Europe, Referendum & Brexit (formerly Europe..IN or OUT??)

AND Jo Swinson has revealed to the House today that she has referred to the police a threat she received against her child. Not that it matters that much but her children are 5 and 1

God reporting on threats to the life of MPs & those in the public eye could be a full time job

The stupidity of some people is astounding isn't it. If an MP or anyone deemed against brexit is threatened or attacked due to the language that the government/some in the media are using, then anyone involved should be seen as at fault and arrested for endangering life.
Threats should not be seen as a tool to get your own way, anyone that thinks it's okay is an absolute scumbag...end of!

Since we seem to be abandoning convention, precedent and tradition left and right these days, how about this idea? Why don't we stop the tradition of a combative House of Commons where people are allowed to boo and hiss and cheer and jeer?

It's not cute. It's not clever. It's not a part of our constitutional history and heritage that is worth preserving.

It's archaic. It's the legacy of a bygone age - before amplified sound and cameras in the Commons. Now it just makes them all look like childish twats. There is more dignity here -- on an Internet forum dedicated to televised softcore porn -- than there is the House of ****ing Commons!

(And this is directed at both sides, btw. If you turn the House into a bear pit, you can't complain when the PM behaves like a big oafish bear.)

^What do you suggest to put a stop to it?

(26-09-2019 19:29 )babelover48 Wrote:  ^What do you suggest to put a stop to it?

People sit quietly and listen unless and until it is their turn to speak. If you make a peep while somebody else is speaking, you get thrown out. No warnings, no exhortations of "order". Just straight Red Card ... and out!

The House of Commons should be sober and serious and boring -- it shouldn't be bloodsport.

In fact, I don't know why the opposition parties don't use silence as a tactic. If they just sat silently and listened, it would make the Government and their backbench stooges look like bullying, public school dicks for cheering on their Leader. Especially this Leader, who is all theatricality and no substance. He thrives in that environment. If people would just shut up and let the moron talk he would more quickly reveal himself as the vacuous blockhead that he really is.

The politics of Brexit and the wider political discourse to my mind has become poisoned by the dominance of extreme views. Painfully little room has been seemingly left for compromise. Hard line factions seeking TOTAL victory without for one moment reflecting on the potential consequences.
Not heeding any warning to be careful what you wish for.
Total victory for hard liners is of no value. It merely intensifies rancour, bitterness and nastiness and division already in existence for all our futures. The art of balance and compromise seems a painfully long way away.

With specific regard to the events in the Commons yesterday my primary thought was actually what a waste of parliamentary time it all was.
Nothing of any fundamental value was achieved.
It was an intensified, low grade slanging match with both sides blaming each other for the situation in play. It wasn't just the febrile atmosphere and appalling tone and language used. It was a shocking waste of parliamentary time that had been fought so hard to obtain through the courts.

The government has not come up with any meaningful proposals for a deal.
So Boris needs to intensify efforts to get a deal by approximately 100% .
If opposition MPs are of the view insufficient efforts are being made on this front then those on the non government benches need to assert control of parliamentary proceedings to precipitate a mass series of extended indicative votes on various proposals that can lead to cross parliament agreement on a deal to exit the EU.
Over as many hours and days and with as many tweaks and amendments as required.
Just blocking Boris in every vote is one thing but it does little to break the fundamental deadlock.
The point is here that we need a deal.

No deal will polarize for years to come.
Remain will do the same.
A general election risks a hung parliament with an influx of hard right and hard left voices not willing to compromise on any policy area.
A peoples vote runs the risk of an inconclusive outcome overall. And even if the principle of such a vote is agreed there will, no doubt be a furious row as to what options appear on the ballot paper. Staunch Remainers will insist that Remain is one of the options while No Deal is not.
Staunch Brexiteers will insist on the exact polar opposite.
Where is the balance?
Where is the compromise?
Where is the sense?

The compromise is to exit the EU WITH a deal that protects jobs, business, industries, livelihoods, welfare, the environment, trade and employees.
That would be the closest thing to a victory for everyone.

We have already got the only deal we are going to get from The EU (the EU commission has disbanded the negotiating team) and MPs both Remain and Leave have rejected it.

We only have three viable options

Revoke
May's Deal
No Deal

A no deal cannot and wont be allowed, it's not an option

I would say it is not only a deadlock but a stalemate as well.
The whole saga now has the stink of rotting fish
I get the feeling that whatever underhand tactics are going , you can bet BJ is trying his damn best to run the down the clock to midnight 31st October 2019 with no real thought or any thought given to the wider consequences of his actions on the streets of Britain the morning after.

Both sides of the whole house has to hang there heads in shame. The will of the people has been brushed aside like a fly.
If there IS to be a GE, I cannot see any result but a hung parliament which would only cause further paralysis for years.
Future generations will blame this generation for the problems they will face.

Where is the balance?
Where is the compromise?
Where is the sense?
[/quote]

I suspect those are the very questions many wish to ask the PM, but I know they would not get the straightest of answers from him, I would say that I wouldn't trust him as far I could throw him - which isn't far as I'd have liked to.