Non-rhetorical question for no-deal enthusiasts here: Suppose Boris resigned naming some other Tory, that person took the extension, then they resigned in turn and put Boris back.
How would you guys feel about this? Is it a sign that Boris does what he believes is right and stands up for you as far as he possibly can to the limit of the box the MPs out him in, or is it a ridiculous charade that shows you can't trust these clowns and it's time to go BXP?
Leavers threatening violence is becoming more commonplace.
What are they supposed to do, complain at the ballot box?
What's the point if your vote is ignored?
That is the direction the liberal "democrats" want to take us down.
1. Learn how our constitution works. 2. Talk to people you disagree with to build consensus and compromise to get a majority when you are in the parliamentary minority.
I do have limited sympathy for the point. Corbyn and McDonnell have often called for “direct action” and “passive resistance” in support of many of their causes and ideas. ER supports the flying of drones to shut airports, blocking roads etc etc. Which I fundamentally disagree with.
There is a whiff of hypocrisy when the lefts keenness for taking to the streets is shrouded in ideological virtuousness and allowable, yet the suggestion that leavers who call for their view to be heard are somehow being dangerously subversive.
Direct action or passive resistance are tools when you are miles away from getting power.
If you are close to getting power and close to having a majority in parliament, what you do is talk to people you disagree with to build consensus and compromise to get a majority.
It really is obvious, people have forgotten the first rule of politics is counting.
On the subject of the US, I was on a call with our Arizona lawyers today. (Based on previous conversations, I would guess they are Republican, but not Trumpian.)
And the Partner was joking about which was worse, a Prime Minister who lied to the Queen* or a President who conspired with foreign leaders to aid re-election.
Leavers threatening violence is becoming more commonplace.
What are they supposed to do, complain at the ballot box?
What's the point if your vote is ignored?
That is the direction the liberal "democrats" want to take us down.
1. Learn how our constitution works. 2. Talk to people you disagree with to build consensus and compromise to get a majority when you are in the parliamentary minority.
The referendum is a constitutional anomaly, it's not geared up to withstand the contradictory pressures created by a referendum and a general election (which, bizarrely, promised to implement the result of that referendum).
While the law may side with parliament, it is hard to argue from a moral standpoint that a government commanding 30% of the population's support can simply override a decision taken by a 52% majority.
If the LibDems think that getting a majority on 35% of the vote, and then revoking Brexit is a good idea for social and political cohesion, then... well, then they'll discover they're mistaken.
And if Boris Johnson thinks that he will be thanked for delivering No Deal Brexit, then he is likely to find himself disappointed.
The best compromise I can see is that proposed by @kyf_100 - a seven year EFTA/EEA period followed by a referendum that finds a Condorcet Winner between rejoin, clean break and continued EFTA/EEA.
It delivers the referendum verdict in a clean manner.
It means that in seven years we will likely have gone some way towards reorienting our economy and be ready if we want to go for clean break.
And if it is the case that we made a terrible mistake, we can change it.
And if everyone is broadly happy with the new status quo, then that too is available.
Really, it's hard to see any sensible objection to it.
Its fine, I would support it but is overly complicated to sell and easy for opponents to attack. Just EFTA/EEA for now and leaving the rest unsaid or not part of the formal proposal might be easier.
Non-rhetorical question for no-deal enthusiasts here: Suppose Boris resigned naming some other Tory, that person took the extension, then they resigned in turn and put Boris back.
How would you guys feel about this? Is it a sign that Boris does what he believes is right and stands up for you as far as he possibly can to the limit of the box the MPs out him in, or is it a ridiculous charade that shows you can't trust these clowns and it's time to go BXP?
The odd thing about this is that back in July when we were discussing the possibility that Johnson would be VONCed and Corbyn invited to form a government, the No Dealers were incandescent at the possibility, and insistent that it could never happen that a prime minister could be appointed without something approaching mathematical certainty that s/he enjoyed the support of a majority in the House of Commons.
Now that the Tories have nothing like a majority in the House of Commons, there seems to be a blithe assumption that they'll be able to transfer the prime ministership back and forth among themselves like a game of pass the parcel.
Well there is a 100% chance the current Commons will continue to block Brexit so an election it has to be
Therefore Boris should have campaigned for the leadership by pledging to ask for an extension which would have given time for the GE. It's really very simple, isn't it?
FWIW for the very first time, I’ve just overheard random* Americans talking, briefly, about Brexit.
* for values of “random” limited to passengers on a Hudson line Metro-North commuter train, which would be roughly equivalent to a South-West Trains service to the leafier parts of Surrey.
OK, I'll bite. What did they say?
Like I said, it was brief, and generally more about Boris’ scandals, but the gist was wtf are the Limeys up to. I have local friends and co-workers sometimes ask me what’s going on re Brexit, but it is the first time I’ve heard random people talk about it.
Non-rhetorical question for no-deal enthusiasts here: Suppose Boris resigned naming some other Tory, that person took the extension, then they resigned in turn and put Boris back.
How would you guys feel about this? Is it a sign that Boris does what he believes is right and stands up for you as far as he possibly can to the limit of the box the MPs out him in, or is it a ridiculous charade that shows you can't trust these clowns and it's time to go BXP?
The odd thing about this is that back in July when we were discussing the possibility that Johnson would be VONCed and Corbyn invited to form a government, the No Dealers were incandescent at the possibility, and insistent that it could never happen that a prime minister could be appointed without something approaching mathematical certainty that s/he enjoyed the support of a majority in the House of Commons.
Now that the Tories have nothing like a majority in the House of Commons, there seems to be a blithe assumption that they'll be able to transfer the prime ministership back and forth among themselves like a game of pass the parcel.
I've actually not seen that suggestion beyond the post you are quoting.
Leavers threatening violence is becoming more commonplace.
What are they supposed to do, complain at the ballot box?
What's the point if your vote is ignored?
That is the direction the liberal "democrats" want to take us down.
1. Learn how our constitution works. 2. Talk to people you disagree with to build consensus and compromise to get a majority when you are in the parliamentary minority.
The referendum is a constitutional anomaly, it's not geared up to withstand the contradictory pressures created by a referendum and a general election (which, bizarrely, promised to implement the result of that referendum).
While the law may side with parliament, it is hard to argue from a moral standpoint that a government commanding 30% of the population's support can simply override a decision taken by a 52% majority.
It is a very unlikely scenario that LDs get 30% let alone win a majority with it, and if they did it would be a very unstable decision with a similar 30% GE win for a brexit supporting party likely to happen further down the line.
The reason that parliament hasnt delivered the result of the referendum is that neither PM could count and see they didnt have a majority for their plan. Their solution to needing more votes was attack, blame and threaten, not realising a minority government can only deliver through building consensus and including opponents.
It is as simple as that. Both PMs have been really shit at their job.
The odd thing about this is that back in July when we were discussing the possibility that Johnson would be VONCed and Corbyn invited to form a government, the No Dealers were incandescent at the possibility, and insistent that it could never happen that a prime minister could be appointed without something approaching mathematical certainty that s/he enjoyed the support of a majority in the House of Commons.
Now that the Tories have nothing like a majority in the House of Commons, there seems to be a blithe assumption that they'll be able to transfer the prime ministership back and forth among themselves like a game of pass the parcel.
Corbyn would refuse an invitation from HMQ to form a temporary government then?
Leavers threatening violence is becoming more commonplace.
What are they supposed to do, complain at the ballot box?
What's the point if your vote is ignored?
That is the direction the liberal "democrats" want to take us down.
1. Learn how our constitution works. 2. Talk to people you disagree with to build consensus and compromise to get a majority when you are in the parliamentary minority.
I do have limited sympathy for the point. Corbyn and McDonnell have often called for “direct action” and “passive resistance” in support of many of their causes and ideas. ER supports the flying of drones to shut airports, blocking roads etc etc. Which I fundamentally disagree with.
There is a whiff of hypocrisy when the lefts keenness for taking to the streets is shrouded in ideological virtuousness and allowable, yet the suggestion that leavers who call for their view to be heard are somehow being dangerously subversive.
Direct action or passive resistance are tools when you are miles away from getting power.
If you are close to getting power and close to having a majority in parliament, what you do is talk to people you disagree with to build consensus and compromise to get a majority.
It really is obvious, people have forgotten the first rule of politics is counting.
So logically speaking if Brexit were cancelled direct action and passive resistance by leavers would be democratically justifiable, and indeed as virtuous as any prior example supported by such characters as Corbyn. Poll tax marches, anti-capitalist demonstrations, extinction rebellion actions, anti- war marches all varying examples of non violent (in the most part) of legitimate demonstrations of political feeling.
Well there is a 100% chance the current Commons will continue to block Brexit so an election it has to be
Therefore Boris should have campaigned for the leadership by pledging to ask for an extension which would have given time for the GE. It's really very simple, isn't it?
In which case the Tories would have collapsed behind Labour, probably behind the Brexit Party too thanks to your disastrous advice.
If the LibDems think that getting a majority on 35% of the vote, and then revoking Brexit is a good idea for social and political cohesion, then... well, then they'll discover they're mistaken.
And if Boris Johnson thinks that he will be thanked for delivering No Deal Brexit, then he is likely to find himself disappointed.
The best compromise I can see is that proposed by @kyf_100 - a seven year EFTA/EEA period followed by a referendum that finds a Condorcet Winner between rejoin, clean break and continued EFTA/EEA.
It delivers the referendum verdict in a clean manner.
It means that in seven years we will likely have gone some way towards reorienting our economy and be ready if we want to go for clean break.
And if it is the case that we made a terrible mistake, we can change it.
And if everyone is broadly happy with the new status quo, then that too is available.
Really, it's hard to see any sensible objection to it.
You're creating a seven year hiatus while no-one knows what's going to happen next. The point about EEA+CU etc is that it is out but similar to being in except for having a say. So you get on with it.
If the LibDems think that getting a majority on 35% of the vote, and then revoking Brexit is a good idea for social and political cohesion, then... well, then they'll discover they're mistaken.
And if Boris Johnson thinks that he will be thanked for delivering No Deal Brexit, then he is likely to find himself disappointed.
The best compromise I can see is that proposed by @kyf_100 - a seven year EFTA/EEA period followed by a referendum that finds a Condorcet Winner between rejoin, clean break and continued EFTA/EEA.
It delivers the referendum verdict in a clean manner.
It means that in seven years we will likely have gone some way towards reorienting our economy and be ready if we want to go for clean break.
And if it is the case that we made a terrible mistake, we can change it.
And if everyone is broadly happy with the new status quo, then that too is available.
Really, it's hard to see any sensible objection to it.
Its fine, I would support it but is overly complicated to sell and easy for opponents to attack. Just EFTA/EEA for now and leaving the rest unsaid or not part of the formal proposal might be easier.
I disagree.
- Clean Breakers regard it as better than perpetual EFTA/EEA because they are convinced then when people realise that EFTA/EEA is so similar to membership they will move to Clean Break. - Remainers think that the people will change their mind on membership and this leaves the door opening to remaining a part of the EU.
The odd thing about this is that back in July when we were discussing the possibility that Johnson would be VONCed and Corbyn invited to form a government, the No Dealers were incandescent at the possibility, and insistent that it could never happen that a prime minister could be appointed without something approaching mathematical certainty that s/he enjoyed the support of a majority in the House of Commons.
Now that the Tories have nothing like a majority in the House of Commons, there seems to be a blithe assumption that they'll be able to transfer the prime ministership back and forth among themselves like a game of pass the parcel.
Yes, that was all bullshit. OTOH I think it's easier for somebody who may not have a majority to take over if they have the recommendation of the outgoing PM, especially if we're talking about a resignation rather than a VONC.
Well there is a 100% chance the current Commons will continue to block Brexit so an election it has to be
Therefore Boris should have campaigned for the leadership by pledging to ask for an extension which would have given time for the GE. It's really very simple, isn't it?
But Cummings and Johnson combo are so clever. They have gamed every possible outcome
Therefore Boris should have campaigned for the leadership by pledging to ask for an extension which would have given time for the GE. It's really very simple, isn't it?
What?
That would have been (and still would be) electoral suicide.
It is up to Labour to make the request for an extension and then face the electorate at a GE.
If the LibDems think that getting a majority on 35% of the vote, and then revoking Brexit is a good idea for social and political cohesion, then... well, then they'll discover they're mistaken.
And if Boris Johnson thinks that he will be thanked for delivering No Deal Brexit, then he is likely to find himself disappointed.
The best compromise I can see is that proposed by @kyf_100 - a seven year EFTA/EEA period followed by a referendum that finds a Condorcet Winner between rejoin, clean break and continued EFTA/EEA.
It delivers the referendum verdict in a clean manner.
It means that in seven years we will likely have gone some way towards reorienting our economy and be ready if we want to go for clean break.
And if it is the case that we made a terrible mistake, we can change it.
And if everyone is broadly happy with the new status quo, then that too is available.
Really, it's hard to see any sensible objection to it.
Its fine, I would support it but is overly complicated to sell and easy for opponents to attack. Just EFTA/EEA for now and leaving the rest unsaid or not part of the formal proposal might be easier.
I disagree.
- Clean Breakers regard it as better than perpetual EFTA/EEA because they are convinced then when people realise that EFTA/EEA is so similar to membership they will move to Clean Break. - Remainers think that the people will change their mind on membership and this leaves the door opening to remaining a part of the EU.
And EFTA/EEAers will obviously love it.
This wont happen because according to @HYUFD it will destroy the Conservative Party.
Leavers threatening violence is becoming more commonplace.
What are they supposed to do, complain at the ballot box?
What's the point if your vote is ignored?
That is the direction the liberal "democrats" want to take us down.
1. Learn how our constitution works. 2. Talk to people you disagree with to build consensus and compromise to get a majority when you are in the parliamentary minority.
I do have limited sympathy for the point. Corbyn and McDonnell have often called for “direct action” and “passive resistance” in support of many of their causes and ideas. ER supports the flying of drones to shut airports, blocking roads etc etc. Which I fundamentally disagree with.
There is a whiff of hypocrisy when the lefts keenness for taking to the streets is shrouded in ideological virtuousness and allowable, yet the suggestion that leavers who call for their view to be heard are somehow being dangerously subversive.
Direct action or passive resistance are tools when you are miles away from getting power.
If you are close to getting power and close to having a majority in parliament, what you do is talk to people you disagree with to build consensus and compromise to get a majority.
It really is obvious, people have forgotten the first rule of politics is counting.
So logically speaking if Brexit were cancelled direct action and passive resistance by leavers would be democratically justifiable, and indeed as virtuous as any prior example supported by such characters as Corbyn. Poll tax marches, anti-capitalist demonstrations, extinction rebellion actions, anti- war marches all varying examples of non violent (in the most part) of legitimate demonstrations of political feeling.
Of course leavers can march if they want.
Perhaps they should march against their leaders who started the parliament with 327 MPs but have lost 29 MPs in two years through a failed strategy making it harder to deliver what they (over) promised.
Therefore Boris should have campaigned for the leadership by pledging to ask for an extension which would have given time for the GE. It's really very simple, isn't it?
What?
That would have been (and still would be) electoral suicide.
It is up to Labour to make the request for an extension and then face the electorate at a GE.
If the LibDems think that getting a majority on 35% of the vote, and then revoking Brexit is a good idea for social and political cohesion, then... well, then they'll discover they're mistaken.
And if Boris Johnson thinks that he will be thanked for delivering No Deal Brexit, then he is likely to find himself disappointed.
The best compromise I can see is that proposed by @kyf_100 - a seven year EFTA/EEA period followed by a referendum that finds a Condorcet Winner between rejoin, clean break and continued EFTA/EEA.
It delivers the referendum verdict in a clean manner.
It means that in seven years we will likely have gone some way towards reorienting our economy and be ready if we want to go for clean break.
And if it is the case that we made a terrible mistake, we can change it.
And if everyone is broadly happy with the new status quo, then that too is available.
Really, it's hard to see any sensible objection to it.
Its fine, I would support it but is overly complicated to sell and easy for opponents to attack. Just EFTA/EEA for now and leaving the rest unsaid or not part of the formal proposal might be easier.
I disagree.
- Clean Breakers regard it as better than perpetual EFTA/EEA because they are convinced then when people realise that EFTA/EEA is so similar to membership they will move to Clean Break. - Remainers think that the people will change their mind on membership and this leaves the door opening to remaining a part of the EU.
And EFTA/EEAers will obviously love it.
Perhaps you are right. Id suspect Brexiteers will rail against it as taking 10 years to implement their vote and not leaving properly anyway, whilst Labour would still want a 2nd ref for it. Perhaps Brexit is making us all too pessimistic.
If the LibDems think that getting a majority on 35% of the vote, and then revoking Brexit is a good idea for social and political cohesion, then... well, then they'll discover they're mistaken.
And if Boris Johnson thinks that he will be thanked for delivering No Deal Brexit, then he is likely to find himself disappointed.
The best compromise I can see is that proposed by @kyf_100 - a seven year EFTA/EEA period followed by a referendum that finds a Condorcet Winner between rejoin, clean break and continued EFTA/EEA.
It delivers the referendum verdict in a clean manner.
It means that in seven years we will likely have gone some way towards reorienting our economy and be ready if we want to go for clean break.
And if it is the case that we made a terrible mistake, we can change it.
And if everyone is broadly happy with the new status quo, then that too is available.
Really, it's hard to see any sensible objection to it.
Thanks!
Any moderate party that proposed this - or any other similar compromise -would get my vote.
Alas, it's a winner takes all mentality now.
The lib dems used to be the voice of the moderate middle and I suppose I'm mourning the fact that they're not. The next GE will be a choice between four different extremists. How rubbish is that?
Well there is a 100% chance the current Commons will continue to block Brexit so an election it has to be
Therefore Boris should have campaigned for the leadership by pledging to ask for an extension which would have given time for the GE. It's really very simple, isn't it?
In which case the Tories would have collapsed behind Labour, probably behind the Brexit Party too thanks to your disastrous advice.
I'm shocked at your lack of faith. I thought the whole purpose of backing Boris was that he's a winner. A simple matter of a few weeks' extension to get rid of this Remainiac parliament and install a majority of true-blue believers should have been a synch. After all, as you rightly imply, the voter numbers should be there to deliver that against a divided set of Quisling traitors.
Instead, as a result of ignoring my excellent advice, he's completely boxed himself in with a brain-dead promise which he can't deliver, for which he will rightly suffer when the Quisling traitors judge it convenient to allow him his election. How stupid was that?
FWIW for the very first time, I’ve just overheard random* Americans talking, briefly, about Brexit.
* for values of “random” limited to passengers on a Hudson line Metro-North commuter train, which would be roughly equivalent to a South-West Trains service to the leafier parts of Surrey.
OK, I'll bite. What did they say?
Like I said, it was brief, and generally more about Boris’ scandals, but the gist was wtf are the Limeys up to. I have local friends and co-workers sometimes ask me what’s going on re Brexit, but it is the first time I’ve heard random people talk about it.
Someone from South Africa asked me recently what was going on with Brexit. I asked him how up to date he was. He said 'I know there was a referendum'. I didn't have the heart, or the rest of time, to fill him in on progress since then.
As soon as Labour are exposed when they refuse to support the deal agreed with the EU.
Labour will have to explain how, in the scenario where according to them the UK is under apocalyptic threat from no deal, they have decided to refuse to vote for a deal to avoid it.
At this point the government will rightly refuse to request an extension to indulge Labour's game playing and will resign.
Corbyn will be recommended to HMQ and will have to request the extension followed by immediate GE.
At which point Labour will be annihilated.
This was guffawed at up until relatively recently but serious observers have come round to the realization that this is not only the most likely but is in fact the only way forward.
However, the one rider is that there will be a good number of MPs on Labour benches who would probably snatch at the chance of a deal if they thought it might go through.
If the LibDems think that getting a majority on 35% of the vote, and then revoking Brexit is a good idea for social and political cohesion, then... well, then they'll discover they're mistaken.
And if Boris Johnson thinks that he will be thanked for delivering No Deal Brexit, then he is likely to find himself disappointed.
The best compromise I can see is that proposed by @kyf_100 - a seven year EFTA/EEA period followed by a referendum that finds a Condorcet Winner between rejoin, clean break and continued EFTA/EEA.
It delivers the referendum verdict in a clean manner.
It means that in seven years we will likely have gone some way towards reorienting our economy and be ready if we want to go for clean break.
And if it is the case that we made a terrible mistake, we can change it.
And if everyone is broadly happy with the new status quo, then that too is available.
Really, it's hard to see any sensible objection to it.
You're creating a seven year hiatus while no-one knows what's going to happen next. The point about EEA+CU etc is that it is out but similar to being in except for having a say. So you get on with it.
I should add parties sign up to treaties to get commitment from the other side. There's no commitment in this plan so no-one will be interested in seven year treaties, including EEA
As soon as Labour are exposed when they refuse to support the deal agreed with the EU.
Labour will have to explain how, in the scenario where according to them the UK is under apocalyptic threat from no deal, they have decided to refuse to vote for a deal to avoid it.
At this point the government will rightly refuse to request an extension to indulge Labour's game playing and will resign.
Corbyn will be recommended to HMQ and will have to request the extension followed by immediate GE.
At which point Labour will be annihilated.
This was guffawed at up until relatively recently but serious observers have come round to the realization that this is not only the most likely but is in fact the only way forward.
However, the one rider is that there will be a good number of MPs on Labour benches who would probably snatch at the chance of a deal if they thought it might go through.
If the LibDems think that getting a majority on 35% of the vote, and then revoking Brexit is a good idea for social and political cohesion, then... well, then they'll discover they're mistaken.
And if Boris Johnson thinks that he will be thanked for delivering No Deal Brexit, then he is likely to find himself disappointed.
The best compromise I can see is that proposed by @kyf_100 - a seven year EFTA/EEA period followed by a referendum that finds a Condorcet Winner between rejoin, clean break and continued EFTA/EEA.
It delivers the referendum verdict in a clean manner.
It means that in seven years we will likely have gone some way towards reorienting our economy and be ready if we want to go for clean break.
And if it is the case that we made a terrible mistake, we can change it.
And if everyone is broadly happy with the new status quo, then that too is available.
Really, it's hard to see any sensible objection to it.
EFTA/EEA doesn't solve the Irish border and isn't on offer in that form from the EU.
I still think the Lib Dems will come to regret their decision to go straight to revoke .
During an election campaign it will come under more scrutiny . Aswell as this I think some Remainers will be mindful of the effect on the current divisions .
A second referendum with Remain v Leave .
If Leave wins then a second vote on leaving with a deal or no withdrawal agreement .
You can have this done over one week. If you’re going to have another vote that seems the fairest way .
I think in light of recent events with abuse and threats aimed at MPs and the toxic nature running riot in the UK , a straight revoke is irresponsible .
I like the Lib Dems and am an ardent Remainer but am deeply concerned by their policy .
Just occurred to me how correct it was for anyone who wanted to leave the EU to have voted UKIP in 2015, because they actually wanted to leave, rather than Conservative because they were most likely to win and that was the best way to a referendum.
It’s probably Leave voters who voted Conservative in order to keep our Labour, despite being tempted by UKIP, in that GE that have caused the situation we are in.
I still think the Lib Dems will come to regret their decision to go straight to revoke .
During an election campaign it will come under more scrutiny . Aswell as this I think some Remainers will be mindful of the effect on the current divisions .
A second referendum with Remain v Leave .
If Leave wins then a second vote on leaving with a deal or no withdrawal agreement .
You can have this done over one week. If you’re going to have another vote that seems the fairest way .
I think in light of recent events with abuse and threats aimed at MPs and the toxic nature running riot in the UK , a straight revoke is irresponsible .
I like the Lib Dems and am an ardent Remainer but am deeply concerned by their policy .
If the Lib Dems won a majority it would be an even greater seismic event than the Brexit ref.
Well there is a 100% chance the current Commons will continue to block Brexit so an election it has to be
Therefore Boris should have campaigned for the leadership by pledging to ask for an extension which would have given time for the GE. It's really very simple, isn't it?
In which case the Tories would have collapsed behind Labour, probably behind the Brexit Party too thanks to your disastrous advice.
I'm shocked at your lack of faith. I thought the whole purpose of backing Boris was that he's a winner. A simple matter of a few weeks' extension to get rid of this Remainiac parliament and install a majority of true-blue believers should have been a synch. After all, as you rightly imply, the voter numbers should be there to deliver that against a divided set of Quisling traitors.
Instead, as a result of ignoring my excellent advice, he's completely boxed himself in with a brain-dead promise which he can't deliver, for which he will rightly suffer when the Quisling traitors judge it convenient to allow him his election. How stupid was that?
If it had been down to your pig headedness the Tories would have extended again by now, be third or even 4th in the polls and overtaken by the Brexit Party and heading if not for extinction at least for never winning a majority Government again.
I voted for Boris because he will actually put up the fight for Brexit and democracy come what may and refuse to extend again, going into opposition if necessary to continue the fight rather than lead the party to the extinction your idiocy would have led it to. Boris will go to war with the die hard Remainers and correctly so.
Thank God you left the Tories is all I can say before we had no party left, anyone who continues to stay in the party to try and block Brexit Deal or No Deal must now be thrown out of the party completely. Enough is enough
I still think the Lib Dems will come to regret their decision to go straight to revoke .
During an election campaign it will come under more scrutiny . Aswell as this I think some Remainers will be mindful of the effect on the current divisions .
A second referendum with Remain v Leave .
If Leave wins then a second vote on leaving with a deal or no withdrawal agreement .
You can have this done over one week. If you’re going to have another vote that seems the fairest way .
I think in light of recent events with abuse and threats aimed at MPs and the toxic nature running riot in the UK , a straight revoke is irresponsible .
I like the Lib Dems and am an ardent Remainer but am deeply concerned by their policy .
If the Lib Dems won a majority it would be an even greater seismic event than the Brexit ref.
It would be the biggest shock of all time . It still won’t change my view though . A straight revoke is irresponsible . Just as I think no deal doesn’t have a proper mandate , Revoke doesn’t either unless it’s by way of a second vote .
I still think the Lib Dems will come to regret their decision to go straight to revoke .
During an election campaign it will come under more scrutiny . Aswell as this I think some Remainers will be mindful of the effect on the current divisions .
It is a superb piece of positioning.
Come the GE any voter who feels strongly about the UK's membership of the EU (and at a guess that could be 10m+) only have one home to go to .
I still think the Lib Dems will come to regret their decision to go straight to revoke .
During an election campaign it will come under more scrutiny . Aswell as this I think some Remainers will be mindful of the effect on the current divisions .
It is a superb piece of positioning.
Come the GE any voter who feels strongly about the UK's membership of the EU (and at a guess that could be 10m+) only have one home to go to .
And it isn't Labour.
They are a bit fucked if a deal has been passed though
If Leave wins then a second vote on leaving with a deal or no withdrawal agreement .
The whole argument for a second referendum with a Remain option is that you can only decide between Leave and Remain once you know what Leave means. So it doesn't work to first repeat the Cameron brain damage and say, choose between Remain and ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, *then* have another vote to fill in the ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If you want the No Deal option then the solution is to do it the other way around: First you decide what Leave means with a Deal vs No Deal vote, *then* you vote on whether you actually want to do that.
Alternatively there's @rcs1000's suggestion from way back where you rank the three choices, and if one choice beats both the others you do that, but if you get circularity then you just say the referendum didn't produce a result and go back to swearing at each other.
The problem with all this is that the only way to make it a genuine "ask the people" thing involves some kind of procedural complexity, and once you have a little bit of complexity, it's going to get demagogued to shit and the chances of the losing side(s) accepting that it was fair rapidly approach zero.
I still think the Lib Dems will come to regret their decision to go straight to revoke .
During an election campaign it will come under more scrutiny . Aswell as this I think some Remainers will be mindful of the effect on the current divisions .
It is a superb piece of positioning.
Come the GE any voter who feels strongly about the UK's membership of the EU (and at a guess that could be 10m+) only have one home to go to .
And it isn't Labour.
As opposed to Johnson and some others who want Brexit at any cost , I wouldn’t accept Remain at any cost .
I have a red line . Only a second vote can change the referendum result . You will not find anyone more pro EU than me and if I have these reservations over Revoke than I’m sure there are many other Remainers who feel the same .
Perhaps I’m wrong , I’m happy to eat humble pie if the Lib Dems Revoke policy is a success .
I still think the Lib Dems will come to regret their decision to go straight to revoke .
During an election campaign it will come under more scrutiny . Aswell as this I think some Remainers will be mindful of the effect on the current divisions .
A second referendum with Remain v Leave .
If Leave wins then a second vote on leaving with a deal or no withdrawal agreement .
You can have this done over one week. If you’re going to have another vote that seems the fairest way .
I think in light of recent events with abuse and threats aimed at MPs and the toxic nature running riot in the UK , a straight revoke is irresponsible .
I like the Lib Dems and am an ardent Remainer but am deeply concerned by their policy .
If the Lib Dems won a majority it would be an even greater seismic event than the Brexit ref.
It would be the biggest shock of all time . It still won’t change my view though . A straight revoke is irresponsible . Just as I think no deal doesn’t have a proper mandate , Revoke doesn’t either unless it’s by way of a second vote .
A 2nd ref boycotted by leavers will give no mandate either.
If Leave wins then a second vote on leaving with a deal or no withdrawal agreement .
The whole argument for a second referendum with a Remain option is that you can only decide between Leave and Remain once you know what Leave means. So it doesn't work to first repeat the Cameron brain damage and say, choose between Remain and ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, *then* have another vote to fill in the ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If you want the No Deal option then the solution is to do it the other way around: First you decide what Leave means with a Deal vs No Deal vote, *then* you vote on whether you actually want to do that.
Alternatively there's @rcs1000's suggestion from way back where you rank the three choices, and if one choice beats both the others you do that, but if you get circularity then you just say the referendum didn't produce a result and go back to swearing at each other.
The problem with all this is that the only way to make it a genuine "ask the people" thing involves some kind of procedural complexity, and once you have a little bit of complexity, it's going to get demagogued to shit and the chances of the losing side(s) accepting that it was fair rapidly approach zero.
For the record, circularity is incredibly rare in ranked choice elections.
As opposed to Johnson and some others who want Brexit at any cost , I wouldn’t accept Remain at any cost .
I have a red line . Only a second vote can change the referendum result . You will not find anyone more pro EU than me and if I have these reservations over Revoke than I’m sure there are many other Remainers who feel the same .
Perhaps I’m wrong , I’m happy to eat humble pie if the Lib Dems Revoke policy is a success .
It will be a success if the GE is prior to Brexit.
If the GE is after then it its effectiveness will be more questionable.
My sense is that once the WA is agreed we will all be as willing to reopen the arguments as we would be drinking a pint of cold sick.
I still think the Lib Dems will come to regret their decision to go straight to revoke .
During an election campaign it will come under more scrutiny . Aswell as this I think some Remainers will be mindful of the effect on the current divisions .
A second referendum with Remain v Leave .
If Leave wins then a second vote on leaving with a deal or no withdrawal agreement .
You can have this done over one week. If you’re going to have another vote that seems the fairest way .
I think in light of recent events with abuse and threats aimed at MPs and the toxic nature running riot in the UK , a straight revoke is irresponsible .
I like the Lib Dems and am an ardent Remainer but am deeply concerned by their policy .
If the Lib Dems won a majority it would be an even greater seismic event than the Brexit ref.
It would be the biggest shock of all time . It still won’t change my view though . A straight revoke is irresponsible . Just as I think no deal doesn’t have a proper mandate , Revoke doesn’t either unless it’s by way of a second vote .
A 2nd ref boycotted by leavers will give no mandate either.
There is no way out.
If people still want to Leave then they’ll get out and vote especially if it’s fair with both Leave options .
I think no deal is unacceptable as it wasn’t what was sold in 2016 . The polarization has got worse since the ERG and others have tried to say this is now the only true Brexit .
I would only accept Revoke as an absolute last resort if it was to avoid no deal . I hope this isn’t what happens .
I still think the Lib Dems will come to regret their decision to go straight to revoke .
During an election campaign it will come under more scrutiny . Aswell as this I think some Remainers will be mindful of the effect on the current divisions .
A second referendum with Remain v Leave .
If Leave wins then a second vote on leaving with a deal or no withdrawal agreement .
You can have this done over one week. If you’re going to have another vote that seems the fairest way .
I think in light of recent events with abuse and threats aimed at MPs and the toxic nature running riot in the UK , a straight revoke is irresponsible .
I like the Lib Dems and am an ardent Remainer but am deeply concerned by their policy .
If the Lib Dems won a majority it would be an even greater seismic event than the Brexit ref.
It would be the biggest shock of all time . It still won’t change my view though . A straight revoke is irresponsible . Just as I think no deal doesn’t have a proper mandate , Revoke doesn’t either unless it’s by way of a second vote .
A 2nd ref boycotted by leavers will give no mandate either.
There is no way out.
If people still want to Leave then they’ll get out and vote especially if it’s fair with both Leave options .
I think no deal is unacceptable as it wasn’t what was sold in 2016 . The polarization has got worse since the ERG and others have tried to say this is now the only true Brexit .
I would only accept Revoke as an absolute last resort if it was to avoid no deal . I hope this isn’t what happens .
If you put ‘no deal’ on the ballot paper you make the same mistake of the first referendum. It is a fairytale that can be anything to anyone and any criticism dismissed as project fear. Leave MUST decide on what they want. A specific future state.
There's another benefit to the LibDems' line that people are overlooking which is that if their policy is to immediately end Brexit, they can propose to spend the Revoke Dividend. We're talking about vast sums of money: All the tax revenue on all that GDP that would have be lost if you went ahead with Brexit, particularly the No Deal variety.
This is particularly important if they're trying to attract Hammond-style Tories, who as well as being repelled by No Deal Brexit, will generally not be impressed by the Tories going the full Trump on the public finances. The LibDems can promise everybody all kinds of fabulous presents, and they'll still be the fiscally responsible choice compared to Lab and Con.
They couldn't do this if they were just promising a referendum, because they couldn't reasonably assume that it would go their way.
As opposed to Johnson and some others who want Brexit at any cost , I wouldn’t accept Remain at any cost .
I have a red line . Only a second vote can change the referendum result . You will not find anyone more pro EU than me and if I have these reservations over Revoke than I’m sure there are many other Remainers who feel the same .
Perhaps I’m wrong , I’m happy to eat humble pie if the Lib Dems Revoke policy is a success .
It will be a success if the GE is prior to Brexit.
If the GE is after then it its effectiveness will be more questionable.
My sense is that once the WA is agreed we will all be as willing to reopen the arguments as we would be drinking a pint of cold sick.
I tend to think a deal which the public on both sides might moan about but then get on with their lives is probably the best way forward .
The symbolism of the UK leaving is quite a big thing . The Brexit Party even if they try to drag things out with cries of sell out will soon disappear into obscurity .
Are you saying there is little chance of voters supporting a party intent on rejoining the EU?
I thought leaving would be so devastating as to make even the most arch-leaver beg to be re-admitted complete with no opt outs and a euro cherry on top.
Are you saying there is little chance of voters supporting a party intent on rejoining the EU?
I thought leaving would be so devastating as to make even the most arch-leaver beg to be re-admitted complete with no opt outs and a euro cherry on top.
I make no claim as to the intelligence levels of Cummings and Johnson (other than they humiliated remainers in 2016). What I am confident of is that they will have war-gamed every conceivable scenario...
Boris getting somebody else pregnant?[1] Death of the Queen? Death of Corbyn? Busted & McFly reforming? Space alien invasion? Zombie Yaks? All of them????
Are you saying there is little chance of voters supporting a party intent on rejoining the EU?
I thought leaving would be so devastating as to make even the most arch-leaver beg to be re-admitted complete with no opt outs and a euro cherry on top.
Why rejoin when we can just revoke?
If you can secure 50% if the electorate to agree with you, go nuts, treat yourself. Until then, there's a pretty good reason why not.
Are you saying there is little chance of voters supporting a party intent on rejoining the EU?
I thought leaving would be so devastating as to make even the most arch-leaver beg to be re-admitted complete with no opt outs and a euro cherry on top.
Why rejoin when we can just revoke?
If you can secure 50% if the electorate to agree with you, go nuts, treat yourself. Until then, there's a pretty good reason why not.
This isn’t a game you know. People’s jobs, health and prosperity depends on these decisions.
I tend to think a deal which the public on both sides might moan about but then get on with their lives is probably the best way forward .
I agree with this.
If both sides are moaning then the deal is probably as 'fair' as it could be in the circumstances.
May was an utter disaster as PM but the opprobrium her deal had heaped on it, from all sides, suggests that perhaps rather than it being a reflection on the deals failure it was a cack-handed compliment about its reasonableness.
I maintain if we could go back in time to the vote on MV1 it would pass.
I tend to think a deal which the public on both sides might moan about but then get on with their lives is probably the best way forward .
I agree with this.
If both sides are moaning then the deal is probably as 'fair' as it could be in the circumstances.
May was an utter disaster as PM but the opprobrium her deal had heaped on it, from all sides, suggests that perhaps rather than it being a reflection on the deals failure it was a cack-handed compliment about its reasonableness.
I maintain if we could go back in time to the vote on MV1 it would pass.
This is complete dog poo. May made no concession to Remainers. No attempt at the middle ground.
The only reason May’s deal looks reasonable is because of the populist scum who are now in government.
Erm, because rejoining would be a legitimate progression of the democratic process rather than revoking being just about, in fact definitely, the most anti-democratic route available.
But Cummings and Johnson combo are so clever. They have gamed every possible outcome
I make no claim as to the intelligence levels of Cummings and Johnson (other than they humiliated remainers in 2016).
What I am confident of is that they will have war-gamed every conceivable scenario.
Remainers mocked in 2016 and got their ars*s handed to them...it would seem that they are mocking again.
No plan survives contact with the enemy. Or to put it another way, I seriously doubt they planned to get rebuffed in their attempt to get an election.
Question: did they think their prorogation(?) would be overturned? If they did, why didn't they make plans for it, such as returning from NY in good time and arranging for the party conference?
Erm, because rejoining would be a legitimate progression of the democratic process rather than revoking being just about, in fact definitely, the most anti-democratic route available.
Boris getting somebody else pregnant?[1] Death of the Queen? Death of Corbyn? Busted & McFly reforming? Space alien invasion? Zombie Yaks? All of them????
I tend to think a deal which the public on both sides might moan about but then get on with their lives is probably the best way forward .
I agree with this.
If both sides are moaning then the deal is probably as 'fair' as it could be in the circumstances.
May was an utter disaster as PM but the opprobrium her deal had heaped on it, from all sides, suggests that perhaps rather than it being a reflection on the deals failure it was a cack-handed compliment about its reasonableness.
I maintain if we could go back in time to the vote on MV1 it would pass.
This is complete dog poo. May made no concession to Remainers. No attempt at the middle ground.
The only reason May’s deal looks reasonable is because of the populist scum who are now in government.
Yeah, this smacks of allowing the extremists to define the middle.
I tend to think a deal which the public on both sides might moan about but then get on with their lives is probably the best way forward .
I agree with this.
If both sides are moaning then the deal is probably as 'fair' as it could be in the circumstances.
May was an utter disaster as PM but the opprobrium her deal had heaped on it, from all sides, suggests that perhaps rather than it being a reflection on the deals failure it was a cack-handed compliment about its reasonableness.
I maintain if we could go back in time to the vote on MV1 it would pass.
This is complete dog poo. May made no concession to Remainers. No attempt at the middle ground.
The only reason May’s deal looks reasonable is because of the populist scum who are now in government.
Yeah, this smacks of allowing the extremists to define the middle.
Like the people who say the others are "scum" or who endorse harassing politicians in their personal homes? Again, you are refusing to budge an inch in compromise.
I still think the Lib Dems will come to regret their decision to go straight to revoke .
During an election campaign it will come under more scrutiny . Aswell as this I think some Remainers will be mindful of the effect on the current divisions .
A second referendum with Remain v Leave .
If Leave wins then a second vote on leaving with a deal or no withdrawal agreement .
You can have this done over one week. If you’re going to have another vote that seems the fairest way .
I think in light of recent events with abuse and threats aimed at MPs and the toxic nature running riot in the UK , a straight revoke is irresponsible .
I like the Lib Dems and am an ardent Remainer but am deeply concerned by their policy .
If the Lib Dems won a majority it would be an even greater seismic event than the Brexit ref.
It would be the biggest shock of all time . It still won’t change my view though . A straight revoke is irresponsible . Just as I think no deal doesn’t have a proper mandate , Revoke doesn’t either unless it’s by way of a second vote .
A 2nd ref boycotted by leavers will give no mandate either.
There is no way out.
If people still want to Leave then they’ll get out and vote especially if it’s fair with both Leave options .
I think no deal is unacceptable as it wasn’t what was sold in 2016 . The polarization has got worse since the ERG and others have tried to say this is now the only true Brexit .
I would only accept Revoke as an absolute last resort if it was to avoid no deal . I hope this isn’t what happens .
It is not really reasonable to require to win two votes to win when we would have had Remain accepted with one vote.
Maybe the best way to resolve this is a straight May's Deal vs No Deal referendum. If the next General Election doesn't resolve this, we could do that.
Comments
Leo McKinstry"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/26/careful-wish-boris-every-chance-tories-would-lose-election/
How would you guys feel about this? Is it a sign that Boris does what he believes is right and stands up for you as far as he possibly can to the limit of the box the MPs out him in, or is it a ridiculous charade that shows you can't trust these clowns and it's time to go BXP?
Lab hold in Ipswich with Tory and lab votes down a bit, LD up
If you are close to getting power and close to having a majority in parliament, what you do is talk to people you disagree with to build consensus and compromise to get a majority.
It really is obvious, people have forgotten the first rule of politics is counting.
And the Partner was joking about which was worse, a Prime Minister who lied to the Queen* or a President who conspired with foreign leaders to aid re-election.
It was all a bit embarassing.
* I didn't correct him.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1177351122178191367?s=21
While the law may side with parliament, it is hard to argue from a moral standpoint that a government commanding 30% of the population's support can simply override a decision taken by a 52% majority.
Night all.
Now that the Tories have nothing like a majority in the House of Commons, there seems to be a blithe assumption that they'll be able to transfer the prime ministership back and forth among themselves like a game of pass the parcel.
The reason that parliament hasnt delivered the result of the referendum is that neither PM could count and see they didnt have a majority for their plan. Their solution to needing more votes was attack, blame and threaten, not realising a minority government can only deliver through building consensus and including opponents.
It is as simple as that. Both PMs have been really shit at their job.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1177350820712652801?s=20
An extension will not be used to find a way to implement the referendum result.
An extension will be used by remainers to buy time to find a way to overturn the result.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1176087917149728768?s=20
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1176096370702180355?s=20
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1175856112299577350?s=20
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1176103416990437377?s=20
- Clean Breakers regard it as better than perpetual EFTA/EEA because they are convinced then when people realise that EFTA/EEA is so similar to membership they will move to Clean Break.
- Remainers think that the people will change their mind on membership and this leaves the door opening to remaining a part of the EU.
And EFTA/EEAers will obviously love it.
That would have been (and still would be) electoral suicide.
It is up to Labour to make the request for an extension and then face the electorate at a GE.
Perhaps they should march against their leaders who started the parliament with 327 MPs but have lost 29 MPs in two years through a failed strategy making it harder to deliver what they (over) promised.
Any moderate party that proposed this - or any other similar compromise -would get my vote.
Alas, it's a winner takes all mentality now.
The lib dems used to be the voice of the moderate middle and I suppose I'm mourning the fact that they're not. The next GE will be a choice between four different extremists. How rubbish is that?
I don't think it viable before February.
Instead, as a result of ignoring my excellent advice, he's completely boxed himself in with a brain-dead promise which he can't deliver, for which he will rightly suffer when the Quisling traitors judge it convenient to allow him his election. How stupid was that?
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1177350820712652801
Labour will have to explain how, in the scenario where according to them the UK is under apocalyptic threat from no deal, they have decided to refuse to vote for a deal to avoid it.
At this point the government will rightly refuse to request an extension to indulge Labour's game playing and will resign.
Corbyn will be recommended to HMQ and will have to request the extension followed by immediate GE.
At which point Labour will be annihilated.
This was guffawed at up until relatively recently but serious observers have come round to the realization that this is not only the most likely but is in fact the only way forward.
However, the one rider is that there will be a good number of MPs on Labour benches who would probably snatch at the chance of a deal if they thought it might go through.
What I am confident of is that they will have war-gamed every conceivable scenario.
Remainers mocked in 2016 and got their ars*s handed to them...it would seem that they are mocking again.
During an election campaign it will come under more scrutiny . Aswell as this I think some Remainers will be mindful of the effect on the current divisions .
A second referendum with Remain v Leave .
If Leave wins then a second vote on leaving with a deal or no withdrawal agreement .
You can have this done over one week. If you’re going to have another vote that seems the fairest way .
I think in light of recent events with abuse and threats aimed at MPs and the toxic nature running riot in the UK , a straight revoke is irresponsible .
I like the Lib Dems and am an ardent Remainer but am deeply concerned by their policy .
And please don't use informal address to me...I am not your mate/friend/pal/buddy.
Thanks.
It’s probably Leave voters who voted Conservative in order to keep our Labour, despite being tempted by UKIP, in that GE that have caused the situation we are in.
HMQ will have invited him to form a government so if he thinks parliament will support his administration up until 2022 then that is his prerogative.
I voted for Boris because he will actually put up the fight for Brexit and democracy come what may and refuse to extend again, going into opposition if necessary to continue the fight rather than lead the party to the extinction your idiocy would have led it to. Boris will go to war with the die hard Remainers and correctly so.
Thank God you left the Tories is all I can say before we had no party left, anyone who continues to stay in the party to try and block Brexit Deal or No Deal must now be thrown out of the party completely. Enough is enough
Come the GE any voter who feels strongly about the UK's membership of the EU (and at a guess that could be 10m+) only have one home to go to .
And it isn't Labour.
If you want the No Deal option then the solution is to do it the other way around: First you decide what Leave means with a Deal vs No Deal vote, *then* you vote on whether you actually want to do that.
Alternatively there's @rcs1000's suggestion from way back where you rank the three choices, and if one choice beats both the others you do that, but if you get circularity then you just say the referendum didn't produce a result and go back to swearing at each other.
The problem with all this is that the only way to make it a genuine "ask the people" thing involves some kind of procedural complexity, and once you have a little bit of complexity, it's going to get demagogued to shit and the chances of the losing side(s) accepting that it was fair rapidly approach zero.
I have a red line . Only a second vote can change the referendum result . You will not find anyone more pro EU than me and if I have these reservations over Revoke than I’m sure there are many other Remainers who feel the same .
Perhaps I’m wrong , I’m happy to eat humble pie if the Lib Dems Revoke policy is a success .
There is no way out.
We leave (preferably with a deal) and then political parties are welcome to put a commitment to either R2 or direct rejoin in their manifestos.
The voters can then decide...just as they did in 2016.
If the GE is after then it its effectiveness will be more questionable.
My sense is that once the WA is agreed we will all be as willing to reopen the arguments as we would be drinking a pint of cold sick.
I think no deal is unacceptable as it wasn’t what was sold in 2016 . The polarization has got worse since the ERG and others have tried to say this is now the only true Brexit .
I would only accept Revoke as an absolute last resort if it was to avoid no deal . I hope this isn’t what happens .
Ultimately though Boris holds the trump card with the option to resign the government.
This is particularly important if they're trying to attract Hammond-style Tories, who as well as being repelled by No Deal Brexit, will generally not be impressed by the Tories going the full Trump on the public finances. The LibDems can promise everybody all kinds of fabulous presents, and they'll still be the fiscally responsible choice compared to Lab and Con.
They couldn't do this if they were just promising a referendum, because they couldn't reasonably assume that it would go their way.
The symbolism of the UK leaving is quite a big thing . The Brexit Party even if they try to drag things out with cries of sell out will soon disappear into obscurity .
Are you saying there is little chance of voters supporting a party intent on rejoining the EU?
I thought leaving would be so devastating as to make even the most arch-leaver beg to be re-admitted complete with no opt outs and a euro cherry on top.
[1] Literally a "conceivable scenario"...
If you can secure 50% if the electorate to agree with you, go nuts, treat yourself. Until then, there's a pretty good reason why not.
If both sides are moaning then the deal is probably as 'fair' as it could be in the circumstances.
May was an utter disaster as PM but the opprobrium her deal had heaped on it, from all sides, suggests that perhaps rather than it being a reflection on the deals failure it was a cack-handed compliment about its reasonableness.
I maintain if we could go back in time to the vote on MV1 it would pass.
The only reason May’s deal looks reasonable is because of the populist scum who are now in government.
But no. The Leavers (and May) had to rip us apart.
Revoke is therefore what I will democratically vote for.
Maybe the best way to resolve this is a straight May's Deal vs No Deal referendum. If the next General Election doesn't resolve this, we could do that.