On 25/09/2019 19:41, The Todal wrote:
On 25/09/2019 10:18, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/09/2019 09:08, The Todal wrote:
On 24/09/2019 22:56, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/09/2019 21:39, dennis@home wrote:
On 24/09/2019 16:44, Steve Walker wrote:

There is a huge difference between wanting to repatriate control
to the UK and MPs ignoring the result of a domestic referendum.
Returning sovereignty to parliament was never intended to overrule
a democratic vote by the people.

but that's how our democracy works, mps do what's best for the
country.
unlike boris,

Then why won't they vote for a general election?Â* We have a
government in office but not in power.Â* It's stymied at every turn.
It is being prevented from governing.Â* The best for the country is
to have a general election.Â* Why are they so reluctant to have one?

Please explain why an election would help to solve the Brexit crisis.

The Brexit crisis as you call it is a simple result of Parliament not
being representative of the people's views, and being determined to go
against the free choice of the people expressed in a single issue
referendum.

Well, that's not true. It's Boris's version of the truth.

The Brexit crisis is a simple result of a referendum result that
instructed the government to "leave" the EU but failed to give any
guidance about what deal if any should be negotiated.

That was never going to be a matter for the electorate. The electorate
gave the steer, and it was simply to leave the EU. We were all told
*the government* will implement what we decided, presumably on the basis
of the best deal it could achieve. It was never expected that the
public would know enough about all the details to make an informed
decision on the deal itself, nor was that promised.

There are major
differences of opinion about what sort of deal should be made with the
EU. Maybe you somehow missed this, by not following the debates? Thus,
the ERG opposed Theresa's deal because they really want a no-deal
Brexit. A large number of people but not enough, support Theresa's deal.

Having a new bunch of MPs does not solve this difference of opinion. You
can get them to sign up to thirty nine articles when they are being
selected as candidates, but when they are in the Commons they still
might have their own opinions having heard all the arguments.

Better than not having them sign up to anything. At least you then have
some fire you can hold their feet to.

It is likely that any new MPs will toe the party line for a significant
time before they become rebellious.

The way to resolve that, if it's possible, is to have a general
election where, hopefully, Parliament will become rather more properly
representative.

But more likely it will result in no clear majority in favour of any
exit deal and a majority against a no-deal.

You'll never know until you try.

With the Remain vote hopelessly split between Labour, the LibDems, the
Greens and the SNP, the route is open for the Conservatives, who are
leading considerably in the polls, possibly in cahoots with the Brexit
Party, to waltz through the middle and clear up.

That is what is putting the fear of God up that nice Mr Corbyn, even if
he does dress it up in holy no-deal prevention clothes.

Are you hoping that by shuffling the pack and dealing the cards again
you'll end up with a Royal Flush? A majority of MPs in favour of any
particular course of action?

Who knows?Â* What is clear, though, is that we need a functioning
government, which we do not have at present.Â* It needs to deal with
more than just a single issue.

I think you know, in your heart of hearts, that the demand for a general
election has only one purpose: to secure the future of the Tory party.

The country isn't being governed, and can't be governed given the
current state of the parties. That in the past would always, and very
sensibly, have resulted in a general election. That's what the country
desperately needs, whatever the end result, but is being prevented from
having by Labour whose only interest is self-interest.

An election before 31st October would result in many people voting for
"Boris the man who is determined to get us out of the EU by 31st
October". An election after 31st October would result in many people
laughing at the man who failed to keep his promises, which turned out to
be all bluster and bluff.

That's wishful thinking on your part. It's not 'bluster and bluff' if
others conspire to prevent you doing what you sincerely want and try
very hard to do. Nor will a temporary delay be held against him. It's
not his fault, you see. Frustration by vacillating Labour and the
Liberal Undemocrats I think will rebound on them rather than on Boris.

The Tories are desperate for that early election and Cox was so furious
he was almost in tears.

You're not very good at reading body language, are you?

Labour is acting purely out of self-interest in preventing an election
when the national interest is crying out for one.Â* It is the first
opposition in history that seems unwilling to face the electorate to
get itself elected.

And what sort of opposition is that?Â* It needs to be replaced too.

It will be replaced by the Tory opposition. Labour will form the next
government.

Not if there's no general election. And almost certainly not if there is.