BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

ddraver

Pross wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Latest Westminster voting intention (24-25 Sep)
Con - 33% +1
Lab - 22% +1
Lib Dem - 22% -1
Brexit Party - 14%
Green - 6% +2


Fair to characterise that as static?
Labour getting nothing really from their conference.
Supreme court having no effect on Conservatives

I'd say that was a fair summary.

Entrenched might be a better description.

Leave - 47%
Remain - 50%

Plus ca change...

daddylonglegs

rjsterry wrote:

Is this a mistake, a wind up, or an inadvertent admission?

http://www.w4mpjobs.org/JobDetails.aspx?jobid=72853

It's an add for an intern to work in Brussels on behalf of the Tory Party in the ECR. The ECR is a nasty, but influential little anti-EU group within the European Parliament comprising various Right wing and some far-Right groups from across Europe. David Cameron joined up in 2009 as part of his strategy to get UKIP supporters back on board. Seems they haven't left yet.

kingstongraham

Alejandrosdog wrote:

I think Boris and his crew are first class arsholes. on the plus side they at least are focused on getting through this blockage of turds at Westminster

whilst Labour can't decide what do about Brexit and focus on class war, the libdems have decided that the electorate that didn't vote in favour of the EU can't make decisions for themselves and need to be ignored, the SNP continue to be cynical one issue councillors. and the GREENS or green gets advertised by the bbc via twitter retweets constantly, possibly the only party coming out positively

Unbelievable.

At least Strictly starts this weekend

Remember this if you find it difficult to believe 17.4m voters can be ignored.... The no-deal Brexiters are ignoring at least 16.1m, it's not that much harder to ignore another few. HTH.

daddylonglegs

Alejandrosdog wrote:

I think Boris and his crew are first class arsholes. on the plus side they at least are focused on getting through this blockage of turds at Westminster

whilst Labour can't decide what do about Brexit and focus on class war, the libdems have decided that the electorate that didn't vote in favour of the EU can't make decisions for themselves and need to be ignored, the SNP continue to be cynical one issue councillors. and the GREENS or green gets advertised by the bbc via twitter retweets constantly, possibly the only party coming out positively

Unbelievable.

At least Strictly starts this weekend

Not so sure about Labour and the 'class war' bit. Lazy thinking perhaps..?

Looking at the Tory Front Bench, I'd say any 'class war' was being fought by the Tories.

tailwindhome

It occurs to me that 'We're not leaving without a good deal' is more convincing that 'We're walking away' when the other side knows the consequences for you of walking away.

rjsterry

Daddylonglegs wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

I think Boris and his crew are first class arsholes. on the plus side they at least are focused on getting through this blockage of turds at Westminster

whilst Labour can't decide what do about Brexit and focus on class war, the libdems have decided that the electorate that didn't vote in favour of the EU can't make decisions for themselves and need to be ignored, the SNP continue to be cynical one issue councillors. and the GREENS or green gets advertised by the bbc via twitter retweets constantly, possibly the only party coming out positively

Unbelievable.

At least Strictly starts this weekend

Not so sure about Labour and the 'class war' bit. Lazy thinking perhaps..?

Looking at the Tory Front Bench, I'd say any 'class war' was being fought by the Tories.

Listening to some of the stuff coming out of their conference I don't think it's too far off. Use of the word privileged as though it describes some sort of unpleasant disease - as opposed to someone who for whatever reason finds themselves with a bit more money - sounds a bit class-war-y.

daddylonglegs

rjsterry wrote:

Daddylonglegs wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

I think Boris and his crew are first class arsholes. on the plus side they at least are focused on getting through this blockage of turds at Westminster

whilst Labour can't decide what do about Brexit and focus on class war, the libdems have decided that the electorate that didn't vote in favour of the EU can't make decisions for themselves and need to be ignored, the SNP continue to be cynical one issue councillors. and the GREENS or green gets advertised by the bbc via twitter retweets constantly, possibly the only party coming out positively

Unbelievable.

At least Strictly starts this weekend

Not so sure about Labour and the 'class war' bit. Lazy thinking perhaps..?

Looking at the Tory Front Bench, I'd say any 'class war' was being fought by the Tories.

Listening to some of the stuff coming out of their conference I don't think it's too far off. Use of the word privileged as though it describes some sort of unpleasant disease - as opposed to someone who for whatever reason finds themselves with a bit more money - sounds a bit class-war-y.

The Tories have been fighting (and winning) the class war for decades. Their Front bench is an object lesson in inherited 'privilege' giving an advantage over almost everyone else. Nothing to do with working hard. Just because they don't discuss it doesn't mean it's not there.

Why discuss or acknowledge something in public you get such an advantage from?

Stevo_666

ddraver wrote:

Pross wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Latest Westminster voting intention (24-25 Sep)
Con - 33% +1
Lab - 22% +1
Lib Dem - 22% -1
Brexit Party - 14%
Green - 6% +2


Fair to characterise that as static?
Labour getting nothing really from their conference.
Supreme court having no effect on Conservatives

I'd say that was a fair summary.

Entrenched might be a better description.

Leave - 47%
Remain - 50%

Plus ca change...

I don't think you can count Labour as having any collective opinion on this after their conference.

bompington

53 to 47 is pretty much where the opinion polls are stuck if you leave out don't knows etc.

Stevo_666

bompington wrote:

53 to 47 is pretty much where the opinion polls are stuck if you leave out don't knows etc.

Labour effectively count as 'don't knows' so the split appears to be 28 to 47 or maybe 31 to 47 if you assume that the other 3% is remain.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Pross wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Latest Westminster voting intention (24-25 Sep)
Con - 33% +1
Lab - 22% +1
Lib Dem - 22% -1
Brexit Party - 14%
Green - 6% +2


Fair to characterise that as static?
Labour getting nothing really from their conference.
Supreme court having no effect on Conservatives

I'd say that was a fair summary.

Entrenched might be a better description.

Leave - 47%
Remain - 50%

Plus ca change...

I don't think you can count Labour as having any collective opinion on this after their conference.

Not as a party position, but it's pretty clear from a number of polls that about 2/3 of members and supporters are Remainers in spite of their party.

rick_chasey

Shirley Basso wrote:

not as bad as NEFC

Not even f..ing considered

Savage

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Latest Westminster voting intention (24-25 Sep)
Con - 33% +1
Lab - 22% +1
Lib Dem - 22% -1
Brexit Party - 14% 0
Green - 6% +2


Fair to characterise that as static?
Labour getting nothing really from their conference.
Supreme court having no effect on Conservatives

I'd say that was a fair summary.

Well yes you’d still vote for them.

daddylonglegs

Stevo 666 wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Pross wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Latest Westminster voting intention (24-25 Sep)
Con - 33% +1
Lab - 22% +1
Lib Dem - 22% -1
Brexit Party - 14%
Green - 6% +2


Fair to characterise that as static?
Labour getting nothing really from their conference.
Supreme court having no effect on Conservatives

I'd say that was a fair summary.

Entrenched might be a better description.

Leave - 47%
Remain - 50%

Plus ca change...

I don't think you can count Labour as having any collective opinion on this after their conference.

I don't think they do, but I think they are trying to acknowledge the breadth of opinion across their party as well as the country. It's arguably not necessarily much of a political strategy to win an election in the current conditions, but they don't have a lot of choice. Nevertheless, in my opinion it reflects the reality across the country much more than either going for 'remain' or 'leave' (with no deal) both of which are intensely divisive strategies which threaten everyone. For me the Lib Dem's revocation policy is a democratic outrage whichever side of the fence you stand.

Stevo_666

Daddylonglegs wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I don't think you can count Labour as having any collective opinion on this after their conference.

I don't think they do, but I think they are trying to acknowledge the breadth of opinion across their party as well as the country. It's arguably not necessarily much of a political strategy to win an election in the current conditions, but they don't have a lot of choice. Nevertheless, in my opinion it reflects the reality across the country much more than either going for 'remain' or 'leave' (with no deal) both of which are intensely divisive strategies which threaten everyone. For me the Lib Dem's revocation policy is a democratic outrage whichever side of the fence you stand.

Fair enough, although it's a bit optimistic of people to just stick Labour in the 'remain' pile. And clearly the split amongst the electorate is likely to be different from whatever totals we come up with here.

daddylonglegs

Stevo 666 wrote:

Daddylonglegs wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I don't think you can count Labour as having any collective opinion on this after their conference.

I don't think they do, but I think they are trying to acknowledge the breadth of opinion across their party as well as the country. It's arguably not necessarily much of a political strategy to win an election in the current conditions, but they don't have a lot of choice. Nevertheless, in my opinion it reflects the reality across the country much more than either going for 'remain' or 'leave' (with no deal) both of which are intensely divisive strategies which threaten everyone. For me the Lib Dem's revocation policy is a democratic outrage whichever side of the fence you stand.

Fair enough, although it's a bit optimistic of people to just stick Labour in the 'remain' pile. And clearly the split amongst the electorate is likely to be different from whatever totals we come up with here.

I think it is optimistic. Labour fear losing whole swathes of voters by going for Remain which is why they are trying to tread a middle path. I agree, I don't think these numbers tell us very much. My opinion is the divisions are far more subtle and unpredictable than the polls can read. The Tories are desperate to turn this into a war between Remain and Leave having staked the next election on it. The thing you need to remember is they have turned themselves into a single-issue party, but what they have forgotten, if they ever noticed, is that there are a whole lot more things people are still thinking about. Particularly since 2008.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Daddylonglegs wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I don't think you can count Labour as having any collective opinion on this after their conference.

I don't think they do, but I think they are trying to acknowledge the breadth of opinion across their party as well as the country. It's arguably not necessarily much of a political strategy to win an election in the current conditions, but they don't have a lot of choice. Nevertheless, in my opinion it reflects the reality across the country much more than either going for 'remain' or 'leave' (with no deal) both of which are intensely divisive strategies which threaten everyone. For me the Lib Dem's revocation policy is a democratic outrage whichever side of the fence you stand.

Fair enough, although it's a bit optimistic of people to just stick Labour in the 'remain' pile. And clearly the split amongst the electorate is likely to be different from whatever totals we come up with here.

Agreed. Largely coincidence that you can add the voting intention figures together in a way that sort of matches some other polls.

rjsterry

Daddylonglegs wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Pross wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Latest Westminster voting intention (24-25 Sep)
Con - 33% +1
Lab - 22% +1
Lib Dem - 22% -1
Brexit Party - 14%
Green - 6% +2


Fair to characterise that as static?
Labour getting nothing really from their conference.
Supreme court having no effect on Conservatives

I'd say that was a fair summary.

Entrenched might be a better description.

Leave - 47%
Remain - 50%

Plus ca change...

I don't think you can count Labour as having any collective opinion on this after their conference.

I don't think they do, but I think they are trying to acknowledge the breadth of opinion across their party as well as the country. It's arguably not necessarily much of a political strategy to win an election in the current conditions, but they don't have a lot of choice. Nevertheless, in my opinion it reflects the reality across the country much more than either going for 'remain' or 'leave' (with no deal) both of which are intensely divisive strategies which threaten everyone. For me the Lib Dem's revocation policy is a democratic outrage whichever side of the fence you stand.

Revocation only occurs in the unlikely event of them winning an outright majority. Otherwise their policy is a second referendum. The former is a largely symbolic policy. If by chance they did win a majority, it would no longer be undemocratic.

daddylonglegs

rjsterry wrote:

Daddylonglegs wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Pross wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Latest Westminster voting intention (24-25 Sep)
Con - 33% +1
Lab - 22% +1
Lib Dem - 22% -1
Brexit Party - 14%
Green - 6% +2


Fair to characterise that as static?
Labour getting nothing really from their conference.
Supreme court having no effect on Conservatives

I'd say that was a fair summary.

Entrenched might be a better description.

Leave - 47%
Remain - 50%

Plus ca change...

I don't think you can count Labour as having any collective opinion on this after their conference.

I don't think they do, but I think they are trying to acknowledge the breadth of opinion across their party as well as the country. It's arguably not necessarily much of a political strategy to win an election in the current conditions, but they don't have a lot of choice. Nevertheless, in my opinion it reflects the reality across the country much more than either going for 'remain' or 'leave' (with no deal) both of which are intensely divisive strategies which threaten everyone. For me the Lib Dem's revocation policy is a democratic outrage whichever side of the fence you stand.

Revocation only occurs in the unlikely event of them winning an outright majority. Otherwise their policy is a second referendum. The former is a largely symbolic policy. If by chance they did win a majority, it would no longer be undemocratic.

That’s all true. But symbolic or not, it contains a fairly brutal message to a lot of people. And from a party that we’re from the other half of a government that came up with the referendum in the first place.

rjsterry

Possibly a reaction to a fairly brutal message from the other side over the last three years. "We scraped a win but you lot can f***off now" is not the sort of thing to make people think "oh well, never mind".

rjsterry

This is very interesting if acts can be got together. There are apparently ways other than by VONC to get shot of Johnson without dissolving parliament.

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/poli ... onal-unity

More interestingly there is a proposal for developing a non-partisan form of Brexit from the bottom up such that it could attain some form of mass acceptance (if not outright support). Probably hopelessly optimistic but interesting nonetheless.

Pross

Daddylonglegs wrote:

For me the Lib Dem's revocation policy is a democratic outrage whichever side of the fence you stand.

I'm struggling to think how a policy could be any more democratic. They're unequivocally stating a vote for them is a vote for revocation. If they win a majority (which they obviously won't) then it supersedes a 3 year old advisory referendum result. If people don't want A50 withdrawn don't vote Lib Dem. It's certainly more democratic than Labour's 'vote for us and if we get in we'll have a think about what we're going to do and get back to you' approach.

rick_chasey

Daddylonglegs wrote:

For me the Lib Dem's revocation policy is a democratic outrage whichever side of the fence you stand.

Talk me through this.

Referendum in the 70s fought on more or less the same lines, results in “in”.

So at what point was the campaign for out no longer anti democratic - where’s the line?

And what part of democracy does it say that you can’t express your view and campaign on it?

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Pross wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Latest Westminster voting intention (24-25 Sep)
Con - 33% +1
Lab - 22% +1
Lib Dem - 22% -1
Brexit Party - 14%
Green - 6% +2


Fair to characterise that as static?
Labour getting nothing really from their conference.
Supreme court having no effect on Conservatives

I'd say that was a fair summary.

Entrenched might be a better description.

Leave - 47%
Remain - 50%

Plus ca change...

I don't think you can count Labour as having any collective opinion on this after their conference.

Not as a party position, but it's pretty clear from a number of polls that about 2/3 of members and supporters are Remainers in spite of their party.

If you count Labour as about 2/3 remain (say 15% of the 22% above, rounding up) then you get to something like Leave 54% vs Remain 46% which is not far off the referendum result...

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Pross wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Latest Westminster voting intention (24-25 Sep)
Con - 33% +1
Lab - 22% +1
Lib Dem - 22% -1
Brexit Party - 14%
Green - 6% +2


Fair to characterise that as static?
Labour getting nothing really from their conference.
Supreme court having no effect on Conservatives

I'd say that was a fair summary.

Entrenched might be a better description.

Leave - 47%
Remain - 50%

Plus ca change...

I don't think you can count Labour as having any collective opinion on this after their conference.

Not as a party position, but it's pretty clear from a number of polls that about 2/3 of members and supporters are Remainers in spite of their party.

If you count Labour as about 2/3 remain (say 15% of the 22% above, rounding up) then you get to something like Leave 54% vs Remain 46% which is not far off the referendum result...

Why are you assuming Tories are pure leave when you (apparently) aren’t leave and certainly are a Tory voter.

bompington

Stevo 666 wrote:

bompington wrote:

53 to 47 is pretty much where the opinion polls are stuck if you leave out don't knows etc.

Labour effectively count as 'don't knows' so the split appears to be 28 to 47 or maybe 31 to 47 if you assume that the other 3% is remain.

Which is why (except in the unlikely event of the libs winning) a GE won't settle Brexit, because the votes don't line up.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Pross wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Latest Westminster voting intention (24-25 Sep)
Con - 33% +1
Lab - 22% +1
Lib Dem - 22% -1
Brexit Party - 14%
Green - 6% +2


Fair to characterise that as static?
Labour getting nothing really from their conference.
Supreme court having no effect on Conservatives

I'd say that was a fair summary.

Entrenched might be a better description.

Leave - 47%
Remain - 50%

Plus ca change...

I don't think you can count Labour as having any collective opinion on this after their conference.

Not as a party position, but it's pretty clear from a number of polls that about 2/3 of members and supporters are Remainers in spite of their party.

If you count Labour as about 2/3 remain (say 15% of the 22% above, rounding up) then you get to something like Leave 54% vs Remain 46% which is not far off the referendum result...

Why are you assuming Tories are pure leave when you (apparently) aren’t leave and certainly are a Tory voter.

I'm just going on current party policy on Brexit and apportioning for Labour as they don't have one. It was just playing around with the numbers in reply to RJS, but I sense you're looking for an argument?

rick_chasey

No I just think the whole exercise is pointless since you don’t know.

Fwiw GE > referendums

orraloon

This posted by Peter Kyle MP for Hove last night. Is this country xxxxed or what?

---

I know at times like this you expect me to stand up and give voice to our community, to make sure our values are represented. That’s what I’ve been trying my best to do locally and in parliament, plus the media too.

There’s loads I want to tell you about that I’ve been up to locally but I’ll save them for the coming days. Right now I think you want to hear from me about the seismic events of recent days.

Few people expected the Supreme Court to be so forthright in their judgement, nor for it to be unanimous. But it was. All 11 judges, the highest in our land, decided two things:

Firstly that it was the legitimate duty of the courts to have a view on parliament’s prorogation - that’s the time parliament is shut down in the run-up to a Queen’s Speech. This happens simply so parliament can reset for a few days, clear all the old bills and paperwork from the system and prepare for the next. But in that time nothing can happen, that’s why it always occurs in a stable or non-contentious period.

The judges said that government weren’t able to answer a simple question: if courts don’t have a say, what is to stop a prorogation being called for a month, a year, or five years? That would in effect kill our democracy and nothing could stop it if the courts weren’t able to have a say.

Secondly, they ruled that this prorogation was so long because government wanted to avoid the scrutiny of parliament. Government could not say why they needed five weeks to prepare for a Queen’s Speech so they ruled that ‘any reasonable person’ would presume it was to silence parliament.

We have not seen anything like this in our country for hundreds of years. It means that government acted unlawfully, they misled the Queen and worst of all they misled you. That’s not my opinion: after this judgement it is fact.

I arrived at parliament knowing it would be a difficult session, but I never expected quite how bad it would become.

You have to understand that in the Commons there are microphones everywhere but the second someone is called to speak every microphone is shut down except the one by the MP on their feet. It means you only hear about 5% of what is happening when you’re watching on tv.

By the time Boris Johnson got to his feet MPs were already upset. The attorney general had been at the dispatch box. He was the man who provided the government, the queen, and our nation with legal advice saying prorogation was legal. It wasn’t. You’d have thought under the circumstances that a little contrition would have been in order. After all, in any other workplace in the land if you’d got something so spectacularly wrong you’d be fearing the worst and hoping for at least a way to keep your job, so you’d do everything possible to be contrite. Not this man.

Geoffrey Cox got to his feet and hurled abuse at MPs. He called us a ‘dead parliament’, he said we didn’t have the moral right to be sitting on the green benches. He shouted, he jabbed his finger and he sneered.

It might be worth pointing out an obvious fact - you elected us in 2017 for a five year period, a bit odd to say we don’t have the right to be there, especially from the man who’s just been slammed by the Supreme Court!

And far from being dead, what really upsets them is that parliament is alive and well and doing its constitutional job. The only reason government can’t get business through is because of their own stupidity and the fact they kicked out 21 of their own MPs which means they don’t have a majority anymore. None of this is your fault, nor my fault. It’s infuriating that they won’t take responsibilities for their actions.

And then Boris Johnson appeared. He immediately started using words that are associated with wartime treachery, pointing at people while he did it. People immediately started to beg him to change the tone, to use different words.

And this is the key thing, because as soon as he knew which words were upsetting people the most he started to use them again and again and again, more and more, getting louder and more personal.

Very few MPs have not experienced some form of abuse. There are half a dozen people in prison right now because of it. I have never spoken about it publicly simply because I meet people every week who suffer much worse, such as domestic abuse victims, and I’m very aware that I have a privileged position and a regular conversation with the police about my safety. I have the mobile numbers of several senior officers, so I would never compare my position with people living with those overwhelming challenges.

In politics, as so often elsewhere, women and minorities suffer first and worst. So when Paula Sherif MP spoke from the heart and begged him to stop using language that could incite hate and target MPs, the prime minister said she was talking ‘humbug’. When Tracy Brabin, the MP who replaced Jo Cox in Batley and Spen said that words matter and the language he was using was too similar to that used in the environment leading up to Jo’s murder, he said the ‘best way to honour Jo was to get Brexit done’. And in reply to my question which pointed out he enjoyed the constant protection of armed police and is not as vulnerable as those he was targeting, he said ‘the best way to ensure that every parliamentarian is safe is to get Brexit done’.

In other words, we have a prime minister who says that the only way MPs can avoid danger is to back his policies. How un-British can you get?

I realise it might all look the same from tv, but I promise you that there was very genuine distress in that chamber. MPs who have abusers in prison and others on restraining orders were shaken. Just behind the chamber in the voting lobby several were in tears as they left. I really do understand how this could be perceived from the outside, as if MPs are being too delicate or overreacting, but MPs are human too (some more than others admittedly!). Those who have woken up to find abusing graffiti on the front of their home or death threats posted through their door know what will be waiting for them thanks to Boris Johnson.

That’s why things got so emotional last night.

You’ll know from the way I try to engage with people of different views on this page that I aspire to be respectful even though I sometimes fail. But at least I try. We now have a prime minister that uses gaslighting as a political tool and believe me our whole country will pay the price not just MPs.

Predictably, today a man was arrested for attacking a female MP’s office. Words matter, they really do.

The other question I asked him was why he was the only interested party in the Supreme Court case that didn’t submit a sworn statement. All the others did. This was mentioned by the judges, he was asked to provide one but he didn’t. Boris Johnson refused to answer my question but he didn’t need to, we know why he didn’t. If he had submitted a sworn statement saying prorogation was simply to prepare for a queens speech and not to stymie debate and scrutiny then he would have perjured himself.

Finally, if you’re still reading, I’d like to share a personal story where I learned a big political lesson. I think it’s relevant.

Running up to the 2015 general election we had a series of public hustings. They’re always really difficult because it’s hard to form a relationship with an audience when you have loads of other people taking pot-shots, but they had all been respectful. But then, presumably when it became obvious I was winning, one of the candidates changed strategy.

At a hustings in Hove Park School, the other candidate made a point of sitting next to me. Every time I spoke he interrupted me. Several times he jabbed his finger very close to my face. Always before I’d resisted the temptation to respond but this time I did, I was really annoyed. So rather than looking forward to the audience I turned to him and had a go back and several times we got into a to-and-fro about something that was probably irrelevant anyway.

When I got into the car afterwards I put my head in my hands. My campaign manager said ‘what’s the matter I think you won’, but that wasn’t the problem. I felt real shame that I had let the audience down. I actually felt we had all let the audience down. I wasn’t responsible for the others but I was for me. It was the only night of a two-year campaign I couldn’t get to sleep, I knew in my heart that the audience looked at us and thought to themselves ‘they’re all the same’, and for that moment at least we were.

This moment left a deep impression on me. It has stayed with me and when I go into an adversarial situation I can feel it welling up. Sometimes I still get it wrong, you might have seen those moments on TV, but I can say with my hand on heart that I do try.

Whatever happens to me going forward at least I’ll always know that I aspired to be a respectful, unifying politician. Boris Johnson may have become prime minister and guaranteed his place in history, but when he looks back at his career he will never be able to say the same. Out of the two situations I know which I’d rather - and I know which you deserve.

I know it won’t make pleasant reading...but I do want to hear your thoughts so please post away! And baring in mind the contents of this post *PLEASE* keep language respectful even if you feel very strongly. Yours, Peter

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

Daddylonglegs wrote:

For me the Lib Dem's revocation policy is a democratic outrage whichever side of the fence you stand.

Talk me through this.

Referendum in the 70s fought on more or less the same lines, results in “in”.

So at what point was the campaign for out no longer anti democratic - where’s the line?

And what part of democracy does it say that you can’t express your view and campaign on it?

Do you think the SNP should declare independence for Scotland? After all, it is their stated aim, and they do have the most seats.

Constitutional matters, especially should be done by referendums.