Westminstenders: Charge!!!!

[RedToothBrush]

Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
“Forward, the Light Brigade!
Charge for the guns!” he said.
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

“Forward, the Light Brigade!”
Was there a man dismayed?
Not though the soldier knew
Someone had blundered.
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die.
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volleyed and thundered;
Stormed at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of hell
Rode the six hundred.

Flashed all their sabres bare,
Flashed as they turned in air
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wondered.
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right through the line they broke;
Cossack and Russian
Reeled from the sabre stroke
Shattered and sundered.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volleyed and thundered;
Stormed at with shot and shell,
While horse and hero fell.
They that had fought so well
Came through the jaws of Death,
Back from the mouth of hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.

When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honour the charge they made!
Honour the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred!

Because you;re arguing that no deal should be on a referendum. I'm not saying you;re a fascist - I'm saying you;re arguing their case for them. And it's not even a good case! 19% of the population - less than a fifth - want no deal.
It is based a position based on falsehoods and is immoral and sometimes it is OK to just say 'no.' there are a million reasons not to no deal (including the 19%) thing - if they can't understand or refuse to believe that that is still no one's problem but theirs!

Fair enough you want a GE first. That's a perfectly fine line to take. I would rather we had a ref first because a GE should be fought on a lot more than brexit grounds. We have neglected there running of this country for three years because of brexit - we shouldn't choose our nextfive years of governance based on that and that alone. But if a party is voted in because of their other policies than that still means they are not delivering the brexit people wanted.

We want the same thing in different ways - we can agree to disagree there... it;s not like either of us actually have a say. But claiming that my preferred way is anti-democratic if it doesn't include no deal is arguing for the no dealers ... when there is no good reason to include no deal beyond the loudest voices calling for it (still only 19%) ... is doing the work of the fascists for them.

Problem is that polls have been so variable - that 19% looks unlikely, unless opinion has swung a lot in the last few days

That recent Telegraph poll report was skewed - but the actual figures were that
44% wanted Parliament prorogued for No Deal vs 37% opposed
Maybe some of those 37% would also want No Deal if it was just by letting time run out, rather than proroguing

We may hate it, but No Deal is consistently the most popular option among Leavers

Often Remain and No Deal are neck and neck, but always with the WA well behind

There is no point giving the PV option to renegotiate unless the EU agree

• and with (justified) mistrust they would demand the backstop, whatever red line we drop, or just refuse to continue this Brexfarce and say we negotiate the future deal only after you have passed the WA

So a referendum would be on the #1 or #2 choice vs .... #3 ?

Unless a PV offers a choice that Leavers accept too, it would be so politically toxic that we won't get one.

A PV is politically very dangerous, mainly because the more fanatical Remainers were demanding a 2nd referendum literally days after the 1st
Now we have good reasons for a PV, but they have tainted the whole idea because of immediately demanding a rerun they refused to accept the original.

If we ever do get a PV - still looking v unlikely - maybe an STV with the 3 options would be acceptable

The referendum just said "leave", not "how"

So every version of leave satisfies that vote, from BRINO through to the WA through to No Deal

I think honestly if we start saying people who want a GE with clearly stated positions on Brexit are pandering to fascists we have become the Remain version of the ERG.

It wasn't about your position on a GE. It was about you 'playing devils advocate' (which I said). You're not playing devil's advocate - you're making fascist arguments for them.

fascist's i meant. the arguments of fascists - not the argument itself being fascist

The question is whether we ban people voting for something that would be economically harmful and go against the spirit - not the legal terms - of the GFA

However, no need to get worked up over it, because BJ running out time to No Deal is by far the most likely outcome

I don't expect Remainers and softer Leavers in the HoC to be able to compromise enough to stop it

I have thought for ages that some of the more hardcore remainers are as unreasonable and pig-headed as the ERG.

I know one poll put it at 19% but there are many polls saying different things at the moment.

Even in the same polling company - the same polling company that shows no deal support at 19% also shows:

• a majority (45%?) thinking 'Boris should do anything to get Brexit through, even suspending Parliament'

• a majority for 'Would prefer a no deal with no JC as PM' compared to 'JC as PM and a second referendum"

• When asked the question...if Boris can't get changes to the WA what he should do. A majority for leaving on 31st with no deal

I don't think decisions on what should be on the referendum should be made based on polls. They are unreliable (changes depending on how questions are asked) and often conflict with

If there was a snap General Election
would the nationalists / non sectarians in Northern Ireland stick with Sinn Fein?
or would they vote for MPs who would argue their case in Westminster?

as with wafer thin majorities from every direction, those seats could become key.

PS
Labour have been unwilling / unable to clearly state their Brexit position for over three years
what makes anybody think a GE would change that ?

Again, I'm as disheartened by these responses as anyone and totally disagree with them.

I just believe that ignoring the reality that actually most people who voted Leave would say they were voting Leave however that happened isn't going to end in a satisfactory outcome and could actually risk a further lurch to the Farage types waiting in the wings to tear down our system (and not for good ends).

*As an aside I agree with BCF that this is all a moot point, because there won't be a GNU.

In a way we're demonstrating a microcosm of just two arguments the various parties making up the GNU would have to overcome with others including Soft Brexit, etc.

That 19% looks as dodgy as the Telegraph claims of a "majority" for No Deal

imo most people just want Brexit to be over,
but don't realise how bad No Deal would be - and that it would result in Brexit negotiations stretching out for many years

However, in a demicracy, it is v difficult to not allow people to vote for something just because we think they are wrong, or they don't understand
Otherwise, universal suffrage is finished

Hence why time is likely to run out for No Deal: the alternative is politicians telling voters they got it wrong
and that already infuriates half the country

I don't think decisions on what should be on the referendum should be made based on polls.

Hence why I didn't use remains showing as most popular choice as the reason to include it. It's position as the status quo and as something defined is far more important.

But if we're not going with poll popularity as the reason to include options ... what on earth is the reason behind including no deal? Surely the only argument for including it is that it's popular. It may be. But we shouldn't make decisions on what should be on a referendum based on polls.

the 52/48 result masks the fact that
2/3 of constituency areas voted to leave
that must never be forgotten

Anyway - I've said my tuppence or actually way more than tuppence and desperately need to get on with the chores I've been procrastinating about since 10am

Anyway - I've said my tuppence or actually way more than tuppence and desperately need to get on with the chores I've been procrastinating about since 10am

I'm on summer holidays. I was fast asleep at 1pm 10 am

ListeningQuietly if people feel Labour don't have a clear position on Brexit at a general election then they can choose not to vote for them. Labour do have a clear position on Brexit to stop no deal and whether MPs or the public support it or not, it's up to them.

"the only argument for including it is that it's popular"

That was the only reason we had a referendum: many people demanded one

In democracy, the basic idea is that people get to vote on things they want

If there could be a brief GNU - which would be a minority Labour govt with C & S -
it looks like extending for a GE before Brexit is their only feasible policy

Reports are that 20-30 MPs who might support a GNU would not do so if this is to call a PV

So we'd have a GE with Tories presumably with No Deal in their manifesto and Labour with a PV

Still very unlikely to happen, because the different factions of MPs opposing No Deal won't compromise on how to prevent it

Labour have been unwilling / unable to clearly state their Brexit position for over three years what makes anybody think a GE would change that ?

First of all Labour want a confirmatory referendum in all circumstances

In the event of a PV campaign Labour will be campaigning for Remain against a Tory Deal/No Deal

In the event of Labour winning a GE they will renegotiate a CU/SM deal to then be given back to the people as a Labour Deal/Remain referendum

That was the only reason we had a referendum: many people demanded one

People in the then rump of the Tory party demanded one. Cameron just didn't know how to control them. I really think most UK voters didn't give much of a fuck about being in or out of Europe until Cummings and his crew had the (admittedly genius) idea of channelling general malaise into the issue.

In democracy, the basic idea is that people get to vote on things they want

right but ... it wasn't me that said this: I don't think decisions on what should be on the referendum should be made based on polls.
I just took it to it's logical conclusion.

And we don't get to vote on what we would like if the govt deem it's not in our interests - see death penalty.

And we didn't have the referendum because people wanted it. we had the referendum because David Cameron wanted to sort out the civil war in his party.

We don't get to vote for what we want. we get to vote for what the government tells us we can vote for. When they have our best interests at heart - that works out fair enough. But they have precedent for acting against popular opinion in both good ways and bad ways (abortion/death penalty laws vs the decision to invade Iraq). They didn't even giver us a vote that time. Any vote would be more 'democratic' than that if you are insistent on direct democracy. There is no reason no deal could not be subject to the same parliamentary overriding of popular opinion as has happened many times in the past. It would be no worse and oversight of democracy.

It is not anti democratic for a govt to choose options and put those options to the people, even if some people feel their option is not there (though no one but the electorate would have the power to stop hard brexit.) It's not even anti-democratic for them to just straight up revoke- it's in the PM's gift, it's part of their power. That's how our system works. We can change the system if we want but for now it is as it is and 'people get to vote for what they want' is a bit reductive and simplistic.

By 2015, the situation was very different to the 2% or so in the 1990s who wanted Brexit
Partly because of the 5 years of Tory-LDem austerity making people susceptable to the EU as scapegoats

Most Tories wanted a referendum, all KIppers, Lexiters - that's "many" voters

Far more than those who wanted Cameron's earlier referendum on AV

We must distinguish between what we wish to happn and what is politically possible

The problem is that we let people vote on a stupidly formed question

... and now we refuse to accept their decision

There should never have been a referendum, but it has totally changed the political map

The reason you - and I - are so scared of a "No Deal" option is that it might well win
because more people may now want it than Remain

If we thought No Deal genuinely only had 19% of voters in the country, we'd want a ref, to totally crush the No Dealers

btw, the death penalty is a different matter, in that it would be illegal in Europe, as it is against the ECHR
If we ever left the ECHR, we could have a Death penalty ref - that is a big reason why some Tories want to quit the ECHR too

I'm doing 20 mins chores, 10 mins break!

It is not anti democratic for a govt to choose options and put those options to the people, even if some people feel their option is not there

I agree with this. I can see why Conservative voters would feel otherwise though if the only reason the Govt in charge (GNU) got there was because several MPs stood on a manifesto where they disagreed with a fundamental point and then brought their own Govt down. I think those MPs should have declared their conflict at the time of the 2017 election.

I think rules should be put in place going forward that MPs need to state if there are parts of the manifesto they are unwilling to support. Are there downsides to this I haven't thought through?

It doesn't stop them voting against the Govt on unforeseen matters (e.g. Iraq war).