A more reasoned rant against those responsible for the conduct of Brexit.
Brexit murdered“moderate” Conservatism Now it justifies the right’s stab-in-the-back myths https://nickcohen.substack.com/p/brexit-murderedmoderate-conservatism ...For understandable, if not forgivable, psychological reasons the right has embraced denial. I do not hold with the liberal-left orthodoxy that Brexit was wholly built on the back of an enormous lie. Boris Johnson lies as easily as he breathes, of course, but a few supporters of Brexit sincerely believed they would inaugurate a national renaissance. When ministers approved a policy document in January 2022 setting out how “the government will use its new freedoms to transform the UK into the best regulated economy in the world,” they were lying to themselves before all others.
Supporters of Brexit cannot believe in May 2023 what they believed in January 2022. But rather than admit to a mistake, the right retreats into a stab-in-the-back myth: the conspiracy theory of the defeated. Brexit was sabotaged by “anti-Brexit activist civil servants” (Dominic Raab), “a Europhile blob” (Daniel Hannan), and “ the objection and obstruction” of remainers (Jacob Rees-Mogg).
So intoxicating is the conspiracy theory that not one leading supporter of Brexit has admitted that leaving the European Union was a mistake...
How can they?
For better or worse, Brexit is the thing that defines the politicians of this generation. A big binary choice one way or the other.
To say "I thought this would be great, but it's actually gone badly"... How can you say that in public and expect to be taken seriously about anything ever again? It's career death.
To say to yourself "This thing I strove for for years, it's harmed the country"... How can you say that and live with yourself? It requires a lot of integrity.
And to save the arguments, this works equally whichever side of the 2016 debate people were. The most you can hope for is that your former opponents stop talking and try to change the subject.
I've mentioned before the old physics aphorism. It's relevant here, except that science has a much stronger "if the facts change, you should change your model" than most human endeavours.
Max Planck: A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it ... An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.
Or Science progresses one funeral at a time.
The challenge for Team Brexit is that the young and middle aged aren't buying their vision. Not yet, anyway.
Conversely, one thing some Brexiteers find puzzling about Remainers is the refusal to countenance that things might not be a bed of roses on the continent, either at present or in the future. Neither covid nor Ukraine has exactly painted the EU as an organisation we should want to be a member of.
I saw a clip on YouTube of Anna Soubry berating Michael Gove from the opposition benches. Chris Leslie behind her. What fun they had! Formation. More people defecting to join! A barcode logo! Internal wranglings! Defections away! Another name change! And finally extinction.
Far more fun than today's politics.
The hypocrisy of Anna Soubry was quite something. She was a regular on TV berating rebellious BOO Tory MPs for not being loyal to Cameron and telling them they should be 'bashing lefties' (lovely woman) instead of attacking the leadership.
Then when the winds changed, being loyal to the leadership and 'bashing lefties' became attacking the leadership and defecting to start a new party with the lefties.
I see your point, but criticizing someone for not demanding total devotion to Boris or Liz Truss does, looking back, seem a tad high minded.
What cracked me up about Soubry, as well as other prominent Remainers on the Tory benches such as Grieve and Clarke, was that they were mouthing on all about putting up barriers to Europe would be so catastrophic and yet they were all Barristers, a profession that does it utmost with its rules and regulations to stop any form of competition in the market....(Gauke, being a solicitor, was another one).
Seeing KC is weird. But then, the next Bond film will be the first when he's on His Majesty's Secret Service...
The current 007 is a woman.
I'm loathe to get involved with this, but Bond needs to be a fella, doesn't matter what colour he is, but has to have a British accent, whether that's tinged with Caribbean/Asian/whatever tones doesn't matter. I guess 007 could be a woman, but I think that's James Bond's number. Opening up the Bond universe to a female agent, to run alongside Bond should surely happen though she can't be 007.
Oh great we're back on the wanting another democratic vote is not democratic bandwagon.
Excellent.
I'd go further. There should never be another vote on anything once there has already been a vote on that thing. Whether Police & Crime Commissioners, General Election, In/Out referendums, you name it.
I saw a clip on YouTube of Anna Soubry berating Michael Gove from the opposition benches. Chris Leslie behind her. What fun they had! Formation. More people defecting to join! A barcode logo! Internal wranglings! Defections away! Another name change! And finally extinction.
Far more fun than today's politics.
The hypocrisy of Anna Soubry was quite something. She was a regular on TV berating rebellious BOO Tory MPs for not being loyal to Cameron and telling them they should be 'bashing lefties' (lovely woman) instead of attacking the leadership.
Then when the winds changed, being loyal to the leadership and 'bashing lefties' became attacking the leadership and defecting to start a new party with the lefties.
I see your point, but criticizing someone for not demanding total devotion to Boris or Liz Truss does, looking back, seem a tad high minded.
What cracked me up about Soubry, as well as other prominent Remainers on the Tory benches such as Grieve and Clarke, was that they were mouthing on all about putting up barriers to Europe would be so catastrophic and yet they were all Barristers, a profession that does it utmost with its rules and regulations to stop any form of competition in the market....(Gauke, being a solicitor, was another one).
In much the same way that doctors do their utmost to spread disease and binmen do their utmost to propagate rubbish, I suppose.
A more reasoned rant against those responsible for the conduct of Brexit.
Brexit murdered“moderate” Conservatism Now it justifies the right’s stab-in-the-back myths https://nickcohen.substack.com/p/brexit-murderedmoderate-conservatism ...For understandable, if not forgivable, psychological reasons the right has embraced denial. I do not hold with the liberal-left orthodoxy that Brexit was wholly built on the back of an enormous lie. Boris Johnson lies as easily as he breathes, of course, but a few supporters of Brexit sincerely believed they would inaugurate a national renaissance. When ministers approved a policy document in January 2022 setting out how “the government will use its new freedoms to transform the UK into the best regulated economy in the world,” they were lying to themselves before all others.
Supporters of Brexit cannot believe in May 2023 what they believed in January 2022. But rather than admit to a mistake, the right retreats into a stab-in-the-back myth: the conspiracy theory of the defeated. Brexit was sabotaged by “anti-Brexit activist civil servants” (Dominic Raab), “a Europhile blob” (Daniel Hannan), and “ the objection and obstruction” of remainers (Jacob Rees-Mogg).
So intoxicating is the conspiracy theory that not one leading supporter of Brexit has admitted that leaving the European Union was a mistake...
How can they?
For better or worse, Brexit is the thing that defines the politicians of this generation. A big binary choice one way or the other.
To say "I thought this would be great, but it's actually gone badly"... How can you say that in public and expect to be taken seriously about anything ever again? It's career death.
To say to yourself "This thing I strove for for years, it's harmed the country"... How can you say that and live with yourself? It requires a lot of integrity.
And to save the arguments, this works equally whichever side of the 2016 debate people were. The most you can hope for is that your former opponents stop talking and try to change the subject.
I've mentioned before the old physics aphorism. It's relevant here, except that science has a much stronger "if the facts change, you should change your model" than most human endeavours.
Max Planck: A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it ... An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.
Or Science progresses one funeral at a time.
The challenge for Team Brexit is that the young and middle aged aren't buying their vision. Not yet, anyway.
Cohen's further point, though, is that the party has entirely submitted to this Brexit myth. ...The Tory right’s failure ought to be the Tory moderates’ opportunity. But moderate Tories barely exist now. Let me prove it by asking you a question: who is the leader of the pro-European faction in the Cabinet?..
To say "I thought this would be great, but it's actually gone badly"... How can you say that in public and expect to be taken seriously about anything ever again? It's career death.
All in the valley of Death Rode the six hundred. “Forward, the Light Brigade! Charge for the guns!” he said. Into the valley of Death Rode the six hundred.
“Forward, the Light Brigade!” Was there a man dismayed? Not though the soldier knew Someone had blundered. Theirs not to make reply, Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to do and die.
And possibly the most interesting quote from La Toynbezza's article, the one I posted a bit further down.. :
<<Curtice tells me: “The last time I saw tactical voting on this scale was before the 1997 election when voters just wanted to get the Conservatives out.”>>
Seeing KC is weird. But then, the next Bond film will be the first when he's on His Majesty's Secret Service...
The current 007 is a woman.
I'm loathe to get involved with this, but Bond needs to be a fella, doesn't matter what colour he is, but has to have a British accent, whether that's tinged with Caribbean/Asian/whatever tones doesn't matter. I guess 007 could be a woman, but I think that's James Bond's number. Opening up the Bond universe to a female agent, to run alongside Bond should surely happen though she can't be 007.
And there you were as our representative of the wokerati (we are all equal, don't be so nasty, etc) until this comment...
Oh great we're back on the wanting another democratic vote is not democratic bandwagon.
Excellent.
I'd go further. There should never be another vote on anything once there has already been a vote on that thing. Whether Police & Crime Commissioners, General Election, In/Out referendums, you name it.
Much more democratic that way.
Oh, great, we're back on the wilfully misrepresenting the other point of view bandwagon.
Cohen's further point, though, is that the party has entirely submitted to this Brexit myth. ...The Tory right’s failure ought to be the Tory moderates’ opportunity. But moderate Tories barely exist now. Let me prove it by asking you a question: who is the leader of the pro-European faction in the Cabinet?..
BoZo expelled them all.
w can expect a few to be elected the next time the Tories don't get absolutely trounced
Cohen's further point, though, is that the party has entirely submitted to this Brexit myth. ...The Tory right’s failure ought to be the Tory moderates’ opportunity. But moderate Tories barely exist now. Let me prove it by asking you a question: who is the leader of the pro-European faction in the Cabinet?..
[Boris] expelled them all.
w can expect a few to be elected the next time the Tories don't get absolutely trounced
"I tend to regard LAB voting intention to signify being anti-Tory and that people will vote in their elections for the party locally they perceive as being most likely to beat the Conservatives".
I'm sure that's correct. The problem most people seem to have is knowing which party in their ward has most chance of causing hurt to the Tories. Surprisingly few seem to even know which party is currently in charge.
Voters are generally not very clever. Most have no idea who their MP is, nor which party they represent. I wonder how many have no idea whether the Govt is Tory or Labour ?
The whole population of Brexitshire I would imagine.
Rog, why? Why do you say such snobby, pompous shite? It's just lazy.
You're right. I should have anger management sessions or take up one of the religions where they teach forgiveness but at the moment I'm more angry with the Brexiteers than I have been any time in the last seven years.
And based upon nothing other than affronted pride.
"I tend to regard LAB voting intention to signify being anti-Tory and that people will vote in their elections for the party locally they perceive as being most likely to beat the Conservatives".
I'm sure that's correct. The problem most people seem to have is knowing which party in their ward has most chance of causing hurt to the Tories. Surprisingly few seem to even know which party is currently in charge.
Voters are generally not very clever. Most have no idea who their MP is, nor which party they represent. I wonder how many have no idea whether the Govt is Tory or Labour ?
Many people have other things to do. This does not matter. The difference between UK and North Korea or Sudan is not that we as a whole are engaged or excited about policy wonkery, it's that we can, and do, non-violently replace them.
I am not at all excited about supermarkets, but I know that if we have unfettered and equal access to two (or more), even if they look much the same, it is very different from only having access to one.
A lot of USA folks are very excited about politics. That's because one of two options has fascist tendencies. let's have two dull candidates please.
Oh great we're back on the wanting another democratic vote is not democratic bandwagon.
Excellent.
I'd go further. There should never be another vote on anything once there has already been a vote on that thing. Whether Police & Crime Commissioners, General Election, In/Out referendums, you name it.
Much more democratic that way.
Oh, great, we're back on the wilfully misrepresenting the other point of view bandwagon.
It has been said many times, perhaps by you not a few times, that having another vote on EU membership would not be democratic.
Cohen's further point, though, is that the party has entirely submitted to this Brexit myth. ...The Tory right’s failure ought to be the Tory moderates’ opportunity. But moderate Tories barely exist now. Let me prove it by asking you a question: who is the leader of the pro-European faction in the Cabinet?..
[Boris] expelled them all.
w can expect a few to be elected the next time the Tories don't get absolutely trounced
Nope, they expelled themselves.
No, Boris expelled them. This was not a confidence vote and we know this because Boris did not resign.
Oh great we're back on the wanting another democratic vote is not democratic bandwagon.
Excellent.
I'd go further. There should never be another vote on anything once there has already been a vote on that thing. Whether Police & Crime Commissioners, General Election, In/Out referendums, you name it.
Much more democratic that way.
People change their minds. If that happens, and enough people change their mind to make it a big enough issue, or something fundamental happens, like Scotland being told that leaving the UK would drag them out of the EU-Then Brexit happens, surely a referendum or vote needs to happen? Only people unsure if they'll win don't want a vote on an issue.
A more reasoned rant against those responsible for the conduct of Brexit.
Brexit murdered“moderate” Conservatism Now it justifies the right’s stab-in-the-back myths https://nickcohen.substack.com/p/brexit-murderedmoderate-conservatism ...For understandable, if not forgivable, psychological reasons the right has embraced denial. I do not hold with the liberal-left orthodoxy that Brexit was wholly built on the back of an enormous lie. Boris Johnson lies as easily as he breathes, of course, but a few supporters of Brexit sincerely believed they would inaugurate a national renaissance. When ministers approved a policy document in January 2022 setting out how “the government will use its new freedoms to transform the UK into the best regulated economy in the world,” they were lying to themselves before all others.
Supporters of Brexit cannot believe in May 2023 what they believed in January 2022. But rather than admit to a mistake, the right retreats into a stab-in-the-back myth: the conspiracy theory of the defeated. Brexit was sabotaged by “anti-Brexit activist civil servants” (Dominic Raab), “a Europhile blob” (Daniel Hannan), and “ the objection and obstruction” of remainers (Jacob Rees-Mogg).
So intoxicating is the conspiracy theory that not one leading supporter of Brexit has admitted that leaving the European Union was a mistake...
The mistake that Nick Cohen makes is to assume that "moderate" Conservatism = pro-EU. In the early Seventies, the Monday Club was split down the middle on EU membership.
Conversely, people like Michael Gove and Rishi Sunak are far more moderate than the Monday Club of the early Seventies.
A more reasoned rant against those responsible for the conduct of Brexit.
Brexit murdered“moderate” Conservatism Now it justifies the right’s stab-in-the-back myths https://nickcohen.substack.com/p/brexit-murderedmoderate-conservatism ...For understandable, if not forgivable, psychological reasons the right has embraced denial. I do not hold with the liberal-left orthodoxy that Brexit was wholly built on the back of an enormous lie. Boris Johnson lies as easily as he breathes, of course, but a few supporters of Brexit sincerely believed they would inaugurate a national renaissance. When ministers approved a policy document in January 2022 setting out how “the government will use its new freedoms to transform the UK into the best regulated economy in the world,” they were lying to themselves before all others.
Supporters of Brexit cannot believe in May 2023 what they believed in January 2022. But rather than admit to a mistake, the right retreats into a stab-in-the-back myth: the conspiracy theory of the defeated. Brexit was sabotaged by “anti-Brexit activist civil servants” (Dominic Raab), “a Europhile blob” (Daniel Hannan), and “ the objection and obstruction” of remainers (Jacob Rees-Mogg).
So intoxicating is the conspiracy theory that not one leading supporter of Brexit has admitted that leaving the European Union was a mistake...
How can they?
For better or worse, Brexit is the thing that defines the politicians of this generation. A big binary choice one way or the other.
To say "I thought this would be great, but it's actually gone badly"... How can you say that in public and expect to be taken seriously about anything ever again? It's career death.
To say to yourself "This thing I strove for for years, it's harmed the country"... How can you say that and live with yourself? It requires a lot of integrity.
And to save the arguments, this works equally whichever side of the 2016 debate people were. The most you can hope for is that your former opponents stop talking and try to change the subject.
I've mentioned before the old physics aphorism. It's relevant here, except that science has a much stronger "if the facts change, you should change your model" than most human endeavours.
Max Planck: A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it ... An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.
Or Science progresses one funeral at a time.
The challenge for Team Brexit is that the young and middle aged aren't buying their vision. Not yet, anyway.
Cohen's further point, though, is that the party has entirely submitted to this Brexit myth. ...The Tory right’s failure ought to be the Tory moderates’ opportunity. But moderate Tories barely exist now. Let me prove it by asking you a question: who is the leader of the pro-European faction in the Cabinet?..
It's an anachronistic question. What is the purpose of a "pro-European faction" in the current context and what makes it "moderate"?
Oh great we're back on the wanting another democratic vote is not democratic bandwagon.
Excellent.
I'd go further. There should never be another vote on anything once there has already been a vote on that thing. Whether Police & Crime Commissioners, General Election, In/Out referendums, you name it.
Much more democratic that way.
Oh, great, we're back on the wilfully misrepresenting the other point of view bandwagon.
It has been said many times, perhaps by you not a few times, that having another vote on EU membership would not be democratic.
No.
It was said that having another vote in an attempt to overturn the first vote instead of implementing it would have been anti-democratic.
Having a rejoin vote now that Brexit has happened would be prefectly democratic.
Democracy: people vote, things happen, people vote again.
Not democracy: people vote, politicians say "you voted the wrong way, vote again".
And possibly the most interesting quote from La Toynbezza's article, the one I posted a bit further down.. :
<<Curtice tells me: “The last time I saw tactical voting on this scale was before the 1997 election when voters just wanted to get the Conservatives out.”>>
In which case,
1. The Conservatives are in deep touble, even if they keep their 2019 voting coalition together. 43 percent loses if the other 57 percent are organisned efficiently enough.
2. Conservative canvassers (who focus on Conservative yeses and maybes) won't have much idea of what's about to hit them.
A more reasoned rant against those responsible for the conduct of Brexit.
Brexit murdered“moderate” Conservatism Now it justifies the right’s stab-in-the-back myths https://nickcohen.substack.com/p/brexit-murderedmoderate-conservatism ...For understandable, if not forgivable, psychological reasons the right has embraced denial. I do not hold with the liberal-left orthodoxy that Brexit was wholly built on the back of an enormous lie. Boris Johnson lies as easily as he breathes, of course, but a few supporters of Brexit sincerely believed they would inaugurate a national renaissance. When ministers approved a policy document in January 2022 setting out how “the government will use its new freedoms to transform the UK into the best regulated economy in the world,” they were lying to themselves before all others.
Supporters of Brexit cannot believe in May 2023 what they believed in January 2022. But rather than admit to a mistake, the right retreats into a stab-in-the-back myth: the conspiracy theory of the defeated. Brexit was sabotaged by “anti-Brexit activist civil servants” (Dominic Raab), “a Europhile blob” (Daniel Hannan), and “ the objection and obstruction” of remainers (Jacob Rees-Mogg).
So intoxicating is the conspiracy theory that not one leading supporter of Brexit has admitted that leaving the European Union was a mistake...
How can they?
For better or worse, Brexit is the thing that defines the politicians of this generation. A big binary choice one way or the other.
To say "I thought this would be great, but it's actually gone badly"... How can you say that in public and expect to be taken seriously about anything ever again? It's career death.
To say to yourself "This thing I strove for for years, it's harmed the country"... How can you say that and live with yourself? It requires a lot of integrity.
And to save the arguments, this works equally whichever side of the 2016 debate people were. The most you can hope for is that your former opponents stop talking and try to change the subject.
I've mentioned before the old physics aphorism. It's relevant here, except that science has a much stronger "if the facts change, you should change your model" than most human endeavours.
Max Planck: A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it ... An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.
Or Science progresses one funeral at a time.
The challenge for Team Brexit is that the young and middle aged aren't buying their vision. Not yet, anyway.
The problem for Team Brexit was just sheer laziness (personified by Boris but not all down to him). They genuinely thought that just pulling out of the EU was all that was required and that suddenly all sorts of wonderful things would happen as if by magic. In fact, a huge amount of groundwork and consensus was required if an endeavour of that magnitude was going to work at all. But the Leavers just couldn't be bothered. For example, they were still squabbling amongst themselves about what 'access to the Single Market' meant even to the end. We have all been left high and dry by their laziness.
I saw a clip on YouTube of Anna Soubry berating Michael Gove from the opposition benches. Chris Leslie behind her. What fun they had! Formation. More people defecting to join! A barcode logo! Internal wranglings! Defections away! Another name change! And finally extinction.
Far more fun than today's politics.
The hypocrisy of Anna Soubry was quite something. She was a regular on TV berating rebellious BOO Tory MPs for not being loyal to Cameron and telling them they should be 'bashing lefties' (lovely woman) instead of attacking the leadership.
Then when the winds changed, being loyal to the leadership and 'bashing lefties' became attacking the leadership and defecting to start a new party with the lefties.
I see your point, but criticizing someone for not demanding total devotion to Boris or Liz Truss does, looking back, seem a tad high minded.
Change UK was founded during Theresa May's tenure.
UKIP only won 4.5% of the vote in 2019, despite the Brexit Party being on 19%. It looks as though the Brexit Party vote showed up in the very big support that went to independents (as well as flattering the Conservative vote a bit).
A more reasoned rant against those responsible for the conduct of Brexit.
Brexit murdered“moderate” Conservatism Now it justifies the right’s stab-in-the-back myths https://nickcohen.substack.com/p/brexit-murderedmoderate-conservatism ...For understandable, if not forgivable, psychological reasons the right has embraced denial. I do not hold with the liberal-left orthodoxy that Brexit was wholly built on the back of an enormous lie. Boris Johnson lies as easily as he breathes, of course, but a few supporters of Brexit sincerely believed they would inaugurate a national renaissance. When ministers approved a policy document in January 2022 setting out how “the government will use its new freedoms to transform the UK into the best regulated economy in the world,” they were lying to themselves before all others.
Supporters of Brexit cannot believe in May 2023 what they believed in January 2022. But rather than admit to a mistake, the right retreats into a stab-in-the-back myth: the conspiracy theory of the defeated. Brexit was sabotaged by “anti-Brexit activist civil servants” (Dominic Raab), “a Europhile blob” (Daniel Hannan), and “ the objection and obstruction” of remainers (Jacob Rees-Mogg).
So intoxicating is the conspiracy theory that not one leading supporter of Brexit has admitted that leaving the European Union was a mistake...
The mistake that Nick Cohen makes is to assume that "moderate" Conservatism = pro-EU. In the early Seventies, the Monday Club was split down the middle on EU membership.
Conversely, people like Michael Gove and Rishi Sunak are far more moderate than the Monday Club of the early Seventies.
I don't think you have to assume that for his argument to be coherent; ..who is the leader of the pro-European faction in the Cabinet?.. is still a valid question.
The last bloody thing this country needs is another vote on EU membership, to bring all the bloody grifters and liars back out of the woodwork and create a massive (and artificial) divide in our society to the detriment of all.
Imagine if France decided to have a second Dreyfuss Affair.
A more reasoned rant against those responsible for the conduct of Brexit.
Brexit murdered“moderate” Conservatism Now it justifies the right’s stab-in-the-back myths https://nickcohen.substack.com/p/brexit-murderedmoderate-conservatism ...For understandable, if not forgivable, psychological reasons the right has embraced denial. I do not hold with the liberal-left orthodoxy that Brexit was wholly built on the back of an enormous lie. Boris Johnson lies as easily as he breathes, of course, but a few supporters of Brexit sincerely believed they would inaugurate a national renaissance. When ministers approved a policy document in January 2022 setting out how “the government will use its new freedoms to transform the UK into the best regulated economy in the world,” they were lying to themselves before all others.
Supporters of Brexit cannot believe in May 2023 what they believed in January 2022. But rather than admit to a mistake, the right retreats into a stab-in-the-back myth: the conspiracy theory of the defeated. Brexit was sabotaged by “anti-Brexit activist civil servants” (Dominic Raab), “a Europhile blob” (Daniel Hannan), and “ the objection and obstruction” of remainers (Jacob Rees-Mogg).
So intoxicating is the conspiracy theory that not one leading supporter of Brexit has admitted that leaving the European Union was a mistake...
The mistake that Nick Cohen makes is to assume that "moderate" Conservatism = pro-EU. In the early Seventies, the Monday Club was split down the middle on EU membership.
Conversely, people like Michael Gove and Rishi Sunak are far more moderate than the Monday Club of the early Seventies.
I don't think you have to assume that for his argument to be coherent; ..who is the leader of the pro-European faction in the Cabinet?.. is still a valid question.
The view is that it's done and dusted now. The same way, there was no leader of the anti-EU faction in Margaret Thatcher's cabinet.
<<But here was the dream Lib Dem door-knock: a young couple with a small boy, ex-Tory voters who had voted Brexit and were now full of indignant regret, had a lot to say and out it all poured. “We were turkeys voting for Christmas,” said the father, shaking his head in disbelief. His company supplies many others struggling with Brexit fallout: “They can’t sell into the EU, takes too long, too expensive.” Why did they vote Brexit? “I wish we hadn’t,” says his wife. “I just thought, ‘We’re British, we don’t want to be pushed around.’ We had no idea how well we did out of it. Oven-ready? Boris had nothing. He just lied and lied, even to the Queen. We won’t forgive Tories.>>
It's remarkable how many commentators find that everyone is in agreement with them.
The last bloody thing this country needs is another vote on EU membership, to bring all the bloody grifters and liars back out of the woodwork and create a massive (and artificial) divide in our society to the detriment of all.
Imagine if France decided to have a second Dreyfuss Affair.
I think we'll get a vote on single market membership instead, possibly before the end of the 2020's.
Disappointed though not surprised to see SKS has dropped his pledge for free university tuition fees. Unaffordable, apparently. Then stop sending so many kids to university! And reduce the length of university courses, and quite frankly, look into why tuition fees cost so much for so little.
A more reasoned rant against those responsible for the conduct of Brexit.
Brexit murdered“moderate” Conservatism Now it justifies the right’s stab-in-the-back myths https://nickcohen.substack.com/p/brexit-murderedmoderate-conservatism ...For understandable, if not forgivable, psychological reasons the right has embraced denial. I do not hold with the liberal-left orthodoxy that Brexit was wholly built on the back of an enormous lie. Boris Johnson lies as easily as he breathes, of course, but a few supporters of Brexit sincerely believed they would inaugurate a national renaissance. When ministers approved a policy document in January 2022 setting out how “the government will use its new freedoms to transform the UK into the best regulated economy in the world,” they were lying to themselves before all others.
Supporters of Brexit cannot believe in May 2023 what they believed in January 2022. But rather than admit to a mistake, the right retreats into a stab-in-the-back myth: the conspiracy theory of the defeated. Brexit was sabotaged by “anti-Brexit activist civil servants” (Dominic Raab), “a Europhile blob” (Daniel Hannan), and “ the objection and obstruction” of remainers (Jacob Rees-Mogg).
So intoxicating is the conspiracy theory that not one leading supporter of Brexit has admitted that leaving the European Union was a mistake...
I think it remains to be seen if it was a mistake. Short term economic damage for sure, but where will we be in 10 years, 20 years and 100 years? Its idiotic to make trade harder with a huge trading block right on your doorstep, but most who voted for Brexit imagined that future trade would be unaffected and that they were voting to leave the political institution. Now its easy to mock that, but I believed that too, and I don't consider myself a stupid person, and I also recall being told that this was possible.
I still believe that much closer alignment and easier trade is possible without re-joining, and this will happen.
And possibly the most interesting quote from La Toynbezza's article, the one I posted a bit further down.. :
<<Curtice tells me: “The last time I saw tactical voting on this scale was before the 1997 election when voters just wanted to get the Conservatives out.”>>
In which case,
1. The Conservatives are in deep touble, even if they keep their 2019 voting coalition together. 43 percent loses if the other 57 percent are organisned efficiently enough.
2. Conservative canvassers (who focus on Conservative yeses and maybes) won't have much idea of what's about to hit them.
Yes we do. The current Tory voteshare is about 25-30%, however that is not much different to what it was in May 2019 when the local seats up this year were last up, the comparison is NOT December 2019 when the Tories got 43% at the general election.
Labour got 28% NEV in May 2019, so inevitably Labour will make significant gains from the Tories. The LDs however got 19% and Independents also did well so the Tories could make net gains from the LDs and Independents, especially in councils the LDs and Independents took control of in 2019 and where they are unpopular and the Tories the main opposition
And possibly the most interesting quote from La Toynbezza's article, the one I posted a bit further down.. :
<<Curtice tells me: “The last time I saw tactical voting on this scale was before the 1997 election when voters just wanted to get the Conservatives out.”>>
It is very disconcerting to read Toynbee routinely running through her current agenda and hope she is right.
A more reasoned rant against those responsible for the conduct of Brexit.
Brexit murdered“moderate” Conservatism Now it justifies the right’s stab-in-the-back myths https://nickcohen.substack.com/p/brexit-murderedmoderate-conservatism ...For understandable, if not forgivable, psychological reasons the right has embraced denial. I do not hold with the liberal-left orthodoxy that Brexit was wholly built on the back of an enormous lie. Boris Johnson lies as easily as he breathes, of course, but a few supporters of Brexit sincerely believed they would inaugurate a national renaissance. When ministers approved a policy document in January 2022 setting out how “the government will use its new freedoms to transform the UK into the best regulated economy in the world,” they were lying to themselves before all others.
Supporters of Brexit cannot believe in May 2023 what they believed in January 2022. But rather than admit to a mistake, the right retreats into a stab-in-the-back myth: the conspiracy theory of the defeated. Brexit was sabotaged by “anti-Brexit activist civil servants” (Dominic Raab), “a Europhile blob” (Daniel Hannan), and “ the objection and obstruction” of remainers (Jacob Rees-Mogg).
So intoxicating is the conspiracy theory that not one leading supporter of Brexit has admitted that leaving the European Union was a mistake...
The mistake that Nick Cohen makes is to assume that "moderate" Conservatism = pro-EU. In the early Seventies, the Monday Club was split down the middle on EU membership.
Conversely, people like Michael Gove and Rishi Sunak are far more moderate than the Monday Club of the early Seventies.
I don't think you have to assume that for his argument to be coherent; ..who is the leader of the pro-European faction in the Cabinet?.. is still a valid question.
It gets worse later when the Conservatives demand his resignation for the Gray affair. Cleverly has already hinted at that.
Although as Gray turned out to be a Labour shill who condemned the innocent Boris Johnson to an unfair defenestration should Sunak not resign himself and return the premiership to its rightful owner?
Stopped in the car park this morning - " You have two votes from us - Even though I'm a paid up member of the Labour Party, no point in voting Labour here"
A more reasoned rant against those responsible for the conduct of Brexit.
Brexit murdered“moderate” Conservatism Now it justifies the right’s stab-in-the-back myths https://nickcohen.substack.com/p/brexit-murderedmoderate-conservatism ...For understandable, if not forgivable, psychological reasons the right has embraced denial. I do not hold with the liberal-left orthodoxy that Brexit was wholly built on the back of an enormous lie. Boris Johnson lies as easily as he breathes, of course, but a few supporters of Brexit sincerely believed they would inaugurate a national renaissance. When ministers approved a policy document in January 2022 setting out how “the government will use its new freedoms to transform the UK into the best regulated economy in the world,” they were lying to themselves before all others.
Supporters of Brexit cannot believe in May 2023 what they believed in January 2022. But rather than admit to a mistake, the right retreats into a stab-in-the-back myth: the conspiracy theory of the defeated. Brexit was sabotaged by “anti-Brexit activist civil servants” (Dominic Raab), “a Europhile blob” (Daniel Hannan), and “ the objection and obstruction” of remainers (Jacob Rees-Mogg).
So intoxicating is the conspiracy theory that not one leading supporter of Brexit has admitted that leaving the European Union was a mistake...
How can they?
For better or worse, Brexit is the thing that defines the politicians of this generation. A big binary choice one way or the other.
To say "I thought this would be great, but it's actually gone badly"... How can you say that in public and expect to be taken seriously about anything ever again? It's career death.
To say to yourself "This thing I strove for for years, it's harmed the country"... How can you say that and live with yourself? It requires a lot of integrity.
And to save the arguments, this works equally whichever side of the 2016 debate people were. The most you can hope for is that your former opponents stop talking and try to change the subject.
I've mentioned before the old physics aphorism. It's relevant here, except that science has a much stronger "if the facts change, you should change your model" than most human endeavours.
Max Planck: A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it ... An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.
Or Science progresses one funeral at a time.
The challenge for Team Brexit is that the young and middle aged aren't buying their vision. Not yet, anyway.
The problem for Team Brexit was just sheer laziness (personified by Boris but not all down to him). They genuinely thought that just pulling out of the EU was all that was required and that suddenly all sorts of wonderful things would happen as if by magic. In fact, a huge amount of groundwork and consensus was required if an endeavour of that magnitude was going to work at all. But the Leavers just couldn't be bothered. For example, they were still squabbling amongst themselves about what 'access to the Single Market' meant even to the end. We have all been left high and dry by their laziness.
Lazy and also quite thick in some cases (not just Raab's epiphany on Dover, though that was emblematic).
It's that golf-club-bore entitlement, that somehow their will is enough to make the underlings run to do their bidding. At least Cameron* was (a) somewhat honest, and (b) able to recognise the scale of the task with his "Why should I do all the hard s**t?" remark post-loss. Remember seeing David Davies grinning at the negotiating table without any notes or documents?
A more reasoned rant against those responsible for the conduct of Brexit.
Brexit murdered“moderate” Conservatism Now it justifies the right’s stab-in-the-back myths https://nickcohen.substack.com/p/brexit-murderedmoderate-conservatism ...For understandable, if not forgivable, psychological reasons the right has embraced denial. I do not hold with the liberal-left orthodoxy that Brexit was wholly built on the back of an enormous lie. Boris Johnson lies as easily as he breathes, of course, but a few supporters of Brexit sincerely believed they would inaugurate a national renaissance. When ministers approved a policy document in January 2022 setting out how “the government will use its new freedoms to transform the UK into the best regulated economy in the world,” they were lying to themselves before all others.
Supporters of Brexit cannot believe in May 2023 what they believed in January 2022. But rather than admit to a mistake, the right retreats into a stab-in-the-back myth: the conspiracy theory of the defeated. Brexit was sabotaged by “anti-Brexit activist civil servants” (Dominic Raab), “a Europhile blob” (Daniel Hannan), and “ the objection and obstruction” of remainers (Jacob Rees-Mogg).
So intoxicating is the conspiracy theory that not one leading supporter of Brexit has admitted that leaving the European Union was a mistake...
The mistake that Nick Cohen makes is to assume that "moderate" Conservatism = pro-EU. In the early Seventies, the Monday Club was split down the middle on EU membership.
Conversely, people like Michael Gove and Rishi Sunak are far more moderate than the Monday Club of the early Seventies.
Also, it assumes that full membership of the EU is the only logical and correct position and anyone who can't see that is either in denial (and will go on a journey, ultimately) or an irredeemable idiot.
There are levels of integration. To make the counterargument for a second, you could certainly argue that a single currency, and common banking and fiscal policy, would make the single market work much better and lead to a higher velocity of trade and economic growth off the back of it. In fact, I've even seen articles in the Economist argue for a global currency and global free movement on the same basis.
But, few don't accept there's a genuine political debate to be had there on the tradeoffs.
A more reasoned rant against those responsible for the conduct of Brexit.
Brexit murdered“moderate” Conservatism Now it justifies the right’s stab-in-the-back myths https://nickcohen.substack.com/p/brexit-murderedmoderate-conservatism ...For understandable, if not forgivable, psychological reasons the right has embraced denial. I do not hold with the liberal-left orthodoxy that Brexit was wholly built on the back of an enormous lie. Boris Johnson lies as easily as he breathes, of course, but a few supporters of Brexit sincerely believed they would inaugurate a national renaissance. When ministers approved a policy document in January 2022 setting out how “the government will use its new freedoms to transform the UK into the best regulated economy in the world,” they were lying to themselves before all others.
Supporters of Brexit cannot believe in May 2023 what they believed in January 2022. But rather than admit to a mistake, the right retreats into a stab-in-the-back myth: the conspiracy theory of the defeated. Brexit was sabotaged by “anti-Brexit activist civil servants” (Dominic Raab), “a Europhile blob” (Daniel Hannan), and “ the objection and obstruction” of remainers (Jacob Rees-Mogg).
So intoxicating is the conspiracy theory that not one leading supporter of Brexit has admitted that leaving the European Union was a mistake...
How can they?
For better or worse, Brexit is the thing that defines the politicians of this generation. A big binary choice one way or the other.
To say "I thought this would be great, but it's actually gone badly"... How can you say that in public and expect to be taken seriously about anything ever again? It's career death.
To say to yourself "This thing I strove for for years, it's harmed the country"... How can you say that and live with yourself? It requires a lot of integrity.
And to save the arguments, this works equally whichever side of the 2016 debate people were. The most you can hope for is that your former opponents stop talking and try to change the subject.
I've mentioned before the old physics aphorism. It's relevant here, except that science has a much stronger "if the facts change, you should change your model" than most human endeavours.
Max Planck: A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it ... An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.
Or Science progresses one funeral at a time.
The challenge for Team Brexit is that the young and middle aged aren't buying their vision. Not yet, anyway.
The problem for Team Brexit was just sheer laziness (personified by Boris but not all down to him). They genuinely thought that just pulling out of the EU was all that was required and that suddenly all sorts of wonderful things would happen as if by magic. In fact, a huge amount of groundwork and consensus was required if an endeavour of that magnitude was going to work at all. But the Leavers just couldn't be bothered. For example, they were still squabbling amongst themselves about what 'access to the Single Market' meant even to the end. We have all been left high and dry by their laziness.
But, I think far too many of those with a pro-EU position would prefer to blame a scapegoat - Boris, Gove, Cummings etc- and gullible voters rather than engage with the very real and longstanding concerns many Britons had with our membership.
The last bloody thing this country needs is another vote on EU membership, to bring all the bloody grifters and liars back out of the woodwork and create a massive (and artificial) divide in our society to the detriment of all.
Imagine if France decided to have a second Dreyfuss Affair.
I think we'll get a vote on single market membership instead, possibly before the end of the 2020's.
You could be right. I used to think that the EU would balk at giving the UK any goodies post Brexit, but now the likes of Boris are gone and discredited it's surely their secret plan to draw the UK back into the fold. This won't happen overnight of course, but the tectonic plates will slowly shift.
A more reasoned rant against those responsible for the conduct of Brexit.
Brexit murdered“moderate” Conservatism Now it justifies the right’s stab-in-the-back myths https://nickcohen.substack.com/p/brexit-murderedmoderate-conservatism ...For understandable, if not forgivable, psychological reasons the right has embraced denial. I do not hold with the liberal-left orthodoxy that Brexit was wholly built on the back of an enormous lie. Boris Johnson lies as easily as he breathes, of course, but a few supporters of Brexit sincerely believed they would inaugurate a national renaissance. When ministers approved a policy document in January 2022 setting out how “the government will use its new freedoms to transform the UK into the best regulated economy in the world,” they were lying to themselves before all others.
Supporters of Brexit cannot believe in May 2023 what they believed in January 2022. But rather than admit to a mistake, the right retreats into a stab-in-the-back myth: the conspiracy theory of the defeated. Brexit was sabotaged by “anti-Brexit activist civil servants” (Dominic Raab), “a Europhile blob” (Daniel Hannan), and “ the objection and obstruction” of remainers (Jacob Rees-Mogg).
So intoxicating is the conspiracy theory that not one leading supporter of Brexit has admitted that leaving the European Union was a mistake...
I think it remains to be seen if it was a mistake. Short term economic damage for sure, but where will we be in 10 years, 20 years and 100 years? Its idiotic to make trade harder with a huge trading block right on your doorstep, but most who voted for Brexit imagined that future trade would be unaffected and that they were voting to leave the political institution. Now its easy to mock that, but I believed that too, and I don't consider myself a stupid person, and I also recall being told that this was possible.
I still believe that much closer alignment and easier trade is possible without re-joining, and this will happen.
I suspect we'll get more and more layers of bilateral deals layered on top as time goes by.
A more reasoned rant against those responsible for the conduct of Brexit.
Brexit murdered“moderate” Conservatism Now it justifies the right’s stab-in-the-back myths https://nickcohen.substack.com/p/brexit-murderedmoderate-conservatism ...For understandable, if not forgivable, psychological reasons the right has embraced denial. I do not hold with the liberal-left orthodoxy that Brexit was wholly built on the back of an enormous lie. Boris Johnson lies as easily as he breathes, of course, but a few supporters of Brexit sincerely believed they would inaugurate a national renaissance. When ministers approved a policy document in January 2022 setting out how “the government will use its new freedoms to transform the UK into the best regulated economy in the world,” they were lying to themselves before all others.
Supporters of Brexit cannot believe in May 2023 what they believed in January 2022. But rather than admit to a mistake, the right retreats into a stab-in-the-back myth: the conspiracy theory of the defeated. Brexit was sabotaged by “anti-Brexit activist civil servants” (Dominic Raab), “a Europhile blob” (Daniel Hannan), and “ the objection and obstruction” of remainers (Jacob Rees-Mogg).
So intoxicating is the conspiracy theory that not one leading supporter of Brexit has admitted that leaving the European Union was a mistake...
The mistake that Nick Cohen makes is to assume that "moderate" Conservatism = pro-EU. In the early Seventies, the Monday Club was split down the middle on EU membership.
Conversely, people like Michael Gove and Rishi Sunak are far more moderate than the Monday Club of the early Seventies.
Also, it assumes that full membership of the EU is the only logical and correct position and anyone who can't see that is either in denial (and will go on a journey, ultimately) or an irredeemable idiot.
There are levels of integration. To make the counterargument for a second, you could certainly argue that a single currency, and common banking and fiscal policy, would make the single market work much better and lead to a higher velocity of trade and economic growth off the back of it. In fact, I've even seen articles in the Economist argue for a global currency and global free movement on the same basis.
But, few don't accept there's a genuine political debate to be had there on the tradeoffs.
Indeed. I strongly suspect that we've ended up less integrated than most Leave voters wanted on 22/6/16, and so some move back towards closer ties is inevitable. It's a shame that it turned out that way, but it's obvious why it did.
It gets worse later when the Conservatives demand his resignation for the Gray affair. Cleverly has already hinted at that.
Although as Gray turned out to be a Labour shill who condemned the innocent Boris Johnson to an unfair defenestration should Sunak not resign himself and return the premiership to its rightful owner?
I'd be really surprised if the Sue Gray thing has the slightest effect on Lab prospects, it seems to me just the latest straw that a hopeless (in both senses) Tory party is grasping at. The fact that they might think this could be a 'thing' just confirms their hopelessness imo.
As someone who long ago got out of the habit of voting Labour my antennae may be off, but I think if the no policies, no principles stuff gets traction it could be damaging. Perhaps I'm just having 1997 flashbacks.
Oh great we're back on the wanting another democratic vote is not democratic bandwagon.
Excellent.
I'd go further. There should never be another vote on anything once there has already been a vote on that thing. Whether Police & Crime Commissioners, General Election, In/Out referendums, you name it.
Much more democratic that way.
Oh, great, we're back on the wilfully misrepresenting the other point of view bandwagon.
It has been said many times, perhaps by you not a few times, that having another vote on EU membership would not be democratic.
No.
It was said that having another vote in an attempt to overturn the first vote instead of implementing it would have been anti-democratic.
Having a rejoin vote now that Brexit has happened would be prefectly democratic.
Democracy: people vote, things happen, people vote again.
Not democracy: people vote, politicians say "you voted the wrong way, vote again".
Nah that's bollocks. A vote is a vote. It would have been the same people voting.
A more reasoned rant against those responsible for the conduct of Brexit.
Brexit murdered“moderate” Conservatism Now it justifies the right’s stab-in-the-back myths https://nickcohen.substack.com/p/brexit-murderedmoderate-conservatism ...For understandable, if not forgivable, psychological reasons the right has embraced denial. I do not hold with the liberal-left orthodoxy that Brexit was wholly built on the back of an enormous lie. Boris Johnson lies as easily as he breathes, of course, but a few supporters of Brexit sincerely believed they would inaugurate a national renaissance. When ministers approved a policy document in January 2022 setting out how “the government will use its new freedoms to transform the UK into the best regulated economy in the world,” they were lying to themselves before all others.
Supporters of Brexit cannot believe in May 2023 what they believed in January 2022. But rather than admit to a mistake, the right retreats into a stab-in-the-back myth: the conspiracy theory of the defeated. Brexit was sabotaged by “anti-Brexit activist civil servants” (Dominic Raab), “a Europhile blob” (Daniel Hannan), and “ the objection and obstruction” of remainers (Jacob Rees-Mogg).
So intoxicating is the conspiracy theory that not one leading supporter of Brexit has admitted that leaving the European Union was a mistake...
The mistake that Nick Cohen makes is to assume that "moderate" Conservatism = pro-EU. In the early Seventies, the Monday Club was split down the middle on EU membership.
Conversely, people like Michael Gove and Rishi Sunak are far more moderate than the Monday Club of the early Seventies.
Also, it assumes that full membership of the EU is the only logical and correct position and anyone who can't see that is either in denial (and will go on a journey, ultimately) or an irredeemable idiot.
There are levels of integration. To make the counterargument for a second, you could certainly argue that a single currency, and common banking and fiscal policy, would make the single market work much better and lead to a higher velocity of trade and economic growth off the back of it. In fact, I've even seen articles in the Economist argue for a global currency and global free movement on the same basis.
But, few don't accept there's a genuine political debate to be had there on the tradeoffs.
Sure. Even if you can prove that 20 years from now, GDP would have been slightly higher inside the EU than outside it, so what? A rich country has options.
Oh great we're back on the wanting another democratic vote is not democratic bandwagon.
Excellent.
I'd go further. There should never be another vote on anything once there has already been a vote on that thing. Whether Police & Crime Commissioners, General Election, In/Out referendums, you name it.
Much more democratic that way.
Oh, great, we're back on the wilfully misrepresenting the other point of view bandwagon.
It has been said many times, perhaps by you not a few times, that having another vote on EU membership would not be democratic.
No.
It was said that having another vote in an attempt to overturn the first vote instead of implementing it would have been anti-democratic.
Having a rejoin vote now that Brexit has happened would be prefectly democratic.
Democracy: people vote, things happen, people vote again.
Not democracy: people vote, politicians say "you voted the wrong way, vote again".
Oh and politicians say "you voted the wrong way, vote again" at every General Election.
Jeez I was trying to be all @twistedfirestopper3 about it but no, turns out that Leavers really are thick as pigshit.
Oh great we're back on the wanting another democratic vote is not democratic bandwagon.
Excellent.
I'd go further. There should never be another vote on anything once there has already been a vote on that thing. Whether Police & Crime Commissioners, General Election, In/Out referendums, you name it.
Much more democratic that way.
Oh, great, we're back on the wilfully misrepresenting the other point of view bandwagon.
It has been said many times, perhaps by you not a few times, that having another vote on EU membership would not be democratic.
No.
It was said that having another vote in an attempt to overturn the first vote instead of implementing it would have been anti-democratic.
Having a rejoin vote now that Brexit has happened would be prefectly democratic.
Democracy: people vote, things happen, people vote again.
Not democracy: people vote, politicians say "you voted the wrong way, vote again".
Nah that's bollocks. A vote is a vote. It would have been the same people voting.
Sorry, no.
If you really can't see the difference between "people vote for something, thing happens, people can then vote for something different" and "people vote for it, politicians say they can't have it and need to vote differently" then there's really no help for you.
A more reasoned rant against those responsible for the conduct of Brexit.
Brexit murdered“moderate” Conservatism Now it justifies the right’s stab-in-the-back myths https://nickcohen.substack.com/p/brexit-murderedmoderate-conservatism ...For understandable, if not forgivable, psychological reasons the right has embraced denial. I do not hold with the liberal-left orthodoxy that Brexit was wholly built on the back of an enormous lie. Boris Johnson lies as easily as he breathes, of course, but a few supporters of Brexit sincerely believed they would inaugurate a national renaissance. When ministers approved a policy document in January 2022 setting out how “the government will use its new freedoms to transform the UK into the best regulated economy in the world,” they were lying to themselves before all others.
Supporters of Brexit cannot believe in May 2023 what they believed in January 2022. But rather than admit to a mistake, the right retreats into a stab-in-the-back myth: the conspiracy theory of the defeated. Brexit was sabotaged by “anti-Brexit activist civil servants” (Dominic Raab), “a Europhile blob” (Daniel Hannan), and “ the objection and obstruction” of remainers (Jacob Rees-Mogg).
So intoxicating is the conspiracy theory that not one leading supporter of Brexit has admitted that leaving the European Union was a mistake...
The mistake that Nick Cohen makes is to assume that "moderate" Conservatism = pro-EU. In the early Seventies, the Monday Club was split down the middle on EU membership.
Conversely, people like Michael Gove and Rishi Sunak are far more moderate than the Monday Club of the early Seventies.
Also, it assumes that full membership of the EU is the only logical and correct position and anyone who can't see that is either in denial (and will go on a journey, ultimately) or an irredeemable idiot.
There are levels of integration. To make the counterargument for a second, you could certainly argue that a single currency, and common banking and fiscal policy, would make the single market work much better and lead to a higher velocity of trade and economic growth off the back of it. In fact, I've even seen articles in the Economist argue for a global currency and global free movement on the same basis.
But, few don't accept there's a genuine political debate to be had there on the tradeoffs.
Sure. Even if you can prove that 20 years from now, GDP would have been slightly higher inside the EU than outside it, so what? A rich country has options.
Any many of those same individuals gladly back Scottish Independence, which is very heavily integrated with rUK and has a decidedly ropey economic case.
What people really care about is values. Those that don't are floating voters.
It gets worse later when the Conservatives demand his resignation for the Gray affair. Cleverly has already hinted at that.
Although as Gray turned out to be a Labour shill who condemned the innocent Boris Johnson to an unfair defenestration should Sunak not resign himself and return the premiership to its rightful owner?
I'd be really surprised if the Sue Gray thing has the slightest effect on Lab prospects, it seems to me just the latest straw that a hopeless (in both senses) Tory party is grasping at. The fact that they might think this coukd be a 'thing' just confirms their hopelessness imo.
As someone who long ago got out of the habit of voting Labour my antennae may be off, but I think if the no policies, no principles stuff gets traction it could be damaging. Perhaps I'm just having 1997 flashbacks.
If Curtice thinks it's 1997 levels of tactical voting, as in the article below, the Tories may only be left with the question of how much damage limitation they can do, really.
Penny to take over in 2024, and bring a bit more beauty and empathy back to Tory politics.
Oh great we're back on the wanting another democratic vote is not democratic bandwagon.
Excellent.
I'd go further. There should never be another vote on anything once there has already been a vote on that thing. Whether Police & Crime Commissioners, General Election, In/Out referendums, you name it.
Much more democratic that way.
Oh, great, we're back on the wilfully misrepresenting the other point of view bandwagon.
It has been said many times, perhaps by you not a few times, that having another vote on EU membership would not be democratic.
No.
It was said that having another vote in an attempt to overturn the first vote instead of implementing it would have been anti-democratic.
Having a rejoin vote now that Brexit has happened would be prefectly democratic.
Democracy: people vote, things happen, people vote again.
Not democracy: people vote, politicians say "you voted the wrong way, vote again".
Oh and politicians say "you voted the wrong way, vote again" at every General Election.
No, not really. The 2015 general election didn't reverse the 2010 general election because the 650 winners of that election became MPs for the duration of the 2010 parliament. Candidates don't have to win two elections to become MPs, no matter how egregious.
A more reasoned rant against those responsible for the conduct of Brexit.
Brexit murdered“moderate” Conservatism Now it justifies the right’s stab-in-the-back myths https://nickcohen.substack.com/p/brexit-murderedmoderate-conservatism ...For understandable, if not forgivable, psychological reasons the right has embraced denial. I do not hold with the liberal-left orthodoxy that Brexit was wholly built on the back of an enormous lie. Boris Johnson lies as easily as he breathes, of course, but a few supporters of Brexit sincerely believed they would inaugurate a national renaissance. When ministers approved a policy document in January 2022 setting out how “the government will use its new freedoms to transform the UK into the best regulated economy in the world,” they were lying to themselves before all others.
Supporters of Brexit cannot believe in May 2023 what they believed in January 2022. But rather than admit to a mistake, the right retreats into a stab-in-the-back myth: the conspiracy theory of the defeated. Brexit was sabotaged by “anti-Brexit activist civil servants” (Dominic Raab), “a Europhile blob” (Daniel Hannan), and “ the objection and obstruction” of remainers (Jacob Rees-Mogg).
So intoxicating is the conspiracy theory that not one leading supporter of Brexit has admitted that leaving the European Union was a mistake...
I think it remains to be seen if it was a mistake. Short term economic damage for sure, but where will we be in 10 years, 20 years and 100 years? Its idiotic to make trade harder with a huge trading block right on your doorstep, but most who voted for Brexit imagined that future trade would be unaffected and that they were voting to leave the political institution. Now its easy to mock that, but I believed that too, and I don't consider myself a stupid person, and I also recall being told that this was possible.
I still believe that much closer alignment and easier trade is possible without re-joining, and this will happen.
Points from one who supported Brexit but wanted (and still wants) to join EFTA/EEA, as the nearest we can get to being in the trade deal and out of the political union.
There have been five Black Swans since Brexit day when we probably expected none: The total absence of a political plan for Brexit; The nature of the Trump presidency; Boris being both electable and staggeringly useless; Covid; Ukraine.
None of these five elements are remotely supportive of the Brexit project. They collectively are quite enough for voters to change their minds in favour of hiding with and behind the big battalions. For parallel look at the rush to join NATO.
Labour betrayed the national interest by veering from Remain to Re-Run to the current unicorn position. I hope (!) the real meaning of Labour is EFTA/EEA under cover of an election promise in 2024 to 'fully review' the position.
It gets worse later when the Conservatives demand his resignation for the Gray affair. Cleverly has already hinted at that.
Although as Gray turned out to be a Labour shill who condemned the innocent Boris Johnson to an unfair defenestration should Sunak not resign himself and return the premiership to its rightful owner?
I'd be really surprised if the Sue Gray thing has the slightest effect on Lab prospects, it seems to me just the latest straw that a hopeless (in both senses) Tory party is grasping at. The fact that they might think this coukd be a 'thing' just confirms their hopelessness imo.
As someone who long ago got out of the habit of voting Labour my antennae may be off, but I think if the no policies, no principles stuff gets traction it could be damaging. Perhaps I'm just having 1997 flashbacks.
If Curtice thinks it's 1997 levels of tactical voting, the Tories may only really be left with the question of how much damage limitation they can do.
More likely how much further damage and division they can cause to make the job for Labour impossible.......
"I tend to regard LAB voting intention to signify being anti-Tory and that people will vote in their elections for the party locally they perceive as being most likely to beat the Conservatives".
I'm sure that's correct. The problem most people seem to have is knowing which party in their ward has most chance of causing hurt to the Tories. Surprisingly few seem to even know which party is currently in charge.
Voters are generally not very clever. Most have no idea who their MP is, nor which party they represent. I wonder how many have no idea whether the Govt is Tory or Labour ?
Many people have other things to do. This does not matter. The difference between UK and North Korea or Sudan is not that we as a whole are engaged or excited about policy wonkery, it's that we can, and do, non-violently replace them.
I am not at all excited about supermarkets, but I know that if we have unfettered and equal access to two (or more), even if they look much the same, it is very different from only having access to one.
A lot of USA folks are very excited about politics. That's because one of two options has fascist tendencies. let's have two dull candidates please.
Your wish has been granted; in fact, we have three dull candidates.
Oh great we're back on the wanting another democratic vote is not democratic bandwagon.
Excellent.
I'd go further. There should never be another vote on anything once there has already been a vote on that thing. Whether Police & Crime Commissioners, General Election, In/Out referendums, you name it.
Much more democratic that way.
Oh, great, we're back on the wilfully misrepresenting the other point of view bandwagon.
It has been said many times, perhaps by you not a few times, that having another vote on EU membership would not be democratic.
No.
It was said that having another vote in an attempt to overturn the first vote instead of implementing it would have been anti-democratic.
Having a rejoin vote now that Brexit has happened would be prefectly democratic.
Democracy: people vote, things happen, people vote again.
Not democracy: people vote, politicians say "you voted the wrong way, vote again".
Oh and politicians say "you voted the wrong way, vote again" at every General Election.
No, not really. The 2015 general election didn't reverse the 2010 general election because the 650 winners of that election became MPs for the duration of the 2010 parliament. Candidates don't have to win two elections to become MPs, no matter how egregious.
You seem to be having a problem with this. There are two issues which you seem unable to grasp.
You are talking about the same people who voted for Option A instead of Option B being asked to vote again to decide upon Option A or Option B. If you said we want a bunch of aliens to come in and vote between A & B then yes absolutely you would have a point. But it is the same people so some of those who originally voted for one option might then have decided to vote for the other. Perfectly democratic. It is never undemocratic to ask the people to vote on something. Impractical, an admin nightmare maybe, but not undemocratic.
And wrt your GE example, by your reckoning every manifesto pledge would have to be enacted before there could be another general election to choose a new government.
A more reasoned rant against those responsible for the conduct of Brexit.
Brexit murdered“moderate” Conservatism Now it justifies the right’s stab-in-the-back myths https://nickcohen.substack.com/p/brexit-murderedmoderate-conservatism ...For understandable, if not forgivable, psychological reasons the right has embraced denial. I do not hold with the liberal-left orthodoxy that Brexit was wholly built on the back of an enormous lie. Boris Johnson lies as easily as he breathes, of course, but a few supporters of Brexit sincerely believed they would inaugurate a national renaissance. When ministers approved a policy document in January 2022 setting out how “the government will use its new freedoms to transform the UK into the best regulated economy in the world,” they were lying to themselves before all others.
Supporters of Brexit cannot believe in May 2023 what they believed in January 2022. But rather than admit to a mistake, the right retreats into a stab-in-the-back myth: the conspiracy theory of the defeated. Brexit was sabotaged by “anti-Brexit activist civil servants” (Dominic Raab), “a Europhile blob” (Daniel Hannan), and “ the objection and obstruction” of remainers (Jacob Rees-Mogg).
So intoxicating is the conspiracy theory that not one leading supporter of Brexit has admitted that leaving the European Union was a mistake...
The adjoining article is more illuminating and more chilling to me: just how dangerous Kemi Badenoch potentially is:
I don't support either Liverton or Everpool, but obviously being an annoying Scouser and living in Liverpool it's hard to get away from it all. The new stadium going up is hard to miss on the way to work each day either.
It'd be a shame for Everton to go down, but then again I remember the 1990s when it was constantly threatened they might then (and be replaced by Tranmere - neither happened). Perhaps it's just their time.
But they didn't lose yesterday. A defeat would've probably been a significant nail in the coffin, but whilst 19th on 29 points, there is only 1 point between them and safety and still four games to play. I haven't looked at the run in, so I don't really know but surely its possible they could string two wins together and avoid the drop?
(And this is why stopping some sort of American 'one league, no promotions or relegations allowed' is so important. Imagine how much more boring the sport would be without relegation battles as well as title battles).
It gets worse later when the Conservatives demand his resignation for the Gray affair. Cleverly has already hinted at that.
Although as Gray turned out to be a Labour shill who condemned the innocent Boris Johnson to an unfair defenestration should Sunak not resign himself and return the premiership to its rightful owner?
I'd be really surprised if the Sue Gray thing has the slightest effect on Lab prospects, it seems to me just the latest straw that a hopeless (in both senses) Tory party is grasping at. The fact that they might think this coukd be a 'thing' just confirms their hopelessness imo.
As someone who long ago got out of the habit of voting Labour my antennae may be off, but I think if the no policies, no principles stuff gets traction it could be damaging. Perhaps I'm just having 1997 flashbacks.
If Curtice thinks it's 1997 levels of tactical voting, as in the article below, the Tories may only be left with the question of how much damage limitation they can do, really.
Penny to take over in 2024, and bring a bit more beauty and empathy back to Tory politics.
Imagine the free-for-all should Sunak fall.
They'd be like rats in a sack again and Mordaunt would be nowhere to be seen. It's Badenoch, Braverman, Boris or Truss next time around.
A more reasoned rant against those responsible for the conduct of Brexit.
Brexit murdered“moderate” Conservatism Now it justifies the right’s stab-in-the-back myths https://nickcohen.substack.com/p/brexit-murderedmoderate-conservatism ...For understandable, if not forgivable, psychological reasons the right has embraced denial. I do not hold with the liberal-left orthodoxy that Brexit was wholly built on the back of an enormous lie. Boris Johnson lies as easily as he breathes, of course, but a few supporters of Brexit sincerely believed they would inaugurate a national renaissance. When ministers approved a policy document in January 2022 setting out how “the government will use its new freedoms to transform the UK into the best regulated economy in the world,” they were lying to themselves before all others.
Supporters of Brexit cannot believe in May 2023 what they believed in January 2022. But rather than admit to a mistake, the right retreats into a stab-in-the-back myth: the conspiracy theory of the defeated. Brexit was sabotaged by “anti-Brexit activist civil servants” (Dominic Raab), “a Europhile blob” (Daniel Hannan), and “ the objection and obstruction” of remainers (Jacob Rees-Mogg).
So intoxicating is the conspiracy theory that not one leading supporter of Brexit has admitted that leaving the European Union was a mistake...
How can they?
For better or worse, Brexit is the thing that defines the politicians of this generation. A big binary choice one way or the other.
To say "I thought this would be great, but it's actually gone badly"... How can you say that in public and expect to be taken seriously about anything ever again? It's career death.
To say to yourself "This thing I strove for for years, it's harmed the country"... How can you say that and live with yourself? It requires a lot of integrity.
And to save the arguments, this works equally whichever side of the 2016 debate people were. The most you can hope for is that your former opponents stop talking and try to change the subject.
I've mentioned before the old physics aphorism. It's relevant here, except that science has a much stronger "if the facts change, you should change your model" than most human endeavours.
Max Planck: A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it ... An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.
Or Science progresses one funeral at a time.
The challenge for Team Brexit is that the young and middle aged aren't buying their vision. Not yet, anyway.
"Brexit is the thing that defines the politicians of this generation" True - and you can't get much more pro Brexit than my MP. Add to that the fact that she was a great supporter of Liz Truss. How many times can she be so catastrophically wrong and cost us all so much? Well, Suella?
It gets worse later when the Conservatives demand his resignation for the Gray affair. Cleverly has already hinted at that.
Although as Gray turned out to be a Labour shill who condemned the innocent Boris Johnson to an unfair defenestration should Sunak not resign himself and return the premiership to its rightful owner?
I'd be really surprised if the Sue Gray thing has the slightest effect on Lab prospects, it seems to me just the latest straw that a hopeless (in both senses) Tory party is grasping at. The fact that they might think this coukd be a 'thing' just confirms their hopelessness imo.
As someone who long ago got out of the habit of voting Labour my antennae may be off, but I think if the no policies, no principles stuff gets traction it could be damaging. Perhaps I'm just having 1997 flashbacks.
If Curtice thinks it's 1997 levels of tactical voting, as in the article below, the Tories may only be left with the question of how much damage limitation they can do, really.
Penny to take over in 2024, and bring a bit more beauty and empathy back to Tory politics.
I'd wish to hear what Curtice said, rather than what someone reported him to have said.
In Scotland, for example, tactical voting resulted in the Conservatives being wiped out in 1997. If an election were held tomorrow, it looks as if they'd get 6 or 7 MPs.
A more reasoned rant against those responsible for the conduct of Brexit.
Brexit murdered“moderate” Conservatism Now it justifies the right’s stab-in-the-back myths https://nickcohen.substack.com/p/brexit-murderedmoderate-conservatism ...For understandable, if not forgivable, psychological reasons the right has embraced denial. I do not hold with the liberal-left orthodoxy that Brexit was wholly built on the back of an enormous lie. Boris Johnson lies as easily as he breathes, of course, but a few supporters of Brexit sincerely believed they would inaugurate a national renaissance. When ministers approved a policy document in January 2022 setting out how “the government will use its new freedoms to transform the UK into the best regulated economy in the world,” they were lying to themselves before all others.
Supporters of Brexit cannot believe in May 2023 what they believed in January 2022. But rather than admit to a mistake, the right retreats into a stab-in-the-back myth: the conspiracy theory of the defeated. Brexit was sabotaged by “anti-Brexit activist civil servants” (Dominic Raab), “a Europhile blob” (Daniel Hannan), and “ the objection and obstruction” of remainers (Jacob Rees-Mogg).
So intoxicating is the conspiracy theory that not one leading supporter of Brexit has admitted that leaving the European Union was a mistake...
I think it remains to be seen if it was a mistake. Short term economic damage for sure, but where will we be in 10 years, 20 years and 100 years? Its idiotic to make trade harder with a huge trading block right on your doorstep, but most who voted for Brexit imagined that future trade would be unaffected and that they were voting to leave the political institution. Now its easy to mock that, but I believed that too, and I don't consider myself a stupid person, and I also recall being told that this was possible.
I still believe that much closer alignment and easier trade is possible without re-joining, and this will happen.
Intelligence is quite different from being overly trusting of what people in authority tell you. There are even clever people in the States who can bend themselves to Trump's world view.
A day out in the High Peak yesterday. Party flags little in evidence, but what few there were Labour. (I'm no marketer, but I'm pleased to see Labour in High Peak have done what I have often suggested and gone with a punchy red-and-white colour scheme, rather than alarming red-and-yellow. Much easier on the eye and less danger-don't-go-near-this-lot).
The High Lane area of Stockport, meanwhile (Marple South ward - or was last time I looked, at any rate), was comfortably Lib Dem (with posters for the Lib Dems in most cases on the same houses as posters opposing new development in High Lane).
We did a satisfying walk from Edale around Lords Seat and Mam Tor. Mam Tor, by the way, was absolutely heaving. Which delights me. There was something of a carnival atmosphere at the top: some of these people were serious all-the-kit walkers on longer hikes, but many were clearly park-at-the-bottom-and-a-quick-half-hour-to-the-top types, and some were clearly doing it for the first time and appeared tremendously pleased with their achievement in getting to the top and surprised and impressed by the reward in doing so. Hopefully some of these will be motivated to come back and explore more of the high areas of their country.
Most Conservatives don't put up posters, and haven't done for a long time, because it's not worth the potential hassle they might cause.
It was a really shit name which, in its amateurishness inadvertently signalled that it wasn't really a party, more a disgruntled band of exiles.
Political parties in democracies oughtn't to grow from the top down anyway. They should've all just jumped to the LDs. I did feel for Luciana Berger though, who received an absolute torrent of hideous abuse*.
*Esp from the Momentum dolts. I wonder what set her apart for particularly nasty treatment? It's truly a mystery.
I always find Berger's political situation odd. She was also an parachute into Liverpool Wavertree (and whose fault that is I don't know - hers for accepting, the local party for allowing it, or central office for imposing it? Or all three).
She's been Labour, LD, ChangeUK, independent and now back to Labour. Is she going to stand as an MP again next year does anyone know? Her return to Labour would suggest she might try.
Labour betrayed the national interest by veering from Remain to Re-Run to the current unicorn position. I hope (!) the real meaning of Labour is EFTA/EEA under cover of an election promise in 2024 to 'fully review' the position.
It can't really be EFTA* as that alone doesn't do much for us, and EEA comes with the free movement of people, which scores badly with the population as a whole and even with Remainers, so it will probably have to be a deal like with Turkey and the EU.
* It might be worth joining anyway, but most people mean Single Market/EEA when they talk about joining EFTA.
Oh great we're back on the wanting another democratic vote is not democratic bandwagon.
Excellent.
I'd go further. There should never be another vote on anything once there has already been a vote on that thing. Whether Police & Crime Commissioners, General Election, In/Out referendums, you name it.
Much more democratic that way.
Oh, great, we're back on the wilfully misrepresenting the other point of view bandwagon.
It has been said many times, perhaps by you not a few times, that having another vote on EU membership would not be democratic.
No.
It was said that having another vote in an attempt to overturn the first vote instead of implementing it would have been anti-democratic.
Having a rejoin vote now that Brexit has happened would be prefectly democratic.
Democracy: people vote, things happen, people vote again.
Not democracy: people vote, politicians say "you voted the wrong way, vote again".
Oh and politicians say "you voted the wrong way, vote again" at every General Election.
No, not really. The 2015 general election didn't reverse the 2010 general election because the 650 winners of that election became MPs for the duration of the 2010 parliament. Candidates don't have to win two elections to become MPs, no matter how egregious.
You seem to be having a problem with this. There are two issues which you seem unable to grasp.
You are talking about the same people who voted for Option A instead of Option B being asked to vote again to decide upon Option A or Option B. If you said we want a bunch of aliens to come in and vote between A & B then yes absolutely you would have a point. But it is the same people so some of those who originally voted for one option might then have decided to vote for the other. Perfectly democratic. It is never undemocratic to ask the people to vote on something. Impractical, an admin nightmare maybe, but not undemocratic.
And wrt your GE example, by your reckoning every manifesto pledge would have to be enacted before there could be another general election to choose a new government.
It's not "the same people", some die, some come of age.
It is undemocratic to say to people "we aren't going to do what you voted for, so you have to vote again and get it right this time".
At a general election, what people vote for is for the winning candidate in each constituency to become an MP. Manifestoes are officially irrelevant (R (Wheeler) v Office of the PM).
None of this is slightly difficult, you're talking yourself into knots because you won't admit that you think that getting the "right answer" on the EU is more important than democracy.
Oh great we're back on the wanting another democratic vote is not democratic bandwagon.
Excellent.
I'd go further. There should never be another vote on anything once there has already been a vote on that thing. Whether Police & Crime Commissioners, General Election, In/Out referendums, you name it.
Much more democratic that way.
Oh, great, we're back on the wilfully misrepresenting the other point of view bandwagon.
It has been said many times, perhaps by you not a few times, that having another vote on EU membership would not be democratic.
No.
It was said that having another vote in an attempt to overturn the first vote instead of implementing it would have been anti-democratic.
Having a rejoin vote now that Brexit has happened would be prefectly democratic.
Democracy: people vote, things happen, people vote again.
Not democracy: people vote, politicians say "you voted the wrong way, vote again".
Oh and politicians say "you voted the wrong way, vote again" at every General Election.
No, not really. The 2015 general election didn't reverse the 2010 general election because the 650 winners of that election became MPs for the duration of the 2010 parliament. Candidates don't have to win two elections to become MPs, no matter how egregious.
AND ANOTHER THING
Suppose that Lab pledges to tax Terry's Chocolate Oranges (I know crazy but let's go with it).
They win and lo, they tax Terry's Chocolate Oranges.
Cons then pledge to reverse the Chocolate Orange tax.
Cons win. They reverse the tax.
According to you that is undemocratic because the people have voted for a tax on Terry's Chocolate Oranges.
A more reasoned rant against those responsible for the conduct of Brexit.
Brexit murdered“moderate” Conservatism Now it justifies the right’s stab-in-the-back myths https://nickcohen.substack.com/p/brexit-murderedmoderate-conservatism ...For understandable, if not forgivable, psychological reasons the right has embraced denial. I do not hold with the liberal-left orthodoxy that Brexit was wholly built on the back of an enormous lie. Boris Johnson lies as easily as he breathes, of course, but a few supporters of Brexit sincerely believed they would inaugurate a national renaissance. When ministers approved a policy document in January 2022 setting out how “the government will use its new freedoms to transform the UK into the best regulated economy in the world,” they were lying to themselves before all others.
Supporters of Brexit cannot believe in May 2023 what they believed in January 2022. But rather than admit to a mistake, the right retreats into a stab-in-the-back myth: the conspiracy theory of the defeated. Brexit was sabotaged by “anti-Brexit activist civil servants” (Dominic Raab), “a Europhile blob” (Daniel Hannan), and “ the objection and obstruction” of remainers (Jacob Rees-Mogg).
So intoxicating is the conspiracy theory that not one leading supporter of Brexit has admitted that leaving the European Union was a mistake...
How can they?
For better or worse, Brexit is the thing that defines the politicians of this generation. A big binary choice one way or the other.
To say "I thought this would be great, but it's actually gone badly"... How can you say that in public and expect to be taken seriously about anything ever again? It's career death.
To say to yourself "This thing I strove for for years, it's harmed the country"... How can you say that and live with yourself? It requires a lot of integrity.
And to save the arguments, this works equally whichever side of the 2016 debate people were. The most you can hope for is that your former opponents stop talking and try to change the subject.
I've mentioned before the old physics aphorism. It's relevant here, except that science has a much stronger "if the facts change, you should change your model" than most human endeavours.
Max Planck: A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it ... An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.
Or Science progresses one funeral at a time.
The challenge for Team Brexit is that the young and middle aged aren't buying their vision. Not yet, anyway.
Conversely, one thing some Brexiteers find puzzling about Remainers is the refusal to countenance that things might not be a bed of roses on the continent, either at present or in the future. Neither covid nor Ukraine has exactly painted the EU as an organisation we should want to be a member of.
Generally people in Europe think the EU has done well on both.Covid and Ukraine, which is likely why approval rates for the organisation have improved substantially.
The last bloody thing this country needs is another vote on EU membership, to bring all the bloody grifters and liars back out of the woodwork and create a massive (and artificial) divide in our society to the detriment of all.
Imagine if France decided to have a second Dreyfuss Affair.
They did, they brought him back to France and had a second trial! Because they got it wrong the first time!
A more reasoned rant against those responsible for the conduct of Brexit.
Brexit murdered“moderate” Conservatism Now it justifies the right’s stab-in-the-back myths https://nickcohen.substack.com/p/brexit-murderedmoderate-conservatism ...For understandable, if not forgivable, psychological reasons the right has embraced denial. I do not hold with the liberal-left orthodoxy that Brexit was wholly built on the back of an enormous lie. Boris Johnson lies as easily as he breathes, of course, but a few supporters of Brexit sincerely believed they would inaugurate a national renaissance. When ministers approved a policy document in January 2022 setting out how “the government will use its new freedoms to transform the UK into the best regulated economy in the world,” they were lying to themselves before all others.
Supporters of Brexit cannot believe in May 2023 what they believed in January 2022. But rather than admit to a mistake, the right retreats into a stab-in-the-back myth: the conspiracy theory of the defeated. Brexit was sabotaged by “anti-Brexit activist civil servants” (Dominic Raab), “a Europhile blob” (Daniel Hannan), and “ the objection and obstruction” of remainers (Jacob Rees-Mogg).
So intoxicating is the conspiracy theory that not one leading supporter of Brexit has admitted that leaving the European Union was a mistake...
I think it remains to be seen if it was a mistake. Short term economic damage for sure, but where will we be in 10 years, 20 years and 100 years? Its idiotic to make trade harder with a huge trading block right on your doorstep, but most who voted for Brexit imagined that future trade would be unaffected and that they were voting to leave the political institution. Now its easy to mock that, but I believed that too, and I don't consider myself a stupid person, and I also recall being told that this was possible.
I still believe that much closer alignment and easier trade is possible without re-joining, and this will happen.
Of course it was a mistake, no matter how much you're in denial. Nobody want to consider themselves stupid or to admit they made a mistake, that's human nature.
Oh great we're back on the wanting another democratic vote is not democratic bandwagon.
Excellent.
I'd go further. There should never be another vote on anything once there has already been a vote on that thing. Whether Police & Crime Commissioners, General Election, In/Out referendums, you name it.
Much more democratic that way.
Oh, great, we're back on the wilfully misrepresenting the other point of view bandwagon.
It has been said many times, perhaps by you not a few times, that having another vote on EU membership would not be democratic.
No.
It was said that having another vote in an attempt to overturn the first vote instead of implementing it would have been anti-democratic.
Having a rejoin vote now that Brexit has happened would be prefectly democratic.
Democracy: people vote, things happen, people vote again.
Not democracy: people vote, politicians say "you voted the wrong way, vote again".
Oh and politicians say "you voted the wrong way, vote again" at every General Election.
No, not really. The 2015 general election didn't reverse the 2010 general election because the 650 winners of that election became MPs for the duration of the 2010 parliament. Candidates don't have to win two elections to become MPs, no matter how egregious.
You seem to be having a problem with this. There are two issues which you seem unable to grasp.
You are talking about the same people who voted for Option A instead of Option B being asked to vote again to decide upon Option A or Option B. If you said we want a bunch of aliens to come in and vote between A & B then yes absolutely you would have a point. But it is the same people so some of those who originally voted for one option might then have decided to vote for the other. Perfectly democratic. It is never undemocratic to ask the people to vote on something. Impractical, an admin nightmare maybe, but not undemocratic.
And wrt your GE example, by your reckoning every manifesto pledge would have to be enacted before there could be another general election to choose a new government.
It's not "the same people", some die, some come of age.
It is undemocratic to say to people "we aren't going to do what you voted for, so you have to vote again and get it right this time".
At a general election, what people vote for is for the winning candidate in each constituency to become an MP. Manifestoes are officially irrelevant (R (Wheeler) v Office of the PM).
None of this is slightly difficult, you're talking yourself into knots because you won't admit that you think that getting the "right answer" on the EU is more important than democracy.
Jesus that's also democracy. You ask people to vote de temps en temps and they change their mind, become eligible to vote, die, etc.
You can't freeze in aspic any particular democratic decision.
As I said I will give you impractical and an administrative nightmare but manifestly not undemocratic.
I think your insecurity about it all is slightly colouring your responses here. I am supremely relaxed. "My side" lost. But this happens all the time in politics and an EU Referendum is no different from any other democratic vote. You seem to think that it is.
Oh great we're back on the wanting another democratic vote is not democratic bandwagon.
Excellent.
I'd go further. There should never be another vote on anything once there has already been a vote on that thing. Whether Police & Crime Commissioners, General Election, In/Out referendums, you name it.
Much more democratic that way.
Oh, great, we're back on the wilfully misrepresenting the other point of view bandwagon.
It has been said many times, perhaps by you not a few times, that having another vote on EU membership would not be democratic.
No.
It was said that having another vote in an attempt to overturn the first vote instead of implementing it would have been anti-democratic.
Having a rejoin vote now that Brexit has happened would be prefectly democratic.
Democracy: people vote, things happen, people vote again.
Not democracy: people vote, politicians say "you voted the wrong way, vote again".
Oh and politicians say "you voted the wrong way, vote again" at every General Election.
No, not really. The 2015 general election didn't reverse the 2010 general election because the 650 winners of that election became MPs for the duration of the 2010 parliament. Candidates don't have to win two elections to become MPs, no matter how egregious.
AND ANOTHER THING
Suppose that Lab pledges to tax Terry's Chocolate Oranges (I know crazy but let's go with it).
They win and lo, they tax Terry's Chocolate Oranges.
Cons then pledge to reverse the Chocolate Orange tax.
Cons win. They reverse the tax.
According to you that is undemocratic because the people have voted for a tax on Terry's Chocolate Oranges.
Stop lying about my position, please. I have explained to you in words of no more than two syllables exactly why that would be democratic.
Lol, I thought initially that this was one of those tweets that posts a pic of Copacabana and suggests it's eg Saltcoats, but no, it is indeed the new bridge at Sighthill.
"I tend to regard LAB voting intention to signify being anti-Tory and that people will vote in their elections for the party locally they perceive as being most likely to beat the Conservatives".
I'm sure that's correct. The problem most people seem to have is knowing which party in their ward has most chance of causing hurt to the Tories. Surprisingly few seem to even know which party is currently in charge.
Voters are generally not very clever. Most have no idea who their MP is, nor which party they represent. I wonder how many have no idea whether the Govt is Tory or Labour ?
Apparently it's quite common for voters to say things like "I'm going to vote for the Labour because they want to stop all those immigrants".
Oh great we're back on the wanting another democratic vote is not democratic bandwagon.
Excellent.
I'd go further. There should never be another vote on anything once there has already been a vote on that thing. Whether Police & Crime Commissioners, General Election, In/Out referendums, you name it.
Much more democratic that way.
Oh, great, we're back on the wilfully misrepresenting the other point of view bandwagon.
It has been said many times, perhaps by you not a few times, that having another vote on EU membership would not be democratic.
No.
It was said that having another vote in an attempt to overturn the first vote instead of implementing it would have been anti-democratic.
Having a rejoin vote now that Brexit has happened would be prefectly democratic.
Democracy: people vote, things happen, people vote again.
Not democracy: people vote, politicians say "you voted the wrong way, vote again".
Oh and politicians say "you voted the wrong way, vote again" at every General Election.
No, not really. The 2015 general election didn't reverse the 2010 general election because the 650 winners of that election became MPs for the duration of the 2010 parliament. Candidates don't have to win two elections to become MPs, no matter how egregious.
AND ANOTHER THING
Suppose that Lab pledges to tax Terry's Chocolate Oranges (I know crazy but let's go with it).
They win and lo, they tax Terry's Chocolate Oranges.
Cons then pledge to reverse the Chocolate Orange tax.
Cons win. They reverse the tax.
According to you that is undemocratic because the people have voted for a tax on Terry's Chocolate Oranges.
Stop lying about my position, please. I have explained to you in words of no more than two syllables exactly why that would be democratic.
"important" = more than two syllables.
You're all over the place on this and, frankly, having a shocker.
Oh great we're back on the wanting another democratic vote is not democratic bandwagon.
Excellent.
I'd go further. There should never be another vote on anything once there has already been a vote on that thing. Whether Police & Crime Commissioners, General Election, In/Out referendums, you name it.
Much more democratic that way.
Oh, great, we're back on the wilfully misrepresenting the other point of view bandwagon.
It has been said many times, perhaps by you not a few times, that having another vote on EU membership would not be democratic.
No.
It was said that having another vote in an attempt to overturn the first vote instead of implementing it would have been anti-democratic.
Having a rejoin vote now that Brexit has happened would be prefectly democratic.
Democracy: people vote, things happen, people vote again.
Not democracy: people vote, politicians say "you voted the wrong way, vote again".
Oh and politicians say "you voted the wrong way, vote again" at every General Election.
No, not really. The 2015 general election didn't reverse the 2010 general election because the 650 winners of that election became MPs for the duration of the 2010 parliament. Candidates don't have to win two elections to become MPs, no matter how egregious.
You seem to be having a problem with this. There are two issues which you seem unable to grasp.
You are talking about the same people who voted for Option A instead of Option B being asked to vote again to decide upon Option A or Option B. If you said we want a bunch of aliens to come in and vote between A & B then yes absolutely you would have a point. But it is the same people so some of those who originally voted for one option might then have decided to vote for the other. Perfectly democratic. It is never undemocratic to ask the people to vote on something. Impractical, an admin nightmare maybe, but not undemocratic.
And wrt your GE example, by your reckoning every manifesto pledge would have to be enacted before there could be another general election to choose a new government.
It's not "the same people", some die, some come of age.
It is undemocratic to say to people "we aren't going to do what you voted for, so you have to vote again and get it right this time".
At a general election, what people vote for is for the winning candidate in each constituency to become an MP. Manifestoes are officially irrelevant (R (Wheeler) v Office of the PM).
None of this is slightly difficult, you're talking yourself into knots because you won't admit that you think that getting the "right answer" on the EU is more important than democracy.
Jesus that's also democracy. You ask people to vote de temps en temps and they change their mind, become eligible to vote, die, etc.
You can't freeze in aspic any particular democratic decision. .
Oh, for fuck's sake. I AM NOT SAYING THAT YOU CAN OR SHOULD.
All I am saying is, if the people vote for something to happen, it is undemocratic for politicians to refuse to implement it and make people vote again in lieu of implementing it.
You really aren't thick. I can't believe that you don't actually grasp my point. So why are you pretending not to?
This reminds me of the time I seem to remember when many voters, including some of its own readers, told some pollsters that they were certain that the Sun, of all papers, was a Labour-supporting newspaper.
People often don't follow things too closely, to put it mildly.
an EU Referendum is no different from any other democratic vote. You seem to think that it is.
It was - because it's the first vote I can recall in British history where a significant number of politicians have tried to overturn it instead of following their instructions from the people.
(Only in British history, though. The EU are past masters of this particular game, which is one of the reasons Leave won in the first place.)
A more reasoned rant against those responsible for the conduct of Brexit.
Brexit murdered“moderate” Conservatism Now it justifies the right’s stab-in-the-back myths https://nickcohen.substack.com/p/brexit-murderedmoderate-conservatism ...For understandable, if not forgivable, psychological reasons the right has embraced denial. I do not hold with the liberal-left orthodoxy that Brexit was wholly built on the back of an enormous lie. Boris Johnson lies as easily as he breathes, of course, but a few supporters of Brexit sincerely believed they would inaugurate a national renaissance. When ministers approved a policy document in January 2022 setting out how “the government will use its new freedoms to transform the UK into the best regulated economy in the world,” they were lying to themselves before all others.
Supporters of Brexit cannot believe in May 2023 what they believed in January 2022. But rather than admit to a mistake, the right retreats into a stab-in-the-back myth: the conspiracy theory of the defeated. Brexit was sabotaged by “anti-Brexit activist civil servants” (Dominic Raab), “a Europhile blob” (Daniel Hannan), and “ the objection and obstruction” of remainers (Jacob Rees-Mogg).
So intoxicating is the conspiracy theory that not one leading supporter of Brexit has admitted that leaving the European Union was a mistake...
How can they?
For better or worse, Brexit is the thing that defines the politicians of this generation. A big binary choice one way or the other.
To say "I thought this would be great, but it's actually gone badly"... How can you say that in public and expect to be taken seriously about anything ever again? It's career death.
To say to yourself "This thing I strove for for years, it's harmed the country"... How can you say that and live with yourself? It requires a lot of integrity.
And to save the arguments, this works equally whichever side of the 2016 debate people were. The most you can hope for is that your former opponents stop talking and try to change the subject.
I've mentioned before the old physics aphorism. It's relevant here, except that science has a much stronger "if the facts change, you should change your model" than most human endeavours.
Max Planck: A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it ... An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.
Or Science progresses one funeral at a time.
The challenge for Team Brexit is that the young and middle aged aren't buying their vision. Not yet, anyway.
Conversely, one thing some Brexiteers find puzzling about Remainers is the refusal to countenance that things might not be a bed of roses on the continent, either at present or in the future. Neither covid nor Ukraine has exactly painted the EU as an organisation we should want to be a member of.
Generally people in Europe think the EU has done well on both.Covid and Ukraine, which is likely why approval rates for the organisation have improved substantially.
On Ukraine the EU has done significantly better than many of its constituent member states. Without the EU there's no way Hungary would be participating in sanctions on Russia, for a start. UVdL has been visible, and strongly supportive. National leaders rather more patchy.
Oh great we're back on the wanting another democratic vote is not democratic bandwagon.
Excellent.
I'd go further. There should never be another vote on anything once there has already been a vote on that thing. Whether Police & Crime Commissioners, General Election, In/Out referendums, you name it.
Much more democratic that way.
Oh, great, we're back on the wilfully misrepresenting the other point of view bandwagon.
It has been said many times, perhaps by you not a few times, that having another vote on EU membership would not be democratic.
No.
It was said that having another vote in an attempt to overturn the first vote instead of implementing it would have been anti-democratic.
Having a rejoin vote now that Brexit has happened would be prefectly democratic.
Democracy: people vote, things happen, people vote again.
Not democracy: people vote, politicians say "you voted the wrong way, vote again".
Oh and politicians say "you voted the wrong way, vote again" at every General Election.
No, not really. The 2015 general election didn't reverse the 2010 general election because the 650 winners of that election became MPs for the duration of the 2010 parliament. Candidates don't have to win two elections to become MPs, no matter how egregious.
AND ANOTHER THING
Suppose that Lab pledges to tax Terry's Chocolate Oranges (I know crazy but let's go with it).
They win and lo, they tax Terry's Chocolate Oranges.
Cons then pledge to reverse the Chocolate Orange tax.
Cons win. They reverse the tax.
According to you that is undemocratic because the people have voted for a tax on Terry's Chocolate Oranges.
Stop lying about my position, please. I have explained to you in words of no more than two syllables exactly why that would be democratic.
"important" = more than two syllables.
You're all over the place on this and, frankly, having a shocker.
"people vote, things happen, people vote again." - no more than two syllables. Who exactly is "having a shocker"?
an EU Referendum is no different from any other democratic vote. You seem to think that it is.
It was - because it's the first vote I can recall in British history where a significant number of politicians have tried to overturn it instead of following their instructions from the people.
(Only in British history, though. The EU are past masters of this particular game, which is one of the reasons Leave won in the first place.)
Rubbish. We had a hung parliament - British politicians were representing their constituents. At the time. And then of course people got fed up with it all and voted for BoJo to get Brexit done. Which he did.
Oh great we're back on the wanting another democratic vote is not democratic bandwagon.
Excellent.
I'd go further. There should never be another vote on anything once there has already been a vote on that thing. Whether Police & Crime Commissioners, General Election, In/Out referendums, you name it.
Much more democratic that way.
Oh, great, we're back on the wilfully misrepresenting the other point of view bandwagon.
It has been said many times, perhaps by you not a few times, that having another vote on EU membership would not be democratic.
No.
It was said that having another vote in an attempt to overturn the first vote instead of implementing it would have been anti-democratic.
Having a rejoin vote now that Brexit has happened would be prefectly democratic.
Democracy: people vote, things happen, people vote again.
Not democracy: people vote, politicians say "you voted the wrong way, vote again".
Oh and politicians say "you voted the wrong way, vote again" at every General Election.
No, not really. The 2015 general election didn't reverse the 2010 general election because the 650 winners of that election became MPs for the duration of the 2010 parliament. Candidates don't have to win two elections to become MPs, no matter how egregious.
You seem to be having a problem with this. There are two issues which you seem unable to grasp.
You are talking about the same people who voted for Option A instead of Option B being asked to vote again to decide upon Option A or Option B. If you said we want a bunch of aliens to come in and vote between A & B then yes absolutely you would have a point. But it is the same people so some of those who originally voted for one option might then have decided to vote for the other. Perfectly democratic. It is never undemocratic to ask the people to vote on something. Impractical, an admin nightmare maybe, but not undemocratic.
And wrt your GE example, by your reckoning every manifesto pledge would have to be enacted before there could be another general election to choose a new government.
It's not "the same people", some die, some come of age.
It is undemocratic to say to people "we aren't going to do what you voted for, so you have to vote again and get it right this time".
At a general election, what people vote for is for the winning candidate in each constituency to become an MP. Manifestoes are officially irrelevant (R (Wheeler) v Office of the PM).
None of this is slightly difficult, you're talking yourself into knots because you won't admit that you think that getting the "right answer" on the EU is more important than democracy.
Jesus that's also democracy. You ask people to vote de temps en temps and they change their mind, become eligible to vote, die, etc.
You can't freeze in aspic any particular democratic decision. .
Oh, for fuck's sake. I AM NOT SAYING THAT YOU CAN OR SHOULD.
All I am saying is, if the people vote for something to happen, it is undemocratic for politicians to refuse to implement it and make people vote again in lieu of implementing it.
You really aren't thick. I can't believe that you don't actually grasp my point. So why are you pretending not to?
Calm the farm.
And all I am saying is that the timing of it doesn't matter, nor whether it was implemented. The British public were asked about something and could, perfectly democratically, be asked again at any time about that very same thing. You seem to have a blind spot about this.
an EU Referendum is no different from any other democratic vote. You seem to think that it is.
It was - because it's the first vote I can recall in British history where a significant number of politicians have tried to overturn it instead of following their instructions from the people.
(Only in British history, though. The EU are past masters of this particular game, which is one of the reasons Leave won in the first place.)
Rubbish.
Sorry, no, that's exactly what happened. Large numbers of MPs were disobeying a direct instruction from the referendum.
Oh great we're back on the wanting another democratic vote is not democratic bandwagon.
Excellent.
I'd go further. There should never be another vote on anything once there has already been a vote on that thing. Whether Police & Crime Commissioners, General Election, In/Out referendums, you name it.
Much more democratic that way.
Oh, great, we're back on the wilfully misrepresenting the other point of view bandwagon.
It has been said many times, perhaps by you not a few times, that having another vote on EU membership would not be democratic.
No.
It was said that having another vote in an attempt to overturn the first vote instead of implementing it would have been anti-democratic.
Having a rejoin vote now that Brexit has happened would be prefectly democratic.
Democracy: people vote, things happen, people vote again.
Not democracy: people vote, politicians say "you voted the wrong way, vote again".
Oh and politicians say "you voted the wrong way, vote again" at every General Election.
No, not really. The 2015 general election didn't reverse the 2010 general election because the 650 winners of that election became MPs for the duration of the 2010 parliament. Candidates don't have to win two elections to become MPs, no matter how egregious.
You seem to be having a problem with this. There are two issues which you seem unable to grasp.
You are talking about the same people who voted for Option A instead of Option B being asked to vote again to decide upon Option A or Option B. If you said we want a bunch of aliens to come in and vote between A & B then yes absolutely you would have a point. But it is the same people so some of those who originally voted for one option might then have decided to vote for the other. Perfectly democratic. It is never undemocratic to ask the people to vote on something. Impractical, an admin nightmare maybe, but not undemocratic.
And wrt your GE example, by your reckoning every manifesto pledge would have to be enacted before there could be another general election to choose a new government.
It's not "the same people", some die, some come of age.
It is undemocratic to say to people "we aren't going to do what you voted for, so you have to vote again and get it right this time".
At a general election, what people vote for is for the winning candidate in each constituency to become an MP. Manifestoes are officially irrelevant (R (Wheeler) v Office of the PM).
None of this is slightly difficult, you're talking yourself into knots because you won't admit that you think that getting the "right answer" on the EU is more important than democracy.
Jesus that's also democracy. You ask people to vote de temps en temps and they change their mind, become eligible to vote, die, etc.
You can't freeze in aspic any particular democratic decision. .
Oh, for fuck's sake. I AM NOT SAYING THAT YOU CAN OR SHOULD.
All I am saying is, if the people vote for something to happen, it is undemocratic for politicians to refuse to implement it and make people vote again in lieu of implementing it.
You really aren't thick. I can't believe that you don't actually grasp my point. So why are you pretending not to?
Calm the farm.
And all I am saying is that the timing of it doesn't matter, nor whether it was implemented. The British public were asked about something and could, perfectly democratically, be asked again at any time about that very same thing. You seem to have a blind spot about this.
Your position is: it's democratic for politicians to say to the people "you can't have that thing you voted for".
A more reasoned rant against those responsible for the conduct of Brexit.
Brexit murdered“moderate” Conservatism Now it justifies the right’s stab-in-the-back myths https://nickcohen.substack.com/p/brexit-murderedmoderate-conservatism ...For understandable, if not forgivable, psychological reasons the right has embraced denial. I do not hold with the liberal-left orthodoxy that Brexit was wholly built on the back of an enormous lie. Boris Johnson lies as easily as he breathes, of course, but a few supporters of Brexit sincerely believed they would inaugurate a national renaissance. When ministers approved a policy document in January 2022 setting out how “the government will use its new freedoms to transform the UK into the best regulated economy in the world,” they were lying to themselves before all others.
Supporters of Brexit cannot believe in May 2023 what they believed in January 2022. But rather than admit to a mistake, the right retreats into a stab-in-the-back myth: the conspiracy theory of the defeated. Brexit was sabotaged by “anti-Brexit activist civil servants” (Dominic Raab), “a Europhile blob” (Daniel Hannan), and “ the objection and obstruction” of remainers (Jacob Rees-Mogg).
So intoxicating is the conspiracy theory that not one leading supporter of Brexit has admitted that leaving the European Union was a mistake...
I think it remains to be seen if it was a mistake. Short term economic damage for sure, but where will we be in 10 years, 20 years and 100 years? Its idiotic to make trade harder with a huge trading block right on your doorstep, but most who voted for Brexit imagined that future trade would be unaffected and that they were voting to leave the political institution. Now its easy to mock that, but I believed that too, and I don't consider myself a stupid person, and I also recall being told that this was possible.
I still believe that much closer alignment and easier trade is possible without re-joining, and this will happen.
Intelligence is quite different from being overly trusting of what people in authority tell you. There are even clever people in the States who can bend themselves to Trump's world view.
But there are also many clever people who are are happy to lie about what they believe to be true for the sake of personal advantage. Many of those supposedly bending themselves to Trump's world view don't actually agree with Trump, but they know which side of their bread is buttered.
Jesus that's also democracy. You ask people to vote de temps en temps and they change their mind, become eligible to vote, die, etc.
You can't freeze in aspic any particular democratic decision.
As I said I will give you impractical and an administrative nightmare but manifestly not undemocratic.
I think your insecurity about it all is slightly colouring your responses here. I am supremely relaxed. "My side" lost. But this happens all the time in politics and an EU Referendum is no different from any other democratic vote. You seem to think that it is.
The real problems were many:
1. The vote being 'In or Out' without any real definition of what either meant, certainly 'Out' had no plan at all as to what Out meant, but then again, neither did 'In' about their position (Status Quo Ante was just as much a lie as '£350bn for the NHS', neither was happening). Didn't help that 'In' where the government and banned from any planning for an 'Out' result either. 2. Once the vote was Out, instead of a calm - "52:48 wasn't that much of a win. 48% must support EEA therefore. I wonder if just 2% more of the Out voters would support it as well - honours the referendum (we leave) without crashing the economy." sort of discussion, we had four years of political turmoil, three Prime Ministers, two general elections and a partridge in a pear tree.... and we still crashed into the wall and nearly left without a deal at all. A lot of blame for all that goes around ALL politicians from all sides for what happened. 3. We can't really 'vote again' or 'change our mind'. We needed to implement the 2016 referendum BEFORE we could ask again. Imagine in May 1979 - Jim Callaghan steps out of No. 10 and says, "Yes, I know I lost, but lets be honest, you'll all regret Thatcherism in the 1980s, so I've decided I'm staying on for two more years and we'll ask you again in 1981. Better get it right (Vote Labour) or I'll be forced to keep asking until you do."
It was a really shit name which, in its amateurishness inadvertently signalled that it wasn't really a party, more a disgruntled band of exiles.
Political parties in democracies oughtn't to grow from the top down anyway. They should've all just jumped to the LDs. I did feel for Luciana Berger though, who received an absolute torrent of hideous abuse*.
*Esp from the Momentum dolts. I wonder what set her apart for particularly nasty treatment? It's truly a mystery.
I always find Berger's political situation odd. She was also an parachute into Liverpool Wavertree (and whose fault that is I don't know - hers for accepting, the local party for allowing it, or central office for imposing it? Or all three).
She's been Labour, LD, ChangeUK, independent and now back to Labour. Is she going to stand as an MP again next year does anyone know? Her return to Labour would suggest she might try.
Its not that odd. She wanted to be an MP, ran for seats, got selected there. Corbyn gets elected, influx of cranks, get her out. So she quits. Cranks then waste resources ensuring she doesn't win as a LibDem (you missed that stage out).
Cranks are now gone, Starmer asks her to rejoin, she's accepts the invitation. I would say something about people who quit one party for another, then attempt to go back, but I did that. Though TBH I was having a major mental health crisis at the time I attempted to rejoin Labour.
A more reasoned rant against those responsible for the conduct of Brexit.
Brexit murdered“moderate” Conservatism Now it justifies the right’s stab-in-the-back myths https://nickcohen.substack.com/p/brexit-murderedmoderate-conservatism ...For understandable, if not forgivable, psychological reasons the right has embraced denial. I do not hold with the liberal-left orthodoxy that Brexit was wholly built on the back of an enormous lie. Boris Johnson lies as easily as he breathes, of course, but a few supporters of Brexit sincerely believed they would inaugurate a national renaissance. When ministers approved a policy document in January 2022 setting out how “the government will use its new freedoms to transform the UK into the best regulated economy in the world,” they were lying to themselves before all others.
Supporters of Brexit cannot believe in May 2023 what they believed in January 2022. But rather than admit to a mistake, the right retreats into a stab-in-the-back myth: the conspiracy theory of the defeated. Brexit was sabotaged by “anti-Brexit activist civil servants” (Dominic Raab), “a Europhile blob” (Daniel Hannan), and “ the objection and obstruction” of remainers (Jacob Rees-Mogg).
So intoxicating is the conspiracy theory that not one leading supporter of Brexit has admitted that leaving the European Union was a mistake...
How can they?
For better or worse, Brexit is the thing that defines the politicians of this generation. A big binary choice one way or the other.
To say "I thought this would be great, but it's actually gone badly"... How can you say that in public and expect to be taken seriously about anything ever again? It's career death.
To say to yourself "This thing I strove for for years, it's harmed the country"... How can you say that and live with yourself? It requires a lot of integrity.
And to save the arguments, this works equally whichever side of the 2016 debate people were. The most you can hope for is that your former opponents stop talking and try to change the subject.
I've mentioned before the old physics aphorism. It's relevant here, except that science has a much stronger "if the facts change, you should change your model" than most human endeavours.
Max Planck: A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it ... An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.
Or Science progresses one funeral at a time.
The challenge for Team Brexit is that the young and middle aged aren't buying their vision. Not yet, anyway.
Conversely, one thing some Brexiteers find puzzling about Remainers is the refusal to countenance that things might not be a bed of roses on the continent, either at present or in the future. Neither covid nor Ukraine has exactly painted the EU as an organisation we should want to be a member of.
Generally people in Europe think the EU has done well on both.Covid and Ukraine, which is likely why approval rates for the organisation have improved substantially.
On Ukraine the EU has done significantly better than many of its constituent member states. Without the EU there's no way Hungary would be participating in sanctions on Russia, for a start. UVdL has been visible, and strongly supportive. National leaders rather more patchy.
Yes, the EU has constantly been urging its member states to do more to support Ukraine, a task that may well have been easier had the UK still been a member state.
A more reasoned rant against those responsible for the conduct of Brexit.
Brexit murdered“moderate” Conservatism Now it justifies the right’s stab-in-the-back myths https://nickcohen.substack.com/p/brexit-murderedmoderate-conservatism ...For understandable, if not forgivable, psychological reasons the right has embraced denial. I do not hold with the liberal-left orthodoxy that Brexit was wholly built on the back of an enormous lie. Boris Johnson lies as easily as he breathes, of course, but a few supporters of Brexit sincerely believed they would inaugurate a national renaissance. When ministers approved a policy document in January 2022 setting out how “the government will use its new freedoms to transform the UK into the best regulated economy in the world,” they were lying to themselves before all others.
Supporters of Brexit cannot believe in May 2023 what they believed in January 2022. But rather than admit to a mistake, the right retreats into a stab-in-the-back myth: the conspiracy theory of the defeated. Brexit was sabotaged by “anti-Brexit activist civil servants” (Dominic Raab), “a Europhile blob” (Daniel Hannan), and “ the objection and obstruction” of remainers (Jacob Rees-Mogg).
So intoxicating is the conspiracy theory that not one leading supporter of Brexit has admitted that leaving the European Union was a mistake...
I think it remains to be seen if it was a mistake. Short term economic damage for sure, but where will we be in 10 years, 20 years and 100 years? Its idiotic to make trade harder with a huge trading block right on your doorstep, but most who voted for Brexit imagined that future trade would be unaffected and that they were voting to leave the political institution. Now its easy to mock that, but I believed that too, and I don't consider myself a stupid person, and I also recall being told that this was possible.
I still believe that much closer alignment and easier trade is possible without re-joining, and this will happen.
Intelligence is quite different from being overly trusting of what people in authority tell you. There are even clever people in the States who can bend themselves to Trump's world view.
A lot of intelligent people supported the Soviet Union even when it was obvious it had made life worse.
A more reasoned rant against those responsible for the conduct of Brexit.
Brexit murdered“moderate” Conservatism Now it justifies the right’s stab-in-the-back myths https://nickcohen.substack.com/p/brexit-murderedmoderate-conservatism ...For understandable, if not forgivable, psychological reasons the right has embraced denial. I do not hold with the liberal-left orthodoxy that Brexit was wholly built on the back of an enormous lie. Boris Johnson lies as easily as he breathes, of course, but a few supporters of Brexit sincerely believed they would inaugurate a national renaissance. When ministers approved a policy document in January 2022 setting out how “the government will use its new freedoms to transform the UK into the best regulated economy in the world,” they were lying to themselves before all others.
Supporters of Brexit cannot believe in May 2023 what they believed in January 2022. But rather than admit to a mistake, the right retreats into a stab-in-the-back myth: the conspiracy theory of the defeated. Brexit was sabotaged by “anti-Brexit activist civil servants” (Dominic Raab), “a Europhile blob” (Daniel Hannan), and “ the objection and obstruction” of remainers (Jacob Rees-Mogg).
So intoxicating is the conspiracy theory that not one leading supporter of Brexit has admitted that leaving the European Union was a mistake...
How can they?
For better or worse, Brexit is the thing that defines the politicians of this generation. A big binary choice one way or the other.
To say "I thought this would be great, but it's actually gone badly"... How can you say that in public and expect to be taken seriously about anything ever again? It's career death.
To say to yourself "This thing I strove for for years, it's harmed the country"... How can you say that and live with yourself? It requires a lot of integrity.
And to save the arguments, this works equally whichever side of the 2016 debate people were. The most you can hope for is that your former opponents stop talking and try to change the subject.
I've mentioned before the old physics aphorism. It's relevant here, except that science has a much stronger "if the facts change, you should change your model" than most human endeavours.
Max Planck: A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it ... An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.
Or Science progresses one funeral at a time.
The challenge for Team Brexit is that the young and middle aged aren't buying their vision. Not yet, anyway.
Conversely, one thing some Brexiteers find puzzling about Remainers is the refusal to countenance that things might not be a bed of roses on the continent, either at present or in the future. Neither covid nor Ukraine has exactly painted the EU as an organisation we should want to be a member of.
Generally people in Europe think the EU has done well on both.Covid and Ukraine, which is likely why approval rates for the organisation have improved substantially.
On Ukraine the EU has done significantly better than many of its constituent member states. Without the EU there's no way Hungary would be participating in sanctions on Russia, for a start. UVdL has been visible, and strongly supportive. National leaders rather more patchy.
Yes. I would give EU credit for: 1. The biggest donor to the Ukraine after the United States 2. Leading the sanctions effort against Russia. 3. Measures that allowed Europe to see off Russia's fuel embargoes. This includes previously forcing members to set up fuel storage facilities and integrate pipelines.
Most important perhaps is that the EU offers Ukraine a destination that provides hope in their dark times.
Oh great we're back on the wanting another democratic vote is not democratic bandwagon.
Excellent.
I'd go further. There should never be another vote on anything once there has already been a vote on that thing. Whether Police & Crime Commissioners, General Election, In/Out referendums, you name it.
Much more democratic that way.
Oh, great, we're back on the wilfully misrepresenting the other point of view bandwagon.
It has been said many times, perhaps by you not a few times, that having another vote on EU membership would not be democratic.
No.
It was said that having another vote in an attempt to overturn the first vote instead of implementing it would have been anti-democratic.
Having a rejoin vote now that Brexit has happened would be prefectly democratic.
Democracy: people vote, things happen, people vote again.
Not democracy: people vote, politicians say "you voted the wrong way, vote again".
Oh and politicians say "you voted the wrong way, vote again" at every General Election.
No, not really. The 2015 general election didn't reverse the 2010 general election because the 650 winners of that election became MPs for the duration of the 2010 parliament. Candidates don't have to win two elections to become MPs, no matter how egregious.
You seem to be having a problem with this. There are two issues which you seem unable to grasp.
You are talking about the same people who voted for Option A instead of Option B being asked to vote again to decide upon Option A or Option B. If you said we want a bunch of aliens to come in and vote between A & B then yes absolutely you would have a point. But it is the same people so some of those who originally voted for one option might then have decided to vote for the other. Perfectly democratic. It is never undemocratic to ask the people to vote on something. Impractical, an admin nightmare maybe, but not undemocratic.
And wrt your GE example, by your reckoning every manifesto pledge would have to be enacted before there could be another general election to choose a new government.
It's not "the same people", some die, some come of age.
It is undemocratic to say to people "we aren't going to do what you voted for, so you have to vote again and get it right this time".
At a general election, what people vote for is for the winning candidate in each constituency to become an MP. Manifestoes are officially irrelevant (R (Wheeler) v Office of the PM).
None of this is slightly difficult, you're talking yourself into knots because you won't admit that you think that getting the "right answer" on the EU is more important than democracy.
Jesus that's also democracy. You ask people to vote de temps en temps and they change their mind, become eligible to vote, die, etc.
You can't freeze in aspic any particular democratic decision. .
Oh, for fuck's sake. I AM NOT SAYING THAT YOU CAN OR SHOULD.
All I am saying is, if the people vote for something to happen, it is uindemocratic for politicians to refuse to implement it and make people vote again in lieu of implementing it.
You really aren't thick. I can't believe that you don't actually grasp my point. So why are you pretending not to?
Depends, especially if there's a biggish gap in time between the vote and the implimentation.
If, after 2016, there had been a massive lurch in public opinion of an "OMG What Have We Done This Is Clearly A Mistake" type, then it would have been mad and frankly undemocratic for the government to say "Tough luck- you voted for this, now you are going to get it, good and hard".
In this case, that lurch didn't happen, at least not quickly enough or substantially enough to really be called a lurch;
"It's a mistake" had a consistent but small lead from about summer 2018, which only really opened up from summer 2021.
I think I'd agree with you that the polling from 2018 wasn't really enough to require an "are you sure about this" second referendum. But clearly there is a threshold where it would be the democratic thing to do.
Are we really doing the "undemocratic" thing again?
I think that parliament is sovereign and the 2017 parliament had the absolute sovereign right to do whatever the fuck it liked, including ignoring the Brexit referendum held previously.
Other posters, usually the ones who voted for Brexit to take back control of sovereignty, think there would have been a democratic deficit had a more recent general election be seen to be a newer mandate than a previous referendum.
"I tend to regard LAB voting intention to signify being anti-Tory and that people will vote in their elections for the party locally they perceive as being most likely to beat the Conservatives".
I'm sure that's correct. The problem most people seem to have is knowing which party in their ward has most chance of causing hurt to the Tories. Surprisingly few seem to even know which party is currently in charge.
Voters are generally not very clever. Most have no idea who their MP is, nor which party they represent. I wonder how many have no idea whether the Govt is Tory or Labour ?
Apparently it's quite common for voters to say things like "I'm going to vote for the Labour because they want to stop all those immigrants".
More common is "Suella is doing a great job with the illegal immigrant problem, Labour would be so much worse".
The last bloody thing this country needs is another vote on EU membership, to bring all the bloody grifters and liars back out of the woodwork and create a massive (and artificial) divide in our society to the detriment of all.
Imagine if France decided to have a second Dreyfuss Affair.
They did, they brought him back to France and had a second trial! Because they got it wrong the first time!
Indeed. Though the echos live today. You find quite a few “Dreyfus was guilty” types among the Le Pen Fan Club
an EU Referendum is no different from any other democratic vote. You seem to think that it is.
It was - because it's the first vote I can recall in British history where a significant number of politicians have tried to overturn it instead of following their instructions from the people.
(Only in British history, though. The EU are past masters of this particular game, which is one of the reasons Leave won in the first place.)
Rubbish.
Sorry, no, that's exactly what happened. Large numbers of MPs were disobeying a direct instruction from the referendum.
We were told the Referendum was non-binding. Heaven forbid another "direct instruction" Referendum after voters realised they had been lied to and had changed their minds.
Are we really doing the "undemocratic" thing again?
I think that parliament is sovereign and the 2017 parliament had the absolute sovereign right to do whatever the fuck it liked, including ignoring the Brexit referendum held previously.
Other posters, usually the ones who voted for Brexit to take back control of sovereignty, think there would have been a democratic deficit had a more recent general election be seen to be a newer mandate than a previous referendum.
It doesn't matter. Its all in the past.
It is worth remembering just how Brexity the 2017 Labour manifesto was. Indeed, it was one of the reasons why the election went horribly wrong for Theresa May.
"I tend to regard LAB voting intention to signify being anti-Tory and that people will vote in their elections for the party locally they perceive as being most likely to beat the Conservatives".
I'm sure that's correct. The problem most people seem to have is knowing which party in their ward has most chance of causing hurt to the Tories. Surprisingly few seem to even know which party is currently in charge.
Voters are generally not very clever. Most have no idea who their MP is, nor which party they represent. I wonder how many have no idea whether the Govt is Tory or Labour ?
Think about the average person, with an IQ of 100 (or whatever, if you're not a fan of IQ ranges). The average person.
Now just think. 50% of the population are more stupid than that person........
Comments
I guess 007 could be a woman, but I think that's James Bond's number.
Opening up the Bond universe to a female agent, to run alongside Bond should surely happen though she can't be 007.
Excellent.
I'd go further. There should never be another vote on anything once there has already been a vote on that thing. Whether Police & Crime Commissioners, General Election, In/Out referendums, you name it.
Much more democratic that way.
...The Tory right’s failure ought to be the Tory moderates’ opportunity. But moderate Tories barely exist now. Let me prove it by asking you a question: who is the leader of the pro-European faction in the Cabinet?..
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
“Forward, the Light Brigade!
Charge for the guns!” he said.
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
“Forward, the Light Brigade!”
Was there a man dismayed?
Not though the soldier knew
Someone had blundered.
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die.
<<Curtice tells me: “The last time I saw tactical voting on this scale was before the 1997 election when voters just wanted to get the Conservatives out.”>>
w can expect a few to be elected the next time the Tories don't get absolutely trounced
I am not at all excited about supermarkets, but I know that if we have unfettered and equal access to two (or more), even if they look much the same, it is very different from only having access to one.
A lot of USA folks are very excited about politics. That's because one of two options has fascist tendencies. let's have two dull candidates please.
Only people unsure if they'll win don't want a vote on an issue.
Conversely, people like Michael Gove and Rishi Sunak are far more moderate than the Monday Club of the early Seventies.
It was said that having another vote in an attempt to overturn the first vote instead of implementing it would have been anti-democratic.
Having a rejoin vote now that Brexit has happened would be prefectly democratic.
Democracy: people vote, things happen, people vote again.
Not democracy: people vote, politicians say "you voted the wrong way, vote again".
1. The Conservatives are in deep touble, even if they keep their 2019 voting coalition together. 43 percent loses if the other 57 percent are organisned efficiently enough.
2. Conservative canvassers (who focus on Conservative yeses and maybes) won't have much idea of what's about to hit them.
..who is the leader of the pro-European faction in the Cabinet?.. is still a valid question.
Imagine if France decided to have a second Dreyfuss Affair.
https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1653282054979612672?s=20
I still believe that much closer alignment and easier trade is possible without re-joining, and this will happen.
Labour got 28% NEV in May 2019, so inevitably Labour will make significant gains from the Tories. The LDs however got 19% and Independents also did well so the Tories could make net gains from the LDs and Independents, especially in councils the LDs and Independents took control of in 2019 and where they are unpopular and the Tories the main opposition
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/02/gove-hunt-beware-surrey-turf-out-tories-conservatives
BTW Lucy Letby is giving evidence today.
Although as Gray turned out to be a Labour shill who condemned the innocent Boris Johnson to an unfair defenestration should Sunak not resign himself and return the premiership to its rightful owner?
It's that golf-club-bore entitlement, that somehow their will is enough to make the underlings run to do their bidding. At least Cameron* was (a) somewhat honest, and (b) able to recognise the scale of the task with his "Why should I do all the hard s**t?" remark post-loss. Remember seeing David Davies grinning at the negotiating table without any notes or documents?
*I blame Cameron *a lot* for all this mess.
There are levels of integration. To make the counterargument for a second, you could certainly argue that a single currency, and common banking and fiscal policy, would make the single market work much better and lead to a higher velocity of trade and economic growth off the back of it. In fact, I've even seen articles in the Economist argue for a global currency and global free movement on the same basis.
But, few don't accept there's a genuine political debate to be had there on the tradeoffs.
This didn't all come out of nowhere.
As someone who long ago got out of the habit of voting Labour my antennae may be off, but I think if the no policies, no principles stuff gets traction it could be damaging. Perhaps I'm just having 1997 flashbacks.
Jeez I was trying to be all @twistedfirestopper3 about it but no, turns out that Leavers really are thick as pigshit.
If you really can't see the difference between "people vote for something, thing happens, people can then vote for something different" and "people vote for it, politicians say they can't have it and need to vote differently" then there's really no help for you.
But I'm sure you actually can see the difference.
What people really care about is values. Those that don't are floating voters.
Penny to take over in 2024, and bring a bit more beauty and empathy back to Tory politics.
There have been five Black Swans since Brexit day when we probably expected none: The total absence of a political plan for Brexit; The nature of the Trump presidency; Boris being both electable and staggeringly useless; Covid; Ukraine.
None of these five elements are remotely supportive of the Brexit project. They collectively are quite enough for voters to change their minds in favour of hiding with and behind the big battalions. For parallel look at the rush to join NATO.
Labour betrayed the national interest by veering from Remain to Re-Run to the current unicorn position. I hope (!) the real meaning of Labour is EFTA/EEA under cover of an election promise in 2024 to 'fully review' the position.
You are talking about the same people who voted for Option A instead of Option B being asked to vote again to decide upon Option A or Option B. If you said we want a bunch of aliens to come in and vote between A & B then yes absolutely you would have a point. But it is the same people so some of those who originally voted for one option might then have decided to vote for the other. Perfectly democratic. It is never undemocratic to ask the people to vote on something. Impractical, an admin nightmare maybe, but not undemocratic.
And wrt your GE example, by your reckoning every manifesto pledge would have to be enacted before there could be another general election to choose a new government.
https://nickcohen.substack.com/p/kemi-badenoch-ron-desantis-and-the
It'd be a shame for Everton to go down, but then again I remember the 1990s when it was constantly threatened they might then (and be replaced by Tranmere - neither happened). Perhaps it's just their time.
But they didn't lose yesterday. A defeat would've probably been a significant nail in the coffin, but whilst 19th on 29 points, there is only 1 point between them and safety and still four games to play. I haven't looked at the run in, so I don't really know but surely its possible they could string two wins together and avoid the drop?
(And this is why stopping some sort of American 'one league, no promotions or relegations allowed' is so important. Imagine how much more boring the sport would be without relegation battles as well as title battles).
They'd be like rats in a sack again and Mordaunt would be nowhere to be seen. It's Badenoch, Braverman, Boris or Truss next time around.
True - and you can't get much more pro Brexit than my MP.
Add to that the fact that she was a great supporter of Liz Truss.
How many times can she be so catastrophically wrong and cost us all so much?
Well, Suella?
In Scotland, for example, tactical voting resulted in the Conservatives being wiped out in 1997. If an election were held tomorrow, it looks as if they'd get 6 or 7 MPs.
Jan: Lab +21
Feb: Lab +21
March: Lab +18
April: Lab +15
Question is where does it land?
https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1653317153792163841
She's been Labour, LD, ChangeUK, independent and now back to Labour.
Is she going to stand as an MP again next year does anyone know? Her return to Labour would suggest she might try.
* It might be worth joining anyway, but most people mean Single Market/EEA when they talk about joining EFTA.
It is undemocratic to say to people "we aren't going to do what you voted for, so you have to vote again and get it right this time".
At a general election, what people vote for is for the winning candidate in each constituency to become an MP. Manifestoes are officially irrelevant (R (Wheeler) v Office of the PM).
None of this is slightly difficult, you're talking yourself into knots because you won't admit that you think that getting the "right answer" on the EU is more important than democracy.
Suppose that Lab pledges to tax Terry's Chocolate Oranges (I know crazy but let's go with it).
They win and lo, they tax Terry's Chocolate Oranges.
Cons then pledge to reverse the Chocolate Orange tax.
Cons win. They reverse the tax.
According to you that is undemocratic because the people have voted for a tax on Terry's Chocolate Oranges.
Nobody want to consider themselves stupid or to admit they made a mistake, that's human nature.
You can't freeze in aspic any particular democratic decision.
As I said I will give you impractical and an administrative nightmare but manifestly not undemocratic.
I think your insecurity about it all is slightly colouring your responses here. I am supremely relaxed. "My side" lost. But this happens all the time in politics and an EU Referendum is no different from any other democratic vote. You seem to think that it is.
You're all over the place on this and, frankly, having a shocker.
All I am saying is, if the people vote for something to happen, it is undemocratic for politicians to refuse to implement it and make people vote again in lieu of implementing it.
You really aren't thick. I can't believe that you don't actually grasp my point. So why are you pretending not to?
People often don't follow things too closely, to put it mildly.
(Only in British history, though. The EU are past masters of this particular game, which is one of the reasons Leave won in the first place.)
And all I am saying is that the timing of it doesn't matter, nor whether it was implemented. The British public were asked about something and could, perfectly democratically, be asked again at any time about that very same thing. You seem to have a blind spot about this.
This is self evidently risible.
1. The vote being 'In or Out' without any real definition of what either meant, certainly 'Out' had no plan at all as to what Out meant, but then again, neither did 'In' about their position (Status Quo Ante was just as much a lie as '£350bn for the NHS', neither was happening). Didn't help that 'In' where the government and banned from any planning for an 'Out' result either.
2. Once the vote was Out, instead of a calm - "52:48 wasn't that much of a win. 48% must support EEA therefore. I wonder if just 2% more of the Out voters would support it as well - honours the referendum (we leave) without crashing the economy." sort of discussion, we had four years of political turmoil, three Prime Ministers, two general elections and a partridge in a pear tree.... and we still crashed into the wall and nearly left without a deal at all. A lot of blame for all that goes around ALL politicians from all sides for what happened.
3. We can't really 'vote again' or 'change our mind'. We needed to implement the 2016 referendum BEFORE we could ask again. Imagine in May 1979 - Jim Callaghan steps out of No. 10 and says, "Yes, I know I lost, but lets be honest, you'll all regret Thatcherism in the 1980s, so I've decided I'm staying on for two more years and we'll ask you again in 1981. Better get it right (Vote Labour) or I'll be forced to keep asking until you do."
Cranks are now gone, Starmer asks her to rejoin, she's accepts the invitation. I would say something about people who quit one party for another, then attempt to go back, but I did that. Though TBH I was having a major mental health crisis at the time I attempted to rejoin Labour.
1. The biggest donor to the Ukraine after the United States
2. Leading the sanctions effort against Russia.
3. Measures that allowed Europe to see off Russia's fuel embargoes. This includes previously forcing members to set up fuel storage facilities and integrate pipelines.
Most important perhaps is that the EU offers Ukraine a destination that provides hope in their dark times.
If, after 2016, there had been a massive lurch in public opinion of an "OMG What Have We Done This Is Clearly A Mistake" type, then it would have been mad and frankly undemocratic for the government to say "Tough luck- you voted for this, now you are going to get it, good and hard".
In this case, that lurch didn't happen, at least not quickly enough or substantially enough to really be called a lurch;
https://www.whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/in-highsight-do-you-think-britain-was-right-or-wrong-to-vote-to-leave-the-eu/
"It's a mistake" had a consistent but small lead from about summer 2018, which only really opened up from summer 2021.
I think I'd agree with you that the polling from 2018 wasn't really enough to require an "are you sure about this" second referendum. But clearly there is a threshold where it would be the democratic thing to do.
I think that parliament is sovereign and the 2017 parliament had the absolute sovereign right to do whatever the fuck it liked, including ignoring the Brexit referendum held previously.
Other posters, usually the ones who voted for Brexit to take back control of sovereignty, think there would have been a democratic deficit had a more recent general election be seen to be a newer mandate than a previous referendum.
It doesn't matter. Its all in the past.
Now just think. 50% of the population are more stupid than that person........