FWIW I think the Blair return is unlikely to happen, let alone succeed, but the intriguing thing about Blair is that it just possibly might.
Blair is simply the litmus paper test for the King in waiting across the water. One safe seat retirement with a promise of ermine for the trouble and a quick parachute drop is all it takes. Desperate times for Labour may require desperate last ditch measures .
The political scene in such a format would look considerably different. With many more centralist and possibly softer EU policies that could well draw in many Remainers as well of all political views, Edward David Milliband steps into the breach as the saviour.
I can see Miliband at Heston aerodrome, waving his banana.
The Kippers will have a field day. Another referendum would see a LEAVE majority of two to one.
Another referendum would have to spell out the Leave option, this would likely split Leavers into two groups - 'too far' and 'not far enough'.
We have already voted to Leave. Any further referendum would have only two options: accept the deal to Leave negotiated by the Govt., or refuse that deal and leave on WTO terms.
It could easily have 3.
That is very much the LD perspective. A referendum between:
1) May's Brexit package 2) Hard Brexit (if that differs from 1!) 3) Withdrawal of A50 and remaining in.
I don't think it is likely to happen, and if it does option 3 would lose.
As an aside, I expect that the French, German, Dutch and Italian elections will not lead to any further countries leaving either the EU or the EZ, though they may well lead to EU reforms and restructuring returning powers to nation states that paradoxically may make option 3 more attractive.
Tories and Corbynites share a common hatred of Blair because he defeated them.
People hate Blair because he was a devious untrustworthy PM, its got nothing to do with losing to him.
Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
I don't hate him, but I do think that the nature of politics, at least in the U.K., has turned against people leaving government and returning. The last significant figure I can think of (and I stand to be corrected) is Churchill and I think it it would be a stretch, although not beyond the imagination of some, to place WW2 and Brexit adjacent to each other. Churchill returned to an existing, his, party, where he was already an MP. Blair is some distance from that. Would the Labour Party want him back? I don't know, you tell me.
Back in what sense? He's a member, he sent £1000 to help the campaigns of numerous MPs last year (I know 2015 seems a long time ago!). As a leader? No.
He remains arguably the most fluent political commentator of our time, and out here in the East Midlands provinces I know plenty of people, Labour and non-Labour, who miss his involvement. But because new parties under FPTP have the killer disadvantage that we all know, I see his role primarily as an effective leader of a fierce anti-Brexit campaign on the lines that Jonathan Freedland suggested yesterday (can't find the link) - uninhibited by the "we must respect the verdict" position of most Remainers active in the major parties. To favour reversing the decision is a perfectly legal stance and at present its de facto leader is Tim Farron, who just doesn't cut through the media as Blair still does.
And back in the East Midlands, where my family house is, I know plenty of people who would absolutely disagree with you. When has anybody suggested reversing the stance is illegal? Anti-democratic perhaps, but illegal? Back is in the sense of control, as you are well aware.
What about calling the stance of reversing the decision, anti-British?
FWIW I think the Blair return is unlikely to happen, let alone succeed, but the intriguing thing about Blair is that it just possibly might.
Blair is simply the litmus paper test for the King in waiting across the water. One safe seat retirement with a promise of ermine for the trouble and a quick parachute drop is all it takes. Desperate times for Labour may require desperate last ditch measures .
The political scene in such a format would look considerably different. With many more centralist and possibly softer EU policies that could well draw in many Remainers as well of all political views, Edward David Milliband steps into the breach as the saviour.
FWIW I think the Blair return is unlikely to happen, let alone succeed, but the intriguing thing about Blair is that it just possibly might.
Blair is simply the litmus paper test for the King in waiting across the water. One safe seat retirement with a promise of ermine for the trouble and a quick parachute drop is all it takes. Desperate times for Labour may require desperate last ditch measures .
The political scene in such a format would look considerably different. With many more centralist and possibly softer EU policies that could well draw in many Remainers as well of all political views, Edward David Milliband steps into the breach as the saviour.
I can see Miliband at Heston aerodrome, waving his banana.
Ha! I had in mind that MacArthur moment arriving back in the Philipines where Dave would instead walk out of the front of a landing craft onto the sun drenched surf tossed sands of a South Shields beach.
The Kippers will have a field day. Another referendum would see a LEAVE majority of two to one.
Another referendum would have to spell out the Leave option, this would likely split Leavers into two groups - 'too far' and 'not far enough'.
We have already voted to Leave. Any further referendum would have only two options: accept the deal to Leave negotiated by the Govt., or refuse that deal and leave on WTO terms.
Nope. The referendum on 23 June was simply a poll of electors'views on that day on the principle of leaving the EU and a very small majority voted to leave without knowing what that entailed.
There is an excellent case for another poll be held when the details are known with the option of accepting the terms or staying in the EU on current terms (the triggering of Artilce 50 would be revoked). That would be the democratic thing to do but the hard line Brexiters don't trust the people.
Tories and Corbynites share a common hatred of Blair because he defeated them.
People hate Blair because he was a devious untrustworthy PM, its got nothing to do with losing to him.
Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
I don't hate him, but I do think that the nature of politics, at least in the U.K., has turned against people leaving government and returning. The last significant figure I can think of (and I stand to be corrected) is Churchill and I think it it would be a stretch, although not beyond the imagination of some, to place WW2 and Brexit adjacent to each other. Churchill returned to an existing, his, party, where he was already an MP. Blair is some distance from that. Would the Labour Party want him back? I don't know, you tell me.
Back in what sense? He's a member, he sent £1000 to help the campaigns of numerous MPs last year (I know 2015 seems a long time ago!). As a leader? No.
He remains arguably the most fluent political commentator of our time, and out here in the East Midlands provinces I know plenty of people, Labour and non-Labour, who miss his involvement. But because new parties under FPTP have the killer disadvantage that we all know, I see his role primarily as an effective leader of a fierce anti-Brexit campaign on the lines that Jonathan Freedland suggested yesterday (can't find the link) - uninhibited by the "we must respect the verdict" position of most Remainers active in the major parties. To favour reversing the decision is a perfectly legal stance and at present its de facto leader is Tim Farron, who just doesn't cut through the media as Blair still does.
As a general comment, successful politicians are extremely vain. If you don't believe in yourself who else will? After they leave office they have nothing to show for their vanity, which is why they are diminished if they continue to demand attention. The exceptional Jimmy Carter, who didn't have anything to be vain about and probably has a more modest temperament anyway, was able to concentrate post presidency on making the world a better place.
Incidentally, saw the papers' front pages. If the one about the EU forcing (horrible term) 'hard Brexit' is accurate, it actually solves lots of the political problems for May.
"I would've like closer ties but they said no. I was willing to be in the single market" etc etc. Any economic hardship gets blamed on the EU.
A conciliatory approach would be harder for May to deal with, because she would then become seen as entirely responsible for the result, which is bound to annoy some people.
FWIW I think the Blair return is unlikely to happen, let alone succeed, but the intriguing thing about Blair is that it just possibly might.
Blair is simply the litmus paper test for the King in waiting across the water. One safe seat retirement with a promise of ermine for the trouble and a quick parachute drop is all it takes. Desperate times for Labour may require desperate last ditch measures .
The political scene in such a format would look considerably different. With many more centralist and possibly softer EU policies that could well draw in many Remainers as well of all political views, Edward David Milliband steps into the breach as the saviour.
The Kippers will have a field day. Another referendum would see a LEAVE majority of two to one.
Another referendum would have to spell out the Leave option, this would likely split Leavers into two groups - 'too far' and 'not far enough'.
We have already voted to Leave. Any further referendum would have only two options: accept the deal to Leave negotiated by the Govt., or refuse that deal and leave on WTO terms.
Nope. The referendum on 23 June was simply a poll of electors'views on that day on the principle of leaving the EU and a very small majority voted to leave without knowing what that entailed.
There is an excellent case for another poll be held when the details are known with the option of accepting the terms or staying in the EU on current terms (the triggering of Artilce 50 would be revoked). That would be the democratic thing to do but the hard line Brexiters don't trust the people.
only a small matter of 1.3 MILLION votes, I guess that's small if you are trying to ignore the reality
The Kippers will have a field day. Another referendum would see a LEAVE majority of two to one.
Another referendum would have to spell out the Leave option, this would likely split Leavers into two groups - 'too far' and 'not far enough'.
We have already voted to Leave. Any further referendum would have only two options: accept the deal to Leave negotiated by the Govt., or refuse that deal and leave on WTO terms.
Nope. The referendum on 23 June was simply a poll of electors'views on that day on the principle of leaving the EU and a very small majority voted to leave without knowing what that entailed.
There is an excellent case for another poll be held when the details are known with the option of accepting the terms or staying in the EU on current terms (the triggering of Artilce 50 would be revoked). That would be the democratic thing to do but the hard line Brexiters don't trust the people.
Good grief.....I hope you are never ever are on any negotiating team. The other side would have an absolute field day before morning coffee was served
It gets worse: "Downing Street aides believe Blair and Osborne are part of an “unholy alliance” of “remainer” former ministers that also includes Lord Mandelson, Nicky Morgan, Anna Soubry and the former Labour frontbencher Chuka Umunna." (from same TImes article).
Tories and Corbynites share a common hatred of Blair because he defeated them.
People hate Blair because he was a devious untrustworthy PM, its got nothing to do with losing to him.
Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
I don't hate him, but I do think that the nature of politics, at least in the U.K., has turned against people leaving government and returning. The last significant figure I can think of (and I stand to be corrected) is Churchill and I think it it would be a stretch, although not beyond the imagination of some, to place WW2 and Brexit adjacent to each other. Churchill returned to an existing, his, party, where he was already an MP. Blair is some distance from that. Would the Labour Party want him back? I don't know, you tell me.
Back in what sense? He's a member, he sent £1000 to help the campaigns of numerous MPs last year (I know 2015 seems a long time ago!). As a leader? No.
He remains arguably the most fluent political commentator of our time, and out here in the East Midlands provinces I know plenty of people, Labour and non-Labour, who miss his involvement. But because new parties under FPTP have the killer disadvantage that we all know, I see his role primarily as an effective leader of a fierce anti-Brexit campaign on the lines that Jonathan Freedland suggested yesterday (can't find the link) - uninhibited by the "we must respect the verdict" position of most Remainers active in the major parties. To favour reversing the decision is a perfectly legal stance and at present its de facto leader is Tim Farron, who just doesn't cut through the media as Blair still does.
Yuck.
And to think they called Nick Robinson "Toenails" - ha
Blair made serious money after being PM because people thought that he was still relevant. He got that ridiculous gig in the Middle East until everyone got fed up with him. Trying to appear relevant to the UK political scene again just might squeeze a few more engagements, maybe even a newspaper column.
But he just isn't and Osborne wouldn't go near him politically.
Tories and Corbynites share a common hatred of Blair because he defeated them.
People hate Blair because he was a devious untrustworthy PM, its got nothing to do with losing to him.
Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
I don't hate him, but I do think that the nature of politics, at least in the U.K., has turned against people leaving government and returning. The last significant figure I can think of (and I stand to be corrected) is Churchill and I think it it would be a stretch, although not beyond the imagination of some, to place WW2 and Brexit adjacent to each other. Churchill returned to an existing, his, party, where he was already an MP. Blair is some distance from that. Would the Labour Party want him back? I don't know, you tell me.
Back in what sense? He's a member, he sent £1000 to help the campaigns of numerous MPs last year (I know 2015 seems a long time ago!). As a leader? No.
He remains arguably the most fluent political commentator of our time, and out here in the East Midlands provinces I know plenty of people, Labour and non-Labour, who miss his involvement. But because new parties under FPTP have the killer disadvantage that we all know, I see his role primarily as an effective leader of a fierce anti-Brexit campaign on the lines that Jonathan Freedland suggested yesterday (can't find the link) - uninhibited by the "we must respect the verdict" position of most Remainers active in the major parties. To favour reversing the decision is a perfectly legal stance and at present its de facto leader is Tim Farron, who just doesn't cut through the media as Blair still does.
Yuck.
Yuck indeed. Most people I know who ever voted for Blair in 1997 now detest him.
Incidentally, saw the papers' front pages. If the one about the EU forcing (horrible term) 'hard Brexit' is accurate, it actually solves lots of the political problems for May.
"I would've like closer ties but they said no. I was willing to be in the single market" etc etc. Any economic hardship gets blamed on the EU.
A conciliatory approach would be harder for May to deal with, because she would then become seen as entirely responsible for the result, which is bound to annoy some people.
Probably. The question is how those who thought we would have our cake and eat it feel about it. I think they are quite keen on prosperity, having a job etc and don't really like the idea of being cast off. Combined with those who are in favour of EU membership any way, they are the majority, for the time being at least.
Blair made serious money after being PM because people thought that he was still relevant. He got that ridiculous gig in the Middle East until everyone got fed up with him. Trying to appear relevant to the UK political scene again just might squeeze a few more engagements, maybe even a newspaper column.
But he just isn't and Osborne wouldn't go near him politically.
On that point, wasn't he quite close to Bill C too? I imagine the Clintons losing might diminish his relevance value even more....
Hammond on the Marr sofa discussion with McDonnell was quite revealing. Hammond said the cabinet was undecided on whether to stay in the customs union, and also said that among his objectives were access to Britain of European workers.
Sounds as if that Hammond is very much a soft Brexiteer. McDonnell was very good indeed, a far better shadow than I expected following a slightly rocky start.
The Kippers will have a field day. Another referendum would see a LEAVE majority of two to one.
Another referendum would have to spell out the Leave option, this would likely split Leavers into two groups - 'too far' and 'not far enough'.
We have already voted to Leave. Any further referendum would have only two options: accept the deal to Leave negotiated by the Govt., or refuse that deal and leave on WTO terms.
Nope. The referendum on 23 June was simply a poll of electors'views on that day on the principle of leaving the EU and a very small majority voted to leave without knowing what that entailed.
There is an excellent case for another poll be held when the details are known with the option of accepting the terms or staying in the EU on current terms (the triggering of Artilce 50 would be revoked). That would be the democratic thing to do but the hard line Brexiters don't trust the people.
Good grief.....I hope you are never ever are on any negotiating team. The other side would have an absolute field day before morning coffee was served
That isn't a sensible response to my point. Your response is just silly.
Further proof Mrs May is a pound shop Gordon Brown.
Downing Street is 'gunning for' the head of the NHS for publicly contradicting Theresa May over funding for the Health Service, The Mail on Sunday has been told.
Simon Stevens caused fury at No 10 by telling MPs that the Prime Minister had exaggerated the amount of extra money promised to the NHS – with one of Mrs May's aides warning that they intended to 'fix' him.
Incidentally, saw the papers' front pages. If the one about the EU forcing (horrible term) 'hard Brexit' is accurate, it actually solves lots of the political problems for May.
"I would've like closer ties but they said no. I was willing to be in the single market" etc etc. Any economic hardship gets blamed on the EU.
A conciliatory approach would be harder for May to deal with, because she would then become seen as entirely responsible for the result, which is bound to annoy some people.
Probably. The question is how those who thought we would have our cake and eat it feel about it. I think they are quite keen on prosperity, having a job etc and don't really like the idea of being cast off. Combined with those who are in favour of EU membership any way, they are the majority, for the time being at least.
Partcularly if Hard Brexit means kissing Trump's ass.
Surviving 107 overs for a draw looks to be the plan.
If they can get to lunch tomorrow with 10 wickets still intact they might decide to have a go at upping the run rate. It'll be fascinating to watch if that happens.
The Kippers will have a field day. Another referendum would see a LEAVE majority of two to one.
Another referendum would have to spell out the Leave option, this would likely split Leavers into two groups - 'too far' and 'not far enough'.
We have already voted to Leave. Any further referendum would have only two options: accept the deal to Leave negotiated by the Govt., or refuse that deal and leave on WTO terms.
Nope. The referendum on 23 June was simply a poll of electors'views on that day on the principle of leaving the EU and a very small majority voted to leave without knowing what that entailed.
There is an excellent case for another poll be held when the details are known with the option of accepting the terms or staying in the EU on current terms (the triggering of Artilce 50 would be revoked). That would be the democratic thing to do but the hard line Brexiters don't trust the people.
only a small matter of 1.3 MILLION votes, I guess that's small if you are trying to ignore the reality
My point is that people may change their mind when they see the details. But hard brexit enthusiasts don't want to give the electors that opportunity as they are afraid that electors might change their mind when they see the facts. That is undemocratic.
1.3 million votes is small in the context of 34.6 million votes cast. 2% of the 34.6 million could easily change their mind when they see the details they were denied in the referendum and are still being denied.
Mr. Barnesian, would you advocate a second vote had Remain won following the EU Army coming to light? Or rising contributions? Or EU centralised taxation (currently in the air rather than firmly proposed, I believe)?
Perhaps you would. But we both know the Great and the Good would not.
When has anybody suggested reversing the stance is illegal? Anti-democratic perhaps, but illegal? Back is in the sense of control, as you are well aware.
What about calling the stance of reversing the decision, anti-British?
Yes, what about it? We have a democratic decision, like a General Election, and people who don't like it are free in a democracy to campaign to change it at the next opportunity if they want to, also like a General Election. To call it anti-British (or anti-democratic) poisons the debate without any upside.
That sentence in the Sunday Times about "merging" charitable and business interests under one roof while bolstering the political clout of a new organisation is a corker!
Mr. Palmer, like calling those who wanted to leave racists and xenophobes, or Little Englanders?
[Not a comment on you personally, can't recall whether you said such a thing and would guess not, but from one side to another it happened rather a lot].
Those who voted Leave won't listen to those who wanted Remain when told to 'be polite' after being accused repeatedly of stupidity and bigotry for holding an opinion which hadn't been deemed acceptable by the Metropolitan Dinner Party Committee of Good Taste...
Blair is absolutely spot on about May and Corbyn. But is absolutely the wrong person to be saying it.
Not sure that's true. We need elder statesmen. And despite Blair disadvantages, he is more articulate than virtually everyone else.
If he committed to it, he might swing it. Would need a ton of work and alliances.
He's too easy a target, too easy to dismiss, so no-one will focus on the message.
A more challenging question IMO is whether a 90/00s era politician can adapt to the Facebook era. Clinton couldn't. May is struggling.
Blair might cut through on TV, but won't know where to begin on the Net.
Mainstream politicians generally have struggled with social media. They need smart young things helping them. But what smart thing wants to work for an old-fashioned politician.
Reading the piece more carefully it is apparent that even Osborne can see this for the steaming heap of oudure that it is - "only consulted Blair about paid speaking engagements".
what do you expect him to say? he's hardly going to confirm anything
Interesting specific comment.
"He's only consulted Blair about paid speaking engagements"
Sounds like a denial right?
But he hasn't excluded Blair making a proposal to him which he is considering. And he hasn't excluded discussions of said proposal.
It gets worse: "Downing Street aides believe Blair and Osborne are part of an “unholy alliance” of “remainer” former ministers that also includes Lord Mandelson, Nicky Morgan, Anna Soubry and the former Labour frontbencher Chuka Umunna." (from same TImes article).
Well, if I was a Brexit fan, that's the cast I would go for. Blair teaming up with Conservative politicians would give the current Labour leadership the excuse they need to tear up his membership card. And that would probably be quite popular with the Labour party at large.
If you want to re-run the referendum and accuse the Brexit side of not telling the truth, what harm can come from Tony "45 minutes" Blair being the involved with your side?
It gets worse: "Downing Street aides believe Blair and Osborne are part of an “unholy alliance” of “remainer” former ministers that also includes Lord Mandelson, Nicky Morgan, Anna Soubry and the former Labour frontbencher Chuka Umunna." (from same TImes article).
Never mind former ministers; never mind George Osborne; the second paragraph of the Times in the OP has Blair talking to "senior ministers".
If the remainers do hold a majority position in the Commons, could they collude and add an amendment to any substantive legislation that would overturn the result of the referendum if passed?
They can't "overturn" the result of the referendum because it is only advisory, but they can frustrate it.
e.g. an amendment that Article 50 can only be served following a unanimous vote of the house of commons.
Ha, ha, ha — India lose both reviews in the space of a couple of overs.
Both would have been out if the umpire had given out, they weren't poor reviews and I think the law should be changed here. Reviews should not be lost on umpire's call.
It gets worse: "Downing Street aides believe Blair and Osborne are part of an “unholy alliance” of “remainer” former ministers that also includes Lord Mandelson, Nicky Morgan, Anna Soubry and the former Labour frontbencher Chuka Umunna." (from same TImes article).
Never mind former ministers; never mind George Osborne; the second paragraph of the Times in the OP has Blair talking to "senior ministers".
Those in Westminster who wish to continually scheme and meddle to the benefit of their own interests, need only to look across the Atlantic to see what happens when the electorate become totally disconnected from conventional politicians. It will happen here.
Mr. Barnesian, would you advocate a second vote had Remain won following the EU Army coming to light? Or rising contributions? Or EU centralised taxation (currently in the air rather than firmly proposed, I believe)?
Perhaps you would. But we both know the Great and the Good would not.
I do think there is a case for a referendum on membership of the EU say every ten years rather than waiting 43 years! It is analogous to a general election but more important and more disruptive so every five years would be too frequent.
But I think such a referendum should be a two-stager. The first would be in principle to leave and the second would be on the terms actually negotiated. I do think it is undemocratic to deny electors the opportunity to vote on the actual terms. Do you understand my argument even if you disagree with it?
Mr. Barnesian, would you advocate a second vote had Remain won following the EU Army coming to light? Or rising contributions? Or EU centralised taxation (currently in the air rather than firmly proposed, I believe)?
Perhaps you would. But we both know the Great and the Good would not.
I do think there is a case for a referendum on membership of the EU say every ten years rather than waiting 43 years! It is analogous to a general election but more important and more disruptive so every five years would be too frequent.
But I think such a referendum should be a two-stager. The first would be in principle to leave and the second would be on the terms actually negotiated. I do think it is undemocratic to deny electors the opportunity to vote on the actual terms. Do you understand my argument even if you disagree with it?
You think we should go through a period of massive political and economic uncertainty every 10 years?
Mr. Barnesian, I understand it, but it doesn't fit with how things work. We'll only have a deal once Article 50 is triggered and negotiations complete. After that, we leave on deal terms or on WTO terms, and any rejection of the deal would be binding only on the UK, not the EU. Not only that, such an approach (supposing we could revoke Article 50 and stay) would encourage the EU to give us actively hostile terms to harm us as much as possible and make it easier for the second referendum to be a victory for them.
It gets worse: "Downing Street aides believe Blair and Osborne are part of an “unholy alliance” of “remainer” former ministers that also includes Lord Mandelson, Nicky Morgan, Anna Soubry and the former Labour frontbencher Chuka Umunna." (from same TImes article).
Never mind former ministers; never mind George Osborne; the second paragraph of the Times in the OP has Blair talking to "senior ministers".
Those in Westminster who wish to continually scheme and meddle to the benefit of their own interests, need only to look across the Atlantic to see what happens when the electorate become totally disconnected from conventional politicians. It will happen here.
The Kippers will have a field day. Another referendum would see a LEAVE majority of two to one.
Another referendum would have to spell out the Leave option, this would likely split Leavers into two groups - 'too far' and 'not far enough'.
We have already voted to Leave. Any further referendum would have only two options: accept the deal to Leave negotiated by the Govt., or refuse that deal and leave on WTO terms.
Nope. The referendum on 23 June was simply a poll of electors'views on that day on the principle of leaving the EU and a very small majority voted to leave without knowing what that entailed.
There is an excellent case for another poll be held when the details are known with the option of accepting the terms or staying in the EU on current terms (the triggering of Artilce 50 would be revoked). That would be the democratic thing to do but the hard line Brexiters don't trust the people.
only a small matter of 1.3 MILLION votes, I guess that's small if you are trying to ignore the reality
Using the voting numbers is simply trying to pretend the result was bigger than it was - refs and GE's are always talked of in terms of percentages and a 3.8% victory is small however you try to spin it.
Even using your numbers Clinton won the US popular vote but lost the presidency by more votes than Brexit won the referendum.
Mr. Barnesian, would you advocate a second vote had Remain won following the EU Army coming to light? Or rising contributions? Or EU centralised taxation (currently in the air rather than firmly proposed, I believe)?
Perhaps you would. But we both know the Great and the Good would not.
I do think there is a case for a referendum on membership of the EU say every ten years rather than waiting 43 years! It is analogous to a general election but more important and more disruptive so every five years would be too frequent.
But I think such a referendum should be a two-stager. The first would be in principle to leave and the second would be on the terms actually negotiated. I do think it is undemocratic to deny electors the opportunity to vote on the actual terms. Do you understand my argument even if you disagree with it?
You think we should go through a period of massive political and economic uncertainty every 10 years?
I'd keep off the sauce if I were you.
I advocated this before the referendum. It's clearly disingenuous for us Leavers to claim that a Leave vote is forever but not a Remain.
I'd suggest every 20 years, though, rather than every decade.
The Kippers will have a field day. Another referendum would see a LEAVE majority of two to one.
Another referendum would have to spell out the Leave option, this would likely split Leavers into two groups - 'too far' and 'not far enough'.
We have already voted to Leave. Any further referendum would have only two options: accept the deal to Leave negotiated by the Govt., or refuse that deal and leave on WTO terms.
Nope. The referendum on 23 June was simply a poll of electors'views on that day on the principle of leaving the EU and a very small majority voted to leave without knowing what that entailed.
There is an excellent case for another poll be held when the details are known with the option of accepting the terms or staying in the EU on current terms (the triggering of Artilce 50 would be revoked). That would be the democratic thing to do but the hard line Brexiters don't trust the people.
only a small matter of 1.3 MILLION votes, I guess that's small if you are trying to ignore the reality
Using the voting numbers is simply trying to pretend the result was bigger than it was - refs and GE's are always talked of in terms of percentages and a 3.8% victory is small however you try to spin it.
Even using your numbers Clinton won the US popular vote but lost the presidency by more votes than Brexit won the referendum.
As has been stated before, the massive establishment advantages that Remain had, together with the "fear of the unknown" for Leave, meant that even a 3.8% victory was huge for Leave.
Mr. Barnesian, would you advocate a second vote had Remain won following the EU Army coming to light? Or rising contributions? Or EU centralised taxation (currently in the air rather than firmly proposed, I believe)?
Perhaps you would. But we both know the Great and the Good would not.
I do think there is a case for a referendum on membership of the EU say every ten years rather than waiting 43 years! It is analogous to a general election but more important and more disruptive so every five years would be too frequent.
But I think such a referendum should be a two-stager. The first would be in principle to leave and the second would be on the terms actually negotiated. I do think it is undemocratic to deny electors the opportunity to vote on the actual terms. Do you understand my argument even if you disagree with it?
You think we should go through a period of massive political and economic uncertainty every 10 years?
I'd keep off the sauce if I were you.
I acknowledged that it would be disruptive and that is why I wrote "say every ten years" but you may well be right and it should be every generation, say every 25 years (not 43).. I was addressing Morris Dancer's point about having a referendum if there are changes in the EU such as an EU Army or central taxation.
I now realise that there is existing legislation that already covers this point. There must be a referendum if there is a proposed treaty change that hands more power to the EU. That covers the point.
Mr. Barnesian, I understand it, but it doesn't fit with how things work. We'll only have a deal once Article 50 is triggered and negotiations complete. After that, we leave on deal terms or on WTO terms, and any rejection of the deal would be binding only on the UK, not the EU. Not only that, such an approach (supposing we could revoke Article 50 and stay) would encourage the EU to give us actively hostile terms to harm us as much as possible and make it easier for the second referendum to be a victory for them...
..and for the 16.1 million of us who want to remain in the EU.
- 24 hours to save the NHS - WMD in Iraq - referendum on EU Constitution/Lisbon treaty - EU renegotiation "victory" where we surrendered a chunk of our rebate - "Britain must have controlled immigration"
Mr. Barnesian, would you advocate a second vote had Remain won following the EU Army coming to light? Or rising contributions? Or EU centralised taxation (currently in the air rather than firmly proposed, I believe)?
Perhaps you would. But we both know the Great and the Good would not.
I do think there is a case for a referendum on membership of the EU say every ten years rather than waiting 43 years! It is analogous to a general election but more important and more disruptive so every five years would be too frequent.
But I think such a referendum should be a two-stager. The first would be in principle to leave and the second would be on the terms actually negotiated. I do think it is undemocratic to deny electors the opportunity to vote on the actual terms. Do you understand my argument even if you disagree with it?
You think we should go through a period of massive political and economic uncertainty every 10 years?
I'd keep off the sauce if I were you.
I advocated this before the referendum. It's clearly disingenuous for us Leavers to claim that a Leave vote is forever but not a Remain.
I'd suggest every 20 years, though, rather than every decade.
Yes to 20 years. Providing that at least 1/3 of all voters sign a petition in the previous 12 months asking for it.
- 24 hours to save the NHS - WMD in Iraq - referendum on EU Constitution/Lisbon treaty - EU renegotiation "victory" where we surrendered a chunk of our rebate - "Britain must have controlled immigration"
Mr. Barnesian, would you advocate a second vote had Remain won following the EU Army coming to light? Or rising contributions? Or EU centralised taxation (currently in the air rather than firmly proposed, I believe)?
Perhaps you would. But we both know the Great and the Good would not.
I do think there is a case for a referendum on membership of the EU say every ten years rather than waiting 43 years! It is analogous to a general election but more important and more disruptive so every five years would be too frequent.
But I think such a referendum should be a two-stager. The first would be in principle to leave and the second would be on the terms actually negotiated. I do think it is undemocratic to deny electors the opportunity to vote on the actual terms. Do you understand my argument even if you disagree with it?
You think we should go through a period of massive political and economic uncertainty every 10 years?
I'd keep off the sauce if I were you.
I advocated this before the referendum. It's clearly disingenuous for us Leavers to claim that a Leave vote is forever but not a Remain.
I'd suggest every 20 years, though, rather than every decade.
Just have a simple ongoing referendum, vote when you like and change your vote when you like, if you don't change it then it stays the same until you die.
Mr. Barnesian, I understand it, but it doesn't fit with how things work. We'll only have a deal once Article 50 is triggered and negotiations complete. After that, we leave on deal terms or on WTO terms, and any rejection of the deal would be binding only on the UK, not the EU. Not only that, such an approach (supposing we could revoke Article 50 and stay) would encourage the EU to give us actively hostile terms to harm us as much as possible and make it easier for the second referendum to be a victory for them...
..and for the 16.1 million of us who want to remain in the EU. But I do take your point.
You lost. This is time to accept the result and move on. The longer you are stuck whinging about it the more unhealthy it is for you. They left you, get over it.
The Kippers will have a field day. Another referendum would see a LEAVE majority of two to one.
Another referendum would have to spell out the Leave option, this would likely split Leavers into two groups - 'too far' and 'not far enough'.
We have already voted to Leave. Any further referendum would have only two options: accept the deal to Leave negotiated by the Govt., or refuse that deal and leave on WTO terms.
Nope. The referendum on 23 June was simply a poll of electors'views on that day on the principle of leaving the EU and a very small majority voted to leave without knowing what that entailed.
There is an excellent case for another poll be held when the details are known with the option of accepting the terms or staying in the EU on current terms (the triggering of Artilce 50 would be revoked). That would be the democratic thing to do but the hard line Brexiters don't trust the people.
only a small matter of 1.3 MILLION votes, I guess that's small if you are trying to ignore the reality
Using the voting numbers is simply trying to pretend the result was bigger than it was - refs and GE's are always talked of in terms of percentages and a 3.8% victory is small however you try to spin it.
Even using your numbers Clinton won the US popular vote but lost the presidency by more votes than Brexit won the referendum.
As has been stated before, the massive establishment advantages that Remain had, together with the "fear of the unknown" for Leave, meant that even a 3.8% victory was huge for Leave.
Massively so. The broadcasting media are still massively pro-Remain and keep pushing out project fear "news" items.
It gets worse: "Downing Street aides believe Blair and Osborne are part of an “unholy alliance” of “remainer” former ministers that also includes Lord Mandelson, Nicky Morgan, Anna Soubry and the former Labour frontbencher Chuka Umunna." (from same TImes article).
Never mind former ministers; never mind George Osborne; the second paragraph of the Times in the OP has Blair talking to "senior ministers".
Those in Westminster who wish to continually scheme and meddle to the benefit of their own interests, need only to look across the Atlantic to see what happens when the electorate become totally disconnected from conventional politicians. It will happen here.
Frankly I would fear for democracy in this country if we fail to leave the EU by 2020.
Mr. Barnesian, would you advocate a second vote had Remain won following the EU Army coming to light? Or rising contributions? Or EU centralised taxation (currently in the air rather than firmly proposed, I believe)?
Perhaps you would. But we both know the Great and the Good would not.
I do think there is a case for a referendum on membership of the EU say every ten years rather than waiting 43 years! It is analogous to a general election but more important and more disruptive so every five years would be too frequent.
But I think such a referendum should be a two-stager. The first would be in principle to leave and the second would be on the terms actually negotiated. I do think it is undemocratic to deny electors the opportunity to vote on the actual terms. Do you understand my argument even if you disagree with it?
You think we should go through a period of massive political and economic uncertainty every 10 years?
I'd keep off the sauce if I were you.
I advocated this before the referendum. It's clearly disingenuous for us Leavers to claim that a Leave vote is forever but not a Remain.
It's clearly disingenuous to suggest that once we leave, rejoining would simply be a matter of changing our minds.
I think he has no credibility left in the UK. But, in Germany & France, my impression is that his stock remains high. German friends still speak admiringly of him, and don't understand why he is so loathed in the UK.
To avoid the UK leaving, a new referendum must be held.
The EU could arrange for the new referendum to be the Carrot versus the Stick. If the terms of that referendum were a better deal than Cameron negotiated versus Hard Brexit, then it may well be that the Carrot would win.
The EU has to move to stop Brexit, and maybe Blair's thinking is that he is the best person to persuade the EU to move.
Mr. Barnesian, would you advocate a second vote had Remain won following the EU Army coming to light? Or rising contributions? Or EU centralised taxation (currently in the air rather than firmly proposed, I believe)?
Perhaps you would. But we both know the Great and the Good would not.
I do think there is a case for a referendum on membership of the EU say every ten years rather than waiting 43 years! It is analogous to a general election but more important and more disruptive so every five years would be too frequent.
But I think such a referendum should be a two-stager. The first would be in principle to leave and the second would be on the terms actually negotiated. I do think it is undemocratic to deny electors the opportunity to vote on the actual terms. Do you understand my argument even if you disagree with it?
You think we should go through a period of massive political and economic uncertainty every 10 years?
I'd keep off the sauce if I were you.
I advocated this before the referendum. It's clearly disingenuous for us Leavers to claim that a Leave vote is forever but not a Remain.
I'd suggest every 20 years, though, rather than every decade.
A "slower" rotating upper chamber (1/3 for election each time) ? could also be perhaps an option.
Tories and Corbynites share a common hatred of Blair because he defeated them.
People hate Blair because he was a devious untrustworthy PM, its got nothing to do with losing to him.
Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
Have to say Jonathan I think Square Root is correct. Yes, Tories and Corbynites hated him because he nearly destroyed them. But they only made up less than a third of the population. Everyone else hated him because he was a liar and the only British PM ever to be interviewed by the police.
I have to agree with Jonathan. I never liked blair, he was smarmy as hell and I grew to politicall awareness around Iraq. But plenty of people liked him and his time in office, and if he were truly as hated as people claim, he would not have been as successful, people are being wishful because they disliked hua success. Even now I come across people who say we need a Blair type.
Is his stock lower than it was, yes. Is he what the public wants now, probably not. But the comparison with thatcher is Apt. If Blair were as hated by nonpartisan as well partisans there would have been no Blair era. And that he is more disliked now than when hE was in office doesn't change that and even now some like him.
Where do you live? Because I have to say that wasn't my experience in Wales, or Gloucestershire, or here in Cannock. Indeed, most people were suspicious of Cameron because he was too like Blair.
Deep in the Tory Shires of southern England. You don't hear many positive comments about Labour round here.
The Kippers will have a field day. Another referendum would see a LEAVE majority of two to one.
Another referendum would have to spell out the Leave option, this would likely split Leavers into two groups - 'too far' and 'not far enough'.
We have already voted to Leave. Any further referendum would have only two options: accept the deal to Leave negotiated by the Govt., or refuse that deal and leave on WTO terms.
Nope. The referendum on 23 June was simply a poll of electors'views on that day on the principle of leaving the EU and a very small majority voted to leave without knowing what that entailed.
There is an excellent case for another poll be held when the details are known with the option of accepting the terms or staying in the EU on current terms (the triggering of Artilce 50 would be revoked). That would be the democratic thing to do but the hard line Brexiters don't trust the people.
only a small matter of 1.3 MILLION votes, I guess that's small if you are trying to ignore the reality
Using the voting numbers is simply trying to pretend the result was bigger than it was - refs and GE's are always talked of in terms of percentages and a 3.8% victory is small however you try to spin it.
Even using your numbers Clinton won the US popular vote but lost the presidency by more votes than Brexit won the referendum.
As has been stated before, the massive establishment advantages that Remain had, together with the "fear of the unknown" for Leave, meant that even a 3.8% victory was huge for Leave.
Massively so. The broadcasting media are still massively pro-Remain and keep pushing out project fear "news" items.
But the majority of the papers are anti-EU. Only the Grauniad, FT, Indy, Mirror and Times supported Remain and the Sunday Times was for Leave.
The Mail is reportedly the world's leading online newspaper and according to BBC R4's The Now Show, 40-50% of the world get their news from Facebook ... I kid you not as they were discussing the amount of fake news that appears on it.
The users of this site may trust the BBC or F.T. or even ITV or Sky more than Facebook for world/UK news, but a lot of people apparently don't.
Mr. Barnesian, I understand it, but it doesn't fit with how things work. We'll only have a deal once Article 50 is triggered and negotiations complete. After that, we leave on deal terms or on WTO terms, and any rejection of the deal would be binding only on the UK, not the EU. Not only that, such an approach (supposing we could revoke Article 50 and stay) would encourage the EU to give us actively hostile terms to harm us as much as possible and make it easier for the second referendum to be a victory for them...
..and for the 16.1 million of us who want to remain in the EU. But I do take your point.
You lost. This is time to accept the result and move on. The longer you are stuck whinging about it the more unhealthy it is for you. They left you, get over it.
I don't know, Leavers never got over it and never stopped whinging and in the end the time came and they just convinced us. It might well take just as long for any Remain (or rather, rejoin - not that the EU would want us back) effort to gain any traction again, but it is self evidently the case that people do not have to move on and accept results.
Mr. Barnesian, I understand it, but it doesn't fit with how things work. We'll only have a deal once Article 50 is triggered and negotiations complete. After that, we leave on deal terms or on WTO terms, and any rejection of the deal would be binding only on the UK, not the EU. Not only that, such an approach (supposing we could revoke Article 50 and stay) would encourage the EU to give us actively hostile terms to harm us as much as possible and make it easier for the second referendum to be a victory for them...
..and for the 16.1 million of us who want to remain in the EU. But I do take your point.
You lost. This is time to accept the result and move on. The longer you are stuck whinging about it the more unhealthy it is for you. They left you, get over it.
I don't know, Leavers never got over it and never stopped whinging and in the end the time came and they just convinced us.
And remember the most potent argument they used, regardless of its veracity: they lied to us!
Winning the referendum was the worst thing that could ever have happened to the eurosceptics. It's only a question of time now before their whole case against the EU becomes forever discredited in the minds of the public.
The Kippers will have a field day. Another referendum would see a LEAVE majority of two to one.
Another referendum would have to spell out the Leave option, this would likely split Leavers into two groups - 'too far' and 'not far enough'.
We have already voted to Leave. Any further referendum would have only two options: accept the deal to Leave negotiated by the Govt., or refuse that deal and leave on WTO terms.
Nope. The referendum on 23 June was simply a poll of electors'views on that day on the principle of leaving the EU and a very small majority voted to leave without knowing what that entailed.
There is an excellent case for another poll be held when the details are known with the option of accepting the terms or staying in the EU on current terms (the triggering of Artilce 50 would be revoked). That would be the democratic thing to do but the hard line Brexiters don't trust the people.
only a small matter of 1.3 MILLION votes, I guess that's small if you are trying to ignore the reality
Using the voting numbers is simply trying to pretend the result was bigger than it was - refs and GE's are always talked of in terms of percentages and a 3.8% victory is small however you try to spin it.
Even using your numbers Clinton won the US popular vote but lost the presidency by more votes than Brexit won the referendum.
As has been stated before, the massive establishment advantages that Remain had, together with the "fear of the unknown" for Leave, meant that even a 3.8% victory was huge for Leave.
Massively so. The broadcasting media are still massively pro-Remain and keep pushing out project fear "news" items.
But the majority of the papers are anti-EU. Only the Grauniad, FT, Indy, Mirror and Times supported Remain and the Sunday Times was for Leave.
The Mail is reportedly the world's leading online newspaper and according to BBC R4's The Now Show, 40-50% of the world get their news from Facebook ... I kid you not as they were discussing the amount of fake news that appears on it.
The users of this site may trust the BBC or F.T. or even ITV or Sky more than Facebook for world/UK news, but a lot of people apparently don't.
The voters get most of their news and political information from the broadcasting media. The newspapers are now a tiny part of the media.
Mr. Barnesian, would you advocate a second vote had Remain won following the EU Army coming to light? Or rising contributions? Or EU centralised taxation (currently in the air rather than firmly proposed, I believe)?
Perhaps you would. But we both know the Great and the Good would not.
I do think there is a case for a referendum on membership of the EU say every ten years rather than waiting 43 years! It is analogous to a general election but more important and more disruptive so every five years would be too frequent.
But I think such a referendum should be a two-stager. The first would be in principle to leave and the second would be on the terms actually negotiated. I do think it is undemocratic to deny electors the opportunity to vote on the actual terms. Do you understand my argument even if you disagree with it?
You think we should go through a period of massive political and economic uncertainty every 10 years?
I'd keep off the sauce if I were you.
I advocated this before the referendum. It's clearly disingenuous for us Leavers to claim that a Leave vote is forever but not a Remain.
I'd suggest every 20 years, though, rather than every decade.
If the EU had mandated a national referendum in each country, for each treaty change, then Brexit would not have happened.
The answer to complaints of no say is to give everyone a say. All the time. Given me Switzerland over Singapore....
If the answer is "we are afraid that we might get the wrong answer" - you have already lost.
Mr. Barnesian, I understand it, but it doesn't fit with how things work. We'll only have a deal once Article 50 is triggered and negotiations complete. After that, we leave on deal terms or on WTO terms, and any rejection of the deal would be binding only on the UK, not the EU. Not only that, such an approach (supposing we could revoke Article 50 and stay) would encourage the EU to give us actively hostile terms to harm us as much as possible and make it easier for the second referendum to be a victory for them...
..and for the 16.1 million of us who want to remain in the EU. But I do take your point.
You lost. This is time to accept the result and move on. The longer you are stuck whinging about it the more unhealthy it is for you. They left you, get over it.
I don't know, Leavers never got over it and never stopped whinging and in the end the time came and they just convinced us. It might well take just as long for any Remain (or rather, rejoin - not that the EU would want us back) effort to gain any traction again, but it is self evidently the case that people do not have to move on and accept results.
Membership of the EU (or rather the EC as it then was) was pretty much a dead issue by 1990.
It was the continual change from that point towards EverCloserUnion which made it relevant again.
Mr. Barnesian, I understand it, but it doesn't fit with how things work. We'll only have a deal once Article 50 is triggered and negotiations complete. After that, we leave on deal terms or on WTO terms, and any rejection of the deal would be binding only on the UK, not the EU. Not only that, such an approach (supposing we could revoke Article 50 and stay) would encourage the EU to give us actively hostile terms to harm us as much as possible and make it easier for the second referendum to be a victory for them...
..and for the 16.1 million of us who want to remain in the EU. But I do take your point.
You lost. This is time to accept the result and move on. The longer you are stuck whinging about it the more unhealthy it is for you. They left you, get over it.
I don't know, Leavers never got over it and never stopped whinging and in the end the time came and they just convinced us.
And remember the most potent argument they used, regardless of its veracity: they lied to us! Winning the referendum was the worst thing that could ever have happened to the eurosceptics. It's only a question of time now before their whole case against the EU becomes forever discredited in the minds of the public.
The Kippers will have a field day. Another referendum would see a LEAVE majority of two to one.
Another referendum would have to spell out the Leave option, this would likely split Leavers into two groups - 'too far' and 'not far enough'.
We have already voted to Leave. Any further referendum would have only two options: accept the deal to Leave negotiated by the Govt., or refuse that deal and leave on WTO terms.
Nope. The referendum on 23 June was simply a poll of electors'views on that day on the principle of leaving the EU and a very small majority voted to leave without knowing what that entailed.
There is an excellent case for another poll be held when the details are known with the option of accepting the terms or staying in the EU on current terms (the triggering of Artilce 50 would be revoked). That would be the democratic thing to do but the hard line Brexiters don't trust the people.
only a small matter of 1.3 MILLION votes, I guess that's small if you are trying to ignore the reality
Using the voting numbers is simply trying to pretend the result was bigger than it was - refs and GE's are always talked of in terms of percentages and a 3.8% victory is small however you try to spin it.
Even using your numbers Clinton won the US popular vote but lost the presidency by more votes than Brexit won the referendum.
As has been stated before, the massive establishment advantages that Remain had, together with the "fear of the unknown" for Leave, meant that even a 3.8% victory was huge for Leave.
Massively so. The broadcasting media are still massively pro-Remain and keep pushing out project fear "news" items.
The polling increasingly shows that Remain resolve is dropping as people realise that WW3 has not broken out, we are not at the back of the queue and the economy has not tanked.
I am intrigued to see how EU politicians will try to impose a tough deal, when it damages their own electorates.
Rather than shutting out eurosceptic parties, I suspect it will give them extra life via the willingness of the euro establishment to repeatedly impose economic punishment on their own electorates for the sake of their ideology.
I don't worry about Brexit anymore. It will be soon be a done deal, one way or the other.
As done as the Trump election. Interesting phrase going round now ... 'Trump's opponents took him literally and not seriously. Trump's supporters took him seriously and not literally.' That neatly sums up the Trump enigma for me.
I've doubts about the EU wanting a hard Brexit. The heads of Government may disagree. Cutting off nose to spite face may not go well with their voters.
Mr. Barnesian, I understand it, but it doesn't fit with how things work. We'll only have a deal once Article 50 is triggered and negotiations complete. After that, we leave on deal terms or on WTO terms, and any rejection of the deal would be binding only on the UK, not the EU. Not only that, such an approach (supposing we could revoke Article 50 and stay) would encourage the EU to give us actively hostile terms to harm us as much as possible and make it easier for the second referendum to be a victory for them...
..and for the 16.1 million of us who want to remain in the EU. But I do take your point.
You lost. This is time to accept the result and move on. The longer you are stuck whinging about it the more unhealthy it is for you. They left you, get over it.
I don't know, Leavers never got over it and never stopped whinging and in the end the time came and they just convinced us. It might well take just as long for any Remain (or rather, rejoin - not that the EU would want us back) effort to gain any traction again, but it is self evidently the case that people do not have to move on and accept results.
Eh? The Leavers in the 1980s barely featured in the news. Unlike today where the LEAVERs with access to power and the media just whinge, plot and obstruct.
Mr. Palmer, like calling those who wanted to leave racists and xenophobes, or Little Englanders?
[Not a comment on you personally, can't recall whether you said such a thing and would guess not, but from one side to another it happened rather a lot].
Those who voted Leave won't listen to those who wanted Remain when told to 'be polite' after being accused repeatedly of stupidity and bigotry for holding an opinion which hadn't been deemed acceptable by the Metropolitan Dinner Party Committee of Good Taste...
I didn't, and I agree with you. Name-calling is simply a distraction which makes everyone dig in. I'm not even rude about UKIP or (when it was active) BNP supporters - I merely tend to disagree with them. (In passing, it's one reason I like Corbyn - even in private, he doesn't denigrate anyone, he just discusses whether they're right. Some of his supporters, not so much.)
Comments
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=david+miliband+banana+image&biw=1360&bih=612&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKtMvnhbfQAhVFDMAKHXmQAhUQsAQIGg#imgrc=ZwI200HdH20OYM:
Hard to see how much "influence" he can have outside that unfashionable dump called Parliament that so wasted his time...
1) May's Brexit package
2) Hard Brexit (if that differs from 1!)
3) Withdrawal of A50 and remaining in.
I don't think it is likely to happen, and if it does option 3 would lose.
As an aside, I expect that the French, German, Dutch and Italian elections will not lead to any further countries leaving either the EU or the EZ, though they may well lead to EU reforms and restructuring returning powers to nation states that paradoxically may make option 3 more attractive.
No doubt Peter Mandelson and Ali Campbell will be in the background over-seeing it all.
As someone once said, they haven't gone away you know...
I had in mind that MacArthur moment arriving back in the Philipines where Dave would instead walk out of the front of a landing craft onto the sun drenched surf tossed sands of a South Shields beach.
There is an excellent case for another poll be held when the details are known with the option of accepting the terms or staying in the EU on current terms (the triggering of Artilce 50 would be revoked). That would be the democratic thing to do but the hard line Brexiters don't trust the people.
You OK?
It's a brave, brave man who says something can't happen in politics.
"I would've like closer ties but they said no. I was willing to be in the single market" etc etc. Any economic hardship gets blamed on the EU.
A conciliatory approach would be harder for May to deal with, because she would then become seen as entirely responsible for the result, which is bound to annoy some people.
If he committed to it, he might swing it. Would need a ton of work and alliances.
But he just isn't and Osborne wouldn't go near him politically.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/37789425
Sounds as if that Hammond is very much a soft Brexiteer. McDonnell was very good indeed, a far better shadow than I expected following a slightly rocky start.
Downing Street is 'gunning for' the head of the NHS for publicly contradicting Theresa May over funding for the Health Service, The Mail on Sunday has been told.
Simon Stevens caused fury at No 10 by telling MPs that the Prime Minister had exaggerated the amount of extra money promised to the NHS – with one of Mrs May's aides warning that they intended to 'fix' him.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3953342/No10-gunnning-NHS-chief-defied-PM-Aides-warn-fix-health-boss-told-MPs-Theresa-exaggerated-money-promised-hospitals.html
I do think there's a spectrum of reasonable possibilities in most areas, but we must leave the customs union.
Mr. 43, yet polling indicates most people believe we should leave.
1.3 million votes is small in the context of 34.6 million votes cast. 2% of the 34.6 million could easily change their mind when they see the details they were denied in the referendum and are still being denied.
Perhaps you would. But we both know the Great and the Good would not.
Blair might cut through on TV, but won't know where to begin on the Net.
Sounds as though a Russian oligarch may be involved.
Oleg Deripaska? Maybe another one.
A site in Westminster for 130 staff? You're right, Mike, if there's anything in this then something is certainly going on.
Blair's still got a well-staffed office in Tel Aviv.
Might Donald Trump be involved in the Westminster plan? Perhaps in a private capacity, but what's the difference nowadays? (Hello Dick Cheney!)
Blair may be considering taking work as an "advisor" to Trump.
That sentence in the Sunday Times about "merging" charitable and business interests under one roof while bolstering the political clout of a new organisation is a corker!
And if Georgie Boy is so concerned with Brexit being a failure, why didn't he devote more resources to planning for it?
[Not a comment on you personally, can't recall whether you said such a thing and would guess not, but from one side to another it happened rather a lot].
Those who voted Leave won't listen to those who wanted Remain when told to 'be polite' after being accused repeatedly of stupidity and bigotry for holding an opinion which hadn't been deemed acceptable by the Metropolitan Dinner Party Committee of Good Taste...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/nov/20/chilcot-inquiry-designed-to-avoid-blame-secret-cabinet-office-documents
"He's only consulted Blair about paid speaking engagements"
Sounds like a denial right?
But he hasn't excluded Blair making a proposal to him which he is considering. And he hasn't excluded discussions of said proposal.
If you want to re-run the referendum and accuse the Brexit side of not telling the truth, what harm can come from Tony "45 minutes" Blair being the involved with your side?
e.g. an amendment that Article 50 can only be served following a unanimous vote of the house of commons.
Reviews should not be lost on umpire's call.
But I think such a referendum should be a two-stager. The first would be in principle to leave and the second would be on the terms actually negotiated. I do think it is undemocratic to deny electors the opportunity to vote on the actual terms. Do you understand my argument even if you disagree with it?
I'd keep off the sauce if I were you.
https://twitter.com/danielfyork/status/800125157104881664
Blair involved?
I guess we're only 45 minutes away from Hard Brexit then.
Even using your numbers Clinton won the US popular vote but lost the presidency by more votes than Brexit won the referendum.
I'd suggest every 20 years, though, rather than every decade.
As has been stated before, the massive establishment advantages that Remain had, together with the "fear of the unknown" for Leave, meant that even a 3.8% victory was huge for Leave.
I now realise that there is existing legislation that already covers this point. There must be a referendum if there is a proposed treaty change that hands more power to the EU. That covers the point.
But I do take your point.
- 24 hours to save the NHS
- WMD in Iraq
- referendum on EU Constitution/Lisbon treaty
- EU renegotiation "victory" where we surrendered a chunk of our rebate
- "Britain must have controlled immigration"
Many of those who voted Remain would say that we should accept the democratic decision and not try to reheat the vote.
I think he has no credibility left in the UK. But, in Germany & France, my impression is that his stock remains high. German friends still speak admiringly of him, and don't understand why he is so loathed in the UK.
To avoid the UK leaving, a new referendum must be held.
The EU could arrange for the new referendum to be the Carrot versus the Stick. If the terms of that referendum were a better deal than Cameron negotiated versus Hard Brexit, then it may well be that the Carrot would win.
The EU has to move to stop Brexit, and maybe Blair's thinking is that he is the best person to persuade the EU to move.
The Mail is reportedly the world's leading online newspaper and according to BBC R4's The Now Show, 40-50% of the world get their news from Facebook ... I kid you not as they were discussing the amount of fake news that appears on it.
The users of this site may trust the BBC or F.T. or even ITV or Sky more than Facebook for world/UK news, but a lot of people apparently don't.
Winning the referendum was the worst thing that could ever have happened to the eurosceptics. It's only a question of time now before their whole case against the EU becomes forever discredited in the minds of the public.
Or you can try a hard-refresh (Ctrl-F5 on Firefox) that forces the page to reload everything.
https://www.getfilecloud.com/blog/2015/03/tech-tip-how-to-do-hard-refresh-in-browsers
The answer to complaints of no say is to give everyone a say. All the time. Given me Switzerland over Singapore....
If the answer is "we are afraid that we might get the wrong answer" - you have already lost.
It was the continual change from that point towards EverCloserUnion which made it relevant again.
I am intrigued to see how EU politicians will try to impose a tough deal, when it damages their own electorates.
Rather than shutting out eurosceptic parties, I suspect it will give them extra life via the willingness of the euro establishment to repeatedly impose economic punishment on their own electorates for the sake of their ideology.
As done as the Trump election. Interesting phrase going round now ... 'Trump's opponents took him literally and not seriously. Trump's supporters took him seriously and not literally.' That neatly sums up the Trump enigma for me.
I've doubts about the EU wanting a hard Brexit. The heads of Government may disagree. Cutting off nose to spite face may not go well with their voters.