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.
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.
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 )
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.
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.
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 )
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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 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 )
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.
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 )
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.
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.
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 )
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.
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 )
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.
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.
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.
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?
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...
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
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
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?
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.
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 )
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 )
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. 😕
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.
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?
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.
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 )
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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
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.
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 )
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. 😕
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
Clarke, to be fair, also voted against having the referendum in the first place IIRC
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******!
Cynically honest, but entirely truthful.
A Conservative solution might have been to cut taxes, so that people would have more of their take home pay to spend on the rising bills. Instead Rishi and Boris chose to tax and spend, raising taxes even further and using Gordon Brown's preferred tax to do so.
They didn't cause the inflation, but they are making matters worse for working people by raising taxes in order to featherbed the inheritances of those who aren't working for it.
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.
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.
Clarke, to be fair, also voted against having the referendum in the first place IIRC
One of the very few MPs to come out of that parliament with any credit. Stewart another.
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.
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.
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.
Yes but. No one was promised "in many years". It was sold as a magical solution to all ills. It isn't. Energy price cap predicted to rise to £2800 pa.
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.
That’s an interesting, if radical idea. Problem is that the generators and the retailers are not one and the same, so I doubt it would work as easily as you suggest. And the ability of this government to manage the consequences ….
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.
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
I quite like Grieve. He's a one nation feudal Tory.
A snob? I suspect he'd be more comfortable in a branch of Greggs than either BigDog or Mogg.
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.
Yes but. No one was promised "in many years". It was sold as a magical solution to all ills. It isn't. Energy price cap predicted to rise to £2800 pa.
I don't think anyone sold it as a magical solution to all ills.
Inflation is rising due to global conditions, not Brexit. You could argue that without the tight labour market bringing pay rises to people, that the cost of living crisis would be even worse now.
Comments
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.
Your essay question, meanwhile, is to explain how a vote by all the people can be undemocratic.
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.
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
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.
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.
This is one of the reasons Labour isn't in the mid 40s and 10+ points ahead facing a shambolic gov't.
https://twitter.com/AnushkaAsthana/status/1529058967422377984
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?
I'm surprised to see you saying that Scott rather than someone else.
I was simply batting DavidL's analogous reference back to him by using a cheap slur against Johnson and the ERG.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
I’m fully expecting rent controls.
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.
The sooner Boris is out of office, the better.
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.
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.
You might think its a shame Plebs get votes, but you're pissing into the wind with that one.
Fatally undermined your argument I'm afraid.
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.
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.
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.
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.
30 plus packed into the room, sitting on laps; “the PM grabbed a drink and joined us.” etc.
Sure it was a work event.
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.
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.
Will Boris stand up and say he didn't mislead the Commons about a party because it was actually an orgy ?
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.
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....."
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.
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.
Hitler really wasn't an election winner, he managed to outwit an 87 year old guy, became Chancellor, and after that....
Incumbency can be a bit of a b******!
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.
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.
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
In a previous job BT/Cellnet/o2 were clients, as were a few other tech companies.
A Conservative solution might have been to cut taxes, so that people would have more of their take home pay to spend on the rising bills. Instead Rishi and Boris chose to tax and spend, raising taxes even further and using Gordon Brown's preferred tax to do so.
They didn't cause the inflation, but they are making matters worse for working people by raising taxes in order to featherbed the inheritances of those who aren't working for it.
It went oddly quiet for a few weeks and now it has appeared again.
This must be planned, I see no other explanation.
No one was promised "in many years". It was sold as a magical solution to all ills. It isn't.
Energy price cap predicted to rise to £2800 pa.
Problem is that the generators and the retailers are not one and the same, so I doubt it would work as easily as you suggest.
And the ability of this government to manage the consequences ….
Don’t be daft.
A snob? I suspect he'd be more comfortable in a branch of Greggs than either BigDog or Mogg.
The other thing is whilst a FPN isn't a criminal record, it will be need to be declared on a future government focused/based jobs.
There's going to be a lot of pissed off people.
Inflation is rising due to global conditions, not Brexit. You could argue that without the tight labour market bringing pay rises to people, that the cost of living crisis would be even worse now.