So the Conservative party lead the country to the break up of the UK and a disastrous hard Brexit. And it's the Labour Party who can't be trusted with government? If it wasn't so tragic it would be funny. See the end the Planet of the Apes? That's you that is. You maniacs.
How much of what happened these last seven years is a direct or indirect consequence of the financial crash, Labour's overspending beforehand an the legitimisation of the belief that the lifestyle that people were consuming before then was one that they were entitled to expect?
What has happened is a consequence of how those in government responded to the crash. There were choices. Certain ones were made.
That's true but the greater truth, which is still not fully accepted, is that the country was living miles beyond its means. That was always going to mean that there would be losers from the fiscal consolidation, which itself would bring anger and blame. That's not to say that the source of all anger and blame in the current system is the result of the Crash and austerity - it isn't - but a lot does lead back there.
And yet it is the Conservative Party that have impoverished the country with Brexit and in all likelihood led to its break-up. Well done.
It happened on the Conservatives' watch, yes, though Leave and Remain were both cross-party platforms and Corbyn was, for one, notable by his absence.
However the notion that anti-EU sentiment would simply have dissipated had not the government called a referendum, or had another government been elected, is for the birds. The issue would at some point have come to a head unless the EU had chosen to either accommodate Britain in the kind of EU it wanted - a free trade / single market area - or if it had fundamentally reformed its federalising and had developed far greater levels of democracy and accountability.
Sorry but I don't buy that argument. There're was no national craving for Brexit. It was an ill-considered ruse from Cameron to placate the Conservative Party that backfired spectacularly.
Apparently 70% of people who say they are 'English' rather than 'British' would have voted 'Leave'... that's over 10m, so seems I was right all along @SouthamObserver, most Leavers see themselves as English not British, even when you include the Welsh, Scots and NI Leavers
Although to be fair even they would prefer the Scots to stay in the UK
Islam I see myself as Yorkshire first then English.Never really got this British concept.Was good to see the English flag again at international sporting events .Euro 96 was fantastic for that.Shame we do not have a national anthem though.God Save the queen is a damp squib of a song to rouse the crowd.
Britain as a conceptual polity actually predates both England and Scotland.
The concept is that if you live on this damp foggy island, obstinately blocking the Atlantic from the North Sea, you have quite a lot in common with your fellow Britons climatically, geographically, culturally and even politically.
Any rational discourse would end up with a form of political association/union for the peoples of these islands, particularly in the 21st Century.
The question is: what form?
And any rational discourse would not ignore the existence of an established framework for modern European states - the European Union - which is already well established across these islands.
William: I like you, but you are utterly obsessed with the European Union and come across as living on a different planet when commenting on it.
A different planet that would no doubt currently be in accession talks to join.
So the Conservative party lead the country to the break up of the UK and a disastrous hard Brexit. And it's the Labour Party who can't be trusted with government? If it wasn't so tragic it would be funny. See the end the Planet of the Apes? That's you that is. You maniacs.
How much of what happened these last seven years is a direct or indirect consequence of the financial crash, Labour's overspending beforehand an the legitimisation of the belief that the lifestyle that people were consuming before then was one that they were entitled to expect?
What has happened is a consequence of how those in government responded to the crash. There were choices. Certain ones were made.
That's true but the greater truth, which is still not fully accepted, is that the country was living miles beyond its means. That was always going to mean that there would be losers from the fiscal consolidation, which itself would bring anger and blame. That's not to say that the source of all anger and blame in the current system is the result of the Crash and austerity - it isn't - but a lot does lead back there.
And yet it is the Conservative Party that have impoverished the country with Brexit and in all likelihood led to its break-up. Well done.
It happened on the Conservatives' watch, yes, though Leave and Remain were both cross-party platforms and Corbyn was, for one, notable by his absence.
However the notion that anti-EU sentiment would simply have dissipated had not the government called a referendum, or had another government been elected, is for the birds. The issue would at some point have come to a head unless the EU had chosen to either accommodate Britain in the kind of EU it wanted - a free trade / single market area - or if it had fundamentally reformed its federalising and had developed far greater levels of democracy and accountability.
Sorry but I don't buy that argument. There're was no national craving for Brexit. It was an ill-considered ruse from Cameron to placate the Conservative Party that backfired spectacularly.
It was craved by about 30% of the electorate.
That's why we had the vote.
30% of the electorate crave all sorts of things. Doesn't mean we have a referendum. Europe was and is a Tory obsession. That's why we had the vote.
So the Conservative party lead the country to the break up of the UK and a disastrous hard Brexit. And it's the Labour Party who can't be trusted with government? If it wasn't so tragic it would be funny. See the end the Planet of the Apes? That's you that is. You maniacs.
How much of what happened these last seven years is a direct or indirect consequence of the financial crash, Labour's overspending beforehand an the legitimisation of the belief that the lifestyle that people were consuming before then was one that they were entitled to expect?
What has happened is a consequence of how those in government responded to the crash. There were choices. Certain ones were made.
That's true but the greater truth, which is still not fully accepted, is that the country was living miles beyond its means. That was always going to mean that there would be losers from the fiscal consolidation, which itself would bring anger and blame. That's not to say that the source of all anger and blame in the current system is the result of the Crash and austerity - it isn't - but a lot does lead back there.
And yet it is the Conservative Party that have impoverished the country with Brexit and in all likelihood led to its break-up. Well done.
It happened on the Conservatives' watch, yes, though Leave and Remain were both cross-party platforms and Corbyn was, for one, notable by his absence.
However the notion that anti-EU sentiment would simply have dissipated had not the government called a referendum, or had another government been elected, is for the birds. The issue would at some point have come to a head unless the EU had chosen to either accommodate Britain in the kind of EU it wanted - a free trade / single market area - or if it had fundamentally reformed its federalising and had developed far greater levels of democracy and accountability.
Sorry but I don't buy that argument. There're was no national craving for Brexit. It was an ill-considered ruse from Cameron to placate the Conservative Party that backfired spectacularly.
It was craved by about 30% of the electorate.
That's why we had the vote.
Hardly we had the vote and you know it for conservative party interests not the countries.
Slightly different angle for McPBers to perhaps advise upon.
To what extent have the SNP changed the education syllabus in Scotland to pro-independence (or pro-Scots rather than pro-Brit). They have been in charge for a while now so I presume they did their homework, so to speak, but have no knowledge of this area whatsoever.
I'm not an expert but I'm pretty sure that there are strong rules about pushing political lines in the classroom (as opposed to discussing current affairs), and you can be sure the Tele/Mail/Express and their finger puppets would be shrieking loudly if that wasn't the case. There's certainly more of an emphasis on Scottish (as opposed to British) history & literature, whether that encourages indy, who knows?
Yes, that's what I was driving at.
Thanks.
There's actually quite a decent series on BBC Scotland called Growing Up In Scotland, first episode is on education. May be a bit niche you're not Scottish, but hey ho! My school even appears briefly.
Great story on the front page of the Dundee Courier today. The High School in John Swinney's (the Scottish Education Minister) constituency, Blairgowrie High, is so short of teachers that they have written to the parents of the pupils asking if anyone with a maths or science degree can come in and help as the kids approach their exams.
Having referendums is so much more fun than trying to run the country. The day job is hard.
Are there Leavers out there who a) support leaving the EU but b) oppose Scotland being given the option to leave the UK?
If so, can they please explain their reasoning.
They had the option. They voted to stay.
Until Brexit completely changed the constitution of the UK. Another referendum in such circumstances was within the SNP manifesto – so they are simply keeping a (perfectly reasonable) manifesto pledge by calling for one...
This is nonsense though. The UK constitution has nothing to do with the EU. It dates back hundreds of years, and even the devolution/peace settlements of the Blair Government post 1997 had very little to do with the EU, even if they did reference them.
It is a sign of how dominant the EU has become in setting the political agenda on the continent of Europe, however, and may be a sign of how fundamentally fragile the UK political union has become in recent years in commanding political allegiance over a looser internationalism that some find more modern and attractive.
As long as we remain a member, the EU treaties ARE our constitution.
How much of what happened these last seven years is a direct or indirect consequence of the financial crash, Labour's overspending beforehand an the legitimisation of the belief that the lifestyle that people were consuming before then was one that they were entitled to expect?
What has happened is a consequence of how those in government responded to the crash. There were choices. Certain ones were made.
That's true but the greater truth, which is still not fully accepted, is that the country was living miles beyond its means. That was always going to mean that there would be losers from the fiscal consolidation, which itself would bring anger and blame. That's not to say that the source of all anger and blame in the current system is the result of the Crash and austerity - it isn't - but a lot does lead back there.
And yet it is the Conservative Party that have impoverished the country with Brexit and in all likelihood led to its break-up. Well done.
It happened on the Conservatives' watch, yes, though Leave and Remain were both cross-party platforms and Corbyn was, for one, notable by his absence.
However the notion that anti-EU sentiment would simply have dissipated had not the government called a referendum, or had another government been elected, is for the birds. The issue would at some point have come to a head unless the EU had chosen to either accommodate Britain in the kind of EU it wanted - a free trade / single market area - or if it had fundamentally reformed its federalising and had developed far greater levels of democracy and accountability.
Sorry but I don't buy that argument. There was no national craving for Brexit. It was an ill-considered ruse from Cameron to placate the Conservative Party that backfired spectacularly.
More than 17m people voted for it. That *quite* a big craving.
UKIP *won* the 2014 Euro-election, becoming the first party to beat Lab and Con in a national election since before WWI. That suggests a degree of Euroscepticism.
UKIP has polled in the mid- to high-teens from the middle of the last parliament, despite the voting system. Again, not wholly consistent with a country at ease with EU membership.
And finally, while it wasn't his intention, Brexit has united the Tories, divided Labour, driven the Lib Dems up a cul-de-sac and deprived UKIP of its purpose. It might also remove 50+ hostile MPs from parliament. in purely partisan terms, if that's a backfire, goodness knows what a positive outcome would look like.
So the Conservative party lead the country to the break up of the UK and a disastrous hard Brexit. And it's the Labour Party who can't be trusted with government? If it wasn't so tragic it would be funny. See the end the Planet of the Apes? That's you that is. You maniacs.
How much of what happened these last seven years is a direct or indirect consequence of the financial crash, Labour's overspending beforehand an the legitimisation of the belief that the lifestyle that people were consuming before then was one that they were entitled to expect?
What has happened is a consequence of how those in government responded to the crash. There were choices. Certain ones were made.
That's true but the greater truth, which is still not fully accepted, is that the country was living miles beyond its means. That was always going to mean that there would be losers from the fiscal consolidation, which itself would bring anger and blame. That's not to say that the source of all anger and blame in the current system is the result of the Crash and austerity - it isn't - but a lot does lead back there.
And yet it is the Conservative Party that have impoverished the country with Brexit and in all likelihood led to its break-up. Well done.
It happened on the Conservatives' watch, yes, though Leave and Remain were both cross-party platforms and Corbyn was, for one, notable by his absence.
However the notion that anti-EU sentiment would simply have dissipated had not the government called a referendum, or had another government been elected, is for the birds. The issue would at some point have come to a head unless the EU had chosen to either accommodate Britain in the kind of EU it wanted - a free trade / single market area - or if it had fundamentally reformed its federalising and had developed far greater levels of democracy and accountability.
Sorry but I don't buy that argument. There're was no national craving for Brexit. It was an ill-considered ruse from Cameron to placate the Conservative Party that backfired spectacularly.
It was craved by about 30% of the electorate.
That's why we had the vote.
Hardly we had the vote and you know it for conservative party interests not the countries.
I understand you disagree with both the vote and the result, but the fact is there was a strong political demand for it within the country.
So the Conservative party lead the country to the break up of the UK and a disastrous hard Brexit. And it's the Labour Party who can't be trusted with government? If it wasn't so tragic it would be funny. See the end the Planet of the Apes? That's you that is. You maniacs.
How much of what happened these last seven years is a direct or indirect consequence of the financial crash, Labour's overspending beforehand an the legitimisation of the belief that the lifestyle that people were consuming before then was one that they were entitled to expect?
What has happened is a consequence of how those in government responded to the crash. There were choices. Certain ones were made.
That's true but the greater truth, which is still not fully accepted, is that the country was living miles beyond its means. That was always going to mean that there would be losers from the fiscal consolidation, which itself would bring anger and blame. That's not to say that the source of all anger and blame in the current system is the result of the Crash and austerity - it isn't - but a lot does lead back there.
And yet it is the Conservative Party that have impoverished the country with Brexit and in all likelihood led to its break-up. Well done.
It happened on the Conservatives' watch, yes, though Leave and Remain were both cross-party platforms and Corbyn was, for one, notable by his absence.
However the notion that anti-EU sentiment would simply have dissipated had not the government called a referendum, or had another government been elected, is for the birds. The issue would at some point have come to a head unless the EU had chosen to either accommodate Britain in the kind of EU it wanted - a free trade / single market area - or if it had fundamentally reformed its federalising and had developed far greater levels of democracy and accountability.
Sorry but I don't buy that argument. There're was no national craving for Brexit. It was an ill-considered ruse from Cameron to placate the Conservative Party that backfired spectacularly.
It was craved by about 30% of the electorate.
That's why we had the vote.
30% of the electorate crave all sorts of things. Doesn't mean we have a referendum. Europe was and is a Tory obsession. That's why we had the vote.
And it wouldn't have been won (or got anywhere close) without an awful lot of non-Tories voting for it.
Great story on the front page of the Dundee Courier today. The High School in John Swinney's (the Scottish Education Minister) constituency, Blairgowrie High, is so short of teachers that they have written to the parents of the pupils asking if anyone with a maths or science degree can come in and help as the kids approach their exams.
Having referendums is so much more fun than trying to run the country. The day job is hard.
Done well referendums ensure that people don't notice how badly you are doing the day job...
Let's not overestimate the impact of Scottish independence on the world stage. In most foreign languages Britain = England. This was also the case when all of Ireland was part of the UK.
In GDP terms, Scottish independence is equivalent to foregoing 3-4 years of average growth. Hardly the end of the world!
More than 17m people voted for it. That *quite* a big craving.
No, that's how many people turned out when forced to make a binary choice after a woeful campaign. The number who actually craved this was far far smaller.
Good News for SNPers. It normally takes about 21 years or so for Enoch's forecasts to be proved
June 1995 "After Major's challenger, John Redwood, was defeated, Powell wrote to him, "Dear Redwood, you will never regret the events of the last week or two. Patience will evidently have to be exercised—and patience is the greatest of the political virtues—by those of us who want to keep Britain independent and self-governed"
May 1997 "When Labour won the 1997 general election, Powell told his wife, Pamela Wilson, "They have voted to break up the United Kingdom." "
More than 17m people voted for it. That *quite* a big craving.
No, that's how many people turned out when forced to make a binary choice after a woeful campaign. The number who actually craved this was far far smaller.
That argument would work if people were legally required to vote. As people are not legally required to vote and a lot of people who voted leave in the referendum seemingly don't otherwise vote its possible those voters craved a change....
Let her have the referendum on her terms and let's watch her lose. Hopefully the SNP will disband afterwards. Her UK vs EU referendum is not going be a winning proposition for Yes. The "Yes/Leavers" are not on board and haven't been since this has been the offer. There was a time when Sturgeon seemed to get it, but she has reverted back to type and it means she won't win.
Let's go.
Delay triggering A50, hold Indy 2 on May 4th. We can all remember the arguments from 2 years ago, so no need for a long campaign. Hopefully the SNP would be gone by the summer.
Let's not overestimate the impact of Scottish independence on the world stage. In most foreign languages Britain = England. This was also the case when all of Ireland was part of the UK.
In GDP terms, Scottish independence is equivalent to foregoing 3-4 years of average growth. Hardly the end of the world!
Let's not underestimate how much of a hammer blow it would be to the New Commonwealth, 'trade with our friends', Anglosphere narrative. If modern English-speaking countries in the British Isles like Ireland and Scotland can be successful members of the EU, the idea that England cannot or should not be one too will be utterly discredited.
So the Conservative party lead the country to the break up of the UK and a disastrous hard Brexit. And it's the Labour Party who can't be trusted with government? If it wasn't so tragic it would be funny. See the end the Planet of the Apes? That's you that is. You maniacs.
How much of what happened these last seven years is a direct or indirect consequence of the financial crash, Labour's overspending beforehand an the legitimisation of the belief that the lifestyle that people were consuming before then was one that they were entitled to expect?
What has happened is a consequence of how those in government responded to the crash. There were choices. Certain ones were made.
That's true but the greater truth, which is still not fully accepted, is that the country was living miles beyond its means. That was always going to mean that there would be losers from the fiscal consolidation, which itself would bring anger and blame. That's not to say that the source of all anger and blame in the current system is the result of the Crash and austerity - it isn't - but a lot does lead back there.
And yet it is the Conservative Party that have impoverished the country with Brexit and in all likelihood led to its break-up. Well done.
It happened on the Conservatives' watch, yes, though Leave and Remain were both cross-party platforms and Corbyn was, for one, notable by his absence.
However the notion that anti-EU sentiment would simply have dissipated had not the government called a referendum, or had another government been elected, is for the birds. The issue would at some point have come to a head unless the EU had chosen to either accommodate Britain in the kind of EU it wanted - a free trade / single market area - or if it had fundamentally reformed its federalising and had developed far greater levels of democracy and accountability.
Sorry but I don't buy that argument. There was no national craving for Brexit. It was an ill-considered ruse from Cameron to placate the Conservative Party that backfired spectacularly.
At the last election, 37% voted Conservative, and 13% voted UKIP, both whom favoured a Referndum on EU membership.
If Brexit had been unpopular, there would never have been a referendum.
It wasn't something that Cameron chose on a whim to inflict on an EU-loving electorate.
Great story on the front page of the Dundee Courier today. The High School in John Swinney's (the Scottish Education Minister) constituency, Blairgowrie High, is so short of teachers that they have written to the parents of the pupils asking if anyone with a maths or science degree can come in and help as the kids approach their exams.
Having referendums is so much more fun than trying to run the country. The day job is hard.
Although the Dundee Courier may be a "local" paper it's got around five times the circulation of The National.....
More than 17m people voted for it. That *quite* a big craving.
No, that's how many people turned out when forced to make a binary choice after a woeful campaign. The number who actually craved this was far far smaller.
No one was force to do anything, the UK does not have compulsory voting (yet).
More than 17m people voted for it. That *quite* a big craving.
No, that's how many people turned out when forced to make a binary choice after a woeful campaign. The number who actually craved this was far far smaller.
That's rather like arguing that the public really love Jeremy Corbyn's Labour party but somehow suffer from false consciousness in choosing to support the Conservatives.
Let's not overestimate the impact of Scottish independence on the world stage. In most foreign languages Britain = England. This was also the case when all of Ireland was part of the UK.
In GDP terms, Scottish independence is equivalent to foregoing 3-4 years of average growth. Hardly the end of the world!
Let's not underestimate how much of a hammer blow it would be to the New Commonwealth, 'trade with our friends', Anglosphere narrative. If modern English-speaking countries in the British Isles like Ireland and Scotland can be successful members of the EU, the idea that England cannot or should not be one too will be utterly discredited.
Didn't the Federation President once say "just because you can do a thing, doesn't necessarily mean you must do that thing"?
Yes, we may be able to be successful inside the EU, but we still might not want to be in it.
More than 17m people voted for it. That *quite* a big craving.
No, that's how many people turned out when forced to make a binary choice after a woeful campaign. The number who actually craved this was far far smaller.
How much of what happened these last seven years is a direct or indirect consequence of the financial crash, Labour's overspending beforehand an the legitimisation of the belief that the lifestyle that people were consuming before then was one that they were entitled to expect?
What has happened is a consequence of how those in government responded to the crash. There were choices. Certain ones were made.
That's true but the greater truth, which is still not fully accepted, is that the country was living miles beyond its means. That was always going to mean that there would be losers from the fiscal consolidation, which itself would bring anger and blame. That's not to say that the source of all anger and blame in the current system is the result of the Crash and austerity - it isn't - but a lot does lead back there.
It happened on the Conservatives' watch, yes, though Leave and Remain were both cross-party platforms and Corbyn was, for one, notable by his absence.
However the notion that anti-EU sentiment would simply have dissipated had not the government called a referendum, or had another government been elected, is for the birds. The issue would at some point have come to a head unless the EU had chosen to either accommodate Britain in the kind of EU it wanted - a free trade / single market area - or if it had fundamentally reformed its federalising and had developed far greater levels of democracy and accountability.
Sorry but I don't buy that argument. There was no national craving for Brexit. It was an ill-considered ruse from Cameron to placate the Conservative Party that backfired spectacularly.
More than 17m people voted for it. That *quite* a big craving.
UKIP *won* the 2014 Euro-election, becoming the first party to beat Lab and Con in a national election since before WWI. That suggests a degree of Euroscepticism.
UKIP has polled in the mid- to high-teens from the middle of the last parliament, despite the voting system. Again, not wholly consistent with a country at ease with EU membership.
And finally, while it wasn't his intention, Brexit has united the Tories, divided Labour, driven the Lib Dems up a cul-de-sac and deprived UKIP of its purpose. It might also remove 50+ hostile MPs from parliament. in purely partisan terms, if that's a backfire, goodness knows what a positive outcome would look like.
Perhaps a positive outcome would look like an unharmed economy and the UK staying together
I understand you disagree with both the vote and the result, but the fact is there was a strong political demand for it within the country.
I respect the result but there was no requirement for a referendum as in 1975 it was the split in Labour that required one in 2015 it was Conservative party problems .I can not understand why partisan supporters try to imply greater moral motives.
Let's not overestimate the impact of Scottish independence on the world stage. In most foreign languages Britain = England. This was also the case when all of Ireland was part of the UK.
In GDP terms, Scottish independence is equivalent to foregoing 3-4 years of average growth. Hardly the end of the world!
Let's not underestimate how much of a hammer blow it would be to the New Commonwealth, 'trade with our friends', Anglosphere narrative. If modern English-speaking countries in the British Isles like Ireland and Scotland can be successful members of the EU, the idea that England cannot or should not be one too will be utterly discredited.
Narratives are not power. To quote Mr Gladstone, "the central strength of England lies in England". It was true then; it is even more true now, after the depletion of North Sea oil.
I understand you disagree with both the vote and the result, but the fact is there was a strong political demand for it within the country.
I respect the result but there was no requirement for a referendum as in 1975 it was the split in Labour that required one in 2015 it was Conservative party problems .I can not understand why partisan supporters try to imply greater moral motives.
There was no *legal* requirement for a referendum.
But, the political pressure for a Referendum was irresistible.
Let's not overestimate the impact of Scottish independence on the world stage. In most foreign languages Britain = England. This was also the case when all of Ireland was part of the UK.
In GDP terms, Scottish independence is equivalent to foregoing 3-4 years of average growth. Hardly the end of the world!
Let's not underestimate how much of a hammer blow it would be to the New Commonwealth, 'trade with our friends', Anglosphere narrative. If modern English-speaking countries in the British Isles like Ireland and Scotland can be successful members of the EU, the idea that England cannot or should not be one too will be utterly discredited.
Didn't the Federation President once say "just because you can do a thing, doesn't necessarily mean you must do that thing"?
Yes, we may be able to be successful inside the EU, but we still might not want to be in it.
Let's not overestimate the impact of Scottish independence on the world stage. In most foreign languages Britain = England. This was also the case when all of Ireland was part of the UK.
In GDP terms, Scottish independence is equivalent to foregoing 3-4 years of average growth. Hardly the end of the world!
Let's not underestimate how much of a hammer blow it would be to the New Commonwealth, 'trade with our friends', Anglosphere narrative. If modern English-speaking countries in the British Isles like Ireland and Scotland can be successful members of the EU, the idea that England cannot or should not be one too will be utterly discredited.
Didn't the Federation President once say "just because you can do a thing, doesn't necessarily mean you must do that thing"?
Yes, we may be able to be successful inside the EU, but we still might not want to be in it.
More than 17m people voted for it. That *quite* a big craving.
No, that's how many people turned out when forced to make a binary choice after a woeful campaign. The number who actually craved this was far far smaller.
How many actually crave the EU?
Well there's me... That's one...
Seriously though, think of all the wasted energy since the downfall of Thatcher that's been spent on endless debates about Europe. If we had just accepted that we were in the EU to stay and that was the end of the matter, we'd have been able to spend all of that time so much more productively. However much some people may struggle with the concept, it's who we are.
You mean a dictator who wins elections in pluralistic democracy. Just because you don't like him does not make him a dictator. He would be a President with lots of power - like the President of France.
So the Conservative party lead the country to the break up of the UK and a disastrous hard Brexit. And it's the Labour Party who can't be trusted with government? If it wasn't so tragic it would be funny. See the end the Planet of the Apes? That's you that is. You maniacs.
How much of what happened these last seven years is a direct or indirect consequence of the financial crash, Labour's overspending beforehand an the legitimisation of the belief that the lifestyle that people were consuming before then was one that they were entitled to expect?
That's true but the greater truth, which is still not fully accepted, is that the country was living miles beyond its means. That was always going to mean that there would be losers from the fiscal consolidation, which itself would bring anger and blame. That's not to say that the source of all anger and blame in the current system is the result of the Crash and austerity - it isn't - but a lot does lead back there.
And yet it is the Conservative Party that have impoverished the country with Brexit and in all likelihood led to its break-up. Well done.
It happened on the Conservatives' watch, yes, though Leave and Remain were both cross-party platforms and Corbyn was, for one, notable by his absence.
However the notion that anti-EU sentiment would simply have dissipated had not the government called a referendum, or had another government been elected, is for the birds. The issue would at some point have come to a head unless the EU had chosen to either accommodate Britain in the kind of EU it wanted - a free trade / single market area - or if it had fundamentally reformed its federalising and had developed far greater levels of democracy and accountability.
Sorry but I don't buy that argument. There was no national craving for Brexit. It was an ill-considered ruse from Cameron to placate the Conservative Party that backfired spectacularly.
At the last election, 37% voted Conservative, and 13% voted UKIP, both whom favoured a Referndum on EU membership.
If Brexit had been unpopular, there would never have been a referendum.
It wasn't something that Cameron chose on a whim to inflict on an EU-loving electorate.
I think, Mr M, that if you’d said Cameron was trying to placate a small group of malcontents within the Conservative Party you’d have been more accurate. Cameron made an epic error of judgment for which he will be ranked with Lord North.
I understand you disagree with both the vote and the result, but the fact is there was a strong political demand for it within the country.
I respect the result but there was no requirement for a referendum as in 1975 it was the split in Labour that required one in 2015 it was Conservative party problems .I can not understand why partisan supporters try to imply greater moral motives.
There was no *legal* requirement for a referendum.
But, the political pressure for a Referendum was irresistible.
Yes as I said for the conservative party not the country.
Just been looking at the old names for Scottish currency. Which I guess might be needed.
Scottish Groats clearly a front-runner
If they did have their own currency I guess it would be one possible name. Crown perhaps has more appeal, but is maybe tricky in that it points to a Monarch in England. Seems that James III issued 'Unicorns' - quite like that!
Scotland had the pound Scots, which I think was about one twelfth the value of the equivalent English currency as well as the merk (or mark), which was a similar but not identical value. I am not sure why they had both currencies at the same time.
If we become independent, we would need a reserve currency and bank before we could join the Euro. I doubt Sterling would be acceptable to the EU or workable for Scotland.
I understand you disagree with both the vote and the result, but the fact is there was a strong political demand for it within the country.
I respect the result but there was no requirement for a referendum as in 1975 it was the split in Labour that required one in 2015 it was Conservative party problems .I can not understand why partisan supporters try to imply greater moral motives.
A political issue actioned via a political party does not imply immorality.
Your objection is that a vote was held at all, which is in-and-of-itself a political objection.
In your case, very strongly held, but political nonetheless.
So the Conservative party lead the country to the break up of the UK and a disastrous hard Brexit. And it's the Labour Party who can't be trusted with government? If it wasn't so tragic it would be funny. See the end the Planet of the Apes? That's you that is. You maniacs.
How much of what happened these last seven years is a direct or indirect consequence of the financial crash, Labour's overspending beforehand an the legitimisation of the belief that the lifestyle that people were consuming before then was one that they were entitled to expect?
blockquote>
And yet it is the Conservative Party that have impoverished the country with Brexit and in all likelihood led to its break-up. Well done.
It happened on the Conservatives' watch, yes, though Leave and Remain were both cross-party platforms and Corbyn was, for one, notable by his absence.
However the notion that anti-EU sentiment would simply have dissipated had not the government called a referendum, or had another government been elected, is for the birds. The issue would at some point have come to a head unless the EU had chosen to either accommodate Britain in the kind of EU it wanted - a free trade / single market area - or if it had fundamentally reformed its federalising and had developed far greater levels of democracy and accountability.
Sorry but I don't buy that argument. There was no national craving for Brexit. It was an ill-considered ruse from Cameron to placate the Conservative Party that backfired spectacularly.
At the last election, 37% voted Conservative, and 13% voted UKIP, both whom favoured a Referndum on EU membership.
If Brexit had been unpopular, there would never have been a referendum.
It wasn't something that Cameron chose on a whim to inflict on an EU-loving electorate.
I think, Mr M, that if you’d said Cameron was trying to placate a small group of malcontents within the Conservative Party you’d have been more accurate. Cameron made an epic error of judgment for which he will be ranked with Lord North.
Those malcontents would have counted for little, if they didn't reflect wider centre-right opinion.
There does seem to be this delusion that the job of a Conservative PM is to confront and face down millions of centre-right voters.
So the Conservative party lead the country to the break up of the UK and a disastrous hard Brexit. And it's the Labour Party who can't be trusted with government? If it wasn't so tragic it would be funny. See the end the Planet of the Apes? That's you that is. You maniacs.
How much of what happened these last seven years is a direct or indirect consequence of the financial crash, Labour's overspending beforehand an the legitimisation of the belief that the lifestyle that people were consuming before then was one that they were entitled to expect?
That's true but the greater truth, which is still not fully accepted, is that the country was living miles beyond its means. That was always going to mean that there would be losers from the fiscal consolidation, which itself would bring anger and blame. That's not to say that the source of all anger and blame in the current system is the result of the Crash and austerity - it isn't - but a lot does lead back there.
And yet it is the Conservative Party that have impoverished the country with Brexit and in all likelihood led to its break-up. Well done.
It happened on the Conservatives' watch, yes, though Leave and Remain were both cross-party platforms and Corbyn was, for one, notable by his absence.
Sorry but I don't buy that argument. There was no national craving for Brexit. It was an ill-considered ruse from Cameron to placate the Conservative Party that backfired spectacularly.
At the last election, 37% voted Conservative, and 13% voted UKIP, both whom favoured a Referndum on EU membership.
If Brexit had been unpopular, there would never have been a referendum.
It wasn't something that Cameron chose on a whim to inflict on an EU-loving electorate.
I think, Mr M, that if you’d said Cameron was trying to placate a small group of malcontents within the Conservative Party you’d have been more accurate. Cameron made an epic error of judgment for which he will be ranked with Lord North.
Over 40% of the Conservative parliamentary party, a clear majority of its members and activists and a majority of its voters favoured Brexit.
A small group it was not. It might have started that way but it became much larger due to the EU's obstinacy and the failure of the UK Government to pursue meaningful reform.
I understand you disagree with both the vote and the result, but the fact is there was a strong political demand for it within the country.
I respect the result but there was no requirement for a referendum as in 1975 it was the split in Labour that required one in 2015 it was Conservative party problems .I can not understand why partisan supporters try to imply greater moral motives.
There was no *legal* requirement for a referendum.
But, the political pressure for a Referendum was irresistible.
Yes as I said for the conservative party not the country.
The Conservative Party is a large chunk of the country. Add in UKIP, and you're talking about 50-55% of the country.
Mr. Surbiton, democracy's about more than just elections. Erdogan's actions towards the media, military, judiciary and teachers/lecturers are not the actions of a man who believes in free expression.
Doesn't quite roll off the tongue like 'Pound' or 'euro' does it? how many haggis will you get for one 'all in good time'?
I hope they don't make the same mistake as last time. Either Scot£ or Euro.
When some smartarse will say how bad the Euro is, the Scot reply should be : if it is good enough for Germany, France, Netherlands, Finland etc. , it should be good enough for Scotland.
or, if 200 nations in the world can have their own currency, then so can Scotland.
More than 17m people voted for it. That *quite* a big craving.
No, that's how many people turned out when forced to make a binary choice after a woeful campaign. The number who actually craved this was far far smaller.
How many actually crave the EU?
Well there's me... That's one...
Seriously though, think of all the wasted energy since the downfall of Thatcher that's been spent on endless debates about Europe. If we had just accepted that we were in the EU to stay and that was the end of the matter, we'd have been able to spend all of that time so much more productively. However much some people may struggle with the concept, it's who we are.
If the EU had accepted that the UK wanted a different form of relationship with it, and had accepted that, then no doubt you'd be right.
We are where we are because the political differences between the UK and the EU became irreconcilable once it pursued political union past a certain point, and refused to review it in light of changing circumstances.
Let's not overestimate the impact of Scottish independence on the world stage. In most foreign languages Britain = England. This was also the case when all of Ireland was part of the UK.
In GDP terms, Scottish independence is equivalent to foregoing 3-4 years of average growth. Hardly the end of the world!
It won't be the end of the world, but it will be the end of the United Kingdom in any meaningful sense. The earthquake will be stronger in Scotland but it will certainly be felt in England as well.
Mr. Surbiton, democracy's about more than just elections. Erdogan's actions towards the media, military, judiciary and teachers/lecturers are not the actions of a man who believes in free expression.
You mean the people who would have been happy to have him killed through an illegal military coup.
And, you support military putsch ? Shows your love of democracy.
More than 17m people voted for it. That *quite* a big craving.
No, that's how many people turned out when forced to make a binary choice after a woeful campaign. The number who actually craved this was far far smaller.
How many actually crave the EU?
Well there's me... That's one...
Seriously though, think of all the wasted energy since the downfall of Thatcher that's been spent on endless debates about Europe. If we had just accepted that we were in the EU to stay and that was the end of the matter, we'd have been able to spend all of that time so much more productively. However much some people may struggle with the concept, it's who we are.
It's who you think we are. I prefer my interlocutors to at least admit the validity of different views. I struggle to see why any nation would make an open ended and permanent commitment to any organisation. Zealotry of any stripe is deeply unattractive.
I understand you disagree with both the vote and the result, but the fact is there was a strong political demand for it within the country.
I respect the result but there was no requirement for a referendum as in 1975 it was the split in Labour that required one in 2015 it was Conservative party problems .I can not understand why partisan supporters try to imply greater moral motives.
There was no *legal* requirement for a referendum.
But, the political pressure for a Referendum was irresistible.
Yes as I said for the conservative party not the country.
The Conservative Party is a large chunk of the country. Add in UKIP, and you're talking about 50-55% of the country.
52% in reality bought the bullshit. It'll be interesting to see how many "remember" voting that way when the damage starts rolling in to the economy.
Doesn't quite roll off the tongue like 'Pound' or 'euro' does it? how many haggis will you get for one 'all in good time'?
I hope they don't make the same mistake as last time. Either Scot£ or Euro.
When some smartarse will say how bad the Euro is, the Scot reply should be : if it is good enough for Germany, France, Netherlands, Finland etc. , it should be good enough for Scotland.
or, if 200 nations in the world can have their own currency, then so can Scotland.
Fact: 2003 £1 = € 1.41. Today £1 = € 1.15.
Correct. Could be Scottish pound pegged to Stirling with a view to joining the Euro down the line when several criteria are met.
At the last election, 37% voted Conservative, and 13% voted UKIP, both whom favoured a Referndum on EU membership.
If Brexit had been unpopular, there would never have been a referendum.
It wasn't something that Cameron chose on a whim to inflict on an EU-loving electorate.
If some of these keyboard politicoes actually got off their arses and met some voters, they might just understand why the Tories are on 44% in the polls. And they might find it has something to do with the Conservative Party pledging to give the people a vote on the EU. And then delivering on that pledge. Whilst Labour and the LibDems had been doing all they could for 18 years to prevent it.
So the Conservative party lead the country to the break up of the UK and a disastrous hard Brexit. And it's the Labour Party who can't be trusted with government? If it wasn't so tragic it would be funny. See the end the Planet of the Apes? That's you that is. You maniacs.
How much of what happened these last seven years is a direct or indirect consequence of the financial crash, Labour's overspending beforehand an the legitimisation of the belief that the lifestyle that people were consuming before then was one that they were entitled to expect?
blockquote>
And yet it is the Conservative Party that have impoverished the country with Brexit and in all likelihood led to its break-up. Well done.
It happened on the Conservatives' watch, yes, though Leave and Remain were both cross-party platforms and Corbyn was, for one, notable by his absence.
However the notion that anti-EU sentiment would simply have dissipated had not the government called a referendum, or had another government been elected, is for the birds. The issue would at some point have come to a head unless the EU had chosen to either accommodate Britain in the kind of EU it wanted - a free trade / single market area - or if it had fundamentally reformed its federalising and had developed far greater levels of democracy and accountability.
Sorry but I don't buy that argument. There was no national craving for Brexit. It was an ill-considered ruse from Cameron to placate the Conservative Party that backfired spectacularly.
At the last election, 37% voted Conservative, and 13% voted UKIP, both whom favoured a Referndum on EU membership.
If Brexit had been unpopular, there would never have been a referendum.
It wasn't something that Cameron chose on a whim to inflict on an EU-loving electorate.
I think, Mr M, that if you’d said Cameron was trying to placate a small group of malcontents within the Conservative Party you’d have been more accurate. Cameron made an epic error of judgment for which he will be ranked with Lord North.
Those malcontents would have counted for little, if they didn't reflect wider centre-right opinion.
There does seem to be this delusion that the job of a Conservative PM is to confront and face down millions of centre-right voters.
Of course, plenty of non-conservatives (and even some Conservative politicians themselves) would argue very strongly that it is.
More than 17m people voted for it. That *quite* a big craving.
No, that's how many people turned out when forced to make a binary choice after a woeful campaign. The number who actually craved this was far far smaller.
How many actually crave the EU?
Well there's me... That's one...
Seriously though, think of all the wasted energy since the downfall of Thatcher that's been spent on endless debates about Europe. If we had just accepted that we were in the EU to stay and that was the end of the matter, we'd have been able to spend all of that time so much more productively. However much some people may struggle with the concept, it's who we are.
It's who you think we are. I prefer my interlocutors to at least admit the validity of different views. I struggle to see why any nation would make an open ended and permanent commitment to any organisation. Zealotry of any stripe is deeply unattractive.
All members of the EU remain sovereign so any commitment is only permanent as long as we chose for it to be. The very fact we are currently debating the process of withdrawal from the EU bears this out.
That does not change the fact that constantly agitating for withdrawal and trying to undermine the EU itself has been thoroughly self-defeating and corrosive to our politics for a very long time.
Just been looking at the old names for Scottish currency. Which I guess might be needed.
Scottish Groats clearly a front-runner
If they did have their own currency I guess it would be one possible name. Crown perhaps has more appeal, but is maybe tricky in that it points to a Monarch in England. Seems that James III issued 'Unicorns' - quite like that!
Scotland had the pound Scots, which I think was about one twelfth the value of the equivalent English currency as well as the merk (or mark), which was a similar but not identical value. I am not sure why they had both currencies at the same time.
If we become independent, we would need a reserve currency and bank before we could join the Euro. I doubt Sterling would be acceptable to the EU or workable for Scotland.
Yes, I agree.
I can't see 'Mark's - too akin to Germany. Pounds - I dunno - doesn't seem like a break, and it'd be confusing.
The SNP presumably have a plan, although the current fad amongst all politicians seems to be not to bother with such things.
If the Scots have the choice of leaving the EU and following Farage Johnson and Co or taking their chance either as the new EU number 28 or going it alone I can't see it as anything other than a reasonably easy sell for Nicola.
Either way it has put the British government in a very difficult position. To the outside world Jenny No Mates doesn't even begin to describe it. Even Trump must be having second thoughts
Doesn't quite roll off the tongue like 'Pound' or 'euro' does it? how many haggis will you get for one 'all in good time'?
I hope they don't make the same mistake as last time. Either Scot£ or Euro.
When some smartarse will say how bad the Euro is, the Scot reply should be : if it is good enough for Germany, France, Netherlands, Finland etc. , it should be good enough for Scotland.
or, if 200 nations in the world can have their own currency, then so can Scotland.
Fact: 2003 £1 = € 1.41. Today £1 = € 1.15.
Correct. Could be Scottish pound pegged to Stirling with a view to joining the Euro down the line when several criteria are met.
Like parity of the £ to the € which can't be far away.
I understand you disagree with both the vote and the result, but the fact is there was a strong political demand for it within the country.
I respect the result but there was no requirement for a referendum as in 1975 it was the split in Labour that required one in 2015 it was Conservative party problems .I can not understand why partisan supporters try to imply greater moral motives.
There was no *legal* requirement for a referendum.
But, the political pressure for a Referendum was irresistible.
Yes as I said for the conservative party not the country.
The Conservative Party is a large chunk of the country. Add in UKIP, and you're talking about 50-55% of the country.
12 years ago, you could sum up the Liberal Democrats under the decidedly Leftish and europhile Charles Kennedy and Blair's Labour to well over 60% of the country.
Voters pick and vote for parties as the politics change, and the parties respond in turn. Not the other way round.
Doesn't quite roll off the tongue like 'Pound' or 'euro' does it? how many haggis will you get for one 'all in good time'?
I hope they don't make the same mistake as last time. Either Scot£ or Euro.
When some smartarse will say how bad the Euro is, the Scot reply should be : if it is good enough for Germany, France, Netherlands, Finland etc. , it should be good enough for Scotland.
or, if 200 nations in the world can have their own currency, then so can Scotland.
Fact: 2003 £1 = € 1.41. Today £1 = € 1.15.
Correct. Could be Scottish pound pegged to Stirling with a view to joining the Euro down the line when several criteria are met.
Like parity of the £ to the € which can't be far away.
More than 17m people voted for it. That *quite* a big craving.
No, that's how many people turned out when forced to make a binary choice after a woeful campaign. The number who actually craved this was far far smaller.
How many actually crave the EU?
Well there's me... That's one...
Seriously though, think of all the wasted energy since the downfall of Thatcher that's been spent on endless debates about Europe. If we had just accepted that we were in the EU to stay and that was the end of the matter, we'd have been able to spend all of that time so much more productively. However much some people may struggle with the concept, it's who we are.
It's who you think we are. I prefer my interlocutors to at least admit the validity of different views. I struggle to see why any nation would make an open ended and permanent commitment to any organisation. Zealotry of any stripe is deeply unattractive.
Except outside the fringiest of minorities, almost all of the UK's international memberships are without controversy. Even on NATO any level of objection to it here is vanishingly small compared to, say, France.
The EU shouldn't even have become an issue. That it did is because of what it was, what it did and how it did it, not the UK.
More than 17m people voted for it. That *quite* a big craving.
No, that's how many people turned out when forced to make a binary choice after a woeful campaign. The number who actually craved this was far far smaller.
How many actually crave the EU?
Well there's me... That's one...
Seriously though, think of all the wasted energy since the downfall of Thatcher that's been spent on endless debates about Europe. If we had just accepted that we were in the EU to stay and that was the end of the matter, we'd have been able to spend all of that time so much more productively. However much some people may struggle with the concept, it's who we are.
It's who you think we are. I prefer my interlocutors to at least admit the validity of different views. I struggle to see why any nation would make an open ended and permanent commitment to any organisation. Zealotry of any stripe is deeply unattractive.
All members of the EU remain sovereign so any commitment is only permanent as long as we chose for it to be. The very fact we are currently debating the process of withdrawal from the EU bears this out.
That does not change the fact that constantly agitating for withdrawal and trying to undermine the EU itself has been thoroughly self-defeating and corrosive to our politics for a very long time.
I agree with your final paragraph. Given the europhilia of the younger generation, I could see the UK eventually rejoining under post-Lisbon terms, in which case I'd hope our strategic objective would be to create a London-Berlin axis. It's either Out, or balls-deep In.
Great story on the front page of the Dundee Courier today. The High School in John Swinney's (the Scottish Education Minister) constituency, Blairgowrie High, is so short of teachers that they have written to the parents of the pupils asking if anyone with a maths or science degree can come in and help as the kids approach their exams.
Having referendums is so much more fun than trying to run the country. The day job is hard.
Done well referendums ensure that people don't notice how badly you are doing the day job...
Well quite. In May, "why are our local services so shit?"
"Look, do you want another referendum or do you not/"
More than 17m people voted for it. That *quite* a big craving.
No, that's how many people turned out when forced to make a binary choice after a woeful campaign. The number who actually craved this was far far smaller.
How many actually crave the EU?
Well there's me... That's one...
Seriously though, think of all the wasted energy since the downfall of Thatcher that's been spent on endless debates about Europe. If we had just accepted that we were in the EU to stay and that was the end of the matter, we'd have been able to spend all of that time so much more productively. However much some people may struggle with the concept, it's who we are.
It's who you think we are. I prefer my interlocutors to at least admit the validity of different views. I struggle to see why any nation would make an open ended and permanent commitment to any organisation. Zealotry of any stripe is deeply unattractive.
All members of the EU remain sovereign so any commitment is only permanent as long as we chose for it to be. The very fact we are currently debating the process of withdrawal from the EU bears this out.
That does not change the fact that constantly agitating for withdrawal and trying to undermine the EU itself has been thoroughly self-defeating and corrosive to our politics for a very long time.
I agree with your final paragraph. Given the europhilia of the younger generation, I could see the UK eventually rejoining under post-Lisbon terms, in which case I'd hope our strategic objective would be to create a London-Berlin axis. It's either Out, or balls-deep In.
I agree with that. If we are going to be in it should be the full fat version* including Shengen, single currency, the lot.
*Unless the faceless Eurocrats have banned full fat milk!
More than 17m people voted for it. That *quite* a big craving.
No, that's how many people turned out when forced to make a binary choice after a woeful campaign. The number who actually craved this was far far smaller.
How many actually crave the EU?
Well there's me... That's one...
Seriously though, think of all the wasted energy since the downfall of Thatcher that's been spent on endless debates about Europe. If we had just accepted that we were in the EU to stay and that was the end of the matter, we'd have been able to spend all of that time so much more productively. However much some people may struggle with the concept, it's who we are.
It's who you think we are. I prefer my interlocutors to at least admit the validity of different views. I struggle to see why any nation would make an open ended and permanent commitment to any organisation. Zealotry of any stripe is deeply unattractive.
All members of the EU remain sovereign so any commitment is only permanent as long as we chose for it to be. The very fact we are currently debating the process of withdrawal from the EU bears this out.
That does not change the fact that constantly agitating for withdrawal and trying to undermine the EU itself has been thoroughly self-defeating and corrosive to our politics for a very long time.
I agree with your final paragraph. Given the europhilia of the younger generation, I could see the UK eventually rejoining under post-Lisbon terms, in which case I'd hope our strategic objective would be to create a London-Berlin axis. It's either Out, or balls-deep In.
The young people who voted to stay in in 1975 became the pensioners who voted out in 2016. Once we're out, the idea that we should rejoin will be a minority one that dwindles to a fringe over a decade.
As long as young people can get to Spain and Bulgaria without visas most won't care.
Edit: talk of a London-Berlin axis is fantasy. The Franco-German one has taken 60 years to build!
More than 17m people voted for it. That *quite* a big craving.
No, that's how many people turned out when forced to make a binary choice after a woeful campaign. The number who actually craved this was far far smaller.
How many actually crave the EU?
Well there's me... That's one...
Seriously though, think of all the wasted energy since the downfall of Thatcher that's been spent on endless debates about Europe. If we had just accepted that we were in the EU to stay and that was the end of the matter, we'd have been able to spend all of that time so much more productively. However much some people may struggle with the concept, it's who we are.
It's who you think we are. I prefer my interlocutors to at least admit the validity of different views. I struggle to see why any nation would make an open ended and permanent commitment to any organisation. Zealotry of any stripe is deeply unattractive.
Except outside the fringiest of minorities, almost all of the UK's international memberships are without controversy. Even on NATO any level of objection to it here is vanishingly small compared to, say, France.
The EU shouldn't even have become an issue. That it did is because of what it was, what it did and how it did it, not the UK.
So how would you feel if in a couple of years time someone writes "The UK shouldn't even have become an issue. That it did is because of what it was, what it did and how it did it, not Scotland."
Doesn't quite roll off the tongue like 'Pound' or 'euro' does it? how many haggis will you get for one 'all in good time'?
I hope they don't make the same mistake as last time. Either Scot£ or Euro.
When some smartarse will say how bad the Euro is, the Scot reply should be : if it is good enough for Germany, France, Netherlands, Finland etc. , it should be good enough for Scotland.
or, if 200 nations in the world can have their own currency, then so can Scotland.
Fact: 2003 £1 = € 1.41. Today £1 = € 1.15.
It was 1.19 a couple of weeks ago. I'm waiting to buy euros but it's all going the wrong way
More than 17m people voted for it. That *quite* a big craving.
No, that's how many people turned out when forced to make a binary choice after a woeful campaign. The number who actually craved this was far far smaller.
How many actually crave the EU?
Well there's me... That's one...
Seriously though, think of all the wasted energy since the downfall of Thatcher that's been spent on endless debates about Europe. If we had just accepted that we were in the EU to stay and that was the end of the matter, we'd have been able to spend all of that time so much more productively. However much some people may struggle with the concept, it's who we are.
It's who you think we are. I prefer my interlocutors to at least admit the validity of different views. I struggle to see why any nation would make an open ended and permanent commitment to any organisation. Zealotry of any stripe is deeply unattractive.
All members of the EU remain sovereign so any commitment is only permanent as long as we chose for it to be. The very fact we are currently debating the process of withdrawal from the EU bears this out.
That does not change the fact that constantly agitating for withdrawal and trying to undermine the EU itself has been thoroughly self-defeating and corrosive to our politics for a very long time.
I agree with your final paragraph. Given the europhilia of the younger generation, I could see the UK eventually rejoining under post-Lisbon terms, in which case I'd hope our strategic objective would be to create a London-Berlin axis. It's either Out, or balls-deep In.
I agree with that. If we are going to be in it should be the full fat version* including Shengen, single currency, the lot.
*Unless the faceless Eurocrats have banned full fat milk!
I agree with your final paragraph. Given the europhilia of the younger generation, I could see the UK eventually rejoining under post-Lisbon terms, in which case I'd hope our strategic objective would be to create a London-Berlin axis. It's either Out, or balls-deep In.
I agree with that. If we are going to be in it should be the full fat version* including Shengen, single currency, the lot.
This is the attitude that gives me hope. It's the dishonesty of the Cameroon pragmatist version of our EU membership that people objected to and voted against. I think people would be much more accepting if they didn't feel that the government was trying to pull the wool over their eyes. Let's see the EU flag flying in Downing Street!
Brexit is turning out to be even more hopeless and depressing than I feared it would be.
The leavers have torn my country apart.
The 3% deficit target will be needed for the Scots to remain/rejoin the EU,.. it will force some much needed economic sense out of the SNP, and combined with their obvious social liberalism could well create an "ideal" country from this centrist's perspective. The journey may well be painful - unlike Brexit however it might be ultimately worth it.
The EU shouldn't even have become an issue. That it did is because of what it was, what it did and how it did it, not the UK.
In a parallel universe in which Thatcher was fully behind the Maastricht treaty instead of egging on the rebels, I don't think we'd be here now.
But, in such a universe the Tory Right would either be Europhile or easily led by someone who was, so I suspect you'd be right.
My thesis is that it was the fusion of Thatcher's personal journey to Euroscepticism and bitterness about the way she was brought down that led to that view becoming so influential. Certainly it's what stopped Ken Clarke becoming leader for example.
More than 17m people voted for it. That *quite* a big craving.
No, that's how many people turned out when forced to make a binary choice after a woeful campaign. The number who actually craved this was far far smaller.
How many actually crave the EU?
.
It's who you think we are. I prefer my interlocutors to at least admit the validity of different views. I struggle to see why any nation would make an open ended and permanent commitment to any organisation. Zealotry of any stripe is deeply unattractive.
Except outside the fringiest of minorities, almost all of the UK's international memberships are without controversy. Even on NATO any level of objection to it here is vanishingly small compared to, say, France.
The EU shouldn't even have become an issue. That it did is because of what it was, what it did and how it did it, not the UK.
So how would you feel if in a couple of years time someone writes "The UK shouldn't even have become an issue. That it did is because of what it was, what it did and how it did it, not Scotland."
I might have some sympathy with that, as I said downthread.
Nevertheless, I reject comparisons between the UK and the EU.
The UK is a politically integrated, fully sovereign country with common institutions, language, regulation, and history, and has been for centuries.
The EU is not (yet) even though it aspires to be one.
Doesn't quite roll off the tongue like 'Pound' or 'euro' does it? how many haggis will you get for one 'all in good time'?
I hope they don't make the same mistake as last time. Either Scot£ or Euro.
When some smartarse will say how bad the Euro is, the Scot reply should be : if it is good enough for Germany, France, Netherlands, Finland etc. , it should be good enough for Scotland.
or, if 200 nations in the world can have their own currency, then so can Scotland.
Fact: 2003 £1 = € 1.41. Today £1 = € 1.15.
SO if we had joined the Euro we would now be stuck in a seriously overvalued currency trying to sell into our largest market, England. Yeah, that would help.
I agree with your final paragraph. Given the europhilia of the younger generation, I could see the UK eventually rejoining under post-Lisbon terms, in which case I'd hope our strategic objective would be to create a London-Berlin axis. It's either Out, or balls-deep In.
I agree with that. If we are going to be in it should be the full fat version* including Shengen, single currency, the lot.
Let's see the EU flag flying in Downing Street!
I can't help but admire both your chutzpah and your honesty.
I understand you disagree with both the vote and the result, but the fact is there was a strong political demand for it within the country.
I respect the result but there was no requirement for a referendum as in 1975 it was the split in Labour that required one in 2015 it was Conservative party problems .I can not understand why partisan supporters try to imply greater moral motives.
A political issue actioned via a political party does not imply immorality.
Your objection is that a vote was held at all, which is in-and-of-itself a political objection.
In your case, very strongly held, but political nonetheless.
Yes I agree do not really believe in referendums in a representative democracy.
Brexit is turning out to be even more hopeless and depressing than I feared it would be.
The leavers have torn my country apart.
Nope. There has never been a country called the UK. It is a Unitary State made up of four different countries. No one has touched your country -whichever one you live in.
I understand you disagree with both the vote and the result, but the fact is there was a strong political demand for it within the country.
I respect the result but there was no requirement for a referendum as in 1975 it was the split in Labour that required one in 2015 it was Conservative party problems .I can not understand why partisan supporters try to imply greater moral motives.
A political issue actioned via a political party does not imply immorality.
Your objection is that a vote was held at all, which is in-and-of-itself a political objection.
In your case, very strongly held, but political nonetheless.
Yes I agree do not really believe in referendums in a representative democracy.
Pre Brexit – 32% Post Brexit – 19% Not in the next 20 years – 25% Never – 24%
TCTC
Nov 2016: Yougov Scotland
Referendum Pre Brexit - 39% No Referendum Pre Brexit - 61%
The most pro-referendum voters are under 35, C2DE etc.
It very much looks to me that Sturgeon has picked the wrong fight at the wrong time and is relying on the wrong demographic for support. Additionally,
SNP Unionists as a proportion of the SNP vote as:
16% Ipsos Mori 22% Panelbase 25% Yougov
If this action alienates this element of the SNP vote we could start to see the SNP on sub 40% fairly soon.
Sturgeon has to fight now. Scotland seeking independence once the UK has left the EU means that they'd have to agree a slightly painful exit from the UK and a slightly painful joining of the EU. There's just a chance that Scotland can sail through the battles and find itself in clear waters.
The EU shouldn't even have become an issue. That it did is because of what it was, what it did and how it did it, not the UK.
In a parallel universe in which Thatcher was fully behind the Maastricht treaty instead of egging on the rebels, I don't think we'd be here now.
But, in such a universe the Tory Right would either be Europhile or easily led by someone who was, so I suspect you'd be right.
My thesis is that it was the fusion of Thatcher's personal journey to Euroscepticism and bitterness about the way she was brought down that led to that view becoming so influential. Certainly it's what stopped Ken Clarke becoming leader for example.
Yes, I understand that but I think that was more of an effect rather than a cause.
Comments
PB levels of pedantry there.
That's why we had the vote.
A different planet that would no doubt currently be in accession talks to join.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08gd0gc
Having referendums is so much more fun than trying to run the country. The day job is hard.
UKIP *won* the 2014 Euro-election, becoming the first party to beat Lab and Con in a national election since before WWI. That suggests a degree of Euroscepticism.
UKIP has polled in the mid- to high-teens from the middle of the last parliament, despite the voting system. Again, not wholly consistent with a country at ease with EU membership.
And finally, while it wasn't his intention, Brexit has united the Tories, divided Labour, driven the Lib Dems up a cul-de-sac and deprived UKIP of its purpose. It might also remove 50+ hostile MPs from parliament. in purely partisan terms, if that's a backfire, goodness knows what a positive outcome would look like.
In GDP terms, Scottish independence is equivalent to foregoing 3-4 years of average growth. Hardly the end of the world!
June 1995
"After Major's challenger, John Redwood, was defeated, Powell wrote to him, "Dear Redwood, you will never regret the events of the last week or two. Patience will evidently have to be exercised—and patience is the greatest of the political virtues—by those of us who want to keep Britain independent and self-governed"
May 1997
"When Labour won the 1997 general election, Powell told his wife, Pamela Wilson, "They have voted to break up the United Kingdom." "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enoch_Powell
Northern Ireland (24.8%), Scotland (21.0%) and Wales (20.8%) showed the highest public sector employment proportions.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/publicsectorpersonnel/bulletins/publicsectoremployment/latest#total-uk-public-sector-employment
If Brexit had been unpopular, there would never have been a referendum.
It wasn't something that Cameron chose on a whim to inflict on an EU-loving electorate.
Yes, we may be able to be successful inside the EU, but we still might not want to be in it.
I understand you disagree with both the vote and the result, but the fact is there was a strong political demand for it within the country.
I respect the result but there was no requirement for a referendum as in 1975 it was the split in Labour that required one in 2015 it was Conservative party problems .I can not understand why partisan supporters try to imply greater moral motives.
There was no *legal* requirement for a referendum.
But, the political pressure for a Referendum was irresistible.
https://twitter.com/Aidan___Kerr/status/841327231179849729
https://twitter.com/drivetribes/status/841334363497336833
Seriously though, think of all the wasted energy since the downfall of Thatcher that's been spent on endless debates about Europe. If we had just accepted that we were in the EU to stay and that was the end of the matter, we'd have been able to spend all of that time so much more productively. However much some people may struggle with the concept, it's who we are.
Cameron made an epic error of judgment for which he will be ranked with Lord North.
But, the political pressure for a Referendum was irresistible.
Yes as I said for the conservative party not the country.
If we become independent, we would need a reserve currency and bank before we could join the Euro. I doubt Sterling would be acceptable to the EU or workable for Scotland.
Your objection is that a vote was held at all, which is in-and-of-itself a political objection.
In your case, very strongly held, but political nonetheless.
A small group it was not. It might have started that way but it became much larger due to the EU's obstinacy and the failure of the UK Government to pursue meaningful reform.
The Conservative Party is a large chunk of the country. Add in UKIP, and you're talking about 50-55% of the country.
Mr. Surbiton, democracy's about more than just elections. Erdogan's actions towards the media, military, judiciary and teachers/lecturers are not the actions of a man who believes in free expression.
When some smartarse will say how bad the Euro is, the Scot reply should be : if it is good enough for Germany, France, Netherlands, Finland etc. , it should be good enough for Scotland.
or, if 200 nations in the world can have their own currency, then so can Scotland.
Fact: 2003 £1 = € 1.41. Today £1 = € 1.15.
We are where we are because the political differences between the UK and the EU became irreconcilable once it pursued political union past a certain point, and refused to review it in light of changing circumstances.
And, you support military putsch ? Shows your love of democracy.
52% in reality bought the bullshit.
It'll be interesting to see how many "remember" voting that way when the damage starts rolling in to the economy.
That does not change the fact that constantly agitating for withdrawal and trying to undermine the EU itself has been thoroughly self-defeating and corrosive to our politics for a very long time.
I can't see 'Mark's - too akin to Germany. Pounds - I dunno - doesn't seem like a break, and it'd be confusing.
The SNP presumably have a plan, although the current fad amongst all politicians seems to be not to bother with such things.
If the Scots have the choice of leaving the EU and following Farage Johnson and Co or taking their chance either as the new EU number 28 or going it alone I can't see it as anything other than a reasonably easy sell for Nicola.
Either way it has put the British government in a very difficult position. To the outside world Jenny No Mates doesn't even begin to describe it. Even Trump must be having second thoughts
12 years ago, you could sum up the Liberal Democrats under the decidedly Leftish and europhile Charles Kennedy and Blair's Labour to well over 60% of the country.
Voters pick and vote for parties as the politics change, and the parties respond in turn. Not the other way round.
Excellent.
The EU shouldn't even have become an issue. That it did is because of what it was, what it did and how it did it, not the UK.
"Look, do you want another referendum or do you not/"
*Unless the faceless Eurocrats have banned full fat milk!
As long as young people can get to Spain and Bulgaria without visas most won't care.
Edit: talk of a London-Berlin axis is fantasy. The Franco-German one has taken 60 years to build!
The leavers have torn my country apart.
Feb 2017: Panelbase: Next Referendum
Pre Brexit – 32%
Post Brexit – 19%
Not in the next 20 years – 25%
Never – 24%
TCTC
Nov 2016: Yougov Scotland
Referendum Pre Brexit - 39%
No Referendum Pre Brexit - 61%
The most pro-referendum voters are under 35, C2DE etc.
It very much looks to me that Sturgeon has picked the wrong fight at the wrong time and is relying on the wrong demographic for support. Additionally,
SNP Unionists as a proportion of the SNP vote as:
16% Ipsos Mori
22% Panelbase
25% Yougov
If this action alienates this element of the SNP vote we could start to see the SNP on sub 40% fairly soon.
The journey may well be painful - unlike Brexit however it might be ultimately worth it.
Nevertheless, I reject comparisons between the UK and the EU.
The UK is a politically integrated, fully sovereign country with common institutions, language, regulation, and history, and has been for centuries.
The EU is not (yet) even though it aspires to be one.
Sturgeon was trying to break up the country long before we had a Brexit vote, and even if we had voted Remain she would still be trying to do it.
It's her whole reason for being.
Your objection is that a vote was held at all, which is in-and-of-itself a political objection.
In your case, very strongly held, but political nonetheless.
Yes I agree do not really believe in referendums in a representative democracy.
Fair enough.