Mr. Meeks, I imagine it's because of the lacklustre performance of the Government.
The only way I see this simmering down over time is if we leave and gradually things knit back together.
They really won't. The rejoin campaign is already underway with demographics on our side.
The biggest problem that Leave had to overcome was fighting the status quo. Much safer to stay as you were. And many voted that way, despite considerable misgivings about the lack of democratic accountability within the EU.
Leave's genius, and their nemesis, is that they managed to frame Leaving as the status quo option, and Remaining as the risk. That's why the great mass of their voters are unprepared for any of the difficult trade-offs that will be needed.
I feel nothing but contempt for this guy and hope he is deselected before the next election. I would,however, query whether he should be condemned for failing to hold surgeries in his constituency. How often did Winston Churchill , Clement Attlee , Harold Macmillan, Neville Chamberlain and Herbert Asquith hold surgeries?
Different times, different expectations of the role. In fairness to him to him it has not been long since the election anyway, although that he has not been active inthe house either, even inthe limited non-recess period, smacks of laziness.
But the precedents are still there for him - and others - to rely on.Unless he specifically committed himself to holding surgeries if elected, I am not persuaded it is a reasonable basis for condemning him. It could be reasonably argued that in earlier times surgeries were more essential to constituents than is the case today - given the lack of e-mail links and much more limited access to telephones.
Poll after poll shows that Remain voters are largely unreconciled to the decision to Leave. The complete lack of interest that Leave supporters have in this is extraordinary. They seem entirely comfortable in the country remaining divided indefinitely.
A poll question I would like to see asked is, do you think Brexit is a fiasco? A Yes answer wouldn't of itself resolve anything of course, but it would be interesting to see how many Leave voters think that. It seems to me a lot of Leavers make a false distinction between Brexit good; implementation bad. This would force the question. I assume most Remainers do think Brexit is a fiasco.
That's where a potential consensus could develop. If everyone thinks the situation is a mess, you can begin to do something about it. It's a shame our country might have to be trashed first.
It would be a very leading question so I'm not sure of its worth.
Leavers seem to be drifting from "any Leave is a good Leave" to "my Leave would be far better than this Leave". That's not good for the government but it doesn't mean that Leavers are abandoning the idea of Leave. In many cases, like Dominic Cummings, they are secure in the belief that Brexit is a good idea and it just needs to be implemented in the right way. The improbability of that version being implemented is neither here nor there.
Fair point .It is a leading question. But the issue of Leavers not taking responsibility for their decisions is huge. Brexit is largely being implemented by former Remainers. The one Leaver who has seriously engaged with Brexit is David Davis and he seems broken by the attempt. The more moderate and realistic Remainers that try to keep the show on the road such as Philip Hammond and Ivan Rogers are threatened with the sack and are actually sacked.
So we can either say to Johnson, Fox, Gove and Cummings, do your worst, in the secure knowledge that it will be the worst. Or do former Remainers try to make the best of a bad job and allow those that put us into this mess to undermine at every opportunity?
And Edit, there's still no plan for Brexit. Let that astonishing thought sink in for a moment....
The BBC clearly embarrassed that progress has all but stalled.
And it’s not even as if it’s particularly difficult to do, if salaries are adjusted as contracts expire. The fact is that they prefer star names and ratings-chasing than extracting value for money from the licence fee.
Mr. Meeks, I imagine it's because of the lacklustre performance of the Government.
The only way I see this simmering down over time is if we leave and gradually things knit back together.
They really won't. The rejoin campaign is already underway with demographics on our side.
The biggest problem that Leave had to overcome was fighting the status quo. Much safer to stay as you were. And many voted that way, despite considerable misgivings about the lack of democratic accountability within the EU.
Leave's genius, and their nemesis, is that they managed to frame Leaving as the status quo option, and Remaining as the risk. That's why the great mass of their voters are unprepared for any of the difficult trade-offs that will be needed.
I don’t think that is quite right - they managed to portray the status quo as just as risky as leaving (or at least that the development of hte status quo would be unpalatable), not that leaving was the status quo, IMO.
To be fair, if one answer to a yes or no question is unobtainable and unrealistic, maybe the HoC shouldn't have designed and held the referendum like that in the first place.
They could have avoided a problem by making it advisory and not binding.
Oh, wait...
Or compounded the confusion by making it legally non-binding yet constantly saying 'the government will implement the result of the referendum' in the House before the referendum...
Two ways to look at this:
1. Without such re-assurance that it would implement the result, many would have said "What's the point? They'll just ignore us like before....." and a poor turnout would have lacked legitimacy - leaving the issue open. Which was exactly what they did not want. The Referndum was intended to close down the question of our relationship with the EU for all time.
2. (possibly linked to 1 above) Those at the top of Government continually said it would implement the outcome because it hadn't crossed their tiny minds that the voters would vote to Leave. A Government that was implementing a decision to stay would have had carte blanche to do whatever it felt it needed to do on the EU without further input from the people.
I feel nothing but contempt for this guy and hope he is deselected before the next election. I would,however, query whether he should be condemned for failing to hold surgeries in his constituency. How often did Winston Churchill , Clement Attlee , Harold Macmillan, Neville Chamberlain and Herbert Asquith hold surgeries?
Drop-in surgeries are completely pointless with technology as it now is. There is still a place for a personal meeting but constituency offices should filter these appropriately and advise the public where it's not necessary, and why. That said, any who insist on it should probably still be seen.
Poll after poll shows that Remain voters are largely unreconciled to the decision to Leave. The complete lack of interest that Leave supporters have in this is extraordinary. They seem entirely comfortable in the country remaining divided indefinitely.
A poll question I would like to see asked is, do you think Brexit is a fiasco? A Yes answer wouldn't of itself resolve anything of course, but it would be interesting to see how many Leave voters think that. It seems to me a lot of Leavers make a false distinction between Brexit good; implementation bad. This would force the question. I assume most Remainers do think Brexit is a fiasco.
That's where a potential consensus could develop. If everyone thinks the situation is a mess, you can begin to do something about it. It's a shame our country might have to be trashed first.
It would be a very leading question so I'm not sure of its worth.
Leavers seem to be drifting from "any Leave is a good Leave" to "my Leave would be far better than this Leave". That's not good for the government but it doesn't mean that Leavers are abandoning the idea of Leave. In many cases, like Dominic Cummings, they are secure in the belief that Brexit is a good idea and it just needs to be implemented in the right way. The improbability of that version being implemented is neither here nor there.
Fair point .It is a leading question. But the issue of Leavers not taking responsibility for their decisions is huge. Brexit is largely being implemented by former Remainers. The one Leaver who has seriously engaged with Brexit is David Davis and he seems broken by the attempt. The more moderate and realistic Remainers that try to keep the show on the road such as Philip Hammond and Ivan Rogers are threatened with the sack and are actually sacked.
So we can either say to Johnson, Fox, Gove and Cummings, do your worst, in the secure knowledge that it will be the worst. Or do former Remainers try to make the best of a bad job and allow those that put us into this mess to undermine at every opportunity?
Some of these so-called moderate Leavers need to be identified and exhorted to face down the ultras. For a group that many Leaver pbers seem to think make a broad majority of Leavers, they seem to be remarkably hard to spot.
I feel nothing but contempt for this guy and hope he is deselected before the next election. I would,however, query whether he should be condemned for failing to hold surgeries in his constituency. How often did Winston Churchill , Clement Attlee , Harold Macmillan, Neville Chamberlain and Herbert Asquith hold surgeries?
Different times, different expectations of the role. In fairness to him to him it has not been long since the election anyway, although that he has not been active inthe house either, even inthe limited non-recess period, smacks of laziness.
But the precedents are still there for him - and others - to rely on.Unless he specifically committed himself to holding surgeries if elected, I am not persuaded it is a reasonable basis for condemning him. It could be reasonably argued that in earlier times surgeries were more essential to constituents than is the case today - given the lack of e-mail links and much more limited access to telephones.
We may all have different expectations of what an MP should reasonably be required to do, so lack of surgeries may not be universally condemned. It’s only the confluence of that, with his being an arsehole (allegedly) and having such a poor voting record as well that makes him noteworthy, any one on their own I don’t think even the most partisan Tory could really give that much of a crap.
But if he keeps his head down for a week or so things will move on, and it’ll be interesting to see if his work pattern does change at all.
Mr. Meeks, I imagine it's because of the lacklustre performance of the Government.
The only way I see this simmering down over time is if we leave and gradually things knit back together.
They really won't. The rejoin campaign is already underway with demographics on our side.
The biggest problem that Leave had to overcome was fighting the status quo. Much safer to stay as you were. And many voted that way, despite considerable misgivings about the lack of democratic accountability within the EU.
Next time, those fighting rejoin will themselves have to fight the status quo. I honestly can't see rejoin winning the debate during my lifetime. After that - why should I worry?
Well there's compassion for your offspring and the general well being of your country. But then again, you're a Leaver.
I don't have offspring. And I don't intend to bind anybody from beyond the grave.
Looks like the Catalonian Parliament are about to vote for Independence.
Sky reporting very dangerous position now
This could be the big story this weekend
I commented yesterday that I get the impression some of them almost don’t want to declare, but with the nature of the separatist coalition, and Madrid playing very hard ball, they might be almost a little trapped by their earlier provocative referendum.
Mr. Meeks, I imagine it's because of the lacklustre performance of the Government.
The only way I see this simmering down over time is if we leave and gradually things knit back together.
They really won't. The rejoin campaign is already underway with demographics on our side.
The biggest problem that Leave had to overcome was fighting the status quo. Much safer to stay as you were. And many voted that way, despite considerable misgivings about the lack of democratic accountability within the EU.
Leave's genius, and their nemesis, is that they managed to frame Leaving as the status quo option, and Remaining as the risk. That's why the great mass of their voters are unprepared for any of the difficult trade-offs that will be needed.
I can assure you, that really was not the position on the ground.
Did you actually campaign at all in the Referendum?
To be fair, if one answer to a yes or no question is unobtainable and unrealistic, maybe the HoC shouldn't have designed and held the referendum like that in the first place.
They could have avoided a problem by making it advisory and not binding.
Oh, wait...
I hope you don't really mean that. You can have a vote but it'll have no bearing on the outcome because we'll only implement Remain.
Any national referendum would either be seen as a sham (as in your suggestion) or morally and political binding (as the real one was). Whether the vote was legally binding is beside the point.
Poll after poll shows that Remain voters are largely unreconciled to the decision to Leave. The complete lack of interest that Leave supporters have in this is extraordinary. They seem entirely comfortable in the country remaining divided indefinitely.
A poll question I would like to see asked is, do you think Brexit is a fiasco? A Yes answer wouldn't of itself resolve anything of course, but it would be interesting to see how many Leave voters think that. It seems to me a lot of Leavers make a false distinction between Brexit good; implementation bad. This would force the question. I assume most Remainers do think Brexit is a fiasco.
That's where a potential consensus could develop. If everyone thinks the situation is a mess, you can begin to do something about it. It's a shame our country might have to be trashed first.
It would be a very leading question so I'm not sure of its worth.
Leavers seem to be drifting from "any Leave is a good Leave" to "my Leave would be far better than this Leave". That's not good for the government but it doesn't mean that Leavers are abandoning the idea of Leave. In many cases, like Dominic Cummings, they are secure in the belief that Brexit is a good idea and it just needs to be implemented in the right way. The improbability of that version being implemented is neither here nor there.
Fair point .It is a leading question. But the issue of Leavers not taking responsibility for their decisions is huge. Brexit is largely being implemented by former Remainers. The one Leaver who has seriously engaged with Brexit is David Davis and he seems broken by the attempt. The more moderate and realistic Remainers that try to keep the show on the road such as Philip Hammond and Ivan Rogers are threatened with the sack and are actually sacked.
So we can either say to Johnson, Fox, Gove and Cummings, do your worst, in the secure knowledge that it will be the worst. Or do former Remainers try to make the best of a bad job and allow those that put us into this mess to undermine at every opportunity?
Some of these so-called moderate Leavers need to be identified and exhorted to face down the ultras. For a group that many Leaver pbers seem to think make a broad majority of Leavers, they seem to be remarkably hard to spot.
Nothing will face down the ultras except reality, which is why the only way out of this is a cathartic national humiliation of the kind we've never experienced.
Mr. Meeks, I imagine it's because of the lacklustre performance of the Government.
The only way I see this simmering down over time is if we leave and gradually things knit back together.
They really won't. The rejoin campaign is already underway with demographics on our side.
The biggest problem that Leave had to overcome was fighting the status quo. Much safer to stay as you were. And many voted that way, despite considerable misgivings about the lack of democratic accountability within the EU.
Next time, those fighting rejoin will themselves have to fight the status quo. I honestly can't see rejoin winning the debate during my lifetime. After that - why should I worry?
A lot depends on the status quo (when it is Brexit that is the status quo) and whether it is popular, indeed being the status quo option at the moment seems unpopular.
There will be an intergenerational backlash against the Tories for Brexit, but I think rejoin as a serious campaign will take a decade to get going.
Most likely it will be a centrist move by the sane wing of the Conservatives that changes the zeitgeist to rejoin. This would probably via the EEA, before a sheepish acceptance of EU membership, justified on the basis that the EU has changed to be more in keeping with UK ambitions*.
*It always has been of course, but the Tories will need to justify a further reverse ferret on the subject of Europe.
Poll after poll shows that Remain voters are largely unreconciled to the decision to Leave. The complete lack of interest that Leave supporters have in this is extraordinary. They seem entirely comfortable in the country remaining divided indefinitely.
A poll question I would like to see asked is, do you think Brexit is a fiasco? A Yes answer wouldn't of itself resolve anything of course, but it would be interesting to see how many Leave voters think that. It seems to me a lot of Leavers make a false distinction between Brexit good; implementation bad. This would force the question. I assume most Remainers do think Brexit is a fiasco.
That's where a potential consensus could develop. If everyone thinks the situation is a mess, you can begin to do something about it. It's a shame our country might have to be trashed first.
It would be a very leading question so I'm not sure of its worth.
Leavers seem to be drifting from "any Leave is a good Leave" to "my Leave would be far better than this Leave". That's not good for the government but it doesn't mean that Leavers are abandoning the idea of Leave. In many cases, like Dominic Cummings, they are secure in the belief that Brexit is a good idea and it just needs to be implemented in the right way. The improbability of that version being implemented is neither here nor there.
Fair point .It is a leading question. But the issue of Leavers not taking responsibility for their decisions is huge. Brexit is largely being implemented by former Remainers. The one Leaver who has seriously engaged with Brexit is David Davis and he seems broken by the attempt. The more moderate and realistic Remainers that try to keep the show on the road such as Philip Hammond and Ivan Rogers are threatened with the sack and are actually sacked.
So we can either say to Johnson, Fox, Gove and Cummings, do your worst, in the secure knowledge that it will be the worst. Or do former Remainers try to make the best of a bad job and allow those that put us into this mess to undermine at every opportunity?
Some of these so-called moderate Leavers need to be identified and exhorted to face down the ultras. For a group that many Leaver pbers seem to think make a broad majority of Leavers, they seem to be remarkably hard to spot.
All i can do is criticise what I consider an ultra, and unreasonable (sometimes even ultras on both sides will have decent points) view, and encourage the government to avoid such ultra views. That the government is so concerned about ultras they are scared of appearing to compromise on anything is unfortunate, and definitely hinders the more moderate among them from speaking up I imagine.
Mr. Meeks, I imagine it's because of the lacklustre performance of the Government.
The only way I see this simmering down over time is if we leave and gradually things knit back together.
They really won't. The rejoin campaign is already underway with demographics on our side.
The biggest problem that Leave had to overcome was fighting the status quo. Much safer to stay as you were. And many voted that way, despite considerable misgivings about the lack of democratic accountability within the EU.
Leave's genius, and their nemesis, is that they managed to frame Leaving as the status quo option, and Remaining as the risk. That's why the great mass of their voters are unprepared for any of the difficult trade-offs that will be needed.
I don’t think that is quite right - they managed to portray the status quo as just as risky as leaving (or at least that the development of hte status quo would be unpalatable), not that leaving was the status quo, IMO.
The issue was that there was no status quo. The EU is constantly evolving, see Junker’s recent State of the Union speech about his future superstate, complete with army and finance ministry as an example.
Poll after poll shows that Remain voters are largely unreconciled to the decision to Leave. The complete lack of interest that Leave supporters have in this is extraordinary. They seem entirely comfortable in the country remaining divided indefinitely.
A poll question I would like to see asked is, do you think Brexit is a fiasco? A Yes answer wouldn't of itself resolve anything of course, but it would be interesting to see how many Leave voters think that. It seems to me a lot of Leavers make a false distinction between Brexit good; implementation bad. This would force the question. I assume most Remainers do think Brexit is a fiasco.
That's where a potential consensus could develop. If everyone thinks the situation is a mess, you can begin to do something about it. It's a shame our country might have to be trashed first.
It would be a very leading question so I'm not sure of its worth.
Leavers seem to be drifting from "any Leave is a good Leave" to "my Leave would be far better than this Leave". That's not good for the government but it doesn't mean that Leavers are abandoning the idea of Leave. ases, like Dominic Cummings, they are secure in the belief that Brexit is a good idea and it just nnted in the right way. The improbability of that version being implemented is neither here nor there.
Fair point .It is a leading question. But the issue of Leavers not taking responsibility for their decisions is huge. Brexit is largely being implemented by former Remainers. The one Leaver who has seriously engaged with Brexit is David Davis and he seems broken by the attempt. The more moderate and realistic Remainers that try to keep the show on the road such as Philip Hammond and Ivan Rogers are threatened with the sack and are actually sacked.
So we can either say to Johnson, Fox, Gove and Cummings, do your worst, in the secure knowledge that it will be the worst. Or do former Remainers try to make the best of a bad job and allow those that put us into this mess to undermine at every opportunity?
Some of these so-called moderate Leavers need to be identified and exhorted to face down the ultras. For a group that many Leaver pbers seem to think make a broad majority of Leavers, they seem to be remarkably hard to spot.
Nothing will face down the ultras except reality, which is why the only way out of this is a cathartic national humiliation of the kind we've never experienced.
As you are one of the most extreme ultras I have ever encountered - and proud to be so ultra (and if you are proven correct then that pride will be deserved) - I will take you word on what will face down an ultra.
Poll after poll shows that Remain voters are largely unreconciled to the decision to Leave. The complete lack of interest that Leave supporters have in this is extraordinary. They seem entirely comfortable in the country remaining divided indefinitely.
A poll question I would like to see asked is, do you think Brexit is a fiasco? A Yes answer wouldn't of itself resolve anything of course, but it would be interesting to see how many Leave voters think that. It seems to me a lot of Leavers make a false distinction between Brexit good; implementation bad. This would force the question. I assume most Remainers do think Brexit is a fiasco.
That's where a potential consensus could develop. If everyone thinks the situation is a mess, you can begin to do something about it. It's a shame our country might have to be trashed first.
It would be a very leading question so I'm not sure of its worth.
Leavers seem to be drifting from "any Leave is a good Leave" to "my Leave would be far better than this Leave". That's not good for the government but it doesn't mean that Leavers are abandoning the idea of Leave. In many cases, like Dominic Cummings, they are secure in the belief that Brexit is a good idea and it just needs to be implemented in the right way. The improbability of that version being implemented is neither here nor there.
Fair point .It is a leading question. But the issue of Leavers not taking responsibility for their decisions is huge. Brexit is largely being implemented by former Remainers. The one Leaver who has seriously engaged with Brexit is David Davis and he seems broken by the attempt. The more moderate and realistic Remainers that try to keep the show on the road such as Philip Hammond and Ivan Rogers are threatened with the sack and are actually sacked.
So we can either say to Johnson, Fox, Gove and Cummings, do your worst, in the secure knowledge that it will be the worst. Or do former Remainers try to make the best of a bad job and allow those that put us into this mess to undermine at every opportunity?
Some of these so-called moderate Leavers need to be identified and exhorted to face down the ultras. For a group that many Leaver pbers seem to think make a broad majority of Leavers, they seem to be remarkably hard to spot.
Nothing will face down the ultras except reality, which is why the only way out of this is a cathartic national humiliation of the kind we've never experienced.
What really worries you is that we leave the EU and make a success of it.
On Catalonia, were they to UDI we know no-one close by will recognise, I assume, but I wonder who might be most likely to recognise them just to annoy the international community - anyone? And how would they react if the only ones to recognise them were, say, North Korea?
Poll after poll shows that Remain voters are largely unreconciled to the decision to Leave. The complete lack of interest that Leave supporters have in this is extraordinary. They seem entirely comfortable in the country remaining divided indefinitely.
A poll question I would like to see asked is, do you think Brexit is a fiasco? A Yes answer wouldn't of itself resolve anything of course, but it would be interesting to see how many Leave voters think that. It seems to me a lot of Leavers make a false distinction between Brexit good; implementation bad. This would force the question. I assume most Remainers do think Brexit is a fiasco.
That's where a potential consensus could develop. If everyone thinks the situation is a mess, you can begin to do something about it. It's a shame our country might have to be trashed first.
It would be a very leading question so I'm not sure of its worth.
Leavers seem to be drifting from "any Leave is a good Leave" to "my Leave would be far better than this Leave". That's not good for the government but it doesn't mean that Leavers are abandoning the idea of Leave. In many cases, like Dominic Cummings, they are secure in the belief that Brexit is a good idea and it just needs to be implemented in the right way. The improbability of that version being implemented is neither here nor there.
Fair point .It is a leading question. But the issue of Leavers not taking responsibility for their decisions is huge. Brexit is largely being implemented by former Remainers. The one Leaver who has seriously engaged with Brexit is David Davis and he seems broken by the attempt. The more moderate and realistic Remainers that try to keep the show on the road such as Philip Hammond and Ivan Rogers are threatened with the sack and are actually sacked.
So we can either say to Johnson, Fox, Gove and Cummings, do your worst, in the secure knowledge that it will be the worst. Or do former Remainers try to make the best of a bad job and allow those that put us into this mess to undermine at every opportunity?
Some of these so-called moderate Leavers need to be identified and exhorted to face down the ultras. For a group that many Leaver pbers seem to think make a broad majority of Leavers, they seem to be remarkably hard to spot.
Nothing will face down the ultras except reality, which is why the only way out of this is a cathartic national humiliation of the kind we've never experienced.
And of course you will do everything you can to make sure that humiliation happens because as far as you are concerned 'national interest' and 'democracy' are concepts to be scorned.
On Catalonia, were they to UDI we know no-one close by will recognise, I assume, but I wonder who might be most likely to recognise them just to annoy the international community - anyone? And how would they react if the only ones to recognise them were, say, North Korea?
I feel nothing but contempt for this guy and hope he is deselected before the next election. I would,however, query whether he should be condemned for failing to hold surgeries in his constituency. How often did Winston Churchill , Clement Attlee , Harold Macmillan, Neville Chamberlain and Herbert Asquith hold surgeries?
Different times, different expectations of the role. In fairness to him to him it has not been long since the election anyway, although that he has not been active inthe house either, even inthe limited non-recess period, smacks of laziness.
But the precedents are still there for him - and others - to rely on.Unless he specifically committed himself to holding surgeries if elected, I am not persuaded it is a reasonable basis for condemning him. It could be reasonably argued that in earlier times surgeries were more essential to constituents than is the case today - given the lack of e-mail links and much more limited access to telephones.
We may all have different expectations of what an MP should reasonably be required to do, so lack of surgeries may not be universally condemned. It’s only the confluence of that, with his being an arsehole (allegedly) and having such a poor voting record as well that makes him noteworthy, any one on their own I don’t think even the most partisan Tory could really give that much of a crap.
But if he keeps his head down for a week or so things will move on, and it’ll be interesting to see if his work pattern does change at all.
Has he done anything criminal ? If not hard to see a by election.It does not seem to me we are in the grounds of perjury , perverting the course of justice , fraudulent expenses claims, assault as was the case with cabinet ministers and MPs in previous administration's .Plus there is already a current MP about to face the criminal court.
On Catalonia, were they to UDI we know no-one close by will recognise, I assume, but I wonder who might be most likely to recognise them just to annoy the international community - anyone? And how would they react if the only ones to recognise them were, say, North Korea?
Poll after poll shows that Remain voters are largely unreconciled to the decision to Leave. The complete lack of interest that Leave supporters have in this is extraordinary. They seem entirely comfortable in the country remaining divided indefinitely.
A poll question I would like to see asked is, do you think Brexit is a fiasco? A Yes answer wouldn't of itself resolve anything of course, but it would be interesting to see how many Leave voters think that. It seems to me a lot of Leavers make a false distinction between Brexit good; implementation bad. This would force the question. I assume most Remainers do think Brexit is a fiasco.
That's where a potential consensus could develop. If everyone thinks the situation is a mess, you can begin to do something about it. It's a shame our country might have to be trashed first.
It would be a very leading question so I'm not sure of its worth.
Leavers seem to be drifting from "any Leave is a good Leave" to "my Leave would be far better than this Leave". That's not good for the government but it doesn't mean that Leavers are abandoning the idea of Leave. In many cases, like Dominic Cummings, they are secure in the belief that Brexit is a good idea and it just needs to be implemented in the right way. The improbability of that version being implemented is neither here nor there.
Fair point .It is a leading question. But the issue of Leavers not taking responsibility for their decisions is huge. Brexit is largely being implementedack and are actually sacked.
So we can either say to Johnson, Fox, Gove and Cummings, do your worst, in the secure knowledge that it will be the worst. Or do former Remainers try to make the best of a bad job and allow those that put us into this mess to undermine at every opportunity?
Some of these so-called moderate Leavers need to be identified and exhorted to face down the ultras. For a group that many Leaver pbers seem to think make a broad majority of Leavers, they seem to be remarkably hard to spot.
Nothing will face down the ultras except reality, which is why the only way out of this is a cathartic national humiliation of the kind we've never experienced.
What really worries you is that we leave the EU and make a success of it.
I’d be more worried that since the bar has been set so high that it will be a national humiliation the lives of which has never been experienced, if it is merely crappy, or even merely terrible, that by comparison to that expectation it won’t seem so bad.
On Catalonia, were they to UDI we know no-one close by will recognise, I assume, but I wonder who might be most likely to recognise them just to annoy the international community - anyone? And how would they react if the only ones to recognise them were, say, North Korea?
Vlad?
He does love to troll, and Russia backs several breakaway regions from neighbouring countries which I’m sure they’d like to be mutually recognised...
On Catalonia, were they to UDI we know no-one close by will recognise, I assume, but I wonder who might be most likely to recognise them just to annoy the international community - anyone? And how would they react if the only ones to recognise them were, say, North Korea?
Mr. Meeks, I imagine it's because of the lacklustre performance of the Government.
The only way I see this simmering down over time is if we leave and gradually things knit back together.
They really won't. The rejoin campaign is already underway with demographics on our side.
The biggest problem that Leave had to overcome was fighting the status quo. Much safer to stay as you were. And many voted that way, despite considerable misgivings about the lack of democratic accountability within the EU.
Next time, those fighting rejoin will themselves have to fight the status quo. I honestly can't see rejoin winning the debate during my lifetime. After that - why should I worry?
There are no good solutions to the mess we are in, which is why Theresa May rejected every feasible outcome in her Florence speech - WTO, Canada, Norway and EU membership. Given that all the outcomes are problematic, rejoining might happen, even though it seems unlikely now. It is logically the best outcome for the UK, except for the pesky fact that it is the only outcome that the British population has formally rejected. If we allow for the possibility of people changing their minds in the face of evidence and with a greater understanding, there is no reason why we shouldn't rejoin.
I feel nothing but contempt for this guy and hope he is deselected before the next election. I would,however, query whether he should be condemned for failing to hold surgeries in his constituency. How often did Winston Churchill , Clement Attlee , Harold Macmillan, Neville Chamberlain and Herbert Asquith hold surgeries?
Different times, different expectations of the role. In fairness to him to him it has not been long since the election anyway, although that he has not been active inthe house either, even inthe limited non-recess period, smacks of laziness.
But the precedents are still there for him - and others - to rely on.Unless he specifically committed himself to holding surgeries if elected, I am not persuaded it is a reasonable basis for condemning him. It could be reasonably argued that in earlier times surgeries were more essential to constituents than is the case today - given the lack of e-mail links and much more limited access to telephones.
We may all have different expectations of what an MP should reasonably be required to do, so lack of surgeries may not be universally condemned. It’s only the confluence of that, with his being an arsehole (allegedly) and having such a poor voting record as well that makes him noteworthy, any one on their own I don’t think even the most partisan Tory could really give that much of a crap.
But if he keeps his head down for a week or so things will move on, and it’ll be interesting to see if his work pattern does change at all.
Has he done anything criminal ? If not hard to see a by election.It does not seem to me we are in the grounds of perjury , perverting the course of justice , fraudulent expenses claims, assault as was the case with cabinet ministers and MPs in previous administration's .Plus there is already a current MP about to face the criminal court.
Never said he did anything criminal - I don’t see anything to suggest he should be expected to resign, and I imagine while his past behaviour is being condemned very few MPs would think he has done anything resignation worthy. If he is an arse, or lazy, or a lazy arse, his party might not reselect him or he might lose any future election, but none of those three options are barriers to office, nor is having the whip withdrawn, even permanently, reason to do so. Frankly it seems like Hallam would be better served by someone else, unless he bucks up after this whole palaver, but I don’t think many MPs and even commentators would think it should be so easy to hound someone from office for being a prat.
On Catalonia, were they to UDI we know no-one close by will recognise, I assume, but I wonder who might be most likely to recognise them just to annoy the international community - anyone? And how would they react if the only ones to recognise them were, say, North Korea?
Mr. Meeks, I imagine it's because of the lacklustre performance of the Government.
The only way I see this simmering down over time is if we leave and gradually things knit back together.
They really won't. The rejoin campaign is already underway with demographics on our side.
The biggest problem that Leave had to overcome was fighting the status quo. Much safer to stay as you were. And many voted that way, despite considerable misgivings about the lack of democratic accountability within the EU.
Next time, those fighting rejoin will themselves have to fight the status quo. I honestly can't see rejoin winning the debate during my lifetime. After that - why should I worry?
There are no good solutions to the mess we are in, which is why Theresa May rejected every feasible outcome in her Florence speech - WTO, Canada, Norway and EU membership. Given that all the outcomes are problematic, rejoining might happen, even though it seems unlikely now. It is logically the best outcome for the UK, except for the pesky fact that it is the only outcome that the British population has formally rejected. If we allow for the possibility of people changing their minds in the face of evidence and with a greater understanding, there is no reason why we shouldn't rejoin.
I'd agree with that. I'd make it about 3/1 that we apply to rejoin within 10 years of leaving, and close to evens (maybe 5/4) that we do so within 20 years. More depends on how the EU evolves than events within the UK.
Nothing will face down the ultras except reality, which is why the only way out of this is a cathartic national humiliation of the kind we've never experienced.
You really hate the UK, don't you?
Why do you persevere? You will always sneer upon your fellow UK citizens for not having your intellectual capacity to see the wonders of your EU-superstate. I'm sure there are 27 other EU nations that would welcome the contribution you could make to advancing their well-being.
That they don't worry so much about democracy seems to fit with your own mindset - that the majority can be ignored when they are so clearly and obviously too thick to be allowed the vote...
On Catalonia, were they to UDI we know no-one close by will recognise, I assume, but I wonder who might be most likely to recognise them just to annoy the international community - anyone? And how would they react if the only ones to recognise them were, say, North Korea?
I hope you don't really mean that. You can have a vote but it'll have no bearing on the outcome because we'll only implement Remain.
Any national referendum would either be seen as a sham (as in your suggestion) or morally and political binding (as the real one was). Whether the vote was legally binding is beside the point.
That's not what I said
What they could have done after the vote is examined the options, had the great debate we were denied before the vote, exposed the deceit, proposed options, and had a general election.
Instead they said "We will pursue the most hardline options, that matches your vote" without adding "but it doesn't match your expectations"
Different times, different expectations of the role. In fairness to him to him it has not been long since the election anyway, although that he has not been active inthe house either, even inthe limited non-recess period, smacks of laziness.
But the precedents are still there for him - and others - to rely on.Unless he specifically committed himself to holding surgeries if elected, I am not persuaded it is a reasonable basis for condemning him. It could be reasonably argued that in earlier times surgeries were more essential to constituents than is the case today - given the lack of e-mail links and much more limited access to telephones.
We may all have different expectations of what an MP should reasonably be required to do, so lack of surgeries may not be universally condemned. It’s only the confluence of that, with his being an arsehole (allegedly) and having such a poor voting record as well that makes him noteworthy, any one on their own I don’t think even the most partisan Tory could really give that much of a crap.
But if he keeps his head down for a week or so things will move on, and it’ll be interesting to see if his work pattern does change at all.
Has he done anything criminal ? If not hard to see a by election.It does not seem to me we are in the grounds of perjury , perverting the course of justice , fraudulent expenses claims, assault as was the case with cabinet ministers and MPs in previous administration's .Plus there is already a current MP about to face the criminal court.
Never said he did anything criminal - I don’t see anything to suggest he should be expected to resign, and I imagine while his past behaviour is being condemned very few MPs would think he has done anything resignation worthy. If he is an arse, or lazy, or a lazy arse, his party might not reselect him or he might lose any future election, but none of those three options are barriers to office, nor is having the whip withdrawn, even permanently, reason to do so. Frankly it seems like Hallam would be better served by someone else, unless he bucks up after this whole palaver, but I don’t think many MPs and even commentators would think it should be so easy to hound someone from office for being a prat.
With the whip removed, it’s entirely up to him how much he wants to engage with his job. He’s probably just as likely to go back to his old nightclub manager’s job, or go and sit on a beach somewhere for five years, while the British taxpayers pay him six grand a month in welfare until the next election.
This is why we need power of recall, the people of Sheffield Hallam deserve better.
To be fair, if one answer to a yes or no question is unobtainable and unrealistic, maybe the HoC shouldn't have designed and held the referendum like that in the first place.
They could have avoided a problem by making it advisory and not binding.
Oh, wait...
I hope you don't really mean that. You can have a vote but it'll have no bearing on the outcome because we'll only implement Remain.
Any national referendum would either be seen as a sham (as in your suggestion) or morally and political binding (as the real one was). Whether the vote was legally binding is beside the point.
If you hold referendums or any form of collective decisionmaking it should be grounded in constitutional principles rather than just doing everything ad hoc to deal with a political difficulty you are having.
Referendums should meet three basic criteria. The question should be clear, each choice clearly understood and each choice is practicable. The EURef met the first criterion. It failed to meet the second criterion because while Remain was clear; Leave wasn't. In this case, the third also fails a fortiori from the second.
Go further I would allow two kinds of referendum.
A binding referendum where governments refer decisions of national importance that they have already made to the electorate as a final ratification step. The question is then, do you agree with Act X?
The other kind of referendum is an Initiative in the terminology that Switzerland uses. This aims to get the government to change the law. In this case I think the decision should be explicitly non-binding. The government is required to see how such a proposal might be implemented and to report back. It's then up to the electorate to interpret that report when then next elect their representatives.
Different times, different expectations of the role. In fairness to him to him it has not been long since the election anyway, although that he has not been active inthe house either, even inthe limited non-recess period, smacks of laziness.
But the precedents are still there for him - and others - to rely on.Unless he specifically committed himself to holding surgeries if elected, I am not persuaded it is a reasonable basis for condemning him. It could be reasonably argued that in earlier times surgeries were more essential to constituents than is the case today - given the lack of e-mail links and much more limited access to telephones.
We may all have different expectations of what an MP should reasonably be required to do, so lack of surgeries may not be universally condemned. It’s only the confluence of that, with his being an arsehole (allegedly) and having such a poor voting record as well that makes him noteworthy, any one on their own I don’t think even the most partisan Tory could really give that much of a crap.
But if he keeps his head down for a week or so things will move on, and it’ll be interesting to see if his work pattern does change at all.
Has he done anything criminal ? If not hard to see a by election.It does not seem to me we are in the grounds of perjury , perverting the course of justice , fraudulent expenses claims, assault as was the case with cabinet ministers and MPs in previous administration's .Plus there is already a current MP about to face the criminal court.
Never said he did anything criminal - I don’t see anything to suggest he should be expected to resign, and I imagine while his past behaviour is being condemned very few MPs would think he has done anything resignation worthy. If he is an arse, or lazy, or a lazy arse, his party might not reselect him or he might lose any future election, but none of those three options are barriers to office, nor is having the whip withdrawn, even permanently, reason to do so. Frankly it seems like Hallam would be better served by someone else, unless he bucks up after this whole palaver, but I don’t think many MPs and even commentators would think it should be so easy to hound someone from office for being a prat.
I know you never said he had .I agree with all you have said.I was just musing how people are making the case for a by election.
Mr. Meeks, I imagine it's because of the lacklustre performance of the Government.
The only way I see this simmering down over time is if we leave and gradually things knit back together.
They really won't. The rejoin campaign is already underway with demographics on our side.
The biggest problem that Leave had to overcome was fighting the status quo. Much safer to stay as you were. And many voted that way, despite considerable misgivings about the lack of democratic accountability within the EU.
Leave's genius, and their nemesis, is that they managed to frame Leaving as the status quo option, and Remaining as the risk. That's why the great mass of their voters are unprepared for any of the difficult trade-offs that will be needed.
Indeed. Leavers motivation was substantially resistance to change.
Mr. Meeks, I imagine it's because of the lacklustre performance of the Government.
The only way I see this simmering down over time is if we leave and gradually things knit back together.
They really won't. The rejoin campaign is already underway with demographics on our side.
The biggest problem that Leave had to overcome was fighting the status quo. Much safer to stay as you were. And many voted that way, despite considerable misgivings about the lack of democratic accountability within the EU.
Next time, those fighting rejoin will themselves have to fight the status quo. I honestly can't see rejoin winning the debate during my lifetime. After that - why should I worry?
There are no good solutions to the mess we are in, which is why Theresa May rejected every feasible outcome in her Florence speech - WTO, Canada, Norway and EU membership. Given that all the outcomes are problematic, rejoining might happen, even though it seems unlikely now. It is logically the best outcome for the UK, except for the pesky fact that it is the only outcome that the British population has formally rejected. If we allow for the possibility of people changing their minds in the face of evidence and with a greater understanding, there is no reason why we shouldn't rejoin.
It will be a Canada style deal effectively ie a FTA outside of the single market, that is what Barnier has proposed and effectively what the government is working towards even if May wants Canada+
Mr. Meeks, I imagine it's because of the lacklustre performance of the Government.
The only way I see this simmering down over time is if we leave and gradually things knit back together.
They really won't. The rejoin campaign is already underway with demographics on our side.
The biggest problem that Leave had to overcome was fighting the status quo. Much safer to stay as you were. And many voted that way, despite considerable misgivings about the lack of democratic accountability within the EU.
Next time, those fighting rejoin will themselves have to fight the status quo. I honestly can't see rejoin winning the debate during my lifetime. After that - why should I worry?
There are no good solutions to the mess we are in, which is why Theresa May rejected every feasible outcome in her Florence speech - WTO, Canada, Norway and EU membership. Given that all the outcomes are problematic, rejoining might happen, even though it seems unlikely now. It is logically the best outcome for the UK, except for the pesky fact that it is the only outcome that the British population has formally rejected. If we allow for the possibility of people changing their minds in the face of evidence and with a greater understanding, there is no reason why we shouldn't rejoin.
I'd agree with that. I'd make it about 3/1 that we apply to rejoin within 10 years of leaving, and close to evens (maybe 5/4) that we do so within 20 years. More depends on how the EU evolves than events within the UK.
Most likely the EU splits into a Eurozone EU and non Eurozone enlarged EFTA and we end up in the latter.
Mr. Meeks, I imagine it's because of the lacklustre performance of the Government.
The only way I see this simmering down over time is if we leave and gradually things knit back together.
They really won't. The rejoin campaign is already underway with demographics on our side.
The biggest problem that Leave had to overcome was fighting the status quo. Much safer to stay as you were. And many voted that way, despite considerable misgivings about the lack of democratic accountability within the EU.
Leave's genius, and their nemesis, is that they managed to frame Leaving as the status quo option, and Remaining as the risk. That's why the great mass of their voters are unprepared for any of the difficult trade-offs that will be needed.
Indeed. Leavers motivation was substantially resistance to change.
I think that is true. The main thing though is that Leave was successful in neutralising perceptions of risk. Hope won out over experience. The Leaver issue with "Project Fear" is its pessimism, not its inaccuracy. It irritates Remainers.
If you hold referendums or any form of collective decisionmaking it should be grounded in constitutional principles rather than just doing everything ad hoc to deal with a political difficulty you are having.
Referendums should meet three basic criteria. The question should be clear, each choice clearly understood and each choice is practicable. The EURef met the first criterion. It failed to meet the second criterion because while Remain was clear; Leave wasn't. In this case, the third also fails a fortiori from the second.
Go further I would allow two kinds of referendum.
A binding referendum where governments refer decisions of national importance that they have already made to the electorate as a final ratification step. The question is then, do you agree with Act X?
The other kind of referendum is an Initiative in the terminology that Switzerland uses. This aims to get the government to change the law. In this case I think the decision should be explicitly non-binding. The government is required to see how such a proposal might be implemented and to report back. It's then up to the electorate to interpret that report when then next elect their representatives.
There was an interesting The Orville episode last night, where they observe a more 'primitive' civilization, where everything, especially justice, is a pure democracy a la Facebook likes/dislikes. So the law is what the popular vote decides in each instance (and so can only be known in retrospect).
I think your reasoning is sound, and clearly, as The Orville episode demonstrates, referenda for everything will result in rule by the mob But I am also hesitant to codify too restrictively how referenda can or could be used.
Given that Parliament is sovereign, I think the decision on how and when to use referenda should rest with them. In that way, we retain flexibility on how to use them, should new unforeseeable circumstances arise where they are deemed appropriate.
With respect to the EU referendum, I am not sure how - given the Article 50 process and the EU's refusal to engage in exploratory talks prior to the triggering of it - it could ever have been set up to meet your criteria. The EU deliberately set exit as a leap into the dark.
Risky, but he's 18.5 on Betfair, Verstappen 6.2 (for reference). He was as far as 36 the other day.
Edited extra bit: 21 on Ladbrokes, if you're so inclined.
It won’t be officially confirmed until the car is on the track with the new engine installed. That might be as late as the start of P3 tomorrow. If there’s a chance he won’t take the new engine then the current odds represent value. Not for me though, I think this will be a Mercedes-dominated weekend.
Mr. Sandpit, not so sure, to be honest. The high downforce levels (it's high downforce despite long straights due to thinner air) are more akin to Hungary and Monaco, two circuits Ferrari dominated with Red Bull also fast (and they've developed well).
On Ricciardo, if he doesn't take a penalty I'd say he'll be around 7-8 or so. Of course, if he does then his odds will balloon again, so it's one of those fantastic or foolish bets and you'll only find out which later.
If you hold referendums or any form of collective decisionmaking it should be grounded in constitutional principles rather than just doing everything ad hoc to deal with a political difficulty you are having.
Referendums should meet three basic criteria. The question should be clear, each choice clearly understood and each choice is practicable. The EURef met the first criterion. It failed to meet the second criterion because while Remain was clear; Leave wasn't. In this case, the third also fails a fortiori from the second.
Go further I would allow two kinds of referendum.
A binding referendum where governments refer decisions of national importance that they have already made to the electorate as a final ratification step. The question is then, do you agree with Act X?
The other kind of referendum is an Initiative in the terminology that Switzerland uses. This aims to get the government to change the law. In this case I think the decision should be explicitly non-binding. The government is required to see how such a proposal might be implemented and to report back. It's then up to the electorate to interpret that report when then next elect their representatives.
There was an interesting The Orville episode last night, where they observe a more 'primitive' civilization, where everything, especially justice, is a pure democracy a la Facebook likes/dislikes. So the law is what the popular vote decides in each instance (and so can only be known in retrospect).
I think your reasoning is sound, and clearly, as The Orville episode demonstrates, referenda for everything will result in rule by the mob But I am also hesitant to codify too restrictively how referenda can or could be used.
Given that Parliament is sovereign, I think the decision on how and when to use referenda should rest with them. In that way, we retain flexibility on how to use them, should new unforeseeable circumstances arise where they are deemed appropriate.
With respect to the EU referendum, I am not sure how - given the Article 50 process and the EU's refusal to engage in exploratory talks prior to the triggering of it - it could ever have been set up to meet your criteria. The EU deliberately set exit as a leap into the dark.
Which is why I think if you are going to have a constitutionally clean referendum in these circumstances it must clearly be advisory. The electorate requires the government to do its best to come up with a viable solution on the understanding it may not be possible or it has to be done in a different way. You could argue that you can achieve the same thing through the election of representatives.
Further to that, Red Bull have done well at Mexico in the prior two races, and this year is closer on pace than 2015/2016. The order might well be Ferrari/Red Bull top, then Mercedes.
I could be wrong, of course, but that's my thinking right now. Slow corners haven't been Mercedes' friend this year.
Quite an odd decision, given how many of the killings have been by the opposition.
Out of interest, does anybody know any good analysis of the Venezuelan polling failures in the regional elections? I don't buy the idea that moving polling booths is the answer for the disparity, given the higher turnout in the end.
How could the EU justify enabling such a thing, meddling in the internal affairs of another country (and one which, one way or another, is to leave the bloc)? We’re on opposites sides of a negotiation, but they surely would agree they can only discuss such matters with the formal representatives of the UK Parliament, ie the government? Unless parliament authorises it no other groups have standing to discuss such things with them?
If I had world enough and time, I'd do a proper Bayesian workup (which would involve me looking up "Bayesian workup" - it's been a while... ) with polls in similar states and previous polls. But I don't, so I'm reduced to running my finger down the Wikipedia table and drawing graphs. So please take this with a big pinch of salt. But 5/2 does seem like value in this case
There was a poll out yesterday with Gillespie up 8. Surprised me, particularly with the way VA has been trending.
FWIW, both sides are flooding the TV ad market with nasty negative attack ads (for both Governor and Attorney General votes). Hard to say which is the more effective - I have no liking for either candidate, but Gillespie has one ad that verges on the Willy Horton - accusing Northam of supporting the automatic restoration of rights of child sex offenders. Maybe that is what is boosting his number or, more likely, depressing Northam's.
If the Republicans gain Virginia, that will be a great result for them.
Yep, there is no consistency across the polling houses, but I expect Northam to win.
As I said, the Hampton poll showing Gillespie ahead surprised me. That said, it is an off-cycle election, which typically favours the GOP, and interest is extremely low. So a surprise should not be too surprising. Bu equally, given the very unusual state of the GOP, we should not be too surprised if the usual GOP advantage fails to materialize this cycle.
All elections are sui generis, some are more sui generis that others.
How could the EU justify enabling such a thing, meddling in the internal affairs of another country
I suspect the Brexit rebels will have as much joy as Ms Sturgeon did on her 'Grand European Tour' where 'a meeting at the German Foreign Ministry' turned out to be 'lunch with a minor official in a restaurant'.......
I would interpret that as 40% committed to Brexit. The rest either want to negotiate or abandon Brexit or don't know. I suppose it partly depends on how the 12% that want the government to reconsider its Brexit aims would fall out if they don't get the soft Brexit they are after. A remarkable lack of consensus for the most major constitutional change the UK has been through since the independence of Ireland.
I would interpret that as 40% committed to Brexit. The rest either want to negotiate or abandon Brexit or don't know. I suppose it partly depends on how the 12% that want the government to reconsider its Brexit aims would fall out if they don't get the soft Brexit they are after. A remarkable lack of consensus for the most major constitutional change the UK has been through since the independence of Ireland.
Well we’ve not really ironed out the issues from that one yet, either!
You could argue that you can achieve the same thing through the election of representatives.
Not in all circumstances.
Major changes to the constitution should, in my view, require the public's ratification. It has much more authority than the majority decision of 650 representative none of whom can honestly state that they have been elected for a particular position on a particular issue. [I don't even think representatives of 'single issue' parties such as UKIP or SNP can claim that, as voters also vote for them for other reasons too].
You could argue that you can achieve the same thing through the election of representatives.
Not in all circumstances.
Major changes to the constitution should, in my view, require the public's ratification. It has much more authority than the majority decision of 650 representative none of whom can honestly state that they have been elected for a particular position on a particular issue. [I don't even think representatives of 'single issue' parties such as UKIP or SNP can claim that, as voters also vote for them for other reasons too].
Agreed. There is a role for ratification of major changes that have already been agreed, which is what the word "referendum" means. The question is how you deal with speculative initiatives such as leaving the EU without the government having already produced the legislation and planning for it.
If you hold referendums or any form of collective decisionmaking it should be grounded in constitutional principles rather than just doing everything ad hoc to deal with a political difficulty you are having.
Referendums should meet three basic criteria. The question should be clear, each choice clearly understood and each choice is practicable. The EURef met the first criterion. It failed to meet the second criterion because while Remain was clear; Leave wasn't. In this case, the third also fails a fortiori from the second.
Go further I would allow two kinds of referendum.
A binding referendum where governments refer decisions of national importance that they have already made to the electorate as a final ratification step. The question is then, do you agree with Act X?
The other kind of referendum is an Initiative in the terminology that Switzerland uses. This aims to get the government to change the law. In this case I think the decision should be explicitly non-binding. The government is required to see how such a proposal might be implemented and to report back. It's then up to the electorate to interpret that report when then next elect their representatives.
There was an interesting The Orville episode last night, where they observe a more 'primitive' civilization, where everything, especially justice, is a pure democracy a la Facebook likes/dislikes. So the law is what the popular vote decides in each instance (and so can only be known in retrospect).
I think your reasoning is sound, and clearly, as The Orville episode demonstrates, referenda for everything will result in rule by the mob But I am also hesitant to codify too restrictively how referenda can or could be used.
Given that Parliament is sovereign, I think the decision on how and when to use referenda should rest with them. In that way, we retain flexibility on how to use them, should new unforeseeable circumstances arise where they are deemed appropriate.
With respect to the EU referendum, I am not sure how - given the Article 50 process and the EU's refusal to engage in exploratory talks prior to the triggering of it - it could ever have been set up to meet your criteria. The EU deliberately set exit as a leap into the dark.
And yet Switzerland is not renowned as a failed state due to mob rule.
Comprehensive, 'soft brexit' does surprisingly poorly considering its middle option status quo bias.
I suppose that gives me a proxy answer to the question, do you think Brexit is a fiasco? About 40% of the population and 80% of Leavers don't care about outcomes. It's leaving that counts.
If you hold referendums or any form of collective decisionmaking it should be grounded in constitutional principles rather than just doing everything ad hoc to deal with a political difficulty you are having.
Referendums should meet three basic criteria. The question should be clear, each choice clearly understood and each choice is practicable. The EURef met the first criterion. It failed to meet the second criterion because while Remain was clear; Leave wasn't. In this case, the third also fails a fortiori from the second.
Go further I would allow two kinds of referendum.
A binding referendum where governments refer decisions of national importance that they have already made to the electorate as a final ratification step. The question is then, do you agree with Act X?
The other kind of referendum is an Initiative in the terminology that Switzerland uses. This aims to get the government to change the law. In this case I think the decision should be explicitly non-binding. The government is required to see how such a proposal might be implemented and to report back. It's then up to the electorate to interpret that report when then next elect their representatives.
There was an interesting The Orville episode last night, where they observe a more 'primitive' civilization, where everything, especially justice, is a pure democracy a la Facebook likes/dislikes. So the law is what the popular vote decides in each instance (and so can only be known in retrospect).
I think your reasoning is sound, and clearly, as The Orville episode demonstrates, referenda for everything will result in rule by the mob But I am also hesitant to codify too restrictively how referenda can or could be used.
Given that Parliament is sovereign, I think the decision on how and when to use referenda should rest with them. In that way, we retain flexibility on how to use them, should new unforeseeable circumstances arise where they are deemed appropriate.
With respect to the EU referendum, I am not sure how - given the Article 50 process and the EU's refusal to engage in exploratory talks prior to the triggering of it - it could ever have been set up to meet your criteria. The EU deliberately set exit as a leap into the dark.
And yet Switzerland is not renowned as a failed state due to mob rule.
And Switzerland uses representative government for most of its work. During my time living there, most of the referenda were at cantonal level about very local issues, such as recycling, how to allot the produce of the village communal alambic, etc...
I don't have the stats to hand, nor the inclination to find them, but my memory is that federal level referenda are not too frequent.
You could argue that you can achieve the same thing through the election of representatives.
Not in all circumstances.
Major changes to the constitution should, in my view, require the public's ratification. It has much more authority than the majority decision of 650 representative none of whom can honestly state that they have been elected for a particular position on a particular issue. [I don't even think representatives of 'single issue' parties such as UKIP or SNP can claim that, as voters also vote for them for other reasons too].
Agreed. There is a role for ratification of major changes that have already been agreed, which is what the word "referendum" means. The question is how you deal with speculative initiatives such as leaving the EU without the government having already produced the legislation and planning for it.
I do see where you are coming from. But if we retain referenda solely for ratification purposes, that does leave the issue of what to do about issues, such as Brexit, where a plurality or majority hold a position that has no prospect of finding a majority in the Commons as there is a consistent, systemic disconnect between those selected to stand and the sentiment of that plurality/majority.
And Switzerland uses representative government for most of its work. During my time living there, most of the referenda were at cantonal level about very local issues, such as recycling, how to allot the produce of the village communal alambic, etc...
I don't have the stats to hand, nor the inclination to find them, but my memory is that federal level referenda are not too frequent.
But under Swiss law the very things you are talking about - constitutional changes - have to be decided by referendum not by the representatives. In addition any law approved by Parliament can be challenged and put to a referendum if sufficient signatures can be got for the proposal (50,000).
Again, with such widespread use of referendums I am not seeing mob rule in Switzerland.
Comments
Sky reporting very dangerous position now
This could be the big story this weekend
So we can either say to Johnson, Fox, Gove and Cummings, do your worst, in the secure knowledge that it will be the worst. Or do former Remainers try to make the best of a bad job and allow those that put us into this mess to undermine at every opportunity?
And Edit, there's still no plan for Brexit. Let that astonishing thought sink in for a moment....
1. Without such re-assurance that it would implement the result, many would have said "What's the point? They'll just ignore us like before....." and a poor turnout would have lacked legitimacy - leaving the issue open. Which was exactly what they did not want. The Referndum was intended to close down the question of our relationship with the EU for all time.
2. (possibly linked to 1 above) Those at the top of Government continually said it would implement the outcome because it hadn't crossed their tiny minds that the voters would vote to Leave. A Government that was implementing a decision to stay would have had carte blanche to do whatever it felt it needed to do on the EU without further input from the people.
But if he keeps his head down for a week or so things will move on, and it’ll be interesting to see if his work pattern does change at all.
Did you actually campaign at all in the Referendum?
Any national referendum would either be seen as a sham (as in your suggestion) or morally and political binding (as the real one was). Whether the vote was legally binding is beside the point.
There will be an intergenerational backlash against the Tories for Brexit, but I think rejoin as a serious campaign will take a decade to get going.
Most likely it will be a centrist move by the sane wing of the Conservatives that changes the zeitgeist to rejoin. This would probably via the EEA, before a sheepish acceptance of EU membership, justified on the basis that the EU has changed to be more in keeping with UK ambitions*.
*It always has been of course, but the Tories will need to justify a further reverse ferret on the subject of Europe.
Catalonia - a motion has now been filed to declare Independence
What's Donald's official position?
https://twitter.com/Europarl_EN/status/923492086590173184
Why do you persevere? You will always sneer upon your fellow UK citizens for not having your intellectual capacity to see the wonders of your EU-superstate. I'm sure there are 27 other EU nations that would welcome the contribution you could make to advancing their well-being.
That they don't worry so much about democracy seems to fit with your own mindset - that the majority can be ignored when they are so clearly and obviously too thick to be allowed the vote...
What they could have done after the vote is examined the options, had the great debate we were denied before the vote, exposed the deceit, proposed options, and had a general election.
Instead they said "We will pursue the most hardline options, that matches your vote" without adding "but it doesn't match your expectations"
This is why we need power of recall, the people of Sheffield Hallam deserve better.
Referendums should meet three basic criteria. The question should be clear, each choice clearly understood and each choice is practicable. The EURef met the first criterion. It failed to meet the second criterion because while Remain was clear; Leave wasn't. In this case, the third also fails a fortiori from the second.
Go further I would allow two kinds of referendum.
A binding referendum where governments refer decisions of national importance that they have already made to the electorate as a final ratification step. The question is then, do you agree with Act X?
The other kind of referendum is an Initiative in the terminology that Switzerland uses. This aims to get the government to change the law. In this case I think the decision should be explicitly non-binding. The government is required to see how such a proposal might be implemented and to report back. It's then up to the electorate to interpret that report when then next elect their representatives.
Different times, different expectations of the role. In fairness to him to him it has not been long since the election anyway, although that he has not been active inthe house either, even inthe limited non-recess period, smacks of laziness.
But the precedents are still there for him - and others - to rely on.Unless he specifically committed himself to holding surgeries if elected, I am not persuaded it is a reasonable basis for condemning him. It could be reasonably argued that in earlier times surgeries were more essential to constituents than is the case today - given the lack of e-mail links and much more limited access to telephones.
We may all have different expectations of what an MP should reasonably be required to do, so lack of surgeries may not be universally condemned. It’s only the confluence of that, with his being an arsehole (allegedly) and having such a poor voting record as well that makes him noteworthy, any one on their own I don’t think even the most partisan Tory could really give that much of a crap.
But if he keeps his head down for a week or so things will move on, and it’ll be interesting to see if his work pattern does change at all.
Has he done anything criminal ? If not hard to see a by election.It does not seem to me we are in the grounds of perjury , perverting the course of justice , fraudulent expenses claims, assault as was the case with cabinet ministers and MPs in previous administration's .Plus there is already a current MP about to face the criminal court.
Never said he did anything criminal - I don’t see anything to suggest he should be expected to resign, and I imagine while his past behaviour is being condemned very few MPs would think he has done anything resignation worthy. If he is an arse, or lazy, or a lazy arse, his party might not reselect him or he might lose any future election, but none of those three options are barriers to office, nor is having the whip withdrawn, even permanently, reason to do so. Frankly it seems like Hallam would be better served by someone else, unless he bucks up after this whole palaver, but I don’t think many MPs and even commentators would think it should be so easy to hound someone from office for being a prat.
I know you never said he had .I agree with all you have said.I was just musing how people are making the case for a by election.
Hmmm, Twitter is interesting:
https://twitter.com/JustABettingGuy/status/923825485150334976
Risky, but he's 18.5 on Betfair, Verstappen 6.2 (for reference). He was as far as 36 the other day.
Edited extra bit: 21 on Ladbrokes, if you're so inclined.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41774817
I think your reasoning is sound, and clearly, as The Orville episode demonstrates, referenda for everything will result in rule by the mob But I am also hesitant to codify too restrictively how referenda can or could be used.
Given that Parliament is sovereign, I think the decision on how and when to use referenda should rest with them. In that way, we retain flexibility on how to use them, should new unforeseeable circumstances arise where they are deemed appropriate.
With respect to the EU referendum, I am not sure how - given the Article 50 process and the EU's refusal to engage in exploratory talks prior to the triggering of it - it could ever have been set up to meet your criteria. The EU deliberately set exit as a leap into the dark.
On Ricciardo, if he doesn't take a penalty I'd say he'll be around 7-8 or so. Of course, if he does then his odds will balloon again, so it's one of those fantastic or foolish bets and you'll only find out which later.
I could be wrong, of course, but that's my thinking right now. Slow corners haven't been Mercedes' friend this year.
Out of interest, does anybody know any good analysis of the Venezuelan polling failures in the regional elections? I don't buy the idea that moving polling booths is the answer for the disparity, given the higher turnout in the end.
As I said, the Hampton poll showing Gillespie ahead surprised me. That said, it is an off-cycle election, which typically favours the GOP, and interest is extremely low. So a surprise should not be too surprising. Bu equally, given the very unusual state of the GOP, we should not be too surprised if the usual GOP advantage fails to materialize this cycle.
All elections are sui generis, some are more sui generis that others.
Major changes to the constitution should, in my view, require the public's ratification. It has much more authority than the majority decision of 650 representative none of whom can honestly state that they have been elected for a particular position on a particular issue. [I don't even think representatives of 'single issue' parties such as UKIP or SNP can claim that, as voters also vote for them for other reasons too].
I don't have the stats to hand, nor the inclination to find them, but my memory is that federal level referenda are not too frequent.
I do see where you are coming from. But if we retain referenda solely for ratification purposes, that does leave the issue of what to do about issues, such as Brexit, where a plurality or majority hold a position that has no prospect of finding a majority in the Commons as there is a consistent, systemic disconnect between those selected to stand and the sentiment of that plurality/majority.
Again, with such widespread use of referendums I am not seeing mob rule in Switzerland.
#Rem-onanism