Brexit again...

[geosname]

2 minutes ago, Nofinikea said:

It certainly isnt to advocate what she was against, I think any normal minded person can understand that without trying to argue pedantic points.

I guess you wouldnt see the word surrender as being offensive, taken in isolation as you have done, nobody would.  However, suppose you get a death threat that encompasses the language used by your opposition to the issue you get the death threat over, that then becomes worrying.  Nobody has argued that the word surrender in itself is offensive, they have argued that the general language from the PM is inciting those who make the death threats which is born out by the PMs own terminology being used in such threats.

The PM has simply been asked to tone his language down as it's all a bit "daily mail" isnt it.  He has responded "Humbug" (Hi RB) and that shameful comment about how best to honour Jo Cox.

He had just shown himself to be even more odious and unfit to lead the country.  However, some will defend him and support him because they want No Deal and even if the Devil himself was in charge with that agenda they would support that too.

The last paragraph of my post is from her husband who seems a little Pd off at both sides bringing her name into the argument.

It suggests to me that he thinks the best way to honour here is to do what she believed in..... nothing to do with brexit at all..... get on with doing what you believe in.... remain/leave being immaterial.... I don't see why her name was brought into the bear pit at all..... by either side.

As for surrender....... if you give up everything and conced you surrender..... whether some nut job uses that terminoligy to later commit a crime or not.... if you give up language because it may offend someone or because someone commits a crime using the same language there is literally nothing to say.

Freedom of speech doesn't rest on what you like to hear or want to hear or on the possibility of someone else using it for another purpose. 

Given what parliament is I doubt you could say anything without offending someone.

[Jacko51]

49 minutes ago, geosname said:

There are very few restrictions on what can be said on the floor of the house.

Bellowing at each other shows no respect for anyone.

I don't see what is offensive about the word surrender. 

Feel a bit sick at Jo’s name being used in this way. The best way to honour Jo is for all of us (no matter our views) to stand up for what we believe in, passionately and with determination. But never to demonise the other side and always hold onto what we have in common.

In her maiden speech in the Commons Joe Cox said, “We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.”  Of course, that was in 2015 before the referendum and before this OVF thread!

[Howjy04]

I didn’t see Corbyn making an issue about NIgel Dodds’ comments re Judges.I wonder why?

[geosname]

10 minutes ago, Jacko51 said:

In her maiden speech in the Commons Joe Cox said, “We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.”  Of course, that was in 2015 before the referendum and before this OVF thread!

I think anyone who invoked her memory into that **** storm should be ashamed.

[Fosse69]

Johnson is no PM, just a nasty clown. How does he expect to get cross party MPs to back a deal, or is it part of the plan to stop one.

[geosname]

1 hour ago, Nofinikea said:

Like I said, without arguing pedantic points but to humour you if I may...

Where has anybody said they should could give up language because it might offend someone?  They should watch there language because they are in a position of influence, understanding that they might incite somebody.  That's a completely different proposition.

The original intervention actually cited that all members should be careful of terminology.  Johnson then dismissed the intervention as "Humbug" and so the examples of why it's not something to just dismiss childishly started and Jo Cox is of course a poignant example.

Her widower will not be happy she is being used in the way and of course she should not have been.  However Johnson didnt take the opportunity to condemn her use but instead escalated it by making an outrageous claim to honour her.  Showing he is unfit to lead this country.

Now to isolate "surrender" as you seem to be persisting with.  Using the word Surrender in relation to brexit is puerile and sensationalist.  As much as many brexiteers would like it to be true, we are not in a war with the EU.  We are not in any way conflicted with them in a way that would justify the use of such terminology like Surrender or traitor for that matter.  We are in negotiations about leaving a trading partnership, at worst we are conceding but the truth is we are trying to find compromise (well most are).  There is no place for the term surrender whatsoever and it is only used as sensationalism and to incite, and that's coming from our PM!

You do realise you are talking about parliament and politicians.

Fairness, common sense and doing the right thing are conspicuous by their absence. 

They rarely debate but frequently abuse as a matter of course.

They can and do contravene a super injunction simply because they can but one of the few things they can't do is say another member is a liar even if they are lying.

It's the asylum for the politically deranged, to be committed you need to sign away your soul to the party.

I condemn all who dragged Cox into the affray....... a pox on their house.... is that incitefull language?.... or do I have to wait until someone gives them a dose?

[geosname]

2 minutes ago, Nofinikea said:

If only somebody would give them a dose.  Whilst I agree about there general behaviour on both sides, rarely does it cross into what erupted yesterday and even more rarely is the PM the antagonist.

He is finished, his poroguing of Parliment and subsequent overturning has left him without a leg to stand on.  He has followed Cummings down a dead end.

Christ knows what happens next mind.

I think politics and politicians have fallen into the pit and not surprisingly most have taken a shovel to dig.

They rarely sink to the levels seen yesterday until the next time they meet.

It was a playground for anger and venting as it always is with the exception everyone wanted to be in the shoving competition not just the few usual suspects.

These are the people in the know, the great and the good, the people who make decisions that affect millions...... it was more like an unedited version of the bash street kids in the beano 

[Davebrad]

22 minutes ago, geosname said:

I think politics and politicians have fallen into the pit and not surprisingly most have taken a shovel to dig.

They rarely sink to the levels seen yesterday until the next time they meet.

It was a playground for anger and venting as it always is with the exception everyone wanted to be in the shoving competition not just the few usual suspects.

These are the people in the know, the great and the good, the people who make decisions that affect millions...... it was more like an unedited version of the bash street kids in the beano 

you could walk in and say good morning and it would up0set someone in there...

[geosname]

7 minutes ago, Nofinikea said:

What's actually needed now is a cross party consensus.  The trouble is neither of the big 2 have leaders that can command a consensus in there own party so there is no chance.

An election is pointless for 80% of the country.  Unless you reside in a swing seat your vote is meaningless on this issue.

It is clear nothing is going to pass through the house, like it or not.  So they now must try to agree on a peoples vote with 3 options, Remain, Deal ( once agreed) or No Deal.  That is the only way to get a true mandate for this.  As much as some idiots seem to think the original vote is golden, the 3rd option has now become integral.  Regardless of what the liars and narrow minded folk want anyone who they think listens to them to believe, No Deal was not on the agenda whatsoever in 2016 and that is not even a matter of opinion, its fact based on what ALL of the lead campaigners told the country about the deals they could do with the EU that we would be better off with.  I know certain folk will argue and argue that it was a simple out and blah blah blah but they simply are either belligerent, stupid or both.  They are denying the truth, the words there heroes used in 2016 and tegurguate the same lies over and over, so much so much so I think they believe it.

Why would anybody be against a second more inclusive vote with ACTUAL propositions that can be achieved?  I can only think they are scared they are flogging a dead horse.

Although I can sympathise (maybe not the right word) with your view I see several flaws..... not because I want the UK to leave.

In my opinion.....

A confirmatory referendum would have to be on the original question only..... any addition would change the meaning of the vote.

Adding another question creates a seperate referendum which would in effect nullify the original and demean its own value..... discarding 15000000 isn't a good way to bring the sides closer together.... it could in effect create another split.

The deal that was offered was rejected by the people who want to include it in another referendum..... if another deal is negotiated by another party the division against the EU will increase.... it will also cause division within the EU (preferential political treatment?) Which I suspect the EU are aware of.

If a confirmatory referendum were held a minimum % would almost certainly be applied, to combat claims of little difference etc, if neither side reached the agreed percentage the fall back position would have to be the result accepted by both major parties...... which wouldn't take us any further forward than we are at the moment.

The only way I can see out of the mess is similar to the way we entered the EEC in the first place but on a much shorter timescale, although I doubt the EU would look favourably on it.

Leave... then have a referendum to see if we wanted to stay out.

[geosname]

2 minutes ago, Davebrad said:

you could walk in and say good morning and it would up0set someone in there...

You don't know how true that is mate.555

I was with a small party of law students who visited the place and someone got upset before we spoke 555

[geosname]

7 minutes ago, Nofinikea said:

But, and even if some blinkered 

So if people want to be heard, give us a 3 option vote.  The 15000000 you seem to worry about will all have the chance to vote again, so what's the problem?

 

The problem is it just reverses who lost if remain win...... it has to be acceptable to way more than 50% 60% 70% of the voters, it has to hit very high numbers of the whole electorate..... whether they choose to vote or not.

My post wasn't based on wanting to leave or remain, simply on a solution that could bring both sides closer together..... the obvious answer would be to give them both what they want...... much easier said than done.

People don't like to lose..... remain didn't..... do you think leavers would accept it any better?

[Fosse69]

The clown loses another vote, no recess for his conference. What does he expect after yesterday.

[geosname]

17 minutes ago, Nofinikea said:

Depends on what you mean by leavers.

Hard Right No Deal Brexiteers or Moderate Leavers?

People who voted to leave...... simple

[geosname]

11 minutes ago, Nofinikea said:

People occupying a staunch remain position and the people after a hard no deal Brexit can <ovf censored> off - simple.  Even together they are a stupid imbicilic minority.  The vast majority of remainers and leavers occupy more central ground.  Nothing will please the extremists.  Even if they got what they want I doubt they would be happy.

The problem is, the government have been hi-jacked by the far right brexiteers.  They have been pandering to these <ovf censored> since the start and its coming home to roost now.  These are horrible people who have no regard for every day people at all.  BoJo doesnt care if any of us live well or die in a gutter because people like him only care about themselves.  Born to privilege, schooled in private and have no idea what a loaf costs.  It amazes me that anyone who isnt of the same financial ilk and privilege can support him but there you go.  You cant fix stupid.

You only see these traits in the Tory party?

They should all know what a loaf costs..... they claimed it on their expenses.

[Fosse69]

10 minutes ago, geosname said:

You only see these traits in the Tory party?

They should all know what a loaf costs..... they claimed it on their expenses.

Sourdough at £4  or so in in the East End.