Alf Bentley

Yep. Swinson's tactics are almost the mirror image of Boris: - Boris: Promise an immediate, extreme Brexit solution to establish party as "the party for Brexit", win the votes of Leave supporters who want an instant magic solution, increase toxic polarisation, sod the other half of the nation & gain power - Swinson: Promise an immediate, extreme Remain solution to establish party as "the party for Remain", win the votes of Remain supporters who want an instant magic solution, increase toxic polarisation, sod the other half of the nation & gain power/MPs Should be a fun-packed election campaign.....can you imagine the attacks they're both going to face (not least from one another) as anti-democrats? I'll be astonished if there isn't violence or worse during the election. Given the number of people, on both sides and neither, who just want Brexit dealt with, it might even be a vote-winner for the Lib Dems (though it will alienate some). But where does it take them beyond the short-term? - In the unlikely event they win an election, they'd have to revoke, attracting the fury of half the nation & causing even more alienation from democratic politics & even more bitter division within the nation - Assuming they don't win the election, do they immediately revert to supporting a referendum after fighting an election as "the Revoke Party"....if so, what will all the voters attracted by their Revoke stance make of that? Particularly if it drags on for months yet? Or, if they've won a lot of extra MPs mainly under a Revoke banner, do they keep pushing the Revoke policy for a time, at least, dividing the opposition to Brexit? - If Brexit somehow happens before the election, what platform would they fight the election on? Both as regards Brexit (immediate reversal?) and other policies, if they have any other major policies.....as they seem to be becoming a single-issue party. The bad news for people wanting Brexit over and done with is that, regardless of the outcome (No Deal, Deal, Referendum, Revoke), it will still be going on for years to come - either clogging up our political system or dividing our society.

Saw this lot at a festival in Margate last week.....a festival for old gits who frequent 70s & 80s music threads. Not my usual cup of tea but quite enjoyed them - and they played this song, as I recall. Surprised to see they had the old Roxy Music drummer in the band. I was thinking that was a bit of change of style, Roxy to Lindisfarne, but just looked him up on Wiki and he's also played with Angelic Upstarts .... any band, any style, so long as they have NE connections, it seems.

Ah well, @LiberalFox..... Swinson is on Marr tomorrow morning, so will be interesting to hear what she says and to read between the lines....

No Deal is "something actually concrete" that would "bring us out of the immediate uncertainty" and allow us "to move forward". It would also be economically disastrous and massively divisive socially. Revoking without another referendum might avoid the economic disasters of No Deal but would be just as divisive socially, encouraging large numbers of people to hold democracy in contempt. OK, in some dreamworld where the Lib Dems stood on a Revoke platform and won an election with more than 50% of the vote, that could be deemed to be a mandate. But what if they won an outright majority on a Revoke platform with just 35% of the national vote? Even that is a pipedream, though. What would happen if an election resulted in a hung parliament, with significantly more Lib Dem MPs than now.....an outcome that is distinctly possible. If Corbyn was leading a minority govt & sought parliamentary approval for a referendum, would the Lib Dems block that, insisting on Revoke & allowing the clock to run down towards No Deal again? If Johnson negotiated a new deal, would the Lib Dems oppose moves to have it put to a referendum (which might succeed) and insist on Revocation until they were looking down the barrel of No Deal......at which point it might be very hard to get legislation for a referendum through all its stages in the Commons & Lords? It seems to me that, if Revoke is a serious LD policy, it risks dividing those seeking to avoid No Deal or open to a second referendum or even a softer Brexit - and makes No Deal and greater polarisation even more likely. If it is a policy that the LDs would jettison the minute they found themselves not forming a majority govt, it seems like a meaningless gesture - & a cynical abuse of a major crisis, using it as a rebranding exercise to win votes at the expense of national stability and a sane outcome to all this madness.

I tend to agree. Given the impasse, I can see a case for (and against) a second referendum - but not for revoking without consulting the electorate. There will be lasting division regardless of the Brexit outcome. But, as with No Deal, it would surely be on quite another scale with Revoke? A major motivation for the Leave vote was people feeling ignored by "the elite".....and people like Swinson want to just ignore the referendum result and revoke?!? That seems like a solution tailor-made to increase toxic divisions and alienation from the democratic process - possibly leading to public disorder, thuggery & the rise of the Far Right.... Swinson says she's made the switch from Referendum to Revoke because it would be nonsense for an explicitly Remain party to try to negotiate a Brexit Deal to put to a referendum. Yet, they've vocally advocated a referendum since 2016. In a referendum, they could also put May's Deal, any deal that Boris negotiates or even No Deal to a vote with Remain. That would be a lot more respectful of the electorate than just revoking! I presume this is cynical "product differentiation" by the Lib Dems. They see much (though not all) of Labour inching onto their old Referendum terrain and want to differentiate themselves as "the Remain party" to win seats. Most of their target seats are prosperous Tory seats in the SE & SW with a big Remainer vote, so I presume they want to avoid Remain voters there drifting to Labour, causing them to miss out on seats. In reality, it's highly unlikely that the Lib Dems will be negotiating Brexit. Polls suggest they could gain a number of seats, but not that they'll be anywhere near being the biggest party in parliament. But if an election happens before Brexit is sorted, a hung parliament with more Lib Dem MPs is distinctly possible. Their Revoke stance would surely make it much harder to get either a Soft Brexit Deal or a Second Referendum.....unless they back down. I do wonder where the Lib Dems will end up once Brexit is finally sorted, which might be within a couple of months. They've essentially become a Remain party. What other policies are they promoting? Like them or not, Labour has a raft of other policies (as they did in 2017). If we do end up with a November election after leaving the EU with or without a deal at Halloween, what platform will the Lib Dems stand on?

People getting married in the Dominican Republic and Mexico have been a minor revenue stream for me over the years. Just let me know if you need any Spanish certificates translating into English. I'll offer you a "Foxes Talk Discount"......better quality than the big agencies and a lower price. I got married in Pocklington's Walk...........and divorced via a pile of expensive solicitor's invoices...

This could explain it, though whether anyone can trust a word Boris says is another matter: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-49659241 "The prime minister has ruled out a Northern Ireland-only backstop. During a Facebook live on Wednesday afternoon Boris Johnson said the UK "will not accept" it. Earlier, DUP leader Arlene Foster said a Northern Ireland-only backstop was anti-democratic, but believed the prime minister 'is in the space of trying to find a deal' ". There had been speculation that Boris might be about to shaft the DUP by accepting a deal with a N. Ireland-only backstop. That would be a credible option as it would allow for a transition period & would then avoid a hard border in Ireland while allowing the UK to do global trade deals - but with Northern Ireland staying in the CU and subject to tighter EU-based standards & intensified checks on goods crossing the Irish Sea. It's an option that the EU offered to May before she accepted the DUP veto on GB/NI differences - and there were rumours that enough Labour Leave MPs might support it to offset the opposition of the DUP and Tory hardliners (though whether those rumours are accurate is anyone's guess). Of course, that would be a blow to Ulster unionists and a boost to those seeking a united Ireland....but do Tory voters care about the union? Polls suggest that most members would be happy to see N. Ireland and Scotland leave in exchange for Brexit..... What Johnson's strategy is now, who knows? I'm not sure that I believe this speculation that he's open to a deal or might push a version of May's Deal through at the last minute. Even if he keeps DUP support and gets some Tory rebels back onside, it'll surely only be a couple of months before we end up with a general election given all the hype and his lack of a majority. If he does a deal, any pact with the Brexit Party will surely be a non-starter, greatly reducing his chances of winning an election. Maybe he's just indulging in smoke and mirrors until an election happens in which he'll run on a No Deal / "Let's get Brexit over with" / People v. Parliament ticket, blaming the "Remainer Parliament", the "elite courts" and the EU for the impasse. Farage would clearly be happy to stand aside in Tory seats if the Tories ran on that ticket, provided he got a free go at Labour Leave seats.

My post responded to yours and repeated Babylon's point that you had chosen to ignore. In reply, you've completely ignored my points, as you ignored Babylon's and have just indulged in distractions and "whataboutery". That shows a lack of respect for honest debate, in my book. So (unusually for me), I'll only bother with a short reply: Yes, Cameron & Osborne were dishonest purveyors of bollocks, too. Economic forecasting is a very imprecise business, but experts still know more than non-experts, even if some forecasts prove inaccurate - or are misused. Forecasts may or may not be accurate once Brexit - or No Deal - actually happens. But common sense suggests that making 50% of your trade much more difficult and/or expensive will have a major negative impact in multiple ways....

The 2017 Labour manifesto said they would "accept the referendum result", "reject No Deal as a viable option", "scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union". That's what they sought to do in supporting CU/SM options during the indicative votes and in negotiating with May. But they didn't have the numbers to win votes and May wasn't budging on her priorities. They're now trying to block No Deal, as promised in their manifesto. Labour as a party has NOT said it would recommend the electorate reject their hypothetical new deal. Particular Labour politicians have said they'd back Remain in such a scenario......but there's a difference between an individual and a political party! Just because Ken Clarke or Jacob Rees-Mogg say they're going to do something, that doesn't make it Tory party policy. In practice, if that scenario ever arises, my guess is that Labour politicians would be free to support either side....just as Tory politicians were in 2016. Some, including Corbyn himself (as a longstanding Soft Brexiteer), might well support Labour's hypothetical new deal. Labour has switched to supporting a second referendum, after failing to get the Soft Brexit deal advocated in their manifesto. But compare that to the "flip-flopping" by the Tories..... The 2017 Tory manifesto said: "Theresa May's Conservatives will deliver the best possible deal for Britain as we leave the European Union delivered by a smooth, orderly Brexit" and "a deep and special partnership with the remaining 27 member states". That's quite a flip-flop there, from advocating a "deal", "a smooth, orderly Brexit" and "a deep and special partnership" to prioritising No Deal (as Amber Rudd pointed out), a chaotic exit and no partnership whatsoever - and threatening to trash national democracy and the rule of law to bring it about..... Of course, your post ignores Babylon's inconvenient point to which you were responding. Do you remember? He was highlighting the rubbish referendum debate (on both sides) and specifically posted a massive Vote Leave map, declaring that Turkey was joining the EU, with a massive arrow showing millions of Turks descending on the UK. If you ever stop avoiding difficult questions and answer Babylon's point, perhaps you could let us know when Turkey will be joining the EU and when those millions of Turkish immigrants will descend on us? While you're at it, maybe you could explain why, a few years ago, Boris Johnson said: "And when that great moment comes and the 2 halves of the Roman Empire, East and West, are at last reunited in an expanded European Union, the territory of Turkey will be rejoining a Union that certainly has pretensions to restore that grand old Roman unity"?

Wrong. Our democracy is not based on referendums and governments pushing through decisions without accountability. We have a directly elected parliamentary democracy with govt accountable to parliament. Technically, the referendum wasn't even legally binding: https://fullfact.org/europe/was-eu-referendum-advisory/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI94yxyunF5AIVCbrtCh3WtwWqEAAYASAAEgJrq_D_BwE Now, even as a Remainer, I think it would have been wrong for govt/parliament to ignore the referendum result. But they didn't. They have simply been unable to agree what "the referendum result" means. That's because "the referendum result" was as clear as mud, beyond saying that we'd leave the EU. Some thought "Leave" should mean leaving while cutting most ties or only retaining a remote relationship. Others thought that it should mean leaving while retaining a close relationship with the EU. Others again thought that any negotiated outcome should be subject to confirmation by second referendum or election. None of those interpretations are objectively wrong - because "the referendum result" was unclear, and our elected representatives have so far been unable to agree what it should mean. Nothing here about democracy depending on referendums ..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_the_United_Kingdom "A key principle of the British Constitution is that the government is responsible to Parliament. [...] All political decisions are taken by the government and Parliament. This constitutional state of affairs is the result of a long history of constraining and reducing the political power of the monarch, beginning with Magna Carta in 1215".

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/sep/06/brexit-boris-johnson-news-latest-eu-labour-confirms-it-will-not-vote-on-monday-night-for-early-election-live-newsbior "Boris Johnson has been visiting Peterhead fish market in Scotland this morning". Wonder if there'll be any photo opportunities involving kippers?

Not always good for your career to run around getting high, Buce. Get a few pints down your neck instead, mate!

Someone might correct me on this but..... Couldn't Boris only advise the Queen to appoint Corbyn as PM if he could tell her that Corbyn had the confidence of parliament & could win a confidence vote? It's by no means clear that's the case as Jo Swinson has said the Lib Dems wouldn't back Corbyn as interim PM.....though she might change her mind if it meant an extension, avoiding No Deal in October. If not, presumably Boris would have to advise the Queen to appoint someone who COULD win a confidence vote as interim PM....maybe Jeremy Hunt seeking to negotiate a new Brexit deal, or someone like Ken Clarke who might get support across parliament, including the Lib Dems? If Corbyn did become interim PM, I presume he'd go ahead and request an extension and then call an election in November....with Boris still Tory leader, having only resigned as PM & not as party leader? That would be seriously weird....

A little treat, just for you.....

Resorting to street robbery is an extreme solution, isn't it, Izzy? Sounds like your missus has been well and truly stitched up there. Hope it's sorted out to your satisfaction soon. Maybe LCFC or another top PL club is looking for an up and coming youth coach?