On the thread header and the replies below, I'm really quite surprised people think a further vote and/or a general erection would resolve matters. Quite apart from the fact the former would almost certainly lead to a vote for No Deal (leaving aside the curious fantasies of a Certain Person) the polls strongly suggest an election would return a Commons where nobody at all could form a government. That would mean more chaos and indecision, not less.
It won’t. But they hope they can pip Leave to the post this time.
Very few Remainers seem to have notice or commented on the fact they only have a 3% lead (on the same polling) for winning a 2nd referendum, and could easily lose it again given the day of poll numbers last time had similar numbers, up to a 10% Remain lead.
Perhaps they don’t care, but all the vessels in the world wouldn’t be able to absorb the tears if it went ‘wrong’ a second time, and they would very probably be just as likely to refuse to accept the result as they are now.
Would you accept the result if you lost? And if no, what would you do?
Consult with Steve Bannon (metaphorically or otherwise)?
David Cameron should have established a Royal Commission of Prominent Brexiteers to establish their preferred Brexit and the version that would be voted upon. Australia did something similar before its referendum on becoming a republic so it is not as if the prime minister or anyone in government would have been unaware of the device.
The most prominent Brexiteer would have been Farage, and why would he have joined in? Much better to argue against the 'hideous betrayal' the commission would have come up with.
It'd also be good toknow whether any prominent Brexiteer asked for such a commission *before* the referendum; I cannot recall any. They just wanted a referendum.
Farage could have decided to join in, or most likely not, but the result at the end of the process would have been for a referendum with two clear options for everyone to decide which to get behind.
The pressure for a second referendum is coming from exactly the same people who for years have been telling us that referendums are bad ideas and that it's best to let politicians decide.
Anyway, I don't get what the choice would be - presumably either whatever half-baked deal Theresa manages to cook up, or WTO?
I can't see any outcome from this that doesn't leave the Tory party screwed.
Oh Cookie, dear old thing, the choice would be between Theresa's Frankendeal and Remaining. Hence TSE, william et al getting all excited.
The pressure for a second referendum is coming from exactly the same people who for years have been telling us that referendums are bad ideas and that it's best to let politicians decide.
Anyway, I don't get what the choice would be - presumably either whatever half-baked deal Theresa manages to cook up, or WTO?
I can't see any outcome from this that doesn't leave the Tory party screwed.
Oh Cookie, dear old thing, the choice would be between Theresa's Frankendeal and Remaining. Hence TSE, william et al getting all excited.
Using a poll which appears to suggest support for a referendum on the deal vs no deal with no option to remain?
We come back to the same problem - what question or questions and options will be asked. What does remain even mean now as presumably the EU will want it's pound of flesh - such as ending the rebate. Do we need remain only if on current terms or remain on whatever terms the EU offers us?
I can't answer your specific question, but it does highlight another interesting aspect of our Brexit debate; we completely ignore our counterparty. Who knows what 'the EU' (a critter with many heads) would be prepared to accept? We'd need to have a reliable position from them before we had our 'People's Vote'.
Indeed because look at their response to Chequers. I still can't believe that Tezza didn't get it pre-approved before she unleashed it on her Cabinet.
Although by saying they would be willing to allow (!) the whole of the UK to stay in a Customs' Union surely gives an indication of the likely end state. Just don't tell the Brex-o-loons. I suppose that if Raab is involved then that should quieten them, somewhat.
David Cameron should have established a Royal Commission of Prominent Brexiteers to establish their preferred Brexit and the version that would be voted upon. Australia did something similar before its referendum on becoming a republic so it is not as if the prime minister or anyone in government would have been unaware of the device.
The most prominent Brexiteer would have been Farage, and why would he have joined in? Much better to argue against the 'hideous betrayal' the commission would have come up with.
It'd also be good toknow whether any prominent Brexiteer asked for such a commission *before* the referendum; I cannot recall any. They just wanted a referendum.
No Brexiteer asked for it. In hindsight it's what the monarchist John Howard did to scupper the republican movement and it could have been smart politics for Cameron to propose that. He didn't though and the rest is history.
There is a fundamental shift happening in the world economy. The internet has allowed massive disintermediation. It often was the case that goods we produced for say 10 pounds were sold in the pharmacy for 40 pounds with most of the value and profit taken by the pharmacy. We have just launched a massive campaign on |EBay and Amazon to sell 1.5 million surplus syringes we have in stock. We are able to crash the market and cut out the pharmacies and distributors in a way that we could never do before. The mark up via Amazon is less than 10% versus a previous 300%.
The consumer benefits but huge chunks are being lost by the distribution / retail chain and by the Government which gets much less money out of the transaction. Amazon announced its sales growth this quarter was 40% with annual sales now at 200bn. It is 20 times bigger than Marks and Spencers.
At the same time production is getting hyper efficient. As an example the Whitelee wind farm which generates electricity for 250,000 households in Scotland runs at night time with 2 staff plus back up. My factory runs most nights with 1 staff plus technical back up. Our unplanned downtime in the last 10 years has gone from 20 days a year to 2.
So where are the jobs? Good customer service, R&D and technical engineers involved in set ups are all at a premium. These people are often highly mobile and work long hours. A country that attracts them will do well, one that loses them is heading downhill fast.
The UK economy has been one of the best in Europe at attracting the right types of people. the largest risk with Brexit is that this is no longer the case. France has many attractions but suffers from a rigid job and business market which attracts few high quality foreigners and bleeds talented locals. To change this is Macron's challenge.
why do we need to attract them ? shouldn't we be training them ?
Amazing isn't it.
The number of people with A levels and degrees is at its highest ever yet we have a shortage of skilled workers.
The pressure for a second referendum is coming from exactly the same people who for years have been telling us that referendums are bad ideas and that it's best to let politicians decide.
Anyway, I don't get what the choice would be - presumably either whatever half-baked deal Theresa manages to cook up, or WTO?
I can't see any outcome from this that doesn't leave the Tory party screwed.
Oh Cookie, dear old thing, the choice would be between Theresa's Frankendeal and Remaining. Hence TSE, william et al getting all excited.
The pressure for a second referendum is coming from exactly the same people who for years have been telling us that referendums are bad ideas and that it's best to let politicians decide.
Anyway, I don't get what the choice would be - presumably either whatever half-baked deal Theresa manages to cook up, or WTO?
I can't see any outcome from this that doesn't leave the Tory party screwed.
Oh Cookie, dear old thing, the choice would be between Theresa's Frankendeal and Remaining. Hence TSE, william et al getting all excited.
Using a poll which appears to suggest support for a referendum on the deal vs no deal with no option to remain?
We come back to the same problem - what question or questions and options will be asked. What does remain even mean now as presumably the EU will want it's pound of flesh - such as ending the rebate. Do we need remain only if on current terms or remain on whatever terms the EU offers us?
I can't answer your specific question, but it does highlight another interesting aspect of our Brexit debate; we completely ignore our counterparty. Who knows what 'the EU' (a critter with many heads) would be prepared to accept? We'd need to have a reliable position from them before we had our 'People's Vote'.
No of course they didn’t. That would involve compromise, pragmatism and honesty. All those are anathema to true believers.
The pressure for a second referendum is coming from exactly the same people who for years have been telling us that referendums are bad ideas and that it's best to let politicians decide.
Anyway, I don't get what the choice would be - presumably either whatever half-baked deal Theresa manages to cook up, or WTO?
I can't see any outcome from this that doesn't leave the Tory party screwed.
Oh Cookie, dear old thing, the choice would be between Theresa's Frankendeal and Remaining. Hence TSE, william et al getting all excited.
The pressure for a second referendum is coming from exactly the same people who for years have been telling us that referendums are bad ideas and that it's best to let politicians decide.
Anyway, I don't get what the choice would be - presumably either whatever half-baked deal Theresa manages to cook up, or WTO?
I can't see any outcome from this that doesn't leave the Tory party screwed.
Oh Cookie, dear old thing, the choice would be between Theresa's Frankendeal and Remaining. Hence TSE, william et al getting all excited.
I can't answer your specific question, but it does highlight another interesting aspect of our Brexit debate; we completely ignore our counterparty. Who knows what 'the EU' (a critter with many heads) would be prepared to accept? We'd need to have a reliable position from them before we had our 'People's Vote'.
Indeed because look at their response to Chequers. I still can't believe that Tezza didn't get it pre-approved before she unleashed it on her Cabinet.
Although by saying they would be willing to allow (!) the whole of the UK to stay in a Customs' Union surely gives an indication of the likely end state. Just don't tell the Brex-o-loons. I suppose that if Raab is involved then that should quieten them, somewhat.
She may have thought she did, who knows? We return, like a dog to its unlovely vomit, to the central issue of the EU as a rules and treaty based organisation. It doesn't wheel and deal in the way we might like it to, because it can't. Internally, it can fudge and fudge again, but externally...not so much.
It doesn't even much matter if Angela said 'That looks fine to me, Theresa love, I've got your back', because Europhobes aside, Merkel isn't the God-Empress of the EU.
And if Boris said one thing at one time and something else at another, then such is politics in the Trumpian era. It might have been better if Marr had not cued up Boris by reminding him what Gove had said.
Access to the Single Market from outside is not staying in it. Canada has access to the Single Market yet isn't in it.
He was asked in a simple yes/no format should Britain be leave the Single Market and he answered it quite clearly. What part of that are you struggling with?
He was asked if he agreed with Michael Gove.
He was asked if he agreed with Michael Gove that we should leave the Single Market and he said yes. He expanded on it too. Here's a transcript, the relevant section is pages 5 to 7: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/05061602.pdf
It is either ignorance or duplicitous in the extreme to pretend that Boris was proposing we stay in the single market, he explicitly ruled that out.
In context, it looks as if Marr asked him because Boris had previously said something else on the matter, both on Marr and elsewhere. Like Trump. In any case, the question was not on the ballot paper -- whichever version of Boris voters had in mind.
David Cameron should have established a Royal Commission of Prominent Brexiteers to establish their preferred Brexit and the version that would be voted upon. Australia did something similar before its referendum on becoming a republic so it is not as if the prime minister or anyone in government would have been unaware of the device.
The most prominent Brexiteer would have been Farage, and why would he have joined in? Much better to argue against the 'hideous betrayal' the commission would have come up with.
It'd also be good toknow whether any prominent Brexiteer asked for such a commission *before* the referendum; I cannot recall any. They just wanted a referendum.
No Brexiteer asked for it. In hindsight it's what the monarchist John Howard did to scupper the republican movement and it could have been smart politics for Cameron to propose that. He didn't though and the rest is history.
Why didn't any Brexiteer ask for it? Because, as you say, it would have been harmful to their cause. And if that's the case, why would they sit on such a commission (and henceforth be known as a traitor by all other leavers)?
Cameron calling for such a commission would just have played into the Brexiteers' hands as no serious Brexiteer would have sat on it. Because they wanted to win.
A second referendum would be a klaxon alarm to all the working class people of the UK that their votes do not matter - any choice they make that goes against elite metropolitan preference will just be asked again until they can be overruled. When the EU promised in 1975 didn't materialise the terms were changed again and again but we never got a referendum on them, showing that argument is complete crap. Faith in democracy is already collapsing across the West and now the elite want to do this. They are playing with fire. The working class could understandably draw the conclusion democracy does not listen to them and they should resort to other methods.
On the thread header and the replies below, I'm really quite surprised people think a further vote and/or a general erection would resolve matters. Quite apart from the fact the former would almost certainly lead to a vote for No Deal (leaving aside the curious fantasies of a Certain Person) the polls strongly suggest an election would return a Commons where nobody at all could form a government. That would mean more chaos and indecision, not less.
It won’t. But they hope they can pip Leave to the post this time.
Very few Remainers seem to have notice or commented on the fact they only have a 3% lead (on the same polling) for winning a 2nd referendum, and could easily lose it again given the day of poll numbers last time had similar numbers, up to a 10% Remain lead.
Perhaps they don’t care, but all the vessels in the world wouldn’t be able to absorb the tears if it went ‘wrong’ a second time, and they would very probably be just as likely to refuse to accept the result as they are now.
Would you accept the result if you lost? And if no, what would you do?
I don’t have a problem with democracy.
Your posts suggesting that you’d emigrate to Canada if Labour were elected suggests otherwise.
No, it doesn’t. That’s not me refusing to accept the legitimacy of the vote. That would be me protecting me and my family, and our quality of life.
Catalyse wanton chaos and run away. You really are living the true Brexit lifestyle.
If you could actually read you’d understand that I said I might do that in response to a pure socialist Government taking power at Westminster, not in response to Brexit and I’d stay here even in the eventuality of no deal.
It's worse than that. There are a set of preexisting guidelines that are accepted by a vast number of organisations. The simplest, easiest and least controversial route would have been for Labour to accept them verbatim.
Yet Labour didn't; it changed them - they claim in minor ways; others disagree. Why change them? Why is the Labour Party so different to all those other organisations? Why does it think it knows better?
If, as some people claim, the changes are irrelevant and unimportant, why have the changes?
There has to be a rationale behind the reason for the changes. And that's what has people concerned given recent events within Labour.
Rebooting solved my problem on the site.
The guidelines *haven't* been changed. The intellectual answer to your question is that the generally-accepted examples are just that, examples, and as a concrete guide to what can get you expelled from the party they need to be analysed and given more specific examples. For example, what should a Labour Party member do if he's really, genuinely, not against Jewish people, but he doesn't like the idea of a Jewish state or any other state linked to a particular community or religion and thinks it's too much like a racist concept? For the avoidance of doubt, this isn't a view that I hold, but I accept that it's held sincerely by some people (some of them Jewish) who are not prejudiced against Jewish people.
Is this such a horrible thought that he should be expelled at once? Or something he might think privately but shouldn't share? Or something that he can put forward as a view so long as he doesn't draw disgusting parallels? Or a point of view that he can discuss freely? Whatever the answer, he's entitled to know exactly where the boundary is so he can decide whether to comply.
But that's a fair point for calmer times. The political priority is to accept the examples as they are, and say that in due course we we will discuss with the Jewish community further clarification that would be suitable for deciding the limits of what can be said for membership.
If you could actually read you’d understand that I said I might do that in response to a pure socialist Government taking power at Westminster, not in response to Brexit and I’d stay here even in the eventuality of no deal.
You don't see a connection between the "chaos" Matt refers to and that outcome?
If you could actually read you’d understand that I said I might do that in response to a pure socialist Government taking power at Westminster, not in response to Brexit and I’d stay here even in the eventuality of no deal.
You don't see a connection between the "chaos" Matt refers to and that outcome?
You're going to have to work hard to find people on here who weren't in favour of the common market.
As for a relatively small country, we're the 5th largest economy in the world. If that isn't even a medium country I wonder what description you'd use for the approximately 195 economies smaller than ours. We are in the top 3 percentile as far size of the economies is concerned.
It's extremely misleading to look at sequential rankings like that. The UK is less than 4% of the global economy and that number will inevitably fall as larger countries continue to develop.
It will, but most countries are small ones whilst the UK is a large and advanced developed economy, with a global trading net.
I might expect over a (very) long time for the UK to slip from 5th to 12th largest economy worldwide but not much more than that. And we’ll always have a larger % slice of global GDP than our raw population ratio would suggest too.
David Cameron should have established a Royal Commission of Prominent Brexiteers to establish their preferred Brexit and the version that would be voted upon. Australia did something similar before its referendum on becoming a republic so it is not as if the prime minister or anyone in government would have been unaware of the device.
The most prominent Brexiteer would have been Farage, and why would he have joined in? Much better to argue against the 'hideous betrayal' the commission would have come up with.
It'd also be good toknow whether any prominent Brexiteer asked for such a commission *before* the referendum; I cannot recall any. They just wanted a referendum.
Not on the Tory side - apart from the longstanding Brexiteers - because they all waiting (in Government) for the outcome of Dave’s deal.
Personally I would trust Gove to have chaired and led such a Commission, and I’d have liked a wide variety of industry representatives and economists involved as well.
The pressure for a second referendum is coming from exactly the same people who for years have been telling us that referendums are bad ideas and that it's best to let politicians decide.
Anyway, I don't get what the choice would be - presumably either whatever half-baked deal Theresa manages to cook up, or WTO?
I can't see any outcome from this that doesn't leave the Tory party screwed.
Oh Cookie, dear old thing, the choice would be between Theresa's Frankendeal and Remaining. Hence TSE, william et al getting all excited.
The pressure for a second referendum is coming from exactly the same people who for years have been telling us that referendums are bad ideas and that it's best to let politicians decide.
Anyway, I don't get what the choice would be - presumably either whatever half-baked deal Theresa manages to cook up, or WTO?
I can't see any outcome from this that doesn't leave the Tory party screwed.
Oh Cookie, dear old thing, the choice would be between Theresa's Frankendeal and Remaining. Hence TSE, william et al getting all excited.
Using a poll which appears to suggest support for a referendum on the deal vs no deal with no option to remain?
We come back to the same problem - what question or questions and options will be asked. What does remain even mean now as presumably the EU will want it's pound of flesh - such as ending the rebate. Do we need remain only if on current terms or remain on whatever terms the EU offers us?
I can't answer your specific question, but it does highlight another interesting aspect of our Brexit debate; we completely ignore our counterparty. Who knows what 'the EU' (a critter with many heads) would be prepared to accept? We'd need to have a reliable position from them before we had our 'People's Vote'.
Interesting idea, but it wouldn't have run. Any red lines the EU laid down would have been dismissed as mere bluff, or we would have been assured they would cave when our men got going on them.
Where is this extra money coming from for retail sales that people don't have ?
Loans, credit cards, overdrafts, pension and equity releases?
Praises Allah that I can save most of my salary.
That would show up in one of many BoE borrowing and consumer credit reports. So far there isn't much evidence for a huge increase in debt that would require an average overspend of £900 per household.
While it is a worrying statistic, it isn't backed up by the debt data from the Bank so I remain sceptical over just how accurate the headline figure is.
My guess, FWIW, is that our ever increasing army of self employed have been doing somewhat better than the employed with the result that average earnings have increased somewhat more than the official figures show with the result that we are not borrowing quite as much as these figures suggest. The current level of consumption growth does look high though.
Mr. Jonathan, there's something wryly perverse about certain persons crying out that the 'will of the people' does count because it's not what Scotland or London wanted (see tweet below) whilst also demanding a 'people's vote'.
I respect democracy. You are a populist. He panders to the so-called will of the people.
The London point is fascinating. The very fact that the rest of England voted the other way doesn't seem to matter, and the lack of concern Lammy and certain others have for that may well go a long way to explaining why they voted the other way.
The idea that Brexiteers are arguing that staying in the SM and CU are not Brexit now, whilst arguing for staying in during the campaign is another absurdity.
Who was arguing to leave the EU but stay in the CU during the campaign?
I’ll accept that some of the libertarian free trade types like Dan Hannan wanted to stay in the SM before the campaign started, but during the campaign itself Michael Gove and David Cameron were both very clear that to leave the EU means leaving the SM.
Boris advocated staying in the single market.
The simple fact is there was only one question on the ballot and it did not mention SM, CU, CETA+, EEA, EFTA, Canada, Switzerland or Norway. Blame David Cameron, who should have insisted on a particular sort of Brexit being designed and then put to the people in the referendum. Blame Theresa May who triggered Article 50 with no particular destination being agreed.
But if you want to read the entrails, then Boris and Gove disagreed on so basic a point as whether Britain will leave the single market and the bus was silent on the matter.
It takes two to tango. Remember that the EU were refusing to discuss anything related to Brexit until Article 50 had been triggered. The Cabinet could have agreed whatever it wanted, but the EU would have probably just said no at the first opportunity.
Existential does not have to mean loading people up into wagons and transporting them to camps, it can mean ending the freedoms they currently have to live the lives they have chosen to lead. So what would a Corbyn Labour government's views be on kosher meat, for example, or on travel to and from Israel, or on diplomatic and trading relationships with Israel, and other ties? If you are a Jew these things go to the very essence of what and who you are. And all the signs are that a Corbyn Labour government would be hostile in a way that no previous British government has ever been.
That said, I expect the NEC to backtrack come September and to fully incorporate the IHRA definition. I also think that the furore has ensured that those accused of anti-Semitism inside Labour are going to find it tougher to stay than otherwise might have been the case. In short, the McDonnell approach will end up prevailing over the Corbyn one.
I agree with para 2. On para 1, the usual rule that we should all avoid language that people associate with genocide unless we're doing it deliberately, and if when they say "existential risk" they mean that e.g. it might be harder to get kosher meat, then I think the wording is OTT.
On those specific examples, there are indeed people (e.g. me) who think that non-stun slaughter should be stopped (as it has been in e.g. Holland), but party policy is simply to label meat clearly, including method of production and slaughter, so that consumers can decide what they want to buy. That might make non-stun meat a bit more expensive or not on sale in some supermarkets - too bad, frankly. I've never heard of any proposal to limit travel to/from Israel. I can't see a Corbyn government moving the Embassy to Jerusalem and generally it might be less favourable to Israeli policy than some would like, but that's not an existential threat either.
I do realise that the intensity of feeling about all this is making people think what-ifs of the kind you describe, and that's another reason why the NEC should stop mucking about with intellectual reflection and just sign the damn guidelines without quibbling. But it would be helpful if the critics didn't exaggerate either, not least as it makes people have worries that really aren't based in reality.
Where is this extra money coming from for retail sales that people don't have ?
Loans, credit cards, overdrafts, pension and equity releases?
Praises Allah that I can save most of my salary.
That would show up in one of many BoE borrowing and consumer credit reports. So far there isn't much evidence for a huge increase in debt that would require an average overspend of £900 per household.
While it is a worrying statistic, it isn't backed up by the debt data from the Bank so I remain sceptical over just how accurate the headline figure is.
My guess, FWIW, is that our ever increasing army of self employed have been doing somewhat better than the employed with the result that average earnings have increased somewhat more than the official figures show with the result that we are not borrowing quite as much as these figures suggest. The current level of consumption growth does look high though.
Yes, that's definitely a possibility. The ONS have struggled to figure out self-employed wage growth. I also think that the new army of self employed are not very good at declaring all their income. I have a cousin who was very surprised when I told her she should be setting 25-30% of all her income aside for tax.
By the way, I've tried to reply in some detail, but now I need to work - if there are other thoughts on the issue please don't treat non-replies to them as anything other than absence from the site!
David Cameron should have established a Royal Commission of Prominent Brexiteers to establish their preferred Brexit and the version that would be voted upon. Australia did something similar before its referendum on becoming a republic so it is not as if the prime minister or anyone in government would have been unaware of the device.
The most prominent Brexiteer would have been Farage, and why would he have joined in? Much better to argue against the 'hideous betrayal' the commission would have come up with.
It'd also be good toknow whether any prominent Brexiteer asked for such a commission *before* the referendum; I cannot recall any. They just wanted a referendum.
Not on the Tory side - apart from the longstanding Brexiteers - because they all waiting (in Government) for the outcome of Dave’s deal.
Personally I would trust Gove to have chaired and led such a Commission, and I’d have liked a wide variety of industry representatives and economists involved as well.
Agreed. There was a huge amount of research done on a number of options, the £100,000 IEA Brexit Prize produced six winning essays on various ways we could leave the EU.
The problem we have now is that the vote itself was followed by a vacuum and everyone arguing about the way forward, as opposed to getting on with the implementation of the winning plan. It’s a large part of why the issue has become even more devisive since the vote.
Mr. Jonathan, there's something wryly perverse about certain persons crying out that the 'will of the people' does count because it's not what Scotland or London wanted (see tweet below) whilst also demanding a 'people's vote'.
I respect democracy. You are a populist. He panders to the so-called will of the people.
The London point is fascinating. The very fact that the rest of England voted the other way doesn't seem to matter, and the lack of concern Lammy and certain others have for that may well go a long way to explaining why they voted the other way.
The idea that Brexiteers are arguing that staying in the SM and CU are not Brexit now, whilst arguing for staying in during the campaign is another absurdity.
Ignoring that 86.6% of the votes at the subsequent general election were for parties pledging to enact Brexit by leavig the SM and CU is yet another level of absurdity.
Yes, I'm certain that was the deciding factor for the votes of everyone. Not stuff like fox hunting, nationalisation, dementia tax, or the like.
Whilst that might be true in what drove a number of votes you can’t selectively ditch fundamental parts of your manifesto once you find them inconvenient.
Labour’s position on Brexit was certainly what reassured some UKIPers to vote for them and the same is true of the Tory manifesto in what was (supposed to be) a Brexit election.
Mr. Jonathan, there's something wryly perverse about certain persons crying out that the 'will of the people' does count because it's not what Scotland or London wanted (see tweet below) whilst also demanding a 'people's vote'.
I respect democracy. You are a populist. He panders to the so-called will of the people.
The London point is fascinating. The very fact that the rest of England voted the other way doesn't seem to matter, and the lack of concern Lammy and certain others have for that may well go a long way to explaining why they voted the other way.
The idea that Brexiteers are arguing that staying in the SM and CU are not Brexit now, whilst arguing for staying in during the campaign is another absurdity.
Who was arguing to leave the EU but stay in the CU during the campaign?
I’ll accept that some of the libertarian free trade types like Dan Hannan wanted to stay in the SM before the campaign started, but during the campaign itself Michael Gove and David Cameron were both very clear that to leave the EU means leaving the SM.
Boris advocated staying in the single market.
The simple fact is there was only one question on the ballot and it did not mention SM, CU, CETA+, EEA, EFTA, Canada, Switzerland or Norway. Blame David Cameron, who should have insisted on a particular sort of Brexit being designed and then put to the people in the referendum. Blame Theresa May who triggered Article 50 with no particular destination being agreed.
But if you want to read the entrails, then Boris and Gove disagreed on so basic a point as whether Britain will leave the single market and the bus was silent on the matter.
The Vote Leave manifesto was very clear (and its on their website) that they advocated leaving the single market.
I remember the debate about it on here at the time as several Remainers challenge Richard Tyndall and Robert Smithson as to whether they’d still support Brexit on that basis, having previously preferred EEA-EFTA.
Of course Cohen is about as credible a witness as Trump, so this will require corroboration.
He was smart enough to make tapes, I'd imagine he will be a very useful source for Mueller.
Leaving aside what we think of Mr Trump, I think it will do serious damage to confidence in the legal profession if it is accepted that your solicitor (lawyer in the US) may secretly tape your discussions and later use the tapes as evidence against you.
That point has already been made by some lawyers in the US. If you feel that way about your client, your professional duty is to resign from representing them.
David Cameron should have established a Royal Commission of Prominent Brexiteers to establish their preferred Brexit and the version that would be voted upon. Australia did something similar before its referendum on becoming a republic so it is not as if the prime minister or anyone in government would have been unaware of the device.
The most prominent Brexiteer would have been Farage, and why would he have joined in? Much better to argue against the 'hideous betrayal' the commission would have come up with.
It'd also be good toknow whether any prominent Brexiteer asked for such a commission *before* the referendum; I cannot recall any. They just wanted a referendum.
Not on the Tory side - apart from the longstanding Brexiteers - because they all waiting (in Government) for the outcome of Dave’s deal.
Personally I would trust Gove to have chaired and led such a Commission, and I’d have liked a wide variety of industry representatives and economists involved as well.
Agreed. There was a huge amount of research done on a number of options, the £100,000 IEA Brexit Prize produced six winning essays on various ways we could leave the EU.
The problem we have now is that the vote itself was followed by a vacuum and everyone arguing about the way forward, as opposed to getting on with the implementation of the winning plan. It’s a large part of why the issue has become even more devisive since the vote.
There were two decisive points following the vote: (1) Gove and Boris blowing up, leading to May and (2) the disastrous GE2017, the latter being far more important.
That said I think Boris would probably have been even worse than May. Gove could have done it but he wouldn’t have been popular and might have struggled with the majority of 12 further down the line.
In fact, ideally, we might have done better with someone like Boris as PM (figurehead only) and Gove as foreign secretary with May at DeXEU.
Mr. Jonathan, there's something wryly perverse about certain persons crying out that the 'will of the people' does count because it's not what Scotland or London wanted (see tweet below) whilst also demanding a 'people's vote'.
I respect democracy. You are a populist. He panders to the so-called will of the people.
The London point is fascinating. The very fact that the rest of England voted the other way doesn't seem to matter, and the lack of concern Lammy and certain others have for that may well go a long way to explaining why they voted the other way.
The idea that Brexiteers are arguing that staying in the SM and CU are not Brexit now, whilst arguing for staying in during the campaign is another absurdity.
Who was arguing to leave the EU but stay in the CU during the campaign?
I’ll accept that some of the libertarian free trade types like Dan Hannan wanted to stay in the SM before the campaign started, but during the campaign itself Michael Gove and David Cameron were both very clear that to leave the EU means leaving the SM.
Boris advocated staying in the single market.
The simple fact is there was only one question on the ballot and it did not mention SM, CU, CETA+, EEA, EFTA, Canada, Switzerland or Norway. Blame David Cameron, who should have insisted on a particular sort of Brexit being designed and then put to the people in the referendum. Blame Theresa May who triggered Article 50 with no particular destination being agreed.
But if you want to read the entrails, then Boris and Gove disagreed on so basic a point as whether Britain will leave the single market and the bus was silent on the matter.
The Vote Leave manifesto was very clear (and its on their website) that they advocated leaving the single market.
If you read between the lines, it's clear they thought Brexit would trigger a fundamental Europe-wide reform. They never expected to be negotiating with a united EU27 that would call the shots.
"There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it."
"We will build a new European institutional architecture that enables all countries, whether in or out of the EU or euro, to trade freely and cooperate in a friendly way."
Mr. Jonathan, there's something wryly perverse about certain persons crying out that the 'will of the people' does count because it's not what Scotland or London wanted (see tweet below) whilst also demanding a 'people's vote'.
I respect democracy. You are a populist. He panders to the so-called will of the people.
The London point is fascinating. The very fact that the rest of England voted the other way doesn't seem to matter, and the lack of concern Lammy and certain others have for that may well go a long way to explaining why they voted the other way.
The idea that Brexiteers are arguing that staying in the SM and CU are not Brexit now, whilst arguing for staying in during the campaign is another absurdity.
Who was arguing to leave the EU but stay in the CU during the campaign?
I’ll accept that some of the libertarian free trade types like Dan Hannan wanted to stay in the SM before the campaign started, but during the campaign itself Michael Gove and David Cameron were both very clear that to leave the EU means leaving the SM.
Boris advocated staying in the single market.
The simple fact is there was only one question on the ballot and it did not mention SM, CU, CETA+, EEA, EFTA, Canada, Switzerland or Norway. Blame David Cameron, who should have insisted on a particular sort of Brexit being designed and then put to the people in the referendum. Blame Theresa May who triggered Article 50 with no particular destination being agreed.
But if you want to read the entrails, then Boris and Gove disagreed on so basic a point as whether Britain will leave the single market and the bus was silent on the matter.
It takes two to tango. Remember that the EU were refusing to discuss anything related to Brexit until Article 50 had been triggered. The Cabinet could have agreed whatever it wanted, but the EU would have probably just said no at the first opportunity.
Far too many Remainers (not all, and there are several exceptions on here) refuse to blame the EU for anything and instead explain any action away with you get what you’re given.
Of course Cohen is about as credible a witness as Trump, so this will require corroboration.
He was smart enough to make tapes, I'd imagine he will be a very useful source for Mueller.
Leaving aside what we think of Mr Trump, I think it will do serious damage to confidence in the legal profession if it is accepted that your solicitor (lawyer in the US) may secretly tape your discussions and later use the tapes as evidence against you.
That point has already been made by some lawyers in the US. If you feel that way about your client, your professional duty is to resign from representing them.
Why that is true, what we're discussing here is the two conspiring to break US election law (allegedly). Privilege does not cover wilful law breaking, and the issue is not "if you feel that way about your client" so much as if you feel that way about your fellow conspirator. The privilege issue n this case has been explored extensively in court, and Trump\'s side has admitted the tapes are not covered.
In any event, Cohen;'s job wasn't so much attorney as fixer for Trump. None of this is about how lawyers in the US ought generally to behave - beyond not breaking the law.
Mr. Jonathan, there's something wryly perverse about certain persons crying out that the 'will of the people' does count because it's not what Scotland or London wanted (see tweet below) whilst also demanding a 'people's vote'.
I respect democracy. You are a populist. He panders to the so-called will of the people.
The London point is fascinating. The very fact that the rest of England voted the other way doesn't seem to matter, and the lack of concern Lammy and certain others have for that may well go a long way to explaining why they voted the other way.
The idea that Brexiteers are arguing that staying in the SM and CU are not Brexit now, whilst arguing for staying in during the campaign is another absurdity.
Who was arguing to leave the EU but stay in the CU during the campaign?
I’ll accept that some of the libertarian free trade types like Dan Hannan wanted to stay in the SM before the campaign started, but during the campaign itself Michael Gove and David Cameron were both very clear that to leave the EU means leaving the SM.
Boris advocated staying in the single market.
The simple fact is there was only one question on the ballot and it did not mention SM, CU, CETA+, EEA, EFTA, Canada, Switzerland or Norway. Blame David Cameron, who should have insisted on a particular sort of Brexit being designed and then put to the people in the referendum. Blame Theresa May who triggered Article 50 with no particular destination being agreed.
But if you want to read the entrails, then Boris and Gove disagreed on so basic a point as whether Britain will leave the single market and the bus was silent on the matter.
The Vote Leave manifesto was very clear (and its on their website) that they advocated leaving the single market.
If you read between the lines, it's clear they thought Brexit would trigger a fundamental Europe-wide reform. They never expected to be negotiating with a united EU27 that would call the shots.
"There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it."
"We will build a new European institutional architecture that enables all countries, whether in or out of the EU or euro, to trade freely and cooperate in a friendly way."
Interesting. Presumably the plan was create an entity to rival the EU and in time replace it. Wasn't that a touch hubristic?
Anyone seen the latest Morrisons advert? Its all about their British produce, it felt like it was done in response to the food scarcity nonsense.
I think it predated the stockpiling stuff.
I think they are just continuing a long-term (ie a number of years) campaign to emphasise their distinctiveness in having a more vertically integrated supply chain than the others. eg They own their own abbatoir and meat processing setup. https://www.morrisons-farming.com/how-we-work/woodheads/
Stood them in good stead during the 'My Lidl Pony' horsemeat 'crisis'.
If a byproduct of remaino-politics is more attention to Morrisons, then I guess they would be quite happy with that.
David Cameron should have established a Royal Commission of Prominent Brexiteers to establish their preferred Brexit and the version that would be voted upon. Australia did something similar before its referendum on becoming a republic so it is not as if the prime minister or anyone in government would have been unaware of the device.
The most prominent Brexiteer would have been Farage, and why would he have joined in? Much better to argue against the 'hideous betrayal' the commission would have come up with.
It'd also be good toknow whether any prominent Brexiteer asked for such a commission *before* the referendum; I cannot recall any. They just wanted a referendum.
No Brexiteer asked for it. In hindsight it's what the monarchist John Howard did to scupper the republican movement and it could have been smart politics for Cameron to propose that. He didn't though and the rest is history.
Why didn't any Brexiteer ask for it? Because, as you say, it would have been harmful to their cause. And if that's the case, why would they sit on such a commission (and henceforth be known as a traitor by all other leavers)?
Cameron calling for such a commission would just have played into the Brexiteers' hands as no serious Brexiteer would have sat on it. Because they wanted to win.
Brexiteers would have sat on it had it been announced at the start as this would be their golden opportunity to actually have a referendum.
Imagine if in 2012 instead of announcing what would ultimately prove to be a futile renegotiation with Europe, that Cameron had announced that a Brexit Commission to determine what Brexit would be like and then we would have a choice between remaining as is and leaving as the Commission proposed.
It's worse than that. There are a set of preexisting guidelines that are accepted by a vast number of organisations. The simplest, easiest and least controversial route would have been for Labour to accept them verbatim.
Yet Labour didn't; it changed them - they claim in minor ways; others disagree. Why change them? Why is the Labour Party so different to all those other organisations? Why does it think it knows better?
If, as some people claim, the changes are irrelevant and unimportant, why have the changes?
There has to be a rationale behind the reason for the changes. And that's what has people concerned given recent events within Labour.
Rebooting solved my problem on the site.
The guidelines *haven't* been changed. The intellectual answer to your question is that the generally-accepted examples are just that, examples, and as a concrete guide to what can get you expelled from the party they need to be analysed and given more specific examples. For example, what should a Labour Party member do if he's really, genuinely, not against Jewish people, but he doesn't like the idea of a Jewish state or any other state linked to a particular community or religion and thinks it's too much like a racist concept? For the avoidance of doubt, this isn't a view that I hold, but I accept that it's held sincerely by some people (some of them Jewish) who are not prejudiced against Jewish people.
Is this such a horrible thought that he should be expelled at once? Or something he might think privately but shouldn't share? Or something that he can put forward as a view so long as he doesn't draw disgusting parallels? Or a point of view that he can discuss freely? Whatever the answer, he's entitled to know exactly where the boundary is so he can decide whether to comply.
But that's a fair point for calmer times. The political priority is to accept the examples as they are, and say that in due course we we will discuss with the Jewish community further clarification that would be suitable for deciding the limits of what can be said for membership.
Other organisations would have the issues you mention with the 'examples'. Why do Labour think they're so special that they need to alter them when no-one else does?
You can be charitable (overly, IMO) as you are being. Or you can take the view of Jewish organisations and others that there is a deeper sickness behind this change. Given Labour's recent track record, and that of its leader, I take the latter view: the only reason for this change was to give the anti-Semites within your party room to hide.
If you could actually read you’d understand that I said I might do that in response to a pure socialist Government taking power at Westminster, not in response to Brexit and I’d stay here even in the eventuality of no deal.
You don't see a connection between the "chaos" Matt refers to and that outcome?
It might have escaped your attention that Corbyn was elected Labour leader well before Brexit. And given the salience of domestic issues in GE2017 I expect he could have surged (and won) in GE2020 with a Remain victory just as easily, particularly since I’d have expected even more Tory votes to have peeled off to UKIP.
So no, I don’t. I see the connection as a frustration with austerity/globalisation and insipid centre-left politics.
Mr. Jonathan, there's something wryly perverse about certain persons crying out that the 'will of the people' does count because it's not what Scotland or London wanted (see tweet below) whilst also demanding a 'people's vote'.
I respect democracy. You are a populist. He panders to the so-called will of the people.
The London point is fascinating. The very fact that the rest of England voted the other way doesn't seem to matter, and the lack of concern Lammy and certain others have for that may well go a long way to explaining why they voted the other way.
The idea that Brexiteers are arguing that staying in the SM and CU are not Brexit now, whilst arguing for staying in during the campaign is another absurdity.
Who was arguing to leave the EU but stay in the CU during the campaign?
I’ll accept that some of the libertarian free trade types like Dan Hannan wanted to stay in the SM before the campaign started, but during the campaign itself Michael Gove and David Cameron were both very clear that to leave the EU means leaving the SM.
matter.
The Vote Leave manifesto was very clear (and its on their website) that they advocated leaving the single market.
If you read between the lines, it's clear they thought Brexit would trigger a fundamental Europe-wide reform. They never expected to be negotiating with a united EU27 that would call the shots.
"There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it."
"We will build a new European institutional architecture that enables all countries, whether in or out of the EU or euro, to trade freely and cooperate in a friendly way."
I’ve read the whole thing many times. It’s a good prospectus.
None of the leaders of Vote Leave ended up in the premiership ended up taking office, so couldn’t put this plan into effect. But the UK and EU are already talking about some new institutions to govern the UK-EU relationship, particularly in the realms of security.
The EU have chosen to be intransigent and neither friendly or cooperative about a new long term relationship with the UK out of short-sighted nervous defensiveness. The consequences of that will echo down the ages.
David Cameron should have established a Royal Commission of Prominent Brexiteers to establish their preferred Brexit and the version that would be voted upon. Australia did something similar before its referendum on becoming a republic so it is not as if the prime minister or anyone in government would have been unaware of the device.
The most prominent Brexiteer would have been Farage, and why would he have joined in? Much better to argue against the 'hideous betrayal' the commission would have come up with.
It'd also be good toknow whether any prominent Brexiteer asked for such a commission *before* the referendum; I cannot recall any. They just wanted a referendum.
No Brexiteer asked for it. In hindsight it's what the monarchist John Howard did to scupper the republican movement and it could have been smart politics for Cameron to propose that. He didn't though and the rest is history.
Why didn't any Brexiteer ask for it? Because, as you say, it would have been harmful to their cause. And if that's the case, why would they sit on such a commission (and henceforth be known as a traitor by all other leavers)?
Cameron calling for such a commission would just have played into the Brexiteers' hands as no serious Brexiteer would have sat on it. Because they wanted to win.
Brexiteers would have sat on it had it been announced at the start as this would be their golden opportunity to actually have a referendum.
Imagine if in 2012 instead of announcing what would ultimately prove to be a futile renegotiation with Europe, that Cameron had announced that a Brexit Commission to determine what Brexit would be like and then we would have a choice between remaining as is and leaving as the Commission proposed.
The problem is that there were (and still are) many different views on what Brexit would mean, coalescing around two major streams: one was for a nice, fluffy EEA-style arrangement, the other a keep-all-foreigners out dig-up-the-Channel approach. These are mutually incompatible. Farage would never have gone for the former, and Johnson and others would not have gone for the latter.
A commission would have to come up with something based on one of these or the other, leaving the other side to feel aggrieved and scream about a stitch-up. It would not have solved anything unless all the major Brexit players unified behind it. And why should they, when they needed those two options to exist in a Schrodinger's Cat-style uncertainty in order to win?
The Brexiteers own Brexit. It was their desire, and it is their responsibility. It is their mess.
How very very Faisal (in other words, he’s talking to rebel Tory Remainers only - Leavers probably don’t speak to him).
I’ve heard no Tories talking in such terms. I am hearing increasingly to just go ahead with no deal and (rightly, in my view) blame the intransigence of the EU Commission.
A second referendum would be a klaxon alarm to all the working class people of the UK that their votes do not matter - any choice they make that goes against elite metropolitan preference will just be asked again until they can be overruled. When the EU promised in 1975 didn't materialise the terms were changed again and again but we never got a referendum on them, showing that argument is complete crap. Faith in democracy is already collapsing across the West and now the elite want to do this. They are playing with fire. The working class could understandably draw the conclusion democracy does not listen to them and they should resort to other methods.
Couldn't have put it better.
Another vote just shows what a pointless waste of time voting actually is. "You can vote for whatever you like, as long as its black".
Other organisations would have the issues you mention with the 'examples'. Why do Labour think they're so special that they need to alter them when no-one else does?
You can be charitable (overly, IMO) as you are being. Or you can take the view of Jewish organisations and others that there is a deeper sickness behind this change. Given Labour's recent track record, and that of its leader, I take the latter view: the only reason for this change was to give the anti-Semites within your party room to hide.
[internal quotes snipped for Vanilla length limits]
What is your explanation for the Conservative Party not adopting the IHRA criteria until after the Prime Minister criticised Labour at PMQs? Who were they shielding? Well, most likely is no-one: they'd just not given much thought to the matter. The IHRA declaration is only two years old. The disputed examples relate not to abuse of Jews but to the state of Israel.
As I've previously said, Labour should simply adopt the whole thing. Even if it thinks IHRA should be tweaked, it is damn stupid politically. But let's not pretend some critics do not have their own agenda.
I’ve heard no Tories talking in such terms. I am hearing increasingly to just go ahead with no deal and (rightly, in my view) blame the intransigence of the EU Commission.
Do you think that's the conversation May is having with Hunt and Hammond?
The Brexiteers own Brexit. It was their desire, and it is their responsibility. It is their mess.
Wasn't Davis locked out of decision making on this front? How can he take responsibility if he has now power to actually do anything?
The Remainer approach seems to be hoard all the levers of power and blame the Leavers for their own inadequacies.
Replace Remainers with metropolitans and Leavers with provincials and you can see why the Brexit vote happened in reaction to the last two decades of public policy.....
As I've previously said, Labour should simply adopt the whole thing. Even if it thinks IHRA should be tweaked, it is damn stupid politically. But let's not pretend some critics do not have their own agenda.
Suggested elsewhere that the reason they don't want to do it is several senior party members would already fall foul, including Corbyn himself
I’ve heard no Tories talking in such terms. I am hearing increasingly to just go ahead with no deal and (rightly, in my view) blame the intransigence of the EU Commission.
Do you think that's the conversation May is having with Hunt and Hammond?
As I said the other day, you can already sense the Conservative Party getting ready to wrap itself in the Union Jack and blame "Europe" when there is No Deal and for any dislocation or disruption that happens next spring.
It was always the last card in the Tory locker - blame Europe, scapegoat Barnier and Juncker, dredge up some old wartime stereotypes and caricatures, claim Theresa May "worked for Britain until the last possible second to obtain the best deal" and bollocks of a similar nature.
I fear too many people are going to fall for this heap of ordure.
How very very Faisal (in other words, he’s talking to rebel Tory Remainers only - Leavers probably don’t speak to him).
I’ve heard no Tories talking in such terms. I am hearing increasingly to just go ahead with no deal and (rightly, in my view) blame the intransigence of the EU Commission.
One of the many surprising aspects of political developments since the referendum is that the electorate do not appear to have become more anti EU as the UK has been forced into making concessions. The acceptance of the divorce bill in particular might have been expected to generate increased anti EU sentiment but this has not happened. Opinion has, if anything, moved slightly the other way, toward the EU. Therefore it is by no means certain that blaming the EU for a no deal car crash will work. People are just as likely to blame the Tories, and their manifest incompetence in handling the negotiations will make it easier to attach the blame to them.
How very very Faisal (in other words, he’s talking to rebel Tory Remainers only - Leavers probably don’t speak to him).
I’ve heard no Tories talking in such terms. I am hearing increasingly to just go ahead with no deal and (rightly, in my view) blame the intransigence of the EU Commission.
The pressure for no deal is building, no doubt.
I get several text messages a day from Tories somewhat more bullish about it than me.
This site is about betting on politics. It’s not a campaigning site.
Because Mike has no agenda. No sirree.....!
But it's his site.. so like it or lump it.
Indeed.
He does have an agenda, one supported by his deputy editor, but one just has to put up with it. I don’t pay for the site or take responsibility for running it, and it’s far superior to anything else out there.
I just think it’s helpful whenever political analysis is done to bring it back to the betting, because money is what sniffs out the facts and drives objectivity.
How very very Faisal (in other words, he’s talking to rebel Tory Remainers only - Leavers probably don’t speak to him).
I’ve heard no Tories talking in such terms. I am hearing increasingly to just go ahead with no deal and (rightly, in my view) blame the intransigence of the EU Commission.
One of the many surprising aspects of political developments since the referendum is that the electorate do not appear to have become more anti EU as the UK has been forced into making concessions. The acceptance of the divorce bill in particular might have been expected to generate increased anti EU sentiment but this has not happened. Opinion has, if anything, moved slightly the other way, toward the EU. Therefore it is by no means certain that blaming the EU for a no deal car crash will work. People are just as likely to blame the Tories, and their manifest incompetence in handling the negotiations will make it easier to attach the blame to them.
Has there been polling explicitly on favourability of the EU?
(snip) The acceptance of the divorce bill in particular might have been expected to generate increased anti EU sentiment but this has not happened. Opinion has, if anything, moved slightly the other way, toward the EU. (snip)
I think it was a move towards a price worth paying.
I think no deal - and no forty billion payment - is heading the same way, fast.
How very very Faisal (in other words, he’s talking to rebel Tory Remainers only - Leavers probably don’t speak to him).
I’ve heard no Tories talking in such terms. I am hearing increasingly to just go ahead with no deal and (rightly, in my view) blame the intransigence of the EU Commission.
One of the many surprising aspects of political developments since the referendum is that the electorate do not appear to have become more anti EU as the UK has been forced into making concessions. The acceptance of the divorce bill in particular might have been expected to generate increased anti EU sentiment but this has not happened. Opinion has, if anything, moved slightly the other way, toward the EU. Therefore it is by no means certain that blaming the EU for a no deal car crash will work. People are just as likely to blame the Tories, and their manifest incompetence in handling the negotiations will make it easier to attach the blame to them.
I don’t think most people have been paying too much attention to the detail. To the extent they have they’ve been reserving judgment pending the final deal, to see if it’s worth it.
It could go either way. People could react in the way you describe. Or they could get very angry and defiant and stick a solid two British fingers up at the EU.
As I said the other day, you can already sense the Conservative Party getting ready to wrap itself in the Union Jack and blame "Europe" when there is No Deal and for any dislocation or disruption that happens next spring.
It was always the last card in the Tory locker - blame Europe, scapegoat Barnier and Juncker, dredge up some old wartime stereotypes and caricatures, claim Theresa May "worked for Britain until the last possible second to obtain the best deal" and bollocks of a similar nature.
I fear too many people are going to fall for this heap of ordure.
If there are food shortages, energy supply issues, factory closures, lorry parks etc etc., then the Tories will be out of power for a generation come the next GE. It is Black Wednesday redux.
How very very Faisal (in other words, he’s talking to rebel Tory Remainers only - Leavers probably don’t speak to him).
I’ve heard no Tories talking in such terms. I am hearing increasingly to just go ahead with no deal and (rightly, in my view) blame the intransigence of the EU Commission.
The pressure for no deal is building, no doubt.
I get several text messages a day from Tories somewhat more bullish about it than me.
So, in summary, Tory members want to pull us all over their cliff.
As I said the other day, you can already sense the Conservative Party getting ready to wrap itself in the Union Jack and blame "Europe" when there is No Deal and for any dislocation or disruption that happens next spring.
It was always the last card in the Tory locker - blame Europe, scapegoat Barnier and Juncker, dredge up some old wartime stereotypes and caricatures, claim Theresa May "worked for Britain until the last possible second to obtain the best deal" and bollocks of a similar nature.
I fear too many people are going to fall for this heap of ordure.
If there are food shortages, energy supply issues, factory closures, lorry parks etc etc., then the Tories will be out of power for a generation come the next GE. It is Black Wednesday redux.
Is this a biblical generation, an SNP generation, or an EUref generation?
Mr. Jonathan, there's something wryly perverse about certain persons crying out that the 'will of the people' does count because it's not what Scotland or London wanted (see tweet below) whilst also demanding a 'people's vote'.
I respect democracy. You are a populist. He panders to the so-called will of the people.
The London point is fascinating. The very fact that the rest of England voted the other way doesn't seem to matter, and the lack of concern Lammy and certain others have for that may well go a long way to explaining why they voted the other way.
The idea that Brexiteers are arguing that staying in the SM and CU are not Brexit now, whilst arguing for staying in during the campaign is another absurdity.
Ignoring that 86.6% of the votes at the subsequent general election were for parties pledging to enact Brexit by leavig the SM and CU is yet another level of absurdity.
Yes, I'm certain that was the deciding factor for the votes of everyone. Not stuff like fox hunting, nationalisation, dementia tax, or the like.
Whilst that might be true in what drove a number of votes you can’t selectively ditch fundamental parts of your manifesto once you find them inconvenient.
Labour’s position on Brexit was certainly what reassured some UKIPers to vote for them and the same is true of the Tory manifesto in what was (supposed to be) a Brexit election.
Firstly, if you lose, you're not exactly expected to cling to everything in your manifesto (as it was rejected by the populace); you're supposed to change it to find something the public will vote for.
Secondly, MarqueeMark was citing it as "proof" that the overwhelming majority of the public had a pronounced will to leave the SM and CU, so whether or not it drove their votes is the appropriate issue.
Thirdly, we all already know that the vast majority didn't base their votes in the 2017 GE on the SM and CU; it wasn't exactly the most talked about thing in the manifestos (I believe the three things I mentioned were the most talked about by a long way)
The guidelines *haven't* been changed. The intellectual answer to your question is that the generally-accepted examples are just that, examples, and as a concrete guide to what can get you expelled from the party they need to be analysed and given more specific examples.
[snip]
But that's a fair point for calmer times. The political priority is to accept the examples as they are, and say that in due course we we will discuss with the Jewish community further clarification that would be suitable for deciding the limits of what can be said for membership.
Other organisations would have the issues you mention with the 'examples'. Why do Labour think they're so special that they need to alter them when no-one else does?
You can be charitable (overly, IMO) as you are being. Or you can take the view of Jewish organisations and others that there is a deeper sickness behind this change. Given Labour's recent track record, and that of its leader, I take the latter view: the only reason for this change was to give the anti-Semites within your party room to hide.
The Labour Party has accepted the IHRA definition but the code leaves out four "working examples" provided by the IHRA definition:
- Accusing Jewish people of being more loyal to Israel than their home country - Claiming that Israel's existence as a state is a racist endeavour - Requiring higher standards of behaviour from Israel than other nations - Comparing contemporary Israeli policies to those of the Nazis
You will see that they are all to do with protecting Israel from criticism. [It is not clear whether the first example concerns "all" Jewish people or "some" Jewish people. The former is clearly false, the latter clearly true].
You say "The only reason for this change was to give the anti-Semites within your party room to hide". I say the reason for this change is to give Labour critics of Israel protection from the charge of being anti-Semites. I sympathise with Corbyn on this.
Incidentally I think it is ludicrous to uncritically accept the definition of racism from a particular group. The gammons could claim that any reference to "red-faced" or "bulging eyes" was racist.
The reason that boarding house notices of "No Irish, no blacks" was outlawed was not just because those groups objected but because society as a whole objected and supported legislation to outlaw it. There may come a time when society as a whole objects to any criticism of Israel and supports legislation to outlaw it, but somehow I doubt it. In the meantime, the Labour Party should stick to its guns. I don't think it is even causing it much political damage in spite of the noise.
Mr. Jonathan, there's something wryly perverse about certain persons crying out that the 'will of the people' does count because it's not what Scotland or London wanted (see tweet below) whilst also demanding a 'people's vote'.
I respect democracy. You are a populist. He panders to the so-called will of the people.
The London point is fascinating. The very fact that the rest of England voted the other way doesn't seem to matter, and the lack of concern Lammy and certain others have for that may well go a long way to explaining why they voted the other way.
The idea that Brexiteers are arguing that staying in the SM and CU are not Brexit now, whilst arguing for staying in during the campaign is another absurdity.
Ignoring that 86.6% of the votes at the subsequent general election were for parties pledging to enact Brexit by leavig the SM and CU is yet another level of absurdity.
Yes, I'm certain that was the deciding factor for the votes of everyone. Not stuff like fox hunting, nationalisation, dementia tax, or the like.
Whilst that might be true in what drove a number of votes you can’t selectively ditch fundamental parts of your manifesto once you find them inconvenient.
Labour’s position on Brexit was certainly what reassured some UKIPers to vote for them and the same is true of the Tory manifesto in what was (supposed to be) a Brexit election.
Firstly, if you lose, you're not exactly expected to cling to everything in your manifesto (as it was rejected by the populace); you're supposed to change it to find something the public will vote for.
Secondly, MarqueeMark was citing it as "proof" that the overwhelming majority of the public had a pronounced will to leave the SM and CU, so whether or not it drove their votes is the appropriate issue.
Thirdly, we all already know that the vast majority didn't base their votes in the 2017 GE on the SM and CU; it wasn't exactly the most talked about thing in the manifestos (I believe the three things I mentioned were the most talked about by a long way)
MarqueeMark was pointing out that a very small proportion of the electorate went for the parties that were advocating staying in the CU and the SM. It was an option available if the voters wanted it; they didn't take it.
And that data point - from the entire electorate - post-dates the Referendum result.
Other organisations would have the issues you mention with the 'examples'. Why do Labour think they're so special that they need to alter them when no-one else does?
You can be charitable (overly, IMO) as you are being. Or you can take the view of Jewish organisations and others that there is a deeper sickness behind this change. Given Labour's recent track record, and that of its leader, I take the latter view: the only reason for this change was to give the anti-Semites within your party room to hide.
[internal quotes snipped for Vanilla length limits]
What is your explanation for the Conservative Party not adopting the IHRA criteria until after the Prime Minister criticised Labour at PMQs? Who were they shielding? Well, most likely is no-one: they'd just not given much thought to the matter. The IHRA declaration is only two years old. The disputed examples relate not to abuse of Jews but to the state of Israel.
As I've previously said, Labour should simply adopt the whole thing. Even if it thinks IHRA should be tweaked, it is damn stupid politically. But let's not pretend some critics do not have their own agenda.
The Conservatives should have done it earlier. But that does not excuse the anti-Semitism that is rife within Labour's ranks, from the leader downwards. How long did it take you to deal with that little-known party member, Ken Livingstone?
I'm a critic of Labour over this, and I have no particular agenda.
If there are food shortages, energy supply issues, factory closures, lorry parks etc etc., then the Tories will be out of power for a generation come the next GE. It is Black Wednesday redux.
If it's not apocalypse now or apocalypse then but apocalypse later that will suit the Conservatives fine. Get them through a GE, see off Corbyn and then cling like limpets to office for another five years....
How very very Faisal (in other words, he’s talking to rebel Tory Remainers only - Leavers probably don’t speak to him).
I’ve heard no Tories talking in such terms. I am hearing increasingly to just go ahead with no deal and (rightly, in my view) blame the intransigence of the EU Commission.
One of the many surprising aspects of political developments since the referendum is that the electorate do not appear to have become more anti EU as the UK has been forced into making concessions. The acceptance of the divorce bill in particular might have been expected to generate increased anti EU sentiment but this has not happened. Opinion has, if anything, moved slightly the other way, toward the EU. Therefore it is by no means certain that blaming the EU for a no deal car crash will work. People are just as likely to blame the Tories, and their manifest incompetence in handling the negotiations will make it easier to attach the blame to them.
I don’t think most people have been paying too much attention to the detail. To the extent they have they’ve been reserving judgment pending the final deal, to see if it’s worth it.
It could go either way. People could react in the way you describe. Or they could get very angry and defiant and stick a solid two British fingers up at the EU.
People will split whatever happens. From observing the Web - and here - it is interesting how rational people are becoming so entrenched and irrational based on partial evidence and their underlying worldview. We see what we want to see.
BTW I watched the video discussion between Douglas Murray and Jordan Peterson on Unherd yesterday. I am sceptical of the cult of Peterson, but there were some very interesting bits which directly address points that have been discussed on here over the last few months: what is the boundary where right becomes fascist (and why there seems to be no equivalent on the left), the danger of identity politics, the science of IQ and it's impending politicisation. But no pineapple,on pizza, thank goodness.
If there are food shortages, energy supply issues, factory closures, lorry parks etc etc., then the Tories will be out of power for a generation come the next GE. It is Black Wednesday redux.
If it's not apocalypse now or apocalypse then but apocalypse later that will suit the Conservatives fine. Get them through a GE, see off Corbyn and then cling like limpets to office for another five years....
Hopefully with a majority of 2. Enough to ensure we aren't massively reliant on opposition rebels, but also not so much that the hard left are turfed out of the leadership at Labour. Would give us an easier run in 2027.
The Labour Party has accepted the IHRA definition but the code leaves out four "working examples" provided by the IHRA definition:
- Accusing Jewish people of being more loyal to Israel than their home country - Claiming that Israel's existence as a state is a racist endeavour - Requiring higher standards of behaviour from Israel than other nations - Comparing contemporary Israeli policies to those of the Nazis
You will see that they are all to do with protecting Israel from criticism. [It is not clear whether the first example concerns "all" Jewish people or "some" Jewish people. The former is clearly false, the latter clearly true].
You say "The only reason for this change was to give the anti-Semites within your party room to hide". I say the reason for this change is to give Labour critics of Israel protection from the charge of being anti-Semites. I sympathise with Corbyn on this.
(Snipped as irrelevant)
I disagree fundamentally on this. It is possible to criticise Israel within those limits, and do it well and forcibly. These changes may allow critics of Israel protection ((though they shouldn't need it): it gives anti-Semites massive breathing room.
The Conservatives have some issues with Islamophobia; IMO they're more minor atm than Labour's problems, and the infection hasn't quite reached as high up the organisational tree. But any attack on the Conservatives, warranted or otherwise, has been blunted by this stupidity.
How very very Faisal (in other words, he’s talking to rebel Tory Remainers only - Leavers probably don’t speak to him).
I’ve heard no Tories talking in such terms. I am hearing increasingly to just go ahead with no deal and (rightly, in my view) blame the intransigence of the EU Commission.
One of the many surprising aspects of political developments since the referendum is that the electorate do not appear to have become more anti EU as the UK has been forced into making concessions. The acceptance of the divorce bill in particular might have been expected to generate increased anti EU sentiment but this has not happened. Opinion has, if anything, moved slightly the other way, toward the EU. Therefore it is by no means certain that blaming the EU for a no deal car crash will work. People are just as likely to blame the Tories, and their manifest incompetence in handling the negotiations will make it easier to attach the blame to them.
I don’t think most people have been paying too much attention to the detail. To the extent they have they’ve been reserving judgment pending the final deal, to see if it’s worth it.
It could go either way. People could react in the way you describe. Or they could get very angry and defiant and stick a solid two British fingers up at the EU.
I think the people who lean Labour will blame the Tories. The people who lean Tory will blame the EU. This stunning political insight provided gratis courtesy of Mr Smithson's site.
Other organisations would have the issues you mention with the 'examples'. Why do Labour think they're so special that they need to alter them when no-one else does?
You can be charitable (overly, IMO) as you are being. Or you can take the view of Jewish organisations and others that there is a deeper sickness behind this change. Given Labour's recent track record, and that of its leader, I take the latter view: the only reason for this change was to give the anti-Semites within your party room to hide.
[internal quotes snipped for Vanilla length limits]
What is your explanation for the Conservative Party not adopting the IHRA criteria until after the Prime Minister criticised Labour at PMQs? Who were they shielding? Well, most likely is no-one: they'd just not given much thought to the matter. The IHRA declaration is only two years old. The disputed examples relate not to abuse of Jews but to the state of Israel.
As I've previously said, Labour should simply adopt the whole thing. Even if it thinks IHRA should be tweaked, it is damn stupid politically. But let's not pretend some critics do not have their own agenda.
The Conservatives should have done it earlier. But that does not excuse the anti-Semitism that is rife within Labour's ranks, from the leader downwards. How long did it take you to deal with that little-known party member, Ken Livingstone?
I'm a critic of Labour over this, and I have no particular agenda.
I am not, and have never been, a member of the Labour Party.
As I said the other day, you can already sense the Conservative Party getting ready to wrap itself in the Union Jack and blame "Europe" when there is No Deal and for any dislocation or disruption that happens next spring.
It was always the last card in the Tory locker - blame Europe, scapegoat Barnier and Juncker, dredge up some old wartime stereotypes and caricatures, claim Theresa May "worked for Britain until the last possible second to obtain the best deal" and bollocks of a similar nature.
I fear too many people are going to fall for this heap of ordure.
If there are food shortages, energy supply issues, factory closures, lorry parks etc etc., then the Tories will be out of power for a generation come the next GE. It is Black Wednesday redux.
This is my fear, which is why I am very very reluctantly moving towards a 2nd vote (even though that is fiendishly difficult, in itself).
Three options, voting by STV:
1 Remain, 2 EEA-EFTA 3 No Deal Hard Brexit.
And what does say voting to Remain, with 40% of the vote, do for democracy? It would be a shit-fest.....
As I've previously said, Labour should simply adopt the whole thing. Even if it thinks IHRA should be tweaked, it is damn stupid politically. But let's not pretend some critics do not have their own agenda.
Suggested elsewhere that the reason they don't want to do it is several senior party members would already fall foul, including Corbyn himself
Bit confused at the idea that Corbyn could fall foul himself. Regardless of the official definition, surely newspapers would be publishing his antisemitic quotes if they exist?
As I said the other day, you can already sense the Conservative Party getting ready to wrap itself in the Union Jack and blame "Europe" when there is No Deal and for any dislocation or disruption that happens next spring.
It was always the last card in the Tory locker - blame Europe, scapegoat Barnier and Juncker, dredge up some old wartime stereotypes and caricatures, claim Theresa May "worked for Britain until the last possible second to obtain the best deal" and bollocks of a similar nature.
I fear too many people are going to fall for this heap of ordure.
If there are food shortages, energy supply issues, factory closures, lorry parks etc etc., then the Tories will be out of power for a generation come the next GE. It is Black Wednesday redux.
This is my fear, which is why I am very very reluctantly moving towards a 2nd vote (even though that is fiendishly difficult, in itself).
Three options, voting by STV:
1 Remain, 2 EEA-EFTA 3 No Deal Hard Brexit.
And what does say voting to Remain, with 40% of the vote, do for democracy? It would be a shit-fest.....
It would by definition get over 50% when 2nd prefs are allocted, wouldn't it?
Other organisations would have the issues you mention with the 'examples'. Why do Labour think they're so special that they need to alter them when no-one else does?
You can be charitable (overly, IMO) as you are being. Or you can take the view of Jewish organisations and others that there is a deeper sickness behind this change. Given Labour's recent track record, and that of its leader, I take the latter view: the only reason for this change was to give the anti-Semites within your party room to hide.
[internal quotes snipped for Vanilla length limits]
What is your explanation for the Conservative Party not adopting the IHRA criteria until after the Prime Minister criticised Labour at PMQs? Who were they shielding? Well, most likely is no-one: they'd just not given much thought to the matter. The IHRA declaration is only two years old. The disputed examples relate not to abuse of Jews but to the state of Israel.
As I've previously said, Labour should simply adopt the whole thing. Even if it thinks IHRA should be tweaked, it is damn stupid politically. But let's not pretend some critics do not have their own agenda.
The Conservatives should have done it earlier. But that does not excuse the anti-Semitism that is rife within Labour's ranks, from the leader downwards. How long did it take you to deal with that little-known party member, Ken Livingstone?
I'm a critic of Labour over this, and I have no particular agenda.
I am not, and have never been, a member of the Labour Party.
Fairy nuff. But the point still stands: change 'you' to the Labour Party.
As I said the other day, you can already sense the Conservative Party getting ready to wrap itself in the Union Jack and blame "Europe" when there is No Deal and for any dislocation or disruption that happens next spring.
It was always the last card in the Tory locker - blame Europe, scapegoat Barnier and Juncker, dredge up some old wartime stereotypes and caricatures, claim Theresa May "worked for Britain until the last possible second to obtain the best deal" and bollocks of a similar nature.
I fear too many people are going to fall for this heap of ordure.
If there are food shortages, energy supply issues, factory closures, lorry parks etc etc., then the Tories will be out of power for a generation come the next GE. It is Black Wednesday redux.
This is my fear, which is why I am very very reluctantly moving towards a 2nd vote (even though that is fiendishly difficult, in itself).
Three options, voting by STV:
1 Remain, 2 EEA-EFTA 3 No Deal Hard Brexit.
Goddamit Sean, I've relied on you playing sturdy Samwise to my plucky Frodo as we trudge out of Mordor sans eagles, and now you go all flibbertygibbet on me. So out of character.
How very very Faisal (in other words, he’s talking to rebel Tory Remainers only - Leavers probably don’t speak to him).
I’ve heard no Tories talking in such terms. I am hearing increasingly to just go ahead with no deal and (rightly, in my view) blame the intransigence of the EU Commission.
One of the many surprising aspects of political developments since the referendum is that the electorate do not appear to have become more anti EU as the UK has been forced into making concessions. The acceptance of the divorce bill in particular might have been expected to generate increased anti EU sentiment but this has not happened. Opinion has, if anything, moved slightly the other way, toward the EU. Therefore it is by no means certain that blaming the EU for a no deal car crash will work. People are just as likely to blame the Tories, and their manifest incompetence in handling the negotiations will make it easier to attach the blame to them.
Has there been polling explicitly on favourability of the EU?
The Yougov "right or wrong to leave" polling shows a small but consistent move to "wrong."
Nick hi do you think Corbyn is right or wrong about this whole Jew problem?
The NEC is treating it as an intellectual challenge to come up with more precise examples of exactly what is and isn't acceptable in terms of discussing Israel (everyone agrees about domestic anti-semitism). In principle I agree that the guidelines could benefit from further thought about examples and that the borderlines of what actually leads to expulsion shoulkd be broad. Nonetheless I think they're being idiots politically. They should accept the usual examples (without retrospective effect so we don't get into what X said in 1974 or whatever) and if there are members who have a problem with them, they should shut up or leave to pursue their special interest, like Ken. It's not as though Middle Eastern affairs were crucial to Britain's current issues.
I also think the newspapers saying it's all an existential challenge to Jewish people is unhelpfully OTT, though, and the people who talk about the party being anti-semitic often have an unsubtle different agenda, precisely like people who say all Tories are racists. The existence of the Jewish community is not dependent on whether a political party has exactly the right guidelines for membership.
It's worse than that. There are a set of preexisting guidelines that are accepted by a vast number of organisations. The simplest, easiest and least controversial route would have been for Labour to accept them verbatim.
Yet Labour didn't; it changed them - they claim in minor ways; others disagree. Why change them? Why is the Labour Party so different to all those other organisations? Why does it think it knows better?
If, as some people claim, the changes are irrelevant and unimportant, why have the changes?
There has to be a rationale behind the reason for the changes. And that's what has people concerned given recent events within Labour.
It is also worth noting that a few year back Corbyn agreed to have the IHRA definition in full. Labour is now resiling from that position and from the recommendations made by the Chakrabati report (about the use of terms like "Zio-Nazi" and the like). Why?
If there are people with an agenda, it's those in Labour pushing for these changes.
Comments
Although by saying they would be willing to allow (!) the whole of the UK to stay in a Customs' Union surely gives an indication of the likely end state. Just don't tell the Brex-o-loons. I suppose that if Raab is involved then that should quieten them, somewhat.
The number of people with A levels and degrees is at its highest ever yet we have a shortage of skilled workers.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/brexiteer-labour-mp-kate-hoey-12988122?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar
https://twitter.com/veritasta/status/1022752615447375872
It doesn't even much matter if Angela said 'That looks fine to me, Theresa love, I've got your back', because Europhobes aside, Merkel isn't the God-Empress of the EU.
Vauxhall’s a likely three way marginal if she stands down.
Cameron calling for such a commission would just have played into the Brexiteers' hands as no serious Brexiteer would have sat on it. Because they wanted to win.
https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1022749144635592704
The guidelines *haven't* been changed. The intellectual answer to your question is that the generally-accepted examples are just that, examples, and as a concrete guide to what can get you expelled from the party they need to be analysed and given more specific examples. For example, what should a Labour Party member do if he's really, genuinely, not against Jewish people, but he doesn't like the idea of a Jewish state or any other state linked to a particular community or religion and thinks it's too much like a racist concept? For the avoidance of doubt, this isn't a view that I hold, but I accept that it's held sincerely by some people (some of them Jewish) who are not prejudiced against Jewish people.
Is this such a horrible thought that he should be expelled at once? Or something he might think privately but shouldn't share? Or something that he can put forward as a view so long as he doesn't draw disgusting parallels? Or a point of view that he can discuss freely? Whatever the answer, he's entitled to know exactly where the boundary is so he can decide whether to comply.
But that's a fair point for calmer times. The political priority is to accept the examples as they are, and say that in due course we we will discuss with the Jewish community further clarification that would be suitable for deciding the limits of what can be said for membership.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36553442
I might expect over a (very) long time for the UK to slip from 5th to 12th largest economy worldwide but not much more than that. And we’ll always have a larger % slice of global GDP than our raw population ratio would suggest too.
Personally I would trust Gove to have chaired and led such a Commission, and I’d have liked a wide variety of industry representatives and economists involved as well.
See my chart:
https://twitter.com/Pulpstar/status/1001458627985670144
On those specific examples, there are indeed people (e.g. me) who think that non-stun slaughter should be stopped (as it has been in e.g. Holland), but party policy is simply to label meat clearly, including method of production and slaughter, so that consumers can decide what they want to buy. That might make non-stun meat a bit more expensive or not on sale in some supermarkets - too bad, frankly. I've never heard of any proposal to limit travel to/from Israel. I can't see a Corbyn government moving the Embassy to Jerusalem and generally it might be less favourable to Israeli policy than some would like, but that's not an existential threat either.
I do realise that the intensity of feeling about all this is making people think what-ifs of the kind you describe, and that's another reason why the NEC should stop mucking about with intellectual reflection and just sign the damn guidelines without quibbling. But it would be helpful if the critics didn't exaggerate either, not least as it makes people have worries that really aren't based in reality.
The problem we have now is that the vote itself was followed by a vacuum and everyone arguing about the way forward, as opposed to getting on with the implementation of the winning plan. It’s a large part of why the issue has become even more devisive since the vote.
Labour’s position on Brexit was certainly what reassured some UKIPers to vote for them and the same is true of the Tory manifesto in what was (supposed to be) a Brexit election.
I remember the debate about it on here at the time as several Remainers challenge Richard Tyndall and Robert Smithson as to whether they’d still support Brexit on that basis, having previously preferred EEA-EFTA.
That said I think Boris would probably have been even worse than May. Gove could have done it but he wouldn’t have been popular and might have struggled with the majority of 12 further down the line.
In fact, ideally, we might have done better with someone like Boris as PM (figurehead only) and Gove as foreign secretary with May at DeXEU.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html
"There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it."
"We will build a new European institutional architecture that enables all countries, whether in or out of the EU or euro, to trade freely and cooperate in a friendly way."
The privilege issue n this case has been explored extensively in court, and Trump\'s side has admitted the tapes are not covered.
In any event, Cohen;'s job wasn't so much attorney as fixer for Trump. None of this is about how lawyers in the US ought generally to behave - beyond not breaking the law.
https://www.morrisons-farming.com/how-we-work/woodheads/
Stood them in good stead during the 'My Lidl Pony' horsemeat 'crisis'.
If a byproduct of remaino-politics is more attention to Morrisons, then I guess they would be quite happy with that.
Imagine if in 2012 instead of announcing what would ultimately prove to be a futile renegotiation with Europe, that Cameron had announced that a Brexit Commission to determine what Brexit would be like and then we would have a choice between remaining as is and leaving as the Commission proposed.
You can be charitable (overly, IMO) as you are being. Or you can take the view of Jewish organisations and others that there is a deeper sickness behind this change. Given Labour's recent track record, and that of its leader, I take the latter view: the only reason for this change was to give the anti-Semites within your party room to hide.
So no, I don’t. I see the connection as a frustration with austerity/globalisation and insipid centre-left politics.
None of the leaders of Vote Leave ended up in the premiership ended up taking office, so couldn’t put this plan into effect. But the UK and EU are already talking about some new institutions to govern the UK-EU relationship, particularly in the realms of security.
The EU have chosen to be intransigent and neither friendly or cooperative about a new long term relationship with the UK out of short-sighted nervous defensiveness. The consequences of that will echo down the ages.
A commission would have to come up with something based on one of these or the other, leaving the other side to feel aggrieved and scream about a stitch-up. It would not have solved anything unless all the major Brexit players unified behind it. And why should they, when they needed those two options to exist in a Schrodinger's Cat-style uncertainty in order to win?
The Brexiteers own Brexit. It was their desire, and it is their responsibility. It is their mess.
I’ve heard no Tories talking in such terms. I am hearing increasingly to just go ahead with no deal and (rightly, in my view) blame the intransigence of the EU Commission.
Another vote just shows what a pointless waste of time voting actually is. "You can vote for whatever you like, as long as its black".
What is your explanation for the Conservative Party not adopting the IHRA criteria until after the Prime Minister criticised Labour at PMQs? Who were they shielding? Well, most likely is no-one: they'd just not given much thought to the matter. The IHRA declaration is only two years old. The disputed examples relate not to abuse of Jews but to the state of Israel.
As I've previously said, Labour should simply adopt the whole thing. Even if it thinks IHRA should be tweaked, it is damn stupid politically. But let's not pretend some critics do not have their own agenda.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-conservative-party-rulebook-doesnt-mention-antisemitism
Replace Remainers with metropolitans and Leavers with provincials and you can see why the Brexit vote happened in reaction to the last two decades of public policy.....
As I said the other day, you can already sense the Conservative Party getting ready to wrap itself in the Union Jack and blame "Europe" when there is No Deal and for any dislocation or disruption that happens next spring.
It was always the last card in the Tory locker - blame Europe, scapegoat Barnier and Juncker, dredge up some old wartime stereotypes and caricatures, claim Theresa May "worked for Britain until the last possible second to obtain the best deal" and bollocks of a similar nature.
I fear too many people are going to fall for this heap of ordure.
I get several text messages a day from Tories somewhat more bullish about it than me.
He does have an agenda, one supported by his deputy editor, but one just has to put up with it. I don’t pay for the site or take responsibility for running it, and it’s far superior to anything else out there.
I just think it’s helpful whenever political analysis is done to bring it back to the betting, because money is what sniffs out the facts and drives objectivity.
I think no deal - and no forty billion payment - is heading the same way, fast.
It could go either way. People could react in the way you describe. Or they could get very angry and defiant and stick a solid two British fingers up at the EU.
Great. Thanks.
Secondly, MarqueeMark was citing it as "proof" that the overwhelming majority of the public had a pronounced will to leave the SM and CU, so whether or not it drove their votes is the appropriate issue.
Thirdly, we all already know that the vast majority didn't base their votes in the 2017 GE on the SM and CU; it wasn't exactly the most talked about thing in the manifestos (I believe the three things I mentioned were the most talked about by a long way)
- Accusing Jewish people of being more loyal to Israel than their home country
- Claiming that Israel's existence as a state is a racist endeavour
- Requiring higher standards of behaviour from Israel than other nations
- Comparing contemporary Israeli policies to those of the Nazis
You will see that they are all to do with protecting Israel from criticism. [It is not clear whether the first example concerns "all" Jewish people or "some" Jewish people. The former is clearly false, the latter clearly true].
You say "The only reason for this change was to give the anti-Semites within your party room to hide". I say the reason for this change is to give Labour critics of Israel protection from the charge of being anti-Semites. I sympathise with Corbyn on this.
Incidentally I think it is ludicrous to uncritically accept the definition of racism from a particular group. The gammons could claim that any reference to "red-faced" or "bulging eyes" was racist.
The reason that boarding house notices of "No Irish, no blacks" was outlawed was not just because those groups objected but because society as a whole objected and supported legislation to outlaw it. There may come a time when society as a whole objects to any criticism of Israel and supports legislation to outlaw it, but somehow I doubt it. In the meantime, the Labour Party should stick to its guns. I don't think it is even causing it much political damage in spite of the noise.
And that data point - from the entire electorate - post-dates the Referendum result.
I'm a critic of Labour over this, and I have no particular agenda.
BTW I watched the video discussion between Douglas Murray and Jordan Peterson on Unherd yesterday. I am sceptical of the cult of Peterson, but there were some very interesting bits which directly address points that have been discussed on here over the last few months: what is the boundary where right becomes fascist (and why there seems to be no equivalent on the left), the danger of identity politics, the science of IQ and it's impending politicisation. But no pineapple,on pizza, thank goodness.
https://unherd.com/douglas-murray-conversation-jordan-peterson/
The Conservatives have some issues with Islamophobia; IMO they're more minor atm than Labour's problems, and the infection hasn't quite reached as high up the organisational tree. But any attack on the Conservatives, warranted or otherwise, has been blunted by this stupidity.
https://twitter.com/SAshworthHayes/status/1022790247090987008
If there are people with an agenda, it's those in Labour pushing for these changes.