The EU isn't really proposing an army. It's a coordinated shared capability. So Germany and Romania might have a shared battalion where Germany provides the equipment and training and Romania most of the soldiers. It is also a way bringing in the Swedes and Finns, who aren't part of NATO. It is also a symbolic, political project
I think the direction of travel of the EU Military Service is quite clear and probably prudent. eg the recent rotary wing exercise in Portugal was exactly the sort of thing NATO used to do but this year it was organised by EUMS. We are getting to close to the end of NATO in its current form and EUMS/PESCO will be what replaces it in Europe.
Fans of sovereignty should realise that you get a hell of a lot more political and democratic control of EUMS activities than you do with NATO.
As a non hairy palmed person, it occurred to me that since we do not know the detail of May's deal with the Eu, all the talk both for and against is just speculation. One thing you can be sure of is that both sides are lying about the effect.
You can be sure it will be crap and more capitulation and grovelling than her last surrender.
Only way out of this is to rip up chequers and go for the Norway-style deal that was originally on offer. Much better than a second referendum, which will only exacerbate the deep divisions that TMay has miserably failed to heal.
The EU isn't really proposing an army. It's a coordinated shared capability. So Germany and Romania might have a shared battalion where Germany provides the equipment and training and Romania most of the soldiers. It is also a way bringing in the Swedes and Finns, who aren't part of NATO. It is also a symbolic, political project
I think the direction of travel of the EU Military Service is quite clear and probably prudent. eg the recent rotary wing exercise in Portugal was exactly the sort of thing NATO used to do but this year it was organised by EUMS. We are getting to close to the end of NATO in its current form and EUMS/PESCO will be what replaces it in Europe.
Fans of sovereignty should realise that you get a hell of a lot more political and democratic control of EUMS activities than you do with NATO.
That must be why NATO has added 13 members since the end of the Cold War then.
It’s not surprising the US dominates when it provides 75% of the budget, but actions in the NAC have to be agreed by unanimity and each nation retains full responsibility for its own decisions.
Only way out of this is to rip up chequers and go for the Norway-style deal that was originally on offer. Much better than a second referendum, which will only exacerbate the deep divisions that TMay has miserably failed to heal.
Norway plus customs union needed for Northern Irish border
To Adonis referendums are only “final and decisive” if he agrees with the result.
Fine, let’s stick with the 1975 referendum. Final and decisive.
2016 referendum: democracy means being able to change your mind! 1975 referendum: decisive for all time. Suck it up.
Well quite. The idea that somehow ultra Remainers present unique intellectual flexibility to the outcomes of referenda is absurd.
When the facts change, we can change our minds. We’ve learned so much in the past two years there is enough new information to justify another vote IMO.
Only way out of this is to rip up chequers and go for the Norway-style deal that was originally on offer. Much better than a second referendum, which will only exacerbate the deep divisions that TMay has miserably failed to heal.
Norway is a harder brexit than Chequers. It is also unimplementable currently as it either creates an Irish sea border or an Irish customs border.
Why do people keep (Sorry @ThomasNashe) giving Norway as some sort of available soft panacea Brexit option. It is not !
You win big and we agree to shut up for a generation.
You did that last time.
You're getting this wrong.
We're in a situation where hardcore leavers will never shut up. There will always be something to moan about, to whine about; someone else to blame for supposed ills that are, in fact, our own responsibility.
It's far easier to blame other people and scream "The EU!", "Immigrants!" than it is to take a good, long hard look at our own decisions.
So I fail to see why remainers who believe that EU membership is a positive should shut up, either. We've had decades of leavers poisoning debate; they can now expect remainers to treat them with the same contempt.
On a side issue: too many people are seeing Brexit as a panacea that will cure what they see as the country's problems. We'll be free, dammit, and everyone will do what we want!
It's a dangerous attitude, and it's deluded.
Simplistic solutions attract simpletons.
Nevertheless politicians have a responsibility to speak up for the interests of the country and yet, as JJ says, have badly let us down.
The reason Boris is held in such contempt is that he is the worst - his personal instincts are liberal and pro-European, as shared by the rest of his family, yet both as a journalist and a politician he sold out to the temptation of using the EU issue to attract attention and further his own career.
Boris was a Eurosceptic ever since his days as a Brussels correspondent, his family are genuinely divides on the issue.
Corbyn of course basically agrees with May's plan for the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period and a Customs Union for the whole UK but will oppose it out of political advantage to try and get a general election
Only way out of this is to rip up chequers and go for the Norway-style deal that was originally on offer. Much better than a second referendum, which will only exacerbate the deep divisions that TMay has miserably failed to heal.
Does that get us out of this?
No-one has sold the benefits of the Norway option since the referendum and it's now rubbished by both sides as vassalage.
Not that I disagree about the second referendum. I just don't see any way out of this situation. No good way that is.
Only way out of this is to rip up chequers and go for the Norway-style deal that was originally on offer. Much better than a second referendum, which will only exacerbate the deep divisions that TMay has miserably failed to heal.
Norway is a harder brexit than Chequers. It is also unimplementable currently as it either creates an Irish sea border or an Irish customs border.
Why do people keep (Sorry @ThomasNashe) giving Norway as some sort of available soft panacea Brexit option. It is not !
It would have to come with some sort of transitional deal to take us up to 2022 election, when we could all have a vote on properly worked-through long-term options.
To Adonis referendums are only “final and decisive” if he agrees with the result.
Fine, let’s stick with the 1975 referendum. Final and decisive.
Arguably the real problem with the referendum was that it was so very close but for leave. If it had been 60/40 leave, we wouldn't be having these discussions. If it had been 49/51 to stay, even Juncker would probably have emerged from his alcohol-fuelled haze for five minutes to understand things had to change if disaster was to be averted. If it had been 60/40 Remain, it's probable even Farage would have shut up (OK, OK, I admit 'probable' is too strong a word).
However, we voted to leave, and rapidly a myth has built that, 'oh, it was all about the lies Leave told,' or, 'oh, it was only about immigration,' or, 'oh, it's becuase people wanted to kick Cameron,' or 'if only Corbyn had been a better campaigner' (now there's a claim that's extremely ironic with hindsight).
The reality is, for all the hype, Remain won the campaign. They switched plenty of waverers over with their warnings of economic chaos. But that wasn't enough to make up for forty years of lies, incompetence, bureaucracy, unlawful trade embargoes, daft rulings from the CJEU that we were stupid enough not to ignore, and politicians blaming Europe for everything that was unpopular but that they wanted to do. Osborne seems to have understood that, but you have to wonder from their behaviour how many Europhiles do understand the depth of loathing for the likes of Juncker, Chretien, Delors, Prodi and Barroso.
At the moment, the polls are effectively showing that things are unchanged since the referendum. Heck, Survation shows the exact same margin it showed before the vote. So what would be the point of re-running it? Median scenario is Remain wins very narrowly and we get a Dolschstoss theory the other way. Worst case scenario, Leave wins by the same margin and we're no better off than before having seriously pissed off half the electorate.
Arguably the best case scenario at least politically is that Leave wins by a huge margin and we leave with no deal, but that would lead to economic collapse here and on the continent. (And no, there is no way any referendum could be held without No Deal as an option outwith the fantasies of not over-bright fanatics like Adonis. Otherwise the risk is of a legal challenge which given the timings would almost certainly achieve the same effect as no deal anyway.)
So why do people want one? Because they can't accept the result of the first. But running the same experiment twice in the expectation of a different result is folly.
Macron is right. If the Europeans want to increase defence spending then their interests are better served by doing it an EU framework. NATO's policy objectives are always 100% aligned with US interests so why should the EU subsidse the US in that manner?
Trump is right to be offended. Sounds like Macron wishes to evoke the spirit of Compiegne 1940 rather than 1918.
Various thoughts: 3) The most interesting UK economic stat for today was the continued increase in house building, with that and house price growth reduced to manageable levels I wonder if the Conservatives will get a boost from Generation Now Able To Buy
The EU isn't really proposing an army. It's a coordinated shared capability. So Germany and Romania might have a shared battalion where Germany provides the equipment and training and Romania most of the soldiers. It is also a way bringing in the Swedes and Finns, who aren't part of NATO. It is also a symbolic, political project
I think the direction of travel of the EU Military Service is quite clear and probably prudent. eg the recent rotary wing exercise in Portugal was exactly the sort of thing NATO used to do but this year it was organised by EUMS. We are getting to close to the end of NATO in its current form and EUMS/PESCO will be what replaces it in Europe.
Fans of sovereignty should realise that you get a hell of a lot more political and democratic control of EUMS activities than you do with NATO.
That must be why NATO has added 13 members since the end of the Cold War then.
It’s not surprising the US dominates when it provides 75% of the budget, but actions in the NAC have to be agreed by unanimity and each nation retains full responsibility for its own decisions.
Talking about national defence spending as part of a NATO ‘budget’ is perverse.
To Adonis referendums are only “final and decisive” if he agrees with the result.
Fine, let’s stick with the 1975 referendum. Final and decisive.
2016 referendum: democracy means being able to change your mind! 1975 referendum: decisive for all time. Suck it up.
Well quite. The idea that somehow ultra Remainers present unique intellectual flexibility to the outcomes of referenda is absurd.
When the facts change, we can change our minds. We’ve learned so much in the past two years there is enough new information to justify another vote IMO.
I love the “we now know more facts” argument of the p***les v*te.
What they mean, of course, is that they think they’ve been proven right on the decision they took the first time and they fail to recognise the rich seam of confirmation bias running right through the middle of it.
There are other facts too, like economic disaster and recession haven’t occurred, that the EU have behaved vindictively, whilst continuing to move in a federalising direction, that we have sight of a independent migration, agricultural and fisheries policy, and neither they or the EU have learnt a single lesson from the vote the first time around.
The EU isn't really proposing an army. It's a coordinated shared capability. So Germany and Romania might have a shared battalion where Germany provides the equipment and training and Romania most of the soldiers. It is also a way bringing in the Swedes and Finns, who aren't part of NATO. It is also a symbolic, political project
I think the direction of travel of the EU Military Service is quite clear and probably prudent. eg the recent rotary wing exercise in Portugal was exactly the sort of thing NATO used to do but this year it was organised by EUMS. We are getting to close to the end of NATO in its current form and EUMS/PESCO will be what replaces it in Europe.
Fans of sovereignty should realise that you get a hell of a lot more political and democratic control of EUMS activities than you do with NATO.
That must be why NATO has added 13 members since the end of the Cold War then.
It’s not surprising the US dominates when it provides 75% of the budget, but actions in the NAC have to be agreed by unanimity and each nation retains full responsibility for its own decisions.
Talking about national defence spending as part of a NATO ‘budget’ is perverse.
I agree with you that the 2% GDP target is a crude and proxy measure.
But, it broadly links a base level of military and security spending to a nation’s economic performance.
It should be ‘a’ measure but very far from the only measure.
To Adonis referendums are only “final and decisive” if he agrees with the result.
Fine, let’s stick with the 1975 referendum. Final and decisive.
2016 referendum: democracy means being able to change your mind! 1975 referendum: decisive for all time. Suck it up.
Well quite. The idea that somehow ultra Remainers present unique intellectual flexibility to the outcomes of referenda is absurd.
When the facts change, we can change our minds. We’ve learned so much in the past two years there is enough new information to justify another vote IMO.
I love the “we now know more facts” argument of the p***les v*te.
What they mean, of course, is that they think they’ve been proven right on the decision they took the first time and they fail to recognise the rich seam of confirmation bias running right through the middle of it.
There are other facts too, like economic disaster and recession haven’t occurred, that the EU have behaved vindictively, whilst continuing to move in a federalising direction, that we have sight of a independent migration, agricultural and fisheries policy, and neither they or the EU have learnt a single lesson from the vote the first time around.
The tin-earedness is quite something to behold.
There is a ton of new information on both sides of the argument. IMO that adds to the case for a second vote. We have learned much about our EU partners. It could go either way.
Macron is right. If the Europeans want to increase defence spending then their interests are better served by doing it an EU framework. NATO's policy objectives are always 100% aligned with US interests so why should the EU subsidse the US in that manner?
Trump is right to be offended. Sounds like Macron wishes to evoke the spirit of Compiegne 1940 rather than 1918.
Trump says Europe should pay more for its collective defence, rather than rely on the USA.
The EU isn't really proposing an army. It's a coordinated shared capability. So Germany and Romania might have a shared battalion where Germany provides the equipment and training and Romania most of the soldiers. It is also a way bringing in the Swedes and Finns, who aren't part of NATO. It is also a symbolic, political project
I think the direction of travel of the EU Military Service is quite clear and probably prudent. eg the recent rotary wing exercise in Portugal was exactly the sort of thing NATO used to do but this year it was organised by EUMS. We are getting to close to the end of NATO in its current form and EUMS/PESCO will be what replaces it in Europe.
Fans of sovereignty should realise that you get a hell of a lot more political and democratic control of EUMS activities than you do with NATO.
That must be why NATO has added 13 members since the end of the Cold War then.
It’s not surprising the US dominates when it provides 75% of the budget, but actions in the NAC have to be agreed by unanimity and each nation retains full responsibility for its own decisions.
Talking about national defence spending as part of a NATO ‘budget’ is perverse.
I agree with you that the 2% GDP target is a crude and proxy measure.
But, it broadly links a base level of military and security spending to a nation’s economic performance.
It should be ‘a’ measure but very far from the only measure.
Yes, but if the USA either chooses or is obliged by its position in the global system to spend a lot more than that, it isn't an argument to say they are taking an unfair share of the burden within NATO.
Macron is right. If the Europeans want to increase defence spending then their interests are better served by doing it an EU framework. NATO's policy objectives are always 100% aligned with US interests so why should the EU subsidse the US in that manner?
Trump is right to be offended. Sounds like Macron wishes to evoke the spirit of Compiegne 1940 rather than 1918.
Trump says Europe should pay more for its collective defence, rather than rely on the USA.
Macron agrees.
Trump and his apologists have a tantrum.
Where is the surprise?
Trump didn't really want Europe to spend on its own defence. He wanted Europe (and Japan) to pay money to fund the US military.
For me, Brexit has proven Westminster/Whitehall is utterly broken and that major reform is necessary. That is a more important problem to solve than our relationship with the EU. We need a massive cultural change and a huge clear out of personnel. They are not up to the job.
That must be why NATO has added 13 members since the end of the Cold War then.
It’s not surprising the US dominates when it provides 75% of the budget, but actions in the NAC have to be agreed by unanimity and each nation retains full responsibility for its own decisions.
Another advantage is that EUMS doesn't share NATO's geographical limitation. Think about why we never got an Article 5 declaration for the Falklands.
The only reason to have a new referendum is if it is going to settle the matter decisively either way. As of right now, there is no reason to expect that: quite the reverse.
If the polls were to move either way decisively in the short term, I'd then change my mind.
But as things stand Britain is heading for a shit Brexit on shit terms that everyone will hate. And that is, unfortunately, the least bad outcome.
That must be why NATO has added 13 members since the end of the Cold War then.
It’s not surprising the US dominates when it provides 75% of the budget, but actions in the NAC have to be agreed by unanimity and each nation retains full responsibility for its own decisions.
Another advantage is that EUMS doesn't share NATO's geographical limitation. Think about why we never got an Article 5 declaration for the Falklands.
But, we got active help from the US without which we probably wouldn’t have won.
To Adonis referendums are only “final and decisive” if he agrees with the result.
Fine, let’s stick with the 1975 referendum. Final and decisive.
2016 referendum: democracy means being able to change your mind! 1975 referendum: decisive for all time. Suck it up.
Well quite. The idea that somehow ultra Remainers present unique intellectual flexibility to the outcomes of referenda is absurd.
When the facts change, we can change our minds. We’ve learned so much in the past two years there is enough new information to justify another vote IMO.
I love the “we now know more facts” argument of the p***les v*te.
What they mean, of course, is that they think they’ve been proven right on the decision they took the first time and they fail to recognise the rich seam of confirmation bias running right through the middle of it.
There are other facts too, like economic disaster and recession haven’t occurred, that the EU have behaved vindictively, whilst continuing to move in a federalising direction, that we have sight of a independent migration, agricultural and fisheries policy, and neither they or the EU have learnt a single lesson from the vote the first time around.
The tin-earedness is quite something to behold.
There is a ton of new information on both sides of the argument. IMO that adds to the case for a second vote. We have learned much about our EU partners. It could go either way.
A second vote will achieve and resolve nothing.
The mandate of the first has to be implemented first.
For me, Brexit has proven Westminster/Whitehall is utterly broken and that major reform is necessary. That is a more important problem to solve than our relationship with the EU. We need a massive cultural change and a huge clear out of personnel. They are not up to the job.
To Adonis referendums are only “final and decisive” if he agrees with the result.
Fine, let’s stick with the 1975 referendum. Final and decisive.
2016 referendum: democracy means being able to change your mind! 1975 referendum: decisive for all time. Suck it up.
Well quite. The idea that somehow ultra Remainers present unique intellectual flexibility to the outcomes of referenda is absurd.
When the facts change, we can change our minds. We’ve learned so much in the past two years there is enough new information to justify another vote IMO.
I love the “we now know more facts” argument of the p***les v*te.
What they mean, of course, is that they think they’ve been proven right on the decision they took the first time and they fail to recognise the rich seam of confirmation bias running right through the middle of it.
There are other facts too, like economic disaster and recession haven’t occurred, that the EU have behaved vindictively, whilst continuing to move in a federalising direction, that we have sight of a independent migration, agricultural and fisheries policy, and neither they or the EU have learnt a single lesson from the vote the first time around.
The tin-earedness is quite something to behold.
There is a ton of new information on both sides of the argument. IMO that adds to the case for a second vote. We have learned much about our EU partners. It could go either way.
A second vote will achieve and resolve nothing.
The mandate of the first has to be implemented first.
Diasagree, it has been such a botched job we need either a confirmation or a mandate to rethink.
I agree with you that the 2% GDP target is a crude and proxy measure.
But, it broadly links a base level of military and security spending to a nation’s economic performance.
It should be ‘a’ measure but very far from the only measure.
% of GDP is useless. Turkey spend less than 2% GDP and, in absolute terms, about a fifth of the UK defence budget but they have an army of 300,000 and the same again in reserves. And those fuckers can fight...
The only reason to have a new referendum is if it is going to settle the matter decisively either way. As of right now, there is no reason to expect that: quite the reverse.
If the polls were to move either way decisively in the short term, I'd then change my mind.
But as things stand Britain is heading for a shit Brexit on shit terms that everyone will hate. And that is, unfortunately, the least bad outcome.
Things will get worse thereafter.
Certainly there is no good outcome to the Brexit fiasco, but the least damaging is a #peoplesvote to remain.
It may go the other way of course, but then we are no worse off than we are already.
The only reason to have a new referendum is if it is going to settle the matter decisively either way. As of right now, there is no reason to expect that: quite the reverse.
If the polls were to move either way decisively in the short term, I'd then change my mind.
But as things stand Britain is heading for a shit Brexit on shit terms that everyone will hate. And that is, unfortunately, the least bad outcome.
Things will get worse thereafter.
We won't know whether a new referendum will be decisive until after we hold it. Waiting for the polls to turn first is no way to run a country. We're at a fork in the road now, and given that parliament is hobbled by the 2016 mandate, only putting it back to the people will do.
The only reason to have a new referendum is if it is going to settle the matter decisively either way. As of right now, there is no reason to expect that: quite the reverse.
If the polls were to move either way decisively in the short term, I'd then change my mind.
But as things stand Britain is heading for a shit Brexit on shit terms that everyone will hate. And that is, unfortunately, the least bad outcome.
Things will get worse thereafter.
Certainly there is no good outcome to the Brexit fiasco, but the least damaging is a #peoplesvote to remain.
It may go the other way of course, but then we are no worse off than we are already.
A 52:48 vote for Remain would merely replace a majoritarian Leave dynamic for a majoritarian Remain dynamic. I don't see the slightest evidence that anyone campaigning for a fresh referendum has any interest in thinking about the concerns of those who voted Leave after they have the referendum victory that they have quite unjustifiably mentally banked.
The only reason to have a new referendum is if it is going to settle the matter decisively either way. As of right now, there is no reason to expect that: quite the reverse.
If the polls were to move either way decisively in the short term, I'd then change my mind.
But as things stand Britain is heading for a shit Brexit on shit terms that everyone will hate. And that is, unfortunately, the least bad outcome.
Things will get worse thereafter.
Certainly there is no good outcome to the Brexit fiasco, but the least damaging is a #peoplesvote to remain.
It may go the other way of course, but then we are no worse off than we are already.
If it goes the other way and people vote for the deal then we're better off than we are now, because at least there will be a mandate for what's going to happen.
I agree with you that the 2% GDP target is a crude and proxy measure.
But, it broadly links a base level of military and security spending to a nation’s economic performance.
It should be ‘a’ measure but very far from the only measure.
% of GDP is useless. Turkey spend less than 2% GDP and, in absolute terms, about a fifth of the UK defence budget but they have an army of 300,000 and the same again in reserves. And those fuckers can fight...
How much do they pay their soldiers, with what are they equipped, what welfare do they provide, and in what conditions do they live?
I agree that the UK wastes a lot on procurement and management- a shocking amount - but we are two very different countries.
I agree with you that the 2% GDP target is a crude and proxy measure.
But, it broadly links a base level of military and security spending to a nation’s economic performance.
It should be ‘a’ measure but very far from the only measure.
% of GDP is useless. Turkey spend less than 2% GDP and, in absolute terms, about a fifth of the UK defence budget but they have an army of 300,000 and the same again in reserves. And those fuckers can fight...
My grandfather was an infantry private in Mesopotamia in 1917, and had a high opinion of Turkish soldiers, who fought hard but cleanly, respecting truces to collect wounded etc. After the Somme, he almost seemed to enjoy it, apart from catching malaria.
I remain of the view that the EU the better option but I’m yet to hear a wide-ranging, coherently presented argument for remaining in the EU, and an EU where the direction of travel is clear. An argument which works and convinces outside SW London.
Thanks to Robert for the video. The comparison of vote totals in the Midwest is very promising for the Democrats. The voters there are open to persuasion. Can the Democrats find the candidate and the message to persuade them in 2020?
The only reason to have a new referendum is if it is going to settle the matter decisively either way. As of right now, there is no reason to expect that: quite the reverse.
If the polls were to move either way decisively in the short term, I'd then change my mind.
But as things stand Britain is heading for a shit Brexit on shit terms that everyone will hate. And that is, unfortunately, the least bad outcome.
Things will get worse thereafter.
Certainly there is no good outcome to the Brexit fiasco, but the least damaging is a #peoplesvote to remain.
It may go the other way of course, but then we are no worse off than we are already.
A 52:48 vote for Remain would merely replace a majoritarian Leave dynamic for a majoritarian Remain dynamic. I don't see the slightest evidence that anyone campaigning for a fresh referendum has any interest in thinking about the concerns of those who voted Leave after they have the referendum victory that they have quite unjustifiably mentally banked.
A reversed outcome could lead to a properly negotiated settlement to remain in the EU but on reformed terms. Potentially a better outcome than ‘the deal’.
To Adonis referendums are only “final and decisive” if he agrees with the result.
Fine, let’s stick with the 1975 referendum. Final and decisive.
[quotation reduced for reasons of space]
Arguably the best case scenario at least politically is that Leave wins by a huge margin and we leave with no deal, but that would lead to economic collapse here and on the continent. (And no, there is no way any referendum could be held without No Deal as an option outwith the fantasies of not over-bright fanatics like Adonis. Otherwise the risk is of a legal challenge which given the timings would almost certainly achieve the same effect as no deal anyway.)
So why do people want one? Because they can't accept the result of the first. But running the same experiment twice in the expectation of a different result is folly.
I largely agree with what you say, except the last sentence. In science we like to repeat experiments multiple times to get an idea of how reliable the result is. The LHC is set up to run the same experiment at a rate of about 600 million per second. Unfortunately this is not normally appropriate for economics or politics as it is impossible to control the various variables
Thanks to Robert for the video. The comparison of vote totals in the Midwest is very promising for the Democrats. The voters there are open to persuasion. Can the Democrats find the candidate and the message to persuade them in 2020?
It doesn't look great for Trump, then again I can't imagine it looked good for Reagen in 82.
Macron is right. If the Europeans want to increase defence spending then their interests are better served by doing it an EU framework. NATO's policy objectives are always 100% aligned with US interests so why should the EU subsidse the US in that manner?
Trump is right to be offended. Sounds like Macron wishes to evoke the spirit of Compiegne 1940 rather than 1918.
Trump says Europe should pay more for its collective defence, rather than rely on the USA.
Macron agrees.
Trump and his apologists have a tantrum.
Where is the surprise?
Trump didn't really want Europe to spend on its own defence. He wanted Europe (and Japan) to pay money to fund the US military.
Not entirely surprising that someone who was brought up to admire the mob should be attached to the concept of a protection racket.
To Adonis referendums are only “final and decisive” if he agrees with the result.
Fine, let’s stick with the 1975 referendum. Final and decisive.
[quotation reduced for reasons of space]
Arguably the best case scenario at least politically is that Leave wins by a huge margin and we leave with no deal, but that would lead to economic collapse here and on the continent. (And no, there is no way any referendum could be held without No Deal as an option outwith the fantasies of not over-bright fanatics like Adonis. Otherwise the risk is of a legal challenge which given the timings would almost certainly achieve the same effect as no deal anyway.)
So why do people want one? Because they can't accept the result of the first. But running the same experiment twice in the expectation of a different result is folly.
I largely agree with what you say, except the last sentence. In science we like to repeat experiments multiple times to get an idea of how reliable the result is. The LHC is set up to run the same experiment at a rate of about 600 million per second. Unfortunately this is not normally appropriate for economics or politics as it is impossible to control the various variables
To validate a result requires a minimum of 3 consecutive results as set by the FDA. Given that the system will respond to the changes made since the first vote the initial referendum would be seen as development work only. Not the closeness of a result in science is important as we add statistical analysis. No drug would be launched based on the last referendum thankfully
I agree with you that the 2% GDP target is a crude and proxy measure.
But, it broadly links a base level of military and security spending to a nation’s economic performance.
It should be ‘a’ measure but very far from the only measure.
% of GDP is useless. Turkey spend less than 2% GDP and, in absolute terms, about a fifth of the UK defence budget but they have an army of 300,000 and the same again in reserves. And those fuckers can fight...
My grandfather was an infantry private in Mesopotamia in 1917, and had a high opinion of Turkish soldiers, who fought hard but cleanly, respecting truces to collect wounded etc. After the Somme, he almost seemed to enjoy it, apart from catching malaria.
We once put into Izmir on Invincible's med cruise. Normally a port visit is an exchange of pleasantries and souvenirs but the Turkish Navy insisted on shooting competition. As I was the ship's qualified marksman I was dispatched to the shooting range for a 15m handgun competition. I was up against some snake eater from their Naval Infantry. He went first and had two of his comrades stand to attention right next to and at either side of the target while he blazed away at it with a SIG227!
The scene was best summarised by our ship's Chaplain who was in attendance to provide me with moral support. His benediction was simply, "Fucking hell."
The only reason to have a new referendum is if it is going to settle the matter decisively either way. As of right now, there is no reason to expect that: quite the reverse.
If the polls were to move either way decisively in the short term, I'd then change my mind.
But as things stand Britain is heading for a shit Brexit on shit terms that everyone will hate. And that is, unfortunately, the least bad outcome.
Things will get worse thereafter.
Certainly there is no good outcome to the Brexit fiasco, but the least damaging is a #peoplesvote to remain.
It may go the other way of course, but then we are no worse off than we are already.
A 52:48 vote for Remain would merely replace a majoritarian Leave dynamic for a majoritarian Remain dynamic. I don't see the slightest evidence that anyone campaigning for a fresh referendum has any interest in thinking about the concerns of those who voted Leave after they have the referendum victory that they have quite unjustifiably mentally banked.
I agree and there seems an unreality about what remain might mean that matches the unreality of what Leave meant. Cameron’s deal, such as it was, is off the table but what about the rebate, our various opt outs, Schengen etc. Would the EU even want such a recalcitrant and deeply divided member? The idea that all this unpleasantness would just go away as if it never happened is equally delusional.
I think the point that is made with the people’s vote is that for 2 years the government has had the opportunity to negotiate a departure that would swing remainers to the leave side. This has failed to happen. How long do they have before we need another vote?
The only reason to have a new referendum is if it is going to settle the matter decisively either way. As of right now, there is no reason to expect that: quite the reverse.
If the polls were to move either way decisively in the short term, I'd then change my mind.
But as things stand Britain is heading for a shit Brexit on shit terms that everyone will hate. And that is, unfortunately, the least bad outcome.
Things will get worse thereafter.
Certainly there is no good outcome to the Brexit fiasco, but the least damaging is a #peoplesvote to remain.
It may go the other way of course, but then we are no worse off than we are already.
A 52:48 vote for Remain would merely replace a majoritarian Leave dynamic for a majoritarian Remain dynamic. I don't see the slightest evidence that anyone campaigning for a fresh referendum has any interest in thinking about the concerns of those who voted Leave after they have the referendum victory that they have quite unjustifiably mentally banked.
A reversed outcome could lead to a properly negotiated settlement to remain in the EU but on reformed terms. Potentially a better outcome than ‘the deal’.
Because we are all so confident about how reasonable or even rational the EU would be in negotiations aren’t we?
I agree with you that the 2% GDP target is a crude and proxy measure.
But, it broadly links a base level of military and security spending to a nation’s economic performance.
It should be ‘a’ measure but very far from the only measure.
% of GDP is useless. Turkey spend less than 2% GDP and, in absolute terms, about a fifth of the UK defence budget but they have an army of 300,000 and the same again in reserves. And those fuckers can fight...
My grandfather was an infantry private in Mesopotamia in 1917, and had a high opinion of Turkish soldiers, who fought hard but cleanly, respecting truces to collect wounded etc. After the Somme, he almost seemed to enjoy it, apart from catching malaria.
We once put into Izmir on Invincible's med cruise. Normally a port visit is an exchange of pleasantries and souvenirs but the Turkish Navy insisted on shooting competition. As I was the ship's qualified marksman I was dispatched to the shooting range for a 15m handgun competition. I was up against some snake eater from their Naval Infantry. He went first and had two of his comrades stand to attention right next to and at either side of the target while he blazed away at it with a SIG227!
The scene was best summarised by our ship's Chaplain who was in attendance to provide me with moral support. His benediction was simply, "Fucking hell."
I remain of the view that the EU the better option but I’m yet to hear a wide-ranging, coherently presented argument for remaining in the EU, and an EU where the direction of travel is clear. An argument which works and convinces outside SW London.
It's such a broad issue that there'll never be a single argument that is able to meet that demand, but have you considered this one -
The UK (particularly England) is inherently London-centric, so London tends to predominate in national discourse. For people outside that world, their interests may be more aligned with people in other analogous regions of Europe. That goes for economic interests as well as cultural interests - many who voted for Brexit may have views on immigration closer to certain continental politicians than to any of the main UK parties, for example. If we took European integration more seriously, it would give a regional agenda for England much more coherence, and provide a credible counterbalance to the metropolitan interests of London.
The only reason to have a new referendum is if it is going to settle the matter decisively either way. As of right now, there is no reason to expect that: quite the reverse.
If the polls were to move either way decisively in the short term, I'd then change my mind.
But as things stand Britain is heading for a shit Brexit on shit terms that everyone will hate. And that is, unfortunately, the least bad outcome.
Things will get worse thereafter.
Certainly there is no good outcome to the Brexit fiasco, but the least damaging is a #peoplesvote to remain.
It may go the other way of course, but then we are no worse off than we are already.
A 52:48 vote for Remain would merely replace a majoritarian Leave dynamic for a majoritarian Remain dynamic. I don't see the slightest evidence that anyone campaigning for a fresh referendum has any interest in thinking about the concerns of those who voted Leave after they have the referendum victory that they have quite unjustifiably mentally banked.
I agree and there seems an unreality about what remain might mean that matches the unreality of what Leave meant. Cameron’s deal, such as it was, is off the table but what about the rebate, our various opt outs, Schengen etc. Would the EU even want such a recalcitrant and deeply divided member? The idea that all this unpleasantness would just go away as if it never happened is equally delusional.
The majoritarian Leave dynamic, however, that Leavers exult in and are uninterested in doing anything about is incredibly damaging all by itself. It's also really stupid, because until Leavers start to engage with the well-founded concerns that Remain supporters have identified, there is no way on earth that Brexit is going to be embedded as a consensus and every chance that it will be reversed in just such a majoritarian countercoup.
I agree with you that the 2% GDP target is a crude and proxy measure.
But, it broadly links a base level of military and security spending to a nation’s economic performance.
It should be ‘a’ measure but very far from the only measure.
% of GDP is useless. Turkey spend less than 2% GDP and, in absolute terms, about a fifth of the UK defence budget but they have an army of 300,000 and the same again in reserves. And those fuckers can fight...
My grandfather was an infantry private in Mesopotamia in 1917, and had a high opinion of Turkish soldiers, who fought hard but cleanly, respecting truces to collect wounded etc. After the Somme, he almost seemed to enjoy it, apart from catching malaria.
We once put into Izmir on Invincible's med cruise. Normally a port visit is an exchange of pleasantries and souvenirs but the Turkish Navy insisted on shooting competition. As I was the ship's qualified marksman I was dispatched to the shooting range for a 15m handgun competition. I was up against some snake eater from their Naval Infantry. He went first and had two of his comrades stand to attention right next to and at either side of the target while he blazed away at it with a SIG227!
The scene was best summarised by our ship's Chaplain who was in attendance to provide me with moral support. His benediction was simply, "Fucking hell."
The only reason to have a new referendum is if it is going to settle the matter decisively either way. As of right now, there is no reason to expect that: quite the reverse.
If the polls were to move either way decisively in the short term, I'd then change my mind.
But as things stand Britain is heading for a shit Brexit on shit terms that everyone will hate. And that is, unfortunately, the least bad outcome.
Things will get worse thereafter.
Certainly there is no good outcome to the Brexit fiasco, but the least damaging is a #peoplesvote to remain.
It may go the other way of course, but then we are no worse off than we are already.
A 52:48 vote for Remain would merely replace a majoritarian Leave dynamic for a majoritarian Remain dynamic. I don't see the slightest evidence that anyone campaigning for a fresh referendum has any interest in thinking about the concerns of those who voted Leave after they have the referendum victory that they have quite unjustifiably mentally banked.
A reversed outcome could lead to a properly negotiated settlement to remain in the EU but on reformed terms. Potentially a better outcome than ‘the deal’.
Because we are all so confident about how reasonable or even rational the EU would be in negotiations aren’t we?
I'd start with how confident we can be about how reasonable or even rational we would be in negotiations before putting the cart in front of Dobbin.
The only reason to have a new referendum is if it is going to settle the matter decisively either way. As of right now, there is no reason to expect that: quite the reverse.
If the polls were to move either way decisively in the short term, I'd then change my mind.
But as things stand Britain is heading for a shit Brexit on shit terms that everyone will hate. And that is, unfortunately, the least bad outcome.
Things will get worse thereafter.
Certainly there is no good outcome to the Brexit fiasco, but the least damaging is a #peoplesvote to remain.
It may go the other way of course, but then we are no worse off than we are already.
A 52:48 vote for Remain would merely replace a majoritarian Leave dynamic for a majoritarian Remain dynamic. I don't see the slightest evidence that anyone campaigning for a fresh referendum has any interest in thinking about the concerns of those who voted Leave after they have the referendum victory that they have quite unjustifiably mentally banked.
A reversed outcome could lead to a properly negotiated settlement to remain in the EU but on reformed terms. Potentially a better outcome than ‘the deal’.
Because we are all so confident about how reasonable or even rational the EU would be in negotiations aren’t we?
I'd start with how confident we can be about how reasonable or even rational we would be in negotiations before putting the cart in front of Dobbin.
The evidence would suggest that is indeed a valid consideration.
One of the interesting ‘what ifs’ of British history will be ‘If the 2016-2019 Brexit negotiations had been handled by a competent government, could Brexit have succeeded?’
Let’s say Osborne enters and wins the 2016 Tory leadership election.
To Adonis referendums are only “final and decisive” if he agrees with the result.
Fine, let’s stick with the 1975 referendum. Final and decisive.
2016 referendum: democracy means being able to change your mind! 1975 referendum: decisive for all time. Suck it up.
Well quite. The idea that somehow ultra Remainers present unique intellectual flexibility to the outcomes of referenda is absurd.
When the facts change, we can change our minds. We’ve learned so much in the past two years there is enough new information to justify another vote IMO.
I love the “we now know more facts” argument of the p***les v*te.
What they mean, of course, is that they think they’ve been proven right on the decision they took the first time and they fail to recognise the rich seam of confirmation bias running right through the middle of it.
There are other facts too, like economic disaster and recession haven’t occurred, that the EU have behaved vindictively, whilst continuing to move in a federalising direction, that we have sight of a independent migration, agricultural and fisheries policy, and neither they or the EU have learnt a single lesson from the vote the first time around.
The tin-earedness is quite something to behold.
There is a ton of new information on both sides of the argument. IMO that adds to the case for a second vote. We have learned much about our EU partners. It could go either way.
A second vote will achieve and resolve nothing.
The mandate of the first has to be implemented first.
I agree. We need to leave. But that is all the mandate was: to leave. We leave on 29th March 2019. And we can leave without doing any damage at all to our economy. So why not do that?
One of the interesting ‘what ifs’ of British history will be ‘If the 2016-2019 Brexit negotiations had been handled by a competent government, could Brexit have succeeded?’
Not really. The conduct of the referendum campaign was such that the post-referendum government was inevitably going to be incompetent.
The only reason to have a new referendum is if it is going to settle the matter decisively either way. As of right now, there is no reason to expect that: quite the reverse.
If the polls were to move either way decisively in the short term, I'd then change my mind.
But as things stand Britain is heading for a shit Brexit on shit terms that everyone will hate. And that is, unfortunately, the least bad outcome.
Things will get worse thereafter.
Certainly there is no good outcome to the Brexit fiasco, but the least damaging is a #peoplesvote to remain.
It may go the other way of course, but then we are no worse off than we are already.
A 52:48 vote for Remain would merely replace a majoritarian Leave dynamic for a majoritarian Remain dynamic. I don't see the slightest evidence that anyone campaigning for a fresh referendum has any interest in thinking about the concerns of those who voted Leave after they have the referendum victory that they have quite unjustifiably mentally banked.
A reversed outcome could lead to a properly negotiated settlement to remain in the EU but on reformed terms. Potentially a better outcome than ‘the deal’.
Why? Surely the EU would insist on same terms of membership as before ( or more likely less rebate). They would declare “victory” and plough on regardless with ever closer integration ( like Macron’s army to fight the USA to pick one example). The fact that tens of millions in their joint second biggest member would be somewhere between sullenly resigned and seething at boiling point, would matter to them not a jot.
We would be laying the grounds for “round three”, except people would know the ballot box is flawed, in that it can apparently only be used to generate results the likes of the FBPE ultras approve of. It’s a grim prospect.
The only reason to have a new referendum is if it is going to settle the matter decisively either way. As of right now, there is no reason to expect that: quite the reverse.
If the polls were to move either way decisively in the short term, I'd then change my mind.
But as things stand Britain is heading for a shit Brexit on shit terms that everyone will hate. And that is, unfortunately, the least bad outcome.
Things will get worse thereafter.
Certainly there is no good outcome to the Brexit fiasco, but the least damaging is a #peoplesvote to remain.
It may go the other way of course, but then we are no worse off than we are already.
A 52:48 vote for Remain would merely replace a majoritarian Leave dynamic for a majoritarian Remain dynamic. I don't see the slightest evidence that anyone campaigning for a fresh referendum has any interest in thinking about the concerns of those who voted Leave after they have the referendum victory that they have quite unjustifiably mentally banked.
I agree and there seems an unreality about what remain might mean that matches the unreality of what Leave meant. Cameron’s deal, such as it was, is off the table but what about the rebate, our various opt outs, Schengen etc. Would the EU even want such a recalcitrant and deeply divided member? The idea that all this unpleasantness would just go away as if it never happened is equally delusional.
The majoritarian Leave dynamic, however, that Leavers exult in and are uninterested in doing anything about is incredibly damaging all by itself. It's also really stupid, because until Leavers start to engage with the well-founded concerns that Remain supporters have identified, there is no way on earth that Brexit is going to be embedded as a consensus and every chance that it will be reversed in just such a majoritarian countercoup.
It’s a mess, no doubt about it. I am reminded of the scene in Blackadder IV where George says “I wanted to see how a war was fought so badly “ and B replies “Well you’re in luck, a war hasn’t been fought this badly since (something to do with Viking helmets and horns on the inside).
One of the interesting ‘what ifs’ of British history will be ‘If the 2016-2019 Brexit negotiations had been handled by a competent government, could Brexit have succeeded?’
You could also ask 'if the 2000-2016 EU negotiations had been handled by competent governments would the UK have left the EU ?'
One of the interesting ‘what ifs’ of British history will be ‘If the 2016-2019 Brexit negotiations had been handled by a competent government, could Brexit have succeeded?’
Not really. The conduct of the referendum campaign was such that the post-referendum government was inevitably going to be incompetent.
It was always going to be difficult with such an evenly divided country but there are still many layers of incompetence that we might have aspired to.
One of the interesting ‘what ifs’ of British history will be ‘If the 2016-2019 Brexit negotiations had been handled by a competent government, could Brexit have succeeded?’
You could also ask 'if the 2000-2016 EU negotiations had been handled by competent governments would the UK have left the EU ?'
If the UK government had actually applied all the restrictions on free movement available to it (even ignoring transition controls) rather than saying they could do nothing and blaming the EU would the UK have left the EU?
I think the point that is made with the people’s vote is that for 2 years the government has had the opportunity to negotiate a departure that would swing remainers to the leave side. This has failed to happen. How long do they have before we need another vote?
Remainers will never swing to the Leave side. You could give them decades. It's an article of faith, that Leavers Are All Just Plain Wrong.....
May has tried to placate the Remainers, by delivering a deal that is BINO. Have they shown any gratitude? Have they hell.....
To Adonis referendums are only “final and decisive” if he agrees with the result.
Fine, let’s stick with the 1975 referendum. Final and decisive.
2016 referendum: democracy means being able to change your mind! 1975 referendum: decisive for all time. Suck it up.
Well quite. The idea that somehow ultra Remainers present unique intellectual flexibility to the outcomes of referenda is absurd.
When the facts change, we can change our minds. We’ve learned so much in the past two years there is enough new information to justify another vote IMO.
I love the “we now know more facts” argument of the p***les v*te.
What they mean, of course, is that they think they’ve been proven right on the decision they took the first time and they fail to recognise the rich seam of confirmation bias running right through the middle of it.
There are other facts too, like economic disaster and recession haven’t occurred, that the EU have behaved vindictively, whilst continuing to move in a federalising direction, that we have sight of a independent migration, agricultural and fisheries policy, and neither they or the EU have learnt a single lesson from the vote the first time around.
The tin-earedness is quite something to behold.
There is a ton of new information on both sides of the argument. IMO that adds to the case for a second vote. We have learned much about our EU partners. It could go either way.
A second vote will achieve and resolve nothing.
The mandate of the first has to be implemented first.
I agree. We need to leave. But that is all the mandate was: to leave. We leave on 29th March 2019. And we can leave without doing any damage at all to our economy. So why not do that?
Unless May is keeping something very quiet, that is not a thing.
One of the interesting ‘what ifs’ of British history will be ‘If the 2016-2019 Brexit negotiations had been handled by a competent government, could Brexit have succeeded?’
Not really. The conduct of the referendum campaign was such that the post-referendum government was inevitably going to be incompetent.
With Osborne in no10. Gove in the FO. And David Davis and Boris Johnson running tills in Homebase, we would be in a much better place.
One of the interesting ‘what ifs’ of British history will be ‘If the 2016-2019 Brexit negotiations had been handled by a competent government, could Brexit have succeeded?’
You could also ask 'if the 2000-2016 EU negotiations had been handled by competent governments would the UK have left the EU ?'
If the UK government had actually applied all the restrictions on free movement available to it (even ignoring transition controls) rather than saying they could do nothing and blaming the EU would the UK have left the EU?
Any transitional arrangements with the A8 would long since have expired and similar numbers would have come. We might not have had such a blatant example of our government’s incompetence or indifference to most people’s concerns but the numbers would have been the same. We have a very flexible job market, a very generous largely non contributory benefits system and the universal language. We were always going to be the biggest draw.
One of the interesting ‘what ifs’ of British history will be ‘If the 2016-2019 Brexit negotiations had been handled by a competent government, could Brexit have succeeded?’
Not really. The conduct of the referendum campaign was such that the post-referendum government was inevitably going to be incompetent.
With Osborne in no10. Gove in the FO. And David Davis and Boris Johnson running tills in Homebase, we would be in a much better place.
I remain of the view that the EU the better option but I’m yet to hear a wide-ranging, coherently presented argument for remaining in the EU, and an EU where the direction of travel is clear. An argument which works and convinces outside SW London.
It's such a broad issue that there'll never be a single argument that is able to meet that demand, but have you considered this one -
The UK (particularly England) is inherently London-centric, so London tends to predominate in national discourse. For people outside that world, their interests may be more aligned with people in other analogous regions of Europe. That goes for economic interests as well as cultural interests - many who voted for Brexit may have views on immigration closer to certain continental politicians than to any of the main UK parties, for example. If we took European integration more seriously, it would give a regional agenda for England much more coherence, and provide a credible counterbalance to the metropolitan interests of London.
I suppose “Fuck London” fits on the side of a bus.
To Adonis referendums are only “final and decisive” if he agrees with the result.
Fine, let’s stick with the 1975 referendum. Final and decisive.
2016 referendum: democracy means being able to change your mind! 1975 referendum: decisive for all time. Suck it up.
The scale of the majority is material. In 1975 the result was decisive and there was no real popular demand to vote again for decades.
2016 was not clear cut and there is no consensus even on the winning side as to how to implement the result. In addition the demographics are not on Brexit's side so all in all popular demand for another vote is likely to come much sooner, within 5 years I suspect, sooner if we end up with no deal.
When even the Spectator is headlining that neither Brexit option is palatable I am starting to wonder if the game is up though I expect we might have to let people enjoy the No Deal experience first.
One of the interesting ‘what ifs’ of British history will be ‘If the 2016-2019 Brexit negotiations had been handled by a competent government, could Brexit have succeeded?’
You could also ask 'if the 2000-2016 EU negotiations had been handled by competent governments would the UK have left the EU ?'
If the UK government had actually applied all the restrictions on free movement available to it (even ignoring transition controls) rather than saying they could do nothing and blaming the EU would the UK have left the EU?
Any transitional arrangements with the A8 would long since have expired and similar numbers would have come. We might not have had such a blatant example of our government’s incompetence or indifference to most people’s concerns but the numbers would have been the same. We have a very flexible job market, a very generous largely non contributory benefits system and the universal language. We were always going to be the biggest draw.
But we still don't apply the restrictions that are available. How many EU nationals have we deported after they failed to find a job after 3 months? How many have we deported for being a burden on the benefits system?
One of the interesting ‘what ifs’ of British history will be ‘If the 2016-2019 Brexit negotiations had been handled by a competent government, could Brexit have succeeded?’
You could also ask 'if the 2000-2016 EU negotiations had been handled by competent governments would the UK have left the EU ?'
If the UK government had actually applied all the restrictions on free movement available to it (even ignoring transition controls) rather than saying they could do nothing and blaming the EU would the UK have left the EU?
Any transitional arrangements with the A8 would long since have expired and similar numbers would have come. We might not have had such a blatant example of our government’s incompetence or indifference to most people’s concerns but the numbers would have been the same. We have a very flexible job market, a very generous largely non contributory benefits system and the universal language. We were always going to be the biggest draw.
Immigration from Eastern Europe has now fallen since the Leave vote anyway and many have returned home so it is less of an issue now
Thanks to Robert for the video. The comparison of vote totals in the Midwest is very promising for the Democrats. The voters there are open to persuasion. Can the Democrats find the candidate and the message to persuade them in 2020?
It doesn't look great for Trump, then again I can't imagine it looked good for Reagen in 82.
Former VP Mondale led Reagan in 1982 polls much as former VP Biden leads Trump now
Comments
Fans of sovereignty should realise that you get a hell of a lot more political and democratic control of EUMS activities than you do with NATO.
Worked for Derbyshire...
Former Congress man in Florida had his absentee ballot rejected for failing signature match.
This two are going all the way to the courts.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1061168803218948096
To Adonis referendums are only “final and decisive” if he agrees with the result.
1975 referendum: decisive for all time. Suck it up.
F1: qualifying starts at 5pm. Hopefully have the pre-qualifying ramble up shortly before then. Looks tight between Verstappen, Vettel, and Hamilton.
PS: I do realise you were trying to be witty
It’s not surprising the US dominates when it provides 75% of the budget, but actions in the NAC have to be agreed by unanimity and each nation retains full responsibility for its own decisions.
When the facts change, we can change our minds. We’ve learned so much in the past two years there is enough new information to justify another vote IMO.
Why do people keep (Sorry @ThomasNashe) giving Norway as some sort of available soft panacea Brexit option. It is not !
Corbyn of course basically agrees with May's plan for the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period and a Customs Union for the whole UK but will oppose it out of political advantage to try and get a general election
No-one has sold the benefits of the Norway option since the referendum and it's now rubbished by both sides as vassalage.
Not that I disagree about the second referendum. I just don't see any way out of this situation. No good way that is.
However, we voted to leave, and rapidly a myth has built that, 'oh, it was all about the lies Leave told,' or, 'oh, it was only about immigration,' or, 'oh, it's becuase people wanted to kick Cameron,' or 'if only Corbyn had been a better campaigner' (now there's a claim that's extremely ironic with hindsight).
The reality is, for all the hype, Remain won the campaign. They switched plenty of waverers over with their warnings of economic chaos. But that wasn't enough to make up for forty years of lies, incompetence, bureaucracy, unlawful trade embargoes, daft rulings from the CJEU that we were stupid enough not to ignore, and politicians blaming Europe for everything that was unpopular but that they wanted to do. Osborne seems to have understood that, but you have to wonder from their behaviour how many Europhiles do understand the depth of loathing for the likes of Juncker, Chretien, Delors, Prodi and Barroso.
At the moment, the polls are effectively showing that things are unchanged since the referendum. Heck, Survation shows the exact same margin it showed before the vote. So what would be the point of re-running it? Median scenario is Remain wins very narrowly and we get a Dolschstoss theory the other way. Worst case scenario, Leave wins by the same margin and we're no better off than before having seriously pissed off half the electorate.
Arguably the best case scenario at least politically is that Leave wins by a huge margin and we leave with no deal, but that would lead to economic collapse here and on the continent. (And no, there is no way any referendum could be held without No Deal as an option outwith the fantasies of not over-bright fanatics like Adonis. Otherwise the risk is of a legal challenge which given the timings would almost certainly achieve the same effect as no deal anyway.)
So why do people want one? Because they can't accept the result of the first. But running the same experiment twice in the expectation of a different result is folly.
But I do have to go out. Have a good morning.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/constructionindustry/bulletins/constructionoutputingreatbritain/september2018
with the data on the spreadsheet here:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/constructionindustry/datasets/outputintheconstructionindustry
The level of new housing is on Table 1a on the third page of the spreadsheet.
What they mean, of course, is that they think they’ve been proven right on the decision they took the first time and they fail to recognise the rich seam of confirmation bias running right through the middle of it.
There are other facts too, like economic disaster and recession haven’t occurred, that the EU have behaved vindictively, whilst continuing to move in a federalising direction, that we have sight of a independent migration, agricultural and fisheries policy, and neither they or the EU have learnt a single lesson from the vote the first time around.
The tin-earedness is quite something to behold.
But, it broadly links a base level of military and security spending to a nation’s economic performance.
It should be ‘a’ measure but very far from the only measure.
Macron agrees.
Trump and his apologists have a tantrum.
Where is the surprise?
If the polls were to move either way decisively in the short term, I'd then change my mind.
But as things stand Britain is heading for a shit Brexit on shit terms that everyone will hate. And that is, unfortunately, the least bad outcome.
Things will get worse thereafter.
The mandate of the first has to be implemented first.
It may go the other way of course, but then we are no worse off than we are already.
I agree that the UK wastes a lot on procurement and management- a shocking amount - but we are two very different countries.
Unfortunately this is not normally appropriate for economics or politics as it is impossible to control the various variables
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1061171030801158146
The scene was best summarised by our ship's Chaplain who was in attendance to provide me with moral support. His benediction was simply, "Fucking hell."
Because we are all so confident about how reasonable or even rational the EU would be in negotiations aren’t we?
The UK (particularly England) is inherently London-centric, so London tends to predominate in national discourse. For people outside that world, their interests may be more aligned with people in other analogous regions of Europe. That goes for economic interests as well as cultural interests - many who voted for Brexit may have views on immigration closer to certain continental politicians than to any of the main UK parties, for example. If we took European integration more seriously, it would give a regional agenda for England much more coherence, and provide a credible counterbalance to the metropolitan interests of London.
Let’s say Osborne enters and wins the 2016 Tory leadership election.
We would be laying the grounds for “round three”, except people would know the ballot box is flawed, in that it can apparently only be used to generate results the likes of the FBPE ultras approve of. It’s a grim prospect.
May has tried to placate the Remainers, by delivering a deal that is BINO. Have they shown any gratitude? Have they hell.....
The Allies "celebrated" their win by grinding Germany into the dust with the Treaty of Versailles.....
2016 was not clear cut and there is no consensus even on the winning side as to how to implement the result. In addition the demographics are not on Brexit's side so all in all popular demand for another vote is likely to come much sooner, within 5 years I suspect, sooner if we end up with no deal.
When even the Spectator is headlining that neither Brexit option is palatable I am starting to wonder if the game is up though I expect we might have to let people enjoy the No Deal experience first.
NEW THREAD