[A year-long GNU] sadly, it feels unlikely. There's the small matter of what policies other than extend and 2nd ref it could agree on.
By the end of a year, if Remain or EEA/EFTA won the ref, the GNU would have morphed into LDs/Nats/Greens plus Real Conservatives and Real Social Democrats. Since the Parliament could last till 2022 and we'd be more or less Remaining till then, the parties could use the two years to realign themselves - and abstain from any other gratuitous legislation.
Would the SNP be happy with no 2nd Sindy ref during this GNU?
Who cares really? The Union is on life support. Give them their referendum.
I tend to read PB using the vanilla site on the chrome browser on my android phone. This works well.
If I read PB using the vanilla site using Firefox on my phone, I can read the comments but the embedded tweets do not display, just their Web address.
Does anyone how to solve this, or is it a vanilla querk?
Do you have an adblock running?
That's what stopped me seeing Tweets - I had to exempt them from adblock. Although these days I have canned adblock; the ads on PB are not too intrusive.
I removed adblock but unfortunately that did not work. The twitter links are still not showing as embedded.
What are you on about? If the WA passes we then have to continue discussing Brexit constantly whilst we agree on what our actual relationship with Europe will be. Nothing changes. Brexit still continues.
Brexit as a point of contention will be over, we will be out of the EU.
What will be left is the discussion about how the UK stands up for itself in negotiations with not just the EU but globally.
Labour and the LD's going in to bat for the EU against their own country will be an electoral gold mine for the Tories at every subsequent GE.
And the press WILL hammer any party for supporting the opposition in trade negotiations regardless of the nuances around the subject.
Remainers have been given hell for, legitimately in my view, pushing back against the referendum result whilst there is still a chance of overturning the decision.
There will be absolutely no excuse for supporting the EU in future negotiations and it would be political suicide to be seen doing so...surely you must see that?
So if Labour say we want a Customs Union is that a betrayal and working for the other side or simply a reflection of their view that they see that as best for the economy and jobs .
Some Leavers call anything they don’t like or agree with as working for the other side, rather than seeing it as just a difference of opinion as to what people feel is best for the country .
I tend to read PB using the vanilla site on the chrome browser on my android phone. This works well.
If I read PB using the vanilla site using Firefox on my phone, I can read the comments but the embedded tweets do not display, just their Web address.
Does anyone how to solve this, or is it a vanilla querk?
Do you have an adblock running?
That's what stopped me seeing Tweets - I had to exempt them from adblock. Although these days I have canned adblock; the ads on PB are not too intrusive.
I removed adblock but unfortunately that did not work. The twitter links are still not showing as embedded.
Any other ideas?
Sorry to ask the obvious but you did restart your browser after removing adblock?
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* there is another referendum. I know the No Dealers will hate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once it happened.
I really hate Brexit, I don't think there should have been a referendum in the first place, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
I can't see how a 2nd referendum can not have no deal as an option.
The only way to avoid it looking like an establishment stitch-up would be something like;
Q1. Do you want to leave/remain
Q2. If leave: 1. May's deal or 2. No deal
Sorry that won't do. If I answer Remain to Q1 it appears I cannot answer Q2 at all.
STV with the 3 options is the only way.
You can’t have no deal on the ballot paper. You just can’t.
1. It means nothing. 2. Its everything to everyone. 3. You can’t criticise an abstract, unknown concept. 4. It’s repeating the same mistake as the first referendum.
1. Eh? It means leaving, without a deal 2. Then why doesn't it have 100% support? 3. That's Remain's problem to deal with 4. Asking the consent of the people isn't a mistake
We leave the EU without a deal. Then what?
The same thing as "We remain in the EU, then what?" and "We leave with a deal, then what?"
"We change the voting system, then what?" "Scotland becomes independent, then what?"
You want a five year manifesto, have an election not a referendum.
I tend to read PB using the vanilla site on the chrome browser on my android phone. This works well.
If I read PB using the vanilla site using Firefox on my phone, I can read the comments but the embedded tweets do not display, just their Web address.
Does anyone how to solve this, or is it a vanilla querk?
Do you have an adblock running?
That's what stopped me seeing Tweets - I had to exempt them from adblock. Although these days I have canned adblock; the ads on PB are not too intrusive.
I removed adblock but unfortunately that did not work. The twitter links are still not showing as embedded.
Any other ideas?
Sorry to ask the obvious but you did restart your browser after removing adblock?
Always ask the obvious. Yes I did restart my browser.
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* there is another referendum. I know the No Dealers will hate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once it happened.
I really hate Brexit, I don't think there should have been a referendum in the first place, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
I can't see how a 2nd referendum can not have no deal as an option.
The only way to avoid it looking like an establishment stitch-up would be something like;
Q1. Do you want to leave/remain
Q2. If leave: 1. May's deal or 2. No deal
Sorry that won't do. If I answer Remain to Q1 it appears I cannot answer Q2 at all.
STV with the 3 options is the only way.
You can’t have no deal on the ballot paper. You just can’t.
1. It means nothing. 2. Its everything to everyone. 3. You can’t criticise an abstract, unknown concept. 4. It’s repeating the same mistake as the first referendum.
1. Eh? It means leaving, without a deal 2. Then why doesn't it have 100% support? 3. That's Remain's problem to deal with 4. Asking the consent of the people isn't a mistake
We leave the EU without a deal. Then what?
We realise that was a big mistake and swiftly seek to rejoin.
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* there is another referendum. I know the No Dealers will hate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once it happened.
I really hate Brexit, I don't think there should have been a referendum in the first place, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
I can't see how a 2nd referendum can not have no deal as an option.
The only way to avoid it looking like an establishment stitch-up would be something like;
Q1. Do you want to leave/remain
Q2. If leave: 1. May's deal or 2. No deal
Sorry that won't do. If I answer Remain to Q1 it appears I cannot answer Q2 at all.
STV with the 3 options is the only way.
You can’t have no deal on the ballot paper. You just can’t.
1. It means nothing. 2. Its everything to everyone. 3. You can’t criticise an abstract, unknown concept. 4. It’s repeating the same mistake as the first referendum.
1. Eh? It means leaving, without a deal 2. Then why doesn't it have 100% support? 3. That's Remain's problem to deal with 4. Asking the consent of the people isn't a mistake
We leave the EU without a deal. Then what?
We realise that was a big mistake and swiftly seek to rejoin.
Astoundingly you can still lay an October election at 65. Since this would take a change in primary legislation, this should be way in three figures by now.
What are you on about? If the WA passes we then have to continue discussing Brexit constantly whilst we agree on what our actual relationship with Europe will be. Nothing changes. Brexit still continues.
Brexit as a point of contention will be over, we will be out of the EU.
What will be left is the discussion about how the UK stands up for itself in negotiations with not just the EU but globally.
Labour and the LD's going in to bat for the EU against their own country will be an electoral gold mine for the Tories at every subsequent GE.
And the press WILL hammer any party for supporting the opposition in trade negotiations regardless of the nuances around the subject.
Remainers have been given hell for, legitimately in my view, pushing back against the referendum result whilst there is still a chance of overturning the decision.
There will be absolutely no excuse for supporting the EU in future negotiations and it would be political suicide to be seen doing so...surely you must see that?
This is delusional. If the WA is ratified we will still be in the EU in all but name while negotiations carry on. That's what Farage will be shouting from the rooftops, and it will be true. The debate will not be settled and you will have no chance marginalising Remainers.
[A year-long GNU] sadly, it feels unlikely. There's the small matter of what policies other than extend and 2nd ref it could agree on.
By the end of a year, if Remain or EEA/EFTA won the ref, the GNU would have morphed into LDs/Nats/Greens plus Real Conservatives and Real Social Democrats. Since the Parliament could last till 2022 and we'd be more or less Remaining till then, the parties could use the two years to realign themselves - and abstain from any other gratuitous legislation.
Would the SNP be happy with no 2nd Sindy ref during this GNU?
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* there is another referendum. I know the No Dealers will hate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once it happened.
I really hate Brexit, I don't think there should have been a referendum in the first place, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
I can't see how a 2nd referendum can not have no deal as an option.
The only way to avoid it looking like an establishment stitch-up would be something like;
Q1. Do you want to leave/remain
Q2. If leave: 1. May's deal or 2. No deal
Sorry that won't do. If I answer Remain to Q1 it appears I cannot answer Q2 at all.
STV with the 3 options is the only way.
You can’t have no deal on the ballot paper. You just can’t.
1. It means nothing. 2. Its everything to everyone. 3. You can’t criticise an abstract, unknown concept. 4. It’s repeating the same mistake as the first referendum.
1. Eh? It means leaving, without a deal 2. Then why doesn't it have 100% support? 3. That's Remain's problem to deal with 4. Asking the consent of the people isn't a mistake
We leave the EU without a deal. Then what?
The same thing as "We remain in the EU, then what?" and "We leave with a deal, then what?"
"We change the voting system, then what?" "Scotland becomes independent, then what?"
You want a five year manifesto, have an election not a referendum.
Um no.
We know exactly what remaining in the EU is. Its literally like today, yesterday, and tomorrow.
If you want to drop us off a cliff then you should propose your vision with detail and facts. A bus slogan does not cut it.
Even the Scottish Government put together a proper paper on what an independent Scotland would look like. Leave did no such thing. A no deal campaign would do no such thing.
What are you on about? If the WA passes we then have to continue discussing Brexit constantly whilst we agree on what our actual relationship with Europe will be. Nothing changes. Brexit still continues.
Brexit as a point of contention will be over, we will be out of the EU.
What will be left is the discussion about how the UK stands up for itself in negotiations with not just the EU but globally.
Labour and the LD's going in to bat for the EU against their own country will be an electoral gold mine for the Tories at every subsequent GE.
And the press WILL hammer any party for supporting the opposition in trade negotiations regardless of the nuances around the subject.
Remainers have been given hell for, legitimately in my view, pushing back against the referendum result whilst there is still a chance of overturning the decision.
There will be absolutely no excuse for supporting the EU in future negotiations and it would be political suicide to be seen doing so...surely you must see that?
In such circumstances it would not be the LDs supporting the EU, it would be the LDs supporting reduced trade barriers with the EU. Big difference.
I wish they'd drop the government of national unity phrase. Government of remainers, perhaps.
Coup of Remainers is much nearer. They mostly don't have any democratic mandte for such a course.
It is normal in parliamentary democracies for alternative majorities to form governments. See Italy.
There is no ‘coup’ about it.
86% of votes were cast in 2017 for parties pledging to implement Brexit.
Thanks for that completely irrelevant bit of information.
Let's see how many voters think it irrelevant.
Yes. Let’s see. In 2022.
The only way a "GNU" gets any traction for an agreed leader is if they get someone prepared to tell the EU we need a further extension to enable a General Election to be held.
Meanwhile, the GNU manages to get the great bulk of the Brexit Party voters into the Conservative column for that election.
I wish they'd drop the government of national unity phrase. Government of remainers, perhaps.
Coup of Remainers is much nearer. They mostly don't have any democratic mandte for such a course.
It is normal in parliamentary democracies for alternative majorities to form governments. See Italy.
There is no ‘coup’ about it.
86% of votes were cast in 2017 for parties pledging to implement Brexit.
Thanks for that completely irrelevant bit of information.
Let's see how many voters think it irrelevant.
Yes. Let’s see. In 2022.
The only way a "GNU" gets any traction for an agreed leader is if they get someone prepared to tell the EU we need a further extension to enable a General Election to be held.
Meanwhile, the GNU manages to get the great bulk of the Brexit Party voters into the Conservative column for that election.
I wish they'd drop the government of national unity phrase. Government of remainers, perhaps.
Coup of Remainers is much nearer. They mostly don't have any democratic mandte for such a course.
It is normal in parliamentary democracies for alternative majorities to form governments. See Italy.
There is no ‘coup’ about it.
86% of votes were cast in 2017 for parties pledging to implement Brexit.
Thanks for that completely irrelevant bit of information.
Let's see how many voters think it irrelevant.
Yes. Let’s see. In 2022.
The only way a "GNU" gets any traction for an agreed leader is if they get someone prepared to tell the EU we need a further extension to enable a General Election to be held.
Meanwhile, the GNU manages to get the great bulk of the Brexit Party voters into the Conservative column for that election.
Yeah maybe. Maybe not.
How much have you backed a 2022 election with? Or is it just trolling bullshit and we should just ignore your posts?
I wish they'd drop the government of national unity phrase. Government of remainers, perhaps.
Coup of Remainers is much nearer. They mostly don't have any democratic mandte for such a course.
It is normal in parliamentary democracies for alternative majorities to form governments. See Italy.
There is no ‘coup’ about it.
86% of votes were cast in 2017 for parties pledging to implement Brexit.
Thanks for that completely irrelevant bit of information.
Let's see how many voters think it irrelevant.
Yes. Let’s see. In 2022.
The only way a "GNU" gets any traction for an agreed leader is if they get someone prepared to tell the EU we need a further extension to enable a General Election to be held.
Meanwhile, the GNU manages to get the great bulk of the Brexit Party voters into the Conservative column for that election.
Yeah maybe. Maybe not.
How much have you backed a 2022 election with? Or is it just trolling bullshit and we should just ignore your posts?
What post are you talking about?
Realistically we don’t know what’s going to happen. There is no definites.
What are you on about? If the WA passes we then have to continue discussing Brexit constantly whilst we agree on what our actual relationship with Europe will be. Nothing changes. Brexit still continues.
Brexit as a point of contention will be over, we will be out of the EU.
What will be left is the discussion about how the UK stands up for itself in negotiations with not just the EU but globally.
Labour and the LD's going in to bat for the EU against their own country will be an electoral gold mine for the Tories at every subsequent GE.
And the press WILL hammer any party for supporting the opposition in trade negotiations regardless of the nuances around the subject.
Remainers have been given hell for, legitimately in my view, pushing back against the referendum result whilst there is still a chance of overturning the decision.
There will be absolutely no excuse for supporting the EU in future negotiations and it would be political suicide to be seen doing so...surely you must see that?
This is delusional. If the WA is ratified we will still be in the EU in all but name while negotiations carry on. That's what Farage will be shouting from the rooftops, and it will be true. The debate will not be settled and you will have no chance marginalising Remainers.
There's another thing. The current No 10 strategy is to gather small state, bucaneering, global free trade Brexit supporters on the right and large state, high welfare, pull up the drawbridge Brexit supporters on the left into a big tent. That worked for Vote Leave, and it works for the Conservatives right now.
The moment that the Withdrawal Agreement comes into force, it stops working. You can't keep both groups happy. (And you don't get Hammond/Stewart types back either, because they go for close alignment).
That's why Team Boris wants an early election- get a majority before the fork in the road. And that's why Team not-Boris would be ninnies to give them one.
Genuine question: at a debate yesterday, I asked a leading local LibDem what their policy would be if Brexit had happened - negotiate soft terms in the next stage, or what? He said without hesitation, "Apply to rejoin." Is this in fact official LD policy?
Unless you are a raving fanatic on either the right or the left, the Lib Dems are the only ones left to vote for. The others are either vile or barking mad.
It looks like i will have to vote LD
Have you thought about contributing a thread header ?
No. I lack the in-depth political/betting insights needed
Unless you are a raving fanatic on either the right or the left, the Lib Dems are the only ones left to vote for. The others are either vile or barking mad.
What are you on about? If the WA passes we then have to continue discussing Brexit constantly whilst we agree on what our actual relationship with Europe will be. Nothing changes. Brexit still continues.
Brexit as a point of contention will be over, we will be out of the EU.
What will be left is the discussion about how the UK stands up for itself in negotiations with not just the EU but globally.
Labour and the LD's going in to bat for the EU against their own country will be an electoral gold mine for the Tories at every subsequent GE.
And the press WILL hammer any party for supporting the opposition in trade negotiations regardless of the nuances around the subject.
Remainers have been given hell for, legitimately in my view, pushing back against the referendum result whilst there is still a chance of overturning the decision.
There will be absolutely no excuse for supporting the EU in future negotiations and it would be political suicide to be seen doing so...surely you must see that?
So if Labour say we want a Customs Union is that a betrayal and working for the other side or simply a reflection of their view that they see that as best for the economy and jobs .
Some Leavers call anything they don’t like or agree with as working for the other side, rather than seeing it as just a difference of opinion as to what people feel is best for the country .
The Customs Union would be stupid for reasons we have spoken of before but it would not be counter to the referendum result.
Genuine question: at a debate yesterday, I asked a leading local LibDem what their policy would be if Brexit had happened - negotiate soft terms in the next stage, or what? He said without hesitation, "Apply to rejoin." Is this in fact official LD policy?
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* there is another referendum. I know the No Dealers will hate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once it happened.
I really hate Brexit, I don't think there should have been a referendum in the first place, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
I can't see how a 2nd referendum can not have no deal as an option.
The only way to avoid it looking like an establishment stitch-up would be something like;
Q1. Do you want to leave/remain
Q2. If leave: 1. May's deal or 2. No deal
Sorry that won't do. If I answer Remain to Q1 it appears I cannot answer Q2 at all.
STV with the 3 options is the only way.
You can’t have no deal on the ballot paper. You just can’t.
1. It means nothing. 2. Its everything to everyone. 3. You can’t criticise an abstract, unknown concept. 4. It’s repeating the same mistake as the first referendum.
1. Eh? It means leaving, without a deal 2. Then why doesn't it have 100% support? 3. That's Remain's problem to deal with 4. Asking the consent of the people isn't a mistake
We leave the EU without a deal. Then what?
The same thing as "We remain in the EU, then what?" and "We leave with a deal, then what?"
"We change the voting system, then what?" "Scotland becomes independent, then what?"
You want a five year manifesto, have an election not a referendum.
Um no.
We know exactly what remaining in the EU is. Its literally like today, yesterday, and tomorrow.
If you want to drop us off a cliff then you should propose your vision with detail and facts. A bus slogan does not cut it.
Even the Scottish Government put together a proper paper on what an independent Scotland would look like. Leave did no such thing. A no deal campaign would do no such thing.
You know why? Because they know they would lose.
Shameless.
Even as a Remain voter that isn't right. EU membership is, and should be, constantly evolving as European integration deepens. It is right there in the founding principle of ever closer union.
"The UK’s most senior civil servant is under pressure to investigate Boris Johnson’s financial backers following cross-party claims that unnamed individuals stand to benefit from the prime minister’s willingness to pursue a no-deal Brexit.
John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has written to the cabinet secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill, asking if there may be a conflict of interest in Johnson’s acceptance of support from hedge funds that could gain from an economic shock.
Earlier on Saturday, Philip Hammond, the former chancellor, suggested Johnson was pursuing the interests of financial backers set to gain from a no-deal Brexit, in a major escalation of tensions in the prime minister’s own party."
Hmm. This thing about Boris and hedge-fund managers desperate for No Deal still rumbles on. It is strange how No Deal - a position that even the eurosceptic community once dismissed as laughable - suddenly became mainstream. Someone or something must have disseminated it. But who and for what purpose remains mysterious.
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* there is another referendum. I know the No Dealers will hate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once it happened.
I really hate Brexit, I don't think there should have been a referendum in the first place, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
No, it really doesn't... if in the next referendum Remain is an option that wins (or if the LDs win a majority).
Both would still be undemocratic given Parliament had refused to implement the previous advisory decision.
You missed out an important word.
Immaterial. Given how the Remain side continuously told us the decision was irreversible, claiming it was only advisory once you lost is feeble. If you weren't willing to abide by the result you should not have asked the question in the first place.
If you agree that context is necessary to determine the extent to which a nominally advisory vote was in fact advisory, you must also accept that context is necessary to determine how the nominal instruction on the ballot paper is to be interpreted?
Interpretation is not synonymous with rejection. I am very content with a soft interpretation of the vote. Explicitly refusing to implement it is not interpretation.
You miss my point. To work out what the vote meant, it is to be understood in the context of the campaign fought.
It turns out, the prospectus offered was a false prospectus. The correct remedy is not to proceed as if the lies were true but to proceed on the basis of what would have happened if the public had been given a more accurate prospectus. That is sufficiently uncertain as to require a fresh mandate.
Nope wrong again. You are having a real howler today.
The vote was to leave the European Union. That is a clearly defined legal position and as long as that is achieved the refetendum result has been implemented. It is extremists like you on both sides of the argument who want to muddy the waters with trying to impose your radical interpretations on a binary decision.
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* there is another referendum. I know the No Dealers will hate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once it happened.
I really hate Brexit, I don't think there should have been a referendum in the first place, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
I can't see how a 2nd referendum can not have no deal as an option.
The only way to avoid it looking like an establishment stitch-up would be something like;
Q1. Do you want to leave/remain
Q2. If leave: 1. May's deal or 2. No deal
Sorry that won't do. If I answer Remain to Q1 it appears I cannot answer Q2 at all.
STV with the 3 options is the only way.
You can’t have no deal on the ballot paper. You just can’t.
1. It means nothing. 2. Its everything to everyone. 3. You can’t criticise an abstract, unknown concept. 4. It’s repeating the same mistake as the first referendum.
1. Eh? It means leaving, without a deal 2. Then why doesn't it have 100% support? 3. That's Remain's problem to deal with 4. Asking the consent of the people isn't a mistake
We leave the EU without a deal. Then what?
The same thing as "We remain in the EU, then what?" and "We leave with a deal, then what?"
"We change the voting system, then what?" "Scotland becomes independent, then what?"
You want a five year manifesto, have an election not a referendum.
Um no.
We know exactly what remaining in the EU is. Its literally like today, yesterday, and tomorrow.
If you want to drop us off a cliff then you should propose your vision with detail and facts. A bus slogan does not cut it.
Even the Scottish Government put together a proper paper on what an independent Scotland would look like. Leave did no such thing. A no deal campaign would do no such thing.
You know why? Because they know they would lose.
Shameless.
Even as a Remain voter that isn't right. EU membership is, and should be, constantly evolving as European integration deepens. It is right there in the founding principle of ever closer union.
Which we, as arguably jointly the most powerful state in the union, have a veto over. Regardless, ever closer union is in our best interest anyway.
Just thinking about the latest polls, if the LDs, Greens and PC were able to agree a Remain pact they would very probably tip the balance from a Tory majority to one where a rainbow coalition would have power.
For that reason alone I suspect such a pact is going to happen.
Just thinking about the latest polls, if the LDs, Greens and PC were able to agree a Remain pact they would very probably tip the balance from a Tory majority to one where a rainbow coalition would have power.
For that reason alone I suspect such a pact is going to happen.
I can’t see it. How would it even work? They’ve been fighting amongst themselves anyway over the revoke policy.
Just thinking about the latest polls, if the LDs, Greens and PC were able to agree a Remain pact they would very probably tip the balance from a Tory majority to one where a rainbow coalition would have power.
For that reason alone I suspect such a pact is going to happen.
Such a pact just involves the greens and plaid stepping aside
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* there is another referendum. I know the No Dealers will hate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once it happened.
I really hate Brexit, I don't think there should have been a referendum in the first place, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
I can't see how a 2nd referendum can not have no deal as an option.
The only way to avoid it looking like an establishment stitch-up would be something like;
Q1. Do you want to leave/remain
Q2. If leave: 1. May's deal or 2. No deal
Sorry that won't do. If I answer Remain to Q1 it appears I cannot answer Q2 at all.
STV with the 3 options is the only way.
You can’t have no deal on the ballot paper. You just can’t.
1. It means nothing. 2. Its everything to everyone. 3. You can’t criticise an abstract, unknown concept. 4. It’s repeating the same mistake as the first referendum.
1. Eh? It means leaving, without a deal 2. Then why doesn't it have 100% support? 3. That's Remain's problem to deal with 4. Asking the consent of the people isn't a mistake
We leave the EU without a deal. Then what?
The same thing as "We remain in the EU, then what?" and "We leave with a deal, then what?"
"We change the voting system, then what?" "Scotland becomes independent, then what?"
You want a five year manifesto, have an election not a referendum.
Um no.
We know exactly what remaining in the EU is. Its literally like today, yesterday, and tomorrow.
If you want to drop us off a cliff then you should propose your vision with detail and facts. A bus slogan does not cut it.
Even the Scottish Government put together a proper paper on what an independent Scotland would look like. Leave did no such thing. A no deal campaign would do no such thing.
You know why? Because they know they would lose.
Shameless.
Even as a Remain voter that isn't right. EU membership is, and should be, constantly evolving as European integration deepens. It is right there in the founding principle of ever closer union.
Which we, as arguably jointly the most powerful state in the union, have a veto over. Regardless, ever closer union is in our best interest anyway.
We have no veto over the EU deepening, although we have a semi-veto over whether we are part of that deepening. We can stop ourselves being included in treaty changes but not new laws.
At least we are now clear on where Meeks stands regarding the law.
Not only must it always be obeyed (which is fair enough) but it can also never be wrong, never be criticised and never be challenged. I am extremely glad the limit of his influence is the comments section of this website. His views would make the Stalinists blanche.
If you actually put forward logical and reasoned arguments rather than just frothing anger and hatred then maybe people could engage with you.
If you bother to look back you will see this discussion started when I did put forward logical and reasoned arguments backed up by the opinion of a professor in law via the UK Constitutional Law website. It is Meeks who is refusing to advance any coherent argument and simply claims the law cannot be wrong.
"The UK’s most senior civil servant is under pressure to investigate Boris Johnson’s financial backers following cross-party claims that unnamed individuals stand to benefit from the prime minister’s willingness to pursue a no-deal Brexit.
John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has written to the cabinet secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill, asking if there may be a conflict of interest in Johnson’s acceptance of support from hedge funds that could gain from an economic shock.
Earlier on Saturday, Philip Hammond, the former chancellor, suggested Johnson was pursuing the interests of financial backers set to gain from a no-deal Brexit, in a major escalation of tensions in the prime minister’s own party."
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* there is another referendum. I know the No Dealers will hate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once itplace, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
I can't see how a 2nd referendum can not have no deal as an option.
The only way to avoid it looking like an establishment stitch-up would be something like;
Q1. Do you want to leave/remain
Q2. If leave: 1. May's deal or 2. No deal
Sorry that won't do. If I answer Remain to Q1 it appears I cannot answer Q2 at all.
STV with the 3 options is the only way.
You can’t have no deal on the ballot paper. You just can’t.
1. It means nothing. 2. Its everything to everyone. 3. You can’t criticise an abstract, unknown concept. 4. It’s repeating the same mistake as the first referendum.
1. Eh? It means leaving, without a deal 2. Then why doesn't it have 100% support? 3. That's Remain's problem to deal with 4. Asking the consent of the people isn't a mistake
We leave the EU without a deal. Then what?
The same thing as "We remain in the EU, then what?" and "We leave with a deal, then what?"
"We change the voting system, then what?" "Scotland becomes independent, then what?"
You want a five year manifesto, have an election not a referendum.
Um no.
We know exactly what remaining in the EU is. Its literally like today, yesterday, and tomorrow.
If you want to drop us off a cliff then you should propose your vision with detail and facts. A bus slogan does not cut it.
Even the Scottish Government put together a proper paper on what an independent Scotland would look like. Leave did no such thing. A no deal campaign would do no such thing.
You know why? Because they know they would lose.
Shameless.
Even as a Remain voter that isn't right. EU membership is, and should be, constantly evolving as European integration deepens. It is right there in the founding principle of ever closer union.
Which we, as arguably jointly the most powerful state in the union, have a veto over. Regardless, ever closer union is in our best interest anyway.
We have no veto over the EU deepening, although we have a semi-veto over whether we are part of that deepening. We can stop ourselves being included in treaty changes but not new laws.
Hmm. This thing about Boris and hedge-fund managers desperate for No Deal still rumbles on. It is strange how No Deal - a position that even the eurosceptic community once dismissed as laughable - suddenly became mainstream. Someone or something must have disseminated it. But who and for what purpose remains mysterious.
I am still not convinced it is mainsteam. It is simply that it is advocated by people with loud voices.
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* there is another referendum. I know the No Dealers will hate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once itplace, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
I can't see how a 2nd referendum can not have no deal as an option.
The only way to avoid it looking like an establishment stitch-up would be something like;
Q1. Do you want to leave/remain
Q2. If leave: 1. May's deal or 2. No deal
Sorry that won't do. If I answer Remain to Q1 it appears I cannot answer Q2 at all.
STV with the 3 options is the only way.
You can’t have no deal on the ballot paper. You just can’t.
1. It means nothing. 2. Its everything to everyone. 3. You can’t criticise an abstract, unknown concept. 4. It’s repeating the same mistake as the first referendum.
1. Eh? It means leaving, without a deal 2. Then why doesn't it have 100% support? 3. That's Remain's problem to deal with 4. Asking the consent of the people isn't a mistake
We leave the EU without a deal. Then what?
The same thing as "We remain in the EU, then what?" and "We leave with a deal, then what?"
"We change the voting system, then what?" "Scotland becomes independent, then what?"
You want a five year manifesto, have an election not a referendum.
Um no.
We know exactly what remaining in the EU is. Its literally like today, yesterday, and tomorrow.
If you want to drop us off a cliff then you should propose your vision with detail and facts. A bus slogan does not cut it.
Even the Scottish Government put together a proper paper on what an independent Scotland would look like. Leave did no such thing. A no deal campaign would do no such thing.
You know why? Because they know they would lose.
Shameless.
on.
Which we, as arguably jointly the most powerful state in the union, have a veto over. Regardless, ever closer union is in our best interest anyway.
We have no veto over the EU deepening, although we have a semi-veto over whether we are part of that deepening. We can stop ourselves being included in treaty changes but not new laws.
Thank you for proving my point.
I didn't. Your point was something else. But I don't care enough to argue about semantics.
"The UK’s most senior civil servant is under pressure to investigate Boris Johnson’s financial backers following cross-party claims that unnamed individuals stand to benefit from the prime minister’s willingness to pursue a no-deal Brexit.
John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has written to the cabinet secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill, asking if there may be a conflict of interest in Johnson’s acceptance of support from hedge funds that could gain from an economic shock.
Earlier on Saturday, Philip Hammond, the former chancellor, suggested Johnson was pursuing the interests of financial backers set to gain from a no-deal Brexit, in a major escalation of tensions in the prime minister’s own party."
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* therehate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once itplace, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
I can't see how a 2nd referendum can not have no deal as an option.
The only way to avoid it looking like an establishment stitch-up would be something like;
Q1. Do you want to leave/remain
Q2. If leave: 1. May's deal or 2. No deal
Sorry that won't do. If I answer Remain to Q1 it appears I cannot answer Q2 at all.
STV with the 3 options is the only way.
You can’t have no deal on the ballot paper. You just can’t.
1. It means nothing. 2. Its everything to everyone. 3. You can’t criticise an abstract, unknown concept. 4. It’s repeating the same mistake as the first referendum.
1. Eh? It means leaving, without a deal 2. Then why doesn't it have 100% support? 3. That's Remain's problem to deal with 4. Asking the consent of the people isn't a mistake
We leave the EU without a deal. Then what?
The same thing as "We remain in the EU, then what?" and "We leave with a deal, then what?"
"We change the voting system, then what?" "Scotland becomes independent, then what?"
You want a five year manifesto, have an election not a referendum.
Um no.
We know exactly what remaining in the EU is. Its literally like today, yesterday, and tomorrow.
If you want to drop us off a cliff then you should propose your vision with detail and facts. A bus slogan does not cut it.
Even the Scottish Government put together a proper paper on what an independent Scotland would look like. Leave did no such thing. A no deal campaign would do no such thing.
You know why? Because they know they would lose.
Shameless.
on.
Which we, as arguably jointly the most powerful state in the union, have a veto over. Regardless, ever closer union is in our best interest anyway.
We have no veto over the EU deepening, although we have a semi-veto over whether we are part of that deepening. We can stop ourselves being included in treaty changes but not new laws.
Thank you for proving my point.
I didn't. Your point was something else. But I don't care enough to argue about semantics.
Yes you did. You agreed that we can veto new treaties.
Genuine question: at a debate yesterday, I asked a leading local LibDem what their policy would be if Brexit had happened - negotiate soft terms in the next stage, or what? He said without hesitation, "Apply to rejoin." Is this in fact official LD policy?
I think this is why the Lib Dems revoke now policy is strategic, not tactical, as a lot of people think it is. At some point, Brexit will have happened or not happened and the LDs will have to explain why the UK hasn't left the EU or why it should rejoin. Revoking now is a policy that makes soft Remainers queasy and could damage the LDs in the short term but it paves the way for staying out or rejoining later.
"The UK’s most senior civil servant is under pressure to investigate Boris Johnson’s financial backers following cross-party claims that unnamed individuals stand to benefit from the prime minister’s willingness to pursue a no-deal Brexit.
John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has written to the cabinet secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill, asking if there may be a conflict of interest in Johnson’s acceptance of support from hedge funds that could gain from an economic shock.
Earlier on Saturday, Philip Hammond, the former chancellor, suggested Johnson was pursuing the interests of financial backers set to gain from a no-deal Brexit, in a major escalation of tensions in the prime minister’s own party."
This is gaining momentum.
This seems like nonsense. A conflict of interest is if Boris personally benefits. The idea that you can't accept political support from people that would benefit from your policies would be ridiculous. Unions wouldn't be able to back Labour, for example.
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* therehate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once itplace, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
I can't see how a 2nd referendum can not have no deal as an option.
The only way to avoid it looking like an establishment stitch-up would be something like;
Q1. Do you want to leave/remain
Q2. If leave: 1. May's deal or 2. No deal
Sorry that won't do. If I answer Remain to Q1 it appears I cannot answer Q2 at all.
STV with the 3 options is the only way.
You can’t have no deal on the ballot paper. You just can’t.
1. It means nothing. 2. Its everything to everyone. 3. You can’t criticise an abstract, unknown concept. 4. It’s repeating the same mistake as the first referendum.
a mistake
We leave the EU without a deal. Then what?
The same thing as "We remain in the EU, then what?" and "We leave with a deal, then what?"
"We change the voting system, then what?" "Scotland becomes independent, then what?"
You want a five year manifesto, have an election not a referendum.
Um no.
We know exactly what remaining in the EU is. Its literally like today, yesterday, and tomorrow.
If you want to drop us off a cliff then you should propose your vision with detail and facts. A bus slogan does not cut it.
Even the Scottish Government put together a proper paper on what an independent Scotland would look like. Leave did no such thing. A no deal campaign would do no such thing.
You know why? Because they know they would lose.
Shameless.
on.
Which we, as arguably jointly the most powerful state in the union, have a veto over. Regardless, ever closer union is in our best interest anyway.
We have no veto over the EU deepening, although we have a semi-veto over whether we are part of that deepening. We can stop ourselves being included in treaty changes but not new laws.
Thank you for proving my point.
I didn't. Your point was something else. But I don't care enough to argue about semantics.
Yes you did. You agreed that we can veto new treaties.
As I said, I don't care enough to argue further. Others with intelligence are capable of reading what was said.
"The UK’s most senior civil servant is under pressure to investigate Boris Johnson’s financial backers following cross-party claims that unnamed individuals stand to benefit from the prime minister’s willingness to pursue a no-deal Brexit.
John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has written to the cabinet secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill, asking if there may be a conflict of interest in Johnson’s acceptance of support from hedge funds that could gain from an economic shock.
Earlier on Saturday, Philip Hammond, the former chancellor, suggested Johnson was pursuing the interests of financial backers set to gain from a no-deal Brexit, in a major escalation of tensions in the prime minister’s own party."
This is gaining momentum.
This seems like nonsense. A conflict of interest is if Boris personally benefits. The idea that you can't accept political support from people that would benefit from your policies would be ridiculous. Unions wouldn't be able to back Labour, for example.
Precisely. No deal isn't illegal. Its idiotic but it's a policy the PM is free to pursue. The demands for inquiries and investigations are becoming increasingly hysterical
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* therehate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once itplace, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
I can't see how a 2nd referendum can not have no deal as an option.
The only way to avoid it looking like an establishment stitch-up would be something like;
Q1. Do you want to leave/remain
Q2. If leave: 1. May's deal or 2. No deal
Sorry that won't do. If I answer Remain to Q1 it appears I cannot answer Q2 at all.
STV with the 3 options is the only way.
as the first referendum.
a mistake
We leave the EU without a deal. Then what?
The same thing as "We remain in the EU, then what?" and "We leave with a deal, then what?"
"We change the voting system, then what?" "Scotland becomes independent, then what?"
You want a five year manifesto, have an election not a referendum.
Um no.
We know exactly what remaining in the EU is. Its literally like today, yesterday, and tomorrow.
If you want to drop us off a cliff then you should propose your vision with detail and facts. A bus slogan does not cut it.
Even the Scottish Government put together a proper paper on what an independent Scotland would look like. Leave did no such thing. A no deal campaign would do no such thing.
You know why? Because they know they would lose.
Shameless.
on.
Which we, as arguably jointly the most powerful state in the union, have a veto over. Regardless, ever closer union is in our best interest anyway.
We have no veto over the EU deepening, although we have a semi-veto over whether we are part of that deepening. We can stop ourselves being included in treaty changes but not new laws.
Thank you for proving my point.
I didn't. Your point was something else. But I don't care enough to argue about semantics.
Yes you did. You agreed that we can veto new treaties.
As I said, I don't care enough to argue further. Others with intelligence are capable of reading what was said.
Do you think that an EU superstate is possible without a new treaty?
Just thinking about the latest polls, if the LDs, Greens and PC were able to agree a Remain pact they would very probably tip the balance from a Tory majority to one where a rainbow coalition would have power.
For that reason alone I suspect such a pact is going to happen.
Such a pact just involves the greens and plaid stepping aside
In most seats, yes. In return for which they get LD support in a few key targets of their own: IoW, Bristol West, Buckingham maybe for the Greens; Ynys Môn and the valleys seats for PC.
"The UK’s most senior civil servant is under pressure to investigate Boris Johnson’s financial backers following cross-party claims that unnamed individuals stand to benefit from the prime minister’s willingness to pursue a no-deal Brexit.
John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has written to the cabinet secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill, asking if there may be a conflict of interest in Johnson’s acceptance of support from hedge funds that could gain from an economic shock.
Earlier on Saturday, Philip Hammond, the former chancellor, suggested Johnson was pursuing the interests of financial backers set to gain from a no-deal Brexit, in a major escalation of tensions in the prime minister’s own party."
This is gaining momentum.
Witch-hunts do.
I think its very difficult to distinguish the smoke from the fire here. The forces of Remain are just throwing everything at Boris. When John Major has suddenly become something of an incoherent frothing loon you know that this is true.
Just thinking about the latest polls, if the LDs, Greens and PC were able to agree a Remain pact they would very probably tip the balance from a Tory majority to one where a rainbow coalition would have power.
For that reason alone I suspect such a pact is going to happen.
I don't understand why the Greens and Lib Dems are separate parties anyway.
"The UK’s most senior civil servant is under pressure to investigate Boris Johnson’s financial backers following cross-party claims that unnamed individuals stand to benefit from the prime minister’s willingness to pursue a no-deal Brexit.
John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has written to the cabinet secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill, asking if there may be a conflict of interest in Johnson’s acceptance of support from hedge funds that could gain from an economic shock.
Earlier on Saturday, Philip Hammond, the former chancellor, suggested Johnson was pursuing the interests of financial backers set to gain from a no-deal Brexit, in a major escalation of tensions in the prime minister’s own party."
"The UK’s most senior civil servant is under pressure to investigate Boris Johnson’s financial backers following cross-party claims that unnamed individuals stand to benefit from the prime minister’s willingness to pursue a no-deal Brexit.
John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has written to the cabinet secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill, asking if there may be a conflict of interest in Johnson’s acceptance of support from hedge funds that could gain from an economic shock.
Earlier on Saturday, Philip Hammond, the former chancellor, suggested Johnson was pursuing the interests of financial backers set to gain from a no-deal Brexit, in a major escalation of tensions in the prime minister’s own party."
This is gaining momentum.
This seems like nonsense. A conflict of interest is if Boris personally benefits. The idea that you can't accept political support from people that would benefit from your policies would be ridiculous. Unions wouldn't be able to back Labour, for example.
Unless you are a raving fanatic on either the right or the left, the Lib Dems are the only ones left to vote for. The others are either vile or barking mad.
It looks like i will have to vote LD
You are sure you qualify?
Yes
A policy of revoking without a referendum is anything but moderate. It’s kicking the 17.4m leave voters in the face
"The UK’s most senior civil servant is under pressure to investigate Boris Johnson’s financial backers following cross-party claims that unnamed individuals stand to benefit from the prime minister’s willingness to pursue a no-deal Brexit.
John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has written to the cabinet secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill, asking if there may be a conflict of interest in Johnson’s acceptance of support from hedge funds that could gain from an economic shock.
Earlier on Saturday, Philip Hammond, the former chancellor, suggested Johnson was pursuing the interests of financial backers set to gain from a no-deal Brexit, in a major escalation of tensions in the prime minister’s own party."
This is gaining momentum.
This seems like nonsense. A conflict of interest is if Boris personally benefits. The idea that you can't accept political support from people that would benefit from your policies would be ridiculous. Unions wouldn't be able to back Labour, for example.
Well quite. But that won't stop it getting Momentum....
Unless you are a raving fanatic on either the right or the left, the Lib Dems are the only ones left to vote for. The others are either vile or barking mad.
It looks like i will have to vote LD
You are sure you qualify?
Yes
A policy of revoking without a referendum is anything but moderate. It’s kicking the 17.4m leave voters in the face
You have had no problem kicking the 16.1m remain voters in the face up until now.
'Titania McGrath' is a 'hilarious spoof' by a man called Andrew Doyle (one of Bendan O'Neil's faction). However, in this instance it seems to be more like dangerous fake news that satire.
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* there is another referendum. I know the No Dealers will hate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once it happened.
I really hate Brexit, I don't think there should have been a referendum in the first place, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
No, it really doesn't... if in the next referendum Remain is an option that wins (or if the LDs win a majority).
Both would still be undemocratic given Parliament had refused to implement the previous advisory decision.
You missed out an important word.
Immaterial. Given how the Remain side continuously told us the decision was irreversible, claiming it was only advisory once you lost is feeble. If you weren't willing to abide by the result you should not have asked the question in the first place.
If you agree that context is necessary to determine the extent to which a nominally advisory vote was in fact advisory, you must also accept that context is necessary to determine how the nominal instruction on the ballot paper is to be interpreted?
Interpretation is not synonymous with rejection. I am very content with a soft interpretation of the vote. Explicitly refusing to implement it is not interpretation.
You miss my point. To work out what the vote meant, it is to be understood in the context of the campaign fought.
It turns out, the prospectus offered was a false prospectus. The correct remedy is not to proceed as if the lies were true but to proceed on the basis of what would have happened if the public had been given a more accurate prospectus. That is sufficiently uncertain as to require a fresh mandate.
Nope wrong again. You are having a real howler today.
The vote was to leave the European Union. That is a clearly defined legal position and as long as that is achieved the refetendum result has been implemented. It is extremists like you on both sides of the argument who want to muddy the waters with trying to impose your radical interpretations on a binary decision.
You are just as bad as the ERG loons.
I stopped by the British Library today
It seems to me that Parliament has forgotten the message of Leviathan
I’m almost inspired to write a thread that’s not about Brexit
Just thinking about the latest polls, if the LDs, Greens and PC were able to agree a Remain pact they would very probably tip the balance from a Tory majority to one where a rainbow coalition would have power.
For that reason alone I suspect such a pact is going to happen.
Such a pact just involves the greens and plaid stepping aside
In most seats, yes. In return for which they get LD support in a few key targets of their own: IoW, Bristol West, Buckingham maybe for the Greens; Ynys Môn and the valleys seats for PC.
The only seats plaud could help the LDs are Brecon and Montgomeryshire where plaid are very weak. The other seat LDs may win in Wales is a LD/Plaid marginal. Theres no real benefit to a plaid pact Greens wont be keen on more than a couple of seat exchanges, Bristol west and IOW in return for a couple of LD London targets
Unless you are a raving fanatic on either the right or the left, the Lib Dems are the only ones left to vote for. The others are either vile or barking mad.
It looks like i will have to vote LD
You are sure you qualify?
Yes
A policy of revoking without a referendum is anything but moderate. It’s kicking the 17.4m leave voters in the face
The ones who are alive will have had the chance to vote in two further General Elections by that point.
'Titania McGrath' is a 'hilarious spoof' by a man called Andrew Doyle (one of Bendan O'Neil's faction). However, in this instance it seems to be more like dangerous fake news that satire.
"The UK’s most senior civil servant is under pressure to investigate Boris Johnson’s financial backers following cross-party claims that unnamed individuals stand to benefit from the prime minister’s willingness to pursue a no-deal Brexit.
John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has written to the cabinet secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill, asking if there may be a conflict of interest in Johnson’s acceptance of support from hedge funds that could gain from an economic shock.
Earlier on Saturday, Philip Hammond, the former chancellor, suggested Johnson was pursuing the interests of financial backers set to gain from a no-deal Brexit, in a major escalation of tensions in the prime minister’s own party."
This is gaining momentum.
This seems like nonsense. A conflict of interest is if Boris personally benefits. The idea that you can't accept political support from people that would benefit from your policies would be ridiculous. Unions wouldn't be able to back Labour, for example.
Precisely. No deal isn't illegal. Its idiotic but it's a policy the PM is free to pursue. The demands for inquiries and investigations are becoming increasingly hysterical
I’m curious about the Democrats’ strategy
Every time the news says “Trump is being impeached” they add “for asking the Ukrainian President to investigate Joe Biden’s son for corruption”
Unless you are a raving fanatic on either the right or the left, the Lib Dems are the only ones left to vote for. The others are either vile or barking mad.
It looks like i will have to vote LD
You are sure you qualify?
Yes
A policy of revoking without a referendum is anything but moderate. It’s kicking the 17.4m leave voters in the face
You have had no problem kicking the 16.1m remain voters in the face up until now.
I’ve consistently supported a deal, but if Parliament won’t pass one then we need to leave without a deal.
When was the last time an opposition party won 48% of the vote?
When the other party gets 52% then you're unlucky, but you've lost. It could be a 50/50 split with precisely one vote making the difference.
I'm hugely sympathetic to Remain - I nearly voted that way. I'm very aggrieved at the anti-democratic attempts at subversion of the Leave vote. There are those in the UK playing that game and those in the EU too. By far the majority of people are just saying what they think though.
"The UK’s most senior civil servant is under pressure to investigate Boris Johnson’s financial backers following cross-party claims that unnamed individuals stand to benefit from the prime minister’s willingness to pursue a no-deal Brexit.
John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has written to the cabinet secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill, asking if there may be a conflict of interest in Johnson’s acceptance of support from hedge funds that could gain from an economic shock.
Earlier on Saturday, Philip Hammond, the former chancellor, suggested Johnson was pursuing the interests of financial backers set to gain from a no-deal Brexit, in a major escalation of tensions in the prime minister’s own party."
This is gaining momentum.
This seems like nonsense. A conflict of interest is if Boris personally benefits. The idea that you can't accept political support from people that would benefit from your policies would be ridiculous. Unions wouldn't be able to back Labour, for example.
Precisely. No deal isn't illegal. Its idiotic but it's a policy the PM is free to pursue. The demands for inquiries and investigations are becoming increasingly hysterical
I’m curious about the Democrats’ strategy
Every time the news says “Trump is being impeached” they add “for asking the Ukrainian President to investigate Joe Biden’s son for corruption”
Unless you are a raving fanatic on either the right or the left, the Lib Dems are the only ones left to vote for. The others are either vile or barking mad.
It looks like i will have to vote LD
You are sure you qualify?
Yes
A policy of revoking without a referendum is anything but moderate. It’s kicking the 17.4m leave voters in the face
The ones who are alive will have had the chance to vote in two further General Elections by that point.
A referendum and an election are different things.
Parliament’s authority is derived from the people (pace Hobbes)
In a general election it is “this is what I intend to do, elect me as a representative and I will use my judgement on your behalf” (pace Burke)
In a referendum it’s going back to the count of authority and asking for instruction
Unless you are a raving fanatic on either the right or the left, the Lib Dems are the only ones left to vote for. The others are either vile or barking mad.
It looks like i will have to vote LD
You are sure you qualify?
Yes
A policy of revoking without a referendum is anything but moderate. It’s kicking the 17.4m leave voters in the face
You have had no problem kicking the 16.1m remain voters in the face up until now.
I’ve consistently supported a deal, but if Parliament won’t pass one then we need to leave without a deal.
Unless you are a raving fanatic on either the right or the left, the Lib Dems are the only ones left to vote for. The others are either vile or barking mad.
It looks like i will have to vote LD
You are sure you qualify?
Yes
A policy of revoking without a referendum is anything but moderate. It’s kicking the 17.4m leave voters in the face
If the LDs were to revoke 50 by means of the ballet box, then a fair number of voters might well be kicking themselves in the face.
By the way, can somebody tell me if the referendum was categorized as " advisory", and if so what that means?
'Titania McGrath' is a 'hilarious spoof' by a man called Andrew Doyle (one of Bendan O'Neil's faction). However, in this instance it seems to be more like dangerous fake news that satire.
The conference itself, though, seems to be real.
Yes, but claiming it's going to enforce racial segregation on public transport sounds to me somewhat libellous, even as a clumsy attempt at satire.
Just thinking about the latest polls, if the LDs, Greens and PC were able to agree a Remain pact they would very probably tip the balance from a Tory majority to one where a rainbow coalition would have power.
For that reason alone I suspect such a pact is going to happen.
Not without Labour involved and it would also lead to an informal Tory and Brexit Party pact most likely too
'Titania McGrath' is a 'hilarious spoof' by a man called Andrew Doyle (one of Bendan O'Neil's faction). However, in this instance it seems to be more like dangerous fake news that satire.
The conference itself, though, seems to be real.
Yes, but claiming it's going to enforce racial segregation on public transport sounds to me somewhat libellous, even as a clumsy attempt at satire.
Unless you are a raving fanatic on either the right or the left, the Lib Dems are the only ones left to vote for. The others are either vile or barking mad.
It looks like i will have to vote LD
You are sure you qualify?
Yes
A policy of revoking without a referendum is anything but moderate. It’s kicking the 17.4m leave voters in the face
If the LDs were to revoke 50 by means of the ballet box, then a fair number of voters might well be kicking themselves in the face.
By the way, can somebody tell me if the referendum was categorized as " advisory", and if so what that means?
The leaflets distributed by the government and paid for by the taxpayer said the vote would be enacted regardless of the result.
Just thinking about the latest polls, if the LDs, Greens and PC were able to agree a Remain pact they would very probably tip the balance from a Tory majority to one where a rainbow coalition would have power.
For that reason alone I suspect such a pact is going to happen.
Not without Labour involved and it would also lead to an informal Tory and Brexit Party pact most likely too
[A year-long GNU] sadly, it feels unlikely. There's the small matter of what policies other than extend and 2nd ref it could agree on.
By the end of a year, if Remain or EEA/EFTA won the ref, the GNU would have morphed into LDs/Nats/Greens plus Real Conservatives and Real Social Democrats. Since the Parliament could last till 2022 and we'd be more or less Remaining till then, the parties could use the two years to realign themselves - and abstain from any other gratuitous legislation.
Would the SNP be happy with no 2nd Sindy ref during this GNU?
Without Brexit, especially No Deal Brexit, Yes would have near zero chance of winning any indyref2 anyway as all the Scottish polls show
"The UK’s most senior civil servant is under pressure to investigate Boris Johnson’s financial backers following cross-party claims that unnamed individuals stand to benefit from the prime minister’s willingness to pursue a no-deal Brexit.
John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has written to the cabinet secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill, asking if there may be a conflict of interest in Johnson’s acceptance of support from hedge funds that could gain from an economic shock.
Earlier on Saturday, Philip Hammond, the former chancellor, suggested Johnson was pursuing the interests of financial backers set to gain from a no-deal Brexit, in a major escalation of tensions in the prime minister’s own party."
This is gaining momentum.
This seems like nonsense. A conflict of interest is if Boris personally benefits. The idea that you can't accept political support from people that would benefit from your policies would be ridiculous. Unions wouldn't be able to back Labour, for example.
Precisely. No deal isn't illegal. Its idiotic but it's a policy the PM is free to pursue. The demands for inquiries and investigations are becoming increasingly hysterical
I’m curious about the Democrats’ strategy
Every time the news says “Trump is being impeached” they add “for asking the Ukrainian President to investigate Joe Biden’s son for corruption”
How does that look good for them?
It may not be good for Biden, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily bad for the Dems in the long(er) run.
[A year-long GNU] sadly, it feels unlikely. There's the small matter of what policies other than extend and 2nd ref it could agree on.
By the end of a year, if Remain or EEA/EFTA won the ref, the GNU would have morphed into LDs/Nats/Greens plus Real Conservatives and Real Social Democrats. Since the Parliament could last till 2022 and we'd be more or less Remaining till then, the parties could use the two years to realign themselves - and abstain from any other gratuitous legislation.
Would the SNP be happy with no 2nd Sindy ref during this GNU?
Without Brexit, especially No Deal Brexit Yes would have near zero chance of winning any indyref2 anyway as all the Scottish polls show
Lets be honest, no deal Brexit guarantees Scottish Independence. I have no doubt about that.
I see Hosie has his orders from Nicola. Seems to be a split between Black ford and Sturgeon though, Blackfords probably spent too much time in wizard "remain alliance" meetings to see the wood for the trees now.
"The UK’s most senior civil servant is under pressure to investigate Boris Johnson’s financial backers following cross-party claims that unnamed individuals stand to benefit from the prime minister’s willingness to pursue a no-deal Brexit.
John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has written to the cabinet secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill, asking if there may be a conflict of interest in Johnson’s acceptance of support from hedge funds that could gain from an economic shock.
Earlier on Saturday, Philip Hammond, the former chancellor, suggested Johnson was pursuing the interests of financial backers set to gain from a no-deal Brexit, in a major escalation of tensions in the prime minister’s own party."
This is gaining momentum.
This seems like nonsense. A conflict of interest is if Boris personally benefits. The idea that you can't accept political support from people that would benefit from your policies would be ridiculous. Unions wouldn't be able to back Labour, for example.
Precisely. No deal isn't illegal. Its idiotic but it's a policy the PM is free to pursue. The demands for inquiries and investigations are becoming increasingly hysterical
I’m curious about the Democrats’ strategy
Every time the news says “Trump is being impeached” they add “for asking the Ukrainian President to investigate Joe Biden’s son for corruption”
How does that look good for them?
Threatening the Ukrainian president that there could be consequences if he does not investigate Joe Biden's son would be a more accurate description. What do the Democrats gain? Maybe nothing. But perhaps the American public deserves to know that Trump was using the office of the Presidency and the power of the US to disadvantage a potential electoral opponent. Trump, of course, did not want the Americna public to know that.
[A year-long GNU] sadly, it feels unlikely. There's the small matter of what policies other than extend and 2nd ref it could agree on.
By the end of a year, if Remain or EEA/EFTA won the ref, the GNU would have morphed into LDs/Nats/Greens plus Real Conservatives and Real Social Democrats. Since the Parliament could last till 2022 and we'd be more or less Remaining till then, the parties could use the two years to realign themselves - and abstain from any other gratuitous legislation.
Would the SNP be happy with no 2nd Sindy ref during this GNU?
Without Brexit, especially No Deal Brexit, Yes would have near zero chance of winning any indyref2 anyway as all the Scottish polls show
Song of the Yoon.
'We'd definitely win! Definitely don't bring it on!'
Unless you are a raving fanatic on either the right or the left, the Lib Dems are the only ones left to vote for. The others are either vile or barking mad.
It looks like i will have to vote LD
You are sure you qualify?
Yes
A policy of revoking without a referendum is anything but moderate. It’s kicking the 17.4m leave voters in the face
If the LDs were to revoke 50 by means of the ballet box, then a fair number of voters might well be kicking themselves in the face.
By the way, can somebody tell me if the referendum was categorized as " advisory", and if so what that means?
The leaflets distributed by the government and paid for by the taxpayer said the vote would be enacted regardless of the result.
And vote leave said we’d stay in the single market. What’s your point?
Unless you are a raving fanatic on either the right or the left, the Lib Dems are the only ones left to vote for. The others are either vile or barking mad.
It looks like i will have to vote LD
You are sure you qualify?
Yes
A policy of revoking without a referendum is anything but moderate. It’s kicking the 17.4m leave voters in the face
You have had no problem kicking the 16.1m remain voters in the face up until now.
I’ve consistently supported a deal, but if Parliament won’t pass one then we need to leave without a deal.
That’s just going with the majority view.
Maybe we’re tired of being kicked in the face.
We voted to leave. The government is trying to implement that instruction
If you don’t like the way they have chosen to do that you can vote against them at the next election
Unless you are a raving fanatic on either the right or the left, the Lib Dems are the only ones left to vote for. The others are either vile or barking mad.
It looks like i will have to vote LD
You are sure you qualify?
Yes
A policy of revoking without a referendum is anything but moderate. It’s kicking the 17.4m leave voters in the face
If the LDs were to revoke 50 by means of the ballet box, then a fair number of voters might well be kicking themselves in the face.
By the way, can somebody tell me if the referendum was categorized as " advisory", and if so what that means?
From a legal perspective it means that Parliament can ignore it
However from a political, moral and constitutional perspective that is much more challenging
Post the approval of Article 50 we have started down the legal path of withdrawal
Unless you are a raving fanatic on either the right or the left, the Lib Dems are the only ones left to vote for. The others are either vile or barking mad.
It looks like i will have to vote LD
You are sure you qualify?
Yes
A policy of revoking without a referendum is anything but moderate. It’s kicking the 17.4m leave voters in the face
You have had no problem kicking the 16.1m remain voters in the face up until now.
I’ve consistently supported a deal, but if Parliament won’t pass one then we need to leave without a deal.
That’s just going with the majority view.
Maybe we’re tired of being kicked in the face.
We voted to leave. The government is trying to implement that instruction
If you don’t like the way they have chosen to do that you can vote against them at the next election
The government is trying to implement it by kicking Remainers in the face instead of trying to unite the country.
Maybe we’re tired of being kicked in the face.
And by the way, I did vote against it at the next General Election. That was in 2017.
[A year-long GNU] sadly, it feels unlikely. There's the small matter of what policies other than extend and 2nd ref it could agree on.
By the end of a year, if Remain or EEA/EFTA won the ref, the GNU would have morphed into LDs/Nats/Greens plus Real Conservatives and Real Social Democrats. Since the Parliament could last till 2022 and we'd be more or less Remaining till then, the parties could use the two years to realign themselves - and abstain from any other gratuitous legislation.
Would the SNP be happy with no 2nd Sindy ref during this GNU?
Without Brexit, especially No Deal Brexit Yes would have near zero chance of winning any indyref2 anyway as all the Scottish polls show
Lets be honest, no deal Brexit guarantees Scottish Independence. I have no doubt about that.
I think no deal guarantees Scottish Remain. The economic case becomes unsalable.
A breakaway Scotland would also be a huge economic boost to the rest of the UK.
"The UK’s most senior civil servant is under pressure to investigate Boris Johnson’s financial backers following cross-party claims that unnamed individuals stand to benefit from the prime minister’s willingness to pursue a no-deal Brexit.
John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has written to the cabinet secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill, asking if there may be a conflict of interest in Johnson’s acceptance of support from hedge funds that could gain from an economic shock.
Earlier on Saturday, Philip Hammond, the former chancellor, suggested Johnson was pursuing the interests of financial backers set to gain from a no-deal Brexit, in a major escalation of tensions in the prime minister’s own party."
This is gaining momentum.
This seems like nonsense. A conflict of interest is if Boris personally benefits. The idea that you can't accept political support from people that would benefit from your policies would be ridiculous. Unions wouldn't be able to back Labour, for example.
Precisely. No deal isn't illegal. Its idiotic but it's a policy the PM is free to pursue. The demands for inquiries and investigations are becoming increasingly hysterical
I’m curious about the Democrats’ strategy
Every time the news says “Trump is being impeached” they add “for asking the Ukrainian President to investigate Joe Biden’s son for corruption”
How does that look good for them?
It may not be good for Biden, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily bad for the Dems in the long(er) run.
[A year-long GNU] sadly, it feels unlikely. There's the small matter of what policies other than extend and 2nd ref it could agree on.
By the end of a year, if Remain or EEA/EFTA won the ref, the GNU would have morphed into LDs/Nats/Greens plus Real Conservatives and Real Social Democrats. Since the Parliament could last till 2022 and we'd be more or less Remaining till then, the parties could use the two years to realign themselves - and abstain from any other gratuitous legislation.
Would the SNP be happy with no 2nd Sindy ref during this GNU?
Without Brexit, especially No Deal Brexit Yes would have near zero chance of winning any indyref2 anyway as all the Scottish polls show
Lets be honest, no deal Brexit guarantees Scottish Independence. I have no doubt about that.
I think no deal guarantees Scottish Remain. The economic case becomes unsalable.
A breakaway Scotland would also be a huge economic boost to the rest of the UK.
A whole lot of arrogance and delusion is dripping off that post.
Comments
Any other ideas?
Some Leavers call anything they don’t like or agree with as working for the other side, rather than seeing it as just a difference of opinion as to what people feel is best for the country .
Saturday evening football with odds supplied by BFE
Everton 10.5
Man City 1.33
Draw 6.2
"We change the voting system, then what?"
"Scotland becomes independent, then what?"
You want a five year manifesto, have an election not a referendum.
My next step is to restart my phone.
I am now off to deliver my Daisy leaflets.
We know exactly what remaining in the EU is. Its literally like today, yesterday, and tomorrow.
If you want to drop us off a cliff then you should propose your vision with detail and facts. A bus slogan does not cut it.
Even the Scottish Government put together a proper paper on what an independent Scotland would look like. Leave did no such thing. A no deal campaign would do no such thing.
You know why? Because they know they would lose.
Shameless.
Meanwhile, the GNU manages to get the great bulk of the Brexit Party voters into the Conservative column for that election.
https://twitter.com/BBCWillVernon/status/1177868283355246592
Realistically we don’t know what’s going to happen. There is no definites.
It might be enough to win them an election, but the earth will be utterly scorched if they do.
The moment that the Withdrawal Agreement comes into force, it stops working. You can't keep both groups happy. (And you don't get Hammond/Stewart types back either, because they go for close alignment).
That's why Team Boris wants an early election- get a majority before the fork in the road. And that's why Team not-Boris would be ninnies to give them one.
https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2019-09-28/police-looking-into-nigel-farage-s-take-the-knife-to-them-comments-at-newport-brexit-party-rally/
"The UK’s most senior civil servant is under pressure to investigate Boris Johnson’s financial backers following cross-party claims that unnamed individuals stand to benefit from the prime minister’s willingness to pursue a no-deal Brexit.
John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has written to the cabinet secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill, asking if there may be a conflict of interest in Johnson’s acceptance of support from hedge funds that could gain from an economic shock.
Earlier on Saturday, Philip Hammond, the former chancellor, suggested Johnson was pursuing the interests of financial backers set to gain from a no-deal Brexit, in a major escalation of tensions in the prime minister’s own party."
The vote was to leave the European Union. That is a clearly defined legal position and as long as that is achieved the refetendum result has been implemented. It is extremists like you on both sides of the argument who want to muddy the waters with trying to impose your radical interpretations on a binary decision.
You are just as bad as the ERG loons.
For that reason alone I suspect such a pact is going to happen.
Less than five seconds?
Surely at least some of those methods of segregation would be illegal?
Whether the strategy will work is another matter.
The demands for inquiries and investigations are becoming increasingly hysterical
I think its very difficult to distinguish the smoke from the fire here. The forces of Remain are just throwing everything at Boris. When John Major has suddenly become something of an incoherent frothing loon you know that this is true.
Boris does have questions to answer.
Remain has no mandate whatsoever.
https://twitter.com/blaiklockBP/status/1177877514254999552?s=20
It seems to me that Parliament has forgotten the message of Leviathan
I’m almost inspired to write a thread that’s not about Brexit
Greens wont be keen on more than a couple of seat exchanges, Bristol west and IOW in return for a couple of LD London targets
Every time the news says “Trump is being impeached” they add “for asking the Ukrainian President to investigate Joe Biden’s son for corruption”
How does that look good for them?
That’s just going with the majority view.
I'm hugely sympathetic to Remain - I nearly voted that way. I'm very aggrieved at the anti-democratic attempts at subversion of the Leave vote. There are those in the UK playing that game and those in the EU too. By far the majority of people are just saying what they think though.
Parliament’s authority is derived from the people (pace Hobbes)
In a general election it is “this is what I intend to do, elect me as a representative and I will use my judgement on your behalf” (pace Burke)
In a referendum it’s going back to the count of authority and asking for instruction
By the way, can somebody tell me if the referendum was categorized as " advisory", and if so what that means?
'We'd definitely win!
Definitely don't bring it on!'
If you don’t like the way they have chosen to do that you can vote against them at the next election
However from a political, moral and constitutional perspective that is much more challenging
Post the approval of Article 50 we have started down the legal path of withdrawal
Maybe we’re tired of being kicked in the face.
And by the way, I did vote against it at the next General Election. That was in 2017.
A breakaway Scotland would also be a huge economic boost to the rest of the UK.
Labour dialling back the violent language there with rape