That's a silly little rant, Sean, and not worthy of you.
Of course I'm not arguing that and you don't win an argument by parodying my position and then trashing the distorted version. All I'm saying is that we elected these bods to run the country to the best of their ability, and they shirked that responsibility in respect of membership of the EU.
It's a fair point, isn't it?
Now put the toys back in the pram and go and write another book.
That depends on if you think leaving the EU was best for the country. If you thought that, any government that proposed leaving would be doing their job to the best of their ability in your opinion.
Yes, it would. But it didn't, so it wasn't.
As ScottP put it so succinctly, they shirked the issue. 'You decide. To difficult for us. And if it all goes wrong, you can only blame yourselves.'
We would never have left the EU without a referendum on the matter. So I suspect it would always have been described as such.
One of Cameron's many mistakes was not inviting the Leave campaign to produce a full white paper so that the weakness of their case could be laid bare. Instead, having not tested the theory, we're going straight into a practical demonstration. If May has the country's interests at heart, she'll call a shock second referendum the minute the deal is done and give the people the final say once they really know what Brexit means.
And I suppose the Remain side would have had to do the same, showing where we would end up in 25-50 years?
No, people have had 44 years of being in the EU. They know how it works.
A narrow vote to Remain wouldn't have settled the issue for 10 years, let alone 25 or 50 so the idea that such a roadmap would have been needed is a nonsense.
Implying the EU is static and unchanging.
No, implying the EU evolves in a manner to which people are already accustomed.
That's a silly little rant, Sean, and not worthy of you.
Of course I'm not arguing that and you don't win an argument by parodying my position and then trashing the distorted version. All I'm saying is that we elected these bods to run the country to the best of their ability, and they shirked that responsibility in respect of membership of the EU.
It's a fair point, isn't it?
Now put the toys back in the pram and go and write another book.
That depends on if you think leaving the EU was best for the country. If you thought that, any government that proposed leaving would be doing their job to the best of their ability in your opinion.
Yes, it would. But it didn't, so it wasn't.
As ScottP put it so succinctly, they shirked the issue. 'You decide. To difficult for us. And if it all goes wrong, you can only blame yourselves.'
We would never have left the EU without a referendum on the matter. So I suspect it would always have been described as such.
One of Cameron's many mistakes was not inviting the Leave campaign to produce a full white paper so that the weakness of their case could be laid bare. Instead, having not tested the theory, we're going straight into a practical demonstration. If May has the country's interests at heart, she'll call a shock second referendum the minute the deal is done and give the people the final say once they really know what Brexit means.
And I suppose the Remain side would have had to do the same, showing where we would end up in 25-50 years?
No, people have had 44 years of being in the EU. They know how it works.
A narrow vote to Remain wouldn't have settled the issue for 10 years, let alone 25 or 50 so the idea that such a roadmap would have been needed is a nonsense.
Implying the EU is static and unchanging.
No, implying the EU evolves in a manner to which people are already accustomed.
I must admit, it would have been good to have a manifesto from the Remain side, so we could see just how many things were broken as the EU slowly grew and absorbed more powers.
If Cameron hadn't promised a referendum, we would likely have had a minority Tory govt with several UKIP MP's including Farage. It seems to me the Remainers think things would have been just like 2010-2015 w Dave, Nick and George chillaxing away, and are comparing the current situation to that
That's a silly little rant, Sean, and not worthy of you.
Of course I'm not arguing that and you don't win an argument by parodying my position and then trashing the distorted version. All I'm saying is that we elected these bods to run the country to the best of their ability, and they shirked that responsibility in respect of membership of the EU.
It's a fair point, isn't it?
Now put the toys back in the pram and go and write another book.
That depends on if you think leaving the EU was best for the country. If you thought that, any government that proposed leaving would be doing their job to the best of their ability in your opinion.
Yes, it would. But it didn't, so it wasn't.
As ScottP put it so succinctly, they shirked the issue. 'You decide. To difficult for us. And if it all goes wrong, you can only blame yourselves.'
We would never have left the EU without a referendum on the matter. So I suspect it would always have been described as such.
One of Cameron's many mistakes was not inviting the Leave campaign to produce a full white paper so that the weakness of their case could be laid bare. Instead, having not tested the theory, we're going straight into a practical demonstration. If May has the country's interests at heart, she'll call a shock second referendum the minute the deal is done and give the people the final say once they really know what Brexit means.
Strangely, I think I'd be on SeanT's side on that one and regard such a shock second referendum as an unprincipled U-turn, but then May already has a track record for such manoeuvres so it couldn't be ruled out.
Not sure it would do much good anyway. The damage has already been done, hasn't it?
It depends how things pan out.
At the moment there are still millions of people who believe things that are not true about the strength of our position, about the nature of the EU, and about the opportunities that will be open to us outside the EU. Some of these people sit on the Tory benches. As the reality slowly unfolds, there is a lot of scope for people to change their minds and for Brexitism to go down in a blaze of glory.
After its spending plans last week come its tax hikes this week, the Shadow Health Secretary today said Labour would increase the top tax rate to 50% from 45% and lower the threshold from £150 000 to £80 000 while McDonnell has also said he will reverse Tory inheritance tax cuts, halving the amount couples can pass tax-free to their children from £850 000 to £425 000
O/T I'll be out of the UK at the time of the election. I'm worried that I won't be able to log into any betting sites - any advice/guidance would be helpful.
Depends which country....VPN from some works fine, others are more strict.
I'll be in Sri Lanka.
You can't get to PB.com from there.
It's a waste of time even trying. I wouldn't bother if I were out there. Something to do with tunnelly networky interthingies not reaching the place.
It'll be a shame and we'll really miss you etc etc.
At the moment there are still millions of people who believe things that are not true about the strength of our position, about the nature of the EU, and about the opportunities that will be open to us outside the EU. Some of these people sit on the Tory benches. As the reality slowly unfolds, there is a lot of scope for people to change their minds and for Brexitism to go down in a blaze of glory.
Unlikely, I think. The referendum was carried on several false assumptions. As these unwind, there will first be the denial (which we are seeing already "We'll walk away!") then the acceptance. The most likely outcome is a mediocre stalemate, where we simultaneously try to subvert, co-opt and ignore the EU, pay them bundles of cash, mostly sign up to their agenda, and get on with our lives
Tulip Siddiq was canvassing in my street last week. She came across as engaging and feisty and rather fun. I was impressed by her willingness to debate with me (and others in my household). Were it not for the Corbyn factor - and based on my impressions of her (and what I know of what she has done as an MP) - I might even be tempted to vote for her. I would not be heartbroken if she remained as my MP.
Her line is this:-
1. Nominating Corbyn was a mistake. 2. He will be gone after the election. 3. Cooper, Starmer or Jarvis will be the likely candidates. 4. May will win. 5. Important that she does not get such an enormous win that there is no effective opposition. 6. If Hampstead remains Labour she, Tulip, will be one of the MPs providing such opposition, particularly in relation to Brexit. 7. I should think of the seat rather than Corbyn.
I can understand her strategy. It makes sense for her - and it may succeed, though it will be tight.
But - and it is a very big but indeed - every vote for Labour will be taken by Corbyn as a vote for him and will make it less likely that he will go.
So 2. won't happen. And if it does (or even if it doesn't) Labour have proved inept at no. 6.
Corbyn and his particular brand of illiberal leftist politics need to be crushed. This is no time for sentimentality just because Corbyn speaks softly, makes jam and likes gardening. Corbynism is a virus which is destroying a once great and fundamentally decent party. That is a shame for us all, regardless of whether or not we support it.
Thanks Cyclefree.
First, I must declare an interest. She helped a close friend in her battle with Camden Council (say no more) so she ticks the box with me on the question of 'decent constituency MP'.
As soon as I read your point 2 I was agreeing with it and also your point 6. Most of the rest I agree with too, with some qualifications. Brexit would probably be the biggest issue for me (and I don't have a vote in Hampstead myself) so that would clinch it for me. I agree in principle with what you say about Corbyn and the Labour Party but to me that's a secondary concern. I don't lie awake nites worrying about what's to become of either. That's their concern and for the next five years at least the convulsion inside the red tent will be a sideshow. But on the biggest point of all......
I think 4/1 against Tulip blooming again is about the right price.
"That's a reason not to have a referendum, it's not a reason to hold a referendum and then ignore the result.
Precisely.
Barristers never ask a question unless they already know the answer they'll get. If they get an answer they dislike, their case is weakened. They are not seeking the true facts but only one to bolster their case. The truth came out - the UK does not want to remain in the EU under the current circumstances. May has accepted that fact, as have most of the UK population.
The posher people believe they know better. They'd now rather the question was not put. Truth is only what they want it to be. I'm genuinely sorry for them, but reality can hurt at times.
That's a silly little rant, Sean, and not worthy of you.
Of course I'm not arguing that and you don't win an argument by parodying my position and then trashing the distorted version. All I'm saying is that we elected these bods to run the country to the best of their ability, and they shirked that responsibility in respect of membership of the EU.
It's a fair point, isn't it?
Now put the toys back in the pram and go and write another book.
That depends on if you think leaving the EU was best for the country. If you thought that, any government that proposed leaving would be doing their job to the best of their ability in your opinion.
Yes, it would. But it didn't, so it wasn't.
As ScottP put it so succinctly, they shirked the issue. 'You decide. To difficult for us. And if it all goes wrong, you can only blame yourselves.'
We would never have left the EU without a referendum on the matter. So I suspect it would always have been described as such.
One of Cameron's many mistakes was not inviting the Leave campaign to produce a full white paper so that the weakness of their case could be laid bare. Instead, having not tested the theory, we're going straight into a practical demonstration. If May has the country's interests at heart, she'll call a shock second referendum the minute the deal is done and give the people the final say once they really know what Brexit means.
If you mean what the LDs mean, you're asking for the negotiation period to have two agreed deals for the British people to choose between.
Mr. Punter, if we'd voted to leave and the Commons voted we remain, t situation indeed. Asking people their opinion then telling them they got it wrong and you're ignoring them is a recipe for civil unrest and political turmoil.
But membership of thehe bus!
The referendum has set the economic and political compass for generations. My impression is that an increasing number of voters are becoming more aware of what they voted for. I suspect that one day they will wish they could run the vote again but of course they cannot, and it would do no good if they did.
As I have said before, I hope I am wrong, but I see no reason yet to think so.
Where do you draw the line as to who is informed, and who isn't, and who gets a say? If you knew so little about Brexit, what makes you think you had the right to vote on the matter, over anyone else?
Fact is, I DID think about Gibraltar, Ulster, Scotland, WTO and all the rest of it. I've been thinking about this European stuff for 30 years (as you will know from our previous debates dating back a decade on PB). Indeed from 1990 on I was an absolute EU obsessive - eg. I read the proposed EU Constitution, in toto, twice, for a Telegraph article in 2003. Who else has done that?! Certainly not Ken Clarke, who didn't read it once, if his remarks on EU Treaties are anything to go by, yet felt able to airily and confidently wave it through, ditto Maastricht.
So I was better informed than almost any other British voter. And, going by your logic, perhaps the entire referendum should have been based on the single most informed UK voter, that is to say: me.
In which case the result would have been the same. Because I voted LEAVE.
That's a silly little rant, Sean, and not worthy of you.
Of course I'm not arguing that and you don't win an argument by parodying my position and then trashing the distorted version. All I'm saying is that we elected these bods to run the country to the best of their ability, and they shirked that responsibility in respect of membership of the EU.
That's a reason not to have a referendum, it's not a reason to hold a referendum and then ignore the result.
Agreed, although you could have held a referendum and made it clear it was non-mandatory. But really no referendum was the right course unless the Government and Parliament thought it was genuinely time to leave the EU. A referendum would not have been essential in that situation, but it might have made some sense.
That's a silly little rant, Sean, and not worthy of you.
Of course I'm not arguing that and you don't win an argument by parodying my position and then trashing the distorted version. All I'm saying is that we elected these bods to run the country to the best of their ability, and they shirked that responsibility in respect of membership of the EU.
It's a fair point, isn't it?
Now put the toys back in the pram and go and write another book.
That depends on if you think leaving the EU was best for the country. If you thought that, any government that proposed leaving would be doing their job to the best of their ability in your opinion.
Yes, it would. But it didn't, so it wasn't.
As ScottP put it so succinctly, they shirked the issue. 'You decide. To difficult for us. And if it all goes wrong, you can only blame yourselves.'
"Shirking responsibility" is not argument that cuts much ice. Yes if this were the first UK referendum ever, but it isn't, and anyone who wants to be saying it was an abdication of responsibility needs to have been saying that beforehand, or run the risk of being called a sore loser, and needs to think through how consistent their views on other potentially referendable issues are. UDI without referendum by a majority SNP administration?
What most astonishes me is the universal deafening silence you get when you ask a rabid remoaner how much canvassing he did on this superhypercritically important once-in-a-lifetime issue. Either the issue really matters to you, or it doesn't. If 10% of the firepower now aimed at showing Leave was wrong had been expended before the event rather than after it we'd all be good little Remainers.
Comments
At the moment there are still millions of people who believe things that are not true about the strength of our position, about the nature of the EU, and about the opportunities that will be open to us outside the EU. Some of these people sit on the Tory benches. As the reality slowly unfolds, there is a lot of scope for people to change their minds and for Brexitism to go down in a blaze of glory.
https://twitter.com/ScoBigVoice/status/864087642190868480
NEW THREAD
It's a waste of time even trying. I wouldn't bother if I were out there.
Something to do with tunnelly networky interthingies not reaching the place.
It'll be a shame and we'll really miss you etc etc.
First, I must declare an interest. She helped a close friend in her battle with Camden Council (say no more) so she ticks the box with me on the question of 'decent constituency MP'.
As soon as I read your point 2 I was agreeing with it and also your point 6. Most of the rest I agree with too, with some qualifications. Brexit would probably be the biggest issue for me (and I don't have a vote in Hampstead myself) so that would clinch it for me. I agree in principle with what you say about Corbyn and the Labour Party but to me that's a secondary concern. I don't lie awake nites worrying about what's to become of either. That's their concern and for the next five years at least the convulsion inside the red tent will be a sideshow. But on the biggest point of all......
I think 4/1 against Tulip blooming again is about the right price.
"That's a reason not to have a referendum, it's not a reason to hold a referendum and then ignore the result.
Precisely.
Barristers never ask a question unless they already know the answer they'll get. If they get an answer they dislike, their case is weakened. They are not seeking the true facts but only one to bolster their case. The truth came out - the UK does not want to remain in the EU under the current circumstances. May has accepted that fact, as have most of the UK population.
The posher people believe they know better. They'd now rather the question was not put. Truth is only what they want it to be. I'm genuinely sorry for them, but reality can hurt at times.
What most astonishes me is the universal deafening silence you get when you ask a rabid remoaner how much canvassing he did on this superhypercritically important once-in-a-lifetime issue. Either the issue really matters to you, or it doesn't. If 10% of the firepower now aimed at showing Leave was wrong had been expended before the event rather than after it we'd all be good little Remainers.