I don't actually believe Article 50 will be invoked inmediately. I can see why Cameron says he will do it immediately, as it makes Leave less attractive, but he also says he won't resign. What he will likely do is announce his resignation and that he will leave it to his successor to invoke it. The successor will then get in and do six months prep beforw invoking it, because it will be no benefit at all to waste several months of the two years deciding our exit position and getting the civil service ready.
No they are not, they are just putting forward different scenarios.
People like Chukka are lying to the voters, as exposed earlier.
No, it's lying. They should pick a scenario and run with it.
And they are massive, whopping lies.
You come across as someone who purports to be a Leave voter but actually you are undermining Leave at every opportunity, seems as if you are being disingenuous.
Leave is the option, yes or no, ni other option is on the ballot paper.
I do not purport to be a Leave voter. I am a probable leave voter. At the moment, I'd say almost certain. Say 95%,
I explained my reasoning in an earlier post, and on many occasions in the past.
The reasons I am criticising 'leave' are: a) To me, they are far more inconsistent than remain. b) I'm having their house surveyed before moving in, and do not particularly like the report.
Yet the house I am in is very creaky, and I'm afraid it might fall down at any time.
1st 2 in the market in the Supreme pays 87.5%.Good start for trends followers.Weather is fine and ground is perfect so I'll hope this could be a good year for the trends.I'll be backing ew at 1/4 the odds and on the Tote for some higher payouts on forecasts and trifectas in the handicaps and laying 20 of the 28 favs.Trust Gordon Elliott more than Noel Meade.
That is an exceptionally good thought Justin. Remain have a clear majority in the House- so how the hell could they negotiate the terms of a Brexit? They couldn't.
I think a full blown constitutional crisis would blow up.
Haha to all you Brexit good folk. A Brexit vote would be as much use as a chocolate tea pot unless Brexit can get a plurality in the house, which they won't, ever. Presumably we'll just do an Ireland until we get a remain victory.
Cameron has already said that he'd invoke Article 50 in the event of a Leave vote. Once that's happened, it really has very little to do with parliament: the door would already be closing.
Obviously, there would need to be some domestic legislative changes but you overrate the power that Remain has. If Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP and some Tory rebels blocked those changes, we'd probably see a general election resulting (plus various deselections in the Tory party).
A general election would only be triggered by the Government seeking to engineer a Vote of No Confidence in itself whereupon a dissolution would occur should it prove impossible to form another Administration within two weeks. That would probably not impress the electorate. I find it highly unlikely that Opposition MPs would meekly assent to an election - unless their prospects look good.
No. The government can simply repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act.
Perhaps one of the lawyers who post here can clarify something for me.
I have heard it said that repealing the FTPA alone would not restore the old system because there is no constitutional mechanism whereby powers can be added back to the Royal prerogative once they have become subject to statute. So, Parliament would need not just to repeal the FTPA but replace or amend it.
Is there any truth in this?
Yes, that's correct. The most likely approach would be to amend the clause of the FTPA which requires a two-thirds vote for a resolution to call an early election so that it instead requires a simple majority of the house.
No they are not, they are just putting forward different scenarios.
People like Chukka are lying to the voters, as exposed earlier.
No, it's lying. They should pick a scenario and run with it.
And they are massive, whopping lies.
What is Remain's position for our EU position? Cameron's renegotiation and that's it? Corbyn's bid to change the EU into a workers paradise? Various other people who want further repatriation?
They need to pick a single position and run with it.
That is an exceptionally good thought Justin. Remain have a clear majority in the House- so how the hell could they negotiate the terms of a Brexit? They couldn't.
I think a full blown constitutional crisis would blow up.
Haha to all you Brexit good folk. A Brexit vote would be as much use as a chocolate tea pot unless Brexit can get a plurality in the house, which they won't, ever. Presumably we'll just do an Ireland until we get a remain victory.
Cameron has already said that he'd invoke Article 50 in the event of a Leave vote. Once that's happened, it really has very little to do with parliament: the door would already be closing.
Obviously, there would need to be some domestic legislative changes but you overrate the power that Remain has. If Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP and some Tory rebels blocked those changes, we'd probably see a general election resulting (plus various deselections in the Tory party).
A general election would only be triggered by the Government seeking to engineer a Vote of No Confidence in itself whereupon a dissolution would occur should it prove impossible to form another Administration within two weeks. That would probably not impress the electorate. I find it highly unlikely that Opposition MPs would meekly assent to an election - unless their prospects look good.
No. The government can simply repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act.
Perhaps one of the lawyers who post here can clarify something for me.
I have heard it said that repealing the FTPA alone would not restore the old system because there is no constitutional mechanism whereby powers can be added back to the Royal prerogative once they have become subject to statute. So, Parliament would need not just to repeal the FTPA but replace or amend it.
Is there any truth in this?
Yes, that's correct. The most likely approach would be to amend the clause of the FTPA which requires a two-thirds vote for a resolution to call an early election so that it instead requires a simple majority of the house.
I mean, we could axe it and see what happens. Although the Crown wouldn't get its powers back by default, they may still get them back through the parliamentary intention ascribed to the bill repealing the FTPA.
No they are not, they are just putting forward different scenarios.
People like Chukka are lying to the voters, as exposed earlier.
No, it's lying. They should pick a scenario and run with it.
And they are massive, whopping lies.
What is Remain's position for our EU position? Cameron's renegotiation and that's it? Corbyn's bid to change the EU into a workers paradise? Various other people who want further repatriation?
They need to pick a single position and run with it.
They have. The status quo with Cameron's renegotiation. Supported by all parties. Enshrined in the existing treaties and renegotiation document. Protected by the referendum lock. Nothing in the world of politics, economics and international relations could possibly be clearer
Of all the nonsense spouted in this campaign, the attempt by Leave to paint the Remain option as unclear is the most risible of all.
Donald Trump has won the Republican caucus in the Northern Mariana Islands, a remote U.S. territory that consists of 15 islands in the Pacific Ocean.
Trump took home 73 percent of the vote and will win all nine delegates, according to Jason Osborne, who was the executive director of the local Republican Party.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz followed behind with 24 percent. Both Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio made barely a blip -- Kasich took .02 percent and Rubio .01 percent of 471 total votes. ------------- Just look at the percentages that Kasich and Rubio got. Derisory!
Those numbers are not possible. Even a single voter is 0.2%. That suggests Kasich got a tenth of a voter, and Rubio a twentieth.
Well put the blame on "Politico", for that boo-boo.
I don't actually believe Article 50 will be invoked inmediately. I can see why Cameron says he will do it immediately, as it makes Leave less attractive, but he also says he won't resign. What he will likely do is announce his resignation and that he will leave it to his successor to invoke it. The successor will then get in and do six months prep beforw invoking it, because it will be no benefit at all to waste several months of the two years deciding our exit position and getting the civil service ready.
If I were a Leaver I would be suspicious that, if not invoked very soon after the referendum, Article 50 would never be invoked at all.
No they are not, they are just putting forward different scenarios.
People like Chukka are lying to the voters, as exposed earlier.
No, it's lying. They should pick a scenario and run with it.
And they are massive, whopping lies.
What is Remain's position for our EU position? Cameron's renegotiation and that's it? Corbyn's bid to change the EU into a workers paradise? Various other people who want further repatriation?
They need to pick a single position and run with it.
There is a single position. Cameron's renegotiation, whatever you think of that. Corbyn has no role in that, and no power. Long may that happy state of affairs continue.
Now, it is my belief that the EU will try and grab more powers over time, as it will probably be necessary for them to do so for the project to survive. But that's uncertain and in the future; besides the same sort of complaints about uncertainty in the medium- and long-term future can be made for leave.
Remain also has the advantage of history: we know how the EU acts as we've seen it in the past. I expect about the same rate of change to occur which, to my mind, is a good reason not to be in.
Bur leave's big, gaping chasm is immediate. And they could easily close it if they were being honest.
Tim Farron - PB Fact checkers? "More than ever, it is our responsibility as liberals to stop the immigration debate descending into hard line, xenophobic rhetoric that sets community against community. The relative success of Alternative fur Deutschland in these German elections shows how challenging that can be. Especially when the “pro-immigration” parties in Germany still vastly outweigh the anti, just one story makes better headlines than the other."
Is he right? I thought analysis on here is that anti-immigration parties gained a lot of ground but may be are not ahead?
"Similarly, here in the UK, we would be foolish to think the decline of UKIP will see an end to the blaming of the other."
Pretty stupid of him to talk about the "decline of UKIP" when they scored 12% at the GE and are polling at a similar level at the moment. Even more stupid given that he is a Lib Dem.
That was a year ago (almost). Not only is a week a long time in politics but recent council by-elections cannot described as a success for UKIP, while the LibDems have done rather better than could be expected, given the national polling figures.
UKIP have no local ground game for these kinds of boring local by elections. They fight a great air war and it destroyed the Lib Dems (along with the Tories) at the GE. The Lib Dems have shown no real signs of reversing their terminal decline. A few local by election results mean nothing. I remember in 2012-2014 we had Lib Dems on here citing loads of local by elections showing a Con -> LD swing and it would repeat at the GE in those areas. It didn't and the Lib Dems have been destroyed. Farron trying to deflect his party's destruction deserves ridicule.
MaxPB: what it does show is that the LibDem members and activists are pounding the streets. That may or may not result in some sort of recovery between now and 2025, but it is certainly not a negative. (
But their national message is absolute shit. We're all political anoraks on here and can anyone tell us about Lib Dem policy? I certainly can't. I know what Labour, UKIP and the Tories stand for or against. I have no idea what the Lib Dems stand for other than not disappearing.
Apologies, I think I might have lost track of responses to people below. I've only a single-thread operating in my head at the moment. Or a big.LITTLE processor where the big is dormant.
No they are not, they are just putting forward different scenarios.
People like Chukka are lying to the voters, as exposed earlier.
No, it's lying. They should pick a scenario and run with it.
And they are massive, whopping lies.
No they are not lying.
If Labour at the last General Election said they opposed the Coalition because they were cutting spending ... If the SNP at the last General Election said they opposed the Coalition because they were cutting Scottish spending ... If UKIP at the last General Election said they opposed the Coalition because they were not cutting spending fast enough ... If the Lib Dems at the last General Election said they opposed the Coalition because of the Tories but they stood by the spending levels ... If the Tories at the last General Election said they opposed the Coalition because of the Lib Dems but stood by the spending levels ...
Then were they all lying because they don't agree on their alternative scenarios? They were all united in opposing the Coalition but putting prospective alternatives that we could choose democratically through our regular election processes.
No they are not, they are just putting forward different scenarios.
People like Chukka are lying to the voters, as exposed earlier.
No, it's lying. They should pick a scenario and run with it.
And they are massive, whopping lies.
What is Remain's position for our EU position? Cameron's renegotiation and that's it? Corbyn's bid to change the EU into a workers paradise? Various other people who want further repatriation?
They need to pick a single position and run with it.
They have. The status quo with Cameron's renegotiation. Supported by all parties. Enshrined in the existing treaties and renegotiation document. Protected by the referendum lock. Nothing in the world of politics, economics and international relations could possibly be clearer
Of all the nonsense spouted in this campaign, the attempt by Leave to paint the Remain option as unclear is the most risible of all.
I wonder if a year ago the rest of the EU thought the status quo was inviting millions of refugees from the middle east over to be shared around?
People will vote Leave for differing reasons. Leave are under no obligation to tell one or other group of supporters that they don't want their votes.
In the same way that there are people who will vote Remain because they think that David Cameron has prevented further integration, and there will be people who will vote Remain because they think we're heading for a United States of Europe. There'll be people who vote Remain because they think the EU entrenches liberal capitalism, and people who will vote remain because they think it entrenches social democracy.
........And this matters. I'm really concerned about the chaos that may occur after a leave vote when one batch of leave voters or the other realise they've been sold a pup.
What chaos from the public? If the current Govt do things after a LEAVE vote that do not align with the view of what the majority of voters regard as their main issue, the voters can actually vote in a new bunch at 2020. Contrast this with REMAIN where our voters cannot vote out the folk that run the EU.
I meant chaos from the hardcore leaver voters as they scream and stamp their feet: "This isn't what we meant!".... Also, it is a mistake to think that a general election is a vote on any one specific issue except - perhaps - the competence or otherwise of the government.
Who are the hardore voters wanting near zero immigration likely to be supporting as a political party? The explosion could be more damaging to Labour than the Cons, but we could then see a UKIP getting into the 20%+ of GE votes. Here is my guess by size of the vote (all voters):- 11% of voters (from the 12% UKIP) 6% from Cons (of their 36%) 10% from Labour (of their approx 28%)
My rationale is that immigration is driving 90% of UKIP, 1/3 of the 1/2 (LEAVE) Con vote, 1/3 of the Labour wwc vote.
That is an exceptionally good thought Justin. Remain have a clear majority in the House- so how the hell could they negotiate the terms of a Brexit? They couldn't.
I think a full blown constitutional crisis would blow up.
Haha to all you Brexit good folk. A Brexit vote would be as much use as a chocolate tea pot unless Brexit can get a plurality in the house, which they won't, ever. Presumably we'll just do an Ireland until we get a remain victory.
I am inclined at present to vote Leave on 23rd June , but am a bit intrigued as to how matters might develop at Westminster in the aftermath of a Leave vote. Whilst in pure democratic terms Remain MPs are likely to feel obliged to respect the electorate's decision , there would be no reason for such MPs to back the legislation related to a particular Brexit model - whether Canadian style deal - Norway style - or indeed anything else. Effectively Remain MPs might still be able to block Boris - or whoever- negotiating a particular option as a non-EU state. We might find that the likes of Kenneth Clarke et al become a new breed of Tory rebels able to count on overwhelming blocking support from the Opposition benches! Perhaps they would insist on the holding of a further Referendum before agreeing to support the outcome of any Free Trade Deal etc. Just a thought!
Cameron has already said that he'd invoke Article 50 in the event of a Leave vote. Once that's happened, it really has very little to do with parliament: the door would already be closing.
Obviously, there would need to be some domestic legislative changes but you overrate the power that Remain has. If Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP and some Tory rebels blocked those changes, we'd probably see a general election resulting (plus various deselections in the Tory party).
Some 'remainers' on here can see no end to the evil that is David Cameron. The fact the he has played a straight bat on this issue has simply failed to compute.
That is an exceptionally good thought Justin. Remain have a clear majority in the House- so how the hell could they negotiate the terms of a Brexit? They couldn't.
I think a full blown constitutional crisis would blow up.
Haha to all you Brexit good folk. A Brexit vote would be as much use as a chocolate tea pot unless Brexit can get a plurality in the house, which they won't, ever. Presumably we'll just do an Ireland until we get a remain victory.
I am inclined at present to vote Leave on 23rd June , but am a bit intrigued as to how matters might develop at Westminster in the aftermath of a Leave vote. Whilst in pure democratic terms Remain MPs are likely to feel obliged to respect the electorate's decision , there would be no reason for such MPs to back the legislation related to a particular Brexit model - whether Canadian style deal - Norway style - or indeed anything else. Effectively Remain MPs might still be able to block Boris - or whoever- negotiating a particular option as a non-EU state. We might find that the likes of Kenneth Clarke et al become a new breed of Tory rebels able to count on overwhelming blocking support from the Opposition benches! Perhaps they would insist on the holding of a further Referendum before agreeing to support the outcome of any Free Trade Deal etc. Just a thought!
A general election would only be triggered by the Government seeking to engineer a Vote of No Confidence in itself whereupon a dissolution would occur should it prove impossible to form another Administration within two weeks. That would probably not impress the electorate. I find it highly unlikely that Opposition MPs would meekly assent to an election - unless their prospects look good.
No. The government can simply repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act.
How long would that take to get through Parliament without Opposition support.
About 20 minutes. There's no need to debate amendments in the case of repeal of existing laws. I have no doubt that the Lords would throw it back, but as long as it had the support of the speaker, it could be done in a day without issues.
Were matters as simple as you suggest I am sure earlier Administrations would have taken advantage of such procedures. I would also expect quite a few Tory rebels if the Government went down that road.
I wouldn't be backing you at 1-20 to vote leave. The chance of you changing your mind is higher than that methinks.
Personally I'm 70-75% leave at the moment..
I was going to add a bit where I said such numbers are essentially meaningless.
But I've been falling onto the leave side of the fence for some time (*) now, and nothing's changed my mind (then again, nothing's accelerated the fall either). If something would have done it, it would have been the renegotiation. Yet it did not.
The number's so high because I cannot see what remain can do to persuade me otherwise.
(*) I wonder what the G force on this planet is? I swear the fence is only six foot tall, yet I've been falling for ages and I still haven't hit the ground ...
That is an exceptionally good thought Justin. Remain have a clear majority in the House- so how the hell could they negotiate the terms of a Brexit? They couldn't.
I think a full blown constitutional crisis would blow up.
Haha to all you Brexit good folk. A Brexit vote would be as much use as a chocolate tea pot unless Brexit can get a plurality in the house, which they won't, ever. Presumably we'll just do an Ireland until we get a remain victory.
Cameron has already said that he'd invoke Article 50 in the event of a Leave vote. Once that's happened, it really has very little to do with parliament: the door would already be closing.
Obviously, there would need to be some domestic legislative changes but you overrate the power that Remain has. If Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP and some Tory rebels blocked those changes, we'd probably see a general election resulting (plus various deselections in the Tory party).
A general election would only be triggered by the Government seeking to engineer a Vote of No Confidence in itself whereupon a dissolution would occur should it prove impossible to form another Administration within two weeks. That would probably not impress the electorate. I find it highly unlikely that Opposition MPs would meekly assent to an election - unless their prospects look good.
No. The government can simply repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act.
Perhaps one of the lawyers who post here can clarify something for me.
I have heard it said that repealing the FTPA alone would not restore the old system because there is no constitutional mechanism whereby powers can be added back to the Royal prerogative once they have become subject to statute. So, Parliament would need not just to repeal the FTPA but replace or amend it.
Is there any truth in this?
Yes, that's correct. The most likely approach would be to amend the clause of the FTPA which requires a two-thirds vote for a resolution to call an early election so that it instead requires a simple majority of the house.
I doubt that would get through the Lords - perhaps not even the Commons.
Sorry, but that's rubbish because the two options are mutually exclusive. Leave are dishonestly trying to create a big tent in which large segments will be discontent after the vote. Leave are ignoring this issue when it should be front and centre.
Worse, it's setting up massive arguments amongst leave supporters if leave win. What does the vote even mean? Many will say it means the EEA approach, whilst others will argue against that. And our negotiations with the EU will have to be undertaken in such an environment.
If Remain are selling a false prospectus, then Leave's isn't even a prospectus. It's a load of disjointed grumbles.
As I've said many times before, the fear (and that is the right word) of further integration is pushing me towards voting leave. One of the factors pushing me back towards remain is the fact that Remain are to stupid to know, or dishonest to say, what a leave vote means.
For the moment, the former factor is heavier than the latter.
For the moment.
So what if it sets up an argument afterwards? That is what democracy is for. Should we scrap all future elections because people may have disagreements and there's more than one opposition party?
There is no dishonesty as the necessary prerequisite for both options it to Leave first. If you want to control immigration then vote Leave. If you want to join the EEA then vote Leave.
If there is a Leave vote then we have democracy to sort out our own future.
The time for democracy is at the vote, not after. Voting leave in the current situation is like saying: "You vote, and we'll decide on our policies afterwards. We might be as left-wing as Corbyn, or as right-wing as IDS. We'll let you know."
IMO the gulf between the anti-immigration/sovereignty and pro-EEA positions are far too wide and mutually incompatible to be honestly covered by one campaign.
No the time for democracy is every five years. The timing for referendums on Europe is 41 years apart currently. To expect all democratic decisions to be made once is naive. Since the last European Referendum we have had no fewer than NINE General Elections, four of which saw a change in the parties of government.
What Leavers are united on is that we should Leave the EU and decide for ourselves what we want. The future is never set in stone.
That is an exceptionally good thought Justin. Remain have a clear majority in the House- so how the hell could they negotiate the terms of a Brexit? They couldn't.
I think a full blown constitutional crisis would blow up.
Haha to all you Brexit good folk. A Brexit vote would be as much use as a chocolate tea pot unless Brexit can get a plurality in the house, which they won't, ever. Presumably we'll just do an Ireland until we get a remain victory.
I am inclined at present to vote Leave on 23rd June , but am a bit intrigued as to how matters might develop at Westminster in the aftermath of a Leave vote. Whilst in pure democratic terms Remain MPs are likely to feel obliged to respect the electorate's decision , there would be no reason for such MPs to back the legislation related to a particular Brexit model - whether Canadian style deal - Norway style - or indeed anything else. Effectively Remain MPs might still be able to block Boris - or whoever- negotiating a particular option as a non-EU state. We might find that the likes of Kenneth Clarke et al become a new breed of Tory rebels able to count on overwhelming blocking support from the Opposition benches! Perhaps they would insist on the holding of a further Referendum before agreeing to support the outcome of any Free Trade Deal etc. Just a thought!
Cameron has already said that he'd invoke Article 50 in the event of a Leave vote. Once that's happened, it really has very little to do with parliament: the door would already be closing.
Obviously, there would need to be some domestic legislative changes but you overrate the power that Remain has. If Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP and some Tory rebels blocked those changes, we'd probably see a general election resulting (plus various deselections in the Tory party).
Some 'remainers' on here can see no end to the evil that is David Cameron. The fact the he has played a straight bat on this issue has simply failed to compute.
There is absolutely no chance he will invoke Article 50 immediately if we vote Leave.
Brussels will insist on further renegotiation and a further vote, and Dodgy Dave will go along with it.
However Remain will win this quite easily so I don't know why I am getting myself into arguments with people about it.
Donald Trump has won the Republican caucus in the Northern Mariana Islands, a remote U.S. territory that consists of 15 islands in the Pacific Ocean.
Trump took home 73 percent of the vote and will win all nine delegates, according to Jason Osborne, who was the executive director of the local Republican Party.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz followed behind with 24 percent. Both Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio made barely a blip -- Kasich took .02 percent and Rubio .01 percent of 471 total votes. ------------- Just look at the percentages that Kasich and Rubio got. Derisory!
Those numbers are not possible. Even a single voter is 0.2%. That suggests Kasich got a tenth of a voter, and Rubio a twentieth.
Maybe the caucus-goer insisted that his head said Kasich, even though the rest of him was for Trump. Rubio scored with a lesser part of the anatomy.
@JosiasJessop sorry wasn't meant to have a pop at you, just there seems to be a fairly endless procession of people who claim they'll vote leave and then suddenly switch to remain because Dave has shat out a bed of roses or some such.
On 23rd June we vote to Leave, on 24th June David Cameron offers his resignation to the Conservative party as leader, is there a mechanism by which his resignation can be declined by the party so he continues as leader and PM?
That is an exceptionally good thought Justin. Remain have a clear majority in the House- so how the hell could they
Haha to all you Brexit good folk. A Brexit vote would be as much use as a chocolate tea pot unless Brexit can get a plurality in the house, which they won't, ever. Presumably we'll just do an Ireland until we get a remain victory.
I am inclined at present to vote Leave on 23rd June , but am a bit intrigued as to how matters might develop at Westminster in the aftermath of a Leave vote. Whilst in pure democratic terms Remain MPs are likely to feel obliged to respect the electorate's decision , there would be no reason for such MPs to back the legislation related to a particular Brexit model - whether Canadian style deal - Norway style - or indeed anything else. Effectively Remain MPs might still be able to block Boris - or whoever- negotiating a particular option as a non-EU state. We might find that the likes of Kenneth Clarke et al become a new breed of Tory rebels able to count on overwhelming blocking support from the Opposition benches! Perhaps they would insist on the holding of a further Referendum before agreeing to support the outcome of any Free Trade Deal etc. Just a thought!
Cameron has already said that he'd invoke Article 50 in the event of a Leave vote. Once that's happened, it really has very little to do with parliament: the door would already be closing.
Obviously, there would need to be some domestic legislative changes but you overrate the power that Remain has. If Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP and some Tory rebels blocked those changes, we'd probably see a general election resulting (plus various deselections in the Tory party).
A general election would only be triggered by the Government seeking to engineer a Vote of No Confidence in itself whereupon a dissolution would occur should it prove impossible to form another Administration within two weeks. That would probably not impress the electorate. I find it highly unlikely that Opposition MPs would meekly assent to an election - unless their prospects look good.
No, it could simply resign. No other government could be formed and an election campaign would automatically be triggered two weeks later.
As a means of engineering an election to take advantage of current popularity, it's not good because it's too clever by half and gives plenty of time for the other parties to criticise. However, if the other parties are seen to have forced the government into resigning on an issue where the public had already spoken and where parliament was blocking the public's wishes, then I'd expect the electorate to at least understand and probably support the government's actions.
Tim Farron - PB Fact checkers? "More than ever, it is our responsibility as liberals to stop the immigration debate descending into hard line, xenophobic rhetoric that sets community against community. The relative success of Alternative fur Deutschland in these German elections shows how challenging that can be. Especially when the “pro-immigration” parties in Germany still vastly outweigh the anti, just one story makes better headlines than the other."
Is he right? I thought analysis on here is that anti-immigration parties gained a lot of ground but may be are not ahead?
"Similarly, here in the UK, we would be foolish to think the decline of UKIP will see an end to the blaming of the other."
Pretty stupid of him to talk about the "decline of UKIP" when they scored 12% at the GE and are polling at a similar level at the moment. Even more stupid given that he is a Lib Dem.
That was a year ago (almost). Not only is a week a long time in politics but recent council by-elections cannot described as a success for UKIP, while the LibDems have done rather better than could be expected, given the national polling figures.
UKIP have no local ground game for these kinds of boring local by elections. They fight a great air war and it destroyed the Lib Dems (along with the Tories) at the GE. The Lib Dems have shown no real signs of reversing their terminal decline. A few local by election results mean nothing. I remember in 2012-2014 we had Lib Dems on here citing loads of local by elections showing a Con -> LD swing and it would repeat at the GE in those areas. It didn't and the Lib Dems have been destroyed. Farron trying to deflect his party's destruction deserves ridicule.
MaxPB: what it does show is that the LibDem members and activists are pounding the streets. That may or may not result in some sort of recovery between now and 2025, but it is certainly not a negative. (
But their national message is absolute shit. We're all political anoraks on here and can anyone tell us about Lib Dem policy? I certainly can't. I know what Labour, UKIP and the Tories stand for or against. I have no idea what the Lib Dems stand for other than not disappearing.
"Lib Dems Weed is here" "Lib Dems are the straight joint choice"
Sorry, but that's rubbish because the two options are mutually exclusive. Leave are dishonestly trying to create a big tent in which large segments will be discontent after the vote. Leave are ignoring this issue when it should be front and centre.
Worse, it's setting up massive arguments amongst leave supporters if leave win. What does the vote even mean? Many will say it means the EEA approach, whilst others will argue against that. And our negotiations with the EU will have to be undertaken in such an environment.
If Remain are selling a false prospectus, then Leave's isn't even a prospectus. It's a load of disjointed grumbles.
As I've said many times before, the fear (and that is the right word) of further integration is pushing me towards voting leave. One of the factors pushing me back towards remain is the fact that Remain are to stupid to know, or dishonest to say, what a leave vote means.
For the moment, the former factor is heavier than the latter.
For the moment.
So what if it sets up an argument afterwards? That is what democracy is for. Should we scrap all future elections because people may have disagreements and there's more than one opposition party?
There is no dishonesty as the necessary prerequisite for both options it to Leave first. If you want to control immigration then vote Leave. If you want to join the EEA then vote Leave.
If there is a Leave vote then we have democracy to sort out our own future.
The time for democracy is at the vote, not after. Voting leave in the current situation is like saying: "You vote, and we'll decide on our policies afterwards. We might be as left-wing as Corbyn, or as right-wing as IDS. We'll let you know."
IMO the gulf between the anti-immigration/sovereignty and pro-EEA positions are far too wide and mutually incompatible to be honestly covered by one campaign.
No the time for democracy is every five years. The timing for referendums on Europe is 41 years apart currently. To expect all democratic decisions to be made once is naive. Since the last European Referendum we have had no fewer than NINE General Elections, four of which saw a change in the parties of government.
What Leavers are united on is that we should Leave the EU and decide for ourselves what we want. The future is never set in stone.
Not when the concept of what 'leave' means is so vague. To many, the EEA would not be leave, especially as it would not allow full control of borders.
@JosiasJessop sorry wasn't meant to have a pop at you, just there seems to be a fairly endless procession of people who claim they'll vote leave and then suddenly switch to remain because Dave has shat out a bed of roses or some such.
No problem. In fact, I cannot see the point in firmly making my mind up at the moment.
Tim Farron - PB Fact checkers? "More than ever, it is our responsibility as liberals to stop the immigration debate descending into hard line, xenophobic rhetoric that sets community against community. The relative success of Alternative fur Deutschland in these German elections shows how challenging that can be. Especially when the “pro-immigration” parties in Germany still vastly outweigh the anti, just one story makes better headlines than the other."
Is he right? I thought analysis on here is that anti-immigration parties gained a lot of ground but may be are not ahead?
"Similarly, here in the UK, we would be foolish to think the decline of UKIP will see an end to the blaming of the other."
Pretty stupid of him to talk about the "decline of UKIP" when they scored 12% at the GE and are polling at a similar level at the moment. Even more stupid given that he is a Lib Dem.
That was a year ago (almost). Not only is a week a long time in politics but recent council by-elections cannot described as a success for UKIP, while the LibDems have done rather better than could be expected, given the national polling figures.
UKIP have no local ground game for these kinds of boring local by elections. They fight a great air war and it destroyed the Lib Dems (along with the Tories) at the GE. The Lib Dems have shown no real signs of reversing their terminal decline. A few local by election results mean nothing. I remember in 2012-2014 we had Lib Dems on here citing loads of local by elections showing a Con -> LD swing and it would repeat at the GE in those areas. It didn't and the Lib Dems have been destroyed. Farron trying to deflect his party's destruction deserves ridicule.
MaxPB: what it does show is that the LibDem members and activists are pounding the streets. That may or may not result in some sort of recovery between now and 2025, but it is certainly not a negative. (
But their national message is absolute shit. We're all political anoraks on here and can anyone tell us about Lib Dem policy? I certainly can't. I know what Labour, UKIP and the Tories stand for or against. I have no idea what the Lib Dems stand for other than not disappearing.
Comments
I explained my reasoning in an earlier post, and on many occasions in the past.
The reasons I am criticising 'leave' are:
a) To me, they are far more inconsistent than remain.
b) I'm having their house surveyed before moving in, and do not particularly like the report.
Yet the house I am in is very creaky, and I'm afraid it might fall down at any time.
They need to pick a single position and run with it.
Of all the nonsense spouted in this campaign, the attempt by Leave to paint the Remain option as unclear is the most risible of all.
The brave new world of early voting, explained https://t.co/y9s6eY94bm https://t.co/U7tEMWanZJ
Now, it is my belief that the EU will try and grab more powers over time, as it will probably be necessary for them to do so for the project to survive. But that's uncertain and in the future; besides the same sort of complaints about uncertainty in the medium- and long-term future can be made for leave.
Remain also has the advantage of history: we know how the EU acts as we've seen it in the past. I expect about the same rate of change to occur which, to my mind, is a good reason not to be in.
Bur leave's big, gaping chasm is immediate. And they could easily close it if they were being honest.
Personally I'm 70-75% leave at the moment..
If Labour at the last General Election said they opposed the Coalition because they were cutting spending ...
If the SNP at the last General Election said they opposed the Coalition because they were cutting Scottish spending ...
If UKIP at the last General Election said they opposed the Coalition because they were not cutting spending fast enough ...
If the Lib Dems at the last General Election said they opposed the Coalition because of the Tories but they stood by the spending levels ...
If the Tories at the last General Election said they opposed the Coalition because of the Lib Dems but stood by the spending levels ...
Then were they all lying because they don't agree on their alternative scenarios? They were all united in opposing the Coalition but putting prospective alternatives that we could choose democratically through our regular election processes.
Here is my guess by size of the vote (all voters):-
11% of voters (from the 12% UKIP)
6% from Cons (of their 36%)
10% from Labour (of their approx 28%)
My rationale is that immigration is driving 90% of UKIP, 1/3 of the 1/2 (LEAVE) Con vote, 1/3 of the Labour wwc vote.
But I've been falling onto the leave side of the fence for some time (*) now, and nothing's changed my mind (then again, nothing's accelerated the fall either). If something would have done it, it would have been the renegotiation. Yet it did not.
The number's so high because I cannot see what remain can do to persuade me otherwise.
(*) I wonder what the G force on this planet is? I swear the fence is only six foot tall, yet I've been falling for ages and I still haven't hit the ground ...
What Leavers are united on is that we should Leave the EU and decide for ourselves what we want. The future is never set in stone.
London revealed as cocaine capital of Europe by testing city waste water @EMCDDA https://t.co/u6aw9JzXh3
Brussels will insist on further renegotiation and a further vote, and Dodgy Dave will go along with it.
However Remain will win this quite easily so I don't know why I am getting myself into arguments with people about it.
On 23rd June we vote to Leave, on 24th June David Cameron offers his resignation to the Conservative party as leader, is there a mechanism by which his resignation can be declined by the party so he continues as leader and PM?
As a means of engineering an election to take advantage of current popularity, it's not good because it's too clever by half and gives plenty of time for the other parties to criticise. However, if the other parties are seen to have forced the government into resigning on an issue where the public had already spoken and where parliament was blocking the public's wishes, then I'd expect the electorate to at least understand and probably support the government's actions.
New Thread New Thread
No bet.
"Lib Dems are the straight joint choice"
is a new policy.
I've no idea either.
https://twitter.com/yueyuea/status/709699495127289856