1. they would win a rerun handily 2. Remainers who carried on campaigning would be irrelevant
So why are they terrified of a vote?
It takes a special sort of person to think either victory is guaranteed given the result was 52:48 and more people have switched energy supplier since the referendum than have changed their minds about Brexit.
Continuity Remain seem to think that in a second referendum the public will see sense, as defined by them. They have learnt absolutely nothing from the first referendum.
Link?
Anyway, why don't we find out? We could ask the people?
Just need a catchy name...
We could definitely ask the people but not if only a few thousand people want to ask them.
Let a political party put it in their manifesto and then the people can vote on that.
That's a cop out. What if both main parties decide to put it in their manifesto? Does that mean you have a mandate or does it mean the politicians have stitched it up?
I heard some of Justin Webb's coverage of the US Midterms on Radio 4 this morning and over the last week, and it was just atrocious frankly.
He seemed to spend his entire time interviewing white rural voters in Pennsylvania, and been shocked that they were by enlarge republican voters. It doesn't take a particularly deep knowledge of American politics to know that this voter demographic has been GOP leaning for over 20 years now.
More than anything else it seemed to be a prime example of a reporter already having a view on a story, then going out to find people who confirm that view.
Makes you miss the days of Jim Naughtie on Today.
From what I recall Naughtie was just as liberal as Webb. One of the problems with the UK coverage of US politics is that the mile markers for Liberal and Conservative are so different. By US standards Obama was a left wing ideologue. He was viewed by most as the most liberal POTUS we've had. I doubt the UK viewed him that way. I don't watch or listen to UK coverage of politics here unless I can't sleep and Alexa takes care of me
Pedant hat on - it's by AND large not by ENlarge. - pedant hat off
1. they would win a rerun handily 2. Remainers who carried on campaigning would be irrelevant
So why are they terrified of a vote?
It takes a special sort of person to think either victory is guaranteed given the result was 52:48 and more people have switched energy supplier since the referendum than have changed their minds about Brexit.
How can anyone be scared or confident about a referendum where the question hasn't been designed or agreed ?
- Leave and ratify May's deal - Remain and revoke Article 50 notification
How can a Cummingsesque campaign possibly work? All they could do would be to encourage a boycott to discredit it, and that would fizzle out within a week.
The second option is really difficult. It would be 'Ask the other 27 countries if we may revoke Article 50, and hope that if they say yes they give us a deal which isn't too much worse than what we had before.' Bear in mind that the EU show no signs of making any generous offers - such as going back to the status quo ante including the Cameron renegotiation - and it is clear that they won't. They have three reasons to be awkward:
1. In this scenario we'd be suing for peace on any terms, so they's extract their pound of flesh.
2. They wouldn't want to establish a precedent that errant states can invoke Article 50 without ill effects.
3. They'd want to lock us irrevocably in the The Project so that they don't have a rerun of Brexit in a few years' time.
Even more so, they wouldn't agree terms in advance. The 'Remain' option would (ironically) be the leap in the dark in this scenario.
Absolute rubbish. Cameron's deal would be dead, but so what?
So quite a lot, since it included the absolutely vital protection against Eurozone hegemony. In addition, it wouldn't only be the Cameron advances we'd lose, it would certainly include the loss of the rebate and probably some of the various opt-outs we had, which of course the EU has never liked at all.
Why wouldn't they offer bad terms? They'd have nothing to lose. Are you going to suggest a third People's Vote on whether the terms for Remaining are acceptable?
- Leave and ratify May's deal - Remain and revoke Article 50 notification
How can a Cummingsesque campaign possibly work? All they could do would be to encourage a boycott to discredit it, and that would fizzle out within a week.
The second option is really difficult. It would be 'Ask the other 27 countries if we may revoke Article 50, and hope that if they say yes they give us a deal which isn't too much worse than what we had before.' Bear in mind that the EU show no signs of making any generous offers - such as going back to the status quo ante including the Cameron renegotiation - and it is clear that they won't. They have three reasons to be awkward:
1. In this scenario we'd be suing for peace on any terms, so they's extract their pound of flesh.
2. They wouldn't want to establish a precedent that errant states can invoke Article 50 without ill effects.
3. They'd want to lock us irrevocably in the The Project so that they don't have a rerun of Brexit in a few years' time.
Even more so, they wouldn't agree terms in advance. The 'Remain' option would (ironically) be the leap in the dark in this scenario.
Absolute rubbish. Cameron's deal would be dead, but so what?
So would the rebate.
The Commission wants to abolish all rebates and reform the MFF so they are not needed. In any case it's not a treaty issue.
I heard some of Justin Webb's coverage of the US Midterms on Radio 4 this morning and over the last week, and it was just atrocious frankly.
He seemed to spend his entire time interviewing white rural voters in Pennsylvania, and been shocked that they were by enlarge republican voters. It doesn't take a particularly deep knowledge of American politics to know that this voter demographic has been GOP leaning for over 20 years now.
More than anything else it seemed to be a prime example of a reporter already having a view on a story, then going out to find people who confirm that view.
Makes you miss the days of Jim Naughtie on Today.
Couldn't absolutely swear to it but I think Jim Naughtie in his 'special correspondent' role has been doing stuff on the Midterms for R4.
Fwiw I think nowadays he's also a purveyor of deciding the narrative beforehand stuff. His French & German election broadcasts were very much on the 'it's all about Le Pen & AfD' bandwagon.
Does it matter if democracy is undermined if that produces a better policy result? Or should the country make its choices by majority, even if they are objectively bad choices?
Allow me to set out a future potential position now..
Even though Corbyn would be calamatous, preventing him becoming PM if he had the confidence of the commons would be a step too far.
- Leave and ratify May's deal - Remain and revoke Article 50 notification
How can a Cummingsesque campaign possibly work? All they could do would be to encourage a boycott to discredit it, and that would fizzle out within a week.
The second option is really difficult. It would be 'Ask the other 27 countries if we may revoke Article 50, and hope that if they say yes they give us a deal which isn't too much worse than what we had before.' Bear in mind that the EU show no signs of making any generous offers - such as going back to the status quo ante including the Cameron renegotiation - and it is clear that they won't. They have three reasons to be awkward:
1. In this scenario we'd be suing for peace on any terms, so they's extract their pound of flesh.
2. They wouldn't want to establish a precedent that errant states can invoke Article 50 without ill effects.
3. They'd want to lock us irrevocably in the The Project so that they don't have a rerun of Brexit in a few years' time.
Even more so, they wouldn't agree terms in advance. The 'Remain' option would (ironically) be the leap in the dark in this scenario.
Absolute rubbish. Cameron's deal would be dead, but so what?
So quite a lot, since it included the absolutely vital protection against Eurozone hegemony. In addition, it wouldn't only be the Cameron advances we'd lose, it would certainly include the loss of the rebate and probably some of the various opt-outs we had, which of course the EU has never liked at all.
Why wouldn't they offer bad terms? They'd have nothing to lose. Are you going to suggest a third People's Vote on whether the terms for Remaining are acceptable?
I think you're confusing revocation with re-accession. If we try to rejoin after next March, then those questions apply. If we revoke before then, the current position in the treaties will be unaffected.
- Leave and ratify May's deal - Remain and revoke Article 50 notification
How can a Cummingsesque campaign possibly work? All they could do would be to encourage a boycott to discredit it, and that would fizzle out within a week.
The second option is really difficult. It would be 'Ask the other 27 countries if we may revoke Article 50, and hope that if they say yes they give us a deal which isn't too much worse than what we had before.' Bear in mind that the EU show no signs of making any generous offers - such as going back to the status quo ante including the Cameron renegotiation - and it is clear that they won't. They have three reasons to be awkward:
1. In this scenario we'd be suing for peace on any terms, so they's extract their pound of flesh.
2. They wouldn't want to establish a precedent that errant states can invoke Article 50 without ill effects.
3. They'd want to lock us irrevocably in the The Project so that they don't have a rerun of Brexit in a few years' time.
Even more so, they wouldn't agree terms in advance. The 'Remain' option would (ironically) be the leap in the dark in this scenario.
Absolute rubbish. Cameron's deal would be dead, but so what?
So would the rebate.
The Commission wants to abolish all rebates and reform the MFF so they are not needed. In any case it's not a treaty issue.
No it's an issue that if we went back with our tail between our legs and begged to be allowed to remain then they'd say no we can't unless we give up the rebate.
I heard some of Justin Webb's coverage of the US Midterms on Radio 4 this morning and over the last week, and it was just atrocious frankly.
He seemed to spend his entire time interviewing white rural voters in Pennsylvania, and been shocked that they were by enlarge republican voters. It doesn't take a particularly deep knowledge of American politics to know that this voter demographic has been GOP leaning for over 20 years now.
More than anything else it seemed to be a prime example of a reporter already having a view on a story, then going out to find people who confirm that view.
Makes you miss the days of Jim Naughtie on Today.
The utter astonishment of the Beeb on politics under Trump is one of the great amusements of broadcasting - much funnier than their comedy programmes!
A 5 minute interview with Larry Sabato would've been more informative than all of Today's entire coverage.
He was interviewing voters in Bucks county outside Philadelphia this morning, and the narrative suggested that it'd swung strongly towards Trump. When I checked the voting data it had in fact been won by Hillary, by a simialr margin to Obama and every democrat since her husband first won in 92. Narrative trumping fact.
Even on CNN they are still laughing at Nate Silver's ludicrous vague projections yesterday. Sabato is usually good but some of the pundits are expecting his crystal ball to explode. The truth is that this all comes down to turnout, and we won't know what that is for hours yet. Normal rules don't seem to apply.
Continuity Remain seem to think that in a second referendum the public will see sense, as defined by them. They have learnt absolutely nothing from the first referendum.
Link?
Anyway, why don't we find out? We could ask the people?
Just need a catchy name...
We could definitely ask the people but not if only a few thousand people want to ask them.
Let a political party put it in their manifesto and then the people can vote on that.
That's a cop out. What if both main parties decide to put it in their manifesto? Does that mean you have a mandate or does it mean the politicians have stitched it up?
- Leave and ratify May's deal - Remain and revoke Article 50 notification
How can a Cummingsesque campaign possibly work? All they could do would be to encourage a boycott to discredit it, and that would fizzle out within a week.
The second option is really difficult. It would be 'Ask the other 27 countries if we may revoke Article 50, and hope that if they say yes they give us a deal which isn't too much worse than what we had before.' Bear in mind that the EU show no signs of making any generous offers - such as going back to the status quo ante including the Cameron renegotiation - and it is clear that they won't. They have three reasons to be awkward:
1. In this scenario we'd be suing for peace on any terms, so they's extract their pound of flesh.
2. They wouldn't want to establish a precedent that errant states can invoke Article 50 without ill effects.
3. They'd want to lock us irrevocably in the The Project so that they don't have a rerun of Brexit in a few years' time.
Even more so, they wouldn't agree terms in advance. The 'Remain' option would (ironically) be the leap in the dark in this scenario.
Absolute rubbish. Cameron's deal would be dead, but so what?
So quite a lot, since it included the absolutely vital protection against Eurozone hegemony. In addition, it wouldn't only be the Cameron advances we'd lose, it would certainly include the loss of the rebate and probably some of the various opt-outs we had, which of course the EU has never liked at all.
Why wouldn't they offer bad terms? They'd have nothing to lose. Are you going to suggest a third People's Vote on whether the terms for Remaining are acceptable?
I think you're confusing revocation with re-accession. If we try to rejoin after next March, then those questions apply. If we revoke before then, the current position in the treaties will be unaffected.
Only in the legally unlikely case that we can revoke unilaterally and before March 29th. As soon as it's not unilateral, it's a negotiation.
On topic, there's potentially a neat answer to this conundrum which is that you trust the voters to know when you should trust the voters, but you don't actually demand that they answer personally unless they want to. That's how Liquid Democracy works: Voters can vote on everything themselves if they want to, but if they prefer they can just delegate their votes to whoever they like.
In theory they could get the same effect with a referendum by following the advice of somebody they think is sensible, but in practice I think it's a bit different, since a referendum basically asks you to make your own mind up, and since the voters don't get many opportunities to weigh in, they inevitably use it as a proxy for other stuff they're grumpy about.
Yes, though such a system would make our politics even more personality-centred than at present as I presume you would have to have instant updates on the number of votes delegated to each representative. While fun in the abstract, it could end up with lots of power in the hands of a small number of superficially convincing... people.
I heard some of Justin Webb's coverage of the US Midterms on Radio 4 this morning and over the last week, and it was just atrocious frankly.
He seemed to spend his entire time interviewing white rural voters in Pennsylvania, and been shocked that they were by enlarge republican voters. It doesn't take a particularly deep knowledge of American politics to know that this voter demographic has been GOP leaning for over 20 years now.
More than anything else it seemed to be a prime example of a reporter already having a view on a story, then going out to find people who confirm that view.
Makes you miss the days of Jim Naughtie on Today.
Couldn't absolutely swear to it but I think Jim Naughtie in his 'special correspondent' role has been doing stuff on the Midterms for R4.
Fwiw I think nowadays he's also a purveyor of deciding the narrative beforehand stuff. His French & German election broadcasts were very much on the 'it's all about Le Pen & AdF' bandwagon.
Yes Naughtie has been over here too. Also desperately liberal
Continuity Remain seem to think that in a second referendum the public will see sense, as defined by them. They have learnt absolutely nothing from the first referendum.
Link?
Anyway, why don't we find out? We could ask the people?
Just need a catchy name...
We could definitely ask the people but not if only a few thousand people want to ask them.
Let a political party put it in their manifesto and then the people can vote on that.
That's a cop out. What if both main parties decide to put it in their manifesto? Does that mean you have a mandate or does it mean the politicians have stitched it up?
It's how our politics works.
We had a national referendum on AV purely as a result of a political deal.
It's not how our politics works, and inventing a bogus precedent of requiring a GE mandate is an affront to parliamentary sovereignty.
- Leave and ratify May's deal - Remain and revoke Article 50 notification
How can a Cummingsesque campaign possibly work? All they could do would be to encourage a boycott to discredit it, and that would fizzle out within a week.
The second option is really difficult. It would be 'Ask the other 27 countries if we may revoke Article 50, and hope that if they say yes they give us a deal which isn't too much worse than what we had before.' Bear in mind that the EU show no signs of making any generous offers - such as going back to the status quo ante including the Cameron renegotiation - and it is clear that they won't. They have three reasons to be awkward:
1. In this scenario we'd be suing for peace on any terms, so they's extract their pound of flesh.
2. They wouldn't want to establish a precedent that errant states can invoke Article 50 without ill effects.
3. They'd want to lock us irrevocably in the The Project so that they don't have a rerun of Brexit in a few years' time.
Even more so, they wouldn't agree terms in advance. The 'Remain' option would (ironically) be the leap in the dark in this scenario.
Absolute rubbish. Cameron's deal would be dead, but so what?
So would the rebate.
The Commission wants to abolish all rebates and reform the MFF so they are not needed. In any case it's not a treaty issue.
The only outcome I totally reject is a no deal
I hope TM deal goes through but if there is another referendum I do not know how I would vote.
There are no easy questions for another referendum, no certainty the EU would have us back on existing terms, revoking article 50 has not been legally clarified, and while it looks possible remain would win, it is not certain by any means
It's the closest thing that's ever existed to a universal platform that can enter damn near everyone's world and tends to be trusted. As if a single, trusted newspaper had ever been subscribed to by the entire population, delivered personally, and tailored to themselves.
This is why Corbo's idea of a publicly owned, ad free social media platform is such a valuable concept.
Also unachievable IMO without severely curtailing or banning (yeah, right), the existing private providers. Heck, it's a market that even a behemoth such as Google has found hard to tackle.
The BBC became preeminent by being the first in the country, and competitors being strictly limited by the government.
It's alright having a state-owned, ad-free social media platform. Getting people to use it is a very different matter.
I think a state-owned social media platform would be quite different to facebook and not necessarily in competition. I don't imagine that it would be 'fun' or addictive in the way facebook is - but it could be quite useful for getting information from government to citizens and vice versa in a targeted way.
An email or a notification from "Govspace" would be much more useful to me than writing to various govt agencies - and much easier to keep a log of correspondence.
I imagine public health agencies would love the opportunity to push a few anti-smoking adverts. Or councils might like to email everyone in a village and say, by the way, we're considering building 50 new houses here, what do you reckon? [Or not!]
It's the closest thing that's ever existed to a universal platform that can enter damn near everyone's world and tends to be trusted. As if a single, trusted newspaper had ever been subscribed to by the entire population, delivered personally, and tailored to themselves.
This is why Corbo's idea of a publicly owned, ad free social media platform is such a valuable concept.
Also unachievable IMO without severely curtailing or banning (yeah, right), the existing private providers. Heck, it's a market that even a behemoth such as Google has found hard to tackle.
The BBC became preeminent by being the first in the country, and competitors being strictly limited by the government.
It's alright having a state-owned, ad-free social media platform. Getting people to use it is a very different matter.
I think a state-owned social media platform would be quite different to facebook and not necessarily in competition. I don't imagine that it would be 'fun' or addictive in the way facebook is - but it could be quite useful for getting information from government to citizens and vice versa in a targeted way.
An email or a notification from "Govspace" would be much more useful to me than writing to various govt agencies - and much easier to keep a log of correspondence.
I imagine public health agencies would love the opportunity to push a few anti-smoking adverts. Or councils might like to email everyone in a village and say, by the way, we're considering building 50 new houses here, what do you reckon? [Or not!]
If you're talking about an online gateway to services, fair enough. But that's not a social media platform: and there would be massive privacy issues in accessing governmental information on such a platform.
In fact, councils could use FB or a.n.other in that way atm, and they might be advised to do so. Our village has a couple of FB groups that are good at keeping up with local events and information. It's a shame the councils don't interact with it more.
A reporter from the Huron Daily Tribune tried to call John James, black veteran and GOP candidate for US Senate in Michigan, but only got his voice mail. She said the following -
Man if he beats her..Jesus! Fuck John James. That would suck! I don't think it;s going to happen though.
So quite a lot, since it included the absolutely vital protection against Eurozone hegemony. In addition, it wouldn't only be the Cameron advances we'd lose, it would certainly include the loss of the rebate and probably some of the various opt-outs we had, which of course the EU has never liked at all.
Why wouldn't they offer bad terms? They'd have nothing to lose. Are you going to suggest a third People's Vote on whether the terms for Remaining are acceptable?
The right way to do this would be to get assurances on the post-de-brexit status before having the referendum. If this wasn't done then the Leave side would have a very powerful, and quite possibly unbeatable FUD weapon.
I don't think this would be particularly difficult - at this point you'd need to go back to the other member states to get an extension to give you time to do the re-referendum in any case. But if anyone's dreaming that parliament can force a People's Vote without the agreement of the UK PM, that's one more reason why they can't.
Continuity Remain seem to think that in a second referendum the public will see sense, as defined by them. They have learnt absolutely nothing from the first referendum.
Link?
Anyway, why don't we find out? We could ask the people?
Just need a catchy name...
We could definitely ask the people but not if only a few thousand people want to ask them.
Let a political party put it in their manifesto and then the people can vote on that.
That's a cop out. What if both main parties decide to put it in their manifesto? Does that mean you have a mandate or does it mean the politicians have stitched it up?
It's how our politics works.
We had a national referendum on AV purely as a result of a political deal.
It's not how our politics works, and inventing a bogus precedent of requiring a GE mandate is an affront to parliamentary sovereignty.
Fine let’s sit and wait for a “political deal” to result in a second referendum.
You focus on the referendum understandably. I am doubtful about the use of referenda though since we had one about going in, which raised the same issues re values / technical details, it was in theory reasonable to have one about a possible exit. The problems were that it was done for the wrong reasons - to sort out a Tory party issue - and with insufficient consideration beforehand about the technical issues involved. Plus I think it would be best to have a minimum winning margin to be reached so that if something as significant as this has to be implemented it has to be done when there is a very clear majority for it. The bar should be high.
But we surely have a bigger issue - that a government which many might think of as objectively bad - can be elected on barely a third of the vote. Such a government could make some very fundamental changes without having any sort of popular majority behind it at all. What price democracy then?
Compulsory voting might address your concluding question. I agree with almost everything said here , but do point out that there was no referendum held at the time of 'going in' - ie January 1st 1973. We had to wait a further two and a half years for the June 1975 vote!
If you're talking about an online gateway to services, fair enough. But that's not a social media platform: and there would be massive privacy issues in accessing governmental information on such a platform.
In fact, councils could use FB or a.n.other in that way atm, and they might be advised to do so. Our village has a couple of FB groups that are good at keeping up with local events and information. It's a shame the councils don't interact with it more.
Okay but rather than having those facebook groups, have it on a govt platform.
There are lots of advantages like: govt won't be selling data to 3rd parties, people can keep their public/personal more separate, govt can control the security verification/make it more secure than facebook, you can stop anonymous accounts, people could opt into updates that interest them more from govt etc. etc.
Personally I think it's a bit unethical for govt to implicitly or explicitly pressure people to join facebook. But they do need to recognise this is the most convenient form of communication for many citizens and adapt.
If you're talking about an online gateway to services, fair enough. But that's not a social media platform: and there would be massive privacy issues in accessing governmental information on such a platform.
In fact, councils could use FB or a.n.other in that way atm, and they might be advised to do so. Our village has a couple of FB groups that are good at keeping up with local events and information. It's a shame the councils don't interact with it more.
Okay but rather than having those facebook groups, have it on a govt platform.
There are lots of advantages like: govt won't be selling data to 3rd parties, people can keep their public/personal more separate, govt can control the security verification/make it more secure than facebook, you can stop anonymous accounts, people could opt into updates that interest them more from govt etc. etc.
Personally I think it's a bit unethical for govt to implicitly or explicitly pressure people to join facebook. But they do need to recognise this is the most convenient form of communication for many citizens and adapt.
The problem is (relatively) few people would log on, and those would just be people who are interested. Many people leave FB permanently logged on and routinely get messages.
We may think it'd be good for people to use such a platform, but how do you make them use it? What's the draw?
I mentally chalked John James up as 'Strong candidate with very little chance' when I had a look at his profile.
I don't know what his situation is - this was the first I'd heard of him. He was impressive on Fox last night though. It was my refuge from Monday Night Football :-(
I mentally chalked John James up as 'Strong candidate with very little chance' when I had a look at his profile.
I don't know what his situation is - this was the first I'd heard of him. He was impressive on Fox last night though. It was my refuge from Monday Night Football :-(
Heh - At least Amari Cooper caught a touchdown ! He (Along with Dion Lewis) will be off my bench next week. Dak still having a poor year though.
I mentally chalked John James up as 'Strong candidate with very little chance' when I had a look at his profile.
I don't know what his situation is - this was the first I'd heard of him. He was impressive on Fox last night though. It was my refuge from Monday Night Football :-(
Heh - At least Amari Cooper caught a touchdown ! He (Along with Dion Lewis) will be off my bench next week. Dak still having a poor year though.
Play calling sucks. Don't know what Scott Linehan is thinking.
1. they would win a rerun handily 2. Remainers who carried on campaigning would be irrelevant
So why are they terrified of a vote?
Why is another vote needed? There's no bar on Remainers campaigning to rejoin the EU after we've left it.
Which could require the Euro and Schengen too and would be unlikely to win voter support, hence if they want to stay in the EU as now they need to reverse Brexit before Brexit Day next March otherwise post Brexit the most they could realistically aim for is returning to the single market
An email or a notification from "Govspace" would be much more useful to me than writing to various govt agencies - and much easier to keep a log of correspondence.
I'm not amped on the "Govspace" name. I think it should be VKorbyne. (It's semi amusing in Russian.)
1. they would win a rerun handily 2. Remainers who carried on campaigning would be irrelevant
So why are they terrified of a vote?
Why is another vote needed? There's no bar on Remainers campaigning to rejoin the EU after we've left it.
Which could require the EU and Schengen too and would be unlikely to win voter support, hence if they want to stay in the EU as now they need to reverse Brexit before Brexit Day next March otherwise post Brexit the most they could realistically ain for is returning to the single market
Surely Euro membership and Schengen would be a plus for people like Andrew Adonis and Alistair Campbell?
I heard some of Justin Webb's coverage of the US Midterms on Radio 4 this morning and over the last week, and it was just atrocious frankly.
He seemed to spend his entire time interviewing white rural voters in Pennsylvania, and been shocked that they were by enlarge republican voters. It doesn't take a particularly deep knowledge of American politics to know that this voter demographic has been GOP leaning for over 20 years now.
More than anything else it seemed to be a prime example of a reporter already having a view on a story, then going out to find people who confirm that view.
Makes you miss the days of Jim Naughtie on Today.
From what I recall Naughtie was just as liberal as Webb. One of the problems with the UK coverage of US politics is that the mile markers for Liberal and Conservative are so different. By US standards Obama was a left wing ideologue. He was viewed by most as the most liberal POTUS we've had....
Not really - though it's become a reflexive rhetorical flourish of today's Republicans to call any Democrat who is not an outright conservative some kind of dangerous socialist (indeed that's half of Trump's rally schtick). William Jennings Bryan; FDR; even LBJ - all, by the standards of their time, were considerably less conservative.
1. they would win a rerun handily 2. Remainers who carried on campaigning would be irrelevant
So why are they terrified of a vote?
Why is another vote needed? There's no bar on Remainers campaigning to rejoin the EU after we've left it.
Which could require the EU and Schengen too and would be unlikely to win voter support, hence if they want to stay in the EU as now they need to reverse Brexit before Brexit Day next March otherwise post Brexit the most they could realistically ain for is returning to the single market
Surely Euro membership and Schengen would be a plus for people like Andrew Adonis and Alistair Campbell?
For them yes but it would never win more than a third of the vote
If you're talking about an online gateway to services, fair enough. But that's not a social media platform: and there would be massive privacy issues in accessing governmental information on such a platform.
In fact, councils could use FB or a.n.other in that way atm, and they might be advised to do so. Our village has a couple of FB groups that are good at keeping up with local events and information. It's a shame the councils don't interact with it more.
Okay but rather than having those facebook groups, have it on a govt platform.
There are lots of advantages like: govt won't be selling data to 3rd parties, people can keep their public/personal more separate, govt can control the security verification/make it more secure than facebook, you can stop anonymous accounts, people could opt into updates that interest them more from govt etc. etc.
Personally I think it's a bit unethical for govt to implicitly or explicitly pressure people to join facebook. But they do need to recognise this is the most convenient form of communication for many citizens and adapt.
The problem is (relatively) few people would log on, and those would just be people who are interested. Many people leave FB permanently logged on and routinely get messages.
We may think it'd be good for people to use such a platform, but how do you make them use it? What's the draw?
I want it to be an option. Interacting with govt is a pain, particularly if you move addresses fairly regularly.
I actually think 'Govspace' could be quite popular since a) there are practical things it could help people do b) I expect concern about privacy/data etc. to increase.
1. they would win a rerun handily 2. Remainers who carried on campaigning would be irrelevant
So why are they terrified of a vote?
Why is another vote needed? There's no bar on Remainers campaigning to rejoin the EU after we've left it.
Which could require the EU and Schengen too and would be unlikely to win voter support, hence if they want to stay in the EU as now they need to reverse Brexit before Brexit Day next March otherwise post Brexit the most they could realistically ain for is returning to the single market
Surely Euro membership and Schengen would be a plus for people like Andrew Adonis and Alistair Campbell?
It’d be funny though if that’s what Brexit ultimately begat.
As part of the rejoin deal I’d hope the EU would take Northern Ireland off our hands.
I heard some of Justin Webb's coverage of the US Midterms on Radio 4 this morning and over the last week, and it was just atrocious frankly.
He seemed to spend his entire time interviewing white rural voters in Pennsylvania, and been shocked that they were by enlarge republican voters. It doesn't take a particularly deep knowledge of American politics to know that this voter demographic has been GOP leaning for over 20 years now.
More than anything else it seemed to be a prime example of a reporter already having a view on a story, then going out to find people who confirm that view.
Makes you miss the days of Jim Naughtie on Today.
From what I recall Naughtie was just as liberal as Webb. One of the problems with the UK coverage of US politics is that the mile markers for Liberal and Conservative are so different. By US standards Obama was a left wing ideologue. He was viewed by most as the most liberal POTUS we've had. I doubt the UK viewed him that way. I don't watch or listen to UK coverage of politics here unless I can't sleep and Alexa takes care of me
Pedant hat on - it's by AND large not by ENlarge. - pedant hat off
Or bi and large, like my geography teacher (Dawn French gag?)
I mentally chalked John James up as 'Strong candidate with very little chance' when I had a look at his profile.
I don't know what his situation is - this was the first I'd heard of him. He was impressive on Fox last night though. It was my refuge from Monday Night Football :-(
Heh - At least Amari Cooper caught a touchdown ! He (Along with Dion Lewis) will be off my bench next week. Dak still having a poor year though.
Play calling sucks. Don't know what Scott Linehan is thinking.
Interesting topic. My view is that referendums are suitable only for questions that are both (i) very simple and (ii) very unimportant. For example, the new £10 note, whose face should be on it, Eric Bristow or Charles Darwin? That would be fine for some direct democracy. It's incredibly straightforward (so the lumpen ignorami can understand it) and it's trivial and therefore matters very little if they give a wrong and stupid answer. Can we live with Eric's ugly mug on our tenners? Of course we can. But for matters that are complex and/or of real significance? Leave it to our Reps. To the professionals. That is why we elect them. It's their job.
1. they would win a rerun handily 2. Remainers who carried on campaigning would be irrelevant
So why are they terrified of a vote?
Why is another vote needed? There's no bar on Remainers campaigning to rejoin the EU after we've left it.
Which could require the EU and Schengen too and would be unlikely to win voter support, hence if they want to stay in the EU as now they need to reverse Brexit before Brexit Day next March otherwise post Brexit the most they could realistically ain for is returning to the single market
Surely Euro membership and Schengen would be a plus for people like Andrew Adonis and Alistair Campbell?
It’d be funny though if that’s what Brexit ultimately begat.
As part of the rejoin deal I’d hope the EU would take Northern Ireland off our hands.
It won't, at most we would rejoin the single market and Northern Ireland would only rejoin the EU as part of a United Ireland
The problem that people are struggling to come to terms with is that the only factor required to get from 'in private' to 'online' is 'presence of someone who, at some time in their life, you might not be able to trust to behave sensibly, and who has a camera in their pocket'.
2. It was an impressive piece of targeting by Vote Leave, but is it any different in principle to placing targeted ads in other media?
I think yes, because it not only determined who would see the ads, it explicitly excluded other people from seeing them.
If these ads had been on the side of a bus (for example) I think there might have been more examination and condemnation before now.
Not sure that one flies. The reprehensible claims about Turkey were widely used and were criticised, but the problem is that criticising them gives them even more publicity. Similarly the £350m a week: the bogus figure was a deliberate provocation, trying to force the Remain side into arguing that it was 'only' £250m a week, thereby promoting the message even more.
They weren't "reprehensible claims" about Turkey. Cameron spent his entire premiership advocating EU membership for Turkey.
He only changed his mind when the referendum polling suddenly turned against him. Then, abruptly, Turkish membership was "never going to happen", and he certainly never wanted it. Silly man.
The fact that Cameron was clearly lying from the start (he was well aware Greece or Austria or someone would always veto Turkish membership) is merely another way his blithe and arrogant complacency eventually blew up in his big fat face.
The Leave side made three reprehensible claims (or, in layman's terms, lies) about Turkey:
1. That they were going to join the EU anytime soon 2. That they could do so whether we liked it or not 3. That the fact that there was a proposal to grant visa-free travel for Turks in Schengen meant that Turks could travel visa-free to the UK (let alone, as they implied, emigrate to the UK).
Anything David Cameron said doesn't make those lies into truths. They have nothing whatsoever to do with Cameron.
I'm accessing this site from a computer with an antivirus, and every time I load a page I get a message telling me "A threat (JS/CoinMiner.BS) was found when Google Chrome tried to access a website (www.statcounter.com)."
News from the Noo Yawk ‘burbs: Strong Democratic presence at the station this morning from their state senate and town council campaigns (both currently R). Placards, leafleting etc. Prolly not entirely legal on MTA property but I’m not calling the cops.
He only changed his mind when the referendum polling suddenly turned against him. Then, abruptly, Turkish membership was "never going to happen", and he certainly never wanted it. Silly man.
The fact that Cameron was clearly lying from the start (he was well aware Greece or Austria or someone would always veto Turkish membership) is merely another way his blithe and arrogant complacency eventually blew up in his big fat face.
The Leave sieron.
I'm sure you find that waffle comforting, but the fact is Cameron was a clear and loud advocate for Turkish membership, saying it should and could happen as soon as possible - he said it in London, Brussels and Ankara.
Then when the referendum came along, and the polls turned whiffy, he suddenly came out with crap like this:
You cannot announce both of these opinions without looking like a bullshitter and a chancer, and someone who takes the public for fools. That's what happened to Cameron during the campaign and it is a significant reason Remain lost.
People stopped trusting the prime minister, even as you continue to adore him.
His immigration musings were a similiar own goal - and one that anyone with half a brain could massively see coming.
330,000 whilst he was saying it'd go down to tens of thousands. If he'd had come out and said something like "Well we need some immigration for the tax base" he'd have been better off. Instead, the juxtaposition between Cam's words and Gov't (in)action created the perfect storm for leave.
News from the Noo Yawk ‘burbs: Strong Democratic presence at the station this morning from their state senate and town council campaigns (both currently R). Placards, leafleting etc. Prolly not entirely legal on MTA property but I’m not calling the cops.
I live in hope, but not expectation, that Pete King will lose his seat.
I'm not sure the Ch4/Survation megapoll tells us anything we didn't already know from existing data. But politics is about momentum/narrative so fresh data presented in a high profile and novel way by a respectable third party will have an impact even if we already new it.
I think all this suits May's strategy for selling her dreadful deal. She can threaten uber Remainers with No Deal and uber Brexiters with No Brexit. In the meantime running down the clock on Brexiters also suits May's strategy. We fester on. Painful though it to have fester as verb for my country.
I'm sure you find that waffle comforting, but the fact is Cameron was a clear and loud advocate for Turkish membership, saying it should and could happen as soon as possible - he said it in London, Brussels and Ankara.
Then when the referendum came along, and the polls turned whiffy, he suddenly came out with crap like this:
You cannot announce both of these opinions without looking like a bullshitter and a chancer, and someone who takes the public for fools. That's what happened to Cameron during the campaign and it is a significant reason Remain lost.
People stopped trusting the prime minister, even as you continue to adore him.
I don't why you're obsessed with Cameron. I didn't mention him, since he is irrelevant to the point I was making about the Leave campaign's lies on Turkey, the most egregious of which was the one about visa-free travel..
2. It was an impressive piece of targeting by Vote Leave, but is it any different in principle to placing targeted ads in other media?
I think yes, because it not only determined who would see the ads, it explicitly excluded other people from seeing them
If these ads had been on the side of a bus (for example) I think there might have been more examination and condemnation before now.
Not sure that one flies. The reprehensible claims about Turkey were widely used and were criticised, but the problem is that criticising them gives them even more publicity. Similarly the £350m a week: the bogus figure was a deliberate provocation, trying to force the Remain side into arguing that it was 'only' £250m a week, thereby promoting the message even more.
They weren't "reprehensible claims" about Turkey. Cameron spent his entire premiership advocating EU membership for Turkey.
He only changed his mind when the referendum polling suddenly turned against him. Then, abruptly, Turkish membership was "never going to happen", and he certainly never wanted it. Silly man.
The fact that Cameron was clearly lying from the start (he was well aware Greece or Austria or someone would always veto Turkish membership) is merely another way his blithe and arrogant complacency eventually blew up in his big fat face.
Cameron tried to reconcile his previous policy on Turkish membership (which Erdogan was busy undermining anyway), with the clear political fact that it was making a Leave win more likely. I don't think he ever said that it "would never happen" - he was more prone to saying how slowly accession talks were going and that at the current rate of progress, it'd take about 1000 years.
However, I think it'd be a mistake to assume that another country would automatically block Turkish accession. After all, the EU has already voted - unanimously, I think - to accept the Turkish application, to give it candidate status and to open accession talks. Certainly, in its current state, Turkey is nowhere near membership. Likewise, in the current state of European politics, any move to ratify an accession treaty would be doomed. But politics moves quickly and the EU has a history of seeking to integrate former dictatorships into the Union where that government wants to embed democracy and a sense of Europeanness. The same could easily happen again were Erdogan to be overthrown, for example.
I don't see any chance of Turkish accession within five years. I do think it possible within ten.
Comments
Pedant hat on - it's by AND large not by ENlarge. - pedant hat off
Why wouldn't they offer bad terms? They'd have nothing to lose. Are you going to suggest a third People's Vote on whether the terms for Remaining are acceptable?
Fwiw I think nowadays he's also a purveyor of deciding the narrative beforehand stuff. His French & German election broadcasts were very much on the 'it's all about Le Pen & AfD' bandwagon.
Allow me to set out a future potential position now..
Even though Corbyn would be calamatous, preventing him becoming PM if he had the confidence of the commons would be a step too far.
Which makes us pay £350mn a week.
Of course not but those few thousand need to grow into a GE winning party supporting group.
If the situation had been reversed, Farage would be the Earl of Hythe by now. I cannot think of a more successful politician of our times.
It's not how our politics works, and inventing a bogus precedent of requiring a GE mandate is an affront to parliamentary sovereignty.
I hope TM deal goes through but if there is another referendum I do not know how I would vote.
There are no easy questions for another referendum, no certainty the EU would have us back on existing terms, revoking article 50 has not been legally clarified, and while it looks possible remain would win, it is not certain by any means
An email or a notification from "Govspace" would be much more useful to me than writing to various govt agencies - and much easier to keep a log of correspondence.
I imagine public health agencies would love the opportunity to push a few anti-smoking adverts. Or councils might like to email everyone in a village and say, by the way, we're considering building 50 new houses here, what do you reckon? [Or not!]
In fact, councils could use FB or a.n.other in that way atm, and they might be advised to do so. Our village has a couple of FB groups that are good at keeping up with local events and information. It's a shame the councils don't interact with it more.
Man if he beats her..Jesus! Fuck John James. That would suck! I don't think it;s going to happen though.
Brenda Battel is now looking for another job.
https://www.michigansthumb.com/news/article/Tribune-fires-staff-writer-13365429.php
I don't think this would be particularly difficult - at this point you'd need to go back to the other member states to get an extension to give you time to do the re-referendum in any case. But if anyone's dreaming that parliament can force a People's Vote without the agreement of the UK PM, that's one more reason why they can't.
F1: looking dry for the race weekend, alas. Still, Interlagos is perhaps my favourite circuit so it'll probably still be very good.
No sign of it on the horizon that said.
I agree with almost everything said here , but do point out that there was no referendum held at the time of 'going in' - ie January 1st 1973. We had to wait a further two and a half years for the June 1975 vote!
There are lots of advantages like: govt won't be selling data to 3rd parties, people can keep their public/personal more separate, govt can control the security verification/make it more secure than facebook, you can stop anonymous accounts, people could opt into updates that interest them more from govt etc. etc.
Personally I think it's a bit unethical for govt to implicitly or explicitly pressure people to join facebook. But they do need to recognise this is the most convenient form of communication for many citizens and adapt.
That would mean stupidity rather than intent. Still bad, though.
We may think it'd be good for people to use such a platform, but how do you make them use it? What's the draw?
Dak still having a poor year though.
Am seldom lost for words but that managed it.
But, as you will be aware, I am not a fan......
William Jennings Bryan; FDR; even LBJ - all, by the standards of their time, were considerably less conservative.
I actually think 'Govspace' could be quite popular since a) there are practical things it could help people do b) I expect concern about privacy/data etc. to increase.
As part of the rejoin deal I’d hope the EU would take Northern Ireland off our hands.
https://twitter.com/survation/status/1059587809747615745?s=21
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46108753
94-year old man on trial in Germany, accused of complicity in mass murder at a Nazi death camp during World War Two.
A justified trial, and/or trial of the last man standing?
https://twitter.com/AlexanderMcCoy4/status/1059668847391883271
I think I damaged some major organs stifling the giggles.
Mr. (Nigel) B, are they less reliable? I wonder what they'll do about the wheel hole situation.
https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1059783998883487745?s=21
http://www.picturesofengland.com/England/Derbyshire/Cressbrook/Water-cum-Jolly_Dale
It's also a beautiful place. It really excites me ...
And the chart could only ever possibly be CumUlative, couldn't it?
https://twitter.com/barristerblog/status/1059758894250147840?s=21
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horton-cum-Studley
https://mobile.twitter.com/MailOnline/status/1059789758711382016
https://order-order.com/2018/11/06/peoples-vote-ico-investigation/amp/
1. That they were going to join the EU anytime soon
2. That they could do so whether we liked it or not
3. That the fact that there was a proposal to grant visa-free travel for Turks in Schengen meant that Turks could travel visa-free to the UK (let alone, as they implied, emigrate to the UK).
Anything David Cameron said doesn't make those lies into truths. They have nothing whatsoever to do with Cameron.
https://twitter.com/ktumulty/status/1059790282902986752
https://news.sky.com/story/german-manufacturer-schaeffler-to-shut-two-uk-plants-after-brexit-11546123
330,000 whilst he was saying it'd go down to tens of thousands. If he'd had come out and said something like "Well we need some immigration for the tax base" he'd have been better off.
Instead, the juxtaposition between Cam's words and Gov't (in)action created the perfect storm for leave.
Please do the right thing New York.
I think all this suits May's strategy for selling her dreadful deal. She can threaten uber Remainers with No Deal and uber Brexiters with No Brexit. In the meantime running down the clock on Brexiters also suits May's strategy. We fester on. Painful though it to have fester as verb for my country.
However, I think it'd be a mistake to assume that another country would automatically block Turkish accession. After all, the EU has already voted - unanimously, I think - to accept the Turkish application, to give it candidate status and to open accession talks. Certainly, in its current state, Turkey is nowhere near membership. Likewise, in the current state of European politics, any move to ratify an accession treaty would be doomed. But politics moves quickly and the EU has a history of seeking to integrate former dictatorships into the Union where that government wants to embed democracy and a sense of Europeanness. The same could easily happen again were Erdogan to be overthrown, for example.
I don't see any chance of Turkish accession within five years. I do think it possible within ten.