I hate judges blocking the people's democratic decision, yes.
But that's not rule of law, it's rule by lawyers.
Sigh. They didn't block it. They simply said that Parliament had to make the decision, not the unelected Prime Minister. Why do Leavers persist in such distortions?
We are truly living in a post-truth, newspeak world.
There is no rule-of-law: It has been politicised. FGM, 'honour-killings', paedos are protected (as are your common burglars). As a Scot you should know more than most how criminals are not subject to the law.
That seems to show how dependent the Leavers feel they now are on Trump's presidency, which is worrying in itself.
Boris is foolish to not go, especially if he feels different to the others. It is a useful opportunity to forge some contacts.
Once again Britain is in Billy No Mates territory.
Not really. Just a refusal to participate in idiocy.
There's nothing to debate. Trump won.
Why on earth might Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania for instance want an urgent meeting to discuss the shock election of Putin apologist and NATO critic Donald Trump ?
If they raised their defence spending there wouldn't be any need for this. Trump has said he wants to renegotiate NATO, that means its time for Europe to get their house in order and pay up. $127bn per year is the figure. Europe needs to pay up or be prepared for America to take a backseat defending Europe's border.
The Estonian government fell this week and it expected it will be replaced with a more pro Russian coalition
So what are the chances that the EU tells the USA to have another election so that they can get the 'right' answer ?
A big difference between Trump's victory and the Leave win is that Trump did not get most votes.
"The Democrats cannot complain either about the inequity of the electoral college and say Clinton won the popular vote. They accepted the system and framed their entire campaign on winning on those terms. Yet in the places she needed to inspire and motivate more voters than Trump she failed. That goes for Florida, North Carolina, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. Trump crushed her and the smug liberals who operated on the basis that his triumph there was unthinkable."
The Electoral College is designed to ensure that smaller states are not ignored, and with good reason. If the campaign were fought entirely on the national vote then the candidates would probably spend virtually all of their time pandering to the concerns of voters in a few large conurbations (link: http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-united-states-lives-in-these-counties-2013-9?IR=T ) If you add up the numbers of voters in the most populous counties in the US, then by the time you get through the first 146 in the list you've already accounted for half of the entire population. There are over 3,000 counties in all.
Without a system like the Electoral College, the risk is that the entire election could end up revolving around the dozen or so largest cities, which would be even more narrow and exclusive than a list of maybe fifteen or so swing states.
I know. But it is a matter of fact that most American voters did not get the president they voted for.
It's curious. In normal times, an attempt to equate British euro-scepticism with a movement akin to the one led by Donald Trump would have been met with howls of outrage by the euro-sceptics themselves and denounced as a Guardianista fantasy. Yet now many euro-sceptics seem positively to revel in the comparison. Why is this?
They won
Ha!
I'm a leaver and I would have voted Hillary, albeit with gritted teeth. I am worried by a Trump presidency. But I'm also fairly sure that most of the 70 million-odd Trump voters are good people who live in very different circumstances to me and who came to a different conclusion than I would have done, and I'm loath to join in the demonising of half of the American population. I'm also, like Nick P, waiting to see how it turns out before despairing utterly. Don't confuse that position with enthusiasm for President Trump!
Yes, I think people are mistaking an open mind for enthusiasm. Since so many on the liberal left don't know what an open mind looks or feels like it's obviously confusing for them. I didn't want Trump but he's won and the only sensible way to approach it now is to have an open mind and hope to be surprised, but prepare for the opposite by increasing defence spending.
Ha, ha. The wicked liberal left again. Lazy, lazy, lazy. It seems many on the intolerant right prefer to misrepresent arguments than engage with them. As for defence spending: if Russia invades Estonia and the US stands by there will be nothing the rest of Europe could do, whatever was spent.
Maybe, but if so what on Earth were we doing offering NATO membership to Estonia and, come to that, other East European countries?
The idea that Crown Prerogative is limited by Parliament is as old as Magna Carta. I don't know when the first court ruling against the executive was but the widely cited Coke ruling ( which is a good read ) was in 1610. It beggars belief that Judicial Review in 2016 is being portrayed as some sort of despotic coup. Or rather it would but belief has already been beggared. Death threats are being justified by the ' Rapists Defence ' " what did she expect ? " and dismissed as incredible in a year an MP has been murdered by a man citing political slogans at his remand hearing.
Then we have the justification of potential " civil unrest " for setting aside established checks and balances. It's almost as if some folk are spouting nonsense because they are rattled Brexit might not withstand detailed parliamentary scrutiny. Much less the public being given the chance to change their mind.
I hate judges blocking the people's democratic decision, yes.
But that's not rule of law, it's rule by lawyers.
The judges have not blocked Brexit.
They're trying their best. Before the case, the government had the right to invoke A50 based on the people's mandate. Now they don't.
Thus the judges have blocked the people's democratic decision from being implemented.
No, the government did not have the right to invoke Article 50 without putting it to a vote in Parliament. That's why it lost the case.
That doesn't make sense, since it already went to a vote in Parliament.
It probably does need the Supreme Court to tidy it up, though. It would be nonsensical if a referendum could be overturned by Parliament - if Parliament hadn't wanted the government to be able to invoke A50 it shouldn't have called the referendum in the first place.
I hate judges blocking the people's democratic decision, yes.
But that's not rule of law, it's rule by lawyers.
Sigh. They didn't block it. They simply said that Parliament had to make the decision, not the unelected Prime Minister. Why do Leavers persist in such distortions?
We are truly living in a post-truth, newspeak world.
There is no rule-of-law: It has been politicised. FGM, 'honour-killings', paedos are protected (as are your common burglars). As a Scot you should know more than most how criminals are not subject to the law.
It's curious. In normal times, an attempt to equate British euro-scepticism with a movement akin to the one led by Donald Trump would have been met with howls of outrage by the euro-sceptics themselves and denounced as a Guardianista fantasy. Yet now many euro-sceptics seem positively to revel in the comparison. Why is this?
They won
Ha!
I'm a leaver and I would have voted Hillary, albeit with gritted teeth. I am worried by a Trump presidency. But I'm also fairly sure that most of the 70 million-odd Trump voters are good people who live in very different circumstances to me and who came to a different conclusion than I would have done, and I'm loath to join in the demonising of half of the American population. I'm also, like Nick P, waiting to see how it turns out before despairing utterly. Don't confuse that position with enthusiasm for President Trump!
Yes, I think people are mistaking an open mind for enthusiasm. Since so many on the liberal left don't know what an open mind looks or feels like it's obviously confusing for them. I didn't want Trump but he's won and the only sensible way to approach it now is to have an open mind and hope to be surprised, but prepare for the opposite by increasing defence spending.
Ha, ha. The wicked liberal left again. Lazy, lazy, lazy. It seems many on the intolerant right prefer to misrepresent arguments than engage with them. As for defence spending: if Russia invades Estonia and the US stands by there will be nothing the rest of Europe could do, whatever was spent.
Maybe, but if so what on Earth were we doing offering NATO membership to Estonia and, come to that, other East European countries?
I hate judges blocking the people's democratic decision, yes.
But that's not rule of law, it's rule by lawyers.
The judges have not blocked Brexit.
They're trying their best. Before the case, the government had the right to invoke A50 based on the people's mandate. Now they don't.
Thus the judges have blocked the people's democratic decision from being implemented.
No, the government did not have the right to invoke Article 50 without putting it to a vote in Parliament. That's why it lost the case.
That doesn't make sense, since it already went to a vote in Parliament.
It probably does need the Supreme Court to tidy it up, though. It would be nonsensical if a referendum could be overturned by Parliament - if Parliament hadn't wanted the government to be able to invoke A50 it shouldn't have called the referendum in the first place.
The law was badly written. The act didn't grant the necessary power. Cameron screwed up.
The idea that Crown Prerogative is limited by Parliament is as old as Magna Carta. I don't know when the first court ruling against the executive was but the widely cited Coke ruling ( which is a good read ) was in 1610. It beggars belief that Judicial Review in 2016 is being portrayed as some sort of despotic coup. Or rather it would but belief has already been beggared. Death threats are being justified by the ' Rapists Defence ' " what did she expect ? " and dismissed as incredible in a year an MP has been murdered by a man citing political slogans at his remand hearing.
Then we have the justification of potential " civil unrest " for setting aside established checks and balances. It's almost as if some folk are spouting nonsense because they are rattled Brexit might not withstand detailed parliamentary scrutiny. Much less the public being given the chance to change their mind.
There are two options.
(1) We Leave the EU. (2) Democracy is shown to have failed.
That's it. No third option. I can't in good conscience advocate option 2; I think it would be very dangerous.
It's curious. In normal times, an attempt to equate British euro-scepticism with a movement akin to the one led by Donald Trump would have been met with howls of outrage by the euro-sceptics themselves and denounced as a Guardianista fantasy. Yet now many euro-sceptics seem positively to revel in the comparison. Why is this?
They won
Ha!
I'm a leaver and I would have voted Hillary, albeit with gritted teeth. I am worried by a Trump presidency. But I'm also fairly sure that most of the 70 million-odd Trump voters are good people who live in very different circumstances to me and who came to a different conclusion than I would have done, and I'm loath to join in the demonising of half of the American population. I'm also, like Nick P, waiting to see how it turns out before despairing utterly. Don't confuse that position with enthusiasm for President Trump!
Yes, I think people are mistaking an open mind for enthusiasm. Since so many on the liberal left don't know what an open mind looks or feels like it's obviously confusing for them. I didn't want Trump but he's won and the only sensible way to approach it now is to have an open mind and hope to be surprised, but prepare for the opposite by increasing defence spending.
Ha, ha. The wicked liberal left again. Lazy, lazy, lazy. It seems many on the intolerant right prefer to misrepresent arguments than engage with them. As for defence spending: if Russia invades Estonia and the US stands by there will be nothing the rest of Europe could do, whatever was spent.
Russia may be invited into Estonia after the fall of their government and a pro Russia coalition
I hate judges blocking the people's democratic decision, yes.
But that's not rule of law, it's rule by lawyers.
The judges have not blocked Brexit.
They're trying their best. Before the case, the government had the right to invoke A50 based on the people's mandate. Now they don't.
Thus the judges have blocked the people's democratic decision from being implemented.
No, the government did not have the right to invoke Article 50 without putting it to a vote in Parliament. That's why it lost the case.
That doesn't make sense, since it already went to a vote in Parliament.
It probably does need the Supreme Court to tidy it up, though. It would be nonsensical if a referendum could be overturned by Parliament - if Parliament hadn't wanted the government to be able to invoke A50 it shouldn't have called the referendum in the first place.
The law was badly written. The act didn't grant the necessary power. Cameron screwed up.
I hate judges blocking the people's democratic decision, yes.
But that's not rule of law, it's rule by lawyers.
The judges have not blocked Brexit.
They're trying their best. Before the case, the government had the right to invoke A50 based on the people's mandate. Now they don't.
Thus the judges have blocked the people's democratic decision from being implemented.
No, the government did not have the right to invoke Article 50 without putting it to a vote in Parliament. That's why it lost the case.
That doesn't make sense, since it already went to a vote in Parliament.
It probably does need the Supreme Court to tidy it up, though. It would be nonsensical if a referendum could be overturned by Parliament - if Parliament hadn't wanted the government to be able to invoke A50 it shouldn't have called the referendum in the first place.
It doesn't make sense to you because you insist on not trying to understand it.
The executive has no power to remove rights granted by Parliament. It's ever so simple.
It's curious. In normal times, an attempt to equate British euro-scepticism with a movement akin to the one led by Donald Trump would have been met with howls of outrage by the euro-sceptics themselves and denounced as a Guardianista fantasy. Yet now many euro-sceptics seem positively to revel in the comparison. Why is this?
They won
Ha!
I'm a leaver and I would have voted Hillary, albeit with gritted teeth. I am worried by a Trump presidency. But I'm also fairly sure that most of the 70 million-odd Trump voters are good people who live in very different circumstances to me and who came to a different conclusion than I would have done, and I'm loath to join in the demonising of half of the American population. I'm also, like Nick P, waiting to see how it turns out before despairing utterly. Don't confuse that position with enthusiasm for President Trump!
Yes, I think people are mistaking an open mind for enthusiasm. Since so many on the liberal left don't know what an open mind looks or feels like it's obviously confusing for them. I didn't want Trump but he's won and the only sensible way to approach it now is to have an open mind and hope to be surprised, but prepare for the opposite by increasing defence spending.
Ha, ha. The wicked liberal left again. Lazy, lazy, lazy. It seems many on the intolerant right prefer to misrepresent arguments than engage with them. As for defence spending: if Russia invades Estonia and the US stands by there will be nothing the rest of Europe could do, whatever was spent.
Russia may be invited into Estonia after the fall of their government and a pro Russia coalition
It's curious. In normal times, an attempt to equate British euro-scepticism with a movement akin to the one led by Donald Trump would have been met with howls of outrage by the euro-sceptics themselves and denounced as a Guardianista fantasy. Yet now many euro-sceptics seem positively to revel in the comparison. Why is this?
They won
Ha!
I'm a leaver and I would have voted Hillary, albeit with gritted teeth. I am worried by a Trump presidency. But I'm also fairly sure that most of the 70 million-odd Trump voters are good people who live in very different circumstances to me and who came to a different conclusion than I would have done, and I'm loath to join in the demonising of half of the American population. I'm also, like Nick P, waiting to see how it turns out before despairing utterly. Don't confuse that position with enthusiasm for President Trump!
Yes, I think people are mistaking an open mind for enthusiasm. Since so many on the liberal left don't know what an open mind looks or feels like it's obviously confusing for them. I didn't want Trump but he's won and the only sensible way to approach it now is to have an open mind and hope to be surprised, but prepare for the opposite by increasing defence spending.
Ha, ha. The wicked liberal left again. Lazy, lazy, lazy. It seems many on the intolerant right prefer to misrepresent arguments than engage with them. As for defence spending: if Russia invades Estonia and the US stands by there will be nothing the rest of Europe could do, whatever was spent.
Indeed - but that has never been a good enough excuse for Europe not to pay its share.
So what are the chances that the EU tells the USA to have another election so that they can get the 'right' answer ?
A big difference between Trump's victory and the Leave win is that Trump did not get most votes.
"The Democrats cannot complain either about the inequity of the electoral college and say Clinton won the popular vote. They accepted the system and framed their entire campaign on winning on those terms. Yet in the places she needed to inspire and motivate more voters than Trump she failed. That goes for Florida, North Carolina, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. Trump crushed her and the smug liberals who operated on the basis that his triumph there was unthinkable."
The Electoral College is designed to ensure that smaller states are not ignored, and with good reason. If the campaign were fought entirely on the national vote then the candidates would probably spend virtually all of their time pandering to the concerns of voters in a few large conurbations (link: http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-united-states-lives-in-these-counties-2013-9?IR=T ) If you add up the numbers of voters in the most populous counties in the US, then by the time you get through the first 146 in the list you've already accounted for half of the entire population. There are over 3,000 counties in all.
Without a system like the Electoral College, the risk is that the entire election could end up revolving around the dozen or so largest cities, which would be even more narrow and exclusive than a list of maybe fifteen or so swing states.
Even if the EC votes were based on purely number of congressional districts, there would be a significant (but not, this year, decisive) shift towards concentrating power on a few states. (California would have 53 out of the 219 needed to win).
I hate judges blocking the people's democratic decision, yes.
But that's not rule of law, it's rule by lawyers.
The judges have not blocked Brexit.
They're trying their best. Before the case, the government had the right to invoke A50 based on the people's mandate. Now they don't.
Thus the judges have blocked the people's democratic decision from being implemented.
No, the government did not have the right to invoke Article 50 without putting it to a vote in Parliament. That's why it lost the case.
That doesn't make sense, since it already went to a vote in Parliament.
It probably does need the Supreme Court to tidy it up, though. It would be nonsensical if a referendum could be overturned by Parliament - if Parliament hadn't wanted the government to be able to invoke A50 it shouldn't have called the referendum in the first place.
The law was badly written. The act didn't grant the necessary power. Cameron screwed up.
It doesn't make sense to you because you insist on not trying to understand it.
The executive has no power to remove rights granted by Parliament. It's ever so simple.
We're not talking about the executive removing powers, we're talking about the people doing so. The people have instructed the government to Leave the EU. Who are Parliament, or the judges, to get in the way of this?
I hate judges blocking the people's democratic decision, yes.
But that's not rule of law, it's rule by lawyers.
The judges have not blocked Brexit.
They're trying their best. Before the case, the government had the right to invoke A50 based on the people's mandate. Now they don't.
Thus the judges have blocked the people's democratic decision from being implemented.
No, the government did not have the right to invoke Article 50 without putting it to a vote in Parliament. That's why it lost the case.
That doesn't make sense, since it already went to a vote in Parliament.
It probably does need the Supreme Court to tidy it up, though. It would be nonsensical if a referendum could be overturned by Parliament - if Parliament hadn't wanted the government to be able to invoke A50 it shouldn't have called the referendum in the first place.
The law was badly written. The act didn't grant the necessary power. Cameron screwed up.
It doesn't make sense to you because you insist on not trying to understand it.
The executive has no power to remove rights granted by Parliament. It's ever so simple.
We're not talking about the executive removing powers, we're talking about the people doing so. The people have instructed the government to Leave the EU. Who are Parliament, or the judges, to get in the way of this?
It's curious. In normal times, an attempt to equate British euro-scepticism with a movement akin to the one led by Donald Trump would have been met with howls of outrage by the euro-sceptics themselves and denounced as a Guardianista fantasy. Yet now many euro-sceptics seem positively to revel in the comparison. Why is this?
They won
Ha!
I'm a leaver and I would have voted Hillary, albeit with gritted teeth. I am worried by a Trump presidency. But I'm also fairly sure that most of the 70 million-odd Trump voters are good people who live in very different circumstances to me and who came to a different conclusion than I would have done, and I'm loath to join in the demonising of half of the American population. I'm also, like Nick P, waiting to see how it turns out before despairing utterly. Don't confuse that position with enthusiasm for President Trump!
Yes, I think people are mistaking an open mind for enthusiasm. Since so many on the liberal left don't know what an open mind looks or feels like it's obviously confusing for them. I didn't want Trump but he's won and the only sensible way to approach it now is to have an open mind and hope to be surprised, but prepare for the opposite by increasing defence spending.
Ha, ha. The wicked liberal left again. Lazy, lazy, lazy. It seems many on the intolerant right prefer to misrepresent arguments than engage with them. As for defence spending: if Russia invades Estonia and the US stands by there will be nothing the rest of Europe could do, whatever was spent.
Russia may be invited into Estonia after the fall of their government and a pro Russia coalition
Have you ever been to Estonia?
Yes and Tallinn is beautiful and quaint. Not sure the point is in your comment though
That seems to show how dependent the Leavers feel they now are on Trump's presidency, which is worrying in itself.
Boris is foolish to not go, especially if he feels different to the others. It is a useful opportunity to forge some contacts.
Once again Britain is in Billy No Mates territory.
Not really. Just a refusal to participate in idiocy.
There's nothing to debate. Trump won.
Why on earth might Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania for instance want an urgent meeting to discuss the shock election of Putin apologist and NATO critic Donald Trump ?
If they raised their defence spending there wouldn't be any need for this. Trump has said he wants to renegotiate NATO, that means its time for Europe to get their house in order and pay up. $127bn per year is the figure. Europe needs to pay up or be prepared for America to take a backseat defending Europe's border.
In the east, Bulgaria and Estonia are both flirting with pro-Kremlin governments while Lithuania has elected one opposing free movement (anti-emigration in it's case).
In the south, the Italians have a referendum that Renzi is about to lose, and yet another instalment of the Greek drama is about to ensue.
To the west, the British are walking out and the Americans have come out in sympathy from across the Atlantic.
In the North, the Scandis are adamant they aren't picking up the British contribution.
The EU has reached Stalingrad.
A lot of our supposed allies, who have spent so much time since the referendum result being cross with us and deploying various threats, are fat, lazy and complacent.
A colossal sum - perhaps as much as the entire Russian defence budget - could be raised for defence if only the rest of NATO could be arsed to help the likes of the US and UK protect them, rather than tut-tutting, finger-wagging and being pious. Rich, fat Germany on 1.2%, which could easily afford more per head than we could if it wanted to, is amongst the worst offenders.
The idea that Crown Prerogative is limited by Parliament is as old as Magna Carta. I don't know when the first court ruling against the executive was but the widely cited Coke ruling ( which is a good read ) was in 1610. It beggars belief that Judicial Review in 2016 is being portrayed as some sort of despotic coup. Or rather it would but belief has already been beggared. Death threats are being justified by the ' Rapists Defence ' " what did she expect ? " and dismissed as incredible in a year an MP has been murdered by a man citing political slogans at his remand hearing.
Then we have the justification of potential " civil unrest " for setting aside established checks and balances. It's almost as if some folk are spouting nonsense because they are rattled Brexit might not withstand detailed parliamentary scrutiny. Much less the public being given the chance to change their mind.
There are two options.
(1) We Leave the EU. (2) Democracy is shown to have failed.
That's it. No third option. I can't in good conscience advocate option 2; I think it would be very dangerous.
There is a third option. Something happens and because of that, our circumstances fundamentally change and we vote again.
So what are the chances that the EU tells the USA to have another election so that they can get the 'right' answer ?
A big difference between Trump's victory and the Leave win is that Trump did not get most votes.
"The Democrats cannot complain either about the inequity of the electoral college and say Clinton won the popular vote. They accepted the system and framed their entire campaign on winning on those terms. Yet in the places she needed to inspire and motivate more voters than Trump she failed. That goes for Florida, North Carolina, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. Trump crushed her and the smug liberals who operated on the basis that his triumph there was unthinkable."
The Electoral College is designed to ensure that smaller states are not ignored, and with good reason. If the campaign were fought entirely on the national vote then the candidates would probably spend virtually all of their time pandering to the concerns of voters in a few large conurbations (link: http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-united-states-lives-in-these-counties-2013-9?IR=T ) If you add up the numbers of voters in the most populous counties in the US, then by the time you get through the first 146 in the list you've already accounted for half of the entire population. There are over 3,000 counties in all.
Without a system like the Electoral College, the risk is that the entire election could end up revolving around the dozen or so largest cities, which would be even more narrow and exclusive than a list of maybe fifteen or so swing states.
I know. But it is a matter of fact that most American voters did not get the president they voted for.
It's curious. In normal times, an attempt to equate British euro-scepticism with a movement akin to the one led by Donald Trump would have been met with howls of outrage by the euro-sceptics themselves and denounced as a Guardianista fantasy. Yet now many euro-sceptics seem positively to revel in the comparison. Why is this?
They won
Ha!
I'm a leaver and I would have voted Hillary, albeit with gritted teeth. I am worried by a Trump presidency. But I'm also fairly sure that most of the 70 million-odd Trump voters are good people who live in very different circumstances to me and who came to a different conclusion than I would have done, and I'm loath to join in the demonising of half of the American population. I'm also, like Nick P, waiting to see how it turns out before despairing utterly. Don't confuse that position with enthusiasm for President Trump!
Yes, I think people are mistaking an open mind for enthusiasm. Since so many on the liberal left don't know what an open mind looks or feels like it's obviously confusing for them. I didn't want Trump but he's won and the only sensible way to approach it now is to have an open mind and hope to be surprised, but prepare for the opposite by increasing defence spending.
Ha, ha. The wicked liberal left again. Lazy, lazy, lazy. It seems many on the intolerant right prefer to misrepresent arguments than engage with them. As for defence spending: if Russia invades Estonia and the US stands by there will be nothing the rest of Europe could do, whatever was spent.
Russia may be invited into Estonia after the fall of their government and a pro Russia coalition
Have you ever been to Estonia?
Yes and Tallinn is beautiful and quaint. Not sure the point is in your comment though
How many times? When was the last time you were there? Were you just a tourist, not venturing far from Vanalinn?
The idea that Crown Prerogative is limited by Parliament is as old as Magna Carta. I don't know when the first court ruling against the executive was but the widely cited Coke ruling ( which is a good read ) was in 1610. It beggars belief that Judicial Review in 2016 is being portrayed as some sort of despotic coup. Or rather it would but belief has already been beggared. Death threats are being justified by the ' Rapists Defence ' " what did she expect ? " and dismissed as incredible in a year an MP has been murdered by a man citing political slogans at his remand hearing.
Then we have the justification of potential " civil unrest " for setting aside established checks and balances. It's almost as if some folk are spouting nonsense because they are rattled Brexit might not withstand detailed parliamentary scrutiny. Much less the public being given the chance to change their mind.
There are two options.
(1) We Leave the EU. (2) Democracy is shown to have failed.
That's it. No third option. I can't in good conscience advocate option 2; I think it would be very dangerous.
There is a third option. Something happens and because of that, our circumstances fundamentally change and we vote again.
If that's as a result of anti-democrats playing for time, it's a 2.
It's curious. In normal times, an attempt to equate British euro-scepticism with a movement akin to the one led by Donald Trump would have been met with howls of outrage by the euro-sceptics themselves and denounced as a Guardianista fantasy. Yet now many euro-sceptics seem positively to revel in the comparison. Why is this?
They won
Ha!
I'm a leaver and I would have voted Hillary, albeit with gritted teeth. I am worried by a Trump presidency. But I'm also fairly sure that most of the 70 million-odd Trump voters are good people who live in very different circumstances to me and who came to a different conclusion than I would have done, and I'm loath to join in the demonising of half of the American population. I'm also, like Nick P, waiting to see how it turns out before despairing utterly. Don't confuse that position with enthusiasm for President Trump!
Yes, I think people are mistaking an open mind for enthusiasm. Since so many on the liberal left don't know what an open mind looks or feels like it's obviously confusing for them. I didn't want Trump but he's won and the only sensible way to approach it now is to have an open mind and hope to be surprised, but prepare for the opposite by increasing defence spending.
Ha, ha. The wicked liberal left again. Lazy, lazy, lazy. It seems many on the intolerant right prefer to misrepresent arguments than engage with them. As for defence spending: if Russia invades Estonia and the US stands by there will be nothing the rest of Europe could do, whatever was spent.
You just can't accept how corrosive the liberal left have been to public discourse. The immediate labeling of racists, xenophobes, fascists etc...and shutting down of contrary opinion has led to Trump. The liberal media in the US are doing a lot of soul searching at the moment, I suggest you do the same. Really think about how people who get told by mainstream media, social media and politicians on the left react when they get told they are racists for wanting to restrict migration or xenophobic for expecting migrants to live by the laws of our land. Shutting down opposing voices like you are trying to do right now is why Trump has just won and stunned the liberal world.
I hate judges blocking the people's democratic decision, yes.
But that's not rule of law, it's rule by lawyers.
The judges have not blocked Brexit.
They're trying their best. Before the case, the government had the right to invoke A50 based on the people's mandate. Now they don't.
Thus the judges have blocked the people's democratic decision from being implemented.
No, the government did not have the right to invoke Article 50 without putting it to a vote in Parliament. That's why it lost the case.
That doesn't make sense, since it already went to a vote in Parliament.
It probably does need the Supreme Court to tidy it up, though. It would be nonsensical if a referendum could be overturned by Parliament - if Parliament hadn't wanted the government to be able to invoke A50 it shouldn't have called the referendum in the first place.
The law was badly written. The act didn't grant the necessary power. Cameron screwed up.
It doesn't make sense to you because you insist on not trying to understand it.
The executive has no power to remove rights granted by Parliament. It's ever so simple.
We're not talking about the executive removing powers, we're talking about the people doing so. The people have instructed the government to Leave the EU. Who are Parliament, or the judges, to get in the way of this?
The idea that Crown Prerogative is limited by Parliament is as old as Magna Carta. I don't know when the first court ruling against the executive was but the widely cited Coke ruling ( which is a good read ) was in 1610. It beggars belief that Judicial Review in 2016 is being portrayed as some sort of despotic coup. Or rather it would but belief has already been beggared. Death threats are being justified by the ' Rapists Defence ' " what did she expect ? " and dismissed as incredible in a year an MP has been murdered by a man citing political slogans at his remand hearing.
Then we have the justification of potential " civil unrest " for setting aside established checks and balances. It's almost as if some folk are spouting nonsense because they are rattled Brexit might not withstand detailed parliamentary scrutiny. Much less the public being given the chance to change their mind.
There are two options.
(1) We Leave the EU. (2) Democracy is shown to have failed.
That's it. No third option. I can't in good conscience advocate option 2; I think it would be very dangerous.
There is a third option. Something happens and because of that, our circumstances fundamentally change and we vote again.
And if, hypothetically, there were to be a second vote and we voted to stay in, would we ever be allowed a third vote, regardless of the circumstances?
The idea that Crown Prerogative is limited by Parliament is as old as Magna Carta. I don't know when the first court ruling against the executive was but the widely cited Coke ruling ( which is a good read ) was in 1610. It beggars belief that Judicial Review in 2016 is being portrayed as some sort of despotic coup. Or rather it would but belief has already been beggared. Death threats are being justified by the ' Rapists Defence ' " what did she expect ? " and dismissed as incredible in a year an MP has been murdered by a man citing political slogans at his remand hearing.
Then we have the justification of potential " civil unrest " for setting aside established checks and balances. It's almost as if some folk are spouting nonsense because they are rattled Brexit might not withstand detailed parliamentary scrutiny. Much less the public being given the chance to change their mind.
There are two options.
(1) We Leave the EU. (2) Democracy is shown to have failed.
That's it. No third option. I can't in good conscience advocate option 2; I think it would be very dangerous.
There is a third option. Something happens and because of that, our circumstances fundamentally change and we vote again.
If that's as a result of anti-democrats playing for time, it's a 2.
And if it is a result of it being an inherently complex international negotiation and major constitutional change? It's a 3.
I hate judges blocking the people's democratic decision, yes.
But that's not rule of law, it's rule by lawyers.
The judges have not blocked Brexit.
They're trying their best. Before the case, the government had the right to invoke A50 based on the people's mandate. Now they don't.
Thus the judges have blocked the people's democratic decision from being implemented.
No, the government did not have the right to invoke Article 50 without putting it to a vote in Parliament. That's why it lost the case.
That doesn't make sense, since it already went to a vote in Parliament.
It probably does need the Supreme Court to tidy it up, though. It would be nonsensical if a referendum could be overturned by Parliament - if Parliament hadn't wanted the government to be able to invoke A50 it shouldn't have called the referendum in the first place.
The law was badly written. The act didn't grant the necessary power. Cameron screwed up.
It doesn't make sense to you because you insist on not trying to understand it.
The executive has no power to remove rights granted by Parliament. It's ever so simple.
We're not talking about the executive removing powers, we're talking about the people doing so. The people have instructed the government to Leave the EU. Who are Parliament, or the judges, to get in the way of this?
I hate judges blocking the people's democratic decision, yes.
But that's not rule of law, it's rule by lawyers.
The judges have not blocked Brexit.
They're trying their best. Before the case, the government had the right to invoke A50 based on the people's mandate. Now they don't.
Thus the judges have blocked the people's democratic decision from being implemented.
No, the government did not have the right to invoke Article 50 without putting it to a vote in Parliament. That's why it lost the case.
That doesn't make sense, since it already went to a vote in Parliament.
It probably does need the Supreme Court to tidy it up, though. It would be nonsensical if a referendum could be overturned by Parliament - if Parliament hadn't wanted the government to be able to invoke A50 it shouldn't have called the referendum in the first place.
The law was badly written. The act didn't grant the necessary power. Cameron screwed up.
It doesn't make sense to you because you insist on not trying to understand it.
The executive has no power to remove rights granted by Parliament. It's ever so simple.
We're not talking about the executive removing powers, we're talking about the people doing so. The people have instructed the government to Leave the EU. Who are Parliament, or the judges, to get in the way of this?
The irony is that 'democracy' may end up losing either way. If A50 goes to a vote in Parliament and the Lords block it (I think there's almost no chance of the Commons stopping it) then the PM may simply appoint a lobby-full of new peers to get round the problem; how democratic is that?
Alternatively, of course, she could call an election but it won't actually resolve the Lords' issue unless Lords reform is at the heart of the manifesto - that'll really push turnout up!
So what are the chances that the EU tells the USA to have another election so that they can get the 'right' answer ?
A big difference between Trump's victory and the Leave win is that Trump did not get most votes.
"The Democrats cannot complain either about the inequity of the electoral college and say Clinton won the popular vote. They accepted the system and framed their entire campaign on winning on those terms. Yet in the places she needed to inspire and motivate more voters than Trump she failed. That goes for Florida, North Carolina, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. Trump crushed her and the smug liberals who operated on the basis that his triumph there was unthinkable."
The Electoral College is designed to ensure that smaller states are not ignored, and with good reason. If the campaign were fought entirely on the national vote then the candidates would probably spend virtually all of their time pandering to the concerns of voters in a few large conurbations (link: http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-united-states-lives-in-these-counties-2013-9?IR=T ) If you add up the numbers of voters in the most populous counties in the US, then by the time you get through the first 146 in the list you've already accounted for half of the entire population. There are over 3,000 counties in all.
Without a system like the Electoral College, the risk is that the entire election could end up revolving around the dozen or so largest cities, which would be even more narrow and exclusive than a list of maybe fifteen or so swing states.
I know. But it is a matter of fact that most American voters did not get the president they voted for.
When was the last time that the electors in the UK got a government that the majority voted for?
The idea that Crown Prerogative is limited by Parliament is as old as Magna Carta. I don't know when the first court ruling against the executive was but the widely cited Coke ruling ( which is a good read ) was in 1610. It beggars belief that Judicial Review in 2016 is being portrayed as some sort of despotic coup. Or rather it would but belief has already been beggared. Death threats are being justified by the ' Rapists Defence ' " what did she expect ? " and dismissed as incredible in a year an MP has been murdered by a man citing political slogans at his remand hearing.
Then we have the justification of potential " civil unrest " for setting aside established checks and balances. It's almost as if some folk are spouting nonsense because they are rattled Brexit might not withstand detailed parliamentary scrutiny. Much less the public being given the chance to change their mind.
There are two options.
(1) We Leave the EU. (2) Democracy is shown to have failed.
That's it. No third option. I can't in good conscience advocate option 2; I think it would be very dangerous.
There is a third option. Something happens and because of that, our circumstances fundamentally change and we vote again.
If that's as a result of anti-democrats playing for time, it's a 2.
And if it is a result of it being an inherently complex international negotiation and major constitutional change? It's a 3.
It's curious. In normal times, an attempt to equate British euro-scepticism with a movement akin to the one led by Donald Trump would have been met with howls of outrage by the euro-sceptics themselves and denounced as a Guardianista fantasy. Yet now many euro-sceptics seem positively to revel in the comparison. Why is this?
They won
Ha!
I'm a leaver and I would have voted Hillary, albeit with gritted teeth. I am worried by a Trump presidency. But I'm also fairly sure that most of the 70 million-odd Trump voters are good people who live in very different circumstances to me and who came to a different conclusion than I would have done, and I'm loath to join in the demonising of half of the American population. I'm also, like Nick P, waiting to see how it turns out before despairing utterly. Don't confuse that position with enthusiasm for President Trump!
Yes, I think people are mistaking an open mind for enthusiasm. Since so many on the liberal left don't know what an open mind looks or feels like it's obviously confusing for them. I didn't want Trump but he's won and the only sensible way to approach it now is to have an open mind and hope to be surprised, but prepare for the opposite by increasing defence spending.
Ha, ha. The wicked liberal left again. Lazy, lazy, lazy. It seems many on the intolerant right prefer to misrepresent arguments than engage with them. As for defence spending: if Russia invades Estonia and the US stands by there will be nothing the rest of Europe could do, whatever was spent.
You just can't accept how corrosive the liberal left have been to public discourse. The immediate labeling of racists, xenophobes, fascists etc...and shutting down of contrary opinion has led to Trump. The liberal media in the US are doing a lot of soul searching at the moment, I suggest you do the same. Really think about how people who get told by mainstream media, social media and politicians on the left react when they get told they are racists for wanting to restrict migration or xenophobic for expecting migrants to live by the laws of our land. Shutting down opposing voices like you are trying to do right now is why Trump has just won and stunned the liberal world.
As a thoughtful lefty I honestly expect better.
I am not trying to shut any voices down. Never have, never would. Hence my point about the intolerant right misrepresenting arguments rather than engaging with them. It happens all the time.
I hate judges blocking the people's democratic decision, yes.
But that's not rule of law, it's rule by lawyers.
The judges have not blocked Brexit.
They're trying their best. Before the case, the government had the right to invoke A50 based on the people's mandate. Now they don't.
Thus the judges have blocked the people's democratic decision from being implemented.
No, the government did not have the right to invoke Article 50 without putting it to a vote in Parliament. That's why it lost the case.
That doesn't make sense, since it already went to a vote in Parliament.
It probably does need the Supreme Court to tidy it up, though. It would be nonsensical if a referendum could be overturned by Parliament - if Parliament hadn't wanted the government to be able to invoke A50 it shouldn't have called the referendum in the first place.
The law was badly written. The act didn't grant the necessary power. Cameron screwed up.
It doesn't make sense to you because you insist on not trying to understand it.
The executive has no power to remove rights granted by Parliament. It's ever so simple.
We're not talking about the executive removing powers, we're talking about the people doing so. The people have instructed the government to Leave the EU. Who are Parliament, or the judges, to get in the way of this?
The idea that Crown Prerogative is limited by Parliament is as old as Magna Carta. I don't know when the first court ruling against the executive was but the widely cited Coke ruling ( which is a good read ) was in 1610. It beggars belief that Judicial Review in 2016 is being portrayed as some sort of despotic coup. Or rather it would but belief has already been beggared. Death threats are being justified by the ' Rapists Defence ' " what did she expect ? " and dismissed as incredible in a year an MP has been murdered by a man citing political slogans at his remand hearing.
Then we have the justification of potential " civil unrest " for setting aside established checks and balances. It's almost as if some folk are spouting nonsense because they are rattled Brexit might not withstand detailed parliamentary scrutiny. Much less the public being given the chance to change their mind.
There are two options.
(1) We Leave the EU. (2) Democracy is shown to have failed.
That's it. No third option. I can't in good conscience advocate option 2; I think it would be very dangerous.
There is a third option. Something happens and because of that, our circumstances fundamentally change and we vote again.
And if, hypothetically, there were to be a second vote and we voted to stay in, would we ever be allowed a third vote, regardless of the circumstances?
No. Thought not.
Quite possibly. In such circumstances, we would back to politics as usual. A future vote, would be part of a general election winning manifesto.
I can't imagine it would be as much of a dog's breakfast as this one. Maybe that govt would actually get the referendum act right and work out a plan for either result.
So what are the chances that the EU tells the USA to have another election so that they can get the 'right' answer ?
A big difference between Trump's victory and the Leave win is that Trump did not get most votes.
Certainly but also irrelevant.
If US Presidential elections were won by total national votes then the whole campaigning patterns would be different. Not to forget that Trump was a dreadful candidate as well - the equivalent of Boris or Farage would have been well ahead in the popular vote.
What this year has shown is that the establishment doesn't like to go outside its comfort zone or even think of what's happening outside its comfort zone.
For that matter EdM was another who never wanted to think beyond the boundaries of Dartmouth Park and had an 'absentee landlord' mentality to his own parliamentary constituency.
Despite significant voter suppression in some states, a million more Americans voted for the liberal left establishment candidate than the billionaire right wing populist. Ed did did not get most votes, neither did Remain. Americans were voting for who they wanted to be their President. The rules - which they seem to accept, by and large - meant that they did not get their choice.
When you start going on about 'significant voter suppression' you're well into losing the plot territory.
An utterly dreadful outsider has beaten the establishment that is the fundamental thing.
Now if the establishment (political, economic and cultural) were wise they would ask what they're doing wrong.
Instead I suspect they'll retreat even more into their comfort zone.
The idea that Crown Prerogative is limited by Parliament is as old as Magna Carta. I don't know when the first court ruling against the executive was but the widely cited Coke ruling ( which is a good read ) was in 1610. It beggars belief that Judicial Review in 2016 is being portrayed as some sort of despotic coup. Or rather it would but belief has already been beggared. Death threats are being justified by the ' Rapists Defence ' " what did she expect ? " and dismissed as incredible in a year an MP has been murdered by a man citing political slogans at his remand hearing.
Then we have the justification of potential " civil unrest " for setting aside established checks and balances. It's almost as if some folk are spouting nonsense because they are rattled Brexit might not withstand detailed parliamentary scrutiny. Much less the public being given the chance to change their mind.
There are two options.
(1) We Leave the EU. (2) Democracy is shown to have failed.
That's it. No third option. I can't in good conscience advocate option 2; I think it would be very dangerous.
There is a third option. Something happens and because of that, our circumstances fundamentally change and we vote again.
And if, hypothetically, there were to be a second vote and we voted to stay in, would we ever be allowed a third vote, regardless of the circumstances?
The idea that Crown Prerogative is limited by Parliament is as old as Magna Carta. I don't know when the first court ruling against the executive was but the widely cited Coke ruling ( which is a good read ) was in 1610. It beggars belief that Judicial Review in 2016 is being portrayed as some sort of despotic coup. Or rather it would but belief has already been beggared. Death threats are being justified by the ' Rapists Defence ' " what did she expect ? " and dismissed as incredible in a year an MP has been murdered by a man citing political slogans at his remand hearing.
Then we have the justification of potential " civil unrest " for setting aside established checks and balances. It's almost as if some folk are spouting nonsense because they are rattled Brexit might not withstand detailed parliamentary scrutiny. Much less the public being given the chance to change their mind.
There are two options.
(1) We Leave the EU. (2) Democracy is shown to have failed.
That's it. No third option. I can't in good conscience advocate option 2; I think it would be very dangerous.
There is a third option. Something happens and because of that, our circumstances fundamentally change and we vote again.
If that's as a result of anti-democrats playing for time, it's a 2.
And if it is a result of it being an inherently complex international negotiation and major constitutional change? It's a 3.
Nope. Either we leave or democracy has failed.
Wrong. Take a very extreme case to prove the point... Country X invades a Nato country and we go to war. Would we trigger A50 then? Of course not. We would have bigger fish to fry.
Once the dust is settled, maybe we would want to take a different view.
Extreme case, but democracy would not have failed at all.
So what are the chances that the EU tells the USA to have another election so that they can get the 'right' answer ?
A big difference between Trump's victory and the Leave win is that Trump did not get most votes.
"The Democrats cannot complain either about the inequity of the electoral college and say Clinton won the popular vote. They accepted the system and framed their entire campaign on winning on those terms. Yet in the places she needed to inspire and motivate more voters than Trump she failed. That goes for Florida, North Carolina, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. Trump crushed her and the smug liberals who operated on the basis that his triumph there was unthinkable."
The Electoral College is designed to ensure that smaller states are not ignored, and with good reason. If the campaign were fought entirely on the national vote then the candidates would probably spend virtually all of their time pandering to the concerns of voters in a few large conurbations (link: http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-united-states-lives-in-these-counties-2013-9?IR=T ) If you add up the numbers of voters in the most populous counties in the US, then by the time you get through the first 146 in the list you've already accounted for half of the entire population. There are over 3,000 counties in all.
Without a system like the Electoral College, the risk is that the entire election could end up revolving around the dozen or so largest cities, which would be even more narrow and exclusive than a list of maybe fifteen or so swing states.
I know. But it is a matter of fact that most American voters did not get the president they voted for.
When was the last time that the electors in the UK got a government that the majority voted for?
What we need to ensure that is to move to a system of AV...
The idea that Crown Prerogative is limited by Parliament is as old as Magna Carta. I don't know when the first court ruling against the executive was but the widely cited Coke ruling ( which is a good read ) was in 1610. It beggars belief that Judicial Review in 2016 is being portrayed as some sort of despotic coup. Or rather it would but belief has already been beggared. Death threats are being justified by the ' Rapists Defence ' " what did she expect ? " and dismissed as incredible in a year an MP has been murdered by a man citing political slogans at his remand hearing.
Then we have the justification of potential " civil unrest " for setting aside established checks and balances. It's almost as if some folk are spouting nonsense because they are rattled Brexit might not withstand detailed parliamentary scrutiny. Much less the public being given the chance to change their mind.
There are two options.
(1) We Leave the EU. (2) Democracy is shown to have failed.
That's it. No third option. I can't in good conscience advocate option 2; I think it would be very dangerous.
There is a third option. Something happens and because of that, our circumstances fundamentally change and we vote again.
If that's as a result of anti-democrats playing for time, it's a 2.
And if it is a result of it being an inherently complex international negotiation and major constitutional change? It's a 3.
Nope. Either we leave or democracy has failed.
Wrong. Take a very extreme case to prove the point... Country X invades a Nato country and we go to war. Would we trigger A50 then? Of course not. We would have bigger fish to fry.
Once the dust is settled, maybe we would want to take a different view.
Extreme case, but democracy would not have failed at all.
Yes it would have, because it would be as a result of anti-democrats playing for time. A50 should have been invoked by now.
Hmm, a little bit over the top, David. Authoritarian, maybe. Fascist probably not. For someone who doesn't usually fall into the liberal groupthink problem, you seem to have walked directly into the trap this time.
And your evidence for that is?
I'm not looking at this through the liberal group think. That was why I opened by dismissing the description as insult.
What we shouldn't do is rule out of hand descriptions simply because they're beyond the normal discourse. The fact is that Trump is beyond normal politics.
Admittedly, as Malmesbury has said, he doesn't have a paramilitary organisation and isn't explicitly aiming to overturn democracy. But then the former doesn't change what he is; it just makes him less effective in implementing it. And his unwillingness to commit himself to accept the result suggests at least an inclination to ignore democracy, due process and the rule of law - and that wasn't his only such comment: 'jail Hillary' was of the same nature.
Did he mean it? In a sense it doesn't matter. His willingness to play to that gallery defines what he sees as acceptable limits.
He didn't say he would "jail Hillary"
He said he'd appoint a special prosecutor and "she'd probably be in jail".
That's an important difference. It was saying that - currently - she operates as if she is above the law. It's part of the "drain the swamp" meme, not anything else
So what are the chances that the EU tells the USA to have another election so that they can get the 'right' answer ?
A big difference between Trump's victory and the Leave win is that Trump did not get most votes.
"The Democrats cannot complain either about the inequity of the electoral college and say Clinton won the popular vote. They accepted the system and framed their entire campaign on winning on those terms. Yet in the places she needed to inspire and motivate more voters than Trump she failed. That goes for Florida, North Carolina, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. Trump crushed her and the smug liberals who operated on the basis that his triumph there was unthinkable."
The Electoral College is designed to ensure that smaller states are not ignored, and with good reason. If the campaign were fought entirely on the national vote then the candidates would probably spend virtually all of their time pandering to the concerns of voters in a few large conurbations (link: http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-united-states-lives-in-these-counties-2013-9?IR=T ) If you add up the numbers of voters in the most populous counties in the US, then by the time you get through the first 146 in the list you've already accounted for half of the entire population. There are over 3,000 counties in all.
Without a system like the Electoral College, the risk is that the entire election could end up revolving around the dozen or so largest cities, which would be even more narrow and exclusive than a list of maybe fifteen or so swing states.
I know. But it is a matter of fact that most American voters did not get the president they voted for.
When was the last time that the electors in the UK got a government that the majority voted for?
So what are the chances that the EU tells the USA to have another election so that they can get the 'right' answer ?
A big difference between Trump's victory and the Leave win is that Trump did not get most votes.
"The Democrats cannot complain either about the inequity of the electoral college and say Clinton won the popular vote. They accepted the system and framed their entire campaign on winning on those terms. Yet in the places she needed to inspire and motivate more voters than Trump she failed. That goes for Florida, North Carolina, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. Trump crushed her and the smug liberals who operated on the basis that his triumph there was unthinkable."
The Electoral College is designed to ensure that smaller states are not ignored, and with good reason. If the campaign were fought entirely on the national vote then the candidates would probably spend virtually all of their time pandering to the concerns of voters in a few large conurbations (link: http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-united-states-lives-in-these-counties-2013-9?IR=T ) If you add up the numbers of voters in the most populous counties in the US, then by the time you get through the first 146 in the list you've already accounted for half of the entire population. There are over 3,000 counties in all.
Without a system like the Electoral College, the risk is that the entire election could end up revolving around the dozen or so largest cities, which would be even more narrow and exclusive than a list of maybe fifteen or so swing states.
I know. But it is a matter of fact that most American voters did not get the president they voted for.
When was the last time that the electors in the UK got a government that the majority voted for?
Classic EU situation and you can bet Junker and clowns are rabble rousing in the background. Have a referendum but if the answer is wrong try again.......and again...... And again until you get the right answer. At that point no more every discussion and the question is settled for ever and ever.
These bastards have to understand this is not the best of three. You handed the Decision to the people on a 6 to 1 vote .....they answered. I doubt the people would ever had any say in the terms on which we remain just think the last 40 years culminating in that treacherous act by Brown at Lisbon after denying the promised referendum. The advisory is utter bullshit you can bet if remain won then the terms used would be binding, not an "advisory" in sight.
You can also be assured that had remain won then they would say the discussion was settled once and for all, an all binding treaty signed in quick time ( I bet they had one ready Togo in Brussels) and that's democracy. I said consistently in the run up that if we voted remain even by just one vote we should engage in the EU 100% with Schengen and even the Euro. On the other hand that did not occur so these guys need to be very very careful what they now do
Do not ever thwart the will of the electorate because if they do what is the point in trooping down to a polling station and ever voting again. None whatsoever. We really must of course avoid the alternatives but people will use them if nothing else left.
Hmm, a little bit over the top, David. Authoritarian, maybe. Fascist probably not. For someone who doesn't usually fall into the liberal groupthink problem, you seem to have walked directly into the trap this time.
And your evidence for that is?
I'm not looking at this through the liberal group think. That was why I opened by dismissing the description as insult.
What we shouldn't do is rule out of hand descriptions simply because they're beyond the normal discourse. The fact is that Trump is beyond normal politics.
Admittedly, as Malmesbury has said, he doesn't have a paramilitary organisation and isn't explicitly aiming to overturn democracy. But then the former doesn't change what he is; it just makes him less effective in implementing it. And his unwillingness to commit himself to accept the result suggests at least an inclination to ignore democracy, due process and the rule of law - and that wasn't his only such comment: 'jail Hillary' was of the same nature.
Did he mean it? In a sense it doesn't matter. His willingness to play to that gallery defines what he sees as acceptable limits.
He didn't say he would "jail Hillary"
He said he'd appoint a special prosecutor and "she'd probably be in jail".
That's an important difference. It was saying that - currently - she operates as if she is above the law. It's part of the "drain the swamp" meme, not anything else
It was more than that. In the debate he said she should be in jail.
I am not trying to shut any voices down. Never have, never would. Hence my point about the intolerant right misrepresenting arguments rather than engaging with them. It happens all the time.
What are you even talking about? Intolerant right? I thought it was alt-right now?
You might not, and I agree that you don't on the whole, but you are not representative of the liberal left. The liberal left screams and shouts racism at the drop of a hat. It labels ordinary people as intolerant because they want fewer migrants. It labels ordinary people xenophobes because they don't like seeing burkas. It tells people they deserve to take lower wages for the greater good and recently that higher wages are an economic cost for the nation. Look at who is on your side, I know the flaws of mine. You seem to be oblivious to your side's failures.
So what are the chances that the EU tells the USA to have another election so that they can get the 'right' answer ?
A big difference between Trump's victory and the Leave win is that Trump did not get most votes.
"The Democrats cannot complain either about the inequity of the electoral college and say Clinton won the popular vote. They accepted the system and framed their entire campaign on winning on those terms. Yet in the places she needed to inspire and motivate more voters than Trump she failed. That goes for Florida, North Carolina, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. Trump crushed her and the smug liberals who operated on the basis that his triumph there was unthinkable."
The Electoral College is designed to ensure that smaller states are not ignored, and with good reason. If the campaign were fought entirely on the national vote then the candidates would probably spend virtually all of their time pandering to the concerns of voters in a few large conurbations (link: http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-united-states-lives-in-these-counties-2013-9?IR=T ) If you add up the numbers of voters in the most populous counties in the US, then by the time you get through the first 146 in the list you've already accounted for half of the entire population. There are over 3,000 counties in all.
Without a system like the Electoral College, the risk is that the entire election could end up revolving around the dozen or so largest cities, which would be even more narrow and exclusive than a list of maybe fifteen or so swing states.
I know. But it is a matter of fact that most American voters did not get the president they voted for.
When was the last time that the electors in the UK got a government that the majority voted for?
What we need to ensure that is to move to a system of AV...
The idea that Crown Prerogative is limited by Parliament is as old as Magna Carta. I don't know when the first court ruling against the executive was but the widely cited Coke ruling ( which is a good read ) was in 1610. It beggars belief that Judicial Review in 2016 is being portrayed as some sort of despotic coup. Or rather it would but belief has already been beggared. Death threats are being justified by the ' Rapists Defence ' " what did she expect ? " and dismissed as incredible in a year an MP has been murdered by a man citing political slogans at his remand hearing.
Then we have the justification of potential " civil unrest " for setting aside established checks and balances. It's almost as if some folk are spouting nonsense because they are rattled Brexit might not withstand detailed parliamentary scrutiny. Much less the public being given the chance to change their mind.
There are two options.
(1) We Leave the EU. (2) Democracy is shown to have failed.
That's it. No third option. I can't in good conscience advocate option 2; I think it would be very dangerous.
There is a third option. Something happens and because of that, our circumstances fundamentally change and we vote again.
If that's as a result of anti-democrats playing for time, it's a 2.
And if it is a result of it being an inherently complex international negotiation and major constitutional change? It's a 3.
Nope. Either we leave or democracy has failed.
Wrong. Take a very extreme case to prove the point... Country X invades a Nato country and we go to war. Would we trigger A50 then? Of course not. We would have bigger fish to fry.
Once the dust is settled, maybe we would want to take a different view.
Extreme case, but democracy would not have failed at all.
Yes it would have, because it would be as a result of anti-democrats playing for time. A50 should have been invoked by now.
Following the law is democratic. Shortcuting and undermining the law is anti-democratic.
The referendum act was flawed. That is why we are in the realm of lawyers. Cameron screwed up.
We have to go through the process. It is the right thing to do. The idea that future govts can interpret the scope of their powers is hugely dangerous.
So what are the chances that the EU tells the USA to have another election so that they can get the 'right' answer ?
A big difference between Trump's victory and the Leave win is that Trump did not get most votes.
"The Democrats cannot complain either about the inequity of the electoral college and say Clinton won the popular vote. They accepted the system and framed their entire campaign on winning on those terms. Yet in the places she needed to inspire and motivate more voters than Trump she failed. That goes for Florida, North Carolina, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. Trump crushed her and the smug liberals who operated on the basis that his triumph there was unthinkable."
The Electoral College is designed to ensure that smaller states are not ignored, and with good reason. If the campaign were fought entirely on the national vote then the candidates would probably spend virtually all of their time pandering to the concerns of voters in a few large conurbations (link: http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-united-states-lives-in-these-counties-2013-9?IR=T ) If you add up the numbers of voters in the most populous counties in the US, then by the time you get through the first 146 in the list you've already accounted for half of the entire population. There are over 3,000 counties in all.
Without a system like the Electoral College, the risk is that the entire election could end up revolving around the dozen or so largest cities, which would be even more narrow and exclusive than a list of maybe fifteen or so swing states.
I know. But it is a matter of fact that most American voters did not get the president they voted for.
When was the last time that the electors in the UK got a government that the majority voted for?
Arguably 2010.
Tell that to those who opposed increased tuition fees.
The idea that Crown Prerogative is limited by Parliament is as old as Magna Carta. I don't know when the first court ruling against the executive was but the widely cited Coke ruling ( which is a good read ) was in 1610. It beggars belief that Judicial Review in 2016 is being portrayed as some sort of despotic coup. Or rather it would but belief has already been beggared. Death threats are being justified by the ' Rapists Defence ' " what did she expect ? " and dismissed as incredible in a year an MP has been murdered by a man citing political slogans at his remand hearing.
Then we have the justification of potential " civil unrest " for setting aside established checks and balances. It's almost as if some folk are spouting nonsense because they are rattled Brexit might not withstand detailed parliamentary scrutiny. Much less the public being given the chance to change their mind.
There are two options.
(1) We Leave the EU. (2) Democracy is shown to have failed.
That's it. No third option. I can't in good conscience advocate option 2; I think it would be very dangerous.
There is a third option. Something happens and because of that, our circumstances fundamentally change and we vote again.
And if, hypothetically, there were to be a second vote and we voted to stay in, would we ever be allowed a third vote, regardless of the circumstances?
No. Thought not.
Quite possibly. In such circumstances, we would back to politics as usual. A future vote, would be part of a general election winning manifesto.
I can't imagine it would be as much of a dog's breakfast as this one. Maybe that govt would actually get the referendum act right and work out a plan for either result.
And of course we vote on our EU membership at every General Election. There is no constitutional need to have a referendum on withdrawal. A Commons majority plus the Parliament Act would be enough in extremis. Labour fought 1983 on a withdrawal platform. The idea we've been denied democratic choice is another myth. We've just consistently elected pro EU governments since 1975 onward.
And there were less than 14 months from the first Commons majority for a Referendum and that Referendum happening.
So what are the chances that the EU tells the USA to have another election so that they can get the 'right' answer ?
A big difference between Trump's victory and the Leave win is that Trump did not get most votes.
"The Democrats cannot complain either about the inequity of the electoral college and say Clinton won the popular vote. They accepted the system and framed their entire campaign on winning on those terms. Yet in the places she needed to inspire and motivate more voters than Trump she failed. That goes for Florida, North Carolina, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. Trump crushed her and the smug liberals who operated on the basis that his triumph there was unthinkable."
The Electoral College is designed to ensure that smaller states are not ignored, and with good reason. If the campaign were fought entirely on the national vote then the candidates would probably spend virtually all of their time pandering to the concerns of voters in a few large conurbations (link: http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-united-states-lives-in-these-counties-2013-9?IR=T ) If you add up the numbers of voters in the most populous counties in the US, then by the time you get through the first 146 in the list you've already accounted for half of the entire population. There are over 3,000 counties in all.
Without a system like the Electoral College, the risk is that the entire election could end up revolving around the dozen or so largest cities, which would be even more narrow and exclusive than a list of maybe fifteen or so swing states.
I know. But it is a matter of fact that most American voters did not get the president they voted for.
When was the last time that the electors in the UK got a government that the majority voted for?
What we need to ensure that is to move to a system of AV...
Lets have a thread to discuss AV.
Perhaps TSE can write a piece about it.
Would Trump be President Elect if US primaries were conducted by AV?
I am not trying to shut any voices down. Never have, never would. Hence my point about the intolerant right misrepresenting arguments rather than engaging with them. It happens all the time.
What are you even talking about? Intolerant right? I thought it was alt-right now?
You might not, and I agree that you don't on the whole, but you are not representative of the liberal left. The liberal left screams and shouts racism at the drop of a hat. It labels ordinary people as intolerant because they want fewer migrants. It labels ordinary people xenophobes because they don't like seeing burkas. It tells people they deserve to take lower wages for the greater good and recently that higher wages are an economic cost for the nation. Look at who is on your side, I know the flaws of mine. You seem to be oblivious to your side's failures.
Hence all the anti-Corbyn articles of mine that have been published on here, I guess.
I am not trying to shut any voices down. Never have, never would. Hence my point about the intolerant right misrepresenting arguments rather than engaging with them. It happens all the time.
What are you even talking about? Intolerant right? I thought it was alt-right now?
You might not, and I agree that you don't on the whole, but you are not representative of the liberal left. The liberal left screams and shouts racism at the drop of a hat. It labels ordinary people as intolerant because they want fewer migrants. It labels ordinary people xenophobes because they don't like seeing burkas. It tells people they deserve to take lower wages for the greater good and recently that higher wages are an economic cost for the nation. Look at who is on your side, I know the flaws of mine. You seem to be oblivious to your side's failures.
Hence all the anti-Corbyn articles of mine that have been published on here, I guess.
You old Corbynite you. Don't choke on your quinoa.
So what are the chances that the EU tells the USA to have another election so that they can get the 'right' answer ?
A big difference between Trump's victory and the Leave win is that Trump did not get most votes.
"The Democrats cannot complain either about the inequity of the electoral college and say Clinton won the popular vote. They accepted the system and framed their entire campaign on winning on those terms. Yet in the places she needed to inspire and motivate more voters than Trump she failed. That goes for Florida, North Carolina, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. Trump crushed her and the smug liberals who operated on the basis that his triumph there was unthinkable."
The Electoral College is designed to ensure that smaller states are not ignored, and with good reason. If the campaign were fought entirely on the national vote then the candidates would probably spend virtually all of their time pandering to the concerns of voters in a few large conurbations (link: http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-united-states-lives-in-these-counties-2013-9?IR=T ) If you add up the numbers of voters in the most populous counties in the US, then by the time you get through the first 146 in the list you've already accounted for half of the entire population. There are over 3,000 counties in all.
Without a system like the Electoral College, the risk is that the entire election could end up revolving around the dozen or so largest cities, which would be even more narrow and exclusive than a list of maybe fifteen or so swing states.
I know. But it is a matter of fact that most American voters did not get the president they voted for.
When was the last time that the electors in the UK got a government that the majority voted for?
1931 - although I'm sure you already knew that. The "governments we didn't vote for" argument is used by supporters of PR (which usually results in coalitions where nobody at all gets what they voted for,) and certain moaning separatists.
Maybe that's a bit flippant, but the fundamental point is that picking a voting system is rather like picking a system of Government. One aims to arrive at the worst system, except for all the others that have been tried. Most Americans clearly believe that the Electoral College is such a system, or the demand to have it replaced would extend beyond some distraught coastal Democrats.
She should have thought about that before she stood up against democracy, quite frankly.
I know I shouldn't rise to the bait but that's a thoroughly vile and topically fascistic thing to say. You should be ashamed of yourself. She made an application for Judicial Review. That's it. Your suggestion exercising a citizen's right to go to the Queen's Courts some how justifies death threats is as obscene as it is facile.
Come off it. She's being a bad loser, trying to find any way she can to block the British people's democratic decision from being implemented.
Why should anyone take seriously the possibility of Cuomo, Warren or any other Democrat establishment candidate when none of them dared challenge such an obviously dreadful opponent as Hilary Clinton ?
I'd recommend betting on any long shot Democrat outsider - most will get their fortnight of fame and you'll be able to trade out for nice profits.
I'm grateful to @luckguy1984 for pointing out Tulsi Gabbard to me. I'd never heard of her. A Hindu President would be just what the KKK needs.
You're welcome, and thanks for taking a year off me too.
The idea that Crown Prerogative is limited by Parliament is as old as Magna Carta. I don't know when the first court ruling against the executive was but the widely cited Coke ruling ( which is a good read ) was in 1610. It beggars belief that Judicial Review in 2016 is being portrayed as some sort of despotic coup. Or rather it would but belief has already been beggared. Death threats are being justified by the ' Rapists Defence ' " what did she expect ? " and dismissed as incredible in a year an MP has been murdered by a man citing political slogans at his remand hearing.
Then we have the justification of potential " civil unrest " for setting aside established checks and balances. It's almost as if some folk are spouting nonsense because they are rattled Brexit might not withstand detailed parliamentary scrutiny. Much less the public being given the chance to change their mind.
There are two options.
(1) We Leave the EU. (2) Democracy is shown to have failed.
That's it. No third option. I can't in good conscience advocate option 2; I think it would be very dangerous.
There is a third option. Something happens and because of that, our circumstances fundamentally change and we vote again.
And if, hypothetically, there were to be a second vote and we voted to stay in, would we ever be allowed a third vote, regardless of the circumstances?
No. Thought not.
Quite possibly. In such circumstances, we would back to politics as usual. A future vote, would be part of a general election winning manifesto.
I can't imagine it would be as much of a dog's breakfast as this one. Maybe that govt would actually get the referendum act right and work out a plan for either result.
And of course we vote on our EU membership at every General Election. There is no constitutional need to have a referendum on withdrawal. A Commons majority plus the Parliament Act would be enough in extremis. Labour fought 1983 on a withdrawal platform. The idea we've been denied democratic choice is another myth. We've just consistently elected pro EU governments since 1975 onward.
And there were less than 14 months from the first Commons majority for a Referendum and that Referendum happening.
The last 2500 years of British History have involved debates on our relationship with the countries of the remainder of Europe. There will not ever be a final answer.
Good article. Didn't mention Poland, Hungary etc. Won't be long until a majority of countries are fascist in the classical definition. If there was a tipping point it was the failure of the liberal west to contain Islamic fundamentalists. Which type of tyranny do we prefer? Isis or trump? That's how people see it. That and ignorance of history.
I think that Islamic fundamentalism has a much better claim to be called fascist than Trump, notwithstanding Mr H's provocative but beautifully written piece.
There are certainly aspects of Trump's campaign which are worryingly demagogic. Appealing to your audience's baser instincts is never good. But that alone does not make you a fascist. I think we need to be careful not to fall in the trap identified over 60 years ago by George Orwell of denuding political descriptions of real meaning through over or inaccurate use.
The idea that Crown Prerogative is limited by Parliament is as old as Magna Carta. I don't know when the first court ruling against the executive was but the widely cited Coke ruling ( which is a good read ) was in 1610. It beggars belief that Judicial Review in 2016 is being portrayed as some sort of despotic coup. Or rather it would but belief has already been beggared. Death threats are being justified by the ' Rapists Defence ' " what did she expect ? " and dismissed as incredible in a year an MP has been murdered by a man citing political slogans at his remand hearing.
Then we have the justification of potential " civil unrest " for setting aside established checks and balances. It's almost as if some folk are spouting nonsense because they are rattled Brexit might not withstand detailed parliamentary scrutiny. Much less the public being given the chance to change their mind.
There are two options.
(1) We Leave the EU. (2) Democracy is shown to have failed.
That's it. No third option. I can't in good conscience advocate option 2; I think it would be very dangerous.
There is a third option. Something happens and because of that, our circumstances fundamentally change and we vote again.
And if, hypothetically, there were to be a second vote and we voted to stay in, would we ever be allowed a third vote, regardless of the circumstances?
No. Thought not.
Quite possibly. In such circumstances, we would back to politics as usual. A future vote, would be part of a general election winning manifesto.
I can't imagine it would be as much of a dog's breakfast as this one. Maybe that govt would actually get the referendum act right and work out a plan for either result.
And of course we vote on our EU membership at every General Election. There is no constitutional need to have a referendum on withdrawal. A Commons majority plus the Parliament Act would be enough in extremis. Labour fought 1983 on a withdrawal platform. The idea we've been denied democratic choice is another myth. We've just consistently elected pro EU governments since 1975 onward.
And there were less than 14 months from the first Commons majority for a Referendum and that Referendum happening.
The last 2500 years of British History have involved debates on our relationship with the countries of the remainder of Europe. There will not ever be a final answer.
So what are the chances that the EU tells the USA to have another election so that they can get the 'right' answer ?
A big difference between Trump's victory and the Leave win is that Trump did not get most votes.
"The Democrats cannot complain either about the inequity of the electoral college and say Clinton won the popular vote. They accepted the system and framed their entire campaign on winning on those terms. Yet in the places she needed to inspire and motivate more voters than Trump she failed. That goes for Florida, North Carolina, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. Trump crushed her and the smug liberals who operated on the basis that his triumph there was unthinkable."
The Electoral College is designed to ensure that smaller states are not ignored, and with good reason. If the campaign were fought entirely on the national vote then the candidates would probably spend virtually all of their time pandering to the concerns of voters in a few large conurbations (link: http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-united-states-lives-in-these-counties-2013-9?IR=T ) If you add up the numbers of voters in the most populous counties in the US, then by the time you get through the first 146 in the list you've already accounted for half of the entire population. There are over 3,000 counties in all.
Without a system like the Electoral College, the risk is that the entire election could end up revolving around the dozen or so largest cities, which would be even more narrow and exclusive than a list of maybe fifteen or so swing states.
I know. But it is a matter of fact that most American voters did not get the president they voted for.
When was the last time that the electors in the UK got a government that the majority voted for?
What we need to ensure that is to move to a system of AV...
Lets have a thread to discuss AV.
Perhaps TSE can write a piece about it.
Would Trump be President Elect if US primaries were conducted by AV?
Almost certainly not.
If Trump had faced a single establishment candidate in the primaries I don't think he would have been nominated.
Is Sanders had faced multiple establishment candidates in the primaries I think he would have been nominated.
Good article. Didn't mention Poland, Hungary etc. Won't be long until a majority of countries are fascist in the classical definition. If there was a tipping point it was the failure of the liberal west to contain Islamic fundamentalists. Which type of tyranny do we prefer? Isis or trump? That's how people see it. That and ignorance of history.
She should have thought about that before she stood up against democracy, quite frankly.
I know I shouldn't rise to the bait but that's a thoroughly vile and topically fascistic thing to say. You should be ashamed of yourself. She made an application for Judicial Review. That's it. Your suggestion exercising a citizen's right to go to the Queen's Courts some how justifies death threats is as obscene as it is facile.
Come off it. She's being a bad loser, trying to find any way she can to block the British people's democratic decision from being implemented.
Why should anyone take seriously the possibility of Cuomo, Warren or any other Democrat establishment candidate when none of them dared challenge such an obviously dreadful opponent as Hilary Clinton ?
I'd recommend betting on any long shot Democrat outsider - most will get their fortnight of fame and you'll be able to trade out for nice profits.
I'm grateful to @luckguy1984 for pointing out Tulsi Gabbard to me. I'd never heard of her. A Hindu President would be just what the KKK needs.
You're welcome, and thanks for taking a year off me too.
My initial thought on reading her Wikipedia page was that she'd have made a better Wonder Woman that Gal Gadot.
Trump has done the following: 1. Called some women names. Except for some women, Haven't we all. 2. Called Muslims names. Except for some muslims, Haven't we all. 3. Called Mexicans names. Well Mexicans are not our near neigbours, but France is, and Except for some Frenchmen, Haven't we all. 4. Called for the end of abortion on demand. Well Except for some women, Haven't we all. 5. Called for the end illegal and massive immigration. Except for some Liberals and Lefties, Haven't we all. 6. Called for the re-establishment of industry in the country. Almost without exception, Haven't we all.
1,2,3,5: no. You're doing what lots of us do - assuming that everyone is like the people you know. I wouldn't dream of talking about women or Muslims or the French in the terms that he did, and I in turn don't know anyone who does. Most generalisations are wrong...
Incidentally, the current Reith lecturer is really interesting, agree with him or not, on Western civilisation:
It's curious. In normal times, an attempt to equate British euro-scepticism with a movement akin to the one led by Donald Trump would have been met with howls of outrage by the euro-sceptics themselves and denounced as a Guardianista fantasy. Yet now many euro-sceptics seem positively to revel in the comparison. Why is this?
They won
Ha!
I'm a leaver and I would have voted Hillary, albeit with gritted teeth. I am worried by a Trump presidency. But I'm also fairly sure that most of the 70 million-odd Trump voters are good people who live in very different circumstances to me and who came to a different conclusion than I would have done, and I'm loath to join in the demonising of half of the American population. I'm also, like Nick P, waiting to see how it turns out before despairing utterly. Don't confuse that position with enthusiasm for President Trump!
Yes, I think people are mistaking an open mind for enthusiasm. Since so many on the liberal left don't know what an open mind looks or feels like it's obviously confusing for them. I didn't want Trump but he's won and the only sensible way to approach it now is to have an open mind and hope to be surprised, but prepare for the opposite by increasing defence spending.
Ha, ha. The wicked liberal left again. Lazy, lazy, lazy. It seems many on the intolerant right prefer to misrepresent arguments than engage with them. As for defence spending: if Russia invades Estonia and the US stands by there will be nothing the rest of Europe could do, whatever was spent.
Russia may be invited into Estonia after the fall of their government and a pro Russia coalition
Have you ever been to Estonia?
Yes and Tallinn is beautiful and quaint. Not sure the point is in your comment though
How many times? When was the last time you were there? Were you just a tourist, not venturing far from Vanalinn?
I went a few years ago to Tallinn and it was fascinating. However I am only commenting on the fall of the government this week and reports that a pro Russia coalition is likely. I do not know more than that which has been reported
So what are the chances that the EU tells the USA to have another election so that they can get the 'right' answer ?
A big difference between Trump's victory and the Leave win is that Trump did not get most votes.
"The Democrats cannot complain either about the inequity of the electoral college and say Clinton won the popular vote. They accepted the system and framed their entire campaign on winning on those terms. Yet in the places she needed to inspire and motivate more voters than Trump she failed. That goes for Florida, North Carolina, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. Trump crushed her and the smug liberals who operated on the basis that his triumph there was unthinkable."
The Electoral College is designed to ensure that smaller states are not ignored, and with good reason. If the campaign were fought entirely on the national vote then the candidates would probably spend virtually all of their time pandering to the concerns of voters in a few large conurbations (link: http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-united-states-lives-in-these-counties-2013-9?IR=T ) If you add up the numbers of voters in the most populous counties in the US, then by the time you get through the first 146 in the list you've already accounted for half of the entire population. There are over 3,000 counties in all.
Without a system like the Electoral College, the risk is that the entire election could end up revolving around the dozen or so largest cities, which would be even more narrow and exclusive than a list of maybe fifteen or so swing states.
I know. But it is a matter of fact that most American voters did not get the president they voted for.
When was the last time that the electors in the UK got a government that the majority voted for?
What we need to ensure that is to move to a system of AV...
Lets have a thread to discuss AV.
Perhaps TSE can write a piece about it.
Would Trump be President Elect if US primaries were conducted by AV?
Almost certainly not.
Now I wonder how the British might vote on a referendum about AV? That's a real tough one
The Electoral College is designed to ensure that smaller states are not ignored, and with good reason. If the campaign were fought entirely on the national vote then the candidates would probably spend virtually all of their time pandering to the concerns of voters in a few large conurbations (link: http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-united-states-lives-in-these-counties-2013-9?IR=T ) If you add up the numbers of voters in the most populous counties in the US, then by the time you get through the first 146 in the list you've already accounted for half of the entire population. There are over 3,000 counties in all.
Without a system like the Electoral College, the risk is that the entire election could end up revolving around the dozen or so largest cities, which would be even more narrow and exclusive than a list of maybe fifteen or so swing states.
I know. But it is a matter of fact that most American voters did not get the president they voted for.
When was the last time that the electors in the UK got a government that the majority voted for?
1931 - although I'm sure you already knew that. The "governments we didn't vote for" argument is used by supporters of PR (which usually results in coalitions where nobody at all gets what they voted for,) and certain moaning separatists.
Maybe that's a bit flippant, but the fundamental point is that picking a voting system is rather like picking a system of Government. One aims to arrive at the worst system, except for all the others that have been tried. Most Americans clearly believe that the Electoral College is such a system, or the demand to have it replaced would extend beyond some distraught coastal Democrats.
As someone posted yesterday , it was Trump himself who claimed during the 2012 count that the Electoral College voting system was undemocratic and demanded a change ,
"Fascist. It’s a word that could have been designed to be spat out as an insult. The first syllable invites you to screw up your face and the second is little more than a glorified hiss. And a very good insult it is, one that’s easily thrown at anyone seeking to implement liberty-curtailing or discriminatory policies.
The problem is that’s it’s been so readily used as an insult for so long that it’s easy to miss the real thing when it rears its ugly head. "
I'd argue that the same is true of the words 'racist' and 'sexist'. These words have been banded around so carelessly and to describe, in many cases, such innocuous behaviour that they have been rendered meaningless - they essentially mean behaviour of which the user of the word disapproves. The words have lost their power; the first reaction to them is an eye-roll: what are the terminally outraged outraged about now? - so when they get used about behaviour which maybe people genuinely should take note of, people tune out.
"The word Fascism has now no meaning except insofar as it signifies "something not desirable"."
Orwell in 1946.
The same might be said about racism in our time. And sexism.
A pity. Overusing such descriptions makes people more inclined to ignore the very real instances of fascist, racist and sexist behaviour and actions there are. Or to focus only on those instances of them committed by one's opponents and ignore those carried out by one's supporters.
It's curious. In normal times, an attempt to equate British euro-scepticism with a movement akin to the one led by Donald Trump would have been met with howls of outrage by the euro-sceptics themselves and denounced as a Guardianista fantasy. Yet now many euro-sceptics seem positively to revel in the comparison. Why is this?
They won
Ha!
I'm a leaver and I would have voted Hillary, albeit with gritted teeth. I am worried by a Trump presidency. But I'm also fairly sure that most of the 70 million-odd Trump voters are good people who live in very different circumstances to me and who came to a different conclusion than I would have done, and I'm loath to join in the demonising of half of the American population. I'm also, like Nick P, waiting to see how it turns out before despairing utterly. Don't confuse that position with enthusiasm for President Trump!
Yes, I think people are mistaking an open mind for enthusiasm. Since so many on the liberal left don't know what an open mind looks or feels like it's obviously confusing for them. I didn't want Trump but he's won and the only sensible way to approach it now is to have an open mind and hope to be surprised, but prepare for the opposite by increasing defence spending.
Ha, ha. The wicked liberal left again. Lazy, lazy, lazy. It seems many on the intolerant right prefer to misrepresent arguments than engage with them. As for defence spending: if Russia invades Estonia and the US stands by there will be nothing the rest of Europe could do, whatever was spent.
Russia may be invited into Estonia after the fall of their government and a pro Russia coalition
Have you ever been to Estonia?
Yes and Tallinn is beautiful and quaint. Not sure the point is in your comment though
How many times? When was the last time you were there? Were you just a tourist, not venturing far from Vanalinn?
I went a few years ago to Tallinn and it was fascinating. However I am only commenting on the fall of the government this week and reports that a pro Russia coalition is likely. I do not know more than that which has been reported
Perhaps you can cite a report that leads you to believe a pro-Russian coalition is likely?
Perhaps we should wait for the House of Lords to vote down Art 50. Then watch the clamour for that particular swamp to be drained.
Generally, I'm unconcerned about them, but even I would moan about that sort of anti-democratic voting.
A little embarrassing about the protests against Trump in America. I can understand protests about a specific issue to make the Government aware it's unpopular, but protesting against democracy? Beyond parody and the action of spoilt seven-year-olds.
"Fascist. It’s a word that could have been designed to be spat out as an insult. The first syllable invites you to screw up your face and the second is little more than a glorified hiss. And a very good insult it is, one that’s easily thrown at anyone seeking to implement liberty-curtailing or discriminatory policies.
The problem is that’s it’s been so readily used as an insult for so long that it’s easy to miss the real thing when it rears its ugly head. "
I'd argue that the same is true of the words 'racist' and 'sexist'. These words have been banded around so carelessly and to describe, in many cases, such innocuous behaviour that they have been rendered meaningless - they essentially mean behaviour of which the user of the word disapproves. The words have lost their power; the first reaction to them is an eye-roll: what are the terminally outraged outraged about now? - so when they get used about behaviour which maybe people genuinely should take note of, people tune out.
"The word Fascism has now no meaning except insofar as it signifies "something not desirable"."
Orwell in 1946.
The same might be said about racism in our time. And sexism.
A pity. Overusing such descriptions makes people more inclined to ignore the very real instances of fascist, racist and sexist behaviour and actions there are. Or to focus only on those instances of them committed by one's opponents and ignore those carried out by one's supporters.
If there is a meaningless term today, it's Brexit. Brexit means Brexit.
An interesting piece from David H (for which as always many thanks). As a fellow member of the "Big 10" (finalists in the 2007 PB POTY contest), I know that pieces like this are designed to provoke a response and a debate - OGH's income via site traffic would be hurt if someone wrote a piece so anodyne as to create no response.
Is Trump a fascist ? Depends on what you mean by the term "fascist". Assuming the Mussolini model, it's nationalist, authoritarian and references internal past culture as a mechanism for modernity and modern behaviour.
Trump said "make America great again" and that resonated most with those who remembered or nostalgically recalled when America was great before but within that was more than a nod to an again romanticised past (the 50s or early 60s perhaps).
When the world becomes too difficult to understand or even face, it's easy to listen to those who evoke the nostalgia of better times, of simpler times, of more certain times.
There's a lot written about Brexit and the vote of Trump seen in terms of "globalisation" but perhaps what 2008 showed was the interconnection and vulnerability of a financially connected system in which the idea of elements failing was too terrible to contemplate.
Those in the Rust Belt remember the days when they had factories, jobs, an identity and a purpose. Trump promises them all that again and they believe it because they want to believe it. We've heard all this before.
On Wednesday morning, I said Trump had, in his acceptance speech, channeled Reagan, JFK and FDR and his speech was brilliant. There was literally something for everyone but string the platitudes together and you have an incoherent wish list of the unachievable and the impossible.
Promising the Sun, the Moon and the stars is easy - it's what happens when you don;t or can't deliver which is more difficult.
Nigel Farage is due to meet with President Elect this evening, according to this mornings Telegraph.
Hands up those that think that Farage is carrying messages from No.10?
Bad times.
You sometimes despite your view on his policies and even personality have to step back and admire some people for what they have managed to do from err nothing - How the hell as Farage managed to go from being an unknown minor politician leading a fringe party to causing ruptions in Europe , making PM's resign and to top it all probably electing Trump in the White House to the extent that the most powerful man in the world come January is beholden to him . Unbelievable really
So what are the chances that the EU tells the USA to have another election so that they can get the 'right' answer ?
A big difference between Trump's victory and the Leave win is that Trump did not get most votes.
"The Democrats cannot complain either about the inequity of the electoral college and say Clinton won the popular vote. They accepted the system and framed their entire campaign on winning on those terms. Yet in the places she needed to inspire and motivate more voters than Trump she failed. That goes for Florida, North Carolina, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. Trump crushed her and the smug liberals who operated on the basis that his triumph there was unthinkable."
The Electoral College is designed to ensure that smaller states are not ignored, and with good reason. If the campaign were fought entirely on the national vote then the candidates would probably spend virtually all of their time pandering to the concerns of voters in a few large conurbations (link: http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-united-states-lives-in-these-counties-2013-9?IR=T ) If you add up the numbers of voters in the most populous counties in the US, then by the time you get through the first 146 in the list you've already accounted for half of the entire population. There are over 3,000 counties in all.
Without a system like the Electoral College, the risk is that the entire election could end up revolving around the dozen or so largest cities, which would be even more narrow and exclusive than a list of maybe fifteen or so swing states.
I know. But it is a matter of fact that most American voters did not get the president they voted for.
When was the last time that the electors in the UK got a government that the majority voted for?
What we need to ensure that is to move to a system of AV...
Lets have a thread to discuss AV.
Perhaps TSE can write a piece about it.
Would Trump be President Elect if US primaries were conducted by AV?
Almost certainly not.
Cruz may have won the nomination under AV. Trump may have won the national popular vote under AV with Johnson's preferences
Comments
Thus the judges have blocked the people's democratic decision from being implemented.
As rcs1000 keeps saying, they should have just passed an enabling Act as soon as May became PM.
We are truly living in a post-truth, newspeak world.
:twitter-trash:
https://twitter.com/Tucker5law/status/797449382618628098
Then we have the justification of potential " civil unrest " for setting aside established checks and balances. It's almost as if some folk are spouting nonsense because they are rattled Brexit might not withstand detailed parliamentary scrutiny. Much less the public being given the chance to change their mind.
It probably does need the Supreme Court to tidy it up, though. It would be nonsensical if a referendum could be overturned by Parliament - if Parliament hadn't wanted the government to be able to invoke A50 it shouldn't have called the referendum in the first place.
Me lose the election? That's unpossible!
https://mobile.twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656?m=1
(1) We Leave the EU.
(2) Democracy is shown to have failed.
That's it. No third option. I can't in good conscience advocate option 2; I think it would be very dangerous.
It doesn't make sense to you because you insist on not trying to understand it.
The executive has no power to remove rights granted by Parliament. It's ever so simple.
Besides the US and UK, only Estonia, Poland and Greece meet or pass the 2% target. Of the laggards, only Norway, Turkey and France manage 1.5% or better (source: http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2015_06/20150622_PR_CP_2015_093-v2.pdf )
A colossal sum - perhaps as much as the entire Russian defence budget - could be raised for defence if only the rest of NATO could be arsed to help the likes of the US and UK protect them, rather than tut-tutting, finger-wagging and being pious. Rich, fat Germany on 1.2%, which could easily afford more per head than we could if it wanted to, is amongst the worst offenders.
@mitchellvii
and urban cities
Trump won PA despite losing by 455,000 votes in 1 place
think about that https://t.co/TA6o9xxDcs
As a thoughtful lefty I honestly expect better.
No. Thought not.
Alternatively, of course, she could call an election but it won't actually resolve the Lords' issue unless Lords reform is at the heart of the manifesto - that'll really push turnout up!
I can't imagine it would be as much of a dog's breakfast as this one. Maybe that govt would actually get the referendum act right and work out a plan for either result.
An utterly dreadful outsider has beaten the establishment that is the fundamental thing.
Now if the establishment (political, economic and cultural) were wise they would ask what they're doing wrong.
Instead I suspect they'll retreat even more into their comfort zone.
Once the dust is settled, maybe we would want to take a different view.
Extreme case, but democracy would not have failed at all.
This Is How Ronald Reagan Handled Protesters!!
@Lrihendry
#VeteransDay
#TrumpRiot
@realDonaldTrump https://t.co/Nop9I4WZRn
He said he'd appoint a special prosecutor and "she'd probably be in jail".
That's an important difference. It was saying that - currently - she operates as if she is above the law. It's part of the "drain the swamp" meme, not anything else
These bastards have to understand this is not the best of three. You handed the Decision to the people on a 6 to 1 vote .....they answered. I doubt the people would ever had any say in the terms on which we remain just think the last 40 years culminating in that treacherous act by Brown at Lisbon after denying the promised referendum. The advisory is utter bullshit you can bet if remain won then the terms used would be binding, not an "advisory" in sight.
You can also be assured that had remain won then they would say the discussion was settled once and for all, an all binding treaty signed in quick time ( I bet they had one ready Togo in Brussels) and that's democracy. I said consistently in the run up that if we voted remain even by just one vote we should engage in the EU 100% with Schengen and even the Euro. On the other hand that did not occur so these guys need to be very very careful what they now do
Do not ever thwart the will of the electorate because if they do what is the point in trooping down to a polling station and ever voting again. None whatsoever. We really must of course avoid the alternatives but people will use them if nothing else left.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3929828/Opposition-MPs-vow-try-BLOCK-Brexit-no-promise-second-referendum-final-deal.html
No presumption of innocance in Trumpistan.
You might not, and I agree that you don't on the whole, but you are not representative of the liberal left. The liberal left screams and shouts racism at the drop of a hat. It labels ordinary people as intolerant because they want fewer migrants. It labels ordinary people xenophobes because they don't like seeing burkas. It tells people they deserve to take lower wages for the greater good and recently that higher wages are an economic cost for the nation. Look at who is on your side, I know the flaws of mine. You seem to be oblivious to your side's failures.
Perhaps TSE can write a piece about it.
The referendum act was flawed. That is why we are in the realm of lawyers. Cameron screwed up.
We have to go through the process. It is the right thing to do. The idea that future govts can interpret the scope of their powers is hugely dangerous.
And there were less than 14 months from the first Commons majority for a Referendum and that Referendum happening.
Almost certainly not.
Maybe that's a bit flippant, but the fundamental point is that picking a voting system is rather like picking a system of Government. One aims to arrive at the worst system, except for all the others that have been tried. Most Americans clearly believe that the Electoral College is such a system, or the demand to have it replaced would extend beyond some distraught coastal Democrats.
There are certainly aspects of Trump's campaign which are worryingly demagogic. Appealing to your audience's baser instincts is never good. But that alone does not make you a fascist. I think we need to be careful not to fall in the trap identified over 60 years ago by George Orwell of denuding political descriptions of real meaning through over or inaccurate use.
Is Sanders had faced multiple establishment candidates in the primaries I think he would have been nominated.
Upon such details does history change.
https://twitter.com/AvatarRiece/status/796944361271558145
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submission_(novel)
though the choice there is Islamism v Le Pen.
Reagan commented to the Press "He looked like Tarzan, he acted like Jane, and he smelled like Cheetah."
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/12/lego-not-planning-any-future-tie-ins-with-daily-mail-after-protests?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Orwell in 1946.
The same might be said about racism in our time. And sexism.
A pity. Overusing such descriptions makes people more inclined to ignore the very real instances of fascist, racist and sexist behaviour and actions there are. Or to focus only on those instances of them committed by one's opponents and ignore those carried out by one's supporters.
Generally, I'm unconcerned about them, but even I would moan about that sort of anti-democratic voting.
A little embarrassing about the protests against Trump in America. I can understand protests about a specific issue to make the Government aware it's unpopular, but protesting against democracy? Beyond parody and the action of spoilt seven-year-olds.
An interesting piece from David H (for which as always many thanks). As a fellow member of the "Big 10" (finalists in the 2007 PB POTY contest), I know that pieces like this are designed to provoke a response and a debate - OGH's income via site traffic would be hurt if someone wrote a piece so anodyne as to create no response.
Is Trump a fascist ? Depends on what you mean by the term "fascist". Assuming the Mussolini model, it's nationalist, authoritarian and references internal past culture as a mechanism for modernity and modern behaviour.
Trump said "make America great again" and that resonated most with those who remembered or nostalgically recalled when America was great before but within that was more than a nod to an again romanticised past (the 50s or early 60s perhaps).
When the world becomes too difficult to understand or even face, it's easy to listen to those who evoke the nostalgia of better times, of simpler times, of more certain times.
There's a lot written about Brexit and the vote of Trump seen in terms of "globalisation" but perhaps what 2008 showed was the interconnection and vulnerability of a financially connected system in which the idea of elements failing was too terrible to contemplate.
Those in the Rust Belt remember the days when they had factories, jobs, an identity and a purpose. Trump promises them all that again and they believe it because they want to believe it. We've heard all this before.
On Wednesday morning, I said Trump had, in his acceptance speech, channeled Reagan, JFK and FDR and his speech was brilliant. There was literally something for everyone but string the platitudes together and you have an incoherent wish list of the unachievable and the impossible.
Promising the Sun, the Moon and the stars is easy - it's what happens when you don;t or can't deliver which is more difficult.
Hands up those that think that Farage is carrying messages from No.10?
Brilliant. 5 stars in all departments. One of the best films I've seen in years.
Yes, I remember Fox going over to a Trump rally, and helping him win the election.
Or not.