second referenda should take place parliment only had two choice to make and was to gutless to make the distinctions then suffer the wrath at the next general election

Sure, you defend postponing democracy itself..............

Really and you agree with Jeremy Corbin attempted coup to replace the sitting prime minister, Now that’s really democratic


Oh and by the way prorogation has been used before in the UK Parliament if you agree with it or not it’s not against the constitution to do it

A101 wrote:

Really and you agree with Jeremy Corbin attempted coup to replace the sitting prime minister, Now that’s really democratic


Oh and by the way prorogation has been used before in the UK Parliament if you agree with it or not it’s not against the constitution to do it

Coup, what big words you are using, especially since Corbyn just tries to get the majority in parliament, but he can't because what Johnson did.

Dutchy wrote:

sometimes it is good to look back a bit



Bye, the consequences are yours. No special treatment anymore.

Pretty much!

A101 wrote:

Oh and by the way prorogation has been used before in the UK Parliament if you agree with it or not it’s not against the constitution to do it

Corbyn's a willing, even eager collaborator with the leavers over among the Tories.

But today at the latest there is exactly zero ground to stand on for the leavers regarding democracy. That argument has been bombed out so comprehensively today that there's just a crater left:

• Unelected PM
• asks unelected Queen to
• dissolve Parliament
• in order to ram through a bonkers long-term damaging scheme without any democratic oversight which
• the leavers never dared to actually ask the population whether they really want it as now planned.

This is a coup by a radical minority with no democratic legitimacy whatsoever now.

I'm horrified for regular UK citizens, but utterly relieved to be rid of this insane clown show in a few weeks.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Really and you agree with Jeremy Corbin attempted coup to replace the sitting prime minister, Now that’s really democratic


Oh and by the way prorogation has been used before in the UK Parliament if you agree with it or not it’s not against the constitution to do it

Coup, what big words you are using, especially since Corbyn just tries to get the majority in parliament, but he can't because what Johnson did.

If I really wanted to use big words I would have used jacquerie

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Really and you agree with Jeremy Corbin attempted coup to replace the sitting prime minister, Now that’s really democratic


Oh and by the way prorogation has been used before in the UK Parliament if you agree with it or not it’s not against the constitution to do it

Coup, what big words you are using, especially since Corbyn just tries to get the majority in parliament, but he can't because what Johnson did.

If I really wanted to use big words I would have used jacquerie

You could use it, but it would be the misuse of that word. The only thing you accomplish with a Brexit, especially a hard one, is lending the Eton maffia a hand. The ordinary citizen will lose in this lose-lose game. The Ress-Mogg type figures will win. So unless you are a multi millionaire, you will lose, but then you will use your "get out of England" free card.

If Corbyn was in power and attempted such a move, the Tories would be calling him Stalin or Mao.

Dutchy wrote:

It is a sad day for all democratic loving people. No matter what side you are on the brexit debate, we can all agree that we want to live in a democracy.

If you had made a prediction that the UK would take democracy out of the picture because it was too difficult to get something past the parliament, you would have been laughed at, today it happened. We live in strange times, very strange times.

Parliament could have stopped NO Deal Brexit multiple times, they need to be held accountable here, if we look at it from a EU point of view, Europeans believe that 20+ nations and millions of people are correct in agreeing to the WA, what makes the UK few special?
Based on numbers, it is not the Tory party who has voted down the WA, indeed the current PM in one of the votes did change his position and vote in favour, so when we talk about sad day whichever side you are on, I personally disagree, we are here because the Remain faction refused to vote for the WA.
If they had proposed something different to the government during the run up to Article 50 filing versus just trying to undo the vote, show who lied, did not lie, had questionable finances they might have given the government some constructive measures to take into the negotiation, after all TM (in my opinion) was a remain supporter who stacked her cabinet 50 / 50 ensuring grid lock, so if they accepted the vote and moved on, the UK might have been out for a year and now applying to get back in, who knows.

Will be interesting to see what they come up with now, because I think their plan is simply to get another extension and keep on extending until they believe the UK people get tired and say ok, let's remain.

Most remainers are in the opposition. It's not the role of the opposition to vote for anything.

Personally I think the UK is too broken at this point to be a constructive member of the EU, it wasn't really one even before, so I want Brexit to go ahead, any kind of Brexit is fine by me.

However, if there is no vote of confidence before the 31st October (won or lost), meaning BoJo would have succeeded in getting a no deal Brexit without any semblance of a mandate to do it, I think it will damage democracy, and not just in the UK.

As an aside, I have a British Airways flight to San Francisco before that date, and return after, I hope I can still take my London-Paris flight in November.

Aesma wrote:

Most remainers are in the opposition. It's not the role of the opposition to vote for anything.

Really, so when they said they wanted a meaningful vote and they got one, what were they supposed to do, abstain, remainers are in the majority in the house.
In the democracy when bills are presented they are negotiated, debated then voted on by both sides, just because you are in opposition does not mean that every single bill bought forward by the government must be voted against, they are there to represent their constituents and vote in the best interest of the country, it is how laws passed continue on after governments change.

However, I think you missed my initial point, they hijacked the process to ensure that they were involved, that carries some responsibility which means they must vote for something, the indicative bills belonged to them. Regardless, if they are against NO Deal Brexit, they could have killed that 3 times by voting, instead they are conducting all manner of plans to topple the government, caretaker PM, more bills / laws, everything to avoid No Deal which they could have killed months ago.

A101 wrote:

Oh and by the way prorogation has been used before in the UK Parliament if you agree with it or not it’s not against the constitution to do it

Hang on. Yes prorogation has been used before, but the time period over which parliament has been closed has ranged from 1 day to a week or so. This is 5 weeks and it’s blatantly clear that it’s being used to avoid scrutiny of the brexit process. This isn’t a normal happening. With the country already facing a difficult deadline, shutting down to supposedly reset parliament for a new term and domestic agenda is a joke. No amount of spin is going to hide the fact that the PM doesn’t want to face parliament and come to a consensus approach to Exiting the EU.

Aesma wrote:

..... getting a no deal Brexit without any semblance of a mandate to do it, I think it will damage democracy, and not just in the UK.

400+ of them (most were re-elected in the last election) voted to allow a simple question on the referendum form, based on how active they have shown themselves to be, I don't believe that they paid no attention to the question, they put the question how they wanted with no caveat whatsoever.

Parliament is broken no doubt, so are we really loosing anything democratic if the suspension goes through, they abandoned their responsibilities months no years ago. If the population believes the EU is evil because the corrupt politicians use the EU as their scape goat, that is not a fault in democracy, that is a fault in people.

Number6 wrote:

No amount of spin is going to hide the fact that the PM doesn’t want to face parliament and come to a consensus approach to Exiting the EU.

Do you really believe that this parliament can come to a consensus on Brexit, so far over the last 3 years they have been the parliament of no, and that's with an election thrown in.

One of the big problems for the UK is the lack of a written Constitution or Basic Law as most countries have like the USA. Rules can be changed at will, referendums held with no regulations or not banning them in total. No checks and balances except on the Crown, an un-elected 'upper' house of a bunch of rich or connected guys. Perhaps if there was on in the UK, there would have been no referendum, no Brexit and none of the serious problems the UK is facing.

I fear very radical polarization of politics in the UK as happening in the USA and elsewhere. It is likely to be taken advantage of crackpots in politics (like Johnson, Trump) and more bribe infestation by the rich and corporations with most people losing freedoms and economic security.

A hard Brexit is best for everybody.

seahawk wrote:

A hard Brexit is best for everybody.

Of course it is... i hope this next vacation is the one where i come back and finally rid of them. Didn´t work with the last trip.....

But it is also sad in the same sense as seeing Russia slide back out of democracy again......

best regards
Thomas

It is sad and it leaves question like, how big should media companies be allowed to become. How many media outlets should be controlled by one person or group? Imho there is a strong need to diversify the ownership of the media again.

Dutchy wrote:

sometimes it is good to look back a bit



Bye, the consequences are yours. No special treatment anymore.

That’s really good.. and sad at the same time. Where did you find it?

It seems to me - and this is not meant to be offensive - that for some reasons, maybe because it’s an island, maybe because of its history, UK always wants to be different.

As the saying goes: do not keep travelers from traveling, although I think this saying is rather uncommon in English. It’s more like: don‘t keep a cat from catching mice or never try to stop a rolling stone...

Dutchy wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

I very much doubt the the crown made this decision without the advice of very senior legal people, who probably advised that otherwise would create a crisis of the crown's making.

Sure, but the act itself of the prime minister Johnson to ask the Queen to do this, made the Queen political. Johnson should never have placed the Crown in such a position. So the act of asking in itself creates a crisis in the crown. But the Brexitremist don't care what it takes to get the UK out of the EU. They are fundamentalists, to reach their goal everything is allowed, nothing is sacred anymore. Crazy.

No, the Queen has just done what is required of her - rubber stamping a decision taken by a politician.

It would have created a far bigger constitutional crisis if she’d declined to agree to the request.

I think it’s incredibly bad what the government has done, but absolutely no blame can be laid at he feet of the Queen.

Aesma wrote:

Since prorogation is just ending one parliamentary session, then opening another, something that happens in many democratic countries without fuss, most people not even noticing as it's during some holiday or another, couldn't the Queen have prorogued, but set the timetable herself, as the usual one or two weeks ?

No, that would be seen as the Crown interfering with Parliament. Something the Queen would want to avoid at all costs.

N14AZ wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

sometimes it is good to look back a bit



Bye, the consequences are yours. No special treatment anymore.

That’s really good.. and sad at the same time. Where did you find it?

It seems to me - and this is not meant to be offensive - that for some reasons, maybe because it’s an island, maybe because of its history, UK always wants to be different.

As the saying goes: do not keep travelers from traveling, although I think this saying is rather uncommon in English. It’s more like: don‘t keep a cat from catching mice or never try to stop a rolling stone...

It is an old one, someone reposted it on FaceBook.

I think indeed that the UK wants to be different and part of that is their erroneous view of them still being the world power that they once were - with part of the population, most young people are much more EU minded. Anyhow, it is for British citizens to change if they want to, nobody from the outside can do that. The sad thing is of course, that once you are out, you are out. Getting back in is a process that will take years and if they want that, all the exceptions that they have gotten, are gone. But we'll see if that is the course in the future or that they will manage on their own.

scbriml wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

I very much doubt the the crown made this decision without the advice of very senior legal people, who probably advised that otherwise would create a crisis of the crown's making.

Sure, but the act itself of the prime minister Johnson to ask the Queen to do this, made the Queen political. Johnson should never have placed the Crown in such a position. So the act of asking in itself creates a crisis in the crown. But the Brexitremist don't care what it takes to get the UK out of the EU. They are fundamentalists, to reach their goal everything is allowed, nothing is sacred anymore. Crazy.

No, the Queen has just done what is required of her - rubber stamping a decision taken by a politician.

It would have created a far bigger constitutional crisis if she’d declined to agree to the request.

I think it’s incredibly bad what the government has done, but absolutely no blame can be laid at he feet of the Queen.

Sure, and as you said, the fact is that she could have declined it, of course normally the request is observed. But only the fact that she could have and the decision is very controversial, to say the least, makes it a political decision and she shouldn't be asked to make a political decision and certainly not a decision of this magnitude.
In an analogy that goes wrong on several levels, but this is what the king of Belgium did. He stept aside when a law was presented that he should sign - rubber stamp -, it was against his personal beliefs - abortion law - so a temporary measure was taken in order for him not to sign and the law was signed into law, but not by him.

I blame Johnson for asking the question and putting the Queen in an impossible political position. This might be her defining moment in all her years on the thrown. And for these reasons, a royal has no place in democracies. They should have no powers at all, even though the royals don't use their powers in a democracy, they have them.

scbriml wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Since prorogation is just ending one parliamentary session, then opening another, something that happens in many democratic countries without fuss, most people not even noticing as it's during some holiday or another, couldn't the Queen have prorogued, but set the timetable herself, as the usual one or two weeks ?

No, that would be seen as the Crown interfering with Parliament. Something the Queen would want to avoid at all costs.

But the queen did intervene with Parliament, ultimatelly she decided to rubber-stamp the stupid request of the Prime Minister, a question never should have laid before her, but once did, it is a political decision she made to block parliament from discussing Brexit.

Dutchy wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Since prorogation is just ending one parliamentary session, then opening another, something that happens in many democratic countries without fuss, most people not even noticing as it's during some holiday or another, couldn't the Queen have prorogued, but set the timetable herself, as the usual one or two weeks ?

No, that would be seen as the Crown interfering with Parliament. Something the Queen would want to avoid at all costs.

But the queen did intervene with Parliament, ultimatelly she decided to rubber-stamp the stupid request of the Prime Minister,.

to be fair: that is her Job. Of course no one can really force her to do her Job. It is not like BoJo could fire her or something....

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

scbriml wrote:

No, that would be seen as the Crown interfering with Parliament. Something the Queen would want to avoid at all costs.

But the queen did intervene with Parliament, ultimatelly she decided to rubber-stamp the stupid request of the Prime Minister,.

to be fair: that is her Job. Of course no one can really force her to do her Job. It is not like BoJo could fire her or something....

best regards
Thomas

Sure, it is her job and exactly because she can't be really be forced to do anything, she could have refused to entertain him, for instance in order for making it impossible to ask the question in the first place.
It is fundamentally undemocratic to let her make such a highly political decision, even though she couldnot make any other. No matter what she did, it is controversial and no politician should have put the Queen in such a position.

Dutchy wrote:

Sure, it is her job and exactly because she can't be really be forced to do anything, she could have refused to entertain him, for instance in order for making it impossible to ask the question in the first place.
It is fundamentally undemocratic to let her make such a highly political decision, even though she couldnot make any other. No matter what she did, it is controversial and no politician should have put the Queen in such a position.

As long as the UK doesn´t turn into a republic, she is the head of state and that will always fall onto her feet. That BoJo is using and abusing her to stage what essentially is a coup to get himself dictatorial powers to push through a policy he knows would never, ever pass parliament is a different story ..... but having a weak democracy is a choice the UK is entitled to make.

best regards
Thomas

Dutchy wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

sometimes it is good to look back a bit



Bye, the consequences are yours. No special treatment anymore.

That’s really good.. and sad at the same time. Where did you find it?

It is an old one, someone reposted it on FaceBook.

Ah, that’s why. I wondered why there was no reference to the postponement of the Brexit, something like:
UK: we are now dead serious: we are leaving now!
EU: yes, you already said that, bye
UK: well, can we postpone our exit?

N14AZ wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

That’s really good.. and sad at the same time. Where did you find it?

It is an old one, someone reposted it on FaceBook.

Ah, that’s why. I wondered why there was no reference to the postponement of the Brexit, something like:
UK: we are now dead serious: we are leaving now!
EU: yes, you already said that, bye
UK: well, can we postpone our exit?

EU: Sure, no problem we understand.
UK: We don't want a back-stop
EU: Whatever you want, but come up with an alternative
UK: If you do not give up your hard stand on the Irish border, we'll leave without a deal.
EU: Yes you said that, it is up to you, bye-bye.

Before we all go off the deep end and decry the end of democracy in the UK, let's remind ourselves of what the UK parliament has managed to achieve since the election.

They've had more than 1100 days trying to figure out what it is they want, and haven't come up with anything except things they don't want. Really, it's been zero steps forward, several steps sideways and quite a few steps back. In the light of that, it seems utterly preposterous to suggest closing the parliament for 35 days will have much, if any, effect.

Or, to put it bluntly: The UK parliament have shown themselves to be utterly incapable of reaching an agreement over a period of 3.5 years. Anyone suggesting closing shop for a month or so makes all the difference, need their heads examined.

This was only going to go one way following BoJo moving into No. 10, with or without a parliament in session.

You forgot that the quen is foremost a 93 years old english, whatever the commonwealth political fiction says.

B777LRF wrote:

Before we all go off the deep end and decry the end of democracy in the UK, let's remind ourselves of what the UK parliament has managed to achieve since the election.

They've had more than 1100 days trying to figure out what it is they want, and haven't come up with anything except things they don't want. Really, it's been zero steps forward, several steps sideways and quite a few steps back. In the light of that, it seems utterly preposterous to suggest closing the parliament for 35 days will have much, if any, effect.

Or, to put it bluntly: The UK parliament have shown themselves to be utterly incapable of reaching an agreement over a period of 3.5 years. Anyone suggesting closing shop for a month or so makes all the difference, need their heads examined.

It's just the cherry on top of the poopcake that's been baking since the whole thing started.

It's significant that even the Queen can't keep clean of the mudslinging, she really is now in a position that even following custom and not committing is seen as taking a side.

B777LRF wrote:

Or, to put it bluntly: The UK parliament have shown themselves to be utterly incapable of reaching an agreement over a period of 3.5 years. Anyone suggesting closing shop for a month or so makes all the difference, need their heads examined.

If forcing Parliament to close for an unprecedented 5 weeks does nothing, why close Parliament in the first place? This move by Johnson is designed to block Parliament to put a vote of no confidence forward and put an interim PM in his place to ask the EU for an extension.

The hard-liners Brexitremist want desperate to leave before 2020 without a deal. Why you might ask? Taxation and accountability, to keep their wealth hidden. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBPZxbO7OLM

So for that reason alone, it is interesting to postpone Brexit for after January first, 2020. A few months shouldn't make a difference for Brexiteers, now should it.

Oh, for crying out loud will you all calm down?

1. @Dutchy - The UK remains a world power. It may not be a superpower, but it is a powerful country nonetheless. Unlike the Netherlands, I would hasten to add.

2. Prorogation is a perfectly normal process, which is clearly defined in law. Moreover, the lion’s share of the prorogation period covers weeks when Parliaments was scheduled to be in recess anyway, for party conferences. Prorogation has only removed a handful of sitting days (3 or 4, can’t quite remember of the top of my head).

3. Prorogation happens at the end of each Parliamentary Session, before a Queen’s Speech and a new one. A Parliamentary Session is not the same as a Parliamentary Term. The current Parliamentary session is an anomaly insofar as it is the longest in over 350 years. It is therefore sensible to bring it to a close.

4. The reason No Deal is on the table is because Parliament itself legislated to put it there. Any suggestion that MPs are being denied time to scrutinise the process is therefore entirely disingenuous. Parliament has been part of the process throughout.

KLDC10 wrote:

Oh, for crying out loud will you all calm down?

rich from the guy that can´t stop to paint the EU as undemocratic....

How many times was parliament send home in the UK to prevent them, in a parliamentarian democracy, from stopping the actions of the hired "CEO", that runs the government *for them*, that they quite explicitly oppose? Zero times or never?

best regards
Thomas