People seem to be drawn to humiliation. It's the only rational explanation for Brexit.
That you cannot see any other rational explanation is a good sign why you don't understand the issues even half as much as you think you do and should be a little less bullish in your predictions, since you surely cannot be confident in a prediction when you think it is driven by irrationality, rather than rational thinking based on what might be incorrect premises.
The problem with the internet is that you can't tell when someone is being earnest and when they are making a joke. To be clear that was a joke, and I think the number of people for whom there is an element of truth in it is very small.
It is based on a 53% Remain 47% Leave national poll figure.
The final Yougov EU referendum poll was Remain 48% and Leave 52%. Leave won 52% to 48% for Remain.
On the same margin of error Leave would be ahead 51% to 49% for Remain even on this poll
That's not what margin of error means. You also have to cite that it could equally point to 57% Remain against 43% Leave. The 2017 polling debacle came about because the pollsters themselves did sort of what you're doing there, when the error turned out to be in the other direction.
2017 had different Tory and Labour leaders, it was not an exact repeat of the last vote.
What is clear is that unless Remain is at least 10 points ahead in the polls margin of error means Leave could still easily win as was proved in 2016
Just like the Corbynites who insist that as they made up 15 points last time around, that's likely next time as well. "Unless the Tories are at least 20 points ahead in the polls, they could still easily fail as was proved in 2017"
You're ignoring the inconvenient fact that the polls have been reweighted to take the 2016 result into account. Take a look at the unweighted responses - they almost inevitably get more people recalling a Remain vote than a Leave one. So what they do is downweight those who remember voting Remain and upweight those who remember voting Leave. And then end up with a "Now Remain" lead anyway.
You're adjusting what has already been adjusted. The next step is for someone to take your "51% Leave/49% Remain" estimate and say "Well, that's based on the current polls and if that's as accurate as the polls in 2016, that means 55% Leave to 45% Remain, right?"
It depends if you really want to find out what the public think or are aiming to just come up with whatever to support your view. If the latter, sure - feel free to keep adjusting until you get what you want to see.
It is not a matter of saying what I want to see it is based on the experience of the last referendum.
Comres was showing an 8% Remain lead in its final EU referendum poll for goodness sake and Leave won by 4%.
So as I said unless polls consistently show Remain ahead by at least 55% to 45%+ there has been no meaningful change from 2016
Again - you're adjusting what has already been adjusted. It's not an arcane point. The Comres 8 point lead in 2016, with exactly the same raw data, would show a 4 point Leave lead. Why adjust it again? They've already taken into account what you want them to do.
Hodges is right for once. Chequers is BINO. Chequers is vassal state dressed in Brexit clothing. Yet you can clearly see a marked shift to it here on PB. Desperate Brexiteers who think they may get a soft Brexit stand up for it, but worse, Brexiteers like hyufd are clearly drifting towards it.
Brexiteers drifting towards Chequers BINO are a disgrace.
Disagree.
Is Chequers even close to an optimal outcome for the UK? No. Is it better than a no deal Brexit? Yes, just. If these are the options available does it make sense to support Chequers through gritted teeth? Yes.
The key, as I have said many times before, is not to regard the deal as the end state. There is no end state. Once out we can drift further away (or get closer again, if that is the popular will) at times of our choosing without an Article 50 process being held as a gun to our head.
Seems sound to me, but a lot of people need some proper Brexit red meat now, not possibly later.
We will have left. Freedom of movement will be restricted. Payments to the EU will be diminished. We will have at least limited powers to negotiate our own trade deals. We will have avoided a cliff edge. The influence of EU lawmaking on our law will be significantly diminished and restricted to the SM.
There are aspects of Chequers that frankly dismay me. But there is a price to be paid for the incompetence of the last 18 months and it may well be it. The question is whether May can deliver it. Initial indications were not good. More recently there have been some encouraging signs.
The incompetence of the last 30 years would be even more accurate.
Unbelievable. Unbelievable. I really don’t believe it. One of the Great Wonders of the World today, how leavers and remainers each came round to the BINO of Chequers.
It’s Norway. You know how Norwegians swan around saying, We are not in EU and we are doing just fine? They are a laughing stock when they say that. They are in it over the tops of their wellies! Norway is a vassal state.
Does anyone on either side accept Vassal State because last minute jitters things could be worse? Was the whole thing really just about getting:
“Freedom of movement will be restricted. Payments to the EU will be diminished. We will have at least limited powers to negotiate our own trade The influence of EU lawmaking on our law will be significantly diminished and restricted to the SM. ”
You are turning to jelly. Just about the lot of you.
I think Corbyn may prove less radical than he wants or his supporters expect, simply due to the practical realities and difficulties of government. When that happens, with all the other compromises of government, the really extreme crowd like that will be relegated to the fringes - it's not as though no Tory supporters have not railed against the BBC and want something done about it through many years of Tory government in the past.
Hodges is right for once. Chequers is BINO. Chequers is vassal state dressed in Brexit clothing. Yet you can clearly see a marked shift to it here on PB. Desperate Brexiteers who think they may get a soft Brexit stand up for it, but worse, Brexiteers like hyufd are clearly drifting towards it.
Brexiteers drifting towards Chequers BINO are a disgrace.
Disagree.
Is Chequers even close to an optimal outcome for the UK? No. Is it better than a no deal Brexit? Yes, just. If these are the options available does it make sense to support Chequers through gritted teeth? Yes.
The key, as I have said many times before, is not to regard the deal as the end state. There is no end state. Once out we can drift further away (or get closer again, if that is the popular will) at times of our choosing without an Article 50 process being held as a gun to our head.
Seems sound to me, but a lot of people need some proper Brexit red meat now, not possibly later.
We will have left. Freedom of movement will be restricted. Payments to the EU will be diminished. We will have at least limited powers to negotiate our own trade deals. We will have avoided a cliff edge. The influence of EU lawmaking on our law will be significantly diminished and restricted to the SM.
There are aspects of Chequers that frankly dismay me. But there is a price to be paid for the incompetence of the last 18 months and it may well be it. The question is whether May can deliver it. Initial indications were not good. More recently there have been some encouraging signs.
I have a dream, you can hope and pray and cross your fingers all you like David, Chequers is a crap deal and will never be accepted in EU or UK. Deservedly the Tories will be pilloried for their treachery.
People seem to be drawn to humiliation. It's the only rational explanation for Brexit.
That you cannot see any other rational explanation is a good sign why you don't understand the issues even half as much as you think you do and should be a little less bullish in your predictions, since you surely cannot be confident in a prediction when you think it is driven by irrationality, rather than rational thinking based on what might be incorrect premises.
The problem with the internet is that you can't tell when someone is being earnest and when they are making a joke. To be clear that was a joke, and I think the number of people for whom there is an element of truth in it is very small.
The Brexiteers are in a bind. They don't want to do anything to disrupt the Brexit process that May is still committed to but they don't trust May to negotiate a deal which is in the UK's interest as they perceive it. So do they challenge her or not?
I think it is clear that the answer is no. This might be because they don't think that they can in fact defeat her and don't want to secure her position for a year or they might genuinely think that the negotiations have been enough of a farce already without a leadership election being added to May's idiotic general election. No doubt there is a bit of both.
If that conclusion is correct then this bet is something of a no brainer. I happen to believe it is but the odds are not that exciting.
The Brexiteers can defeat Theresa May in a VONC, which takes only 48 letters to call. That is the easy part. There is no-one in the parliamentary party who does have confidence in Theresa May.
The reason the headbangers do not call a VONC is that while they would undoubtedly defenestrate Theresa May, her replacement would almost certainly be one of Hunt, Hammond or Javid (and safe from any more challenges). The ERG simply cannot command enough votes to elect a confirmed Brexiteer -- and that assumes they can even find one since burka-botherer Boris is widely thought to have wanted to lose the referendum and is pro-immigration and FoM. Always keep tight hold of the prime minister, for fear of finding someone worse, as nanny used to warn the young Jacob.
Excuse me but with respect your first paragraph is nonsense.
The ERG have to get over 150 conservative mps to back them and that is for the birds.
Indeed it is likely conservative mps outside the ERG have become more determined to keep TM in place
You can count on the fingers of one finger the number of Tory MPs prepared to let Theresa May go into the next election as PM.
She is working her notice. The only thing not settled is her departure date.
A lot can and will change before the next election. May could look like an unassailable safe pair of hands if she makes the right calls in the next 8 months.
Hodges is right for once. Chequers is BINO. Chequers is vassal state dressed in Brexit clothing. Yet you can clearly see a marked shift to it here on PB. Desperate Brexiteers who think they may get a soft Brexit stand up for it, but worse, Brexiteers like hyufd are clearly drifting towards it.
Brexiteers drifting towards Chequers BINO are a disgrace.
Disagree.
Is Chequers even close to an optimal outcome for the UK? No. Is it better than a no deal Brexit? Yes, just. If these are the options available does it make sense to support Chequers through gritted teeth? Yes.
The key, as I have said many times before, is not to regard the deal as the end state. There is no end state. Once out we can drift further away (or get closer again, if that is the popular will) at times of our choosing without an Article 50 process being held as a gun to our head.
Seems sound to me, but a lot of people need some proper Brexit red meat now, not possibly later.
We will have left. Freedom of movement will be restricted. Payments to the EU will be diminished. We will have at least limited powers to negotiate our own trade deals. We will have avoided a cliff edge. The influence of EU lawmaking on our law will be significantly diminished and restricted to the SM.
There are aspects of Chequers that frankly dismay me. But there is a price to be paid for the incompetence of the last 18 months and it may well be it. The question is whether May can deliver it. Initial indications were not good. More recently there have been some encouraging signs.
I have a dream, you can hope and pray and cross your fingers all you like David, Chequers is a crap deal and will never be accepted in EU or UK. Deservedly the Tories will be pilloried for their treachery.
I don't quite follow - if it won't be accepted (and I certainly don't think it will be popular if agreed) then that means it won't happen, which means there will have been no treachery?
Beckett et al. didn't understand their own leadership rules.
Isn't it worse than that (or better, for the mass of Corbyn supporters, which is the majority of Labour m embers)? They did understand the rules, they just chose to purposefully ignore the, er, purpose of those rules, ie to be a screening process before putting names to the members, because they decided, in that moment, that a wider pool of candidates was more important than the point of the rules?
It is based on a 53% Remain 47% Leave national poll figure.
The final Yougov EU referendum poll was Remain 48% and Leave 52%. Leave won 52% to 48% for Remain.
On the same margin of error Leave would be ahead 51% to 49% for Remain even on this poll
Why don't we test your theory with another vote.
Why would we want to give you another vote?
You wouldn't have given us one, had the result been 52/48 the other way.
It's like a losing team demanding a re-run of the World Cup Final because they had an off day.
Tbf I don't remember Remain saying there should be a second referendum even before the result of the first was known (largely down to them not expecting to lose I accept). Leave (in the now displeasing to you form of Farage) otoh...
Amusingly, the immediate petition for a rerun was from a Leaver who assumed they'd lost, and got quite irate when loads of Remain signatures appeared on it
Of course, if Leave had narrowly lost, we'd be hearing far fewer noises from the Remain camp now arguing for a second vote if public opinion had quickly turned to regret, and against that decision.
The terms for staying in were known. (The Cameron deal). The terms for leaving were not. (Was it WTO, Canada, EFTA?).
If Leave had lost, there would be no need for a vote on the actual terms of Remain. They were already known.
The case for a referendum on the actual terms of Leave (No deal, Chequers+, Remain) is that there is political gridlock so it is right that the public have the final say. That is also the only way to legitimise a decision to Remain if that is what the majority of the public want.
Comments about "how about a third referendum?" or "Keep voting until you get the answer the EU wants" or "it was a football match and Remain lost" are just silly.
As the Tories are in government and both they and the DUP had manifesto commitments to implement Brexit and have a majority in Parliament and 70% of Tory voters back Leave.
We also had a manifesto commitment from the Tories for an EU referendum in 2015 which they won a majority on.
I believe the LDs are moving towards a manifesto commitment for a second EU referendum after the next general election, presumably to back into the EU. If Labour want to join them that is up to them but it is unlikely under Corbyn
Anyone pledging to take us back into the EU will have to tell us what they are going to cut/what taxes they will raise to pay our contributions. What hospitals are you going to close to claw back the Brexit dividend? They will also have to confirm they are happy to do so as members of the Eurozone.
Good luck with that. No, the reason the Remainers have put up such a fight is that they know the UK politics of rejoining will be damned near impossible.
I think it's quite likely there is a rejoin referendum in the 2020s under a future Labour administration (perhaps as high as 50:50) but I'm struggling to see any campaign that could be run to convince 50%+1 of the public to go for it. The various attack lines of "No", which will then be the status quo, are strong ones.
It's quite likely it would get an enthusiastic 35% but rather unlikely to go higher than 40%.
"No we don't want a say in the rules that affect us!" "No we don't want to have to elect MEPs of our own! We're happy with their MEPs telling us what to do!" "No we don't want a vote in the Council!"
That kind of thing?
Yes. It's a technocratic argument that only appeals to a minority, as the votes in Norway have shown.
You're not going to win using that against losing the national currency, extra budget contributions and immigration control for a direct vote on what parameters of aluminium widgets are most acceptable across the European supply chain.
You're not going to win using that against losing the national currency, extra budget contributions and immigration control for a direct vote on what parameters of aluminium widgets are most acceptable across the European supply chain WHICH WILL BE DECIDED BY WHAT GERMANY AND FRANCE WANT IN ANY CASE.
I simply don't think that it is true that France and Germany have a disproportionate influence. On bits I actually know about the UK has done rather well.
Whisper it. Especially if you’re in the vicinity of Jacob Rees-Mogg, Nigel Farage or Boris Johnson, (unless, in the latter case, you are safely disguised as part of the postal system or Ronnie Biggs). But Theresa May’s Chequers strategy is starting to work.
As ever, this does not fit the popular Westminster narrative. We are meant to believe Mrs May’s premiership is imploding in an orgy of Tory in-fighting, as an enraged nation reacts in fury to her heinous Brexit betrayal. That her grand-design lies in ruins, rejected out of hand by the callous and conniving EU bureaucrats.
But once again, British politics is refusing to follow the script. The British people are proving stubbornly independent. And there are even signs the member states of the EU are finally realising that if they want to avoid a cliff-edge, no-deal, UK departure, they are going to have to start to respond to the PM’s pragmatism with some hard-headed realism of their own.
Importantly, there are maybe straws in the wind that EU leaders are sensing that No-Deal Boris is a possibility - and really, really not what they want. There are stories floating around that maybe, just maybe, they are now considering some alternatives.
Meanwhile, the Conservative Party keeps May in place, but ramps up the pressure, inching a VONC nearer with every letter sent in.... It is an epic game of negotiating brinksmanship that might yet deliver an OK outcome. If it does, it will make it much easier for the Conservative Party to come back together, with each player saying they did their bit in the Great Brexit Game.
The UK has chosen to become an enemy of the EU like Russia or Turkey, and it is in the EU's interest to harm the UK as much as possible. It is important for the EUs future integrity for it to stick to the red line that the 4 freedoms are indivisible.
Being in EverCloserUnion within an organisation which seeks to harm you as much as possible doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
The UK has chosen to become an enemy of the EU like Russia or Turkey, and it is in the EU's interest to harm the UK as much as possible. It is important for the EUs future integrity for it to stick to the red line that the 4 freedoms are indivisible.
Being in EverCloserUnion within an organisation which seeks to harm you as much as possible doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
I don’t get the feeling that the EU wants to ‘harm’ the UK. In fact, if we came to our senses I think they’d rather like us back, but not if we persist in the sort of niggling complaints we’ve put forward recently.
Whether it directly wants to harm the UK I don't know but the EU clearly plays favourites and the UK is certainly not one of them.
I don't think the EU would have been so tolerant of the car emission scandal if it had been happening in British car factories rather than those in Germany.
The UK brings a lot of advantages to the EU:
Pays in money Runs a trade deficit Takes in immigrants Brings in expertise in finance and security issues Follows the rules even when self-harming Tolerates rule breaking by others
What we should have done is take a much harder line with the EU during the last few decades instead of the 'niggling complaints', posturing and then surrendering.
The Brexiteers are in a bind. They don't want to do anything to disrupt the Brexit process that May is still committed to but they don't trust May to negotiate a deal which is in the UK's interest as they perceive it. So do they challenge her or not?
I think it is clear that the answer is no. This might be because they don't think that they can in fact defeat her and don't want to secure her position for a year or they might genuinely think that the negotiations have been enough of a farce already without a leadership election being added to May's idiotic general election. No doubt there is a bit of both.
If that conclusion is correct then this bet is something of a no brainer. I happen to believe it is but the odds are not that exciting.
The Brexiteers can defeat Theresa May in a VONC, which takes only 48 letters to call. That is the easy part. There is no-one in the parliamentary party who does have confidence in Theresa May.
The reason the headbangers do not call a VONC is that while they would undoubtedly defenestrate Theresa May, her replacement would almost certainly be one of Hunt, Hammond or Javid (and safe from any more challenges). The ERG simply cannot command enough votes to elect a confirmed Brexiteer -- and that assumes they can even find one since burka-botherer Boris is widely thought to have wanted to lose the referendum and is pro-immigration and FoM. Always keep tight hold of the prime minister, for fear of finding someone worse, as nanny used to warn the young Jacob.
Excuse me but with respect your first paragraph is nonsense.
The ERG have to get over 150 conservative mps to back them and that is for the birds.
Indeed it is likely conservative mps outside the ERG have become more determined to keep TM in place
You can count on the fingers of one finger the number of Tory MPs prepared to let Theresa May go into the next election as PM.
She is working her notice. The only thing not settled is her departure date.
A lot can and will change before the next election. May could look like an unassailable safe pair of hands if she makes the right calls in the next 8 months.
If that comes true she will be the greatest politician of the modern age, which performance to date would indicate is improbable.
She has a certain amount of freedom and lack of pressure, in a weird way, by knowing that she does not have long as PM left but, to date, her various opponents do not want to take on the mammoth task of Brexit. That might have given her enough flexibility to get through something very difficult, then pass on the torch, but that is far far from certain. It is not in her hands what happens to her.
Hodges is right for once. Chequers is BINO. Chequers is vassal state dressed in Brexit clothing. Yet you can clearly see a marked shift to it here on PB. Desperate Brexiteers who think they may get a soft Brexit stand up for it, but worse, Brexiteers like hyufd are clearly drifting towards it.
Brexiteers drifting towards Chequers BINO are a disgrace.
Disagree.
Is Chequers even close to an optimal outcome for the UK? No. Is it better than a no deal Brexit? Yes, just. If these are the options available does it make sense to support Chequers through gritted teeth? Yes.
The key, as I have said many times before, is not to regard the deal as the end state. There is no end state. Once out we can drift further away (or get closer again, if that is the popular will) at times of our choosing without an Article 50 process being held as a gun to our head.
Seems sound to me, but a lot of people need some proper Brexit red meat now, not possibly later.
We will have left. Freedom of movement will be restricted. Payments to the EU will be diminished. We will have at least limited powers to negotiate our own trade deals. We will have avoided a cliff edge. The influence of EU lawmaking on our law will be significantly diminished and restricted to the SM.
There are aspects of Chequers that frankly dismay me. But there is a price to be paid for the incompetence of the last 18 months and it may well be it. The question is whether May can deliver it. Initial indications were not good. More recently there have been some encouraging signs.
I have a dream, you can hope and pray and cross your fingers all you like David, Chequers is a crap deal and will never be accepted in EU or UK. Deservedly the Tories will be pilloried for their treachery.
I don't quite follow - if it won't be accepted (and I certainly don't think it will be popular if agreed) then that means it won't happen, which means there will have been no treachery?
It depends on what the EU modifies Chequers to, and May capitulates to.
As the Tories are in government and both they and the DUP had manifesto commitments to implement Brexit and have a majority in Parliament and 70% of Tory voters back Leave.
We also had a manifesto commitment from the Tories for an EU referendum in 2015 which they won a majority on.
I believe the LDs are moving towards a manifesto commitment for a second EU referendum after the next general election, presumably to back into the EU. If Labour want to join them that is up to them but it is unlikely under Corbyn
Anyone pledmpossible.
I think it's quite likely there is a rejoin referendum in the 2020s under a future Labour administration (perhaps as high as 50:50) but I'm struggling to see any campaign that could be run to convince 50%+1 of the public to go for it. The various attack lines of "No", which will then be the status quo, are strong ones.
It's quite likely it would get an enthusiastic 35% but rather unlikely to go higher than 40%.
"No we don't want a say in the rules that affect us!" "No we don't want to have to elect MEPs of our own! We're happy with their MEPs telling us what to do!" "No we don't want a vote in the Council!"
That kind of thing?
Yes. It's a technocratic argument that only appeals to a minority, as the votes in Norway have shown.
You're not going to win using that against losing the national currency, extra budget contributions and immigration control for a direct vote on what parameters of aluminium widgets are most acceptable across the European supply chain.
You're not going to win using that against losing the national currency, extra budget contributions and immigration control for a direct vote on what parameters of aluminium widgets are most acceptable across the European supply chain WHICH WILL BE DECIDED BY WHAT GERMANY AND FRANCE WANT IN ANY CASE.
I simply don't think that it is true that France and Germany have a disproportionate influence. On bits I actually know about the UK has done rather well.
I only recall during the referendum campaign one person making a point like that in a debate (in fairness I am sure others did) and that was Ruth Davidson saying we made it work for us, and it drew laughter from the audience. Maybe it is true, but if so it is something our politicians were very bad at convincing the wider public of.
Hodges is right for once. Chequers is BINO. Chequers is vassal state dressed in Brexit clothing. Yet you can clearly see a marked shift to it here on PB. Desperate Brexiteers who think they may get a soft Brexit stand up for it, but worse, Brexiteers like hyufd are clearly drifting towards it.
Brexiteers drifting towards Chequers BINO are a disgrace.
Disagree.
Is Chequers even close to an optimal outcome for the UK? No. Is it better than a no deal Brexit? Yes, just. If these are the options available does it make sense to support Chequers through gritted teeth? Yes.
The key, as I have said many times before, is not to regard the deal as the end state. There is no end state. Once out we can drift further away (or get closer again, if that is the popular will) at times of our choosing without an Article 50 process being held as a gun to our head.
Seems sound to me, but a lot of people need some proper Brexit red meat now, not possibly later.
We will have left. Freedom of movement will be restricted. Payments to the EU will be diminished. We will have at least limited powers to negotiate our own trade deals. We will have avoided a cliff edge. The influence of EU lawmaking on our law will be significantly diminished and restricted to the SM.
There are aspects of Chequers that frankly dismay me. But there is a price to be paid for the incompetence of the last 18 months and it may well be it. The question is whether May can deliver it. Initial indications were not good. More recently there have been some encouraging signs.
I have a dream, you can hope and pray and cross your fingers all you like David, Chequers is a crap deal and will never be accepted in EU or UK. Deservedly the Tories will be pilloried for their treachery.
I don't quite follow - if it won't be accepted (and I certainly don't think it will be popular if agreed) then that means it won't happen, which means there will have been no treachery?
they have been treacherous from the start and unlikely to change, only people who will benefit will be rich Tories milking it. The sheeple will pay dearly for sure.
The Brexiteers are in a bind. They don't want to do anything to disrupt the Brexit process that May is still committed to but they don't trust May to negotiate a deal which is in the UK's interest as they perceive it. So do they challenge her or not?
I think it is clear that the answer is no. This might be because they don't think that they can in fact defeat her and don't want to secure her position for a year or they might genuinely think that the negotiations have been enough of a farce already without a leadership election being added to May's idiotic general election. No doubt there is a bit of both.
If that conclusion is correct then this bet is something of a no brainer. I happen to believe it is but the odds are not that exciting.
The Brexiteers can defeat Theresa May in a VONC, which takes only 48 letters to call. That is the easy part. There is no-one in the parliamentary party who does have confidence in Theresa May.
The reason the headbangers do not call a VONC is that while they would undoubtedly defenestrate Theresa May, her replacement would almost certainly be one of Hunt, Hammond or Javid (and safe from any more challenges). The ERG simply cannot command enough votes to elect a confirmed Brexiteer -- and that assumes they can even find one since burka-botherer Boris is widely thought to have wanted to lose the referendum and is pro-immigration and FoM. Always keep tight hold of the prime minister, for fear of finding someone worse, as nanny used to warn the young Jacob.
Excuse me but with respect your first paragraph is nonsense.
The ERG have to get over 150 conservative mps to back them and that is for the birds.
Indeed it is likely conservative mps outside the ERG have become more determined to keep TM in place
You can count on the fingers of one finger the number of Tory MPs prepared to let Theresa May go into the next election as PM.
She is working her notice. The only thing not settled is her departure date.
The one thing that will hole Brexit below the waterline at this stage would be let the Tory membership get involved. Whoever decided that the members should only get a choice between 2 candidates chosen by the MPs deserves our eternal gratitude. If a hardliner does get through to the membership ballot I think opinion, which is gradually shifting against Brexit anyway, would move decisively.
Anyone pledging to take us back into the EU will have to tell us what they are going to cut/what taxes they will raise to pay our contributions. What hospitals are you going to close to claw back the Brexit dividend? They will also have to confirm they are happy to do so as members of the Eurozone.
Good luck with that. No, the reason the Remainers have put up such a fight is that they know the UK politics of rejoining will be damned near impossible.
I think it's quite likely there is a rejoin referendum in the 2020s under a future Labour administration (perhaps as high as 50:50) but I'm struggling to see any campaign that could be run to convince 50%+1 of the public to go for it. The various attack lines of "No", which will then be the status quo, are strong ones.
It's quite likely it would get an enthusiastic 35% but rather unlikely to go higher than 40%.
"No we don't want a say in the rules that affect us!" "No we don't want to have to elect MEPs of our own! We're happy with their MEPs telling us what to do!" "No we don't want a vote in the Council!"
That kind of thing?
Yes. It's a technocratic argument that only appeals to a minority, as the votes in Norway have shown.
You're not going to win using that against losing the national currency, extra budget contributions and immigration control for a direct vote on what parameters of aluminium widgets are most acceptable across the European supply chain.
You're not going to win using that against losing the national currency, extra budget contributions and immigration control for a direct vote on what parameters of aluminium widgets are most acceptable across the European supply chain WHICH WILL BE DECIDED BY WHAT GERMANY AND FRANCE WANT IN ANY CASE.
I simply don't think that it is true that France and Germany have a disproportionate influence. On bits I actually know about the UK has done rather well.
I'd like to see some data on how many times France and Germany have been outvoted at the EU.
Whisper it. Especially if you’re in the vicinity of Jacob Rees-Mogg, Nigel Farage or Boris Johnson, (unless, in the latter case, you are safely disguised as part of the postal system or Ronnie Biggs). But Theresa May’s Chequers strategy is starting to work.
As ever, this does not fit the popular Westminster narrative. We are meant to believe Mrs May’s premiership is imploding in an orgy of Tory in-fighting, as an enraged nation reacts in fury to her heinous Brexit betrayal. That her grand-design lies in ruins, rejected out of hand by the callous and conniving EU bureaucrats.
But once again, British politics is refusing to follow the script. The British people are proving stubbornly independent. And there are even signs the member states of the EU are finally realising that if they want to avoid a cliff-edge, no-deal, UK departure, they are going to have to start to respond to the PM’s pragmatism with some hard-headed realism of their own.
Importantly, there are maybe straws in the wind that EU leaders are sensing that No-Deal Boris is a possibility - and really, really not what they want. There are stories floating around that maybe, just maybe, they are now considering some alternatives.
Meanwhile, the Conservative Party keeps May in place, but ramps up the pressure, inching a VONC nearer with every letter sent in.... It is an epic game of negotiating brinksmanship that might yet deliver an OK outcome. If it does, it will make it much easier for the Conservative Party to come back together, with each player saying they did their bit in the Great Brexit Game.
The UK has chosen to become an enemy of the EU like Russia or Turkey, and it is in the EU's interest to harm the UK as much as possible. It is important for the EUs future integrity for it to stick to the red line that the 4 freedoms are indivisible.
Being in EverCloserUnion within an organisation which seeks to harm you as much as possible doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
Scotland highlights that big time.
Except Westminster gave Holyrood its own Parliament and promised more devolved powers before the 2014 Scottish referendum, in the EU the direction of power has largely been all towards the centre
It is based on a 53% Remain 47% Leave national poll figure.
The final Yougov EU referendum poll was Remain 48% and Leave 52%. Leave won 52% to 48% for Remain.
On the same margin of error Leave would be ahead 51% to 49% for Remain even on this poll
Why don't we test your theory with another vote.
Why would we want to give you another vote?
You wouldn't have given us one, had the result been 52/48 the other way.
It's like a losing team demanding a re-run of the World Cup Final because they had an off day.
Tbf I don't remember Remain saying there should be a second referendum even before the result of the first was known (largely down to them not expecting to lose I accept). Leave (in the now displeasing to you form of Farage) otoh...
Amusingly, the immediate petition for a rerun was from a Leaver who assumed they'd lost, and got quite irate when loads of Remain signatures appeared on it
Of course, if Leave had narrowly lost, we'd be hearing far fewer noises from the Remain camp now arguing for a second vote if public opinion had quickly turned to regret, and against that decision.
The terms for staying in were known. (The Cameron deal). The terms for leaving were not. (Was it WTO, Canada, EFTA?).
If Leave had lost, there would be no need for a vote on the actual terms of Remain. They were already known.
The case for a referendum on the actual terms of Leave (No deal, Chequers+, Remain) is that there is political gridlock so it is right that the public have the final say. That is also the only way to legitimise a decision to Remain if that is what the majority of the public want.
Comments about "how about a third referendum?" or "Keep voting until you get the answer the EU wants" or "it was a football match and Remain lost" are just silly.
The only case is that you don't like the original decision, and now think you've got a small sliver of a window of opportunity, with a tiny lead, that just might about make it still tenable.
Do you think we're that stupid?
You're not getting one. You had your chance, and you blew it.
Anyone pledging to take us back into the EU will have to tell us what they are going to cut/what taxes they will raise to pay our contributions. What hospitals are you going to close to claw back the Brexit dividend? They will also have to confirm they are happy to do so as members of the Eurozone.
Good luck with that. No, the reason the Remainers have put up such a fight is that they know the UK politics of rejoining will be damned near impossible.
I think it's quite likely there is a rejoin referendum in the 2020s under a future Labour administration (perhaps as high as 50:50) but I'm struggling to see any campaign that could be run to convince 50%+1 of the public to go for it. The various attack lines of "No", which will then be the status quo, are strong ones.
It's quite likely it would get an enthusiastic 35% but rather unlikely to go higher than 40%.
"No we don't want a say in the rules that affect us!" "No we don't want to have to elect MEPs of our own! We're happy with their MEPs telling us what to do!" "No we don't want a vote in the Council!"
That kind of thing?
Yes. It's a technocratic argument that only appeals to a minority, as the votes in Norway have shown.
You're not going to win using that against losing the national currency, extra budget contributions and immigration control for a direct vote on what parameters of aluminium widgets are most acceptable across the European supply chain.
You're not going to win using that against losing the national currency, extra budget contributions and immigration control for a direct vote on what parameters of aluminium widgets are most acceptable across the European supply chain WHICH WILL BE DECIDED BY WHAT GERMANY AND FRANCE WANT IN ANY CASE.
I simply don't think that it is true that France and Germany have a disproportionate influence. On bits I actually know about the UK has done rather well.
I'd like to see some data on how many times France and Germany have been outvoted at the EU.
I've have declared about 4.30pm yesterday. India would think they had a chance and taken some big shots to try and close the gap, which would have led to wickets.
Now, I think India will simply try and sit out the clock.
I think Corbyn may prove less radical than he wants or his supporters expect, simply due to the practical realities and difficulties of government. When that happens, with all the other compromises of government, the really extreme crowd like that will be relegated to the fringes - it's not as though no Tory supporters have not railed against the BBC and want something done about it through many years of Tory government in the past.
People also said that Trump would be tamed by the 'reality of government'.
It is based on a 53% Remain 47% Leave national poll figure.
The final Yougov EU referendum poll was Remain 48% and Leave 52%. Leave won 52% to 48% for Remain.
On the same margin of error Leave would be ahead 51% to 49% for Remain even on this poll
That's not what margin of error means. You also have to cite that it could equally point to 57% Remain against 43% Leave. The 2017 polling debacle came about because the pollsters themselves did sort of what you're doing there, when the error turned out to be in the other direction.
2017 had different Tory and Labour leaders, it was not an exact repeat of the last vote.
What is clear is that unless Remain is at least 10 points ahead in the polls margin of error means Leave could still easily win as was proved in 2016
By the time remain gets to 10 points ahead there'll be no need to rerun the referendum. Brexit will have failed and be seen to have failed.
Even a 10 point Remain win in a second referendum would not settle the matter.
You need at least a 60% + vote in a referendum to definitely resolve an issue or at least do so for a generation or more.
Hence we are still discussing a possible second independence referendum in Scotland despite No winning 55% to 45% in 2014 and hence we are still discussing a possible second EU referendum despite Leave winning 52% to 48% in 2016 but hence we are not discussing a possible second referendum on electoral reform as NotoAV won by 68% to 32% in 2011
Isn't the turnout figure the important one? Even if NotoAV had won 55-45 on a 42% turnout, I'm pretty sure the general dontgiveafuckedness quotient would still be similar.
No as the London Assembly and Mayor referendum, the Scottish Parliament referendum and the Good Friday Agreement referendum all got over 60% in favour too and settled those matters as did the 1975 EEC referendum and there was not another EEC/EU referendum for 41 years.
The one exception may be the 1997 Welsh Assembly referendum where only 51% voted in favour but of course Plaid has never won a Welsh vote since showing Wales has little appetite for more devolution
The terms for staying in were known. (The Cameron deal). The terms for leaving were not. (Was it WTO, Canada, EFTA?).
If Leave had lost, there would be no need for a vote on the actual terms of Remain. They were already known.
The case for a referendum on the actual terms of Leave (No deal, Chequers+, Remain) is that there is political gridlock so it is right that the public have the final say. That is also the only way to legitimise a decision to Remain if that is what the majority of the public want.
Comments about "how about a third referendum?" or "Keep voting until you get the answer the EU wants" or "it was a football match and Remain lost" are just silly.
I disagree. I'd support a vote on the deal as you suggest for reasons such as you suggest (mostly), but getting into pedantic arguments as to why a second vote is ok but a third not is, itself, pretty damn silly. It is the major flaw with any second vote argument, for all I am persuaded to it, I have yet to a hear a credible reason for why a third is not permissible as a result that was not clearly an excuse.
It's similar to how I thought it reasonable to say to the Scottish parliament it was not time for a second indy ref due to all this EU business and the delays and complications it would cause, then May decided it was ok to take several months out to hold a GE, and now I am hard pressed to argue against there being another one, if the Scottish Parliament insist.
It is based on a 53% Remain 47% Leave national poll figure.
The final Yougov EU referendum poll was Remain 48% and Leave 52%. Leave won 52% to 48% for Remain.
On the same margin of error Leave would be ahead 51% to 49% for Remain even on this poll
Why don't we test your theory with another vote.
Why would we want to give you another vote?
You wouldn't have given us one, had the result been 52/48 the other way.
It's like a losing team demanding a re-run of the World Cup Final because they had an off day.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong in believing that the final deal should be put to a vote once we all know what it is. I can see why Leavers don't want to but that's because they fear people will vote against it (the "will of the people" seems to seems to have an odd definition for some)
Particularly if there is no deal, I would expect the public to be something like 65% opposed to Brexit on those terms yet many Brexiteers would happily push it through. They well might but it won't end well.
I think Corbyn may prove less radical than he wants or his supporters expect, simply due to the practical realities and difficulties of government. When that happens, with all the other compromises of government, the really extreme crowd like that will be relegated to the fringes - it's not as though no Tory supporters have not railed against the BBC and want something done about it through many years of Tory government in the past.
People also said that Trump would be tamed by the 'reality of government'.
His behaviour hasn't, but have his actions (and it's not about taming, it's about not being able to do as much as he wants, which is not the same thing)? Congress is a difficulty for him at times. Corbyn would face rebellions like any PM, so unless he has a sizable majority he will be constrained to some degree. I'm not suggesting it will be by much, necessarily, or by enough as far as many on here would like, but it will happen to a degree.
It is based on a 53% Remain 47% Leave national poll figure.
The final Yougov EU referendum poll was Remain 48% and Leave 52%. Leave won 52% to 48% for Remain.
On the same margin of error Leave would be ahead 51% to 49% for Remain even on this poll
Why don't we test your theory with another vote.
Why would we want to give you another vote?
You wouldn't have given us one, had the result been 52/48 the other way.
It's like a losing team demanding a re-run of the World Cup Final because they had an off day.
Tbf I don't remember Remain saying there should be a second referendum even before the result of the first was known (largely down to them not expecting to lose I accept). Leave (in the now displeasing to you form of Farage) otoh...
Amusingly, the immediate petition for a rerun was from a Leaver who assumed they'd lost, and got quite irate when loads of Remain signatures appeared on it
Of course, if Leave had narrowly lost, we'd be hearing far fewer noises from the Remain camp now arguing for a second vote if public opinion had quickly turned to regret, and against that decision.
The terms for staying in were known. (The Cameron deal). The terms for leaving were not. (Was it WTO, Canada, EFTA?).
If Leave had lost, there would be no need for a vote on the actual terms of Remain. They were already known.
The case for a referendum on the actual terms of Leave (No deal, Chequers+, Remain) is that there is political gridlock so it is right that the public have the final say. That is also the only way to legitimise a decision to Remain if that is what the majority of the public want.
Comments about "how about a third referendum?" or "Keep voting until you get the answer the EU wants" or "it was a football match and Remain lost" are just silly.
To be honest, if Remain had won and the Cameron deal had been reneged upon (if we didn't get what we thought we'd voted on), I think a further referendum would have been completely legitimate as well.
Is Chequers even close to an optimal outcome for the UK? No. Is it better than a no deal Brexit? Yes, just. If these are the options available does it make sense to support Chequers through gritted teeth? Yes.
The key, as I have said many times before, is not to regard the deal as the end state. There is no end state. Once out we can drift further away (or get closer again, if that is the popular will) at times of our choosing without an Article 50 process being held as a gun to our head.
That's certainly the strategy of both May and the EU - repeated crises and warnings of disaster until a last-minute deal of any kind comes as a relief. It's a tried and tested formula that has worked numerous times in EU negotiations.
The main problem is that it always kicks important cans down the road. What it will mean in this case is that Brexit will look remarkably similar to membership, but with less influence. The voters don't much care whether Ministers get a say in routine EU regulations, so they'll mostly be OK with that. The services sector will be weakened but that's a bit too abstract for most people to get worked up about.
The one point where I think you're mistaken in the short to medium term is in expecting any appetite to change anything either way. Everyone, including the political class, is sick of the subject, and anyone proposing significant change either way in the next 5 years or so can expect a snort of derision.
My take too. Paradoxically Leavers on the whole don't seem to care about sovereignty. They like the idea of sovereignty but have no interest in the exercise of it where you trade off various interests. This paradox may make Brexit workable although two things are sure: we will have less sovereignty than before in practical terms and Brexit will dominate politics for the next decade. People will complain about being told to do something they don't like (we didn't vote Leave for that), not realizing that as members they could possibly have acted to head this thing off, mitigate it, delay it or at worst get some quid pro quo.
The terms for staying in were known. (The Cameron deal). The terms for leaving were not. (Was it WTO, Canada, EFTA?).
If Leave had lost, there would be no need for a vote on the actual terms of Remain. They were already known.
The case for a referendum on the actual terms of Leave (No deal, Chequers+, Remain) is that there is political gridlock so it is right that the public have the final say. That is also the only way to legitimise a decision to Remain if that is what the majority of the public want.
Comments about "how about a third referendum?" or "Keep voting until you get the answer the EU wants" or "it was a football match and Remain lost" are just silly.
I disagree. I'd support a vote on the deal as you suggest for reasons such as you suggest (mostly), but getting into pedantic arguments as to why a second vote is ok but a third not is, itself, pretty damn silly. It is the major flaw with any second vote argument, for all I am persuaded to it, I have yet to a hear a credible reason for why a third is not permissible as a result that was not clearly an excuse.
I think people who argue about whether it's permissible are missing the point. Any referendum is permissible if there is an appetite for it and if there is a compelling reason to have one. Talk about a third or a forth referendum is really just a prediction about whether there would be any appetite for one. I don't think there would be. Even if the Brexit deal were approved by 50.1%, I don't think people would want to revisit it for a long time.
Is Chequers even close to an optimal outcome for the UK? No. Is it better than a no deal Brexit? Yes, just. If these are the options available does it make sense to support Chequers through gritted teeth? Yes.
The key, as I have said many times before, is not to regard the deal as the end state. There is no end state. Once out we can drift further away (or get closer again, if that is the popular will) at times of our choosing without an Article 50 process being held as a gun to our head.
The one point where I think you're mistaken in the short to medium term is in expecting any appetite to change anything either way. Everyone, including the political class, is sick of the subject, and anyone proposing significant change either way in the next 5 years or so can expect a snort of derision.
That's probably true, but it still means people will be able to set out longer term options and there will be every opportunity to take us in different directions, and those who want more done sooner will no doubt have political options to choose from, a revitalised UKIP for instance.
The terms for staying in were known. (The Cameron deal). The terms for leaving were not. (Was it WTO, Canada, EFTA?).
If Leave had lost, there would be no need for a vote on the actual terms of Remain. They were already known.
The case for a referendum on the actual terms of Leave (No deal, Chequers+, Remain) is that there is political gridlock so it is right that the public have the final say. That is also the only way to legitimise a decision to Remain if that is what the majority of the public want.
Comments about "how about a third referendum?" or "Keep voting until you get the answer the EU wants" or "it was a football match and Remain lost" are just silly.
I disagree. I'd support a vote on the deal as you suggest for reasons such as you suggest (mostly), but getting into pedantic arguments as to why a second vote is ok but a third not is, itself, pretty damn silly. It is the major flaw with any second vote argument, for all I am persuaded to it, I have yet to a hear a credible reason for why a third is not permissible as a result that was not clearly an excuse.
I think people who argue about whether it's permissible are missing the point. Any referendum is permissible if there is an appetite for it and if there is a compelling reason to have one. Talk about a third or a forth referendum is really just a prediction about whether there would be any appetite for one. I don't think there would be. Even if the Brexit deal were approved by 50.1%, I don't think people would want to revisit it for a long time.
Ha Ha, if it was 50.1% Remain Farage, Mogg and Boris would be campaigning for a third referendum from 6am the next morning.
As I said earlier you need to get to 60%+ in a referendum to settle the matter decisively
The terms for staying in were known. (The Cameron deal). The terms for leaving were not. (Was it WTO, Canada, EFTA?).
If Leave had lost, there would be no need for a vote on the actual terms of Remain. They were already known.
The case for a referendum on the actual terms of Leave (No deal, Chequers+, Remain) is that there is political gridlock so it is right that the public have the final say. That is also the only way to legitimise a decision to Remain if that is what the majority of the public want.
Comments about "how about a third referendum?" or "Keep voting until you get the answer the EU wants" or "it was a football match and Remain lost" are just silly.
I disagree. I'd support a vote on the deal as you suggest for reasons such as you suggest (mostly), but getting into pedantic arguments as to why a second vote is ok but a third not is, itself, pretty damn silly. It is the major flaw with any second vote argument, for all I am persuaded to it, I have yet to a hear a credible reason for why a third is not permissible as a result that was not clearly an excuse.
I think people who argue about whether it's permissible are missing the point. Any referendum is permissible if there is an appetite for it and if there is a compelling reason to have one. Talk about a third or a forth referendum is really just a prediction about whether there would be any appetite for one. I don't think there would be. Even if the Brexit deal were approved by 50.1%, I don't think people would want to revisit it for a long time.
Ha Ha, if it was 50.1% Remain Farage, Mogg and Boris would be campaigning for a third referendum from 6am the next morning
Not if the other 49.9% had voted for a Brexit deal they hated anyway and it was clear there was no appetite to go through it again.
The terms for staying in were known. (The Cameron deal). The terms for leaving were not. (Was it WTO, Canada, EFTA?).
If Leave had lost, there would be no need for a vote on the actual terms of Remain. They were already known.
The case for a referendum on the actual terms of Leave (No deal, Chequers+, Remain) is that there is political gridlock so it is right that the public have the final say. That is also the only way to legitimise a decision to Remain if that is what the majority of the public want.
Comments about "how about a third referendum?" or "Keep voting until you get the answer the EU wants" or "it was a football match and Remain lost" are just silly.
I disagree. I'd support a vote on the deal as you suggest for reasons such as you suggest (mostly), but getting into pedantic arguments as to why a second vote is ok but a third not is, itself, pretty damn silly. It is the major flaw with any second vote argument, for all I am persuaded to it, I have yet to a hear a credible reason for why a third is not permissible as a result that was not clearly an excuse.
Talk about a third or a forth referendum is really just a prediction about whether there would be any appetite for one.
No it isn't, since Barnesian was setting out reasons why a third would be a silly option based on reasons nothing to do with appetite for one. You are probably right, though, that appetite would probably be the determinative factor. I think it depends on what the outcome would be in any such vote.
The one exception may be the 1997 Welsh Assembly referendum where only 51% voted in favour but of course Plaid has never won a Welsh vote since showing Wales has little appetite for more devolution
But by your logic the anti devolutionists should have been constantly pushing for its end rather than impotently & sporadically whining about it (just like Scotland). The turnout of 50% for that referendum fits in just fine with my apathy theory.
It is based on a 53% Remain 47% Leave national poll figure.
The final Yougov EU referendum poll was Remain 48% and Leave 52%. Leave won 52% to 48% for Remain.
On the same margin of error Leave would be ahead 51% to 49% for Remain even on this poll
That's not what margin of error means. You also have to cite that it could equally point to 57% Remain against 43% Leave. The 2017 polling debacle came about because the pollsters themselves did sort of what you're doing there, when the error turned out to be in the other direction.
2017 had different Tory and Labour leaders, it was not an exact repeat of the last vote.
What is clear is that unless Remain is at least 10 points ahead in the polls margin of error means Leave could still easily win as was proved in 2016
By the time remain gets to 10 points ahead there'll be no need to rerun the referendum. Brexit will have failed and be seen to have failed.
Even a 10 point Remain win in a second referendum would not settle the matter.
You need at least a 60% + vote in a referendum to definitely resolve an issue or at least do so for a generation or more.
Hence we are still discussing a possible second independence referendum in Scotland despite No winning 55% to 45% in 2014 and hence we are still discussing a possible second EU referendum despite Leave winning 52% to 48% in 2016 but hence we are not discussing a possible second referendum on electoral reform as NotoAV won by 68% to 32% in 2011
Isn't the turnout figure the important one? Even if NotoAV had won 55-45 on a 42% turnout, I'm pretty sure the general dontgiveafuckedness quotient would still be similar.
No as the London Assembly and Mayor referendum, the Scottish Parliament referendum and the Good Friday Agreement referendum all got over 60% in favour too and settled those matters as did the 1975 EEC referendum and there was not another EEC/EU referendum for 41 years.
The one exception may be the 1997 Welsh Assembly referendum where only 51% voted in favour but of course Plaid has never won a Welsh vote since showing Wales has little appetite for more devolution
The vote in favour was just 50.3%! There ought to have been a recount in my view.
It is based on a 53% Remain 47% Leave national poll figure.
The final Yougov EU referendum poll was Remain 48% and Leave 52%. Leave won 52% to 48% for Remain.
On the same margin of error Leave would be ahead 51% to 49% for Remain even on this poll
That's not what margin of error means. You also have to cite that it could equally point to 57% Remain against 43% Leave. The 2017 polling debacle came about because the pollsters themselves did sort of what you're doing there, when the error turned out to be in the other direction.
2017 had different Tory and Labour leaders, it was not an exact repeat of the last vote.
What is clear is that unless Remain is at least 10 points ahead in the polls margin of error means Leave could still easily win as was proved in 2016
By the time remain gets to 10 points ahead there'll be no need to rerun the referendum. Brexit will have failed and be seen to have failed.
Even a 10 point Remain win in a second referendum would not settle the matter.
You need at least a 60% + vote in a referendum to definitely resolve an issue or at least do so for a generation or more.
Hence we are still discussing a possible second independence referendum in Scotland despite No winning 55% to 45% in 2014 and hence we are still discussing a possible second EU referendum despite Leave winning 52% to 48% in 2016 but hence we are not discussing a possible second referendum on electoral reform as NotoAV won by 68% to 32% in 2011
Isn't the turnout figure the important one? Even if NotoAV had won 55-45 on a 42% turnout, I'm pretty sure the general dontgiveafuckedness quotient would still be similar.
No as the London Assembly and Mayor referendum, the Scottish Parliament referendum and the Good Friday Agreement referendum all got over 60% in favour too and settled those matters as did the 1975 EEC referendum and there was not another EEC/EU referendum for 41 years.
The one exception may be the 1997 Welsh Assembly referendum where only 51% voted in favour but of course Plaid has never won a Welsh vote since showing Wales has little appetite for more devolution
The vote in favour was just 50.3%! There ought to have been a recount in my view.
Yes won by just 7000 votes out of over a million cast.
Mr. HYUFD, Boris would've been delighted by a Remain one. He'd have the sceptic vote sewn up but could earn the gratitude of the pro-EU side by respecting the referendum result. That's what he wanted.
Of course, being Boris, he buggered it up by actually helping Leave to win.
The terms for staying in were known. (The Cameron deal). The terms for leaving were not. (Was it WTO, Canada, EFTA?).
If Leave had lost, there would be no need for a vote on the actual terms of Remain. They were already known.
The case for a referendum on the actual terms of Leave (No deal, Chequers+, Remain) is that there is political gridlock so it is right that the public have the final say. That is also the only way to legitimise a decision to Remain if that is what the majority of the public want.
Comments about "how about a third referendum?" or "Keep voting until you get the answer the EU wants" or "it was a football match and Remain lost" are just silly.
I disagree. I'd support a vote on the deal as you suggest for reasons such as you suggest (mostly), but getting into pedantic arguments as to why a second vote is ok but a third not is, itself, pretty damn silly. It is the major flaw with any second vote argument, for all I am persuaded to it, I have yet to a hear a credible reason for why a third is not permissible as a result that was not clearly an excuse.
I think people who argue about whether it's permissible are missing the point. Any referendum is permissible if there is an appetite for it and if there is a compelling reason to have one. Talk about a third or a forth referendum is really just a prediction about whether there would be any appetite for one. I don't think there would be. Even if the Brexit deal were approved by 50.1%, I don't think people would want to revisit it for a long time.
Ha Ha, if it was 50.1% Remain Farage, Mogg and Boris would be campaigning for a third referendum from 6am the next morning
Not if the other 49.9% had voted for a Brexit deal they hated anyway and it was clear there was no appetite to go through it again.
No as they would shift to No Deal given almost every poll gives No Deal over 40% and sees Remain under 60% head to head between them
Tbf I don't remember Remain saying there should be a second referendum even before the result of the first was known (largely down to them not expecting to lose I accept). Leave (in the now displeasing to you form of Farage) otoh...
Amusingly, the immediate petition for a rerun was from a Leaver who assumed they'd lost, and got quite irate when loads of Remain signatures appeared on it
Of course, if Leave had narrowly lost, we'd be hearing far fewer noises from the Remain camp now arguing for a second vote if public opinion had quickly turned to regret, and against that decision.
The terms for staying in were known. (The Cameron deal). The terms for leaving were not. (Was it WTO, Canada, EFTA?).
If Leave had lost, there would be no need for a vote on the actual terms of Remain. They were already known.
The case for a referendum on the actual terms of Leave (No deal, Chequers+, Remain) is that there is political gridlock so it is right that the public have the final say. That is also the only way to legitimise a decision to Remain if that is what the majority of the public want.
Comments about "how about a third referendum?" or "Keep voting until you get the answer the EU wants" or "it was a football match and Remain lost" are just silly.
The only case is that you don't like the original decision, and now think you've got a small sliver of a window of opportunity, with a tiny lead, that just might about make it still tenable.
Do you think we're that stupid?
You're not getting one. You had your chance, and you blew it.
Sorry.
It's not up to you C-R. It will be up to Parliament.
Actually I don't think there will be a referendum on the terms. I think Chequers-minus will be agreed and we'll leave the EU into a BINO. But if there is total gridlock with a serious chance of a crash out then Parliament will decide whether or not to have a referendum on the terms. It won't be up to you, in spite of your eminence.
The one exception may be the 1997 Welsh Assembly referendum where only 51% voted in favour but of course Plaid has never won a Welsh vote since showing Wales has little appetite for more devolution
But by your logic the anti devolutionists should have been constantly pushing for its end rather than impotently & sporadically whining about it (just like Scotland). The turnout of 50% for that referendum fits in just fine with my apathy theory.
The fact there have been no demands for 'devomax' in Wales to the same extent as there have been in Scotland proves my point
I just can't quite believe Corbyn is going to get away with this...You don't have to keep on demeaning yourselves by defending this horrible man.
This sort of post illustrates the problem. Most of us in Labour are perfectly well aware that Corbyn has embraced all kinds of leftist Third World causes as an apparently permanent backbencher and that some of them were errors of judgment. He admits it himself. We think it unlikely that as PM he'd be doing much in that line, though clearly he'd be more distant from Trump's United States than Mrs May, and (many of us think) a good thing too.
At the same time, we see him as a genuine, nice man (and I'm speaking from personal knowledge) who we think has freshened politics by ending the idea that you have to accept the premises of the centre-right or be permanently excluded from rational debate.
So when you say he attended event X or socialised with dubious person Y, we shrug - what else is new? When you say he's horrible, we just think you're clearly biased beyond sensible discussion, and it's a struggle to bother to even respond.
The terms for staying in were known. (The Cameron deal). The terms for leaving were not. (Was it WTO, Canada, EFTA?).
If Leave had lost, there would be no need for a vote on the actual terms of Remain. They were already known.
The case for a referendum on the actual terms of Leave (No deal, Chequers+, Remain) is that there is political gridlock so it is right that the public have the final say. That is also the only way to legitimise a decision to Remain if that is what the majority of the public want.
Comments about "how about a third referendum?" or "Keep voting until you get the answer the EU wants" or "it was a football match and Remain lost" are just silly.
I disagree. I'd support a vote on the deal as you suggest for reasons such as you suggest (mostly), but getting into pedantic arguments as to why a second vote is ok but a third not is, itself, pretty damn silly. It is the major flaw with any second vote argument, for all I am persuaded to it, I have yet to a hear a credible reason for why a third is not permissible as a result that was not clearly an excuse.
I think people who argue about whether it's permissible are missing the point. Any referendum is permissible if there is an appetite for it and if there is a compelling reason to have one. Talk about a third or a forth referendum is really just a prediction about whether there would be any appetite for one. I don't think there would be. Even if the Brexit deal were approved by 50.1%, I don't think people would want to revisit it for a long time.
Ha Ha, if it was 50.1% Remain Farage, Mogg and Boris would be campaigning for a third referendum from 6am the next morning
Not if the other 49.9% had voted for a Brexit deal they hated anyway and it was clear there was no appetite to go through it again.
No as they would shift to No Deal given almost every poll gives No Deal over 40% and sees Remain under 60% head to head between them
No Deal numbers are shrinking. The latest and largest YouGov gives it only 27% on first preferences.
Edit: Just to add that among Tory voters, Remain is more popular than Chequers.
Mr. HYUFD, Boris would've been delighted by a Remain one. He'd have the sceptic vote sewn up but could earn the gratitude of the pro-EU side by respecting the referendum result. That's what he wanted.
Of course, being Boris, he buggered it up by actually helping Leave to win.
Boris' ideal result was 51% Remain to 49% Leave then he could forever play the Salmond/Sturgeon role of crying 'betrayal' without actually having to implement anything
The one exception may be the 1997 Welsh Assembly referendum where only 51% voted in favour but of course Plaid has never won a Welsh vote since showing Wales has little appetite for more devolution
But by your logic the anti devolutionists should have been constantly pushing for its end rather than impotently & sporadically whining about it (just like Scotland). The turnout of 50% for that referendum fits in just fine with my apathy theory.
The fact there have been no demands for 'devomax' in Wales to the same extent as there have been in Scotland proves my point
I was curious to see what spurious, exception that proves the rule 'logic' you'd pluck from your fundament. My curiosity has been richly rewarded, muchas gracias!
The terms for staying in were known. (The Cameron deal). The terms for leaving were not. (Was it WTO, Canada, EFTA?).
If Leave had lost, there would be no need for a vote on the actual terms of Remain. They were already known.
The case for a referendum on the actual terms of Leave (No deal, Chequers+, Remain) is that there is political gridlock so it is right that the public have the final say. That is also the only way to legitimise a decision to Remain if that is what the majority of the public want.
Comments about "how about a third referendum?" or "Keep voting until you get the answer the EU wants" or "it was a football match and Remain lost" are just silly.
I disagree. I'd support a vote on the deal as you suggest for reasons such as you suggest (mostly), but getting into pedantic arguments as to why a second vote is ok but a third not is, itself, pretty damn silly. It is the major flaw with any second vote argument, for all I am persuaded to it, I have yet to a hear a credible reason for why a third is not permissible as a result that was not clearly an excuse.
Talk about a third or a forth referendum is really just a prediction about whether there would be any appetite for one.
No it isn't, since Barnesian was setting out reasons why a third would be a silly option based on reasons nothing to do with appetite for one. You are probably right, though, that appetite would probably be the determinative factor. I think it depends on what the outcome would be in any such vote.
The case for a second referendum is that the terms are now known and the public have the right to choose. That wouldn't be the case for a third referendum.
I am totally against referenda - and totally for our representative democracy. The only reason I support a one-off second referendum, is that having had the first referendum, it is the only way to democratically reverse it.
The terms for staying in were known. (The Cameron deal). The terms for leaving were not. (Was it WTO, Canada, EFTA?).
If Leave had lost, there would be no need for a vote on the actual terms of Remain. They were already known.
The case for a referendum on the actual terms of Leave (No deal, Chequers+, Remain) is that there is political gridlock so it is right that the public have the final say. That is also the only way to legitimise a decision to Remain if that is what the majority of the public want.
Comments about "how about a third referendum?" or "Keep voting until you get the answer the EU wants" or "it was a football match and Remain lost" are just silly.
I disagree. I'd support a vote on the deal as you suggest for reasons such as you suggest (mostly), but getting into pedantic arguments as to why a second vote is ok but a third not is, itself, pretty damn silly. It is the major flaw with any second vote argument, for all I am persuaded to it, I have yet to a hear a credible reason for why a third is not permissible as a result that was not clearly an excuse.
I think people who argue about whether it's permissible are missing the point. Any referendum is permissible if there is an appetite for it and if there is a compelling reason to have one. Talk about a third or a forth referendum is really just a prediction about whether there would be any appetite for one. I don't think there would be. Even if the Brexit deal were approved by 50.1%, I don't think people would want to revisit it for a long time.
Ha Ha, if it was 50.1% Remain Farage, Mogg and Boris would be campaigning for a third referendum from 6am the next morning
Not if the other 49.9% had voted for a Brexit deal they hated anyway and it was clear there was no appetite to go through it again.
No as they would shift to No Deal given almost every poll gives No Deal over 40% and sees Remain under 60% head to head between them
No Deal numbers are shrinking. The latest and largest YouGov gives it only 27% on first preferences.
First preferences don't count as the final choice would be between No Deal and Remain. (And anyway 27% was enough for UKIP to come first in the 2014 European elections).
Remain would likely win v No Deal (as opposed to Chequers Deal v Remain which Chequers Deal would likely win) but the 'betrayal' narrative of No Deal Brexit supporters would be immense
The terms for staying in were known. (The Cameron deal). The terms for leaving were not. (Was it WTO, Canada, EFTA?).
If Leave had lost, there would be no need for a vote on the actual terms of Remain. They were already known.
The case for a referendum on the actual terms of Leave (No deal, Chequers+, Remain) is that there is political gridlock so it is right that the public have the final say. That is also the only way to legitimise a decision to Remain if that is what the majority of the public want.
Comments about "how about a third referendum?" or "Keep voting until you get the answer the EU wants" or "it was a football match and Remain lost" are just silly.
I disagree. I'd support a vote on the deal as you suggest for reasons such as you suggest (mostly), but getting into pedantic arguments as to why a second vote is ok but a third not is, itself, pretty damn silly. It is the major flaw with any second vote argument, for all I am persuaded to it, I have yet to a hear a credible reason for why a third is not permissible as a result that was not clearly an excuse.
I think people who argue about whether it's permissible are missing the point. Any referendum is permissible if there is an appetite for it and if there is a compelling reason to have one. Talk about a third or a forth referendum is really just a prediction about whether there would be any appetite for one. I don't think there would be. Even if the Brexit deal were approved by 50.1%, I don't think people would want to revisit it for a long time.
Ha Ha, if it was 50.1% Remain Farage, Mogg and Boris would be campaigning for a third referendum from 6am the next morning
Not if the other 49.9% had voted for a Brexit deal they hated anyway and it was clear there was no appetite to go through it again.
No as they would shift to No Deal given almost every poll gives No Deal over 40% and sees Remain under 60% head to head between them
No Deal numbers are shrinking. The latest and largest YouGov gives it only 27% on first preferences.
Edit: Just to add that among Tory voters, Remain is more popular than Chequers.
Chequers Plus No Deal are miles ahead of Remain with Tory voters
It is based on a 53% Remain 47% Leave national poll figure.
The final Yougov EU referendum poll was Remain 48% and Leave 52%. Leave won 52% to 48% for Remain.
On the same margin of error Leave would be ahead 51% to 49% for Remain even on this poll
Why don't we test your theory with another vote.
Why would we want to give you another vote?
You wouldn't have given us one, had the result been 52/48 the other way.
It's like a losing team demanding a re-run of the World Cup Final because they had an off day.
Tbf I don't remember Remain saying there should be a second referendum even before the result of the first was known (largely down to them not expecting to lose I accept). Leave (in the now displeasing to you form of Farage) otoh...
Amusingly, the immediate petition for a rerun was from a Leaver who assumed they'd lost, and got quite irate when loads of Remain signatures appeared on it
Of course, if Leave had narrowly lost, we'd be hearing far fewer noises from the Remain camp now arguing for a second vote if public opinion had quickly turned to regret, and against that decision.
The terms for staying in were known. (The Cameron deal). The terms for leaving were not. (Was it WTO, Canada, EFTA?).
If Leave had lost, there would be no need for a vote on the actual terms of Remain. They were already known.
The case for a referendum on the actual terms of Leave (No deal, Chequers+, Remain) is that there is political gridlock so it is right that the public have the final say. That is also the only way to legitimise a decision to Remain if that is what the majority of the public want.
Comments about "how about a third referendum?" or "Keep voting until you get the answer the EU wants" or "it was a football match and Remain lost" are just silly.
To be honest, if Remain had won and the Cameron deal had been reneged upon (if we didn't get what we thought we'd voted on), I think a further referendum would have been completely legitimate as well.
I agree with that. But it would have been highly unlikely that the EU would cynically renege on a formal agreement.
No Deal numbers are shrinking. The latest and largest YouGov gives it only 27% on first preferences.
First preferences don't count as the final choice would be between No Deal and Remain. (And anyway 27% was enough for UKIP to come first in the 2014 European elections).
Remain would likely win v No Deal (as opposed to Chequers Deal v Remain which Chequers Deal would likely win) but the 'betrayal' narrative of No Deal Brexit supporters would be immense
"The final choice would be between No Deal and Remain"
Would it? You've spent the last two days telling us the Chequers plan will unite both sides.
The terms for staying in were known. (The Cameron deal). The terms for leaving were not. (Was it WTO, Canada, EFTA?).
If Leave had lost, there would be no need for a vote on the actual terms of Remain. They were already known.
The case for a referendum on the actual terms of Leave (No deal, Chequers+, Remain) is that there is political gridlock so it is right that the public have the final say. That is also the only way to legitimise a decision to Remain if that is what the majority of the public want.
Comments about "how about a third referendum?" or "Keep voting until you get the answer the EU wants" or "it was a football match and Remain lost" are just silly.
I disagree. I'd support a vote on the deal as you suggest for reasons such as you suggest (mostly), but getting into pedantic arguments as to why a second vote is ok but a third not is, itself, pretty damn silly. It is the major flaw with any second vote argument, for all I am persuaded to it, I have yet to a hear a credible reason for why a third is not permissible as a result that was not clearly an excuse.
I think people who argue about whether it's permissible are missing the point. Any referendum is permissible if there is an appetite for it and if there is a compelling reason to have one. Talk about a third or a forth referendum is really just a prediction about whether there would be any appetite for one. I don't think there would be. Even if the Brexit deal were approved by 50.1%, I don't think people would want to revisit it for a long time.
Ha Ha, if it was 50.1% Remain Farage, Mogg and Boris would be campaigning for a third referendum from 6am the next morning
Not if the other 49.9% had voted for a Brexit deal they hated anyway and it was clear there was no appetite to go through it again.
No as they would shift to No Deal given almost every poll gives No Deal over 40% and sees Remain under 60% head to head between them
No Deal numbers are shrinking. The latest and largest YouGov gives it only 27% on first preferences.
Edit: Just to add that among Tory voters, Remain is more popular than Chequers.
Chequers Plus No Deal are miles ahead of Remain with Tory voters
But No Deal isn't going to happen, so the real question is whether No Dealers prefer Chequers or Remain.
I just can't quite believe Corbyn is going to get away with this...You don't have to keep on demeaning yourselves by defending this horrible man.
This sort of post illustrates the problem. Most of us in Labour are perfectly well aware that Corbyn has embraced all kinds of leftist Third World causes as an apparently permanent backbencher and that some of them were errors of judgment. He admits it himself. We think it unlikely that as PM he'd be doing much in that line, though clearly he'd be more distant from Trump's United States than Mrs May, and (many of us think) a good thing too.
At the same time, we see him as a genuine, nice man (and I'm speaking from personal knowledge) who we think has freshened politics by ending the idea that you have to accept the premises of the centre-right or be permanently excluded from rational debate.
So when you say he attended event X or socialised with dubious person Y, we shrug - what else is new? When you say he's horrible, we just think you're clearly biased beyond sensible discussion, and it's a struggle to bother to even respond.
I read that post and just think you’re morally compromised beyond sensible discussion.
The one exception may be the 1997 Welsh Assembly referendum where only 51% voted in favour but of course Plaid has never won a Welsh vote since showing Wales has little appetite for more devolution
But by your logic the anti devolutionists should have been constantly pushing for its end rather than impotently & sporadically whining about it (just like Scotland). The turnout of 50% for that referendum fits in just fine with my apathy theory.
The fact there have been no demands for 'devomax' in Wales to the same extent as there have been in Scotland proves my point
I was surprised that the Tories rather meekly accepted the narrow 1997 Wales Referendum result by failing to revisit the issue later. I sense that the Assembly is far from popular and that there would be widespread indifference to its disappearance.
The one point where I think you're mistaken in the short to medium term is in expecting any appetite to change anything either way. Everyone, including the political class, is sick of the subject, and anyone proposing significant change either way in the next 5 years or so can expect a snort of derision.
That comment earns a snort of derision from me. We haven't even got a deal yet. By March the most we will have is a statement of intent and a transition deal that changes nothing. If you think avoiding the subject will suffice you are living in a very rarefied Corbynite bubble, or just parroting their lines.
I rarely make predictions but I strongly suspect that Britain's relationship with the EU will continue, one way or another, to be the dominant theme in British politics for some time to come. Ironically enough.
I just can't quite believe Corbyn is going to get away with this...You don't have to keep on demeaning yourselves by defending this horrible man.
This sort of post illustrates the problem. Most of us in Labour are perfectly well aware that Corbyn has embraced all kinds of leftist Third World causes as an apparently permanent backbencher and that some of them were errors of judgment. He admits it himself. We think it unlikely that as PM he'd be doing much in that line, though clearly he'd be more distant from Trump's United States than Mrs May, and (many of us think) a good thing too.
At the same time, we see him as a genuine, nice man (and I'm speaking from personal knowledge) who we think has freshened politics by ending the idea that you have to accept the premises of the centre-right or be permanently excluded from rational debate.
So when you say he attended event X or socialised with dubious person Y, we shrug - what else is new? When you say he's horrible, we just think you're clearly biased beyond sensible discussion, and it's a struggle to bother to even respond.
The voters of Broxtowe made a wise choice to evict you.
I just can't quite believe Corbyn is going to get away with this...You don't have to keep on demeaning yourselves by defending this horrible man.
This sort of post illustrates the problem. Most of us in Labour are perfectly well aware that Corbyn has embraced all kinds of leftist Third World causes as an apparently permanent backbencher and that some of them were errors of judgment. He admits it himself. We think it unlikely that as PM he'd be doing much in that line, though clearly he'd be more distant from Trump's United States than Mrs May, and (many of us think) a good thing too.
At the same time, we see him as a genuine, nice man (and I'm speaking from personal knowledge) who we think has freshened politics by ending the idea that you have to accept the premises of the centre-right or be permanently excluded from rational debate.
So when you say he attended event X or socialised with dubious person Y, we shrug - what else is new? When you say he's horrible, we just think you're clearly biased beyond sensible discussion, and it's a struggle to bother to even respond.
The voters of Broxtowe made a wise choice to evict you.
Are you a member of the nasty party by any chance?
I just can't quite believe Corbyn is going to get away with this...You don't have to keep on demeaning yourselves by defending this horrible man.
This sort of post illustrates the problem. Most of us in Labour are perfectly well aware that Corbyn has embraced all kinds of leftist Third World causes as an apparently permanent backbencher and that some of them were errors of judgment. He admits it himself. We think it unlikely that as PM he'd be doing much in that line, though clearly he'd be more distant from Trump's United States than Mrs May, and (many of us think) a good thing too.
At the same time, we see him as a genuine, nice man (and I'm speaking from personal knowledge) who we think has freshened politics by ending the idea that you have to accept the premises of the centre-right or be permanently excluded from rational debate.
So when you say he attended event X or socialised with dubious person Y, we shrug - what else is new? When you say he's horrible, we just think you're clearly biased beyond sensible discussion, and it's a struggle to bother to even respond.
I read that post and just think you’re morally compromised beyond sensible discussion.
People who have met him or know him, tend to like him. I disagree with so much that he says and does, but we can’t deny the fact he inspires trust and friendship.
The voters of Broxtowe made a wise choice to evict you.
The 13-year run was a decent innings in what was always a basically Tory seat. My Tory friends tell me Anna gives them much more trouble than I ever did So no regrets!
The one exception may be the 1997 Welsh Assembly referendum where only 51% voted in favour but of course Plaid has never won a Welsh vote since showing Wales has little appetite for more devolution
But by your logic the anti devolutionists should have been constantly pushing for its end rather than impotently & sporadically whining about it (just like Scotland). The turnout of 50% for that referendum fits in just fine with my apathy theory.
The fact there have been no demands for 'devomax' in Wales to the same extent as there have been in Scotland proves my point
I was surprised that the Tories rather meekly accepted the narrow 1997 Wales Referendum result by failing to revisit the issue later. I sense that the Assembly is far from popular and that there would be widespread indifference to its disappearance.
Most Welsh Tories now support the Assembly, not least as with 12 Welsh Tories AMs on £65k a year each more have made careers out of it
No Deal numbers are shrinking. The latest and largest YouGov gives it only 27% on first preferences.
First preferences don't count as the final choice would be between No Deal and Remain. (And anyway 27% was enough for UKIP to come first in the 2014 European elections).
Remain would likely win v No Deal (as opposed to Chequers Deal v Remain which Chequers Deal would likely win) but the 'betrayal' narrative of No Deal Brexit supporters would be immense
"The final choice would be between No Deal and Remain"
Would it? You've spent the last two days telling us the Chequers plan will unite both sides.
All the polling indicates in a three way battle between No Deal, Chequers and Remain, No Deal and Remain would be the final two.
However a referendum on No Deal v Remain lines, Mogg, Boris and Farage v Soubry, Umunna and Cable would be even more polarised than the last referendum and I fear would almost bring the country to a near civil war.
Chequers Deal terms is the only compromise possible
I just can't quite believe Corbyn is going to get away with this...You don't have to keep on demeaning yourselves by defending this horrible man.
This sort of post illustrates the problem. Most of us in Labour are perfectly well aware that Corbyn has embraced all kinds of leftist Third World causes as an apparently permanent backbencher and that some of them were errors of judgment. He admits it himself. We think it unlikely that as PM he'd be doing much in that line, though clearly he'd be more distant from Trump's United States than Mrs May, and (many of us think) a good thing too.
At the same time, we see him as a genuine, nice man (and I'm speaking from personal knowledge) who we think has freshened politics by ending the idea that you have to accept the premises of the centre-right or be permanently excluded from rational debate.
So when you say he attended event X or socialised with dubious person Y, we shrug - what else is new? When you say he's horrible, we just think you're clearly biased beyond sensible discussion, and it's a struggle to bother to even respond.
I read that post and just think you’re morally compromised beyond sensible discussion.
People who have met him or know him, tend to like him. I disagree with so much that he says and does, but we can’t deny the fact he inspires trust and friendship.
I don’t see how anyone can be so relaxed about their leader apparently honouring particularly violent terrorists and now lying about it.
I just can't quite believe Corbyn is going to get away with this...You don't have to keep on demeaning yourselves by defending this horrible man.
This sort of post illustrates the problem. Most of us in Labour are perfectly well aware that Corbyn has embraced all kinds of leftist Third World causes as an apparently permanent backbencher and that some of them were errors of judgment. He admits it himself. We think it unlikely that as PM he'd be doing much in that line, though clearly he'd be more distant from Trump's United States than Mrs May, and (many of us think) a good thing too.
At the same time, we see him as a genuine, nice man (and I'm speaking from personal knowledge) who we think has freshened politics by ending the idea that you have to accept the premises of the centre-right or be permanently excluded from rational debate.
So when you say he attended event X or socialised with dubious person Y, we shrug - what else is new? When you say he's horrible, we just think you're clearly biased beyond sensible discussion, and it's a struggle to bother to even respond.
The voters of Broxtowe made a wise choice to evict you.
Are you a member of the nasty party by any chance?
I don't know - quiz me on my views about Jews....then we can see which nasty Party I should be in.
I just can't quite believe Corbyn is going to get away with this...You don't have to keep on demeaning yourselves by defending this horrible man.
This sort of post illustrates the problem. Most of us in Labour are perfectly well aware that Corbyn has embraced all kinds of leftist Third World causes as an apparently permanent backbencher and that some of them were errors of judgment. He admits it himself. We think it unlikely that as PM he'd be doing much in that line, though clearly he'd be more distant from Trump's United States than Mrs May, and (many of us think) a good thing too.
At the same time, we see him as a genuine, nice man (and I'm speaking from personal knowledge) who we think has freshened politics by ending the idea that you have to accept the premises of the centre-right or be permanently excluded from rational debate.
So when you say he attended event X or socialised with dubious person Y, we shrug - what else is new? When you say he's horrible, we just think you're clearly biased beyond sensible discussion, and it's a struggle to bother to even respond.
I read that post and just think you’re morally compromised beyond sensible discussion.
People who have met him or know him, tend to like him. I disagree with so much that he says and does, but we can’t deny the fact he inspires trust and friendship.
I don’t see how anyone can be so relaxed about their leader apparently honouring particularly violent terrorists and now lying about it.
Politicians of varied parties have been unduly friendly with all sorts of nasty people across the globe and across the years, including when in government. Pinochet, Ceaucescu; it's a long list.
No Deal numbers are shrinking. The latest and largest YouGov gives it only 27% on first preferences.
First preferences don't count as the final choice would be between No Deal and Remain. (And anyway 27% was enough for UKIP to come first in the 2014 European elections).
Remain would likely win v No Deal (as opposed to Chequers Deal v Remain which Chequers Deal would likely win) but the 'betrayal' narrative of No Deal Brexit supporters would be immense
"The final choice would be between No Deal and Remain"
Would it? You've spent the last two days telling us the Chequers plan will unite both sides.
All the polling indicates in a three way battle between No Deal, Chequers and Remain, No Deal and Remain would be the final two.
However a referendum on No Deal v Remain lines, Mogg, Boris and Farage v Soubry, Umunna and Cable would be even more polarised than the last referendum and I fear would almost bring the country to a near civil war.
Chequers Deal terms is the only compromise possible
Perhaps the vote should be by a new system that I would call "Elimination AV"? Works like normal AV except that you vote for the one you least want, and the one with the most votes is eliminated and the one with the least eventual votes wins.
No Deal numbers are shrinking. The latest and largest YouGov gives it only 27% on first preferences.
First preferences don't count as the final choice would be between No Deal and Remain. (And anyway 27% was enough for UKIP to come first in the 2014 European elections).
Remain would likely win v No Deal (as opposed to Chequers Deal v Remain which Chequers Deal would likely win) but the 'betrayal' narrative of No Deal Brexit supporters would be immense
"The final choice would be between No Deal and Remain"
Would it? You've spent the last two days telling us the Chequers plan will unite both sides.
All the polling indicates in a three way battle between No Deal, Chequers and Remain, No Deal and Remain would be the final two.
However a referendum on No Deal v Remain lines, Mogg, Boris and Farage v Soubry, Umunna and Cable would be even more polarised than the last referendum and I fear would almost bring the country to a near civil war.
Chequers Deal terms is the only compromise possible
Which is why No Deal won't be on any referendum ballot. The only viable choices are a Chequers-style deal or Remain.
I just can't quite believe Corbyn is going to get away with this...You don't have to keep on demeaning yourselves by defending this horrible man.
This sort of post illustrates the problem. Most of us in Labour are perfectly well aware that Corbyn has embraced all kinds of leftist Third World causes as an apparently permanent backbencher and that some of them were errors of judgment. He admits it himself.
As a matter of interest, has he admitted that honouring the murderers of Israeli athletes was an error of judgment?
As far as I'm aware, he has denied placing a wreath at their grave and praying for them, which is not quite the same thing.
The terms for staying in were known. (The Cameron deal). The terms for leaving were not. (Was it WTO, Canada, EFTA?).
If Leave had lost, there would be no need for a vote on the actual terms of Remain. They were already known.
The case for a referendum on the actual terms of Leave (No deal, Chequers+, Remain) is that there is political gridlock so it is right that the public have the final say. That is also the only way to legitimise a decision to Remain if that is what the majority of the public want.
Comments about "how about a third referendum?" or "Keep voting until you get the answer the EU wants" or "it was a football match and Remain lost" are just silly.
I disagree. I'd support a vote on the deal as you suggest for reasons such as you suggest (mostly), but getting into pedantic arguments as to why a second vote is ok but a third not is, itself, pretty damn silly. It is the major flaw with any second vote argument, for all I am persuaded to it, I have yet to a hear a credible reason for why a third is not permissible as a result that was not clearly an excuse.
I thine.
Ha Ha, if it was 50.1% Remain Farage, Mogg and Boris would be campaigning for a third referendum from 6am the next morning
Not if the other 49.9% had voted for a Brexit deal they hated anyway and it was clear there was no appetite to go through it again.
No as they would shift to No Deal given almost every poll gives No Deal over 40% and sees Remain under 60% head to head between them
No Deal numbers are shrinking. The latest and largest YouGov gives it only 27% on first preferences.
Edit: Just to add that among Tory voters, Remain is more popular than Chequers.
Chequers Plus No Deal are miles ahead of Remain with Tory voters
But No Deal isn't going to happen, so the real question is whether No Dealers prefer Chequers or Remain.
On first preferences Opinium has Remain ahead, then No Deal then Chequers Deal.
On second preferences however Chequers Deal comes first, then No Deal, then Remain (p10)
No Deal numbers are shrinking. The latest and largest YouGov gives it only 27% on first preferences.
First preferences don't count as the final choice would be between No Deal and Remain. (And anyway 27% was enough for UKIP to come first in the 2014 European elections).
Remain would likely win v No Deal (as opposed to Chequers Deal v Remain which Chequers Deal would likely win) but the 'betrayal' narrative of No Deal Brexit supporters would be immense
"The final choice would be between No Deal and Remain"
Would it? You've spent the last two days telling us the Chequers plan will unite both sides.
All the polling indicates in a three way battle between No Deal, Chequers and Remain, No Deal and Remain would be the final two.
However a referendum on No Deal v Remain lines, Mogg, Boris and Farage v Soubry, Umunna and Cable would be even more polarised than the last referendum and I fear would almost bring the country to a near civil war.
Chequers Deal terms is the only compromise possible
Perhaps the vote should be by a new system that I would call "Elimination AV"? Works like normal AV except that you vote for the one you least want, and the one with the most votes is eliminated and the one with the least eventual votes wins.
You could call it "Comical AV". You vote for the one you think would have the most farcical outcome and then eliminate them until you arrive at a sensible compromise.
The voters of Broxtowe made a wise choice to evict you.
The 13-year run was a decent innings in what was always a basically Tory seat. My Tory friends tell me Anna gives them much more trouble than I ever did So no regrets!
When I lived there, I was always quite surprised that Broxtowe was Tory so often. It didn't feel like somewhere whic would be Tory if it was pn the fringes of Manchester rather than Nottingham. The GM equivalent would be somewhere like Stalybridge and Hyde. Of course, making judgements about where feels Tory and where doesn't on thegrounds of how leafy and middle class somewhere is is less and less accurate, and places like Stapleford and Kimberley probably fit the profile of 2017 Conservative voter quite well.
No Deal numbers are shrinking. The latest and largest YouGov gives it only 27% on first preferences.
First preferences don't count as the final choice would be between No Deal and Remain. (And anyway 27% was enough for UKIP to come first in the 2014 European elections).
Remain would likely win v No Deal (as opposed to Chequers Deal v Remain which Chequers Deal would likely win) but the 'betrayal' narrative of No Deal Brexit supporters would be immense
"The final choice would be between No Deal and Remain"
Would it? You've spent the last two days telling us the Chequers plan will unite both sides.
All the polling indicates in a three way battle between No Deal, Chequers and Remain, No Deal and Remain would be the final two.
However a referendum on No Deal v Remain lines, Mogg, Boris and Farage v Soubry, Umunna and Cable would be even more polarised than the last referendum and I fear would almost bring the country to a near civil war.
Chequers Deal terms is the only compromise possible
Which is why No Deal won't be on any referendum ballot. The only viable choices are a Chequers-style deal or Remain.
Which also explains why there will not be another referendum once the Chequers Deal becomes the agreed Brexit terms
The terms for staying in were known. (The Cameron deal). The terms for leaving were not. (Was it WTO, Canada, EFTA?).
If Leave had lost, there would be no need for a vote on the actual terms of Remain. They were already known.
The case for a referendum on the actual terms of Leave (No deal, Chequers+, Remain) is that there is political gridlock so it is right that the public have the final say. That is also the only way to legitimise a decision to Remain if that is what the majority of the public want.
Comments about "how about a third referendum?" or "Keep voting until you get the answer the EU wants" or "it was a football match and Remain lost" are just silly.
I disagree. I'd support a vote on the deal as you suggest for reasons such as you suggest (mostly), but getting into pedantic arguments as to why a second vote is ok but a third not is, itself, pretty damn silly. It is the major flaw with any second vote argument, for all I am persuaded to it, I have yet to a hear a credible reason for why a third is not permissible as a result that was not clearly an excuse.
I thine.
Ha Ha, if it was 50.1% Remain Farage, Mogg and Boris would be campaigning for a third referendum from 6am the next morning
Not if the other 49.9% had voted for a Brexit deal they hated anyway and it was clear there was no appetite to go through it again.
No as they would shift to No Deal given almost every poll gives No Deal over 40% and sees Remain under 60% head to head between them
No Deal numbers are shrinking. The latest and largest YouGov gives it only 27% on first preferences.
Edit: Just to add that among Tory voters, Remain is more popular than Chequers.
Chequers Plus No Deal are miles ahead of Remain with Tory voters
But No Deal isn't going to happen, so the real question is whether No Dealers prefer Chequers or Remain.
On first preferences Opinium has Remain ahead, then No Deal then Chequers Deal.
On second preferences however Chequers Deal comes first, then No Deal, then Remain (p10)
No Deal numbers are shrinking. The latest and largest YouGov gives it only 27% on first preferences.
First preferences don't count as the final choice would be between No Deal and Remain. (And anyway 27% was enough for UKIP to come first in the 2014 European elections).
Remain would likely win v No Deal (as opposed to Chequers Deal v Remain which Chequers Deal would likely win) but the 'betrayal' narrative of No Deal Brexit supporters would be immense
"The final choice would be between No Deal and Remain"
Would it? You've spent the last two days telling us the Chequers plan will unite both sides.
All the polling indicates in a three way battle between No Deal, Chequers and Remain, No Deal and Remain would be the final two.
However a referendum on No Deal v Remain lines, Mogg, Boris and Farage v Soubry, Umunna and Cable would be even more polarised than the last referendum and I fear would almost bring the country to a near civil war.
Chequers Deal terms is the only compromise possible
Which is why No Deal won't be on any referendum ballot. The only viable choices are a Chequers-style deal or Remain.
Which also explains why there will not be another referendum once the Chequers Deal becomes the agreed Brexit terms
No it doesn't. You could ask exactly the same question as last time, but now with a defined Leave deal.
Mr. HYUFD, Boris would've been delighted by a Remain one. He'd have the sceptic vote sewn up but could earn the gratitude of the pro-EU side by respecting the referendum result. That's what he wanted.
Of course, being Boris, he buggered it up by actually helping Leave to win.
Boris' ideal result was 51% Remain to 49% Leave then he could forever play the Salmond/Sturgeon role of crying 'betrayal' without actually having to implement anything
I just can't quite believe Corbyn is going to get away with this...You don't have to keep on demeaning yourselves by defending this horrible man.
This sort of post illustrates the problem. Most of us in Labour are perfectly well aware that Corbyn has embraced all kinds of leftist Third World causes as an apparently permanent backbencher and that some of them were errors of judgment. He admits it himself. We think it unlikely that as PM he'd be doing much in that line, though clearly he'd be more distant from Trump's United States than Mrs May, and (many of us think) a good thing too.
At the same time, we see him as a genuine, nice man (and I'm speaking from personal knowledge) who we think has freshened politics by ending the idea that you have to accept the premises of the centre-right or be permanently excluded from rational debate.
So when you say he attended event X or socialised with dubious person Y, we shrug - what else is new? When you say he's horrible, we just think you're clearly biased beyond sensible discussion, and it's a struggle to bother to even respond.
The voters of Broxtowe made a wise choice to evict you.
Although I do like his replacement, I think that's rather uncalled for.
That's certainly the strategy of both May and the EU - repeated crises and warnings of disaster until a last-minute deal of any kind comes as a relief. It's a tried and tested formula that has worked numerous times in EU negotiations.
The main problem is that it always kicks important cans down the road. What it will mean in this case is that Brexit will look remarkably similar to membership, but with less influence. The voters don't much care whether Ministers get a say in routine EU regulations, so they'll mostly be OK with that. The services sector will be weakened but that's a bit too abstract for most people to get worked up about.
The one point where I think you're mistaken in the short to medium term is in expecting any appetite to change anything either way. Everyone, including the political class, is sick of the subject, and anyone proposing significant change either way in the next 5 years or so can expect a snort of derision.
It is undoubtedly true that almost everyone is bored to tears by Brexit. But the can kicking will mean that there are things to be resolved in any transitional period and other issues will come up. For example, we are likely to be committed to following EU law in relevant areas to maintain SM access. It is very likely that they will pass laws that we think are just stupid (GDPR comes to mind). We will then face choices. In the other direction there are likely to be projects that we want to be a part of. That may involve payments. There is likely to be unhappiness about the CJE resolving any issues that arise in respect of immigration. Switzerland and the EU have been bickering for more than 30 years pretty much continuously. I really can't see us being that different. How many of these issues will cut through remains to be seen.
The voters of Broxtowe made a wise choice to evict you.
The 13-year run was a decent innings in what was always a basically Tory seat. My Tory friends tell me Anna gives them much more trouble than I ever did So no regrets!
Fair play. You are probably more gainfully employed nowadays, anyhow.
But by describing Broxtowe as "basically Tory" you are in effect accepting that Labour is not going to be the majority party in the Uk very often.
No Deal numbers are shrinking. The latest and largest YouGov gives it only 27% on first preferences.
First preferences don't count as the final choice would be between No Deal and Remain. (And anyway 27% was enough for UKIP to come first in the 2014 European elections).
Remain would likely win v No Deal (as opposed to Chequers Deal v Remain which Chequers Deal would likely win) but the 'betrayal' narrative of No Deal Brexit supporters would be immense
"The final choice would be between No Deal and Remain"
Would it? You've spent the last two days telling us the Chequers plan will unite both sides.
All the polling indicates in a three way battle between No Deal, Chequers and Remain, No Deal and Remain would be the final two.
However a referendum on No Deal v Remain lines, Mogg, Boris and Farage v Soubry, Umunna and Cable would be even more polarised than the last referendum and I fear would almost bring the country to a near civil war.
Chequers Deal terms is the only compromise possible
Which is why No Deal won't be on any referendum ballot. The only viable choices are a Chequers-style deal or Remain.
Which also explains why there will not be another referendum once the Chequers Deal becomes the agreed Brexit terms
No it doesn't. You could ask exactly the same question as last time, but now with a defined Leave deal.
We have already voted Leave, May can say she is putting forward the Leave Deal that most unites the country, hence no need for another referendum and there will not be another one unless say the LDs by some miracle win the next general election
I just can't quite believe Corbyn is going to get away with this...You don't have to keep on demeaning yourselves by defending this horrible man.
This sort of post illustrates the problem. Most of us in Labour are perfectly well aware that Corbyn has embraced all kinds of leftist Third World causes as an apparently permanent backbencher and that some of them were errors of judgment. He admits it himself.
As a matter of interest, has he admitted that honouring the murderers of Israeli athletes was an error of judgment?
As far as I'm aware, he has denied placing a wreath at their grave and praying for them, which is not quite the same thing.
As a matter of interest, has he admitted honouring the murderers of Israel athletes? I think not.
He has claimed he was honouring the victims of the Israeli attack on the PLO HQ in Tunisia on 1st October 1985.
"In the United Nations Security Council Resolution 573 (1985), the Security Council voted (with the United States abstaining) to condemn the attack on Tunisian territory as a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and considered that Tunisia had the right to appropriate reparations."
As the wreath laying occasion was on the anniversary of that attack, his explanation seems plausible. It also seems plausible that there would be other graves in that Palestinian graveyard that the Daily Mail has discovered and tried to link to Corbyn in a rehash of an old story.
Is that the right link? Following it, I don't get anything with pages, just a link to an excel spreadsheet with data tables (which are exceptionally confusing where the multi-choice referendum is concerned).
The voters of Broxtowe made a wise choice to evict you.
The 13-year run was a decent innings in what was always a basically Tory seat. My Tory friends tell me Anna gives them much more trouble than I ever did So no regrets!
When I lived there, I was always quite surprised that Broxtowe was Tory so often. It didn't feel like somewhere whic would be Tory if it was pn the fringes of Manchester rather than Nottingham. The GM equivalent would be somewhere like Stalybridge and Hyde. Of course, making judgements about where feels Tory and where doesn't on thegrounds of how leafy and middle class somewhere is is less and less accurate, and places like Stapleford and Kimberley probably fit the profile of 2017 Conservative voter quite well.
I went to school in Kimberley in the 60's. Didn't feel especially Tory then! It was surrounded by pit towns like Hucknall and Ilkeston and with Babbington Colliery* on the edge of Nottingham, with DH Lawrence's Eastwood a few miles north. Even Nuthall had sizeable council estates.
*my grandfather worked underground at Babbington Colliery. An extraordinarily punctual man, he only ever missed the bus to work once. It was the day that his shift was hit with a deadly explosion....
I just can't quite believe Corbyn is going to get away with this...You don't have to keep on demeaning yourselves by defending this horrible man.
This sort of post illustrates the problem. Most of us in Labour are perfectly well aware that Corbyn has embraced all kinds of leftist Third World causes as an apparently permanent backbencher and that some of them were errors of judgment. He admits it himself. We think it unlikely that as PM he'd be doing much in that line, though clearly he'd be more distant from Trump's United States than Mrs May, and (many of us think) a good thing too.
At the same time, we see him as a genuine, nice man (and I'm speaking from personal knowledge) who we think has freshened politics by ending the idea that you have to accept the premises of the centre-right or be permanently excluded from rational debate.
So when you say he attended event X or socialised with dubious person Y, we shrug - what else is new? When you say he's horrible, we just think you're clearly biased beyond sensible discussion, and it's a struggle to bother to even respond.
I read that post and just think you’re morally compromised beyond sensible discussion.
People who have met him or know him, tend to like him. I disagree with so much that he says and does, but we can’t deny the fact he inspires trust and friendship.
I don’t see how anyone can be so relaxed about their leader apparently honouring particularly violent terrorists and now lying about it.
Politicians of varied parties have been unduly friendly with all sorts of nasty people across the globe and across the years, including when in government. Pinochet, Ceaucescu; it's a long list.
I agree that politicians have sometimes been too friendly with nasty people they should have kept at a distance (Thatcher, when out of power, with Pinochet, for instance) or the general cringe towards Saudi Arabia.
But there is a difference between having to deal with politicians for raisons d'etat and choosing to befriend and support because you agree with what they say and do. Corbyn falls rather more into the latter category. It is not necessary - in order to support Palestinians dispossessed of their homes - to honour people who murder and castrate innocent athletes at a sports event. Corbyn does not understand this. Nor, apparently, does our own Mr Palmer.
Nor does Corbyn's likability and ability to make friends really add anything to the discussion. Lots of people with bad moral and political judgment can be nice and have a gift for friendship. So what?
I just can't quite believe Corbyn is going to get away with this...You don't have to keep on demeaning yourselves by defending this horrible man.
This sort of post illustrates the problem. Most of us in Labour are perfectly well aware that Corbyn has embraced all kinds of leftist Third World causes as an apparently permanent backbencher and that some of them were errors of judgment. He admits it himself.
As a matter of interest, has he admitted that honouring the murderers of Israeli athletes was an error of judgment?
As far as I'm aware, he has denied placing a wreath at their grave and praying for them, which is not quite the same thing.
As a matter of interest, has he admitted honouring the murderers of Israel athletes? I think not.
He has claimed he was honouring the victims of the Israeli attack on the PLO HQ in Tunisia on 1st October 1985.
"In the United Nations Security Council Resolution 573 (1985), the Security Council voted (with the United States abstaining) to condemn the attack on Tunisian territory as a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and considered that Tunisia had the right to appropriate reparations."
As the wreath laying occasion was on the anniversary of that attack, his explanation seems plausible. It also seems plausible that there would be other graves in that Palestinian graveyard that the Daily Mail has discovered and tried to link to Corbyn in a rehash of an old story.
His explanation might be plausible were it not for the fact that the photo shows him holding the wreath and joining in the prayers at the graves of the three murderers of the athletes and that his Morning Star article at the time seems to say that he knew he was honouring those men as well as those killed in the Tunis attack.
Comments
Why adjust it again? They've already taken into account what you want them to do.
Beckett et al. didn't understand their own leadership rules.
It’s Norway. You know how Norwegians swan around saying, We are not in EU and we are doing just fine? They are a laughing stock when they say that. They are in it over the tops of their wellies! Norway is a vassal state.
Does anyone on either side accept Vassal State because last minute jitters things could be worse? Was the whole thing really just about getting:
“Freedom of movement will be restricted.
Payments to the EU will be diminished.
We will have at least limited powers to negotiate our own trade
The influence of EU lawmaking on our law will be significantly diminished and restricted to the SM. ”
You are turning to jelly. Just about the lot of you.
Jelly.
How times have changed!
BBC weather reckons 98% chance of rain in London at midday.
https://homeguides.sfgate.com/remove-roots-out-ground-101595.html
The terms for leaving were not. (Was it WTO, Canada, EFTA?).
If Leave had lost, there would be no need for a vote on the actual terms of Remain. They were already known.
The case for a referendum on the actual terms of Leave (No deal, Chequers+, Remain) is that there is political gridlock so it is right that the public have the final say. That is also the only way to legitimise a decision to Remain if that is what the majority of the public want.
Comments about "how about a third referendum?" or "Keep voting until you get the answer the EU wants" or "it was a football match and Remain lost" are just silly.
I don't think the EU would have been so tolerant of the car emission scandal if it had been happening in British car factories rather than those in Germany.
The UK brings a lot of advantages to the EU:
Pays in money
Runs a trade deficit
Takes in immigrants
Brings in expertise in finance and security issues
Follows the rules even when self-harming
Tolerates rule breaking by others
What we should have done is take a much harder line with the EU during the last few decades instead of the 'niggling complaints', posturing and then surrendering.
She has a certain amount of freedom and lack of pressure, in a weird way, by knowing that she does not have long as PM left but, to date, her various opponents do not want to take on the mammoth task of Brexit. That might have given her enough flexibility to get through something very difficult, then pass on the torch, but that is far far from certain. It is not in her hands what happens to her.
Do you think we're that stupid?
You're not getting one. You had your chance, and you blew it.
Sorry.
Or do we get Stuart Broad's virility posturing again ?
I've have declared about 4.30pm yesterday. India would think they had a chance and taken some big shots to try and close the gap, which would have led to wickets.
Now, I think India will simply try and sit out the clock.
The one exception may be the 1997 Welsh Assembly referendum where only 51% voted in favour but of course Plaid has never won a Welsh vote since showing Wales has little appetite for more devolution
I disagree. I'd support a vote on the deal as you suggest for reasons such as you suggest (mostly), but getting into pedantic arguments as to why a second vote is ok but a third not is, itself, pretty damn silly. It is the major flaw with any second vote argument, for all I am persuaded to it, I have yet to a hear a credible reason for why a third is not permissible as a result that was not clearly an excuse.
It's similar to how I thought it reasonable to say to the Scottish parliament it was not time for a second indy ref due to all this EU business and the delays and complications it would cause, then May decided it was ok to take several months out to hold a GE, and now I am hard pressed to argue against there being another one, if the Scottish Parliament insist.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong in believing that the final deal should be put to a vote once we all know what it is. I can see why Leavers don't want to but that's because they fear people will vote against it (the "will of the people" seems to seems to have an odd definition for some)
Particularly if there is no deal, I would expect the public to be something like 65% opposed to Brexit on those terms yet many Brexiteers would happily push it through. They well might but it won't end well.
A pair of ducks for Vijay.
As I said earlier you need to get to 60%+ in a referendum to settle the matter decisively
So just ignire them.
Of course, being Boris, he buggered it up by actually helping Leave to win.
Actually I don't think there will be a referendum on the terms. I think Chequers-minus will be agreed and we'll leave the EU into a BINO. But if there is total gridlock with a serious chance of a crash out then Parliament will decide whether or not to have a referendum on the terms. It won't be up to you, in spite of your eminence.
At the same time, we see him as a genuine, nice man (and I'm speaking from personal knowledge) who we think has freshened politics by ending the idea that you have to accept the premises of the centre-right or be permanently excluded from rational debate.
So when you say he attended event X or socialised with dubious person Y, we shrug - what else is new? When you say he's horrible, we just think you're clearly biased beyond sensible discussion, and it's a struggle to bother to even respond.
Edit: Just to add that among Tory voters, Remain is more popular than Chequers.
I am totally against referenda - and totally for our representative democracy. The only reason I support a one-off second referendum, is that having had the first referendum, it is the only way to democratically reverse it.
Remain would likely win v No Deal (as opposed to Chequers Deal v Remain which Chequers Deal would likely win) but the 'betrayal' narrative of No Deal Brexit supporters would be immense
Would it? You've spent the last two days telling us the Chequers plan will unite both sides.
However a referendum on No Deal v Remain lines, Mogg, Boris and Farage v Soubry, Umunna and Cable would be even more polarised than the last referendum and I fear would almost bring the country to a near civil war.
Chequers Deal terms is the only compromise possible
As far as I'm aware, he has denied placing a wreath at their grave and praying for them, which is not quite the same thing.
On second preferences however Chequers Deal comes first, then No Deal, then Remain (p10)
https://www.opinium.co.uk/political-polling-10th-july-2018-2/
Of course, making judgements about where feels Tory and where doesn't on thegrounds of how leafy and middle class somewhere is is less and less accurate, and places like Stapleford and Kimberley probably fit the profile of 2017 Conservative voter quite well.
But by describing Broxtowe as "basically Tory" you are in effect accepting that Labour is not going to be the majority party in the Uk very often.
He has claimed he was honouring the victims of the Israeli attack on the PLO HQ in Tunisia on 1st October 1985.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wooden_Leg
"In the United Nations Security Council Resolution 573 (1985), the Security Council voted (with the United States abstaining) to condemn the attack on Tunisian territory as a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and considered that Tunisia had the right to appropriate reparations."
As the wreath laying occasion was on the anniversary of that attack, his explanation seems plausible. It also seems plausible that there would be other graves in that Palestinian graveyard that the Daily Mail has discovered and tried to link to Corbyn in a rehash of an old story.
Following it, I don't get anything with pages, just a link to an excel spreadsheet with data tables (which are exceptionally confusing where the multi-choice referendum is concerned).
*my grandfather worked underground at Babbington Colliery. An extraordinarily punctual man, he only ever missed the bus to work once. It was the day that his shift was hit with a deadly explosion....
But there is a difference between having to deal with politicians for raisons d'etat and choosing to befriend and support because you agree with what they say and do. Corbyn falls rather more into the latter category. It is not necessary - in order to support Palestinians dispossessed of their homes - to honour people who murder and castrate innocent athletes at a sports event. Corbyn does not understand this. Nor, apparently, does our own Mr Palmer.
Nor does Corbyn's likability and ability to make friends really add anything to the discussion. Lots of people with bad moral and political judgment can be nice and have a gift for friendship. So what?
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Energy/Russia-on-an-international-offensive-to-sell-its-nuclear-plants