I hope Johnson does accept the SNP/LD challenge and we have the December election.
But I must admit I am still confused as to why the LDs want this. The SNP I understand as they see themselves making significant gains in Scotland and providing a springboard for another Indy referendum.
But short of gaining a few seats I don't see what the Lib Dems have to gain from this. I can't believe they are daft enough to think they will actually win so it looks as if they are finally surrendering on Brexit.
Genuine question, what am I missing here?
Picking up a good number of seats is best case scenario realistically. We're intelligent enought to realise that going from 19 seats to 320 or so may not be possible - to put it And I say that as a member.
But why are they so keen on December rather than - say - February? Johnson's failings might be a fair bit more obvious by that time and potential LD gains at their expense somewhat more extensive.
I can't with any honesty answer that one but I'm guessing the key word in your post is "might". By February Johnson might be in an even stronger position. Labour might have a new leader (which is what I worry about). I'm not really privy to any inside intel as my membership extends little beyond being a passive financial supporter.
A December election would make it easier for Labour to revive the Tory Little Helper label and be likely to discourage Labour tactical voting.
Not sure I follow that. But whatevs. We're going to get the Tory Lite goading whenever the election is and the public seem to want one so I don't see a downside in that respect.
I actually think the lib dems strategy is spot on and they could just hold the balance of power
Thats's what most of us want here right? Do you want Boris Johnson to win a majority? I certainly don't want Corbyn to win one and bring in the headcases....
Hi Tyson
If Boris can pass the treaty and we leave on the 1st January 2020 I am content
If the lib dems hold the balance of power and get a referendum I am content as it follows a GE which has put in place mps elected on the known circumstances
And I expect Corbyn to go on a GE loss of any kind
Pretending there's a majority doesn't mean there was one.
Theresa won 317 MPs in 2017.
Boris now has only 288.
Because Boris faced facts. May was deluded.
Theresa had 196 Tory votes in MV1 Theresa had 235 Tory votes in MV2 Theresa had 277 Tory votes in MV3
Boris has had 288 Tory votes in all of his Brexit votes as far as I know. He's done better than Theresa was doing, he's just not pretending like she did that the people against her were really for her.
I was surprised too that one of our more sensible posters has resorted to mimicking Cummings inspired, anti democratic and quite dangerous populist slogans.....
If you mean "Big G", then "sensible" no longer applies. He went away on a cruise and must have picked up some kind of brain parasite from an undercooked prawn because he's been utterly bonkers since he came back.
I hope Johnson does accept the SNP/LD challenge and we have the December election.
But I must admit I am still confused as to why the LDs want this. The SNP I understand as they see themselves making significant gains in Scotland and providing a springboard for another Indy referendum.
But short of gaining a few seats I don't see what the Lib Dems have to gain from this. I can't believe they are daft enough to think they will actually win so it looks as if they are finally surrendering on Brexit.
Genuine question, what am I missing here?
Picking up a good number of seats is best case scenario realistically. We're intelligent enought to realise that going from 19 seats to 320 or so may not be possible - to put it mildly. You can say that you want to win, who wouldn't, but people do look hard headedly at what is achievable and what is not. Which is why all the pearl rattling about the revoke policy is so silly. If the LDs won a majority at the next election, which is what would be required to straight revoke, that would be an earthquake that would put even 2016 in the shade. And I say that as a member.
But why are they so keen on December rather than - say - February? Johnson's failings might be a fair bit more obvious by that time and potential LD gains at their expense somewhat more extensive.
You do not have the choice of February or are you ignoring the EU giving the extension to 31st January, almost certainly assisted by the joint Lib Dem - SNP letter to them confirming their desire for a december election, as they have the best chance of a remain supporting HOC post the GE
It is not certain Boris will gain a majority but labour will lose seats to the conseratives, lib dems, and yes the SNP (yes they will)
There is an interesting alternative scenario in which there is no GE. Boris decides to knuckle down and try to ratify Brexit. But the ratification fails, and as 31st January approaches so does the inevitability of a shoot out between Revoke and No Deal,
I hope not.
We need this zombie Parliament gone and now is not soon enough
"Zombie Parliament" is just the latest spin from Cummings. Bozo had a majority of 3 in August. It has been demolished by his actions.
Basically, a PM needs to be able to cajole and finesse his members, not ride roughshod over them.
51 mps sitting in seats for parties they were not elected from is an utter disgrace
From The Guardian - 'Britain has no need of an early general election. It needs to get this phase of Brexit sorted first. This parliament was elected to do that. It is the fault of the May and Johnson governments, not of parliament, that it has been so difficult. Mr Johnson’s intemperate goading undoubtedly make things worse. But it is the point of parliament to keep him in check. MPs are making a good job of that. If the ghost of parliaments past could join Monday’s debate it might even say to them: In the name of God, stay, and finish the job.'
Guardian is labour's mouthpiece and they too are running scared of the electorate
I hope Johnson does accept the SNP/LD challenge and we have the December election.
Genuine question, what am I missing here?
Picking up a good number of seats is best case scenario realistically. We're intelligent enought to realise that going from 19 seats to 320 or so may not be possible - to put it mildly. You can say that you want to win, who wouldn't, but people do look hard headedly at what is achievable and what is not. Which is why all the pearl rattling about the revoke policy is so silly. If the LDs won a majority at the next election, which is what would be required to straight revoke, that would be an earthquake that would put even 2016 in the shade. And I say that as a member.
But why are they so keen on December rather than - say - February? Johnson's failings might be a fair bit more obvious by that time and potential LD gains at their expense somewhat more extensive.
You do not have the choice of February or are you ignoring the EU giving the extension to 31st January, almost certainly assisted by the joint Lib Dem - SNP letter to them confirming their desire for a december election, as they have the best chance of a remain supporting HOC post the GE
It is not certain Boris will gain a majority but labour will lose seats to the conseratives, lib dems, and yes the SNP (yes they will)
There is an interesting alternative scenario in which there is no GE. Boris decides to knuckle down and try to ratify Brexit. But the ratification fails, and as 31st January approaches so does the inevitability of a shoot out between Revoke and No Deal,
I hope not.
We need this zombie Parliament gone and now is not soon enough
"Zombie Parliament" is just the latest spin from Cummings. Bozo had a majority of 3 in August. It has been demolished by his actions.
Basically, a PM needs to be able to cajole and finesse his members, not ride roughshod over them.
Boris never had a majority.
May never had a majority from MV1 onwards.
Pretending there's a majority doesn't mean there was one.
We need this zombie Parliament gone and now is not soon enough
"Zombie Parliament" is just the latest spin from Cummings. Bozo had a majority of 3 in August. It has been demolished by his actions.
Basically, a PM needs to be able to cajole and finesse his members, not ride roughshod over them.
51 mps sitting in seats for parties they were not elected from is an utter disgrace
Plus MPs like Grieve, Wollaston, Soubry and even Kinnock, Starmer and Chuka were all elected pledging to respect the referendum and saying a second referendum would be undemocratic. They lied in their election material.
"Zombie Parliament" is just the latest spin from Cummings. Bozo had a majority of 3 in August. It has been demolished by his actions.
Basically, a PM needs to be able to cajole and finesse his members, not ride roughshod over them.
"We need this zombie Parliament gone".... -hmmm--- heard of something like this...."get Brett done"
I was surprised too that one of our more sensible posters has resorted to mimicking Cummings inspired, anti democratic and quite dangerous populist slogans.....
"Zombie Parliament" is just the latest spin from Cummings. Bozo had a majority of 3 in August. It has been demolished by his actions.
Basically, a PM needs to be able to cajole and finesse his members, not ride roughshod over them.
Could you tell us how you would 'cajole and finesse' Dominic Grieve, Steve Baker and the DUP into simultaneously voting for a WDA ?
Those are the MPs that were chosen by the people.
So you can't provide an answer.
Not surprisingly because there isn't one.
Boris has never had a majority when it comes to votes in parliament.
My point is that he never seriously tried. He won the WA second reading, so clearly there are enough votes to pass one. The Queens speech passed too. The votes are there to be had.
Alternatively his WA subject to a plebiscite would pass with a massive majority.
This parliament is truly wretched. But Boris does risk losing everything by seeking an early dissolution. I wonder which would be left standing in a shoot out between Revoke and No Deal.
There is little to no risk in calling a GE.
The deal agreed with the EU won't get through, there is no other deal that will get through, not enough votes for R2, not enough votes for revoke.
And beyond that the government doesn't have a majority for any other domestic policy.
Parliament is dead.
The only thing stopping the life support being switched off is the huge numbers of remainers who are happy to squat in parliament, frightened of facing their electorate and losing taxpayers money.
I was surprised too that one of our more sensible posters has resorted to mimicking Cummings inspired, anti democratic and quite dangerous populist slogans.....
If you mean "Big G", then "sensible" no longer applies. He went away on a cruise and must have picked up some kind of brain parasite from an undercooked prawn because he's been utterly bonkers since he came back.
I was surprised too that one of our more sensible posters has resorted to mimicking Cummings inspired, anti democratic and quite dangerous populist slogans.....
If you mean "Big G", then "sensible" no longer applies. He went away on a cruise and must have picked up some kind of brain parasite from an undercooked prawn because he's been utterly bonkers since he came back.
I hope Johnson does accept the SNP/LD challenge and we have the December election.
But I must admit I am still confused as to why the LDs want this. The SNP I understand as they see themselves making significant gains in Scotland and providing a springboard for another Indy referendum.
But short of gaining a few seats I don't see what the Lib Dems have to gain from this. I can't believe they are daft enough to think they will actually win so it looks as if they are finally surrendering on Brexit.
Genuine question, what am I missing here?
Picking up a good number of seats is best case scenario realistically. We're intelligent enought to realise that going from 19 seats to 320 or so may not be possible - to put it mildly. You can say that you want to win, who wouldn't, but people do look hard headedly at what is achievable and what is not. Which is why all the pearl rattling about the revoke policy is so silly. If the LDs won a majority at the next election, which is what would be required to straight revoke, that would be an earthquake that would put even 2016 in the shade. And I say that as a member.
But why are they so keen on December rather than - say - February? Johnson's failings might be a fair bit more obvious by that time and potential LD gains at their expense somewhat more extensive.
You do not have the choice
It is not certain Boris will gain a majority but labour will lose seats to the conseratives, lib dems, and yes the SNP (yes they will)
There
I hope not.
We need this zombie Parliament gone and now is not soon enough
"Zombie Parliament" is just the latest spin from Cummings. Bozo had a majority of 3 in August. It has been demolished by his actions.
Basically, a PM needs to be able to cajole and finesse his members, not ride roughshod over them.
51 mps sitting in seats for parties they were not elected from is an utter disgrace
Yes, but a nearly 50% of those were expelled by BoZo against their will. Ironically most of them had voted 3 times for Brexit, unlike PM and most of the Cabinet.
I hope Johnson does accept the SNP/LD challenge and we have the December election.
But I must admit I am still confused as to why the LDs want this. The SNP I understand as they see themselves making significant gains in Scotland and providing a springboard for another Indy referendum.
But short of gaining a few seats I don't see what the Lib Dems have to gain from this. I can't believe they are daft enough to think they will actually win so it looks as if they are finally surrendering on Brexit.
Genuine question, what am I missing here?
Picking up a good number of seats is best case scenario realistically. We're intelligent enought to realise that going from 19 seats to 320 or so may not be possible - to put it mildly. You can say that you want to win, who wouldn't, but people do look hard headedly at what is achievable and what is not. Which is why all the pearl rattling about the revoke policy is so silly. If the LDs won a majority at the next election, which is what would be required to straight revoke, that would be an earthquake that would put even 2016 in the shade. And I say that as a member.
But why are they so keen on December rather than - say - February? Johnson's failings might be a fair bit more obvious by that time and potential LD gains at their expense somewhat more extensive.
You do not have the choice
It is not certain Boris will gain a majority but labour will lose seats to the conseratives, lib dems, and yes the SNP (yes they will)
There
I hope not.
We need this zombie Parliament gone and now is not soon enough
"Zombie Parliament" is just the latest spin from Cummings. Bozo had a majority of 3 in August. It has been demolished by his actions.
Basically, a PM needs to be able to cajole and finesse his members, not ride roughshod over them.
51 mps sitting in seats for parties they were not elected from is an utter disgrace
Yes, but a nearly 50% of those were expelled by BoZo against their will. Ironically most of them had voted 3 times for Brexit, unlike PM and most of the Cabinet.
Against their will? They willingly defied a three-line whip.
I hope Johnson does accept the SNP/LD challenge and we have the December election.
But I must admit I am still confused as to why the LDs want this. The SNP I understand as they see themselves making significant gains in Scotland and providing a springboard for another Indy referendum.
But short of gaining a few seats I don't see what the Lib Dems have to gain from this. I can't believe they are daft enough to think they will actually win so it looks as if they are finally surrendering on Brexit.
Genuine question, what am I missing here?
Picking up a good number of seats is best case scenario realistically. We're intelligent enought to realise that going from 19 seats to 320 or so may not be possible - to put it mildly. You can say that you want to win, who wouldn't, but people do look hard headedly at what is achievable and what is not. Which is why all the pearl rattling about the revoke policy is so silly. If the LDs won a majority at the next election, which is what would be required to straight revoke, that would be an earthquake that would put even 2016 in the shade. And I say that as a member.
But why are they so keen on December rather than - say - February? Johnson's failings might be a fair bit more obvious by that time and potential LD gains at their expense somewhat more extensive.
You do not have the choice
It is not certain Boris will gain a majority but labour will lose seats to the conseratives, lib dems, and yes the SNP (yes they will)
There
I hope not.
We need this zombie Parliament gone and now is not soon enough
"Zombie Parliament" is just the latest spin from Cummings. Bozo had a majority of 3 in August. It has been demolished by his actions.
Basically, a PM needs to be able to cajole and finesse his members, not ride roughshod over them.
51 mps sitting in seats for parties they were not elected from is an utter disgrace
Yes, but a nearly 50% of those were expelled by BoZo against their will. Ironically most of them had voted 3 times for Brexit, unlike PM and most of the Cabinet.
And all those who voted for the programme motion are to be re-instated leaving about 9 who are standing down or moved over to lib dems
I hope Johnson does accept the SNP/LD challenge and we have the December election.
But I must admit I am still confused as to why the LDs want this. The SNP I understand as they see themselves making significant gains in Scotland and providing a springboard for another Indy referendum.
But short of gn, what am I missing here?
Pickin member.
But why are they so keen on December rather than - say - February? Johnson's failings might be a fair bit more obvious by that time and potential LD gains at their expense somewhat more extensive.
You do not have the choice of February or are you ignoring the EU giving the extension to 31st January, almost certainly assisted by the joint Lib Dem - SNP letter to them confirming their desire for a december election, as they have the best chance of a remain supporting HOC post the GE
It is not certain Boris will gain a majority but labour will lose seats to the conseratives, lib dems, and yes the SNP (yes they will)
There is an interesting alternative scenario in which there is no GE. Boris decides to knuckle down and try to ratify Brexit. But the ratification fails, and as 31st January approaches so does the inevitability of a shoot out between Revoke and No Deal,
I hope not.
We need this zombie Parliament gone and now is not soon enough
"Zombie Parliament" is just the latest spin from Cummings. Bozo had a majority of 3 in August. It has been demolished by his actions.
Basically, a PM needs to be able to cajole and finesse his members, not ride roughshod over them.
51 mps sitting in seats for parties they were not elected from is an utter disgrace
Why? For some of them while they took a principled stand, it was not their choice to no longer represent the party they were elected for. Would you have people stand down when the whip is removed from them, reasonably or not? Such power to hand to a political party which itself may have changed drastically.
As for the rest, while I'd prefer in the normal course of events people who switch sides to undergo a by-election to check if their electors are still happy with the situation, it has never been a requirement, and cannot therefore be a disgrace if people do not do it, and there are merely a larger than usual number of them.
Frankly, it should happen a lot more than it does.
I hope Johnson does accept the SNP/LD challenge and we have the December election.
But I must admit I am still confused as to why the LDs want this. The SNP I understand as they see themselves making significant gains in Scotland and providing a springboard for another Indy referendum.
But short of gaining a few seats I don't see what the Lib Dems have to gain from this. I can't believe they are daft enough to think they will actually win so it looks as if they are finally surrendering on Brexit.
Genuine question, what am I missing here?
Picking up a good number of seats is best case scenario realistically. We're intelligent enought to realise that going from 19 seats to 320 or so may not be possible - to put it mildly. You can say that you want to win, who wouldn't, but people do look hard headedly at what is achievable and what is not. Which is why all the pearl rattling about the revoke policy is so silly. If the LDs won a majority at the next election, which is what would be required to straight revoke, that would be an earthquake that would put even 2016 in the shade. And I say that as a member.
But why are they so keen on December rather than - say - February? Johnson's failings might be a fair bit more obvious by that time and potential LD gains at their expense somewhat more extensive.
You do not have the choice
It is not certain Boris will gain a majority but labour will lose seats to the conseratives, lib dems, and yes the SNP (yes they will)
There
I hope not.
We need this zombie Parliament gone and now is not soon enough
"Zombie Parliament" is just the latest spin from Cummings. Bozo had a majority of 3 in August. It has been demolished by his actions.
Basically, a PM needs to be able to cajole and finesse his members, not ride roughshod over them.
51 mps sitting in seats for parties they were not elected from is an utter disgrace
Yes, but a nearly 50% of those were expelled by BoZo against their will. Ironically most of them had voted 3 times for Brexit, unlike PM and most of the Cabinet.
They chose to defy the whip. It was entirely their choice that they took the actions that they knew would lead to them being expelled.
I hope Johnson does accept the SNP/LD challenge and we have the December election.
But I must admit I am still confused as to why the LDs want this. The SNP I understand as they see themselves making significant gains in Scotland and providing a springboard for another Indy referendum.
But short of gaining a few seats I don't see what the Lib Dems have to gain from this. I can't believe they are daft enough to think they will actually win so it looks as if they are finally surrendering on Brexit.
Genuine question, what am I missing here?
Picking up a good number of seats is best case scenario realistically. We're intelligent enought to realise that going from 19 seats to 320 or so may not be possible - to put it mildly. You can say that you want to win, who wouldn't, but people do look hard headedly at what is achievable and what is not. Which is why all the pearl rattling about the revoke policy is so silly. If the LDs won a majority at the next election, which is what would be required to straight revoke, that would be an earthquake that would put even 2016 in the shade. And I say that as a member.
But why are they so keen on December rather than - say - February? Johnson's failings might be a fair bit more obvious by that time and potential LD gains at their expense somewhat more extensive.
You do not have the choice
It is not certain Boris will gain a majority but labour will lose seats to the conseratives, lib dems, and yes the SNP (yes they will)
There
I hope not.
We need this zombie Parliament gone and now is not soon enough
"Zombie Parliament" is just the latest spin from Cummings. Bozo had a majority of 3 in August. It has been demolished by his actions.
Basically, a PM needs to be able to cajole and finesse his members, not ride roughshod over them.
51 mps sitting in seats for parties they were not elected from is an utter disgrace
Yes, but a nearly 50% of those were expelled by BoZo against their will. Ironically most of them had voted 3 times for Brexit, unlike PM and most of the Cabinet.
Against their will? They willingly defied a three-line whip.
Losing your majority in such a manner was a deliberate act by BoZo and his puppet master. It is not correct to blame the victims of such autocracy.
"Zombie Parliament" is just the latest spin from Cummings. Bozo had a majority of 3 in August. It has been demolished by his actions.
Basically, a PM needs to be able to cajole and finesse his members, not ride roughshod over them.
Could you tell us how you would 'cajole and finesse' Dominic Grieve, Steve Baker and the DUP into simultaneously voting for a WDA ?
Those are the MPs that were chosen by the people.
So you can't provide an answer.
Not surprisingly because there isn't one.
Boris has never had a majority when it comes to votes in parliament.
My point is that he never seriously tried. He won the WA second reading, so clearly there are enough votes to pass one. The Queens speech passed too. The votes are there to be had.
Alternatively his WA subject to a plebiscite would pass with a massive majority.
But that's not having a majority as you claimed Boris had in August is it.
The fact that Boris has been able to produce his own WDA, united the Conservative party far, far more than it was and won votes in the HoC shows that he can 'cajole and finesse'.
And if a GE is called this week then that will be another thing that Boris wanted that is achieved.
But really nobody is going to want to govern when they are dependent upon the votes of the DUP, the Baker-Francois gang and Lisa Nandy while also being at risk of the fuckwittery of Olly Letwin.
I was surprised too that one of our more sensible posters has resorted to mimicking Cummings inspired, anti democratic and quite dangerous populist slogans.....
If you mean "Big G", then "sensible" no longer applies. He went away on a cruise and must have picked up some kind of brain parasite from an undercooked prawn because he's been utterly bonkers since he came back.
I hope Johnson does accept the SNP/LD challenge and we have the December election.
But I must admit I am still confused as to why the LDs want this. The SNP I understand as they see themselves making significant gains in Scotland and providing a springboard for another Indy referendum.
But short of gaining a few seats I don't see what the Lib Dems have to gain from this. I can't believe they are daft enough to think they will actually win so it looks as if they are finally surrendering on Brexit.
Genuine question, what am I missing here?
Picking up a good number of seats is best case scenario realistically. We're intelligent enought to realise that going from 19 seats to 320 or so may not be possible - to put it mildly. You can say that you want to win, who wouldn't, but people do look hard headedly at what is achievable and what is not. Which is why all the pearl rattling about the revoke policy is so silly. If the LDs won a majority at the next election, which is what would be required to straight revoke, that would be an earthquake that would put even 2016 in the shade. And I say that as a member.
But why are they so keen on December rather than - say - February? Johnson's failings might be a fair bit more obvious by that time and potential LD gains at their expense somewhat more extensive.
You do not have the choice
It is not certain Boris will gain a majority but labour will lose seats to the conseratives, lib dems, and yes the SNP (yes they will)
There
I hope not.
We need this zombie Parliament gone and now is not soon enough
"Zombie Parliament" is just the latest spin from Cummings. Bozo had a majority of 3 in August. It has been demolished by his actions.
Basically, a PM needs to be able to cajole and finesse his members, not ride roughshod over them.
51 mps sitting in seats for parties they were not elected from is an utter disgrace
Yes, but a nearly 50% of those were expelled by BoZo against their will. Ironically most of them had voted 3 times for Brexit, unlike PM and most of the Cabinet.
I hope Johnson does accept the SNP/LD challenge and we have the December election.
But I must admit I am still confused as to why the LDs want this. The SNP I understand as they see themselves making significant gains in Scotland and providing a springboard for another Indy referendum.
But short of gn, what am I missing here?
Pickin member.
But why are they so keen on December rather than - say - February? Johnson's failings might be a fair bit more obvious by that time and potential LD gains at their expense somewhat more extensive.
You do not have the choice of February or are you ignoring the EU giving the extension to 31st January, almost certainly assisted by the joint Lib Dem - SNP letter to them confirming their desire for a december election, as they have the best chance of a remain supporting HOC post the GE
It is not certain Boris will gain a majority but labour will lose seats to the conseratives, lib dems, and yes the SNP (yes they will)
There is an interesting alternative scenario in which there is no GE. Boris decides to knuckle down and try to ratify Brexit. But the ratification fails, and as 31st January approaches so does the inevitability of a shoot out between Revoke and No Deal,
I hope not.
We need this zombie Parliament gone and now is not soon enough
"Zombie Parliament" is just the latest spin from Cummings. Bozo had a majority of 3 in August. It has been demolished by his actions.
Basically, a PM needs to be able to cajole and finesse his members, not ride roughshod over them.
51 mps sitting in seats for parties they were not elected from is an utter disgrace
Why? For some of them while they took a principled stand, it was not their choice to no longer represent the party they were elected for. Would you have people stand down when the whip is removed from them, reasonably or not? Such power to hand to a political party which itself may have changed drastically.
As for the rest, while I'd prefer in the normal course of events people who switch sides to undergo a by-election to check if their electors are still happy with the situation, it has never been a requirement, and cannot therefore be a disgrace if people do not do it, and there are merely a larger than usual number of them.
Frankly, it should happen a lot more than it does.
Re paragraph 2 I do believe it should be mandated for them to face a by election
From The Guardian - 'Britain has no need of an early general election. It needs to get this phase of Brexit sorted first. This parliament was elected to do that. It is the fault of the May and Johnson governments, not of parliament, that it has been so difficult. Mr Johnson’s intemperate goading undoubtedly make things worse. But it is the point of parliament to keep him in check. MPs are making a good job of that. If the ghost of parliaments past could join Monday’s debate it might even say to them: In the name of God, stay, and finish the job.'
More bullshit than their article on why thomas the tank engine is every -ist under the sun.
While the motivation of any deeply partisan publication has to be in question, left and right, and while I think its assertion that parliament is simply keeping the PM in check rather than also failing to come to a decision, the initial premise that there is a good argument to get this phase of Brexit sorted first is, I think, a pretty decent one, and this parliament was indeed elected to do that, and would be avoiding hard choices to dissolve without doing so.
The argument is, however, undercut because Labour itself have been calling for an election since before the Tory leadership contest formally kicked off, so whatever the Guardian might profess to believe, and whatever the benefit to finish the job of this phase now, the opposition clearly are not committed to the same view if they object to an election at the present time.
I also think 'this phase of Brexit' is probably highly open to be interpreted in many ways.
I hope Johnson does accept the SNP/LD challenge and we have the December election.
But I must admit I am still confused as to why the LDs want this. The SNP I understand as they see themselves making significant gains in Scotland and providing a springboard for another Indy referendum.
But short of gaining a few seats I don't see what the Lib Dems have to gain from this. I can't believe they are daft enough to think they will actually win so it looks as if they are finally surrendering on Brexit.
Genuine question, what am I missing here?
Picking up a good number of seats is best case scenario realistically. We're intelligent enought to realise that going from 19 seats to 320 or so may not be possible - to put it mildly. You can say that you want to win, who wouldn't, but people do look hard headedly at what is achievable and what is not. Which is why all the pearl rattling about the revoke policy is so silly. If the LDs won a majority at the next election, which is what would be required to straight revoke, that would be an earthquake that would put even 2016 in the shade. And I say that as a member.
But why are they so keen on December rather than - say - February? Johnson's failings might be a fair bit more obvious by that time and potential LD gains at their expense somewhat more extensive.
You do not have the choice
It is not certain Boris will gain a majority but labour will lose seats to the conseratives, lib dems, and yes the SNP (yes they will)
There
I hope not.
We need this zombie Parliament gone and now is not soon enough
"Zombie Parliament" is just the latest spin from Cummings. Bozo had a majority of 3 in August. It has been demolished by his actions.
Basically, a PM needs to be able to cajole and finesse his members, not ride roughshod over them.
51 mps sitting in seats for parties they were not elected from is an utter disgrace
Yes, but a nearly 50% of those were expelled by BoZo against their will. Ironically most of them had voted 3 times for Brexit, unlike PM and most of the Cabinet.
Against their will? They willingly defied a three-line whip.
Losing your majority in such a manner was a deliberate act by BoZo and his puppet master. It is not correct to blame the victims of such autocracy.
How can they lose a majority when it never existed ?
"Zombie Parliament" is just the latest spin from Cummings. Bozo had a majority of 3 in August. It has been demolished by his actions.
Basically, a PM needs to be able to cajole and finesse his members, not ride roughshod over them.
Could you tell us how you would 'cajole and finesse' Dominic Grieve, Steve Baker and the DUP into simultaneously voting for a WDA ?
Those are the MPs that were chosen by the people.
So you can't provide an answer.
Not surprisingly because there isn't one.
Boris has never had a majority when it comes to votes in parliament.
My point is that he never seriously tried. He won the WA second reading, so clearly there are enough votes to pass one. The Queens speech passed too. The votes are there to be had.
Alternatively his WA subject to a plebiscite would pass with a massive majority.
But really nobody is going to want to govern when they are dependent upon the votes of the DUP, the Baker-Francois gang and Lisa Nandy while also being at risk of the fuckwittery of Olly Letwin.
Parliamentary democracy is rather more demanding of effort than dashing off a 1000 word Telegraph column. It requires an ability to build consensus and persuade. Bozo wants an army of sycophants rather than to put in a decent day's work.
I hope Johnson does accept the SNP/LD challenge and we have the December election.
But I must admit I am still confused as to why the LDs want this. The SNP I understand as they see themselves making significant gains in Scotland and providing a springboard for another Indy referendum.
But short of gn, what am I missing here?
Pickin member.
But why are they so keen on December rather than - say - February? Johnson's failings might be a fair bit more obvious by that time and potential LD gains at their expense somewhat more extensive.
You do not have the choice of February or are you ignoring the EU giving the extension to 31st January, almost certainly assisted by the joint Lib Dem - SNP letter to them confirming their desire for a december election, as they have the best chance of a remain supporting HOC post the GE
It is not certain Boris will gain a majority but labour will lose seats to the conseratives, lib dems, and yes the SNP (yes they will)
There is an interesting alternative scenario in which there is no GE. Boris decides to knuckle down and try to ratify Brexit. But the ratification fails, and as 31st January approaches so does the inevitability of a shoot out between Revoke and No Deal,
I hope not.
We need this zombie Parliament gone and now is not soon enough
"Zombie Parliament" is just the latest spin from Cummings. Bozo had a majority of 3 in August. It has been demolished by his actions.
Basically, a PM needs to be able to cajole and finesse his members, not ride roughshod over them.
51 mps sitting in seats for parties they were not elected from is an utter disgrace
Why? For some of them while they took a principled stand, it was not their choice to no longer represent the party they were elected for. Would you have people stand down when the whip is removed from them, reasonably or not? Such power to hand to a political party which itself may have changed drastically.
As for the rest, while I'd prefer in the normal course of events people who switch sides to undergo a by-election to check if their electors are still happy with the situation, it has never been a requirement, and cannot therefore be a disgrace if people do not do it, and there are merely a larger than usual number of them.
Frankly, it should happen a lot more than it does.
Many of them took principled stands against their own electoral material.
In any normally functioning organisation if the head of that organisation spoke in public in such a manner, you would be looking for a replacement for him ASAP.
"Zombie Parliament" is just the latest spin from Cummings. Bozo had a majority of 3 in August. It has been demolished by his actions.
Basically, a PM needs to be able to cajole and finesse his members, not ride roughshod over them.
Could you tell us how you would 'cajole and finesse' Dominic Grieve, Steve Baker and the DUP into simultaneously voting for a WDA ?
Those are the MPs that were chosen by the people.
So you can't provide an answer.
Not surprisingly because there isn't one.
Boris has never had a majority when it comes to votes in parliament.
My point is that he never seriously tried. He won the WA second reading, so clearly there are enough votes to pass one. The Queens speech passed too. The votes are there to be had.
Alternatively his WA subject to a plebiscite would pass with a massive majority.
But really nobody is going to want to govern when they are dependent upon the votes of the DUP, the Baker-Francois gang and Lisa Nandy while also being at risk of the fuckwittery of Olly Letwin.
Parliamentary democracy is rather more demanding of effort than dashing off a 1000 word Telegraph column. It requires an ability to build consensus and persuade. Bozo wants an army of sycophants rather than to put in a decent day's work.
So how do you build a consensus in which Steve Baker, Dominic Grieve and the DUP vote for the same WDA ?
I hope Johnson does accept the SNP/LD challenge and we have the December election.
But I must admit I am still confused as to why the LDs want this. The SNP I understand as they see themselves making significant gains in Scotland and providing a springboard for another Indy referendum.
But short of gn, what am I missing here?
Pickin member.
But why are they so keen on December rather than - say - February? Johnson's failings might be a fair bit more obvious by that time and potential LD gains at their expense somewhat more extensive.
You do not have the choice of February or are you ignoring the EU giving the extension to 31st January, almost certainly assisted by the joint Lib Dem - SNP letter to them confirming their desire for a december election, as they have the best chance of a remain supporting HOC post the GE
It is not certain Boris will gain a majority but labour will lose seats to the conseratives, lib dems, and yes the SNP (yes they will)
There is an
I hope not.
We need this zombie Parliament gone and now is not soon enough
"Zombie Parliament" is just the latest spin from Cummings. Bozo had a majority of 3 in August. It has been demolished by his actions.
Basically, a PM needs to be able to cajole and finesse his members, not ride roughshod over them.
51 mps sitting in seats for parties they were not elected from is an utter disgrace
Why? For some of them while they took a principled stand, it was not their choice to no longer represent the party they were elected for. Would you have people stand down when the whip is removed from them, reasonably or not? Such power to hand to a political party which itself may have changed drastically.
As for the rest, while I'd prefer in the normal course of events people who switch sides to undergo a by-election to check if their electors are still happy with the situation, it has never been a requirement, and cannot therefore be a disgrace if people do not do it, and there are merely a larger than usual number of them.
Frankly, it should happen a lot more than it does.
Many of them took principled stands against their own electoral material.
I hope Johnson does accept the SNP/LD challenge and we have the December election.
But I must admit I am still confused as to why the LDs want this. The SNP I understand as they see themselves making significant gains in Scotland and providing a springboard for another Indy referendum.
But short of gaining a few seats I don't see what the Lib Dems have to gain from this. I can't believe they are daft enough to think they will actually win so it looks as if they are finally surrendering on Brexit.
Genuine question, what am I missing here?
Picmber.
But why are they so keen on December rather than - say - February? Johnson's failings might be a fair bit more obvious by that time and potential LD gains at their expense somewhat more extensive.
You do not have the choice
It is not certain Boris will gain a majority but labour will lose seats to the conseratives, lib dems, and yes the SNP (yes they will)
There
I hope not.
We need this zombie Parliament gone and now is not soon enough
"Zombie Parliament" is just the latest spin from Cummings. Bozo had a majority of 3 in August. It has been demolished by his actions.
Basically, a PM needs to be able to cajole and finesse his members, not ride roughshod over them.
51 mps sitting in seats for parties they were not elected from is an utter disgrace
Yes, but a nearly 50% of those were expelled by BoZo against their will. Ironically most of them had voted 3 times for Brexit, unlike PM and most of the Cabinet.
Against their will? They willingly defied a three-line whip.
Defying even a three line whip does not require an expulsion, many people have done it and not faced such treatment. Now, that is not to say that it is necessarily unreasonable to expel people for voting against a three line whip, the whole point is there will and should be consequences to doing so, and on such critical issues there is an argument the parties should not be as forgiving as they sometimes are. Whilst being against the idea of no deal compeltely, and supportive of people standing up to try to prevent it, I do not think it inherently wrong for a party to decide to treat such a vote so criticailly. But it was still a choice by the party to react in that way.
I was surprised too that one of our more sensible posters has resorted to mimicking Cummings inspired, anti democratic and quite dangerous populist slogans.....
If you mean "Big G", then "sensible" no longer applies. He went away on a cruise and must have picked up some kind of brain parasite from an undercooked prawn because he's been utterly bonkers since he came back.
I refused to have any interaction with Noo after he acused me of being a racist
That continues indefinitely
Don't worry about it Big G.
Hope you and Mrs G have had a nice weekend.
Thanks Gin and no, I do not worry about it
However I have a close family member suffering serious PTSD after being involved in disaster rescue and am sensitive to ill thought out throw away lines about mental illness
On a happier note we have had a lovely weekend and looking forward to our family celebrating my dear lady wife's 80th birthday in three weeks time
I hope Johnson does accept the SNP/LD challenge and we have the December election.
But I must admit I am still confused as to why the LDs want this. The SNP I understand as they see themselves making significant gains in Scotland and providing a springboard for another Indy referendum.
But short of gn, what am I missing here?
Pickin member.
But why are they so keen on December rather than - say - February? Johnson's failings might be a fair bit more obvious by that time and potential LD gains at their expense somewhat more extensive.
You do not have the choice of February or are you ignoring the EU giving the extension to 31st January, almost certainly assisted by the joint Lib Dem - SNP letter to them confirming their desire for a december election, as they have the best chance of a remain supporting HOC post the GE
It is not certain Boris will gain a majority but labour will lose seats to the conseratives, lib dems, and yes the SNP (yes they will)
Thereoke and No Deal,
I hope not.
We need this zombie Parliament gone and now is not soon enough
"Zombie Parliament" is just the latest spin from Cummings. Bozo had a majority of 3 in August. It has been demolished by his actions.
Basically, a PM needs to be able to cajole and finesse his members, not ride roughshod over them.
51 mps sitting in seats for parties they were not elected from is an utter disgrace
As for the rest, while I'd prefer in the normal course of events people who switch sides to undergo a by-election to check if their electors are still happy with the situation, it has never been a requirement, and cannot therefore be a disgrace if people do not do it, and there are merely a larger than usual number of them.
Frankly, it should happen a lot more than it does.
Many of them took principled stands against their own electoral material.
Yes. It should happen more often, and then people face the consequences for that. In this case from the party, other times by the electorate. Sometimes people are just plain hypocritical. But I'm not about to act like the existence of a large number of defectors and assorted independents who have split off during a period of intense political crisis is a disgrace.
In any normally functioning organisation if the head of that organisation spoke in public in such a manner, you would be looking for a replacement for him ASAP.
Parliamentary democracy is rather more demanding of effort than dashing off a 1000 word Telegraph column. It requires an ability to build consensus and persuade. Bozo wants an army of sycophants rather than to put in a decent day's work.
Remainers in parliament have decided that they don't want to accept the treaty agreed with the EU.
Remainers in parliament don't want to vote for a 2nd referendum.
Remainers in parliament don't want to vote to revoke.
Remainers in parliament don't want a GE.
Remainers in parliament are each taking 6 figure sums out of the pockets of taxpayers to squat in their jobs whilst refusing to take any sort of decision that endangers their place at the trough.
Unfortunately for them they will run out of road and right in to a People vs Parliament election.
I was surprised too that one of our more sensible posters has resorted to mimicking Cummings inspired, anti democratic and quite dangerous populist slogans.....
If you mean "Big G", then "sensible" no longer applies. He went away on a cruise and must have picked up some kind of brain parasite from an undercooked prawn because he's been utterly bonkers since he came back.
I refused to have any interaction with Noo after he acused me of being a racist
That continues indefinitely
Don't worry about it Big G.
Hope you and Mrs G have had a nice weekend.
Thanks Gin and no, I do not worry about it
However I have a close family member suffering serious PTSD after being involved in disaster rescue and am sensitive to ill thought out throw away lines about mental illness
On a happier note we have had a lovely weekend and looking forward to our family celebrating my dear lady wife's 80th birthday in three weeks time
I was surprised too that one of our more sensible posters has resorted to mimicking Cummings inspired, anti democratic and quite dangerous populist slogans.....
If you mean "Big G", then "sensible" no longer applies. He went away on a cruise and must have picked up some kind of brain parasite from an undercooked prawn because he's been utterly bonkers since he came back.
I refused to have any interaction with Noo after he acused me of being a racist
That continues indefinitely
Don't worry about it Big G.
Hope you and Mrs G have had a nice weekend.
Thanks Gin and no, I do not worry about it
However I have a close family member suffering serious PTSD after being involved in disaster rescue and am sensitive to ill thought out throw away lines about mental illness
On a happier note we have had a lovely weekend and looking forward to our family celebrating my dear lady wife's 80th birthday in three weeks time
In any normally functioning organisation if the head of that organisation spoke in public in such a manner, you would be looking for a replacement for him ASAP.
Trump on ISIS: "You know, they use the internet better than almost anybody in the world, perhaps other than Donald Trump."
The dishonestname vote campaign can pick things up after the GE, things may look a lot better for the policy at that point.
Much as I would like to Remain and a new referendum might be the way to do it, the choice of "People's Vote" as a name was just wrong on so many levels.
I don’t know which is more remarkable - that she managed to get that reported despite not holding a single press briefing since appointed, or that she succeeded in getting so many words out while her mouth was still firmly attached to Trump’s nether orifice....
In any normally functioning organisation if the head of that organisation spoke in public in such a manner, you would be looking for a replacement for him ASAP.
He wouldn't be my choice for President but for trolling ability he's a solid 10.
I hate myself for laughing at the stuff he comes out with especially as one day he might blow us all up and then the joke will be on me.
At least it will shut the remoaners up.
Unless hell is a 24hr remoaner fest...a bit like twitter only not as bad.
By the way, does anyone have a rundown of recent selection contests for the different parties? Interesting to know which factions are winning right now.
The dishonestname vote campaign can pick things up after the GE, things may look a lot better for the policy at that point.
Much as I would like to Remain and a new referendum might be the way to do it, the choice of "People's Vote" as a name was just wrong on so many levels.
I'm in the same boat, though came later to the position of supporting a referendum. And some were so pleased with the clever marketing of it too, which aggravated.
In any normally functioning organisation if the head of that organisation spoke in public in such a manner, you would be looking for a replacement for him ASAP.
He wouldn't be my choice for President but for trolling ability he's a solid 10.
I hate myself for laughing at the stuff he comes out with especially as one day he might blow us all up and then the joke will be on me.
At least it will shut the remoaners up.
Unless hell is a 24hr remoaner fest...a bit like twitter only not as bad.
+1 He makes me laugh as well! I know I shouldn't but he is so bad it can be funny. He likes to load his comments with "totally destroy, the best, the greatest, smart people" etc. He has dark charisma IMO. Personally, I wish HRC had won and I just hope the Democrats can win next year...
In any normally functioning organisation if the head of that organisation spoke in public in such a manner, you would be looking for a replacement for him ASAP.
Trump on ISIS: "You know, they use the internet better than almost anybody in the world, perhaps other than Donald Trump."
A very very weird thing to say, without question, but at least using the internet is one thing we do know he is at least good at.
Doing badly yes. I think falling apart is pushing it. If the LDs hold the balance of power after the next GE then they it might happen. If they are going to adopt a new strategy then now is the last chance to do it.
The dishonestname vote campaign can pick things up after the GE, things may look a lot better for the policy at that point.
Much as I would like to Remain and a new referendum might be the way to do it, the choice of "People's Vote" as a name was just wrong on so many levels.
"Smart vote" would have been better as it immediately implies the alternative is the opposite!
Much as I would like to Remain and a new referendum might be the way to do it, the choice of "People's Vote" as a name was just wrong on so many levels.
You can see how they reasoned themselves in to 'People's Vote'.
At the time it would have been challenging to call it what it was even though everybody knew it was a 2nd referendum.
Long term it would have served them better to be frank and direct rather than trying to dissemble and obfuscate.
The dishonestname vote campaign can pick things up after the GE, things may look a lot better for the policy at that point.
Much as I would like to Remain and a new referendum might be the way to do it, the choice of "People's Vote" as a name was just wrong on so many levels.
"Smart vote" would have been better as it immediately implies the alternative is the opposite!
Something like that, maybe! I mean, it's blindingly obvious that the retort to the current name was going to be that we already had one, and the use of the word "People" in any context to me is downright sinister. I cringe everytime I hear the name, even though I'm broadly supportive of the position.
In any normally functioning organisation if the head of that organisation spoke in public in such a manner, you would be looking for a replacement for him ASAP.
Trump on ISIS: "You know, they use the internet better than almost anybody in the world, perhaps other than Donald Trump."
A very very weird thing to say, without question, but at least using the internet is one thing we do know he is at least good at.
When he said that it made me laugh as well! I think he is constantly (in his mind) trying to sell to the world he is the best. Another bit he talked about was "watching it live, like watching a film". The man has ordered troops to risk their lives and he thinks it is like going to the movies! Unbelievable...
Much as I would like to Remain and a new referendum might be the way to do it, the choice of "People's Vote" as a name was just wrong on so many levels.
You can see how they reasoned themselves in to 'People's Vote'.
At the time it would have been challenging to call it what it was even though everybody knew it was a 2nd referendum.
Long term it would have served them better to be frank and direct rather than trying to dissemble and obfuscate.
I think they should have been patient and begun their campaign much much later. While I would have been happy to accept (possibly even to have voted for) any specified destination that Cameron had put forward on the Leave side, it was reasonably obvious that difficulties were going to emerge given the contradictions (with regard to end state anyway) in the Leave campaigns. They should have held fire until those difficulties began to emerge. As it is they are Exhibit A in the Leaver accusation that Remainers would never accept the result which, in my case anyway, was far from the truth.
Much as I would like to Remain and a new referendum might be the way to do it, the choice of "People's Vote" as a name was just wrong on so many levels.
You can see how they reasoned themselves in to 'People's Vote'.
At the time it would have been challenging to call it what it was even though everybody knew it was a 2nd referendum.
Long term it would have served them better to be frank and direct rather than trying to dissemble and obfuscate.
I think they should have been patient and begun their campaign much much later. While I would have been happy to accept (possibly even to have voted for) any specified destination that Cameron had put forward on the Leave side, it was reasonably obvious that difficulties were going to emerge given the contradictions (with regard to end state anyway) in the Leave campaigns. They should have held fire until those difficulties began to emerge. As it is they are Exhibit A in the Leaver accusation that Remainers would never accept the result which, in my case anyway, was far from the truth.
To be fair they did wait until April 2018 before launching as the People's Vote campaign which was fairly late.
In any normally functioning organisation if the head of that organisation spoke in public in such a manner, you would be looking for a replacement for him ASAP.
Trump on ISIS: "You know, they use the internet better than almost anybody in the world, perhaps other than Donald Trump."
A very very weird thing to say, without question, but at least using the internet is one thing we do know he is at least good at.
When he said that it made me laugh as well! I think he is constantly (in his mind) trying to sell to the world he is the best..
The annoying thing is that while we probably like to think of ourselves as skeptical of others' bullcrap, a lot of the time if someone states with confidence that they are hot sh*t, we tend to believe it. Trump really tests that though!
Much as I would like to Remain and a new referendum might be the way to do it, the choice of "People's Vote" as a name was just wrong on so many levels.
You can see how they reasoned themselves in to 'People's Vote'.
At the time it would have been challenging to call it what it was even though everybody knew it was a 2nd referendum.
Long term it would have served them better to be frank and direct rather than trying to dissemble and obfuscate.
I think they should have been patient and begun their campaign much much later. While I would have been happy to accept (possibly even to have voted for) any specified destination that Cameron had put forward on the Leave side, it was reasonably obvious that difficulties were going to emerge given the contradictions (with regard to end state anyway) in the Leave campaigns. They should have held fire until those difficulties began to emerge. As it is they are Exhibit A in the Leaver accusation that Remainers would never accept the result which, in my case anyway, was far from the truth.
To be fair they did wait until April 2018 before launching as the People's Vote campaign which was fairly late.
True. For some reason I had it in my mind it was shortly after TMay sent the A50 notification.
If Remainers had accepted the referendum result with good grace, we could then have elected a 35% government post-Brexit on a Rejoin referendum. When Remain won, Leavers would have had to accepted it. The democratic instinct of the British people would have meant they couldn't have got out again without another 50%+ result, and demographics would have prevented this. This is the beauty of having a clear set of rules that everyone abides by. You might not like the result, but you accept the way we got there and democracy can continue.
No they wouldn't, as soon as they'd got out of the EU they'd have started saying that they had to wait 40 years before they got their referendum to leave, and it would be an outrageous betrayal of democracy if there was a referendum to rejoin before 2060.
Against their will? They willingly defied a three-line whip.
Losing your majority in such a manner was a deliberate act by BoZo and his puppet master. It is not correct to blame the victims of such autocracy.
He had no majority. They voted against him first before he expelled them. Don't put the cart before the horse.
He has nearly 30 MPs fewer than May did in 2017.
Yet he had more votes for his deal than May did.
It’s not entirely true for anyone to say that. May was trying for meaningful votes not less meaningful second reading. As corbyn himself said when challenged why so softly softly on his rebels “I think most of those MPs were making clear their support for a second reading was in order to try and make changes to the proposals to bring them into line with the kind of Brexit deal we have been talking about. The chief whip has made clear these things will be taken into account as a whole once the process is finished.”
If Remainers had accepted the referendum result with good grace, we could then have elected a 35% government post-Brexit on a Rejoin referendum. When Remain won, Leavers would have had to accepted it. The democratic instinct of the British people would have meant they couldn't have got out again without another 50%+ result, and demographics would have prevented this. This is the beauty of having a clear set of rules that everyone abides by. You might not like the result, but you accept the way we got there and democracy can continue.
No they wouldn't, as soon as they'd got out of the EU they'd have started saying that they had to wait 40 years before they got their referendum to leave, and it would be an outrageous betrayal of democracy if there was a referendum to rejoin before 2060.
As Mr. Buttigieg increasingly presents himself to Democrats as a younger, moderate alternative to former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., he is struggling badly to compete against one of Mr. Biden’s strengths: deep connections to black voters. Nowhere is that problem greater than in South Carolina, which votes fourth in the Democratic nomination
If Remainers had accepted the referendum result with good grace
I find categorising the world into the groups of "Remainers" and "Leavers" to be extremely unhelpful.
But let's step back for a moment.
In the immediate aftermath of the election, there was a genuine acceptance of the result. The polling evidence at the time showed 80+% of people believed the result should be implemented.
What happened? Why did that change?
Well, I think there were three major missteps:
Firstly, was Mrs May's "red lines". Secondly, there was the election. Thirdly, there was the trashing of Mrs May's deal as "not real Brexit".
The first alienated a chunk of the "well we lost, but we're all in this together" bunch. The second lost the Conservatives their majority, and resulted in a more Remain-y parliament. The third appeared to be more about BJ getting into Number Ten than getting Brexit done.
Oh come on. Remainers did not want to accept the result from the get-go. We could have easily countered May's red lines with a clearly backed proposal for soft Brexit. But Remain MPs from the start wanted to overturn it so us pushing for a soft Brexit found we didn't have the numbers. We instead got deliberate sabotage and delaying tactics until there was the opportunity to block it entirely.
You make the mistake of lumping "Remainers" and "Leavers" in as one. The indicative votes showed their was no clear way forward that could have achieved a majority. May was the only one who was able to negotiate with the EU. All MPs could do was react. And when they did it was clear that the labels "Remainer" and "Leaver" in Parliament were meaningless.
The dishonestname vote campaign can pick things up after the GE, things may look a lot better for the policy at that point.
Much as I would like to Remain and a new referendum might be the way to do it, the choice of "People's Vote" as a name was just wrong on so many levels.
"Smart vote" would have been better as it immediately implies the alternative is the opposite!
Cheat's Charter conveys what they were really after. Still are. Blair on R4 tonight going on about a three option vote: No Deal, Deal, Remain. Now why would that be, eh Tony? Given you were happy to get a 66 seat majority with 35% of the vote, you'd no doubt be happy to can Brexit with 35% of the vote..... Perhaps he should join the LibDems?
The dishonestname vote campaign can pick things up after the GE, things may look a lot better for the policy at that point.
Much as I would like to Remain and a new referendum might be the way to do it, the choice of "People's Vote" as a name was just wrong on so many levels.
"Smart vote" would have been better as it immediately implies the alternative is the opposite!
Cheat's Charter conveys what they were really after. Still are. Blair on R4 tonight going on about a three option vote: No Deal, Deal, Remain. Now why would that be, eh Tony? Given you were happy to get a 66 seat majority with 35% of the vote, you'd no doubt be happy to can Brexit with 35% of the vote..... Perhaps he should join the LibDems?
If Remainers had accepted the referendum result with good grace, we could then have elected a 35% government post-Brexit on a Rejoin referendum. When Remain won, Leavers would have had to accepted it. The democratic instinct of the British people would have meant they couldn't have got out again without another 50%+ result, and demographics would have prevented this. This is the beauty of having a clear set of rules that everyone abides by. You might not like the result, but you accept the way we got there and democracy can continue.
No they wouldn't, as soon as they'd got out of the EU they'd have started saying that they had to wait 40 years before they got their referendum to leave, and it would be an outrageous betrayal of democracy if there was a referendum to rejoin before 2060.
That is usupported rubbish.
The support for it is that:
1) Political enthusiasts' views about procedural issues consistently coincide almost exactly with what best helps them get the outcome they care about. See also the voting system stuff discussed on this thread.
2) The view I described was often expressed here (not necessarily 40 years but certainly things like "a generation") by Leave enthusiasts between Leave winning the referendum and the PV campaign starting up, ie the period when they thought Leave was in the bag.
PS The unsettling thing about (1) is that the emotions are genuine, not feigned. LibDems do sincerely believe that PR is good and FPTP is bad, and Tories vice versa. But if you switched the tactical positions, within 10 years most of the political partisans on either side would sincerely believe the opposite.
No they wouldn't, as soon as they'd got out of the EU they'd have started saying that they had to wait 40 years before they got their referendum to leave, and it would be an outrageous betrayal of democracy if there was a referendum to rejoin before 2060.
I'm not sure that is true.
I would have no problem with a party campaigning at a GE with a referendum pledge in their manifesto.
Or even rejoining without a referendum.
If voters elected that party on a clear promise then that is democracy.
I wouldn't pretend to like it but I would accept the decision.
Against their will? They willingly defied a three-line whip.
Losing your majority in such a manner was a deliberate act by BoZo and his puppet master. It is not correct to blame the victims of such autocracy.
He had no majority. They voted against him first before he expelled them. Don't put the cart before the horse.
He has nearly 30 MPs fewer than May did in 2017.
Yet he had more votes for his deal than May did.
It’s not entirely true for anyone to say that. May was trying for meaningful votes not less meaningful second reading. As corbyn himself said when challenged why so softly softly on his rebels “I think most of those MPs were making clear their support for a second reading was in order to try and make changes to the proposals to bring them into line with the kind of Brexit deal we have been talking about. The chief whip has made clear these things will be taken into account as a whole once the process is finished.”
How are the 19 Labour Boris backers and various rebels Tories who backed Boris on 2ndreading going to get out of 3rd reading? Quite easy really, it really is ramping it to say Boris has done the hard part and this is a brexit deal Parliament. Looking closely at what they have been saying, the qualifiers that come after the phrase “yes I will vote for it” I detect two main ones.
1. Financial Impact Statements. Bigging up the negative in economic impacts statements and relating it to bad for their constituents. 2. NI. Clarke today was saying its awful for NI and unionists, we can back it only after we change the new backstop wasn’t he?
And a couple more that may play
3. Kinnock seemed to be heading aboard last week but is definitely against this week with “he couldn’t vote for this one which “would make a bonfire of workers rights, environmental standards and consumer protection”.” If others wanted to back out by bigging up such examples they easily could couldn’t they? 4. Labour leadership and Labour whipping have been a bit softly softly for the less meaningful second reading maybe planning a tougher line when it comes to more meaningful voting? Labour leadership are being canny with their wording around this, whilst being as softly softly and supportive of their rebels as possible, I suspect a toughening of the line for a meaningful 3rd reading.
The dishonestname vote campaign can pick things up after the GE, things may look a lot better for the policy at that point.
Much as I would like to Remain and a new referendum might be the way to do it, the choice of "People's Vote" as a name was just wrong on so many levels.
"Smart vote" would have been better as it immediately implies the alternative is the opposite!
Cheat's Charter conveys what they were really after. Still are. Blair on R4 tonight going on about a three option vote: No Deal, Deal, Remain. Now why would that be, eh Tony? Given you were happy to get a 66 seat majority with 35% of the vote, you'd no doubt be happy to can Brexit with 35% of the vote..... Perhaps he should join the LibDems?
STV
And there is the no deal from Blair of all people.
Against their will? They willingly defied a three-line whip.
Losing your majority in such a manner was a deliberate act by BoZo and his puppet master. It is not correct to blame the victims of such autocracy.
He had no majority. They voted against him first before he expelled them. Don't put the cart before the horse.
He has nearly 30 MPs fewer than May did in 2017.
Yet he had more votes for his deal than May did.
It’s not entirely true for anyone to say that. May was trying for meaningful votes not less meaningful second reading. As corbyn himself said when challenged why so softly softly on his rebels “I think most of those MPs were making clear their support for a second reading was in order to try and make changes to the proposals to bring them into line with the kind of Brexit deal we have been talking about. The chief whip has made clear these things will be taken into account as a whole once the process is finished.”
How are the 19 Labour Boris backers and various rebels Tories who backed Boris on 2ndreading going to get out of 3rd reading? Quite easy really, it really is ramping it to say Boris has done the hard part and this is a brexit deal Parliament. Looking closely at what they have been saying, the qualifiers that come after the phrase “yes I will vote for it” I detect two main ones.
1. Financial Impact Statements. Bigging up the negative in economic impacts statements and relating it to bad for their constituents. 2. NI. Clarke today was saying its awful for NI and unionists, we can back it only after we change the new backstop wasn’t he?
And a couple more that may play
3. Kinnock seemed to be heading aboard last week but is definitely against this week with “he couldn’t vote for this one which “would make a bonfire of workers rights, environmental standards and consumer protection”.” If others wanted to back out by bigging up such examples they easily could couldn’t they? 4. Labour leadership and Labour whipping have been a bit softly softly for the less meaningful second reading maybe planning a tougher line when it comes to more meaningful voting? Labour leadership are being canny with their wording around this, whilst being as softly softly and supportive of their rebels as possible, I suspect a toughening of the line for a meaningful 3rd reading.
And of course it’s now at the mercy of this house for amendments, which it wouldn’t have been if not passed 2nd reading.
The dishonestname vote campaign can pick things up after the GE, things may look a lot better for the policy at that point.
Much as I would like to Remain and a new referendum might be the way to do it, the choice of "People's Vote" as a name was just wrong on so many levels.
"Smart vote" would have been better as it immediately implies the alternative is the opposite!
Cheat's Charter conveys what they were really after. Still are. Blair on R4 tonight going on about a three option vote: No Deal, Deal, Remain. Now why would that be, eh Tony? Given you were happy to get a 66 seat majority with 35% of the vote, you'd no doubt be happy to can Brexit with 35% of the vote..... Perhaps he should join the LibDems?
STV
And there is the no deal from Blair of all people.
The dishonestname vote campaign can pick things up after the GE, things may look a lot better for the policy at that point.
Much as I would like to Remain and a new referendum might be the way to do it, the choice of "People's Vote" as a name was just wrong on so many levels.
"Smart vote" would have been better as it immediately implies the alternative is the opposite!
Cheat's Charter conveys what they were really after. Still are. Blair on R4 tonight going on about a three option vote: No Deal, Deal, Remain. Now why would that be, eh Tony? Given you were happy to get a 66 seat majority with 35% of the vote, you'd no doubt be happy to can Brexit with 35% of the vote..... Perhaps he should join the LibDems?
STV
And there is the no deal from Blair of all people.
Do you agree with me now Ben
Agree with you on what?
No deal has to be part of any referendum along with deal and remain
No they wouldn't, as soon as they'd got out of the EU they'd have started saying that they had to wait 40 years before they got their referendum to leave, and it would be an outrageous betrayal of democracy if there was a referendum to rejoin before 2060.
I'm not sure that is true.
I would have no problem with a party campaigning at a GE with a referendum pledge in their manifesto.
Or even rejoining without a referendum.
If voters elected that party on a clear promise then that is democracy.
I wouldn't pretend to like it but I would accept the decision.
They might never get a seat again if they signed up to the Euro etc without a referendum, even if it was in their manifesto.
No they wouldn't, as soon as they'd got out of the EU they'd have started saying that they had to wait 40 years before they got their referendum to leave, and it would be an outrageous betrayal of democracy if there was a referendum to rejoin before 2060.
I'm not sure that is true.
I would have no problem with a party campaigning at a GE with a referendum pledge in their manifesto.
Or even rejoining without a referendum.
If voters elected that party on a clear promise then that is democracy.
I wouldn't pretend to like it but I would accept the decision.
You sincerely believe that now, but you won't if it looks like actually happening.
The dishonestname vote campaign can pick things up after the GE, things may look a lot better for the policy at that point.
Much as I would like to Remain and a new referendum might be the way to do it, the choice of "People's Vote" as a name was just wrong on so many levels.
"Smart vote" would have been better as it immediately implies the alternative is the opposite!
Cheat's Charter conveys what they were really after. Still are. Blair on R4 tonight going on about a three option vote: No Deal, Deal, Remain. Now why would that be, eh Tony? Given you were happy to get a 66 seat majority with 35% of the vote, you'd no doubt be happy to can Brexit with 35% of the vote..... Perhaps he should join the LibDems?
STV
And there is the no deal from Blair of all people.
Do you agree with me now Ben
Agree with you on what?
No deal has to be part of any referendum along with deal and remain
I have always felt that; my preference would be for a 3-way vote decided by STV.
What I don't believe is that the Electoral Commission has any power to force No Deal onto a 2nd referendum ballot if Parliament legislate for a referendum between Deal and Remain.
The dishonestname vote campaign can pick things up after the GE, things may look a lot better for the policy at that point.
Much as I would like to Remain and a new referendum might be the way to do it, the choice of "People's Vote" as a name was just wrong on so many levels.
"Smart vote" would have been better as it immediately implies the alternative is the opposite!
Cheat's Charter conveys what they were really after. Still are. Blair on R4 tonight going on about a three option vote: No Deal, Deal, Remain. Now why would that be, eh Tony? Given you were happy to get a 66 seat majority with 35% of the vote, you'd no doubt be happy to can Brexit with 35% of the vote..... Perhaps he should join the LibDems?
STV
And there is the no deal from Blair of all people.
Do you agree with me now Ben
Agree with you on what?
No deal has to be part of any referendum along with deal and remain
I have always felt that; my preference would be for a 3-way vote decided by STV.
What I don't believe is that the Electoral Commission has any power to force No Deal onto a 2nd referendum ballot if Parliament legislate for a referendum between Deal and Remain.
They do actually but best we agree to disagree amicably and move on
The dishonestname vote campaign can pick things up after the GE, things may look a lot better for the policy at that point.
Much as I would like to Remain and a new referendum might be the way to do it, the choice of "People's Vote" as a name was just wrong on so many levels.
"Smart vote" would have been better as it immediately implies the alternative is the opposite!
Cheat's Charter conveys what they were really after. Still are. Blair on R4 tonight going on about a three option vote: No Deal, Deal, Remain. Now why would that be, eh Tony? Given you were happy to get a 66 seat majority with 35% of the vote, you'd no doubt be happy to can Brexit with 35% of the vote..... Perhaps he should join the LibDems?
STV
And there is the no deal from Blair of all people.
Do you agree with me now Ben
Agree with you on what?
No deal has to be part of any referendum along with deal and remain
I have always felt that; my preference would be for a 3-way vote decided by STV.
What I don't believe is that the Electoral Commission has any power to force No Deal onto a 2nd referendum ballot if Parliament legislate for a referendum between Deal and Remain.
They do actually but best we agree to disagree amicably and move on
The dishonestname vote campaign can pick things up after the GE, things may look a lot better for the policy at that point.
Much as I would like to Remain and a new referendum might be the way to do it, the choice of "People's Vote" as a name was just wrong on so many levels.
"Smart vote" would have been better as it immediately implies the alternative is the opposite!
Cheat's Charter conveys what they were really after. Still are. Blair on R4 tonight going on about a three option vote: No Deal, Deal, Remain. Now why would that be, eh Tony? Given you were happy to get a 66 seat majority with 35% of the vote, you'd no doubt be happy to can Brexit with 35% of the vote..... Perhaps he should join the LibDems?
STV
And there is the no deal from Blair of all people.
Do you agree with me now Ben
Agree with you on what?
No deal has to be part of any referendum along with deal and remain
I have always felt that; my preference would be for a 3-way vote decided by STV.
What I don't believe is that the Electoral Commission has any power to force No Deal onto a 2nd referendum ballot if Parliament legislate for a referendum between Deal and Remain.
They do actually but best we agree to disagree amicably and move on
Parliamentary sovereignty really shouldn't be that hard a concept to grasp!
The dishonestname vote campaign can pick things up after the GE, things may look a lot better for the policy at that point.
Much as I would like to Remain and a new referendum might be the way to do it, the choice of "People's Vote" as a name was just wrong on so many levels.
"Smart vote" would have been better as it immediately implies the alternative is the opposite!
Cheat's Charter conveys what they were really after. Still are. Blair on R4 tonight going on about a three option vote: No Deal, Deal, Remain. Now why would that be, eh Tony? Given you were happy to get a 66 seat majority with 35% of the vote, you'd no doubt be happy to can Brexit with 35% of the vote..... Perhaps he should join the LibDems?
STV
And there is the no deal from Blair of all people.
Do you agree with me now Ben
Agree with you on what?
No deal has to be part of any referendum along with deal and remain
I have always felt that; my preference would be for a 3-way vote decided by STV.
What I don't believe is that the Electoral Commission has any power to force No Deal onto a 2nd referendum ballot if Parliament legislate for a referendum between Deal and Remain.
They do actually but best we agree to disagree amicably and move on
Parliamentary sovereignty really shouldn't be that hard a concept to grasp!
Particularly when his belief they have that power is 'i saw Grieve say it on tv, so dont ask me to defend that position but it must be true'. Its a position which makes no sense, it's a moral argument not gifting the EC sovereignty on a question of political judgement. I'm sorry, but one cannot assert something as true then refuse to engage as a means of not having to justify it.
The dishonestname vote campaign can pick things up after the GE, things may look a lot better for the policy at that point.
Much as I would like to Remain and a new referendum might be the way to do it, the choice of "People's Vote" as a name was just wrong on so many levels.
"Smart vote" would have been better as it immediately implies the alternative is the opposite!
Cheat's Charter conveys what they were really after. Still are. Blair on R4 tonight going on about a three option vote: No Deal, Deal, Remain. Now why would that be, eh Tony? Given you were happy to get a 66 seat majority with 35% of the vote, you'd no doubt be happy to can Brexit with 35% of the vote..... Perhaps he should join the LibDems?
STV
And there is the no deal from Blair of all people.
Do you agree with me now Ben
Agree with you on what?
No deal has to be part of any referendum along with deal and remain
I have always felt that; my preference would be for a 3-way vote decided by STV.
What I don't believe is that the Electoral Commission has any power to force No Deal onto a 2nd referendum ballot if Parliament legislate for a referendum between Deal and Remain.
They do actually but best we agree to disagree amicably and move on
Parliamentary sovereignty really shouldn't be that hard a concept to grasp!
Particularly when his belief they have that power is 'i saw Grieve say it on tv, so dont ask me to defend that position but it must be true'. Its a position which makes no sense, it's a moral argument not gifting the EC sovereignty on a question of political judgement. I'm sorry, but one cannot assert something as true then refuse to engage as a means of not having to justify it.
Good night all.
The act of passing a referendum requires in the act that the electoral commission decides the wording of the questions and requires fairness to all opinions
The sovereignty of parliament is not in doubt, it is the process within that that brings in the electoral commission
The act of passing a referendum requires in the act that the electoral commission decides the wording of the questions and requires fairness to all opinions
The sovereignty of parliament is not in doubt, it is the process within that that brings in the electoral commission
It doesn't require fairness to all opinions, it requires fairness to all options that Parliament chose for the referendum.
Just like in the AV referendum the Electoral Commission lacked the ability to add in STV as an option.
@Big_G_NorthWales This is complete wrong. Both constitutionally and in terms of current statute law.
1. The Electoral Commission is a creature of statute law. Parliament sets and can change statute law. The idea a QUANGO can bind Parliament is just wrong.
2. Even in current terms it's wrong. The Electoral Commission offers advice on the areas statute law gives it either a power or a duty to do so. That advice isn't binding but it is judicable giving the courts an oversight role. But the idea Parliament has given the EC the power to impose policy options in referendums is just completely wrong. The idea the EC can insist X option is included in a referendum is wrong. Even if this wasn't wrong Parliament could make it wrong in any future primary legislation for a subsequent referendum.
Comments
If Boris can pass the treaty and we leave on the 1st January 2020 I am content
If the lib dems hold the balance of power and get a referendum I am content as it follows a GE which has put in place mps elected on the known circumstances
And I expect Corbyn to go on a GE loss of any kind
Theresa had 196 Tory votes in MV1
Theresa had 235 Tory votes in MV2
Theresa had 277 Tory votes in MV3
Boris has had 288 Tory votes in all of his Brexit votes as far as I know. He's done better than Theresa was doing, he's just not pretending like she did that the people against her were really for her.
"We need this zombie Parliament gone".... -hmmm--- heard of something like this...."get Brett done"
I was surprised too that one of our more sensible posters has resorted to mimicking Cummings inspired, anti democratic and quite dangerous populist slogans.....
See my reply to you Tyson
I think you may agree with me
Alternatively his WA subject to a plebiscite would pass with a massive majority.
The deal agreed with the EU won't get through, there is no other deal that will get through, not enough votes for R2, not enough votes for revoke.
And beyond that the government doesn't have a majority for any other domestic policy.
Parliament is dead.
The only thing stopping the life support being switched off is the huge numbers of remainers who are happy to squat in parliament, frightened of facing their electorate and losing taxpayers money.
Roll on People vs Parliament.
I refused to have any interaction with Noo after he acused me of being a racist
That continues indefinitely
Ah, my coat.
As for the rest, while I'd prefer in the normal course of events people who switch sides to undergo a by-election to check if their electors are still happy with the situation, it has never been a requirement, and cannot therefore be a disgrace if people do not do it, and there are merely a larger than usual number of them.
Frankly, it should happen a lot more than it does.
The fact that Boris has been able to produce his own WDA, united the Conservative party far, far more than it was and won votes in the HoC shows that he can 'cajole and finesse'.
And if a GE is called this week then that will be another thing that Boris wanted that is achieved.
But really nobody is going to want to govern when they are dependent upon the votes of the DUP, the Baker-Francois gang and Lisa Nandy while also being at risk of the fuckwittery of Olly Letwin.
Hope you and Mrs G have had a nice weekend.
Can you name one of the expelled MPs who didn't vote against Brexit in March on that 8th vote?
The argument is, however, undercut because Labour itself have been calling for an election since before the Tory leadership contest formally kicked off, so whatever the Guardian might profess to believe, and whatever the benefit to finish the job of this phase now, the opposition clearly are not committed to the same view if they object to an election at the present time.
I also think 'this phase of Brexit' is probably highly open to be interpreted in many ways.
The 41 most shocking lines from Donald Trump's Baghdadi announcement
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/27/politics/donald-trump-baghdadi-death-isis/index.html
In any normally functioning organisation if the head of that organisation spoke in public in such a manner, you would be looking for a replacement for him ASAP.
However I have a close family member suffering serious PTSD after being involved in disaster rescue and am sensitive to ill thought out throw away lines about mental illness
On a happier note we have had a lovely weekend and looking forward to our family celebrating my dear lady wife's 80th birthday in three weeks time
But what's new.
Remainers in parliament don't want to vote for a 2nd referendum.
Remainers in parliament don't want to vote to revoke.
Remainers in parliament don't want a GE.
Remainers in parliament are each taking 6 figure sums out of the pockets of taxpayers to squat in their jobs whilst refusing to take any sort of decision that endangers their place at the trough.
Unfortunately for them they will run out of road and right in to a People vs Parliament election.
I hate myself for laughing at the stuff he comes out with especially as one day he might blow us all up and then the joke will be on me.
At least it will shut the remoaners up.
Unless hell is a 24hr remoaner fest...a bit like twitter only not as bad.
He makes me laugh as well! I know I shouldn't but he is so bad it can be funny. He likes to load his comments with "totally destroy, the best, the greatest, smart people" etc. He has dark charisma IMO. Personally, I wish HRC had won and I just hope the Democrats can win next year...
At the time it would have been challenging to call it what it was even though everybody knew it was a 2nd referendum.
Long term it would have served them better to be frank and direct rather than trying to dissemble and obfuscate.
The Remain campaign is slowly turning gangrenous......
But Boris 2019 has more than May 2019 had voting for her on Brexit. The rot has been stopped.
1) Political enthusiasts' views about procedural issues consistently coincide almost exactly with what best helps them get the outcome they care about. See also the voting system stuff discussed on this thread.
2) The view I described was often expressed here (not necessarily 40 years but certainly things like "a generation") by Leave enthusiasts between Leave winning the referendum and the PV campaign starting up, ie the period when they thought Leave was in the bag.
PS The unsettling thing about (1) is that the emotions are genuine, not feigned. LibDems do sincerely believe that PR is good and FPTP is bad, and Tories vice versa. But if you switched the tactical positions, within 10 years most of the political partisans on either side would sincerely believe the opposite.
I would have no problem with a party campaigning at a GE with a referendum pledge in their manifesto.
Or even rejoining without a referendum.
If voters elected that party on a clear promise then that is democracy.
I wouldn't pretend to like it but I would accept the decision.
1. Financial Impact Statements. Bigging up the negative in economic impacts statements and relating it to bad for their constituents.
2. NI. Clarke today was saying its awful for NI and unionists, we can back it only after we change the new backstop wasn’t he?
And a couple more that may play
3. Kinnock seemed to be heading aboard last week but is definitely against this week with “he couldn’t vote for this one which “would make a bonfire of workers rights, environmental standards and consumer protection”.” If others wanted to back out by bigging up such examples they easily could couldn’t they?
4. Labour leadership and Labour whipping have been a bit softly softly for the less meaningful second reading maybe planning a tougher line when it comes to more meaningful voting? Labour leadership are being canny with their wording around this, whilst being as softly softly and supportive of their rebels as possible, I suspect a toughening of the line for a meaningful 3rd reading.
Do you agree with me now Ben
What I don't believe is that the Electoral Commission has any power to force No Deal onto a 2nd referendum ballot if Parliament legislate for a referendum between Deal and Remain.
No deal (bar extreme foolishness - see WAIB)
R2
Revoke
Leaving the only 2 options which would carry a majority in parliament:
The WAIB (unamended)
GE
I don't see the treaty getting through which only leaves the GE as a realistic option.
The question really is how much of a charade do we have to go through this week before it is agreed.
Just as I didn't like the Labour wins in 97,01,05 but accepted them as part of democracy and looked toward the next election.
I would never consider the short term gain of overturning a decision I didn't like as being worth the long term damage it would do to democracy.
Good night all.
The sovereignty of parliament is not in doubt, it is the process within that that brings in the electoral commission
Just like in the AV referendum the Electoral Commission lacked the ability to add in STV as an option.
1. The Electoral Commission is a creature of statute law. Parliament sets and can change statute law. The idea a QUANGO can bind Parliament is just wrong.
2. Even in current terms it's wrong. The Electoral Commission offers advice on the areas statute law gives it either a power or a duty to do so. That advice isn't binding but it is judicable giving the courts an oversight role. But the idea Parliament has given the EC the power to impose policy options in referendums is just completely wrong. The idea the EC can insist X option is included in a referendum is wrong. Even if this wasn't wrong Parliament could make it wrong in any future primary legislation for a subsequent referendum.