Most voters want Brexit over with, one way or another. At the moment they see the shortest route to that as being departure on October 31st come what may. If that doesn’t happen they may well look favourably on the only obvious “quick” alternative solution - revoke. I don’t think there’s much support for a referendum which just stretches out the pain.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
I'm not sure I know the answer but say instead of just revoking you had a referendum, but it's boycotted by one side, and the other side gets maybe half the turnout of last time because the opposition hasn't showed up. Is that any better?
Possibly not. SO WHAT DO WE DO?
This is now beyond tribalism. We’re staring into the abyss. All of us.
All that bringing parliament back achieved was making everyone more angry than they were before.
We have learnt this.
Earlier today the Attorney-General stated that the government would comply with the law.
This evening the Prime Minister said, in response to a question, that he would not.
Either the PM will have to change his mind or the A-G will have to resign.
We are in a very dangerous place when the PM stands up in Parliament and says he will not comply with the law.
He didn’t say any such thing. He said he wouldn’t ask for an extension. The Surrender Act makes provisos for exactly this, within the law.
He was specifically asked: “If he doesn't get a deal through this House, or a no-deal through this House, by 19 October, will he seek an extension from the EU to 31 January?”
He replied “No.”
The law requires him to do just that.
No the law as set out in the Surrender Bill requires the post of PM to do that. It does not require Johnson as an individual to do so. I still contend his most likely move will be to resign as PM the day before he would be required to break the law but remain as leader of the Tory party.
Let some other idiot MP surrender to the EU and then go into the GE promising we will leave once he has control of Parliament again.
How does Boris resign if no one wants the job of PM? He will have to give it to another Tory Cabinet minister who will then carry the can..
The PM resigns to HMQ on behalf of the government. Absent a clear recommendation as to a new PM, her Maj starts with a clean sheet of paper as to who might carry the confidence of the House
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
I'm not sure I know the answer but say instead of just revoking you had a referendum, but it's boycotted by one side, and the other side gets maybe half the turnout of last time because the opposition hasn't showed up. Is that any better?
All that bringing parliament back achieved was making everyone more angry than they were before.
We have learnt this.
Earlier today the Attorney-General stated that the government would comply with the law.
This evening the Prime Minister said, in response to a question, that he would not.
Either the PM will have to change his mind or the A-G will have to resign.
We are in a very dangerous place when the PM stands up in Parliament and says he will not comply with the law.
He didn’t say any such thing. He said he wouldn’t ask for an extension. The Surrender Act makes provisos for exactly this, within the law.
He was specifically asked: “If he doesn't get a deal through this House, or a no-deal through this House, by 19 October, will he seek an extension from the EU to 31 January?”
He replied “No.”
The law requires him to do just that.
No the law as set out in the Surrender Bill requires the post of PM to do that. It does not require Johnson as an individual to do so. I still contend his most likely move will be to resign as PM the day before he would be required to break the law but remain as leader of the Tory party.
Let some other idiot MP surrender to the EU and then go into the GE promising we will leave once he has control of Parliament again.
That means resigning the day after the European Council summit. It’s very hard for that not to look like a humiliation for him, no matter how hard they try to spin it.
No humiliation, if the EU will not agree to remove the backstop 49% of voters back No Deal with Survation tonight, only 43% back further extension, the people would be behind Boris
So other than loads of screaming, shouting and extreme heightened emotions has anything actually been achieved by Parliament being brought back today?
Journalists have been given something to do? Um....Some MPs have had an excuse not to spend time at home eating toast whilst watching loose women....? Don’t know.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
I'm not sure I know the answer but say instead of just revoking you had a referendum, but it's boycotted by one side, and the other side gets maybe half the turnout of last time because the opposition hasn't showed up. Is that any better?
No. Both are an aftont to democracy.
So, Richard, what wouid you do, practically? And I don’t mean what do you really want to happen. I mean what can be done, in the present circs, to get the nation out of this hole, without destroying our economy or plunging us into civil war?
There are lots of Tory women MPs, such as my own MP Nus Ghani, who were close to Jo Cox, and who themselves face very nasty threats as a result of the increased polarisation and viciousness of politics. Boris has made a major misstep, and has revealed himself as at best irresponsible.
No-one is arguing about the Supreme Court anymore though. Job done?
All that bringing parliament back achieved was making everyone more angry than they were before.
We have learnt this.
Earlier today the Attorney-General stated that the government would comply with the law.
This evening the Prime Minister said, in response to a question, that he would not.
Either the PM will have to change his mind or the A-G will have to resign.
We are in a very dangerous place when the PM stands up in Parliament and says he will not comply with the law.
He didn’t say any such thing. He said he wouldn’t ask for an extension. The Surrender Act makes provisos for exactly this, within the law.
He was specifically asked: “If he doesn't get a deal through this House, or a no-deal through this House, by 19 October, will he seek an extension from the EU to 31 January?”
He replied “No.”
The law requires him to do just that.
No the law as set out in the Surrender Bill requires the post of PM to do that. It does not require Johnson as an individual to do so. I still contend his most likely move will be to resign as PM the day before he would be required to break the law but remain as leader of the Tory party.
Let some other idiot MP surrender to the EU and then go into the GE promising we will leave once he has control of Parliament again.
How does Boris resign if no one wants the job of PM? He will have to give it to another Tory Cabinet minister who will then carry the can..
Nope. There is nothing to stop him resigning and then tellkng thecQueen he cannot recommend a successor and she will have to choose someone who might command the support of the House.
All that bringing parliament back achieved was making everyone more angry than they were before.
We have learnt this.
Earlier today the Attorney-General stated that the government would comply with the law.
This evening the Prime Minister said, in response to a question, that he would not.
Either the PM will have to change his mind or the A-G will have to resign.
We are in a very dangerous place when the PM stands up in Parliament and says he will not comply with the law.
He didn’t say any such thing. He said he wouldn’t ask for an extension. The Surrender Act makes provisos for exactly this, within the law.
He was specifically asked: “If he doesn't get a deal through this House, or a no-deal through this House, by 19 October, will he seek an extension from the EU to 31 January?”
He replied “No.”
The law requires him to do just that.
No the law as set out in the Surrender Bill requires the post of PM to do that. It does not require Johnson as an individual to do so. I still contend his most likely move will be to resign as PM the day before he would be required to break the law but remain as leader of the Tory party.
Let some other idiot MP surrender to the EU and then go into the GE promising we will leave once he has control of Parliament again.
How does Boris resign if no one wants the job of PM? He will have to give it to another Tory Cabinet minister who will then carry the can..
The PM resigns to HMQ on behalf of the government. Absent a clear recommendation as to a new PM, her Maj starts with a clean sheet of paper as to who might carry the confidence of the House
But the PM remains the PM until a new PM is appointed - which means that as the clock ticks down Boris will eventually have to organise an extension or watch himself by charged with Malfeasance in office and then subject to multiple £million for the consequences of that.
If Boris wishes to resign he really needs to do so well before mid october arrives.
There are lots of Tory women MPs, such as my own MP Nus Ghani, who were close to Jo Cox, and who themselves face very nasty threats as a result of the increased polarisation and viciousness of politics. Boris has made a major misstep, and has revealed himself as at best irresponsible.
Let’s be brutally honest here, there are MPs - parties even - now espousing Revoke.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
That is why the Lib Dem policy is so deeply irresponsible. Even if - see below - I yearn for the clarity of their position. I also know that it is explosively risky.
It seems odd to say that such a mild mannered party as the Lib Dems are risking civil strife. But they are.
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
There are lots of Tory women MPs, such as my own MP Nus Ghani, who were close to Jo Cox, and who themselves face very nasty threats as a result of the increased polarisation and viciousness of politics. Boris has made a major misstep, and has revealed himself as at best irresponsible.
Let’s be brutally honest here, there are MPs - parties even - now espousing Revoke.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
That is why the Lib Dem policy is so deeply irresponsible. Even if - see below - I yearn for the clarity of their position. I also know that it is explosively risky.
It seems odd to say that such a mild mannered party as the Lib Dems are risking civil strife. But they are.
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
It was ruled out by the Leave campaign being founded on xenophobic lies.
If labour had a respectable leader and they hadnt spent the past week announcing marxist open border policies they would surely be 20 points ahead in the polls.
No they wouldn't, on tonight's Survation Labour and LDs combined are on 46%, Tories and Brexit Party combined on 43%
Not a great poll for your man this evening! Even the Tories don't like him. Perhaps you were confused like the rest of us the way the Mail turned defeat into a glorious victory?
Remain 56:44 ahead in that Survation poll, excluding don’t knows.
I wonder if my younger step-daughter will ever have a vote on it. She was too young to vote in the referendum, but she's old enough now, along with all her friends, who would all vote Remain. But hey, apparently their views don't count now.
There are lots of Tory women MPs, such as my own MP Nus Ghani, who were close to Jo Cox, and who themselves face very nasty threats as a result of the increased polarisation and viciousness of politics. Boris has made a major misstep, and has revealed himself as at best irresponsible.
Let’s be brutally honest here, there are MPs - parties even - now espousing Revoke.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
That is why the Lib Dem policy is so deeply irresponsible. Even if - see below - I yearn for the clarity of their position. I also know that it is explosively risky.
It seems odd to say that such a mild mannered party as the Lib Dems are risking civil strife. But they are.
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
Teresa fucking May and her fucking crazy red lines. She deserves no pity. She doesn’t deserve a pension. She’s a full-spectrum idiot.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
I'm not sure I know the answer but say instead of just revoking you had a referendum, but it's boycotted by one side, and the other side gets maybe half the turnout of last time because the opposition hasn't showed up. Is that any better?
No. Both are an aftont to democracy.
So, Richard, what wouid you do, practically? And I don’t mean what do you really want to happen. I mean what can be done, in the present circs, to get the nation out of this hole, without destroying our economy or plunging us into civil war?
We leave to eea/efta. The EU agrees to a seven year "emergency brake" on freedom of movement as was discussed in Cameron's negotiation. The UK enshrines in law a promise to hold a referendum at the end of the seven year period with three options, rejoin as full members, remain in eea/efta or hard Brexit. Parliament votes this through, calls an election. Boris narrowly wins, perhaps another con/lib coalition. Corbyn retires to his allotment as Labour implodes.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
I'm not sure I know the answer but say instead of just revoking you had a referendum, but it's boycotted by one side, and the other side gets maybe half the turnout of last time because the opposition hasn't showed up. Is that any better?
No. Both are an aftont to democracy.
So, Richard, what wouid you do, practically? And I don’t mean what do you really want to happen. I mean what can be done, in the present circs, to get the nation out of this hole, without destroying our economy or plunging us into civil war?
1. The economy wont be destroyed. Will it take a hit, yes, but destroyed? Clearly no. Hyperbole
2. Have you any concept of what full on civil conflict looks like? I do, in two different countries, there isn't going to be a civil war or anything within a thousand miles of it.
Remain 56:44 ahead in that Survation poll, excluding don’t knows.
I wonder if my younger step-daughter will ever have a vote on it. She was too young to vote in the referendum, but she's old enough now, along with all her friends, who would all vote Remain. But hey, apparently their views don't count now.
I wonder how many million reached the age of 18 in the last 3 years?
The comments are quite amusing, and not entirely supportive. They are also quite sharp: I particularly liked: Feminism means Donna Tartt can write whatever she wants, however she wants.. Radical stuff, to be sure; what's a Guardian writer to make of such a heretical comment?
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
I'm not sure I know the answer but say instead of just revoking you had a referendum, but it's boycotted by one side, and the other side gets maybe half the turnout of last time because the opposition hasn't showed up. Is that any better?
No. Both are an aftont to democracy.
So, Richard, what wouid you do, practically? And I don’t mean what do you really want to happen. I mean what can be done, in the present circs, to get the nation out of this hole, without destroying our economy or plunging us into civil war?
We leave to eea/efta. The EU agrees to a seven year "emergency brake" on freedom of movement as was discussed in Cameron's negotiation. The UK enshrines in law a promise to hold a referendum at the end of the seven year period with three options, rejoin as full members, remain in eea/efta or hard Brexit. Parliament votes this through, calls an election. Boris narrowly wins, perhaps another con/lib coalition. Corbyn retires to his allotment as Labour implodes.
We can but dream.
Even that lovely dream doesn’t solve the Irish border problem!
There are lots of Tory women MPs, such as my own MP Nus Ghani, who were close to Jo Cox, and who themselves face very nasty threats as a result of the increased polarisation and viciousness of politics. Boris has made a major misstep, and has revealed himself as at best irresponsible.
Let’s be brutally honest here, there are MPs - parties even - now espousing Revoke.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
That is why the Lib Dem policy is so deeply irresponsible. Even if - see below - I yearn for the clarity of their position. I also know that it is explosively risky.
It seems odd to say that such a mild mannered party as the Lib Dems are risking civil strife. But they are.
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
Teresa fucking May and her fucking crazy red lines. She deserves no pity. She doesn’t deserve a pension. She’s a full-spectrum idiot.
The red lines were drawn, correctly, from the Leave campaign. It turns out that race-baiting has consequences.
Remain 56:44 ahead in that Survation poll, excluding don’t knows.
I wonder if my younger step-daughter will ever have a vote on it. She was too young to vote in the referendum, but she's old enough now, along with all her friends, who would all vote Remain. But hey, apparently their views don't count now.
Meh, some people had to wait 40 years for a vote on membership.
Anyone who opposed May’s deal as not delivering “true” (ie their favoured) Brexit has no right to lecture others who fundamentally oppose no deal Brexit of “not respecting the Leave vote”
Because by rejecting one form of Brexit they tacitly admitted that the Leave vote did not truely indicate majority support for the course of action which they now claim must be delivered (ie. leave come what may). Had they voted for the deal, and been blocked purely by remain votes in Parliament, that would have been different.
Interesting that Survation still has BXP so high, unlike many others.
And that makes the Tory lead look so low.
It might not just be what happens with brexit next month that takes the votes from Tory to BRX on Election Day, it could be a less than favourable impression of Boris and his government amongst waverers.
If labour had a respectable leader and they hadnt spent the past week announcing marxist open border policies they would surely be 20 points ahead in the polls.
No they wouldn't, on tonight's Survation Labour and LDs combined are on 46%, Tories and Brexit Party combined on 43%
Not a great poll for your man this evening! Even the Tories don't like him. Perhaps you were confused like the rest of us the way the Mail turned defeat into a glorious victory?
I would say 49% backing No Deal to only 43% for further extension and 41% for Boris as best PM to only 18% for Corbyn is a pretty good poll for Boris tonight given the last week
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
I'm not sure I know the answer but say instead of just revoking you had a referendum, but it's boycotted by one side, and the other side gets maybe half the turnout of last time because the opposition hasn't showed up. Is that any better?
No. Both are an aftont to democracy.
So, Richard, what wouid you do, practically? And I don’t mean what do you really want to happen. I mean what can be done, in the present circs, to get the nation out of this hole, without destroying our economy or plunging us into civil war?
What I want to happen and what I think would achieve your (and my) aims are the same thing. We need a majority in Parliament willing to support a deal. Anything that leads to revocation will tear this country apart. This will not come with this Parliament as they have, on all sides, shown themselves unwilling to compromise. Do we need a GE as soon as possible.
I do not care if Boris remains PM or ends up in jail. I do care that Corbyn might become PM but that is just a chance we have to take.
There are lots of Tory women MPs, such as my own MP Nus Ghani, who were close to Jo Cox, and who themselves face very nasty threats as a result of the increased polarisation and viciousness of politics. Boris has made a major misstep, and has revealed himself as at best irresponsible.
Let’s be brutally honest here, there are MPs - parties even - now espousing Revoke.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
That is why the Lib Dem policy is so deeply irresponsible. Even if - see below - I yearn for the clarity of their position. I also know that it is explosively risky.
It seems odd to say that such a mild mannered party as the Lib Dems are risking civil strife. But they are.
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
Teresa fucking May and her fucking crazy red lines. She deserves no pity. She doesn’t deserve a pension. She’s a full-spectrum idiot.
May had no leadership or people skills but her negotiation actually turned out okay.
Only to find out that Conservative MPs wanted to be against everything and for nothing.
Remain 56:44 ahead in that Survation poll, excluding don’t knows.
Absolute median, almost, of all the Remain/Leave polls of the last two years. This is why so many are so desperate to avoid another referendum, and why the democracy-or-I-die rhetoric is so shallow and not deeply planted.
There are lots of Tory women MPs, such as my own MP Nus Ghani, who were close to Jo Cox, and who themselves face very nasty threats as a result of the increased polarisation and viciousness of politics. Boris has made a major misstep, and has revealed himself as at best irresponsible.
Let’s be brutally honest here, there are MPs - parties even - now espousing Revoke.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
That is why the Lib Dem policy is so deeply irresponsible. Even if - see below - I yearn for the clarity of their position. I also know that it is explosively risky.
It seems odd to say that such a mild mannered party as the Lib Dems are risking civil strife. But they are.
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
As EEA+CU means full free movement, we cannot do our own trade deals and we have to obey European courts, apart from a bit more control over fishing and agriculture it would mean staying in the EU in all but name and Leavers would rightly feel betrayed
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
I'm not sure I know the answer but say instead of just revoking you had a referendum, but it's boycotted by one side, and the other side gets maybe half the turnout of last time because the opposition hasn't showed up. Is that any better?
No. Both are an aftont to democracy.
So, Richard, what wouid you do, practically? And I don’t mean what do you really want to happen. I mean what can be done, in the present circs, to get the nation out of this hole, without destroying our economy or plunging us into civil war?
1. The economy wont be destroyed. Will it take a hit, yes, but destroyed? Clearly no. Hyperbole
2. Have you any concept of what full on civil conflict looks like? I do, in two different countries, there isn't going to be a civil war or anything within a thousand miles of it.
3. Don't panic Corporal Jones.
For once, I don’t think I’m being hyperbolic.
The mood is ghastly. The commons reflected this. We teeter on the edge.
Do I think there will be full on civil war? No. But could there be quite widespread civil unrest, up to and including the murder of MPs? Yes. Totally.
That’s quite bad enough, for me to quail and seek any other way out.
Jet lagged Boris has decided if parliament won't give him an election then he may as well trash the venue and make life so uncomfortable they might change their minds. And pick up a nice chunk of Brexit Party voters along the way.
Remain 56:44 ahead in that Survation poll, excluding don’t knows.
I wonder if my younger step-daughter will ever have a vote on it. She was too young to vote in the referendum, but she's old enough now, along with all her friends, who would all vote Remain. But hey, apparently their views don't count now.
Did people born in 1958 use this argument back in the 70s ?
Nothing disgraceful about saying the best way to respect Jo Cox is to unite the country and deliver Brexit
Think long and hard about what your defending.
Your pro-Conservative Party zealotry and poll mangling is amusing but this is contemptible.
There is nothing contemptible about defending the will of the people and I will never apologise for doing so
Like your leader, your view of the “will of the people” is narrow, subjective and self-serving. So utterly convinced of your own righteousness, you have developed myths of betrayal that you use to justify your own actions that cross the line.
We had a referendum on leaving the EU, 52% voted to leave, that was the will of the people. No further discussion needed
Of course there is a discussion needed. Not least because your leader voted down the negotiated Brexit deal.
He voted for it actually at MV3
Shhh you will destroy his credibility.
Repeat: May’s deal is dead, it is no more, yes extinct like a melted parrot.
Remain 56:44 ahead in that Survation poll, excluding don’t knows.
I wonder if my younger step-daughter will ever have a vote on it. She was too young to vote in the referendum, but she's old enough now, along with all her friends, who would all vote Remain. But hey, apparently their views don't count now.
Just like mine didn't count for the 41 years after the 1975 referendum that I was too young to vote in.
And apparently should not count now according to the Lib Dems.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
I'm not sure I know the answer but say instead of just revoking you had a referendum, but it's boycotted by one side, and the other side gets maybe half the turnout of last time because the opposition hasn't showed up. Is that any better?
No. Both are an aftont to democracy.
So, Richard, what wouid you do, practically? And I don’t mean what do you really want to happen. I mean what can be done, in the present circs, to get the nation out of this hole, without destroying our economy or plunging us into civil war?
We leave to eea/efta. The EU agrees to a seven year "emergency brake" on freedom of movement as was discussed in Cameron's negotiation. The UK enshrines in law a promise to hold a referendum at the end of the seven year period with three options, rejoin as full members, remain in eea/efta or hard Brexit. Parliament votes this through, calls an election. Boris narrowly wins, perhaps another con/lib coalition. Corbyn retires to his allotment as Labour implodes.
We can but dream.
Even that lovely dream doesn’t solve the Irish border problem!
We’re fucked. Civil war it is.
Northern Ireland becomes like Busingen (which is a German town inside Switzerland), and remains a part of the EU Customs Area for now, but the Northern Irish Assembly has the right to withdraw from the Customs Area.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
I'm not sure I know the answer but say instead of just revoking you had a referendum, but it's boycotted by one side, and the other side gets maybe half the turnout of last time because the opposition hasn't showed up. Is that any better?
No. Both are an aftont to democracy.
So, Richard, what wouid you do, practically? And I don’t mean what do you really want to happen. I mean what can be done, in the present circs, to get the nation out of this hole, without destroying our economy or plunging us into civil war?
What I want to happen and what I think would achieve your (and my) aims are the same thing. We need a majority in Parliament willing to support a deal. Anything that leads to revocation will tear this country apart. This will not come with this Parliament as they have, on all sides, shown themselves unwilling to compromise. Do we need a GE as soon as possible.
I do not care if Boris remains PM or ends up in jail. I do care that Corbyn might become PM but that is just a chance we have to take.
EEA/EFTA is so obviously the solution. But it would destroy the Tories so is impossible.
If I were Boris, I would get every Conservative MP to take the Chiltern Hundreds. Now, this would mean a massive set of by-elections, but it would also force Jeremy Corbyn to become temporary Prime Minister, and make him the person who asks for the extension.
Of course, and somewhat sadly, Parliament would end up being deprived of Zac Goldsmith. But, of course, you can't have everything.
All that bringing parliament back achieved was making everyone more angry than they were before.
We have learnt this.
Earlier today the Attorney-General stated that the government would comply with the law.
This evening the Prime Minister said, in response to a question, that he would not.
Either the PM will have to change his mind or the A-G will have to resign.
We are in a very dangerous place when the PM stands up in Parliament and says he will not comply with the law.
He didn’t say any such thing. He said he wouldn’t ask for an extension. The Surrender Act makes provisos for exactly this, within the law.
He was specifically asked: “If he doesn't get a deal through this House, or a no-deal through this House, by 19 October, will he seek an extension from the EU to 31 January?”
He replied “No.”
The law requires him to do just that.
No the law as set out in the Surrender Bill requires the post of PM to do that. It does not require Johnson as an individual to do so. I still contend his most likely move will be to resign as PM the day before he would be required to break the law but remain as leader of the Tory party.
Let some other idiot MP surrender to the EU and then go into the GE promising we will leave once he has control of Parliament again.
That means resigning the day after the European Council summit. It’s very hard for that not to look like a humiliation for him, no matter how hard they try to spin it.
No humiliation, if the EU will not agree to remove the backstop 49% of voters back No Deal with Survation tonight, only 43% back further extension, the people would be behind Boris
So instead of facing down the Remainer Establishment, Boris will meekly resign? He will look like a loser.
Boris will take the Tories into opposition and rally Leavers behind him against Beckett's Government of National Treachery to Democracy (though of course he could choose to go to prison and be the Nelson Mandela for Leavers too but that is not realistic)
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
I'm not sure I know the answer but say instead of just revoking you had a referendum, but it's boycotted by one side, and the other side gets maybe half the turnout of last time because the opposition hasn't showed up. Is that any better?
No. Both are an aftont to democracy.
So, Richard, what wouid you do, practically? And I don’t mean what do you really want to happen. I mean what can be done, in the present circs, to get the nation out of this hole, without destroying our economy or plunging us into civil war?
1. The economy wont be destroyed. Will it take a hit, yes, but destroyed? Clearly no. Hyperbole
2. Have you any concept of what full on civil conflict looks like? I do, in two different countries, there isn't going to be a civil war or anything within a thousand miles of it.
3. Don't panic Corporal Jones.
For once, I don’t think I’m being hyperbolic.
The mood is ghastly. The commons reflected this. We teeter on the edge.
Do I think there will be full on civil war? No. But could there be quite widespread civil unrest, up to and including the murder of MPs? Yes. Totally.
That’s quite bad enough, for me to quail and seek any other way out.
The problem with this is that these threats of violence are coming heavly from one side. Bending primarily to threats from one side of a 50:50 nationwide split, rather than seeking mediation, is an extemely dangerous path to go down.
Figures like Farage are currently treading a disingenuous line of saying they want to prevent violence and partly stoking it.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
I'm not sure I know the answer but say instead of just revoking you had a referendum, but it's boycotted by one side, and the other side gets maybe half the turnout of last time because the opposition hasn't showed up. Is that any better?
No. Both are an aftont to democracy.
So, Richard, what wouid you do, practically? And I don’t mean what do you really want to happen. I mean what can be done, in the present circs, to get the nation out of this hole, without destroying our economy or plunging us into civil war?
1. The economy wont be destroyed. Will it take a hit, yes, but destroyed? Clearly no. Hyperbole
2. Have you any concept of what full on civil conflict looks like? I do, in two different countries, there isn't going to be a civil war or anything within a thousand miles of it.
3. Don't panic Corporal Jones.
For once, I don’t think I’m being hyperbolic.
The mood is ghastly. The commons reflected this. We teeter on the edge.
Do I think there will be full on civil war? No. But could there be quite widespread civil unrest, up to and including the murder of MPs? Yes. Totally.
That’s quite bad enough, for me to quail and seek any other way out.
There have been murders and murder attempts on MPs without Brexit so its not exactly a precedent setting situation for that is it? There will not be widespread civil unrest, protests sure actually proper societal impacting dust ups, nah.
Seriously go live in a country where people are really at each other throats. You will find this is just an argument with a huge section finding it all a pain in the arse. Politics may be bitterly divided but it still IS democratic politics.
Remain 56:44 ahead in that Survation poll, excluding don’t knows.
I wonder if my younger step-daughter will ever have a vote on it. She was too young to vote in the referendum, but she's old enough now, along with all her friends, who would all vote Remain. But hey, apparently their views don't count now.
Just like mine didn't count for the 41 years after the 1975 referendum that I was too young to vote in.
And apparently should not count now according to the Lib Dems.
Apparently, the LibDems new policy is to only count the votes of people who haven't voted in previous EU elections.
The buffoon is a nasty piece of work too.... As has been asked before.
Johnny Mercer has also proven to be a tool of the highest order.
Pretty much synonymous with being a Tory these days.
The current Tory party and the current Republican party are unrecognizable from barely a couple of years back. What happened to the Republican Senators ? They are elected for 6 years, for God's sake ! The fear of the primaries.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
I'm not sure I know the answer but say instead of just revoking you had a referendum, but it's boycotted by one side, and the other side gets maybe half the turnout of last time because the opposition hasn't showed up. Is that any better?
No. Both are an aftont to democracy.
So, Richard, what wouid you do, practically? And I don’t mean what do you really want to happen. I mean what can be done, in the present circs, to get the nation out of this hole, without destroying our economy or plunging us into civil war?
1. The economy wont be destroyed. Will it take a hit, yes, but destroyed? Clearly no. Hyperbole
2. Have you any concept of what full on civil conflict looks like? I do, in two different countries, there isn't going to be a civil war or anything within a thousand miles of it.
3. Don't panic Corporal Jones.
For once, I don’t think I’m being hyperbolic.
The mood is ghastly. The commons reflected this. We teeter on the edge.
Do I think there will be full on civil war? No. But could there be quite widespread civil unrest, up to and including the murder of MPs? Yes. Totally.
That’s quite bad enough, for me to quail and seek any other way out.
The problem with this is that these threats of violence are coming heavly from one side. Bending primarily to threats from one side of a 50:50 nationwide split, rather than seeking mediation, is an extemely dangerous path to go down.
They really aren’t coming from just one side. Here’s an ex Irish pm essentially threatening Boris with assassination. Today.
Remain 56:44 ahead in that Survation poll, excluding don’t knows.
I wonder if my younger step-daughter will ever have a vote on it. She was too young to vote in the referendum, but she's old enough now, along with all her friends, who would all vote Remain. But hey, apparently their views don't count now.
Meh, some people had to wait 40 years for a vote on membership.
Well Remain won 67% of the vote!
I'd suggest a vote say ten years from the last referendum would be fair.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
I'm not sure I know the answer but say instead of just revoking you had a referendum, but it's boycotted by one side, and the other side gets maybe half the turnout of last time because the opposition hasn't showed up. Is that any better?
No. Both are an aftont to democracy.
So, Richard, what wouid you do, practically? And I don’t mean what do you really want to happen. I mean what can be done, in the present circs, to get the nation out of this hole, without destroying our economy or plunging us into civil war?
What I want to happen and what I think would achieve your (and my) aims are the same thing. We need a majority in Parliament willing to support a deal. Anything that leads to revocation will tear this country apart. This will not come with this Parliament as they have, on all sides, shown themselves unwilling to compromise. Do we need a GE as soon as possible.
I do not care if Boris remains PM or ends up in jail. I do care that Corbyn might become PM but that is just a chance we have to take.
EEA/EFTA is so obviously the solution. But it would destroy the Tories so is impossible.
It is worth repeating that destroying the Tories is not something that would exercise me for long. If course if we could throw in Labour as well I would be positively delighted.
If I were Boris, I would get every Conservative MP to take the Chiltern Hundreds. Now, this would mean a massive set of by-elections, but it would also force Jeremy Corbyn to become temporary Prime Minister, and make him the person who asks for the extension.
Of course, and somewhat sadly, Parliament would end up being deprived of Zac Goldsmith. But, of course, you can't have everything.
If the goal is to make Jeremy Corbyn temporary Prime Minister he can just wander over to the palace, tender his resignation and recommend Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister.
There are lots of Tory women MPs, such as my own MP Nus Ghani, who were close to Jo Cox, and who themselves face very nasty threats as a result of the increased polarisation and viciousness of politics. Boris has made a major misstep, and has revealed himself as at best irresponsible.
Let’s be brutally honest here, there are MPs - parties even - now espousing Revoke.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
That is why the Lib Dem policy is so deeply irresponsible. Even if - see below - I yearn for the clarity of their position. I also know that it is explosively risky.
It seems odd to say that such a mild mannered party as the Lib Dems are risking civil strife. But they are.
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
As EEA+CU means full free movement, we cannot do our own trade deals and we have to obey European courts, apart from a bit more control over fishing and agriculture it would mean staying in the EU in all but name and Leavers would rightly feel betrayed
As you keep banging on, it respects the referendum result. The referendum was Leave or Remain. This is a form of leaving.
Remain 56:44 ahead in that Survation poll, excluding don’t knows.
No, 53% to 47% and 49% back No Deal over further extension
Take another look.
'The survey shows how divided the country has become. Asked how they would vote in the event of a second EU referendum, 53 per cent said they would vote to Remain, with 47 per cent for Leave.
However, when asked what Mr Johnson should do if he is unable to win a deal from Brussels, 49 per cent said Britain should leave without one.'
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
I'm not sure I know the answer but say instead of just revoking you had a referendum, but it's boycotted by one side, and the other side gets maybe half the turnout of last time because the opposition hasn't showed up. Is that any better?
No. Both are an aftont to democracy.
So, Richard, what wouid you do, practically? And I don’t mean what do you really want to happen. I mean what can be done, in the present circs, to get the nation out of this hole, without destroying our economy or plunging us into civil war?
1. The economy wont be destroyed. Will it take a hit, yes, but destroyed? Clearly no. Hyperbole
2. Have you any concept of what full on civil conflict looks like? I do, in two different countries, there isn't going to be a civil war or anything within a thousand miles of it.
3. Don't panic Corporal Jones.
For once, I don’t think I’m being hyperbolic.
The mood is ghastly. The commons reflected this. We teeter on the edge.
Do I think there will be full on civil war? No. But could there be quite widespread civil unrest, up to and including the murder of MPs? Yes. Totally.
That’s quite bad enough, for me to quail and seek any other way out.
The problem with this is that these threats of violence are coming heavly from one side. Bending primarily to threats from one side of a 50:50 nationwide split, rather than seeking mediation, is an extemely dangerous path to go down.
They really aren’t coming from just one side. Here’s an ex Irish pm essentially threatening Boris with assassination. Today.
That's rhetoric for international politics, however. Domestically, some Brexiters are threatening violence, and some Remainers are threatening economic chaos and collapse. The two aren't equivalent.
(Perhaps he's like William Hague: feeble as party leader, but growing into a serious figure afterwards?)
Ambition in politicians is a poison. When it's drawn out they become much more likeable, and/or impressive.
I’m not sure if it’s my Brexit derangement syndrome talking but Michael Portillo seems to have gone full circle and is back to his former dislikable self.
If I were Boris, I would get every Conservative MP to take the Chiltern Hundreds. Now, this would mean a massive set of by-elections, but it would also force Jeremy Corbyn to become temporary Prime Minister, and make him the person who asks for the extension.
Of course, and somewhat sadly, Parliament would end up being deprived of Zac Goldsmith. But, of course, you can't have everything.
It would also result in a lot of by-elections where the defending Tory MP is likely to lose to a remain party candidate whilst the remain party remained in tack.
As a final throw of dice it would be a great way to destroy what was left of the party.
There are lots of Tory women MPs, such as my own MP Nus Ghani, who were close to Jo Cox, and who themselves face very nasty threats as a result of the increased polarisation and viciousness of politics. Boris has made a major misstep, and has revealed himself as at best irresponsible.
Let’s be brutally honest here, there are MPs - parties even - now espousing Revoke.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
That is why the Lib Dem policy is so deeply irresponsible. Even if - see below - I yearn for the clarity of their position. I also know that it is explosively risky.
It seems odd to say that such a mild mannered party as the Lib Dems are risking civil strife. But they are.
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
It was ruled out by the Leave campaign being founded on xenophobic lies.
The mendacious campaign pledges could and should have been ignored. Many untruths were told during the campaign, not just those about immigration.
If I were Boris, I would get every Conservative MP to take the Chiltern Hundreds. Now, this would mean a massive set of by-elections, but it would also force Jeremy Corbyn to become temporary Prime Minister, and make him the person who asks for the extension.
Of course, and somewhat sadly, Parliament would end up being deprived of Zac Goldsmith. But, of course, you can't have everything.
It would also result in a lot of by-elections where the defending Tory MP is likely to lose to a remain party candidate whilst the remain party remained in tack.
As a final throw of dice it would be a great way to destroy what was left of the party.
There are lots of Tory women MPs, such as my own MP Nus Ghani, who were close to Jo Cox, and who themselves face very nasty threats as a result of the increased polarisation and viciousness of politics. Boris has made a major misstep, and has revealed himself as at best irresponsible.
Let’s be brutally honest here, there are MPs - parties even - now espousing Revoke.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
That is why the Lib Dem policy is so deeply irresponsible. Even if - see below - I yearn for the clarity of their position. I also know that it is explosively risky.
It seems odd to say that such a mild mannered party as the Lib Dems are risking civil strife. But they are.
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
As EEA+CU means full free movement, we cannot do our own trade deals and we have to obey European courts, apart from a bit more control over fishing and agriculture it would mean staying in the EU in all but name and Leavers would rightly feel betrayed
As you keep banging on, it respects the referendum result. The referendum was Leave or Remain. This is a form of leaving.
No it doesn't, it does not respect most of the main pledges of the winning Vote Leave campaign, it is a Remainers Brexit as staying in the SM and CU is no Brexit
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
up. Is that any better?
No. Both are an aftont to democracy.
ging us into civil war?
1. The economy wont be destroyed. Will it take a hit, yes, but destroyed? Clearly no. Hyperbole
2. Have you any concept of what full on civil conflict looks like? I do, in two different countries, there isn't going to be a civil war or anything within a thousand miles of it.
3. Don't panic Corporal Jones.
For once, I don’t think I’m being hyperbolic.
The mood is ghastly. The commons reflected this. We teeter on the edge.
Do I think there will be full on civil war? No. But could there be quite widespread civil unrest, up to and including the murder of MPs? Yes. Totally.
That’s quite bad enough, for me to quail and seek any other way out.
The problem with this is that these threats of violence are coming heavly from one side. Bending primarily to threats from one side of a 50:50 nationwide split, rather than seeking mediation, is an extemely dangerous path to go down.
They really aren’t coming from just one side. Here’s an ex Irish pm essentially threatening Boris with assassination. Today.
That's rhetoric for international politics, however. Domestically, some Brexiters are threatening violence, and some Remainers are threatening economic chaos and collapse. The two aren't equivalent.
No, you don’t get to do that. Bruton’s remarks were wildly irresponsible, and he’s an ex PM., not some drunken nobody on Facebook. See also Philip Pullman calling for Boris to be hung, the remainer rapper with the decapitated Boris effigy. Etc
Lots of pearls being clutched tonight - because the opposition had a terrible day.
I think it dawned on them tonight how badly they have played the long game.
No. People are rightly appalled at the sight of a Prime Minister using inflammatory language without any regard for its consequences and doubling down on this even when female MPs point out the risks he is taking, risks which turned real 3 years ago when a young female MP was brutally murdered.
You can call that pearl clutching if you want. Others are deeply dismayed at the lack of a moral compass in the PM.
If I were Boris, I would get every Conservative MP to take the Chiltern Hundreds. Now, this would mean a massive set of by-elections, but it would also force Jeremy Corbyn to become temporary Prime Minister, and make him the person who asks for the extension.
Of course, and somewhat sadly, Parliament would end up being deprived of Zac Goldsmith. But, of course, you can't have everything.
It would also result in a lot of by-elections where the defending Tory MP is likely to lose to a remain party candidate whilst the remain party remained in tack.
As a final throw of dice it would be a great way to destroy what was left of the party.
That sounds like a recommendation
Well it would be a way to shut up Boris asking for an election - take the Chiltern Hundreds and you can have one..
There are lots of Tory women MPs, such as my own MP Nus Ghani, who were close to Jo Cox, and who themselves face very nasty threats as a result of the increased polarisation and viciousness of politics. Boris has made a major misstep, and has revealed himself as at best irresponsible.
Let’s be brutally honest here, there are MPs - parties even - now espousing Revoke.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
That is why the Lib Dem policy is so deeply irresponsible. Even if - see below - I yearn for the clarity of their position. I also know that it is explosively risky.
It seems odd to say that such a mild mannered party as the Lib Dems are risking civil strife. But they are.
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
As EEA+CU means full free movement, we cannot do our own trade deals and we have to obey European courts, apart from a bit more control over fishing and agriculture it would mean staying in the EU in all but name and Leavers would rightly feel betrayed
As you keep banging on, it respects the referendum result. The referendum was Leave or Remain. This is a form of leaving.
No it doesn't, it does not respect most of the main pledges of the winning Vote Leave campaign, it is a Remainers Brexit as staying in the SM and CU is no Brexit
Which of the ‘main leave pledges’ does no deal respect?
I suspect the £2.585 billion of goodwill they had in their last accounts might turn out to be not worth that much after all.
Goodwill is an intangible asset associated with the purchase of one company by another. Specifically, goodwill is recorded in a situation in which the purchase price is higher than the sum of the fair value of all identifiable tangible and intangible assets purchased in the acquisition and the liabilities assumed in the process. The value of a company’s brand name, solid customer base, good customer relations, good employee relations, and any patents or proprietary technology represent some examples of goodwill.
Ie, nothing you can sell. And not something you can really value. But Accountants do love to try. Convert everything into monetary value. What could possibly go wrong?
In fact, read the description again. You've paid MORE for something you know isn't worth that. Get shut of it from your balance sheet.
It's the main advantage FRS102 has over IFRS. Amortisation.
There are lots of Tory women MPs, such as my own MP Nus Ghani, who were close to Jo Cox, and who themselves face very nasty threats as a result of the increased polarisation and viciousness of politics. Boris has made a major misstep, and has revealed himself as at best irresponsible.
Let’s be brutally honest here, there are MPs - parties even - now espousing Revoke.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
That is why the Lib Dem policy is so deeply irresponsible. Even if - see below - I yearn for the clarity of their position. I also know that it is explosively risky.
It seems odd to say that such a mild mannered party as the Lib Dems are risking civil strife. But they are.
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
As EEA+CU means full free movement, we cannot do our own trade deals and we have to obey European courts, apart from a bit more control over fishing and agriculture it would mean staying in the EU in all but name and Leavers would rightly feel betrayed
It would be a decent compromise that reflects the narrowness of the vote, while respecting the result of the vote. That extremist neobrexiteers like yourself oppose it is more evidence that it’s the wise path.
If I were Boris, I would get every Conservative MP to take the Chiltern Hundreds. Now, this would mean a massive set of by-elections, but it would also force Jeremy Corbyn to become temporary Prime Minister, and make him the person who asks for the extension.
Of course, and somewhat sadly, Parliament would end up being deprived of Zac Goldsmith. But, of course, you can't have everything.
Having a half general election - only in your marginals but not in the marginals you are targeting - is a delightfully bonkers idea. The Tories would inevitably lose some seats, maybe several dozen, and become a weak opposition.
Lots of pearls being clutched tonight - because the opposition had a terrible day.
I think it dawned on them tonight how badly they have played the long game.
No. People are rightly appalled at the sight of a Prime Minister using inflammatory language without any regard for its consequences and doubling down on this even when female MPs point out the risks he is taking, risks which turned real 3 years ago when a young female MP was brutally murdered.
You can call that pearl clutching if you want. Others are deeply dismayed at the lack of a moral compass in the PM.
Some people = remainers.
Calling it a surrender bill isn’t inflammatory IMHO.
A rapper with a fake decapitated Boris head on stage praised by the Guardian on the other hand...
Most voters want Brexit over with, one way or another. At the moment they see the shortest route to that as being departure on October 31st come what may. If that doesn’t happen they may well look favourably on the only obvious “quick” alternative solution - revoke. I don’t think there’s much support for a referendum which just stretches out the pain.
No. The people of this country are smarter than you think. We wouldn’t be this great country if they weren’t.
When you get into a slump. The big black dog sat on you, you can’t just pop a pill in the morning and make it go away, or go out get sozzled and find it’s gone next morning, it’s going to be hard work.
Yes we want it over. But every single one of us knows no deal 31st October and it isn’t over. ultimately what hurts UK from No Deal is not just the indelible impact on our farming and other industry and business in the painful fast forward to global Britain, but the political crisis in Britain extending into the longer term, because we wouldn’t be able to get EU to table and compromise without ourselves climbing down and sucking down exactly what they are currently asking from us today. No deal is not actually an answer to anything, it’s a billboard to the world of our failure to achieve that answer. A symbol of failure etched forever into British history. And the stone that sinks global Britain for good.
There are lots of Tory women MPs, such as my own MP Nus Ghani, who were close to Jo Cox, and who themselves face very nasty threats as a result of the increased polarisation and viciousness of politics. Boris has made a major misstep, and has revealed himself as at best irresponsible.
Let’s be brutally honest here, there are MPs - parties even - now espousing Revoke.
Revoke literally says, to 17.4m people: your vote means nothing, you don’t get a say, you’re not worthy of a role in our democracy. It means, in effect, the end of democracy.
How will people react to that? With violence, of course, as that is how people have always reacted, through history, when they are told by the state that they have no say, their role is just to toil, and pay taxes, and do what they are told by their betters.
That is why the Lib Dem policy is so deeply irresponsible. Even if - see below - I yearn for the clarity of their position. I also know that it is explosively risky.
It seems odd to say that such a mild mannered party as the Lib Dems are risking civil strife. But they are.
No Deal is equally as divisive and undemocratic, and is also a disaster for the economy.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
As EEA+CU means full free movement, we cannot do our own trade deals and we have to obey European courts, apart from a bit more control over fishing and agriculture it would mean staying in the EU in all but name and Leavers would rightly feel betrayed
As you keep banging on, it respects the referendum result. The referendum was Leave or Remain. This is a form of leaving.
No it doesn't, it does not respect most of the main pledges of the winning Vote Leave campaign, it is a Remainers Brexit as staying in the SM and CU is no Brexit
Which of the ‘main leave pledges’ does no deal respect?
Replacing free movement with a points system, regaining power from European Courts, reclaiming money from the EU, doing our own trade deals etc
Is there the possibility of the GLA referring him to the police...? They’ve demanded answers in two weeks
I followed the links and I really can't see any great conspiracy there; looks much like a lot of seminars pushing 'hi-tech innovation' and angel/early-stage financing to me. Most of them are froth, but that's the nature of tiny wannabe companies trying to raise their profiles and attract investment. Only a tiny proportion come to anything.
Comments
This is now beyond tribalism. We’re staring into the abyss. All of us.
There is something Trumpesque dissing allies the moment they say something off message. 🙂
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1176980917631561728?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1176980917631561728&ref_url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/sep/25/boris-johnson-flies-to-uk-as-parliament-returns-after-court-ruling-politics-live
https://twitter.com/lindayueh/status/1176987967665127425
I am really enjoying tifo footballs content, both on youtube and at the athletic.
They produce some super interesting stuff about tactics and stories you probably didnt know about eg how payment of transfer fees really works.
That will help the mood of sweetness and light
If Boris wishes to resign he really needs to do so well before mid october arrives.
Why didn’t we just go for EEA + CU right at the start? It was the obvious compromise solution.
We can but dream.
Retweeted by Paul Masterton also.
2. Have you any concept of what full on civil conflict looks like? I do, in two different countries, there isn't going to be a civil war or anything within a thousand miles of it.
3. Don't panic Corporal Jones.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/sep/25/secreted-history-what-happened-to-donna-tartt-women
The comments are quite amusing, and not entirely supportive. They are also quite sharp: I particularly liked: Feminism means Donna Tartt can write whatever she wants, however she wants.. Radical stuff, to be sure; what's a Guardian writer to make of such a heretical comment?
We’re fucked. Civil war it is.
Because by rejecting one form of Brexit they tacitly admitted that the Leave vote did not truely indicate majority support for the course of action which they now claim must be delivered (ie. leave come what may). Had they voted for the deal, and been blocked purely by remain votes in Parliament, that would have been different.
It might not just be what happens with brexit next month that takes the votes from Tory to BRX on Election Day, it could be a less than favourable impression of Boris and his government amongst waverers.
I do not care if Boris remains PM or ends up in jail. I do care that Corbyn might become PM but that is just a chance we have to take.
Only to find out that Conservative MPs wanted to be against everything and for nothing.
For once, I don’t think I’m being hyperbolic.
The mood is ghastly. The commons reflected this. We teeter on the edge.
Do I think there will be full on civil war? No. But could there be quite widespread civil unrest, up to and including the murder of MPs? Yes. Totally.
That’s quite bad enough, for me to quail and seek any other way out.
Repeat: May’s deal is dead, it is no more, yes extinct like a melted parrot.
And apparently should not count now according to the Lib Dems.
https://twitter.com/Ed_Miliband/status/1176978294316646401
(Perhaps he's like William Hague: feeble as party leader, but growing into a serious figure afterwards?)
I live in hope that one day you will be big enough to admit that this was a monstrous error.
If we are to emerge intact from this, as a nation, then we all have to confess our sins, on all sides.
Of course, and somewhat sadly, Parliament would end up being deprived of Zac Goldsmith. But, of course, you can't have everything.
Figures like Farage are currently treading a disingenuous line of saying they want to prevent violence and partly stoking it.
Seriously go live in a country where people are really at each other throats. You will find this is just an argument with a huge section finding it all a pain in the arse. Politics may be bitterly divided but it still IS democratic politics.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/25/boris-johnson-accused-of-seeking-to-create-no-mans-land-at-irish-border
I'd suggest a vote say ten years from the last referendum would be fair.
In fact looking at the results of the original referendum are quite funny considering what happened in 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum
Like, um, Switzerland.
However, when asked what Mr Johnson should do if he is unable to win a deal from Brussels, 49 per cent said Britain should leave without one.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7504983/Most-British-voters-want-snap-poll-think-Establishment-determined-block-Brexit.html
His podcast is also rather good.
I think it dawned on them tonight how badly they have played the long game.
https://mobile.twitter.com/MrBrendanCox/status/1176965778974924802
As a final throw of dice it would be a great way to destroy what was left of the party.
Both sides are horribly guilty.
You can call that pearl clutching if you want. Others are deeply dismayed at the lack of a moral compass in the PM.
https://twitter.com/odysseanproject/status/1174098715788947457?s=21
But Accountants do love to try. Convert everything into monetary value. What could possibly go wrong?
In fact, read the description again. You've paid MORE for something you know isn't worth that. Get shut of it from your balance sheet.
It's the main advantage FRS102 has over IFRS. Amortisation.
Calling it a surrender bill isn’t inflammatory IMHO.
A rapper with a fake decapitated Boris head on stage praised by the Guardian on the other hand...
When you get into a slump. The big black dog sat on you, you can’t just pop a pill in the morning and make it go away, or go out get sozzled and find it’s gone next morning, it’s going to be hard work.
Yes we want it over. But every single one of us knows no deal 31st October and it isn’t over. ultimately what hurts UK from No Deal is not just the indelible impact on our farming and other industry and business in the painful fast forward to global Britain, but the political crisis in Britain extending into the longer term, because we wouldn’t be able to get EU to table and compromise without ourselves climbing down and sucking down exactly what they are currently asking from us today. No deal is not actually an answer to anything, it’s a billboard to the world of our failure to achieve that answer. A symbol of failure etched forever into British history. And the stone that sinks global Britain for good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpsh9APpxls
Read the comments below the tweet.