The new vote would have to be on the leave proposal after negotiations, an election isn't enough as It confuses that decision with too many other factors. A simple question with a binary choice this time, this or stay.
No, the choice would have to be this or nothing (WTO rules).
You really want a general election on one question? Okay, if it has to be, then it has to be. We have to avoid a situation where people don't get a say on the actual proposals.
I think ThreeQuidder's point was we can't force the EU into a position based on a referendum result.
"But we voted for EEA (or whatever) without freedom of movement"
The new vote would have to be on the leave proposal after negotiations, an election isn't enough as It confuses that decision with too many other factors. A simple question with a binary choice this time, this or stay. The stupidity of a this or something else choice got us into this mess and having no vote at all would give us decades of the issue never having been settled and its accompanying political turmoil.
Once article 50 is triggered we're on a one way street out. The EU have already stated that no substantive negotiations until Art 50 triggered.
If we trigger art 50 we're out so a referendum won't be about staying but rejoining - without the rebate and a commitment to join the Euro Schengen etc.
According to the Lisbon Treaty, all EU members are required to commit to joining either the Common Travel Area or the Schengen Zone. I reckon we'd go for the CTA.
The new vote would have to be on the leave proposal after negotiations, an election isn't enough as It confuses that decision with too many other factors. A simple question with a binary choice this time, this or stay. The stupidity of a this or something else choice got us into this mess and having no vote at all would give us decades of the issue never having been settled and its accompanying political turmoil.
Once article 50 is triggered we're on a one way street out. The EU have already stated that no substantive negotiations until Art 50 triggered.
If we trigger art 50 we're out so a referendum won't be about staying but rejoining - without the rebate and a commitment to join the Euro Schengen etc.
According to the Lisbon Treaty, all EU members are required to commit to joining either the Common Travel Area or the Schengen Zone. I reckon we'd go for the CTA.
Can we commit to join but never join? Similarly it'd be a shame if none of the Euro coin/notes templates arrived at the BoE
The new vote would have to be on the leave proposal after negotiations, an election isn't enough as It confuses that decision with too many other factors. A simple question with a binary choice this time, this or stay.
It can't be that.
We can't stay if we have triggered Article 50, and we can't negotiate until we do.
Then we're stuffed. These people really didn't think the nature of e vote through at all. Maybe a vote on whether to trigger article 50 then, with two actual proposals, stay or what we think we can get, rather then what we have versus pie in the sky. It's a total disaster the way the question was asked.
Actually the question was quite clear, whether or not we should leave the EU. The result was we should, so we should.
As I said, an idiotically formed question. We are now in no man's land, out but with no clue as to what that means.
Article 50 negotiations are with the European Council, which is the collective of the heads of state, run by Donald Tusk. While Tusk could probably set out a broad framework for discussions before Article 50 it is triggered it can't actually decide on anything until the heads of state get together in one room to hammer out what they are going to do.
Sure, but that isn't my point. You are describing the formal negotiations, but the real work will take place behind the scenes in government-to-government haggling. Much though it would like to, the EU bureaucrats can't stop the British ambassador in Berlin having a lunch with senior politicians in the German government.
ABC are now predicting 76 seats for the Coalition, 69 for Labour, 5 for Others as the final result in Australia. Flynn, Herbert, and Capricornia look like they'll fall the way of the Coalition, on the back of late votes.
ABC are now predicting 76 seats for the Coalition, 69 for Labour, 5 for Others as the final result in Australia. Flynn, Herbert, and Capricornia look like they'll fall the way of the Coalition, on the back of late votes.
The australian media seemed to have a desperate collective desire for the coalition to fall short of a majority and failed to undertake correct analysis of previous postal patterns before calling "Flynn" (And others)
The new vote would have to be on the leave proposal after negotiations, an election isn't enough as It confuses that decision with too many other factors. A simple question with a binary choice this time, this or stay.
It can't be that.
We can't stay if we have triggered Article 50, and we can't negotiate until we do.
Then we're stuffed. These people really didn't think the nature of e vote through at all. Maybe a vote on whether to trigger article 50 then, with two actual proposals, stay or what we think we can get, rather then what we have versus pie in the sky. It's a total disaster the way the question was asked.
Actually the question was quite clear, whether or not we should leave the EU. The result was we should, so we should.
As I said, an idiotically formed question. We are now in no man's land, out but with no clue as to what that means.
How else should it have been formed? Multiple answers simply gives an unfair advantage to the status quo.
Additional Parties The Parties may invite any State to become a Party to this Agreement. The terms and conditions of the participation by the additional Party shall be the subject of an agreement between the Parties and the invited State.
ABC are now predicting 76 seats for the Coalition, 69 for Labour, 5 for Others as the final result in Australia. Flynn, Herbert, and Capricornia look like they'll fall the way of the Coalition, on the back of late votes.
The australian media seemed to have a desperate collective desire for the coalition to fall short of a majority and failed to undertake correct analysis of previous postal patterns before calling "Flynn" (And others)
This week's New Scientist is pretty upbeat about the effect of Brexit on the environment. It seems that the UK has been responsible for blocking or watering down many EU environmental regulations in recent years. Because of this, future EU environment laws are likely to be stronger without the input of the UK, but the UK will still have to abide by them in the event of a Norway-type arrangement.
Imagine the regression in animal welfare laws in the EU now that the Uk is out.
At last. Become a Leaver, it does create a warm feeling and you can smile at the more extreme Remain reactions. Ah, diddums.
I don’t think I know anyone under 40 who voted Leave, and I know many of them are are distraught at the prospect of bringing back borders.
It's clear that many people in their thirties did vote Leave (though still outnumbered by those
The only really big outliers seem to have been 18-24 year olds, and those aged 65+.
Those few 18-24 year olds who got off their arses and voted, that .
(OK, so they may have had postal votes. But my point stands....they could be arsed to wield the pencil.)
Certainly the young bear a heavy responsibility for the final result. their unwillingness to engage in the political process is so very depressing.
I agree - I lThe only problem was that, come the day, they didn't get out there and bloody vote.
Had they done it and delivered the Lib Dems with possibly 100 seats, maybe just maybe they wouldn't have had to ditch the tuition fee pledge and the students would have benefited.
If only half of the students whthem in 2010 had actually VOTED then we wouldn't had embarked on our journey down the pan.
It's no coincidence that the Tories dish out cash to the old and stuff the young - old voters vote - young ones don't !
"Why did Nick Clegg cross the street ? " - Ans: "Because he promised, he wouldn't."
So, it's the fault of the young voters then.
The Tuition Fee betrayal saved £1bn.
You may have noticed that after 6 year. It would have been £61bn otherwise.
"So, it's the fault of the young voters then" Frankly, Yes...what was the turnout of young voters in the referendum 35% or something like that ...Jeez it was the most important vote in a generation that was always going to affect them more than any other social group and 65% of them didn't vote !
Indeed, they can have no complaints in that regard. I find it preposterous how some have genuinely said the result wasn't democratic because the views of old people will sway it. Now, maybe it's true old people don't have to live with the consequences as long, but that's no excuse for not turning out yourselves! Should we not allow people within 5 years of predicted life expectancy vote in General Elections.
If they didn't vote for this, when would they?!
Disclosure, I am under 30. And though I voted Leave, it's still enfuriating 18-24 year olds, most of whom would not agree with me, didn't bother.
The new vote would have to be on the leave proposal after negotiations, an election isn't enough as It confuses that decision with too many other factors. A simple question with a binary choice this time, this or stay. The stupidity of a this or something else choice got us into this mess and having no vote at all would give us decades of the issue never having been settled and its accompanying political turmoil.
Once article 50 is triggered we're on a one way street out. The EU have already stated that no substantive negotiations until Art 50 triggered.
If we trigger art 50 we're out so a referendum won't be about staying but rejoining - without the rebate and a commitment to join the Euro Schengen etc.
According to the Lisbon Treaty, all EU members are required to commit to joining either the Common Travel Area or the Schengen Zone. I reckon we'd go for the CTA.
Can we commit to join but never join? Similarly it'd be a shame if none of the Euro coin/notes templates arrived at the BoE
Of course; Sweden has committed to join the Euro, but will (in all likelihood) never join. It wouldn't be popular in Sweden, and there's no legal or institutional framework for forcing the issue, even if the EU wanted to.
The new vote would have to be on the leave proposal after negotiations, an election isn't enough as It confuses that decision with too many other factors. A simple question with a binary choice this time, this or stay.
It can't be that.
We can't stay if we have triggered Article 50, and we can't negotiate until we do.
Then we're stuffed. These people really didn't think the nature of e vote through at all. Maybe a vote on whether to trigger article 50 then, with two actual proposals, stay or what we think we can get, rather then what we have versus pie in the sky. It's a total disaster the way the question was asked.
Actually the question was quite clear, whether or not we should leave the EU. The result was we should, so we should.
As I said, an idiotically formed question. We are now in no man's land, out but with no clue as to what that means.
How else should it have been formed? Multiple answers simply gives an unfair advantage to the status quo.
The new vote would have to be on the leave proposal after negotiations, an election isn't enough as It confuses that decision with too many other factors. A simple question with a binary choice this time, this or stay.
It can't be that.
We can't stay if we have triggered Article 50, and we can't negotiate until we do.
Then we're stuffed. These people really didn't think the nature of e vote through at all. Maybe a vote on whether to trigger article 50 then, with two actual proposals, stay or what we think we can get, rather then what we have versus pie in the sky. It's a total disaster the way the question was asked.
Actually the question was quite clear, whether or not we should leave the EU. The result was we should, so we should.
As I said, an idiotically formed question. We are now in no man's land, out but with no clue as to what that means.
How else should it have been formed? Multiple answers simply gives an unfair advantage to the status quo.
For most people it would have been:
a) The thing we have now that you probably don't understand. b) Another thing that you don't understand. c) This other thing that you don't understand either.
I just don't see how it could have been framed any differently.
Article 50 negotiations are with the European Council, which is the collective of the heads of state, run by Donald Tusk. While Tusk could probably set out a broad framework for discussions before Article 50 it is triggered it can't actually decide on anything until the heads of state get together in one room to hammer out what they are going to do.
Sure, but that isn't my point. You are describing the formal negotiations, but the real work will take place behind the scenes in government-to-government haggling. Much though it would like to, the EU bureaucrats can't stop the British ambassador in Berlin having a lunch with senior politicians in the German government.
I think the pre-Article 50 haggling will identify the agendas of the various parties. But the collective response will only be hammered out after Article 50 is triggered - unless everyone is so much on the same page there aren't any major issues to resolve
The new vote would have to be on the leave proposal after negotiations, an election isn't enough as It confuses that decision with too many other factors. A simple question with a binary choice this time, this or stay.
No, the choice would have to be this or nothing (WTO rules).
You really want a general election on one question? Okay, if it has to be, then it has to be. We have to avoid a situation where people don't get a say on the actual proposals.
I think ThreeQuidder's point was we can't force the EU into a position based on a referendum result.
"But we voted for EEA (or whatever) without freedom of movement"
Have one side become so used to getting their way, that this is their first big loss?
It's quite a big loss. Unlike General Elections it's pretty much unreverseable and brings with it financial loss in the short to medium term at least.
Chuck into that the casual xenophobia of the leave campaign and the political mess of the aftermath and you can see why many are upset.
Indeed this loss is a threat to the identity of many people; for those who identify with what they consider the values of being part of Europe, losing this times means their values and their outlook on the world have been forcibly stripped away.
In politics as usual your side losing doesn't threaten your identity - you hold on to your identity and try and win next time. That need to hold on to your identity can sometimes lead to electing strange leaders....
And that's an argument why Leadsom won't win. In power, Tories don't feel the need to bolster their identity by electing a parody of a Tory.
The slow peeling away of our national decision making and law making and sending it to Brussels over the past 40 years has been a gradual grating loss of identity for many Leavers. Those that feel affinity for the EU, and the loss of it last week are just experiencing what many others have felt over the last four decades, compressed into a very short time frame.
Funnily enough - for about 20ys I've increasingly felt stripped of my British identity. As a result of devolution/EU I've substituted being a Brit for Englishness. I even bought a 40ft flagpole and flew St George flag since then too. Post 23rd June - I want to embrace the Union Jack again.
The EU have already stated that no substantive negotiations until Art 50 triggered..
Yeah, but that's tosh. What are they going to do if Mrs May says 'We need to sit down and talk because we are not going to be in a position to pull the Article 50 trigger until we've got heads of agreement'?
Anyway the negotiations aren't with the EU, much though Mr Juncker would like them to be.
With the anger in Germany I'd be surprised if Mr Junker was still commission president in September when we have a new PM. The commission's insistence in enforcing the letter of the law on Maastricht deficit rules and the new BRRD is losing support among previous key backers. The Spanish, Portuguese, Italians and Germans are now opposed to him continuing in the position.
Someone wrote about it here before, if Mrs Merkel had listened to Dave the Brexit would never have been on the table. It's to their pity that they didn't take him seriously.
I believe the only reason for the length of the Conservative Party leadership contest is to enable Juncker to go before Cameron
The new vote would have to be on the leave proposal after negotiations, an election isn't enough as It confuses that decision with too many other factors. A simple question with a binary choice this time, this or stay.
It can't be that.
We can't stay if we have triggered Article 50, and we can't negotiate until we do.
Then we're stuffed. These people really didn't think the nature of e vote through at all. Maybe a vote on whether to trigger article 50 then, with two actual proposals, stay or what we think we can get, rather then what we have versus pie in the sky. It's a total disaster the way the question was asked.
Actually the question was quite clear, whether or not we should leave the EU. The result was we should, so we should.
As I said, an idiotically formed question. We are now in no man's land, out but with no clue as to what that means.
How else should it have been formed? Multiple answers simply gives an unfair advantage to the status quo.
An actual proposal. We now are in a situation where there is nobody who can be held accountable, the main leavers have run away or have been/will be defeated, labour won't own it, a May led Conservative party won't own it.
Being where we now find ourselves, If we don't get a chance to vote on EEA, free movement or whatever, there will be hell to pay.
This week's New Scientist is pretty upbeat about the effect of Brexit on the environment. It seems that the UK has been responsible for blocking or watering down many EU environmental regulations in recent years. Because of this, future EU environment laws are likely to be stronger without the input of the UK, but the UK will still have to abide by them in the event of a Norway-type arrangement.
Imagine the regression in animal welfare laws in the EU now that the Uk is out.
Cheap veal will be on the menu.
What makes you think other EU countries are less concerned about animal welfare than the UK? Which EU laws do you think they'll repeal?
The new vote would have to be on the leave proposal after negotiations, an election isn't enough as It confuses that decision with too many other factors. A simple question with a binary choice this time, this or stay.
It can't be that.
We can't stay if we have triggered Article 50, and we can't negotiate until we do.
Then we're stuffed. These people really didn't think the nature of e vote through at all. Maybe a vote on whether to trigger article 50 then, with two actual proposals, stay or what we think we can get, rather then what we have versus pie in the sky. It's a total disaster the way the question was asked.
Actually the question was quite clear, whether or not we should leave the EU. The result was we should, so we should.
As I said, an idiotically formed question. We are now in no man's land, out but with no clue as to what that means.
How else should it have been formed? Multiple answers simply gives an unfair advantage to the status quo.
An actual proposal. We now are in a situation where there is nobody who can be held accountable, the main leavers have run away or have been/will be defeated, labour won't own it, a May led Conservative party won't own it.
Being where we now find ourselves, If we don't get a chance to vote on EEA, free movement or whatever, there will be hell to pay.
How can we have a proposal when no negotiations can start until Article 50?
The new vote would have to be on the leave proposal after negotiations, an election isn't enough as It confuses that decision with too many other factors. A simple question with a binary choice this time, this or stay.
It can't be that.
We can't stay if we have triggered Article 50, and we can't negotiate until we do.
Then we're stuffed. These people really didn't think the nature of e vote through at all. Maybe a vote on whether to trigger article 50 then, with two actual proposals, stay or what we think we can get, rather then what we have versus pie in the sky. It's a total disaster the way the question was asked.
Actually the question was quite clear, whether or not we should leave the EU. The result was we should, so we should.
As I said, an idiotically formed question. We are now in no man's land, out but with no clue as to what that means.
How else should it have been formed? Multiple answers simply gives an unfair advantage to the status quo.
AV!
The only sensible way to decide anything, and the cure for all political ills.
Have one side become so used to getting their way, that this is their first big loss?
It's quite a big loss. Unlike General Elections it's pretty much unreverseable and brings with it financial loss in the short to medium term at least.
Chuck into that the casual xenophobia of the leave campaign and the political mess of the aftermath and you can see why many are upset.
Indeed this loss is a threat to the identity of many people; for those who identify with what they consider the values of being part of Europe, losing this times means their values and their outlook on the world have been forcibly stripped away.
In politics as usual your side losing doesn't threaten your identity - you hold on to your identity and try and win next time. That need to hold on to your identity can sometimes lead to electing strange leaders....
And that's an argument why Leadsom won't win. In power, Tories don't feel the need to bolster their identity by electing a parody of a Tory.
The slow peeling away of our national decision making and law making and sending it to Brussels over the past 40 years has been a gradual grating loss of identity for many Leavers. Those that feel affinity for the EU, and the loss of it last week are just experiencing what many others have felt over the last four decades, compressed into a very short time frame.
Funnily enough - for about 20ys I've increasingly felt stripped of my British identity. As a result of devolution/EU I've substituted being a Brit for Englishness. I even bought a 40ft flagpole and flew St George flag since then too. Post 23rd June - I want to embrace the Union Jack again.
The new vote would have to be on the leave proposal after negotiations, an election isn't enough as It confuses that decision with too many other factors. A simple question with a binary choice this time, this or stay.
It can't be that.
We can't stay if we have triggered Article 50, and we can't negotiate until we do.
Then we're stuffed. These people really didn't think the nature of e vote through at all. Maybe a vote on whether to trigger article 50 then, with two actual proposals, stay or what we think we can get, rather then what we have versus pie in the sky. It's a total disaster the way the question was asked.
Actually the question was quite clear, whether or not we should leave the EU. The result was we should, so we should.
As I said, an idiotically formed question. We are now in no man's land, out but with no clue as to what that means.
How else should it have been formed? Multiple answers simply gives an unfair advantage to the status quo.
AV!
The only sensible way to decide anything, and the cure for all political ills.
This week's New Scientist is pretty upbeat about the effect of Brexit on the environment. It seems that the UK has been responsible for blocking or watering down many EU environmental regulations in recent years. Because of this, future EU environment laws are likely to be stronger without the input of the UK, but the UK will still have to abide by them in the event of a Norway-type arrangement.
Imagine the regression in animal welfare laws in the EU now that the Uk is out.
Cheap veal will be on the menu.
What makes you think other EU countries are less concerned about animal welfare than the UK? Which EU laws do you think they'll repeal?
THis is one area where I hope we can remain ahead of EU legislation outwith or within:
The UK was ahead of the EU on sow stall legislation, to give a specific example.
The new vote would have to be on the leave proposal after negotiations, an election isn't enough as It confuses that decision with too many other factors. A simple question with a binary choice this time, this or stay.
It can't be that.
We can't stay if we have triggered Article 50, and we can't negotiate until we do.
Then we're stuffed. These people really didn't think the nature of e vote through at all. Maybe a vote on whether to trigger article 50 then, with two actual proposals, stay or what we think we can get, rather then what we have versus pie in the sky. It's a total disaster the way the question was asked.
Actually the question was quite clear, whether or not we should leave the EU. The result was we should, so we should.
As I said, an idiotically formed question. We are now in no man's land, out but with no clue as to what that means.
How else should it have been formed? Multiple answers simply gives an unfair advantage to the status quo.
An actual proposal. We now are in a situation where there is nobody who can be held accountable, the main leavers have run away or have been/will be defeated, labour won't own it, a May led Conservative party won't own it.
Being where we now find ourselves, If we don't get a chance to vote on EEA, free movement or whatever, there will be hell to pay.
How can we have a proposal when no negotiations can start until Article 50?
I was talking about the referendum, but the horse has already bolted on that one. Next time will have to be a proper binary choice rather than something definite versus something vague.
The new vote would have to be on the leave proposal after negotiations, an election isn't enough as It confuses that decision with too many other factors. A simple question with a binary choice this time, this or stay.
It can't be that.
We can't stay if we have triggered Article 50, and we can't negotiate until we do.
Then we're stuffed. These people really didn't think the nature of e vote through at all. Maybe a vote on whether to trigger article 50 then, with two actual proposals, stay or what we think we can get, rather then what we have versus pie in the sky. It's a total disaster the way the question was asked.
Actually the question was quite clear, whether or not we should leave the EU. The result was we should, so we should.
As I said, an idiotically formed question. We are now in no man's land, out but with no clue as to what that means.
How else should it have been formed? Multiple answers simply gives an unfair advantage to the status quo.
The problem with referendums. If you ask a stupid question ... or more precisely a binary. zero sum question stripped of any context.
The new vote would have to be on the leave proposal after negotiations, an election isn't enough as It confuses that decision with too many other factors. A simple question with a binary choice this time, this or stay.
It can't be that.
We can't stay if we have triggered Article 50, and we can't negotiate until we do.
Then we're stuffed. These people really didn't think the nature of e vote through at all. Maybe a vote on whether to trigger article 50 then, with two actual proposals, stay or what we think we can get, rather then what we have versus pie in the sky. It's a total disaster the way the question was asked.
Actually the question was quite clear, whether or not we should leave the EU. The result was we should, so we should.
As I said, an idiotically formed question. We are now in no man's land, out but with no clue as to what that means.
How else should it have been formed? Multiple answers simply gives an unfair advantage to the status quo.
An actual proposal. We now are in a situation where there is nobody who can be held accountable, the main leavers have run away or have been/will be defeated, labour won't own it, a May led Conservative party won't own it.
Being where we now find ourselves, If we don't get a chance to vote on EEA, free movement or whatever, there will be hell to pay.
How can we have a proposal when no negotiations can start until Article 50?
I was talking about the referendum, but the horse has already bolted on that one. Next time will have to be a proper binary choice rather than something definite versus something vague.
The proposal to stay in is easy, nothing changes, what about the proposal for leave? How are you to define that without knowing what the EU's position would be?
My guess is that these pledges - solemnly made - will soon be seen as lies.
As might have been mentioned a few times at the time, none of the people that made those offers were or are in government. Mrs May is going to be PM, and she was for Remain. Do you usually believe pledges made by campaign groups ?
I wish the Tories the very best of luck with that argument - especially the Leave cabinet ministers.
If more than 5% of voters remember anything significant said by anyone during this referendum campaign in a years time I will be very surprised. Most voters just are not that interested, if the economy is tolerable, if May can point as so reduced immigration figures, a few activists will jump up and down and post tweeter from Labour-leaning QCs, most almost no one else will give a crap.
This week's New Scientist is pretty upbeat about the effect of Brexit on the environment. It seems that the UK has been responsible for blocking or watering down many EU environmental regulations in recent years. Because of this, future EU environment laws are likely to be stronger without the input of the UK, but the UK will still have to abide by them in the event of a Norway-type arrangement.
Imagine the regression in animal welfare laws in the EU now that the Uk is out.
Cheap veal will be on the menu.
What makes you think other EU countries are less concerned about animal welfare than the UK? Which EU laws do you think they'll repeal?
THis is one area where I hope we can remain ahead of EU legislation outwith or within:
The UK was ahead of the EU on sow stall legislation, to give a specific example.
Remember, though, that the EU laws are merely the lowest common denominator. Having lived there for 10 years, I'm sure that many animals in countries such as Germany are also kept in better conditions than EU law demands.
Anyway, my (and the New Scientist's) original point was that the UK has held back EU environmental legislation in recent years, and so future EU environmental legislation is likely to be stronger and, ultimately, will benefit animals as well as people.
This week's New Scientist is pretty upbeat about the effect of Brexit on the environment. It seems that the UK has been responsible for blocking or watering down many EU environmental regulations in recent years. Because of this, future EU environment laws are likely to be stronger without the input of the UK, but the UK will still have to abide by them in the event of a Norway-type arrangement.
Imagine the regression in animal welfare laws in the EU now that the Uk is out.
Cheap veal will be on the menu.
What makes you think other EU countries are less concerned about animal welfare than the UK?
Ha ha - good one.
Chickens and pig rearing standards in the Uk far higher than the EU.
My guess is that these pledges - solemnly made - will soon be seen as lies.
As might have been mentioned a few times at the time, none of the people that made those offers were or are in government. Mrs May is going to be PM, and she was for Remain. Do you usually believe pledges made by campaign groups ?
I wish the Tories the very best of luck with that argument - especially the Leave cabinet ministers.
If more than 5% of voters remember anything significant said by anyone during this referendum campaign in a years time I will be very surprised. Most voters just are not that interested, if the economy is tolerable, if May can point as so reduced immigration figures, a few activists will jump up and down and post tweeter from Labour-leaning QCs, most almost no one else will give a crap.
I'm inclined to agree. Brexit will probably lead to a decade of chronic under-performance rather than an acute shock that would really wake people up.
My guess is that these pledges - solemnly made - will soon be seen as lies.
As might have been mentioned a few times at the time, none of the people that made those offers were or are in government. Mrs May is going to be PM, and she was for Remain. Do you usually believe pledges made by campaign groups ?
I wish the Tories the very best of luck with that argument - especially the Leave cabinet ministers.
If more than 5% of voters remember anything significant said by anyone during this referendum campaign in a years time I will be very surprised. Most voters just are not that interested, if the economy is tolerable, if May can point as so reduced immigration figures, a few activists will jump up and down and post tweeter from Labour-leaning QCs, most almost no one else will give a crap.
Yep - if everything is fine then the lies will be forgotten. If not, they won't be. It was ever thus.
The new vote would have to be on the leave proposal after negotiations, an election isn't enough as It confuses that decision with too many other factors. A simple question with a binary choice this time, this or stay.
It can't be that.
We can't stay if we have triggered Article 50, and we can't negotiate until we do.
Then we're stuffed. These people really didn't think the nature of e vote through at all. Maybe a vote on whether to trigger article 50 then, with two actual proposals, stay or what we think we can get, rather then what we have versus pie in the sky. It's a total disaster the way the question was asked.
Actually the question was quite clear, whether or not we should leave the EU. The result was we should, so we should.
As I said, an idiotically formed question. We are now in no man's land, out but with no clue as to what that means.
How else should it have been formed? Multiple answers simply gives an unfair advantage to the status quo.
An actual proposal. We now are in a situation where there is nobody who can be held accountable, the main leavers have run away or have been/will be defeated, labour won't own it, a May led Conservative party won't own it.
Being where we now find ourselves, If we don't get a chance to vote on EEA, free movement or whatever, there will be hell to pay.
How can we have a proposal when no negotiations can start until Article 50?
I was talking about the referendum, but the horse has already bolted on that one. Next time will have to be a proper binary choice rather than something definite versus something vague.
The proposal to stay in is easy, nothing changes, what about the proposal for leave? How are you to define that without knowing what the EU's position would be?
I think there's a lot of desire to have one's cake and eat it. Vote Leave never actually guaranteed which option they preferred (it was clear that Boris fancied the EEA), based on campaign strategy advice. By plumping for one, the Remain campaign, hapless though it was, would have been able to pick away at it.
That's a political reason. The practical reason is as you say. We're resigning from a club. We can't just lay down the law to the other club members. "We're leaving, would like tariff-free access to the Single Market, with some curbs on FoM". "Fuck off". "Oh dear".
My guess is that these pledges - solemnly made - will soon be seen as lies.
As might have been mentioned a few times at the time, none of the people that made those offers were or are in government. Mrs May is going to be PM, and she was for Remain. Do you usually believe pledges made by campaign groups ?
I wish the Tories the very best of luck with that argument - especially the Leave cabinet ministers.
If more than 5% of voters remember anything significant said by anyone during this referendum campaign in a years time I will be very surprised. Most voters just are not that interested, if the economy is tolerable, if May can point as so reduced immigration figures, a few activists will jump up and down and post tweeter from Labour-leaning QCs, most almost no one else will give a crap.
@cameronpenny: Disturbing to see Remainers favour a Leadsom win in order to keep Britain in the EU: https://t.co/RvHpY3XBjp #TM4PM who will deliver Brexit
The new vote would have to be on the leave proposal after negotiations, an election isn't enough as It confuses that decision with too many other factors. A simple question with a binary choice this time, this or stay.
It can't be that.
We can't stay if we have triggered Article 50, and we can't negotiate until we do.
Then we're stuffed. These people really didn't think the nature of e vote through at all. Maybe a vote on whether to trigger article 50 then, with two actual proposals, stay or what we think we can get, rather then what we have versus pie in the sky. It's a total disaster the way the question was asked.
Actually the question was quite clear, whether or not we should leave the EU. The result was we should, so we should.
As I said, an idiotically formed question. We are now in no man's land, out but with no clue as to what that means.
How else should it have been formed? Multiple answers simply gives an unfair advantage to the status quo.
An actual proposal. We now are in a situation where there is nobody who can be held accountable, the main leavers have run away or have been/will be defeated, labour won't own it, a May led Conservative party won't own it.
Being where we now find ourselves, If we don't get a chance to vote on EEA, free movement or whatever, there will be hell to pay.
How can we have a proposal when no negotiations can start until Article 50?
I was talking about the referendum, but the horse has already bolted on that one. Next time will have to be a proper binary choice rather than something definite versus something vague.
The proposal to stay in is easy, nothing changes, what about the proposal for leave? How are you to define that without knowing what the EU's position would be?
If there couldn't be a choice on what we were going to get then there shouldn't have been a referendum in the first place.
Clearly it will have to be WTO or whatever is negotiated now but it's like being given a choice of 'Do you want to be punched in the face or in the stomach?' At least people will have to face up to the reality of the situation.though.
My guess is that these pledges - solemnly made - will soon be seen as lies.
As might have been mentioned a few times at the time, none of the people that made those offers were or are in government. Mrs May is going to be PM, and she was for Remain. Do you usually believe pledges made by campaign groups ?
I wish the Tories the very best of luck with that argument - especially the Leave cabinet ministers.
If more than 5% of voters remember anything significant said by anyone during this referendum campaign in a years time I will be very surprised. Most voters just are not that interested, if the economy is tolerable, if May can point as so reduced immigration figures, a few activists will jump up and down and post tweeter from Labour-leaning QCs, most almost no one else will give a crap.
£350m more per week for the NHS.
The Battle bus didn't actually say that. It was a nasty bit of written sleight-of-hand.
Have one side become so used to getting their way, that this is their first big loss?
It's quite a big loss. Unlike General Elections it's pretty much unreverseable and brings with it financial loss in the short to medium term at least.
Chuck into that the casual xenophobia of the leave campaign and the political mess of the aftermath and you can see why many are upset.
Indeed this loss is a threat to the identity of many people; for those who identify with what they consider the values of being part of Europe, losing this times means their values and their outlook on the world have been forcibly stripped away.
In politics as usual your side losing doesn't threaten your identity - you hold on to your identity and try and win next time. That need to hold on to your identity can sometimes lead to electing strange leaders....
And that's an argument why Leadsom won't win. In power, Tories don't feel the need to bolster their identity by electing a parody of a Tory.
The slow peeling away of our national decision making and law making and sending it to Brussels over the past 40 years has been a gradual grating loss of identity for many Leavers. Those that feel affinity for the EU, and the loss of it last week are just experiencing what many others have felt over the last four decades, compressed into a very short time frame.
Funnily enough - for about 20ys I've increasingly felt stripped of my British identity. As a result of devolution/EU I've substituted being a Brit for Englishness. I even bought a 40ft flagpole and flew St George flag since then too. Post 23rd June - I want to embrace the Union Jack again.
The new vote would have to be on the leave proposal after negotiations, an election isn't enough as It confuses that decision with too many other factors. A simple question with a binary choice this time, this or stay.
It can't be that.
We can't stay if we have triggered Article 50, and we can't negotiate until we do.
Then we're stuffed. These people really didn't think the nature of e vote through at all. Maybe a vote on whether to trigger article 50 then, with two actual proposals, stay or what we think we can get, rather then what we have versus pie in the sky. It's a total disaster the way the question was asked.
Actually the question was quite clear, whether or not we should leave the EU. The result was we should, so we should.
As I said, an idiotically formed question. We are now in no man's land, out but with no clue as to what that means.
How else should it have been formed? Multiple answers simply gives an unfair advantage to the status quo.
An actual proposal. We now are in a situation where there is nobody who can be held accountable, the main leavers have run away or have been/will be defeated, labour won't own it, a May led Conservative party won't own it.
Being where we now find ourselves, If we don't get a chance to vote on EEA, free movement or whatever, there will be hell to pay.
That would in effect be committing an elected government to policies written by a campaign group... suppose the political reality of the time is that the government couldn't get that set of policies through parliament.
The only workable position would be for the government to have come up with both the in and the out position as full formed policy decisions and then asked the voters to pick which they prefered. Seems a little unlikely politically speaking when the government did even go any contingency planning incase it showed that things would not be to bad, and that leaked and scotched their fearmongering.
Crisis what crisis?, we have beaten the Argies at their own game:
Bloomberg - Pound Overtakes Argentine Peso to Become 2016’s Worst Performer http://bloom.bg/29n0s5x
"That the pound surpassed the Argentine peso as the world’s worst performer is all the more remarkable given that the South American nation’s economy shrank in 2014 and that President Mauricio Macri has removed most of the currency controls that had been propping up the exchange rate. It’s only in December that the peso was devalued"
The wisdom in holidaying in Suffolk this year is vindicated.
My guess is that these pledges - solemnly made - will soon be seen as lies.
As might have been mentioned a few times at the time, none of the people that made those offers were or are in government. Mrs May is going to be PM, and she was for Remain. Do you usually believe pledges made by campaign groups ?
I wish the Tories the very best of luck with that argument - especially the Leave cabinet ministers.
If more than 5% of voters remember anything significant said by anyone during this referendum campaign in a years time I will be very surprised. Most voters just are not that interested, if the economy is tolerable, if May can point as so reduced immigration figures, a few activists will jump up and down and post tweeter from Labour-leaning QCs, most almost no one else will give a crap.
£350m more per week for the NHS.
The Battle bus didn't actually say that. It was a nasty bit of written sleight-of-hand.
I don't think the "while it was strongly implied it was not logically explicit" argument will cut through on the doorstep somehow.
My guess is that these pledges - solemnly made - will soon be seen as lies.
As might have been mentioned a few times at the time, none of the people that made those offers were or are in government. Mrs May is going to be PM, and she was for Remain. Do you usually believe pledges made by campaign groups ?
I wish the Tories the very best of luck with that argument - especially the Leave cabinet ministers.
If more than 5% of voters remember anything significant said by anyone during this referendum campaign in a years time I will be very surprised. Most voters just are not that interested, if the economy is tolerable, if May can point as so reduced immigration figures, a few activists will jump up and down and post tweeter from Labour-leaning QCs, most almost no one else will give a crap.
£350m more per week for the NHS.
Yup. Rather unusually for a WWC midlander, my old, politically inactive dad doesn't really care about immigration. His main beef with the EU is what he perceives as money wasted on bureaucracy, and he, for one, is looking forward to the £350m NHS windfall from the money saved by leaving the EU.
I did say May should've picked Gove, and that not doing so may come back to haunt her.
If the site does go down over the weekend, I plan to put up the F1 stuff at normal times over at enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk. The only difference may be waiting until Sunday morning for the pre-race piece (although that's unlikely) if the race weather forecast looks uncertain.
Crisis what crisis?, we have beaten the Argies at their own game:
Bloomberg - Pound Overtakes Argentine Peso to Become 2016’s Worst Performer http://bloom.bg/29n0s5x
"That the pound surpassed the Argentine peso as the world’s worst performer is all the more remarkable given that the South American nation’s economy shrank in 2014 and that President Mauricio Macri has removed most of the currency controls that had been propping up the exchange rate. It’s only in December that the peso was devalued"
The wisdom in holidaying in Suffolk this year is vindicated.
The new vote would have to be on the leave proposal after negotiations, an election isn't enough as It confuses that decision with too many other factors. A simple question with a binary choice this time, this or stay.
It can't be that.
We can't stay if we have triggered Article 50, and we can't negotiate until we do.
Then we're stuffed. These people really didn't think the nature of e vote through at all. Maybe a vote on whether to trigger article 50 then, with two actual proposals, stay or what we think we can get, rather then what we have versus pie in the sky. It's a total disaster the way the question was asked.
Actually the question was quite clear, whether or not we should leave the EU. The result was we should, so we should.
As I said, an idiotically formed question. We are now in no man's land, out but with no clue as to what that means.
How else should it have been formed? Multiple answers simply gives an unfair advantage to the status quo.
An actual proposal. We now are in a situation where there is nobody who can be held accountable, the main leavers have run away or have been/will be defeated, labour won't own it, a May led Conservative party won't own it.
Being where we now find ourselves, If we don't get a chance to vote on EEA, free movement or whatever, there will be hell to pay.
That would in effect be committing an elected government to policies written by a campaign group... suppose the political reality of the time is that the government couldn't get that set of policies through parliament.
The only workable position would be for the government to have come up with both the in and the out position as full formed policy decisions and then asked the voters to pick which they prefered. Seems a little unlikely politically speaking when the government did even go any contingency planning incase it showed that things would not be to bad, and that leaked and scotched their fearmongering.
As it is, it is likely that the government will be made to own it, even though they don't agree with it. It's an absolute mess.
The new vote would have to be on the leave proposal after negotiations, an election isn't enough as It confuses that decision with too many other factors. A simple question with a binary choice this time, this or stay.
It can't be that.
We can't stay if we have triggered Article 50, and we can't negotiate until we do.
Then we're stuffed. These people really didn't think the nature of e vote through at all. Maybe a vote on whether to trigger article 50 then, with two actual proposals, stay or what we think we can get, rather then what we have versus pie in the sky. It's a total disaster the way the question was asked.
Actually the question was quite clear, whether or not we should leave the EU. The result was we should, so we should.
As I said, an idiotically formed question. We are now in no man's land, out but with no clue as to what that means.
How else should it have been formed? Multiple answers simply gives an unfair advantage to the status quo.
An actual proposal. We now are in a situation where there is nobody who can be held accountable, the main leavers have run away or have been/will be defeated, labour won't own it, a May led Conservative party won't own it.
Being where we now find ourselves, If we don't get a chance to vote on EEA, free movement or whatever, there will be hell to pay.
That would in effect be committing an elected government to policies written by a campaign group... suppose the political reality of the time is that the government couldn't get that set of policies through parliament.
The only workable position would be for the government to have come up with both the in and the out position as full formed policy decisions and then asked the voters to pick which they prefered. Seems a little unlikely politically speaking when the government did even go any contingency planning incase it showed that things would not be to bad, and that leaked and scotched their fearmongering.
Every Leave minister will be asked about the delivery of the promises they made. Why is the government not spending £350 million a week extra on the NHS like you said it would might be one regular question.
This week's New Scientist is pretty upbeat about the effect of Brexit on the environment. It seems that the UK has been responsible for blocking or watering down many EU environmental regulations in recent years. Because of this, future EU environment laws are likely to be stronger without the input of the UK, but the UK will still have to abide by them in the event of a Norway-type arrangement.
Imagine the regression in animal welfare laws in the EU now that the Uk is out.
Cheap veal will be on the menu.
What makes you think other EU countries are less concerned about animal welfare than the UK? Which EU laws do you think they'll repeal?
THis is one area where I hope we can remain ahead of EU legislation outwith or within:
The UK was ahead of the EU on sow stall legislation, to give a specific example.
Remember, though, that the EU laws are merely the lowest common denominator. Having lived there for 10 years, I'm sure that many animals in countries such as Germany are also kept in better conditions than EU law demands.
Anyway, my (and the New Scientist's) original point was that the UK has held back EU environmental legislation in recent years, and so future EU environmental legislation is likely to be stronger and, ultimately, will benefit animals as well as people.
Given that the UK has, for better or worse (and I of course would suggest worse), had far stronger laws to limit CO2 emissions than the rest of the EU and has had more success in cutting emissions I would suggest that your claims (and those of New Scientist) are mistaken. Even more so if one adds in the fact that the UK has unilaterally introduced the largest marine conservation areas in the world.
The Battle bus didn't actually say that. It was a nasty bit of written sleight-of-hand.
The poster did
Poor old Scott - still hasn't come to terms with the defeat or the fact it was a referendum not a general election campaign. And reduced to using Gordon Brown's strategy advisor to bolster his claims.
It's like watching Lewis Hamilton drive a Trabant.
The International Monetary Fund has cuts its economic growth forecasts for the eurozone in the wake of the UK's vote to leave the European Union.
The eurozone is expected to grow by 1.6% this year and 1.4% in 2017. Before the referendum the IMF had predicted growth of 1.7% for both years.
The IMF also revised down its 2018 growth forecast to 1.6% from 1.7%.
...
The revised 2017 figure was the IMF's "best case" scenario, assuming a deal was struck that allowed the UK to retain its access to the EU's single market, Mr Pradhan said.
However, if the UK decided not to maintain close ties with the EU and chose to rely on World Trade Organization rules, there could be "major disruptions," he said.
Mr Pradhan added it was "very, very early days to have any strong sense of confidence" about what the eventual relationship between the UK and EU would be.
The new vote would have to be on the leave proposal after negotiations, an election isn't enough as It confuses that decision with too many other factors. A simple question with a binary choice this time, this or stay.
It can't be that.
We can't stay if we have triggered Article 50, and we can't negotiate until we do.
Then we're stuffed. These people really didn't think the nature of e vote through at all. Maybe a vote on whether to trigger article 50 then, with two actual proposals, stay or what we think we can get, rather then what we have versus pie in the sky. It's a total disaster the way the question was asked.
Actually the question was quite clear, whether or not we should leave the EU. The result was we should, so we should.
As I said, an idiotically formed question. We are now in no man's land, out but with no clue as to what that means.
How else should it have been formed? Multiple answers simply gives an unfair advantage to the status quo.
An actual proposal. We now are in a situation where there is nobody who can be held accountable, the main leavers have run away or have been/will be defeated, labour won't own it, a May led Conservative party won't own it.
Being where we now find ourselves, If we don't get a chance to vote on EEA, free movement or whatever, there will be hell to pay.
That would in effect be committing an elected government to policies written by a campaign group... suppose the political reality of the time is that the government couldn't get that set of policies through parliament.
The only workable position would be for the government to have come up with both the in and the out position as full formed policy decisions and then asked the voters to pick which they prefered. Seems a little unlikely politically speaking when the government did even go any contingency planning incase it showed that things would not be to bad, and that leaked and scotched their fearmongering.
Every Leave minister will be asked about the delivery of the promises they made. Why is the government not spending £350 million a week extra on the NHS like you said it would might be one regular question.
If you can spot it in the 2015 Conservative manifesto you win a prize.
Crisis what crisis?, we have beaten the Argies at their own game:
Bloomberg - Pound Overtakes Argentine Peso to Become 2016’s Worst Performer http://bloom.bg/29n0s5x
"That the pound surpassed the Argentine peso as the world’s worst performer is all the more remarkable given that the South American nation’s economy shrank in 2014 and that President Mauricio Macri has removed most of the currency controls that had been propping up the exchange rate. It’s only in December that the peso was devalued"
The wisdom in holidaying in Suffolk this year is vindicated.
Worse than the Bolivar? That would be an achievement.
The new vote would have to be on the leave proposal after negotiations, an election isn't enough as It confuses that decision with too many other factors. A simple question with a binary choice this time, this or stay.
It can't be that.
We can't stay if we have triggered Article 50, and we can't negotiate until we do.
Then we're stuffed. These people really didn't think the nature of e vote through at all. Maybe a vote on whether to trigger article 50 then, with two actual proposals, stay or what we think we can get, rather then what we have versus pie in the sky. It's a total disaster the way the question was asked.
Actually the question was quite clear, whether or not we should leave the EU. The result was we should, so we should.
As I said, an idiotically formed question. We are now in no man's land, out but with no clue as to what that means.
How else should it have been formed? Multiple answers simply gives an unfair advantage to the status quo.
An actual proposal. We now are in a situation where there is nobody who can be held accountable, the main leavers have run away or have been/will be defeated, labour won't own it, a May led Conservative party won't own it.
Being where we now find ourselves, If we don't get a chance to vote on EEA, free movement or whatever, there will be hell to pay.
That would in effect be committing an elected government to policies written by a campaign group... suppose the political reality of the time is that the government couldn't get that set of policies through parliament.
The only workable position would be for the government to have come up with both the in and the out position as full formed policy decisions and then asked the voters to pick which they prefered. Seems a little unlikely politically speaking when the government did even go any contingency planning incase it showed that things would not be to bad, and that leaked and scotched their fearmongering.
Every Leave minister will be asked about the delivery of the promises they made. Why is the government not spending £350 million a week extra on the NHS like you said it would might be one regular question.
If you can spot it in the 2015 Conservative manifesto you win a prize.
My guess is that these pledges - solemnly made - will soon be seen as lies.
As might have been mentioned a few times at the time, none of the people that made those offers were or are in government. Mrs May is going to be PM, and she was for Remain. Do you usually believe pledges made by campaign groups ?
I wish the Tories the very best of luck with that argument - especially the Leave cabinet ministers.
If more than 5% of voters remember anything significant said by anyone during this referendum campaign in a years time I will be very surprised. Most voters just are not that interested, if the economy is tolerable, if May can point as so reduced immigration figures, a few activists will jump up and down and post tweeter from Labour-leaning QCs, most almost no one else will give a crap.
£350m more per week for the NHS.
Good luck getting anyone to care in a year's time never mind the election. It wasn't said by the government, and neither of the key people implicated in it are likely to be in government judging by recent events. People on here might remember, possibly might even care in a years time, the public won't.
The new vote would have to be on the leave proposal after negotiations, an election isn't enough as It confuses that decision with too many other factors. A simple question with a binary choice this time, this or stay.
It can't be that.
We can't stay if we have triggered Article 50, and we can't negotiate until we do.
Then we're stuffed. These people really didn't think the nature of e vote through at all. Maybe a vote on whether to trigger article 50 then, with two actual proposals, stay or what we think we can get, rather then what we have versus pie in the sky. It's a total disaster the way the question was asked.
Actually the question was quite clear, whether or not we should leave the EU. The result was we should, so we should.
As I said, an idiotically formed question. We are now in no man's land, out but with no clue as to what that means.
How else should it have been formed? Multiple answers simply gives an unfair advantage to the status quo.
How can we have a proposal when no negotiations can start until Article 50?
I was talking about the referendum, but the horse has already bolted on that one. Next time will have to be a proper binary choice rather than something definite versus something vague.
The proposal to stay in is easy, nothing changes, what about the proposal for leave? How are you to define that without knowing what the EU's position would be?
If there couldn't be a choice on what we were going to get then there shouldn't have been a referendum in the first place.
Clearly it will have to be WTO or whatever is negotiated Now but it's like being given a choice of 'Do you want to be punched in the face or in the stomach?' At least people will have to face up to the reality of the situation.though.
We're probably never going to see eye to eye on this topic. One of the reasons the 2.8 million DNVers broke so heavily for leave is that they have no skin in the UK game. Saying they have to face up to reality is fine, but what do you mean?
To reiterate. Nearly half the households in this country have less than £1500 in savings. Almost half the population don't even holiday abroad. We're not a nation of share owners. Only 10 million people are even members of occupational pension schemes. A tenth of the workforce gets the minimum wage.
Michael White on Leadsom: Leadsom lacks experience, yet character and determination matter, too. Politics is sometimes about the bold seizing an opportunity, as Thatcher did in 1975. Tory activists, on whose stooped shoulders the burden of decision falls, may soon indulge themselves by electing another Jeremy Corbyn. There again, distasteful though you may think it, they may be picking another formidable Thatcher.
The new vote would have to be on the leave proposal after negotiations, an election isn't enough as It confuses that decision with too many other factors. A simple question with a binary choice this time, this or stay.
It can't be that.
We can't stay if we have triggered Article 50, and we can't negotiate until we do.
Then we're stuffed. These people really didn't think the nature of e vote through at all. Maybe a vote on whether to trigger article 50 then, with two actual proposals, stay or what we think we can get, rather then what we have versus pie in the sky. It's a total disaster the way the question was asked.
Actually the question was quite clear, whether or not we should leave the EU. The result was we should, so we should.
As I said, an idiotically formed question. We are now in no man's land, out but with no clue as to what that means.
How else should it have been formed? Multiple answers simply gives an unfair advantage to the status quo.
An actual proposal. We now are in a situation where there is nobody who can be held accountable, the main leavers have run away or have been/will be defeated, labour won't own it, a May led Conservative party won't own it.
Being where we now find ourselves, If we don't get a chance to vote on EEA, free movement or whatever, there will be hell to pay.
That would in effect be committing an elected government to policies written by a campaign group... suppose the political reality of the time is that the government couldn't get that set of policies through parliament.
The only workable position would be for the government to have come up with both the in and the out position as full formed policy decisions and then asked the voters to pick which they prefered. Seems a little unlikely politically speaking when the government did even go any contingency planning incase it showed that things would not be to bad, and that leaked and scotched their fearmongering.
Every Leave minister will be asked about the delivery of the promises they made. Why is the government not spending £350 million a week extra on the NHS like you said it would might be one regular question.
If you can spot it in the 2015 Conservative manifesto you win a prize.
Good luck with that line :-)
How many votes do you think it will cost PM May in 2020 vs Corbyn ?
The new vote would have to be on the leave proposal after negotiations, an election isn't enough as It confuses that decision with too many other factors. A simple question with a binary choice this time, this or stay.
It can't be that.
We can't stay if we have triggered Article 50, and we can't negotiate until we do.
Then we're stuffed. These people really didn't think the nature of e vote through at all. Maybe a vote on whether to trigger article 50 then, with two actual proposals, stay or what we think we can get, rather then what we have versus pie in the sky. It's a total disaster the way the question was asked.
Actually the question was quite clear, whether or not we should leave the EU. The result was we should, so we should.
As I said, an idiotically formed question. We are now in no man's land, out but with no clue as to what that means.
How else should it have been formed? Multiple answers simply gives an unfair advantage to the status quo.
An actual proposal. We now are in a situation where there is nobody who can be held accountable, the main leavers have run away or have been/will be defeated, labour won't own it, a May led Conservative party won't own it.
Being where we now find ourselves, If we don't get a chance to vote on EEA, free movement or whatever, there will be hell to pay.
That would in effect be committing an elected government to policies written by a campaign group... suppose the political reality of the time is that the government couldn't get that set of policies through parliament.
The only workable position would be for the government to have come up with both the in and , and that leaked and scotched their fearmongering.
Every Leave minister will be asked about the delivery of the promises they made. Why is the government not spending £350 million a week extra on the NHS like you said it would might be one regular question.
If you can spot it in the 2015 Conservative manifesto you win a prize.
Good luck with that line :-)
How many votes do you think it will cost PM May in 2020 vs Corbyn ?
I think it very much depends on where the economy is and how voters are feeling generally.
I know the feeling. That comes with switching from Labour to LD in 1997. The LDs never win anything. I gave up on them last time and abstained by voting Ukip. We held the labour majority to 20,000 but everyone around here voted Leave in the referendum.
At last. Become a Leaver, it does create a warm feeling and you can smile at the more extreme Remain reactions. Ah, diddums.
I don’t think I know anyone under 40 who voted Leave, and I know many of them are are distraught at the prospect of bringing back borders
It's clear that many people in their thirties did vote Leave (though still outnumbered by those who voted Remain). 41/42 seems to be the tipping point at which a majority of people switched to Leave.
The only really big outliers seem to have been 18-24 year olds, and those aged 65+.
Those few 18-24 year olds who got off their arses and voted, that is. Unlike the arthritic army, waiting on new hips and knees, who crawled to the polling station anyway.
(OK, so they may have had postal votes. But my point stands....they could be arsed to wield the pencil.)
Certainly the young bear a heavy responsibility for the final result. their unwillingness to engage in the political process is so very depressing.
I agree - I look back to 2010 with the Lib Dems around 25% to 30% in the polls and young voters in particular looking forward to a world without tuition fees. The only problem was that, come the day, they didn't get out there and bloody vote.
Had they done it and delivered the Lib Dems with possibly 100 seats, maybe just maybe they wouldn't have had to ditch the tuition fee pledge and the students would have benefited.
If only half of the students who claimed that they had been betrayed by the Lib Dems after voting for them in 2010 had actually VOTED then we wouldn't had embarked on our journey down the pan.
It's no coincidence that the Tories dish out cash to the old and stuff the young - old voters vote - young ones don't !
"Why did Nick Clegg cross the street ? " - Ans: "Because he promised, he wouldn't."
So, it's the fault of the young voters then.
The Tuition Fee betrayal saved £1bn.
You may have noticed that after 6 years, this week the Tories have dumped their policy of a balanced budget.
They are still borrowing £60bn a year. It would have been £61bn otherwise.
Whether you're for or against, tuition fees are absolubte chicken feed compared to the costs of Brexit/Iraq.
You are right. That SoB, Bliar, a neo-con, should rot in Abu Ghraib.
Every Leave minister will be asked about the delivery of the promises they made. Why is the government not spending £350 million a week extra on the NHS like you said it would might be one regular question.
Your dreaming, but it if makes you happy I wont stop you. The public won't care. If you tell them on the doorstep they will shrug, tell you its old news, and wonder why you are surprised about politicians lying, Dave lied through his teeth for year and years and he did fine. They might also mention WW3, £4300 a year, and refugee camps in Kent, and the end of western civilisation, if you are unlucky
They had every chance to keep Leadsom off the ballot and didn't take it.
Carbon copy of Labour MPs and Corbyn.
So no surprise if the activists again choose the person who they love but is at the same time unelectable. They may think that doesn't matter as she'll beat Corbyn but if Labour get a decent leader it's blindingly obvious that May would be far stronger at the next GE.
I guess the only difference is that if this happens, Con MPs have the option of removing Leadsom in a straight MPs vote and if they do so she is 100% out.
The new vote would have to be on the leave proposal after negotiations, an election isn't enough as It confuses that decision with too many other factors. A simple question with a binary choice this time, this or stay.
It can't be that.
We can't stay if we have triggered Article 50, and we can't negotiate until we do.
Then we're stuffed. These people really didn't think the nature of e vote through at all. Maybe a vote on whether to trigger article 50 then, with two actual proposals, stay or what we think we can get, rather then what we have versus pie in the sky. It's a total disaster the way the question was asked.
Actually the question was quite clear, whether or not we should leave the EU. The result was we should, so we should.
As I said, an idiotically formed question. We are now in no man's land, out but with no clue as to what that means.
How else should it have been formed? Multiple answers simply gives an unfair advantage to the status quo.
That would in effect be committing an elected government to policies written by a campaign group... suppose the political reality of the time is that the government couldn't get that set of policies through parliament.
The only workable position would be for the government to have come up with both the in and , and that leaked and scotched their fearmongering.
Every Leave minister will be asked about the delivery of the promises they made. Why is the government not spending £350 million a week extra on the NHS like you said it would might be one regular question.
If you can spot it in the 2015 Conservative manifesto you win a prize.
Good luck with that line :-)
How many votes do you think it will cost PM May in 2020 vs Corbyn ?
I think it very much depends on where the economy is and how voters are feeling generally.
They will blame PM May for not delivering on a policy she didn't promise ? :
So no surprise if the activists again choose the person who they love but is at the same time unelectable. They may think that doesn't matter as she'll beat Corbyn but if Labour get a decent leader it's blindingly obvious that May would be far stronger at the next GE
I don't think it's obvious at all. May is not a proven campaigner and Leadsom is likely to win a large chunk of the UKIP vote (and would-be UKIP switchers from Labour) which will provide a buffer in many marginals.
This week's New Scientist is pretty upbeat about the effect of Brexit on the environment. It seems that the UK has been responsible for blocking or watering down many EU environmental regulations in recent years. Because of this, future EU environment laws are likely to be stronger without the input of the UK, but the UK will still have to abide by them in the event of a Norway-type arrangement.
Imagine the regression in animal welfare laws in the EU now that the Uk is out.
Cheap veal will be on the menu.
What makes you think other EU countries are less concerned about animal welfare than the UK? Which EU laws do you think they'll repeal?
THis is one area where I hope we can remain ahead of EU legislation outwith or within:
The UK was ahead of the EU on sow stall legislation, to give a specific example.
Remember, though, that the EU laws are merely the lowest common denominator. Having lived there for 10 years, I'm sure that many animals in countries such as Germany are also kept in better conditions than EU law demands.
Anyway, my (and the New Scientist's) original point was that the UK has held back EU environmental legislation in recent years, and so future EU environmental legislation is likely to be stronger and, ultimately, will benefit animals as well as people.
Given that the UK has, for better or worse (and I of course would suggest worse), had far stronger laws to limit CO2 emissions than the rest of the EU and has had more success in cutting emissions I would suggest that your claims (and those of New Scientist) are mistaken. Even more so if one adds in the fact that the UK has unilaterally introduced the largest marine conservation areas in the world.
You'll forgive me if I place more credence in the opinions of the New Scientist than I do in yours.
The new vote would have to be on the leave proposal after negotiations, an election isn't enough as It confuses that decision with too many other factors. A simple question with a binary choice this time, this or stay.
It can't be that.
We can't stay if we have triggered Article 50, and we can't negotiate until we do.
Then we're stuffed. These people really didn't think the nature of e vote through at all. Maybe a vote on whether to trigger article 50 then, with two actual proposals, stay or what we think we can get, rather then what we have versus pie in the sky. It's a total disaster the way the question was asked.
Actually the question was quite clear, whether or not we should leave the EU. The result was we should, so we should.
As I said, an idiotically formed question. We are now in no man's land, out but with no clue as to what that means.
How else should it have been formed? Multiple answers simply gives an unfair advantage to the status quo.
How can we have a proposal when no negotiations can start until Article 50?
I was talking about the referendum, but the horse has already bolted on that one. Next time will have to be a proper binary choice rather than something definite versus something vague.
The proposal to stay in is easy, nothing changes, what about the proposal
We're probably never going to see eye to eye on this topic. One of the reasons the 2.8 million DNVers broke so heavily for leave is that they have no skin in the UK game. Saying they have to face up to reality is fine, but what do you mean?
To reiterate. Nearly half the households in this country have less than £1500 in savings. Almost half the population don't even holiday abroad. We're not a nation of share owners. Only 10 million people are even members of occupational pension schemes. A tenth of the workforce gets the minimum wage.
Because otherwise they, and others, will go back to blaming everyone else and that they didn't vote for this. Give people a choice, yes, but make sure that they also have the opportunity to remain engaged.
If you can spot it in the 2015 Conservative manifesto you win a prize.
Good luck with that line :-)
In 2010 Dave promised to reduce immigration to 10's of thousands, he produced a Contract with Britain promising it, and telling us to kick him out if he didn't do it. He spectacularly failed to do it, and got re-elected with a majority.
The new vote would have to be on the leave proposal after negotiations, an election isn't enough as It confuses that decision with too many other factors. A simple question with a binary choice this time, this or stay.
It can't be that.
We can't stay if we have triggered Article 50, and we can't negotiate until we do.
Then we're stuffed. These people really didn't think the nature of e vote through at all. Maybe a vote on whether to trigger article 50 then, with two actual proposals, stay or what we think we can get, rather then what we have versus pie in the sky. It's a total disaster the way the question was asked.
Actually the question was quite clear, whether or not we should leave the EU. The result was we should, so we should.
As I said, an idiotically formed question. We are now in no man's land, out but with no clue as to what that means.
How else should it have been formed? Multiple answers simply gives an unfair advantage to the status quo.
That would in effect be committing an elected government to policies written by a campaign group... suppose the political reality of the time is that the government couldn't get that set of policies through parliament.
The only workable position would be for the government to have come up with both the in and , and that leaked and scotched their fearmongering.
Every Leave minister will be asked about the delivery of the promises they made. Why is the government not spending £350 million a week extra on the NHS like you said it would might be one regular question.
If you can spot it in the 2015 Conservative manifesto you win a prize.
Good luck with that line :-)
How many votes do you think it will cost PM May in 2020 vs Corbyn ?
I think it very much depends on where the economy is and how voters are feeling generally.
They will blame PM May for not delivering on a policy she didn't promise ? :
Crisis what crisis?, we have beaten the Argies at their own game:
Bloomberg - Pound Overtakes Argentine Peso to Become 2016’s Worst Performer http://bloom.bg/29n0s5x
"That the pound surpassed the Argentine peso as the world’s worst performer is all the more remarkable given that the South American nation’s economy shrank in 2014 and that President Mauricio Macri has removed most of the currency controls that had been propping up the exchange rate. It’s only in December that the peso was devalued"
The wisdom in holidaying in Suffolk this year is vindicated.
That's bull. The reason its worse performing this year is precisely because December is LAST YEAR. If you take a 12 month comparison or longer that includes the most recent devaluation the peso performs much, much worse *rolleyes*
"Sterling doing worse than devalued currency if you only look at after the devaluation" shocker.
@PickardJE: About to break: Tata is in talks with German rival Thyssenkrupp about a joint venture for their European assets, including Port Talbot.
@rupertevelyn: BREAK: Port Talbot to stay with Tata but I understand 100 million pound cost cutting to follow. Expect job losses
hmm
a JV just means theyll close the british plants and move production to Germany.
Tata owns two steel mills. Thyssenkrupp is interested in the Netherlands one because it is profitable, in the EU and uses their technology, unlike the Welsh plant. From what I read
If you can spot it in the 2015 Conservative manifesto you win a prize.
Good luck with that line :-)
In 2010 Dave promised to reduce immigration to 10's of thousands, he produced a Contract with Britain promising it, and telling us to kick him out if he didn't do it. He spectacularly failed to do it, and got re-elected with a majority.
Actually, IIRC the Tories did quite badly in areas with problems with immigration. It’s just that the votes didn’t turn into UKIP seats. Meanwhile his people turned their fire on their erstwhile partners and Labour were comprehensively done over by the SNP.
This week's New Scientist is pretty upbeat about the effect of Brexit on the environment. It seems that the UK has been responsible for blocking or watering down many EU environmental regulations in recent years. Because of this, future EU environment laws are likely to be stronger without the input of the UK, but the UK will still have to abide by them in the event of a Norway-type arrangement.
Imagine the regression in animal welfare laws in the EU now that the Uk is out.
Cheap veal will be on the menu.
What makes you think other EU countries are less concerned about animal welfare than the UK? Which EU laws do you think they'll repeal?
THis is one area where I hope we can remain ahead of EU legislation outwith or within:
The UK was ahead of the EU on sow stall legislation, to give a specific example.
Remember, though, that the EU laws are merely the lowest common denominator. Having lived there for 10 years, I'm sure that many animals in countries such as Germany are also kept in better conditions than EU law demands.
Anyway, my (and the New Scientist's) original point was that the UK has held back EU environmental legislation in recent years, and so future EU environmental legislation is likely to be stronger and, ultimately, will benefit animals as well as people.
Given that the UK has, for better or worse (and I of course would suggest worse), had far stronger laws to limit CO2 emissions than the rest of the EU and has had more success in cutting emissions I would suggest that your claims (and those of New Scientist) are mistaken. Even more so if one adds in the fact that the UK has unilaterally introduced the largest marine conservation areas in the world.
You'll forgive me if I place more credence in the opinions of the New Scientist than I do in yours.
China 149% India 48% Russia 19% Poland 7% Austria 0% Nethrld -3% Japan -3% Austrl -4% Greece -11% Germany -12% France -13% Switz -15% Italy -15% USA -16% Canada -19% Belgium -21% UK -23% Prtugal -23% Denmark -25% Ireland -27%
@PickardJE: About to break: Tata is in talks with German rival Thyssenkrupp about a joint venture for their European assets, including Port Talbot.
@rupertevelyn: BREAK: Port Talbot to stay with Tata but I understand 100 million pound cost cutting to follow. Expect job losses
hmm
a JV just means theyll close the british plants and move production to Germany.
Tata owns two steel mills. Thyssenkrupp is interested in the Netherlands one because it is profitable, in the EU and uses their technology, unlike the Welsh plant. From what I read
The former Hoogovens plant at Ijmuiden is too expensive to close.
Crisis what crisis?, we have beaten the Argies at their own game:
Bloomberg - Pound Overtakes Argentine Peso to Become 2016’s Worst Performer http://bloom.bg/29n0s5x
"That the pound surpassed the Argentine peso as the world’s worst performer is all the more remarkable given that the South American nation’s economy shrank in 2014 and that President Mauricio Macri has removed most of the currency controls that had been propping up the exchange rate. It’s only in December that the peso was devalued"
The wisdom in holidaying in Suffolk this year is vindicated.
That's bull. The reason its worse performing this year is precisely because December is LAST YEAR. If you take a 12 month comparison or longer that includes the most recent devaluation the peso performs much, much worse *rolleyes*
"Sterling doing worse than devalued currency if you only look at after the devaluation" shocker.
Bloody Argies and their gamesmanship!
I wonder if we can beat them over the next six months.
Comments
"But we voted for EEA (or whatever) without freedom of movement"
"Tough...."
If we do better than that, great. I say that as someone who favours EEA. Hope for the best, plan for the worst.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2016/guide/flyn/
I wrote them an open letter about it.
http://ponyonthetories.blogspot.co.uk/
An eight second skim of the agreement (http://www.efta.int/media/documents/legal-texts/free-trade-relations/canada/EFTA-Canada Free Trade Agreement EN.pdf) would suggest that we'd need to see the treaty adjusted.
But at least it already exists.
The Parties may invite any State to become a Party to this Agreement. The terms
and conditions of the participation by the additional Party shall be the subject of an
agreement between the Parties and the invited State.
Cheap veal will be on the menu.
If they didn't vote for this, when would they?!
Disclosure, I am under 30. And though I voted Leave, it's still enfuriating 18-24 year olds, most of whom would not agree with me, didn't bother.
a) The thing we have now that you probably don't understand.
b) Another thing that you don't understand.
c) This other thing that you don't understand either.
I just don't see how it could have been framed any differently.
Being where we now find ourselves, If we don't get a chance to vote on EEA, free movement or whatever, there will be hell to pay.
The UK was ahead of the EU on sow stall legislation, to give a specific example.
So, if you attempt to pull up the webpage and it isn't there, it was my fault.
https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/751445720310353920
"We can’t leave the negotiations with Europe to the Tories"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/08/jeremy-corbyn-labour-negotiations-europe-tories-exploit-cheap-labour?CMP=share_btn_tw
Anyway, my (and the New Scientist's) original point was that the UK has held back EU environmental legislation in recent years, and so future EU environmental legislation is likely to be stronger and, ultimately, will benefit animals as well as people.
Chickens and pig rearing standards in the Uk far higher than the EU.
That's a political reason. The practical reason is as you say. We're resigning from a club. We can't just lay down the law to the other club members. "We're leaving, would like tariff-free access to the Single Market, with some curbs on FoM". "Fuck off". "Oh dear".
Clearly it will have to be WTO or whatever is negotiated now but it's like being given a choice of 'Do you want to be punched in the face or in the stomach?' At least people will have to face up to the reality of the situation.though.
https://twitter.com/michaelpdeacon/status/747000584226607104
The only workable position would be for the government to have come up with both the in and the out position as full formed policy decisions and then asked the voters to pick which they prefered. Seems a little unlikely politically speaking when the government did even go any contingency planning incase it showed that things would not be to bad, and that leaked and scotched their fearmongering.
Bloomberg - Pound Overtakes Argentine Peso to Become 2016’s Worst Performer http://bloom.bg/29n0s5x
"That the pound surpassed the Argentine peso as the world’s worst performer is all the more remarkable given that the South American nation’s economy shrank in 2014 and that President Mauricio Macri has removed most of the currency controls that had been propping up the exchange rate. It’s only in December that the peso was devalued"
The wisdom in holidaying in Suffolk this year is vindicated.
If the site does go down over the weekend, I plan to put up the F1 stuff at normal times over at enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk. The only difference may be waiting until Sunday morning for the pre-race piece (although that's unlikely) if the race weather forecast looks uncertain.
It's like watching Lewis Hamilton drive a Trabant.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36743862
The International Monetary Fund has cuts its economic growth forecasts for the eurozone in the wake of the UK's vote to leave the European Union.
The eurozone is expected to grow by 1.6% this year and 1.4% in 2017. Before the referendum the IMF had predicted growth of 1.7% for both years.
The IMF also revised down its 2018 growth forecast to 1.6% from 1.7%.
...
The revised 2017 figure was the IMF's "best case" scenario, assuming a deal was struck that allowed the UK to retain its access to the EU's single market, Mr Pradhan said.
However, if the UK decided not to maintain close ties with the EU and chose to rely on World Trade Organization rules, there could be "major disruptions," he said.
Mr Pradhan added it was "very, very early days to have any strong sense of confidence" about what the eventual relationship between the UK and EU would be.
It does rather show that Jezza doesn't understand this election business and why it is worth trying to win them!
@rupertevelyn: BREAK: Port Talbot to stay with Tata but I understand 100 million pound cost cutting to follow. Expect job losses
To reiterate. Nearly half the households in this country have less than £1500 in savings. Almost half the population don't even holiday abroad. We're not a nation of share owners. Only 10 million people are even members of occupational pension schemes. A tenth of the workforce gets the minimum wage.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/08/andrea-leadsom-tories-another-formidable-thatcher-theresa-may
Now say thank you to Brexit.
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/review-alfred-great-by-justin-pollard.html
They had every chance to keep Leadsom off the ballot and didn't take it.
Carbon copy of Labour MPs and Corbyn.
So no surprise if the activists again choose the person who they love but is at the same time unelectable. They may think that doesn't matter as she'll beat Corbyn but if Labour get a decent leader it's blindingly obvious that May would be far stronger at the next GE.
I guess the only difference is that if this happens, Con MPs have the option of removing Leadsom in a straight MPs vote and if they do so she is 100% out.
Optimistic.
a JV just means theyll close the british plants and move production to Germany.
"Sterling doing worse than devalued currency if you only look at after the devaluation" shocker.
Asset strip the UK because its easier
I wonder if we can beat them over the next six months.