How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 12)
Discussion
Robertj21a said:
As long as someone clobbers Bercow (and Soubry) I'll be happy.
Actually, just locking the pair of them in a room and throwing away the key would be exquisite. Relief for the rest of us and the agonising torture of each other's company in perpetuity for them. What on earth is there not to like?
ELUSIVEJIM said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
They are still the elected representatives of their constituencies
So Rory Stewart is an elected representative for Penrith and The Border parliamentary constituency yet they voted to leave the EU.That in itself should mean he is not to sit in the HOC on a Conservative bench after last nights vote.
It would be worth you swatting up on some of the basics of our constitution
ELUSIVEJIM said:
The government's modest band of supporters in the Lords are mounting a formidable filibuster operation to prevent the Benn Bill getting to third reading before a possible prorogation of Parliament on Monday.
Labour and the Lib Dems had put down a business of the house motion which lays down a timetable for consideration of the bill.
The government side then unleashed hoards of amendments, to change every possible aspect of the motion and suggest all kinds of measures that should be debated instead (my favourite is the Bat Habitat (regulation) Bill).
Unlike the Commons, where such amendments might be grouped or voted on in a job lot at a set time, the Lords has to debate each amendment.
So the bill's supporters will have to move a closure motion to end the debate on each amendment, and then vote on each amendment.
That will mean two divisions, each probably taking a quarter of an hour, will be forced on each of around 90 amendments.
This morning, many were arriving with suitcases full of overnight gear and supplies.
Disgusting, anti-democratic behaviour by a bunch of unelected appointees and those priviliged by birth.Labour and the Lib Dems had put down a business of the house motion which lays down a timetable for consideration of the bill.
The government side then unleashed hoards of amendments, to change every possible aspect of the motion and suggest all kinds of measures that should be debated instead (my favourite is the Bat Habitat (regulation) Bill).
Unlike the Commons, where such amendments might be grouped or voted on in a job lot at a set time, the Lords has to debate each amendment.
So the bill's supporters will have to move a closure motion to end the debate on each amendment, and then vote on each amendment.
That will mean two divisions, each probably taking a quarter of an hour, will be forced on each of around 90 amendments.
This morning, many were arriving with suitcases full of overnight gear and supplies.
But then of course that description also applies to the current charlatan squatting in No10 and his merry band of sycophants and shysters.
Hopefully it will fail and just have wasted their time.
psi310398 said:
Actually, just locking the pair of them in a room and throwing away the key would be exquisite.
Relief for the rest of us and the agonising torture of each other's company in perpetuity for them. What on earth is there not to like?
That would be worse. They will no doubt get into some kind of bondage session and we would have a hybrid male/female of the two in the HOC in 18/20 years time. Relief for the rest of us and the agonising torture of each other's company in perpetuity for them. What on earth is there not to like?
ELUSIVEJIM said:
psi310398 said:
Actually, just locking the pair of them in a room and throwing away the key would be exquisite.
Relief for the rest of us and the agonising torture of each other's company in perpetuity for them. What on earth is there not to like?
That would be worse. They will no doubt get into some kind of bondage session and we would have a hybrid male/female of the two in the HOC in 18/20 years time. Relief for the rest of us and the agonising torture of each other's company in perpetuity for them. What on earth is there not to like?
ClaphamGT3 said:
No, because he is a representative, not a delegate.
It would be worth you swatting up on some of the basics of our constitution
So that's your reply It would be worth you swatting up on some of the basics of our constitution
So who is he representing? Clearly not the people who voted him in.
If a GE doesn't happen then there needs to be a by-election in each of the 21 who were excused.
Nobody voted for no beer.!TheFlyingBanana said:
Disgusting, anti-democratic behaviour by a bunch of unelected appointees and those priviliged by birth.
But then of course that description also applies to the current charlatan squatting in No10 and his merry band of sycophants and shysters.
Hopefully it will fail and just have wasted their time.
Sorry, this is the Lords. Not the remainers in the HOC's But then of course that description also applies to the current charlatan squatting in No10 and his merry band of sycophants and shysters.
Hopefully it will fail and just have wasted their time.
Isn't it funny that If Gina Miller, that puppet of those with axes to grind in business, hadn't taken the situation to the High Court in November 2016 and won, parliament would not have had ANY say in the matter. It was the decision of the court that any withdrawal agreement had to obtain the consent of parliament in order to be valid.
ELUSIVEJIM said:
TheFlyingBanana said:
Disgusting, anti-democratic behaviour by a bunch of unelected appointees and those priviliged by birth.
But then of course that description also applies to the current charlatan squatting in No10 and his merry band of sycophants and shysters.
Hopefully it will fail and just have wasted their time.
Sorry, this is the Lords. Not the remainers in the HOC's But then of course that description also applies to the current charlatan squatting in No10 and his merry band of sycophants and shysters.
Hopefully it will fail and just have wasted their time.
motco said:
Isn't it funny that If Gina Miller, that puppet of those with axes to grind in business, hadn't taken the situation to the High Court in November 2016 and won, parliament would not have had ANY say in the matter. It was the decision of the court that any withdrawal agreement had to obtain the consent of parliament in order to be valid.
Even hearing her name makes my kettle boil.b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:ELUSIVEJIM said:
Even hearing her name makes my kettle boil.
I really don't understand why she annoys some people so much.As I understand it take her out of the equation and May would have been free to get on with things by herself.
How do you think that would have worked out?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff