Eh? Corbyn wasn't the one getting the unions onside, they already were. Him and his old pal McCluskey had to be dragged along.

Little Englander, ok, yep, got it. Undermined entirely by the fact that we're on the cusp of forcing through a national act of self harm for the many on the whim of a few who have both stated that they will disregard the democratic process to do so. I hope, and presume, given your representative democratic principles, that you will be against the proroguing of parliament?

Whim of the few? 52% of population, mate. I'm sure your particular echo chamber thinks otherwise, but some of us understand reality.

It wasn't 52% of the population, imbecile.

Your movement is building, that weird lennon dude is saying so apparenlty. can we expect yous to be pushing for ref 2?

Sorry you can't infer 'who voted' at the end of that, like normal people. Or are you one of those idiots who assumes every single person that didn't vote is de facto for remain? lol.

52% of the population is incorrect. Go ahead trying to argue otherwise, it'll be hysterical watching you try.

In your opinion.

That it'll be hysterical watching you try is an opinion. That Brexit was not voted for by 52% of the population is a fact.

No, you used false terminology. It wasn't anywhere near 52% of 'the population'. It was about a third of the electorate and a quarter of the population. (Largely well-off Conservative pensioners in the southern shires, contrary to what Labour will try and tell you. The working class were majority Remain, as were most of England's big cities, and Scotland, and Northern Ireland. And, contrary to what the Conservatives will tell you, people old enough to remember the Second World War were heavily Remain.) And the polls have been against Brexit, by a significant majority, for a very long time now.

Most of the unions are fiercely opposed to Corbyn and McCluskey, who are weirdo 'Socialism In One Country' Stalinists.

I don't think HM will permit proroguing. It would put her in an invidious position, which is unconstitutional, and she's let that be known.

Source for working class majority remain?

Sorry you can't infer 'who voted' at the end of that, like normal people.

Not as sorry as I am that you can't use the English language properly.

Sorry you can't infer 'who voted' at the end of that, like normal people.

Normal people can work out meaning from context, but you're either very dull, or being disingenuous because you want to nitpick. (A sign of the person with no strong central argument)

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.

If you want to keep arguing on this, I'll have to assume 'dull' and keep repeating my point. Repetition tends to get through to even the dullest dullard.

We can agree more people voted to leave than to remain, right?

Not true, otherwise your Brexit bull**** would have ceased long ago.

Also, I thought you were a stickler for the correct language as you seemed keen on pulling someone up regarding affect/effect not that long ago.

Just think, you could have ended all of this by accepting that you were wrong. My central argument is that "you were wrong". This is a strong one, as it is clearly true. I may well be dull, but I am also right.

So you raising the point about me being a stickler for language (I'm not, I merely offered a correction, and then suggested we move on as the meaning was still plain to me) suggests you know full well you are being a stickler.

Would you agree with that conclusion? Otherwise, why exactly did you raise the point about me being a stickler for language?

Also, can we agree, more people voted to leave than remain?

I raised the point as you seem happy to pull people up on it and then expect people to infer when you do the same.

defer is a more appropriate word here.

Question From Across The Pond

OK, I've read references to "prorogue" and "proroguing" in this thread multiple times. Since I'm unfamiliar with this word in a political context, I looked it up in a dictionary. This is the definition I got from Wiktionary:

Verb (transitive). To suspend (a parliamentary session) or to discontinue the meetings of (an assembly, parliament etc.) without formally ending the session.

My question: Who would attempt to "prorogue" the parliament and under what circumstances? Who would be motivated to order - or attempt to carry out - a proroguing? (Has this ever been attempted before in British politics?) It sounds to me like this would be a last (desperate?) attempt to force through a Brexit withdrawal by the new Prime Minister if he/it is unsuccessful in getting the House of Commons to vote as he/it wishes.

I listened to Sir John Bercow over here in the United States recently giving a speech about British politics and how he sees his role as Speaker of the House of Commons. I had the impression that he cares deeply about the customs and traditions that govern parliamentary democracy in the UK. I have the impression that Mr. Bercow would be vehemently opposed to any attempt - by any member of the Government including the PM - to "prorogue" the parliament. (Am I correct?)

General Comment

I'm over here in the states, so we don't do politics the way you Brits do over in the UK. I must say that I immensely enjoy watching your PM getting grilled every week during Prime Ministers Question time. It doesn't happen very often, but occasionally an MP will [rhetorically] hit the PM right between the eyeballs with a devastating riposte. I also love it when Speaker Bercow chides an MP for being too truculent or "too energetic" or whatever ... (Ha! Ha!)

I would love it if we had something like PMQs here in the U.S. where Trump would have to defend his policies every week in front of members of Congress. Talk about great theatre ...

Put simply parliament runs in sessions that normally last for about a year. They start with the Queen's speech, written by the government, that states what legislation her government intends for the session. It ends with parliament being prorogued. Then after a pause (can be very short or longish) we start all over again with a new session and new Queen's speech.

It's become a story because possibly, in theory, Boris could prorogue parliament and not start a new session with the intention being to prevent parliament trying to stop us crashing out of the EU. that's because under the current legislation, we crash out by default on the 31st October unless there's some intervening action. In practice this proroguing is almost certainly not happening.

It also became a story under the current prime minister because there's a sort of rule that says that identical legislation can not be voted on twice in the same session. As Teresa May was being thwarted by this rule, there was consideration of proroguing parliament so that it would be a new session and the rule wouldn't apply. This could have happened and it's nowhere near as big a deal as proroguing parliament to prevent it having a say. Didn't happen.

Why does Boris needs to prorogue parliament if he wants no deal. Parliament can't force him to ask for an extension and can't force him to negotiate so he can just do nothing and no deal Brexit happens on the 31st. Only way to stop that would be a vote of no confidence and elections.