The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[blandy]

53 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

You are an intelligent man, you don't need the Labour Party to instruct you which way to vote.

Thanks. I don't need them to, no, you're right. I'll tell you what though, they're making a fine job of signalling who I should not vote for.

[HanoiVillan]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

Well, I think (and maybe it's just me) that the Prime Minister, the Government of the Day, the Opposition and Leader of the Opposition - all those types of people - people either in power, or who hope to be in power are able, capable of making an assessment of what they believe the best path for the country, the best option on an issue is. Brexit and the consequences is the biggest, most significant issue of all, and a political leader who is unable, unwilling or incapable of both forming a judgement and then putting forward that judgement, explaining why is not fit to lead."I don't know" or "I do know, but I'm not going to say" are just ludicrous positions for a Prime Minister to hold. Further, as Chrisp pointed out last week, trying to negotiate whilst failing to say whether whatever (hypothetical) deal he might get would be something he'd actually go on to support in a referendum is the worst negotiating position you can hold.

TL;DR Why does it matter if a politican is capable of making a decision? that's what they're for.

There hasn't even been a negotiation yet There is nothing to make a decision about yet.

What you're actually asking him to do is state, in advance, that the outcome of the negotiation won't be good. That would be a bad idea, for a lot of reasons.

[HanoiVillan]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

Thanks. I don't need them to, no, you're right. I'll tell you what though, they're making a fine job of signalling who I should not vote for.

You're free to vote for whoever you want, of course, but I'm not going to be charitable in sympathy if you're crying about the Tories winning a majority after the election, or if there is a Lib Dem-Tory coalition with a No Deal-Remain referendum.

I'm pretty bored of pretending that the stakes are something else at this stage.

[blandy]

Just now, HanoiVillan said:

What you're actually asking him to do is state, in advance, that the outcome of the negotiation won't be good. That would be a bad idea, for a lot of reasons.

No. Jeremy says he will negotiate a Labour Deal with the EU. He says it will be good for jobs and the environement and etc. - that's him saying that, promising that. That's his policy, to do that. Ask him will he recommend the outcome of his own negotiations, conducted on his terms, to the public and it's er, ....."hello, hello, is there anyone there? Jeremy. Jeremy.....the light's on, but ...." 

[blandy]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

but I'm not going to be charitable in sympathy if you're crying about the Tories winning a majority after the election, or if there is a Lib Dem-Tory coalition with a No Deal-Remain referendum.

My vote, in my safe Tory seat has zero value. I cast it every single time for the person who I percieve has the least worst chance of beating the incumbent tory, or if none, the party who most deserves the few pence my vote gets them in funding. Labour has effectively turned itself into another unvotable party for me. They're basically dead to me now, under Corbyn.

[bickster]

37 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

If you have a referendum, it has to be between some form of Leave and Remain. It can't be between Remain and Remain.

So you appear to be saying that because Labour Policy is to have a referendum, they have to have a referendum on something. That kind of makes out that having the referendum is more important than actually having a position.

So the referendum happens, with the mythical new deal that’s been negotiated and most of the Labour MPs go and campaign against the deal that their own party has negotiated.

When asked why, they say... well we don’t like our deal. We want to remain. When the obvious follow up question  is why did you negotiate a deal you don’t like, do they just shrug their shoulders and go.... because we wanted a referendum?

There aren’t enough facepalm emojis in the world to do it justice.

[HanoiVillan]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

No. Jeremy says he will negotiate a Labour Deal with the EU. He says it will be good for jobs and the environement and etc. - that's him saying that, promising that. That's his policy, to do that. Ask him will he recommend the outcome of his own negotiations, conducted on his terms, to the public and it's er, ....."hello, hello, is there anyone there? Jeremy. Jeremy.....the light's on, but ...." 

You are yet again, demanding that they have a pointless argument in public, for which you will then blame them for not showing unity. Obviously a majority of *party members* do not want to leave so the policy is a compromise between the membership and the referendum result. Fortunately, it provides the most harmless compromise available. 

Unfortunately most people on here have decided that *being a remainer* is more important than the actual outcome of the brexit process. 

Anyway, I'm out for the evening. Remainers will get the brexit they deserve at the end of the day. 

[Dr_Pangloss]

14 minutes ago, blandy said:

No. Jeremy says he will negotiate a Labour Deal with the EU. He says it will be good for jobs and the environement and etc. - that's him saying that, promising that. That's his policy, to do that. Ask him will he recommend the outcome of his own negotiations, conducted on his terms, to the public and it's er, ....."hello, hello, is there anyone there? Jeremy. Jeremy.....the light's on, but ...." 

We will get Jez on the case to negotiate a deal with the EU that will "make us better off" so no need to worry. This is of course absolutely not reminiscent of the tripe the leavers were banging on about getting a couple of years ago,.

[bickster]

41 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

You are yet again, demanding that they have a pointless argument in public

Why would someone have to demand that? it's on free vend

42 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Obviously a majority of *party members* do not want to leave so the policy is a compromise between the membership and the Leadership

That is far more accurate

43 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Unfortunately most people on here have decided that *being a remainer* is more important than the actual outcome of the brexit process

Utter rubbish and the most important thing is the outcome is to remain, it kinda goes with the territory

 

 

[blandy]

51 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

You are yet again, demanding that they have a pointless argument in public, for which you will then blame them for not showing unity. Obviously a majority of *party members* do not want to leave so the policy is a compromise between the membership and the referendum result. Fortunately, it provides the most harmless compromise available. 

Unfortunately most people on here have decided that *being a remainer* is more important than the actual outcome of the brexit process. 

Anyway, I'm out for the evening. Remainers will get the brexit they deserve at the end of the day. 

I'm not demanding they have an argument in public. I've noticed they already do that, anyway!

I'm advocating that Jeremy Corbyn's position is confused and confusing. I could hazard a guess that it's because his and his close advisors are at odds with the vast majority of Labour supporters, members MPs and voters. I could further point out 3 options therefore exist.

1. Swallow their own views, because Labour is a broad church and clear that it wants members to determine policy.

2. Hold true to their personal, minority view and demand that the majority accept the Leader's position as policy

3. Fudge it.

They chose 3. That's their right and sort of tenable-ish, as an attempt to hold together disparate views and their party.

But having seen them do that, I feel justified to comment that it is indeed a fudge, a ropy compromise that satisfies no-one and when exposed to the electorate more widely will fall very flat indeed (IMO). Further, I think that it won't work longer term in achieving this "unity" that they want, because it's such a strong issue, and they are very much in the minority.

I'm demanding nothing, only commenting that they've a difficult choice, sure, but made an unprincipled choice and once more failed to show good judgement. I don't envy his choice, but I think he's made the worst one of the three possibilities.

Enjoy your evening anyway, HV.

[Delphouneso]

5 hours ago, choffer said:

 

A unanimous Supreme Court judgement. Well at least we know what it takes to reach the threshold now.

[Jimzk5]

Can we go back to a time when Jamie Oliver was discussing turkey twizzlers in the HOP and forget this all this brexit ever happened 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Jimzk5

[StefanAVFC]

[ml1dch]

12 minutes ago, Jimzk5 said:

Can we go back to a time when Jamie Oliver was discussing turkey twizzlers in the HOP and forget this all this brexit ever happened 

As someone said earlier, previously a political crisis was the chancellor misjudging the public mood on the VAT on hot takeaway food.

[snowychap]

 

[snowychap]

 

[snowychap]

 

I hope that someone is considering a S024 debate to take over the business of the House with the idea of legislating to prevent the PM from proroguing without Parliament's agreement.

[Chindie]

Always good value.

[Rodders]

 

[mjmooney]

26 minutes ago, snowychap said:

 

What is the Liaison Committee? Are they investigating his girlfriends?