On the sly? Are you aware of the majority that preceded the serving of Article 50? None of that was predecated with the notion that there had to be a deal. We should have left on March 29th. We did not. We should be leaving on October 31st.

The only slyness is on the part of those who are scuppering our depature. That is more than sly. It is underhand and clearly spurious nonsense since their true desire is for us not to leave at all. I actually have some respect for the Lib-Dems in now being completely honest about that. Just wish more would follow their example so that a GE can be fought on a simple Leave-Remain narrative.

If Remain win a majority via a GE then it gives them far more of a democratic mandate than any farce of a second referendum that does nothing other than divide the country even more and make a mockery of the entire voting process to the endangerment of everything this country is meant to be based on.

If Parliament want to ignore the 52% then let Parliament have the courage of its convictions to do so rather than pit us all against each other. Better we loathe the 325plus MP's for that to happen than 16 million-plus of our fellow countrymen.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

You seem to think that the only people who are against No Deal are Remainers. What about people who want to leave but think it's stupid to have no trading relation to the half a billion people closest to You?

The next election won't only be about remain leave because our society is a lot more complex than that right now. People are hurting, and successive governments bear a lot of responsibility for that. The fact that we have spent 5 years in a Tory psychodrama rather than dealing with the other problems is staggering.

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

I'll tell you what it looks like.

You can take existing prescribed organizations and remove them from the prescribed list on a flimsy pretense e.g. "blah human rights, blah social justice, blah oppression"

More likely, you just turn a blind eye to new (or re-branded) terrorist organizations that support your own general aims e.g. new anti-Israel terrorist groups, Islamist / Anti US Groups. At that point you can use "foreign aid" to fund these indirectly. Once the funding leaves these shores we have no control of it anyway.

You withdraw anti-terror resources and funding where you don't want prying eyes.

You start to label groups you don't like as far right / fascist / neo-Nazi e.g. UKIP, For Britain, DFLA, English Democrats, Veterans Groups etc and when you have enough control you eventually prescribe them. This is easy do to with a gradual creeping extension of hate speech laws and suppression of freedom of speech e.g. the adoption of the current draconian "Islamophobia" definition.

All the above is easy if you have a majority in the house and in the absence of the equivalent of either a first or second amendment.

Right - and given he’s never had a majority as leader and thus an opportunity to implement such a plan, how do you know it is his intention?

Assuming you’re right, what’s his end goal in supporting all these terrorists?

As I have said a second referendum with two versions of leave on the paper makes a kind of sense (and again, I write that through gritted teeth). But you don't want that do you? You only want a Leave option that involves a deal with the EU or Remain.

Just the act of wanting 'Remain' on any second referendum ballot paper is the act of people not wanting to accept the outcome of June 23rd. Just be honest about that. Be proud of it. Own it.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Just because the government is now a minority doesn't mean that Parliament cannot function or that this necessarily requires a GE. It probably will, but only when Parliament decides the time is right. If we end with a government of national unity then they could potentially function until June 2022 and enact all kinds of legislation in the meantime. They probably won't though as the various elements won't be able to agree on a joint strategy beyond stopping a no deal Brexit.

It has absolutely nothing whatsoever with anybody "blocking" anything. It only has to do with the basic fact of Parliamentary democracy which is that every act of Parliament and government action needs their approval. No government has any right to act without it. It's neither the "political establishment" or the judiciary doing anything. We elected the Parliament. The judiciary don't make the law. They interpret and rule on it when asked to.

This is OUR democracy in action. What is dangerous is that so many seem not to either recognise that fact or value it.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Any at all. Parliament has the right to change it's mind if, in it's judgement, circumstances, so demand.

Nothing should ever be cast in stone and in so doing restrict our ability to react to events or new information.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

What will be the downfall of Johnson?

The voters? No, I think women.

I should know....

As you know I don't want another referendum on this, or any other issue, ever again. I want our elected Parliament to do their job and work together across the aisle, and for as long as it takes, to find a solution.

However, having done so, if at the end of that process they decided to consult the people directly to learn their opinion why couldn't ALL the viable options be put to them?

Things have moved on a long way since 2016. Everyone is better informed.

Asking if the people approve of a negotiated deal, no deal or no Brexit makes sense.

Are you scared that a majority wouldn't agree with you? Just be honest about that. Own it.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

The only relevant law which dictates how Parliament works is the fixed Parliament act. Everything else is convention and conventions can be amended by circumstances. The Supreme Court have just ruled that the government's attempt to prorogue Parliament for political reasons was unlawful, so the law has been clarified in that regard. As the SC is our constitutional court it is naturally the place where such questions get answered. As no Judge, thank goodness, is elected, to impute any kind of political motivation to them is very unfair and completely untrue.

How it is being dealt with is 100% correct and I am very proud that it is working as it is. That we must explain things better and restore faith in the system is true, but a separate issue.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.