I have always thought that we need to have a soft Brexit. To do otherwise is to ignore the apparent wishes of a very significant part of our population. Once we are out it will be for future generations to evolve the relationship with the EU.
My guess is that we will drift away over time with less of our trade there, less interest in continental machinations, a mild relief that we don't have those UKIP idiots somehow managing to embarrass us in the most embarrassing Parliament north of Harare and increasing differences in our laws over time. But I could be wrong. We may go the other way and end up being members again in all but name.
The point is that we surely all want a relatively undisruptive Brexit now. That is what the government should be working towards and seeking to build a consensus on. Between the rants we do see glimpses of this, primarily from Mrs May interestingly enough. Here's hoping she can deliver.
Who is this we? The we who voted for a hard anti-immigration Brexit or the we who didn't vote for Brexit at all? You want to betray both groups to achieve your own aspiration.
Could DavidL win, in your eyes?
If he tries to engage with you, and other Remainers, to find a form of Brexit that all can support, he's betraying the referendum and anti-democratic.
If he tacitly endorses hard Brexit, he's criticised for being a hardline Leaver mapping out a divisive vision of Brexit that few Remainers can support, and open to abuse for it.
As far as I can tell, your view is that Leave had the Mark of Cain upon them from May 2016, as soon as their campaign went hard on immigration, and nothing they've been able to say or do since has been, or ever will be, good enough in your eyes.
Leave won on xenophobic lies. That nasty prospectus must be seen through to its conclusion. That has not yet been reached. Those who decided that falling in behind xenophobic lies was justified to achieve Brexit must make their own reckoning with that decision. But seeking to pretend it didn't happen isn't an option.
But then, don't complain that we aren't reaching out and trying to win you over.
I don't complain. That abject failure hastens the failure of the Brexit project and the moment that Britain can start to rebuild from its ashes.
@DPJHodges: All of Labour's national leaders are white men again. The balance has been restored.
I found it amusing that after all the belly-aching from so-called "centrists" about how "male-dominated" the Labour leadership was, the party ended up getting a record performance with women this year.
I have always thought that we need to have a soft Brexit. To do otherwise is to ignore the apparent wishes of a very significant part of our population. Once we are out it will be for future generations to evolve the relationship with the EU.
My guess is that we will drift away over time with less of our trade there, less interest in continental machinations, a mild relief that we don't have those UKIP idiots somehow managing to embarrass us in the most embarrassing Parliament north of Harare and increasing differences in our laws over time. But I could be wrong. We may go the other way and end up being members again in all but name.
The point is that we surely all want a relatively undisruptive Brexit now. That is what the government should be working towards and seeking to build a consensus on. Between the rants we do see glimpses of this, primarily from Mrs May interestingly enough. Here's hoping she can deliver.
Who is this we? The we who voted for a hard anti-immigration Brexit or the we who didn't vote for Brexit at all? You want to betray both groups to achieve your own aspiration.
Could DavidL win, in your eyes?
If he tries to engage with you, and other Remainers, to find a form of Brexit that all can support, he's betraying the referendum and anti-democratic.
If he tacitly endorses hard Brexit, he's criticised for being a hardline Leaver mapping out a divisive vision of Brexit that few Remainers can support, and open to abuse for it.
As far as I can tell, your view is that Leave had the Mark of Cain upon them from May 2016, as soon as their campaign went hard on immigration, and nothing they've been able to say or do since has been, or ever will be, good enough in your eyes.
Leave won on xenophobic lies. That nasty prospectus must be seen through to its conclusion. That has not yet been reached. Those who decided that falling in behind xenophobic lies was justified to achieve Brexit must make their own reckoning with that decision. But seeking to pretend it didn't happen isn't an option.
It was Blair's failure to introduce transition controls on the new accession countries in 2004 which is really to blame for the rise in immigration concerns, not the Leave campaign in 2016
Fundamentally over the last 40 years UK politicians went beyond their mandate in suborning the country to the EU. They've been smacked and are squealing like a spoilt child
Very nicely said. Brexit in a nutshell.
And that deafening silence you can hear? That is Remainers taking responsibility for all that unwanted suborning. You'd think from them that Brexit was caused by those voting to Leave, rather than a reaction to what they have foisted upon us for forty years.
The architects of Brexit are those squealing loudest because their insidious campaign has come crashing down.
+1 on this. I've been getting increasingly ill tempered with some of the remain ultras here and elsewhere, need to remember that much of the wailing and gnashing is from people unaccustomed to not getting their own way.
"The peasants are revolting!" they shriek. Then again, I suspect they had that view long before the leave vote anyway.
Fundamentally over the last 40 years UK politicians went beyond their mandate in suborning the country to the EU. They've been smacked and are squealing like a spoilt child
Very nicely said. Brexit in a nutshell.
And that deafening silence you can hear? That is Remainers taking responsibility for all that unwanted suborning. You'd think from them that Brexit was caused by those voting to Leave, rather than a reaction to what they have foisted upon us for forty years.
The architects of Brexit are those squealing loudest because their insidious campaign has come crashing down.
+1 on this. I've been getting increasingly ill tempered with some of the remain ultras here and elsewhere, need to remember that much of the wailing and gnashing is from people unaccustomed to not getting their own way.
"The peasants are revolting!" they shriek. Then again, I suspect they had that view long before the leave vote anyway.
So any benefits of Brexit besides annoying people you perceive to have slighted you?
But Judge O'Neill doubled down on his comments in a subsequent Facebook post.
"Lighten up folks," he scolded his critics.
"This is how Democrats remain in the minority."
Must confess I'm not feeling the outrage on this one as strongly as other cases - it's hardly information I'd care to know, and he put it quite crudely, but that he is proud of his sexual record is neither here nor there. He has questioned the 'national feeding frenzy' into historic allegations, which might be problematic if he just dismisses everything because it happened a long time ago, but that doesn't seem to be the focus of criticism.
So he's had consensual sex with 50 women in 50 years?
50 'very attractive' women - presumably the total number may be higher.
That's not the punchline. This is the bit that cracked me up:
"In the last fifty years I was sexually intimate with approximately 50 very attractive females," wrote the Chagrin Falls, Ohio, native. The 70-year-old Democrat went on to describe two of the women and his alleged encounters with them. "It ranged from a gorgeous personal secretary to Senator Bob Taft (Senior) who was my first true love and we made passionate love in the hayloft of her parents barn." He later edited the post to clarify it was the secretary - not Senator Taft - with whom he purportedly had sexual relations.
Fundamentally over the last 40 years UK politicians went beyond their mandate in suborning the country to the EU. They've been smacked and are squealing like a spoilt child
Very nicely said. Brexit in a nutshell.
And that deafening silence you can hear? That is Remainers taking responsibility for all that unwanted suborning. You'd think from them that Brexit was caused by those voting to Leave, rather than a reaction to what they have foisted upon us for forty years.
The architects of Brexit are those squealing loudest because their insidious campaign has come crashing down.
+1 on this. I've been getting increasingly ill tempered with some of the remain ultras here and elsewhere, need to remember that much of the wailing and gnashing is from people unaccustomed to not getting their own way.
"The peasants are revolting!" they shriek. Then again, I suspect they had that view long before the leave vote anyway.
Yes. Much of it is snobbishness that the Leave victory in June 2016 was the first time a majority of working class voters beat a majority of middle class voters since Wilson beat Heath in October 1974.
I have always thought that we need to have a soft Brexit. To do otherwise is to ignore the apparent wishes of a very significant part of our population. Once we are out it will be for future generations to evolve the relationship with the EU.
My guess is that we will drift away over time with less of our trade there, less interest in continental machinations, a mild relief that we don't have those UKIP idiots somehow managing to embarrass us in the most embarrassing Parliament north of Harare and increasing differences in our laws over time. But I could be wrong. We may go the other way and end up being members again in all but name.
The point is that we surely all want a relatively undisruptive Brexit now. That is what the government should be working towards and seeking to build a consensus on. Between the rants we do see glimpses of this, primarily from Mrs May interestingly enough. Here's hoping she can deliver.
Who is this we? The we who voted for a hard anti-immigration Brexit or the we who didn't vote for Brexit at all? You want to betray both groups to achieve your own aspiration.
Could DavidL win, in your eyes?
If he tries to engage with you, and other Remainers, to find a form of Brexit that all can support, he's betraying the referendum and anti-democratic.
If he tacitly endorses hard Brexit, he's criticised for being a hardline Leaver mapping out a divisive vision of Brexit that few Remainers can support, and open to abuse for it.
As far as I can tell, your view is that Leave had the Mark of Cain upon them from May 2016, as soon as their campaign went hard on immigration, and nothing they've been able to say or do since has been, or ever will be, good enough in your eyes.
Leave won on xenophobic lies. That nasty prospectus must be seen through to its conclusion. That has not yet been reached. Those who decided that falling in behind xenophobic lies was justified to achieve Brexit must make their own reckoning with that decision. But seeking to pretend it didn't happen isn't an option.
It was Blair's failure to introduce transition controls on the new accession countries in 2004 which is really to blame for the rise in immigration concerns, not the Leave campaign in 2016
To a certain extent no doubt. But if Blair had gone the other way, the maximum time of a block on newer countries under the FoM transition rules would have been five years. So there would still have been an influx 2009-16.
There is a way to get a further extension but would require proof to the EU iirc and that seems unlikely.
Fundamentally over the last 40 years UK politicians went beyond their mandate in suborning the country to the EU. They've been smacked and are squealing like a spoilt child
Very nicely said. Brexit in a nutshell.
And that deafening silence you can hear? That is Remainers taking responsibility for all that unwanted suborning. You'd think from them that Brexit was caused by those voting to Leave, rather than a reaction to what they have foisted upon us for forty years.
The architects of Brexit are those squealing loudest because their insidious campaign has come crashing down.
+1 on this. I've been getting increasingly ill tempered with some of the remain ultras here and elsewhere, need to remember that much of the wailing and gnashing is from people unaccustomed to not getting their own way.
"The peasants are revolting!" they shriek. Then again, I suspect they had that view long before the leave vote anyway.
So any benefits of Brexit besides annoying people you perceive to have slighted you?
Having direct control over the people who make our laws and the ability to vote them out - priceless.
Were previous SLAB leaders holding back socialism in Scotland?
Murphy and Dugdale were both centrists, Leonard is a leftwinger and more in line with the current Corbynista national Labour leadership.
Leonard's election is good news for the Tories and LDs but bad news for the SNP
New SLAB leaders being bad for the SNP is a well worn PB.com snap analysis - as he is a privately educated, Yorkshireman and completely unknown among even political nerds like myself - I don't think the SNP will be particularly concerned about his election. FWIW Sarwar was probably the bigger threat.
For the first time in my memory SLAB have actually published the voting results:
As the campaign was rife with allegations of voter registration irregularities on both sides, will be interesting to see if Sarwar challenges the result.
Fundamentally over the last 40 years UK politicians went beyond their mandate in suborning the country to the EU. They've been smacked and are squealing like a spoilt child
Very nicely said. Brexit in a nutshell.
And that deafening silence you can hear? That is Remainers taking responsibility for all that unwanted suborning. You'd think from them that Brexit was caused by those voting to Leave, rather than a reaction to what they have foisted upon us for forty years.
The architects of Brexit are those squealing loudest because their insidious campaign has come crashing down.
+1 on this. I've been getting increasingly ill tempered with some of the remain ultras here and elsewhere, need to remember that much of the wailing and gnashing is from people unaccustomed to not getting their own way.
"The peasants are revolting!" they shriek. Then again, I suspect they had that view long before the leave vote anyway.
So any benefits of Brexit besides annoying people you perceive to have slighted you?
Having direct control over the people who make our laws and the ability to vote them out - priceless.
I have always thought that we need to have a soft Brexit. To do otherwise is to ignore the apparent wishes of a very significant part of our population. Once we are out it will be for future generations to evolve the relationship with the EU.
My guess is that we will drift away over time with less of our trade there, less interest in continental deliver.
Who is this we? The we who voted for a hard anti-immigration Brexit or the we who didn't vote for Brexit at all? You want to betray both groups to achieve your own aspiration.
Could DavidL win, in your eyes?
If he tries to engage with you, and other Remainers, to find a form of Brexit that all can support, he's betraying the referendum and anti-democratic.
If he tacitly endorses hard Brexit, he's criticised for being a hardline Leaver mapping out a divisive vision of Brexit that few Remainers can support, and open to abuse for it.
As far as I can tell, your view is that Leave had the Mark of Cain upon them from May 2016, as soon as their campaign went hard on immigration, and nothing they've been able to say or do since has been, or ever will be, good enough in your eyes.
Leave won on happen isn't an option.
It was Blair's failure to introduce transition controls on the new accession countries in 2004 which is really to blame for the rise in immigration concerns, not the Leave campaign in 2016
To a certain extent no doubt. But if Blair had gone the other way, the maximum time of a block on newer countries under the FoM transition rules would have been five years. So there would still have been an influx 2009-16.
There is a way to get a further extension but would require proof to the EU iirc and that seems unlikely.
The timeframe in which transition controls could be imposed was actually from 2004 until 2011, they had to be ended by 2012. Germany imposed the transition controls for the full 7 years, we did not.
Germany therefore has not had the same concerns about Eastern European migration we have. It is only in the last couple of years immigration concerns have risen in Germany with the rise of the AfD but that is based on immigration of refugees from Syria and the Middle East under Merkel without controls, not Polish plumbers.
Were previous SLAB leaders holding back socialism in Scotland?
Murphy and Dugdale were both centrists, Leonard is a leftwinger and more in line with the current Corbynista national Labour leadership.
Leonard's election is good news for the Tories and LDs but bad news for the SNP
New SLAB leaders being bad for the SNP is a well worn PB.com snap analysis - as he is a privately educated, Yorkshireman and completely unknown among even political nerds like myself - I don't think the SNP will be particularly concerned about his election. FWIW Sarwar was probably the bigger threat.
For the first time in my memory SLAB have actually published the voting results:
As the campaign was rife with allegations of voter registration irregularities on both sides, will be interesting to see if Sarwar challenges the result.
'For the many not the few'...
As 22,000 members voted...
Edit - how wrong can one be? Seventeen thousand members and the rest a hotchpotch of union members and a few dozen three quidders.
Do you ever get the feeling Labour in Scotland are dying out?
Fundamentally over the last 40 years UK politicians went beyond their mandate in suborning the country to the EU. They've been smacked and are squealing like a spoilt child
Very nicely said. Brexit in a nutshell.
And that deafening silence you can hear? That is Remainers taking responsibility for all that unwanted suborning. You'd think from them that Brexit was caused by those voting to Leave, rather than a reaction to what they have foisted upon us for forty years.
The architects of Brexit are those squealing loudest because their insidious campaign has come crashing down.
+1 on this. I've been getting increasingly ill tempered with some of the remain ultras here and elsewhere, need to remember that much of the wailing and gnashing is from people unaccustomed to not getting their own way.
"The peasants are revolting!" they shriek. Then again, I suspect they had that view long before the leave vote anyway.
Yes. Much of it is snobbishness that the Leave victory in June 2016 was the first time a majority of working class voters beat a majority of middle class voters since Wilson beat Heath in October 1974.
No vote is complete for me until I've worked out whether the demographic I belong to has won or not.
I have always thought that we need to have a soft Brexit. To do otherwise is to ignore the apparent wishes of a very significant part of our population. Once we are out it will be for future generations to evolve the relationship with the EU.
My guess is that we will drift away over time with less of our trade there, less interest in continental machinations, a mild relief that we don't have those UKIP idiots somehow managing to embarrass us in the most embarrassing Parliament north of Harare and increasing differences in our laws over time. But I could be wrong. We may go the other way and end up being members again in all but name.
The point is that we surely all want a relatively undisruptive Brexit now. That is what the government should be working towards and seeking to build a consensus on. Between the rants we do see glimpses of this, primarily from Mrs May interestingly enough. Here's hoping she can deliver.
Who is this we? The we who voted for a hard anti-immigration Brexit or the we who didn't vote for Brexit at all? You want to betray both groups to achieve your own aspiration.
Could DavidL win, in your eyes?
If he tries to engage with you, and other Remainers, to find a form of Brexit that all can support, he's betraying the referendum and anti-democratic.
If he tacitly endorses hard Brexit, he's criticised for being a hardline Leaver mapping out a divisive vision of Brexit that few Remainers can support, and open to abuse for it.
As far as I can tell, your view is that Leave had the Mark of Cain upon them from May 2016, as soon as their campaign went hard on immigration, and nothing they've been able to say or do since has been, or ever will be, good enough in your eyes.
Leave won on xenophobic lies. That nasty prospectus must be seen through to its conclusion. That has not yet been reached. Those who decided that falling in behind xenophobic lies was justified to achieve Brexit must make their own reckoning with that decision. But seeking to pretend it didn't happen isn't an option.
It was Blair's failure to introduce transition controls on the new accession countries in 2004 which is really to blame for the rise in immigration concerns, not the Leave campaign in 2016
Probably not - there's not much correlation between thinking there's too much immigration and there actually being a lot of immigration.
Were previous SLAB leaders holding back socialism in Scotland?
Murphy and Dugdale were both centrists, Leonard is a leftwinger and more in line with the current Corbynista national Labour leadership.
Leonard's election is good news for the Tories and LDs but bad news for the SNP
New SLAB leaders being bad for the SNP is a well worn PB.com snap analysis - as he is a privately educated, Yorkshireman and completely unknown among even political nerds like myself - I don't think the SNP will be particularly concerned about his election. FWIW Sarwar was probably the bigger threat.
For the first time in my memory SLAB have actually published the voting results:
As the campaign was rife with allegations of voter registration irregularities on both sides, will be interesting to see if Sarwar challenges the result.
Leonard is an out and out leftwinger with policies tailor made for the central belt and Glasgow, Sarwar is an Asian Jim Murphy.
As a Tory I would have been more concerned about Sarwar appealing to newly won Tory seats in suburban Scotland like East Renfrewshire/Eastwood and Aberdeen South. However the SNP should be more concerned about Leonard pushing a Corbynista agenda to appeal to SNP seats in inner city and industrial former working class seats in Glasgow and the central belt.
The Labour leadership result is good news for Davidson, bad news for Sturgeon.
I have always thought that we need to have a soft Brexit. To do otherwise is to ignore the apparent wishes of a very significant part of our population. Once we are out it will be for future generations to evolve the relationship with the EU.
My guess is that we will drift away over time with less of our trade there, less interest in continental machinations, a mild relief that we don't have those UKIP idiots somehow managing to embarrass us in the most embarrassing Parliament north of Harare and increasing differences in our laws over time. But I could be wrong. We may go the other way and end up being members again in all but name.
The point is that we surely all want a relatively undisruptive Brexit now. That is what the government should be working towards and seeking to build a consensus on. Between the rants we do see glimpses of this, primarily from Mrs May interestingly enough. Here's hoping she can deliver.
Who is this we? The we who voted for a hard anti-immigration Brexit or the we who didn't vote for Brexit at all? You want to betray both groups to achieve your own aspiration.
Could DavidL win, in your eyes?
If he tries to engage with you, and other Remainers, to find a form of Brexit that all can support, he's betraying the referendum and anti-democratic.
If he tacitly endorses hard Brexit, he's criticised for being a hardline Leaver mapping out a divisive vision of Brexit that few Remainers can support, and open to abuse for it.
As far as I can tell, your view is that Leave had the Mark of Cain upon them from May 2016, as soon as their campaign went hard on immigration, and nothing they've been able to say or do since has been, or ever will be, good enough in your eyes.
Leave won on xenophobic lies. That nasty prospectus must be seen through to its conclusion. That has not yet been reached. Those who decided that falling in behind xenophobic lies was justified to achieve Brexit must make their own reckoning with that decision. But seeking to pretend it didn't happen isn't an option.
It was Blair's failure to introduce transition controls on the new accession countries in 2004 which is really to blame for the rise in immigration concerns, not the Leave campaign in 2016
Probably not - there's not much correlation between thinking there's too much immigration and there actually being a lot of immigration.
Were previous SLAB leaders holding back socialism in Scotland?
Murphy and Dugdale were both centrists, Leonard is a leftwinger and more in line with the current Corbynista national Labour leadership.
Leonard's election is good news for the Tories and LDs but bad news for the SNP
New SLAB leaders being bad for the SNP is a well worn PB.com snap analysis - as he is a privately educated, Yorkshireman and completely unknown among even political nerds like myself - I don't think the SNP will be particularly concerned about his election. FWIW Sarwar was probably the bigger threat.
For the first time in my memory SLAB have actually published the voting results:
As the campaign was rife with allegations of voter registration irregularities on both sides, will be interesting to see if Sarwar challenges the result.
Leonard is an out and out leftwinger with policies tailor made for the central belt and Glasgow, Sarwar is an Asian Jim Murphy.
As a Tory I would have been more concerned about Sarwar appealing to newly won Tory seats in suburban Scotland like East Renfrewshire/Eastwood and Aberdeen South. However the SNP should be more concerned about Leonard pushing a Corbynista agenda to appeal to SNP seats in inner city and industrial former working class seats in Glasgow and the central belt.
The Labour leadership result is good news for Davidson, bad news for Sturgeon.
You thought Murphy was bad news for the SNP and Kezia was next FM.
I have always thought that we need to have a soft Brexit. To do otherwise is to ignore the apparent wishes of a very significant part of our population. Once we are out it will be for future generations to evolve the relationship with the EU.
My guess is that we will drift away over time with less of our trade there, less interest in continental machinations, a mild relief that we don't have those UKIP idiots somehow managing to embarrass us in the most embarrassing Parliament north of Harare and increasing differences in our laws over time. But I could be wrong. We may go the other way and end up being members again in all but name.
The point is that we surely all want a relatively undisruptive Brexit now. That is what the government should be working towards and seeking to build a consensus on. Between the rants we do see glimpses of this, primarily from Mrs May interestingly enough. Here's hoping she can deliver.
Who is this we? The we who voted for a hard anti-immigration Brexit or the we who didn't vote for Brexit at all? You want to betray both groups to achieve your own aspiration.
Could DavidL win, in your eyes?
If he tries to engage with you, and other Remainers, to find a form of Brexit that all can support, he's betraying the referendum and anti-democratic.
If he tacitly endorses hard Brexit, he's criticised for being a hardline Leaver mapping out a divisive vision of Brexit that few Remainers can support, and open to abuse for it.
As far as I can tell, your view is that Leave had the Mark of Cain upon them from May 2016, as soon as their campaign went hard on immigration, and nothing they've been able to say or do since has been, or ever will be, good enough in your eyes.
Leave won on xenophobic lies. That nasty prospectus must be seen through to its conclusion. That has not yet been reached. Those who decided that falling in behind xenophobic lies was justified to achieve Brexit must make their own reckoning with that decision. But seeking to pretend it didn't happen isn't an option.
It was Blair's failure to introduce transition controls on the new accession countries in 2004 which is really to blame for the rise in immigration concerns, not the Leave campaign in 2016
There was no rise in immigration concerns. The same percentage of the population has worried about "too much I" over the last 60 years without fail regardless of the immigration figures.
I have always thought that we need to have a soft Brexit. To do otherwise is to ignore the apparent wishes of a very significant part of our population. Once we are out it will be for future generations to evolve the relationship with the EU.
My guess is that we will drift away over time with less of our trade there, less interest in continental machinations, a mild relief that we don't have those UKIP idiots somehow managing to embarrass us in the most embarrassing Parliament north of Harare and increasing differences in our laws over time. But I could be wrong. We may go the other way and end up being members again in all but name.
The point is that we surely all want a relatively undisruptive Brexit now. That is what the government should be working towards and seeking to build a consensus on. Between the rants we do see glimpses of this, primarily from Mrs May interestingly enough. Here's hoping she can deliver.
Who is this we? The we who voted for a hard anti-immigration Brexit or the we who didn't vote for Brexit at all? You want to betray both groups to achieve your own aspiration.
Could DavidL win, in your eyes?
If he tries to engage with you, and other Remainers, to find a form of Brexit that all can support, he's betraying the referendum and anti-democratic.
If he tacitly endorses hard Brexit, he's criticised for being a hardline Leaver mapping out a divisive vision of Brexit that few Remainers can support, and open to abuse for it.
As far as I can tell, your view is that Leave had the Mark of Cain upon them from May 2016, as soon as their campaign went hard on immigration, and nothing they've been able to say or do since has been, or ever will be, good enough in your eyes.
Leave won on xenophobic lies. That nasty prospectus must be seen through to its conclusion. That has not yet been reached. Those who decided that falling in behind xenophobic lies was justified to achieve Brexit must make their own reckoning with that decision. But seeking to pretend it didn't happen isn't an option.
You are making an assumption that all those who voted Leave “fell in behind” those particular lies. I don’t think you can make that assumption. Anymore than someone could make an assumption about you that uou are a fan of the EU simply because you voted Remain.
I have always thought that we need to have a soft Brexit. To do otherwise is to ignore the apparent wishes of a very significant part of our population. Once we are out it will be for future generations to evolve the relationship with the EU.
My guess is that we will drift away over time with less of our trade there, less interest in continental machinations, a mild relief that we don't have those UKIP idiots somehow managing to embarrass us in the most embarrassing Parliament north of Harare and increasing differences in our laws over time. But I could be wrong. We may go the other way and end up being members again in all but name.
The point is that we surely all want a relatively undisruptive Brexit now. That is what the government should be working towards and seeking to build a consensus on. Between the rants we do see glimpses of this, primarily from Mrs May interestingly enough. Here's hoping she can deliver.
Who is this we? The we who voted for a hard anti-immigration Brexit or the we who didn't vote for Brexit at all? You want to betray both groups to achieve your own aspiration.
Could DavidL win, in your eyes?
If he tries to engage with you, and other Remainers, to find a form of Brexit that all can support, he's betraying the referendum and anti-democratic.
If he tacitly endorses hard Brexit, he's criticised for being a hardline Leaver mapping out a divisive vision of Brexit that few Remainers can support, and open to abuse for it.
As far as I can tell, your view is that Leave had the Mark of Cain upon them from May 2016, as soon as their campaign went hard on immigration, and nothing they've been able to say or do since has been, or ever will be, good enough in your eyes.
Leave won on xenophobic lies. That nasty prospectus must be seen through to its conclusion. That has not yet been reached. Those who decided that falling in behind xenophobic lies was justified to achieve Brexit must make their own reckoning with that decision. But seeking to pretend it didn't happen isn't an option.
It was Blair's failure to introduce transition controls on the new accession countries in 2004 which is really to blame for the rise in immigration concerns, not the Leave campaign in 2016
There was no rise in immigration concerns. The same percentage of the population has worried about "too much I" over the last 60 years without fail regardless of the immigration figures.
It was onlybtge lack of transition controls though which really boosted UKIP and allowed Leave to win
Were previous SLAB leaders holding back socialism in Scotland?
Murphy and Dugdale were both centrists, Leonard is a leftwinger and more in line with the current Corbynista national Labour leadership.
Leonard's election is good news for the Tories and LDs but bad news for the SNP
New SLAB leaders being bad for the SNP is a well worn PB.com snap analysis - as he is a privately educated, Yorkshireman and completely unknown among even political nerds like myself - I don't think the SNP will be particularly concerned about his election. FWIW Sarwar was probably the bigger threat.
For the first time in my memory SLAB have actually published the voting results:
As the campaign was rife with allegations of voter registration irregularities on both sides, will be interesting to see if Sarwar challenges the result.
Leonard is an out and out leftwinger with policies tailor made for the central belt and Glasgow, Sarwar is an Asian Jim Murphy.
As a Tory I would have been more concerned about Sarwar appealing to newly won Tory seats in suburban Scotland like East Renfrewshire/Eastwood and Aberdeen South. However the SNP should be more concerned about Leonard pushing a Corbynista agenda to appeal to SNP seats in inner city and industrial former working class seats in Glasgow and the central belt.
The Labour leadership result is good news for Davidson, bad news for Sturgeon.
You thought Murphy was bad news for the SNP and Kezia was next FM.
None had the same cocoa on the Central belt as Leonard though it is possible they could be with other parties support
Comments
Carwyn Jones better watch his back.
"The peasants are revolting!" they shriek. Then again, I suspect they had that view long before the leave vote anyway.
"In the last fifty years I was sexually intimate with approximately 50 very attractive females," wrote the Chagrin Falls, Ohio, native.
The 70-year-old Democrat went on to describe two of the women and his alleged encounters with them.
"It ranged from a gorgeous personal secretary to Senator Bob Taft (Senior) who was my first true love and we made passionate love in the hayloft of her parents barn."
He later edited the post to clarify it was the secretary - not Senator Taft - with whom he purportedly had sexual relations.
There is a way to get a further extension but would require proof to the EU iirc and that seems unlikely.
For the first time in my memory SLAB have actually published the voting results:
http://www.scottishlabour.org.uk/pages/scottish-leaders-result-2017-slp
As the campaign was rife with allegations of voter registration irregularities on both sides, will be interesting to see if Sarwar challenges the result.
Germany therefore has not had the same concerns about Eastern European migration we have. It is only in the last couple of years immigration concerns have risen in Germany with the rise of the AfD but that is based on immigration of refugees from Syria and the Middle East under Merkel without controls, not Polish plumbers.
As 22,000 members voted...
Edit - how wrong can one be? Seventeen thousand members and the rest a hotchpotch of union members and a few dozen three quidders.
Do you ever get the feeling Labour in Scotland are dying out?
As a Tory I would have been more concerned about Sarwar appealing to newly won Tory seats in suburban Scotland like East Renfrewshire/Eastwood and Aberdeen South. However the SNP should be more concerned about Leonard pushing a Corbynista agenda to appeal to SNP seats in inner city and industrial former working class seats in Glasgow and the central belt.
The Labour leadership result is good news for Davidson, bad news for Sturgeon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2004_(United_Kingdom)
new thread