Seems a lot of people on here are remarkably prescient about what will happen in 2020. If anyone in May 2015 said we'd have May PM, Corbyn LOTO and Trump POTUS by now then I might be convinced. I feel 2020 is a lot of events away.
I think it'll be 2019. But it's a fair point.
Nowt wrong with a speculative punt of course...but it will be very speculative. Recession, war, serious illness (or death) of Party leaders or a Black Swan event like 9/11 need to be factored in.
And, if MP's decide that an issue must be decided by the voters as a whole, in a referendum, they are morally obliged to abide by the outcome.
The outcome being a divided country and a Leave faction with no clear plan. In those circumstance they are morally obliged to proceed with extreme caution and to take their time for all options to be explored, including a second referendum.
The country is divided at every general election. It doesn't mean the winners can't implement their policy.
If they can get support for their policy in parliament.
Is there a majority in parliament for leaving the single market? Probably not. Are they mandated by the referendum to do it anyway? Absolutely not.
He's bewildered that anyone could reject his beloved EU.
Do you understand why anyone could support it?
I can but you miss the entire point you are viewing this situation in present day terms without considering the historical background. Few had an issue with a common market at the time that was based on a demonstrated model of Benelux.
The original referendum was then to join a common market and no mention of a political union, a coomon currency, common flag, national anthem and flag badges on number plates was ever mentioned. That came later in a serious of agreements across the political spectrum and sealed by treaties concluding in the Lisbon treaty front page being changed and then signed via the back door despite being rejected by other electorates. A lovely "tidying up" exercise.
The first time the voters got a direct opportunity they voted out. It was clear in the government postal campaign that such a vote meant leaving the customs union and ending free movement. Project fear hammered this home every day? The people considered, debated then reflected and went to the ballot box and voted to leave. The vote has been taken and it's done.
Second referendums are a travesty of the democratic process and so EU but...... let's play along with that just for now. Just say if Remain then did win. What then? No doubt remain would claim that the first referendum is null and void and only theirs now Carrys any democratic weight. A very very dangerous game to play and would certainly not only split the country but insert a chasm as wide as the Grand Canyon. It is also the common situation with the EU to make people vote and vote again and then again until finally they get the result they want , the right answer. Then when they finally do its absolutely binding and no further votes are necessary.
This is why people fail to support the EU and the imaginery democracy it purports to give yet does something entirely different behind close doors.
And, if MP's decide that an issue must be decided by the voters as a whole, in a referendum, they are morally obliged to abide by the outcome.
The outcome being a divided country and a Leave faction with no clear plan. In those circumstance they are morally obliged to proceed with extreme caution and to take their time for all options to be explored, including a second referendum.
I voted remain but I think that a second referendum would be nonsensical. Are you pretending the same if the result had been reversed - of course not. Democracy is not perfect but it is preferable to the alternative and the job now is to seek to make Brexit work for us all ... and stop being a prat!
Why stop at two? Best of three or maybe a five setter? How about we wait till 2057 which would be same time we waited for the last one?
I salute your attitude sir, good for you. Other Remainers, I have a tiny suspicion, are now far keener on votes about the EU than I seem to recall was the case in the four previous decades and (this is shocking) possibly keener than had they won on June 23rd.
I can but you miss the entire point you are viewing this situation in present day terms without considering the historical background. Few had an issue with a common market at the time that was based on a demonstrated model of Benelux.
The original referendum was then to join a common market and no mention of a political union...
That is simply not true as a cursory glance at any contemporaneous records will prove. Watch Ted Heath's speech here beginning at 1:13.
F1: Mercedes wants Bottas. Williams appear to have rejected an initial offer. Lowe is reportedly close to moving in the other direction: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/38282791
And, if MP's decide that an issue must be decided by the voters as a whole, in a referendum, they are morally obliged to abide by the outcome.
The outcome being a divided country and a Leave faction with no clear plan. In those circumstance they are morally obliged to proceed with extreme caution and to take their time for all options to be explored, including a second referendum.
I voted remain but I think that a second referendum would be nonsensical. Are you pretending the same if the result had been reversed - of course not. Democracy is not perfect but it is preferable to the alternative and the job now is to seek to make Brexit work for us all ... and stop being a prat!
Leaving the EU is a long and complex process, not a single decision. Proceeding to a destination outside the EU without any further opportunity for the people to express a democratic view about the unfolding situation would be a constitutional outrage. If that makes me a prat then I make no apology for that.
Then you should. You show a lack of respect for democracy which Mr Juncker would be proud of. The vote to leave was just that - a single decision. We now have to make that decision work.
F1: Mercedes wants Bottas. Williams appear to have rejected an initial offer. Lowe is reportedly close to moving in the other direction: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/38282791
Mercedes have messed up big time if, as has been reported, Mr Lowe is about to be out of contract and free to move to another team without a year's gardening leave.
F1: based on that, a small stake on Sainz at 21 to be Hamilton's team mate as a saver may be worthwhile.
Bottas remains firm favourite, it seems. If you believe Mercedes will have the dominant car next year (personally I think Red Bull may pip them) then 9 (each way) for Bottas to win the title is better than the 1.66 for him to join Hamilton, in value terms.
Not mentioned in the article, but one way to square the circle would be Bottas to Mercedes and Di Resta to Williams.
I can but you miss the entire point you are viewing this situation in present day terms without considering the historical background. Few had an issue with a common market at the time that was based on a demonstrated model of Benelux.
The original referendum was then to join a common market and no mention of a political union...
That is simply not true as a cursory glance at any contemporaneous records will prove. Watch Ted Heath's speech here beginning at 1:13.
Can't get the thing to work on my phone but yes there were some who warned about it. I did mean to insert that in the first part of my comment but carried on and forgot so my bad my omission.
The rest is just about a fair assessment as many see it even if you and others perhaps do not view it that way for other reasons
And, if MP's decide that an issue must be decided by the voters as a whole, in a referendum, they are morally obliged to abide by the outcome.
The outcome being a divided country and a Leave faction with no clear plan. In those circumstance they are morally obliged to proceed with extreme caution and to take their time for all options to be explored, including a second referendum.
I voted remain but I think that a second referendum would be nonsensical. Are you pretending the same if the result had been reversed - of course not. Democracy is not perfect but it is preferable to the alternative and the job now is to seek to make Brexit work for us all ... and stop being a prat!
Leaving the EU is a long and complex process, not a single decision. Proceeding to a destination outside the EU without any further opportunity for the people to express a democratic view about the unfolding situation would be a constitutional outrage. If that makes me a prat then I make no apology for that.
And, if MP's decide that an issue must be decided by the voters as a whole, in a referendum, they are morally obliged to abide by the outcome.
The outcome being a divided country and a Leave faction with no clear plan. In those circumstance they are morally obliged to proceed with extreme caution and to take their time for all options to be explored, including a second referendum.
I voted remain but I think that a second referendum would be nonsensical. Are you pretending the same if the result had been reversed - of course not. Democracy is not perfect but it is preferable to the alternative and the job now is to seek to make Brexit work for us all ... and stop being a prat!
Leaving the EU is a long and complex process, not a single decision. Proceeding to a destination outside the EU without any further opportunity for the people to express a democratic view about the unfolding situation would be a constitutional outrage. If that makes me a prat then I make no apology for that.
We seemed to manage to get from "Common Market ", via Maastricht, Nice, Amsterdam, and above all Lisbon to the "EU" without the people having an opportunity to express their view. So that was a "constitutional outrage?"
I can but you miss the entire point you are viewing this situation in present day terms without considering the historical background. Few had an issue with a common market at the time that was based on a demonstrated model of Benelux.
The original referendum was then to join a common market and no mention of a political union...
That is simply not true as a cursory glance at any contemporaneous records will prove. Watch Ted Heath's speech here beginning at 1:13.
Can't get the thing to work on my phone but yes there were some who warned about it. I did mean to insert that in the first part of my comment but carried on and forgot so my bad my omission.
The rest is just about a fair assessment as many see it even if you and others perhaps do not view it that way for other reasons
Not 'warning' about it but openly lauding the virtues of moving beyond the era of the nation state. If only Cameron could have matched some of Heath's passion and conviction.
I can but you miss the entire point you are viewing this situation in present day terms without considering the historical background. Few had an issue with a common market at the time that was based on a demonstrated model of Benelux.
The original referendum was then to join a common market and no mention of a political union...
That is simply not true as a cursory glance at any contemporaneous records will prove. Watch Ted Heath's speech here beginning at 1:13.
Can't get the thing to work on my phone but yes there were some who warned about it. I did mean to insert that in the first part of my comment but carried on and forgot so my bad my omission.
The rest is just about a fair assessment as many see it even if you and others perhaps do not view it that way for other reasons
Not 'warning' about it but openly lauding the virtues of moving beyond the era of the nation state. If only Cameron could have matched some of Heath's passion and conviction.
To move beyond the era of the nation state? I think he would have lost far worse had he done that.
And, if MP's decide that an issue must be decided by the voters as a whole, in a referendum, they are morally obliged to abide by the outcome.
The outcome being a divided country and a Leave faction with no clear plan. In those circumstance they are morally obliged to proceed with extreme caution and to take their time for all options to be explored, including a second referendum.
I voted remain but I think that a second referendum would be nonsensical. Are you pretending the same if the result had been reversed - of course not. Democracy is not perfect but it is preferable to the alternative and the job now is to seek to make Brexit work for us all ... and stop being a prat!
Leaving the EU is a long and complex process, not a single decision. Proceeding to a destination outside the EU without any further opportunity for the people to express a democratic view about the unfolding situation would be a constitutional outrage. If that makes me a prat then I make no apology for that.
And, if MP's decide that an issue must be decided by the voters as a whole, in a referendum, they are morally obliged to abide by the outcome.
The outcome being a divided country and a Leave faction with no clear plan. In those circumstance they are morally obliged to proceed with extreme caution and to take their time for all options to be explored, including a second referendum.
I voted remain but I think that a second referendum would be nonsensical. Are you pretending the same if the result had been reversed - of course not. Democracy is not perfect but it is preferable to the alternative and the job now is to seek to make Brexit work for us all ... and stop being a prat!
Leaving the EU is a long and complex process, not a single decision. Proceeding to a destination outside the EU without any further opportunity for the people to express a democratic view about the unfolding situation would be a constitutional outrage. If that makes me a prat then I make no apology for that.
We seemed to manage to get from "Common Market ", via Maastricht, Nice, Amsterdam, and above all Lisbon to the "EU" without the people having an opportunity to express their view. So that was a "constitutional outrage?"
How many General Elections did we have between 1975 and the Lisbon Treaty?
And, if MP's decide that an issue must be decided by the voters as a whole, in a referendum, they are morally obliged to abide by the outcome.
The outcome being a divided country and a Leave faction with no clear plan. In those circumstance they are morally obliged to proceed with extreme caution and to take their time for all options to be explored, including a second referendum.
I voted remain but I think that a second referendum would be nonsensical. Are you pretending the same if the result had been reversed - of course not. Democracy is not perfect but it is preferable to the alternative and the job now is to seek to make Brexit work for us all ... and stop being a prat!
Leaving the EU is a long and complex process, not a single decision. Proceeding to a destination outside the EU without any further opportunity for the people to express a democratic view about the unfolding situation would be a constitutional outrage. If that makes me a prat then I make no apology for that.
And, if MP's decide that an issue must be decided by the voters as a whole, in a referendum, they are morally obliged to abide by the outcome.
The outcome being a divided country and a Leave faction with no clear plan. In those circumstance they are morally obliged to proceed with extreme caution and to take their time for all options to be explored, including a second referendum.
I voted remain but I think that a second referendum would be nonsensical. Are you pretending the same if the result had been reversed - of course not. Democracy is not perfect but it is preferable to the alternative and the job now is to seek to make Brexit work for us all ... and stop being a prat!
Leaving the EU is a long and complex process, not a single decision. Proceeding to a destination outside the EU without any further opportunity for the people to express a democratic view about the unfolding situation would be a constitutional outrage. If that makes me a prat then I make no apology for that.
We seemed to manage to get from "Common Market ", via Maastricht, Nice, Amsterdam, and above all Lisbon to the "EU" without the people having an opportunity to express their view. So that was a "constitutional outrage?"
People voted for governments supporting those steps every time there was a GE
Democracy didn't stop on 23 June 2016 or reach its unsurpassable zenith that day. The electorate can vote to rethink the decision to leave the EU if it so wishes. As yet, however, nothing has come up since the referendum result that would justify asking it.
Something still might, of course.
A more practical objection to rereferending is that bridges with the EU have probably already been burned beyond repair for the foreseeable future. Britain probably doesn't have the option of staying in, even if it changes its mind.
And, if MP's decide that an issue must be decided by the voters as a whole, in a referendum, they are morally obliged to abide by the outcome.
The outcome being a divided country and a Leave faction with no clear plan. In those circumstance they are morally obliged to proceed with extreme caution and to take their time for all options to be explored, including a second referendum.
I voted remain but I think that a second referendum would be nonsensical. Are you pretending the same if the result had been reversed - of course not. Democracy is not perfect but it is preferable to the alternative and the job now is to seek to make Brexit work for us all ... and stop being a prat!
Leaving the EU is a long and complex process, not a single decision. Proceeding to a destination outside the EU without any further opportunity for the people to express a democratic view about the unfolding situation would be a constitutional outrage. If that makes me a prat then I make no apology for that.
We seemed to manage to get from "Common Market ", via Maastricht, Nice, Amsterdam, and above all Lisbon to the "EU" without the people having an opportunity to express their view. So that was a "constitutional outrage?"
People voted for governments supporting those steps every time there was a GE
No they didn't. In 2005 all three parties opposed ratifying the Constitution without a referendum. Brown then ratified the rebranded Lisbon treaty without a referendum. The public then voted for the only party to have voted against ratifying Lisbon.
So when exactly did the people vote for a government supporting ratifying Lisbon?
Higher than 9% chance of Labour polling under 20%? Not seeing it, even under Corbyn, given the pitfalls that might arise for the Tories. 5% maybe.
I mainly adhere to the notion of a higher Labour vote myself (25%, probably a little more and not very much less) for two reasons. Firstly, Labour really going down the toilet would be fantastic news - and when things sound too good to be true, they most often are. Secondly, the Labour brand is too strong: except in Scotland where circumstances are unusual and unique, Labour is viewed as the principal opposition to the Conservatives and has been so for as long as any of us has been alive. In addition to its surviving coalition of clients and true believers - socialists, public sector workers, poor ethnic minorities, under 65s living off benefits - it still has an army of robot voters. Both main parties still do - those people who always vote automatically for the same party because they identify with it culturally and socially, and/or it makes life easier not to have to bother to think about what they're doing.
However, if I'm wrong and Labour does properly collapse, it won't be solely down to the Tories. It'll take the extra pressure applied by the other parties to help deliver the coup de grace.
And, if MP's decide that an issue must be decided by the voters as a whole, in a referendum, they are morally obliged to abide by the outcome.
The outcome being a divided country and a Leave faction with no clear plan. In those circumstance they are morally obliged to proceed with extreme caution and to take their time for all options to be explored, including a second referendum.
I voted remain but I think that a second referendum would be nonsensical. Are you pretending the same if the result had been reversed - of course not. Democracy is not perfect but it is preferable to the alternative and the job now is to seek to make Brexit work for us all ... and stop being a prat!
Leaving the EU is a long and complex process, not a single decision. Proceeding to a destination outside the EU without any further opportunity for the people to express a democratic view about the unfolding situation would be a constitutional outrage. If that makes me a prat then I make no apology for that.
And, if MP's decide that an issue must be decided by the voters as a whole, in a referendum, they are morally obliged to abide by the outcome.
The outcome being a divided country and a Leave faction with no clear plan. In those circumstance they are morally obliged to proceed with extreme caution and to take their time for all options to be explored, including a second referendum.
I voted remain but I think that a second referendum would be nonsensical. Are you pretending the same if the result had been reversed - of course not. Democracy is not perfect but it is preferable to the alternative and the job now is to seek to make Brexit work for us all ... and stop being a prat!
Leaving the EU is a long and complex process, not a single decision. Proceeding to a destination outside the EU without any further opportunity for the people to express a democratic view about the unfolding situation would be a constitutional outrage. If that makes me a prat then I make no apology for that.
We seemed to manage to get from "Common Market ", via Maastricht, Nice, Amsterdam, and above all Lisbon to the "EU" without the people having an opportunity to express their view. So that was a "constitutional outrage?"
How many General Elections did we have between 1975 and the Lisbon Treaty?
Exactly the sort of specious bullshit that people are rejecting more and more.
And, if MP's decide that an issue must be decided by the voters as a whole, in a referendum, they are morally obliged to abide by the outcome.
The outcome being a divided country and a Leave faction with no clear plan. In those circumstance they are morally obliged to proceed with extreme caution and to take their time for all options to be explored, including a second referendum.
The country is divided at every general election. It doesn't mean the winners can't implement their policy.
If they can get support for their policy in parliament.
Is there a majority in parliament for leaving the single market? Probably not. Are they mandated by the referendum to do it anyway? Absolutely not.
Seems a lot of people on here are remarkably prescient about what will happen in 2020. If anyone in May 2015 said we'd have May PM, Corbyn LOTO and Trump POTUS by now then I might be convinced. I feel 2020 is a lot of events away.
I predicted on this very board in January 2016 that Trump and Brexit may win, then later I put money on both events, and won approx £2.5K as a result.
It's not necessarily an answer to your question. It's just that I like mentioning it.
And yet the "political class" (for want of a better word) got well out of touch with the electorate on this issue. Despite the Govt, Lab,Lib, assorted Nats, Greens, Unions, the CBI et al the people still said no thanks. So our political system was failing on this issue. Of course had Blair/Brown not fled from the voters on Lisbon, so much could've been altered, but no, effectively they doubled down and let the pressure build. Fools.
Seems a lot of people on here are remarkably prescient about what will happen in 2020. If anyone in May 2015 said we'd have May PM, Corbyn LOTO and Trump POTUS by now then I might be convinced. I feel 2020 is a lot of events away.
I predicted on this very board in January 2016 that Trump and Brexit may win, then later I put money on both events, and won approx £2.5K as a result.
It's not necessarily an answer to your question. It's just that I like mentioning it.
Democracy didn't stop on 23 June 2016 or reach its unsurpassable zenith that day. The electorate can vote to rethink the decision to leave the EU if it so wishes. As yet, however, nothing has come up since the referendum result that would justify asking it.
Something still might, of course.
A more practical objection to rereferending is that bridges with the EU have probably already been burned beyond repair for the foreseeable future. Britain probably doesn't have the option of staying in, even if it changes its mind.
And, if MP's decide that an issue must be decided by the voters as a whole, in a referendum, they are morally obliged to abide by the outcome.
The outcome being a divided country and a Leave faction with no clear plan. In those circumstance they are morally obliged to proceed with extreme caution and to take their time for all options to be explored, including a second referendum.
I voted remain but I think that a second referendum would be nonsensical. Are you pretending the same if the result had been reversed - of course not. Democracy is not perfect but it is preferable to the alternative and the job now is to seek to make Brexit work for us all ... and stop being a prat!
Leaving the EU is a long and complex process, not a single decision. Proceeding to a destination outside the EU without any further opportunity for the people to express a democratic view about the unfolding situation would be a constitutional outrage. If that makes me a prat then I make no apology for that.
And, if MP's decide that an issue must be decided by the voters as a whole, in a referendum, they are morally obliged to abide by the outcome.
The outcome being a divided country and a Leave faction with no clear plan. In those circumstance they are morally obliged to proceed with extreme caution and to take their time for all options to be explored, including a second referendum.
I voted remain but I think that a second)
Leaving the EU is a long and complex process, not a single decision. Proceeding to a destination outside the EU without any further opportunity for the people to express a democratic view about the unfolding situation would be a constitutional outrage. If that makes me a prat then I make no apology for that.
We seemed to manage to get from "Common Market ", via Maastricht, Nice, Amsterdam, and above all Lisbon to the "EU" without the people having an opportunity to express their view. So that was a "constitutional outrage?"
How many General Elections did we have between 1975 and the Lisbon Treaty?
Exactly the sort of specious bullshit that people are rejecting more and more.
Interesting that you call it specious since it's also the argument for why a second referendum isn't needed because a further GE will give sufficient mandate for the direction of travel to be confirmed.
It was clear in the government postal campaign that such a vote meant leaving the customs union and ending free movement.
Prominent Brexiteers denied that throughout the campaign
No they didn't.
From memory, Richard Tyndall of this parish, Boris Johnson, Daniel Hannan and Frasier Nelson/the Spectator did so deny it (or, in Hannan's case, omitted to mention it and let his interlocutor believe what he liked, which frankly is worse). Frasier Nelson has ethical and personal (his wife is Swedish) arguments in favour of freedom of movement, and BoJo still advocates it.
Contrariwise, Vote Leave, Michael Gove, and Casino_Royale of this parish did not deny it: in Vote Leave's case its website specifically pointed out that leaving sub-EU entities (like the EEA and the customs union) and ending free movement was its desired outcome.
Leave did not speak with a single voice.
(Richard, Casino, if I have misunderstood you, please point it out)
Seems a lot of people on here are remarkably prescient about what will happen in 2020. If anyone in May 2015 said we'd have May PM, Corbyn LOTO and Trump POTUS by now then I might be convinced. I feel 2020 is a lot of events away.
I predicted on this very board in January 2016 that Trump and Brexit may win, then later I put money on both events, and won approx £2.5K as a result.
It's not necessarily an answer to your question. It's just that I like mentioning it.
It was clear in the government postal campaign that such a vote meant leaving the customs union and ending free movement.
Prominent Brexiteers denied that throughout the campaign
No they didn't.
From memory, Richard Tyndall of this parish, Boris Johnson, Daniel Hannan and Frasier Nelson/the Spectator did so deny it (or, in Hannan's case, omitted to mention it and let his interlocutor believe what he liked, which frankly is worse). Frasier Nelson has ethical and personal (his wife is Swedish) arguments in favour of freedom of movement, and BoJo still advocates it.
Contrariwise, Vote Leave, Michael Gove, and Casino_Royale of this parish did not deny it: in Vote Leave's case its website specifically pointed out that leaving sub-EU entities (like the EEA and the customs union) and ending free movement was its desired outcome.
Leave did not speak with a single voice.
(Richard, Casino, if I have misunderstood you, please point it out)
All of those that you've named supported the UK gaining the right to sign our own trade deals which entails leaving the customs union. Every single one of them.
Interesting that you call it specious since it's also the argument for why a second referendum isn't needed because a further GE will give sufficient mandate for the direction of travel to be confirmed.
Obeying the answer to a clearly stated question on a referendum ballot paper doesn't require an 'argument'.
With respect, there have been 40-odd years in which to make not leaving work for all of us.
And we went from the sick man of Europe to the 5th largest economy on the World.
By replacing Labour with Thatcher. Nothing to do with EU membership.
It was mainly due to Mrs Thatcher finding oil in the North Sea.
Way before her time
Development / investigations started in the early / mid 1960's and the first oil / oil rig was 1970/71
"The UK Continental Shelf Act came into force in May 1964. Seismic exploration and the first well followed later that year. It and a second well on the Mid North Sea High were dry, as the Rotliegendes was absent, but BP's Sea Gem rig struck gas in the West Sole Field in September 1965."
"BP's semi-submersible drilling rig Sea Quest hit crude at 11,000 feet in the upper tertiary sandstone. Four appraisal wells drilled during 1970-71 revealed a large reservoir at a depth of about 7,000 feet. So marked the first and largest major oil field discovery in the United Kingdom sector of the North Sea"
I know you lefties want to blame, smear and deride her on everything and anything you can but its just getting rather silly now bordering on pathetic
It was clear in the government postal campaign that such a vote meant leaving the customs union and ending free movement.
Prominent Brexiteers denied that throughout the campaign
No they didn't.
From memory, Richard Tyndall of this parish, Boris Johnson, Daniel Hannan and Frasier Nelson/the Spectator did so deny it (or, in Hannan's case, omitted to mention it and let his interlocutor believe what he liked, which frankly is worse). Frasier Nelson has ethical and personal (his wife is Swedish) arguments in favour of freedom of movement, and BoJo still advocates it.
Contrariwise, Vote Leave, Michael Gove, and Casino_Royale of this parish did not deny it: in Vote Leave's case its website specifically pointed out that leaving sub-EU entities (like the EEA and the customs union) and ending free movement was its desired outcome.
Leave did not speak with a single voice.
(Richard, Casino, if I have misunderstood you, please point it out)
All of those that you've named supported the UK gaining the right to sign our own trade deals which entails leaving the customs union. Every single one of them.
If that's true, (and you do have form for getting things wrong, cf your insistence that drops in GBP are not caused by Brexit), then some of them were simultaneously advocating freedom of movement and actions that would make it more difficult. Whilst I'm willing to believe that of Hannan (who, I've pointed out many times, is wiling to ignore/omit things), I don't get the impression that Richard_Tyndall nor Frasier Nelson are lying to me. Wrong, yes, but mendacious? No.
It was clear in the government postal campaign that such a vote meant leaving the customs union and ending free movement.
Prominent Brexiteers denied that throughout the campaign
No they didn't.
From memory, Richard Tyndall of this parish, Boris Johnson, Daniel Hannan and Frasier Nelson/the Spectator did so deny it (or, in Hannan's case, omitted to mention it and let his interlocutor believe what he liked, which frankly is worse). Frasier Nelson has ethical and personal (his wife is Swedish) arguments in favour of freedom of movement, and BoJo still advocates it.
Contrariwise, Vote Leave, Michael Gove, and Casino_Royale of this parish did not deny it: in Vote Leave's case its website specifically pointed out that leaving sub-EU entities (like the EEA and the customs union) and ending free movement was its desired outcome.
Leave did not speak with a single voice.
(Richard, Casino, if I have misunderstood you, please point it out)
All of those that you've named supported the UK gaining the right to sign our own trade deals which entails leaving the customs union. Every single one of them.
If that's true, (and you do have form for getting things wrong, cf your insistence that drops in GBP are not caused by Brexit), then some of them were simultaneously advocating freedom of movement and actions that would make it more difficult. Whilst I'm willing to believe that of Hannan (who, I've pointed out many times, is wiling to ignore/omit things), I don't get the impression that Richard_Tyndall nor Frasier Nelson are lying to me. Wrong, yes, but mendacious? No.
The two are not dependent on each other. You can have customs union without freedom of movement (eg Turkey) or you can have freedom of movement without a customs union (eg every single EFTA nation).
Richard of this parish is a fan of the EFTA and not the customs union.
Oh and I've not insisted that drops in GBP are not caused by Brexit. I insisted that drops without inflation is not necessarily a bad thing and could be a good thing. That's different.
Catching up on the the previous thread, I see not a single Brexiteer was able to answer the question posed this morning. A couple tried and spectacularly missed the point, so I'll give them another go.
In our "representative democracy", who represents those not eligible to vote?
Nobody tried to argue that with a Tory majority, those who voted Labour are not represented in Parliament, but people seem quite happy to claim that if MPs try and represent those who voted to remain they are TRAITORS!
Who represents children in Parliament? Who represents prisoners?
Parliament represents them.
But in the case of the referendum Parliament asked the voters what they wanted and we're told the answer. Those who don't vote don't get a say.
Non sequiturs may be a specialty @ Toms's towers. So let me just say that, judging from a forced viewing of Top Gear one Christmas, I judge J. Clarkson as a rich clever flabby protagonist of our strange and destructive car fixation, but he doesn't seem to want to run the country. On the other hand, D. Trump (fill in the adjectives) does seem to want to run his country. Now, ummmm, as for J. Corbyn ...
I can but you miss the entire point you are viewing this situation in present day terms without considering the historical background. Few had an issue with a common market at the time that was based on a demonstrated model of Benelux.
The original referendum was then to join a common market and no mention of a political union...
That is simply not true as a cursory glance at any contemporaneous records will prove. Watch Ted Heath's speech here beginning at 1:13.
Can't get the thing to work on my phone but yes there were some who warned about it. I did mean to insert that in the first part of my comment but carried on and forgot so my bad my omission.
The rest is just about a fair assessment as many see it even if you and others perhaps do not view it that way for other reasons
Not 'warning' about it but openly lauding the virtues of moving beyond the era of the nation state. If only Cameron could have matched some of Heath's passion and conviction.
Just finished watching Jeremy Thorpe's contribution to that debate. He comes across like some great 19th century actor, waving his arms and making sudden changes in intonation to make his points. For all his failings, he was an extraordinary speaker.
My favourite part was when someone heckled him about the inconsistency of the Liberal Party and he said "the first vote I cast for Europe was in 1960. We had one Labour member, to his credit, in the lobby. The entire Tory Party against us and the Labour Party abstaining like sullen eunuchs!"
Having just watched Nigel Farage on Question Time, I can honestly say, he looked a very diminished figure. He was his usually shouty self but everything sounded so stale. I really don't know where he goes from here, but he would be absolutely mad to get involved with Trump.
Oh and I've not insisted that drops in GBP are not caused by Brexit. I insisted that drops without inflation is not necessarily a bad thing and could be a good thing. That's different.
To be precise you insisted prior to the vote that drops in GBP were solely due to the Fed, and after the vote that GBP was overvalued. I had to post GBP/USD values for many years prior to demonstrate that £1=$1.2 is historically very low.
With respect, there have been 40-odd years in which to make not leaving work for all of us.
And we went from the sick man of Europe to the 5th largest economy on the World.
By replacing Labour with Thatcher. Nothing to do with EU membership.
It was mainly due to Mrs Thatcher finding oil in the North Sea.
Way before her time
Development / investigations started in the early / mid 1960's and the first oil / oil rig was 1970/71
"The UK Continental Shelf Act came into force in May 1964. Seismic exploration and the first well followed later that year. It and a second well on the Mid North Sea High were dry, as the Rotliegendes was absent, but BP's Sea Gem rig struck gas in the West Sole Field in September 1965."
"BP's semi-submersible drilling rig Sea Quest hit crude at 11,000 feet in the upper tertiary sandstone. Four appraisal wells drilled during 1970-71 revealed a large reservoir at a depth of about 7,000 feet. So marked the first and largest major oil field discovery in the United Kingdom sector of the North Sea"
I know you lefties want to blame, smear and deride her on everything and anything you can but its just getting rather silly now bordering on pathetic
It was a light-hearted way of pointing out that Mrs Thatcher benefited hugely from North Sea Oil revenues -- of course she did not literally discover it. As you can see from HMG's table, if you compare income with the years of Mrs Thatcher's premiership.
I judge J. Clarkson as a rich clever flabby protagonist of our strange and destructive car fixation, but he doesn't seem to want to run the country.
The subject of his column today on fact
In fact I was once touted as a suitable prime minister. Many people signed a petition, thinking that I’d be good at the job because I’m down-to-earth and grounded and speak my mind. And because I’d seen the inside of police cells in both France and Greece for being drunk, which is fine. Because we’ve all done that.
Yes, and we’ve all broken the speed limit and played tonsil hockey with the wrong partner and smoked the wrong kind of leaf and nicked sweets and looked at pornography and fiddled our expenses.
This is what makes us normal. And it’s precisely because we are normal, we cannot be politicians.
@AndyJS I wasn't around at the time to say, but used your spreadsheet on the night of the EU referendum, so thankyou very much, I owe you a good drink,
Oh and I've not insisted that drops in GBP are not caused by Brexit. I insisted that drops without inflation is not necessarily a bad thing and could be a good thing. That's different.
To be precise you insisted prior to the vote that drops in GBP were solely due to the Fed, and after the vote that GBP was overvalued. I had to post GBP/USD values for many years prior to demonstrate that £1=$1.2 is historically very low.
I never said solely. The Fed was a large part of the pre Brexit movement. Brexit was a large part of the post Brexit movement.
That is why pre Brexit the dollar was appreciating against all major currencies (including sterling) while post Brexit sterling fell against all major currencies (including the dollar).
As for sterling being overvalued it was. We had and still have a mammoth current account deficit which means long term barring other factors the currency needs to fall.
Historically there is a long term trend for sterling to fall against the dollar. One sterling could once have got five dollars, if sterling appreciated back to $5 now all other things being equal do you think it would be a good thing?
But they should be represented. Are you really claiming otherwise?
The first part of my answer said "parliament represents them".
In this case Parliament decided the best way to represent the interests of the entire population was to ask a defined subgroup (commonly known as "the electorate") what they should do in respect of a specific matter. The electorate considered it and gave an answer, which Parliament is now duty bound to implement.
I judge J. Clarkson as a rich clever flabby protagonist of our strange and destructive car fixation, but he doesn't seem to want to run the country.
The subject of his column today on fact
In fact I was once touted as a suitable prime minister. Many people signed a petition, thinking that I’d be good at the job because I’m down-to-earth and grounded and speak my mind. And because I’d seen the inside of police cells in both France and Greece for being drunk, which is fine. Because we’ve all done that.
Yes, and we’ve all broken the speed limit and played tonsil hockey with the wrong partner and smoked the wrong kind of leaf and nicked sweets and looked at pornography and fiddled our expenses.
This is what makes us normal. And it’s precisely because we are normal, we cannot be politicians.
So MPs are free to represent the views of those who were unable to vote, and should not be called TRAITORS if they choose to do so, right?
Of course they are free to do so and I've never called anyone a traitor. They are also free to be democratic and respect the outcome of the referendum.
And, if MP's decide that an issue must be decided by the voters as a whole, in a referendum, they are morally obliged to abide by the outcome.
I saw a clip on Newsnight last week of Enoch Powell refusing to accept the result of the 1975 referendum and saying he felt quite justified in continuing to campaign for Leave. He didn't feel any moral obligation to abide by what the (overwhelming, in that case) majority thought. If it was good enough for him, why are Remainers not allowed to do the same now? Or is it different rules for Leavers and Remainers in the minds of Leavers?
It was advisory. Parliament are duty bound to consider the advice.
You lost. Get over it. I had to get over it when Labour won in 1997, 2001, and 2005.
Forgive my ignorance, but doesn't logic play a part? In fact why are there two categories---mandatory and advisory---if we do not treat them differently?
If a second referendum were to confirm Brexit, would there be demands for a third/fourth/fifth?
The EU general position is you continue to vote until they get the answer they want.
To be fair, that was also the position of many Brexiters (*), including Farage, when they thought they would lose.
(*) Though far from all.
It is not the same position. In Farage's case we would still have been in the EU, so would have honoured the referendum result. This is about subverting the result itself.
And, if MP's decide that an issue must be decided by the voters as a whole, in a referendum, they are morally obliged to abide by the outcome.
The outcome being a divided country and a Leave faction with no clear plan. In those circumstance they are morally obliged to proceed with extreme caution and to take their time for all options to be explored, including a second referendum.
The country is divided at every general election. It doesn't mean the winners can't implement their policy.
Indeed and neither do the opposition then get the General election rerun simply because they lost in the first one.
Well actually, the General Election does get rerun. About every 5 years.
So MPs are free to represent the views of those who were unable to vote, and should not be called TRAITORS if they choose to do so, right?
How would they know the views of the people that were unable to vote?
That's a good point, and one that's ignored when this argument gets trotted out: the assumption is that the non-voters would have voted the way whoever is making the argument wanted.
If a second referendum were to confirm Brexit, would there be demands for a third/fourth/fifth?
Yes. It might be helpful if there were rules prohibiting second, third or fourth referendums too soon after a previous one, but if the clamour was great enough those rules could always be overturned, and people will always argue circumstances have changed even if it was a short time earlier. It's legitimate to push for a second referendum, and would be legitimate to push for a third to counter the second if it changed from the first (not that I expect it would)
So MPs are free to represent the views of those who were unable to vote, and should not be called TRAITORS if they choose to do so, right?
How would they know the views of the people that were unable to vote?
That's a good point, and one that's ignored when this argument gets trotted out: the assumption is that the non-voters would have voted the way whoever is making the argument wanted.
Welcome back btw.
The most uncomfortable thing about the referendum for the Left is that they always assumed the non-voters were their people. Turned out a good chunk of them wanted out of the EU.
If a second referendum were to confirm Brexit, would there be demands for a third/fourth/fifth?
The EU general position is you continue to vote until they get the answer they want.
To be fair, that was also the position of many Brexiters (*), including Farage, when they thought they would lose.
(*) Though far from all.
No harm in continuing to fight for your cause. Remainers should not be disallowed to campaign to rejoin the EU.
The difference I think is though, that had we voted to Remain there would be no chance of Leavers refusing to allow us to be in the EU, as we were already in, and therefore no chance of anyone being able to claim Leavers were ignoring the result or the" will of the people".
So the likes of Farage saying he would keep on campaigning if Remain won, isn't the same as Remainers not letting us leave now, if you see what I mean. They aren't flip sides of the same coin
So MPs are free to represent the views of those who were unable to vote, and should not be called TRAITORS if they choose to do so, right?
How would they know the views of the people that were unable to vote?
That's a good point, and one that's ignored when this argument gets trotted out: the assumption is that the non-voters would have voted the way whoever is making the argument wanted.
I think some of us are underestimating the extent to which UKIP is on the way out. A bunch of key people have left already, the man who pays for most of it has effectively already announced his departure early next year, and the man who made it all happen will surely follow. With Brexit (almost) secured, UKIP is retreating toward the core vote for a right-wing nationalist party, which history suggests is small.
The 'existential threat' to Labour's heartlands that some saw in UKIP has, IMO, now gone away. Therefore my money would be on 20-25% in terms of vote but with 100+ seats.
The more interesting question is what impact Banks might make if/when he launches a Cinque-Stelle style 'people's movement' in a few months' time...?
But UKIP - and Farage - could and will come storming back if there is a very soft Brexit, or - unlikely as it is - a successful attempt to actually stop Brexit.
That Telegraph interview with Farage yesterday portrayed a man who is easily bored. After a couple of years hanging around Trump's court doing not much he might be eager to return to the UK scene, revitalising the party. And he's just 52 (younger than me!).
Alex Salmond did exactly the same for the SNP. And might do it again, you never know.
I've met both of you.
He looks two decades older than you.
And he slurs his words more after a few drinks. A problem that I suspect will worsen over the next couple of years.
In the entire history of GBPvsUSD, prior to Brexit it had only been this low for about 6 months in the 80's. If it was overvalued, then it has been overvalued for about 200 years.
If a second referendum were to confirm Brexit, would there be demands for a third/fourth/fifth?
The EU general position is you continue to vote until they get the answer they want.
To be fair, that was also the position of many Brexiters (*), including Farage, when they thought they would lose.
(*) Though far from all.
No harm in continuing to fight for your cause. Remainers should not be disallowed to campaign to rejoin the EU.
The difference I think is though, that had we voted to Remain there would be no chance of Leavers refusing to allow us to be in the EU, as we were already in, and therefore no chance of anyone being able to claim Leavers were ignoring the result or the" will of the people".
So the likes of Farage saying he would keep on campaigning if Remain won, isn't the same as Remainers not letting us leave now, if you see what I mean. They aren't flip sides of the same coin
Makes perfect sense.
And when in 2030 we vote to rejoin the EU I look forward to having all these arguments all over again in reverse.
Higher than 9% chance of Labour polling under 20%? Not seeing it, even under Corbyn, given the pitfalls that might arise for the Tories. 5% maybe.
I mainly adhere to the notion of a higher Labour vote myself (25%, probably a little more and not very much less) for two reasons. Firstly, Labour really going down the toilet would be fantastic news - and when things sound too good to be true, they most often are. Secondly, the Labour brand is too strong: except in Scotland where circumstances are unusual and unique, Labour is viewed as the principal opposition to the Conservatives and has been so for as long as any of us has been alive. In addition to its surviving coalition of clients and true believers - socialists, public sector workers, poor ethnic minorities, under 65s living off benefits - it still has an army of robot voters. Both main parties still do - those people who always vote automatically for the same party because they identify with it culturally and socially, and/or it makes life easier not to have to bother to think about what they're doing.
However, if I'm wrong and Labour does properly collapse, it won't be solely down to the Tories. It'll take the extra pressure applied by the other parties to help deliver the coup de grace.
spot on. Only a strong UKIP,Plaid and Libs will do it,
Comments
The original referendum was then to join a common market and no mention of a political union, a coomon currency, common flag, national anthem and flag badges on number plates was ever mentioned. That came later in a serious of agreements across the political spectrum and sealed by treaties concluding in the Lisbon treaty front page being changed and then signed via the back door despite being rejected by other electorates. A lovely "tidying up" exercise.
The first time the voters got a direct opportunity they voted out. It was clear in the government postal campaign that such a vote meant leaving the customs union and ending free movement. Project fear hammered this home every day? The people considered, debated then reflected and went to the ballot box and voted to leave. The vote has been taken and it's done.
Second referendums are a travesty of the democratic process and so EU but...... let's play along with that just for now. Just say if Remain then did win. What then? No doubt remain would claim that the first referendum is null and void and only theirs now Carrys any democratic weight. A very very dangerous game to play and would certainly not only split the country but insert a chasm as wide as the Grand Canyon. It is also the common situation with the EU to make people vote and vote again and then again until finally they get the result they want , the right answer. Then when they finally do its absolutely binding and no further votes are necessary.
This is why people fail to support the EU and the imaginery democracy it purports to give yet does something entirely different behind close doors.
I salute your attitude sir, good for you. Other Remainers, I have a tiny suspicion, are now far keener on votes about the EU than I seem to recall was the case in the four previous decades and (this is shocking) possibly keener than had they won on June 23rd.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2jUYryRYII
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/38282791
We kicked Labour out in 1979 however we didn't learn and let them back in in 1997 to do the same thing over again.
Hopefully lesson finally learned as Scotland already has judging by their voting pattern in 2015
Bottas 5/2 bet still looking good.
Bottas remains firm favourite, it seems. If you believe Mercedes will have the dominant car next year (personally I think Red Bull may pip them) then 9 (each way) for Bottas to win the title is better than the 1.66 for him to join Hamilton, in value terms.
Not mentioned in the article, but one way to square the circle would be Bottas to Mercedes and Di Resta to Williams.
The rest is just about a fair assessment as many see it even if you and others perhaps do not view it that way for other reasons
Something still might, of course.
A more practical objection to rereferending is that bridges with the EU have probably already been burned beyond repair for the foreseeable future. Britain probably doesn't have the option of staying in, even if it changes its mind.
So when exactly did the people vote for a government supporting ratifying Lisbon?
However, if I'm wrong and Labour does properly collapse, it won't be solely down to the Tories. It'll take the extra pressure applied by the other parties to help deliver the coup de grace.
I can see no good reason why a successful democracy such as our own should be part of it.
It's not necessarily an answer to your question. It's just that I like mentioning it.
Grin
#BigBoyPants
@JonathanD
And yet the "political class" (for want of a better word) got well out of touch with the electorate on this issue. Despite the Govt, Lab,Lib, assorted Nats, Greens, Unions, the CBI et al the people still said no thanks. So our political system was failing on this issue. Of course had Blair/Brown not fled from the voters on Lisbon, so much could've been altered, but no, effectively they doubled down and let the pressure build. Fools.
1. Unpredictability and surprising results.
2. politicalbetting.com members collectively taking bookies and Betfair punters to the cleaners.
however, credit where credits due they did make a lovey job of the changed front page don't you think?
Contrariwise, Vote Leave, Michael Gove, and Casino_Royale of this parish did not deny it: in Vote Leave's case its website specifically pointed out that leaving sub-EU entities (like the EEA and the customs union) and ending free movement was its desired outcome.
Leave did not speak with a single voice.
(Richard, Casino, if I have misunderstood you, please point it out)
Development / investigations started in the early / mid 1960's and the first oil / oil rig was 1970/71
"The UK Continental Shelf Act came into force in May 1964. Seismic exploration and the first well followed later that year. It and a second well on the Mid North Sea High were dry, as the Rotliegendes was absent, but BP's Sea Gem rig struck gas in the West Sole Field in September 1965."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_oil
"BP's semi-submersible drilling rig Sea Quest hit crude at 11,000 feet in the upper tertiary sandstone. Four appraisal wells drilled during 1970-71 revealed a large reservoir at a depth of about 7,000 feet. So marked the first and largest major oil field discovery in the United Kingdom sector of the North Sea"
I know you lefties want to blame, smear and deride her on everything and anything you can but its just getting rather silly now bordering on pathetic
Richard of this parish is a fan of the EFTA and not the customs union.
Just try asking one with a headache to have sex at the same time.
But in the case of the referendum Parliament asked the voters what they wanted and we're told the answer. Those who don't vote don't get a say.
So let me just say that, judging from a forced viewing of Top Gear one Christmas, I judge J. Clarkson as a rich clever flabby protagonist of our strange and destructive car fixation, but he doesn't seem to want to run the country.
On the other hand, D. Trump (fill in the adjectives) does seem to want to run his country. Now, ummmm, as for J. Corbyn ...
My favourite part was when someone heckled him about the inconsistency of the Liberal Party and he said "the first vote I cast for Europe was in 1960. We had one Labour member, to his credit, in the lobby. The entire Tory Party against us and the Labour Party abstaining like sullen eunuchs!"
In some ways not much has changed.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/534505/UKCS_Tax_Table_July_2016.pdf
In fact I was once touted as a suitable prime minister. Many people signed a petition, thinking that I’d be good at the job because I’m down-to-earth and grounded and speak my mind. And because I’d seen the inside of police cells in both France and Greece for being drunk, which is fine. Because we’ve all done that.
Yes, and we’ve all broken the speed limit and played tonsil hockey with the wrong partner and smoked the wrong kind of leaf and nicked sweets and looked at pornography and fiddled our expenses.
This is what makes us normal. And it’s precisely because we are normal, we cannot be politicians.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news-review/we-must-be-mad-to-elect-someone-as-normal-as-us-cvwcwhsf9
So MPs are free to represent the views of those who were unable to vote, and should not be called TRAITORS if they choose to do so, right?
I wasn't around at the time to say, but used your spreadsheet on the night of the EU referendum, so thankyou very much, I owe you a good drink,
That is why pre Brexit the dollar was appreciating against all major currencies (including sterling) while post Brexit sterling fell against all major currencies (including the dollar).
As for sterling being overvalued it was. We had and still have a mammoth current account deficit which means long term barring other factors the currency needs to fall.
Historically there is a long term trend for sterling to fall against the dollar. One sterling could once have got five dollars, if sterling appreciated back to $5 now all other things being equal do you think it would be a good thing?
In this case Parliament decided the best way to represent the interests of the entire population was to ask a defined subgroup (commonly known as "the electorate") what they should do in respect of a specific matter. The electorate considered it and gave an answer, which Parliament is now duty bound to implement.
Oh, wait...
(*) Though far from all.
I assume MPs get the views of their constituents all the time
That's not how our representative democracy works...
Welcome back btw.
well, that's a new one.
The difference I think is though, that had we voted to Remain there would be no chance of Leavers refusing to allow us to be in the EU, as we were already in, and therefore no chance of anyone being able to claim Leavers were ignoring the result or the" will of the people".
So the likes of Farage saying he would keep on campaigning if Remain won, isn't the same as Remainers not letting us leave now, if you see what I mean. They aren't flip sides of the same coin
He looks two decades older than you.
And he slurs his words more after a few drinks. A problem that I suspect will worsen over the next couple of years.
Has Twitter gone down? Scottbot seems to be trying to form arguments again.
And when in 2030 we vote to rejoin the EU I look forward to having all these arguments all over again in reverse.