if you characterise people who campaign against you as liars (from no obvious position of strength), and people who support that campaign as stupid, you had better get used to losing plebiscites.
It's a provable lie, and it was you who said could not be intelligent people who believed it.
I've explained to you, more than once, why it was neither a lie nor a promise.
Merkel and Macron have announced a project to create a next generation European fighter jet that would replace the existing Rafales and Eurofighters.
Will BAE find themselves out in the cold?
The future is drones. There's an Anglo-Dutch startup* which is working on a fighter drone that is more maneuverable, faster, doesn't have to worry about pulling Gs, can refuel itself in mid-air, and can loiter for days at a time. It also doesn't need all the stuff to keep the pilot alive, so it's smaller and stealthier than a traditional plane.
The Eurofighter, the F35, etc., are all white elephants who won't stand a chance against the next generation of drones.
* I say start-up, but they've raised billions
Isn't the UN pushing for heavy restrictions on use of robots and drones in warfare though?
A second referendum would be iffy for a variety of reasons
(1) Why? Because some people are bad losers. And ore importantly, they are self-important, bad losers, and not used to it.
(2) Even if we decided to crawl back to the EU on bended knees, we at not dealing with a static position. It would be up to the EU to set terms, assuming they wanted us back. The Euro - hooray! A European army - hooray. Totally uncontrolled immigration - hooray. A European parliament - hooray. Good luck with that one.
(3) The repeal bill is a massive undertaking and will emphasise how much UK law has already been subsumed into Euro Directives and Regulations - despite Cleggy bleating about how little it had really affected the UK Parliament's pre-eminence. Up there with the threat of an imminent attack by the Wardrobe Monster if we left.
There's much squawking and squealing to come, but a second referendum isn't likely to be part of it.
I don't recommend a second referendum (I didn't recommend the first one either !), but if parliament did decide to hold one, it would be be just as valid as the first referendum, even if it did carry on 52/48 because:
1. It's a different question. The first was on the principle; this would be on the actual arrangement.
2. If people did vote to Brexit even so, it deals definitively with the objection that the Leave campaign was won on a set of lies.
3. If on the other hand, Leave lose that's because they have failed to engage and win over the half of country that voted Remain the first time . Leave own the project. It's up to them to make it work for everyone and convince the doubters.
Merkel and Macron have announced a project to create a next generation European fighter jet that would replace the existing Rafales and Eurofighters.
Will BAE find themselves out in the cold?
The future is drones. There's an Anglo-Dutch startup* which is working on a fighter drone that is more maneuverable, faster, doesn't have to worry about pulling Gs, can refuel itself in mid-air, and can loiter for days at a time. It also doesn't need all the stuff to keep the pilot alive, so it's smaller and stealthier than a traditional plane.
The Eurofighter, the F35, etc., are all white elephants who won't stand a chance against the next generation of drones.
* I say start-up, but they've raised billions
Isn't the UN pushing for heavy restrictions on use of robots and drones in warfare though?
A landmine is arguably a form of robot munition.
Autonomous indiscriminate weaponry is kinda illegal generally is it not?
Something almost all sales trainers tell salesmen is not to disparage the customer's existing supplier, as this amounts to telling the customer he is stupid. People you insult have little incentive to want to please you; quite the reverse.
Ummm, you were the one who said "No intelligent person can have believed that £350 million would be spent on the NHS", and yet many people voted on that basis.
It wasn't me who was calling them stupid...
How do you know "many people voted on that basis"?
In my anecdata (posted here) in the week before the referendum, I reported several conversations where it was the theme, admittedly in the outpatients waiting room.
Right, so you don't know.
How stupid and / or degenerate were the outpatients discussing it?
How do you know "many people voted on that basis"?
The guy who came up with it says it won them the vote.
How did it win without many people voting for it?
Off the weakness of the opposing arguments.
This seems like an example of the popular argument whereby Brexiteers disown Brexit by blaming the other side for losing. It's an admission that they intended to protest, not to win.
It is not blaming anyone. Remain had the weaker arguments because they were trying to argue for something that didn't have much going for it.
David Cameron, flawed as he was, knew this. That is why he tried to put enough of a renegotiation together so that he could argue for some supposed better EU that we were on course for, rather than what currently existed. He failed to realise the EU was so broken and dysfunctional, it could not even make a show of being on a positive path. The referendum was lost as soon as Cameron met with a brick wall in Brussels.
There are those who support EU membership for political reasons and see the economics as a side-benefit (williamglenn)
There are those who support EU membership for economic reasons and see the politics as something not to worry about too much (Topping, David Herdson)
There are those who reluctantly support EU membership for economic reasons even though they don't particularly like the politics (Richard Nabavi, BigGNorthWales)
There are those who somewhat hesitantly voted Leave for political reasons even though they were a little concerned about the short-term economics (DavidL, Robert Smithson)
There are those who voted Leave with conviction for political reasons even though they realised there might be an economic impact (Richard Tyndall, Charles)
There are those who voted Leave for political and economic reasons, as they see both as beneficial (Andrew Lilico, Daniel Hannan, GeoffM, Sean Fear)
And there were those who knocked back two bottles of wine before heading down to the polling station, and probably voted Out, but it's all a bit hazy. (SeanT)
So if Parliament vote down the repeal bill, you really think, the 52% would just say fair enough, let's have a another referendum? Really?
And no doubt if that one gave a majority for Remain, you'd be overjoyed. And expect the Leavers will say ... "Obviously our betters know more than we do - we can only obey orders."
Dream on.
I can only agree with this. Too many remainers think a second referendum will solve all problems. We'll vote to Remain, and that will be that.
I seriously doubt that. Even if (somehow) it's 60:40 to Remain in the second referendum then how would you counter the following:
Leavers saying "Best of three"
Leavers saying "This is nothing more than an attempt to subvert the first referendum result 'EU style', in voting until we get the answer we want."
It's hard not to at least see that point of view. It's also hard to see how to prevent UKIP suddenly climbing to 35-40% in the polls (which will tend towards landslide in 2022) except by either the cancellation, or simple outright rigging, of future elections.
A second referendum (if offered) should be a choice of:
'Accept Deal (EEA/EFTA/other) as negotiated' or 'Crash out to WTO'
Remain should NOT be on the ballot.
Leaving the EU might well be an economic disaster for the country. I'm even prepared to accept it will be. Not leaving will be a political disaster, and depending on how people react (civil disobedience, general strikes), could lead to an economic disaster anyway.
60/40 Change our minds vote would be fine. It's a much bigger margin than the original referendum, to the extent you could claim a consensus, which you can't do on the first one. However, those numbers aren't there. Currently I would expect a chunk of Remainers to switch to Leave - possibly more than going the other way.
I think if another referendum people would be so pissed off at being asked to vote again - in the words of Brenda from Bristol 'not another one!' that many would vote Leave to spite those making the request of them.
A second referendum would be iffy for a variety of reasons
(1) Why? Because some people are bad losers. And ore importantly, they are self-important, bad losers, and not used to it.
(2) Even if we decided to crawl back to the EU on bended knees, we at not dealing with a static position. It would be up to the EU to set terms, assuming they wanted us back. The Euro - hooray! A European army - hooray. Totally uncontrolled immigration - hooray. A European parliament - hooray. Good luck with that one.
(3) The repeal bill is a massive undertaking and will emphasise how much UK law has already been subsumed into Euro Directives and Regulations - despite Cleggy bleating about how little it had really affected the UK Parliament's pre-eminence. Up there with the threat of an imminent attack by the Wardrobe Monster if we left.
There's much squawking and squealing to come, but a second referendum isn't likely to be part of it.
If we repealed the Great Repeal Bill, would it have the effect of unrepealing all the laws repealed?
Ive been flicking through previous threads and I'm not sure people quite get what is going on.
This is a strategy of letting those around Trump hang themselves then watching Trump himself do it. Every single time there has been a revelation (and lets remember how many people reckoned there were no serious revelations yet they have just got more and more substantial) the reaction out of Team Trump has been the same, and each time a new piece of info emerges that shows their initial reaction to be less than honest.
Lets take a future example. Trump Snr has pretty much denied knowing anything about his son's meeting with a Russian Intelligence cut out. What if information is released showing he was a very active participant in that little affair?
What if the meeting that 'came to nothing' actually came to something?
What then?
The fact that Trumps team seem not to be able to get their reaction right tells you how little they seem to be aware of what the detail of the investigation and intelligence take is, they simply do not have access to it.
Before the election, I pointed out how close the Trump links were to the Russians where state intelligence and the mob have a lot of ties. I pointed out that Western Intelligence services had audio of Russian officials talking about how they owned Trump. What you are watching is a systematic attempt to encircle this President, and the stories coming out are a mere tithe of what they have.
And just as a note, there are cracks appearing amongst the GOP in Congress.
A second referendum would be iffy for a variety of reasons
(1) Why? Because some people are bad losers. And ore importantly, they are self-important, bad losers, and not used to it.
(2) Even if we decided to crawl back to the EU on bended knees, we at not dealing with a static position. It would be up to the EU to set terms, assuming they wanted us back. The Euro - hooray! A European army - hooray. Totally uncontrolled immigration - hooray. A European parliament - hooray. Good luck with that one.
(3) The repeal bill is a massive undertaking and will emphasise how much UK law has already been subsumed into Euro Directives and Regulations - despite Cleggy bleating about how little it had really affected the UK Parliament's pre-eminence. Up there with the threat of an imminent attack by the Wardrobe Monster if we left.
There's much squawking and squealing to come, but a second referendum isn't likely to be part of it.
I don't recommend a second referendum (I didn't recommend the first one either !), but if parliament did decide to hold one, it would be be just as valid as the first referendum, even if it did carry on 52/48 because:
1. It's a different question. The first was on the principle; this would be on the actual arrangement.
2. If people did vote to Brexit even so, it deals definitively with the objection that the Leave campaign was won on a set of lies.
3. If on the other hand, Leave lose that's because they have failed to engage and win over the half of country that voted Remain the first time . Leave own the project. It's up to them to make it work for everyone and convince the doubters.
We did not have a second referendum after 1975. Or when the terms changed in 1986, 1992, 1997 or 2007. Having a second referendum now would be like the Conservatives forming a government when they win an election, but requiring Labour to have a second one after they put forward their first budget. It would be a democratic fraud and the people would rightly see it as such.
Merkel and Macron have announced a project to create a next generation European fighter jet that would replace the existing Rafales and Eurofighters.
Will BAE find themselves out in the cold?
The future is drones. There's an Anglo-Dutch startup* which is working on a fighter drone that is more maneuverable, faster, doesn't have to worry about pulling Gs, can refuel itself in mid-air, and can loiter for days at a time. It also doesn't need all the stuff to keep the pilot alive, so it's smaller and stealthier than a traditional plane.
The Eurofighter, the F35, etc., are all white elephants who won't stand a chance against the next generation of drones.
* I say start-up, but they've raised billions
Isn't the UN pushing for heavy restrictions on use of robots and drones in warfare though?
A second referendum would be iffy for a variety of reasons
(1) Why? Because some people are bad losers. And ore importantly, they are self-important, bad losers, and not used to it.
(2) Even if we decided to crawl back to the EU on bended knees, we at not dealing with a static position. It would be up to the EU to set terms, assuming they wanted us back. The Euro - hooray! A European army - hooray. Totally uncontrolled immigration - hooray. A European parliament - hooray. Good luck with that one.
(3) The repeal bill is a massive undertaking and will emphasise how much UK law has already been subsumed into Euro Directives and Regulations - despite Cleggy bleating about how little it had really affected the UK Parliament's pre-eminence. Up there with the threat of an imminent attack by the Wardrobe Monster if we left.
There's much squawking and squealing to come, but a second referendum isn't likely to be part of it.
If we repealed the Great Repeal Bill, would it have the effect of unrepealing all the laws repealed?
(Serious question.)
I wouldn't think so. Surely once a law is repealed it gone until its voted on again?
So you could repeal the repeal bill but you'd still have to bring fresh legislation to implement all the laws the repeal bill repealed?
Ive been flicking through previous threads and I'm not sure people quite get what is going on.
This is a strategy of letting those around Trump hang themselves then watching Trump himself do it. Every single time there has been a revelation (and lets remember how many people reckoned there were no serious revelations yet they have just got more and more substantial) the reaction out of Team Trump has been the same, and each time a new piece of info emerges that shows their initial reaction to be less than honest.
Lets take a future example. Trump Snr has pretty much denied knowing anything about his son's meeting with a Russian Intelligence cut out. What if information is released showing he was a very active participant in that little affair?
What if the meeting that 'came to nothing' actually came to something?
What then?
The fact that Trumps team seem not to be able to get their reaction right tells you how little they seem to be aware of what the detail of the investigation and intelligence take is, they simply do not have access to it.
Before the election, I pointed out how close the Trump links were to the Russians where state intelligence and the mob have a lot of ties. I pointed out that Western Intelligence services had audio of Russian officials talking about how they owned Trump. What you are watching is a systematic attempt to encircle this President, and the stories coming out are a mere tithe of what they have.
And just as a note, there are cracks appearing amongst the GOP in Congress.
How much of this does the electorate actually care about though? What is the latest polling and local elections saying?
Is this really going to turn into a Nixon impeachment or is it more likely to be Bill and Monika?
The general public voted for Brexit as a result of a campaign to keep foreigners out. What a few fellow travellers thought they were voting for is neither here nor there. They're trapped in victory by the campaign they connived with.
Well, hang on, Alastair. Those are fighting words. We have it from Scott that the general public in fact voted for Brexit because they stupidly believed the lie that Brexit would result in £350 million a week extra for the NHS.
Now here you are, contradicting him by claiming they voted to keep foreigners out! Unless the £350 million was to set up an NHS unit that would somehow keep foreigners out, perhaps by reclassifying them as a disease, obviously at least one of you Remainers is a stupid lying moral degenerate. As must be everyone else who voted Remain, all of whom believed both of your respective positions.
You do realise this gives Leavers permission to hate all Remainers? :-)
A second referendum would be iffy for a variety of reasons
(1) Why? Because some people are bad losers. And ore importantly, they are self-important, bad losers, and not used to it.
(2) Even if we decided to crawl back to the EU on bended knees, we at not dealing with a static position. It would be up to the EU to set terms, assuming they wanted us back. The Euro - hooray! A European army - hooray. Totally uncontrolled immigration - hooray. A European parliament - hooray. Good luck with that one.
(3) The repeal bill is a massive undertaking and will emphasise how much UK law has already been subsumed into Euro Directives and Regulations - despite Cleggy bleating about how little it had really affected the UK Parliament's pre-eminence. Up there with the threat of an imminent attack by the Wardrobe Monster if we left.
There's much squawking and squealing to come, but a second referendum isn't likely to be part of it.
If we repealed the Great Repeal Bill, would it have the effect of unrepealing all the laws repealed?
(Serious question.)
I wouldn't think so. Surely once a law is repealed it gone until its voted on again?
So you would repeal the repeal bill but you'd still have to bring fresh legislation to implement all the laws the repeal bill repealed?
A second referendum would be iffy for a variety of reasons
(1) Why? Because some people are bad losers. And ore importantly, they are self-important, bad losers, and not used to it.
(2) Even if we decided to crawl back to the EU on bended knees, we at not dealing with a static position. It would be up to the EU to set terms, assuming they wanted us back. The Euro - hooray! A European army - hooray. Totally uncontrolled immigration - hooray. A European parliament - hooray. Good luck with that one.
(3) The repeal bill is a massive undertaking and will emphasise how much UK law has already been subsumed into Euro Directives and Regulations - despite Cleggy bleating about how little it had really affected the UK Parliament's pre-eminence. Up there with the threat of an imminent attack by the Wardrobe Monster if we left.
There's much squawking and squealing to come, but a second referendum isn't likely to be part of it.
I don't recommend a second referendum (I didn't recommend the first one either !), but if parliament did decide to hold one, it would be be just as valid as the first referendum, even if it did carry on 52/48 because:
1. It's a different question. The first was on the principle; this would be on the actual arrangement.
2. If people did vote to Brexit even so, it deals definitively with the objection that the Leave campaign was won on a set of lies.
3. If on the other hand, Leave lose that's because they have failed to engage and win over the half of country that voted Remain the first time . Leave own the project. It's up to them to make it work for everyone and convince the doubters.
We did not have a second referendum after 1975. Or when the terms changed in 1986, 1992, 1997 or 2007. Having a second referendum now would be like the Conservatives forming a government when they win an election, but requiring Labour to have a second one after they put forward their first budget. It would be a democratic fraud and the people would rightly see it as such.
If people vote for it is no more a democratic fraud than the vote of 23 June 2016. I am not proposing another referendum, but it would be perfectly legitimate however the vote went.
I honestly do not get this idea that £350 million for the NHS was some sort of lie.
Given that we (well, others - I abstained) were not voting for a government, the "for the NHS" tag was clearly a suggestion, not a promise by anyone, because a Leave vote would not put anybody into a position to implement it. It would just make it possible, if the government wanted to do that.
And re the amount, well, yes, some of the £350 million comes back, so perhaps the net figure applies. But also perhaps not. Having rendered £350 million a week unto Brussels, it is the latter's decision where and how to spend that portion that comes back, not ours. So conceivably, one could choose to spend none of it in the manner the EU chooses, and instead route all of it to the NHS.
Of all the arguments about how mendacious the Leave campaign was, this strikes me as among the weakest. It is like saying that Corbyn said in the election that he'd set up a National Care Service, but has not done so, and is thus a wicked liar.
The figure was a lie. We don't send £350m. We never did.
The "give it to the NHS instead" was a lie. Whatever the number, it will never be spent exclusively on the NHS
We pay £17 billion gross of which we get a proportion back. The £350 million is defensible, for the reasons outlined previously.
No intelligent person can have believed that £350 million would be spent on the NHS, because this would require a government decision, and a government was not being voted for. I get that you would like people to have thought this a promise, so that it can be characterised as a lie, but the comparison with Corbyn is exact.
The rebate never actually goes to Brussels, so the correct number is £12-13bn (I think).
The correct number is just over £15 billion. Around £280 million a week. Even a year later I have heard no good explanation as to why Vote Leave didn't use this figure instead given it is still eye wateringly large and would not be subject to the same valid criticism as the £350 million.
Thank you very much .
So that's post rebate, but adding back the VAT and CET payments.
Correct. It was also the peak which was expected to drop slightly on coming years before starting to rise again after the next budgetary round.
How much would it be if it included the health treatment in the NHS by EU nationals that we try to reclaim, but never arrives?
"It deals definitively with the objection that the Leave campaign was won on a set of lies."
Bad loser always say that. General Elections are won on persuading people to vote for you. So are referenda. If your strong points are good enough, you will win.
The labour left-wingers always blamed losing on the Murdoch press, Napoleon (the pig) always blamed Farmer Jones.
Politicians always present their opinions as facts. Even when they tell the truth, it's not the whole truth.
Ive been flicking through previous threads and I'm not sure people quite get what is going on.
This is a strategy of letting those around Trump hang themselves then watching Trump himself do it. Every single time there has been a revelation (and lets remember how many people reckoned there were no serious revelations yet they have just got more and more substantial) the reaction out of Team Trump has been the same, and each time a new piece of info emerges that shows their initial reaction to be less than honest.
Lets take a future example. Trump Snr has pretty much denied knowing anything about his son's meeting with a Russian Intelligence cut out. What if information is released showing he was a very active participant in that little affair?
What if the meeting that 'came to nothing' actually came to something?
What then?
The fact that Trumps team seem not to be able to get their reaction right tells you how little they seem to be aware of what the detail of the investigation and intelligence take is, they simply do not have access to it.
Before the election, I pointed out how close the Trump links were to the Russians where state intelligence and the mob have a lot of ties. I pointed out that Western Intelligence services had audio of Russian officials talking about how they owned Trump. What you are watching is a systematic attempt to encircle this President, and the stories coming out are a mere tithe of what they have.
And just as a note, there are cracks appearing amongst the GOP in Congress.
"It deals definitively with the objection that the Leave campaign was won on a set of lies."
Bad loser always say that. General Elections are won on persuading people to vote for you. So are referenda. If your strong points are good enough, you will win.
The labour left-wingers always blamed losing on the Murdoch press, Napoleon (the pig) always blamed Farmer Jones.
Politicians always present their opinions as facts. Even when they tell the truth, it's not the whole truth.
In that case, Leave will win comfortably. (And will be vindicated).
The general public voted for Brexit as a result of a campaign to keep foreigners out. What a few fellow travellers thought they were voting for is neither here nor there. They're trapped in victory by the campaign they connived with.
Well, hang on, Alastair. Those are fighting words. We have it from Scott that the general public in fact voted for Brexit because they stupidly believed the lie that Brexit would result in £350 million a week extra for the NHS.
Now here you are, contradicting him by claiming they voted to keep foreigners out! Unless the £350 million was to set up an NHS unit that would somehow keep foreigners out, perhaps by reclassifying them as a disease, obviously at least one of you Remainers is a stupid lying moral degenerate. As must be everyone else who voted Remain, all of whom believed both of your respective positions.
You do realise this gives Leavers permission to hate all Remainers? :-)
In the final weeks, Vote Leave campaigned on an entirely fictitious claim that Turkey, population 76 million, is joining the EU (complete with little footprints to emphasise the point of concern) while Leave.EU proclaimed Breaking Point, with a poster that precisely echoed Nazi propaganda material.
While @ScottP is certainly correct that there was a side order of deceit about the sums supposedly available for saving for the NHS, it is clear that the Leave campaigns had decided, probably correctly, that the referendum was only winnable in the closing stages by pandering to xenophobia.
Remainer toys exiting remainer prams in unprecedented numbers today. Guys, we have universal suffrage here. If you want to characterise that as "thick proles get to vote too," because you are unable to generalise about the nature of prejudice from specific examples (that is, you think there are special rules protecting LGBT and black people, but white chavs are not on the list and therefore fair game) go right ahead. Good luck with getting your heads round the fact that 30%+ of immigrants/the children of immigrants are concerned that immigration levels are too high: classifying them as uncle Toms might be the way forward. And definitely tell yourselves that the proles are incapable of distinguishing between being anti-immigration and being anti-immigrant, because they haven't got bad seconds from plate-glass universities like you have.
To reverse the result of the previous one, of course.
More specifically, when you can actually say, here is the proposed deal, this is what it will mean when we leave, X, Y, Z... now, do you want to go ahead, or not.
Is anyone watching the Macron Trump press conference.
The body language is so funny and no applause after Trump's address.
JC Bua in yesterday's excellent podcast seemed to think that the only thing battier than Trump accepting Macron's invitation, was Macron issuing it. Hugely difficult to see what is in it for either of them.
Is anyone watching the Macron Trump press conference.
The body language is so funny and no applause after Trump's address.
JC Bua in yesterday's excellent podcast seemed to think that the only thing battier than Trump accepting Macron's invitation, was Macron issuing it. Hugely difficult to see what is in it for either of them.
The general public voted for Brexit as a result of a campaign to keep foreigners out. What a few fellow travellers thought they were voting for is neither here nor there. They're trapped in victory by the campaign they connived with.
Well, hang on, Alastair. Those are fighting words. We have it from Scott that the general public in fact voted for Brexit because they stupidly believed the lie that Brexit would result in £350 million a week extra for the NHS.
Now here you are, contradicting him by claiming they voted to keep foreigners out! Unless the £350 million was to set up an NHS unit that would somehow keep foreigners out, perhaps by reclassifying them as a disease, obviously at least one of you Remainers is a stupid lying moral degenerate. As must be everyone else who voted Remain, all of whom believed both of your respective positions.
You do realise this gives Leavers permission to hate all Remainers? :-)
In the final weeks, Vote Leave campaigned on an entirely fictitious claim that Turkey, population 76 million, is joining the EU (complete with little footprints to emphasise the point of concern) while Leave.EU proclaimed Breaking Point, with a poster that precisely echoed Nazi propaganda material.
While @ScottP is certainly correct that there was a side order of deceit about the sums supposedly available for saving for the NHS, it is clear that the Leave campaigns had decided, probably correctly, that the referendum was only winnable in the closing stages by pandering to xenophobia.
How do you know the distastefulness of those didn't reduce Leave's winning margin? They made you less likely to vote Leave, did they not? Why wouldn't they have switched a few hundred thousand waverers from Leave to Remain?
The demon eyes poster probably helped Tony Blair, although with hindsight, I think not many people would now disagree with its thrust or accuracy.
The thing about the Turkish claim is that while it might be fictitious now, there is no way to know that it would always remain so. Greece should never have been able to adopt the euro, for example. This was my big problem with Remain: remain in what, exactly?
Scott insists that every last Leave voter believed the £350 million, and was stupid, and that these factors drove their vote. If he is right you cannot be, and vice versa. And if both of you are somewhat right you'd never know.
Cummings explained it I thought: they cynically decided that using £350m encouraged people to criticise the figure and keep it in the news.
Precisely. Cummings holds all political campaigning in contempt so doesn't care how it's done, so long as it's effective.
It`s not in the least effective in terms of persuading the other half of the population of the legitimacy of the decision, though. It is effective only in terms of seeming to legitimise a power-grab, which is what we are talking about in the case of the EU Referendum. And of the 2017 General Election. And of the 2015 General Election too.
Is anyone watching the Macron Trump press conference.
The body language is so funny and no applause after Trump's address.
JC Bua in yesterday's excellent podcast seemed to think that the only thing battier than Trump accepting Macron's invitation, was Macron issuing it. Hugely difficult to see what is in it for either of them.
Macron really misjudged this
Will make it easier for HMG to give his a visit....
The general public voted for Brexit as a result of a campaign to keep foreigners out. What a few fellow travellers thought they were voting for is neither here nor there. They're trapped in victory by the campaign they connived with.
Well, hang on, Alastair. Those are fighting words. We have it from Scott that the general public in fact voted for Brexit because they stupidly believed the lie that Brexit would result in £350 million a week extra for the NHS.
Now here you are, contradicting him by claiming they voted to keep foreigners out! Unless the £350 million was to set up an NHS unit that would somehow keep foreigners out, perhaps by reclassifying them as a disease, obviously at least one of you Remainers is a stupid lying moral degenerate. As must be everyone else who voted Remain, all of whom believed both of your respective positions.
You do realise this gives Leavers permission to hate all Remainers? :-)
In the final weeks, Vote Leave campaigned on an entirely fictitious claim that Turkey, population 76 million, is joining the EU (complete with little footprints to emphasise the point of concern) while Leave.EU proclaimed Breaking Point, with a poster that precisely echoed Nazi propaganda material.
While @ScottP is certainly correct that there was a side order of deceit about the sums supposedly available for saving for the NHS, it is clear that the Leave campaigns had decided, probably correctly, that the referendum was only winnable in the closing stages by pandering to xenophobia.
How do you know the distastefulness of those didn't reduce Leave's winning margin? They made you less likely to vote Leave, did they not?
The demon eyes poster probably helped Tony Blair, although with hindsight, I think not many people would now disagree with its thrust or accuracy.
Scott insists that every last Leave voter believed the £350 million, and was stupid, and that these factors drove their vote. If he is right you cannot be, and vice versa. And if both of you are somewhat right you'd never know.
It's not a question of whether it increased or reduced Leave's winning margin (though there is abundant evidence that controlling immigration was what Leave voters were voting for). This was the prospectus that was being offered. For it not to be implemented would be an affront to democracy.
The general public voted for Brexit as a result of a campaign to keep foreigners out. What a few fellow travellers thought they were voting for is neither here nor there. They're trapped in victory by the campaign they connived with.
Many voted against the cosy, smug 'rub their noses in it' system favoured by a metropolitan elite that impoverishes native workers, weakens the social contract between employers and native workers, and increases competition for scarce public services and scarce private commodities like housing.
And, as often with those who experience harsh realities every day rather than read about them through the cosy, reguarly deluded and frequently warped lens of the metropolitan media, they are apparently in a much better position to judge.
Something almost all sales trainers tell salesmen is not to disparage the customer's existing supplier, as this amounts to telling the customer he is stupid. People you insult have little incentive to want to please you; quite the reverse.
Ummm, you were the one who said "No intelligent person can have believed that £350 million would be spent on the NHS", and yet many people voted on that basis.
It wasn't me who was calling them stupid...
How do you know "many people voted on that basis"?
In my anecdata (posted here) in the week before the referendum, I reported several conversations where it was the theme, admittedly in the outpatients waiting room.
Right, so you don't know.
How stupid and / or degenerate were the outpatients discussing it?
Older Leicester folk of all classes, with a variety of diseases. No more or less intelligent than other voters. I couldn't follow the Gujerati conversations mind you. They could have been discussing Euratom regulation, but most likely not!
A second referendum won't happen unless there is yet another general election because the current parliament wouldn't legislate for it. And that would have to happen inside the next 20 months.
The more likely scenario is that public opinion turns very heavily against Brexit, leading to a delay in the process that the EU agrees that never really ends, until we sign a new treaty.
I see opinion on Brexit as being fairly closely linked to how well the economy is doing but it will dip over the next 20 months in any event as trade-offs and realities become clear.
That will cause a lot of excitement but it will be mostly registering frustration and noise.
Is anyone watching the Macron Trump press conference.
The body language is so funny and no applause after Trump's address.
JC Bua in yesterday's excellent podcast seemed to think that the only thing battier than Trump accepting Macron's invitation, was Macron issuing it. Hugely difficult to see what is in it for either of them.
Macron really misjudged this
Will make it easier for HMG to give his a visit....
To reverse the result of the previous one, of course.
More specifically, when you can actually say, here is the proposed deal, this is what it will mean when we leave, X, Y, Z... now, do you want to go ahead, or not.
The general public voted for Brexit as a result of a campaign to keep foreigners out. What a few fellow travellers thought they were voting for is neither here nor there. They're trapped in victory by the campaign they connived with.
Well, hang on, Alastair. Those are fighting words. We have it from Scott that the general public in fact voted for Brexit because they stupidly believed the lie that Brexit would result in £350 million a week extra for the NHS.
Now here you are, contradicting him by claiming they voted to keep foreigners out! Unless the £350 million was to set up an NHS unit that would somehow keep foreigners out, perhaps by reclassifying them as a disease, obviously at least one of you Remainers is a stupid lying moral degenerate. As must be everyone else who voted Remain, all of whom believed both of your respective positions.
You do realise this gives Leavers permission to hate all Remainers? :-)
In the final weeks, Vote Leave campaigned on an entirely fictitious claim that Turkey, population 76 million, is joining the EU (complete with little footprints to emphasise the point of concern) while Leave.EU proclaimed Breaking Point, with a poster that precisely echoed Nazi propaganda material.
How do you know the distastefulness of those didn't reduce Leave's winning margin? They made you less likely to vote Leave, did they not?
The demon eyes poster probably helped Tony Blair, although with hindsight, I think not many people would now disagree with its thrust or accuracy.
Scott insists that every last Leave voter believed the £350 million, and was stupid, and that these factors drove their vote. If he is right you cannot be, and vice versa. And if both of you are somewhat right you'd never know.
It's not a question of whether it increased or reduced Leave's winning margin (though there is abundant evidence that controlling immigration was what Leave voters were voting for). This was the prospectus that was being offered. For it not to be implemented would be an affront to democracy.
So Scott's a stupid and suggestible liar, then, for believing it was the £350 million for the NHS wot won it?
Sigh.
In my day job, I speak to financial traders who uniformly regard their profits as the result of their own brilliant trading acumen, but who attribute their losses to market abuse by other people. These other people cheat because they are too stupid to win honestly. Apparently.
Many voted against the cosy, smug 'rub their noses in it' system favoured by a metropolitan elite that impoverishes native workers, weakens the social contract between employers and native workers, and increases competition for scarce public services and scarce private commodities like housing.
So it was a vote against cheap credit and quantitative easing?
In the final weeks, Vote Leave campaigned on an entirely fictitious claim that Turkey, population 76 million, is joining the EU (complete with little footprints to emphasise the point of concern) while Leave.EU proclaimed Breaking Point, with a poster that precisely echoed Nazi propaganda material.
How do you know the distastefulness of those didn't reduce Leave's winning margin? They made you less likely to vote Leave, did they not?
The demon eyes poster probably helped Tony Blair, although with hindsight, I think not many people would now disagree with its thrust or accuracy.
Scott insists that every last Leave voter believed the £350 million, and was stupid, and that these factors drove their vote. If he is right you cannot be, and vice versa. And if both of you are somewhat right you'd never know.
It's not a question of whether it increased or reduced Leave's winning margin (though there is abundant evidence that controlling immigration was what Leave voters were voting for). This was the prospectus that was being offered. For it not to be implemented would be an affront to democracy.
So Scott's a stupid and suggestible liar, then, for believing it was the £350 million for the NHS wot won it?
Sigh.
In my day job, I speak to financial traders who uniformly regard their profits as the result of their own brilliant trading acumen, but who attribute their losses to market abuse by other people. These other people cheat because they are too stupid to win honestly. Apparently.
You're missing my point completely. Leave supporters are trapped by the means of their victory, which provided a mandate for controlling immigration. It doesn't matter whether you believe it was won by a fictitious £350 million a week or by mass hypnosis through the ink in tabloid newspapers, Leave campaigned primarily on controlling immigration and controlling immigration is non-negotiable as a term of Brexit. Hence why both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn have accepted this point.
Something almost all sales trainers tell salesmen is not to disparage the customer's existing supplier, as this amounts to telling the customer he is stupid. People you insult have little incentive to want to please you; quite the reverse.
Ummm, you were the one who said "No intelligent person can have believed that £350 million would be spent on the NHS", and yet many people voted on that basis.
It wasn't me who was calling them stupid...
How do you know "many people voted on that basis"?
In my anecdata (posted here) in the week before the referendum, I reported several conversations where it was the theme, admittedly in the outpatients waiting room.
Right, so you don't know.
How stupid and / or degenerate were the outpatients discussing it?
Older Leicester folk of all classes, with a variety of diseases. No more or less intelligent than other voters. I couldn't follow the Gujerati conversations mind you. They could have been discussing Euratom regulation, but most likely not!
Well, we have violent discord among Remainers. We have Scott who knows all Leavers were thickoes who voted for £350 million a week for the NHS, we have your compelling evidence that they were all NFN and we have Alastair who knows they were all swayed rather than repelled by the anti-immigration stuff.
So that's at least three perspectives among three of you; yet at least two of you are adamant that the Leavers voted Leave for one reason, and yet you don't agree what that was!
The general public voted for Brexit as a result of a campaign to keep foreigners out. What a few fellow travellers thought they were voting for is neither here nor there. They're trapped in victory by the campaign they connived with.
Well, hang on, Alastair. Those are fighting words. We have it from Scott that the general public in fact voted for Brexit because they stupidly believed the lie that Brexit would result in £350 million a week extra for the NHS.
Now here you are, contradicting him by claiming they voted to keep foreigners out! Unless the £350 million was to set up an NHS unit that would somehow keep foreigners out, perhaps by reclassifying them as a disease, obviously at least one of you Remainers is a stupid lying moral degenerate. As must be everyone else who voted Remain, all of whom believed both of your respective positions.
You do realise this gives Leavers permission to hate all Remainers? :-)
In the final weeks, Vote Leave campaigned on an entirely fictitious claim that Turkey, population 76 million, is joining the EU (complete with little footprints to emphasise the point of concern) while Leave.EU proclaimed Breaking Point, with a poster that precisely echoed Nazi propaganda material.
While @ScottP is certainly correct that there was a side order of deceit about the sums supposedly available for saving for the NHS, it is clear that the Leave campaigns had decided, probably correctly, that the referendum was only winnable in the closing stages by pandering to xenophobia.
Political campaigns make hundreds of posters, so the odd one is bound to have similar visuals to one from a dark group in history.
A quick Google reveals this Remain poster is reminiscent of a Nazi-era one.
What matters is whether the poster in question is making a valid point or is simply engaging in bigotry. The "breaking point" slogan was clearly referring to the EU, not the migrant themselves. It was making a point that the Schengen Treaty had left the EU unable to manage the basic duties of a state. That is a legitimate point.
As for Turkey, they were officially a membership candidate and the most recent official announcement from the EU on the topic was that those membership talks were being accelerated. I don't know quite how it can be described as a lie they were joining the EU when they were officially part the way through the process of joining the EU.
Again I ask why have another referendum? If we have three dozen, I'm sure some of them would result in a Remain majority. So what?
I am not proposing one but I don't have a problem with it in principle, beyond my general objections to referendums. It is sufficiently different from the first one that it isn't simply adding to get another result. If Leave win it' will be a vindication, including for the painful compromises that are a necessary part of Brexit; if Remain win it will be because people have changed their minds or because Leave who own the Brexit project failed to deliver for the majority. Either result is fine by me.
Merkel and Macron have announced a project to create a next generation European fighter jet that would replace the existing Rafales and Eurofighters.
Will BAE find themselves out in the cold?
The future is drones. There's an Anglo-Dutch startup* which is working on a fighter drone that is more maneuverable, faster, doesn't have to worry about pulling Gs, can refuel itself in mid-air, and can loiter for days at a time. It also doesn't need all the stuff to keep the pilot alive, so it's smaller and stealthier than a traditional plane.
The Eurofighter, the F35, etc., are all white elephants who won't stand a chance against the next generation of drones.
* I say start-up, but they've raised billions
Drones are a fantastic way to go so long as their command and control comms are not disrupted. I mean, who would do such a thing?
These drones are much, much more autonomous. They're not flown by people on the ground, they get general instructions from them.
Controlled via Skynet? Are any of the models a T-800, T-1000 or T-5000?
What matters is whether the poster in question is making a valid point or is simply engaging in bigotry. The "breaking point" slogan was clearly referring to the EU, not the migrant themselves. It was making a point that the Schengen Treaty had left the EU unable to manage the basic duties of a state. That is a legitimate point.
As for Turkey, they were officially a membership candidate and the most recent official announcement from the EU on the topic was that those membership talks were being accelerated. I don't know quite how it can be described as a lie they were joining the EU when they were officially part the way through the process of joining the EU.
Your use of the word "clearly" is a textbook example of how the word is only ever used when there is nothing clear about it at all. Leave.EU's Leni Riefenstahl moment was a crude attempt to terrify the most parochial voters. Evidently and sadly it worked on some.
As for Vote Leave's poster, on what date is Turkey joining the EU? Without that, the pitter-patter of the footprints of 76 million Turks is just as dishonest an example of lace curtain xenophobia.
Is anyone watching the Macron Trump press conference.
The body language is so funny and no applause after Trump's address.
JC Bua in yesterday's excellent podcast seemed to think that the only thing battier than Trump accepting Macron's invitation, was Macron issuing it. Hugely difficult to see what is in it for either of them.
To be fair, the idea of the US President visiting Paris for Bastille Day in 2017 (the centenary of the US joining WWI) has been in the works for a lot longer than either has been President.
To reverse the result of the previous one, of course.
More specifically, when you can actually say, here is the proposed deal, this is what it will mean when we leave, X, Y, Z... now, do you want to go ahead, or not.
Tim Farron had a lot of success with that one.
''tis often the Liberal way to get to ideas a bit too early
In the final weeks, Vote Leave campaigned on an entirely fictitious claim that Turkey, population 76 million, is joining the EU (complete with little footprints to emphasise the point of concern) while Leave.EU proclaimed Breaking Point, with a poster that precisely echoed Nazi propaganda material.
How do you know the distastefulness of those didn't reduce Leave's winning margin? They made you less likely to vote Leave, did they not?
It's not a question of whether it increased or reduced Leave's winning margin (though there is abundant evidence that controlling immigration was what Leave voters were voting for). This was the prospectus that was being offered. For it not to be implemented would be an affront to democracy.
So Scott's a stupid and suggestible liar, then, for believing it was the £350 million for the NHS wot won it?
Sigh.
In my day job, I speak to financial traders who uniformly regard their profits as the result of their own brilliant trading acumen, but who attribute their losses to market abuse by other people. These other people cheat because they are too stupid to win honestly. Apparently.
You're missing my point completely. Leave supporters are trapped by the means of their victory, which provided a mandate for controlling immigration. It doesn't matter whether you believe it was won by a fictitious £350 million a week or by mass hypnosis through the ink in tabloid newspapers, Leave campaigned primarily on controlling immigration and controlling immigration is non-negotiable as a term of Brexit. Hence why both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn have accepted this point.
Oh, I get your point, but I'm pointing out to you that other Remainers disagree with you. You insist that the means of Leave's victory was an anti-immigration vote, while Scott insists it was a £350-million-a-week-for-the-NHS-by-thick-people vote, and foxinsox notes that those discussing the latter point appeared only averagely thick and degenerate so far as he could tell, not speaking Gujerati. Mortimer further suggests people may have voted Leave because they saw Remainers, paraphrasing, as supercilious metropolitan I'm-all-right-Jack gits.
These positions are mutually irreconcilable, and perhaps equally plausible. But yours and Scott's appear designed to furnish you with a reason to feel morally aggrieved at other people's views. All they actually succeed in doing is evidencing that Remainers as a body don't understand why Leave won or that it might have been for a variety of reasons. Not understanding this is why Remain lost.
The general public voted for Brexit as a result of a campaign to keep foreigners out. What a few fellow travellers thought they were voting for is neither here nor there. They're trapped in victory by the campaign they connived with.
Well, hang on, Alastair. Those are fighting words. We have it from Scott that the general public in fact voted for Brexit because they stupidly believed the lie that Brexit would result in £350 million a week extra for the NHS.
Now here you are, contradicting him by claiming they voted to keep foreigners out! Unless the £350 million was to set up an NHS unit that would somehow keep foreigners out, perhaps by reclassifying them as a disease, obviously at least one of you Remainers is a stupid lying moral degenerate. As must be everyone else who voted Remain, all of whom believed both of your respective positions.
You do realise this gives Leavers permission to hate all Remainers? :-)
In the final weeks, Vote Leave campaigned on an entirely fictitious claim that Turkey, population 76 million, is joining the EU (complete with little footprints to emphasise the point of concern) while Leave.EU proclaimed Breaking Point, with a poster that precisely echoed Nazi propaganda material.
While @ScottP is certainly correct that there was a side order of deceit about the sums supposedly available for saving for the NHS, it is clear that the Leave campaigns had decided, probably correctly, that the referendum was only winnable in the closing stages by pandering to xenophobia.
Political campaigns make hundreds of posters, so the odd one is bound to have similar visuals to one from a dark group in history.
A quick Google reveals this Remain poster is reminiscent of a Nazi-era one.
What matters is whether the poster in question is making a valid point or is simply engaging in bigotry. The "breaking point" slogan was clearly referring to the EU, not the migrant themselves. It was making a point that the Schengen Treaty had left the EU unable to manage the basic duties of a state. That is a legitimate point.
As for Turkey, they were officially a membership candidate and the most recent official announcement from the EU on the topic was that those membership talks were being accelerated. I don't know quite how it can be described as a lie they were joining the EU when they were officially part the way through the process of joining the EU.
Turkey joining the EU is an order of magnitude less likely than the EU itself not existing.
What matters is whether the poster in question is making a valid point or is simply engaging in bigotry. The "breaking point" slogan was clearly referring to the EU, not the migrant themselves. It was making a point that the Schengen Treaty had left the EU unable to manage the basic duties of a state. That is a legitimate point.
As for Turkey, they were officially a membership candidate and the most recent official announcement from the EU on the topic was that those membership talks were being accelerated. I don't know quite how it can be described as a lie they were joining the EU when they were officially part the way through the process of joining the EU.
Your use of the word "clearly" is a textbook example of how the word is only ever used when there is nothing clear about it at all. Leave.EU's Leni Riefenstahl moment was a crude attempt to terrify the most parochial voters. Evidently and sadly it worked on some.
As for Vote Leave's poster, on what date is Turkey joining the EU? Without that, the pitter-patter of the footprints of 76 million Turks is just as dishonest an example of lace curtain xenophobia.
So is Turkey definitely never, ever going to join the EU, then?
The general public voted for Brexit as a result of a campaign to keep foreigners out. What a few fellow travellers thought they were voting for is neither here nor there. They're trapped in victory by the campaign they connived with.
Well, hang on, Alastair. Those are fighting words. We have it from Scott that the general public in fact voted for Brexit because they stupidly believed the lie that Brexit would result in £350 million a week extra for the NHS.
Now here you are, contradicting him by claiming they voted to keep foreigners out! Unless the £350 million was to set up an NHS unit that would somehow keep foreigners out, perhaps by reclassifying them as a disease, obviously at least one of you Remainers is a stupid lying moral degenerate. As must be everyone else who voted Remain, all of whom believed both of your respective positions.
You do realise this gives Leavers permission to hate all Remainers? :-)
In the final weeks, Vote Leave campaigned on an entirely fictitious claim that Turkey, population 76 million, is joining the EU (complete with little footprints to emphasise the point of concern) while Leave.EU proclaimed Breaking Point, with a poster that precisely echoed Nazi propaganda material.
While @ScottP is certainly correct that there was a side order of deceit about the sums supposedly available for saving for the NHS, it is clear that the Leave campaigns had decided, probably correctly, that the referendum was only winnable in the closing stages by pandering to xenophobia.
Political campaigns make hundreds of posters, so the odd one is bound to have similar visuals to one from a dark group in history.
A quick Google reveals this Remain poster is reminiscent of a Nazi-era one.
What matters is whether the poster in question is making a valid point or is simply engaging in bigotry. The "breaking point" slogan was clearly referring to the EU, not the migrant themselves. It was making a point that the Schengen Treaty had left the EU unable to manage the basic duties of a state. That is a legitimate point.
As for Turkey, they were officially a membership candidate and the most recent official announcement from the EU on the topic was that those membership talks were being accelerated. I don't know quite how it can be described as a lie they were joining the EU when they were officially part the way through the process of joining the EU.
The poster had naff all to do with the EU and everything to do with pandering to peoples prejudice re immigration and race.
Oh, I get your point, but I'm pointing out to you that other Remainers disagree with you. You insist that the means of Leave's victory was an anti-immigration vote, while Scott insists it was a £350-million-a-week-for-the-NHS-by-thick-people vote, and foxinsox notes that those discussing the latter point appeared only averagely thick and degenerate so far as he could tell, not speaking Gujerati. Mortimer further suggests people may have voted Leave because they saw Remainers, paraphrasing, as supercilious metropolitan I'm-all-right-Jack gits.
These positions are mutually irreconcilable, and perhaps equally plausible. But yours and Scott's appear designed to furnish you with a reason to feel morally aggrieved at other people's views. All they actually succeed in doing is evidencing that Remainers as a body don't understand why Leave won or that it might have been for a variety of reasons. Not understanding this is why Remain lost.
The positions are not irreconcilable (though in fact I do disagree with @ScottP). The fact you think otherwise shows that you have not understood my point.
To try again, my point is that Leave's campaign was founded on xenophobia. You can argue whether or not that was what won it for them (I think it was the proximate reason, as shown by a host of evidence that controlling immigration was the defining consideration for Leave voters, though my own take on the ultimate reason is the austerity fatigue that is now eating away at the government), but you can't argue that is what voters were entitled to expect to be implemented in the event of a successful Leave campaign.
You could argue that the bus promise ought also to be honoured. There's a reasonable case for that, apart from the fact that the country is already running a stonking deficit, so it's unclear where the money would come from.
What matters is whether the poster in question is making a valid point or is simply engaging in bigotry. The "breaking point" slogan was clearly referring to the EU, not the migrant themselves. It was making a point that the Schengen Treaty had left the EU unable to manage the basic duties of a state. That is a legitimate point.
As for Turkey, they were officially a membership candidate and the most recent official announcement from the EU on the topic was that those membership talks were being accelerated. I don't know quite how it can be described as a lie they were joining the EU when they were officially part the way through the process of joining the EU.
Your use of the word "clearly" is a textbook example of how the word is only ever used when there is nothing clear about it at all. Leave.EU's Leni Riefenstahl moment was a crude attempt to terrify the most parochial voters. Evidently and sadly it worked on some.
As for Vote Leave's poster, on what date is Turkey joining the EU? Without that, the pitter-patter of the footprints of 76 million Turks is just as dishonest an example of lace curtain xenophobia.
So is Turkey definitely never, ever going to join the EU, then?
Remain in what?
If the poster had said "Turkey might be joining the EU at some distant point in the future", it would at least have been formally accurate.
So is Turkey definitely never, ever going to join the EU, then?
One can never say "never", but whilst Turkey refuses to meet many of the accession criteria it cannot join even if it wants to. Until it stops persecuting minorities, stops censorship, offer women equal rights, etc, etc, then it simply cannot join.
Cummings explained it I thought: they cynically decided that using £350m encouraged people to criticise the figure and keep it in the news.
Precisely. Cummings holds all political campaigning in contempt so doesn't care how it's done, so long as it's effective.
It`s not in the least effective in terms of persuading the other half of the population of the legitimacy of the decision, though. It is effective only in terms of seeming to legitimise a power-grab, which is what we are talking about in the case of the EU Referendum. And of the 2017 General Election. And of the 2015 General Election too.
Effectively, Mrs May is a usurper.
Even if i agreed with your point on the EU ref, which i don't, it makes no sense in applying it to GE2015 and GE2017.
Mrs C, Germany seems to be going down the censorship route itself, somewhat (not to the same degree, of course). Criticising migration on Facebook might get a knock on the door from das Rozzers.
Sweden doesn't permit the reporting of race when crimes occur because it could encourage racism. Europe is backsliding on free speech in a variety of exciting and alarming ways. Just yesterday our own MPs (some, anyway) proposed banning anonymity on social media.
So "intelligent people" know it was a lie, and voted for it anyway because they liked it better than the alternative.
Okayyyyyyyyyyyy
snip
It does not follow that all supporters of a ticket agree with every aspect of it. In the 1980s, Labour was a CND-supporting party. Did every single Labour voter vote thus because they wanted to disarm? Or did some disagree with CND, but thought we would not actually disarm? Or did they vote despite the CND entryism because on balance they liked the rest of the manifesto? Or because they didn't give a stuff about nukes either way?
You don't know how many there were of any of these persuasions and nor does anyone else. But if you characterise people who campaign against you as liars (from no obvious position of strength), and people who support that campaign as stupid, you had better get used to losing plebiscites.
There are those who support EU membership for political reasons and see the economics as a side-benefit (williamglenn)
There are those who support EU membership for economic reasons and see the politics as something not to worry about too much (Topping, David Herdson)
There are those who reluctantly support EU membership for economic reasons even though they don't particularly like the politics (Richard Nabavi, BigGNorthWales)
There are those who somewhat hesitantly voted Leave for political reasons even though they were a little concerned about the short-term economics (DavidL, Robert Smithson)
There are those who voted Leave with conviction for political reasons even though they realised there might be an economic impact (Richard Tyndall, Charles)
There are those who voted Leave for political and economic reasons, as they see both as beneficial (Andrew Lilico, Daniel Hannan, GeoffM, Sean Fear)
I think that a fair summary. It would be interesting to see how whole country opinion broke down by those classifications, but the polling questions would have to be a bit less jargony.
I think that the enmeshment is not evidence of the EU being an octopus, but rather a "what have the Romans ever done for us?" question. We find these agreements such as Euratom or Europeans Medical licensing useful, but they generally fly under the radar as concealed benefits.
And in a sane world they should be replicable as beneficial to all sides. They don't *need* political strings attached
Given the 24/7 campaign that going on to Stop Brexit is it any wonder opinion is shifting?
It's a 24/7 onslaught against Brexit at the moment and we're hearing absolutely no other counter arguments (a position that wouldn't be acceptable if there was a second referendum of course)
I would suspect that imminently a new pro-Brexit campaign group will set up to start rebutting a lot of the anti-Brexit claims that people are being subjected to every single day.
Mrs C, Germany seems to be going down the censorship route itself, somewhat (not to the same degree, of course). Criticising migration on Facebook might get a knock on the door from das Rozzers.
Sweden doesn't permit the reporting of race when crimes occur because it could encourage racism. Europe is backsliding on free speech in a variety of exciting and alarming ways. Just yesterday our own MPs (some, anyway) proposed banning anonymity on social media.
Mr Dancer - is it censorship? In the Swedish case, does the race of the perpetrator matter? A crime is a crime regardless of the ethnic origin of the criminal.
It is a nice evening. I think I will go for a walk.
Mrs C, Germany seems to be going down the censorship route itself, somewhat (not to the same degree, of course). Criticising migration on Facebook might get a knock on the door from das Rozzers.
Sweden doesn't permit the reporting of race when crimes occur because it could encourage racism. Europe is backsliding on free speech in a variety of exciting and alarming ways. Just yesterday our own MPs (some, anyway) proposed banning anonymity on social media.
Mr Dancer - is it censorship? In the Swedish case, does the race of the perpetrator matter? A crime is a crime regardless of the ethnic origin of the criminal.
It is a nice evening. I think I will go for a walk.
A little uncomfortable watching Macron and his new best friend. He must have his reasons even if it's only to make Theresa jealous.
Should think Theresa is relieved. Macron just looks patronising - what on earth gave him the idea of entertaining Trump on Bastille day
Never underestimate the joy in French hearts in getting one over old enemies and restating its own importance.. No doubt Macron loves eclipsing the damaged May and unfavoured Merkel.
Mrs C, if mass migration has led to a spike in crime that's a legitimate piece of information for public discussion as it can influence policies (not just migration but how policing happens, integration, and so on).
Race did play a role in the Rotherham scandal, and was also one of the reasons nothing was done about it for so long.
Is anyone watching the Macron Trump press conference.
The body language is so funny and no applause after Trump's address.
JC Bua in yesterday's excellent podcast seemed to think that the only thing battier than Trump accepting Macron's invitation, was Macron issuing it. Hugely difficult to see what is in it for either of them.
Macron really misjudged this
I don't think so. My girlfriend is a Macron voter and she thought it was completely logical that he visits. It's quite interesting how little opposition there has been in France to his visit. I would have expected huge street demos, especially as we are talking about France, but there has been basically nothing. Given Trump is even more unpopular in France than the UK, it must be people putting more faith in Macron than May.
I think the problem with May's invitation was that it appeared to come from a weak position - the narrative became that we were scrabbling around trying to get in with Trump for a post-brexit deal. Macron appeared to offer this invitation from a position of strength, he hasn't hesitated to openly criticise Trump so far, so there is no impression of 'sucking up' to him.
Trump and Macron may actually benefit from each other - both can reliably build up domestic strength by openly criticising the other - rivals rather than enemies.
Adonis isn't doing anything to cool the temperature...
It's silly sort of stuff like this that backfired so badly for Remain during the campaign.
It looks like a sober statement of the truth. Britain looks to be heading into a longterm downward spiral as a direct result.
Comparing it to appeasement or the rise of Hitler is ludicrous hyperbole.
In what way? Britain's international influence has already disintegrated before our eyes. The political discourse in the country is now held between two rival teams of backward-looking ideologues, each convinced that it holds the secret to national revival and each ready to blame the other for unfolding disasters. The damage threatens to be longterm, deep and potentially irreparable.
Many on here have valid reasons for leaving the EU after all you are interested and have analysed the situation. Unfortunately most voters didnt analyse anything they voted on gut feal. Is that right? Who knows but it is one reason why we have a parliamentary democracy where we send people to consider all the issues and come to a decison based on rational thought. It should never have been left to "the people" to decide. Its beyond 99% of the population to fully grasp the facts. I still want to know who wins by leaving and what benefit the average person is going to see in the next ten years by leaving.
A little uncomfortable watching Macron and his new best friend. He must have his reasons even if it's only to make Theresa jealous.
Should think Theresa is relieved. Macron just looks patronising - what on earth gave him the idea of entertaining Trump on Bastille day
Never underestimate the joy in French hearts in getting one over old enemies and restating its own importance.. No doubt Macron loves eclipsing the damaged May and unfavoured Merkel.
Adonis isn't doing anything to cool the temperature...
It's silly sort of stuff like this that backfired so badly for Remain during the campaign.
It looks like a sober statement of the truth. Britain looks to be heading into a longterm downward spiral as a direct result.
Comparing it to appeasement or the rise of Hitler is ludicrous hyperbole.
In what way? Britain's international influence has already disintegrated before our eyes. The political discourse in the country is now held between two rival teams of backward-looking ideologues, each convinced that it holds the secret to national revival and each ready to blame the other for unfolding disasters. The damage threatens to be longterm, deep and potentially irreparable.
She got greedy. She gambled. She lost. She cried for herself.
Not endearing in the slightest. Quite the opposite.
I disagree. It was clear she felt she had let her party down. She has been loyal to it since she was 14. As Casino_Royale says, she is proving to be much more human and relatable since the election.
It began with the thoroughly decent and humble talk to the parliamentary Conservative Party. She admitted her mistakes, apologised and took responsibility for them. It was something I can not imagine someone like George Osborne or Gordon Brown ever doing. She then admitted her way of governing left people excluded, so she removed her top two aides, and brought back exclusions like Gove and Raab into the government. Then she had a very successful G20 summit, getting the US President to commit to a major trade deal, having the Chinese Premier salute the golden age in UK relations and holding positive trade talks with Japan. Now she has followed up with an effective, open and honest interview with the BBC.
As she said, she got the party into the mess and now she is working hard at getting us out of it. Women at the top have to be twice as resilient to the additional nastiness they face. She is showing once again the character that has served her well. It's not what mistakes you make, it is how you respond to them.
She got greedy. She gambled. She lost. She cried for herself.
Not endearing in the slightest. Quite the opposite.
I disagree. It was clear she felt she had let her party down. She has been loyal to it since she was 14. As Casino_Royale says, she is proving to be much more human and relatable since the election.
It began with the thoroughly decent and humble talk to the parliamentary Conservative Party. She admitted her mistakes, apologised and took responsibility for them. It was something I can not imagine someone like George Osborne or Gordon Brown ever doing. She then admitted her way of governing left people excluded, so she removed her top two aides, and brought back exclusions like Gove and Raab into the government. Then she had a very successful G20 summit, getting the US President to commit to a major trade deal, having the Chinese Premier salute the golden age in UK relations and holding positive trade talks with Japan. Now she has followed up with an effective, open and honest interview with the BBC.
As she said, she got the party into the mess and now she is working hard at getting us out of it. Women at the top have to be twice as resilient to the additional nastiness they face. She is showing once again the character that has served her well. It's not what mistakes you make, it is how you respond to them.
Satire lives. Wonderful stuff. You should send that in to Private Eye.
On reflection the threat of a second referendum might keep Brexiteers on their toes and up their game somewhat. They really haven't done a good job of winning hearts and minds. Calling the unconvinced Remoaners, traitors, saboteurs, citizens of nowhere etc doesn't cut it. And maybe they could come up with just one practical benefit of all the huge disruption we're going to go through....
Is anyone watching the Macron Trump press conference.
The body language is so funny and no applause after Trump's address.
JC Bua in yesterday's excellent podcast seemed to think that the only thing battier than Trump accepting Macron's invitation, was Macron issuing it. Hugely difficult to see what is in it for either of them.
Macron really misjudged this
I don't think so. My girlfriend is a Macron voter and she thought it was completely logical that he visits. It's quite interesting how little opposition there has been in France to his visit. I would have expected huge street demos, especially as we are talking about France, but there has been basically nothing. Given Trump is even more unpopular in France than the UK, it must be people putting more faith in Macron than May.
I think the problem with May's invitation was that it appeared to come from a weak position - the narrative became that we were scrabbling around trying to get in with Trump for a post-brexit deal. Macron appeared to offer this invitation from a position of strength, he hasn't hesitated to openly criticise Trump so far, so there is no impression of 'sucking up' to him.
Trump and Macron may actually benefit from each other - both can reliably build up domestic strength by openly criticising the other - rivals rather than enemies.
The difference in reaction is entirely explained by Macron being centre-left and a man, whereas May is on the centre-right and female.
On reflection the threat of a second referendum might keep Brexiteers on their toes and up their game somewhat. They really haven't done a good job of winning hearts and minds. Calling the unconvinced Remoaners, traitors, saboteurs, citizens of nowhere etc doesn't cut it. And maybe they could come up with just one practical benefit of all the huge disruption we're going to go through....
The Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly do NOT have a veto over Great Repeal Bill. The Government can add a one-line clause stating that the bill takes effect notwithstanding any provisions of the Acts setting out the powers of the devolved assemblies.
The BBC is utterly opposed to Brexit. They will do everything they can to stop it.
Is anyone watching the Macron Trump press conference.
The body language is so funny and no applause after Trump's address.
JC Bua in yesterday's excellent podcast seemed to think that the only thing battier than Trump accepting Macron's invitation, was Macron issuing it. Hugely difficult to see what is in it for either of them.
Macron really misjudged this
I don't think so. My girlfriend is a Macron voter and she thought it was completely logical that he visits. It's quite interesting how little opposition there has been in France to his visit. I would have expected huge street demos, especially as we are talking about France, but there has been basically nothing. Given Trump is even more unpopular in France than the UK, it must be people putting more faith in Macron than May.
I think the problem with May's invitation was that it appeared to come from a weak position - the narrative became that we were scrabbling around trying to get in with Trump for a post-brexit deal. Macron appeared to offer this invitation from a position of strength, he hasn't hesitated to openly criticise Trump so far, so there is no impression of 'sucking up' to him.
Trump and Macron may actually benefit from each other - both can reliably build up domestic strength by openly criticising the other - rivals rather than enemies.
The difference in reaction is entirely explained by Macron being centre-left and a man, whereas May is on the centre-right and female.
Don't be daft. I cite the reaction to Blair and Bush
Adonis isn't doing anything to cool the temperature...
It's silly sort of stuff like this that backfired so badly for Remain during the campaign.
It looks like a sober statement of the truth. Britain looks to be heading into a longterm downward spiral as a direct result.
Comparing it to appeasement or the rise of Hitler is ludicrous hyperbole.
In what way? Britain's international influence has already disintegrated before our eyes. The political discourse in the country is now held between two rival teams of backward-looking ideologues, each convinced that it holds the secret to national revival and each ready to blame the other for unfolding disasters. The damage threatens to be longterm, deep and potentially irreparable.
I'm not happy with how aspects of it have turned out so far either but it isn't as bad as you make out, and the UK will be just fine - we are remarkably resilient and just going through a volatile period.
Comments
1. It's a different question. The first was on the principle; this would be on the actual arrangement.
2. If people did vote to Brexit even so, it deals definitively with the objection that the Leave campaign was won on a set of lies.
3. If on the other hand, Leave lose that's because they have failed to engage and win over the half of country that voted Remain the first time . Leave own the project. It's up to them to make it work for everyone and convince the doubters.
Autonomous indiscriminate weaponry is kinda illegal generally is it not?
How stupid and / or degenerate were the outpatients discussing it?
David Cameron, flawed as he was, knew this. That is why he tried to put enough of a renegotiation together so that he could argue for some supposed better EU that we were on course for, rather than what currently existed. He failed to realise the EU was so broken and dysfunctional, it could not even make a show of being on a positive path. The referendum was lost as soon as Cameron met with a brick wall in Brussels.
It was a lie. The guy who invented it new it was a lie. I know it's a lie. You know it's a lie. "Intelligent people" know it's a lie.
And yet, you seem prepared to die in a ditch to defend it.
Which is revealing.
(Serious question.)
Ive been flicking through previous threads and I'm not sure people quite get what is going on.
This is a strategy of letting those around Trump hang themselves then watching Trump himself do it. Every single time there has been a revelation (and lets remember how many people reckoned there were no serious revelations yet they have just got more and more substantial) the reaction out of Team Trump has been the same, and each time a new piece of info emerges that shows their initial reaction to be less than honest.
Lets take a future example. Trump Snr has pretty much denied knowing anything about his son's meeting with a Russian Intelligence cut out. What if information is released showing he was a very active participant in that little affair?
What if the meeting that 'came to nothing' actually came to something?
What then?
The fact that Trumps team seem not to be able to get their reaction right tells you how little they seem to be aware of what the detail of the investigation and intelligence take is, they simply do not have access to it.
Before the election, I pointed out how close the Trump links were to the Russians where state intelligence and the mob have a lot of ties. I pointed out that Western Intelligence services had audio of Russian officials talking about how they owned Trump. What you are watching is a systematic attempt to encircle this President, and the stories coming out are a mere tithe of what they have.
And just as a note, there are cracks appearing amongst the GOP in Congress.
So you could repeal the repeal bill but you'd still have to bring fresh legislation to implement all the laws the repeal bill repealed?
Is this really going to turn into a Nixon impeachment or is it more likely to be Bill and Monika?
Now here you are, contradicting him by claiming they voted to keep foreigners out! Unless the £350 million was to set up an NHS unit that would somehow keep foreigners out, perhaps by reclassifying them as a disease, obviously at least one of you Remainers is a stupid lying moral degenerate. As must be everyone else who voted Remain, all of whom believed both of your respective positions.
You do realise this gives Leavers permission to hate all Remainers? :-)
"It deals definitively with the objection that the Leave campaign was won on a set of lies."
Bad loser always say that. General Elections are won on persuading people to vote for you. So are referenda. If your strong points are good enough, you will win.
The labour left-wingers always blamed losing on the Murdoch press, Napoleon (the pig) always blamed Farmer Jones.
Politicians always present their opinions as facts. Even when they tell the truth, it's not the whole truth.
But I presume there will also be other EU countries that do not bill us properly for healthcare given to UK citizens abroad.
Edit to add: reading the story properly, it seems the NHS is terrible at submitting bills. Can this be true?
Again I ask why have another referendum? If we have three dozen, I'm sure some of them would result in a Remain majority. So what?
While @ScottP is certainly correct that there was a side order of deceit about the sums supposedly available for saving for the NHS, it is clear that the Leave campaigns had decided, probably correctly, that the referendum was only winnable in the closing stages by pandering to xenophobia.
The body language is so funny and no applause after Trump's address.
The demon eyes poster probably helped Tony Blair, although with hindsight, I think not many people would now disagree with its thrust or accuracy.
The thing about the Turkish claim is that while it might be fictitious now, there is no way to know that it would always remain so. Greece should never have been able to adopt the euro, for example. This was my big problem with Remain: remain in what, exactly?
Scott insists that every last Leave voter believed the £350 million, and was stupid, and that these factors drove their vote. If he is right you cannot be, and vice versa. And if both of you are somewhat right you'd never know.
Effectively, Mrs May is a usurper.
Will make it easier for HMG to give his a visit....
And, as often with those who experience harsh realities every day rather than read about them through the cosy, reguarly deluded and frequently warped lens of the metropolitan media, they are apparently in a much better position to judge.
The more likely scenario is that public opinion turns very heavily against Brexit, leading to a delay in the process that the EU agrees that never really ends, until we sign a new treaty.
I see opinion on Brexit as being fairly closely linked to how well the economy is doing but it will dip over the next 20 months in any event as trade-offs and realities become clear.
That will cause a lot of excitement but it will be mostly registering frustration and noise.
Sigh.
In my day job, I speak to financial traders who uniformly regard their profits as the result of their own brilliant trading acumen, but who attribute their losses to market abuse by other people. These other people cheat because they are too stupid to win honestly. Apparently.
So that's at least three perspectives among three of you; yet at least two of you are adamant that the Leavers voted Leave for one reason, and yet you don't agree what that was!
A quick Google reveals this Remain poster is reminiscent of a Nazi-era one.
http://www.lucianaberger.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Vote-poster.jpg
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/lot-images.atgmedia.com/SR/30847/2870302/21-201321122031_original.jpg
What matters is whether the poster in question is making a valid point or is simply engaging in bigotry. The "breaking point" slogan was clearly referring to the EU, not the migrant themselves. It was making a point that the Schengen Treaty had left the EU unable to manage the basic duties of a state. That is a legitimate point.
As for Turkey, they were officially a membership candidate and the most recent official announcement from the EU on the topic was that those membership talks were being accelerated. I don't know quite how it can be described as a lie they were joining the EU when they were officially part the way through the process of joining the EU.
As for Vote Leave's poster, on what date is Turkey joining the EU? Without that, the pitter-patter of the footprints of 76 million Turks is just as dishonest an example of lace curtain xenophobia.
These positions are mutually irreconcilable, and perhaps equally plausible. But yours and Scott's appear designed to furnish you with a reason to feel morally aggrieved at other people's views. All they actually succeed in doing is evidencing that Remainers as a body don't understand why Leave won or that it might have been for a variety of reasons. Not understanding this is why Remain lost.
Adonis isn't doing anything to cool the temperature...
why is there never a thread about why we arent building houses
or motorways
or things voters actually want
same old same old
Remain in what?
To try again, my point is that Leave's campaign was founded on xenophobia. You can argue whether or not that was what won it for them (I think it was the proximate reason, as shown by a host of evidence that controlling immigration was the defining consideration for Leave voters, though my own take on the ultimate reason is the austerity fatigue that is now eating away at the government), but you can't argue that is what voters were entitled to expect to be implemented in the event of a successful Leave campaign.
You could argue that the bus promise ought also to be honoured. There's a reasonable case for that, apart from the fact that the country is already running a stonking deficit, so it's unclear where the money would come from.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/40601088
Mr. Glenn, some say Adonis lacks a sense of perspective. Noticed this on my political list earlier today:
https://twitter.com/mrdavidwhitley/status/885068526574350338
Sweden doesn't permit the reporting of race when crimes occur because it could encourage racism. Europe is backsliding on free speech in a variety of exciting and alarming ways. Just yesterday our own MPs (some, anyway) proposed banning anonymity on social media.
Not endearing in the slightest. Quite the opposite.
It is a nice evening. I think I will go for a walk.
Brexit no doubt is a rich seam for them.
Race did play a role in the Rotherham scandal, and was also one of the reasons nothing was done about it for so long.
Anyway, must be off.
I think the problem with May's invitation was that it appeared to come from a weak position - the narrative became that we were scrabbling around trying to get in with Trump for a post-brexit deal. Macron appeared to offer this invitation from a position of strength, he hasn't hesitated to openly criticise Trump so far, so there is no impression of 'sucking up' to him.
Trump and Macron may actually benefit from each other - both can reliably build up domestic strength by openly criticising the other - rivals rather than enemies.
influence
arse
It began with the thoroughly decent and humble talk to the parliamentary Conservative Party. She admitted her mistakes, apologised and took responsibility for them. It was something I can not imagine someone like George Osborne or Gordon Brown ever doing. She then admitted her way of governing left people excluded, so she removed her top two aides, and brought back exclusions like Gove and Raab into the government. Then she had a very successful G20 summit, getting the US President to commit to a major trade deal, having the Chinese Premier salute the golden age in UK relations and holding positive trade talks with Japan. Now she has followed up with an effective, open and honest interview with the BBC.
As she said, she got the party into the mess and now she is working hard at getting us out of it. Women at the top have to be twice as resilient to the additional nastiness they face. She is showing once again the character that has served her well. It's not what mistakes you make, it is how you respond to them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40589510
The Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly do NOT have a veto over Great Repeal Bill. The Government can add a one-line clause stating that the bill takes effect notwithstanding any provisions of the Acts setting out the powers of the devolved assemblies.
The BBC is utterly opposed to Brexit. They will do everything they can to stop it.