Jahadi Jez's friend are always going to cause trouble. At the moment I would think few really know about Hamas etc connections.
If they don't after the blitz of talk about it upon his election, when will they?
Really it seems like Labour will get 29-30% no matter who is leader.
I'm not so sure. I reckon the election of Corbyn is now shining a light on the repulsiveness of the Left - from Stalinism to Islamism - in a way we've never seen before. It's like suddenly discovering 30% of the Tory party is actively Fascist, in a seriously aggressive way.
Labour will do pretty well in London, but where else? I'm struggling to see it. I reckon they could go down to 25-26% at the next GE, and maybe lower, if Corbyn stays in place. That's close to the precipice.
They are very lucky the Tories are consumed in their own civil strife. A united and ruthlessly determined Tory party could drive Labour out of business altogether.
Hmm. Maybe. But you forget the residual generations old loyalty of many Labour voters. No doubt this is being sorely tested by Corbyn's gang of GLC clowns - but tested to 25%?
Awful headlines on Sky tonight with the report from the front of the May day march with hammer and sickle red flags. I never thought I would see a labour leader marching with the hammer and sickle. This must be the prelude to the end of the labour party or at the very least Corbyn and his acolites
Comments like those of Vince Cable, Matthew Parris and the ex-editor of The Independent show why Leave simply have to win.
No. Absolutely no. I shall vote Remain, I may campaign for Remain after May 5th, but if the result, even by one solitary vote, is to leave, then that has to be the outcome. No ifs, no buts.
Hitler still leading the news, Subject raised at the dinner table today.
I bet Google engineers have got a shock at the most popular search terms in uk...usual week tits, breasts, boobs...this week Hitler, tits, nazis, Ken, boobs...
Awful headlines on Sky tonight with the report from the front of the May day march with hammer and sickle red flags. I never thought I would see a labour leader marching with the hammer and sickle. This must be the prelude to the end of the labour party or at the very least Corbyn and his acolites
Why? Doesn't he march with them every year? The public can claim surprise, if they care, but the members of the Labour party can't claim such ignorance and so don't care about accusations of Communism.
Awful headlines on Sky tonight with the report from the front of the May day march with hammer and sickle red flags. I never thought I would see a labour leader marching with the hammer and sickle. This must be the prelude to the end of the labour party or at the very least Corbyn and his acolites
Corbyn must stay and Labour under his leadership must be eviscerated in 2020. Only then can the party conceivably grope its way back to sanity.
Can you imagine Cameron addressing a march where people hold banners of Hitler?
Ken Livingstone, sure, but Cameron? No.
According to the far left Israel is brutal and needs to be expunged from existence... yet at the same time Stalin is someone to be looked on positively.........
Mind you I suppose anti semitism was a feature of Stalinist Russia, along with gulags, show trials and oh mass starvation to name a few.
Awful headlines on Sky tonight with the report from the front of the May day march with hammer and sickle red flags. I never thought I would see a labour leader marching with the hammer and sickle. This must be the prelude to the end of the labour party or at the very least Corbyn and his acolites
Why? Doesn't he march with them every year? The public can claim surprise, if they care, but the members of the Labour party can't claim such ignorance and so don't care about accusations of Communism.
Yep - this is what Labour members voted for; as well as the anti-Semitism and various other tenets of the hard left. When they voted for Jezza they voted to abandon those who Labour is supposed to stand for to year upon year of Tory rule - even when the government is as inept as this one.
Comments like those of Vince Cable, Matthew Parris and the ex-editor of The Independent show why Leave simply have to win.
No. Absolutely no. I shall vote Remain, I may campaign for Remain after May 5th, but if the result, even by one solitary vote, is to leave, then that has to be the outcome. No ifs, no buts.
Good for you. Respect. Likewise if REMAIN wins by one vote, I will expect my government to honour that decision.
I might or might not campaign for a new referendum, at some point in the future - and after 10 years minimum, barring some huge EU power-grab - but, for the moment, the people will have spoken. And that must be respected.
What amazes me is how REMAINIANS don't seem to realise how this loose talk goes down. "Oh if it's close we will just ignore the people, and stay in anyway". This is exactly what voters HATE about the europhile elite: that they ignore the little people til they get the result they like. This stuff drives people towards LEAVE.
Someone should sit on Vince Cable so he can't actually talk until the vote is over.
Jahadi Jez's friend are always going to cause trouble. At the moment I would think few really know about Hamas etc connections.
If they don't after the blitz of talk about it upon his election, when will they?
Really it seems like Labour will get 29-30% no matter who is leader.
They are very lucky the Tories are consumed in their own civil strife. A united and ruthlessly determined Tory party could drive Labour out of business altogether.
It must be giving great hope to Labour, the Tory strife - it will be very interesting to see how much fallout there truly is. The dreams of loyalists that all that has been stirred up with the referendum will blow over is surely just that, a dream, but just how damaging could it prove? Cameron is maneuvering it seems, but is there enough he can do?
Some few even on here have, possibly in jest, suggested Corbyn really would be better than Cameron and co given the last few months. If even in jest it is said, I wonder how many might actually go that way should the Tory mess get even worse. Labour are clearly banking on it.
Strikes me that the Labour & Conservative parties are both destroying themselves from within.
I've been watching the Labour party throwing away the good & embracing the bad wholeheartedly and although it does frighten me it's also giving me the giggles - too much like hysteria for comfort.
I'm not terribly interested in the Conservative party's travails but it's only the subject matter that is different from Labour.
Suddenly, all our politicians look like comic-book characters, acting out slap-stick to entertain the public.
One of the things that makes it so funny is how easily one can imagine it all having been choreographed by some expert director.
Awful headlines on Sky tonight with the report from the front of the May day march with hammer and sickle red flags. I never thought I would see a labour leader marching with the hammer and sickle. This must be the prelude to the end of the labour party or at the very least Corbyn and his acolites
Why? Doesn't he march with them every year? The public can claim surprise, if they care, but the members of the Labour party can't claim such ignorance and so don't care about accusations of Communism.
In the context of the report it was just dreadful with Corbyn hiding away to avoid questions from the press
Vince Cable is saying "parliament will ignore a narrow LEAVE victory"
Well how interesting - I did wonder whether the 'idea' my US hedge fund friends were chucking around casually last week would 'surface'.
Quite incredible that he is actually saying this though.
Or perhaps not - the Lib Dems having for a long time being the mouthpiece of the EU for so long, and the EU having plenty of form in denying the democratic voice of the voters.
Comments like those of Vince Cable, Matthew Parris and the ex-editor of The Independent show why Leave simply have to win.
No. Absolutely no. I shall vote Remain, I may campaign for Remain after May 5th, but if the result, even by one solitary vote, is to leave, then that has to be the outcome. No ifs, no buts.
The leaders of the LEAVE side like Michael Gove say Britain should delay using Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which would start the timer on withdrawal from the EU. Given Gove's seniority among LEAVErs, I think it is reasonable to assume this would happen. Imagine if the negotiations sour, perhaps the next PM has to accept free movement of people outraging Ukip, and opinion polls say there's no majority support for Brexit any more. Then there's a general election at which most MPs don't support Brexit, collectively winning more votes than LEAVE, and interpreting that as a mandate to renegotiate EU membership and REMAIN, perhaps after a second referendum. I don't want to advocate this outcome - I think it suits neither side to imagine it - merely suggesting it might happen.
Comments like those of Vince Cable, Matthew Parris and the ex-editor of The Independent show why Leave simply have to win.
No. Absolutely no. I shall vote Remain, I may campaign for Remain after May 5th, but if the result, even by one solitary vote, is to leave, then that has to be the outcome. No ifs, no buts.
As a 'remainer' I absolutely endorse this comment. One vote more for leave is leave and Cable can go back to obscurity, his arrogance is breathtaking
Jahadi Jez's friend are always going to cause trouble. At the moment I would think few really know about Hamas etc connections.
If they don't after the blitz of talk about it upon his election, when will they?
Really it seems like Labour will get 29-30% no matter who is leader.
I'm not so sure. I reckon the election of Corbyn is now shining a light on the repulsiveness of the Left - from Stalinism to Islamism - in a way we've never seen before. It's like suddenly discovering 30% of the Tory party is actively Fascist, in a seriously aggressive way.
Labour will do pretty well in London, but where else? I'm struggling to see it. I reckon they could go down to 25-26% at the next GE, and maybe lower, if Corbyn stays in place. That's close to the precipice.
They are very lucky the Tories are consumed in their own civil strife. A united and ruthlessly determined Tory party could drive Labour out of business altogether.
Hmm. Maybe. But you forget the residual generations old loyalty of many Labour voters. No doubt this is being sorely tested by Corbyn's gang of GLC clowns - but tested to 25%?
Most of them live in a few places like London, Manchester and Liverpool. Everywhere else Labour could be in serious trouble. Labour already hold 96 out of 96 council seats in Manchester for example.
That's about as bad a front page as a major party leader could ever get, and from the Times, which remains the most respected newspaper in the country. Party exodus over "anti-Semitism"??
This is Corbyn's Nadir. He is approaching ultimate weakness.
If the Blairites don't strike now, they are doomed as well as cowardly.
Np-exMP will be along a some point to tell us crisis, what crisis...Corbyns leadership is fantastic etc etc etc
it is a bit of a mystery to me why pictures of and quotes openly from Stalin appear to pass without more comment, given modern Russian history, at least around WW2 era, is one of the few historical things most people are taught and should be aware of.
If that's the only era of Russian/Soviet history of which they're aware, all people will know is that Stalin was our noble ally, Churchill called him a 'great rugged war chief' of 'inexhaustible courage and will-power' and that our government had a hammer & sickle flag flown above every town hall to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Red Army. I'd hope most sentient people might have a wider awareness than that.
That's about as bad a front page as a major party leader could ever get, and from the Times, which remains the most respected newspaper in the country. Party exodus over "anti-Semitism"??
This is Corbyn's Nadir. He is approaching ultimate weakness.
If the Blairites don't strike now, they are doomed as well as cowardly.
Blair's quoted in that piece.
He's warned some people that Corbyn cannot be kept out of a future leadership contest.
I think the fear for Labour is
1) No point trying to topple Corbyn and ensuring he is re-elected with an even larger mandate
2) Corbyn's successor turns out to be John McDonnell, who is on a different scale of unelectability to Corbyn,
Comments like those of Vince Cable, Matthew Parris and the ex-editor of The Independent show why Leave simply have to win.
No. Absolutely no. I shall vote Remain, I may campaign for Remain after May 5th, but if the result, even by one solitary vote, is to leave, then that has to be the outcome. No ifs, no buts.
As a 'remainer' I absolutely endorse this comment. One vote more for leave is leave and Cable can go back to obscurity, his arrogance is breathtaking
These are the people you propose to vote for. Do you think they will give two hoots for your scruples?
it is a bit of a mystery to me why pictures of and quotes openly from Stalin appear to pass without more comment, given modern Russian history, at least around WW2 era, is one of the few historical things most people are taught and should be aware of.
If that's the only era of Russian/Soviet history of which they're aware, all people will know is that Stalin was our noble ally, Churchill called him a 'great rugged war chief' of 'inexhaustible courage and will-power' and that our government had a hammer & sickle flag flown above every town hall to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Red Army. I'd hope most sentient people might have a wider awareness than that.
By WW2 era I'm including the run up to and period afterward into the Cold War - anyone taught about the war would be made aware of those aspectsd as part of it, and so Stalin's monstrosity. Hence why him getting a pass is a bit odd.
Jahadi Jez's friend are always going to cause trouble. At the moment I would think few really know about Hamas etc connections.
If they don't after the blitz of talk about it upon his election, when will they?
Really it seems like Labour will get 29-30% no matter who is leader.
I'm not so sure. I reckon the election of Corbyn is now shining a light on the repulsiveness of the Left - from Stalinism to Islamism - in a way we've never seen before. It's like suddenly discovering 30% of the Tory party is actively Fascist, in a seriously aggressive way.
Labour will do pretty well in London, but where else? I'm struggling to see it. I reckon they could go down to 25-26% at the next GE, and maybe lower, if Corbyn stays in place. That's close to the precipice.
They are very lucky the Tories are consumed in their own civil strife. A united and ruthlessly determined Tory party could drive Labour out of business altogether.
Hmm. Maybe. But you forget the residual generations old loyalty of many Labour voters. No doubt this is being sorely tested by Corbyn's gang of GLC clowns - but tested to 25%?
Labour already hold 96 out of 96 council seats in Manchester for example.
Apparently a pretty well run council too, I'm told, which if true is pretty remarkable given the dearth of opposition there, and how easily poor behaviours could develop in that situation.
Comments like those of Vince Cable, Matthew Parris and the ex-editor of The Independent show why Leave simply have to win.
No. Absolutely no. I shall vote Remain, I may campaign for Remain after May 5th, but if the result, even by one solitary vote, is to leave, then that has to be the outcome. No ifs, no buts.
Good for you. Respect. Likewise if REMAIN wins by one vote, I will expect my government to honour that decision.
I might or might not campaign for a new referendum, at some point in the future - and after 10 years minimum, barring some huge EU power-grab - but, for the moment, the people will have spoken. And that must be respected.
What amazes me is how REMAINIANS don't seem to realise how this loose talk goes down. "Oh if it's close we will just ignore the people, and stay in anyway". This is exactly what voters HATE about the europhile elite: that they ignore the little people til they get the result they like. This stuff drives people towards LEAVE.
Someone should sit on Vince Cable so he can't actually talk until the vote is over.
I abhor Cable and all his like.
Cable of course has form. First tuition fees and then regarding collective responsibilty as an optional extra. He doesn't seem to have learned much from the natural electoral outcome.
Hitler still leading the news, Subject raised at the dinner table today.
I bet Google engineers have got a shock at the most popular search terms in uk...usual week tits, breasts, boobs...this week Hitler, tits, nazis, Ken, boobs...
Comments like those of Vince Cable, Matthew Parris and the ex-editor of The Independent show why Leave simply have to win.
No. Absolutely no. I shall vote Remain, I may campaign for Remain after May 5th, but if the result, even by one solitary vote, is to leave, then that has to be the outcome. No ifs, no buts.
As a 'remainer' I absolutely endorse this comment. One vote more for leave is leave and Cable can go back to obscurity, his arrogance is breathtaking
These are the people you propose to vote for. Do you think they will give two hoots for your scruples?
There are just as many on the leave side and if anyone will convince me to remain it is Farage
If that's the only era of Russian/Soviet history of which they're aware,
They must know, you simply can't be that ignorant. So either they don't care because "the end justifies the means", or they are deniers who claim all the bad things said about the Soviet Union are western capitalist propaganda.
Comments like those of Vince Cable, Matthew Parris and the ex-editor of The Independent show why Leave simply have to win.
No. Absolutely no. I shall vote Remain, I may campaign for Remain after May 5th, but if the result, even by one solitary vote, is to leave, then that has to be the outcome. No ifs, no buts.
As a 'remainer' I absolutely endorse this comment. One vote more for leave is leave and Cable can go back to obscurity, his arrogance is breathtaking
Unhelpful, certainly. I would have thought emphasising if we vote leave by a single vote we are leaving, would be more effective at potential waverers than suggesting if it is close it's ok, we might not leave anyway, thus meaning those on the fence can vote leave without worry.
That's about as bad a front page as a major party leader could ever get, and from the Times, which remains the most respected newspaper in the country. Party exodus over "anti-Semitism"??
This is Corbyn's Nadir. He is approaching ultimate weakness.
If the Blairites don't strike now, they are doomed as well as cowardly.
Np-exMP will be along a some point to tell us crisis, what crisis...Corbyns leadership is fantastic etc etc etc
If the blairites do strike and get rid of corbyn,the anger from the far left towards these people will be well worth watching ;-)
Bad news for the tories though if labour get the right leader and hold together.
That's about as bad a front page as a major party leader could ever get, and from the Times, which remains the most respected newspaper in the country. Party exodus over "anti-Semitism"??
This is Corbyn's Nadir. He is approaching ultimate weakness.
If the Blairites don't strike now, they are doomed as well as cowardly.
Blair's quoted in that piece.
He's warned some people that Corbyn cannot be kept out of a future leadership contest.
I think the fear for Labour is
1) No point trying to topple Corbyn and ensuring he is re-elected with an even larger mandate
2) Corbyn's successor turns out to be John McDonnell, who is on a different scale of unelectability to Corbyn,
I dunno, John McDonnell looks like he might actually be able to handle the day-to-day aspects of the job, making him more dangerous.
Comments like those of Vince Cable, Matthew Parris and the ex-editor of The Independent show why Leave simply have to win.
No. Absolutely no. I shall vote Remain, I may campaign for Remain after May 5th, but if the result, even by one solitary vote, is to leave, then that has to be the outcome. No ifs, no buts.
As a 'remainer' I absolutely endorse this comment. One vote more for leave is leave and Cable can go back to obscurity, his arrogance is breathtaking
Unhelpful, certainly. I would have thought emphasising if we vote leave by a single vote we are leaving, would be more effective at potential waverers than suggesting if it is close it's ok, we might not leave anyway, thus meaning those on the fence can vote leave without worry.
Comments like those of Vince Cable, Matthew Parris and the ex-editor of The Independent show why Leave simply have to win.
No. Absolutely no. I shall vote Remain, I may campaign for Remain after May 5th, but if the result, even by one solitary vote, is to leave, then that has to be the outcome. No ifs, no buts.
The leaders of the LEAVE side like Michael Gove say Britain should delay using Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which would start the timer on withdrawal from the EU. Given Gove's seniority among LEAVErs, I think it is reasonable to assume this would happen. Imagine if the negotiations sour, perhaps the next PM has to accept free movement of people outraging Ukip, and opinion polls say there's no majority support for Brexit any more. Then there's a general election at which most MPs don't support Brexit, collectively winning more votes than LEAVE, and interpreting that as a mandate to renegotiate EU membership and REMAIN, perhaps after a second referendum. I don't want to advocate this outcome - I think it suits neither side to imagine it - merely suggesting it might happen.
It's just grotesque. If we vote LEAVE by one vote, we LEAVE, if we vote REMAIN by one vote, we REMAIN
There must not and cannot be any ambiguity over this. What's more, ambiguity benefits the populist right and the eurosceptics, and their understandable paranoia, so any REMAINER parroting this nonsense would we well advised to STFU.
We come close to the end of meaningful democracy, if you talk about ignoring once-in-a-lifetime referendums. Cable is a loathsome old fool.
But haven't we been told that we're now entering a 'post democratic age' ?
That's about as bad a front page as a major party leader could ever get, and from the Times, which remains the most respected newspaper in the country. Party exodus over "anti-Semitism"??
This is Corbyn's Nadir. He is approaching ultimate weakness.
If the Blairites don't strike now, they are doomed as well as cowardly.
Np-exMP will be along a some point to tell us crisis, what crisis...Corbyns leadership is fantastic etc etc etc
If the blairites do strike and get rid of corbyn,the anger from the far left towards these people will be well worth watching ;-)
Bad news for the tories though if labour get the right leader and hold together.
Based on his likely performance in London, keeping moderates on side without upsetting Corbynites overmuch, surely Khan is the man Labour need as leader?
That's about as bad a front page as a major party leader could ever get, and from the Times, which remains the most respected newspaper in the country. Party exodus over "anti-Semitism"??
This is Corbyn's Nadir. He is approaching ultimate weakness.
If the Blairites don't strike now, they are doomed as well as cowardly.
Blair's quoted in that piece.
He's warned some people that Corbyn cannot be kept out of a future leadership contest.
I think the fear for Labour is
1) No point trying to topple Corbyn and ensuring he is re-elected with an even larger mandate
2) Corbyn's successor turns out to be John McDonnell, who is on a different scale of unelectability to Corbyn,
I dunno, John McDonnell looks like he might actually be able to handle the day-to-day aspects of the job, making him more dangerous.
He is also more dangerous because he will actually bend what he says to sound more acceptable, where as Jahadi Jez won't budge from his real views eg hug a Hamas terrorist (telegraph front page tomorrow)
Can you imagine Cameron addressing a march where people hold banners of Hitler?
Ken Livingstone, sure, but Cameron? No.
According to the far left Israel is brutal and needs to be expunged from existence... yet at the same time Stalin is someone to be looked on positively.........
Mind you I suppose anti semitism was a feature of Stalinist Russia, along with gulags, show trials and oh mass starvation to name a few.
Comments like those of Vince Cable, Matthew Parris and the ex-editor of The Independent show why Leave simply have to win.
No. Absolutely no. I shall vote Remain, I may campaign for Remain after May 5th, but if the result, even by one solitary vote, is to leave, then that has to be the outcome. No ifs, no buts.
The leaders of the LEAVE side like Michael Gove say Britain should delay using Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which would start the timer on withdrawal from the EU. Given Gove's seniority among LEAVErs, I think it is reasonable to assume this would happen. Imagine if the negotiations sour, perhaps the next PM has to accept free movement of people outraging Ukip, and opinion polls say there's no majority support for Brexit any more. Then there's a general election at which most MPs don't support Brexit, collectively winning more votes than LEAVE, and interpreting that as a mandate to renegotiate EU membership and REMAIN, perhaps after a second referendum. I don't want to advocate this outcome - I think it suits neither side to imagine it - merely suggesting it might happen.
It's just grotesque. If we vote LEAVE by one vote, we LEAVE, if we vote REMAIN by one vote, we REMAIN
There must not and cannot be any ambiguity over this. What's more, ambiguity benefits the populist right and the eurosceptics, and their understandable paranoia, so any REMAINER parroting this nonsense would we well advised to STFU.
We come close to the end of meaningful democracy, if you talk about ignoring once-in-a-lifetime referendums. Cable is a loathsome old fool.
It was only a matter of time before some buffoon would come out with the line that the referendum was merely 'advisory'.
Comments like those of Vince Cable, Matthew Parris and the ex-editor of The Independent show why Leave simply have to win.
No. Absolutely no. I shall vote Remain, I may campaign for Remain after May 5th, but if the result, even by one solitary vote, is to leave, then that has to be the outcome. No ifs, no buts.
As a 'remainer' I absolutely endorse this comment. One vote more for leave is leave and Cable can go back to obscurity, his arrogance is breathtaking
Unhelpful, certainly. I would have thought emphasising if we vote leave by a single vote we are leaving, would be more effective at potential waverers than suggesting if it is close it's ok, we might not leave anyway, thus meaning those on the fence can vote leave without worry.
It is democracy
What, that in a democracy it's on his shoulders if he uses counter productive tactics? Obviously it is.
Comments like those of Vince Cable, Matthew Parris and the ex-editor of The Independent show why Leave simply have to win.
No. Absolutely no. I shall vote Remain, I may campaign for Remain after May 5th, but if the result, even by one solitary vote, is to leave, then that has to be the outcome. No ifs, no buts.
Good for you. Respect. Likewise if REMAIN wins by one vote, I will expect my government to honour that decision.
I might or might not campaign for a new referendum, at some point in the future - and after 10 years minimum, barring some huge EU power-grab - but, for the moment, the people will have spoken. And that must be respected.
What amazes me is how REMAINIANS don't seem to realise how this loose talk goes down. "Oh if it's close we will just ignore the people, and stay in anyway". This is exactly what voters HATE about the europhile elite: that they ignore the little people til they get the result they like. This stuff drives people towards LEAVE.
Someone should sit on Vince Cable so he can't actually talk until the vote is over.
I abhor Cable and all his like.
Presumably John you are excluding the PM and Chancellor from that general condemnation, even though they have been parroting all the same propaganda and indeed propagating new deceits re. the EU over the last few weeks?
That's about as bad a front page as a major party leader could ever get, and from the Times, which remains the most respected newspaper in the country. Party exodus over "anti-Semitism"??
This is Corbyn's Nadir. He is approaching ultimate weakness.
If the Blairites don't strike now, they are doomed as well as cowardly.
Problem is, if they do strike now, they put the referendum at risk. But if they delay, the momentum goes out of the issue. If they delay past September, they may find themselves confronted by new leadership electio rules.
Comments like those of Vince Cable, Matthew Parris and the ex-editor of The Independent show why Leave simply have to win.
No. Absolutely no. I shall vote Remain, I may campaign for Remain after May 5th, but if the result, even by one solitary vote, is to leave, then that has to be the outcome. No ifs, no buts.
The leaders of the LEAVE side like Michael Gove say Britain should delay using Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which would start the timer on withdrawal from the EU. Given Gove's seniority among LEAVErs, I think it is reasonable to assume this would happen. Imagine if the negotiations sour, perhaps the next PM has to accept free movement of people outraging Ukip, and opinion polls say there's no majority support for Brexit any more. Then there's a general election at which most MPs don't support Brexit, collectively winning more votes than LEAVE, and interpreting that as a mandate to renegotiate EU membership and REMAIN, perhaps after a second referendum. I don't want to advocate this outcome - I think it suits neither side to imagine it - merely suggesting it might happen.
Goodness, that's convoluted by any standards. What will happen is this: the day after a leave vote is promulgated, Cameron will invoke Article 50 and the negotiations for withdrawal will commence. Within weeks, he will resign the premiership in humiliation and the Conservative party will elect a successor, who will likely be Gove in such circumstances. It won't be Boris. Technically the Article 50 process could then be stalled, but the outcry over a leading Leaver apparently then frustrating the expressed will of the people would be so overwhelming that Gove, were he to attempt such a manoeuvre, would be toppled within days. It simply isn't going to happen.
Leave means leave and that starts in earnest on day one.
That's about as bad a front page as a major party leader could ever get, and from the Times, which remains the most respected newspaper in the country. Party exodus over "anti-Semitism"??
This is Corbyn's Nadir. He is approaching ultimate weakness.
If the Blairites don't strike now, they are doomed as well as cowardly.
Blair's quoted in that piece.
He's warned some people that Corbyn cannot be kept out of a future leadership contest.
I think the fear for Labour is
1) No point trying to topple Corbyn and ensuring he is re-elected with an even larger mandate
2) Corbyn's successor turns out to be John McDonnell, who is on a different scale of unelectability to Corbyn,
I dunno, John McDonnell looks like he might actually be able to handle the day-to-day aspects of the job, making him more dangerous.
Which is what makes him unelectable.
Anyway I think we need to see more of McDonnell - his Maoist / IRA interests would make a change from the Hitler / Stalin faction.
The leaders of the LEAVE side like Michael Gove say Britain should delay using Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which would start the timer on withdrawal from the EU. Given Gove's seniority among LEAVErs, I think it is reasonable to assume this would happen. Imagine if the negotiations sour, perhaps the next PM has to accept free movement of people outraging Ukip, and opinion polls say there's no majority support for Brexit any more. Then there's a general election at which most MPs don't support Brexit, collectively winning more votes than LEAVE, and interpreting that as a mandate to renegotiate EU membership and REMAIN, perhaps after a second referendum. I don't want to advocate this outcome - I think it suits neither side to imagine it - merely suggesting it might happen.
It's just grotesque. If we vote LEAVE by one vote, we LEAVE, if we vote REMAIN by one vote, we REMAIN
There must not and cannot be any ambiguity over this. What's more, ambiguity benefits the populist right and the eurosceptics, and their understandable paranoia, so any REMAINER parroting this nonsense would we well advised to STFU.
We come close to the end of meaningful democracy, if you talk about ignoring once-in-a-lifetime referendums. Cable is a loathsome old fool.
But who will push the button? In this hypothetical LEAVE world, Gove's said he won't, not until the time is right. What if the time's never right? Presumably, that means a successful transition directly to single market access (in the EEA), but this option, adored by the pointy-headed Gladstonian Tory liberals on PB comments, doesn't address why most LEAVE people will vote LEAVE - sovereignty and immigration. It also might not be agreed before a general election.
It is easy to imagine EEA being in a weak minority position of public opinion, supported neither by a large intransigent REMAIN cohort nor by most LEAVE voters. Can any prime minister push such a policy?
It is also easy to imagine a prime minister with a choice between reneging on the referendum or a devastating failure of negotiations, in which out-means-out and market access is lost. Voters are being told that everything will be OK like in Albania, but soft LEAVE voters might be horrified if there's no transitional deal. Would the prime minister then be justified in refraining from using Article 50 during his or her term in office, to give the next government a chance at re-negotiation? Pretty soon, we're talking about Jesuitical distinctions between continued efforts at negotiation, and ignoring the vote. But it is Gove who said this is ok.
it is a bit of a mystery to me why pictures of and quotes openly from Stalin appear to pass without more comment, given modern Russian history, at least around WW2 era, is one of the few historical things most people are taught and should be aware of.
If that's the only era of Russian/Soviet history of which they're aware, all people will know is that Stalin was our noble ally, Churchill called him a 'great rugged war chief' of 'inexhaustible courage and will-power' and that our government had a hammer & sickle flag flown above every town hall to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Red Army. I'd hope most sentient people might have a wider awareness than that.
By WW2 era I'm including the run up to and period afterward into the Cold War - anyone taught about the war would be made aware of those aspectsd as part of it, and so Stalin's monstrosity. Hence why him getting a pass is a bit odd.
Compare the impact of Stalin & Hitler on the British, there are comparatively few families living here, whose loved ones were imprisoned, starved, exiled or shot by Stalin.
Comments like those of Vince Cable, Matthew Parris and the ex-editor of The Independent show why Leave simply have to win.
No. Absolutely no. I shall vote Remain, I may campaign for Remain after May 5th, but if the result, even by one solitary vote, is to leave, then that has to be the outcome. No ifs, no buts.
The leaders of the LEAVE side like Michael Gove say Britain should delay using Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which would start the timer on withdrawal from the EU. Given Gove's seniority among LEAVErs, I think it is reasonable to assume this would happen. Imagine if the negotiations sour, perhaps the next PM has to accept free movement of people outraging Ukip, and opinion polls say there's no majority support for Brexit any more. Then there's a general election at which most MPs don't support Brexit, collectively winning more votes than LEAVE, and interpreting that as a mandate to renegotiate EU membership and REMAIN, perhaps after a second referendum. I don't want to advocate this outcome - I think it suits neither side to imagine it - merely suggesting it might happen.
It's just grotesque. If we vote LEAVE by one vote, we LEAVE, if we vote REMAIN by one vote, we REMAIN
There must not and cannot be any ambiguity over this. What's more, ambiguity benefits the populist right and the eurosceptics, and their understandable paranoia, so any REMAINER parroting this nonsense would we well advised to STFU.
We come close to the end of meaningful democracy, if you talk about ignoring once-in-a-lifetime referendums. Cable is a loathsome old fool.
It was only a matter of time before some buffoon would come out with the line that the referendum was merely 'advisory'.
Looking at the actual Bill, technically this looks correct. The Bill just states there will be a referendum and a load of stuff about who can vote, who will publish information etc. Unless I've missed something?
Highly unusual debate if this report is at all accurate (I am sure I will be informed it is not, filthy BBC lies again) about the Scottish leader debate:
Mr Rennie scoring perhaps the biggest cheer of the night by calling for people to move on from the independence debate.
A LD in Scotland getting the biggest cheer, even with such a statement?
Comments like those of Vince Cable, Matthew Parris and the ex-editor of The Independent show why Leave simply have to win.
No. Absolutely no. I shall vote Remain, I may campaign for Remain after May 5th, but if the result, even by one solitary vote, is to leave, then that has to be the outcome. No ifs, no buts.
Good for you. Respect. Likewise if REMAIN wins by one vote, I will expect my government to honour that decision.
I might or might not campaign for a new referendum, at some point in the future - and after 10 years minimum, barring some huge EU power-grab - but, for the moment, the people will have spoken. And that must be respected.
What amazes me is how REMAINIANS don't seem to realise how this loose talk goes down. "Oh if it's close we will just ignore the people, and stay in anyway". This is exactly what voters HATE about the europhile elite: that they ignore the little people til they get the result they like. This stuff drives people towards LEAVE.
Someone should sit on Vince Cable so he can't actually talk until the vote is over.
I abhor Cable and all his like.
Presumably John you are excluding the PM and Chancellor from that general condemnation, even though they have been parroting all the same propaganda and indeed propagating new deceits re. the EU over the last few weeks?
I am indeed excluding both unless either of them has said voting leave "is only for fun" as it were.
Comments like those of Vince Cable, Matthew Parris and the ex-editor of The Independent show why Leave simply have to win.
No. Absolutely no. I shall vote Remain, I may campaign for Remain after May 5th, but if the result, even by one solitary vote, is to leave, then that has to be the outcome. No ifs, no buts.
As a 'remainer' I absolutely endorse this comment. One vote more for leave is leave and Cable can go back to obscurity, his arrogance is breathtaking
Unhelpful, certainly. I would have thought emphasising if we vote leave by a single vote we are leaving, would be more effective at potential waverers than suggesting if it is close it's ok, we might not leave anyway, thus meaning those on the fence can vote leave without worry.
Quite. Aside from the political immorality of casually ignoring a referendum result you don't like, this ludicrous drivel from the likes of Cable is exactly what REMAIN should NOT be saying.
Cameron is right to emphasise that this vote is IT. You vote IN or OUT and that's it for a generation, no going back. This black-and-white approach concentrates minds, and benefits the inners, I am sure.
Cameron can't say that because any further transfer of powers is supposed to trigger another referendum.
Comments like those of Vince Cable, Matthew Parris and the ex-editor of The Independent show why Leave simply have to win.
No. Absolutely no. I shall vote Remain, I may campaign for Remain after May 5th, but if the result, even by one solitary vote, is to leave, then that has to be the outcome. No ifs, no buts.
The leaders of the LEAVE side like Michael Gove say Britain should delay using Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which would start the timer on withdrawal from the EU. Given Gove's seniority among LEAVErs, I think it is reasonable to assume this would happen. Imagine if the negotiations sour, perhaps the next PM has to accept free movement of people outraging Ukip, and opinion polls say there's no majority support for Brexit any more. Then there's a general election at which most MPs don't support Brexit, collectively winning more votes than LEAVE, and interpreting that as a mandate to renegotiate EU membership and REMAIN, perhaps after a second referendum. I don't want to advocate this outcome - I think it suits neither side to imagine it - merely suggesting it might happen.
It's just grotesque. If we vote LEAVE by one vote, we LEAVE, if we vote REMAIN by one vote, we REMAIN
There must not and cannot be any ambiguity over this. What's more, ambiguity benefits the populist right and the eurosceptics, and their understandable paranoia, so any REMAINER parroting this nonsense would we well advised to STFU.
We come close to the end of meaningful democracy, if you talk about ignoring once-in-a-lifetime referendums. Cable is a loathsome old fool.
It was only a matter of time before some buffoon would come out with the line that the referendum was merely 'advisory'.
Comments like those of Vince Cable, Matthew Parris and the ex-editor of The Independent show why Leave simply have to win.
No. Absolutely no. I shall vote Remain, I may campaign for Remain after May 5th, but if the result, even by one solitary vote, is to leave, then that has to be the outcome. No ifs, no buts.
Good for you. Respect. Likewise if REMAIN wins by one vote, I will expect my government to honour that decision.
I might or might not campaign for a new referendum, at some point in the future - and after 10 years minimum, barring some huge EU power-grab - but, for the moment, the people will have spoken. And that must be respected.
What amazes me is how REMAINIANS don't seem to realise how this loose talk goes down. "Oh if it's close we will just ignore the people, and stay in anyway". This is exactly what voters HATE about the europhile elite: that they ignore the little people til they get the result they like. This stuff drives people towards LEAVE.
Someone should sit on Vince Cable so he can't actually talk until the vote is over.
I abhor Cable and all his like.
Presumably John you are excluding the PM and Chancellor from that general condemnation, even though they have been parroting all the same propaganda and indeed propagating new deceits re. the EU over the last few weeks?
I am indeed excluding both unless either of them has said voting leave "is only for fun" as it were.
Just checking.
Btw my hedge fund friends hinted they got their 'idea' from your party, not the Lib Dems. I find it easy to imagine that Osborne would agree with Cable on this, behind the scenes at least.
The real significance of this of course, is that the matter is being raised at all. It wouldn't be if the referendum was 'in the bag' as we keep being assured by our thread writers.
Not really certain how to analyse the figures at first glance, but the regional interest 'town/city' has the top give as Abridge, Surbiton, Ystradgnlais (that has to be made up, come on Wales!), South Croydon and Folkstone.
Comments like those of Vince Cable, Matthew Parris and the ex-editor of The Independent show why Leave simply have to win.
No. Absolutely no. I shall vote Remain, I may campaign for Remain after May 5th, but if the result, even by one solitary vote, is to leave, then that has to be the outcome. No ifs, no buts.
The leaders of the LEAVE side like Michael Gove say Britain should delay using Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which would start the timer on withdrawal from the EU. Given Gove's seniority among LEAVErs, I think it is reasonable to assume this would happen. Imagine if the negotiations sour, perhaps the next PM has to accept free movement of people outraging Ukip, and opinion polls say there's no majority support for Brexit any more. Then there's a general election at which most MPs don't support Brexit, collectively winning more votes than LEAVE, and interpreting that as a mandate to renegotiate EU membership and REMAIN, perhaps after a second referendum. I don't want to advocate this outcome - I think it suits neither side to imagine it - merely suggesting it might happen.
Goodness, that's convoluted by any standards. What will happen is this: the day after a leave vote is promulgated, Cameron will invoke Article 50 and the negotiations for withdrawal will commence. Within weeks, he will resign the premiership in humiliation and the Conservative party will elect a successor, who will likely be Gove in such circumstances. It won't be Boris. Technically the Article 50 process could then be stalled, but the outcry over a leading Leaver apparently then frustrating the expressed will of the people would be so overwhelming that Gove, were he to attempt such a manoeuvre, would be toppled within days. It simply isn't going to happen.
Leave means leave and that starts in earnest on day one.
In the circumstances, Mr Gove would simply say: The last government supported Remain and started the technical Article 50 procedure in spite of the clear intention of the Leave camp to do otherwise, as stated numerous times during the campaign. We need more than two years to negotiate a deal for Britain. This was a poison pill left by the last government in a bitter attempt by the losing side to discredit the winning side. The British people will see through it.
Comments like those of Vince Cable, Matthew Parris and the ex-editor of The Independent show why Leave simply have to win.
No. Absolutely no. I shall vote Remain, I may campaign for Remain after May 5th, but if the result, even by one solitary vote, is to leave, then that has to be the outcome. No ifs, no buts.
Good for you. Respect. Likewise if REMAIN wins by one vote, I will expect my government to honour that decision.
I might or might not campaign for a new referendum, at some point in the future - and after 10 years minimum, barring some huge EU power-grab - but, for the moment, the people will have spoken. And that must be respected.
What amazes me is how REMAINIANS don't seem to realise how this loose talk goes down. "Oh if it's close we will just ignore the people, and stay in anyway". This is exactly what voters HATE about the europhile elite: that they ignore the little people til they get the result they like. This stuff drives people towards LEAVE.
Someone should sit on Vince Cable so he can't actually talk until the vote is over.
I abhor Cable and all his like.
Presumably John you are excluding the PM and Chancellor from that general condemnation, even though they have been parroting all the same propaganda and indeed propagating new deceits re. the EU over the last few weeks?
I am indeed excluding both unless either of them has said voting leave "is only for fun" as it were.
Just checking.
Btw my hedge fund friends hinted they got their 'idea' from your party, not the Lib Dems. I find it easy to imagine that Osborne would agree with Cable on this, behind the scenes at least.
The real significance of this of course, is that the matter is being raised at all. It wouldn't be if the referendum was 'in the bag' as we keep being assured by our thread writers.
Comments like those of Vince Cable, Matthew Parris and the ex-editor of The Independent show why Leave simply have to win.
No. Absolutely no. I shall vote Remain, I may campaign for Remain after May 5th, but if the result, even by one solitary vote, is to leave, then that has to be the outcome. No ifs, no buts.
As a 'remainer' I absolutely endorse this comment. One vote more for leave is leave and Cable can go back to obscurity, his arrogance is breathtaking
Unhelpful, certainly. I would have thought emphasising if we vote leave by a single vote we are leaving, would be more effective at potential waverers than suggesting if it is close it's ok, we might not leave anyway, thus meaning those on the fence can vote leave without worry.
Quite. Aside from the political immorality of casually ignoring a referendum result you don't like, this ludicrous drivel from the likes of Cable is exactly what REMAIN should NOT be saying.
Cameron is right to emphasise that this vote is IT. You vote IN or OUT and that's it for a generation, no going back. This black-and-white approach concentrates minds, and benefits the inners, I am sure.
Cameron can't say that because any further transfer of powers is supposed to trigger another referendum.
Just on accepting new transfers of power, surely? Totally different.
Comments like those of Vince Cable, Matthew Parris and the ex-editor of The Independent show why Leave simply have to win.
No. Absolutely no. I shall vote Remain, I may campaign for Remain after May 5th, but if the result, even by one solitary vote, is to leave, then that has to be the outcome. No ifs, no buts.
Good for you. Respect. Likewise if REMAIN wins by one vote, I will expect my government to honour that decision.
I might or might not campaign for a new referendum, at some point in the future - and after 10 years minimum, barring some huge EU power-grab - but, for the moment, the people will have spoken. And that must be respected.
What amazes me is how REMAINIANS don't seem to realise how this loose talk goes down. "Oh if it's close we will just ignore the people, and stay in anyway". This is exactly what voters HATE about the europhile elite: that they ignore the little people til they get the result they like. This stuff drives people towards LEAVE.
Someone should sit on Vince Cable so he can't actually talk until the vote is over.
I abhor Cable and all his like.
Presumably John you are excluding the PM and Chancellor from that general condemnation, even though they have been parroting all the same propaganda and indeed propagating new deceits re. the EU over the last few weeks?
I am indeed excluding both unless either of them has said voting leave "is only for fun" as it were.
Just checking.
Btw my hedge fund friends hinted they got their 'idea' from your party, not the Lib Dems. I find it easy to imagine that Osborne would agree with Cable on this, behind the scenes at least.
The real significance of this of course, is that the matter is being raised at all. It wouldn't be if the referendum was 'in the bag' as we keep being assured by our thread writers.
You really need to learn to read.
Mr Eagles,could you tell me if NigelforEngland has been banned ?
Comments like those of Vince Cable, Matthew Parris and the ex-editor of The Independent show why Leave simply have to win.
No. Absolutely no. I shall vote Remain, I may campaign for Remain after May 5th, but if the result, even by one solitary vote, is to leave, then that has to be the outcome. No ifs, no buts.
Good for you. Respect. Likewise if REMAIN wins by one vote, I will expect my government to honour that decision.
I might or might not campaign for a new referendum, at some point in the future - and after 10 years minimum, barring some huge EU power-grab - but, for the moment, the people will have spoken. And that must be respected.
What amazes me is how REMAINIANS don't seem to realise how this loose talk goes down. "Oh if it's close we will just ignore the people, and stay in anyway". This is exactly what voters HATE about the europhile elite: that they ignore the little people til they get the result they like. This stuff drives people towards LEAVE.
Someone should sit on Vince Cable so he can't actually talk until the vote is over.
I abhor Cable and all his like.
Presumably John you are excluding the PM and Chancellor from that general condemnation, even though they have been parroting all the same propaganda and indeed propagating new deceits re. the EU over the last few weeks?
I am indeed excluding both unless either of them has said voting leave "is only for fun" as it were.
Just checking.
Btw my hedge fund friends hinted they got their 'idea' from your party, not the Lib Dems. I find it easy to imagine that Osborne would agree with Cable on this, behind the scenes at least.
The real significance of this of course, is that the matter is being raised at all. It wouldn't be if the referendum was 'in the bag' as we keep being assured by our thread writers.
You really need to learn to read.
Mr Eagles,could you tell me if NigelforEngland has been banned ?
Nothing to do with me, you'll have to take it up with Mike
That's about as bad a front page as a major party leader could ever get, and from the Times, which remains the most respected newspaper in the country. Party exodus over "anti-Semitism"??
This is Corbyn's Nadir. He is approaching ultimate weakness.
If the Blairites don't strike now, they are doomed as well as cowardly.
Problem is, if they do strike now, they put the referendum at risk. But if they delay, the momentum goes out of the issue. If they delay past September, they may find themselves confronted by new leadership electio rules.
Isn't this a rather backwards way of looking at things?
Leadership election rules are only going to be changed if the NEC approves them. The NEC will only approve them if "the Left" wins the upcoming elections for seats on the NEC.
If "the moderates" can't even win elections to the NEC (thus keeping the rules from being changed), then they're not going to be in a position to win a full-blown leadership contest no matter what the rules are.
Comments like those of Vince Cable, Matthew Parris and the ex-editor of The Independent show why Leave simply have to win.
No. Absolutely no. I shall vote Remain, I may campaign for Remain after May 5th, but if the result, even by one solitary vote, is to leave, then that has to be the outcome. No ifs, no buts.
The leaders of the LEAVE side like Michael Gove say Britain should delay using Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which would start the timer on withdrawal from the EU. Given Gove's seniority among LEAVErs, I think it is reasonable to assume this would happen. Imagine if the negotiations sour, perhaps the next PM has to accept free movement of people outraging Ukip, and opinion polls say there's no majority support for Brexit any more. Then there's a general election at which most MPs don't support Brexit, collectively winning more votes than LEAVE, and interpreting that as a mandate to renegotiate EU membership and REMAIN, perhaps after a second referendum. I don't want to advocate this outcome - I think it suits neither side to imagine it - merely suggesting it might happen.
It's just grotesque. If we vote LEAVE by one vote, we LEAVE, if we vote REMAIN by one vote, we REMAIN
There must not and cannot be any ambiguity over this. What's more, ambiguity benefits the populist right and the eurosceptics, and their understandable paranoia, so any REMAINER parroting this nonsense would we well advised to STFU.
We come close to the end of meaningful democracy, if you talk about ignoring once-in-a-lifetime referendums. Cable is a loathsome old fool.
It was only a matter of time before some buffoon would come out with the line that the referendum was merely 'advisory'.
Like Boris?
But Boris's line made democratic sense, even if you think he's talking bollocks in terms of realpolitik. His thesis was: if we vote LEAVE we are out, and then we might negotiate a much better associate membership, the terms of which will then be the subject of a new UK vote (because after we vote LEAVE it is up to us).
It might be fanciful, but it is democratic.
Cable is proposing that the UK parliament should ignore the expressed democratic will of the UK people, in a "once in a lifetime" referendum. Just *ignore* it.
It's on a different scale. Breathtaking.
Yep - one of the leading figures in British politics of the last ten years who is well respected said this.
In the circumstances, Mr Gove would simply say: The last government supported Remain and started the technical Article 50 procedure in spite of the clear intention of the Leave camp to do otherwise, as stated numerous times during the campaign. We need more than two years to negotiate a deal for Britain. This was a poison pill left by the last government in a bitter attempt by the losing side to discredit the winning side. The British people will see through it.
You keep talking about Gove as if a vote in favour of leaving the EU next month will some how mean he gets to be PM or have some super-power to decide things against the will of the PM.
If there is a vote in favour of leave the person who will have to deal with that is Cameron. Unless he walks off in a huff, in which case it will be who the Conservative Party choose as his successor which almost certainly won't be Gove (he has said he doesn't want the job and doesn't have the skills required for it even if he did).
That's about as bad a front page as a major party leader could ever get, and from the Times, which remains the most respected newspaper in the country. Party exodus over "anti-Semitism"??
This is Corbyn's Nadir. He is approaching ultimate weakness.
If the Blairites don't strike now, they are doomed as well as cowardly.
Problem is, if they do strike now, they put the referendum at risk. But if they delay, the momentum goes out of the issue. If they delay past September, they may find themselves confronted by new leadership electio rules.
Isn't this a rather backwards way of looking at things?
Leadership election rules are only going to be changed if the NEC approves them. The NEC will only approve them if "the Left" wins the upcoming elections for seats on the NEC.
If "the moderates" can't even win elections to the NEC (thus keeping the rules from being changed), then they're not going to be in a position to win a full-blown leadership contest no matter what the rules are.
That depends on who is / can be nominated. At present the left don't have enough MPs to assure themselves of a candidate.
Comments like those of Vince Cable, Matthew Parris and the ex-editor of The Independent show why Leave simply have to win.
No. Absolutely no. I shall vote Remain, I may campaign for Remain after May 5th, but if the result, even by one solitary vote, is to leave, then that has to be the outcome. No ifs, no buts.
The leaders of the LEAVE side like Michael Gove say Britain should delay using Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which would start the timer on withdrawal from the EU. Given Gove's seniority among LEAVErs, I think it is reasonable to assume this would happen. Imagine if the negotiations sour, perhaps the next PM has to accept free movement of people outraging Ukip, and opinion polls say there's no majority support for Brexit any more. Then there's a general election at which most MPs don't support Brexit, collectively winning more votes than LEAVE, and interpreting that as a mandate to renegotiate EU membership and REMAIN, perhaps after a second referendum. I don't want to advocate this outcome - I think it suits neither side to imagine it - merely suggesting it might happen.
It's just grotesque. If we vote LEAVE by one vote, we LEAVE, if we vote REMAIN by one vote, we REMAIN
There must not and cannot be any ambiguity over this. What's more, ambiguity benefits the populist right and the eurosceptics, and their understandable paranoia, so any REMAINER parroting this nonsense would we well advised to STFU.
We come close to the end of meaningful democracy, if you talk about ignoring once-in-a-lifetime referendums. Cable is a loathsome old fool.
It was only a matter of time before some buffoon would come out with the line that the referendum was merely 'advisory'.
Like Boris?
But Boris's line made democratic sense, even if you think he's talking bollocks in terms of realpolitik. His thesis was: if we vote LEAVE we are out, and then we might negotiate a much better associate membership, the terms of which will then be the subject of a new UK vote (because after we vote LEAVE it is up to us).
It might be fanciful, but it is democratic.
Cable is proposing that the UK parliament should ignore the expressed democratic will of the UK people, in a "once in a lifetime" referendum. Just *ignore* it.
It's on a different scale. Breathtaking.
Man of no importance, who is member of party of no importance, says something about which he has no control, or even influence.
Vince Cable is a washed up fool. And has been for about two decades.
Comments like those of Vince Cable, Matthew Parris and the ex-editor of The Independent show why Leave simply have to win.
No. Absolutely no. I shall vote Remain, I may campaign for Remain after May 5th, but if the result, even by one solitary vote, is to leave, then that has to be the outcome. No ifs, no buts.
The leaders of the LEAVE side like Michael Gove say Britain should delay using Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which would start the timer on withdrawal from the EU. Given Gove's seniority among LEAVErs, I think it is reasonable to assume this would happen. Imagine if the negotiations sour, perhaps the next PM has to accept free movement of people outraging Ukip, and opinion polls say there's no majority support for Brexit any more. Then there's a general election at which most MPs don't support Brexit, collectively winning more votes than LEAVE, and interpreting that as a mandate to renegotiate EU membership and REMAIN, perhaps after a second referendum. I don't want to advocate this outcome - I think it suits neither side to imagine it - merely suggesting it might happen.
It's just grotesque. If we vote LEAVE by one vote, we LEAVE, if we vote REMAIN by one vote, we REMAIN
There must not and cannot be any ambiguity over this. What's more, ambiguity benefits the populist right and the eurosceptics, and their understandable paranoia, so any REMAINER parroting this nonsense would we well advised to STFU.
We come close to the end of meaningful democracy, if you talk about ignoring once-in-a-lifetime referendums. Cable is a loathsome old fool.
It was only a matter of time before some buffoon would come out with the line that the referendum was merely 'advisory'.
Like Boris?
But Boris's line made democratic sense, even if you think he's talking bollocks in terms of realpolitik. His thesis was: if we vote LEAVE we are out, and then we might negotiate a much better associate membership, the terms of which will then be the subject of a new UK vote (because after we vote LEAVE it is up to us).
It might be fanciful, but it is democratic.
Cable is proposing that the UK parliament should ignore the expressed democratic will of the UK people, in a "once in a lifetime" referendum. Just *ignore* it.
It's on a different scale. Breathtaking.
Two bites at the cherry?
Leave means Leave.
The buffoons are on both sides.
Though I think the result will be unambiguous in any case.
Comments like those of Vince Cable, Matthew Parris and the ex-editor of The Independent show why Leave simply have to win.
No. Absolutely no. I shall vote Remain, I may campaign for Remain after May 5th, but if the result, even by one solitary vote, is to leave, then that has to be the outcome. No ifs, no buts.
Good for you. Respect. Likewise if REMAIN wins by one vote, I will expect my government to honour that decision.
I might or might not campaign for a new referendum, at some point in the future - and after 10 years minimum, barring some huge EU power-grab - but, for the moment, the people will have spoken. And that must be respected.
What amazes me is how REMAINIANS don't seem to realise how this loose talk goes down. "Oh if it's close we will just ignore the people, and stay in anyway". This is exactly what voters HATE about the europhile elite: that they ignore the little people til they get the result they like. This stuff drives people towards LEAVE.
Someone should sit on Vince Cable so he can't actually talk until the vote is over.
I abhor Cable and all his like.
Presumably John you are excluding the PM and Chancellor from that general condemnation, even though they have been parroting all the same propaganda and indeed propagating new deceits re. the EU over the last few weeks?
I am indeed excluding both unless either of them has said voting leave "is only for fun" as it were.
Just checking.
Btw my hedge fund friends hinted they got their 'idea' from your party, not the Lib Dems. I find it easy to imagine that Osborne would agree with Cable on this, behind the scenes at least.
The real significance of this of course, is that the matter is being raised at all. It wouldn't be if the referendum was 'in the bag' as we keep being assured by our thread writers.
I don't give the proverbial flying thinggy what Cable or any other grasping LibDem toad thinks (hence the jubilation this time last May): Cameron couldn't be clearer that Leave means leave and that's to his credit, the more so since he will leave politics with a reputation ruined.
Which, in part, explains why I shall be patriotically be voting Remain. Now, above all now, with the existential threat that Corbyn and his gang of thugs, poses to this country, we need a mainstream, moderate centre right government to remain in office for at least the next 10 years until a viable left of centre alternative re-emerges from the dismal primeval slime that is presently 'Labour'.
In the circumstances, Mr Gove would simply say: The last government supported Remain and started the technical Article 50 procedure in spite of the clear intention of the Leave camp to do otherwise, as stated numerous times during the campaign. We need more than two years to negotiate a deal for Britain. This was a poison pill left by the last government in a bitter attempt by the losing side to discredit the winning side. The British people will see through it.
You keep talking about Gove as if a vote in favour of leaving the EU next month will some how mean he gets to be PM or have some super-power to decide things against the will of the PM.
If there is a vote in favour of leave the person who will have to deal with that is Cameron. Unless he walks off in a huff, in which case it will be who the Conservative Party choose as his successor which almost certainly won't be Gove (he has said he doesn't want the job and doesn't have the skills required for it even if he did).
I'm talking about Gove as if he's the senior thinker on the LEAVE side, not just the most likely negotiator of a LEAVE deal as Prime Minister, which he also happens to be. Nobody from LEAVE has said it means leaving the EU as soon as possible come what may; they all want negotiations, which take time, and any new prime minister who denies themselves time will begin negotiating at a disadvantage. Cameron's options are a little trickier than portrayed at present. He could say "screw it, I'm quitting, but first I'm giving our two years' notice to leave Europe under Article 50. That's how you voted, so deal with."
Comments like those of Vince Cable, Matthew Parris and the ex-editor of The Independent show why Leave simply have to win.
No. Absolutely no. I shall vote Remain, I may campaign for Remain after May 5th, but if the result, even by one solitary vote, is to leave, then that has to be the outcome. No ifs, no buts.
The leaders of the LEAVE side like Michael Gove say Britain should delay using Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which would start the timer on withdrawal from the EU. Given Gove's seniority among LEAVErs, I think it is reasonable to assume this would happen. Imagine if the negotiations sour, perhaps the next PM has to accept free movement of people outraging Ukip, and opinion polls say there's no majority support for Brexit any more. Then there's a general election at which most MPs don't support Brexit, collectively winning more votes than LEAVE, and interpreting that as a mandate to renegotiate EU membership and REMAIN, perhaps after a second referendum. I don't want to advocate this outcome - I think it suits neither side to imagine it - merely suggesting it might happen.
It's just grotesque. If we vote LEAVE by one vote, we LEAVE, if we vote REMAIN by one vote, we REMAIN
There must not and cannot be any ambiguity over this. What's more, ambiguity benefits the populist right and the eurosceptics, and their understandable paranoia, so any REMAINER parroting this nonsense would we well advised to STFU.
We come close to the end of meaningful democracy, if you talk about ignoring once-in-a-lifetime referendums. Cable is a loathsome old fool.
It was only a matter of time before some buffoon would come out with the line that the referendum was merely 'advisory'.
Like Boris?
But Boris's line made democratic sense, even if you think he's talking bollocks in terms of realpolitik. His thesis was: if we vote LEAVE we are out, and then we might negotiate a much better associate membership, the terms of which will then be the subject of a new UK vote (because after we vote LEAVE it is up to us).
It might be fanciful, but it is democratic.
Cable is proposing that the UK parliament should ignore the expressed democratic will of the UK people, in a "once in a lifetime" referendum. Just *ignore* it.
It's on a different scale. Breathtaking.
Man of no importance, who is member of party of no importance, says something about which he has no control, or even influence.
Vince Cable is a washed up fool. And has been for about two decades.
That's about as bad a front page as a major party leader could ever get, and from the Times, which remains the most respected newspaper in the country. Party exodus over "anti-Semitism"??
This is Corbyn's Nadir. He is approaching ultimate weakness.
If the Blairites don't strike now, they are doomed as well as cowardly.
Problem is, if they do strike now, they put the referendum at risk. But if they delay, the momentum goes out of the issue. If they delay past September, they may find themselves confronted by new leadership electio rules.
Isn't this a rather backwards way of looking at things?
Leadership election rules are only going to be changed if the NEC approves them. The NEC will only approve them if "the Left" wins the upcoming elections for seats on the NEC.
If "the moderates" can't even win elections to the NEC (thus keeping the rules from being changed), then they're not going to be in a position to win a full-blown leadership contest no matter what the rules are.
That depends on who is / can be nominated. At present the left don't have enough MPs to assure themselves of a candidate.
But again, the MPs' threshold will remain in place unless/until the NEC wins enough Left members to change the rules.
(Personally I suspect that, even under the current rules, a left-wing candidate would get onto the leadership ballot simply through grassroots pressure on individual MPs -- that, after all, is how Corbyn got on last year's ballot in the first place.)
But the main point is that "the moderates must win a leadership election before the rules change" is a red herring. It's equivalent to an Opposition Party saying "we have to a have a general election quickly, because we're on course to do badly in this year's local elections". The NEC elections are fundamentally more friendly terrain for the Labour moderates (because they are much lower turnout so some of the younger Corbynistas won't vote, I'm not sure the £3ers even get a vote, and even some soft-left members who still want Corbyn to be leader might be open to having a check and balance with some moderates on the NEC to stop him going too overboard, without the risk of handing the main reins of party policy back over to the moderates). If the "moderates" don't think they have a chance even of winning the NEC (and thus preventing the leadership rules from being changed) then they've not got a hope in hell of winning the leadership.
In the circumstances, Mr Gove would simply say: The last government supported Remain and started the technical Article 50 procedure in spite of the clear intention of the Leave camp to do otherwise, as stated numerous times during the campaign. We need more than two years to negotiate a deal for Britain. This was a poison pill left by the last government in a bitter attempt by the losing side to discredit the winning side. The British people will see through it.
You keep talking about Gove as if a vote in favour of leaving the EU next month will some how mean he gets to be PM or have some super-power to decide things against the will of the PM.
If there is a vote in favour of leave the person who will have to deal with that is Cameron. Unless he walks off in a huff, in which case it will be who the Conservative Party choose as his successor which almost certainly won't be Gove (he has said he doesn't want the job and doesn't have the skills required for it even if he did).
I'm talking about Gove as if he's the senior thinker on the LEAVE side, not just the most likely negotiator of a LEAVE deal as Prime Minister, which he also happens to be. Nobody from LEAVE has said it means leaving the EU as soon as possible come what may; they all want negotiations, which take time, and any new prime minister who denies themselves time will begin negotiating at a disadvantage. Cameron's options are a little trickier than portrayed at present. He could say "screw it, I'm quitting, but first I'm giving our two years' notice to leave Europe under Article 50. That's how you voted, so deal with."
It would be ridiculous to delay invocation of article 5O if the vote goes to Leave. Leave means Leave as we have just discussed concerning Cable.
Totally off topic, but random wikipedia fact of the day, apparently Greece has had 185 PMs since the foundation of the first hellenic republic in 1822. That seems like a hell of a lot of PMs - the words 'caretaker government' seem to crop up a lot.
Man of no importance, who is member of party of no importance, says something about which he has no control, or even influence.
Vince Cable is a washed up fool. And has been for about two decades.
Your Dad thought highly enough of him to cast aside any concern for the right of the people of Twickenham to select their own representative, free from outside interference
In the circumstances, Mr Gove would simply say: The last government supported Remain and started the technical Article 50 procedure in spite of the clear intention of the Leave camp to do otherwise, as stated numerous times during the campaign. We need more than two years to negotiate a deal for Britain. This was a poison pill left by the last government in a bitter attempt by the losing side to discredit the winning side. The British people will see through it.
You keep talking about Gove as if a vote in favour of leaving the EU next month will some how mean he gets to be PM or have some super-power to decide things against the will of the PM.
If there is a vote in favour of leave the person who will have to deal with that is Cameron. Unless he walks off in a huff, in which case it will be who the Conservative Party choose as his successor which almost certainly won't be Gove (he has said he doesn't want the job and doesn't have the skills required for it even if he did).
I agree. Gove has repeatedly said he does not want the top job. He showed a commendable sense of self-awafeness in that and personally I believe him.
It won't be Boris either. Mrs May, a pragmatic Remainer with few serious negatives, has an each way claim to follow Cameron. She would become PM imo.
I don't give the proverbial flying thinggy what Cable or any other grasping LibDem toad thinks (hence the jubilation this time last May): Cameron couldn't be clearer that Leave means leave and that's to his credit, the more so since he will leave politics with a reputation ruined.
Which, in part, explains why I shall be patriotically be voting Remain. Now, above all now, with the existential threat that Corbyn and his gang of thugs, poses to this country, we need a mainstream, moderate centre right government to remain in office for at least the next 10 years until a viable left of centre alternative re-emerges from the dismal primeval slime that is presently 'Labour'.
Surely this is some sort of typo and you meant "centre left"?
Man of no importance, who is member of party of no importance, says something about which he has no control, or even influence.
Vince Cable is a washed up fool. And has been for about two decades.
Your Dad thought highly enough of him to cast aside any concern for the right of the people of Twickenham to select their own representative, free from outside interference
What concerns me is not Cable, who is as Robert rightly says a busted flush, but who he might be speaking for as it were.
Though as I said before, the fact he has blabbed about this at all makes me feel LEAVE is in with a decent shout.
Totally off topic, but random wikipedia fact of the day, apparently Greece has had 185 PMs since the foundation of the first hellenic republic in 1822. That seems like a hell of a lot of PMs - the words 'caretaker government' seem to crop up a lot.
Modern Greece started off as a Republic in 1822, then a monarchy in 1832.
I don't give the proverbial flying thinggy what Cable or any other grasping LibDem toad thinks (hence the jubilation this time last May): Cameron couldn't be clearer that Leave means leave and that's to his credit, the more so since he will leave politics with a reputation ruined.
Which, in part, explains why I shall be patriotically be voting Remain. Now, above all now, with the existential threat that Corbyn and his gang of thugs, poses to this country, we need a mainstream, moderate centre right government to remain in office for at least the next 10 years until a viable left of centre alternative re-emerges from the dismal primeval slime that is presently 'Labour'.
Surely this is some sort of typo and you meant "centre left"?
I've been a Tory activist since 1974, possibly before you were born, perhaps even your parents, and Cameron is leading a model centre-right Tory government.
Totally off topic, but random wikipedia fact of the day, apparently Greece has had 185 PMs since the foundation of the first hellenic republic in 1822. That seems like a hell of a lot of PMs - the words 'caretaker government' seem to crop up a lot.
Give Australia time and they'll catch up. Their leaders seem to sit in Canberra spilling to infinity.
Comments
IIRC Alastair Meeks was perhaps the most outraged at this.
Mind you I suppose anti semitism was a feature of Stalinist Russia, along with gulags, show trials and oh mass starvation to name a few.
I've been watching the Labour party throwing away the good & embracing the bad wholeheartedly and although it does frighten me it's also giving me the giggles - too much like hysteria for comfort.
I'm not terribly interested in the Conservative party's travails but it's only the subject matter that is different from Labour.
Suddenly, all our politicians look like comic-book characters, acting out slap-stick to entertain the public.
One of the things that makes it so funny is how easily one can imagine it all having been choreographed by some expert director.
Well how interesting - I did wonder whether the 'idea' my US hedge fund friends were chucking around casually last week would 'surface'.
Quite incredible that he is actually saying this though.
Or perhaps not - the Lib Dems having for a long time being the mouthpiece of the EU for so long, and the EU having plenty of form in denying the democratic voice of the voters.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3567154/If-s-51-49-vote-Brexit-low-turnout-Parliament-simply-won-t-allow-Vince-Cable-wades-referendum-BHS-row.html
Imagine if the negotiations sour, perhaps the next PM has to accept free movement of people outraging Ukip, and opinion polls say there's no majority support for Brexit any more.
Then there's a general election at which most MPs don't support Brexit, collectively winning more votes than LEAVE, and interpreting that as a mandate to renegotiate EU membership and REMAIN, perhaps after a second referendum.
I don't want to advocate this outcome - I think it suits neither side to imagine it - merely suggesting it might happen.
He's warned some people that Corbyn cannot be kept out of a future leadership contest.
I think the fear for Labour is
1) No point trying to topple Corbyn and ensuring he is re-elected with an even larger mandate
2) Corbyn's successor turns out to be John McDonnell, who is on a different scale of unelectability to Corbyn,
Bad news for the tories though if labour get the right leader and hold together.
"'If there is a 51/49 vote for Brexit on a 50 per cent turnout, Parliament isn't going to allow Brexit on that basis."
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3567154/If-s-51-49-vote-Brexit-low-turnout-Parliament-simply-won-t-allow-Vince-Cable-wades-referendum-BHS-row.html
Leave means leave and that starts in earnest on day one.
Anyway I think we need to see more of McDonnell - his Maoist / IRA interests would make a change from the Hitler / Stalin faction.
It is easy to imagine EEA being in a weak minority position of public opinion, supported neither by a large intransigent REMAIN cohort nor by most LEAVE voters. Can any prime minister push such a policy?
It is also easy to imagine a prime minister with a choice between reneging on the referendum or a devastating failure of negotiations, in which out-means-out and market access is lost. Voters are being told that everything will be OK like in Albania, but soft LEAVE voters might be horrified if there's no transitional deal. Would the prime minister then be justified in refraining from using Article 50 during his or her term in office, to give the next government a chance at re-negotiation? Pretty soon, we're talking about Jesuitical distinctions between continued efforts at negotiation, and ignoring the vote. But it is Gove who said this is ok.
Searches @ Google for Hitler over last 7 days...
https://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore#q=hitler&geo=GB&date=now 7-d&cmpt=q&tz=Etc/GMT-1
The 'related searches' is fascinating.
Mr Rennie scoring perhaps the biggest cheer of the night by calling for people to move on from the independence debate.
A LD in Scotland getting the biggest cheer, even with such a statement?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2016-scotland-36183370
Btw my hedge fund friends hinted they got their 'idea' from your party, not the Lib Dems. I find it easy to imagine that Osborne would agree with Cable on this, behind the scenes at least.
The real significance of this of course, is that the matter is being raised at all. It wouldn't be if the referendum was 'in the bag' as we keep being assured by our thread writers.
Any connections?
The last government supported Remain and started the technical Article 50 procedure in spite of the clear intention of the Leave camp to do otherwise, as stated numerous times during the campaign. We need more than two years to negotiate a deal for Britain. This was a poison pill left by the last government in a bitter attempt by the losing side to discredit the winning side. The British people will see through it.
Leadership election rules are only going to be changed if the NEC approves them. The NEC will only approve them if "the Left" wins the upcoming elections for seats on the NEC.
If "the moderates" can't even win elections to the NEC (thus keeping the rules from being changed), then they're not going to be in a position to win a full-blown leadership contest no matter what the rules are.
Go for it leave ;-)
If there is a vote in favour of leave the person who will have to deal with that is Cameron. Unless he walks off in a huff, in which case it will be who the Conservative Party choose as his successor which almost certainly won't be Gove (he has said he doesn't want the job and doesn't have the skills required for it even if he did).
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/01/local-elections-2016-how-judge-labour-result-jeremy-corbyn
95% of the UK electorate did NOT vote for a LD government!
Vince Cable is a washed up fool. And has been for about two decades.
Leave means Leave.
The buffoons are on both sides.
Though I think the result will be unambiguous in any case.
Local elections 2016: how to judge what Labour's result will mean for the party https://t.co/18Mg117xJ0
Which, in part, explains why I shall be patriotically be voting Remain. Now, above all now, with the existential threat that Corbyn and his gang of thugs, poses to this country, we need a mainstream, moderate centre right government to remain in office for at least the next 10 years until a viable left of centre alternative re-emerges from the dismal primeval slime that is presently 'Labour'.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pnBJLqgQM7-03sOfkThVnJhg97hS_aSx9QS7FtNwGC4/edit#gid=0
Cameron's options are a little trickier than portrayed at present. He could say "screw it, I'm quitting, but first I'm giving our two years' notice to leave Europe under Article 50. That's how you voted, so deal with."
(Personally I suspect that, even under the current rules, a left-wing candidate would get onto the leadership ballot simply through grassroots pressure on individual MPs -- that, after all, is how Corbyn got on last year's ballot in the first place.)
But the main point is that "the moderates must win a leadership election before the rules change" is a red herring. It's equivalent to an Opposition Party saying "we have to a have a general election quickly, because we're on course to do badly in this year's local elections". The NEC elections are fundamentally more friendly terrain for the Labour moderates (because they are much lower turnout so some of the younger Corbynistas won't vote, I'm not sure the £3ers even get a vote, and even some soft-left members who still want Corbyn to be leader might be open to having a check and balance with some moderates on the NEC to stop him going too overboard, without the risk of handing the main reins of party policy back over to the moderates). If the "moderates" don't think they have a chance even of winning the NEC (and thus preventing the leadership rules from being changed) then they've not got a hope in hell of winning the leadership.
It won't be Boris either. Mrs May, a pragmatic Remainer with few serious negatives, has an each way claim to follow Cameron. She would become PM imo.
Though as I said before, the fact he has blabbed about this at all makes me feel LEAVE is in with a decent shout.