Parliament

For chat about all other topics

Re: Parliament

Postby Eco-Exile » Sat Oct 05, 2019 8:59 pm

Fartvs Antiqvvs wrote:
paulK wrote:
Tomiswalking wrote:He wants the racist vote, the right wing vote and the centralist vote.



I am none of these. Traditionally, I am not really a Tory supporter. My votes go elsewhere.

However, come a GE, I will be voting Tory, whoever is the leader, simply because of the way parliament and others who have brought court cases have dealt with Brexit.


I also believe there is a silent groundswell of like voters there p/k. Sick to the teeth of 'prevent leave at all cost', by the interminable antics in Westminster, who will vote likewise, for at least giving it a go.


There is a majority in Parliament FOR Leave. But a majority AGAINST No Deal.

As for what the people want. Polls now consistently show Remain: http://britainelects.com/polling/europe/
Eco-Exile
First Team
First Team
 
Posts: 617
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:42 am
Location: Norfolk

Re: Parliament

Postby paulK » Sun Oct 06, 2019 10:09 am

dursleydog wrote:
paulK wrote:
Tomiswalking wrote:He wants the racist vote, the right wing vote and the centralist vote.



I am none of these. Traditionally, I am not really a Tory supporter. My votes go elsewhere.

However, come a GE, I will be voting Tory, whoever is the leader, simply because of the way parliament and others who have brought court cases have dealt with Brexit.


Everyone’s pretty frustrated with parliament, but ensuring that the government acts within the law it’s an absolute bread and butter necessity for our democracy to function.

Remember Johnson and his mates in the ERG voted against Mays withdrawal agreement 3 times and blocked us leaving the EU every time. They’re no advocates for parliamentary compromise.

Think you might be taking some very valid frustrations but pinning blame in the wrong areas here.


I think you'll find Boris supported the final reading of the amendment bill. Don't know which mates, you are referring to but Boris did not try to block it, despite disagreeing with it.

For me, the question of working within the law is not paramount in my decision but implementing the referendum result is, however unpalatable it might be. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not condoning the breaking of the law.
User avatar
paulK
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 1700
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2018 10:50 pm
Location: Sadly Broke

Re: Parliament

Postby paulK » Sun Oct 06, 2019 10:14 am

Eco-Exile wrote:
paulK wrote:
Tomiswalking wrote:He wants the racist vote, the right wing vote and the centralist vote.



I am none of these. Traditionally, I am not really a Tory supporter. My votes go elsewhere.

However, come a GE, I will be voting Tory, whoever is the leader, simply because of the way parliament and others who have brought court cases have dealt with Brexit.


That doesn’t make much sense.


To you, maybe not, but maybe I should qualify - I'll only be voting Tory if we're still in the EU and providing other parties can convince me I don't need to.
User avatar
paulK
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 1700
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2018 10:50 pm
Location: Sadly Broke

Re: Parliament

Postby paulK » Sun Oct 06, 2019 10:16 am

cookiemonster wrote:
paulK wrote:
Tomiswalking wrote:He wants the racist vote, the right wing vote and the centralist vote.



I am none of these. Traditionally, I am not really a Tory supporter. My votes go elsewhere.

However, come a GE, I will be voting Tory, whoever is the leader, simply because of the way parliament and others who have brought court cases have dealt with Brexit.


By that logic you would be better off living in a totalitarian state where you won't need to worry about who to vote for.


Thanks for your suggestion cookiemonster, but no thanks. (and I don't understand your logic)
User avatar
paulK
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 1700
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2018 10:50 pm
Location: Sadly Broke

Re: Parliament

Postby paulK » Sun Oct 06, 2019 10:17 am

Tomiswalking wrote:
paulK wrote:
Tomiswalking wrote:He wants the racist vote, the right wing vote and the centralist vote.



I am none of these. Traditionally, I am not really a Tory supporter. My votes go elsewhere.

However, come a GE, I will be voting Tory, whoever is the leader, simply because of the way parliament and others who have brought court cases have dealt with Brexit.


Sorry I meant bj will be trying to get as many votes as possible, not you.


:?
User avatar
paulK
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 1700
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2018 10:50 pm
Location: Sadly Broke

Re: Parliament

Postby paulK » Sun Oct 06, 2019 10:32 am

Tomiswalking wrote:Brexit hasn't happened yet because we do not agree on what, we the people who voted for it, want it to be like. Why blame the politicians when ultimatley it was an ill-defined question that has resulted in a total mess.

So to me it makes no sense to vote conservative in future, unless you agree with their politics surrounding the things you care about.


Would those who voted for Brexit be any more capable of coming to a concensus than our MP's? I think not. It is too complex.

it's hard enough for the government to get an agreement, but again it is up to the politicians to get the best deal they can. All we hear from those against is no, no, no. No ideas on how the issues could be addressed or overcome.

It was always going to need a compromise. If that is not possible then let's get out and start from there.
User avatar
paulK
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 1700
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2018 10:50 pm
Location: Sadly Broke

Re: Parliament

Postby Eco-Exile » Sun Oct 06, 2019 11:19 am

paulK wrote:
cookiemonster wrote:
paulK wrote:
Tomiswalking wrote:He wants the racist vote, the right wing vote and the centralist vote.



I am none of these. Traditionally, I am not really a Tory supporter. My votes go elsewhere.

However, come a GE, I will be voting Tory, whoever is the leader, simply because of the way parliament and others who have brought court cases have dealt with Brexit.


By that logic you would be better off living in a totalitarian state where you won't need to worry about who to vote for.


Thanks for your suggestion cookiemonster, but no thanks. (and I don't understand your logic)


His point I believe that you say you will vote Conservative due to them being in conflict with an independent judiciary and elected parliament, the point being if you do not believe in an independent judiciary and elected parliament then you may be more comfortable in a totalitarian state with no independent judiciary and elected parliament.
Eco-Exile
First Team
First Team
 
Posts: 617
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:42 am
Location: Norfolk

Re: Parliament

Postby paulK » Sun Oct 06, 2019 11:37 am

Eco-Exile wrote:
paulK wrote:
cookiemonster wrote:
paulK wrote:
Tomiswalking wrote:He wants the racist vote, the right wing vote and the centralist vote.



I am none of these. Traditionally, I am not really a Tory supporter. My votes go elsewhere.

However, come a GE, I will be voting Tory, whoever is the leader, simply because of the way parliament and others who have brought court cases have dealt with Brexit.


By that logic you would be better off living in a totalitarian state where you won't need to worry about who to vote for.


Thanks for your suggestion cookiemonster, but no thanks. (and I don't understand your logic)


His point I believe that you say you will vote Conservative due to them being in conflict with an independent judiciary and elected parliament, the point being if you do not believe in an independent judiciary and elected parliament then you may be more comfortable in a totalitarian state with no independent judiciary and elected parliament.


Ah OK. No problem with an independent jury and elected parliament. Not happy with the elected parliament not implementing the result of the referendum and doing everything they can to thwart those who want to.

Quite frankly thought it wrong of the judiciary to get involved in politics, despite them trying to claim they weren't. A precedent that doesn't bode well for the future IMO. Is bringing parliament back in making any difference. Of course it isn't.

What have MP's actually provided in the way of progressing towards Brexit. Absolutely nothing as far as I can see. Their claims of what they were losing out on have proven groundless.
User avatar
paulK
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 1700
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2018 10:50 pm
Location: Sadly Broke

Re: Parliament

Postby Tomiswalking » Sun Oct 06, 2019 11:50 am

I get it now Paulk. You are saying that the tory politicians have worked hard to deliver on Brexit, whist the other partys have only been obstructive, therefore you will be voting tory.
User avatar
Tomiswalking
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 1107
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 11:05 am

Re: Parliament

Postby Eco-Exile » Sun Oct 06, 2019 12:11 pm

Parliament are working to stop No Deal. They still have a majority for Brexit and want to secure a deal.

The Prime Minister and most of the Cabinet were part of a large number of Conservative rebels who voted to frustrate and delay Brexit three times in January and February. We would be out since March 31st had they not.
Eco-Exile
First Team
First Team
 
Posts: 617
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:42 am
Location: Norfolk

Re: Parliament

Postby dursleydog » Sun Oct 06, 2019 12:17 pm

paulK wrote:
dursleydog wrote:
paulK wrote:
Tomiswalking wrote:He wants the racist vote, the right wing vote and the centralist vote.



I am none of these. Traditionally, I am not really a Tory supporter. My votes go elsewhere.

However, come a GE, I will be voting Tory, whoever is the leader, simply because of the way parliament and others who have brought court cases have dealt with Brexit.


Everyone’s pretty frustrated with parliament, but ensuring that the government acts within the law it’s an absolute bread and butter necessity for our democracy to function.

Remember Johnson and his mates in the ERG voted against Mays withdrawal agreement 3 times and blocked us leaving the EU every time. They’re no advocates for parliamentary compromise.

Think you might be taking some very valid frustrations but pinning blame in the wrong areas here.


I think you'll find Boris supported the final reading of the amendment bill. Don't know which mates, you are referring to but Boris did not try to block it, despite disagreeing with it.

For me, the question of working within the law is not paramount in my decision but implementing the referendum result is, however unpalatable it might be. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not condoning the breaking of the law.


You’re correct, he did back it at the 3rd reading. However, given his efforts to discredit the deal before that (I believe he described it as “wrapping a suicide vest around the country and handing the trigger to the EU”) I expect he helped to turn many other MPs away and helped to divide parliament even further, and by extension the public.

The ERG are the poorly named ‘European Research Group’ of hard brexiteer MPs, including Rees-Mogg, Francois, Bridgen ect. They’re strong supporters of Johnson within the Tory party.

Sorry, you can’t claim to not be condoning breaking the law when your previous sentence literally says “working within the law is not paramount”, it’s the kind of doublethink that has littered the brexit debate and has made it so hard to implement, at some point the brexiteers have to engage with reality. Implementing the result of a marginal, non-binding referendum that the evidence suggests the country’s changed its mind on by breaking the law is madness. Just propose a deal that is actually aimed at offering something for everyone, rather than just the brexiteers.

I think there is a chance to “get brexit done” still, but I don’t see it happening as long as Johnson is PM. He’s deliberately divisive, his deal is as arrogant and unsuitable for purpose as he is (seriously, look at the details of it and just think “what if Ireland were trying to leave the EU and tried to force this on us?”. It’s a disgrace.)

Personally I’d like to see someone like Ken Clarke (I’ve never voted Tory in my life and never will, but he’s someone I can respect) take over as interim PM and bring forward a far more palatable deal. We can solve the N.Ireland problem by maintaining freedom of movement (while tightening up our borders within the confines of that, which we do have room to do but simply chose not to), and we can help our trade and businesses by retaining single market membership. For remainers, we get to keep our freedom of movement and the good Friday agreement is preserved. For leavers, there’s some tightening of immigration rules, we get more sovereignty in our rule making, and we get brexit done by leaving the EU and respecting the result.
For everyone, we finally get to move on with our lives and work on the real issues, the financing of our NHS, the shortage of nurses, teachers, and doctors, the reduction of inequality in our society ect ect.

It may well be that that deal would have to be put to a public vote in order to get through parliament, would likely depend on any future GE results (which I’d still expect to produce a hung parliament post Oct 31st), I don’t know. But it’s far far better than the mess we’re in now, and would at least feel like we’re pulling ourselves out of the hole we’re in, whereas Johnson is resolutely digging straight down.
User avatar
dursleydog
First Team
First Team
 
Posts: 957
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2014 6:46 pm
Location: Kernow

Re: Parliament

Postby Silver Surfer » Sun Oct 06, 2019 12:19 pm

Eco-Exile wrote:Parliament are working to stop No Deal. They still have a majority for Brexit and want to secure a deal.

The Prime Minister and most of the Cabinet were part of a large number of Conservative rebels who voted to frustrate and delay Brexit three times in January and February. We would be out since March 31st had they not.


Spot on. The original referendum was on a promise of a simple negotiated exit which left Britain "taking back control" and leaving loads of money for the NHS. No mention of an enormous divorce bill which will cripple the economy. No mention of no deal at all.
No animals were harmed during the creation of this message, but some electrons became agitated.
User avatar
Silver Surfer
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 3357
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:10 pm

Re: Parliament

Postby paulK » Sun Oct 06, 2019 12:44 pm

Eco-Exile wrote:Parliament are working to stop No Deal. They still have a majority for Brexit and want to secure a deal.

The Prime Minister and most of the Cabinet were part of a large number of Conservative rebels who voted to frustrate and delay Brexit three times in January and February. We would be out since March 31st had they not.


Claiming that Parliament are only working to stop no-deal is missing the point that Parliament did not accept May's deal, which the EU (and the PM) did and are no closer to agreeing on any deal which would meet the objective of exiting the EU.

We would have been out at the end of May, if they had.
User avatar
paulK
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 1700
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2018 10:50 pm
Location: Sadly Broke

Re: Parliament

Postby paulK » Sun Oct 06, 2019 12:54 pm

dursleydog wrote:
paulK wrote:
dursleydog wrote:
paulK wrote:
Tomiswalking wrote:He wants the racist vote, the right wing vote and the centralist vote.



I am none of these. Traditionally, I am not really a Tory supporter. My votes go elsewhere.

However, come a GE, I will be voting Tory, whoever is the leader, simply because of the way parliament and others who have brought court cases have dealt with Brexit.


Everyone’s pretty frustrated with parliament, but ensuring that the government acts within the law it’s an absolute bread and butter necessity for our democracy to function.

Remember Johnson and his mates in the ERG voted against Mays withdrawal agreement 3 times and blocked us leaving the EU every time. They’re no advocates for parliamentary compromise.

Think you might be taking some very valid frustrations but pinning blame in the wrong areas here.


I think you'll find Boris supported the final reading of the amendment bill. Don't know which mates, you are referring to but Boris did not try to block it, despite disagreeing with it.

For me, the question of working within the law is not paramount in my decision but implementing the referendum result is, however unpalatable it might be. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not condoning the breaking of the law.


Sorry, you can’t claim to not be condoning breaking the law when your previous sentence literally says “working within the law is not paramount”, it’s the kind of doublethink that has littered the brexit debate and has made it so hard to implement, at some point the brexiteers have to engage with reality. Implementing the result of a marginal, non-binding referendum that the evidence suggests the country’s changed its mind on by breaking the law is madness. Just propose a deal that is actually aimed at offering something for everyone, rather than just the brexiteers.



Just because I did not rank breaking the law as the top reason for my decision does not mean that I condone it, Dursleydog. Please don't try to twist my point, which Tomiswalking clearly understands.

As for offering something for everyone, I think that brexiteers have a far better grip on reality.
User avatar
paulK
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 1700
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2018 10:50 pm
Location: Sadly Broke

Re: Parliament

Postby paulK » Sun Oct 06, 2019 1:19 pm

Silver Surfer wrote:
Eco-Exile wrote:Parliament are working to stop No Deal. They still have a majority for Brexit and want to secure a deal.

The Prime Minister and most of the Cabinet were part of a large number of Conservative rebels who voted to frustrate and delay Brexit three times in January and February. We would be out since March 31st had they not.


Spot on. The original referendum was on a promise of a simple negotiated exit which left Britain "taking back control" and leaving loads of money for the NHS. No mention of an enormous divorce bill which will cripple the economy. No mention of no deal at all.


Just shows the naivety of the public if they thought there would not have to be payments due to the EU. And given the method of calculating it etc. has already been agreed by Parliament, how come they have been agreeing, it an overwhelming majority, policies that will, in your words, cripple our economy.

Seems madness to me if they have when the best course of action now might be to leave with no deal which would negate that position, with the possibility of nothing having to be paid.
User avatar
paulK
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 1700
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2018 10:50 pm
Location: Sadly Broke

Re: Parliament

Postby Eco-Exile » Sun Oct 06, 2019 1:34 pm

paulK wrote:
Eco-Exile wrote:Parliament are working to stop No Deal. They still have a majority for Brexit and want to secure a deal.

The Prime Minister and most of the Cabinet were part of a large number of Conservative rebels who voted to frustrate and delay Brexit three times in January and February. We would be out since March 31st had they not.


Claiming that Parliament are only working to stop no-deal is missing the point that Parliament did not accept May's deal, which the EU (and the PM) did and are no closer to agreeing on any deal which would meet the objective of exiting the EU.

We would have been out at the end of May, if they had.


Including the PM and his closest allies...who you are rewarding with your vote!
Eco-Exile
First Team
First Team
 
Posts: 617
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:42 am
Location: Norfolk

Re: Parliament

Postby Eco-Exile » Sun Oct 06, 2019 1:42 pm

paulK wrote:
Just because I did not rank breaking the law as the top reason for my decision does not mean that I condone it, Dursleydog. Please don't try to twist my point, which Tomiswalking clearly understands.

As for offering something for everyone, I think that brexiteers have a far better grip on reality.


Yes because every business and industry group representing businesses on the ground pleading to avoid no deal are detached from reality whereas the likes of Rees-Mogg living in an Etonian bubble with no knowledge of what actually goes on around the U.K. have a better grip.

Sorry but your claim is ridiculous.

Also, here is a review of all the latest polls: http://britainelects.com/polling/europe/

Plus, to claim “supporting someone who breaks the law is not the same as condoning law breaking” is a bit like saying you were only “following orders and didn’t condone it” when rounding up and exterminating six million during the second war.
Eco-Exile
First Team
First Team
 
Posts: 617
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:42 am
Location: Norfolk

Re: Parliament

Postby dursleydog » Sun Oct 06, 2019 2:09 pm

paulK wrote:
dursleydog wrote:
paulK wrote:
dursleydog wrote:
Everyone’s pretty frustrated with parliament, but ensuring that the government acts within the law it’s an absolute bread and butter necessity for our democracy to function.

Remember Johnson and his mates in the ERG voted against Mays withdrawal agreement 3 times and blocked us leaving the EU every time. They’re no advocates for parliamentary compromise.

Think you might be taking some very valid frustrations but pinning blame in the wrong areas here.


I think you'll find Boris supported the final reading of the amendment bill. Don't know which mates, you are referring to but Boris did not try to block it, despite disagreeing with it.

For me, the question of working within the law is not paramount in my decision but implementing the referendum result is, however unpalatable it might be. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not condoning the breaking of the law.


Sorry, you can’t claim to not be condoning breaking the law when your previous sentence literally says “working within the law is not paramount”, it’s the kind of doublethink that has littered the brexit debate and has made it so hard to implement, at some point the brexiteers have to engage with reality. Implementing the result of a marginal, non-binding referendum that the evidence suggests the country’s changed its mind on by breaking the law is madness. Just propose a deal that is actually aimed at offering something for everyone, rather than just the brexiteers.



Just because I did not rank breaking the law as the top reason for my decision does not mean that I condone it, Dursleydog. Please don't try to twist my point, which Tomiswalking clearly understands.

As for offering something for everyone, I think that brexiteers have a far better grip on reality.


Directly quoting your words isn’t twisting them. You talked about the Supreme Court frustrating brexit (it didn’t) and then said “working within the law isn’t paramount”. The implication is you’d be willing to have a government that is above the law just to deliver brexit, which is an extremely dangerous route for our democracy to go down.

Please could you explain how the brexiteers are offering something for everyone? Johnson’s deal is a joke, far worse than Mays, will quite rightly be never accepted by the EU or Northern Ireland, and is either a reflection of a government dangerously incapable of doing the job it’s been tasked with or has deliberately designed it to fail, just so they can pretend to blame the EU and get people even angrier as an election strategy. So what on Earth are they offering to everyone here?
User avatar
dursleydog
First Team
First Team
 
Posts: 957
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2014 6:46 pm
Location: Kernow

Re: Parliament

Postby paulK » Sun Oct 06, 2019 2:42 pm

Eco-Exile wrote:
paulK wrote:
Just because I did not rank breaking the law as the top reason for my decision does not mean that I condone it, Dursleydog. Please don't try to twist my point, which Tomiswalking clearly understands.

As for offering something for everyone, I think that brexiteers have a far better grip on reality.


Yes because every business and industry group representing businesses on the ground pleading to avoid no deal are detached from reality whereas the likes of Rees-Mogg living in an Etonian bubble with no knowledge of what actually goes on around the U.K. have a better grip.

Sorry but your claim is ridiculous.

Also, here is a review of all the latest polls: http://britainelects.com/polling/europe/

Plus, to claim “supporting someone who breaks the law is not the same as condoning law breaking” is a bit like saying you were only “following orders and didn’t condone it” when rounding up and exterminating six million during the second war.


Oh dear EE, here we go again. Haven't you learnt from the thread that got closed down.

So all those that support Johson condone law-breaking, racism and anything else you accuse him of. Pathetic.

You claim you are not judgmental. To claim that is hypocritical IMO.
User avatar
paulK
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 1700
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2018 10:50 pm
Location: Sadly Broke

Re: Parliament

Postby paulK » Sun Oct 06, 2019 3:17 pm

dursleydog wrote:
paulK wrote:
dursleydog wrote:
paulK wrote:
dursleydog wrote:
Everyone’s pretty frustrated with parliament, but ensuring that the government acts within the law it’s an absolute bread and butter necessity for our democracy to function.

Remember Johnson and his mates in the ERG voted against Mays withdrawal agreement 3 times and blocked us leaving the EU every time. They’re no advocates for parliamentary compromise.

Think you might be taking some very valid frustrations but pinning blame in the wrong areas here.


I think you'll find Boris supported the final reading of the amendment bill. Don't know which mates, you are referring to but Boris did not try to block it, despite disagreeing with it.

For me, the question of working within the law is not paramount in my decision but implementing the referendum result is, however unpalatable it might be. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not condoning the breaking of the law.


Sorry, you can’t claim to not be condoning breaking the law when your previous sentence literally says “working within the law is not paramount”, it’s the kind of doublethink that has littered the brexit debate and has made it so hard to implement, at some point the brexiteers have to engage with reality. Implementing the result of a marginal, non-binding referendum that the evidence suggests the country’s changed its mind on by breaking the law is madness. Just propose a deal that is actually aimed at offering something for everyone, rather than just the brexiteers.



Just because I did not rank breaking the law as the top reason for my decision does not mean that I condone it, Dursleydog. Please don't try to twist my point, which Tomiswalking clearly understands.

As for offering something for everyone, I think that brexiteers have a far better grip on reality.


Directly quoting your words isn’t twisting them. You talked about the Supreme Court frustrating brexit (it didn’t) and then said “working within the law isn’t paramount”. The implication is you’d be willing to have a government that is above the law just to deliver brexit, which is an extremely dangerous route for our democracy to go down.

Please could you explain how the brexiteers are offering something for everyone? Johnson’s deal is a joke, far worse than Mays, will quite rightly be never accepted by the EU or Northern Ireland, and is either a reflection of a government dangerously incapable of doing the job it’s been tasked with or has deliberately designed it to fail, just so they can pretend to blame the EU and get people even angrier as an election strategy. So what on Earth are they offering to everyone here?


:roll: obviously you don't know the meaning of twisting words

I DID NOT say that the Government should not work within the law or that it is above it

I DID NOT claim the Supreme Court frustrated Brexit. I said that those bringing the action because they claimed the PM was trying to stymie the discussion on Brexit haven't actually brought anything forward or put anything on the table that would suggest their claim was valid. Plenty of abuse and other stuff, but Brexit?

I DID NOT say that the Brexiteers are offering something for everyone. My point is that to expect that offering something for everyone is out of touch with reality.
User avatar
paulK
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 1700
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2018 10:50 pm
Location: Sadly Broke

PreviousNext

Return to General Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dursleydog, Eco-Exile, Google [Bot], man_of_kent and 1 guest

About FGR

We’re a club that looks to the future, but our identity is forged from a rich 128-year history. Founded in 1889, we’re one of the oldest football clubs in the world.

In 2017, we were promoted to the Football League for the first time in our history – which means we can spread our sustainability message to an even bigger audience. FIFA recently described us as the greenest football club in the world. That’s quite an accolade, and it shows how we’ve been able to bring together football and environmental consciousness at the highest levels of the game.