Shelga wrote: » But trying to solve Brexit via a general election is idiotic. If the Lib Dems get a majority on 40% of the vote, and cancel Brexit outright, how is that democratic? If the Tories get a majority on 40% of the vote and push through a hard or no-deal Brexit, how is that democratic? There should have been a referendum on Johnson’s deal v Remain, followed by an immediate GE. But UK politics is screwed up beyond repair.
If the Lib Dems get a majority on 40% of the vote, and cancel Brexit outright, how is that democratic?
Strazdas wrote: » If the Lib Dems won an overall majority, you could argue the 2016 referendum result is completely defunct. The party that held the advisory referendum turfed out of office and their manifesto to implement the result rejected.
schmittel wrote: » I could not disagree with this more. It is a policy that voters are welcome to vote for if they agree with it. If enough people vote for it that they win the election then that is democracy in action. That is the whole point of a democracy. Parties can take whatever position they like, no one is forcing anybody to vote for them. And surely it is bonkers that people are in the same breath complaining that Vote Leave lied so the referendum was illegal and should be null and void, (which I don't agree with), or that it was only an advisory referendum not legally binding, and at the same time saying that the Lib Dem policy is undemocratic!! Utter madness.
Varta wrote: » For example, she is happy to use threatening and abusive language to others but cries foul when it comes her way. She once threatened to knife Corbyn... or maybe that was just a metaphor. Except it wouldn't have been seen as a metaphor if it had been said about her. If there's one thing that getting older has taught me, it's not to be blinded by ideology or loyalty and to apply the same critique to all sides.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » They are "unicorny" because they were based on the promises made by the Leave side during the referendum.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » What? May had a majority, and could have passed her own Brexit deal regardless of the opposition, but she called an opportunistic election and lost her majority. Then she and Johnson both had a working majority with DUP support, but couldn't keep their own MPs or later the DUP onside. They called the Brexit referendum, they lost it, they triggered A50 with no plan, they negotiated not one, but two deals with the EU, and they have accomplished nothing. They own the entire fiasco from start to finish.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Every possible Brexit is objectively worse than remaining, but Brexiters tell us they are happy to pay a price. No one tells the Norwegians or the Swiss that they are nuts, even though they stopped short of full membership - if the UK like the sound of that sort of relationship, I say go for it. Meanwhile, what will be really, really worse than remaining would be Johnson's deal, which will blow a Wales sized hole in the UK economy, according to the latest costings.
CelticRambler wrote: » "We took the Bill to the second stage and you pulled it. If you wanted to 'get Brexit done' why didn't you let us finish the job, instead of swerving off to a GE instead?" Because the Tories have indulged in just about every form of doublespeak and hypocrisy in regard to Brexit, there's a huge amount of material with which the other parties can attack them - and that's before anyone starts on Johnson's personal peccadillos.
Varta wrote: » Phillips is poisonous in her own way.
Varta wrote: » It's an excellent slogan when you support it with the idea that it was the opposition that stopped Brexit from being done.
jimmycrackcorm wrote: » Perhaps you could elaborate?
Varta wrote: » But how do you expose it as a lie when it is turned back onto you as the person who stopped Brexit being done?
ancapailldorcha wrote: » All I can see Labour getting is something akin to or identical to EEA status and that's just objectively inferior to remaining.
Strazdas wrote: » Not being applauded by them is a compliment. They are the Brexit Party in disguise.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Well, if we take their Six Tests seriously, it is all a bit unicorny, since two were:Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union? Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities? The first one here is a bit ridiculous, and the second one is code for ending free movement, so they are not both happening.
quokula wrote: » But why not put something better? Again, Labour aren't looking for unicorns or squeezing something out of the EU, they're looking to remove Theresa May's red lines that they don't believe in.
shatners bassoon wrote: » However much I would like to see the UK remain, the Libdem policy is profoundly undemocratic. The fact that it can be distilled into an easily digestible soundbite doesn't make it any more reasonable/admirable.
Hurrache wrote: » Phillips I don't think would deny her children and not be upfront about who, and how many, there are.
Joe_ Public wrote: » If i considered that jess phillips was in any way a remiss parent then it would still be a low blow but I'd concede the wit of it for sure.
PropJoe10 wrote: » Ken Clarke bowing out, lovely words from Bercow about a man that's given 49 years of his life to the House of Commons and the Tory front bench didn't even clap. Clarke is a great man.
Varta wrote: » Would you consider it funny if it had been a Tory saying the same thing about Jess Phillips?
Strazdas wrote: » Swinson and Corbyn need to keep tearing into that slogan once the TV debates get underway. If they can expose it as a lie, they can do damage to Johnson.
quokula wrote: » I think that's the point - the SNP can't just declare independence even if they win every seat, because there was a referendum they lost quite recently. Instead they quite rightly are campaigning for a new referendum given the new circumstances. By the same token the Lib Dems can't just declare that they'll revoke article 50 even if they get a majority, because it would be in violation of a referendum where far more people voted to leave than would vote for them (even if they somehow got a large majority) - instead they should be doing what the SNP are doing, or what Labour are doing, and campaigning to give the people a new say given the new circumstances and information available. Technically they could just revoke, just like technically the SNP could just claim independence, but it would be severely damaging and is not a credible way forward.
the SNP can't just declare independence even if they win every seat, because there was a referendum they lost quite recently. Instead they quite rightly are campaigning for a new referendum given the new circumstances.
By the same token the Lib Dems can't just declare that they'll revoke article 50 even if they get a majority, because it would be in violation of a referendum where far more people voted to leave than would vote for them
Joe_ Public wrote: » Low blow but very funny from jess phillips, praising Bercow for, among other things, being a great father to his children. "And now to the prime minister...."
