"its right that Parliament has a meaningful vote."
It's right that Parliament has a meaningful vote on what the nation has decided? Just to make sure they got it right?
Why not have the Old Parliament have a vote of the result of every General Election. Just to make sure they voters got it right?
The amendments are for two reasons ....
(1) To make them feel important (2) And more importantly, to delay, handicap and hopefully make the negotiations meaningless, so as to eventually be able to cancel the referendum result.
Can anyone honestly give me another reason?
Yes, because we are a Parliamentary democracy.
yes - and this parliament chose to refer to the people on this important constitutional matter and the people said leave and they said it with their eyes open, it is now for the executive to carry out the will of the people and not for parliament to block it
I must have had a different ballot paper to you. How the process would be handled was not on the one I used.
Exactly. The government itself tried the line that parliament had in effect delegated the matter to the people, but the authorising act didn't say that and the courts disagreed, which the government accepted. The legal process was barely mentioned and obviously not understood, that's why it took a court case to settle, it is absurd to suggest when I voted leave I also made a choice about the legal procedures. As it happens while I thought before the case that parliament should trigger, I also stated if it was found the government did have the power to do so, I could not very well object. Sadly, others do not accept the reverse,
Should parliament not trigger? I don't think that would be justifiable. But it is their role to scrutinise legislation. If the proposals from the lords are unreasonable, and I'm not convinced by them yet, it is incumbent on the government to overcome that, it is not the job of the legislature to stop its job to make things easier. It's not their job to block permanently, but we've not got to that point yet.
All this could have been avoided had the government the good sense to pursue an EEA/EFTA solution. Instead it followed the deranged views of the Tory Right and a bunch of non-voting semi-racist natives and decided to quit the single market. May could have carried 60% of the country with such a resolution.
An EEA/EFTA would have been the worst of all worlds, and May was quite right to not even think about it.
All this could have been avoided had the government the good sense to pursue an EEA/EFTA solution. Instead it followed the deranged views of the Tory Right and a bunch of non-voting semi-racist natives and decided to quit the single market. May could have carried 60% of the country with such a resolution.
Tory voters would have defected en masse to UKIP if no new immigration controls at all, plus May still likely to go for a job offer requirement
All this could have been avoided had the government the good sense to pursue an EEA/EFTA solution. Instead it followed the deranged views of the Tory Right and a bunch of non-voting semi-racist natives and decided to quit the single market. May could have carried 60% of the country with such a resolution.
You make a good point. The precedents for a small clique of marketing men (or propagandists as they were known) backed up by an egregious media leading the least educated and most ignorant has some pretty uncomfortable precedents.
The worst being Rwanda in the 90's or closer to home though longer ago Germany in the 30's.
Cameron should have done his history. He's got a lot to answer for.
Don't worry, when the leavers fire up the ovens you'll be first in line, not long to wait now.
Something to look forward to in these dark times, Roger.
All this could have been avoided had the government the good sense to pursue an EEA/EFTA solution. Instead it followed the deranged views of the Tory Right and a bunch of non-voting semi-racist natives and decided to quit the single market. May could have carried 60% of the country with such a resolution.
Tory voters would have defected en masse to UKIP if no new immigration controls at all, plus May still likely to go for a job offer requirement
Good riddance?
The Tory right plus UKIP are c.30% of the electorate. Under FPTP, that could be enough to win an election, in a four-way contest. So good riddance isn't an option.
"its right that Parliament has a meaningful vote."
It's right that Parliament has a meaningful vote on what the nation has decided? Just to make sure they got it right?
Why not have the Old Parliament have a vote of the result of every General Election. Just to make sure they voters got it right?
The amendments are for two reasons ....
(1) To make them feel important (2) And more importantly, to delay, handicap and hopefully make the negotiations meaningless, so as to eventually be able to cancel the referendum result.
Can anyone honestly give me another reason?
Yes, because we are a Parliamentary democracy.
yes - and this parliament chose to refer to the people on this important constitutional matter and the people said leave and they said it with their eyes open, it is now for the executive to carry out the will of the people and not for parliament to block it
I must have had a different ballot paper to you. How the process would be handled was not on the one I used.
Exactly. The government itself tried the line that parliament had in effect delegated the matter to the people, but the authorising act didn't say that and the courts disagreed, which the government accepted. The legal process was barely mentioned and obviously not understood, that's why it took a court case to settle, it is absurd to suggest when I voted leave I also made a choice about the legal procedures. As it happens while I thought before the case that parliament should trigger, I also stated if it was found the government did have the power to do so, I could not very well object. Sadly, others do not accept the reverse,
Should parliament not trigger? I don't think that would be justifiable. But it is their role to scrutinise legislation. If the proposals from the lords are unreasonable, and I'm not convinced by them yet, it is incumbent on the government to overcome that, it is not the job of the legislature to stop its job to make things easier. It's not their job to block permanently, but we've not got to that point yet.
It is also not their job to put the PM into a position where she cannot finalise a deal but is forbidden by law from not finalising a deal. That is exactly the position the 4th clause of the amendment puts her in.
All this could have been avoided had the government the good sense to pursue an EEA/EFTA solution. Instead it followed the deranged views of the Tory Right and a bunch of non-voting semi-racist natives and decided to quit the single market. May could have carried 60% of the country with such a resolution.
You make a good point. The precedents for a small clique of marketing men (or propagandists as they were known) backed up by an egregious media leading the least educated and most ignorant has some pretty uncomfortable precedents.
The worst being Rwanda in the 90's or closer to home though longer ago Germany in the 30's.
Cameron should have done his history. He's got a lot to answer for.
Don't worry, when the leavers fire up the ovens you'll be first in line, not long to wait now.
Something to look forward to in these dark times, Roger.
Even as a joke to a hysterical reaction, that's a bit much.
All this could have been avoided had the government the good sense to pursue an EEA/EFTA solution. Instead it followed the deranged views of the Tory Right and a bunch of non-voting semi-racist natives and decided to quit the single market. May could have carried 60% of the country with such a resolution.
You make a good point. The precedents for a small clique of marketing men (or propagandists as they were known) backed up by an egregious media leading the least educated and most ignorant has some pretty uncomfortable precedents.
The worst being Rwanda in the 90's or closer to home though longer ago Germany in the 30's.
Cameron should have done his history. He's got a lot to answer for.
Don't worry, when the leavers fire up the ovens you'll be first in line, not long to wait now.
Something to look forward to in these dark times, Roger.
All this could have been avoided had the government the good sense to pursue an EEA/EFTA solution. Instead it followed the deranged views of the Tory Right and a bunch of non-voting semi-racist natives and decided to quit the single market. May could have carried 60% of the country with such a resolution.
During the campaign it was said by both sides a vote to leave meant coming out of the single market.
Aha. So when do we get our £350m extra a week for the NHS?
That's likely to happen within a few years in any case with standard annual increases.
Just imagine how angry you will be when at the 2025 general election the Conservatives tell everyone "We have increased NHS spending by £350m per week because we have left the EU - if you vote Labour then we will rejoin the EU and they will cut the NHS by that £350m a week."
All this could have been avoided had the government the good sense to pursue an EEA/EFTA solution. Instead it followed the deranged views of the Tory Right and a bunch of non-voting semi-racist natives and decided to quit the single market. May could have carried 60% of the country with such a resolution.
You make a good point. The precedents for a small clique of marketing men (or propagandists as they were known) backed up by an egregious media leading the least educated and most ignorant has some pretty uncomfortable precedents.
The worst being Rwanda in the 90's or closer to home though longer ago Germany in the 30's.
Cameron should have done his history. He's got a lot to answer for.
Don't worry, when the leavers fire up the ovens you'll be first in line, not long to wait now.
Something to look forward to in these dark times, Roger.
Even as a joke to a hysterical reaction, that's a bit much.
All this could have been avoided had the government the good sense to pursue an EEA/EFTA solution. Instead it followed the deranged views of the Tory Right and a bunch of non-voting semi-racist natives and decided to quit the single market. May could have carried 60% of the country with such a resolution.
You make a good point. The precedents for a small clique of marketing men (or propagandists as they were known) backed up by an egregious media leading the least educated and most ignorant has some pretty uncomfortable precedents.
The worst being Rwanda in the 90's or closer to home though longer ago Germany in the 30's.
Cameron should have done his history. He's got a lot to answer for.
Don't worry, when the leavers fire up the ovens you'll be first in line, not long to wait now.
Something to look forward to in these dark times, Roger.
Good fucking lord.
(Genuinely) Comparing leavers to Nazis and genocidal Rwandans wasn't enough to get a reaction, but my joke was. Oh dear.
All this could have been avoided had the government the good sense to pursue an EEA/EFTA solution. Instead it followed the deranged views of the Tory Right and a bunch of non-voting semi-racist natives and decided to quit the single market. May could have carried 60% of the country with such a resolution.
You make a good point. The precedents for a small clique of marketing men (or propagandists as they were known) backed up by an egregious media leading the least educated and most ignorant has some pretty uncomfortable precedents.
The worst being Rwanda in the 90's or closer to home though longer ago Germany in the 30's.
Cameron should have done his history. He's got a lot to answer for.
Good to hear the views of someone who lives by choice in a country where les Le Pen are a serious political dynasty about the dangers of fascism. And by the way
All this could have been avoided had the government the good sense to pursue an EEA/EFTA solution. Instead it followed the deranged views of the Tory Right and a bunch of non-voting semi-racist natives and decided to quit the single market. May could have carried 60% of the country with such a resolution.
Tory voters would have defected en masse to UKIP if no new immigration controls at all, plus May still likely to go for a job offer requirement
Good riddance?
The Tory right plus UKIP are c.30% of the electorate. Under FPTP, that could be enough to win an election, in a four-way contest. So good riddance isn't an option.
With Corbyn as the opposition leader I doubt tories would defect in seats that matter. Shire seats may see large swings to UKIP, and you may even see UKIP taking seats from the tories, but it would have been more than offset by gains from Labour and a nullified LD threat (especially as she picks up centre ground with the EEA option).
F1: not paying maximum attention, but it does sound like Ferrari have an interesting front wing. If so, it's the sort of thing that's probably easy to copy. The Mercedes' T-wing is also interesting, not sure how easy it would be to imitate (some other cars also have it).
All this could have been avoided had the government the good sense to pursue an EEA/EFTA solution. Instead it followed the deranged views of the Tory Right and a bunch of non-voting semi-racist natives and decided to quit the single market. May could have carried 60% of the country with such a resolution.
You make a good point. The precedents for a small clique of marketing men (or propagandists as they were known) backed up by an egregious media leading the least educated and most ignorant has some pretty uncomfortable precedents.
The worst being Rwanda in the 90's or closer to home though longer ago Germany in the 30's.
Cameron should have done his history. He's got a lot to answer for.
Good to hear the views of someone who lives by choice in a country where les Le Pen are a serious political dynasty about the dangers of fascism. And by the way
You may say none of that has anything to do with you, but the correlation between touching pitch and being defiled is fairly strong.
Romeo Dallaire has written masterfully about the various actors in the Rwandan genocide including state actors, particularly the US, France and Belgium.
All this could have been avoided had the government the good sense to pursue an EEA/EFTA solution. Instead it followed the deranged views of the Tory Right and a bunch of non-voting semi-racist natives and decided to quit the single market. May could have carried 60% of the country with such a resolution.
You make a good point. The precedents for a small clique of marketing men (or propagandists as they were known) backed up by an egregious media leading the least educated and most ignorant has some pretty uncomfortable precedents.
The worst being Rwanda in the 90's or closer to home though longer ago Germany in the 30's.
Cameron should have done his history. He's got a lot to answer for.
Don't worry, when the leavers fire up the ovens you'll be first in line, not long to wait now.
Something to look forward to in these dark times, Roger.
Wrong on so many levels. But mostly because the Leavers want the Remainers to be around to see how wonderful, successful and tolerant a place the UK will be to live in.
And to watch them squirm as we play back their comments about "ovens".
All this could have been avoided had the government the good sense to pursue an EEA/EFTA solution. Instead it followed the deranged views of the Tory Right and a bunch of non-voting semi-racist natives and decided to quit the single market. May could have carried 60% of the country with such a resolution.
During the campaign it was said by both sides a vote to leave meant coming out of the single market.
Aha. So when do we get our £350m extra a week for the NHS?
That's likely to happen within a few years in any case with standard annual increases.
Just imagine how angry you will be when at the 2025 general election the Conservatives tell everyone "We have increased NHS spending by £350m per week because we have left the EU - if you vote Labour then we will rejoin the EU and they will cut the NHS by that £350m a week."
Nah - the £350 million was "extra" - ie, in addition to what would have ben spent anyway.
Heseltine: "sometimes there are issues which transcend party politics"
Indeed. How dare the little people be allowed to decide anything.
Theresa May is not a little person.
This is not a struggle between Parliament and the people. It's a struggle for control of the process between Parliament and the executive.
If, hypothetically, Theresa May performed a volte face after the Article 50 Bill is passed into law and favoured a soft EEA-style Brexit, wouldn't the headbanger Leavers be eager that Parliament should have the opportunity to reject that deal?
All this could have been avoided had the government the good sense to pursue an EEA/EFTA solution. Instead it followed the deranged views of the Tory Right and a bunch of non-voting semi-racist natives and decided to quit the single market. May could have carried 60% of the country with such a resolution.
You make a good point. The precedents for a small clique of marketing men (or propagandists as they were known) backed up by an egregious media leading the least educated and most ignorant has some pretty uncomfortable precedents.
The worst being Rwanda in the 90's or closer to home though longer ago Germany in the 30's.
Cameron should have done his history. He's got a lot to answer for.
Good to hear the views of someone who lives by choice in a country where les Le Pen are a serious political dynasty about the dangers of fascism. And by the way
French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron got the backing of Socialist former Paris mayor Bertrand Delanoe on Wednesday, in another boost for the centrist's campaign at the expense of the Socialist candidate, Benoit Hamon.
It is fascinating - 30% of 18-24 year olds, typically the most 'progressive' group, are planning to vote for MLP. And that's just the ones willing to admit it. I can imagine young mariners being the shyest of the lot.
And yet UKIP are a complete damp squib with the youth here. I think it must come down to the economic programme. the FN and UKIP are both similar on islam and the EU, but the FN also has a coherent anti-globalisation trumpian economic plan, whereas UKIP has nothing at all to say on economics.
It is fascinating - 30% of 18-24 year olds, typically the most 'progressive' group, are planning to vote for MLP. And that's just the ones willing to admit it. I can imagine young mariners being the shyest of the lot.
And yet UKIP are a complete damp squib with the youth here. I think it must come down to the economic programme. the FN and UKIP are both similar on islam and the EU, but the FN also has a coherent anti-globalisation trumpian economic plan, whereas UKIP has nothing at all to say on economics.
Subsamples? There could be a large margin of error on that figure.
All this could have been avoided had the government the good sense to pursue an EEA/EFTA solution. Instead it followed the deranged views of the Tory Right and a bunch of non-voting semi-racist natives and decided to quit the single market. May could have carried 60% of the country with such a resolution.
Tory voters would have defected en masse to UKIP if no new immigration controls at all, plus May still likely to go for a job offer requirement
Good riddance?
The Tory right plus UKIP are c.30% of the electorate. Under FPTP, that could be enough to win an election, in a four-way contest. So good riddance isn't an option.
With Corbyn as the opposition leader I doubt tories would defect in seats that matter. Shire seats may see large swings to UKIP, and you may even see UKIP taking seats from the tories, but it would have been more than offset by gains from Labour and a nullified LD threat (especially as she picks up centre ground with the EEA option).
Or it could have been a repeat of the 2014 Euro elections with UKIP first and the Tories third behind Labour
This is rather fun. Trump vs Hillary gender reversal experiment, look at the comments. There's a perfect one comparing the lady with a Jewish aunt who was right and annoying
All this could have been avoided had the government the good sense to pursue an EEA/EFTA solution. Instead it followed the deranged views of the Tory Right and a bunch of non-voting semi-racist natives and decided to quit the single market. May could have carried 60% of the country with such a resolution.
You make a good point. The precedents for a small clique of marketing men (or propagandists as they were known) backed up by an egregious media leading the least educated and most ignorant has some pretty uncomfortable precedents.
The worst being Rwanda in the 90's or closer to home though longer ago Germany in the 30's.
Cameron should have done his history. He's got a lot to answer for.
Don't worry, when the leavers fire up the ovens you'll be first in line, not long to wait now.
Something to look forward to in these dark times, Roger.
Even as a joke to a hysterical reaction, that's a bit much.
I thought it was funny. I think you'll find he was joking.
All this could have been avoided had the government the good sense to pursue an EEA/EFTA solution. Instead it followed the deranged views of the Tory Right and a bunch of non-voting semi-racist natives and decided to quit the single market. May could have carried 60% of the country with such a resolution.
You make a good point. The precedents for a small clique of marketing men (or propagandists as they were known) backed up by an egregious media leading the least educated and most ignorant has some pretty uncomfortable precedents.
The worst being Rwanda in the 90's or closer to home though longer ago Germany in the 30's.
Cameron should have done his history. He's got a lot to answer for.
Don't worry, when the leavers fire up the ovens you'll be first in line, not long to wait now.
Something to look forward to in these dark times, Roger.
Good fucking lord.
(Genuinely) Comparing leavers to Nazis and genocidal Rwandans wasn't enough to get a reaction, but my joke was. Oh dear.
Yeah Roger says a lot of offensive things and rarely gets called on it.
The Remainer fightback is pootling along. It presages some sort of a rupture. Their intent is not to give parliament control over the terms of Brexit but to frustrate it altogether. If the vote May promised is to be anything other than a 'take it or leave it' one then parliament might choose to opt for a rejection of the terms negotiated. And then we'll leave with no deal. If we are to get a good deal then the government has to be free to negotiate. ...and the House of Lords is going to kill itself if it's not careful...
I'd be happy with that if the government agreed to call a general election before any deal was signed. As for the House of Lords - no doubt it will be abolished and something that suits the executive will be put in its place.
All this could have been avoided had the government the good sense to pursue an EEA/EFTA solution. Instead it followed the deranged views of the Tory Right and a bunch of non-voting semi-racist natives and decided to quit the single market. May could have carried 60% of the country with such a resolution.
You make a good point. The precedents for a small clique of marketing men (or propagandists as they were known) backed up by an egregious media leading the least educated and most ignorant has some pretty uncomfortable precedents.
The worst being Rwanda in the 90's or closer to home though longer ago Germany in the 30's.
Cameron should have done his history. He's got a lot to answer for.
Don't worry, when the leavers fire up the ovens you'll be first in line, not long to wait now.
Something to look forward to in these dark times, Roger.
Good fucking lord.
(Genuinely) Comparing leavers to Nazis and genocidal Rwandans wasn't enough to get a reaction, but my joke was. Oh dear.
Yeah Roger says a lot of offensive things and rarely gets called on it.
Heseltine: "sometimes there are issues which transcend party politics"
Indeed. How dare the little people be allowed to decide anything.
Theresa May is not a little person.
This is not a struggle between Parliament and the people. It's a struggle for control of the process between Parliament and the executive.
If, hypothetically, Theresa May performed a volte face after the Article 50 Bill is passed into law and favoured a soft EEA-style Brexit, wouldn't the headbanger Leavers be eager that Parliament should have the opportunity to reject that deal?
Parliament is being offered a pig in a poke.
If TM does an EEA Brexit as the best next position, then that's the decision. The next UK government can then amend that if the country changes direction. That's what Brexit was about.
Unelected Lords deciding they want to hamstring this process, is no better than EU elites making decisions for us.
As you know, once A50 is passed, we have to trust the executive to get the best deal. Then it will either be approved or we fall out to WTO. That's the way that the treaty was written, one that the Lords were in favour of at the time, so they will have to live with the consequences now. Their amendments are at best pointless, and at worst damaging to get a good deal.
All this could have been avoided had the government the good sense to pursue an EEA/EFTA solution. Instead it followed the deranged views of the Tory Right and a bunch of non-voting semi-racist natives and decided to quit the single market. May could have carried 60% of the country with such a resolution.
You make a good point. The precedents for a small clique of marketing men (or propagandists as they were known) backed up by an egregious media leading the least educated and most ignorant has some pretty uncomfortable precedents.
The worst being Rwanda in the 90's or closer to home though longer ago Germany in the 30's.
Cameron should have done his history. He's got a lot to answer for.
Don't worry, when the leavers fire up the ovens you'll be first in line, not long to wait now.
Something to look forward to in these dark times, Roger.
Even as a joke to a hysterical reaction, that's a bit much.
I thought it was funny. I think you'll find he was joking.
Then why hold a referendum? And even more importantly, why vote overwhelmingly for it and agree to abide by the result? Or is lying an acceptable form of Parliamentary democracy?
Hmm ... I may have answered my own question with that last bit.
We had a referendum because David Cameron was scared of losing votes to UKIP. We are a Parliamentary democracy.
so that means you want to ignore the referendum result then. If the EU know that parliament can veto the final deal, then they will give us a shit deal knowing it will be rejected by parliament and thus keep us in the the EU against the wishes of the British people.
Nope - it means that I do not think the executive should sign, seal and deliver a treaty of such huge significance without it being put either to Parliament or to the electorate for approval.
Miss Plato, that gender-swapping video is pretty interesting. There was also a nice blog by Joe Abercrombie (fantasy author) some years ago now about swapping all the genders in Best Served Cold. The protagonist's sexual aggression (from what I remember) might have come across rather differently...
[I occasionally toy with doing either a gender swap for Sir Edric, or writing a short story about his paramour, Corkwell, just to see how it works].
"its right that Parliament has a meaningful vote."
It's right that Parliament has a meaningful vote on what the nation has decided? Just to make sure they got it right?
Why not have the Old Parliament have a vote of the result of every General Election. Just to make sure they voters got it right?
The amendments are for two reasons ....
(1) To make them feel important (2) And more importantly, to delay, handicap and hopefully make the negotiations meaningless, so as to eventually be able to cancel the referendum result.
Can anyone honestly give me another reason?
Yes, because we are a Parliamentary democracy.
yes - and this parliament chose to refer to the people on this important constitutional matter and the people said leave and they said it with their eyes open, it is now for the executive to carry out the will of the people and not for parliament to block it
I must have had a different ballot paper to you. How the process would be handled was not on the one I used.
the people didn't vote for the process to be blocked
The process is not being blocked, it is being defined.
This is rather fun. Trump vs Hillary gender reversal experiment, look at the comments. There's a perfect one comparing the lady with a Jewish aunt who was right and annoying
All this could have been avoided had the government the good sense to pursue an EEA/EFTA solution. Instead it followed the deranged views of the Tory Right and a bunch of non-voting semi-racist natives and decided to quit the single market. May could have carried 60% of the country with such a resolution.
You make a good point. The precedents for a small clique of marketing men (or propagandists as they were known) backed up by an egregious media leading the least educated and most ignorant has some pretty uncomfortable precedents.
The worst being Rwanda in the 90's or closer to home though longer ago Germany in the 30's.
Cameron should have done his history. He's got a lot to answer for.
Good to hear the views of someone who lives by choice in a country where les Le Pen are a serious political dynasty about the dangers of fascism. And by the way
You may say none of that has anything to do with you, but the correlation between touching pitch and being defiled is fairly strong.
(Aprpos of nothing) I read a very good post of yours yesterday which I'm looking for.....
I suspect you were a Remainer though I'm not sure you've ever said so on here?
I voted Remain, with considerable reluctance, and made the decision in the polling booth itself.
On the night before the vote I went to the theatre (Breakfast at Tiffany's with Pixie L:ott - don't bother). There were Remain campaigners out in the rain outside the theatre campaigning for Remain, and they were still there when I came out, and who knows? - that may have influenced my decision. So my question to moaning Remainers is, if you were so bloody certain of the right answer and it mattered so much to you, were you out in the rain that night, and if not why not?
"Based on the conversations after the performances, it sounded like audience members had their beliefs rattled in a similar way. What were some themes that emerged from their responses?
We heard a lot of “now I understand how this happened”—meaning how Trump won the election. People got upset. There was a guy two rows in front of me who was literally holding his head in his hands, and the person with him was rubbing his back. The simplicity of Trump’s message became easier for people to hear when it was coming from a woman—that was a theme. One person said, “I’m just so struck by how precise Trump’s technique is.” Another—a musical theater composer, actually—said that Trump created “hummable lyrics,” while Clinton talked a lot, and everything she was was true and factual, but there was no “hook” to it. Another theme was about not liking either candidate—you know, “I wouldn’t vote for either one.”
Someone said that Jonathan Gordon [the male Hillary Clinton] was “really punchable” because of all the smiling. And a lot of people were just very surprised by the way it upended their expectations about what they thought they would feel or experience. There was someone who described Brenda King [the female Donald Trump] as his Jewish aunt who would take care of him, even though he might not like his aunt. Someone else described her as the middle school principal who you don’t like, but you know is doing good things for you...
It is fascinating - 30% of 18-24 year olds, typically the most 'progressive' group, are planning to vote for MLP. And that's just the ones willing to admit it. I can imagine young mariners being the shyest of the lot.
And yet UKIP are a complete damp squib with the youth here. I think it must come down to the economic programme. the FN and UKIP are both similar on islam and the EU, but the FN also has a coherent anti-globalisation trumpian economic plan, whereas UKIP has nothing at all to say on economics.
I don't think that people are that sophisticated in how they view parties. My view is that the FN are successful because (a) the French economy has stagnated under the policies espoused by Left and Right, and (b) people are concerned about the erosion of French culture from large numbers of unintegrated immigrants (mostly of Muslim persuasion rather than Eastern Europeans).
In the UK, while there are concerns about the effect of immigration on the cost of living (particularly housing) and on the wages for the young, there are not high levels of youth unemployment. There is no call to overturn the economic order and replace it with something else, as there is in - for example - Greece.
If the UK enters recession in the next few years - which I think is not an unreasonable assumption given our levels of consumer debt - then we will see youth unemployment soar, and perhaps the youth will seek out different solutions. Whether it will be UKIP that benefits, or some other party, is another question altogether.
All this could have been avoided had the government the good sense to pursue an EEA/EFTA solution. Instead it followed the deranged views of the Tory Right and a bunch of non-voting semi-racist natives and decided to quit the single market. May could have carried 60% of the country with such a resolution.
You make a good point. The precedents for a small clique of marketing men (or propagandists as they were known) backed up by an egregious media leading the least educated and most ignorant has some pretty uncomfortable precedents.
The worst being Rwanda in the 90's or closer to home though longer ago Germany in the 30's.
Cameron should have done his history. He's got a lot to answer for.
Don't worry, when the leavers fire up the ovens you'll be first in line, not long to wait now.
Something to look forward to in these dark times, Roger.
Good fucking lord.
(Genuinely) Comparing leavers to Nazis and genocidal Rwandans wasn't enough to get a reaction, but my joke was. Oh dear.
It got a chuckle from me. Well, an internal one as I'm at work and probably should be, er, working.
Heseltine: "sometimes there are issues which transcend party politics"
Indeed. How dare the little people be allowed to decide anything.
Theresa May is not a little person.
This is not a struggle between Parliament and the people. It's a struggle for control of the process between Parliament and the executive.
If, hypothetically, Theresa May performed a volte face after the Article 50 Bill is passed into law and favoured a soft EEA-style Brexit, wouldn't the headbanger Leavers be eager that Parliament should have the opportunity to reject that deal?
Parliament is being offered a pig in a poke.
Parliament should absolutely have a vote on the final deal. But if they are not happy with it and want to reject it then the consequence should be that we leave without a deal. Clause 4 of the amendment prevents that and would force us to remain in the EU counter to the wish expressed by the referendum..
This is rather fun. Trump vs Hillary gender reversal experiment, look at the comments. There's a perfect one comparing the lady with a Jewish aunt who was right and annoying
It is fascinating - 30% of 18-24 year olds, typically the most 'progressive' group, are planning to vote for MLP. And that's just the ones willing to admit it. I can imagine young mariners being the shyest of the lot.
And yet UKIP are a complete damp squib with the youth here. I think it must come down to the economic programme. the FN and UKIP are both similar on islam and the EU, but the FN also has a coherent anti-globalisation trumpian economic plan, whereas UKIP has nothing at all to say on economics.
If the UK enters recession in the next few years - which I think is not an unreasonable assumption given our levels of consumer debt - then we will see youth unemployment soar, and perhaps the youth will seek out different solutions. Whether it will be UKIP that benefits, or some other party, is another question altogether.
If its still around - it could by Corbyn's Labour.....
Miss Plato, that gender-swapping video is pretty interesting. There was also a nice blog by Joe Abercrombie (fantasy author) some years ago now about swapping all the genders in Best Served Cold. The protagonist's sexual aggression (from what I remember) might have come across rather differently...
[I occasionally toy with doing either a gender swap for Sir Edric, or writing a short story about his paramour, Corkwell, just to see how it works].
On a similar theme and going back decades I remember 'Who dares wins' transporting an 'Allo Allo' sketch to a NI pub during the troubles. It was really thought provoking to watch.
Miss Plato, that gender-swapping video is pretty interesting. There was also a nice blog by Joe Abercrombie (fantasy author) some years ago now about swapping all the genders in Best Served Cold. The protagonist's sexual aggression (from what I remember) might have come across rather differently...
[I occasionally toy with doing either a gender swap for Sir Edric, or writing a short story about his paramour, Corkwell, just to see how it works].
The main protagonist of that story is downright evil. Yet, I loved the story.
Caption of picture: "England Netball's board is 90% women"
"Under a new code that comes into effect on 1 April, organisations must have a minimum of 30% women on their board, or risk losing funding."
*cough*
Edited extra bit: worth noting it emerged a few weeks ago that 'male' sports were having their funding slashed but netball (female-dominated, of course) was having millions thrown at it.
Why? Because cycling was successful getting people into it, but most cyclists are men.
Mr. F, I must admit, Best Served Cold is probably my least favourite Abercrombie book (not read the YA stuff).
But I'm clearly in a minority. Most people seem to have it as their favourite, or close to it. I still enjoyed it, just not as much as his other books.
Miss Plato, that gender-swapping video is pretty interesting. There was also a nice blog by Joe Abercrombie (fantasy author) some years ago now about swapping all the genders in Best Served Cold. The protagonist's sexual aggression (from what I remember) might have come across rather differently...
[I occasionally toy with doing either a gender swap for Sir Edric, or writing a short story about his paramour, Corkwell, just to see how it works].
On a similar theme and going back decades I remember 'Who dares wins' transporting an 'Allo Allo' sketch to a NI pub during the troubles. It was really thought provoking to watch.
If you can find the youtube for that, I'd be grateful. Very grateful.
Caption of picture: "England Netball's board is 90% women"
"Under a new code that comes into effect on 1 April, organisations must have a minimum of 30% women on their board, or risk losing funding."
*cough*
Edited extra bit: worth noting it emerged a few weeks ago that 'male' sports were having their funding slashed but netball (female-dominated, of course) was having millions thrown at it.
Why? Because cycling was successful getting people into it, but most cyclists are men.
They should strive to be representative of the gender balance of the participants of each sport, rather than some arbitrary quota.
Unfortunately the article doesn't state if previous PMs managed to meet everyone in No 10 during their first six months, so not really sure what to make of that.
Miss Plato, that gender-swapping video is pretty interesting. There was also a nice blog by Joe Abercrombie (fantasy author) some years ago now about swapping all the genders in Best Served Cold. The protagonist's sexual aggression (from what I remember) might have come across rather differently...
[I occasionally toy with doing either a gender swap for Sir Edric, or writing a short story about his paramour, Corkwell, just to see how it works].
On a similar theme and going back decades I remember 'Who dares wins' transporting an 'Allo Allo' sketch to a NI pub during the troubles. It was really thought provoking to watch.
If you can find the youtube for that, I'd be grateful. Very grateful.
I'm off out, but I'll look out for it tonight or tomorrow.
Mr. Eagles, if it turns out alright you'll credit Cameron for offering the referendum.
Edited extra bit: I maintain my long-held view the EU's ideological edifice will crumble and collapse within my lifetime. It's better to be outside a building that's about to fall down. We'll likely see civil disturbance, and perhaps a small war. The longer the EU staggers on, constantly wrapping its tentacles around the throat of national democracies and swallowing down independent bodies like EURatom, the bigger the fallout when it comes crashing down.
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
Brexit will only be a 'disaster' if the EU goes out of their way to cause harm to us, in effect declare war on us for leaving.
IF that happens (possible, but hopefully not), then it will be a necessary step to get away from such an appalling organisation. In the end, we will be better off than if we'd chosen to surrender today.
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
The very 'worst' Brexit deal is no deal. Which is better than a bad deal. So I'm not really seeing a 'disaster' at all. Remaining on the other hand would have meant we're irrevocably chained in to the EU, an emerging superstate (of super fragility and internal contradictions), and would essentially lose our democracy. You can't vote for a change of EU government ot change of policy. Remain means the effective death of the UK as a nation state. Now that would be a disaster in my books. As I've said ad nauseam - Remainers never ever talk about and never seem to care about democracy. Just money.
Mr. Eagles, if it turns out alright you'll credit Cameron for offering the referendum.
Edited extra bit: I maintain my long-held view the EU's ideological edifice will crumble and collapse within my lifetime. It's better to be outside a building that's about to fall down. We'll likely see civil disturbance, and perhaps a small war. The longer the EU staggers on, constantly wrapping its tentacles around the throat of national democracies and swallowing down independent bodies like EURatom, the bigger the fallout when it comes crashing down.
The administrative merger with Euratom happened in the 60s, well before we even joined.
Remain means the effective death of the UK as a nation state. Now that would be a disaster in my books.
So in a choice between the 'effective' death of the UK as a nation state, and the literal death of the UK as a nation state, your bloody-mindedness forces you to vote to make the latter inevitable.
The promise was to spend our gross contribution to the EU on the NHS. As you know full well.
Not in the Leave "manifesto"
[cue @Scott_P posting irrelevant tweet from Michael Deacon as if he thinks that it is a compelling argument[
Remainers are keen to remember one poster from early in the campaign, but not the £100m/week clearly suggested later on. During the campaign, they seamlessly switched from 'You have no plan!' to 'How dare you suggest post-Brexit policies?!', reminiscent of the speaker in Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
The very 'worst' Brexit deal is no deal. Which is better than a bad deal. So I'm not really seeing a 'disaster' at all. Remaining on the other hand would have meant we're irrevocably chained in to the EU, an emerging superstate (of super fragility and internal contradictions), and would essentially lose our democracy. You can't vote for a change of EU government ot change of policy. Remain means the effective death of the UK as a nation state. Now that would be a disaster in my books. As I've said ad nauseam - Remainers never ever talk about and never seem to care about democracy. Just money.
Democracy is a means through which to deliver the best possible outcomes for the largest number of people. That inevitably involves money. The idea that 23rd June 2016 was the last chance we would ever have had to consider our membership of the EU is risible.
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
Brexit will only be a 'disaster' if the EU goes out of their way to cause harm to us, in effect declare war on us for leaving.
IF that happens (possible, but hopefully not), then it will be a necessary step to get away from such an appalling organisation. In the end, we will be better off than if we'd chosen to surrender today.
But you Leavers said that wouldn't happen. That the likes of BMW and Mercedes-Benz would force the EU to give us a good deal.
I did point out the silliness of the Leave position.
Comments
Should parliament not trigger? I don't think that would be justifiable. But it is their role to scrutinise legislation. If the proposals from the lords are unreasonable, and I'm not convinced by them yet, it is incumbent on the government to overcome that, it is not the job of the legislature to stop its job to make things easier. It's not their job to block permanently, but we've not got to that point yet.
The promise was to spend our gross contribution to the EU on the NHS. As you know full well.
Something to look forward to in these dark times, Roger.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/839397452436250624
Just imagine how angry you will be when at the 2025 general election the Conservatives tell everyone "We have increased NHS spending by £350m per week because we have left the EU - if you vote Labour then we will rejoin the EU and they will cut the NHS by that £350m a week."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_France_in_the_Rwandan_Genocide
You may say none of that has anything to do with you, but the correlation between touching pitch and being defiled is fairly strong.
....
But not in the short term. Common enemy.
Heseltine: "sometimes there are issues which transcend party politics"
Indeed. How dare the little people be allowed to decide anything.
And to watch them squirm as we play back their comments about "ovens".
This is not a struggle between Parliament and the people. It's a struggle for control of the process between Parliament and the executive.
If, hypothetically, Theresa May performed a volte face after the Article 50 Bill is passed into law and favoured a soft EEA-style Brexit, wouldn't the headbanger Leavers be eager that Parliament should have the opportunity to reject that deal?
Parliament is being offered a pig in a poke.
I suspect you were a Remainer though I'm not sure you've ever said so on here?
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-election-idUSKBN16F0RX
Though there would be an irony of the supporters of EverCloserUnion describing themselves as 'Moderates'.
PB is a political (betting) site. Of course there are going to be interesting debates about...politics.
And yet UKIP are a complete damp squib with the youth here. I think it must come down to the economic programme. the FN and UKIP are both similar on islam and the EU, but the FN also has a coherent anti-globalisation trumpian economic plan, whereas UKIP has nothing at all to say on economics.
NYU gender-swaps Trump/Clinton debates. Audience surprised at T's likeability. “Now I understand how this happened.” https://t.co/9JVtVoEcqV https://t.co/taLoweAoyN
More
https://youtu.be/9yC7-JsR2Fk
If TM does an EEA Brexit as the best next position, then that's the decision. The next UK government can then amend that if the country changes direction. That's what Brexit was about.
Unelected Lords deciding they want to hamstring this process, is no better than EU elites making decisions for us.
As you know, once A50 is passed, we have to trust the executive to get the best deal. Then it will either be approved or we fall out to WTO. That's the way that the treaty was written, one that the Lords were in favour of at the time, so they will have to live with the consequences now. Their amendments are at best pointless, and at worst damaging to get a good deal.
[I occasionally toy with doing either a gender swap for Sir Edric, or writing a short story about his paramour, Corkwell, just to see how it works].
the people didn't vote for the process to be blocked
The process is not being blocked, it is being defined.
Isn't giving Parliament a genuine say meant to be "taking back control?"
On the night before the vote I went to the theatre (Breakfast at Tiffany's with Pixie L:ott - don't bother). There were Remain campaigners out in the rain outside the theatre campaigning for Remain, and they were still there when I came out, and who knows? - that may have influenced my decision. So my question to moaning Remainers is, if you were so bloody certain of the right answer and it mattered so much to you, were you out in the rain that night, and if not why not?
"Based on the conversations after the performances, it sounded like audience members had their beliefs rattled in a similar way. What were some themes that emerged from their responses?
We heard a lot of “now I understand how this happened”—meaning how Trump won the election. People got upset. There was a guy two rows in front of me who was literally holding his head in his hands, and the person with him was rubbing his back. The simplicity of Trump’s message became easier for people to hear when it was coming from a woman—that was a theme. One person said, “I’m just so struck by how precise Trump’s technique is.” Another—a musical theater composer, actually—said that Trump created “hummable lyrics,” while Clinton talked a lot, and everything she was was true and factual, but there was no “hook” to it. Another theme was about not liking either candidate—you know, “I wouldn’t vote for either one.”
Someone said that Jonathan Gordon [the male Hillary Clinton] was “really punchable” because of all the smiling. And a lot of people were just very surprised by the way it upended their expectations about what they thought they would feel or experience. There was someone who described Brenda King [the female Donald Trump] as his Jewish aunt who would take care of him, even though he might not like his aunt. Someone else described her as the middle school principal who you don’t like, but you know is doing good things for you...
In the UK, while there are concerns about the effect of immigration on the cost of living (particularly housing) and on the wages for the young, there are not high levels of youth unemployment. There is no call to overturn the economic order and replace it with something else, as there is in - for example - Greece.
If the UK enters recession in the next few years - which I think is not an unreasonable assumption given our levels of consumer debt - then we will see youth unemployment soar, and perhaps the youth will seek out different solutions. Whether it will be UKIP that benefits, or some other party, is another question altogether.
Steady as you go Phil m'lad, steady as you go.
That said, I'm braced for dividend tax rates to rise. Perhaps sweetened by a higher starting threshold?
https://twitter.com/stuartwilksheeg/status/839409088874364932
Stuff like that can be a very interesting way of making someone really think about their position, or opening up new perspectives.
It also chimes a bit with this article, and the comments below, on 'women in sport':
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/39186461
Caption of picture: "England Netball's board is 90% women"
"Under a new code that comes into effect on 1 April, organisations must have a minimum of 30% women on their board, or risk losing funding."
*cough*
Edited extra bit: worth noting it emerged a few weeks ago that 'male' sports were having their funding slashed but netball (female-dominated, of course) was having millions thrown at it.
Why? Because cycling was successful getting people into it, but most cyclists are men.
But I'm clearly in a minority. Most people seem to have it as their favourite, or close to it. I still enjoyed it, just not as much as his other books.
https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/839406769910743041
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/839388959721521152
https://www.channel4.com/news/by/gary-gibbon/blogs/theresa-may-not-see-you-now?utm_source=dlvr.it
"Gordon Brown has taken Labour to the edge of extinction"
Quite funny to read in hindsight after Copeland etc
[cue @Scott_P posting irrelevant tweet from Michael Deacon as if he thinks that it is a compelling argument[
https://order-order.com/2017/03/08/tory-whip-withdrawal-rumours-played-down/
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
Edited extra bit: I maintain my long-held view the EU's ideological edifice will crumble and collapse within my lifetime. It's better to be outside a building that's about to fall down. We'll likely see civil disturbance, and perhaps a small war. The longer the EU staggers on, constantly wrapping its tentacles around the throat of national democracies and swallowing down independent bodies like EURatom, the bigger the fallout when it comes crashing down.
Brexit will only be a 'disaster' if the EU goes out of their way to cause harm to us, in effect declare war on us for leaving.
IF that happens (possible, but hopefully not), then it will be a necessary step to get away from such an appalling organisation. In the end, we will be better off than if we'd chosen to surrender today.
Remaining on the other hand would have meant we're irrevocably chained in to the EU, an emerging superstate (of super fragility and internal contradictions), and would essentially lose our democracy. You can't vote for a change of EU government ot change of policy. Remain means the effective death of the UK as a nation state. Now that would be a disaster in my books.
As I've said ad nauseam - Remainers never ever talk about and never seem to care about democracy. Just money.
[I really must get some work done now].
I did point out the silliness of the Leave position.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/04/19/vote-leave-sets-out-its-objective-tse-gives-his-robust-interpretation/
Some of you Leavers need to sack up and stop blaming the problems of this country on Jonny Foreigner.