As I've repeatedly pointed out the Gov't doesn't have the numbers to prevent any sort of ambush. They just need to leave Cash, Chope and Davies in there to talk the hind legs off a donkey about any sort of opposition attempt to install Bercow as chief EU poobah which they'd lose regardless of whether they were there or not.
The fleet of Tory donors' fast choppers will be on standby.....
Apparently it's OK to call me a fool for suggesting that 52% is a higher number than 30% though.
Oh well.
52% isn't a number 52 is a number.
Isn't 52%, 0.52?
No its 17.4 million.
Eh?
The argument was about whether a percentage is a number. I say yes it is. So 32% = 0.32.
A percentage is very definitely a number. Pi is a number. The square root of minus 1 is a number.
There are different classes of number. Percentages and Pi are numbers but one (percentages) are usually rational numbers whereas Pi is irrational. Both, however, are real numbers whereas sqrt(-1) is a complex number.
Reals can, of course, be viewed as a subset of complex numbers whose imaginary part is always zero thus restricting them to the axis on an Argand diagram.
I still can't get my brain around the idea that an actual supporter of Brexit would vote for the Brexit Party where it risked denying the Tories and giving the Labour Party an MP. Not when faced with an actual ballot paper rather than an opinion pollster. But having said that, if Johnson can't squeeze the Brexit Party vote any more than this and there's a reasonable amount of tactical voting, aren't the Tories toast?
If you are responding to pollsters as a potential BXP supporter then when push comes to GE shove who are you actually going to vote for...assuming you are not in a seat where the Tories have no chance.
John Major's government received the highest ever vote in 1992. Perhaps all subsequent elected governments were undemocratic because they received a smaller number of votes...
Have you really joined the LDs, Comrade? Serious food for thought!!
Yes Joff I have.
Good on you. Have you met your fellow constituency members yet? I am still debating whether or not I should take the plunge. I am very clear I’m a social democrat and I am not sure I can legitimately share a party with Liberals and Tory wets who, however much I like and admire them in many ways, fundamentally see the world differently to me.
I’m a social democrat Lib Dem of the Charles Kennedy, Tim Farron, Layla Moran school. I don’t see the internal coalition of the party as any broader than the Labour or Conservative parties - arguably the opposite: there’s less distance from Chuka & Layla to Sarah Wollaston & Sam Gyimah than there is from, say, Rory Stewart to Priti Patel. What encourages me most is that 90% of my fellow constituency activists are thoughtful, generous, and committed to their local communities.
Cheers. My problem, I guess, is that Gyimah and Wollaston supported policies I bitterly opposed. My experience in Labour was that broad churches no longer work. I suppose I am just a little scarred right now!
I, an idiot: Impeaching Trump will be good for the Democarts You, a genius: What a huge blunder, impeaching Trump will only solidify Trump's base and completely destroy the Democrats electoral chances
What I don't get is the final line. Is that saying that 4 in 10 of those who think he should be impeached don't think or don't know whether he committed an impeachable offence but should be impeached anyway?
The Number of Republicans wanting to impeach Trump doubled!
Due to the infuriating habit of American News organisations rarely releasing the raw poll results it's hard to know what they mean by that last line but I think, from reading the article, is that that 59% is the primary reason given for impeachment, 37% think he should be impeached simply for being crap at the job.
Leaving 4% who want him impeached for misc reasons.
Most of that 4% would comprise former wives and mistresses.
With so many in the echo chamber fawning over them, the Lib Dem’s are lining up to be the biggest sell of all time at the next GE
The lib dems will do well. Do well at splitting the left and centre left vote allowing the Tories to come through the middle and win a decent (30+) majority.
As I've repeatedly pointed out the Gov't doesn't have the numbers to prevent any sort of ambush. They just need to leave Cash, Chope and Davies in there to talk the hind legs off a donkey about any sort of opposition attempt to install Bercow as chief EU poobah which they'd lose regardless of whether they were there or not.
The fleet of Tory donors' fast choppers will be on standby.....
They'll let the rebels get on with it, it will look absolutely awful and 'coup'ish and being there wouldn't change it anyway. Let the opposition further alienate the voters.
The Cabinet Minister is wrong. It would be defeated by a greater margin than before. I doubt Remainers like Hammond will continue the pretence of wanting a deal, even one as super soft as that.
Its not soft. It does not include membership of the single market or the customs union outside the transition period.
Outside the transition period isn't defined. We could negotiate a hard or soft Brexit outside transition.
The transition is the softest possible Brexit though.
The Cabinet Minister is wrong. It would be defeated by a greater margin than before. I doubt Remainers like Hammond will continue the pretence of wanting a deal, even one as super soft as that.
Its not soft. It does not include membership of the single market or the customs union outside the transition period.
Outside the transition period isn't defined. We could negotiate a hard or soft Brexit outside transition.
The transition is the softest possible Brexit though.
Exactly. It should be defined. Otherwise its a hard Brexit.
Perhaps this was Boris and Dom's secret plan all along. It would delivery on 31 Oct and avoid No Deal. Boris's enemies would be at first flummoxed and then plunged into despair. That must be why Boris and Dom are apparently so gay: they've got that killer trick up their sleeve.
Plan A, almost unbelievably was that Johnson and Cummings expected the EU to give them the deal they wanted through threats. The UK would leave the EU on Oct 31 followed by an election the conservatives would win.
Plan B was Labour would agree an election prior to Oct 31.
This could be Plan C. Johnson presents May's Deal as is, satisfying the Benn Act. They don't mind too much at this stage whether Parliament votes the deal through. Or at least it's an acceptable risk if they vote in favour because they expect Parliament to reject May's Deal for a fourth time, at which point they can present themselves as the reasonable party and the opposition as hypocritical and wilful.
I find the zealotry of the current lib dems equally horrific. What do they stand for, other than overturning the result - an overall majority - of the 2016 referendum?
The lib dems as they stand are basically the mirror image of the brexit party, a bunch of ultras who want their way without compromise, without consensus, without common sense.
And I say this as someone who actually quite liked the coalition era. But then again, I like consensus.
If the Brexit Party win a majority that is a mandate for no deal. If the LibDems win a majority that is a mandate for revoke. Any government elected by a majority is the will of the people in that parliament. Democracy doesn't stop after a single vote- otherwise let's not bother removing Major in 1997 just because he's been demolished in a landslide - his 1992 mandate trumps 1997 and anyway he got more votes in that election that Blair in this.
One of my cousins, a constituent of Sarah Wollaston, has voted Liberal/LibDem all her life - she has been alienated by the LibDem policy of revoking without a referendum, not because she doesn't want to remain, but because she sees it as "divisive in a country that has enough division".
Implementing democracy is non-optional. If it becomes optional democracy dies and violence will be the order of the day as it is in
1. You are right it is not the end. Once we have left you can campaign to rejoin to your hearts content.
2. No it is a fault of Remainers in Parliament like Grieve who seek to obstruct any deal. If it wasn't for that then a form of Brexit could have been found, if not May's Deal then via the indicative votes.
3. You're right its not a static process. Again once we've left you can seek to rejoin. I have no objection to a further referendum after we have left.
4. Yes but who imposes the force? And who controls that? If not voters, then it will be very concerning.
Grieve was not involved until a year and a half after the referendum, when May began to raise the prospect of no-deal. He acquiesced with multiple leave options, and did not seek to obstruct "any deal" . This is pure myth and propaganda, as any look through 2017 shows.
The rule of law in a democracy requires that force is imposed in an orderly way, subject to and under the examination of key representative institutions of that democracy, like parliament. Cummings impllcitly endorsing banditry and intimidation beyond either the organised forces of law and order, or the oversight of parliament, is nothing to do with this process.
That is categorically untrue. He didn't "acquiesce to multiple leave options" he did not vote in favour of even on leave option.
I find the zealotry of the current lib dems equally horrific. What do they stand for, other than overturning the result - an overall majority - of the 2016 referendum?
The lib dems as they stand are basically the mirror image of the brexit party, a bunch of ultras who want their way without compromise, without consensus, without common sense.
And I say this as someone who actually quite liked the coalition era. But then again, I like consensus.
If the Brexit Party win a majority that is a mandate for no deal. If the LibDems win a majority that is a mandate for revoke. Any government elected by a majority is the will of the people in that parliament. Democracy doesn't stop after a single vote- otherwise let's not bother removing Major in 1997 just because he's been demolished in a landslide - his 1992 mandate trumps 1997 and anyway he got more votes in that election that Blair in this.
The problem is that a 52% majority in a two horse race in a referendum (that subsequent powers have done their very best to subvert) and a 30% majority in an entirely different race a few years later that somehow grants the winner of that 30% absolute power and the ability to cancel out the 52% are two very different and contradictory things.
You are comparing apples to oranges, and I find it strange that someone as sensible as you is quoting the rulebook when you know damn well the rules don't make sense, nor will they stand for very long in the face of such offensive contradiction.
The brexit party taking us out to no deal with a mandate from 30% of the voting public would be an insult to democracy, as is the lib dems promise to revoke on a similar mandate. If you're a democrat, neither is acceptable. But at least the brexit party don't have the gall to put the word "democract" in their name.
If we extend again past October 31st pretty likely, MPs cannot pretend they were not warned of the consequences of ignoring the biggest vote in postwar history
Is a cabinet minister inciting violence? Its an awfully fine line.
QTWTAIN It's a warning of the feeling out there. Inciting violence would be 'get on the streets and show them what for'
These people don’t go outside their own bubbles. They have no idea what the feeling is ‘out there’.
They know. Theyve knocked on doors. And theyve been told again and again by their footsloggers who knock on doors. These things have to be able to be aired, because as a country we have a real problem brewing.
This has Cummings' fingerprints on it. You make an inflammatory statement, extract a vitriolic response, then back off from it and act all calm and reasonable.
If we extend again past October 31st pretty likely, MPs cannot pretend they were not warned of the consequences of ignoring the biggest vote in postwar history
Any violence will be met by the full force of the law as is expected.
I have been out today. Would someone on here who has been following Parliament please tell me which MP has actually DONE something to resolve the crisis. I am not interested in virtue signalling, faux outrage or whining. I mean actual work to achieve a result. If the answer is nobody then as far as I am concerned they may as well go the way of the Northern Ireland Assembly-closure on full pay.
Stephen Kinnock was on R4, asked whether Boris's rhetoric was making it hard for Labour Leavers like him to back a del. He said he and his group of 20+ similar MPs felt it certainly didn't make it easier, but in the end they needed to look at the national interest, not at the rhetoric, and didn't rule out voting for a deal if one was offered.
@HYUFD when was the last time you went knocking on doors in Stoke or Walsall or Sunderland?
I have phoned in Stoke and Walsall not canvassed as they are over the other side of the country from where I live and work, I canvass in Chingford and Enfield Southgate which are my nearest marginals
Is a cabinet minister inciting violence? Its an awfully fine line.
QTWTAIN It's a warning of the feeling out there. Inciting violence would be 'get on the streets and show them what for'
These people don’t go outside their own bubbles. They have no idea what the feeling is ‘out there’.
They know. Theyve knocked on doors. And theyve been told again and again by their footsloggers who knock on doors. These things have to be able to be aired, because as a country we have a real problem brewing.
Is a cabinet minister inciting violence? Its an awfully fine line.
Yes. If you read the full quotes the cabinet minister argues that even a 66% Remain vote in a subsequent referendum would lead to domestic terrorism. So we have to leave. Which is an extraordinary thing for a politican to argue even under the cloak of anonymity. If you add it to the cabinet briefing given to Tom Newton Dunn it suggests they are panicing.
@HYUFD when was the last time you went knocking on doors in Stoke or Walsall or Sunderland?
I have phoned in Stoke and Walsall not canvassed as they are over the other side of the country from where I live and work, I canvass in Chingford and Enfield Southgate which are my nearest marginals
If we extend again past October 31st pretty likely, MPs cannot pretend they were not warned of the consequences of ignoring the biggest vote in postwar history
Any violence will be met by the full force of the law as is expected.
It's great watching the liberal left talk about getting the water cannons / tear gas / riot gear out.
If we extend again past October 31st pretty likely, MPs cannot pretend they were not warned of the consequences of ignoring the biggest vote in postwar history
Any violence will be met by the full force of the law as is expected.
JUst more Leavers threatening the rest of us witrh violence unless we give them Brexit.
Is a cabinet minister inciting violence? Its an awfully fine line.
QTWTAIN It's a warning of the feeling out there. Inciting violence would be 'get on the streets and show them what for'
These people don’t go outside their own bubbles. They have no idea what the feeling is ‘out there’.
They know. Theyve knocked on doors. And theyve been told again and again by their footsloggers who knock on doors. These things have to be able to be aired, because as a country we have a real problem brewing.
When was the last time Cummings was in Wakefield?
No idea but my mum and dad were up there last week!
Implementing democracy is non-optional. If it becomes optional democracy dies and violence will be the order of the day as it is in
1. You are right it is not the end. Once we have left you can campaign to rejoin to your hearts content.
2. No it is a fault of Remainers in Parliament like Grieve who seek to obstruct any deal. If it wasn't for that then a form of Brexit could have been found, if not May's Deal then via the indicative votes.
3. You're right its not a static process. Again once we've left you can seek to rejoin. I have no objection to a further referendum after we have left.
4. Yes but who imposes the force? And who controls that? If not voters, then it will be very concerning.
Grieve was not involved until a year and a half after the referendum, when May began to raise the prospect of no-deal. He acquiesced with multiple leave options, and did not seek to obstruct "any deal" . This is pure myth and propaganda, as any look through 2017 shows.
The rule of law in a democracy requires that force is imposed in an orderly way, subject to and under the examination of key representative institutions of that democracy, like parliament. Cummings impllcitly endorsing banditry and intimidation beyond either the organised forces of law and order, or the oversight of parliament, is nothing to do with this process.
That is categorically untrue. He didn't "acquiesce to multiple leave options" he did not vote in favour of even on leave option.
He voted for a second referendum and to revoke Article 50.
He abstained on customs union and EFTA.
He voted against Labour's plan, and every other proposal.
Look at the timeframe. This was all after Grieve introduced the meaningful vote, and that was all after May raised no deal. By acquiescence I don't mean support for Brexit before or after that, either, but even for some time after that, not seeking to legislate against it.
PM roused MPs against SC by asserting SC were wrong. Judges can’t defend themselves. Constitutional convention, now contained in Constitutional Reform Act 2005, requires govt ministers to defend judges to preserve judicial independence. PM is breaking that duty fundamentally.
That seems thin at best and probably wrong. You can defend judges while saying they got the decision wrong. Judges aren't blessed with Papal Infallibility and if the law said that we need to say that we agree with the decision when we clearly don't then that would violate fundamental free speech.
You can disagree with a court's ruling; you can analyse it and think that it is wrong or that the reasoning is flawed in some way. Lawyers do this all the time and sometimes courts will look at the decisions of previous courts and update them and decide that the interpretation was wrong. That is how law develops.
But that is very different from what is happening here, which is that the government is refusing with any sort of grace, let alone any good grace, to accept the ruling of the Supreme Court, even though its own Attorney-General gave the game away yesterday by admitting that the government did not have an unlimited right to prorogue, exactly the point made by the Court.
Furthermore it is saying that its own judgment is better than those tasked with determining the law and has insinuated that the judges have come to this ruling for improper motives or because they were biased. And that is an attack on the concept of judicial independence and the fact that the judiciary are independent and that everyone, including governments, are subject to the law. It is clear that this PM (and, sadly, his A-G it would now appear) have no proper understanding of how government and our constitution work, why this is important and could not care less, even if they do understand.
That is a very dangerous development. There are plenty of examples from our own history or indeed the history of our countries to show why.
If Brexit is to succeed on any level at all it can only do so within the bounds of our laws and constitution. If Britain is to succeed on any level at all post-Brexit it can only do so if those who govern it do not destroy the very concept of the rule of law in this country. Cancelled
I find the zealotry of the current lib dems equally horrific. What do they stand for, other than overturning the result - an overall majority - of the 2016 referendum?
The lib dems as they stand are basically the mirror image of the brexit party, a bunch of ultras who want their way without compromise, without consensus, without common sense.
And I say this as someone who actually quite liked the coalition era. But then again, I like consensus.
If the Brexit Party win a majority that is a mandate for no deal. If the LibDems win a majority that is a mandate for revoke. Any government elected by a majority is the will of the people in that parliament. Democracy doesn't stop after a single vote- otherwise let's not bother removing Major in 1997 just because he's been demolished in a landslide - his 1992 mandate trumps 1997 and anyway he got more votes in that election that Blair in this.
The problem is that a 52% majority in a two horse race in a referendum (that subsequent powers have done their very best to subvert) and a 30% majority in an entirely different race a few years later that somehow grants the winner of that 30% absolute power and the ability to cancel out the 52% are two very different and contradictory things.
You are comparing apples to oranges, and I find it strange that someone as sensible as you is quoting the rulebook when you know damn well the rules don't make sense, nor will they stand for very long in the face of such offensive contradiction.
The brexit party taking us out to no deal with a mandate from 30% of the voting public would be an insult to democracy, as is the lib dems promise to revoke on a similar mandate. If you're a democrat, neither is acceptable. But at least the brexit party don't have the gall to put the word "democract" in their name.
They have the gall to put the word "party" in their name when they're a limited company.
If we extend again past October 31st pretty likely, MPs cannot pretend they were not warned of the consequences of ignoring the biggest vote in postwar history
Any violence will be met by the full force of the law as is expected.
JUst more Leavers threatening the rest of us witrh violence unless we give them Brexit.
Nothing has changed....
Just like Remainers threatening violence in Northern Ireland unless we stay in the CU.
I find the zealotry of the current lib dems equally horrific. What do they stand for, other than overturning the result - an overall majority - of the 2016 referendum?
The lib dems as they stand are basically the mirror image of the brexit party, a bunch of ultras who want their way without compromise, without consensus, without common sense.
And I say this as someone who actually quite liked the coalition era. But then again, I like consensus.
If the Brexit Party win a majority that is a mandate for no deal. If the LibDems win a majority that is a mandate for revoke. Any government elected by a majority is the will of the people in that parliament. Democracy doesn't stop after a single vote- otherwise let's not bother removing Major in 1997 just because he's been demolished in a landslide - his 1992 mandate trumps 1997 and anyway he got more votes in that election that Blair in this.
The problem is that a 52% majority in a two horse race in a referendum (that subsequent powers have done their very best to subvert) and a 30% majority in an entirely different race a few years later that somehow grants the winner of that 30% absolute power and the ability to cancel out the 52% are two very different and contradictory things.
You are comparing apples to oranges, and I find it strange that someone as sensible as you is quoting the rulebook when you know damn well the rules don't make sense, nor will they stand for very long in the face of such offensive contradiction.
The brexit party taking us out to no deal with a mandate from 30% of the voting public would be an insult to democracy, as is the lib dems promise to revoke on a similar mandate. If you're a democrat, neither is acceptable. But at least the brexit party don't have the gall to put the word "democract" in their name.
The LibDems have let the "no second vote, Parliament can act on a majority" genie out of the bottle. They will find it much harder to get that majority than Leave parties will.
Which the EU will see. Just what is the point in their trying to keep the UK in the EU if in 2, 5, 10 years time that Leave majority says "we're off"?
I am in the US currently. Quite understandably given what’s happening, people in the UK probably don’t appreciate how big a deal this Trump Ukraine story is over here. It’s everywhere, all the time. Did Cummings war game Trump losing the presidency next year?
If we extend again past October 31st pretty likely, MPs cannot pretend they were not warned of the consequences of ignoring the biggest vote in postwar history
Any violence will be met by the full force of the law as is expected.
It's great watching the liberal left talk about getting the water cannons / tear gas / riot gear out.
Given the last time we had to do it was the leftwing anti tuition fees and anti austerity anarchist protestors in the Coalition years the populist right and Tommy Robinson mob is probably due a riot anyway
I find the zealotry of the current lib dems equally horrific. What do they stand for, other than overturning the result - an overall majority - of the 2016 referendum?
The lib dems as they stand are basically the mirror image of the brexit party, a bunch of ultras who want their way without compromise, without consensus, without common sense.
And I say this as someone who actually quite liked the coalition era. But then again, I like consensus.
If the Brexit Party win a majority that is a mandate for no deal. If the LibDems win a majority that is a mandate for revoke. Any government elected by a majority is the will of the people in that parliament. Democracy doesn't stop after a single vote- otherwise let's not bother removing Major in 1997 just because he's been demolished in a landslide - his 1992 mandate trumps 1997 and anyway he got more votes in that election that Blair in this.
The problem is that a 52% majority in a two horse race in a referendum (that subsequent powers have done their very best to subvert) and a 30% majority in an entirely different race a few years later that somehow grants the winner of that 30% absolute power and the ability to cancel out the 52% are two very different and contradictory things.
You are comparing apples to oranges, and I find it strange that someone as sensible as you is quoting the rulebook when you know damn well the rules don't make sense, nor will they stand for very long in the face of such offensive contradiction.
The brexit party taking us out to no deal with a mandate from 30% of the voting public would be an insult to democracy, as is the lib dems promise to revoke on a similar mandate. If you're a democrat, neither is acceptable. But at least the brexit party don't have the gall to put the word "democract" in their name.
They have the gall to put the word "party" in their name when they're a limited company.
The Liberal Democrats have the gall to put the words 'Liberal' and 'Democrat' in their name when they are neither.
Of course if Johnson thought that the judges had erred he could have appealed his case to the European courts. In fact, of course, one of the reasons that he lost is that he didn't bother to make a statement to the Supreme Court, and he couldn't have made a sworn statement without either lying or revealing that his defence was a charade.
I find the zealotry of the current lib dems equally horrific. What do they stand for, other than overturning the result - an overall majority - of the 2016 referendum?
The lib dems as they stand are basically the mirror image of the brexit party, a bunch of ultras who want their way without compromise, without consensus, without common sense.
And I say this as someone who actually quite liked the coalition era. But then again, I like consensus.
If the Brexit Party win a majority that is a mandate for no deal. If the LibDems win a majority that is a mandate for revoke. Any government elected by a majority is the will of the people in that parliament. Democracy doesn't stop after a single vote- otherwise let's not bother removing Major in 1997 just because he's been demolished in a landslide - his 1992 mandate trumps 1997 and anyway he got more votes in that election that Blair in this.
The problem is that a 52% majority in a two horse race in a referendum (that subsequent powers have done their very best to subvert) and a 30% majority in an entirely different race a few years later that somehow grants the winner of that 30% absolute power and the ability to cancel out the 52% are two very different and contradictory things.
You are comparing apples to oranges, and I find it strange that someone as sensible as you is quoting the rulebook when you know damn well the rules don't make sense, nor will they stand for very long in the face of such offensive contradiction.
The brexit party taking us out to no deal with a mandate from 30% of the voting public would be an insult to democracy, as is the lib dems promise to revoke on a similar mandate. If you're a democrat, neither is acceptable. But at least the brexit party don't have the gall to put the word "democract" in their name.
They have the gall to put the word "party" in their name when they're a limited company.
The Liberal Democrats have the gall to put the words 'Liberal' and 'Democrat' in their name when they are neither.
I mean they are both you’re just having another tantrum.
Oh and here's another way in which the PM is failing to uphold the law. And the A-G who should be advising him on the law is shirking his duty.
PM roused MPs against SC by asserting SC were wrong. Judges can’t defend themselves. Constitutional convention, now contained in Constitutional Reform Act 2005, requires govt ministers to defend judges to preserve judicial independence. PM is breaking that duty fundamentally.
It is not an attack on the judiciary to claim a court judgment is wrong. Did the Blair government, of which Charlie Falconer was Lord (high?) Chancellor, attack the HoL judges' independence when passing the 2006 Compensation Act to reverse Corus v Barker?
If so, he should resign...
Something wrong with the quoting. My response is below.
I've answered that point already.
The government changes the law all the time. That is not attacking the judiciary or its independence as you well know. Cancelled
I am in the US currently. Quite understandably given what’s happening, people in the UK probably don’t appreciate how big a deal this Trump Ukraine story is over here. It’s everywhere, all the time. Did Cummings war game Trump losing the presidency next year?
As I posted earlier, no certainty of that at all and his 2016 supporters will not care less.
'Latest US 2020 general election poll from Ipsos/Reuters from 23rd to 24th September has it Biden 42% Trump 36%, Warren 41% Trump 39% (the same lead Hillary had when she lost the EC in 2016) and Trump 39% Sanders 38%.
Emerson from 21st to 23rd September has it Biden 50% Trump 49%, Warren 51% Trump 49%, Trump 51% Sanders 49%, Trump 52% Harris 48%.
Of course if Johnson thought that the judges had erred he could have appealed his case to the European courts. In fact, of course, one of the reasons that he lost is that he didn't bother to make a statement to the Supreme Court, and he couldn't have made a sworn statement without either lying or revealing that his defence was a charade.
He couldn't have, actually. The supreme court was the final court of appeal.
I find the zealotry of the current lib dems equally horrific. What do they stand for, other than overturning the result - an overall majority - of the 2016 referendum?
The lib dems as they stand are basically the mirror image of the brexit party, a bunch of ultras who want their way without compromise, without consensus, without common sense.
And I say this as someone who actually quite liked the coalition era. But then again, I like consensus.
If the Brexit Party win a majority that is a mandate for no deal. If the LibDems win a majority that is a mandate for revoke. Any government elected by a majority is the will of the people in that parliament. Democracy doesn't stop after a single vote- otherwise let's not bother removing Major in 1997 just because he's been demolished in a landslide - his 1992 mandate trumps 1997 and anyway he got more votes in that election that Blair in this.
The problem is that a 52% majority in a two horse race in a referendum (that subsequent powers have done their very best to subvert) and a 30% majority in an entirely different race a few years later that somehow grants the winner of that 30% absolute power and the ability to cancel out the 52% are two very different and contradictory things.
You are comparing apples to oranges, and I find it strange that someone as sensible as you is quoting the rulebook when you know damn well the rules don't make sense, nor will they stand for very long in the face of such offensive contradiction.
The brexit party taking us out to no deal with a mandate from 30% of the voting public would be an insult to democracy, as is the lib dems promise to revoke on a similar mandate. If you're a democrat, neither is acceptable. But at least the brexit party don't have the gall to put the word "democract" in their name.
They have the gall to put the word "party" in their name when they're a limited company.
The Liberal Democrats have the gall to put the words 'Liberal' and 'Democrat' in their name when they are neither.
I mean they are both you’re just having another tantrum.
Don't be silly Gallows. Their name is as bankrupt as the Deutsche Demokratische Republik.
I find the zealotry of the current lib dems equally horrific. What do they stand for, other than overturning the result - an overall majority - of the 2016 referendum?
The lib dems as they stand are basically the mirror image of the brexit party, a bunch of ultras who want their way without compromise, without consensus, without common sense.
And I say this as someone who actually quite liked the coalition era. But then again, I like consensus.
If the Brexit Party win a majority that is a mandate for no deal. If the LibDems win a majority that is a mandate for revoke. Any government elected by a majority is the will of the people in that parliament. Democracy doesn't stop after a single vote- otherwise let's not bother removing Major in 1997 just because he's been demolished in a landslide - his 1992 mandate trumps 1997 and anyway he got more votes in that election that Blair in this.
The problem is that a 52% majority in a two horse race in a referendum (that subsequent powers have done their very best to subvert) and a 30% majority in an entirely different race a few years later that somehow grants the winner of that 30% absolute power and the ability to cancel out the 52% are two very different and contradictory things.
You are comparing apples to oranges, and I find it strange that someone as sensible as you is quoting the rulebook when you know damn well the rules don't make sense, nor will they stand for very long in the face of such offensive contradiction.
The brexit party taking us out to no deal with a mandate from 30% of the voting public would be an insult to democracy, as is the lib dems promise to revoke on a similar mandate. If you're a democrat, neither is acceptable. But at least the brexit party don't have the gall to put the word "democract" in their name.
They have the gall to put the word "party" in their name when they're a limited company.
The Liberal Democrats have the gall to put the words 'Liberal' and 'Democrat' in their name when they are neither.
I mean they are both you’re just having another tantrum.
Don't be silly Gallows. Their name is as bankrupt as the Deutsche Demokratische Republik.
It changed me supporting the UK staying in the Single Market to supporting Brexit, deal or no deal. So I see no reason it shouldn't have changed him too.
"Boris Johnson revealed his support for the European Union’s single market in “a pro-European” letter written the year before he decided to campaign for leave, it has emerged.
The likely prime minister’s pro-EU market sympathies were said to be revealed in a letter of condolence to the wife of the late Tory politician Sir Leon Brittan, who died in January 2015.
An account of the letter, shared with the Guardian, underscores Johnson’s lifelong equivocation over Britain’s EU membership"
"The letter came across as “a pro-European letter” in praise of the British commissioner and his efforts to uphold the single market, Peter Guilford, a former spokesman for Brittan who knew both men well, recalled.
“It came across as a very pro-Leon Brittan letter, in which Leon was defending the single market and competition within the single market, which Britain is now trying to leave,” Guilford told the Guardian."
He showed respect while writing a letter of condolence? What a monster!
January 2015 was before the EU rejected all reform too btw.
‘...In this country we never had the gilet jaunes or the LA riots...’
Look...will somebody please point these people in the direction of a history book. It's getting worrying...
Never mind riots, time Leavers and those who respect the Leave vote held a huge rally in London on 31st October if we are still in the EU even bigger than the one in March called 'the March for Democracy'.
We can add Plaid Cymru to the list of parties whose names mean the opposite of what they stand for (see the Liberal Democrats).
You can't be a Nationalist Party if you are not standing and encouraging your supporters to vote for a Unionist Party.
Adam Price has been a huge disappointment. He'll be the first out the door after the election, probably having presided over a catastrophic halving of the number of his Party's MPs.
FWIW for the very first time, I’ve just overheard random* Americans talking, briefly, about Brexit.
* for values of “random” limited to passengers on a Hudson line Metro-North commuter train, which would be roughly equivalent to a South-West Trains service to the leafier parts of Surrey.
Leavers threatening violence is becoming more commonplace.
What are they supposed to do, complain at the ballot box?
What's the point if your vote is ignored?
That is the direction the liberal "democrats" want to take us down.
1. Learn how our constitution works. 2. Talk to people you disagree with to build consensus and compromise to get a majority when you are in the parliamentary minority.
We can add Plaid Cymru to the list of parties whose names mean the opposite of what they stand for (see the Liberal Democrats).
You can't be a Nationalist Party if you are not standing and encouraging your supporters to vote for a Unionist Party.
Adam Price has been a huge disappointment. He'll be the first out the door after the election, probably having presided over a catastrophic halving of the number of his Party's MPs.
Disagree, I think he could be next First Minister of Wales with Tory support in 2021 as Drakeford is so awful
‘...In this country we never had the gilet jaunes or the LA riots...’
Look...will somebody please point these people in the direction of a history book. It's getting worrying...
Never mind riots, time Leavers and those who respect the Leave vote held a huge rally in London on 31st October if we are still in the EU even bigger than the one in March called 'the March for Democracy'.
FWIW for the very first time, I’ve just overheard random* Americans talking, briefly, about Brexit.
* for values of “random” limited to passengers on a Hudson line Metro-North commuter train, which would be roughly equivalent to a South-West Trains service to the leafier parts of Surrey.
Leavers threatening violence is becoming more commonplace.
What are they supposed to do, complain at the ballot box?
What's the point if your vote is ignored?
That is the direction the liberal "democrats" want to take us down.
Vote in a different government? That's how it's worked traditionally.
Admittedly FPTP puts a random statistical house of mirrors between the votes and the resulting government, but that's something the LDs are proposing to fix.
I am in the US currently. Quite understandably given what’s happening, people in the UK probably don’t appreciate how big a deal this Trump Ukraine story is over here. It’s everywhere, all the time. Did Cummings war game Trump losing the presidency next year?
It does feel like we’re at a tipping point with Trump/Ukraine. I have a feeling we may not even get to impeachment: I think Trump will snap soon and end up being 25thed.
I find the zealotry of the current lib dems equally horrific. What do they stand for, other than overturning the result - an overall majority - of the 2016 referendum?
The lib dems as they stand are basically the mirror image of the brexit party, a bunch of ultras who want their way without compromise, without consensus, without common sense.
And I say this as someone who actually quite liked the coalition era. But then again, I like consensus.
If the Brexit Party win a majority that is a mandate for no deal. If the LibDems win a majority that is a mandate for revoke. Any government elected by a majority is the will of the people in that parliament. Democracy doesn't stop after a single vote- otherwise let's not bother removing Major in 1997 just because he's been demolished in a landslide - his 1992 mandate trumps 1997 and anyway he got more votes in that election that Blair in this.
The problem is that a 52% majority in a two horse race in a referendum (that subsequent powers have done their very best to subvert) and a 30% majority in an entirely different race a few years later that somehow grants the winner of that 30% absolute power and the ability to cancel out the 52% are two very different and contradictory things.
You are comparing apples to oranges, and I find it strange that someone as sensible as you is quoting the rulebook when you know damn well the rules don't make sense, nor will they stand for very long in the face of such offensive contradiction.
The brexit party taking us out to no deal with a mandate from 30% of the voting public would be an insult to democracy, as is the lib dems promise to revoke on a similar mandate. If you're a democrat, neither is acceptable. But at least the brexit party don't have the gall to put the word "democract" in their name.
The LibDems have let the "no second vote, Parliament can act on a majority" genie out of the bottle. They will find it much harder to get that majority than Leave parties will.
Which the EU will see. Just what is the point in their trying to keep the UK in the EU if in 2, 5, 10 years time that Leave majority says "we're off"?
You're entirely right, the lib dems have opened up a can of worms.
I always admired the lib dems for their desire to seek consensus and compromise.
30% of the population overruling 52% of the population is neither.
In choosing to stand for revoke via FPTP, the lib dems are lending legitimacy to the argument that all that matters is who controls the apparatus of the state.
That may gradually extend to the courts, the law, etc.
The only sensible solutuon to brexit is one the majority can live with. Anything else is inviting madness.
Never mind riots, time Leavers and those who respect the Leave vote held a huge rally in London on 31st October if we are still in the EU even bigger than the one in March called 'the March for Democracy'.
If the LibDems think that getting a majority on 35% of the vote, and then revoking Brexit is a good idea for social and political cohesion, then... well, then they'll discover they're mistaken.
And if Boris Johnson thinks that he will be thanked for delivering No Deal Brexit, then he is likely to find himself disappointed.
The best compromise I can see is that proposed by @kyf_100 - a seven year EFTA/EEA period followed by a referendum that finds a Condorcet Winner between rejoin, clean break and continued EFTA/EEA.
It delivers the referendum verdict in a clean manner.
It means that in seven years we will likely have gone some way towards reorienting our economy and be ready if we want to go for clean break.
And if it is the case that we made a terrible mistake, we can change it.
And if everyone is broadly happy with the new status quo, then that too is available.
Really, it's hard to see any sensible objection to it.
Leavers threatening violence is becoming more commonplace.
What are they supposed to do, complain at the ballot box?
What's the point if your vote is ignored?
That is the direction the liberal "democrats" want to take us down.
1. Learn how our constitution works. 2. Talk to people you disagree with to build consensus and compromise to get a majority when you are in the parliamentary minority.
I do have limited sympathy for the point. Corbyn and McDonnell have often called for “direct action” and “passive resistance” in support of many of their causes and ideas. ER supports the flying of drones to shut airports, blocking roads etc etc. Which I fundamentally disagree with.
There is a whiff of hypocrisy when the lefts keenness for taking to the streets is shrouded in ideological virtuousness and allowable, yet the suggestion that leavers who call for their view to be heard are somehow being dangerously subversive.
FWIW for the very first time, I’ve just overheard random* Americans talking, briefly, about Brexit.
* for values of “random” limited to passengers on a Hudson line Metro-North commuter train, which would be roughly equivalent to a South-West Trains service to the leafier parts of Surrey.
OK, I'll bite. What did they say?
Like I said, it was brief, and generally more about Boris’ scandals, but the gist was wtf are the Limeys up to. I have local friends and co-workers sometimes ask me what’s going on re Brexit, but it is the first time I’ve heard random people talk about it.
If the LibDems think that getting a majority on 35% of the vote, and then revoking Brexit is a good idea for social and political cohesion, then... well, then they'll discover they're mistaken.
And if Boris Johnson thinks that he will be thanked for delivering No Deal Brexit, then he is likely to find himself disappointed.
The best compromise I can see is that proposed by @kyf_100 - a seven year EFTA/EEA period followed by a referendum that finds a Condorcet Winner between rejoin, clean break and continued EFTA/EEA.
It delivers the referendum verdict in a clean manner.
It means that in seven years we will likely have gone some way towards reorienting our economy and be ready if we want to go for clean break.
And if it is the case that we made a terrible mistake, we can change it.
And if everyone is broadly happy with the new status quo, then that too is available.
Really, it's hard to see any sensible objection to it.
I’ve always agreed with this but it’s not viable now. You can thank May and the Conservative Party for that.
Comments
My work is done for tonight.
Reals can, of course, be viewed as a subset of complex numbers whose imaginary part is always zero thus restricting them to the axis on an Argand diagram.
I have already placed bets accordingly.
The transition is the softest possible Brexit though.
Plan B was Labour would agree an election prior to Oct 31.
This could be Plan C. Johnson presents May's Deal as is, satisfying the Benn Act. They don't mind too much at this stage whether Parliament votes the deal through. Or at least it's an acceptable risk if they vote in favour because they expect Parliament to reject May's Deal for a fourth time, at which point they can present themselves as the reasonable party and the opposition as hypocritical and wilful.
It's a warning of the feeling out there. Inciting violence would be 'get on the streets and show them what for'
He was talking about Labour supporters lynching a woman.
And making the streets unsafe for his opponents to walk down.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2019/mar/27/how-did-your-mp-vote-in-the-indicative-votes
He voted for a second referendum and to revoke Article 50.
He abstained on customs union and EFTA.
He voted against Labour's plan, and every other proposal.
You are comparing apples to oranges, and I find it strange that someone as sensible as you is quoting the rulebook when you know damn well the rules don't make sense, nor will they stand for very long in the face of such offensive contradiction.
The brexit party taking us out to no deal with a mandate from 30% of the voting public would be an insult to democracy, as is the lib dems promise to revoke on a similar mandate. If you're a democrat, neither is acceptable. But at least the brexit party don't have the gall to put the word "democract" in their name.
Best ignored.
It’s the eyes. They scary.
Nothing has changed....
You can disagree with a court's ruling; you can analyse it and think that it is wrong or that the reasoning is flawed in some way. Lawyers do this all the time and sometimes courts will look at the decisions of previous courts and update them and decide that the interpretation was wrong. That is how law develops.
But that is very different from what is happening here, which is that the government is refusing with any sort of grace, let alone any good grace, to accept the ruling of the Supreme Court, even though its own Attorney-General gave the game away yesterday by admitting that the government did not have an unlimited right to prorogue, exactly the point made by the Court.
Furthermore it is saying that its own judgment is better than those tasked with determining the law and has insinuated that the judges have come to this ruling for improper motives or because they were biased. And that is an attack on the concept of judicial independence and the fact that the judiciary are independent and that everyone, including governments, are subject to the law. It is clear that this PM (and, sadly, his A-G it would now appear) have no proper understanding of how government and our constitution work, why this is important and could not care less, even if they do understand.
That is a very dangerous development. There are plenty of examples from our own history or indeed the history of our countries to show why.
If Brexit is to succeed on any level at all it can only do so within the bounds of our laws and constitution. If Britain is to succeed on any level at all post-Brexit it can only do so if those who govern it do not destroy the very concept of the rule of law in this country.
Cancelled
Who else has suggested lynching women and encouraged political opponents be harassed off the streets?
Which the EU will see. Just what is the point in their trying to keep the UK in the EU if in 2, 5, 10 years time that Leave majority says "we're off"?
I've answered that point already.
The government changes the law all the time. That is not attacking the judiciary or its independence as you well know.
Cancelled
'Latest US 2020 general election poll from Ipsos/Reuters from 23rd to 24th September has it Biden 42% Trump 36%, Warren 41% Trump 39% (the same lead Hillary had when she lost the EC in 2016) and Trump 39% Sanders 38%.
Emerson from 21st to 23rd September has it Biden 50% Trump 49%, Warren 51% Trump 49%, Trump 51% Sanders 49%, Trump 52% Harris 48%.
So still all to play for'
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2019-09/topline_reuters_trump_biden_ukraine_poll_09_24_2019__0.pdf
http://emersonpolling.com/2019/09/24/warren-surges-biden-slips-and-sanders-steadies-three-way-dead-heat-for-the-nomination/
‘...In this country we never had the gilet jaunes or the LA riots...’
Look...will somebody please point these people in the direction of a history book. It's getting worrying...
She would be best served however stepping back from the Brexit debate now.
Look...will somebody please point these people in the direction of a history book. It's getting worrying...
Leavers threatening violence is becoming more commonplace.
Look...will somebody please point these people in the direction of a history book. It's getting worrying...
Never mind riots, time Leavers and those who respect the Leave vote held a huge rally in London on 31st October if we are still in the EU even bigger than the one in March called 'the March for Democracy'.
You can't be a Nationalist Party if you are not standing and encouraging your supporters to vote for a Unionist Party.
Adam Price has been a huge disappointment. He'll be the first out the door after the election, probably having presided over a catastrophic halving of the number of his Party's MPs.
What's the point if your vote is ignored?
That is the direction the liberal "democrats" want to take us down.
* for values of “random” limited to passengers on a Hudson line Metro-North commuter train, which would be roughly equivalent to a South-West Trains service to the leafier parts of Surrey.
2. Talk to people you disagree with to build consensus and compromise to get a majority when you are in the parliamentary minority.
Lets call it the Macron March?
Admittedly FPTP puts a random statistical house of mirrors between the votes and the resulting government, but that's something the LDs are proposing to fix.
I always admired the lib dems for their desire to seek consensus and compromise.
30% of the population overruling 52% of the population is neither.
In choosing to stand for revoke via FPTP, the lib dems are lending legitimacy to the argument that all that matters is who controls the apparatus of the state.
That may gradually extend to the courts, the law, etc.
The only sensible solutuon to brexit is one the majority can live with. Anything else is inviting madness.
If the LibDems think that getting a majority on 35% of the vote, and then revoking Brexit is a good idea for social and political cohesion, then... well, then they'll discover they're mistaken.
And if Boris Johnson thinks that he will be thanked for delivering No Deal Brexit, then he is likely to find himself disappointed.
The best compromise I can see is that proposed by @kyf_100 - a seven year EFTA/EEA period followed by a referendum that finds a Condorcet Winner between rejoin, clean break and continued EFTA/EEA.
It delivers the referendum verdict in a clean manner.
It means that in seven years we will likely have gone some way towards reorienting our economy and be ready if we want to go for clean break.
And if it is the case that we made a terrible mistake, we can change it.
And if everyone is broadly happy with the new status quo, then that too is available.
Really, it's hard to see any sensible objection to it.
There is a whiff of hypocrisy when the lefts keenness for taking to the streets is shrouded in ideological virtuousness and allowable, yet the suggestion that leavers who call for their view to be heard are somehow being dangerously subversive.