A lot of missing the point of my header going on, I am sorry to say.
If nothing happens Britain leaves without a deal on 31October.
But if the PM calls an election asking voters to give him a mandate to leave without a deal then he must surely wait for their answer before going ahead. Otherwise the election is pointless.
To ask “Should I do this?” and then go ahead and do it anyway without waiting for the answer is unconscionable in a democracy.
But Boris isn't the one calling the election.
If the election is due to a VONC then it is the opposition calling the election and they have left it too late. Boris won't be asking permission he will be saying "I pledged to take us out and I have taken us out".
It's not the opposition, it's the house by the motion (or lack of motion) of their actions.
Look at the act.
VONC passes: “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
14days start. If by the end of the 14 days the house does NOT pass the motion;
“That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
Then parliment is dissolved by the Queen, and we get a GE.
all the while, Boris remains PM.
Is it possible for parliament to pass motions not related to confidence in that period?
Could parliament appoint a "Commissioner for Asking for an Extension"?
Imagine, Johnson calls an election for some time after 31 October.
The Tories say, if they win, they will have a No Deal Brexit, no hard border, no payment of money to the EU etc.
Labour says they will seek to have a Withdrawal Agreement based on different red lines and an extension to allow sufficient time for that to be negotiated.
The Lib Dems say they will revoke Article 50 if they win.
The lib Dems win. But Johnson has already gone ahead with a No Deal exit and refused to ask for an extension for the duration of the election campaign, despite being asked to do by the other parties and despite the EU indicating their willingness to grant it.
Voters have voted for a course of action which is now impossible because of the actions of an outgoing government during the election campaign.
1. What do you think the voters will think of a party which behaves like this? 2. Would you like to be in the receiving end of such behaviour eg if a Corbyn-McDonnell government were to act in a way to render the outcome of an election pointless?
My point is that an outgoing government should not - during an election campaign- act in a way so as to frustrate the outcome of that election. This seems to me to be profoundly undemocratic, regardless of how that election has come about, whether through VoNC or otherwise.
In the context of Brexit that should mean seeking a temporary extension to the Article 50 period until the voters have had their say.
I'm already on the receiving end of an election outcome made pointless - because 86% of votes were cast for parties pledging they would implement Brexit...and then didn't.
Imagine, Johnson calls an election for some time after 31 October.
The Tories say, if they win, they will have a No Deal Brexit, no hard border, no payment of money to the EU etc.
Labour says they will seek to have a Withdrawal Agreement based on different red lines and an extension to allow sufficient time for that to be negotiated.
The Lib Dems say they will revoke Article 50 if they win.
The lib Dems win. But Johnson has already gone ahead with a No Deal exit and refused to ask for an extension for the duration of the election campaign, despite being asked to do by the other parties and despite the EU indicating their willingness to grant it.
Voters have voted for a course of action which is now impossible because of the actions of an outgoing government during the election campaign.
1. What do you think the voters will think of a party which behaves like this? 2. Would you like to be in the receiving end of such behaviour eg if a Corbyn-McDonnell government were to act in a way to render the outcome of an election pointless?
My point is that an outgoing government should not - during an election campaign- act in a way so as to frustrate the outcome of that election. This seems to me to be profoundly undemocratic, regardless of how that election has come about, whether through VoNC or otherwise.
In the context of Brexit that should mean seeking a temporary extension to the Article 50 period until the voters have had their say.
I'm already on the receiving end of an election outcome made pointless - because 86% of votes were cast for parties pledging they would implement Brexit...and then didn't.
They are doing.
If you believe that then I have a bridge I would like to sell you.
I know that this is restating what David Herdson and others, including myself, have already said, but it does bear repeating: it is absolutely staggering, completely beyond belief, that we are having to discuss whether a Conservative PM (let me repeat that: a Conservative PM) will try to circumvent democracy and trash our unwritten constitution by deliberately manipulating an election date in order to crash us out of the EU into chaos despite the will of parliament.
Even just few weeks ago, this would have been absolutely unthinkable.
Agreed. And the worst of it is that they cannot see how they are creating a template which the likes of Corbyn and McDonnell will happily use.
The words of Thomas More in A Man Fo All Seasons come to mind -
“And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down...d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.”
Unfortunately the precedent for that was set not by Boris but by Bercow who has walked all over Parliamentary procedure over the last year to try and thwart Brexit.
What utter tripe.
Just because looney Brexiteers yelp when sane people try to restrain them in their bid for collective suicide, that doesn't mean parliamentary procedure has been breached - any more than the rule of law would have been breached if the police were called to an asylum that had been taken over by the inmates, and put them back in their cells.
Imagine, Johnson calls an election for some time after 31 October.
The Tories say, if they win, they will have a No Deal Brexit, no hard border, no payment of money to the EU etc.
Labour says they will seek to have a Withdrawal Agreement based on different red lines and an extension to allow sufficient time for that to be negotiated.
The Lib Dems say they will revoke Article 50 if they win.
The lib Dems win. But Johnson has already gone ahead with a No Deal exit and refused to ask for an extension for the duration of the election campaign, despite being asked to do by the other parties and despite the EU indicating their willingness to grant it.
Voters have voted for a course of action which is now impossible because of the actions of an outgoing government during the election campaign.
1. What do you think the voters will think of a party which behaves like this? 2. Would you like to be in the receiving end of such behaviour eg if a Corbyn-McDonnell government were to act in a way to render the outcome of an election pointless?
My point is that an outgoing government should not - during an election campaign- act in a way so as to frustrate the outcome of that election. This seems to me to be profoundly undemocratic, regardless of how that election has come about, whether through VoNC or otherwise.
In the context of Brexit that should mean seeking a temporary extension to the Article 50 period until the voters have had their say.
I'm already on the receiving end of an election outcome made pointless - because 86% of votes were cast for parties pledging they would implement Brexit...and then didn't.
They are doing.
If you believe that then I have a bridge I would like to sell you.
Please point me to the occasion when parliament voted to revoke Article 50.
Is it possible for parliament to pass motions not related to confidence in that period?
Could parliament appoint a "Commissioner for Asking for an Extension"?
Yes, of course it could, although I think it would have to be a full Act of Parliament in order to be effective. That would be difficult, but perhaps not impossible, following the Cooper-Boles precedent.
Imagine, Johnson calls an election for some time after 31 October.
The Tories say, if they win, they will have a No Deal Brexit, no hard border, no payment of money to the EU etc.
Labour says they will seek to have a Withdrawal Agreement based on different red lines and an extension to allow sufficient time for that to be negotiated.
The Lib Dems say they will revoke Article 50 if they win.
The lib Dems win. But Johnson has already gone ahead with a No Deal exit and refused to ask for an extension for the duration of the election campaign, despite being asked to do by the other parties and despite the EU indicating their willingness to grant it.
Voters have voted for a course of action which is now impossible because of the actions of an outgoing government during the election campaign.
1. What do you think the voters will think of a party which behaves like this? 2. Would you like to be in the receiving end of such behaviour eg if a Corbyn-McDonnell government were to act in a way to render the outcome of an election pointless?
My point is that an outgoing government should not - during an election campaign- act in a way so as to frustrate the outcome of that election. This seems to me to be profoundly undemocratic, regardless of how that election has come about, whether through VoNC or otherwise.
In the context of Brexit that should mean seeking a temporary extension to the Article 50 period until the voters have had their say.
I'm already on the receiving end of an election outcome made pointless - because 86% of votes were cast for parties pledging they would implement Brexit...and then didn't.
An overwhelming majority of votes were for parties ruling out No Deal.
I know that this is restating what David Herdson and others, including myself, have already said, but it does bear repeating: it is absolutely staggering, completely beyond belief, that we are having to discuss whether a Conservative PM (let me repeat that: a Conservative PM) will try to circumvent democracy and trash our unwritten constitution by deliberately manipulating an election date in order to crash us out of the EU into chaos despite the will of parliament.
Even just few weeks ago, this would have been absolutely unthinkable.
Agreed. And the worst of it is that they cannot see how they are creating a template which the likes of Corbyn and McDonnell will happily use.
The words of Thomas More in A Man Fo All Seasons come to mind -
“And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down...d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.”
Unfortunately the precedent for that was set not by Boris but by Bercow who has walked all over Parliamentary procedure over the last year to try and thwart Brexit.
What utter tripe.
Just because looney Brexiteers yelp when sane people try to restrain them in their bid for collective suicide, that doesn't mean parliamentary procedure has been breached - any more than the rule of law would have been breached if the police were called to an asylum that had been taken over by the inmates, and put them back in their cells.
Bercow was advised by his own clerks that he was in breach of Parliamentary procedure on a number of occasions but has ignored them.
A lot of missing the point of my header going on, I am sorry to say.
If nothing happens Britain leaves without a deal on 31October.
But if the PM calls an election asking voters to give him a mandate to leave without a deal then he must surely wait for their answer before going ahead. Otherwise the election is pointless.
To ask “Should I do this?” and then go ahead and do it anyway without waiting for the answer is unconscionable in a democracy.
But Boris isn't the one calling the election.
If the election is due to a VONC then it is the opposition calling the election and they have left it too late. Boris won't be asking permission he will be saying "I pledged to take us out and I have taken us out".
It's not the opposition, it's the house by the motion (or lack of motion) of their actions.
Look at the act.
VONC passes: “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
14days start. If by the end of the 14 days the house does NOT pass the motion;
“That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
Then parliment is dissolved by the Queen, and we get a GE.
all the while, Boris remains PM.
Is it possible for parliament to pass motions not related to confidence in that period?
Could parliament appoint a "Commissioner for Asking for an Extension"?
'possibly' but wether they would have a legal right to do that, rather than 'the PM' having that right would be one for the lawyers.
If the right to extend is only with the government, then you would need HMG to do it. Not parliment.
I know that this is restating what David Herdson and others, including myself, have already said, but it does bear repeating: it is absolutely staggering, completely beyond belief, that we are having to discuss whether a Conservative PM (let me repeat that: a Conservative PM) will try to circumvent democracy and trash our unwritten constitution by deliberately manipulating an election date in order to crash us out of the EU into chaos despite the will of parliament.
Even just few weeks ago, this would have been absolutely unthinkable.
Agreed. And the worst of it is that they cannot see how they are creating a template which the likes of Corbyn and McDonnell will happily use.
The words of Thomas More in A Man Fo All Seasons come to mind -
“And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down...d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.”
Unfortunately the precedent for that was set not by Boris but by Bercow who has walked all over Parliamentary procedure over the last year to try and thwart Brexit.
I don't honestly remember if you were complaining when he was doing that but if not you have absolutely no cause to moan now.
The willingness of No Deal Brexiteers to think that the end justifies the means is extraordinary. They are willing to trash the rules around our democracy while claiming to be honouring it.
One day - probably quite soon - they will face a Hard Left government willing to do the same to them. We will all need ear defenders to drown out the complaints then from the Brexiteers.
Do any other countries employ this peculiar idea of purdah? It's all very well to say that nothing should be allowed to change during the course of an election campaign, but the fact is the outside world and our relations with it do not pause just because an election has been forced upon the governing party. Boris would be mad to cripple his electoral chances by requesting an extension just to satisfy this uncodifed constitutional nicety.
Do any other countries employ this peculiar idea of purdah? It's all very well to say that nothing should be allowed to change during the course of an election campaign, but the fact is the outside world and our relations with it do not pause just because an election has been forced upon the governing party. Boris would be mad to cripple his electoral chances by requesting an extension just to satisfy this uncodifed constitutional nicety.
Boris and Cummings are deliberately threatening to suborn if not the letter then the spirit of democracy and challenging Parliament to stop them.
It really is that simple.
It’s coming down to a simple test of patriotism to me.
I know that this is restating what David Herdson and others, including myself, have already said, but it does bear repeating: it is absolutely staggering, completely beyond belief, that we are having to discuss whether a Conservative PM (let me repeat that: a Conservative PM) will try to circumvent democracy and trash our unwritten constitution by deliberately manipulating an election date in order to crash us out of the EU into chaos despite the will of parliament.
Even just few weeks ago, this would have been absolutely unthinkable.
Agreed. And the worst of it is that they cannot see how they are creating a template which the likes of Corbyn and McDonnell will happily use.
The words of Thomas More in A Man Fo All Seasons come to mind -
“And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down...d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.”
Unfortunately the precedent for that was set not by Boris but by Bercow who has walked all over Parliamentary procedure over the last year to try and thwart Brexit.
I don't honestly remember if you were complaining when he was doing that but if not you have absolutely no cause to moan now.
The willingness of No Deal Brexiteers to think that the end justifies the means is extraordinary. They are willing to trash the rules around our democracy while claiming to be honouring it.
One day - probably quite soon - they will face a Hard Left government willing to do the same to them. We will all need ear defenders to drown out the complaints then from the Brexiteers.
So did you criticise Bercow then? Or do you only criticise those who you disagree with? At least I have made clear my opposition to Boris's plans. I suspect you were remarkably silent whilst Bercow was changing the rules because you happened to agree with the aims.
I know that this is restating what David Herdson and others, including myself, have already said, but it does bear repeating: it is absolutely staggering, completely beyond belief, that we are having to discuss whether a Conservative PM (let me repeat that: a Conservative PM) will try to circumvent democracy and trash our unwritten constitution by deliberately manipulating an election date in order to crash us out of the EU into chaos despite the will of parliament.
Even just few weeks ago, this would have been absolutely unthinkable.
Agreed. And the worst of it is that they cannot see how they are creating a template which the likes of Corbyn and McDonnell will happily use.
The words of Thomas More in A Man Fo All Seasons come to mind -
“And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down...d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.”
Unfortunately the precedent for that was set not by Boris but by Bercow who has walked all over Parliamentary procedure over the last year to try and thwart Brexit.
I don't honestly remember if you were complaining when he was doing that but if not you have absolutely no cause to moan now.
The willingness of No Deal Brexiteers to think that the end justifies the means is extraordinary. They are willing to trash the rules around our democracy while claiming to be honouring it.
One day - probably quite soon - they will face a Hard Left government willing to do the same to them. We will all need ear defenders to drown out the complaints then from the Brexiteers.
Where is the Hard Left's path to a majority? The only realistic one is if the Right is split by the Tories' failure to recover BXP voters, i.e. the 1980s in reverse.
I don't want Brexit, hard or soft, and I never have. But I'll swallow it if it means we remain united against a Corbynite Labour party that's managed to alienate many of its own voters.
Surely if we have an election in November, having Brexited, all current polling becomes moot? We would be asking the electorate a completely different set of questions to the ones arising now.
Surely if we have an election in November, having Brexited, all current polling becomes moot? We would be asking the electorate a completely different set of questions to the ones arising now.
Much like the 45 election, I suppose. Although certain parties would obviously campaign to reverse the decision!
Imagine, Johnson calls an election for some time after 31 October.
The Tories say, if they win, they will have a No Deal Brexit, no hard border, no payment of money to the EU etc.
Labour says they will seek to have a Withdrawal Agreement based on different red lines and an extension to allow sufficient time for that to be negotiated.
The Lib Dems say they will revoke Article 50 if they win.
The lib Dems win. But Johnson has already gone ahead with a No Deal exit and refused to ask for an extension for the duration of the election campaign, despite being asked to do by the other parties and despite the EU indicating their willingness to grant it.
Voters have voted for a course of action which is now impossible because of the actions of an outgoing government during the election campaign.
1. What do you think the voters will think of a party which behaves like this? 2. Would you like to be in the receiving end of such behaviour eg if a Corbyn-McDonnell government were to act in a way to render the outcome of an election pointless?
My point is that an outgoing government should not - during an election campaign- act in a way so as to frustrate the outcome of that election. This seems to me to be profoundly undemocratic, regardless of how that election has come about, whether through VoNC or otherwise.
In the context of Brexit that should mean seeking a temporary extension to the Article 50 period until the voters have had their say.
I'm already on the receiving end of an election outcome made pointless - because 86% of votes were cast for parties pledging they would implement Brexit...and then didn't.
An overwhelming majority of votes were for parties ruling out No Deal.
Indeed. Not a single MP was elected on a No Deal ticket. It was explicitly ruled out.
I know that this is restating what David Herdson and others, including myself, have already said, but it does bear repeating: it is absolutely staggering, completely beyond belief, that we are having to discuss whether a Conservative PM (let me repeat that: a Conservative PM) will try to circumvent democracy and trash our unwritten constitution by deliberately manipulating an election date in order to crash us out of the EU into chaos despite the will of parliament.
Even just few weeks ago, this would have been absolutely unthinkable.
Agreed. And the worst of it is that they cannot see how they are creating a template which the likes of Corbyn and McDonnell will happily use.
The words of Thomas More in A Man Fo All Seasons come to mind -
“And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down...d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.”
Unfortunately the precedent for that was set not by Boris but by Bercow who has walked all over Parliamentary procedure over the last year to try and thwart Brexit.
I don't honestly remember if you were complaining when he was doing that but if not you have absolutely no cause to moan now.
The willingness of No Deal Brexiteers to think that the end justifies the means is extraordinary. They are willing to trash the rules around our democracy while claiming to be honouring it.
One day - probably quite soon - they will face a Hard Left government willing to do the same to them. We will all need ear defenders to drown out the complaints then from the Brexiteers.
So did you criticise Bercow then? Or do you only criticise those who you disagree with? At least I have made clear my opposition to Boris's plans. I suspect you were remarkably silent whilst Bercow was changing the rules because you happened to agree with the aims.
Bercow has been entirely reasonable throughout, and broadly neutral, including refusing to take a number of remainer motions and amendments, and casting his vote against one that was tied.
I know that this is restating what David Herdson and others, including myself, have already said, but it does bear repeating: it is absolutely staggering, completely beyond belief, that we are having to discuss whether a Conservative PM (let me repeat that: a Conservative PM) will try to circumvent democracy and trash our unwritten constitution by deliberately manipulating an election date in order to crash us out of the EU into chaos despite the will of parliament. Even just few weeks ago, this would have been absolutely unthinkable.
Agreed. And the worst of it is that they cannot see how they are creating a template which the likes of Corbyn and McDonnell will happily use.
The words of Thomas More in A Man Fo All Seasons come to mind -
“And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down...d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.”
Everyone seems to be focusing on the procedural and legal ins and outs of all this, and not the potential impact on the outcome of the election.
Whilst firm (*diehard*) remainers and leavers won’t be swayed, there is a majority of the population who will be watching all this without an entrenched view. Including a lot who haven’t been watching that closely up to that point. At one extreme they might be appalled at seeing the government ride roughshod over the constitution and circumventing parliament; at the other they might be won over by ‘people v parliament’.
People and Parliament versus taxdodgers and chancers.... Yes indeed.
Surely if we have an election in November, having Brexited, all current polling becomes moot? We would be asking the electorate a completely different set of questions to the ones arising now.
Labour could win a landslide on an “apocalypse for the many, not the few” ticket.
I know that this is restating what David Herdson and others, including myself, have already said, but it does bear repeating: it is absolutely staggering, completely beyond belief, that we are having to discuss whether a Conservative PM (let me repeat that: a Conservative PM) will try to circumvent democracy and trash our unwritten constitution by deliberately manipulating an election date in order to crash us out of the EU into chaos despite the will of parliament.
Even just few weeks ago, this would have been absolutely unthinkable.
Agreed. And the worst of it is that they cannot see how they are creating a template which the likes of Corbyn and McDonnell will happily use.
The words of Thomas More in A Man Fo All Seasons come to mind -
“And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down...d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.”
Unfortunately the precedent for that was set not by Boris but by Bercow who has walked all over Parliamentary procedure over the last year to try and thwart Brexit.
What utter tripe.
Just because looney Brexiteers yelp when sane people try to restrain them in their bid for collective suicide, that doesn't mean parliamentary procedure has been breached - any more than the rule of law would have been breached if the police were called to an asylum that had been taken over by the inmates, and put them back in their cells.
Bercow was advised by his own clerks that he was in breach of Parliamentary procedure on a number of occasions but has ignored them.
That's the usual load of looney Brexiteer crap.
The fact is that there were reports that Sir David Natzler had advised Bercow otherwise - though of course that can't be confirmed or denied because such advice is confidential - but that Natzler has been quite clear that Bercow had the right to decide on the interpretation of the rules.
Surely if we have an election in November, having Brexited, all current polling becomes moot? We would be asking the electorate a completely different set of questions to the ones arising now.
How do we get an election in November unless an extension has been sought and agreed? HOC will not VONC Johnson unless an agreed replacement is guaranteed. If Johnson seeks one he will only get 2/3 majority if he has sought an extension. No extension no November election.
I know that this is restating what David Herdson and others, including myself, have already said, but it does bear repeating: it is absolutely staggering, completely beyond belief, that we are having to discuss whether a Conservative PM (let me repeat that: a Conservative PM) will try to circumvent democracy and trash our unwritten constitution by deliberately manipulating an election date in order to crash us out of the EU into chaos despite the will of parliament.
Even just few weeks ago, this would have been absolutely unthinkable.
Agreed. And the worst of it is that they cannot see how they are creating a template which the likes of Corbyn and McDonnell will happily use.
The words of Thomas More in A Man Fo All Seasons come to mind -
“And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down...d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.”
Unfortunately the precedent for that was set not by Boris but by Bercow who has walked all over Parliamentary procedure over the last year to try and thwart Brexit.
I don't honestly remember if you were complaining when he was doing that but if not you have absolutely no cause to moan now.
The willingness of No Deal Brexiteers to think that the end justifies the means is extraordinary. They are willing to trash the rules around our democracy while claiming to be honouring it.
One day - probably quite soon - they will face a Hard Left government willing to do the same to them. We will all need ear defenders to drown out the complaints then from the Brexiteers.
The Conservative Party is barely recognizable as a party that conserves things and is suspicious of ideology, grand plans and fiddling with the constitution as handed down to us by previous generations. Oakeshott will be turning his grave.
Surely if we have an election in November, having Brexited, all current polling becomes moot? We would be asking the electorate a completely different set of questions to the ones arising now.
How do we get an election in November unless an extension has been sought and agreed? HOC will not VONC Johnson unless an agreed replacement is guaranteed. If Johnson seeks one he will only get 2/3 majority if he has sought an extension. No extension no November election.
Only if Labour is frit. Everything labour does is predicated on going to a general election.
Although, I can see why Corbyn would be frit of deciding to come down on one side or the other of rejoining the EU.....
After second debate, Biden edges down, Sanders and Warren edge up, Harris drops significantly.
At this point it's really a 3-horse race, unless Harris finds something spectacular to do to grab the spotlight again. Hopefully the media will soon catch up and start talking about it that way. At that point the conversation will naturally turn to how Sanders and Warren deal with both occupying such a similar place on the political spectrum, and what their delegates should do if there's no majority by the convention.
I also think that if Harris' voters start drifting to the other three, it'll likely benefit Sanders least. It'll be interesting to see how they distribute among the other two.
Bernie Sanders' odds have shortened recently but they still look oddly long compared with his rivals, given his polling. He's in this for the long haul.
He did an excellent long-form interview with Joe Rogan the other day, 4.5m views so far.
All the candidates need to do more interviews like this, way better than trying to get a sound bite in 60 seconds on the official debates.
Surely if we have an election in November, having Brexited, all current polling becomes moot? We would be asking the electorate a completely different set of questions to the ones arising now.
Much like the 45 election, I suppose. Although certain parties would obviously campaign to reverse the decision!
This is where it gets tricky for the LDs. Labour can simply blame "botched Tory Brexit". And say we need X and Y to mitigate, and make the best of a bad job. Tories can trumpet their "success" in leaving. What do the Libs do? Campaign to re-join? And re-open the question for years more? Or not? And enrage the pro-Eu fringe. And what, exactly, would be the point of voting Brexit Party? It is this, I reckon, which Cummings is relying on.
Might one of the last great acts of her long reign be the Queen firing Johnson as PM?
She could invite Johnson, Corbyn and Grieve to the palace and televise her Trump-style, “Boris, you’re fired!” Then tell Grieve he’s hired and giving him a mission to revoke Article 50.
The simple fact is that if a group of politicians wins a referendum on the basis that a particular policy will be achieved on the basis of agreement, if those politicians subsequently try and fail to achieve it on that basis, then they have no mandate whatsoever to do it unilaterally with potentially catastrophic consequences.
The worst branding this millenium and they are keeping it. Same strange name, same strange brand, no temptation there at all.
The funny thing is, with Boris and Jeremy at the helm, I could be tempted to a British en marche. I'm hardly it central case, but I would be the sort of switcher it would need to take seats. But not this bunch of jokers.
At this stage all they’re going to do is split the Remain vote if we have an autumn election.
Surely if we have an election in November, having Brexited, all current polling becomes moot? We would be asking the electorate a completely different set of questions to the ones arising now.
How do we get an election in November unless an extension has been sought and agreed? HOC will not VONC Johnson unless an agreed replacement is guaranteed. If Johnson seeks one he will only get 2/3 majority if he has sought an extension. No extension no November election.
Only if Labour is frit. Everything labour does is predicated on going to a general election.
Although, I can see why Corbyn would be frit of deciding to come down on one side or the other of rejoining the EU.....
If corbyn gives Johnson his election during and over the no deal date he will be slaughtered from all sides
I know that this is restating what David Herdson and others, including myself, have already said, but it does bear repeating: it is absolutely staggering, completely beyond belief, that we are having to discuss whether a Conservative PM (let me repeat that: a Conservative PM) will try to circumvent democracy and trash our unwritten constitution by deliberately manipulating an election date in order to crash us out of the EU into chaos despite the will of parliament.
Even just few weeks ago, this would have been absolutely unthinkable.
Agreed. And the worst of it is that they cannot see how they are creating a template which the likes of Corbyn and McDonnell will happily use.
The words of Thomas More in A Man Fo All Seasons come to mind -
“And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down...d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.”
Unfortunately the precedent for that was set not by Boris but by Bercow who has walked all over Parliamentary procedure over the last year to try and thwart Brexit.
What utter tripe.
Just because looney Brexiteers yelp when sane people try to restrain them in their bid for collective suicide, that doesn't mean parliamentary procedure has been breached - any more than the rule of law would have been breached if the police were called to an asylum that had been taken over by the inmates, and put them back in their cells.
Bercow was advised by his own clerks that he was in breach of Parliamentary procedure on a number of occasions but has ignored them.
That's the usual load of looney Brexiteer crap.
The fact is that there were reports that Sir David Natzler had advised Bercow otherwise - though of course that can't be confirmed or denied because such advice is confidential - but that Natzler has been quite clear that Bercow had the right to decide on the interpretation of the rules.
Please be more careful not to mislead.
I don't think we can really claim that Bercow has been judging rules interpretations based on precedent or advice. It is pretty clear to everyone involved that Bercow has been doing it to prevent Brexit. Why else would he be mentioning to people like Grieve which rules they should look into more?
Surely if we have an election in November, having Brexited, all current polling becomes moot? We would be asking the electorate a completely different set of questions to the ones arising now.
Much like the 45 election, I suppose. Although certain parties would obviously campaign to reverse the decision!
This is where it gets tricky for the LDs. Labour can simply blame "botched Tory Brexit". And say we need X and Y to mitigate, and make the best of a bad job. Tories can trumpet their "success" in leaving. What do the Libs do? Campaign to re-join? And re-open the question for years more? Or not? And enrage the pro-Eu fringe. And what, exactly, would be the point of voting Brexit Party? It is this, I reckon, which Cummings is relying on.
That’s my thinking as well. The Tory party is now almost myopically focused on Brexit, so much so that it has nothing else to offer the electorate. A time in opposition to sit down and think is warranted.
After second debate, Biden edges down, Sanders and Warren edge up, Harris drops significantly.
At this point it's really a 3-horse race, unless Harris finds something spectacular to do to grab the spotlight again. Hopefully the media will soon catch up and start talking about it that way. At that point the conversation will naturally turn to how Sanders and Warren deal with both occupying such a similar place on the political spectrum, and what their delegates should do if there's no majority by the convention.
I also think that if Harris' voters start drifting to the other three, it'll likely benefit Sanders least. It'll be interesting to see how they distribute among the other two.
Bernie Sanders' odds have shortened recently but they still look oddly long compared with his rivals, given his polling. He's in this for the long haul.
He did an excellent long-form interview with Joe Rogan the other day, 4.5m views so far.
All the candidates need to do more interviews like this, way better than trying to get a sound bite in 60 seconds on the official debates.
This is where it gets tricky for the LDs. Labour can simply blame "botched Tory Brexit". And say we need X and Y to mitigate, and make the best of a bad job. Tories can trumpet their "success" in leaving. What do the Libs do? Campaign to re-join? And re-open the question for years more? Or not? And enrage the pro-Eu fringe. And what, exactly, would be the point of voting Brexit Party? It is this, I reckon, which Cummings is relying on.
The point of voting for the Brexit Party would be to demonstrate that the disaster was caused not by Brexit, but by the Tories' incompetence or treachery in not crashing out with sufficient enthusiasm. This will allow no-deal Leavers to continue to blame anyone but themselves, which seems to be their principal political priority.
Do any other countries employ this peculiar idea of purdah? It's all very well to say that nothing should be allowed to change during the course of an election campaign, but the fact is the outside world and our relations with it do not pause just because an election has been forced upon the governing party. Boris would be mad to cripple his electoral chances by requesting an extension just to satisfy this uncodifed constitutional nicety.
On that YouGov opinion poll, Labour and the Conservatives have a combined vote share of 53%. In 2017, just 25 of the constituencies outside Northern Ireland had those parties on a combined vote share of 53% or less. All bar nine of these were in Scotland.
Anyone thinking that they can safely predict what results would look like on such vote shares is cuckoo.
I know that this is restating what David Herdson and others, including myself, have already said, but it does bear repeating: it is absolutely staggering, completely beyond belief, that we are having to discuss whether a Conservative PM (let me repeat that: a Conservative PM) will try to circumvent democracy and trash our unwritten constitution by deliberately manipulating an election date in order to crash us out of the EU into chaos despite the will of parliament.
Even just few weeks ago, this would have been absolutely unthinkable.
Agreed. And the worst of it is that they cannot see how they are creating a template which the likes of Corbyn and McDonnell will happily use.
The words of Thomas More in A Man Fo All Seasons come to mind -
“And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down...d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.”
Unfortunately the precedent for that was set not by Boris but by Bercow who has walked all over Parliamentary procedure over the last year to try and thwart Brexit.
What utter tripe.
Just because looney Brexiteers yelp when sane people try to restrain them in their bid for collective suicide, that doesn't mean parliamentary procedure has been breached - any more than the rule of law would have been breached if the police were called to an asylum that had been taken over by the inmates, and put them back in their cells.
Bercow was advised by his own clerks that he was in breach of Parliamentary procedure on a number of occasions but has ignored them.
That's the usual load of looney Brexiteer crap.
The fact is that there were reports that Sir David Natzler had advised Bercow otherwise - though of course that can't be confirmed or denied because such advice is confidential - but that Natzler has been quite clear that Bercow had the right to decide on the interpretation of the rules.
Please be more careful not to mislead.
I don't think we can really claim that Bercow has been judging rules interpretations based on precedent or advice. It is pretty clear to everyone involved that Bercow has been doing it to prevent Brexit.
Oh dear. How stupid is it to say "it is pretty clear to everyone" when discussing a controversial subject? Is there a maximum IQ for the Looney Brexiteer Society?
The simple fact is that if a group of politicians wins a referendum on the basis that a particular policy will be achieved on the basis of agreement, if those politicians subsequently try and fail to achieve it on that basis, then they have no mandate whatsoever to do it unilaterally with potentially catastrophic consequences.
It would be obvious to a child of four.
That’s all well and good, but the leaders of the Leave campaign weren’t given the opportunity to try and fail up until now.
The simple fact is that if a group of politicians wins a referendum on the basis that a particular policy will be achieved on the basis of agreement, if those politicians subsequently try and fail to achieve it on that basis, then they have no mandate whatsoever to do it unilaterally with potentially catastrophic consequences.
It would be obvious to a child of four.
That’s all well and good, but the leaders of the Leave campaign weren’t given the opportunity to try and fail up until now.
That's precisely what they were given. That was just about the only intelligent thing Theresa May did.
Agreed. And the worst of it is that they cannot see how they are creating a template which the likes of Corbyn and McDonnell will happily use.
The words of Thomas More in A Man Fo All Seasons come to mind -
“And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down...d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.”
Unfortunately the precedent for that was set not by Boris but by Bercow who has walked all over Parliamentary procedure over the last year to try and thwart Brexit.
I don't honestly remember if you were complaining when he was doing that but if not you have absolutely no cause to moan now.
The willingness of No Deal Brexiteers to think that the end justifies the means is extraordinary. They are willing to trash the rules around our democracy while claiming to be honouring it.
One day - probably quite soon - they will face a Hard Left government willing to do the same to them. We will all need ear defenders to drown out the complaints then from the Brexiteers.
So did you criticise Bercow then? Or do you only criticise those who you disagree with? At least I have made clear my opposition to Boris's plans. I suspect you were remarkably silent whilst Bercow was changing the rules because you happened to agree with the aims.
I have no idea what Bercow’s aims are.
I am not aware of what precise rules Bercow is accused of having breached in order to stop a No Deal Brexit.
He made a further vote on May’s WA more difficult which was a shame.
I notice that rather than engage with my arguments you indulge in ad hominem attacks. This tends to suggest your counter-arguments are weak.
And, for future reference, if I don’t comment on something it doesn’t mean I agree with what is being done. It quite often means that I am not on PB at all and doing other things. I spend far more time working, gardening and doing other stuff than I do on PB.
The simple fact is that if a group of politicians wins a referendum on the basis that a particular policy will be achieved on the basis of agreement, if those politicians subsequently try and fail to achieve it on that basis, then they have no mandate whatsoever to do it unilaterally with potentially catastrophic consequences.
It would be obvious to a child of four.
Buh, buh, buh, BALLOT PAPER!! *sobs like a four year old*
Do any other countries employ this peculiar idea of purdah? It's all very well to say that nothing should be allowed to change during the course of an election campaign, but the fact is the outside world and our relations with it do not pause just because an election has been forced upon the governing party. Boris would be mad to cripple his electoral chances by requesting an extension just to satisfy this uncodifed constitutional nicety.
The simple fact is that if a group of politicians wins a referendum on the basis that a particular policy will be achieved on the basis of agreement, if those politicians subsequently try and fail to achieve it on that basis, then they have no mandate whatsoever to do it unilaterally with potentially catastrophic consequences.
It would be obvious to a child of four.
That’s all well and good, but the leaders of the Leave campaign weren’t given the opportunity to try and fail up until now.
That's precisely what they were given. That was just about the only intelligent thing Theresa May did.
We’ve all read the stories that the negotiations were primarily led by No 10.
Do any other countries employ this peculiar idea of purdah? It's all very well to say that nothing should be allowed to change during the course of an election campaign, but the fact is the outside world and our relations with it do not pause just because an election has been forced upon the governing party. Boris would be mad to cripple his electoral chances by requesting an extension just to satisfy this uncodifed constitutional nicety.
Other countries have written constitutions.
And what do they say about purdah?
Different things I would imagine. I am no Aristotle.
The simple fact is that if a group of politicians wins a referendum on the basis that a particular policy will be achieved on the basis of agreement, if those politicians subsequently try and fail to achieve it on that basis, then they have no mandate whatsoever to do it unilaterally with potentially catastrophic consequences.
It would be obvious to a child of four.
That’s all well and good, but the leaders of the Leave campaign weren’t given the opportunity to try and fail up until now.
And of course, that child of four could explain to you very easily, Rob, that no matter who tried and failed to do it with agreement, there would still be no mandate to do it unilaterally with potentially catastrophic consequences.
They could explain it to you Rob, but I have no confidence you would understand the explanation.
After second debate, Biden edges down, Sanders and Warren edge up, Harris drops significantly.
At this point it's really a 3-horse race, unless Harris finds something spectacular to do to grab the spotlight again. Hopefully the media will soon catch up and start talking about it that way. At that point the conversation will naturally turn to how Sanders and Warren deal with both occupying such a similar place on the political spectrum, and what their delegates should do if there's no majority by the convention.
I also think that if Harris' voters start drifting to the other three, it'll likely benefit Sanders least. It'll be interesting to see how they distribute among the other two.
Bernie Sanders' odds have shortened recently but they still look oddly long compared with his rivals, given his polling. He's in this for the long haul.
He did an excellent long-form interview with Joe Rogan the other day, 4.5m views so far.
All the candidates need to do more interviews like this, way better than trying to get a sound bite in 60 seconds on the official debates.
youtube.com/watch?v=2O-iLk1G_ng
Agreed the debates are rubbish but they are part of the system.
On Sanders, four years ago he was not seriously opposed by Hillary, since she'd got the nomination sewn up early so there was no need for Dem/Dem attacks. For that reason, I'd be inclined to take Sanders' performance back then as his ceiling.
Surely if we have an election in November, having Brexited, all current polling becomes moot? We would be asking the electorate a completely different set of questions to the ones arising now.
Much like the 45 election, I suppose. Although certain parties would obviously campaign to reverse the decision!
This is where it gets tricky for the LDs. Labour can simply blame "botched Tory Brexit". And say we need X and Y to mitigate, and make the best of a bad job. Tories can trumpet their "success" in leaving. What do the Libs do? Campaign to re-join? And re-open the question for years more? Or not? And enrage the pro-Eu fringe. And what, exactly, would be the point of voting Brexit Party? It is this, I reckon, which Cummings is relying on.
That’s my thinking as well. The Tory party is now almost myopically focused on Brexit, so much so that it has nothing else to offer the electorate. A time in opposition to sit down and think is warranted.
We are promised an emergency budget at some stage.
Assuming there is an election, the Tories will be handing out goodies to their clients: elderly racists and wealthy currency hedgers.
The simple fact is that if a group of politicians wins a referendum on the basis that a particular policy will be achieved on the basis of agreement, if those politicians subsequently try and fail to achieve it on that basis, then they have no mandate whatsoever to do it unilaterally with potentially catastrophic consequences.
It would be obvious to a child of four.
That’s all well and good, but the leaders of the Leave campaign weren’t given the opportunity to try and fail up until now.
And of course, that child of four could explain to you very easily, Rob, that no matter who tried and failed to do it with agreement, there would still be no mandate to do it unilaterally with potentially catastrophic consequences.
They could explain it to you Rob, but I have no confidence you would understand the explanation.
Chris, good to see you keeping the flag flying for offensive smart-arse Remainers.
After second debate, Biden edges down, Sanders and Warren edge up, Harris drops significantly.
At this point it's really a 3-horse race, unless Harris finds something spectacular to do to grab the spotlight again. Hopefully the media will soon catch up and start talking about it that way. At that point the conversation will naturally turn to how Sanders and Warren deal with both occupying such a similar place on the political spectrum, and what their delegates should do if there's no majority by the convention.
I also think that if Harris' voters start drifting to the other three, it'll likely benefit Sanders least. It'll be interesting to see how they distribute among the other two.
Bernie Sanders' odds have shortened recently but they still look oddly long compared with his rivals, given his polling. He's in this for the long haul.
He did an excellent long-form interview with Joe Rogan the other day, 4.5m views so far.
All the candidates need to do more interviews like this, way better than trying to get a sound bite in 60 seconds on the official debates.
The simple fact is that if a group of politicians wins a referendum on the basis that a particular policy will be achieved on the basis of agreement, if those politicians subsequently try and fail to achieve it on that basis, then they have no mandate whatsoever to do it unilaterally with potentially catastrophic consequences.
It would be obvious to a child of four.
That’s all well and good, but the leaders of the Leave campaign weren’t given the opportunity to try and fail up until now.
And of course, that child of four could explain to you very easily, Rob, that no matter who tried and failed to do it with agreement, there would still be no mandate to do it unilaterally with potentially catastrophic consequences.
They could explain it to you Rob, but I have no confidence you would understand the explanation.
I know perfectly well what you were saying. I was just pointing out a flaw in your original argument.
The simple fact is that if a group of politicians wins a referendum on the basis that a particular policy will be achieved on the basis of agreement, if those politicians subsequently try and fail to achieve it on that basis, then they have no mandate whatsoever to do it unilaterally with potentially catastrophic consequences.
It would be obvious to a child of four.
That’s all well and good, but the leaders of the Leave campaign weren’t given the opportunity to try and fail up until now.
And of course, that child of four could explain to you very easily, Rob, that no matter who tried and failed to do it with agreement, there would still be no mandate to do it unilaterally with potentially catastrophic consequences.
They could explain it to you Rob, but I have no confidence you would understand the explanation.
I have a four year old.
To preserve her innocence, I have not yet explained that Father Christmas, the Tooth Fairy, and Boris Johnson are all frauds.
There is a ton of focus on Rasputin aka Cummings at the moment.
But one thing we do know about Johnson is he hates relying on just one advisor, and indeed, seems to have a reputation for wanting as many advisor inputs as possible.
In American parlance, that is indeed a mother of a choice.
If MPs put a man that commemorates Jew-killing terrorists in charge of this country, after they had three chances to vote for an orderly transition, they deserve everything they get. They would be spitting in the face of every Jew in this country.
I’m not even sure how it will be held. I assume the EU’s blockade will extend to polling booth pencils.
They could go back to the idea from a few years ago of also putting voting booths up in supermarkets. As we will all be spending hours queuing for basics like fresh salad down there, we may as well vote while we are waiting.
The simple fact is that if a group of politicians wins a referendum on the basis that a particular policy will be achieved on the basis of agreement, if those politicians subsequently try and fail to achieve it on that basis, then they have no mandate whatsoever to do it unilaterally with potentially catastrophic consequences.
It would be obvious to a child of four.
That’s all well and good, but the leaders of the Leave campaign weren’t given the opportunity to try and fail up until now.
And of course, that child of four could explain to you very easily, Rob, that no matter who tried and failed to do it with agreement, there would still be no mandate to do it unilaterally with potentially catastrophic consequences.
They could explain it to you Rob, but I have no confidence you would understand the explanation.
I know perfectly well what you were saying. I was just pointing out a flaw in your original argument.
Then your understanding of logic is as deficient as the rest of your understanding.
The simple fact is that if a group of politicians wins a referendum on the basis that a particular policy will be achieved on the basis of agreement, if those politicians subsequently try and fail to achieve it on that basis, then they have no mandate whatsoever to do it unilaterally with potentially catastrophic consequences.
It would be obvious to a child of four.
That’s all well and good, but the leaders of the Leave campaign weren’t given the opportunity to try and fail up until now.
And of course, that child of four could explain to you very easily, Rob, that no matter who tried and failed to do it with agreement, there would still be no mandate to do it unilaterally with potentially catastrophic consequences.
They could explain it to you Rob, but I have no confidence you would understand the explanation.
I know perfectly well what you were saying. I was just pointing out a flaw in your original argument.
Then your understanding of logic is as deficient as the rest of your understanding.
What has logic got to do with pointing out a factual inaccuracy with your argument?
In American parlance, that is indeed a mother of a choice.
If MPs put a man that commemorates Jew-killing terrorists in charge of this country, after they had three chances to vote for an orderly transition, they deserve everything they get. They would be spitting in the face of every Jew in this country.
You know damn well that Jeremy Corbyn was commemorating people he believed were fighting against Israeli oppression.
You might as well describe the founders of the state of Israel as "Arab-killing terrorists." Grow up.
The simple fact is that if a group of politicians wins a referendum on the basis that a particular policy will be achieved on the basis of agreement, if those politicians subsequently try and fail to achieve it on that basis, then they have no mandate whatsoever to do it unilaterally with potentially catastrophic consequences.
It would be obvious to a child of four.
That’s all well and good, but the leaders of the Leave campaign weren’t given the opportunity to try and fail up until now.
And of course, that child of four could explain to you very easily, Rob, that no matter who tried and failed to do it with agreement, there would still be no mandate to do it unilaterally with potentially catastrophic consequences.
They could explain it to you Rob, but I have no confidence you would understand the explanation.
I know perfectly well what you were saying. I was just pointing out a flaw in your original argument.
Then your understanding of logic is as deficient as the rest of your understanding.
What has logic got to do with pointing out a factual inaccuracy with your argument?
What has logic got to do with pointing out an inaccuracy in an argument?
In American parlance, that is indeed a mother of a choice.
If MPs put a man that commemorates Jew-killing terrorists in charge of this country, after they had three chances to vote for an orderly transition, they deserve everything they get. They would be spitting in the face of every Jew in this country.
You know damn well that Jeremy Corbyn was commemorating people he believed were fighting against Israeli oppression.
You might as well describe the founders of the state of Israel as "Arab-killing terrorists." Grow up.
Fighting Israeli oppression? How exactly were apolitical civilian athletes "Israeli oppressors"? This is the sort of disgusting apportioning of blame for Israel government decisions on every Jew. It is a staple of anti-Semitism. Shame on you.
The simple fact is that if a group of politicians wins a referendum on the basis that a particular policy will be achieved on the basis of agreement, if those politicians subsequently try and fail to achieve it on that basis, then they have no mandate whatsoever to do it unilaterally with potentially catastrophic consequences.
It would be obvious to a child of four.
That’s all well and good, but the leaders of the Leave campaign weren’t given the opportunity to try and fail up until now.
And of course, that child of four could explain to you very easily, Rob, that no matter who tried and failed to do it with agreement, there would still be no mandate to do it unilaterally with potentially catastrophic consequences.
They could explain it to you Rob, but I have no confidence you would understand the explanation.
I know perfectly well what you were saying. I was just pointing out a flaw in your original argument.
Then your understanding of logic is as deficient as the rest of your understanding.
What has logic got to do with pointing out a factual inaccuracy with your argument?
What has logic got to do with pointing out an inaccuracy in an argument?
That just about says it all.
So you are actually claiming that the same group of people that won the referendum were in charge of the negotiations up to now? It’s a view I suppose.
The simple fact is that if a group of politicians wins a referendum on the basis that a particular policy will be achieved on the basis of agreement, if those politicians subsequently try and fail to achieve it on that basis, then they have no mandate whatsoever to do it unilaterally with potentially catastrophic consequences.
It would be obvious to a child of four.
That’s all well and good, but the leaders of the Leave campaign weren’t given the opportunity to try and fail up until now.
And of course, that child of four could explain to you very easily, Rob, that no matter who tried and failed to do it with agreement, there would still be no mandate to do it unilaterally with potentially catastrophic consequences.
They could explain it to you Rob, but I have no confidence you would understand the explanation.
I know perfectly well what you were saying. I was just pointing out a flaw in your original argument.
Then your understanding of logic is as deficient as the rest of your understanding.
What has logic got to do with pointing out a factual inaccuracy with your argument?
What has logic got to do with pointing out an inaccuracy in an argument?
That just about says it all.
So you are actually claiming that the same group of people that won the referendum were in charge of the negotiations up to now? It’s a view I suppose.
Yes, I think Brexiteers were put in charge of delivering Brexit. Obviously.
But for God's sake just try to apply your mind for a few second - long enough to understand that - as I've already told you - it doesn't matter who was in charge.
The simple fact is that if a group of politicians wins a referendum on the basis that a particular policy will be achieved on the basis of agreement, if those politicians subsequently try and fail to achieve it on that basis, then they have no mandate whatsoever to do it unilaterally with potentially catastrophic consequences.
It would be obvious to a child of four.
That’s all well and good, but the leaders of the Leave campaign weren’t given the opportunity to try and fail up until now.
And of course, that child of four could explain to you very easily, Rob, that no matter who tried and failed to do it with agreement, there would still be no mandate to do it unilaterally with potentially catastrophic consequences.
They could explain it to you Rob, but I have no confidence you would understand the explanation.
I have a four year old.
To preserve her innocence, I have not yet explained that Father Christmas, the Tooth Fairy, and Boris Johnson are all frauds.
I'd start with the last, first. He's much less credible and it won't be as much of a shock.
Unrelated, but The Outer Worlds, out late October, looks rather good. From Obsidian, it's effectively a Fallout* in space. RPG mechanics all look interesting and small party (2 companions) seems good. Proviso for those expecting a 200 hour enormo-game is that they're focusing on decisions having consequences and a tight story, plus multiple play styles. As such, it's going to be around 30 hours long (unsure how much side-questing that includes).
The likes of Boris Johnson and the ERG made it easier for Labour to vote against Mrs May's deal every time they said Mrs May's deal was worse than Remaining.
It would have been seen as a deal foisted on Leavers by Remainers.
The simple fact is that if a group of politicians wins a referendum on the basis that a particular policy will be achieved on the basis of agreement, if those politicians subsequently try and fail to achieve it on that basis, then they have no mandate whatsoever to do it unilaterally with potentially catastrophic consequences.
It would be obvious to a child of four.
That’s all well and good, but the leaders of the Leave campaign weren’t given the opportunity to try and fail up until now.
And of course, that child of four could explain to you very easily, Rob, that no matter who tried and failed to do it with agreement, there would still be no mandate to do it unilaterally with potentially catastrophic consequences.
They could explain it to you Rob, but I have no confidence you would understand the explanation.
I know perfectly well what you were saying. I was just pointing out a flaw in your original argument.
Then your understanding of logic is as deficient as the rest of your understanding.
What has logic got to do with pointing out a factual inaccuracy with your argument?
What has logic got to do with pointing out an inaccuracy in an argument?
That just about says it all.
So you are actually claiming that the same group of people that won the referendum were in charge of the negotiations up to now? It’s a view I suppose.
Yes, I think Brexiteers were put in charge of delivering Brexit. Obviously.
But for God's sake just try to apply your mind for a few second - long enough to understand that - as I've already told you - it doesn't matter who was in charge.
What is that maximum IQ figure? Do you know?
I didn't and don't have any issue with that statement. I did with your original statement, and you called me a child for calling you out on it.
In American parlance, that is indeed a mother of a choice.
If MPs put a man that commemorates Jew-killing terrorists in charge of this country, after they had three chances to vote for an orderly transition, they deserve everything they get. They would be spitting in the face of every Jew in this country.
You know damn well that Jeremy Corbyn was commemorating people he believed were fighting against Israeli oppression.
You might as well describe the founders of the state of Israel as "Arab-killing terrorists." Grow up.
Fighting Israeli oppression? How exactly were apolitical civilian athletes "Israeli oppressors"? This is the sort of disgusting apportioning of blame for Israel government decisions on every Jew. It is a staple of anti-Semitism. Shame on you.
You know full well I wasn't referring to Israeli athletes.
I don't believe for a moment Corbyn commemorated the perpetrators of the Munich terrorist attack. If you're now going to smear me with anti-semitism, you need to come up with something stronger than blather.
Imagine, Johnson calls an election for some time after 31 October.
The Tories say, if they win, they will have a No Deal Brexit, no hard border, no payment of money to the EU etc.
Labour says they will seek to have a Withdrawal Agreement based on different red lines and an extension to allow sufficient time for that to be negotiated.
The Lib Dems say they will revoke Article 50 if they win.
The lib Dems win. But Johnson has already gone ahead with a No Deal exit and refused to ask for an extension for the duration of the election campaign, despite being asked to do by the other parties and despite the EU indicating their willingness to grant it.
Voters have voted for a course of action which is now impossible because of the actions of an outgoing government during the election campaign.
1. What do you think the voters will think of a party which behaves like this? 2. Would you like to be in the receiving end of such behaviour eg if a Corbyn-McDonnell government were to act in a way to render the outcome of an election pointless?
My point is that an outgoing government should not - during an election campaign- act in a way so as to frustrate the outcome of that election. This seems to me to be profoundly undemocratic, regardless of how that election has come about, whether through VoNC or otherwise.
In the context of Brexit that should mean seeking a temporary extension to the Article 50 period until the voters have had their say.
I'm already on the receiving end of an election outcome made pointless - because 86% of votes were cast for parties pledging they would implement Brexit...and then didn't.
An overwhelming majority of votes were for parties ruling out No Deal.
The simple fact is that if a group of politicians wins a referendum on the basis that a particular policy will be achieved on the basis of agreement, if those politicians subsequently try and fail to achieve it on that basis, then they have no mandate whatsoever to do it unilaterally with potentially catastrophic consequences.
It would be obvious to a child of four.
That’s all well and good, but the leaders of the Leave campaign weren’t given the opportunity to try and fail up until now.
And of course, that child of four could explain to you very easily, Rob, that no matter who tried and failed to do it with agreement, there would still be no mandate to do it unilaterally with potentially catastrophic consequences.
They could explain it to you Rob, but I have no confidence you would understand the explanation.
I have a four year old.
To preserve her innocence, I have not yet explained that Father Christmas, the Tooth Fairy, and Boris Johnson are all frauds.
I'd start with the last, first. He's much less credible and it won't be as much of a shock.
Bit early, four. I had a tooth out recently and almost asked the dentist for it to put under my pillow!
The simple fact is that if a group of politicians wins a referendum on the basis that a particular policy will be achieved on the basis of agreement, if those politicians subsequently try and fail to achieve it on that basis, then they have no mandate whatsoever to do it unilaterally with potentially catastrophic consequences.
It would be obvious to a child of four.
That’s all well and good, but the leaders of the Leave campaign weren’t given the opportunity to try and fail up until now.
And of course, that child of four could explain to you very easily, Rob, that no matter who tried and failed to do it with agreement, there would still be no mandate to do it unilaterally with potentially catastrophic consequences.
They could explain it to you Rob, but I have no confidence you would understand the explanation.
I know perfectly well what you were saying. I was just pointing out a flaw in your original argument.
Then your understanding of logic is as deficient as the rest of your understanding.
What has logic got to do with pointing out a factual inaccuracy with your argument?
What has logic got to do with pointing out an inaccuracy in an argument?
That just about says it all.
So you are actually claiming that the same group of people that won the referendum were in charge of the negotiations up to now? It’s a view I suppose.
Yes, I think Brexiteers were put in charge of delivering Brexit. Obviously.
But for God's sake just try to apply your mind for a few second - long enough to understand that - as I've already told you - it doesn't matter who was in charge.
What is that maximum IQ figure? Do you know?
I didn't and don't have any issue with that statement. I did with your original statement, and you called me a child for calling you out on it.
I did no such thing. I said a child could explain the logic of my argument to you, but that you might not understand it.
How could you possibly think I "called you a child"? Can't you read?
It's a lie. Parliament has voted against No Deal, and will do so again.
Parliament voted to invoke Article 50. It did so because, contrary to the claims of whining Brexiters, parliament respects the referendum result.
Parliament voted for Brexit on the basis that it would be orderly and on acceptable terms. The date of Brexit will continue to be postponed until such time as Parliament agrees to the terms. (nb. both Brexiters and Remainers voted against the Withdrawal Agreement.)
What legislation applies that Parliament has passed that goes against no deal?
Leaving with or without a deal on 31 October is the legalisation Parliament has passed. No deal has been approved as it stands.
I’m not even sure how it will be held. I assume the EU’s blockade will extend to polling booth pencils.
They could go back to the idea from a few years ago of also putting voting booths up in supermarkets. As we will all be spending hours queuing for basics like fresh salad down there, we may as well vote while we are waiting.
Fresh salad? In your dreams. Tinned spaghetti hoops and spam.
Speaking of which, I saw a carriage from the new Northern rolling stock being driven up the M5 this afternoon. Think it was part of a 195. Looked very good on a brief glimpse.
But why oh why can they not stick them together at the port of entry and move the bloody things by rail?
In American parlance, that is indeed a mother of a choice.
If MPs put a man that commemorates Jew-killing terrorists in charge of this country, after they had three chances to vote for an orderly transition, they deserve everything they get. They would be spitting in the face of every Jew in this country.
You know damn well that Jeremy Corbyn was commemorating people he believed were fighting against Israeli oppression.
You might as well describe the founders of the state of Israel as "Arab-killing terrorists." Grow up.
Fighting Israeli oppression? How exactly were apolitical civilian athletes "Israeli oppressors"? This is the sort of disgusting apportioning of blame for Israel government decisions on every Jew. It is a staple of anti-Semitism. Shame on you.
You know full well I wasn't referring to Israeli athletes.
I don't believe for a moment Corbyn commemorated the perpetrators of the Munich terrorist attack. If you're now going to smear me with anti-semitism, you need to come up with something stronger than blather.
He was 15 yards away while they laid the wreaths on their graves. In an article for the Morning Star afterwards he explicitly referred to two groups remembered - those killed in the Tunis bombing and those killed by Mossad agents. The only individuals commemorated that were killed by Mossad agents were the Munich killers. You can't just pretend things that happened didn't happen. You are turning a blind eye to obvious anti-Semitism.
In American parlance, that is indeed a mother of a choice.
If MPs put a man that commemorates Jew-killing terrorists in charge of this country, after they had three chances to vote for an orderly transition, they deserve everything they get. They would be spitting in the face of every Jew in this country.
"They deserve everything they get " I think you should be careful of your language. Mps in my opinion get enough abuse, without adding to it on here.
Popping in from Denmark I see nothing has changed except positions become ever more entrenched and poisonous . One idea doing the rounds including in this thread header is that an Act whose commencement date has passed and is therefore the law and which also contains a provision with a date should somehow be suspended because the Act is controversial.
During the 2010 election campaign a constitutionally controversial Act was awaiting commencement having received Royal Assent on the last day of business. I don't remember the thread headers calling for this change to how international treaties were approved to be suspended in case the new government didn't want it.
It seems to me as an outsider that everything I see in the British press and on here just gets more toxic and people are losing any ability to be empathic - the 2016 vote really has created something that looks from here like a proto civil war.
I voted remain, think leaving the EU is mad and offers zero benefit to the UK but seeing the lengths people are prepared to go to to ignore the vote I would encourage my own government in Denmark to reject any request to extend the deadline - get it done UK and then come and talk.
The UK parliament can't revoke without another referendum (no time), there's no majority for the only deal that the EU will offer, so sorry but you guys need to eff off, calm down and then you might get a hearing.
In American parlance, that is indeed a mother of a choice.
If MPs put a man that commemorates Jew-killing terrorists in charge of this country, after they had three chances to vote for an orderly transition, they deserve everything they get. They would be spitting in the face of every Jew in this country.
You know damn well that Jeremy Corbyn was commemorating people he believed were fighting against Israeli oppression.
You might as well describe the founders of the state of Israel as "Arab-killing terrorists." Grow up.
Fighting Israeli oppression? How exactly were apolitical civilian athletes "Israeli oppressors"? This is the sort of disgusting apportioning of blame for Israel government decisions on every Jew. It is a staple of anti-Semitism. Shame on you.
You know full well I wasn't referring to Israeli athletes.
I don't believe for a moment Corbyn commemorated the perpetrators of the Munich terrorist attack. If you're now going to smear me with anti-semitism, you need to come up with something stronger than blather.
He was 15 yards away while they laid the wreaths on their graves. In an article for the Morning Star afterwards he explicitly referred to two groups remembered - those killed in the Tunis bombing and those killed by Mossad agents. The only individuals commemorated that were killed by Mossad agents were the Munich killers. You can't just pretend things that happened didn't happen. You are turning a blind eye to obvious anti-Semitism.
You're saying he was nearly 50 feet away when the wreaths were laid? How long do you think his arms are?
Comments
Could parliament appoint a "Commissioner for Asking for an Extension"?
Just because looney Brexiteers yelp when sane people try to restrain them in their bid for collective suicide, that doesn't mean parliamentary procedure has been breached - any more than the rule of law would have been breached if the police were called to an asylum that had been taken over by the inmates, and put them back in their cells.
If the right to extend is only with the government, then you would need HMG to do it. Not parliment.
One day - probably quite soon - they will face a Hard Left government willing to do the same to them. We will all need ear defenders to drown out the complaints then from the Brexiteers.
I have been consistent in my views, both above and below the line, that parties should seek to preserve our democracy and the rules around it not degrade it, most recently in this thread header - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/07/21/cultivating-democracy/.
It really is that simple.
It’s coming down to a simple test of patriotism to me.
I don't want Brexit, hard or soft, and I never have. But I'll swallow it if it means we remain united against a Corbynite Labour party that's managed to alienate many of its own voters.
The fact is that there were reports that Sir David Natzler had advised Bercow otherwise - though of course that can't be confirmed or denied because such advice is confidential - but that Natzler has been quite clear that Bercow had the right to decide on the interpretation of the rules.
Please be more careful not to mislead.
Although, I can see why Corbyn would be frit of deciding to come down on one side or the other of rejoining the EU.....
All the candidates need to do more interviews like this, way better than trying to get a sound bite in 60 seconds on the official debates.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2O-iLk1G_ng
What do the Libs do? Campaign to re-join? And re-open the question for years more? Or not? And enrage the pro-Eu fringe. And what, exactly, would be the point of voting Brexit Party?
It is this, I reckon, which Cummings is relying on.
It would be obvious to a child of four.
https://twitter.com/LNER/status/1159463281960071168
Anyone thinking that they can safely predict what results would look like on such vote shares is cuckoo.
I am not aware of what precise rules Bercow is accused of having breached in order to stop a No Deal Brexit.
He made a further vote on May’s WA more difficult which was a shame.
I notice that rather than engage with my arguments you indulge in ad hominem attacks. This tends to suggest your counter-arguments are weak.
And, for future reference, if I don’t comment on something it doesn’t mean I agree with what is being done. It quite often means that I am not on PB at all and doing other things. I spend far more time working, gardening and doing other stuff than I do on PB.
They could explain it to you Rob, but I have no confidence you would understand the explanation.
On Sanders, four years ago he was not seriously opposed by Hillary, since she'd got the nomination sewn up early so there was no need for Dem/Dem attacks. For that reason, I'd be inclined to take Sanders' performance back then as his ceiling.
Assuming there is an election, the Tories will be handing out goodies to their clients: elderly racists and wealthy currency hedgers.
To preserve her innocence, I have not yet explained that Father Christmas, the Tooth Fairy, and Boris Johnson are all frauds.
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1159454184015638529
But one thing we do know about Johnson is he hates relying on just one advisor, and indeed, seems to have a reputation for wanting as many advisor inputs as possible.
They could go back to the idea from a few years ago of also putting voting booths up in supermarkets. As we will all be spending hours queuing for basics like fresh salad down there, we may as well vote while we are waiting.
You might as well describe the founders of the state of Israel as "Arab-killing terrorists." Grow up.
That just about says it all.
Do you not realise that, to sane people, all this looney Brexiteer stuff is a joke?
But for God's sake just try to apply your mind for a few second - long enough to understand that - as I've already told you - it doesn't matter who was in charge.
What is that maximum IQ figure? Do you know?
https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1159475716657995776
That perfect window between achieving Brexit and suffering the consequences of doing so in such a pigheaded way.
*New Vegas rather than 76.
We can suspend the competition for most epic self-awareness fail of the 21st century. Cummings has most certainly won it.
I don't believe for a moment Corbyn commemorated the perpetrators of the Munich terrorist attack. If you're now going to smear me with anti-semitism, you need to come up with something stronger than blather.
https://twitter.com/duncanrobinson/status/1159414668823343104?s=21
How could you possibly think I "called you a child"? Can't you read?
Leaving with or without a deal on 31 October is the legalisation Parliament has passed. No deal has been approved as it stands.
But why oh why can they not stick them together at the port of entry and move the bloody things by rail?
I think you should be careful of your language.
Mps in my opinion get enough abuse, without adding to it on here.
Put them on a turntable and they go round and round in circles.
https://twitter.com/granttucker/status/1159458317313486850?s=21
During the 2010 election campaign a constitutionally controversial Act was awaiting commencement having received Royal Assent on the last day of business. I don't remember the thread headers calling for this change to how international treaties were approved to be suspended in case the new government didn't want it.
It seems to me as an outsider that everything I see in the British press and on here just gets more toxic and people are losing any ability to be empathic - the 2016 vote really has created something that looks from here like a proto civil war.
I voted remain, think leaving the EU is mad and offers zero benefit to the UK but seeing the lengths people are prepared to go to to ignore the vote I would encourage my own government in Denmark to reject any request to extend the deadline - get it done UK and then come and talk.
The UK parliament can't revoke without another referendum (no time), there's no majority for the only deal that the EU will offer, so sorry but you guys need to eff off, calm down and then you might get a hearing.
Right now, those who want no deal need do nothing.
Those pro-EU MPs who voted to leave the EU then thrice rejected a deal, however, have some quick thinking to do.
"I ate twelve pounds of cake every day for six months, but I never supported gaining weight!"
NEW THREAD