politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What does the UK’s next PM have to say about Trump’s latest ra

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1150763915346886656

And this is why any question by the Leader of the Opposition about the racism of foreign leaders can be easily batted away.

Mr. Meeks, I'd be more than happy to pool current accounts with you.

I wouldn't be eroding your financial sovereignty. I'd be enhancing it

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Glenn, whereas you're content to ride roughshod over England and Wales, and the majority of UK voters.

No I'm not. I want people to have another vote so we can be sure we're doing what they want.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Glenn, whereas you're content to ride roughshod over England and Wales, and the majority of UK voters.

Mr. Meeks, a large part of the problem is May's incompetence and the Commons collectively refusing to back any outcome.

Mr. B, you may recall I've said several times one of the key lessons of the Second Punic War is the importance of a nation's constitutional arrangements rather than individual brilliance. Rome won because its set up was practically invincible. Carthage had Hannibal's genius, but even a man so great could not overcome the Roman Senate and People.

The problem is simple. Leavers know what they are against. They are clueless about what they are for.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Glenn, whereas you're content to ride roughshod over England and Wales, and the majority of UK voters.

Mr. Meeks, a large part of the problem is May's incompetence and the Commons collectively refusing to back any outcome.

Mr. B, you may recall I've said several times one of the key lessons of the Second Punic War is the importance of a nation's constitutional arrangements rather than individual brilliance. Rome won because its set up was practically invincible. Carthage had Hannibal's genius, but even a man so great could not overcome the Roman Senate and People.

And if you put an oaf in charge of rearranging those constitutional arrangements ?

Mr. Meeks, surely you don't oppose admitting new members to the Meeks Financial Union? That's rather protectionist, don't you think?

[Incidentally, hope your chap's made a full recovery].

Mr. Meeks (2), that was a problem with the referendum setup. It remains bizarre that Cameron never had the official Leave campaign draw up the key tenets of what they supported (for example, ruling out the deranged idea of leaving the EU only to submit ourselves to the customs union).

Sean_F said:

Cicero said:

While it is pretty insane that the President of a nation of immigrants should tell anyone to "go home", the despicable Trump has lowered expectations to the point that most people just shrug.

However I do think that this could be the alt-right's last hurrah on both sides of the pond. The level of corruption and lies may be corrosive of democracy in general, but the polls are showing that the right are indeed getting the blame first. Meanwhile the demographic that almost literally sold its soul to Trump- the religious right and the NRA- are facing meltdown. While I know we are supposed to be scared of the boogeyman, the fact is that Trump is seen as being a weak and cowardly leader (and indeed a vile and unpleasant human being).

Farage as the giggling accolyte to Trump is unpopular in the extreme and if there is wrong doing at TBP concerning the leaks of Sir Kim Darroch's cables, then I think that the "Perp Walk" of any TBP figure will concentrate quite a few minds.

Equally, allying to Trump will make Johnson even more unpopular than he already is- and lets face it, Johnson could only win a GE by gaming the FPTP system in the same way that Trump did, because the chances look pretty low that he even breaks 26% of the vote. Trumpism- corrupt and Russian supported, is deeply unpopular and if Johnson allies himself to it, he will be shackling himself to a political corpse.

The UK situation is of course still very volatile, but whereas Theresa May gets some pity, and even some respect, Johnson will have no honeymoon at all. Adding support for Trump to the charge list of recklessness and arrogant incompetence could will be the straw that breaks the Tory back. I think TBP will mirror UKIP or even the Referendum Party and hurt the Tories without winning enough themselves, but meanwhile the Tories get strung up by the Liberal Democrats. In 1997 the Tories lost more than half their seats. I wonder what the odds are that they do even worse at the next election?

The longer they leave it the more likely that events conspire to kill them off.

By the way... these are not just my thoughts- several Conservatives have said the same things to me, they genuinely say that the chances of survival for the Tories are increasingly remote, and several of them actually welcome the reckoning that they think the party will get.

The 45% who favour right wing parties aren't going to vanish, even if the Conservatives do. They'll just vote for another right wing party, probably more right wing than the Conservatives.

At the moment, I'd expect Trump to be re-elected.

The Conservatives aren't going to disappear. But they could suffer a double squeeze from the Brexit Party and the Lib Dems. A lot of us would enjoy that.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Meeks, surely you don't oppose admitting new members to the Meeks Financial Union? That's rather protectionist, don't you think?

[Incidentally, hope your chap's made a full recovery].

Mr. Meeks (2), that was a problem with the referendum setup. It remains bizarre that Cameron never had the official Leave campaign draw up the key tenets of what they supported (for example, ruling out the deranged idea of leaving the EU only to submit ourselves to the customs union).

All members of the union have a veto on new entrants.

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1150759486556180480

That's definitely two for a VoNC I reckon. Clarke being the other.

May is probably a third - and there will be more. Just look for any sane Tory retiring or potentially in the near future...

There is nothing 'sane' about prostrating yourself as supplicants saying you will accept any deal whatsoever no matter how bad.

Whether that be with the EU or USA either way it is insane.

I simply don't see the circumstnces where Conservative MPs in rural seats sign up for an FTA that allows in US farm produce in. Likewise, I can't see the Greens or the LibDems going for something that removes restrictions on GM products. (And even prevents GM products as being labeled as such.)

The only political party that could get that deal through is the Labour Party - whose city dwelling voters would benefit from the deal. Unfortunately, the Labour Party (a) isn't going to vote for a Tory FTA and (b) dislike the idea of trade generally.

Morris_Dancer said:

But a majority on both sides must be at least wearily content with the settlement or one side or the other will seek to overturn it at the first opportunity.

This is the crucial point, and it's one that both "hardcore" Remainers and people like HYUFD and Archer and Viceroy misunderstand.

algarkirk said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Boris Johnson follows the ideas of those he surrounds himself with. It looks as though he's going to surround himself with the most extreme Brexit zealots. Expect government policy to be set accordingly.

The sense I get, on the contrary, is that Boris is holding to a position in order to be unassailable in winning the contest to be leader, and that is all we know for sure. While this tells us something about his style it is perfectly possible, and likely, that he has plans of which not a word has been said and may have little relation to what has been said.

In addition he will be under the direction of events outside his command, including the constant imminent threat of losing a VONC even from day 1.

Putting these together we are trying to predict the 1967 Grand National. Fun, but not realistic.

I predict Foinavon will win the 1967 Grand National.

How did I do?

rcs1000 said:

algarkirk said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Boris Johnson follows the ideas of those he surrounds himself with. It looks as though he's going to surround himself with the most extreme Brexit zealots. Expect government policy to be set accordingly.

The sense I get, on the contrary, is that Boris is holding to a position in order to be unassailable in winning the contest to be leader, and that is all we know for sure. While this tells us something about his style it is perfectly possible, and likely, that he has plans of which not a word has been said and may have little relation to what has been said.

In addition he will be under the direction of events outside his command, including the constant imminent threat of losing a VONC even from day 1.

Putting these together we are trying to predict the 1967 Grand National. Fun, but not realistic.

I predict Foinavon will win the 1967 Grand National.

How did I do?

Beginner's luck.

rcs1000 said:

algarkirk said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Boris Johnson follows the ideas of those he surrounds himself with. It looks as though he's going to surround himself with the most extreme Brexit zealots. Expect government policy to be set accordingly.

The sense I get, on the contrary, is that Boris is holding to a position in order to be unassailable in winning the contest to be leader, and that is all we know for sure. While this tells us something about his style it is perfectly possible, and likely, that he has plans of which not a word has been said and may have little relation to what has been said.

In addition he will be under the direction of events outside his command, including the constant imminent threat of losing a VONC even from day 1.

Putting these together we are trying to predict the 1967 Grand National. Fun, but not realistic.

I predict Foinavon will win the 1967 Grand National.

How did I do?

Even in a race noted for shocks, no deal Brexit can safely be disregarded.

Mr. 1000, aye...

Mr. Meeks, that does neglect that a great many people were not content with our membership of the EU. Brown reneged on a manifesto pledge to tie us in even closer without recourse to the electorate, but Cameron (pro-EU, and with little help from the EU) tried to get something and it was so feeble it ended up helping out Leave rather than Remain.

The ideal, which won't happen, would be associate membership. Lose the majority of the political side, even if it means losing a small part of the economics, and integrate no further (possibly excepting with referendum-based approval).

But with both sides unwilling to compromise and willing to go for all or nothing, we're going to almost certainly end up with a result in which a large minority, if not outright majority, are unhappy. It won't settle anything, just move the war's conflict to a battlefield a few yards down the road.

Dr. Foxy, I hadn't seen that, but do follow that particular Twitter account. Looks very cool indeed.

When I first did background work for the Bane of Souls world, maybe a decade or more ago, there were some supercool online medieval/fantasy demographics calculators for cities and kingdoms.

You input age of the nation, geographical size, that sort of thing, and the calculator spews out how many big cities there are, their populations, how many castles there are, ruined castles, population density and so on.

Very cool stuff.

Scott_P said:

AlastairMeeks said:

It is why Brexit is so disastrous. There is no prospect of grudging consensus.

There is an article in the Times today that touches on this

In the Brexit culture war, neither side can countenance the other side winning

Could have been done just after the referendum, referencing the closeness of the result and the need to find some kind of middle way (i.e. soft Brexit) with something for everyone.

Would take a hell of a leader to pull it off now though.

Cyclefree said:

Outside Tate Modern this morning someone (not me!) had written on the pavement in large chalk letters “FU*K BORIS”.

Could be art. Could be a political statement. Or both. Or a PB’er unable to get online. Or, possibly, one of Boris’s many discarded women.

For the last would surely have been “DON'T FU*K BORIS”?

Huawei is planning major layoffs at its US research labs as it struggles under the weight of the Commerce Department blacklisting, The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday. The embattled Chinese telecom's Futurewei R&D subsidiary employs about 850 people in Texas, California and Washington state.

https://www.cnet.com/news/huawei-reportedly-plans-massive-us-layoffs/

AlastairMeeks said:

rcs1000 said:

algarkirk said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Boris Johnson follows the ideas of those he surrounds himself with. It looks as though he's going to surround himself with the most extreme Brexit zealots. Expect government policy to be set accordingly.

The sense I get, on the contrary, is that Boris is holding to a position in order to be unassailable in winning the contest to be leader, and that is all we know for sure. While this tells us something about his style it is perfectly possible, and likely, that he has plans of which not a word has been said and may have little relation to what has been said.

In addition he will be under the direction of events outside his command, including the constant imminent threat of losing a VONC even from day 1.

Putting these together we are trying to predict the 1967 Grand National. Fun, but not realistic.

I predict Foinavon will win the 1967 Grand National.

How did I do?

Even in a race noted for shocks, no deal Brexit can safely be disregarded.

Agree. There's going to be a pileup but I don't think that particular horse will emerge from the ruck, though it remains true that it must be in the armoury for negotiations, otherwise Article 50 has no meaning. That leaves ultimately Remain, TMs deal with a tweak or a closer arrangement - Norway or Norway+ - the only choices. Goodness knows how you get there.

Philip_Thompson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

rcs1000 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

But a majority on both sides must be at least wearily content with the settlement or one side or the other will seek to overturn it at the first opportunity.

This is the crucial point, and it's one that both "hardcore" Remainers and people like HYUFD and Archer and Viceroy misunderstand.

It is why Brexit is so disastrous. There is no prospect of grudging consensus.

There was no grudging consensus to our EU membership either.

You didn't care though because you were getting what you wanted. Now you care.

Both sides have got more extreme. Many Remainers are ready to ignore the referendum to revoke Article 50. And unhinged Leavers are prepared to ignore democracy and suspend Parliament.

AlastairMeeks said:

Philip_Thompson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

rcs1000 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

But a majority on both sides must be at least wearily content with the settlement or one side or the other will seek to overturn it at the first opportunity.

This is the crucial point, and it's one that both "hardcore" Remainers and people like HYUFD and Archer and Viceroy misunderstand.

It is why Brexit is so disastrous. There is no prospect of grudging consensus.

There was no grudging consensus to our EU membership either.

You didn't care though because you were getting what you wanted. Now you care.

Both sides have got more extreme. Many Remainers are ready to ignore the referendum to revoke Article 50. And unhinged Leavers are prepared to ignore democracy and suspend Parliament.

If Parliament can't do its job I am happy to respect democracy and suspend this Parliament to reflect it. Once we have exited Parliament can resume its prevarications.

Mr. P, unlike the entirely honest rejection of a manifesto pledge for a referendum?

Had Brown given us a referendum it could've been a great pressure valve, enabling a democratic signal of discontent with the EU without actually leaving.

Instead he lied, smirked, turned up late, and signed away any chance of that happening.

Mr. Meeks, aye, shades of the Peloponnesian War in that.

Cyclefree said:

Outside Tate Modern this morning someone (not me!) had written on the pavement in large chalk letters “FU*K BORIS”.

Could be art. Could be a political statement. Or both. Or a PB’er unable to get online. Or, possibly, one of Boris’s many discarded women. Or maybe someone expressing a long held desire.

When I go home this evening I’ll see whether it is still there.

On the bridge parapet above the M4 at the exit to the M32 near Bristol someone had, last week, painted something much, much worse about Boris. It suggested two alleged traits for which Boris could doubtless litigate against. Amusing nonetheless.

Mr. Glenn, the idea Remain was a sceptical option is silliness. You tinker, you.

Cyclefree said:

Outside Tate Modern this morning someone (not me!) had written on the pavement in large chalk letters “FU*K BORIS”.

Could be art. Could be a political statement. Or both. Or a PB’er unable to get online. Or, possibly, one of Boris’s many discarded women. Or maybe someone expressing a long held desire.

When I go home this evening I’ll see whether it is still there.

That's from the Stormzy song. He did it at Glasto.

Showing how 'DWTK' I am.

StuartDickson said:

rottenborough said:

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

'Supplicant', Mike? I thought our Soveriegnity was about to return once we threw off the cursed yoke of the EU.

Surely we are not replacing servitude to the EU with servitude to the USA?

We’re not supplicant

The UK can function perfectly well without a US trade deal

If one makes sense for both sides then great, if not then whatever

It's too important to the psychology of those Brexiteers who see it as a project to unite the 'Anglosphere'. Take away both a US trade deal and a CANZUK alliance and what's the point?

https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/723547810633777152

These people are idiots. We are always going to trade more with Europe - it's called geography.

English wine shelves are row upon row of Australian, NZ, Californian, SA etc wines, and very, very skimpy on the infinitely better products of her immediate geographical neighbours to the south and east.

English wine consumers clearly are idiots, but fortunately for the country her businesspeople are not ideologues. They know that when it comes to procurement and export, geography is more important than language.

Don't worry, if global warming goes unchecked, Scotland will be covered in vineyards by 2080.

AlastairMeeks said:

Philip_Thompson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Philip_Thompson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

rcs1000 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

But a majority on both sides must be at least wearily content with the settlement or one side or the other will seek to overturn it at the first opportunity.

This is the crucial point, and it's one that both "hardcore" Remainers and people like HYUFD and Archer and Viceroy misunderstand.

It is why Brexit is so disastrous. There is no prospect of grudging consensus.

There was no grudging consensus to our EU membership either.

You didn't care though because you were getting what you wanted. Now you care.

Both sides have got more extreme. Many Remainers are ready to ignore the referendum to revoke Article 50. And unhinged Leavers are prepared to ignore democracy and suspend Parliament.

If Parliament can't do its job I am happy to respect democracy and suspend this Parliament to reflect it. Once we have exited Parliament can resume its prevarications.

There is no mandate for no deal Brexit and no mandate for suspending democracy to achieve it. You and your crazed fellow travellers are the enemies of democracy.

If Parliament is suspended then no changes to the law occur. If we exit without a deal that is because Parliament has voted for that to occur if nothing else has happened first before then. It will take a change in the law to stop that happening.

If Parliament wanted a deal it has had multiple opportunities to approve one and turned it down every time.
If Parliament wanted revocation it has had multiple opportunities to revoke and turned it down every time.
If Parliament wanted to have a referendum it has had multiple opportunities to enact a second referendum and turned it down every time.

Parliament needs to crap or get off the pan.

Scott_P said:

Philip_Thompson said:

That's why we had a referendum and one side won.

Better a culture war settled with ballots than bullets.

That the "winning" side cheated and lied is why we are now at war

Are we still on about the cricket?

AlastairMeeks said:

algarkirk said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Philip_Thompson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

rcs1000 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

But a majority on both sides must be at least wearily content with the settlement or one side or the other will seek to overturn it at the first opportunity.

This is the crucial point, and it's one that both "hardcore" Remainers and people like HYUFD and Archer and Viceroy misunderstand.

It is why Brexit is so disastrous. There is no prospect of grudging consensus.

There was no grudging consensus to our EU membership either.

You didn't care though because you were getting what you wanted. Now you care.

Both sides have got more extreme. Many Remainers are ready to ignore the referendum to revoke Article 50. And unhinged Leavers are prepared to ignore democracy and suspend Parliament.

All true. But both sides are not without reason behind them. Hard Remainers can point to the pathetic failure of the assemblage of diverse leavers to be properly organised, and Leavers are not entirely unhinged if they point out that the democracy of the referendum cannot in principle be allowed to be subverted by the very parliament whose job it is to agree a mode of leaving, and have not exactly helped, and indeed clearly intend mostly to remain if they can get away with blaming someone else for it.

That’s nonsense. Remainers need to accept that a democratic mandate must be met through democracy. And Leavers must accept that their cluelessness about what they want does not allow them to subvert Parliamentary democracy. Excusing either is dangerous.

Which is why I believe there needs to be a second referendum - what options exist in it is irrelevant but we can't permanently revoke without a second referendum and we can't leave for No Deal without one.

May's deal is about as Leave as you can get without a second referendum being required...

Thomas now perfectly placed in the tour de france, up to 2nd after todays stage with his team mate in 3rd.

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

rcs1000 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

But a majority on both sides must be at least wearily content with the settlement or one side or the other will seek to overturn it at the first opportunity.

This is the crucial point, and it's one that both "hardcore" Remainers and people like HYUFD and Archer and Viceroy misunderstand.

It is why Brexit is so disastrous. There is no prospect of grudging consensus.

There was no grudging consensus to our EU membership either.

You didn't care though because you were getting what you wanted. Now you care.

The two options in the referendum were effectively:

- A Eurosceptic compromise (Remain)
- No compromise (Leave)

The rejection of May’s deal is just a continuation of the rejection of compromise. Brexiteers would rather risk total defeat.

Absolutely. If we wanted compromise we'd have voted Remain. That lost and to quote somebody who should have known better: Nothing has changed.

Something has changed. We now have millions of people in Britain willing to defend European integration and our place in the EU.

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

rcs1000 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

But a majority on both sides must be at least wearily content with the settlement or one side or the other will seek to overturn it at the first opportunity.

This is the crucial point, and it's one that both "hardcore" Remainers and people like HYUFD and Archer and Viceroy misunderstand.

It is why Brexit is so disastrous. There is no prospect of grudging consensus.

There was no grudging consensus to our EU membership either.

You didn't care though because you were getting what you wanted. Now you care.

The two options in the referendum were effectively:

- A Eurosceptic compromise (Remain)
- No compromise (Leave)

The rejection of May’s deal is just a continuation of the rejection of compromise. Brexiteers would rather risk total defeat.

Absolutely. If we wanted compromise we'd have voted Remain. That lost and to quote somebody who should have known better: Nothing has changed.

Something has changed. We now have millions of people in Britain willing to defend European integration and our place in the EU.

Fantastic. Let them vote at the next election. Its called democracy.

Predictable as a morning trump rant....

https://twitter.com/AbolishEton/status/1150737246066286592?s=19

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

AlastairMeeks said:

algarkirk said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Philip_Thompson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

rcs1000 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

But a majority on both sides must be at least wearily content with the settlement or one side or the other will seek to overturn it at the first opportunity.

This is the crucial point, and it's one that both "hardcore" Remainers and people like HYUFD and Archer and Viceroy misunderstand.

It is why Brexit is so disastrous. There is no prospect of grudging consensus.

There was no grudging consensus to our EU membership either.

You didn't care though because you were getting what you wanted. Now you care.

Both sides have got more extreme. Many Remainers are ready to ignore the referendum to revoke Article 50. And unhinged Leavers are prepared to ignore democracy and suspend Parliament.

All true. But both sides are not without reason behind them. Hard Remainers can point to the pathetic failure of the assemblage of diverse leavers to be properly organised, and Leavers are not entirely unhinged if they point out that the democracy of the referendum cannot in principle be allowed to be subverted by the very parliament whose job it is to agree a mode of leaving, and have not exactly helped, and indeed clearly intend mostly to remain if they can get away with blaming someone else for it.

That’s nonsense. Remainers need to accept that a democratic mandate must be met through democracy. And Leavers must accept that their cluelessness about what they want does not allow them to subvert Parliamentary democracy. Excusing either is dangerous.

Which is why I believe there needs to be a second referendum - what options exist in it is irrelevant but we can't permanently revoke without a second referendum and we can't leave for No Deal without one.

May's deal is about as Leave as you can get without a second referendum being required...

Can you please explain why we could sign the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum, despite all parties manifestos at the time pledging a referendum if they were elected . . . but a harder Leave than May's deal requires one?

Is it just because you're not getting your way now? Or is there a principle involved that was shown when Lisbon was ratified?

It's because Boris stated during the referendum that No Deal wasn't an option...

I'd completely missed that most of Not For Change UK, plus John Woodcock, have now declared themselves to be The Independents in the latest bout of the People's Front of Judea Reenactment Society: https://www.theindependents.org.uk

Notable that Sarah Wollaston isn't there, which suggests that maybe she is indeed on her way to the Lib Dems. Same day as Bebb and Lee perhaps (as trailed at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7244617/Two-Tory-MPs-defection-watch-amid-fears-defect-Lib-Dems-Boris-PM.html)?

Mexicanpete said:

Cyclefree said:

Outside Tate Modern this morning someone (not me!) had written on the pavement in large chalk letters “FU*K BORIS”.

Could be art. Could be a political statement. Or both. Or a PB’er unable to get online. Or, possibly, one of Boris’s many discarded women. Or maybe someone expressing a long held desire.

When I go home this evening I’ll see whether it is still there.

On the bridge parapet above the M4 at the exit to the M32 near Bristol someone had, last week, painted something much, much worse about Boris. It suggested two alleged traits for which Boris could doubtless litigate against. Amusing nonetheless.

There will be no "Boris Johnson is Innocent" campaigns I reckon. Because he isn't, the twat.

Cyclefree said:

Selebian said:

Cyclefree said:

Outside Tate Modern this morning someone (not me!) had written on the pavement in large chalk letters “FU*K BORIS”.

Could be art. Could be a political statement. Or both. Or a PB’er unable to get online. Or, possibly, one of Boris’s many discarded women.

For the last would surely have been “DON'T FU*K BORIS”?

Depends on whether it was meant as a warning or a cry of rage.

Anyway, it was where buskers are allowed to perform and in chalk. So no vandalism involved.

All that was needed was Dick van Dyke singing a cheery song.

Still, shows that Boris has cut through though possibly not as @HYUFD understands it.

You would have had to head over to the other Tate or the National to see a Van Dyck.

AlastairMeeks said:

Philip_Thompson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Philip_Thompson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Philip_Thompson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

rcs1000 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

But a majority on both sides must be at least wearily content with the settlement or one side or the other will seek to overturn it at the first opportunity.

This is the crucial point, and it's one that both "hardcore" Remainers and people like HYUFD and Archer and Viceroy misunderstand.

It is why Brexit is so disastrous. There is no prospect of grudging consensus.

There was no grudging consensus to our EU membership either.

You didn't care though because you were getting what you wanted. Now you care.

Both sides have got more extreme. Many Remainers are ready to ignore the referendum to revoke Article 50. And unhinged Leavers are prepared to ignore democracy and suspend Parliament.

If Parliament can't do its job I am happy to respect democracy and suspend this Parliament to reflect it. Once we have exited Parliament can resume its prevarications.

There is no mandate for no deal Brexit and no mandate for suspending democracy to achieve it. You and your crazed fellow travellers are the enemies of democracy.

If Parliament is suspended then no changes to the law occur. If we exit without a deal that is because Parliament has voted for that to occur if nothing else has happened first before then. It will take a change in the law to stop that happening.

If Parliament wanted a deal it has had multiple opportunities to approve one and turned it down every time.
If Parliament wanted revocation it has had multiple opportunities to revoke and turned it down every time.
If Parliament wanted to have a referendum it has had multiple opportunities to enact a second referendum and turned it down every time.

Parliament needs to crap or get off the pan.

Leavers need to respect Parliamentary democracy. It's that straightforward. Suspending Parliament is the act of enemies of democracy.

What if Parliament is dissolved rather than suspended? Lets imagine if mid to late September Boris calls for an election to be held on 31 October to determine our post-Brexit future, Corbyn agrees, two-thirds of Parliament votes for it. So at 10pm we stop voting and start counting the votes and at 11pm we exit without a deal. Is that an enemy of democracy?

Philip_Thompson said:

What if Parliament is dissolved rather than suspended? Lets imagine if late September Boris calls for an election to be held on 31 October to determine are post-Brexit future, Corbyn agrees, two-thirds of Parliament votes for it . So at 10pm we stop voting and start counting the votes and at 11pm we exit without a deal. Is that an enemy of democracy?

I've highlighted the relevant bit for you. This is not difficult stuff.

AlastairMeeks said:

algarkirk said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Philip_Thompson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

rcs1000 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

But a majority on both sides must be at least wearily content with the settlement or one side or the other will seek to overturn it at the first opportunity.

This is the crucial point, and it's one that both "hardcore" Remainers and people like HYUFD and Archer and Viceroy misunderstand.

It is why Brexit is so disastrous. There is no prospect of grudging consensus.

There was no grudging consensus to our EU membership either.

You didn't care though because you were getting what you wanted. Now you care.

Both sides have got more extreme. Many Remainers are ready to ignore the referendum to revoke Article 50. And unhinged Leavers are prepared to ignore democracy and suspend Parliament.

All true. But both sides are not without reason behind them. Hard Remainers can point to the pathetic failure of the assemblage of diverse leavers to be properly organised, and Leavers are not entirely unhinged if they point out that the democracy of the referendum cannot in principle be allowed to be subverted by the very parliament whose job it is to agree a mode of leaving, and have not exactly helped, and indeed clearly intend mostly to remain if they can get away with blaming someone else for it.

That’s nonsense. Remainers need to accept that a democratic mandate must be met through democracy. And Leavers must accept that their cluelessness about what they want does not allow them to subvert Parliamentary democracy. Excusing either is dangerous.

As has been pointed out many times by both sides, there was no further instruction on the ballot paper other than "leave". The default position that all leave voters were aware of is that the UK would leave the EU without a deal. Saying there would be a deal was just political bollocks from Leave.EU. Just like the political bollocks that is spouted all the time in election campaigns of any type.

The small print, however, remains that we are due to leave the EU, and always were, with no deal if no deal is negotiated. And it hasn't been.

I mean even our favourite Leavers on here are super happy with leaving without a deal because their vote meant that it was a strong possibility.

Philip_Thompson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Philip_Thompson said:

What if Parliament is dissolved rather than suspended? Lets imagine if late September Boris calls for an election to be held on 31 October to determine are post-Brexit future, Corbyn agrees, two-thirds of Parliament votes for it . So at 10pm we stop voting and start counting the votes and at 11pm we exit without a deal. Is that an enemy of democracy?

I've highlighted the relevant bit for you. This is not difficult stuff.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-02-08/debates/B9545C0C-B593-43E4-A12E-2AD5D47DEFE4/EuropeanUnion(NotificationOfWithdrawal)Bill#contribution-406433D9-66A7-41C5-8E07-28119CFF31FE
Ayes: 494
Noes: 122

More than two-thirds voted for this and made it our law.

Sure. I'm sure you could find many laws that more than two thirds voted for. Now you need to find me where Parliament voted to allow the Prime Minister to seek to prorogue Parliament in order to secure a disorderly no deal Brexit. I'll wait.

TOPPING said:

AlastairMeeks said:

algarkirk said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Philip_Thompson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

rcs1000 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

All true. But both sides are not without reason behind them. Hard Remainers can point to the pathetic failure of the assemblage of diverse leavers to be properly organised, and Leavers are not entirely unhinged if they point out that the democracy of the referendum cannot in principle be allowed to be subverted by the very parliament whose job it is to agree a mode of leaving, and have not exactly helped, and indeed clearly intend mostly to remain if they can get away with blaming someone else for it.

That’s nonsense. Remainers need to accept that a democratic mandate must be met through democracy. And Leavers must accept that their cluelessness about what they want does not allow them to subvert Parliamentary democracy. Excusing either is dangerous.

As has been pointed out many times by both sides, there was no further instruction on the ballot paper other than "leave". The default position that all leave voters were aware of is that the UK would leave the EU without a deal. Saying there would be a deal was just political bollocks from Leave.EU. Just like the political bollocks that is spouted all the time in election campaigns of any type.

The small print, however, remains (!) that we are due to leave the EU, and always were, with no deal if no deal is negotiated. And it hasn't been.

I mean even our favourite Leavers on here are super happy with leaving without a deal because their vote meant that it was a strong possibility.

I don't know about "super happy". I did not expect our politicians to be as incompetent, dishonest and disingenuous as they have been. No matter how cynical you think you are our politicians leave you feeling naive.

But I do agree that leaving with no deal was always a possible outcome and it is simply not true to say that the British people did not vote for it.

DavidL said:

TOPPING said:

AlastairMeeks said:

algarkirk said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Philip_Thompson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

rcs1000 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

All true. But both sides are not without reason behind them. Hard Remainers can point to the pathetic failure of the assemblage of diverse leavers to be properly organised, and Leavers are not entirely unhinged if they point out that the democracy of the referendum cannot in principle be allowed to be subverted by the very parliament whose job it is to agree a mode of leaving, and have not exactly helped, and indeed clearly intend mostly to remain if they can get away with blaming someone else for it.

That’s nonsense. Remainers need to accept that a democratic mandate must be met through democracy. And Leavers must accept that their cluelessness about what they want does not allow them to subvert Parliamentary democracy. Excusing either is dangerous.

As has been pointed out many times by both sides, there was no further instruction on the ballot paper other than "leave". The default position that all leave voters were aware of is that the UK would leave the EU without a deal. Saying there would be a deal was just political bollocks from Leave.EU. Just like the political bollocks that is spouted all the time in election campaigns of any type.

The small print, however, remains (!) that we are due to leave the EU, and always were, with no deal if no deal is negotiated. And it hasn't been.

I mean even our favourite Leavers on here are super happy with leaving without a deal because their vote meant that it was a strong possibility.

I don't know about "super happy". I did not expect our politicians to be as incompetent, dishonest and disingenuous as they have been. No matter how cynical you think you are our politicians leave you feeling naive.

But I do agree that leaving with no deal was always a possible outcome and it is simply not true to say that the British people did not vote for it.

All the Leavers who claimed that no deal Brexit was Project Fear are now claiming the British public voted for it. A little bit of humility and contrition on their part would be in order.