Nope you chopped it out because it made your reply garbage. Just as you have done a second time.
"Because the basic principle of a second referendum where the same question is asked again is wrong. Whether my personal choice wins or not it does serious damage to faith in, and respect for, democracy."
You really are one of the most fraudulent posters on here.
Bollocks.
Your statement, in part or in full, is also still bollocks.
"Because the basic principle of a second referendum where the same question is asked again is wrong."
You have a limited understanding of democracy (or honesty)
Asking voters to vote is not anti-democratic, whatever questions are on the ballot and however often you do it.
"Whether my personal choice wins or not it does serious damage to faith in, and respect for, democracy."
No. it doesn't.
Asking voters to vote is not anti-democratic, whatever questions are on the ballot and however often you do it.
"Because the basic principle of a second referendum where the same question is asked again is wrong. Whether my personal choice wins or not it does serious damage to faith in, and respect for, democracy."
Bollocks.
Asking voters to vote is not anti-democratic, whatever questions are on the ballot and however often you do it.
LOL. At least you finally posted the whole thing even if your answers are rubbish. Just shows what can be done if you can shame someone into doing things properly.
I would still warn anyone having any exchanges with Scott that, as this example showed, he does have history of misquoting people as a means to winning arguments so you should all take his comments with a pinch of salt.
The more I think about this, the more I think we should take May's deal, then drag our heels for as long as possible to invoke the backstop and free membership of the Customs Union it provides.
I am no doubt missing or misunderstanding something. Perhaps a fellow PBer can put me straight?
Not sure you are. If you think membership of he CU is a good thing - which clearly you do - then that does seem an obvious route to take. I assume at some point both sides will want to do an FTA so it will depend on who blinks first. One reason I think why it should not be May in charge by that time.
It won't be if the deal passes, as the DUP will DEFINITELY VONC the Tories then.
Which is why Jezza would be an idiot not to whip Labour to abstain on the MV and let it pass.
They had fought in / lived through WW2. You cannot but respect your opponents when you have a shared life experience like that. It is our blessing of having lived through easy times that has given us the curse of poor leadership now.
As Sun-Tzu said:
Always forgive your enemies... But not before they are hanged.
Actually I think that was Heine.
You are correct, it seems. Also:
Always forgive your enemies - nothing annoys them so much -- Oscar Wilde
OTOH "Man's greatest joy is to slaughter his enemies, to crush them and drive them before him, and to listen to the lamentations of their women" - Conan the Barbarian.
"hot water, good dentishtry and shoft lavatory paper" - Cohen the Barbarian
The more I think about this, the more I think we should take May's deal, then drag our heels for as long as possible to invoke the backstop and free membership of the Customs Union it provides.
I am no doubt missing or misunderstanding something. Perhaps a fellow PBer can put me straight?
Not sure you are. If you think membership of he CU is a good thing - which clearly you do - then that does seem an obvious route to take. I assume at some point both sides will want to do an FTA so it will depend on who blinks first. One reason I think why it should not be May in charge by that time.
It won't be if the deal passes, as the DUP will DEFINITELY VONC the Tories then.
If by some miracle May wins the Meaningful Vote, she then needs to get the bill enacting the Withdrawal Agreement through the house. With no majority. With her party in open rebellion. With the DUP baying for blood. With Labour tabling daily VONCs and trying to use every underhanded procedural tactic at their disposal to bring down the government.
Although I think the effect of Brexit is massively overstated I don't think I would go so far as to argue it was a trivial matter. It might have benefited from some greater attention at a somewhat earlier stage when DD was mooning about. I would agree, however, that it is time to put this particular issue to bed and concentrate on more important matters.
Indeed but May has made this all about her - she has seemingly been leading the negotiations and the Deal has her political capital running through it.
Where for instance is Stephen Barclay? Why isn't he up there taking the questions - because it's HER Deal and she feels a responsibility and an obligation for it. I understand that - that's her ethos - I think it's misguided because it appears, as you say, "more important matters" are being left.
Its one of May's more fundamental weaknesses that she has never been able to build a team or a movement with widespread support even in her own party. Her instruction to Osborne to go off and learn more about his party was ironic in the extreme. If it were not so many more would be willing to follow her through the lobbies for her deal, even with gritted teeth.
The more I think about this, the more I think we should take May's deal, then drag our heels for as long as possible to invoke the backstop and free membership of the Customs Union it provides.
I am no doubt missing or misunderstanding something. Perhaps a fellow PBer can put me straight?
Not sure you are. If you think membership of he CU is a good thing - which clearly you do - then that does seem an obvious route to take. I assume at some point both sides will want to do an FTA so it will depend on who blinks first. One reason I think why it should not be May in charge by that time.
It won't be if the deal passes, as the DUP will DEFINITELY VONC the Tories then.
If by some miracle May wins the Meaningful Vote, she then needs to get the bill enacting the Withdrawal Agreement through the house. With no majority. With her party in open rebellion. With the DUP baying for blood. With Labour tabling daily VONCs and trying to use every underhanded procedural tactic at their disposal to bring down the government.
That'll be fun.
Keeps them on their toes and earning their money though
They had fought in / lived through WW2. You cannot but respect your opponents when you have a shared life experience like that. It is our blessing of having lived through easy times that has given us the curse of poor leadership now.
As Sun-Tzu said:
Always forgive your enemies... But not before they are hanged.
Actually I think that was Heine.
You are correct, it seems. Also:
Always forgive your enemies - nothing annoys them so much -- Oscar Wilde
OTOH "Man's greatest joy is to slaughter his enemies, to crush them and drive them before him, and to listen to the lamentations of their women" - Conan the Barbarian.
"hot water, good dentishtry and shoft lavatory paper" - Cohen the Barbarian
It's not the same question. It's another question (ratify the Withdrawal Agreement versus Remain on status quo) where one of the options is very similar to one of those from the earlier referendum (Leave somehow versus Remain with Cameron's Deal).
A lot has developed since then. It's not a straight and immediate rerun, which is what your stance seems to imply. Neither is it a series of identical questions until we tire and switch to "the acceptable answer", as you've suggested. A vote to ratify the WA sees us out immediately and Remain dead (Rejoin may rise from its corpse, but you've previously accepted that's a different question and valid).
Further, the Deal leaves open the future direction - which can be to Norway, Canada, or No Deal.
It is the same question. Leave or Remain. That is the question that has already been decided. If we are to have a referendum it should respect the last vote and only ask the form of Leave. Those arguing that Leave was not well defined at the last vote would then have their question resolved as we would be choosing between two defined alternatives.
I respectfully disagree. Those arguing that Leave was not well defined are contending that this would have changed the decision. I think that's a defensible position to hold.
A choice between two defined alternatives, without excluding an option (as No Deal may be followed after the transition period within the WA), looks fair.
The only way we can end up remaining after all is if the people choose that option - which would be a democratic choice as well. It can't be forced on them (I have seen the argument advanced that if Parliament were to direct that we rescind A50 without consulting the people, this would still respect the intent of sovereignty, as it would be the exercising of the parliamentary sovereignty behind that vote. I disagree with that view).
"Any democracy that can't change its mind ceases to be a democracy". I sympathise with the stance that Parliament and the Government can't ignore the earlier vote, and they haven't. They have invoked A50, explored options, negotiated with the EU, produced a draft Withdrawal Agreement - it's valid to ask for that to be endorsed.
In effect, we said "jump off the bridge" and they went to the side of the bridge, climbed over, and weighed up "head first or feet first". They don't want head-first and have now spotted rocks below but reckon going feet first might avoid them.
If they were to turn around, the should have the choice, "Okay, we've seen the rocks and how far it really is, we'll climb back over the rail" as a choice. It's a bit harsh to say, "You've already chosen to jump. The only choice left is head-first or feet-first".
The only way a second vote can end up with us remaining is if we vote to Remain after all.
It's not the same question. It's another question (ratify the Withdrawal Agreement versus Remain on status quo) where one of the options is very similar to one of those from the earlier referendum (Leave somehow versus Remain with Cameron's Deal).
A lot has developed since then. It's not a straight and immediate rerun, which is what your stance seems to imply. Neither is it a series of identical questions until we tire and switch to "the acceptable answer", as you've suggested. A vote to ratify the WA sees us out immediately and Remain dead (Rejoin may rise from its corpse, but you've previously accepted that's a different question and valid).
Further, the Deal leaves open the future direction - which can be to Norway, Canada, or No Deal.
It is the same question. Leave or Remain. That is the question that has already been decided. If we are to have a referendum it should respect the last vote and only ask the form of Leave. Those arguing that Leave was not well defined at the last vote would then have their question resolved as we would be choosing between two defined alternatives.
Which, as I've pointed out before, deprives voters of the opportunity to register a change of mind (as polls suggest some have). If Parliament cannot bind itself as to future decisions, why should that be the case for the electorate ? Handing over what is effectively only half the decision to the electorate will simply not fly.
And in any event, it is extraordinarily unlikely that Parliament will opt for a referendum on your partial (in both senses of the word) terms.
The more I think about this, the more I think we should take May's deal, then drag our heels for as long as possible to invoke the backstop and free membership of the Customs Union it provides.
I am no doubt missing or misunderstanding something. Perhaps a fellow PBer can put me straight?
Not sure you are. If you think membership of he CU is a good thing - which clearly you do - then that does seem an obvious route to take. I assume at some point both sides will want to do an FTA so it will depend on who blinks first. One reason I think why it should not be May in charge by that time.
It won't be if the deal passes, as the DUP will DEFINITELY VONC the Tories then.
I would still warn anyone having any exchanges with Scott that, as this example showed, he does have history of misquoting people as a means to winning arguments so you should all take his comments with a pinch of salt.
Oh, do fuck off.
I quote the bits I am replying to.
"As this example showed" you were wrong however much or little I quoted.
Given that every post appears further up the thread, readers can decide for themselves if not quoting half of your bollocks materially affected how wrong you were.
Oh dear. Newsnight had a discussion on the Brexit deal with members of the public and the person urging MPs to back May's deal turns out to be an actress...
It's not the same question. It's another question (ratify the Withdrawal Agreement versus Remain on status quo) where one of the options is very similar to one of those from the earlier referendum (Leave somehow versus Remain with Cameron's Deal).
A lot has developed since then. It's not a straight and immediate rerun, which is what your stance seems to imply. Neither is it a series of identical questions until we tire and switch to "the acceptable answer", as you've suggested. A vote to ratify the WA sees us out immediately and Remain dead (Rejoin may rise from its corpse, but you've previously accepted that's a different question and valid).
Further, the Deal leaves open the future direction - which can be to Norway, Canada, or No Deal.
It is the same question. Leave or Remain. That is the question that has already been decided. If we are to have a referendum it should respect the last vote and only ask the form of Leave. Those arguing that Leave was not well defined at the last vote would then have their question resolved as we would be choosing between two defined alternatives.
This is the same post you have been making for days, now.
It hangs on your *should*, which is simply your opinion, rather than any objective truth that can be tested. That many disagree with you is obvious from the widespread comment about a possible further referendum both from campaigners and in the media. Clearly is possible to have a deal v remain vote, should parliament (or more correctly government) so decide. Given that circumstances have clearly changed (passage of time, a new and specific proposition, and greater realisation of the risks of Brexit) there is an increasingly strong argument that it would be both the sensible and the democratic thing to do.
The more I think about this, the more I think we should take May's deal, then drag our heels for as long as possible to invoke the backstop and free membership of the Customs Union it provides.
I am no doubt missing or misunderstanding something. Perhaps a fellow PBer can put me straight?
Not sure you are. If you think membership of he CU is a good thing - which clearly you do - then that does seem an obvious route to take. I assume at some point both sides will want to do an FTA so it will depend on who blinks first. One reason I think why it should not be May in charge by that time.
It won't be if the deal passes, as the DUP will DEFINITELY VONC the Tories then.
That may not be enough to win a VONC/
The thing is, May needs to survive not one VONC, but all of them. If the DUP withdraw confidence and supply, Labour can move one daily if it wants. It can strike whenever it wants, and the government will be unable to leave Westminster. MPs won't be able to go back to their families and constituencies.
Everyone will be tied to within 15 minutes of Westminster aware that Labour can and will strike at any moment.
See that the Prime Minister is planning to go somewhere? VONC. Notice that the foreign sec is out of the country? VONC. Tory backbencher has a family emergency/is taken sick? VONC.
I would still warn anyone having any exchanges with Scott that, as this example showed, he does have history of misquoting people as a means to winning arguments so you should all take his comments with a pinch of salt.
Oh, do fuck off.
I quote the bits I am replying to.
"As this example showed" you were wrong however much or little I quoted.
Given that every post appears further up the thread, readers can decide for themselves if not quoting half of your bollocks materially affected how wrong you were.
LOL. Don't keep trying to justify your dishonesty. Just man up and accept you got caught out.
The more I think about this, the more I think we should take May's deal, then drag our heels for as long as possible to invoke the backstop and free membership of the Customs Union it provides.
I am no doubt missing or misunderstanding something. Perhaps a fellow PBer can put me straight?
Not sure you are. If you think membership of he CU is a good thing - which clearly you do - then that does seem an obvious route to take. I assume at some point both sides will want to do an FTA so it will depend on who blinks first. One reason I think why it should not be May in charge by that time.
It won't be if the deal passes, as the DUP will DEFINITELY VONC the Tories then.
If by some miracle May wins the Meaningful Vote, she then needs to get the bill enacting the Withdrawal Agreement through the house. With no majority. With her party in open rebellion. With the DUP baying for blood. With Labour tabling daily VONCs and trying to use every underhanded procedural tactic at their disposal to bring down the government.
That'll be fun.
Are you sure about that? I haven't looked into this but is this not already dealt with by the European Withdrawal Act 2018 subject to the requirement to have a meaningful vote?
Of course there will be other legislation required to meet the terms of the WA but in the unlikely event this goes through I think that's it.
I respectfully disagree. Those arguing that Leave was not well defined are contending that this would have changed the decision. I think that's a defensible position to hold.
A choice between two defined alternatives, without excluding an option (as No Deal may be followed after the transition period within the WA), looks fair.
The only way we can end up remaining after all is if the people choose that option - which would be a democratic choice as well. It can't be forced on them (I have seen the argument advanced that if Parliament were to direct that we rescind A50 without consulting the people, this would still respect the intent of sovereignty, as it would be the exercising of the parliamentary sovereignty behind that vote. I disagree with that view).
"Any democracy that can't change its mind ceases to be a democracy". I sympathise with the stance that Parliament and the Government can't ignore the earlier vote, and they haven't. They have invoked A50, explored options, negotiated with the EU, produced a draft Withdrawal Agreement - it's valid to ask for that to be endorsed.
In effect, we said "jump off the bridge" and they went to the side of the bridge, climbed over, and weighed up "head first or feet first". They don't want head-first and have now spotted rocks below but reckon going feet first might avoid them.
If they were to turn around, the should have the choice, "Okay, we've seen the rocks and how far it really is, we'll climb back over the rail" as a choice. It's a bit harsh to say, "You've already chosen to jump. The only choice left is head-first or feet-first".
The only way a second vote can end up with us remaining is if we vote to Remain after all.
We haven't even got to the edge of the bridge though. To continue your analogy we just have people who have a vested interest in us not taking the leap telling us there are rocks below and asking us to take that on faith. If we are going to take that position then why bother having elections at all. Just let the people who 'know' make all the decisions on our behalf.
The more I think about this, the more I think we should take May's deal, then drag our heels for as long as possible to invoke the backstop and free membership of the Customs Union it provides.
I am no doubt missing or misunderstanding something. Perhaps a fellow PBer can put me straight?
Not sure you are. If you think membership of he CU is a good thing - which clearly you do - then that does seem an obvious route to take. I assume at some point both sides will want to do an FTA so it will depend on who blinks first. One reason I think why it should not be May in charge by that time.
It won't be if the deal passes, as the DUP will DEFINITELY VONC the Tories then.
If by some miracle May wins the Meaningful Vote, she then needs to get the bill enacting the Withdrawal Agreement through the house. With no majority. With her party in open rebellion. With the DUP baying for blood. With Labour tabling daily VONCs and trying to use every underhanded procedural tactic at their disposal to bring down the government.
That'll be fun.
Are you sure about that? I haven't looked into this but is this not already dealt with by the European Withdrawal Act 2018 subject to the requirement to have a meaningful vote?
Of course there will be other legislation required to meet the terms of the WA but in the unlikely event this goes through I think that's it.
I am not sure it is. I think the Meaningful Vote allows her to go and sign the deal. But as someone was pointing out the other day (Grabcocque?) since 2010 any treaty now has to be ratified by Parliament on a yes/no basis without amendment.
Oh dear. Newsnight had a discussion on the Brexit deal with members of the public and the person urging MPs to back May's deal turns out to be an actress...
Shocking. I am sure nobody ever has managed to place a party supporter as a member of the public with the BBC or any other news organisation before. Its just inconceivable. /sarcasm.
Oh dear. Newsnight had a discussion on the Brexit deal with members of the public and the person urging MPs to back May's deal turns out to be an actress...
Dial it down a couple of notches before somebody wheels in a surplus German water cannon.
I thought Khan had sold/given them away for buttons to make some political point?
Brilliant - there's a worldview in which Watercannongate is Khan's fault not BoJo's!
Who'da thunk it?
I'm a court lawyer its what I do :-). And I didn't claim that Boris was innocent, just that the water cannon were no longer available to resolve the slightly tedious dispute between Richard and Scott.
I would still warn anyone having any exchanges with Scott that, as this example showed, he does have history of misquoting people as a means to winning arguments so you should all take his comments with a pinch of salt.
Oh, do fuck off.
I quote the bits I am replying to.
"As this example showed" you were wrong however much or little I quoted.
Given that every post appears further up the thread, readers can decide for themselves if not quoting half of your bollocks materially affected how wrong you were.
LOL. Don't keep trying to justify your dishonesty. Just man up and accept you got caught out.
Dial it down a couple of notches before somebody wheels in a surplus German water cannon.
I thought Khan had sold/given them away for buttons to make some political point?
Brilliant - there's a worldview in which Watercannongate is Khan's fault not BoJo's!
Who'da thunk it?
I'm a court lawyer its what I do :-). And I didn't claim that Boris was innocent, just that the water cannon were no longer available to resolve the slightly tedious dispute between Richard and Scott.
Especially if it's a state AG that indicts. I wonder if Trump would try to declare martial law in that state and attempt to depose the state government. Even the GOP would impeach and remove him for that.
I respectfully disagree. Those arguing that Leave was not well defined are contending that this would have changed the decision. I think that's a defensible position to hold.
A choice between two defined alternatives, without excluding an option (as No Deal may be followed after the transition period within the WA), looks fair.
The only way we can end up remaining after all is if the people choose that option - which would be a democratic choice as well. It can't be forced on them (I have seen the argument advanced that if Parliament were to direct that we rescind A50 without consulting the people, this would still respect the intent of sovereignty, as it would be the exercising of the parliamentary sovereignty behind that vote. I disagree with that view).
"Any democracy that can't change its mind ceases to be a democracy". I sympathise with the stance that Parliament and the Government can't ignore the earlier vote, and they haven't. They have invoked A50, explored options, negotiated with the EU, produced a draft Withdrawal Agreement - it's valid to ask for that to be endorsed.
In effect, we said "jump off the bridge" and they went to the side of the bridge, climbed over, and weighed up "head first or feet first". They don't want head-first and have now spotted rocks below but reckon going feet first might avoid them.
If they were to turn around, the should have the choice, "Okay, we've seen the rocks and how far it really is, we'll climb back over the rail" as a choice. It's a bit harsh to say, "You've already chosen to jump. The only choice left is head-first or feet-first".
The only way a second vote can end up with us remaining is if we vote to Remain after all.
We haven't even got to the edge of the bridge though. To continue your analogy we just have people who have a vested interest in us not taking the leap telling us there are rocks below and asking us to take that on faith. If we are going to take that position then why bother having elections at all. Just let the people who 'know' make all the decisions on our behalf.
I genuinely don't see that. My intent in the analogy (albeit I may have expressed it poorly) was that jumping off was leaving the EU, that we were at the edge, and that the rocks were the issues it would raise either way. Richard North was linked to, describing the issues of No Deal ("head first"), and many Leavers are very unhappy with the WA ("feet first") and that some issues were common or had become apparent to everyone since the last vote ("rocks"), so I'm not convinced it's just "people who know". Climbing over the rail was issuing A50. A Deal or No Deal means we have to jump, regardless of the presence or absence of rocks and the depth of the fall. It precludes a change of mind, which I don't think is mandatory.
Oh dear. Newsnight had a discussion on the Brexit deal with members of the public and the person urging MPs to back May's deal turns out to be an actress...
Are actresses not allowed opinions ?
Oh Hold on, she was acting at the time !
Must hinge on whether the BBC paid her to act that role (highly reprehensible & deeply damaging) or whther she did it herself unbeknown to the BBC (in which case they need to improve their panel vetting a bit maybe).
Are we sure it's not fake news though - just a doppleganger?
The more I think about this, the more I think we should take May's deal, then drag our heels for as long as possible to invoke the backstop and free membership of the Customs Union it provides.
I am no doubt missing or misunderstanding something. Perhaps a fellow PBer can put me straight?
Not sure you are. If you think membership of he CU is a good thing - which clearly you do - then that does seem an obvious route to take. I assume at some point both sides will want to do an FTA so it will depend on who blinks first. One reason I think why it should not be May in charge by that time.
It won't be if the deal passes, as the DUP will DEFINITELY VONC the Tories then.
If by some miracle May wins the Meaningful Vote, she then needs to get the bill enacting the Withdrawal Agreement through the house. With no majority. With her party in open rebellion. With the DUP baying for blood. With Labour tabling daily VONCs and trying to use every underhanded procedural tactic at their disposal to bring down the government.
That'll be fun.
Are you sure about that? I haven't looked into this but is this not already dealt with by the European Withdrawal Act 2018 subject to the requirement to have a meaningful vote?
Of course there will be other legislation required to meet the terms of the WA but in the unlikely event this goes through I think that's it.
Nope, I am wrong and you are right. s13(1) (d) stipulates that an Act of Parliament to implement the agreement is needed as well. Our cup truly runs over.
The more I think about this, the more I think we should take May's deal, then drag our heels for as long as possible to invoke the backstop and free membership of the Customs Union it provides.
I am no doubt missing or misunderstanding something. Perhaps a fellow PBer can put me straight?
Not sure you are. If you think membership of he CU is a good thing - which clearly you do - then that does seem an obvious route to take. I assume at some point both sides will want to do an FTA so it will depend on who blinks first. One reason I think why it should not be May in charge by that time.
It won't be if the deal passes, as the DUP will DEFINITELY VONC the Tories then.
If by some miracle May wins the Meaningful Vote, she then needs to get the bill enacting the Withdrawal Agreement through the house. With no majority. With her party in open rebellion. With the DUP baying for blood. With Labour tabling daily VONCs and trying to use every underhanded procedural tactic at their disposal to bring down the government.
That'll be fun.
Are you sure about that? I haven't looked into this but is this not already dealt with by the European Withdrawal Act 2018 subject to the requirement to have a meaningful vote?
Of course there will be other legislation required to meet the terms of the WA but in the unlikely event this goes through I think that's it.
Nope, I am wrong and you are right. s13(1) (d) stipulates that an Act of Parliament to implement the agreement is needed as well. Our cup truly runs over.
The more I think about this, the more I think we should take May's deal, then drag our heels for as long as possible to invoke the backstop and free membership of the Customs Union it provides.
I am no doubt missing or misunderstanding something. Perhaps a fellow PBer can put me straight?
Not sure you are. If you think membership of he CU is a good thing - which clearly you do - then that does seem an obvious route to take. I assume at some point both sides will want to do an FTA so it will depend on who blinks first. One reason I think why it should not be May in charge by that time.
It won't be if the deal passes, as the DUP will DEFINITELY VONC the Tories then.
If by some miracle May wins the Meaningful Vote, she then needs to get the bill enacting the Withdrawal Agreement through the house. With no majority. With her party in open rebellion. With the DUP baying for blood. With Labour tabling daily VONCs and trying to use every underhanded procedural tactic at their disposal to bring down the government.
That'll be fun.
Are you sure about that? I haven't looked into this but is this not already dealt with by the European Withdrawal Act 2018 subject to the requirement to have a meaningful vote?
Of course there will be other legislation required to meet the terms of the WA but in the unlikely event this goes through I think that's it.
Nope, I am wrong and you are right. s13(1) (d) stipulates that an Act of Parliament to implement the agreement is needed as well. Our cup truly runs over.
Oh dear. Newsnight had a discussion on the Brexit deal with members of the public and the person urging MPs to back May's deal turns out to be an actress...
Are actresses not allowed opinions ?
Oh Hold on, she was acting at the time !
Must hinge on whether the BBC paid her to act that role (highly reprehensible & deeply damaging) or whther she did it herself unbeknown to the BBC (in which case they need to improve their panel vetting a bit maybe).
Are we sure it's not fake news though - just a doppleganger?
I saw her on Newsnight and thought there was something spectacularly fishy about the way she was talking but couldn't quite put my finger on it. (Assuming this isn't fake news on top of fake news).
The follow-on from that will allow us to find out if the current spasm of simplistic populism is an ephemeral 1848-type event or something showing us that a more fundamental realignment is underway.
Oh dear. Newsnight had a discussion on the Brexit deal with members of the public and the person urging MPs to back May's deal turns out to be an actress...
Are actresses not allowed opinions ?
Oh Hold on, she was acting at the time !
Must hinge on whether the BBC paid her to act that role (highly reprehensible & deeply damaging) or whther she did it herself unbeknown to the BBC (in which case they need to improve their panel vetting a bit maybe).
Are we sure it's not fake news though - just a doppleganger?
If you read the tweet it appears she is a "protege" of a US televangelist and calls herself 'pastor' - so she may well be sincere in her view on Brexit - unless the suggestion is that Newsnight can't find enough of the 17+million who voted for Brexit and are paying actors to represent them.
Especially if it's a state AG that indicts. I wonder if Trump would try to declare martial law in that state and attempt to depose the state government. Even the GOP would impeach and remove him for that.
Maybe Trump will have them all bumped off by members of the Aryan Brotherhood, like Walter White did with his inconvenient witnesses.
I saw her on Newsnight and thought there was something spectacularly fishy about the way she was talking but couldn't quite put my finger on it. (Assuming this isn't fake news on top of fake news).
Oh dear. Newsnight had a discussion on the Brexit deal with members of the public and the person urging MPs to back May's deal turns out to be an actress...
Are actresses not allowed opinions ?
Oh Hold on, she was acting at the time !
Must hinge on whether the BBC paid her to act that role (highly reprehensible & deeply damaging) or whther she did it herself unbeknown to the BBC (in which case they need to improve their panel vetting a bit maybe).
Are we sure it's not fake news though - just a doppleganger?
If you read the tweet it appears she is a "protege" of a US televangelist and calls herself 'pastor' - so she may well be sincere in her view on Brexit - unless the suggestion is that Newsnight can't find enough of the 17+million who voted for Brexit and are paying actors to represent them.
Strange that she'd appear on Newsnight as a passionate leaver, but never have mentioned Brexit on facebook or twitter?
Oh dear. Newsnight had a discussion on the Brexit deal with members of the public and the person urging MPs to back May's deal turns out to be an actress...
"Train drivers being unaware that they are approaching a section of track where an emergency speed restriction is in force because some train operators are not passing to their drivers the advice of emergency speed restrictions issued by Network Rail." Yikes!
I saw her on Newsnight and thought there was something spectacularly fishy about the way she was talking but couldn't quite put my finger on it. (Assuming this isn't fake news on top of fake news).
A vicar who's Brexit red line was ending freedom of movement did strike me as a bit odd. Having said that she'd go down a storm in South Carolina!
Oh dear. Newsnight had a discussion on the Brexit deal with members of the public and the person urging MPs to back May's deal turns out to be an actress...
Are actresses not allowed opinions ?
Oh Hold on, she was acting at the time !
Must hinge on whether the BBC paid her to act that role (highly reprehensible & deeply damaging) or whther she did it herself unbeknown to the BBC (in which case they need to improve their panel vetting a bit maybe).
Are we sure it's not fake news though - just a doppleganger?
If you read the tweet it appears she is a "protege" of a US televangelist and calls herself 'pastor' - so she may well be sincere in her view on Brexit - unless the suggestion is that Newsnight can't find enough of the 17+million who voted for Brexit and are paying actors to represent them.
Strange that she'd appear on Newsnight as a passionate leaver, but never have mentioned Brexit on facebook or twitter?
Leavers never mention Brexit on Facebook. It's just not worth it.....
The more I think about this, the more I think we should take May's deal, then drag our heels for as long as possible to invoke the backstop and free membership of the Customs Union it provides.
I am no doubt missing or misunderstanding something. Perhaps a fellow PBer can put me straight?
Not sure you are. If you think membership of he CU is a good thing - which clearly you do - then that does seem an obvious route to take. I assume at some point both sides will want to do an FTA so it will depend on who blinks first. One reason I think why it should not be May in charge by that time.
It won't be if the deal passes, as the DUP will DEFINITELY VONC the Tories then.
If by some miracle May wins the Meaningful Vote, she then needs to get the bill enacting the Withdrawal Agreement through the house. With no majority. With her party in open rebellion. With the DUP baying for blood. With Labour tabling daily VONCs and trying to use every underhanded procedural tactic at their disposal to bring down the government.
That'll be fun.
Are you sure about that? I haven't looked into this but is this not already dealt with by the European Withdrawal Act 2018 subject to the requirement to have a meaningful vote?
Of course there will be other legislation required to meet the terms of the WA but in the unlikely event this goes through I think that's it.
Nope, I am wrong and you are right. s13(1) (d) stipulates that an Act of Parliament to implement the agreement is needed as well. Our cup truly runs over.
In which case, what's the point of the MV?
It was always a Meaningless Vote.....unless the EU had agreed to be bound it.
I saw her on Newsnight and thought there was something spectacularly fishy about the way she was talking but couldn't quite put my finger on it. (Assuming this isn't fake news on top of fake news).
The first bit of Newsnight I've watched for years.
The impression she left me with was 'You can't be for real' She didn't seem plausible on TV, so I'm happy to accept she was false.
I am more interested to know why May gets to say no to Andrew Neil doing the questions and follow-up quizzing.
Remainia would go apoplectic if Neil was chairing it.....he doesn't ask the right questions and is mean to nice people (like us)......
I have no problem with Andrew Neil’s assertive questioning. I have much more of a problem with the fact that he is a wholly blinkered and partial advocate for Leave and thus incapable of showing the necessary lack of bias.
I am more interested to know why May gets to say no to Andrew Neil doing the questions and follow-up quizzing.
Remainia would go apoplectic if Neil was chairing it.....he doesn't ask the right questions and is mean to nice people (like us)......
I have no problem with Andrew Neil’s assertive questioning. I have much more of a problem with the fact that he is a wholly blinkered and partial advocate for Leave and thus incapable of showing the necessary lack of bias.
Pretty shoddy of Corbyn to choose a commercial TV station over a nationalised one. I think it's an excuse because of Corbyn's famed iinability to grasp detail. ITV's commercial break every fifteen minutes gives him time to dust himself down between rounds
Comments
I would still warn anyone having any exchanges with Scott that, as this example showed, he does have history of misquoting people as a means to winning arguments so you should all take his comments with a pinch of salt.
(Unfortunately, I suspect he is.)
That'll be fun.
One for the railway nuts.
The RAIB have issued an urgent notice, after an LNER train went over a 20 MPH speed restriction at 120 MPH.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/urgent-safety-advice-032018-driver-awareness-of-emergency-speed-restrictions/urgent-safety-advice-032018-driver-awareness-of-emergency-speed-restrictions
Lucky. Blooming lucky.
Those arguing that Leave was not well defined are contending that this would have changed the decision. I think that's a defensible position to hold.
A choice between two defined alternatives, without excluding an option (as No Deal may be followed after the transition period within the WA), looks fair.
The only way we can end up remaining after all is if the people choose that option - which would be a democratic choice as well. It can't be forced on them (I have seen the argument advanced that if Parliament were to direct that we rescind A50 without consulting the people, this would still respect the intent of sovereignty, as it would be the exercising of the parliamentary sovereignty behind that vote. I disagree with that view).
"Any democracy that can't change its mind ceases to be a democracy". I sympathise with the stance that Parliament and the Government can't ignore the earlier vote, and they haven't. They have invoked A50, explored options, negotiated with the EU, produced a draft Withdrawal Agreement - it's valid to ask for that to be endorsed.
In effect, we said "jump off the bridge" and they went to the side of the bridge, climbed over, and weighed up "head first or feet first". They don't want head-first and have now spotted rocks below but reckon going feet first might avoid them.
If they were to turn around, the should have the choice, "Okay, we've seen the rocks and how far it really is, we'll climb back over the rail" as a choice. It's a bit harsh to say, "You've already chosen to jump. The only choice left is head-first or feet-first".
The only way a second vote can end up with us remaining is if we vote to Remain after all.
Handing over what is effectively only half the decision to the electorate will simply not fly.
And in any event, it is extraordinarily unlikely that Parliament will opt for a referendum on your partial (in both senses of the word) terms.
I quote the bits I am replying to.
"As this example showed" you were wrong however much or little I quoted.
Given that every post appears further up the thread, readers can decide for themselves if not quoting half of your bollocks materially affected how wrong you were.
It hangs on your *should*, which is simply your opinion, rather than any objective truth that can be tested. That many disagree with you is obvious from the widespread comment about a possible further referendum both from campaigners and in the media. Clearly is possible to have a deal v remain vote, should parliament (or more correctly government) so decide. Given that circumstances have clearly changed (passage of time, a new and specific proposition, and greater realisation of the risks of Brexit) there is an increasingly strong argument that it would be both the sensible and the democratic thing to do.
Everyone will be tied to within 15 minutes of Westminster aware that Labour can and will strike at any moment.
See that the Prime Minister is planning to go somewhere? VONC.
Notice that the foreign sec is out of the country? VONC.
Tory backbencher has a family emergency/is taken sick? VONC.
Of course there will be other legislation required to meet the terms of the WA but in the unlikely event this goes through I think that's it.
Who'da thunk it?
Perhaps.
It's not the worst misinformation, if that be so, presented in Newsnight's history.
Oh Hold on, she was acting at the time !
Any such amendment would be worthless of course because a subsequent HoC majority (e.g. new government) could override it.
My intent in the analogy (albeit I may have expressed it poorly) was that jumping off was leaving the EU, that we were at the edge, and that the rocks were the issues it would raise either way. Richard North was linked to, describing the issues of No Deal ("head first"), and many Leavers are very unhappy with the WA ("feet first") and that some issues were common or had become apparent to everyone since the last vote ("rocks"), so I'm not convinced it's just "people who know".
Climbing over the rail was issuing A50.
A Deal or No Deal means we have to jump, regardless of the presence or absence of rocks and the depth of the fall. It precludes a change of mind, which I don't think is mandatory.
Must hinge on whether the BBC paid her to act that role (highly reprehensible & deeply damaging) or whther she did it herself unbeknown to the BBC (in which case they need to improve their panel vetting a bit maybe).
Are we sure it's not fake news though - just a doppleganger?
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/13/enacted
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46382722
https://twitter.com/Plaid_Cymru/status/1068159326571892736
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1068104672282640384
https://twitter.com/JamesERothwell/status/1068086028026687488
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Seeing-God-through-Camera-Lens/dp/0954481437
The impression she left me with was 'You can't be for real'
She didn't seem plausible on TV, so I'm happy to accept she was false.