'As it sands, the umpires have kept their fingers down.'
It's very nice of Tim Paine to show mercy on us and not review any of the LBWs
I think you missed the unfortunate typo...
Highest run chase at the oval was 263-9 - 117 years ago when Gilbert Jessop went berserk - so in theory England should already have enough. But with Steve Smith in such incredible form they will want well over 400 and they are not going to get it now.
Ah yes, I see
But yes, Steve Smith will no doubt get a double century, so it all depends on getting everyone else out before then
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The advantage of Revoke for the LibDems is that it's clear, no need to vote Labour and perhaps get Leave after all. The advantage for voters is that it 'stops the madness' - immediately - not after another 6 months and another referendum campaign. If the LibDems achieve a GE win that would be a catasclysmic event and would be a strong mandate, justifying Revoke.
How many remainers don’t like the idea of revoke? The silly libdems are moving themselves from a broad position that mops up votes to a niche one, handing back their poll ratings to other parties and turning themselves into a bollocks to brexit cult.
It's a good question. I think that most Remainers want to Remain as their first priority. Some may be concerned that the 3 year old referendum vote is being superceded, but they can be comforted by the knowledge that, in order for Revoke to happen, the LibDems will have to win a majority (from 12 or 17 or whatever it is today). If that happens it will be clear that the country has moved on from 2016.
In the recent ComRes poll only 25% of people said the referendum result shouldn't be respected. So while that would translate to a small majority of remainers (assuming all leavers want it respected), it isn't an overwhelmingly popular idea.
'Leave' wasn't an overwhelmingly popular idea either - only 3.8% more popular than 'Remain'. As you know the wroding of poll questions affects the answer ('shouldn't be respected', indeed?)
Leave was agreed to by precisely 100% of the participants in the referendum. That's the way they work.
Straight revoke ... is the diametric opposite of no deal.
Maybe that's precisely why some people like it. It certainly works for me!
If you are comfortable with civil unrest so be it. I would have preferred Cameron to have kept his ridiculous referendum idea to himself, unfortunately he didn't
Revoking would put us back where we were before Cameron's referendum. Anyone threatening violence following a democratically decided election would have to answer to the law.
Good luck in putting that genie back in the bottle. We have had a referendum. The Prime Minister told us he would implelment the decision of the voters. Yet the elected politicians/Establishment class will have conspired to prevent its implementation. You think that has no consequence?
The ERG as much as anybody have stopped us leaving already. We have had two more Prime Ministers since then. An election in which a Revoke party won would certainly supercede the close referendum three years ago. But, lets face it, it is very unlikely that the LibDems will get a majority. However they are free to choose to campaign on Revoke if they want to and people are free to vote for them. That's democracy.
And an election won by the Conservatives or the Brexit party on 30-35% of the vote, promising to take us out of the EU without any further consultation would be similarly democratic. Which is why remainers would do well to tread carefully. Revoking without further consulting the voters is likely to put a hard Brexit party in power sooner rather than later. Hard Brexit doesn't need a majority of the population, just 30% or so to support it at a general election.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The advantage of Revoke for the LibDems is that it's clear, no need to vote Labour and perhaps get Leave after all. The advantage for voters is that it 'stops the madness' - immediately - not after another 6 months and another referendum campaign. If the LibDems achieve a GE win that would be a catasclysmic event and would be a strong mandate, justifying Revoke.
How many remainers don’t like the idea of revoke? The silly libdems are moving themselves from a broad position that mops up votes to a niche one, handing back their poll ratings to other parties and turning themselves into a bollocks to brexit cult.
It's a good question. I think that most Remainers want to Remain as their first priority. Some may be concerned that the 3 year old referendum vote is being superceded, but they can be comforted by the knowledge that, in order for Revoke to happen, the LibDems will have to win a majority (from 12 or 17 or whatever it is today). If that happens it will be clear that the country has moved on from 2016.
In the recent ComRes poll only 25% of people said the referendum result shouldn't be respected. So while that would translate to a small majority of remainers (assuming all leavers want it respected), it isn't an overwhelmingly popular idea.
'Leave' wasn't an overwhelmingly popular idea either - only 3.8% more popular than 'Remain'. As you know the wroding of poll questions affects the answer ('shouldn't be respected', indeed?)
Leave was agreed to by precisely 100% of the participants in the referendum. That's the way they work.
Straight revoke ... is the diametric opposite of no deal.
Maybe that's precisely why some people like it. It certainly works for me!
If you are comfortable with civil unrest so be it. I would have preferred Cameron to have kept his ridiculous referendum idea to himself, unfortunately he didn't
Revoking would put us back where we were before Cameron's referendum. Anyone threatening violence following a democratically decided election would have to answer to the law.
Good luck in putting that genie back in the bottle. We have had a referendum. The Prime Minister told us he would implelment the decision of the voters. Yet the elected politicians/Establishment class will have conspired to prevent its implementation. You think that has no consequence?
The ERG as much as anybody have stopped us leaving already. We have had two more Prime Ministers since then. An election in which a Revoke party won would certainly supercede the close referendum three years ago. But, lets face it, it is very unlikely that the LibDems will get a majority. However they are free to choose to campaign on Revoke if they want to and people are free to vote for them. That's democracy.
And an election won by the Conservatives or the Brexit party on 30-35% of the vote, promising to take us out of the EU without any further consultation would be similarly democratic. Which is why remainers would do well to tread carefully. Revoking without further consulting the voters is likely to put a hard Brexit party in power sooner rather than later. Hard Brexit doesn't need a majority of the population, just 30% or so to support it at a general election.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The advantage of Revoke for the LibDems is that it's clear, no need to vote Labour and perhaps get Leave after all. The advantage for voters is that it 'stops the madness' - immediately - not after another 6 months and another referendum campaign. If the LibDems achieve a GE win that would be a catasclysmic event and would be a strong mandate, justifying Revoke.
How many remainers don’t like the idea of revoke? The silly libdems are moving themselves from a broad position that mops up votes to a niche one, handing back their poll ratings to other parties and turning themselves into a bollocks to brexit cult.
It's a good question. I think that most Remainers want to Remain as their first priority. Some may be concerned that the 3 year old referendum vote is being superceded, but they can be comforted by the knowledge that, in order for Revoke to happen, the LibDems will have to win a majority (from 12 or 17 or whatever it is today). If that happens it will be clear that the country has moved on from 2016.
In the recent ComRes poll only 25% of people said the referendum result shouldn't be respected. So while that would translate to a small majority of remainers (assuming all leavers want it respected), it isn't an overwhelmingly popular idea.
'Leave' wasn't an overwhelmingly popular idea either - only 3.8% more popular than 'Remain'. As you know the wroding of poll questions affects the answer ('shouldn't be respected', indeed?)
Leave was agreed to by precisely 100% of the participants in the referendum. That's the way they work.
The other problem with the NI only approach is that it does nothing for mainland Britain. At least May's Deal came with the bare bones of EU UK customs arrangement. If May's Deal was a turd (Johnson's term) his own deal is two turds. How is he going to get that through?
That’s an interesting strategy . I’m beginning to like Bozo . As a way of self soothing to get over the Brexit trauma the DUP getting screwed would give me immense pleasure.
The fact they supported Leave having lived with the troubles for so long was disgusting.
I think the DUP have been rather good, rather than 'disgusting' in all this. They've been clear, consistent and reasonable.
Other Irish politicians have done less well.
The DUP supported a course of action that they knew could destabilize the country . A Leave vote was inevitably going to lead to more problems in NI .
For politicians to support a course of action that could effect the peace process is reprehensible.
I loathe the DUP , I hope they get exactly what they deserve , to be shafted by Johnson.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The advantage of Revoke for the LibDems is that it's clear, no need to vote Labour and perhaps get Leave after all. The advantage for voters is that it 'stops the madness' - immediately - not after another 6 months and another referendum campaign. If the LibDems achieve a GE win that would be a catasclysmic event and would be a strong mandate, justifying Revoke.
How many remainers don’t like the idea of revoke? The silly libdems are moving themselves from a broad position that mops up votes to a niche one, handing back their poll ratings to other parties and turning themselves into a bollocks to brexit cult.
It's a good question. I think that most Remainers want to Remain as their first priority. Some may be concerned that the 3 year old referendum vote is being superceded, but they can be comforted by the knowledge that, in order for Revoke to happen, the LibDems will have to win a majority (from 12 or 17 or whatever it is today). If that happens it will be clear that the country has moved on from 2016.
In the recent ComRes poll only 25% of people said the referendum result shouldn't be respected. So while that would translate to a small majority of remainers (assuming all leavers want it respected), it isn't an overwhelmingly popular idea.
'Leave' wasn't an overwhelmingly popular idea either - only 3.8% more popular than 'Remain'. As you know the wroding of poll questions affects the answer ('shouldn't be respected', indeed?)
Leave was agreed to by precisely 100% of the participants in the referendum. That's the way they work.
hahaha, no
You're going to struggle with explaining why not. But, go on, give it a try!
Straight revoke ... is the diametric opposite of no deal.
Maybe that's precisely why some people like it. It certainly works for me!
If you are comfortable with civil unrest so be it. I would have preferred Cameron to have kept his ridiculous referendum idea to himself, unfortunately he didn't
Revoking would put us back where we were before Cameron's referendum. Anyone threatening violence following a democratically decided election would have to answer to the law.
Good luck in putting that genie back in the bottle. We have had a referendum. The Prime Minister told us he would implelment the decision of the voters. Yet the elected politicians/Establishment class will have conspired to prevent its implementation. You think that has no consequence?
The ERG as much as anybody have stopped us leaving already. We have had two more Prime Ministers since then. An election in which a Revoke party won would certainly supercede the close referendum three years ago. But, lets face it, it is very unlikely that the LibDems will get a majority. However they are free to choose to campaign on Revoke if they want to and people are free to vote for them. That's democracy.
And an election won by the Conservatives or the Brexit party on 30-35% of the vote, promising to take us out of the EU without any further consultation would be similarly democratic. Which is why remainers would do well to tread carefully. Revoking without further consulting the voters is likely to put a hard Brexit party in power sooner rather than later. Hard Brexit doesn't need a majority of the population, just 30% or so to support it at a general election.
Which is why need a change to our electoral system. A Lib Dem majority and revoke would be the end of FPTP. That's sealed it for me, I'm definitely voting Lib Dem. Two birds with one stone.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The advantage of Revoke for the LibDems is that it's clear, no need to vote Labour and perhaps get Leave after all. The advantage for voters is that it 'stops the madness' - immediately - not after another 6 months and another referendum campaign. If the LibDems achieve a GE win that would be a catasclysmic event and would be a strong mandate, justifying Revoke.
How many remainers don’t like the idea of revoke? The silly libdems are moving themselves from a broad position that mops up votes to a niche one, handing back their poll ratings to other parties and turning themselves into a bollocks to brexit cult.
It's a good question. I think that most Remainers want to Remain as their first priority. Some may be concerned that the 3 year old referendum vote is being superceded, but they can be comforted by the knowledge that, in order for Revoke to happen, the LibDems will have to win a majority (from 12 or 17 or whatever it is today). If that happens it will be clear that the country has moved on from 2016.
In the recent ComRes poll only 25% of people said the referendum result shouldn't be respected. So while that would translate to a small majority of remainers (assuming all leavers want it respected), it isn't an overwhelmingly popular idea.
'Leave' wasn't an overwhelmingly popular idea either - only 3.8% more popular than 'Remain'. As you know the wroding of poll questions affects the answer ('shouldn't be respected', indeed?)
Leave was agreed to by precisely 100% of the participants in the referendum. That's the way they work.
hahaha, no
You're going to struggle with explaining why not. But, go on, give it a try!
You're saying my Remain vote was a vote for Leave? It wasn't. You can trust me on this one.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The advantage of Revoke for the LibDems is that it's clear, no need to vote Labour and perhaps get Leave after all. The advantage for voters is that it 'stops the madness' - immediately - not after another 6 months and another referendum campaign. If the LibDems achieve a GE win that would be a catasclysmic event and would be a strong mandate, justifying Revoke.
How many remainers don’t like the idea of revoke? The silly libdems are moving themselves from a broad position that mops up votes to a niche one, handing back their poll ratings to other parties and turning themselves into a bollocks to brexit cult.
It's a good question. I think that most Remainers want to Remain as their first priority. Some may be concerned that the 3 year old referendum vote is being superceded, but they can be comforted by the knowledge that, in order for Revoke to happen, the LibDems will have to win a majority (from 12 or 17 or whatever it is today). If that happens it will be clear that the country has moved on from 2016.
In the recent ComRes poll only 25% of people said the referendum result shouldn't be respected. So while that would translate to a small majority of remainers (assuming all leavers want it respected), it isn't an overwhelmingly popular idea.
'Leave' wasn't an overwhelmingly popular idea either - only 3.8% more popular than 'Remain'. As you know the wroding of poll questions affects the answer ('shouldn't be respected', indeed?)
Leave was agreed to by precisely 100% of the participants in the referendum. That's the way they work.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The advantage of Revoke for the LibDems is that it's clear, no need to vote Labour and perhaps get Leave after all. The advantage for voters is that it 'stops the madness' - immediately - not after another 6 months and another referendum campaign. If the LibDems achieve a GE win that would be a catasclysmic event and would be a strong mandate, justifying Revoke.
How many remainers don’t like the idea of revoke? The silly libdems are moving themselves from a broad position that mops up votes to a niche one, handing back their poll ratings to other parties and turning themselves into a bollocks to brexit cult.
It's a good question. I think that most Remainers want to Remain as their first priority. Some may be concerned that the 3 year old referendum vote is being superceded, but they can be comforted by the knowledge that, in order for Revoke to happen, the LibDems will have to win a majority (from 12 or 17 or whatever it is today). If that happens it will be clear that the country has moved on from 2016.
In the recent ComRes poll only 25% of people said the referendum result shouldn't be respected. So while that would translate to a small majority of remainers (assuming all leavers want it respected), it isn't an overwhelmingly popular idea.
'Leave' wasn't an overwhelmingly popular idea either - only 3.8% more popular than 'Remain'. As you know the wroding of poll questions affects the answer ('shouldn't be respected', indeed?)
Aren't we talking about how popular revoke would be to remainers? I was suggesting it isn't actually that popular.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The advantage of Revoke for the LibDems is that it's clear, no need to vote Labour and perhaps get Leave after all. The advantage for voters is that it 'stops the madness' - immediately - not after another 6 months and another referendum campaign. If the LibDems achieve a GE win that would be a catasclysmic event and would be a strong mandate, justifying Revoke.
How many remainers don’t like the idea of revoke? The silly libdems are moving themselves from a broad position that mops up votes to a niche one, handing back their poll ratings to other parties and turning themselves into a bollocks to brexit cult.
It's a good question. I think that most Remainers want to Remain as their first priority. Some may be concerned that the 3 year old referendum vote is being superceded, but they can be comforted by the knowledge that, in order for Revoke to happen, the LibDems will have to win a majority (from 12 or 17 or whatever it is today). If that happens it will be clear that the country has moved on from 2016.
In the recent ComRes poll only 25% of people said the referendum result shouldn't be respected. So while that would translate to a small majority of remainers (assuming all leavers want it respected), it isn't an overwhelmingly popular idea.
'Leave' wasn't an overwhelmingly popular idea either - only 3.8% more popular than 'Remain'. As you know the wroding of poll questions affects the answer ('shouldn't be respected', indeed?)
Leave was agreed to by precisely 100% of the participants in the referendum. That's the way they work.
The advantage of Revoke for the LibDems is that it's clear, no need to vote Labour and perhaps get Leave after all. The advantage for voters is that it 'stops the madness' - immediately - not after another 6 months and another referendum campaign. If the LibDems achieve a GE win that would be a catasclysmic event and would be a strong mandate, justifying Revoke.
How many remainers don’t like the idea of revoke? The silly libdems are moving themselves from a broad position that mops up votes to a niche one, handing back their poll ratings to other parties and turning themselves into a bollocks to brexit cult.
It's a good question. I think that most Remainers want to Remain as their first priority. Some may be concerned that the 3 year old referendum vote is being superceded, but they can be comforted by the knowledge that, in order for Revoke to happen, the LibDems will have to win a majority (from 12 or 17 or whatever it is today). If that happens it will be clear that the country has moved on from 2016.
In the recent ComRes poll only 25% of people said the referendum result shouldn't be respected. So while that would translate to a small majority of remainers (assuming all leavers want it respected), it isn't an overwhelmingly popular idea.
'Leave' wasn't an overwhelmingly popular idea either - only 3.8% more popular than 'Remain'. As you know the wroding of poll questions affects the answer ('shouldn't be respected', indeed?)
Leave was agreed to by precisely 100% of the participants in the referendum. That's the way they work.
hahaha, no
You're going to struggle with explaining why not. But, go on, give it a try!
You're saying my Remain vote was a vote for Leave? It wasn't. You can trust me on this one.
Your vote was cast in an effort to decide. By participating you implicitly agreed that the result should count. The result was leave, and therefore you should put your stamp of approval on such a thing.
I'm a little baffled that you should struggle with these ideas. They're not new.
The advantage of Revoke for the LibDems is that it's clear, no need to vote Labour and perhaps get Leave after all. The advantage for voters is that it 'stops the madness' - immediately - not after another 6 months and another referendum campaign. If the LibDems achieve a GE win that would be a catasclysmic event and would be a strong mandate, justifying Revoke.
How many remainers don’t like the idea of revoke? The silly libdems are moving themselves from a broad position that mops up votes to a niche one, handing back their poll ratings to other parties and turning themselves into a bollocks to brexit cult.
It's a good question. I think that most Remainers want to Remain as their first priority. Some may be concerned that the 3 year old referendum vote is being superceded, but they can be comforted by the knowledge that, in order for Revoke to happen, the LibDems will have to win a majority (from 12 or 17 or whatever it is today). If that happens it will be clear that the country has moved on from 2016.
In the recent ComRes poll only 25% of people said the referendum result shouldn't be respected. So while that would translate to a small majority of remainers (assuming all leavers want it respected), it isn't an overwhelmingly popular idea.
'Leave' wasn't an overwhelmingly popular idea either - only 3.8% more popular than 'Remain'. As you know the wroding of poll questions affects the answer ('shouldn't be respected', indeed?)
Leave was agreed to by precisely 100% of the participants in the referendum. That's the way they work.
hahaha, no
You're going to struggle with explaining why not. But, go on, give it a try!
You're saying my Remain vote was a vote for Leave? It wasn't. You can trust me on this one.
Your vote was cast in an effort to decide. By participating you implicitly agreed that the result should count. The result was leave, and therefore you should put your stamp of approval on such a thing.
I'm a little baffled that you should struggle with these ideas. They're not new.
A lot of people 50 million of our population did not vote to Leave!
The advantage of Revoke for the LibDems is that it's clear, no need to vote Labour and perhaps get Leave after all. The advantage for voters is that it 'stops the madness' - immediately - not after another 6 months and another referendum campaign. If the LibDems achieve a GE win that would be a catasclysmic event and would be a strong mandate, justifying Revoke.
How many remainers don’t like the idea of revoke? The silly libdems are moving themselves from a broad position that mops up votes to a niche one, handing back their poll ratings to other parties and turning themselves into a bollocks to brexit cult.
It's a good question. I think that most Remainers want to Remain as their first priority. Some may be concerned that the 3 year old referendum vote is being superceded, but they can be comforted by the knowledge that, in order for Revoke to happen, the LibDems will have to win a majority (from 12 or 17 or whatever it is today). If that happens it will be clear that the country has moved on from 2016.
In the recent ComRes poll only 25% of people said the referendum result shouldn't be respected. So while that would translate to a small majority of remainers (assuming all leavers want it respected), it isn't an overwhelmingly popular idea.
'Leave' wasn't an overwhelmingly popular idea either - only 3.8% more popular than 'Remain'. As you know the wroding of poll questions affects the answer ('shouldn't be respected', indeed?)
Leave was agreed to by precisely 100% of the participants in the referendum. That's the way they work.
hahaha, no
You're going to struggle with explaining why not. But, go on, give it a try!
You're saying my Remain vote was a vote for Leave? It wasn't. You can trust me on this one.
Your vote was cast in an effort to decide. By participating you implicitly agreed that the result should count. The result was leave, and therefore you should put your stamp of approval on such a thing.
I'm a little baffled that you should struggle with these ideas. They're not new.
Gaslighting nonsense. War is Peace, Remain is Leave. Arrant, embarrassing nonsense from you.
I voted Remain. That was my opinion and it's my opinion today. I didn't vote "Remain but I'll change my mind if Leave wins".
Nor, by the way, did Nigel Farage vote "Leave but I'll change my mind if Remain wins".
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The Lib Dems going straight to revoke is a big mistake. It surely is against democracy, which is not a good look. I think they are letting their recent success , go to their heads. Remain by all means but with a referendum.
At the very least, they need to drop the word democrat from their name. Else surely they can be sued under the trade descriptions act?
1/10. Keep trying.
Would those be the same "democrats" who voted _against_ having an election last week?
It is quite apparent that the liberal "democrats" want less democracy, not more.
Why should an unelected Prime Minister who is yet to win a vote in the House of Commons have an election at his convenience? It is only two years since the last one was held.
because the country deserves better than a minority government that can't win any votes?
Sure it deserves better than this government. Which is why it is important to minimise its chances of winning an election and therefore not conducting one on its terms.
Straight revoke ... is the diametric opposite of no deal.
Maybe that's precisely why some people like it. It certainly works for me!
If you are comfortable with civil unrest so be it. I would have preferred Cameron to have kept his ridiculous referendum idea to himself, unfortunately he didn't
Revoking would put us back where we were before Cameron's referendum. Anyone threatening violence following a democratically decided election would have to answer to the law.
Good luck in putting that genie back in the bottle. We have had a referendum. The Prime Minister told us he would implelment the decision of the voters. Yet the elected politicians/Establishment class will have conspired to prevent its implementation. You think that has no consequence?
The ERG as much as anybody have stopped us leaving already. We have had two more Prime Ministers since then. An election in which a Revoke party won would certainly supercede the close referendum three years ago. But, lets face it, it is very unlikely that the LibDems will get a majority. However they are free to choose to campaign on Revoke if they want to and people are free to vote for them. That's democracy.
And an election won by the Conservatives or the Brexit party on 30-35% of the vote, promising to take us out of the EU without any further consultation would be similarly democratic. Which is why remainers would do well to tread carefully. Revoking without further consulting the voters is likely to put a hard Brexit party in power sooner rather than later. Hard Brexit doesn't need a majority of the population, just 30% or so to support it at a general election.
That is why we will end up with a Second referendum before a general election - the boil needs to be lanced before things get worse
And if bxp encourage people to boycott the election tough - we tried to leave but the project failed
Right! I must stir myself from my seat in glorious sunshine in Bournemouth and saunter over to the conference hall for the rally and find out who the latest defectors are.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The Lib Dems going straight to revoke is a big mistake. It surely is against democracy, which is not a good look. I think they are letting their recent success , go to their heads. Remain by all means but with a referendum.
At the very least, they need to drop the word democrat from their name. Else surely they can be sued under the trade descriptions act?
1/10. Keep trying.
Would those be the same "democrats" who voted _against_ having an election last week?
It is quite apparent that the liberal "democrats" want less democracy, not more.
Why should an unelected Prime Minister who is yet to win a vote in the House of Commons have an election at his convenience? It is only two years since the last one was held.
Because he's unelected and parliament disagrees with him on his main policy.
So he shouldn’t have accepted the office. It’s not for his political opponents to help him out of his booby trap. They’re entitled to strip him of all dignity through the powers of Parliament and dispose of him when they think fit, not when he pleads to be allowed to go. Leavers wanted Parliamentary sovereignty but seem to hate the reality of the thing.
Ironic how English nationalists are sudden converts to the Scottish constitutional principle of popular sovereignty, whereas Scottish nationalists are sudden converts to the English constitutional principle of parliamentary sovereignty.
'As it sands, the umpires have kept their fingers down.'
It's very nice of Tim Paine to show mercy on us and not review any of the LBWs
I think you missed the unfortunate typo...
Highest run chase at the oval was 263-9 - 117 years ago when Gilbert Jessop went berserk - so in theory England should already have enough. But with Steve Smith in such incredible form they will want well over 400 and they are not going to get it now.
Smith could get 200 plus - and still run out of partners.
The advantage of Revoke for the LibDems is that it's clear, no need to vote Labour and perhaps get Leave after all. The advantage for voters is that it 'stops the madness' - immediately - not after another 6 months and another referendum campaign. If the LibDems achieve a GE win that would be a catasclysmic event and would be a strong mandate, justifying Revoke.
How many remainers don’t like the idea of revoke? The silly libdems are moving themselves from a broad position that mops up votes to a niche one, handing back their poll ratings to other parties and turning themselves into a bollocks to brexit cult.
It's a good question. I think that most Remainers want to Remain as their first priority. Some may be concerned that the 3 year old referendum vote is being superceded, but they can be comforted by the knowledge that, in order for Revoke to happen, the LibDems will have to win a majority (from 12 or 17 or whatever it is today). If that happens it will be clear that the country has moved on from 2016.
In the recent ComRes poll only 25% of people said the referendum result shouldn't be respected. So while that would translate to a small majority of remainers (assuming all leavers want it respected), it isn't an overwhelmingly popular idea.
'Leave' wasn't an overwhelmingly popular idea either - only 3.8% more popular than 'Remain'. As you know the wroding of poll questions affects the answer ('shouldn't be respected', indeed?)
Leave was agreed to by precisely 100% of the participants in the referendum. That's the way they work.
hahaha, no
You're going to struggle with explaining why not. But, go on, give it a try!
You're saying my Remain vote was a vote for Leave? It wasn't. You can trust me on this one.
Your vote was cast in an effort to decide. By participating you implicitly agreed that the result should count. The result was leave, and therefore you should put your stamp of approval on such a thing.
I'm a little baffled that you should struggle with these ideas. They're not new.
A lot of people 50 million of our population did not vote to Leave!
Just remember that.
A chunk of those 50 million who didn't vote were children. Counting them in making a point just shows you to be desperate.
The advantage of Revoke for the LibDems is that it's clear, no need to vote Labour and perhaps get Leave after all. The advantage for voters is that it 'stops the madness' - immediately - not after another 6 months and another referendum campaign. If the LibDems achieve a GE win that would be a catasclysmic event and would be a strong mandate, justifying Revoke.
How many remainers don’t like the idea of revoke? The silly libdems are moving themselves from a broad position that mops up votes to a niche one, handing back their poll ratings to other parties and turning themselves into a bollocks to brexit cult.
It's a good question. I think that most Remainers want to Remain as their first priority. Some may be concerned that the 3 year old referendum vote is being superceded, but they can be comforted by the knowledge that, in order for Revoke to happen, the LibDems will have to win a majority (from 12 or 17 or whatever it is today). If that happens it will be clear that the country has moved on from 2016.
In the recent ComRes poll only 25% of people said the referendum result shouldn't be respected. So while that would translate to a small majority of remainers (assuming all leavers want it respected), it isn't an overwhelmingly popular idea.
'Leave' wasn't an overwhelmingly popular idea either - only 3.8% more popular than 'Remain'. As you know the wroding of poll questions affects the answer ('shouldn't be respected', indeed?)
Leave was agreed to by precisely 100% of the participants in the referendum. That's the way they work.
hahaha, no
You're going to struggle with explaining why not. But, go on, give it a try!
You're saying my Remain vote was a vote for Leave? It wasn't. You can trust me on this one.
Your vote was cast in an effort to decide. By participating you implicitly agreed that the result should count. The result was leave, and therefore you should put your stamp of approval on such a thing.
I'm a little baffled that you should struggle with these ideas. They're not new.
A lot of people 50 million of our population did not vote to Leave!
Just remember that.
A chunk of those 50 million who didn't vote were children. Counting them in making a point just shows you to be desperate.
I agree, just as counting Remain votes as Leave is nonsense.
How many remainers don’t like the idea of revoke? The silly libdems are moving themselves from a broad position that mops up votes to a niche one, handing back their poll ratings to other parties and turning themselves into a bollocks to brexit cult.
It's a good question. I think that most Remainers want to Remain as their first priority. Some may be concerned that the 3 year old referendum vote is being superceded, but they can be comforted by the knowledge that, in order for Revoke to happen, the LibDems will have to win a majority (from 12 or 17 or whatever it is today). If that happens it will be clear that the country has moved on from 2016.
In the recent ComRes poll only 25% of people said the referendum result shouldn't be respected. So while that would translate to a small majority of remainers (assuming all leavers want it respected), it isn't an overwhelmingly popular idea.
'Leave' wasn't an overwhelmingly popular idea either - only 3.8% more popular than 'Remain'. As you know the wroding of poll questions affects the answer ('shouldn't be respected', indeed?)
Leave was agreed to by precisely 100% of the participants in the referendum. That's the way they work.
hahaha, no
You're going to struggle with explaining why not. But, go on, give it a try!
You're saying my Remain vote was a vote for Leave? It wasn't. You can trust me on this one.
Your vote was cast in an effort to decide. By participating you implicitly agreed that the result should count. The result was leave, and therefore you should put your stamp of approval on such a thing.
I'm a little baffled that you should struggle with these ideas. They're not new.
A lot of people 50 million of our population did not vote to Leave!
Just remember that.
Yes of course. The decision, although apparently binary, was anything but. The whole idea of a referendum shaped in the way it was, was daft beyond belief. I didn't see it at the time though, and I don't think others did either.
In some weak sense though we did all (those that voted and those that stayed home) vote to leave. That weak sense and how we hang on to it is exactly what democracy is in the uk. Difficult though it may be i'm pretty keen to hang on to it.
How many remainers don’t like the idea of revoke? The silly libdems are moving themselves from a broad position that mops up votes to a niche one, handing back their poll ratings to other parties and turning themselves into a bollocks to brexit cult.
It's a good question. I think that most Remainers want to Remain as their first priority. Some may be concerned that the 3 year old referendum vote is being superceded, but they can be comforted by the knowledge that, in order for Revoke to happen, the LibDems will have to win a majority (from 12 or 17 or whatever it is today). If that happens it will be clear that the country has moved on from 2016.
In the recent ComRes poll only 25% of people said the referendum result shouldn't be respected. So while that would translate to a small majority of remainers (assuming all leavers want it respected), it isn't an overwhelmingly popular idea.
'Leave' wasn't an overwhelmingly popular idea either - only 3.8% more popular than 'Remain'. As you know the wroding of poll questions affects the answer ('shouldn't be respected', indeed?)
Leave was agreed to by precisely 100% of the participants in the referendum. That's the way they work.
hahaha, no
You're going to struggle with explaining why not. But, go on, give it a try!
You're saying my Remain vote was a vote for Leave? It wasn't. You can trust me on this one.
Your vote was cast in an effort to decide. By participating you implicitly agreed that the result should count. The result was leave, and therefore you should put your stamp of approval on such a thing.
I'm a little baffled that you should struggle with these ideas. They're not new.
A lot of people 50 million of our population did not vote to Leave!
Just remember that.
Yes of course. The decision, although apparently binary, was anything but. The whole idea of a referendum shaped in the way it was, was daft beyond belief. I didn't see it at the time though, and I don't think others did either.
In some weak sense though we did all (those that voted and those that stayed home) vote to leave. That weak sense and how we hang on to it is exactly what democracy is in the uk. Difficult though it may be i'm pretty keen to hang on to it.
The advantage of Revoke for the LibDems is that it's clear, no need to vote Labour and perhaps get Leave after all. The advantage for voters is that it 'stops the madness' - immediately - not after another 6 months and another referendum campaign. If the LibDems achieve a GE win that would be a catasclysmic event and would be a strong mandate, justifying Revoke.
How many remainers don’t like the idea of revoke? The silly libdems are moving themselves from a broad position that mops up votes to a niche one, handing back their poll ratings to other parties and turning themselves into a bollocks to brexit cult.
It's a good question. I think that most Remainers wens it will be clear that the country has moved on from 2016.
In the recent ComRes poll only 25% of people said the referendum result shouldn't be respected. So while that would translate to a small majority of remainers (assuming all leavers want it respected), it isn't an overwhelmingly popular idea.
'Leave' wasn't an overwhelmingly popular idea either - only 3.8% more popular than 'Remain'. As you know the wroding of poll questions affects the answer ('shouldn't be respected', indeed?)
Leave was agreed to by precisely 100% of the participants in the referendum. That's the way they work.
hahaha, no
You're going to struggle with explaining why not. But, go on, give it a try!
You're saying my Remain vote was a vote for Leave? It wasn't. You can trust me on this one.
Your vote was cast in an effort to decide. By participating you implicitly agreed that the result should count. The result was leave, and therefore you should put your stamp of approval on such a thing.
I'm a little baffled that you should struggle with these ideas. They're not new.
A lot of people 50 million of our population did not vote to Leave!
Just remember that.
A chunk of those 50 million who didn't vote were children. Counting them in making a point just shows you to be desperate.
They might have been children then but adults now! Unfortunetly we will die before a vast majority of our country will. It is uneathical to impose the will of the dead on the future...
It's a good question. I think that most Remainers want to Remain as their first priority. Some may be concerned that the 3 year old referendum vote is being superceded, but they can be comforted by the knowledge that, in order for Revoke to happen, the LibDems will have to win a majority (from 12 or 17 or whatever it is today). If that happens it will be clear that the country has moved on from 2016.
In the recent ComRes poll only 25% of people said the referendum result shouldn't be respected. So while that would translate to a small majority of remainers (assuming all leavers want it respected), it isn't an overwhelmingly popular idea.
'Leave' wasn't an overwhelmingly popular idea either - only 3.8% more popular than 'Remain'. As you know the wroding of poll questions affects the answer ('shouldn't be respected', indeed?)
Leave was agreed to by precisely 100% of the participants in the referendum. That's the way they work.
hahaha, no
You're going to struggle with explaining why not. But, go on, give it a try!
You're saying my Remain vote was a vote for Leave? It wasn't. You can trust me on this one.
Your vote was cast in an effort to decide. By participating you implicitly agreed that the result should count. The result was leave, and therefore you should put your stamp of approval on such a thing.
I'm a little baffled that you should struggle with these ideas. They're not new.
A lot of people 50 million of our population did not vote to Leave!
Just remember that.
Yes of course. The decision, although apparently binary, was anything but. The whole idea of a referendum shaped in the way it was, was daft beyond belief. I didn't see it at the time though, and I don't think others did either.
In some weak sense though we did all (those that voted and those that stayed home) vote to leave. That weak sense and how we hang on to it is exactly what democracy is in the uk. Difficult though it may be i'm pretty keen to hang on to it.
It was an advisory referendum.
The Meeks torpedo.
Glug, glug.
I've no idea what an advisory referendum is. I'm pretty sure noone else does either.
Yes of course. The decision, although apparently binary, was anything but. The whole idea of a referendum shaped in the way it was, was daft beyond belief. I didn't see it at the time though, and I don't think others did either.
In some weak sense though we did all (those that voted and those that stayed home) vote to leave. That weak sense and how we hang on to it is exactly what democracy is in the uk. Difficult though it may be i'm pretty keen to hang on to it.
In a weak sense, as in homeopathically weak. The result of a vote does not bind the voters to change their mind, nor does it bind the voters to avoid trying actively through the ballot box to reverse it.
If you stop and think about that proposition "we voted so you must agree under all circumstance not to do anything to change that", you are not describing democracy, but the END of democracy.
Fundamentally, democracy is a method. Individual decisions can be followed through, modified or even entirely reversed within that method.
It's a good question. I think that most Remainers want to Remain as their first priority. Some may be concerned that the 3 year old referendum vote is being superceded, but they can be comforted by the knowledge that, in order for Revoke to happen, the LibDems will have to win a majority (from 12 or 17 or whatever it is today). If that happens it will be clear that the country has moved on from 2016.
In the recent ComRes poll only 25% of people said the referendum result shouldn't be respected. So while that would translate to a small majority of remainers (assuming all leavers want it respected), it isn't an overwhelmingly popular idea.
'Leave' wasn't an overwhelmingly popular idea either - only 3.8% more popular than 'Remain'. As you know the wroding of poll questions affects the answer ('shouldn't be respected', indeed?)
Leave was agreed to by precisely 100% of the participants in the referendum. That's the way they work.
hahaha, no
You're going to struggle with explaining why not. But, go on, give it a try!
You're saying my Remain vote was a vote for Leave? It wasn't. You can trust me on this one.
Your vote was cast in an effort to decide. By participating you implicitly agreed that the result should count. The result was leave, and therefore you should put your stamp of approval on such a thing.
I'm a little baffled that you should struggle with these ideas. They're not new.
A lot of people 50 million of our population did not vote to Leave!
Just remember that.
Yes of course. The decision, although apparently binary, was anything but. The whole idea of a referendum shaped in the way it was, was daft beyond belief. I didn't see it at the time though, and I don't think others did either.
In some weak sense though we did all (those that voted and those that stayed home) vote to leave. That weak sense and how we hang on to it is exactly what democracy is in the uk. Difficult though it may be i'm pretty keen to hang on to it.
It was an advisory referendum.
The Meeks torpedo.
Glug, glug.
I've no idea what an advisory referendum is. I'm pretty sure noone else does either.
The clue is in the name! It has no legal basis. Advisory!!!
It's a good question. I think that most Remainers want to Remain as their first priority. Some may be concerned that the 3 year old referendum vote is being superceded, but they can be comforted by the knowledge that, in order for Revoke to happen, the LibDems will have to win a majority (from 12 or 17 or whatever it is today). If that happens it will be clear that the country has moved on from 2016.
In the recent ComRes poll only 25% of people said the referendum result shouldn't be respected. So while that would translate to a small majority of remainers (assuming all leavers want it respected), it isn't an overwhelmingly popular idea.
'Leave' wasn't an overwhelmingly popular idea either - only 3.8% more popular than 'Remain'. As you know the wroding of poll questions affects the answer ('shouldn't be respected', indeed?)
Leave was agreed to by precisely 100% of the participants in the referendum. That's the way they work.
hahaha, no
You're going to struggle with explaining why not. But, go on, give it a try!
You're saying my Remain vote was a vote for Leave? It wasn't. You can trust me on this one.
Your vote was cast in an effort to decide. By participating you implicitly agreed that the result should count. The result was leave, and therefore you should put your stamp of approval on such a thing.
I'm a little baffled that you should struggle with these ideas. They're not new.
A lot of people 50 million of our population did not vote to Leave!
Just remember that.
Yes of course. The decision, although apparently binary, was anything but. The whole idea of a referendum shaped in the way it was, was daft beyond belief. I didn't see it at the time though, and I don't think others did either.
In some weak sense though we did all (those that voted and those that stayed home) vote to leave. That weak sense and how we hang on to it is exactly what democracy is in the uk. Difficult though it may be i'm pretty keen to hang on to it.
It was an advisory referendum.
The Meeks torpedo.
Glug, glug.
I've no idea what an advisory referendum is. I'm pretty sure noone else does either.
It means that the advice can be overruled if it is thought wise to do so.
Mr. Meeks, indeed. It would be legal for Article 50 to be revoked and the referendum result overturned by a Commons vote alone.
But things that are legal are not necessarily wise. Securing public support via another referendum would be, I think, far more sensible and reduce discontent (which would nevertheless be significant).
The Commons revoking by a direct vote of MPs would make the political situation even more embittered and entrenched.
Gaslighting nonsense. War is Peace, Remain is Leave. Arrant, embarrassing nonsense from you.
I voted Remain. That was my opinion and it's my opinion today. I didn't vote "Remain but I'll change my mind if Leave wins".
Nor, by the way, did Nigel Farage vote "Leave but I'll change my mind if Remain wins".
Isn't it about following through on the referendum? You can want the result implemented while still disagreeing with it.
But I don't want the results implemented.
So your view is that the democratic decision to leave the EU shouldn't be respected? You'll be right at home with all those other liberal "democrats".
Not quite. I'm saying /I/ don't respect it. And I don't have to. I don't have to change my mind about something even if you really want me to. I want A50 revoked and I will explore all democratic avenues to achieve that. And you do not get to tell me otherwise.
You might defeat me at the ballot box, but you don't keep me from posting my vote into it.
The other problem with the NI only approach is that it does nothing for mainland Britain. At least May's Deal came with the bare bones of EU UK customs arrangement. If May's Deal was a turd (Johnson's term) his own deal is two turds. How is he going to get that through?
Gaslighting nonsense. War is Peace, Remain is Leave. Arrant, embarrassing nonsense from you.
I voted Remain. That was my opinion and it's my opinion today. I didn't vote "Remain but I'll change my mind if Leave wins".
Nor, by the way, did Nigel Farage vote "Leave but I'll change my mind if Remain wins".
Isn't it about following through on the referendum? You can want the result implemented while still disagreeing with it.
IIRC about 4% of the population want the result implemented while previously having voted against it. Rather more think the result shouldn't be implemented having previously voted for it. It is reasonable and democratic to want a second referendum. Arguably more democratic than not wanting a second referendum.
The other problem with the NI only approach is that it does nothing for mainland Britain. At least May's Deal came with the bare bones of EU UK customs arrangement. If May's Deal was a turd (Johnson's term) his own deal is two turds. How is he going to get that through?
That’s an interesting strategy . I’m beginning to like Bozo . As a way of self soothing to get over the Brexit trauma the DUP getting screwed would give me immense pleasure.
The fact they supported Leave having lived with the troubles for so long was disgusting.
I think the DUP have been rather good, rather than 'disgusting' in all this. They've been clear, consistent and reasonable.
Other Irish politicians have done less well.
2 out of 3 perhaps. The reasonablness of the DUP I find highly questionable, given their entitled, high handed attitude to absolutely everything, turning everything into a big deal and an excuse to be grievance mongers, and I simply don't believe their stubborness on matters is purely a matter of principle. But they have been clear and consistent, no matter how many times May and others have tried bouncing them into changing position.
Yes of course. The decision, although apparently binary, was anything but. The whole idea of a referendum shaped in the way it was, was daft beyond belief. I didn't see it at the time though, and I don't think others did either.
In some weak sense though we did all (those that voted and those that stayed home) vote to leave. That weak sense and how we hang on to it is exactly what democracy is in the uk. Difficult though it may be i'm pretty keen to hang on to it.
In a weak sense, as in homeopathically weak. The result of a vote does not bind the voters to change their mind, nor does it bind the voters to avoid trying actively through the ballot box to reverse it.
If you stop and think about that proposition "we voted so you must agree under all circumstance not to do anything to change that", you are not describing democracy, but the END of democracy.
Fundamentally, democracy is a method. Individual decisions can be followed through, modified or even entirely reversed within that method.
We voted to decide as to how to proceed on a proposition. By voting we all agreed that we'd abide by our collective decision.
Apply the above to any democratic thing, and I think it's hard to disagree.
With Brexit it's different because there has been a huge delay in delivering on the vote.
If we'd left the EU on day1 after the vote then it'd be clear, but given that we didn't there is a degree of democratic debt owed to the result of the referendum. I have no clue whatsoever as to how anyone should balance out that obligation and changing their mind and the like, but the obligation still exists.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The Lib Dems going straight to revoke is a big mistake. It surely is against democracy, which is not a good look. I think they are letting their recent success , go to their heads. Remain by all means but with a referendum.
At the very least, they need to drop the word democrat from their name. Else surely they can be sued under the trade descriptions act?
1/10. Keep trying.
Would those be the same "democrats" who voted _against_ having an election last week?
It is quite apparent that the liberal "democrats" want less democracy, not more.
Why should an unelected Prime Minister who is yet to win a vote in the House of Commons have an election at his convenience? It is only two years since the last one was held.
because the country deserves better than a minority government that can't win any votes?
It's a difficult matter to square at the moment. Why should Boris deserve an election at his convenience is fair, but the government clearly has no ability to get anything done at the moment and these two things cannot continue on together for that long.
Whatever turns you on... Personally I think of about one thousand more exciting people to spend a Saturday evening with.
Lmao !
I also love Donald Tusk . Another of my heroes !
Verhofstadt is a problematic figure in a number of ways, but Tusk truly is a good man. He has stood up against some powerful forces of evil in his time.
Can I please remind people I was saying Dominic Cummings was an arrogant fool who didn't have a clue what he was doing long before it was fashionable?
What worries me is, by accident, he might end being right and BoJo the incredible will get a majority whenever there is an election. I hope not though, his smugness would be off the charts, and we'd get a rush of other arrogant, mouthy advisers seeking the limelight, successfully.
'There is no anti-SNP pact' Scottish Lib Dems deny new deal with the Tories
The leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats has denied reports his party is in talks with the Tories as part of preparations for a snap general election.
Willie Rennie insisted there was "no pact" between his party and the Conservatives - saying the Lib Dems are "opposed to Brexit and Boris Johnson and won't be doing anything to support them".
Straight revoke ... is the diametric opposite of no deal.
Maybe that's precisely why some people like it. It certainly works for me!
If you are comfortable with civil unrest so be it. I would have preferred Cameron to have kept his ridiculous referendum idea to himself, unfortunately he didn't
Revoking would put us back where we were before Cameron's referendum. Anyone threatening violence following a democratically decided election would have to answer to the law.
Good luck in putting that genie back in the bottle. We have had a referendum. The Prime Minister told us he would implelment the decision of the voters. Yet the elected politicians/Establishment class will have conspired to prevent its implementation. You think that has no consequence?
The ERG as much as anybody have stopped us leaving already. We have had two more Prime Ministers since then. An election in which a Revoke party won would certainly supercede the close referendum three years ago. But, lets face it, it is very unlikely that the LibDems will get a majority. However they are free to choose to campaign on Revoke if they want to and people are free to vote for them. That's democracy.
And an election won by the Conservatives or the Brexit party on 30-35% of the vote, promising to take us out of the EU without any further consultation would be similarly democratic. Which is why remainers would do well to tread carefully. Revoking without further consulting the voters is likely to put a hard Brexit party in power sooner rather than later. Hard Brexit doesn't need a majority of the population, just 30% or so to support it at a general election.
Which is why need a change to our electoral system. A Lib Dem majority and revoke would be the end of FPTP. That's sealed it for me, I'm definitely voting Lib Dem. Two birds with one stone.
A LD majority may revoke but would also likely entrench FPTP as the LDs would no longer need PR to get into government having done so twice under FPTP in that situation and indeed with more seats under FPTP with a LD majority than they would have won under PR
It's a good question. I think that most Remainers want to Remain as their first priority. Some may be concerned that the 3 year old referendum vote is being superceded, but they can be comforted by the knowledge that, in order for Revoke to happen, the LibDems will have to win a majority (from 12 or 17 or whatever it is today). If that happens it will be clear that the country has moved on from 2016.
In the recent ComRes poll only 25% of people said the referendum result shouldn't be respected. So while that would translate to a small majority of remainers (assuming all leavers want it respected), it isn't an overwhelmingly popular idea.
'Leave' wasn't an overwhelmingly popular idea either - only 3.8% more popular than 'Remain'. As you know the wroding of poll questions affects the answer ('shouldn't be respected', indeed?)
Leave was agreed to by precisely 100% of the participants in the referendum. That's the way they work.
hahaha, no
You're going to struggle with explaining why not. But, go on, give it a try!
You're saying my Remain vote was a vote for Leave? It wasn't. You can trust me on this one.
Your vote was cast in an effort to decide. By participating you implicitly agreed that the result should count. The result was leave, and therefore you should put your stamp of approval on such a thing.
I'm a little baffled that you should struggle with these ideas. They're not new.
A lot of people 50 million of our population did not vote to Leave!
Just remember that.
Yes of course. The decision, although apparently binary, was anything but. The whole idea of a referendum shaped in the way it was, was daft beyond belief. I didn't see it at the time though, and I don't think others did either.
In some weak sense though we did all (those that voted and those that stayed home) vote to leave. That weak sense and how we hang on to it is exactly what democracy is in the uk. Difficult though it may be i'm pretty keen to hang on to it.
It was an advisory referendum.
I've no idea what an advisory referendum is. I'm pretty sure noone else does either.
That would seem to suggest the union is more important to the Lib Dems than the EU. Would be interesting to see whether there are unintended consequences of that, such as Lib Dems who are much keener on Europe and more ambivalent about the union breaking towards SNP instead of Tory. There might even be some Tories under that banner too, that would have broken towards the Lib Dems but might be forced to the SNP if the Lib Dems stand down. Detailed polling needed I think.
Typical lying duplitious Lib Dems, they make Boris and his gang look like choir boys.
It's a good question. I think that most Remainers want to Remain as their first priority. Some may be concerned that the 3 year old referendum vote is being superceded, but they can be comforted by the knowledge that, in order for Revoke to happen, the LibDems will have to win a majority (from 12 or 17 or whatever it is today). If that happens it will be clear that the country has moved on from 2016.
In the recent ComRes poll only 25% of people said the referendum result shouldn't be respected. So while that would translate to a small majority of remainers (assuming all leavers want it respected), it isn't an overwhelmingly popular idea.
'Leave' wasn't an overwhelmingly popular idea either - only 3.8% more popular than 'Remain'. As you know the wroding of poll questions affects the answer ('shouldn't be respected', indeed?)
Leave was agreed to by precisely 100% of the participants in the referendum. That's the way they work.
hahaha, no
You're going to struggle with explaining why not. But, go on, give it a try!
You're saying my Remain vote was a vote for Leave? It wasn't. You can trust me on this one.
Your vote was cast in an effort to decide. By participating you implicitly agreed that the result should count. The result was leave, and therefore you should put your stamp of approval on such a thing.
I'm a little baffled that you should struggle with these ideas. They're not new.
A lot of people 50 million of our population did not vote to Leave!
Just remember that.
Yes of course. The decision, although apparently binary, was anything but. The whole idea of a referendum shaped in the way it was, was daft beyond belief. I didn't see it at the time though, and I don't think others did either.
In some weak sense though we did all (those that voted and those that stayed home) vote to leave. That weak sense and how we hang on to it is exactly what democracy is in the uk. Difficult though it may be i'm pretty keen to hang on to it.
It was an advisory referendum.
The Meeks torpedo.
Glug, glug.
I've no idea what an advisory referendum is. I'm pretty sure noone else does either.
It means that the advice can be overruled if it is thought wise to do so.
Can I please remind people I was saying Dominic Cummings was an arrogant fool who didn't have a clue what he was doing long before it was fashionable?
Spotting arrogant fools who don’t have a clue what they’re doing is easy peasy lemon squeezy in Whitehall and Westminster.
I’d be far more impressed with your foresight if you could identify a competent, honest, likeable Tory.
Dominic Grieve.
Proving himself a master tactician.
They also said likeable and honest. Competence he certainly has, he has been very effective. And no, sharing a goal with someone does not mean that person is likeable. Like Grieve I too now think we should remain, but that doesn't mean I should be liked by anyone else who backs remain.
Yes of course. The decision, although apparently binary, was anything but. The whole idea of a referendum shaped in the way it was, was daft beyond belief. I didn't see it at the time though, and I don't think others did either.
In some weak sense though we did all (those that voted and those that stayed home) vote to leave. That weak sense and how we hang on to it is exactly what democracy is in the uk. Difficult though it may be i'm pretty keen to hang on to it.
In a weak sense, as in homeopathically weak. The result of a vote does not bind the voters to change their mind, nor does it bind the voters to avoid trying actively through the ballot box to reverse it.
If you stop and think about that proposition "we voted so you must agree under all circumstance not to do anything to change that", you are not describing democracy, but the END of democracy.
Fundamentally, democracy is a method. Individual decisions can be followed through, modified or even entirely reversed within that method.
We voted to decide as to how to proceed on a proposition. By voting we all agreed that we'd abide by our collective decision.
Apply the above to any democratic thing, and I think it's hard to disagree.
With Brexit it's different because there has been a huge delay in delivering on the vote.
If we'd left the EU on day1 after the vote then it'd be clear, but given that we didn't there is a degree of democratic debt owed to the result of the referendum. I have no clue whatsoever as to how anyone should balance out that obligation and changing their mind and the like, but the obligation still exists.
Imagine Jeremy Corbyn won the next election. Three and a half years later, he is still waiting to get in to Downing Street because the House of Commons have found procedural means to block him. And now various people are saying "Well, we can't be sure people still want him, the electorate has changed, voters have died....let's have another election."
Straight revoke ... is the diametric opposite of no deal.
Maybe that's precisely why some people like it. It certainly works for me!
If you are comfortable with civil unrest so be it. I would have preferred Cameron to have kept his ridiculous referendum idea to himself, unfortunately he didn't
Revoking would put us back where we were before Cameron's referendum. Anyone threatening violence following a democratically decided election would have to answer to the law.
Good luck in putting that genie back in the bottle. We have had a referendum. The Prime Minister told us he would implelment the decision of the voters. Yet the elected politicians/Establishment class will have conspired to prevent its implementation. You think that has no consequence?
The ERG as much as anybody have stopped us leaving already. We have had two more Prime Ministers since then. An election in which a Revoke party won would certainly supercede the close referendum three years ago. But, lets face it, it is very unlikely that the LibDems will get a majority. However they are free to choose to campaign on Revoke if they want to and people are free to vote for them. That's democracy.
And an election won by the Conservatives or the Brexit party on 30-35% of the vote, promising to take us out of the EU without any further consultation would be similarly democratic. Which is why remainers would do well to tread carefully. Revoking without further consulting the voters is likely to put a hard Brexit party in power sooner rather than later. Hard Brexit doesn't need a majority of the population, just 30% or so to support it at a general election.
Which is why need a change to our electoral system. A Lib Dem majority and revoke would be the end of FPTP. That's sealed it for me, I'm definitely voting Lib Dem. Two birds with one stone.
A LD majority may revoke but would also likely entrench FPTP as the LDs would no longer need PR to get into government having done so twice under FPTP in that situation and indeed with more seats under FPTP with a LD majority than they would have won under PR
The LDs are not going to win a majority so this is all irrelevant.
It's a good question. I think that most Remainers want to Remain as their first priority. Some may be concerned that the 3 year old referendum vote is being superceded, but they can be comforted by the knowledge that, in order for Revoke to happen, the LibDems will have to win a majority (from 12 or 17 or whatever it is today). If that happens it will be clear that the country has moved on from 2016.
In the recent ComRes poll only 25% of people said the referendum result shouldn't be respected. So while that would translate to a small majority of remainers (assuming all leavers want it respected), it isn't an overwhelmingly popular idea.
'Leave' wasn't an overwhelmingly popular idea either - only 3.8% more popular than 'Remain'. As you know the wroding of poll questions affects the answer ('shouldn't be respected', indeed?)
Leave was agreed to by precisely 100% of the participants in the referendum. That's the way they work.
hahaha, no
You're going to struggle with explaining why not. But, go on, give it a try!
You're saying my Remain vote was a vote for Leave? It wasn't. You can trust me on this one.
Your vote was cast in an effort to decide. By participating you implicitly agreed that the result should count. The result was leave, and therefore you should put your stamp of approval on such a thing.
I'm a little baffled that you should struggle with these ideas. They're not new.
A lot of people 50 million of our population did not vote to Leave!
Just remember that.
Yes of course. The decision, although apparently binary, was anything but. The whole idea of a referendum shaped in the way it was, was daft beyond belief. I didn't see it at the time though, and I don't think others did either.
In some weak sense though we did all (those that voted and those that stayed home) vote to leave. That weak sense and how we hang on to it is exactly what democracy is in the uk. Difficult though it may be i'm pretty keen to hang on to it.
It was an advisory referendum.
I've no idea what an advisory referendum is. I'm pretty sure noone else does either.
What's hard to understand about it?
Please give me a concrete example of how it works.
t using a swear word as, essentially, general party branding must give some otherwise supportive people to rethink. Maybe I am just being old fashioned
Out of 200 or so canvassed voters since the slogan launched (all in non-LD wards), I've found "bollocks" confirmed one Leaver in her views, was a mild influence to switch to LD for about ten and slightly amused the few others who'd noticed at all.
Interesting. Thank you. Always good to hear news from canvassing.
'There is no anti-SNP pact' Scottish Lib Dems deny new deal with the Tories
The leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats has denied reports his party is in talks with the Tories as part of preparations for a snap general election.
Willie Rennie insisted there was "no pact" between his party and the Conservatives - saying the Lib Dems are "opposed to Brexit and Boris Johnson and won't be doing anything to support them".
Hmm. If the Tories aren't careful with their statements they might end up with a few fewer LDs in Scotland and a few more SNP. But UK wide, the SNP count [edit] has an upper limit. The LD one isn't, so doing down the LDs may be a Good Thing.
In the recent ComRes poll only 25% of people said the referendum result shouldn't be respected. So while that would translate to a small majority of remainers (assuming all leavers want it respected), it isn't an overwhelmingly popular idea.
'Leave' wasn't an overwhelmingly popular idea either - only 3.8% more popular than 'Remain'. As you know the wroding of poll questions affects the answer ('shouldn't be respected', indeed?)
Leave was agreed to by precisely 100% of the participants in the referendum. That's the way they work.
hahaha, no
You're going to struggle with explaining why not. But, go on, give it a try!
You're saying my Remain vote was a vote for Leave? It wasn't. You can trust me on this one.
Your vote was cast in an effort to decide. By participating you implicitly agreed that the result should count. The result was leave, and therefore you should put your stamp of approval on such a thing.
I'm a little baffled that you should struggle with these ideas. They're not new.
A lot of people 50 million of our population did not vote to Leave!
Just remember that.
Yes of course. The decision, although apparently binary, was anything but. The whole idea of a referendum shaped in the way it was, was daft beyond belief. I didn't see it at the time though, and I don't think others did either.
In some weak sense though we did all (those that voted and those that stayed home) vote to leave. That weak sense and how we hang on to it is exactly what democracy is in the uk. Difficult though it may be i'm pretty keen to hang on to it.
It was an advisory referendum.
The Meeks torpedo.
Glug, glug.
I've no idea what an advisory referendum is. I'm pretty sure noone else does either.
It means that the advice can be overruled if it is thought wise to do so.
Nice to have cleared that up unambiguously then.
It’s very hard to get a man to understand something when his argument depends on him not understanding it.
Whatever turns you on... Personally I think of about one thousand more exciting people to spend a Saturday evening with.
Lmao !
I also love Donald Tusk . Another of my heroes !
Verhofstadt is a problematic figure in a number of ways, but Tusk truly is a good man. He has stood up against some powerful forces of evil in his time.
Anyone who annoys the ERG and right wing press is a hero . Tusk has an interesting past and deserves huge respect. Jean Claude Juncker I’m not a big fan of but his nebulous comments aimed at May were funny .
'There is no anti-SNP pact' Scottish Lib Dems deny new deal with the Tories
The leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats has denied reports his party is in talks with the Tories as part of preparations for a snap general election.
Willie Rennie insisted there was "no pact" between his party and the Conservatives - saying the Lib Dems are "opposed to Brexit and Boris Johnson and won't be doing anything to support them".
No pact, but like the LDs and Labour in England if they want to achieve one of their major goals then in practice they need their voters to somehow align in just the right way, by chance.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The Lib Dems going straight to revoke is a big mistake. It surely is against democracy, which is not a good look. I think they are letting their recent success , go to their heads. Remain by all means but with a referendum.
At the very least, they need to drop the word democrat from their name. Else surely they can be sued under the trade descriptions act?
1/10. Keep trying.
Would those be the same "democrats" who voted _against_ having an election last week?
It is quite apparent that the liberal "democrats" want less democracy, not more.
Why should an unelected Prime Minister who is yet to win a vote in the House of Commons have an election at his convenience? It is only two years since the last one was held.
He clearly doesn't have the confidence of the house. Isn't an election normal in those circumstances?
A prime minister without the confidence of the House should never have been appointed by Her Majesty.
The Tories are dragging the monarchy through the mud.
Given Boris leads Corbyn by miles in every poll at the moment as preferred PM while also leading Swinson too I would suggest the monarchy are more in touch with who the public want as PM than MPs are at the moment and the next general election will prove that
I don't think this is the correct interpretation of the Court of Session judgment. The judges on my understanding would have accepted any semi-plausible justification of the prorogation but couldn't do so, as the government didn't put up a defence. Once they had decided the government's right to act wasn't unlimited, it was an easy decision that this move was outside those limits.
It's possible the government will have a better argument on the merits of the prorogation for the Supreme Court, should that court also decide the government's right to act is legally bounded.
I should add that, although Scots law is a different beast from English law, I don't think the different systems played much of a part here. The difference is in interpretation. I am also not a lawyer
Layman’s question - can the SC consider new or additional evidence that was not submitted to the Court of Session?
Yes of course. The decision, although apparently binary, was anything but. The whole idea of a referendum shaped in the way it was, was daft beyond belief. I didn't see it at the time though, and I don't think others did either.
In some weak sense though we did all (those that voted and those that stayed home) vote to leave. That weak sense and how we hang on to it is exactly what democracy is in the uk. Difficult though it may be i'm pretty keen to hang on to it.
In a weak sense, as in homeopathically weak. The result of a vote does not bind the voters to change their mind, nor does it bind the voters to avoid trying actively through the ballot box to reverse it.
If you stop and think about that proposition "we voted so you must agree under all circumstance not to do anything to change that", you are not describing democracy, but the END of democracy.
Fundamentally, democracy is a method. Individual decisions can be followed through, modified or even entirely reversed within that method.
We voted to decide as to how to proceed on a proposition. By voting we all agreed that we'd abide by our collective decision.
Apply the above to any democratic thing, and I think it's hard to disagree.
With Brexit it's different because there has been a huge delay in delivering on the vote.
If we'd left the EU on day1 after the vote then it'd be clear, but given that we didn't there is a degree of democratic debt owed to the result of the referendum. I have no clue whatsoever as to how anyone should balance out that obligation and changing their mind and the like, but the obligation still exists.
Imagine Jeremy Corbyn won the next election. Three and a half years later, he is still waiting to get in to Downing Street because the House of Commons have found procedural means to block him. And now various people are saying "Well, we can't be sure people still want him, the electorate has changed, voters have died....let's have another election."
Just imagine that.
Ok, but I did say "it's different because there has been a huge delay in delivering on the vote."
Straight revoke ... is the diametric opposite of no deal.
Maybe that's precisely why some people like it. It certainly works for me!
If you are comfortable with civil unrest so be it. I would have preferred Cameron to have kept his ridiculous referendum idea to himself, unfortunately he didn't
Revoking would put us back where we were before Cameron's referendum. Anyone threatening violence following a democratically decided election would have to answer to the law.
Good luck in putting that genie back in the bottle. We have had a referendum. The Prime Minister told us he would implelment the decision of the voters. Yet the elected politicians/Establishment class will have conspired to prevent its implementation. You think that has no consequence?
The ERG as much as anybody have stopped us leaving already. We have had two more Prime Ministers since then. An election in which a Revoke party won would certainly supercede the close referendum three years ago. But, lets face it, it is very unlikely that the LibDems will get a majority. However they are free to choose to campaign on Revoke if they want to and people are free to vote for them. That's democracy.
And an election won by to support it at a general election.
Which is why need a change to our electoral system. A Lib Dem majority and revoke would be the end of FPTP. That's sealed it for me, I'm definitely voting Lib Dem. Two birds with one stone.
A LD majority may revoke but would also likely entrench FPTP as the LDs would no longer need PR to get into government having done so twice under FPTP in that situation and indeed with more seats under FPTP with a LD majority than they would have won under PR
The LDs are not going to win a majority so this is all irrelevant.
For now maybe not, in 10 or 15 years time I would not rule it out, Brexit might well be leading to a realignment of some form, the LDs are already polling higher than any time since 2010 and Labour are polling lower than they got at any election since 1983 and the Tories lower than they got at any election since 2005
That would seem to suggest the union is more important to the Lib Dems than the EU. Would be interesting to see whether there are unintended consequences of that, such as Lib Dems who are much keener on Europe and more ambivalent about the union breaking towards SNP instead of Tory. There might even be some Tories under that banner too, that would have broken towards the Lib Dems but might be forced to the SNP if the Lib Dems stand down. Detailed polling needed I think.
One obvious potential problem is any clash with London HQ - esp as the mass media tend to emphasise the London message rather than the local party message - the Labour Party in Scotland has fallen foul of that in recent months.
Another is that the LDs may feel they have more to lose than gain from an alliance with the Tories - I should think there is a prima facie market for a pro-union, pro-remain party in Scotland.
Indeed the coalition with the Tories damaged the LDs very badly in Scotland and Ms Swinson has plenty of history from that episode that could be deployed against her if there was a suggestion of an alliance with the Tories.
I would be interested to know more about the legality of such things. It depends how up front the parties are. A formal coupon Unionist alliance is one thing, but quietly dialling down campaigning in specific seats is another. The situation in Aberdeen City Council gives a third possibility - deny up front, but enjoy the benefits de facto.
I'm certain that a quiet soft-pedalling in certain constituencies happened in 2017. The comments from Kezia Dugdale before the election seemed to indicate that mindset was abound, and the literature distribution was reportedly quite uneven in a few parts of the country (I've heard a few examples but one example is Edinburgh South West, which neighbours a main Labour target and a separate main Lib Dem target apparently had very little unionist activity other than the Tories).
Lib Dems are just another bunch of Tories, hopefully both of them get their just desserts for trying to rig things. Be especially good if Swinson gets dumped, why they want a carpetbagger running the constituency from Bath is beyond me, the fake would get a nosebleed coming north to Scotland
Yes of course. The decision, although apparently binary, was anything but. The whole idea of a referendum shaped in the way it was, was daft beyond belief. I didn't see it at the time though, and I don't think others did either.
In some weak sense though we did all (those that voted and those that stayed home) vote to leave. That weak sense and how we hang on to it is exactly what democracy is in the uk. Difficult though it may be i'm pretty keen to hang on to it.
In a weak sense, as in homeopathically weak. The result of a vote does not bind the voters to change their mind, nor does it bind the voters to avoid trying actively through the ballot box to reverse it.
If you stop and think about that proposition "we voted so you must agree under all circumstance not to do anything to change that", you are not describing democracy, but the END of democracy.
Fundamentally, democracy is a method. Individual decisions can be followed through, modified or even entirely reversed within that method.
We voted to decide as to how to proceed on a proposition. By voting we all agreed that we'd abide by our collective decision.
Apply the above to any democratic thing, and I think it's hard to disagree.
With Brexit it's different because there has been a huge delay in delivering on the vote.
If we'd left the EU on day1 after the vote then it'd be clear, but given that we didn't there is a degree of democratic debt owed to the result of the referendum. I have no clue whatsoever as to how anyone should balance out that obligation and changing their mind and the like, but the obligation still exists.
Again, I did not agree to abide by any decision. The vote in 2016 was not an instruction to /me/. A vote is not a contract, it's an act of free expression.
I voted Lib Dem in 2010, but quickly became disillusioned. By the time 2014 came around I was helping push leaflets through the doors for another party ready for the 2015 election. At no point did anyone suggest that I was disrespecting the vote. I was merely campaigning for something different. Now I'm going to change my vote back to Lib Dem (probably) in part to try to topple this Tory government.
And no, I don't "respect" the 2017 election result either. So I work within the democratic system to get a different outcome. Hope that's ok with you, but if it isn't, it ain't my problem.
Straight revoke ... is the diametric opposite of no deal.
Maybe that's precisely why some people like it. It certainly works for me!
If you are comfortable with civil unrest so be it. I would have preferred Cameron to have kept his ridiculous referendum idea to himself, unfortunately he didn't
Revoking would put us back where we were before Cameron's referendum. Anyone threatening violence following a democratically decided election would have to answer to the law.
Good luck in putting that genie back in the bottle. We have had a referendum. The Prime Minister told us he would implelment the decision of the voters. Yet the elected politicians/Establishment class will have conspired to prevent its implementation. You think that has no consequence?
The ERG as much as anybody have stopped us leaving already. We have had two more Prime Ministers since then. An election in which a Revoke party won would certainly supercede the close referendum three years ago. But, lets face it, it is very unlikely that the LibDems will get a majority. However they are free to choose to campaign on Revoke if they want to and people are free to vote for them. That's democracy.
And an election won by the Conservatives or the Brexit party on 30-35% of the vote, promising to take us out of the EU without any further consultation would be similarly democratic. Which is why remainers would do well to tread carefully. Revoking without further consulting the voters is likely to put a hard Brexit party in power sooner rather than later. Hard Brexit doesn't need a majority of the population, just 30% or so to support it at a general election.
Which is why need a change to our electoral system. A Lib Dem majority and revoke would be the end of FPTP. That's sealed it for me, I'm definitely voting Lib Dem. Two birds with one stone.
A LD majority may revoke but would also likely entrench FPTP as the LDs would no longer need PR to get into government having done so twice under FPTP in that situation and indeed with more seats under FPTP with a LD majority than they would have won under PR
The LDs are not going to win a majority so this is all irrelevant.
Yes, I am likley to voe LD at the next GE. But i only expect them to get 40-60 seats at best. They might be the kingmaker and for that reason a block on brexit!
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The Lib Dems going straight to revoke is a big mistake. It surely is against democracy, which is not a good look. I think they are letting their recent success , go to their heads. Remain by all means but with a referendum.
At the very least, they need to drop the word democrat from their name. Else surely they can be sued under the trade descriptions act?
1/10. Keep trying.
Would those be the same "democrats" who voted _against_ having an election last week?
It is quite apparent that the liberal "democrats" want less democracy, not more.
Why should an unelected Prime Minister who is yet to win a vote in the House of Commons have an election at his convenience? It is only two years since the last one was held.
because the country deserves better than a minority government that can't win any votes?
Sure it deserves better than this government. Which is why it is important to minimise its chances of winning an election and therefore not conducting one on its terms.
Bit like a divorce. Someone has to start the thing off.
I think the Lib Dems are making a big mistake if they move to a straight revoke .
Voters already know they want to stop Brexit , they’ve built up a set of ex Labour voters who wanted to Remain.
As a staunch Remainer I am deeply uncomfortable with a straight revoke , winning an election can be done on 35% , that is not a proper mandate for no deal or revoke .
This will allow Labour to claw back some of those Remainers who feel revoke can only come after another EU ref.
I maybe wrong , perhaps a message of stop the chaos revoke article 50 might work .
However if some one like me can have deep reservations then that should be a warning sign .
The Lib Dems going straight to revoke is a big mistake. It surely is against democracy, which is not a good look. I think they are letting their recent success , go to their heads. Remain by all means but with a referendum.
At the very least, they need to drop the word democrat from their name. Else surely they can be sued under the trade descriptions act?
1/10. Keep trying.
Would those be the same "democrats" who voted _against_ having an election last week?
It is quite apparent that the liberal "democrats" want less democracy, not more.
Why should an unelected Prime Minister who is yet to win a vote in the House of Commons have an election at his convenience? It is only two years since the last one was held.
because the country deserves better than a minority government that can't win any votes?
Sure it deserves better than this government. Which is why it is important to minimise its chances of winning an election and therefore not conducting one on its terms.
Bit like a divorce. Someone has to start the thing off.
That would seem to suggest the union is more important to the Lib Dems than the EU. Would be interesting to see whether there are unintended consequences of that, such as Lib Dems who are much keener on Europe and more ambivalent about the union breaking towards SNP instead of Tory. There might even be some Tories under that banner too, that would have broken towards the Lib Dems but might be forced to the SNP if the Lib Dems stand down. Detailed polling needed I think.
One obvious potential problem is any clash with London HQ - esp as the mass media tend to emphasise the London message rather than the local party message - the Labour Party in Scotland has fallen foul of that in recent months.
Another is that the LDs may feel they have more to lose than gain from an alliance with the Tories - I should think there is a prima facie market for a pro-union, pro-remain party in Scotland.
Indeed the coalition with the Tories damaged the LDs very badly in Scotland and Ms Swinson has plenty of history from that episode that could be deployed against her if there was a suggestion of an alliance with the Tories.
I would be interested to know more about the legality of such things. It depends how up front the parties are. A formal coupon Unionist alliance is one thing, but quietly dialling down campaigning in specific seats is another. The situation in Aberdeen City Council gives a third possibility - deny up front, but enjoy the benefits de facto.
I'm certain that a quiet soft-pedalling in certain constituencies happened in 2017. The comments from Kezia Dugdale before the election seemed to indicate that mindset was abound, and the literature distribution was reportedly quite uneven in a few parts of the country (I've heard a few examples but one example is Edinburgh South West, which neighbours a main Labour target and a separate main Lib Dem target apparently had very little unionist activity other than the Tories).
Lib Dems are just another bunch of Tories, hopefully both of them get their just desserts for trying to rig things. Be especially good if Swinson gets dumped, why they want a carpetbagger running the constituency from Bath is beyond me, the fake would get a nosebleed coming north to Scotland
Swinson could lose her Westminster seat and come back at Holyrood swiftly.
If I were LD I would have Swinson running for First Minister and leave Chuka to run for PM
Straight revoke ... is the diametric opposite of no deal.
Maybe that's precisely why some people like it. It certainly works for me!
If you are comfortable with civil unrest so be it. I would have preferred Cameron to have kept his ridiculous referendum idea to himself, unfortunately he didn't
Revoking would put us back where we were before Cameron's referendum. Anyone threatening violence following a democratically decided election would have to answer to the law.
Good luck in putting that genie back in the bottle. We have had a referendum. The Prime Minister told us he would implelment the decision of the voters. Yet the elected politicians/Establishment class will have conspired to prevent its implementation. You think that has no consequence?
The ERG as much as anybody have stopped us leaving already. We have had two more Prime Ministers since then. An election in which a Revoke party won would certainly supercede the close referendum three years ago. But, lets face it, it is very unlikely that the LibDems will get a majority. However they are free to choose to campaign on Revoke if they want to and people are free to vote for them. That's democracy.
And an election won by to support it at a general election.
Which is why need a change to our electoral system. A Lib Dem majority and revoke would be the end of FPTP. That's sealed it for me, I'm definitely voting Lib Dem. Two birds with one stone.
A LD majority may revoke but would also likely entrench FPTP as the LDs would no longer need PR to get into government having done so twice under FPTP in that situation and indeed with more seats under FPTP with a LD majority than they would have won under PR
The LDs are not going to win a majority so this is all irrelevant.
For now maybe not, in 10 or 15 years time I would not rule it out, Brexit might well be leading to a realignment of some form, the LDs are already polling higher than any time since 2010 and Labour are polling lower than they got at any election since 1983 and the Tories lower than they got at any election since 2005
I doubt it. LD need to oust a lot of incumbants and one has to remeber the 70 seat rule for Labour/Tory. Once the Tories are in opposition they might lose a few seats but not dozems or hundreds....
That would seem to suggest the union is more important to the Lib Dems than the EU. Would be interesting to see whether there are unintended consequences of that, such as Lib Dems who are much keener on Europe and more ambivalent about the union breaking towards SNP instead of Tory. There might even be some Tories under that banner too, that would have broken towards the Lib Dems but might be forced to the SNP if the Lib Dems stand down. Detailed polling needed I think.
One obvious potential problem is any clash with London HQ - esp as the mass media tend to emphasise the London message rather than the local party message - the Labour Party in Scotland has fallen foul of that in recent months.
Another is that the LDs may feel they have more to lose than gain from an alliance with the Tories - I should think there is a prima facie market for a pro-union, pro-remain party in Scotland.
Indeed the coalition with the Tories damaged the LDs very badly in Scotland and Ms Swinson has plenty of history from that episode that could be deployed against her if there was a suggestion of an alliance with the Tories.
I would be interested to know more about the legality of such things. It depends how up front the parties are. A formal coupon Unionist alliance is one thing, but quietly dialling down campaigning in specific seats is another. The situation in Aberdeen City Council gives a third possibility - deny up front, but enjoy the benefits de facto.
I'm certain that a quiet soft-pedalling in certain constituencies happened in 2017. The comments from Kezia Dugdale before the election seemed to indicate that mindset was abound, and the literature distribution was reportedly quite uneven in a few parts of the country (I've heard a few examples but one example is Edinburgh South West, which neighbours a main Labour target and a separate main Lib Dem target apparently had very little unionist activity other than the Tories).
Lib Dems are just another bunch of Tories, hopefully both of them get their just desserts for trying to rig things. Be especially good if Swinson gets dumped, why they want a carpetbagger running the constituency from Bath is beyond me, the fake would get a nosebleed coming north to Scotland
Swinson could lose her Westminster seat and come back at Holyrood swiftly.
If I were LD I would have Swinson running for First Minister and leave Chuka to run for PM
It's a good question. I think that most Remainers want to Remain as their first priority. Some may be concerned that the 3 year old referendum vote is being superceded, but they can be comforted by the knowledge that, in order for Revoke to happen, the LibDems will have to win a majority (from 12 or 17 or whatever it is today). If that happens it will be clear that the country has moved on from 2016.
In the recent ComRes poll only 25% of people said the referendum result shouldn't be respected. So while that would translate to a small majority of remainers (assuming all leavers want it respected), it isn't an overwhelmingly popular idea.
'Leave' wasn't an overwhelmingly popular idea either - only 3.8% more popular than 'Remain'. As you know the wroding of poll questions affects the answer ('shouldn't be respected', indeed?)
Leave was agreed to by precisely 100% of the participants in the referendum. That's the way they work.
hahaha, no
You're going to struggle with explaining why not. But, go on, give it a try!
You're saying my Remain vote was a vote for Leave? It wasn't. You can trust me on this one.
Your vote was cast in an effort to decide. By participating you implicitly agreed that the result should count. The result was leave, and therefore you should put your stamp of approval on such a thing.
I'm a little baffled that you should struggle with these ideas. They're not new.
A lot of people 50 million of our population did not vote to Leave!
Just remember that.
Yes of course. The decision, although apparently binary, was anything but. The whole idea of a referendum shaped in the way it was, was daft beyond belief. I didn't see it at the time though, and I don't think others did either.
In some weak sense though we did all (those that voted and those that stayed home) vote to leave. That weak sense and how we hang on to it is exactly what democracy is in the uk. Difficult though it may be i'm pretty keen to hang on to it.
It was an advisory referendum.
The Meeks torpedo.
Glug, glug.
I've no idea what an advisory referendum is. I'm pretty sure noone else does either.
It means that the advice can be overruled if it is thought wise to do so.
Please give me a concrete example of how it works.
The 2016 EU referendum. I'm confused by your confusion. The result was not obliged by law to be enacted, therefore it was advisory, what's difficult to understand about that position?
The arguments about what those voting leave (like me) did or did not comprehend or implicitly agree as a result of voting leave is a separate matter entirely to the fact of the legal status of the referendum, and not one I am interested in the slightest 3 years on. Everyone was told voting leave was a risk, even if they did not take it in.
But that argument, and who is right or not, has no bearing on your silly claim that 'noone else' knows what an advisory referendum is. Plenty do, and I hardly see why it matters - the political imperative ensured it was enacted through A50, and the ructions now attempting to overturn that dont change the initial position.
Yes of course. The decision, although apparently binary, was anything but. The whole idea of a referendum shaped in the way it was, was daft beyond belief. I didn't see it at the time though, and I don't think others did either.
In some weak sense though we did all (those that voted and those that stayed home) vote to leave. That weak sense and how we hang on to it is exactly what democracy is in the uk. Difficult though it may be i'm pretty keen to hang on to it.
In a weak sense, as in homeopathically weak. The result of a vote does not bind the voters to change their mind, nor does it bind the voters to avoid trying actively through the ballot box to reverse it.
If you stop and think about that proposition "we voted so you must agree under all circumstance not to do anything to change that", you are not describing democracy, but the END of democracy.
Fundamentally, democracy is a method. Individual decisions can be followed through, modified or even entirely reversed within that method.
We voted to decide as to how to proceed on a proposition. By voting we all agreed that we'd abide by our collective decision.
Obviously you misunderstood badly.
It was only an advisory referendum, so by voting we all agreed that the government wouldn't be bound by the decision.
It's too late to try to go back on what you agreed now!
'Leave' wasn't an overwhelmingly popular idea either - only 3.8% more popular than 'Remain'. As you know the wroding of poll questions affects the answer ('shouldn't be respected', indeed?)
Leave was agreed to by precisely 100% of the participants in the referendum. That's the way they work.
hahaha, no
You're going to struggle with explaining why not. But, go on, give it a try!
You're saying my Remain vote was a vote for Leave? It wasn't. You can trust me on this one.
Your vote was cast in an effort to decide. By participating you implicitly agreed that the result should count. The result was leave, and therefore you should put your stamp of approval on such a thing.
I'm a little baffled that you should struggle with these ideas. They're not new.
A lot of people 50 million of our population did not vote to Leave!
Just remember that.
Yes of course. The decision, although apparently binary, was anything but. The whole idea of a referendum shaped in the way it was, was daft beyond belief. I didn't see it at the time though, and I don't think others did either.
In some weak sense though we did all (those that voted and those that stayed home) vote to leave. That weak sense and how we hang on to it is exactly what democracy is in the uk. Difficult though it may be i'm pretty keen to hang on to it.
It was an advisory referendum.
The Meeks torpedo.
Glug, glug.
I've no idea what an advisory referendum is. I'm pretty sure noone else does either.
It means that the advice can be overruled if it is thought wise to do so.
Nice to have cleared that up unambiguously then.
It’s very hard to get a man to understand something when his argument depends on him not understanding it.
It's hard to get clarity when people are blowing smoke.
Let's not argue though, lets step through the arguments and find out where it is we disagree.
Do you agree that a pure democratic vote is generally thought of in such a way that participation implicitly suggests that you'll agree to be bound by the result?
Do you agree that the Brexit referendum wasn't of this pure type?
I'm assuming that you'll agree, but I'll await your reply.
Yes of course. The decision, although apparently binary, was anything but. The whole idea of a referendum shaped in the way it was, was daft beyond belief. I didn't see it at the time though, and I don't think others did either.
In some weak sense though we did all (those that voted and those that stayed home) vote to leave. That weak sense and how we hang on to it is exactly what democracy is in the uk. Difficult though it may be i'm pretty keen to hang on to it.
In a weak sense, as in homeopathically weak. The result of a vote does not bind the voters to change their mind, nor does it bind the voters to avoid trying actively through the ballot box to reverse it.
If you stop and think about that proposition "we voted so you must agree under all circumstance not to do anything to change that", you are not describing democracy, but the END of democracy.
Fundamentally, democracy is a method. Individual decisions can be followed through, modified or even entirely reversed within that method.
We voted to decide as to how to proceed on a proposition. By voting we all agreed that we'd abide by our collective decision.
Apply the above to any democratic thing, and I think it's hard to disagree.
With Brexit it's different because there has been a huge delay in delivering on the vote.
If we'd left the EU on day1 after the vote then it'd be clear, but given that we didn't there is a degree of democratic debt owed to the result of the referendum. I have no clue whatsoever as to how anyone should balance out that obligation and changing their mind and the like, but the obligation still exists.
Imagine Jeremy Corbyn won the next election. Three and a half years later, he is still waiting to get in to Downing Street because the House of Commons have found procedural means to block him. And now various people are saying "Well, we can't be sure people still want him, the electorate has changed, voters have died....let's have another election."
Just imagine that.
Well, I'm not sure how "Corbyn" could win the election. If Labour got a majority and refused to back him in a confidence vote, it would certainly be interesting, but it wouldn't be against the rules either. But in any case, this is about voters. If the above scenario transpired, I wouldn't have any time for a Labour activist saying that Tories should cease campaigning against Labour in council, Holyrood, Sennedd, and by-elections, just because we should all be collectively "respecting" the vote. No, it wouldn't wash. Tories aren't going to suddenly respect Corbyn just because he won a vote. Nor should they.
Straight revoke ... is the diametric opposite of no deal.
Maybe that's precisely why some people like it. It certainly works for me!
If you are comfortable with civil unrest so be it. I would have preferred Cameron to have kept his ridiculous referendum idea to himself, unfortunately he didn't
Revoking would put us back where we were before Cameron's referendum. Anyone threatening violence following a democratically decided election would have to answer to the law.
Good luck in putting that genie back in the bottle. We have had a referendum. The Prime Minister told us he would implelment the decision of the voters. Yet the elected politicians/Establishment class will have conspired to prevent its implementation. You think that has no consequence?
The ERG as much as anybody have stopped us leaving already. We have had two more Prime Ministers since then. An election in which a Revoke party won would certainly supercede the close referendum three years ago. But, lets face it, it is very unlikely that the LibDems will get a majority. However they are free to choose to campaign on Revoke if they want to and people are free to vote for them. That's democracy.
And an election won by the Conservatives
Which is why need a change to our electoral system. A Lib Dem majority and revoke would be the end of FPTP. That's sealed it for me, I'm definitely voting Lib Dem. Two birds with one stone.
A LD majority may revoke but would also likely entrench FPTP as the LDs would no longer need PR to get into government having done so twice under FPTP in that situation and indeed with more seats under FPTP with a LD majority than they would have won under PR
The LDs are not going to win a majority so this is all irrelevant.
Of course.
In the unlikely event of a LD majority, I think it reasonable to interpret this as a massively changed Will of the People. Of course, Revoke does not prevent a different government reinvoking, hopefully with a coherent plan!
Indeed, by establishing the authority of Parliamentary democracy over plebiscites, such a move would establish new Constitutional norms.
Mr. Meeks, indeed. It would be legal for Article 50 to be revoked and the referendum result overturned by a Commons vote alone.
But things that are legal are not necessarily wise. Securing public support via another referendum would be, I think, far more sensible and reduce discontent (which would nevertheless be significant).
The Commons revoking by a direct vote of MPs would make the political situation even more embittered and entrenched.
There are in truth no good options at this time. The argument is really over what is the least worst option. The issue of why there may have been no good options ever since 2016 or even earlier will take people longer to get around to. IMHO it all goes back about 40 years and there is plenty of responsibility to spread around.
In the recent ComRes poll only 25% of people said the referendum result shouldn't be respected. So while that would translate to a small majority of remainers (assuming all leavers want it respected), it isn't an overwhelmingly popular idea.
'Leave' wasn't an overwhelmingly popular idea either - only 3.8% more popular than 'Remain'. As you know the wroding of poll questions affects the answer ('shouldn't be respected', indeed?)
Leave was agreed to by precisely 100% of the participants in the referendum. That's the way they work.
hahaha, no
You're going to struggle with explaining why not. But, go on, give it a try!
You're saying my Remain vote was a vote for Leave? It wasn't. You can trust me on this one.
Your vote was cast in an effort to decide. By participating you implicitly agreed that the result should count. The result was leave, and therefore you should put your stamp of approval on such a thing.
I'm a little baffled that you should struggle with these ideas. They're not new.
A lot of people 50 million of our population did not vote to Leave!
Just remember that.
Yes of course. The decision, although apparently binary, was anything but. The whole idea of a referendum shaped in the way it was, was daft beyond belief. I didn't see it at the time though, and I don't think others did either.
In some weak sense though we did all (those that voted and those that stayed home) vote to leave. That weak sense and how we hang on to it is exactly what democracy is in the uk. Difficult though it may be i'm pretty keen to hang on to it.
It was an advisory referendum.
The Meeks torpedo.
Glug, glug.
I've no idea what an advisory referendum is. I'm pretty sure noone else does either.
It means that the advice can be overruled if it is thought wise to do so.
It means each can take opposite positions on it.
Not exactly. It must be treated very seriously. But if circumstances change or if the original prospectus turns out to be flawed, it can be looked at again.
Parliament overturning referendums has precedent, and recent ones at that.
Please give me a concrete example of how it works.
Dead easy. We have a referendum, and the votes are counted. If the winning option doesn’t meet the approval of Alistair Meeks, it isn’t implemented. How simple is that to understand?
Straight revoke ... is the diametric opposite of no deal.
Maybe that's precisely why some people like it. It certainly works for me!
If you are comfortable with civil unrest so be it. I would have preferred Cameron to have kept his ridiculous referendum idea to himself, unfortunately he didn't
Revoking would put us back where we were before Cameron's referendum. Anyone threatening violence following a democratically decided election would have to answer to the law.
Good luck in putting /Establishment class will have conspired to prevent its implementation. You think that has no consequence?
The ERG as much as anybody have stopped us leaving already. We have had two more Prime Ministers since then. An election in which a Revoke party won would certainly supercede the close referendum three years ago. But, lets face it, it is very unlikely that the LibDems will get a majority. However they are free to choose to campaign on Revoke if they want to and people are free to vote for them. That's democracy.
And an election won by to support it at a general election.
Which is why need a change to our electoral system. A Lib Dem majority and revoke would be the end of FPTP. That's sealed it for me, I'm definitely voting Lib Dem. Two birds with one stone.
A LD majority may revoke er PR
The LDs are not going to win a majority so this is all irrelevant.
For now maybe not, in 10 or 15 yeae 2005
I doubt it. LD need to oust a lot of incumbants and one has to remeber the 70 seat rule for Labour/Tory. Once the Tories are in opposition they might lose a few seats but not dozems or hundreds....
I cannot see the LDs pushing the Tories into third no but they might do that to Labour, indeed a recent poll had an anti Brexit LDs on 30% with Corbyn Labour on just 17% on a Labour Brexit Deal platform with the Tories on 24%.
According to Electoral Calculus that would give LDs 257, Tories 163, Labour 138.
Good luck in putting that genie back in the bottle. We have had a referendum. The Prime Minister told us he would implelment the decision of the voters. Yet the elected politicians/Establishment class will have conspired to prevent its implementation. You think that has no consequence?
The ERG as much as anybody have stopped us leaving already. We have had two more Prime Ministers since then. An election in which a Revoke party won would certainly supercede the close referendum three years ago. But, lets face it, it is very unlikely that the LibDems will get a majority. However they are free to choose to campaign on Revoke if they want to and people are free to vote for them. That's democracy.
And an election won by the Conservatives
Which is why need a change to our electoral system. A Lib Dem majority and revoke would be the end of FPTP. That's sealed it for me, I'm definitely voting Lib Dem. Two birds with one stone.
A LD majority may revoke but would also likely entrench FPTP as the LDs would no longer need PR to get into government having done so twice under FPTP in that situation and indeed with more seats under FPTP with a LD majority than they would have won under PR
The LDs are not going to win a majority so this is all irrelevant.
Of course.
In the unlikely event of a LD majority, I think it reasonable to interpret this as a massively changed Will of the People. Of course, Revoke does not prevent a different government reinvoking, hopefully with a coherent plan!
Indeed, by establishing the authority of Parliamentary democracy over plebiscites, such a move would establish new Constitutional norms.
A far more sensible constitutional norm to establish would be to prevent huge constitutional changes such as departure from the EU, ending the union, etc, without an absolute majority. Because I guarantee you if 30%ish is the threshold for winning a majority at a GE, sooner or later a party will be elected on a manifesto of taking us out, diamond hard.
With Brexit as the defnining issue of the day, what you are effectively suggesting is that every general election becomes a referendum on the EU. Remainers have to get lucky every time, leavers only have to get lucky once...
Yes of course. The decision, although apparently binary, was anything but. The whole idea of a referendum shaped in the way it was, was daft beyond belief. I didn't see it at the time though, and I don't think others did either.
In some weak sense though we did all (those that voted and those that stayed home) vote to leave. That weak sense and how we hang on to it is exactly what democracy is in the uk. Difficult though it may be i'm pretty keen to hang on to it.
In a weak sense, as in homeopathically weak. The result of a vote does not bind the voters to change their mind, nor does it bind the voters to avoid trying actively through the ballot box to reverse it.
If you stop and think about that proposition "we voted so you must agree under all circumstance not to do anything to change that", you are not describing democracy, but the END of democracy.
Fundamentally, democracy is a method. Individual decisions can be followed through, modified or even entirely reversed within that method.
We voted to decide as to how to proceed on a proposition. By voting we all agreed that we'd abide by our collective decision.
Obviously you misunderstood badly.
It was only an advisory referendum, so by voting we all agreed that the government wouldn't be bound by the decision.
It's too late to try to go back on what you agreed now!
@kle4 suggests that the nature of advisory referenda is well known. He may be right, but I hope you and he will forgive me if I'm not convinced.
The idea that we should have a referendum to simply establish a proposition that the government wouldn't be bound by is preposterous. There would simply be no point in such a thing.
Comments
But yes, Steve Smith will no doubt get a double century, so it all depends on getting everyone else out before then
For politicians to support a course of action that could effect the peace process is reprehensible.
I loathe the DUP , I hope they get exactly what they deserve , to be shafted by Johnson.
It wasn't. You can trust me on this one.
I'm a little baffled that you should struggle with these ideas. They're not new.
Just remember that.
I voted Remain. That was my opinion and it's my opinion today. I didn't vote "Remain but I'll change my mind if Leave wins".
Nor, by the way, did Nigel Farage vote "Leave but I'll change my mind if Remain wins".
And if bxp encourage people to boycott the election tough - we tried to leave but the project failed
In some weak sense though we did all (those that voted and those that stayed home) vote to leave. That weak sense and how we hang on to it is exactly what democracy is in the uk. Difficult though it may be i'm pretty keen to hang on to it.
You may disagree with them. It is not a stupid position to hold though.
Bozo is now desperate for a deal , anything that can give him a chance of not asking for an extension.
However as he is an alleged true believer his deal would mean a proper Brexit as compared to May who wasn’t a true believer .
The problem for him is once he recommends a deal he obviously thinks that it’s better than no deal .
The effect down the line is this . If the Commons add on a second confirmatory vote and it passes what you have on the ballot is a deal v Remain .
If a true Brexiter says that’s honoring the ref result as in his deal then no deal shouldn’t appear on that ballot .
Because we have a proper Brexit v Remain .
Glug, glug.
I've no idea what an advisory referendum is. I'm pretty sure noone else does either.
-
So your view is that the democratic decision to leave the EU shouldn't be respected? You'll be right at home with all those other liberal "democrats".The result of a vote does not bind the voters to change their mind, nor does it bind the voters to avoid trying actively through the ballot box to reverse it.
If you stop and think about that proposition "we voted so you must agree under all circumstance not to do anything to change that", you are not describing democracy, but the END of democracy.
Fundamentally, democracy is a method. Individual decisions can be followed through, modified or even entirely reversed within that method.
But things that are legal are not necessarily wise. Securing public support via another referendum would be, I think, far more sensible and reduce discontent (which would nevertheless be significant).
The Commons revoking by a direct vote of MPs would make the political situation even more embittered and entrenched.
I want A50 revoked and I will explore all democratic avenues to achieve that. And you do not get to tell me otherwise.
You might defeat me at the ballot box, but you don't keep me from posting my vote into it.
It won't do any good however.
I also love Donald Tusk . Another of my heroes !
Apply the above to any democratic thing, and I think it's hard to disagree.
With Brexit it's different because there has been a huge delay in delivering on the vote.
If we'd left the EU on day1 after the vote then it'd be clear, but given that we didn't there is a degree of democratic debt owed to the result of the referendum. I have no clue whatsoever as to how anyone should balance out that obligation and changing their mind and the like, but the obligation still exists.
The leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats has denied reports his party is in talks with the Tories as part of preparations for a snap general election.
Willie Rennie insisted there was "no pact" between his party and the Conservatives - saying the Lib Dems are "opposed to Brexit and Boris Johnson and won't be doing anything to support them".
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/there-is-no-anti-snp-pact-scottish-lib-dems-deny-new-deal-with-the-tories-1-5004372
Proving himself a master tactician.
Just imagine that.
Always good to hear news from canvassing.
"it's different because there has been a huge delay in delivering on the vote."
That would apply to your example.
I voted Lib Dem in 2010, but quickly became disillusioned. By the time 2014 came around I was helping push leaflets through the doors for another party ready for the 2015 election. At no point did anyone suggest that I was disrespecting the vote. I was merely campaigning for something different. Now I'm going to change my vote back to Lib Dem (probably) in part to try to topple this Tory government.
And no, I don't "respect" the 2017 election result either. So I work within the democratic system to get a different outcome. Hope that's ok with you, but if it isn't, it ain't my problem.
If I were LD I would have Swinson running for First Minister and leave Chuka to run for PM
The arguments about what those voting leave (like me) did or did not comprehend or implicitly agree as a result of voting leave is a separate matter entirely to the fact of the legal status of the referendum, and not one I am interested in the slightest 3 years on. Everyone was told voting leave was a risk, even if they did not take it in.
But that argument, and who is right or not, has no bearing on your silly claim that 'noone else' knows what an advisory referendum is. Plenty do, and I hardly see why it matters - the political imperative ensured it was enacted through A50, and the ructions now attempting to overturn that dont change the initial position.
It was only an advisory referendum, so by voting we all agreed that the government wouldn't be bound by the decision.
It's too late to try to go back on what you agreed now!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-49686131
Let's not argue though, lets step through the arguments and find out where it is we disagree.
Do you agree that a pure democratic vote is generally thought of in such a way that participation implicitly suggests that you'll agree to be bound by the result?
Do you agree that the Brexit referendum wasn't of this pure type?
I'm assuming that you'll agree, but I'll await your reply.
But in any case, this is about voters. If the above scenario transpired, I wouldn't have any time for a Labour activist saying that Tories should cease campaigning against Labour in council, Holyrood, Sennedd, and by-elections, just because we should all be collectively "respecting" the vote. No, it wouldn't wash. Tories aren't going to suddenly respect Corbyn just because he won a vote. Nor should they.
In the unlikely event of a LD majority, I think it reasonable to interpret this as a massively changed Will of the People. Of course, Revoke does not prevent a different government reinvoking, hopefully with a coherent plan!
Indeed, by establishing the authority of Parliamentary democracy over plebiscites, such a move would establish new Constitutional norms.
Parliament overturning referendums has precedent, and recent ones at that.
According to Electoral Calculus that would give LDs 257, Tories 163, Labour 138.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1144630145208246272?s=20
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/usercode.py?CON=24&LAB=17&LIB=30&Brexit=19&Green=2&UKIP=1&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVBrexit=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTBrexit=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2017base
With Brexit as the defnining issue of the day, what you are effectively suggesting is that every general election becomes a referendum on the EU. Remainers have to get lucky every time, leavers only have to get lucky once...
The idea that we should have a referendum to simply establish a proposition that the government wouldn't be bound by is preposterous. There would simply be no point in such a thing.