The convention when a government resigns is the LOTO is charged by HMQ with forming a government, as in 1905, even if in a minority in the HoC...
That convention has not been displaced by the FTPA.
I don't think that's the case, nor has it ever been that automatic: Thatcher wasn't invited to form a government after Callaghan lost a vote of no confidence in 1979. Similarly, Churchill, when he resigned the War coalition government in May 1945 after Labour withdrew, was recalled to form a continuity National government.
But the FTPA does change things. Conventions are based as much on what's seen as acceptable now as on expectations set in the past. The most recent precedent is 2010, when Brown stayed on in post while negotiations continued but then resigned before they were finished.
Technically, yes, she could invite Corbyn to form a government but he would still need the Commons to approve him, which it wouldn't. Does he then resign? More realistically, based both on modern equivalent positions in other countries and in Britain's more distant past is that the invitation to form a government does not equal an appointment until the PM-candidate is willing to put his government to the Commons.
But Cameron would certainly risk allowing Corbyn into No 10 if he resigned the government, even if (IMO) it's a relatively low one.
Callaghan didn't resign because he had the option of asking for a dissolution [now gone], which convention indicated would be granted.
1945 was a special case, in that the LOTO was in government, and was resigning from it, so could scarcely be asked to form the next government without an intervening election. Churchill resigned only in a technical sense. Everyone knew the outcome would be a dissolution.
Based on convention, when a government simply surrenders the seals of office, the LOTO is sent for. But he is not bound to accept! Disraeli refused in 1873...
I don't think any new convention will be adopted, since existing ones are sufficient.
Because, it's only if the Leave campaigners are in power, after a Leave vote, that they can give you firm promises about what Leave will entail. It's likely that some Conservative Leave campaigners would be involved in negotiations with the EU, after a Leave vote, but there would still be plenty of Remain campaigners in government, and a big Remain majority in the Commons.
(snip)
They could be in that position if they made it clear to the public what the vote for Leave meant. Then, whoever was in charge of the negotiation would have to aim for that, as it is what the people voted on. It's up to the Leave campaign to define what Leave means.
Cameron's made it quite clear that Remain means a vote on his renegotiation. Now, you and I may be doubtful whether that renegotiation is worth anything, and whether the EU will stick to it in the medium and long term. But that's what we're voting for if we vote Remain.
Leave need to be equally clear, but they are failing to do so.
Why do they need to be equally clear? One of the prime motivation for many leavers is that once we are out, we can elect or not the government based on what they intend to do or not
(Snip)
Because we're having a referendum, and they need to be honest to the electorate. And the decision about what we do will have to be taken before the next GE in 2020.
Yet Leave are not being clear. Part of that is because their campaign is leaderless (or, more accurately, is several campaigns with several leaders), and partly because they know they need a broad church to win.
It would be easy for Leave to adopt a broad position such as : "We want to be in the EEA. But if we fail in joining within a year, we shall leave the EU and not apply for the EEA or EFTA."
I daresay the big brains behind leave can come up with something better. But it shows the intention, and any government after a leave vote would have to stick with that intention.
These are decisions for government and LEAVE isn't a government. It is David Cameron who should tell us what LEAVE means and how he would seek to make a constructive go of it if it were forced upon him.
No. If it was a decision for government then we wouldn't be having a referendum. As we're having a referendum then it's a decision for the people, and the people should know what they're voting for.
Quite true. But it is for the government to tell us what we are voting for: only they have the resposibility. If Cameron has launched the referendum with no idea how he would cope with LEAVE, or thinking it would be a ruinous outcome then he has been utterly irresponsible.
Leave may be "united" in wanting to Leave, but they remind me of the Roger McGough poem
I wanna be the leader I wanna be the leader Can I be the leader? Can I? I can? Promise? Promise? Yippee I'm the leader I'm the leader
OK what shall we do?
And I think the voters have a right to know what is likely to happen next.
That's not being frightened of change; if we Remain we can have a share in what happens.
It isn't up to Leave to decide what happens though. Boris and Gove would want to be part of the decision making process I'm sure, but it isn't within their remit, at the moment, as the Justice Secretary and Mayor of London to say what the government will do in the event of a Leave vote. Boris has spelled out what he would like to see, the Canadian model, which is fair, but as you saw the very next day the government rubbished it.
Sky News anchor looked like she was going to throw up after playing Trump's 'the Snake'.
Just report the news, dearie...
Rednecks are too good mannered to attempt to disrupt Democrat gatherings. As in the UK, it's the nasty Social Justice Warriors who wish to stifle debate and silence those with what THEY decide are "unacceptable" views.
Only a small fraction of US MSM coverage appears to make any attempts to be objective.
If MSM "experts" had bet on the US primaries, they'd be in massive deficit by this stage.
If anyone fancies backing the GOP to win in November, you can currently do so @3.4 by laying all the dem runners over on betfair.
Not bad odds.
It's the Sanders price that is driving this (and is crazy). He's already at max red for me though.
He could well go lower tonight.
I got out of dodge with Sanders when the Michigan results were rolling in at 26.0. No deep south states left really now for Hillary. I trust the Democrat polling even less than the GOP polling at the moment !
These are decisions for government and LEAVE isn't a government. It is David Cameron who should tell us what LEAVE means and how he would seek to make a constructive go of it if it were forced upon him.
No! David Cameron has negotiated a new deal, he is now trying to sell that deal to the public via a referendum. If the deal is rejected by the electorate, that is a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister and he will have little option but to resign. Someone else, preferably from the 'leave' side will have to handle the exit negotiations.
Quite true. But it is for the government to tell us what we are voting for: only they have the resposibility. If Cameron has launched the referendum with no idea how he would cope with LEAVE or thinking it would be a ruinous outcome then he has bee utterly irresponsible.
Why is it for the government to tell us? As the government has a position for remain, and are leading that campaign, they set out what 'remain' means: in short, Cameron's renegotiation. They cannot be expected to set out what leave means as well, although they can say what they think its effect may be. (A task that is both hard and easy as it is so undefined).
Cameron doesn't want to leave, and has set his stall out for that. That does not mean he, and the government, have not been considering what will happen if they lose. And they're under no obligation to tell us.
But leave, as the people who want to leave, need to set out *their* position. And they have not in any detail.
Edit: if I recall correctly, the government did not even set the question, the EC did.
Quite true. But it is for the government to tell us what we are voting for: only they have the resposibility. If Cameron has launched the referendum with no idea how he would cope with LEAVE or thinking it would be a ruinous outcome then he has bee utterly irresponsible.
Why is it for the government to tell us? As the government has a position for remain, and are leading that campaign, they set out what 'remain' means: in short, Cameron's renegotiation. They cannot be expected to set out what leave means as well, although they can say what they think its effect may be. (A task that is both hard and easy as it is so undefined).
Cameron doesn't want to leave, and has set his stall out for that. That does not mean he, and the government, have not been considering what will happen if they lose. And they're under no obligation to tell us.
But leave, as the people who want to leave, need to set out *their* position. And they have not in any detail.
Anyone can have an opinion but government must decide. If its LEAVE Cameron has said he will not resign. So what does he do on 24th June? We should be told.
Quite true. But it is for the government to tell us what we are voting for: only they have the resposibility. If Cameron has launched the referendum with no idea how he would cope with LEAVE or thinking it would be a ruinous outcome then he has bee utterly irresponsible.
Why is it for the government to tell us? As the government has a position for remain, and are leading that campaign, they set out what 'remain' means: in short, Cameron's renegotiation. They cannot be expected to set out what leave means as well, although they can say what they think its effect may be. (A task that is both hard and easy as it is so undefined).
Cameron doesn't want to leave, and has set his stall out for that. That does not mean he, and the government, have not been considering what will happen if they lose. And they're under no obligation to tell us.
But leave, as the people who want to leave, need to set out *their* position. And they have not in any detail.
Edit: if I recall correctly, the government did not even set the question, the EC did.
Quite true. But it is for the government to tell us what we are voting for: only they have the resposibility. If Cameron has launched the referendum with no idea how he would cope with LEAVE or thinking it would be a ruinous outcome then he has bee utterly irresponsible.
Why is it for the government to tell us? As the government has a position for remain, and are leading that campaign, they set out what 'remain' means: in short, Cameron's renegotiation. They cannot be expected to set out what leave means as well, although they can say what they think its effect may be. (A task that is both hard and easy as it is so undefined).
Cameron doesn't want to leave, and has set his stall out for that. That does not mean he, and the government, have not been considering what will happen if they lose. And they're under no obligation to tell us.
But leave, as the people who want to leave, need to set out *their* position. And they have not in any detail.
How can people that aren't in government, or those who are in government that aren't PM, make firm promises of what will happen if we leave? They would be literally impossible to guarantee and would quite rightly be seized upon by remainers as coming from people who don't have the authority to keep them
All they can do is outline possible scenarios, of which there are many, and that is why many are being outlined
I guess they could make deals with other countries on trade etc in advance, but advertising those would probably compromise those countries in the eyes of the EU should REMAIN win
Sky News anchor looked like she was going to throw up after playing Trump's 'the Snake'.
Just report the news, dearie...
Rednecks are too good mannered to attempt to disrupt Democrat gatherings. As in the UK, it's the nasty Social Justice Warriors who wish to stifle debate and silence those with what THEY decide are "unacceptable" views.
Only a small fraction of US MSM coverage appears to make any attempts to be objective.
If MSM "experts" had bet on the US primaries, they'd be in massive deficit by this stage.
Quite true. But it is for the government to tell us what we are voting for: only they have the resposibility. If Cameron has launched the referendum with no idea how he would cope with LEAVE or thinking it would be a ruinous outcome then he has bee utterly irresponsible.
Why is it for the government to tell us? As the government has a position for remain, and are leading that campaign, they set out what 'remain' means: in short, Cameron's renegotiation. They cannot be expected to set out what leave means as well, although they can say what they think its effect may be. (A task that is both hard and easy as it is so undefined).
Cameron doesn't want to leave, and has set his stall out for that. That does not mean he, and the government, have not been considering what will happen if they lose. And they're under no obligation to tell us.
But leave, as the people who want to leave, need to set out *their* position. And they have not in any detail.
Anyone can have an opinion but government must decide. If its LEAVE Cameron has said he will not resign. So what does he do on 24th June? We should be told.
So you're saying the government has to decide both remain and leave's campaign? Have you thought that through?
If the government said: "Leave means EEA," then loads of leavers who want more will scream and shout, complain of government interference, and say leave means more than that. Likewise if they said leave means totally out.
It is up to the people who are so passionate about leaving to decide what it means, so the public can vote on it. That would tie the government's hands than the current dishonest mess by leave. After all, some leavers have been waiting decades for this moment.
Quite true. But it is for the government to tell us what we are voting for: only they have the resposibility. If Cameron has launched the referendum with no idea how he would cope with LEAVE or thinking it would be a ruinous outcome then he has bee utterly irresponsible.
Why is it for the government to tell us? As the government has a position for remain, and are leading that campaign, they set out what 'remain' means: in short, Cameron's renegotiation. They cannot be expected to set out what leave means as well, although they can say what they think its effect may be. (A task that is both hard and easy as it is so undefined).
Cameron doesn't want to leave, and has set his stall out for that. That does not mean he, and the government, have not been considering what will happen if they lose. And they're under no obligation to tell us.
But leave, as the people who want to leave, need to set out *their* position. And they have not in any detail.
How can people that aren't in government, or those who are in government that aren't PM, make firm promises of what will happen if we leave? They would be literally impossible to guarantee and would quite rightly be seized upon by remainers as coming from people who don't have the authority to keep them
All they can do is outline possible scenarios, of which there are many, and that is why many are being outlined
And every time a scenario is outlined the Remain side starts screaming and shouting about how split the Leave side are and how the scenario is going to be a disaster and everyone in the UK will unemployed despite Canada, Switzerland and Norway all having a higher GDP per capita than us.
How can people that aren't in government, or those who are in government that aren't PM, make firm promises of what will happen if we leave? They would be literally impossible to guarantee and would quite rightly be seized upon by remainers as coming from people who don't have the authority to keep them
All they can do is outline possible scenarios, of which there are many, and that is why many are being outlined
But they are not 'outlining possible scenarios' in any coherent sense. They are cherry-picking the bits they like from mutually-exclusive scenarios.
For example, from Leave.EU's FAQs:
Given that the EU sells far more to us than we do to them, the remaining EU member states will seek a trade agreement with the UK that seeks to maintain the same level of free exchange of goods, services and capital as is the case today
That's not only extremely optimistic in itself (why would our EU friends 'seek' such an agreement?), it is incompatible with this, on the same page:
As an EU member, the UK has to have open borders and cannot restrict access to EU citizens. Only on leaving the EU, can the UK impose restrictions on the length of stay and right to work of all persons entering the country.
These are decisions for government and LEAVE isn't a government. It is David Cameron who should tell us what LEAVE means and how he would seek to make a constructive go of it if it were forced upon him.
It is quite extraordinary that Leave are so lacking in any idea of what they see the post Leave future to be that here they are actually asking David Cameron to tell us it for them! I almost think I've now heard it all.
These are decisions for government and LEAVE isn't a government. It is David Cameron who should tell us what LEAVE means and how he would seek to make a constructive go of it if it were forced upon him.
It is quite extraordinary that Leave are so lacking in any idea of what they see the post Leave future to be that here they are actually asking David Cameron to tell us it for them! I almost think I've now heard it all.
Why? He would still be PM.. Is he so wedded to EU membership that he would ruin the country by not making contingency plans for us leaving?
You might find the front of today's WSJ interesting.
I think someone doesn't want someone to get a certain job.
Indeed. I think they need to move on from the trial and ask some hard questions of the authorities here - who badly need to grow a pair - about whether someone who was in charge when the three worst City scandals happened at the organisation he was in charge of is the right person to be in charge of an organisation which has a regulatory role to maintain orderly markets and, crucially, trust and confidence in such markets.
Honestly, do I have to do everything myself......?
Quite true. But it is for the government to tell us what we are voting for: only they have the resposibility. If Cameron has launched the referendum with no idea how he would cope with LEAVE or thinking it would be a ruinous outcome then he has bee utterly irresponsible.
Why is it for the government to tell us? As the government has a position for remain, and are leading that campaign, they set out what 'remain' means: in short, Cameron's renegotiation. They cannot be expected to set out what leave means as well, although they can say what they think its effect may be. (A task that is both hard and easy as it is so undefined).
Cameron doesn't want to leave, and has set his stall out for that. That does not mean he, and the government, have not been considering what will happen if they lose. And they're under no obligation to tell us.
But leave, as the people who want to leave, need to set out *their* position. And they have not in any detail.
Anyone can have an opinion but government must decide. If its LEAVE Cameron has said he will not resign. So what does he do on 24th June? We should be told.
So you're saying the government has to decide both remain and leave's campaign? Have you thought that through?
If the government said: "Leave means EEA," then loads of leavers who want more will scream and shout, complain of government interference, and say leave means more than that. Likewise if they said leave means totally out.
It is up to the people who are so passionate about leaving to decide what it means, so the public can vote on it. That would tie the government's hands than the current dishonest mess by leave. After all, some leavers have been waiting decades for this moment.
No the government does not have to decide LEAVE's campaign. LEAVE should indeed be pressed on what they think the options are. But the country is entitled to know what the government is going to do. Something like saying we will have a second referendum on whether to pursue EEA or a Canadian option would be something. Their silence on the matter is because they do not want to give LEAVE credibility by engaging the possibility seriously. This is understandable but not commendable.
Come on, chaps. I know we're all grumpy about having to wait for Fallout 4's improved survival mode to be available, but that's no reason to uncivilised.
Incidentally, the qualifying and race will both be on radio 5, which is very good as it means (assuming it's still working) I can use my ancient walkman and listen in bed instead of having to get up and use the TV's digital radio. Good walkman, mind. Got it bloody ages ago. Not sure if Thatcher or Major was PM at the time (probably Major).
Leave gives us a choice between EEA and completely out, or somewhere in between I guess. Different camps are going to have different views on this. As I've said before unless you're Michael Gove or Boris Johnson it likely doesn't matter.
Unless you're suggesting the Gov't changes it's course simply because of thread headers posted here (*)(Which would be an indication of a Gov't so lacking in conviction and vision it isn't fit for purpose) what anyone on this board thinks is not mattering in the slightest.
And every time a scenario is outlined the Remain side starts screaming and shouting about how split the Leave side are and how the scenario is going to be a disaster and everyone in the UK will unemployed despite Canada, Switzerland and Norway all having a higher GDP per capita than us.
Actually what happens is when Leave outline a scenario (like Boris and Canada), rational people point out how crap it is, and then they say "well, yes, but we don't really want that anyway" (like Boris and Canada)
Quite true. But it is for the government to tell us what we are voting for: only they have the resposibility. If Cameron has launched the referendum with no idea how he would cope with LEAVE or thinking it would be a ruinous outcome then he has bee utterly irresponsible.
Why is it for the government to tell us? As the government has a position for remain, and are leading that campaign, they set out what 'remain' means: in short, Cameron's renegotiation. They cannot be expected to set out what leave means as well, although they can say what they think its effect may be. (A task that is both hard and easy as it is so undefined).
Cameron doesn't want to leave, and has set his stall out for that. That does not mean he, and the government, have not been considering what will happen if they lose. And they're under no obligation to tell us.
But leave, as the people who want to leave, need to set out *their* position. And they have not in any detail.
Edit: if I recall correctly, the government did not even set the question, the EC did.
You're voting Remain then?
For the hundredth time, I'll probably be voting leave. But my reasons for voting leave are not the same as many people's, and in many ways in spite of, rather than because of many of leave's arguments.
These are decisions for government and LEAVE isn't a government. It is David Cameron who should tell us what LEAVE means and how he would seek to make a constructive go of it if it were forced upon him.
It is quite extraordinary that Leave are so lacking in any idea of what they see the post Leave future to be that here they are actually asking David Cameron to tell us it for them! I almost think I've now heard it all.
Why? He would still be PM.. Is he so wedded to EU membership that he would ruin the country by not making contingency plans for us leaving?
Spiteful!
I'm sure he would produce a better outcome for the country than anything anyone in the Leave campaign could offer. however, I never had you down as quite so Camerooooooonian
Quite true. But it is for the government to tell us what we are voting for: only they have the resposibility. If Cameron has launched the referendum with no idea how he would cope with LEAVE or thinking it would be a ruinous outcome then he has bee utterly irresponsible.
Why is it for the government to tell us? As the government has a position for remain, and are leading that campaign, they set out what 'remain' means: in short, Cameron's renegotiation. They cannot be expected to set out what leave means as well, although they can say what they think its effect may be. (A task that is both hard and easy as it is so undefined).
Cameron doesn't want to leave, and has set his stall out for that. That does not mean he, and the government, have not been considering what will happen if they lose. And they're under no obligation to tell us.
But leave, as the people who want to leave, need to set out *their* position. And they have not in any detail.
Edit: if I recall correctly, the government did not even set the question, the EC did.
You're voting Remain then?
For the hundredth time, I'll probably be voting leave. But my reasons for voting leave are not the same as many people's, and in many ways in spite of, rather than because of many of leave's arguments.
Because, it's only if the Leave campaigners are in power, after a Leave vote, that they can give you firm promises about what Leave will entail. It's likely that some Conservative Leave campaigners would be involved in negotiations with the EU, after a Leave vote, but there would still be plenty of Remain campaigners in government, and a big Remain majority in the Commons.
(snip)
Leave need to be equally clear, but they are failing to do so.
Why do they need to be equally clear? One of the prime motivation for many leavers is that once we are out, we can elect or not the government based on what they intend to do or not
(Snip)
Because we're having a referendum, and they need to be honest to the electorate. And the decision about what we do will have to be taken before the next GE in 2020.
Yet Leave are not being clear. Part of that is because their campaign is leaderless (or, more accurately, is several campaigns with several leaders), and partly because they know they need a broad church to win.
It would be easy for Leave to adopt a broad position such as : "We want to be in the EEA. But if we fail in joining within a year, we shall leave the EU and not apply for the EEA or EFTA."
I daresay the big brains behind leave can come up with something better. But it shows the intention, and any government after a leave vote would have to stick with that intention.
These are decisions for government and LEAVE isn't a government. It is David Cameron who should tell us what LEAVE means and how he would seek to make a constructive go of it if it were forced upon him.
He won't - except to say it will be a disaster.
I think it is understandable and legitimate for different groups of people to have different reasons for Brexit, and different ideas of our relationship with the EU if Brexit occurs.
But the problem with that, if Brexit occurs and the two year clock is ticking, is how do the people of the UK decide which of the competing Brexit models should be pursued? Leave it to Cameron? Leave it to Boris? It is so important that there should be another referendum to decide between the competing models - preferably using AV. Meanwhile the clock is ticking.
Quite true. But it is for the government to tell us what we are voting for: only they have the resposibility. If Cameron has launched the referendum with no idea how he would cope with LEAVE or thinking it would be a ruinous outcome then he has bee utterly irresponsible.
Why is it for the government to tell us? As the government has a position for remain, and are leading that campaign, they set out what 'remain' means: in short, Cameron's renegotiation. They cannot be expected to set out what leave means as well, although they can say what they think its effect may be. (A task that is both hard and easy as it is so undefined).
Cameron doesn't want to leave, and has set his stall out for that. That does not mean he, and the government, have not been considering what will happen if they lose. And they're under no obligation to tell us.
But leave, as the people who want to leave, need to set out *their* position. And they have not in any detail.
Edit: if I recall correctly, the government did not even set the question, the EC did.
You're voting Remain then?
For the hundredth time, I'll probably be voting leave. But my reasons for voting leave are not the same as many people's, and in many ways in spite of, rather than because of many of leave's arguments.
Perhaps you should reappraise that decision, since your posts suggest the opposing view, being consistently critical of Leave but not Remain.
Because, it's only if the Leave campaigners are in power, after a Leave vote, that they can give you firm promises about what Leave will entail. It's likely that some Conservative Leave campaigners would be involved in negotiations with the EU, after a Leave vote, but there would still be plenty of Remain campaigners in government, and a big Remain majority in the Commons.
(snip)
Leave need to be equally clear, but they are failing to do so.
Why do they need to be equally clear? One of the prime motivation for many leavers is that once we are out, we can elect or not the government based on what they intend to do or not
(Snip)
Because we're having a referendum, and they need to be honest to the electorate. And the decision about what we do will have to be taken before the next GE in 2020.
Yet Leave are not being clear. Part of that is because their campaign is leaderless (or, more accurately, is several campaigns with several leaders), and partly because they know they need a broad church to win.
It would be easy for Leave to adopt a broad position such as : "We want to be in the EEA. But if we fail in joining within a year, we shall leave the EU and not apply for the EEA or EFTA."
I daresay the big brains behind leave can come up with something better. But it shows the intention, and any government after a leave vote would have to stick with that intention.
These are decisions for government and LEAVE isn't a government. It is David Cameron who should tell us what LEAVE means and how he would seek to make a constructive go of it if it were forced upon him.
He won't - except to say it will be a disaster.
I think it is understandable and legitimate for different groups of people to have different reasons for Brexit, and different ideas of our relationship with the EU if Brexit occurs.
But the problem with that, if Brexit occurs and the two year clock is ticking, is how do the people of the UK decide which of the competing Brexit models should be pursued? Leave it to Cameron? Leave it to Boris? It is so important that there should be another referendum to decide between the competing models - preferably using AV. Meanwhile the clock is ticking.
What does that have to with anything? If you looked at the articles I share, they're from many sources - unfortunately most Pb-ers don't subscribe to the Times or I'd cite them instead.
Another cheap ad hom from you, I've no idea why since I don't attack you.
No the government does not have to decide LEAVE's campaign. LEAVE should indeed be pressed on what they think the options are. But the country is entitled to know what the government is going to do. Something like saying we will have a second referendum on whether to pursue EEA or a Canadian option would be something. Their silence on the matter is because they do not want to give LEAVE credibility by engaging the possibility seriously. This is understandable but not commendable.
I think Cameron's made it clear that there will not be a second referendum, and that he'll be triggering the leave process immediately on a leave vote. Some things will probably depend on the voting figures, both in terms of turnout and proportions on each side.
The problem is that the referendum will have given the government no clear steer as to the will of the public, aside from a general view for 'out'. But what does out mean? Some leavers are going to be peeved whatever.
As I've repeatedly said, it's incredibly dishonest by leave. They've had long enough to come up with a good plan.
Quite true. But it is for the government to tell us what we are voting for: only they have the resposibility. If Cameron has launched the referendum with no idea how he would cope with LEAVE or thinking it would be a ruinous outcome then he has bee utterly irresponsible.
Why is it for the government to tell us? As the government has a position for remain, and are leading that campaign, they set out what 'remain' means: in short, Cameron's renegotiation. They cannot be expected to set out what leave means as well, although they can say what they think its effect may be. (A task that is both hard and easy as it is so undefined).
Cameron doesn't want to leave, and has set his stall out for that. That does not mean he, and the government, have not been considering what will happen if they lose. And they're under no obligation to tell us.
But leave, as the people who want to leave, need to set out *their* position. And they have not in any detail.
Edit: if I recall correctly, the government did not even set the question, the EC did.
You're voting Remain then?
For the hundredth time, I'll probably be voting leave. But my reasons for voting leave are not the same as many people's, and in many ways in spite of, rather than because of many of leave's arguments.
Perhaps you should reappraise that decision, since your posts suggest the opposing view, being consistently critical of Leave but not Remain.
For the reasons I've given many times before, including a post on the previous thread. I suggest you might want to read it.
And an additional point: people tend to notice when people say things they disagree with, not when they say things they agree with ...
No the government does not have to decide LEAVE's campaign. LEAVE should indeed be pressed on what they think the options are. But the country is entitled to know what the government is going to do. Something like saying we will have a second referendum on whether to pursue EEA or a Canadian option would be something. Their silence on the matter is because they do not want to give LEAVE credibility by engaging the possibility seriously. This is understandable but not commendable.
I think Cameron's made it clear that there will not be a second referendum, and that he'll be triggering the leave process immediately on a leave vote. Some things will probably depend on the voting figures, both in terms of turnout and proportions on each side.
The problem is that the referendum will have given the government no clear steer as to the will of the public, aside from a general view for 'out'. But what does out mean? Some leavers are going to be peeved whatever.
As I've repeatedly said, it's incredibly dishonest by leave. They've had long enough to come up with a good plan.
Cameron has said there won't be a second referendum. But literally the only thing you can deduce from Cameron saying at a given time "I will do x" is that, at that time, Cameron considers it is more beneficial to him at that time to say "I will do x". So we don't really know if there will be a second referendum. If Leave wins, I don't see how there can be.
I'm not sure how the Leave campaign can solve this problem by being "honest". If the official campaign says "we are campaigning for EEA membership" (for example) then what should voters who want a full departure, bilateral trade deal exit vote for? Remain because they wouldn't leave on those terms? Leave because they don't like those terms but prefer them to remaining? Abstain and trust that the volume of abstentions will be taken into account? Really the only "honest" route I can see is for Leave to say that they acknowledge that the UK outside the EU could take several different forms and that they will press for further appropriate consultation to take place.
Quite true. But it is for the government to tell us what we are voting for: only they have the resposibility. If Cameron has launched the referendum with no idea how he would cope with LEAVE or thinking it would be a ruinous outcome then he has bee utterly irresponsible.
Why is it for the government to tell us? As the government has a position for remain, and are leading that campaign, they set out what 'remain' means: in short, Cameron's renegotiation. They cannot be expected to set out what leave means as well, although they can say what they think its effect may be. (A task that is both hard and easy as it is so undefined).
Cameron doesn't want to leave, and has set his stall out for that. That does not mean he, and the government, have not been considering what will happen if they lose. And they're under no obligation to tell us.
But leave, as the people who want to leave, need to set out *their* position. And they have not in any detail.
Edit: if I recall correctly, the government did not even set the question, the EC did.
You're voting Remain then?
For the hundredth time, I'll probably be voting leave. But my reasons for voting leave are not the same as many people's, and in many ways in spite of, rather than because of many of leave's arguments.
It's OK to be critical. This isn't like a football team, who you support whether right or wrong. There is genuine nuance and every option brings with it a mix of problems, issues and opportunity.
I find it almost impossible to read most of the posters on here on the Brexit issue, because (and I'm picking on my side here) they either refuse to acknowledge costs, or speak of the incredibly unlikely as certain (such as Turkey's accession to the EU).
There are many good reasons to vote Leave. I've written at length about why I think we should do it. But reading entrenched positions repeated ad nauseum is boring.
Quite true. But it is for the government to tell us what we are voting for: only they have the resposibility. If Cameron has launched the referendum with no idea how he would cope with LEAVE or thinking it would be a ruinous outcome then he has bee utterly irresponsible.
Why is it for the government to tell us? As the government has a position for remain, and are leading that campaign, they set out what 'remain' means: in short, Cameron's renegotiation. They cannot be expected to set out what leave means as well, although they can say what they think its effect may be. (A task that is both hard and easy as it is so undefined).
Cameron doesn't want to leave, and has set his stall out for that. That does not mean he, and the government, have not been considering what will happen if they lose. And they're under no obligation to tell us.
But leave, as the people who want to leave, need to set out *their* position. And they have not in any detail.
Edit: if I recall correctly, the government did not even set the question, the EC did.
You're voting Remain then?
For the hundredth time, I'll probably be voting leave. But my reasons for voting leave are not the same as many people's, and in many ways in spite of, rather than because of many of leave's arguments.
Ditto. The sovereignty stuff floats my boat, but there's a lot of it advanced that sure doesn't, and I'm more concerned about Leave's campaigning being poor since I want them to win.
Interesting that Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders would love a free movement arrangement with us. Last week one of the EFTA PMs was saying how much he would love free trade, whether in or out.
It seems that we are, perhaps, one of the prettier people at the dance, and we do not need to settle for the bloated numpty we've been with for ages.
No the government does not have to decide LEAVE's campaign. LEAVE should indeed be pressed on what they think the options are. But the country is entitled to know what the government is going to do. Something like saying we will have a second referendum on whether to pursue EEA or a Canadian option would be something. Their silence on the matter is because they do not want to give LEAVE credibility by engaging the possibility seriously. This is understandable but not commendable.
I think Cameron's made it clear that there will not be a second referendum, and that he'll be triggering the leave process immediately on a leave vote. Some things will probably depend on the voting figures, both in terms of turnout and proportions on each side.
The problem is that the referendum will have given the government no clear steer as to the will of the public, aside from a general view for 'out'. But what does out mean? Some leavers are going to be peeved whatever.
As I've repeatedly said, it's incredibly dishonest by leave. They've had long enough to come up with a good plan.
There should be no second referendum on the principle of EU membership: OUT means OUT. But a referendum could be used to test public support for the different post-Brexit models.
There will be an almighty row when its sinks in that the EEA model favoured by some will still necessitate free movement,
As I've repeatedly said, it's incredibly dishonest by leave. They've had long enough to come up with a good plan.
"Leave" is not a single entity, nor is "remain" for that matter - although David Cameron has done a succesful job of personifying the campaign. He's only in charge for the next 4 years or so, our EU membership extends a long way beyond that.
This is NOT LIKE electing a Government !!
One should ignore all the campaigns in my view, it's a decision as to whether we get out the EU or not, not whether or not we prefer Dave to Nige
No the government does not have to decide LEAVE's campaign. LEAVE should indeed be pressed on what they think the options are. But the country is entitled to know what the government is going to do. Something like saying we will have a second referendum on whether to pursue EEA or a Canadian option would be something. Their silence on the matter is because they do not want to give LEAVE credibility by engaging the possibility seriously. This is understandable but not commendable.
I think Cameron's made it clear that there will not be a second referendum, and that he'll be triggering the leave process immediately on a leave vote. Some things will probably depend on the voting figures, both in terms of turnout and proportions on each side.
The problem is that the referendum will have given the government no clear steer as to the will of the public, aside from a general view for 'out'. But what does out mean? Some leavers are going to be peeved whatever.
As I've repeatedly said, it's incredibly dishonest by leave. They've had long enough to come up with a good plan.
What are plans worth when the people suggesting them don't have the clout to put them into place?
"I think Romford Town Centre should become full of top end shops like Harrods and Harvey Nics, oh no I don't I think it should be demolished and made into cheap housing..."
Oh hang on, I am a gambling trader with no authority to act on any of this
What does that have to with anything? If you looked at the articles I share, they're from many sources - unfortunately most Pb-ers don't subscribe to the Times or I'd cite them instead.
Another cheap ad hom from you, I've no idea why since I don't attack you.
No the government does not have to decide LEAVE's campaign. LEAVE should indeed be pressed on what they think the options are. But the country is entitled to know what the government is going to do. Something like saying we will have a second referendum on whether to pursue EEA or a Canadian option would be something. Their silence on the matter is because they do not want to give LEAVE credibility by engaging the possibility seriously. This is understandable but not commendable.
I think Cameron's made it clear that there will not be a second referendum, and that he'll be triggering the leave process immediately on a leave vote. Some things will probably depend on the voting figures, both in terms of turnout and proportions on each side.
The problem is that the referendum will have given the government no clear steer as to the will of the public, aside from a general view for 'out'. But what does out mean? Some leavers are going to be peeved whatever.
As I've repeatedly said, it's incredibly dishonest by leave. They've had long enough to come up with a good plan.
There should be no second referendum on the priciple of \EU membership: OUT meand OUT. But a referendum could be used to test public support for the different post-Brexit models.
There will be an almighty row when its sinks in that the EEA model favoured by some will still necessitate free movement,
Actually, as we'll almost certainly remove in-work benefits from EEA nationals, it would have a meaningful effect on immigration levels, particularly of less skilled workers.
These are decisions for government and LEAVE isn't a government. It is David Cameron who should tell us what LEAVE means and how he would seek to make a constructive go of it if it were forced upon him.
It is quite extraordinary that Leave are so lacking in any idea of what they see the post Leave future to be that here they are actually asking David Cameron to tell us it for them! I almost think I've now heard it all.
Why? He would still be PM.. Is he so wedded to EU membership that he would ruin the country by not making contingency plans for us leaving?
Spiteful!
If we vote 'leave' then Under clause 50 of the Lisbon Treaty we will have two years to negotiate our divorce from the EU so we will still be members on June 24th and almost certainly still be members at the end of this year. But somebody who is not Dave or one of his senior lieutenants will be negotiating a new post Brexit settlement with what's left of the EU and sometime next year or maybe early in 2018 they will have reached agreement on a divorce settlement. We cannot know what that settlement is going to be until we vote 'leave' the EU might stand solid and unite against us or the whole EU could unravel nobody knows because no country, except Greenland which has a tiny economy compared to us, has ever left the EU.
Because, it's only if the Leave campaigners are in power, after a Leave vote, that they can give you firm promises about what Leave will entail. It's likely that some Conservative Leave campaigners would be involved in negotiations with the EU, after a Leave vote, but there would still be plenty of Remain campaigners in government, and a big Remain majority in the Commons.
(snip)
Leave need to be equally clear, but they are failing to do so.
Why do they need to be equally clear? One of the prime motivation for many leavers is that once we are out, we can elect or not the government based on what they intend to do or not
(Snip)
It would be easy for Leave to adopt a broad position such as : "We want to be in the EEA. But if we fail in joining within a year, we shall leave the EU and not apply for the EEA or EFTA."
I daresay the big brains behind leave can come up with something better. But it shows the intention, and any government after a leave vote would have to stick with that intention.
These are decisions for government and LEAVE isn't a government. It is David Cameron who should tell us what LEAVE means and how he would seek to make a constructive go of it if it were forced upon him.
He won't - except to say it will be a disaster.
I think it is understandable and legitimate for different groups of people to have different reasons for Brexit, and different ideas of our relationship with the EU if Brexit occurs.
But the problem with that, if Brexit occurs and the two year clock is ticking, is how do the people of the UK decide which of the competing Brexit models should be pursued? Leave it to Cameron? Leave it to Boris? It is so important that there should be another referendum to decide between the competing models - preferably using AV. Meanwhile the clock is ticking.
That is the chaos of Brexit.
General Election
So whoever wins the General Election decides on the post Brexit model?
Presumably different models will be in the manifestos of each political party. That will be fun for UKIP. Or any of the parties for that matter. What if the result is a minority Government or coalition? Another referendum or another GE?
In the meantime the important issues of education, health, defence, housing are neglected while the mess is sorted out.
@BBCJLandale: Parish notice: after 20+ years reporting UK politics, I am leaving Westminster to become Diplomatic Correspondent for BBC News
Too Posh, Too White, Too Male, Too Suspiciously Right of [BBC] Centre of political spectrum...for any further career progression at the Beeb...Time to phone up the Guardian and see who else wants to jump ship.
Quite true. But it is for the government to tell us what we are voting for: only they have the resposibility. If Cameron has launched the referendum with no idea how he would cope with LEAVE or thinking it would be a ruinous outcome then he has bee utterly irresponsible.
Why is it for the government to tell us? As the government has a position for remain, and are leading that campaign, they set out what 'remain' means: in short, Cameron's renegotiation. They cannot be expected to set out what leave means as well, although they can say what they think its effect may be. (A task that is both hard and easy as it is so undefined).
Cameron doesn't want to leave, and has set his stall out for that. That does not mean he, and the government, have not been considering what will happen if they lose. And they're under no obligation to tell us.
But leave, as the people who want to leave, need to set out *their* position. And they have not in any detail.
Edit: if I recall correctly, the government did not even set the question, the EC did.
You're voting Remain then?
For the hundredth time, I'll probably be voting leave. But my reasons for voting leave are not the same as many people's, and in many ways in spite of, rather than because of many of leave's arguments.
I said: "It's almost as if Leavers know that their arguments are skidmarked pants, so have to think that everyone's against them."
And I stand by that in the context it was said. It's not as if leavers don't use similar language against remainers (and especially people who are undecided) directly, yet alone their arguments.
I've given my reasons I'll be voting the way I am, and why I'm criticising leave more than remain (both perceived and real) on the previous thread. I suggest that you re-read it.
If you want to argue with my reasons for voting the way I am, feel free. But don't be so stupid as to indicate that I'm lying. I've been consistent and honest throughout.
If you hadn't made a single bet on the US Presidential/GOP Nominee/Dem Nominee markets, what would be the bet(s) PBers would recommend now?
Mr Eagles,
this site is just descending in to pointless EU bickering. could I suggest some more George is crap threads to lift the tone?
I agree.
I gave you a George is crap thread at the weekend. Mr Meeks also did one this morning.
I shall try and lift the tone, by looking at what the EURef/Brexit means to Scottish Independence.
But in all seriousness, PBers, can we lighten up a bit, PB seems the most aggressive I can ever remember, not even the IndyRef nor the GEs we've covered have PBers been this ill tempered. People hold genuine views, some people are unsure, respect that.
Quite true. But it is for the government to tell us what we are voting for: only they have the resposibility. If Cameron has launched the referendum with no idea how he would cope with LEAVE or thinking it would be a ruinous outcome then he has bee utterly irresponsible.
Why is it for the government to tell us? As the government has a position for remain, and are leading that campaign, they set out what 'remain' means: in short, Cameron's renegotiation. They cannot be expected to set out what leave means as well, although they can say what they think its effect may be. (A task that is both hard and easy as it is so undefined).
Cameron doesn't want to leave, and has set his stall out for that. That does not mean he, and the government, have not been considering what will happen if they lose. And they're under no obligation to tell us.
But leave, as the people who want to leave, need to set out *their* position. And they have not in any detail.
Edit: if I recall correctly, the government did not even set the question, the EC did.
You're voting Remain then?
For the hundredth time, I'll probably be voting leave. But my reasons for voting leave are not the same as many people's, and in many ways in spite of, rather than because of many of leave's arguments.
It's OK to be critical. This isn't like a football team, who you support whether right or wrong. There is genuine nuance and every option brings with it a mix of problems, issues and opportunity.
I find it almost impossible to read most of the posters on here on the Brexit issue, because (and I'm picking on my side here) they either refuse to acknowledge costs, or speak of the incredibly unlikely as certain (such as Turkey's accession to the EU).
There are many good reasons to vote Leave. I've written at length about why I think we should do it. But reading entrenched positions repeated ad nauseum is boring.
Because, it's only if the Leave campaigners are in power, after a Leave vote, that they can give you firm promises about what Leave will entail. It's likely that some Conservative Leave campaigners would be involved in negotiations with the EU, after a Leave vote, but there would still be plenty of Remain campaigners in government, and a big Remain majority in the Commons.
(snip)
Leave need to be equally clear, but they are failing to do so.
Why do they need to be equally clear? One of the prime motivation for many leavers is that once we are out, we can elect or not the government based on what they intend to do or not
(Snip)
It would be easy for Leave to adopt a broad position such as : "We want to be in the EEA. But if we fail in joining within a year, we shall leave the EU and not apply for the EEA or EFTA."
I daresay the big brains behind leave can come up with something better. But it shows the intention, and any government after a leave vote would have to stick with that intention.
These are decisions for government and LEAVE isn't a government. It is David Cameron who should tell us what LEAVE means and how he would seek to make a constructive go of it if it were forced upon him.
He won't - except to say it will be a disaster.
I think it is understandable and legitimate for different groups of people to have different reasons for Brexit, and different ideas of our relationship with the EU if Brexit occurs.
But the problem with that, if Brexit occurs and the two year clock is ticking, is how do the people of the UK decide which of the competing Brexit models should be pursued? Leave it to Cameron? Leave it to Boris? It is so important that there should be another referendum to decide between the competing models - preferably using AV. Meanwhile the clock is ticking.
That is the chaos of Brexit.
General Election
So whoever wins the General Election decides on the post Brexit model?
Presumably different models will be in the manifestos of each political party. That will be fun for UKIP. Or any of the parties for that matter. What if the result is a minority Government or coalition? Another referendum or another GE?
In the meantime the important issues of education, health, defence, housing are neglected while the mess is sorted out.
That is the chaos of Brexit.
"So whoever wins the General Election decides on the post Brexit model?"
If you hadn't made a single bet on the US Presidential/GOP Nominee/Dem Nominee markets, what would be the bet(s) PBers would recommend now?
Mr Eagles,
this site is just descending in to pointless EU bickering. could I suggest some more George is crap threads to lift the tone?
I gave you a George is crap thread at the weekend. Mr Meeks also did one this morning.
I shall try and lift the tone, by looking at what the EURef/Brexit means to Scottish Independence.
But in all seriousness, PBers, can we lighten up a bit, PB seems the most aggressive I can ever remember, not even the IndyRef nor the GEs we've covered have PBers been this ill tempered. People hold genuine views, some people are unsure, respect that.
Ill tempered ? Aggressive ? Surely you mean the threads have become more Franco-German ?
If you hadn't made a single bet on the US Presidential/GOP Nominee/Dem Nominee markets, what would be the bet(s) PBers would recommend now?
Mr Eagles,
this site is just descending in to pointless EU bickering. could I suggest some more George is crap threads to lift the tone?
But in all seriousness, PBers, can we lighten up a bit, PB seems the most aggressive I can ever remember, not even the IndyRef nor the GEs we've covered have PBers been this ill tempered. People hold genuine views, some people are unsure, respect that.
It's the splintering of party lines, causing uncertain and unfamiliar poster alliances, being aggressive in this new territory of political chaos.
Plus those leave/remain bastards are a bunch of traitors who deserve nothing less.
If you hadn't made a single bet on the US Presidential/GOP Nominee/Dem Nominee markets, what would be the bet(s) PBers would recommend now?
Mr Eagles,
this site is just descending in to pointless EU bickering. could I suggest some more George is crap threads to lift the tone?
I agree.
I gave you a George is crap thread at the weekend. Mr Meeks also did one this morning.
I shall try and lift the tone, by looking at what the EURef/Brexit means to Scottish Independence.
But in all seriousness, PBers, can we lighten up a bit, PB seems the most aggressive I can ever remember, not even the IndyRef nor the GEs we've covered have PBers been this ill tempered. People hold genuine views, some people are unsure, respect that.
If you hadn't made a single bet on the US Presidential/GOP Nominee/Dem Nominee markets, what would be the bet(s) PBers would recommend now?
Mr Eagles,
this site is just descending in to pointless EU bickering. could I suggest some more George is crap threads to lift the tone?
I gave you a George is crap thread at the weekend. Mr Meeks also did one this morning.
I shall try and lift the tone, by looking at what the EURef/Brexit means to Scottish Independence.
But in all seriousness, PBers, can we lighten up a bit, PB seems the most aggressive I can ever remember, not even the IndyRef nor the GEs we've covered have PBers been this ill tempered. People hold genuine views, some people are unsure, respect that.
Ill tempered ? Aggressive ? Surely you mean the threads have become more Franco-German ?
Yeah, lets mock the French and Germans, that's more fun
What does that have to with anything? If you looked at the articles I share, they're from many sources - unfortunately most Pb-ers don't subscribe to the Times or I'd cite them instead.
Another cheap ad hom from you, I've no idea why since I don't attack you.
I gave you a George is crap thread at the weekend. Mr Meeks also did one this morning.
I shall try and lift the tone, by looking at what the EURef/Brexit means to Scottish Independence.
But in all seriousness, PBers, can we lighten up a bit, PB seems the most aggressive I can ever remember, not even the IndyRef nor the GEs we've covered have PBers been this ill tempered. People hold genuine views, some people are unsure, respect that.
I really don't fancy another 100 days of this
May a suggest a thread on 'Was Ed more crap than Gordon?' for old times' sake? Everyone could happily join in - Kippers, Blairites, Tories, Corbynistas, LibDems, Nats...
If you hadn't made a single bet on the US Presidential/GOP Nominee/Dem Nominee markets, what would be the bet(s) PBers would recommend now?
Mr Eagles,
this site is just descending in to pointless EU bickering. could I suggest some more George is crap threads to lift the tone?
I agree.
I gave you a George is crap thread at the weekend. Mr Meeks also did one this morning.
I shall try and lift the tone, by looking at what the EURef/Brexit means to Scottish Independence.
But in all seriousness, PBers, can we lighten up a bit, PB seems the most aggressive I can ever remember, not even the IndyRef nor the GEs we've covered have PBers been this ill tempered. People hold genuine views, some people are unsure, respect that.
I really don't fancy another 100 days of this
As a Labour supporter the last 10 years have felt pretty much like this...
Comments
1945 was a special case, in that the LOTO was in government, and was resigning from it, so could scarcely be asked to form the next government without an intervening election. Churchill resigned only in a technical sense. Everyone knew the outcome would be a dissolution.
Based on convention, when a government simply surrenders the seals of office, the LOTO is sent for. But he is not bound to accept! Disraeli refused in 1873...
I don't think any new convention will be adopted, since existing ones are sufficient.
Officially in a mess now! 12-3 Jesus
Not bad odds.
Edit; Just an observation, not a betting tip.
My gast would still be flabbered if we left.
Only a small fraction of US MSM coverage appears to make any attempts to be objective.
If MSM "experts" had bet on the US primaries, they'd be in massive deficit by this stage.
George Eaton
McDonnell also said in 2006 that working class supporters of Labour had a "false consciousness". https://t.co/KIUZXBnxf7
Dave's "deal" is worse than that between Darth Vader and Lando Calrissian in "The Empire Strike Back"!
These are decisions for government and LEAVE isn't a government. It is David Cameron who should tell us what LEAVE means and how he would seek to make a constructive go of it if it were forced upon him.
No! David Cameron has negotiated a new deal, he is now trying to sell that deal to the public via a referendum.
If the deal is rejected by the electorate, that is a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister and he will have little option but to resign.
Someone else, preferably from the 'leave' side will have to handle the exit negotiations.
Cameron doesn't want to leave, and has set his stall out for that. That does not mean he, and the government, have not been considering what will happen if they lose. And they're under no obligation to tell us.
But leave, as the people who want to leave, need to set out *their* position. And they have not in any detail.
Edit: if I recall correctly, the government did not even set the question, the EC did.
I designed a building based on journalistic and political clichés. https://t.co/4Lmy2GlgHl
All they can do is outline possible scenarios, of which there are many, and that is why many are being outlined
I guess they could make deals with other countries on trade etc in advance, but advertising those would probably compromise those countries in the eyes of the EU should REMAIN win
I'm sure we believe that about as much as we believe Anna Soubry's claim that UK trade with the EU would drop to zero after Brexit.
Let's just repeat that shall we - a government minister has claimed the UK's trade with the EU would drop to zero after Brexit.
That has to rank as one of the most ridiculous claims ever made by a member of HMG.
If the government said: "Leave means EEA," then loads of leavers who want more will scream and shout, complain of government interference, and say leave means more than that. Likewise if they said leave means totally out.
It is up to the people who are so passionate about leaving to decide what it means, so the public can vote on it. That would tie the government's hands than the current dishonest mess by leave. After all, some leavers have been waiting decades for this moment.
For example, from Leave.EU's FAQs:
Given that the EU sells far more to us than we do to them, the remaining EU member states will seek a trade agreement with the UK that seeks to maintain the same level of free exchange of goods, services and capital as is the case today
That's not only extremely optimistic in itself (why would our EU friends 'seek' such an agreement?), it is incompatible with this, on the same page:
As an EU member, the UK has to have open borders and cannot restrict access to EU citizens. Only on leaving the EU, can the UK impose restrictions on the length of stay and right to work of all persons entering the country.
http://leave.eu/en/faqs
It is quite extraordinary that Leave are so lacking in any idea of what they see the post Leave future to be that here they are actually asking David Cameron to tell us it for them! I almost think I've now heard it all.
Spiteful!
Honestly, do I have to do everything myself......?
Incidentally, the qualifying and race will both be on radio 5, which is very good as it means (assuming it's still working) I can use my ancient walkman and listen in bed instead of having to get up and use the TV's digital radio. Good walkman, mind. Got it bloody ages ago. Not sure if Thatcher or Major was PM at the time (probably Major).
Unless you're suggesting the Gov't changes it's course simply because of thread headers posted here (*) (Which would be an indication of a Gov't so lacking in conviction and vision it isn't fit for purpose) what anyone on this board thinks is not mattering in the slightest.
For a Leaver, that seems rather odd. You referred to Leaver arguments as skidmarks on FPT.
I think it is understandable and legitimate for different groups of people to have different reasons for Brexit, and different ideas of our relationship with the EU if Brexit occurs.
But the problem with that, if Brexit occurs and the two year clock is ticking, is how do the people of the UK decide which of the competing Brexit models should be pursued? Leave it to Cameron? Leave it to Boris? It is so important that there should be another referendum to decide between the competing models - preferably using AV. Meanwhile the clock is ticking.
That is the chaos of Brexit.
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/709759059495411712
It'd lead to significant change but it'd hardly be the Year of the Six Emperors.
Another cheap ad hom from you, I've no idea why since I don't attack you.
I laid a few quid on Hillary @ 1.03 a week ago.
The problem is that the referendum will have given the government no clear steer as to the will of the public, aside from a general view for 'out'. But what does out mean? Some leavers are going to be peeved whatever.
As I've repeatedly said, it's incredibly dishonest by leave. They've had long enough to come up with a good plan.
The SithEurophiles deal in absolutes. I will do what I mustAnd an additional point: people tend to notice when people say things they disagree with, not when they say things they agree with ...
Lay Hillary for POTUS I guess.
I'm not sure how the Leave campaign can solve this problem by being "honest". If the official campaign says "we are campaigning for EEA membership" (for example) then what should voters who want a full departure, bilateral trade deal exit vote for? Remain because they wouldn't leave on those terms? Leave because they don't like those terms but prefer them to remaining? Abstain and trust that the volume of abstentions will be taken into account? Really the only "honest" route I can see is for Leave to say that they acknowledge that the UK outside the EU could take several different forms and that they will press for further appropriate consultation to take place.
I find it almost impossible to read most of the posters on here on the Brexit issue, because (and I'm picking on my side here) they either refuse to acknowledge costs, or speak of the incredibly unlikely as certain (such as Turkey's accession to the EU).
There are many good reasons to vote Leave. I've written at length about why I think we should do it. But reading entrenched positions repeated ad nauseum is boring.
It seems that we are, perhaps, one of the prettier people at the dance, and we do not need to settle for the bloated numpty we've been with for ages.
There will be an almighty row when its sinks in that the EEA model favoured by some will still necessitate free movement,
This is NOT LIKE electing a Government !!
One should ignore all the campaigns in my view, it's a decision as to whether we get out the EU or not, not whether or not we prefer Dave to Nige
I thought that, other thoughts were to wait until State winner in November markets go up/ditto the spreads on EC votes.
"I think Romford Town Centre should become full of top end shops like Harrods and Harvey Nics, oh no I don't I think it should be demolished and made into cheap housing..."
Oh hang on, I am a gambling trader with no authority to act on any of this
this site is just descending in to pointless EU bickering. could I suggest some more George is crap threads to lift the tone?
But somebody who is not Dave or one of his senior lieutenants will be negotiating a new post Brexit settlement with what's left of the EU and sometime next year or maybe early in 2018 they will have reached agreement on a divorce settlement.
We cannot know what that settlement is going to be until we vote 'leave' the EU might stand solid and unite against us or the whole EU could unravel nobody knows because no country, except Greenland which has a tiny economy compared to us, has ever left the EU.
Presumably different models will be in the manifestos of each political party. That will be fun for UKIP. Or any of the parties for that matter. What if the result is a minority Government or coalition? Another referendum or another GE?
In the meantime the important issues of education, health, defence, housing are neglected while the mess is sorted out.
That is the chaos of Brexit.
Or we could talk about The 100. I've seen the future, and I, for one, welcome the rule of our tribal lesbian overlords.
...overladies?
And I stand by that in the context it was said. It's not as if leavers don't use similar language against remainers (and especially people who are undecided) directly, yet alone their arguments.
I've given my reasons I'll be voting the way I am, and why I'm criticising leave more than remain (both perceived and real) on the previous thread. I suggest that you re-read it.
If you want to argue with my reasons for voting the way I am, feel free. But don't be so stupid as to indicate that I'm lying. I've been consistent and honest throughout.
I gave you a George is crap thread at the weekend. Mr Meeks also did one this morning.
I shall try and lift the tone, by looking at what the EURef/Brexit means to Scottish Independence.
But in all seriousness, PBers, can we lighten up a bit, PB seems the most aggressive I can ever remember, not even the IndyRef nor the GEs we've covered have PBers been this ill tempered. People hold genuine views, some people are unsure, respect that.
I really don't fancy another 100 days of this
That doesn't negate my observation of Mr Jessop's posts.
Bonkers.
Yes I'd say that's fair
Plus those leave/remain bastards are a bunch of traitors who deserve nothing less. Spoiler alert, I've not seen the new season yet! (J/K - first two seasons were great, but I don't really mind spoilers for the new one)
Be LEAVE!
Annoyingly, there's no (that I saw) 'to reach Q3' market up (though 5 have been added since I last checked, this isn't amongst them).
Remember, kids, this time there are only 8 cars in Q3. From Q1, there are 7 eliminations, likewise in Q2.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Eagles, mocking the French is an ancient English pastime.
You're the one making unrelated ad hom comments about me. I don't do this to you. You can simply resist the temptation as I do.