I should emphasise that my suggested approach to a deal is my most optimistic scenario. There's a substantial risk that we may end up with a deal that is a lose-lose.
Sadly Richard with the hard-right Brexit clowns in charge I fear that is exactly where we will end up.
Time for Labour to put forward their Brexit ideas, surely?
No. Time for Labour to keep their gob shut, until the comics that are in charge of the party disappear from the scene (which I fear will be a long time in coming)
Do you actually understand the role of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition?
On Topic: They'll be a deal eventually. There always is a deal. But if Brexit is defined as the eventual permanent FTA being ratified it could be 6 to 8 years away. We've years of negotiation, speculation and transition ahead of us. The variables are so myriad it's impossible to forecast accurately. Presumably there will be some sort of benefit at the end of it. One hopes. I think the issue Mr Meeks hints at is this though. The EU is an intergenerational political project with strong support amongst the elites on both sides of the Atlantic. It's badly wounded by Brexit and and it knows it. Those that persistently argue it's in the EU's interest to secure a smooth Brexit are bonkers. It's primary interest is in preventing contagion.
An organization which has to punish ex-members in order to keep existing members in line is not an organization worth being a member of, IMO.
Britain would have voted to stay in if the advantages outweighed the disadvantages.
The EU should be asking itself - in private at least - why it is that after 43 years experience of this apparently wonderful organization, a majority of the population in Britain wanted out. Might it, possibly, have had something to do with the EU itself: how it is structured, how it has behaved, how it intends to behave in future? Just possibly?
I am astonished by the EU's reaction, and total lack of self-awareness, even if i am not entirely surprised.
They really misunderstand Britons if they think we will be humbled and chastened by punishing us: anyone who knows this nation's character knows how badly we take to that.
I stick to what I've said before: if the EU has no answers and does not reform, it will fall.
It is not punishment for a club to remove benefits when you quit and stop paying subs. Indeed it is unreasonable to expect otherwise. A club exists for its members not its ex-members.
Quite. Further, assuming the majority of the club want it to grow and prosper, why should they not make it at least moderately unpleasant for those who leave? If only pour encourager les autres? I’m told that while leaqving the Freemasons (etc) may be amicable, one can suddenly find that one has lost friends.
''It is not punishment for a club to remove benefits when you quit and stop paying subs. Indeed it is unreasonable to expect otherwise. A club exists for its members not its ex-members. ''
Most clubs want to know why you are leaving rather than resolving to smack you in the mouth to keep other members from doing the same.
During the campaign, I and others often advised that the Remain camp should not act as if the EU were a prison from which no member might ever contemplate leaving.
Since the vote, they have justified their refusal to accept their refusal to accept the vote by trying to scare everyone that it exactly that, and that the EU will Punish us for having the temerity to leave.
The EU will not punish us. We will simply not be able to have the benefits of membership.
During the campaign, I and others often advised that the Remain camp should not act as if the EU were a prison from which no member might ever contemplate leaving.
Since the vote, they have justified their refusal to accept their refusal to accept the vote by trying to scare everyone that it exactly that, and that the EU will Punish us for having the temerity to leave.
You have that ass backwards
It is the Brexiteers who are whining about the EU "punishing" us for leaving
Remainers are pointing out that less than favourable trading terms are the rational, logical, obvious and entirely predictable (and predicted) response to current events
I have no issue with paying for services provided and putting up a subscription for beneficial projects, but paying into the EU coffers is a no.
That was one of my reasons for suggesting it. The usual suspects here in the UK would squeal like mad, which would help our European counterparties present it domestically as a great Win in the negotiations.
On Topic: They'll be a deal eventually. There always is a deal. But if Brexit is defined as the eventual permanent FTA being ratified it could be 6 to 8 years away. We've years of negotiation, speculation and transition ahead of us. The variables are so myriad it's impossible to forecast accurately. Presumably there will be some sort of benefit at the end of it. One hopes. I think the issue Mr Meeks hints at is this though. The EU is an intergenerational political project with strong support amongst the elites on both sides of the Atlantic. It's badly wounded by Brexit and and it knows it. Those that persistently argue it's in the EU's interest to secure a smooth Brexit are bonkers. It's primary interest is in preventing contagion.
An organization which has to punish ex-members in order to keep existing members in line is not an organization worth being a member of, IMO.
Britain would have voted to stay in if the advantages outweighed the disadvantages.
The EU should be asking itself - in private at least - why it is that after 43 years experience of this apparently wonderful organization, a majority of the population in Britain wanted out. Might it, possibly, have had something to do with the EU itself: how it is structured, how it has behaved, how it intends to behave in future? Just possibly?
I am astonished by the EU's reaction, and total lack of self-awareness, even if i am not entirely surprised.
They really misunderstand Britons if they think we will be humbled and chastened by punishing us: anyone who knows this nation's character knows how badly we take to that.
I stick to what I've said before: if the EU has no answers and does not reform, it will fall.
I'm not. The EU is an instinctively protectionist bloc, the Eurocrats are trying to close ranks in order to protect the core idea. They don't understand that the more they push these disparate countries closer together the bigger the reaction will be. Brexit will seem like child's play when facing down Chancellor Petry in 10 years or President Le Pen in 7.
''Finally as for ' Remainers ' not shutting up you betcha.''
Nobody wants anybody to shut up. Nobody wants anybody to accept any decision.
Its the nature of the remainer argument that grates, ie whining about a political setback rather than getting out there and putting the case for rejoining.
Jeremy Paxman on his father: "'I was thrashed with sticks, shoes, cricket stumps, cricket bats or the flat of his hand.’
"In the following chapter, he describes being caned by the head of house at his public school (Malvern). The young Paxman had refused to obey some order from a prefect called Robinson."
On Topic: They'll be a deal eventually. There always is a deal. But if Brexit is defined as the eventual permanent FTA being ratified it could be 6 to 8 years away. We've years of negotiation, speculation and transition ahead of us. The variables are so myriad it's impossible to forecast accurately. Presumably there will be some sort of benefit at the end of it. One hopes. I think the issue Mr Meeks hints at is this though. The EU is an intergenerational political project with strong support amongst the elites on both sides of the Atlantic. It's badly wounded by Brexit and and it knows it. Those that persistently argue it's in the EU's interest to secure a smooth Brexit are bonkers. It's primary interest is in preventing contagion.
An organization which has to punish ex-members in order to keep existing members in line is not an organization worth being a member of, IMO.
Britain would have voted to stay in if the advantages outweighed the disadvantages.
The EU should be asking itself - in private at least - why it is that after 43 years experience of this apparently wonderful organization, a majority of the population in Britain wanted out. Might it, possibly, have had something to do with the EU itself: how it is structured, how it has behaved, how it intends to behave in future? Just possibly?
I am astonished by the EU's reaction, and total lack of self-awareness, even if i am not entirely surprised.
They really misunderstand Britons if they think we will be humbled and chastened by punishing us: anyone who knows this nation's character knows how badly we take to that.
I stick to what I've said before: if the EU has no answers and does not reform, it will fall.
It is not punishment for a club to remove benefits when you quit and stop paying subs. Indeed it is unreasonable to expect otherwise. A club exists for its members not its ex-members.
Quite. Further, assuming the majority of the club want it to grow and prosper, why should they not make it at least moderately unpleasant for those who leave? If only pour encourager les autres? I’m told that while leaqving the Freemasons (etc) may be amicable, one can suddenly find that one has lost friends.
Ultimately, that will be self defeating. IN the end the club is seen as being a prison, because it holds too many levers of power over the natural holders of power - the elected governments and their people. The resentment that might breed might not be the best thing to let out of the bottle, because it won't go back in.
Jeremy Paxman on his father: "'I was thrashed with sticks, shoes, cricket stumps, cricket bats or the flat of his hand.’
"In the following chapter, he describes being caned by the head of house at his public school (Malvern). The young Paxman had refused to obey some order from a prefect called Robinson."
The answer is to try an ensure our lowest paid benefit from globalisation but still keeping the economy open. Not easy, but I'd rather Brexit than PM Nige in 4 years.
Well said.
I think 2020 could see two candidates worse than Clinton and Trump, if Clinton doesn't "get" what Trump's candidacy signifies and take action. If even Americans have had enough of the effects of globalisation, and they benefit from globalisation more than any other advanced economy, then the whole current approach to economies and trade is in peril. We can fix things now, or potentially see the status quo swept away later.
''We should also be aware that comments like Amber Rudd's do in fact reverberate globally in a way that doesn't happen to equivalents in most other countries. This is the dark side to London being a global, English-speaking media capital.''
I got lambasted as a sexist on here for criticising Rudd. She's an overpromoted idiot because she's an over promoted idiot, and not because she is a woman.
The problem is that she has been over-promoted largely because of her ovaries.
A male MP of similar stupidity would have sunk without trace years ago after a short inglorious stint as a junior minister.
Jezza recognises that Rudd is the weak link in May's top team. That is why he has put his best player as her shadow, to fully exploit that weakness.
Do you want to reflect on that for a while? If Diane Abbott is the best player the PLP has what does that say about the rest?
@BethRigby: Labour MP tells me whips resigning "en masse" but news 2 be dripped out to avoid spike in Twitter trolling/suggestions of #reshuffle mishaps
"On the Republican side, Trump’s operation lags well behind Romney’s. Romney had far more offices than Trump does in battleground states like Iowa (13 vs. 5), North Carolina (24 vs. 8), and Virginia (29 vs. 11)."
@DMcCaffreySKY: Zac Goldsmith, he'll spark by-election if Government give green light to Heathrow, so as early as next week, possibly run as independent.
Surely the local party would just let him run unopposed if he went as an independent. That way there's nothing to lose and on everything else he'll vote with the government.
No chance. The Tories would run a candidate which would let the LDs through the middle
The Lib Dems would most likely get squeezed in such a circumstance, where the fight would undoubtedly be portrayed as Zac v the Tories. Indeed, the Lib Dems might not even stand at all and back Zac given that he won more than three times the LD share (i.e. it'd be mathematically impossible for them to 'come through the middle' without gaining a substantial swing into the bargain too).
If Zac stands as an independent, the Tories don't stand. Prevents him making a great stand, and frees up Tory votes to support him.
I don't think that's a precedent the Conservatives could support. Either Zac stands as a Tory or a Tory stands against him.
I should emphasise that my suggested approach to a deal is my most optimistic scenario. There's a substantial risk that we may end up with a deal that is a lose-lose.
Sadly Richard with the hard-right Brexit clowns in charge I fear that is exactly where we will end up.
Time for Labour to put forward their Brexit ideas, surely?
No. Time for Labour to keep their gob shut, until the comics that are in charge of the party disappear from the scene (which I fear will be a long time in coming)
Do you actually understand the role of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition?
Yes.
Sadly we don't have one.
True - but with Keir Stamer taking over the Shadow Brexit role perhaps we might get some more intelligent probing than 'nasty Tories'.....
@DMcCaffreySKY: Zac Goldsmith, he'll spark by-election if Government give green light to Heathrow, so as early as next week, possibly run as independent.
Surely the local party would just let him run unopposed if he went as an independent. That way there's nothing to lose and on everything else he'll vote with the government.
No chance. The Tories would run a candidate which would let the LDs through the middle
The Lib Dems would most likely get squeezed in such a circumstance, where the fight would undoubtedly be portrayed as Zac v the Tories. Indeed, the Lib Dems might not even stand at all and back Zac given that he won more than three times the LD share (i.e. it'd be mathematically impossible for them to 'come through the middle' without gaining a substantial swing into the bargain too).
If Zac stands as an independent, the Tories don't stand. Prevents him making a great stand, and frees up Tory votes to support him.
I don't think that's a precedent the Conservatives could support. Either Zac stands as a Tory or a Tory stands against him.
It would effectively be "no platforming" him, if the Tories aren't in the race it won't get any coverage which will make his resignation seem pointless. Much in the same way Labour didn't run against David Davis when he resigned over 90 day detention.
On Trump. He is a goner. I don't have a feel for the electoral calculus, but he has gone from a figure of fear to a figure of contempt and a butt of jokes in the past fortnight.
On Labour. I actually think the new Shadow Cabinet is coherent. I don't say competent, and certainly not electable - but Corbyn finally has a team in his own image. They may therefore settle down a bit and provide some kind of desultory "opposition". But Labour will be thrashed, and I mean thrashed, at the next election. I am predicting sub 28% and I would not be surprised to see a result in the low 20s...
...at least I would if it weren't for the demise of UKIP. Sans Farage, sans money, sans leader, and rapidly toxifying, they are finished as a political force. I expect them to fracture as Banks funds a new movement.
I maintain though that we have a vaccuum in the Opposition. How that gets filled --- whether by the LDs, a breakaway PLP, a new anti-immigration movement, the return of Blair, or Balls, or Miliband D, or even Osborne --- I do not know.
All look unlikely. But *something* will spring up.
If interest rates go up, that will be for most voters because May/Hammond are not handing the economy properly, and that will be the end of it, very few will link it to BrExit at all, except obsessives on here.
Every press report on every channel in all media will link it to Brexit.
If people cared what the media think we wouldn't have voted to leave would we...
Indeed - IIRC in the US, trust in media is down to 32%. Polling here has journalists down in the gutter too. Their 'fact checking' is confirmation bias - ditto 'analysis'.
''It is not punishment for a club to remove benefits when you quit and stop paying subs. Indeed it is unreasonable to expect otherwise. A club exists for its members not its ex-members. ''
Most clubs want to know why you are leaving rather than resolving to smack you in the mouth to keep other members from doing the same.
I have no issue with paying for services provided and putting up a subscription for beneficial projects, but paying into the EU coffers is a no.
That was one of my reasons for suggesting it. The usual suspects here in the UK would squeal like mad, which would help our European counterparties present it domestically as a great Win in the negotiations.
Deceit is never a good long term plan. It always bounces back and causes more damage than being honest in the first place would have done. A political strategy based on a misrepresentation is doomed to fail.
On Trump. He is a goner. I don't have a feel for the electoral calculus, but he has gone from a figure of fear to a figure of contempt and a butt of jokes in the past fortnight.
...which is fairly devastating for him, his brand is as a winner.
However, although it's entertaining to watch him melt down, the media won't want to go through the next month with the race looking like a foregone conclusion. He won't have to try very hard to "win" one of the remaining debates.
If someone can explain to me how $1.2434 to $1.2288 to $1.2384 within a couple of hours is possible without manipulation then they can go ahead. There is definitely someone seeing how low they can take Sterling.
''It is not punishment for a club to remove benefits when you quit and stop paying subs. Indeed it is unreasonable to expect otherwise. A club exists for its members not its ex-members. ''
Most clubs want to know why you are leaving rather than resolving to smack you in the mouth to keep other members from doing the same.
We know why the British are leaving, they were never really into it in the first place.
If you join, what you're signing up for , eventually, is to be incorporated into a new nation called Europe. We spent 43 years kidding ourselves that that wasn't the case.
Miss Plato, quite agree. Just look at the entirely sympathetic broadcast media coverage of the migrant crisis and contrast it with the public's perspective. The sympathetic approach neither reflects nor has swayed public opinion.
Got to say I really dislike the double standards on especially emotive imagery. Dead child on a Turkish beach gets shown, terrible video of a dazed, bloodied, dusty-faced child gets shown. But there's no comparable image or video produced of the children victims of Bastille Day.
I can see the arguments for either showing such things or not, but there's no defence for producing images in one instance but not the other.
If interest rates go up, that will be for most voters because May/Hammond are not handing the economy properly, and that will be the end of it, very few will link it to BrExit at all, except obsessives on here.
Every press report on every channel in all media will link it to Brexit.
If people cared what the media think we wouldn't have voted to leave would we...
Indeed - IIRC in the US, trust in media is down to 32%. Polling here has journalists down in the gutter too. Their 'fact checking' is confirmation bias - ditto 'analysis'.
As a profession, its lost its cache.
If you read many papers now, they employ very few journalists reporting news, and print an awful lot of opinion. The Guardian seems at the forefront of it.
The tabloids are just junk, but weren't they always?
''Why not. Give it a shot. If nothing else it would help scupper Labour in a few more seats and hasten the demise of Corbyn and Co.''
If a new libertarian centre party were to launch, it would need big hitters and star quality. Tone would certainly give it that, add in Mandy and (whisper it) Dave and you might have a going concern.
On Trump. He is a goner. I don't have a feel for the electoral calculus, but he has gone from a figure of fear to a figure of contempt and a butt of jokes in the past fortnight.
On Labour. I actually think the new Shadow Cabinet is coherent. I don't say competent, and certainly not electable - but Corbyn finally has a team in his own image. They may therefore settle down a bit and provide some kind of desultory "opposition". But Labour will be thrashed, and I mean thrashed, at the next election. I am predicting sub 28% and I would not be surprised to see a result in the low 20s...
...at least I would if it weren't for the demise of UKIP. Sans Farage, sans money, sans leader, and rapidly toxifying, they are finished as a political force. I expect them to fracture as Banks funds a new movement.
I maintain though that we have a vaccuum in the Opposition. How that gets filled --- whether by the LDs, a breakaway PLP, a new anti-immigration movement, the return of Blair, or Balls, or Miliband D, or even Osborne --- I do not know.
All look unlikely. But *something* will spring up.
Blair and new party, possible with D Miliband as leader or major candidate. Centre ground party, no unions. Suddenly the Tories would be in panic mode. That would certainly top 2016 off nicely as a political year.
If someone can explain to me how $1.2434 to $1.2288 to $1.2384 is possible without manipulation then they can go ahead. There is definitely someone seeing how low they can take Sterling.
I think the fundamental problem is that we literally have no alternative to the EU. It's fine to say the EU is not for us. But unless we can say what is for us, it just becomes a rejection. We're not likely to get a good deal either unless we know what we want Theresa May and her ministers can talk about Britain open for business, but that's just a meaningless soundbite. We went into the EU in 1973 because we didn't have a better alternative. We're leaving forty years later still without an answer to that question.
Singapore of the North Atlantic, isn't it?
Seriously though I think most intellectual energy has gone into detailing the wrongs of the EU. Now, some energy (by necessity) is going into how we leave the EU. But I've yet to see a coherent case for a prosperous UK beyond the EU.
An ultra free trade libertarian paradise is not politically possible and indeed the global financial crisis savagely exposed some of the assumptions underpinning this model.
Perhaps, if I'm optimistic, I'd say that the UK is not alone in not clearly understanding "what's next". See also the intellectual collapse of parties of the right and left around the world. Maybe Brexit will force us to reach an answer before anyone else!
Yes, even if Hillary scrapes home, the underlying problem that Trump represents doesn't go away. A better and less crazy candidate that can fire up the WWC would walk it in the US in 2020. Brexit is our reaction to globalisation not benefiting the working classes, in other countries they are having r face down far right political parties like PVV, AfD, FPO and FN. Whatever we think of UKIP (especially after yesterday's farce) they are not anywhere near the levers of power unlike those mentioned.
In a sense because of our open economy the reaction has come first, but it will come in other countries just as surely as the sun rises in the east.
The answer is to try an ensure our lowest paid benefit from globalisation but still keeping the economy open. Not easy, but I'd rather Brexit than PM Nige in 4 years.
A less crazy candidate wont win the Republican nomination though, unless the RNC fix it. If it was proportional like the democratic one, Trump wouldn't have won.
The RNC by standing with Trump has probably poisoned their party as racists with Hispanic and African American communities as well.
@DMcCaffreySKY: Zac Goldsmith, he'll spark by-election if Government give green light to Heathrow, so as early as next week, possibly run as independent.
Surely the local party would just let him run unopposed if he went as an independent. That way there's nothing to lose and on everything else he'll vote with the government.
No chance. The Tories would run a candidate which would let the LDs through the middle
The Lib Dems would most likely get squeezed in such a circumstance, where the fight would undoubtedly be portrayed as Zac v the Tories. Indeed, the Lib Dems might not even stand at all and back Zac given that he won more than three times the LD share (i.e. it'd be mathematically impossible for them to 'come through the middle' without gaining a substantial swing into the bargain too).
If Zac stands as an independent, the Tories don't stand. Prevents him making a great stand, and frees up Tory votes to support him.
I don't think that's a precedent the Conservatives could support. Either Zac stands as a Tory or a Tory stands against him.
It would effectively be "no platforming" him, if the Tories aren't in the race it won't get any coverage which will make his resignation seem pointless. Much in the same way Labour didn't run against David Davis when he resigned over 90 day detention.
Except that Davis started as a Conservative and finished as one. Here, we're talking about Zac standing as an independent. If the Tories were to allow that without challenging him then it would give the green light to any other MP to do likewise and bag Tory implicit support without having to give back any loyalty.
''We should also be aware that comments like Amber Rudd's do in fact reverberate globally in a way that doesn't happen to equivalents in most other countries. This is the dark side to London being a global, English-speaking media capital.''
I got lambasted as a sexist on here for criticising Rudd. She's an overpromoted idiot because she's an over promoted idiot, and not because she is a woman.
The problem is that she has been over-promoted largely because of her ovaries.
A male MP of similar stupidity would have sunk without trace years ago after a short inglorious stint as a junior minister.
Jezza recognises that Rudd is the weak link in May's top team. That is why he has put his best player as her shadow, to fully exploit that weakness.
Do you want to reflect on that for a while? If Diane Abbott is the best player the PLP has what does that say about the rest?
Sorry that my irony wasn't obvious!
I thought it was very obvious if that's any comfort.
If someone can explain to me how $1.2434 to $1.2288 to $1.2384 within a couple of hours is possible without manipulation then they can go ahead. There is definitely someone seeing how low they can take Sterling.
It's a chaotic, non-linear system, so there doesn't necessarily have to be anyone doing anything. Especially when that system has been suffered the shock of Brexit. Who knows what gyrations it will make on its journey back towards equilibrium?
On Topic: They'll be a deal eventually. There always is a deal. But if Brexit is defined as the eventual permanent FTA being ratified it could be 6 to 8 years away. We've years of negotiation, speculation and transition ahead of us. The variables are so myriad it's impossible to forecast accurately. Presumably there will be some sort of benefit at the end of it. One hopes. I think the issue Mr Meeks hints at is this though. The EU is an intergenerational political project with strong support amongst the elites on both sides of the Atlantic. It's badly wounded by Brexit and and it knows it. Those that persistently argue it's in the EU's interest to secure a smooth Brexit are bonkers. It's primary interest is in preventing contagion.
Britain would have voted to stay in if the advantages outweighed the disadvantages.
The EU should be asking itself - in private at least - why it is that after 43 years experience of this apparently wonderful organization, a majority of the population in Britain wanted out. Might it, possibly, have had something to do with the EU itself: how it is structured, how it has behaved, how it intends to behave in future? Just possibly?
I am astonished by the EU's reaction, and total lack of self-awareness, even if i am not entirely surprised.
They really misunderstand Britons if they think we will be humbled and chastened by punishing us: anyone who knows this nation's character knows how badly we take to that.
I stick to what I've said before: if the EU has no answers and does not reform, it will fall.
It is not punishment for a club to remove benefits when you quit and stop paying subs. Indeed it is unreasonable to expect otherwise. A club exists for its members not its ex-members.
Quite. Further, assuming the majority of the club want it to grow and prosper, why should they not make it at least moderately unpleasant for those who leave? If only pour encourager les autres? I’m told that while leaqving the Freemasons (etc) may be amicable, one can suddenly find that one has lost friends.
Ultimately, that will be self defeating. IN the end the club is seen as being a prison, because it holds too many levers of power over the natural holders of power - the elected governments and their people. The resentment that might breed might not be the best thing to let out of the bottle, because it won't go back in.
It rather depends on how things turn out. If the club is seen as “safe” and the perception is that that safety has been disturbed by a noisy and discontented leaver then that leaver could easily run short of sympathy.
Mr. 43, I agree. As per Mr. Submarine's post, it would've been better to have a firmer vision in mind.
However, the EU has an idea but nothing else. It's approach is to subvert democracy in favour of the ideal, to make economic policy based on political desire, to erode national sovereignty in favour of the ideal.
What is best is to have an idea, and a sense of perspective.
On Trump. He is a goner. I don't have a feel for the electoral calculus, but he has gone from a figure of fear to a figure of contempt and a butt of jokes in the past fortnight.
On Labour. I actually think the new Shadow Cabinet is coherent. I don't say competent, and certainly not electable - but Corbyn finally has a team in his own image. They may therefore settle down a bit and provide some kind of desultory "opposition". But Labour will be thrashed, and I mean thrashed, at the next election. I am predicting sub 28% and I would not be surprised to see a result in the low 20s...
...at least I would if it weren't for the demise of UKIP. Sans Farage, sans money, sans leader, and rapidly toxifying, they are finished as a political force. I expect them to fracture as Banks funds a new movement.
I maintain though that we have a vaccuum in the Opposition. How that gets filled --- whether by the LDs, a breakaway PLP, a new anti-immigration movement, the return of Blair, or Balls, or Miliband D, or even Osborne --- I do not know.
All look unlikely. But *something* will spring up.
Blair and new party, possible with D Miliband as leader or major candidate. Centre ground party, no unions. Suddenly the Tories would be in panic mode. That would certainly top 2016 off nicely as a political year.
The trouble is that the public have long memories and for Iraq alone he'd be pulverised as would almost anyone with him.
As Hannibal said: We shall find a way, or make one.
The Romans had an idea. Like it or not, so does the EU. We don't. If we can't be original we can flatter with imitation.
As we have rejected our best, or at least most obvious option, we need to look seriously at the alternatives
What vision did the UK have in, say, 1750? Or choose any date, it doesn't matter. The idea that a nation has to have a vision and a plan to achieve it does not bear scrutiny.
On Trump. He is a goner. I don't have a feel for the electoral calculus, but he has gone from a figure of fear to a figure of contempt and a butt of jokes in the past fortnight.
On Labour. I actually think the new Shadow Cabinet is coherent. I don't say competent, and certainly not electable - but Corbyn finally has a team in his own image. They may therefore settle down a bit and provide some kind of desultory "opposition". But Labour will be thrashed, and I mean thrashed, at the next election. I am predicting sub 28% and I would not be surprised to see a result in the low 20s...
...at least I would if it weren't for the demise of UKIP. Sans Farage, sans money, sans leader, and rapidly toxifying, they are finished as a political force. I expect them to fracture as Banks funds a new movement.
I maintain though that we have a vaccuum in the Opposition. How that gets filled --- whether by the LDs, a breakaway PLP, a new anti-immigration movement, the return of Blair, or Balls, or Miliband D, or even Osborne --- I do not know.
All look unlikely. But *something* will spring up.
Blair and new party, possible with D Miliband as leader or major candidate. Centre ground party, no unions. Suddenly the Tories would be in panic mode. That would certainly top 2016 off nicely as a political year.
The trouble is that the public have long memories and for Iraq alone he'd be pulverised as would almost anyone with him.
Any party with Tony Blair playing a prominent role in it would be in trouble.
If someone can explain to me how $1.2434 to $1.2288 to $1.2384 within a couple of hours is possible without manipulation then they can go ahead. There is definitely someone seeing how low they can take Sterling.
It's a chaotic, non-linear system, so there doesn't necessarily have to be anyone doing anything. Especially when that system has been suffered the shock of Brexit. Who knows what gyrations it will make on its journey back towards equilibrium?
To trigger flash crashes isn't that hard AIUI, one guy did it from his attic. It feels like someone is trying to find out how low Sterling can go, and when or if the Bank will intervene.
WRT Trump, it certainly looks as though he'll lose, but one can't be certain. For all we know, the polls that are good for Trump will turn out to be correct, just as the polls that were good for Brexit turned out to be correct, and the polls that were most favourable to the Conservatives turned out to be the most accurate.
F1: just a reminder (as I'd forgotten) that Vettel has a three place grid penalty. Doubt it'll have a huge affect but may make it trickier for him to continue his unbroken run of Japanese podium finishes.
I am astonished by the EU's reaction, and total lack of self-awareness, even if i am not entirely surprised.
They really misunderstand Britons if they think we will be humbled and chastened by punishing us: anyone who knows this nation's character knows how badly we take to that.
I think you are completely misunderstanding their reaction. We are leaving, they now have zero interest in us, except obviously as an export market and as a friendly country like Canada. It is absolutely nothing to do with 'humbling' or 'chastening' us, but equally they don't owe us any favours. So they are looking at this entirely from the point of view of the remaining 27 and of the Union as a political project, which they want to preserve. It's all about their domestic politics in each country, and the overall internal politics of the EU.
I am certainly not misunderstanding them and they will certainly not have zero interest in us once we leave.
We have been a European country for centuries (funnily enough they were interested prior to 1973) and they will continue to be. I just think that their approach to saving the EU is madness.
They seem to be heading down a path to lose-lose at the moment.
If interest rates go up, that will be for most voters because May/Hammond are not handing the economy properly, and that will be the end of it, very few will link it to BrExit at all, except obsessives on here.
Every press report on every channel in all media will link it to Brexit.
err - do you think it's a sign of a healthy economy to have such low interest rates?
I think the fundamental problem is that we literally have no alternative to the EU. It's fine to say the EU is not for us. But unless we can say what is for us, it just becomes a rejection. We're not likely to get a good deal either unless we know what we want Theresa May and her ministers can talk about Britain open for business, but that's just a meaningless soundbite. We went into the EU in 1973 because we didn't have a better alternative. We're leaving forty years later still without an answer to that question.
Singapore of the North Atlantic, isn't it?
Seriously though I think most intellectual energy has gone into detailing the wrongs of the EU. Now, some energy (by necessity) is going into how we leave the EU. But I've yet to see a coherent case for a prosperous UK beyond the EU.
An ultra free trade libertarian paradise is not politically possible and indeed the global financial crisis savagely exposed some of the assumptions underpinning this model.
Perhaps, if I'm optimistic, I'd say that the UK is not alone in not clearly understanding "what's next". See also the intellectual collapse of parties of the right and left around the world. Maybe Brexit will force us to reach an answer before anyone else!
Yes, even if Hillary scrapes home, the underlying problem that Trump represents doesn't go away. A better and less crazy candidate that can fire up the WWC would walk it in the US in 2020. Brexit is our reaction to globalisation not benefiting the working classes, in other countries they are having r face down far right political parties like PVV, AfD, FPO and FN. Whatever we think of UKIP (especially after yesterday's farce) they are not anywhere near the levers of power unlike those mentioned.
In a sense because of our open economy the reaction has come first, but it will come in other countries just as surely as the sun rises in the east.
The answer is to try an ensure our lowest paid benefit from globalisation but still keeping the economy open. Not easy, but I'd rather Brexit than PM Nige in 4 years.
A less crazy candidate wont win the Republican nomination though, unless the RNC fix it. If it was proportional like the democratic one, Trump wouldn't have won.
The RNC by standing with Trump has probably poisoned their party as racists with Hispanic and African American communities as well.
Is Cruz less or more crazy than Trump? Is it better or worse that he's completely convinced of his pretty extreme agenda, rather than a brazen populist who appears to make it up as he goes along?
If interest rates go up, that will be for most voters because May/Hammond are not handing the economy properly, and that will be the end of it, very few will link it to BrExit at all, except obsessives on here.
Every press report on every channel in all media will link it to Brexit.
If people cared what the media think we wouldn't have voted to leave would we...
I am astonished by the EU's reaction, and total lack of self-awareness, even if i am not entirely surprised.
They really misunderstand Britons if they think we will be humbled and chastened by punishing us: anyone who knows this nation's character knows how badly we take to that.
I think you are completely misunderstanding their reaction. We are leaving, they now have zero interest in us, except obviously as an export market and as a friendly country like Canada. It is absolutely nothing to do with 'humbling' or 'chastening' us, but equally they don't owe us any favours. So they are looking at this entirely from the point of view of the remaining 27 and of the Union as a political project, which they want to preserve. It's all about their domestic politics in each country, and the overall internal politics of the EU.
If that were indeed the European line, then it would sound as sensible as you did with you negotiation suggestions below. Sadly the rhetoric from various interested parties does not bear that out at all. The potential for emotion on both sides to overturn reason does not bode particularly well.
Is Cruz less or more crazy than Trump? Is it better or worse that he's completely convinced of his pretty extreme agenda, rather than a brazen populist who appears to make it up as he goes along?
If the GOP end up with Cruz next time they may as well wind up the party. How is it that they can't get a few sensible people to run on a non-crazy Trump ticket.
''We should also be aware that comments like Amber Rudd's do in fact reverberate globally in a way that doesn't happen to equivalents in most other countries. This is the dark side to London being a global, English-speaking media capital.''
I got lambasted as a sexist on here for criticising Rudd. She's an overpromoted idiot because she's an over promoted idiot, and not because she is a woman.
The problem is that she has been over-promoted largely because of her ovaries.
A male MP of similar stupidity would have sunk without trace years ago after a short inglorious stint as a junior minister.
Jezza recognises that Rudd is the weak link in May's top team. That is why he has put his best player as her shadow, to fully exploit that weakness.
Err, right. A shadow HS who will tell Labour voters they're all racists.
Only the white ones max, only the white ones.
I can think of a couple of lovely quotes to throw at that "lovely" lady.
Is Cruz less or more crazy than Trump? Is it better or worse that he's completely convinced of his pretty extreme agenda, rather than a brazen populist who appears to make it up as he goes along?
If the GOP end up with Cruz next time they may as well wind up the party. How is it that they can't get a few sensible people to run on a non-crazy Trump ticket.
There were several who ran; they just didn't do very well.
But my point was more that had Trump been stopped somehow, it's not as if the GOP would have ended up with a much better candidate, if at all.
Is Cruz less or more crazy than Trump? Is it better or worse that he's completely convinced of his pretty extreme agenda, rather than a brazen populist who appears to make it up as he goes along?
If the GOP end up with Cruz next time they may as well wind up the party. How is it that they can't get a few sensible people to run on a non-crazy Trump ticket.
because a lot of republican primary voters think obama is a muslim who wasnt born in this country, That they should ban all muslims and that we need a wall in the atlantic to stop the darkies coming over. You have to be as crazy as cruz or trump to win the republicam nomination.
The democratic nomination may pull up someone boring, but not so crazy as to alienate the middle ground
Is Cruz less or more crazy than Trump? Is it better or worse that he's completely convinced of his pretty extreme agenda, rather than a brazen populist who appears to make it up as he goes along?
If the GOP end up with Cruz next time they may as well wind up the party. How is it that they can't get a few sensible people to run on a non-crazy Trump ticket.
There were several who ran; they just didn't do very well.
But my point was more that had Trump been stopped somehow, it's not as if the GOP would have ended up with a much better candidate, if at all.
i think rubio or kasiach would be doing better. They would have pivoted fairly quickly
Is Cruz less or more crazy than Trump? Is it better or worse that he's completely convinced of his pretty extreme agenda, rather than a brazen populist who appears to make it up as he goes along?
Probably worse, but the bad outcomes at the possible-but-somewhat-improbable end of the Bad Things That Could Happen In A Trump Presidency scale are very, very bad.
Perhaps, if I'm optimistic, I'd say that the UK is not alone in not clearly understanding "what's next". See also the intellectual collapse of parties of the right and left around the world. Maybe Brexit will force us to reach an answer before anyone else!
This is an interesting point and it is worth considering the counterfactual.
Though things wouldn't have come to a head in quite the same way, it's not true that a narrow Remain vote (and it could only have been fairly narrow if Remain had won - there are, frankly, a lot of people in the UK who do not very much like British membership of the EU) would have brought finality and certainty. It would certainly have re-energised Leave activists and perhaps voters, and the spectre of a second referendum in a few years' time would have risen prominently on the horizon.
It is the natural tendency of the EU to drive, however haphazardly, towards deeper integration on a wide range of fronts, and any one of them could have proved a future a snagging point as those reluctant remain-voters who secured the referendum majority (and it would have been the reluctant ones who brought the Remain tally over 50%) began to wonder if what they'd been sold in the campaign - a special status for Britain, no more federalism or deeper integration for us - might actually have been a whole bunch of crock. And aside from that, the EU has so many deep structural issues at the moment, from governance to the economy to the coordination of policy (banking crises and migration being but two examples, who knows where the next crisis might come from or lurch to?) that one fears another disaster lurks around the corner - and could again have pushed a second bash at Brexit ahead in the polls. (It's a bit of a lose-lose for the EU - either it looks divided, weak and ineffective in the face of disaster, and/or the proposed solution involves more centralising of power e.g. Brussels taking control of refugee allocation. Neither would be a plus in British polls.)
A Remain vote wouldn't mean the Sword of Damocles had gone away. If anything it would be left dangling by a more slender thread. Of course, a Brexit vote means we now have the rather more pressing issue of a sword hurtling towards our heads, but at least it is going to force us to do something rather than fluff and fudge and hope the can will only become unkickable when it's far enough down the road to be someone else's problem. For the last ten years or so, can-kicking has been the favoured sport of governing classes across the world, and they are starting to pay the price for it.
Ultimately, Britain was never really "into" the Grand European Project. And the EU is becoming more and more unlike the kind of primarily trading union that could retain the popular support of the British electorate. The tension had to be resolved sooner or later. The voters chose sooner.
Is Cruz less or more crazy than Trump? Is it better or worse that he's completely convinced of his pretty extreme agenda, rather than a brazen populist who appears to make it up as he goes along?
If the GOP end up with Cruz next time they may as well wind up the party. How is it that they can't get a few sensible people to run on a non-crazy Trump ticket.
There were several who ran; they just didn't do very well.
But my point was more that had Trump been stopped somehow, it's not as if the GOP would have ended up with a much better candidate, if at all.
That's a point that isn't made often enough. The establishment choice - Jeb Bush - made Andy Burnham look like a political colossus.
Britons who have settled overseas permanently are to be given a “vote for life” in British general elections, the government has announced.
The current 15-year limit will be scrapped as part of a bid to strengthen ties with expats abroad following the decision to leave the EU.
That last justification is weird bearing in mind that it was already Conservative policy, and there was no reason to think they wouldn't go through with it.
Britons who have settled overseas permanently are to be given a “vote for life” in British general elections, the government has announced.
The current 15-year limit will be scrapped as part of a bid to strengthen ties with expats abroad following the decision to leave the EU.
That last justification is weird bearing in mind that it was already Conservative policy, and there was no reason to think they wouldn't go through with it.
It's the right policy, though.
Surely if one goes to live in another country one should expect to be part of that country. Some people here get very upset about people clinging to “their”practices, language and laws when they’ve come to live in UK!
If interest rates go up, that will be for most voters because May/Hammond are not handing the economy properly, and that will be the end of it, very few will link it to BrExit at all, except obsessives on here.
Every press report on every channel in all media will link it to Brexit.
If people cared what the media think we wouldn't have voted to leave would we...
Indeed - IIRC in the US, trust in media is down to 32%. Polling here has journalists down in the gutter too. Their 'fact checking' is confirmation bias - ditto 'analysis'.
Britons who have settled overseas permanently are to be given a “vote for life” in British general elections, the government has announced.
The current 15-year limit will be scrapped as part of a bid to strengthen ties with expats abroad following the decision to leave the EU.
That last justification is weird bearing in mind that it was already Conservative policy, and there was no reason to think they wouldn't go through with it.
It's the right policy, though.
Surely if one goes to live in another country one should expect to be part of that country. Some people here get very upset about people clinging to “their”practices, language and laws when they’ve come to live in UK!
Although you wouldn't expect an English banker on a two year stint in Tokyo to become Japanese for the duration
Britons who have settled overseas permanently are to be given a “vote for life” in British general elections, the government has announced.
The current 15-year limit will be scrapped as part of a bid to strengthen ties with expats abroad following the decision to leave the EU.
That last justification is weird bearing in mind that it was already Conservative policy, and there was no reason to think they wouldn't go through with it.
It's the right policy, though.
Surely if one goes to live in another country one should expect to be part of that country. Some people here get very upset about people clinging to “their”practices, language and laws when they’ve come to live in UK!
Although you wouldn't expect an English banker on a two year stint in Tokyo to become Japanese for the duration
Maybe not, but someone who has lived there for 15 years might want to think about it.
Britons who have settled overseas permanently are to be given a “vote for life” in British general elections, the government has announced.
The current 15-year limit will be scrapped as part of a bid to strengthen ties with expats abroad following the decision to leave the EU.
That last justification is weird bearing in mind that it was already Conservative policy, and there was no reason to think they wouldn't go through with it.
It's the right policy, though.
Surely if one goes to live in another country one should expect to be part of that country. Some people here get very upset about people clinging to “their”practices, language and laws when they’ve come to live in UK!
Well, that's what I'd advocate: You get the vote wherever you're considered a permanent resident for tax purposes. But most countries in the world are bothered about nationality, so the right solution is just to be consistent and stick to nationality.
Is Cruz less or more crazy than Trump? Is it better or worse that he's completely convinced of his pretty extreme agenda, rather than a brazen populist who appears to make it up as he goes along?
If the GOP end up with Cruz next time they may as well wind up the party. How is it that they can't get a few sensible people to run on a non-crazy Trump ticket.
There were several who ran; they just didn't do very well.
But my point was more that had Trump been stopped somehow, it's not as if the GOP would have ended up with a much better candidate, if at all.
I think Kasich writing be 20 points after of Hilary, and Bush ten points.
Is Cruz less or more crazy than Trump? Is it better or worse that he's completely convinced of his pretty extreme agenda, rather than a brazen populist who appears to make it up as he goes along?
Probably worse, but the bad outcomes at the possible-but-somewhat-improbable end of the Bad Things That Could Happen In A Trump Presidency scale are very, very bad.
Fully agree, Edmund.
Both are bad (spoken as a GOP supporter normally). The Trump worst scenarios are worse by a long way. Trump had an easier path to the presidency which, and for which the nation should be grateful, he has blown. Therefore both in terms of worst consequence and higher probability, Trump was worse. Although I know which man's views I despise more.
Is Cruz less or more crazy than Trump? Is it better or worse that he's completely convinced of his pretty extreme agenda, rather than a brazen populist who appears to make it up as he goes along?
If the GOP end up with Cruz next time they may as well wind up the party. How is it that they can't get a few sensible people to run on a non-crazy Trump ticket.
There were several who ran; they just didn't do very well.
But my point was more that had Trump been stopped somehow, it's not as if the GOP would have ended up with a much better candidate, if at all.
i think rubio or kasiach would be doing better. They would have pivoted fairly quickly
Kasich wouldn't have had to pivot. I think, had he got the nomination, he would be at least 5% up on Hillary with most of the rust belt in the bag, including PA.
@DMcCaffreySKY: Zac Goldsmith, he'll spark by-election if Government give green light to Heathrow, so as early as next week, possibly run as independent.
Surely the local party would just let him run unopposed if he went as an independent. That way there's nothing to lose and on everything else he'll vote with the government.
No chance. The Tories would run a candidate which would let the LDs through the middle
The Lib Dems would most likely get squeezed in such a circumstance, where the fight would undoubtedly be portrayed as Zac v the Tories. Indeed, the Lib Dems might not even stand at all and back Zac given that he won more than three times the LD share (i.e. it'd be mathematically impossible for them to 'come through the middle' without gaining a substantial swing into the bargain too).
If Zac stands as an independent, the Tories don't stand. Prevents him making a great stand, and frees up Tory votes to support him.
I don't think that's a precedent the Conservatives could support. Either Zac stands as a Tory or a Tory stands against him.
It would effectively be "no platforming" him, if the Tories aren't in the race it won't get any coverage which will make his resignation seem pointless. Much in the same way Labour didn't run against David Davis when he resigned over 90 day detention.
and with Jo Cox's seat they've established the principle they don't contest every seat
(I think they actually should put up a candidate in that situation)
Mr. 43, I agree. As per Mr. Submarine's post, it would've been better to have a firmer vision in mind.
However, the EU has an idea but nothing else. It's approach is to subvert democracy in favour of the ideal, to make economic policy based on political desire, to erode national sovereignty in favour of the ideal.
What is best is to have an idea, and a sense of perspective.
What is best is to have a vision which provides purpose to the group, in this case the citizens - a purpose with which they agree and to which they can subscribe.
What those who fling around the terms 'racist' and 'fascist' with gay abandon ignore is that to create a movement you need a culture, and all culture is about identity, which is as much about who you are not as it is about who you are.
That is why Obama so often says "That is not who we are"
Comments
Sadly we don't have one.
For people who were never really in it we certainly cut the EU some pretty big cheques...
I’m told that while leaqving the Freemasons (etc) may be amicable, one can suddenly find that one has lost friends.
Surely what the Brexiters wanted?
It is the Brexiteers who are whining about the EU "punishing" us for leaving
Remainers are pointing out that less than favourable trading terms are the rational, logical, obvious and entirely predictable (and predicted) response to current events
What could go wrong.
Which of the PB Trumpers are still predicting a Trump win?
Be interesting to know their thoughts.
Jeremy Paxman on his father: "'I was thrashed with sticks, shoes, cricket stumps, cricket bats or the flat of his hand.’
"In the following chapter, he describes being caned by the head of house at his public school (Malvern). The young Paxman had refused to obey some order from a prefect called Robinson."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-3826112/Your-starter-ten-saucy-question-flummoxed-Jeremy-Paxman-presenter-s-memoir-reveals-all.html
I think 2020 could see two candidates worse than Clinton and Trump, if Clinton doesn't "get" what Trump's candidacy signifies and take action. If even Americans have had enough of the effects of globalisation, and they benefit from globalisation more than any other advanced economy, then the whole current approach to economies and trade is in peril. We can fix things now, or potentially see the status quo swept away later.
And Britain will be seen for what it is - a huge bulwark for stability and security in this region.
Maybe he'll create a new "social democrats" party?
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-clinton-field-offices/?ex_cid=2016-forecast
Mr. P, if Ashworth takes that deal when the Shadow role can be withdrawn from him at any time then he's daft as a doorknob.
On Labour. I actually think the new Shadow Cabinet is coherent. I don't say competent, and certainly not electable - but Corbyn finally has a team in his own image. They may therefore settle down a bit and provide some kind of desultory "opposition". But Labour will be thrashed, and I mean thrashed, at the next election. I am predicting sub 28% and I would not be surprised to see a result in the low 20s...
...at least I would if it weren't for the demise of UKIP. Sans Farage, sans money, sans leader, and rapidly toxifying, they are finished as a political force. I expect them to fracture as Banks funds a new movement.
I maintain though that we have a vaccuum in the Opposition. How that gets filled --- whether by the LDs, a breakaway PLP, a new anti-immigration movement, the return of Blair, or Balls, or Miliband D, or even Osborne --- I do not know.
All look unlikely. But *something* will spring up.
As a profession, its lost its cache.
However, although it's entertaining to watch him melt down, the media won't want to go through the next month with the race looking like a foregone conclusion. He won't have to try very hard to "win" one of the remaining debates.
Got to say I really dislike the double standards on especially emotive imagery. Dead child on a Turkish beach gets shown, terrible video of a dazed, bloodied, dusty-faced child gets shown. But there's no comparable image or video produced of the children victims of Bastille Day.
I can see the arguments for either showing such things or not, but there's no defence for producing images in one instance but not the other.
The tabloids are just junk, but weren't they always?
If a new libertarian centre party were to launch, it would need big hitters and star quality. Tone would certainly give it that, add in Mandy and (whisper it) Dave and you might have a going concern.
As we have rejected our best, or at least most obvious option, we need to look seriously at the alternatives
I don't know if this is right but it is a view at any rate.
The RNC by standing with Trump has probably poisoned their party as racists with Hispanic and African American communities as well.
However, the EU has an idea but nothing else. It's approach is to subvert democracy in favour of the ideal, to make economic policy based on political desire, to erode national sovereignty in favour of the ideal.
What is best is to have an idea, and a sense of perspective.
Yasmin Alibhai - Brown
#toryconference Happy clappy Sikh Tories in front row as Enoch Powell is reawakened. THEY HATE YOU TOO chums.
http://order-order.com/2016/10/07/top-momentum-fixers-steven-woolfe-slur/
Labour a truly nasty party.
Let's face it. America is doomed to decades of identity driven strife, whoever wins and whoever loses.
Trumpists and Clintonians aren't on the same planet, politically.
SNP 753
LDem 463
Con 439
Ind Ross 315
Ind Macpherson 274
Green 180
Lab 163
Ind McGrath 158
Ind Lamont 23
Likely to be very close between SNP and Lib Dems
We have been a European country for centuries (funnily enough they were interested prior to 1973) and they will continue to be. I just think that their approach to saving the EU is madness.
They seem to be heading down a path to lose-lose at the moment.
Sadly the rhetoric from various interested parties does not bear that out at all. The potential for emotion on both sides to overturn reason does not bode particularly well.
I can think of a couple of lovely quotes to throw at that "lovely" lady.
Diane Abbott says Brexit voters "want less foreign-looking people"
52% Sikhs, 30% Muslim/Chinese/Hindus voted Leave https://t.co/hlBbESedfJ https://t.co/CMyYL059HA
It's 'fewer', not 'less'.
So you think that there's too much hyperbole and that credit will be a breeze??
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/07/expats-given-vote-for-life-uk-elections-government-says
Britons who have settled overseas permanently are to be given a “vote for life” in British general elections, the government has announced.
The current 15-year limit will be scrapped as part of a bid to strengthen ties with expats abroad following the decision to leave the EU.
Also seems horrendous for LAB
But my point was more that had Trump been stopped somehow, it's not as if the GOP would have ended up with a much better candidate, if at all.
The democratic nomination may pull up someone boring, but not so crazy as to alienate the middle ground
http://brexitcentral.com/stanislas-yassukovich-eu-needs-city-city-needs-eu-debunking-myths-single-market-financial-services/#more-747
Though things wouldn't have come to a head in quite the same way, it's not true that a narrow Remain vote (and it could only have been fairly narrow if Remain had won - there are, frankly, a lot of people in the UK who do not very much like British membership of the EU) would have brought finality and certainty. It would certainly have re-energised Leave activists and perhaps voters, and the spectre of a second referendum in a few years' time would have risen prominently on the horizon.
It is the natural tendency of the EU to drive, however haphazardly, towards deeper integration on a wide range of fronts, and any one of them could have proved a future a snagging point as those reluctant remain-voters who secured the referendum majority (and it would have been the reluctant ones who brought the Remain tally over 50%) began to wonder if what they'd been sold in the campaign - a special status for Britain, no more federalism or deeper integration for us - might actually have been a whole bunch of crock. And aside from that, the EU has so many deep structural issues at the moment, from governance to the economy to the coordination of policy (banking crises and migration being but two examples, who knows where the next crisis might come from or lurch to?) that one fears another disaster lurks around the corner - and could again have pushed a second bash at Brexit ahead in the polls. (It's a bit of a lose-lose for the EU - either it looks divided, weak and ineffective in the face of disaster, and/or the proposed solution involves more centralising of power e.g. Brussels taking control of refugee allocation. Neither would be a plus in British polls.)
A Remain vote wouldn't mean the Sword of Damocles had gone away. If anything it would be left dangling by a more slender thread. Of course, a Brexit vote means we now have the rather more pressing issue of a sword hurtling towards our heads, but at least it is going to force us to do something rather than fluff and fudge and hope the can will only become unkickable when it's far enough down the road to be someone else's problem. For the last ten years or so, can-kicking has been the favoured sport of governing classes across the world, and they are starting to pay the price for it.
Ultimately, Britain was never really "into" the Grand European Project. And the EU is becoming more and more unlike the kind of primarily trading union that could retain the popular support of the British electorate. The tension had to be resolved sooner or later. The voters chose sooner.
It's the right policy, though.
Abbott's already off to a failing start. Lucky for her she's up against arguably the most stupid member of the Cabinet.
I wonder who Fox's opposite number is.
I’d still vote Remain if we ran the referendum again though.
NEW THREAD
Both are bad (spoken as a GOP supporter normally). The Trump worst scenarios are worse by a long way. Trump had an easier path to the presidency which, and for which the nation should be grateful, he has blown. Therefore both in terms of worst consequence and higher probability, Trump was worse. Although I know which man's views I despise more.
I'll get a vote!!! Yay!!!
(I think they actually should put up a candidate in that situation)
What is best is to have a vision which provides purpose to the group, in this case the citizens - a purpose with which they agree and to which they can subscribe.
What those who fling around the terms 'racist' and 'fascist' with gay abandon ignore is that to create a movement you need a culture, and all culture is about identity, which is as much about who you are not as it is about who you are.
That is why Obama so often says "That is not who we are"
http://freebeacon.com/politics/46-times-president-obama-told-americans-thats-not-who-we-are/
Oh, I see. Obama is a racist.