Suppose the 50 of the 60-odd One Nation caucus are shoved out, and Labour become the largest party. We might see that Vote of No Confidence.
As an aside, if 50 more CONs left in the next few days, leaving Labour on 245 but the Conservative party on 238, surely Johnson would be obliged to resign immediately? He wouldn't even command the largest party anymore.
I mean, I don't think there is any legal obligation for the largest party to necessarily form the government, nor for the PM to be from the largest party, I just think under convention, they have first shot. Whoever commands the confidence of the commons can form a government of those they choose from within parliament, from my understanding.
I think that's correct. Further, we aren't going to see 50 MPs suddenly quit the Tories.
And the confidence is assumed to continue until someone tests it or the govt quits.
Yeah, that's a weird gap in our system. Boris becoming PM then immediately spaffing his "majority" up the wall is not a situation with a lot of precedent. Confidence as a mandate from an election -- no. Confidence from the majority of parliament -- no. But proof of no confidence -- no. I think the safest thing to say at this stage is to use the Scottish verdict: Not Proven. And that means, as in a fair judicial system, you assume the best of the accused, and he's free to carry on.
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
It's not sophistry to point out that the Leave prospectus was built around getting a deal. If you throw that prospectus away, you throw your mandate away.
The ballot paper was clear.
So yours is more guff.
The referendum was an advisory referendum. You can’t claim to be able to look beyond the legal form of one bit of the process but not the other.
Respect the vote. I voted remain but i respect it.
Total sophistry which fools no one.
You have no answer to the point I make, which is unsurprising because it is unanswerable. Either you treat the form as sacrosanct, in which case you accept the referendum as advisory only, or you treat the context as critical, in which case you accept that the referendum was fought on a prospectus of leaving with a deal. You can't have your cake and eat it.
It is not up to you (or me) to interpret why people voted as they did. The ballot paper was clear. People voted on the basis that they thought it would be respected.
If you now say "sorry, it was only advisory and we will ignore it" you are doing terrible damage to our institutions and our trust in politics. Why would anyone ever vote on anything again? That is my answer.
You people are playing with fire.
Try again. Yet again on the one hand you strip the vote of any context when it suits you, then put it in when the opposite suits you. Your continual inconsistency makes you look ridiculous.
Ask yourself a simple question: do you think the public would have voted for a prospectus of a no-deal Brexit in June 2016? If the answer is at best not clear, you have no mandate for a no-deal Brexit. Clue: the answer is at best not clear.
I note on these threads that you continually resort to insulting your interlocuter.
A good argument should stand on its own merits without the need for ad hominems. As a lawyer you should of all people understand this.
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
It's not sophistry to point out that the Leave prospectus was built around getting a deal. If you throw that prospectus away, you throw your mandate away.
The ballot paper was clear.
So yours is more guff.
The referendum was an advisory referendum. You can’t claim to be able to look beyond the legal form of one bit of the process but not the other.
Respect the vote. I voted remain but i respect it.
Total sophistry which fools no one.
You have no answer to the point I make, which is unsurprising because it is unanswerable. Either you treat the form as sacrosanct, in which case you accept the referendum as advisory only, or you treat the context as critical, in which case you accept that the referendum was fought on a prospectus of leaving with a deal. You can't have your cake and eat it.
It is not up to you (or me) to interpret why people voted as they did. The ballot paper was clear. People voted on the basis that they thought it would be respected.
If you now say "sorry, it was only advisory and we will ignore it" you are doing terrible damage to our institutions and our trust in politics. Why would anyone ever vote on anything again? That is my answer.
You people are playing with fire.
Try again. Yet again on the one hand you strip the vote of any context when it suits you, then put it in when the opposite suits you. Your continual inconsistency makes you look ridiculous.
Ask yourself a simple question: do you think the public would have voted for a prospectus of a no-deal Brexit in June 2016? If the answer is at best not clear, you have no mandate for a no-deal Brexit. Clue: the answer is at best not clear.
No the question is, do you think the public were entitled to think, given that David Camerons government told them that the choice was theirs, not politicians, and that it would be the final choice, that politicians would not connive to make sure we wouldn’t leave if leave won?
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
It's not sophistry to point out that the Leave prospectus was built around getting a deal. If you throw that prospectus away, you throw your mandate away.
The ballot paper was clear.
So yours is more guff.
The referendum was an advisory referendum. You can’t claim to be able to look beyond the legal form of one bit of the process but not the other.
Respect the vote. I voted remain but i respect it.
Total sophistry which fools no one.
You have no answer to the point I make, which is unsurprising because it is unanswerable. Either you treat the form as sacrosanct, in which case you accept the referendum as advisory only, or you treat the context as critical, in which case you accept that the referendum was fought on a prospectus of leaving with a deal. You can't have your cake and eat it.
It is not up to you (or me) to interpret why people voted as they did. The ballot paper was clear. People voted on the basis that they thought it would be respected.
If you now say "sorry, it was only advisory and we will ignore it" you are doing terrible damage to our institutions and our trust in politics. Why would anyone ever vote on anything again? That is my answer.
You people are playing with fire.
Try again. Yet again on the one hand you strip the vote of any context when it suits you, then put it in when the opposite suits you. Your continual inconsistency makes you look ridiculous.
Ask yourself a simple question: do you think the public would have voted for a prospectus of a no-deal Brexit in June 2016? If the answer is at best not clear, you have no mandate for a no-deal Brexit. Clue: the answer is at best not clear.
I note on these threads that you continually resort to insulting your interlocuter.
A good argument should stand on its own merits without the need for ad hominems. As a lawyer you should of all people understand this.
What do you consider an insult? I point out to you your absurd inconsistency and you spit feathers (but no counterargument) in response.
No the question is, do you think the public were entitled to think, given that David Camerons government told them that the choice was theirs, not politicians, and that it would be the final choice, that politicians would not connive to make sure we wouldn’t leave if leave won?
They were, but then in 2017 they perversely voted in such a way as to scupper it in the most damaging way possible. Voters, eh?
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
It's not sophistry to point out that the Leave prospectus was built around getting a deal. If you throw that prospectus away, you throw your mandate away.
The ballot paper was clear.
So yours is more guff.
The referendum was an advisory referendum. You can’t claim to be able to look beyond the legal form of one bit of the process but not the other.
Respect the vote. I voted remain but i respect it.
Total sophistry which fools no one.
The thing about "respecting the vote" is that it is clear there was not a majority for "Leave AT ALL COSTS", yet that has been government policy. Leave won with a 52/48 majority, and the main example of what Brexit would look like was Switzerland or Norway, a kind of deal the last two governments have refused to pursue. Yes the ballot only said Leave or Remain, but to ignore the context of the campaign and the promises made in it is a wilful act of dishonesty.
I voted Remain. On the 52/48 vote, I would accept a Norway / Switzerland leave. I do not support a No Deal Leave. In the same way a 52/48 vote for Remain would not have been an endorsement to join the Euro, the referendum result was not a vote to impoverish the country and make enemies with the EU; it was an expression of mostly English discomfort with the European project.
Norway and Switzerland both have customs checks which are unacceptable to the Irish (Who have a veto over any deal). Anyone advocating Norway or Switzerland has the fulcrum harder than May's deal which according to Meeks analysis was too hard
Being pedantic it doesn't matter what Norway and Switzerland do - what matters is what the EU does on the other side of those borders.
However it does seem that the Good Friday Agreement means we need to at least remain inside the EU's custom union which is a problem for the more loony elements of Brexit.
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
A clear but narrow majority voted to leave 3 years 3 months ago in an advisory referendum. On the basis of specific campaign promises and ur claim that this is guff and sophistry is guff and sophistry.
"Advisory" referendum.
Another guff weasely word...
The guidance notes to the Bill, the Minister putting the Bill through the Commons speaking at the despatch box and then the Supreme Court all said it was advisory. If that wasn't enough the British constitution makes it advisory as no parliament can bind its successor. Then for added advisoriness the CJEU said we can unilaterally revoke. Making it de facto advisory.
That referendum result does not legally compel us to leave the EU. Fact.
Why wasn't it noted as advisory in the official Gov't literature prior to the referendum then ?
I expect official Gov't stuff to be honest ! It wasn't a Tory leaflet that was sent out.
The EU conducts its negotiating tactics in private, whilst the UK negotiating tactics are debated daily and openly. That weakens any negotiating hand.
PBers need to be reminded, constantly, that a majority voted to leave. All the guff from the usual suspects about "no mandate for no deal" are just that - guff - and sophistry.
A clear but narrow majority voted to leave 3 years 3 months ago in an advisory referendum. On the basis of specific campaign promises and claims. That result is now ophistry.
"Advisory" referendum.
Another guff weasely word...
The guidance notes to the Bill, the Minister putting the Bill through the Commons speaking at the despatch box and
That referendum result does not legally compel us to leave the EU. Fact.
Why wasn't it noted as advisory in the official Gov't literature prior to the referendum then ?
I expect official Gov't stuff to be honest ! It wasn't a Tory leaflet that was sent out.
Governments gets things wrong all the time in both guidance and ministerial pronouncement. Political reality was treated as if legal.
I don't think the polling evidence shows Johnson would be in trouble in a Crashout versus Not Crashout battle at all, and it doesn't say anything about how a People vs Parliament characterisation would play. That would only be a second-order characterisation anyway. The first-order one, going staight to the id, would be xenophobia - Britain against Germany, Ireland, Turks, maybe the French, Romanians, Poles and whoever else is going, maybe English against Scots too - like last time but squared or raised to the power of itself. It's already "Krauts". A week or a week and a half out from a vote it could be "Fr*gs" and "P*laks" and "J*cks" and other disgusting racist name-calling. Cummings will save his juiciest bits until late in the game. Polling results on "Do you want to remain or leave?" can't say how effective that will be.
Great thread header from OGH which sums up two key reasons we are in the mess we are. The polls show a clear, consistent but *small* shift to Remain since the referendum. Enough to cause real problems with implimenting the result but not enough to abandon the result. You can't force through a result a majority of people now oppose but you can't abandon election results because of a sub 5% midterm swing. Brexit is too divisive to deliver and too popular to stop.
The second is the mythologising of " the people " when it was only ever 51.9% of the people with huge numbers of very marginally cast votes on either sides.
That's why the 2017 General Election result was both an amber/red warning light that the system needed coolant and an *escape hatch*. " Oh look. The public want a compromise. "
But the political class charged on and if anything upped the ante. Now the system is exploding. Every aspect, even the Monarchy, is under strain. For all the Atlanticism of key Brexiters the US consitution with it's Electoral College, Senate, presidential veto and very high supermajorities for amending the constitution would have dealt with this much better.
It was not "the political class" (a perjorative and divisive phrase in itself) that upped the ante on this. It was a political leader, Theresa May, and a political party, the Conservatives who, as you say, did not heed the warning of the 2017 election and defined Brexit in a narrow and partisan way ignoring the views of the 48% and even some of the 52% who expected a soft Brexit.
All of us on here could be said to be members of the political class.
Agreed on both counts. I thought I had implied Tory culpability but for the avoidance of doubt Theresa May did more than most to get us here by her overcompensation for being a Remainer. And yes anyone routinely posting on a political website is a member of the political class. Myself included.
FWIW I don't like terms like "political class," "establishment" etc etc - they condemn whole groups of people for the sins of individuals, they are a bit stalinist - "enemies of the people", "class traitors" and so on. Dangerous in the wrong hands, and the wrong hands are in charge at the moment.
No the question is, do you think the public were entitled to think, given that David Camerons government told them that the choice was theirs, not politicians, and that it would be the final choice, that politicians would not connive to make sure we wouldn’t leave if leave won?
They were, but then in 2017 they perversely voted in such a way as to scupper it in the most damaging way possible. Voters, eh?
Not really, as many of the Brexit blockers are MPs Re-elected from the previous parliament, who owe their re-election to a pledge to honour the referendum result.
No the question is, do you think the public were entitled to think, given that David Camerons government told them that the choice was theirs, not politicians, and that it would be the final choice, that politicians would not connive to make sure we wouldn’t leave if leave won?
David Cameron is not even an MP any more. His political statements, however earnestly given, do not bind anyone. All that really matters is whether the people want to carry on with this or not. The public were led to think that this would be easy, painless, and certain to go ahead. It hasn't been easy, it hasn't been painless. So why should it go ahead? Why do some promises count and others do not?
“And ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum that I promised and that I will deliver.
You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future.
It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave.
Your decision.
Nobody else’s.
Not politicians’.
Not Parliament’s.
Not lobby groups’.
Not mine.
Just you.
You, the British people, will decide.
At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands.
This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes.
And it will be the final decision.
So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave…
…would merely produce another stronger renegotiation and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay…
…I say think again.
The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice.
An in or out referendum.
When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored.
If we vote to leave, then we will leave.
There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.
So I say to my European counterparts with whom I am negotiating.
This is our only chance to get this right – for Britain and for the whole European Union.
I say to those who are thinking about voting to leave.
Think very carefully, because this choice cannot be undone.”
Be angry with David Cameron then, for promising something that made no sense, rather than the MPs who didn't run away from the problem they created but have tried to clear up the mess.
A majority of MPs have voted for Brexit in one form or another. The task is to find a compromise acceptable to a majority that can be agreed with the EU.
I never understand why people get mad about the legal status of the referendum point. It doesnt undermine leave or make remain any easier politically, it's just legal fact and no amount of people at the time saying it was the decision of the people changes that. It certainly makes clear they should have drafted the legislation differently if they wanted those words to have effect, but it doesnt change the arguments on leave or remain much.
If anything it might strengthen leave because mps retained a choice and yet even after another year after the referendum they still took the choice without being legally forced.
No the question is, do you think the public were entitled to think, given that David Camerons government told them that the choice was theirs, not politicians, and that it would be the final choice, that politicians would not connive to make sure we wouldn’t leave if leave won?
They were, but then in 2017 they perversely voted in such a way as to scupper it in the most damaging way possible. Voters, eh?
Not really, as many of the Brexit blockers are MPs Re-elected from the previous parliament, who owe their re-election to a pledge to honour the referendum result.
And so they should. They should have supported Theresa May's deal; had they done so we'd have left by now, in good order. But they didn't, largely thanks to Boris and the ERG. You can be as cross as you like at the Labour Party, Boris, Raab, and the ERG, but we are where we are, and absolutely none of that justifies crashing out in the most chaotic and damaging way possible.
“And ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum that I promised and that I will deliver.
You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future.
It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave.
Your decision.
Nobody else’s.
Not politicians’.
Not Parliament’s.
Not lobby groups’.
Not mine.
Just you.
You, the British people, will decide.
At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands.
This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes.
And it will be the final decision.
So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave…
…would merely produce another stronger renegotiation and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay…
…I say think again.
The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice.
An in or out referendum.
When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored.
If we vote to leave, then we will leave.
There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.
So I say to my European counterparts with whom I am negotiating.
This is our only chance to get this right – for Britain and for the whole European Union.
I say to those who are thinking about voting to leave.
Think very carefully, because this choice cannot be undone.”
I completely accept that the referendum result is morally binding. The question is what that referendum result means.
It is Leavers who now seek to betray the referendum result by claiming from it a mandate for something that they explicitly and angrily disavowed at the time as Project Fear.
There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.
Repeat after me:
1. Parliament may not bind its successors. Nor may dodgy Prime Ministers 2. Whatever Cameron said in 2016, the law Parliament passed was very clear: the referendum was only advisory 3. Whatever Leavers may try to fantasise, World War 2 did not invalidate democracy because Chamberlain promised "Peace in our Time" a year earlier
Public opinion has c hanged. Leavers had a chance to get us out, and the ERG's fundamentalist madmen blew it.
There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.
Repeat after me:
1. Parliament may not bind its successors. Nor may dodgy Prime Ministers 2. Whatever Cameron said in 2016, the law Parliament passed was very clear: the referendum was only advisory 3. Whatever Leavers may try to fantasise, World War 2 did not invalidate democracy because Chamberlain promised "Peace in our Time" a year earlier
Public opinion has c hanged. Leavers had a chance to get us out, and the ERG's fundamentalist madmen blew it.
There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.
Repeat after me:
1. Parliament may not bind its successors. Nor may dodgy Prime Ministers 2. Whatever Cameron said in 2016, the law Parliament passed was very clear: the referendum was only advisory 3. Whatever Leavers may try to fantasise, World War 2 did not invalidate democracy because Chamberlain promised "Peace in our Time" a year earlier
Public opinion has c hanged. Leavers had a chance to get us out, and the ERG's fundamentalist madmen blew it.
There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.
Repeat after me:
1. Parliament may not bind its successors. Nor may dodgy Prime Ministers 2. Whatever Cameron said in 2016, the law Parliament passed was very clear: the referendum was only advisory 3. Whatever Leavers may try to fantasise, World War 2 did not invalidate democracy because Chamberlain promised "Peace in our Time" a year earlier
Public opinion has c hanged. Leavers had a chance to get us out, and the ERG's fundamentalist madmen blew it.
You've lost. Get over it/
Since Parliament can't bind either its successors or itself, that means every referendum is advisory even if the legislation that provides for it says it isn't.
Of course in the real world, that's not the whole of the story.
There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.
Repeat after me:
1. Parliament may not bind its successors. Nor may dodgy Prime Ministers 2. Whatever Cameron said in 2016, the law Parliament passed was very clear: the referendum was only advisory 3. Whatever Leavers may try to fantasise, World War 2 did not invalidate democracy because Chamberlain promised "Peace in our Time" a year earlier
Public opinion has c hanged. Leavers had a chance to get us out, and the ERG's fundamentalist madmen blew it.
You've lost. Get over it/
They havent lost yet and triumphalism may blow up in your face if Boris wins an election. I hope he doesnt but people changing their mind, like me, may not definitely swing it.
I never understand why people get mad about the legal status of the referendum point. It doesnt undermine leave or make remain any easier politically, it's just legal fact and no amount of people at the time saying it was the decision of the people changes that. It certainly makes clear they should have drafted the legislation differently if they wanted those words to have effect, but it doesnt change the arguments on leave or remain much.
If anything it might strengthen leave because mps retained a choice and yet even after another year after the referendum they still took the choice without being legally forced.
Yes the fact that article 50 has been invoked supersedes the desperate ‘advisory’ Argument anyway doesn’t it?
I never understand why people get mad about the legal status of the referendum point. It doesnt undermine leave or make remain any easier politically, it's just legal fact and no amount of people at the time saying it was the decision of the people changes that. It certainly makes clear they should have drafted the legislation differently if they wanted those words to have effect, but it doesnt change the arguments on leave or remain much.
If anything it might strengthen leave because mps retained a choice and yet even after another year after the referendum they still took the choice without being legally forced.
Yes the fact that article 50 has been invoked supersedes the desperate ‘advisory’ Argument anyway doesn’t it?
If the referendum had been binding, invoking Article 50 is the limit of what it would have bound the government to do.
There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.
Repeat after me:
1. Parliament may not bind its successors. Nor may dodgy Prime Ministers 2. Whatever Cameron said in 2016, the law Parliament passed was very clear: the referendum was only advisory 3. Whatever Leavers may try to fantasise, World War 2 did not invalidate democracy because Chamberlain promised "Peace in our Time" a year earlier
Public opinion has c hanged. Leavers had a chance to get us out, and the ERG's fundamentalist madmen blew it.
I never understand why people get mad about the legal status of the referendum point. It doesnt undermine leave or make remain any easier politically, it's just legal fact and no amount of people at the time saying it was the decision of the people changes that. It certainly makes clear they should have drafted the legislation differently if they wanted those words to have effect, but it doesnt change the arguments on leave or remain much.
If anything it might strengthen leave because mps retained a choice and yet even after another year after the referendum they still took the choice without being legally forced.
Yes the fact that article 50 has been invoked supersedes the desperate ‘advisory’ Argument anyway doesn’t it?
You are right - the "advisory argument" is indeed quite "desperate"..
Yes the Sky Brussels correspondent is saying on TV that the whole EU parliament is convinced that the next step is an extension.
How long would Boris go to prison for if he doesn't extend?
He can be held in prison until he complies with the court order, which he could do from his cell.
It might be easier for the court to order the British representative in Brussels to send the letter, and then hand Johnson a five-year sentence for contempt.
It's the lack of introspection that continually gets me.
Death cult Leavers never stop to ask themselves why they have abjectly failed to persuade anything like a majority in the House of Commons (or the country at large for that matter) that no-deal Brexit is something that should be contemplated as a viable course of action.
There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.
Repeat after me:
1. Parliament may not bind its successors. Nor may dodgy Prime Ministers 2. Whatever Cameron said in 2016, the law Parliament passed was very clear: the referendum was only advisory 3. Whatever Leavers may try to fantasise, World War 2 did not invalidate democracy because Chamberlain promised "Peace in our Time" a year earlier
Public opinion has c hanged. Leavers had a chance to get us out, and the ERG's fundamentalist madmen blew it.
You've lost. Get over it/
They havent lost yet and triumphalism may blow up in your face if Boris wins an election. I hope he doesnt but people changing their mind, like me, may not definitely swing it.</blockquote
Not sure you are right on the mind changers, but don't forget, a million more youngsters are on the voting role and a few older ones have ....left the role.
Polls are just a snapshot and unreliable in their absolutes. The trend, however, is probably reliable enough. There seems to have been clear movement over time from Leave to Remain.
The country remains deeply divided and will be for decades.
There’s a trend towards Remain in the opinion polls, right enough. The problem is opinion polls outside of official campaigns are a complete waste of time
If the trend were much larger, and say now had Remain ahead by 4:1, then I don't think it would be a waste of time. All the nuances of sampling errors in the world wouldn't be able to explain away such a decisive shift in public opinion.
That we haven't seen such a shift, in either direction, is noteworthy.
It's not like those sorts of shifts can't happen - just look at the changes in the opinion polling on Trump impeachment.
I say the polls are stuffed with political obsessives who try to predict the result rather than give their opinion.
Mate can you please answer my question, this being an interactive chat room, an' all and that's what makes it tick, of why a 2nd referendum, asking the same people a question is undemocratic. It is a closed system with a bit of leakage at one end, entry at the other and some mixing in the middle. We are not asking outsiders to come and outvote us, it is us, the UK that would be voting again. All of us. How would that be undemocratic?
Impractical perhaps (because as you say we could then vote in at the next GE a Leave party if Remain one and vice versa), sub-optimal imo certainly, but not the democratic outrage that you and, amongst others @Richard_Tyndall say it is?
Mate I answered it when you asked
Sorry have been literally flying around all day and thought I'd kept up. Apologies - in a line or two again pls.
Flying? Don't let Extinction Rebellion know
The only acceptable method of flying is to flying around telling others not to fly
Yes please don't tell them.
I am still amused (in a friendly not a nasty way) that you were unwittingly encouraging another poster to break the law earlier. It shows how stupidly complex modern life has become.
It's the lack of introspection that continually gets me.
Death cult Leavers never stop to ask themselves why they have abjectly failed to persuade anything like a majority in the House of Commons (or the country at large for that matter) that no-deal Brexit is something that should be contemplated as a viable course of action.
It's the inflammatory language from people who condemn it that gets me.
What should be the consequences of voting down every deal when there is a time limit on how long negotiations can last, when those voting it down have pledged to honour the result of the referendum?
Has it? I think the EU want this over as much as we do.
It's not like they don't have serious internal issues to deal with. They'd also not like to give Hungary (for example) any leverage in arguments with the Commission. So, I think they'd like us gone, but in the least destructive way possible.
It's the lack of introspection that continually gets me.
Death cult Leavers never stop to ask themselves why they have abjectly failed to persuade anything like a majority in the House of Commons (or the country at large for that matter) that no-deal Brexit is something that should be contemplated as a viable course of action.
It's the inflammatory language from people who condemn it that gets me.
There's no other term for people so exuberantly willing to risk chaos and real harm as they work themselves up into an extremist frenzy, crazed by the contrast between the reality of Brexit and their original wild visions of milk and honey.
Has it? I think the EU want this over as much as we do.
It's not like they don't have serious internal issues to deal with. They'd also not like to give Hungary (for example) any leverage in arguments with the Commission. So, I think they'd like us gone, but in the least destructive way possible.
It's the lack of introspection that continually gets me.
Death cult Leavers never stop to ask themselves why they have abjectly failed to persuade anything like a majority in the House of Commons (or the country at large for that matter) that no-deal Brexit is something that should be contemplated as a viable course of action.
It's the inflammatory language from people who condemn it that gets me.
There's no other term for people so exuberantly willing to risk chaos and real harm as they work themselves up into an extremist frenzy, crazed by the contrast between the reality of Brexit and their original wild visions of milk and honey.
There are plenty, and seeing as the only other recent group that people in the political bubble liked to call a "death cult" were ISIS, it is completely over the top, and quite insulting to the memory of those slaughtered by them
It's the lack of introspection that continually gets me.
Death cult Leavers never stop to ask themselves why they have abjectly failed to persuade anything like a majority in the House of Commons (or the country at large for that matter) that no-deal Brexit is something that should be contemplated as a viable course of action.
It's the inflammatory language from people who condemn it that gets me.
There's no other term for people so exuberantly willing to risk chaos and real harm as they work themselves up into an extremist frenzy, crazed by the contrast between the reality of Brexit and their original wild visions of milk and honey.
There are plenty, and seeing as the only other recent group that people in the political bubble liked to call a "death cult" were ISIS, it is completely over the top, and quite insulting to the memory of those slaughtered by them
The aggregate damage that the death cult Leavers would do to Britain if they get their way would be far in excess of anything that ISIS could dream of.
I never understand why people get mad about the legal status of the referendum point. It doesnt undermine leave or make remain any easier politically, it's just legal fact and no amount of people at the time saying it was the decision of the people changes that. It certainly makes clear they should have drafted the legislation differently if they wanted those words to have effect, but it doesnt change the arguments on leave or remain much.
If anything it might strengthen leave because mps retained a choice and yet even after another year after the referendum they still took the choice without being legally forced.
Yes the fact that article 50 has been invoked supersedes the desperate ‘advisory’ Argument anyway doesn’t it?
I think so. Doesnt mean people cannot push for paths to remain or revoke, but it being an advisory referendum changes little about the tactics to achieve those ends, and leavers should be more relaxed about the legal status point.
Has it? I think the EU want this over as much as we do.
It's not like they don't have serious internal issues to deal with. They'd also not like to give Hungary (for example) any leverage in arguments with the Commission. So, I think they'd like us gone, but in the least destructive way possible.
Just without compromising.
"In Brexit Negotiations, Both Sides Have Now Compromised" Back in Nov 2018 "the draft withdrawal agreement shows more concessions from the EU than were expected."
It's the lack of introspection that continually gets me.
Death cult Leavers never stop to ask themselves why they have abjectly failed to persuade anything like a majority in the House of Commons (or the country at large for that matter) that no-deal Brexit is something that should be contemplated as a viable course of action.
It's the inflammatory language from people who condemn it that gets me.
There's no other term for people so exuberantly willing to risk chaos and real harm as they work themselves up into an extremist frenzy, crazed by the contrast between the reality of Brexit and their original wild visions of milk and honey.
There are plenty, and seeing as the only other recent group that people in the political bubble liked to call a "death cult" were ISIS, it is completely over the top, and quite insulting to the memory of those slaughtered by them
The aggregate damage that the death cult Leavers would do to Britain if they get their way would be far in excess of anything that ISIS could dream of.
That's just plain wrong. In any case, I dont think the attempt to get it to catch on is working.
I never understand why people get mad about the legal status of the referendum point. It doesnt undermine leave or make remain any easier politically, it's just legal fact and no amount of people at the time saying it was the decision of the people changes that. It certainly makes clear they should have drafted the legislation differently if they wanted those words to have effect, but it doesnt change the arguments on leave or remain much.
If anything it might strengthen leave because mps retained a choice and yet even after another year after the referendum they still took the choice without being legally forced.
Yes the fact that article 50 has been invoked supersedes the desperate ‘advisory’ Argument anyway doesn’t it?
You are right - the "advisory argument" is indeed quite "desperate"..
Just an inconvenient fact, similar to the fact of the closeness of the result.
Has it? I think the EU want this over as much as we do.
It's not like they don't have serious internal issues to deal with. They'd also not like to give Hungary (for example) any leverage in arguments with the Commission. So, I think they'd like us gone, but in the least destructive way possible.
I disagree completely. If they want it over then offer no extension, bar wrapping up if a desl is done. It instantly forces our idiots to make a choice.
They wont do that. And delaying doesnt guarantee it wont be destructive so thats not why they've likely chosen their next route. No, they also want to play for time and hope something comes up.
It's the lack of introspection that continually gets me.
Death cult Leavers never stop to ask themselves why they have abjectly failed to persuade anything like a majority in the House of Commons (or the country at large for that matter) that no-deal Brexit is something that should be contemplated as a viable course of action.
It's the inflammatory language from people who condemn it that gets me.
There's no other term for people so exuberantly willing to risk chaos and real harm as they work themselves up into an extremist frenzy, crazed by the contrast between the reality of Brexit and their original wild visions of milk and honey.
There are plenty, and seeing as the only other recent group that people in the political bubble liked to call a "death cult" were ISIS, it is completely over the top, and quite insulting to the memory of those slaughtered by them
The aggregate damage that the death cult Leavers would do to Britain if they get their way would be far in excess of anything that ISIS could dream of.
Yes the Sky Brussels correspondent is saying on TV that the whole EU parliament is convinced that the next step is an extension.
They think we will remain or cave if that happens. They're probably right but still have a risk of no deal, not that either side cares about that beyond posturing that it would be awful.
It's the lack of introspection that continually gets me.
Death cult Leavers never stop to ask themselves why they have abjectly failed to persuade anything like a majority in the House of Commons (or the country at large for that matter) that no-deal Brexit is something that should be contemplated as a viable course of action.
It's the inflammatory language from people who condemn it that gets me.
There's no other term for people so exuberantly willing to risk chaos and real harm as they work themselves up into an extremist frenzy, crazed by the contrast between the reality of Brexit and their original wild visions of milk and honey.
There are plenty, and seeing as the only other recent group that people in the political bubble liked to call a "death cult" were ISIS, it is completely over the top, and quite insulting to the memory of those slaughtered by them
The aggregate damage that the death cult Leavers would do to Britain if they get their way would be far in excess of anything that ISIS could dream of.
Blimey.
Lol did he say that. 10mg Olazapine for Mr Meeks please.
It's the lack of introspection that continually gets me.
Death cult Leavers never stop to ask themselves why they have abjectly failed to persuade anything like a majority in the House of Commons (or the country at large for that matter) that no-deal Brexit is something that should be contemplated as a viable course of action.
It's the inflammatory language from people who condemn it that gets me.
There's no other term for people so exuberantly willing to risk chaos and real harm as they work themselves up into an extremist frenzy, crazed by the contrast between the reality of Brexit and their original wild visions of milk and honey.
There are plenty, and seeing as the only other recent group that people in the political bubble liked to call a "death cult" were ISIS, it is completely over the top, and quite insulting to the memory of those slaughtered by them
The aggregate damage that the death cult Leavers would do to Britain if they get their way would be far in excess of anything that ISIS could dream of.
That's just plain wrong. In any case, I dont think the attempt to get it to catch on is working.
It's the lack of introspection that continually gets me.
Death cult Leavers never stop to ask themselves why they have abjectly failed to persuade anything like a majority in the House of Commons (or the country at large for that matter) that no-deal Brexit is something that should be contemplated as a viable course of action.
It's the inflammatory language from people who condemn it that gets me.
There's no other term for people so exuberantly willing to risk chaos and real harm as they work themselves up into an extremist frenzy, crazed by the contrast between the reality of Brexit and their original wild visions of milk and honey.
There are plenty, and seeing as the only other recent group that people in the political bubble liked to call a "death cult" were ISIS, it is completely over the top, and quite insulting to the memory of those slaughtered by them
The aggregate damage that the death cult Leavers would do to Britain if they get their way would be far in excess of anything that ISIS could dream of.
That's just plain wrong. In any case, I dont think the attempt to get it to catch on is working.
Has it? I think the EU want this over as much as we do.
It's not like they don't have serious internal issues to deal with. They'd also not like to give Hungary (for example) any leverage in arguments with the Commission. So, I think they'd like us gone, but in the least destructive way possible.
I disagree completely. If they want it over then offer no extension, bar wrapping up if a desl is done. It instantly forces our idiots to make a choice.
They wont do that. And delaying doesnt guarantee it wont be destructive so thats not why they've likely chosen their next route. No, they also want to play for time and hope something comes up.
"Something" being a reversal of Brexit. Which is becoming more likely, better than 50% chance now I think.
It's the lack of introspection that continually gets me.
Death cult Leavers never stop to ask themselves why they have abjectly failed to persuade anything like a majority in the House of Commons (or the country at large for that matter) that no-deal Brexit is something that should be contemplated as a viable course of action.
It's the inflammatory language from people who condemn it that gets me.
What should be the consequences of voting down every deal when there is a time limit on how long negotiations can last, when those voting it down have pledged to honour the result of the referendum?
It's the way everyone completely ignores any countervailing evidence that spoils their narrative that gets me.
For example, you and other Leavers keep insisting that "The Remainer MPs in Parliament keep voting everything down, it's a conspiracy to wreck Brexit; they were elected to follow the referendum result and they've broken their word!"
Despite clear evidence that there isn't a clique of Remainer MPs who have voted everyything down - virtually every MP has voted for one or more specific options of Brexit. And virtually all of them (with the exception of the ERG) has voted for the options that most march with that which they'd undertaken to deliver in their manifestos.
And it gets continually ignored; the (now disproven) narrative gets repeated and repeated as if repetition could substitute for honesty, and it appears to be simply because the actuality is inconvenient and the fantasy is simple and appealing to them.
After a while, it's impossible to avoid the conclusion that such people are either deliberately dishonest or trolls.
It's the lack of introspection that continually gets me.
Death cult Leavers never stop to ask themselves why they have abjectly failed to persuade anything like a majority in the House of Commons (or the country at large for that matter) that no-deal Brexit is something that should be contemplated as a viable course of action.
It's the inflammatory language from people who condemn it that gets me.
What should be the consequences of voting down every deal when there is a time limit on how long negotiations can last, when those voting it down have pledged to honour the result of the referendum?
It's the way everyone completely ignores any countervailing evidence that spoils their narrative that gets me.
For example, you and other Leavers keep insisting that "The Remainer MPs in Parliament keep voting everything down, it's a conspiracy to wreck Brexit; they were elected to follow the referendum result and they've broken their word!"
Despite clear evidence that there isn't a clique of Remainer MPs who have voted everyything down - virtually every MP has voted for one or more specific options of Brexit. And virtually all of them (with the exception of the ERG) has voted for the options that most march with that which they'd undertaken to deliver in their manifestos.
And it gets continually ignored; the (now disproven) narrative gets repeated and repeated as if repetition could substitute for honesty, and it appears to be simply because the actuality is inconvenient and the fantasy is simple and appealing to them.
After a while, it's impossible to avoid the conclusion that such people are either deliberately dishonest or trolls.
Andy. Very well said. I really appreciate coming to PB and reading that kind of post. Gives me hope.
It's the lack of introspection that continually gets me.
Death cult Leavers never stop to ask themselves why they have abjectly failed to persuade anything like a majority in the House of Commons (or the country at large for that matter) that no-deal Brexit is something that should be contemplated as a viable course of action.
It's the inflammatory language from people who condemn it that gets me.
What should be the consequences of voting down every deal when there is a time limit on how long negotiations can last, when those voting it down have pledged to honour the result of the referendum?
It's the way everyone completely ignores any countervailing evidence that spoils their narrative that gets me.
For example, you and other Leavers keep insisting that "The Remainer MPs in Parliament keep voting everything down, it's a conspiracy to wreck Brexit; they were elected to follow the referendum result and they've broken their word!"
Despite clear evidence that there isn't a clique of Remainer MPs who have voted everyything down - virtually every MP has voted for one or more specific options of Brexit. And virtually all of them (with the exception of the ERG) has voted for the options that most march with that which they'd undertaken to deliver in their manifestos.
And it gets continually ignored; the (now disproven) narrative gets repeated and repeated as if repetition could substitute for honesty, and it appears to be simply because the actuality is inconvenient and the fantasy is simple and appealing to them.
After a while, it's impossible to avoid the conclusion that such people are either deliberately dishonest or trolls.
Yes, I have accepted countless offers of well paid jobs that weren't offered to me, but they don't seem to think that's good enough at the dole office when I dont turn up to the jobs they find me.
I disagree completely. If they want it over then offer no extension, bar wrapping up if a desl is done. It instantly forces our idiots to make a choice.
They wont do that. And delaying doesnt guarantee it wont be destructive so thats not why they've likely chosen their next route. No, they also want to play for time and hope something comes up.
"Something" being a reversal of Brexit. Which is becoming more likely, better than 50% chance now I think.
I agree, but what their actions don't demonstrate is a desire to want this over and done with. They, too, wish to win, be it the WA or reversal. Until then they are content to wait it out.
It's the inflammatory language from people who condemn it that gets me.
There's no other term for people so exuberantly willing to risk chaos and real harm as they work themselves up into an extremist frenzy, crazed by the contrast between the reality of Brexit and their original wild visions of milk and honey.
There are plenty, and seeing as the only other recent group that people in the political bubble liked to call a "death cult" were ISIS, it is completely over the top, and quite insulting to the memory of those slaughtered by them
The aggregate damage that the death cult Leavers would do to Britain if they get their way would be far in excess of anything that ISIS could dream of.
You're trying too hard when you say things like that, and it loses all impact.
Boris might as well pull the plug on negotations and save the tax payer the air fare for the summit on 17th and 18th.
Probably. No doubt some will say this is just setting up for a last minute fudge, which is not impossible, but we;ve heard that one before and there seems little reason for either side to even want a fudge right now.
It's the lack of introspection that continually gets me.
Death cult Leavers never stop to ask themselves why they have abjectly failed to persuade anything like a majority in the House of Commons (or the country at large for that matter) that no-deal Brexit is something that should be contemplated as a viable course of action.
It's the inflammatory language from people who condemn it that gets me.
There's no other term for people so exuberantly willing to risk chaos and real harm as they work themselves up into an extremist frenzy, crazed by the contrast between the reality of Brexit and their original wild visions of milk and honey.
There are plenty, and seeing as the only other recent group that people in the political bubble liked to call a "death cult" were ISIS, it is completely over the top, and quite insulting to the memory of those slaughtered by them
As long as people don't use terms like "surrender bill", we will be ok.
It's the lack of introspection that continually gets me.
Death cult Leavers never stop to ask themselves why they have abjectly failed to persuade anything like a majority in the House of Commons (or the country at large for that matter) that no-deal Brexit is something that should be contemplated as a viable course of action.
It's the inflammatory language from people who condemn it that gets me.
There's no other term for people so exuberantly willing to risk chaos and real harm as they work themselves up into an extremist frenzy, crazed by the contrast between the reality of Brexit and their original wild visions of milk and honey.
There are plenty, and seeing as the only other recent group that people in the political bubble liked to call a "death cult" were ISIS, it is completely over the top, and quite insulting to the memory of those slaughtered by them
As long as people don't use terms like "surrender bill", we will be ok.
Surrender bill fits - Remainacs have lost the plot here, with group think it always had a chance of happening
It's the lack of introspection that continually gets me.
Death cult Leavers never stop to ask themselves why they have abjectly failed to persuade anything like a majority in the House of Commons (or the country at large for that matter) that no-deal Brexit is something that should be contemplated as a viable course of action.
It's the inflammatory language from people who condemn it that gets me.
There's no other term for people so exuberantly willing to risk chaos and real harm as they work themselves up into an extremist frenzy, crazed by the contrast between the reality of Brexit and their original wild visions of milk and honey.
There are plenty, and seeing as the only other recent group that people in the political bubble liked to call a "death cult" were ISIS, it is completely over the top, and quite insulting to the memory of those slaughtered by them
The aggregate damage that the death cult Leavers would do to Britain if they get their way would be far in excess of anything that ISIS could dream of.
That's just plain wrong. In any case, I dont think the attempt to get it to catch on is working.
Have a quick read of what Isis are dreaming of, Alastair. It's in the Idarat at-Tawahhush. Best to use a Wikipedia précis if you don't want to end up on a Prevent watchlist. It includes, as two examples, observing no limits on killing to bring the enemy to submission and an all-out battle on security forces. Then go and have a word with yourself.
The idea that a no-deal exit, even on the IFS's doomsday predictor, is more damaging is pretty disgraceful. Nobody on here backed the 'Krauts' poster yesterday and I think you'd be wise to withdraw your above line of argument, which is the other cheek of the same ambiguously-wiped arse.
There are plenty, and seeing as the only other recent group that people in the political bubble liked to call a "death cult" were ISIS, it is completely over the top, and quite insulting to the memory of those slaughtered by them
The aggregate damage that the death cult Leavers would do to Britain if they get their way would be far in excess of anything that ISIS could dream of.
You're trying too hard when you say things like that, and it loses all impact..
I've evidenced my claim. Yes, it's shocking. What's still more shocking is the reaction of the average Leaver is "well...".
I'm sure if he hadn't pointlessly committed himself to the 31 October deadline, No Deal would be the last thing he wanted. If he wants it now - and who knows what's going on in his head? - it's nothing to do with Brexit intrinsically, but only a consequence of his own political self-interest.
It's the lack of introspection that continually gets me.
Death cult Leavers never stop to ask themselves why they have abjectly failed to persuade anything like a majority in the House of Commons (or the country at large for that matter) that no-deal Brexit is something that should be contemplated as a viable course of action.
It's the inflammatory language from people who condemn it that gets me.
There's no other term for people so exuberantly willing to risk chaos and real harm as they work themselves up into an extremist frenzy, crazed by the contrast between the reality of Brexit and their original wild visions of milk and honey.
There are plenty, and seeing as the only other recent group that people in the political bubble liked to call a "death cult" were ISIS, it is completely over the top, and quite insulting to the memory of those slaughtered by them
The aggregate damage that the death cult Leavers would do to Britain if they get their way would be far in excess of anything that ISIS could dream of.
That's just plain wrong. In any case, I dont think the attempt to get it to catch on is working.
It's the lack of introspection that continually gets me.
Death cult Leavers never stop to ask themselves why they have abjectly failed to persuade anything like a majority in the House of Commons (or the country at large for that matter) that no-deal Brexit is something that should be contemplated as a viable course of action.
It's the inflammatory language from people who condemn it that gets me.
There's no other term for people so exuberantly willing to risk chaos and real harm as they work themselves up into an extremist frenzy, crazed by the contrast between the reality of Brexit and their original wild visions of milk and honey.
There are plenty, and seeing as the only other recent group that people in the political bubble liked to call a "death cult" were ISIS, it is completely over the top, and quite insulting to the memory of those slaughtered by them
The aggregate damage that the death cult Leavers would do to Britain if they get their way would be far in excess of anything that ISIS could dream of.
That's just plain wrong. In any case, I dont think the attempt to get it to catch on is working.
Have a quick read of what Isis are dreaming of, Alastair. It's in the Idarat at-Tawahhush. Best to use a Wikipedia précis if you don't want to end up on a Prevent watchlist. It includes, as two examples, observing no limits on killing to bring the enemy to submission and an all-out battle on security forces. Then go and have a word with yourself.
The idea that a no-deal exit, even on the IFS's doomsday predictor, is more damaging is pretty disgraceful. Nobody on here backed the 'Krauts' poster yesterday and I think you'd be wise to withdraw your above line of argument, which is the other cheek of the same ambiguously-wiped arse.
This is a constant theme on PB. Every time I argue for compromise from both sides, the only people attacking me are Remainers.
There are plenty, and seeing as the only other recent group that people in the political bubble liked to call a "death cult" were ISIS, it is completely over the top, and quite insulting to the memory of those slaughtered by them
The aggregate damage that the death cult Leavers would do to Britain if they get their way would be far in excess of anything that ISIS could dream of.
You're trying too hard when you say things like that, and it loses all impact..
I've evidenced my claim. Yes, it's shocking. What's still more shocking is the reaction of the average Leaver is "well...".
No one is backing you up, and Remainers are critical.
I've evidenced my claim. Yes, it's shocking. What's still more shocking is the reaction of the average Leaver is "well...".
Evidencing financial impacts doesn't mean your specific analogy in relation to that was not a transparent and lazy attempt to troll. Such an analogy makes it more likely people will dismiss the impacts of no deal, not less, so your intent was obviously not to persuade since that would have beena very counter productive way to do it. I can only assume therefore that you did it for the lols. As someone very concerned about no deal I wish I could be so flippant and get jollies from such analogies.
It's the lack of introspection that continually gets me.
Death cult Leavers never stop to ask themselves why they have abjectly failed to persuade anything like a majority in the House of Commons (or the country at large for that matter) that no-deal Brexit is something that should be contemplated as a viable course of action.
It's the inflammatory language from people who condemn it that gets me.
There's no other term for people so exuberantly willing to risk chaos and real harm as they work themselves up into an extremist frenzy, crazed by the contrast between the reality of Brexit and their original wild visions of milk and honey.
There are plenty, and seeing as the only other recent group that people in the political bubble liked to call a "death cult" were ISIS, it is completely over the top, and quite insulting to the memory of those slaughtered by them
As long as people don't use terms like "surrender bill", we will be ok.
Surrender bill fits - Remainacs have lost the plot here, with group think it always had a chance of happening
If you are going to use your playground epithets please at least spell them correctly. The only people that have "lost the plot" are the WW2 obsessed xenophobes that make up a large proportion of those that obsess about Britain leaving the EU.
It's the lack of introspection that continually gets me.
Death cult Leavers never stop to ask themselves why they have abjectly failed to persuade anything like a majority in the House of Commons (or the country at large for that matter) that no-deal Brexit is something that should be contemplated as a viable course of action.
It's the inflammatory language from people who condemn it that gets me.
There's no other term for people so exuberantly willing to risk chaos and real harm as they work themselves up into an extremist frenzy, crazed by the contrast between the reality of Brexit and their original wild visions of milk and honey.
There are plenty, and seeing as the only other recent group that people in the political bubble liked to call a "death cult" were ISIS, it is completely over the top, and quite insulting to the memory of those slaughtered by them
The aggregate damage that the death cult Leavers would do to Britain if they get their way would be far in excess of anything that ISIS could dream of.
That's just plain wrong. In any case, I dont think the attempt to get it to catch on is working.
Have a quick read of what Isis are dreaming of, Alastair. It's in the Idarat at-Tawahhush. Best to use a Wikipedia précis if you don't want to end up on a Prevent watchlist. It includes, as two examples, observing no limits on killing to bring the enemy to submission and an all-out battle on security forces. Then go and have a word with yourself.
The idea that a no-deal exit, even on the IFS's doomsday predictor, is more damaging is pretty disgraceful. Nobody on here backed the 'Krauts' poster yesterday and I think you'd be wise to withdraw your above line of argument, which is the other cheek of the same ambiguously-wiped arse.
This is a constant theme on PB. Every time I argue for compromise from both sides, the only people attacking me are Remainers.
Yes. Because you're the most obvious concern troll that pb has had in months, parroting Leave lines to take uncritically.
It's the lack of introspection that continually gets me.
Death cult Leavers never stop to ask themselves why they have abjectly failed to persuade anything like a majority in the House of Commons (or the country at large for that matter) that no-deal Brexit is something that should be contemplated as a viable course of action.
It's the inflammatory language from people who condemn it that gets me.
There's no other term for people so exuberantly willing to risk chaos and real harm as they work themselves up into an extremist frenzy, crazed by the contrast between the reality of Brexit and their original wild visions of milk and honey.
There are plenty, and seeing as the only other recent group that people in the political bubble liked to call a "death cult" were ISIS, it is completely over the top, and quite insulting to the memory of those slaughtered by them
The aggregate damage that the death cult Leavers would do to Britain if they get their way would be far in excess of anything that ISIS could dream of.
That's just plain wrong. In any case, I dont think the attempt to get it to catch on is working.
Please note that the Corbyn scenario modelled is not for a majority labour government, but a minority government where the rash economic promises are deemed not to happen.
It IS going to be a No Deal manifesto but saying they want the Boris Deal as their choice (which the EU has said they can't have)
How will that withstand a campaign?
Unsteadily. Sheer force of will in pretending there is cake to be had after eating it may keep the loyalists and corbynphobes on board, and is they hope enough to assuage Farage's fans, even if appealing to Farage himself is impossible.
There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.
Repeat after me:
1. Parliament may not bind its successors. Nor may dodgy Prime Ministers 2. Whatever Cameron said in 2016, the law Parliament passed was very clear: the referendum was only advisory 3. Whatever Leavers may try to fantasise, World War 2 did not invalidate democracy because Chamberlain promised "Peace in our Time" a year earlier
Public opinion has c hanged. Leavers had a chance to get us out, and the ERG's fundamentalist madmen blew it.
It's the lack of introspection that continually gets me.
Death cult Leavers never stop to ask themselves why they have abjectly failed to persuade anything like a majority in the House of Commons (or the country at large for that matter) that no-deal Brexit is something that should be contemplated as a viable course of action.
It's the inflammatory language from people who condemn it that gets me.
There's no other term for people so exuberantly willing to risk chaos and real harm as they work themselves up into an extremist frenzy, crazed by the contrast between the reality of Brexit and their original wild visions of milk and honey.
There are plenty, and seeing as the only other recent group that people in the political bubble liked to call a "death cult" were ISIS, it is completely over the top, and quite insulting to the memory of those slaughtered by them
The aggregate damage that the death cult Leavers would do to Britain if they get their way would be far in excess of anything that ISIS could dream of.
That's just plain wrong. In any case, I dont think the attempt to get it to catch on is working.
Have a quick read of what Isis are dreaming of, Alastair. It's in the Idarat at-Tawahhush. Best to use a Wikipedia précis if you don't want to end up on a Prevent watchlist. It includes, as two examples, observing no limits on killing to bring the enemy to submission and an all-out battle on security forces. Then go and have a word with yourself.
The idea that a no-deal exit, even on the IFS's doomsday predictor, is more damaging is pretty disgraceful. Nobody on here backed the 'Krauts' poster yesterday and I think you'd be wise to withdraw your above line of argument, which is the other cheek of the same ambiguously-wiped arse.
This is a constant theme on PB. Every time I argue for compromise from both sides, the only people attacking me are Remainers.
... you're the most obvious concern troll that pb has had in months
I've evidenced my claim. Yes, it's shocking. What's still more shocking is the reaction of the average Leaver is "well...".
Evidencing financial impacts doesn't mean your specific analogy in relation to that was not a transparent and lazy attempt to troll. Such an analogy makes it more likely people will dismiss the impacts of no deal, not less, so your intent was obviously not to persuade since that would have beena very counter productive way to do it. I can only assume therefore that you did it for the lols. As someone very concerned about no deal I wish I could be so flippant and get jollies from such analogies.
We've so far got as far as £110 billion a year as a price to pay for no deal Brexit without a Leaver on here so much as blinking - the main complaint has been "yes, but ISIS would have been more damaging than that". One has to wonder what degree of harm would persuade any Leaver on here that it wasn't worth it.
I'm sure if he hadn't pointlessly committed himself to the 31 October deadline, No Deal would be the last thing he wanted. If he wants it now - and who knows what's going on in his head? - it's nothing to do with Brexit intrinsically, but only a consequence of his own political self-interest.
Cummings told him to go all out 'No Deal' to kill off TBP, then get an election to get a majority then whatver (leave with May's Deal?)
Should I be seeing some contradiction in Boris' election stance and what he's told Damian Green? How can you plan for not getting a deal? Therefore how could 'no deal' be in a manifesto? A deal is preferred, No Deal is not ruled out.
It's the lack of introspection that continually gets me.
Death cult Leavers never stop to ask themselves why they have abjectly failed to persuade anything like a majority in the House of Commons (or the country at large for that matter) that no-deal Brexit is something that should be contemplated as a viable course of action.
It's the inflammatory language from people who condemn it that gets me.
There's no other term for people so exuberantly willing to risk chaos and real harm as they work themselves up into an extremist frenzy, crazed by the contrast between the reality of Brexit and their original wild visions of milk and honey.
There are plenty, and seeing as the only other recent group that people in the political bubble liked to call a "death cult" were ISIS, it is completely over the top, and quite insulting to the memory of those slaughtered by them
The aggregate damage that the death cult Leavers would do to Britain if they get their way would be far in excess of anything that ISIS could dream of.
That's just plain wrong. In any case, I dont think the attempt to get it to catch on is working.
The idea that a no-deal exit, even on the IFS's doomsday predictor, is more damaging is pretty disgraceful. Nobody on here backed the 'Krauts' poster yesterday and I think you'd be wise to withdraw your above line of argument, which is the other cheek of the same ambiguously-wiped arse.
This is a constant theme on PB. Every time I argue for compromise from both sides, the only people attacking me are Remainers.
Yes. Because you're the most obvious concern troll that pb has had in months, parroting Leave lines to take uncritically.
That must be why I criticized prorogation on a number of occasions, have continuously advocated CU membership and thoroughly condemned the racist Leave.EU poster yesterday.
I often wonder if extremists know they are extremists or genuinely see themselves as reasonable. I still can't tell with you. You really seem to think that anyone who doesn't believe every line in the arch-Remainer playbook is some sort of plant. No, some people just take each debate on a case by case basis. I know that is a hard topic for ideologues.
If it’s the only one that has the power of nobile officium how can the Supreme Court exert jurisdiction over that .
Putting that aside today’s ruling is really the best the petitioners could have hoped for given the circumstances, Bozo hasn’t broken any law yet .
And because they’ve effectively held this over and not ruled there’s nothing for the government to appeal on .
If the case had been dismissed the petitioners would have had to start again , and now Bozo has given undertakings to both the inner and outer court to obey and not frustrate the Benn Act .
And let’s not forget the three judges here are the same ones who ruled in the original prorogation case where they found it unlawful.
I doubt very much they’re going to look kindly on any further unlawful actions by the PM.
Comments
I think the safest thing to say at this stage is to use the Scottish verdict: Not Proven. And that means, as in a fair judicial system, you assume the best of the accused, and he's free to carry on.
A good argument should stand on its own merits without the need for ad hominems. As a lawyer you should of all people understand this.
You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future.
It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave.
Your decision.
Nobody else’s.
Not politicians’.
Not Parliament’s.
Not lobby groups’.
Not mine.
Just you.
You, the British people, will decide.
At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands.
This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes.
And it will be the final decision.
So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave…
…would merely produce another stronger renegotiation and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay…
…I say think again.
The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice.
An in or out referendum.
When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored.
If we vote to leave, then we will leave.
There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.
So I say to my European counterparts with whom I am negotiating.
This is our only chance to get this right – for Britain and for the whole European Union.
I say to those who are thinking about voting to leave.
Think very carefully, because this choice cannot be undone.”
However it does seem that the Good Friday Agreement means we need to at least remain inside the EU's custom union which is a problem for the more loony elements of Brexit.
The public were led to think that this would be easy, painless, and certain to go ahead. It hasn't been easy, it hasn't been painless. So why should it go ahead? Why do some promises count and others do not?
A majority of MPs have voted for Brexit in one form or another. The task is to find a compromise acceptable to a majority that can be agreed with the EU.
If anything it might strengthen leave because mps retained a choice and yet even after another year after the referendum they still took the choice without being legally forced.
It is Leavers who now seek to betray the referendum result by claiming from it a mandate for something that they explicitly and angrily disavowed at the time as Project Fear.
1. Parliament may not bind its successors. Nor may dodgy Prime Ministers
2. Whatever Cameron said in 2016, the law Parliament passed was very clear: the referendum was only advisory
3. Whatever Leavers may try to fantasise, World War 2 did not invalidate democracy because Chamberlain promised "Peace in our Time" a year earlier
Public opinion has c hanged. Leavers had a chance to get us out, and the ERG's fundamentalist madmen blew it.
You've lost. Get over it/
Of course in the real world, that's not the whole of the story.
'Boris is going to sack The Queen'
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/extinction-rebellion-protests-boris-johnsons-father-stanley-says-it-was-a-compliment-to-be-called-an-a4257751.html
It might be easier for the court to order the British representative in Brussels to send the letter, and then hand Johnson a five-year sentence for contempt.
Death cult Leavers never stop to ask themselves why they have abjectly failed to persuade anything like a majority in the House of Commons (or the country at large for that matter) that no-deal Brexit is something that should be contemplated as a viable course of action.
What should be the consequences of voting down every deal when there is a time limit on how long negotiations can last, when those voting it down have pledged to honour the result of the referendum?
It's not like they don't have serious internal issues to deal with. They'd also not like to give Hungary (for example) any leverage in arguments with the Commission. So, I think they'd like us gone, but in the least destructive way possible.
"the draft withdrawal agreement shows more concessions from the EU than were expected."
https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/brexit-negotiations-both-sides-have-now-compromised#
They wont do that. And delaying doesnt guarantee it wont be destructive so thats not why they've likely chosen their next route. No, they also want to play for time and hope something comes up.
FTSE100 but headquarted in Dublin and now Canadian owned. Not a safe haven in these Brexit times I suggest.
Stock up on canned goods.
£110 billion a year of damage in five years' time, according to the IFS:
https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/14421
Boris might as well pull the plug on negotations and save the tax payer the air fare for the summit on 17th and 18th.
For example, you and other Leavers keep insisting that "The Remainer MPs in Parliament keep voting everything down, it's a conspiracy to wreck Brexit; they were elected to follow the referendum result and they've broken their word!"
Despite clear evidence that there isn't a clique of Remainer MPs who have voted everyything down - virtually every MP has voted for one or more specific options of Brexit. And virtually all of them (with the exception of the ERG) has voted for the options that most march with that which they'd undertaken to deliver in their manifestos.
And it gets continually ignored; the (now disproven) narrative gets repeated and repeated as if repetition could substitute for honesty, and it appears to be simply because the actuality is inconvenient and the fantasy is simple and appealing to them.
After a while, it's impossible to avoid the conclusion that such people are either deliberately dishonest or trolls.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/statement_19_6055
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1181852612133621760?s=20
https://twitter.com/patleahyit/status/1181962593839321088?s=21
The idea that a no-deal exit, even on the IFS's doomsday predictor, is more damaging is pretty disgraceful. Nobody on here backed the 'Krauts' poster yesterday and I think you'd be wise to withdraw your above line of argument, which is the other cheek of the same ambiguously-wiped arse.
Bozo is a pathological liar .
I've evidenced my claim. Yes, it's shocking. What's still more shocking is the reaction of the average Leaver is "well...".
No one is backing you up, and Remainers are critical.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/14421
Only Murdoch and the South Yorks Chief Constable have been so universally and consistently loathed .
I often wonder if extremists know they are extremists or genuinely see themselves as reasonable. I still can't tell with you. You really seem to think that anyone who doesn't believe every line in the arch-Remainer playbook is some sort of plant. No, some people just take each debate on a case by case basis. I know that is a hard topic for ideologues.
If it’s the only one that has the power of nobile officium how can the Supreme Court exert jurisdiction over that .
Putting that aside today’s ruling is really the best the petitioners could have hoped for given the circumstances, Bozo hasn’t broken any law yet .
And because they’ve effectively held this over and not ruled there’s nothing for the government to appeal on .
If the case had been dismissed the petitioners would have had to start again , and now Bozo has given undertakings to both the inner and outer court to obey and not frustrate the Benn Act .
And let’s not forget the three judges here are the same ones who ruled in the original prorogation case where they found it unlawful.
I doubt very much they’re going to look kindly on any further unlawful actions by the PM.