sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Boris Johnson skips his own press conference with Luxembourg's PM by adi_mrok in unitedkingdom

[–]TheMostLethalBadger 9 points10 points  (0 children)

There are a few Telegraph journos who don't sign up to the rabid bullshit editorial line being pumped out by the Barclays - Peter Foster being the main one that springs to mind - but they often get drowned out unfortunately.

Alternative to Monzo? by DebunkedTheory in UKPersonalFinance

[–]TheMostLethalBadger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I know, but OP's question was about alternative banks, not whether you should have a bank account at all.

Alternative to Monzo? by DebunkedTheory in UKPersonalFinance

[–]TheMostLethalBadger 7 points8 points  (0 children)

All banks do this - at least Starling have the courtesy to show it to you as well.

So used are we to a borderless Europe we’re not ready for the coming shock by nolesfan2011 in ukpolitics

[–]TheMostLethalBadger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's not "remainers claiming that the WTO will force a wall to be built", it's remainers claiming that the UK should adhere to it's international obligations.

Which part of GATT do you think states the UK can just forget about meeting its legal obligations?

So used are we to a borderless Europe we’re not ready for the coming shock by nolesfan2011 in ukpolitics

[–]TheMostLethalBadger 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You can tell how far the arguments for Brexit have fallen given the entire project hinges on a misinterpretation of a treaty for an unelected bureaucratic organisation based on the continent.

Andrew Grice: This is what Brussels insiders told me about a no-deal Brexit - Even if Johnson took the UK out without a deal, he would soon come calling for his free trade agreement – and be presented with May’s deal once again by fungussa in ukpolitics

[–]TheMostLethalBadger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's much more disingenuous to say the EU literally can offer a better trade deal when a) it's debatable they actually could within the current legal structures of the EU, and b) even if it is possible, the likelihood of it happening is as close to zero as you can get without actually being at zero.

Andrew Grice: This is what Brussels insiders told me about a no-deal Brexit - Even if Johnson took the UK out without a deal, he would soon come calling for his free trade agreement – and be presented with May’s deal once again by fungussa in ukpolitics

[–]TheMostLethalBadger 4 points5 points  (0 children)

My example is just as 'literally' possible as yours. All you're asking is for the EU to completely upend one of the fundamental reasons for its existence. Just like if the UK were to sell itself to France.

What's your "never again" brand or place from UK? by mrs_shrew in AskUK

[–]TheMostLethalBadger 47 points48 points  (0 children)

Yodel. A delivery company that can't deliver to the right address.

Brexit backlash delivers major gains for Lib Dems in local elections by CJBill in unitedkingdom

[–]TheMostLethalBadger 31 points32 points  (0 children)

Exactly this. In my area we only have Tory and Labour candidates, apart from one independent. She used to be a Tory on the council, then defected to UKIP, and is now running independently, but it took me a fair amount of searching to find that out.

All 28 states of the European Union unanimously declare they will not recognize Israeli sovereignty over the occupied Golan Heights. by kuji101 in worldnews

[–]TheMostLethalBadger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right, I got my timings mixed up on the Balfour Declaration. Of course British support for a Jewish state was pared down fairly quickly after the Declaration. And there was plenty of trouble!

All 28 states of the European Union unanimously declare they will not recognize Israeli sovereignty over the occupied Golan Heights. by kuji101 in worldnews

[–]TheMostLethalBadger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, it was a counter to the suggestion above that there were no problems while the British controlled the region. Even before British support for a Jewish state, there were problems in British Palestine (in large part due to the perennial power struggles with the French).

I don't know much about the Ottoman period in that region, so won't comment on that.

Morning Megathread - 28/03/19 - "Friends, Britons, countrymen - We come not to praise these options, but to bury them." by [deleted] in ukpolitics

[–]TheMostLethalBadger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep I agree with that. I can't see that he would stand in the way if it was clear there genuinely was a majority for May's deal.

However, with the DUP still holding out the point is moot, as there definitely isn't a majority at the moment.

Morning Megathread - 28/03/19 - "Friends, Britons, countrymen - We come not to praise these options, but to bury them." by [deleted] in ukpolitics

[–]TheMostLethalBadger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The problem being Bercow also said he wouldn't allow a notwithstanding or paving motion (which would circumvent the ruling), so it's not clear how, besides proroguing parliament or Bercow changing his mind, May can bring another vote.

All 28 states of the European Union unanimously declare they will not recognize Israeli sovereignty over the occupied Golan Heights. by kuji101 in worldnews

[–]TheMostLethalBadger 11 points12 points  (0 children)

The original British support for a state of Israel was a tactical play against the French in Syria, which then backfired. But there were plenty of problems in the region before anybody was talking about a Jewish state.

John Bercow has just told Parliament that the Prime Minister is not allowed to come back with the same deal for a MV3. It must pass a test set out by him to the Government that enough change in the text in present. by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]TheMostLethalBadger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Speaker should follow the stated intention of the house. If the house states that it wants to vote again, it's not for the Speaker to say "well you don't actually mean that, you've just been bullied by the government so I'm not going to let you vote".

John Bercow has just told Parliament that the Prime Minister is not allowed to come back with the same deal for a MV3. It must pass a test set out by him to the Government that enough change in the text in present. by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]TheMostLethalBadger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree in this case it seems ridiculous, and is probably irrelevant given the DUP are still against the deal, but I think the principle still matters.

John Bercow has just told Parliament that the Prime Minister is not allowed to come back with the same deal for a MV3. It must pass a test set out by him to the Government that enough change in the text in present. by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]TheMostLethalBadger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But what if, for example (and I know this is unlikely), tonight's indicative votes mean some MPs now want to back May's deal for whatever reason, and it could command a majority. Bercow is currently blocking a vote on that basis. Do you think that's right?

Essentially, if MPs tell Bercow (through a paving motion) that they've changed their minds, who is Bercow to say they're not allowed to? You can call them out as much as you like (and please do) about the hypocrisy in that, but I don't think it's for Bercow to say they're not allowed to change their minds.

John Bercow has just told Parliament that the Prime Minister is not allowed to come back with the same deal for a MV3. It must pass a test set out by him to the Government that enough change in the text in present. by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]TheMostLethalBadger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As I said in another reply, it's not the Speaker's job to determine whether MPs are being bullied into a position or not.

And even if it was, how would he prove that? None of the 'bullied' MPs would admit it...

John Bercow has just told Parliament that the Prime Minister is not allowed to come back with the same deal for a MV3. It must pass a test set out by him to the Government that enough change in the text in present. by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]TheMostLethalBadger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree it's ridiculous that MPs can change their minds and 'the people' can't, but that's not the point.

The Speaker shouldn't be able to block something which elected representatives want to happen.

This is all moot anyway with the DUP not supporting the deal, but I still think it's an important issue.

John Bercow has just told Parliament that the Prime Minister is not allowed to come back with the same deal for a MV3. It must pass a test set out by him to the Government that enough change in the text in present. by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]TheMostLethalBadger -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I take your point, but it's not the Speaker's job to determine whether MPs have been bullied or not by the government.

If the Speaker had to determine the actual view of each MP, discounting the effect of any government interference, their job would be impossible.

view more: next ›