Options

[Hiberno-Britannic Politics] Brexitstential Crisis

1457910104

Posts

  • Options
    Desktop HippieDesktop Hippie Registered User regular
    Dis' wrote: »
    Dis' wrote: »
    You know Britain, just don't put all those foreigners in camps instead of deporting them, that's a bad idea. Just a heads up from a German.

    Unfortunately we've already had some pretty serious internment camps in our history - we locked up 10 thousand Germans who worked in the UK on the Isle of Man during WW1 for example.

    Operation Demetrius - internment of suspected Nationalists - was the match to the powder keg that pushed what started as a civil rights movement in Northern Ireland into what became The Troubles.

    Oh definitely, I was making the point that in addition the British military applying internment overseas, the government/public has been cool with doing it much closer to home; rounding up Germans in the heart of Birmingham in 1914.

    Yes, sorry I didn't mean for my example to come across as trying to outdo yours. I was trying to back up your point cuz I agree with you.
    Holy crap that Kevin McKenzie "10 reasons why we must vote Brexit" article is the worst jingoistic nonsense. I mean just look at this shit!

    "2. Scotland will demand another referendum to leave the United Kingdom so it can stay in the EU - and everybody south of the border will say "Don't bother voting, just go." We can then stop sending English taxpayers' money to Jockistan, as they receive £1,600 a year more per head than we do. It would be cheaper for we wealth creators to burn a £50 note every week."

    WTF?! I knew The Sun was trash but how the hell does ANY national publication get away with something like that?!

    Hi, I see you weren't around for the Independence referendum back in 2014 then.

    The version of The Sun printed in Ireland usually leaves out the sort of shit that won't go down well with its Irish audience and I'd never sodding touch it anyway, but actually reading some of it has made me realize it's much worse than I'd imagined, which I honestly didn't think was possible.
    Bogart wrote: »
    WTF?! I knew The Sun was trash but how the hell does ANY national publication get away with something like that?!

    The Sun had a Katie Hopkins column that called refugees cockroaches.

    They are, in defiance of all pretenders to the throne, The Worst.

    I thought The Sun had fired her for doing that though (after they'd published it, granted) and she'd gone to the Daily Mail since?

  • Options
    NumiNumi Registered User regular
    Boris is probably just going to keep pushing that laughably transparent have-cake-and-eat-it-to for as long as possible and then when the EU finally gets around to telling him to pound sand he will turn around and blame them for not accepting his oh so brilliant plan. Followed by the leave supporters being outraged at the EU for their horrible dictatorial approach.

  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited June 2016
  • Options
    RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    To bring you up to speed with where we are on the comings and goings, so far we have:

    - 20 resignations, one sacking (Hilary Benn) and two informal departures (two peers say they won't attend shadow cabinet under Jeremy Corbyn)

    - 23 out of 31 members of the shadow cabinet have departed

    - the remaining members are: Jeremy Corbyn, Tom Watson, Rosie Winterton, John McDonnell, Andy Burnham, Emily Thornberry, Jon Trickett and Diane Abbott

  • Options
    BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    I thought The Sun had fired her for doing that though (after they'd published it, granted) and she'd gone to the Daily Mail since?

    She did indeed go to the Mail. But The Sun printed it. They didn't fire her for saying it, they fired her because of the backlash. It never should have seen print.

  • Options
    honoverehonovere Registered User regular
    He says it real, but I just can't believe it.

  • Options
    Desktop HippieDesktop Hippie Registered User regular
    Iain Banks wrote:
    "I think there will be a political rebalancing and we'll stop swinging round to the right. In the unlikely event that I'm around for the referendum on Scottish independence I'm definitely voting 'yes'. I was saying last year that if we don't get it in 2014 we'll get it in my lifetime and now it turns out my lifetime might not extend as far as the first referendum and that just seems wrong – a Scotland still shackled to a rightwing England, especially with the rise of the bizarrely named Ukip (I think they'll find their acronym should be EIP actually) – I won't be sorry to be missing that. I won't miss waiting for the next financial disaster because we haven't dealt with the underlying causes of the last one. Nor will I be disappointed not to experience the results of the proto-fascism that's rearing its grisly head right now. It's the utter idiocy, the sheer wrong-headedness of the response that beggars belief. I mean, your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No let's blame the people with no power and no money and these immigrants who don't even have the vote, yeah it must be their fucking fault. So I might escape having to witness even greater catastrophe.

    A friend and fellow book lover has steered me to this quote from author Iain Bank's final interview before his death in 2013.

  • Options
    AegisAegis Fear My Dance Overshot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered User regular
    I didn't realize the Leave EU campaign was being run by literal 6th graders.

    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • Options
    RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    Aegis wrote: »
    I didn't realize the Leave EU campaign was being run by literal 6th graders.

    There were two campaigns, the Official Tory-run Vote Leave, and the UKIP-Run Leave EU

  • Options
    eEK!eEK! Registered User regular
    Bogart wrote: »
    Tony Blair is possibly a war criminal, but he was not utterly, comically, tragically useless.

    The left wing that hated Blair now has control of the Labour party. It has been an unmitigated disaster.

    At least Tony can blame some of that on Bush, Corbyn clearly doesn't listen to anyone though.

    The great mystery to me though is how Labour still don't have candidate to replace him with, he was hated by the party right out of the gate, they've got to be able to unite behind someone surely.

    Hell forget Blair even Miliband's rock of pledges looks like savy politics now.

    Although thinking of Miliband I'm reminded that he really was unfairly smeared by the press over his inability to look cool while eating and "gasp" having sex before marriage (compared to right wing MPs who wouldn't know sexual morality if it shat on their face), which seems to have lead to this boy who cried wolf situation with Corbyn.

  • Options
    BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    One was based on lies and the other on naked racism.

    How Kate Hoey can hold her head up after standing next to Farage during it is beyond me.

  • Options
    altidaltid Registered User regular
    edited June 2016
    Dis' wrote: »
    You know Britain, just don't put all those foreigners in camps instead of deporting them, that's a bad idea. Just a heads up from a German.

    Unfortunately we've already had some pretty serious internment camps in our history - we locked up 10 thousand Germans who worked in the UK on the Isle of Man during WW1 for example.

    Operation Demetrius - internment of suspected Nationalists - was the match to the powder keg that pushed what started as a civil rights movement in Northern Ireland into what became The Troubles.

    Off topic a bit, but the context of Operation Demetrius is interesting.
    It was put forward by the NI unionist government and the british government suggested not making it horribly one sided. Indeed they proposed " the arrest of loyalist militants, the calling in of weapons held by (generally unionist) rifle clubs in Northern Ireland and an indefinite ban on parades (most of which were held by unionist/loyalist groups)". Naturally the unionist government wouldn't budge and only reluctantly gave a 6 month ban on parades. No loyalists were arrested.

    What should have happened is the british should have told the unionists to fuck off and not implemented a fundamentally horrible idea. It's stuff like this that forms my view that the troubles were largely caused by unionist screwups and a disinterested britain.

    I don't think I've ever heard a unionist say internment was wrong.

    altid on
  • Options
    RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    Parliament needs to approve move to trigger article 50, lawyers claim

    Owen Bowcott
    Any prime minister will need parliamentary approval to trigger article 50 of the Lisbon treaty and initiate the UK’s exit from the European Union, according to a report by constitutional lawyers.

    In a legal opinion published on Monday, Nick Barber, a fellow at Trinity College, Oxford, Tom Hickman, a barrister at Blackstone Chambers and reader at University Collegge, London, and Jeff King, a senior law lecturer at UCL, declare that: “In our constitution, parliament gets to make this decision, not the prime minister.” They add:

    The prime minister is unable to issue a declaration under article 50 of the Lisbon treaty – triggering our withdrawal from the European Union – without having been first authorised to do so by an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament. Were he to attempt to do so before such a statute was passed, the declaration would be legally ineffective as a matter of domestic law and it would also fail to comply with the requirements of article 50 itself.

    Their argument is based on the fact article 50 states that any withdrawal from the EU must be made “in accordance with the state’s constitutional requirements”. Traditional constitutional arrangements involve parliamentary sovereignty.

    “Parliament could conclude that it would be contrary to the national interest to invoke article 50 whilst it is in the dark about what the key essentials of the new relationship with the EU are going to be, and without knowing what terms the EU is going to offer,” the three authors suggest.
    Handing parliament, where the majority of MPs are remain supporters, a veto on Brexit is not a legal interpretation that is going to be welcomed by leave voters.

    Interesting that this would clash with the earlier EU Parliament resolution saying if Cameron mentions the referendum at the meeting tomorrow A50 is activated. Constitutional Crisis!

  • Options
    klemmingklemming Registered User regular
    Can the EU decide they're sick of our shit and start the process to kick us out from their side?
    I assume there's a clause somewhere that allows them to get rid of countries that no-one wants there.

    Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
  • Options
    honoverehonovere Registered User regular
    Parliament needs to approve move to trigger article 50, lawyers claim

    Owen Bowcott
    Any prime minister will need parliamentary approval to trigger article 50 of the Lisbon treaty and initiate the UK’s exit from the European Union, according to a report by constitutional lawyers.

    In a legal opinion published on Monday, Nick Barber, a fellow at Trinity College, Oxford, Tom Hickman, a barrister at Blackstone Chambers and reader at University Collegge, London, and Jeff King, a senior law lecturer at UCL, declare that: “In our constitution, parliament gets to make this decision, not the prime minister.” They add:

    The prime minister is unable to issue a declaration under article 50 of the Lisbon treaty – triggering our withdrawal from the European Union – without having been first authorised to do so by an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament. Were he to attempt to do so before such a statute was passed, the declaration would be legally ineffective as a matter of domestic law and it would also fail to comply with the requirements of article 50 itself.

    Their argument is based on the fact article 50 states that any withdrawal from the EU must be made “in accordance with the state’s constitutional requirements”. Traditional constitutional arrangements involve parliamentary sovereignty.

    “Parliament could conclude that it would be contrary to the national interest to invoke article 50 whilst it is in the dark about what the key essentials of the new relationship with the EU are going to be, and without knowing what terms the EU is going to offer,” the three authors suggest.
    Handing parliament, where the majority of MPs are remain supporters, a veto on Brexit is not a legal interpretation that is going to be welcomed by leave voters.

    Interesting that this would clash with the earlier EU Parliament resolution saying if Cameron mentions the referendum at the meeting tomorrow A50 is activated. Constitutional Crisis!

    So the parliament won't trigger article 50 without having negotiations with the EU beforehand and the EU won't have negotiations without triggering article 50 first. That will be helpful.

  • Options
    RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    honovere wrote: »
    Parliament needs to approve move to trigger article 50, lawyers claim

    Owen Bowcott
    Any prime minister will need parliamentary approval to trigger article 50 of the Lisbon treaty and initiate the UK’s exit from the European Union, according to a report by constitutional lawyers.

    In a legal opinion published on Monday, Nick Barber, a fellow at Trinity College, Oxford, Tom Hickman, a barrister at Blackstone Chambers and reader at University Collegge, London, and Jeff King, a senior law lecturer at UCL, declare that: “In our constitution, parliament gets to make this decision, not the prime minister.” They add:

    The prime minister is unable to issue a declaration under article 50 of the Lisbon treaty – triggering our withdrawal from the European Union – without having been first authorised to do so by an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament. Were he to attempt to do so before such a statute was passed, the declaration would be legally ineffective as a matter of domestic law and it would also fail to comply with the requirements of article 50 itself.

    Their argument is based on the fact article 50 states that any withdrawal from the EU must be made “in accordance with the state’s constitutional requirements”. Traditional constitutional arrangements involve parliamentary sovereignty.

    “Parliament could conclude that it would be contrary to the national interest to invoke article 50 whilst it is in the dark about what the key essentials of the new relationship with the EU are going to be, and without knowing what terms the EU is going to offer,” the three authors suggest.
    Handing parliament, where the majority of MPs are remain supporters, a veto on Brexit is not a legal interpretation that is going to be welcomed by leave voters.

    Interesting that this would clash with the earlier EU Parliament resolution saying if Cameron mentions the referendum at the meeting tomorrow A50 is activated. Constitutional Crisis!

    So the parliament won't trigger article 50 without having negotiations with the EU beforehand and the EU won't have negotiations without triggering article 50 first. That will be helpful.

    This deadlock is where the narrow window for a snap election to muddy the mandate waters arises

    Of course that snap election could return a Tory/UKIP government and we go ahead with it anyway, but the thought doesn't hurt

  • Options
    altidaltid Registered User regular
    Corbyn talks about internal faction maneuvering on the government benches and his own benches. Gets jeered and laughed at by both sides. Quite a few cries of "resign".

  • Options
    mori1972mori1972 FF14: Rhotfyr Thosinmharsyn (Y)UKRegistered User regular
    honovere wrote: »
    So the parliament won't trigger article 50 without having negotiations with the EU beforehand and the EU won't have negotiations without triggering article 50 first. That will be helpful.

    Head, meet hands. Hands, head.

    It's all saltwater these days:
    Ocean, tears and heartbreak soup
    Half alive in a whitecap foam
    Half in love with a white half moon
  • Options
    CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    eEK! wrote: »
    Bogart wrote: »
    Tony Blair is possibly a war criminal, but he was not utterly, comically, tragically useless.

    The left wing that hated Blair now has control of the Labour party. It has been an unmitigated disaster.

    At least Tony can blame some of that on Bush, Corbyn clearly doesn't listen to anyone though.

    The great mystery to me though is how Labour still don't have candidate to replace him with, he was hated by the party right out of the gate, they've got to be able to unite behind someone surely.

    Hell forget Blair even Miliband's rock of pledges looks like savy politics now.

    Although thinking of Miliband I'm reminded that he really was unfairly smeared by the press over his inability to look cool while eating and "gasp" having sex before marriage (compared to right wing MPs who wouldn't know sexual morality if it shat on their face), which seems to have lead to this boy who cried wolf situation with Corbyn.

    The one guy who probably should have gotten the rains (David Milliband) pretty much turned his back on politics, and I can't really imagine what incentive he has to come back at this point.

  • Options
    altidaltid Registered User regular
    Ken Clarke raising the idea that it's fucking stupid and parliament should decide.

  • Options
    Mojo_JojoMojo_Jojo We are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourse Registered User regular
    honovere wrote: »
    Parliament needs to approve move to trigger article 50, lawyers claim

    Owen Bowcott
    Any prime minister will need parliamentary approval to trigger article 50 of the Lisbon treaty and initiate the UK’s exit from the European Union, according to a report by constitutional lawyers.

    In a legal opinion published on Monday, Nick Barber, a fellow at Trinity College, Oxford, Tom Hickman, a barrister at Blackstone Chambers and reader at University Collegge, London, and Jeff King, a senior law lecturer at UCL, declare that: “In our constitution, parliament gets to make this decision, not the prime minister.” They add:

    The prime minister is unable to issue a declaration under article 50 of the Lisbon treaty – triggering our withdrawal from the European Union – without having been first authorised to do so by an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament. Were he to attempt to do so before such a statute was passed, the declaration would be legally ineffective as a matter of domestic law and it would also fail to comply with the requirements of article 50 itself.

    Their argument is based on the fact article 50 states that any withdrawal from the EU must be made “in accordance with the state’s constitutional requirements”. Traditional constitutional arrangements involve parliamentary sovereignty.

    “Parliament could conclude that it would be contrary to the national interest to invoke article 50 whilst it is in the dark about what the key essentials of the new relationship with the EU are going to be, and without knowing what terms the EU is going to offer,” the three authors suggest.
    Handing parliament, where the majority of MPs are remain supporters, a veto on Brexit is not a legal interpretation that is going to be welcomed by leave voters.

    Interesting that this would clash with the earlier EU Parliament resolution saying if Cameron mentions the referendum at the meeting tomorrow A50 is activated. Constitutional Crisis!

    So the parliament won't trigger article 50 without having negotiations with the EU beforehand and the EU won't have negotiations without triggering article 50 first. That will be helpful.

    Maybe this can be one of those running political jokes like the couple of years that apparently Belgium didn't have a government.

    Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
  • Options
    klemmingklemming Registered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    eEK! wrote: »
    Bogart wrote: »
    Tony Blair is possibly a war criminal, but he was not utterly, comically, tragically useless.

    The left wing that hated Blair now has control of the Labour party. It has been an unmitigated disaster.

    At least Tony can blame some of that on Bush, Corbyn clearly doesn't listen to anyone though.

    The great mystery to me though is how Labour still don't have candidate to replace him with, he was hated by the party right out of the gate, they've got to be able to unite behind someone surely.

    Hell forget Blair even Miliband's rock of pledges looks like savy politics now.

    Although thinking of Miliband I'm reminded that he really was unfairly smeared by the press over his inability to look cool while eating and "gasp" having sex before marriage (compared to right wing MPs who wouldn't know sexual morality if it shat on their face), which seems to have lead to this boy who cried wolf situation with Corbyn.

    The one guy who probably should have gotten the rains (David Milliband) pretty much turned his back on politics, and I can't really imagine what incentive he has to come back at this point.

    He's got an incentive to come back for about 30 seconds:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6CVvNRQcvE

    Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
  • Options
    honoverehonovere Registered User regular
    altid wrote: »
    Corbyn talks about internal faction maneuvering on the government benches and his own benches. Gets jeered and laughed at by both sides. Quite a few cries of "resign".

    I am always surprised by the tone in parliament. I can't get the picture of the stiff upper lip brit out of my head when thinking of Westminster.

  • Options
    CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    eEK! wrote: »
    Bogart wrote: »
    Tony Blair is possibly a war criminal, but he was not utterly, comically, tragically useless.

    The left wing that hated Blair now has control of the Labour party. It has been an unmitigated disaster.

    At least Tony can blame some of that on Bush, Corbyn clearly doesn't listen to anyone though.

    The great mystery to me though is how Labour still don't have candidate to replace him with, he was hated by the party right out of the gate, they've got to be able to unite behind someone surely.

    Hell forget Blair even Miliband's rock of pledges looks like savy politics now.

    Although thinking of Miliband I'm reminded that he really was unfairly smeared by the press over his inability to look cool while eating and "gasp" having sex before marriage (compared to right wing MPs who wouldn't know sexual morality if it shat on their face), which seems to have lead to this boy who cried wolf situation with Corbyn.

    The one guy who probably should have gotten the rains (David Milliband) pretty much turned his back on politics, and I can't really imagine what incentive he has to come back at this point.

    Lets imagine fun scenarios where Dave Milliband is sitting in a dingy bar in a generic southern united states area, a man in a suit walks through the door...

    "David, your country needs you!"

    "... I don't have a country"

    *David belts a whiskey shot and lights a cigarette*

  • Options
    altidaltid Registered User regular
    Can we have SNP for official opposition? They're the only ones talking sense at the moment.

    Well them and Ken Clarke.

  • Options
    RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    altid wrote: »
    Can we have SNP for official opposition? They're the only ones talking sense at the moment.

    Well them and Ken Clarke.

    If there is a major splintering of Parties and a new centre-right party is formed, they could do worse than Ken Clarke.

  • Options
    CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    klemming wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    eEK! wrote: »
    Bogart wrote: »
    Tony Blair is possibly a war criminal, but he was not utterly, comically, tragically useless.

    The left wing that hated Blair now has control of the Labour party. It has been an unmitigated disaster.

    At least Tony can blame some of that on Bush, Corbyn clearly doesn't listen to anyone though.

    The great mystery to me though is how Labour still don't have candidate to replace him with, he was hated by the party right out of the gate, they've got to be able to unite behind someone surely.

    Hell forget Blair even Miliband's rock of pledges looks like savy politics now.

    Although thinking of Miliband I'm reminded that he really was unfairly smeared by the press over his inability to look cool while eating and "gasp" having sex before marriage (compared to right wing MPs who wouldn't know sexual morality if it shat on their face), which seems to have lead to this boy who cried wolf situation with Corbyn.

    The one guy who probably should have gotten the rains (David Milliband) pretty much turned his back on politics, and I can't really imagine what incentive he has to come back at this point.

    He's got an incentive to come back for about 30 seconds:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6CVvNRQcvE

    Jesus Christ for everything in the universe there is a "simpsons did it".

  • Options
    RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    klemming wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    eEK! wrote: »
    Bogart wrote: »
    Tony Blair is possibly a war criminal, but he was not utterly, comically, tragically useless.

    The left wing that hated Blair now has control of the Labour party. It has been an unmitigated disaster.

    At least Tony can blame some of that on Bush, Corbyn clearly doesn't listen to anyone though.

    The great mystery to me though is how Labour still don't have candidate to replace him with, he was hated by the party right out of the gate, they've got to be able to unite behind someone surely.

    Hell forget Blair even Miliband's rock of pledges looks like savy politics now.

    Although thinking of Miliband I'm reminded that he really was unfairly smeared by the press over his inability to look cool while eating and "gasp" having sex before marriage (compared to right wing MPs who wouldn't know sexual morality if it shat on their face), which seems to have lead to this boy who cried wolf situation with Corbyn.

    The one guy who probably should have gotten the rains (David Milliband) pretty much turned his back on politics, and I can't really imagine what incentive he has to come back at this point.

    He's got an incentive to come back for about 30 seconds:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6CVvNRQcvE

    Jesus Christ for everything in the universe there is a "simpsons did it".

    "D'oh!" feels appropriate for like 90% of what's been going on

  • Options
    altidaltid Registered User regular
    Cameron did have a nice burn for Corbyn. Corbyn had talked about months of debate while he remained PM, Cameron replied with "weeks, maybe months ahead".

    The commons is a bit more blunt than normal, but I wish Cameron would go full "don't give a fuck" and just openly call people out.

  • Options
    Bad-BeatBad-Beat Registered User regular
    Corbyn must have thought: What isn't Cameron doing that I can attack him over? ..Not triggering Article 50!

    "We should trigger Article 50 immediately!"

    No, Jeremy. What Cameron isn't doing is keeping us in the EU at all costs. That's what you should be attacking him with, you prick.

  • Options
    CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    altid wrote: »
    Cameron did have a nice burn for Corbyn. Corbyn had talked about months of debate while he remained PM, Cameron replied with "weeks, maybe months ahead".

    The commons is a bit more blunt than normal, but I wish Cameron would go full "don't give a fuck" and just openly call people out.

    i dont see what he has to lose

    his career in politics is over

    i mean IF he is absolutely beloved in his constituency he may be able to bumble along as a backbencher for the rest of his career but i think he's the sort that's more likley just to leave and start making his "ex head of state millions" in the private sector

    i cant see him being allowed a sniff of real political power again after October

  • Options
    altidaltid Registered User regular
    edited June 2016
    Hilary Benn gets the largest cheer from Labour benches. No surprise there.
    Edit: Nicola Blackwood brings up science and Horizon 2020 specifically. Good to see someone remembered.

    altid on
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    what did Benn say

    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    altidaltid Registered User regular
    Mostly stuff about not letting Britain's voice in the world diminish, continuing to work closely with Europe etc.
    Will have to look up the details later, the cheer was mostly for standing up.
    For comparison, the place was silent when Kate Hoey stood up.

  • Options
    BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    ronya wrote: »
    what did Benn say

    You tried to lead a coup and get my dad installed as leader. Pretty ironic, eh?

  • Options
    BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    he's still hedging about defying the referendum whilst leaving the door open, then

    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    Remind me who Kate Hoey is? Wikipedia plants her as a former Minister of Sport. What has she said?

  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    loud labour exiter

    aRkpc.gif
This discussion has been closed.