Government to suspend Parliament

Is that why Ms Miller is trying to organise a website for remainers so they can be told who to vote for,

now to me that means that either Ms Miller and co. think remainers are too thick to work out who to vote for by themselves or this is a massive case of gerrymandering due to the fact that they are scared that, if the conservatives were to stand on a manifesto stating we will leave by a certain date deal or not, they would return with a majority government.

Because BoJob can't be trusted to honour his word. The opposition want an unbreakable guarantee that he won't slip in No Deal or other subversion of the democratic process by some sleight of hand.

By a 3 month election campaign? 😂

Disraeli borrowed £4,000,000 from Rothschild to buy 44% of the Suez Canal on the word of the British Government.

How much would anyone lend on the word of Boris’ Government?

I know you try to stick to a neutral position, but who do you think can command the confidence of the nation in the next GE? Jeremy Corbyn, Boris Johnson or Jo Swinson?

I hear people and read stories of people attacking Johnson for not being trust-worthy, but I am curious to know what you think?

Please don't go off on his affairs or thigh squeezing allegations or his general buffoonery.

What about Jeremy Corbyn, the man of the people?

Look, I know it is difficult for you, but please try.
In a referendum between BoJob's Deal and Remain, Remain would win (which is why Leavers are so **** scared of having such a democratic vote to determine the Will of the People).
In a general election, Remainers would neither win nor lose because a general election is not a single issue poll, as we have already determined. A vote for either Labour or Tory is not necessarily a vote for any particular Brexit position.
After a general election, a government would still have to be formed and it would then have to formulate and propose legislation on Brexit. Parliament would then get to vote on it. The only advantage in a huge Tory majority would be the ability to force through a No Deal Brexit against the Will of the People. Is that really what you want?

Is that why Ms Miller is trying to organise a website for remainers so they can be told who to vote for, now to me that means that either Ms Miller and co. think remainers are too thick to work out who to vote for by themselves or this is a massive case of gerrymandering due to the fact that they are scared that, if the conservatives were to stand on a manifesto stating we will leave by a certain date deal or not, they would return with a majority government.

Corbyn seems personally trustworthy, at least as trustworthy as any politician. He merely seeks economic policies that would be disastrous for the country.

We really know very little about Swinson in that regard.

All politicians have to dissemble to a degree because they are asked unfair questions.

Johnson isn’t straight. He lacks integrity. His natural response is to lie. Although there were suggestions that Wilson was dishonest, it is difficult to find evidence of this. The last real bounder was Lloyd George.

However, leaving aside personal integrity, what Cummings has done is destroy the reputation the Government’s governmental reputation; the idea that the Government can be trusted to do what it said it would do. That has made Boris’ job that much harder. The Government’s lawyer tells a Scottish judge one thing; Cummings contradicts it. What is the judge supposed to do. He will look a fool if he trusts Boris and Boris betrays that trust.

From the fragrant Ms Miller's track record, if she tries to organise something, it gets well and truly organised!
Pity she wasn't running Brexit, eh? It would have been done and dusted by now. Is it just coincidence that everyone trying to organise Brexit is an incompetent asshat?


No, you doofus. As I said, people usually vote along long established lines in general elections, which is presumably why tactical voting is being suggested. After all, our FPTP system can result in a government that only received a minority of the votes. Imagine that, a government trying to railroad unpopular and damaging policies against the will of the majority?

BTW, that is not what "gerrymander" means.

a credible leave option is not provided and this the result would not hold any credibility. You let a cat out the bag here.

The cat is you would lose, which is where we started from when I agreed with you This is why remainer parliamentarians and remainers in general are $$$$ing themselves not leavers. It's why they are trying every underhanded trick in the book to avoid democracy to block or "get around" the will of the people. That reason is a general election they would lose, a referendum with clear fair 50/50 choice they would lose. Do you not even know there are websites available to tell remainers how to tactically vote to defeat the will of a consistency with a minority of votes, no? This why why we agreed any democracy is bad fir remainers.

Now the I understand you are literally bashing random words on the keyboard
The Tories have litterally no intention of a no deal brexit,

Wake up man

Doofus? Are you sure you ain't a septic??

So your argument for going ahead with Brexit is that there is no credible Brexit deal. Makes sense


No idea what this word salad is supposed to mean.


WTF? The government is literally making plans for a No Deal Brexit as we speak!
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/michael-gove-weve-implemented-no-deal-brexit-plans-because-risks-have-increased-xfprsjm77


Sproinnggg!

Is that the best you can manage in response to all my points?

By a 3 month election campaign? 😂

Lord above! You edit my post to remove context so it makes little sense then say you dont understand it, well done

You keep saying you dont understand, like it should surprise me? I'm fully aware you dont understand much, so let me give you a tip. Dont bother trying to read adult posts like mine and others beyond you're comprehension, unless you are prepared to actually debate what's actually written, think about what's written and then engage in respectful conversation.

What's the point in responding to you, you don't comprehend a differing opinion so yes it's all I can be bothered to say.

Are you a septic though?

Or in other words, "a have no counter argument".
Fair enough.


Are you a cockney?

Not anything that you would even consider because you are both blinkered and bigoted.

And I'm more mockney to be honest, spent my formative years growing up around a load of the old sparras and picked up the lingo.

Still haven't answered my question though, are you a septic or not?

I'm merely cutting out the superfluous nonsense.
You claimed that any deal that was negotiated and agreed with the EU, then scrutinised and approved by parliament is "not a credible Leave option".
So what is a "credible Leave option", FFS?


It is your poor command of the English language and your inability to construct meaningful arguments that confuses me. I can't respond if I can't make head nor tail of what you're on about. Maybe try just using bullet points?

So plain "nothing", in other words.


So that's a "no". Yet you use cockney terminology. How does that work?


Not really much of a question though, was it?
Why are you so concerned? What difference does it make? Are you going to tell me to "go back where I came from"?