One in five members eligible to vote in the leadership election had joined to do so. However "Sharing the aims and values of the Conservative Party might not be the main reason they joined, but that doesn't mean they don't, and also doesn't mean they aren't still loyal Conservatives. The vast majority of them voted for the party in 2017 (92%) and in 2015 (71%)."
I don't see an issue there.
The party literally advertises voting in leadership elections as a reason to join the party so how is it entryism for people who support and vote for the party to join for that reason? https://www.conservatives.com/join
That's not like SWP voters joining the Labour Party or UKIP voters joining the Tories. That would be entryism.
Sorry - I was agreeing with you. I was pointing out that - when people talk about entryism to the Conservatives - it's nothing like the level of entryism to Labour. The Conservatives haven't changed, it's just the eurosceptics are the clear majority now, like it or loathe it.
That just means that entryism might not be the best way to describe the phenomenon of organic radicalisation.
Has the proposed Saturday sitting on the 19th been commented on? Seems as though that’d be a perfect time to resign, the last chance before the Benn Act compels him to send a letter.
Polls are just a snapshot and unreliable in their absolutes. The trend, however, is probably reliable enough. There seems to have been clear movement over time from Leave to Remain.
I
he polls are stuffed with political obsessives who try to predict the result rather than give their opinion.
Mate can you please answer my question, this being an interactive chat room, an' all and that's what makes it tick, of why a 2nd referendum, asking the same people a question is undemocratic. It is a closed system with a bit of leakage at one end, entry at the other and some mixing in the middle. We are not asking outsiders to come and outvote us, it is us, the UK that would be voting again. All of us. How would that be undemocratic?
Impractical perhaps (because as you say we could then vote in at the next GE a Leave party if Remain one and vice versa), sub-optimal imo certainly, but not the democratic outrage that you and, amongst others @Richard_Tyndall say it is?
Mate I answered it when you asked
Sorry have been literally flying around all day and thought I'd kept up. Apologies - in a line or two again pls.
You cannot, as politicians, hold a referendum, telling the voters that it is THEIR choice NOT politicians, and that if we leave WE WILL LEAVE, then when you lose, fart arse around for three years voting against any form of implementing the result, then use your own attrition as evidence that the whole thing isn't worth it and the public should vote again. It is completely crazy, against any interpretation of fair play, and makes everything they said pre referendum (and just after in the case of Umunna, Allen, Wollaston, Soubry etc) a pack of lies
Thanks agree. But what if it's the only thing that our parliamentary system will allow?
The people I mentioned should have to re fight their seats, as they were earned either by outright lies or by pledges that are in complete contrast to their current stance.
The parliamentary system was suspended for the direct democracy of the referendum, and obviously, implementing the result was under the remit of direct democracy, else there was no point having the referendum. A general election with a some form of accountability pledge for those elected as to implementing the result or not would be my solution.
Polls are just a snapshot and unreliable in their absolutes. The trend, however, is probably reliable enough. There seems to have been clear movement over time from Leave to Remain.
I
he polls are stuffed with political obsessives who try to predict the result rather than give their opinion.
Mate can you please answer my question, this being an interactive chat room, an' all and that's what makes it tick, of why a 2nd referendum, asking the same people a question is undemocratic. It is a closed system with a bit of leakage at one end, entry at the other and some mixing in the middle. We are not asking outsiders to come and outvote us, it is us, the UK that would be voting again. All of us. How would that be undemocratic?
Impractical perhaps (because as you say we could then vote in at the next GE a Leave party if Remain one and vice versa), sub-optimal imo certainly, but not the democratic outrage that you and, amongst others @Richard_Tyndall say it is?
Mate I answered it when you asked
Sorry have been literally flying around all day and thought I'd kept up. Apologies - in a line or two again pls.
You cannot, as politicians, hold a referendum, telling the voters that it is THEIR choice NOT politicians, and that if we leave WE WILL LEAVE, then when you lose, fart arse around for three years voting against any form of implementing the result, then use your own attrition as evidence that the whole thing isn't worth it and the public should vote again. It is completely crazy, against any interpretation of fair play, and makes everything they said pre referendum (and just after in the case of Umunna, Allen, Wollaston, Soubry etc) a pack of lies
Thanks agree. But what if it's the only thing that our parliamentary system will allow?
The people I mentioned should have to re fight their seats, as they were earned either by outright lies or by pledges that are in complete contrast to their current stance.
The parliamentary system was suspended for the direct democracy of the referendum, and obviously, implementing the result was under the remit of direct democracy, else there was no point having the referendum. A general election with a some form of accountability pledge for those elected as to implementing the result or not would be my solution.
You clearly do not understand our parliamentary system, even though you no doubt mouthed the moronic phrase "take back control" during 2016.
Great thread header from OGH which sums up two key reasons we are in the mess we are. The polls show a clear, consistent but *small* shift to Remain since the referendum. Enough to cause real problems with implimenting the result but not enough to abandon the result. You can't force through a result a majority of people now oppose but you can't abandon election results because of a sub 5% midterm swing. Brexit is too divisive to deliver and too popular to stop.
The second is the mythologising of " the people " when it was only ever 51.9% of the people with huge numbers of very marginally cast votes on either sides.
That's why the 2017 General Election result was both an amber/red warning light that the system needed coolant and an *escape hatch*. " Oh look. The public want a compromise. "
But the political class charged on and if anything upped the ante. Now the system is exploding. Every aspect, even the Monarchy, is under strain. For all the Atlanticism of key Brexiters the US consitution with it's Electoral College, Senate, presidential veto and very high supermajorities for amending the constitution would have dealt with this much better.
"That's why the 2017 General Election result was both an amber/red warning light that the system needed coolant and an *escape hatch*. " Oh look. The public want a compromise. "
Maybe if I get time I will look at the pre GE17 pledges on Brexit of each of the 650 MPS elected. I wonder how many said they would do all they could to prevent the implementation of the result. Care to guess?
Great thread header from OGH which sums up two key reasons we are in the mess we are. The polls show a clear, consistent but *small* shift to Remain since the referendum. Enough to cause real problems with implimenting the result but not enough to abandon the result. You can't force through a result a majority of people now oppose but you can't abandon election results because of a sub 5% midterm swing. Brexit is too divisive to deliver and too popular to stop.
The second is the mythologising of " the people " when it was only ever 51.9% of the people with huge numbers of very marginally cast votes on either sides.
That's why the 2017 General Election result was both an amber/red warning light that the system needed coolant and an *escape hatch*. " Oh look. The public want a compromise. "
But the political class charged on and if anything upped the ante. Now the system is exploding. Every aspect, even the Monarchy, is under strain. For all the Atlanticism of key Brexiters the US consitution with it's Electoral College, Senate, presidential veto and very high supermajorities for amending the constitution would have dealt with this much better.
It was not "the political class" (a perjorative and divisive phrase in itself) that upped the ante on this. It was a political leader, Theresa May, and a political party, the Conservatives who, as you say, did not heed the warning of the 2017 election and defined Brexit in a narrow and partisan way ignoring the views of the 48% and even some of the 52% who expected a soft Brexit.
All of us on here could be said to be members of the political class.
Polls are just a snapshot and unreliable in their absolutes. The trend, however, is probably reliable enough. There seems to have been clear movement over time from Leave to Remain.
I
he polls are stuffed with political obsessives who try to predict the result rather than give their opinion.
Impractical perhaps (because as you say we could then vote in at the next GE a Leave party if Remain one and vice versa), sub-optimal imo certainly, but not the democratic outrage that you and, amongst others @Richard_Tyndall say it is?
Mate I answered it when you asked
Sorry have been literally flying around all day and thought I'd kept up. Apologies - in a line or two again pls.
You cannot, as politicians, hold a referendum, telling the voters that it is THEIR choice NOT politicians, and that if we leave WE WILL LEAVE, then when you lose, fart arse around for three years voting against any form of implementing the result, then use your own attrition as evidence that the whole thing isn't worth it and the public should vote again. It is completely crazy, against any interpretation of fair play, and makes everything they said pre referendum (and just after in the case of Umunna, Allen, Wollaston, Soubry etc) a pack of lies
Thanks agree. But what if it's the only thing that our parliamentary system will allow?
The people I mentioned should have to re fight their seats, as they were earned either by outright lies or by pledges that are in complete contrast to their current stance.
The parliamentary system was suspended for the direct democracy of the referendum, and obviously, implementing the result was under the remit of direct democracy, else there was no point having the referendum. A general election with a some form of accountability pledge for those elected as to implementing the result or not would be my solution.
You clearly do not understand our parliamentary system, even though you no doubt mouthed the moronic phrase "take back control" during 2016.
You are an incessant troll, who invents things people didn't say and never makes a valid point.
Remainers just have to steer their way to a new referendum, and they will win. I used to think Leave would win again, but not any more. Too many people want Brexit forgotten, and Remain is perceived as the easiest way to that (even though it won't be forgotten, in reality)
Not there yet, by a long way, but perhaps time for my periodic (and annoying) reminder that I predicted Brexit wouldn't happen in the end just after the result.
I could see Remain winning by 52% to 48% on a turnout of 50% and 7m remain votes to 6m votes for Leave.
All the numbers well down on 2016 and absolutely nothing settled whatsoever...
Unless it was No Deal Vs Deal I'd sit it out personally. And if its May's Deal Vs Remain I doubt there would even be a formal "Leave" campaign. It would just boil down to Remainers having a conversation with each other and half the country excluded.
Anyone who thinks May's deal is remain is too dumb to vote hence it would be no loss.
I don't think he's suggesting Remain v May's deal is just Remain v Remain. I think the problem is that, because its a specific type of Leave (and not a popular one) that Remain will win as 'No Deal' Leavers will abstain, and EEA Leavers might abstain, or split either way. Plus, who would front the campaign? The only person who could would be Theresa May, and she may not want to.
I'd vote for it, even though I prefer EEA, because its the only form of Leave I'll get. But a lot of morons[1] would say it isn't a proper Leave and not vote for it.
In 2011 I had a friend who wanted PR (like me). He voted to retain FPTP because it wasn't PR. I said, "Yes, but you know, baby steps?" and he said, "Not PR. Not voting for AV." He now moans about FPTP.
Polls are just a snapshot and unreliable in their absolutes. The trend, however, is probably reliable enough. There seems to have been clear movement over time from Leave to Remain.
I
he polls are stuffed with political obsessives who try to predict the result rather than give their opinion.
Impractical perhaps (because as you say we could then vote in at the next GE a Leave party if Remain one and vice versa), sub-optimal imo certainly, but not the democratic outrage that you and, amongst others @Richard_Tyndall say it is?
Mate I answered it when you asked
Sorry have been literally flying around all day and thought I'd kept up. Apologies - in a line or two again pls.
You cannot, as politicians, hold a referendum, telling the voters that it is THEIR choice NOT politicians, and that if we leave WE WILL LEAVE, then when you lose, fart arse around for three years voting against any form of implementing the result, then use your own attrition as evidence that the whole thing isn't worth it and the public should vote again. It is completely crazy, against any interpretation of fair play, and makes everything they said pre referendum (and just after in the case of Umunna, Allen, Wollaston, Soubry etc) a pack of lies
Thanks agree. But what if it's the only thing that our parliamentary system will allow?
The people I mentioned should have to re fight their seats, as they were earned either by outright lies or by pledges that are in complete contrast to their current stance.
The parliamentary system was suspended for the direct democracy of the referendum, and obviously, implementing the result was under the remit of direct democracy, else there was no point having the referendum. A general election with a some form of accountability pledge for those elected as to implementing the result or not would be my solution.
You clearly do not understand our parliamentary system, even though you no doubt mouthed the moronic phrase "take back control" during 2016.
You are an incessant troll, who invents things people didn't say and never makes a valid point.
Polls are just a snapshot and unreliable in their absolutes. The trend, however, is probably reliable enough. There seems to have been clear movement over time from Leave to Remain.
I
he polls are stuffed with political obsessives who try to predict the result rather than give their opinion.
Impractical perhaps (because as you say we could then vote in at the next GE a Leave party if Remain one and vice versa), sub-optimal imo certainly, but not the democratic outrage that you and, amongst others @Richard_Tyndall say it is?
Mate I answered it when you asked
Sorry have been literally flying around all day and thought I'd kept up. Apologies - in a line or two again pls.
Thanks agree. But what if it's the only thing that our parliamentary system will allow?
The people I mentioned should have to re fight their seats, as they were earned either by outright lies or by pledges that are in complete contrast to their current stance.
The parliamentary system was suspended for the direct democracy of the referendum, and obviously, implementing the result was under the remit of direct democracy, else there was no point having the referendum. A general election with a some form of accountability pledge for those elected as to implementing the result or not would be my solution.
You clearly do not understand our parliamentary system, even though you no doubt mouthed the moronic phrase "take back control" during 2016.
You are an incessant troll, who invents things people didn't say and never makes a valid point.
irony just experienced a cardiac event
Please expand? I never invent things other posters didn't say, for one thing. If you think I never make a valid point either, that's your opinion, but I would say you are in a tiny minority who feel that way.
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
Mr WilliamGlenn, et al, Entryism can be a problem if a small number of new entrants are significant and determined enough to seek to change the overall values of the party. It is not necessarily a bad thing from a local party perspective, but the fact that an unrepresentative extreme fringe can now choose a PM in a final ballot, which makes their opinion more important than those of MPs who do have a mandate from across the electorate is highly dubious from a democratic perspective.
It was a massive mistake by both Labour and Tories to give unelected members pre-eminence over democratically elected MPs. Members should be allowed to select Party Chairman. Party leaders, that are potential PMs, should be chosen by MPs only.
Great thread header from OGH which sums up two key reasons we are in the mess we are. The polls show a clear, consistent but *small* shift to Remain since the referendum. Enough to cause real problems with implimenting the result but not enough to abandon the result. You can't force through a result a majority of people now oppose but you can't abandon election results because of a sub 5% midterm swing. Brexit is too divisive to deliver and too popular to stop.
The second is the mythologising of " the people " when it was only ever 51.9% of the people with huge numbers of very marginally cast votes on either sides.
That's why the 2017 General Election result was both an amber/red warning light that the system needed coolant and an *escape hatch*. " Oh look. The public want a compromise. "
But the political class charged on and if anything upped the ante. Now the system is exploding. Every aspect, even the Monarchy, is under strain. For all the Atlanticism of key Brexiters the US consitution with it's Electoral College, Senate, presidential veto and very high supermajorities for amending the constitution would have dealt with this much better.
"That's why the 2017 General Election result was both an amber/red warning light that the system needed coolant and an *escape hatch*. " Oh look. The public want a compromise. "
Maybe if I get time I will look at the pre GE17 pledges on Brexit of each of the 650 MPS elected. I wonder how many said they would do all they could to prevent the implementation of the result. Care to guess?
I wouldn't if I were you. You'd find out that the vast majority of them have voted in complete coherence with their manifesto pledges on Brexit. Labour MPs for a Deal that includes close alignment with the SM and CU (and against deals that do not); LD MPs for a Deal that includes a confirmatory referendum (and against deals that do not), and SNP MPs for a Deal which includes membership of the SM (and against deals that do not).
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
It's not sophistry to point out that the Leave prospectus was built around getting a deal. If you throw that prospectus away, you throw your mandate away.
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
It's not sophistry to point out that the Leave prospectus was built around getting a deal. If you throw that prospectus away, you throw your mandate away.
Great thread header from OGH which sums up two key reasons we are in the mess we are. The polls show a clear, consistent but *small* shift to Remain since the referendum. Enough to cause real problems with implimenting the result but not enough to abandon the result. You can't force through a result a majority of people now oppose but you can't abandon election results because of a sub 5% midterm swing. Brexit is too divisive to deliver and too popular to stop.
The second is the mythologising of " the people " when it was only ever 51.9% of the people with huge numbers of very marginally cast votes on either sides.
That's why the 2017 General Election result was both an amber/red warning light that the system needed coolant and an *escape hatch*. " Oh look. The public want a compromise. "
But the political class charged on and if anything upped the ante. Now the system is exploding. Every aspect, even the Monarchy, is under strain. For all the Atlanticism of key Brexiters the US consitution with it's Electoral College, Senate, presidential veto and very high supermajorities for amending the constitution would have dealt with this much better.
"That's why the 2017 General Election result was both an amber/red warning light that the system needed coolant and an *escape hatch*. " Oh look. The public want a compromise. "
Maybe if I get time I will look at the pre GE17 pledges on Brexit of each of the 650 MPS elected. I wonder how many said they would do all they could to prevent the implementation of the result. Care to guess?
I wouldn't if I were you. You'd find out that the vast majority of them have voted in complete coherence with their manifesto pledges on Brexit. Labour MPs for a Deal that includes close alignment with the SM and CU (and against deals that do not); LD MPs for a Deal that includes a confirmatory referendum (and against deals that do not), and SNP MPs for a Deal which includes membership of the SM (and against deals that do not).
And Conservative MPs for "a deep and special partnership including a comprehensive free trade and customs agreement. We will pursue free trade with European markets".
Edit to add: In truth, the Lab and Con 2017 manifestos were both jack-full of fudge on Brexit because it was two years away and everyone was still deluding themselves about sunlit uplands and easiest deals in history and Workers' Brexits and the rest.
It was easy for Remainers and Leavers to sign up to either because the issues were not in anything like as sharp focus as now.
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
It's not sophistry to point out that the Leave prospectus was built around getting a deal. If you throw that prospectus away, you throw your mandate away.
We didn't get a deal?
It was rejected by the people who campaigned for it.
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
A clear but narrow majority voted to leave 3 years 3 months ago in an advisory referendum. On the basis of specific campaign promises and claims. That result is now refracted through the chronologically superior House of Commons mandate where certain forms of leaving were ruled out by certain parties. Your claim that this is guff and sophistry is guff and sophistry.
Has the proposed Saturday sitting on the 19th been commented on? Seems as though that’d be a perfect time to resign, the last chance before the Benn Act compels him to send a letter.
Can't be in contempt of court for not doing PM obligations if you're not the PM (taps head)
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
It's not sophistry to point out that the Leave prospectus was built around getting a deal. If you throw that prospectus away, you throw your mandate away.
We didn't get a deal?
It was rejected by the people who campaigned for it.
...as well as the MPs elected on a pledge to enact the result of the referendum, who added there would be no second go at it... and if the latter had kept their word, we'd have left last year and this would all be over with.
Polls are just a snapshot and unreliable in their absolutes. The trend, however, is probably reliable enough. There seems to have been clear movement over time from Leave to Remain.
The country remains deeply divided and will be for decades.
There’s a trend towards Remain in the opinion polls, right enough. The problem is opinion polls outside of official campaigns are a complete waste of time
If the trend were much larger, and say now had Remain ahead by 4:1, then I don't think it would be a waste of time. All the nuances of sampling errors in the world wouldn't be able to explain away such a decisive shift in public opinion.
That we haven't seen such a shift, in either direction, is noteworthy.
It's not like those sorts of shifts can't happen - just look at the changes in the opinion polling on Trump impeachment.
I say the polls are stuffed with political obsessives who try to predict the result rather than give their opinion.
Mate can you please answer my question, this being an interactive chat room, an' all and that's what makes it tick, of why a 2nd referendum, asking the same people a question is undemocratic. It is a closed system with a bit of leakage at one end, entry at the other and some mixing in the middle. We are not asking outsiders to come and outvote us, it is us, the UK that would be voting again. All of us. How would that be undemocratic?
Impractical perhaps (because as you say we could then vote in at the next GE a Leave party if Remain one and vice versa), sub-optimal imo certainly, but not the democratic outrage that you and, amongst others @Richard_Tyndall say it is?
Mate I answered it when you asked
Sorry have been literally flying around all day and thought I'd kept up. Apologies - in a line or two again pls.
Flying? Don't let Extinction Rebellion know
The only acceptable method of flying is to flying around telling others not to fly
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
It's not sophistry to point out that the Leave prospectus was built around getting a deal. If you throw that prospectus away, you throw your mandate away.
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
It's not sophistry to point out that the Leave prospectus was built around getting a deal. If you throw that prospectus away, you throw your mandate away.
We didn't get a deal?
Britain did get a deal. Leavers spurned it.
So if all but the ERG had voted for the the agreement between our PM and the EU to be ratified, what would have happened?
Great thread header from OGH which sums up two key reasons we are in the mess we are. The polls show a clear, consistent but *small* shift to Remain since the referendum. Enough to cause real problems with implimenting the result but not enough to abandon the result. You can't force through a result a majority of people now oppose but you can't abandon election results because of a sub 5% midterm swing. Brexit is too divisive to deliver and too popular to stop.
The second is the mythologising of " the people " when it was only ever 51.9% of the people with huge numbers of very marginally cast votes on either sides.
That's why the 2017 General Election result was both an amber/red warning light that the system needed coolant and an *escape hatch*. " Oh look. The public want a compromise. "
But the political class charged on and if anything upped the ante. Now the system is exploding. Every aspect, even the Monarchy, is under strain. For all the Atlanticism of key Brexiters the US consitution with it's Electoral College, Senate, presidential veto and very high supermajorities for amending the constitution would have dealt with this much better.
It was not "the political class" (a perjorative and divisive phrase in itself) that upped the ante on this. It was a political leader, Theresa May, and a political party, the Conservatives who, as you say, did not heed the warning of the 2017 election and defined Brexit in a narrow and partisan way ignoring the views of the 48% and even some of the 52% who expected a soft Brexit.
All of us on here could be said to be members of the political class.
Agreed on both counts. I thought I had implied Tory culpability but for the avoidance of doubt Theresa May did more than most to get us here by her overcompensation for being a Remainer. And yes anyone routinely posting on a political website is a member of the political class. Myself included.
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
A clear but narrow majority voted to leave 3 years 3 months ago in an advisory referendum. On the basis of specific campaign promises and claims. That result is now refracted through the chronologically superior House of Commons mandate where certain forms of leaving were ruled out by certain parties. Your claim that this is guff and sophistry is guff and sophistry.
"The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private"
Have you not seen all the slides of the EUs position? I have. They are pretty much an open book on what they want. They have, at every step, made public to the press and the EU parliament their position (partly because the EU parliament demanded regular updates, and the EU27 leaders agreed, unlike our government, who have tried to sideline parliament at every step).
Maybe it looks like our negotiations are happening in public because we focus on the UK press, but the EU are anything but opaque.
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
It's not sophistry to point out that the Leave prospectus was built around getting a deal. If you throw that prospectus away, you throw your mandate away.
We didn't get a deal?
Britain did get a deal. Leavers spurned it.
So if all but the ERG had voted for the the agreement between our PM and the EU to be ratified, what would have happened?
Straight answer please
Britain would have left with a deal.
Remainers were not obliged to sign up to any old deal either, and if it was apparent (and it was) that the original deal commanded no legitimacy among those who had advocated leaving the EU, it was entirely principled to reject it as not meeting the impulse behind the referendum result.
The correct response to the deal being rejected was to negotiate a new one that commanded wider support in Parliament. The current government decided that was too taxing and decided instead to step outside the referendum mandate.
Mr isam, no, not a troll you silly person. I must confess I have a weakness for enjoying ragging people like yourself who suck up the divisive crap that is put out there by Brexiteers. Your posts suggest do not understand how our system works, or it's traditions, and you cannot put together a cogent argument that is not based on populist claptrap. Do try and understand our system of representative democracy, and why it has worked in the past before you spout this type of tripe. The huge irony of Brexiteers is that they want to be old fogey traditionalists on the one hand and revolutionaries on the other.
Incidentally, are you saying you didn't buy the "take back control mantra". If there is anywhere on this site where you have refuted it please point me to it, and I will offer an unreserved apology.
Makes no sense. No deal is the only brexit the tories can deliver and any possible deal will in a campaign see Faragites attack the tories. They presumably are not stupid and know that it's no deal or no Brexit.
So by 17th Oct it will almost certainly be clear that Boris can't get a deal. So Corbyn requests VONC late on 17th for vote on 19th. If Boris loses, he surely cannot tie hands of successor and has to write letter requesting extension. With election looming, EU surely grants extension.
Is there much by way of realistic alternative to this?
Has the proposed Saturday sitting on the 19th been commented on? Seems as though that’d be a perfect time to resign, the last chance before the Benn Act compels him to send a letter.
Can't be in contempt of court for not doing PM obligations if you're not the PM (taps head)
Very hard to resign as PM when you have to remain in post until a replacement is found.
Anecdotes are a terrible thing, but I already know a few who won't blame Boris if we dont leave but day they wont vote in a GE or referendum either as theres no point. So I struggle to get past thinking leave would lose
Suppose the 50 of the 60-odd One Nation caucus are shoved out, and Labour become the largest party. We might see that Vote of No Confidence.
As an aside, if 50 more CONs left in the next few days, leaving Labour on 245 but the Conservative party on 238, surely Johnson would be obliged to resign immediately? He wouldn't even command the largest party anymore.
Has the proposed Saturday sitting on the 19th been commented on? Seems as though that’d be a perfect time to resign, the last chance before the Benn Act compels him to send a letter.
Can't be in contempt of court for not doing PM obligations if you're not the PM (taps head)
Very hard to resign as PM when you have to remain in post until a replacement is found.
Corbyn probably doesn't qualify as a replacement.
We can argue about how long a PM can sit in Number 10 after an election/VoNC depending on the circumstances. I'm fairly certain Boris can't be FORCED to remain as PM. After all, a PM could die in office.
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
A clear but narrow majority voted to leave 3 years 3 months ago in an advisory referendum. On the basis of specific campaign promises and claims. That result is now refracted through the chronologically superior House of Commons mandate where certain forms of leaving were ruled out by certain parties. Your claim that this is guff and sophistry is guff and sophistry.
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
It's not sophistry to point out that the Leave prospectus was built around getting a deal. If you throw that prospectus away, you throw your mandate away.
Has the proposed Saturday sitting on the 19th been commented on? Seems as though that’d be a perfect time to resign, the last chance before the Benn Act compels him to send a letter.
Can't be in contempt of court for not doing PM obligations if you're not the PM (taps head)
Very hard to resign as PM when you have to remain in post until a replacement is found.
Corbyn probably doesn't qualify as a replacement.
If he resigns then HMQ will invite LOTO to be prime minister who sends letter, unless he refuses then HMQ will invite Ken Clarke or similar to try on the advice of her advisors. But can’t imagine corbyn refusing and will have to be no confidence to get rid of him. Johnson won’t resign, will he send the letter? No idea we may find out more on 19/10
Has the proposed Saturday sitting on the 19th been commented on? Seems as though that’d be a perfect time to resign, the last chance before the Benn Act compels him to send a letter.
Can't be in contempt of court for not doing PM obligations if you're not the PM (taps head)
Very hard to resign as PM when you have to remain in post until a replacement is found.
Corbyn probably doesn't qualify as a replacement.
Nope. If he is VONC then he stays in post until his successor is chosen. If he resigns he leaves the post straight away.
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
It's not sophistry to point out that the Leave prospectus was built around getting a deal. If you throw that prospectus away, you throw your mandate away.
The ballot paper was clear.
So yours is more guff.
It's interesting how many Leavers say exactly that, but then say that leaving into the Single Market and Customs Union wouldn't be acceptable.
So by 17th Oct it will almost certainly be clear that Boris can't get a deal. So Corbyn requests VONC late on 17th for vote on 19th. If Boris loses, he surely cannot tie hands of successor and has to write letter requesting extension. With election looming, EU surely grants extension.
Is there much by way of realistic alternative to this?
Too risky have to wait till extension request sent and see what comes back.
Unless the Commons votes to revoke or for a second referendum they ought to dedicate their efforts to getting a deal through or preparing the country for a no deal departure.
It's starting to look as though Boris's best bet might actually be to push parliament into backing a second referendum. Make himself the caretaker PM while still ostensibly being Mr Brexit.
So by 17th Oct it will almost certainly be clear that Boris can't get a deal. So Corbyn requests VONC late on 17th for vote on 19th. If Boris loses, he surely cannot tie hands of successor and has to write letter requesting extension. With election looming, EU surely grants extension.
Is there much by way of realistic alternative to this?
I think we left realistic behind some time ago. People argue over whether we jumped the shark during the GE2017 campaign "Nothing Has Changed" or more recently "There Are No Press Here", but to insist on realistic alternatives at this point is quaint.
Tory manifesto will be all about 'prepared for no deal, working for a deal' They aren't going to write "NO DEAL" in capital letters on the front, but the subtext - well that'll be for the reader to deduce.
Mr isam, no, not a troll you silly person. I must confess I have a weakness for enjoying ragging people like yourself who suck up the divisive crap that is put out there by Brexiteers. Your posts suggest do not understand how our system works, or it's traditions, and you cannot put together a cogent argument that is not based on populist claptrap. Do try and understand our system of representative democracy, and why it has worked in the past before you spout this type of tripe. The huge irony of Brexiteers is that they want to be old fogey traditionalists on the one hand and revolutionaries on the other.
Incidentally, are you saying you didn't buy the "take back control mantra". If there is anywhere on this site where you have refuted it please point me to it, and I will offer an unreserved apology.
If a referendum that was sold to the whole country as a chance for them to have their say, and that say would be implemented, and that it would be the final say, and that politicians could not over ride it can be over ridden by politicians then what was the point in having it? The answer is that it was not for politicians to decide whether we left or not, and the fact that they are doing so now is a disgrace. I do understand how representative democracy works, thats why I am not opposed to the Lib Dems revoking Article 50 if they win a majority at the next GE. But the referendum relied on direct democracy being superior to representative democracy in the case of whether to leave the EU or remain.
Offering an unreserved apology for your general wallyness is enough, and we will leave it there.
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
It's not sophistry to point out that the Leave prospectus was built around getting a deal. If you throw that prospectus away, you throw your mandate away.
We didn't get a deal?
Britain did get a deal. Leavers spurned it.
So if all but the ERG had voted for the the agreement between our PM and the EU to be ratified, what would have happened?
Straight answer please
Tory referendum to solve Tory problem. Tory WA so Tory job to vote it through not up to anybody else given they were excluded until it was too late.
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
It's not sophistry to point out that the Leave prospectus was built around getting a deal. If you throw that prospectus away, you throw your mandate away.
The ballot paper was clear.
So yours is more guff.
The referendum was an advisory referendum. You can’t claim to be able to look beyond the legal form of one bit of the process but not the other.
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
It's not sophistry to point out that the Leave prospectus was built around getting a deal. If you throw that prospectus away, you throw your mandate away.
We didn't get a deal?
Britain did get a deal. Leavers spurned it.
So if all but the ERG had voted for the the agreement between our PM and the EU to be ratified, what would have happened?
Straight answer please
Britain would have left with a deal.
Remainers were not obliged to sign up to any old deal either, and if it was apparent (and it was) that the original deal commanded no legitimacy among those who had advocated leaving the EU, it was entirely principled to reject it as not meeting the impulse behind the referendum result.
The correct response to the deal being rejected was to negotiate a new one that commanded wider support in Parliament. The current government decided that was too taxing and decided instead to step outside the referendum mandate.
The correct course of action was for the PM's agreement with the EU to be the final act of the referendum
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
It's not sophistry to point out that the Leave prospectus was built around getting a deal. If you throw that prospectus away, you throw your mandate away.
We didn't get a deal?
It was rejected by the people who campaigned for it.
...as well as the MPs elected on a pledge to enact the result of the referendum, who added there would be no second go at it... and if the latter had kept their word, we'd have left last year and this would all be over with.
Who still thought it would be the easiest deal in the world and only remove the rights of evil immigrants and nobody else and the sunlit uplands were still promised. No wonder they have changed their minds
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
It's not sophistry to point out that the Leave prospectus was built around getting a deal. If you throw that prospectus away, you throw your mandate away.
We didn't get a deal?
Britain did get a deal. Leavers spurned it.
So if all but the ERG had voted for the the agreement between our PM and the EU to be ratified, what would have happened?
Straight answer please
Britain would have left with a deal.
Remainers were not obliged to sign up to any old deal either, and if it was apparent (and it was) that the original deal commanded no legitimacy among those who had advocated leaving the EU, it was entirely principled to reject it as not meeting the impulse behind the referendum result.
The correct response to the deal being rejected was to negotiate a new one that commanded wider support in Parliament. The current government decided that was too taxing and decided instead to step outside the referendum mandate.
The correct course of action was for the PM's agreement with the EU to be the final act of the referendum
Unfortunately Parliament, supported you should note by overwhelming majorities in opinion polls, disagreed.
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
It's not sophistry to point out that the Leave prospectus was built around getting a deal. If you throw that prospectus away, you throw your mandate away.
We didn't get a deal?
It was rejected by the people who campaigned for it.
...as well as the MPs elected on a pledge to enact the result of the referendum, who added there would be no second go at it... and if the latter had kept their word, we'd have left last year and this would all be over with.
Who still thought it would be the easiest deal in the world and only remove the rights of evil immigrants and nobody else and the sunlit uplands were still promised. No wonder they have changed their minds
Mr isam, no, not a troll you silly person. I must confess I have a weakness for enjoying ragging people like yourself who suck up the divisive crap that is put out there by Brexiteers. Your posts suggest do not understand how our system works, or it's traditions, and you cannot put together a cogent argument that is not based on populist claptrap. Do try and understand our system of representative democracy, and why it has worked in the past before you spout this type of tripe. The huge irony of Brexiteers is that they want to be old fogey traditionalists on the one hand and revolutionaries on the other.
Incidentally, are you saying you didn't buy the "take back control mantra". If there is anywhere on this site where you have refuted it please point me to it, and I will offer an unreserved apology.
If a referendum that was sold to the whole country as a chance for them to have their say, and that say would be implemented, and that it would be the final say, and that politicians could not over ride it can be over ridden by politicians then what was the point in having it? The answer is that it was not for politicians to decide whether we left or not, and the fact that they are doing so now is a disgrace. I do understand how representative democracy works, thats why I am not opposed to the Lib Dems revoking Article 50 if they win a majority at the next GE. But the referendum relied on direct democracy being superior to representative democracy in the case of whether to leave the EU or remain.
Just offer an unreserved apology for your general wallyness is enough, and we will leave it there.
The referendum was held on a false basis, because there was no agreed plan to implement, and even had the government agreed a plan to implement, the final agreement with the EU may have looked quite different to the plan promised to the voters at the referendum.
The reason that the referendum was held on this false basis was because it was seen as an end in itself. This is evidently a nonsense reason for holding a referendum. That is why we are in a mess now.
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
It's not sophistry to point out that the Leave prospectus was built around getting a deal. If you throw that prospectus away, you throw your mandate away.
We didn't get a deal?
Britain did get a deal. Leavers spurned it.
So if all but the ERG had voted for the the agreement between our PM and the EU to be ratified, what would have happened?
Straight answer please
Britain would have left with a deal.
Remainers were not obliged to sign up to any old deal either, and if it was apparent (and it was) that the original deal commanded no legitimacy among those who had advocated leaving the EU, it was entirely principled to reject it as not meeting the impulse behind the referendum result.
The correct response to the deal being rejected was to negotiate a new one that commanded wider support in Parliament. The current government decided that was too taxing and decided instead to step outside the referendum mandate.
The correct course of action was for the PM's agreement with the EU to be the final act of the referendum
Unfortunately Parliament, supported you should note by overwhelming majorities in opinion polls, disagreed.
The fact hardliners on both sides despised it was what made it so perfect.
Polls are just a snapshot and unreliable in their absolutes. The trend, however, is probably reliable enough. There seems to have been clear movement over time from Leave to Remain.
The country remains deeply divided and will be for decades.
There’s a trend towards Remain in the opinion polls, right enough. The problem is opinion polls outside of official campaigns are a complete waste of time
If the trend were much larger, and say now had Remain ahead by 4:1, then I don't think it would be a waste of time. All the nuances of sampling errors in the world wouldn't be able to explain away such a decisive shift in public opinion.
That we haven't seen such a shift, in either direction, is noteworthy.
It's not like those sorts of shifts can't happen - just look at the changes in the opinion polling on Trump impeachment.
I say the polls are stuffed with political obsessives who try to predict the result rather than give their opinion.
Mate can you please answer my question, this being an interactive chat room, an' all and that's what makes it tick, of why a 2nd referendum, asking the same people a question is undemocratic. It is a closed system with a bit of leakage at one end, entry at the other and some mixing in the middle. We are not asking outsiders to come and outvote us, it is us, the UK that would be voting again. All of us. How would that be undemocratic?
Impractical perhaps (because as you say we could then vote in at the next GE a Leave party if Remain one and vice versa), sub-optimal imo certainly, but not the democratic outrage that you and, amongst others @Richard_Tyndall say it is?
Mate I answered it when you asked
Sorry have been literally flying around all day and thought I'd kept up. Apologies - in a line or two again pls.
Flying? Don't let Extinction Rebellion know
The only acceptable method of flying is to flying around telling others not to fly
WTF has happened to the Lib Dems?! This is a theme now, their VI is slumping.
Is it Revoke? Is it Swinson? What?
If it were it would be reverting to normal more like. Labour are too strong a brand and whatever their official policy and its merits or lack thereof, everyone knows 90% of the party will push remain just as hard as the LDs and can actually win an election.
It's starting to look as though Boris's best bet might actually be to push parliament into backing a second referendum. Make himself the caretaker PM while still ostensibly being Mr Brexit.
Asking what question? All Boris could offer would be
1) Revoke
2) Boris's Deal as proposed to the EU. If the EU do not accept his offer, then No Deal
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
It's not sophistry to point out that the Leave prospectus was built around getting a deal. If you throw that prospectus away, you throw your mandate away.
We didn't get a deal?
Britain did get a deal. Leavers spurned it.
So if all but the ERG had voted for the the agreement between our PM and the EU to be ratified, what would have happened?
Straight answer please
Britain would have left with a deal.
Remainers were not obliged to sign up to any old deal either, and if it was apparent (and it was) that the original deal commanded no legitimacy among those who had advocated leaving the EU, it was entirely principled to reject it as not meeting the impulse behind the referendum result.
The correct response to the deal being rejected was to negotiate a new one that commanded wider support in Parliament. The current government decided that was too taxing and decided instead to step outside the referendum mandate.
The correct course of action was for the PM's agreement with the EU to be the final act of the referendum
Unfortunately Parliament, supported you should note by overwhelming majorities in opinion polls, disagreed.
Well of course they did! They want to sabotage the result!!
Polls are just a snapshot and unreliable in their absolutes. The trend, however, is probably reliable enough. There seems to have been clear movement over time from Leave to Remain.
I
he polls are stuffed with political obsessives who try to predict the result rather than give their opinion.
Mate can you please answer my question, this being an interactive chat room, an' all and that's what makes it tick, of why a 2nd referendum, asking the same people a question is undemocratic. It is a closed system with a bit of leakage at one end, entry at the other and some mixing in the middle. We are not asking outsiders to come and outvote us, it is us, the UK that would be voting again. All of us. How would that be undemocratic?
Impractical perhaps (because as you say we could then vote in at the next GE a Leave party if Remain one and vice versa), sub-optimal imo certainly, but not the democratic outrage that you and, amongst others @Richard_Tyndall say it is?
Mate I answered it when you asked
Sorry have been literally flying around all day and thought I'd kept up. Apologies - in a line or two again pls.
You cannot, as politicians, hold a referendum, telling the voters that it is THEIR choice NOT politicians, and that if we leave WE WILL LEAVE, then when you lose, fart arse around for three years voting against any form of implementing the result, then use your own attrition as evidence that the whole thing isn't worth it and the public should vote again. It is completely crazy, against any interpretation of fair play, and makes everything they said pre referendum (and just after in the case of Umunna, Allen, Wollaston, Soubry etc) a pack of lies
Thanks agree. But what if it's the only thing that our parliamentary system will allow?
The parliamentary system was suspended for the direct democracy of the referendum, and obviously, implementing the result was under the remit of direct democracy, else there was no point having the referendum. A general election with a some form of accountability pledge for those elected as to implementing the result or not would be my solution.
"The people I mentioned should have to re fight their seats, as they were earned either by outright lies ..."
So maybe the referendum should also have to be refought for similar reasons?
Polls are just a snapshot and unreliable in their absolutes. The trend, however, is probably reliable enough. There seems to have been clear movement over time from Leave to Remain.
The country remains deeply divided and will be for decades.
There’s a trend towards Remain in the opinion polls, right enough. The problem is opinion polls outside of official campaigns are a complete waste of time
If the trend were much larger, and say now had Remain ahead by 4:1, then I don't think it would be a waste of time. All the nuances of sampling errors in the world wouldn't be able to explain away such a decisive shift in public opinion.
That we haven't seen such a shift, in either direction, is noteworthy.
It's not like those sorts of shifts can't happen - just look at the changes in the opinion polling on Trump impeachment.
I say the polls are stuffed with political obsessives who try to predict the result rather than give their opinion.
Mate can you please answer my question, this being an interactive chat room, an' all and that's what makes it tick, of why a 2nd referendum, asking the same people a question is undemocratic. It is a closed system with a bit of leakage at one end, entry at the other and some mixing in the middle. We are not asking outsiders to come and outvote us, it is us, the UK that would be voting again. All of us. How would that be undemocratic?
Impractical perhaps (because as you say we could then vote in at the next GE a Leave party if Remain one and vice versa), sub-optimal imo certainly, but not the democratic outrage that you and, amongst others @Richard_Tyndall say it is?
Mate I answered it when you asked
Sorry have been literally flying around all day and thought I'd kept up. Apologies - in a line or two again pls.
Flying? Don't let Extinction Rebellion know
The only acceptable method of flying is to flying around telling others not to fly
Yes please don't tell them.
I am still amused (in a friendly not a nasty way) that you were unwittingly encouraging another poster to break the law earlier. It shows how stupidly complex modern life has become.
Polls are just a snapshot and unreliable in their absolutes. The trend, however, is probably reliable enough. There seems to have been clear movement over time from Leave to Remain.
I
he polls are stuffed with political obsessives who try to predict the result rather than give their opinion.
Mate can you please answer my question, this being an interactive chat room, an' all and that's what makes it tick, of why a 2nd referendum, asking the same people a question is undemocratic. It is a closed system with a bit of leakage at one end, entry at the other and some mixing in the middle. We are not asking outsiders to come and outvote us, it is us, the UK that would be voting again. All of us. How would that be undemocratic?
Impractical perhaps (because as you say we could then vote in at the next GE a Leave party if Remain one and vice versa), sub-optimal imo certainly, but not the democratic outrage that you and, amongst others @Richard_Tyndall say it is?
Mate I answered it when you asked
Sorry have been literally flying around all day and thought I'd kept up. Apologies - in a line or two again pls.
You cannot, as politicians, hold a referendum, telling the voters that it is THEIR choice NOT politicians, and that if we leave WE WILL LEAVE, then when you lose, fart arse around for three years voting against any form of implementing the result, then use your own attrition as evidence that the whole thing isn't worth it and the public should vote again. It is completely crazy, against any interpretation of fair play, and makes everything they said pre referendum (and just after in the case of Umunna, Allen, Wollaston, Soubry etc) a pack of lies
Thanks agree. But what if it's the only thing that our parliamentary system will allow?
The parliamentary system was suspended for the direct democracy of the referendum, and obviously, implementing the result was under the remit of direct democracy, else there was no point having the referendum. A general election with a some form of accountability pledge for those elected as to implementing the result or not would be my solution.
"The people I mentioned should have to re fight their seats, as they were earned either by outright lies ..."
So maybe the referendum should also have to be refought for similar reasons?
Polls are just a snapshot and unreliable in their absolutes. The trend, however, is probably reliable enough. There seems to have been clear movement over time from Leave to Remain.
I
he polls are stuffed with political obsessives who try to predict the result rather than give their opinion.
Impractical perhaps (because as you say we could then vote in at the next GE a Leave party if Remain one and vice versa), sub-optimal imo certainly, but not the democratic outrage that you and, amongst others @Richard_Tyndall say it is?
Mate I answered it when you asked
Sorry have been literally flying around all day and thought I'd kept up. Apologies - in a line or two again pls.
Thanks agree. But what if it's the only thing that our parliamentary system will allow?
The people I mentioned should have to re fight their seats, as they were earned either by outright lies or by pledges that are in complete contrast to their current stance.
The parliamentary system was suspended for the direct democracy of the referendum, and obviously, implementing the result was under the remit of direct democracy, else there was no point having the referendum. A general election with a some form of accountability pledge for those elected as to implementing the result or not would be my solution.
You clearly do not understand our parliamentary system, even though you no doubt mouthed the moronic phrase "take back control" during 2016.
You are an incessant troll, who invents things people didn't say and never makes a valid point.
irony just experienced a cardiac event
Please expand? I never invent things other posters didn't say, for one thing. If you think I never make a valid point either, that's your opinion, but I would say you are in a tiny minority who feel that way.
You're a troll. I wouldn't say you make invalid points, just stupid ones. Incessantly.
WTF has happened to the Lib Dems?! This is a theme now, their VI is slumping.
Is it Revoke? Is it Swinson? What?
If it were it would be reverting to normal more like. Labour are too strong a brand and whatever their official policy and its merits or lack thereof, everyone knows 90% of the party will push remain just as hard as the LDs and can actually win an election.
It might just be that Brexit Puritanism - whether Revoke or No Deal - just isn't very popular.....
Polls are just a snapshot and unreliable in their absolutes. The trend, however, is probably reliable enough. There seems to have been clear movement over time from Leave to Remain.
I
he polls are stuffed with political obsessives who try to predict the result rather than give their opinion.
Impractical perhaps (because as you say we could then vote in at the next GE a Leave party if Remain one and vice versa), sub-optimal imo certainly, but not the democratic outrage that you and, amongst others @Richard_Tyndall say it is?
Mate I answered it when you asked
Sorry have been literally flying around all day and thought I'd kept up. Apologies - in a line or two again pls.
Thanks agree. But what if it's the only thing that our parliamentary system will allow?
The people I mentioned should have to re fight their seats, as they were earned either by outright lies or by pledges that are in complete contrast to their current stance.
The parliamentary system was suspended for the direct democracy of the referendum, and obviously, implementing the result was under the remit of direct democracy, else there was no point having the referendum. A general election with a some form of accountability pledge for those elected as to implementing the result or not would be my solution.
You clearly do not understand our parliamentary system, even though you no doubt mouthed the moronic phrase "take back control" during 2016.
You are an incessant troll, who invents things people didn't say and never makes a valid point.
irony just experienced a cardiac event
Please expand? I never invent things other posters didn't say, for one thing. If you think I never make a valid point either, that's your opinion, but I would say you are in a tiny minority who feel that way.
You're a troll. I wouldn't say you make invalid points, just stupid ones. Incessantly.
Polls are just a snapshot and unreliable in their absolutes. The trend, however, is probably reliable enough. There seems to have been clear movement over time from Leave to Remain.
I
he polls are stuffed with political obsessives who try to predict the result rather than give their opinion.
Impractical perhaps (because as you say we could then vote in at the next GE a Leave party if Remain one and vice versa), sub-optimal imo certainly, but not the democratic outrage that you and, amongst others @Richard_Tyndall say it is?
Mate I answered it when you asked
Sorry have been literally flying around all day and thought I'd kept up. Apologies - in a line or two again pls.
Thanks agree. But what if it's the only thing that our parliamentary system will allow?
The people I mentioned should have to re fight their seats, as they were earned either by outright lies or by pledges that are in complete contrast to their current stance.
The parliamentary system was suspended for the direct democracy of the referendum, and obviously, implementing the result was under the remit of direct democracy, else there was no point having the referendum. A general election with a some form of accountability pledge for those elected as to implementing the result or not would be my solution.
You clearly do not understand our parliamentary system, even though you no doubt mouthed the moronic phrase "take back control" during 2016.
You are an incessant troll, who invents things people didn't say and never makes a valid point.
irony just experienced a cardiac event
Please expand? I never invent things other posters didn't say, for one thing. If you think I never make a valid point either, that's your opinion, but I would say you are in a tiny minority who feel that way.
You're a troll. I wouldn't say you make invalid points, just stupid ones. Incessantly.
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
It's not sophistry to point out that the Leave prospectus was built around getting a deal. If you throw that prospectus away, you throw your mandate away.
We didn't get a deal?
Britain did get a deal. Leavers spurned it.
So if all but the ERG had voted for the the agreement between our PM and the EU to be ratified, what would have happened?
Straight answer please
Britain would have left with a deal.
Remainers were not obliged to sign up to any old deal either, and if it was apparent (and it was) that the original deal commanded no legitimacy among those who had advocated leaving the EU, it was entirely principled to reject it as not meeting the impulse behind the referendum result.
The correct response to the deal being rejected was to negotiate a new one that commanded wider support in Parliament. The current government decided that was too taxing and decided instead to step outside the referendum mandate.
Alastair - what is the basis for your belief that there are/were enough votes in Parliament to pass a deal. (In particular a deal that didn't have a new referendum attached).
WTF has happened to the Lib Dems?! This is a theme now, their VI is slumping.
Is it Revoke? Is it Swinson? What?
If it were it would be reverting to normal more like. Labour are too strong a brand and whatever their official policy and its merits or lack thereof, everyone knows 90% of the party will push remain just as hard as the LDs and can actually win an election.
It might just be that Brexit Puritanism - whether Revoke or No Deal - just isn't very popular.....
Their VI is still hovering around 19/20%. Not sure what the fuss is about. It seems the "joke" post has prompted a post from the true Britain elects denying all knowledge of the Joke post. There's enough fake news about without adding to it.
WTF has happened to the Lib Dems?! This is a theme now, their VI is slumping.
Is it Revoke? Is it Swinson? What?
If it were it would be reverting to normal more like. Labour are too strong a brand and whatever their official policy and its merits or lack thereof, everyone knows 90% of the party will push remain just as hard as the LDs and can actually win an election.
It might just be that Brexit Puritanism - whether Revoke or No Deal - just isn't very popular.....
Maybe. But I suspect its more because people can occasionally be realistic and since even most LDs dare not dream they will win and so revoke, might as well back the referendum party who are also the historic choice for do many.
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
It's not sophistry to point out that the Leave prospectus was built around getting a deal. If you throw that prospectus away, you throw your mandate away.
The ballot paper was clear.
So yours is more guff.
The referendum was an advisory referendum. You can’t claim to be able to look beyond the legal form of one bit of the process but not the other.
Respect the vote. I voted remain but i respect it.
Suppose the 50 of the 60-odd One Nation caucus are shoved out, and Labour become the largest party. We might see that Vote of No Confidence.
As an aside, if 50 more CONs left in the next few days, leaving Labour on 245 but the Conservative party on 238, surely Johnson would be obliged to resign immediately? He wouldn't even command the largest party anymore.
I mean, I don't think there is any legal obligation for the largest party to necessarily form the government, nor for the PM to be from the largest party, I just think under convention, they have first shot. Whoever commands the confidence of the commons can form a government of those they choose from within parliament, from my understanding.
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
It's not sophistry to point out that the Leave prospectus was built around getting a deal. If you throw that prospectus away, you throw your mandate away.
The ballot paper was clear.
So yours is more guff.
The referendum was an advisory referendum. You can’t claim to be able to look beyond the legal form of one bit of the process but not the other.
Respect the vote. I voted remain but i respect it.
Total sophistry which fools no one.
I voted leave.
Given the total Clusterf*** the Government has made of leaving though I would prefer them to scrap this attempt and try again.
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
A clear but narrow majority voted to leave 3 years 3 months ago in an advisory referendum. On the basis of specific campaign promises and claims. That result is now refracted through the chronologically superior House of Commons mandate where certain forms of leaving were ruled out by certain parties. Your claim that this is guff and sophistry is guff and sophistry.
"Advisory" referendum.
Another guff weasely word...
The guidance notes to the Bill, the Minister putting the Bill through the Commons speaking at the despatch box and then the Supreme Court all said it was advisory. If that wasn't enough the British constitution makes it advisory as no parliament can bind its successor. Then for added advisoriness the CJEU said we can unilaterally revoke. Making it de facto advisory.
That referendum result does not legally compel us to leave the EU. Fact.
No doubt this has been discussed above, but how on earth can these two positions be reconciled?
1) If there is no deal agreed then the UK will depart the EU without a deal on October 31st 2) (if an extension is agreed) the Conservatives will not make a manifesto pledge to leave the EU without a deal?
And how can Tory MPs notionally support the former, but unambiguously oppose the latter?
Suppose the 50 of the 60-odd One Nation caucus are shoved out, and Labour become the largest party. We might see that Vote of No Confidence.
As an aside, if 50 more CONs left in the next few days, leaving Labour on 245 but the Conservative party on 238, surely Johnson would be obliged to resign immediately? He wouldn't even command the largest party anymore.
I mean, I don't think there is any legal obligation for the largest party to necessarily form the government, nor for the PM to be from the largest party, I just think under convention, they have first shot. Whoever commands the confidence of the commons can form a government of those they choose from within parliament, from my understanding.
I think that's correct. Further, we aren't going to see 50 MPs suddenly quit the Tories.
Suppose the 50 of the 60-odd One Nation caucus are shoved out, and Labour become the largest party. We might see that Vote of No Confidence.
As an aside, if 50 more CONs left in the next few days, leaving Labour on 245 but the Conservative party on 238, surely Johnson would be obliged to resign immediately? He wouldn't even command the largest party anymore.
As we've seen already.. it's a big step from being an "ex-Con" to being pro-Corbyn-in-no-10. If the already-whipless were willing, we'd probably have seen a VONC by now.
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
It's not sophistry to point out that the Leave prospectus was built around getting a deal. If you throw that prospectus away, you throw your mandate away.
The ballot paper was clear.
So yours is more guff.
The referendum was an advisory referendum. You can’t claim to be able to look beyond the legal form of one bit of the process but not the other.
Respect the vote. I voted remain but i respect it.
Total sophistry which fools no one.
You have no answer to the point I make, which is unsurprising because it is unanswerable. Either you treat the form as sacrosanct, in which case you accept the referendum as advisory only, or you treat the context as critical, in which case you accept that the referendum was fought on a prospectus of leaving with a deal. You can't have your cake and eat it.
Underwhelming jewellers Links of London have gone into administration.
Next week has a QS, the crunch EuCo, the Benn Act deadline and the Saturday special Parliament. I think we need to know whether or not Mike is on holiday.
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
A clear but narrow majority voted to leave 3 years 3 months ago in an advisory referendum. On the basis of specific campaign promises and claims. That result is now refracted through the chronologically superior House of Commons mandate where certain forms of leaving were ruled out by certain parties. Your claim that this is guff and sophistry is guff and sophistry.
"Advisory" referendum.
Another guff weasely word...
The guidance notes to the Bill, the Minister putting the Bill through the Commons speaking at the despatch box and then the Supreme Court all said it was advisory. If that wasn't enough the British constitution makes it advisory as no parliament can bind its successor. Then for added advisoriness the CJEU said we can unilaterally revoke. Making it de facto advisory.
That referendum result does not legally compel us to leave the EU. Fact.
Why wasn't it noted as advisory in the official Gov't literature prior to the referendum then ?
I expect official Gov't stuff to be honest ! It wasn't a Tory leaflet that was sent out.
Tory manifesto will be all about 'prepared for no deal, working for a deal' They aren't going to write "NO DEAL" in capital letters on the front, but the subtext - well that'll be for the reader to deduce.
Exactly. They will want to look Hard to the Hard Leavers but flexible enough so that they do not appeal ONLY to Hard Leavers.
It's the same stunt that Johnson pulled with Tory MPs in the leadership contest.
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
It's not sophistry to point out that the Leave prospectus was built around getting a deal. If you throw that prospectus away, you throw your mandate away.
We didn't get a deal?
Britain did get a deal. Leavers spurned it.
So if all but the ERG had voted for the the agreement between our PM and the EU to be ratified, what would have happened?
Straight answer please
Britain would have left with a deal.
Remainers were not obliged to sign up to any old deal either, and if it was apparent (and it was) that the original deal commanded no legitimacy among those who had advocated leaving the EU, it was entirely principled to reject it as not meeting the impulse behind the referendum result.
The correct response to the deal being rejected was to negotiate a new one that commanded wider support in Parliament. The current government decided that was too taxing and decided instead to step outside the referendum mandate.
Alastair - what is the basis for your belief that there are/were enough votes in Parliament to pass a deal. (In particular a deal that didn't have a new referendum attached).
Nearly all MPs have voted for a deal of one kind or another.
Now it might be that there is no deal that satisfies a majority of the House of Commons, as cold reality does not match the racy fantasies of our gung-ho Leavers. But there has been no serious attempt to try to find out if there is one.
The fulcrum is at a point softer than that offered by Theresa May.
Suppose the 50 of the 60-odd One Nation caucus are shoved out, and Labour become the largest party. We might see that Vote of No Confidence.
As an aside, if 50 more CONs left in the next few days, leaving Labour on 245 but the Conservative party on 238, surely Johnson would be obliged to resign immediately? He wouldn't even command the largest party anymore.
I mean, I don't think there is any legal obligation for the largest party to necessarily form the government, nor for the PM to be from the largest party, I just think under convention, they have first shot. Whoever commands the confidence of the commons can form a government of those they choose from within parliament, from my understanding.
I think that's correct. Further, we aren't going to see 50 MPs suddenly quit the Tories.
And the confidence is assumed to continue until someone tests it or the govt quits.
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
It's not sophistry to point out that the Leave prospectus was built around getting a deal. If you throw that prospectus away, you throw your mandate away.
The ballot paper was clear.
So yours is more guff.
The referendum was an advisory referendum. You can’t claim to be able to look beyond the legal form of one bit of the process but not the other.
Respect the vote. I voted remain but i respect it.
Total sophistry which fools no one.
The thing about "respecting the vote" is that it is clear there was not a majority for "Leave AT ALL COSTS", yet that has been government policy. Leave won with a 52/48 majority, and the main example of what Brexit would look like was Switzerland or Norway, a kind of deal the last two governments have refused to pursue. Yes the ballot only said Leave or Remain, but to ignore the context of the campaign and the promises made in it is a wilful act of dishonesty.
I voted Remain. On the 52/48 vote, I would accept a Norway / Switzerland leave. I do not support a No Deal Leave. In the same way a 52/48 vote for Remain would not have been an endorsement to join the Euro, the referendum result was not a vote to impoverish the country and make enemies with the EU; it was an expression of mostly English discomfort with the European project.
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
It's not sophistry to point out that the Leave prospectus was built around getting a deal. If you throw that prospectus away, you throw your mandate away.
The ballot paper was clear.
So yours is more guff.
The referendum was an advisory referendum. You can’t claim to be able to look beyond the legal form of one bit of the process but not the other.
Respect the vote. I voted remain but i respect it.
Total sophistry which fools no one.
You have no answer to the point I make, which is unsurprising because it is unanswerable. Either you treat the form as sacrosanct, in which case you accept the referendum as advisory only, or you treat the context as critical, in which case you accept that the referendum was fought on a prospectus of leaving with a deal. You can't have your cake and eat it.
It is not up to you (or me) to interpret why people voted as they did. The ballot paper was clear. People voted on the basis that they thought it would be respected.
If you now say "sorry, it was only advisory and we will ignore it" you are doing terrible damage to our institutions and our trust in politics. Why would anyone ever vote on anything again? That is my answer.
By having a Northern Ireland only backstop if you win a Tory majority and don't need the DUP anymore
But how will they get that message out to the voters?
They won't as that's not the policy that's HYUFD's imaginations. He has zero evidence whatsoever that Boris is going for that and it would be a mammoth betrayal if he did.
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
It's not sophistry to point out that the Leave prospectus was built around getting a deal. If you throw that prospectus away, you throw your mandate away.
The ballot paper was clear.
So yours is more guff.
The referendum was an advisory referendum. You can’t claim to be able to look beyond the legal form of one bit of the process but not the other.
Respect the vote. I voted remain but i respect it.
Total sophistry which fools no one.
The thing about "respecting the vote" is that it is clear there was not a majority for "Leave AT ALL COSTS", yet that has been government policy. Leave won with a 52/48 majority, and the main example of what Brexit would look like was Switzerland or Norway, a kind of deal the last two governments have refused to pursue. Yes the ballot only said Leave or Remain, but to ignore the context of the campaign and the promises made in it is a wilful act of dishonesty.
I voted Remain. On the 52/48 vote, I would accept a Norway / Switzerland leave. I do not support a No Deal Leave. In the same way a 52/48 vote for Remain would not have been an endorsement to join the Euro, the referendum result was not a vote to impoverish the country and make enemies with the EU; it was an expression of mostly English discomfort with the European project.
Norway and Switzerland both have customs checks which are unacceptable to the Irish (Who have a veto over any deal). Anyone advocating Norway or Switzerland has the fulcrum harder than May's deal which according to Meeks analysis was too hard
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
It's not sophistry to point out that the Leave prospectus was built around getting a deal. If you throw that prospectus away, you throw your mandate away.
The ballot paper was clear.
So yours is more guff.
The referendum was an advisory referendum. You can’t claim to be able to look beyond the legal form of one bit of the process but not the other.
Respect the vote. I voted remain but i respect it.
Total sophistry which fools no one.
You have no answer to the point I make, which is unsurprising because it is unanswerable. Either you treat the form as sacrosanct, in which case you accept the referendum as advisory only, or you treat the context as critical, in which case you accept that the referendum was fought on a prospectus of leaving with a deal. You can't have your cake and eat it.
It is not up to you (or me) to interpret why people voted as they did. The ballot paper was clear. People voted on the basis that they thought it would be respected.
If you now say "sorry, it was only advisory and we will ignore it" you are doing terrible damage to our institutions and our trust in politics. Why would anyone ever vote on anything again? That is my answer.
You people are playing with fire.
Try again. Yet again on the one hand you strip the vote of any context when it suits you, then put it in when the opposite suits you. Your continual inconsistency makes you look ridiculous.
Ask yourself a simple question: do you think the public would have voted for a prospectus of a no-deal Brexit in June 2016? If the answer is at best not clear, you have no mandate for a no-deal Brexit. Clue: the answer is at best not clear.
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
A clear but narrow majority voted to leave 3 years 3 months ago in an advisory referendum. On the basis of specific campaign promises and claims. That result is now refracted through the chronologically superior House of Commons mandate where certain forms of leaving were ruled out by certain parties. Your claim that this is guff and sophistry is guff and sophistry.
"Advisory" referendum.
Another guff weasely word...
The guidance notes to the Bill, the Minister putting the Bill through the Commons speaking at the despatch box and then the Supreme Court all said it was advisory. If that wasn't enough the British constitution makes it advisory as no parliament can bind its successor. Then for added advisoriness the CJEU said we can unilaterally revoke. Making it de facto advisory.
That referendum result does not legally compel us to leave the EU. Fact.
Why wasn't it noted as advisory in the official Gov't literature prior to the referendum then ?
I expect official Gov't stuff to be honest ! It wasn't a Tory leaflet that was sent out.
My Irish wife was not impressed by the partiality and standard of the government literature on the EU referendum and compared it unfavourably with the literature produced for referendums in the Republic of Ireland for which there is an independent body - The Referendum Commission.
Comments
The parliamentary system was suspended for the direct democracy of the referendum, and obviously, implementing the result was under the remit of direct democracy, else there was no point having the referendum. A general election with a some form of accountability pledge for those elected as to implementing the result or not would be my solution.
Maybe if I get time I will look at the pre GE17 pledges on Brexit of each of the 650 MPS elected. I wonder how many said they would do all they could to prevent the implementation of the result. Care to guess?
All of us on here could be said to be members of the political class.
I'd vote for it, even though I prefer EEA, because its the only form of Leave I'll get. But a lot of morons[1] would say it isn't a proper Leave and not vote for it.
In 2011 I had a friend who wanted PR (like me). He voted to retain FPTP because it wasn't PR. I said, "Yes, but you know, baby steps?" and he said, "Not PR. Not voting for AV." He now moans about FPTP.
Edit - forgot the footnote:
[1] Nigel Farage probably.
irony just experienced a cardiac event
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
It was a massive mistake by both Labour and Tories to give unelected members pre-eminence over democratically elected MPs. Members should be allowed to select Party Chairman. Party leaders, that are potential PMs, should be chosen by MPs only.
Edit to add: In truth, the Lab and Con 2017 manifestos were both jack-full of fudge on Brexit because it was two years away and everyone was still deluding themselves about sunlit uplands and easiest deals in history and Workers' Brexits and the rest.
It was easy for Remainers and Leavers to sign up to either because the issues were not in anything like as sharp focus as now.
The only acceptable method of flying is to flying around telling others not to fly
Straight answer please
Have you not seen all the slides of the EUs position? I have. They are pretty much an open book on what they want. They have, at every step, made public to the press and the EU parliament their position (partly because the EU parliament demanded regular updates, and the EU27 leaders agreed, unlike our government, who have tried to sideline parliament at every step).
Maybe it looks like our negotiations are happening in public because we focus on the UK press, but the EU are anything but opaque.
Remainers were not obliged to sign up to any old deal either, and if it was apparent (and it was) that the original deal commanded no legitimacy among those who had advocated leaving the EU, it was entirely principled to reject it as not meeting the impulse behind the referendum result.
The correct response to the deal being rejected was to negotiate a new one that commanded wider support in Parliament. The current government decided that was too taxing and decided instead to step outside the referendum mandate.
Incidentally, are you saying you didn't buy the "take back control mantra". If there is anywhere on this site where you have refuted it please point me to it, and I will offer an unreserved apology.
Is there much by way of realistic alternative to this?
Corbyn probably doesn't qualify as a replacement.
Another guff weasely word...
So yours is more guff.
Too risky have to wait till extension request sent and see what comes back.
The Commons then voted to endorse the result.
Unless the Commons votes to revoke or for a second referendum they ought to dedicate their efforts to getting a deal through or preparing the country for a no deal departure.
All else is fluff and flimflam.
Offering an unreserved apology for your general wallyness is enough, and we will leave it there.
Who still thought it would be the easiest deal in the world and only remove the rights of evil immigrants and nobody else and the sunlit uplands were still promised. No wonder they have changed their minds
The reason that the referendum was held on this false basis was because it was seen as an end in itself. This is evidently a nonsense reason for holding a referendum. That is why we are in a mess now.
1) Revoke
2) Boris's Deal as proposed to the EU. If the EU do not accept his offer, then No Deal
So maybe the referendum should also have to be refought for similar reasons?
I wouldn't say you make invalid points, just stupid ones. Incessantly.
Total sophistry which fools no one.
"Anyone can rat, but it takes a certain amount of ingenuity to re-rat."
Given the total Clusterf*** the Government has made of leaving though I would prefer them to scrap this attempt and try again.
That referendum result does not legally compel us to leave the EU. Fact.
1) If there is no deal agreed then the UK will depart the EU without a deal on October 31st
2) (if an extension is agreed) the Conservatives will not make a manifesto pledge to leave the EU without a deal?
And how can Tory MPs notionally support the former, but unambiguously oppose the latter?
It's a fair question I think.
Next week has a QS, the crunch EuCo, the Benn Act deadline and the Saturday special Parliament. I think we need to know whether or not Mike is on holiday.
I expect official Gov't stuff to be honest ! It wasn't a Tory leaflet that was sent out.
It's the same stunt that Johnson pulled with Tory MPs in the leadership contest.
Now it might be that there is no deal that satisfies a majority of the House of Commons, as cold reality does not match the racy fantasies of our gung-ho Leavers. But there has been no serious attempt to try to find out if there is one.
The fulcrum is at a point softer than that offered by Theresa May.
I voted Remain. On the 52/48 vote, I would accept a Norway / Switzerland leave. I do not support a No Deal Leave. In the same way a 52/48 vote for Remain would not have been an endorsement to join the Euro, the referendum result was not a vote to impoverish the country and make enemies with the EU; it was an expression of mostly English discomfort with the European project.
If you now say "sorry, it was only advisory and we will ignore it" you are doing terrible damage to our institutions and our trust in politics. Why would anyone ever vote on anything again? That is my answer.
You people are playing with fire.
"A Northern Ireland-only backstop is annexation!*
(*) If we win a majority, we will allow Northern Ireland to be annexed."
Ask yourself a simple question: do you think the public would have voted for a prospectus of a no-deal Brexit in June 2016? If the answer is at best not clear, you have no mandate for a no-deal Brexit. Clue: the answer is at best not clear.