> @GIN1138 said: > > @williamglenn said: > > Welcome to the Tory leadership candidate fashion show. > > > > https://twitter.com/iandunt/status/1127841221949501440?s=21 > > Don't see the problem with the Raabs (although the strategically placed vase of flowers in the middle of a kitchen work top looks odd) > > Liz looks like she's become unhinged.
> @Mysticrose said: > > @Cicero said: > > Mentioned last week that the Liberal Democrats have quite a bit of momentum for the Euros. The weekend's polls seem to back that up pretty strongly. No one took my bet that the Lib Dems would beat the Conservatives and Labour though. > > > > After my own weekend's campaigning I would say that everything is now in play. Still finding a lot of hostility to Nigel Farage, so the poll rating for TBP is masking some very strong feelings, which makes it difficult to call, but if I were to guess, then I think TBP may not be doing as well as polls suggest, and may be down on UKIP last time. > > > > On the other hand the Lib Dems seem to be accelerating. > > I suspect this is a very very good call. If it's not too late, it's worth a punt. > > If momentum is everything then you can see a BP - LibDem 1-2 with something around 29% / 19% or thereabouts. > > I'm picking up considerable dislike for Farage. Remember that Cummings thought he was a liability and sidelined him from Vote Leave. He's quite toxic, and the last time people thought rallies proved anything was ... Sheffield. > > > >
Lots of people disliking Farage is entirely consistent with a third of the voters backing TBP.
> > But the only form of referendum likely (both from common sense and the views of a majority of parliament) is a deal v status quo one, thereby removing the possibility of a no deal exit. No sane politician is going to risk putting 'no deal' out to a public vote (even if it could be defined in terms specific enough satisfy the electoral commission). Thus a referendum more than likely secures precisely what you want.
>
> The People's Vote campaign aren't clear about under what conditions the vote would be held.
>
> We've seen though that their supporter MPs will vote against softer Brexit, to improve the chances of a second referendum. So if it happens, I think it will be a very hard Brexit/No deal vs. Remain.
>
> Edit to add: I think you are seriously underestimating the support for No Deal in parliament. It's the favoured option of a significant minority, and probably 200+ could live with it (based on the fact that they wouldn't vote to rule it out).
I don’t think so - I think we’re talking in the 80-110 range of the ERG.
Nevertheless, you saw how May adapted her position after she got the briefing on the political and economic consequences of no deal, and it was also very notable that despite a lot of rumour and training, there weren’t any cabinet resignations when no deal was ruled out. And preparations for it were abandoned with barely a murmur. Any new PM and Cabinet would find themselves in the same position, and wouldn’t be able to ge5 a no deal referendum through parliament anyway. Not least because the proposition would be near impossible to define.
It's not "impossible to define".
It's leaving the EU without a Withdrawal Agreement.
That's it.
Anything that happens after that point of time is up to the government.
And when the government inevitably does a deal with the EU, do you think the people who've just voted for No Deal will accept it?
> @TOPPING said: > If parties who favour no deal get 30% ish at the Euros and Peterborough, how would it be legitimate to have a referendum between May's Deal and Remain? > > You've gotta save people from themselves sometimes, Sam. > > Plenty of whacko ideas would get 30% in a popular vote, doesn't mean we should entertain them.
WTO Brexit is not a whako idea, and its comments like that that make people more determined to say a big FU to the establishment 'nanny knows best' ' The plebs are thick little englanders'
> @Charles said: > > @rkrkrk said: > > > > @IanB2 said: > > > > But the only form of referendum likely (both from common sense and the views of a majority of parliament) is a deal v status quo one, thereby removing the possibility of a no deal exit. No sane politician is going to risk putting 'no deal' out to a public vote (even if it could be defined in terms specific enough satisfy the electoral commission). Thus a referendum more than likely secures precisely what you want. > > > > > > The People's Vote campaign aren't clear about under what conditions the vote would be held. > > > > > > We've seen though that their supporter MPs will vote against softer Brexit, to improve the chances of a second referendum. So if it happens, I think it will be a very hard Brexit/No deal vs. Remain. > > > > > > Edit to add: I think you are seriously underestimating the support for No Deal in parliament. It's the favoured option of a significant minority, and probably 200+ could live with it (based on the fact that they wouldn't vote to rule it out). > > > > I don’t think so - I think we’re talking in the 80-110 range of the ERG. > > > > Nevertheless, you saw how May adapted her position after she got the briefing on the political and economic consequences of no deal, and it was also very notable that despite a lot of rumour and training, there weren’t any cabinet resignations when no deal was ruled out. And preparations for it were abandoned with barely a murmur. Any new PM and Cabinet would find themselves in the same position, and wouldn’t be able to ge5 a no deal referendum through parliament anyway. Not least because the proposition would be near impossible to define. > > It's not "impossible to define". > > It's leaving the EU without a Withdrawal Agreement. > > That's it. > > Anything that happens after that point of time is up to the government.
"Anything that happens after that point of time is up to the government."
isn't that the question all over?
What "Leave" meant in 2016 was down to the government, but that turned out to be difficult to define or plan for didn't it?
> > But the only form of referendum likely (both from common sense and the views of a majority of parliament) is a deal v status quo one, thereby removing the possibility of a no deal exit. No sane politician is going to risk putting 'no deal' out to a public vote (even if it could be defined in terms specific enough satisfy the electoral commission). Thus a referendum more than likely secures precisely what you want.
>
> The People's Vote campaign aren't clear about under what conditions the vote would be held.
>
> We've seen though that their supporter MPs will vote against softer Brexit, to improve the chances of a second referendum. So if it happens, I think it will be a very hard Brexit/No deal vs. Remain.
>
> Edit to add: I think you are seriously underestimating the support for No Deal in parliament. It's the favoured option of a significant minority, and probably 200+ could live with it (based on the fact that they wouldn't vote to rule it out).
I don’t think so - I think we’re talking in the 80-110 range of the ERG.
Nevertheless, you saw how May adapted her position after she got the briefing on the political and economic consequences of no deal, and it was also very notable that despite a lot of rumour and training, there weren’t any cabinet resignations when no deal was ruled out. And preparations for it were abandoned with barely a murmur. Any new PM and Cabinet would find themselves in the same position, and wouldn’t be able to ge5 a no deal referendum through parliament anyway. Not least because the proposition would be near impossible to define.
It's not "impossible to define".
It's leaving the EU without a Withdrawal Agreement.
That's it.
Anything that happens after that point of time is up to the government.
And when the government inevitably does a deal with the EU, do you think the people who've just voted for No Deal will accept it?
If we've left the EU without a Withdrawal Agreement then yes.
And if they don't like it then they have the right to vote accordingly in the next election
> @Charles said: > Mr. Matt, does Mr. 1929 have any reasoning or evidence to add? > > It was quite a high profile stock market crash, although the evidence on the economic performance (especially in the UK) is more mixed than folklore would have you believe
The UK economy contracted 4.6% in 1931, according to Bank of England estimates, worse than the 4.2% decline seen in 2009. Outside of wartime or its immediate aftermath, these were the worst growth rates since 1900. But the great depression was worse than the more recent episode, most likely because in 2009 the government followed the Keynesian prescription of running a large deficit, cushioning the impact of the collapse in private sector spending, whereas in the late 1920s and early 1930s Britain was clinging to orthodox policies in a fruitless attempt to remain on the Gold Standard. Sadly, cause and effect have become confused in the popular imagination, and people now blame Labour's fiscal policy for causing the 2008-09 crisis and recession, which as all economists know is ludicrous. For context, world GDP declined by 1.9% in 2009, the only negative growth rate in almost 60 years of data. World trade volumes fell over 12%. This was a global event and had nothing to do with Gordon Brown.
WTO Brexit is not a whako idea, and its comments like that that make people more determined to say a big FU to the establishment 'nanny knows best' ' The plebs are thick little englanders'
> @mwadams said: > > @Jonathan said: > > > @GIN1138 said: > > > > @williamglenn said: > > > > Welcome to the Tory leadership candidate fashion show. > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/iandunt/status/1127841221949501440?s=21 > > > > > > Don't see the problem with the Raabs (although the stratefically placed vase of flowers in the middle of a kitchen work top looks odd) > > > > > > Liz looks like she's become unhinged. > > > > > > And Matt Hancock is... Matt Hancock... #moron > > > > The posed sterility and awkwardness of Raab is striking. > > I think other person and kitchen have been hired for the occasion. As have the trousers, and possibly the underwear; hence awkward "my pants are pinching a little" chair-crouch.
Liz is doing Liz and Matt is doing Matt.
Hunt and Raab looked more awkward.
Hunt himself is a bit of a contradiction. Sometimes he seems entirely at ease with himself, wife, etc, and then sometimes not. I wonder if he becomes a bit self-conscious sometimes.
WTO Brexit is not a whako idea, and its comments like that that make people more determined to say a big FU to the establishment 'nanny knows best' ' The plebs are thick little englanders'
Raging against reality doesn't become any more productive with intensity.
> @JosiasJessop said: > What do you think the Lib Dems should have done in 2010? > > The people voted, and the result was that the Conservatives had most MPs, but not a majority. However, Labour were so far behind that any coalition involving them would have been a rather interesting and precarious one. > > You can fault what the Lib Dems did whilst in coalition government, but blaming them for going into that coalition government seems a little odd. > > But then I, like a fair few others, think the coalition was a rare period of good governance in this country, despite the economic problems they inherited. I think you might disagree.
The experience at Holyrood, of a minority SNP government with some support from the Scottish Greens - who have then been able to win significant concessions at each budget - provides an alternative model to the Coalition that the Liberal Democrats formed in 2010.
If we've left the EU without a Withdrawal Agreement then yes.
And if they don't like it then they have the right to vote accordingly in the next election
It's all academic because no British government is going to offer such a choice to the electorate. The EU has already laid down laws to determine their behaviour should the UK decide against WA ratification. As to the point, the political reality would mean that any phrasing of a "No Deal" option on a ballot paper would instantly be circumvented by the government.
As in OK not _that_ WA but one with a new side letter or suchlike, subject to the EU's tolerance for us dicking around the substance of which however would be identical to the current WA.
And good luck with getting all parties to agree on that "No Deal" phrasing. If you think that eg. Nige would be happy with "without the current WA as drafted" you are living in cloud cuckoo land.
> @Charles said: > > You have the fundamental issue: > > - the voters voted to leave > - Parliament voted to leave > - Parliament can’t agree how to leave > - There a vote should be “leave with the only deal available” or “leave without a deal”
The referendum was advisory. Parliament has considered the advice and can now legislate for specific arrangements ([WA + PD] versus [status quo minus the grievous loss of the two agencies]) subject to a binding public vote. I don't think there's any logical contradiction. It will of course still allow NF and the Bannonites to play their resentment politics, but that battle is coming anyway.
> @Mysticrose said: > > @Cicero said: > > Mentioned last week that the Liberal Democrats have quite a bit of momentum for the Euros. The weekend's polls seem to back that up pretty strongly. No one took my bet that the Lib Dems would beat the Conservatives and Labour though. > > > > After my own weekend's campaigning I would say that everything is now in play. Still finding a lot of hostility to Nigel Farage, so the poll rating for TBP is masking some very strong feelings, which makes it difficult to call, but if I were to guess, then I think TBP may not be doing as well as polls suggest, and may be down on UKIP last time. > > > > On the other hand the Lib Dems seem to be accelerating. > > I suspect this is a very very good call. If it's not too late, it's worth a punt. > > If momentum is everything then you can see a BP - LibDem 1-2 with something around 29% / 19% or thereabouts. > > I'm picking up considerable dislike for Farage. Remember that Cummings thought he was a liability and sidelined him from Vote Leave. He's quite toxic, and the last time people thought rallies proved anything was ... Sheffield. > >
Lots of people disliking Farage is entirely consistent with a third of the voters backing TBP.
I’m sure a fair few who dislike him will still vote for TBP anyway so their vote isn’t misconstrued as a vote for Remain.
FPTP ensures voters vote for people as representatives rather than parties Except when the representatives act as people rather than follow party lines or even leave their original party, in which case they were obviously elected for that party and manifesto and should promptly face the electorate again so their original Party can get the seat back, the undemocratic swine.
FPTP ensures that extreme voices don't get heard. Because it ensures that all voices go unheard rather than those of the Big Two. Which means if one of the Big Two goes extreme, oops. And if people get annoyed that they're being ignored, also oops.
FPTP ensures strong and stable Government... I'm sorry, I couldn't say that with a straight face.
All FPTP actually does is ensure an eternal back-and-forth between Tories and Labour, and, shockingly, Tories and Labour remain eternally in favour of that. Protected from "market forces" that could cause actual, you know, competition. Preserved from the people's views being represented in proportion to their support. And then they wonder why the people lose faith with the political system representing them accurately, and with politicians in general.
Brexit Party, Lib Dem, Green and Labour freeposts all arrived in this morning's post.
BP and LD easily the most persuasive: the Green leaflet doesn't really have a message and Labour has too many.
But mein gott, the typography on the Brexit Party leaflet is terrible. There's about six variants of the same sans serif typeface and they appear to have committed the unpardonable sin of stretching the characters.
> @Andy_Cooke said: > FPTP ensures voters vote for people as representatives rather than parties > Except when the representatives act as people rather than follow party lines or even leave their original party, in which case they were obviously elected for that party and manifesto and should promptly face the electorate again so their original Party can get the seat back, the undemocratic swine. > > FPTP ensures that extreme voices don't get heard. > Because it ensures that all voices go unheard rather than those of the Big Two. Which means if one of the Big Two goes extreme, oops. And if people get annoyed that they're being ignored, also oops. > > FPTP ensures strong and stable Government... > I'm sorry, I couldn't say that with a straight face. > > All FPTP actually does is ensure an eternal back-and-forth between Tories and Labour, and, shockingly, Tories and Labour remain eternally in favour of that. Protected from "market forces" that could cause actual, you know, competition. Preserved from the people's views being represented in proportion to their support. And then they wonder why the people lose faith with the political system representing them accurately, and with politicians in general.
FPTP ensures safe seats.
FPTP ensures that most votes go in the bin.
FPTP ensures that most views and policy innovations are unmediated and unrepresented.
FPTP allows for capture of the legislature by extremism on 35% public support.
> > Lots of people disliking Farage is entirely consistent with a third of the voters backing TBP. > > I’m sure a fair few who dislike him will still vote for TBP anyway so their vote isn’t misconstrued as a vote for Remain.
I agree with both these.. the direction of travel in this election is towards Ronseal parties who do what they say on the tin.. ie the Brexit Party and the Bollocks to Brexit Party.
Most of the people who hate Farage were already planning not to vote for him, and a fair few Tory/Lab undecideds will still plump for TBP in spite of it.
I agree with both these.. the direction of travel in this election is towards Ronseal parties who do what they say on the tin.. ie the Brexit Party and the Bollocks to Brexit Party.
The more the other parties get squeezed, the closer it will get between the Brexit Party and the Lib Dems. It's now possible to imagine both the Tories and Labour in single figures.
> @El_Capitano said: > Brexit Party, Lib Dem, Green and Labour freeposts all arrived in this morning's post. > > BP and LD easily the most persuasive: the Green leaflet doesn't really have a message and Labour has too many. > > But mein gott, the typography on the Brexit Party leaflet is terrible. There's about six variants of the same sans serif typeface and they appear to have committed the unpardonable sin of stretching the characters.
I have voted already. The Lib Dems are campaigning hard. Knocking on doors as well as leaflets.
Labour: nothing.
Tories: nothing.
One Brexit leaflet with the other free rubbish from estate agents that comes with the post.
Greens: nothing.
UKIP: nothing.
The list of candidates was enormously long with a list of names at the end with no idea who they were or what they represented.
There’s also the point about electorally geography; Remain is more geographically confined so anywhere that could safely be described as a Remain-voting neighbourhood, even if not landslide territory, will naturally have a disproportionate amount of the people who aren’t hot on someone like Farage.
> @El_Capitano said: > Brexit Party, Lib Dem, Green and Labour freeposts all arrived in this morning's post. > > BP and LD easily the most persuasive: the Green leaflet doesn't really have a message and Labour has too many. > > But mein gott, the typography on the Brexit Party leaflet is terrible. There's about six variants of the same sans serif typeface and they appear to have committed the unpardonable sin of stretching the characters.
That is on brand from the Brexit Party, surely the natural political home for people who don't appreciate nice fonts.
> @Charles said: > > @rkrkrk said: > > > > @IanB2 said: > > > > But the only form of referendum likely (both from common sense and the views of a majority of parliament) is a deal v status quo one, thereby removing the possibility of a no deal exit. No sane politician is going to risk putting 'no deal' out to a public vote (even if it could be defined in terms specific enough satisfy the electoral commission). Thus a referendum more than likely secures precisely what you want. > > > > > > The People's Vote campaign aren't clear about under what conditions the vote would be held. > > > > > > We've seen though that their supporter MPs will vote against softer Brexit, to improve the chances of a second referendum. So if it happens, I think it will be a very hard Brexit/No deal vs. Remain. > > > > > > Edit to add: I think you are seriously underestimating the support for No Deal in parliament. It's the favoured option of a significant minority, and probably 200+ could live with it (based on the fact that they wouldn't vote to rule it out). > > > > I don’t think so - I think we’re talking in the 80-110 range of the ERG. > > > > Nevertheless, you saw how May adapted her position after she got the briefing on the political and economic consequences of no deal, and it was also very notable that despite a lot of rumour and training, there weren’t any cabinet resignations when no deal was ruled out. And preparations for it were abandoned with barely a murmur. Any new PM and Cabinet would find themselves in the same position, and wouldn’t be able to ge5 a no deal referendum through parliament anyway. Not least because the proposition would be near impossible to define. > > It's not "impossible to define". > > It's leaving the EU without a Withdrawal Agreement. > > That's it. > > Anything that happens after that point of time is up to the government.
This is bonkers. So on day 1 after we have left the EU we could pay them £38bn and enter into similar arrangements to the WA and you think this would respect the view of that referendum?
Whereas after 3 years of negotiation the WA from the last referendum, it is completely unacceptable to have a yes/no confirmation when parliament is and will remain gridlocked?
The reasons no-dealers wont define no deal are that it will split the no deal coalition of global free trade UK, anti immigration UK and statist Corbyn UK and that it requires some hard work.
> @TOPPING said: > If parties who favour no deal get 30% ish at the Euros and Peterborough, how would it be legitimate to have a referendum between May's Deal and Remain? > > You've gotta save people from themselves sometimes, Sam. > > Plenty of whacko ideas would get 30% in a popular vote, doesn't mean we should entertain them.
So - if Labour win the next election we should ignore the result?
> @El_Capitano said: > Brexit Party, Lib Dem, Green and Labour freeposts all arrived in this morning's post. > > BP and LD easily the most persuasive: the Green leaflet doesn't really have a message and Labour has too many. > > But mein gott, the typography on the Brexit Party leaflet is terrible. There's about six variants of the same sans serif typeface and they appear to have committed the unpardonable sin of stretching the characters.
That is on brand from the Brexit Party, surely the natural political home for people who don't appreciate nice fonts.
> @isam said: > > @rkrkrk said: > > > > @IanB2 said: > > > > But the only form of referendum likely (both from common sense and the views of a majority of parliament) is a deal v status quo one, thereby removing the possibility of a no deal exit. No sane politician is going to risk putting 'no deal' out to a public vote (even if it could be defined in terms specific enough satisfy the electoral commission). Thus a referendum more than likely secures precisely what you want. > > > > > > The People's Vote campaign aren't clear about under what conditions the vote would be held. > > > > > > We've seen though that their supporter MPs will vote against softer Brexit, to improve the chances of a second referendum. So if it happens, I think it will be a very hard Brexit/No deal vs. Remain. > > > > > > Edit to add: I think you are seriously underestimating the support for No Deal in parliament. It's the favoured option of a significant minority, and probably 200+ could live with it (based on the fact that they wouldn't vote to rule it out). > > > > I don’t think so - I think we’re talking in the 80-110 range of the ERG. > > > > Nevertheless, you saw how May adapted her position after she got the briefing on the political and economic consequences of no deal, and it was also very notable that despite a lot of rumour and training, there weren’t any cabinet resignations when no deal was ruled out. And preparations for it were abandoned with barely a murmur. Any new PM and Cabinet would find themselves in the same position, and wouldn’t be able to ge5 a no deal referendum through parliament anyway. Not least because the proposition would be near impossible to define. > > If parties who favour no deal get 30% ish at the Euros and Peterborough, how would it be legitimate to have a referendum between May's Deal and Remain?
Remain shouldn't be on the paper.
But this isn't about what's right or fair but rather stopping Brexit.
> @isam said: > > @rkrkrk said: > > > > @IanB2 said: > > > > But the only form of referendum likely (both from common sense and the views of a majority of parliament) is a deal v status quo one, thereby removing the possibility of a no deal exit. No sane politician is going to risk putting 'no deal' out to a public vote (even if it could be defined in terms specific enough satisfy the electoral commission). Thus a referendum more than likely secures precisely what you want. > > > > > > The People's Vote campaign aren't clear about under what conditions the vote would be held. > > > > > > We've seen though that their supporter MPs will vote against softer Brexit, to improve the chances of a second referendum. So if it happens, I think it will be a very hard Brexit/No deal vs. Remain. > > > > > > Edit to add: I think you are seriously underestimating the support for No Deal in parliament. It's the favoured option of a significant minority, and probably 200+ could live with it (based on the fact that they wouldn't vote to rule it out). > > > > I don’t think so - I think we’re talking in the 80-110 range of the ERG. > > > > Nevertheless, you saw how May adapted her position after she got the briefing on the political and economic consequences of no deal, and it was also very notable that despite a lot of rumour and training, there weren’t any cabinet resignations when no deal was ruled out. And preparations for it were abandoned with barely a murmur. Any new PM and Cabinet would find themselves in the same position, and wouldn’t be able to ge5 a no deal referendum through parliament anyway. Not least because the proposition would be near impossible to define. > > If parties who favour no deal get 30% ish at the Euros and Peterborough, how would it be legitimate to have a referendum between May's Deal and Remain?
Because the Euro elections are for the European parliament, and Peterborough is one constituency amongst many. Our system is the House of Commons decides, they are democratically elected and therefore legitimate. They may be incompetent and making bad decisions but they are still legitimate.
> @brokenwheel said: > > @El_Capitano said: > > Brexit Party, Lib Dem, Green and Labour freeposts all arrived in this morning's post. > > > > BP and LD easily the most persuasive: the Green leaflet doesn't really have a message and Labour has too many. > > > > But mein gott, the typography on the Brexit Party leaflet is terrible. There's about six variants of the same sans serif typeface and they appear to have committed the unpardonable sin of stretching the characters. > > That is on brand from the Brexit Party, surely the natural political home for people who don't appreciate nice fonts. > > They missed a trick not doing it in Comic Sans.
The Establishment hates Comic Sans but the People love it. And the People are always right.
> @Floater said: > > @rottenborough said: > > Osborne says 'No Dealers' will have to come around to a 2nd vote and that being No Deal vs Remain. > > The establishment will never offer that
The establishment offered an in-out referendum in the first place because they thought that they could use the fear of out as a way to force the electorate to vote yes for Europe.
If no deal is on the ballot paper it will be because they think that Remain is guaranteed to win against no deal, but not so certain to win against the deal.
> What do you think the Lib Dems should have done in 2010?
>
> The people voted, and the result was that the Conservatives had most MPs, but not a majority. However, Labour were so far behind that any coalition involving them would have been a rather interesting and precarious one.
>
> You can fault what the Lib Dems did whilst in coalition government, but blaming them for going into that coalition government seems a little odd.
>
> But then I, like a fair few others, think the coalition was a rare period of good governance in this country, despite the economic problems they inherited. I think you might disagree.
The experience at Holyrood, of a minority SNP government with some support from the Scottish Greens - who have then been able to win significant concessions at each budget - provides an alternative model to the Coalition that the Liberal Democrats formed in 2010.
And that's fair enough: but wasn't the situation in 2010 rather different? After the 2016 elections in Scotland, the SNP had 63 out of 129, which is darned near a majority, and the Greens offer them six more, getting them well over the line.
At the 2010 GE, Labour had 258 seats, with 326 needed for a majority. If you were to add on the Lib Dems' 57 seats, you had only 315 - well off, and only nine above the Conservatives alone. That means the deal would be not just with the Lib Dems, but a rainbow coalition that would simply not have worked - especially with Brown in charge.
If Labour+Lib Dems could have offered a (say) ten seat majority, it would have been a goer. But sadly for people who prefer Labour to the Conservatives, they were a fair way short.
> @JosiasJessop said: > > @JosiasJessop said: > > > What do you think the Lib Dems should have done in 2010? > > > > > > The people voted, and the result was that the Conservatives had most MPs, but not a majority. However, Labour were so far behind that any coalition involving them would have been a rather interesting and precarious one. > > > > > > You can fault what the Lib Dems did whilst in coalition government, but blaming them for going into that coalition government seems a little odd. > > > > > > But then I, like a fair few others, think the coalition was a rare period of good governance in this country, despite the economic problems they inherited. I think you might disagree. > > > > The experience at Holyrood, of a minority SNP government with some support from the Scottish Greens - who have then been able to win significant concessions at each budget - provides an alternative model to the Coalition that the Liberal Democrats formed in 2010. > > And that's fair enough: but wasn't the situation in 2010 rather different? After the 2016 elections in Scotland, the SNP had 63 out of 129, which is darned near a majority, and the Greens offer them six more, getting them well over the line. > > At the 2010 GE, Labour had 258 seats, with 326 needed for a majority. If you were to add on the Lib Dems' 57 seats, you had only 315 - well off, and only nine above the Conservatives alone. That means the deal would be not just with the Lib Dems, but a rainbow coalition that would simply not have worked - especially with Brown in charge. > > If Labour+Lib Dems could have offered a (say) ten seat majority, it would have been a goer. But sadly for people who prefer Labour to the Conservatives, they were a fair way short.
My suggestion was that the Lib Dems in 2010 could have played the role of the Greens in Holyrood, with a Cameron minority administration taking the role of the SNP.
For anyone on the site who likes to back their opinions with money, Smarkets have set up a load of markets on the Euros. Not much liquidity but here is everyones chance to be the bookie!
This is bonkers. So on day 1 after we have left the EU we could pay them £38bn and enter into similar arrangements to the WA and you think this would respect the view of that referendum?
Whereas after 3 years of negotiation the WA from the last referendum, it is completely unacceptable to have a yes/no confirmation when parliament is and will remain gridlocked?
The reasons no-dealers wont define no deal are that it will split the no deal coalition of global free trade UK, anti immigration UK and statist Corbyn UK and that it requires some hard work.
On day 1 after leaving the government can do anything it likes. It might be politically unwise however.
Parliament has grasped power it shouldn’t have and messed it up. I don’t see why the Remainers within Parliament who facilitated that power grasp should be rewarded
The vote to leave has been taken. It’s now a matter of how.
•An exclusive opinion poll revealed the astonishing scale of the damage being inflicted on both major parties by the Brexit disarray, while the Remain-backing Liberal Democrats and Greens were surging upwards. The Conservatives have plunged to a humiliating fifth place in the capital, backed by just 10 per cent of Londoners in the European elections, the YouGov survey, commissioned by Queen Mary University of London, found. The Greens are ahead of them on 14, while the Lib Dems are on 17.
•Mr Corbyn faces punishment from Remain-backing London voters in a general election, with his party’s vote share down from 49 per cent share in December to 35 per cent today. The Conservatives are also down from 33 to 23 in London, with the Lib Dems up from 11 to 21, YouGov found.
> @OblitusSumMe said: > > @JosiasJessop said: > > > @JosiasJessop said: > > > > > What do you think the Lib Dems should have done in 2010? > > > > > > > > > > The people voted, and the result was that the Conservatives had most MPs, but not a majority. However, Labour were so far behind that any coalition involving them would have been a rather interesting and precarious one. > > > > > > > > > > You can fault what the Lib Dems did whilst in coalition government, but blaming them for going into that coalition government seems a little odd. > > > > > > > > > > But then I, like a fair few others, think the coalition was a rare period of good governance in this country, despite the economic problems they inherited. I think you might disagree. > > > > > > > > The experience at Holyrood, of a minority SNP government with some support from the Scottish Greens - who have then been able to win significant concessions at each budget - provides an alternative model to the Coalition that the Liberal Democrats formed in 2010. > > > > And that's fair enough: but wasn't the situation in 2010 rather different? After the 2016 elections in Scotland, the SNP had 63 out of 129, which is darned near a majority, and the Greens offer them six more, getting them well over the line. > > > > At the 2010 GE, Labour had 258 seats, with 326 needed for a majority. If you were to add on the Lib Dems' 57 seats, you had only 315 - well off, and only nine above the Conservatives alone. That means the deal would be not just with the Lib Dems, but a rainbow coalition that would simply not have worked - especially with Brown in charge. > > > > If Labour+Lib Dems could have offered a (say) ten seat majority, it would have been a goer. But sadly for people who prefer Labour to the Conservatives, they were a fair way short. > > My suggestion was that the Lib Dems in 2010 could have played the role of the Greens in Holyrood, with a Cameron minority administration taking the role of the SNP.
Or to use another example, May and the DUP.
By which comparator, I'm all in favour of the 2010-5 model
> @OblitusSumMe said: > > @Floater said: > > > @rottenborough said: > > > Osborne says 'No Dealers' will have to come around to a 2nd vote and that being No Deal vs Remain. > > > > The establishment will never offer that > > The establishment offered an in-out referendum in the first place because they thought that they could use the fear of out as a way to force the electorate to vote yes for Europe. > > If no deal is on the ballot paper it will be because they think that Remain is guaranteed to win against no deal, but not so certain to win against the deal.
The idea the establishment have such clear cut views is not backed up by many of them supporting remain, many a second referendum, many supporting Mays deal, many supporting Brexit including no deal. They are as divided as the rest of the country, hence gridlock is all we shall get.
•An exclusive opinion poll revealed the astonishing scale of the damage being inflicted on both major parties by the Brexit disarray, while the Remain-backing Liberal Democrats and Greens were surging upwards. The Conservatives have plunged to a humiliating fifth place in the capital, backed by just 10 per cent of Londoners in the European elections, the YouGov survey, commissioned by Queen Mary University of London, found. The Greens are ahead of them on 14, while the Lib Dems are on 17.
•Mr Corbyn faces punishment from Remain-backing London voters in a general election, with his party’s vote share down from 49 per cent share in December to 35 per cent today. The Conservatives are also down from 33 to 23 in London, with the Lib Dems up from 11 to 21, YouGov found.
The question is are the Tories engaged in expectations management or providing honest feedback 😱🤣🤣🤣
> @Charles said: > This is bonkers. So on day 1 after we have left the EU we could pay them £38bn and enter into similar arrangements to the WA and you think this would respect the view of that referendum? > > Whereas after 3 years of negotiation the WA from the last referendum, it is completely unacceptable to have a yes/no confirmation when parliament is and will remain gridlocked? > > The reasons no-dealers wont define no deal are that it will split the no deal coalition of global free trade UK, anti immigration UK and statist Corbyn UK and that it requires some hard work. > > On day 1 after leaving the government can do anything it likes. It might be politically unwise however. > > Parliament has grasped power it shouldn’t have and messed it up. I don’t see why the Remainers within Parliament who facilitated that power grasp should be rewarded > > The vote to leave has been taken. It’s now a matter of how.
We would just deepen the democratic crisis that exists if we do what you suggest. A parliament where the major policy is supported by 75-100 MPs out of 650 cannot function. Even if they are put in charge they do not have enough MPs to fill ministerial duties.
Yes the vote to leave has happened, we have also had votes to elect MPs and those votes are equally valid and those MPs are now sovereign, the whole system collapses if two separate voting structures are to dictate the major policy of the day and produce completely conflicting results.
If no dealers want no deal on the ballot paper at an absolute minimum they should have to define what it actually means until the next general election is scheduled, and accept that after a GE, parliamentary sovereignty returns. They will not do so because they know that would stop them promising a fantasy land and allow others to scrutinise the plans. Why should they be rewarded for this obfuscation?
> This is bonkers. So on day 1 after we have left the EU we could pay them £38bn and enter into similar arrangements to the WA and you think this would respect the view of that referendum?
>
> Whereas after 3 years of negotiation the WA from the last referendum, it is completely unacceptable to have a yes/no confirmation when parliament is and will remain gridlocked?
>
> The reasons no-dealers wont define no deal are that it will split the no deal coalition of global free trade UK, anti immigration UK and statist Corbyn UK and that it requires some hard work.
>
> On day 1 after leaving the government can do anything it likes. It might be politically unwise however.
>
> Parliament has grasped power it shouldn’t have and messed it up. I don’t see why the Remainers within Parliament who facilitated that power grasp should be rewarded
>
> The vote to leave has been taken. It’s now a matter of how.
We would just deepen the democratic crisis that exists if we do what you suggest. A parliament where the major policy is supported by 75-100 MPs out of 650 cannot function. Even if they are put in charge they do not have enough MPs to fill ministerial duties.
Yes the vote to leave has happened, we have also had votes to elect MPs and those votes are equally valid and those MPs are now sovereign, the whole system collapses if two separate voting structures are to dictate the major policy of the day and produce completely conflicting results.
If no dealers want no deal on the ballot paper at an absolute minimum they should have to define what it actually means until the next general election is scheduled, and accept that after a GE, parliamentary sovereignty returns. They will not do so because they know that would stop them promising a fantasy land and allow others to scrutinise the plans. Why should they be rewarded for this obfuscation?
The simple answer is that MPs should vote for the deal.
The more complicated but better answer is that MPs should give up their power to reject treaties
We are only hearing calls for another vote because MPs are standing in the way of implementing the results of the referendum
Good point Mike makes in this post. May wasn't even a good Home Secretary. She seems destined to be one of those figures who has a charmed life. Almost every Sunday there's a newspaper report on how the next week will be her last, and still she sails on. It makes me smile to imagine there's a snap election, she wins it, and stays leader till 2025...
> @Charles said: > > @Charles said: > > > This is bonkers. So on day 1 after we have left the EU we could pay them £38bn and enter into similar arrangements to the WA and you think this would respect the view of that referendum? > > > > > > Whereas after 3 years of negotiation the WA from the last referendum, it is completely unacceptable to have a yes/no confirmation when parliament is and will remain gridlocked? > > > > > > The reasons no-dealers wont define no deal are that it will split the no deal coalition of global free trade UK, anti immigration UK and statist Corbyn UK and that it requires some hard work. > > > > > > On day 1 after leaving the government can do anything it likes. It might be politically unwise however. > > > > > > Parliament has grasped power it shouldn’t have and messed it up. I don’t see why the Remainers within Parliament who facilitated that power grasp should be rewarded > > > > > > The vote to leave has been taken. It’s now a matter of how. > > > > We would just deepen the democratic crisis that exists if we do what you suggest. A parliament where the major policy is supported by 75-100 MPs out of 650 cannot function. Even if they are put in charge they do not have enough MPs to fill ministerial duties. > > > > Yes the vote to leave has happened, we have also had votes to elect MPs and those votes are equally valid and those MPs are now sovereign, the whole system collapses if two separate voting structures are to dictate the major policy of the day and produce completely conflicting results. > > > > If no dealers want no deal on the ballot paper at an absolute minimum they should have to define what it actually means until the next general election is scheduled, and accept that after a GE, parliamentary sovereignty returns. They will not do so because they know that would stop them promising a fantasy land and allow others to scrutinise the plans. Why should they be rewarded for this obfuscation? > > > The simple answer is that MPs should vote for the deal. > > The more complicated but better answer is that MPs should give up their power to reject treaties > > We are only hearing calls for another vote because MPs are standing in the way of implementing the results of the referendum
I do not particularly disagree with the first and last sentences, and think MPs have overreached in their scrutiny on the WA - however, some power to reject treaties is probably appropriate.
Even if all 3 statements above were true it does not challenge the case that a no deal referendum win with the current parliament would be extremely chaotic, create huge democratic conflicts and be bad for the country. And for what? We are not allowed to find out what no deal even means. Bonkers.
I think some people are in danger of making fools of themselves.
I bet you now that the Brexit Party doesn't perform as well as the final polls say it will and that the LibDems will exceed expectations.
On 24th May, although there will be some fist pumping exaggerations from Farage and some initial breathless excitement from sections of the MSM, later in the day there will be a 'meh' feeling and people will suddenly realise that not very much has actually changed.
We will still be under a Theresa May premiership and the Brexit deal will not have passed. Farage's party won't alter that.
The real story from this past month in the long term is the re-emergence of the Lib Dems.
I think some people are in danger of making fools of themselves.
I bet you now that the Brexit Party doesn't perform as well as the final polls say it will and that the LibDems will exceed expectations.
On 24th May, although there will be some fist pumping exaggerations from Farage and some initial breathless excitement from sections of the MSM, later in the day there will be a 'meh' feeling and people will suddenly realise that not very much has actually changed.
We will still be under a Theresa May premiership and the Brexit deal will not have passed. Farage's party won't alter that.
The real story from this past month in the long term is the re-emergence of the Lib Dems.
If The Brexit Party win the Euro's the only people talking about polls where they scored higher than the result will be anoraks on the wrong side, while all the media headlines, and talk among the general public, will be about a party less than 6 months old with a supposedly hated leader winning a national election
> @Pulpstar said: > Leave Tories to target for Nige : > > Afriyie Baker Baron Bone Braverman Bridgen Cash Chope Duddridge Francois Fysh Hollobone Holloway Jayawardena Jenkin Jenkyns Jones Lewis Lopez Mackinlay Morris Patel Paterson Redwood Robertson Rosindell Rowley Villiers > > All those that voted down the WA twice. > > & Drax. Maybe even a few more who voted it very grudgingly. >
The ideal would be a clear-out, followed by a resurgance of the Tory party following a one nation agenda.
> @isam said: > > > If The Brexit Party win the Euro's the only people talking about polls where they scored higher than the result will be anoraks on the wrong side, while all the media headlines, and talk among the general public, will be about a party less than 6 months old with a supposedly hated leader winning a national election
Not really. The Brexit Party is basically UKIP as you should, and probably do, know.
UKIP won last time with 38% ... that's an interesting benchmark. It still means very little in terms of Westminster voting.
> If The Brexit Party win the Euro's the only people talking about polls where they scored higher than the result will be anoraks on the wrong side, while all the media headlines, and talk among the general public, will be about a party less than 6 months old with a supposedly hated leader winning a national election
Not really. The Brexit Party is basically UKIP as you should, and probably do, know.
UKIP won last time with 38% ... that's an interesting benchmark. It still means very little in terms of Westminster voting.
You could at least get the numbers right if you are going to set arbitrary benchmarks to do down the success of a party you dislike.. UKIP didnt get anywhere near 38%
What's particularly interesting, perhaps astonishing, is that Theresa May has such an easy out from all of this.
All she has to do is offer a People's Vote on her deal. She'll get it through Parliament and then the real battle will begin and we'd settle the issue and get on with the rest of our lives.
For 90% of this country Brexit is terribly boring. You might want to note this Isam when you refer to anoraks.
The simple answer is that MPs should vote for the deal.
The more complicated but better answer is that MPs should give up their power to reject treaties
We are only hearing calls for another vote because MPs are standing in the way of implementing the results of the referendum
I do not particularly disagree with the first and last sentences, and think MPs have overreached in their scrutiny on the WA - however, some power to reject treaties is probably appropriate.
Even if all 3 statements above were true it does not challenge the case that a no deal referendum win with the current parliament would be extremely chaotic, create huge democratic conflicts and be bad for the country. And for what? We are not allowed to find out what no deal even means. Bonkers.
I don’t think no deal is a good idea
And I agree a vote for no deal would cause ruptions in the political system
But I don’t see a democratic way to have Remain on the ballot
(And we know what no deal is - it’s a vote for leaving without a WA)
What's particularly interesting, perhaps astonishing, is that Theresa May has such an easy out from all of this.
All she has to do is offer a People's Vote on her deal. She'll get it through Parliament and then the real battle will begin and we'd settle the issue and get on with the rest of our lives.
For 90% of this country Brexit is terribly boring. You might want to note this Isam when you refer to anoraks.
"All she has to do is give in to Remaininers"
Ah how splendidly convenient that would be for the 48%. Another go
As for Brexit being terribly boring, that's why I only comment on it on a site for political anoraks
> @Charles said: > The simple answer is that MPs should vote for the deal. > > The more complicated but better answer is that MPs should give up their power to reject treaties > > We are only hearing calls for another vote because MPs are standing in the way of implementing the results of the referendum > > I do not particularly disagree with the first and last sentences, and think MPs have overreached in their scrutiny on the WA - however, some power to reject treaties is probably appropriate. > > Even if all 3 statements above were true it does not challenge the case that a no deal referendum win with the current parliament would be extremely chaotic, create huge democratic conflicts and be bad for the country. And for what? We are not allowed to find out what no deal even means. Bonkers. > > I don’t think no deal is a good idea > > And I agree a vote for no deal would cause ruptions in the political system > > But I don’t see a democratic way to have Remain on the ballot > > > > (And we know what no deal is - it’s a vote for leaving without a WA)
It would be undemocratic not to have Remain on the ballot. It is a perfectly viable option preferred by (if you believe the polls) a majority today. Deny that and millions have nothing to vote for.
> @Charles said: > > But I don’t see a democratic way to have Remain on the ballot > > (And we know what no deal is - it’s a vote for leaving without a WA)
Use your imagination. If we had a General Election this summer in which a party promising a referendum with Remain on the ballot won, surely even you would have to concede that it would be legitimate?
> For 90% of this country Brexit is terribly boring. You might want to note this Isam when you refer to anoraks. > > "All she has to do is give in to Remaininers" > > Ah how splendidly convenient that would be for the 48%. Another go > > As for Brexit being terribly boring, that's why I only comment on it on a site for political anoraks
I can see why you get into so many scraps with other posters on here. You're a wind-up merchant.
I didn't infer that a people's vote equates to 'giving in to remainers.' On the ballot could be a range of options.
Since the initial Leave or Remain vote is evidently different from what is now on the table, and even more so to what might be on the table if May comes up with a Labour deal, then it seems very reasonable that it should go back to the people for a confirmatory vote. Especially so since the original vote was so narrow and because 'No Deal' was never on the table back then, but is being discussed now.
So I see no reason why a series of options shouldn't be offered. Perhaps 1st round Leave v Remain and then if Leave wins that the variety of options from No Deal through to Customs Union.
It's a very obvious solution and the only reason not to hold it is because leavers fear (rightly) that the country will throw out Brexit altogether. It's funny how undemocratic people become when their view begins to falter.
Nigel Farage himself would like another vote to settle this once and for all.
> For 90% of this country Brexit is terribly boring. You might want to note this Isam when you refer to anoraks.
>
> "All she has to do is give in to Remaininers"
>
> Ah how splendidly convenient that would be for the 48%. Another go
>
> As for Brexit being terribly boring, that's why I only comment on it on a site for political anoraks
I can see why you get into so many scraps with other posters on here. You're a wind-up merchant.
I didn't infer that a people's vote equates to 'giving in to remainers.' On the ballot could be a range of options.
Since the initial Leave or Remain vote is evidently different from what is now on the table, and even more so to what might be on the table if May comes up with a Labour deal, then it seems very reasonable that it should go back to the people for a confirmatory vote. Especially so since the original vote was so narrow and because 'No Deal' was never on the table back then, but is being discussed now.
So I see no reason why a series of options shouldn't be offered. Perhaps 1st round Leave v Remain and then if Leave wins that the variety of options from No Deal through to Customs Union.
It's a very obvious solution and the only reason not to hold it is because leavers fear (rightly) that the country will throw out Brexit altogether. It's funny how undemocratic people become when their view begins to falter.
Nigel Farage himself would like another vote to settle this once and for all.
I am just consistent and courteous, which seems to wind up people who change strategy all the time to satisfy their need to be seen winning arguments
> The simple answer is that MPs should vote for the deal.
>
> The more complicated but better answer is that MPs should give up their power to reject treaties
>
> We are only hearing calls for another vote because MPs are standing in the way of implementing the results of the referendum
>
> I do not particularly disagree with the first and last sentences, and think MPs have overreached in their scrutiny on the WA - however, some power to reject treaties is probably appropriate.
>
> Even if all 3 statements above were true it does not challenge the case that a no deal referendum win with the current parliament would be extremely chaotic, create huge democratic conflicts and be bad for the country. And for what? We are not allowed to find out what no deal even means. Bonkers.
>
> I don’t think no deal is a good idea
>
> And I agree a vote for no deal would cause ruptions in the political system
>
> But I don’t see a democratic way to have Remain on the ballot
>
>
>
> (And we know what no deal is - it’s a vote for leaving without a WA)
It would be undemocratic not to have Remain on the ballot. It is a perfectly viable option preferred by (if you believe the polls) a majority today. Deny that and millions have nothing to vote for.
> @Charles said: > The simple answer is that MPs should vote for the deal. > > The more complicated but better answer is that MPs should give up their power to reject treaties > > We are only hearing calls for another vote because MPs are standing in the way of implementing the results of the referendum > > I do not particularly disagree with the first and last sentences, and think MPs have overreached in their scrutiny on the WA - however, some power to reject treaties is probably appropriate. > > Even if all 3 statements above were true it does not challenge the case that a no deal referendum win with the current parliament would be extremely chaotic, create huge democratic conflicts and be bad for the country. And for what? We are not allowed to find out what no deal even means. Bonkers. > > I don’t think no deal is a good idea > > And I agree a vote for no deal would cause ruptions in the political system > > But I don’t see a democratic way to have Remain on the ballot > > > > (And we know what no deal is - it’s a vote for leaving without a WA)
You may know what no deal is in your mind today, but the future selves of 17m no deal voters in 2022 may have a completely different and diverse view of what no deal was, just as many/most? 2016 leave voters now think that Mays deal is not leaving. At the time leave voters would have said leave means leaving the EU, how more clear does it need to be?
I am not proposing remain on the ballot, if I had to define a referendum I would go with Mays deal vs 12 month extension with promise for May to resign, new tory leader and general election in the first 6 months of that. Or Mays deal vs Corbyns deal if he could quickly agree it with the EU.
Remain on the ballot may suffer democratically but no more so than no deal does, and the implications of remain are manageable whereas they are not for no deal. Offering people a choice that cannot be managed is deeply irresponsible.
> But I don’t see a democratic way to have Remain on the ballot
>
> (And we know what no deal is - it’s a vote for leaving without a WA)
Use your imagination. If we had a General Election this summer in which a party promising a referendum with Remain on the ballot won, surely even you would have to concede that it would be legitimate?
It would be undemocratic not to have Remain on the ballot. It is a perfectly viable option preferred by (if you believe the polls) a majority today. Deny that and millions have nothing to vote for.
But not as undemocratic as asking for another vote because you don't like the answer you got the first time.
> > I am just consistent and courteous, which seems to wind up people who change strategy all the time to satisfy their need to be seen winning arguments
Well you're certainly not courteous and I'm far from convinced you're honourable. Sorry to say so.
As for 'consistent' even if that were true, it's not a virtue, especially not when it comes to this Brexit. Steve Baker describes himself as 'consistent' and it is the kind of intransigence that has caused nothing but trouble.
When dealing with something as complex as Britain's exit from the EU a degree of flexibility and ability to listen to other points of view, adapt accordingly and allow your 'red lines' to shift is vitally important. It's called compromise and it was always going to be necessary. Alt-Right headbangers won't bring about the Brexit of their desire, I'm afraid.
> @Charles said: > > @Charles said: > > > The simple answer is that MPs should vote for the deal. > > > > > > The more complicated but better answer is that MPs should give up their power to reject treaties > > > > > > We are only hearing calls for another vote because MPs are standing in the way of implementing the results of the referendum > > > > > > I do not particularly disagree with the first and last sentences, and think MPs have overreached in their scrutiny on the WA - however, some power to reject treaties is probably appropriate. > > > > > > Even if all 3 statements above were true it does not challenge the case that a no deal referendum win with the current parliament would be extremely chaotic, create huge democratic conflicts and be bad for the country. And for what? We are not allowed to find out what no deal even means. Bonkers. > > > > > > I don’t think no deal is a good idea > > > > > > And I agree a vote for no deal would cause ruptions in the political system > > > > > > But I don’t see a democratic way to have Remain on the ballot > > > > > > > > > > > > (And we know what no deal is - it’s a vote for leaving without a WA) > > > > It would be undemocratic not to have Remain on the ballot. It is a perfectly viable option preferred by (if you believe the polls) a majority today. Deny that and millions have nothing to vote for. > > You had that vote. You don’t get a do over.
> @Mysticrose said: > I think some people are in danger of making fools of themselves. > > I bet you now that the Brexit Party doesn't perform as well as the final polls say it will and that the LibDems will exceed expectations. > > On 24th May, although there will be some fist pumping exaggerations from Farage and some initial breathless excitement from sections of the MSM, later in the day there will be a 'meh' feeling and people will suddenly realise that not very much has actually changed. > > We will still be under a Theresa May premiership and the Brexit deal will not have passed. Farage's party won't alter that. > > The real story from this past month in the long term is the re-emergence of the Lib Dems. ----------------- That's a dangerous first sentence....
Comments
> > @williamglenn said:
> > Welcome to the Tory leadership candidate fashion show.
> >
> > https://twitter.com/iandunt/status/1127841221949501440?s=21
>
> Don't see the problem with the Raabs (although the strategically placed vase of flowers in the middle of a kitchen work top looks odd)
>
> Liz looks like she's become unhinged.
Is she wearing stilts in that photo?
> > @Cicero said:
> > Mentioned last week that the Liberal Democrats have quite a bit of momentum for the Euros. The weekend's polls seem to back that up pretty strongly. No one took my bet that the Lib Dems would beat the Conservatives and Labour though.
> >
> > After my own weekend's campaigning I would say that everything is now in play. Still finding a lot of hostility to Nigel Farage, so the poll rating for TBP is masking some very strong feelings, which makes it difficult to call, but if I were to guess, then I think TBP may not be doing as well as polls suggest, and may be down on UKIP last time.
> >
> > On the other hand the Lib Dems seem to be accelerating.
>
> I suspect this is a very very good call. If it's not too late, it's worth a punt.
>
> If momentum is everything then you can see a BP - LibDem 1-2 with something around 29% / 19% or thereabouts.
>
> I'm picking up considerable dislike for Farage. Remember that Cummings thought he was a liability and sidelined him from Vote Leave. He's quite toxic, and the last time people thought rallies proved anything was ... Sheffield.
>
>
>
>
Lots of people disliking Farage is entirely consistent with a third of the voters backing TBP.
> If parties who favour no deal get 30% ish at the Euros and Peterborough, how would it be legitimate to have a referendum between May's Deal and Remain?
>
> You've gotta save people from themselves sometimes, Sam.
>
> Plenty of whacko ideas would get 30% in a popular vote, doesn't mean we should entertain them.
WTO Brexit is not a whako idea, and its comments like that that make people more determined to say a big FU to the establishment 'nanny knows best' ' The plebs are thick little englanders'
> > @rkrkrk said:
>
> > > @IanB2 said:
>
> > > But the only form of referendum likely (both from common sense and the views of a majority of parliament) is a deal v status quo one, thereby removing the possibility of a no deal exit. No sane politician is going to risk putting 'no deal' out to a public vote (even if it could be defined in terms specific enough satisfy the electoral commission). Thus a referendum more than likely secures precisely what you want.
>
> >
>
> > The People's Vote campaign aren't clear about under what conditions the vote would be held.
>
> >
>
> > We've seen though that their supporter MPs will vote against softer Brexit, to improve the chances of a second referendum. So if it happens, I think it will be a very hard Brexit/No deal vs. Remain.
>
> >
>
> > Edit to add: I think you are seriously underestimating the support for No Deal in parliament. It's the favoured option of a significant minority, and probably 200+ could live with it (based on the fact that they wouldn't vote to rule it out).
>
>
>
> I don’t think so - I think we’re talking in the 80-110 range of the ERG.
>
>
>
> Nevertheless, you saw how May adapted her position after she got the briefing on the political and economic consequences of no deal, and it was also very notable that despite a lot of rumour and training, there weren’t any cabinet resignations when no deal was ruled out. And preparations for it were abandoned with barely a murmur. Any new PM and Cabinet would find themselves in the same position, and wouldn’t be able to ge5 a no deal referendum through parliament anyway. Not least because the proposition would be near impossible to define.
>
> It's not "impossible to define".
>
> It's leaving the EU without a Withdrawal Agreement.
>
> That's it.
>
> Anything that happens after that point of time is up to the government.
"Anything that happens after that point of time is up to the government."
isn't that the question all over?
What "Leave" meant in 2016 was down to the government, but that turned out to be difficult to define or plan for didn't it?
And if they don't like it then they have the right to vote accordingly in the next election
> Mr. Matt, does Mr. 1929 have any reasoning or evidence to add?
>
> It was quite a high profile stock market crash, although the evidence on the economic performance (especially in the UK) is more mixed than folklore would have you believe
The UK economy contracted 4.6% in 1931, according to Bank of England estimates, worse than the 4.2% decline seen in 2009. Outside of wartime or its immediate aftermath, these were the worst growth rates since 1900. But the great depression was worse than the more recent episode, most likely because in 2009 the government followed the Keynesian prescription of running a large deficit, cushioning the impact of the collapse in private sector spending, whereas in the late 1920s and early 1930s Britain was clinging to orthodox policies in a fruitless attempt to remain on the Gold Standard.
Sadly, cause and effect have become confused in the popular imagination, and people now blame Labour's fiscal policy for causing the 2008-09 crisis and recession, which as all economists know is ludicrous. For context, world GDP declined by 1.9% in 2009, the only negative growth rate in almost 60 years of data. World trade volumes fell over 12%. This was a global event and had nothing to do with Gordon Brown.
> > @Jonathan said:
> > > @GIN1138 said:
> > > > @williamglenn said:
> > > > Welcome to the Tory leadership candidate fashion show.
> > > >
> > > > https://twitter.com/iandunt/status/1127841221949501440?s=21
> > >
> > > Don't see the problem with the Raabs (although the stratefically placed vase of flowers in the middle of a kitchen work top looks odd)
> > >
> > > Liz looks like she's become unhinged.
> > >
> > > And Matt Hancock is... Matt Hancock... #moron
> >
> > The posed sterility and awkwardness of Raab is striking.
>
> I think other person and kitchen have been hired for the occasion. As have the trousers, and possibly the underwear; hence awkward "my pants are pinching a little" chair-crouch.
Liz is doing Liz and Matt is doing Matt.
Hunt and Raab looked more awkward.
Hunt himself is a bit of a contradiction. Sometimes he seems entirely at ease with himself, wife, etc, and then sometimes not. I wonder if he becomes a bit self-conscious sometimes.
> What do you think the Lib Dems should have done in 2010?
>
> The people voted, and the result was that the Conservatives had most MPs, but not a majority. However, Labour were so far behind that any coalition involving them would have been a rather interesting and precarious one.
>
> You can fault what the Lib Dems did whilst in coalition government, but blaming them for going into that coalition government seems a little odd.
>
> But then I, like a fair few others, think the coalition was a rare period of good governance in this country, despite the economic problems they inherited. I think you might disagree.
The experience at Holyrood, of a minority SNP government with some support from the Scottish Greens - who have then been able to win significant concessions at each budget - provides an alternative model to the Coalition that the Liberal Democrats formed in 2010.
As in OK not _that_ WA but one with a new side letter or suchlike, subject to the EU's tolerance for us dicking around the substance of which however would be identical to the current WA.
And good luck with getting all parties to agree on that "No Deal" phrasing. If you think that eg. Nige would be happy with "without the current WA as drafted" you are living in cloud cuckoo land.
> https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/1127875754572898304
I mean, you've got to give them some credit here.
They were out in Croydon on Saturday handing out leaflets etc.
>
> You have the fundamental issue:
>
> - the voters voted to leave
> - Parliament voted to leave
> - Parliament can’t agree how to leave
> - There a vote should be “leave with the only deal available” or “leave without a deal”
The referendum was advisory. Parliament has considered the advice and can now legislate for specific arrangements ([WA + PD] versus [status quo minus the grievous loss of the two agencies]) subject to a binding public vote. I don't think there's any logical contradiction. It will of course still allow NF and the Bannonites to play their resentment politics, but that battle is coming anyway.
https://twitter.com/brexitparty_uk/status/1127877409473085440
https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1127645384405286914
Except when the representatives act as people rather than follow party lines or even leave their original party, in which case they were obviously elected for that party and manifesto and should promptly face the electorate again so their original Party can get the seat back, the undemocratic swine.
FPTP ensures that extreme voices don't get heard.
Because it ensures that all voices go unheard rather than those of the Big Two. Which means if one of the Big Two goes extreme, oops. And if people get annoyed that they're being ignored, also oops.
FPTP ensures strong and stable Government...
I'm sorry, I couldn't say that with a straight face.
All FPTP actually does is ensure an eternal back-and-forth between Tories and Labour, and, shockingly, Tories and Labour remain eternally in favour of that. Protected from "market forces" that could cause actual, you know, competition. Preserved from the people's views being represented in proportion to their support. And then they wonder why the people lose faith with the political system representing them accurately, and with politicians in general.
BP and LD easily the most persuasive: the Green leaflet doesn't really have a message and Labour has too many.
But mein gott, the typography on the Brexit Party leaflet is terrible. There's about six variants of the same sans serif typeface and they appear to have committed the unpardonable sin of stretching the characters.
Any second referendum is likely, I think, to be a May's Deal versus Remain affair. No deal won't be an option.
And it's hard to see Farage et al. moving from zero MPs to majority government.
> FPTP ensures voters vote for people as representatives rather than parties
> Except when the representatives act as people rather than follow party lines or even leave their original party, in which case they were obviously elected for that party and manifesto and should promptly face the electorate again so their original Party can get the seat back, the undemocratic swine.
>
> FPTP ensures that extreme voices don't get heard.
> Because it ensures that all voices go unheard rather than those of the Big Two. Which means if one of the Big Two goes extreme, oops. And if people get annoyed that they're being ignored, also oops.
>
> FPTP ensures strong and stable Government...
> I'm sorry, I couldn't say that with a straight face.
>
> All FPTP actually does is ensure an eternal back-and-forth between Tories and Labour, and, shockingly, Tories and Labour remain eternally in favour of that. Protected from "market forces" that could cause actual, you know, competition. Preserved from the people's views being represented in proportion to their support. And then they wonder why the people lose faith with the political system representing them accurately, and with politicians in general.
FPTP ensures safe seats.
FPTP ensures that most votes go in the bin.
FPTP ensures that most views and policy innovations are unmediated and unrepresented.
FPTP allows for capture of the legislature by extremism on 35% public support.
It really is crap.
Still, it's slightly quicker to count.
> Lots of people disliking Farage is entirely consistent with a third of the voters backing TBP.
>
> I’m sure a fair few who dislike him will still vote for TBP anyway so their vote isn’t misconstrued as a vote for Remain.
I agree with both these.. the direction of travel in this election is towards Ronseal parties who do what they say on the tin.. ie the Brexit Party and the Bollocks to Brexit Party.
Most of the people who hate Farage were already planning not to vote for him, and a fair few Tory/Lab undecideds will still plump for TBP in spite of it.
> Brexit Party, Lib Dem, Green and Labour freeposts all arrived in this morning's post.
>
> BP and LD easily the most persuasive: the Green leaflet doesn't really have a message and Labour has too many.
>
> But mein gott, the typography on the Brexit Party leaflet is terrible. There's about six variants of the same sans serif typeface and they appear to have committed the unpardonable sin of stretching the characters.
I have voted already. The Lib Dems are campaigning hard. Knocking on doors as well as leaflets.
Labour: nothing.
Tories: nothing.
One Brexit leaflet with the other free rubbish from estate agents that comes with the post.
Greens: nothing.
UKIP: nothing.
The list of candidates was enormously long with a list of names at the end with no idea who they were or what they represented.
I hope the Lib Dems do well.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7021615/ANDREW-PIERCE-Red-faces-Lib-Dems-constituency-chairman-defects-Brexit-Party.html
Smarkets London only market
>
> Lots of people disliking Farage is entirely consistent with a third of the voters backing TBP.
Yes
https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/wk4/lecture/case1.html
> Brexit Party, Lib Dem, Green and Labour freeposts all arrived in this morning's post.
>
> BP and LD easily the most persuasive: the Green leaflet doesn't really have a message and Labour has too many.
>
> But mein gott, the typography on the Brexit Party leaflet is terrible. There's about six variants of the same sans serif typeface and they appear to have committed the unpardonable sin of stretching the characters.
That is on brand from the Brexit Party, surely the natural political home for people who don't appreciate nice fonts.
> > @rkrkrk said:
>
> > > @IanB2 said:
>
> > > But the only form of referendum likely (both from common sense and the views of a majority of parliament) is a deal v status quo one, thereby removing the possibility of a no deal exit. No sane politician is going to risk putting 'no deal' out to a public vote (even if it could be defined in terms specific enough satisfy the electoral commission). Thus a referendum more than likely secures precisely what you want.
>
> >
>
> > The People's Vote campaign aren't clear about under what conditions the vote would be held.
>
> >
>
> > We've seen though that their supporter MPs will vote against softer Brexit, to improve the chances of a second referendum. So if it happens, I think it will be a very hard Brexit/No deal vs. Remain.
>
> >
>
> > Edit to add: I think you are seriously underestimating the support for No Deal in parliament. It's the favoured option of a significant minority, and probably 200+ could live with it (based on the fact that they wouldn't vote to rule it out).
>
>
>
> I don’t think so - I think we’re talking in the 80-110 range of the ERG.
>
>
>
> Nevertheless, you saw how May adapted her position after she got the briefing on the political and economic consequences of no deal, and it was also very notable that despite a lot of rumour and training, there weren’t any cabinet resignations when no deal was ruled out. And preparations for it were abandoned with barely a murmur. Any new PM and Cabinet would find themselves in the same position, and wouldn’t be able to ge5 a no deal referendum through parliament anyway. Not least because the proposition would be near impossible to define.
>
> It's not "impossible to define".
>
> It's leaving the EU without a Withdrawal Agreement.
>
> That's it.
>
> Anything that happens after that point of time is up to the government.
This is bonkers. So on day 1 after we have left the EU we could pay them £38bn and enter into similar arrangements to the WA and you think this would respect the view of that referendum?
Whereas after 3 years of negotiation the WA from the last referendum, it is completely unacceptable to have a yes/no confirmation when parliament is and will remain gridlocked?
The reasons no-dealers wont define no deal are that it will split the no deal coalition of global free trade UK, anti immigration UK and statist Corbyn UK and that it requires some hard work.
> Osborne says 'No Dealers' will have to come around to a 2nd vote and that being No Deal vs Remain.
The establishment will never offer that
> If parties who favour no deal get 30% ish at the Euros and Peterborough, how would it be legitimate to have a referendum between May's Deal and Remain?
>
> You've gotta save people from themselves sometimes, Sam.
>
> Plenty of whacko ideas would get 30% in a popular vote, doesn't mean we should entertain them.
So - if Labour win the next election we should ignore the result?
> > @rkrkrk said:
>
> > > @IanB2 said:
>
> > > But the only form of referendum likely (both from common sense and the views of a majority of parliament) is a deal v status quo one, thereby removing the possibility of a no deal exit. No sane politician is going to risk putting 'no deal' out to a public vote (even if it could be defined in terms specific enough satisfy the electoral commission). Thus a referendum more than likely secures precisely what you want.
>
> >
>
> > The People's Vote campaign aren't clear about under what conditions the vote would be held.
>
> >
>
> > We've seen though that their supporter MPs will vote against softer Brexit, to improve the chances of a second referendum. So if it happens, I think it will be a very hard Brexit/No deal vs. Remain.
>
> >
>
> > Edit to add: I think you are seriously underestimating the support for No Deal in parliament. It's the favoured option of a significant minority, and probably 200+ could live with it (based on the fact that they wouldn't vote to rule it out).
>
>
>
> I don’t think so - I think we’re talking in the 80-110 range of the ERG.
>
>
>
> Nevertheless, you saw how May adapted her position after she got the briefing on the political and economic consequences of no deal, and it was also very notable that despite a lot of rumour and training, there weren’t any cabinet resignations when no deal was ruled out. And preparations for it were abandoned with barely a murmur. Any new PM and Cabinet would find themselves in the same position, and wouldn’t be able to ge5 a no deal referendum through parliament anyway. Not least because the proposition would be near impossible to define.
>
> If parties who favour no deal get 30% ish at the Euros and Peterborough, how would it be legitimate to have a referendum between May's Deal and Remain?
Remain shouldn't be on the paper.
But this isn't about what's right or fair but rather stopping Brexit.
> > @rkrkrk said:
>
> > > @IanB2 said:
>
> > > But the only form of referendum likely (both from common sense and the views of a majority of parliament) is a deal v status quo one, thereby removing the possibility of a no deal exit. No sane politician is going to risk putting 'no deal' out to a public vote (even if it could be defined in terms specific enough satisfy the electoral commission). Thus a referendum more than likely secures precisely what you want.
>
> >
>
> > The People's Vote campaign aren't clear about under what conditions the vote would be held.
>
> >
>
> > We've seen though that their supporter MPs will vote against softer Brexit, to improve the chances of a second referendum. So if it happens, I think it will be a very hard Brexit/No deal vs. Remain.
>
> >
>
> > Edit to add: I think you are seriously underestimating the support for No Deal in parliament. It's the favoured option of a significant minority, and probably 200+ could live with it (based on the fact that they wouldn't vote to rule it out).
>
>
>
> I don’t think so - I think we’re talking in the 80-110 range of the ERG.
>
>
>
> Nevertheless, you saw how May adapted her position after she got the briefing on the political and economic consequences of no deal, and it was also very notable that despite a lot of rumour and training, there weren’t any cabinet resignations when no deal was ruled out. And preparations for it were abandoned with barely a murmur. Any new PM and Cabinet would find themselves in the same position, and wouldn’t be able to ge5 a no deal referendum through parliament anyway. Not least because the proposition would be near impossible to define.
>
> If parties who favour no deal get 30% ish at the Euros and Peterborough, how would it be legitimate to have a referendum between May's Deal and Remain?
Because the Euro elections are for the European parliament, and Peterborough is one constituency amongst many. Our system is the House of Commons decides, they are democratically elected and therefore legitimate. They may be incompetent and making bad decisions but they are still legitimate.
> > @El_Capitano said:
> > Brexit Party, Lib Dem, Green and Labour freeposts all arrived in this morning's post.
> >
> > BP and LD easily the most persuasive: the Green leaflet doesn't really have a message and Labour has too many.
> >
> > But mein gott, the typography on the Brexit Party leaflet is terrible. There's about six variants of the same sans serif typeface and they appear to have committed the unpardonable sin of stretching the characters.
>
> That is on brand from the Brexit Party, surely the natural political home for people who don't appreciate nice fonts.
>
> They missed a trick not doing it in Comic Sans.
The Establishment hates Comic Sans but the People love it. And the People are always right.
> > @rottenborough said:
> > Osborne says 'No Dealers' will have to come around to a 2nd vote and that being No Deal vs Remain.
>
> The establishment will never offer that
The establishment offered an in-out referendum in the first place because they thought that they could use the fear of out as a way to force the electorate to vote yes for Europe.
If no deal is on the ballot paper it will be because they think that Remain is guaranteed to win against no deal, but not so certain to win against the deal.
At the 2010 GE, Labour had 258 seats, with 326 needed for a majority. If you were to add on the Lib Dems' 57 seats, you had only 315 - well off, and only nine above the Conservatives alone. That means the deal would be not just with the Lib Dems, but a rainbow coalition that would simply not have worked - especially with Brown in charge.
If Labour+Lib Dems could have offered a (say) ten seat majority, it would have been a goer. But sadly for people who prefer Labour to the Conservatives, they were a fair way short.
> > @JosiasJessop said:
>
> > What do you think the Lib Dems should have done in 2010?
>
> >
>
> > The people voted, and the result was that the Conservatives had most MPs, but not a majority. However, Labour were so far behind that any coalition involving them would have been a rather interesting and precarious one.
>
> >
>
> > You can fault what the Lib Dems did whilst in coalition government, but blaming them for going into that coalition government seems a little odd.
>
> >
>
> > But then I, like a fair few others, think the coalition was a rare period of good governance in this country, despite the economic problems they inherited. I think you might disagree.
>
>
>
> The experience at Holyrood, of a minority SNP government with some support from the Scottish Greens - who have then been able to win significant concessions at each budget - provides an alternative model to the Coalition that the Liberal Democrats formed in 2010.
>
> And that's fair enough: but wasn't the situation in 2010 rather different? After the 2016 elections in Scotland, the SNP had 63 out of 129, which is darned near a majority, and the Greens offer them six more, getting them well over the line.
>
> At the 2010 GE, Labour had 258 seats, with 326 needed for a majority. If you were to add on the Lib Dems' 57 seats, you had only 315 - well off, and only nine above the Conservatives alone. That means the deal would be not just with the Lib Dems, but a rainbow coalition that would simply not have worked - especially with Brown in charge.
>
> If Labour+Lib Dems could have offered a (say) ten seat majority, it would have been a goer. But sadly for people who prefer Labour to the Conservatives, they were a fair way short.
My suggestion was that the Lib Dems in 2010 could have played the role of the Greens in Holyrood, with a Cameron minority administration taking the role of the SNP.
https://smarkets.com/listing/politics/uk/european-parliamentary-elections-2019-uk
Parliament has grasped power it shouldn’t have and messed it up. I don’t see why the Remainers within Parliament who facilitated that power grasp should be rewarded
The vote to leave has been taken. It’s now a matter of how.
Poll within.
•An exclusive opinion poll revealed the astonishing scale of the damage being inflicted on both major parties by the Brexit disarray, while the Remain-backing Liberal Democrats and Greens were surging upwards. The Conservatives have plunged to a humiliating fifth place in the capital, backed by just 10 per cent of Londoners in the European elections, the YouGov survey, commissioned by Queen Mary University of London, found. The Greens are ahead of them on 14, while the Lib Dems are on 17.
•Mr Corbyn faces punishment from Remain-backing London voters in a general election, with his party’s vote share down from 49 per cent share in December to 35 per cent today. The Conservatives are also down from 33 to 23 in London, with the Lib Dems up from 11 to 21, YouGov found.
> > @JosiasJessop said:
> > > @JosiasJessop said:
> >
> > > What do you think the Lib Dems should have done in 2010?
> >
> > >
> >
> > > The people voted, and the result was that the Conservatives had most MPs, but not a majority. However, Labour were so far behind that any coalition involving them would have been a rather interesting and precarious one.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > You can fault what the Lib Dems did whilst in coalition government, but blaming them for going into that coalition government seems a little odd.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > But then I, like a fair few others, think the coalition was a rare period of good governance in this country, despite the economic problems they inherited. I think you might disagree.
> >
> >
> >
> > The experience at Holyrood, of a minority SNP government with some support from the Scottish Greens - who have then been able to win significant concessions at each budget - provides an alternative model to the Coalition that the Liberal Democrats formed in 2010.
> >
> > And that's fair enough: but wasn't the situation in 2010 rather different? After the 2016 elections in Scotland, the SNP had 63 out of 129, which is darned near a majority, and the Greens offer them six more, getting them well over the line.
> >
> > At the 2010 GE, Labour had 258 seats, with 326 needed for a majority. If you were to add on the Lib Dems' 57 seats, you had only 315 - well off, and only nine above the Conservatives alone. That means the deal would be not just with the Lib Dems, but a rainbow coalition that would simply not have worked - especially with Brown in charge.
> >
> > If Labour+Lib Dems could have offered a (say) ten seat majority, it would have been a goer. But sadly for people who prefer Labour to the Conservatives, they were a fair way short.
>
> My suggestion was that the Lib Dems in 2010 could have played the role of the Greens in Holyrood, with a Cameron minority administration taking the role of the SNP.
Or to use another example, May and the DUP.
By which comparator, I'm all in favour of the 2010-5 model
> > @Floater said:
> > > @rottenborough said:
> > > Osborne says 'No Dealers' will have to come around to a 2nd vote and that being No Deal vs Remain.
> >
> > The establishment will never offer that
>
> The establishment offered an in-out referendum in the first place because they thought that they could use the fear of out as a way to force the electorate to vote yes for Europe.
>
> If no deal is on the ballot paper it will be because they think that Remain is guaranteed to win against no deal, but not so certain to win against the deal.
The idea the establishment have such clear cut views is not backed up by many of them supporting remain, many a second referendum, many supporting Mays deal, many supporting Brexit including no deal. They are as divided as the rest of the country, hence gridlock is all we shall get.
> A tweet for all the seasons.
>
> https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1127645384405286914
I hope these people aren't on PB!
The ban hammer will surely come thundering down.
Just ask Stuart Dickson.
> This is bonkers. So on day 1 after we have left the EU we could pay them £38bn and enter into similar arrangements to the WA and you think this would respect the view of that referendum?
>
> Whereas after 3 years of negotiation the WA from the last referendum, it is completely unacceptable to have a yes/no confirmation when parliament is and will remain gridlocked?
>
> The reasons no-dealers wont define no deal are that it will split the no deal coalition of global free trade UK, anti immigration UK and statist Corbyn UK and that it requires some hard work.
>
> On day 1 after leaving the government can do anything it likes. It might be politically unwise however.
>
> Parliament has grasped power it shouldn’t have and messed it up. I don’t see why the Remainers within Parliament who facilitated that power grasp should be rewarded
>
> The vote to leave has been taken. It’s now a matter of how.
We would just deepen the democratic crisis that exists if we do what you suggest. A parliament where the major policy is supported by 75-100 MPs out of 650 cannot function. Even if they are put in charge they do not have enough MPs to fill ministerial duties.
Yes the vote to leave has happened, we have also had votes to elect MPs and those votes are equally valid and those MPs are now sovereign, the whole system collapses if two separate voting structures are to dictate the major policy of the day and produce completely conflicting results.
If no dealers want no deal on the ballot paper at an absolute minimum they should have to define what it actually means until the next general election is scheduled, and accept that after a GE, parliamentary sovereignty returns. They will not do so because they know that would stop them promising a fantasy land and allow others to scrutinise the plans. Why should they be rewarded for this obfuscation?
> https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1127885401358766082
Unbearable woman.
The simple answer is that MPs should vote for the deal.
The more complicated but better answer is that MPs should give up their power to reject treaties
We are only hearing calls for another vote because MPs are standing in the way of implementing the results of the referendum
> https://twitter.com/paulembery/status/1127879203670695936
Well, if he came here I might go, if only to see for myself.
And I'm REMAIN. Won't let me increase the font, or use BOLD TYPE.
> I hope these people aren't on PB!
>
> The ban hammer will surely come thundering down.
>
> Just ask Stuart Dickson.
Stuart has made a couple of fleeting appearances recently, so any ban has presumably been rescinded.
> https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1127885401358766082
Oh no, she didn't!
> LOL! Brexit Party is in Yvette's back yard today.
>
>
> https://twitter.com/brexitparty_uk/status/1127877409473085440
Woo-hoo. Let's spend a load more time raging while espousing no policies
Afriyie Baker Baron Bone Braverman Bridgen Cash Chope Duddridge Francois Fysh Hollobone Holloway Jayawardena Jenkin Jenkyns Jones Lewis Lopez Mackinlay Morris Patel Paterson Redwood Robertson Rosindell Rowley Villiers
All those that voted down the WA twice.
& Drax. Maybe even a few more who voted it very grudgingly.
(That’s a vote in Cabinet, not “the PM’s signature alone.)
> > @Charles said:
>
> > This is bonkers. So on day 1 after we have left the EU we could pay them £38bn and enter into similar arrangements to the WA and you think this would respect the view of that referendum?
>
> >
>
> > Whereas after 3 years of negotiation the WA from the last referendum, it is completely unacceptable to have a yes/no confirmation when parliament is and will remain gridlocked?
>
> >
>
> > The reasons no-dealers wont define no deal are that it will split the no deal coalition of global free trade UK, anti immigration UK and statist Corbyn UK and that it requires some hard work.
>
> >
>
> > On day 1 after leaving the government can do anything it likes. It might be politically unwise however.
>
> >
>
> > Parliament has grasped power it shouldn’t have and messed it up. I don’t see why the Remainers within Parliament who facilitated that power grasp should be rewarded
>
> >
>
> > The vote to leave has been taken. It’s now a matter of how.
>
>
>
> We would just deepen the democratic crisis that exists if we do what you suggest. A parliament where the major policy is supported by 75-100 MPs out of 650 cannot function. Even if they are put in charge they do not have enough MPs to fill ministerial duties.
>
>
>
> Yes the vote to leave has happened, we have also had votes to elect MPs and those votes are equally valid and those MPs are now sovereign, the whole system collapses if two separate voting structures are to dictate the major policy of the day and produce completely conflicting results.
>
>
>
> If no dealers want no deal on the ballot paper at an absolute minimum they should have to define what it actually means until the next general election is scheduled, and accept that after a GE, parliamentary sovereignty returns. They will not do so because they know that would stop them promising a fantasy land and allow others to scrutinise the plans. Why should they be rewarded for this obfuscation?
>
>
> The simple answer is that MPs should vote for the deal.
>
> The more complicated but better answer is that MPs should give up their power to reject treaties
>
> We are only hearing calls for another vote because MPs are standing in the way of implementing the results of the referendum
I do not particularly disagree with the first and last sentences, and think MPs have overreached in their scrutiny on the WA - however, some power to reject treaties is probably appropriate.
Even if all 3 statements above were true it does not challenge the case that a no deal referendum win with the current parliament would be extremely chaotic, create huge democratic conflicts and be bad for the country. And for what? We are not allowed to find out what no deal even means. Bonkers.
I bet you now that the Brexit Party doesn't perform as well as the final polls say it will and that the LibDems will exceed expectations.
On 24th May, although there will be some fist pumping exaggerations from Farage and some initial breathless excitement from sections of the MSM, later in the day there will be a 'meh' feeling and people will suddenly realise that not very much has actually changed.
We will still be under a Theresa May premiership and the Brexit deal will not have passed. Farage's party won't alter that.
The real story from this past month in the long term is the re-emergence of the Lib Dems.
> Leave Tories to target for Nige :
>
> Afriyie Baker Baron Bone Braverman Bridgen Cash Chope Duddridge Francois Fysh Hollobone Holloway Jayawardena Jenkin Jenkyns Jones Lewis Lopez Mackinlay Morris Patel Paterson Redwood Robertson Rosindell Rowley Villiers
>
> All those that voted down the WA twice.
>
> & Drax. Maybe even a few more who voted it very grudgingly.
>
The ideal would be a clear-out, followed by a resurgance of the Tory party following a one nation agenda.
Reckless 2.0
Longworth was head of the chambers of commerce. Incredible.
>
>
> If The Brexit Party win the Euro's the only people talking about polls where they scored higher than the result will be anoraks on the wrong side, while all the media headlines, and talk among the general public, will be about a party less than 6 months old with a supposedly hated leader winning a national election
Not really. The Brexit Party is basically UKIP as you should, and probably do, know.
UKIP won last time with 38% ... that's an interesting benchmark. It still means very little in terms of Westminster voting.
All she has to do is offer a People's Vote on her deal. She'll get it through Parliament and then the real battle will begin and we'd settle the issue and get on with the rest of our lives.
For 90% of this country Brexit is terribly boring. You might want to note this Isam when you refer to anoraks.
Even if all 3 statements above were true it does not challenge the case that a no deal referendum win with the current parliament would be extremely chaotic, create huge democratic conflicts and be bad for the country. And for what? We are not allowed to find out what no deal even means. Bonkers.
I don’t think no deal is a good idea
And I agree a vote for no deal would cause ruptions in the political system
But I don’t see a democratic way to have Remain on the ballot
(And we know what no deal is - it’s a vote for leaving without a WA)
UKIP didnt get anywhere near 38%
I meant in the polls beforehand
Ah how splendidly convenient that would be for the 48%. Another go
As for Brexit being terribly boring, that's why I only comment on it on a site for political anoraks
> The simple answer is that MPs should vote for the deal.
>
> The more complicated but better answer is that MPs should give up their power to reject treaties
>
> We are only hearing calls for another vote because MPs are standing in the way of implementing the results of the referendum
>
> I do not particularly disagree with the first and last sentences, and think MPs have overreached in their scrutiny on the WA - however, some power to reject treaties is probably appropriate.
>
> Even if all 3 statements above were true it does not challenge the case that a no deal referendum win with the current parliament would be extremely chaotic, create huge democratic conflicts and be bad for the country. And for what? We are not allowed to find out what no deal even means. Bonkers.
>
> I don’t think no deal is a good idea
>
> And I agree a vote for no deal would cause ruptions in the political system
>
> But I don’t see a democratic way to have Remain on the ballot
>
>
>
> (And we know what no deal is - it’s a vote for leaving without a WA)
It would be undemocratic not to have Remain on the ballot. It is a perfectly viable option preferred by (if you believe the polls) a majority today. Deny that and millions have nothing to vote for.
Ah yes, obviously you meant the polls beforehand! Clear as crystal
>
> But I don’t see a democratic way to have Remain on the ballot
>
> (And we know what no deal is - it’s a vote for leaving without a WA)
Use your imagination. If we had a General Election this summer in which a party promising a referendum with Remain on the ballot won, surely even you would have to concede that it would be legitimate?
I believe it’s a sub-committee of the Privy Council. It’s making a recommendation to the queen’s representative (the PM) to sign a treaty.
> For 90% of this country Brexit is terribly boring. You might want to note this Isam when you refer to anoraks.
>
> "All she has to do is give in to Remaininers"
>
> Ah how splendidly convenient that would be for the 48%. Another go
>
> As for Brexit being terribly boring, that's why I only comment on it on a site for political anoraks
I can see why you get into so many scraps with other posters on here. You're a wind-up merchant.
I didn't infer that a people's vote equates to 'giving in to remainers.' On the ballot could be a range of options.
Since the initial Leave or Remain vote is evidently different from what is now on the table, and even more so to what might be on the table if May comes up with a Labour deal, then it seems very reasonable that it should go back to the people for a confirmatory vote. Especially so since the original vote was so narrow and because 'No Deal' was never on the table back then, but is being discussed now.
So I see no reason why a series of options shouldn't be offered. Perhaps 1st round Leave v Remain and then if Leave wins that the variety of options from No Deal through to Customs Union.
It's a very obvious solution and the only reason not to hold it is because leavers fear (rightly) that the country will throw out Brexit altogether. It's funny how undemocratic people become when their view begins to falter.
Nigel Farage himself would like another vote to settle this once and for all.
It's the amount of gum showing, I think. Makes my skin crawl.
[Apologies to those who will now notice this every time, too.]
> The simple answer is that MPs should vote for the deal.
>
> The more complicated but better answer is that MPs should give up their power to reject treaties
>
> We are only hearing calls for another vote because MPs are standing in the way of implementing the results of the referendum
>
> I do not particularly disagree with the first and last sentences, and think MPs have overreached in their scrutiny on the WA - however, some power to reject treaties is probably appropriate.
>
> Even if all 3 statements above were true it does not challenge the case that a no deal referendum win with the current parliament would be extremely chaotic, create huge democratic conflicts and be bad for the country. And for what? We are not allowed to find out what no deal even means. Bonkers.
>
> I don’t think no deal is a good idea
>
> And I agree a vote for no deal would cause ruptions in the political system
>
> But I don’t see a democratic way to have Remain on the ballot
>
>
>
> (And we know what no deal is - it’s a vote for leaving without a WA)
You may know what no deal is in your mind today, but the future selves of 17m no deal voters in 2022 may have a completely different and diverse view of what no deal was, just as many/most? 2016 leave voters now think that Mays deal is not leaving. At the time leave voters would have said leave means leaving the EU, how more clear does it need to be?
I am not proposing remain on the ballot, if I had to define a referendum I would go with Mays deal vs 12 month extension with promise for May to resign, new tory leader and general election in the first 6 months of that. Or Mays deal vs Corbyns deal if he could quickly agree it with the EU.
Remain on the ballot may suffer democratically but no more so than no deal does, and the implications of remain are manageable whereas they are not for no deal. Offering people a choice that cannot be managed is deeply irresponsible.
>
> I am just consistent and courteous, which seems to wind up people who change strategy all the time to satisfy their need to be seen winning arguments
Well you're certainly not courteous and I'm far from convinced you're honourable. Sorry to say so.
As for 'consistent' even if that were true, it's not a virtue, especially not when it comes to this Brexit. Steve Baker describes himself as 'consistent' and it is the kind of intransigence that has caused nothing but trouble.
When dealing with something as complex as Britain's exit from the EU a degree of flexibility and ability to listen to other points of view, adapt accordingly and allow your 'red lines' to shift is vitally important. It's called compromise and it was always going to be necessary. Alt-Right headbangers won't bring about the Brexit of their desire, I'm afraid.
> > @Charles said:
>
> > The simple answer is that MPs should vote for the deal.
>
> >
>
> > The more complicated but better answer is that MPs should give up their power to reject treaties
>
> >
>
> > We are only hearing calls for another vote because MPs are standing in the way of implementing the results of the referendum
>
> >
>
> > I do not particularly disagree with the first and last sentences, and think MPs have overreached in their scrutiny on the WA - however, some power to reject treaties is probably appropriate.
>
> >
>
> > Even if all 3 statements above were true it does not challenge the case that a no deal referendum win with the current parliament would be extremely chaotic, create huge democratic conflicts and be bad for the country. And for what? We are not allowed to find out what no deal even means. Bonkers.
>
> >
>
> > I don’t think no deal is a good idea
>
> >
>
> > And I agree a vote for no deal would cause ruptions in the political system
>
> >
>
> > But I don’t see a democratic way to have Remain on the ballot
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > (And we know what no deal is - it’s a vote for leaving without a WA)
>
>
>
> It would be undemocratic not to have Remain on the ballot. It is a perfectly viable option preferred by (if you believe the polls) a majority today. Deny that and millions have nothing to vote for.
>
> You had that vote. You don’t get a do over.
Don’t be daft. There has been more information.
> I think some people are in danger of making fools of themselves.
>
> I bet you now that the Brexit Party doesn't perform as well as the final polls say it will and that the LibDems will exceed expectations.
>
> On 24th May, although there will be some fist pumping exaggerations from Farage and some initial breathless excitement from sections of the MSM, later in the day there will be a 'meh' feeling and people will suddenly realise that not very much has actually changed.
>
> We will still be under a Theresa May premiership and the Brexit deal will not have passed. Farage's party won't alter that.
>
> The real story from this past month in the long term is the re-emergence of the Lib Dems.
-----------------
That's a dangerous first sentence....