We got ourselves into this mess. The more Br'er Rabbit demanded civility from the tar baby the more he got stuck. Did Br'er Fox eat Br'er Rabbit? That question is not answered in the Uncle Remus tale.
Yes it is. "born and bred in a briar bush, br'er fox, born and bred in a briar bush."
That's one softer version, nice but not the original I believe.
It was in my book of stories as a kid. Having caught Br'er rabbit finally fox wants to do something truly horrible to him. He thinks up many bloodthirsty ideas all of which Br'er rabbit says yes to but please don't throw him in that briar bush. Fox does of course. He was about as smart as Liam.
Maybe we were born and bred to be part of the EU (knocked into shape?).
Just love the way they had to slip 'humiliating' into that URL.
I may be reading too much into some recent EU statements but I get the impression that they are doing what they can to keep Britain within the EU, and that they are doing so because they genuinely want us to remain.
And not just to set an example etc or for our money but because, at some level, they realise that both the EU and Britain are, for all the difficulties in the relationship, weaker without each other.
Maybe it’s the romantic in me. I do wish we could get some fresh thinking about the relationship.
We wouldn't even get old thinking. If we remained now we wouldn't even get Cameron's meager breadcrumbs.
I will eat my hat if Vote Leave managed to spend an illegal extra £9m on Facebook ads. Even if they did, AFAIC an extra £9m would be evening out the playing field after the £9m government endorsed remain bung.
It was not the monetary figure I was querying.
How many targeted Facebook ads were seen?
The question of cost is the second point. The targeted ads were effective, the blanket mailshot was not.
Spending £9m on longbows and £1m on machine guns does not give the archers an unfair advantage in a war.
It's funny, I was thinking the opposite was probably true.
All the evidence suggests that targeted facebook posts are actually very ineffective and that mass communication is far more powerful. Famously P&G cut $200m in digital ad spend in 2017 in favour of traditional media and its reach actually went up. (Source)
A single mail shot that everyone in the land receives, that becomes part of the public consciousness (and water cooler debate), that is endorsed with a government seal, should, in theory be far more powerful than a down and dirty digital ad from god-knows-who that most people go out of their way to block or ignore (ad blocking rose 40% in the last year alone, which should tell you in what regard people hold such ads).
> What is its plan to address the concerns of Leavers?
This may sound petty but symbolic things like blue passports don't cost much. Remain-inclined people think it's silly but don't really care either way. See how many traditional colours and shapes and emblems and things you can restore. Tourists love that stuff too. Make Britain Twee Again.
So Leavers would give Remainers continued economic access to the EU under May's deal, while Remainers would give Leavers... traditional colours.
And it's Leavers that aren't bringing the country together. Unbelievable.
What do you suggest? The context of this hypothetical question is that Remain won the re-referendum and the UK is staying in the EU.
This is hard because the government has been trying to split that difference for years already, so most of the low-hanging fruit like immigration rules to stop people's foreign spouses coming in unless the British person is rich have already been implemented.
The sensible thing to do would be to just accept the deal as it stands - without faffing about with an ‘endorsement from the people of NI’ - I mean, WTF is this?
Progress is built on compromise, and this is a compromise. People should get over it.
If not, then EEA+CU is a decent fallback. A second referendum would usher in yet another racist xenophobic divisive nightmare.
The backstop could be ended by a unification vote with the republic
Isn't the problem with that logic the fact that the republic can't afford to take on Northern Ireland given how much the UK subsidises it.
There was a very good article in the FT t'other day explaining how unification could and would work:
Just a word of warning, Isnt that the judge of Fox News the one that is regularly spouts absolute unsubstantiated BS, so much so even Fox News have had to say woo hold on buddy.
We got ourselves into this mess. The more Br'er Rabbit demanded civility from the tar baby the more he got stuck. Did Br'er Fox eat Br'er Rabbit? That question is not answered in the Uncle Remus tale.
Yes it is. "born and bred in a briar bush, br'er fox, born and bred in a briar bush."
That's one softer version, nice but not the original I believe.
It was in my book of stories as a kid. Having caught Br'er rabbit finally fox wants to do something truly horrible to him. He thinks up many bloodthirsty ideas all of which Br'er rabbit says yes to but please don't throw him in that briar bush. Fox does of course. He was about as smart as Liam.
Maybe we were born and bred to be part of the EU (knocked into shape?).
Or just maybe no deal is not going to be nearly as scary as we think.
Interesting that Desmond Swayne said today that “the game’s up” and there’s now a majority in the House of Commons for Remain.
There has always been a majority in the House of Commons for remain.
The issue is that they represent a country that voted to leave, and were supposedly implementing that decision.
You know, if they’d had the guts to come out and block Article 50 2 years ago, it would have been an outrage, but at least we would have avoided 2 years of uncertainty and the grinding to a halt of the domestic political agenda.
If they conspire to remain now, they have not just wasted everyone’s time, but they’ve played the country, the electorate, and the economy. It is dispicable. And I say that, again, as someone who voted remain.
If we don't Leave then we'll get a Corbyn government.
The type of Leave probably doesn't matter.
A Corbyn government while still in the EU would be better than one outside the EU.
I do not think the instincts of either Corbyn or McDonnell or their advisors are fundamentally democratic or liberal.
They would be tempered by moderate Labour MPs.
Yeah - like those moderates have tempered them until now. They won’t. Marxists and Communists are not to be trusted with power.
I don't know. Some of the predictions, e.g. of mass deselections, have been wide of the mark. I am not a Labour member; I might vote for them, I might not. But I liked their last manifesto and I'd certainly prefer to give them a shot than endure 5 more years of this moribund government.
I pay less attention to the manifesto than to the character of those likely to be in government. The character - moral character / judgment / the default instincts - of Corbyn, McDonnell, Milne and others are deeply flawed and dangerous and I do not trust them with power. They have damaged Labour. I don’t want them to damage the country.
And the so-called moderates couldn’t take the skin off a rice pudding so they will put up with anything for the faintest whiff of power.
Well, fair enough, I respect your view even though I disagree.
I just can't see them doing more damage to the country than the Tories have done since 2015.
So some charitable soul must have said of Chavez. Or Tsipras.
If we don't Leave then we'll get a Corbyn government.
The type of Leave probably doesn't matter.
A Corbyn government while still in the EU would be better than one outside the EU.
I do not think the instincts of either Corbyn or McDonnell or their advisors are fundamentally democratic or liberal.
They would be tempered by moderate Labour MPs.
Yeah - like those moderates have tempered them until now. They won’t. Marxists and Communists are not to be trusted with power.
I don't know. Some of the predictions, e.g. of mass deselections, have been wide of the mark. I am not a Labour member; I might vote for them, I might not. But I liked their last manifesto and I'd certainly prefer to give them a shot than endure 5 more years of this moribund government.
I pay less attention to the manifesto than to the character of those likely to be in government. The character - moral character / judgment / the default instincts - of Corbyn, McDonnell, Milne and others are deeply flawed and dangerous and I do not trust them with power. They have damaged Labour. I don’t want them to damage the country.
And the so-called moderates couldn’t take the skin off a rice pudding so they will put up with anything for the faintest whiff of power.
Well, fair enough, I respect your view even though I disagree.
I just can't see them doing more damage to the country than the Tories have done since 2015.
I think they will. I could be wrong but I very much don’t want to risk it.
The damage Militant and their types did in the 1970’s and 80’s is not something I want to live through again.
Agree that the Tories do not deserve re-election. Both parties badly need a clear out of their leadership and senior ranks and some new blood.
The sensible thing to do would be to just accept the deal as it stands - without faffing about with an ‘endorsement from the people of NI’ - I mean, WTF is this?
Progress is built on compromise, and this is a compromise. People should get over it.
If not, then EEA+CU is a decent fallback. A second referendum would usher in yet another racist xenophobic divisive nightmare.
The backstop could be ended by a unification vote with the republic
Isn't the problem with that logic the fact that the republic can't afford to take on Northern Ireland given how much the UK subsidises it.
There was a very good article in the FT t'other day explaining how unification could and would work:
Chakrabarti, having entered frontline politics, seems to have revealed herself to not only to be utterly, utterly partisan, but also not as talented as many people thought she was.
If we don't Leave then we'll get a Corbyn government.
The type of Leave probably doesn't matter.
A Corbyn government while still in the EU would be better than one outside the EU.
I do not think the instincts of either Corbyn or McDonnell or their advisors are fundamentally democratic or liberal.
They would be tempered by moderate Labour MPs.
Yeah - like those moderates have tempered them until now. They won’t. Marxists and Communists are not to be trusted with power.
I don't know. Some of the predictions, e.g. of mass deselections, have been wide of the mark. I am not a Labour member; I might vote for them, I might not. But I liked their last manifesto and I'd certainly prefer to give them a shot than endure 5 more years of this moribund government.
I pay less attention to the manifesto than to the character of those likely to be in government. The character - moral character / judgment / the default instincts - of Corbyn, McDonnell, Milne and others are deeply flawed and dangerous and I do not trust them with power. They have damaged Labour. I don’t want them to damage the country.
And the so-called moderates couldn’t take the skin off a rice pudding so they will put up with anything for the faintest whiff of power.
Well, fair enough, I respect your view even though I disagree.
I just can't see them doing more damage to the country than the Tories have done since 2015.
Nor can I see them being as radical as Clem Attlee. He nationalised coal, gas, electricity, steel, rail and healthcare in five years even though the country was bankrupt (phew.) They probably won't get a majority of 10, let alone 100.
The sensible thing to do would be to just accept the deal as it stands - without faffing about with an ‘endorsement from the people of NI’ - I mean, WTF is this?
Progress is built on compromise, and this is a compromise. People should get over it.
If not, then EEA+CU is a decent fallback. A second referendum would usher in yet another racist xenophobic divisive nightmare.
The backstop could be ended by a unification vote with the republic
Isn't the problem with that logic the fact that the republic can't afford to take on Northern Ireland given how much the UK subsidises it.
There was a very good article in the FT t'other day explaining how unification could and would work:
Chakrabarti, having entered frontline politics, seems to have revealed herself to not only to be utterly, utterly partisan, but also not as talented as many people thought she was.
> What is its plan to address the concerns of Leavers?
This may sound petty but symbolic things like blue passports don't cost much. Remain-inclined people think it's silly but don't really care either way. See how many traditional colours and shapes and emblems and things you can restore. Tourists love that stuff too. Make Britain Twee Again.
So Leavers would give Remainers continued economic access to the EU under May's deal, while Remainers would give Leavers... traditional colours.
And it's Leavers that aren't bringing the country together. Unbelievable.
What do you suggest? The context of this hypothetical question is that Remain won the re-referendum and the UK is staying in the EU.
This is hard because the government has been trying to split that difference for years already, so most of the low-hanging fruit like immigration rules to stop people's foreign spouses coming in unless the British person is rich have already been implemented.
If the political elite refused to implement the original referendum, blocked a deal that was on the table and then economically blackmailed their way into overruling the first vote, there would have to be something major. The first reason for Leave was having our own laws, which would simply not be workable in the EU. You would then have to give something major on the second, immigration. Getting a UK opt out would be critical there. Or, at minimum, a multi decade freeze. Anything less would plunge this country into a level of societal division and political crisis we have never seen before.
Chakrabarti, having entered frontline politics, seems to have revealed herself to not only to be utterly, utterly partisan, but also not as talented as many people thought she was.
If we don't Leave then we'll get a Corbyn government.
The type of Leave probably doesn't matter.
A Corbyn government while still in the EU would be better than one outside the EU.
I do not think the instincts of either Corbyn or McDonnell or their advisors are fundamentally democratic or liberal.
They would be tempered by moderate Labour MPs.
Yeah - like those moderates have tempered them until now. They won’t. Marxists and Communists are not to be trusted with power.
I don't know. Some of the predictions, e.g. of mass deselections, have been wide of the mark. I am not a Labour member; I might vote for them, I might not. But I liked their last manifesto and I'd certainly prefer to give them a shot than endure 5 more years of this moribund government.
I pay less attention to the manifesto than to the character of those likely to be in government. The character - moral character / judgment / the default instincts - of Corbyn, McDonnell, Milne and others are deeply flawed and dangerous and I do not trust them with power. They have damaged Labour. I don’t want them to damage the country.
And the so-called moderates couldn’t take the skin off a rice pudding so they will put up with anything for the faintest whiff of power.
Well, fair enough, I respect your view even though I disagree.
I just can't see them doing more damage to the country than the Tories have done since 2015.
Nor can I see them being as radical as Clem Attlee. He nationalised coal, gas, electricity, steel, rail and healthcare in five years even though the country was bankrupt (phew.) They probably won't get a majority of 10, let alone 100.
Using money the Americans gave us. We could not have afforded that from our own resources - indeed, it had a severe effect on our long term current account spending when the aid dried up. Do you think Trump will be so obliging as Truman and Marshal were?
It's funny, I was thinking the opposite was probably true.
All the evidence suggests that targeted facebook posts are actually very ineffective and that mass communication is far more powerful. Famously P&G cut $200m in digital ad spend in 2017 in favour of traditional media and its reach actually went up. (Source)
A single mail shot that everyone in the land receives, that becomes part of the public consciousness (and water cooler debate), that is endorsed with a government seal, should, in theory be far more powerful than a down and dirty digital ad from god-knows-who that most people go out of their way to block or ignore (ad blocking rose 40% in the last year alone, which should tell you in what regard people hold such ads).
Perhaps this debate will rage as long as Brexit...
We got ourselves into this mess. The more Br'er Rabbit demanded civility from the tar baby the more he got stuck. Did Br'er Fox eat Br'er Rabbit? That question is not answered in the Uncle Remus tale.
Yes it is. "born and bred in a briar bush, br'er fox, born and bred in a briar bush."
That's one softer version, nice but not the original I believe.
It was in my book of stories as a kid. Having caught Br'er rabbit finally fox wants to do something truly horrible to him. He thinks up many bloodthirsty ideas all of which Br'er rabbit says yes to but please don't throw him in that briar bush. Fox does of course. He was about as smart as Liam.
Maybe we were born and bred to be part of the EU (knocked into shape?).
Or just maybe no deal is not going to be nearly as scary as we think.
Being pedantic, by definition it's as scary as it feels. Maybe it won't be as bad as we think. (It will though.)
We got ourselves into this mess. The more Br'er Rabbit demanded civility from the tar baby the more he got stuck. Did Br'er Fox eat Br'er Rabbit? That question is not answered in the Uncle Remus tale.
Yes it is. "born and bred in a briar bush, br'er fox, born and bred in a briar bush."
That's one softer version, nice but not the original I believe.
It was in my book of stories as a kid. Having caught Br'er rabbit finally fox wants to do something truly horrible to him. He thinks up many bloodthirsty ideas all of which Br'er rabbit says yes to but please don't throw him in that briar bush. Fox does of course. He was about as smart as Liam.
Maybe we were born and bred to be part of the EU (knocked into shape?).
Or just maybe no deal is not going to be nearly as scary as we think.
From a business and investment perspective, it is clearly the worst of all worlds. No visibility means no UK investment. Can cope and factor / price in a good or even a bad deal. Not no deal. It is amazingly stupid and reckless to even countenance it - and saloon bar talk now masquerading as a plan.
Just love the way they had to slip 'humiliating' into that URL.
I may be reading too much into some recent EU statements but I get the impression that they are doing what they can to keep Britain within the EU, and that they are doing so because they genuinely want us to remain.
And not just to set an example etc or for our money but because, at some level, they realise that both the EU and Britain are, for all the difficulties in the relationship, weaker without each other.
Maybe it’s the romantic in me. I do wish we could get some fresh thinking about the relationship.
The Eurozone needs to integrate in otder for it to be a long term success. There are all manner of obstacles to that process, not least for Germany. However, unless we're prepared to adopt the Euro, there's no place for us in the EU as currently constituted. We are the largest net contributor outside the EZ. Other than Denmark, we're the only country with an opt-out from joining. That's a strategic cul-de-sac. All we can do is add complexity and difficulty to the process of EZ countryification ( hey! I made a word!).
I like Europe very much, or rather the countries within it. I hope we'll remain on friendly terms, though given the current situation, that looks unlikely. There will be some element of froideur for a decade or so.
Labour have been sensible, organised and effective in the commons. If they can form a government along similar lines they will do well.
Government is a whole different challenge of course, particularly if they take over soon, rather than after Brexit day. But despite disagreements in previous months on the issue they have been very disciplined and focus on Brexit, even with a vague policy. And really most of the MPs don't seem to have that much problem with Corbyn on domestic issues.
So really they could not be that much worse than the present government.
Play nice everyone. I pray for a Christmas Brexit deal so we don't have to bloody vote again on any question.
The Democratic nominee will be Beto, Harris or Warren.
Classic PB tick: The more certain you are, the less you know.
Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada. The only state that fits Klobuchar is the first, and that's a caucus one where the exciting candidate wins.
Chakrabarti, having entered frontline politics, seems to have revealed herself to not only to be utterly, utterly partisan, but also not as talented as many people thought she was.
Some of us have known for years that she is (a) really quite thick; (b) arrogant; (c) utterly lacking in integrity; and (d) nowhere near as nice as she likes to pretend.
If the political elite refused to implement the original referendum, blocked a deal that was on the table and then economically blackmailed their way into overruling the first vote,
Read the Spectator piece posted earlier. There is no political elite determined to thwart Brexit
Is it worth pointing out that Britain does not have a ‘powerful elite’? I know everyone wants to pretend it does, and no one ever admits to being a member of it, but you need only ask what a ruling class worthy of the name would do about Brexit, to see it does not exist. A true elite would not take the risk of a second referendum. It would stop Brexit, now, and take the political consequences on the chin. (‘You always want to play the victim and feel put upon,’ it might say to leave supporters. ‘So let’s give you something to really moan about’.)
It would use the advice of the EU’s advocate general that Britain can even now retain its rebate and exemptions from the Schengen agreement and euro, and stay in the EU as if nothing had happened. It would argue that Brexit, in whatever form it transpires, is a clear and present danger to the British economy, and our alliances, national security and standing in the world. There is more than enough evidence that the referendum was illegitimate, it would continue. If the Brexit referendum had been a Parliamentary election, the courts would have intervened long ago.
We got ourselves into this mess. The more Br'er Rabbit demanded civility from the tar baby the more he got stuck. Did Br'er Fox eat Br'er Rabbit? That question is not answered in the Uncle Remus tale.
Yes it is. "born and bred in a briar bush, br'er fox, born and bred in a briar bush."
That's one softer version, nice but not the original I believe.
It was in my book of stories as a kid. Having caught Br'er rabbit finally fox wants to do something truly horrible to him. He thinks up many bloodthirsty ideas all of which Br'er rabbit says yes to but please don't throw him in that briar bush. Fox does of course. He was about as smart as Liam.
Maybe we were born and bred to be part of the EU (knocked into shape?).
Or just maybe no deal is not going to be nearly as scary as we think.
Being pedantic, by definition it's as scary as it feels. Maybe it won't be as bad as we think. (It will though.)
Chakrabarti, having entered frontline politics, seems to have revealed herself to not only to be utterly, utterly partisan, but also not as talented as many people thought she was.
Some of us have known for years that she is (a) really quite thick; (b) arrogant; (c) utterly lacking in integrity; and (d) nowhere near as nice as she likes to pretend.
Sounds like you are quite the fan! What strikes me is she really does not seem to play the political game well, she even got Andrew Marr's back up and she's had many instances of very poor presentation, but still acts like she is a (relative) outsider, rather than in it up to her neck as one of the biggest partisan figures around, she cannot get away with the sort of thing she might have in the past.
It's funny, I was thinking the opposite was probably true.
All the evidence suggests that targeted facebook posts are actually very ineffective and that mass communication is far more powerful. Famously P&G cut $200m in digital ad spend in 2017 in favour of traditional media and its reach actually went up. (Source)
A single mail shot that everyone in the land receives, that becomes part of the public consciousness (and water cooler debate), that is endorsed with a government seal, should, in theory be far more powerful than a down and dirty digital ad from god-knows-who that most people go out of their way to block or ignore (ad blocking rose 40% in the last year alone, which should tell you in what regard people hold such ads).
Perhaps this debate will rage as long as Brexit...
We need to move on tbh.
Leave cheated.
So did Maradona in 1986 but England are never going to get through to the semi-final of that tournament.
If the political elite refused to implement the original referendum, blocked a deal that was on the table and then economically blackmailed their way into overruling the first vote,
Read the Spectator piece posted earlier. Their is no political elite determined to thwart Brexit
Is it worth pointing out that Britain does not have a ‘powerful elite’? I know everyone wants to pretend it does, and no one ever admits to being a member of it, but you need only ask what a ruling class worthy of the name would do about Brexit, to see it does not exist. A true elite would not take the risk of a second referendum. It would stop Brexit, now, and take the political consequences on the chin. (‘You always want to play the victim and feel put upon,’ it might say to leave supporters. ‘So let’s give you something to really moan about’.)
It would use the advice of the EU’s advocate general that Britain can even now retain its rebate and exemptions from the Schengen agreement and euro, and stay in the EU as if nothing had happened. It would argue that Brexit, in whatever form it transpires, is a clear and present danger to the British economy, and our alliances, national security and standing in the world. There is more than enough evidence that the referendum was illegitimate, it would continue. If the Brexit referendum had been a Parliamentary election, the courts would have intervened long ago.
A silly contrarian piece. How is Parliament not a political elite?
> What is its plan to address the concerns of Leavers?
This may sound petty but symbolic things like blue passports don't cost much. Remain-inclined people think it's silly but don't really care either way. See how many traditional colours and shapes and emblems and things you can restore. Tourists love that stuff too. Make Britain Twee Again.
So Leavers would give Remainers continued economic access to the EU under May's deal, while Remainers would give Leavers... traditional colours.
And it's Leavers that aren't bringing the country together. Unbelievable.
What do you suggest? The context of this hypothetical question is that Remain won the re-referendum and the UK is staying in the EU.
This is hard because the government has been trying to split that difference for years already, so most of the low-hanging fruit like immigration rules to stop people's foreign spouses coming in unless the British person is rich have already been implemented.
We got ourselves into this mess. The more Br'er Rabbit demanded civility from the tar baby the more he got stuck. Did Br'er Fox eat Br'er Rabbit? That question is not answered in the Uncle Remus tale.
Yes it is. "born and bred in a briar bush, br'er fox, born and bred in a briar bush."
That's one softer version, nice but not the original I believe.
It was in my book of stories as a kid. Having caught Br'er rabbit finally fox wants to do something truly horrible to him. He thinks up many bloodthirsty ideas all of which Br'er rabbit says yes to but please don't throw him in that briar bush. Fox does of course. He was about as smart as Liam.
Maybe we were born and bred to be part of the EU (knocked into shape?).
Or just maybe no deal is not going to be nearly as scary as we think.
From a business and investment perspective, it is clearly the worst of all worlds. No visibility means no UK investment. Can cope and factor / price in a good or even a bad deal. Not no deal. It is amazingly stupid and reckless to even countenance it - and saloon bar talk now masquerading as a plan.
How does being in negotiations with the EU for the next 10 years mean there is visibility? If business wants certainty then no deal will give them that certainty, 10 years of negotiation will not.
If the political elite refused to implement the original referendum, blocked a deal that was on the table and then economically blackmailed their way into overruling the first vote,
Read the Spectator piece posted earlier. Their is no political elite determined to thwart Brexit
Is it worth pointing out that Britain does not have a ‘powerful elite’? I know everyone wants to pretend it does, and no one ever admits to being a member of it, but you need only ask what a ruling class worthy of the name would do about Brexit, to see it does not exist. A true elite would not take the risk of a second referendum. It would stop Brexit, now, and take the political consequences on the chin. (‘You always want to play the victim and feel put upon,’ it might say to leave supporters. ‘So let’s give you something to really moan about’.)
It would use the advice of the EU’s advocate general that Britain can even now retain its rebate and exemptions from the Schengen agreement and euro, and stay in the EU as if nothing had happened. It would argue that Brexit, in whatever form it transpires, is a clear and present danger to the British economy, and our alliances, national security and standing in the world. There is more than enough evidence that the referendum was illegitimate, it would continue. If the Brexit referendum had been a Parliamentary election, the courts would have intervened long ago.
A silly contrarian piece. How is Parliament not a political elite?
It is ironic that if Alastair is correct and Remain do win and try to bring in some sort of immigration controls we will end up with the one bit of Leaving that some Leavers like myself didn't want.
If we don't Leave then we'll get a Corbyn government.
The type of Leave probably doesn't matter.
A Corbyn government while still in the EU would be better than one outside the EU.
I do not think the instincts of either Corbyn or McDonnell or their advisors are fundamentally democratic or liberal.
They would be tempered by moderate Labour MPs.
Yeah - like those moderates have tempered them until now. They won’t. Marxists and Communists are not to be trusted with power.
I don't know. Some of the predictions, e.g. of mass deselections, have been wide of the mark. I am not a Labour member; I might vote for them, I might not. But I liked their last manifesto and I'd certainly prefer to give them a shot than endure 5 more years of this moribund government.
I pay less attention to the manifesto than to the character of those likely to be in government. The character - moral character / judgment / the default instincts - of Corbyn, McDonnell, Milne and others are deeply flawed and dangerous and I do not trust them with power. They have damaged Labour. I don’t want them to damage the country.
And the so-called moderates couldn’t take the skin off a rice pudding so they will put up with anything for the faintest whiff of power.
Well, fair enough, I respect your view even though I disagree.
I just can't see them doing more damage to the country than the Tories have done since 2015.
Nor can I see them being as radical as Clem Attlee. He nationalised coal, gas, electricity, steel, rail and healthcare in five years even though the country was bankrupt (phew.) They probably won't get a majority of 10, let alone 100.
Although the electorate didn't thank him for it at the time and voted Labour out again at the first opportunity.
It is ironic that if Alastair is correct and Remain do win and try to bring in some sort of immigration controls we will end up with the one bit of Leaving that some Leavers like myself didn't want.
We got ourselves into this mess. The more Br'er Rabbit demanded civility from the tar baby the more he got stuck. Did Br'er Fox eat Br'er Rabbit? That question is not answered in the Uncle Remus tale.
Yes it is. "born and bred in a briar bush, br'er fox, born and bred in a briar bush."
That's one softer version, nice but not the original I believe.
It was in my book of stories as a kid. Having caught Br'er rabbit finally fox wants to do something truly horrible to him. He thinks up many bloodthirsty ideas all of which Br'er rabbit says yes to but please don't throw him in that briar bush. Fox does of course. He was about as smart as Liam.
Maybe we were born and bred to be part of the EU (knocked into shape?).
Or just maybe no deal is not going to be nearly as scary as we think.
From a business and investment perspective, it is clearly the worst of all worlds. No visibility means no UK investment. Can cope and factor / price in a good or even a bad deal. Not no deal. It is amazingly stupid and reckless to even countenance it - and saloon bar talk now masquerading as a plan.
How does being in negotiations with the EU for the next 10 years mean there is visibility? If business wants certainty then no deal will give them that certainty, 10 years of negotiation will not.
That's why a referendum is needed if Parliament simply can't get its act together in next few weeks (with an A50 Extension if necessary to achieve it).
Labour have been sensible, organised and effective in the commons. If they can form a government along similar lines they will do well.
Government is a whole different challenge of course, particularly if they take over soon, rather than after Brexit day. But despite disagreements in previous months on the issue they have been very disciplined and focus on Brexit, even with a vague policy. And really most of the MPs don't seem to have that much problem with Corbyn on domestic issues.
So really they could not be that much worse than the present government.
Play nice everyone. I pray for a Christmas Brexit deal so we don't have to bloody vote again on any question.
The fact that Labour MPs have, for all their wailing, been willing to tolerate an anti-semitic leadership tells you all you need to know about their total lack of moral judgment and courage. The idea that they would temper anything is for the birds.
And the only action in the Commons which might change the course on Brexit has been brought by Dominic Grieve.
If the political elite refused to implement the original referendum, blocked a deal that was on the table and then economically blackmailed their way into overruling the first vote,
Read the Spectator piece posted earlier. There is no political elite determined to thwart Brexit
Is it worth pointing out that Britain does not have a ‘powerful elite’? I know everyone wants to pretend it does, and no one ever admits to being a member of it, but you need only ask what a ruling class worthy of the name would do about Brexit, to see it does not exist. A true elite would not take the risk of a second referendum. It would stop Brexit, now, and take the political consequences on the chin. (‘You always want to play the victim and feel put upon,’ it might say to leave supporters. ‘So let’s give you something to really moan about’.)
It would use the advice of the EU’s advocate general that Britain can even now retain its rebate and exemptions from the Schengen agreement and euro, and stay in the EU as if nothing had happened. It would argue that Brexit, in whatever form it transpires, is a clear and present danger to the British economy, and our alliances, national security and standing in the world. There is more than enough evidence that the referendum was illegitimate, it would continue. If the Brexit referendum had been a Parliamentary election, the courts would have intervened long ago.
'There is no political elite'...according to 'some guy'. Blimey, that's thin even by PB's evidentiary standards. We'd perform a U-turn based on the EU advocate general's utterly non-binding opinion? It's a pity, I like Nick Cohen normally, and very much enjoyed 'What's Left'.
A silly contrarian piece. How is Parliament not a political elite?
They haven't thwarted Brexit. That's the key.
If they were, the deal would already be done. That's the point.
No fucking around with meaningful votes, VONC, referendum(s), General Elections. Brexit is cancelled. Job done. Suck it up, peasants.
But they haven't. The political elite working to stifle Brexit is an imaginary story Brexiteers tell each other when they are forced to confront their own inadequacies and the intellectual bankcruptcy of their creed
Labour have been sensible, organised and effective in the commons. If they can form a government along similar lines they will do well.
Government is a whole different challenge of course, particularly if they take over soon, rather than after Brexit day. But despite disagreements in previous months on the issue they have been very disciplined and focus on Brexit, even with a vague policy. And really most of the MPs don't seem to have that much problem with Corbyn on domestic issues.
So really they could not be that much worse than the present government.
Play nice everyone. I pray for a Christmas Brexit deal so we don't have to bloody vote again on any question.
The fact that Labour MPs have, for all their wailing, been willing to tolerate an anti-semitic leadership tells you all you need to know about their total lack of moral judgment and courage. The idea that they would temper anything is for the birds.
And the only action in the Commons which might change the course on Brexit has been brought by Dominic Grieve.
Chakrabarti, having entered frontline politics, seems to have revealed herself to not only to be utterly, utterly partisan, but also not as talented as many people thought she was.
Some of us have known for years that she is (a) really quite thick; (b) arrogant; (c) utterly lacking in integrity; and (d) nowhere near as nice as she likes to pretend.
Sounds like you are quite the fan! What strikes me is she really does not seem to play the political game well, she even got Andrew Marr's back up and she's had many instances of very poor presentation, but still acts like she is a (relative) outsider, rather than in it up to her neck as one of the biggest partisan figures around, she cannot get away with the sort of thing she might have in the past.
It's been downhill ever since she was chosen to help carry the Olympic flag.
If we don't Leave then we'll get a Corbyn government.
The type of Leave probably doesn't matter.
A Corbyn government while still in the EU would be better than one outside the EU.
I do not think the instincts of either Corbyn or McDonnell or their advisors are fundamentally democratic or liberal.
They would be tempered by moderate Labour MPs.
Yeah - like those moderates have tempered them until now. They won’t. Marxists and Communists are not to be trusted with power.
I don't know. Some of the predictions, e.g. of mass deselections, have been wide of the mark. I am not a Labour member; I might vote for them, I might not. But I liked their last manifesto and I'd certainly prefer to give them a shot than endure 5 more years of this moribund government.
I pay less attention to the manifesto than to the character of those likely to be in government. The character - moral character / judgment / the default instincts - of Corbyn, McDonnell, Milne and others are deeply flawed and dangerous and I do not trust them with power. They have damaged Labour. I don’t want them to damage the country.
And the so-called moderates couldn’t take the skin off a rice pudding so they will put up with anything for the faintest whiff of power.
Well, fair enough, I respect your view even though I disagree.
I just can't see them doing more damage to the country than the Tories have done since 2015.
Nor can I see them being as radical as Clem Attlee. He nationalised coal, gas, electricity, steel, rail and healthcare in five years even though the country was bankrupt (phew.) They probably won't get a majority of 10, let alone 100.
Although the electorate didn't thank him for it at the time and voted Labour out again at the first opportunity.
Labour have been sensible, organised and effective in the commons. If they can form a government along similar lines they will do well.
Government is a whole different challenge of course, particularly if they take over soon, rather than after Brexit day. But despite disagreements in previous months on the issue they have been very disciplined and focus on Brexit, even with a vague policy. And really most of the MPs don't seem to have that much problem with Corbyn on domestic issues.
So really they could not be that much worse than the present government.
Play nice everyone. I pray for a Christmas Brexit deal so we don't have to bloody vote again on any question.
The fact that Labour MPs have, for all their wailing, been willing to tolerate an anti-semitic leadership tells you all you need to know about their total lack of moral judgment and courage. The idea that they would temper anything is for the birds.
And the only action in the Commons which might change the course on Brexit has been brought by Dominic Grieve.
Well the Tories no longer deserve to be in government and won't be for much longer, so we will just have to hope for the best.
Isn't its strange how money spent by Leave apparently had far more influence on the result than almost twice the money spent on Remain.
Not really that strange.
Leave ran a better campaign. A smarter, better, more effective campaign. Whether it was a legal campaign is another matter, but it was without doubt more effective.
Throw £500,000 at Vote Leave and £1m at Britain Stronger In Europe, and VL would have put it into efficient targeting while BSIE would have pissed it up the wall.
So in the event of a second referendum, BSIE2 needs to match VL's savvy. They can do that by appealing to people's better instincts or their baser instincts. The lesson of the original referendum might suggest that baser instincts will win, and there's a fairly obvious dog-whistle on immigration that BSIE2 could try if they were feeling unprincipled.
My gut feeling is that EUref2 will be won by heavily targeted, predominantly local, digital campaigning rather than by national headlines, and VL were better at that first time. But then as Tim Shipman's 'Fall Out' describes, GE2017 was an attempt to "get the crew back together" from the previous election and history didn't exactly repeat itself...
I agree with all of that. But the claim was Andy making (or rather the Oxford Prof he mentions was making) is that Leave won because of the extra money they spent. Given that Remain far outspent Leave even after any dodgy money is taken into account it is a fairly groundless claim.
What idiot is saying "You should not have this vote because you might lose it by a lot"? Everyone knows that, it is not a reason to not have the vote. The vote is about the deal that was negotiated, the impact on government is incidental to parliament taking a view. Do they think all will be well if they pull the vote? Morons.
It is ironic that if Alastair is correct and Remain do win and try to bring in some sort of immigration controls we will end up with the one bit of Leaving that some Leavers like myself didn't want.
The word you’re looking for is justice.
I never took you for a xenophobe William. I will have to remember that.
I agree with all of that. But the claim was Andy making (or rather the Oxford Prof he mentions was making) is that Leave won because of the extra money they spent. Given that Remain far outspent Leave even after any dodgy money is taken into account it is a fairly groundless claim.
As discussed further up this thread, what matters is what they spent it on (effective advertising) not how much they spent doing it necessarily.
I have absolutely no time for George W Bush who in many ways made Trump look good but how on earth is a photo of him crying at his dad's funeral appropriate?
I agree with all of that. But the claim was Andy making (or rather the Oxford Prof he mentions was making) is that Leave won because of the extra money they spent. Given that Remain far outspent Leave even after any dodgy money is taken into account it is a fairly groundless claim.
As discussed further up this thread, what matters is what they spent it on (effective advertising) not how much they spent doing it necessarily.
So what you are saying is that Remain were so crap that even though they had the whole Government machine behind them and massively outspent Leave they still lost. Still doesn't mean that the bit of extra dodgy money won they day for Leave. It just means Remain were even more rubbish than we originally thought.
What idiot is saying "You should not have this vote because you might lose it by a lot"? Everyone knows that, it is not a reason to not have the vote. The vote is about the deal that was negotiated, the impact on government is incidental to parliament taking a view. Do they think all will be well if they pull the vote? Morons.
Agreed. Besides I thought that legally she has to have the vote. Or is this another contempt case in the making?
It is ironic that if Alastair is correct and Remain do win and try to bring in some sort of immigration controls we will end up with the one bit of Leaving that some Leavers like myself didn't want.
The word you’re looking for is justice.
I never took you for a xenophobe William. I will have to remember that.
You misunderstand me. The point is that ending up with the only thing you don’t want (but campaigned on anyway) would serve you right.
Labour have been sensible, organised and effective in the commons. If they can form a government along similar lines they will do well.
Government is a whole different challenge of course, particularly if they take over soon, rather than after Brexit day. But despite disagreements in previous months on the issue they have been very disciplined and focus on Brexit, even with a vague policy. And really most of the MPs don't seem to have that much problem with Corbyn on domestic issues.
So really they could not be that much worse than the present government.
Play nice everyone. I pray for a Christmas Brexit deal so we don't have to bloody vote again on any question.
The fact that Labour MPs have, for all their wailing, been willing to tolerate an anti-semitic leadership tells you all you need to know about their total lack of moral judgment and courage. The idea that they would temper anything is for the birds.
And the only action in the Commons which might change the course on Brexit has been brought by Dominic Grieve.
Well the Tories no longer deserve to be in government and won't be for much longer, so we will just have to hope for the best.
You do seem convinced the conservatives will lose the next election but as long as Corbyn is labour leader I do not think that is a given. Though I do not see either getting a majority. Mind you you could be right but who knows
Benn is channelling Cnut's advisors I see. What will he do if we get to March 29th and no deal has been agreed by Parliament? 'Thkweem and thkweem until he ith thick? '
If the political elite refused to implement the original referendum, blocked a deal that was on the table and then economically blackmailed their way into overruling the first vote,
Read the Spectator piece posted earlier. Their is no political elite determined to thwart Brexit
Is it worth pointing out that Britain does not have a ‘powerful elite’? I know everyone wants to pretend it does, and no one ever admits to being a member of it, but you need only ask what a ruling class worthy of the name would do about Brexit, to see it does not exist. A true elite would not take the risk of a second referendum. It would stop Brexit, now, and take the political consequences on the chin. (‘You always want to play the victim and feel put upon,’ it might say to leave supporters. ‘So let’s give you something to really moan about’.)
It would use the advice of the EU’s advocate general that Britain can even now retain its rebate and exemptions from the Schengen agreement and euro, and stay in the EU as if nothing had happened. It would argue that Brexit, in whatever form it transpires, is a clear and present danger to the British economy, and our alliances, national security and standing in the world. There is more than enough evidence that the referendum was illegitimate, it would continue. If the Brexit referendum had been a Parliamentary election, the courts would have intervened long ago.
A silly contrarian piece. How is Parliament not a political elite?
Do those who favour side stepping the 2016 Leave vote really perceive no real danger to the concept of representative democracy. There are Conservative MPs already saying the game is a stitch up against ordinary folk. Is this not likely to e amplified if the referendum is over turned and 17m told to think again. The Tory party has kept out the hard right for generations. If Brexit is overturned that safety valve is disabled.
It is ironic that if Alastair is correct and Remain do win and try to bring in some sort of immigration controls we will end up with the one bit of Leaving that some Leavers like myself didn't want.
The word you’re looking for is justice.
I never took you for a xenophobe William. I will have to remember that.
You misunderstand me. The point is that ending up with the only thing you don’t want (but campaigned on anyway) would serve you right.
So you do want to stop immigration. Good glad you made that clear.
I agree with all of that. But the claim was Andy making (or rather the Oxford Prof he mentions was making) is that Leave won because of the extra money they spent. Given that Remain far outspent Leave even after any dodgy money is taken into account it is a fairly groundless claim.
As discussed further up this thread, what matters is what they spent it on (effective advertising) not how much they spent doing it necessarily.
So what you are saying is that Remain were so crap that even though they had the whole Government machine behind them and massively outspent Leave they still lost. Still doesn't mean that the bit of extra dodgy money won they day for Leave. It just means Remain were even more rubbish than we originally thought.
Both campaigns were rubbish.
Having the government on its side was actually one of Remain's biggest handicaps. People love using referendums to give the government a kicking.
So what you are saying is that Remain were so crap that even though they had the whole Government machine behind them and massively outspent Leave they still lost.
Still doesn't mean that the bit of extra dodgy money won they day for Leave.
It doesn't disprove it either
To repeat the analogy upthread
If the Government spent £9m on longbows, and the "enemy" spent £1m on machine guns, you can't realistically claim the Government had an unfair advantage in any upcoming conflict
Leave spent money illegally during a campaign that won. The conclusion is that the campaign was effective, and the illegal spending contributed.
It is ironic that if Alastair is correct and Remain do win and try to bring in some sort of immigration controls we will end up with the one bit of Leaving that some Leavers like myself didn't want.
The word you’re looking for is justice.
I never took you for a xenophobe William. I will have to remember that.
You misunderstand me. The point is that ending up with the only thing you don’t want (but campaigned on anyway) would serve you right.
So you do want to stop immigration. Good glad you made that clear.
Benn is channelling Cnut's advisors I see. What will he do if we get to March 29th and no deal has been agreed by Parliament? 'Thkweem and thkweem until he ith thick? '
Isn't its strange how money spent by Leave apparently had far more influence on the result than almost twice the money spent on Remain.
Not really that strange.
Leave ran a better campaign. A smarter, better, more effective campaign. Whether it was a legal campaign is another matter, but it was without doubt more effective.
Throw £500,000 at Vote Leave and £1m at Britain Stronger In Europe, and VL would have put it into efficient targeting while BSIE would have pissed it up the wall.
So in the event of a second referendum, BSIE2 needs to match VL's savvy. They can do that by appealing to people's better instincts or their baser instincts. The lesson of the original referendum might suggest that baser instincts will win, and there's a fairly obvious dog-whistle on immigration that BSIE2 could try if they were feeling unprincipled.
My gut feeling is that EUref2 will be won by heavily targeted, predominantly local, digital campaigning rather than by national headlines, and VL were better at that first time. But then as Tim Shipman's 'Fall Out' describes, GE2017 was an attempt to "get the crew back together" from the previous election and history didn't exactly repeat itself...
I agree with all of that. But the claim was Andy making (or rather the Oxford Prof he mentions was making) is that Leave won because of the extra money they spent. Given that Remain far outspent Leave even after any dodgy money is taken into account it is a fairly groundless claim.
Two points on this: Firstly, the Ashcroft big exit poll suggested that people deciding a few days before, and people deciding on the day both voted modestly but materially in favour of Remain. The Remain bias and the lack of any disparity between 'last few days' and 'on the day' exist despite, on the good Professor's evidence, Remain having not spent any money in the last 24 hours.
Secondly, put your hand up if you remember the fresh, decision-altering content of the Facebook messages or tweets you saw in the last 24 hours of the campaign but hadn't seen or had ignored in the previous billion days of campaigning.
Now put your hand up if you can remember being sent a pamphlet by HMG.
If the political elite refused to implement the original referendum, blocked a deal that was on the table and then economically blackmailed their way into overruling the first vote,
Read the Spectator piece posted earlier. Their is no political elite determined to thwart Brexit
Is it worth pointing out that Britain does not have a ‘powerful elite’? I know everyone wants to pretend it does, and no one ever admits to being a member of it, but you need only ask what a ruling class worthy of the name would do about Brexit, to see it does not exist. A true elite would not take the risk of a second referendum. It would stop Brexit, now, and take the political consequences on the chin. (‘You always want to play the victim and feel put upon,’ it might say to leave supporters. ‘So let’s give you something to really moan about’.)
It would use the advice of the EU’s advocate general that Britain can even now retain its rebate and exemptions from the Schengen agreement and euro, and stay in the EU as if nothing had happened. It would argue that Brexit, in whatever form it transpires, is a clear and present danger to the British economy, and our alliances, national security and standing in the world. There is more than enough evidence that the referendum was illegitimate, it would continue. If the Brexit referendum had been a Parliamentary election, the courts would have intervened long ago.
A silly contrarian piece. How is Parliament not a political elite?
Do those who favour side stepping the 2016 Leave vote really perceive no real danger to the concept of representative democracy. There are Conservative MPs already saying the game is a stitch up against ordinary folk. Is this not likely to e amplified if the referendum is over turned and 17m told to think again. The Tory party has kept out the hard right for generations. If Brexit is overturned that safety valve is disabled.
Yep. And when you then also take into account the large numbers who might not vote for extremists but who will certainly not vote for any party who helped overturn the referendum you really are heading for a very nasty situation.
Isn't its strange how money spent by Leave apparently had far more influence on the result than almost twice the money spent on Remain.
Not really that strange.
Leave ran a better campaign. A smarter, better, more effective campaign. Whether it was a legal campaign is another matter, but it was without doubt more effective.
Throw £500,000 at Vote Leave and £1m at Britain Stronger In Europe, and VL would have put it into efficient targeting while BSIE would have pissed it up the wall.
So in the event of a second referendum, BSIE2 needs to match VL's savvy. They can do that by appealing to people's better instincts or their baser instincts. The lesson of the original referendum might sull Out' describes, GE2017 was an attempt to "get the crew back together" from the previous election and history didn't exactly repeat itself...
I agree with all of that. But the claim was Andy making (or rather the Oxford Prof he mentions was making) is that Leave won because of the extra money they spent. Given that Remain far outspent Leave even after any dodgy money is taken into account it is a fairly groundless claim.
Two points on this: Firstly, the Ashcroft big exit poll suggested that people deciding a few days before, and people deciding on the day both voted modestly but materially in favour of Remain. The Remain bias and the lack of any disparity between 'last few days' and 'on the day' exist despite, on the good Professor's evidence, Remain having not spent any money in the last 24 hours.
Secondly, put your hand up if you remember the fresh, decision-altering content of the Facebook messages or tweets you saw in the last 24 hours of the campaign but hadn't seen or had ignored in the previous billion days of campaigning.
Now put your hand up if you can remember being sent a pamphlet by HMG.
It is ironic that if Alastair is correct and Remain do win and try to bring in some sort of immigration controls we will end up with the one bit of Leaving that some Leavers like myself didn't want.
The word you’re looking for is justice.
I never took you for a xenophobe William. I will have to remember that.
You misunderstand me. The point is that ending up with the only thing you don’t want (but campaigned on anyway) would serve you right.
So you do want to stop immigration. Good glad you made that clear.
I want to retain free movement, quote obviously.
I know William. I am just taking the micky out of you. We may disagree on a huge number of things but at least on this one important point we are on the same page.
If the political elite refused to implement the original referendum, blocked a deal that was on the table and then economically blackmailed their way into overruling the first vote,
Read the Spectator piece posted earlier. Their is no political elite determined to thwart Brexit
Is it worth pointing out that Britain does not have a ‘powerful elite’? I know everyone wants to pretend it does, and no one ever admits to being a member of it, but you need only ask what a ruling class worthy of the name would do about Brexit, to see it does not exist. A true elite would not take the risk of a second referendum. It would stop Brexit, now, and take the political consequences on the chin. (‘You always want to play the victim and feel put upon,’ it might say to leave supporters. ‘So let’s give you something to really moan about’.)
It would use the advice of the EU’s advocate general that Britain can even now retain its rebate and exemptions from the Schengen agreement and euro, and stay in the EU as if nothing had happened. It would argue that Brexit, in whatever form it transpires, is a clear and present danger to the British economy, and our alliances, national security and standing in the world. There is more than enough evidence that the referendum was illegitimate, it would continue. If the Brexit referendum had been a Parliamentary election, the courts would have intervened long ago.
A silly contrarian piece. How is Parliament not a political elite?
Strange, I thought Leave.eu were an incompetent risible shower. Now it seems they were the dastardly masterminds behind the Facebook campaigns 'wot wunnit' what a late vindication.
Comments
https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/1070430501419278337
All the evidence suggests that targeted facebook posts are actually very ineffective and that mass communication is far more powerful. Famously P&G cut $200m in digital ad spend in 2017 in favour of traditional media and its reach actually went up. (Source)
A single mail shot that everyone in the land receives, that becomes part of the public consciousness (and water cooler debate), that is endorsed with a government seal, should, in theory be far more powerful than a down and dirty digital ad from god-knows-who that most people go out of their way to block or ignore (ad blocking rose 40% in the last year alone, which should tell you in what regard people hold such ads).
This is hard because the government has been trying to split that difference for years already, so most of the low-hanging fruit like immigration rules to stop people's foreign spouses coming in unless the British person is rich have already been implemented.
(*Though I suspect Wales would sensibly follow Scotland's lead and leave England to join the EU.)
But they could - they really could.
The damage Militant and their types did in the 1970’s and 80’s is not something I want to live through again.
Agree that the Tories do not deserve re-election. Both parties badly need a clear out of their leadership and senior ranks and some new blood.
And he's making a rude hand gesture as well...
Good night.
TTFN.
Henceforth Redwood shall be known as the epitome of onanism.
I like Europe very much, or rather the countries within it. I hope we'll remain on friendly terms, though given the current situation, that looks unlikely. There will be some element of froideur for a decade or so.
So really they could not be that much worse than the present government.
Play nice everyone. I pray for a Christmas Brexit deal so we don't have to bloody vote again on any question.
Is it worth pointing out that Britain does not have a ‘powerful elite’? I know everyone wants to pretend it does, and no one ever admits to being a member of it, but you need only ask what a ruling class worthy of the name would do about Brexit, to see it does not exist. A true elite would not take the risk of a second referendum. It would stop Brexit, now, and take the political consequences on the chin. (‘You always want to play the victim and feel put upon,’ it might say to leave supporters. ‘So let’s give you something to really moan about’.)
It would use the advice of the EU’s advocate general that Britain can even now retain its rebate and exemptions from the Schengen agreement and euro, and stay in the EU as if nothing had happened. It would argue that Brexit, in whatever form it transpires, is a clear and present danger to the British economy, and our alliances, national security and standing in the world. There is more than enough evidence that the referendum was illegitimate, it would continue. If the Brexit referendum had been a Parliamentary election, the courts would have intervened long ago.
Leave cheated.
So did Maradona in 1986 but England are never going to get through to the semi-final of that tournament.
If business wants certainty then no deal will give them that certainty, 10 years of negotiation will not.
https://twitter.com/mariacaulfield/status/1070091419086450688?s=21
And the only action in the Commons which might change the course on Brexit has been brought by Dominic Grieve.
If they were, the deal would already be done. That's the point.
No fucking around with meaningful votes, VONC, referendum(s), General Elections. Brexit is cancelled. Job done. Suck it up, peasants.
But they haven't. The political elite working to stifle Brexit is an imaginary story Brexiteers tell each other when they are forced to confront their own inadequacies and the intellectual bankcruptcy of their creed
Sounds painful!
Or, possibly, Biden.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1070441629935394824
The Tory party has kept out the hard right for generations. If Brexit is overturned that safety valve is disabled.
Having the government on its side was actually one of Remain's biggest handicaps. People love using referendums to give the government a kicking.
To repeat the analogy upthread
If the Government spent £9m on longbows, and the "enemy" spent £1m on machine guns, you can't realistically claim the Government had an unfair advantage in any upcoming conflict
Leave spent money illegally during a campaign that won. The conclusion is that the campaign was effective, and the illegal spending contributed. Ad-hoc non-sequitur
Secondly, put your hand up if you remember the fresh, decision-altering content of the Facebook messages or tweets you saw in the last 24 hours of the campaign but hadn't seen or had ignored in the previous billion days of campaigning.
Now put your hand up if you can remember being sent a pamphlet by HMG.
Thought so.