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

[bickster]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

The need is for pressure on the other parties. As we have seen, Swinson's instinct is to say no. She presumably said no behind closed doors as well.

That clearly isn't the case or the announcement would be entirely different. Instead of all bend the knee to me, it would be we've asked the LibDems to bend the knee but they wouldn't so we need you the people to force them to bend the knee

Corbyn has to be forced to sit round a table with anyone, this is clearly demonstrable in his past actions on this very subject. There is absolutely nothing here to suggest that he's spoken to them behind closed doors, it's not like the LibDems are Hamas or Sinn Fein is it

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

"here's a Unicorn"

"Oh, you turned the Unicorn down

 

49 minutes ago, bickster said:

Labour's second referendum with added unicorns

 

44 minutes ago, blandy said:

 a Unicorn Labour soft Brexit deal. 

Creative stuff 

[HanoiVillan]

52 minutes ago, bickster said:

I'm really not sure how you came by that conclusion. I much prefer 2nd Referendum without any unicorns (LibDem & Green) to Labour's second referendum with added unicorns (renegotiate deal)

Three years after losing the last referendum, have you forgotten that you might lose this one?

Let's imagine that you're right, and that blah blah blah unicorn blah blah. So what's the worst that can happen? A chastened PM Corbyn returns from Brussels with a tattered copy of May's WA, and puts that or Remain to a referendum. Which is still millions of times better than the possibility of No Deal. 

[HanoiVillan]

49 minutes ago, blandy said:

Remainers want to remain, not leave via a Unicorn Labour soft Brexit deal. Labour can't even decide what the referendum would ask, or what their policy would be on the options.

It's literally in the final paragraph of the letter that Corbyn sent, and which @snowychap posted two pages ago. 

 

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Johnson's strategy since he came in has been to do exactly what the thobbers have been saying needed to be done - make the EU believe we mean we're OK with no deal. By definition, this means others also have to believe we are OK with no deal.

That's all all this is. It's an enactment of the throbber negotiating tactic. They hope the EU will crack a bit, offer them something, then they'll put it to parliament, and they hope that the "threat" of no deal, plus the tweak from the EU will get basically May's deal (with the tweak) through parliament by 31 October.

That's been (in my eyes) transparent since Johnson took over. He/they don't actually  mean or want no deal. It's their act, their game. They're spending moey and time and effort to try to scare enough EU people. That's all this is. Playing throbby games.

We certainly aren't going to see eye-to-eye on this one if you really think this is all just an act at this point. It also seems like a pretty thin reed to hang your hopes on. 

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Three years after losing the last referendum, have you forgotten that you might lose this one?

My preferred option is revoke but every party is full of shithouses

[HanoiVillan]

Just now, bickster said:

My preferred option is revoke but every party is full of shithouses

That's certainly fair, and I completely understand that opinion. However, given that it isn't on offer (at least currently), it would be better not to risk losing a referendum even more catastrophic than 2016. 

[blandy]

9 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Creative stuff 

OK, here's another way of putting it, I've just seen by Paul "Corbyn's Ace" Mason

Quote

The party’s policy, of course, remains officially confused. The shortest possible summary goes: “We’d vote remain in a referendum now but might – if our conference agrees it – go into an election fighting for a specifically Labour form of Brexit which we would then try to negotiate and after that put to a referendum, in which we would decide how to vote once we knew if the deal was any good.”

 

[bickster]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

That's certainly fair, and I completely understand that opinion. However, given that it isn't on offer (at least currently), it would be better not to risk losing a referendum even more catastrophic than 2016. 

Having Corbyn's fantasy role playing game before the referendum seems pointless

[Chindie]

I'd be delighted to see a party commit to revoke unilaterally but no party is going to commit electoral suicide.

That's another problem of referendums. They're extremely hard for politicians to go against.

[blandy]

6 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

It's literally in the final paragraph of the letter that Corbyn sent,

is it ****! -  "A referendum on the terms of leaving including an option to remain"  - so is that a 3 option, 2 option, remain v hard leave or remain v May's deal or Remain v some imaginary future labour deal.

Clear as ****! 

 

 

[HanoiVillan]

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

Having Corbyn's fantasy role playing game before the referendum seems pointless

. . . but avoiding the possibility of catastrophe afterwards is infinitely more important. 

You can't have it both ways. Either No Deal is a genuinely awful option, in which case putting it on a ballot is a terrible idea, or it isn't. 

[HanoiVillan]

Just now, blandy said:

is it ****! -  "A referendum on the terms of leaving including an option to remain"  - so is that a 3 option, 2 option, remain v hard leave or remain v May's deal or Remain v some imaginary future labour deal.

Clear as ****! 

It's extremely obviously 'whatever I've negotiated versus Remain'. Anyway, whatever; it's a hot afternoon and I'm starting to lose my sang froid, so have a lovely afternoon, I shall bow out here. 

[bickster]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

. . . but avoiding the possibility of catastrophe afterwards is infinitely more important. 

You can't have it both ways. Either No Deal is a genuinely awful option, in which case putting it on a ballot is a terrible idea, or it isn't. 

How is Corbyn throwing some odd shaped dice going to prevent catastrophe afterwards?

[blandy]

10 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

We certainly aren't going to see eye-to-eye on this one if you really think this is all just an act at this point.

I'm OK with that. Many other things we do agree on.

 With politics, I sometimes think of something Scott Adams once said which is "If you belong to an organized political group, don’t expect people to take your opinions seriously. No one cares when a sheep burps."

Which is harsh, but there's quite often more than an element of truth in it.

[blandy]

5 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

No Deal is a genuinely awful option, in which case putting it on a ballot is a terrible idea

This. Spot on. Absolutely.

[Chindie]

Quote

...

The Corbyn letter sets out a practical and plausible way how the second approach can be carried out.

Two useful boxes are ticked – a general election would be (likely to be) acceptable to EU27 as the basis for an extension, and the commitment is to this being a one hit wonder administration before a general election, with no other policy commitments other than obtaining an extension.

Anyone whose opposition to a No Deal Brexit (or to any Brexit) is an absolute priority must find this proposal attractive.

Some will aver that a further referendum is preferable to a general election.

Others will be Meat Loaf opponents of a No Deal Brexit (or to Brexit) and say they will do anything, but they cannot support a Corbyn-led government.

(And Corbyn’s supporters are just as much Meat Loaf Remainers if they cannot support an alternative figure leading a government of national unity (or GNU) for the purpose of an extension.)

Corbyn is the Leader of the Opposition and so if the current government fails to win the confidence of the house of commons then, constitutionally, he is entitled to first dibs at forming a new ministry.

Again, this is not to say that there could be a better alternative prime minister, and a majority put together by other means.

But Corbyn’s offer is the easiest approach and it requires fewer things to align.

*

Will it happen?

One recurring problem with Brexit is that the good is the opposite of the best, and purist positions are maintained where compromise would be more sensible.

And many would be offended at the prospect of a Corbyn-led government in any situation, and so would prefer a No Deal Brexit under the current government.

That is a matter for politics (and politically there is merit in a hostile view, and the record of the main opposition party on anti-semitism, for example, is dreadful).

But from a non-partisan practical law and policy perspective Corbyn’s offer is, as of today, the path of least resistance to avoiding a No Deal Brexit (and also to avoiding Brexit itself).

Anyone for whom stopping either a No Deal Brexit or Brexit altogether is an absolute priority should support it – at least until another viable option comes along.

Thought piece

[Xann]

The Corbyn shit sandwich is preferable because filth like Jacob Rees-Mogg and Arron Banks intend to run off with the bread, leaving us with...

[desensitized43]

15 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Thought piece

The problem with the GE option is that it does nothing to nullify the false "mandate" of the 2016 referendum.

In the absence of politicians of substance with the balls to make decisions in the national interest - you know, what we actually pay them for - Another referendum of some description is the only way to put this shit to bed for the forseeable and move on with our lives.

Sure there'll be some angry throbbers, but they've been angry about their lives for a while now. No need for us all to suffer.

I'm off to the Winchester...

[chrisp65]

LibDem’s eh, absolutely ruling out any deals with nationalists because they are Brit nationalists. Working with Corbyn would be nonsense.

Happy to spend years propping up a Tory government.

They’re Tories for people too embarrassed to just be rich and accept it.

 

We’re done here, the three ‘main’ parties (main as in you ignore the numbers of MP’s the Liberals have as against the SNP), are simply in this for their party. Happy for the country to go down the toilet as long as they’re the last turd to flush.

[bannedfromHandV]

I think a Guy Fawkes approach is more apt right now.

Load Parliament up with every career politician out there and then place a tactical nuke under Boris' chair.

Start afresh with one council of experts and learned folk who are regularly elected into their positions, it's time to end politics as it stands.