Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Tory MPs shouldn’t bottle it this time – send the letters in – politicalbetting.com

123468

Comments

  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 6,763
    Pulpstar said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Head of UN World Food Programme confirms talks are underway to secure sea and rail corridors for grain exports out of Ukraine, as Harpoon anti-ship missiles are on their way from Denmark.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/05/23/millions-marching-starvation-putin-unleashes-global-food-catastrophe/
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10847419/Royal-Navy-escort-ships-carrying-Ukrainian-grain-Black-Sea.html

    How much use will sea corridors be unless somebody provides Ukraine with mine sweeping vessels and equipment?
    It sounds like the plan is for an international naval fleet, flying UN flags, sweeping the area and keeping the corridor open, backed by land-based anti-ship weapons in Odesa. It sounds plausible, but no doubt the Russians will see it as provocative. The alternative is a global grain shortage this summer.
    It would sound plausible if anybody in the Biden administration had said it. It doesn't sound plausible when it's just the Lithuanian Foreign Minister and Fizzy Lizzy saying it.

    Throughout this whole year 'Fizzy Lizzy' has been saying things which people have mocked here as Liz jockeying for position until Biden has then said it a few days later.

    Its quite clear that the communications between the Oval Office and Whitehall are as close as they have ever been and the Americans are quite happy to have 'Fizzy Lizzy' kite-flying in saying things first before Biden confirms it.
    Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (Gen. Miley), today: "Right now we don’t have any naval assets on the Black Sea, we don’t intend to."

    https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2022/05/23/ukraine-to-get-harpoon-anti-ship-missiles-from-denmark-amid-russian-black-sea-blockade/

    That's the end of that.
    One thing to note on the narrative - mines... seem to be more of a defensive weapon than assault to me. It's not the Russians that are strategically defending Odessa. The Russian Navy (Even with the Moskva sinking) still outmatches Ukraine's navy. So the side I'd expect to use (more) sea mines is Ukraine.
    Have I missed something ?
    Russia is blockading Odessa. Mines are part of that
  • Pulpstar said:

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Does anyone give a fuck any more?

    I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed

    And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash

    Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24

    Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
    Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so

    The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it

    God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.

    It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit

    And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical

    The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum


    In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
    Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.

    And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far :smile: )

    You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
    Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”

    There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
    Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.

    I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).

    Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
    Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it

    He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it

    And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
    You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.

    And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.

    Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
    In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer

    Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015

    'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'

    Cameron goes on to say this:

    'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'


    That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
    In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.

    Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.

    To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
    I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.

    Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.

    It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.

    So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
    It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
    Why? Advisory is advisory. Cameron's government didn't even need to hold the referendum if a majority of MPs were willing to vote for a bill to withdraw from the EU. Parliament already had the power.
    Technically advisory, but in reality mandatory: the people are the boss of Parliament, not the other way round.
    Yep. So politically mandatory on the 2015 parliament.

    Then we had an election. Where the 2017 parliament is not bound by anything from any previous parliament. As demonstrated by this parliament now torching its own 2 year old manifesto pledge laws.

    The concept of "politically mandatory" ceased to have any meaning once the government announced it would pass laws to abolish its own laws implemented to enact the central manifesto pledge of the oven-ready deal.
    You're misremembering -
    Labour never ran the 2017 election on any sort of remain platform. Elected Labour MPs did a bait & switch which is why they got absolubtely walloped in places like Bassetlaw in 2019.

    No good has come of Brexit so far as I can tell, but it was voted for - it would have been unconscionable to remain in the EU.
    Remain MPs should have accepted May's deal. It was the best (From a remain perspective) they were ever going to achieve.
    As a Leaver all I can say is thank f**k they didn't and they shafted themselves.

    Surely the greatest own goal since Chris Brass booted his own clearance into his own face, breaking his own nose, from which it then rebounded into the net.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Does anyone give a fuck any more?

    I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed

    And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash

    Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24

    Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
    Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so

    The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it

    God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.

    It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit

    And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical

    The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum


    In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
    Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.

    And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far :smile: )

    You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
    Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”

    There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
    Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.

    I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).

    Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
    Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it

    He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it

    And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
    You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.

    And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.

    Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
    In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer

    Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015

    'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'

    Cameron goes on to say this:

    'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'


    That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
    In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.

    Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.

    To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
    I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.

    Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.

    It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.

    So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
    It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
    Why? Advisory is advisory. Cameron's government didn't even need to hold the referendum if a majority of MPs were willing to vote for a bill to withdraw from the EU. Parliament already had the power.
    Technically advisory, but in reality mandatory: the people are the boss of Parliament, not the other way round.
    Yep. So politically mandatory on the 2015 parliament.

    Then we had an election. Where the 2017 parliament is not bound by anything from any previous parliament. As demonstrated by this parliament now torching its own 2 year old manifesto pledge laws.

    The concept of "politically mandatory" ceased to have any meaning once the government announced it would pass laws to abolish its own laws implemented to enact the central manifesto pledge of the oven-ready deal.
    I simultaneously both agree and disagree with Leon here.

    Yes anyone elected on a pledge to reverse the referendum is legitimate. That is right.

    The problem with Starmer, Grieve etc is they weren't. They were elected on a pledge of honouring the referendum in 2017, so they were not just going against the referendum, they were also going against their own election materials and manifesto in 2017.

    In 2019 Grieve and Starmer etc stood on a manifesto of seeking to reverse the referendum unlike two years earlier, had they won that election then fair enough, but they didn't and indeed they quite emphatically didn't so the rest is history.
    Indeed. Now lets take that same theme and rationale and look at this parliament. The 2019 election was won on a Tory manifesto to implement the deal. In the introduction Boris Johnson said this:

    "With a new Parliament and a sensible majority Government, we can get that deal through in days. It is oven-ready and every single Conservative MP elected at this election, all 365 of them, have pledged to vote for this deal immediately." https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan/introduction-from-boris-johnson

    They did vote for it, and it became law. Now we are about to get legislation to overturn the heart of this deal. Set aside for a minute your personal support for said overturning and go back to the theme you raised, where MPs are elected on a pledge to deliver their programme.

    Parliament is so sovereign that it doesn't even have to wait until the next one to overturn bad laws, even if those were manifesto pledges that secured a whopping majority to secure it into law.

    Overturning the oven-ready deal directly contradicts what these MPs pledged to do. Which as you say is a problem politically. And yet the same people who attack Grieve et al for their actions in the 2017 parliament are very likely to cheer on Matt Vickers et al for overturning the main thing they ran on.

    So, your principled theme raised I accept - if it is evenly applied at all times. As it is not, I have to point this out. People's outrage at MPs doing the opposite of what they voted for is only a problem if they don't like those actions, but is fine if they do. Which means it isn't a principle at all.
    The bit in bold is exactly why this is entirely different to second referendumers like SKS.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,013
    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Does anyone give a fuck any more?

    I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed

    And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash

    Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24

    Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
    Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so

    The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it

    God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.

    It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit

    And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical

    The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum


    In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
    Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.

    And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far :smile: )

    You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
    Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”

    There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
    Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.

    I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).

    Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
    Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it

    He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it

    And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
    You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.

    And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.

    Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
    In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer

    Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015

    'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'

    Cameron goes on to say this:

    'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'


    That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
    In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.

    Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.

    To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
    I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.

    Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.

    It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.

    So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
    It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
    Why? Advisory is advisory. Cameron's government didn't even need to hold the referendum if a majority of MPs were willing to vote for a bill to withdraw from the EU. Parliament already had the power.
    Technically advisory, but in reality mandatory: the people are the boss of Parliament, not the other way round.
    Yep. So politically mandatory on the 2015 parliament.

    Then we had an election. Where the 2017 parliament is not bound by anything from any previous parliament. As demonstrated by this parliament now torching its own 2 year old manifesto pledge laws.

    The concept of "politically mandatory" ceased to have any meaning once the government announced it would pass laws to abolish its own laws implemented to enact the central manifesto pledge of the oven-ready deal.
    A multi-party multi-isuue general election can't overturn a binary single-issue referendum - certainly not one which returned the biggest democratic vote in British history. And definitely not when both main parties were committed at the election to implementing the referendum result (even if SKS and Corbyn u-turned on their pledge PDQ).
    Yes it can. This government is now overturning its own mega election winning
    Election winning. Not referendum winning. So this doesn't disprove my point.
    Disprove? I'm not debating the supremacy of referendum vs election (btw its NOT a referendum, ask any constitutional expert...). I am pointing out that if the principle is "the will of the people must be enacted" then this government cannot legislate to overturn chunks of the oven-ready deal it was explicitly elected to enact. Get Brexit Done remember?
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Does anyone give a fuck any more?

    I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed

    And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash

    Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24

    Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
    Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so

    The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it

    God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.

    It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit

    And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical

    The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum


    In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
    Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.

    And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far :smile: )

    You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
    Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”

    There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
    Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.

    I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).

    Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
    Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it

    He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it

    And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
    You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.

    And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.

    Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
    In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer

    Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015

    'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'

    Cameron goes on to say this:

    'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'


    That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
    In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.

    Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.

    To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
    I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.

    Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.

    It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.

    So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
    It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
    Why? Advisory is advisory. Cameron's government didn't even need to hold the referendum if a majority of MPs were willing to vote for a bill to withdraw from the EU. Parliament already had the power.
    Technically advisory, but in reality mandatory: the people are the boss of Parliament, not the other way round.
    Yep. So politically mandatory on the 2015 parliament.

    Then we had an election. Where the 2017 parliament is not bound by anything from any previous parliament. As demonstrated by this parliament now torching its own 2 year old manifesto pledge laws.

    The concept of "politically mandatory" ceased to have any meaning once the government announced it would pass laws to abolish its own laws implemented to enact the central manifesto pledge of the oven-ready deal.
    A multi-party multi-isuue general election can't overturn a binary single-issue referendum - certainly not one which returned the biggest democratic vote in British history. And definitely not when both main parties were committed at the election to implementing the referendum result (even if SKS and Corbyn u-turned on their pledge PDQ).
    Yes it can. This government is now overturning its own mega election winning
    Election winning. Not referendum winning. So this doesn't disprove my point.
    Disprove? I'm not debating the supremacy of referendum vs election (btw its NOT a referendum, ask any constitutional expert...). I am pointing out that if the principle is "the will of the people must be enacted" then this government cannot legislate to overturn chunks of the oven-ready deal it was explicitly elected to enact. Get Brexit Done remember?
    The referendum wasn't a referendum? That's a particularly bizarre argument even by the standards of this topic.

    And you're mischaracterising the principle, but I know you know that, so I'm going to stop wasting time and electrons.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    Pulpstar said:

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Does anyone give a fuck any more?

    I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed

    And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash

    Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24

    Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
    Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so

    The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it

    God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.

    It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit

    And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical

    The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum


    In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
    Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.

    And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far :smile: )

    You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
    Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”

    There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
    Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.

    I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).

    Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
    Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it

    He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it

    And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
    You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.

    And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.

    Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
    In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer

    Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015

    'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'

    Cameron goes on to say this:

    'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'


    That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
    In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.

    Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.

    To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
    I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.

    Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.

    It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.

    So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
    It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
    Why? Advisory is advisory. Cameron's government didn't even need to hold the referendum if a majority of MPs were willing to vote for a bill to withdraw from the EU. Parliament already had the power.
    Technically advisory, but in reality mandatory: the people are the boss of Parliament, not the other way round.
    Yep. So politically mandatory on the 2015 parliament.

    Then we had an election. Where the 2017 parliament is not bound by anything from any previous parliament. As demonstrated by this parliament now torching its own 2 year old manifesto pledge laws.

    The concept of "politically mandatory" ceased to have any meaning once the government announced it would pass laws to abolish its own laws implemented to enact the central manifesto pledge of the oven-ready deal.
    You're misremembering -
    Labour never ran the 2017 election on any sort of remain platform. Elected Labour MPs did a bait & switch which is why they got absolubtely walloped in places like Bassetlaw in 2019.

    No good has come of Brexit so far as I can tell, but it was voted for - it would have been unconscionable to remain in the EU.
    Remain MPs should have accepted May's deal. It was the best (From a remain perspective) they were ever going to achieve.
    "Remain MPs should have accepted May's deal".

    In one sentence you have absolved Team Johnson/ Team ERG of the fiasco that is Brexit.
    Check my posts from the time. This is not a latter day realisation. Fuck knows what the point of Brexit was, it's not something I've worked out as a remainer. The idea that we'd head for something more sensible than May's deal was for the birds though considering the makeup of the Tories. This was very simple to see.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,013

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Of course the referendum wasn't advisory. No government could have not implemented it. Cameron thought he would win so paid lip service to the details.

    That said, any flavour of "leaving the EU" would have also been legitimate eg EEA (although I have my doubts, expressed at the time, about that). Anti-immigrationers would have hated it but would that have put us in a worse place, divided nation-wise, than we are now? Probably, possibly not.

    Also, for the nth time, a second referendum would not have been undemocratic. Hugely administratively awkward, irritating, unwieldy and probably unworkable if there was one every week, but not undemocratic. No vote asking "the people" (the same people who had voted previously) to opine on something could be undemocratic.

    As for parliament "trying to frustrate democracy", parliament is democracy. They are voted there by the people to make decisions so by definition everything they did was democratic.

    Therein lies much of the problem that haunted post-Referendum politics at Westminster. Many MPs just would not accept that a Referendum, often with a higher turnout than they achieved to get elected, was in any way an equivalent - let alone dominant on a single issue - form of democracy.

    So they dicked around for four years, with their own General Election mandates giving them an authority to do so.
    The problem was the conflict between the GE and the referendum. An elected MP would legitimately say - but my constituents want X so I am not going to vote against their wishes because that's why I'm here. You say one outranked the other but that is open to debate and certainly AFAIA not written down anywhere.

    Having referendums in (our in particular) parliamentary system is problematic to say the least.

    Good article: https://consoc.org.uk/publications/tension-parliamentary-democracy-referendums/
    But there was no conflict between the referendum and any GE.

    2015 election: Majority elected on pledge to hold and respect the referendum.
    2016 referendum: Majority for leave.
    2017 election: Nearly 600 out of 650 MPs elected on pledge to respect the referendum result and implement Brexit.
    2019 election: 80 seat majority to Get Brexit Done.

    Leavers essentially had to win 4 elections or referendum and they won all 4 of them. Had any of the 4 elections or referendum turned out differently, we'd have never left.

    The conflict in 2017 was the hundreds of MPs elected promising to respect the results, but who didn't. They paid the price electorally for their deceit two years later.
    A perfect illustration of parliamentary sovereignty and our democratic system in action. We elect you to represent us, and if we dislike what you do we will remove you. Thanks to the pair of rerun elections and new PMs we didn't even have to wait the usual 4-5 years to do so. Win win.

    Which is why it is so important that the Tories not be allowed to respect the vote of the people who elected them to Get Brexit Done and pass the oven-ready deal into law. Well, they can *can* repeal chunks of it, and then face the wrath of their electorate. Because the 2019 intake like any other MPs can literally do what they like. Thats the system we voted for.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,184
    Applicant said:

    eek said:

    Applicant said:

    eek said:

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    Taz said:

    dixiedean said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    The Liz Line (opening today) sounds amazebombs

    Tottenham Court Road to Paddington in FIVE minutes

    Farringdon to Canary Wharf: ten minutes

    Heathrow to anywhere in central London: thirty minutes, 44 minutes to Canary Wharf

    Game-changer for a lot of places along the line

    More money spunked on London and the South East while the rest of the nation gets nothing.
    Au contraire.
    We get massive bus cuts.
    Rest of the country needs to stop voting Tory if they don't want that kind of thing to happen to them.
    Well New Labour gave us sweet FA too in terms of transport investment. Both HS2 and Crossrail started under their watch as well. Money lavished on the south east and London.
    Government net support for bus travel in England outside London in real terms (2020/21 prices) rose from £1.02bn in 1996/97 to £1.89bn in 2009/10. By 2019/20 it had fallen back to £1.35bn. So Tory governments = "massive bus cuts" outside of London. Yet these areas keep voting Tory.
    Data from www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/bus05-subsidies-and-concessions; BUS0502, tab BUS0502b.
    That's because most people outside London (and perhaps a few other big cities) never use buses.
    Because there aren't any busses.
    Nah. There are plenty of buses where I live. There's also a direct train from 5 minutes walk from my front door to 5 minutes walk from my wife's workplace - and it's still better to drive.
    Serious question, why is it better to drive.

    What's the train journey time and frequency of service?

    I suspect I know the answer but it's best to have it confirmed.
    2 tph in the peak but not every 30 minutes, 1 tph off-peak. Takes about 20 minutes.

    Buses are about every 5 minutes but obviously much slower, journey time up to an hour in the peak.
    Thought it would be - that's the typical story of too slow compared to driving (bus) and a too infrequent train service...
    Even if there was a train every 15 minutes it would still be better to drive. Cheaper, for one thing.
    That's a function of the way you pay for driving.

    You pay a huge upfront cost to have a car, and several large costs each year to continue to own one - but once you do that, the costs per mile are pretty low. Whereas the costs to you personally of having public transport available are very low, but the costs per mile of making a journey are high.

    If this is seen as a problem there are solutions, but they require more of a remodelling of behaviours than most people are prepared to make. (Our family wouldn't need to own two cars - what a waste of assets! - if we could be reasonably sure one would be available to use when we wanted. The cost per mile could be high, but the overall cost of motoring would still be lower - but the motivation to use non-car modes when we could, like, for 800m trips to One Stop to buy milk, would be there. We'd be better off, public transport would be more viable and therefore more plentiful and therefore more attractive, the planet would be cleaner. But we'd have to stop using the boot of the car as a shed for things-without-permanent-homes.)
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,585

    Boris’s biographer just tweeted,

    https://twitter.com/soniapurnell/status/1528784174701760512?s=21&t=BtNkKBhu4NsXR5pg5VxCTQ

    To work with Boris Johnson is to encounter something dark, sinister and totally without soul. It is a destructive experience that makes you doubt your very sanity. Sympathy therefore for the good people of Whitehall. I found that the only salvation is to tell what you've seen.

    I think I am less offended by Johnson's behaviour than the Met. Police intervening and then taking virtually no action against Johnson and no action against Case. Either by cock-up or conspiracy their action saved Johnson.

    Those who cooperated with Gray were banged to rights, those who didn't got off scott free. On what did the Met. spend their £460,000?
    You are still posting this defamatory crap about the police, but I am not aware you answered my question. Do you have evidence the police saw todays photos? Downing Street merely say the police had access to them, whilst the police silent.

    Secondly, I am not calling you out as a liar when you posted this “ I believe Starmer did technically breach the rules from the evidence I have read and will get a fixed penalty notice. The evidence is they had their meal, with a beer after work, they were not socially distanced and there were too many people at the event.” but I am asking you to share with us your evidence they had booze together after work, by how many people they were over what was clearly stated in the rules, and there was no social distancing at all as required.
    "Defamatory Crap" my arse. The establishment looks after itself, always has done.
    Where’s you’re evidence the police have Seen these photo’s before today?
    Paul Brant on ITV, who broke the story believes similar photos of the event are integral to Gray's evidence and the old bill were given everything she had.

    It's a judgement call from the detectives, they may have deduced that despite half a dozen empty bottles of wine, sparkling wine and spirits alongside spent glasses, Johnson's ministerial box jauntily flung to the floor meant he was still at work.
    You’ve made your point very clear - but what you just typed there, do you actually believe it? Alternately you can believe what the investigation lead said last week, the key determinant to each FPN issued was to be sure it was correct to issue (and not challenged and overturned) everybody in the media seemed to believe this meant was FPN by being in photograph. The point you are making in this mini discussion with me you yourself are admitting “similar photos to these” in other words “you are stonkingly right again MoonRabbit, until today the police have not seen these particular photos”.

    I don’t want to come over all Sherlock, but what alerted me to it was the haste Downing Street hit the microphones this evening to claim “the police had access to all photos”
    Moonrabbit, I am amongst other things a sad, low level masonic conspiracy theorist having been "tucked up" by a couple of Freemasons at work over two decades ago. So when I see egregious incompetence like Kenny Noye's acquittal for killing a police officer surveilling his premises because evidence was corrupted, and Noye was a Mason, or incompetent South Wales Police officers "losing" evidence to collapse the trial of the detectives who allegedly "fitted up" the men convicted in the Lynette White case, I ask the question "is Boris Johnson a Freemason"?

    Cock up or conspiracy, who knows? But even this far from Scotland Yard the investigation from beginning to end smells rank.
    Not every whitewash in this world is due to Freemasons Pete. You need to be able to separate truth from conspiracys and not use broad brushes to tar good people. You also need to acknowledge all the good work Masons do in the world - do you have less positive thoughts about George Washington on basis he was a Mason?

    I’m more confident the police when they speak will say they never saw this photo, and it’s as honest as that from their point of view.
    No they are not, and I have explained my masonic irrationality in this and other posts.

    However when a police investigation appears so irreconcilably incompetent I smell a (quite probably non existent) rat. I have no idea whether Mr Johnson is a Freemason or for that matter a Girl Guide. The positive element of him being a Girl Guide would be the notion that at least he belongs to an open and transparent organisation.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,232
    Surely all the huffing and puffing about 'cancelling' the Brexit vote is a chimera anyway, based on the assumption that Article 50 was reversible. I know the bloke who had a hand in drafting it said he thought it might be, but that's one hell of an assumption and was never tested. As far as I'm concerned Brexit was a done deal when Theresa invoked Article 50; the rest was just post-Brexit squabbling with the EU.
  • Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Does anyone give a fuck any more?

    I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed

    And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash

    Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24

    Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
    Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so

    The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it

    God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.

    It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit

    And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical

    The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum


    In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
    Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.

    And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far :smile: )

    You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
    Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”

    There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
    Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.

    I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).

    Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
    Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it

    He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it

    And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
    You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.

    And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.

    Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
    In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer

    Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015

    'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'

    Cameron goes on to say this:

    'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'


    That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
    In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.

    Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.

    To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
    I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.

    Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.

    It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.

    So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
    It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
    Why? Advisory is advisory. Cameron's government didn't even need to hold the referendum if a majority of MPs were willing to vote for a bill to withdraw from the EU. Parliament already had the power.
    Technically advisory, but in reality mandatory: the people are the boss of Parliament, not the other way round.
    Yep. So politically mandatory on the 2015 parliament.

    Then we had an election. Where the 2017 parliament is not bound by anything from any previous parliament. As demonstrated by this parliament now torching its own 2 year old manifesto pledge laws.

    The concept of "politically mandatory" ceased to have any meaning once the government announced it would pass laws to abolish its own laws implemented to enact the central manifesto pledge of the oven-ready deal.
    A multi-party multi-isuue general election can't overturn a binary single-issue referendum - certainly not one which returned the biggest democratic vote in British history. And definitely not when both main parties were committed at the election to implementing the referendum result (even if SKS and Corbyn u-turned on their pledge PDQ).
    Yes it can. This government is now overturning its own mega election winning
    Election winning. Not referendum winning. So this doesn't disprove my point.
    Disprove? I'm not debating the supremacy of referendum vs election (btw its NOT a referendum, ask any constitutional expert...). I am pointing out that if the principle is "the will of the people must be enacted" then this government cannot legislate to overturn chunks of the oven-ready deal it was explicitly elected to enact. Get Brexit Done remember?
    Of course it can. The deal was implemented, Brexit is done.

    Once something is implemented though, it isn't locked in stone forever. Evolution is generally better than revolution, so if an element of the deal isn't working then revising that can be appropriate going forwards - and since in the deal Article 15 of the deal and Article 16 of the deal make provisions for this, that's potentially entirely consistent with the deal anyway.

    Theresa May's deal was a terrible deal in my view, but if it had been ratified (which I didn't want) it would have been Brexit done too. I'd want it changed, as it was truly awful, but that's a matter for the post-Brexit future then.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,013
    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Does anyone give a fuck any more?

    I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed

    And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash

    Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24

    Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
    Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so

    The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it

    God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.

    It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit

    And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical

    The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum


    In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
    Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.

    And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far :smile: )

    You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
    Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”

    There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
    Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.

    I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).

    Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
    Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it

    He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it

    And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
    You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.

    And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.

    Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
    In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer

    Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015

    'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'

    Cameron goes on to say this:

    'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'


    That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
    In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.

    Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.

    To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
    I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.

    Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.

    It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.

    So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
    It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
    Why? Advisory is advisory. Cameron's government didn't even need to hold the referendum if a majority of MPs were willing to vote for a bill to withdraw from the EU. Parliament already had the power.
    Technically advisory, but in reality mandatory: the people are the boss of Parliament, not the other way round.
    Yep. So politically mandatory on the 2015 parliament.

    Then we had an election. Where the 2017 parliament is not bound by anything from any previous parliament. As demonstrated by this parliament now torching its own 2 year old manifesto pledge laws.

    The concept of "politically mandatory" ceased to have any meaning once the government announced it would pass laws to abolish its own laws implemented to enact the central manifesto pledge of the oven-ready deal.
    A multi-party multi-isuue general election can't overturn a binary single-issue referendum - certainly not one which returned the biggest democratic vote in British history. And definitely not when both main parties were committed at the election to implementing the referendum result (even if SKS and Corbyn u-turned on their pledge PDQ).
    Yes it can. This government is now overturning its own mega election winning
    Election winning. Not referendum winning. So this doesn't disprove my point.
    Disprove? I'm not debating the supremacy of referendum vs election (btw its NOT a referendum, ask any constitutional expert...). I am pointing out that if the principle is "the will of the people must be enacted" then this government cannot legislate to overturn chunks of the oven-ready deal it was explicitly elected to enact. Get Brexit Done remember?
    The referendum wasn't a referendum? That's a particularly bizarre argument even by the standards of this topic.

    And you're mischaracterising the principle, but I know you know that, so I'm going to stop wasting time and electrons.
    The principle is simple. We have regular elections and irregular referendums. The latter do not have primacy over the former. We can *choose* to add weight. But even if it was a legally binding one - say Scotland's devolution deal - it can be overturned at any time by any parliament referendum or not.
  • Surely all the huffing and puffing about 'cancelling' the Brexit vote is a chimera anyway, based on the assumption that Article 50 was reversible. I know the bloke who had a hand in drafting it said he thought it might be, but that's one hell of an assumption and was never tested. As far as I'm concerned Brexit was a done deal when Theresa invoked Article 50; the rest was just post-Brexit squabbling with the EU.

    It was tested. The ECJ ruled in 2018 it could be.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Does anyone give a fuck any more?

    I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed

    And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash

    Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24

    Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
    Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so

    The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it

    God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.

    It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit

    And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical

    The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum


    In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
    Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.

    And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far :smile: )

    You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
    Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”

    There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
    Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.

    I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).

    Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
    Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it

    He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it

    And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
    You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.

    And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.

    Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
    In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer

    Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015

    'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'

    Cameron goes on to say this:

    'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'


    That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
    In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.

    Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.

    To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
    I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.

    Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.

    It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.

    So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
    It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
    Why? Advisory is advisory. Cameron's government didn't even need to hold the referendum if a majority of MPs were willing to vote for a bill to withdraw from the EU. Parliament already had the power.
    Technically advisory, but in reality mandatory: the people are the boss of Parliament, not the other way round.
    Yep. So politically mandatory on the 2015 parliament.

    Then we had an election. Where the 2017 parliament is not bound by anything from any previous parliament. As demonstrated by this parliament now torching its own 2 year old manifesto pledge laws.

    The concept of "politically mandatory" ceased to have any meaning once the government announced it would pass laws to abolish its own laws implemented to enact the central manifesto pledge of the oven-ready deal.
    A multi-party multi-isuue general election can't overturn a binary single-issue referendum - certainly not one which returned the biggest democratic vote in British history. And definitely not when both main parties were committed at the election to implementing the referendum result (even if SKS and Corbyn u-turned on their pledge PDQ).
    Yes it can. This government is now overturning its own mega election winning
    Election winning. Not referendum winning. So this doesn't disprove my point.
    Disprove? I'm not debating the supremacy of referendum vs election (btw its NOT a referendum, ask any constitutional expert...). I am pointing out that if the principle is "the will of the people must be enacted" then this government cannot legislate to overturn chunks of the oven-ready deal it was explicitly elected to enact. Get Brexit Done remember?
    Of course it can. The deal was implemented, Brexit is done.

    Once something is implemented though, it isn't locked in stone forever. Evolution is generally better than revolution, so if an element of the deal isn't working then revising that can be appropriate going forwards - and since in the deal Article 15 of the deal and Article 16 of the deal make provisions for this, that's potentially entirely consistent with the deal anyway.

    Theresa May's deal was a terrible deal in my view, but if it had been ratified (which I didn't want) it would have been Brexit done too. I'd want it changed, as it was truly awful, but that's a matter for the post-Brexit future then.
    Boris said nothing is off the table to fight the cost of living crisis. Just saying.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Of course the referendum wasn't advisory. No government could have not implemented it. Cameron thought he would win so paid lip service to the details.

    That said, any flavour of "leaving the EU" would have also been legitimate eg EEA (although I have my doubts, expressed at the time, about that). Anti-immigrationers would have hated it but would that have put us in a worse place, divided nation-wise, than we are now? Probably, possibly not.

    Also, for the nth time, a second referendum would not have been undemocratic. Hugely administratively awkward, irritating, unwieldy and probably unworkable if there was one every week, but not undemocratic. No vote asking "the people" (the same people who had voted previously) to opine on something could be undemocratic.

    As for parliament "trying to frustrate democracy", parliament is democracy. They are voted there by the people to make decisions so by definition everything they did was democratic.

    Therein lies much of the problem that haunted post-Referendum politics at Westminster. Many MPs just would not accept that a Referendum, often with a higher turnout than they achieved to get elected, was in any way an equivalent - let alone dominant on a single issue - form of democracy.

    So they dicked around for four years, with their own General Election mandates giving them an authority to do so.
    The problem was the conflict between the GE and the referendum. An elected MP would legitimately say - but my constituents want X so I am not going to vote against their wishes because that's why I'm here. You say one outranked the other but that is open to debate and certainly AFAIA not written down anywhere.

    Having referendums in (our in particular) parliamentary system is problematic to say the least.

    Good article: https://consoc.org.uk/publications/tension-parliamentary-democracy-referendums/
    But there was no conflict between the referendum and any GE.

    2015 election: Majority elected on pledge to hold and respect the referendum.
    2016 referendum: Majority for leave.
    2017 election: Nearly 600 out of 650 MPs elected on pledge to respect the referendum result and implement Brexit.
    2019 election: 80 seat majority to Get Brexit Done.

    Leavers essentially had to win 4 elections or referendum and they won all 4 of them. Had any of the 4 elections or referendum turned out differently, we'd have never left.

    The conflict in 2017 was the hundreds of MPs elected promising to respect the results, but who didn't. They paid the price electorally for their deceit two years later.
    Yes, democratically. So all is well. And the MPs in parliament behaved democratically also. They disagreed about the type of Brexit, which is perfectly legitimate.

    If the 650 MPs had wanted 650 versions of Brexit that would have been perfectly democratic and all anyone would have done would be to oppose everyone else. As I said, it is indicative of the tension of a referendum within a parliamentary democracy.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,400

    Pulpstar said:

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Does anyone give a fuck any more?

    I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed

    And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash

    Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24

    Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
    Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so

    The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it

    God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.

    It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit

    And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical

    The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum


    In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
    Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.

    And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far :smile: )

    You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
    Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”

    There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
    Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.

    I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).

    Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
    Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it

    He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it

    And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
    You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.

    And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.

    Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
    In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer

    Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015

    'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'

    Cameron goes on to say this:

    'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'


    That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
    In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.

    Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.

    To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
    I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.

    Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.

    It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.

    So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
    It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
    Why? Advisory is advisory. Cameron's government didn't even need to hold the referendum if a majority of MPs were willing to vote for a bill to withdraw from the EU. Parliament already had the power.
    Technically advisory, but in reality mandatory: the people are the boss of Parliament, not the other way round.
    Yep. So politically mandatory on the 2015 parliament.

    Then we had an election. Where the 2017 parliament is not bound by anything from any previous parliament. As demonstrated by this parliament now torching its own 2 year old manifesto pledge laws.

    The concept of "politically mandatory" ceased to have any meaning once the government announced it would pass laws to abolish its own laws implemented to enact the central manifesto pledge of the oven-ready deal.
    You're misremembering -
    Labour never ran the 2017 election on any sort of remain platform. Elected Labour MPs did a bait & switch which is why they got absolubtely walloped in places like Bassetlaw in 2019.

    No good has come of Brexit so far as I can tell, but it was voted for - it would have been unconscionable to remain in the EU.
    Remain MPs should have accepted May's deal. It was the best (From a remain perspective) they were ever going to achieve.
    "Remain MPs should have accepted May's deal".

    In one sentence you have absolved Team Johnson/ Team ERG of the fiasco that is Brexit.
    It doesnt absolve them for their own actions and choices, but it would have closed off a number of options.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited May 2022
    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Of course the referendum wasn't advisory. No government could have not implemented it. Cameron thought he would win so paid lip service to the details.

    That said, any flavour of "leaving the EU" would have also been legitimate eg EEA (although I have my doubts, expressed at the time, about that). Anti-immigrationers would have hated it but would that have put us in a worse place, divided nation-wise, than we are now? Probably, possibly not.

    Also, for the nth time, a second referendum would not have been undemocratic. Hugely administratively awkward, irritatng, unwieldy and probably unworkable if there was one every week, but not undemocratic. No vote asking "the people" (the same people who had voted previously) to opine on something could be undemocratic.

    As for parliament "trying to frustrate democracy", parliament is democracy. They are voted there by the people to make decisions so by definition everything they did was democratic.

    Agitating to overturn a referendum because you don't like the answer, without even enacting the first vote - the biggest vote in British political history - is so far from democracy it disappears up the backside of Jolyon Maugham and THEN weirdly disappears up the colon of Keir Starmer, whence it appears out of his tiny mouth, in the mealy mouthed words "a people's vote!"

    The German parliament passed the Enabling Act. "Democratically". The supporters of Trump marched on the Capitol, as is their "democratic" right

    Neither of these was democratic, in essence

    We need a truth and reconciliation committee in which Remainers confess their sins before being publicly horse-whipped for 6 solid weeks, 18 hours a day, in Fitzroy Square W1, while Leavers will have to admit that the whole bus thing was *kinda stretching it*, and they aren't allowed proper coffee for 3 days

    Never say I am not balanced and fair

    A model of balance and fairness although I might quibble with some of the detail.

    Your essay question, meanwhile, is to explain how a vote by all the people can be undemocratic.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    kle4 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Does anyone give a fuck any more?

    I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed

    And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash

    Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24

    Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
    Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so

    The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it

    God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.

    It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit

    And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical

    The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum


    In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
    Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.

    And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far :smile: )

    You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
    Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”

    There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
    Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.

    I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).

    Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
    Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it

    He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it

    And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
    You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.

    And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.

    Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
    In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer

    Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015

    'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'

    Cameron goes on to say this:

    'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'


    That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
    In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.

    Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.

    To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
    I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.

    Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.

    It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.

    So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
    It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
    Why? Advisory is advisory. Cameron's government didn't even need to hold the referendum if a majority of MPs were willing to vote for a bill to withdraw from the EU. Parliament already had the power.
    Technically advisory, but in reality mandatory: the people are the boss of Parliament, not the other way round.
    Yep. So politically mandatory on the 2015 parliament.

    Then we had an election. Where the 2017 parliament is not bound by anything from any previous parliament. As demonstrated by this parliament now torching its own 2 year old manifesto pledge laws.

    The concept of "politically mandatory" ceased to have any meaning once the government announced it would pass laws to abolish its own laws implemented to enact the central manifesto pledge of the oven-ready deal.
    You're misremembering -
    Labour never ran the 2017 election on any sort of remain platform. Elected Labour MPs did a bait & switch which is why they got absolubtely walloped in places like Bassetlaw in 2019.

    No good has come of Brexit so far as I can tell, but it was voted for - it would have been unconscionable to remain in the EU.
    Remain MPs should have accepted May's deal. It was the best (From a remain perspective) they were ever going to achieve.
    "Remain MPs should have accepted May's deal".

    In one sentence you have absolved Team Johnson/ Team ERG of the fiasco that is Brexit.
    It doesnt absolve them for their own actions and choices, but it would have closed off a number of options.
    Indeed it would. Not least it would have shown the ERG to be an irrelevant box of frogs in terms of fixing the UK's future relationships with the EU rather than putting them in charge of it. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,232

    Surely all the huffing and puffing about 'cancelling' the Brexit vote is a chimera anyway, based on the assumption that Article 50 was reversible. I know the bloke who had a hand in drafting it said he thought it might be, but that's one hell of an assumption and was never tested. As far as I'm concerned Brexit was a done deal when Theresa invoked Article 50; the rest was just post-Brexit squabbling with the EU.

    It was tested. The ECJ ruled in 2018 it could be.
    Yes, you're right. I'd forgotten that. Silly Remainers then - we should have stormed Westminster and lynched Jacob Rees-Mogg as Leon suggested we were poised to.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,040

    Daniel Hewitt
    @DanielHewittITV
    ·
    16m
    NEW: Head of Ofgem says he will be writing to Rishi Sunak today to inform him the price cap is expected to be £2,800 in October, up from £1,971.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,249
    The embarrassing and ridiculous arguments from the palsied Remoaners on here that the referendum was advisory and it was fine to try and get it overturned blah blah blah fucking blah would not be so risibly and offensively stupid if ONE SINGLE REMAIN POLITICIAN had said, during the actual referendum campaign, that "oh, by the way, this vote is just advisory, we don't have to obey it and if you vote Leave we might ignore you and have a second vote, hope that's OK"

    But they didn't did they? Not one single person ever said that because it is so plainly absurd and wanky. They would have got thrown into Lake Windermere

    No one said it, because it is bollocks. Everyone agreed, at the time, with David Cameron in his speech to the entire British nation:

    'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum"

    The Leavers agreed that this was it, their one and only chance for a generation. The Remainers agreed this was it, the one and only vote - BECAUSE THEY ARROGANTLY EXPECTED TO WIN IT, EASILY

    All else is chaff. PFF
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Of course the referendum wasn't advisory. No government could have not implemented it. Cameron thought he would win so paid lip service to the details.

    That said, any flavour of "leaving the EU" would have also been legitimate eg EEA (although I have my doubts, expressed at the time, about that). Anti-immigrationers would have hated it but would that have put us in a worse place, divided nation-wise, than we are now? Probably, possibly not.

    Also, for the nth time, a second referendum would not have been undemocratic. Hugely administratively awkward, irritating, unwieldy and probably unworkable if there was one every week, but not undemocratic. No vote asking "the people" (the same people who had voted previously) to opine on something could be undemocratic.

    As for parliament "trying to frustrate democracy", parliament is democracy. They are voted there by the people to make decisions so by definition everything they did was democratic.

    Therein lies much of the problem that haunted post-Referendum politics at Westminster. Many MPs just would not accept that a Referendum, often with a higher turnout than they achieved to get elected, was in any way an equivalent - let alone dominant on a single issue - form of democracy.

    So they dicked around for four years, with their own General Election mandates giving them an authority to do so.
    The problem was the conflict between the GE and the referendum. An elected MP would legitimately say - but my constituents want X so I am not going to vote against their wishes because that's why I'm here. You say one outranked the other but that is open to debate and certainly AFAIA not written down anywhere.

    Having referendums in (our in particular) parliamentary system is problematic to say the least.

    Good article: https://consoc.org.uk/publications/tension-parliamentary-democracy-referendums/
    But there was no conflict between the referendum and any GE.

    2015 election: Majority elected on pledge to hold and respect the referendum.
    2016 referendum: Majority for leave.
    2017 election: Nearly 600 out of 650 MPs elected on pledge to respect the referendum result and implement Brexit.
    2019 election: 80 seat majority to Get Brexit Done.

    Leavers essentially had to win 4 elections or referendum and they won all 4 of them. Had any of the 4 elections or referendum turned out differently, we'd have never left.

    The conflict in 2017 was the hundreds of MPs elected promising to respect the results, but who didn't. They paid the price electorally for their deceit two years later.
    Yes, democratically. So all is well. And the MPs in parliament behaved democratically also. They disagreed about the type of Brexit, which is perfectly legitimate.

    If the 650 MPs had wanted 650 versions of Brexit that would have been perfectly democratic and all anyone would have done would be to oppose everyone else. As I said, it is indicative of the tension of a referendum within a parliamentary democracy.
    Except some duplicitous MPs like Grieve and Starmer didn't just reject a form of Brexit, they decided to reject every form of Brexit.

    MPs like Grieve and Starmer being duplicitous liars is constitutionally or democratically acceptable, but voters like Leon are within their rights to be aggrieved at MPs who are duplicitous liars. That is a universal concept, I am aggrieved at Boris for being a duplicitous liar too, so Starmer and Grieve etc aren't the only ones that applies to.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,585
    edited May 2022
    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Does anyone give a fuck any more?

    I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed

    And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash

    Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24

    Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
    Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so

    The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it

    God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.

    It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit

    And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical

    The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum


    In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
    Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.

    And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far :smile: )

    You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
    Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”

    There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
    Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.

    I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).

    Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
    Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it

    He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it

    And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
    You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.

    And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.

    Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
    In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer

    Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015

    'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'

    Cameron goes on to say this:

    'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'


    That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
    In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.

    Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.

    To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
    I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.

    Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.

    It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.

    So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
    It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
    Why? Advisory is advisory. Cameron's government didn't even need to hold the referendum if a majority of MPs were willing to vote for a bill to withdraw from the EU. Parliament already had the power.
    Technically advisory, but in reality mandatory: the people are the boss of Parliament, not the other way round.
    Yep. So politically mandatory on the 2015 parliament.

    Then we had an election. Where the 2017 parliament is not bound by anything from any previous parliament. As demonstrated by this parliament now torching its own 2 year old manifesto pledge laws.

    The concept of "politically mandatory" ceased to have any meaning once the government announced it would pass laws to abolish its own laws implemented to enact the central manifesto pledge of the oven-ready deal.
    You're misremembering -
    Labour never ran the 2017 election on any sort of remain platform. Elected Labour MPs did a bait & switch which is why they got absolubtely walloped in places like Bassetlaw in 2019.

    No good has come of Brexit so far as I can tell, but it was voted for - it would have been unconscionable to remain in the EU.
    Remain MPs should have accepted May's deal. It was the best (From a remain perspective) they were ever going to achieve.
    "Remain MPs should have accepted May's deal".

    In one sentence you have absolved Team Johnson/ Team ERG of the fiasco that is Brexit.
    It doesnt absolve them for their own actions and choices, but it would have closed off a number of options.
    Indeed it would. Not least it would have shown the ERG to be an irrelevant box of frogs in terms of fixing the UK's future relationships with the EU rather than putting them in charge of it. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
    But you voted to put the performing frogs in charge of the circus.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,400

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Does anyone give a fuck any more?

    I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed

    And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash

    Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24

    Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
    Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so

    The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it

    God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.

    It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit

    And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical

    The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum


    In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
    Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.

    And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far :smile: )

    You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
    Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”

    There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
    Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.

    I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).

    Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
    Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it

    He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it

    And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
    You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.

    And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.

    Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
    In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer

    Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015

    'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'

    Cameron goes on to say this:

    'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'


    That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
    In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.

    Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.

    To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
    I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.

    Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.

    It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.

    So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
    It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
    Why? Advisory is advisory. Cameron's government didn't even need to hold the referendum if a majority of MPs were willing to vote for a bill to withdraw from the EU. Parliament already had the power.
    Technically advisory, but in reality mandatory: the people are the boss of Parliament, not the other way round.
    Yep. So politically mandatory on the 2015 parliament.

    Then we had an election. Where the 2017 parliament is not bound by anything from any previous parliament. As demonstrated by this parliament now torching its own 2 year old manifesto pledge laws.

    The concept of "politically mandatory" ceased to have any meaning once the government announced it would pass laws to abolish its own laws implemented to enact the central manifesto pledge of the oven-ready deal.
    A multi-party multi-isuue general election can't overturn a binary single-issue referendum - certainly not one which returned the biggest democratic vote in British history. And definitely not when both main parties were committed at the election to implementing the referendum result (even if SKS and Corbyn u-turned on their pledge PDQ).
    Yes it can. This government is now overturning its own mega election winning
    Election winning. Not referendum winning. So this doesn't disprove my point.
    Disprove? I'm not debating the supremacy of referendum vs election (btw its NOT a referendum, ask any constitutional expert...). I am pointing out that if the principle is "the will of the people must be enacted" then this government cannot legislate to overturn chunks of the oven-ready deal it was explicitly elected to enact. Get Brexit Done remember?
    The referendum wasn't a referendum? That's a particularly bizarre argument even by the standards of this topic.

    And you're mischaracterising the principle, but I know you know that, so I'm going to stop wasting time and electrons.
    The principle is simple. We have regular elections and irregular referendums. The latter do not have primacy over the former. We can *choose* to add weight. But even if it was a legally binding one - say Scotland's devolution deal - it can be overturned at any time by any parliament referendum or not.
    Parliamentary supremacy in action.

    And indeed, in its limitations, since ignore them and people will pick a parliament that wont.

    It was hell, but the Brexit wrangling tested but did not damage our system. The chosen parliament grappled with what the people wanted, failed to find a way through, then got replaced by one which did. The knock on effects need dealing with of course.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 23,926
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT) Interesting point - try it.

    I just looked at my phone Photos for November 2020 ... at no stage do any of them look like this. Try it with your photos... if you can find a party with raised glasses you probably were a Tory politician or SPAD .. that's how bad it is
    https://mobile.twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1528835927279288322

    I looked, and found pictures of only two people I don’t live with, for the entire month. FWIW.

    Its the whole drinking at work culture which surprises me.

    I've not seen any alcohol drunk at my workplace for over 20 years or any work sponsored pub lunches for over 10 years.

    I thought this was also the general trend throughout the country.

    But not it seems in Downing Street.
    Downing Street is a totally different scenario to 99% of workplaces. It is virtually 24/7 and work blends into play which blends into the family life, of the occupants: they all intertwine. This is not some hideous innovation by BoJo and Carrie, if you read Bad Al Campbell’s excellent diaries of the Blair years, the same thing happened then

    You get scenes where at 7am Al bursts in on Blair who is naked from the shower but they carry on talking about political issues anyway, and making decisions, then in the evening on busy days (and Covid in 2020 must have made them incredibly busy) the booze comes out at 8pm even as they carry on toiling, gossiping, eating takeaway

    Judging by those diaries Number 10 and 11 are fun places to work IF you can tolerate long and intense hours and sometimes do all nighters, the upside of the hard yakka is that its all extremely interesting, and you can get drunk at your desk from time to time


    Now it is highly arguable this culture should have stopped for Covid, but I can see why it didn’t, and why Partygate (and Kormagate) occurred
    I get the impression that the booze has been coming out a lot earlier than 8pm.

    In fact I get the impression that the booze is always out.

    This might be deemed acceptable in Downing Street but it seems they don't even have the sense to not send emails encouraging it or not get their mobiles out to provide evidence of it.
    Churchill STARTED the day at Number 10 with a neat whisky. He called it his “mouthwash”

    It is remarkable to think that we won WW2 with a PM who was half cut virtually all the time
    Perhaps we'd have won sooner if he'd drank less. Interesting counterfactual. Sober on-the-ball Churchill, Nazis beaten by late 43. So many lives saved. And buildings.
    Churchill drank whisky so diluted it was called mouthwash by his staff. He picked up the habit serving in India and North Africa where water was not always to be trusted. It was the pint of champagne and several brandies each day that meant he was probably half cut.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Does anyone give a fuck any more?

    I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed

    And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash

    Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24

    Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
    Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so

    The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it

    God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.

    It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit

    And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical

    The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum


    In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
    Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.

    And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far :smile: )

    You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
    Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”

    There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
    Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.

    I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).

    Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
    Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it

    He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it

    And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
    You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.

    And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.

    Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
    In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer

    Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015

    'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'

    Cameron goes on to say this:

    'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'


    That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
    In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.

    Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.

    To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
    I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.

    Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.

    It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.

    So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
    It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
    Why? Advisory is advisory. Cameron's government didn't even need to hold the referendum if a majority of MPs were willing to vote for a bill to withdraw from the EU. Parliament already had the power.
    Technically advisory, but in reality mandatory: the people are the boss of Parliament, not the other way round.
    Yep. So politically mandatory on the 2015 parliament.

    Then we had an election. Where the 2017 parliament is not bound by anything from any previous parliament. As demonstrated by this parliament now torching its own 2 year old manifesto pledge laws.

    The concept of "politically mandatory" ceased to have any meaning once the government announced it would pass laws to abolish its own laws implemented to enact the central manifesto pledge of the oven-ready deal.
    You're misremembering -
    Labour never ran the 2017 election on any sort of remain platform. Elected Labour MPs did a bait & switch which is why they got absolubtely walloped in places like Bassetlaw in 2019.

    No good has come of Brexit so far as I can tell, but it was voted for - it would have been unconscionable to remain in the EU.
    Remain MPs should have accepted May's deal. It was the best (From a remain perspective) they were ever going to achieve.
    "Remain MPs should have accepted May's deal".

    In one sentence you have absolved Team Johnson/ Team ERG of the fiasco that is Brexit.
    It doesnt absolve them for their own actions and choices, but it would have closed off a number of options.
    Indeed it would. Not least it would have shown the ERG to be an irrelevant box of frogs in terms of fixing the UK's future relationships with the EU rather than putting them in charge of it. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
    This was just a corollorary of the bigger decision straight after the referendum by prominent Remainers - Cameron not least amongst them - to wash their hands of it instead of working for a type of Leave that might have had 70% or 80% support.
  • DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Does anyone give a fuck any more?

    I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed

    And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash

    Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24

    Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
    Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so

    The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it

    God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.

    It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit

    And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical

    The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum


    In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
    Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.

    And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far :smile: )

    You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
    Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”

    There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
    Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.

    I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).

    Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
    Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it

    He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it

    And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
    You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.

    And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.

    Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
    In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer

    Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015

    'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'

    Cameron goes on to say this:

    'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'


    That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
    In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.

    Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.

    To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
    I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.

    Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.

    It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.

    So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
    It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
    Why? Advisory is advisory. Cameron's government didn't even need to hold the referendum if a majority of MPs were willing to vote for a bill to withdraw from the EU. Parliament already had the power.
    Technically advisory, but in reality mandatory: the people are the boss of Parliament, not the other way round.
    Yep. So politically mandatory on the 2015 parliament.

    Then we had an election. Where the 2017 parliament is not bound by anything from any previous parliament. As demonstrated by this parliament now torching its own 2 year old manifesto pledge laws.

    The concept of "politically mandatory" ceased to have any meaning once the government announced it would pass laws to abolish its own laws implemented to enact the central manifesto pledge of the oven-ready deal.
    You're misremembering -
    Labour never ran the 2017 election on any sort of remain platform. Elected Labour MPs did a bait & switch which is why they got absolubtely walloped in places like Bassetlaw in 2019.

    No good has come of Brexit so far as I can tell, but it was voted for - it would have been unconscionable to remain in the EU.
    Remain MPs should have accepted May's deal. It was the best (From a remain perspective) they were ever going to achieve.
    "Remain MPs should have accepted May's deal".

    In one sentence you have absolved Team Johnson/ Team ERG of the fiasco that is Brexit.
    It doesnt absolve them for their own actions and choices, but it would have closed off a number of options.
    Indeed it would. Not least it would have shown the ERG to be an irrelevant box of frogs in terms of fixing the UK's future relationships with the EU rather than putting them in charge of it. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
    But you voted to put the performing frogs I'm charge of the circus.
    The EU might be a circus but I didn't think it was politically correct to refer to Macron as that anymore.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    The biggest issue with the referendum was this. Most MPs only realise they've truly lost an argument when they're out of a job. So obviously if they (The 2017 lot) were in parliament, their view was more important than their constituents.
    This is one of the reasons Labour isn't in the mid 40s and 10+ points ahead facing a shambolic gov't.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969


    Daniel Hewitt
    @DanielHewittITV
    ·
    16m
    NEW: Head of Ofgem says he will be writing to Rishi Sunak today to inform him the price cap is expected to be £2,800 in October, up from £1,971.

    The government is going to be so unpopular when that kicks in.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Of course the referendum wasn't advisory. No government could have not implemented it. Cameron thought he would win so paid lip service to the details.

    That said, any flavour of "leaving the EU" would have also been legitimate eg EEA (although I have my doubts, expressed at the time, about that). Anti-immigrationers would have hated it but would that have put us in a worse place, divided nation-wise, than we are now? Probably, possibly not.

    Also, for the nth time, a second referendum would not have been undemocratic. Hugely administratively awkward, irritatng, unwieldy and probably unworkable if there was one every week, but not undemocratic. No vote asking "the people" (the same people who had voted previously) to opine on something could be undemocratic.

    As for parliament "trying to frustrate democracy", parliament is democracy. They are voted there by the people to make decisions so by definition everything they did was democratic.

    Agitating to overturn a referendum because you don't like the answer, without even enacting the first vote - the biggest vote in British political history - is so far from democracy it disappears up the backside of Jolyon Maugham and THEN weirdly disappears up the colon of Keir Starmer, whence it appears out of his tiny mouth, in the mealy mouthed words "a people's vote!"

    The German parliament passed the Enabling Act. "Democratically". The supporters of Trump marched on the Capitol, as is their "democratic" right

    Neither of these was democratic, in essence

    We need a truth and reconciliation committee in which Remainers confess their sins before being publicly horse-whipped for 6 solid weeks, 18 hours a day, in Fitzroy Square W1, while Leavers will have to admit that the whole bus thing was *kinda stretching it*, and they aren't allowed proper coffee for 3 days

    Never say I am not balanced and fair

    Can the horse-whipping be undertaken atop THAT bus? Please?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    It is amusing to see Brexiteers continue to completely lose their shit over a vote that never took place, without a moments regard for the vote that will eventually take place to reverse the damage of Brexit...
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    One thing I've heard a couple of times now is that Sue Gray wasn't going to necessarily directly nail the PM - that it would be a damning report for the civil service and senior officials. But also that she was willing to harden that up - and may be doing exactly that.
    https://twitter.com/AnushkaAsthana/status/1529058967422377984
  • Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Of course the referendum wasn't advisory. No government could have not implemented it. Cameron thought he would win so paid lip service to the details.

    That said, any flavour of "leaving the EU" would have also been legitimate eg EEA (although I have my doubts, expressed at the time, about that). Anti-immigrationers would have hated it but would that have put us in a worse place, divided nation-wise, than we are now? Probably, possibly not.

    Also, for the nth time, a second referendum would not have been undemocratic. Hugely administratively awkward, irritatng, unwieldy and probably unworkable if there was one every week, but not undemocratic. No vote asking "the people" (the same people who had voted previously) to opine on something could be undemocratic.

    As for parliament "trying to frustrate democracy", parliament is democracy. They are voted there by the people to make decisions so by definition everything they did was democratic.

    Agitating to overturn a referendum because you don't like the answer, without even enacting the first vote - the biggest vote in British political history - is so far from democracy it disappears up the backside of Jolyon Maugham and THEN weirdly disappears up the colon of Keir Starmer, whence it appears out of his tiny mouth, in the mealy mouthed words "a people's vote!"

    The German parliament passed the Enabling Act. "Democratically". The supporters of Trump marched on the Capitol, as is their "democratic" right

    Neither of these was democratic, in essence

    We need a truth and reconciliation committee in which Remainers confess their sins before being publicly horse-whipped for 6 solid weeks, 18 hours a day, in Fitzroy Square W1, while Leavers will have to admit that the whole bus thing was *kinda stretching it*, and they aren't allowed proper coffee for 3 days

    Never say I am not balanced and fair

    You animal! 😱
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,013
    Leon said:

    The embarrassing and ridiculous arguments from the palsied Remoaners on here that the referendum was advisory and it was fine to try and get it overturned blah blah blah fucking blah would not be so risibly and offensively stupid if ONE SINGLE REMAIN POLITICIAN had said, during the actual referendum campaign, that "oh, by the way, this vote is just advisory, we don't have to obey it and if you vote Leave we might ignore you and have a second vote, hope that's OK"

    But they didn't did they? Not one single person ever said that because it is so plainly absurd and wanky. They would have got thrown into Lake Windermere

    No one said it, because it is bollocks. Everyone agreed, at the time, with David Cameron in his speech to the entire British nation:

    'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum"

    The Leavers agreed that this was it, their one and only chance for a generation. The Remainers agreed this was it, the one and only vote - BECAUSE THEY ARROGANTLY EXPECTED TO WIN IT, EASILY

    All else is chaff. PFF

    1. I am a leaver, not a remoaner
    2. The referendum was legally advisory. You mas dislike this but its true
    3. Its fine for any parliament to overturn anything it choses to vote for
    4. Cameron was relevant as long he remained PM. Which wasn't very long
    5. Its absolutely true that remain expected to win easily. But they lost. And you - and I - won. So why are you so angry having won both the referendum and the confirmatory election in 2019?
  • Scott_xP said:

    One thing I've heard a couple of times now is that Sue Gray wasn't going to necessarily directly nail the PM - that it would be a damning report for the civil service and senior officials. But also that she was willing to harden that up - and may be doing exactly that.
    https://twitter.com/AnushkaAsthana/status/1529058967422377984

    So what you're suggesting Scott is that Sue Gray may be engaging in politics rather than sticking with the original report? So we should discount whatever she comes out with as politically motivated?

    I'm surprised to see you saying that Scott rather than someone else.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,585

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Does anyone give a fuck any more?

    I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed

    And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash

    Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24

    Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
    Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so

    The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it

    God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.

    It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit

    And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical

    The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum


    In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
    Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.

    And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far :smile: )

    You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
    Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”

    There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
    Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.

    I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).

    Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
    Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it

    He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it

    And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
    You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.

    And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.

    Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
    In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer

    Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015

    'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'

    Cameron goes on to say this:

    'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'


    That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
    In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.

    Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.

    To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
    I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.

    Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.

    It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.

    So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
    It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
    Why? Advisory is advisory. Cameron's government didn't even need to hold the referendum if a majority of MPs were willing to vote for a bill to withdraw from the EU. Parliament already had the power.
    Technically advisory, but in reality mandatory: the people are the boss of Parliament, not the other way round.
    Yep. So politically mandatory on the 2015 parliament.

    Then we had an election. Where the 2017 parliament is not bound by anything from any previous parliament. As demonstrated by this parliament now torching its own 2 year old manifesto pledge laws.

    The concept of "politically mandatory" ceased to have any meaning once the government announced it would pass laws to abolish its own laws implemented to enact the central manifesto pledge of the oven-ready deal.
    You're misremembering -
    Labour never ran the 2017 election on any sort of remain platform. Elected Labour MPs did a bait & switch which is why they got absolubtely walloped in places like Bassetlaw in 2019.

    No good has come of Brexit so far as I can tell, but it was voted for - it would have been unconscionable to remain in the EU.
    Remain MPs should have accepted May's deal. It was the best (From a remain perspective) they were ever going to achieve.
    "Remain MPs should have accepted May's deal".

    In one sentence you have absolved Team Johnson/ Team ERG of the fiasco that is Brexit.
    It doesnt absolve them for their own actions and choices, but it would have closed off a number of options.
    Indeed it would. Not least it would have shown the ERG to be an irrelevant box of frogs in terms of fixing the UK's future relationships with the EU rather than putting them in charge of it. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
    But you voted to put the performing frogs I'm charge of the circus.
    The EU might be a circus but I didn't think it was politically correct to refer to Macron as that anymore.
    Never accuse me of using cheap racial stereotypical slurs.

    I was simply batting DavidL's analogous reference back to him by using a cheap slur against Johnson and the ERG.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,415
    edited May 2022

    Boris’s biographer just tweeted,

    https://twitter.com/soniapurnell/status/1528784174701760512?s=21&t=BtNkKBhu4NsXR5pg5VxCTQ

    To work with Boris Johnson is to encounter something dark, sinister and totally without soul. It is a destructive experience that makes you doubt your very sanity. Sympathy therefore for the good people of Whitehall. I found that the only salvation is to tell what you've seen.

    I think I am less offended by Johnson's behaviour than the Met. Police intervening and then taking virtually no action against Johnson and no action against Case. Either by cock-up or conspiracy their action saved Johnson.

    Those who cooperated with Gray were banged to rights, those who didn't got off scott free. On what did the Met. spend their £460,000?
    You are still posting this defamatory crap about the police, but I am not aware you answered my question. Do you have evidence the police saw todays photos? Downing Street merely say the police had access to them, whilst the police silent.

    Secondly, I am not calling you out as a liar when you posted this “ I believe Starmer did technically breach the rules from the evidence I have read and will get a fixed penalty notice. The evidence is they had their meal, with a beer after work, they were not socially distanced and there were too many people at the event.” but I am asking you to share with us your evidence they had booze together after work, by how many people they were over what was clearly stated in the rules, and there was no social distancing at all as required.
    "Defamatory Crap" my arse. The establishment looks after itself, always has done.
    Where’s you’re evidence the police have Seen these photo’s before today?
    Paul Brant on ITV, who broke the story believes similar photos of the event are integral to Gray's evidence and the old bill were given everything she had.

    It's a judgement call from the detectives, they may have deduced that despite half a dozen empty bottles of wine, sparkling wine and spirits alongside spent glasses, Johnson's ministerial box jauntily flung to the floor meant he was still at work.
    You’ve made your point very clear - but what you just typed there, do you actually believe it? Alternately you can believe what the investigation lead said last week, the key determinant to each FPN issued was to be sure it was correct to issue (and not challenged and overturned) everybody in the media seemed to believe this meant was FPN by being in photograph. The point you are making in this mini discussion with me you yourself are admitting “similar photos to these” in other words “you are stonkingly right again MoonRabbit, until today the police have not seen these particular photos”.

    I don’t want to come over all Sherlock, but what alerted me to it was the haste Downing Street hit the microphones this evening to claim “the police had access to all photos”
    Moonrabbit, I am amongst other things a sad, low level masonic conspiracy theorist having been "tucked up" by a couple of Freemasons at work over two decades ago. So when I see egregious incompetence like Kenny Noye's acquittal for killing a police officer surveilling his premises because evidence was corrupted, and Noye was a Mason, or incompetent South Wales Police officers "losing" evidence to collapse the trial of the detectives who allegedly "fitted up" the men convicted in the Lynette White case, I ask the question "is Boris Johnson a Freemason"?

    Cock up or conspiracy, who knows? But even this far from Scotland Yard the investigation from beginning to end smells rank.
    Not every whitewash in this world is due to Freemasons Pete. You need to be able to separate truth from conspiracys and not use broad brushes to tar good people. You also need to acknowledge all the good work Masons do in the world - do you have less positive thoughts about George Washington on basis he was a Mason?

    I’m more confident the police when they speak will say they never saw this photo, and it’s as honest as that from their point of view.
    No they are not, and I have explained my masonic irrationality in this and other posts.

    However when a police investigation appears so irreconcilably incompetent I smell a (quite probably non existent) rat. I have no idea whether Mr Johnson is a Freemason or for that matter a Girl Guide. The positive element of him being a Girl Guide would be the notion that at least he belongs to an open and transparent organisation.
    I was a girl guide. And the secret things we were taught remain secret to us, I’m not sharing them with you despite your obvious problem you need to get over. Your obvious problem is if it’s secret your instinct (which I would say is immaturely developed) obviously means it’s bad, secret = bad, so you would have no secrets in the world? You completely misrepresent freemasonry on history you may well be benefitting from - no Freemasons no English civil war, no US war of independence, no French Revolution, both the failed Decembrist’s and more successful Lenin were Freemasons. How did all this work without the ability to be keep secrets?

    How many German Freemasons died fighting Hitler? More than fingers on your hand and toes on your feet, you are going to need an abacus.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,168


    Daniel Hewitt
    @DanielHewittITV
    ·
    16m
    NEW: Head of Ofgem says he will be writing to Rishi Sunak today to inform him the price cap is expected to be £2,800 in October, up from £1,971.

    The government is going to be so unpopular when that kicks in.
    Indeed… but, to be honest, I remain unclear why a right-wing Conservative government beloved of libertarians even got to a point where they felt that the state should set the price of a commodity.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,585


    Daniel Hewitt
    @DanielHewittITV
    ·
    16m
    NEW: Head of Ofgem says he will be writing to Rishi Sunak today to inform him the price cap is expected to be £2,800 in October, up from £1,971.

    The government is going to be so unpopular when that kicks in.
    Don't panic. Anti-woke culture wars are more important to the RedWall voter than penury.
  • DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Does anyone give a fuck any more?

    I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed

    And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash

    Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24

    Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
    Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so

    The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it

    God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.

    It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit

    And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical

    The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum


    In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
    Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.

    And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far :smile: )

    You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
    Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”

    There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
    Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.

    I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).

    Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
    Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it

    He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it

    And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
    You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.

    And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.

    Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
    In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer

    Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015

    'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'

    Cameron goes on to say this:

    'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'


    That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
    In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.

    Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.

    To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
    I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.

    Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.

    It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.

    So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
    It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
    Why? Advisory is advisory. Cameron's government didn't even need to hold the referendum if a majority of MPs were willing to vote for a bill to withdraw from the EU. Parliament already had the power.
    Technically advisory, but in reality mandatory: the people are the boss of Parliament, not the other way round.
    Yep. So politically mandatory on the 2015 parliament.

    Then we had an election. Where the 2017 parliament is not bound by anything from any previous parliament. As demonstrated by this parliament now torching its own 2 year old manifesto pledge laws.

    The concept of "politically mandatory" ceased to have any meaning once the government announced it would pass laws to abolish its own laws implemented to enact the central manifesto pledge of the oven-ready deal.
    You're misremembering -
    Labour never ran the 2017 election on any sort of remain platform. Elected Labour MPs did a bait & switch which is why they got absolubtely walloped in places like Bassetlaw in 2019.

    No good has come of Brexit so far as I can tell, but it was voted for - it would have been unconscionable to remain in the EU.
    Remain MPs should have accepted May's deal. It was the best (From a remain perspective) they were ever going to achieve.
    "Remain MPs should have accepted May's deal".

    In one sentence you have absolved Team Johnson/ Team ERG of the fiasco that is Brexit.
    It doesnt absolve them for their own actions and choices, but it would have closed off a number of options.
    Indeed it would. Not least it would have shown the ERG to be an irrelevant box of frogs in terms of fixing the UK's future relationships with the EU rather than putting them in charge of it. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
    But you voted to put the performing frogs I'm charge of the circus.
    The EU might be a circus but I didn't think it was politically correct to refer to Macron as that anymore.
    Never accuse me of using cheap racial stereotypical slurs.

    I was simply batting DavidL's analogous reference back to him by using a cheap slur against Johnson and the ERG.
    I know that, it was a joke. Sorry if you took it badly. 😕
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Of course the referendum wasn't advisory. No government could have not implemented it. Cameron thought he would win so paid lip service to the details.

    That said, any flavour of "leaving the EU" would have also been legitimate eg EEA (although I have my doubts, expressed at the time, about that). Anti-immigrationers would have hated it but would that have put us in a worse place, divided nation-wise, than we are now? Probably, possibly not.

    Also, for the nth time, a second referendum would not have been undemocratic. Hugely administratively awkward, irritating, unwieldy and probably unworkable if there was one every week, but not undemocratic. No vote asking "the people" (the same people who had voted previously) to opine on something could be undemocratic.

    As for parliament "trying to frustrate democracy", parliament is democracy. They are voted there by the people to make decisions so by definition everything they did was democratic.

    Therein lies much of the problem that haunted post-Referendum politics at Westminster. Many MPs just would not accept that a Referendum, often with a higher turnout than they achieved to get elected, was in any way an equivalent - let alone dominant on a single issue - form of democracy.

    So they dicked around for four years, with their own General Election mandates giving them an authority to do so.
    The problem was the conflict between the GE and the referendum. An elected MP would legitimately say - but my constituents want X so I am not going to vote against their wishes because that's why I'm here. You say one outranked the other but that is open to debate and certainly AFAIA not written down anywhere.

    Having referendums in (our in particular) parliamentary system is problematic to say the least.

    Good article: https://consoc.org.uk/publications/tension-parliamentary-democracy-referendums/
    But there was no conflict between the referendum and any GE.

    2015 election: Majority elected on pledge to hold and respect the referendum.
    2016 referendum: Majority for leave.
    2017 election: Nearly 600 out of 650 MPs elected on pledge to respect the referendum result and implement Brexit.
    2019 election: 80 seat majority to Get Brexit Done.

    Leavers essentially had to win 4 elections or referendum and they won all 4 of them. Had any of the 4 elections or referendum turned out differently, we'd have never left.

    The conflict in 2017 was the hundreds of MPs elected promising to respect the results, but who didn't. They paid the price electorally for their deceit two years later.
    Yes, democratically. So all is well. And the MPs in parliament behaved democratically also. They disagreed about the type of Brexit, which is perfectly legitimate.

    If the 650 MPs had wanted 650 versions of Brexit that would have been perfectly democratic and all anyone would have done would be to oppose everyone else. As I said, it is indicative of the tension of a referendum within a parliamentary democracy.
    Except some duplicitous MPs like Grieve and Starmer didn't just reject a form of Brexit, they decided to reject every form of Brexit.

    MPs like Grieve and Starmer being duplicitous liars is constitutionally or democratically acceptable, but voters like Leon are within their rights to be aggrieved at MPs who are duplicitous liars. That is a universal concept, I am aggrieved at Boris for being a duplicitous liar too, so Starmer and Grieve etc aren't the only ones that applies to.
    I'm sure each had a form of Brexit they preferred and were holding out for that. What is the problem with that?
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,089
    Leon said:

    The embarrassing and ridiculous arguments from the palsied Remoaners on here that the referendum was advisory and it was fine to try and get it overturned blah blah blah fucking blah would not be so risibly and offensively stupid if ONE SINGLE REMAIN POLITICIAN had said, during the actual referendum campaign, that "oh, by the way, this vote is just advisory, we don't have to obey it and if you vote Leave we might ignore you and have a second vote, hope that's OK"

    But they didn't did they? Not one single person ever said that because it is so plainly absurd and wanky. They would have got thrown into Lake Windermere

    No one said it, because it is bollocks. Everyone agreed, at the time, with David Cameron in his speech to the entire British nation:

    'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum"

    The Leavers agreed that this was it, their one and only chance for a generation. The Remainers agreed this was it, the one and only vote - BECAUSE THEY ARROGANTLY EXPECTED TO WIN IT, EASILY

    All else is chaff. PFF

    Speaking as an earnest Remainer, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU. The Remain campaign should be utterly, utterly ashamed of themselves in approximately every regard, especially this one.

    As should Leave - leaving aside the fact that by hook or by crook (at least 25% crook) they actually won. Which gives them the edge.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    Applicant said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Does anyone give a fuck any more?

    I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed

    And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash

    Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24

    Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
    Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so

    The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it

    God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.

    It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit

    And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical

    The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum


    In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
    Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.

    And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far :smile: )

    You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
    Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”

    There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
    Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.

    I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).

    Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
    Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it

    He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it

    And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
    You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.

    And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.

    Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
    In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer

    Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015

    'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'

    Cameron goes on to say this:

    'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'


    That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
    In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.

    Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.

    To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
    I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.

    Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.

    It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.

    So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
    It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
    Why? Advisory is advisory. Cameron's government didn't even need to hold the referendum if a majority of MPs were willing to vote for a bill to withdraw from the EU. Parliament already had the power.
    Technically advisory, but in reality mandatory: the people are the boss of Parliament, not the other way round.
    Yep. So politically mandatory on the 2015 parliament.

    Then we had an election. Where the 2017 parliament is not bound by anything from any previous parliament. As demonstrated by this parliament now torching its own 2 year old manifesto pledge laws.

    The concept of "politically mandatory" ceased to have any meaning once the government announced it would pass laws to abolish its own laws implemented to enact the central manifesto pledge of the oven-ready deal.
    You're misremembering -
    Labour never ran the 2017 election on any sort of remain platform. Elected Labour MPs did a bait & switch which is why they got absolubtely walloped in places like Bassetlaw in 2019.

    No good has come of Brexit so far as I can tell, but it was voted for - it would have been unconscionable to remain in the EU.
    Remain MPs should have accepted May's deal. It was the best (From a remain perspective) they were ever going to achieve.
    "Remain MPs should have accepted May's deal".

    In one sentence you have absolved Team Johnson/ Team ERG of the fiasco that is Brexit.
    It doesnt absolve them for their own actions and choices, but it would have closed off a number of options.
    Indeed it would. Not least it would have shown the ERG to be an irrelevant box of frogs in terms of fixing the UK's future relationships with the EU rather than putting them in charge of it. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
    This was just a corollorary of the bigger decision straight after the referendum by prominent Remainers - Cameron not least amongst them - to wash their hands of it instead of working for a type of Leave that might have had 70% or 80% support.
    Yes, and inevitably the more that remainers wriggled and sought to stop implementation of the vote the more the extremists on the other side got heard and power. It was an enormous failure of our democratic process on both sides. There were a range of options that respected the vote but were better than where we are now. We have a government with a comfortable majority led by a blatant liar and with a significant part of the intellectual stuffing of the Conservative party removed. I am not happy with this, I do not think that the majority are. But the refusal to accept consensus and the political ineptitude of May led us here.

    Inevitably, I reflect on the outcome of a possible yes vote in Scotland. If the SNP sneak home 52:48 what then? The precedents are not good. By far the most prosperous part of the electorate will have voted No. How would such a country be brought together and make a success of itself? I just don't see it.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,973
    Interesting

    BREAKING: Tory Tom Tugendhat has told @MattChorley on @TimesRadio that he is "talking to colleagues" about the Prime Minister's position today.

    Adds that this is a "time for all of us to look at what this country needs" and we should be "pretty ruthless in our views."
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,400
    Leon said:

    The embarrassing and ridiculous arguments from the palsied Remoaners on here that the referendum was advisory and it was fine to try and get it overturned blah blah blah fucking blah would not be so risibly and offensively stupid if ONE SINGLE REMAIN POLITICIAN had said, during the actual referendum campaign, that "oh, by the way, this vote is just advisory, we don't have to obey it and if you vote Leave we might ignore you and have a second vote, hope that's OK"

    But they didn't did they? Not one single person ever said that because it is so plainly absurd and wanky. They would have got thrown into Lake Windermere

    No one said it, because it is bollocks. Everyone agreed, at the time, with David Cameron in his speech to the entire British nation:

    'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum"

    The Leavers agreed that this was it, their one and only chance for a generation. The Remainers agreed this was it, the one and only vote - BECAUSE THEY ARROGANTLY EXPECTED TO WIN IT, EASILY

    All else is chaff. PFF

    Amusing, but unconvincing, your heart doesnt seem in it. Likely because you're choosing to pretend to be stupid and not be able to grasp a technical legal position vs practical political and/or moral position, and you're certainly not stupid so we know you could understand that.

    DavidL I think has the practical position, which is no more and no less than the classic British position of "You can, technically, but you really really shouldn't"

    No one likes people getting off crimes on a legal technicality, and the British public didn't like trying to reverse Brexit on a legal technicality. What people said beforehand is irrelevant to both the legal position and what people felt afterwards -

    The public didnt care about legal technicalities and cut down those who tried them. So why are you bursting a blood vessel about it? Its irrelevant.

    But I look forward to how you will reinterpret this comment and fire off. Tedious screed, milquetoast remoaner perhaps. I'll have to check back later, but I'll be disheartened if I didnt even merit that.
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Of course the referendum wasn't advisory. No government could have not implemented it. Cameron thought he would win so paid lip service to the details.

    That said, any flavour of "leaving the EU" would have also been legitimate eg EEA (although I have my doubts, expressed at the time, about that). Anti-immigrationers would have hated it but would that have put us in a worse place, divided nation-wise, than we are now? Probably, possibly not.

    Also, for the nth time, a second referendum would not have been undemocratic. Hugely administratively awkward, irritating, unwieldy and probably unworkable if there was one every week, but not undemocratic. No vote asking "the people" (the same people who had voted previously) to opine on something could be undemocratic.

    As for parliament "trying to frustrate democracy", parliament is democracy. They are voted there by the people to make decisions so by definition everything they did was democratic.

    Therein lies much of the problem that haunted post-Referendum politics at Westminster. Many MPs just would not accept that a Referendum, often with a higher turnout than they achieved to get elected, was in any way an equivalent - let alone dominant on a single issue - form of democracy.

    So they dicked around for four years, with their own General Election mandates giving them an authority to do so.
    The problem was the conflict between the GE and the referendum. An elected MP would legitimately say - but my constituents want X so I am not going to vote against their wishes because that's why I'm here. You say one outranked the other but that is open to debate and certainly AFAIA not written down anywhere.

    Having referendums in (our in particular) parliamentary system is problematic to say the least.

    Good article: https://consoc.org.uk/publications/tension-parliamentary-democracy-referendums/
    But there was no conflict between the referendum and any GE.

    2015 election: Majority elected on pledge to hold and respect the referendum.
    2016 referendum: Majority for leave.
    2017 election: Nearly 600 out of 650 MPs elected on pledge to respect the referendum result and implement Brexit.
    2019 election: 80 seat majority to Get Brexit Done.

    Leavers essentially had to win 4 elections or referendum and they won all 4 of them. Had any of the 4 elections or referendum turned out differently, we'd have never left.

    The conflict in 2017 was the hundreds of MPs elected promising to respect the results, but who didn't. They paid the price electorally for their deceit two years later.
    Yes, democratically. So all is well. And the MPs in parliament behaved democratically also. They disagreed about the type of Brexit, which is perfectly legitimate.

    If the 650 MPs had wanted 650 versions of Brexit that would have been perfectly democratic and all anyone would have done would be to oppose everyone else. As I said, it is indicative of the tension of a referendum within a parliamentary democracy.
    Except some duplicitous MPs like Grieve and Starmer didn't just reject a form of Brexit, they decided to reject every form of Brexit.

    MPs like Grieve and Starmer being duplicitous liars is constitutionally or democratically acceptable, but voters like Leon are within their rights to be aggrieved at MPs who are duplicitous liars. That is a universal concept, I am aggrieved at Boris for being a duplicitous liar too, so Starmer and Grieve etc aren't the only ones that applies to.
    I'm sure each had a form of Brexit they preferred and were holding out for that. What is the problem with that?
    They didn't, those two said they were rejecting every form of Brexit. After being elected on a platform saying the opposite.

    MPs have the right to be duplicitous liars who say one thing to get elected and do the opposite when in office, but that doesn't justify it or mean the public can't decide they'd rather get rid of the duplicitous liars.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969


    Daniel Hewitt
    @DanielHewittITV
    ·
    16m
    NEW: Head of Ofgem says he will be writing to Rishi Sunak today to inform him the price cap is expected to be £2,800 in October, up from £1,971.

    The government is going to be so unpopular when that kicks in.
    Indeed… but, to be honest, I remain unclear why a right-wing Conservative government beloved of libertarians even got to a point where they felt that the state should set the price of a commodity.
    This is a socialist government, high taxes, high spending, price caps, and a windfall tax looming.

    I’m fully expecting rent controls.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,089

    Leon said:

    The embarrassing and ridiculous arguments from the palsied Remoaners on here that the referendum was advisory and it was fine to try and get it overturned blah blah blah fucking blah would not be so risibly and offensively stupid if ONE SINGLE REMAIN POLITICIAN had said, during the actual referendum campaign, that "oh, by the way, this vote is just advisory, we don't have to obey it and if you vote Leave we might ignore you and have a second vote, hope that's OK"

    But they didn't did they? Not one single person ever said that because it is so plainly absurd and wanky. They would have got thrown into Lake Windermere

    No one said it, because it is bollocks. Everyone agreed, at the time, with David Cameron in his speech to the entire British nation:

    'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum"

    The Leavers agreed that this was it, their one and only chance for a generation. The Remainers agreed this was it, the one and only vote - BECAUSE THEY ARROGANTLY EXPECTED TO WIN IT, EASILY

    All else is chaff. PFF

    1. I am a leaver, not a remoaner
    2. The referendum was legally advisory. You mas dislike this but its true
    3. Its fine for any parliament to overturn anything it choses to vote for
    4. Cameron was relevant as long he remained PM. Which wasn't very long
    5. Its absolutely true that remain expected to win easily. But they lost. And you - and I - won. So why are you so angry having won both the referendum and the confirmatory election in 2019?
    Not speaking for Leon, of course, but I'm angry because the whole thing was a multi-sided clusterfuck of lies, half truths and general bullshit.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,013
    Pulpstar said:

    The biggest issue with the referendum was this. Most MPs only realise they've truly lost an argument when they're out of a job. So obviously if they (The 2017 lot) were in parliament, their view was more important than their constituents.
    This is one of the reasons Labour isn't in the mid 40s and 10+ points ahead facing a shambolic gov't.

    One of the more amusing things we did in the 2017 parliament was the "Brexitometer". This was a big board with various ideas and options on it about what we should do to resolve the unresolved Brexit issue. Grab a sticker, place it on the board for what you want. All options from no deal to scrap Brexit without even a referendum.

    So we (the Labour MP, the LibDems, the continuity Better In campaign) went out into various high streets in the constituency and asked people for their views.

    Even in the mainly Tory areas the views were largely that the more extreme options at both ends were out but people did not support May's deal or various other ideas that got voted on. It was about as pro-remain as it could have been and it really surprised us.

    Then I pointed out to the team that it was completely self-selecting. We got shouted abuse from a few passers by but most of the hostiles came and placed a sticker. But it wasn't representative - most of the people supporting "just get out" didn't engage with us at all and walked past.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT) Interesting point - try it.

    I just looked at my phone Photos for November 2020 ... at no stage do any of them look like this. Try it with your photos... if you can find a party with raised glasses you probably were a Tory politician or SPAD .. that's how bad it is
    https://mobile.twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1528835927279288322

    I looked, and found pictures of only two people I don’t live with, for the entire month. FWIW.

    Its the whole drinking at work culture which surprises me.

    I've not seen any alcohol drunk at my workplace for over 20 years or any work sponsored pub lunches for over 10 years.

    I thought this was also the general trend throughout the country.

    But not it seems in Downing Street.
    Downing Street is a totally different scenario to 99% of workplaces. It is virtually 24/7 and work blends into play which blends into the family life, of the occupants: they all intertwine. This is not some hideous innovation by BoJo and Carrie, if you read Bad Al Campbell’s excellent diaries of the Blair years, the same thing happened then

    You get scenes where at 7am Al bursts in on Blair who is naked from the shower but they carry on talking about political issues anyway, and making decisions, then in the evening on busy days (and Covid in 2020 must have made them incredibly busy) the booze comes out at 8pm even as they carry on toiling, gossiping, eating takeaway

    Judging by those diaries Number 10 and 11 are fun places to work IF you can tolerate long and intense hours and sometimes do all nighters, the upside of the hard yakka is that its all extremely interesting, and you can get drunk at your desk from time to time


    Now it is highly arguable this culture should have stopped for Covid, but I can see why it didn’t, and why Partygate (and Kormagate) occurred
    I get the impression that the booze has been coming out a lot earlier than 8pm.

    In fact I get the impression that the booze is always out.

    This might be deemed acceptable in Downing Street but it seems they don't even have the sense to not send emails encouraging it or not get their mobiles out to provide evidence of it.
    Churchill STARTED the day at Number 10 with a neat whisky. He called it his “mouthwash”

    It is remarkable to think that we won WW2 with a PM who was half cut virtually all the time
    Perhaps we'd have won sooner if he'd drank less. Interesting counterfactual. Sober on-the-ball Churchill, Nazis beaten by late 43. So many lives saved. And buildings.
    Churchill, I believe, said that he took more out of drink than the other way round. And the whisky was well-watered down. I guess he had to live a regime which allowed him to function optimally and it suited him to have a drink presumably as stimulant or relaxant as circumstances required.

    Been reading the Chips Channon diaries recently which cover the war years. He was no fan of Churchill (Chamberlainite) but certainly gave WSC credit for his bravura performances in the Commons and his enormous energy. If he had a perceptible alcohol problem it would certainly have been mentioned.
    A high functioning alcoholic. And given his career and long marriage and lifespan I guess it wouldn't be accurate to call it a problem.

  • Daniel Hewitt
    @DanielHewittITV
    ·
    16m
    NEW: Head of Ofgem says he will be writing to Rishi Sunak today to inform him the price cap is expected to be £2,800 in October, up from £1,971.

    The government is going to be so unpopular when that kicks in.
    Indeed… but, to be honest, I remain unclear why a right-wing Conservative government beloved of libertarians even got to a point where they felt that the state should set the price of a commodity.
    This is a socialist government, high taxes, high spending, price caps, and a windfall tax looming.

    I’m fully expecting rent controls.
    And I'm fully expecting some loyalists (not naming names) to try to justify them too.

    The sooner Boris is out of office, the better.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,037
    Leon said:

    The embarrassing and ridiculous arguments from the palsied Remoaners on here that the referendum was advisory and it was fine to try and get it overturned blah blah blah fucking blah would not be so risibly and offensively stupid if ONE SINGLE REMAIN POLITICIAN had said, during the actual referendum campaign, that "oh, by the way, this vote is just advisory, we don't have to obey it and if you vote Leave we might ignore you and have a second vote, hope that's OK"

    But they didn't did they? Not one single person ever said that because it is so plainly absurd and wanky. They would have got thrown into Lake Windermere

    No one said it, because it is bollocks. Everyone agreed, at the time, with David Cameron in his speech to the entire British nation:

    'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum"

    The Leavers agreed that this was it, their one and only chance for a generation. The Remainers agreed this was it, the one and only vote - BECAUSE THEY ARROGANTLY EXPECTED TO WIN IT, EASILY

    All else is chaff. PFF

    It doesn’t change the fact that Brexit is a f*cking calamity.

    Why oh why did Cameron think it was a good idea to give the people a vote on this. Did he really think the average uneducated lazy moron who lives in sh*tholes like Scunthorpe would understand the nuisances of international trade?

    David Cameron = worst PM in history.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,585
    edited May 2022


    Daniel Hewitt
    @DanielHewittITV
    ·
    16m
    NEW: Head of Ofgem says he will be writing to Rishi Sunak today to inform him the price cap is expected to be £2,800 in October, up from £1,971.

    The government is going to be so unpopular when that kicks in.
    I am in the car listening to "You and yours" on R4 as I have my socially distanced lunch. There are tearful PENSIONERS who are cancelling direct debits and have turned off the heating since Christmas, people living in single rooms, people considering selling their homes and people renting out spare rooms to pay for non- energy essentials. This looks like, as you might suggest, "Stepmom" territory.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,013
    mwadams said:

    Leon said:

    The embarrassing and ridiculous arguments from the palsied Remoaners on here that the referendum was advisory and it was fine to try and get it overturned blah blah blah fucking blah would not be so risibly and offensively stupid if ONE SINGLE REMAIN POLITICIAN had said, during the actual referendum campaign, that "oh, by the way, this vote is just advisory, we don't have to obey it and if you vote Leave we might ignore you and have a second vote, hope that's OK"

    But they didn't did they? Not one single person ever said that because it is so plainly absurd and wanky. They would have got thrown into Lake Windermere

    No one said it, because it is bollocks. Everyone agreed, at the time, with David Cameron in his speech to the entire British nation:

    'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum"

    The Leavers agreed that this was it, their one and only chance for a generation. The Remainers agreed this was it, the one and only vote - BECAUSE THEY ARROGANTLY EXPECTED TO WIN IT, EASILY

    All else is chaff. PFF

    1. I am a leaver, not a remoaner
    2. The referendum was legally advisory. You mas dislike this but its true
    3. Its fine for any parliament to overturn anything it choses to vote for
    4. Cameron was relevant as long he remained PM. Which wasn't very long
    5. Its absolutely true that remain expected to win easily. But they lost. And you - and I - won. So why are you so angry having won both the referendum and the confirmatory election in 2019?
    Not speaking for Leon, of course, but I'm angry because the whole thing was a multi-sided clusterfuck of lies, half truths and general bullshit.
    As I said earlier, holding a referendum on this subject was hubristic arrogance by Cameron. In a single brilliant leap he would shoot the UKIP fox and the "fruitcakes and loonies" in his own party and keep going with his modern looking but basically a nasty sneering bunch of toffs government. And he lost.

    Whilst Johnson and Mogg stay representing the Toff wing of the party it is clear and unambiguous that the Tories are less toff than they were pre 2019. The policies are even worse, but now they have almost working class types in the ranks for HY to sneer at.
  • murali_s said:

    Leon said:

    The embarrassing and ridiculous arguments from the palsied Remoaners on here that the referendum was advisory and it was fine to try and get it overturned blah blah blah fucking blah would not be so risibly and offensively stupid if ONE SINGLE REMAIN POLITICIAN had said, during the actual referendum campaign, that "oh, by the way, this vote is just advisory, we don't have to obey it and if you vote Leave we might ignore you and have a second vote, hope that's OK"

    But they didn't did they? Not one single person ever said that because it is so plainly absurd and wanky. They would have got thrown into Lake Windermere

    No one said it, because it is bollocks. Everyone agreed, at the time, with David Cameron in his speech to the entire British nation:

    'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum"

    The Leavers agreed that this was it, their one and only chance for a generation. The Remainers agreed this was it, the one and only vote - BECAUSE THEY ARROGANTLY EXPECTED TO WIN IT, EASILY

    All else is chaff. PFF

    It doesn’t change the fact that Brexit is a f*cking calamity.

    Why oh why did Cameron think it was a good idea to give the people a vote on this. Did he really think the average uneducated lazy moron who lives in sh*tholes like Scunthorpe would understand the nuisances of international trade?

    David Cameron = worst PM in history.
    Nick Clegg thought it was a good idea too, in 2010.

    You might think its a shame Plebs get votes, but you're pissing into the wind with that one.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Of course the referendum wasn't advisory. No government could have not implemented it. Cameron thought he would win so paid lip service to the details.

    That said, any flavour of "leaving the EU" would have also been legitimate eg EEA (although I have my doubts, expressed at the time, about that). Anti-immigrationers would have hated it but would that have put us in a worse place, divided nation-wise, than we are now? Probably, possibly not.

    Also, for the nth time, a second referendum would not have been undemocratic. Hugely administratively awkward, irritating, unwieldy and probably unworkable if there was one every week, but not undemocratic. No vote asking "the people" (the same people who had voted previously) to opine on something could be undemocratic.

    As for parliament "trying to frustrate democracy", parliament is democracy. They are voted there by the people to make decisions so by definition everything they did was democratic.

    Therein lies much of the problem that haunted post-Referendum politics at Westminster. Many MPs just would not accept that a Referendum, often with a higher turnout than they achieved to get elected, was in any way an equivalent - let alone dominant on a single issue - form of democracy.

    So they dicked around for four years, with their own General Election mandates giving them an authority to do so.
    The problem was the conflict between the GE and the referendum. An elected MP would legitimately say - but my constituents want X so I am not going to vote against their wishes because that's why I'm here. You say one outranked the other but that is open to debate and certainly AFAIA not written down anywhere.

    Having referendums in (our in particular) parliamentary system is problematic to say the least.

    Good article: https://consoc.org.uk/publications/tension-parliamentary-democracy-referendums/
    But there was no conflict between the referendum and any GE.

    2015 election: Majority elected on pledge to hold and respect the referendum.
    2016 referendum: Majority for leave.
    2017 election: Nearly 600 out of 650 MPs elected on pledge to respect the referendum result and implement Brexit.
    2019 election: 80 seat majority to Get Brexit Done.

    Leavers essentially had to win 4 elections or referendum and they won all 4 of them. Had any of the 4 elections or referendum turned out differently, we'd have never left.

    The conflict in 2017 was the hundreds of MPs elected promising to respect the results, but who didn't. They paid the price electorally for their deceit two years later.
    Yes, democratically. So all is well. And the MPs in parliament behaved democratically also. They disagreed about the type of Brexit, which is perfectly legitimate.

    If the 650 MPs had wanted 650 versions of Brexit that would have been perfectly democratic and all anyone would have done would be to oppose everyone else. As I said, it is indicative of the tension of a referendum within a parliamentary democracy.
    Except some duplicitous MPs like Grieve and Starmer didn't just reject a form of Brexit, they decided to reject every form of Brexit.

    MPs like Grieve and Starmer being duplicitous liars is constitutionally or democratically acceptable, but voters like Leon are within their rights to be aggrieved at MPs who are duplicitous liars. That is a universal concept, I am aggrieved at Boris for being a duplicitous liar too, so Starmer and Grieve etc aren't the only ones that applies to.
    I'm sure each had a form of Brexit they preferred and were holding out for that. What is the problem with that?
    They didn't, those two said they were rejecting every form of Brexit. After being elected on a platform saying the opposite.

    MPs have the right to be duplicitous liars who say one thing to get elected and do the opposite when in office, but that doesn't justify it or mean the public can't decide they'd rather get rid of the duplicitous liars.
    Ah. Did they say all that before the election? Did Grieve say he would implement Brexit? Or did he always voice his dissent.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,040

    Interesting

    BREAKING: Tory Tom Tugendhat has told @MattChorley on @TimesRadio that he is "talking to colleagues" about the Prime Minister's position today.

    Adds that this is a "time for all of us to look at what this country needs" and we should be "pretty ruthless in our views."

    Yeh right. I'm sure he is. But nothing will actually happen.

  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,781
    Leon said:

    The embarrassing and ridiculous arguments from the palsied Remoaners on here that the referendum was advisory and it was fine to try and get it overturned blah blah blah fucking blah would not be so risibly and offensively stupid if ONE SINGLE REMAIN POLITICIAN had said, during the actual referendum campaign, that "oh, by the way, this vote is just advisory, we don't have to obey it and if you vote Leave we might ignore you and have a second vote, hope that's OK"

    But they didn't did they? Not one single person ever said that because it is so plainly absurd and wanky. They would have got thrown into Lake Windermere

    No one said it, because it is bollocks. Everyone agreed, at the time, with David Cameron in his speech to the entire British nation:

    'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum"

    The Leavers agreed that this was it, their one and only chance for a generation. The Remainers agreed this was it, the one and only vote - BECAUSE THEY ARROGANTLY EXPECTED TO WIN IT, EASILY

    All else is chaff. PFF

    It's Windermere. No need for the "Lake".

    Fatally undermined your argument I'm afraid.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    Applicant said:

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    Technically advisory but in reality mandatory, in a political sense, may well be a fair description. The public certainly showed they found 2 years of Brexit delays distasteful.

    Thats why ignoring the technical reality and crying about people attempting to overturn it is so weird. They did have the right, there is zero question about that, but the public slapped them down for doing so. So there's no need to get a rage boner about the legal permissability of the attempt. Just point to the GE.

    What really ticked me off was the fact that almost everyone in the remainer Parliament had been elected on the basis that they would respect the vote. And yet, even when they were given a range of options, the majority would not vote for any of them. That was taking the piss and they paid the price in 2019.
    And I think many people took that view. Some, like Clarke, really did seek to support what they considered the least harmful Brexit, but others were just going for reversal, like Grieve, even if they pretended otherwise.
    The problem was, by 2017-8 there was essentially only one Brexit possible as May had ruled out most possibilities before the 2017 election and negotiated on that basis. So calls in the 2017-19 parliament for any other form of Brexit were, in essence, a call for the negotiations to restart from square one, which was never going to happen and they knew it was never going to happen.
    The exit deal was agreed but not the future relationship. The backstop steered us to close alignment - certainly closer than Johnson's last minute barebones affair - but it wasn't a given. We just don't know what the outcome would have been. Probably better, smoother, more organised, more cooperative, less willy waving nonsense, but, like I say, who knows.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    murali_s said:

    Leon said:

    The embarrassing and ridiculous arguments from the palsied Remoaners on here that the referendum was advisory and it was fine to try and get it overturned blah blah blah fucking blah would not be so risibly and offensively stupid if ONE SINGLE REMAIN POLITICIAN had said, during the actual referendum campaign, that "oh, by the way, this vote is just advisory, we don't have to obey it and if you vote Leave we might ignore you and have a second vote, hope that's OK"

    But they didn't did they? Not one single person ever said that because it is so plainly absurd and wanky. They would have got thrown into Lake Windermere

    No one said it, because it is bollocks. Everyone agreed, at the time, with David Cameron in his speech to the entire British nation:

    'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum"

    The Leavers agreed that this was it, their one and only chance for a generation. The Remainers agreed this was it, the one and only vote - BECAUSE THEY ARROGANTLY EXPECTED TO WIN IT, EASILY

    All else is chaff. PFF

    It doesn’t change the fact that Brexit is a f*cking calamity.

    Why oh why did Cameron think it was a good idea to give the people a vote on this. Did he really think the average uneducated lazy moron who lives in sh*tholes like Scunthorpe would understand the nuisances of international trade?

    David Cameron = worst PM in history.
    Or even the word nuance, perhaps?
  • .
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Of course the referendum wasn't advisory. No government could have not implemented it. Cameron thought he would win so paid lip service to the details.

    That said, any flavour of "leaving the EU" would have also been legitimate eg EEA (although I have my doubts, expressed at the time, about that). Anti-immigrationers would have hated it but would that have put us in a worse place, divided nation-wise, than we are now? Probably, possibly not.

    Also, for the nth time, a second referendum would not have been undemocratic. Hugely administratively awkward, irritating, unwieldy and probably unworkable if there was one every week, but not undemocratic. No vote asking "the people" (the same people who had voted previously) to opine on something could be undemocratic.

    As for parliament "trying to frustrate democracy", parliament is democracy. They are voted there by the people to make decisions so by definition everything they did was democratic.

    Therein lies much of the problem that haunted post-Referendum politics at Westminster. Many MPs just would not accept that a Referendum, often with a higher turnout than they achieved to get elected, was in any way an equivalent - let alone dominant on a single issue - form of democracy.

    So they dicked around for four years, with their own General Election mandates giving them an authority to do so.
    The problem was the conflict between the GE and the referendum. An elected MP would legitimately say - but my constituents want X so I am not going to vote against their wishes because that's why I'm here. You say one outranked the other but that is open to debate and certainly AFAIA not written down anywhere.

    Having referendums in (our in particular) parliamentary system is problematic to say the least.

    Good article: https://consoc.org.uk/publications/tension-parliamentary-democracy-referendums/
    But there was no conflict between the referendum and any GE.

    2015 election: Majority elected on pledge to hold and respect the referendum.
    2016 referendum: Majority for leave.
    2017 election: Nearly 600 out of 650 MPs elected on pledge to respect the referendum result and implement Brexit.
    2019 election: 80 seat majority to Get Brexit Done.

    Leavers essentially had to win 4 elections or referendum and they won all 4 of them. Had any of the 4 elections or referendum turned out differently, we'd have never left.

    The conflict in 2017 was the hundreds of MPs elected promising to respect the results, but who didn't. They paid the price electorally for their deceit two years later.
    Yes, democratically. So all is well. And the MPs in parliament behaved democratically also. They disagreed about the type of Brexit, which is perfectly legitimate.

    If the 650 MPs had wanted 650 versions of Brexit that would have been perfectly democratic and all anyone would have done would be to oppose everyone else. As I said, it is indicative of the tension of a referendum within a parliamentary democracy.
    Except some duplicitous MPs like Grieve and Starmer didn't just reject a form of Brexit, they decided to reject every form of Brexit.

    MPs like Grieve and Starmer being duplicitous liars is constitutionally or democratically acceptable, but voters like Leon are within their rights to be aggrieved at MPs who are duplicitous liars. That is a universal concept, I am aggrieved at Boris for being a duplicitous liar too, so Starmer and Grieve etc aren't the only ones that applies to.
    I'm sure each had a form of Brexit they preferred and were holding out for that. What is the problem with that?
    They didn't, those two said they were rejecting every form of Brexit. After being elected on a platform saying the opposite.

    MPs have the right to be duplicitous liars who say one thing to get elected and do the opposite when in office, but that doesn't justify it or mean the public can't decide they'd rather get rid of the duplicitous liars.
    Ah. Did they say all that before the election? Did Grieve say he would implement Brexit? Or did he always voice his dissent.
    I believe he said that he would, yes, and I know that Starmer said that Labour would too, before the election.

    After the election they did differently, but I've never seen a single quote from Grieve before the election to say anything other than he would respect the vote, which I believe is what he campaigned on.

    The Lib Dems and SNP campaigned on overturning the vote. They got their mandate for their MPs, as an extremely small minority of the Commons, but that's it for them. Grieve and Starmer etc is different though.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,184


    Daniel Hewitt
    @DanielHewittITV
    ·
    16m
    NEW: Head of Ofgem says he will be writing to Rishi Sunak today to inform him the price cap is expected to be £2,800 in October, up from £1,971.

    The government is going to be so unpopular when that kicks in.
    I am in the car listening to "You and yours" on R4 as I have my socially distanced lunch. There are tearful PENSIONERS who are cancelling direct debits and have turned off the heating since Christmas, people living in single rooms, people considering selling their homes and people renting out spare rooms to pay for non- energy essentials. This looks like, as you might suggest, "Stepmom" territory.
    So what's the solution? Because as far as I can see the wholesale price of gas is outside the ability of government to influence. The state could subsidise it, but then the state would have to massively increase taxation to pay for it.

    Of course, the solution is to have built a bunch of tidal lagoons five years ago. And we should still do that. But that doesn't really help right now.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,257
    edited May 2022
    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Of course the referendum wasn't advisory. No government could have not implemented it. Cameron thought he would win so paid lip service to the details.

    That said, any flavour of "leaving the EU" would have also been legitimate eg EEA (although I have my doubts, expressed at the time, about that). Anti-immigrationers would have hated it but would that have put us in a worse place, divided nation-wise, than we are now? Probably, possibly not.

    Also, for the nth time, a second referendum would not have been undemocratic. Hugely administratively awkward, irritatng, unwieldy and probably unworkable if there was one every week, but not undemocratic. No vote asking "the people" (the same people who had voted previously) to opine on something could be undemocratic.

    As for parliament "trying to frustrate democracy", parliament is democracy. They are voted there by the people to make decisions so by definition everything they did was democratic.

    Agitating to overturn a referendum because you don't like the answer, without even enacting the first vote - the biggest vote in British political history - is so far from democracy it disappears up the backside of Jolyon Maugham and THEN weirdly disappears up the colon of Keir Starmer, whence it appears out of his tiny mouth, in the mealy mouthed words "a people's vote!"

    The German parliament passed the Enabling Act. "Democratically". The supporters of Trump marched on the Capitol, as is their "democratic" right

    Neither of these was democratic, in essence

    We need a truth and reconciliation committee in which Remainers confess their sins before being publicly horse-whipped for 6 solid weeks, 18 hours a day, in Fitzroy Square W1, while Leavers will have to admit that the whole bus thing was *kinda stretching it*, and they aren't allowed proper coffee for 3 days

    Never say I am not balanced and fair

    My only quibble would be that switching the punishments is probably more proportionate, to fully punish the remainers. Well'ard salt of the earth leavers can shrug off a good horsewhipping, I reckon. Poncey liberal elite remainers would rather die than go without fancy coffee. :wink:
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,781
    edited May 2022
    murali_s said:

    Leon said:

    The embarrassing and ridiculous arguments from the palsied Remoaners on here that the referendum was advisory and it was fine to try and get it overturned blah blah blah fucking blah would not be so risibly and offensively stupid if ONE SINGLE REMAIN POLITICIAN had said, during the actual referendum campaign, that "oh, by the way, this vote is just advisory, we don't have to obey it and if you vote Leave we might ignore you and have a second vote, hope that's OK"

    But they didn't did they? Not one single person ever said that because it is so plainly absurd and wanky. They would have got thrown into Lake Windermere

    No one said it, because it is bollocks. Everyone agreed, at the time, with David Cameron in his speech to the entire British nation:

    'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum"

    The Leavers agreed that this was it, their one and only chance for a generation. The Remainers agreed this was it, the one and only vote - BECAUSE THEY ARROGANTLY EXPECTED TO WIN IT, EASILY

    All else is chaff. PFF

    It doesn’t change the fact that Brexit is a f*cking calamity.

    Why oh why did Cameron think it was a good idea to give the people a vote on this. Did he really think the average uneducated lazy moron who lives in sh*tholes like Scunthorpe would understand the nuisances of international trade?

    David Cameron = worst PM in history.
    The Scunthorpe morons did have a feel for the labour market though, and since then we've seen an incredibly tight one. That might not be down to Brexit, but what they thought would happen did occur, in the end.

    Whether that leads to real earnings growth for those on lower incomes (and reduced inequality) is yet to be seen.

    You might be right that the trade deals were better for people on low incomes compared with what we have now but it's pretty hard to prove.
  • LDLFLDLF Posts: 144
    edited May 2022

    .

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Of course the referendum wasn't advisory. No government could have not implemented it. Cameron thought he would win so paid lip service to the details.

    That said, any flavour of "leaving the EU" would have also been legitimate eg EEA (although I have my doubts, expressed at the time, about that). Anti-immigrationers would have hated it but would that have put us in a worse place, divided nation-wise, than we are now? Probably, possibly not.

    Also, for the nth time, a second referendum would not have been undemocratic. Hugely administratively awkward, irritating, unwieldy and probably unworkable if there was one every week, but not undemocratic. No vote asking "the people" (the same people who had voted previously) to opine on something could be undemocratic.

    As for parliament "trying to frustrate democracy", parliament is democracy. They are voted there by the people to make decisions so by definition everything they did was democratic.

    Therein lies much of the problem that haunted post-Referendum politics at Westminster. Many MPs just would not accept that a Referendum, often with a higher turnout than they achieved to get elected, was in any way an equivalent - let alone dominant on a single issue - form of democracy.

    So they dicked around for four years, with their own General Election mandates giving them an authority to do so.
    The problem was the conflict between the GE and the referendum. An elected MP would legitimately say - but my constituents want X so I am not going to vote against their wishes because that's why I'm here. You say one outranked the other but that is open to debate and certainly AFAIA not written down anywhere.

    Having referendums in (our in particular) parliamentary system is problematic to say the least.

    Good article: https://consoc.org.uk/publications/tension-parliamentary-democracy-referendums/
    But there was no conflict between the referendum and any GE.

    2015 election: Majority elected on pledge to hold and respect the referendum.
    2016 referendum: Majority for leave.
    2017 election: Nearly 600 out of 650 MPs elected on pledge to respect the referendum result and implement Brexit.
    2019 election: 80 seat majority to Get Brexit Done.

    Leavers essentially had to win 4 elections or referendum and they won all 4 of them. Had any of the 4 elections or referendum turned out differently, we'd have never left.

    The conflict in 2017 was the hundreds of MPs elected promising to respect the results, but who didn't. They paid the price electorally for their deceit two years later.
    Yes, democratically. So all is well. And the MPs in parliament behaved democratically also. They disagreed about the type of Brexit, which is perfectly legitimate.

    If the 650 MPs had wanted 650 versions of Brexit that would have been perfectly democratic and all anyone would have done would be to oppose everyone else. As I said, it is indicative of the tension of a referendum within a parliamentary democracy.
    Except some duplicitous MPs like Grieve and Starmer didn't just reject a form of Brexit, they decided to reject every form of Brexit.

    MPs like Grieve and Starmer being duplicitous liars is constitutionally or democratically acceptable, but voters like Leon are within their rights to be aggrieved at MPs who are duplicitous liars. That is a universal concept, I am aggrieved at Boris for being a duplicitous liar too, so Starmer and Grieve etc aren't the only ones that applies to.
    I'm sure each had a form of Brexit they preferred and were holding out for that. What is the problem with that?
    They didn't, those two said they were rejecting every form of Brexit. After being elected on a platform saying the opposite.

    MPs have the right to be duplicitous liars who say one thing to get elected and do the opposite when in office, but that doesn't justify it or mean the public can't decide they'd rather get rid of the duplicitous liars.
    Ah. Did they say all that before the election? Did Grieve say he would implement Brexit? Or did he always voice his dissent.
    I believe he said that he would, yes, and I know that Starmer said that Labour would too, before the election.

    After the election they did differently, but I've never seen a single quote from Grieve before the election to say anything other than he would respect the vote, which I believe is what he campaigned on.

    The Lib Dems and SNP campaigned on overturning the vote. They got their mandate for their MPs, as an extremely small minority of the Commons, but that's it for them. Grieve and Starmer etc is different though.
    We can be critical of Dominic Grieve from both a Remain and Leave perspective.

    Clarke voted against Article 50, and made no secret during the election of his preferences on Brexit (as he has done for his whole career). During the 2017-19 parliament he voted for Theresa May's deal.

    Grieve voted for Article 50, and stood on a platform in 2017 supportive of May's negotiation strategy. He then voted against every single deal presented to him - making him more hardline than most ERG members.

    Which of these two men did more to avoid No Deal? It is a mystery to me why Grieve is so lauded.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,454

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Of course the referendum wasn't advisory. No government could have not implemented it. Cameron thought he would win so paid lip service to the details.

    That said, any flavour of "leaving the EU" would have also been legitimate eg EEA (although I have my doubts, expressed at the time, about that). Anti-immigrationers would have hated it but would that have put us in a worse place, divided nation-wise, than we are now? Probably, possibly not.

    Also, for the nth time, a second referendum would not have been undemocratic. Hugely administratively awkward, irritating, unwieldy and probably unworkable if there was one every week, but not undemocratic. No vote asking "the people" (the same people who had voted previously) to opine on something could be undemocratic.

    As for parliament "trying to frustrate democracy", parliament is democracy. They are voted there by the people to make decisions so by definition everything they did was democratic.

    Therein lies much of the problem that haunted post-Referendum politics at Westminster. Many MPs just would not accept that a Referendum, often with a higher turnout than they achieved to get elected, was in any way an equivalent - let alone dominant on a single issue - form of democracy.

    So they dicked around for four years, with their own General Election mandates giving them an authority to do so.
    The problem was the conflict between the GE and the referendum. An elected MP would legitimately say - but my constituents want X so I am not going to vote against their wishes because that's why I'm here. You say one outranked the other but that is open to debate and certainly AFAIA not written down anywhere.

    Having referendums in (our in particular) parliamentary system is problematic to say the least.

    Good article: https://consoc.org.uk/publications/tension-parliamentary-democracy-referendums/
    But there was no conflict between the referendum and any GE.

    2015 election: Majority elected on pledge to hold and respect the referendum.
    2016 referendum: Majority for leave.
    2017 election: Nearly 600 out of 650 MPs elected on pledge to respect the referendum result and implement Brexit.
    2019 election: 80 seat majority to Get Brexit Done.

    Leavers essentially had to win 4 elections or referendum and they won all 4 of them. Had any of the 4 elections or referendum turned out differently, we'd have never left.

    The conflict in 2017 was the hundreds of MPs elected promising to respect the results, but who didn't. They paid the price electorally for their deceit two years later.
    Yes, democratically. So all is well. And the MPs in parliament behaved democratically also. They disagreed about the type of Brexit, which is perfectly legitimate.

    If the 650 MPs had wanted 650 versions of Brexit that would have been perfectly democratic and all anyone would have done would be to oppose everyone else. As I said, it is indicative of the tension of a referendum within a parliamentary democracy.
    Except some duplicitous MPs like Grieve and Starmer didn't just reject a form of Brexit, they decided to reject every form of Brexit.

    MPs like Grieve and Starmer being duplicitous liars is constitutionally or democratically acceptable, but voters like Leon are within their rights to be aggrieved at MPs who are duplicitous liars. That is a universal concept, I am aggrieved at Boris for being a duplicitous liar too, so Starmer and Grieve etc aren't the only ones that applies to.
    False on Starmer. Voted in favour of both Custom Union and Common Markets on second indicative votes. (Grieve abstained on both, but was close to the only Tory MP who did not vote for at least one flavour of Brexit, a complete outlier not representative of the parliament as a whole).
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    .

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Of course the referendum wasn't advisory. No government could have not implemented it. Cameron thought he would win so paid lip service to the details.

    That said, any flavour of "leaving the EU" would have also been legitimate eg EEA (although I have my doubts, expressed at the time, about that). Anti-immigrationers would have hated it but would that have put us in a worse place, divided nation-wise, than we are now? Probably, possibly not.

    Also, for the nth time, a second referendum would not have been undemocratic. Hugely administratively awkward, irritating, unwieldy and probably unworkable if there was one every week, but not undemocratic. No vote asking "the people" (the same people who had voted previously) to opine on something could be undemocratic.

    As for parliament "trying to frustrate democracy", parliament is democracy. They are voted there by the people to make decisions so by definition everything they did was democratic.

    Therein lies much of the problem that haunted post-Referendum politics at Westminster. Many MPs just would not accept that a Referendum, often with a higher turnout than they achieved to get elected, was in any way an equivalent - let alone dominant on a single issue - form of democracy.

    So they dicked around for four years, with their own General Election mandates giving them an authority to do so.
    The problem was the conflict between the GE and the referendum. An elected MP would legitimately say - but my constituents want X so I am not going to vote against their wishes because that's why I'm here. You say one outranked the other but that is open to debate and certainly AFAIA not written down anywhere.

    Having referendums in (our in particular) parliamentary system is problematic to say the least.

    Good article: https://consoc.org.uk/publications/tension-parliamentary-democracy-referendums/
    But there was no conflict between the referendum and any GE.

    2015 election: Majority elected on pledge to hold and respect the referendum.
    2016 referendum: Majority for leave.
    2017 election: Nearly 600 out of 650 MPs elected on pledge to respect the referendum result and implement Brexit.
    2019 election: 80 seat majority to Get Brexit Done.

    Leavers essentially had to win 4 elections or referendum and they won all 4 of them. Had any of the 4 elections or referendum turned out differently, we'd have never left.

    The conflict in 2017 was the hundreds of MPs elected promising to respect the results, but who didn't. They paid the price electorally for their deceit two years later.
    Yes, democratically. So all is well. And the MPs in parliament behaved democratically also. They disagreed about the type of Brexit, which is perfectly legitimate.

    If the 650 MPs had wanted 650 versions of Brexit that would have been perfectly democratic and all anyone would have done would be to oppose everyone else. As I said, it is indicative of the tension of a referendum within a parliamentary democracy.
    Except some duplicitous MPs like Grieve and Starmer didn't just reject a form of Brexit, they decided to reject every form of Brexit.

    MPs like Grieve and Starmer being duplicitous liars is constitutionally or democratically acceptable, but voters like Leon are within their rights to be aggrieved at MPs who are duplicitous liars. That is a universal concept, I am aggrieved at Boris for being a duplicitous liar too, so Starmer and Grieve etc aren't the only ones that applies to.
    I'm sure each had a form of Brexit they preferred and were holding out for that. What is the problem with that?
    They didn't, those two said they were rejecting every form of Brexit. After being elected on a platform saying the opposite.

    MPs have the right to be duplicitous liars who say one thing to get elected and do the opposite when in office, but that doesn't justify it or mean the public can't decide they'd rather get rid of the duplicitous liars.
    Ah. Did they say all that before the election? Did Grieve say he would implement Brexit? Or did he always voice his dissent.
    I believe he said that he would, yes, and I know that Starmer said that Labour would too, before the election.

    After the election they did differently, but I've never seen a single quote from Grieve before the election to say anything other than he would respect the vote, which I believe is what he campaigned on.

    The Lib Dems and SNP campaigned on overturning the vote. They got their mandate for their MPs, as an extremely small minority of the Commons, but that's it for them. Grieve and Starmer etc is different though.
    On a quick google (quick, mind) I see a lot of "stopping no deal Brexit" on his wiki page. Plus he hated it, obvs. But I don't know or remember whether that was translated into anything other than voting with dozens of others of all stripes against whatever Brexit bill was put in front of him in the presumed hope of coming up with a "better" deal.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    Details of the leaving party emerging on W@1 pretty devastating for the Big Barnacle.

    30 plus packed into the room, sitting on laps; “the PM grabbed a drink and joined us.” etc.
    Sure it was a work event.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,013
    Cookie said:


    Daniel Hewitt
    @DanielHewittITV
    ·
    16m
    NEW: Head of Ofgem says he will be writing to Rishi Sunak today to inform him the price cap is expected to be £2,800 in October, up from £1,971.

    The government is going to be so unpopular when that kicks in.
    I am in the car listening to "You and yours" on R4 as I have my socially distanced lunch. There are tearful PENSIONERS who are cancelling direct debits and have turned off the heating since Christmas, people living in single rooms, people considering selling their homes and people renting out spare rooms to pay for non- energy essentials. This looks like, as you might suggest, "Stepmom" territory.
    So what's the solution? Because as far as I can see the wholesale price of gas is outside the ability of government to influence. The state could subsidise it, but then the state would have to massively increase taxation to pay for it.

    Of course, the solution is to have built a bunch of tidal lagoons five years ago. And we should still do that. But that doesn't really help right now.
    In the UK many of us buy our energy from EDF. Who charge the market rate and make a bucket of money.

    In France most people buy their energy from EDF. Who as they are owned by the French government take the profits made here to order a tight cost cap for French consumers.

    What could we do here and now? Nail to the floor the price cap. That will drive even some of the bigger companies out of the market with infrastructure that can then be handed to our own StateCo.

    I keep saying this - the solution is across the channel.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,454
    LDLF said:

    .

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Of course the referendum wasn't advisory. No government could have not implemented it. Cameron thought he would win so paid lip service to the details.

    That said, any flavour of "leaving the EU" would have also been legitimate eg EEA (although I have my doubts, expressed at the time, about that). Anti-immigrationers would have hated it but would that have put us in a worse place, divided nation-wise, than we are now? Probably, possibly not.

    Also, for the nth time, a second referendum would not have been undemocratic. Hugely administratively awkward, irritating, unwieldy and probably unworkable if there was one every week, but not undemocratic. No vote asking "the people" (the same people who had voted previously) to opine on something could be undemocratic.

    As for parliament "trying to frustrate democracy", parliament is democracy. They are voted there by the people to make decisions so by definition everything they did was democratic.

    Therein lies much of the problem that haunted post-Referendum politics at Westminster. Many MPs just would not accept that a Referendum, often with a higher turnout than they achieved to get elected, was in any way an equivalent - let alone dominant on a single issue - form of democracy.

    So they dicked around for four years, with their own General Election mandates giving them an authority to do so.
    The problem was the conflict between the GE and the referendum. An elected MP would legitimately say - but my constituents want X so I am not going to vote against their wishes because that's why I'm here. You say one outranked the other but that is open to debate and certainly AFAIA not written down anywhere.

    Having referendums in (our in particular) parliamentary system is problematic to say the least.

    Good article: https://consoc.org.uk/publications/tension-parliamentary-democracy-referendums/
    But there was no conflict between the referendum and any GE.

    2015 election: Majority elected on pledge to hold and respect the referendum.
    2016 referendum: Majority for leave.
    2017 election: Nearly 600 out of 650 MPs elected on pledge to respect the referendum result and implement Brexit.
    2019 election: 80 seat majority to Get Brexit Done.

    Leavers essentially had to win 4 elections or referendum and they won all 4 of them. Had any of the 4 elections or referendum turned out differently, we'd have never left.

    The conflict in 2017 was the hundreds of MPs elected promising to respect the results, but who didn't. They paid the price electorally for their deceit two years later.
    Yes, democratically. So all is well. And the MPs in parliament behaved democratically also. They disagreed about the type of Brexit, which is perfectly legitimate.

    If the 650 MPs had wanted 650 versions of Brexit that would have been perfectly democratic and all anyone would have done would be to oppose everyone else. As I said, it is indicative of the tension of a referendum within a parliamentary democracy.
    Except some duplicitous MPs like Grieve and Starmer didn't just reject a form of Brexit, they decided to reject every form of Brexit.

    MPs like Grieve and Starmer being duplicitous liars is constitutionally or democratically acceptable, but voters like Leon are within their rights to be aggrieved at MPs who are duplicitous liars. That is a universal concept, I am aggrieved at Boris for being a duplicitous liar too, so Starmer and Grieve etc aren't the only ones that applies to.
    I'm sure each had a form of Brexit they preferred and were holding out for that. What is the problem with that?
    They didn't, those two said they were rejecting every form of Brexit. After being elected on a platform saying the opposite.

    MPs have the right to be duplicitous liars who say one thing to get elected and do the opposite when in office, but that doesn't justify it or mean the public can't decide they'd rather get rid of the duplicitous liars.
    Ah. Did they say all that before the election? Did Grieve say he would implement Brexit? Or did he always voice his dissent.
    I believe he said that he would, yes, and I know that Starmer said that Labour would too, before the election.

    After the election they did differently, but I've never seen a single quote from Grieve before the election to say anything other than he would respect the vote, which I believe is what he campaigned on.

    The Lib Dems and SNP campaigned on overturning the vote. They got their mandate for their MPs, as an extremely small minority of the Commons, but that's it for them. Grieve and Starmer etc is different though.
    We can be critical of Dominic Grieve from both a Remain and Leave perspective.

    Clarke voted against Article 50, and made no secret during the election of his preferences on Brexit (as he has done for his whole career). During the 2017-19 parliament he voted for Theresa May's deal.

    Grieve voted for Article 50, and stood on a platform in 2017 supportive of May's negotiation strategy. He then voted against every single deal presented to him - making him more hardline than most ERG members.

    Which of these two men did more to avoid No Deal? It is a mystery to me why Grieve is so lauded.
    Where is Grieve lauded? Clarke is the best PM we never had.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    edited May 2022
    Cookie said:


    Daniel Hewitt
    @DanielHewittITV
    ·
    16m
    NEW: Head of Ofgem says he will be writing to Rishi Sunak today to inform him the price cap is expected to be £2,800 in October, up from £1,971.

    The government is going to be so unpopular when that kicks in.
    I am in the car listening to "You and yours" on R4 as I have my socially distanced lunch. There are tearful PENSIONERS who are cancelling direct debits and have turned off the heating since Christmas, people living in single rooms, people considering selling their homes and people renting out spare rooms to pay for non- energy essentials. This looks like, as you might suggest, "Stepmom" territory.
    So what's the solution? Because as far as I can see the wholesale price of gas is outside the ability of government to influence. The state could subsidise it, but then the state would have to massively increase taxation to pay for it.

    Of course, the solution is to have built a bunch of tidal lagoons five years ago. And we should still do that. But that doesn't really help right now.
    The one thing which might have made a small difference (too late for this winter now) would have been to have lifted the height restrictions on onshore wind. You could probably have doubled onshore capacity this year, just by replacing existing turbines.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,837
    Eabhal said:

    murali_s said:

    Leon said:

    The embarrassing and ridiculous arguments from the palsied Remoaners on here that the referendum was advisory and it was fine to try and get it overturned blah blah blah fucking blah would not be so risibly and offensively stupid if ONE SINGLE REMAIN POLITICIAN had said, during the actual referendum campaign, that "oh, by the way, this vote is just advisory, we don't have to obey it and if you vote Leave we might ignore you and have a second vote, hope that's OK"

    But they didn't did they? Not one single person ever said that because it is so plainly absurd and wanky. They would have got thrown into Lake Windermere

    No one said it, because it is bollocks. Everyone agreed, at the time, with David Cameron in his speech to the entire British nation:

    'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum"

    The Leavers agreed that this was it, their one and only chance for a generation. The Remainers agreed this was it, the one and only vote - BECAUSE THEY ARROGANTLY EXPECTED TO WIN IT, EASILY

    All else is chaff. PFF

    It doesn’t change the fact that Brexit is a f*cking calamity.

    Why oh why did Cameron think it was a good idea to give the people a vote on this. Did he really think the average uneducated lazy moron who lives in sh*tholes like Scunthorpe would understand the nuisances of international trade?

    David Cameron = worst PM in history.
    The Scunthorpe morons did have a feel for the labour market though, and since then we've seen an incredibly tight one. That might not be down to Brexit, but what they thought would happen did occur, in the end.

    Whether that leads to real earnings growth for those on lower incomes (and reduced inequality) is yet to be seen.

    You might be right that the trade deals were better for people on low incomes compared with what we have now but it's pretty hard to prove.
    It is being seen. It hasn't and it isn't.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    It is interesting that the Ukraine government is now describing the battle being waged in the Donbass as the largest in Europe since WW2. There are a number of indications that the intensity of the fighting has reached a new level with high casualties on both sides but the story is drifting down the news agenda here because of the lack of pictures from the front. Presumably our media, entirely understandably, consider the risks to their staff just too high to take.

    Its hard to imagine either side can keep this up for long. The winner is a lot more uncertain than some of the Ukranian propaganda would have us believe.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,704
    edited May 2022

    murali_s said:

    Leon said:

    The embarrassing and ridiculous arguments from the palsied Remoaners on here that the referendum was advisory and it was fine to try and get it overturned blah blah blah fucking blah would not be so risibly and offensively stupid if ONE SINGLE REMAIN POLITICIAN had said, during the actual referendum campaign, that "oh, by the way, this vote is just advisory, we don't have to obey it and if you vote Leave we might ignore you and have a second vote, hope that's OK"

    But they didn't did they? Not one single person ever said that because it is so plainly absurd and wanky. They would have got thrown into Lake Windermere

    No one said it, because it is bollocks. Everyone agreed, at the time, with David Cameron in his speech to the entire British nation:

    'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum"

    The Leavers agreed that this was it, their one and only chance for a generation. The Remainers agreed this was it, the one and only vote - BECAUSE THEY ARROGANTLY EXPECTED TO WIN IT, EASILY

    All else is chaff. PFF

    It doesn’t change the fact that Brexit is a f*cking calamity.

    Why oh why did Cameron think it was a good idea to give the people a vote on this. Did he really think the average uneducated lazy moron who lives in sh*tholes like Scunthorpe would understand the nuisances of international trade?

    David Cameron = worst PM in history.
    Nick Clegg thought it was a good idea too, in 2010.

    You might think its a shame Plebs get votes, but you're pissing into the wind with that one.
    Thing as as most of us just move on with our lives however we voted, I was remain, bitter jokers like this person will just become even more bitter and even more angry and just spend their time howling about it and to what point. It may make them feel happy to moan about the result incessantly but what will it achieve ultimately aside from making them even more embittered. Captain Cut n paste from Twitter is in the same boat. Life really is too precious and valuable..
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575

    LDLF said:

    .

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Of course the referendum wasn't advisory. No government could have not implemented it. Cameron thought he would win so paid lip service to the details.

    That said, any flavour of "leaving the EU" would have also been legitimate eg EEA (although I have my doubts, expressed at the time, about that). Anti-immigrationers would have hated it but would that have put us in a worse place, divided nation-wise, than we are now? Probably, possibly not.

    Also, for the nth time, a second referendum would not have been undemocratic. Hugely administratively awkward, irritating, unwieldy and probably unworkable if there was one every week, but not undemocratic. No vote asking "the people" (the same people who had voted previously) to opine on something could be undemocratic.

    As for parliament "trying to frustrate democracy", parliament is democracy. They are voted there by the people to make decisions so by definition everything they did was democratic.

    Therein lies much of the problem that haunted post-Referendum politics at Westminster. Many MPs just would not accept that a Referendum, often with a higher turnout than they achieved to get elected, was in any way an equivalent - let alone dominant on a single issue - form of democracy.

    So they dicked around for four years, with their own General Election mandates giving them an authority to do so.
    The problem was the conflict between the GE and the referendum. An elected MP would legitimately say - but my constituents want X so I am not going to vote against their wishes because that's why I'm here. You say one outranked the other but that is open to debate and certainly AFAIA not written down anywhere.

    Having referendums in (our in particular) parliamentary system is problematic to say the least.

    Good article: https://consoc.org.uk/publications/tension-parliamentary-democracy-referendums/
    But there was no conflict between the referendum and any GE.

    2015 election: Majority elected on pledge to hold and respect the referendum.
    2016 referendum: Majority for leave.
    2017 election: Nearly 600 out of 650 MPs elected on pledge to respect the referendum result and implement Brexit.
    2019 election: 80 seat majority to Get Brexit Done.

    Leavers essentially had to win 4 elections or referendum and they won all 4 of them. Had any of the 4 elections or referendum turned out differently, we'd have never left.

    The conflict in 2017 was the hundreds of MPs elected promising to respect the results, but who didn't. They paid the price electorally for their deceit two years later.
    Yes, democratically. So all is well. And the MPs in parliament behaved democratically also. They disagreed about the type of Brexit, which is perfectly legitimate.

    If the 650 MPs had wanted 650 versions of Brexit that would have been perfectly democratic and all anyone would have done would be to oppose everyone else. As I said, it is indicative of the tension of a referendum within a parliamentary democracy.
    Except some duplicitous MPs like Grieve and Starmer didn't just reject a form of Brexit, they decided to reject every form of Brexit.

    MPs like Grieve and Starmer being duplicitous liars is constitutionally or democratically acceptable, but voters like Leon are within their rights to be aggrieved at MPs who are duplicitous liars. That is a universal concept, I am aggrieved at Boris for being a duplicitous liar too, so Starmer and Grieve etc aren't the only ones that applies to.
    I'm sure each had a form of Brexit they preferred and were holding out for that. What is the problem with that?
    They didn't, those two said they were rejecting every form of Brexit. After being elected on a platform saying the opposite.

    MPs have the right to be duplicitous liars who say one thing to get elected and do the opposite when in office, but that doesn't justify it or mean the public can't decide they'd rather get rid of the duplicitous liars.
    Ah. Did they say all that before the election? Did Grieve say he would implement Brexit? Or did he always voice his dissent.
    I believe he said that he would, yes, and I know that Starmer said that Labour would too, before the election.

    After the election they did differently, but I've never seen a single quote from Grieve before the election to say anything other than he would respect the vote, which I believe is what he campaigned on.

    The Lib Dems and SNP campaigned on overturning the vote. They got their mandate for their MPs, as an extremely small minority of the Commons, but that's it for them. Grieve and Starmer etc is different though.
    We can be critical of Dominic Grieve from both a Remain and Leave perspective.

    Clarke voted against Article 50, and made no secret during the election of his preferences on Brexit (as he has done for his whole career). During the 2017-19 parliament he voted for Theresa May's deal.

    Grieve voted for Article 50, and stood on a platform in 2017 supportive of May's negotiation strategy. He then voted against every single deal presented to him - making him more hardline than most ERG members.

    Which of these two men did more to avoid No Deal? It is a mystery to me why Grieve is so lauded.
    Where is Grieve lauded? ...
    In @Leon ’s fevered dreams.
  • Hitler was an election winner too, people just thought eventually that it was more than just winning
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    DavidL said:

    It is interesting that the Ukraine government is now describing the battle being waged in the Donbass as the largest in Europe since WW2. There are a number of indications that the intensity of the fighting has reached a new level with high casualties on both sides but the story is drifting down the news agenda here because of the lack of pictures from the front. Presumably our media, entirely understandably, consider the risks to their staff just too high to take.

    Its hard to imagine either side can keep this up for long. The winner is a lot more uncertain than some of the Ukranian propaganda would have us believe.

    Careful. That kind of talk will get you cancelled on PB.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,454
    Nigelb said:

    LDLF said:

    .

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Of course the referendum wasn't advisory. No government could have not implemented it. Cameron thought he would win so paid lip service to the details.

    That said, any flavour of "leaving the EU" would have also been legitimate eg EEA (although I have my doubts, expressed at the time, about that). Anti-immigrationers would have hated it but would that have put us in a worse place, divided nation-wise, than we are now? Probably, possibly not.

    Also, for the nth time, a second referendum would not have been undemocratic. Hugely administratively awkward, irritating, unwieldy and probably unworkable if there was one every week, but not undemocratic. No vote asking "the people" (the same people who had voted previously) to opine on something could be undemocratic.

    As for parliament "trying to frustrate democracy", parliament is democracy. They are voted there by the people to make decisions so by definition everything they did was democratic.

    Therein lies much of the problem that haunted post-Referendum politics at Westminster. Many MPs just would not accept that a Referendum, often with a higher turnout than they achieved to get elected, was in any way an equivalent - let alone dominant on a single issue - form of democracy.

    So they dicked around for four years, with their own General Election mandates giving them an authority to do so.
    The problem was the conflict between the GE and the referendum. An elected MP would legitimately say - but my constituents want X so I am not going to vote against their wishes because that's why I'm here. You say one outranked the other but that is open to debate and certainly AFAIA not written down anywhere.

    Having referendums in (our in particular) parliamentary system is problematic to say the least.

    Good article: https://consoc.org.uk/publications/tension-parliamentary-democracy-referendums/
    But there was no conflict between the referendum and any GE.

    2015 election: Majority elected on pledge to hold and respect the referendum.
    2016 referendum: Majority for leave.
    2017 election: Nearly 600 out of 650 MPs elected on pledge to respect the referendum result and implement Brexit.
    2019 election: 80 seat majority to Get Brexit Done.

    Leavers essentially had to win 4 elections or referendum and they won all 4 of them. Had any of the 4 elections or referendum turned out differently, we'd have never left.

    The conflict in 2017 was the hundreds of MPs elected promising to respect the results, but who didn't. They paid the price electorally for their deceit two years later.
    Yes, democratically. So all is well. And the MPs in parliament behaved democratically also. They disagreed about the type of Brexit, which is perfectly legitimate.

    If the 650 MPs had wanted 650 versions of Brexit that would have been perfectly democratic and all anyone would have done would be to oppose everyone else. As I said, it is indicative of the tension of a referendum within a parliamentary democracy.
    Except some duplicitous MPs like Grieve and Starmer didn't just reject a form of Brexit, they decided to reject every form of Brexit.

    MPs like Grieve and Starmer being duplicitous liars is constitutionally or democratically acceptable, but voters like Leon are within their rights to be aggrieved at MPs who are duplicitous liars. That is a universal concept, I am aggrieved at Boris for being a duplicitous liar too, so Starmer and Grieve etc aren't the only ones that applies to.
    I'm sure each had a form of Brexit they preferred and were holding out for that. What is the problem with that?
    They didn't, those two said they were rejecting every form of Brexit. After being elected on a platform saying the opposite.

    MPs have the right to be duplicitous liars who say one thing to get elected and do the opposite when in office, but that doesn't justify it or mean the public can't decide they'd rather get rid of the duplicitous liars.
    Ah. Did they say all that before the election? Did Grieve say he would implement Brexit? Or did he always voice his dissent.
    I believe he said that he would, yes, and I know that Starmer said that Labour would too, before the election.

    After the election they did differently, but I've never seen a single quote from Grieve before the election to say anything other than he would respect the vote, which I believe is what he campaigned on.

    The Lib Dems and SNP campaigned on overturning the vote. They got their mandate for their MPs, as an extremely small minority of the Commons, but that's it for them. Grieve and Starmer etc is different though.
    We can be critical of Dominic Grieve from both a Remain and Leave perspective.

    Clarke voted against Article 50, and made no secret during the election of his preferences on Brexit (as he has done for his whole career). During the 2017-19 parliament he voted for Theresa May's deal.

    Grieve voted for Article 50, and stood on a platform in 2017 supportive of May's negotiation strategy. He then voted against every single deal presented to him - making him more hardline than most ERG members.

    Which of these two men did more to avoid No Deal? It is a mystery to me why Grieve is so lauded.
    Where is Grieve lauded? ...
    In @Leon ’s fevered dreams.
    In which case it would not matter, as the world is always about to end.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    edited May 2022
    Hmm even a very liquid working lunch doesn't extend to "empties left out overnight", "overnight stays" and "sitting in each others laps". !!!
    Will Boris stand up and say he didn't mislead the Commons about a party because it was actually an orgy ?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,912
    Took a little Day 1 trip on the central section of the Elizabeth Line in my lunch hour. Wow. Really incredible. It even smells new. Next time I will take the crazy funicular style lift at Liverpool Street.
    With interchanges at Farringdon and Whitechapel both providing access to our patch of SE London, this will be our new way of getting to the West End. It was worth the wait.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    DavidL said:

    It is interesting that the Ukraine government is now describing the battle being waged in the Donbass as the largest in Europe since WW2. There are a number of indications that the intensity of the fighting has reached a new level with high casualties on both sides but the story is drifting down the news agenda here because of the lack of pictures from the front. Presumably our media, entirely understandably, consider the risks to their staff just too high to take.

    Its hard to imagine either side can keep this up for long. The winner is a lot more uncertain than some of the Ukranian propaganda would have us believe.

    There were journalists on the front a couple of days back. Looked pretty hairy even then.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,147
    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    The embarrassing and ridiculous arguments from the palsied Remoaners on here that the referendum was advisory and it was fine to try and get it overturned blah blah blah fucking blah would not be so risibly and offensively stupid if ONE SINGLE REMAIN POLITICIAN had said, during the actual referendum campaign, that "oh, by the way, this vote is just advisory, we don't have to obey it and if you vote Leave we might ignore you and have a second vote, hope that's OK"

    But they didn't did they? Not one single person ever said that because it is so plainly absurd and wanky. They would have got thrown into Lake Windermere

    No one said it, because it is bollocks. Everyone agreed, at the time, with David Cameron in his speech to the entire British nation:

    'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum"

    The Leavers agreed that this was it, their one and only chance for a generation. The Remainers agreed this was it, the one and only vote - BECAUSE THEY ARROGANTLY EXPECTED TO WIN IT, EASILY

    All else is chaff. PFF

    It's Windermere. No need for the "Lake".

    Fatally undermined your argument I'm afraid.
    Quite, like saying Walden Pond Lake.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    murali_s said:

    Leon said:

    The embarrassing and ridiculous arguments from the palsied Remoaners on here that the referendum was advisory and it was fine to try and get it overturned blah blah blah fucking blah would not be so risibly and offensively stupid if ONE SINGLE REMAIN POLITICIAN had said, during the actual referendum campaign, that "oh, by the way, this vote is just advisory, we don't have to obey it and if you vote Leave we might ignore you and have a second vote, hope that's OK"

    But they didn't did they? Not one single person ever said that because it is so plainly absurd and wanky. They would have got thrown into Lake Windermere

    No one said it, because it is bollocks. Everyone agreed, at the time, with David Cameron in his speech to the entire British nation:

    'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum"

    The Leavers agreed that this was it, their one and only chance for a generation. The Remainers agreed this was it, the one and only vote - BECAUSE THEY ARROGANTLY EXPECTED TO WIN IT, EASILY

    All else is chaff. PFF

    It doesn’t change the fact that Brexit is a f*cking calamity.

    Why oh why did Cameron think it was a good idea to give the people a vote on this.
    Because denying people a vote repeatedly - from Maastricht through to Lisbon - was no longer tenable.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    Taz said:

    Thing as as most of us just move on with our lives however we voted

    Bollocks

    A we have seen, Brexiteers are obsessed by the vote.

    Others are more interested in the outcome, the ongoing and ever deepening shitshow that Brexit has become.

    Instead of addressing the issues, Brexiteers can only whine "but we won....."
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,585

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    Does anyone give a fuck any more?

    I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed

    And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash

    Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24

    Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
    Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so

    The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it

    God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.

    It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit

    And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical

    The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum


    In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
    Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.

    And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far :smile: )

    You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
    Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”

    There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
    Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.

    I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).

    Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
    Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it

    He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it

    And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
    You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.

    And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.

    Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
    In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer

    Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015

    'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'

    Cameron goes on to say this:

    'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'


    That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
    In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.

    Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.

    To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
    I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.

    Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.

    It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.

    So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
    It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
    Why? Advisory is advisory. Cameron's government didn't even need to hold the referendum if a majority of MPs were willing to vote for a bill to withdraw from the EU. Parliament already had the power.
    Technically advisory, but in reality mandatory: the people are the boss of Parliament, not the other way round.
    Yep. So politically mandatory on the 2015 parliament.

    Then we had an election. Where the 2017 parliament is not bound by anything from any previous parliament. As demonstrated by this parliament now torching its own 2 year old manifesto pledge laws.

    The concept of "politically mandatory" ceased to have any meaning once the government announced it would pass laws to abolish its own laws implemented to enact the central manifesto pledge of the oven-ready deal.
    You're misremembering -
    Labour never ran the 2017 election on any sort of remain platform. Elected Labour MPs did a bait & switch which is why they got absolubtely walloped in places like Bassetlaw in 2019.

    No good has come of Brexit so far as I can tell, but it was voted for - it would have been unconscionable to remain in the EU.
    Remain MPs should have accepted May's deal. It was the best (From a remain perspective) they were ever going to achieve.
    "Remain MPs should have accepted May's deal".

    In one sentence you have absolved Team Johnson/ Team ERG of the fiasco that is Brexit.
    It doesnt absolve them for their own actions and choices, but it would have closed off a number of options.
    Indeed it would. Not least it would have shown the ERG to be an irrelevant box of frogs in terms of fixing the UK's future relationships with the EU rather than putting them in charge of it. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
    But you voted to put the performing frogs I'm charge of the circus.
    The EU might be a circus but I didn't think it was politically correct to refer to Macron as that anymore.
    Never accuse me of using cheap racial stereotypical slurs.

    I was simply batting DavidL's analogous reference back to him by using a cheap slur against Johnson and the ERG.
    I know that, it was a joke. Sorry if you took it badly. 😕
    I am very precious. Behave!😉
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited May 2022
    BBC News - Partygate: Insiders tell of packed No 10 lockdown parties
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61566410

    Boris got to be in really serious danger now. People doing on the record interviews saying Boris regularly popped in for a drink at the regular WTF parties.
  • dixiedean said:

    Eabhal said:

    murali_s said:

    Leon said:

    The embarrassing and ridiculous arguments from the palsied Remoaners on here that the referendum was advisory and it was fine to try and get it overturned blah blah blah fucking blah would not be so risibly and offensively stupid if ONE SINGLE REMAIN POLITICIAN had said, during the actual referendum campaign, that "oh, by the way, this vote is just advisory, we don't have to obey it and if you vote Leave we might ignore you and have a second vote, hope that's OK"

    But they didn't did they? Not one single person ever said that because it is so plainly absurd and wanky. They would have got thrown into Lake Windermere

    No one said it, because it is bollocks. Everyone agreed, at the time, with David Cameron in his speech to the entire British nation:

    'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum"

    The Leavers agreed that this was it, their one and only chance for a generation. The Remainers agreed this was it, the one and only vote - BECAUSE THEY ARROGANTLY EXPECTED TO WIN IT, EASILY

    All else is chaff. PFF

    It doesn’t change the fact that Brexit is a f*cking calamity.

    Why oh why did Cameron think it was a good idea to give the people a vote on this. Did he really think the average uneducated lazy moron who lives in sh*tholes like Scunthorpe would understand the nuisances of international trade?

    David Cameron = worst PM in history.
    The Scunthorpe morons did have a feel for the labour market though, and since then we've seen an incredibly tight one. That might not be down to Brexit, but what they thought would happen did occur, in the end.

    Whether that leads to real earnings growth for those on lower incomes (and reduced inequality) is yet to be seen.

    You might be right that the trade deals were better for people on low incomes compared with what we have now but it's pretty hard to prove.
    It is being seen. It hasn't and it isn't.
    In the last official figures I saw many low income earners were actually getting above inflation pay rises thanks to the tightness of the labour market.

    Since then, inflation has risen even higher thanks to commodity prices rather than thanks to the labour market. Whether real wages continue to rise in these circumstances is yet to be seen.

    Of course the labour market reforms are structural changes, while the global inflationary environment is temporary due to the conflict in Ukraine and the aftermaths of Covid. So it will take many years to see whether we get real pay rises or not, especially for lower income earners in industries favoured by free movement in the past.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,880

    Leon said:

    The embarrassing and ridiculous arguments from the palsied Remoaners on here that the referendum was advisory and it was fine to try and get it overturned blah blah blah fucking blah would not be so risibly and offensively stupid if ONE SINGLE REMAIN POLITICIAN had said, during the actual referendum campaign, that "oh, by the way, this vote is just advisory, we don't have to obey it and if you vote Leave we might ignore you and have a second vote, hope that's OK"

    But they didn't did they? Not one single person ever said that because it is so plainly absurd and wanky. They would have got thrown into Lake Windermere

    No one said it, because it is bollocks. Everyone agreed, at the time, with David Cameron in his speech to the entire British nation:

    'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum"

    The Leavers agreed that this was it, their one and only chance for a generation. The Remainers agreed this was it, the one and only vote - BECAUSE THEY ARROGANTLY EXPECTED TO WIN IT, EASILY

    All else is chaff. PFF

    1. I am a leaver, not a remoaner
    2. The referendum was legally advisory. You mas dislike this but its true
    3. Its fine for any parliament to overturn anything it choses to vote for
    4. Cameron was relevant as long he remained PM. Which wasn't very long
    5. Its absolutely true that remain expected to win easily. But they lost. And you - and I - won. So why are you so angry having won both the referendum and the confirmatory election in 2019?
    6. While it was democratic to seek another referendum, millions in the country regarded it as rather poor form, as they believed the first vote should be honoured.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    edited May 2022

    Hitler was an election winner too, people just thought eventually that it was more than just winning

    Ken, is that you?

    Hitler really wasn't an election winner, he managed to outwit an 87 year old guy, became Chancellor, and after that....
  • Hitler was an election winner too, people just thought eventually that it was more than just winning

    Ken, is that you?

    Hitler really wasn't an election winner, he managed to outwit an 87 year old guy, became Chancellor, and after that....
    TSE, is it you that posts on Digital Spy under TSE?
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 5,781
    This Panorama tonight 🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,585
    Cookie said:


    Daniel Hewitt
    @DanielHewittITV
    ·
    16m
    NEW: Head of Ofgem says he will be writing to Rishi Sunak today to inform him the price cap is expected to be £2,800 in October, up from £1,971.

    The government is going to be so unpopular when that kicks in.
    I am in the car listening to "You and yours" on R4 as I have my socially distanced lunch. There are tearful PENSIONERS who are cancelling direct debits and have turned off the heating since Christmas, people living in single rooms, people considering selling their homes and people renting out spare rooms to pay for non- energy essentials. This looks like, as you might suggest, "Stepmom" territory.
    So what's the solution? Because as far as I can see the wholesale price of gas is outside the ability of government to influence. The state could subsidise it, but then the state would have to massively increase taxation to pay for it.

    Of course, the solution is to have built a bunch of tidal lagoons five years ago. And we should still do that. But that doesn't really help right now.
    That's not my problem. Or that of the opposition parties.

    Incumbency can be a bit of a b******!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969

    Hitler was an election winner too, people just thought eventually that it was more than just winning

    Ken, is that you?

    Hitler really wasn't an election winner, he managed to outwit an 87 year old guy, became Chancellor, and after that....
    TSE, is it you that posts on Digital Spy under TSE?
    Yes.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,249

    LDLF said:

    .

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Of course the referendum wasn't advisory. No government could have not implemented it. Cameron thought he would win so paid lip service to the details.

    That said, any flavour of "leaving the EU" would have also been legitimate eg EEA (although I have my doubts, expressed at the time, about that). Anti-immigrationers would have hated it but would that have put us in a worse place, divided nation-wise, than we are now? Probably, possibly not.

    Also, for the nth time, a second referendum would not have been undemocratic. Hugely administratively awkward, irritating, unwieldy and probably unworkable if there was one every week, but not undemocratic. No vote asking "the people" (the same people who had voted previously) to opine on something could be undemocratic.

    As for parliament "trying to frustrate democracy", parliament is democracy. They are voted there by the people to make decisions so by definition everything they did was democratic.

    Therein lies much of the problem that haunted post-Referendum politics at Westminster. Many MPs just would not accept that a Referendum, often with a higher turnout than they achieved to get elected, was in any way an equivalent - let alone dominant on a single issue - form of democracy.

    So they dicked around for four years, with their own General Election mandates giving them an authority to do so.
    The problem was the conflict between the GE and the referendum. An elected MP would legitimately say - but my constituents want X so I am not going to vote against their wishes because that's why I'm here. You say one outranked the other but that is open to debate and certainly AFAIA not written down anywhere.

    Having referendums in (our in particular) parliamentary system is problematic to say the least.

    Good article: https://consoc.org.uk/publications/tension-parliamentary-democracy-referendums/
    But there was no conflict between the referendum and any GE.

    2015 election: Majority elected on pledge to hold and respect the referendum.
    2016 referendum: Majority for leave.
    2017 election: Nearly 600 out of 650 MPs elected on pledge to respect the referendum result and implement Brexit.
    2019 election: 80 seat majority to Get Brexit Done.

    Leavers essentially had to win 4 elections or referendum and they won all 4 of them. Had any of the 4 elections or referendum turned out differently, we'd have never left.

    The conflict in 2017 was the hundreds of MPs elected promising to respect the results, but who didn't. They paid the price electorally for their deceit two years later.
    Yes, democratically. So all is well. And the MPs in parliament behaved democratically also. They disagreed about the type of Brexit, which is perfectly legitimate.

    If the 650 MPs had wanted 650 versions of Brexit that would have been perfectly democratic and all anyone would have done would be to oppose everyone else. As I said, it is indicative of the tension of a referendum within a parliamentary democracy.
    Except some duplicitous MPs like Grieve and Starmer didn't just reject a form of Brexit, they decided to reject every form of Brexit.

    MPs like Grieve and Starmer being duplicitous liars is constitutionally or democratically acceptable, but voters like Leon are within their rights to be aggrieved at MPs who are duplicitous liars. That is a universal concept, I am aggrieved at Boris for being a duplicitous liar too, so Starmer and Grieve etc aren't the only ones that applies to.
    I'm sure each had a form of Brexit they preferred and were holding out for that. What is the problem with that?
    They didn't, those two said they were rejecting every form of Brexit. After being elected on a platform saying the opposite.

    MPs have the right to be duplicitous liars who say one thing to get elected and do the opposite when in office, but that doesn't justify it or mean the public can't decide they'd rather get rid of the duplicitous liars.
    Ah. Did they say all that before the election? Did Grieve say he would implement Brexit? Or did he always voice his dissent.
    I believe he said that he would, yes, and I know that Starmer said that Labour would too, before the election.

    After the election they did differently, but I've never seen a single quote from Grieve before the election to say anything other than he would respect the vote, which I believe is what he campaigned on.

    The Lib Dems and SNP campaigned on overturning the vote. They got their mandate for their MPs, as an extremely small minority of the Commons, but that's it for them. Grieve and Starmer etc is different though.
    We can be critical of Dominic Grieve from both a Remain and Leave perspective.

    Clarke voted against Article 50, and made no secret during the election of his preferences on Brexit (as he has done for his whole career). During the 2017-19 parliament he voted for Theresa May's deal.

    Grieve voted for Article 50, and stood on a platform in 2017 supportive of May's negotiation strategy. He then voted against every single deal presented to him - making him more hardline than most ERG members.

    Which of these two men did more to avoid No Deal? It is a mystery to me why Grieve is so lauded.
    Where is Grieve lauded? Clarke is the best PM we never had.
    Grieve is an odious snob. He doesn't even try to hide it
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,454
    Cookie said:


    Daniel Hewitt
    @DanielHewittITV
    ·
    16m
    NEW: Head of Ofgem says he will be writing to Rishi Sunak today to inform him the price cap is expected to be £2,800 in October, up from £1,971.

    The government is going to be so unpopular when that kicks in.
    I am in the car listening to "You and yours" on R4 as I have my socially distanced lunch. There are tearful PENSIONERS who are cancelling direct debits and have turned off the heating since Christmas, people living in single rooms, people considering selling their homes and people renting out spare rooms to pay for non- energy essentials. This looks like, as you might suggest, "Stepmom" territory.
    So what's the solution? Because as far as I can see the wholesale price of gas is outside the ability of government to influence. The state could subsidise it, but then the state would have to massively increase taxation to pay for it.

    Of course, the solution is to have built a bunch of tidal lagoons five years ago. And we should still do that. But that doesn't really help right now.
    Options are:

    1. That state can subsidise it and provide short term relief to those who need it.
    2. Lots of excess deaths over the winter through lack of heating and food combined with a crime epidemic and boom for loan sharks.

    We will end up with mostly 1, although the government will only get there in small steps rather than seeing it is blatantly obviously going to happen so they may as well be ahead of the curve for once.

    It is not a time for ideology but pragmatism.
  • Hitler was an election winner too, people just thought eventually that it was more than just winning

    Ken, is that you?

    Hitler really wasn't an election winner, he managed to outwit an 87 year old guy, became Chancellor, and after that....
    TSE, is it you that posts on Digital Spy under TSE?
    Yes.
    Nice, I didn't know you were such a techy. I've over there too
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    DavidL said:

    It is interesting that the Ukraine government is now describing the battle being waged in the Donbass as the largest in Europe since WW2. There are a number of indications that the intensity of the fighting has reached a new level with high casualties on both sides but the story is drifting down the news agenda here because of the lack of pictures from the front. Presumably our media, entirely understandably, consider the risks to their staff just too high to take.

    Its hard to imagine either side can keep this up for long. The winner is a lot more uncertain than some of the Ukranian propaganda would have us believe.

    There’s very intense fighting going on there now, and as you say not a lot of journalists around.

    Everyone needs to remember that next winter’s energy prices are determined by whether this war is done by the autumn. Keep the weapons and training coming to Ukraine.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 3,853
    murali_s said:

    Leon said:

    The embarrassing and ridiculous arguments from the palsied Remoaners on here that the referendum was advisory and it was fine to try and get it overturned blah blah blah fucking blah would not be so risibly and offensively stupid if ONE SINGLE REMAIN POLITICIAN had said, during the actual referendum campaign, that "oh, by the way, this vote is just advisory, we don't have to obey it and if you vote Leave we might ignore you and have a second vote, hope that's OK"

    But they didn't did they? Not one single person ever said that because it is so plainly absurd and wanky. They would have got thrown into Lake Windermere

    No one said it, because it is bollocks. Everyone agreed, at the time, with David Cameron in his speech to the entire British nation:

    'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum"

    The Leavers agreed that this was it, their one and only chance for a generation. The Remainers agreed this was it, the one and only vote - BECAUSE THEY ARROGANTLY EXPECTED TO WIN IT, EASILY

    All else is chaff. PFF

    It doesn’t change the fact that Brexit is a f*cking calamity.

    Why oh why did Cameron think it was a good idea to give the people a vote on this. Did he really think the average uneducated lazy moron who lives in sh*tholes like Scunthorpe would understand the nuisances of international trade?

    David Cameron = worst PM in history.
    Who or what made Scunthorpe a sh*thole, if that's what it is?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    "They were every week... wine time Fridays"

    Insiders who attended lockdown gatherings in Downing Street tell @bbcLauraK that social events were held regularly and the prime minister was there "grabbing a glass for himself"
    https://bbc.in/3wFbe3q https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1529072707299684353/video/1
This discussion has been closed.