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

[PieFacE]

I can't stand Corbyn. The guy has to go. Having such a woeful opposition to what has been an absolutely terrible Tory government should be nearly impossible, yet this is where we are 

[bickster]

5 hours ago, Jon said:

I think that's the correct option at this point in time.  Vote-wise anyway.  

Sorry mate but to me this reads like... "I approve of dishonest politics"

It's this anything to get elected/stay in power horseshit from all sides that needs to change, that's partly the reason why we are where we are.

How can fudging the issue for as long as possible whilst chasing unicorns through fields made of golden grass be the right thing to do?

 

[tonyh29]

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

It's this anything to get elected horseshit from all sides that needs to change,

tbf Miliband did everything he could to NOT get elected

 

Edited May 1, 2019 by tonyh29
too many L's in red Ed name

[bickster]

1 minute ago, tonyh29 said:

tbf Milliband did everything he could to NOT get elected

 

In hindsight it was the correct decision given the current shitshow 

[HanoiVillan]

43 minutes ago, bickster said:

Sorry mate but to me this reads like... "I approve of dishonest politics"

It's a matter of perspective isn't it. I personally can't think of anything more dishonest than '[out loud] I want a second referendum [stage whisper] but obviously I won't accept the result of the referendum this time either if I lose again, and I won't do anything to put a genuine leave option on the ballot anyway', but that seems to be the position of people who want a second referendum above all else.   

[ml1dch]

15 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

It's a matter of perspective isn't it. I personally can't think of anything more dishonest than '[out loud] I want a second referendum [stage whisper] but obviously I won't accept the result of the referendum this time either if I lose again, and I won't do anything to put a genuine leave option on the ballot anyway', but that seems to be the position of people who want a second referendum above all else.   

The negotiated withdrawal agreement is a genuine leave option. It removes us from the European Union and its associated legal structures.

Yes, it's absolutely hopeless and far inferior to where we are currently. But hey, people voted for that so what can you do.

In what possible way is the DWA not a "genuine leave option"?

[snowychap]

...

 

[snowychap]

Man of the Paypal *:

Quote

Populist, anti-elitist, libertarian? Nigel Farage’s new party doesn’t have any ‘members’ and is secretive, authoritarian and looks like a one man dictatorship.

Farage’s Brexit party goes from strength to strength. A remarkable achievement given that it still has no policies or members.

“No members?” You say “but I thought they had tens of thousands of people signing up.” Well yes – and no. Nigel might be bragging but the Brexit party currently has no actual membership, and the reason for that is simple. Nigel doesn’t like members.

The trouble with giving people membership is that it starts giving them ideas. They begin wanting to have a say in how things are run. They want to get involved and vote on policy and elect national executives and that way lies another Gerard Batten.

So the people who have logged on to the Brexit party website and paid their £25 are currently ‘registered supporters’. As such the Brexit party is more akin to the Dennis the Menace fan club than an actual political entity; although sadly you don’t as yet get a badge and a sheet of free stickers.

Ironic isn’t it that a man who has spent thirty years railing against the unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats at the EU should now be heading up the least democratic political party in Britain.

But not unsurprising.

---

A Party Dictatorship

Anyone watching Farage at close quarters for the last decade knows that Nigel has never much liked accountability. When he led UKIP he would occasionally run up against individuals who had the temerity to question him or the direction of party policy – but Nigel always came out on top.

People like Suzanne Evans learnt the hard way that questioning the ‘Dear leader’ only ended in political exile. Farage came to loathe the UKIP NEC, for daring to interfere in his decision making and much preferred to run the party, along with a few close acolytes, on the principle that ‘Nigel always wins in the end’. UKIP was a solo act where the session musicians came and went at the whim of the star.

Now – Farage has a vehicle all of his own. There’s no NEC to sully his decision making and no membership with uppity ideas. It’s a personality cult in all but name – but with great power comes great responsibility and difficult questions like: ‘who is funding all of this?’

It’s a question Iain Dale put to the Brexit Party leader in an hour-long interview on LBC on Sunday morning. Farage initially answered that “we’ve done this all by the website….” but when pushed admitted that there had also been one large donation. When Dale asked who it was from, Farage refused to give an answer on the principle that it wouldn’t be fair and that it would be revealed ‘in good time’. Although he did clarify that the donor was neither Arron Banks nor Steve Bannon.

So if not them who?

Who is the Big Donor?

Electoral law states that all donations over £500 must be from a permissible source. Donations to party HQs over £7,500 must be declared quarterly.  That first quarter ended on the 31^st March and had to be reported by 30^th April. For those eager to discover the source of Farage’s mysterious benefactor, the bad news is that the Electoral Commission does not publish the declarations until the 30^th of May – a full week after the EU elections.LINE TIMES NEWS CLUBSo why won’t Farage tell? In the absence of a name many might reasonably speculate that it is because he doesn’t think it politically expedient, that the donor might generate unwelcome publicity and that it’s thus more convenient to wait. Once he’s won MEPs the revelation won’t matter.

... some stuff about body language omitted

* Not my work.

Edited May 1, 2019 by snowychap

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, ml1dch said:

The negotiated withdrawal agreement is a genuine leave option. It removes us from the European Union and its associated legal structures.

Yes, it's absolutely hopeless and far inferior to where we are currently. But hey, people voted for that so what can you do.

In what possible way is the DWA not a "genuine leave option"?

I think we're talking at cross-purposes. I agree with you; May's WA is a genuine leave option. The Labour alternative, with a different PD, is also a genuine leave option. Most people who support a second referendum (in fact, I think every MP who supports a second referendum) are not voting for May's WA, and a lot of them aren't voting for the Labour alternative either. The Tiggers notably refused to vote for anything except the referendum even in the indicative votes. 

[blandy]

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

The Labour alternative, with a different PD, is also a genuine leave option.

It isn't. it's not an option. It doesn't exist. It's nothing but a dishonest concept. It's not wholly impossible that under a very narrow, specific set of circumstances it could, just about become an option at some point on the future, under a highly improbable sequence of events. But right now it is not remotely credible or on the table.

 

Labour's currently claimed/stated position is that they oppose the filthy Tory May Brexit, which is on the table, but support a non-existent imaginary Labour fluffy Brexit, which isn't on the table and can't be on the table unless Labour is the Government and the EU changes its mind about not re-opening the WA. Neither of these things are gonna happen any time soon. Then if the fluffy Labour jobs friendly Brexit isn't on offer, their choice is a general election, which also isn't on offer, and nor is it gonna be any time soon. And if that isn't on offer their new/restated policy version is for the "option" of a people's vote but only on a tory Brexit v No deal, not on a fluffy Labour Brexit v No deal, as that wouldn't be necessary.

They are stark raving mad. A more incoherent, non-credible, unicorn-based, try to pretend to be all things to all people, unprincipled, fundamentally dishonest set of bull it's hard to imagine.

[HanoiVillan]

35 minutes ago, blandy said:

It isn't. it's not an option. It doesn't exist. It's nothing but a dishonest concept. It's not wholly impossible that under a very narrow, specific set of circumstances it could, just about become an option at some point on the future, under a highly improbable sequence of events. But right now it is not remotely credible or on the table.

 

Labour's currently claimed/stated position is that they oppose the filthy Tory May Brexit, which is on the table, but support a non-existent imaginary Labour fluffy Brexit, which isn't on the table and can't be on the table unless Labour is the Government and the EU changes its mind about not re-opening the WA. Neither of these things are gonna happen any time soon. Then if the fluffy Labour jobs friendly Brexit isn't on offer, their choice is a general election, which also isn't on offer, and nor is it gonna be any time soon. And if that isn't on offer their new/restated policy version is for the "option" of a people's vote but only on a tory Brexit v No deal, not on a fluffy Labour Brexit v No deal, as that wouldn't be necessary.

They are stark raving mad. A more incoherent, non-credible, unicorn-based, try to pretend to be all things to all people, unprincipled, fundamentally dishonest set of bull it's hard to imagine.

Yes yes yes it turns out the opposition don't govern the country. I am aware of this. However, the job of the opposition is to propose alternatives to what the government is doing. 

If there's no point talking about things that aren't going to happen, why is anyone talking about a second referendum?

[bickster]

16 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

However, the job of the opposition is to propose alternatives to what the government is doing.

Actually, it isn't, the clue is in the name, proposing an alternative that is next to impossible is either stupid or effing stupid.

Opposition, in this case, should be trying to stop what actually could happen not telling fairy stories about what might if anyone bothered to vote for them after all the dust has settled and Brexit is no longer an issue

Currently, the opposition is busy in the assistance of the government by the very fact they aren't doing any opposing as they are stood in the corner reciting something from Hans Christian Anderson whilst shouting "Splitters" in a loud voice

[blandy]

5 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

If there's no point talking about things that aren't going to happen, why is anyone talking about a second referendum?

I wouldn't be so sure that's not going to happen, personally.

There are 4 options, realistically, as to what will eventually happen.

1. May's deal gets passed, maybe after some minor tweaking around the periphery.

2.  May's deal doesn't get passed (again) so as "No Deal" has been repeatedly ruled out, also, by parliament, there is either withdraw A50 and cancel Brexit

3. or a People's vote on May's deal v No Deal

4. No Deal Brexit.

That's it. there are no other options. There's no Labour fluffy, jobs-first Brexit. Labour either supports a Tory Brexit or opposes one. At the moment they're (in their own words) "a pro Brexit party" and the only Brexit on offer is a Tory Brexit. The two positions they simultaneousl;y claim to hold are irreconcileable.

No Deal Brexit was never going to happen at the end of the notice period 29 March. It's marginaly less unlikely to happen in October, I suppose, but I still think it's exceedingly unlikely. A PV is less unlikely and less unlikely than a straight "cancel Brexit", so I'd say it's second in the list of what might happen, behind May somehow getting her version through, and not much behind. It's supported by several parties, more than half the country, practically all of Labour members, the huge rally and that 6 million+ signature petition. It's cathing up as being within a couple of months the most likely outcome.

(all IMO)

[bickster]

A second referendum is far more likely than a Labour Victory at a general election in the timescale before Brexit happens or is cancelled

A second referendum is also far more likely than a general election in the timescale before Brexit happens or is cancelled

Even if that General Election does happen AND Labour do win it, there still isn't anything else on the table other than Mays Withdrawal Agreement

To have a policy based on the most unlikely of scenarios is sheer idiocy

[HanoiVillan]

34 minutes ago, bickster said:

Actually, it isn't, the clue is in the name, proposing an alternative that is next to impossible is either stupid or effing stupid.

Opposition, in this case, should be trying to stop what actually could happen not telling fairy stories

Legislative opposition is only a part of the work of any opposition party in a democracy. Oppositions also need to 'make the case' for why they should become the government one day. The government of the day controls the timetable and holds a functional majority in the main chamber; if the opposition did nothing except 'legislative tactics' they would spend the vast majority of time doing nothing at all.

Now it is true that this government has a particularly thin majority, and therefore is significantly weaker than average, and is also very divided on Brexit. So it's certainly much easier to oppose on this issue than it is for most oppositions on most issues. But I'm not really sure what your complaint is here - the combined opposition parties and the Tory rebels literally are 'stopping what could actually happen', and I don't really know what more they could be doing to stop May's WA than repeatedly voting against it (successfully) in the House. Legislatively, 'the opposition' has been incredibly successful. This complaining seems very strange to me; if you try looking at it with a different perspective, you might note that we haven't actually left the EU despite having voted to do so three years ago and having submitted article 50 well over two years ago. 

[HanoiVillan]

25 minutes ago, bickster said:

A second referendum is far more likely than a Labour Victory at a general election in the timescale before Brexit happens or is cancelled

A second referendum is also far more likely than a general election in the timescale before Brexit happens or is cancelled

Even if that General Election does happen AND Labour do win it, there still isn't anything else on the table other than Mays Withdrawal Agreement

To have a policy based on the most unlikely of scenarios is sheer idiocy

To believe that a second referendum is likelier than a Labour or Labour-led government, you must believe one of two things:

1) The Conservatives will legislate and allow time for debate for an Act of Parliament bringing about a referendum of their own free will, or

2) The talks that are still technically ongoing between Labour and the Conservatives will produce an agreement that involves a referendum as a condition. 

I don't see any other path to a referendum that doesn't involve a change of government than that. I don't think either of those are remotely likely, but other opinions are available of course. 

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

The talks that are still technically ongoing between Labour and the Conservatives will produce an agreement that involves a referendum as a condition. 

Taking whatever partisanship out of it for a moment, Labour belives that the Tory Brexit will be bad for the UK (and I think they're right). Clearly enough MPs also think that across parliament - it's worse than what we have now - evbene the hard Brexit lot think that. Even May (probably) thinks that. So in essence everyone knows it's a pile of crud. Everyone.

How do we/they get away, then, from implementing a pile of crud that no-one actually wants, that no-one said would be the outcome of Brexit?

The only ways out of that are no deal, no brexit or a confirmatory referendum, aren't they. So if we take the party political aspects out of it, it's the only logical way out, if a way out is what's wanted. So logically, it (a PV) must have a decent chance of coming to pass, surely?

[HanoiVillan]

8 minutes ago, blandy said:

Taking whatever partisanship out of it for a moment, Labour belives that the Tory Brexit will be bad for the UK (and I think they're right). Clearly enough MPs also think that across parliament - it's worse than what we have now - evbene the hard Brexit lot think that. Even May (probably) thinks that. So in essence everyone knows it's a pile of crud. Everyone.

How do we/they get away, then, from implementing a pile of crud that no-one actually wants, that no-one said would be the outcome of Brexit?

The only ways out of that are no deal, no brexit or a confirmatory referendum, aren't they. So if we take the party political aspects out of it, it's the only logical way out, if a way out is what's wanted. So logically, it (a PV) must have a decent chance of coming to pass, surely?

That seems logical, but I don't think it is. The bottom line is that if there was a majority in the House to pass a bill mandating a confirmatory referendum for May's WA, then there would be a majority for May's WA without the referendum. Maybe there is, and if Parliament enters a new session and the government is allowed to put forward its WA again it will pass - I think it's highly unlikely, but who knows. However, there is no advantage to the Conservative Party and the DUP - who between them make a majority of members - to choose 'a Brexit we don't like or a referendum we dislike even more' rather than 'a Brexit we don't like'. If the government backbenches really hated the deal so much that remaining would be better, they wouldn't need to risk losing the referendum, they could just pressure the government to revoke Article 50. But obviously they don't think that anyway. 

In terms of the final destination here, I'm not sure either. But a second referendum will need a government that wants it to happen, or has at least committed to making it happen through gritted teeth, or it won't happen at all. 

[blandy]

22 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

But a [outcome] will need a government that wants it to happen, or has at least committed to making it happen through gritted teeth, or it won't happen at all.

If you replace "second referendum" with outcome (as I've done in the quote) that sums it up for whatever option, doesn't it?

I also think that when you say "if there was a majority in the House to pass a bill mandating a confirmatory referendum for May's WA, then there would be a majority for May's WA without the referendum" that is not at all how I see it. I see a way out, possibly that way (via a PV) for Corbyn and Labour, when they don't get May to do a Labour Brexit (and they won't, and they'd be absolutely mental to support any kind of Tory Brexit. Plus Corbyn's whole thing all along has been "I like Brexit, I really like the tories getting blamed for the mess of Brexit and me getting a go at PM. He'd therefore be off his rocket to actually facilitate Brexit, and have Labour's fingerprints on it.

If he comes to his senses, he'll oppose Brexit, like most of his party membership, MPs and voters. trouble is his little coterie of hangers on are Leavers and can't see beyond their own noses.

[bickster]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

To believe that a second referendum is likelier than a Labour or Labour-led government, you must believe one of two things:

To write that proves you didn't read my post correctly