Flash of delight, sure, and maybe a chuckle or two but the deep and lasting effect is that you've been cheated. The thing that seemed so profound turned out to be a nothing - worse than this it turned out to be a great big fraud.
It was a great big fraud from the beginning. At this point the attempt to deliver something called Brexit is primarily a way of allowing those who spent years campaigning for it to save face.
The deal is leaving. You have lost sight of the woods in amongst the trees.
Both main parties agreed to honour the result
The choice should be how we leave not revisit the decision to leave.
It would be a democratic outrage to exclude an option that is currently far more popular than either of the Leave options and quite possibly more popular than both put together.
More to the point, what is an outrage or not is irrelevant: what matters is what might get through parliament.
I saw you patiently yesterday afternoon trying to explain to people how to count, without success. I wasn't going to repeat that mistake today.
The deal is leaving. You have lost sight of the woods in amongst the trees.
Both main parties agreed to honour the result
The choice should be how we leave not revisit the decision to leave.
It would be a democratic outrage to exclude an option that is currently far more popular than either of the Leave options and quite possibly more popular than both put together.
More to the point, what is an outrage or not is irrelevant: what matters is what might get through parliament.
Neither May nor Corbyn seem particularly keen on another referendum !
The deal is leaving. You have lost sight of the woods in amongst the trees.
Both main parties agreed to honour the result
The choice should be how we leave not revisit the decision to leave.
It would be a democratic outrage to exclude an option that is currently far more popular than either of the Leave options and quite possibly more popular than both put together.
More to the point, what is an outrage or not is irrelevant: what matters is what might get through parliament.
Neither May nor Corbyn seem particularly keen on another referendum !
No, and to be fair to both of them, they are right. But it might be the only way out.
The deal is leaving. You have lost sight of the woods in amongst the trees.
Both main parties agreed to honour the result
The choice should be how we leave not revisit the decision to leave.
It would be a democratic outrage to exclude an option that is currently far more popular than either of the Leave options and quite possibly more popular than both put together.
More to the point, what is an outrage or not is irrelevant: what matters is what might get through parliament.
Neither May nor Corbyn seem particularly keen on another referendum !
No, and to be fair to both of them, they are right. But it might be the only way out.
The risk the Tiggers have is that by "cleansing" the two main parties of the most extreme Remainers it opens up another option. An election starts to look viable as the die hard Remainers won't survive a General Election.
Sorry if this has been covered but I'd missed this .... Corbyn hides behind process rather than express a view and the trademark look away gives away his usual temper flash... I must admit I wasn't sure who the 'he' was in the tweet as might have been Jezza himself?
He seemed quite pleased about Galloway standing and winning against Labour in 2012;
There were congratulations for Mr Galloway from Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn who, like his former party colleague, has been a strong opponent of the Iraqi and Afghan campaigns. "Congratulations to George Galloway on astonishing result in Bradford. Big message here on opposition to wars and austerity," he wrote on Twitter.
The deal is leaving. You have lost sight of the woods in amongst the trees.
Both main parties agreed to honour the result
The choice should be how we leave not revisit the decision to leave.
It would be a democratic outrage to exclude an option that is currently far more popular than either of the Leave options and quite possibly more popular than both put together.
More to the point, what is an outrage or not is irrelevant: what matters is what might get through parliament.
Neither May nor Corbyn seem particularly keen on another referendum !
No, and to be fair to both of them, they are right. But it might be the only way out.
Is it ? The public are clear - it's the MPs that seem confused - better solution would be a GE.
Added bonus is whoever wins the GE gets to implement their policy and live with it.
(With apologies to the Lib Dem activist who I pinched this off...)
Two trot factions meeting in a hall Two trot factions meeting in a hall And if one trot faction should start an ugly brawl There’ll be three trot factions meeting in a hall
What a huge mess this all is. A second referendum being talked about by Bradshaw ET AL will not solve anything. Its to be avoided at all costs. Suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48.. What then?/ Chaos and a Country completely split. We have to leave on the best terms possible.. There is NO other workable option (I am a Remainer)
That's a circular argument: "Suppose the second referendum doesn't settle anything, then it won't have settled anything."
We have chaos and a country completely split now, so a course of action that offers the possibility of resolving it is better than a course of action that is certain not to.
How will it settle it..
Your premise was "suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48". Suppose it wasn't... Suppose it was 53/47 to ratify the deal. Suppose it was 56/44 to Remain.
There are a large number of plausible outcomes that make the situation substantially worse. For example: - Deal vs Remain, 40:60, turnout below 60% - Deal vs No Deal vs Remain, Remain wins off second preferences with less than 50% of all votes cast - Deal vs No Deal, any win for No Deal
Also there's no guarantee that MPs will agree to ratify the Deal even if it wins.
I believe your view is that No Deal can't possibly be allowed to be on the ballot paper, but there a without a lengthy judicial process.
We've been through this before. No Deal can't possibly be on the ballot paper because the details of what wouldn't be allowed would be too complicated to list. No side deal with the EU on widgetwould literally be indescribable.
The only way it could be done would be with a choice of: a) Remain in the EU on current terms, b) Leave the EU on the terms of Mrs M's deal, c) Neither of the above. With c) effectively giving the government a free hand.
But I don't think such an absurd proposition would ever be allowed anywhere near the voters.
Deal:Remain
That's the only possible choice.
No, it really isn't
It is the preferred choice of some who do not want to leave.
The deal is leaving. You have lost sight of the woods in amongst the trees.
Both main parties agreed to honour the result
The choice should be how we leave not revisit the decision to leave.
(With apologies to the Lib Dem activist who I pinched this off...)
Two trot factions meeting in a hall Two trot factions meeting in a hall And if one trot faction should start an ugly brawl There’ll be three trot factions meeting in a hall
The deal is leaving. You have lost sight of the woods in amongst the trees.
Both main parties agreed to honour the result
The choice should be how we leave not revisit the decision to leave.
It would be a democratic outrage to exclude an option that is currently far more popular than either of the Leave options and quite possibly more popular than both put together.
More to the point, what is an outrage or not is irrelevant: what matters is what might get through parliament.
Neither May nor Corbyn seem particularly keen on another referendum !
No, and to be fair to both of them, they are right. But it might be the only way out.
The risk the Tiggers have is that by "cleansing" the two main parties of the most extreme Remainers it opens up another option. An election starts to look viable as the die hard Remainers won't survive a General Election.
No, because the Tory party would split irrevocably if Theresa May tried to call an election on a platform of crashing out. it would also split, albeit with less damage in the long term, if she called it on a platform of excluding no deal. In any case, there's no time.
"No, and to be fair to both of them, they are right. But it might be the only way out."
So what would the question be? We're going in circles here? Remainers will only accept a question which ignores the result of the referendum we've already had. If you do that, why should anyone vote anyway?
No "Oh, we had our fingers crossed behind our backs when we promised to honour the first one" from MPs will cut any ice.
Fool me once, more fool you. Fool me twice, more fool me. There's an awful lot of resentment out there to damp down.
Yeah, I totally agree with all that. I just don't see how a referendum that leaves out an option that a large and vocal minority of people and MPs want, could possibly make our situation better.
My view is that a second referendum is therefore impossible (for this and other reasons).
It is impossible, but perhaps less impossible than any alternative. Of course the simple way out is for parliament to ratify the current deal, and maybe they eventually will, but if they don't, what alternative is there other than another referendum?
Unilateral revocation, and No Deal. Both of which are also impossible.
Constitutional question: what happens if Theresa May just unilaterally signs the deal without approval from Parliament? Obviously she gets No Confidenced, but does the Deal stand?
No, and even if parliament votes for the deal in a meaningful vote, we could still end up leaving with no deal if they don't also pass the legislation (which the government hasn't even published yet).
Not a constitutional question after all, because I forgot about the need for legislation. Thanks
I suppose Corbyn did have the choice of emulating Kinnock and leading the Party from the left back to the centre but that was never going to happen. To thine own self be true as the saying goes.
TIG Is a splinter group and so is the anti-Corbyn faction at this time but the reluctance of Corbyn to back a second vote (and we all know why) has left the party fragmented.
Strangely I am with Corbyn on a second vote. It's obfuscation as is a GE - we are down to the WDA with all its imperfections, a No Deal with all its confusions or a Revocation with all its recriminations.
Agreed. No Deal cannot be there (for Topping reasons) but it must be there if the Referendum is to have legitimacy. Thus no Ref.
And I can make many more technical arguments in that vein as to why REF2 is a terrible idea.
But the main reason (for me) is nothing to do with all of that detail. It is because REF1 was such a seismic event in our national life. It galvanized the country. Everyone got involved, it was just so important and massive and incredibly big. Most of all it was authentic.
When something like this takes place it is essential that it is not subsequently devalued.
For example, when the result came in I was shattered. I then had to find a way to live with it and I have. It was a landmark experience as I'm sure it was for others on both sides.
To junk it and do a re-run would be to invalidate that experience. It would be like being with a dear friend at the end, grieving for him, going to the funeral, afterwards slowly coming to terms with it and finally valuing the sad event and the coping process as an essential part of one's own life, and then a year or so later you find out that the old bastard had faked it and he's alive and living it up on the Costa del Sol.
Flash of delight, sure, and maybe a chuckle or two but the deep and lasting effect is that you've been cheated. The thing that seemed so profound turned out to be a nothing - worse than this it turned out to be a great big fraud.
That would be what REF2 would do. It cannot and must not happen.
If the argument used for REF2 was this is the final deal, it's the best we can do, do you want to accept it or not? Then you are not disrespecting or cheating anyone by asking the question again, you are simply asking for confirmation of the deal.
However its impossible to work out what needs to be on the other side of May's Deal and that I think makes any referendum impossible - as there are people who clearly don't know enough or care enough about the consequences of No Deal for anyone sane to keep it on the agenda.
You cannot have NO DEAL as a positive choice on the ballot - since it is insufficiently describable other than 'disaster' - but you COULD have a simple Ratify the Deal, Yes or No.
Where 'Yes' means we leave with the Deal and 'No' is back to the impasse.
Drawback is that only the Yes resolves the matter. Also unlikely that parliament would approve this formulation.
So in practice a binary Deal vs Remain is the only likely format - for this 2nd referendum that is not in any event going to happen.
The deal is leaving. You have lost sight of the woods in amongst the trees.
Both main parties agreed to honour the result
The choice should be how we leave not revisit the decision to leave.
It would be a democratic outrage to exclude an option that is currently far more popular than either of the Leave options and quite possibly more popular than both put together.
More to the point, what is an outrage or not is irrelevant: what matters is what might get through parliament.
Neither May nor Corbyn seem particularly keen on another referendum !
No, and to be fair to both of them, they are right. But it might be the only way out.
The risk the Tiggers have is that by "cleansing" the two main parties of the most extreme Remainers it opens up another option. An election starts to look viable as the die hard Remainers won't survive a General Election.
No, because the Tory party would split irrevocably if Theresa May tried to call an election on a platform of crashing out. it would also split, albeit with less damage in the long term, if she called it on a platform of excluding no deal. In any case, there's no time.
If she sought a Malthouse compromise style mandate that is possible. Nearly half the extreme MPs who rejected the Brady amendment have gone now from the party and would be replaced at an election.
The bigger problem is who would trust May at an election? But if she goes and a new leader seeks a mandate for a compromise then that is viable. Unlikely but viable.
"No, and to be fair to both of them, they are right. But it might be the only way out."
So what would the question be? We're going in circles here? Remainers will only accept a question which ignores the result of the referendum we've already had. If you do that, why should anyone vote anyway?
No "Oh, we had our fingers crossed behind our backs when we promised to honour the first one" from MPs will cut any ice.
Fool me once, more fool you. Fool me twice, more fool me. There's an awful lot of resentment out there to damp down.
It's very simple. There are basically three options. The least damaging is to leave with the deal. The absolute worst, so bad that it is not even conceivable that any responsible government could contemplate it, is to crash out in chaos. The third, which as you say would provoke a lot of resentment, is a Deal-Remain referendum. The latter is certainly a very bad option, but if the best option can't get past parliament, it's the next best alternative which has a chance (perhaps) of getting through parliament.
"No, and to be fair to both of them, they are right. But it might be the only way out."
So what would the question be? We're going in circles here? Remainers will only accept a question which ignores the result of the referendum we've already had. If you do that, why should anyone vote anyway?
No "Oh, we had our fingers crossed behind our backs when we promised to honour the first one" from MPs will cut any ice.
Fool me once, more fool you. Fool me twice, more fool me. There's an awful lot of resentment out there to damp down.
Isn't there an on=line petition with 300,000 or so 'signatures' calling for a No Deal, Walk Away on March 29th. How that works I'm not sure, but that's not the point.
That's a circular argument: "settle anything, then it won't have settled anything."
We have chaos not to.
How will it settle it..
Your premise was "suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48". Suppose it wasn't... Suppose it was 53/47 to ratify the deal. Suppose it was 56/44 to Remain.
There are a large number of plausible outcomes that make the situation substantially worse. For example: - Deal vs Remain, 40:60, turnout below 60% - Deal vs No Deal vs Remain, Remain wins off second preferences with less than 50% of all votes cast - Deal vs No Deal, any win for No Deal
Also there's no guarantee that MPs will agree to ratify the Deal even if it wins.
I believe your view is that No Deal can't possibly be allowed to be on the ballot paper, but there a without a lengthy judicial process.
We've been through this before. No Deal can't possibly be on the ballot paper because the details of what wouldn't be allowed would be too complicated to list. No side deal with the EU on widgetwould literally be indescribable.
The only way it could be done would be with a choice of: a) Remain in the EU on current terms, b) Leave the EU on the terms of Mrs M's deal, c) Neither of the above. With c) effectively giving the government a free hand.
But I don't think such an absurd proposition would ever be allowed anywhere near the voters.
Deal:Remain
That's the only possible choice.
No, it really isn't
It is the preferred choice of some who do not want to leave.
The deal is leaving. You have lost sight of the woods in amongst the trees.
Both main parties agreed to honour the result
The choice should be how we leave not revisit the decision to leave.
Yawn
Right back at ya
The remarkable thing is that voters saw through all the noise and worked out that voting Labour to deprive TMay of her majority was the best way of throwing a spanner into Brexit. And, whatever the politicians might have said, they were right.
I suppose Corbyn did have the choice of emulating Kinnock and leading the Party from the left back to the centre but that was never going to happen. To thine own self be true as the saying goes.
TIG Is a splinter group and so is the anti-Corbyn faction at this time but the reluctance of Corbyn to back a second vote (and we all know why) has left the party fragmented.
Strangely I am with Corbyn on a second vote. It's obfuscation as is a GE - we are down to the WDA with all its imperfections, a No Deal with all its confusions or a Revocation with all its recriminations.
I see no outcome which does not put large stresses on the two major parties.
That's a circular argument: "settle anything, then it won't have settled anything."
We have chaos not to.
How will it settle it..
Your premise was "suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48". Suppose it wasn't... Suppose it was 53/47 to ratify the deal. Suppose it was 56/44 to Remain.
There are a large number of plausible outcomes that make the situation substantially worse. For example: - Deal vs Remain, 40:60, turnout below 60% - Deal vs No Deal vs Remain, Remain wins off second preferences with less than 50% of all votes cast - Deal vs No Deal, any win for No Deal
Also there's no guarantee that MPs will agree to ratify the Deal even if it wins.
I believe your view is that No Deal can't possibly be allowed to be on the ballot paper, but there a without a lengthy judicial process.
We've been through this before. No Deal can't possibly be on the ballot paper because the details of what wouldn't be allowed would be too complicated to list. No side deal with the EU on widgetwould literally be indescribable.
The only way it could be done would be with a choice of: a) Remain in the EU on current terms, b) Leave the EU on the terms of Mrs M's deal, c) Neither of the above. With c) effectively giving the government a free hand.
But I don't think such an absurd proposition would ever be allowed anywhere near the voters.
Deal:Remain
That's the only possible choice.
No, it really isn't
It is the preferred choice of some who do not want to leave.
The deal is leaving. You have lost sight of the woods in amongst the trees.
Both main parties agreed to honour the result
The choice should be how we leave not revisit the decision to leave.
Yawn
Right back at ya
The remarkable thing is that voters saw through all the noise and worked out that voting Labour to deprive TMay of her majority was the best way of throwing a spanner into Brexit. And, whatever the politicians might have said, they were right.
Did they really do that though, or were they more interested in domestic policies?
That's a circular argument: "settle anything, then it won't have settled anything."
We have chaos not to.
How will it settle it..
Your premise was "suppose the second ref was to remain by 52/48". Suppose it wasn't... Suppose it was 53/47 to ratify the deal. Suppose it was 56/44 to Remain.
Th - Deal vs No Deal, any win for No Deal
Also there's no guarantee that MPs will agree to ratify the Deal even if it wins.
I believe your view is that No Deal can't possibly be allowed to be on the ballot paper, but there a without a lengthy judicial process.
We've been through this before. No Deal can't possibly be on the ballot paper because the details of what wouldn't be allowed would be too complicated to list. No side deal with the EU on widgetwould literally be indescribable.
The only way it could be done would be with a choice of: a) Remain in the EU on current terms, b) Leave the EU on the terms of Mrs M's deal, c) Neither of the above. With c) effectively giving the government a free hand.
But I don't think such an absurd proposition would ever be allowed anywhere near the voters.
Deal:Remain
That's the only possible choice.
No, it really isn't
It is the preferred choice of some who do not want to leave.
The deal is leaving. You have lost sight of the woods in amongst the trees.
Both main parties agreed to honour the result
The choice should be how we leave not revisit the decision to leave.
Yawn
Right back at ya
The remarkable thing is that voters saw through all the noise and worked out that voting Labour to deprive TMay of her majority was the best way of throwing a spanner into Brexit. And, whatever the politicians might have said, they were right.
oh - I thought it was because Jezza was great on campaign and not only was Tezza utterly shite they cane out with a utterly self destructive manifesto.
But hey ho - the result sure made things more complicated.
You cannot have NO DEAL as a positive choice on the ballot - since it is insufficiently describable other than 'disaster' - but you COULD have a simple Ratify the Deal, Yes or No.
Where 'Yes' means we leave with the Deal and 'No' is back to the impasse.
Drawback is that only the Yes resolves the matter. Also unlikely that parliament would approve this formulation.
So in practice a binary Deal vs Remain is the only likely format - for this 2nd referendum that is not in any event going to happen.
Too many posters here are keener to tell us what, in their very partial opinions, *should* happen, rather than calmly analyse those things that are likely to happen.
It was a great big fraud from the beginning. At this point the attempt to deliver something called Brexit is primarily a way of allowing those who spent years campaigning for it to save face.
The 2016 referendum wasn't a fraud. It was simply a terrible idea.
It was a great big fraud from the beginning. At this point the attempt to deliver something called Brexit is primarily a way of allowing those who spent years campaigning for it to save face.
The 2016 referendum wasn't a fraud. It was simply a terrible idea.
Let's not double down by doing it again.
You are devaluing it right there. How dare you call something so precious to so many people "a terrible idea"!
It was a great big fraud from the beginning. At this point the attempt to deliver something called Brexit is primarily a way of allowing those who spent years campaigning for it to save face.
The 2016 referendum wasn't a fraud. It was simply a terrible idea.
Let's not double down by doing it again.
I guarantee that he wouldn’t be calling it a fraud if Remain had won 52:48. It’d have been confirmation that the public were wholly behind further integration.
"No, and to be fair to both of them, they are right. But it might be the only way out."
So what would the question be? We're going in circles here? Remainers will only accept a question which ignores the result of the referendum we've already had. If you do that, why should anyone vote anyway?
No "Oh, we had our fingers crossed behind our backs when we promised to honour the first one" from MPs will cut any ice.
Fool me once, more fool you. Fool me twice, more fool me. There's an awful lot of resentment out there to damp down.
It's very simple. There are basically three options. The least damaging is to leave with the deal. The absolute worst, so bad that it is not even conceivable that any responsible government could contemplate it, is to crash out in chaos. The third, which as you say would provoke a lot of resentment, is a Deal-Remain referendum. The latter is certainly a very bad option, but if the best option can't get past parliament, it's the next best alternative which has a chance (perhaps) of getting through parliament.
You do realise that both sides are putting in plans - including preparing and passing laws to facilitate trade in the event of a "no deal"?
The remarkable thing is that voters saw through all the noise and worked out that voting Labour to deprive TMay of her majority was the best way of throwing a spanner into Brexit. And, whatever the politicians might have said, they were right.
Did they really do that though, or were they more interested in domestic policies?
I certainly know people who did. Direct quote on the morning after the election from a first time Labour voter: "I don't care what happens, as long as Brexit doesn't".
"No, and to be fair to both of them, they are right. But it might be the only way out."
So what would the question be? We're going in circles here? Remainers will only accept a question which ignores the result of the referendum we've already had. If you do that, why should anyone vote anyway?
No "Oh, we had our fingers crossed behind our backs when we promised to honour the first one" from MPs will cut any ice.
Fool me once, more fool you. Fool me twice, more fool me. There's an awful lot of resentment out there to damp down.
It's very simple. There are basically three options. The least damaging is to leave with the deal. The absolute worst, so bad that it is not even conceivable that any responsible government could contemplate it, is to crash out in chaos. The third, which as you say would provoke a lot of resentment, is a Deal-Remain referendum. The latter is certainly a very bad option, but if the best option can't get past parliament, it's the next best alternative which has a chance (perhaps) of getting through parliament.
You do realise that both sides are putting in plans - including preparing and passing laws to facilitate trade in the event of a "no deal"?
Of course. They will each do what they can to mitigate the damage to their own economies. But they can't do very much.
If the argument used for REF2 was this is the final deal, it's the best we can do, do you want to accept it or not? Then you are not disrespecting or cheating anyone by asking the question again, you are simply asking for confirmation of the deal.
However its impossible to work out what needs to be on the other side of May's Deal and that I think makes any referendum impossible - as there are people who clearly don't know enough or care enough about the consequences of No Deal for anyone sane to keep it on the agenda.
I disagree with para 1. Parliament trashing the Deal and then asking the people, "It's terrible, are you sure you wouldn't rather Remain?" is highly disrespectful to the original referendum.
But I agree with para 2. No formulation in any case works.
"No, and to be fair to both of them, they are right. But it might be the only way out."
So what would the question be? We're going in circles here? Remainers will only accept a question which ignores the result of the referendum we've already had. If you do that, why should anyone vote anyway?
No "Oh, we had our fingers crossed behind our backs when we promised to honour the first one" from MPs will cut any ice.
Fool me once, more fool you. Fool me twice, more fool me. There's an awful lot of resentment out there to damp down.
It's very simple. There are basically three options. The least damaging is to leave with the deal. The absolute worst, so bad that it is not even conceivable that any responsible government could contemplate it, is to crash out in chaos. The third, which as you say would provoke a lot of resentment, is a Deal-Remain referendum. The latter is certainly a very bad option, but if the best option can't get past parliament, it's the next best alternative which has a chance (perhaps) of getting through parliament.
Hasn't the government spent a not inconsiderable sum of money preparing for no deal?
Although there are cabinet ministers not happy about it I think it's fair to say that government policy is to leave the EU, come what may, on March 29th, but hopefully to do so with a deal.
Too many posters here are keener to tell us what, in their very partial opinions, *should* happen, rather than calmly analyse those things that are likely to happen.
Yes. But for betting one has to be as objective as one possibly can. Can be hard to do with politics of course.
Can be quite hard to do with anything, let's face it.
If the argument used for REF2 was this is the final deal, it's the best we can do, do you want to accept it or not? Then you are not disrespecting or cheating anyone by asking the question again, you are simply asking for confirmation of the deal.
However its impossible to work out what needs to be on the other side of May's Deal and that I think makes any referendum impossible - as there are people who clearly don't know enough or care enough about the consequences of No Deal for anyone sane to keep it on the agenda.
I disagree with para 1. Parliament trashing the Deal and then asking the people, "It's terrible, are you sure you wouldn't rather Remain?" is highly disrespectful to the original referendum.
But I agree with para 2. No formulation in any case works.
Either way, detail or big picture, REF2 stinks.
Parliament trashing the deal is nothing to do with the deal itself. There is a Deal - the fact most MPs have trashed it doesn't stop it being an option in a referendum - it might however make it hard for your average MP to campaign for it.
However perhaps your average MP should have thought things through a bit more as we are now 5 weeks away from March 29th and we still don't have a plan 325 MPs agree upon...
Interesting wording to that Patrick Wintour tweet. It suggests that these are not proto-TIGgers but independent Labourites.
Their demands sound indistinguishable from those of the TIGgers, though.
Edit: Maybe they just don't want to be associated with the Tory defectors.
I suspect they're further Ian Austins, whose constituencies/backgrounds are more Dudley than Streatham/South Cambs. Oldish-school Labour moderates in working class areas who haven't got time for Corbyn's Palestinian mates or knitting your own falafel, but nor will they go to the wall for Remain.
I wonder if we're in for a game of Mike Reid's Runaround*... everyone chooses their own People's Front of Judea variant for the next couple of weeks, and then has a chance to change their answer when they've seen how popular each one is.
*Or maybe it's Love Island. Or speed-dating. Or dogs sniffing each other's arses.
Kermode and Mayo might be irritating at times but at least they can be entertaining and Kermode has seen a lot of films. Edith Bowman and Clarisse Loughrey are not only dismal critics but I'm starting to doubt that they've even seen the films they're critiquing.
"No, and to be fair to both of them, they are right. But it might be the only way out."
So what would the question be? We're going in circles here? Remainers will only accept a question which ignores the result of the referendum we've already had. If you do that, why should anyone vote anyway?
No "Oh, we had our fingers crossed behind our backs when we promised to honour the first one" from MPs will cut any ice.
Fool me once, more fool you. Fool me twice, more fool me. There's an awful lot of resentment out there to damp down.
It's very simple. There are basically three options. The least damaging is to leave with the deal. The absolute worst, so bad that it is not even conceivable that any responsible government could contemplate it, is to crash out in chaos. The third, which as you say would provoke a lot of resentment, is a Deal-Remain referendum. The latter is certainly a very bad option, but if the best option can't get past parliament, it's the next best alternative which has a chance (perhaps) of getting through parliament.
Hasn't the government spent a not inconsiderable sum of money preparing for no deal?
Although there are cabinet ministers not happy about it I think it's fair to say that government policy is to leave the EU, come what may, on March 29th, but hopefully to do so with a deal.
You only have to contemplate what would happen if Remain won by a narrow margin on a 2nd vote to see that unfortunately there is only one serious option, and that is TMs deal. To be fair to TM this is exactly what she is offering and if anyone else has got a better idea that won't make things a lot worse perhaps we could hear what it is.
If the argument used for REF2 was this is the final deal, it's the best we can do, do you want to accept it or not? Then you are not disrespecting or cheating anyone by asking the question again, you are simply asking for confirmation of the deal.
However its impossible to work out what needs to be on the other side of May's Deal and that I think makes any referendum impossible - as there are people who clearly don't know enough or care enough about the consequences of No Deal for anyone sane to keep it on the agenda.
I disagree with para 1. Parliament trashing the Deal and then asking the people, "It's terrible, are you sure you wouldn't rather Remain?" is highly disrespectful to the original referendum.
But I agree with para 2. No formulation in any case works.
Either way, detail or big picture, REF2 stinks.
I can never see the word "respect" these days without a. mentally adding the word "innit" and b. thinking of G Galloway, but leaving that aside why would you respect an abstract thing like a referendum result, rather than the people behind it, and why would trusting them to be able to change their minds when the facts change not be respecting them?
You cannot have NO DEAL as a positive choice on the ballot - since it is insufficiently describable other than 'disaster' - but you COULD have a simple Ratify the Deal, Yes or No.
Where 'Yes' means we leave with the Deal and 'No' is back to the impasse.
Drawback is that only the Yes resolves the matter. Also unlikely that parliament would approve this formulation.
So in practice a binary Deal vs Remain is the only likely format - for this 2nd referendum that is not in any event going to happen.
What about how I described it below. Perhaps better call it "No irreversible deal". Allow Parliament to sign new deals but only on condition they include an exit clause so if we don't like the deal we can elect people who will revoke it. Just as the EU itself had an exit clause.
re Welsh polls, there was a council by election in Ely (part of Cardiff) last night. Plaid won the seat from Labour with 831 votes, 43% of the vote (+17%)
Neil NcEvoy deserves a lot of credit in hugely increasing Plaid Cymru's profile in Cardiff.
In fact, McEvoy could become Wales' Alex Salmond, if Plaid Cymru stopped expelling him.
Don't know much about McEvoy, but PC new leader Adam Price is very impressive, and a huge improvement on Leanne Wood, (which is admittedly not difficult).
It's to Leanne's credit that she's accepted the result and continued to campaign, although perhaps not quite as vigorously as previously. So far as I can see anyway.
re Welsh polls, there was a council by election in Ely (part of Cardiff) last night. Plaid won the seat from Labour with 831 votes, 43% of the vote (+17%)
Neil NcEvoy deserves a lot of credit in hugely increasing Plaid Cymru's profile in Cardiff.
In fact, McEvoy could become Wales' Alex Salmond, if Plaid Cymru stopped expelling him.
Don't know much about McEvoy, but PC new leader Adam Price is very impressive, and a huge improvement on Leanne Wood, (which is admittedly not difficult).
Careful.
Leanne “Nice Voice” Wood has a large fan club on PB.
For sure. I would buy all her audio books, if she went into that line of work.
Announcer: And now on Radio 4, A Book at Bedtime. Leanne Wood reads from her collected anthology "Plaid manifestoes 2015-2017"
Mr. Slackbladder, Starmer and Cooper are the ones that probably matter most. Well, them and Watson, but Watson's in a uniquely tricky position.
Could Starmer really go, even if he really wanted to, just as Brexit comes to the cliff edge?
Watson would be a DefCon 5 event. And would make unions start to consider their positioning.
Watson can't go. If he does, his replacement as Deputy Leader gets voted on, which means a Corbynite (and God help them, possibly Chris Williamson). He is uniquely situated in that his defection would actually cause severe irreparable harm to the Party. He must be acutely aware of that fact and the implied responsibility it places on him to stay, so my guess is he'll only leave if at least another hundred go first.
If the argument used for REF2 was this is the final deal, it's the best we can do, do you want to accept it or not? Then you are not disrespecting or cheating anyone by asking the question again, you are simply asking for confirmation of the deal.
However its impossible to work out what needs to be on the other side of May's Deal and that I think makes any referendum impossible - as there are people who clearly don't know enough or care enough about the consequences of No Deal for anyone sane to keep it on the agenda.
I disagree with para 1. Parliament trashing the Deal and then asking the people, "It's terrible, are you sure you wouldn't rather Remain?" is highly disrespectful to the original referendum.
But I agree with para 2. No formulation in any case works.
Either way, detail or big picture, REF2 stinks.
Parliament trashing the deal is nothing to do with the deal itself. There is a Deal - the fact most MPs have trashed it doesn't stop it being an option in a referendum - it might however make it hard for your average MP to campaign for it.
***However perhaps your average MP should have thought things through a bit more*** as we are now 5 weeks away from March 29th and we still don't have a plan 325 MPs agree upon...
God, yeah. I still can't believe the numbers and vehemence with which the deal was trashed by all sides (especially of the Tories) as soon as it came out. Cautious expressions of doubt which gave them some wiggle room would have closed off none of their options to vote against, but would have allowed them to U-turn if the alternatives became even worse.
As it is, there are too many TV clips in existence of MPs saying "this is the worst thing since AIDS and I'd sooner cut out my own kidneys with a rusty spoon than vote for anything even slightly resembling this" (ish), which they know Andrew Neil and Adam Boulton will lampoon or harpoon them with if they now back a(ny) deal.
If the argument used for REF2 was this is the final deal, it's the best we can do, do you want to accept it or not? Then you are not disrespecting or cheating anyone by asking the question again, you are simply asking for confirmation of the deal.
However its impossible to work out what needs to be on the other side of May's Deal and that I think makes any referendum impossible - as there are people who clearly don't know enough or care enough about the consequences of No Deal for anyone sane to keep it on the agenda.
I disagree with para 1. Parliament trashing the Deal and then asking the people, "It's terrible, are you sure you wouldn't rather Remain?" is highly disrespectful to the original referendum.
But I agree with para 2. No formulation in any case works.
Either way, detail or big picture, REF2 stinks.
I can never see the word "respect" these days without a. mentally adding the word "innit" and b. thinking of G Galloway, but leaving that aside why would you respect an abstract thing like a referendum result, rather than the people behind it, and why would trusting them to be able to change their minds when the facts change not be respecting them?
Mr. Slackbladder, Starmer and Cooper are the ones that probably matter most. Well, them and Watson, but Watson's in a uniquely tricky position.
Could Starmer really go, even if he really wanted to, just as Brexit comes to the cliff edge?
Watson would be a DefCon 5 event. And would make unions start to consider their positioning.
Watson can't go. If he does, his replacement as Deputy Leader gets voted on, which means a Corbynite (and God help them, possibly Chris Williamson). He is uniquely situated in that his defection would actually cause severe irreparable harm to the Party. He must be acutely aware of that fact and the implied responsibility it places on him to stay, so my guess is he'll only leave if at least another hundred go first.
I haven't noticed those who've gone so far being *that* worried about causing maximum damage on the way out.
I'm not sure Watson's a foregone conclusion either way, but if he's decided time's up, he may see those points as mitigating rather than aggravating factors.
Mr. Slackbladder, Starmer and Cooper are the ones that probably matter most. Well, them and Watson, but Watson's in a uniquely tricky position.
Could Starmer really go, even if he really wanted to, just as Brexit comes to the cliff edge?
Watson would be a DefCon 5 event. And would make unions start to consider their positioning.
Watson can't go. If he does, his replacement as Deputy Leader gets voted on, which means a Corbynite (and God help them, possibly Chris Williamson). He is uniquely situated in that his defection would actually cause severe irreparable harm to the Party. He must be acutely aware of that fact and the implied responsibility it places on him to stay, so my guess is he'll only leave if at least another hundred go first.
If the argument used for REF2 was this is the final deal, it's the best we can do, do you want to accept it or not? Then you are not disrespecting or cheating anyone by asking the question again, you are simply asking for confirmation of the deal.
However its impossible to work out what needs to be on the other side of May's Deal and that I think makes any referendum impossible - as there are people who clearly don't know enough or care enough about the consequences of No Deal for anyone sane to keep it on the agenda.
I disagree with para 1. Parliament trashing the Deal and then asking the people, "It's terrible, are you sure you wouldn't rather Remain?" is highly disrespectful to the original referendum.
But I agree with para 2. No formulation in any case works.
Either way, detail or big picture, REF2 stinks.
I can never see the word "respect" these days without a. mentally adding the word "innit" and b. thinking of G Galloway, but leaving that aside why would you respect an abstract thing like a referendum result, rather than the people behind it, and why would trusting them to be able to change their minds when the facts change not be respecting them?
what "facts" are these?
The fact that brexit has turned out to be the biggest national clusterfuck since at least Suez (unless you'd like to name another candidate?) which was not generally foreseen as a likely outcome at the time of the referendum. That fact.
steve hawkes Verified account @steve_hawkes 38m38 minutes ago
Growing rumours of another big Labour defection this weekend
*rubs hands*
Another? There hasn't been a big Labour defection as of yet.
Some unknown backbenchers of little or no repute plus some known malcontents.
There hasn't been a big defection yet.
A former leadership contender (favourite in the betting for a while) and a former shadow Chancellor are big defections.
Chuka was not a contender - he bottled it because of what the press were going to reveal (and may well still do)
And Leslie was appointed by Harman as a stopgap until the new leadership team was elected
Neither of them are big figures.
What the press were going to reveal about him would probably have sod all effect nowadays and might even help him. He was a house DJ in Manchester in the 1990s, it’s not too hard to do the math really.
If the argument used for REF2 was this is the final deal, it's the best we can do, do you want to accept it or not? Then you are not disrespecting or cheating anyone by asking the question again, you are simply asking for confirmation of the deal.
However its impossible to work out what needs to be on the other side of May's Deal and that I think makes any referendum impossible - as there are people who clearly don't know enough or care enough about the consequences of No Deal for anyone sane to keep it on the agenda.
I disagree with para 1. Parliament trashing the Deal and then asking the people, "It's terrible, are you sure you wouldn't rather Remain?" is highly disrespectful to the original referendum.
But I agree with para 2. No formulation in any case works.
Either way, detail or big picture, REF2 stinks.
Parliament trashing the deal is nothing to do with the deal itself. There is a Deal - the fact most MPs have trashed it doesn't stop it being an option in a referendum - it might however make it hard for your average MP to campaign for it.
***However perhaps your average MP should have thought things through a bit more*** as we are now 5 weeks away from March 29th and we still don't have a plan 325 MPs agree upon...
God, yeah. I still can't believe the numbers and vehemence with which the deal was trashed by all sides (especially of the Tories) as soon as it came out. Cautious expressions of doubt which gave them some wiggle room would have closed off none of their options to vote against, but would have allowed them to U-turn if the alternatives became even worse.
As it is, there are too many TV clips in existence of MPs saying "this is the worst thing since AIDS and I'd sooner cut out my own kidneys with a rusty spoon than vote for anything even slightly resembling this" (ish), which they know Andrew Neil and Adam Boulton will lampoon or harpoon them with if they now back a(ny) deal.
They might have to close their eyes and think of England
steve hawkes Verified account @steve_hawkes 38m38 minutes ago
Growing rumours of another big Labour defection this weekend
*rubs hands*
Another? There hasn't been a big Labour defection as of yet.
Some unknown backbenchers of little or no repute plus some known malcontents.
There hasn't been a big defection yet.
A former leadership contender (favourite in the betting for a while) and a former shadow Chancellor are big defections.
Chuka was not a contender - he bottled it because of what the press were going to reveal (and may well still do)
And Leslie was appointed by Harman as a stopgap until the new leadership team was elected
Neither of them are big figures.
What the press were going to reveal about him would probably have sod all effect nowadays and might even help him. He was a house DJ in Manchester in the 1990s, it’s not too hard to do the math really.
Odd that former rave promoter Guido dislikes him so much, then.
If the argument used for REF2 was this is the final deal, it's the best we can do, do you want to accept it or not? Then you are not disrespecting or cheating anyone by asking the question again, you are simply asking for confirmation of the deal.
However its impossible to work out what needs to be on the other side of May's Deal and that I think makes any referendum impossible - as there are people who clearly don't know enough or care enough about the consequences of No Deal for anyone sane to keep it on the agenda.
I disagree with para 1. Parliament trashing the Deal and then asking the people, "It's terrible, are you sure you wouldn't rather Remain?" is highly disrespectful to the original referendum.
But I agree with para 2. No formulation in any case works.
Either way, detail or big picture, REF2 stinks.
I can never see the word "respect" these days without a. mentally adding the word "innit" and b. thinking of G Galloway, but leaving that aside why would you respect an abstract thing like a referendum result, rather than the people behind it, and why would trusting them to be able to change their minds when the facts change not be respecting them?
what "facts" are these?
The fact that brexit has turned out to be the biggest national clusterfuck since at least Suez (unless you'd like to name another candidate?) which was not generally foreseen as a likely outcome at the time of the referendum. That fact.
To be fair, it was clear to anyone who looked into it that it was a likely Suez-in-the-making.
But certainly, I didn’t deny, before the referendum, that some variants of Brexit were fair and achievable.
Unlike 2016 we don’t have “some Brexit”, we have “a Brexit” on the table. Quite right we should have the opportunity to go for it, ask for another, or Remain.
If the argument used for REF2 was this is the final deal, it's the best we can do, do you want to accept it or not? Then you are not disrespecting or cheating anyone by asking the question again, you are simply asking for confirmation of the deal.
However its impossible to work out what needs to be on the other side of May's Deal and that I think makes any referendum impossible - as there are people who clearly don't know enough or care enough about the consequences of No Deal for anyone sane to keep it on the agenda.
I disagree with para 1. Parliament trashing the Deal and then asking the people, "It's terrible, are you sure you wouldn't rather Remain?" is highly disrespectful to the original referendum.
But I agree with para 2. No formulation in any case works.
Either way, detail or big picture, REF2 stinks.
I can never see the word "respect" these days without a. mentally adding the word "innit" and b. thinking of G Galloway, but leaving that aside why would you respect an abstract thing like a referendum result, rather than the people behind it, and why would trusting them to be able to change their minds when the facts change not be respecting them?
what "facts" are these?
The fact that brexit has turned out to be the biggest national clusterfuck since at least Suez (unless you'd like to name another candidate?) which was not generally foreseen as a likely outcome at the time of the referendum. That fact.
Most MPs have almost always been incompetent. We knew that back then.
steve hawkes Verified account @steve_hawkes 38m38 minutes ago
Growing rumours of another big Labour defection this weekend
*rubs hands*
Another? There hasn't been a big Labour defection as of yet.
Some unknown backbenchers of little or no repute plus some known malcontents.
There hasn't been a big defection yet.
A former leadership contender (favourite in the betting for a while) and a former shadow Chancellor are big defections.
Chuka was not a contender - he bottled it because of what the press were going to reveal (and may well still do)
And Leslie was appointed by Harman as a stopgap until the new leadership team was elected
Neither of them are big figures.
What the press were going to reveal about him would probably have sod all effect nowadays and might even help him. He was a house DJ in Manchester in the 1990s, it’s not too hard to do the math really.
Odd that former rave promoter Guido dislikes him so much, then.
Clubbers and ravers were something of a different breed, back in the day.
Mr. Slackbladder, Starmer and Cooper are the ones that probably matter most. Well, them and Watson, but Watson's in a uniquely tricky position.
Could Starmer really go, even if he really wanted to, just as Brexit comes to the cliff edge?
Watson would be a DefCon 5 event. And would make unions start to consider their positioning.
Watson can't go. If he does, his replacement as Deputy Leader gets voted on, which means a Corbynite (and God help them, possibly Chris Williamson). He is uniquely situated in that his defection would actually cause severe irreparable harm to the Party. He must be acutely aware of that fact and the implied responsibility it places on him to stay, so my guess is he'll only leave if at least another hundred go first.
Doesn’t that cut both ways? If he leaves, another hundred would be forced to follow.
If the argument used for REF2 was this is the final deal, it's the best we can do, do you want to accept it or not? Then you are not disrespecting or cheating anyone by asking the question again, you are simply asking for confirmation of the deal.
However its impossible to work out what needs to be on the other side of May's Deal and that I think makes any referendum impossible - as there are people who clearly don't know enough or care enough about the consequences of No Deal for anyone sane to keep it on the agenda.
I disagree with para 1. Parliament trashing the Deal and then asking the people, "It's terrible, are you sure you wouldn't rather Remain?" is highly disrespectful to the original referendum.
But I agree with para 2. No formulation in any case works.
Either way, detail or big picture, REF2 stinks.
I can never see the word "respect" these days without a. mentally adding the word "innit" and b. thinking of G Galloway, but leaving that aside why would you respect an abstract thing like a referendum result, rather than the people behind it, and why would trusting them to be able to change their minds when the facts change not be respecting them?
what "facts" are these?
The fact that brexit has turned out to be the biggest national clusterfuck since at least Suez (unless you'd like to name another candidate?) which was not generally foreseen as a likely outcome at the time of the referendum. That fact.
'"Brexit" The Movie. The Biggest Clusterfuck since Suez'
If the argument used for REF2 was this is the final deal, it's the best we can do, do you want to accept it or not? Then you are not disrespecting or cheating anyone by asking the question again, you are simply asking for confirmation of the deal.
However its impossible to work out what needs to be on the other side of May's Deal and that I think makes any referendum impossible - as there are people who clearly don't know enough or care enough about the consequences of No Deal for anyone sane to keep it on the agenda.
I disagree with para 1. Parliament trashing the Deal and then asking the people, "It's terrible, are you sure you wouldn't rather Remain?" is highly disrespectful to the original referendum.
But I agree with para 2. No formulation in any case works.
Either way, detail or big picture, REF2 stinks.
I can never see the word "respect" these days without a. mentally adding the word "innit" and b. thinking of G Galloway, but leaving that aside why would you respect an abstract thing like a referendum result, rather than the people behind it, and why would trusting them to be able to change their minds when the facts change not be respecting them?
what "facts" are these?
The fact that brexit has turned out to be the biggest national clusterfuck since at least Suez (unless you'd like to name another candidate?) which was not generally foreseen as a likely outcome at the time of the referendum. That fact.
Most MPs have almost always been incompetent. We knew that back then.
So it was never a bright idea to think they could successfully navigate such a dramatic change to our political and economic circumstances then, was it?
Mr. Slackbladder, Starmer and Cooper are the ones that probably matter most. Well, them and Watson, but Watson's in a uniquely tricky position.
Could Starmer really go, even if he really wanted to, just as Brexit comes to the cliff edge?
Watson would be a DefCon 5 event. And would make unions start to consider their positioning.
Watson can't go. If he does, his replacement as Deputy Leader gets voted on, which means a Corbynite (and God help them, possibly Chris Williamson). He is uniquely situated in that his defection would actually cause severe irreparable harm to the Party. He must be acutely aware of that fact and the implied responsibility it places on him to stay, so my guess is he'll only leave if at least another hundred go first.
Doesn’t that cut both ways? If he leaves, another hundred would be forced to follow.
Probably; there was a tweet posted earlier that suggested he was holding back the dam.
I guess it's also possible he knows he has a lot of pull - could be he fancies leading the new party and knows he could make it into a serious force. We shall see.
Comments
"Congratulations to George Galloway on astonishing result in Bradford. Big message here on opposition to wars and austerity," he wrote on Twitter.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9175133/George-Galloway-wins-Bradford-West-by-election.html
Added bonus is whoever wins the GE gets to implement their policy and live with it.
Two trot factions meeting in a hall
Two trot factions meeting in a hall
And if one trot faction should start an ugly brawl
There’ll be three trot factions meeting in a hall
https://liberatormagazine.org.uk/en/document/liberator-songbook#document
"No, and to be fair to both of them, they are right. But it might be the only way out."
So what would the question be? We're going in circles here? Remainers will only accept a question which ignores the result of the referendum we've already had. If you do that, why should anyone vote anyway?
No "Oh, we had our fingers crossed behind our backs when we promised to honour the first one" from MPs will cut any ice.
Fool me once, more fool you. Fool me twice, more fool me. There's an awful lot of resentment out there to damp down.
I suppose Corbyn did have the choice of emulating Kinnock and leading the Party from the left back to the centre but that was never going to happen. To thine own self be true as the saying goes.
TIG Is a splinter group and so is the anti-Corbyn faction at this time but the reluctance of Corbyn to back a second vote (and we all know why) has left the party fragmented.
Strangely I am with Corbyn on a second vote. It's obfuscation as is a GE - we are down to the WDA with all its imperfections, a No Deal with all its confusions or a Revocation with all its recriminations.
However its impossible to work out what needs to be on the other side of May's Deal and that I think makes any referendum impossible - as there are people who clearly don't know enough or care enough about the consequences of No Deal for anyone sane to keep it on the agenda.
Where 'Yes' means we leave with the Deal and 'No' is back to the impasse.
Drawback is that only the Yes resolves the matter. Also unlikely that parliament would approve this formulation.
So in practice a binary Deal vs Remain is the only likely format - for this 2nd referendum that is not in any event going to happen.
Verified account @steve_hawkes
38m38 minutes ago
Growing rumours of another big Labour defection this weekend
*rubs hands*
The bigger problem is who would trust May at an election? But if she goes and a new leader seeks a mandate for a compromise then that is viable. Unlikely but viable.
How that works I'm not sure, but that's not the point.
https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/0a3b6029-656d-4b3d-bb81-632fd6700268
But hey ho - the result sure made things more complicated.
Let's not double down by doing it again.
But I agree with para 2. No formulation in any case works.
Either way, detail or big picture, REF2 stinks.
Although there are cabinet ministers not happy about it I think it's fair to say that government policy is to leave the EU, come what may, on March 29th, but hopefully to do so with a deal.
Can be quite hard to do with anything, let's face it.
Some unknown backbenchers of little or no repute plus some known malcontents.
There hasn't been a big defection yet.
The boy did good.
However perhaps your average MP should have thought things through a bit more as we are now 5 weeks away from March 29th and we still don't have a plan 325 MPs agree upon...
I wonder if we're in for a game of Mike Reid's Runaround*... everyone chooses their own People's Front of Judea variant for the next couple of weeks, and then has a chance to change their answer when they've seen how popular each one is.
*Or maybe it's Love Island. Or speed-dating. Or dogs sniffing each other's arses.
Watson would be a DefCon 5 event. And would make unions start to consider their positioning.
Couldn't happen to a kinder, gentler party.
And Leslie was appointed by Harman as a stopgap until the new leadership team was elected
Neither of them are big figures.
Would be fascinating to know his thinking.
https://twitter.com/robfuller91/status/1098969162494423043
As it is, there are too many TV clips in existence of MPs saying "this is the worst thing since AIDS and I'd sooner cut out my own kidneys with a rusty spoon than vote for anything even slightly resembling this" (ish), which they know Andrew Neil and Adam Boulton will lampoon or harpoon them with if they now back a(ny) deal.
Ha, funny. I’ve been to that juicer many times, have lots of mates in SW16. Proper Job is the beer of choice there, when it’s on.
I'm not sure Watson's a foregone conclusion either way, but if he's decided time's up, he may see those points as mitigating rather than aggravating factors.
But certainly, I didn’t deny, before the referendum, that some variants of Brexit were fair and achievable.
Unlike 2016 we don’t have “some Brexit”, we have “a Brexit” on the table. Quite right we should have the opportunity to go for it, ask for another, or Remain.
I like it! Anyone got a synopsis?
I guess it's also possible he knows he has a lot of pull - could be he fancies leading the new party and knows he could make it into a serious force. We shall see.
New leadership election - a moderate wins
Truth and reconciliation process
All chums together - tigs come back in the fold.
3 amigos left looking daft..