''Of course it's White Flight. Everyone knows it, everyone sees it, he admits the data reveals it, he just can't bring himself to use the words. ''
This is why voters want full control of immigration and why they will not be satisfied by any brexit lite.
Rightly or wrongly, they want to have the choice of being able to vote for parties that will target zero immigration from muslim countries.
Whisper it, they may even want to be able to vote for parties that will target muslim emigration. Ugly, but true, I have a feeling.
I agree that the most troubling immigration, for most voters concerned on this issue, is Muslim immigration. But, ironically, Brexit does little to alter that, it will stop waiters from Belgium not imams from Bangladesh.
These voters only went for Brexit as it was the only anti-immigration lever they were allowed to pull.
The simplest, but difficult in reality, way to do this would be to make it very difficult to be a devout Muslim in the UK. Ban Halal slaughter and importation of Halal produce, ban the burka, get rid of religious equality (since religion is a choice) etc... a lot of smaller measures will add up to net emigration of Muslim people who wish to live by devout doctrine as those who are here leave for nations where it is easier and those who want to do that don't bother coming here in the first place. Simple in theory, but plagued with the possibility of serious problems in reality.
So Halal meat should be banned ? We can still eat kosher meat, I presume.
When Jewish people start committing acts of terrorism we'll have a look at it I guess.
You know Muslims are allowed to eat kosher food if theres no halal food right?
I know, again which is why the more devout types will leave and the less devout ones will make do and secular ones won't care.
I think it's just about possible that Trump loses some or all of AZ, CO, NV, FL and carries WI.
Demographics.
There's a lot of contradictory data out there. It can't all be accurate. Either Trump's national share is strengthening and he will knock off a swathe of swing states, or it isn't and he won't.
Or, there isn't universal swing in operation.
It is hard to judge all of the information, but I'm now as follows:
Clinton
319+ EVs +613 270-318 +697 250-269 +760 0-250 760 less £15 per ECV below 249.
That leaves me in profit for anything over 200 ECVs for Clinton, which requires Trump to win Virginia.
That's a great looking book, I wish it were mine! AAMOI, how do you expect the POTUS election to finish?
Clinton 213 - 323 ECVs upper, lower range.
Trump faces significant difficulties getting over 266, if he does however then he could easily push Hillary down to 217 (Since I expect Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania all to be reasonably correlated)
Yes, Nate Silver's simulations also show a very strong correlation between many of the swing states. The EC is likely to be a decisive result.
This is the 2nd big threat to Brexit, certainly Hard Brexit.
If public opinion shifts emphatically, let's say to 60/40 Remain by next Spring, would any PM trigger A50?
It would certainly take a very brave politician to go for HARD Brexit with polling like that.
Indeed. Why would any PM trigger it when public opinion has shifted?
If you trust the polls. That is a big IF after they have been wrong so much. You can only really trust it where there are overwhelming majorities, like the number of people that want to control freedom of movement.
But polls do change politics. Remember when Gordon Brown abandoned a planned election, after a few bad polls.
If polling shows Remain leading 60/40 next March, it will have consequences.
Back in the Summer of 2015, Remain were leading by about 25% in the polls (one poll even put Remain 44% ahead). As the debate progressed, so Remain's lead fell, and Leave won. The question was put to the people, and they voted to Leave. Their wishes must be adhered to.
I know NP-exMP like to tell us about how the Labour government conversed with Imams / religious scholars to tell halal slaughter houses that stunning was still allowable. However, I believe since then there has been a huge rise in recent immigrants who are much more devote in their beliefs demanding "real" halal and thus the proportion of meat slaughtered without the use of stunning has risen substantially.
The obvious nudge solution would be to clamp down on things like this.
Gloat away. You do realise this is a massive shot in the arm for Ukip, even when the HoC eventually votes to invoke Article 50. They were withering on the vine - now they'll take votes away from both Labour and the Tories.
''All we'd really need to do is expect and demand that the Muslim community be made to live within our existing laws. It is the abject failure to do so for politically correct reasons that also feeds the anti-immigrant feeling.''
The establishment that run our country will never do that. Never. A country that sends people to jail for throwing bacon into mosques. And Brexit is partly about that too, sadly.
The bad thing about this judgement is it will allow UKIP to say to the electorate that if they want change, REAL change, it isn;t enough to threaten to send UKIP MPs to parliament.
''The simplest, but difficult in reality, way to do this would be to make it very difficult to be a devout Muslim in the UK.''
The UK's affiliations to the ECJ and the ECHR are seen as big barriers to that, and Brexit was about that too.
Its ugly and difficult to admit, but for some voters the referendum was about clearing the decks for a potential government in the future to do what it likes in regard to certain communities in this country.
Maybe we could start by getting the police to investigate and the CPS to prosecute ALL Rotherham type grooming/abuse/rape cases across the country (of which I suspect there are tens of thousands), ALL the female genital mutilation cases, ALL the honour killings, ALL the animal abuse Halal butchery cases etc. All we'd really need to do is expect and demand that the Muslim community be made to live within our existing laws. It is the abject failure to do so for politically correct reasons that also feeds the anti-immigrant feeling.
Do you have a view on the illegal Jewish schools in London and how the Department for Education looks the other way does a Rotherham?
''Of course it's White Flight. Everyone knows it, everyone sees it, he admits the data reveals it, he just can't bring himself to use the words. ''
This is why voters want full control of immigration and why they will not be satisfied by any brexit lite.
Rightly or wrongly, they want to have the choice of being able to vote for parties that will target zero immigration from muslim countries.
Whisper it, they may even want to be able to vote for parties that will target muslim emigration. Ugly, but true, I have a feeling.
I agree that the most troubling immigration, for most voters concerned on this issue, is Muslim immigration. But, ironically, Brexit does little to alter that, it will stop waiters from Belgium not imams from Bangladesh.
These voters only went for Brexit as it was the only anti-immigration lever they were allowed to pull.
The simplest, but difficult in reality, way to do this would be to make it very difficult to be a devout Muslim in the UK. Ban Halal slaughter and importation of Halal produce, ban the burka, get rid of religious equality (since religion is a choice) etc... a lot of smaller measures will add up to net emigration of Muslim people who wish to live by devout doctrine as those who are here leave for nations where it is easier and those who want to do that don't bother coming here in the first place. Simple in theory, but plagued with the possibility of serious problems in reality.
So Halal meat should be banned ? We can still eat kosher meat, I presume.
When Jewish people start committing acts of terrorism we'll have a look at it I guess.
You know Muslims are allowed to eat kosher food if theres no halal food right?
I know, again which is why the more devout types will leave and the less devout ones will make do and secular ones won't care.
Quentin Letts Labour MP Paul Flynn just suggested MPs were more mature than Brexit voters. For the record, his Newport seat voted 56 per cent to Leave.
May should dare MPs to oppose Article 50. Would flush out all the Eurofanatic scum. If they do succeed in voting it down hold a general election and come back with 400 Tory MPs.
''The simplest, but difficult in reality, way to do this would be to make it very difficult to be a devout Muslim in the UK.''
The UK's affiliations to the ECJ and the ECHR are seen as big barriers to that, and Brexit was about that too.
Its ugly and difficult to admit, but for some voters the referendum was about clearing the decks for a potential government in the future to do what it likes in regard to certain communities in this country.
Maybe we could start by getting the police to investigate and the CPS to prosecute ALL Rotherham type grooming/abuse/rape cases across the country (of which I suspect there are tens of thousands), ALL the female genital mutilation cases, ALL the honour killings, ALL the animal abuse Halal butchery cases etc. All we'd really need to do is expect and demand that the Muslim community be made to live within our existing laws. It is the abject failure to do so for politically correct reasons that also feeds the anti-immigrant feeling.
Do you have a view on the illegal Jewish schools in London and how the Department for Education looks the other way does a Rotherham?
I don't because I was not aware. My attitude to them would be exactly the same. And for the record I have no doubt if we went medieval on Rotherham type sex abuse then a fair few of the scumbags getting sent down would be white British too. Good. We should respect our laws and enforce them. That would also put pressure on parliament to pass sensible laws. (As any trip on any UK motorway will tell you there are some laws we don't give a shit about and this simply devalues the law).
Having read this paragraph 94 there is little doubt on the judgement. It does raise serious questions about the quality of legal and political strategic advice that Mrs May is getting. The Govt lawyers let her down very badly.
Jesus, paragraph 94 basically calls the government fucking morons. But in lawyer language. I don't see how this is appealable without the supreme court smacking down these judges hard.
Yes. And that is a good thing. Parliamentary government is what we have - or ought to have - in this country. Not government by Royal Prerogative.
Sounds great if it means automatic invocation of Article 13 of the NATO treaty (cessation of membership after one year), given that British NATO membership has never been put to Parliament.
The politicians signed us up to slavery within the EU without the direct consent of the people. Now the judges don't want to listen to the vote of the people. Who is the plaintiff "fund manager" Miller? Is she trying to protect her investments? Does she have an understanding of British cultural heritage?
I wonder if the Courts would rule that any legislation to leave the EU would violate Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, on the ground that it removes EU citizenship from the public.
3) We're likely to get a vote on staying in the customs unions and the single market.
But that makes zero sense, because parliament can't decide whether we are offered either of those, or on what terms. It can perhaps express a view that they are or are not desirable, but this is a negotiation with 27 other countries, the Commission and the EU parliament. You can't negotiate by parliamentary debate.
Which is why this decision is ridiculous. Of course Parliament has to vote on the repeal of the ECA. It needs to vote on the great reform bill we were promised. But it cannot usefully vote on the terms of the deal until the government has made it and to do that they need to serve notice under Article 50.
I wonder if the Courts would rule that any legislation to leave the EU would violate Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, on the ground that it removes EU citizenship from the public.
You know they might, under the Charter an ECJ ruling would be binding as well.
3) We're likely to get a vote on staying in the customs unions and the single market.
But that makes zero sense, because parliament can't decide whether we are offered either of those, or on what terms. It can perhaps express a view that they are or are not desirable, but this is a negotiation with 27 other countries, the Commission and the EU parliament. You can't negotiate by parliamentary debate.
Which is why this decision is ridiculous. Of course Parliament has to vote on the repeal of the ECA. It needs to vote on the great reform bill we were promised. But it cannot usefully vote on the terms of the deal until the government has made it and to do that they need to serve notice under Article 50.
I wonder if the Courts would rule that any legislation to leave the EU would violate Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, on the ground that it removes EU citizenship from the public.
I wonder what the EU would do, if they were faced with a member country whose people wanted to leave but whose 'appropriate constitutional measures' were legally incapable of allowing it to leave?
The politicians signed us up to slavery within the EU without the direct consent of the people. Now the judges don't want to listen to the vote of the people. Who is the plaintiff "fund manager" Miller? Is she trying to protect her investments? Does she have an understanding of British cultural heritage?
Surely, Parliament is sovereign. They make the law and must abide by their own law. I don't fully understand the judgement and I'm a fervent Brexiteer but the law is the law.
''Who is the plaintiff "fund manager" Miller? Is she trying to protect her investments? Does she have an understanding of British cultural heritage? ''
Great poster girl for remain, along with Osborne, Soubry, Morgan, Clegg and Miliband. That lot can move mountains.
Stephen Kinnock let the cat out of the bag on the DP when he said him and others would vote against invoking A50 if they don't like the terms being offered. Since we know he is a fervent Remainer, he and his fellow Remain MPs will vote against anything that does not offer the single market and/or FoM. In other words, they will kill off Brexit, because the terms being offered will never be to their liking. I wonder if that means more to the Labour party than their utter destruction at the next election. I'm beginning to think it does.
Gloat away. You do realise this is a massive shot in the arm for Ukip, even when the HoC eventually votes to invoke Article 50. They were withering on the vine - now they'll take votes away from both Labour and the Tories.
You're not a closet Kipper, are you?
Yeah, no story energises the electorate like "due to legal decision, parliament votes on issue; makes same decision that would have happened anyway"
Stephen Kinnock let the cat out of the bag on the DP when he said him and others would vote against invoking A50 if they don't like the terms being offered. Since we know he is a fervent Remainer, he and his fellow Remain MPs will vote against anything that does not offer the single market and/or FoM. In other words, they will kill off Brexit, because the terms being offered will never be to their liking. I wonder if that means more to the Labour party than their utter destruction at the next election. I'm beginning to think it does.
If they vote it down it just means an early election and the utter destruction of Labour in the north and parts of Wales.
The politicians signed us up to slavery within the EU without the direct consent of the people. Now the judges don't want to listen to the vote of the people. Who is the plaintiff "fund manager" Miller? Is she trying to protect her investments? Does she have an understanding of British cultural heritage?
Surely, Parliament is sovereign. They make the law and must abide by their own law. I don't fully understand the judgement and I'm a fervent Brexiteer but the law is the law.
Agree totally. We have to reach a position of leaving the EU that is in accordance with the law. If it turns out that there is no such legal route for leaving: well, an earlier parliament will have succeeded in binding its successors, won't it? I thought that was illegal.
Stephen Kinnock let the cat out of the bag on the DP when he said him and others would vote against invoking A50 if they don't like the terms being offered. Since we know he is a fervent Remainer, he and his fellow Remain MPs will vote against anything that does not offer the single market and/or FoM. In other words, they will kill off Brexit, because the terms being offered will never be to their liking. I wonder if that means more to the Labour party than their utter destruction at the next election. I'm beginning to think it does.
For many, remaining in the Single Market and being good internationalists and Europeans is more important than the continued existence of a Labour Party utterly wrecked by the nasty hooligans of the far left.
Quentin Letts Labour MP Paul Flynn just suggested MPs were more mature than Brexit voters. For the record, his Newport seat voted 56 per cent to Leave.
May should dare MPs to oppose Article 50. Would flush out all the Eurofanatic scum. If they do succeed in voting it down hold a general election and come back with 400 Tory MPs.
It's a storm in a teacup. The Labour spokesman and even the LibDems have said they won't oppose the referendum result or Brexit. Obviously they'll try to bugger it up, delay etc but outright naked opposition is there none or next to none.
The politicians signed us up to slavery within the EU without the direct consent of the people. Now the judges don't want to listen to the vote of the people. Who is the plaintiff "fund manager" Miller? Is she trying to protect her investments? Does she have an understanding of British cultural heritage?
"Slavery is a legal or economic system in which principles of property law are applied to humans allowing them to be classified as property,[1] to be owned, bought and sold accordingly, and they cannot withdraw unilaterally from the arrangement. While a person is enslaved, the owner is entitled to the productivity of the slave's labour, without any remuneration. The rights and protection of the slave may be regulated by laws and customs in a particular time and place, and a person may become a slave from the time of their capture, purchase or birth."
I would be interested to hear how our EU membership corresponds to the above definition of slavery?
What has changed your view? (If indeed it has changed!)
Trump simply isn't ahead in enough polls, and he is behind in the wrong polls.
Mind you I could be wrong. If I am, piling on Trump on election night when he is clearly winning will be easier than Hillary who will quickly collapse into 1.01.
Hence balancing up (If anything tilting toward Hillary bearing in mind Trump tail risk) now.
Stephen Kinnock let the cat out of the bag on the DP when he said him and others would vote against invoking A50 if they don't like the terms being offered. Since we know he is a fervent Remainer, he and his fellow Remain MPs will vote against anything that does not offer the single market and/or FoM. In other words, they will kill off Brexit, because the terms being offered will never be to their liking. I wonder if that means more to the Labour party than their utter destruction at the next election. I'm beginning to think it does.
If they vote it down it just means an early election and the utter destruction of Labour in the north and parts of Wales.
De-railing Brexit is more important to Labour than anything else, perhaps even including their own existence, so fanatical are they. Corbyn looks more irrelevant now than he has ever done as leader.
Quentin Letts Labour MP Paul Flynn just suggested MPs were more mature than Brexit voters. For the record, his Newport seat voted 56 per cent to Leave.
May should dare MPs to oppose Article 50. Would flush out all the Eurofanatic scum. If they do succeed in voting it down hold a general election and come back with 400 Tory MPs.
It's a storm in a teacup. The Labour spokesman and even the LibDems have said they won't oppose the referendum result or Brexit. Obviously they'll try to bugger it up, delay etc but outright naked opposition is there none or next to none.
Where do you see the point at which "Obviously they'll try to bugger it up, delay" ends and and "outright naked opposition" begins?
Remember the correct phrase is "you lost, get over it"
If I was editing PB today, this thread would have been headlined
'Suck it up moaners, this is a victory for Parliamentary sovereignty, up there with chopping off the head of King Charles'
I don't know why you are happy. This may end up forcing a harder Brexit.
I have always expected a hard Brexit. By complicating matters this judgment makes a minimal Brexit more likely.
BTW as a Remain voter, I don't think a soft Brexit is necessarily superior to a hard Brexit. It doesn't resolve anything. Hard Brexit is clearer cut, but not to our advantage.
What has changed your view? (If indeed it has changed!)
Trump simply isn't ahead in enough polls, and he is behind in the wrong polls.
Mind you I could be wrong. If I am, piling on Trump on election night when he is clearly winning will be easier than Hillary who will quickly collapse into 1.01.
Hence balancing up (If anything tilting toward Hillary bearing in mind Trump tail risk) now.
If there's no overall majority in the electoral college, the 12th amendment requires the House of Representatives to choose the president by voting by states. What happens if a state delegation is tied?
This is the 2nd big threat to Brexit, certainly Hard Brexit.
If public opinion shifts emphatically, let's say to 60/40 Remain by next Spring, would any PM trigger A50?
It would certainly take a very brave politician to go for HARD Brexit with polling like that.
Indeed. Why would any PM trigger it when public opinion has shifted?
If you trust the polls. That is a big IF after they have been wrong so much. You can only really trust it where there are overwhelming majorities, like the number of people that want to control freedom of movement.
But polls do change politics. Remember when Gordon Brown abandoned a planned election, after a few bad polls.
If polling shows Remain leading 60/40 next March, it will have consequences.
Back in the Summer of 2015, Remain were leading by about 25% in the polls (one poll even put Remain 44% ahead). As the debate progressed, so Remain's lead fell, and Leave won. The question was put to the people, and they voted to Leave. Their wishes must be adhered to.
You mean in the summer of 2015 three out of twenty two polls showed a Remain lead over 25%. The actual average Remain lead was around half that.
I'm aware myself of how potent the 'against all odds' myth can be, but let's not get carried away.
What has changed your view? (If indeed it has changed!)
Trump simply isn't ahead in enough polls, and he is behind in the wrong polls.
Mind you I could be wrong. If I am, piling on Trump on election night when he is clearly winning will be easier than Hillary who will quickly collapse into 1.01.
Hence balancing up (If anything tilting toward Hillary bearing in mind Trump tail risk) now.
Remember the correct phrase is "you lost, get over it"
If I was editing PB today, this thread would have been headlined
'Suck it up moaners, this is a victory for Parliamentary sovereignty, up there with chopping off the head of King Charles'
I don't know why you are happy. This may end up forcing a harder Brexit.
The Mandy Rice-Davies defence applies here.
In your eyes, nothing can possibly spell bad news for Hard Brexit. Were Theresa May to stand up in parliament tomorrow and say, "We have decided, in the face of a shift in public opinion, to abandon all plans to leave the EU", you would find some way of interpreting that as making Hard Brexit more likely.
This is the 2nd big threat to Brexit, certainly Hard Brexit.
If public opinion shifts emphatically, let's say to 60/40 Remain by next Spring, would any PM trigger A50?
It would certainly take a very brave politician to go for HARD Brexit with polling like that.
I think most Brexiters know in their heart-of-hearts that the longer it goes on the more likely their initial 3.8% lead will fade away. June 23rd was the high-water mark. I suspect. Hence the hysteria from certain quarters when anything that looks like a delay occurs. Like many Remainers I am reconciled to the fact we will Leave but hell will freeze over before I accept a hard-Brexit without a fight.
Quite the contrary. As a Brexiteer since we entered 40 odd years ago I am convinced a second referendum will produce a much higher vote or leave. You'll have to accept a hard Brexit if the EU says that is will be what's on offer, and they seem minded to do so. I had to accept deeper integration for 40odd years so that's the way the cookie crumbles. You can do as I did, campaign for another referendum in 40 years to take us back in.
What has changed your view? (If indeed it has changed!)
Trump simply isn't ahead in enough polls, and he is behind in the wrong polls.
Mind you I could be wrong. If I am, piling on Trump on election night when he is clearly winning will be easier than Hillary who will quickly collapse into 1.01.
Hence balancing up (If anything tilting toward Hillary bearing in mind Trump tail risk) now.
The five stages of grief – more properly known as the "Kübler-Ross model" – holds that people going through grief progress through five stages: from denial to anger, to bargaining, to depression, and finally to acceptance......
Now new research from YouGov finds that the highest number of Remain voters are still stuck at the first stage: denial. Nearly a third (32%) of Remain voters say that they don’t believe people in the UK really wanted to leave the EU.
What has changed your view? (If indeed it has changed!)
Trump simply isn't ahead in enough polls, and he is behind in the wrong polls.
Mind you I could be wrong. If I am, piling on Trump on election night when he is clearly winning will be easier than Hillary who will quickly collapse into 1.01.
Hence balancing up (If anything tilting toward Hillary bearing in mind Trump tail risk) now.
What has changed your view? (If indeed it has changed!)
Trump simply isn't ahead in enough polls, and he is behind in the wrong polls.
Mind you I could be wrong. If I am, piling on Trump on election night when he is clearly winning will be easier than Hillary who will quickly collapse into 1.01.
Hence balancing up (If anything tilting toward Hillary bearing in mind Trump tail risk) now.
I know NP-exMP like to tell us about how the Labour government conversed with Imams / religious scholars to tell halal slaughter houses that stunning was still allowable. However, I believe since then there has been a huge rise in recent immigrants who are much more devote in their beliefs demanding "real" halal and thus the proportion of meat slaughtered without the use of stunning has risen substantially.
The obvious nudge solution would be to clamp down on things like this.
I couldn't agree more and it also applies to kosher meat as well. In fact the majority of kosher meat comes from unstunned meat and the unwanted hindquarters are put into the normal food chain unlabelled so there's no opportunity to be selective. I think the practice of slaughtering animals without stunning should be banned.
The politicians signed us up to slavery within the EU without the direct consent of the people. Now the judges don't want to listen to the vote of the people. Who is the plaintiff "fund manager" Miller? Is she trying to protect her investments? Does she have an understanding of British cultural heritage?
Surely, Parliament is sovereign. They make the law and must abide by their own law. I don't fully understand the judgement and I'm a fervent Brexiteer but the law is the law.
Agree totally. We have to reach a position of leaving the EU that is in accordance with the law. If it runs out that there is no such legal route for leaving: well, an earlier parliament will have succeeded in binding its successors, won't it? I thought that was illegal.
The legal route to exit is either (a) amendment of the ECA to allow leaving as a preprogative action or (b) approval by this (or successor) Parliament of a government proposal to call A50 separate from ECA, which will require a high-level indication of what the Government's negotiating priorities are - and, sorry, but high-level pre-negotiating positions have never been secret in the past and should not be now. This parliament has the power to do either of those two things, so quite clearly nobody is bound. Both approaches are effectively the same thing, though (b) seems more logical and more in line with what is being discussed.
Don't see it being voted down permanently, but equally an approval should not be forthcoming from parliament without proper answers. Any A50 vote down by parliament should make clear what extra is required to make progress. and parliamentary time should be set aside to bang their heads aganst this particular brick wall as top priority until such time as Parliament can approve, or it becomes clear that a dissolution needs to be engineered.
Stephen Kinnock let the cat out of the bag on the DP when he said him and others would vote against invoking A50 if they don't like the terms being offered. Since we know he is a fervent Remainer, he and his fellow Remain MPs will vote against anything that does not offer the single market and/or FoM. In other words, they will kill off Brexit, because the terms being offered will never be to their liking. I wonder if that means more to the Labour party than their utter destruction at the next election. I'm beginning to think it does.
How can there be any knowledge of the terms being offered - hasn't May the Government got to invoke A50 before they can negotiate terms?
Confirms what some of us have long suspected......
Different social groups are progressing down the scale at different rates, however. For instance, Conservative Remain voters are far more likely to have reached acceptance and come to terms with the result, whilst Labour and Lib Dem Remain voters are more likely to be in the depression phase.
Remember the correct phrase is "you lost, get over it"
If I was editing PB today, this thread would have been headlined
'Suck it up moaners, this is a victory for Parliamentary sovereignty, up there with chopping off the head of King Charles'
I don't know why you are happy. This may end up forcing a harder Brexit.
The Mandy Rice-Davies defence applies here.
In your eyes, nothing can possibly spell bad news for Hard Brexit. Were Theresa May to stand up in parliament tomorrow and say, "We have decided, in the face of a shift in public opinion, to abandon all plans to leave the EU", you would find some way of interpreting that as making Hard Brexit more likely.
If May did that it would mean a massive boost for hard Brexit since it would mean an eventual UKIP government based on betrayal of the 52%. They wouldn't have a second vote and would take us out with the hardest of 14" Hard Erexit.
As I said in an earlier post, the government needs to start looking at pleasing the 60% in the middle (which probably includes you and me) rather than trying to please the 20% of hard Brexiteers vs the 20% of superstate EUphiles.
This is the 2nd big threat to Brexit, certainly Hard Brexit.
If public opinion shifts emphatically, let's say to 60/40 Remain by next Spring, would any PM trigger A50?
It would certainly take a very brave politician to go for HARD Brexit with polling like that.
I think most Brexiters know in their heart-of-hearts that the longer it goes on the more likely their initial 3.8% lead will fade away. June 23rd was the high-water mark. I suspect. Hence the hysteria from certain quarters when anything that looks like a delay occurs. Like many Remainers I am reconciled to the fact we will Leave but hell will freeze over before I accept a hard-Brexit without a fight.
Quite the contrary. As a Brexiteer since we entered 40 odd years ago I am convinced a second referendum will produce a much higher vote or leave. You'll have to accept a hard Brexit if the EU says that is will be what's on offer, and they seem minded to do so. I had to accept deeper integration for 40odd years so that's the way the cookie crumbles. You can do as I did, campaign for another referendum in 40 years to take us back in.
A second referendum would lead to Leave having a greater majority. The full weight of the government would be on Leave's side unlike last time.
The Remoaners are grasping at straws and trying to use anything and everything to prevent Brexit.
Remember the correct phrase is "you lost, get over it"
If I was editing PB today, this thread would have been headlined
'Suck it up moaners, this is a victory for Parliamentary sovereignty, up there with chopping off the head of King Charles'
I don't know why you are happy. This may end up forcing a harder Brexit.
The Mandy Rice-Davies defence applies here.
In your eyes, nothing can possibly spell bad news for Hard Brexit. Were Theresa May to stand up in parliament tomorrow and say, "We have decided, in the face of a shift in public opinion, to abandon all plans to leave the EU", you would find some way of interpreting that as making Hard Brexit more likely.
If May did that it would mean a massive boost for hard Brexit since it would mean an eventual UKIP government based on betrayal of the 52%. They wouldn't have a second vote and would take us out with the hardest of 14" Hard Erexit.
As I said in an earlier post, the government needs to start looking at pleasing the 60% in the middle (which probably includes you and me) rather than trying to please the 20% of hard Brexiteers vs the 20% of superstate EUphiles.
What has changed your view? (If indeed it has changed!)
Trump simply isn't ahead in enough polls, and he is behind in the wrong polls.
Mind you I could be wrong. If I am, piling on Trump on election night when he is clearly winning will be easier than Hillary who will quickly collapse into 1.01.
Hence balancing up (If anything tilting toward Hillary bearing in mind Trump tail risk) now.
Now new research from YouGov finds that the highest number of Remain voters are still stuck at the first stage: denial. Nearly a third (32%) of Remain voters say that they don’t believe people in the UK really wanted to leave the EU.
You would have to be a total bloody idiot to think that, it's not as though the question was even remotely ambiguous. People understood what they were voting for.
Comments
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152685424531/same-candidates-different-worlds
I know NP-exMP like to tell us about how the Labour government conversed with Imams / religious scholars to tell halal slaughter houses that stunning was still allowable. However, I believe since then there has been a huge rise in recent immigrants who are much more devote in their beliefs demanding "real" halal and thus the proportion of meat slaughtered without the use of stunning has risen substantially.
The obvious nudge solution would be to clamp down on things like this.
@DouglasCarswell: I hope reform of judicial appointments is in a manifesto or two twitter.com/tnewtondunn/st…
Gloat away. You do realise this is a massive shot in the arm for Ukip, even when the HoC eventually votes to invoke Article 50. They were withering on the vine - now they'll take votes away from both Labour and the Tories.
You're not a closet Kipper, are you?
The establishment that run our country will never do that. Never. A country that sends people to jail for throwing bacon into mosques. And Brexit is partly about that too, sadly.
The bad thing about this judgement is it will allow UKIP to say to the electorate that if they want change, REAL change, it isn;t enough to threaten to send UKIP MPs to parliament.
You have to do it.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/02/poll-donald-trump-takes-3-point-lead-virginia-15-point-swing-away-hillary-clinton/
I love the Matt cartoons as well. I wonder what a political blog by Matt would be like?
Who is the plaintiff "fund manager" Miller? Is she trying to protect her investments? Does she have an understanding of British cultural heritage?
http://www.craciunresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Press-Release_Presidential-Election-2016_Alaska-Survey_Craciun-Research-_102916.pdf
405 E Fireweed Lane Suite 201 | Anchorage Alaska 99503 | Phone: 206.708.4500
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 29
l Shows Clinton Leads Trump by 4
Points in Alaska
The decision is very Kafkaesque.
If you look at the margin of error on that poll, the 95% range goes up to Clinton+6.
'Suck it up moaners, this is a victory for Parliamentary sovereignty, up there with chopping off the head of King Charles'
I don't know why you are happy. This may end up forcing a harder Brexit.
Great poster girl for remain, along with Osborne, Soubry, Morgan, Clegg and Miliband. That lot can move mountains.
FWIW 'Others' are about 1% up - but we don't even know what these other others are.
https://mobile.twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/792225146518040576/photo/2
edited for wrong word: runs >> turns
I would be interested to hear how our EU membership corresponds to the above definition of slavery?
Charlie Spierling
[Wave Hands] -> Clinton debate prep documents included jokes; visual instructions https://t.co/ttcepIktWV
Mind you I could be wrong. If I am, piling on Trump on election night when he is clearly winning will be easier than Hillary who will quickly collapse into 1.01.
Hence balancing up (If anything tilting toward Hillary bearing in mind Trump tail risk) now.
(Other colleagues from Yorkshire were fond of a joke, of course.)
Fairly consistent. I wonder how long May's honeymoon will last. Budget, perhaps?
I think they are effectively the same thing.
1. The arguments for blocking the referendum are the same as those used to block the extension of the franchise in 1832.
2. If the people's voice is not listened to, they may very well conclude that democracy does not serve them whatsoever.
BTW as a Remain voter, I don't think a soft Brexit is necessarily superior to a hard Brexit. It doesn't resolve anything. Hard Brexit is clearer cut, but not to our advantage.
Quick question for you. What do you reckon Hillary's ceiling is (realistically, DYOR etc).
I profit up to and including 299 DEM ECV. 300+ it's a bust. I can hedge 300-329 at 4.5 today. Any realistic chance she busts that too?
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/794185608944119808
I'm aware myself of how potent the 'against all odds' myth can be, but let's not get carried away.
Absolute, absolute max ceiling I can see now is 358 CV.
Max Clinton landslide (Realistically)
http://www.270towin.com/maps/e3yDy
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/794187003961180160
In your eyes, nothing can possibly spell bad news for Hard Brexit. Were Theresa May to stand up in parliament tomorrow and say, "We have decided, in the face of a shift in public opinion, to abandon all plans to leave the EU", you would find some way of interpreting that as making Hard Brexit more likely.
Con lead among:
Men: +21
65+: +45
Now new research from YouGov finds that the highest number of Remain voters are still stuck at the first stage: denial. Nearly a third (32%) of Remain voters say that they don’t believe people in the UK really wanted to leave the EU.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/11/03/five-stages-grief-most-remain-voters-are-stuck-den/
But this is the "max" map I'm looking at here.
Don't see it being voted down permanently, but equally an approval should not be forthcoming from parliament without proper answers. Any A50 vote down by parliament should make clear what extra is required to make progress. and parliamentary time should be set aside to bang their heads aganst this particular brick wall as top priority until such time as Parliament can approve, or it becomes clear that a dissolution needs to be engineered.
Maythe Government got to invoke A50 before they can negotiate terms?Different social groups are progressing down the scale at different rates, however. For instance, Conservative Remain voters are far more likely to have reached acceptance and come to terms with the result, whilst Labour and Lib Dem Remain voters are more likely to be in the depression phase.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/17899/Brexit grief party-01.png
As I said in an earlier post, the government needs to start looking at pleasing the 60% in the middle (which probably includes you and me) rather than trying to please the 20% of hard Brexiteers vs the 20% of superstate EUphiles.
The Remoaners are grasping at straws and trying to use anything and everything to prevent Brexit.
A Parliamentary vote v. a referendum vote.