Brexit -am I stupid or what

It's been hours of debate now and they're still just banging on about language... I wonder if there's any examples where other MP's may have used phrases and language along the lines of Boris?

 

I don't get it, Loofah, what line of language?. We've all watched a MP ask a specific question to past Prime Ministers, of all colours, who replied in a statement that never came close to referring to the subject matter, usually referring to the other sides past incidents, without giving a direct, honest, clear, and bold answer to the Oppositions attacks. Boris is speaking like You, I, or pete (sorry, pete) would, standing where Boris stands, so what is the problem in the way he is handling Parliament.? Is it because he is the first Prime Minister ever to stand there and directly answer a hostile question in blunt, honest words rather than give an answer in the usual political Parliamentary language that avoids giving an answer that would embarrass the Government??.....all while the MP's across the House are screaming insults, oaths, etc.

 

He is and they're twisting and creating a situation to their own ends but I'm absolutely certain that MPs of all parties have used terms such as 'traitor', 'surrender' etc without any fuss at all

 

"They" being do that for the last 3 years in order to avoid leaving the EU despite that being the result of the Referendum.

 

I sort of understand where it came from @lolimac, as parliament was one of those establishments that was dominated by men; this has changed a lot over the years, although there are still more men than there are women. But, I also agree that it does seem to be being made into a bigger issue than perhaps it should be? Surely the whole time we are singling out any group (be that for gender, sexuality, religion, race or otherwise), we are guilty of an 'ism' of some form or another - - surely, it would be better to strive for everyone to be treated the same?

With respect to all the goings on about language, that is an attempt to smear Boris to the utmost degree - sadly, they are not very good at it (despite the likes of the BBC playing along) - - it is being portrayed that he used Jo Cox's name in such a way that he was pulling it out of the blue and for pure political gain. I watched the speeches last night, and that is hugely twisted, as in actual fact it was a Labour MP who referred to her death, inferring that it was Boris' language that was being spouted back at her with terms such as traitor etc being used, and that she had received death threats - - it was that reference to Jo Cox's death that Boris responded to, simply stating that the best way to honour her memory in his opinion was to get on and deliver Brexit and start healing the country. Boris shouldn't have brushed off the fact that death threats have been made against MP's as 'humbug' - there can be no reason, ever, that any MP should be receiving death threats. Many people do feel terribly betrayed by our elected MP's, and are (quite understandably in my view) angry at the way that betrayal has taken place, but to resort to making death threats against them or their families is just not on.

They are, however, not immune from criticism and a bit of spleen venting - that is part of the job of being an MP - it comes with the territory, so if they can't handle it they shouldn't be there.

Sadly, it is those that are shouting the loudest at the moment that are amongst the most guilty - we have had opposition MP's making statements along the lines of 'beheading' Boris, and not a squeak was heard from them when a rapper held up a fake severed Boris head on stage at a music venue - - but Boris calls Hilary Benn's bill a Surrender Act (which it is) and the opposition have a meltdown.

 

Were you in Drag, longk?

They've had 3 years to sort that out, but some temporary form could be used while establishing proper techncial means.

Not to mention being hung, drawn and quartered or, even worse having to spend time with Corbyn and listening to him shouting "Resign, Resign, so I can be the next Prime Minister, raising taxes and letting the hard left extremists rule the country.

Not quite accurate, the principle long recognised is that Courts, including the Supreme Courts. are responsible for enforcing Criminal and Civil legislation and not Political. But we are in tulmultous times where Politicians are passing legislation against each other in order to gain supremacy over the others, where private individuals funded by Political and Commercial organisation are attempting to use the Courts in a political area. The Supreme Courts were placed in a historically unique position where pressure was applied by powerful organisations to break the long observed precedence of not interfering in Political matters. The fact that the Courts had to reach back into the 14th, 15th, and 16th century for precendence shows that they had no modern grounds with which to compare and shows that, unfortunately, these chaotic times are causing problems for long established rules to be broken.

 

So you do wear it?? I wear the black ones.