#politicslive

[Lancasterclaret]

Oh, I'm happy to disagree as well mate, absolutely no bother with that at all.

I just think its fanciful to think that if we get to the stage of a 2nd vote (and I still don't think we will if the MPs can find a solution (the Boles amendment looks ok for example) that remain is not on the ballot and that that is somehow against democracy.

[Darthlaw]

How?

To undermine the negotiations. The EU don't want us to leave, it hurts their pockets. The longer the argument to revoke brexit is entertained, the stronger their position becomes.

[Espia]

That makes no sense

A 2nd referendum if won by leave would result in us leaving.

A 2nd referendum if won by remain would result in us staying.

(this to espia btw)

I'm confused. Do you believe in referendum results unconditionally , or conditionally ?

You seem to believe in them conditionally if they don't go your way. ie. you argue that it should be re-voted on because there is more information available now.

But, conversely, you then believe in enacting the result unconditionally if there were a 2nd referendum. ie. regardless of what further information we have after the 2 year transition deal.

What if we don't like what they come up with regards trade, fishing, agriculture, movement of people, gibralter, et al. during the transition ? Why aren't you advocating a 3rd referendum when all that information is revealed ?

[Lancasterclaret]

Because you need to read what I have posted.

A 2nd ref is a last resort after all the democratic options have been exhausted. We cannot leave with a "No Deal" as we would be damaging the country beyond repair.

It does depend on whether you accept the premise that a "No Deal" and leaving without one is what the people voted for in 2016.

I don't, Darth does (apologies if you don't), you probably do.

Crucially, the majority of MPs (about 5 to 1) do as well.

So in theory the 2nd vote should never happen as parliament takes control to ensure a deal.

[aggi]

To undermine the negotiations. The EU don't want us to leave, it hurts their pockets. The longer the argument to revoke brexit is entertained, the stronger their position becomes.

How exactly did it undermine the negotiations? Do you think the EU would have assumed that a 52:48 victory showed the country was unanimous in wanting to leave the EU otherwise?

[martin_p]

To undermine the negotiations. The EU don't want us to leave, it hurts their pockets. The longer the argument to revoke brexit is entertained, the stronger their position becomes.

I'll tell you what has undermined negotiations, Theresa May calling a general election when she didn't need to, then losing her majority which allowed to ERG to dictate their terms on red lines they probably knew meant that a deal was un-negotiable (hoping it would lead to a no deal Brexit).

[nil_desperandum]

To undermine the negotiations. The EU don't want us to leave, it hurts their pockets. The longer the argument to revoke brexit is entertained, the stronger their position becomes.

Their position remains unchanged and will continue to be so. It's impossible for them to offer us a better deal by leaving than the one we have if we remain. It's always struck me as amazing that posters who normally come across really well, (like yourself) can't see that. It's been the biggest flaw in leavers thinking all along, although to be fair you were misled by the likes, of Davis, Redwood and Fox who kept claiming that we held all the cards and it would be the easiest deal ever! (They're not saying that now by the way, and Fox even supported May's hopeless deal.)
I can fully accept that you have a different view on brexit, and a good deal of what you say is valid, (though open to debate), but how can you possibly believe that the EU have anything to negotiate with that would undermine its very existence.
We leave and they give us a better deal than the remaining 27, then they all make moves to leave.
It's May's red lines that have been their ace from day one, because they aren't open to negotiation on these points, and yet they have known from day one that - despite her platitudes - she's never had a majority for leaving with no deal.

[Mala591]

BUT, we are where we are and so our politicians need to agree on a Brexit solution which is least damaging economically but still allows the UK to have an independent migration policy.

[AndrewJB]

The four leave options now appear to be:

1. May's option
2. A Norway style option
3. A Canada style option
4. A no deal option

Our MPs must now decide which option they will support (secret ballot) and then that should become the basis of our future negotiating strategy.

I can't see any of those getting majority support in parliament. At some point May is going to have to go back to the people for direction. She won't risk a general election, because Labour are likely to win, so it'll be a referendum.

The no confidence vote tonight is an opportunity for opposition MPs to throw excrement at the prime minister and her record in office. An up to date version of putting her in the stocks.

[Darthlaw]

How exactly did it undermine the negotiations? Do you think the EU would have assumed that a 52:48 victory showed the country was unanimous in wanting to leave the EU otherwise?

I think the EU assumed once the result of the referendum was in, it would be enacted. Lets have a look how it played out:

UK - We want to change things or Leave the EU

EU - We want you to stay but we're not prepared to change anything. In fact, we'll punish you unless you stay.

UK - OK, we'll have a chat amongst ourselves.
(Referendum)
UK - The result is that we want to leave. (background noise: They're gonna give us a bad deal, this is a disaster, we really should stay)

EU - Really? We'd rather you didn't as it will hurt us. You should listen to your friend. Ah well, lets get on with negotiating then.

UK - These are the things we want, otherwise we'll walk away

EU - We can't give you that, we need to compromise.

(shout from behind UK "we won't walk away, the UK is bluffing")

EU - What was that? You won't walk away, no matter what?

UK - Yes we will walk away!

(noise behind: "no we won't. We might even stay if the deal is bad enough")

EU - Huh, well in that case... here's a bad deal.

(Noise behind: See, we told you it would be a bad deal.)

[Dyched]

28EB0E90-1145-40BD-92B1-0AD55259A299.jpeg (510.16 KiB) Viewed 2133 times

[Rick_Muller]

I've not read this whole thread, but I am guessing its all about the Brexit situation.

For me, the first referendum was completely flawed because it gave 2 options:

Option 1 - To remain in the EU; for which ALL of us know what that is like (EDIT as per comment below by Mrpotatohead)

Option 2 - To leave; for which NONE of us knew what that would actually entail and even now we have no real idea, but at least we know the lies were just that and we had all sorts of promises and ideas that no one actually knew would be possible or not.

Further to that, probably as a result of complacency by Cameron (where's that tw@t now???), there was no real thought put into the 2 options above. IMO, the referendum should have had a mandatory requirement to reach 50% of the total electorate to be a result, not just 50% of those who voted. If that would have been the case, I am sure those who didn't vote because they wrongfully thought (like the Tory government) that Leave would never win, and they would have turned up and voted. I would predict that if that was the case back then, the Leave vote would not have reached anywhere near 50% of the electorate and won the referendum and we would have been 2 years down the line still in the EU and it would have all been done and dusted. If the Leave did achieve 50% of the electorate then we would have had a government who would truly have a mandate to leave the EU and the process would not have had all the issues that we have had.

So, for me in the current situation we really should take the view that the first referendum was flawed (and lets not forget that both sides broke electoral law in their campaigns) and use the knowledge that we all now have about what will and wont happen if we leave or remain (TM's deal vs Remain) and have another referendum, but the politicians really need to sort it out and have just 2 options and be clear about what is required to win (50% of the electorate). In the event of nether side winning 50% of the vote, we remain. Only that way can we truly have a result that the people can trust and go forward with.

So a referendum with Option 1 - to remain and option 2 - TM's deal with a 50% of the electorate to require a win, else the default position (the status quo as we are now) of remain should preside - its not difficult and it is the best democratic option.

[AndrewJB]

I think the EU assumed once the result of the referendum was in, it would be enacted. Lets have a look how it played out:

UK - We want to change things or Leave the EU

EU - We want you to stay but we're not prepared to change anything. In fact, we'll punish you unless you stay.

UK - OK, we'll have a chat amongst ourselves.
(Referendum)
UK - The result is that we want to leave. (background noise: They're gonna give us a bad deal, this is a disaster, we really should stay)

EU - Really? We'd rather you didn't as it will hurt us. You should listen to your friend. Ah well, lets get on with negotiating then.

UK - These are the things we want, otherwise we'll walk away

EU - We can't give you that, we need to compromise.

(shout from behind UK "we won't walk away, the UK is bluffing")

EU - What was that? You won't walk away, no matter what?

UK - Yes we will walk away!

(noise behind: "no we won't. We might even stay if the deal is bad enough")

EU - Huh, well in that case... here's a bad deal.

(Noise behind: See, we told you it would be a bad deal.)

Leave won the referendum, in spite of many people pointing out that actually leaving will be problematic. Now, rather than acknowledging this, you're blaming those who said it would be difficult.

[CombatClaret]

The four leave options now appear to be:

1. May's option
2. A Norway style option
3. A Canada style option
4. A no deal option

Our MPs must now decide which option they will support (secret ballot) and then that should become the basis of our future negotiating strategy.

There in lies the problem, many different options like these were touted by the Leave campaign pre-ref and the public voted under one banner for many different things.

[Chobulous]

I've not read this whole thread, but I am guessing its all about the Brexit situation.

For me, the first referendum was completely flawed because it gave 2 options:

Option 1 - To remain in the EU; for which ALL of us know what that is like and what it will be like

Option 2 - To leave; for which NONE of us knew what that would actually entail and even now we have no real idea, but at least we know the lies were just that and we had all sorts of promises and ideas that no one actually knew would be possible or not.

Further to that, probably as a result of complacency by Cameron (where's that tw@t now???), there was no real thought put into the 2 options above. IMO, the referendum should have had a mandatory requirement to reach 50% of the total electorate to be a result, not just 50% of those who voted. If that would have been the case, I am sure those who didn't vote because they wrongfully thought (like the Tory government) that Leave would never win, and they would have turned up and voted. I would predict that if that was the case back then, the Leave vote would not have reached anywhere near 50% of the electorate and won the referendum and we would have been 2 years down the line still in the EU and it would have all been done and dusted. If the Leave did achieve 50% of the electorate then we would have had a government who would truly have a mandate to leave the EU and the process would not have had all the issues that we have had.

So, for me in the current situation we really should take the view that the first referendum was flawed (and lets not forget that both sides broke electoral law in their campaigns) and use the knowledge that we all now have about what will and wont happen if we leave or remain (TM's deal vs Remain) and have another referendum, but the politicians really need to sort it out and have just 2 options and be clear about what is required to win (50% of the electorate). In the event of nether side winning 50% of the vote, we remain. Only that way can we truly have a result that the people can trust and go forward with.

So a referendum with Option 1 - to remain and option 2 - TM's deal with a 50% of the electorate to require a win, else the default position (the status quo as we are now) of remain should preside - its not difficult and it is the best democratic option.

That proposition is not in the least bit democratic because the bar is higher for one side than the other. In order for a leave vote to be valid according to your proposition over 50% of the total electorate have to vote leave or the result is remain. Accordingly the same doesn't apply for a remain vote because you propose that failing to achieve a 50%+ leave vote automatically results in remain. A totally skewed referendum in favour of remain in other words. Unless you are proposing that voting would be mandatory in which case how would you enforce that.

[CombatClaret]

So a referendum with Option 1 - to remain and option 2 - TM's deal with a 50% of the electorate to require a win, else the default position (the status quo as we are now) of remain should preside - its not difficult and it is the best democratic option.

Yes, in any other normal negotiation if you can't agree you go back to the status quo; your old house, job car etc.
Here if we can agree a deal we shoot ourselves in the face instead.

[dsr]

In the event of nether side winning 50% of the vote, we remain. Only that way can we truly have a result that the people can trust and go forward with.

So a referendum with Option 1 - to remain and option 2 - TM's deal with a 50% of the electorate to require a win, else the default position (the status quo as we are now) of remain should preside - its not difficult and it is the best democratic option.

That isn't the conclusion I would come to. If the question put to a referendum needs a 50% majority to change the status quo, then we ought to be starting from a status quo of not being in the EU. In the referendum to join the EEC, 44% of the electorate voted in favour; in the only referendum about EU membership, less than 35% voted in favour. If you want a 50% vote to make a change, then the verdict is Leave.

[Rick_Muller]

That isn't the conclusion I would come to. If the question put to a referendum needs a 50% majority to change the status quo, then we ought to be starting from a status quo of not being in the EU. In the referendum to join the EEC, 44% of the electorate voted in favour; in the only referendum about EU membership, less than 35% voted in favour. If you want a 50% vote to make a change, then the verdict is Leave.

But we are in the EU or am I missing something?

[Rick_Muller]

Yes, in any other normal negotiation if you can't agree you go back to the status quo; your old house, job car etc.
Here if we can agree a deal we shoot ourselves in the face instead.

I just wish those who are insisting on being dumb dont get the choice to be dumb and shoot us all in the face

[aggi]

I think the EU assumed once the result of the referendum was in, it would be enacted. Lets have a look how it played out:

UK - We want to change things or Leave the EU

EU - We want you to stay but we're not prepared to change anything. In fact, we'll punish you unless you stay.

UK - OK, we'll have a chat amongst ourselves.
(Referendum)
UK - The result is that we want to leave. (background noise: They're gonna give us a bad deal, this is a disaster, we really should stay)

EU - Really? We'd rather you didn't as it will hurt us. You should listen to your friend. Ah well, lets get on with negotiating then.

UK - These are the things we want, otherwise we'll walk away

EU - We can't give you that, we need to compromise.

(shout from behind UK "we won't walk away, the UK is bluffing")

EU - What was that? You won't walk away, no matter what?

UK - Yes we will walk away!

(noise behind: "no we won't. We might even stay if the deal is bad enough")

EU - Huh, well in that case... here's a bad deal.

(Noise behind: See, we told you it would be a bad deal.)

Ah, so if there hadn't been any protests the EU would have said, "those four freedoms which go hand in hand and are the bedrock of the EU, of course we'll split them for you". I must admit that seems a little unlikely to me.

[TVC15]

That isn't the conclusion I would come to. If the question put to a referendum needs a 50% majority to change the status quo, then we ought to be starting from a status quo of not being in the EU. In the referendum to join the EEC, 44% of the electorate voted in favour; in the only referendum about EU membership, less than 35% voted in favour. If you want a 50% vote to make a change, then the verdict is Leave.

Are you actually being serious ?
The status quo is that we are in Europe and any second referendum would be to ask whether we remain or leave.

If this is what the government decide needs to happen do you think the EU will say that we are out of Europe for 6 months and you can come back in if the vote goes that way ?....a bit like putting us in the sin bin or on remand !

[Rick_Muller]

Unless you are proposing that voting would be mandatory in which case how would you enforce that.

Yes, thats exactly what should have been in place for the first referendum, but failing that (because lets face it our politicians cant politic to save their f#cking lives) what I proposed is the truest democratic solution because to have the status quo as the default no vote covers those who dont want to use their vote for whatever reason - its like saying dont bother if you're happy with what you have, and thats what I think happened 2 years ago.

[nil_desperandum]

That proposition is not in the least bit democratic because the bar is higher for one side than the other. In order for a leave vote to be valid according to your proposition over 50% of the total electorate have to vote leave or the result is remain. Accordingly the same doesn't apply for a remain vote because you propose that failing to achieve a 50%+ leave vote automatically results in remain. A totally skewed referendum in favour of remain in other words. Unless you are proposing that voting would be mandatory in which case how would you enforce that.

In fairness though, (rightly or wrongly) more often than not a higher percentage than a simple majority is required in a vote that calls for MAJOR change at (e.g.) a shareholder's meeting. In many cases you have to prove a clear majority for change by reaching a certain pre-determined bar. (e.g. 51% of all members [not voters], or a certain percentage of the vote based on a certain percentage turnout).
But in this case Chobulous, Cameron's arrogance led him to set the bar at a simple majority, so your point is valid.

[Mrpotatohead]

I've not read this whole thread, but I am guessing its all about the Brexit situation.

For me, the first referendum was completely flawed because it gave 2 options:

Option 1 - To remain in the EU; for which ALL of us know what that is like and what it will be like

Option 2 - To leave; for which NONE of us knew what that would actually entail and even now we have no real idea, but at least we know the lies were just that and we had all sorts of promises and ideas that no one actually knew would be possible or not.

That is rubbish Rick. Unless I have misunderstood, you can't say that all of us know what the EU is like and will be like. How can you be certain of what it will be like in 5-10 years time? You can have opinions on what the EU will be like in the future but saying that you know what it will be like is just false.

[Rick_Muller]

That is rubbish Rick. Unless I have misunderstood, you can't say that all of us know what the EU is like and will be like. How can you be certain of what it will be like in 5-10 years time? You can have opinions on what the EU will be like in the future but saying that you know what it will be like is just false.

Accepted and edited to reflect (see, not that hard to change someones opinion ) - but we ALL do know what it is like as we have lived it for the last 40 odd years - and NONE of us know, or knew, what Brexit was going to look like but we do have a better view now, dont you agree?

[Lord Rothbury]

So now we are suggesting 51% of the electorate need to vote leave before we recognise the result.Is that to allow for the fact that those under 25 yrs of age were too idle to go and vote.

[Rick_Muller]

So now we are suggesting 51% of the electorate need to vote leave before we recognise the result.Is that to allow for the fact that those under 25 yrs of age were too idle to go and vote.

No, not that at all.

I am offering an opinion that if this was clearly thought out in the first place we wouldn't be in this situation now, and my opinion was that the first referendum should have had the requirement for a >50% of the electorate to win, else it's status quo.

[Burnley Ace]

Which red lines should May abandon?
1 No ECJ jurisdiction
2 No free movement
3 No ongoing financial contributions
4 no following EU trade rules
5 No custom union
6 no single market
7 no regulatory alignment

[Lord Rothbury]

So when Julie Cooper comes up against Nigel Farage ,in a straight 2 wayfight to represent Burnley as MP,Farage has to obtain 51% of the electorate to vote for him or the Status Quo remains .

[Hipper]

So a referendum with Option 1 - to remain and option 2 - TM's deal with a 50% of the electorate to require a win, else the default position (the status quo as we are now) of remain should preside - its not difficult and it is the best democratic option.

This actually means the only people who need to vote are those that want to leave. There is no point in voting 'remain'. It counts for nothing.

[Rick_Muller]

So when Julie Cooper comes up against Nigel Farage ,in a straight 2 wayfight to represent Burnley as MP,Farage has to obtain 51% of the electorate to vote for him or the Status Quo remains .

stop being purposefully obtuse on the subject, you cant compare the 2 scenarios and you know it - only idiots wont know the difference

[Rick_Muller]

This actually means the only people who need to vote are those that want to leave. There is no point in voting 'remain'. It counts for nothing.

if you like then yes, that makes perfect sense to me.

The onus should have always been on Leave to make a real case for leaving with facts (without lies and promised they cant keep) - we know that now after 2+ years of debating what it would actually mean. TM's deal is nothing like what the Leave campaign offered or promised, and those who voted for Leave are not getting what they want. Common sense should apply and the status quo should be maintained unless the majority of the electorate choose to leave, which I dont think would happen (and lets be honest it hasn't happened either!)

The analogy I have in my head (probably flawed, but all analogies are aren't they) is the electorate are the petulant child who was promised something by dad (to keep them quiet), but mum over ruled dad and decided that the child couldn't have what they wanted and they now need to choose again with a more realistic option...

"you cant have a Big Mac & a KFC & a Whopper & a Pizza; we're sat in a restaurant and the menu doesn't have those options whatever your dad said"

[Lord Rothbury]

if you like then yes, that makes perfect sense to me.

The onus should have always been on Leave to make a real case for leaving with facts (without lies and promised they cant keep) - we know that now after 2+ years of debating what it would actually mean. TM's deal is nothing like what the Leave campaign offered or promised, and those who voted for Leave are not getting what they want. Common sense should apply and the status quo should be maintained unless the majority of the electorate choose to leave, which I dont think would happen (and lets be honest it hasn't happened either!)

The analogy I have in my head (probably flawed, but all analogies are aren't they) is the electorate are the petulant child who was promised something by dad (to keep them quiet), but mum over ruled dad and decided that the child couldn't have what they wanted and they now need to choose again with a more realistic option...

"you cant have a Big Mac & a KFC & a Whopper & a Pizza; we're sat in a restaurant and the menu doesn't have those options whatever your dad said"

Family with 5 children,2 want Big Mac,1 wants KFC,1 Pizza Hut and 1 wants Burger KING.
Mum,sorry less than 50% for anyone choice Status Quo prevails it is sausage and mash as usual on Wednesday

[Lancasterclaret]

He's now switched to whiskey, crack and smack.

Too much too early mate!

[Lord Rothbury]

He's now switched to whiskey, crack and smack.

Too much too early mate!

Just trying to illustrate how ridiculous the 51% Status Quo reasoning is .

Real life example which happened in my local WMC.

There was a vote at a members meeting to remove an official of the club.There was a condition in the club rules that this required 60% of the vote to carry the motion.It was 60% of those who bothered to turn up to the meeting not 60% of the total membership.Those who stayed at home on the Sunday morning lost the chance to have their opinion heard through the vote.It is the only way it can work.

[Lord Rothbury]

Just trying to illustrate how ridiculous the 51% Status Quo reasoning is .

Real life example which happened in my local WMC.

There was a vote at a members meeting to remove an official of the club.There was a condition in the club rules that this required 60% of the vote to carry the motion.It was 60% of those who bothered to turn up to the meeting not 60% of the total membership.Those who stayed at home on the Sunday morning lost the chance to have their opinion heard through the vote.It is the only way it can work.

[Lancasterclaret]

With respect, a WMC isn't the same as a country whose economy is completely intertwined with the EU is it?

[Rick_Muller]

Family with 5 children,2 want Big Mac,1 wants KFC,1 Pizza Hut and 1 wants Burger KING.
Mum,sorry less than 50% for anyone choice Status Quo prevails it is sausage and mash as usual on Wednesday

As it should be - you can’t have it all when you have 5 kids... #BenefitSpongers

[dsr]

But we are in the EU or am I missing something?

Your rules make for a skewed and unfair vote. Doing it your way, then we can enter the EU without a vote at all, and indeed enter the EEC with only 44% of the electorate in favour, but you require 50% of the electorate to get us out again. If we had started with 50% of the electorate to go in, then fair enough demand 50% of the electorate to get us out again. But we (or at least I) don't want an electoral system designed to vastly favour one side.

[Lord Rothbury]

With respect, a WMC isn't the same as a country whose economy is completely intertwined with the EU is it?

No a WMC gives out checks to members if the make a profit not ask them to contribute more in subs to support another club down the road that is going bankrupt.

[Lancasterclaret]

Cheers for that, but lets stick to sensible comparisons eh!

Listening to the daily shitshow today suggests that after Corbyn loses tonight, the govt might move on with a bit more reality, namely towards a CU.

[martin_p]

Cheers for that, but lets stick to sensible comparisons eh!

Listening to the daily shitshow today suggests that after Corbyn loses tonight, the govt might move on with a bit more reality, namely towards a CU.

The government has just specifically ruled that out! May doesn’t want to budge an inch on her red lines, this is going nowhere fast unless there’s a parliamentary coup!

[Rick_Muller]

Your rules make for a skewed and unfair vote. Doing it your way, then we can enter the EU without a vote at all, and indeed enter the EEC with only 44% of the electorate in favour, but you require 50% of the electorate to get us out again. If we had started with 50% of the electorate to go in, then fair enough demand 50% of the electorate to get us out again. But we (or at least I) don't want an electoral system designed to vastly favour one side.

you appear to be missing the point entirely. We are in the EU. Its not 1975, its 2019. Perhaps it was a mistake back then, we have a chance to not make the same mistakes now. One thing is certain though, in 1975 there was a much larger majority on the vote 67% to 33% and the 44% you quote is much nearer 50% than the 37% in 2016 who voted to leave; and you are also forgetting that back then we were already in the EEC and it was also an in/out referendum and if my suggestion of status quo was used back then we would still be in the EU.

[Lancasterclaret]

The government has just specifically ruled that out! May doesn’t want to budge an inch on her red lines, this is going nowhere fast unless there’s a parliamentary coup!

She's ruled out "the customs union" (and lets face it, she's lied before about pretty much everything.

[nil_desperandum]

She's ruled out "the customs union" (and lets face it, she's lied before about pretty much everything.

David Gauke didn't rule it out on the Daily Politics at lunchtime, in fact he came v close to endorsing it as the next option.

[Lancasterclaret]

Thing is, only the maddest ERG supporter thinks that the EU will renegotiate in the current climate.

So we have to assume that if we want a deal, then its got to be something that passes Parliament and works either to be acceptable to the EU or different enough to justify a delay in Article 50.

[Rick_Muller]

Jonathan Pie always says what I think much better than I could ever dream to...

https://youtu.be/ae5t1CZFCU8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Quickenthetempo]

Looks like May will just run the clock down to the very end and then have another vote between her deal (with maybe a slight change) and no deal. She will bank on other MPs not wanting No deal and romp home.

Their will be no 2nd referendum in a million years.

[martin_p]

Looks like May will just run the clock down to the very end and then have another vote between her deal (with maybe a slight change) and no deal. She will bank on other MPs not wanting No deal and romp home.

Their will be no 2nd referendum in a million years.

She’s got to table something by next Monday.

[Lancasterclaret]

Got to feel for those Conservative MPs who know what they are talking about, as opposed to those who can't be arsed

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/ ... 7989779457" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;