Looking at the numbers for a second referendum, you have Labour 246, TIG 11, Lib Dem 11, SNP 35, Plaid 4, Green 1, Onasanya 1, = 299 (I don't know how Lewis, Woodcock, Hermon or O'Mara would vote).
Against, you have 314 Conservatives, 10 DUP, Lloyd, Austin, Field, and Hopkins, making 328.
Subtract three Deputy Speakers, giving 297 to 327.
Assume that Hoey, Mann, Powell, Nandy, Snell, Smeeth, Stringer, Campbell, Skinner, Flint, vote against. That gives 287 to 337. Assume a few more Labour MP's abstain, and I think you need close to thirty Conservatives to vote against the government for a referendum amendment to pass.
I believe that there are 10 current Conservatives who have so far publicly backed a fresh referendum.
Guto Bebb Damian Collins Justine Greening Dominic Grieve Sam Gyimah Jo Johnson Phillip Lee Andrew Mitchell George Freeman Antoinette Sandbach (over no deal)
Are there any others?
I could see people like Nick Boles, Nicky Morgan, Oliver Letwin doing so if they felt they had no alternative, but I don't think they're going to break ranks at this point.
George Freeman just came out against a 2nd ref. I suspect of those 10 around 6 or 7 would actually back a People's Vote. Some seem to not want Brexit but not wish to truly oppose it either.
I suspect/know that George views Brexit as pointless. He would not be unusual in thinking that a second referendum is unwise. These are not contradictory positions, and I am not certain a second ref is a good idea.
What is the point of just extending Article 50? It has to be for a reason; it needs the consent of the EU so we need to say why - a referendum or for technical reasons or whatever?
Just extending so that we can prolong the agony is pointless.
Those votes give us the following (very likely scenario).
May's deal rejected No Deal Brexit rejected Article 50 extension - rejected* I also think the second vote will be rejected.
* an article 50 extension one may well be agreed upon in Parliament but it would still require the agreement of the EU and with no sensible plan left for the UK government why would they agree to an extension without a plausible outcome.
What is the point of just extending Article 50? It has to be for a reason; it needs the consent of the EU so we need to say why - a referendum or for technical reasons or whatever?
Just extending so that we can prolong the agony is pointless.
Those votes give us the following (very likely scenario).
* an article 50 extension one may well be agreed upon in Parliament but it would still require the agreement of the EU and with no sensible plan left for the UK government why would they agree to an extension without a plausible outcome.
MPs want an extension so that they continue arguing with each other.
My arse, well resourced and well overpaid, too much cheap food and drink and expenses. It is party time for donkey balloons in Westminster. A days work would kill most of them.
I say, that's a bit strong.
The SNP, of course, and the glorious MSPs are exceptions, no doubt!!
What is the point of just extending Article 50? It has to be for a reason; it needs the consent of the EU so we need to say why - a referendum or for technical reasons or whatever?
Just extending so that we can prolong the agony is pointless.
Those votes give us the following (very likely scenario).
* an article 50 extension one may well be agreed upon in Parliament but it would still require the agreement of the EU and with no sensible plan left for the UK government why would they agree to an extension without a plausible outcome.
I don't think they're that bothered (indeed probably happy to) in advance of the MEP elections. At and after that not so much.
Aren't free votes meant to be for matters of conscience?
Apparently it is a matter of conscience as to whether to support murderous terrorists, if your conscience is in alignment with Jeremy Corbyn.
Why is Hezbollah being banned now?
I don't know the answer to that question but, according to a report yesterday, Britain has been out of line with other European countries and the US on this so what is now being done is bringing us into line. Why (and which government) chose not to follow other countries is an interesting question as well as why now.
Separately from the Hezbollah issue, there is a case for saying that Britain has over the years been a bit too naive in allowing some very questionable types to operate from our shores. The French were furious over our indulgence of Algerian terrorists a few years back, for instance. And if other countries impose a ban and we don't then we become the forum of choice for such groups, which may not be best for this country or its reputation.
Consider also all those organisations organising here in the 1980s and 1990s, such as Al Mahajaroun. Both main political parties were asleep.
"Al-Muhajiroun (Arabic: المهاجرون, The Emigrants) is a banned terrorist Salafi jihadist organisation that is based in the United Kingdom and which has been linked to international terrorism, homophobia, and antisemitism. The group in its original incarnation operated in the United Kingdom from 14 January 1986 until the British Government announced an intended ban in August 2005. The group became notorious for its September 2002 conference, "The Magnificent 19", praising the September 11, 2001 attacks. The group mutates periodically so as to evade the law; it then operates under different aliases. It was proscribed under the UK Terrorism Act 2000 on 14 January 2010 together with four other organisations including Islam4UK, and again in 2014 as "Need4Khilafah"." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Muhajiroun
I wonder if the media will try the same tactics they did when Maggie tried to deny the Oxygen of Publicity to terrorist groups.
His views are a darned sight more relevant than those of an excuser and denier of anti-Semitism such as yourself.
Go forth and multiply.
I do not excuse Anti Sematism.
Yep, you do. Just look at your response to Corbyn's anti-Semitism. You make excuses and deny it.
I Corbyn is not AS
No matter how many times you say it. It doesn't make it true.
I feel it is completely unacceptable you call me an excuser of AS.
Well, I disagree with you wrt JC and his anti-Semitism. For ages I called JC a 'passive' anti-Semite; that changed when the weight of evidence fell, in my eyes, into pushing him into being an actual anti-Semite. Someone can actually find the relevant post on here where that change occurred.
Try looking at it from another angle:
You repeatedly make excuses for Corbyn's actions and comments, when others - including many good people in your own party - accuse him of it. What if you're wrong? If you are wrong, then you are, in fact, excusing anti-Semitism.
Yet you do not deign to give (say) Conservatives anywhere near the same doubt when it comes to accusations of Islamaphobia. As it happens, in some cases I agree with you, in others I do not. I'd have much more time for your arguments if you gave every such accusation an equally high bar - whatever the political persuasion of the accused. That would be an honourable position.
But you don't, and it means that you are excusing it for political reasons - and that's hideous.
Looking at the numbers for a second referendum, you have Labour 246, TIG 11, Lib Dem 11, SNP 35, Plaid 4, Green 1, Onasanya 1, = 299 (I don't know how Lewis, Woodcock, Hermon or O'Mara would vote).
Against, you have 314 Conservatives, 10 DUP, Lloyd, Austin, Field, and Hopkins, making 328.
Subtract three Deputy Speakers, giving 297 to 327.
Assume that Hoey, Mann, Powell, Nandy, Snell, Smeeth, Stringer, Campbell, Skinner, Flint, vote against. That gives 287 to 337. Assume a few more Labour MP's abstain, and I think you need close to thirty Conservatives to vote against the government for a referendum amendment to pass.
I believe that there are 10 current Conservatives who have so far publicly backed a fresh referendum.
Guto Bebb Damian Collins Justine Greening Dominic Grieve Sam Gyimah Jo Johnson Phillip Lee Andrew Mitchell George Freeman Antoinette Sandbach (over no deal)
Are there any others?
I could see people like Nick Boles, Nicky Morgan, Oliver Letwin doing so if they felt they had no alternative, but I don't think they're going to break ranks at this point.
How the world turns.
I remember cheering on Justine Greening in 2005 as she campaigned as a no-nonsense eurosceptic.
What is the point of just extending Article 50? It has to be for a reason; it needs the consent of the EU so we need to say why - a referendum or for technical reasons or whatever?
Just extending so that we can prolong the agony is pointless.
Those votes give us the following (very likely scenario).
May's deal rejected No Deal Brexit rejected Article 50 extension - rejected* I also think the second vote will be rejected.
* an article 50 extension one may well be agreed upon in Parliament but it would still require the agreement of the EU and with no sensible plan left for the UK government why would they agree to an extension without a plausible outcome.
But despite "No Deal" being "rejected" it still remains the default outcome of A50 as it was the one thing Parliament did agree to when these MPs voted to invoke A50.
His views are a darned sight more relevant than those of an excuser and denier of anti-Semitism such as yourself.
Go forth and multiply.
I do not excuse Anti Sematism.
Yep, you do. Just look at your response to Corbyn's anti-Semitism. You make excuses and deny it.
I Corbyn is not AS
No matter how many times you say it. It doesn't make it true.
I feel it is completely unacceptable you call me an excuser of AS.
Well, I disagree with you wrt JC and his anti-Semitism. For ages I called JC a 'passive' anti-Semite; that changed when the weight of evidence fell, in my eyes, into pushing him into being an actual anti-Semite. Someone can actually find the relevant post on here where that change occurred.
Try looking at it from another angle:
You repeatedly make excuses for Corbyn's actions and comments, when others - including many good people in your own party - accuse him of it. What if you're wrong? If you are wrong, then you are, in fact, excusing anti-Semitism.
Yet you do not deign to give (say) Conservatives anywhere near the same doubt when it comes to accusations of Islamaphobia. As it happens, in some cases I agree with you, in others I do not. I'd have much more time for your arguments if you gave every such accusation an equally high bar - whatever the political persuasion of the accused. That would be an honourable position.
But you don't, and it means that you are excusing it for political reasons - and that's hideous.
His views are a darned sight more relevant than those of an excuser and denier of anti-Semitism such as yourself.
Go forth and multiply.
I do not excuse Anti Sematism.
Yep, you do. Just look at your response to Corbyn's anti-Semitism. You make excuses and deny it.
I Corbyn is not AS
No matter how many times you say it. It doesn't make it true.
I feel it is completely unacceptable you call me an excuser of AS.
Well, I disagree with you wrt JC and his anti-Semitism. For ages I called JC a 'passive' anti-Semite; that changed when the weight of evidence fell, in my eyes, into pushing him into being an actual anti-Semite. Someone can actually find the relevant post on here where that change occurred.
Try looking at it from another angle:
You repeatedly make excuses for Corbyn's actions and comments, when others - including many good people in your own party - accuse him of it. What if you're wrong? If you are wrong, then you are, in fact, excusing anti-Semitism.
Yet you do not deign to give (say) Conservatives anywhere near the same doubt when it comes to accusations of Islamaphobia. As it happens, in some cases I agree with you, in others I do not. I'd have much more time for your arguments if you gave every such accusation an equally high bar - whatever the political persuasion of the accused. That would be an honourable position.
But you don't, and it means that you are excusing it for political reasons - and that's hideous.
JJ you're talking to fresh air. He's flounced.
At least he didn't post the heavily edited video that he normally does as "proof", if anybody challenges him over the Messiah's issues over the Jews.
His views are a darned sight more relevant than those of an excuser and denier of anti-Semitism such as yourself.
Go forth and multiply.
I do not excuse Anti Sematism.
Yep, you do. Just look at your response to Corbyn's anti-Semitism. You make excuses and deny it.
I Corbyn is not AS
No matter how many times you say it. It doesn't make it true.
I feel it is completely unacceptable you call me an excuser of AS.
Well, I disagree with you wrt JC and his anti-Semitism. For ages I called JC a 'passive' anti-Semite; that changed when the weight of evidence fell, in my eyes, into pushing him into being an actual anti-Semite. Someone can actually find the relevant post on here where that change occurred.
Try looking at it from another angle:
You repeatedly make excuses for Corbyn's actions and comments, when others - including many good people in your own party - accuse him of it. What if you're wrong? If you are wrong, then you are, in fact, excusing anti-Semitism.
Yet you do not deign to give (say) Conservatives anywhere near the same doubt when it comes to accusations of Islamaphobia. As it happens, in some cases I agree with you, in others I do not. I'd have much more time for your arguments if you gave every such accusation an equally high bar - whatever the political persuasion of the accused. That would be an honourable position.
But you don't, and it means that you are excusing it for political reasons - and that's hideous.
JJ you're talking to fresh air. He's flounced.
Yeah, I noticed: but only after I'd finished writing the (too long) post ...
Looking at the numbers for a second referendum, you have Labour 246, TIG 11, Lib Dem 11, SNP 35, Plaid 4, Green 1, Onasanya 1, = 299 (I don't know how Lewis, Woodcock, Hermon or O'Mara would vote).
Against, you have 314 Conservatives, 10 DUP, Lloyd, Austin, Field, and Hopkins, making 328.
Subtract three Deputy Speakers, giving 297 to 327.
Assume that Hoey, Mann, Powell, Nandy, Snell, Smeeth, Stringer, Campbell, Skinner, Flint, vote against. That gives 287 to 337. Assume a few more Labour MP's abstain, and I think you need close to thirty Conservatives to vote against the government for a referendum amendment to pass.
I believe that there are 10 current Conservatives who have so far publicly backed a fresh referendum.
Guto Bebb Damian Collins Justine Greening Dominic Grieve Sam Gyimah Jo Johnson Phillip Lee Andrew Mitchell George Freeman Antoinette Sandbach (over no deal)
Are there any others?
I could see people like Nick Boles, Nicky Morgan, Oliver Letwin doing so if they felt they had no alternative, but I don't think they're going to break ranks at this point.
How the world turns.
I remember cheering on Justine Greening in 2005 as she campaigned as a no-nonsense eurosceptic.
Her views have changed radically in recent years. Moving in the other direction, you have someone like Crispin Blunt.
Looking at the numbers for a second referendum, you have Labour 246, TIG 11, Lib Dem 11, SNP 35, Plaid 4, Green 1, Onasanya 1, = 299 (I don't know how Lewis, Woodcock, Hermon or O'Mara would vote).
Against, you have 314 Conservatives, 10 DUP, Lloyd, Austin, Field, and Hopkins, making 328.
Subtract three Deputy Speakers, giving 297 to 327.
Assume that Hoey, Mann, Powell, Nandy, Snell, Smeeth, Stringer, Campbell, Skinner, Flint, vote against. That gives 287 to 337. Assume a few more Labour MP's abstain, and I think you need close to thirty Conservatives to vote against the government for a referendum amendment to pass.
I believe that there are 10 current Conservatives who have so far publicly backed a fresh referendum.
Guto Bebb Damian Collins Justine Greening Dominic Grieve Sam Gyimah Jo Johnson Phillip Lee Andrew Mitchell George Freeman Antoinette Sandbach (over no deal)
Are there any others?
I could see people like Nick Boles, Nicky Morgan, Oliver Letwin doing so if they felt they had no alternative, but I don't think they're going to break ranks at this point.
How the world turns.
I remember cheering on Justine Greening in 2005 as she campaigned as a no-nonsense eurosceptic.
If she had a seat in Yorkshire I suspect she would be, similarly imagine how pro EU Ed Miliband would be if his seat was Putney rather than Doncaster.
Separately from the Hezbollah issue, there is a case for saying that Britain has over the years been a bit too naive in allowing some very questionable types to operate from our shores. The French were furious over our indulgence of Algerian terrorists a few years back, for instance. And if other countries impose a ban and we don't then we become the forum of choice for such groups, which may not be best for this country or its reputation.
Consider also all those organisations organising here in the 1980s and 1990s, such as Al Mahajaroun. Both main political parties were asleep.
"Al-Muhajiroun (Arabic: المهاجرون, The Emigrants) is a banned terrorist Salafi jihadist organisation that is based in the United Kingdom and which has been linked to international terrorism, homophobia, and antisemitism. The group in its original incarnation operated in the United Kingdom from 14 January 1986 until the British Government announced an intended ban in August 2005. The group became notorious for its September 2002 conference, "The Magnificent 19", praising the September 11, 2001 attacks. The group mutates periodically so as to evade the law; it then operates under different aliases. It was proscribed under the UK Terrorism Act 2000 on 14 January 2010 together with four other organisations including Islam4UK, and again in 2014 as "Need4Khilafah"." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Muhajiroun
I wonder if the media will try the same tactics they did when Maggie tried to deny the Oxygen of Publicity to terrorist groups.
We worry a lot about IS grooming but this sort of grooming is equally unacceptable. I do hope that Damian Hinds does not back down and insists that all pupils should be taught that there are different sorts of sexual preferences in the world and that prejudice against gay people etc is wrong.
As touched on in the previous thread, Labour's position on a referendum is all over the place.
Emily Thornberry (tweet): "I've seen some nonsense that I "misspoke" earlier on a public vote. Pretty hard to misspeak identically in 10 interviews, but for clarity: if Theresa May won't accept our deal, then the public must decide: do we accept whatever deal she gets through, or do we Remain? Got it?"
Keir Starmer on Today this morning: “A public vote ought to be between the option on the one hand of a credible leave deal and on the other hand remain."
Given that Labour's position is that the current EU deal is not a credible leave deal - which Keir Starmer emphasised at some length in the same interview - those two statements are directly contradictory. The Thornberry one has the merit of being realistic - we could have a referendum on the lines she suggests, whereas the Starmer one is completely out with the fairies: how can you have a referendum where one option doesn't exist?
Meanwhile Seamas Milne, and probably Corbyn, don't seem to actually support their own U-turn.
Over on Coffeehouse an article has said that Corbyn and his advisers have two red lines. They will not support the May deal under any circumstance and they will not support no deal. They have no strategic commitment to a ref, it is just tactical.
His views are a darned sight more relevant than those of an excuser and denier of anti-Semitism such as yourself.
Go forth and multiply.
I do not excuse Anti Sematism.
Yep, you do. Just look at your response to Corbyn's anti-Semitism. You make excuses and deny it.
I Corbyn is not AS
No matter how many times you say it. It doesn't make it true.
I feel it is completely unacceptable you call me an excuser of AS.
Well, I disagree with you wrt JC and his anti-Semitism. For ages I called JC a 'passive' anti-Semite; that changed when the weight of evidence fell, in my eyes, into pushing him into being an actual anti-Semite. Someone can actually find the relevant post on here where that change occurred.
Try looking at it from another angle:
You repeatedly make excuses for Corbyn's actions and comments, when others - including many good people in your own party - accuse him of it. What if you're wrong? If you are wrong, then you are, in fact, excusing anti-Semitism.
Yet you do not deign to give (say) Conservatives anywhere near the same doubt when it comes to accusations of Islamaphobia. As it happens, in some cases I agree with you, in others I do not. I'd have much more time for your arguments if you gave every such accusation an equally high bar - whatever the political persuasion of the accused. That would be an honourable position.
But you don't, and it means that you are excusing it for political reasons - and that's hideous.
JJ you're talking to fresh air. He's flounced.
Yeah, I noticed: but only after I'd finished writing the (too long) post ...
Or maybe he's over on the new thread...as long posts tend to trip the "New Thread" widget.
Aren't free votes meant to be for matters of conscience?
Apparently it is a matter of conscience as to whether to support murderous terrorists, if your conscience is in alignment with Jeremy Corbyn.
Why is Hezbollah being banned now?
Seeing as the salafi terrorist "IS" organisation has more or less been defeated, perhaps less need for backchannel communication with the de facto lebanese sh'ia area army ?
His views are a darned sight more relevant than those of an excuser and denier of anti-Semitism such as yourself.
Go forth and multiply.
I do not excuse Anti Sematism.
Yep, you do. Just look at your response to Corbyn's anti-Semitism. You make excuses and deny it.
I Corbyn is not AS
No matter how many times you say it. It doesn't make it true.
I feel it is completely unacceptable you call me an excuser of AS.
Well, I disagree with you wrt JC and his anti-Semitism. For ages I called JC a 'passive' anti-Semite; that changed when the weight of evidence fell, in my eyes, into pushing him into being an actual anti-Semite. Someone can actually find the relevant post on here where that change occurred.
Try looking at it from another angle:
You repeatedly make excuses for Corbyn's actions and comments, when others - including many good people in your own party - accuse him of it. What if you're wrong? If you are wrong, then you are, in fact, excusing anti-Semitism.
Yet you do not deign to give (say) Conservatives anywhere near the same doubt when it comes to accusations of Islamaphobia. As it happens, in some cases I agree with you, in others I do not. I'd have much more time for your arguments if you gave every such accusation an equally high bar - whatever the political persuasion of the accused. That would be an honourable position.
But you don't, and it means that you are excusing it for political reasons - and that's hideous.
JJ you're talking to fresh air. He's flounced.
Yeah, I noticed: but only after I'd finished writing the (too long) post ...
It is nice to see you posting again, though. And your post was a good one.
Over on Coffeehouse an article has said that Corbyn and his advisers have two red lines. They will not support the May deal under any circumstance and they will not support no deal. They have no strategic commitment to a ref, it is just tactical.
Those two red lines are incompatible in practice, which is the problem.
As touched on in the previous thread, Labour's position on a referendum is all over the place.
Emily Thornberry (tweet): "I've seen some nonsense that I "misspoke" earlier on a public vote. Pretty hard to misspeak identically in 10 interviews, but for clarity: if Theresa May won't accept our deal, then the public must decide: do we accept whatever deal she gets through, or do we Remain? Got it?"
Keir Starmer on Today this morning: “A public vote ought to be between the option on the one hand of a credible leave deal and on the other hand remain."
Given that Labour's position is that the current EU deal is not a credible leave deal - which Keir Starmer emphasised at some length in the same interview - those two statements are directly contradictory. The Thornberry one has the merit of being realistic - we could have a referendum on the lines she suggests, whereas the Starmer one is completely out with the fairies: how can you have a referendum where one option doesn't exist?
Meanwhile Seamas Milne, and probably Corbyn, don't seem to actually support their own U-turn.
Over on Coffeehouse an article has said that Corbyn and his advisers have two red lines. They will not support the May deal under any circumstance and they will not support no deal. They have no strategic commitment to a ref, it is just tactical.
Over on Coffeehouse an article has said that Corbyn and his advisers have two red lines. They will not support the May deal under any circumstance and they will not support no deal. They have no strategic commitment to a ref, it is just tactical.
Those two red lines are incompatible in practice, which is the problem.
Together with Thornberry's "May's deal whatever it is" it gives them cover to back remain in a deal:remain referendum.
I mean if you think by any remote chance Lab is that joined up.
Aren't free votes meant to be for matters of conscience?
Apparently it is a matter of conscience as to whether to support murderous terrorists, if your conscience is in alignment with Jeremy Corbyn.
Why is Hezbollah being banned now?
Seeing as the salafi terrorist "IS" organisation has more or less been defeated, perhaps less need for backchannel communication with the de facto lebanese sh'ia area army ?
Or they've finally realised that Hezbollah itself made clear some time ago, that they do not consider that they have any wings. To Hezbollah, the political and military parts are all part of the same whole.
As has often been the case, people in the West refuse to listen to what these organisations themselves say about themselves and prefer to believe what they would like to be true.
Corbyn's moves after the 2nd referendum vote has been defeated will be instructive.
Well, the first big test is whether they support the Kyle amendment. The Thornberry version of Labour policy says yes, the Starmer (and I think Corbyn) version says no, as does the Seumas Milne version (for opposite reasons).
Over on Coffeehouse an article has said that Corbyn and his advisers have two red lines. They will not support the May deal under any circumstance and they will not support no deal. They have no strategic commitment to a ref, it is just tactical.
His views are a darned sight more relevant than those of an excuser and denier of anti-Semitism such as yourself.
Go forth and multiply.
I do not excuse Anti Sematism.
Yep, you do. Just look at your response to Corbyn's anti-Semitism. You make excuses and deny it.
I Corbyn is not AS
No matter how many times you say it. It doesn't make it true.
I feel it is completely unacceptable you call me an excuser of AS.
Well, I disagree with you wrt JC and his anti-Semitism. For ages I called JC a 'passive' anti-Semite; that changed when the weight of evidence fell, in my eyes, into pushing him into being an actual anti-Semite. Someone can actually find the relevant post on here where that change occurred.
Try looking at it from another angle:
You repeatedly make excuses for Corbyn's actions and comments, when others - including many good people in your own party - accuse him of it. What if you're wrong? If you are wrong, then you are, in fact, excusing anti-Semitism.
Yet you do not deign to give (say) Conservatives anywhere near the same doubt when it comes to accusations of Islamaphobia. As it happens, in some cases I agree with you, in others I do not. I'd have much more time for your arguments if you gave every such accusation an equally high bar - whatever the political persuasion of the accused. That would be an honourable position.
But you don't, and it means that you are excusing it for political reasons - and that's hideous.
JJ you're talking to fresh air. He's flounced.
Yeah, I noticed: but only after I'd finished writing the (too long) post ...
It is nice to see you posting again, though. And your post was a good one.
Thanks. I'm trying not to spend too much time on here though, as I have some productive (but sadly non-paying) work to do, and on here I can get in a little too deep for my own good at times ...
Aren't free votes meant to be for matters of conscience?
Apparently it is a matter of conscience as to whether to support murderous terrorists, if your conscience is in alignment with Jeremy Corbyn.
Why is Hezbollah being banned now?
Seeing as the salafi terrorist "IS" organisation has more or less been defeated, perhaps less need for backchannel communication with the de facto lebanese sh'ia area army ?
Or they've finally realised that Hezbollah itself made clear some time ago, that they do not consider that they have any wings. To Hezbollah, the political and military parts are all part of the same whole.
As has often been the case, people in the West refuse to listen to what these organisations themselves say about themselves and prefer to believe what they would like to be true.
That is quite possibly true but absent any undisclosed imminent threat, probably the main reason is that Javid gets to embarrass the LotO and his own main leadership rivals. I expect the same sort of reasoning lies behind TIGger Mike Gapes' twitter declaration that Corbyn endangers national security by not whipping the vote.
Corbyn's moves after the 2nd referendum vote has been defeated will be instructive.
Well, the first big test is whether they support the Kyle amendment. The Thornberry version of Labour policy says yes, the Starmer (and I think Corbyn) version says no, as does the Seumas Milne version (for opposite reasons).
I think Starmer's position is the same as Thornberry's - Labour's deal or, if that is rejected by the Commons, a referendum on May's Deal v Remain. The Morning Star Brexiteers are obviously opposed. Jeremy will do as he is told.
Corbyn's moves after the 2nd referendum vote has been defeated will be instructive.
Well, the first big test is whether they support the Kyle amendment. The Thornberry version of Labour policy says yes, the Starmer (and I think Corbyn) version says no, as does the Seumas Milne version (for opposite reasons).
I think Starmer's position is the same as Thornberry's - Labour's deal or, if that is rejected by the Commons, a referendum on May's Deal v Remain. The Morning Star Brexiteers are obviously opposed. Jeremy will do as he is told.
Over on Coffeehouse an article has said that Corbyn and his advisers have two red lines. They will not support the May deal under any circumstance and they will not support no deal. They have no strategic commitment to a ref, it is just tactical.
So what do they support then?
A general election. That they will lose.
Will they lose it?
The problem is that Labour, the Tories & the LibDems all look as they will lose votes.
And, outside a small number of very Remainer-y seats (all in Labour hands with Remainer-y Lab MPs), I really don't see the TIGers making much off an impression. I expect the TIGgers will all lose, perhaps bar one or two.
If our crappy politicians cant actually pass legislation in line with the referendum and lazily chuck Brexit back at the elctortate then we need a clause saying none of the current MPs can stand for Parliament again since they are incapable of performing their elected role.
Keeps us in the EU. That's basically the driving purpose of most MPs at present.
The difficulty will be with the next stage, forcing the PM to revoke if the alternative is no-deal - after most of said MPs have voted down all other options.
For me, this is why May might be happy with a short extension: it closes off that route, given the EU is unlikely to allow multiple pointless extensions.
His views are a darned sight more relevant than those of an excuser and denier of anti-Semitism such as yourself.
Go forth and multiply.
I do not excuse Anti Sematism.
Yep, you do. Just look at your response to Corbyn's anti-Semitism. You make excuses and deny it.
I Corbyn is not AS
No matter how many times you say it. It doesn't make it true.
I feel it is completely unacceptable you call me an excuser of AS.
Well, I disagree with you wrt JC and his anti-Semitism. For ages I called JC a 'passive' anti-Semite; that changed when the weight of evidence fell, in my eyes, into pushing him into being an actual anti-Semite. Someone can actually find the relevant post on here where that change occurred.
Try looking at it from another angle:
You repeatedly make excuses for Corbyn's actions and comments, when others - including many good people in your own party - accuse him of it. What if you're wrong? If you are wrong, then you are, in fact, excusing anti-Semitism.
Yet you do not deign to give (say) Conservatives anywhere near the same doubt when it comes to accusations of Islamaphobia. As it happens, in some cases I agree with you, in others I do not. I'd have much more time for your arguments if you gave every such accusation an equally high bar - whatever the political persuasion of the accused. That would be an honourable position.
But you don't, and it means that you are excusing it for political reasons - and that's hideous.
JJ you're talking to fresh air. He's flounced.
Yeah, I noticed: but only after I'd finished writing the (too long) post ...
It is strange how some people have blind loyalty to some politicians. I have never experienced it myself. Most of them are never as bad as some people think (Corbyn an exception), but they are never that brilliant either. It is weird not to even countenance that a politician could be mistaken or actually have some bad aspects to them.
I just got my thank you acknowledgement email from TIG, having filled in the form on their website on the day of launch. Doesn't say much more than 'thanks and watch this space', but at least someone is on the case.
Aren't free votes meant to be for matters of conscience?
Apparently it is a matter of conscience as to whether to support murderous terrorists, if your conscience is in alignment with Jeremy Corbyn.
Why is Hezbollah being banned now?
Seeing as the salafi terrorist "IS" organisation has more or less been defeated, perhaps less need for backchannel communication with the de facto lebanese sh'ia area army ?
Or they've finally realised that Hezbollah itself made clear some time ago, that they do not consider that they have any wings. To Hezbollah, the political and military parts are all part of the same whole.
As has often been the case, people in the West refuse to listen to what these organisations themselves say about themselves and prefer to believe what they would like to be true.
That is quite possibly true but absent any undisclosed imminent threat, probably the main reason is that Javid gets to embarrass the LotO and his own main leadership rivals. I expect the same sort of reasoning lies behind TIGger Mike Gapes' twitter declaration that Corbyn endangers national security by not whipping the vote.
One thing I dislike is the idea that people do things for *one* reason, when in fact there can be a whole host of reasons, positive and negative, for an action that need weighing up.
And I think that's the same for many politicians when they make decisions. This might be a rare case where doing the right thing equates with an interesting political opportunity. That must be quite rare ...
Looking at the numbers for a second referendum, you have Labour 246, TIG 11, Lib Dem 11, SNP 35, Plaid 4, Green 1, Onasanya 1, = 299 (I don't know how Lewis, Woodcock, Hermon or O'Mara would vote).
Against, you have 314 Conservatives, 10 DUP, Lloyd, Austin, Field, and Hopkins, making 328.
Subtract three Deputy Speakers, giving 297 to 327.
Assume that Hoey, Mann, Powell, Nandy, Snell, Smeeth, Stringer, Campbell, Skinner, Flint, vote against. That gives 287 to 337. Assume a few more Labour MP's abstain, and I think you need close to thirty Conservatives to vote against the government for a referendum amendment to pass.
I believe that there are 10 current Conservatives who have so far publicly backed a fresh referendum.
Guto Bebb Damian Collins Justine Greening Dominic Grieve Sam Gyimah Jo Johnson Phillip Lee Andrew Mitchell George Freeman Antoinette Sandbach (over no deal)
Are there any others?
I could see people like Nick Boles, Nicky Morgan, Oliver Letwin doing so if they felt they had no alternative, but I don't think they're going to break ranks at this point.
George Freeman just came out against a 2nd ref. I suspect of those 10 around 6 or 7 would actually back a People's Vote. Some seem to not want Brexit but not wish to truly oppose it either.
I suspect/know that George views Brexit as pointless. He would not be unusual in thinking that a second referendum is unwise. These are not contradictory positions, and I am not certain a second ref is a good idea.
My view is similar, I think. The whole Brexit process has been, and is, far too damaging (politically, socially, economically...). At the same time, we have had a referendum and parliament should deal with the result and not farm the responsibility out to another referendum.
Corbyn's moves after the 2nd referendum vote has been defeated will be instructive.
Well, the first big test is whether they support the Kyle amendment. The Thornberry version of Labour policy says yes, the Starmer (and I think Corbyn) version says no, as does the Seumas Milne version (for opposite reasons).
I think Starmer's position is the same as Thornberry's - Labour's deal or, if that is rejected by the Commons, a referendum on May's Deal v Remain. The Morning Star Brexiteers are obviously opposed. Jeremy will do as he is told.
That's not what Starmer said on Today this morning. He was of course fluent in lawyerly obfuscation, but one fairly clearly statement was that he ruled out both No Deal and May's deal. Well, if you're going to rule them out, you can't offer them in a referendum.
As one sadly has come to expect of the BBC, the interviewer (in this case Nick Robinson) was absolutely hopeless at asking questions which might have clarified things. If any journalists are reading this, perhaps they could ask Starmer whether he actually agrees with Thornberry.
Corbyn's moves after the 2nd referendum vote has been defeated will be instructive.
Well, the first big test is whether they support the Kyle amendment. The Thornberry version of Labour policy says yes, the Starmer (and I think Corbyn) version says no, as does the Seumas Milne version (for opposite reasons).
I think Starmer's position is the same as Thornberry's - Labour's deal or, if that is rejected by the Commons, a referendum on May's Deal v Remain. The Morning Star Brexiteers are obviously opposed. Jeremy will do as he is told.
That's not what Starmer said on Today this morning. He was of course fluent in lawyerly obfuscation, but on fairly clearly statement was that he ruled out both No Deal and May's deal. Well, if you're going to rule them out, you can't offer them in a referendum.
As one sadly has come to expect of the BBC, the interviewer (in this case Nick Robinson) was absolutely hopeless at asking questions which might have clarified things. If any journalists are reading this, perhaps they could ask Starmer whether he actually agrees with Thornberry.
I didn't hear Starmer on R4, so I am going on this:
It is strange how some people have blind loyalty to some politicians. I have never experienced it myself. Most of them are never as bad as some people think (Corbyn an exception), but they are never that brilliant either. It is weird not to even countenance that a politician could be mistaken or actually have some bad aspects to them.
It's not just politicians; it's any blind loyalty.
My dad told me something once. It's fine being a fan of someone, but that doesn't mean you should just blindly excuse them of everything. In fact, if you're putting that much faith in them, then if they do something wrong you should be the first on the ramparts shouting: "Oi! No! You're great, but that's right out of order!"
Witness my comments about Elon Musk's fans earlier, or the ones who *still* say that the British diver must be a pedo because Elon said so ...
Corbyn's moves after the 2nd referendum vote has been defeated will be instructive.
Well, the first big test is whether they support the Kyle amendment. The Thornberry version of Labour policy says yes, the Starmer (and I think Corbyn) version says no, as does the Seumas Milne version (for opposite reasons).
I think Starmer's position is the same as Thornberry's - Labour's deal or, if that is rejected by the Commons, a referendum on May's Deal v Remain. The Morning Star Brexiteers are obviously opposed. Jeremy will do as he is told.
Corbyn's moves after the 2nd referendum vote has been defeated will be instructive.
Well, the first big test is whether they support the Kyle amendment. The Thornberry version of Labour policy says yes, the Starmer (and I think Corbyn) version says no, as does the Seumas Milne version (for opposite reasons).
I think Starmer's position is the same as Thornberry's - Labour's deal or, if that is rejected by the Commons, a referendum on May's Deal v Remain. The Morning Star Brexiteers are obviously opposed. Jeremy will do as he is told.
That's not what Starmer said on Today this morning. He was of course fluent in lawyerly obfuscation, but on fairly clearly statement was that he ruled out both No Deal and May's deal. Well, if you're going to rule them out, you can't offer them in a referendum.
As one sadly has come to expect of the BBC, the interviewer (in this case Nick Robinson) was absolutely hopeless at asking questions which might have clarified things. If any journalists are reading this, perhaps they could ask Starmer whether he actually agrees with Thornberry.
I didn't hear Starmer on R4, so I am going on this:
Exactly - lawyerly obfuscation. 'If' her deal gets through.
But what if it doesn't?
In any case, if it gets through there's no need for a referendum, so I'm not clear what he means either way. If the deal passses, there no need for a referendum, if it doesn't, there's nothing to hold a referendum about, according to him.
Thornberry, on the other hand, didn't say anything about the deal passing. She said with admirable clarity that, in the absence of any other solution, it should be offered in a referendum with Remain as the other option.
I just got my thank you acknowledgement email from TIG, having filled in the form on their website on the day of launch. Doesn't say much more than 'thanks and watch this space', but at least someone is on the case.
If, as the BBC is saying, Mrs M is for the first time about to countenance the possibility of delay, I think we can assume events will rapidly turn in that direction. It's only her repeated denials that have been keeping the water behind the dam.
I just got my thank you acknowledgement email from TIG, having filled in the form on their website on the day of launch. Doesn't say much more than 'thanks and watch this space', but at least someone is on the case.
The ban means that Tommy Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, will not be allowed to set up an official Facebook page or Instagram profile in future.
I just got my thank you acknowledgement email from TIG, having filled in the form on their website on the day of launch. Doesn't say much more than 'thanks and watch this space', but at least someone is on the case.
Me too
"Tens of thousands of people have signed up", it says. I guess this means at least 20,000 and probably less than 80,000, otherwise it would say nearly 100,000.
Aren't free votes meant to be for matters of conscience?
Apparently it is a matter of conscience as to whether to support murderous terrorists, if your conscience is in alignment with Jeremy Corbyn.
Why is Hezbollah being banned now?
Seeing as the salafi terrorist "IS" organisation has more or less been defeated, perhaps less need for backchannel communication with the de facto lebanese sh'ia area army ?
Or they've finally realised that Hezbollah itself made clear some time ago, that they do not consider that they have any wings. To Hezbollah, the political and military parts are all part of the same whole.
As has often been the case, people in the West refuse to listen to what these organisations themselves say about themselves and prefer to believe what they would like to be true.
This.
It's worth pointing out that the EU has not proscribed the political wing yet, and Israel is using the UK's ban to call for them to do so.
I'm unclear where individual European countries stand on this issue - you mentioned earlier that they and the US were ahead of us in this respect, but I can't find a clear answer. Wikipedia suggests that (for example) the French have banned the whole organisation, but I saw an article earlier in which Macron said he wouldn't follow the UK in this.
What we've discovered in the last few days is that a fair chunk of Labour support was very soft. It seems quite likely to me, all things considered, that the same is true of the Conservatives. Perhaps we'll see soon enough.
Opinium and Delta have Labour at 37% and 36% respectively in their most recent standard voting intention surveys.
Being a British politician at national level today is less consequential and worse in terms of opportunity cost than at any time in the last 300 years. It’s no surprise that the calibre of MPs and ministers is in decline.
MPs are underpaid and under-resourced.
With a basic salary package some way north of £100k, plus all the extra responsibility, redundancy etc payments and gewgaws, that claim is a bit of a stretch, John.
MPs are far better paid and resourced compared with the 1950s & 1960s.
Being a British politician at national level today is less consequential and worse in terms of opportunity cost than at any time in the last 300 years. It’s no surprise that the calibre of MPs and ministers is in decline.
MPs are underpaid and under-resourced.
With a basic salary package some way north of £100k, plus all the extra responsibility, redundancy etc payments and gewgaws, that claim is a bit of a stretch, John.
MPs are far better paid and resourced compared with the 1950s & 1960s.
True, but I did think the erstwhile MP Martin Bell's comments were interesting.
He was much more poorly resourced as an MP for Tatton than he was as a BBC journalist!
Aren't free votes meant to be for matters of conscience?
Apparently it is a matter of conscience as to whether to support murderous terrorists, if your conscience is in alignment with Jeremy Corbyn.
Why is Hezbollah being banned now?
Seeing as the salafi terrorist "IS" organisation has more or less been defeated, perhaps less need for backchannel communication with the de facto lebanese sh'ia area army ?
Or they've finally realised that Hezbollah itself made clear some time ago, that they do not consider that they have any wings. To Hezbollah, the political and military parts are all part of the same whole.
As has often been the case, people in the West refuse to listen to what these organisations themselves say about themselves and prefer to believe what they would like to be true.
This.
It's worth pointing out that the EU has not proscribed the political wing yet, and Israel is using the UK's ban to call for them to do so.
I'm unclear where individual European countries stand on this issue - you mentioned earlier that they and the US were ahead of us in this respect, but I can't find a clear answer. Wikipedia suggests that (for example) the French have banned the whole organisation, but I saw an article earlier in which Macron said he wouldn't follow the UK in this.
Suprised he won't be following because France already banned the military wing:
Although that's a rather odd sequence in some ways (what happens if all three fail?), it's probably the best attempt at herding the cats into making some kind of decision that she could have come up with.
Being a British politician at national level today is less consequential and worse in terms of opportunity cost than at any time in the last 300 years. It’s no surprise that the calibre of MPs and ministers is in decline.
MPs are underpaid and under-resourced.
With a basic salary package some way north of £100k, plus all the extra responsibility, redundancy etc payments and gewgaws, that claim is a bit of a stretch, John.
An MP's basic salary is £77,379. They do get expenses on top of that but expenses are not additional remuneration. Most do not get any payments for additional responsibilities.
Their expenses cover every penny they spend so their 77K plus gold plated pensions etc is all just bunce. Have you seen the stuff they claim for , down to penny items and most of them would be lucky to hold down a 20K a year job into the bargain and those that could are already minted.
The point I was making was that they don't earn north of £100k basic salary as claimed by MattW. Yes, they are well paid but not as much as he claims.
Yes, their expenses cover every penny they spend *on their job*, just as with every employer I have every worked for (and please don't trot out examples of what they used to claim before the system was reformed - it isn't relevant). It is true that their pension scheme is generous compared to private sector pension schemes, although similar to most public sector pension schemes. And yes, some MPs would struggle to earn anything like that much outside parliament.
But we, the UK general public, frequently complain about how much MPs are paid and the poor quality of our MPs. The two are linked. The amount we pay is not enough to attract top talent, especially with the level of scrutiny and abuse associated with the job.
What we've discovered in the last few days is that a fair chunk of Labour support was very soft. It seems quite likely to me, all things considered, that the same is true of the Conservatives. Perhaps we'll see soon enough.
Opinium and Delta have Labour at 37% and 36% respectively in their most recent standard voting intention surveys.
Did I mishear? I though May said if you vote for a short extension, that will not go past the EU elections, then the bill will be amended to say that there will not be another extension and no-deal will apply at the end of the extension period.
If MPs vote against No Deal, but then don't vote for extending A50? What then?
Mmmm. I thought that. By limiting it till June, and saying it would be a one-off, she is risking exactly that. A 3 month delay is neither use nor ornament. It doesn't leave time for a referendum or for decisions in the House to emerge. Only for a GE. Which might not solve anything at all.
If MPs vote against No Deal, but then don't vote for extending A50? What then?
I would not put that past them.
That's the no deal scenario that remains. But I don't see why MPs wouldn't go for the delay in such circumstances. Everyone knows that we need one, the game is who gets the blame for it.
Although that's a rather odd sequence in some ways (what happens if all three fail?), it's probably the best attempt at herding the cats into making some kind of decision that she could have come up with.
Comments
May's deal rejected
No Deal Brexit rejected
Article 50 extension - rejected*
I also think the second vote will be rejected.
* an article 50 extension one may well be agreed upon in Parliament but it would still require the agreement of the EU and with no sensible plan left for the UK government why would they agree to an extension without a plausible outcome.
"Al-Muhajiroun (Arabic: المهاجرون, The Emigrants) is a banned terrorist Salafi jihadist organisation that is based in the United Kingdom and which has been linked to international terrorism, homophobia, and antisemitism. The group in its original incarnation operated in the United Kingdom from 14 January 1986 until the British Government announced an intended ban in August 2005. The group became notorious for its September 2002 conference, "The Magnificent 19", praising the September 11, 2001 attacks. The group mutates periodically so as to evade the law; it then operates under different aliases. It was proscribed under the UK Terrorism Act 2000 on 14 January 2010 together with four other organisations including Islam4UK, and again in 2014 as "Need4Khilafah"."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Muhajiroun
I wonder if the media will try the same tactics they did when Maggie tried to deny the Oxygen of Publicity to terrorist groups.
Obviously, rallies involving such, people dresses as suicide bombers etc, have been routinely addressed by Saint Jeremy. This from 2002.
https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/433/build-on-success/
Try looking at it from another angle:
You repeatedly make excuses for Corbyn's actions and comments, when others - including many good people in your own party - accuse him of it. What if you're wrong? If you are wrong, then you are, in fact, excusing anti-Semitism.
Yet you do not deign to give (say) Conservatives anywhere near the same doubt when it comes to accusations of Islamaphobia. As it happens, in some cases I agree with you, in others I do not. I'd have much more time for your arguments if you gave every such accusation an equally high bar - whatever the political persuasion of the accused. That would be an honourable position.
But you don't, and it means that you are excusing it for political reasons - and that's hideous.
I remember cheering on Justine Greening in 2005 as she campaigned as a no-nonsense eurosceptic.
We worry a lot about IS grooming but this sort of grooming is equally unacceptable. I do hope that Damian Hinds does not back down and insists that all pupils should be taught that there are different sorts of sexual preferences in the world and that prejudice against gay people etc is wrong.
So what do they support then?
I mean if you think by any remote chance Lab is that joined up.
As has often been the case, people in the West refuse to listen to what these organisations themselves say about themselves and prefer to believe what they would like to be true.
The problem is that Labour, the Tories & the LibDems all look as they will lose votes.
And, outside a small number of very Remainer-y seats (all in Labour hands with Remainer-y Lab MPs), I really don't see the TIGers making much off an impression. I expect the TIGgers will all lose, perhaps bar one or two.
It will come down to who loses the least.
That could well be Labour.
The difficulty will be with the next stage, forcing the PM to revoke if the alternative is no-deal - after most of said MPs have voted down all other options.
For me, this is why May might be happy with a short extension: it closes off that route, given the EU is unlikely to allow multiple pointless extensions.
And I think that's the same for many politicians when they make decisions. This might be a rare case where doing the right thing equates with an interesting political opportunity. That must be quite rare ...
As one sadly has come to expect of the BBC, the interviewer (in this case Nick Robinson) was absolutely hopeless at asking questions which might have clarified things. If any journalists are reading this, perhaps they could ask Starmer whether he actually agrees with Thornberry.
A crash exit, which the government will get blamed for.
https://sluggerotoole.com/2019/02/25/rhi-broke-even-between-income-and-operating-costs-last-year/
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1100308827566686208
My dad told me something once. It's fine being a fan of someone, but that doesn't mean you should just blindly excuse them of everything. In fact, if you're putting that much faith in them, then if they do something wrong you should be the first on the ramparts shouting: "Oi! No! You're great, but that's right out of order!"
Witness my comments about Elon Musk's fans earlier, or the ones who *still* say that the British diver must be a pedo because Elon said so ...
Against the Cons offering the May Deal I think Labour would have every chance.
That has to be the most probable of the various improbable routes to power presented by this crisis.
https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2019/2/25/18229714/cognizant-facebook-content-moderator-interviews-trauma-working-conditions-arizona
But what if it doesn't?
In any case, if it gets through there's no need for a referendum, so I'm not clear what he means either way. If the deal passses, there no need for a referendum, if it doesn't, there's nothing to hold a referendum about, according to him.
Thornberry, on the other hand, didn't say anything about the deal passing. She said with admirable clarity that, in the absence of any other solution, it should be offered in a referendum with Remain as the other option.
The ban means that Tommy Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, will not be allowed to set up an official Facebook page or Instagram profile in future.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47371290
Sanath Jayasuriya: Ex-Sri Lanka captain banned after admitting corruption charges
https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/47371282
It's worth pointing out that the EU has not proscribed the political wing yet, and Israel is using the UK's ban to call for them to do so.
https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/u-k-to-add-hezbollah-including-political-party-to-list-of-banned-terrorist-groups-1.6964175
I'm unclear where individual European countries stand on this issue - you mentioned earlier that they and the US were ahead of us in this respect, but I can't find a clear answer. Wikipedia suggests that (for example) the French have banned the whole organisation, but I saw an article earlier in which Macron said he wouldn't follow the UK in this.
Followed by another, and another.
Can kicking as performance art.
Could be interesting reading.
He was much more poorly resourced as an MP for Tatton than he was as a BBC journalist!
http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/04/04/jewish-leaders-applaud-hezbollah-terror-designation-by-france/
Two months from now, extend is no longer an option, and we have what she always wanted: deal or no-deal.
Yes, their expenses cover every penny they spend *on their job*, just as with every employer I have every worked for (and please don't trot out examples of what they used to claim before the system was reformed - it isn't relevant). It is true that their pension scheme is generous compared to private sector pension schemes, although similar to most public sector pension schemes. And yes, some MPs would struggle to earn anything like that much outside parliament.
But we, the UK general public, frequently complain about how much MPs are paid and the poor quality of our MPs. The two are linked. The amount we pay is not enough to attract top talent, especially with the level of scrutiny and abuse associated with the job.
Edit/ now 1.05
Edit/1.03, then someone stumps up £1000 at 1.05
Almost gone, another £1000 at 1.05
Back to 1.07 - DYOR
Only for a GE. Which might not solve anything at all.