Obviously this is LAST, but would it be easier to just say we don't know what is going to happen, and have to wait until Parliaments return on the 3rd September to see if anything is going to happen other than hot air?
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.
Apologies if this point has already been made (not had time to read the thread yet) but if the default position is that we leave on 31st October would it not be a rather remarkable breach of the rules of purdah to seek an extension after a VoNC had been passed?
After VONC and before an election is called there is no purdah, so there would remain a window of opportunity.
I accept that he could do. I just cannot conceive that he would or that there was any obligation to do so. The country voted leave. Parliament were given a perfectly reasonable deal and rejected it 3x. They are a bunch of idiots moaning because their votes had consequences trying to pretend it was someone else's fault when it was in their power to accept the deal.
They have not passed legislation saying that we should not leave. Indeed, given that they voted overwhelmingly for the Article 50 notice that is no longer in our hands. I just don't see how any government could ask for, let alone receive, an extension of membership in such circumstances.
R Tyndall rather changing stance in the exchanges below.
First he says it's OK Leave are now going hell for leather for No Deal, because he never ticked a box saying No to No Deal. (So a mandate for leave is a mandate for no deal as well.)
When challenged that a box was unnecessary because Leave kept saying No Deal wasn't a prospect, he then replied that that didn't matter, because Remain kept saying there was a danger of No deal anyway. This of course is precisely why Leave have no mandate for pursuing No Deal right now, because Remain challenged them and Leave gave assurances: no No Deal.
Finally, when someone else pointed out something similar, he took refude in the cynical statement, that all politicians lie - and we all should have known that. Which, unfortunately, torpedoes his original point that there's a mandate for No Deal. Because mandates accompany election promises you commit yourself to keep.
Stark_Dawning said:
Richard_Tyndall said:
Vitatemalum said:
" I don't necessarily want No Deal but the referendum was Leave or Remain. Nothing else.
Please point me to the box I ticked that said 'Leave but only with a Deal'.
People were well aware that there was the possibility of leaving without a deal. It is only those who want to reverse the whole process who are rewriting history."
Why a box? The Vote Leave campaign made it clear over and over again that a deal would be simple.
And the Remain campaign made it clear over and over again that No Deal was a possibility. You cannot claim people were not given the information and many, like me, will have balanced the risks before making our decision.
Yes, as with everything else, the Remain campaign were scrupulously honest about the very real prospect of a disastrous No Deal. It's the gullible saps who believed Leave's claim that this was just 'Project Fear' that I feel sorry for. How could anyone be that stupid and naive?
Both sides lied. Its what politicians do. The dumb ones are those who believe one side or another wholesale or claim they are 'scrupulously honest'.
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?
The new Liddle/HYUFD policy of mandatory import substitution means we'll have no more of that foreign crap on our railways.
Comments
They have not passed legislation saying that we should not leave. Indeed, given that they voted overwhelmingly for the Article 50 notice that is no longer in our hands. I just don't see how any government could ask for, let alone receive, an extension of membership in such circumstances.
R Tyndall rather changing stance in the exchanges below.
First he says it's OK Leave are now going hell for leather for No Deal, because he never ticked a box saying No to No Deal. (So a mandate for leave is a mandate for no deal as well.)
When challenged that a box was unnecessary because Leave kept saying No Deal wasn't a prospect, he then replied that that didn't matter, because Remain kept saying there was a danger of No deal anyway. This of course is precisely why Leave have no mandate for pursuing No Deal right now, because Remain challenged them and Leave gave assurances: no No Deal.
Finally, when someone else pointed out something similar, he took refude in the cynical statement, that all politicians lie - and we all should have known that. Which, unfortunately, torpedoes his original point that there's a mandate for No Deal. Because mandates accompany election promises you commit yourself to keep.
Stark_Dawning said:
Richard_Tyndall said:
Vitatemalum said:
" I don't necessarily want No Deal but the referendum was Leave or Remain. Nothing else.
Please point me to the box I ticked that said 'Leave but only with a Deal'.
People were well aware that there was the possibility of leaving without a deal. It is only those who want to reverse the whole process who are rewriting history."
Why a box? The Vote Leave campaign made it clear over and over again that a deal would be simple.
And the Remain campaign made it clear over and over again that No Deal was a possibility. You cannot claim people were not given the information and many, like me, will have balanced the risks before making our decision.
Yes, as with everything else, the Remain campaign were scrupulously honest about the very real prospect of a disastrous No Deal. It's the gullible saps who believed Leave's claim that this was just 'Project Fear' that I feel sorry for. How could anyone be that stupid and naive?
Both sides lied. Its what politicians do. The dumb ones are those who believe one side or another wholesale or claim they are 'scrupulously honest'.
Pacers all round. Unleash the Northern Carthorse.