I'd be much more inclined to listen to @Metatone2 on this than me tbh, because I've been systematically too optimistic on how things would unfold. Still, fwiw, seems to me there's still a path to stop it, it's just frighteningly narrow without much room for error.
Yeah I think if I were in Number 10 I'd be advising (1) (for fear of a backlash from Brexit Party people if there's another extension), which might in turn lead me to try to force a VONC as early as possible by (say) proroguing parliament a week or so after it returns...
@rofitz22 This kind of language ("the government is crazy") has no place in our political discourse, least of all from one of the most (deservedly) respected political commentators.
@rofitz22 Because we have a choice: either the government’s rhetoric is designed to maximise its chances of winning, or it is embarked on a project of no deal with no majority and no infrastructure midway thru or shortly before an election.
@rofitz22 The government has made a promise. They are trying to keep that promise. If they don't keep that promise they will lose the next election. You may not agree with the people who voted for Brexit or, more recently, voted for Johnson but all of this is perfectly sane.
@rofitz22 What I am saying is: there's a gap between rhetoric and policy. The gap can either be explained as political manoeuvring or self-delusion. The onus is on *you* to explain a more accurate description of the latter.
@rofitz22 The rhetoric says: Leave on 31 October. The policy is to leave on 31 October. You argue that the UK government is not ready to leave on 31 October. That's a perfectly reasonable argument. It does not, however, require the language of pathology ("crazy", "self-delusion").
@rofitz22 I understand your point. It's perfectly interesting. I am making a much simpler point and I am sorry if it isn't clear: don't call policies or politicians "crazy" or "self-delusional". The political atmosphere is getitng more and more toxic. We don't need any kind of name-calling
@rofitz22 Thank you for your time and patience during this exchange. I understand your argument. Really I do. I am sorry you don't want to acknowledge my very simple, even prosaic, point about name-calling but there are worse things in life. I wish you well.
@rofitz22 Name-calling is describing BJ or JC as traitors. The ability to say that decision-making is "crazy" is an important part of being able to analyse a policy or a strategy, be it and a GNU or a no-deal approach that falls far short of Cummings' own expressed targets.
@rofitz22 Thank you for this: This is where we disagree. The history of mental illness, going back at least to the 17th c (see Roy Porter's 'Mind-Forg'd Manacles') is full of how people have called each other mad in order to rule out their views as illegitimate. We shouldn't do this.
Indeed. Under the auspice of "not censoring" politicians it denies our ability to make full judgements. Important to be able to conclude that, e.g. Macmillan's sense of what EEC membership would mean *was* based on self-delusion about the UK's possible role in the 20th century.