Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?
It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?
The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?
The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.
HIGHLIGHT OF YEAR: This Guy was removed from a WhatsApp group, he went and got a court order to be added back. They added him back and made him administrator then one by one left the group and created a new one. He is now heading back to court to get the members back on his WhatsApp group like the beginning. https://twitter.com/IamMzilikazi/status/1741107391591055432
The Ugandans? Ken ya believe it?
What was the Nazi solution to the Jewish problem when they ran out of Carbon Monoxide lorries?
Made A Gas Car
Too soon?
I honestly don't know how to react to that.
It's just a really bad pun ?
Well, that's one issue. It wasn't really why I was conflicted though...
It is coz it's a (very lame) Holocaust joke?
Is the Holocaust not joke-about-able?
A sincere question. I confess mixed feelings. A good Holocaust joke (ike the famous Bernard Manning one about the watchtower (or was it Jerry Sadowitz??) can be properly funny - as we have discussed on here. But they still feel taboo. Perhaps that is WHY they can be truly funny
Yes, they can. David Baddiel told one once which went something like this (I'm probably about to mangle it so apologies if so; you'll get the gist) -
A survivor arrives in Heaven and tells god a Holocaust joke. God replies "that's not funny", to which the survivor replies "ach, I suppose you had to be there".
That IS a good joke - quite profound - but I thought the creator was Ricky Gervais?
Neither this joke nor Leon's original pun was smile-worthy imo. It's not that I disapprove of making fun of the Holocaust - on the contrary, I support making fun of everything. It's just that I don't find it that funny (thus far at any rate). WW2 in its wider sense is of course a rich seam of humour. Nazis are hilarious.
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
Pretty arbitrary fifth one there David.
It is the classic (usually Brexiter scorned saying) "voted again until they got the right result". Which if you rearrange the ideas can be put equally as "the electorate changed its mind and voted for what they wanted".
A second referendum before the first had been enacted would have been an administrative nightmare, hugely impractical, and much else. But not democratic it would not have been.
So if the vote had gone 52:48 Remain, it would have been fine for the Tories to say "Nah, we're leaving anyway, the referendum was just advisory"?
Yes, of course. I can't imagine any Remainer complaining about that. Just advisory, after all
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
Well said. I voted Remain and agree entirely.
Why aren't the government trumpeting the advantages of leaving? Sensible remain (and Leave) voters appreciate that this was all about pros and cons.
A pro: We are not sending all that money to the EU anymore.
Have the remaining members experienced rising contributions since we left? If yes, by what percentage each year? What does this translate into in terms of additional cost saving if we have stayed in?
The government is such an idiot. Why isn't there an online counter, scrupulously fact-checked, ticking up each day with the money saved since we left?
An obvious thing to do to remind and re-enforce one of the main benefits of leaving.
It wouldn't be ticking up at £350 million a week, which would be awkward.
(Also, what do you include and exclude? If I were unscrupulous enough, I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard to come up.with a calculation that showed a net cost to Brexit.)
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
Not really, given that the implementation of a general election result is legally binding, but the implementation of the EU referendum was not. Obviously it would have been politically suicidal for the conservatives to have not implemented the referendum result, but there was no legal obligation for them to do so.
That would mean that MPs voted for there to be a referendum (which they did on all sides with the notable exception of the SNP) disingenuously.
If parliament knocks a difficult constitutional issue back to the electorate it must accept the verdict. The mistake was voting for the referendum in the first place which, as is now obvious, they did (some Con, almost all Lab and all LD) with insincerity and dishonesty.
HIGHLIGHT OF YEAR: This Guy was removed from a WhatsApp group, he went and got a court order to be added back. They added him back and made him administrator then one by one left the group and created a new one. He is now heading back to court to get the members back on his WhatsApp group like the beginning. https://twitter.com/IamMzilikazi/status/1741107391591055432
The Ugandans? Ken ya believe it?
What was the Nazi solution to the Jewish problem when they ran out of Carbon Monoxide lorries?
Made A Gas Car
Too soon?
I honestly don't know how to react to that.
It's just a really bad pun ?
Well, that's one issue. It wasn't really why I was conflicted though...
It is coz it's a (very lame) Holocaust joke?
Is the Holocaust not joke-about-able?
A sincere question. I confess mixed feelings. A good Holocaust joke (ike the famous Bernard Manning one about the watchtower (or was it Jerry Sadowitz??) can be properly funny - as we have discussed on here. But they still feel taboo. Perhaps that is WHY they can be truly funny
Yes, they can. David Baddiel told one once which went something like this (I'm probably about to mangle it so apologies if so; you'll get the gist) -
A survivor arrives in Heaven and tells god a Holocaust joke. God replies "that's not funny", to which the survivor replies "ach, I suppose you had to be there".
That IS a good joke - quite profound - but I thought the creator was Ricky Gervais?
Neither this joke nor Leon's original pun was smile-worthy imo. It's not that I disapprove of making fun of the Holocaust - on the contrary, I support making fun of everything. It's just that I don't find it that funny (thus far at any rate). WW2 in its wider sense is of course a rich seam of humour. Nazis are hilarious.
My pun was lame and adolescent, I readily confess. It's 5.30pm and I am excitedly waitiing for my first gin in 72 hours
The Baddiel/Gervais/70s rabbinical joke is not chucklesome, but it is profound and clever and makes you smile in a sad, philosophical way
Is it even a "joke"? Yes, but it is something else, too
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?
It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?
The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?
The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.
David also skips over the rather fundamental question of whether the result reasonably reflects the votes cast. Which isn't an issue for a referendum but most certainly is for an election.
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
Not really, given that the implementation of a general election result is legally binding, but the implementation of the EU referendum was not. Obviously it would have been politically suicidal for the conservatives to have not implemented the referendum result, but there was no legal obligation for them to do so.
That would mean that MPs voted for there to be a referendum (which they did on all sides with the notable exception of the SNP) disingenuously.
If parliament knocks a difficult constitutional issue back to the electorate it must accept the verdict. The mistake was voting for the referendum in the first place which, as is now obvious, they did (some Con, almost all Lab and all LD) with insincerity and dishonesty.
I think that if a parliament knocks a difficult constitutional issue back to the electorate it must accept the verdict. But no parliament can bind a future parliament. In all other matters, it is accepted that a general election resets everything. If you have an election and parties saying "let's stop going down this path" win, then you stop going down that path.
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
Pretty arbitrary fifth one there David.
It is the classic (usually Brexiter scorned saying) "voted again until they got the right result". Which if you rearrange the ideas can be put equally as "the electorate changed its mind and voted for what they wanted".
A second referendum before the first had been enacted would have been an administrative nightmare, hugely impractical, and much else. But not democratic it would not have been.
So if the vote had gone 52:48 Remain, it would have been fine for the Tories to say "Nah, we're leaving anyway, the referendum was just advisory"?
Yes, of course. I can't imagine any Remainer complaining about that. Just advisory, after all
It would have been fine for the Tories to say 'Our manifesto commitment for the next election is to leave the EU', and to do so if they won. Sure, plenty of people would have complained, but it would not have been undemocratic.
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
Not really, given that the implementation of a general election result is legally binding, but the implementation of the EU referendum was not. Obviously it would have been politically suicidal for the conservatives to have not implemented the referendum result, but there was no legal obligation for them to do so.
That would mean that MPs voted for there to be a referendum (which they did on all sides with the notable exception of the SNP) disingenuously.
If parliament knocks a difficult constitutional issue back to the electorate it must accept the verdict. The mistake was voting for the referendum in the first place which, as is now obvious, they did (some Con, almost all Lab and all LD) with insincerity and dishonesty.
I think we all know there were a lot of politicians of that era (some still around now) who supported that referendum because they bet the house on it being a remain vote, and they casually assumed that would be the outcome.
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
It wouldn't, strictly speaking, have been 'undemocratic' for a party winning a general election on a platform of 2nd referendum to have held a 2nd referendum, but it would have been a messy, damaging, deeply unwise course of action.
It was also (IMO) a completely never-happening event. I made one of my best betting profits laying it. It went very short at one point.
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
This is the entirety of the woke debate. I think this I am right Other people are wrong Anyone who thinks they are right and I am wrong are woke
No, that is not the "entirety of the woke debate"
You surely know this, so why trot out this gibberish?
The BBC has an interesting take on the dismissal/resignation of Claudine Gay from Harvard after the scandalous testimony then plagiarism.
Basically it’s all down to the far right, Trump and pandering to fascists. Including a quote from someone giving that view.
BBC journalism is astonishingly poor and somewhat partisan.
The response in Germany to a scandal where a number of politicians were discovered to have plagiarised their theses was interesting.
A journalist realised that you could have a lot of fun by downloading the theses of various people and running them through a plagiarism detector.
A number of universities sequestered the theses of “notable” people, in response.
The plagiarism criticisms of Gay that I've seen were pretty trivial stuff, blown out of all proportion. There were, of course, other criticisms of Gay that are of more significance.
A, lot of "plagiarism" in academia is just careless footnoting. Any academic work typically, by convention, has to include a summary of the existing literature and debate, which by definition is not original work. Cribbing parts of that from an existing review article and failing to fully credit that is not a crime IMHO. Passing off someone else's original contribution as one's own is quite different. I've not seen the details of the criticism of Gay but it certainly, from a distance, has more than a whiff of a witch hunt about it.
There may be an agenda to get her, but it has been shown - indisputably - that Harvard STUDENTS have been rusticated for less serious examples of plagiarism than hers, and hers extend over several years and her entire output (and there is now querying of her data, as well)
You cannot have a situation where the President of Harvard is held to a less high standard of academic rigour than Harvard students. For a start it invites law suits from students if they get booted out, unlike Gay who stays (as was)
However I agree that her greater crime was her idiotic, offensive remarks in Congress
All three women should have resigned next day
AIUI (and I've not been following this very closely because I'm not American and don't really care what happens at Harvard) they were asked a factual question about whether certain remarks were against their university codes of conduct, and they said it was context specific - while they personally abhorred the comments. What if that is just factually accurate? America has remarkably robust free speech laws, and academic freedom is important, and perhaps it is the case that there is no hard and fast ban on any specific comment. Indeed I would imagine there isn't any such ban, how could there be, given the infinite array of potentially offensive comments one could make. Just seems like a gotcha tactic, an attempt to exercise power over an area of American life Republican politicians feel they have no control over.
Hopefully all the reservoirs are now full. That was a big problem until fairly recently.
Severn Trent at 97.3% last week. Unusual for them to go much higher than that (I think they like to keep some capacity in hand for flooding mitigation if needed).
United Utilities are above average in some places, but not crazily so and slightly down overall. I think that's because one reservoir (Llyn Celyn) has been substantially lowered so they can do some work on the dam:
(Incidentally the uncharacteristic curve of that graph shows just how wet the last year has been.)
I saw a clip on Look North yesterday of water pouring over the top or a reservoir dam - not sure which one, but a sign that they are full in Yorkshire.
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
Pretty arbitrary fifth one there David.
It is the classic (usually Brexiter scorned saying) "voted again until they got the right result". Which if you rearrange the ideas can be put equally as "the electorate changed its mind and voted for what they wanted".
A second referendum before the first had been enacted would have been an administrative nightmare, hugely impractical, and much else. But not democratic it would not have been.
So if the vote had gone 52:48 Remain, it would have been fine for the Tories to say "Nah, we're leaving anyway, the referendum was just advisory"?
Yes, of course. I can't imagine any Remainer complaining about that. Just advisory, after all
It would have been fine for the Tories to say 'Our manifesto commitment for the next election is to leave the EU', and to do so if they won. Sure, plenty of people would have complained, but it would not have been undemocratic.
Claiming you could have a 2nd referendum without enacting the first is the most ridiculous argument. I can't even be bothered to go through it any more
I will leave the final words with Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking directly to the British people, 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.’
And he went on:
‘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.’
In hindsight it would have been better to have had a more precisely worded referendum in 2016. Something along the lines of “Should Britain trigger Article 50 to negotiate leaving the EU”. Then a second referendum in the actual terms of the negotiation versus remaining would have been democratically proper.
I believed at the time that it was logical to allow voters to endorse the actual exit deal before it’s implementation because it was impossible to know what shape it would take during the first referendum as there were so many different options available.
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
This is the entirety of the woke debate. I think this I am right Other people are wrong Anyone who thinks they are right and I am wrong are woke
No, that is not the "entirety of the woke debate"
You surely know this, so why trot out this gibberish?
The BBC has an interesting take on the dismissal/resignation of Claudine Gay from Harvard after the scandalous testimony then plagiarism.
Basically it’s all down to the far right, Trump and pandering to fascists. Including a quote from someone giving that view.
BBC journalism is astonishingly poor and somewhat partisan.
The response in Germany to a scandal where a number of politicians were discovered to have plagiarised their theses was interesting.
A journalist realised that you could have a lot of fun by downloading the theses of various people and running them through a plagiarism detector.
A number of universities sequestered the theses of “notable” people, in response.
The plagiarism criticisms of Gay that I've seen were pretty trivial stuff, blown out of all proportion. There were, of course, other criticisms of Gay that are of more significance.
A, lot of "plagiarism" in academia is just careless footnoting. Any academic work typically, by convention, has to include a summary of the existing literature and debate, which by definition is not original work. Cribbing parts of that from an existing review article and failing to fully credit that is not a crime IMHO. Passing off someone else's original contribution as one's own is quite different. I've not seen the details of the criticism of Gay but it certainly, from a distance, has more than a whiff of a witch hunt about it.
There may be an agenda to get her, but it has been shown - indisputably - that Harvard STUDENTS have been rusticated for less serious examples of plagiarism than hers, and hers extend over several years and her entire output (and there is now querying of her data, as well)
You cannot have a situation where the President of Harvard is held to a less high standard of academic rigour than Harvard students. For a start it invites law suits from students if they get booted out, unlike Gay who stays (as was)
However I agree that her greater crime was her idiotic, offensive remarks in Congress
All three women should have resigned next day
AIUI (and I've not been following this very closely because I'm not American and don't really care what happens at Harvard) they were asked a factual question about whether certain remarks were against their university codes of conduct, and they said it was context specific - while they personally abhorred the comments. What if that is just factually accurate? America has remarkably robust free speech laws, and academic freedom is important, and perhaps it is the case that there is no hard and fast ban on any specific comment. Indeed I would imagine there isn't any such ban, how could there be, given the infinite array of potentially offensive comments one could make. Just seems like a gotcha tactic, an attempt to exercise power over an area of American life Republican politicians feel they have no control over.
You haven't watched the Congress questioning, have you?
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
Not really, given that the implementation of a general election result is legally binding, but the implementation of the EU referendum was not. Obviously it would have been politically suicidal for the conservatives to have not implemented the referendum result, but there was no legal obligation for them to do so.
The implementation of a general election result is not legally binding. All an election does is elect MPs. Constitutional convention - and the dynamics and pressures of practical politics - requires the government not to have the express opposition of a majority of MPs on a confidence vote but that's not a legal obligation. Legally, there is nothing to stop the existing (and defeated) government staying on, the king not dismissing them, and a new election being called.
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
Not really, given that the implementation of a general election result is legally binding, but the implementation of the EU referendum was not. Obviously it would have been politically suicidal for the conservatives to have not implemented the referendum result, but there was no legal obligation for them to do so.
The implementation of a general election result is not legally binding. All an election does is elect MPs. Constitutional convention - and the dynamics and pressures of practical politics - requires the government not to have the express opposition of a majority of MPs on a confidence vote but that's not a legal obligation. Legally, there is nothing to stop the existing (and defeated) government staying on, the king not dismissing them, and a new election being called.
Yes, quite
People act like we have a written constitution, applied by SCOTUK. We specifically do not, of course
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
Pretty arbitrary fifth one there David.
It is the classic (usually Brexiter scorned saying) "voted again until they got the right result". Which if you rearrange the ideas can be put equally as "the electorate changed its mind and voted for what they wanted".
A second referendum before the first had been enacted would have been an administrative nightmare, hugely impractical, and much else. But not democratic it would not have been.
So if the vote had gone 52:48 Remain, it would have been fine for the Tories to say "Nah, we're leaving anyway, the referendum was just advisory"?
Yes, of course. I can't imagine any Remainer complaining about that. Just advisory, after all
They would have been perfectly entitled to complain. And to respond in any way they wanted at the next election.
Because, at the end of the day, the wrath of the electorate next time round is the only real constraint on any government.
To decide not to enact a referendum result is a grave thing, not to be done lightly. But it's also not an absolute taboo. If it becomes the will of the people, so be it...
The real problem was using a referendum to get a 50:50 answer, rather than to confirm a decision that had unconsciously been taken already.
The whole country is not gripped by darts fever. I know @kinabalu is a big fan but I am not and therefore I cancel out his vote. And not for the first time.
I'm afraid that anyone who isn't gripped by darts fever hates Britain and our values.
If a chubby teenager lobbing arrows in front of baying crowds of boozers in such a way that puts the Dutch right back in their box, doesn't stir your blood and stiffen your patriotic sinews, then you might as well just eff off.
I'm quite partial to the odd game of pétanque, while sipping a pastis if that helps bolster my InnGerLund credentials.
If Brexit means anything, it means replacing every single pétanque piste in this country with an oche. That's what every right-thinking Englishman assumed "Get Brexit Done" meant, and yet here we are.
Oi.
We have Pétanque Pistes in the best public park in Mansfield; have had for years.
The Home Counties may be full of Lloyds-invested Captain Mainwarings wearing bowler hats to their Crown Green Bowls clubs; up here we love France ... in its proper place.
And our Pentanque Pistes came from former bowling greens.
Can we stop going back around the whys and wherefores of the referendum route? Its done. Move on.
A valid question was asked - why isn't the government keeping track of the benefits?
I think my Tories vs reality post shone a light on why. David Duguid MP says the statistics say local fishermen are having a bonanza. Local fishermen say their experience is things are harder than they were before Brexit.
We know how a government Brexit tracker would be - a massive lie that is mocked by practically everyone.
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
Pretty arbitrary fifth one there David.
It is the classic (usually Brexiter scorned saying) "voted again until they got the right result". Which if you rearrange the ideas can be put equally as "the electorate changed its mind and voted for what they wanted".
A second referendum before the first had been enacted would have been an administrative nightmare, hugely impractical, and much else. But not democratic it would not have been.
So if the vote had gone 52:48 Remain, it would have been fine for the Tories to say "Nah, we're leaving anyway, the referendum was just advisory"?
Yes, of course. I can't imagine any Remainer complaining about that. Just advisory, after all
They would have been perfectly entitled to complain. And to respond in any way they wanted at the next election.
Because, at the end of the day, the wrath of the electorate next time round is the only real constraint on any government.
To decide not to enact a referendum result is a grave thing, not to be done lightly. But it's also not an absolute taboo. If it becomes the will of the people, so be it...
The real problem was using a referendum to get a 50:50 answer, rather than to confirm a decision that had unconsciously been taken already.
Oh do give over
Can you imagine the campaign during the "second referendum"? Can you imagine the press conferences and debates?
"Prime Minister, how can we trust that you will enact the result of this referendum when you ignored the first? What if we vote Leave again? What is the difference with THIS referendum, as against the first?"
"Because I give you my solemn word the government will obey you. You are the people"
"But you said exactly that last time"
"Er, I really REALLY mean it this time. This is it. No more referendums, This is your decision, you the Britiish people will -"
"You said all that last time"
"Look, just trust us, just vote Remain how we want, and then it will pass, now fuck off. Pleb"
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
Well said. I voted Remain and agree entirely.
Why aren't the government trumpeting the advantages of leaving? Sensible remain (and Leave) voters appreciate that this was all about pros and cons.
A pro: We are not sending all that money to the EU anymore.
Have the remaining members experienced rising contributions since we left? If yes, by what percentage each year? What does this translate into in terms of additional cost saving if we have stayed in?
The government is such an idiot. Why isn't there an online counter, scrupulously fact-checked, ticking up each day with the money saved since we left?
An obvious thing to do to remind and re-enforce one of the main benefits of leaving.
The reason the government don't trumpet these things is that Brexit, particularly as executed by this government, is deeply unpopular. They are counting on voter apathy and motivating people to remove the culprits from power is not what they want.
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?
It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?
The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?
The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.
Various things here.
Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.
On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.
And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
This is the entirety of the woke debate. I think this I am right Other people are wrong Anyone who thinks they are right and I am wrong are woke
No, that is not the "entirety of the woke debate"
You surely know this, so why trot out this gibberish?
The BBC has an interesting take on the dismissal/resignation of Claudine Gay from Harvard after the scandalous testimony then plagiarism.
Basically it’s all down to the far right, Trump and pandering to fascists. Including a quote from someone giving that view.
BBC journalism is astonishingly poor and somewhat partisan.
The response in Germany to a scandal where a number of politicians were discovered to have plagiarised their theses was interesting.
A journalist realised that you could have a lot of fun by downloading the theses of various people and running them through a plagiarism detector.
A number of universities sequestered the theses of “notable” people, in response.
The plagiarism criticisms of Gay that I've seen were pretty trivial stuff, blown out of all proportion. There were, of course, other criticisms of Gay that are of more significance.
A, lot of "plagiarism" in academia is just careless footnoting. Any academic work typically, by convention, has to include a summary of the existing literature and debate, which by definition is not original work. Cribbing parts of that from an existing review article and failing to fully credit that is not a crime IMHO. Passing off someone else's original contribution as one's own is quite different. I've not seen the details of the criticism of Gay but it certainly, from a distance, has more than a whiff of a witch hunt about it.
There may be an agenda to get her, but it has been shown - indisputably - that Harvard STUDENTS have been rusticated for less serious examples of plagiarism than hers, and hers extend over several years and her entire output (and there is now querying of her data, as well)
You cannot have a situation where the President of Harvard is held to a less high standard of academic rigour than Harvard students. For a start it invites law suits from students if they get booted out, unlike Gay who stays (as was)
However I agree that her greater crime was her idiotic, offensive remarks in Congress
All three women should have resigned next day
AIUI (and I've not been following this very closely because I'm not American and don't really care what happens at Harvard) they were asked a factual question about whether certain remarks were against their university codes of conduct, and they said it was context specific - while they personally abhorred the comments. What if that is just factually accurate? America has remarkably robust free speech laws, and academic freedom is important, and perhaps it is the case that there is no hard and fast ban on any specific comment. Indeed I would imagine there isn't any such ban, how could there be, given the infinite array of potentially offensive comments one could make. Just seems like a gotcha tactic, an attempt to exercise power over an area of American life Republican politicians feel they have no control over.
There was at the very least a lack of emotional intelligence in the responses provided. That there is due process needs to be stressed, but when faced with such a clear and stark term as “calling for genocide” all gave very dispassionate and therefore offensive answers. Sometimes that’s not what the occasion calls for.
The whole country is not gripped by darts fever. I know @kinabalu is a big fan but I am not and therefore I cancel out his vote. And not for the first time.
I'm afraid that anyone who isn't gripped by darts fever hates Britain and our values.
If a chubby teenager lobbing arrows in front of baying crowds of boozers in such a way that puts the Dutch right back in their box, doesn't stir your blood and stiffen your patriotic sinews, then you might as well just eff off.
I'm quite partial to the odd game of pétanque, while sipping a pastis if that helps bolster my InnGerLund credentials.
If Brexit means anything, it means replacing every single pétanque piste in this country with an oche. That's what every right-thinking Englishman assumed "Get Brexit Done" meant, and yet here we are.
Oi.
We have Pétanque Pistes in the best public park in Mansfield; have had for years.
The Home Counties may be full of Lloyds-invested Captain Mainwarings wearing bowler hats to their Crown Green Bowls clubs; up here we love France ... in its proper place.
And our Pentanque Pistes came from former bowling greens.
My final experience of France in its proper place this morning before starting the long drive up to the tunnel was a kitchen fitter coming to measure up.
He called yesterday to confirm he’d arrive at 9 today. He arrived at 9 today. Did his measuring, gave us several pieces of useful advice, told us exactly what would happen next and the timings. Then sat at his computer in the kitchen area for half an hour after which time we got a detailed email and quote through.
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
Not really, given that the implementation of a general election result is legally binding, but the implementation of the EU referendum was not. Obviously it would have been politically suicidal for the conservatives to have not implemented the referendum result, but there was no legal obligation for them to do so.
That would mean that MPs voted for there to be a referendum (which they did on all sides with the notable exception of the SNP) disingenuously.
If parliament knocks a difficult constitutional issue back to the electorate it must accept the verdict. The mistake was voting for the referendum in the first place which, as is now obvious, they did (some Con, almost all Lab and all LD) with insincerity and dishonesty.
The mistake was not one of democratic principle, but of democratic practice.
Creating a referendum without Parliamentary agreement as to what (even in the vaguest terms) the change option actually means, and without a supermajority requirement, was always a recipe for disaster. It was done hubristically on the assumption that "status quo" was inevitably going to win, roping in the maximum number of Tory leavers to agree to the process and then be bound by the result.
In the end, the result went the other way and Cameron has done (perhaps irreparable) damage to the Conservative Party in the process (leaving aside any question of the wider impact).
It will be a model for how *not* to execute major social and political change, for years to come. Irrespective of whether you personally wanted Britain "in" or "out".
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?
It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?
The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?
The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.
Various things here.
Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.
On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.
And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.
On Paterson, the Commons, in that first vote, "resolved to appoint a Select Committee chaired by John Whittingdale with four other Conservative MPs, and with 3 Labour and 1 SNP MPs, to give recommendations on whether to give MPs a right of appeal similar to employees, whether to reconsider the case against Paterson, and how the standards rules should be revised to be "compatible with natural justice"." None of that happened. There was a vote. It was not implemented. Agree or disagree?
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
Not really, given that the implementation of a general election result is legally binding, but the implementation of the EU referendum was not. Obviously it would have been politically suicidal for the conservatives to have not implemented the referendum result, but there was no legal obligation for them to do so.
The implementation of a general election result is not legally binding. All an election does is elect MPs. Constitutional convention - and the dynamics and pressures of practical politics - requires the government not to have the express opposition of a majority of MPs on a confidence vote but that's not a legal obligation. Legally, there is nothing to stop the existing (and defeated) government staying on, the king not dismissing them, and a new election being called.
That's not correct.
The whole point of the Miller II case just before the 2019 election was that it established exercise of prerogative powers (in that case prorogation) is justicable by reference to common law principles, and that accountability of a government to Parliament was such a principle that the court would protect. Leaving Brexit completely aside, that's the legal and constitutional significance of the case.
It's not tested as to how this would be applied in the situation you describe (which is unlikely although, as Johnson's prorogation attempt shows, nothing is impossible). But it's certainly justicable, and indeed I'm pretty confident a court would find that the monarch was legally obliged to implement a general election result by dismissing the defeated PM and appointing the leader of the victorious party (assuming it was indeed clear that the individual could command a majority).
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
Pretty arbitrary fifth one there David.
It is the classic (usually Brexiter scorned saying) "voted again until they got the right result". Which if you rearrange the ideas can be put equally as "the electorate changed its mind and voted for what they wanted".
A second referendum before the first had been enacted would have been an administrative nightmare, hugely impractical, and much else. But not democratic it would not have been.
So if the vote had gone 52:48 Remain, it would have been fine for the Tories to say "Nah, we're leaving anyway, the referendum was just advisory"?
Yes, of course. I can't imagine any Remainer complaining about that. Just advisory, after all
They would have been perfectly entitled to complain. And to respond in any way they wanted at the next election.
Because, at the end of the day, the wrath of the electorate next time round is the only real constraint on any government.
To decide not to enact a referendum result is a grave thing, not to be done lightly. But it's also not an absolute taboo. If it becomes the will of the people, so be it...
The real problem was using a referendum to get a 50:50 answer, rather than to confirm a decision that had unconsciously been taken already.
Oh do give over
Can you imagine the campaign during the "second referendum"? Can you imagine the press conferences and debates?
"Prime Minister, how can we trust that you will enact the result of this referendum when you ignored the first? What if we vote Leave again? What is the difference with THIS referendum, as against the first?"
"Because I give you my solemn word the government will obey you. You are the people"
"But you said exactly that last time"
"Er, I really REALLY mean it this time. This is it. No more referendums, This is your decision, you the Britiish people will -"
"You said all that last time"
"Look, just trust us, just vote Remain how we want, and then it will pass, now fuck off. Pleb"
And if, hypothetically, the mood of the nation had shifted massively in the meantime? That didn't happen, but it wasn't impossible.
The reason a second referendum didn't happen and shouldn't have happened was that it was unpopular, not because of any deep principle.
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?
It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?
The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?
The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.
Various things here.
Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.
On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.
And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.
The whole "it was advisory" and "a 2nd referendum would have been democratic" bollocks is - I am now sure - advanced by people who are, in retrospect, ashamed and uncomfortable that they supported a 2nd vote. Ashamed because it was so clearly foolish, immoral and dangerous as a policy
If the government shouted from the rooftops "Look how much the extra funding from the Brexit dividend has improved our NHS!" people would laugh their socks off, wouldn't they?
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
Not really, given that the implementation of a general election result is legally binding, but the implementation of the EU referendum was not. Obviously it would have been politically suicidal for the conservatives to have not implemented the referendum result, but there was no legal obligation for them to do so.
That would mean that MPs voted for there to be a referendum (which they did on all sides with the notable exception of the SNP) disingenuously.
If parliament knocks a difficult constitutional issue back to the electorate it must accept the verdict. The mistake was voting for the referendum in the first place which, as is now obvious, they did (some Con, almost all Lab and all LD) with insincerity and dishonesty.
The mistake was not one of democratic principle, but of democratic practice.
Creating a referendum without Parliamentary agreement as to what (even in the vaguest terms) the change option actually means, and without a supermajority requirement, was always a recipe for disaster. It was done hubristically on the assumption that "status quo" was inevitably going to win, roping in the maximum number of Tory leavers to agree to the process and then be bound by the result.
In the end, the result went the other way and Cameron has done (perhaps irreparable) damage to the Conservative Party in the process (leaving aside any question of the wider impact).
It will be a model for how *not* to execute major social and political change, for years to come. Irrespective of whether you personally wanted Britain "in" or "out".
Wouldn't argue with that
From the pitiful "renegotiation" on, Cameron got pretty much everything wrong, and contrived to lose an unloseable vote. Truly the essay crisis PM, and he flunked the biggest essay crisis of his life
Excellent header, Mike. Happy New Year to you and yours.
I'm inclined to think that the current setup is better than the previous, just as the Expenses situation is better than the previous, even if there is still much room for improvement.
And it is very dependent on the regulation process inside the House of Commons.
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
This is the entirety of the woke debate. I think this I am right Other people are wrong Anyone who thinks they are right and I am wrong are woke
No, that is not the "entirety of the woke debate"
You surely know this, so why trot out this gibberish?
The BBC has an interesting take on the dismissal/resignation of Claudine Gay from Harvard after the scandalous testimony then plagiarism.
Basically it’s all down to the far right, Trump and pandering to fascists. Including a quote from someone giving that view.
BBC journalism is astonishingly poor and somewhat partisan.
The response in Germany to a scandal where a number of politicians were discovered to have plagiarised their theses was interesting.
A journalist realised that you could have a lot of fun by downloading the theses of various people and running them through a plagiarism detector.
A number of universities sequestered the theses of “notable” people, in response.
The plagiarism criticisms of Gay that I've seen were pretty trivial stuff, blown out of all proportion. There were, of course, other criticisms of Gay that are of more significance.
A, lot of "plagiarism" in academia is just careless footnoting. Any academic work typically, by convention, has to include a summary of the existing literature and debate, which by definition is not original work. Cribbing parts of that from an existing review article and failing to fully credit that is not a crime IMHO. Passing off someone else's original contribution as one's own is quite different. I've not seen the details of the criticism of Gay but it certainly, from a distance, has more than a whiff of a witch hunt about it.
There may be an agenda to get her, but it has been shown - indisputably - that Harvard STUDENTS have been rusticated for less serious examples of plagiarism than hers, and hers extend over several years and her entire output (and there is now querying of her data, as well)
You cannot have a situation where the President of Harvard is held to a less high standard of academic rigour than Harvard students. For a start it invites law suits from students if they get booted out, unlike Gay who stays (as was)
However I agree that her greater crime was her idiotic, offensive remarks in Congress
All three women should have resigned next day
AIUI (and I've not been following this very closely because I'm not American and don't really care what happens at Harvard) they were asked a factual question about whether certain remarks were against their university codes of conduct, and they said it was context specific - while they personally abhorred the comments. What if that is just factually accurate? America has remarkably robust free speech laws, and academic freedom is important, and perhaps it is the case that there is no hard and fast ban on any specific comment. Indeed I would imagine there isn't any such ban, how could there be, given the infinite array of potentially offensive comments one could make. Just seems like a gotcha tactic, an attempt to exercise power over an area of American life Republican politicians feel they have no control over.
You haven't watched the Congress questioning, have you?
Their answers might even have been technically correct, but the double standard on policing of speech was too blatant for anyone to ignore. It was certainly right that all three consider their positions.
On the other hand, Gay might well have survived in post but for the plagiarism stories - and arguably rightly so, given that it's not for Congress to police university appointments.
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?
It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?
The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?
The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.
Various things here.
Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.
On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.
And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.
Anyone can say they will respect the result of a referendum, but the Act that is democratically passed says what is legally required. It would have been entirely legal to ignore the "yes" vote of the 2015 Act. It would not for the 2011 Act. The 2015 Act didn't say anything about how to leave the EU, what timeframe to use, etc., whereas the 2011 Act details what happens as soon as there is a "yes" vote.
The whole country is not gripped by darts fever. I know @kinabalu is a big fan but I am not and therefore I cancel out his vote. And not for the first time.
I'm afraid that anyone who isn't gripped by darts fever hates Britain and our values.
If a chubby teenager lobbing arrows in front of baying crowds of boozers in such a way that puts the Dutch right back in their box, doesn't stir your blood and stiffen your patriotic sinews, then you might as well just eff off.
I'm quite partial to the odd game of pétanque, while sipping a pastis if that helps bolster my InnGerLund credentials.
If Brexit means anything, it means replacing every single pétanque piste in this country with an oche. That's what every right-thinking Englishman assumed "Get Brexit Done" meant, and yet here we are.
Oi.
We have Pétanque Pistes in the best public park in Mansfield; have had for years.
The Home Counties may be full of Lloyds-invested Captain Mainwarings wearing bowler hats to their Crown Green Bowls clubs; up here we love France ... in its proper place.
And our Pentanque Pistes came from former bowling greens.
Regardless of the various visions of Brexit, it was assumed universally during the referendum that a post-EU UK would dispense with EU laws that did not suit us, cease paying significant monies into the EU, and, for better or worse, forge a more independent path in the world. That hasn't happened. Our civil service (lead, it must be said, by divided and distracted politicians) has simply refused, in any meaningful sense, to leave. We have paid over billions to the EU in various forms to support their depleted budget. I haven't looked at it recently but we seem to have made little progress on fishing. We still apply their stupid laws, which our agencies duly gold-plate. And we have failed to control our borders.
Brexit is a door opening. A door opening without actually passing the threshold is just going to be drafty and lead to you getting rained on.
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
This is the entirety of the woke debate. I think this I am right Other people are wrong Anyone who thinks they are right and I am wrong are woke
No, that is not the "entirety of the woke debate"
You surely know this, so why trot out this gibberish?
The BBC has an interesting take on the dismissal/resignation of Claudine Gay from Harvard after the scandalous testimony then plagiarism.
Basically it’s all down to the far right, Trump and pandering to fascists. Including a quote from someone giving that view.
BBC journalism is astonishingly poor and somewhat partisan.
The response in Germany to a scandal where a number of politicians were discovered to have plagiarised their theses was interesting.
A journalist realised that you could have a lot of fun by downloading the theses of various people and running them through a plagiarism detector.
A number of universities sequestered the theses of “notable” people, in response.
The plagiarism criticisms of Gay that I've seen were pretty trivial stuff, blown out of all proportion. There were, of course, other criticisms of Gay that are of more significance.
A, lot of "plagiarism" in academia is just careless footnoting. Any academic work typically, by convention, has to include a summary of the existing literature and debate, which by definition is not original work. Cribbing parts of that from an existing review article and failing to fully credit that is not a crime IMHO. Passing off someone else's original contribution as one's own is quite different. I've not seen the details of the criticism of Gay but it certainly, from a distance, has more than a whiff of a witch hunt about it.
There may be an agenda to get her, but it has been shown - indisputably - that Harvard STUDENTS have been rusticated for less serious examples of plagiarism than hers, and hers extend over several years and her entire output (and there is now querying of her data, as well)
You cannot have a situation where the President of Harvard is held to a less high standard of academic rigour than Harvard students. For a start it invites law suits from students if they get booted out, unlike Gay who stays (as was)
However I agree that her greater crime was her idiotic, offensive remarks in Congress
All three women should have resigned next day
AIUI (and I've not been following this very closely because I'm not American and don't really care what happens at Harvard) they were asked a factual question about whether certain remarks were against their university codes of conduct, and they said it was context specific - while they personally abhorred the comments. What if that is just factually accurate? America has remarkably robust free speech laws, and academic freedom is important, and perhaps it is the case that there is no hard and fast ban on any specific comment. Indeed I would imagine there isn't any such ban, how could there be, given the infinite array of potentially offensive comments one could make. Just seems like a gotcha tactic, an attempt to exercise power over an area of American life Republican politicians feel they have no control over.
No, that's complete bollocks. US universities generally have little interest in protecting free speech, and Harvard is among the worst in this respect. In particular, see here:
...this year, Harvard completed its downward spiral in dramatic fashion, coming in dead last with the worst score ever: 0.00 out of a possible 100.00. This earns it the notorious distinction of being the only school ranked this year with an “Abysmal” speech climate.
The article summarises the general issues with free speech pretty well, but for those who can't be bothered to click, here is a summary: - disinviting or banning guest speakers from campus whose views they don't agree with (and failing to stop protesters from actively disrupting the events that do go ahead) - sanctioning students who have expressed particular views on social media - hostile atmospheres in lectures and other academic contexts whereby right wing students are made afraid to express views that go against that of their professor
If I could sum it up in one sentence, it would be as follows: there are no other minority groupings for whom Claudine Gay and the other two imbeciles would have had any trouble saying that calling for their genocide was against university code of conduct.
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?
It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?
The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?
The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.
Various things here.
Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.
On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.
And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.
The whole "it was advisory" and "a 2nd referendum would have been democratic" bollocks is - I am now sure - advanced by people who are, in retrospect, ashamed and uncomfortable that they supported a 2nd vote. Ashamed because it was so clearly foolish, immoral and dangerous as a policy
The problem was that the whole "advisory" narrative surfaced AFTER the referendum took place. That was incredibly damaging to any sort of rejoin cause in the medium - long term (Obviously we did need to leave). A far better tack would have been for remain inclined MPs to say "OK we accept the result, we will leave. And the day after we have left we will campaign to rejoin". The 17-19 parliament did not do this. They attempted to block us from leaving which was complete strategic folly. Imagine we'd voted for Corbyn in the 2017 referendum and instead of leaving Downing Street May had set up another poll to be sure we wanted Corbyn and remained in Downing Street. I hope we do go back in at some point, I believe we'll be more prosperous as a nation for it but the 2017-19 parliament was as bad as Trump.
The whole country is not gripped by darts fever. I know @kinabalu is a big fan but I am not and therefore I cancel out his vote. And not for the first time.
I too am immune to the 'charms' of darts, like all true sports fans.
Liverpool with an XG of 7 the other night, or the 2019 cricket world cup final, that's sport at its utter magnificent best.
That would be Liverpool with an XG of 7 while Tom Daley was trending on Twitter?
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?
It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?
The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?
The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.
Various things here.
Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.
On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.
And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.
The whole "it was advisory" and "a 2nd referendum would have been democratic" bollocks is - I am now sure - advanced by people who are, in retrospect, ashamed and uncomfortable that they supported a 2nd vote. Ashamed because it was so clearly foolish, immoral and dangerous as a policy
Certainly I was annoyed by the people who said that it wasn't (technically speaking) advisory; because it was - but David's point that everyone agreed that they would be bound by the result completely overrode that technicality. And of course that agreement was part of Cameron's wizard wheeze to defeat the Tory Leavers.
It all then got mired in the other half of the problem: now that we're leaving, what does that actually mean? People (in Parliament and outside) deliberately obfuscated "second referendum to agree the deal", and "second referendum to overturn the first result". ETA: both of which were impossible pipe dreams.
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?
It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?
The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?
The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.
Various things here.
Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.
On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.
And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.
The whole "it was advisory" and "a 2nd referendum would have been democratic" bollocks is - I am now sure - advanced by people who are, in retrospect, ashamed and uncomfortable that they supported a 2nd vote. Ashamed because it was so clearly foolish, immoral and dangerous as a policy
The problem was that the whole "advisory" narrative surfaced AFTER the referendum took place. That was incredibly damaging to any sort of rejoin cause in the medium - long term (Obviously we did need to leave). A far better tack would have been for remain inclined MPs to say "OK we accept the result, we will leave. And the day after we have left we will campaign to rejoin". The 17-19 parliament did not do this. They attempted to block us from leaving which was complete strategic folly. Imagine we'd voted for Corbyn in the 2017 referendum and instead of leaving Downing Street May had set up another poll to be sure we wanted Corbyn and remained in Downing Street. I hope we do go back in at some point, I believe we'll be more prosperous as a nation for it but the 2017-19 parliament was as bad as Trump.
It was the government Leavers that were blocking May's Brexit bill. The opposition were never obliged to support it.
Hopefully all the reservoirs are now full. That was a big problem until fairly recently.
Severn Trent at 97.3% last week. Unusual for them to go much higher than that (I think they like to keep some capacity in hand for flooding mitigation if needed).
United Utilities are above average in some places, but not crazily so and slightly down overall. I think that's because one reservoir (Llyn Celyn) has been substantially lowered so they can do some work on the dam:
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?
It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?
The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?
The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.
Various things here.
Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.
On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.
And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.
On Paterson, the Commons, in that first vote, "resolved to appoint a Select Committee chaired by John Whittingdale with four other Conservative MPs, and with 3 Labour and 1 SNP MPs, to give recommendations on whether to give MPs a right of appeal similar to employees, whether to reconsider the case against Paterson, and how the standards rules should be revised to be "compatible with natural justice"." None of that happened. There was a vote. It was not implemented. Agree or disagree?
Partly because it was overtaken by events and partly because it was obviously bollocks anyway - MPs already have an effective right of appeal, to the House as a whole, when the vote comes on whether or not to accept the Committee's recommendation.
Regardless of the various visions of Brexit, it was assumed universally during the referendum that a post-EU UK would dispense with EU laws that did not suit us, cease paying significant monies into the EU, and, for better or worse, forge a more independent path in the world. That hasn't happened. Our civil service (lead, it must be said, by divided and distracted politicians) has simply refused, in any meaningful sense, to leave. We have paid over billions to the EU in various forms to support their depleted budget. I haven't looked at it recently but we seem to have made little progress on fishing. We still apply their stupid laws, which our agencies duly gold-plate. And we have failed to control our borders.
Brexit is a door opening. A door opening without actually passing the threshold is just going to be drafty and lead to you getting rained on.
EU freedom of movement definitely ended, as both UK and EU citizens can tell you. We have "controlled our borders" in that sense. The high immigration figures we now have are largely the results of UK government policy. They show the UK is controlling its borders, and that control has entailed handing out large numbers of visas, mostly work and student visas. You may agree or disagree with those policies, but those policies are definitely the policies of the UK government, not the EU.
There are also people arriving through irregular means, including crossing the Channel in small boats. Similar arrivals happened when we were in the EU, so I don't think their continuation proves we haven't left the EU.
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?
It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?
The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?
The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.
Various things here.
Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.
On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.
And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.
The whole "it was advisory" and "a 2nd referendum would have been democratic" bollocks is - I am now sure - advanced by people who are, in retrospect, ashamed and uncomfortable that they supported a 2nd vote. Ashamed because it was so clearly foolish, immoral and dangerous as a policy
Certainly I was annoyed by the people who said that it wasn't (technically speaking) advisory; because it was - but David's point that everyone agreed that they would be bound by the result completely overrode that technicality. And of course that agreement was part of Cameron's wizard wheeze to defeat the Tory Leavers.
It all then got mired in the other half of the problem: now that we're leaving, what does that actually mean? People (in Parliament and outside) deliberately obfuscated "second referendum to agree the deal", and "second referendum to overturn the first result".
A second referendum to determine our relationship would have been democratic, but you could tell those pushing for it most heavily were err... not interested in having say Norway vs Serbia on the ballot.
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?
It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?
The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?
The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.
Various things here.
Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.
On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.
And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.
The whole "it was advisory" and "a 2nd referendum would have been democratic" bollocks is - I am now sure - advanced by people who are, in retrospect, ashamed and uncomfortable that they supported a 2nd vote. Ashamed because it was so clearly foolish, immoral and dangerous as a policy
The problem was that the whole "advisory" narrative surfaced AFTER the referendum took place. That was incredibly damaging to any sort of rejoin cause in the medium - long term (Obviously we did need to leave). A far better tack would have been for remain inclined MPs to say "OK we accept the result, we will leave. And the day after we have left we will campaign to rejoin". The 17-19 parliament did not do this. They attempted to block us from leaving which was complete strategic folly. Imagine we'd voted for Corbyn in the 2017 referendum and instead of leaving Downing Street May had set up another poll to be sure we wanted Corbyn and remained in Downing Street. I hope we do go back in at some point, I believe we'll be more prosperous as a nation for it but the 2017-19 parliament was as bad as Trump.
The wording of the 2015 Act was debated in detail. The difference to the approach taken with the 2011 Act was noted at the time.
If Corbyn had won the general election and May had sought to hold another election... well, she wouldn't have been able to, and an attempt to hold a new election would have been illegal. Ignoring the result of the 2015 Act would have been very stupid, but would not have been illegal.
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?
It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?
The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?
The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.
Various things here.
Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.
On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.
And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.
The whole "it was advisory" and "a 2nd referendum would have been democratic" bollocks is - I am now sure - advanced by people who are, in retrospect, ashamed and uncomfortable that they supported a 2nd vote. Ashamed because it was so clearly foolish, immoral and dangerous as a policy
The problem was that the whole "advisory" narrative surfaced AFTER the referendum took place. That was incredibly damaging to any sort of rejoin cause in the medium - long term (Obviously we did need to leave). A far better tack would have been for remain inclined MPs to say "OK we accept the result, we will leave. And the day after we have left we will campaign to rejoin". The 17-19 parliament did not do this. They attempted to block us from leaving which was complete strategic folly. Imagine we'd voted for Corbyn in the 2017 referendum and instead of leaving Downing Street May had set up another poll to be sure we wanted Corbyn and remained in Downing Street. I hope we do go back in at some point, I believe we'll be more prosperous as a nation for it but the 2017-19 parliament was as bad as Trump.
It was the government Leavers that were blocking May's Brexit bill. The opposition were never obliged to support it.
May's bill was a pretty soft form of leaving, which is why the Brexit lobby pushed against it - they sensed they could get more of the pie so to speak... If the opposition rejoiners (And that's what we were at that point - because the decision to leave was a made fact) had had any sense they'd have abstained.
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?
It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?
The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?
The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.
Various things here.
Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.
On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.
And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.
The whole "it was advisory" and "a 2nd referendum would have been democratic" bollocks is - I am now sure - advanced by people who are, in retrospect, ashamed and uncomfortable that they supported a 2nd vote. Ashamed because it was so clearly foolish, immoral and dangerous as a policy
Certainly I was annoyed by the people who said that it wasn't (technically speaking) advisory; because it was - but David's point that everyone agreed that they would be bound by the result completely overrode that technicality. And of course that agreement was part of Cameron's wizard wheeze to defeat the Tory Leavers.
It all then got mired in the other half of the problem: now that we're leaving, what does that actually mean? People (in Parliament and outside) deliberately obfuscated "second referendum to agree the deal", and "second referendum to overturn the first result". ETA: both of which were impossible pipe dreams.
In retrospect “2nd vote” was a terrible mistake by Remainers. It prevented them focusing on the softest possible Brexit as a goal, staying in the SM/CU etc, whence it would have been much easier to simply rejoin
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
This is the entirety of the woke debate. I think this I am right Other people are wrong Anyone who thinks they are right and I am wrong are woke
No, that is not the "entirety of the woke debate"
You surely know this, so why trot out this gibberish?
The BBC has an interesting take on the dismissal/resignation of Claudine Gay from Harvard after the scandalous testimony then plagiarism.
Basically it’s all down to the far right, Trump and pandering to fascists. Including a quote from someone giving that view.
BBC journalism is astonishingly poor and somewhat partisan.
The response in Germany to a scandal where a number of politicians were discovered to have plagiarised their theses was interesting.
A journalist realised that you could have a lot of fun by downloading the theses of various people and running them through a plagiarism detector.
A number of universities sequestered the theses of “notable” people, in response.
The plagiarism criticisms of Gay that I've seen were pretty trivial stuff, blown out of all proportion. There were, of course, other criticisms of Gay that are of more significance.
A, lot of "plagiarism" in academia is just careless footnoting. Any academic work typically, by convention, has to include a summary of the existing literature and debate, which by definition is not original work. Cribbing parts of that from an existing review article and failing to fully credit that is not a crime IMHO. Passing off someone else's original contribution as one's own is quite different. I've not seen the details of the criticism of Gay but it certainly, from a distance, has more than a whiff of a witch hunt about it.
There may be an agenda to get her, but it has been shown - indisputably - that Harvard STUDENTS have been rusticated for less serious examples of plagiarism than hers, and hers extend over several years and her entire output (and there is now querying of her data, as well)
You cannot have a situation where the President of Harvard is held to a less high standard of academic rigour than Harvard students. For a start it invites law suits from students if they get booted out, unlike Gay who stays (as was)
However I agree that her greater crime was her idiotic, offensive remarks in Congress
All three women should have resigned next day
AIUI (and I've not been following this very closely because I'm not American and don't really care what happens at Harvard) they were asked a factual question about whether certain remarks were against their university codes of conduct, and they said it was context specific - while they personally abhorred the comments. What if that is just factually accurate? America has remarkably robust free speech laws, and academic freedom is important, and perhaps it is the case that there is no hard and fast ban on any specific comment. Indeed I would imagine there isn't any such ban, how could there be, given the infinite array of potentially offensive comments one could make. Just seems like a gotcha tactic, an attempt to exercise power over an area of American life Republican politicians feel they have no control over.
You haven't watched the Congress questioning, have you?
There was dismay across the political divide in the US at the testimony and not just from Gay.
The attempt to frame it as a far right witch hunt seems to be coming from a few media organs like the BBC and some academics on social media.
The killer question for me in the testimony was the guy who asked why it is acceptable to call for the deaths of Jews but not believe a man cannot have a cock. The defence of free speech here only applies to one viewpoint or mindset. That’s not woke just intolerance.
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?
It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?
The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?
The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.
Various things here.
Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.
On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.
And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.
On Paterson, the Commons, in that first vote, "resolved to appoint a Select Committee chaired by John Whittingdale with four other Conservative MPs, and with 3 Labour and 1 SNP MPs, to give recommendations on whether to give MPs a right of appeal similar to employees, whether to reconsider the case against Paterson, and how the standards rules should be revised to be "compatible with natural justice"." None of that happened. There was a vote. It was not implemented. Agree or disagree?
Partly because it was overtaken by events and partly because it was obviously bollocks anyway - MPs already have an effective right of appeal, to the House as a whole, when the vote comes on whether or not to accept the Committee's recommendation.
OK, so we agree that something was voted on, but then not implemented. You're right that it was overtaken by events. The Commons decided to vote differently a fortnight later.
This demonstrates that your rule #5 needs some caveats.
Obviously a national referendum is a different thing to a vote in the Commons.
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
I am fine with it, Brexit has benefitted me personally, see my post at 7.47 which shows where the country is.
LOL, I have many friends in your position, they all claim they are doing well out of Brexit even though they voted Remain. But theyre still having a sulk because they called it wrong.
That's one of the great paradoxes of Brexit. The dynamic metropolises of Remania have economically adjusted, the backwaters of Leaverstan further degrade.
Real wages are actually growing and we have nearly full employment. The doom laden scenarios are nowhere to be seen. Manufacturing has even improved its position by overtaking France. Most of the UKs weaknesses are self inflicted and could have been sorted out in the EU, but none of the UK parties wanted to tackle them.
Really - I know the wages of no member of my family (either immediate or second level) have increased by above inflation.
And looking at the very large dataset I have for other people - nope I don’t see it, except at the very bottom of the market where I can see another large pay rise coming in April because the agencies legally need to pay it
And this is the Tory problem. They just keep saying things which are visibly and tangibly untrue to people's lived experiences.
A local example up here: fishing. According to the fishing community, Brexit has been bad. Things are much harder than they were both for the people catching the fish and for those processing them.
But the Tories are claiming a bonanza, with statistics showing that catches and revenue are up.
So on one hand we have fishermen saying revenues are down, and Tories saying revenue is up...
Everyone’s lived experience is different. I’ve never been more comfortable in financial terms. That will be true of a large number of people.
Not that it will save the government.
I'm not quite sure what lived experience means that experience doesn't cover.
All experience is lived. That's what experience means.
Perfectly clear what it means in this context to me. The country as a whole is experiencing one thing, each individual may be experiencing something opposite or just different to the collective.
It's what you learn from real life and own experience rather than vicariously through the Daily Mail and GB News. Or the Guardian for that matter.
"Lived Experience" is an interesting term, which has important uses - but can be overused.
It is used, for example, as a way of giving weight to the opinions of disabled people rather than "experts", "professionals" or other lobby groups who want to use them as a human shield to defend their own difficult-to-justify opinions.
An example at present is anti-LTN campaigners forever talking about 'defending the interests of disabled people', when they actually want to defend their right to use other people's residential streets as a rat-run - often whilst living in a development with modal filtering themselves. In reality, whilst 75% of adults have a full driving license, for disabled adults it is only around 60%.
It can be taken too far if used as a way of denying the validity of other opinions. For example suggesting that those without "lived experience" (eg of being a wheelchair user) cannot understand.
OTOH those without such lived experience can eg spend half a day in a wheelchair and imagine that they therefore appreciate everything and are qualified to make decisions without consultation.
In summary, it's important that a component of opinion from those who do have 'lived experience' be present, but not be 100% of any evaluation.
(I'm currently considering applying to be on a Government Committee where currently 50% of the members to have 'lived experience'. That may be a good number, but as ever with Govt committees a huge issue will be politics trumping evidence.)
The whole country is not gripped by darts fever. I know @kinabalu is a big fan but I am not and therefore I cancel out his vote. And not for the first time.
I'm afraid that anyone who isn't gripped by darts fever hates Britain and our values.
If a chubby teenager lobbing arrows in front of baying crowds of boozers in such a way that puts the Dutch right back in their box, doesn't stir your blood and stiffen your patriotic sinews, then you might as well just eff off.
I'm quite partial to the odd game of pétanque, while sipping a pastis if that helps bolster my InnGerLund credentials.
If Brexit means anything, it means replacing every single pétanque piste in this country with an oche. That's what every right-thinking Englishman assumed "Get Brexit Done" meant, and yet here we are.
Oi.
We have Pétanque Pistes in the best public park in Mansfield; have had for years.
The Home Counties may be full of Lloyds-invested Captain Mainwarings wearing bowler hats to their Crown Green Bowls clubs; up here we love France ... in its proper place.
And our Pentanque Pistes came from former bowling greens.
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
This is the entirety of the woke debate. I think this I am right Other people are wrong Anyone who thinks they are right and I am wrong are woke
No, that is not the "entirety of the woke debate"
You surely know this, so why trot out this gibberish?
The BBC has an interesting take on the dismissal/resignation of Claudine Gay from Harvard after the scandalous testimony then plagiarism.
Basically it’s all down to the far right, Trump and pandering to fascists. Including a quote from someone giving that view.
BBC journalism is astonishingly poor and somewhat partisan.
The response in Germany to a scandal where a number of politicians were discovered to have plagiarised their theses was interesting.
A journalist realised that you could have a lot of fun by downloading the theses of various people and running them through a plagiarism detector.
A number of universities sequestered the theses of “notable” people, in response.
The plagiarism criticisms of Gay that I've seen were pretty trivial stuff, blown out of all proportion. There were, of course, other criticisms of Gay that are of more significance.
A, lot of "plagiarism" in academia is just careless footnoting. Any academic work typically, by convention, has to include a summary of the existing literature and debate, which by definition is not original work. Cribbing parts of that from an existing review article and failing to fully credit that is not a crime IMHO. Passing off someone else's original contribution as one's own is quite different. I've not seen the details of the criticism of Gay but it certainly, from a distance, has more than a whiff of a witch hunt about it.
There may be an agenda to get her, but it has been shown - indisputably - that Harvard STUDENTS have been rusticated for less serious examples of plagiarism than hers, and hers extend over several years and her entire output (and there is now querying of her data, as well)
You cannot have a situation where the President of Harvard is held to a less high standard of academic rigour than Harvard students. For a start it invites law suits from students if they get booted out, unlike Gay who stays (as was)
However I agree that her greater crime was her idiotic, offensive remarks in Congress
All three women should have resigned next day
AIUI (and I've not been following this very closely because I'm not American and don't really care what happens at Harvard) they were asked a factual question about whether certain remarks were against their university codes of conduct, and they said it was context specific - while they personally abhorred the comments. What if that is just factually accurate? America has remarkably robust free speech laws, and academic freedom is important, and perhaps it is the case that there is no hard and fast ban on any specific comment. Indeed I would imagine there isn't any such ban, how could there be, given the infinite array of potentially offensive comments one could make. Just seems like a gotcha tactic, an attempt to exercise power over an area of American life Republican politicians feel they have no control over.
You haven't watched the Congress questioning, have you?
There was dismay across the political divide in the US at the testimony and not just from Gay.
The attempt to frame it as a far right witch hunt seems to be coming from a few media organs like the BBC and some academics on social media.
The killer question for me in the testimony was the guy who asked why it is acceptable to call for the deaths of Jews but not believe a man cannot have a cock. The defence of free speech here only applies to one viewpoint or mindset. That’s not woke just intolerance.
The attempt to frame it as a far right witch hunt seems to be coming from a few media organs like the BBC
This is just bollocks.
The BBC are reporting fairly straightforwardly what those most instrumental in Gay's dismissal are themselves claiming. And nowhere in the story do they call them "far right". That is your own bit of "framing".
Lawyers' Amicus Brief Adds New Wrinkle to Donald Trump's Immunity Appeal
https://www.newsweek.com/conservative-lawyers-add-new-wrinkle-donald-trumps-immunity-appeal-1856722 ..."As the American Oversight amicus brief argues, Supreme Court precedent [from 1989] prohibits a criminal defendant from immediately appealing an order denying immunity unless the claimed immunity is based on 'an explicit statutory or constitutional guarantee that trial will not occur,'" the group's official statement explained. "Trump's claims of immunity rests on no such explicit guarantee. Therefore, given that Trump has not been convicted or sentenced, his appeal is premature. The D.C. Circuit lacks appellate jurisdiction and should dismiss the appeal and return the case to district court for trial promptly."..
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
This is the entirety of the woke debate. I think this I am right Other people are wrong Anyone who thinks they are right and I am wrong are woke
No, that is not the "entirety of the woke debate"
You surely know this, so why trot out this gibberish?
The BBC has an interesting take on the dismissal/resignation of Claudine Gay from Harvard after the scandalous testimony then plagiarism.
Basically it’s all down to the far right, Trump and pandering to fascists. Including a quote from someone giving that view.
BBC journalism is astonishingly poor and somewhat partisan.
The response in Germany to a scandal where a number of politicians were discovered to have plagiarised their theses was interesting.
A journalist realised that you could have a lot of fun by downloading the theses of various people and running them through a plagiarism detector.
A number of universities sequestered the theses of “notable” people, in response.
The plagiarism criticisms of Gay that I've seen were pretty trivial stuff, blown out of all proportion. There were, of course, other criticisms of Gay that are of more significance.
A, lot of "plagiarism" in academia is just careless footnoting. Any academic work typically, by convention, has to include a summary of the existing literature and debate, which by definition is not original work. Cribbing parts of that from an existing review article and failing to fully credit that is not a crime IMHO. Passing off someone else's original contribution as one's own is quite different. I've not seen the details of the criticism of Gay but it certainly, from a distance, has more than a whiff of a witch hunt about it.
There may be an agenda to get her, but it has been shown - indisputably - that Harvard STUDENTS have been rusticated for less serious examples of plagiarism than hers, and hers extend over several years and her entire output (and there is now querying of her data, as well)
You cannot have a situation where the President of Harvard is held to a less high standard of academic rigour than Harvard students. For a start it invites law suits from students if they get booted out, unlike Gay who stays (as was)
However I agree that her greater crime was her idiotic, offensive remarks in Congress
All three women should have resigned next day
AIUI (and I've not been following this very closely because I'm not American and don't really care what happens at Harvard) they were asked a factual question about whether certain remarks were against their university codes of conduct, and they said it was context specific - while they personally abhorred the comments. What if that is just factually accurate? America has remarkably robust free speech laws, and academic freedom is important, and perhaps it is the case that there is no hard and fast ban on any specific comment. Indeed I would imagine there isn't any such ban, how could there be, given the infinite array of potentially offensive comments one could make. Just seems like a gotcha tactic, an attempt to exercise power over an area of American life Republican politicians feel they have no control over.
No, that's complete bollocks. US universities generally have little interest in protecting free speech, and Harvard is among the worst in this respect. In particular, see here:
...this year, Harvard completed its downward spiral in dramatic fashion, coming in dead last with the worst score ever: 0.00 out of a possible 100.00. This earns it the notorious distinction of being the only school ranked this year with an “Abysmal” speech climate.
The article summarises the general issues with free speech pretty well, but for those who can't be bothered to click, here is a summary: - disinviting or banning guest speakers from campus whose views they don't agree with (and failing to stop protesters from actively disrupting the events that do go ahead) - sanctioning students who have expressed particular views on social media - hostile atmospheres in lectures and other academic contexts whereby right wing students are made afraid to express views that go against that of their professor
If I could sum it up in one sentence, it would be as follows: there are no other minority groupings for whom Claudine Gay and the other two imbeciles would have had any trouble saying that calling for their genocide was against university code of conduct.
John Gray made a good observation to the effect that freedom of thought at university is being replaced people seeking freedom from thought.
This observation is probably true of both sides , the right and the left; but those on the left cannot be shocked when the right enact its own version of cancel culture. It is a product of universities being so weak on free speech and caving in to "woke" mobs as they have done for the last decade or so. The correction was inevitable and probably necessary but the most successful and resilient institutions will be the ones who don't bow to the demands of either side.
So, despite our recent thread on Bone possibly standing for Reform UK in Wellingborough, Reform UK have now announced former MEP Ben Habib as their candidate.
So, despite our recent thread on Bone possibly standing for Reform UK in Wellingborough, Reform UK have now announced former MEP Ben Habib as their candidate.
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?
It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?
The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?
The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.
Various things here.
Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.
On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.
And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.
The whole "it was advisory" and "a 2nd referendum would have been democratic" bollocks is - I am now sure - advanced by people who are, in retrospect, ashamed and uncomfortable that they supported a 2nd vote. Ashamed because it was so clearly foolish, immoral and dangerous as a policy
Certainly I was annoyed by the people who said that it wasn't (technically speaking) advisory; because it was - but David's point that everyone agreed that they would be bound by the result completely overrode that technicality. And of course that agreement was part of Cameron's wizard wheeze to defeat the Tory Leavers.
It all then got mired in the other half of the problem: now that we're leaving, what does that actually mean? People (in Parliament and outside) deliberately obfuscated "second referendum to agree the deal", and "second referendum to overturn the first result". ETA: both of which were impossible pipe dreams.
Where I stand on this is that it was perfectly legitimate for political parties to stand on a second referendum platform, but that they had to be prepared for the public to take against that, to consider it to be unhelpful, and to vote accordingly. Which partly resulted in the 2019 result.
I like you think that one of the things that really didn’t help was the second referendum to agree terms/second referendum with an option to remain obfuscation, because it came across as disingenuous (all those saying that they wanted a referendum on a final deal vs a remain option were clearly assumed to be trying to get remain through by the back door).
An interesting counterfactual would have been what would have happened if one of the opposition parties campaigned for a second referendum, but just on agreeing what type of Brexit there should be (with the decision to leave having been already taken).
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
This is the entirety of the woke debate. I think this I am right Other people are wrong Anyone who thinks they are right and I am wrong are woke
No, that is not the "entirety of the woke debate"
You surely know this, so why trot out this gibberish?
The BBC has an interesting take on the dismissal/resignation of Claudine Gay from Harvard after the scandalous testimony then plagiarism.
Basically it’s all down to the far right, Trump and pandering to fascists. Including a quote from someone giving that view.
BBC journalism is astonishingly poor and somewhat partisan.
The response in Germany to a scandal where a number of politicians were discovered to have plagiarised their theses was interesting.
A journalist realised that you could have a lot of fun by downloading the theses of various people and running them through a plagiarism detector.
A number of universities sequestered the theses of “notable” people, in response.
The plagiarism criticisms of Gay that I've seen were pretty trivial stuff, blown out of all proportion. There were, of course, other criticisms of Gay that are of more significance.
A, lot of "plagiarism" in academia is just careless footnoting. Any academic work typically, by convention, has to include a summary of the existing literature and debate, which by definition is not original work. Cribbing parts of that from an existing review article and failing to fully credit that is not a crime IMHO. Passing off someone else's original contribution as one's own is quite different. I've not seen the details of the criticism of Gay but it certainly, from a distance, has more than a whiff of a witch hunt about it.
There may be an agenda to get her, but it has been shown - indisputably - that Harvard STUDENTS have been rusticated for less serious examples of plagiarism than hers, and hers extend over several years and her entire output (and there is now querying of her data, as well)
You cannot have a situation where the President of Harvard is held to a less high standard of academic rigour than Harvard students. For a start it invites law suits from students if they get booted out, unlike Gay who stays (as was)
However I agree that her greater crime was her idiotic, offensive remarks in Congress
All three women should have resigned next day
AIUI (and I've not been following this very closely because I'm not American and don't really care what happens at Harvard) they were asked a factual question about whether certain remarks were against their university codes of conduct, and they said it was context specific - while they personally abhorred the comments. What if that is just factually accurate? America has remarkably robust free speech laws, and academic freedom is important, and perhaps it is the case that there is no hard and fast ban on any specific comment. Indeed I would imagine there isn't any such ban, how could there be, given the infinite array of potentially offensive comments one could make. Just seems like a gotcha tactic, an attempt to exercise power over an area of American life Republican politicians feel they have no control over.
No, that's complete bollocks. US universities generally have little interest in protecting free speech, and Harvard is among the worst in this respect. In particular, see here:
...this year, Harvard completed its downward spiral in dramatic fashion, coming in dead last with the worst score ever: 0.00 out of a possible 100.00. This earns it the notorious distinction of being the only school ranked this year with an “Abysmal” speech climate.
The article summarises the general issues with free speech pretty well, but for those who can't be bothered to click, here is a summary: - disinviting or banning guest speakers from campus whose views they don't agree with (and failing to stop protesters from actively disrupting the events that do go ahead) - sanctioning students who have expressed particular views on social media - hostile atmospheres in lectures and other academic contexts whereby right wing students are made afraid to express views that go against that of their professor
If I could sum it up in one sentence, it would be as follows: there are no other minority groupings for whom Claudine Gay and the other two imbeciles would have had any trouble saying that calling for their genocide was against university code of conduct.
John Gray made a good observation to the effect that freedom of thought at university is being replaced people seeking freedom from thought.
This observation is probably true of both sides , the right and the left; but those on the left cannot be shocked when the right enact its own version of cancel culture. It is a product of universities being so weak on free speech and caving in to "woke" mobs as they have done for the last decade or so. The correction was inevitable and probably necessary but the most successful and resilient institutions will be the ones who don't bow to the demands of either side.
This is the usual narrative that the Left is at fault and the Right are just reacting, and possibly over-reacting, to that. Which is nonsense.
There is a long debate about who should get to say what. We didn't live in some free speech utopia and then the Left came along and corrupted it. The Left and Right have both spent years going back and forth on what is a difficult matter. I'm old enough to remember when the Conservatives introduced laws in the UK that meant Gerry Adams' voice had to be replaced by an actor's.
So, despite our recent thread on Bone possibly standing for Reform UK in Wellingborough, Reform UK have now announced former MEP Ben Habib as their candidate.
Did they not read the thread?! Or maybe they *did* read the thread.
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
This is the entirety of the woke debate. I think this I am right Other people are wrong Anyone who thinks they are right and I am wrong are woke
No, that is not the "entirety of the woke debate"
You surely know this, so why trot out this gibberish?
The BBC has an interesting take on the dismissal/resignation of Claudine Gay from Harvard after the scandalous testimony then plagiarism.
Basically it’s all down to the far right, Trump and pandering to fascists. Including a quote from someone giving that view.
BBC journalism is astonishingly poor and somewhat partisan.
The response in Germany to a scandal where a number of politicians were discovered to have plagiarised their theses was interesting.
A journalist realised that you could have a lot of fun by downloading the theses of various people and running them through a plagiarism detector.
A number of universities sequestered the theses of “notable” people, in response.
The plagiarism criticisms of Gay that I've seen were pretty trivial stuff, blown out of all proportion. There were, of course, other criticisms of Gay that are of more significance.
A, lot of "plagiarism" in academia is just careless footnoting. Any academic work typically, by convention, has to include a summary of the existing literature and debate, which by definition is not original work. Cribbing parts of that from an existing review article and failing to fully credit that is not a crime IMHO. Passing off someone else's original contribution as one's own is quite different. I've not seen the details of the criticism of Gay but it certainly, from a distance, has more than a whiff of a witch hunt about it.
There may be an agenda to get her, but it has been shown - indisputably - that Harvard STUDENTS have been rusticated for less serious examples of plagiarism than hers, and hers extend over several years and her entire output (and there is now querying of her data, as well)
You cannot have a situation where the President of Harvard is held to a less high standard of academic rigour than Harvard students. For a start it invites law suits from students if they get booted out, unlike Gay who stays (as was)
However I agree that her greater crime was her idiotic, offensive remarks in Congress
All three women should have resigned next day
AIUI (and I've not been following this very closely because I'm not American and don't really care what happens at Harvard) they were asked a factual question about whether certain remarks were against their university codes of conduct, and they said it was context specific - while they personally abhorred the comments. What if that is just factually accurate? America has remarkably robust free speech laws, and academic freedom is important, and perhaps it is the case that there is no hard and fast ban on any specific comment. Indeed I would imagine there isn't any such ban, how could there be, given the infinite array of potentially offensive comments one could make. Just seems like a gotcha tactic, an attempt to exercise power over an area of American life Republican politicians feel they have no control over.
You haven't watched the Congress questioning, have you?
There was dismay across the political divide in the US at the testimony and not just from Gay.
The attempt to frame it as a far right witch hunt seems to be coming from a few media organs like the BBC and some academics on social media.
The killer question for me in the testimony was the guy who asked why it is acceptable to call for the deaths of Jews but not believe a man cannot have a cock. The defence of free speech here only applies to one viewpoint or mindset. That’s not woke just intolerance.
The attempt to frame it as a far right witch hunt seems to be coming from a few media organs like the BBC
This is just bollocks.
The BBC are reporting fairly straightforwardly what those most instrumental in Gay's dismissal are themselves claiming. And nowhere in the story do they call them "far right". That is your own bit of "framing".
The implication in the article is quite clear.
People instrumental in her dismissal, like former Harvard Alumni, Bill Ackman are not even quoted. The article I quotes a few fringe right wingers like Vivek Ramaswamy, implies she’s disliked for being black (the other two who testified at congress have been equally vilified and are white) and ignores a lot of the campaigning against her has been from people, like Ackman, who are appalled at the decline of standards at their alma mater.
I'm occasionally noticing a layer of water a couple of inches down in my driveway gravel - which only happens very rarely (two or three of times in a decade) and is due to very excessive rainfall needing to soak into the ground - it has a French Drain all the way down one side, and I am at a high point in the landscape.
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
This is the entirety of the woke debate. I think this I am right Other people are wrong Anyone who thinks they are right and I am wrong are woke
No, that is not the "entirety of the woke debate"
You surely know this, so why trot out this gibberish?
The BBC has an interesting take on the dismissal/resignation of Claudine Gay from Harvard after the scandalous testimony then plagiarism.
Basically it’s all down to the far right, Trump and pandering to fascists. Including a quote from someone giving that view.
BBC journalism is astonishingly poor and somewhat partisan.
The response in Germany to a scandal where a number of politicians were discovered to have plagiarised their theses was interesting.
A journalist realised that you could have a lot of fun by downloading the theses of various people and running them through a plagiarism detector.
A number of universities sequestered the theses of “notable” people, in response.
The plagiarism criticisms of Gay that I've seen were pretty trivial stuff, blown out of all proportion. There were, of course, other criticisms of Gay that are of more significance.
A, lot of "plagiarism" in academia is just careless footnoting. Any academic work typically, by convention, has to include a summary of the existing literature and debate, which by definition is not original work. Cribbing parts of that from an existing review article and failing to fully credit that is not a crime IMHO. Passing off someone else's original contribution as one's own is quite different. I've not seen the details of the criticism of Gay but it certainly, from a distance, has more than a whiff of a witch hunt about it.
There may be an agenda to get her, but it has been shown - indisputably - that Harvard STUDENTS have been rusticated for less serious examples of plagiarism than hers, and hers extend over several years and her entire output (and there is now querying of her data, as well)
You cannot have a situation where the President of Harvard is held to a less high standard of academic rigour than Harvard students. For a start it invites law suits from students if they get booted out, unlike Gay who stays (as was)
However I agree that her greater crime was her idiotic, offensive remarks in Congress
All three women should have resigned next day
AIUI (and I've not been following this very closely because I'm not American and don't really care what happens at Harvard) they were asked a factual question about whether certain remarks were against their university codes of conduct, and they said it was context specific - while they personally abhorred the comments. What if that is just factually accurate? America has remarkably robust free speech laws, and academic freedom is important, and perhaps it is the case that there is no hard and fast ban on any specific comment. Indeed I would imagine there isn't any such ban, how could there be, given the infinite array of potentially offensive comments one could make. Just seems like a gotcha tactic, an attempt to exercise power over an area of American life Republican politicians feel they have no control over.
No, that's complete bollocks. US universities generally have little interest in protecting free speech, and Harvard is among the worst in this respect. In particular, see here:
...this year, Harvard completed its downward spiral in dramatic fashion, coming in dead last with the worst score ever: 0.00 out of a possible 100.00. This earns it the notorious distinction of being the only school ranked this year with an “Abysmal” speech climate.
The article summarises the general issues with free speech pretty well, but for those who can't be bothered to click, here is a summary: - disinviting or banning guest speakers from campus whose views they don't agree with (and failing to stop protesters from actively disrupting the events that do go ahead) - sanctioning students who have expressed particular views on social media - hostile atmospheres in lectures and other academic contexts whereby right wing students are made afraid to express views that go against that of their professor
If I could sum it up in one sentence, it would be as follows: there are no other minority groupings for whom Claudine Gay and the other two imbeciles would have had any trouble saying that calling for their genocide was against university code of conduct.
John Gray made a good observation to the effect that freedom of thought at university is being replaced people seeking freedom from thought.
This observation is probably true of both sides , the right and the left; but those on the left cannot be shocked when the right enact its own version of cancel culture. It is a product of universities being so weak on free speech and caving in to "woke" mobs as they have done for the last decade or so. The correction was inevitable and probably necessary but the most successful and resilient institutions will be the ones who don't bow to the demands of either side.
This is the usual narrative that the Left is at fault and the Right are just reacting, and possibly over-reacting, to that. Which is nonsense.
There is a long debate about who should get to say what. We didn't live in some free speech utopia and then the Left came along and corrupted it. The Left and Right have both spent years going back and forth on what is a difficult matter. I'm old enough to remember when the Conservatives introduced laws in the UK that meant Gerry Adams' voice had to be replaced by an actor's.
Yes, but darkage is absolutely right to say "the most successful and resilient institutions will be the ones who don't bow to the demands of either side."
I gave both your comments a like, as I don't think you're really disagreeing (though John Gray is truly a pill, IMO.)
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?
It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?
The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?
The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.
Various things here.
Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.
On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.
And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.
The whole "it was advisory" and "a 2nd referendum would have been democratic" bollocks is - I am now sure - advanced by people who are, in retrospect, ashamed and uncomfortable that they supported a 2nd vote. Ashamed because it was so clearly foolish, immoral and dangerous as a policy
Certainly I was annoyed by the people who said that it wasn't (technically speaking) advisory; because it was - but David's point that everyone agreed that they would be bound by the result completely overrode that technicality. And of course that agreement was part of Cameron's wizard wheeze to defeat the Tory Leavers.
It all then got mired in the other half of the problem: now that we're leaving, what does that actually mean? People (in Parliament and outside) deliberately obfuscated "second referendum to agree the deal", and "second referendum to overturn the first result". ETA: both of which were impossible pipe dreams.
Where I stand on this is that it was perfectly legitimate for political parties to stand on a second referendum platform, but that they had to be prepared for the public to take against that, to consider it to be unhelpful, and to vote accordingly. Which partly resulted in the 2019 result.
I like you think that one of the things that really didn’t help was the second referendum to agree terms/second referendum with an option to remain obfuscation, because it came across as disingenuous (all those saying that they wanted a referendum on a final deal vs a remain option were clearly assumed to be trying to get remain through by the back door).
An interesting counterfactual would have been what would have happened if one of the opposition parties campaigned for a second referendum, but just on agreeing what type of Brexit there should be (with the decision to leave having been already taken).
There might have been a way of doing it that that brought the nation together, but it would also have had the potential to be an even bigger fiasco than 2016.
What options? What voting system? How to deal with the fact that the relationship depends on negotiation with the EU? What to do with voters who think/say "well if that's what Leave means, I'd rather Remain"?
(Some of it, drawing up a shortlist, might have been Citizens' Jury-able, but not all of it.)
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
This is the entirety of the woke debate. I think this I am right Other people are wrong Anyone who thinks they are right and I am wrong are woke
No, that is not the "entirety of the woke debate"
You surely know this, so why trot out this gibberish?
The BBC has an interesting take on the dismissal/resignation of Claudine Gay from Harvard after the scandalous testimony then plagiarism.
Basically it’s all down to the far right, Trump and pandering to fascists. Including a quote from someone giving that view.
BBC journalism is astonishingly poor and somewhat partisan.
The response in Germany to a scandal where a number of politicians were discovered to have plagiarised their theses was interesting.
A journalist realised that you could have a lot of fun by downloading the theses of various people and running them through a plagiarism detector.
A number of universities sequestered the theses of “notable” people, in response.
The plagiarism criticisms of Gay that I've seen were pretty trivial stuff, blown out of all proportion. There were, of course, other criticisms of Gay that are of more significance.
A, lot of "plagiarism" in academia is just careless footnoting. Any academic work typically, by convention, has to include a summary of the existing literature and debate, which by definition is not original work. Cribbing parts of that from an existing review article and failing to fully credit that is not a crime IMHO. Passing off someone else's original contribution as one's own is quite different. I've not seen the details of the criticism of Gay but it certainly, from a distance, has more than a whiff of a witch hunt about it.
There may be an agenda to get her, but it has been shown - indisputably - that Harvard STUDENTS have been rusticated for less serious examples of plagiarism than hers, and hers extend over several years and her entire output (and there is now querying of her data, as well)
You cannot have a situation where the President of Harvard is held to a less high standard of academic rigour than Harvard students. For a start it invites law suits from students if they get booted out, unlike Gay who stays (as was)
However I agree that her greater crime was her idiotic, offensive remarks in Congress
All three women should have resigned next day
AIUI (and I've not been following this very closely because I'm not American and don't really care what happens at Harvard) they were asked a factual question about whether certain remarks were against their university codes of conduct, and they said it was context specific - while they personally abhorred the comments. What if that is just factually accurate? America has remarkably robust free speech laws, and academic freedom is important, and perhaps it is the case that there is no hard and fast ban on any specific comment. Indeed I would imagine there isn't any such ban, how could there be, given the infinite array of potentially offensive comments one could make. Just seems like a gotcha tactic, an attempt to exercise power over an area of American life Republican politicians feel they have no control over.
You haven't watched the Congress questioning, have you?
There was dismay across the political divide in the US at the testimony and not just from Gay.
The attempt to frame it as a far right witch hunt seems to be coming from a few media organs like the BBC and some academics on social media.
The killer question for me in the testimony was the guy who asked why it is acceptable to call for the deaths of Jews but not believe a man cannot have a cock. The defence of free speech here only applies to one viewpoint or mindset. That’s not woke just intolerance.
The attempt to frame it as a far right witch hunt seems to be coming from a few media organs like the BBC
This is just bollocks.
The BBC are reporting fairly straightforwardly what those most instrumental in Gay's dismissal are themselves claiming. And nowhere in the story do they call them "far right". That is your own bit of "framing".
The implication in the article is quite clear.
People instrumental in her dismissal, like former Harvard Alumni, Bill Ackman are not even quoted. The article I quotes a few fringe right wingers like Vivek Ramaswamy, implies she’s disliked for being black (the other two who testified at congress have been equally vilified and are white) and ignores a lot of the campaigning against her has been from people, like Ackman, who are appalled at the decline of standards at their alma mater.
I wonder which ones will be there, or not there, I wonder?
I'm pretty sure I won't be on the list if that helps.
I saw a list a few years ago of those in Epstein's telephone book. Will it come as a surprise to learn that quite a few names were known to me through my work? I had even investigated one or two.
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?
It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?
The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?
The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.
Various things here.
Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.
On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.
And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.
The whole "it was advisory" and "a 2nd referendum would have been democratic" bollocks is - I am now sure - advanced by people who are, in retrospect, ashamed and uncomfortable that they supported a 2nd vote. Ashamed because it was so clearly foolish, immoral and dangerous as a policy
The problem was that the whole "advisory" narrative surfaced AFTER the referendum took place. That was incredibly damaging to any sort of rejoin cause in the medium - long term (Obviously we did need to leave). A far better tack would have been for remain inclined MPs to say "OK we accept the result, we will leave. And the day after we have left we will campaign to rejoin". The 17-19 parliament did not do this. They attempted to block us from leaving which was complete strategic folly. Imagine we'd voted for Corbyn in the 2017 referendum and instead of leaving Downing Street May had set up another poll to be sure we wanted Corbyn and remained in Downing Street. I hope we do go back in at some point, I believe we'll be more prosperous as a nation for it but the 2017-19 parliament was as bad as Trump.
The wording of the 2015 Act was debated in detail. The difference to the approach taken with the 2011 Act was noted at the time.
If Corbyn had won the general election and May had sought to hold another election... well, she wouldn't have been able to, and an attempt to hold a new election would have been illegal. Ignoring the result of the 2015 Act would have been very stupid, but would not have been illegal.
No one knew what leave even meant. The debate was as much how hard rhe Brexit should be, and how bad the damage was going to be as much as whether we should leave at all or not.
Quite a remarkable story. Nobody panics, everybody follows instructions, nobody tries to bring their hand luggage. Deplaned in 20 minutes. 10 minutes later the plane explodes. I have a feeling that anywhere other than Japan this would have been much, much worse.
Yes, an amazing story.
I’ll query the 20 minutes though, it was more like 5 minutes to get everyone off.
A reminder to everyone that, when asked to evacuate, don’t take your luggage with you. Keep your passport in your pocket.
As part of the certification process, they have to evac the whole plane in 90 seconds through half the doors, this is what it looks like: https://youtube.com/watch?v=G_8hbsWKoOU
I cannot help but think that she was very hard done by. At worst she was incompetent; I cannot help but think that she was very well-meaning. Some people should be hanging their heads in shame over the way she was treated.
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
I am fine with it, Brexit has benefitted me personally, see my post at 7.47 which shows where the country is.
LOL, I have many friends in your position, they all claim they are doing well out of Brexit even though they voted Remain. But theyre still having a sulk because they called it wrong.
That's one of the great paradoxes of Brexit. The dynamic metropolises of Remania have economically adjusted, the backwaters of Leaverstan further degrade.
Real wages are actually growing and we have nearly full employment. The doom laden scenarios are nowhere to be seen. Manufacturing has even improved its position by overtaking France. Most of the UKs weaknesses are self inflicted and could have been sorted out in the EU, but none of the UK parties wanted to tackle them.
Really - I know the wages of no member of my family (either immediate or second level) have increased by above inflation.
And looking at the very large dataset I have for other people - nope I don’t see it, except at the very bottom of the market where I can see another large pay rise coming in April because the agencies legally need to pay it
And this is the Tory problem. They just keep saying things which are visibly and tangibly untrue to people's lived experiences.
A local example up here: fishing. According to the fishing community, Brexit has been bad. Things are much harder than they were both for the people catching the fish and for those processing them.
But the Tories are claiming a bonanza, with statistics showing that catches and revenue are up.
So on one hand we have fishermen saying revenues are down, and Tories saying revenue is up...
Everyone’s lived experience is different. I’ve never been more comfortable in financial terms. That will be true of a large number of people.
Not that it will save the government.
I'm not quite sure what lived experience means that experience doesn't cover.
All experience is lived. That's what experience means.
Perfectly clear what it means in this context to me. The country as a whole is experiencing one thing, each individual may be experiencing something opposite or just different to the collective.
It's what you learn from real life and own experience rather than vicariously through the Daily Mail and GB News. Or the Guardian for that matter.
"Lived Experience" is an interesting term, which has important uses - but can be overused.
It is used, for example, as a way of giving weight to the opinions of disabled people rather than "experts", "professionals" or other lobby groups who want to use them as a human shield to defend their own difficult-to-justify opinions.
An example at present is anti-LTN campaigners forever talking about 'defending the interests of disabled people', when they actually want to defend their right to use other people's residential streets as a rat-run - often whilst living in a development with modal filtering themselves. In reality, whilst 75% of adults have a full driving license, for disabled adults it is only around 60%.
It can be taken too far if used as a way of denying the validity of other opinions. For example suggesting that those without "lived experience" (eg of being a wheelchair user) cannot understand.
OTOH those without such lived experience can eg spend half a day in a wheelchair and imagine that they therefore appreciate everything and are qualified to make decisions without consultation.
In summary, it's important that a component of opinion from those who do have 'lived experience' be present, but not be 100% of any evaluation.
(I'm currently considering applying to be on a Government Committee where currently 50% of the members to have 'lived experience'. That may be a good number, but as ever with Govt committees a huge issue will be politics trumping evidence.)
In the example you give, aren't you essentially just criticising people for misrepresenting the lived experience of disabled people is? People with an axe to grind on whatever subject misrepresent all sorts of things - statistics, expert opinion, public opinion etc.
Isn't the real lesson that, if you're going to place weight on lived experience, make sure you properly understand what that experience is. Just as if you are going to place weight on statistics, make sure the numbers are correct, not selective, and that you understand what they mean.
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?
It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?
The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?
The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.
Various things here.
Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.
On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.
And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.
The whole "it was advisory" and "a 2nd referendum would have been democratic" bollocks is - I am now sure - advanced by people who are, in retrospect, ashamed and uncomfortable that they supported a 2nd vote. Ashamed because it was so clearly foolish, immoral and dangerous as a policy
Certainly I was annoyed by the people who said that it wasn't (technically speaking) advisory; because it was - but David's point that everyone agreed that they would be bound by the result completely overrode that technicality. And of course that agreement was part of Cameron's wizard wheeze to defeat the Tory Leavers.
It all then got mired in the other half of the problem: now that we're leaving, what does that actually mean? People (in Parliament and outside) deliberately obfuscated "second referendum to agree the deal", and "second referendum to overturn the first result". ETA: both of which were impossible pipe dreams.
In retrospect “2nd vote” was a terrible mistake by Remainers. It prevented them focusing on the softest possible Brexit as a goal, staying in the SM/CU etc, whence it would have been much easier to simply rejoin
Now I suspect rejoin will never happen
And the other unanswered questions with the "2nd vote" were: 1) what would be the "leave" option in this 2nd vote?; and 2) for the non-Labour "2nd voters", who would be PM for the 6 months or so it would take to arrange a 2nd national referendum?
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?
It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?
The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?
The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.
Various things here.
Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.
On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.
And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.
The whole "it was advisory" and "a 2nd referendum would have been democratic" bollocks is - I am now sure - advanced by people who are, in retrospect, ashamed and uncomfortable that they supported a 2nd vote. Ashamed because it was so clearly foolish, immoral and dangerous as a policy
Certainly I was annoyed by the people who said that it wasn't (technically speaking) advisory; because it was - but David's point that everyone agreed that they would be bound by the result completely overrode that technicality. And of course that agreement was part of Cameron's wizard wheeze to defeat the Tory Leavers.
It all then got mired in the other half of the problem: now that we're leaving, what does that actually mean? People (in Parliament and outside) deliberately obfuscated "second referendum to agree the deal", and "second referendum to overturn the first result". ETA: both of which were impossible pipe dreams.
Where I stand on this is that it was perfectly legitimate for political parties to stand on a second referendum platform, but that they had to be prepared for the public to take against that, to consider it to be unhelpful, and to vote accordingly. Which partly resulted in the 2019 result.
I like you think that one of the things that really didn’t help was the second referendum to agree terms/second referendum with an option to remain obfuscation, because it came across as disingenuous (all those saying that they wanted a referendum on a final deal vs a remain option were clearly assumed to be trying to get remain through by the back door).
An interesting counterfactual would have been what would have happened if one of the opposition parties campaigned for a second referendum, but just on agreeing what type of Brexit there should be (with the decision to leave having been already taken).
There might have been a way of doing it that that brought the nation together, but it would also have had the potential to be an even bigger fiasco than 2016.
What options? What voting system? How to deal with the fact that the relationship depends on negotiation with the EU? What to do with voters who think/say "well if that's what Leave means, I'd rather Remain"?
(Some of it, drawing up a shortlist, might have been Citizens' Jury-able, but not all of it.)
Oh, it certainly wouldn’t have been a magic bullet. But some key issues like SM/CU membership could have been decided by it rather than by Tory fiat.
Mrs May was correct that a good proportion of leave votes probably wanted to leave the SM/CU, but could never demonstrate majority support for it.
I think re your other point about people thinking “I’d just rather remain”, we would have to fall back on the principle that if the initial vote was to leave, that matter had been settled. That was indeed the big problem with the referendum - people voted for a proposition that had no shape or definition to it. Seeking to consult the public further on what that definition was feels to me appropriate, but perhaps asking them to re-evaluate the decision entirely doesn’t.
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?
It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?
The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?
The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.
Various things here.
Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.
On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.
And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.
The whole "it was advisory" and "a 2nd referendum would have been democratic" bollocks is - I am now sure - advanced by people who are, in retrospect, ashamed and uncomfortable that they supported a 2nd vote. Ashamed because it was so clearly foolish, immoral and dangerous as a policy
Certainly I was annoyed by the people who said that it wasn't (technically speaking) advisory; because it was - but David's point that everyone agreed that they would be bound by the result completely overrode that technicality. And of course that agreement was part of Cameron's wizard wheeze to defeat the Tory Leavers.
It all then got mired in the other half of the problem: now that we're leaving, what does that actually mean? People (in Parliament and outside) deliberately obfuscated "second referendum to agree the deal", and "second referendum to overturn the first result". ETA: both of which were impossible pipe dreams.
Where I stand on this is that it was perfectly legitimate for political parties to stand on a second referendum platform, but that they had to be prepared for the public to take against that, to consider it to be unhelpful, and to vote accordingly. Which partly resulted in the 2019 result.
I like you think that one of the things that really didn’t help was the second referendum to agree terms/second referendum with an option to remain obfuscation, because it came across as disingenuous (all those saying that they wanted a referendum on a final deal vs a remain option were clearly assumed to be trying to get remain through by the back door).
An interesting counterfactual would have been what would have happened if one of the opposition parties campaigned for a second referendum, but just on agreeing what type of Brexit there should be (with the decision to leave having been already taken).
There might have been a way of doing it that that brought the nation together, but it would also have had the potential to be an even bigger fiasco than 2016.
What options? What voting system? How to deal with the fact that the relationship depends on negotiation with the EU? What to do with voters who think/say "well if that's what Leave means, I'd rather Remain"?
(Some of it, drawing up a shortlist, might have been Citizens' Jury-able, but not all of it.)
The Penn State woman made a pretty heartfelt apology the following day.
UPenn. Elite school. Penn State is a state college, not a part of UPenn
I think I got into similar trouble when I kept on mis-alma matering a friend saying they'd gone to George Washington University whereas they actually went to Georgetown University.
I cannot help but think that she was very hard done by. At worst she was incompetent; I cannot help but think that she was very well-meaning. Some people should be hanging their heads in shame over the way she was treated.
Maybe - I am sure you have to be well meaning to get in that business, and incompetence is probably true. But, the Newsnight journalist has said (while offering condolences) he still stands by this report: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41644617 which doesn't suggest it was simply a case of an organisation getting too big too soon and not having the competence to deal with that.
I cannot help but think that she was very hard done by. At worst she was incompetent; I cannot help but think that she was very well-meaning. Some people should be hanging their heads in shame over the way she was treated.
Istr the clamour against her on here was pretty noisy.
I cannot help but think that she was very hard done by. At worst she was incompetent; I cannot help but think that she was very well-meaning. Some people should be hanging their heads in shame over the way she was treated.
Istr the clamour against her on here was pretty noisy.
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
As David Davis put it,
If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.
If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.
Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.
There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.
1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment? 2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public? 3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner? 4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately? 5. Is the result implemented?
A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.
But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.
I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?
It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?
The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?
The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.
Various things here.
Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.
On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.
And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.
The whole "it was advisory" and "a 2nd referendum would have been democratic" bollocks is - I am now sure - advanced by people who are, in retrospect, ashamed and uncomfortable that they supported a 2nd vote. Ashamed because it was so clearly foolish, immoral and dangerous as a policy
Certainly I was annoyed by the people who said that it wasn't (technically speaking) advisory; because it was - but David's point that everyone agreed that they would be bound by the result completely overrode that technicality. And of course that agreement was part of Cameron's wizard wheeze to defeat the Tory Leavers.
It all then got mired in the other half of the problem: now that we're leaving, what does that actually mean? People (in Parliament and outside) deliberately obfuscated "second referendum to agree the deal", and "second referendum to overturn the first result". ETA: both of which were impossible pipe dreams.
Where I stand on this is that it was perfectly legitimate for political parties to stand on a second referendum platform, but that they had to be prepared for the public to take against that, to consider it to be unhelpful, and to vote accordingly. Which partly resulted in the 2019 result.
I like you think that one of the things that really didn’t help was the second referendum to agree terms/second referendum with an option to remain obfuscation, because it came across as disingenuous (all those saying that they wanted a referendum on a final deal vs a remain option were clearly assumed to be trying to get remain through by the back door).
An interesting counterfactual would have been what would have happened if one of the opposition parties campaigned for a second referendum, but just on agreeing what type of Brexit there should be (with the decision to leave having been already taken).
There might have been a way of doing it that that brought the nation together, but it would also have had the potential to be an even bigger fiasco than 2016.
What options? What voting system? How to deal with the fact that the relationship depends on negotiation with the EU? What to do with voters who think/say "well if that's what Leave means, I'd rather Remain"?
(Some of it, drawing up a shortlist, might have been Citizens' Jury-able, but not all of it.)
Oh, it certainly wouldn’t have been a magic bullet. But some key issues like SM/CU membership could have been decided by it rather than by Tory fiat.
Mrs May was correct that a good proportion of leave votes probably wanted to leave the SM/CU, but could never demonstrate majority support for it.
I think re your other point about people thinking “I’d just rather remain”, we would have to fall back on the principle that if the initial vote was to leave, that matter had been settled. That was indeed the big problem with the referendum - people voted for a proposition that had no shape or definition to it. Seeking to consult the public further on what that definition was feels to me appropriate, but perhaps asking them to re-evaluate the decision entirely doesn’t.
Customs Union membership could not be decided by any sort of second referendum since it requires full membership of the EU (with a few exceptions for tiny territories). It is written into the structural treaties of the EU.
But yes SM membership was certainly possible either through the EEA or through a specific EU/UK treaty. And it still is possible. Indeed it becomes more likely by the year.
Not a huge surprise. There are a lot of falling car prices in general - the market has been transformed by Covid. But that top 30 EV fallers? Look at the top 10. Cars which are old, cynical, crap, or all 3. 10. Renault Zoe. 12 years old design 9. Corsa-e. Overpriced & cynical (£32k base price vs £19k for the petrol one) 8. MX-30. Family car with a range of about 3 feet 7. Nissan Leaf. 12 years old design. 6. Jaguar i-Pace. Expensive, old, breaks a lot 5. Mokka-e. Don't. Just don't. 4. EQA. Outrageously expensive, cynical and preposterously thirsty 3. EQC. See EQA 2. u-UP. 12 years old design 1. Miie. 12 years old design
I wonder which ones will be there, or not there, I wonder?
delayed yet again for 30 days
Someone’s obviously applied for an injunction.
The problem with this list of names, is that many of them are not going to be involved in Epstein’s ‘activities’, but simply names that came up in the course of the collection of millions of documents during an investigation.
So, a hypothetical statement of “Person X said that he received a call from Epstein while he was at Donald Trump’s party”, might conceivably lead to headlines of “Donald Trump named in Epstein enquiry” - which would be legally correct but totally out of context.
Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?
Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?
Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?
Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?
They want to flush that great Brexit turd.
You see youre obsessed.
Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.
So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.
Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.
Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.
You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.
Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?
No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.
It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare
AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)
Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea
We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.
In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.
This is the entirety of the woke debate. I think this I am right Other people are wrong Anyone who thinks they are right and I am wrong are woke
No, that is not the "entirety of the woke debate"
You surely know this, so why trot out this gibberish?
The BBC has an interesting take on the dismissal/resignation of Claudine Gay from Harvard after the scandalous testimony then plagiarism.
Basically it’s all down to the far right, Trump and pandering to fascists. Including a quote from someone giving that view.
BBC journalism is astonishingly poor and somewhat partisan.
The response in Germany to a scandal where a number of politicians were discovered to have plagiarised their theses was interesting.
A journalist realised that you could have a lot of fun by downloading the theses of various people and running them through a plagiarism detector.
A number of universities sequestered the theses of “notable” people, in response.
The plagiarism criticisms of Gay that I've seen were pretty trivial stuff, blown out of all proportion. There were, of course, other criticisms of Gay that are of more significance.
A, lot of "plagiarism" in academia is just careless footnoting. Any academic work typically, by convention, has to include a summary of the existing literature and debate, which by definition is not original work. Cribbing parts of that from an existing review article and failing to fully credit that is not a crime IMHO. Passing off someone else's original contribution as one's own is quite different. I've not seen the details of the criticism of Gay but it certainly, from a distance, has more than a whiff of a witch hunt about it.
There may be an agenda to get her, but it has been shown - indisputably - that Harvard STUDENTS have been rusticated for less serious examples of plagiarism than hers, and hers extend over several years and her entire output (and there is now querying of her data, as well)
You cannot have a situation where the President of Harvard is held to a less high standard of academic rigour than Harvard students. For a start it invites law suits from students if they get booted out, unlike Gay who stays (as was)
However I agree that her greater crime was her idiotic, offensive remarks in Congress
All three women should have resigned next day
AIUI (and I've not been following this very closely because I'm not American and don't really care what happens at Harvard) they were asked a factual question about whether certain remarks were against their university codes of conduct, and they said it was context specific - while they personally abhorred the comments. What if that is just factually accurate? America has remarkably robust free speech laws, and academic freedom is important, and perhaps it is the case that there is no hard and fast ban on any specific comment. Indeed I would imagine there isn't any such ban, how could there be, given the infinite array of potentially offensive comments one could make. Just seems like a gotcha tactic, an attempt to exercise power over an area of American life Republican politicians feel they have no control over.
There was at the very least a lack of emotional intelligence in the responses provided. That there is due process needs to be stressed, but when faced with such a clear and stark term as “calling for genocide” all gave very dispassionate and therefore offensive answers. Sometimes that’s not what the occasion calls for.
I tend to think that dispassionate answers are the best answers, particularly in an academic setting.
I cannot help but think that she was very hard done by. At worst she was incompetent; I cannot help but think that she was very well-meaning. Some people should be hanging their heads in shame over the way she was treated.
Istr the clamour against her on here was pretty noisy.
Rightly so given Chris Cook's report. RIP.
Infallible as a PB kangaroo court is, I would still rather go with the High one.
That's the decrease in average used sales price which isn't quite the same thing as depreciation.
Having said that, the BEV market is moving very quickly so there are bound to be some models that turn out to be unsellable duds.
I had an email asking me if I wanted a reservation for a BEV 718 for 2025 delivery. The demand must be quite weak if they are trying to get me to buy one.
Comments
It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?
The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?
The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.
Yes, of course. I can't imagine any Remainer complaining about that. Just advisory, after all
(Also, what do you include and exclude? If I were unscrupulous enough, I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard to come up.with a calculation that showed a net cost to Brexit.)
If parliament knocks a difficult constitutional issue back to the electorate it must accept the verdict. The mistake was voting for the referendum in the first place which, as is now obvious, they did (some Con, almost all Lab and all LD) with insincerity and dishonesty.
The Baddiel/Gervais/70s rabbinical joke is not chucklesome, but it is profound and clever and makes you smile in a sad, philosophical way
Is it even a "joke"? Yes, but it is something else, too
Sure, plenty of people would have complained, but it would not have been undemocratic.
It was also (IMO) a completely never-happening event. I made one of my best betting profits laying it. It went very short at one point.
I will leave the final words with Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking directly to the British people, 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.’
And he went on:
‘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.’
Coda
I believed at the time that it was logical to allow voters to endorse the actual exit deal before it’s implementation because it was impossible to know what shape it would take during the first referendum as there were so many different options available.
People act like we have a written constitution, applied by SCOTUK. We specifically do not, of course
Because, at the end of the day, the wrath of the electorate next time round is the only real constraint on any government.
To decide not to enact a referendum result is a grave thing, not to be done lightly. But it's also not an absolute taboo. If it becomes the will of the people, so be it...
The real problem was using a referendum to get a 50:50 answer, rather than to confirm a decision that had unconsciously been taken already.
We have Pétanque Pistes in the best public park in Mansfield; have had for years.
The Home Counties may be full of Lloyds-invested Captain Mainwarings wearing bowler hats to their Crown Green Bowls clubs; up here we love France ... in its proper place.
And our Pentanque Pistes came from former bowling greens.
https://mansfieldpetanque.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/titchfield-park-piste-dressing/
(Good morning all)
A valid question was asked - why isn't the government keeping track of the benefits?
I think my Tories vs reality post shone a light on why. David Duguid MP says the statistics say local fishermen are having a bonanza. Local fishermen say their experience is things are harder than they were before Brexit.
We know how a government Brexit tracker would be - a massive lie that is mocked by practically everyone.
Can you imagine the campaign during the "second referendum"? Can you imagine the press conferences and debates?
"Prime Minister, how can we trust that you will enact the result of this referendum when you ignored the first? What if we vote Leave again? What is the difference with THIS referendum, as against the first?"
"Because I give you my solemn word the government will obey you. You are the people"
"But you said exactly that last time"
"Er, I really REALLY mean it this time. This is it. No more referendums, This is your decision, you the Britiish people will -"
"You said all that last time"
"Look, just trust us, just vote Remain how we want, and then it will pass, now fuck off. Pleb"
Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.
On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.
And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.
He called yesterday to confirm he’d arrive at 9 today. He arrived at 9 today. Did his measuring, gave us several pieces of useful advice, told us exactly what would happen next and the timings. Then sat at his computer in the kitchen area for half an hour after which time we got a detailed email and quote through.
They’re not all as efficient as that mind.
Creating a referendum without Parliamentary agreement as to what (even in the vaguest terms) the change option actually means, and without a supermajority requirement, was always a recipe for disaster. It was done hubristically on the assumption that "status quo" was inevitably going to win, roping in the maximum number of Tory leavers to agree to the process and then be bound by the result.
In the end, the result went the other way and Cameron has done (perhaps irreparable) damage to the Conservative Party in the process (leaving aside any question of the wider impact).
It will be a model for how *not* to execute major social and political change, for years to come. Irrespective of whether you personally wanted Britain "in" or "out".
The whole point of the Miller II case just before the 2019 election was that it established exercise of prerogative powers (in that case prorogation) is justicable by reference to common law principles, and that accountability of a government to Parliament was such a principle that the court would protect. Leaving Brexit completely aside, that's the legal and constitutional significance of the case.
It's not tested as to how this would be applied in the situation you describe (which is unlikely although, as Johnson's prorogation attempt shows, nothing is impossible). But it's certainly justicable, and indeed I'm pretty confident a court would find that the monarch was legally obliged to implement a general election result by dismissing the defeated PM and appointing the leader of the victorious party (assuming it was indeed clear that the individual could command a majority).
The reason a second referendum didn't happen and shouldn't have happened was that it was unpopular, not because of any deep principle.
From the pitiful "renegotiation" on, Cameron got pretty much everything wrong, and contrived to lose an unloseable vote. Truly the essay crisis PM, and he flunked the biggest essay crisis of his life
I'm inclined to think that the current setup is better than the previous, just as the Expenses situation is better than the previous, even if there is still much room for improvement.
And it is very dependent on the regulation process inside the House of Commons.
OT: I see that the Epstein "associates" names are due for release soon in New York.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67861498
I wonder which ones will be there, or not there, I wonder?
On the other hand, Gay might well have survived in post but for the plagiarism stories - and arguably rightly so, given that it's not for Congress to police university appointments.
In any event, the criticism of the BBC story, which was very similar to the Politico one, seems to me misplaced:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/01/02/claudine-gay-resignation-conservatives-00133568
Both seem a reasonably fair account of what has become a left/right battle.
In contrast, the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 has a section specifically saying what happens if there is a "yes" vote: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/1/part/1/crossheading/result-of-the-referendum/enacted
Anyone can say they will respect the result of a referendum, but the Act that is democratically passed says what is legally required. It would have been entirely legal to ignore the "yes" vote of the 2015 Act. It would not for the 2011 Act. The 2015 Act didn't say anything about how to leave the EU, what timeframe to use, etc., whereas the 2011 Act details what happens as soon as there is a "yes" vote.
Brexit is a door opening. A door opening without actually passing the threshold is just going to be drafty and lead to you getting rained on.
https://www.thefire.org/news/harvard-gets-worst-score-ever-fires-college-free-speech-rankings
...this year, Harvard completed its downward spiral in dramatic fashion, coming in dead last with the worst score ever: 0.00 out of a possible 100.00. This earns it the notorious distinction of being the only school ranked this year with an “Abysmal” speech climate.
The article summarises the general issues with free speech pretty well, but for those who can't be bothered to click, here is a summary:
- disinviting or banning guest speakers from campus whose views they don't agree with (and failing to stop protesters from actively disrupting the events that do go ahead)
- sanctioning students who have expressed particular views on social media
- hostile atmospheres in lectures and other academic contexts whereby right wing students are made afraid to express views that go against that of their professor
If I could sum it up in one sentence, it would be as follows: there are no other minority groupings for whom Claudine Gay and the other two imbeciles would have had any trouble saying that calling for their genocide was against university code of conduct.
https://www.youtube.com/@TomScottGo/videos
A far better tack would have been for remain inclined MPs to say "OK we accept the result, we will leave. And the day after we have left we will campaign to rejoin". The 17-19 parliament did not do this. They attempted to block us from leaving which was complete strategic folly.
Imagine we'd voted for Corbyn in the 2017 referendum and instead of leaving Downing Street May had set up another poll to be sure we wanted Corbyn and remained in Downing Street.
I hope we do go back in at some point, I believe we'll be more prosperous as a nation for it but the 2017-19 parliament was as bad as Trump.
People owe Diogo Jota an apology.
https://www.thisisanfield.com/2024/01/newcastle-goalkeeper-disagrees-with-ex-players-and-eddie-howe-it-was-a-penalty/
It all then got mired in the other half of the problem: now that we're leaving, what does that actually mean? People
(in Parliament and outside) deliberately obfuscated "second referendum to agree the deal", and "second referendum to overturn the first result". ETA: both of which were impossible pipe dreams.
There are also people arriving through irregular means, including crossing the Channel in small boats. Similar arrivals happened when we were in the EU, so I don't think their continuation proves we haven't left the EU.
https://twitter.com/cynicalzoomer/status/1742367620924334185
If Corbyn had won the general election and May had sought to hold another election... well, she wouldn't have been able to, and an attempt to hold a new election would have been illegal. Ignoring the result of the 2015 Act would have been very stupid, but would not have been illegal.
If the opposition rejoiners (And that's what we were at that point - because the decision to leave was a made fact) had had any sense they'd have abstained.
University Wisconsin Chancellor Fired for Making Porn Cites ‘Academic Freedom,’ Says He Has ‘No Plans to Shut It Down’
Joe Gow told The Messenger he is considering legal action against the university
https://themessenger.com/news/onlyfans-university-wisconsin-chancellor-joe-gow-porn-academic-freedom
Now I suspect rejoin will never happen
The attempt to frame it as a far right witch hunt seems to be coming from a few media organs like the BBC and some academics on social media.
The killer question for me in the testimony was the guy who asked why it is acceptable to call for the deaths of Jews but not believe a man cannot have a cock. The defence of free speech here only applies to one viewpoint or mindset. That’s not woke just intolerance.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/apr/25/feminist-lecturer-says-harvard-canceled-her-becaus/
This demonstrates that your rule #5 needs some caveats.
Obviously a national referendum is a different thing to a vote in the Commons.
It is used, for example, as a way of giving weight to the opinions of disabled people rather than "experts", "professionals" or other lobby groups who want to use them as a human shield to defend their own difficult-to-justify opinions.
An example at present is anti-LTN campaigners forever talking about 'defending the interests of disabled people', when they actually want to defend their right to use other people's residential streets as a rat-run - often whilst living in a development with modal filtering themselves. In reality, whilst 75% of adults have a full driving license, for disabled adults it is only around 60%.
It can be taken too far if used as a way of denying the validity of other opinions. For example suggesting that those without "lived experience" (eg of being a wheelchair user) cannot understand.
OTOH those without such lived experience can eg spend half a day in a wheelchair and imagine that they therefore appreciate everything and are qualified to make decisions without consultation.
In summary, it's important that a component of opinion from those who do have 'lived experience' be present, but not be 100% of any evaluation.
(I'm currently considering applying to be on a Government Committee where currently 50% of the members to have 'lived experience'. That may be a good number, but as ever with Govt committees a huge issue will be politics trumping evidence.)
This is just bollocks.
The BBC are reporting fairly straightforwardly what those most instrumental in Gay's dismissal are themselves claiming.
And nowhere in the story do they call them "far right". That is your own bit of "framing".
https://www.newsweek.com/conservative-lawyers-add-new-wrinkle-donald-trumps-immunity-appeal-1856722
..."As the American Oversight amicus brief argues, Supreme Court precedent [from 1989] prohibits a criminal defendant from immediately appealing an order denying immunity unless the claimed immunity is based on 'an explicit statutory or constitutional guarantee that trial will not occur,'" the group's official statement explained. "Trump's claims of immunity rests on no such explicit guarantee. Therefore, given that Trump has not been convicted or sentenced, his appeal is premature. The D.C. Circuit lacks appellate jurisdiction and should dismiss the appeal and return the case to district court for trial promptly."..
This observation is probably true of both sides , the right and the left; but those on the left cannot be shocked when the right enact its own version of cancel culture. It is a product of universities being so weak on free speech and caving in to "woke" mobs as they have done for the last decade or so. The correction was inevitable and probably necessary but the most successful and resilient institutions will be the ones who don't bow to the demands of either side.
I like you think that one of the things that really didn’t help was the second referendum to agree terms/second referendum with an option to remain obfuscation, because it came across as disingenuous (all those saying that they wanted a referendum on a final deal vs a remain option were clearly assumed to be trying to get remain through by the back door).
An interesting counterfactual would have been what would have happened if one of the opposition parties campaigned for a second referendum, but just on agreeing what type of Brexit there should be (with the decision to leave having been already taken).
There is a long debate about who should get to say what. We didn't live in some free speech utopia and then the Left came along and corrupted it. The Left and Right have both spent years going back and forth on what is a difficult matter. I'm old enough to remember when the Conservatives introduced laws in the UK that meant Gerry Adams' voice had to be replaced by an actor's.
People instrumental in her dismissal, like former Harvard Alumni, Bill Ackman are not even quoted. The article I quotes a few fringe right wingers like Vivek Ramaswamy, implies she’s disliked for being black (the other two who testified at congress have been equally vilified and are white) and ignores a lot of the campaigning against her has been from people, like Ackman, who are appalled at the decline of standards at their alma mater.
I'm occasionally noticing a layer of water a couple of inches down in my driveway gravel - which only happens very rarely (two or three of times in a decade) and is due to very excessive rainfall needing to soak into the ground - it has a French Drain all the way down one side, and I am at a high point in the landscape.
BTW My photo of the day. Via BBC frontpage.
(Hope they can all swim.)
I gave both your comments a like, as I don't think you're really disagreeing (though John Gray is truly a pill, IMO.)
What options?
What voting system?
How to deal with the fact that the relationship depends on negotiation with the EU?
What to do with voters who think/say "well if that's what Leave means, I'd rather Remain"?
(Some of it, drawing up a shortlist, might have been Citizens' Jury-able, but not all of it.)
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/01/02/claudine-gay-resignation-conservatives-00133568
..Rufo says it took a three-pronged attack to force Gay’s hand — with Stefanik leading from Congress, financier Bill Ackman ( who continually posted about Gay on X) galvanizing the university’s donor class and his own efforts, along with Brunet and Sibarium.
“We executed it to a really stunning degree of perfection,” Rufo said in an interview Tuesday...
I’ll query the 20 minutes though, it was more like 5 minutes to get everyone off.
A reminder to everyone that, when asked to evacuate, don’t take your luggage with you. Keep your passport in your pocket.
As part of the certification process, they have to evac the whole plane in 90 seconds through half the doors, this is what it looks like:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=G_8hbsWKoOU
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67868843
I cannot help but think that she was very hard done by. At worst she was incompetent; I cannot help but think that she was very well-meaning. Some people should be hanging their heads in shame over the way she was treated.
Isn't the real lesson that, if you're going to place weight on lived experience, make sure you properly understand what that experience is. Just as if you are going to place weight on statistics, make sure the numbers are correct, not selective, and that you understand what they mean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_State_child_sex_abuse_scandal
1) what would be the "leave" option in this 2nd vote?; and
2) for the non-Labour "2nd voters", who would be PM for the 6 months or so it would take to arrange a 2nd national referendum?
Mrs May was correct that a good proportion of leave votes probably wanted to leave the SM/CU, but could never demonstrate majority support for it.
I think re your other point about people thinking “I’d just rather remain”, we would have to fall back on the principle that if the initial vote was to leave, that matter had been settled. That was indeed the big problem with the referendum - people voted for a proposition that had no shape or definition to it. Seeking to consult the public further on what that definition was feels to me appropriate, but perhaps asking them to re-evaluate the decision entirely doesn’t.
1. Accept Mays Deal
2. Continue negotiations
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqxXNZcIdwM
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/electriccars/article-12837223/The-30-used-EVs-plunged-value-2023-year-old-cars-worth-half-much.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuoLp9M-1Vc
But yes SM membership was certainly possible either through the EEA or through a specific EU/UK treaty. And it still is possible. Indeed it becomes more likely by the year.
10. Renault Zoe. 12 years old design
9. Corsa-e. Overpriced & cynical (£32k base price vs £19k for the petrol one)
8. MX-30. Family car with a range of about 3 feet
7. Nissan Leaf. 12 years old design.
6. Jaguar i-Pace. Expensive, old, breaks a lot
5. Mokka-e. Don't. Just don't.
4. EQA. Outrageously expensive, cynical and preposterously thirsty
3. EQC. See EQA
2. u-UP. 12 years old design
1. Miie. 12 years old design
The problem with this list of names, is that many of them are not going to be involved in Epstein’s ‘activities’, but simply names that came up in the course of the collection of millions of documents during an investigation.
So, a hypothetical statement of “Person X said that he received a call from Epstein while he was at Donald Trump’s party”, might conceivably lead to headlines of “Donald Trump named in Epstein enquiry” - which would be legally correct but totally out of context.
Having said that, the BEV market is moving very quickly so there are bound to be some models that turn out to be unsellable duds.
I had an email asking me if I wanted a reservation for a BEV 718 for 2025 delivery. The demand must be quite weak if they are trying to get me to buy one.