So much going on and Labour is marginal to all of it. A semi-competent Labour leader would not need to look beyond the obvious questions to torture Theresa May. Instead, we have fiascos like this.
I can't recall a period where Britain's future looked so bleak. Nothing good can come until we have leaders to guide the nation away from the moral dregs we are now languishing in. None are remotely in sight.
I was having a go at Scott P (who clearly wants to reverse the vote)
On the contrary, I am with Alastair on this. The only way we can cauterise the Brexit wound is to go all in.
Hard as fuck Brexit.
Border controls, full tariffs. Bring it on. But do it legally so no Brexiteers can weasel out of it in the courts later.
So we can look forward to you condemning any politician (or others) who is opposing or delaying Brexit ?
The way in which Leavers seek to delegitimise any view opposed to their own is why Brexit will be a disaster. In a pluralist society we are each entitled to press our views.
The madness of Leavers is that every tenet of our society must potentially be sacrificed on the altar or Brexit. It's Jonestown politics.
Ground needs to be given on both sides. We're leaving, right?
I'm firmly of the view that we need to honour the result in the spirit that it was won. Oddly, many Leavers seem more chary about doing that than I am.
So we can look forward to you condemning any politician (or others) who is opposing or delaying Brexit ?
Politicians oppose things. The headbangers have been opposing for 30 years, so it would not be logical to condemn politicians for opposing Brexit, although I expect them to fail.
As for delay, May has set out a timetable, but that is only in jeopardy because her legal advisers can't get their shit together
Alternative interpretation: She's set out a timetable, but is hoping someone will give her an excuse to let it slip, in forlorn the hope that somebody will work out a form of brexit that doesn't either blow up the economy or look ridiculous, or failing that a way to get out of doing it.
For pity's sake. There is an arguable case - put by David H the other day - that the Royal Prerogative could be used to trigger Article 50.
Arguing against the court's decision is not the same as wanting to abandon the rule of law and you know it.
That case was argued. And lost.
And Sean is not arguing against the court's decision. He wants all legal process abandoned.
Unhinged...
We have an establishment that will not accept the will of the people. They will do anything to stop .it. T May. Made a mistake by letting this go to law, she should have said this is an abuse of process. But what is done is done. I hope she makes the most of this and uses it to rein in the judiciary and bring about Lords reform. And if that has to be via a general election so be it.
I do think we have a full-blown constitutional crisis now. The elite (or significant elements thereof) clearly does not accept the verdict of the people. To be fair, it was a narrow verdict, but it was also, in terms of numbers, the greatest mandate awarded in any vote in the entire history of the UK.
Perhaps this is a chance for us to reform the entire, rusty machinery of the British polity. From the Lords to the West Lothian Question.
This talk of elites is one of the first things that has to go.
I was having a go at Scott P (who clearly wants to reverse the vote)
On the contrary, I am with Alastair on this. The only way we can cauterise the Brexit wound is to go all in.
Hard as fuck Brexit.
Border controls, full tariffs. Bring it on. But do it legally so no Brexiteers can weasel out of it in the courts later.
So we can look forward to you condemning any politician (or others) who is opposing or delaying Brexit ?
The way in which Leavers seek to delegitimise any view opposed to their own is why Brexit will be a disaster. In a pluralist society we are each entitled to press our views.
The madness of Leavers is that every tenet of our society must potentially be sacrificed on the altar or Brexit. It's Jonestown politics.
It is hard to see how a referendum victory won by a peculiar alliance of right-wing intellectual free-marketeers, manual workers worried about Polish workers undercutting their wages, and a handful of careerist politicians with their eye on the main chance, is going to be capable of delivering much that is worthwhile, when the difficult decisions come to be made, given that their interests are so radically divergent.
For the first time I sincerely wonder if this will end in violence. Remainers need to get a grip.
Umm, the folk inciting civil disobedience after the judgement were Brexiteers.
If you are worried about violence, tell your friends to STFU for a bit
People like you should just leave the internet. You lost. Get over it. Move on. But more importantly, go away and never be heard from, again.
This is the only way we can heal the division, the losers - your lot - have to accept that you lost, that this is lost, that you have lost, stop trying to overturn the result whatever way you can, and go away and never be heard from again.
Basically, you have to disappear. GO.
Fuck off Sean, it wasn't 80/20. The country divided almost down the middle and to make it look otherwise the right wing media has decided it's 1935. I accept the idea of Brexit but not whatever lunacy Fox and Farage are cooking up. The Mail, Express et al need to tone it the fuck down, because as far as I can see their main objective is to incite Kristallnacht. If May had an iota of nous she would have had Dacre et al in weeks ago and told them to stfu.
We live in a world that is only going to get more global, not less, and I want a solution that reflects that, not one that turns Britain into a nasty, inward looking, pugilistic little island state.
I was having a go at Scott P (who clearly wants to reverse the vote) not sane Remainers like you who accept the result.
I don't want a Liam Fox Hard Brexit either, but if these traitorous ultra-Remainers (and that's what they are: traitors) keep trying to reverse the vote, thats where we will end up, as people like me recoil from the disgraceful anti-democratic stunts, and repulsive fraudulence, and we take any bloody Brexit we can get.
There is still time to save this. But the ultra-Remainers have to be squashed. No reversal, no rerun, no 2nd referendum. End this shit, now.
I don't plan to enter the argument other than to ask when did treacherous become traitorous? Or have they always been interchangeable?
[BEGIN Hyperbole] In the darkest days of 1940, REMAINERS would have welcomed Hitler and his hordes to these shores with open arms! [END Hyperbole]
I hope she makes the most of this and uses it to rein in the judiciary and bring about Lords reform. And if that has to be via a general election so be it.
My mind absolutely boggles at posts like this. I dare say you'd throw magna carta in the bin too if it was politically expedient.
For pity's sake. There is an arguable case - put by David H the other day - that the Royal Prerogative could be used to trigger Article 50.
Arguing against the court's decision is not the same as wanting to abandon the rule of law and you know it.
That case was argued. And lost.
And Sean is not arguing against the court's decision. He wants all legal process abandoned.
Unhinged...
We have an establishment that will not accept the will of the people. They will do anything to stop .it. T May. Made a mistake by letting this go to law, she should have said this is an abuse of process. But what is done is done. I hope she makes the most of this and uses it to rein in the judiciary and bring about Lords reform. And if that has to be via a general election so be it.
I do think we have a full-blown constitutional crisis now. The elite (or significant elements thereof) clearly does not accept the verdict of the people. To be fair, it was a narrow verdict, but it was also, in terms of numbers, the greatest mandate awarded in any vote in the entire history of the UK.
Perhaps this is a chance for us to reform the entire, rusty machinery of the British polity. From the Lords to the West Lothian Question.
I agree with this. Which is also why you're wrong to call for it to STOP. No, they must do their worst: the Lords, the judges, the establishment, the SNP, Sinn Fein. No Brexit without major constitutional reform.
I was having a go at Scott P (who clearly wants to reverse the vote)
On the contrary, I am with Alastair on this. The only way we can cauterise the Brexit wound is to go all in.
Hard as fuck Brexit.
Border controls, full tariffs. Bring it on. But do it legally so no Brexiteers can weasel out of it in the courts later.
So we can look forward to you condemning any politician (or others) who is opposing or delaying Brexit ?
The way in which Leavers seek to delegitimise any view opposed to their own is why Brexit will be a disaster. In a pluralist society we are each entitled to press our views.
The madness of Leavers is that every tenet of our society must potentially be sacrificed on the altar or Brexit. It's Jonestown politics.
Ground needs to be given on both sides. We're leaving, right?
I'm firmly of the view that we need to honour the result in the spirit that it was won. Oddly, many Leavers seem more chary about doing that than I am.
What does that mean? Given the referendum result we are leaving. Right?
I was having a go at Scott P (who clearly wants to reverse the vote)
On the contrary, I am with Alastair on this. The only way we can cauterise the Brexit wound is to go all in.
Hard as fuck Brexit.
Border controls, full tariffs. Bring it on. But do it legally so no Brexiteers can weasel out of it in the courts later.
So we can look forward to you condemning any politician (or others) who is opposing or delaying Brexit ?
The way in which Leavers seek to delegitimise any view opposed to their own is why Brexit will be a disaster. In a pluralist society we are each entitled to press our views.
The madness of Leavers is that every tenet of our society must potentially be sacrificed on the altar or Brexit. It's Jonestown politics.
Everyone is entitled to have their input into what Brexit entails and everyone is entitled to campaign to rejoin the EU after Brexit.
But people who wish to ignore the referendum result are trying to delegitimise democracy.
The madness of ultra-Remainers is that every tenet of our society must potentially be sacrificed on the altar of the EU.
I'll let you decide what sort of politics that is.
[pops head round door, sees everybody is getting aereated about something they cannot change whilst ignoring a massive political betting opportunity in four days time, shakes head sadly, goes to blogger.com, thinks about starting new site for people who want to bet on political events instead of Brexiteer mutual masturbation]
For pity's sake. There is an arguable case - put by David H the other day - that the Royal Prerogative could be used to trigger Article 50.
Arguing against the court's decision is not the same as wanting to abandon the rule of law and you know it.
That case was argued. And lost.
And Sean is not arguing against the court's decision. He wants all legal process abandoned.
Unhinged...
We have an establishment that will not accept the will of the people.
Really? It's amazing how a legal ruling on the extent of legal authority parliament has conferred on the government can do that when it explicitly ignored the issue of the will of the people as a matter irrelevant to the question before it, a technical point of law. Accepting the will of the people or not didn't factor into assessing what the law was, since that is set and changed by parliament, not the will of the people.
I am curious though: if you feel the government was wrong to accept the question on that point of law was one for the court to determine, what reason do you have to believe the government is correct in its interpretation of the rest of its legal case? If wrong about the former, it surely proves the point that people need to be able to challenge the government's interpretation of things, since you've just accepted it can get things wrong.
And I reiterate, I'll be content should the government win the appeal - it seems to me, as a lay person, accepting the parliament is sovereign, that parliament should be involved in triggering A50, and that they should indeed do so given the referendum result, but if the highest judges in the land rule that that is not a requirement, then even if I think it a good idea I cannot be outraged if they do not go down that route.
I was having a go at Scott P (who clearly wants to reverse the vote)
On the contrary, I am with Alastair on this. The only way we can cauterise the Brexit wound is to go all in.
Hard as fuck Brexit.
Border controls, full tariffs. Bring it on. But do it legally so no Brexiteers can weasel out of it in the courts later.
So we can look forward to you condemning any politician (or others) who is opposing or delaying Brexit ?
The way in which Leavers seek to delegitimise any view opposed to their own is why Brexit will be a disaster. In a pluralist society we are each entitled to press our views.
The madness of Leavers is that every tenet of our society must potentially be sacrificed on the altar or Brexit. It's Jonestown politics.
Ground needs to be given on both sides. We're leaving, right?
I'm firmly of the view that we need to honour the result in the spirit that it was won. Oddly, many Leavers seem more chary about doing that than I am.
What does that mean? Given the referendum result we are leaving. Right?
Leaving, prioritising controls on immigration whatever the consequences of that priority might be. That was how the referendum was won and any other form of Brexit would be a fraud on the electorate.
in forlorn the hope that somebody will work out a form of brexit that doesn't either blow up the economy or look ridiculous, or failing that a way to get out of doing it.
Forlorn is the operative word. All forms of Brexit harm the economy, most of them look ridiculous.
But economic harm and ridicule are what we must endure before we can rebuild.
[pops head round door, sees everybody is getting aereated about something they cannot change whilst ignoring a massive political betting opportunity in four days time, shakes head sadly, goes to blogger.com, thinks about starting new site for people who want to bet on political events instead of Brexiteer mutual masturbation]
I'm already worn out by the US election, but having taken a break on Brexit my reserves were filled up on that one. Although rapidly lowering.
I was having a go at Scott P (who clearly wants to reverse the vote)
On the contrary, I am with Alastair on this. The only way we can cauterise the Brexit wound is to go all in.
Hard as fuck Brexit.
Border controls, full tariffs. Bring it on. But do it legally so no Brexiteers can weasel out of it in the courts later.
So we can look forward to you condemning any politician (or others) who is opposing or delaying Brexit ?
The way in which Leavers seek to delegitimise any view opposed to their own is why Brexit will be a disaster. In a pluralist society we are each entitled to press our views.
The madness of Leavers is that every tenet of our society must potentially be sacrificed on the altar or Brexit. It's Jonestown politics.
It is hard to see how a referendum victory won by a peculiar alliance of right-wing intellectual free-marketeers, manual workers worried about Polish workers undercutting their wages, and a handful of careerist politicians with their eye on the main chance, is going to be capable of delivering much that is worthwhile, when the difficult decisions come to be made, given that their interests are so radically divergent.
They'll probably do what Cameron and Osborne did for six years and give the magic money tree another shake.
Cameron said it would be a mess. He warned against voting for the mess. He campaigned against the mess.
You wanted the mess. Now you blame that guy that tried to stop you.
You won. Suck it up!
I recall Cameron saying the consequences of Brexit would be terrible, I don't recall him saying that the process of Brexit would be a mess because the government had done little to no preparation.
Hmm. My first thought is, as with May likely not minding the High Court ruling against her (particularly if she is confident of winning on appeal), I suspect Corbyn would not mind the government winning on appeal, so he can have made claims about voting against the wrong type of Brexit being sought, without having to risk actually doing so given the large Leave vote among Labour voters.
My second thought was as a demand that is surely impossible, since access (however defined) cannot be guaranteed as it depends on the negotiations, so what he is trying to extract is either a promise we will try to get some access, or a clear division for any snap election on this issue, namely that Labour will try for a softer Brexit and Tories a hard one, but both will try for Brexit.
For pity's sake. There is an arguable case - put by David H the other day - that the Royal Prerogative could be used to trigger Article 50.
Arguing against the court's decision is not the same as wanting to abandon the rule of law and you know it.
That case was argued. And lost.
And Sean is not arguing against the court's decision. He wants all legal process abandoned.
Unhinged...
We have an establishment that will not accept the will of the people. They will do anything to stop .it. T May. Made a mistake by letting this go to law, she should have said this is an abuse of process. But what is done is done. I hope she makes the most of this and uses it to rein in the judiciary and bring about Lords reform. And if that has to be via a general election so be it.
Perhaps this is a chance for us to reform the entire, rusty machinery of the British polity. From the Lords to the West Lothian Question.
Really, we should have had Labour win in 2015 - then we'd have had a constitutional convention on all sorts of issues, as they promised, and given I doubt Brexit fervour would have gone away, an opportunity would have presented itself there in any case.
I was having a go at Scott P (who clearly wants to reverse the vote)
On the contrary, I am with Alastair on this. The only way we can cauterise the Brexit wound is to go all in.
Hard as fuck Brexit.
Border controls, full tariffs. Bring it on. But do it legally so no Brexiteers can weasel out of it in the courts later.
So we can look forward to you condemning any politician (or others) who is opposing or delaying Brexit ?
The way in which Leavers seek to delegitimise any view opposed to their own is why Brexit will be a disaster. In a pluralist society we are each entitled to press our views.
The madness of Leavers is that every tenet of our society must potentially be sacrificed on the altar or Brexit. It's Jonestown politics.
Ground needs to be given on both sides. We're leaving, right?
Alastair - supposedly - admits we are Leaving, but he wants a Hard Brexit so the country can be wrecked just so he can say Told You So.
I suspect he is a liar, and that if offered a chance to reverse the vote, he would seize it tomorrow.
Other Remainers are more honest, and simply want to ignore the referendum. Or avoid it. Or forget it. Or anything where they can just STAY.
They can hardly be surprised at the pitchfork grabbing of the Leavers, especially given the EU's history of ignoring referendums.
I would not inflict the diseased body politic of Britain on the EU now. This has to be sweated out before there can be any meaningful re-engagement. The damage is continuing to escalate for now. There is no sign that it can get better until Britain has left the EU.
I hope she makes the most of this and uses it to rein in the judiciary and bring about Lords reform. And if that has to be via a general election so be it.
My mind absolutely boggles at posts like this. I dare say you'd throw magna carta in the bin too if it was politically expedient.
I prescribe repeat viewings of Judge John Deed
The house of Parliament voted 6 to 1 for a referendum. It was very clear that the Government would implement the people's decisions. Or so it was claimed, the judiciary are now entering politics.
The Remainers are very unlikely to go quietly. They believe they have had their futures and the futures of their children hijacked by ignorant xenophobes.
Nearly all the remainers I know -which is almost everyone I spend time with -are incandescent with anger and wont go quietly. What they'll do I have no idea. I'm sure something will present itself.
Presumably those who consider themselves primarily European citizens could seek to relocate to another EU country and settle there? Could the EU allow ex-UK citizens who wished to do so, to become EU citizens in their own right? At the moment, one needs to become (say) a French or Spanish citizen, I think.
I'm frightened. The Brexit Right must know that the court ruling was unontentiousness and benign, yet there has been a media frenzy of trumped-up charges to blacken the name of the judiciary. This smacks of an orchestrated campaign. For all the world, it appears that public opinion is being softened up in preparation for some kind of purge.
The Remainers are very unlikely to go quietly. They believe they have had their futures and the futures of their children hijacked by ignorant xenophobes.
Nearly all the remainers I know -which is almost everyone I spend time with -are incandescent with anger and wont go quietly. What they'll do I have no idea. I'm sure something will present itself.
You're right. There are a great many influential people who regard any vote against European political integration as illegitimate. When France and Holland voted against the EU Constitution, it was renamed the Treaty of Lisbon. When Denmark and Ireland voted against EU Treaties, they were told to think again. Renaming the EU Constitution as the Treaty of Lisbon gave Gordon Brown the excuse he wanted to drop Labour's manifesto commitment to a referendum. And so it goes on. Brexit won't happen without a long and bitter struggle, with both sides playing dirty.
The Remainers are very unlikely to go quietly. They believe they have had their futures and the futures of their children hijacked by ignorant xenophobes.
Nearly all the remainers I know -which is almost everyone I spend time with -are incandescent with anger and wont go quietly. What they'll do I have no idea. I'm sure something will present itself.
Is that another way of saying you don't accept the result of the referendum?
As PM Cameron liked making apologies for events in the past.
Perhaps he'd like to make one now for the mess he left.
Another Brexit meme that will never die.
Cameron said it would be a mess. He warned against voting for the mess. He campaigned against the mess.
You wanted the mess. Now you blame that guy that tried to stop you.
You won. Suck it up!
Cameron said the choice was the voters. He lied. Cameron said he would invoke A50 immediately. He lied. Cameron said he wouldn't quit as PM. He lied. Cameron said there would be an emergency budget. He lied.
The Remainers are very unlikely to go quietly. They believe they have had their futures and the futures of their children hijacked by ignorant xenophobes.
Nearly all the remainers I know -which is almost everyone I spend time with -are incandescent with anger and wont go quietly. What they'll do I have no idea. I'm sure something will present itself.
You're right. There are a great many influential people who regard any vote against European political integration as illegitimate. When France and Holland voted against the EU Constitution, it was renamed the Treaty of Lisbon. When Denmark and Ireland voted against EU Treaties, they were told to think again. Renaming the EU Constitution as the Treaty of Lisbon gave Gordon Brown the excuse he wanted to drop Labour's manifesto commitment to a referendum. And so it goes on. Brexit won't happen without a long and bitter struggle, with both sides playing dirty.
More than anything else, it was this that secured my vote for Leave. I did not want to lose my free movement rights. I worried a lot about the economic risk. But I could not stay part of a system of governance with such disdain for voters.
The reaction of most high profile Remainers since the referendum has completely validated my vote.
Well I think we can now see why he "changed his mind" about that. Things are bad now, but by God they'd be worse with Dave and Osborne trying to orchestrate an exit they utterly opposed.
I hope she makes the most of this and uses it to rein in the judiciary and bring about Lords reform. And if that has to be via a general election so be it.
My mind absolutely boggles at posts like this. I dare say you'd throw magna carta in the bin too if it was politically expedient.
I prescribe repeat viewings of Judge John Deed
The house of Parliament voted 6 to 1 for a referendum. It was very clear that the Government would implement the people's decisions. Or so it was claimed, the judiciary are now entering politics.
It is an abuse of process.
Sorry, I really must have missed the bit where the judiciary ruled the result of the referendum null and void. When did that happen?
Parliament won't vote Brexit down, they will simply aim to protect all of us, not just play to the extremists agenda. Grow up.
[pops head round door, sees everybody is getting aereated about something they cannot change whilst ignoring a massive political betting opportunity in four days time, shakes head sadly, goes to blogger.com, thinks about starting new site for people who want to bet on political events instead of Brexiteer mutual masturbation]
I'm already worn out by the US election, but having taken a break on Brexit my reserves were filled up on that one. Although rapidly lowering.
I know, but unsarcastically this site has a real problem with respect to its purpose. I made approx £2.5K (returns 2500, stake 750, profit 1750) from Brexit and I'm keen to do it again. But because this site is fucking around on Brexit - which, I repeat, nobody here can change or influence - I'll be going into this election blind and that's no way to fly the aircraft. I might have to directly contact AndyJS, PlatoSaid and other purveyors of info to try and glean some info. Which four days before the biggest betting event in the calendar is ludicrously stupid.
I'm a Remainer, but suddenly a feel like having a drink with SeanT. Damn Corbyn can't help himself, can he. The referendum was not about the government. Would Corbyn appreciate the Tories pulling the same trick if the shoe was on the other foot?
What gives me endless chuckles on PB and FB is that remainers think that leavers are all thick. It doesnt occur to them that the thickies won, cant be that stupid then.
I'm frightened. The Brexit Right must know that the court ruling was unontentiousness and benign, yet there has been a media frenzy of trumped-up charges to blacken the name of the judiciary. This smacks of an orchestrated campaign. For all the world, it appears that public opinion is being softened up in preparation for some kind of purge.
This argument might work better if most legal observers had not predicted the legal case would fail. It's clearly an extremely contentious case. It is not helped that one of the three judges had not started an organisation to pursue European legal integration.
Is there a site anywhere that analyses early voting systematically, like 538 does for polls? I'm having a really hard time working out what it all means if anything, and a lot of the commentary will be prone to confirmation bias.
As PM Cameron liked making apologies for events in the past.
Perhaps he'd like to make one now for the mess he left.
Another Brexit meme that will never die.
Cameron said it would be a mess. He warned against voting for the mess. He campaigned against the mess.
You wanted the mess. Now you blame that guy that tried to stop you.
You won. Suck it up!
Cameron said the choice was the voters. He lied. Cameron said he would invoke A50 immediately. He lied. Cameron said he wouldn't quit as PM. He lied. Cameron said there would be an emergency budget. He lied.
When is Cameron going to apologise for lying ?
Well I don't know. He's your man, write and ask him?
I was having a go at Scott P (who clearly wants to reverse the vote)
On the contrary, I am with Alastair on this. The only way we can cauterise the Brexit wound is to go all in.
Hard as fuck Brexit.
Border controls, full tariffs. Bring it on. But do it legally so no Brexiteers can weasel out of it in the courts later.
So we can look forward to you condemning any politician (or others) who is opposing or delaying Brexit ?
The way in which Leavers seek to delegitimise any view opposed to their own is why Brexit will be a disaster. In a pluralist society we are each entitled to press our views.
The madness of Leavers is that every tenet of our society must potentially be sacrificed on the altar or Brexit. It's Jonestown politics.
It is hard to see how a referendum victory won by a peculiar alliance of right-wing intellectual free-marketeers, manual workers worried about Polish workers undercutting their wages, and a handful of careerist politicians with their eye on the main chance, is going to be capable of delivering much that is worthwhile, when the difficult decisions come to be made, given that their interests are so radically divergent.
A fudge of some sort was always inevitable given the contradictions you raise, though we still have the possibility of both good and bad fudge, that was always the risk. I think the key will be, as ever, be immigration. Ignoring the hard core of people who want all foreigners gone (for such people do exist) even a lot of remainers were concerned about immigration, and selling any deal is going to hinge on immigration question. I know plenty who won't be happy with some 'can come if they have a job offer' kind of idea (at least when put like that, how these things work in practice is probably irrelevant) since they don't want more coming at all even if they don't want the ones already here to go, and it will be very easy to sell any concession on that front as not really leaving at all.
So hard brexit seems much easier to achieve, irrespective of whether one thinks that is actually a good idea or not, and soft brexit is going to be hard to achieve when the hope of preventing brexit distracts from pushing for it.
The Remainers are very unlikely to go quietly. They believe they have had their futures and the futures of their children hijacked by ignorant xenophobes.
Nearly all the remainers I know -which is almost everyone I spend time with -are incandescent with anger and wont go quietly. What they'll do I have no idea. I'm sure something will present itself.
You're right. There are a great many influential people who regard any vote against European political integration as illegitimate. When France and Holland voted against the EU Constitution, it was renamed the Treaty of Lisbon. When Denmark and Ireland voted against EU Treaties, they were told to think again. Renaming the EU Constitution as the Treaty of Lisbon gave Gordon Brown the excuse he wanted to drop Labour's manifesto commitment to a referendum. And so it goes on. Brexit won't happen without a long and bitter struggle, with both sides playing dirty.
More than anything else, it was this that secured my vote for Leave. I did not want to lose my free movement rights. I worried a lot about the economic risk. But I could not stay part of a system of governance with such disdain for voters.
The reaction of most high profile Remainers since the referendum has completely validated my vote.
I remember Nick P laughing at us here, when we argued that Labour should honour its Manifesto commitment.
The problem is that such sharp practice creates a rolling reckoning of hatred.
For the first time I sincerely wonder if this will end in violence. Remainers need to get a grip.
Umm, the folk inciting civil disobedience after the judgement were Brexiteers.
If you are worried about violence, tell your friends to STFU for a bit
People like you should just leave the internet. You lost. Get over it. Move on. But more importantly, go away and never be heard from, again.
This is the only way we can heal the division, the losers - your lot - have to accept that you lost, that this is lost, that you have lost, stop trying to overturn the result whatever way you can, and go away and never be heard from again.
Basically, you have to disappear. GO.
Fuck off Sean, it wasn't 80/20. The country divided almost down the middle and to make it look otherwise the right wing media has decided it's 1935. I accept the idea of Brexit but not whatever lunacy Fox and Farage are cooking up. The Mail, Express et al need to tone it the fuck down, because as far as I can see their main objective is to incite Kristallnacht. If May had an iota of nous she would have had Dacre et al in weeks ago and told them to stfu.
We live in a world that is only going to get more global, not less, and I want a solution that reflects that, not one that turns Britain into a nasty, inward looking, pugilistic little island state.
I was having a go at Scott P (who clearly wants to reverse the vote) not sane Remainers like you who accept the result.
I don't want a Liam Fox Hard Brexit either, but if these traitorous ultra-Remainers (and that's what they are: traitors) keep trying to reverse the vote, thats where we will end up, as people like me recoil from the disgraceful anti-democratic stunts, and repulsive fraudulence, and we take any bloody Brexit we can get.
There is still time to save this. But the ultra-Remainers have to be squashed. No reversal, no rerun, no 2nd referendum. End this shit, now.
I don't plan to enter the argument other than to ask when did treacherous become traitorous? Or have they always been interchangeable?
[BEGIN Hyperbole] In the darkest days of 1940, REMAINERS would have welcomed Hitler and his hordes to these shores with open arms! [END Hyperbole]
You need to go read some history. Whilst not really relevant to the current debate, it was the right wing of the Tory Party, elements to the right of the Tories, and the Daily Mail, that were the strongest critics of Churchill, Labour and the Liberals and who came the closest to advocating settlement with Germany; all political territory almost exclusively now occupied by leavers.
The Remainers are very unlikely to go quietly. They believe they have had their futures and the futures of their children hijacked by ignorant xenophobes.
Nearly all the remainers I know -which is almost everyone I spend time with -are incandescent with anger and wont go quietly. What they'll do I have no idea. I'm sure something will present itself.
You're right. There are a great many influential people who regard any vote against European political integration as illegitimate. When France and Holland voted against the EU Constitution, it was renamed the Treaty of Lisbon. When Denmark and Ireland voted against EU Treaties, they were told to think again. Renaming the EU Constitution as the Treaty of Lisbon gave Gordon Brown the excuse he wanted to drop Labour's manifesto commitment to a referendum. And so it goes on. Brexit won't happen without a long and bitter struggle, with both sides playing dirty.
JC really knows how to nurture Labour's erstwhile WWC electorate.
Theresa May just needs to call Labour's bluff. Put the bill forward without any guarantees, saying it would not be honest to guarantee anything before negotiations begin. As a Remainer, she is insulated from any charges of hypocrisy. See how many Labour MPs are willing to go on record voting down Article 50. It would completely wipe out their support among the northern and Welsh working class.
I'm sure if the time arrives that the government of the day accepts a referendum on Sharia Law and and based on ignorance and a false prospectus it goes through those who voted against it will not go quietly.
There are some things that are part of the fabric of the nation. Many on here have been part of the EU since they were born. That Farage and co aided by a xenophobic foreign owned press persuaded a narrow majority of mainly stupid people that they were going to enter the promised land just isn't good enough
I'm frightened. The Brexit Right must know that the court ruling was unontentiousness and benign, yet there has been a media frenzy of trumped-up charges to blacken the name of the judiciary. This smacks of an orchestrated campaign. For all the world, it appears that public opinion is being softened up in preparation for some kind of purge.
I believe this mess has come about by remainer's not accepting the result and talking of second referendums (Clegg and Farron) and MP's openly saying they will vote against any attempt to leave the EU.
I am certain that those who voted to leave feel aggrieved by the force against them and the very real possibility that the vote will be subverted
The remainer's are simply not honest when they said that the Judicial review was about process as they are all sufficiently intelligent and politically aware that their best chance of derailing the vote is by a HOC that is heavily in favour of remain.
I am fearful that this is going to turn very nasty and it is incumbent on all politicians to take steps to tone down the anger and work together to achieve the best outcome for the UK outside of the EU
[pops head round door, sees everybody is getting aereated about something they cannot change whilst ignoring a massive political betting opportunity in four days time, shakes head sadly, goes to blogger.com, thinks about starting new site for people who want to bet on political events instead of Brexiteer mutual masturbation]
I'm already worn out by the US election, but having taken a break on Brexit my reserves were filled up on that one. Although rapidly lowering.
I know, but unsarcastically this site has a real problem with respect to its purpose. I made approx £2.5K (returns 2500, stake 750, profit 1750) from Brexit and I'm keen to do it again. But because this site is fucking around on Brexit - which, I repeat, nobody here can change or influence - I'll be going into this election blind and that's no way to fly the aircraft. I might have to directly contact AndyJS, PlatoSaid and other purveyors of info to try and glean some info. Which four days before the biggest betting event in the calendar is ludicrously stupid.
Good luck eith Plato, I suggest you dyor. If you're really interested I have small beer on Hillary to get 300 but that's my lot. It's a guessing game this year.
I hope she makes the most of this and uses it to rein in the judiciary and bring about Lords reform. And if that has to be via a general election so be it.
My mind absolutely boggles at posts like this. I dare say you'd throw magna carta in the bin too if it was politically expedient.
I prescribe repeat viewings of Judge John Deed
The house of Parliament voted 6 to 1 for a referendum. It was very clear that the Government would implement the people's decisions. Or so it was claimed, the judiciary are now entering politics.
It is an abuse of process.
Sorry, I really must have missed the bit where the judiciary ruled the result of the referendum null and void. When did that happen?
Parliament won't vote Brexit down, they will simply aim to protect all of us, not just play to the extremists agenda. Grow up.
Try and read what i wrote. I have never said the judiciary ruled the result null and void. I said it was an abuse of process, you cretin.
I hope she makes the most of this and uses it to rein in the judiciary and bring about Lords reform. And if that has to be via a general election so be it.
My mind absolutely boggles at posts like this. I dare say you'd throw magna carta in the bin too if it was politically expedient.
I prescribe repeat viewings of Judge John Deed
The house of Parliament voted 6 to 1 for a referendum. It was very clear that the Government would implement the people's decisions. .
It may have been 'very clear' in that it was stated, but was the legal authority already present to do so or did the Referendum Act grant it the legal authority to do so? The Act did not do so, I believe that is accepted by both sides, so it is a question of whether the government already had the authority, and since that wasn't in the Act, and governments (like, indeed, judges) can be wrong, a legal judgement is necessary to settle the question. Sounds like the judiciary fulfilling its purpose to me. Government pronouncements about their intentions and their powers are not law.
Of course, parliament could have explicitly granted the government authority in the Act and avoided this argument, but in fairness if the government thought it already had the power, they wouldn't think to include it. And indeed, if the Supreme Court rule in their favour, they will have been right, and better that question be settled now, that someone try to claim it after the government attempted to trigger.
[pops head round door, sees everybody is getting aereated about something they cannot change whilst ignoring a massive political betting opportunity in four days time, shakes head sadly, goes to blogger.com, thinks about starting new site for people who want to bet on political events instead of Brexiteer mutual masturbation]
I'm already worn out by the US election, but having taken a break on Brexit my reserves were filled up on that one. Although rapidly lowering.
I know, but unsarcastically this site has a real problem with respect to its purpose. I made approx £2.5K (returns 2500, stake 750, profit 1750) from Brexit and I'm keen to do it again. But because this site is fucking around on Brexit - which, I repeat, nobody here can change or influence - I'll be going into this election blind and that's no way to fly the aircraft. I might have to directly contact AndyJS, PlatoSaid and other purveyors of info to try and glean some info. Which four days before the biggest betting event in the calendar is ludicrously stupid.
There was a lot of very detailed discussion on the US election in the days before the High Court verdict was announced. JackW will be giving his mini projection tomorrow or Monday.
It's very hard to analyse because the data, both hard and anecdotal, are completely all over the place.
[pops head round door, sees everybody is getting aereated about something they cannot change whilst ignoring a massive political betting opportunity in four days time, shakes head sadly, goes to blogger.com, thinks about starting new site for people who want to bet on political events instead of Brexiteer mutual masturbation]
I'm already worn out by the US election, but having taken a break on Brexit my reserves were filled up on that one. Although rapidly lowering.
I know, but unsarcastically this site has a real problem with respect to its purpose. I made approx £2.5K (returns 2500, stake 750, profit 1750) from Brexit and I'm keen to do it again. But because this site is fucking around on Brexit - which, I repeat, nobody here can change or influence - I'll be going into this election blind and that's no way to fly the aircraft. I might have to directly contact AndyJS, PlatoSaid and other purveyors of info to try and glean some info. Which four days before the biggest betting event in the calendar is ludicrously stupid.
Point taken (although there has been a lot of US election talk on PB). One reason I've become more of a Remainer since the Brexit vote (at which I could see both sides of the argument) is that it became clear very quickly that political and economic life will be about nothing else for the foreseeable future, and that will be excruciating.
But I could not stay part of a system of governance with such disdain for voters.
The reaction of most high profile Remainers since the referendum has completely validated my vote.
Not exactly. It's merely proven that your own system of government is equally capable of disdaining the voters, so you've gained nothing.
The main area where our own system of government does this is on the question of European integration. David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Gordon Brown. While they all told small lies from time to time, it seemed like the EU was the one that caused them to start lying through their teeth.
[pops head round door, sees everybody is getting aereated about something they cannot change whilst ignoring a massive political betting opportunity in four days time, shakes head sadly, goes to blogger.com, thinks about starting new site for people who want to bet on political events instead of Brexiteer mutual masturbation]
I'm already worn out by the US election, but having taken a break on Brexit my reserves were filled up on that one. Although rapidly lowering.
I know, but unsarcastically this site has a real problem with respect to its purpose. I made approx £2.5K (returns 2500, stake 750, profit 1750) from Brexit and I'm keen to do it again. But because this site is fucking around on Brexit - which, I repeat, nobody here can change or influence - I'll be going into this election blind and that's no way to fly the aircraft. I might have to directly contact AndyJS, PlatoSaid and other purveyors of info to try and glean some info. Which four days before the biggest betting event in the calendar is ludicrously stupid.
Good luck eith Plato, I suggest you dyor. If you're really interested I have small beer on Hillary to get 300 but that's my lot. It's a guessing game this year.
The money won't be made by guessing now, but by being amongst the first to correctly read the first few pieces of genuinely indicative information that emerge on Tuesday night.
I'm sure if the time arrives that the government of the day accepts a referendum on Sharia Law and and based on ignorance and a false prospectus it goes through those who voted against it will not go quietly.
There are some things that are part of the fabric of the nation. Many on here have been part of the EU since they were born. That Farage and co aided by a xenophobic foreign owned press persuaded a narrow majority of mainly stupid people that they were going to enter the promised land just isn't good enough
You see what you're arguing for is tyranny. Tyranny over people who must be coerced into accepting what you think is for their own good.
I hope she makes the most of this and uses it to rein in the judiciary and bring about Lords reform. And if that has to be via a general election so be it.
My mind absolutely boggles at posts like this. I dare say you'd throw magna carta in the bin too if it was politically expedient.
I prescribe repeat viewings of Judge John Deed
The house of Parliament voted 6 to 1 for a referendum. It was very clear that the Government would implement the people's decisions. Or so it was claimed, the judiciary are now entering politics.
It is an abuse of process.
Sorry, I really must have missed the bit where the judiciary ruled the result of the referendum null and void. When did that happen?
Parliament won't vote Brexit down, they will simply aim to protect all of us, not just play to the extremists agenda. Grow up.
Try and read what i wrote. I have never said the judiciary ruled the result null and void. I said it was an abuse of process, you cretin.
Fuck off, you were whining and moaning about judges applying the law of the land. Apply both your brain cells instead of just the one. There are good reasons why the roles of judiciary and executive are not combined.
I hope she makes the most of this and uses it to rein in the judiciary and bring about Lords reform. And if that has to be via a general election so be it.
My mind absolutely boggles at posts like this. I dare say you'd throw magna carta in the bin too if it was politically expedient.
I prescribe repeat viewings of Judge John Deed
The house of Parliament voted 6 to 1 for a referendum. It was very clear that the Government would implement the people's decisions. Or so it was claimed, the judiciary are now entering politics.
It is an abuse of process.
Sorry, I really must have missed the bit where the judiciary ruled the result of the referendum null and void. When did that happen?
Parliament won't vote Brexit down, they will simply aim to protect all of us, not just play to the extremists agenda. Grow up.
Try and read what i wrote. I have never said the judiciary ruled the result null and void. I said it was an abuse of process, you cretin.
Fuck off, you were whining and moaning about judges applying the law of the land. Apply both your brain cells instead of just the one. There are good reasons why the roles of judiciary and executive are not combined.
Fuckwit.
There are good reasons why there are separate roles for executive and legislature too. The legislature, parliament, creates and repeals laws. The executive, the government, takes actions, like invoking Article 50. It is a shame some judges can not tell the difference.
I'm sure if the time arrives that the government of the day accepts a referendum on Sharia Law and and based on ignorance and a false prospectus it goes through those who voted against it will not go quietly.
There are some things that are part of the fabric of the nation. Many on here have been part of the EU since they were born. That Farage and co aided by a xenophobic foreign owned press persuaded a narrow majority of mainly stupid people that they were going to enter the promised land just isn't good enough
Roger...it has to be a hard Brexit with all that entails...and the sooner the better......There is no other way around it.
Maybe in a ten to fifteen years we can have another look, but we have to go through a hell of alot of pain before then....
It's very hard to analyse because the data, both hard and anecdotal, are completely all over the place.
I've given up reading reports of polling, there are so many pollsters, so many different types of poll, and so much spin that I can not make head nor tail of it. Anything between a Clinton landslide and Trump squeaking it seems possible based on what I've read.
This whole legal ruling business seems to have stirred up a lot more fervour than I think it deserves, frankly. The ability to challenge the government's own interpretation of its powers is surely important, even if, in the end, the government is proven correct. People quibbling procedure and legal basis of authority can be an irritating chore, particularly when most of the time the people challenging it are wrong and just hoping to delay or obstruct something they do not like*, but if you are not willing and able to defend the legal and procedural basis of your decisions and powers, that's still a criticism on you, not on the challengers (though depending on how good an argument they put, how reasonable a basis for challenge, they may of course deserve plenty too).
*ever been involved in planning? The insistence not enough or the wrong type of consultation occurred, no matter how much and how exhaustive, the insistence information was ignored when it was assessed but felt to be outweighed by other information. Its irritating as hell, the things NIMBYs come up with, the same tactics over and over, but sometimes they do catch genuine errors, and that has to be worth the general irritation, given the importance of getting things right.
I'm sure if the time arrives that the government of the day accepts a referendum on Sharia Law and and based on ignorance and a false prospectus it goes through those who voted against it will not go quietly.
There are some things that are part of the fabric of the nation. Many on here have been part of the EU since they were born. That Farage and co aided by a xenophobic foreign owned press persuaded a narrow majority of mainly stupid people that they were going to enter the promised land just isn't good enough
You see what you're arguing for is tyranny. Tyranny over people who must be coerced into accepting what you think is for their own good.
You see what you're arguing for is tyranny. Tyranny over people who must be coerced into accepting what you think is for your own good.
I've changed one word which I think matches it better to Roger's viewpoint.
I hope she makes the most of this and uses it to rein in the judiciary and bring about Lords reform. And if that has to be via a general election so be it.
My mind absolutely boggles at posts like this. I dare say you'd throw magna carta in the bin too if it was politically expedient.
I prescribe repeat viewings of Judge John Deed
The house of Parliament voted 6 to 1 for a referendum. It was very clear that the Government would implement the people's decisions. .
It may have been 'very clear' in that it was stated, but was the legal authority already present to do so or did the Referendum Act grant it the legal authority to do so? The Act did not do so, I believe that is accepted by both sides, so it is a question of whether the government already had the authority, and since that wasn't in the Act, and governments (like, indeed, judges) can be wrong, a legal judgement is necessary to settle the question. Sounds like the judiciary fulfilling its purpose to me. Government pronouncements about their intentions and their powers are not law.
Of course, parliament could have explicitly granted the government authority in the Act and avoided this argument, but in fairness if the government thought it already had the power, they wouldn't think to include it. And indeed, if the Supreme Court rule in their favour, they will have been right, and better that question be settled now, that someone try to claim it after the government attempted to trigger.
Cameron clearly fucked up in not making it explicit inthe referendum legislation that it would be the governments authoriy to trigger article 50, on that we agree. And if the supreme court rule in their favour it doesn't mean they are right. I stil say it was absolutely explicit that the government intended tonexecute article 50 and the judiciary cannot simply ignore this.
He said whatever suited him at the time like with Turkey. No one believed him when he said it won't be joining until the year 3,000 because he used to be Turkeys biggest cheerleader for joining.
All the talking out both sides of his mouth at the same time came back to bite him on the bum.
I hope she makes the most of this and uses it to rein in the judiciary and bring about Lords reform. And if that has to be via a general election so be it.
My mind absolutely boggles at posts like this. I dare say you'd throw magna carta in the bin too if it was politically expedient.
I prescribe repeat viewings of Judge John Deed
The house of Parliament voted 6 to 1 for a referendum. It was very clear that the Government would implement the people's decisions. Or so it was claimed, the judiciary are now entering politics.
It is an abuse of process.
Sorry, I really must have missed the bit where the judiciary ruled the result of the referendum null and void. When did that happen?
Parliament won't vote Brexit down, they will simply aim to protect all of us, not just play to the extremists agenda. Grow up.
Try and read what i wrote. I have never said the judiciary ruled the result null and void. I said it was an abuse of process, you cretin.
Fuck off, you were whining and moaning about judges applying the law of the land. Apply both your brain cells instead of just the one. There are good reasons why the roles of judiciary and executive are not combined.
I'm sure if the time arrives that the government of the day accepts a referendum on Sharia Law and and based on ignorance and a false prospectus it goes through those who voted against it will not go quietly.
There are some things that are part of the fabric of the nation. Many on here have been part of the EU since they were born. That Farage and co aided by a xenophobic foreign owned press persuaded a narrow majority of mainly stupid people that they were going to enter the promised land just isn't good enough
Roger...it has to be a hard Brexit with all that entails...and the sooner the better......There is no other way around it.
Maybe in a ten to fifteen years we can have another look, but we have to go through a hell of alot of pain before then....
A Roger - Tyson split is another indication of the mess we're in.
As it happens I've moved from supporting a moderate Brexit to your (and Foxinsox's) view.
We need to rebuild from a lower but sounder basis.
It's very hard to analyse because the data, both hard and anecdotal, are completely all over the place.
I've given up reading reports of polling, there are so many pollsters, so many different types of poll, and so much spin that I can not make head nor tail of it. Anything between a Clinton landslide and Trump squeaking it seems possible based on what I've read.
It was the same in 2012....despite alot of the pro Obama polling Romney, and a sizeable amount of GOP (and people like Joff Wilds here) thought Romney would win
There are so many polls that people can take out what they want...but they see what they want to through their hopes and prejudices.
Edward from Tokyo wanted another 538 analysis...... but I don't think there is any.
I honestly think the best we have is JackW...even more so than 538. The old boy strikes me as someone who's as impartial as you could ever get...and only wants to be right, and so show us here how clever he is.
I think if you bet on his state polling you won't be far wrong.
I hope she makes the most of this and uses it to rein in the judiciary and bring about Lords reform. And if that has to be via a general election so be it.
My mind absolutely boggles at posts like this. I dare say you'd throw magna carta in the bin too if it was politically expedient.
I prescribe repeat viewings of Judge John Deed
The house of Parliament voted 6 to 1 for a referendum. It was very clear that the Government would implement the people's decisions. .
Of course, parliament could have explicitly granted the government authority in the Act and avoided this argument, but in fairness if the government thought it already had the power, they wouldn't think to include it. And indeed, if the Supreme Court rule in their favour, they will have been right, and better that question be settled now, that someone try to claim it after the government attempted to trigger.
I still say it was absolutely explicit that the government intended to execute article 50 and the judiciary cannot simply ignore this.
Where was it explicit though? If not in the Act, then presumably you think it was explicitly allowed in the law that already existed? Government's stating they intend to do things does not infer legal authority if it did not exist already.
Manifestos, for one, are full of stated intentions to do things if a party is elected. But they are not legally binding on a government when it is elected off the back of that manifesto. Their very firm intention was not law. And given parliament not the people are sovereign, us voting to leave, even with the government saying it and not parliament would trigger that leaving, does not confer the authority if it did not exist either.
Honestly, I think this bugs me so much because while I know the process is being queried by those who want to stymie Brexit, I am uncomfortable with the idea that the government can decide what its own authority is vis a vis parliament without the possibility of that being challenged (a point the government - but not you or, it would seem, May, accepts).
The idea the judges simply interpreted the law incorrectly, on the other hand, I am quite comfortable with. Even top judges get things wrong, but there is a process to be followed, and that process seems reasonable to me,
Good night all. I think I'll bow out again - this High Court ruling sparked me back into life, because I feel the genuine point is being overshadowed by irrelevant arguments on it, but its still so goddamn bitter and toxic in politics right now, it's still no fun.
He said whatever suited him at the time like with Turkey. No one believed him when he said it won't be joining until the year 3,000 because he used to be Turkeys biggest cheerleader for joining.
All the talking out both sides of his mouth at the same time came back to bite him on the bum.
Yes, my opinion of him could not be lower. He was a disaster, and will be seen as such, in time. A man who catastrophically overrated himself. Eton has a lot to answer for.
All he had to do was give 16 and 17 year olds the vote, as Scotland had already done, and possibly also British citizens living abroad in the EU and elsewhere for longer than the 15-year cut off. But, as today's 'leak' of his conversation with Sturgeon reveals, he thought he could win regardless.
I hope she makes the most of this and uses it to rein in the judiciary
Abandon the rule of law...
The Brexiteers are unhinged.
Parliament makes the law, not three judges.
I rather think the judges made exactly that point; and nor does the prime minister.
No, the judges ignored the fact that parliament voted for the referendum and ignored the fact that Government would carry out the will of the people, which I might add was in the referendum legislation.
I hope she makes the most of this and uses it to rein in the judiciary and bring about Lords reform. And if that has to be via a general election so be it.
My mind absolutely boggles at posts like this. I dare say you'd throw magna carta in the bin too if it was politically expedient.
I prescribe repeat viewings of Judge John Deed
The house of Parliament voted 6 to 1 for a referendum. It was very clear that the Government would implement the people's decisions. Or so it was claimed, the judiciary are now entering politics.
It is an abuse of process.
Sorry, I really must have missed the bit where the judiciary ruled the result of the referendum null and void. When did that happen?
Parliament won't vote Brexit down, they will simply aim to protect all of us, not just play to the extremists agenda. Grow up.
Try and read what i wrote. I have never said the judiciary ruled the result null and void. I said it was an abuse of process, you cretin.
Fuck off, you were whining and moaning about judges applying the law of the land. Apply both your brain cells instead of just the one. There are good reasons why the roles of judiciary and executive are not combined.
Fuckwit.
What law did they apply ?
They applied a judgement of constitutional law based on a thorough analysis of the arguments against precedent, as is the norm. It's astonishing that this needs to be spelled out.
I really don't know what you're exercised about. Parliament will not vote brexit down.
And after all, it's not as if the current Government was elected on a commitment to remain in the single market. That's an outcome I will accept by the way.
It's very hard to analyse because the data, both hard and anecdotal, are completely all over the place.
I've given up reading reports of polling, there are so many pollsters, so many different types of poll, and so much spin that I can not make head nor tail of it. Anything between a Clinton landslide and Trump squeaking it seems possible based on what I've read.
If the parameters are 'landslide' and 'squeaking it', that suggest the possibilities are pretty much weighted to one side.
He said whatever suited him at the time like with Turkey. No one believed him when he said it won't be joining until the year 3,000 because he used to be Turkeys biggest cheerleader for joining.
All the talking out both sides of his mouth at the same time came back to bite him on the bum.
Yes, my opinion of him could not be lower. He was a disaster, and will be seen as such, in time. A man who catastrophically overrated himself. Eton has a lot to answer for.
All he had to do was give 16 and 17 year olds the vote, as Scotland had already done, and possibly also British citizens living abroad in the EU and elsewhere for longer than the 15-year cut off. But, as today's 'leak' of his conversation with Sturgeon reveals, he thought he could win regardless.
There are many things he could have done to rig the vote, like enfranchising EU nationals, giving a higher weighting to voters under 30 than to voters under 60, or to richer voters than to poorer voters, but he didn't so we are where we are.
He said whatever suited him at the time like with Turkey. No one believed him when he said it won't be joining until the year 3,000 because he used to be Turkeys biggest cheerleader for joining.
All the talking out both sides of his mouth at the same time came back to bite him on the bum.
Yes, my opinion of him could not be lower. He was a disaster, and will be seen as such, in time. A man who catastrophically overrated himself. Eton has a lot to answer for.
All he had to do was give 16 and 17 year olds the vote, as Scotland had already done, and possibly also British citizens living abroad in the EU and elsewhere for longer than the 15-year cut off. But, as today's 'leak' of his conversation with Sturgeon reveals, he thought he could win regardless.
I sympathise with Remainers, having Cameron at the helm in this referendum. Possibly the only prime minister in recent history who could have lost it. Arrogant and inept, lazy and myopic at the same time: just the worst combination. Refused Crosby's advice to delay the vote. A political midget in platform shoes.
An irony is that Britain might well have voted to join the Euro if Blair had campaigned for it at his peak.
Whereas at what was supposedly Cameron's peak he couldn't even win a vote to stay in the EU.
Cameron is going to spend the rest of his life knowing he was nothing but a pale imitation of Blair.
I'm sure if the time arrives that the government of the day accepts a referendum on Sharia Law and and based on ignorance and a false prospectus it goes through those who voted against it will not go quietly.
There are some things that are part of the fabric of the nation. Many on here have been part of the EU since they were born. That Farage and co aided by a xenophobic foreign owned press persuaded a narrow majority of mainly stupid people that they were going to enter the promised land just isn't good enough
Roger...it has to be a hard Brexit with all that entails...and the sooner the better......There is no other way around it.
Maybe in a ten to fifteen years we can have another look, but we have to go through a hell of alot of pain before then....
A Roger - Tyson split is another indication of the mess we're in.
As it happens I've moved from supporting a moderate Brexit to your (and Foxinsox's) view.
We need to rebuild from a lower but sounder basis.
On one side...... It is impossible to think we can get a deal with 27 EU states all with differing priorities, and most of them on a scale of 1-10 of how much they loath the UK.
On the other....it is impossible to reconcile how we can present a negotiating position on our side that includes the likes of the Daily Mail brigade, and big business.....
And to do that in 2 years. Not going to happen.
I think we will find Theresa May is the ultimate pragmatist..Brexit means Brexit....
For pity's sake. There is an arguable case - put by David H the other day - that the Royal Prerogative could be used to trigger Article 50.
Arguing against the court's decision is not the same as wanting to abandon the rule of law and you know it.
That case was argued. And lost.
And Sean is not arguing against the court's decision. He wants all legal process abandoned.
Unhinged...
We have an establishment that will not accept the will of the people.
Really? It's amazing how a legal ruling on the extent of legal authority parliament has conferred on the government can do that when it explicitly ignored the issue of the will of the people as a matter irrelevant to the question before it, a technical point of law. Accepting the will of the people or not didn't factor into assessing what the law was, since that is set and changed by parliament, not the will of the people.
I am curious though: if you feel the government was wrong to accept the question on that point of law was one for the court to determine, what reason do you have to believe the government is correct in its interpretation of the rest of its legal case? If wrong about the former, it surely proves the point that people need to be able to challenge the government's interpretation of things, since you've just accepted it can get things wrong.
And I reiterate, I'll be content should the government win the appeal - it seems to me, as a lay person, accepting the parliament is sovereign, that parliament should be involved in triggering A50, and that they should indeed do so given the referendum result, but if the highest judges in the land rule that that is not a requirement, then even if I think it a good idea I cannot be outraged if they do not go down that route.
Sounds entirely reasonable to me. Unlike around half the posts tonight.
Comments
Cameron said it would be a mess. He warned against voting for the mess. He campaigned against the mess.
You wanted the mess. Now you blame that guy that tried to stop you.
You won. Suck it up!
In the darkest days of 1940, REMAINERS would have welcomed Hitler and his hordes to these shores with open arms!
[END Hyperbole]
I prescribe repeat viewings of Judge John Deed
But people who wish to ignore the referendum result are trying to delegitimise democracy.
The madness of ultra-Remainers is that every tenet of our society must potentially be sacrificed on the altar of the EU.
I'll let you decide what sort of politics that is.
I am curious though: if you feel the government was wrong to accept the question on that point of law was one for the court to determine, what reason do you have to believe the government is correct in its interpretation of the rest of its legal case? If wrong about the former, it surely proves the point that people need to be able to challenge the government's interpretation of things, since you've just accepted it can get things wrong.
And I reiterate, I'll be content should the government win the appeal - it seems to me, as a lay person, accepting the parliament is sovereign, that parliament should be involved in triggering A50, and that they should indeed do so given the referendum result, but if the highest judges in the land rule that that is not a requirement, then even if I think it a good idea I cannot be outraged if they do not go down that route.
But economic harm and ridicule are what we must endure before we can rebuild.
And now the Brexiteers want to abandon it.
Unhinged...
My second thought was as a demand that is surely impossible, since access (however defined) cannot be guaranteed as it depends on the negotiations, so what he is trying to extract is either a promise we will try to get some access, or a clear division for any snap election on this issue, namely that Labour will try for a softer Brexit and Tories a hard one, but both will try for Brexit. Really, we should have had Labour win in 2015 - then we'd have had a constitutional convention on all sorts of issues, as they promised, and given I doubt Brexit fervour would have gone away, an opportunity would have presented itself there in any case.
It is an abuse of process.
Cameron said he would invoke A50 immediately. He lied.
Cameron said he wouldn't quit as PM. He lied.
Cameron said there would be an emergency budget. He lied.
When is Cameron going to apologise for lying ?
Ha!
The reaction of most high profile Remainers since the referendum has completely validated my vote.
Sorry, I really must have missed the bit where the judiciary ruled the result of the referendum null and void. When did that happen?
Parliament won't vote Brexit down, they will simply aim to protect all of us, not just play to the extremists agenda. Grow up.
https://twitter.com/michaelpdeacon/status/747000584226607104
So hard brexit seems much easier to achieve, irrespective of whether one thinks that is actually a good idea or not, and soft brexit is going to be hard to achieve when the hope of preventing brexit distracts from pushing for it.
Jeremy marches to the beat of a different drum, not only is he not conventional, he rejects it.
The problem is that such sharp practice creates a rolling reckoning of hatred.
Or are you going to stick with the "No true Scotsman fallacy"?
https://twitter.com/brrsc/status/761091641222410240
There are some things that are part of the fabric of the nation. Many on here have been part of the EU since they were born. That Farage and co aided by a xenophobic foreign owned press persuaded a narrow majority of mainly stupid people that they were going to enter the promised land just isn't good enough
I am certain that those who voted to leave feel aggrieved by the force against them and the very real possibility that the vote will be subverted
The remainer's are simply not honest when they said that the Judicial review was about process as they are all sufficiently intelligent and politically aware that their best chance of derailing the vote is by a HOC that is heavily in favour of remain.
I am fearful that this is going to turn very nasty and it is incumbent on all politicians to take steps to tone down the anger and work together to achieve the best outcome for the UK outside of the EU
Report back to command Scott for a better line.
Of course, parliament could have explicitly granted the government authority in the Act and avoided this argument, but in fairness if the government thought it already had the power, they wouldn't think to include it. And indeed, if the Supreme Court rule in their favour, they will have been right, and better that question be settled now, that someone try to claim it after the government attempted to trigger.
It's very hard to analyse because the data, both hard and anecdotal, are completely all over the place.
Fuckwit.
Maybe in a ten to fifteen years we can have another look, but we have to go through a hell of alot of pain before then....
*ever been involved in planning? The insistence not enough or the wrong type of consultation occurred, no matter how much and how exhaustive, the insistence information was ignored when it was assessed but felt to be outweighed by other information. Its irritating as hell, the things NIMBYs come up with, the same tactics over and over, but sometimes they do catch genuine errors, and that has to be worth the general irritation, given the importance of getting things right.
I've changed one word which I think matches it better to Roger's viewpoint.
We should respect Roger for his honesty though.
And if the supreme court rule in their favour it doesn't mean they are right.
I stil say it was absolutely explicit that the government intended tonexecute article 50 and the judiciary cannot simply ignore this.
All the talking out both sides of his mouth at the same time came back to bite him on the bum.
As it happens I've moved from supporting a moderate Brexit to your (and Foxinsox's) view.
We need to rebuild from a lower but sounder basis.
There are so many polls that people can take out what they want...but they see what they want to through their hopes and prejudices.
Edward from Tokyo wanted another 538 analysis...... but I don't think there is any.
I honestly think the best we have is JackW...even more so than 538. The old boy strikes me as someone who's as impartial as you could ever get...and only wants to be right, and so show us here how clever he is.
I think if you bet on his state polling you won't be far wrong.
Manifestos, for one, are full of stated intentions to do things if a party is elected. But they are not legally binding on a government when it is elected off the back of that manifesto. Their very firm intention was not law. And given parliament not the people are sovereign, us voting to leave, even with the government saying it and not parliament would trigger that leaving, does not confer the authority if it did not exist either.
Honestly, I think this bugs me so much because while I know the process is being queried by those who want to stymie Brexit, I am uncomfortable with the idea that the government can decide what its own authority is vis a vis parliament without the possibility of that being challenged (a point the government - but not you or, it would seem, May, accepts).
The idea the judges simply interpreted the law incorrectly, on the other hand, I am quite comfortable with. Even top judges get things wrong, but there is a process to be followed, and that process seems reasonable to me,
Good night all. I think I'll bow out again - this High Court ruling sparked me back into life, because I feel the genuine point is being overshadowed by irrelevant arguments on it, but its still so goddamn bitter and toxic in politics right now, it's still no fun.
I really don't know what you're exercised about. Parliament will not vote brexit down.
And after all, it's not as if the current Government was elected on a commitment to remain in the single market. That's an outcome I will accept by the way.
Whereas at what was supposedly Cameron's peak he couldn't even win a vote to stay in the EU.
Cameron is going to spend the rest of his life knowing he was nothing but a pale imitation of Blair.
It is impossible to think we can get a deal with 27 EU states all with differing priorities, and most of them on a scale of 1-10 of how much they loath the UK.
On the other....it is impossible to reconcile how we can present a negotiating position on our side that includes the likes of the Daily Mail brigade, and big business.....
And to do that in 2 years. Not going to happen.
I think we will find Theresa May is the ultimate pragmatist..Brexit means Brexit....
Unlike around half the posts tonight.