Discussion:
The remainers throw away their best chance of sabotaging Brexit
Add Reply
RH156RH
2017-04-20 06:44:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
https://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2017/04/19/the-remainers-throw-away-their-best-chance-of-sabotaging-brexit/


The remainers throw away their best chance of sabotaging Brexit.
Posted on April 19, 2017 by Robert Henderson


Astonishingly, the remainers have missed their best chance to hinder the Brexit process by failing to seriously oppose the motion put down by Theresa May that a General Election be held on 8 June. The motion was passed on 19 April 201`7 by 522 votes to 13.

This is an extraordinary result on the face of it. What is even more astonishing is the fact that the remainers could have defeated the motion quite easily. All they had to do was muster 217 votes or abstentions to overthrow the motion for an early election. Indeed, they could have done it simply by getting 217 MPs to abstain. The Labour Party, with 229 MPs, could have managed the matter on their own, as could a coalition of, say, two thirds of Labour MPs, the Scots Nat MPs and the LibDem MPs voting against or abstaining.

Let me divert for a moment to explain the status of abstentions in this context. In this vote an abstention has the same value as a vote against. This is because it is the total number of MPs who vote for the motion that matters, not the percentage of those who actually vote for or against a motion.

Under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act two thirds of the 650 member House of Commons have to vote for a motion proposing an early election. Two thirds of 650 is 434. Hence one vote against or one abstention can make a difference. If 433 MPs vote for the motion with, say, only 100 voting against but with 117 abstaining, the motion fails because it is one short of 434.

Even without any party opposing the motion a substantial number of MPs did not vote for it. Only 13 MPs may have voted against the motion but 115 abstained. This figure of 115 is arrived at as follows:

522 voted for the motion

13 voted against the motion

Therefore 115 MPs are unaccounted for after deducting those who voted. Six of these are:

The Speaker (who doesn’t vote unless there is a tie), Eric Kaufman (deceased, and his constituency was awaiting a by election), and 4 Sinn Fein MPs (who don’t take their seats and consequently don’t vote.)

That leaves 109 other wilful or accidental abstainers.

As 115 votes were either not used or used to vote against, it would only have required another 102 to either abstain or vote against the motion to stop the attempt to have a general election on 8 June. Had the various remainer Party leaders in the Commons put their weight behind a vote against. the motion it is probable that the motion would have been defeated.

Alternatively, if remain MPs of all parties had come together they might well have defeated the motion.

The fact that the remainer MPs failed to defeat the motion when it was well within their grasp to do so, or indeed to make any public noise about doing so, suggests that they were more afraid of losing their seats than they are motivated to carry on the battle against Brexit. Ironically, I suspect that was a false fear for many remainer MPs because they represent constituencies which voted to remain.

As far as the party leaders are concerned, voting against the motion could have been represented as reasonable both because Theresa May had said she would not call an election as it would be destabilising and on the grounds that this Parliament is only two years old and the clear intention of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act was to stop PMs calling elections to suit themselves and their party rather than the national interest.

If the remainer MPs had gathered enough votes and abstentions to defeat the motion it would have placed Theresa May in a very awkward position personally and removed from her the possibility of using a larger majority after an early General Election to drive through Brexit. It is indicative of a lack of commitment by remainers to their cause when it involves any danger or sacrifice. That is very useful to know. If they have looked gift horse in the mouth because they did not fancy the state of its teeth once they are very likely to do it again when the pressure is on.

As historians look back at the remainers ‘ failure to keep Theresa May locked in the position she was in before the motion was passed – stuck with a small majority and a General Election coming in 2019 just as the Brexit negotiations and the UK’s departure are due to come to a head – they will surely shake their heads in astonishment . No wonder for it is truly bewildering that there was no attempt by one or more of the Westminster parties which support the remainer cause to defeat the motion for an early General Election, thereby potentially greatly strengthening Theresa May and her government’s position.
Omega
2017-04-20 08:15:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH156RH
https://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2017/04/19/the-remainers-throw-away-their-best-chance-of-sabotaging-brexit/
The remainers throw away their best chance of sabotaging Brexit.
Posted on April 19, 2017 by Robert Henderson
Astonishingly, the remainers have missed their best chance to hinder the Brexit process by failing to seriously oppose the motion put down by Theresa May that a General Election be held on 8 June. The motion was passed on 19 April 201`7 by 522 votes to 13.
This is an extraordinary result on the face of it. What is even more astonishing is the fact that the remainers could have defeated the motion quite easily. All they had to do was muster 217 votes or abstentions to overthrow the motion for an early election. Indeed, they could have done it simply by getting 217 MPs to abstain. The Labour Party, with 229 MPs, could have managed the matter on their own, as could a coalition of, say, two thirds of Labour MPs, the Scots Nat MPs and the LibDem MPs voting against or abstaining.
Let me divert for a moment to explain the status of abstentions in this context. In this vote an abstention has the same value as a vote against. This is because it is the total number of MPs who vote for the motion that matters, not the percentage of those who actually vote for or against a motion.
Under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act two thirds of the 650 member House of Commons have to vote for a motion proposing an early election. Two thirds of 650 is 434. Hence one vote against or one abstention can make a difference. If 433 MPs vote for the motion with, say, only 100 voting against but with 117 abstaining, the motion fails because it is one short of 434.
522 voted for the motion
13 voted against the motion
The Speaker (who doesn’t vote unless there is a tie), Eric Kaufman (deceased, and his constituency was awaiting a by election), and 4 Sinn Fein MPs (who don’t take their seats and consequently don’t vote.)
That leaves 109 other wilful or accidental abstainers.
As 115 votes were either not used or used to vote against, it would only have required another 102 to either abstain or vote against the motion to stop the attempt to have a general election on 8 June. Had the various remainer Party leaders in the Commons put their weight behind a vote against. the motion it is probable that the motion would have been defeated.
Alternatively, if remain MPs of all parties had come together they might well have defeated the motion.
The fact that the remainer MPs failed to defeat the motion when it was well within their grasp to do so, or indeed to make any public noise about doing so, suggests that they were more afraid of losing their seats than they are motivated to carry on the battle against Brexit. Ironically, I suspect that was a false fear for many remainer MPs because they represent constituencies which voted to remain.
As far as the party leaders are concerned, voting against the motion could have been represented as reasonable both because Theresa May had said she would not call an election as it would be destabilising and on the grounds that this Parliament is only two years old and the clear intention of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act was to stop PMs calling elections to suit themselves and their party rather than the national interest.
If the remainer MPs had gathered enough votes and abstentions to defeat the motion it would have placed Theresa May in a very awkward position personally and removed from her the possibility of using a larger majority after an early General Election to drive through Brexit. It is indicative of a lack of commitment by remainers to their cause when it involves any danger or sacrifice. That is very useful to know. If they have looked gift horse in the mouth because they did not fancy the state of its teeth once they are very likely to do it again when the pressure is on.
As historians look back at the remainers ‘ failure to keep Theresa May locked in the position she was in before the motion was passed – stuck with a small majority and a General Election coming in 2019 just as the Brexit negotiations and the UK’s departure are due to come to a head – they will surely shake their heads in astonishment . No wonder for it is truly bewildering that there was no attempt by one or more of the Westminster parties which support the remainer cause to defeat the motion for an early General Election, thereby potentially greatly strengthening Theresa May and her government’s position.
Robert getting his sums right. :o)

Yes, so easy to have thwarted Mrs May yesterday but they didn't.

So where do we place Remainers, are they naive perhaps but possibly
bordering, rather ignorant? Stupid?

They have already thrown the IQ issue around but maybe it is they, who
lack wit? Well okay, call a spade a spade, I guess, thick as fucking
pudding! As you say Robert, they simply threw away, so easily, a
winnable place, in the Brexit stakes.

How will we ever know, but my feeling is, a lot of the existing
Remainers are already feeling rather foolish, fast discovering the world
didn't end Referendum Day +1, in fact we are well on track, looking
forward to a Golden Age, free of the EU.

Mrs May will be back June 9th with her new shining armour and an even
bigger force to shape our future and deal with Europe.

It looks so far, Mrs May doesn't do failure. What a leader to have
represent us, sorting out the European leaders who has expressed their
intention, to 'punish' us. Bastards all! Bring it on!

omega
R. Mark Clayton
2017-04-20 08:29:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH156RH
https://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2017/04/19/the-remainers-throw-away-their-best-chance-of-sabotaging-brexit/
The remainers throw away their best chance of sabotaging Brexit.
Posted on April 19, 2017 by Robert Henderson
Astonishingly, the remainers have missed their best chance to hinder the Brexit process by failing to seriously oppose the motion put down by Theresa May that a General Election be held on 8 June. The motion was passed on 19 April 201`7 by 522 votes to 13.
This is an extraordinary result on the face of it. What is even more astonishing is the fact that the remainers could have defeated the motion quite easily. All they had to do was muster 217 votes or abstentions to overthrow the motion for an early election. Indeed, they could have done it simply by getting 217 MPs to abstain. The Labour Party, with 229 MPs, could have managed the matter on their own, as could a coalition of, say, two thirds of Labour MPs, the Scots Nat MPs and the LibDem MPs voting against or abstaining.
Let me divert for a moment to explain the status of abstentions in this context. In this vote an abstention has the same value as a vote against. This is because it is the total number of MPs who vote for the motion that matters, not the percentage of those who actually vote for or against a motion.
Under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act two thirds of the 650 member House of Commons have to vote for a motion proposing an early election. Two thirds of 650 is 434. Hence one vote against or one abstention can make a difference. If 433 MPs vote for the motion with, say, only 100 voting against but with 117 abstaining, the motion fails because it is one short of 434.
522 voted for the motion
13 voted against the motion
The Speaker (who doesn’t vote unless there is a tie), Eric Kaufman (deceased, and his constituency was awaiting a by election), and 4 Sinn Fein MPs (who don’t take their seats and consequently don’t vote.)
That leaves 109 other wilful or accidental abstainers.
As 115 votes were either not used or used to vote against, it would only have required another 102 to either abstain or vote against the motion to stop the attempt to have a general election on 8 June. Had the various remainer Party leaders in the Commons put their weight behind a vote against. the motion it is probable that the motion would have been defeated.
Alternatively, if remain MPs of all parties had come together they might well have defeated the motion.
The fact that the remainer MPs failed to defeat the motion when it was well within their grasp to do so, or indeed to make any public noise about doing so, suggests that they were more afraid of losing their seats than they are motivated to carry on the battle against Brexit. Ironically, I suspect that was a false fear for many remainer MPs because they represent constituencies which voted to remain.
As far as the party leaders are concerned, voting against the motion could have been represented as reasonable both because Theresa May had said she would not call an election as it would be destabilising and on the grounds that this Parliament is only two years old and the clear intention of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act was to stop PMs calling elections to suit themselves and their party rather than the national interest.
If the remainer MPs had gathered enough votes and abstentions to defeat the motion it would have placed Theresa May in a very awkward position personally and removed from her the possibility of using a larger majority after an early General Election to drive through Brexit. It is indicative of a lack of commitment by remainers to their cause when it involves any danger or sacrifice. That is very useful to know. If they have looked gift horse in the mouth because they did not fancy the state of its teeth once they are very likely to do it again when the pressure is on.
As historians look back at the remainers ‘ failure to keep Theresa May locked in the position she was in before the motion was passed – stuck with a small majority and a General Election coming in 2019 just as the Brexit negotiations and the UK’s departure are due to come to a head – they will surely shake their heads in astonishment . No wonder for it is truly bewildering that there was no attempt by one or more of the Westminster parties which support the remainer cause to defeat the motion for an early General Election, thereby potentially greatly strengthening Theresa May and her government’s position.
Yesterday's vote was about a general election. The Tories want to bury Labour. The Lib Dem's want to bury Labour and get back into parliament in numbers. The SNP have already buried Labour in Scotland, but want to drive a wooden stake through the heart of the corpse. Finally - are Labour going to vote to keep a right wing Tory government in office - of course not!

Whilst May is deluding herself that she will be able to keep the electorates' mind solely on Brexit for seven weeks, she has allowed Corbyn to steer himself into a storm of his own making.

Watch this space for two things: -

1. Labour MP's choosing not to stand again - e.g. arch hypocrite Giselle Stuart, and more seriously for Labour many MP's, who know they are going to lose, but will go through the motions and be defeated so they get their three months' pay off, office close up costs etc.
Norman Wells
2017-04-20 08:33:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Watch this space for two things: -
1. Labour MP's choosing not to stand again - e.g. arch hypocrite Giselle Stuart, and more seriously for Labour many MP's, who know they are going to lose, but will go through the motions and be defeated so they get their three months' pay off, office close up costs etc.
That's just one thing.
R. Mark Clayton
2017-04-20 08:42:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Watch this space for two things: -
1. Labour MP's choosing not to stand again - e.g. arch hypocrite Giselle Stuart, and
2.
more seriously for Labour many MP's, who know they are going to lose, but will go through the motions and be defeated so they get their three months' pay off, office close up costs etc.
Post by Norman Wells
That's just one thing.
I can't count past one :-(
tim...
2017-04-20 09:14:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Yesterday's vote was about a general election. The Tories want to bury
Labour. The Lib Dem's want to bury Labour and get back into parliament in
numbers. The SNP have already buried Labour in Scotland, but want to
drive a wooden stake through the heart of the corpse. Finally - are
Labour going to vote to keep a right wing Tory government in office - of
course not!
That only works if you believe that you can win - I mean really believe, not
just pretend believe for when interviewed by a reporter.

Do Labour really believe that they can? Really?

For that matter, do the LDs really believe that they will do any more than
win back, let's be generous, a dozen of their previously held seats?

tim
R. Mark Clayton
2017-04-20 11:53:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Yesterday's vote was about a general election. The Tories want to bury
Labour. The Lib Dem's want to bury Labour and get back into parliament in
numbers. The SNP have already buried Labour in Scotland, but want to
drive a wooden stake through the heart of the corpse. Finally - are
Labour going to vote to keep a right wing Tory government in office - of
course not!
That only works if you believe that you can win - I mean really believe, not
just pretend believe for when interviewed by a reporter.
Do Labour really believe that they can? Really?
Pigs might fly, but if they get a chance to vote for an election - what are they going to say - they want the Tories to carry on?

Corbyn already fiddled while the Treaty of Rome burned, if he passed this up he would look a cowardly fool.
Post by tim...
For that matter, do the LDs really believe that they will do any more than
win back, let's be generous, a dozen of their previously held seats?
21 is better then 9, and strategically would allow them to emerge as a centre party.
Post by tim...
tim
Jumper
2017-04-20 09:22:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH156RH
https://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2017/04/19/the-remainers-throw-away-their-best-chance-of-sabotaging-brexit/
The remainers throw away their best chance of sabotaging Brexit.
Posted on April 19, 2017 by Robert Henderson
Astonishingly, the remainers have missed their best chance to hinder the Brexit process by failing to seriously oppose the motion put down by Theresa May that a General Election be held on 8 June. The motion was passed on 19 April 201`7 by 522 votes to 13.
This is an extraordinary result on the face of it. What is even more astonishing is the fact that the remainers could have defeated the motion quite easily. All they had to do was muster 217 votes or abstentions to overthrow the motion for an early election. Indeed, they could have done it simply by getting 217 MPs to abstain. The Labour Party, with 229 MPs, could have managed the matter on their own, as could a coalition of, say, two thirds of Labour MPs, the Scots Nat MPs and the LibDem MPs voting against or abstaining.
Let me divert for a moment to explain the status of abstentions in this context. In this vote an abstention has the same value as a vote against. This is because it is the total number of MPs who vote for the motion that matters, not the percentage of those who actually vote for or against a motion.
Under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act two thirds of the 650 member House of Commons have to vote for a motion proposing an early election. Two thirds of 650 is 434. Hence one vote against or one abstention can make a difference. If 433 MPs vote for the motion with, say, only 100 voting against but with 117 abstaining, the motion fails because it is one short of 434.
522 voted for the motion
13 voted against the motion
The Speaker (who doesn’t vote unless there is a tie), Eric Kaufman (deceased, and his constituency was awaiting a by election), and 4 Sinn Fein MPs (who don’t take their seats and consequently don’t vote.)
That leaves 109 other wilful or accidental abstainers.
As 115 votes were either not used or used to vote against, it would only have required another 102 to either abstain or vote against the motion to stop the attempt to have a general election on 8 June. Had the various remainer Party leaders in the Commons put their weight behind a vote against. the motion it is probable that the motion would have been defeated.
Alternatively, if remain MPs of all parties had come together they might well have defeated the motion.
The fact that the remainer MPs failed to defeat the motion when it was well within their grasp to do so, or indeed to make any public noise about doing so, suggests that they were more afraid of losing their seats than they are motivated to carry on the battle against Brexit. Ironically, I suspect that was a false fear for many remainer MPs because they represent constituencies which voted to remain.
As far as the party leaders are concerned, voting against the motion could have been represented as reasonable both because Theresa May had said she would not call an election as it would be destabilising and on the grounds that this Parliament is only two years old and the clear intention of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act was to stop PMs calling elections to suit themselves and their party rather than the national interest.
If the remainer MPs had gathered enough votes and abstentions to defeat the motion it would have placed Theresa May in a very awkward position personally and removed from her the possibility of using a larger majority after an early General Election to drive through Brexit. It is indicative of a lack of commitment by remainers to their cause when it involves any danger or sacrifice. That is very useful to know. If they have looked gift horse in the mouth because they did not fancy the state of its teeth once they are very likely to do it again when the pressure is on.
As historians look back at the remainers ‘ failure to keep Theresa May locked in the position she was in before the motion was passed – stuck with a small majority and a General Election coming in 2019 just as the Brexit negotiations and the UK’s departure are due to come to a head – they will surely shake their heads in astonishment . No wonder for it is truly bewildering that there was no attempt by one or more of the Westminster parties which support the remainer cause to defeat the motion for an early General Election, thereby potentially greatly strengthening Theresa May and her government’s position.
The remainers are completely deluded, particularly those in the labour
party, they have to be, to have voted Corbyn as their leader. Of course
the Lib Dems want a chance to regain seats. The Tories may lose some
seats to the LD, however, they'll gain more from Lab seats.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
tim...
2017-04-20 09:49:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jumper
Post by RH156RH
https://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2017/04/19/the-remainers-throw-away-their-best-chance-of-sabotaging-brexit/
The remainers are completely deluded, particularly those in the labour
party, they have to be, to have voted Corbyn as their leader.
You can't link those two things

they voted Corbyn in before the referendum

tim
harry
2017-04-20 15:27:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH156RH
https://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2017/04/19/the-remainers-throw-away-their-best-chance-of-sabotaging-brexit/
The remainers throw away their best chance of sabotaging Brexit.
Posted on April 19, 2017 by Robert Henderson
Astonishingly, the remainers have missed their best chance to hinder the Brexit process by failing to seriously oppose the motion put down by Theresa May that a General Election be held on 8 June. The motion was passed on 19 April 201`7 by 522 votes to 13.
This is an extraordinary result on the face of it. What is even more astonishing is the fact that the remainers could have defeated the motion quite easily. All they had to do was muster 217 votes or abstentions to overthrow the motion for an early election. Indeed, they could have done it simply by getting 217 MPs to abstain. The Labour Party, with 229 MPs, could have managed the matter on their own, as could a coalition of, say, two thirds of Labour MPs, the Scots Nat MPs and the LibDem MPs voting against or abstaining.
Let me divert for a moment to explain the status of abstentions in this context. In this vote an abstention has the same value as a vote against. This is because it is the total number of MPs who vote for the motion that matters, not the percentage of those who actually vote for or against a motion.
Under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act two thirds of the 650 member House of Commons have to vote for a motion proposing an early election. Two thirds of 650 is 434. Hence one vote against or one abstention can make a difference. If 433 MPs vote for the motion with, say, only 100 voting against but with 117 abstaining, the motion fails because it is one short of 434.
522 voted for the motion
13 voted against the motion
The Speaker (who doesn’t vote unless there is a tie), Eric Kaufman (deceased, and his constituency was awaiting a by election), and 4 Sinn Fein MPs (who don’t take their seats and consequently don’t vote.)
That leaves 109 other wilful or accidental abstainers.
As 115 votes were either not used or used to vote against, it would only have required another 102 to either abstain or vote against the motion to stop the attempt to have a general election on 8 June. Had the various remainer Party leaders in the Commons put their weight behind a vote against. the motion it is probable that the motion would have been defeated.
Alternatively, if remain MPs of all parties had come together they might well have defeated the motion.
The fact that the remainer MPs failed to defeat the motion when it was well within their grasp to do so, or indeed to make any public noise about doing so, suggests that they were more afraid of losing their seats than they are motivated to carry on the battle against Brexit. Ironically, I suspect that was a false fear for many remainer MPs because they represent constituencies which voted to remain.
As far as the party leaders are concerned, voting against the motion could have been represented as reasonable both because Theresa May had said she would not call an election as it would be destabilising and on the grounds that this Parliament is only two years old and the clear intention of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act was to stop PMs calling elections to suit themselves and their party rather than the national interest.
If the remainer MPs had gathered enough votes and abstentions to defeat the motion it would have placed Theresa May in a very awkward position personally and removed from her the possibility of using a larger majority after an early General Election to drive through Brexit. It is indicative of a lack of commitment by remainers to their cause when it involves any danger or sacrifice. That is very useful to know. If they have looked gift horse in the mouth because they did not fancy the state of its teeth once they are very likely to do it again when the pressure is on.
As historians look back at the remainers ‘ failure to keep Theresa May locked in the position she was in before the motion was passed – stuck with a small majority and a General Election coming in 2019 just as the Brexit negotiations and the UK’s departure are due to come to a head – they will surely shake their heads in astonishment . No wonder for it is truly bewildering that there was no attempt by one or more of the Westminster parties which support the remainer cause to defeat the motion for an early General Election, thereby potentially greatly strengthening Theresa May and her government’s position.
Remoaners are inherently thick. Simples.
The Todal
2017-04-20 19:13:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by harry
Remoaners are inherently thick. Simples.
Alternatively and more likely, there aren't more than a dozen remoaners
in the Commons.

MPs have very flexible principles. They are now perfectly happy to agree
to a Brexit, provided the terms are right (which means let's worry about
that in two or three years).

And then there's the leader of the LibDems, an evangelical Christian who
believes that he's right and the power of his rhetoric might work
wonders and give the LibDems a majority in Parliament.
Yellow
2017-04-21 00:55:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@icloud.com
says...
Post by The Todal
Post by harry
Remoaners are inherently thick. Simples.
Alternatively and more likely, there aren't more than a dozen remoaners
in the Commons.
MPs have very flexible principles. They are now perfectly happy to agree
to a Brexit, provided the terms are right (which means let's worry about
that in two or three years).
And then there's the leader of the LibDems, an evangelical Christian who
believes that he's right and the power of his rhetoric might work
wonders and give the LibDems a majority in Parliament.
When he got voted in, I always knew that what represents itself as a
liberal political party, would rue the day they voted a religious
fundamentalist to be their leader.

You simply cannot be liberal while at the same time believing that
certain people should be discriminated against solely because of what it
says in your particular book.
Norman Wells
2017-04-21 07:42:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by The Todal
And then there's the leader of the LibDems, an evangelical Christian who
believes that he's right and the power of his rhetoric might work
wonders and give the LibDems a majority in Parliament.
When he got voted in, I always knew that what represents itself as a
liberal political party, would rue the day they voted a religious
fundamentalist to be their leader.
You simply cannot be liberal while at the same time believing that
certain people should be discriminated against solely because of what it
says in your particular book.
And you can't be a Democrat if you ignore the will of the people
democratically expressed in a referendum.

Strange he's even allowed in the Liberal Democrats then.
The Todal
2017-04-21 11:56:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by The Todal
And then there's the leader of the LibDems, an evangelical Christian who
believes that he's right and the power of his rhetoric might work
wonders and give the LibDems a majority in Parliament.
When he got voted in, I always knew that what represents itself as a
liberal political party, would rue the day they voted a religious
fundamentalist to be their leader.
You simply cannot be liberal while at the same time believing that
certain people should be discriminated against solely because of what it
says in your particular book.
And you can't be a Democrat if you ignore the will of the people
democratically expressed in a referendum.
Strange he's even allowed in the Liberal Democrats then.
The only policy difference between Labour and the LibDems is that Labour
does not want a second referendum. Both want to avoid a "hard Brexit".

If a Labour government changed its mind and decided on a second
referendum, and I hope it doesn't, then that would be no more of a U
turn than Theresa deciding to call a general election after saying
repeatedly that she wouldn't.

I see Bob Marshall-Andrews has defected from Labour to the LibDems.
You'd think from the BBC report that he had no respect for Jeremy Corbyn.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39651785

However on LBC radio yesterday he said that he had often campaigned with
Corbyn and shared most of his views. His decision is purely about the
best way of blocking Brexit. What a silly old fool he is. The LibDems
will never get more MPs than Labour. Gesture politics doesn't help solve
problems.
Yellow
2017-04-21 12:11:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@icloud.com
says...
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Strange he's even allowed in the Liberal Democrats then.
The only policy difference between Labour and the LibDems is that Labour
does not want a second referendum. Both want to avoid a "hard Brexit".
What is a "hard" Brexit though?

The SNP define "hard" Brexit as leaving the EU without a deal while the
LibDems define it as leaving the Single Market.

I genuinely have no idea what Labour think except didn't Corbyn at one
point say he wanted a Brexit that still allowed free movement? I might
have the wrong though.
Post by The Todal
If a Labour government changed its mind and decided on a second
referendum, and I hope it doesn't, then that would be no more of a U
turn than Theresa deciding to call a general election after saying
repeatedly that she wouldn't.
It will probably depend on who is leading the Labour Party in 2 years
time I'd have thought.
Post by The Todal
I see Bob Marshall-Andrews has defected from Labour to the LibDems.
You'd think from the BBC report that he had no respect for Jeremy Corbyn.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39651785
However on LBC radio yesterday he said that he had often campaigned with
Corbyn and shared most of his views. His decision is purely about the
best way of blocking Brexit. What a silly old fool he is. The LibDems
will never get more MPs than Labour. Gesture politics doesn't help solve
problems.
The LibDems are campaigning on a ticket that says they will get more
seats than Labour - "the real opposition".
Ophelia
2017-04-21 13:35:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Yellow" wrote in message news:***@News.Individual.NET...

In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@icloud.com
says...
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Strange he's even allowed in the Liberal Democrats then.
The only policy difference between Labour and the LibDems is that Labour
does not want a second referendum. Both want to avoid a "hard Brexit".
What is a "hard" Brexit though?

The SNP define "hard" Brexit as leaving the EU without a deal while the
LibDems define it as leaving the Single Market.

I genuinely have no idea what Labour think except didn't Corbyn at one
point say he wanted a Brexit that still allowed free movement? I might
have the wrong though.
Post by The Todal
If a Labour government changed its mind and decided on a second
referendum, and I hope it doesn't, then that would be no more of a U
turn than Theresa deciding to call a general election after saying
repeatedly that she wouldn't.
It will probably depend on who is leading the Labour Party in 2 years
time I'd have thought.
Post by The Todal
I see Bob Marshall-Andrews has defected from Labour to the LibDems.
You'd think from the BBC report that he had no respect for Jeremy Corbyn.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39651785
However on LBC radio yesterday he said that he had often campaigned with
Corbyn and shared most of his views. His decision is purely about the
best way of blocking Brexit. What a silly old fool he is. The LibDems
will never get more MPs than Labour. Gesture politics doesn't help solve
problems.
The LibDems are campaigning on a ticket that says they will get more
seats than Labour - "the real opposition".

==

They ought to change their name to 'The Optimists' :))
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Norman Wells
2017-04-21 12:12:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
The only policy difference between Labour and the LibDems is that Labour
does not want a second referendum. Both want to avoid a "hard Brexit".
If a Labour government changed its mind and decided on a second
referendum, and I hope it doesn't, then that would be no more of a U
turn than Theresa deciding to call a general election after saying
repeatedly that she wouldn't.
It will either be in the Labour manifesto or it won't. Breaking a
manifesto commitment is much more serious than just one person changing
his or her mind on something else.

It's a government being elected on a false prospectus.
Yellow
2017-04-21 12:00:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by The Todal
And then there's the leader of the LibDems, an evangelical Christian who
believes that he's right and the power of his rhetoric might work
wonders and give the LibDems a majority in Parliament.
When he got voted in, I always knew that what represents itself as a
liberal political party, would rue the day they voted a religious
fundamentalist to be their leader.
You simply cannot be liberal while at the same time believing that
certain people should be discriminated against solely because of what it
says in your particular book.
And you can't be a Democrat if you ignore the will of the people
democratically expressed in a referendum.
Strange he's even allowed in the Liberal Democrats then.
I have said it before and I will say it again - the LibDems are a funny
bunch.
pensive hamster
2017-04-21 20:45:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by The Todal
And then there's the leader of the LibDems, an evangelical Christian who
believes that he's right and the power of his rhetoric might work
wonders and give the LibDems a majority in Parliament.
When he got voted in, I always knew that what represents itself as a
liberal political party, would rue the day they voted a religious
fundamentalist to be their leader.
You simply cannot be liberal while at the same time believing that
certain people should be discriminated against solely because of what it
says in your particular book.
And you can't be a Democrat if you ignore the will of the people
democratically expressed in a referendum.
The will of 26.7% of the people, you mean.

That leaves approx 34m potential LibDem voters, nearly twice as
many as actually voted Leave

(That 34m is the number of people entitled to vote, minus the
number who voted Leave.)

If the LibDems position themselves as the Brexit protest vote,
they could possibly do quite well, or at least better than if
they simply echo the Brexit policies of the other main parties.
Post by Norman Wells
Strange he's even allowed in the Liberal Democrats then.
Norman Wells
2017-04-21 20:59:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by The Todal
And then there's the leader of the LibDems, an evangelical Christian who
believes that he's right and the power of his rhetoric might work
wonders and give the LibDems a majority in Parliament.
When he got voted in, I always knew that what represents itself as a
liberal political party, would rue the day they voted a religious
fundamentalist to be their leader.
You simply cannot be liberal while at the same time believing that
certain people should be discriminated against solely because of what it
says in your particular book.
And you can't be a Democrat if you ignore the will of the people
democratically expressed in a referendum.
The will of 26.7% of the people, you mean.
More than enough under the rules.

And you gotta have rules.

They were known in advance, were no different to any other vote, and
no-one objected then, especially those who thought they'd win.

The consequence is that the result is valid and unassailable.
Post by pensive hamster
That leaves approx 34m potential LibDem voters, nearly twice as
many as actually voted Leave
(That 34m is the number of people entitled to vote, minus the
number who voted Leave.)
If the LibDems position themselves as the Brexit protest vote,
they could possibly do quite well, or at least better than if
they simply echo the Brexit policies of the other main parties.
No they won't. They'll be annihilated. As always.
pensive hamster
2017-04-21 21:09:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
If the LibDems position themselves as the Brexit protest vote,
they could possibly do quite well, or at least better than if
they simply echo the Brexit policies of the other main parties.
No they won't. They'll be annihilated. As always.
Being always annihilated would seem to be a logical impossibly.

Actual annihilation is a one-time event.
Norman Wells
2017-04-21 21:35:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
If the LibDems position themselves as the Brexit protest vote,
they could possibly do quite well, or at least better than if
they simply echo the Brexit policies of the other main parties.
No they won't. They'll be annihilated. As always.
Being always annihilated would seem to be a logical impossibly.
Actual annihilation is a one-time event.
Surely it can regenerate? Happens all the time in other popular fantasy
series.
pensive hamster
2017-04-21 22:23:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
If the LibDems position themselves as the Brexit protest vote,
they could possibly do quite well, or at least better than if
they simply echo the Brexit policies of the other main parties.
No they won't. They'll be annihilated. As always.
Being always annihilated would seem to be a logical impossibly.
Actual annihilation is a one-time event.
Surely it can regenerate? Happens all the time in other popular fantasy
series.
Does it? I'll have to defer to your expertise in that field.

Loading...