🔺 NEW: Kemi Badenoch, the business secretary, has had a significant falling out with Michael Gove after he had an affair with an acquaintance of hers
I'm not sure what are the decent questions to ask here. Gove is separated: is he divorced from his wife? Was the acquaintance married, separated or divorced. Do I have the right to satisfy my prurient interest in this situation, given that neither have broken the law of man?
Cat litter for pupils rumour denied by school in letter
"A school has been forced to deny online rumours that it was providing litter trays for pupils who identify as cats.
West Monmouth School in Pontypool, Torfaen, wrote to parents this week saying there would be no special treatment for "pupils who might identify as an animal of any kind".
The rumour followed a hoax in the United States about students who "identify as cats" or "furries".
Torfaen council confirmed the school's letter was genuine."
What about pupils who identity as attack helicopters?
They get put in a special hangar for several years whilst the armed forces argue with the Americans about unsupplied software LOOKING AT YOU APACHES AND CHINOOKS.
🔺 NEW: Kemi Badenoch, the business secretary, has had a significant falling out with Michael Gove after he had an affair with an acquaintance of hers
I thought things like that weren't allowed to be reported on anymore, as is breaches privacy laws*?
*Hancock having an affair for example was only allowed to be reported because it was a breach of Covid rules, not the actual affair
Compare to all the pearl clutching over naming a newsreader up to no good.....i doubt think we will be getting any outrage here., despite Gove at least being unattached.
"Acquaintance" is, I suspect, doing some heavy lifting. Why would such a thing lead to a "heavy falling out"?
According to the story the person separated from their partner then she and Gove split. Which if you were friends would likely cause some friction. Your mate upturns their life for something that doesn't last (whatever the reasons for that).
Cat litter for pupils rumour denied by school in letter
"A school has been forced to deny online rumours that it was providing litter trays for pupils who identify as cats.
West Monmouth School in Pontypool, Torfaen, wrote to parents this week saying there would be no special treatment for "pupils who might identify as an animal of any kind".
The rumour followed a hoax in the United States about students who "identify as cats" or "furries".
Torfaen council confirmed the school's letter was genuine."
What about pupils who identity as attack helicopters?
Each to their own, but another analogy, Nick Griffin and Tommy Robinson were involved in organising and speaking at marches over grooming gangs. Were they right about the gangs, basically yes, am I going anywhere near a march which them involved, absolutely not...as I believe their underlying motivates aren't limited to making sure the authorities actually take action to prosecute the grooming gangs....was everybody attended those were hardcore BNP / EDL racists, no, many I am sure were genuinely people who had been failed by the system, knew somebody who had or were very concerned about this lack of action.
One of the pleasant things about the anti-Brexit marches (aka "scoundrels betraying the will of the people" aka "the Waitrose queue") was the lack of extreme types of either right or left. There was no STW or SWP, and no Tommy Robinsons, even by way of counter-protest.
I dunno. Calling for a democratic vote that the government explicitly promised to honour to be overturned, because posh people didn’t like the result, seems intrinsically quite extreme to me
Indeed on a par with January 6 in Washington. An attempt to cancel democracy
Bollocks.
Having an organised non-violent demonstration is not an attempt to cancel democracy.
Cancelling democracy involves things like getting an idiot with a silly tassel on his hat to fire a gun in to the ceiling of the Spanish Parliament.
Or an armed, violent, militant Jamiroquai tribute act to invading the premises when you are trying to chose a President - with the avowed intention of killing the people voting against your favourite
The man's likeness to Jamiroquai was the most surreal part of the whole thing.
As for Brexit, do I sometimes wonder about the rights and wrongs of pushing for a second referendum? Yes, occasionally. But then I remember a. it was a narrow vote in the first place, b. Brexiteers themselves had proposed 2 referendums as an option before the first vote, c. it wasn't exactly turning out how it had been promised in the first referendum, and crucially d. nobody was proposing to drop Brexit without either a referendum or a general election. In the end it came down to a general election, the ultimate expression of the will of the people. And get Brexit done won, for better or worse.
A second vote was an abomination as an idea. Truly evil. Appalling and irresponsible and might have destroyed our democracy forever
Here is Prime Minister David Cameron talking to the British people about the forthcoming Brexit vote, in 2015
‘Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum… You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.’
‘So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.’
That is utter rubbish. I thought almost everything in the 2019 Conservative manifesto was wrong. I didn’t vote for its implementation and I would be happy for there to be another general election where I can vote them out. I don’t feel morally obliged to wait until everything in their 2019 referendum is implemented. Why should I not feel the same about the Brexit referendum? Politics doesn’t stop because something is badged as a referendum instead of a general election.
Because there are elections every 4/5 years, and the referendum was sold as a once in a generation vote
There were 3 elections in 4 years between 2015 and 2019. People thought they were electing David Cameron for a term of 5 years but that turned out not to be the case. As I said politics doesn’t stop regardless of what people think or are told. I don’t understand why we are supposed to accept that the Brexit referendum should uniquely be preserved in amber for a generation.
Now that Brexit has been enacted I see no democratic argument against another referendum if that is what people want. What was important was that it was enacted before it was put to the question again.
Obviously I would vote against rejoining and personally I think another campaign would, be bloody stupid given the uncertainty it would generate going forward. It would set the precedent for new votes every few years as the population's view changed which would mean the EU would never be sure of our position. But if that was what peolpe wanted then that would be the way it wold be.
Yes, now it’s been enacted it’s fair enough to have another vote if the demand is there.
I’ve been pondering something. In 2015 UKIP were riding high in the polls but failed to win a single seat at the GE.
This time, Refuk are not as high but the country is I think more geographically divided. Are there one or two constituencies where they could just possibly win?
I’m thinking places in the East Midlands / North East that were safely Tory and strongly Brexit in 2019 but previously Labour, and have had a shit time in the last 4 years. Not the Thames estuary, that’s Tory for reasons beyond Brexit and has been for decades.
I don't know if anyone has commented on last night's drama in Spalding where the Conservatives gained a seat on South Holland District Council from the South Holland Independents on drawing of lots when both candidates polled 155 seats.
That increases the Conservative majority from one to three. The District Council falls entirely within the Parliamentary constituency of South Holland & the Deepings (the latter being three Wards from South Kesteven District Council) and is the safest Conservative seat in the country.
John Hayes scraped home with a 30,838 majority in December 2019 and Labour requires a 32% swing to take the seat. I imagine Hayes will have a senior position in the next Conservative Shadow Cabinet alongside Braverman, Badenoch and Dowden (and a few others).
Each to their own, but another analogy, Nick Griffin and Tommy Robinson were involved in organising and speaking at marches over grooming gangs. Were they right about the gangs, basically yes, am I going anywhere near a march which them involved, absolutely not...as I believe their underlying motivates aren't limited to making sure the authorities actually take action to prosecute the grooming gangs....was everybody attended those were hardcore BNP / EDL racists, no, many I am sure were genuinely people who had been failed by the system, knew somebody who had or were very concerned about this lack of action.
One of the pleasant things about the anti-Brexit marches (aka "scoundrels betraying the will of the people" aka "the Waitrose queue") was the lack of extreme types of either right or left. There was no STW or SWP, and no Tommy Robinsons, even by way of counter-protest.
I dunno. Calling for a democratic vote that the government explicitly promised to honour to be overturned, because posh people didn’t like the result, seems intrinsically quite extreme to me
Indeed on a par with January 6 in Washington. An attempt to cancel democracy
Bollocks.
Having an organised non-violent demonstration is not an attempt to cancel democracy.
Cancelling democracy involves things like getting an idiot with a silly tassel on his hat to fire a gun in to the ceiling of the Spanish Parliament.
Or an armed, violent, militant Jamiroquai tribute act to invading the premises when you are trying to chose a President - with the avowed intention of killing the people voting against your favourite
The man's likeness to Jamiroquai was the most surreal part of the whole thing.
As for Brexit, do I sometimes wonder about the rights and wrongs of pushing for a second referendum? Yes, occasionally. But then I remember a. it was a narrow vote in the first place, b. Brexiteers themselves had proposed 2 referendums as an option before the first vote, c. it wasn't exactly turning out how it had been promised in the first referendum, and crucially d. nobody was proposing to drop Brexit without either a referendum or a general election. In the end it came down to a general election, the ultimate expression of the will of the people. And get Brexit done won, for better or worse.
A second vote was an abomination as an idea. Truly evil. Appalling and irresponsible and might have destroyed our democracy forever
Here is Prime Minister David Cameron talking to the British people about the forthcoming Brexit vote, in 2015
‘Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum… You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.’
‘So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.’
Dude, get over it. You sound like some pathetic Remoaner, but worse.
I’d see the failure to implement the result of a referendum that the establishment had promised was once in a generation as an outrageous deceit
The implementation was not defined before the vote, so "failure to implement" would only ever be subjective
To a degree. But after years of wrangling it was very clear there was a wish to not implement under any circumstances. I myself had switched from leave to remain by that point. And fact is the public decided to reward the party seeking to implement at that point. Yes, there were other factors too, but that was a big part of it.
Cat litter for pupils rumour denied by school in letter
"A school has been forced to deny online rumours that it was providing litter trays for pupils who identify as cats.
West Monmouth School in Pontypool, Torfaen, wrote to parents this week saying there would be no special treatment for "pupils who might identify as an animal of any kind".
The rumour followed a hoax in the United States about students who "identify as cats" or "furries".
Torfaen council confirmed the school's letter was genuine."
What about pupils who identity as attack helicopters?
🔺 NEW: Kemi Badenoch, the business secretary, has had a significant falling out with Michael Gove after he had an affair with an acquaintance of hers
I'm not sure what are the decent questions to ask here. Gove is separated: is he divorced from his wife? Was the acquaintance married, separated or divorced. Do I have the right to satisfy my prurient interest in this situation, given that neither have broken the law of man?
You have the right, we all do, but we should hope not to have it affect our view of either in a politically sense as it is irrelevant.
Each to their own, but another analogy, Nick Griffin and Tommy Robinson were involved in organising and speaking at marches over grooming gangs. Were they right about the gangs, basically yes, am I going anywhere near a march which them involved, absolutely not...as I believe their underlying motivates aren't limited to making sure the authorities actually take action to prosecute the grooming gangs....was everybody attended those were hardcore BNP / EDL racists, no, many I am sure were genuinely people who had been failed by the system, knew somebody who had or were very concerned about this lack of action.
One of the pleasant things about the anti-Brexit marches (aka "scoundrels betraying the will of the people" aka "the Waitrose queue") was the lack of extreme types of either right or left. There was no STW or SWP, and no Tommy Robinsons, even by way of counter-protest.
I dunno. Calling for a democratic vote that the government explicitly promised to honour to be overturned, because posh people didn’t like the result, seems intrinsically quite extreme to me
Indeed on a par with January 6 in Washington. An attempt to cancel democracy
Bollocks.
Having an organised non-violent demonstration is not an attempt to cancel democracy.
Cancelling democracy involves things like getting an idiot with a silly tassel on his hat to fire a gun in to the ceiling of the Spanish Parliament.
Or an armed, violent, militant Jamiroquai tribute act to invading the premises when you are trying to chose a President - with the avowed intention of killing the people voting against your favourite
The man's likeness to Jamiroquai was the most surreal part of the whole thing.
As for Brexit, do I sometimes wonder about the rights and wrongs of pushing for a second referendum? Yes, occasionally. But then I remember a. it was a narrow vote in the first place, b. Brexiteers themselves had proposed 2 referendums as an option before the first vote, c. it wasn't exactly turning out how it had been promised in the first referendum, and crucially d. nobody was proposing to drop Brexit without either a referendum or a general election. In the end it came down to a general election, the ultimate expression of the will of the people. And get Brexit done won, for better or worse.
A second vote was an abomination as an idea. Truly evil. Appalling and irresponsible and might have destroyed our democracy forever
Here is Prime Minister David Cameron talking to the British people about the forthcoming Brexit vote, in 2015
‘Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum… You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.’
‘So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.’
Dude, get over it. You sound like some pathetic Remoaner, but worse.
Sunak apparently says he has confidence in Braverman??? Noone will believe that. He should sack her now.
Maybe he actually does. I mean, we all seem to look at this from the perspective that he only keeps her around to please the ERG, and he really doesn’t want her there. Maybe actually he does want her in post - because he’s planning to run an anti-wokey, anti-lefty-lawyer campaign in 2024 and he wants her to be one of the standard carriers? It’s entirely plausible.
I’ve been pondering something. In 2015 UKIP were riding high in the polls but failed to win a single seat at the GE.
This time, Refuk are not as high but the country is I think more geographically divided. Are there one or two constituencies where they could just possibly win?
I’m thinking places in the East Midlands / North East that were safely Tory and strongly Brexit in 2019 but previously Labour, and have had a shit time in the last 4 years. Not the Thames estuary, that’s Tory for reasons beyond Brexit and has been for decades.
I don't know if anyone has commented on last night's drama in Spalding where the Conservatives gained a seat on South Holland District Council from the South Holland Independents on drawing of lots when both candidates polled 155 seats.
That increases the Conservative majority from one to three. The District Council falls entirely within the Parliamentary constituency of South Holland & the Deepings (the latter being three Wards from South Kesteven District Council) and is the safest Conservative seat in the country.
John Hayes scraped home with a 30,838 majority in December 2019 and Labour requires a 32% swing to take the seat. I imagine Hayes will have a senior position in the next Conservative Shadow Cabinet alongside Braverman, Badenoch and Dowden (and a few others).
Suggests the conservatives are still doing reasonably well in deepest leaverland. Perhaps that answers my question. Or perhaps the more fertile ground is further North.
In a full on conservative wipeout, looking at the safest seats, we could be facing one of those near-extinction events where evolution accelerates rapidly and a host of new species emerge.
Sunak apparently says he has confidence in Braverman??? Noone will believe that. He should sack her now.
Maybe he actually does. I mean, we all seem to look at this from the perspective that he only keeps her around to please the ERG, and he really doesn’t want her there. Maybe actually he does want her in post - because he’s planning to run an anti-wokey, anti-lefty-lawyer campaign in 2024 and he wants her to be one of the standard carriers? It’s entirely plausible.
I think there’s something in that. He is not, for all the outward appearance, a one nation Tory.
My fantasy sacking letter for Suella if Rwanda gets rejected by the courts on Wednesday. This is what happens when you have to stay in on a Friday.
Dear Suella
I’m writing to inform you that unfortunately I find that your position as Home Secretary, and a place in the government, is no longer tenable.
I have had sympathy with the general thrust of certain frustrations you have with the direction of the country, with certain attitudes and policies and have always tried to support you and back you even when the opposition of the public, the media and our own parliamentary colleagues would have made it easier to remove you from office.
I have always valued your support in the difficult times prior to my elevation to Prime Minister because not only, as I have mentioned above, do I have sympathies with many of your views, but because you represent a constituency of the Conservative Party in parliament and the country that has to be listened to and respected.
Unfortunately, despite desperately trying to return your support, I have to weigh your inability to act in a collegiate manner with its requirement to follow cabinet responsibility but also the absolutely vital requirement, when we have faced so many political challenges and national difficulties to act together, to present a unified front and not to be pursing any perceivable personal agenda against what you have brought and I know you can bring to the party and the country.
The above issues would be difficult enough to square with keeping you in office however you are the Home Secretary and were tasked with, amongst multiple, difficult issues, the management and solution to illegal immigration and specifically the problem of small boats and Rwanda.
Whilst I appreciate small boats is potentially a problem that can never fully be solved it is still, under your watch and responsibility a far greater problem than it should be given the time and resources spent by the government during your tenure.
Today, with the ruling regarding re Rwanda it is clear that the policy and framework enacted by you as Home Secretary has not, and cannot work and so it is vital for the country to put in place a Home Secretary who can create and deliver a workable and acceptable plan.
I have often felt your strong desire to improve certain areas of policing, immigration, cultural issues however I feel that the combination of failures to deliver and a lack of understanding of the need to be a team player mean that there are insurmountable barriers to you continuing in the cabinet.
🔺 NEW: Kemi Badenoch, the business secretary, has had a significant falling out with Michael Gove after he had an affair with an acquaintance of hers
I thought things like that weren't allowed to be reported on anymore, as is breaches privacy laws*?
*Hancock having an affair for example was only allowed to be reported because it was a breach of Covid rules, not the actual affair
Compare to all the pearl clutching over naming a newsreader up to no good.....i doubt think we will be getting any outrage here., despite Gove at least being unattached.
"Acquaintance" is, I suspect, doing some heavy lifting. Why would such a thing lead to a "heavy falling out"?
According to the story the person separated from their partner then she and Gove split. Which if you were friends would likely cause some friction. Your mate upturns their life for something that doesn't last (whatever the reasons for that).
But the reference is to an "acquaintance" not a "friend".
Sunak apparently says he has confidence in Braverman??? Noone will believe that. He should sack her now.
Maybe he actually does. I mean, we all seem to look at this from the perspective that he only keeps her around to please the ERG, and he really doesn’t want her there. Maybe actually he does want her in post - because he’s planning to run an anti-wokey, anti-lefty-lawyer campaign in 2024 and he wants her to be one of the standard carriers? It’s entirely plausible.
I think there’s something in that. He is not, for all the outward appearance, a one nation Tory.
If the plan is to have Suella front and centre of the GE campaign then we may all have to seriously reduce the likely number of Con MPs in the next Parliament. Just a reminder - she has a 16% approval rating.
My fantasy sacking letter for Suella if Rwanda gets rejected by the courts on Wednesday. This is what happens when you have to stay in on a Friday.
Dear Suella
I’m writing to inform you that unfortunately I find that your position as Home Secretary, and a place in the government, is no longer tenable.
I have had sympathy with the general thrust of certain frustrations you have with the direction of the country, with certain attitudes and policies and have always tried to support you and back you even when the opposition of the public, the media and our own parliamentary colleagues would have made it easier to remove you from office.
I have always valued your support in the difficult times prior to my elevation to Prime Minister because not only, as I have mentioned above, do I have sympathies with many of your views, but because you represent a constituency of the Conservative Party in parliament and the country that has to be listened to and respected.
Unfortunately, despite desperately trying to return your support, I have to weigh your inability to act in a collegiate manner with its requirement to follow cabinet responsibility but also the absolutely vital requirement, when we have faced so many political challenges and national difficulties to act together, to present a unified front and not to be pursing any perceivable personal agenda against what you have brought and I know you can bring to the party and the country.
The above issues would be difficult enough to square with keeping you in office however you are the Home Secretary and were tasked with, amongst multiple, difficult issues, the management and solution to illegal immigration and specifically the problem of small boats and Rwanda.
Whilst I appreciate small boats is potentially a problem that can never fully be solved it is still, under your watch and responsibility a far greater problem than it should be given the time and resources spent by the government during your tenure.
Today, with the ruling regarding re Rwanda it is clear that the policy and framework enacted by you as Home Secretary has not, and cannot work and so it is vital for the country to put in place a Home Secretary who can create and deliver a workable and acceptable plan.
I have often felt your strong desire to improve certain areas of policing, immigration, cultural issues however I feel that the combination of failures to deliver and a lack of understanding of the need to be a team player mean that there are insurmountable barriers to you continuing in the cabinet.
Yours etc etc
Rishi
The response if Rwanda is declared unlawful (a question which personally I feel is secondary to whether it should be done even if it is) will be more 'enemies of the people' posturing about judges, so I would think it would only strengthen her position in the party and thus make her harder to sack.
🔺 NEW: Kemi Badenoch, the business secretary, has had a significant falling out with Michael Gove after he had an affair with an acquaintance of hers
I thought things like that weren't allowed to be reported on anymore, as is breaches privacy laws*?
*Hancock having an affair for example was only allowed to be reported because it was a breach of Covid rules, not the actual affair
Compare to all the pearl clutching over naming a newsreader up to no good.....i doubt think we will be getting any outrage here., despite Gove at least being unattached.
"Acquaintance" is, I suspect, doing some heavy lifting. Why would such a thing lead to a "heavy falling out"?
According to the story the person separated from their partner then she and Gove split. Which if you were friends would likely cause some friction. Your mate upturns their life for something that doesn't last (whatever the reasons for that).
But the reference is to an "acquaintance" not a "friend".
Are top level politicians allowed friends? Not acquaintances or allies, but friends?
The main import here is probably not who did what with who. It's probably messy and a bit sad. It's that, in a functional team, this sort of thing doesn't ooze out into public.
Each to their own, but another analogy, Nick Griffin and Tommy Robinson were involved in organising and speaking at marches over grooming gangs. Were they right about the gangs, basically yes, am I going anywhere near a march which them involved, absolutely not...as I believe their underlying motivates aren't limited to making sure the authorities actually take action to prosecute the grooming gangs....was everybody attended those were hardcore BNP / EDL racists, no, many I am sure were genuinely people who had been failed by the system, knew somebody who had or were very concerned about this lack of action.
One of the pleasant things about the anti-Brexit marches (aka "scoundrels betraying the will of the people" aka "the Waitrose queue") was the lack of extreme types of either right or left. There was no STW or SWP, and no Tommy Robinsons, even by way of counter-protest.
I dunno. Calling for a democratic vote that the government explicitly promised to honour to be overturned, because posh people didn’t like the result, seems intrinsically quite extreme to me
Indeed on a par with January 6 in Washington. An attempt to cancel democracy
Bollocks.
Having an organised non-violent demonstration is not an attempt to cancel democracy.
Cancelling democracy involves things like getting an idiot with a silly tassel on his hat to fire a gun in to the ceiling of the Spanish Parliament.
Or an armed, violent, militant Jamiroquai tribute act to invading the premises when you are trying to chose a President - with the avowed intention of killing the people voting against your favourite
The man's likeness to Jamiroquai was the most surreal part of the whole thing.
As for Brexit, do I sometimes wonder about the rights and wrongs of pushing for a second referendum? Yes, occasionally. But then I remember a. it was a narrow vote in the first place, b. Brexiteers themselves had proposed 2 referendums as an option before the first vote, c. it wasn't exactly turning out how it had been promised in the first referendum, and crucially d. nobody was proposing to drop Brexit without either a referendum or a general election. In the end it came down to a general election, the ultimate expression of the will of the people. And get Brexit done won, for better or worse.
A second vote was an abomination as an idea. Truly evil. Appalling and irresponsible and might have destroyed our democracy forever
Here is Prime Minister David Cameron talking to the British people about the forthcoming Brexit vote, in 2015
‘Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum… You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.’
‘So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.’
That is utter rubbish. I thought almost everything in the 2019 Conservative manifesto was wrong. I didn’t vote for its implementation and I would be happy for there to be another general election where I can vote them out. I don’t feel morally obliged to wait until everything in their 2019 referendum is implemented. Why should I not feel the same about the Brexit referendum? Politics doesn’t stop because something is badged as a referendum instead of a general election.
Because there are elections every 4/5 years, and the referendum was sold as a once in a generation vote
There were 3 elections in 4 years between 2015 and 2019. People thought they were electing David Cameron for a term of 5 years but that turned out not to be the case. As I said politics doesn’t stop regardless of what people think or are told. I don’t understand why we are supposed to accept that the Brexit referendum should uniquely be preserved in amber for a generation.
Now that Brexit has been enacted I see no democratic argument against another referendum if that is what people want. What was important was that it was enacted before it was put to the question again.
Obviously I would vote against rejoining and personally I think another campaign would, be bloody stupid given the uncertainty it would generate going forward. It would set the precedent for new votes every few years as the population's view changed which would mean the EU would never be sure of our position. But if that was what peolpe wanted then that would be the way it wold be.
Brexit is a bit like the Crooked House Pub. Prior to demolition it could have been returned to being a pub. Likewise before we left we could have changed our minds. Now the bulldozers have done their work, the pub, like the UK in the EU, it's gone forever. Any attempts at rebuilding would be a mere pastiche of the original.
Each to their own, but another analogy, Nick Griffin and Tommy Robinson were involved in organising and speaking at marches over grooming gangs. Were they right about the gangs, basically yes, am I going anywhere near a march which them involved, absolutely not...as I believe their underlying motivates aren't limited to making sure the authorities actually take action to prosecute the grooming gangs....was everybody attended those were hardcore BNP / EDL racists, no, many I am sure were genuinely people who had been failed by the system, knew somebody who had or were very concerned about this lack of action.
One of the pleasant things about the anti-Brexit marches (aka "scoundrels betraying the will of the people" aka "the Waitrose queue") was the lack of extreme types of either right or left. There was no STW or SWP, and no Tommy Robinsons, even by way of counter-protest.
I dunno. Calling for a democratic vote that the government explicitly promised to honour to be overturned, because posh people didn’t like the result, seems intrinsically quite extreme to me
Indeed on a par with January 6 in Washington. An attempt to cancel democracy
Bollocks.
Having an organised non-violent demonstration is not an attempt to cancel democracy.
Cancelling democracy involves things like getting an idiot with a silly tassel on his hat to fire a gun in to the ceiling of the Spanish Parliament.
Or an armed, violent, militant Jamiroquai tribute act to invading the premises when you are trying to chose a President - with the avowed intention of killing the people voting against your favourite
The man's likeness to Jamiroquai was the most surreal part of the whole thing.
As for Brexit, do I sometimes wonder about the rights and wrongs of pushing for a second referendum? Yes, occasionally. But then I remember a. it was a narrow vote in the first place, b. Brexiteers themselves had proposed 2 referendums as an option before the first vote, c. it wasn't exactly turning out how it had been promised in the first referendum, and crucially d. nobody was proposing to drop Brexit without either a referendum or a general election. In the end it came down to a general election, the ultimate expression of the will of the people. And get Brexit done won, for better or worse.
A second vote was an abomination as an idea. Truly evil. Appalling and irresponsible and might have destroyed our democracy forever
Here is Prime Minister David Cameron talking to the British people about the forthcoming Brexit vote, in 2015
‘Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum… You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.’
‘So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.’
That is utter rubbish. I thought almost everything in the 2019 Conservative manifesto was wrong. I didn’t vote for its implementation and I would be happy for there to be another general election where I can vote them out. I don’t feel morally obliged to wait until everything in their 2019 referendum is implemented. Why should I not feel the same about the Brexit referendum? Politics doesn’t stop because something is badged as a referendum instead of a general election.
Because there are elections every 4/5 years, and the referendum was sold as a once in a generation vote
There were 3 elections in 4 years between 2015 and 2019. People thought they were electing David Cameron for a term of 5 years but that turned out not to be the case. As I said politics doesn’t stop regardless of what people think or are told. I don’t understand why we are supposed to accept that the Brexit referendum should uniquely be preserved in amber for a generation.
Now that Brexit has been enacted I see no democratic argument against another referendum if that is what people want. What was important was that it was enacted before it was put to the question again.
Obviously I would vote against rejoining and personally I think another campaign would, be bloody stupid given the uncertainty it would generate going forward. It would set the precedent for new votes every few years as the population's view changed which would mean the EU would never be sure of our position. But if that was what peolpe wanted then that would be the way it wold be.
Even assuming the EU wanted to have us back (only to leave again a few years later?), we'd join on very different terms from those on which we were members. We'd have to commit to joining the euro, which would be such an act of economic lunacy for a deficit country like us that even diehard rejoiners generally want to talk about something else. We'd also lose much of our former rebate.
I think winning a referendum would be an uphill struggle for rejoiners, and even if they narrowly did so, would all 27 member states of the EU really want us?
Each to their own, but another analogy, Nick Griffin and Tommy Robinson were involved in organising and speaking at marches over grooming gangs. Were they right about the gangs, basically yes, am I going anywhere near a march which them involved, absolutely not...as I believe their underlying motivates aren't limited to making sure the authorities actually take action to prosecute the grooming gangs....was everybody attended those were hardcore BNP / EDL racists, no, many I am sure were genuinely people who had been failed by the system, knew somebody who had or were very concerned about this lack of action.
One of the pleasant things about the anti-Brexit marches (aka "scoundrels betraying the will of the people" aka "the Waitrose queue") was the lack of extreme types of either right or left. There was no STW or SWP, and no Tommy Robinsons, even by way of counter-protest.
I dunno. Calling for a democratic vote that the government explicitly promised to honour to be overturned, because posh people didn’t like the result, seems intrinsically quite extreme to me
Indeed on a par with January 6 in Washington. An attempt to cancel democracy
Bollocks.
Having an organised non-violent demonstration is not an attempt to cancel democracy.
Cancelling democracy involves things like getting an idiot with a silly tassel on his hat to fire a gun in to the ceiling of the Spanish Parliament.
Or an armed, violent, militant Jamiroquai tribute act to invading the premises when you are trying to chose a President - with the avowed intention of killing the people voting against your favourite
The man's likeness to Jamiroquai was the most surreal part of the whole thing.
As for Brexit, do I sometimes wonder about the rights and wrongs of pushing for a second referendum? Yes, occasionally. But then I remember a. it was a narrow vote in the first place, b. Brexiteers themselves had proposed 2 referendums as an option before the first vote, c. it wasn't exactly turning out how it had been promised in the first referendum, and crucially d. nobody was proposing to drop Brexit without either a referendum or a general election. In the end it came down to a general election, the ultimate expression of the will of the people. And get Brexit done won, for better or worse.
A second vote was an abomination as an idea. Truly evil. Appalling and irresponsible and might have destroyed our democracy forever
Here is Prime Minister David Cameron talking to the British people about the forthcoming Brexit vote, in 2015
‘Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum… You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.’
‘So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.’
That is utter rubbish. I thought almost everything in the 2019 Conservative manifesto was wrong. I didn’t vote for its implementation and I would be happy for there to be another general election where I can vote them out. I don’t feel morally obliged to wait until everything in their 2019 referendum is implemented. Why should I not feel the same about the Brexit referendum? Politics doesn’t stop because something is badged as a referendum instead of a general election.
Because there are elections every 4/5 years, and the referendum was sold as a once in a generation vote
There were 3 elections in 4 years between 2015 and 2019. People thought they were electing David Cameron for a term of 5 years but that turned out not to be the case. As I said politics doesn’t stop regardless of what people think or are told. I don’t understand why we are supposed to accept that the Brexit referendum should uniquely be preserved in amber for a generation.
Now that Brexit has been enacted I see no democratic argument against another referendum if that is what people want. What was important was that it was enacted before it was put to the question again.
Obviously I would vote against rejoining and personally I think another campaign would, be bloody stupid given the uncertainty it would generate going forward. It would set the precedent for new votes every few years as the population's view changed which would mean the EU would never be sure of our position. But if that was what peolpe wanted then that would be the way it wold be.
Brexit is a bit like the Crooked House Pub. Prior to demolition it could have been returned to being a pub. Likewise before we left we could have changed our minds. Now the bulldozers have done their work, the pub, like the UK in the EU, it's gone forever. Any attempts at rebuilding would be a mere pastiche of the original.
Sunak apparently says he has confidence in Braverman??? Noone will believe that. He should sack her now.
Maybe he actually does. I mean, we all seem to look at this from the perspective that he only keeps her around to please the ERG, and he really doesn’t want her there. Maybe actually he does want her in post - because he’s planning to run an anti-wokey, anti-lefty-lawyer campaign in 2024 and he wants her to be one of the standard carriers? It’s entirely plausible.
I think there’s something in that. He is not, for all the outward appearance, a one nation Tory.
If the plan is to have Suella front and centre of the GE campaign then we may all have to seriously reduce the likely number of Con MPs in the next Parliament. Just a reminder - she has a 16% approval rating.
Ye of little faith! She gets 16% now! Just wait until the voters really get to know her!...
My fantasy sacking letter for Suella if Rwanda gets rejected by the courts on Wednesday. This is what happens when you have to stay in on a Friday.
Dear Suella
I’m writing to inform you that unfortunately I find that your position as Home Secretary, and a place in the government, is no longer tenable.
I have had sympathy with the general thrust of certain frustrations you have with the direction of the country, with certain attitudes and policies and have always tried to support you and back you even when the opposition of the public, the media and our own parliamentary colleagues would have made it easier to remove you from office.
I have always valued your support in the difficult times prior to my elevation to Prime Minister because not only, as I have mentioned above, do I have sympathies with many of your views, but because you represent a constituency of the Conservative Party in parliament and the country that has to be listened to and respected.
Unfortunately, despite desperately trying to return your support, I have to weigh your inability to act in a collegiate manner with its requirement to follow cabinet responsibility but also the absolutely vital requirement, when we have faced so many political challenges and national difficulties to act together, to present a unified front and not to be pursing any perceivable personal agenda against what you have brought and I know you can bring to the party and the country.
The above issues would be difficult enough to square with keeping you in office however you are the Home Secretary and were tasked with, amongst multiple, difficult issues, the management and solution to illegal immigration and specifically the problem of small boats and Rwanda.
Whilst I appreciate small boats is potentially a problem that can never fully be solved it is still, under your watch and responsibility a far greater problem than it should be given the time and resources spent by the government during your tenure.
Today, with the ruling regarding re Rwanda it is clear that the policy and framework enacted by you as Home Secretary has not, and cannot work and so it is vital for the country to put in place a Home Secretary who can create and deliver a workable and acceptable plan.
I have often felt your strong desire to improve certain areas of policing, immigration, cultural issues however I feel that the combination of failures to deliver and a lack of understanding of the need to be a team player mean that there are insurmountable barriers to you continuing in the cabinet.
Yours etc etc
Rishi
The response if Rwanda is declared unlawful (a question which personally I feel is secondary to whether it should be done even if it is) will be more 'enemies of the people' posturing about judges, so I would think it would only strengthen her position in the party and thus make her harder to sack.
Yup, the politics after rejection is probably pretty easy. If the scheme is given the all clear, it's much harder, because then there's no excuse not to do it, and I don't think it can be made to work, because of numbers.
The other possibility is a ruling that says that, in theory the plan is lawful, but hedged with enough Terms and Conditions that there are no individuals that can be sent.
Each to their own, but another analogy, Nick Griffin and Tommy Robinson were involved in organising and speaking at marches over grooming gangs. Were they right about the gangs, basically yes, am I going anywhere near a march which them involved, absolutely not...as I believe their underlying motivates aren't limited to making sure the authorities actually take action to prosecute the grooming gangs....was everybody attended those were hardcore BNP / EDL racists, no, many I am sure were genuinely people who had been failed by the system, knew somebody who had or were very concerned about this lack of action.
One of the pleasant things about the anti-Brexit marches (aka "scoundrels betraying the will of the people" aka "the Waitrose queue") was the lack of extreme types of either right or left. There was no STW or SWP, and no Tommy Robinsons, even by way of counter-protest.
I dunno. Calling for a democratic vote that the government explicitly promised to honour to be overturned, because posh people didn’t like the result, seems intrinsically quite extreme to me
Indeed on a par with January 6 in Washington. An attempt to cancel democracy
Bollocks.
Having an organised non-violent demonstration is not an attempt to cancel democracy.
Cancelling democracy involves things like getting an idiot with a silly tassel on his hat to fire a gun in to the ceiling of the Spanish Parliament.
Or an armed, violent, militant Jamiroquai tribute act to invading the premises when you are trying to chose a President - with the avowed intention of killing the people voting against your favourite
The man's likeness to Jamiroquai was the most surreal part of the whole thing.
As for Brexit, do I sometimes wonder about the rights and wrongs of pushing for a second referendum? Yes, occasionally. But then I remember a. it was a narrow vote in the first place, b. Brexiteers themselves had proposed 2 referendums as an option before the first vote, c. it wasn't exactly turning out how it had been promised in the first referendum, and crucially d. nobody was proposing to drop Brexit without either a referendum or a general election. In the end it came down to a general election, the ultimate expression of the will of the people. And get Brexit done won, for better or worse.
A second vote was an abomination as an idea. Truly evil. Appalling and irresponsible and might have destroyed our democracy forever
Here is Prime Minister David Cameron talking to the British people about the forthcoming Brexit vote, in 2015
‘Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum… You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.’
‘So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.’
Dude, get over it. You sound like some pathetic Remoaner, but worse.
I’ve been pondering something. In 2015 UKIP were riding high in the polls but failed to win a single seat at the GE.
This time, Refuk are not as high but the country is I think more geographically divided. Are there one or two constituencies where they could just possibly win?
I’m thinking places in the East Midlands / North East that were safely Tory and strongly Brexit in 2019 but previously Labour, and have had a shit time in the last 4 years. Not the Thames estuary, that’s Tory for reasons beyond Brexit and has been for decades.
Not entirely true: they won Clacton with Douglas Carswell.
Each to their own, but another analogy, Nick Griffin and Tommy Robinson were involved in organising and speaking at marches over grooming gangs. Were they right about the gangs, basically yes, am I going anywhere near a march which them involved, absolutely not...as I believe their underlying motivates aren't limited to making sure the authorities actually take action to prosecute the grooming gangs....was everybody attended those were hardcore BNP / EDL racists, no, many I am sure were genuinely people who had been failed by the system, knew somebody who had or were very concerned about this lack of action.
One of the pleasant things about the anti-Brexit marches (aka "scoundrels betraying the will of the people" aka "the Waitrose queue") was the lack of extreme types of either right or left. There was no STW or SWP, and no Tommy Robinsons, even by way of counter-protest.
I dunno. Calling for a democratic vote that the government explicitly promised to honour to be overturned, because posh people didn’t like the result, seems intrinsically quite extreme to me
Indeed on a par with January 6 in Washington. An attempt to cancel democracy
Bollocks.
Having an organised non-violent demonstration is not an attempt to cancel democracy.
Cancelling democracy involves things like getting an idiot with a silly tassel on his hat to fire a gun in to the ceiling of the Spanish Parliament.
Or an armed, violent, militant Jamiroquai tribute act to invading the premises when you are trying to chose a President - with the avowed intention of killing the people voting against your favourite
The man's likeness to Jamiroquai was the most surreal part of the whole thing.
As for Brexit, do I sometimes wonder about the rights and wrongs of pushing for a second referendum? Yes, occasionally. But then I remember a. it was a narrow vote in the first place, b. Brexiteers themselves had proposed 2 referendums as an option before the first vote, c. it wasn't exactly turning out how it had been promised in the first referendum, and crucially d. nobody was proposing to drop Brexit without either a referendum or a general election. In the end it came down to a general election, the ultimate expression of the will of the people. And get Brexit done won, for better or worse.
A second vote was an abomination as an idea. Truly evil. Appalling and irresponsible and might have destroyed our democracy forever
Here is Prime Minister David Cameron talking to the British people about the forthcoming Brexit vote, in 2015
‘Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum… You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.’
‘So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.’
Dude, get over it. You sound like some pathetic Remoaner, but worse.
We so often become the things we despise.
I really despise wealthy attractive people.
(Glances upwards. Waits)
Damnit!
I despise people who look upwards to attractive wealthier people in hope.
On the whole Braverman row, the line that seems to be taken by Neil Basu - and seemingly backed by many of his former colleagues - is that politicians have no right to criticise or questions the actions taken by the Police. In his world, he seems to believe the Police have full independence, including to ignore those who have been democratically elected.
Seems to me that is a far greater danger and threat to this country than what Braverman says.
Politicians pass the laws that the police police. Otherwise the police are meant to operate free of political interference. But here you have the Home Secretary interfering. She's trying to bully them into locking up people she disagrees with. Well she isn't, she's just gallery playing for her leadership campaign, but you know what I mean.
What she is saying - according to the headlines - is that she thinks the Police are operating double standards.
I personally don't see what is the major fuss. She is expressing a view. She has not said she will fire any commanding officer who disagrees with what she says nor that she has the right to override the Police. The Police may disagree with her comments and complain she is undermining the institution but, if you accept that logic, politicians must back the Police wholeheartedly 100% of the time. I know @Cyclefree for one would disagree with that line.
She's the Home Secretary, is why. If it were (eg) some backbencher there wouldn't be a fuss. So to say she shouldn't be behaving like this in no way maps logically to saying the Police must always be backed to the hilt by politicians.
If the Police aren't implementing the law in an impartial manner, if the Police are being biased, then surely it is the Home Secretary's responsibility to hold them to account?
The Police have operational independence but that neither makes them above criticism, nor means they can't be held to account, nor does it mean they can operate outside the law or in a biased manner without it becoming a political issue.
Home secretary Theresa May has announced a public inquiry into the work of undercover officers, saying “policing stands damaged today”. She warns that the “full truth” is yet to emerge.
Speaking of ChiCom spying, I can't be the only one wondering whether that is part of this story: 'Three individuals have been arrested on charges of operating a “high-end brothel network” in Massachusetts and Virginia with a clientele that included elected officials, military officers and government contractors with security clearances, the Justice Department announced Wednesday.
I’d see the failure to implement the result of a referendum that the establishment had promised was once in a generation as an outrageous deceit
The implementation was not defined before the vote, so "failure to implement" would only ever be subjective
I hate to argue the case here but I would assume the implementation would involve some flavour of leaving
Can you imagine how these people would be, how many angry tweets would be pasted, if we voted to to rejoin, but a majority of the house were leavers and they just didn’t bother doing anything about making it happen for nearly four years, whilst demanding another go at it?
🔺 NEW: Kemi Badenoch, the business secretary, has had a significant falling out with Michael Gove after he had an affair with an acquaintance of hers
What on earth would anyone see in the multi-millionaire Michael Gove? 🤔
His massive dong.
I find this 'falling out' more than a little convenient after Kemi being accused of being a 'creature of Gove' in the Nadine book.
So you are assuming it is a fake falling out to disprove the accusation, thus proving the accusation? What could we take as proof of a genuine falling out?
I cannot think of one, but I assume the two will deny a big falling out anyway.
🔺 NEW: Kemi Badenoch, the business secretary, has had a significant falling out with Michael Gove after he had an affair with an acquaintance of hers
I thought things like that weren't allowed to be reported on anymore, as is breaches privacy laws*?
*Hancock having an affair for example was only allowed to be reported because it was a breach of Covid rules, not the actual affair
Compare to all the pearl clutching over naming a newsreader up to no good.....i doubt think we will be getting any outrage here., despite Gove at least being unattached.
"Acquaintance" is, I suspect, doing some heavy lifting. Why would such a thing lead to a "heavy falling out"?
According to the story the person separated from their partner then she and Gove split. Which if you were friends would likely cause some friction. Your mate upturns their life for something that doesn't last (whatever the reasons for that).
How bad does your spouse have to be to be tempted into disloyalty by Michael Gove?
🔺 NEW: Kemi Badenoch, the business secretary, has had a significant falling out with Michael Gove after he had an affair with an acquaintance of hers
What on earth would anyone see in the multi-millionaire Michael Gove? 🤔
His massive dong.
I find this 'falling out' more than a little convenient after Kemi being accused of being a 'creature of Gove' in the Nadine book.
Why? Its not as if anyone is taking Mad Nad's book seriously is it?
I supposed maybe people who believe Davos controls the world.
Dorries' book is gossip and tittle tattle - none of which means it doesn't contain truth. Sunak is certainly part of the Govite faction and so is Badenoch. We have screenshots of Badenoch goading a Government whip to resign during Boris's defenestration. That's not a new revelation from Dorries, it's existing info cast in a not necessary flattering light by her book. It seems very convenient to me that suddently Gove and Kemi have publicly parted ways. Perhaps they thought it damaged her leadership chances - I'm not sure it didn't.
Each to their own, but another analogy, Nick Griffin and Tommy Robinson were involved in organising and speaking at marches over grooming gangs. Were they right about the gangs, basically yes, am I going anywhere near a march which them involved, absolutely not...as I believe their underlying motivates aren't limited to making sure the authorities actually take action to prosecute the grooming gangs....was everybody attended those were hardcore BNP / EDL racists, no, many I am sure were genuinely people who had been failed by the system, knew somebody who had or were very concerned about this lack of action.
One of the pleasant things about the anti-Brexit marches (aka "scoundrels betraying the will of the people" aka "the Waitrose queue") was the lack of extreme types of either right or left. There was no STW or SWP, and no Tommy Robinsons, even by way of counter-protest.
I dunno. Calling for a democratic vote that the government explicitly promised to honour to be overturned, because posh people didn’t like the result, seems intrinsically quite extreme to me
Indeed on a par with January 6 in Washington. An attempt to cancel democracy
Bollocks.
Having an organised non-violent demonstration is not an attempt to cancel democracy.
Cancelling democracy involves things like getting an idiot with a silly tassel on his hat to fire a gun in to the ceiling of the Spanish Parliament.
Or an armed, violent, militant Jamiroquai tribute act to invading the premises when you are trying to chose a President - with the avowed intention of killing the people voting against your favourite
The man's likeness to Jamiroquai was the most surreal part of the whole thing.
As for Brexit, do I sometimes wonder about the rights and wrongs of pushing for a second referendum? Yes, occasionally. But then I remember a. it was a narrow vote in the first place, b. Brexiteers themselves had proposed 2 referendums as an option before the first vote, c. it wasn't exactly turning out how it had been promised in the first referendum, and crucially d. nobody was proposing to drop Brexit without either a referendum or a general election. In the end it came down to a general election, the ultimate expression of the will of the people. And get Brexit done won, for better or worse.
A second vote was an abomination as an idea. Truly evil. Appalling and irresponsible and might have destroyed our democracy forever
Here is Prime Minister David Cameron talking to the British people about the forthcoming Brexit vote, in 2015
‘Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum… You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.’
‘So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.’
That is utter rubbish. I thought almost everything in the 2019 Conservative manifesto was wrong. I didn’t vote for its implementation and I would be happy for there to be another general election where I can vote them out. I don’t feel morally obliged to wait until everything in their 2019 referendum is implemented. Why should I not feel the same about the Brexit referendum? Politics doesn’t stop because something is badged as a referendum instead of a general election.
Because there are elections every 4/5 years, and the referendum was sold as a once in a generation vote
There were 3 elections in 4 years between 2015 and 2019. People thought they were electing David Cameron for a term of 5 years but that turned out not to be the case. As I said politics doesn’t stop regardless of what people think or are told. I don’t understand why we are supposed to accept that the Brexit referendum should uniquely be preserved in amber for a generation.
Now that Brexit has been enacted I see no democratic argument against another referendum if that is what people want. What was important was that it was enacted before it was put to the question again.
Obviously I would vote against rejoining and personally I think another campaign would, be bloody stupid given the uncertainty it would generate going forward. It would set the precedent for new votes every few years as the popultion's view changed which would mean the EU would never be sure of our position. But if that was what peolpe wanted then that would be the way it wold be.
Yes, now it’s been enacted it’s fair enough to have another vote if the demand is there.
Of course. We could have another vote tomorrow if people want and parliament thus decides. Because we have Brexited
The idea we could cancel the Brexit vote without ever enacting it in the first place is utterly despicable, and those who advanced it are fucking morons who should be ashamed. The only possible excuse is total stupidity
Such an anti-democratic act would have permanently smashed our democracy in absolutely calamitous ways. For a start, who would ever vote again? Why bother, when the posh people can just ignore your vote, if they don't like it?
Anyone who pretends not to grasp this is contemptible
🔺 NEW: Kemi Badenoch, the business secretary, has had a significant falling out with Michael Gove after he had an affair with an acquaintance of hers
I thought things like that weren't allowed to be reported on anymore, as is breaches privacy laws*?
*Hancock having an affair for example was only allowed to be reported because it was a breach of Covid rules, not the actual affair
Compare to all the pearl clutching over naming a newsreader up to no good.....i doubt think we will be getting any outrage here., despite Gove at least being unattached.
"Acquaintance" is, I suspect, doing some heavy lifting. Why would such a thing lead to a "heavy falling out"?
According to the story the person separated from their partner then she and Gove split. Which if you were friends would likely cause some friction. Your mate upturns their life for something that doesn't last (whatever the reasons for that).
How bad does your spouse have to be to be tempted into disloyalty by Michael Gove?
Harsh. Whatever his role in government or B*****, he seems to be personally charming, intelligent and amusing company if you like that sort of thing.
Plus, if the rumours are to be believed, hung like a horse.
Just by coincidence, I was reading the Oppenheimer movie quotes on IMDB!
J. Robert Oppenheimer: "Mr. President. I feel that I have blood on my hands."
Harry Truman: [tauntingly pulls out his pocket square and waves it in front of Oppenheimer] "You think anyone in Hiroshima or Nagasaki gives a shit who built the bomb? They care who dropped it. I did. Hiroshima isn't about you."
Harry Truman: [after Oppenheimer leaves] "Don't let that crybaby back in here."
Each to their own, but another analogy, Nick Griffin and Tommy Robinson were involved in organising and speaking at marches over grooming gangs. Were they right about the gangs, basically yes, am I going anywhere near a march which them involved, absolutely not...as I believe their underlying motivates aren't limited to making sure the authorities actually take action to prosecute the grooming gangs....was everybody attended those were hardcore BNP / EDL racists, no, many I am sure were genuinely people who had been failed by the system, knew somebody who had or were very concerned about this lack of action.
One of the pleasant things about the anti-Brexit marches (aka "scoundrels betraying the will of the people" aka "the Waitrose queue") was the lack of extreme types of either right or left. There was no STW or SWP, and no Tommy Robinsons, even by way of counter-protest.
I dunno. Calling for a democratic vote that the government explicitly promised to honour to be overturned, because posWe shouldh people didn’t like the result, seems intrinsically quite extreme to me
Indeed on a par with January 6 in Washington. An attempt to cancel democracy
Bollocks.
Having an organised non-violent demonstration is not an attempt to cancel democracy.
Cancelling democracy involves things like getting an idiot with a silly tassel on his hat to fire a gun in to the ceiling of the Spanish Parliament.
Or an armed, violent, militant Jamiroquai tribute act to invading the premises when you are trying to chose a President - with the avowed intention of killing the people voting against your favourite
The man's likeness to Jamiroquai was the most surreal part of the whole thing.
As for Brexit, do I sometimes wonder about the rights and wrongs of pushing for a second referendum? Yes, occasionally. But then I remember a. it was a narrow vote in the first place, b. Brexiteers themselves had proposed 2 referendums as an option before the first vote, c. it wasn't exactly turning out how it had been promised in the first referendum, and crucially d. nobody was proposing to drop Brexit without either a referendum or a general election. In the end it came down to a general election, the ultimate expression of the will of the people. And get Brexit done won, for better or worse.
A second vote was an abomination as an idea. Truly evil. Appalling and irresponsible and might have destroyed our democracy forever
Here is Prime Minister David Cameron talking to the British people about the forthcoming Brexit vote, in 2015
‘Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum… You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.’
‘So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.’
Dude, get over it. You sound like some pathetic Remoaner, but worse.
We should never get over the fact a large part of the Establishment tried to overturn a democratic vote that they promised would be honoured. Of course, it is convenient for that same Establishment if we DO forget. Ditto the Trumpites and January 6
I note that Starmer is now totally allergic to even discussing Brexit. This is why. He did his best to demolish democracy and get the biggest vote in British history annulled: by a simple Decree of the Posh
Regan seems to have been pretty consistent in his views on gun control. He did think citzens should have the right to have guns but he was also consistently in favour of all the sensible things Democrats and gun control advocates have long been asking for - medical and mental health checks, cooling off periods and a ban on assault rifles. And also to be fair to him these views long predated his own shooting.
Forgive a note of exhaustion here. For the umpteenth time, and struggling now to maintain any hope that they will ever learn, your columnist girds himself to warn yet another Tory leader, in yet another stand-off with yet another lunatic on the party’s right, that there’s no accommodating these people.
They will come for you. In the end they will always come for you. You can compromise here, you can give ground there, you can echo their language and try to lure them, you can even put them in your cabinet and hope that office might calm them down; but finally they will come for you. They can smell their own kind and if you aren’t their kind they will sniff that out, and they will kick you.
Suella Braverman kicks from that quarter. Her unpardonable attack wasn’t really about Remembrance Sunday.
If we'd had a second vote, can you imagine the campaign?
Remainers:
"Look, OK, we did say the first vote was irrevocable, and your decision, but we didn't mean it, because in the end you voted the wrong way and we think you're stupid bigots. Anyway please vote Remain this time, and honestly we will honour your vote"
Bewildered Leavers:
"So, why should we trust you this time? You lied last time"
Remainers:
"Because we're posher and cleverer than you?"
Leavers:
"So if we vote Leave again, you really really will honour it THIS time?"
Remainers, chortling:
"lol sure! You twats. Anyway we're not as bad the Lib Dems they just want to Revoke, so let's have a good honest campaign this time, not like the last when you pathetic saps were deluded by lies"
Forgive a note of exhaustion here. For the umpteenth time, and struggling now to maintain any hope that they will ever learn, your columnist girds himself to warn yet another Tory leader, in yet another stand-off with yet another lunatic on the party’s right, that there’s no accommodating these people.
They will come for you. In the end they will always come for you. You can compromise here, you can give ground there, you can echo their language and try to lure them, you can even put them in your cabinet and hope that office might calm them down; but finally they will come for you. They can smell their own kind and if you aren’t their kind they will sniff that out, and they will kick you.
Suella Braverman kicks from that quarter. Her unpardonable attack wasn’t really about Remembrance Sunday.
Matthew Parris. Another 2nd voter, another Remainer, a man who campaigned for the Lib Dems. The time when he was remotely influential in the Tory Pary is long gone, thank the Lord
Each to their own, but another analogy, Nick Griffin and Tommy Robinson were involved in organising and speaking at marches over grooming gangs. Were they right about the gangs, basically yes, am I going anywhere near a march which them involved, absolutely not...as I believe their underlying motivates aren't limited to making sure the authorities actually take action to prosecute the grooming gangs....was everybody attended those were hardcore BNP / EDL racists, no, many I am sure were genuinely people who had been failed by the system, knew somebody who had or were very concerned about this lack of action.
One of the pleasant things about the anti-Brexit marches (aka "scoundrels betraying the will of the people" aka "the Waitrose queue") was the lack of extreme types of either right or left. There was no STW or SWP, and no Tommy Robinsons, even by way of counter-protest.
I dunno. Calling for a democratic vote that the government explicitly promised to honour to be overturned, because posWe shouldh people didn’t like the result, seems intrinsically quite extreme to me
Indeed on a par with January 6 in Washington. An attempt to cancel democracy
Bollocks.
Having an organised non-violent demonstration is not an attempt to cancel democracy.
Cancelling democracy involves things like getting an idiot with a silly tassel on his hat to fire a gun in to the ceiling of the Spanish Parliament.
Or an armed, violent, militant Jamiroquai tribute act to invading the premises when you are trying to chose a President - with the avowed intention of killing the people voting against your favourite
The man's likeness to Jamiroquai was the most surreal part of the whole thing.
As for Brexit, do I sometimes wonder about the rights and wrongs of pushing for a second referendum? Yes, occasionally. But then I remember a. it was a narrow vote in the first place, b. Brexiteers themselves had proposed 2 referendums as an option before the first vote, c. it wasn't exactly turning out how it had been promised in the first referendum, and crucially d. nobody was proposing to drop Brexit without either a referendum or a general election. In the end it came down to a general election, the ultimate expression of the will of the people. And get Brexit done won, for better or worse.
A second vote was an abomination as an idea. Truly evil. Appalling and irresponsible and might have destroyed our democracy forever
Here is Prime Minister David Cameron talking to the British people about the forthcoming Brexit vote, in 2015
‘Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum… You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.’
‘So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.’
Dude, get over it. You sound like some pathetic Remoaner, but worse.
We should never get over the fact a large part of the Establishment tried to overturn a democratic vote that they promised would be honoured. Of course, it is convenient for that same Establishment if we DO forget. Ditto the Trumpites and January 6
I note that Starmer is now totally allergic to even discussing Brexit. This is why. He did his best to demolish democracy and get the biggest vote in British history annulled: by a simple Decree of the Posh
That only holds if you don't believe in the supremacy of parliament. If you do - as many have over the years from across the political spectrum - then your argument simply evaporates. Having said that, I was always against a second vote with 'Cancel Brexit' as an option, as it would give too many people the serious hump and make them ripe for exploitation by the forces of darkness.
Forgive a note of exhaustion here. For the umpteenth time, and struggling now to maintain any hope that they will ever learn, your columnist girds himself to warn yet another Tory leader, in yet another stand-off with yet another lunatic on the party’s right, that there’s no accommodating these people.
They will come for you. In the end they will always come for you. You can compromise here, you can give ground there, you can echo their language and try to lure them, you can even put them in your cabinet and hope that office might calm them down; but finally they will come for you. They can smell their own kind and if you aren’t their kind they will sniff that out, and they will kick you.
Suella Braverman kicks from that quarter. Her unpardonable attack wasn’t really about Remembrance Sunday.
Each to their own, but another analogy, Nick Griffin and Tommy Robinson were involved in organising and speaking at marches over grooming gangs. Were they right about the gangs, basically yes, am I going anywhere near a march which them involved, absolutely not...as I believe their underlying motivates aren't limited to making sure the authorities actually take action to prosecute the grooming gangs....was everybody attended those were hardcore BNP / EDL racists, no, many I am sure were genuinely people who had been failed by the system, knew somebody who had or were very concerned about this lack of action.
One of the pleasant things about the anti-Brexit marches (aka "scoundrels betraying the will of the people" aka "the Waitrose queue") was the lack of extreme types of either right or left. There was no STW or SWP, and no Tommy Robinsons, even by way of counter-protest.
I dunno. Calling for a democratic vote that the government explicitly promised to honour to be overturned, because posh people didn’t like the result, seems intrinsically quite extreme to me
Indeed on a par with January 6 in Washington. An attempt to cancel democracy
Bollocks.
Having an organised non-violent demonstration is not an attempt to cancel democracy.
Cancelling democracy involves things like getting an idiot with a silly tassel on his hat to fire a gun in to the ceiling of the Spanish Parliament.
Or an armed, violent, militant Jamiroquai tribute act to invading the premises when you are trying to chose a President - with the avowed intention of killing the people voting against your favourite
The man's likeness to Jamiroquai was the most surreal part of the whole thing.
As for Brexit, do I sometimes wonder about the rights and wrongs of pushing for a second referendum? Yes, occasionally. But then I remember a. it was a narrow vote in the first place, b. Brexiteers themselves had proposed 2 referendums as an option before the first vote, c. it wasn't exactly turning out how it had been promised in the first referendum, and crucially d. nobody was proposing to drop Brexit without either a referendum or a general election. In the end it came down to a general election, the ultimate expression of the will of the people. And get Brexit done won, for better or worse.
A second vote was an abomination as an idea. Truly evil. Appalling and irresponsible and might have destroyed our democracy forever
Here is Prime Minister David Cameron talking to the British people about the forthcoming Brexit vote, in 2015
‘Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum… You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.’
‘So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.’
Dude, get over it. You sound like some pathetic Remoaner, but worse.
We so often become the things we despise.
I really despise wealthy attractive people.
(Glances upwards. Waits)
Damnit!
I despise people who look upwards to attractive wealthier people in hope.
This is how trickle-down economics works, right?
#VoteReagan
I'm reminded of the discussion on PB recently on what it was like to be a thalamian oarsperson in Πολεμικό Ναυτικό Τριέρης Ολυμπίας, the reconstructed trireme, and that didn't include the piss and shite which one got in real battle.
Forgive a note of exhaustion here. For the umpteenth time, and struggling now to maintain any hope that they will ever learn, your columnist girds himself to warn yet another Tory leader, in yet another stand-off with yet another lunatic on the party’s right, that there’s no accommodating these people.
They will come for you. In the end they will always come for you. You can compromise here, you can give ground there, you can echo their language and try to lure them, you can even put them in your cabinet and hope that office might calm them down; but finally they will come for you. They can smell their own kind and if you aren’t their kind they will sniff that out, and they will kick you.
Suella Braverman kicks from that quarter. Her unpardonable attack wasn’t really about Remembrance Sunday.
Matthew Parris. Another 2nd voter, another Remainer, a man who campaigned for the Lib Dems. The time when he was remotely influential in the Tory Pary is long gone, thank the Lord
He's just.... OLD, bless him
He’s right about the Tory right though. Appeasement never works.
Each to their own, but another analogy, Nick Griffin and Tommy Robinson were involved in organising and speaking at marches over grooming gangs. Were they right about the gangs, basically yes, am I going anywhere near a march which them involved, absolutely not...as I believe their underlying motivates aren't limited to making sure the authorities actually take action to prosecute the grooming gangs....was everybody attended those were hardcore BNP / EDL racists, no, many I am sure were genuinely people who had been failed by the system, knew somebody who had or were very concerned about this lack of action.
One of the pleasant things about the anti-Brexit marches (aka "scoundrels betraying the will of the people" aka "the Waitrose queue") was the lack of extreme types of either right or left. There was no STW or SWP, and no Tommy Robinsons, even by way of counter-protest.
I dunno. Calling for a democratic vote that the government explicitly promised to honour to be overturned, because posWe shouldh people didn’t like the result, seems intrinsically quite extreme to me
Indeed on a par with January 6 in Washington. An attempt to cancel democracy
Bollocks.
Having an organised non-violent demonstration is not an attempt to cancel democracy.
Cancelling democracy involves things like getting an idiot with a silly tassel on his hat to fire a gun in to the ceiling of the Spanish Parliament.
Or an armed, violent, militant Jamiroquai tribute act to invading the premises when you are trying to chose a President - with the avowed intention of killing the people voting against your favourite
The man's likeness to Jamiroquai was the most surreal part of the whole thing.
As for Brexit, do I sometimes wonder about the rights and wrongs of pushing for a second referendum? Yes, occasionally. But then I remember a. it was a narrow vote in the first place, b. Brexiteers themselves had proposed 2 referendums as an option before the first vote, c. it wasn't exactly turning out how it had been promised in the first referendum, and crucially d. nobody was proposing to drop Brexit without either a referendum or a general election. In the end it came down to a general election, the ultimate expression of the will of the people. And get Brexit done won, for better or worse.
A second vote was an abomination as an idea. Truly evil. Appalling and irresponsible and might have destroyed our democracy forever
Here is Prime Minister David Cameron talking to the British people about the forthcoming Brexit vote, in 2015
‘Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum… You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.’
‘So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.’
Dude, get over it. You sound like some pathetic Remoaner, but worse.
We should never get over the fact a large part of the Establishment tried to overturn a democratic vote that they promised would be honoured. Of course, it is convenient for that same Establishment if we DO forget. Ditto the Trumpites and January 6
I note that Starmer is now totally allergic to even discussing Brexit. This is why. He did his best to demolish democracy and get the biggest vote in British history annulled: by a simple Decree of the Posh
That only holds if you don't believe in the supremacy of parliament. If you do - as many have over the years from across the political spectrum - then your argument simply evaporates. Having said that, I was always against a second vote with 'Cancel Brexit' as an option, as it would give too many people the serious hump and make them ripe for exploitation by the forces of darkness.
Let him alone. It’s one of yesterday’s arguments that really doesn’t matter that much.
Each to their own, but another analogy, Nick Griffin and Tommy Robinson were involved in organising and speaking at marches over grooming gangs. Were they right about the gangs, basically yes, am I going anywhere near a march which them involved, absolutely not...as I believe their underlying motivates aren't limited to making sure the authorities actually take action to prosecute the grooming gangs....was everybody attended those were hardcore BNP / EDL racists, no, many I am sure were genuinely people who had been failed by the system, knew somebody who had or were very concerned about this lack of action.
One of the pleasant things about the anti-Brexit marches (aka "scoundrels betraying the will of the people" aka "the Waitrose queue") was the lack of extreme types of either right or left. There was no STW or SWP, and no Tommy Robinsons, even by way of counter-protest.
I dunno. Calling for a democratic vote that the government explicitly promised to honour to be overturned, because posWe shouldh people didn’t like the result, seems intrinsically quite extreme to me
Indeed on a par with January 6 in Washington. An attempt to cancel democracy
Bollocks.
Having an organised non-violent demonstration is not an attempt to cancel democracy.
Cancelling democracy involves things like getting an idiot with a silly tassel on his hat to fire a gun in to the ceiling of the Spanish Parliament.
Or an armed, violent, militant Jamiroquai tribute act to invading the premises when you are trying to chose a President - with the avowed intention of killing the people voting against your favourite
The man's likeness to Jamiroquai was the most surreal part of the whole thing.
As for Brexit, do I sometimes wonder about the rights and wrongs of pushing for a second referendum? Yes, occasionally. But then I remember a. it was a narrow vote in the first place, b. Brexiteers themselves had proposed 2 referendums as an option before the first vote, c. it wasn't exactly turning out how it had been promised in the first referendum, and crucially d. nobody was proposing to drop Brexit without either a referendum or a general election. In the end it came down to a general election, the ultimate expression of the will of the people. And get Brexit done won, for better or worse.
A second vote was an abomination as an idea. Truly evil. Appalling and irresponsible and might have destroyed our democracy forever
Here is Prime Minister David Cameron talking to the British people about the forthcoming Brexit vote, in 2015
‘Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum… You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.’
‘So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.’
Dude, get over it. You sound like some pathetic Remoaner, but worse.
We should never get over the fact a large part of the Establishment tried to overturn a democratic vote that they promised would be honoured. Of course, it is convenient for that same Establishment if we DO forget. Ditto the Trumpites and January 6
I note that Starmer is now totally allergic to even discussing Brexit. This is why. He did his best to demolish democracy and get the biggest vote in British history annulled: by a simple Decree of the Posh
Having a second vote isn't really the same as having a decree though is it? And most of the really posh people were Leave.
Each to their own, but another analogy, Nick Griffin and Tommy Robinson were involved in organising and speaking at marches over grooming gangs. Were they right about the gangs, basically yes, am I going anywhere near a march which them involved, absolutely not...as I believe their underlying motivates aren't limited to making sure the authorities actually take action to prosecute the grooming gangs....was everybody attended those were hardcore BNP / EDL racists, no, many I am sure were genuinely people who had been failed by the system, knew somebody who had or were very concerned about this lack of action.
One of the pleasant things about the anti-Brexit marches (aka "scoundrels betraying the will of the people" aka "the Waitrose queue") was the lack of extreme types of either right or left. There was no STW or SWP, and no Tommy Robinsons, even by way of counter-protest.
I dunno. Calling for a democratic vote that the government explicitly promised to honour to be overturned, because posWe shouldh people didn’t like the result, seems intrinsically quite extreme to me
Indeed on a par with January 6 in Washington. An attempt to cancel democracy
Bollocks.
Having an organised non-violent demonstration is not an attempt to cancel democracy.
Cancelling democracy involves things like getting an idiot with a silly tassel on his hat to fire a gun in to the ceiling of the Spanish Parliament.
Or an armed, violent, militant Jamiroquai tribute act to invading the premises when you are trying to chose a President - with the avowed intention of killing the people voting against your favourite
The man's likeness to Jamiroquai was the most surreal part of the whole thing.
As for Brexit, do I sometimes wonder about the rights and wrongs of pushing for a second referendum? Yes, occasionally. But then I remember a. it was a narrow vote in the first place, b. Brexiteers themselves had proposed 2 referendums as an option before the first vote, c. it wasn't exactly turning out how it had been promised in the first referendum, and crucially d. nobody was proposing to drop Brexit without either a referendum or a general election. In the end it came down to a general election, the ultimate expression of the will of the people. And get Brexit done won, for better or worse.
A second vote was an abomination as an idea. Truly evil. Appalling and irresponsible and might have destroyed our democracy forever
Here is Prime Minister David Cameron talking to the British people about the forthcoming Brexit vote, in 2015
‘Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum… You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.’
‘So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.’
Dude, get over it. You sound like some pathetic Remoaner, but worse.
We should never get over the fact a large part of the Establishment tried to overturn a democratic vote that they promised would be honoured. Of course, it is convenient for that same Establishment if we DO forget. Ditto the Trumpites and January 6
I note that Starmer is now totally allergic to even discussing Brexit. This is why. He did his best to demolish democracy and get the biggest vote in British history annulled: by a simple Decree of the Posh
Each to their own, but another analogy, Nick Griffin and Tommy Robinson were involved in organising and speaking at marches over grooming gangs. Were they right about the gangs, basically yes, am I going anywhere near a march which them involved, absolutely not...as I believe their underlying motivates aren't limited to making sure the authorities actually take action to prosecute the grooming gangs....was everybody attended those were hardcore BNP / EDL racists, no, many I am sure were genuinely people who had been failed by the system, knew somebody who had or were very concerned about this lack of action.
One of the pleasant things about the anti-Brexit marches (aka "scoundrels betraying the will of the people" aka "the Waitrose queue") was the lack of extreme types of either right or left. There was no STW or SWP, and no Tommy Robinsons, even by way of counter-protest.
I dunno. Calling for a democratic vote that the government explicitly promised to honour to be overturned, because posh people didn’t like the result, seems intrinsically quite extreme to me
Indeed on a par with January 6 in Washington. An attempt to cancel democracy
Bollocks.
Having an organised non-violent demonstration is not an attempt to cancel democracy.
Cancelling democracy involves things like getting an idiot with a silly tassel on his hat to fire a gun in to the ceiling of the Spanish Parliament.
Or an armed, violent, militant Jamiroquai tribute act to invading the premises when you are trying to chose a President - with the avowed intention of killing the people voting against your favourite
The man's likeness to Jamiroquai was the most surreal part of the whole thing.
As for Brexit, do I sometimes wonder about the rights and wrongs of pushing for a second referendum? Yes, occasionally. But then I remember a. it was a narrow vote in the first place, b. Brexiteers themselves had proposed 2 referendums as an option before the first vote, c. it wasn't exactly turning out how it had been promised in the first referendum, and crucially d. nobody was proposing to drop Brexit without either a referendum or a general election. In the end it came down to a general election, the ultimate expression of the will of the people. And get Brexit done won, for better or worse.
A second vote was an abomination as an idea. Truly evil. Appalling and irresponsible and might have destroyed our democracy forever
Here is Prime Minister David Cameron talking to the British people about the forthcoming Brexit vote, in 2015
‘Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum… You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.’
‘So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.’
That is utter rubbish. I thought almost everything in the 2019 Conservative manifesto was wrong. I didn’t vote for its implementation and I would be happy for there to be another general election where I can vote them out. I don’t feel morally obliged to wait until everything in their 2019 referendum is implemented. Why should I not feel the same about the Brexit referendum? Politics doesn’t stop because something is badged as a referendum instead of a general election.
Because there are elections every 4/5 years, and the referendum was sold as a once in a generation vote
There were 3 elections in 4 years between 2015 and 2019. People thought they were electing David Cameron for a term of 5 years but that turned out not to be the case. As I said politics doesn’t stop regardless of what people think or are told. I don’t understand why we are supposed to accept that the Brexit referendum should uniquely be preserved in amber for a generation.
Now that Brexit has been enacted I see no democratic argument against another referendum if that is what people want. What was important was that it was enacted before it was put to the question again.
Obviously I would vote against rejoining and personally I think another campaign would, be bloody stupid given the uncertainty it would generate going forward. It would set the precedent for new votes every few years as the popultion's view changed which would mean the EU would never be sure of our position. But if that was what peolpe wanted then that would be the way it wold be.
Yes, now it’s been enacted it’s fair enough to have another vote if the demand is there.
Of course. We could have another vote tomorrow if people want and parliament thus decides. Because we have Brexited
The idea we could cancel the Brexit vote without ever enacting it in the first place is utterly despicable, and those who advanced it are fucking morons who should be ashamed. The only possible excuse is total stupidity
Such an anti-democratic act would have permanently smashed our democracy in absolutely calamitous ways. For a start, who would ever vote again? Why bother, when the posh people can just ignore your vote, if they don't like it?
Anyone who pretends not to grasp this is contemptible
It’s the same ball park as Trump refusing to accept he lost, and they were full of outrage about that
Each to their own, but another analogy, Nick Griffin and Tommy Robinson were involved in organising and speaking at marches over grooming gangs. Were they right about the gangs, basically yes, am I going anywhere near a march which them involved, absolutely not...as I believe their underlying motivates aren't limited to making sure the authorities actually take action to prosecute the grooming gangs....was everybody attended those were hardcore BNP / EDL racists, no, many I am sure were genuinely people who had been failed by the system, knew somebody who had or were very concerned about this lack of action.
One of the pleasant things about the anti-Brexit marches (aka "scoundrels betraying the will of the people" aka "the Waitrose queue") was the lack of extreme types of either right or left. There was no STW or SWP, and no Tommy Robinsons, even by way of counter-protest.
I dunno. Calling for a democratic vote that the government explicitly promised to honour to be overturned, because posWe shouldh people didn’t like the result, seems intrinsically quite extreme to me
Indeed on a par with January 6 in Washington. An attempt to cancel democracy
Bollocks.
Having an organised non-violent demonstration is not an attempt to cancel democracy.
Cancelling democracy involves things like getting an idiot with a silly tassel on his hat to fire a gun in to the ceiling of the Spanish Parliament.
Or an armed, violent, militant Jamiroquai tribute act to invading the premises when you are trying to chose a President - with the avowed intention of killing the people voting against your favourite
The man's likeness to Jamiroquai was the most surreal part of the whole thing.
As for Brexit, do I sometimes wonder about the rights and wrongs of pushing for a second referendum? Yes, occasionally. But then I remember a. it was a narrow vote in the first place, b. Brexiteers themselves had proposed 2 referendums as an option before the first vote, c. it wasn't exactly turning out how it had been promised in the first referendum, and crucially d. nobody was proposing to drop Brexit without either a referendum or a general election. In the end it came down to a general election, the ultimate expression of the will of the people. And get Brexit done won, for better or worse.
A second vote was an abomination as an idea. Truly evil. Appalling and irresponsible and might have destroyed our democracy forever
Here is Prime Minister David Cameron talking to the British people about the forthcoming Brexit vote, in 2015
‘Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum… You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.’
‘So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.’
Dude, get over it. You sound like some pathetic Remoaner, but worse.
We should never get over the fact a large part of the Establishment tried to overturn a democratic vote that they promised would be honoured. Of course, it is convenient for that same Establishment if we DO forget. Ditto the Trumpites and January 6
I note that Starmer is now totally allergic to even discussing Brexit. This is why. He did his best to demolish democracy and get the biggest vote in British history annulled: by a simple Decree of the Posh
That only holds if you don't believe in the supremacy of parliament. If you do - as many have over the years from across the political spectrum - then your argument simply evaporates. Having said that, I was always against a second vote with 'Cancel Brexit' as an option, as it would give too many people the serious hump and make them ripe for exploitation by the forces of darkness.
Let him alone. It’s one of yesterday’s arguments that really doesn’t matter that much.
Were YOU a second voter?
Let us have honesty
I remember when Alastair Meeks momentarily dallied with a 2nd vote. For months he'd been absolutely against it, because of course the idea is monstrous, dangerous and wrong, but for one or two hours he entertained it - but then to his credit he realised it was immoral, and he repudiated it, and he resigned himself - angrily - to Brexit
Each to their own, but another analogy, Nick Griffin and Tommy Robinson were involved in organising and speaking at marches over grooming gangs. Were they right about the gangs, basically yes, am I going anywhere near a march which them involved, absolutely not...as I believe their underlying motivates aren't limited to making sure the authorities actually take action to prosecute the grooming gangs....was everybody attended those were hardcore BNP / EDL racists, no, many I am sure were genuinely people who had been failed by the system, knew somebody who had or were very concerned about this lack of action.
One of the pleasant things about the anti-Brexit marches (aka "scoundrels betraying the will of the people" aka "the Waitrose queue") was the lack of extreme types of either right or left. There was no STW or SWP, and no Tommy Robinsons, even by way of counter-protest.
I dunno. Calling for a democratic vote that the government explicitly promised to honour to be overturned, because posh people didn’t like the result, seems intrinsically quite extreme to me
Indeed on a par with January 6 in Washington. An attempt to cancel democracy
Bollocks.
Having an organised non-violent demonstration is not an attempt to cancel democracy.
Cancelling democracy involves things like getting an idiot with a silly tassel on his hat to fire a gun in to the ceiling of the Spanish Parliament.
Or an armed, violent, militant Jamiroquai tribute act to invading the premises when you are trying to chose a President - with the avowed intention of killing the people voting against your favourite
The man's likeness to Jamiroquai was the most surreal part of the whole thing.
As for Brexit, do I sometimes wonder about the rights and wrongs of pushing for a second referendum? Yes, occasionally. But then I remember a. it was a narrow vote in the first place, b. Brexiteers themselves had proposed 2 referendums as an option before the first vote, c. it wasn't exactly turning out how it had been promised in the first referendum, and crucially d. nobody was proposing to drop Brexit without either a referendum or a general election. In the end it came down to a general election, the ultimate expression of the will of the people. And get Brexit done won, for better or worse.
A second vote was an abomination as an idea. Truly evil. Appalling and irresponsible and might have destroyed our democracy forever
Here is Prime Minister David Cameron talking to the British people about the forthcoming Brexit vote, in 2015
‘Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum… You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.’
‘So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.’
That is utter rubbish. I thought almost everything in the 2019 Conservative manifesto was wrong. I didn’t vote for its implementation and I would be happy for there to be another general election where I can vote them out. I don’t feel morally obliged to wait until everything in their 2019 referendum is implemented. Why should I not feel the same about the Brexit referendum? Politics doesn’t stop because something is badged as a referendum instead of a general election.
Because there are elections every 4/5 years, and the referendum was sold as a once in a generation vote
There were 3 elections in 4 years between 2015 and 2019. People thought they were electing David Cameron for a term of 5 years but that turned out not to be the case. As I said politics doesn’t stop regardless of what people think or are told. I don’t understand why we are supposed to accept that the Brexit referendum should uniquely be preserved in amber for a generation.
Now that Brexit has been enacted I see no democratic argument against another referendum if that is what people want. What was important was that it was enacted before it was put to the question again.
Obviously I would vote against rejoining and personally I think another campaign would, be bloody stupid given the uncertainty it would generate going forward. It would set the precedent for new votes every few years as the popultion's view changed which would mean the EU would never be sure of our position. But if that was what peolpe wanted then that would be the way it wold be.
Yes, now it’s been enacted it’s fair enough to have another vote if the demand is there.
Of course. We could have another vote tomorrow if people want and parliament thus decides. Because we have Brexited
The idea we could cancel the Brexit vote without ever enacting it in the first place is utterly despicable, and those who advanced it are fucking morons who should be ashamed. The only possible excuse is total stupidity
Such an anti-democratic act would have permanently smashed our democracy in absolutely calamitous ways. For a start, who would ever vote again? Why bother, when the posh people can just ignore your vote, if they don't like it?
Anyone who pretends not to grasp this is contemptible
It’s the same ball park as Trump refusing to accept he lost, and they were full of outrage about that
"the Remain campaign from 2016-2019 was, indeed, a polite, elongated British version of what unfolded in Washington DC a year ago. It was a stupid and dangerous assault on democracy. We just skipped the buffalo-horn helmets."
These two clips of Sir Keir, the Republican who accepted a knighthood, the vegetarian who eats animals, the commoner who went to a fee paying school, are incompatible with his image as Honest John
One taken when he was campaigning to be elected in 2017, the other when he was Shadow Brexit Minister in 2019
Each to their own, but another analogy, Nick Griffin and Tommy Robinson were involved in organising and speaking at marches over grooming gangs. Were they right about the gangs, basically yes, am I going anywhere near a march which them involved, absolutely not...as I believe their underlying motivates aren't limited to making sure the authorities actually take action to prosecute the grooming gangs....was everybody attended those were hardcore BNP / EDL racists, no, many I am sure were genuinely people who had been failed by the system, knew somebody who had or were very concerned about this lack of action.
One of the pleasant things about the anti-Brexit marches (aka "scoundrels betraying the will of the people" aka "the Waitrose queue") was the lack of extreme types of either right or left. There was no STW or SWP, and no Tommy Robinsons, even by way of counter-protest.
I dunno. Calling for a democratic vote that the government explicitly promised to honour to be overturned, because posh people didn’t like the result, seems intrinsically quite extreme to me
Indeed on a par with January 6 in Washington. An attempt to cancel democracy
Bollocks.
Having an organised non-violent demonstration is not an attempt to cancel democracy.
Cancelling democracy involves things like getting an idiot with a silly tassel on his hat to fire a gun in to the ceiling of the Spanish Parliament.
Or an armed, violent, militant Jamiroquai tribute act to invading the premises when you are trying to chose a President - with the avowed intention of killing the people voting against your favourite
The man's likeness to Jamiroquai was the most surreal part of the whole thing.
As for Brexit, do I sometimes wonder about the rights and wrongs of pushing for a second referendum? Yes, occasionally. But then I remember a. it was a narrow vote in the first place, b. Brexiteers themselves had proposed 2 referendums as an option before the first vote, c. it wasn't exactly turning out how it had been promised in the first referendum, and crucially d. nobody was proposing to drop Brexit without either a referendum or a general election. In the end it came down to a general election, the ultimate expression of the will of the people. And get Brexit done won, for better or worse.
A second vote was an abomination as an idea. Truly evil. Appalling and irresponsible and might have destroyed our democracy forever
Here is Prime Minister David Cameron talking to the British people about the forthcoming Brexit vote, in 2015
‘Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum… You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.’
‘So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.’
That is utter rubbish. I thought almost everything in the 2019 Conservative manifesto was wrong. I didn’t vote for its implementation and I would be happy for there to be another general election where I can vote them out. I don’t feel morally obliged to wait until everything in their 2019 referendum is implemented. Why should I not feel the same about the Brexit referendum? Politics doesn’t stop because something is badged as a referendum instead of a general election.
Because there are elections every 4/5 years, and the referendum was sold as a once in a generation vote
There were 3 elections in 4 years between 2015 and 2019. People thought they were electing David Cameron for a term of 5 years but that turned out not to be the case. As I said politics doesn’t stop regardless of what people think or are told. I don’t understand why we are supposed to accept that the Brexit referendum should uniquely be preserved in amber for a generation.
Now that Brexit has been enacted I see no democratic argument against another referendum if that is what people want. What was important was that it was enacted before it was put to the question again.
Obviously I would vote against rejoining and personally I think another campaign would, be bloody stupid given the uncertainty it would generate going forward. It would set the precedent for new votes every few years as the popultion's view changed which would mean the EU would never be sure of our position. But if that was what peolpe wanted then that would be the way it wold be.
Yes, now it’s been enacted it’s fair enough to have another vote if the demand is there.
Of course. We could have another vote tomorrow if people want and parliament thus decides. Because we have Brexited
The idea we could cancel the Brexit vote without ever enacting it in the first place is utterly despicable, and those who advanced it are fucking morons who should be ashamed. The only possible excuse is total stupidity
Such an anti-democratic act would have permanently smashed our democracy in absolutely calamitous ways. For a start, who would ever vote again? Why bother, when the posh people can just ignore your vote, if they don't like it?
Anyone who pretends not to grasp this is contemptible
It’s the same ball park as Trump refusing to accept he lost, and they were full of outrage about that
"the Remain campaign from 2016-2019 was, indeed, a polite, elongated British version of what unfolded in Washington DC a year ago. It was a stupid and dangerous assault on democracy. We just skipped the buffalo-horn helmets."
People had every right to protest against Brexit. ultimately though it came down to MPs.
The January 6 protest was about stopping the peaceful transfer of power to the duly elected President. I don't see a comparison at all.
The Gazette is a propaganda organ of the rich willing to employ anybody willing to write articles that fit their editorial line whilst having sufficient fame or talent to generate clicks. They don't have to be good per se.
In fairness, that is true of many periodicals who don't have multiple layers of peer review that require explaining basics to whichever idiot is peer reviewing this week. Not like I'm bitter or twisted or anything 😃
Each to their own, but another analogy, Nick Griffin and Tommy Robinson were involved in organising and speaking at marches over grooming gangs. Were they right about the gangs, basically yes, am I going anywhere near a march which them involved, absolutely not...as I believe their underlying motivates aren't limited to making sure the authorities actually take action to prosecute the grooming gangs....was everybody attended those were hardcore BNP / EDL racists, no, many I am sure were genuinely people who had been failed by the system, knew somebody who had or were very concerned about this lack of action.
One of the pleasant things about the anti-Brexit marches (aka "scoundrels betraying the will of the people" aka "the Waitrose queue") was the lack of extreme types of either right or left. There was no STW or SWP, and no Tommy Robinsons, even by way of counter-protest.
I dunno. Calling for a democratic vote that the government explicitly promised to honour to be overturned, because posh people didn’t like the result, seems intrinsically quite extreme to me
Indeed on a par with January 6 in Washington. An attempt to cancel democracy
Bollocks.
Having an organised non-violent demonstration is not an attempt to cancel democracy.
Cancelling democracy involves things like getting an idiot with a silly tassel on his hat to fire a gun in to the ceiling of the Spanish Parliament.
Or an armed, violent, militant Jamiroquai tribute act to invading the premises when you are trying to chose a President - with the avowed intention of killing the people voting against your favourite
The man's likeness to Jamiroquai was the most surreal part of the whole thing.
As for Brexit, do I sometimes wonder about the rights and wrongs of pushing for a second referendum? Yes, occasionally. But then I remember a. it was a narrow vote in the first place, b. Brexiteers themselves had proposed 2 referendums as an option before the first vote, c. it wasn't exactly turning out how it had been promised in the first referendum, and crucially d. nobody was proposing to drop Brexit without either a referendum or a general election. In the end it came down to a general election, the ultimate expression of the will of the people. And get Brexit done won, for better or worse.
A second vote was an abomination as an idea. Truly evil. Appalling and irresponsible and might have destroyed our democracy forever
Here is Prime Minister David Cameron talking to the British people about the forthcoming Brexit vote, in 2015
‘Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum… You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.’
‘So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.’
That is utter rubbish. I thought almost everything in the 2019 Conservative manifesto was wrong. I didn’t vote for its implementation and I would be happy for there to be another general election where I can vote them out. I don’t feel morally obliged to wait until everything in their 2019 referendum is implemented. Why should I not feel the same about the Brexit referendum? Politics doesn’t stop because something is badged as a referendum instead of a general election.
Because there are elections every 4/5 years, and the referendum was sold as a once in a generation vote
There were 3 elections in 4 years between 2015 and 2019. People thought they were electing David Cameron for a term of 5 years but that turned out not to be the case. As I said politics doesn’t stop regardless of what people think or are told. I don’t understand why we are supposed to accept that the Brexit referendum should uniquely be preserved in amber for a generation.
Now that Brexit has been enacted I see no democratic argument against another referendum if that is what people want. What was important was that it was enacted before it was put to the question again.
Obviously I would vote against rejoining and personally I think another campaign would, be bloody stupid given the uncertainty it would generate going forward. It would set the precedent for new votes every few years as the popultion's view changed which would mean the EU would never be sure of our position. But if that was what peolpe wanted then that would be the way it wold be.
Yes, now it’s been enacted it’s fair enough to have another vote if the demand is there.
Of course. We could have another vote tomorrow if people want and parliament thus decides. Because we have Brexited
The idea we could cancel the Brexit vote without ever enacting it in the first place is utterly despicable, and those who advanced it are fucking morons who should be ashamed. The only possible excuse is total stupidity
Such an anti-democratic act would have permanently smashed our democracy in absolutely calamitous ways. For a start, who would ever vote again? Why bother, when the posh people can just ignore your vote, if they don't like it?
Anyone who pretends not to grasp this is contemptible
This is what Brexit has come to. A few sad wailers like you banging on about the hypothetical outrage of a democratic vote overturning a prior democratic vote - an 'outrage' that never happened.
Why not spend your time banging on about the magnificent benefits Brexit has delivered? Ah, I see the flaw in my suggestion...
These two clips of Sir Keir, the Republican who accepted a knighthood, the vegetarian who eats animals, the commoner who went to a fee paying school, are incompatible with his image as Honest John
One taken when he was campaigning to be elected in 2017, the other when he was Shadow Brexit Minister in 2019
Each to their own, but another analogy, Nick Griffin and Tommy Robinson were involved in organising and speaking at marches over grooming gangs. Were they right about the gangs, basically yes, am I going anywhere near a march which them involved, absolutely not...as I believe their underlying motivates aren't limited to making sure the authorities actually take action to prosecute the grooming gangs....was everybody attended those were hardcore BNP / EDL racists, no, many I am sure were genuinely people who had been failed by the system, knew somebody who had or were very concerned about this lack of action.
One of the pleasant things about the anti-Brexit marches (aka "scoundrels betraying the will of the people" aka "the Waitrose queue") was the lack of extreme types of either right or left. There was no STW or SWP, and no Tommy Robinsons, even by way of counter-protest.
I dunno. Calling for a democratic vote that the government explicitly promised to honour to be overturned, because posh people didn’t like the result, seems intrinsically quite extreme to me
Indeed on a par with January 6 in Washington. An attempt to cancel democracy
Bollocks.
Having an organised non-violent demonstration is not an attempt to cancel democracy.
Cancelling democracy involves things like getting an idiot with a silly tassel on his hat to fire a gun in to the ceiling of the Spanish Parliament.
Or an armed, violent, militant Jamiroquai tribute act to invading the premises when you are trying to chose a President - with the avowed intention of killing the people voting against your favourite
The man's likeness to Jamiroquai was the most surreal part of the whole thing.
As for Brexit, do I sometimes wonder about the rights and wrongs of pushing for a second referendum? Yes, occasionally. But then I remember a. it was a narrow vote in the first place, b. Brexiteers themselves had proposed 2 referendums as an option before the first vote, c. it wasn't exactly turning out how it had been promised in the first referendum, and crucially d. nobody was proposing to drop Brexit without either a referendum or a general election. In the end it came down to a general election, the ultimate expression of the will of the people. And get Brexit done won, for better or worse.
A second vote was an abomination as an idea. Truly evil. Appalling and irresponsible and might have destroyed our democracy forever
Here is Prime Minister David Cameron talking to the British people about the forthcoming Brexit vote, in 2015
‘Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum… You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.’
‘So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.’
That is utter rubbish. I thought almost everything in the 2019 Conservative manifesto was wrong. I didn’t vote for its implementation and I would be happy for there to be another general election where I can vote them out. I don’t feel morally obliged to wait until everything in their 2019 referendum is implemented. Why should I not feel the same about the Brexit referendum? Politics doesn’t stop because something is badged as a referendum instead of a general election.
Because there are elections every 4/5 years, and the referendum was sold as a once in a generation vote
There were 3 elections in 4 years between 2015 and 2019. People thought they were electing David Cameron for a term of 5 years but that turned out not to be the case. As I said politics doesn’t stop regardless of what people think or are told. I don’t understand why we are supposed to accept that the Brexit referendum should uniquely be preserved in amber for a generation.
Now that Brexit has been enacted I see no democratic argument against another referendum if that is what people want. What was important was that it was enacted before it was put to the question again.
Obviously I would vote against rejoining and personally I think another campaign would, be bloody stupid given the uncertainty it would generate going forward. It would set the precedent for new votes every few years as the popultion's view changed which would mean the EU would never be sure of our position. But if that was what peolpe wanted then that would be the way it wold be.
Yes, now it’s been enacted it’s fair enough to have another vote if the demand is there.
Of course. We could have another vote tomorrow if people want and parliament thus decides. Because we have Brexited
The idea we could cancel the Brexit vote without ever enacting it in the first place is utterly despicable, and those who advanced it are fucking morons who should be ashamed. The only possible excuse is total stupidity
Such an anti-democratic act would have permanently smashed our democracy in absolutely calamitous ways. For a start, who would ever vote again? Why bother, when the posh people can just ignore your vote, if they don't like it?
Anyone who pretends not to grasp this is contemptible
It’s the same ball park as Trump refusing to accept he lost, and they were full of outrage about that
"the Remain campaign from 2016-2019 was, indeed, a polite, elongated British version of what unfolded in Washington DC a year ago. It was a stupid and dangerous assault on democracy. We just skipped the buffalo-horn helmets."
People had every right to protest against Brexit. ultimately though it came down to MPs.
The January 6 protest was about stopping the peaceful transfer of power to the duly elected President. I don't see a comparison at all.
People had every right to protest against Biden. ultimately though it came down to Congress.
Biden was only "elected" by the fact he'd won an election and the principle that Congress would honour that election. Those opposed to Biden held onto the principle that the supremacy of Congress meant that election win could be overridden by Congress. Brexit was voted for by the fact it had won an election and the principle that Parliament would honour that election. Those opposed to Brexit held onto the principle that the supremacy of Parliament meant that election win could be overridden by Parliament.
Forgive a note of exhaustion here. For the umpteenth time, and struggling now to maintain any hope that they will ever learn, your columnist girds himself to warn yet another Tory leader, in yet another stand-off with yet another lunatic on the party’s right, that there’s no accommodating these people.
They will come for you. In the end they will always come for you. You can compromise here, you can give ground there, you can echo their language and try to lure them, you can even put them in your cabinet and hope that office might calm them down; but finally they will come for you. They can smell their own kind and if you aren’t their kind they will sniff that out, and they will kick you.
Suella Braverman kicks from that quarter. Her unpardonable attack wasn’t really about Remembrance Sunday.
Matthew Parris. Another 2nd voter, another Remainer, a man who campaigned for the Lib Dems. The time when he was remotely influential in the Tory Pary is long gone, thank the Lord
He's just.... OLD, bless him
He’s right about the Tory right though. Appeasement never works.
Come off it. The 'Tory right' within the Cabinet, despite the party itself holding settled right of centre views, consists entirely of Suella Braverman, whose power seems confined to writing Oped pieces for the Times. If Sunak gets rid of Braverman it will be the last representation of mainstream Tory opinion within the Cabinet, a fact which despite his addled brain, Matthew Parris is well aware of.
Each to their own, but another analogy, Nick Griffin and Tommy Robinson were involved in organising and speaking at marches over grooming gangs. Were they right about the gangs, basically yes, am I going anywhere near a march which them involved, absolutely not...as I believe their underlying motivates aren't limited to making sure the authorities actually take action to prosecute the grooming gangs....was everybody attended those were hardcore BNP / EDL racists, no, many I am sure were genuinely people who had been failed by the system, knew somebody who had or were very concerned about this lack of action.
One of the pleasant things about the anti-Brexit marches (aka "scoundrels betraying the will of the people" aka "the Waitrose queue") was the lack of extreme types of either right or left. There was no STW or SWP, and no Tommy Robinsons, even by way of counter-protest.
I dunno. Calling for a democratic vote that the government explicitly promised to honour to be overturned, because posh people didn’t like the result, seems intrinsically quite extreme to me
Indeed on a par with January 6 in Washington. An attempt to cancel democracy
Bollocks.
Having an organised non-violent demonstration is not an attempt to cancel democracy.
Cancelling democracy involves things like getting an idiot with a silly tassel on his hat to fire a gun in to the ceiling of the Spanish Parliament.
Or an armed, violent, militant Jamiroquai tribute act to invading the premises when you are trying to chose a President - with the avowed intention of killing the people voting against your favourite
The man's likeness to Jamiroquai was the most surreal part of the whole thing.
As for Brexit, do I sometimes wonder about the rights and wrongs of pushing for a second referendum? Yes, occasionally. But then I remember a. it was a narrow vote in the first place, b. Brexiteers themselves had proposed 2 referendums as an option before the first vote, c. it wasn't exactly turning out how it had been promised in the first referendum, and crucially d. nobody was proposing to drop Brexit without either a referendum or a general election. In the end it came down to a general election, the ultimate expression of the will of the people. And get Brexit done won, for better or worse.
A second vote was an abomination as an idea. Truly evil. Appalling and irresponsible and might have destroyed our democracy forever
Here is Prime Minister David Cameron talking to the British people about the forthcoming Brexit vote, in 2015
‘Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum… You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.’
‘So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.’
That is utter rubbish. I thought almost everything in the 2019 Conservative manifesto was wrong. I didn’t vote for its implementation and I would be happy for there to be another general election where I can vote them out. I don’t feel morally obliged to wait until everything in their 2019 referendum is implemented. Why should I not feel the same about the Brexit referendum? Politics doesn’t stop because something is badged as a referendum instead of a general election.
Because there are elections every 4/5 years, and the referendum was sold as a once in a generation vote
There were 3 elections in 4 years between 2015 and 2019. People thought they were electing David Cameron for a term of 5 years but that turned out not to be the case. As I said politics doesn’t stop regardless of what people think or are told. I don’t understand why we are supposed to accept that the Brexit referendum should uniquely be preserved in amber for a generation.
Now that Brexit has been enacted I see no democratic argument against another referendum if that is what people want. What was important was that it was enacted before it was put to the question again.
Obviously I would vote against rejoining and personally I think another campaign would, be bloody stupid given the uncertainty it would generate going forward. It would set the precedent for new votes every few years as the popultion's view changed which would mean the EU would never be sure of our position. But if that was what peolpe wanted then that would be the way it wold be.
Yes, now it’s been enacted it’s fair enough to have another vote if the demand is there.
Of course. We could have another vote tomorrow if people want and parliament thus decides. Because we have Brexited
The idea we could cancel the Brexit vote without ever enacting it in the first place is utterly despicable, and those who advanced it are fucking morons who should be ashamed. The only possible excuse is total stupidity
Such an anti-democratic act would have permanently smashed our democracy in absolutely calamitous ways. For a start, who would ever vote again? Why bother, when the posh people can just ignore your vote, if they don't like it?
Anyone who pretends not to grasp this is contemptible
It’s the same ball park as Trump refusing to accept he lost, and they were full of outrage about that
"the Remain campaign from 2016-2019 was, indeed, a polite, elongated British version of what unfolded in Washington DC a year ago. It was a stupid and dangerous assault on democracy. We just skipped the buffalo-horn helmets."
People had every right to protest against Brexit. ultimately though it came down to MPs.
The January 6 protest was about stopping the peaceful transfer of power to the duly elected President. I don't see a comparison at all.
People had every right to protest against Biden. ultimately though it came down to Congress.
Biden was only "elected" by the fact he'd won an election and the principle that Congress would honour that election. Those opposed to Biden held onto the principle that the supremacy of Congress meant that election win could be overridden by Congress. Brexit was voted for by the fact it had won an election and the principle that Parliament would honour that election. Those opposed to Brexit held onto the principle that the supremacy of Parliament meant that election win could be overridden by Parliament.
They're the same thing.
Did you miss the part where people invaded the capitol and wanted to lynch Mike Pence? Perhaps you think that was merely performative but I don't remember anything similar from the FBPE crowd.
Let’s be honest, Brexit wasn’t a fight between elite remainers and the leave-inclined people. Nor was it a coup by the eurosceptic Etonian elite against the hoodwinked people. It was a battle between two elites. Two versions of power. That’s Western political history, for the last several centuries.
These two clips of Sir Keir, the Republican who accepted a knighthood, the vegetarian who eats animals, the commoner who went to a fee paying school, are incompatible with his image as Honest John
One taken when he was campaigning to be elected in 2017, the other when he was Shadow Brexit Minister in 2019
No wonder Starmer is utterly averse to discussing Brexit in any way. Wow
When the debates/interviews happen at the election, he'll be crucified on trust. All politicians triangulate to an extent but Starmer has often taken completely contradictory positions within a few years.
Each to their own, but another analogy, Nick Griffin and Tommy Robinson were involved in organising and speaking at marches over grooming gangs. Were they right about the gangs, basically yes, am I going anywhere near a march which them involved, absolutely not...as I believe their underlying motivates aren't limited to making sure the authorities actually take action to prosecute the grooming gangs....was everybody attended those were hardcore BNP / EDL racists, no, many I am sure were genuinely people who had been failed by the system, knew somebody who had or were very concerned about this lack of action.
One of the pleasant things about the anti-Brexit marches (aka "scoundrels betraying the will of the people" aka "the Waitrose queue") was the lack of extreme types of either right or left. There was no STW or SWP, and no Tommy Robinsons, even by way of counter-protest.
I dunno. Calling for a democratic vote that the government explicitly promised to honour to be overturned, because posWe shouldh people didn’t like the result, seems intrinsically quite extreme to me
Indeed on a par with January 6 in Washington. An attempt to cancel democracy
Bollocks.
Having an organised non-violent demonstration is not an attempt to cancel democracy.
Cancelling democracy involves things like getting an idiot with a silly tassel on his hat to fire a gun in to the ceiling of the Spanish Parliament.
Or an armed, violent, militant Jamiroquai tribute act to invading the premises when you are trying to chose a President - with the avowed intention of killing the people voting against your favourite
The man's likeness to Jamiroquai was the most surreal part of the whole thing.
As for Brexit, do I sometimes wonder about the rights and wrongs of pushing for a second referendum? Yes, occasionally. But then I remember a. it was a narrow vote in the first place, b. Brexiteers themselves had proposed 2 referendums as an option before the first vote, c. it wasn't exactly turning out how it had been promised in the first referendum, and crucially d. nobody was proposing to drop Brexit without either a referendum or a general election. In the end it came down to a general election, the ultimate expression of the will of the people. And get Brexit done won, for better or worse.
A second vote was an abomination as an idea. Truly evil. Appalling and irresponsible and might have destroyed our democracy forever
Here is Prime Minister David Cameron talking to the British people about the forthcoming Brexit vote, in 2015
‘Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum… You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.’
‘So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.’
Dude, get over it. You sound like some pathetic Remoaner, but worse.
We should never get over the fact a large part of the Establishment tried to overturn a democratic vote that they promised would be honoured. Of course, it is convenient for that same Establishment if we DO forget. Ditto the Trumpites and January 6
I note that Starmer is now totally allergic to even discussing Brexit. This is why. He did his best to demolish democracy and get the biggest vote in British history annulled: by a simple Decree of the Posh
That only holds if you don't believe in the supremacy of parliament. If you do - as many have over the years from across the political spectrum - then your argument simply evaporates. Having said that, I was always against a second vote with 'Cancel Brexit' as an option, as it would give too many people the serious hump and make them ripe for exploitation by the forces of darkness.
Let him alone. It’s one of yesterday’s arguments that really doesn’t matter that much.
Were YOU a second voter?
Let us have honesty
I remember when Alastair Meeks momentarily dallied with a 2nd vote. For months he'd been absolutely against it, because of course the idea is monstrous, dangerous and wrong, but for one or two hours he entertained it - but then to his credit he realised it was immoral, and he repudiated it, and he resigned himself - angrily - to Brexit
As I said, obsessed. Give it up; you’ll be happier.
These two clips of Sir Keir, the Republican who accepted a knighthood, the vegetarian who eats animals, the commoner who went to a fee paying school, are incompatible with his image as Honest John
One taken when he was campaigning to be elected in 2017, the other when he was Shadow Brexit Minister in 2019
No wonder Starmer is utterly averse to discussing Brexit in any way. Wow
“The commoner who went to a fee paying school” deserves a PB community note. He went to a state school which became fee paying during his tenure, but not for his year group which was grandfathered.
Each to their own, but another analogy, Nick Griffin and Tommy Robinson were involved in organising and speaking at marches over grooming gangs. Were they right about the gangs, basically yes, am I going anywhere near a march which them involved, absolutely not...as I believe their underlying motivates aren't limited to making sure the authorities actually take action to prosecute the grooming gangs....was everybody attended those were hardcore BNP / EDL racists, no, many I am sure were genuinely people who had been failed by the system, knew somebody who had or were very concerned about this lack of action.
One of the pleasant things about the anti-Brexit marches (aka "scoundrels betraying the will of the people" aka "the Waitrose queue") was the lack of extreme types of either right or left. There was no STW or SWP, and no Tommy Robinsons, even by way of counter-protest.
I dunno. Calling for a democratic vote that the government explicitly promised to honour to be overturned, because posh people didn’t like the result, seems intrinsically quite extreme to me
Indeed on a par with January 6 in Washington. An attempt to cancel democracy
Bollocks.
Having an organised non-violent demonstration is not an attempt to cancel democracy.
Cancelling democracy involves things like getting an idiot with a silly tassel on his hat to fire a gun in to the ceiling of the Spanish Parliament.
Or an armed, violent, militant Jamiroquai tribute act to invading the premises when you are trying to chose a President - with the avowed intention of killing the people voting against your favourite
The man's likeness to Jamiroquai was the most surreal part of the whole thing.
As for Brexit, do I sometimes wonder about the rights and wrongs of pushing for a second referendum? Yes, occasionally. But then I remember a. it was a narrow vote in the first place, b. Brexiteers themselves had proposed 2 referendums as an option before the first vote, c. it wasn't exactly turning out how it had been promised in the first referendum, and crucially d. nobody was proposing to drop Brexit without either a referendum or a general election. In the end it came down to a general election, the ultimate expression of the will of the people. And get Brexit done won, for better or worse.
A second vote was an abomination as an idea. Truly evil. Appalling and irresponsible and might have destroyed our democracy forever
Here is Prime Minister David Cameron talking to the British people about the forthcoming Brexit vote, in 2015
‘Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum… You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.’
‘So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.’
That is utter rubbish. I thought almost everything in the 2019 Conservative manifesto was wrong. I didn’t vote for its implementation and I would be happy for there to be another general election where I can vote them out. I don’t feel morally obliged to wait until everything in their 2019 referendum is implemented. Why should I not feel the same about the Brexit referendum? Politics doesn’t stop because something is badged as a referendum instead of a general election.
Because there are elections every 4/5 years, and the referendum was sold as a once in a generation vote
There were 3 elections in 4 years between 2015 and 2019. People thought they were electing David Cameron for a term of 5 years but that turned out not to be the case. As I said politics doesn’t stop regardless of what people think or are told. I don’t understand why we are supposed to accept that the Brexit referendum should uniquely be preserved in amber for a generation.
Now that Brexit has been enacted I see no democratic argument against another referendum if that is what people want. What was important was that it was enacted before it was put to the question again.
Obviously I would vote against rejoining and personally I think another campaign would, be bloody stupid given the uncertainty it would generate going forward. It would set the precedent for new votes every few years as the popultion's view changed which would mean the EU would never be sure of our position. But if that was what peolpe wanted then that would be the way it wold be.
Yes, now it’s been enacted it’s fair enough to have another vote if the demand is there.
Of course. We could have another vote tomorrow if people want and parliament thus decides. Because we have Brexited
The idea we could cancel the Brexit vote without ever enacting it in the first place is utterly despicable, and those who advanced it are fucking morons who should be ashamed. The only possible excuse is total stupidity
Such an anti-democratic act would have permanently smashed our democracy in absolutely calamitous ways. For a start, who would ever vote again? Why bother, when the posh people can just ignore your vote, if they don't like it?
Anyone who pretends not to grasp this is contemptible
It’s the same ball park as Trump refusing to accept he lost, and they were full of outrage about that
"the Remain campaign from 2016-2019 was, indeed, a polite, elongated British version of what unfolded in Washington DC a year ago. It was a stupid and dangerous assault on democracy. We just skipped the buffalo-horn helmets."
People had every right to protest against Brexit. ultimately though it came down to MPs.
The January 6 protest was about stopping the peaceful transfer of power to the duly elected President. I don't see a comparison at all.
People had every right to protest against Biden. ultimately though it came down to Congress.
Biden was only "elected" by the fact he'd won an election and the principle that Congress would honour that election. Those opposed to Biden held onto the principle that the supremacy of Congress meant that election win could be overridden by Congress. Brexit was voted for by the fact it had won an election and the principle that Parliament would honour that election. Those opposed to Brexit held onto the principle that the supremacy of Parliament meant that election win could be overridden by Parliament.
They're the same thing.
Did you miss the part where people invaded the capitol and wanted to lynch Mike Pence? Perhaps you think that was merely performative but I don't remember anything similar from the FBPE crowd.
If there'd been no lynch mob and Congress had voted to strike down Biden's election win as some wanted, would that have been acceptable in your eyes?
That's no different in principle or in practice to what those trying to cancel Brexit were doing.
If we have a vote, that vote should be respected. Even if the vote is in favour of something you dislike, democracy is too important to throw away.
Forgive a note of exhaustion here. For the umpteenth time, and struggling now to maintain any hope that they will ever learn, your columnist girds himself to warn yet another Tory leader, in yet another stand-off with yet another lunatic on the party’s right, that there’s no accommodating these people.
They will come for you. In the end they will always come for you. You can compromise here, you can give ground there, you can echo their language and try to lure them, you can even put them in your cabinet and hope that office might calm them down; but finally they will come for you. They can smell their own kind and if you aren’t their kind they will sniff that out, and they will kick you.
Suella Braverman kicks from that quarter. Her unpardonable attack wasn’t really about Remembrance Sunday.
Matthew Parris. Another 2nd voter, another Remainer, a man who campaigned for the Lib Dems. The time when he was remotely influential in the Tory Pary is long gone, thank the Lord
He's just.... OLD, bless him
He’s right about the Tory right though. Appeasement never works.
Come off it. The 'Tory right' within the Cabinet, despite the party itself holding settled right of centre views, consists entirely of Suella Braverman, whose power seems confined to writing Oped pieces for the Times. If Sunak gets rid of Braverman it will be the last representation of mainstream Tory opinion within the Cabinet, a fact which despite his addled brain, Matthew Parris is well aware of.
Parris is such a creepaloid freak he quit the Tory Party to join the Lib Dems... .in 2019..., when their Brexit policy was simply Revoke. They didn't even want the charade of a 2nd Vote. Just "Revoke" the biggest democratic vote ever held in UK history, simply pretend it didn't happen, and everything will be fine and dandy. The politics of a four-year-old on acid
"Ex-Conservative MP Matthew Parris to quit party and vote Lib Dem
Times columnist asked Tory remainers to join him to defeat pro-Brexit ‘zealots’ in the party"
Forgive a note of exhaustion here. For the umpteenth time, and struggling now to maintain any hope that they will ever learn, your columnist girds himself to warn yet another Tory leader, in yet another stand-off with yet another lunatic on the party’s right, that there’s no accommodating these people.
They will come for you. In the end they will always come for you. You can compromise here, you can give ground there, you can echo their language and try to lure them, you can even put them in your cabinet and hope that office might calm them down; but finally they will come for you. They can smell their own kind and if you aren’t their kind they will sniff that out, and they will kick you.
Suella Braverman kicks from that quarter. Her unpardonable attack wasn’t really about Remembrance Sunday.
Matthew Parris. Another 2nd voter, another Remainer, a man who campaigned for the Lib Dems. The time when he was remotely influential in the Tory Pary is long gone, thank the Lord
He's just.... OLD, bless him
He’s right about the Tory right though. Appeasement never works.
Come off it. The 'Tory right' within the Cabinet, despite the party itself holding settled right of centre views, consists entirely of Suella Braverman, whose power seems confined to writing Oped pieces for the Times. If Sunak gets rid of Braverman it will be the last representation of mainstream Tory opinion within the Cabinet, a fact which despite his addled brain, Matthew Parris is well aware of.
Yebbut. Your definitions of “right” may deviate slightly from the Clapham omnibus definition.
Each to their own, but another analogy, Nick Griffin and Tommy Robinson were involved in organising and speaking at marches over grooming gangs. Were they right about the gangs, basically yes, am I going anywhere near a march which them involved, absolutely not...as I believe their underlying motivates aren't limited to making sure the authorities actually take action to prosecute the grooming gangs....was everybody attended those were hardcore BNP / EDL racists, no, many I am sure were genuinely people who had been failed by the system, knew somebody who had or were very concerned about this lack of action.
One of the pleasant things about the anti-Brexit marches (aka "scoundrels betraying the will of the people" aka "the Waitrose queue") was the lack of extreme types of either right or left. There was no STW or SWP, and no Tommy Robinsons, even by way of counter-protest.
I dunno. Calling for a democratic vote that the government explicitly promised to honour to be overturned, because posWe shouldh people didn’t like the result, seems intrinsically quite extreme to me
Indeed on a par with January 6 in Washington. An attempt to cancel democracy
Bollocks.
Having an organised non-violent demonstration is not an attempt to cancel democracy.
Cancelling democracy involves things like getting an idiot with a silly tassel on his hat to fire a gun in to the ceiling of the Spanish Parliament.
Or an armed, violent, militant Jamiroquai tribute act to invading the premises when you are trying to chose a President - with the avowed intention of killing the people voting against your favourite
The man's likeness to Jamiroquai was the most surreal part of the whole thing.
As for Brexit, do I sometimes wonder about the rights and wrongs of pushing for a second referendum? Yes, occasionally. But then I remember a. it was a narrow vote in the first place, b. Brexiteers themselves had proposed 2 referendums as an option before the first vote, c. it wasn't exactly turning out how it had been promised in the first referendum, and crucially d. nobody was proposing to drop Brexit without either a referendum or a general election. In the end it came down to a general election, the ultimate expression of the will of the people. And get Brexit done won, for better or worse.
A second vote was an abomination as an idea. Truly evil. Appalling and irresponsible and might have destroyed our democracy forever
Here is Prime Minister David Cameron talking to the British people about the forthcoming Brexit vote, in 2015
‘Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum… You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.’
‘So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.’
Dude, get over it. You sound like some pathetic Remoaner, but worse.
We should never get over the fact a large part of the Establishment tried to overturn a democratic vote that they promised would be honoured. Of course, it is convenient for that same Establishment if we DO forget. Ditto the Trumpites and January 6
I note that Starmer is now totally allergic to even discussing Brexit. This is why. He did his best to demolish democracy and get the biggest vote in British history annulled: by a simple Decree of the Posh
That only holds if you don't believe in the supremacy of parliament. If you do - as many have over the years from across the political spectrum - then your argument simply evaporates. Having said that, I was always against a second vote with 'Cancel Brexit' as an option, as it would give too many people the serious hump and make them ripe for exploitation by the forces of darkness.
Let him alone. It’s one of yesterday’s arguments that really doesn’t matter that much.
Were YOU a second voter?
Let us have honesty
I remember when Alastair Meeks momentarily dallied with a 2nd vote. For months he'd been absolutely against it, because of course the idea is monstrous, dangerous and wrong, but for one or two hours he entertained it - but then to his credit he realised it was immoral, and he repudiated it, and he resigned himself - angrily - to Brexit
As I said, obsessed. Give it up; you’ll be happier.
Not going to a protest because there might be some unsavoury types about excludes you from doing any sort of political activity at all.
Consider John McCain, calling out those among his supporters who thought Obama an Islamist. Or me, campaigning for better walking and cycling provision but having to negotiate pro-Trans and Just Stop Oil activists trying to co-opt my efforts into theirs.
The anti-Semitism present in the far-left is always a risk. The response should be to outnumber them and ensure they remain a fringe, and not to leave a vacuum for them to fill. Same goes for Tories - you cannot afford to give Braverman and Farage a free run.
Comments
https://twitter.com/jaypennview/status/1723067802687316084
Noone will believe that. He should sack her now.
That increases the Conservative majority from one to three. The District Council falls entirely within the Parliamentary constituency of South Holland & the Deepings (the latter being three Wards from South Kesteven District Council) and is the safest Conservative seat in the country.
John Hayes scraped home with a 30,838 majority in December 2019 and Labour requires a 32% swing to take the seat. I imagine Hayes will have a senior position in the next Conservative Shadow Cabinet alongside Braverman, Badenoch and Dowden (and a few others).
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/app/uploads/2019/12/Comparing-stealth-bombers-1.pdf
In a full on conservative wipeout, looking at the safest seats, we could be facing one of those near-extinction events where evolution accelerates rapidly and a host of new species emerge.
https://www.barrons.com/news/israel-revises-down-october-7-hamas-attack-death-toll-to-1-200-foreign-ministry-07097f94
Dear Suella
I’m writing to inform you that unfortunately I find that your position as Home Secretary, and a place in the government, is no longer tenable.
I have had sympathy with the general thrust of certain frustrations you have with the direction of the country, with certain attitudes and policies and have always tried to support you and back you even when the opposition of the public, the media and our own parliamentary colleagues would have made it easier to remove you from office.
I have always valued your support in the difficult times prior to my elevation to Prime Minister because not only, as I have mentioned above, do I have sympathies with many of your views, but because you represent a constituency of the Conservative Party in parliament and the country that has to be listened to and respected.
Unfortunately, despite desperately trying to return your support, I have to weigh your inability to act in a collegiate manner with its requirement to follow cabinet responsibility but also the absolutely vital requirement, when we have faced so many political challenges and national difficulties to act together, to present a unified front and not to be pursing any perceivable personal agenda against what you have brought and I know you can bring to the party and the country.
The above issues would be difficult enough to square with keeping you in office however you are the Home Secretary and were tasked with, amongst multiple, difficult issues, the management and solution to illegal immigration and specifically the problem of small boats and Rwanda.
Whilst I appreciate small boats is potentially a problem that can never fully be solved it is still, under your watch and responsibility a far greater problem than it should be given the time and resources spent by the government during your tenure.
Today, with the ruling regarding re Rwanda it is clear that the policy and framework enacted by you as Home Secretary has not, and cannot work and so it is vital for the country to put in place a Home Secretary who can create and deliver a workable and acceptable plan.
I have often felt your strong desire to improve certain areas of policing, immigration, cultural issues however I feel that the combination of failures to deliver and a lack of understanding of the need to be a team player mean that there are insurmountable barriers to you continuing in the cabinet.
Yours etc etc
Rishi
The main import here is probably not who did what with who. It's probably messy and a bit sad. It's that, in a functional team, this sort of thing doesn't ooze out into public.
I think winning a referendum would be an uphill struggle for rejoiners, and even if they narrowly did so, would all 27 member states of the EU really want us?
...
Oh. I see.
(ducks)
😃
The other possibility is a ruling that says that, in theory the plan is lawful, but hedged with enough Terms and Conditions that there are no individuals that can be sent.
(Glances upwards. Waits)
Damnit!
This is how trickle-down economics works, right?
#VoteReagan
Easy answer
General Election
The Police have operational independence but that neither makes them above criticism, nor means they can't be held to account, nor does it mean they can operate outside the law or in a biased manner without it becoming a political issue.
Home secretary Theresa May has announced a public inquiry into the work of undercover officers, saying “policing stands damaged today”. She warns that the “full truth” is yet to emerge.
Yvette Cooper MP, Labour’s Shadow Home Secretary has issued a full statement condemning the “appalling failure” of the police ...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/06/stephen-lawrence-report-police-corruption-live-updates
Were you able to see any ChiCom spy ware?
'Three individuals have been arrested on charges of operating a “high-end brothel network” in Massachusetts and Virginia with a clientele that included elected officials, military officers and government contractors with security clearances, the Justice Department announced Wednesday.
“Pick a profession,” Joshua Levy, acting US attorney for Massachusetts, said of the sprawling client list during a press conference in Boston. “They’re probably represented in this case.”'
source: https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/08/politics/high-end-brothel-network-arrests/index.html
(If the Justice Department shares my supicion (or even has evidence supporting it), they would be right not to say so until they must.)
I supposed maybe people who believe Davos controls the world.
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/harry_s_truman_141641
I cannot think of one, but I assume the two will deny a big falling out anyway.
How long til we get a GENUINE audio recording that the "victim" claims is an AI fake?
A few months, or even weeks
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/reagan-loaded-guns-quote/
The idea we could cancel the Brexit vote without ever enacting it in the first place is utterly despicable, and those who advanced it are fucking morons who should be ashamed. The only possible excuse is total stupidity
Such an anti-democratic act would have permanently smashed our democracy in absolutely calamitous ways. For a start, who would ever vote again? Why bother, when the posh people can just ignore your vote, if they don't like it?
Anyone who pretends not to grasp this is contemptible
Plus, if the rumours are to be believed, hung like a horse.
Just by coincidence, I was reading the Oppenheimer movie quotes on IMDB!
J. Robert Oppenheimer: "Mr. President. I feel that I have blood on my hands."
Harry Truman: [tauntingly pulls out his pocket square and waves it in front of Oppenheimer] "You think anyone in Hiroshima or Nagasaki gives a shit who built the bomb? They care who dropped it. I did. Hiroshima isn't about you."
Harry Truman: [after Oppenheimer leaves] "Don't let that crybaby back in here."
We should never get over the fact a large part of the Establishment tried to overturn a democratic vote that they promised would be honoured. Of course, it is convenient for that same Establishment if we DO forget. Ditto the Trumpites and January 6
I note that Starmer is now totally allergic to even discussing Brexit. This is why. He did his best to demolish democracy and get the biggest vote in British history annulled: by a simple Decree of the Posh
2024 is going to be... a blast?
They will come for you. In the end they will always come for you. You can compromise here, you can give ground there, you can echo their language and try to lure them, you can even put them in your cabinet and hope that office might calm them down; but finally they will come for you. They can smell their own kind and if you aren’t their kind they will sniff that out, and they will kick you.
Suella Braverman kicks from that quarter. Her unpardonable attack wasn’t really about Remembrance Sunday.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/shes-got-to-go-rishi-or-the-partys-over-pssrsjzct
Remainers:
"Look, OK, we did say the first vote was irrevocable, and your decision, but we didn't mean it, because in the end you voted the wrong way and we think you're stupid bigots. Anyway please vote Remain this time, and honestly we will honour your vote"
Bewildered Leavers:
"So, why should we trust you this time? You lied last time"
Remainers:
"Because we're posher and cleverer than you?"
Leavers:
"So if we vote Leave again, you really really will honour it THIS time?"
Remainers, chortling:
"lol sure! You twats. Anyway we're not as bad the Lib Dems they just want to Revoke, so let's have a good honest campaign this time, not like the last when you pathetic saps were deluded by lies"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mcJ4G4LZMk
He's just.... OLD, bless him
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7da52cJLwW8
"The question a second referendum must ask"
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-question-a-second-referendum-must-ask/
It’s one of yesterday’s arguments that really doesn’t matter that much.
Let us have honesty
I remember when Alastair Meeks momentarily dallied with a 2nd vote. For months he'd been absolutely against it, because of course the idea is monstrous, dangerous and wrong, but for one or two hours he entertained it - but then to his credit he realised it was immoral, and he repudiated it, and he resigned himself - angrily - to Brexit
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-the-capitol-riots-and-the-plot-to-stop-brexit-have-in-common/
"the Remain campaign from 2016-2019 was, indeed, a polite, elongated British version of what unfolded in Washington DC a year ago. It was a stupid and dangerous assault on democracy. We just skipped the buffalo-horn helmets."
One taken when he was campaigning to be elected in 2017, the other when he was Shadow Brexit Minister in 2019
https://x.com/asfarasdelgados/status/1633564841205174274?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
The January 6 protest was about stopping the peaceful transfer of power to the duly elected President. I don't see a comparison at all.
In fairness, that is true of many periodicals who don't have multiple layers of peer review that require explaining basics to whichever idiot is peer reviewing this week. Not like I'm bitter or twisted or anything 😃
Why not spend your time banging on about the magnificent benefits Brexit has delivered? Ah, I see the flaw in my suggestion...
No wonder Starmer is utterly averse to discussing Brexit in any way. Wow
Biden was only "elected" by the fact he'd won an election and the principle that Congress would honour that election. Those opposed to Biden held onto the principle that the supremacy of Congress meant that election win could be overridden by Congress.
Brexit was voted for by the fact it had won an election and the principle that Parliament would honour that election. Those opposed to Brexit held onto the principle that the supremacy of Parliament meant that election win could be overridden by Parliament.
They're the same thing.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/10/the-gops-internal-war-over-how-to-message-abortion-policy-is-shifting-00126621
Incredible - Florida Republican calls for all Palestinians to be killed, and nobody bats an eyelid.
Give it up; you’ll be happier.
That's no different in principle or in practice to what those trying to cancel Brexit were doing.
If we have a vote, that vote should be respected. Even if the vote is in favour of something you dislike, democracy is too important to throw away.
"Ex-Conservative MP Matthew Parris to quit party and vote Lib Dem
Times columnist asked Tory remainers to join him to defeat pro-Brexit ‘zealots’ in the party"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/01/ex-conservative-mp-matthew-parris-to-quit-party-and-vote-lib-dem
NEW: Insiders say 50/50 PM does reshuffle early next week - with final decision unlikely to be made until after commemorations on Sunday.
No10 in 3 camps:
Back Suella for telling truth
Sack Suella for being too hardcore
Sack Suella for being disloyal
Consider John McCain, calling out those among his supporters who thought Obama an Islamist. Or me, campaigning for better walking and cycling provision but having to negotiate pro-Trans and Just Stop Oil activists trying to co-opt my efforts into theirs.
The anti-Semitism present in the far-left is always a risk. The response should be to outnumber them and ensure they remain a fringe, and not to leave a vacuum for them to fill. Same goes for Tories - you cannot afford to give Braverman and Farage a free run.