Most voters are – in political terms – idiots. They know about as much about the EU as I do about the Swedish netball team. Yet such is the nature of referendums – ignorant people vote on something they don't understand, for spurious reasons, based on a vacuum of accurate information.
Yet the people have voted, so now we must make the best of it rather than cut our noses of to spite our face. EEA+ECJ+ECHR+EFTA+FreeE-cstasy is the sensible route, despite the fact the man on the Mansfield omnibus will notice almost no difference.
Such is life.
Most voters are intelligent enough to understand what the leave campaigns were saying about immigration.
In five or ten years'time, the man on the Mansfield Omnibus will notice the Mail/ Sun / Telegraph blaming something or other on the fact that immigration has not been tackled "despite our voting to stop it". And hence immigrants will continue to be blamed. Add in: "we're still giving £100 million a week to Brussels" (or whatever we'll pay for membership) and this whole damned mess will continue.
Sadly, leave means leave. If someone didn't want to leave, they should have voted for remain. Anyone who campaigned for leave wanting this fudge is a dangerous pedlar of bait-and-switch.
Perhaps, but that doesn't alter the fact that we have to remedy the situation, and isolationism is not the answer. Particularly as there isn't a shred of evidence that the majority of the country wants that.
Most voters are – in political terms – idiots. They know about as much about the EU as I do about the Swedish netball team. Yet such is the nature of referendums – ignorant people vote on something they don't understand, for spurious reasons, based on a vacuum of accurate information.
Yet the people have voted, so now we must make the best of it rather than cut our noses of to spite our face. EEA+ECJ+ECHR+EFTA+FreeE-cstasy is the sensible route, despite the fact the man on the Mansfield omnibus will notice almost no difference.
Such is life.
“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter” Winston Churchill
From the man who wanted to drop poison gas on Arab tribesmen I would suggest that is hardly a great argument against democracy.
He never said that
Attribution debunked in Langworth's Churchill by Himself. First known appearance is in a 1992 usenet post.
He still wanted to bomb the Arabs with poison gas though. I am afraid that for all his qualities as a wartime leader and his many undoubted qualities I don't find Churchill to be a man to be greatly admired.
Most voters are – in political terms – idiots. They know about as much about the EU as I do about the Swedish netball team. Yet such is the nature of referendums – ignorant people vote on something they don't understand, for spurious reasons, based on a vacuum of accurate information.
Yet the people have voted, so now we must make the best of it rather than cut our noses of to spite our face. EEA+ECJ+ECHR+EFTA+FreeE-cstasy is the sensible route, despite the fact the man on the Mansfield omnibus will notice almost no difference.
Such is life.
Most voters are intelligent enough to understand what the leave campaigns were saying about immigration.
In five or ten years'time, the man on the Mansfield Omnibus will notice the Mail/ Sun / Telegraph blaming something or other on the fact that immigration has not been tackled "despite our voting to stop it". And hence immigrants will continue to be blamed. Add in: "we're still giving £100 million a week to Brussels" (or whatever we'll pay for membership) and this whole damned mess will continue.
Sadly, leave means leave. If someone didn't want to leave, they should have voted for remain. Anyone who campaigned for leave wanting this fudge is a dangerous pedlar of bait-and-switch.
Talking garbage again JJ. Millions of people voted Leave for reasons unconnected with immigration just as millions more voted because they thought immigration was important.
Your attempts to force a particular meaning on Leave in spite of your clear ignorance of people's motives is rather sad.
That's true, and as far as I know I have yet to receive from Leavers a reply to my counterfactual below about the day the government held a referendum on entering a European superstate, which turned a narrow Yes against all expectations. A few months later, following an economic shock, public opinion had turned against the idea, and the government hadn't yet triggered (the fictional) Article 51.......
What to do next?
No point replying because it is such a ludicrous idea that it is not something worth considering.
No more ludicrous an idea that having a referendum on Brexit.
Most voters are – in political terms – idiots. They know about as much about the EU as I do about the Swedish netball team. Yet such is the nature of referendums – ignorant people vote on something they don't understand, for spurious reasons, based on a vacuum of accurate information.
Yet the people have voted, so now we must make the best of it rather than cut our noses of to spite our face. EEA+ECJ+ECHR+EFTA+FreeE-cstasy is the sensible route, despite the fact the man on the Mansfield omnibus will notice almost no difference.
Such is life.
Most voters are intelligent enough to understand what the leave campaigns were saying about immigration.
In five or ten years'time, the man on the Mansfield Omnibus will notice the Mail/ Sun / Telegraph blaming something or other on the fact that immigration has not been tackled "despite our voting to stop it". And hence immigrants will continue to be blamed. Add in: "we're still giving £100 million a week to Brussels" (or whatever we'll pay for membership) and this whole damned mess will continue.
Sadly, leave means leave. If someone didn't want to leave, they should have voted for remain. Anyone who campaigned for leave wanting this fudge is a dangerous pedlar of bait-and-switch.
Talking garbage again JJ. Millions of people voted Leave for reasons unconnected with immigration just as millions more voted because they thought immigration was important.
Your attempts to force a particular meaning on Leave in spite of your clear ignorance of people's motives is rather sad.
The polling shift after the 'point-based immigration system' announcement suggests that it was what swung the middle to Leave.
Most voters are – in political terms – idiots. They know about as much about the EU as I do about the Swedish netball team. Yet such is the nature of referendums – ignorant people vote on something they don't understand, for spurious reasons, based on a vacuum of accurate information.
Yet the people have voted, so now we must make the best of it rather than cut our noses of to spite our face. EEA+ECJ+ECHR+EFTA+FreeE-cstasy is the sensible route, despite the fact the man on the Mansfield omnibus will notice almost no difference.
Such is life.
“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter” Winston Churchill
From the man who wanted to drop poison gas on Arab tribesmen I would suggest that is hardly a great argument against democracy.
He never said that
Attribution debunked in Langworth's Churchill by Himself. First known appearance is in a 1992 usenet post.
He still wanted to bomb the Arabs with poison gas though. I am afraid that for all his qualities as a wartime leader and his many undoubted qualities I don't find Churchill to be a man to be greatly admired.
That's true, and as far as I know I have yet to receive from Leavers a reply to my counterfactual below about the day the government held a referendum on entering a European superstate, which turned a narrow Yes against all expectations. A few months later, following an economic shock, public opinion had turned against the idea, and the government hadn't yet triggered (the fictional) Article 51.......
What to do next?
No point replying because it is such a ludicrous idea that it is not something worth considering.
No more ludicrous an idea that having a referendum on Brexit.
That may be so, but the Brexit referendum happened in real life, so it's hardly an 'idea'.
Most voters are – in political terms – idiots. They know about as much about the EU as I do about the Swedish netball team. Yet such is the nature of referendums – ignorant people vote on something they don't understand, for spurious reasons, based on a vacuum of accurate information.
Yet the people have voted, so now we must make the best of it rather than cut our noses of to spite our face. EEA+ECJ+ECHR+EFTA+FreeE-cstasy is the sensible route, despite the fact the man on the Mansfield omnibus will notice almost no difference.
Such is life.
“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter” Winston Churchill
From the man who wanted to drop poison gas on Arab tribesmen I would suggest that is hardly a great argument against democracy.
He never said that
Attribution debunked in Langworth's Churchill by Himself. First known appearance is in a 1992 usenet post.
He still wanted to bomb the Arabs with poison gas though. I am afraid that for all his qualities as a wartime leader and his many undoubted qualities I don't find Churchill to be a man to be greatly admired.
Churchill can be admired. It's only if you prize your heroes so highly they must be saints that is the problem. If you take the view you can praise the good and condemn the bad, then you need not whitewash the bad to fit with your portrayal.
Most voters are – in political terms – idiots. They know about as much about the EU as I do about the Swedish netball team. Yet such is the nature of referendums – ignorant people vote on something they don't understand, for spurious reasons, based on a vacuum of accurate information.
Yet the people have voted, so now we must make the best of it rather than cut our noses of to spite our face. EEA+ECJ+ECHR+EFTA+FreeE-cstasy is the sensible route, despite the fact the man on the Mansfield omnibus will notice almost no difference.
Such is life.
Most voters are intelligent enough to understand what the leave campaigns were saying about immigration.
In five or ten years'time, the man on the Mansfield Omnibus will notice the Mail/ Sun / Telegraph blaming something or other on the fact that immigration has not been tackled "despite our voting to stop it". And hence immigrants will continue to be blamed. Add in: "we're still giving £100 million a week to Brussels" (or whatever we'll pay for membership) and this whole damned mess will continue.
Sadly, leave means leave. If someone didn't want to leave, they should have voted for remain. Anyone who campaigned for leave wanting this fudge is a dangerous pedlar of bait-and-switch.
Talking garbage again JJ. Millions of people voted Leave for reasons unconnected with immigration just as millions more voted because they thought immigration was important.
Your attempts to force a particular meaning on Leave in spite of your clear ignorance of people's motives is rather sad.
Just on here there are quite a few who votes leave because of sovereignty and getting back control of our laws. Most leave voters on here, weird though we may be, were either actively seeking an EEA style settlement or are now on board with the idea. My sister who voted on the basis of immigration would now accept free movement to stay in the single marketx my dad said the same and he voted on the basis of being independent.
That's true, and as far as I know I have yet to receive from Leavers a reply to my counterfactual below about the day the government held a referendum on entering a European superstate, which turned a narrow Yes against all expectations. A few months later, following an economic shock, public opinion had turned against the idea, and the government hadn't yet triggered (the fictional) Article 51.......
What to do next?
No point replying because it is such a ludicrous idea that it is not something worth considering.
No more ludicrous an idea that having a referendum on Brexit.
The ludicrous bit is not having the referendum but thinking people would actually vote for joining a European superstate. Such a view shows a fundamental disconnect from reality. As I say, the federalist view is a tiny, shamed, minority view in Britain
Most voters are – in political terms – idiots. They know about as much about the EU as I do about the Swedish netball team. Yet such is the nature of referendums – ignorant people vote on something they don't understand, for spurious reasons, based on a vacuum of accurate information.
Yet the people have voted, so now we must make the best of it rather than cut our noses of to spite our face. EEA+ECJ+ECHR+EFTA+FreeE-cstasy is the sensible route, despite the fact the man on the Mansfield omnibus will notice almost no difference.
Such is life.
Most voters are intelligent enough to understand what the leave campaigns were saying about immigration.
In five or ten years'time, the man on the Mansfield Omnibus will notice the Mail/ Sun / Telegraph blaming something or other on the fact that immigration has not been tackled "despite our voting to stop it". And hence immigrants will continue to be blamed. Add in: "we're still giving £100 million a week to Brussels" (or whatever we'll pay for membership) and this whole damned mess will continue.
Sadly, leave means leave. If someone didn't want to leave, they should have voted for remain. Anyone who campaigned for leave wanting this fudge is a dangerous pedlar of bait-and-switch.
Talking garbage again JJ. Millions of people voted Leave for reasons unconnected with immigration just as millions more voted because they thought immigration was important.
Your attempts to force a particular meaning on Leave in spite of your clear ignorance of people's motives is rather sad.
Just on here there are quite a few who votes leave because of sovereignty and getting back control of our laws. Most leave voters on here, weird though we may be, were either actively seeking an EEA style settlement or are now on board with the idea. My sister who voted on the basis of immigration would now accept free movement to stay in the single marketx my dad said the same and he voted on the basis of being independent.
Most voters are – in political terms – idiots. They know about as much about the EU as I do about the Swedish netball team. Yet such is the nature of referendums – ignorant people vote on something they don't understand, for spurious reasons, based on a vacuum of accurate information.
Yet the people have voted, so now we must make the best of it rather than cut our noses of to spite our face. EEA+ECJ+ECHR+EFTA+FreeE-cstasy is the sensible route, despite the fact the man on the Mansfield omnibus will notice almost no difference.
Such is life.
Most voters are intelligent enough to understand what the leave campaigns were saying about immigration.
In five or ten years'time, the man on the Mansfield Omnibus will notice the Mail/ Sun / Telegraph blaming something or other on the fact that immigration has not been tackled "despite our voting to stop it". And hence immigrants will continue to be blamed. Add in: "we're still giving £100 million a week to Brussels" (or whatever we'll pay for membership) and this whole damned mess will continue.
Sadly, leave means leave. If someone didn't want to leave, they should have voted for remain. Anyone who campaigned for leave wanting this fudge is a dangerous pedlar of bait-and-switch.
Talking garbage again JJ. Millions of people voted Leave for reasons unconnected with immigration just as millions more voted because they thought immigration was important.
Your attempts to force a particular meaning on Leave in spite of your clear ignorance of people's motives is rather sad.
Talking of garbage and ignorance, care to repeat your claim of how Labour voters should vote leave as the EU prevents the railways being renationalised? (Wrong; it prevents the reformation of BR, but Labour policy was still to have a split infrastructure organisation, just with it all in public ownership)
Or the claim that the EU did nothing for the mobile phone industry when it clearly did?
No?
I'm not forcing a particular meaning on leave. I'm pointing out what the leave campaigns said. They sadly did not go for EEA/EFTA. You are the one trying to force a meaning on it that wasn't there. To your credit, you accepted that through all the debates we had on here.
You trust polls? Really? After what just happened? Methinks that's a classic example of hope over experience.
Mind you, at least you were honest about what you wanted.
48% voted to remain just now, you really think that 4% of the 52% of leave voters couldn't be convinced by the EEA argument. Most Tories I know voted to leave on the sovereignty argument. I don't doubt that immigration was a major driver of votes, but only half of leave voters listed it as the primary one. There is no mandate to ignore 16m people who voted to stay in the EU and single market and to retain free movement, this was nowhere near a landslide. You come across as bitter that you votes to remain at this point despite having been a leave supporter all the way through.
People want contradictory things.
- Access to single market - Landslide for Yes - Uncontrolled immigration - Landslide for No - Contibute but have no say in decisions - Landslide for No
We've just had a campaign and on balance people have voted that the benefits of being in don't outweigh the loss of control of immigration. Any interpretation of the result as support for the EEA option is nonsense.
Only by a tiny margin, and the leave side included scores of people who don't really care about immigration but want out of the EU. I'm one of them. If the government had offered associate membership similar to the EEA I would have been in the remain camp. But they didn't, so I had to vote to leave.
And the Remain camp included scores of people who were concerned about immigration but judged that the trade offs of being in the EU were worth it.
WHO FUCKING CARES
We voted LEAVE, in an advisory referendum. So we LEAVE. It is now up to our British parliament to exercise this decision to LEAVE, and LEAVE in such a fashion that is most beneficial to the entire country. Which - most agree - means EEA, with FoM if necessary
Alternatively, parliament could appoint 27 million psychoanalysts to interview all 65 million Britons, and ask them, over several years of therapy, what they really *meant* by LEAVE, then write a big book about it, which the Queen could read, and then tell us what to do.
Most voters are – in political terms – idiots. They know about as much about the EU as I do about the Swedish netball team. Yet such is the nature of referendums – ignorant people vote on something they don't understand, for spurious reasons, based on a vacuum of accurate information.
Yet the people have voted, so now we must make the best of it rather than cut our noses of to spite our face. EEA+ECJ+ECHR+EFTA+FreeE-cstasy is the sensible route, despite the fact the man on the Mansfield omnibus will notice almost no difference.
Such is life.
“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter” Winston Churchill
From the man who wanted to drop poison gas on Arab tribesmen I would suggest that is hardly a great argument against democracy.
He never said that
Attribution debunked in Langworth's Churchill by Himself. First known appearance is in a 1992 usenet post.
He still wanted to bomb the Arabs with poison gas though. I am afraid that for all his qualities as a wartime leader and his many undoubted qualities I don't find Churchill to be a man to be greatly admired.
Churchill can be admired. It's only if you prize your heroes so highly they must be saints that is the problem. If you take the view you can praise the good and condemn the bad, then you need not whitewash the bad to fit with your portrayal.
I agree our heroes don't have to be saints but reading the accounts of the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1920 and also his actions in the Middle Eats and Russia I have to say Churchill does fall a long way short of someone to be admired.
Most voters are – in political terms – idiots. They know about as much about the EU as I do about the Swedish netball team. Yet such is the nature of referendums – ignorant people vote on something they don't understand, for spurious reasons, based on a vacuum of accurate information.
Yet the people have voted, so now we must make the best of it rather than cut our noses of to spite our face. EEA+ECJ+ECHR+EFTA+FreeE-cstasy is the sensible route, despite the fact the man on the Mansfield omnibus will notice almost no difference.
Such is life.
Most voters are intelligent enough to understand what the leave campaigns were saying about immigration.
In five or ten years'time, the man on the Mansfield Omnibus will notice the Mail/ Sun / Telegraph blaming something or other on the fact that immigration has not been tackled "despite our voting to stop it". And hence immigrants will continue to be blamed. Add in: "we're still giving £100 million a week to Brussels" (or whatever we'll pay for membership) and this whole damned mess will continue.
Sadly, leave means leave. If someone didn't want to leave, they should have voted for remain. Anyone who campaigned for leave wanting this fudge is a dangerous pedlar of bait-and-switch.
Talking garbage again JJ. Millions of people voted Leave for reasons unconnected with immigration just as millions more voted because they thought immigration was important.
Your attempts to force a particular meaning on Leave in spite of your clear ignorance of people's motives is rather sad.
Just on here there are quite a few who votes leave because of sovereignty and getting back control of our laws. Most leave voters on here, weird though we may be, were either actively seeking an EEA style settlement or are now on board with the idea. My sister who voted on the basis of immigration would now accept free movement to stay in the single marketx my dad said the same and he voted on the basis of being independent.
As we're allowed to make sweeping and completely unsupported statements on here, I'm just going assert that leavers, in the round, voted 'No' to the whole political apparatus of the EU. What's wrong with just wanting to trade and cooperate where it makes sense?
Whatever intermediate steps we take, the direction of travel should be established. We like Europe, we want to trade with it, visit it, work with it. We can do all that without all the federalising paraphernalia.
Most voters are – in political terms – idiots. They know about as much about the EU as I do about the Swedish netball team. Yet such is the nature of referendums – ignorant people vote on something they don't understand, for spurious reasons, based on a vacuum of accurate information.
Yet the people have voted, so now we must make the best of it rather than cut our noses of to spite our face. EEA+ECJ+ECHR+EFTA+FreeE-cstasy is the sensible route, despite the fact the man on the Mansfield omnibus will notice almost no difference.
Such is life.
Most voters are intelligent enough to understand what the leave campaigns were saying about immigration.
In five or ten years'time, the man on the Mansfield Omnibus will notice the Mail/ Sun / Telegraph blaming something or other on the fact that immigration has not been tackled "despite our voting to stop it". And hence immigrants will continue to be blamed. Add in: "we're still giving £100 million a week to Brussels" (or whatever we'll pay for membership) and this whole damned mess will continue.
Sadly, leave means leave. If someone didn't want to leave, they should have voted for remain. Anyone who campaigned for leave wanting this fudge is a dangerous pedlar of bait-and-switch.
Talking garbage again JJ. Millions of people voted Leave for reasons unconnected with immigration just as millions more voted because they thought immigration was important.
Your attempts to force a particular meaning on Leave in spite of your clear ignorance of people's motives is rather sad.
Talking of garbage and ignorance, care to repeat your claim of how Labour voters should vote leave as the EU prevents the railways being renationalised? (Wrong; it prevents the reformation of BR, but Labour policy was still to have a split infrastructure organisation, just with it all in public ownership)
Or the claim that the EU did nothing for the mobile phone industry when it clearly did?
No?
I'm not forcing a particular meaning on leave. I'm pointing out what the leave campaigns said. They sadly did not go for EEA/EFTA. You are the one trying to force a meaning on it that wasn't there. To your credit, you accepted that through all the debates we had on here.
I have never once claimed the EU did nothing for the mobile phone industry. Stop making stuff up.
And you are forcing a particular meaning on the Leave vote. In spite of all the evidence to the contrary you persist in this fallacious idiocy that it is all about immigration. The polls say you are wrong and the anecdotal evidence says you are wrong. You have nothing at all to back up your arguments beyond your own bias.
As we're allowed to make sweeping and completely unsupported statements on here, I'm just going assert that leavers, in the round, voted 'No' to the whole political apparatus of the EU. What's wrong with just wanting to trade and cooperate where it makes sense?
Whatever intermediate steps we take, the direction of travel should be established. We like Europe, we want to trade with it, visit it, work with it. We can do all that without all the federalising paraphernalia.
No, you aren't allowed to make that generalisation, the only one you can make is that leave voters are all racist, dumb and possibly criminals and that they voted leave to deport all immigrants tomorrow and if that doesn't happen then all 17m leave voters will rise up and lay siege to, err, Peterborough.
Most voters are – in political terms – idiots. They know about as much about the EU as I do about the Swedish netball team. Yet such is the nature of referendums – ignorant people vote on something they don't understand, for spurious reasons, based on a vacuum of accurate information.
Yet the people have voted, so now we must make the best of it rather than cut our noses of to spite our face. EEA+ECJ+ECHR+EFTA+FreeE-cstasy is the sensible route, despite the fact the man on the Mansfield omnibus will notice almost no difference.
Such is life.
“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter” Winston Churchill
From the man who wanted to drop poison gas on Arab tribesmen I would suggest that is hardly a great argument against democracy.
He never said that
Attribution debunked in Langworth's Churchill by Himself. First known appearance is in a 1992 usenet post.
He still wanted to bomb the Arabs with poison gas though. I am afraid that for all his qualities as a wartime leader and his many undoubted qualities I don't find Churchill to be a man to be greatly admired.
Churchill can be admired. It's only if you prize your heroes so highly they must be saints that is the problem. If you take the view you can praise the good and condemn the bad, then you need not whitewash the bad to fit with your portrayal.
I agree our heroes don't have to be saints but reading the accounts of the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1920 and also his actions in the Middle Eats and Russia I have to say Churchill does fall a long way short of someone to be admired.
My Mum never forgave him for using troops to break the strike in the Rhondda. Got that from her Mum. It was like a vendetta.
Most voters are – in political terms – idiots. They know about as much about the EU as I do about the Swedish netball team. Yet such is the nature of referendums – ignorant people vote on something they don't understand, for spurious reasons, based on a vacuum of accurate information.
Yet the people have voted, so now we must make the best of it rather than cut our noses of to spite our face. EEA+ECJ+ECHR+EFTA+FreeE-cstasy is the sensible route, despite the fact the man on the Mansfield omnibus will notice almost no difference.
Such is life.
“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter” Winston Churchill
From the man who wanted to drop poison gas on Arab tribesmen I would suggest that is hardly a great argument against democracy.
He never said that
Attribution debunked in Langworth's Churchill by Himself. First known appearance is in a 1992 usenet post.
He still wanted to bomb the Arabs with poison gas though. I am afraid that for all his qualities as a wartime leader and his many undoubted qualities I don't find Churchill to be a man to be greatly admired.
We need a fair and manageable immigration system, which is far from what we have at present. It makes no sense that anyone from eastern Europe can come and look for work here, and get a job and settle here, no questions asked, whilst someone from other countries, many of which we have traditional connections with (unlike Latvia and Romania!), cannot. What's worse, because of free movement from Europe, the government has been forced to tighten the rules for other countries to a ridiculous extent. And something that's been very sad to see is that the EU flood has made us think twice about accepting refugees - a shameful but understandable position.
So, you may ask, why did I vote to Remain? Well, as Juncker said the other day, "If you are in, you can try to change the rules." If you're out, you can't. I suppose I'm being a bit naive, but there have been signs that EU countries have been willing to look at free movement. If we leave we have no say in the EU's rules, and yet we might have to accept them in order to sell our goods there tariff-free. And there are many Tory MPs that are happy to do this. I think that it's slowly dawning on many Leave voters that they've been sold a pup.
And you think if Britain had stayed in,free movement would be on the table,having a laugh comes to mind.
The remain camp if won would have said it was a vote for free movement ,at least now immigration is on the table,even the labour party have started to wake up to this.
Most voters are – in political terms – idiots. They know about as much about the EU as I do about the Swedish netball team. Yet such is the nature of referendums – ignorant people vote on something they don't understand, for spurious reasons, based on a vacuum of accurate information.
Yet the people have voted, so now we must make the best of it rather than cut our noses of to spite our face. EEA+ECJ+ECHR+EFTA+FreeE-cstasy is the sensible route, despite the fact the man on the Mansfield omnibus will notice almost no difference.
Such is life.
“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter” Winston Churchill
From the man who wanted to drop poison gas on Arab tribesmen I would suggest that is hardly a great argument against democracy.
He never said that
Attribution debunked in Langworth's Churchill by Himself. First known appearance is in a 1992 usenet post.
He still wanted to bomb the Arabs with poison gas though. I am afraid that for all his qualities as a wartime leader and his many undoubted qualities I don't find Churchill to be a man to be greatly admired.
No, the May 1919 memo says expressly that "It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected." He counts tear gas as "poison gas", which confuses the issue.
Most voters are – in political terms – idiots. They know about as much about the EU as I do about the Swedish netball team. Yet such is the nature of referendums – ignorant people vote on something they don't understand, for spurious reasons, based on a vacuum of accurate information.
Yet the people have voted, so now we must make the best of it rather than cut our noses of to spite our face. EEA+ECJ+ECHR+EFTA+FreeE-cstasy is the sensible route, despite the fact the man on the Mansfield omnibus will notice almost no difference.
Such is life.
“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter” Winston Churchill
From the man who wanted to drop poison gas on Arab tribesmen I would suggest that is hardly a great argument against democracy.
He never said that
Attribution debunked in Langworth's Churchill by Himself. First known appearance is in a 1992 usenet post.
He still wanted to bomb the Arabs with poison gas though. I am afraid that for all his qualities as a wartime leader and his many undoubted qualities I don't find Churchill to be a man to be greatly admired.
No, the May 1919 memo says expressly that "It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected." He counts tear gas as "poison gas", which confuses the issue.
The account shows they not only advocated but indeed used deadly gases.
Is this what the 70's was like? "No Irish, No Blacks No Dogs".
I grew up just at the tail end of that. It was 'No Blacks, no Irish, no Travellers' (in this context it meant commercial travellers). Used to be a pub near us that had a 'No gypsies' sign up as well.
Most voters are – in political terms – idiots. They know about as much about the EU as I do about the Swedish netball team. Yet such is the nature of referendums – ignorant people vote on something they don't understand, for spurious reasons, based on a vacuum of accurate information.
Yet the people have voted, so now we must make the best of it rather than cut our noses of to spite our face. EEA+ECJ+ECHR+EFTA+FreeE-cstasy is the sensible route, despite the fact the man on the Mansfield omnibus will notice almost no difference.
Such is life.
“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter” Winston Churchill
From the man who wanted to drop poison gas on Arab tribesmen I would suggest that is hardly a great argument against democracy.
He never said that
Attribution debunked in Langworth's Churchill by Himself. First known appearance is in a 1992 usenet post.
He still wanted to bomb the Arabs with poison gas though. I am afraid that for all his qualities as a wartime leader and his many undoubted qualities I don't find Churchill to be a man to be greatly admired.
Blair killed far more Arabs than Churchill.
Ah but that is a ridiculous comparison. I am talking about people who we should temper our admiration for, not those who should be spat at in the street. Blair is an entirely different level of evil.
Most voters are – in political terms – idiots. They know about as much about the EU as I do about the Swedish netball team. Yet such is the nature of referendums – ignorant people vote on something they don't understand, for spurious reasons, based on a vacuum of accurate information.
Yet the people have voted, so now we must make the best of it rather than cut our noses of to spite our face. EEA+ECJ+ECHR+EFTA+FreeE-cstasy is the sensible route, despite the fact the man on the Mansfield omnibus will notice almost no difference.
Such is life.
“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter” Winston Churchill
From the man who wanted to drop poison gas on Arab tribesmen I would suggest that is hardly a great argument against democracy.
He never said that
Attribution debunked in Langworth's Churchill by Himself. First known appearance is in a 1992 usenet post.
He still wanted to bomb the Arabs with poison gas though. I am afraid that for all his qualities as a wartime leader and his many undoubted qualities I don't find Churchill to be a man to be greatly admired.
No, the May 1919 memo says expressly that "It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected." He counts tear gas as "poison gas", which confuses the issue.
The account shows they not only advocated but indeed used deadly gases.
"They"? I thought we were talking about WSC, in the singular.
Talking of garbage and ignorance, care to repeat your claim of how Labour voters should vote leave as the EU prevents the railways being renationalised? (Wrong; it prevents the reformation of BR, but Labour policy was still to have a split infrastructure organisation, just with it all in public ownership)
Or the claim that the EU did nothing for the mobile phone industry when it clearly did?
No?
I'm not forcing a particular meaning on leave. I'm pointing out what the leave campaigns said. They sadly did not go for EEA/EFTA. You are the one trying to force a meaning on it that wasn't there. To your credit, you accepted that through all the debates we had on here.
I have never once claimed the EU did nothing for the mobile phone industry. Stop making stuff up.
And you are forcing a particular meaning on the Leave vote. In spite of all the evidence to the contrary you persist in this fallacious idiocy that it is all about immigration. The polls say you are wrong and the anecdotal evidence says you are wrong. You have nothing at all to back up your arguments beyond your own bias.
I remember that you did (and that's despite my rather dodgy memory), and I pulled you up on it - you went strangely silent afterwards. Another poster added a second way they helped. I might be wrong (and if so I apologise), but I don't think so. It was around the 23rd February.
And I see you haven't denied the "mistake" (being generous there) about railway renationalisation.
Given that, you're a fine one to accuse me of making things up.
I have never said that it is all about immigration. But you seem to be in denial about what the leave campaigns did talk about - and it wasn't EEA/EFTA.
From the Independent Norway wants good relations with Brexited UK, but hands off our EEA:
Joining the European Economic Area would be an obvious way for the UK to retain access to the European Union’s single market should it go ahead and leave the bloc.
But in the EEA’s biggest member, Norway, questions are now being asked about the advantages of allowing the much bigger North Sea neighbor into an accord that in many ways has been tailored to the needs of the Scandinavian country and its other members — Iceland and Liechtenstein.
Concerns have been raised by the prime minister and the finance minister, and also by the leader of the Labour Party, the biggest group in opposition.
...
Monica Maeland, Norwegian industry minister, says it’s far from a clear-cut case that Norway should welcome the UK into the broader European Free Trade Association.
“Britain must first clarify its position,” she said in an e-mailed answer to questions. “Then the EU must decide how they want to work with this and then we need to decide on our position. So it’s too early to decide on a possible expansion of EFTA.”
...
Jonas Gahr Stoere, Norwegian Labour Party leader, said that the UK will likely find its own way to connect to the inner market should it actually leave the EU.
He said it’s Norway’s responsibility to ensure the EEA’s stability and integrity.
“We’re unlikely to want to change the agreement which has evolved over more than 20 years,” he said in an e-mailed response to questions. Stoere was part of negotiating team that helped form the accord more than 20 years ago.
Is this what the 70's was like? "No Irish, No Blacks No Dogs".
I grew up just at the tail end of that. It was 'No Blacks, no Irish, no Travellers' (in this context it meant commercial travellers). Used to be a pub near us that had a 'No gypsies' sign up as well.
Is this what the 70's was like? "No Irish, No Blacks No Dogs".
I grew up just at the tail end of that. It was 'No Blacks, no Irish, no Travellers' (in this context it meant commercial travellers). Used to be a pub near us that had a 'No gypsies' sign up as well.
What are commercial travellers?
Door to door salesmen. They had a pretty bad reputation.
Is this what the 70's was like? "No Irish, No Blacks No Dogs".
I grew up just at the tail end of that. It was 'No Blacks, no Irish, no Travellers' (in this context it meant commercial travellers). Used to be a pub near us that had a 'No gypsies' sign up as well.
What are commercial travellers?
Door to door salesmen. They had a pretty bad reputation.
He didn’t believe a word of his own rhetoric, we know that now. His face last Friday morning, ashen with the terror of victory, proved it. That hot mess of a column he served up on Monday confirmed it again: he was trying to back out of the very decision he’d persuaded the country to make. And let’s not be coy: persuade it, he did. Imagine the Leave campaign without him. Gove, Nigel Farage and Gisela Stuart: they couldn’t have done it without the star power of Boris.
He knew it was best for Britain to remain in the EU. But it served his ambition to argue otherwise. We just weren’t meant to fall for it. Once we had, he panicked, vanishing during a weekend of national crisis before hiding from parliament. He lit the spark then ran away – petrified at the blaze he started.
He has left us to look on his works and despair. The outlook for the economy is so bleak, the governor of the Bank of England talks of “economic post-traumatic stress disorder.” The Economist Intelligence Unit projects a 6% contraction by 2020, an 8% decline in investment, rising unemployment, falling tax revenues and public debt to reach 100% of our national output.
Most voters are – in political terms – idiots. They know about as much about the EU as I do about the Swedish netball team. Yet such is the nature of referendums – ignorant people vote on something they don't understand, for spurious reasons, based on a vacuum of accurate information.
Yet the people have voted, so now we must make the best of it rather than cut our noses of to spite our face. EEA+ECJ+ECHR+EFTA+FreeE-cstasy is the sensible route, despite the fact the man on the Mansfield omnibus will notice almost no difference.
Such is life.
“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter” Winston Churchill
From the man who wanted to drop poison gas on Arab tribesmen I would suggest that is hardly a great argument against democracy.
He never said that
Attribution debunked in Langworth's Churchill by Himself. First known appearance is in a 1992 usenet post.
He still wanted to bomb the Arabs with poison gas though. I am afraid that for all his qualities as a wartime leader and his many undoubted qualities I don't find Churchill to be a man to be greatly admired.
No, the May 1919 memo says expressly that "It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected." He counts tear gas as "poison gas", which confuses the issue.
The account shows they not only advocated but indeed used deadly gases.
"They"? I thought we were talking about WSC, in the singular.
We were. I was typing in haste. I am talking specifically about Churchill's advocacy and the results.
He didn’t believe a word of his own rhetoric, we know that now. His face last Friday morning, ashen with the terror of victory, proved it. That hot mess of a column he served up on Monday confirmed it again: he was trying to back out of the very decision he’d persuaded the country to make. And let’s not be coy: persuade it, he did. Imagine the Leave campaign without him. Gove, Nigel Farage and Gisela Stuart: they couldn’t have done it without the star power of Boris.
He knew it was best for Britain to remain in the EU. But it served his ambition to argue otherwise. We just weren’t meant to fall for it. Once we had, he panicked, vanishing during a weekend of national crisis before hiding from parliament. He lit the spark then ran away – petrified at the blaze he started.
He has left us to look on his works and despair. The outlook for the economy is so bleak, the governor of the Bank of England talks of “economic post-traumatic stress disorder.” The Economist Intelligence Unit projects a 6% contraction by 2020, an 8% decline in investment, rising unemployment, falling tax revenues and public debt to reach 100% of our national output.
More bollocks from a paper that cannot accept the result. Right, I'm off to have what the Guardian calls "a hangover from colonialism", a cup of tea...
He didn’t believe a word of his own rhetoric, we know that now. His face last Friday morning, ashen with the terror of victory, proved it. That hot mess of a column he served up on Monday confirmed it again: he was trying to back out of the very decision he’d persuaded the country to make. And let’s not be coy: persuade it, he did. Imagine the Leave campaign without him. Gove, Nigel Farage and Gisela Stuart: they couldn’t have done it without the star power of Boris.
He knew it was best for Britain to remain in the EU. But it served his ambition to argue otherwise. We just weren’t meant to fall for it. Once we had, he panicked, vanishing during a weekend of national crisis before hiding from parliament. He lit the spark then ran away – petrified at the blaze he started.
He has left us to look on his works and despair. The outlook for the economy is so bleak, the governor of the Bank of England talks of “economic post-traumatic stress disorder.” The Economist Intelligence Unit projects a 6% contraction by 2020, an 8% decline in investment, rising unemployment, falling tax revenues and public debt to reach 100% of our national output.
I'm just going to take issue with one point, because the IFS did this all over the place as well. It's not a 6% contraction. Its "growth is 6% less than we thought it would be by 2020". That doesn't mean the economy shrinks by 6%. The journalist can't even read the source material correctly.
Don't get me wrong, that's not great. It means we're going to be like France for a few years (but not as bad as Italy). People have started using numbers in a really dishonest way.
Talking of garbage and ignorance, care to repeat your claim of how Labour voters should vote leave as the EU prevents the railways being renationalised? (Wrong; it prevents the reformation of BR, but Labour policy was still to have a split infrastructure organisation, just with it all in public ownership)
Or the claim that the EU did nothing for the mobile phone industry when it clearly did?
No?
I'm not forcing a particular meaning on leave. I'm pointing out what the leave campaigns said. They sadly did not go for EEA/EFTA. You are the one trying to force a meaning on it that wasn't there. To your credit, you accepted that through all the debates we had on here.
I have never once claimed the EU did nothing for the mobile phone industry. Stop making stuff up.
And you are forcing a particular meaning on the Leave vote. In spite of all the evidence to the contrary you persist in this fallacious idiocy that it is all about immigration. The polls say you are wrong and the anecdotal evidence says you are wrong. You have nothing at all to back up your arguments beyond your own bias.
I remember that you did (and that's despite my rather dodgy memory), and I pulled you up on it - you went strangely silent afterwards. Another poster added a second way they helped. I might be wrong (and if so I apologise), but I don't think so. It was around the 23rd February.
And I see you haven't denied the "mistake" (being generous there) about railway renationalisation.
Given that, you're a fine one to accuse me of making things up.
I have never said that it is all about immigration. But you seem to be in denial about what the leave campaigns did talk about - and it wasn't EEA/EFTA.
I am not in denial at all. Indeed when they chose to explicitly choose a campaign based on immigration I, along with other EEA advocates here openly said I thought they had lost the campaign.
But that doesn't change the fact that millions of people voted to Leave the EU for issues other than immigration. It also doesn't change the fact that the polls show that the EFTA/EEA route is supported by a clear majority of the public including almost half of those who voted Leave.
As I have said repeatedly now that we are leaving the EU the Government has to pick the alternative which is most supported by all the electorate, not just those who voted Leave. That is clearly the EFTA route.
Most voters are – in political terms – idiots. They know about as much about the EU as I do about the Swedish netball team. Yet such is the nature of referendums – ignorant people vote on something they don't understand, for spurious reasons, based on a vacuum of accurate information.
Yet the people have voted, so now we must make the best of it rather than cut our noses of to spite our face. EEA+ECJ+ECHR+EFTA+FreeE-cstasy is the sensible route, despite the fact the man on the Mansfield omnibus will notice almost no difference.
Such is life.
“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter” Winston Churchill
From the man who wanted to drop poison gas on Arab tribesmen I would suggest that is hardly a great argument against democracy.
He never said that
Attribution debunked in Langworth's Churchill by Himself. First known appearance is in a 1992 usenet post.
He still wanted to bomb the Arabs with poison gas though. I am afraid that for all his qualities as a wartime leader and his many undoubted qualities I don't find Churchill to be a man to be greatly admired.
No, the May 1919 memo says expressly that "It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected." He counts tear gas as "poison gas", which confuses the issue.
The account shows they not only advocated but indeed used deadly gases.
"They"? I thought we were talking about WSC, in the singular.
We were. I was typing in haste. I am talking specifically about Churchill's advocacy and the results.
OK well I don't see the evidence. Agree to differ time, I think.
Paul Mason is going full SeanT EEA-mode on newsnight...
Because it's obvious to looney-tunes Marxists and alcoholic rightwing thriller writers alike. We need the EEA. Or we are in grave danger.
These are perilous times for the United Kingdom.
Hmmm, who'd 'ave thunk it.
We need the Queen, God bless er, to last another decade and see us through this shit.
I kinda mean it. Pump her with monkey blood. Keep her going. If she died in the next year or two we'd probably explode into tiny warring Anglo Saxon micro-kingdoms, living mainly off wild rabbits.
Paul Mason is going full SeanT EEA-mode on newsnight...
Because it's obvious to looney-tunes Marxists and alcoholic rightwing thriller writers alike. We need the EEA. Or we are in grave danger.
These are perilous times for the United Kingdom.
Hmmm, who'd 'ave thunk it.
We need the Queen, God bless er, to last another decade and see us through this shit.
I kinda mean it. Pump her with monkey blood. Keep her going. If she died in the next year or two we'd probably explode into tiny warring Anglo Saxon micro-kingdoms, living mainly off wild rabbits.
It's too late. Down here, tension is already high as West Sussex forces hope to deter an imminent East Sussex incursion. Brighton is looking to Sussexit.
Our only hope is to find common cause against the greater evil, Southern trains.
Talking of garbage and ignorance, care to repeat your claim of how Labour voters should vote leave as the EU prevents the railways being renationalised? (Wrong; it prevents the reformation of BR, but Labour policy was still to have a split infrastructure organisation, just with it all in public ownership)
Or the claim that the EU did nothing for the mobile phone industry when it clearly did?
No?
I'm not forcing a particular meaning on leave. I'm pointing out what the leave campaigns said. They sadly did not go for EEA/EFTA. You are the one trying to force a meaning on it that wasn't there. To your credit, you accepted that through all the debates we had on here.
I have never once claimed the EU did nothing for the mobile phone industry. Stop making stuff up.
And you are forcing a particular meaning on the Leave vote. In spite of all the evidence to the contrary you persist in this fallacious idiocy that it is all about immigration. The polls say you are wrong and the anecdotal evidence says you are wrong. You have nothing at all to back up your arguments beyond your own bias.
I remember that you did (and that's despite my rather dodgy memory), and I pulled you up on it - you went strangely silent afterwards. Another poster added a second way they helped. I might be wrong (and if so I apologise), but I don't think so. It was around the 23rd February.
And I see you haven't denied the "mistake" (being generous there) about railway renationalisation.
Given that, you're a fine one to accuse me of making things up.
I have never said that it is all about immigration. But you seem to be in denial about what the leave campaigns did talk about - and it wasn't EEA/EFTA.
I am not in denial at all. Indeed when they chose to explicitly choose a campaign based on immigration I, along with other EEA advocates here openly said I thought they had lost the campaign.
But that doesn't change the fact that millions of people voted to Leave the EU for issues other than immigration. It also doesn't change the fact that the polls show that the EFTA/EEA route is supported by a clear majority of the public including almost half of those who voted Leave.
As I have said repeatedly now that we are leaving the EU the Government has to pick the alternative which is most supported by all the electorate, not just those who voted Leave. That is clearly the EFTA route.
Translated: Leave didn't like my favoured option, so I used them to get partway there, and now they've won I demand my option!
Paul Mason is going full SeanT EEA-mode on newsnight...
Because it's obvious to looney-tunes Marxists and alcoholic rightwing thriller writers alike. We need the EEA. Or we are in grave danger.
These are perilous times for the United Kingdom.
Hmmm, who'd 'ave thunk it.
PS If we can make it through this awfulness, and emerge as a United Kingdom outside the EU, I think our prospects are bright, indeed brighter than they would have been inside that ghastly piece of undemocratic shit.
But first comes the fighting.
Bayonets, boys, bayonets.
We should make Scotland stay in the EU as a control. Otherwise it's going to be fucking unbearable on here, basically forever.
We could win the World Cup and the Remainers would be "We'd have scored even more goals if we were still in the EU" "The England team would be sexier if we were still in the EU". And so on, yea until eternity.
If Theresa May does indeed become Tory Leader and Prime Minister as appears likely, do PBers agree with me that this is likely to improve the chances of a woman succeeding Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader? Just a few short days ago HenryG's pick, Lisa Nandy, was quoted at short single digit odds to win this prize, but has since drifted out to 30 with Betfair - is she perhaps worth another look at these odds?
Peter - I raised the same question last night, but no-one responded. It seems very likely that the Tories will have had two female PMs before Labour has ever elected a woman to head it.
If Theresa May does indeed become Tory Leader and Prime Minister as appears likely, do PBers agree with me that this is likely to improve the chances of a woman succeeding Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader? Just a few short days ago HenryG's pick, Lisa Nandy, was quoted at short single digit odds to win this prize, but has since drifted out to 30 with Betfair - is she perhaps worth another look at these odds?
Peter - I raised the same question last night, but no-one responded. It seems very likely that the Tories will have had two female PMs before Labour has ever elected a woman to head it.
I think we're all still trying to wrap our heads around the idea of a lady labour leader. Can't see it. If it happens, well, mind blown.
Most voters are – in political terms – idiots. They know about as much about the EU as I do about the Swedish netball team. Yet such is the nature of referendums – ignorant people vote on something they don't understand, for spurious reasons, based on a vacuum of accurate information.
Yet the people have voted, so now we must make the best of it rather than cut our noses of to spite our face. EEA+ECJ+ECHR+EFTA+FreeE-cstasy is the sensible route, despite the fact the man on the Mansfield omnibus will notice almost no difference.
Such is life.
Most voters are intelligent enough to understand what the leave campaigns were saying about immigration.
In five or ten years'time, the man on the Mansfield Omnibus will notice the Mail/ Sun / Telegraph blaming something or other on the fact that immigration has not been tackled "despite our voting to stop it". And hence immigrants will continue to be blamed. Add in: "we're still giving £100 million a week to Brussels" (or whatever we'll pay for membership) and this whole damned mess will continue.
Sadly, leave means leave. If someone didn't want to leave, they should have voted for remain. Anyone who campaigned for leave wanting this fudge is a dangerous pedlar of bait-and-switch.
Agreed, either that or they should have unambiguously campaigned on EEA/EFTA but of course, then they would have lost. They knew exactly what they were doing, when the history of this is written it will be clear that Leave have perpetrated the biggest con in recent political history unless they abolish FoM.
The Liberal Democrats are so democratic they'd ignore a referendum which 34 million people voted in.
If they are to stand on a manifesto seeking to reverse it, they aren't ignoring the referendum, they are seeking to persuade, democratically, people to consider again and change their minds. The very essence of democracy in fact. Only trying to prevent the leaving itself, without any democratic mandate to do so, would be ignoring the referendum.
The Liberal Democrats are so democratic they'd ignore a referendum which 34 million people voted in.
If they are to stand on a manifesto seeking to reverse it, they aren't ignoring the referendum, they are seeking to persuade, democratically, people to consider again and change their minds. The very essence of democracy in fact. Only trying to prevent the leaving itself, without any democratic mandate to do so, would be ignoring the referendum.
Fair enough if they want to do that. But they do appear as adherents of the old religion circa 1580 - bit out of touch. They are advocating (assuming we trigger article 50) , Schengen, and the Euro, and no rebate, ' cos those would be the terms. Good luck on the doorstep, but personally I'd think it'd be safer sticking my head in a trip hammer.
Most voters are – in political terms – idiots. They know about as much about the EU as I do about the Swedish netball team. Yet such is the nature of referendums – ignorant people vote on something they don't understand, for spurious reasons, based on a vacuum of accurate information.
Yet the people have voted, so now we must make the best of it rather than cut our noses of to spite our face. EEA+ECJ+ECHR+EFTA+FreeE-cstasy is the sensible route, despite the fact the man on the Mansfield omnibus will notice almost no difference.
Such is life.
Sadly, leave means leave. If someone didn't want to leave, they should have voted for remain. Anyone who campaigned for leave wanting this fudge is a dangerous pedlar of bait-and-switch.
Leave does mean leave. And there are many versions of Leave. That VoteLeave were clearly pushing specific lines is neither here nor there, and in fact their own arguments mean what they claimed to be promising doesn't matter - when pushed on whey they weren't providing more detail they said it would be the government who would have to make the plans. And that is what will happen. It may well be the government makes a decision that most Leavers do not like, but that's tough shit, and not even undemocratic - it is always guesswork what appeals worked and which didn't, and the only definitive point that was made was people wanted to leave. If they don't like the leave that becomes on offer from the government they can vote them out, but the people did not give a clear signal of what type of leave they wanted, as there weren't options on the paper.
A non binding referendum on a general question leaves, ha, only one option for a representative democracy, and that is for our representatives to figure out the best way to put our general answer into action. If Leavers who don't want FOM want to guarantee that is the way parliament decides to adopt a leave a position, they need the Tories to vote a PM candidate who will push for it, but it would be no betrayal of the people to adopt a different position, indeed in terms of a compromise between remainers and leavers such a position is about halfway. It pisses off both, no doubt, and there are those who would pillory the government for such a 'weak' position, but if they want the stronger Leave option, they're free to push Gove now, or they can vote for a party offering it in 2020.
The LDs will be offering rejoining apparently, so if we do go for a lightLeave option, we should have a wide range on offer - LeaveRedux for those who felt leaving did not go far enough, and LeaveReverse for those who think it went too far.
if May does win with a Leadsom fight off,what chances of leadsom becoming the Chancellor of the Exchequer ? All women top team.
Only Theresa May can answer that. It's certainly something being discussed amongst members and MPs, and it obviously would have some advantages in terms of political balance. I can't claim any particular insight, but FWIW my expectation is that Theresa would think that she's not experienced enough.
The Liberal Democrats are so democratic they'd ignore a referendum which 34 million people voted in.
If they are to stand on a manifesto seeking to reverse it, they aren't ignoring the referendum, they are seeking to persuade, democratically, people to consider again and change their minds. The very essence of democracy in fact. Only trying to prevent the leaving itself, without any democratic mandate to do so, would be ignoring the referendum.
Fair enough if they want to do that. But they do appear as adherents of the old religion circa 1580 - bit out of touch. They are advocating (assuming we trigger article 50) , Schengen, and the Euro, and no rebate, ' cos those would be the terms. Good luck on the doorstep, but personally I'd think it'd be safer sticking my head in a trip hammer.
It would be a tough sell, no question! Even many remainers would not go for that. Once left, rejioning is a much tougher prospect. That's why i suspect many may be hoping something comes up that means the plug can be pulled on Leave, but realistically its hard to see how that could ever happen given the political environment even should leave look like crap before we formally declare.
Can we really rule out Leadsom in the members ballot?
OK, May will be strong favourite. But with TV debates etc members might take a fresh look at things.
And Leadsom will have one huge plus - she'll keep saying the PM must have supported Brexit. She will also get plus points from having done so well in the referendum TV debates.
In contrast May will go on seniority, experience, proven ability, ready to do the job from Day 1. That should be enough to win easily but I don't think it's anywhere near a certainty.
Can we really rule out Leadsom in the members ballot?
OK, May will be strong favourite. But with TV debates etc members might take a fresh look at things.
And Leadsom will have one huge plus - she'll keep saying the PM must have supported Brexit. She will also get plus points from having done so well in the referendum TV debates.
In contrast May will go on seniority, experience, proven ability, ready to do the job from Day 1. That should be enough to win easily but I don't think it's anywhere near a certainty.
I wouldn't rule out Leadsom in the membership ballot. Major, Hague and IDS were all unexpected winners.
On topic, this craze Britain is going through for small, high-information electorates to give the choice to larger, low-information electorates to choose something really stupid isn't working out well.
Aside from whether Corbyn was up to the job in the first place, he's now far too damaged to do it. If he offered the voters a chance to keep him and they kept him, it would be disastrous for the Labour party in general, and ultimately the Labour left in particular. It wouldn't even be good for Corbyn.
If you really like voting a lot what you should instead do is find an option that gives the voters what they want but wouldn't be disastrous. The move here is to make sure you get a candidate from the left on the ballot who wouldn't obviously be disastrous, and might actually be good. That candidate is Clive Lewis.
The Liberal Democrats are so democratic they'd ignore a referendum which 34 million people voted in.
If they are to stand on a manifesto seeking to reverse it, they aren't ignoring the referendum, they are seeking to persuade, democratically, people to consider again and change their minds. The very essence of democracy in fact. Only trying to prevent the leaving itself, without any democratic mandate to do so, would be ignoring the referendum.
Fair enough if they want to do that. But they do appear as adherents of the old religion circa 1580 - bit out of touch. They are advocating (assuming we trigger article 50) , Schengen, and the Euro, and no rebate, ' cos those would be the terms. Good luck on the doorstep, but personally I'd think it'd be safer sticking my head in a trip hammer.
It would be a tough sell, no question! Even many remainers would not go for that. Once left, rejioning is a much tougher prospect. That's why i suspect many may be hoping something comes up that means the plug can be pulled on Leave, but realistically its hard to see how that could ever happen given the political environment even should leave look like crap before we formally declare.
Can we really rule out Leadsom in the members ballot?
OK, May will be strong favourite. But with TV debates etc members might take a fresh look at things.
And Leadsom will have one huge plus - she'll keep saying the PM must have supported Brexit. She will also get plus points from having done so well in the referendum TV debates.
In contrast May will go on seniority, experience, proven ability, ready to do the job from Day 1. That should be enough to win easily but I don't think it's anywhere near a certainty.
I wouldn't rule out Leadsom in the membership ballot. Major, Hague and IDS were all unexpected winners.
Can we really rule out Leadsom in the members ballot?
OK, May will be strong favourite. But with TV debates etc members might take a fresh look at things.
And Leadsom will have one huge plus - she'll keep saying the PM must have supported Brexit. She will also get plus points from having done so well in the referendum TV debates.
In contrast May will go on seniority, experience, proven ability, ready to do the job from Day 1. That should be enough to win easily but I don't think it's anywhere near a certainty.
I wouldn't rule out Leadsom in the membership ballot. Major, Hague and IDS were all unexpected winners.
Can we really rule out Leadsom in the members ballot?
OK, May will be strong favourite. But with TV debates etc members might take a fresh look at things.
And Leadsom will have one huge plus - she'll keep saying the PM must have supported Brexit. She will also get plus points from having done so well in the referendum TV debates.
In contrast May will go on seniority, experience, proven ability, ready to do the job from Day 1. That should be enough to win easily but I don't think it's anywhere near a certainty.
I wouldn't rule out Leadsom in the membership ballot. Major, Hague and IDS were all unexpected winners.
Can we really rule out Leadsom in the members ballot?
OK, May will be strong favourite. But with TV debates etc members might take a fresh look at things.
And Leadsom will have one huge plus - she'll keep saying the PM must have supported Brexit. She will also get plus points from having done so well in the referendum TV debates.
In contrast May will go on seniority, experience, proven ability, ready to do the job from Day 1. That should be enough to win easily but I don't think it's anywhere near a certainty.
I wouldn't rule out Leadsom in the membership ballot. Major, Hague and IDS were all unexpected winners.
Didn't only IDS win a members ballot of those?
Yes, correct.
Hague changed the rules after he won - up to and including Hague it was MPs only.
But I think it's a huge difference choosing a PM rather than Leader of Opposition - members may well be very conservative - ie cautious - and thus go for May.
My 91 year old Mum is a Con member who voted Leave and who loves Boris. She thinks he's fantastic. On Monday (ie before Boris withdrew) she said straight away it had to be May - due to seriousness of situation. I suspect many members will vote on same basis.
Evening all. I've been taking some soundings. Here are my views having done so:
- Gove has not a snowflake's chance in hell. Almost impossible to find anyone to say a good word about him. Lay. lay, lay
- Andrea Leadsom will be in the last two - if it gets that far. Shadsy's 1.8 on May/Leadsom is a snip. (The bet is void if there's no members' ballot)
- The current 1.4 or so on Theresa to be our next PM is a superb bet.
What do you think Leadsom's chances are if it goes to a membership ballot?
Richard. That 1.8 does look to be great value. I don't normally back odds on but I have made an exception in this case. Shame the bet is void if no membership ballot.
Don't you just love Ben Carson as a surrogate for Trump. Talk about damning with faint praise: Carson noted that Trump “has some defects” and mused, “Are there better people? Probably.”
if May does win with a Leadsom fight off,what chances of leadsom becoming the Chancellor of the Exchequer ? All women top team.
Only Theresa May can answer that. It's certainly something being discussed amongst members and MPs, and it obviously would have some advantages in terms of political balance. I can't claim any particular insight, but FWIW my expectation is that Theresa would think that she's not experienced enough.
Hammond is the dull, boring, safe pair of hands we need at chancellor.
Evening all. I've been taking some soundings. Here are my views having done so:
- Gove has not a snowflake's chance in hell. Almost impossible to find anyone to say a good word about him. Lay. lay, lay
- Andrea Leadsom will be in the last two - if it gets that far. Shadsy's 1.8 on May/Leadsom is a snip. (The bet is void if there's no members' ballot)
- The current 1.4 or so on Theresa to be our next PM is a superb bet.
What do you think Leadsom's chances are if it goes to a membership ballot?
Richard. That 1.8 does look to be great value. I don't normally back odds on but I have made an exception in this case. Shame the bet is void if no membership ballot.
Same here - many thanks RN for highlighting a brilliant bet. Sometimes one doesn't spot the blindingly obvious.
Have I missed some news item or other? Gove's price has moved out from 13 to a no-hoper 20 with Betfair over the past 3 hours for no apparent reason that I can see.
Comments
The average leave voter will get out for that one I'm sure.
Your attempts to force a particular meaning on Leave in spite of your clear ignorance of people's motives is rather sad.
Oh, that's not what you meant...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/sep/01/winston-churchill-shocking-use-chemical-weapons
Thank you!
Or the claim that the EU did nothing for the mobile phone industry when it clearly did?
No?
I'm not forcing a particular meaning on leave. I'm pointing out what the leave campaigns said. They sadly did not go for EEA/EFTA. You are the one trying to force a meaning on it that wasn't there. To your credit, you accepted that through all the debates we had on here.
It's obvious he has very poor electoral appeal - so why doesn't he say that if he wins he'll serve for only 3 years as PM - retiring in Sept 2019.
ie He'll never fight a GE. He will just deliver Brexit - which (in his view) he is the best person to deliver.
But he never wanted to be PM - so he won't carry on any longer than is needed to deliver this one key task.
The Con Party can then elect a new leader in Sept 2019 to fight the 2020 GE and take the country into the next decade.
Now the above might not work - but it could only improve his chances.
Whatever intermediate steps we take, the direction of travel should be established. We like Europe, we want to trade with it, visit it, work with it. We can do all that without all the federalising paraphernalia.
And you are forcing a particular meaning on the Leave vote. In spite of all the evidence to the contrary you persist in this fallacious idiocy that it is all about immigration. The polls say you are wrong and the anecdotal evidence says you are wrong. You have nothing at all to back up your arguments beyond your own bias.
Is this what the 70's was like? "No Irish, No Blacks No Dogs".
The remain camp if won would have said it was a vote for free movement ,at least now immigration is on the table,even the labour party have started to wake up to this.
- Churchill in conversation with Harold Begbie, cited in "Master Workers", Begbie, Methuen & Co. (1906)
And I see you haven't denied the "mistake" (being generous there) about railway renationalisation.
Given that, you're a fine one to accuse me of making things up.
I have never said that it is all about immigration. But you seem to be in denial about what the leave campaigns did talk about - and it wasn't EEA/EFTA.
Joining the European Economic Area would be an obvious way for the UK to retain access to the European Union’s single market should it go ahead and leave the bloc.
But in the EEA’s biggest member, Norway, questions are now being asked about the advantages of allowing the much bigger North Sea neighbor into an accord that in many ways has been tailored to the needs of the Scandinavian country and its other members — Iceland and Liechtenstein.
Concerns have been raised by the prime minister and the finance minister, and also by the leader of the Labour Party, the biggest group in opposition.
...
Monica Maeland, Norwegian industry minister, says it’s far from a clear-cut case that Norway should welcome the UK into the broader European Free Trade Association.
“Britain must first clarify its position,” she said in an e-mailed answer to questions. “Then the EU must decide how they want to work with this and then we need to decide on our position. So it’s too early to decide on a possible expansion of EFTA.”
...
Jonas Gahr Stoere, Norwegian Labour Party leader, said that the UK will likely find its own way to connect to the inner market should it actually leave the EU.
He said it’s Norway’s responsibility to ensure the EEA’s stability and integrity.
“We’re unlikely to want to change the agreement which has evolved over more than 20 years,” he said in an e-mailed response to questions. Stoere was part of negotiating team that helped form the accord more than 20 years ago.
Bloody Brexit.
He knew it was best for Britain to remain in the EU. But it served his ambition to argue otherwise. We just weren’t meant to fall for it. Once we had, he panicked, vanishing during a weekend of national crisis before hiding from parliament. He lit the spark then ran away – petrified at the blaze he started.
He has left us to look on his works and despair. The outlook for the economy is so bleak, the governor of the Bank of England talks of “economic post-traumatic stress disorder.” The Economist Intelligence Unit projects a 6% contraction by 2020, an 8% decline in investment, rising unemployment, falling tax revenues and public debt to reach 100% of our national output.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/01/boris-johnson-and-michael-gove-betrayed-britain-over-brexit
Don't get me wrong, that's not great. It means we're going to be like France for a few years (but not as bad as Italy). People have started using numbers in a really dishonest way.
But that doesn't change the fact that millions of people voted to Leave the EU for issues other than immigration. It also doesn't change the fact that the polls show that the EFTA/EEA route is supported by a clear majority of the public including almost half of those who voted Leave.
As I have said repeatedly now that we are leaving the EU the Government has to pick the alternative which is most supported by all the electorate, not just those who voted Leave. That is clearly the EFTA route.
May 1.42 / 1.43
Leadsom 4.5 / 4.6
Gove 20 / 21
Crabb 48 / 50
Fox 95 / 110
Our only hope is to find common cause against the greater evil, Southern trains.
Again, I admire your trust in the polling.
Anyway, I will bid you all goodnight. Sleep well.
We could win the World Cup and the Remainers would be "We'd have scored even more goals if we were still in the EU" "The England team would be sexier if we were still in the EU". And so on, yea until eternity.
The 70s were shit.
- Gove has not a snowflake's chance in hell. Almost impossible to find anyone to say a good word about him. Lay. lay, lay
- Andrea Leadsom will be in the last two - if it gets that far. Shadsy's 1.8 on May/Leadsom is a snip. (The bet is void if there's no members' ballot)
- The current 1.4 or so on Theresa to be our next PM is a superb bet.
Con Home:
May - 92
Crabb - 21
Gove - 18
Leadsom - 18
Fox - 7
In contrast, Guido has:
May - 87
Crabb - 22
Gove - 21
Leadsom - 19
Fox - 9
http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2016/07/whos-backing-who-our-running-list-of-mps-supporting-each-leadership-candidate.html
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19mKbV0UnIbX_lbiinKiquP0ghiFpsMl0owUO6_TJyzI/htmlview?pref=2&pli=1&sle=true#gid=0
A non binding referendum on a general question leaves, ha, only one option for a representative democracy, and that is for our representatives to figure out the best way to put our general answer into action. If Leavers who don't want FOM want to guarantee that is the way parliament decides to adopt a leave a position, they need the Tories to vote a PM candidate who will push for it, but it would be no betrayal of the people to adopt a different position, indeed in terms of a compromise between remainers and leavers such a position is about halfway. It pisses off both, no doubt, and there are those who would pillory the government for such a 'weak' position, but if they want the stronger Leave option, they're free to push Gove now, or they can vote for a party offering it in 2020.
The LDs will be offering rejoining apparently, so if we do go for a lightLeave option, we should have a wide range on offer - LeaveRedux for those who felt leaving did not go far enough, and LeaveReverse for those who think it went too far.
Anyone but Gove would be my plea right now.
OK, May will be strong favourite. But with TV debates etc members might take a fresh look at things.
And Leadsom will have one huge plus - she'll keep saying the PM must have supported Brexit. She will also get plus points from having done so well in the referendum TV debates.
In contrast May will go on seniority, experience, proven ability, ready to do the job from Day 1. That should be enough to win easily but I don't think it's anywhere near a certainty.
Aside from whether Corbyn was up to the job in the first place, he's now far too damaged to do it. If he offered the voters a chance to keep him and they kept him, it would be disastrous for the Labour party in general, and ultimately the Labour left in particular. It wouldn't even be good for Corbyn.
If you really like voting a lot what you should instead do is find an option that gives the voters what they want but wouldn't be disastrous. The move here is to make sure you get a candidate from the left on the ballot who wouldn't obviously be disastrous, and might actually be good. That candidate is Clive Lewis.
Not sure where Con Home are discovering these at midnight - but anyway they now have May on 95.
'Polite memo to any friends asking me to endorse Michael Gove. Don't waste your time, as I won't be supporting him.'
Coup? What coup?
Pass the poppadoms...
'Now totally understand why you flipped out about Mark Reckless defecting, no one like a back stabbing little shit like Gove'
Hague changed the rules after he won - up to and including Hague it was MPs only.
But I think it's a huge difference choosing a PM rather than Leader of Opposition - members may well be very conservative - ie cautious - and thus go for May.
My 91 year old Mum is a Con member who voted Leave and who loves Boris. She thinks he's fantastic. On Monday (ie before Boris withdrew) she said straight away it had to be May - due to seriousness of situation. I suspect many members will vote on same basis.
£50 on May/Leadsome &
May -8.13
Gove -383.47
Leadsom +45.62
Crabb -331.3
Fox -178.82
Other -433.77
Carson noted that Trump “has some defects” and mused, “Are there better people? Probably.”