Yes, I agree. What James is doing is on the phone radio format, so he is discussing the arguments for and against and fending off some attacks from leavers. What I'm doing is looking into the issue with some philosophical objectivity and political enquiry.

I sympathise with your view here, I used the word mistake rather than wrong. I realise that politically the leaver ideology is not in and of itself wrong other than were it is incoherent and/or has no relation to reality. However there are real hard consequences to political choices on the ground, something which we have to bare in mind in our analysis.

As I pointed out yesterday there is a real material consequence for the half of the population who is being forced to leave against their will. At least if Brexit is cancelled, or neutered, that half of the population who wish to leave will not have any material consequences imposed on them. They may feel hard done by, or betrayed, but that is only in terms of their aspiration, not their material circumstances and if they take it hard, that is their intellectual choice, because in reality nothing on the ground would have changed. Perhaps they could say but what about the unicorn I was expecting, look I even provided a stable for it and now you have taken it away from me.

However, in the interests of harmony, Farage shouldn't be demonised. He should be acknowledged as representing the valid views of Eurosceptics. Some of his views are borderline racist, but he and his UKIP party achieved the referendum, which many people clearly wanted. The views of those who want a "clean-break" separation should be taken seriously by remainers. If remaining is achieved, our relationship with the EU must be re negotiated so as to unite the nation.

Do you listen to James O Brian* he is the leading media pundit for remain. He points out that the majority of "leavers", have simply believed a few lies, which like Farages slogans, are easy to believe and propagate. That most of the Brexit party followers, (apart from the working class supporters in the north and east who often have valid concerns) are against immigration, again many of them will have believed lies and untruths about the realities of immigration.

So a proportion of "leavers" are actually mistaken, rather than having well thought through legitimate concerns. Indeed he would go further and point out that there aren't any legitimate concerns about the EU which necessitate leaving the EU. Every concern which has been put to him has been shown to be unwarranted, or more to do with the incompetence of the UK government, than the EU.

I'm not saying that the EU is perfect, or that our membership isn't problematic, but there are no valid reasons to leave which hold up to scrutiny, which to correct would require us to leave the EU. There are a few ideological political views or stances which can make a case for the UK being independent from the EU, but by no means are they a necessity, or required.

* James O Brian, LBC radio, 10.00 am - 1.00pm Monday to Friday.

Farage emerged from an Enoch Powell fascism, apparently he used to goad left wing teachers and lecturers at his college and was described as a loud mouth and good at selling things. I expect he found fertile ground in estuarine right wing organisations in Essex. By the time he managed to become elected as an MEP he had found his ideological ground and as he was being paid to represent the UK in the European Parliament( he tried to be elected to the UK parliament, but failed). He started using the populist techniques he had learnt to good effect there. I dont know exactly why he targeted the EU, but presumably it was free movement that he didn't like, but realised that it would be deemed a racist attitude and so attached the EU for being undemocratic, apparently.

What he has been doing over the last few years is well known. But I don't think he has any other modus operandi. The techniques of populism he has developed is all he has. He is not a politician and now that he finds himself more and more in the political sphere he doesn't know what else to do other than more of the same. So what does he do, he knows that if he stops now he is finished and will be ridiculed and abused by large numbers of people, he has needed body guards for a while now.

So we have what he did last week, he comes out fighting and gunning for the Tory party. Like Trump all he can do is exploit populist memes until he gets to the top. Unfortunately he has come up against his nemesis in Johnson, a carnivorous Tory, with the whole Tory machine behind him, with numerous skilled political operators. It seems as though he has now hit a brick wall, by giving the ultimatum that the Tory party must drop its deal and go for no deal by 14th November.

What is he playing at, world domination?

I'd like to ask the Britons here the following questions?
How are the Lib Dems seen in the UK?

In the UK the Lib Dems are acknowledged as the third of the main party's. In a largely two party system, they are often trapped in the middle, meaning that they often have large swings in their number of seats depending on the mood in the country. Their policies are as centrist as they can be, they are often criticised for being in line with either conservative policies, or Labour, by the other side. But they do have a solid support in the middle ground, the woolly jumper, Saab driving brigade.

All the one nation Tory's are jumping ship now, Matthew Parris has announced his switching to the Lib Dems this morning.

OK, the nation would still be divided. But the decision would be better informed and therefore more acceptable. Maybe.

Yes, which is self evident, dispite all the leavers who keep banging on about the will of the people, saying it would be an affront to democracy, it wouldn't.

There is a big material difference between leaving and remaining which is not acknowledged in the commentary. If we leave half the population will be forced against their will to accept a long lasting and profound material change in circumstances. Whereas if we remain the half of the population who voted to leave will be forced against their will to have no material change in their circumstances.

This exposes the inadequacy of the referendum and that it was ill conceived. For such a large material change it should have required a super majority of 60%, or two thirds majority. Or stated that there would be a confirmatory referendum at the end of the process.

Johnson and Farage are Laurel and Hardy. Hardy says "and this is another fine mess you've got me into". While Laurel whimpering says "sorry", while pouring a bucket of water down Hardy's trousers. On the side of the bucket is a label saying shark infested waters.

but the prevailing view is 'let's get on with it.' Hadn't you noticed the 13% (and rising) Tory lead in the polls?

This may be the case now, but if there is a split in the leave vote, then it's game over and I can hear the cracks spreading.

True, most polls suggest - and have done so for some time - that the balance of opinion might be tilted narrowly in favour of remaining a member of the EU. On average, this is by 53% to 47%.

This might be the state of the polls as of this morning, but it's a long way to polling day and Farage and Johnson have plenty of opportunity to stumble. Indeed in the last 24 hours Farage is flat on his face and trying to bring Johnson down with him and the election campaign hasn't started yet.

Also there are record numbers of young voters registering to vote as we speak and most of them will be voting for remain or Labour party's.

People are speculating that Farage would rather remain in the EU and still be the champion of Brexit. Than allow Johnson to leave and become the hero of Brexit and steal his thunder.

I gather that there might be a of former conservatives that could be disappointed about the whole mess that the conservative party has made itself and how it has dealt with the issue, yet won't ever vote for such a catastrophe as the Labour party.

Yes definitely, there are a lot of former and current Conservatives who are feeling sick watching the shambles. Who will switch to the Lib Dems. Although there is a sliding scale here against how hard they are on Brexit, the harder they are the more likely they are to go to Brexit party.

As I said earlier, a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for Corbyn getting into No 10, because the Conservatives don't have anyone to go into coalition with. Although the Brexit party may win a few seats( they have none now), who they could possibly form an alliance with.

There is a deep split in the Conservative party between hardline, right wing, hard Brexit and moderate, soft Brexit, or remain. Their Achilles heal is the Brexit party, that split will be yawning following the launch of the Brexit party campaign now.

Farage(Brexit party)has opened his campaign, he has come out with a hard line of offering an election pact with the Conservatives. They must ditch their deal and go for no deal( or something equivalent) followed by a Canada style trade agreement by 14th of November, or he will field candidates in every seat and fight them to the death.

He's very critical of Johnson's deal, as a warmed up May deal, which is not really Brexit at all.

It sounds like the death nail of the Conservative party to me.

Quite, the deal which would be negotiated by Labour would be very different to Johnson's deal. Myself as a remainer would be confident in Labour getting a good sensible deal closely aligned to the EU, provided Labour were in power for five years to steer us in the right direction. They might just manage to hold the Union( the UK) together, or if Scotland left, be able to prevent a hard border between England and Scotland.

But if Johnson gets in with a majority we are going to hell in a hand cart. He will ram through his deal with no care for the damage done, because his two main goals are more important than any collateral damage he does in achieving them, firstly to get 5 years in No 10, closely followed and linked hand in glove, with saving the Conservatives from electoral oblivion.

The third goal, making it a heady mix, is to prevent at all cost a socialist party getting into government. Readers outside the UK are probably not aware how profound this would be for the Conservatives and their supporter base. Also what a profound change it would be for the fortunes of our country following forty years of a stranglehold of Tory capitalism, which has brought our country to its knees. If Labour gets into power they will be going after the top 5% of earners and wealth hoarders.

Labour would put it back to the people with binding alternatives. Which would take about 6 months. If Johnson wins and pushes through his deal, he would be snarled up in fractious negotiations for the next stage of talks with the EU, with periodic cliff edges and the continuation of the chaos and division.

The reason that the leaving arrangements with the EU are in such divisive chaos is entirely due to the infighting and rabid Brexit factions in the Conservative party. The party which has been in government for the whole period.

Trump waded in to the election tonight on the Nigel Farage show on LBC.
He said about Johnson,
"He's the exact right guy for the times"
He said about Farage and Johnson,
"if you and him get together you'd be an unstoppable force"
He said about Corbyn,
"Corbyn would be bad for you he'd take you to bad places"

A gift for Corbyn and and an own goal for Farage and Johnson. Corbyn has already tweeted that it's sour grapes from Trump because he won't be able to buy out the NHS with a Corbyn government. Also he's put his foot in it suggesting that Farage and Johnson should team up. A toxic prospect for Johnson.

Cameron sought concessions from the EU. He got some on EU immigration and benefits.

Yes, I thought Cameron did well when he sought concessions and I was surprised at the outcry from the Murdoch press etc, that the concessions were not good enough. It was the first time that I became aware of the extent of the anti EU poison that had been administered by such populist power brokers.

I agree on every point

Another miscalculation which the Conservatives have made, which was illustrated perfectly in an interview with Michael Heseltine on Sky News yesterday. Is that they are are overestimating the the perception in the mind of the voters of how reviled Corbyn is as a socialist.

Hesletine said, the Brexit vote was a protest vote against austerity (austerity is Corbyn's main attack line against the government and his socialist policies will immediately begin to reverse austerity). He then said that in his opinion Brexit is a calamitous mistake and he would vote for a party which will stop Brexit happening. That was all fine, but he then contradicted himself politically by attacking Corbyn as an extreme Marxist who is not fit to be prime minister and would never get into power. The problem being, if he is going to vote for any party which will stop Brexit, he will be voting to put Corbyn into government. He then found himself in an impossible position in which he couldn't say who he would vote for.

This is typical of the knots that the Conservatives have tied themselves into over these issues. Many dyed in the wool Conservatives believe this line that Corbyn is unelectable for these reasons, but they have lost touch with vast swathes of the country who are angry at the extent to which austerity is destroying our public services, fuelling the wealth divide and through universal credit, punishing the poor and causing a big increase in homelessness (this is a long list). Also there is a growing green vote worried about climate change. Such people will vote Green, or Labour.

I don't have any certainty, commentators are saying it is likely to be the most unpredictable election in recent history. Because the smaller party's will win more seats due to the two main party's being divided on the Brexit issue. Also there is a big new issue, which did not figure much before, climate change. The other big problem for the Conservatives, is that their big election policy other then Brexit, is lots of spending on public services and infrastructure. But it is a hollow promise because it is their government which has starved these things of cash for the last 10 years, until they are at breaking point. For example, they are promising 20,000 more police officers, while they have cut officer numbers by 21,000 over the last 10 years. The voters will see through such hollow promises.

Added to this is the problem which has emerged for the Conservatives due to their hardline do or die policies. They don't have any friends, other party's who will go into coalition with them, or a confidence and supply arrangement, because they totally alienated the DUP by putting a border down the Irish Sea. What this means is for them to form a government they must have an outright majority, of between 321-326 (I can't find the exact figure) seats.

What this means for the opposition party's is that any seat won by any other party will reduce the majority which the conservatives can win. And the opposition party's will all cooperate if required in tactical voting, or coalition.

So taking all this into consideration my prediction is for a rainbow coalition of remain party's in coalition with the Labour Party.

I hear the Brexit party is feeling forlorn as the Tory's won't talk with them about a pact. We haven't heard from them yet it will be interesting what line they take. I don't see them backing down as yet, there is a valid fear that in order for Johnson to get his deal through and hold his party together, by pleasing the moderates, if he gets a majority, he will water it down, until it is Brexit in name only.

I must admit that after hearing the result of the 2017 election I did not believe a Brexit deal could be agreed by parliament. Finally my prediction has been proved right. I should have bet the house on it!

I didn't think that, although I didn't think about it. I was still under the impression that professional people would arrange a sensible deal and it would all go smoothly, just as I did the day after the referendum. Which is why I was quite relaxed about leaving the EU at that time.

I can't believe what has happened since then, the Conservative party has imploded trying to take rest rest of us down with them. I never would have predicted that.

The Conservatives will need 326 seats (out of 650) to get back into government. As they have no friends to form a coalition with. So any seat won by another party reduces their chances of winning that many. Whereas if the Conservatives win less seats than that, provided all the opposition party's can cooperate, they can form a coalition. It looks like the SNP will win most of the Conservative seats in Scotland, amounting to them winning around 50 seats. Plus the Lib Dems will do well, they may win over 20 seats.

So from my perspective, it's looking like a coalition of the opposition forming our next government.

We're going to have an election, Labour is supporting it now. (there is also a rumour that it might be followed by a no confidence vote)

There was an interesting Despatches on Channel 4 tonight about how the NHS would be compromised in the Trump trade deal with the US. Apparently government officials have already discussed this with US officials. Estimates suggest that the current drug bill for US drugs for the NHS (approx £18 billion per year) would increase to approx £45 billion. Working out at an increase of £500 million per week which the NHS would have to pay. It also suggests that there would be legal requirements for the NHS to buy only from the US suppliers at the higher rates, rather than buy generic equivalent drugs from elsewhere. Apparently Trump has accused the UK of "free loading" from US drug suppliers.

Yes, I know, but Labour couldn't agree to that because it would alienate their leave support, resulting in a clear path to a majority for Johnson in the election. Labour is effectively boxed into a narrow course of action by its divided supporters. This is why they have formulated a policy to hold a second referendum and let the people decide the issue.

It's a bit more complicated than that. The offer made by Johnson was under the fixed term parliament act, meaning it required a two thirds majority(434) votes to pass. So there wasn't any chance of it passing without support from both sides of the house. Labour didn't support it because it included a commitment to debate and pass Johnson's withdrawal bill in approx 5 sitting days, with the aim of having the bill passed before the election period begins. Also there was a worry that no deal wasn't removed entirely. Johnson could play political games leading to a change of polling day and there is a trap door of a no deal at the end of 2020, during the future negotiations.

What was expected to pass was a one line bill tabled today by the SNP and Lib Dems, requiring a majority of one and a fixed poling date of 9th of December. If Johnson had accepted this he would have secured his election today. But he rejected this offer and decided to play games again and is apparently going to bring an equivalent one line bill tomorrow of their own. Presumably there will be some wheeze hidden in there which won't be acceptable to the SNP, or Lib Dems. They want cast iron guarantees of the poling date and no no deal.

So let's see if they get an election tomorrow, I'm not holding my breath.

Interestingly, if Johnson goes for the SNP, Lib Dem deal today, he may be endorsing a second Scottish referendum.

Just in, we have a Cummings plan to table an equivalent bill to this tomorrow.

I think they'll be playing twister in the house this afternoon. Will Johnson fall into the ditch, or will it be papered over, I wonder.

The problem was the introduction of a referendum, with a close to 50/50 result, demanding close on half the population undergo a forced change of circumstances against their will. Whereby, if the half of the population who were in favour of the change would if the reverse happened be forced to continue with the status quo, or in other words no change in their circumstances.

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

I agree it won't all be sorted for years yet, and there will certainly be an outcry against the continuing payments the UK has to make in the transition period. Indeed I've just read the UK will lose its rebate, so we'll be paying more than whilst in, still be subject to EU laws, and with no say! But once the withdrawal deal is passed it becomes a matter of when rather than if. I can't see support for another referendum doing anything but reducing from here as even hardened remainers start to accept the inevitable - assuming, that is, Boris wins the election..

There won't just be an outcry about payments,( I noticed Farage was going on about this today) people will begin to understand the implications of the deal as the government won't be able to hide them from their supporters anymore. For example the customs arrangements, complexity and a blizzard of red tape on the border between the mainland and NI, Remember 80% of trade in NI is with the mainland. Not to mention the demands for a independence referendum from Scotland. Also Michel Barnier has said now that the new future agreement will take a minimum of 3 years to finalise. So the transition period will stretch out into the distance and given the incompetence of the government, it could last a decade. The ECJ will have jurisdiction over EU nationals for 8 years. I'll stop there (for it is a long list), because the people who Johnson and the press have duped are not concerned with what happens next, as far as they are concerned the goal is getting Brexit done. But remember, it won't be done, not for a number of years. So outcry again.

It's interesting, if they have adopted this mindset, that the goal is simply to get it done. It doesn't matter what it is. They are happy to buy the shiny car without looking under the bonnet. The car sold to them by populist decievers, but they can't look under the bonnet, because it doesn't matter if the engine doesn't work, because all that matters is to buy it. Once it's bought it doesn't matter if it is a wreck, because they have got it done. The brainwashing is complete. For others they are looking forward to unicorns appearing over the horizon, while trying not to think what they are throwing away, those pesky Europeans.

If Johnson wins an election, ( a majority, because no one would go into coalition with such a divisive regime), then hardened remainers may accept the inevitable, because it would be reality. But I doubt they would adopt that stance until such a majority were secured. I wonder if hard brexiters would accept it if the decision were reversed, or we had a soft Brexit, somehow I doubt it. Because they would have to admit that they played a part in such a charade.

The withdrawal bill won't be passed before an election, as I said in my previous post, there isn't a majority for Johnson's deal amendments or not. So his offer tonight for a two week window to scrutinise the deal, if an election is agreed for 12 of December is playground games.

Yes, I know about the problem with amendments, a gift for the opposition. I expect they will be saying let's get Brexit done now while the government wants to waste time with an election.

Regarding the public, there are a lot of voters who think that "getting it done", means it will all be sorted. This is one of the worst deceits of the government, they know it won't be done, we will have another decade of it. There certainly won't be any certainty. The only way to stop it is to revoke, support for a people's vote may be increasing now, it's difficult to read though along with anything else at the moment.

Today Downing Street has got its knickers in a twist (which was going to happen when the thing we had to get done was described). No wonder Johnson wanted the whole bill bounced through in three days.

Two cabinet ministers have contradicted themselves in the House of Commons, regarding customs checks between NI and Britain. This has erupted into a political storm in the commons.

No10 is splitting today, the're like cats in a sack.

Oh, also Farage is kicking up a stink, the deep split between a sensible deal and no deal is yawning.

You will find by morning that there are a significant number of leading Tory's who are skeptical about whether they should go for a snap election. Cummings and Johnson are gunning for one, but there are a lot of Tory's near the top of their party who have had to hold their noses to go along with the stench coming out of No10 already. Some don't want an election now and others want to try and pass the bill anyway, allowing more time.

I agree with your view about Corbyn.

Either side can't decide whether to have an election at all at the moment. If we get one it is going to be chaotic and who knows what the results will be.

I'm hoping the British public will see through the lies, bullying and destructive behaviour of our government and throw them out. They are doing to much damage

I expect an election in the new year. But really I don't think we can predict what is going to happen next. It's chaos, a mess which has in part been generated by the scaremongering and fake news peddled by rags like the Daily Express, over the last 30 years.

Interestingly Peter Oborne has said today that the mainstream media has now become a sound board for the No10 leak and comment factory. "A source in Downing Street" has been manipulating the media in the knowledge that many widely followed reporters working for the BBC for example simply repeat it, without challenging, or questioning the information. He should know he was a political commentator for the Telegraph, a staunch leaver who had the courage to admit his mistake and now talks of how the whole referendum and leave ideology was a tragic mistake.

Are you confident that the British public won't eventually see through this smoke and mirrors and doublethink of the vote leave campaign and now the government.

Another example of the behaviour has emerged today, Corbyn and Johnson met today to discuss a sensible compromise on how long to allow for scrutiny of the bill. After the niceties, Corbyn brought up the issue which the meeting was supposed to be about, the timetable for debate of the bill and apparently Cummings slammed his hand down on the table and shouted no, it's not going to be discussed, or something like that. After which Johnson tried to paper over the cracks. Somehow I don't think the meeting went very well.

Penny for the guy.

But we don't know god. From our point of view now, God is not known. He is in hiding. We don't know what he is like, what he wants, what he wants of us. All these are matters of faith.

Can god be known? Yes, but only if he exists. And we have no clue if he exists or not.

I would agree with this, although I don't think you can say we don't know God, that is a presumption. Also, any rational analysis cannot include faith as evidence in itself.

Let's settle with "most likely I am different from what I think I am", although in exceptionally rare cases, a person can be precisely what or who he thinks he is.

I agree, but what I was talking about when I began to contribute to this thread was something else entirely. No disrespect to yourself or the other posters, but I have to point that logic, thinking in a reasoned way, cannot answer the questions about God/s, it cannot even address the issue other than in the form of a commentary, or social/cultural analysis of things that other people have reasoned. Don't get me wrong I am aware of the value of logic in the human world*, but this thread is not asking about the human world, but about god/s.

Likewise with science, in a sense, science is blind, it only provides information about what it has discovered and any other knowledge derived from science is human reasoning again.

So all this logic and reasoning is irrelevant in the question addressed in th OP, or if otherwise, the OP is mistaken in making that suggestion.

In reality the only way this question can be addressed is through a science of self, of which there is a large body of work.

I can elaborate if anyone would like, but you can't just dismiss these realities.

*by "world" I am referring to the conscious world of humanity, in which the thinking of people resides.

so it's now a matter of the time it takes to go into law.

I agree with you apart from this one point. It is probably a Pyrrhic victory, for two reasons, one the Letwin amendment withholds approval until the whole bill has been amended and agreed. So it has not actually been approved. Secondly there isn't a majority for the deal in its current form, the support he was given tonight by the Labour rebels was due to their wanting to add a number of amendments which would make it a softer Brexit. The problem being, if this happens Johnson's support will fall away from the ERG. So he is swapping one group of votes for another, but still does not a have a majority for either incarnation of his deal.

In the meantime he has now gone to the EU and asked for an extension, rather than die in a ditch and he has missed his do or die deadline of the 31st of October. Although I'm not sure how important these issues are at the moment.

if the programme motion falls, the government has little chance of “getting Brexit done”, as Johnson calls it, by 31 October

Yes he has now threatened that he will pull the bill if that doesn't pass. He is like a petulant child throwing his toys out of the pram. Corbyn pointed out that bringing the bill in this way shows contempt for parliament, which is correct. Johnson is lining up for the people against parliament and trying to get his general election ( which he apparently doesn't want).

Interestingly the threat to pull the bill emanated from No10 during the PM's speech in parliament introducing the bill. He hadn't mentioned it and then did later on. Presumably when someone had told him about it during his speech. Proving that Cummings is pulling the strings.

I think you are rather generous about the thinking of the members of the ERG. I agree that the majority view amongst them is that a deal is preferable to no deal, but only a hard deal with a minimum divergence equivalent to a Canada trade deal. But more important than this distinction for them is to secure leaving. They are terrified that moderate (read sensible) Tory's will water down, or lose the prize of leaving, or Parliament will somehow cancel Brexit. Also they might be of the opinion that they might have to secure a no deal Brexit to both secure leaving and save the Tory party. This is because they might only be able to achieve this by whipping up nationalist civil unrest, during an election campaign. Such a campaign is likely to split the party and the leave vote, as I've already explained.

Also I think you are being less than generous to the EU about the negotiations over a trade deal. They have behaved impeccably throughout the process and all the nonsense and delay is on the side of the government. They certainly would'nt be playing games to get a few more membership payments. Also I disagree with any suggestion that the EU is delaying or something in the hope that a more moderate government gets into power in the UK.