Bye bye Theresa

[GG.]

It does actually mean you don't have free will in any true sense if the only choices were sit at home with no income or go to work. If you had the option of quitting for another job (in our metaphor, an acceptable Withdrawal Agreement) that would be different.

I'm trying to remember exactly which theorist it was that originally set this out but he noted that any argument that you have "free will" if the options you are presented with are all bad, is illusory. Your are coerced by the insufficiency of valid (i.e. acceptable) alternatives.

Same deal here, if you have a power but can't exercise it for fear of the consequences (particularly where such consequences are directly determined by a third party), it is, practically worthless.

[GG.]

I think you two are well on track to reach resolution here.

I think we should refer it back to the people for a decision given talks have irretrievably broken down...

[NotoriousREV]

It does actually mean you don't have free will in any true sense if the only choices were sit at home with no income or go to work. If you had the option of quitting for another job (in our metaphor, an acceptable Withdrawal Agreement) that would be different.

I'm trying to remember exactly which theorist it was that originally set this out but he noted that any argument that you have "free will" if the options you are presented with are all bad, is illusory. Your are coerced by the insufficiency of valid (i.e. acceptable) alternatives.

Same deal here, if you have a power but can't exercise it for fear of the consequences (particularly where such consequences are directly determined by a third party), it is worthless.

Some people are happy to sit at home with no income, it's not inherently a bad choice if it's what you want and you have the skills to support yourself.

We, as a country, have a power that we absolutely can exercise and, I remind you, is still the current legal default position if nothing else is agreed.We are sovereign.

[GG.]

Technically and legally, not practically.

We're the country without the bushcraft skills to self subsist in the forest with no income. That's what the MPs decided in voting down no deal, anyway.

[NotoriousREV]

Technically, not practically.

Can we leave with No Deal on the 29th of March? Yes or no answer only, please.

[GG.]

Practically, no.

Seeing as we're now back at the lowest common denominator, let's communicate from hereon out only in eye blinks or head nods.

[NotoriousREV]

Practically, no.

Wrong.

[GG.]

The house of commons seems to disagree with you.

[duncs500]

Which obviously makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever given that what they're seeking to avoid is a no deal Brexit with economic consequences that would be likely to be less extreme that Corbyns plans for massive wealth and income taxes and renationalisations.

Come on, whilst I agree that it would be a distaster, I don't think you can realistically compare the two. A heavy spending labour government can do some significant damage in the short term, but it can be reversed by a couple of concurrent sensible governments, this we know as it has been done more than once before.

Us exiting the EU is a complete unknown, there will be an unknown ecomonic impact, and I can't see that there would be much opportunity to change our mind. How can you say with any authority that the consequences are likely to be less extreme? Not only short term, but over the next 20, 50, 100 years?

Morgan Stanley, Forbes and many others (and I) disagree with that analysis:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -says-bank

https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonconst ... an-brexit/

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... eal-brexit

If Corbyn gets to power, you'll have to wait until the end of his 5 years in power to start to even undo the damage so if investors have to consider a return to a benign environment being the best part of a decade away, that's going to have a hugely negative impact on their decision making. I also think you're confusing previous "heavy spending" Labour governments (i.e. the Brown as Chancellor and PM era) which was generally benign on personal taxation, with 1970s style old Labour "tax them till the pips squeak" which is Corbyn's viewpoint. The City of London can tolerate the first approach but not the second.

Plus of course you're still labouring under the misapprehension that GE>Corbyn=no Brexit. You could have both because the best he's ever going to campaign on is a second vote, not a revocation of article 50, for reasons of his own personal Bennite Eurosceptic beliefs and not to heamorrhage votes in leave constituencies.

I'm not sure where you read that I believe GE=Corbyn=No Brexit? I am just concerned that used as something to build his manifesto upon it could be enough to swing a GE in his favour. Generally speaking it would appear that the most passionate Brexit supporters reside within the die hard voters for both labour and conservative. Despite not supporting a referendum manifesto, the labour element of this would likely still vote for their party as would the conservative element vote for theirs. This leaves the swing voters, which I think holds the a lot of Remain supporters, these people could very well be persuaded by the offer of another referendum.

I hate the idea of Corbyn winning an election in such a way, I'm just saying it's a risk that concerns me. I sense that you're arguing against something you want me to have said rather than what I've actually said.

[NotoriousREV]

The house of commons seems to disagree with you.

The law disagrees with you. If nothing else happens between now and the 29th, we will leave.

I find it hilarious that a staunch Brexiteer now doesn't want to Leave without a Deal because it's a bad idea

[GG.]

@ duncs No, I guess with apologies to you, I was arguing against the logic of the person that votes for Corbyn out of fear for the economic consequences of Brexit on the basis they may get a "People's Vote".

[GG.]

The house of commons seems to disagree with you.

The law disagrees with you. If nothing else happens between now and the 29th, we will leave.

I find it hilarious that a staunch Brexiteer now doesn't want to Leave without a Deal because it's a bad idea

Leaving without a deal in a circumstance where the remainer holding the purse strings for no deal preparations withheld funds for it, probably doesn't make much sense.

I find it hilarious such a staunch remainer relies on a no-deal brexit he wouldn't contemplate in practical reality to argue that repatriation of sovereign powers is a practical reality via no deal. But of course the basis of much of the last page is just argumentative trolling so it isn't really that hilarious at all.

[NotoriousREV]

The house of commons seems to disagree with you.

The law disagrees with you. If nothing else happens between now and the 29th, we will leave.

I find it hilarious that a staunch Brexiteer now doesn't want to Leave without a Deal because it's a bad idea

Leaving without a deal in a circumstance where the remainer holding the purse strings for no deal preparations withheld funds for it, probably doesn't make much sense.

I find it hilarious such a staunch remainer relies on a no-deal brexit he wouldn't contemplate in practical reality to argue that repatriation of sovereign powers is a practical reality via no deal.

It's called using facts and logic. You should give it a go, it would help you immensely in your line of work.

[GG.]

Trololololol

[duncs500]

@ duncs No, I guess with apologies to you, I was arguing against the logic of the person that votes for Corbyn out of fear for the economic consequences of Brexit on the basis they may get a "People's Vote".

You'd be right to argue with the logic, and it's probably unfortunate from labour's point of view that Corbyn is still leader because they probably would have been making far more hay out of the current situation if they had almost anyone else at the helm.

[JLv3.0]

Seeing as we're now back at the lowest common denominator, let's communicate from hereon out only in eye blinks or head nods.

With all due respect (I mean that btw) demanding a yes or no from you is often the only way we can get you to a) answer a question in b) an intelligible manner.

[GG.]

I think two words and a comma were probably as succinct as was needed. In any way he rejected that as "wrong" so there we are.

Personally I think eye-blink communication is the way forward.

[GG.]

@ duncs No, I guess with apologies to you, I was arguing against the logic of the person that votes for Corbyn out of fear for the economic consequences of Brexit on the basis they may get a "People's Vote".

You'd be right to argue with the logic, and it's probably unfortunate from labour's point of view that Corbyn is still leader because they probably would have been making far more hay out of the current situation if they had almost anyone else at the helm.

They'd be in government by now.

[GG.]

Bias of Bercow is pretty preposterous at this stage. ERG amendment to extension motion to rule out no second referendum not selected despite 167 signatures with him as speaker supposed to select amendments that have the support of a significant number of members. I'd like to see the justification for this one.

Actually, this whole process has shown that having the speaker select amendments in his discretion is a truly massive and unnecessary flaw in parliamentary procedure.

[NotoriousREV]

Bias of Bercow is pretty preposterous at this stage. ERG amendment to extension motion to rule out no second referendum not selected despite 167 signatures with him as speaker supposed to select amendments that have the support of a significant number of members. I'd like to see the justification for this one.

Actually, this whole process has shown that having the speaker select amendments in his discretion is a truly massive and unnecessary flaw in parliamentary procedure.

Almost undemocratic, one might say?