Mr. Jonathan, part of the blame rests with Cameron who did sod all preparatory work and prevented the Civil Service from doing anything.
I'll accept that argument against Cameron when someone shows me leave's consolidated plan for what would happen afterwards.
Oh ...
Leave wasn't and isn't the government and so was in no position to make and enforce such a plan.
You make three statements: 1) Leave wasn't and isn't the government True.
2) so was in no position to make such a plan. False.
3) so was in no position to enforce such a plan. True.
We all know why they didn't make such a plan: they needed to form a broad church in order to win, and any such plan would have upset too many Brexiters and pushed moderates towards Remain.
Their lack of putting forward a coherent position means that we're in more trouble now than would have been the case otherwise: the government would have had a firmer view of the people's will.
I find their willingness to blame Cameron for this one of the sadly funny aspects of Brexit.
No, the second statement is true as well: they did not have access to the civil service to make a plan (unlike oppositions before a general election).
The most that they could have done would have been to sketch an outline of a plan, but without the backing of civil service input this would have been unhelpful as the public could have believed that it was a manifesto for immediate implementation rather than just a general outline.
Oh come on. In which case they should have shut up and not campaigned. *They* were responsible for making a case for leave. But instead of a coherent plan, they produced a mess that would appeal to as broad a base as possible. The problem now is that we now have f'all idea how to reconcile that mess with reality.
Once the referendum was called there was no option but to fight it, even though the government's dereliction of duty in not having a plan for a Leave vote was clear.
Im beginning to recognise that there is no alternative to hard brexit. Its going to be more difficult, especially in the short term but, so be it. What we are regaining is far more precious than gold sovereigns - and if we really take a hit then the welfare state will go which in the long term is the best thing we can do for the underclass who will have to stop being like sheep and learn to think for themselves again.
Pain for other people?
I think Mr Bedfordshire is of the 'who; whom' school of politics.
I get fed up with people endlessly banging on about something after the decision has been made
Agree. Nothing irritated me more when, in 1997, the Conservatives insisted on remaining the opposition, indeed didn't disband themselves, and then tried to win another election.
That's an argument to be allowed to campaign to rejoin, which is fine, not to be allowed to frustrate the British people's democratic decision.
I'm pretty sure I've explained this to you more than once before: which bit are you finding so difficult to understand?
You have no idea what the British people's democratic decision is.
We are leaving the EU. I'm sure I've explained that to you more than once before.
The British people's democratic decision is to Leave the EU, as I've said repeatedly. (You have never needed to "explain" this to me as I have stated it explicitly.) Therefore arguing for a particular kind of Leave is not undemocratic. Nor is arguing to Rejoin after we Leave. These are analagous to a defeated government going into opposition and campaigning in the next election.
What is undemocratic is arguing that we should not Leave the EU or that our Leaving should be delayed indefinitely. That would be analagous to a defeated government trying to cling to power anyway.
Again, which part of this don't you follow?
No one or very few people (none on here) are arguing not to leave.
The statement that nobody on here is arguing that we should not Leave is untrue.
No one is arguing that we should ignore the referendum.
That statement is equally untrue, being a corollary of the other.
Not true. The One Nation approach is the way forward. Leaders with the ability to understand and govern in the interests of both London and the country/small towns
There you go again. Believe it or not there are actual cities outside London.
Yes, but none of them are as global - they tend to look to their hinterlands as markets. London sucks from their hinterland to act as an entrepot. The mindset of a Newcastle, for instance, is much closer to say Durham than London is to Winchester
Certainly not true of university towns, which receive a large slug of their income from overseas.
He universities should be looking forward to leaving the EU, as their income from overseas students will increase dramatically than under the current system - which sees EU students paying the same fees as UK students, from loans that most of them will never pay back.
''You're a perfect example of the intolerance I was mentioning unthread. You pretend it's about "better quality" immigration but when asked to justify yourself you resort to xenophobic tropes.''
Er...no.....I really think its about better quality. You are simply a victim of your emotional prejudices about leavers. After that extraordinary post its clear you deep down think that all leavers are skinhead racists.
Here's an example of how immigration might work better. More visas for Russians. One of the best ways of undermining Putin would be to poach some of his best brains. Don't tell me we wouldn't be killed in the rush if we offered them.
But we can't. Because there is already a deluge. Of people of all sorts.
Mr. Jonathan, part of the blame rests with Cameron who did sod all preparatory work and prevented the Civil Service from doing anything.
I'll accept that argument against Cameron when someone shows me leave's consolidated plan for what would happen afterwards.
Oh ...
Leave wasn't and isn't the government and so was in no position to make and enforce such a plan.
You make three statements: 1) Leave wasn't and isn't the government True.
2) so was in no position to make such a plan. False.
3) so was in no position to enforce such a plan. True.
We all know why they didn't make such a plan: they needed to form a broad church in order to win, and any such plan would have upset too many Brexiters and pushed moderates towards Remain.
Their lack of putting forward a coherent position means that we're in more trouble now than would have been the case otherwise: the government would have had a firmer view of the people's will.
I find their willingness to blame Cameron for this one of the sadly funny aspects of Brexit.
No, the second statement is true as well: they did not have access to the civil service to make a plan (unlike oppositions before a general election).
The most that they could have done would have been to sketch an outline of a plan, but without the backing of civil service input this would have been unhelpful as the public could have believed that it was a manifesto for immediate implementation rather than just a general outline.
Oh come on. In which case they should have shut up and not campaigned. *They* were responsible for making a case for leave. But instead of a coherent plan, they produced a mess that would appeal to as broad a base as possible. The problem now is that we now have f'all idea how to reconcile that mess with reality.
Still have a lot of anger issues about LEAVE, JJ. calm down dear.
Not true. The One Nation approach is the way forward. Leaders with the ability to understand and govern in the interests of both London and the country/small towns
There you go again. Believe it or not there are actual cities outside London.
Yes, but none of them are as global - they tend to look to their hinterlands as markets. London sucks from their hinterland to act as an entrepot. The mindset of a Newcastle, for instance, is much closer to say Durham than London is to Winchester
Certainly not true of university towns, which receive a large slug of their income from overseas.
He universities should be looking forward to leaving the EU, as their income from overseas students will increase dramatically than under the current system - which sees EU students paying the same fees as UK students, from loans that most of them will never pay back.
Although the loans are the government's problem, rather than the universities.
(As an aside, i believe the highest default rate for students is Uk students that leave for Australia or Canada, where - presumably - they consider themselves safe...)
Interesting article. I heard of my first bit of post vote racism yesterday. An Italian friend who owns a wine bar was speaking to a representative from a brewery ordering beer. He had to answer several standard questions. His English is reasonable but not perfect and one of the questions he couldn't understand so asked for clarification.
This didn't help much and he heard the lady from the brewery presumably believing her hand was covering the phone saying to a colleague 'When are these foreigners going to be sent home?". When they resumed my friend reminded her that he might be a foreigner but he was also a customer! Flustered she said she wasn't talking about him.........
He said he's never encountered anything like that before and he's been in the UK for 4 years.
Undeniable that Brexit has given many the license to express the worst kinds of opinions.
And let us not forget Jo Cox was murdered by a Brexiting madman.
It is very poor show for Brexiters to deny this (though they are not of course responsible for it).
That's a very poor show by you.
All we know is that Jo Cox was murdered by a madman. We know nothing about his reasons.
I might be wrong, but didn't he give some indication during his first court appearance?
I think he shouted something that could be construed as such (don't recall if Brexit related or just generic far right nonsense). But if he's a butter - as most seem to agree - then we can't definitively conclude that was the real driving factor
Actually, the murder of Jo Cox by a right wing nutter should make people think about whether the referendum result really is the cause of hate crime... it took place before the result.
If it had happened after no doubt the win for Leave would have been reported as the inspiration.
The Guardian today is suffering from schizophrenia, simultaneously loathing bankers more than Phillip Green, and bleating that the very same bankers are going to jump ship next year because of Brexit. Everyone needs to calm the eff down.
''You're a perfect example of the intolerance I was mentioning unthread. You pretend it's about "better quality" immigration but when asked to justify yourself you resort to xenophobic tropes.''
Er...no.....I really think its about better quality. You are simply a victim of your emotional prejudices about leavers. After that extraordinary post its clear you deep down think that all leavers are skinhead racists.
Here's an example of how immigration might work better. More visas for Russians. One of the best ways of undermining Putin would be to poach some of his best brains. Don't tell me we wouldn't be killed in the rush if we offered them.
But we can't. Because there is already a deluge. Of people of all sorts.
Anecdote rather than data, but during an interview with the F1 team bosses the other week, one of them mentioned that it's currently very difficult to hire engineers from outside the EU due to visa issues. We need more F1 engineers, and fewer Big Issue sellers and minimum wage staff. Focus on quality, rather than quantity, of immigrants in a post-Brexit world - there is no reason why every immigrant shouldn't be a net contributor.
Not true. The One Nation approach is the way forward. Leaders with the ability to understand and govern in the interests of both London and the country/small towns
There you go again. Believe it or not there are actual cities outside London.
Yes, but none of them are as global - they tend to look to their hinterlands as markets. London sucks from their hinterland to act as an entrepot. The mindset of a Newcastle, for instance, is much closer to say Durham than London is to Winchester
Certainly not true of university towns, which receive a large slug of their income from overseas.
He universities should be looking forward to leaving the EU, as their income from overseas students will increase dramatically than under the current system - which sees EU students paying the same fees as UK students, from loans that most of them will never pay back.
Although the loans are the government's problem, rather than the universities.
(As an aside, i believe the highest default rate for students is Uk students that leave for Australia or Canada, where - presumably - they consider themselves safe...)
The unis will be free to charge full fees in the future to EU students, rather than the government-imposed £9k as at the moment. The government will also, as you say, benefit from being not having to collect fees from non-UK students.
I agree with your last point about emigrants. There's a fair few of them in this part of the world hoping to stay away for long enough that the student loans people forget about them!
The Guardian today is suffering from schizophrenia, simultaneously loathing bankers more than Phillip Green, and bleating that the very same bankers are going to jump ship next year because of Brexit. Everyone needs to calm the eff down.
Who needs bankers when the pound is soon to be linked to the Mongolian Yak's Testicle.....
''We need more F1 engineers, and fewer Big Issue sellers and minimum wage staff. Focus on quality, rather than quantity, of immigrants in a post-Brexit world - there is no reason why every immigrant shouldn't be a net contributor.''
Suggest stuff like that to some on here, and you will be accused of being nothing more than a racist with an agenda.
It's demonstrably untrue to say the decision to leave the EU has been taken. The decision to leave the EU will be taken when the government issues the A50 notification. Depending on the outcome of the court case that will be via prerogative, parliamentary vote or a full Act of Parliament. The government has voluntarily chosen to delay A50 notification till the new year. The government has unambiguously said it will issue the A50 notification. So the issue is is it undemocratic to see the 6 to 9 months which the government ( and parliament by choosing a non binding referendum ) has voluntarily given between referendum and the decision being implemented to change peoples minds ?
Arguing that not giving up till the end is desperate, doomed to failure, counterproductive or even undignified is one set of criticisms. But the specific charge is it's undemocratic. This seems to me to be nonsense designed to close down debate and confuse a democratic mandate with implementation and scrutiny of implementation.
If Party A won a General Election on Pledge B would party C be " undemocratic " to campaign against before the legislation was tabled ? Or vote against it during parliamentary passage ? Or size new information or changed circumstances became apparent between the GE and the Bills Third Reading ?
Of course not. In every other policy area we accept democratic mandates for policies derived from elections but then continue even redouble efforts to amend, scrutinise and yes block during the passage and implementation stage. We accept it's legitimate to try and change peoples mind until the last. So why is this referendum result, which was deliberately ' advisory ' different ?
It seems to me there are only two possible answers to this. The first is somehow referendums are different to other democratic mandates. I'm willing to listen to arguments. The second is it's guff but it suits the victors to pretend otherwise. They don't want their victory snatched from them in the 94th minute. I respect that but only because they are doing what militant Remainers are doing. Using democratic means to persuade voters their own narrative prevails over a clear but very limited referendum question.
Questions with only two answers lead to bitterness and hatred, clearly. Suddenly it becomes obvious that the Liberals have for decades been the thin line between us and civil war.
Not true. The One Nation approach is the way forward. Leaders with the ability to understand and govern in the interests of both London and the country/small towns
"One Nation" is a nice little phrase, Mr Charles. I does not have much to do with the Tory Party, who are anything but that.
I don`t think the divide is between London and the country though. It is between the disgustingly wealthy and privileged and rest of us.
The May government doesn't feel particularly one Nation, but it's an ideal not a statement of fact
Re: your second paragraph it's a simplification For instance I spent last weekend with some people in the West Country who are extremely wealthy but have a great sense of duty and obligation to the other residents of their patch. The London wealthy tend to be more internationally minded and less aware of their local communities (my family is probably the closest that London has to squires and even we are relatively less significant than we were in past generations).
I think that's more the difference between old money and new money. The old money has much more social responsibility and a wish to look after those around them.
Indeed, but I think that there is a higher concentration of "disgustingly wealthy" new money in London than in other cities in the UK.
The Guardian today is suffering from schizophrenia, simultaneously loathing bankers more than Phillip Green, and bleating that the very same bankers are going to jump ship next year because of Brexit. Everyone needs to calm the eff down.
Who needs bankers when the pound is soon to be linked to the Mongolian Yak's Testicle.....
The Guardian probably has a recipe involving yak balls in its Lifestyle section.....
Questions with only two answers lead to bitterness and hatred, clearly. Suddenly it becomes obvious that the Liberals have for decades been the thin line between us and civil war.
Not true. The One Nation approach is the way forward. Leaders with the ability to understand and govern in the interests of both London and the country/small towns
"One Nation" is a nice little phrase, Mr Charles. I does not have much to do with the Tory Party, who are anything but that.
I don`t think the divide is between London and the country though. It is between the disgustingly wealthy and privileged and rest of us.
The May government doesn't feel particularly one Nation, but it's an ideal not a statement of fact
Re: your second paragraph it's a simplification For instance I spent last weekend with some people in the West Country who are extremely wealthy but have a great sense of duty and obligation to the other residents of their patch. The London wealthy tend to be more internationally minded and less aware of their local communities (my family is probably the closest that London has to squires and even we are relatively less significant than we were in past generations).
I think that's more the difference between old money and new money. The old money has much more social responsibility and a wish to look after those around them.
The new money thinks that expressing "appropriate" opinions and views on such things as immigration absolves them from such responsibility.
Golly, it appears that mental illness IS a valid defence for disassociating a widely held cutural/political view from the acts of an individual. There was me almost convinced that it was one of the most piss-poor, cowardly, dishonest forms of exculpation going.
Oh don't be silly, that excuse is reserved for far right white Britons only.
''We need more F1 engineers, and fewer Big Issue sellers and minimum wage staff. Focus on quality, rather than quantity, of immigrants in a post-Brexit world - there is no reason why every immigrant shouldn't be a net contributor.''
Suggest stuff like that to some on here, and you will be accused of being nothing more than a racist with an agenda.
Wanting more F1 engineers (most of whom have a Masters degree), mainly from China and India such as they are, can hardly be described as racist. We don't gain anything by sending the best graduates from our universities back from where they came as soon as they finish their studies.
The Guardian today is suffering from schizophrenia, simultaneously loathing bankers more than Phillip Green, and bleating that the very same bankers are going to jump ship next year because of Brexit. Everyone needs to calm the eff down.
Who needs bankers when the pound is soon to be linked to the Mongolian Yak's Testicle.....
The Guardian probably has a recipe involving yak balls in its Lifestyle section.....
Mr. Submarine, when is the meddlesome judicial challenge going to be resolved? [The first leg, anyway, I know it'll be appealed].
I don't know. The hearings are over and the Justices are considering their ruling which they've committed to do as soon as possible. I'm not a lawyer but as far as I can see the variables are #1 How long till the initial ruling ? #2 If it lost would the government appeal or crack on via parliament ? #3 Will leave to appeal to the Supreme Court be given ? #4 If so how long will that take ? Though press coverage suggests Supreme Court Justices have cleared diary space in December.
The other issue is the Northern Ireland case which has been heard and awaiting judgement.
''You're a perfect example of the intolerance I was mentioning unthread. You pretend it's about "better quality" immigration but when asked to justify yourself you resort to xenophobic tropes.''
Er...no.....I really think its about better quality. You are simply a victim of your emotional prejudices about leavers. After that extraordinary post its clear you deep down think that all leavers are skinhead racists.
Here's an example of how immigration might work better. More visas for Russians. One of the best ways of undermining Putin would be to poach some of his best brains. Don't tell me we wouldn't be killed in the rush if we offered them.
But we can't. Because there is already a deluge. Of people of all sorts.
I'm not going to disagree with you over the Russians. It sounds like a splendid idea. But my point is not about control. It was about how the vote was won.
And it was the anti immigration crowd wot won it. Ultimately.
''You're a perfect example of the intolerance I was mentioning unthread. You pretend it's about "better quality" immigration but when asked to justify yourself you resort to xenophobic tropes.''
Er...no.....I really think its about better quality. You are simply a victim of your emotional prejudices about leavers. After that extraordinary post its clear you deep down think that all leavers are skinhead racists.
Here's an example of how immigration might work better. More visas for Russians. One of the best ways of undermining Putin would be to poach some of his best brains. Don't tell me we wouldn't be killed in the rush if we offered them.
But we can't. Because there is already a deluge. Of people of all sorts.
I'm not going to disagree with you over the Russians. It sounds like a splendid idea. But my point is not about control. It was about how the vote was won.
And it was the anti immigration crowd wot won it. Ultimately.
Possibly anti some sorts of immigration.
No-one is complaining about immigrant doctors, engineers and sportsmen. The complaints are about people coming from Eastern Europe with their families to work minimum wage jobs topped up with tax credits and housing benefits, and (perversely in the context of the EU) immigration from cultures who have no wish to integrate and become British over time.
''You're a perfect example of the intolerance I was mentioning unthread. You pretend it's about "better quality" immigration but when asked to justify yourself you resort to xenophobic tropes.''
Er...no.....I really think its about better quality. You are simply a victim of your emotional prejudices about leavers. After that extraordinary post its clear you deep down think that all leavers are skinhead racists.
Here's an example of how immigration might work better. More visas for Russians. One of the best ways of undermining Putin would be to poach some of his best brains. Don't tell me we wouldn't be killed in the rush if we offered them.
But we can't. Because there is already a deluge. Of people of all sorts.
I'm not going to disagree with you over the Russians. It sounds like a splendid idea. But my point is not about control. It was about how the vote was won.
And it was the anti immigration crowd wot won it. Ultimately.
Possibly anti some sorts of immigration.
No-one is complaining about immigrant doctors, engineers and sportsmen. The complaints are about people coming from Eastern Europe with their families to work minimum wage jobs topped up with tax credits and housing benefits, and (perversely) immigration from cultures who have no wish to integrate and become British over time.
i.e. It was about immigration. Plus, it seems from your latter point, about non-EU immigration also.
It's demonstrably untrue to say the decision to leave the EU has been taken.
No, it really isn't.
I don't understand why you would have a problem accepting it hasn't been officially taken. It legally has not. The intention to do so, off the back of a public vote expressing the wish to do so, certainly has been advanced, and the political realities make not doing so highly improbable, but it simply is not the case that it has been officially taken yet, why quibble that?
It's like people getting all bent out of shape when people talk about how the referendum wasn't binding - it doesn't matter if people pushing that point are remainers who would indeed like to ignore the vote, it is still true that it wasn't binding. And it is still true we have not formally taken the decision to Leave, even if that is not a hugely relevant point given the momentum toward Leave is, outside of the most extreme of unlikely scenarios, unstoppable. As such, why worry about people making that highly technical point?
Questions with only two answers lead to bitterness and hatred, clearly. Suddenly it becomes obvious that the Liberals have for decades been the thin line between us and civil war.
Not true. The One Nation approach is the way forward. Leaders with the ability to understand and govern in the interests of both London and the country/small towns
"One Nation" is a nice little phrase, Mr Charles. I does not have much to do with the Tory Party, who are anything but that.
I don`t think the divide is between London and the country though. It is between the disgustingly wealthy and privileged and rest of us.
The May government doesn't feel particularly one Nation, but it's an ideal not a statement of fact
Re: your second paragraph it's a simplification For instance I spent last weekend with some people in the West Country who are extremely wealthy but have a great sense of duty and obligation to the other residents of their patch. The London wealthy tend to be more internationally minded and less aware of their local communities (my family is probably the closest that London has to squires and even we are relatively less significant than we were in past generations).
I think that's more the difference between old money and new money. The old money has much more social responsibility and a wish to look after those around them.
They are all about hanging onto and increasing their money, as has been proven over the years they don't give a fig for the peasants unless it is to their advantage. Old has just had more practice at hiding it.
''You're a perfect example of the intolerance I was mentioning unthread. You pretend it's about "better quality" immigration but when asked to justify yourself you resort to xenophobic tropes.''
Er...no.....I really think its about better quality. You are simply a victim of your emotional prejudices about leavers. After that extraordinary post its clear you deep down think that all leavers are skinhead racists.
Here's an example of how immigration might work better. More visas for Russians. One of the best ways of undermining Putin would be to poach some of his best brains. Don't tell me we wouldn't be killed in the rush if we offered them.
But we can't. Because there is already a deluge. Of people of all sorts.
I'm not going to disagree with you over the Russians. It sounds like a splendid idea. But my point is not about control. It was about how the vote was won.
And it was the anti immigration crowd wot won it. Ultimately.
The vote was won by anti-immigration. True.
The margin was so slight that it was won by innumerable things. It was won by those (like Tony Benn) who believed that the EU is anti-democractic. It was won by those (like me) disgusted with Brussels corruption & bureaucracy (of which I have way too much personal experience).
But the biggest reason why Leave won is the Remain campaign. The Remainers ran the stupidest campaign since Goldwater took a dive (although Trump has now run an even stupider campaign, for sure).
Some of the remarks posted by Remainers on this site before the Referendum were glistening gems of malignant snobbery and elitism. A small point, for sure, but a clear hint of the horrible sickness at the heart of their campaign.
The worst thing for me would now be to ignore the result of the referendum. For me, that is simply immoral (although it is interesting how many are prepared to contemplate it).
However, I am happy for Remain to call for another referendum if there is something fresh to put before the British people. But, seriously, most Remainers don’t even seem to have understood why they lost in the first place, and so even with a second chance, I think Remain will lose again.
It's demonstrably untrue to say the decision to leave the EU has been taken.
No, it really isn't.
I don't understand why you would have a problem accepting it hasn't been officially taken. It legally has not. The intention to do so, off the back of a public vote expressing the wish to do so, certainly has been advanced, and the political realities make not doing so highly improbable, but it simply is not the case that it has been officially taken yet, why quibble that?
It's like people getting all bent out of shape when people talk about how the referendum wasn't binding - it doesn't matter if people pushing that point are remainers who would indeed like to ignore the vote, it is still true that it wasn't binding. And it is still true we have not formally taken the decision to Leave, even if that is not a hugely relevant point given the momentum toward Leave is, outside of the most extreme of unlikely scenarios, unstoppable. As such, why worry about people making that highly technical point?
Because they're only making that point because they are trying to legitimise the idea that we might not Leave after all.
The decision hasn't been implemented yet, but it has been taken.
The other issue is the hybrid nature of ' Brexit '. Leaving the EU has a mandate from the referendum and can be easierly and completely implemented by issuing the A50 notification and simply waiting. The problem is leaving the EU will automatically trigger something called by common consent " Brexit ". At least the content of the A50 agreement and the contents of or lack of an associated deal on Trade. Or interim arrangements. Or lack of them. " Brexit " will be highly complex, wasn't addressed in the referendum and Leave voters clearly have a wide range of views on what it should mean. And by common consent the government it's self hasn't decided on particulars yet.
It's clearly democratic to oppose and possibly defeat particular Brexit packages. However until a Brexit package gets agreed leaving is also blocked. So which comes first ? The Leaving or the Brexit ? Is the referendum result imperative and may be carried out regardless ? Or s it legitimate to oppose and possibly defeat particular Brexit with Leaving left until a Brexit commands majority consent ?
Is this sophistry ? Yes it is. It's also low politics. 52% voted Leave. Leave has a mandate. But voters will also get a Brexit when they leave. We have no proposed Brexit yet. When we do it may command majority consent. Or it may not. Until we have consent for a Brexit we can't exercise the mandate to Leave. The political process is still in play. Unless that is some Leavers argue voters can't take back control over what Brexit is ?
It's demonstrably untrue to say the decision to leave the EU has been taken.
No, it really isn't.
I don't understand why you would have a problem accepting it hasn't been officially taken. It legally has not. The intention to do so, off the back of a public vote expressing the wish to do so, certainly has been advanced, and the political realities make not doing so highly improbable, but it simply is not the case that it has been officially taken yet, why quibble that?
It's like people getting all bent out of shape when people talk about how the referendum wasn't binding - it doesn't matter if people pushing that point are remainers who would indeed like to ignore the vote, it is still true that it wasn't binding. And it is still true we have not formally taken the decision to Leave, even if that is not a hugely relevant point given the momentum toward Leave is, outside of the most extreme of unlikely scenarios, unstoppable. As such, why worry about people making that highly technical point?
Because they're only making that point because they are trying to legitimise the idea that we might not Leave after all.
The decision hasn't been implemented yet, but it has been taken.
Why so scared of what other people might be thinking?
The Government is leaving. We are leaving.
Sensibility and pragmatically there should be a parliamentary vote about it also.
BBC Sunday Politics has made the right move IMHO to older journalists, with one exception, Polly. She is so blinkered in attacking the Govt at any single opportunity and she has no sense of balance to her comments. How did she ever pass the "impartiality" assessment when she worked at the BBC?
I think Trump is the ultimate pragmatist. If he loses, his interest will be to appear an unexpectedly magnaminous loser,and he will, without blinking.
If Trump was going to show any pragmatism, he should have brought it to the table a couple of months ago. Unless he doesn't actually want to win of course.
''You're a perfect example of the intolerance I was mentioning unthread. You pretend it's about "better quality" immigration but when asked to justify yourself you resort to xenophobic tropes.''
Er...no.....I really think its about better quality. You are simply a victim of your emotional prejudices about leavers. After that extraordinary post its clear you deep down think that all leavers are skinhead racists.
Here's an example of how immigration might work better. More visas for Russians. One of the best ways of undermining Putin would be to poach some of his best brains. Don't tell me we wouldn't be killed in the rush if we offered them.
But we can't. Because there is already a deluge. Of people of all sorts.
I'm not going to disagree with you over the Russians. It sounds like a splendid idea. But my point is not about control. It was about how the vote was won.
And it was the anti immigration crowd wot won it. Ultimately.
The vote was won by anti-immigration. True.
The margin was so slight that it was won by innumerable things. It was won by those (like Tony Benn) who believed that the EU is anti-democractic. It was won by those (like me) disgusted with Brussels corruption & bureaucracy (of which I have way too much personal experience).
But the biggest reason why Leave won is the Remain campaign. The Remainers ran the stupidest campaign since Goldwater took a dive (although Trump has now run an even stupider campaign, for sure).
Some of the remarks posted by Remainers on this site before the Referendum were glistening gems of malignant snobbery and elitism. A small point, for sure, but a clear hint of the horrible sickness at the heart of their campaign.
The worst thing for me would now be to ignore the result of the referendum. For me, that is simply immoral (although it is interesting how many are prepared to contemplate it).
However, I am happy for Remain to call for another referendum if there is something fresh to put before the British people. But, seriously, most Remainers don’t even seem to have understood why they lost in the first place, and so even with a second chance, I think Remain will lose again.
It is all a reflection of globalisation, Manhattan Hillary voters have just as much contempt for Trump voters and Parisians just as much contempt for Le Pen voters as residents of Inner London have for those who voted Leave. There is a huge divide now between the wealthy winners from globalisation in our big global cities and the losers in ex industrial areas and that will remain regardless of who actually gets over the finishing line first in EU ref, or the US and French Presidential elections
Questions with only two answers lead to bitterness and hatred, clearly. Suddenly it becomes obvious that the Liberals have for decades been the thin line between us and civil war.
Not true. The One Nation approach is the way forward. Leaders with the ability to understand and govern in the interests of both London and the country/small towns
"One Nation" is a nice little phrase, Mr Charles. I does not have much to do with the Tory Party, who are anything but that.
I don`t think the divide is between London and the country though. It is between the disgustingly wealthy and privileged and rest of us.
The May government doesn't feel particularly one Nation, but it's an ideal not a statement of fact
Re: your second paragraph it's a simplification For instance I spent last weekend with some people in the West Country who are extremely wealthy but have a great sense of duty and obligation to the other residents of their patch. The London wealthy tend to be more internationally minded and less aware of their local communities (my family is probably the closest that London has to squires and even we are relatively less significant than we were in past generations).
I think that's more the difference between old money and new money. The old money has much more social responsibility and a wish to look after those around them.
They are all about hanging onto and increasing their money, as has been proven over the years they don't give a fig for the peasants unless it is to their advantage. Old has just had more practice at hiding it.
A little harsh, but most have accepted the reality that for their own interests to flourish they need a stable society. Historically they used violence (or the threat of violence) to maintain control - these days that's no longer viable, so they accept that they need to contribute the society. Yes, it's in their own interests, but, as with all symbiotic relationships, both sides benefit
''You're a perfect example of the intolerance I was mentioning unthread. You pretend it's about "better quality" immigration but when asked to justify yourself you resort to xenophobic tropes.''
Er...no.....I really think its about better quality. You are simply a victim of your emotional prejudices about leavers. After that extraordinary post its clear you deep down think that all leavers are skinhead racists.
Here's an example of how immigration might work better. More visas for Russians. One of the best ways of undermining Putin would be to poach some of his best brains. Don't tell me we wouldn't be killed in the rush if we offered them.
But we can't. Because there is already a deluge. Of people of all sorts.
I'm not going to disagree with you over the Russians. It sounds like a splendid idea. But my point is not about control. It was about how the vote was won.
And it was the anti immigration crowd wot won it. Ultimately.
The vote was won by anti-immigration. True.
The margin was so slight that it was won by innumerable things. It was won by those (like Tony Benn) who believed that the EU is anti-democractic. It was won by those (like me) disgusted with Brussels corruption & bureaucracy (of which I have way too much personal experience).
But the biggest reason why Leave won is the Remain campaign. The Remainers ran the stupidest campaign since Goldwater took a dive (although Trump has now run an even stupider campaign, for sure).
Some of the remarks posted by Remainers on this site before the Referendum were glistening gems of malignant snobbery and elitism. A small point, for sure, but a clear hint of the horrible sickness at the heart of their campaign.
The worst thing for me would now be to ignore the result of the referendum. For me, that is simply immoral (although it is interesting how many are prepared to contemplate it).
However, I am happy for Remain to call for another referendum if there is something fresh to put before the British people. But, seriously, most Remainers don’t even seem to have understood why they lost in the first place, and so even with a second chance, I think Remain will lose again.
If there WAS another Referendum, then Remain would have to confront the "sore losers" argument. When asked "if you lose again - will you accept THAT result?" They would have to say "Of course...." It's the follow up question that sinks them - "Why should we believe that when you will not accept the result from June 2015?" Remain might try and argue that first time around, Leave lied. Which leads to the response - "And Remain didn't? Rising interest rates? Emergency Budget? £4,300 a year worse off?"
Nothing gets better for Remain second time around.....
If the political class block us leaving the EU because they can't agree the manner of the departure amongst themselves, then either UKIP may come roaring back or, perhaps likelier, we'll see extremism on the rise.
Contempt for democracy and the electorate will not have positive consequences. Bitterness will be the order of the day. There'll be huge anger at the politicians.
It would also likely cause either a fresh election or the disintegration of the Conservatives. The nightmare scenario would be Corbyn in Number Ten, if the blues tear themselves apart after a Commons vote frustrates the referendum result.
Every single EU measure thereafter would be treated as morally illegitimate, inflicted by foreigners and imposed upon us against our will by a political class that asked our opinion and then ignored our answer.
That's not to say it won't happen. It might. Which is why I've always said I'll believe we're leaving when we've left.
If the political class block us leaving the EU because they can't agree the manner of the departure amongst themselves, then either UKIP may come roaring back or, perhaps likelier, we'll see extremism on the rise.
Contempt for democracy and the electorate will not have positive consequences. Bitterness will be the order of the day. There'll be huge anger at the politicians.
It would also likely cause either a fresh election or the disintegration of the Conservatives. The nightmare scenario would be Corbyn in Number Ten, if the blues tear themselves apart after a Commons vote frustrates the referendum result.
Every single EU measure thereafter would be treated as morally illegitimate, inflicted by foreigners and imposed upon us against our will by a political class that asked our opinion and then ignored our answer.
That's not to say it won't happen. It might. Which is why I've always said I'll believe we're leaving when we've left.
I don't and never have advocated that. We should and we will leave unless a chunk of Leave voters change their minds and change their minds relatively quickly. So far there is no polling or Electoral evidence that has happened. The point I'm robustly defending is that using democratic means to seek to change those minds in the 10 minutes to Midnight we have left is not undemocratic. Persuading voters who voted for Brexit in general to oppose the Brexit they are offered in particular is not undemocratic imho. It's just low politics.
If the political class block us leaving the EU because they can't agree the manner of the departure amongst themselves, then either UKIP may come roaring back or, perhaps likelier, we'll see extremism on the rise.
Contempt for democracy and the electorate will not have positive consequences. Bitterness will be the order of the day. There'll be huge anger at the politicians.
It would also likely cause either a fresh election or the disintegration of the Conservatives. The nightmare scenario would be Corbyn in Number Ten, if the blues tear themselves apart after a Commons vote frustrates the referendum result.
Every single EU measure thereafter would be treated as morally illegitimate, inflicted by foreigners and imposed upon us against our will by a political class that asked our opinion and then ignored our answer.
That's not to say it won't happen. It might. Which is why I've always said I'll believe we're leaving when we've left.
Incidentally I agree with your broad thrust. If the Remain majority in parliament overturned the referendum result tomorrow there would be an early General Election and a huge " Winchester " style backlash. I'm fairly sure why no one is trying to do that. There would need to be a big shift among voters first.
If the Remain majority in parliament overturned the referendum result tomorrow there would be an early General Election and a huge " Winchester " style backlash.
How exactly?
If there is a remain majority in Parliament, enough candidates would need to be replaced by Leavers
Are you suggesting UKIP would win hundreds of seats? Really?
EDIT: And even if they did, they might be replacing leavers...
Questions with only two answers lead to bitterness and hatred, clearly. Suddenly it becomes obvious that the Liberals have for decades been the thin line between us and civil war.
Not true. The One Nation approach is the way forward. Leaders with the ability to understand and govern in the interests of both London and the country/small towns
"One Nation" is a nice little phrase, Mr Charles. I does not have much to do with the Tory Party, who are anything but that.
I don`t think the divide is between London and the country though. It is between the disgustingly wealthy and privileged and rest of us.
The May government doesn't feel particularly one Nation, but it's an ideal not a statement of fact
Re: your second paragraph it's a simplification For instance I spent last weekend with some people in the West Country who are extremely wealthy but have a great sense of duty and obligation to the other residents of their patch. The London wealthy tend to be more internationally minded and less aware of their local communities (my family is probably the closest that London has to squires and even we are relatively less significant than we were in past generations).
I think that's more the difference between old money and new money. The old money has much more social responsibility and a wish to look after those around them.
They are all about hanging onto and increasing their money, as has been proven over the years they don't give a fig for the peasants unless it is to their advantage. Old has just had more practice at hiding it.
A little harsh, but most have accepted the reality that for their own interests to flourish they need a stable society. Historically they used violence (or the threat of violence) to maintain control - these days that's no longer viable, so they accept that they need to contribute the society. Yes, it's in their own interests, but, as with all symbiotic relationships, both sides benefit
Definitely a little bit harsh, certainly the old money is not as bad as the trash that have the new money, most of them would shoot their granny for a pound never mind sell her.
If the Remain majority in parliament overturned the referendum result tomorrow there would be an early General Election and a huge " Winchester " style backlash.
How exactly?
If there is a remain majority in Parliament, enough candidates would need to be replaced by Leavers
Are you suggesting UKIP would win hundreds of seats? Really?
EDIT: And even if they did, they might be replacing leavers...
No there'd be a Tory landslide with the Tory candidates on a Leave manifesto.
If the Remain majority in parliament overturned the referendum result tomorrow there would be an early General Election and a huge " Winchester " style backlash.
How exactly?
If there is a remain majority in Parliament, enough candidates would need to be replaced by Leavers
Are you suggesting UKIP would win hundreds of seats? Really?
The country would be offered a Conservative manifesto based on Leaving with a then overwhelming pro Leave slate of candidates. It would be even easier than the referendum. You don't need 50% + 1 under first past the post.
The country would be offered a Conservative manifesto based on Leaving with a then overwhelming pro Leave slate of candidates. It would be even easier than the referendum. You don't need 50% + 1 under first past the post.
I suspect there are 2 problems with that scenario
Many people who voted leave are in the "never kissed a Tory" camp. Would they turn out to vote Tory?
Many people who voted Tory for years are in the Remain camp. Would they turn out to vote Tory on an explicitly leave ticket? I wouldn't.
On topic, as a novelty, I think it's going to depend on how close the result is on election night in the US. If he loses 55-45 I think Trump will be gracious in defeat - he is capable of being gracious and sincere - as no amount of allegations of a rigged ballot will make any difference if he is 10 points or more down.
Before the EU Referendum, I said that what people said in the heat of campaigns and what they said once the votes had been cast were rarely the same - the conflict and the rancour is set aside in favour of conciliation and unity. Trump will, if he loses badly, urge that conciliation and unity from his supporters - whether they wish to provide it is another matter but that's not the basis of the bet.
If it's 2000-type close, Trump has every right to go through the full electoral process in terms of recounts and checking (as does HRC of course). He may warn against cheating or dubious tactics as he has a right to do but he won't be in effect conceding simply because he hasn't lost.
Gore accepted the result once the process of checking those hanging chads had been completed and verified but he had every right to have that process carried out and to wait for its outcome and to not concede until the process had been completed.
Strangely, some of the best speeches I've ever heard from politicians come in the wake of defeat - both John Major in 1997 and Nick Clegg in 2015 were superb as was Gordon Brown in 2010.
Re Gore in 2000. Surely 'the process of checking those hanging chads' was never 'completed and verified ' because the Supreme Court prevented the recount from taking place! Democracy did not prevail that year.
If the Remain majority in parliament overturned the referendum result tomorrow there would be an early General Election and a huge " Winchester " style backlash.
How exactly?
If there is a remain majority in Parliament, enough candidates would need to be replaced by Leavers
Are you suggesting UKIP would win hundreds of seats? Really?
The country would be offered a Conservative manifesto based on Leaving with a then overwhelming pro Leave slate of candidates. It would be even easier than the referendum. You don't need 50% + 1 under first past the post.
I think we do need an early election, but it is more likely to be competing visions of Brexit on offer, as all parties have accepted the result, it is whether the mandate is for Hard or Soft Brexit that is undecided.
In such circumstances it would probably be the Tories that are most split, while UKIP is clearly for Hard Brexit, the LibDems, PC and Labour are for Soft; and the SNP for independence.
The country would be offered a Conservative manifesto based on Leaving with a then overwhelming pro Leave slate of candidates. It would be even easier than the referendum. You don't need 50% + 1 under first past the post.
I suspect there are 2 problems with that scenario
Many people who voted leave are in the "never kissed a Tory" camp. Would they turn out to vote Tory?
Many people who voted Tory for years are in the Remain camp. Would they turn out to vote Tory on an explicitly leave ticket? I wouldn't.
Good points and I don't know. But the point of my Winchester comparison is that voters can act violently and counter intuitively when asked a question they clearly thought they'd answered. I'd argue voters need to change their minds on Brexit before voters ask them again. They won't change because they've been asked again.
I think Trump is the ultimate pragmatist. If he loses, his interest will be to appear an unexpectedly magnaminous loser,and he will, without blinking.
Fascinating, I wonder.
I am more of the opinion it will be a vengeful "You won't have Richard Nixon to kick around anymore ...” type speech.
He will concede early- this is why:
He knows how to manipulate the t.v media if he concedes early he will be seen as to be magnanimous in defeat and the media will paint him in a more positive light, so far during this race he has come across as a jerk, but he knows he can control the media narrative once more. His consesion speech will be about holding the elite and Hillary to account blaah blah blah but his first aim is to rebuild his relationship with the media.
If there were a GE before summer 2017, by common opinion there would be an increased Tory majority.
However, just how likely is it that many LDs would be campaigning as continuity Remain in areas that voted Remain? Similarly Labour in metropolitan seats. A racing certainty I'd say. Similarly, us Tories would campaign on a firm Leave ticket.
Given the facile arguments put over the by Remain-minded media and Remain-minded oppositions, some fools would add the losing vote shares of Lab and LD, and of course SNP, and say that because of FPTP more people voted against the winners (Leave) than the losers (Remain) - regardless of the reasons for voting.
Add in the Lords - especially foolish parties who suggest they won't abide by the Salisbury constitution, and we'd be looking at a far worse situation
This, and the necessity to ground our constituencies in some boundary related version of reality suggest to me that May would never go to the country.
It could turn a political crisis into a constitutional crisis. The only time that would be advisable is if May's Leave approach was actually blocked.
Then, and only then, would it be worth risking it all on a single game of pitch and toss.
If the Remain majority in parliament overturned the referendum result tomorrow there would be an early General Election and a huge " Winchester " style backlash.
How exactly?
If there is a remain majority in Parliament, enough candidates would need to be replaced by Leavers
Are you suggesting UKIP would win hundreds of seats? Really?
The country would be offered a Conservative manifesto based on Leaving with a then overwhelming pro Leave slate of candidates. It would be even easier than the referendum. You don't need 50% + 1 under first past the post.
I think we do need an early election, but it is more likely to be competing visions of Brexit on offer, as all parties have accepted the result, it is whether the mandate is for Hard or Soft Brexit that is undecided.
In such circumstances it would probably be the Tories that are most split, while UKIP is clearly for Hard Brexit, the LibDems, PC and Labour are for Soft; and the SNP for independence.
I've a lot of time for that view. The two routes to #Mayday are either seeking a dissolution immeadiately after invoking A50 in March. Ride the sentiment waive and seek a mandate for the negotiating aims. Or #Mayday following wrecking Sunrise clauses inserted into the A50 Bill needed if HMG loses the Supreme Court challenge. But you are right. In a FPTP system it would be a choice between the Tories Coke Brexit and Labour's Pepsi Brexit. Remain Cola would rack up hundreds of second places but win only a score of seats.
Re Gore in 2000. Surely 'the process of checking those hanging chads' was never 'completed and verified ' because the Supreme Court prevented the recount from taking place! Democracy did not prevail that year.
Wiki provides the following possible outcomes based on studies undertaken of the various contested elements. It is not clear that Gore would have won Florida - depends which way you look at it.
Review of all ballots statewide (never undertaken)
• Standard as set by each county canvassing board during their survey Gore by 171 • Fully punched chad and limited marks on optical ballots Gore by 115 • Any dimples or optical mark Gore by 107 • One corner of chad detached or optical mark Gore by 60
Review of limited sets of ballots (initiated but not completed)
• Gore request for recounts of all ballots in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties Bush by 225 • Florida Supreme Court of all undervotes statewide Bush by 430 • Florida Supreme Court as being implemented by the counties, some of whom refused and some counted overvotes as well as undervotes Bush by 493 Unofficial recount totals
• Incomplete result when the Supreme Court stayed the recount (December 9, 2000) Bush by 154
Certified Result (official final count) • Recounts included from Volusia and Broward only Bush by 537
If there were a GE before summer 2017, by common opinion there would be an increased Tory majority.
However, just how likely is it that many LDs would be campaigning as continuity Remain in areas that voted Remain? Similarly Labour in metropolitan seats. A racing certainty I'd say. Similarly, us Tories would campaign on a firm Leave ticket.
Given the facile arguments put over the by Remain-minded media and Remain-minded oppositions, some fools would add the losing vote shares of Lab and LD, and of course SNP, and say that because of FPTP more people voted against the winners (Leave) than the losers (Remain) - regardless of the reasons for voting.
Add in the Lords - especially foolish parties who suggest they won't abide by the Salisbury constitution, and we'd be looking at a far worse situation
This, and the necessity to ground our constituencies in some boundary related version of reality suggest to me that May would never go to the country.
It could turn a political crisis into a constitutional crisis. The only time that would be advisable is if May's Leave approach was actually blocked.
Then, and only then, would it be worth risking it all on a single game of pitch and toss.
If the Remain majority in parliament overturned the referendum result tomorrow there would be an early General Election and a huge " Winchester " style backlash.
How exactly?
If there is a remain majority in Parliament, enough candidates would need to be replaced by Leavers
Are you suggesting UKIP would win hundreds of seats? Really?
The country would be offered a Conservative manifesto based on Leaving with a then overwhelming pro Leave slate of candidates. It would be even easier than the referendum. You don't need 50% + 1 under first past the post.
I think we do need an early election, but it is more likely to be competing visions of Brexit on offer, as all parties have accepted the result, it is whether the mandate is for Hard or Soft Brexit that is undecided.
In such circumstances it would probably be the Tories that are most split, while UKIP is clearly for Hard Brexit, the LibDems, PC and Labour are for Soft; and the SNP for independence.
I've a lot of time for that view. The two routes to #Mayday are either seeking a dissolution immeadiately after invoking A50 in March. Ride the sentiment waive and seek a mandate for the negotiating aims. Or #Mayday following wrecking Sunrise clauses inserted into the A50 Bill needed if HMG loses the Supreme Court challenge. But you are right. In a FPTP system it would be a choice between the Tories Coke Brexit and Labour's Pepsi Brexit. Remain Cola would rack up hundreds of second places but win only a score of seats.
May will be constrained by Corbyn's attitude to the prospect of an early Dissolution. If the polls in late March are comparable to today's Opinium poll he might be up for it , but if they still showed a Tory lead well into double figures he would surely try to thwart her plans - or at least make her go down the Vote of No Confidence road with all its constitutional uncertainties.
If the Remain majority in parliament overturned the referendum result tomorrow there would be an early General Election and a huge " Winchester " style backlash.
How exactly?
If there is a remain majority in Parliament, enough candidates would need to be replaced by Leavers
Are you suggesting UKIP would win hundreds of seats? Really?
The country would be offered a Conservative manifesto based on Leaving with a then overwhelming pro Leave slate of candidates. It would be even easier than the referendum. You don't need 50% + 1 under first past the post.
I think we do need an early election, but it is more likely to be competing visions of Brexit on offer, as all parties have accepted the result, it is whether the mandate is for Hard or Soft Brexit that is undecided.
In such circumstances it would probably be the Tories that are most split, while UKIP is clearly for Hard Brexit, the LibDems, PC and Labour are for Soft; and the SNP for independence.
I've a lot of time for that view. The two routes to #Mayday are either seeking a dissolution immeadiately after invoking A50 in March. Ride the sentiment waive and seek a mandate for the negotiating aims. Or #Mayday following wrecking Sunrise clauses inserted into the A50 Bill needed if HMG loses the Supreme Court challenge. But you are right. In a FPTP system it would be a choice between the Tories Coke Brexit and Labour's Pepsi Brexit. Remain Cola would rack up hundreds of second places but win only a score of seats.
May will be constrained by Corbyn's attitude to the prospect of an early Dissolution. If the polls in late March are comparable to today's Opinium poll he might be up for it , but if they still showed a Tory lead well into double figures he would surely try to thwart her plans - or at least make her go down the Vote of No Confidence road with all its constitutional uncertainties.
I understand Labour MPs have already worked out a plan to thwart any early election and describe it as keeping May prisoner in Downing Street. Which is perhaps a strange way to look at it.
Then again it would be rash to put much faith in the planning abilities of Labour MPs.
Re Gore in 2000. Surely 'the process of checking those hanging chads' was never 'completed and verified ' because the Supreme Court prevented the recount from taking place! Democracy did not prevail that year.
Wiki provides the following possible outcomes based on studies undertaken of the various contested elements. It is not clear that Gore would have won Florida - depends which way you look at it.
Review of all ballots statewide (never undertaken)
• Standard as set by each county canvassing board during their survey Gore by 171 • Fully punched chad and limited marks on optical ballots Gore by 115 • Any dimples or optical mark Gore by 107 • One corner of chad detached or optical mark Gore by 60
Review of limited sets of ballots (initiated but not completed)
• Gore request for recounts of all ballots in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties Bush by 225 • Florida Supreme Court of all undervotes statewide Bush by 430 • Florida Supreme Court as being implemented by the counties, some of whom refused and some counted overvotes as well as undervotes Bush by 493 Unofficial recount totals
• Incomplete result when the Supreme Court stayed the recount (December 9, 2000) Bush by 154
Certified Result (official final count) • Recounts included from Volusia and Broward only Bush by 537
I accept that the result remains unclear, but what was so appalling was the failure of the Courts to allow any recount to be completed,
If the Remain majority in parliament overturned the referendum result tomorrow there would be an early General Election and a huge " Winchester " style backlash.
How exactly?
If there is a remain majority in Parliament, enough candidates would need to be replaced by Leavers
Are you suggesting UKIP would win hundreds of seats? Really?
The country would be offered a Conservative manifesto based on Leaving with a then overwhelming pro Leave slate of candidates. It would be even easier than the referendum. You don't need 50% + 1 under first past the post.
I think we do need an early election, but it is more likely to be competing visions of Brexit on offer, as all parties have accepted the result, it is whether the mandate is for Hard or Soft Brexit that is undecided.
In such circumstances it would probably be the Tories that are most split, while UKIP is clearly for Hard Brexit, the LibDems, PC and Labour are for Soft; and the SNP for independence.
I've a lot of time for that view. The two routes to #Mayday are either seeking a dissolution immeadiately after invoking A50 in March. Ride the sentiment waive and seek a mandate for the negotiating aims. Or #Mayday following wrecking Sunrise clauses inserted into the A50 Bill needed if HMG loses the Supreme Court challenge. But you are right. In a FPTP system it would be a choice between the Tories Coke Brexit and Labour's Pepsi Brexit. Remain Cola would rack up hundreds of second places but win only a score of seats.
May will be constrained by Corbyn's attitude to the prospect of an early Dissolution. If the polls in late March are comparable to today's Opinium poll he might be up for it , but if they still showed a Tory lead well into double figures he would surely try to thwart her plans - or at least make her go down the Vote of No Confidence road with all its constitutional uncertainties.
I understand Labour MPs have already worked out a plan to thwart any early election and describe it as keeping May prisoner in Downing Street. Which is perhaps a strange way to look at it.
Then again it would be rash to put much faith in the planning abilities of Labour MPs.
Mr. Jonathan, part of the blame rests with Cameron who did sod all preparatory work and prevented the Civil Service from doing anything.
I'll accept that argument against Cameron when someone shows me leave's consolidated plan for what would happen afterwards.
Oh ...
Leave wasn't and isn't the government and so was in no position to make and enforce such a plan.
You make three statements: 1) Leave wasn't and isn't the government True.
2) so was in no position to make such a plan. False.
3) so was in no position to enforce such a plan. True.
We all know why they didn't make such a plan: they needed to form a broad church in order to win, and any such plan would have upset too many Brexiters and pushed moderates towards Remain.
Their lack of putting forward a coherent position means that we're in more trouble now than would have been the case otherwise: the government would have had a firmer view of the people's will.
I find their willingness to blame Cameron for this one of the sadly funny aspects of Brexit.
No, the second statement is true as well: they did not have access to the civil service to make a plan (unlike oppositions before a general election).
The most that they could have done would have been to sketch an outline of a plan, but without the backing of civil service input this would have been unhelpful as the public could have believed that it was a manifesto for immediate implementation rather than just a general outline.
Oh come on. In which case they should have shut up and not campaigned. *They* were responsible for making a case for leave. But instead of a coherent plan, they produced a mess that would appeal to as broad a base as possible. The problem now is that we now have f'all idea how to reconcile that mess with reality.
Still have a lot of anger issues about LEAVE, JJ. calm down dear.
Nope, no anger at all. I think you might be projecting. Perhaps it might be wisest to take you own advice?
Re Gore in 2000. Surely 'the process of checking those hanging chads' was never 'completed and verified ' because the Supreme Court prevented the recount from taking place! Democracy did not prevail that year.
Wiki provides the following possible outcomes based on studies undertaken of the various contested elements. It is not clear that Gore would have won Florida - depends which way you look at it.
Review of all ballots statewide (never undertaken)
• Standard as set by each county canvassing board during their survey Gore by 171 • Fully punched chad and limited marks on optical ballots Gore by 115 • Any dimples or optical mark Gore by 107 • One corner of chad detached or optical mark Gore by 60
Review of limited sets of ballots (initiated but not completed)
• Gore request for recounts of all ballots in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties Bush by 225 • Florida Supreme Court of all undervotes statewide Bush by 430 • Florida Supreme Court as being implemented by the counties, some of whom refused and some counted overvotes as well as undervotes Bush by 493 Unofficial recount totals
• Incomplete result when the Supreme Court stayed the recount (December 9, 2000) Bush by 154
Certified Result (official final count) • Recounts included from Volusia and Broward only Bush by 537
I accept that the result remains unclear, but what was so appalling was the failure of the Courts to allow any recount to be completed,
A partial recount was unconstitutional as well as being silly. Gore should have asked for a full manual statewide recount from the start.
Not the least reason for continued bickering about what happens next is that much the same appears to being conducted, sometimes quite publicly, within the cabinet. When there's no settled policy, it seems rather otiose to argue that those who voted remain ought just to shut up.
Cabinet members ticking each other off publically, and being slapped down by the PM does indeed give the impression that there is no plan.
I have not seen any evidence that there is a plan, or that May is capable of forming one. In the absence of a plan the outcome defaults to Hard Brexit. Get used to it.
Probably best.
Why stay in an organisation that cant deliver a trade deal with the US or Canada or anywhere else for that matter.
Even the germans are now coming to realise the Brits had a point.
Mr. Jonathan, part of the blame rests with Cameron who did sod all preparatory work and prevented the Civil Service from doing anything.
I'll accept that argument against Cameron when someone shows me leave's consolidated plan for what would happen afterwards. Oh ...
Were the LEAVE campaigners in charge of any civil servants with the right to direct them to do such work?
JJ You really keep on trying to fight against Brexit, get over it, move on please.
LOL. If you read my posts (I accept it sadly seems a hard task for some leavers) then you will see I have accepted Brexit. In fact, I've given some good (*) arguments for a quick Brexit, even if that means hard Brexit. I do not favour another referendum, and have never argued for one. I'm not quite sure how that makes you think I'm fighting against Brexit. But that doesn't mean that I can't point out when I think people are wrong. Even when they're leavers. (*) At least I think so.
I have not read every one of your posts. So I clearly have missed the ones where you talk about Brexit with coming across as a moaning REMAIN person. I am tempted to ask if they represent 1%, 10% or >50% of your posts? But that would be ungentlemanly.
Considering my position has been pretty consistent since the referendum (*), it is odd that you haven't detected that. I'm pretty sure that none of my posts since the referendum have called for a re-run, and none have said that the result should be ignored. In fact, I think I was the first remain voter on here to say they accepted the result the day after.
You obviously missed me talking about the options of hard brexit, semi-soft brexit, soft brexit, and quick brexit, along with the problems and advantages of them. You missed where I've analysed why remain lost, and placed much of the blame on the EU itself. I've called for Juncker to go, for it as much an EU failure as it is Cameron's. Etcetera, etcetera.
But that's different from agreeing with you on everything, which seems to be all you can cope with.
And don't worry about being ungentlemanly; you don't come across as one anyway.
(*) Though increasingly leaning towards Quick Brexit, for the reasons discussed before.
Hello PBers, I'm at the zoo... I'll let you guys know if I see any of the stereotypes that are so readily bandied around on here
If you go past the gorilla enclosure, don't let them know I've escaped. They've tried leaving some Ribena about to trap me, but I just raid the shop for that.
Pensioners living in France wanting to move back to UK (According to twitter), but apparently there is a property glut in France so tricky to sell up quickly.
Comments
Alas, given the 'quality' of my other tips I'd fear the drinks would be laced with arsenic
Which backed Remain.
Er...no.....I really think its about better quality. You are simply a victim of your emotional prejudices about leavers. After that extraordinary post its clear you deep down think that all leavers are skinhead racists.
Here's an example of how immigration might work better. More visas for Russians. One of the best ways of undermining Putin would be to poach some of his best brains. Don't tell me we wouldn't be killed in the rush if we offered them.
But we can't. Because there is already a deluge. Of people of all sorts.
(As an aside, i believe the highest default rate for students is Uk students that leave for Australia or Canada, where - presumably - they consider themselves safe...)
If it had happened after no doubt the win for Leave would have been reported as the inspiration.
They still need 59 runs with 4 wickets left.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37744003
I agree with your last point about emigrants. There's a fair few of them in this part of the world hoping to stay away for long enough that the student loans people forget about them!
Suggest stuff like that to some on here, and you will be accused of being nothing more than a racist with an agenda.
Arguing that not giving up till the end is desperate, doomed to failure, counterproductive or even undignified is one set of criticisms. But the specific charge is it's undemocratic. This seems to me to be nonsense designed to close down debate and confuse a democratic mandate with implementation and scrutiny of implementation.
If Party A won a General Election on Pledge B would party C be " undemocratic " to campaign against before the legislation was tabled ? Or vote against it during parliamentary passage ? Or size new information or changed circumstances became apparent between the GE and the Bills Third Reading ?
Of course not. In every other policy area we accept democratic mandates for policies derived from elections but then continue even redouble efforts to amend, scrutinise and yes block during the passage and implementation stage. We accept it's legitimate to try and change peoples mind until the last. So why is this referendum result, which was deliberately ' advisory ' different ?
It seems to me there are only two possible answers to this. The first is somehow referendums are different to other democratic mandates. I'm willing to listen to arguments. The second is it's guff but it suits the victors to pretend otherwise. They don't want their victory snatched from them in the 94th minute. I respect that but only because they are doing what militant Remainers are doing. Using democratic means to persuade voters their own narrative prevails over a clear but very limited referendum question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8OLuUjXbsI
Basically Bayes is working against you here.
The other issue is the Northern Ireland case which has been heard and awaiting judgement.
And it was the anti immigration crowd wot won it. Ultimately.
Edit. Swinging England's way now.
No-one is complaining about immigrant doctors, engineers and sportsmen. The complaints are about people coming from Eastern Europe with their families to work minimum wage jobs topped up with tax credits and housing benefits, and (perversely in the context of the EU) immigration from cultures who have no wish to integrate and become British over time.
He may even be dumb enough to concede whilst the West is still voting. Which could stiff the Republicans in a few down-ballot contests.....
It's like people getting all bent out of shape when people talk about how the referendum wasn't binding - it doesn't matter if people pushing that point are remainers who would indeed like to ignore the vote, it is still true that it wasn't binding. And it is still true we have not formally taken the decision to Leave, even if that is not a hugely relevant point given the momentum toward Leave is, outside of the most extreme of unlikely scenarios, unstoppable. As such, why worry about people making that highly technical point?
The margin was so slight that it was won by innumerable things. It was won by those (like Tony Benn) who believed that the EU is anti-democractic. It was won by those (like me) disgusted with Brussels corruption & bureaucracy (of which I have way too much personal experience).
But the biggest reason why Leave won is the Remain campaign. The Remainers ran the stupidest campaign since Goldwater took a dive (although Trump has now run an even stupider campaign, for sure).
Some of the remarks posted by Remainers on this site before the Referendum were glistening gems of malignant snobbery and elitism. A small point, for sure, but a clear hint of the horrible sickness at the heart of their campaign.
The worst thing for me would now be to ignore the result of the referendum. For me, that is simply immoral (although it is interesting how many are prepared to contemplate it).
However, I am happy for Remain to call for another referendum if there is something fresh to put before the British people. But, seriously, most Remainers don’t even seem to have understood why they lost in the first place, and so even with a second chance, I think Remain will lose again.
The decision hasn't been implemented yet, but it has been taken.
It's clearly democratic to oppose and possibly defeat particular Brexit packages. However until a Brexit package gets agreed leaving is also blocked. So which comes first ? The Leaving or the Brexit ? Is the referendum result imperative and may be carried out regardless ? Or s it legitimate to oppose and possibly defeat particular Brexit with Leaving left until a Brexit commands majority consent ?
Is this sophistry ? Yes it is. It's also low politics. 52% voted Leave. Leave has a mandate. But voters will also get a Brexit when they leave. We have no proposed Brexit yet. When we do it may command majority consent. Or it may not. Until we have consent for a Brexit we can't exercise the mandate to Leave. The political process is still in play. Unless that is some Leavers argue voters can't take back control over what Brexit is ?
The Government is leaving. We are leaving.
Sensibility and pragmatically there should be a parliamentary vote about it also.
I am more of the opinion it will be a vengeful "You won't have Richard Nixon to kick around anymore ...” type speech.
Nothing gets better for Remain second time around.....
If the political class block us leaving the EU because they can't agree the manner of the departure amongst themselves, then either UKIP may come roaring back or, perhaps likelier, we'll see extremism on the rise.
Contempt for democracy and the electorate will not have positive consequences. Bitterness will be the order of the day. There'll be huge anger at the politicians.
It would also likely cause either a fresh election or the disintegration of the Conservatives. The nightmare scenario would be Corbyn in Number Ten, if the blues tear themselves apart after a Commons vote frustrates the referendum result.
Every single EU measure thereafter would be treated as morally illegitimate, inflicted by foreigners and imposed upon us against our will by a political class that asked our opinion and then ignored our answer.
That's not to say it won't happen. It might. Which is why I've always said I'll believe we're leaving when we've left.
The Autumn statement is likely to have a "punishment budget" feel about it
Leave lied. Remain were right.
Leave’s lies were believed. Remain’s were not.
Paraphrasing, Leave ran a better campaign than Remain.
Anyway, I must be off. The hound won't walk herself. [Well, she tried the other day and it didn't go well...].
If there is a remain majority in Parliament, enough candidates would need to be replaced by Leavers
Are you suggesting UKIP would win hundreds of seats? Really?
EDIT: And even if they did, they might be replacing leavers...
Many people who voted leave are in the "never kissed a Tory" camp. Would they turn out to vote Tory?
Many people who voted Tory for years are in the Remain camp. Would they turn out to vote Tory on an explicitly leave ticket? I wouldn't.
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/790153421915557888
In such circumstances it would probably be the Tories that are most split, while UKIP is clearly for Hard Brexit, the LibDems, PC and Labour are for Soft; and the SNP for independence.
He knows how to manipulate the t.v media if he concedes early he will be seen as to be magnanimous in defeat and the media will paint him in a more positive light, so far during this race he has come across as a jerk, but he knows he can control the media narrative once more. His consesion speech will be about holding the elite and Hillary to account blaah blah blah but his first aim is to rebuild his relationship with the media.
If there were a GE before summer 2017, by common opinion there would be an increased Tory majority.
However, just how likely is it that many LDs would be campaigning as continuity Remain in areas that voted Remain? Similarly Labour in metropolitan seats. A racing certainty I'd say. Similarly, us Tories would campaign on a firm Leave ticket.
Given the facile arguments put over the by Remain-minded media and Remain-minded oppositions, some fools would add the losing vote shares of Lab and LD, and of course SNP, and say that because of FPTP more people voted against the winners (Leave) than the losers (Remain) - regardless of the reasons for voting.
Add in the Lords - especially foolish parties who suggest they won't abide by the Salisbury constitution, and we'd be looking at a far worse situation
This, and the necessity to ground our constituencies in some boundary related version of reality suggest to me that May would never go to the country.
It could turn a political crisis into a constitutional crisis. The only time that would be advisable is if May's Leave approach was actually blocked.
Then, and only then, would it be worth risking it all on a single game of pitch and toss.
'"Which PBer'd live in a house like this? David, it's over to you."
https://twitter.com/naebD/status/790154617048948736
Review of all ballots statewide (never undertaken)
• Standard as set by each county canvassing board during their survey Gore by 171
• Fully punched chad and limited marks on optical ballots Gore by 115
• Any dimples or optical mark Gore by 107
• One corner of chad detached or optical mark Gore by 60
Review of limited sets of ballots (initiated but not completed)
• Gore request for recounts of all ballots in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties Bush by 225
• Florida Supreme Court of all undervotes statewide Bush by 430
• Florida Supreme Court as being implemented by the counties, some of whom refused and some counted overvotes as well as undervotes Bush by 493
Unofficial recount totals
• Incomplete result when the Supreme Court stayed the recount (December 9, 2000) Bush by 154
Certified Result (official final count)
• Recounts included from Volusia and Broward only Bush by 537
Then again it would be rash to put much faith in the planning abilities of Labour MPs.
At that point the wishes, independence and influence of the small nations disappears, even individually big ones depending on the QMV level set.
You obviously missed me talking about the options of hard brexit, semi-soft brexit, soft brexit, and quick brexit, along with the problems and advantages of them. You missed where I've analysed why remain lost, and placed much of the blame on the EU itself. I've called for Juncker to go, for it as much an EU failure as it is Cameron's. Etcetera, etcetera.
But that's different from agreeing with you on everything, which seems to be all you can cope with.
And don't worry about being ungentlemanly; you don't come across as one anyway.
(*) Though increasingly leaning towards Quick Brexit, for the reasons discussed before.
Oh, you were talking about stereotypes ...