You want to call heads on the toss of a double headed coin
Not at all. The WA is leaving. You agree with that and so do I. Is it leaving while scuttling the ship ten miles from shore in deep water with sharks circling? No. But then the government does have some responsibility for, you know, the wellbeing of its citizens and no one in power would be as deranged as to offer people the chance to do themselves damage.
We remain in a parliamentary democracy but even they can't prevent us leaving eventually. Because it can all be sorted at the ballot box come GE time. Let's suppose they are super-naughty and keep stopping us leaving, then sure as eggs is eggs there will be a near 100% majority at the GE for The Brexit Party.
So I wouldn't worry about all this shenanigans with a referendum. If the people are so worried about respecting democracy they will give Nigel the mandate to get us out however he damn well likes.
I’d happily vote for Mays deal, but the other option should be no deal, not remain. It isn’t my fault the MPs risked no deal by failing to vote for the WA, and the public have already rejected Remain.
While in theory that sounds perfectly sensible (Decision 1 was June 2016, this is just Decision 2: "How?") however the practicalities of having No Deal on any ballot paper would make today's impasse 1,000x worse. First of all you would have WAII before you know it, and/or second of all that would mean that we couldn't negotiate any trade deal with the EU. That is just bonkers but more important unenforceable.
Edit: plus the public is allowed to change its mind.
If we went by the results of opinion polls taken before campaigns started, the Tories would have won a majority in 2010, 2015 would have been a hung parliament, Remain won the referendum, Hilary Clinton would be POTUS, and the Conservatives would now have a three figure majority.
Yet people cling on to them to back up want they want to believe. Truly pitiful
A more positive interpretation is that the public are open to changing their mind, public debate still matters and political campaigning makes a difference.
I can't recall a democratic vote where the result hasn't been implemented before. I think very long term leaving then rejoining may have served the remain cause better. The forces of leave can't be held out forever, certainly not under FPTP anyway. Will Labour go for PR if they have a minority, it's probably that that is crucial in the next parliament for the Lib Dems to push rather than a second referendum.
Well there's Home Rule for Ireland, which is an interesting precedent given that the major stumbling block for Brexit is dealing with the fallout from that clusterfuck.
Popular Votes not implemented -
The Western Australian separation referendum in the early 1930s.
The Puerto Rico statehood referendum.
Irish Home Rule (as you say) and arguably the all-Ireland vote in favour of a 32 County Republic in 1918.
Newfoundland had two referendums in 1948 - the first one was three way and the option of becoming a self-governing dominion again came top with 44% but didn’t get over 50% of the votes. Union with Canada won in the “run off”.
The 1979 Scotland Referendum.
The 2014 Swiss Immigration Referendum
California’s Proposition 8 in 2008
Irish Home Rule (as you say) and arguably the all-Ireland vote in favour of a 32 County Republic in 1918. - Still long term unresolved and causing issues.
The 1979 Scotland Referendum. - Scottish independence still unresolved, bar set prior to the referendum taking place.
The 2014 Swiss Immigration Referendum - According to wiki this one has had a "soft" implementation
Corbyn has just been making a speech in which he has been uncharacteristically clear on the questions of a GE and referendum:
It wasn’t long ago that Johnson was pretending not to want an election. Now he’s pretending that it’s Labour that doesn’t want one.
So let me address this directly:
Prime minister, we can’t trust you not to break the law because you’ve got form.
We can’t trust you not to use the period of an election campaign to drive our country off a No Deal cliff edge that will crash our economy, destroy jobs and industries, cause shortages of medicine and food and endanger peace in Northern Ireland.
So it’s simple: obey the law, take No Deal off the table and then let’s have the election.
and:
The first task of a Labour government will be to finally get Brexit sorted.
After three years of Tory failure, it’s time to take the decision out of the hands of politicians and let the people have the final say.
So a Labour government will immediately legislate for a referendum.
Within six months of being elected we will put that deal to a public vote alongside remain.
And as prime minister I will carry out whatever the people decide.
There’s nothing complicated about that position. It’s really very simple: Labour trusts the people to decide.
(Quotes from the Guardian live blog).
Much in line with what TND was tweeting last night although I note he hasn't actually named the date (26th November) as The Sun was reporting.
Corbyn has just been making a speech in which he has been uncharacteristically clear on the questions of a GE and referendum:
It wasn’t long ago that Johnson was pretending not to want an election. Now he’s pretending that it’s Labour that doesn’t want one.
So let me address this directly:
Prime minister, we can’t trust you not to break the law because you’ve got form.
We can’t trust you not to use the period of an election campaign to drive our country off a No Deal cliff edge that will crash our economy, destroy jobs and industries, cause shortages of medicine and food and endanger peace in Northern Ireland.
So it’s simple: obey the law, take No Deal off the table and then let’s have the election.
and:
The first task of a Labour government will be to finally get Brexit sorted.
After three years of Tory failure, it’s time to take the decision out of the hands of politicians and let the people have the final say.
So a Labour government will immediately legislate for a referendum.
Within six months of being elected we will put that deal to a public vote alongside remain.
And as prime minister I will carry out whatever the people decide.
There’s nothing complicated about that position. It’s really very simple: Labour trusts the people to decide.
(Quotes from the Guardian live blog).
Much in line with what TND was tweeting last night although I note he hasn't actually named the date (26th November) as The Sun was reporting.
Lindsey Graham is a neocon and was a close ally of John McCain so no is
I think we have every basis for criticising a country which claims to be our ally but is willing to take action which will likely result in dangerous terrorists being freed to cause carnage in our countries.
No we do not at all unless we are willing to put British troops on the ground in Syria to protect Kurdish land and contain imprisoned IS prisoners otherwise we are hypocrites of the highest order.
Though I note even Trump has taken 2 IS prisoners into US custody and the Turks are saying they want a 'buffer zone' from terrorism not to occupy the whole of Kurdistan
We shouldn't criticise the Chinese for Uighur internment camps unless we are willing to invade and secure the whole region. Right. Got it.
Totally irrelevant to the point, we are criticising Trump for withdrawing US troops from Kurdistan not for creating internment camps for Kurds like the Chinese are with Muslims
How many casualties has the US suffered in Syria - and how many the Kurds, fighting ISIS as a US proxy ? To interpret this as anything but the abandonment of an ally to the slaughter, and virtually without warning, is morally perverse.
And this is the president you really on for a great trade deal ...
If we went by the results of opinion polls taken before campaigns started, the Tories would have won a majority in 2010, 2015 would have been a hung parliament, Remain won the referendum, Hilary Clinton would be POTUS, and the Conservatives would now have a three figure majority.
Yet people cling on to them to back up want they want to believe. Truly pitiful
A more positive interpretation is that the public are open to changing their mind, public debate still matters and political campaigning makes a difference.
I can't recall a democratic vote where the result hasn't been implemented before. I think very long term leaving then rejoining may have served the remain cause better. The forces of leave can't be held out forever, certainly not under FPTP anyway. Will Labour go for PR if they have a minority, it's probably that that is crucial in the next parliament for the Lib Dems to push rather than a second referendum.
Well there's Home Rule for Ireland, which is an interesting precedent given that the major stumbling block for Brexit is dealing with the fallout from that clusterfuck.
Popular Votes not implemented -
The Western Australian separation referendum in the early 1930s.
The Puerto Rico statehood referendum.
Irish Home Rule (as you say) and arguably the all-Ireland vote in favour of a 32 County Republic in 1918.
Newfoundland had two referendums in 1948 - the first one was three way and the option of becoming a self-governing dominion again came top with 44% but didn’t get over 50% of the votes. Union with Canada won in the “run off”.
The 1979 Scotland Referendum.
The 2014 Swiss Immigration Referendum
California’s Proposition 8 in 2008
Irish Home Rule (as you say) and arguably the all-Ireland vote in favour of a 32 County Republic in 1918. - Still long term unresolved and causing issues.
The 1979 Scotland Referendum. - Scottish independence still unresolved, bar set prior to the referendum taking place.
The 2014 Swiss Immigration Referendum - According to wiki this one has had a "soft" implementation
You want to call heads on the toss of a double headed coin
Not at all. The WA is leaving. You agree with that and so do I. Is it leaving while scuttling the ship ten miles from shore in deep water with sharks circling? No. But then the government does have some responsibility for, you know, the wellbeing of its citizens and no one in power would be as deranged as to offer people the chance to do themselves damage.
We remain in a parliamentary democracy but even they can't prevent us leaving eventually. Because it can all be sorted at the ballot box come GE time. Let's suppose they are super-naughty and keep stopping us leaving, then sure as eggs is eggs there will be a near 100% majority at the GE for The Brexit Party.
So I wouldn't worry about all this shenanigans with a referendum. If the people are so worried about respecting democracy they will give Nigel the mandate to get us out however he damn well likes.
I’d happily vote for Mays deal, but the other option should be no deal, not remain. It isn’t my fault the MPs risked no deal by failing to vote for the WA, and the public have already rejected Remain.
While in theory that sounds perfectly sensible (Decision 1 was June 2016, this is just Decision 2: "How?") however the practicalities of having No Deal on any ballot paper would make today's impasse 1,000x worse. First of all you would have WAII before you know it, and/or second of all that would mean that we couldn't negotiate any trade deal with the EU. That is just bonkers but more important unenforceable.
Edit: plus the public is allowed to change its mind.
Why was No deal the default position if a deal couldn’t get through Parliament?
A second referendum, without an GE mandate, should be boycotted by leave voters. All the people that voted in the first ref. that don't usually vote will see voting again as pointless so it will be "won" by remain anyway as the remainers know full well. A general leave boycott will deny it legitimacy.
Tough shit if they can’t be bothered voting
Tough shit when governmet is seen as illegitimate. Sums up the remainers view of democracy!
Not at all if offered a chance to confirm a decision made, by then, four years ago by a slim majority and no agreed method of delivering that decision it is perfectly logical to ask again with the result immediately being written in to law. If those so keen to leave can’t be arsed voting then tough shit. I also expect if this end up with us remaining anyone standing on a leave platform will gain only minor traction from English Nationalists as most people have had enough and will want to move on.
"can't be arsed" is not the same as "whats the point it will be ignored again". I fear your complacency is misplaced. I hope I'm wrong.
It can’t if the result is written into law before hand requiring no more legislation so it can’t be ‘ignored’ again. I can’t see however what you mean by ignored the Tory Party has spent 31/2 years arguing with itself so it hasn’t been ignored.
Parliament has rejected May's deal three times so it should not be put before the public as Parliament itself doesn't want it.
Remain should not be on the ballot paper as it already lost a referendum and that decision hasn't been implemented.
No one on the Leave side will campaign in the referendum and most Leavers will just sit it out and then wait to vote, en mass for leave parties in a subsequent general election whenever it comes.
So your proposal is a referendum with one option? "Leave the EU"?
I don't want another refernedum at all but if we must have one the only acceptable choice would be various leave options.
Acceptable to the minority of people who now want to leave the EU. Strange you think the majority should be excluded from this.
Immediately after the 2016 referendum a leave voting friend of mine told me he thought we'd never leave...
If Putin or Trump reneged on a referendum result in this way, the people calling for a second referendum here would be marching the streets in protest
Why can’t they just be honest? It’s unjustifiable to have another referendum, but they want another go cause they lost. It doesn’t make them Adolf Hitler. But they have such a high opinion of themselves they have to be seen as morally pure as well as right about everything.
Lindsey Graham is a neocon and was a close ally of John McCain so no is
I think we have every basis for criticising a country which claims to be our ally but is willing to take action which will likely result in dangerous terrorists being freed to cause carnage in our countries.
No we do not at all unless we are willing to put British troops on the ground in Syria to protect Kurdish land and contain imprisoned IS prisoners otherwise we are hypocrites of the highest order.
Though I note even Trump has taken 2 IS prisoners into US custody and the Turks are saying they want a 'buffer zone' from terrorism not to occupy the whole of Kurdistan
We shouldn't criticise the Chinese for Uighur internment camps unless we are willing to invade and secure the whole region. Right. Got it.
Totally irrelevant to the point, we are criticising Trump for withdrawing US troops from Kurdistan not for creating internment camps for Kurds like the Chinese are with Muslims
How many casualties has the US suffered in Syria - and how many the Kurds, fighting ISIS as a US proxy ? To interpret this as anything but the abandonment of an ally to the slaughter, and virtually without warning, is morally perverse.
And this is the president you really on for a great trade deal ...
Well if so we are just as guilty unless and until we are willing to send British troops to protect the Kurds in Syria from the Turks too, Turkey is also a fellow NATO member
And Leavers will not forget the Liberal Democrats refusing to respect their vote
And? The LD's are no more interested in courting leavers than the Tory's are in courting remainers.
However the LDs were previously a repository for people who were sick of the two largest parties. They are now a party of position so voters are likely to view them in terms of their flagship policy.
They're still a repository for people sick of the two largest parties but (I) Remain has been a strong catalyst and (ii) the two largest parties seem hell bent on actively making people sick of them.
If we went by the results of opinion polls taken before campaigns started, the Tories would have won a majority in 2010, 2015 would have been a hung parliament, Remain won the referendum, Hilary Clinton would be POTUS, and the Conservatives would now have a three figure majority.
Yet people cling on to them to back up want they want to believe. Truly pitiful
So what are you afraid of?
Grow up!
Had Remain won I wouldn’t have been campaigning for or calling for another referendum without a party with one in their manifesto winning a GE. If you are too full of your own self interest to respect the vote of a majority of the country you’ll have to live with yourself
There was literally a UKIP petition already on the gov website the day of the referendum to ask for another one if the result was 52/48 remain.
I also remember JRM in the House saying we can always have a confirmatory referendum on any deal.
I also remember the entire referendum campaign being around getting a deal being super easy, no deal was project fear, and we could be just like Norway.
Why can't we just be like Norway? Why are the government ignoring the will of the people by not offering a Norway deal?
There is no mandate for a No Deal exit of the EU. The referendum does not provide it. The last election does not provide it. I doubt another election will provide it.
So make any new referendum Deal or No Deal. But Remain cannot be an option. That question was asked and answered.
And as I keep saying Richard it is perfectly legitimate to ask it again
1) because it appears that there is some small movement in the polls which indicate it might be the nation's preference; but mainly because
2) a democratically-elected government mandated to do so will have decided to hold a second referendum.
So you think we should revote on things every time there is a shift against the status quo in the polls. A GE every 6 months?
Rather meagre local by-election scene today. A Lab defence in Corby, a LD defence in Watford, and a Con defence in Basingstoke (with no Lab or LD candidates).
Other than the fact the majority now want to remain?
Haha that’s not a fact anymore than it was a fact that Clinton would win 2016 and Theresa May would get a three figure majority in 2017.
Polls aren’t real life. Leavers weren’t calling for immediate referendums because polls had us ahead in 2014, why are they such an arbiter of what we should do as a country now? Theyre just the thoughts of a group of nerds desperate to tell people what they think about politics, not the view of the country
Corbyn has just been making a speech in which he has been uncharacteristically clear on the questions of a GE and referendum:
It wasn’t long ago that Johnson was pretending not to want an election. Now he’s pretending that it’s Labour that doesn’t want one.
So let me address this directly:
Prime minister, we can’t trust you not to break the law because you’ve got form.
We can’t trust you not to use the period of an election campaign to drive our country off a No Deal cliff edge that will crash our economy, destroy jobs and industries, cause shortages of medicine and food and endanger peace in Northern Ireland.
So it’s simple: obey the law, take No Deal off the table and then let’s have the election.
and:
The first task of a Labour government will be to finally get Brexit sorted.
After three years of Tory failure, it’s time to take the decision out of the hands of politicians and let the people have the final say.
So a Labour government will immediately legislate for a referendum.
Within six months of being elected we will put that deal to a public vote alongside remain.
And as prime minister I will carry out whatever the people decide.
There’s nothing complicated about that position. It’s really very simple: Labour trusts the people to decide.
(Quotes from the Guardian live blog).
They've clearly changed his speechwriter. That is very good.
If we went by the results of opinion polls taken before campaigns started, the Tories would have won a majority in 2010, 2015 would have been a hung parliament, Remain won the referendum, Hilary Clinton would be POTUS, and the Conservatives would now have a three figure majority.
Yet people cling on to them to back up want they want to believe. Truly pitiful
A more positive interpretation is that the public are open to changing their mind, public debate still matters and political campaigning makes a difference.
I can't recall a democratic vote where the result hasn't been implemented before. I think very long term leaving then rejoining may have served the remain cause better. The forces of leave can't be held out forever, certainly not under FPTP anyway. Will Labour go for PR if they have a minority, it's probably that that is crucial in the next parliament for the Lib Dems to push rather than a second referendum.
Well there's Home Rule for Ireland, which is an interesting precedent given that the major stumbling block for Brexit is dealing with the fallout from that clusterfuck.
Popular Votes not implemented -
The Western Australian separation referendum in the early 1930s.
The Puerto Rico statehood referendum.
Irish Home Rule (as you say) and arguably the all-Ireland vote in favour of a 32 County Republic in 1918.
Newfoundland had two referendums in 1948 - the first one was three way and the option of becoming a self-governing dominion again came top with 44% but didn’t get over 50% of the votes. Union with Canada won in the “run off”.
The 1979 Scotland Referendum.
The 2014 Swiss Immigration Referendum
California’s Proposition 8 in 2008
Irish Home Rule (as you say) and arguably the all-Ireland vote in favour of a 32 County Republic in 1918. - Still long term unresolved and causing issues.
The 1979 Scotland Referendum. - Scottish independence still unresolved, bar set prior to the referendum taking place.
The 2014 Swiss Immigration Referendum - According to wiki this one has had a "soft" implementation
That 1979 one was for devolution not indy. So now resolved (sort of - would need to check precise details), And the goalposts were moved ly a Labour MP after the basic decision was taken to have it [edit].
Corbyn has just been making a speech in which he has been uncharacteristically clear on the questions of a GE and referendum:
It wasn’t long ago that Johnson was pretending not to want an election. Now he’s pretending that it’s Labour that doesn’t want one.
So let me address this directly:
Prime minister, we can’t trust you not to break the law because you’ve got form.
We can’t trust you not to use the period of an election campaign to drive our country off a No Deal cliff edge that will crash our economy, destroy jobs and industries, cause shortages of medicine and food and endanger peace in Northern Ireland.
So it’s simple: obey the law, take No Deal off the table and then let’s have the election.
and:
The first task of a Labour government will be to finally get Brexit sorted.
After three years of Tory failure, it’s time to take the decision out of the hands of politicians and let the people have the final say.
So a Labour government will immediately legislate for a referendum.
Within six months of being elected we will put that deal to a public vote alongside remain.
And as prime minister I will carry out whatever the people decide.
There’s nothing complicated about that position. It’s really very simple: Labour trusts the people to decide.
(Quotes from the Guardian live blog).
"And as prime minister I will carry out whatever the people decide."
The British people were told that before and would have been lied to. Why should they believe it this time? There would be another three years of foot draggingand sabotage, before a third referendum to get the right answer again.
Only if Leave won of course. Remain would be enacted immediately.
Unless Labour had a decent majority I'm not sure how Corbyn would enact Brexit if it did win.
Other than the fact the majority now want to remain?
Haha that’s not a fact anymore than it was a fact that Clinton would win 2016 and Theresa May would get a three figure majority in 2017.
Polls aren’t real life
Well it's either true or it's false. The best evidence we have is that it's true, but I know a way to prove it either way.
The best evidence we have is that the Tories would win a majority. I know a way to prove that too. We dont change PM every time a new party leads opinion polls, nor do we instantly go to elections to test the theory
Corbyn has just been making a speech in which he has been uncharacteristically clear on the questions of a GE and referendum:
It wasn’t long ago that Johnson was pretending not to want an election. Now he’s pretending that it’s Labour that doesn’t want one.
So let me address this directly:
Prime minister, we can’t trust you not to break the law because you’ve got form.
We can’t trust you not to use the period of an election campaign to drive our country off a No Deal cliff edge that will crash our economy, destroy jobs and industries, cause shortages of medicine and food and endanger peace in Northern Ireland.
So it’s simple: obey the law, take No Deal off the table and then let’s have the election.
and:
The first task of a Labour government will be to finally get Brexit sorted.
After three years of Tory failure, it’s time to take the decision out of the hands of politicians and let the people have the final say.
So a Labour government will immediately legislate for a referendum.
Within six months of being elected we will put that deal to a public vote alongside remain.
And as prime minister I will carry out whatever the people decide.
There’s nothing complicated about that position. It’s really very simple: Labour trusts the people to decide.
(Quotes from the Guardian live blog).
They've clearly changed his speechwriter. That is very good.
Other than the fact the majority now want to remain?
Haha that’s not a fact anymore than it was a fact that Clinton would win 2016 and Theresa May would get a three figure majority in 2017.
Polls aren’t real life
Well it's either true or it's false. The best evidence we have is that it's true, but I know a way to prove it either way.
The best evidence we have is that the Tories would win a majority. I know a way to prove that too. We dont change PM every time a new party leads opinion polls, nor do we instantly go to elections to test the theory
Well, you don't see me arguing against holding an election. Unlike you frit leavers who know they've lost the public, I have the courage of my convictions.
Other than the fact the majority now want to remain?
Haha that’s not a fact anymore than it was a fact that Clinton would win 2016 and Theresa May would get a three figure majority in 2017.
Polls aren’t real life
Well it's either true or it's false. The best evidence we have is that it's true, but I know a way to prove it either way.
The best evidence we have is that the Tories would win a majority. I know a way to prove that too. We dont change PM every time a new party leads opinion polls, nor do we instantly go to elections to test the theory
Well, you don't see me arguing against holding an election. Unlike you frit leavers who know they've lost the public, I have the courage of my convictions.
As long as we legislate for an EU referendum in/out every time yes or no take the lead in opinion polls I see no harm in that. But its not about a possible change in opinion, it's about overturning an existing referendum that hasn't been implemented. The same wankery as people who bleat about legitimacy every time a government is elected they oppose. Why should this people's vote be any more final than the last one? And if its not, why bother?
But its not about a possible change in opinion, it's about overturning an existing referendum that hasn't been implemented.
Correction: it's about overturning an existing referendum that hasn't been implemented because the people no longer want it implemented. As for future referendums on the subject, it's not for me to tell people not to want one. You're free, should remain win a new referendum, to advocate for another. That's the democratic process.
Immediately after the 2016 referendum a leave voting friend of mine told me he thought we'd never leave...
If Putin or Trump reneged on a referendum result in this way, the people calling for a second referendum here would be marching the streets in protest
Why can’t they just be honest? It’s unjustifiable to have another referendum, but they want another go cause they lost. It doesn’t make them Adolf Hitler. But they have such a high opinion of themselves they have to be seen as morally pure as well as right about everything.
Pity the Leave campaign told lies and broke the funding rules
How many casualties has the US suffered in Syria - and how many the Kurds, fighting ISIS as a US proxy ? To interpret this as anything but the abandonment of an ally to the slaughter, and virtually without warning, is morally perverse.
And this is the president you really on for a great trade deal ...
Well if so we are just as guilty unless and until we are willing to send British troops to protect the Kurds in Syria from the Turks too, Turkey is also a fellow NATO member
That is utter bollocks, and you know it. It is far too late to send UK forces to intervene now the Turkish invasion has started; in those terms, it is also too late for the US to do so, were Trump to change his mind on a whim.
As you appear unwilling or unable to answer my question, I have done so for you:
https://time.com/5694605/trumps-retreat-syria-cost-lives/ To understand the reason for the additional strategic risk, one has to understand the nature of the successful American military operation against ISIS. Unlike American offensives during much of the Iraq War — when hundreds (and sometimes thousands) of American troops would conduct complex and costly urban military operations with minimal effective help from Iraqi allies — during the fight against ISIS, our allies have largely born the burden of ground combat. Yes, they’ve enjoyed the indispensable support of American artillery and air power, and small groups of American soldiers have rendered aid and engaged in direct combat as well, but our allies have been going house-to-house and have paid a terrible price. By some estimates, as many as 11,000 Kurds have lost their lives in the fight against ISIS — a staggering death toll borne by a relatively small population.
The result — from an American perspective — has been one of the most successful military operations in a generation. The ISIS caliphate, which once dominated a nation-state sized region covering much of northern Syria and northern Iraq, is now in ruins. ISIS isn’t entirely defeated, but it’s a shadow of its former strength. And the cost in American lives has been a small fraction of the cost incurred in even a single battle of the Iraq War. For example, America suffered almost 700 casualties (82 killed) during the Second Battle of Fallujah. The nation has suffered far fewer casualties during the entire fight against ISIS, stretching from June 2014 until the present day....
Corbyn has just been making a speech in which he has been uncharacteristically clear on the questions of a GE and referendum:
It wasn’t long ago that Johnson was pretending not to want an election. Now he’s pretending that it’s Labour that doesn’t want one.
So let me address this directly:
Prime minister, we can’t trust you not to break the law because you’ve got form.
We can’t trust you not to use the period of an election campaign to drive our country off a No Deal cliff edge that will crash our economy, destroy jobs and industries, cause shortages of medicine and food and endanger peace in Northern Ireland.
So it’s simple: obey the law, take No Deal off the table and then let’s have the election.
and:
The first task of a Labour government will be to finally get Brexit sorted.
After three years of Tory failure, it’s time to take the decision out of the hands of politicians and let the people have the final say.
So a Labour government will immediately legislate for a referendum.
Within six months of being elected we will put that deal to a public vote alongside remain.
And as prime minister I will carry out whatever the people decide.
There’s nothing complicated about that position. It’s really very simple: Labour trusts the people to decide.
(Quotes from the Guardian live blog).
They've clearly changed his speechwriter. That is very good.
The referendum promise would serve Labour well in an election campaign I think. Would keep remainiacs on board in constituencies in which the LDs have no ground campaign (ie most constituencies) and also avoid wholesale defection of Labour leavers.
If we went by the results of opinion polls taken before campaigns started, the Tories would have won a majority in 2010, 2015 would have been a hung parliament, Remain won the referendum, Hilary Clinton would be POTUS, and the Conservatives would now have a three figure majority.
Yet people cling on to them to back up want they want to believe. Truly pitiful
So what are you afraid of?
Grow up!
Had Remain won I wouldn’t have been campaigning for or calling for another referendum without a party with one in their manifesto winning a GE. If you are too full of your own self interest to respect the vote of a majority of the country you’ll have to live with yourself
There was literally a UKIP petition already on the gov website the day of the referendum to ask for another one if the result was 52/48 remain.
I also remember JRM in the House saying we can always have a confirmatory referendum on any deal.
I also remember the entire referendum campaign being around getting a deal being super easy, no deal was project fear, and we could be just like Norway.
Why can't we just be like Norway? Why are the government ignoring the will of the people by not offering a Norway deal?
There is no mandate for a No Deal exit of the EU. The referendum does not provide it. The last election does not provide it. I doubt another election will provide it.
So make any new referendum Deal or No Deal. But Remain cannot be an option. That question was asked and answered.
And as I keep saying Richard it is perfectly legitimate to ask it again
1) because it appears that there is some small movement in the polls which indicate it might be the nation's preference; but mainly because
2) a democratically-elected government mandated to do so will have decided to hold a second referendum.
So you think we should revote on things every time there is a shift against the status quo in the polls. A GE every 6 months?
No. I don't happen to think a second referendum is a good idea. But it is certainly democratic. It is asking the same people the same question. It isn't overriding the will of the people because it is still the people doing the deciding. It isn't some group imposing anything from outside. It is us choosing again.
It is usually four or five years between general elections but sometimes much less. Depending on the circumstances.
Other than the fact the majority now want to remain?
Haha that’s not a fact anymore than it was a fact that Clinton would win 2016 and Theresa May would get a three figure majority in 2017.
Polls aren’t real life
Well it's either true or it's false. The best evidence we have is that it's true, but I know a way to prove it either way.
The best evidence we have is that the Tories would win a majority. I know a way to prove that too. We dont change PM every time a new party leads opinion polls, nor do we instantly go to elections to test the theory
Well, you don't see me arguing against holding an election. Unlike you frit leavers who know they've lost the public, I have the courage of my convictions.
As long as we legislate for an EU referendum in/out every time yes or no take the lead in opinion polls I see no harm in that. But its not about a possible change in opinion, it's about overturning an existing referendum that hasn't been implemented. The same wankery as people who bleat about legitimacy every time a government is elected they oppose. Why should this people's vote be any more final than the last one? And if its not, why bother?
The 2016 referendum result is unimplementable because it is not about enacting a decision, but bringing about an alternate reality.
On the rugby, I think playing the matches behind closed doors* (The storm should have left sunday) would be a vastly superior solution compared to the proposed 2 points a piece. Missing games in the Cricket world cup round robin had far less of an impact due to the fact each team could establish its true place with far more games.
Immediately after the 2016 referendum a leave voting friend of mine told me he thought we'd never leave...
If Putin or Trump reneged on a referendum result in this way, the people calling for a second referendum here would be marching the streets in protest
Why can’t they just be honest? It’s unjustifiable to have another referendum, but they want another go cause they lost. It doesn’t make them Adolf Hitler. But they have such a high opinion of themselves they have to be seen as morally pure as well as right about everything.
Pity the Leave campaign told lies and broke the funding rules
On the rugby, I think playing the matches behind closed doors* (The storm should have left sunday) would be a vastly superior solution compared to the proposed 2 points a piece. Missing games in the Cricket world cup round robin had far less of an impact due to the fact each team could establish its true place with far more games.
* Anywhere on the islands would do.
Yes. The bloke talked about logistics. But it's 50-odd people and a stadium.
How many casualties has the US suffered in Syria - and how many the Kurds, fighting ISIS as a US proxy ? To interpret this as anything but the abandonment of an ally to the slaughter, and virtually without warning, is morally perverse.
And this is the president you really on for a great trade deal ...
Well if so we are member
That is utter bollocks, and you know it. It is far too late to send UK forces to intervene now the Turkish invasion has started; in those terms, it is also too late for the US to do so, were Trump to change his mind on a whim.
As you appear unwilling or unable to answer my question, I have done so for you:
https://time.com/5694605/trumps-retreat-syria-cost-lives/ To understand the reason for the additional strategic risk, one has to understand the nature of the successful American military operation against ISIS. Unlike American offensives during much of the Iraq War — when hundreds (and sometimes thousands) of American troops would conduct complex and costly urban military operations with minimal effective help from Iraqi allies — during the fight against ISIS, our allies have largely born the burden of ground combat. Yes, they’ve enjoyed the indispensable support of American artillery and air power, and small groups of American soldiers have rendered aid and engaged in direct combat as well, but our allies have been going house-to-house and have paid a terrible price. By some estimates, as many as 11,000 Kurds have lost their lives in the fight against ISIS — a staggering death toll borne by a relatively small population.
The result — from an American perspective — has been one of the most successful military operations in a generation. The ISIS caliphate, which once dominated a nation-state sized region covering much of northern Syria and northern Iraq, is now in ruins. ISIS isn’t entirely defeated, but it’s a shadow of its former strength. And the cost in American lives has been a small fraction of the cost incurred in even a single battle of the Iraq War. For example, America suffered almost 700 casualties (82 killed) during the Second Battle of Fallujah. The nation has suffered far fewer casualties during the entire fight against ISIS, stretching from June 2014 until the present day....
No it is you saying utter Bollocks.
UK troops were withdrawn from Syria and Iraq years ago, if we were so determined to keep the peace there and protect Kurds even after IS was defeated we should never have withdrawn them and I repeat it is hypocrisy of the highest order to lecture Trump on this while we do not have British boots on the ground in Syria.
If the Kurds did the brunt of the fighting against IS in Syria and proved successful I also see no reason they cannot hold off the Turks from most of their territory either
Anyone care to guess at Corbyn’s thinking here? I thought Alastair’s reasoning was perfectly correct but based on Corbyn’s comments this morning it looks as though a 2019 GE is now hoving into view? So is Jeremy:
- thinking that extension will damage Boris enough to give him a shot at staging another 2017 election campaign, and maybe ending up as PM in a coalition?
- saying he wants an election when he actually doesn’t and won’t follow through?
- bored of the whole damn thing and keen on going out in a (metaphorical) blaze of glory?
Other than the fact the majority now want to remain?
Haha that’s not a fact anymore than it was a fact that Clinton would win 2016
More Americans voted for Hillary than for the Racist-in-Chief.
She will be in clink before trump is impeached. Giuliani has been trolling her with 'the days of you cant indict a Clinton are over'
Giuliani might want to focus on protecting his client from himself.
The deeper the impeachment process gets the more shit will be thrown at the Democrats. The reason they haven't held a vote to formalize impeachment proceedings is that it would give legal weight to Republican subpoenas of Biden etc and pass the thing to the Republican Senate to administer. So the current 'investigation' has no actual effect other than on opinion. An utter shit storm approaches. Clinton better hope those 33,000 emails were properly deleted.
Anyone care to guess at Corbyn’s thinking here? I thought Alastair’s reasoning was perfectly correct but based on Corbyn’s comments this morning it looks as though a 2019 GE is now hoving into view? So is Jeremy:
- thinking that extension will damage Boris enough to give him a shot at staging another 2017 election campaign, and maybe ending up as PM in a coalition?
- saying he wants an election when he actually doesn’t and won’t follow through?
- bored of the whole damn thing and keen on going out in a (metaphorical) blaze of glory?
He wants to try and firewall 200 seats. The longer he delays the worse labours position gets due to the constant dither and vacillation
And Leavers will not forget the Liberal Democrats refusing to respect their vote
The shiny new Lib Dem’s stood on a platform of respecting the vote last time, only to vote it down every time.
You're still talking bollocks, aren't you? Have you ever bothered to read what platform people stood on? It's not just "Whatever isam wants to say it is"
Exquisite though Thornton Manor is, why exactly are Johnson and Varadkar meeting there?
My guess is Liverpool was seen as the closest thing to neutral ground in the British Isles as both leaders want to avoid the optics of going to the other's capital. But the City of Liverpool proper is too problematic in terms of street protest and Johnson's record at the Spectator. So the Wirral as a Merseyside borough is Liverpool but isn't. A compromise within a compromise.
How many casualties has the US suffered in Syria - and how many the Kurds, fighting ISIS as a US proxy ? To interpret this as anything but the abandonment of an ally to the slaughter, and virtually without warning, is morally perverse.
And this is the president you really on for a great trade deal ...
Well if so we are member
That is utter bollocks, and you know it. It is far too late to send UK forces to intervene now the Turkish invasion has started; in those terms, it is also too late for the US to do so, were Trump to change his mind on a whim.
As you appear unwilling or unable to answer my question, I have done so for you:
The result — from an American perspective — has been one of the most successful military operations in a generation. The ISIS caliphate, which once dominated a nation-state sized region covering much of northern Syria and northern Iraq, is now in ruins. ISIS isn’t entirely defeated, but it’s a shadow of its former strength. And the cost in American lives has been a small fraction of the cost incurred in even a single battle of the Iraq War. For example, America suffered almost 700 casualties (82 killed) during the Second Battle of Fallujah. The nation has suffered far fewer casualties during the entire fight against ISIS, stretching from June 2014 until the present day....
No it is you saying utter Bollocks.
UK troops were withdrawn from Syria and Iraq years ago, if we were so determined to keep the peace there and protect Kurds even after IS was defeated we should never have withdrawn them and I repeat it is hypocrisy of the highest order to lecture Trump on this while we do not have British boots on the ground in Syria.
If the Kurds did the brunt of the fighting against IS in Syria and proved successful I also see no reason they cannot hold off the Turks from most of their territory either
Jesus H Christ.
"The fact that the Kurds held off a rag-tag band of maniacs with the help of Western air power, materiel and training means they should be able to stop a large nation state with a huge standing army and a common border."
I've had enough: I thought you were one-eyed and disingenuous, but it appears you are just thick as frozen mince.
So you think we should revote on things every time there is a shift against the status quo in the polls. A GE every 6 months?
Personally, no. If we never had another stupid advisory referendum of the ill informed and deceived (from all sides) I'd be very happy indeed.
But this is an epochal, fundamental change in our national life that will affect us all for generations to come; the side that "won" have been convicted of electoral fraud, the country is riven, the best estimates are that it will *never* have an economic benefit, and there will be decades of constitutional and democratic fall-out even if we "get it done" and "leave" on 31st October.
Another plebiscite may at least give cover to the parliamentarians who, on the whole, don't want to leave, thus allowing some of the more hypocritical members to adopt a public position closer to their private one. It will also ratify the fact that the country is wholly divided.
So goodness knows how we come back from here. My guess is "not while people who were able to vote in 2016 are still alive".
And Leavers will not forget the Liberal Democrats refusing to respect their vote
The shiny new Lib Dem’s stood on a platform of respecting the vote last time, only to vote it down every time.
You're still talking bollocks, aren't you? Have you ever bothered to read what platform people stood on? It's not just "Whatever isam wants to say it is"
Alright touchy, no need for bad language. Apologise at your leisure, I wont hold it against you
And Leavers will not forget the Liberal Democrats refusing to respect their vote
The shiny new Lib Dem’s stood on a platform of respecting the vote last time, only to vote it down every time.
You're still talking bollocks, aren't you? Have you ever bothered to read what platform people stood on? It's not just "Whatever isam wants to say it is"
Alright touchy, no need for bad language. Apologise at your leisure, I wont hold it against you
Here's the Lib Dem manifesto launch in 2017, where Tim Farron literally stood on an EU platform, and proposed a second referendum.
How many casualties has the US suffered in Syria - and how many the Kurds, fighting ISIS as a US proxy ? To interpret this as anything but the abandonment of an ally to the slaughter, and virtually without warning, is morally perverse.
And this is the president you really on for a great trade deal ...
Well if so we are member
That is utter bollocks, and you know it. It is far too late to send UK forces to intervene now the Turkish invasion has started; in those terms, it is also too late for the US to do so, were Trump to change his mind on a whim.
As you appear unwilling or unable to answer my question, I have done so for you:
The result — from an American perspective — has been one of the most successful military operations in a generation. The ISIS caliphate, which once dominated a nation-state sized region covering much of northern Syria and northern Iraq, is now in ruins. ISIS isn’t entirely defeated, but it’s a shadow of its former strength. And the cost in American lives has been a small fraction of the cost incurred in even a single battle of the Iraq War. For example, America suffered almost 700 casualties (82 killed) during the Second Battle of Fallujah. The nation has suffered far fewer casualties during the entire fight against ISIS, stretching from June 2014 until the present day....
No it is you saying utter Bollocks.
UK troops were withdrawn from Syria and Iraq years ago, if we were so determined to keep the peace there and protect Kurds even after IS was defeated we should never have withdrawn them and I repeat it is hypocrisy of the highest order to lecture Trump on this while we do not have British boots on the ground in Syria.
If the Kurds did the brunt of the fighting against IS in Syria and proved successful I also see no reason they cannot hold off the Turks from most of their territory either
Jesus H Christ.
"The fact that the Kurds held off a rag-tag band of maniacs with the help of Western air power, materiel and training means they should be able to stop a large nation state with a huge standing army and a common border."
I've had enough: I thought you were one-eyed and disingenuous, but it appears you are just thick as frozen mince.
Well we should have kept British air power, material and training to support the Kurds then in Iraq and Syria.
Otherwise I find it contemptible you are willing to let American servicemen die to protect the Kurds but not British servicemen
What happens if Boris resigns as prime minister but not Tory leader. All the opposition parties want the optic of Boris sending a letter to extend but that then won’t happen? There was absolutely no reason why the opposition parties could not have VNOC already to send letter for extension and then have an election.
And Leavers will not forget the Liberal Democrats refusing to respect their vote
The shiny new Lib Dem’s stood on a platform of respecting the vote last time, only to vote it down every time.
You're still talking bollocks, aren't you? Have you ever bothered to read what platform people stood on? It's not just "Whatever isam wants to say it is"
Alright touchy, no need for bad language. Apologise at your leisure, I wont hold it against you
Here's the Lib Dem manifesto launch in 2017, where Tim Farron literally stood on an EU platform, and proposed a second referendum.
Other than the fact the majority now want to remain?
Haha that’s not a fact anymore than it was a fact that Clinton would win 2016
More Americans voted for Hillary than for the Racist-in-Chief.
She will be in clink before trump is impeached. Giuliani has been trolling her with 'the days of you cant indict a Clinton are over'
Giuliani might want to focus on protecting his client from himself.
The deeper the impeachment process gets the more shit will be thrown at the Democrats. The reason they haven't held a vote to formalize impeachment proceedings is that it would give legal weight to Republican subpoenas of Biden etc and pass the thing to the Republican Senate to administer. So the current 'investigation' has no actual effect other than on opinion. An utter shit storm approaches. Clinton better hope those 33,000 emails were properly deleted.
The White House is stonewalling the whole process. It's the White House that wants the process to be over with quickly, take the hit, win the vote in the Senate and get on with their misrule. The fact that they are obstructing the process by saying they will refuse to comply with subpoenas is, I believe, a serious criminal offence. Or at least if they actually follow through on that "promise". They have calculated that this will be less damaging than actually having a process rumble on for a few months where the public gets to watch testimony where the witnesses are forced to either admit wrongdoing or commit perjury live on television. The White House is probably correct in that this will be less damaging, but the American public will balk at it and the GOP are still set for a heavy defeat next year.
How many casualties has the US suffered in Syria - and how many the Kurds, fighting ISIS as a US proxy ? To interpret this as anything but the abandonment of an ally to the slaughter, and virtually without warning, is morally perverse.
And this is the president you really on for a great trade deal ...
Well if so we are member
That is utter bollocks, and you know it. It is far too late to send UK forces to intervene now the Turkish invasion has started; in those terms, it is also too late for the US to do so, were Trump to change his mind on a whim.
As you appear unwilling or unable to answer my question, I have done so for you:
UK troops were withdrawn from Syria and Iraq years ago, if we were so determined to keep the peace there and protect Kurds even after IS was defeated we should never have withdrawn them and I repeat it is hypocrisy of the highest order to lecture Trump on this while we do not have British boots on the ground in Syria.
If the Kurds did the brunt of the fighting against IS in Syria and proved successful I also see no reason they cannot hold off the Turks from most of their territory either
Jesus H Christ.
"The fact that the Kurds held off a rag-tag band of maniacs with the help of Western air power, materiel and training means they should be able to stop a large nation state with a huge standing army and a common border."
I've had enough: I thought you were one-eyed and disingenuous, but it appears you are just thick as frozen mince.
Well we should have kept British air power, material and training to support the Kurds then in Iraq and Syria.
Otherwise I find it contemptible you are willing to let American servicemen die to protect the Kurds but not British servicemen
Yes, we should have done. But the fact the British refused to help doesn't defend Trump pulling the rug out from under them without any diplomatic pressure against the Turks invading. Especially when the Turks plan to settle millions of Syrian Arabs along the border, creating ethnic conflict for decades to come.
Exquisite though Thornton Manor is, why exactly are Johnson and Varadkar meeting there?
Geographic centre of the British Isles, almost equidistant from London and Dublin, Irish/non-Irish DNA among population roughly 50/50, but far enough away from Liverpool itself for there to be a sporting chance not every member of staff would assume clocking the sexpest would be a public service.
How many casualties has the US suffered in Syria - and how many the Kurds, fighting ISIS as a US proxy ? To interpret this as anything but the abandonment of an ally to the slaughter, and virtually without warning, is morally perverse.
And this is the president you really on for a great trade deal ...
Well if so we are member
That is utter bollocks, and you know it. It is far too late to send UK forces to intervene now the Turkish invasion has started; in those terms, it is also too late for the US to do so, were Trump to change his mind on a whim.
As you appear unwilling or unable to answer my question, I have done so for you:
The result — from an American perspective — has been one of the most successful military operations in a generation. The ISIS caliphate, which once dominated a nation-state sized region covering much of northern Syria and northern Iraq, is now in ruins. ISIS isn’t entirely defeated, but it’s a shadow of its former strength. And the cost in American lives has been a small fraction of the cost incurred in even a single battle of the Iraq War. For example, America suffered almost 700 casualties (82 killed) during the Second Battle of Fallujah. The nation has suffered far fewer casualties during the entire fight against ISIS, stretching from June 2014 until the present day....
No it is you saying utter Bollocks.
UK troops were withdrawn from Syria and Iraq years ago, if we were so determined to keep the peace there and protect Kurds even after IS was defeated we should never have withdrawn them and I repeat it is hypocrisy of the highest order to lecture Trump on this while we do not have British boots on the ground in Syria.
If the Kurds did the brunt of the fighting against IS in Syria and proved successful I also see no reason they cannot hold off the Turks from most of their territory either
Jesus H Christ.
"The fact that the Kurds held off a rag-tag band of maniacs with the help of Western air power, materiel and training means they should be able to stop a large nation state with a huge standing army and a common border."
I've had enough: I thought you were one-eyed and disingenuous, but it appears you are just thick as frozen mince.
You are wasting your words with HYUFD. He is so far in the tank that defending the indefensible doesn't adequately describe it. I have better things to do this afternoon.
Exquisite though Thornton Manor is, why exactly are Johnson and Varadkar meeting there?
My guess is Liverpool was seen as the closest thing to neutral ground in the British Isles as both leaders want to avoid the optics of going to the other's capital. But the City of Liverpool proper is too problematic in terms of street protest and Johnson's record at the Spectator. So the Wirral as a Merseyside borough is Liverpool but isn't. A compromise within a compromise.
Other than the fact the majority now want to remain?
Haha that’s not a fact anymore than it was a fact that Clinton would win 2016
More Americans voted for Hillary than for the Racist-in-Chief.
She will be in clink before trump is impeached. Giuliani has been trolling her with 'the days of you cant indict a Clinton are over'
Giuliani might want to focus on protecting his client from himself.
The deeper the impeachment process gets the more shit will be thrown at the Democrats. The reason they haven't held a vote to formalize impeachment proceedings is that it would give legal weight to Republican subpoenas of Biden etc and pass the thing to the Republican Senate to administer. So the current 'investigation' has no actual effect other than on opinion. An utter shit storm approaches. Clinton better hope those 33,000 emails were properly deleted.
The White House is stonewalling the whole process. It's the White House that wants the process to be over with quickly, take the hit, win the vote in the Senate and get on with their misrule. The fact that they are obstructing the process by saying they will refuse to comply with subpoenas is, I believe, a serious criminal offence. Or at least if they actually follow through on that "promise". They have calculated that this will be less damaging than actually having a process rumble on for a few months where the public gets to watch testimony where the witnesses are forced to either admit wrongdoing or commit perjury live on television. The White House is probably correct in that this will be less damaging, but the American public will balk at it and the GOP are still set for a heavy defeat next year.
It's only a criminal offence AIUI if they refuse to cooperate with an impeachment inquiry that complies with the constitution (I.e, that has been voted for), they are not obliged to answer subpoenas that have no legal weight. The Democrats cant stop the Republicans having equal subpoena rights but also expect to have the process treated like it was constitutionally compliant
Corbyn looks to have done well this morning. By managing the transition from whether to have an election to when he turns it into a process story. By broad brush policy sweep he prepares the ground for talking about everything else in the campaign and relegating Brexit to one topic among many. It's fair to say he looked like it was a given 2020 will be a rerun of 2017 - which it isn't - but he has started the narrative transition well and on his own terms.
"I will be a very different kind of prime minister, one who is prepared to limit my own power in the public interest. So that’s why a Labour government will introduce a War Powers Bill to ensure no prime minister can bypass parliament to take the country to war."
Corbyn thinking about his legacy here. I'd imagine if he could get that act through he'd be absolutely delighted.
What happens if Boris resigns as prime minister but not Tory leader. All the opposition parties want the optic of Boris sending a letter to extend but that then won’t happen? There was absolutely no reason why the opposition parties could not have VNOC already to send letter for extension and then have an election.
Boris can't 'just' resign as PM. He has to suggest a new PM so that Liz can send for them. That should be the next person best placed to command a majority. Which in this instant is Corbyn without there being a GNU option.
if he suggests Corbyn, then Corbyn becomes PM. If corbyn can't win a confidence vote, then theres a GE.
So Boris would be stupid to resign as PM, as Corbyn would then become PM.
"I will be a very different kind of prime minister, one who is prepared to limit my own power in the public interest. So that’s why a Labour government will introduce a War Powers Bill to ensure no prime minister can bypass parliament to take the country to war."
Corbyn thinking about his legacy here. I'd imagine if he could get that act through he'd be absolutely delighted.
Exquisite though Thornton Manor is, why exactly are Johnson and Varadkar meeting there?
My guess is Liverpool was seen as the closest thing to neutral ground in the British Isles as both leaders want to avoid the optics of going to the other's capital. But the City of Liverpool proper is too problematic in terms of street protest and Johnson's record at the Spectator. So the Wirral as a Merseyside borough is Liverpool but isn't. A compromise within a compromise.
"I will be a very different kind of prime minister, one who is prepared to limit my own power in the public interest. So that’s why a Labour government will introduce a War Powers Bill to ensure no prime minister can bypass parliament to take the country to war."
Corbyn thinking about his legacy here. I'd imagine if he could get that act through he'd be absolutely delighted.
Depends what 'War' means. Formal Declaration of War, or 'any' military action? Would a SAS target hit on terrorists or another military be a act of War?
Danger here it would scupper our armed forces doing anything at all, covert or otherwise.
Exquisite though Thornton Manor is, why exactly are Johnson and Varadkar meeting there?
My guess is Liverpool was seen as the closest thing to neutral ground in the British Isles as both leaders want to avoid the optics of going to the other's capital. But the City of Liverpool proper is too problematic in terms of street protest and Johnson's record at the Spectator. So the Wirral as a Merseyside borough is Liverpool but isn't. A compromise within a compromise.
Isle of Mann
Calf of Mann, with a picnic
Not too sure about the weather on that one, but I hear the views can be stunning
"I will be a very different kind of prime minister, one who is prepared to limit my own power in the public interest. So that’s why a Labour government will introduce a War Powers Bill to ensure no prime minister can bypass parliament to take the country to war."
Corbyn thinking about his legacy here. I'd imagine if he could get that act through he'd be absolutely delighted.
Depends what 'War' means. Formal Declaration of War, or 'any' military action? Would a SAS target hit on terrorists or another military be a act of War?
Danger here it would scupper our armed forces doing anything at all, covert or otherwise.
Also would make it impossible to respond to an imminent threat.
Giuliani might want to focus on protecting his client from himself.
The deeper the impeachment process gets the more shit will be thrown at the Democrats. The reason they haven't held a vote to formalize impeachment proceedings is that it would give legal weight to Republican subpoenas of Biden etc and pass the thing to the Republican Senate to administer. So the current 'investigation' has no actual effect other than on opinion. An utter shit storm approaches. Clinton better hope those 33,000 emails were properly deleted.
The White House is stonewalling the whole process. It's the White House that wants the process to be over with quickly, take the hit, win the vote in the Senate and get on with their misrule. The fact that they are obstructing the process by saying they will refuse to comply with subpoenas is, I believe, a serious criminal offence. Or at least if they actually follow through on that "promise". They have calculated that this will be less damaging than actually having a process rumble on for a few months where the public gets to watch testimony where the witnesses are forced to either admit wrongdoing or commit perjury live on television. The White House is probably correct in that this will be less damaging, but the American public will balk at it and the GOP are still set for a heavy defeat next year.
It's only a criminal offence AIUI if they refuse to cooperate with an impeachment inquiry that complies with the constitution (I.e, that has been voted for), they are not obliged to answer subpoenas that have no legal weight. The Democrats cant stop the Republicans having equal subpoena rights but also expect to have the process treated like it was constitutionally compliant
There is nothing in the constitution that says the House has to have a vote on starting an impeachment inquiry for an impeachment inquiry to start. Whereas there is a hell of a lot of precedent for the House being able to subpoena documents for the executive, see the HoR during the Benghazi years. You are drinking a lot of right wing koolaid if you think this is all going to plan for Trump and the GOP.
"I will be a very different kind of prime minister, one who is prepared to limit my own power in the public interest. So that’s why a Labour government will introduce a War Powers Bill to ensure no prime minister can bypass parliament to take the country to war."
Corbyn thinking about his legacy here. I'd imagine if he could get that act through he'd be absolutely delighted.
It's also minority government friendly. After Iraq Lib Dems, Greens, Nationalists etc would all be very sympathetic. It's also indelible because once Crown Perogative is extinguished it can't be restored. Future parliaments could change the the war powers law but it would never go back to status quo ante.
Corbyn looks to have done well this morning. By managing the transition from whether to have an election to when he turns it into a process story. By broad brush policy sweep he prepares the ground for talking about everything else in the campaign and relegating Brexit to one topic among many. It's fair to say he looked like it was a given 2020 will be a rerun of 2017 - which it isn't - but he has started the narrative transition well and on his own terms.
Also his unqualified commitment to ref2 will make it much harder for him to oppose one if there is an attempt to bring forward a proposal for one immediately.
I seem to recall many leavers on here assuring us the Corbyn was one of them at heart and would ensure that the UK left with no deal. Another leaver nostrum that has been proved to be false.
Corbyn looks to have done well this morning. By managing the transition from whether to have an election to when he turns it into a process story. By broad brush policy sweep he prepares the ground for talking about everything else in the campaign and relegating Brexit to one topic among many. It's fair to say he looked like it was a given 2020 will be a rerun of 2017 - which it isn't - but he has started the narrative transition well and on his own terms.
Also his unqualified commitment to ref2 will make it much harder for him to oppose one if there is an attempt to bring forward a proposal for one immediately.
I seem to recall many leavers on here assuring us the Corbyn was one of them at heart and would ensure that the UK left with no deal. Another leaver nostrum that has been proved to be false.
He is committed to a referendum on a deal he negotiates. Not just 'a referendum', he will not commit to implementing the May deal
Also re War Powers Blair and Cameron have already changed the Constitution. The former agreed to hold a Commons vote on Iraq and be bound by it. The later followed Blair's precedent and was bound by the Syria vote as he lost.
And in general terms Boris has changed the Constitution by provoking the Supreme Court into creating both a threshold and a device for void use of the preogative. If you read the judgement carefully it's exactly how the Supreme Court would void a state of emergency under the CCA for example.
So all these prerogatives will be looked at by the next non Conservative government. It's inevitable. Indeed after this FTPA spat the prerogative to set the GE date will be included as well.
I don't disagree but Trump remember was elected on an 'America First' agenda.
From his perspective now IS have been defeated there is no need to keep risking US servicemens lives defending Kurdish territory from Turkish strikes even if morally the US might still have an obligation to the Kurds.
Plus where are the British and French forces defending the Kurds?
Why are so anti-Kurdish and pro-Putin?
I am not anti Kurdish or pro Putin though we shared the aim of both to defeat IS
Now IS is defeated should American servicepeoples lives still be risked to defend Kurdish territory from Turkey when European servicepersons lives are not being risked to do the same?
You’re really missing the point. Turkey would not be invading if American armed forces were not stood down.
Well why can't British and French forces fill the gap then?
American forces are already there and are willing to continue their duty. Your apologism for Trump is really something to behold.
American forces do their duty wherever they are posted, they have no involvement in where they should or should not do that duty. If America has betrayed the Kurds then others must step in if they wish to see the Kurds have support. America isn't the world's policeman, if it wants to be a dick, it's free to do so.
Agreed, no good attacking America for invading the Middle East if you then also attack America for withdrawing from the Middle East
Sensible people take things on a case by case basis, even if their instinctive position is reasonably more one way than the other.
If we went by the results of opinion polls taken before campaigns started, the Tories would have won a majority in 2010, 2015 would have been a hung parliament, Remain won the referendum, Hilary Clinton would be POTUS, and the Conservatives would now have a three figure majority.
Yet people cling on to them to back up want they want to believe. Truly pitiful
We disagree on many things. But, on this, I'm afraid I agree wholeheartedly with you. Perfectly articulated!
And Leavers will not forget the Liberal Democrats refusing to respect their vote
The shiny new Lib Dem’s stood on a platform of respecting the vote last time, only to vote it down every time.
You're still talking bollocks, aren't you? Have you ever bothered to read what platform people stood on? It's not just "Whatever isam wants to say it is"
Alright touchy, no need for bad language. Apologise at your leisure, I wont hold it against you
Other than the fact the majority now want to remain?
Haha that’s not a fact anymore than it was a fact that Clinton would win 2016 and Theresa May would get a three figure majority in 2017.
Polls aren’t real life
Well it's either true or it's false. The best evidence we have is that it's true, but I know a way to prove it either way.
Yes, the way to prove it is to have a majority at an election pledging a new referendum. Short of that there's no mandate for a new referendum.
Someone has already argued that winning a majority in parliament is still not a mandate to overturn the referendum because GEs are fought on many topics. So no new referendum ever.
But, as has been noted previously, the original referendum was held on the promise that it would be easy, that we would hold all the cards, and that it would be a land of milk and honey and everyone naysaying was just part of Project Fear. Well, now that has been proven wrong, people may have changed their minds.
Personally, I think a GE (post Oct 31st) would be preferable, and should the Conservatives not win a majority / be able to form a government then a 2nd referendum should be called. If the Conservatives do win a majority / can govern, and if the House approves a deal, or indeed, no deal, I will not be happy, but what can you do. If the nation votes for self immolation at a GE we can't but try and survive it as individuals.
Last GE 8th June 2017. PArliament returned for QS on 21st June 2017. FTPA expires in 2020. Five year term to 20th June 2022. 25 working days later. GE held on Monday 25th July 2022.
You heard it here first. Bet accordingly.
That is not accurate. Under the terms of the FTPA a General Election is held in the first Thursday in May - which means that beginning of May 2022 is last date for a GE.
Other than the fact the majority now want to remain?
Haha that’s not a fact anymore than it was a fact that Clinton would win 2016 and Theresa May would get a three figure majority in 2017.
Polls aren’t real life
Well it's either true or it's false. The best evidence we have is that it's true, but I know a way to prove it either way.
Yes, the way to prove it is to have a majority at an election pledging a new referendum. Short of that there's no mandate for a new referendum.
Someone has already argued that winning a majority in parliament is still not a mandate to overturn the referendum because GEs are fought on many topics. So no new referendum ever.
But, as has been noted previously, the original referendum was held on the promise that it would be easy, that we would hold all the cards, and that it would be a land of milk and honey and everyone naysaying was just part of Project Fear. Well, now that has been proven wrong, people may have changed their minds.
Personally, I think a GE (post Oct 31st) would be preferable, and should the Conservatives not win a majority / be able to form a government then a 2nd referendum should be called. If the Conservatives do win a majority / can govern, and if the House approves a deal, or indeed, no deal, I will not be happy, but what can you do. If the nation votes for self immolation at a GE we can't but try and survive it as individuals.
Winning a majority IMHO is insufficient to overturn the referendum, but would be sufficient to get a mandate to hold a new referendum. The Tories had to win a majority prior to having the original referendum.
Though in principle any referendum should preferably be not until after the old one has been implemented, ie a rejoin referendum post-Brexit - but if a majority at an election is won by parties wanting a new referendum then I would respect that.
How oddtypical of twitter, I'm in a conversation on twitter where someone has made the (Oft made) error of claiming Norway was in the Customs Union.
The most "liked" replyis the one where he claims Norway voted to go into the CU after their referendum even though he acknowledges his error in the next reply !
"I will be a very different kind of prime minister, one who is prepared to limit my own power in the public interest. So that’s why a Labour government will introduce a War Powers Bill to ensure no prime minister can bypass parliament to take the country to war."
Corbyn thinking about his legacy here. I'd imagine if he could get that act through he'd be absolutely delighted.
The US president cannot deploy US forces overseas beyond 60 days without approval from Congress under the War Powers Act
Exquisite though Thornton Manor is, why exactly are Johnson and Varadkar meeting there?
My guess is Liverpool was seen as the closest thing to neutral ground in the British Isles as both leaders want to avoid the optics of going to the other's capital. But the City of Liverpool proper is too problematic in terms of street protest and Johnson's record at the Spectator. So the Wirral as a Merseyside borough is Liverpool but isn't. A compromise within a compromise.
Comments
Edit: plus the public is allowed to change its mind.
The 1979 Scotland Referendum. - Scottish independence still unresolved, bar set prior to the referendum taking place.
The 2014 Swiss Immigration Referendum - According to wiki this one has had a "soft" implementation
A democrat.
Why can’t they just be honest? It’s unjustifiable to have another referendum, but they want another go cause they lost. It doesn’t make them Adolf Hitler. But they have such a high opinion of themselves they have to be seen as morally pure as well as right about everything.
Polls aren’t real life. Leavers weren’t calling for immediate referendums because polls had us ahead in 2014, why are they such an arbiter of what we should do as a country now? Theyre just the thoughts of a group of nerds desperate to tell people what they think about politics, not the view of the country
We dont change PM every time a new party leads opinion polls, nor do we instantly go to elections to test the theory
The same wankery as people who bleat about legitimacy every time a government is elected they oppose.
Why should this people's vote be any more final than the last one? And if its not, why bother?
As for future referendums on the subject, it's not for me to tell people not to want one. You're free, should remain win a new referendum, to advocate for another. That's the democratic process.
Pity the Leave campaign told lies and broke the funding rules
It is far too late to send UK forces to intervene now the Turkish invasion has started; in those terms, it is also too late for the US to do so, were Trump to change his mind on a whim.
As you appear unwilling or unable to answer my question, I have done so for you:
https://time.com/5694605/trumps-retreat-syria-cost-lives/
To understand the reason for the additional strategic risk, one has to understand the nature of the successful American military operation against ISIS. Unlike American offensives during much of the Iraq War — when hundreds (and sometimes thousands) of American troops would conduct complex and costly urban military operations with minimal effective help from Iraqi allies — during the fight against ISIS, our allies have largely born the burden of ground combat. Yes, they’ve enjoyed the indispensable support of American artillery and air power, and small groups of American soldiers have rendered aid and engaged in direct combat as well, but our allies have been going house-to-house and have paid a terrible price. By some estimates, as many as 11,000 Kurds have lost their lives in the fight against ISIS — a staggering death toll borne by a relatively small population.
The result — from an American perspective — has been one of the most successful military operations in a generation. The ISIS caliphate, which once dominated a nation-state sized region covering much of northern Syria and northern Iraq, is now in ruins. ISIS isn’t entirely defeated, but it’s a shadow of its former strength. And the cost in American lives has been a small fraction of the cost incurred in even a single battle of the Iraq War. For example, America suffered almost 700 casualties (82 killed) during the Second Battle of Fallujah. The nation has suffered far fewer casualties during the entire fight against ISIS, stretching from June 2014 until the present day....
It is usually four or five years between general elections but sometimes much less. Depending on the circumstances.
Can I also have a write in on the Conservative & Unionist party also being a racist party?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Sedgwick
Missing games in the Cricket world cup round robin had far less of an impact due to the fact each team could establish its true place with far more games.
* Anywhere on the islands would do.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/national_general_election/
UK troops were withdrawn from Syria and Iraq years ago, if we were so determined to keep the peace there and protect Kurds even after IS was defeated we should never have withdrawn them and I repeat it is hypocrisy of the highest order to lecture Trump on this while we do not have British boots on the ground in Syria.
If the Kurds did the brunt of the fighting against IS in Syria and proved successful I also see no reason they cannot hold off the Turks from most of their territory either
- thinking that extension will damage Boris enough to give him a shot at staging another 2017 election campaign, and maybe ending up as PM in a coalition?
- saying he wants an election when he actually doesn’t and won’t follow through?
- bored of the whole damn thing and keen on going out in a (metaphorical) blaze of glory?
Clinton better hope those 33,000 emails were properly deleted.
However it is Biden 51% Trump 44% with the same pollster
Have you ever bothered to read what platform people stood on? It's not just "Whatever isam wants to say it is"
"The fact that the Kurds held off a rag-tag band of maniacs with the help of Western air power, materiel and training means they should be able to stop a large nation state with a huge standing army and a common border."
I've had enough: I thought you were one-eyed and disingenuous, but it appears you are just thick as frozen mince.
But this is an epochal, fundamental change in our national life that will affect us all for generations to come; the side that "won" have been convicted of electoral fraud, the country is riven, the best estimates are that it will *never* have an economic benefit, and there will be decades of constitutional and democratic fall-out even if we "get it done" and "leave" on 31st October.
Another plebiscite may at least give cover to the parliamentarians who, on the whole, don't want to leave, thus allowing some of the more hypocritical members to adopt a public position closer to their private one. It will also ratify the fact that the country is wholly divided.
So goodness knows how we come back from here. My guess is "not while people who were able to vote in 2016 are still alive".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9yl3_EprVI
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/chuka-umunna-remain-campaigners-must-drop-calls-for-new-brexit-vote-a3410601.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39942573
Otherwise I find it contemptible you are willing to let American servicemen die to protect the Kurds but not British servicemen
Umunna, Allen, Soubry, Wollaston and many more said they'd respect the result, voted against the deal, and now want a rerun
The fact that they are obstructing the process by saying they will refuse to comply with subpoenas is, I believe, a serious criminal offence. Or at least if they actually follow through on that "promise". They have calculated that this will be less damaging than actually having a process rumble on for a few months where the public gets to watch testimony where the witnesses are forced to either admit wrongdoing or commit perjury live on television.
The White House is probably correct in that this will be less damaging, but the American public will balk at it and the GOP are still set for a heavy defeat next year.
He is so far in the tank that defending the indefensible doesn't adequately describe it.
I have better things to do this afternoon.
https://electionleaflets.org/leaflets/full/83984/
Corbyn thinking about his legacy here. I'd imagine if he could get that act through he'd be absolutely delighted.
if he suggests Corbyn, then Corbyn becomes PM. If corbyn can't win a confidence vote, then theres a GE.
So Boris would be stupid to resign as PM, as Corbyn would then become PM.
Danger here it would scupper our armed forces doing anything at all, covert or otherwise.
https://electionleaflets.org/leaflets/13855/
I seem to recall many leavers on here assuring us the Corbyn was one of them at heart and would ensure that the UK left with no deal. Another leaver nostrum that has been proved to be false.
https://twitter.com/JoshHalliday/status/1182259779005222912
And in general terms Boris has changed the Constitution by provoking the Supreme Court into creating both a threshold and a device for void use of the preogative. If you read the judgement carefully it's exactly how the Supreme Court would void a state of emergency under the CCA for example.
So all these prerogatives will be looked at by the next non Conservative government. It's inevitable. Indeed after this FTPA spat the prerogative to set the GE date will be included as well.
https://twitter.com/MehreenKhn/status/1182268757013647360
They have failed.
And their failure has poisoned our politics and our society.
Another referendum is the very least we should do.
No need to overthink it.
But, as has been noted previously, the original referendum was held on the promise that it would be easy, that we would hold all the cards, and that it would be a land of milk and honey and everyone naysaying was just part of Project Fear. Well, now that has been proven wrong, people may have changed their minds.
Personally, I think a GE (post Oct 31st) would be preferable, and should the Conservatives not win a majority / be able to form a government then a 2nd referendum should be called. If the Conservatives do win a majority / can govern, and if the House approves a deal, or indeed, no deal, I will not be happy, but what can you do. If the nation votes for self immolation at a GE we can't but try and survive it as individuals.
Though in principle any referendum should preferably be not until after the old one has been implemented, ie a rejoin referendum post-Brexit - but if a majority at an election is won by parties wanting a new referendum then I would respect that.
oddtypical of twitter, I'm in a conversation on twitter where someone has made the (Oft made) error of claiming Norway was in the Customs Union.The most "liked" reply is the one where he claims Norway voted to go into the CU after their referendum even though he acknowledges his error in the next reply !