marcelh wrote:

A101 wrote:

par13del wrote:

How about we focus on what the majority in parliament wants....we have been talking about DC and TM now BoJo while the parliament has thrown their weight around and now have control of the process and what they want is.....................................

We know what they want is to leave with a deal, so the only choice is sign a deal that parliament rejected three times was on its way to being rejected a fourth, now they have to explain why it’s good to sign now but not earlier.

Do you think once it’s in legislation that we can’t leave without a deal the the EU will strike a new deal ha, the country is about to become a colony of the EU if that happens.

Imagine the shit show when the EU presents the federation plan for debate and the UK hasn’t got a say, are the remoaners happy about that.

The people have spoken, they want a Brexit, but they don’t want a No Deal Brexit. Please deliver asap We also want the UK leave the EU, so please move on.

All they have done is vote to not leave without a deal, notice they didn’t bring up May’s no deal to vote on it, what in Sam Nell are they going to vote on you are not going to budge the EU now for any other deal, they whole ploy of no deal is to revoke leaving the EU nothing more nothing less, sooner or later there’s going to be a GE. I hope inchrist they do and shit show comes around again. And the UK makes life difficult for the EU from the inside with full veto rights.

This is only a delay. They extend by 3 months and pro-Brexit parties will win the coming election.

A101 wrote:

Well he isn’t finished yet untill boris losses the premiership, time will tell if Allister Heath predictions come true

Ha ha. The wet dream fantasy of a brexitard. Boris is a busted flush.

ChrisKen wrote:

Just take a look at the names of those that want a no-deal brexit:

Boris, Gove, Farage, Trump, Putin

that should say all that needs to be said.

If in doubt, chuck in Katie Hopkins and Piers Morgan.

Add the reclining Rees-Mogg and you have a Who’s Who gallery of self-serving elitists. Only interested in what’s best for themselves and their cronies Quite scary.

scbriml wrote:

A101 wrote:

Well he isn’t finished yet untill boris losses the premiership, time will tell if Allister Heath predictions come true

Ha ha. The wet dream fantasy of a brexitard.

don´t forget that they do believe in Infinity cake.......

best regards
Thomas

scbriml wrote:

Johnson’s call for an election rejected by MPs!

Lame duck government. Johnson’s finished.

It seems that I was wrong about new prime minister early 2020...


Now let see who is PM in November.....

Do I understand correctly that Boris Johnson must now ask the EU for an extension without being able to guarantee that there will be new elections during that extension?

AeroVega wrote:

Do I understand correctly that Boris Johnson must now ask the EU for an extension without being able to guarantee that there will be new elections during that extension?

correct, Parliament is the boss, not the government. Corbyn does want a new general election, but only after the law has passed the House of Lords and the Queen signed it. He doesn't trust Johnson and with good reason, it seems.

Has there ever been a more disastrous start of a Prime Ministership then this?

seahawk wrote:

This is only a delay. They extend by 3 months and pro-Brexit parties will win the coming election.

if so, then that is also clear. Let them vote on a hard Brexit. It is all up to the UK, they wanted control, they have control..... what they do with it is another matter.

One thing that struck me is that the whole world have seen the british PM openly lying to parliament about the state of the negotiations with the EU and his G7 positive effect. I am certain that foreign capitals have noticed that and will deal appropriately with Frost and his masters.

AeroVega wrote:

Do I understand correctly that Boris Johnson must now ask the EU for an extension without being able to guarantee that there will be new elections during that extension?

Not just that, he also has to make the WA Government policy unless he can negotiate a better deal.....

Olddog wrote:

One thing that struck me is that the whole world have seen the british PM openly lying to parliament about the state of the negotiations with the EU and his G7 positive effect. I am certain that foreign capitals have noticed that and will deal appropriately with Frost and his masters.

leads to the obvious question: if the bill becomes law and BoJo just ignores it....... any consequences?

best regards
Thomas

scbriml wrote:

Johnson’s call for an election rejected by MPs!

Lame duck government. Johnson’s finished.

Well actually it wasn’t rejected by MP’s because Labour abstained, MPs have voted in favour of an early general election by 298 to 56 votes.

A victory for labour by abstaining but a hollow victory it was.

Dutchy wrote:

..... what they do with it is another matter.

its a bit like putting kids in Charge of house redecoration "you can do whatever you want" ... responsible choices guaranteed.

that reminds me.....

This is what you get (yup, pretty much everything is made out of chocolate and candy, even the wallpaper, and its the whole house):


A german TV show did just that some 10+ years ago.. one season only (surprise!). If you care to see it all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcmOW5Abyko

best regards
Thomas

seahawk wrote:

This is only a delay. They extend by 3 months and pro-Brexit parties will win the coming election.

As of now, no election has been called because under the rules within the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2/3rds of MP's have to vote for it - which didn't happen, and it's not hard to see why.

tommy1808 wrote:

leads to the obvious question: if the bill becomes law and BoJo just ignores it....... any consequences?

I'd have thought that would be immediate grounds for a no-confidence vote which he will no doubt lose given the numbers are against him, especially after the shameful decision to withdraw the whip from the Tory MP's who rebelled on Tuesday night. Any PM who decides to ignore laws passed by Parliament surely won't last much longer.

tommy1808 wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

Do I understand correctly that Boris Johnson must now ask the EU for an extension without being able to guarantee that there will be new elections during that extension?

Not just that, he also has to make the WA Government policy unless he can negotiate a better deal.....

No parliment cannot force policy on government parliment which was rejected by parliament three times, technically all boris has to do is go to Brussels as say we want to negotiate another deal they and ask for an extension, what if they say no the EU does not have to grant an extension to the UK.

EU law holds precedence over UK and that includes A50 so technically no deal default still remains on parliment.

Dutchy wrote:

correct, Parliament is the boss, not the government. Corbyn does want a new general election, but only after the law has passed the House of Lords and the Queen signed it. He doesn't trust Johnson and with good reason, it seems.

Although the reasons for holding back support for an election are valid (and it's not often I agree with Labour), this may come back to bite Corbyn on the backside. He has been regularly calling for a General Election since the last one in 2017 and turned down the opportunity to vote for one. You can bet this will be used as political ammunition.

I just happen to be away on holiday during w/c 14th October 2019. Good job there's the option to vote by post!

tommy1808 wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

Do I understand correctly that Boris Johnson must now ask the EU for an extension without being able to guarantee that there will be new elections during that extension?

Not just that, he also has to make the WA Government policy unless he can negotiate a better deal.....

This all provided that the Bill will be accepted in in the House of Lords. Personally I wouldn't be 100% sure if it will pass in time as anything can happen nowadays.

Boeing74741R wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

correct, Parliament is the boss, not the government. Corbyn does want a new general election, but only after the law has passed the House of Lords and the Queen signed it. He doesn't trust Johnson and with good reason, it seems.

Although the reasons for holding back support for an election are valid (and it's not often I agree with Labour), this may come back to bite Corbyn on the backside. He has been regularly calling for a General Election since the last one in 2017 and turned down the opportunity to vote for one. You can bet this will be used as political ammunition.

I just happen to be away on holiday during w/c 14th October 2019. Good job there's the option to vote by post!

I don't think many of the potential Labour voters will hold this against him as he clearly mentioned the reason. Moreover, Corbyn explicitly mentioned that he would love to vote for an election once the law is signed by the Queen. Also note that by abstaining instead of voting against the motion they can still make the argument that they're not against a general election.

Boeing74741R wrote:

seahawk wrote:

This is only a delay. They extend by 3 months and pro-Brexit parties will win the coming election.

As of now, no election has been called because under the rules within the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2/3rds of MP's have to vote for it - which didn't happen, and it's not hard to see why..

Corbyn can easily wait till the extension has been asked for before committing to a new election. But imho a new election will come and then we will see a unified hard Brexit side against a diverse choice of Brexit with a deal and remain. Considering the polls, I believe the hard Brexit will win, especially if they get the same media support as in the referendum. And to be honest I do not see why the parties and people supporting leave in the first place will be any less determined to push for the hard Brexit.

LJ wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

Do I understand correctly that Boris Johnson must now ask the EU for an extension without being able to guarantee that there will be new elections during that extension?

Not just that, he also has to make the WA Government policy unless he can negotiate a better deal.....

This all provided that the Bill will be accepted in in the House of Lords. Personally I wouldn't be 100% sure if it will pass in time as anything can happen nowadays.

Just in: the BoJo government has just given up resisting the bill.

Best regards
Thomas

A101 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

Do I understand correctly that Boris Johnson must now ask the EU for an extension without being able to guarantee that there will be new elections during that extension?

Not just that, he also has to make the WA Government policy unless he can negotiate a better deal.....

No parliment cannot force policy on government

Sure they can, in a parliamentarian democracy the government runs the country for parliament. If they dont like the orders they get, they can resign.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

A101 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Not just that, he also has to make the WA Government policy unless he can negotiate a better deal.....

No parliment cannot force policy on government

Sure they can, in a parliamentarian democracy the government runs the country for parliament. If they dont like the orders they get, they can resign.

Best regards
Thomas

You missed the point that the government will be honouring the legislation by asking for the extension and going to Brussels to ask for a new deal you can’t negotiate a deal it’s already on the table

A101 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

A101 wrote:

No parliment cannot force policy on government

Sure they can, in a parliamentarian democracy the government runs the country for parliament. If they dont like the orders they get, they can resign.

Best regards
Thomas

You missed the point that the government will be honouring the legislation by asking for the extension and going to Brussels to ask for a new deal you can’t negotiate a deal it’s already on the table

i posted the amendment to the bill above. It requires more than just asking for an extension. The EU has made clear a gazillion times that it is perfectly willing, even on an accelerated timeline, to negotiate a deal other than the WA if any workable solution ever comes out of No. 10. The EU just can´t think of any, and apparently BoJo, or the UK parliament for that matter, can´t either.

best regards
Thomas

LJ wrote:

I don't think many of the potential Labour voters will hold this against him as he clearly mentioned the reason. Moreover, Corbyn explicitly mentioned that he would love to vote for an election once the law is signed by the Queen. Also note that by abstaining instead of voting against the motion they can still make the argument that they're not against a general election.

Agreed. My point is the Tories will no doubt use this as ammunition against Corbyn for as long as there's no election date prior to 2022.

seahawk wrote:

Corbyn can easily wait till the extension has been asked for before committing to a new election. But imho a new election will come and then we will see a unified hard Brexit side against a diverse choice of Brexit with a deal and remain. Considering the polls, I believe the hard Brexit will win, especially if they get the same media support as in the referendum. And to be honest I do not see why the parties and people supporting leave in the first place will be any less determined to push for the hard Brexit.

I'm assuming you don't live in the UK. I think you need to study British politics and voting habits more. Although I commented earlier that Labour and Tory MP's in safe seats shouldn't take it for granted, the simple fact is this: there are plenty of voters out there who will forever vote Labour or Tory regardless of the political issue of the day. Why do you think for example that the likes of UKIP have failed to make inroads into the UK Parliament despite previously getting a lot of votes in European elections? Why do you think that some constituencies have been safe Labour or Tory seats for over a century (e.g. my constituency has been Labour for over 100 years)?

Rightly or wrongly, some voters go as far as not bothering to vote if they don't want to vote for their traditional party for whatever reason but at the same time refuse to vote for their rivals or other parties.

You're also assuming there will be a Conservative/Brexit Party pact. Despite Farage saying he won't stand candidates in seats that have pro-hard Brexit Tory MP's/candidates, there is no guarantee the Tories will reciprocate and let the Brexit Party stand in some seats without a Tory candidate on the ballot paper. The Tories are large enough to not need to stand down candidates in some constituencies like the Greens have done in favour of other party candidates. If Boris Johnson decides a pact with the Brexit Party needs to be done, he's basically conceding there isn't enough support for the Tories and that will be a major comedown.

If we had a PR voting system, I'd be inclined to agree with you. However, for as long as it's first past the post, the best you can reasonably expect in some places is for incumbent parties in safe seats to retain them albeit marginally, with the Brexit Party potentially getting a few seats.

Finally, it's worth remembering that, rightly or wrongly, a lot of voters in the UK have used the European elections to voice their frustrations at the domestic incumbents. This is possibly one reason why British engagement in how the EU works has been lacking and why stories such as the EU being undemocratic etc. have been given a free pass and repeated verbatim for people to believe it as fact. It's why I don't think you'll see a surge of Brexit Party candidates elected to Westminster, though stranger things have happened.

Still, if you think the Brexit Party will do well, let's see their manifesto. Being a single issue party isn't going to sustain them in the long run as that's their raison d'etre.

tommy1808 wrote:

A101 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Sure they can, in a parliamentarian democracy the government runs the country for parliament. If they dont like the orders they get, they can resign.

Best regards
Thomas

You missed the point that the government will be honouring the legislation by asking for the extension and going to Brussels to ask for a new deal you can’t negotiate a deal it’s already on the table

i posted the amendment to the bill above. It requires more than just asking for an extension. The EU has made clear a gazillion times that it is perfectly willing, even on an accelerated timeline, to negotiate a deal other than the WA if any workable solution ever comes out of No. 10. The EU just can´t think of any, and apparently BoJo, or the UK parliament for that matter, can´t either.

best regards
Thomas

Where’s the link to the amendment?

The long run does not matter to them, does it? If the hard Brexit comes, they have achieved their goal and I believe the new election will be about one single issue - Brexit. And the recent events have only helped Johnson to clear the Tory ranks from any rebels and only sent strongly pro-hard Brexit candidates into the race.

And if oris cares about the Torries is imho questionable and I am sure he will make a deal with Farrange if it brings the hard Brexit. Cummings will be very happy to break up the old political system.

A101 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

A101 wrote:

You missed the point that the government will be honouring the legislation by asking for the extension and going to Brussels to ask for a new deal you can’t negotiate a deal it’s already on the table

i posted the amendment to the bill above. It requires more than just asking for an extension. The EU has made clear a gazillion times that it is perfectly willing, even on an accelerated timeline, to negotiate a deal other than the WA if any workable solution ever comes out of No. 10. The EU just can´t think of any, and apparently BoJo, or the UK parliament for that matter, can´t either.

best regards
Thomas

Where’s the link to the amendment?

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/b ... h_0904.pdf

best regards
Thomas

Hilarious to see all the people congratulating BoJo for the purge. Why wasn't BoJo purged from the Conservative Party under May's reign? Nobody has been able to give me a good answer on this.

Boeing74741R wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

correct, Parliament is the boss, not the government. Corbyn does want a new general election, but only after the law has passed the House of Lords and the Queen signed it. He doesn't trust Johnson and with good reason, it seems.

Although the reasons for holding back support for an election are valid (and it's not often I agree with Labour), this may come back to bite Corbyn on the backside. He has been regularly calling for a General Election since the last one in 2017 and turned down the opportunity to vote for one. You can bet this will be used as political ammunition.

If Parliament would be sitting and BoJo would come back with the same demand for a GE week after week and Labour would each time have to abstain (or vote it down), then yes...
Fortunately for them, BoJo decided to prorogue Parliament, so as from next week Parliament can't be dissolved anymore, and this during the 5 long weeks of prorogation!
Another self-inflicted injury for BoJo…
Yep, when you try to bend the rules, yet things don't go as planned, then the consequences can indeed be devastating: BoJo will now have to ask the EU for yet another extention HIMSELF, something he said he'd never do... yet it's the law… Do or Die, remember?

zkojq wrote:

Hilarious to see all the people congratulating BoJo for the purge. Why wasn't BoJo purged from the Conservative Party under May's reign? Nobody has been able to give me a good answer on this.

Good question...

The man who kicks out those who vote against government policy, has voted against it on numerous times himself!

JRM , BoJo and the entire ERG gang should long have been kicked out by their own standards of loyalty!

TM didn't do it to keep the party she grew up in together, yet it shows entrists don't care about the party nor its future, just as they don't care about the Union nor its people: the only thing they care about is their own pet project for which they entered politics and maximizing the personal profit they can extract from it, just like parasites do when they take over.

SCQ83 wrote:

Given that those three EU citizens (Italy, France, Portugal) in the articles I posted have lived in the UK for decades, I don't understand either why they haven't taken on a UK passport.

Because they didn't have to isn't a good enough reason?

They had their full rights as EU citizens living in an EU country, why take on extra time and expense?

How many long term British residents in Europe have taken the local citizenship pre-Brexit? A tiny fraction.

Boeing74741R wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

correct, Parliament is the boss, not the government. Corbyn does want a new general election, but only after the law has passed the House of Lords and the Queen signed it. He doesn't trust Johnson and with good reason, it seems.

Although the reasons for holding back support for an election are valid (and it's not often I agree with Labour), this may come back to bite Corbyn on the backside. He has been regularly calling for a General Election since the last one in 2017 and turned down the opportunity to vote for one. You can bet this will be used as political ammunition.

I just happen to be away on holiday during w/c 14th October 2019. Good job there's the option to vote by post!

The electorate is so divided by now, I don't see what kind of voter would go from voting Labour to voting Tories over that.

LJ wrote:

Boeing74741R wrote:

this may come back to bite Corbyn on the backside. He has been regularly calling for a General Election since the last one in 2017 and turned down the opportunity to vote for one. You can bet this will be used as political ammunition.

I don't think many of the potential Labour voters will hold this against him as he clearly mentioned the reason. Moreover, Corbyn explicitly mentioned that he would love to vote for an election once the law is signed by the Queen.

The coordinated labelling-drive of the right wing media immediately spouts "chicken Corbyn" supports "surrender bill" at every opportunity... and sure enough the exact same labels quickly appear in the comments sections.

So transparant and pathetic, yet people suck it up and brainlessly regurgutate this stuff.

(I actually felt slightly sick at repeating them myself in this comment...)

seahawk wrote:

Boeing74741R wrote:

seahawk wrote:

This is only a delay. They extend by 3 months and pro-Brexit parties will win the coming election.

As of now, no election has been called because under the rules within the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2/3rds of MP's have to vote for it - which didn't happen, and it's not hard to see why..

Corbyn can easily wait till the extension has been asked for before committing to a new election. But imho a new election will come and then we will see a unified hard Brexit side against a diverse choice of Brexit with a deal and remain. Considering the polls, I believe the hard Brexit will win, especially if they get the same media support as in the referendum. And to be honest I do not see why the parties and people supporting leave in the first place will be any less determined to push for the hard Brexit.

BoJo is for a deal. Farage won't back down from no deal.

If BoJo goes explicitly for no deal, allied with Farage, that alliance might win, but would the Tory party still exist, would BoJo lead it ? Why not Farage as PM instead ?

JJJ wrote:

SCQ83 wrote:

Given that those three EU citizens (Italy, France, Portugal) in the articles I posted have lived in the UK for decades, I don't understand either why they haven't taken on a UK passport.

Because they didn't have to isn't a good enough reason?

They had their full rights as EU citizens living in an EU country, why take on extra time and expense?

How many long term British residents in Europe have taken the local citizenship pre-Brexit? A tiny fraction.

I don't think people realise that not only is it unnecessary, it's a hassle to change, sometimes it doesn't bring any advantage and it can even be a disadvantage compared to your current status.

In my own experience, for example, I took on then relinquished a second nationality as a young adult (it initially looked to confer more rights in the country I lived in but later caused issues for my studies). It's been suggested by many local people that myself and my wife should have taken on the nationality of the countries we were living in - in fact that would have incurred more issues and costs for our marriage, residence and work permits etc. than retaining the nationalities we have. Then there's the fact that almost everyone seems to think their passport is "the best" when it comes to travel - again, not true (it usually raises prejudiced eyebrows when we point out where our passports rank in comparison with theirs...).

Changing nationality from the one you grew up with feels slightly wrong unless absolutely necessary (as JJJ mentions, I'm sure many Brits in Spain would be labelled as actual traitors if they became Spanish one day) - so I really don't understand why people not moving around for work seem to think it's treasonous if you *don't* take the local nationality. We'd both have had to change passports three times already - I doubt it was even possible, let alone the paperwork and costs involved.

Yes I am a citizen of nowhere, and happy about that!

Aesma wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Boeing74741R wrote:

As of now, no election has been called because under the rules within the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2/3rds of MP's have to vote for it - which didn't happen, and it's not hard to see why..

Corbyn can easily wait till the extension has been asked for before committing to a new election. But imho a new election will come and then we will see a unified hard Brexit side against a diverse choice of Brexit with a deal and remain. Considering the polls, I believe the hard Brexit will win, especially if they get the same media support as in the referendum. And to be honest I do not see why the parties and people supporting leave in the first place will be any less determined to push for the hard Brexit.

BoJo is for a deal. Farage won't back down from no deal.

If BoJo goes explicitly for no deal, allied with Farage, that alliance might win, but would the Tory party still exist, would BoJo lead it ? Why not Farage as PM instead ?

Is BoJo the leading figure in this story or a useful idiot? Cummings would imho have little problem to achieve a no deal with Farage and would be delighted if this kills the Tory party and opens room for a new neoconservative right wing party to take the place.

Even his Brother deserts him....

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/li ... itics-live

Jo Johnson cited ‘unresolvable tension’ between ‘family loyalty and the national interest’ as he announces resignation.

best regards
Thomas

zkojq wrote:

Hilarious to see all the people congratulating BoJo for the purge. Why wasn't BoJo purged from the Conservative Party under May's reign? Nobody has been able to give me a good answer on this.

Very true. The double-standards is incredible and goes to show how there's less tolerance within the Tories nowadays for anything other than a pro-Brexit point of view and has completely undone all the work Cameron did to make the party more electable and even win a small majority.

In my family there are a lot of French, Italian, and French-Italians (add in a few other nationalities). Some of the Italians live in France, some of the French live in Italy... In fact for most of them I don't even know their nationality !

There was a time when you needed to renounce your nationality to get a new one, so that has played a role, my mother ditched the italian citizenship to become French, she also changed her first name from Maria to Marie. I keep telling her to get her Italian nationality back (it would be easy, as both her parents were italians, and she was born in Italy), so that I can ask for it too, but she's reluctant. She has obvious ties to Italy, with family there, and we go often, but at the end of the day she feels French foremost.

Ain't it funny to see the brexiters struggling to get out of their own trap ?

marcelh wrote:

The people have spoken, they want a Brexit, but they don’t want a No Deal Brexit. Please deliver asap We also want the UK leave the EU, so please move on.

They voted down the only deal they are going to get 3 times, and what they are voting on now is to ensure that the deal they voted down 3 times is set in stone.
Maybe they do not trust the UK government negotiate a deal while at the same time not trusting that when the EU says NYET they mean something else. I guess the only ones they trust are themselves.

Really would like to get some of what they are drinking and smoking in the parliament, they appear to be delusional. How about they spell out what deal they want then submit that to the EU....guess that's not a viable option since every indicative vote that they came up with on their deals went nowhere.

Ha. I got it, propose things that you know you will not pass, ensure that you cannot leave without a deal, and ensure that the only deal available is not acceptable and will not pass, what does that leave you with? In the interest of the nation, I am sure they do not mind how silly they look in the eyes of the public, EU or international community if it ensures that the nation remains on the right track for peace, prosperity and protection of its citizens by remaining in the EU. IN time they can commence debates on what to do about the 2016 referendum and how to minimize the damage it caused to the House and the nation.

sebolino wrote:

Ain't it funny to see the brexiters struggling to get out of their own trap ?

Brexiters and what they want has been debated to death, the Remainers have taken over the process in the house, I want to see how they get out of implementing No Deal locks while refusing to accept the only deal available and refusing to pass any other deal that they thought up which had no EU acceptance whatsoever.

A101 wrote:

Well actually it wasn’t rejected by MP’s because Labour abstained, MPs have voted in favour of an early general election by 298 to 56 votes.

A victory for labour by abstaining but a hollow victory it was.

You can spin it however you want, Boris lost the vote and his strategy now lies in tatters.

Calling for an election was a trap so transparent that it was obvious Parliament wouldn’t vote for it. Let’s see if Johnson is so keen to call an election after Oct 19th.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

LJ wrote:

Boeing74741R wrote:

this may come back to bite Corbyn on the backside. He has been regularly calling for a General Election since the last one in 2017 and turned down the opportunity to vote for one. You can bet this will be used as political ammunition.

I don't think many of the potential Labour voters will hold this against him as he clearly mentioned the reason. Moreover, Corbyn explicitly mentioned that he would love to vote for an election once the law is signed by the Queen.

The coordinated labelling-drive of the right wing media immediately spouts "chicken Corbyn" supports "surrender bill" at every opportunity... and sure enough the exact same labels quickly appear in the comments sections.

So transparant and pathetic, yet people suck it up and brainlessly regurgutate this stuff.

(I actually felt slightly sick at repeating them myself in this comment...)

It’s a massive deflection effort by the Brextremists. Anyone with an ounce of common sense understands exactly why Labour didn’t vote in favour of an election.

scbriml wrote:

Calling for an election was a trap so transparent that it was obvious Parliament wouldn’t vote for it. Let’s see if Johnson is so keen to call an election after Oct 19th.

Until the current government term is up an election can only be called if the parliament votes for it, if it failed now why would it succeed after 18th Oct?
Even if Labour wins a vote of no confidence, there have already been talk that rather than an election the Queen would / should just give labour a chance to form a government.

par13del wrote:

if it failed now why would it succeed after 18th Oct?

I believe that is when the suspended Parliament returns so nothing can happen until then no matter what.

Tugg

par13del wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Calling for an election was a trap so transparent that it was obvious Parliament wouldn’t vote for it. Let’s see if Johnson is so keen to call an election after Oct 19th.

Until the current government term is up an election can only be called if the parliament votes for it, if it failed now why would it succeed after 18th Oct?.

The no-no-deal bill will be law. Different situation...

Best regards
Thomas

Olddog wrote:

One thing that struck me is that the whole world have seen the british PM openly lying to parliament about the state of the negotiations with the EU and his G7 positive effect. I am certain that foreign capitals have noticed that and will deal appropriately with Frost and his masters.

Did the EU say the discussions were not taking place / going anywhere or did the former chancellor just request to know what they were negotiating and they declined to answer?

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

I don't think people realise that not only is it unnecessary, it's a hassle to change, sometimes it doesn't bring any advantage and it can even be a disadvantage compared to your current status.

In my own experience, for example, I took on then relinquished a second nationality as a young adult (it initially looked to confer more rights in the country I lived in but later caused issues for my studies). It's been suggested by many local people that myself and my wife should have taken on the nationality of the countries we were living in - in fact that would have incurred more issues and costs for our marriage, residence and work permits etc. than retaining the nationalities we have. Then there's the fact that almost everyone seems to think their passport is "the best" when it comes to travel - again, not true (it usually raises prejudiced eyebrows when we point out where our passports rank in comparison with theirs...).

Changing nationality from the one you grew up with feels slightly wrong unless absolutely necessary (as JJJ mentions, I'm sure many Brits in Spain would be labelled as actual traitors if they became Spanish one day) - so I really don't understand why people not moving around for work seem to think it's treasonous if you *don't* take the local nationality. We'd both have had to change passports three times already - I doubt it was even possible, let alone the paperwork and costs involved. that!

If you are a EU citizen, getting another EU citizenship (naturally living in this second country) is usually quite easy and cheap. No need to change anything.

The problem with those Brits in Spain or France is that they cannot speak the language so they cannot pass any language test. Add to that that most are retired and do not have the interest to learn a language at 70.

Tugger wrote:

par13del wrote:

if it failed now why would it succeed after 18th Oct?

I believe that is when the suspended Parliament returns so nothing can happen until then no matter what.

Tugg

It’s also the deadline in the new bill for the Government to let Parliament know about any new deal they’ve negotiated with the EU. That’s if you believe they’re actually trying to get a new deal.

tommy1808 wrote:

The no-no-deal bill will be law. Different situation...

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

The no-no-deal bill will be law. Different situation...

Best regards
Thomas

I don't think that it will make a difference, the EU has already given them the only deal available and they have turned it down, I suspect even with a general election as with the last, parties will have to say that they will respect the 2016 referendum - not sure how many people outside the UK recognize how significant that whole thing was - in which case the parliament will either be hung again or the fear of a Labour government under Corbyn will put the Tories back in power with a slim majority, after the expulsions we know it will have less ardent remain supporters, so what will be different. The parliament will still turn down the WA and back to square one.....

Maybe as with all EU things in the UK, they want the EU to expel the UK by not extending Article 50 so they can once again blame the EU for something...
Who knows what they are thinking........

par13del wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

The no-no-deal bill will be law. Different situation...

Best regards
Thomas

I don't think that it will make a difference, the EU has already given them the only deal available

It is not the only deal available, it is only the best deal for the UK anyone has come up with yet. Big difference.
And apparently parliament can get quite flexible when sh*t hits the fan.... maybe they suddenly remember how they praised the Norway model up and till referendum day.
Especially with an election coming up, as that is what probably some 60-70% or UK citizens want. The remainers because that is almost as good as remaining and much, much better than anything else, plus all the leavers that just wanted to leave the political organisation, but not the rest. At referendum time that was about half the leaver voters.

Maybe as with all EU things in the UK, they want the EU to expel the UK by not extending Article 50 so they can once again blame the EU for something...

Which is exactly why the EU will gladly give extensions until hell freezes over...

Best regards
Thomas