Road rules1 min ago
Speaking With Forked Tongue?
41 Answers
https:/
It'll be interesting to see whether any of the site's right-wingers are truly able to (quote) "handle the truth" as expressed by their senior politicians.
It'll be interesting to see whether any of the site's right-wingers are truly able to (quote) "handle the truth" as expressed by their senior politicians.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Quizmonster. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
From what I can recall the carefully chosen "quotes" in the left wing rag were all lifted from longer tracts and all made before agent cob declared that he was hatching a plot, to prevent Brexit, with his cabal of Euromaniacs. So Boris has trumped that little plot and headed the bandits off at the pass. Good Lad.
"When the facts change I change my mind."
I, too, apply that 'rule' in my life to many everyday matters, such as being unable to attend a party, say, because I have to visit someone in hospital.
Here, however, we're talking of a whole clutch of Cabinet ministers for all of whom the very concept[i of prorogation was a grotesque affront to democracy a few weeks ago, but - all of a sudden - it isn't any more to any of them!
Is that the kind of fact [i]you're] referring to?
I, too, apply that 'rule' in my life to many everyday matters, such as being unable to attend a party, say, because I have to visit someone in hospital.
Here, however, we're talking of a whole clutch of Cabinet ministers for all of whom the very concept[i of prorogation was a grotesque affront to democracy a few weeks ago, but - all of a sudden - it isn't any more to any of them!
Is that the kind of fact [i]you're] referring to?
Don't know what the fuss is about.
The Losers have had three opportunities to prevent Brexit (because that is indeed their aim - the "No Deal" nonsense is simply the latest camouflage):
- They could have voted to deny a referendum (but they didn't, instead they voted by 11 to 1 to hold one).
- They could have voted against triggering A50 (but they didn't, instead they voted by about 5 to 1 in favour of doing so).
- They could have stood as Independents in the 2017 GE on a platform of reversing Brexit (but they didn't. Instead 80% of them stood for parties whose manifestoes committed them to facilitating Brexit).
They forced the Prime Minister to seek an extension earlier this year having rejected the only deal on offer. Now, with that extension almost up (and nothing in particular undertaken by them in the meantime) they are moaning because they have been deprived of five or six days Parliamentary time in which they will seek to delay our departure yet again. They have no constructive ideas to overcome the impasse despite having had over a thousand days to do so and seem content to see the country's business and commerce continue to suffer from uncertainty. Six more will not help,
I believe they will succeed in delaying Brexit yet again. They will do so adequately supported by a partisan Speaker and with the assistance of the courts who seem to have taken on the role of holding the Executive to account from a shambolic Parliament. I would not be surprised if they succeeded passed legislation which prevents a "No Deal" exit entirely. If that's the case we need to stand by for a revised - far more unacceptable - deal from the EU because they will be able to do as they please.
They claim of anti-democratic procedures being employed. Don't make me laugh.
The Losers have had three opportunities to prevent Brexit (because that is indeed their aim - the "No Deal" nonsense is simply the latest camouflage):
- They could have voted to deny a referendum (but they didn't, instead they voted by 11 to 1 to hold one).
- They could have voted against triggering A50 (but they didn't, instead they voted by about 5 to 1 in favour of doing so).
- They could have stood as Independents in the 2017 GE on a platform of reversing Brexit (but they didn't. Instead 80% of them stood for parties whose manifestoes committed them to facilitating Brexit).
They forced the Prime Minister to seek an extension earlier this year having rejected the only deal on offer. Now, with that extension almost up (and nothing in particular undertaken by them in the meantime) they are moaning because they have been deprived of five or six days Parliamentary time in which they will seek to delay our departure yet again. They have no constructive ideas to overcome the impasse despite having had over a thousand days to do so and seem content to see the country's business and commerce continue to suffer from uncertainty. Six more will not help,
I believe they will succeed in delaying Brexit yet again. They will do so adequately supported by a partisan Speaker and with the assistance of the courts who seem to have taken on the role of holding the Executive to account from a shambolic Parliament. I would not be surprised if they succeeded passed legislation which prevents a "No Deal" exit entirely. If that's the case we need to stand by for a revised - far more unacceptable - deal from the EU because they will be able to do as they please.
They claim of anti-democratic procedures being employed. Don't make me laugh.
"A shambolic Parliament"?
Are you sure, NJ, that you do not refer to "a shambolic government"? The Tories alone - having been in power under Cameron and May for all-but a decade - are responsible for the monstrous shambles that Brexit has become. That, in turn, is the cause of the hoo-haa we are now having to go through!
Are you sure, NJ, that you do not refer to "a shambolic government"? The Tories alone - having been in power under Cameron and May for all-but a decade - are responsible for the monstrous shambles that Brexit has become. That, in turn, is the cause of the hoo-haa we are now having to go through!
Government hasn't been ideal, but no, nothing compares to the recent parliament that opts to deny the public it's demands, and argues amongst itself delaying progress, causing a long period of uncertainty and indecision. And it's still trying to do the same. No, it's clearly the parliament who has proved to be unfit for its task and rightly described as "shambolic".
As previously pointed out, it needs sorting, once we've left external control.
But the real issue is how to judge candidates as to whether they are looking for power for themselves, or really want to represent the public view.
Maybe politicians should be called up randomly from the public, not apply for the position. Probably wouldn't be worse, might even be better. But no, that wouldn't be democratic.
But the real issue is how to judge candidates as to whether they are looking for power for themselves, or really want to represent the public view.
Maybe politicians should be called up randomly from the public, not apply for the position. Probably wouldn't be worse, might even be better. But no, that wouldn't be democratic.
Source for the Maastricht claim?
Although as usual Togo's being massively misleading. The discussion over when and how to prorogue Parliament clearly didn't begin only after Corbyn et al met. It was announced afterwards but had been planned for weeks at least beforehand.
Nevertheless, on a technical and pedantic point, the earlier discussion and context for discussing the prorogation of Parliament was specifically about proroguing on or around October 31st. Although it's transparently obvious that the actual period is meant to achieve a similar thing (ie, reduce the chances that MPs can avoid the UK leaving the EU on that date), it's not nearly so direct, and of course they've wrapped it up with a Queen's speech, the end of an unusually long session of Parliament, etc etc. So although it's dodgy I think you can at least allow that the different dates allow the "Before" and "After" quotes to be not inconsistent with each other.
Although as usual Togo's being massively misleading. The discussion over when and how to prorogue Parliament clearly didn't begin only after Corbyn et al met. It was announced afterwards but had been planned for weeks at least beforehand.
Nevertheless, on a technical and pedantic point, the earlier discussion and context for discussing the prorogation of Parliament was specifically about proroguing on or around October 31st. Although it's transparently obvious that the actual period is meant to achieve a similar thing (ie, reduce the chances that MPs can avoid the UK leaving the EU on that date), it's not nearly so direct, and of course they've wrapped it up with a Queen's speech, the end of an unusually long session of Parliament, etc etc. So although it's dodgy I think you can at least allow that the different dates allow the "Before" and "After" quotes to be not inconsistent with each other.
One of the consequences of starting a new session, by the way, is that the previous Withdrawal Agreement can now be voted on again. It wouldn't be totally a surprise if that ends up being Boris's plan. Kick up a fuss about the Backstop, secure only superficial changes to it, and claim a triumph because MPs are now too scared of No Deal to vote it down.
