Brexit.

[trueblue1234]

All parties are party first. If you think differently we'll agree to disagree and leave it there.

[LCohen]

Not really as it's all speculation. I personally don't see SF having an impact regardless. So while some non supporters may be happy to level the blame at SF. That's not SF's concern. While taking their seats will without doubt have a negative impact on their future position. On top of becoming undemocratic as you agreed.

Easy for you to say it's speculation. Less easy for SF. They seem to be warning gravely about the impact of a no deal Brexit. Maybe you think they are foolhardy, idiotic, reactionary or opportunistic but you cannot claim that they dismiss the potential impacts of no deal.

If a key vote is lost by the non participation of SF or a vote is not called because they cannot muster the numbers because of SF then it will not be a matter of speculation or indeed of opinion. Should that scenario arise then definitively SF will have the power to prevent a no deal

[LCohen]

Not really as it's all speculation. I personally don't see SF having an impact regardless. So while some non supporters may be happy to level the blame at SF. That's not SF's concern. While taking their seats will without doubt have a negative impact on their future position. On top of becoming undemocratic as you agreed.

Exactly SF think SF is more important that Brexit.

Party thinks it's voters are more important to represent than non voter shocker.

So SF supporters will be immune from the negative impacts of a no deal? Hardly credible

[LCohen]

All parties are party first. If you think differently we'll agree to disagree and leave it there.

If SF position is party over constituents them their campaign literature should say that

[trueblue1234]

All parties are party first. If you think differently we'll agree to disagree and leave it there.

If SF position is party over constituents them their campaign literature should say that

Why just SF? You think SF is the only party that would do that?

[trueblue1234]

Not really as it's all speculation. I personally don't see SF having an impact regardless. So while some non supporters may be happy to level the blame at SF. That's not SF's concern. While taking their seats will without doubt have a negative impact on their future position. On top of becoming undemocratic as you agreed.

Easy for you to say it's speculation. Less easy for SF. They seem to be warning gravely about the impact of a no deal Brexit. Maybe you think they are foolhardy, idiotic, reactionary or opportunistic but you cannot claim that they dismiss the potential impacts of no deal.

If a key vote is lost by the non participation of SF or a vote is not called because they cannot muster the numbers because of SF then it will not be a matter of speculation or indeed of opinion. Should that scenario arise then definitively SF will have the power to prevent a no deal

Firstly the speculation is regarding SF's influence not Brexit. But I'm confused around your view of democracy now? Should SF disregard the mandate they were voted in under?

[LCohen]

All parties are party first. If you think differently we'll agree to disagree and leave it there.

If SF position is party over constituents them their campaign literature should say that

Why just SF? You think SF is the only party that would do that?

I'm not claiming any party operates this way. They are your claims. Not mine

[LCohen]

Not really as it's all speculation. I personally don't see SF having an impact regardless. So while some non supporters may be happy to level the blame at SF. That's not SF's concern. While taking their seats will without doubt have a negative impact on their future position. On top of becoming undemocratic as you agreed.

Easy for you to say it's speculation. Less easy for SF. They seem to be warning gravely about the impact of a no deal Brexit. Maybe you think they are foolhardy, idiotic, reactionary or opportunistic but you cannot claim that they dismiss the potential impacts of no deal.

If a key vote is lost by the non participation of SF or a vote is not called because they cannot muster the numbers because of SF then it will not be a matter of speculation or indeed of opinion. Should that scenario arise then definitively SF will have the power to prevent a no deal

Firstly the speculation is regarding SF's influence not Brexit. But I'm confused around your view of democracy now? Should SF disregard the mandate they were voted in under?

The issue has not reached its denouement yet. So you can dismiss events yet to happen as speculation. My point is that could yet get to a key vote or an attempt at a key vote where the number are single figures.

I do not contest the fact that SF stood as an abstentionist party. To attend Parliament and vote would breach that principle and therefore be difficult for them. That is not to say they shouldn't do the difficult thing.

Not helping your constituents when you have the power to do so would surely also be difficult? Therefore decisions have to be made by republicanism.

Republicans have never claimed that murder was easy, recreational, enjoyable or done lightly. They (not I, for it is their logic) claimed they did it under a form of duress because they had to. It would be very curious if murder could be justified and participating in a vote couldn't

Curious to the point of not being believable

[armaghniac]

The issue has not reached its denouement yet. So you can dismiss events yet to happen as speculation. My point is that could yet get to a key vote or an attempt at a key vote where the number are single figures.

I do not contest the fact that SF stood as an abstentionist party. To attend Parliament and vote would breach that principle and therefore be difficult for them. That is not to say they shouldn't do the difficult thing.

Not helping your constituents when you have the power to do so would surely also be difficult? Therefore decisions have to be made by republicanism.

Republicans have never claimed that murder was easy, recreational, enjoyable or done lightly. They (not I, for it is their logic) claimed they did it under a form of duress because they had to. It would be very curious if murder could be justified and participating in a vote couldn't

Curious to the point of not being believable

I'm no admirer of SF. However, SF going to Westminster would likely do more harm than good and those calling on them to go have an agenda which is not about sorting out Brexit.

[LCohen]

The issue has not reached its denouement yet. So you can dismiss events yet to happen as speculation. My point is that could yet get to a key vote or an attempt at a key vote where the number are single figures.

I do not contest the fact that SF stood as an abstentionist party. To attend Parliament and vote would breach that principle and therefore be difficult for them. That is not to say they shouldn't do the difficult thing.

Not helping your constituents when you have the power to do so would surely also be difficult? Therefore decisions have to be made by republicanism.

Republicans have never claimed that murder was easy, recreational, enjoyable or done lightly. They (not I, for it is their logic) claimed they did it under a form of duress because they had to. It would be very curious if murder could be justified and participating in a vote couldn't

Curious to the point of not being believable

I'm no admirer of SF. However, SF going to Westminster would likely do more harm than good and those calling on them to go have an agenda which is not about sorting out Brexit.

That does not need to be guessed at though. It's too serious for guesswork.

Discussions can be had and soundings taken.

When this pans out whatever way it does people won't be satisfied with an "ah sure we didn't bother asking"  based defence. If people are on their uppers they will be even less forgiving

[trueblue1234]

Not really as it's all speculation. I personally don't see SF having an impact regardless. So while some non supporters may be happy to level the blame at SF. That's not SF's concern. While taking their seats will without doubt have a negative impact on their future position. On top of becoming undemocratic as you agreed.

Easy for you to say it's speculation. Less easy for SF. They seem to be warning gravely about the impact of a no deal Brexit. Maybe you think they are foolhardy, idiotic, reactionary or opportunistic but you cannot claim that they dismiss the potential impacts of no deal.

If a key vote is lost by the non participation of SF or a vote is not called because they cannot muster the numbers because of SF then it will not be a matter of speculation or indeed of opinion. Should that scenario arise then definitively SF will have the power to prevent a no deal

Firstly the speculation is regarding SF's influence not Brexit. But I'm confused around your view of democracy now? Should SF disregard the mandate they were voted in under?

The issue has not reached its denouement yet. So you can dismiss events yet to happen as speculation. My point is that could yet get to a key vote or an attempt at a key vote where the number are single figures.

I do not contest the fact that SF stood as an abstentionist party. To attend Parliament and vote would breach that principle and therefore be difficult for them. That is not to say they shouldn't do the difficult thing.

Not helping your constituents when you have the power to do so would surely also be difficult? Therefore decisions have to be made by republicanism.

Republicans have never claimed that murder was easy, recreational, enjoyable or done lightly. They (not I, for it is their logic) claimed they did it under a form of duress because they had to. It would be very curious if murder could be justified and participating in a vote couldn't

Curious to the point of not being believable

But SF could go against Absenteeism and still not make any difference. Where as it will without doubt make a difference to some of their current support and how they move forward. So I absolutely understand them not abandoning that policy.

[LCohen]

Not really as it's all speculation. I personally don't see SF having an impact regardless. So while some non supporters may be happy to level the blame at SF. That's not SF's concern. While taking their seats will without doubt have a negative impact on their future position. On top of becoming undemocratic as you agreed.

Easy for you to say it's speculation. Less easy for SF. They seem to be warning gravely about the impact of a no deal Brexit. Maybe you think they are foolhardy, idiotic, reactionary or opportunistic but you cannot claim that they dismiss the potential impacts of no deal.

If a key vote is lost by the non participation of SF or a vote is not called because they cannot muster the numbers because of SF then it will not be a matter of speculation or indeed of opinion. Should that scenario arise then definitively SF will have the power to prevent a no deal

Firstly the speculation is regarding SF's influence not Brexit. But I'm confused around your view of democracy now? Should SF disregard the mandate they were voted in under?

The issue has not reached its denouement yet. So you can dismiss events yet to happen as speculation. My point is that could yet get to a key vote or an attempt at a key vote where the number are single figures.

I do not contest the fact that SF stood as an abstentionist party. To attend Parliament and vote would breach that principle and therefore be difficult for them. That is not to say they shouldn't do the difficult thing.

Not helping your constituents when you have the power to do so would surely also be difficult? Therefore decisions have to be made by republicanism.

Republicans have never claimed that murder was easy, recreational, enjoyable or done lightly. They (not I, for it is their logic) claimed they did it under a form of duress because they had to. It would be very curious if murder could be justified and participating in a vote couldn't

Curious to the point of not being believable

But SF could go against Absenteeism and still not make any difference. Where as it will without doubt make a difference to some of their current support and how they move forward. So I absolutely understand them not abandoning that policy.

There were allegations of being obtuse floating around earlier. Maybe they need to be revived??

You entirely miss the point. Presumably you are doing this deliberately and consciously rather some intellectual frailty.

SF do face calls to end abstentionism. These predate Brexit and the threat of No Deal. The current calls are specific to Brexit and No Deal. They are part of a multi-party response to an imminent threat. Talks are ongoing between parties to coordinate the response. SF can be part of that coordination. They will know in advance if their votes will prove critical. This has been pointed out time and time again so your line of argument is devoid of any merit. Any

[trueblue1234]

Not really as it's all speculation. I personally don't see SF having an impact regardless. So while some non supporters may be happy to level the blame at SF. That's not SF's concern. While taking their seats will without doubt have a negative impact on their future position. On top of becoming undemocratic as you agreed.

Easy for you to say it's speculation. Less easy for SF. They seem to be warning gravely about the impact of a no deal Brexit. Maybe you think they are foolhardy, idiotic, reactionary or opportunistic but you cannot claim that they dismiss the potential impacts of no deal.

If a key vote is lost by the non participation of SF or a vote is not called because they cannot muster the numbers because of SF then it will not be a matter of speculation or indeed of opinion. Should that scenario arise then definitively SF will have the power to prevent a no deal

Firstly the speculation is regarding SF's influence not Brexit. But I'm confused around your view of democracy now? Should SF disregard the mandate they were voted in under?

The issue has not reached its denouement yet. So you can dismiss events yet to happen as speculation. My point is that could yet get to a key vote or an attempt at a key vote where the number are single figures.

I do not contest the fact that SF stood as an abstentionist party. To attend Parliament and vote would breach that principle and therefore be difficult for them. That is not to say they shouldn't do the difficult thing.

Not helping your constituents when you have the power to do so would surely also be difficult? Therefore decisions have to be made by republicanism.

Republicans have never claimed that murder was easy, recreational, enjoyable or done lightly. They (not I, for it is their logic) claimed they did it under a form of duress because they had to. It would be very curious if murder could be justified and participating in a vote couldn't

Curious to the point of not being believable

But SF could go against Absenteeism and still not make any difference. Where as it will without doubt make a difference to some of their current support and how they move forward. So I absolutely understand them not abandoning that policy.

There were allegations of being obtuse floating around earlier. Maybe they need to be revived??

You entirely miss the point. Presumably you are doing this deliberately and consciously rather some intellectual frailty.

SF do face calls to end abstentionism. These predate Brexit and the threat of No Deal. The current calls are specific to Brexit and No Deal. They are part of a multi-party response to an imminent threat. Talks are ongoing between parties to coordinate the response. SF can be part of that coordination. They will know in advance if their votes will prove critical. This has been pointed out time and time again so your line of argument is devoid of any merit. Any

Your right. We'll leave it there. I think we both know your previous post about democracy doesn't tie in with your thoughts on SF. There's a game on that s more important.

[LCohen]

Not really as it's all speculation. I personally don't see SF having an impact regardless. So while some non supporters may be happy to level the blame at SF. That's not SF's concern. While taking their seats will without doubt have a negative impact on their future position. On top of becoming undemocratic as you agreed.

Easy for you to say it's speculation. Less easy for SF. They seem to be warning gravely about the impact of a no deal Brexit. Maybe you think they are foolhardy, idiotic, reactionary or opportunistic but you cannot claim that they dismiss the potential impacts of no deal.

If a key vote is lost by the non participation of SF or a vote is not called because they cannot muster the numbers because of SF then it will not be a matter of speculation or indeed of opinion. Should that scenario arise then definitively SF will have the power to prevent a no deal

Firstly the speculation is regarding SF's influence not Brexit. But I'm confused around your view of democracy now? Should SF disregard the mandate they were voted in under?

The issue has not reached its denouement yet. So you can dismiss events yet to happen as speculation. My point is that could yet get to a key vote or an attempt at a key vote where the number are single figures.

I do not contest the fact that SF stood as an abstentionist party. To attend Parliament and vote would breach that principle and therefore be difficult for them. That is not to say they shouldn't do the difficult thing.

Not helping your constituents when you have the power to do so would surely also be difficult? Therefore decisions have to be made by republicanism.

Republicans have never claimed that murder was easy, recreational, enjoyable or done lightly. They (not I, for it is their logic) claimed they did it under a form of duress because they had to. It would be very curious if murder could be justified and participating in a vote couldn't

Curious to the point of not being believable

But SF could go against Absenteeism and still not make any difference. Where as it will without doubt make a difference to some of their current support and how they move forward. So I absolutely understand them not abandoning that policy.

There were allegations of being obtuse floating around earlier. Maybe they need to be revived??

You entirely miss the point. Presumably you are doing this deliberately and consciously rather some intellectual frailty.

SF do face calls to end abstentionism. These predate Brexit and the threat of No Deal. The current calls are specific to Brexit and No Deal. They are part of a multi-party response to an imminent threat. Talks are ongoing between parties to coordinate the response. SF can be part of that coordination. They will know in advance if their votes will prove critical. This has been pointed out time and time again so your line of argument is devoid of any merit. Any

Your right. We'll leave it there. I think we both know your previous post about democracy doesn't tie in with your thoughts on SF. There's a game on that s more important.

I'm glad you admit that you argument is without merit.

I've no problem that going against abstentionism is difficult for republicanism. But does not absolve them from making a difficult decision. The logic of having to do things that you don't like is central to republicanism. They can't just ignore their own logic now.

[trueblue1234]

Not really as it's all speculation. I personally don't see SF having an impact regardless. So while some non supporters may be happy to level the blame at SF. That's not SF's concern. While taking their seats will without doubt have a negative impact on their future position. On top of becoming undemocratic as you agreed.

Easy for you to say it's speculation. Less easy for SF. They seem to be warning gravely about the impact of a no deal Brexit. Maybe you think they are foolhardy, idiotic, reactionary or opportunistic but you cannot claim that they dismiss the potential impacts of no deal.

If a key vote is lost by the non participation of SF or a vote is not called because they cannot muster the numbers because of SF then it will not be a matter of speculation or indeed of opinion. Should that scenario arise then definitively SF will have the power to prevent a no deal

Firstly the speculation is regarding SF's influence not Brexit. But I'm confused around your view of democracy now? Should SF disregard the mandate they were voted in under?

The issue has not reached its denouement yet. So you can dismiss events yet to happen as speculation. My point is that could yet get to a key vote or an attempt at a key vote where the number are single figures.

I do not contest the fact that SF stood as an abstentionist party. To attend Parliament and vote would breach that principle and therefore be difficult for them. That is not to say they shouldn't do the difficult thing.

Not helping your constituents when you have the power to do so would surely also be difficult? Therefore decisions have to be made by republicanism.

Republicans have never claimed that murder was easy, recreational, enjoyable or done lightly. They (not I, for it is their logic) claimed they did it under a form of duress because they had to. It would be very curious if murder could be justified and participating in a vote couldn't

Curious to the point of not being believable

But SF could go against Absenteeism and still not make any difference. Where as it will without doubt make a difference to some of their current support and how they move forward. So I absolutely understand them not abandoning that policy.

There were allegations of being obtuse floating around earlier. Maybe they need to be revived??

You entirely miss the point. Presumably you are doing this deliberately and consciously rather some intellectual frailty.

SF do face calls to end abstentionism. These predate Brexit and the threat of No Deal. The current calls are specific to Brexit and No Deal. They are part of a multi-party response to an imminent threat. Talks are ongoing between parties to coordinate the response. SF can be part of that coordination. They will know in advance if their votes will prove critical. This has been pointed out time and time again so your line of argument is devoid of any merit. Any

Your right. We'll leave it there. I think we both know your previous post about democracy doesn't tie in with your thoughts on SF. There's a game on that s more important.

I'm glad you admit that you argument is without merit.

I've no problem that going against abstentionism is difficult for republicanism. But does not absolve them from making a difficult decision. The logic of having to do things that you don't like is central to republicanism. They can't just ignore their own logic now.

Not without merit. I just couldn't square your logic. I think you were showing double standards with regards SF. I'm glad you accept that now.