OK let me spell it out for everyone one last time.
There cannot be no deal (NI, some degree of economic disruption not to say chaos). There will not be another referendum (Not appropriate, no time, impossible options). There will not be a GE (Although mad, the Cons are not that mad). There cannot be Norway Plus (FoM, no time). There cannot be no Brexit (A50 nightmare, not appropriate).
Which leaves...The Deal.
Now, you say, all those idiots oppose it or say they oppose it. But, simply, the law of physics, common sense, general equilibrium and sanity cannot be violated.
Theresa's Deal it will be.
There cannot be this deal (Irish backstop is an abomination).
Which leaves amending the backstop and having Deal-
QED. Your view is mirrored by many MPs. And is the view of someone who really, really doesn't get it.
No it's the view of someone who really, really disagrees with you.
Anything is better than ending democracy. Literally anything. My grandparents and great-grandparents generations sacrificed their lives for our freedoms. I'm not prepared to sacrifice anyone's freedoms to either avoid economic carnage or terrorism.
I would rather risk violence than risk losing democracy. If my grandparents generation could face down Nazis to protect our freedoms, I'm prepared to face down potential terrorists or the risk we might have disruption at Dover.
I suppose it's possible that the exact same shift could have taken place if somehow the population had stayes the same, with nobody aging, dying, or being born, but I feel like it wouldn't have
Around about 60% of people vote for the same party their entire life.
Which puts a remarkable 40% who don't. That's a hefty chunk.
In my life I have voted:
Plaid Cymru Liberal Democrat Conservative Labour Green Independent
I wonder how many people can say that in just 17 years of holding the franchise?
Official Monster Raving Loony Party next time then? (I'm assuming UKIP wont even have a candidate......)
No way. Couldn't bring myself to vote for Corbyn unless the alternative was Gove.
I suppose it's possible that the exact same shift could have taken place if somehow the population had stayes the same, with nobody aging, dying, or being born, but I feel like it wouldn't have
Around about 60% of people vote for the same party their entire life.
Which puts a remarkable 40% who don't. That's a hefty chunk.
In my life I have voted:
Plaid Cymru Liberal Democrat Conservative Labour Green Independent
I wonder how many people can say that in just 17 years of holding the franchise?
Have you ever drawn a box with NOTA next to it and ticked that?
No - I try to use my vote positively, even if I vote for no-hope candidates.
That said, I've always had a sneaking regard for this person:
OK let me spell it out for everyone one last time.
There cannot be no deal (NI, some degree of economic disruption not to say chaos). There will not be another referendum (Not appropriate, no time, impossible options). There will not be a GE (Although mad, the Cons are not that mad). There cannot be Norway Plus (FoM, no time). There cannot be no Brexit (A50 nightmare, not appropriate).
Which leaves...The Deal.
Now, you say, all those idiots oppose it or say they oppose it. But, simply, the law of physics, common sense, general equilibrium and sanity cannot be violated.
Theresa's Deal it will be.
There cannot be this deal (Irish backstop is an abomination).
Which leaves amending the backstop and having Deal-
QED. Your view is mirrored by many MPs. And is the view of someone who really, really doesn't get it.
No it's the view of someone who really, really disagrees with you.
Anything is better than ending democracy. Literally anything. My grandparents and great-grandparents generations sacrificed their lives for our freedoms. I'm not prepared to sacrifice anyone's freedoms to either avoid economic carnage or terrorism.
I am grateful to your forebears for their selfless sacrifice. It is a fantastic testament to them that they fought for a world which can tolerate idiots like you.
As mentioned above, noble as you may see yourself, sword and shield in hand, you aren't sacrifcing anyone's freedoms. The people of NI who you would so quickly (or maybe not so quickly) ride into battle on a white charger to save, disagree with you also.
I suppose it's possible that the exact same shift could have taken place if somehow the population had stayes the same, with nobody aging, dying, or being born, but I feel like it wouldn't have
Around about 60% of people vote for the same party their entire life.
Which puts a remarkable 40% who don't. That's a hefty chunk.
In my life I have voted:
Plaid Cymru Liberal Democrat Conservative Labour Green Independent
I wonder how many people can say that in just 17 years of holding the franchise?
For me (I think!); I first voted in 1992): Conservative Labour Lib Dem Green Independent
Sometimes at the same visit to the polling station (e.g. locals, GE).
Basically, most parties available in my part of England aside from UKIP. And I am so glad I never soiled myself by associating myself via a vote with that party.
I suppose it's possible that the exact same shift could have taken place if somehow the population had stayes the same, with nobody aging, dying, or being born, but I feel like it wouldn't have
Around about 60% of people vote for the same party their entire life.
Which puts a remarkable 40% who don't. That's a hefty chunk.
In my life I have voted:
Plaid Cymru Liberal Democrat Conservative Labour Green Independent
I wonder how many people can say that in just 17 years of holding the franchise?
Official Monster Raving Loony Party next time then? (I'm assuming UKIP wont even have a candidate......)
Most likely abstain next time for me. A plague on all their houses
OK let me spell it out for everyone one last time.
There cannot be no deal (NI, some degree of economic disruption not to say chaos). There will not be another referendum (Not appropriate, no time, impossible options). There will not be a GE (Although mad, the Cons are not that mad). There cannot be Norway Plus (FoM, no time). There cannot be no Brexit (A50 nightmare, not appropriate).
Which leaves...The Deal.
Now, you say, all those idiots oppose it or say they oppose it. But, simply, the law of physics, common sense, general equilibrium and sanity cannot be violated.
Theresa's Deal it will be.
If it proves so, I will admire her even more... yet people on here keep slagging her off for being useless.
She is definitely useless.
Just after the vote she instiuted her idiotic red lines instead of doing what she has tried to do this week - inviting in those "from all sides of the House". If she had set off on this path listening less to Bill Cash and more to Hilary Benn we would probably have got to a better place.
Then again, to her credit although it's all too late, she has identified the central issue of Brexit (NI) and has constructed a (the only) deal which squares that particular circle.
By disenfranchising NI and subjecting the people who live their to a life where they have to follow other people's laws and regulation without having a say in them? That was maybe acceptable in the 18th century.
Democracy means more to me. If NI wants to follow EU rules they can vote that way. If they want to diverge they must be allowed to do so unilaterally.
No one is disenfranchising NI. According to the poll @TSE cited they support the deal. It is one more of the very strange phenomena about NI that makes it such a "special" place. It comes with the territory and sensible people, especially those that live there who don't need your ill-informed and misguided support, realise it.
I don't believe in setting laws by opinion polls and even if they do back the deal they can firstly vote for it and secondly must have the right to unilaterally undo voting for it. Currently they have neither. This is being forced on them "for their own good" and they have no rights to vote ever again unless others deem it OK.
We used to rule on behalf of colonial "savages" because it was "for their own good". I trust the people of NI to retain their vote.
But no. It seems that nothing like a majority of MPs are ready to be rational.
Ain't that the truth.
In fairness, that applies to we the public too.
I may not agree with plenty of things Mr Meeks says, but in this piece I think he lays it out very plainly and rationally and has called it mostly right. May will go next week. Whether she calls for a referendum or an interim leader does, I don't see another way around this.
I barely agree with myself. I’m not expecting others to.
Suppose May promptly resigns on the 11th Dec as per above article. Conservatives would want successor to appear properly elected, else what mandate does successor have for changing Brexit strategy? Also want prompt replacement. Therefore do all candidates say they will withdraw if they do not get most votes in first round and if they don't say this then they get very few votes and are eliminated in first round?
If this were to happen, what would the timetable look like? Might the deadline for putting name forward be as soon as Dec 14 and first round of voting Dec 20 so we get new PM by Dec 20 (when commons rises) or would timetable be more protracted and first round vote be in the New Year?
All I did was campaign for and vote Leave. I remain immensely proud of that fact Whatever happens in the short term we will Leave. It just depends if it is relatively painless now or extremely painful in a few years. I can also say I am pleased I did not vote for May - although in my particular constituency that made bugger al difference. I detested her long before Brexit came along and all she has done is confirm my worst opinions of her.
So no, I don't think that I, nor anyone who voted Leave, has anything at all to be sorry about.
Actually, you do. You are totally one-eyed on the EU, that they cannot do any good - and that is fair enough. You admit to having spent decades in that mindset. But in the process you forget that this involved real people. As an example:
"It just depends if it is relatively painless now or extremely painful in a few years"
This says it all: that pain may not effect you (or you may not care), but it will hurt others. It may hurt my son. Or your daughter. One of the infuriating things pre-referendum was Brexiteers putting their wet dreams ahead of the consequences of those dreams. All cfor some vague and nebulous 'advantage'.
And now you warn in guarded tones about violence if leaves' impossible dreams are unfulfilled (which, due to the way it occurred, is inevitable. That violence too will affect people.
No what I am saying is that there will be pain no matter what happens. Right now it is bearable. In a few years it will be excruciating and life threatening. Anyone who thinks otherwise is burying their head in the sand.
Suppose May promptly resigns on the 11th Dec as per above article. Conservatives would want successor to appear properly elected, else what mandate does successor have for changing Brexit strategy? Also want prompt replacement. Therefore do all candidates say they will withdraw if they do not get most votes in first round and if they don't say this then they get very few votes and are eliminated in first round?
If this were to happen, what would the timetable look like? Might the deadline for putting name forward be as soon as Dec 14 and first round of voting Dec 20 so we get new PM by Dec 20 (when commons rises) or would timetable be more protracted and first round vote be in the New Year?
OK let me spell it out for everyone one last time.
There cannot be no deal (NI, some degree of economic disruption not to say chaos). There will not be another referendum (Not appropriate, no time, impossible options). There will not be a GE (Although mad, the Cons are not that mad). There cannot be Norway Plus (FoM, no time). There cannot be no Brexit (A50 nightmare, not appropriate).
Which leaves...The Deal.
Now, you say, all those idiots oppose it or say they oppose it. But, simply, the law of physics, common sense, general equilibrium and sanity cannot be violated.
Theresa's Deal it will be.
There cannot be this deal (Irish backstop is an abomination).
Which leaves amending the backstop and having Deal-
QED. Your view is mirrored by many MPs. And is the view of someone who really, really doesn't get it.
No it's the view of someone who really, really disagrees with you.
Anything is better than ending democracy. Literally anything. My grandparents and great-grandparents generations sacrificed their lives for our freedoms. I'm not prepared to sacrifice anyone's freedoms to either avoid economic carnage or terrorism.
I am grateful to your forebears for their selfless sacrifice. It is a fantastic testament to them that they fought for a world which can tolerate idiots like you.
As mentioned above, noble as you may see yourself, sword and shield in hand, you aren't sacrifcing anyone's freedoms. The people of NI who you would so quickly (or maybe not so quickly) ride into battle on a white charger to save, disagree with you also.
In which vote (not opinion poll) did the people of NI elect democratically to surrender their right to choose who sets their laws?
And who gave them the right to sacrifice the right of others in NI to elect those who set their laws in perpetuity?
There is a real problem with what to put on the ballot against remain. Parliament won't countenance no deal, and they'll have just rejected a sensible deal brought forward
Have just remain on the ballot paper. If they want to look more democratic they could have remain on there twice or even 3 times using AV.
This will settle the outcome for a generation.
That’s outrageous. You can have the same choices 3 times. Under AV your choices are:
I don't believe in setting laws by opinion polls and even if they do back the deal they can firstly vote for it and secondly must have the right to unilaterally undo voting for it. Currently they have neither. This is being forced on them "for their own good" and they have no rights to vote ever again unless others deem it OK.
We used to rule on behalf of colonial "savages" because it was "for their own good". I trust the people of NI to retain their vote.
The particular attributes of Northern Ireland mean that there is no other option. That is the missing link of your impassioned plea, misguided as it is. You may want a world of owls and marshmallow ponies but you need to recognise the reality and the realpolitik of the situation.
I don't believe in setting laws by opinion polls and even if they do back the deal they can firstly vote for it and secondly must have the right to unilaterally undo voting for it. Currently they have neither. This is being forced on them "for their own good" and they have no rights to vote ever again unless others deem it OK.
We used to rule on behalf of colonial "savages" because it was "for their own good". I trust the people of NI to retain their vote.
The particular attributes of Northern Ireland mean that there is no other option. That is the missing link of your impassioned plea, misguided as it is. You may want a world of owls and marshmallow ponies but you need to recognise the reality and the realpolitik of the situation.
Democracy is not owls and marshmallow ponies. It is a fundamental human right that can not be sacrificed by others.
I suppose it's possible that the exact same shift could have taken place if somehow the population had stayes the same, with nobody aging, dying, or being born, but I feel like it wouldn't have
Around about 60% of people vote for the same party their entire life.
I think the Labour vote is the most tribal of the lot. Come Blair or Corbyn, Hartlepool or Islington out they trot to the polling station. At GE17 it was remarkably resilient to leave/remain differences unlike the Tories.
The Labour vote was much lower in 1983 than was the case in 1997.
OK let me spell it out for everyone one last time.
There cannot be no deal (NI, some degree of economic disruption not to say chaos). There will not be another referendum (Not appropriate, no time, impossible options). There will not be a GE (Although mad, the Cons are not that mad). There cannot be Norway Plus (FoM, no time). There cannot be no Brexit (A50 nightmare, not appropriate).
Which leaves...The Deal.
Now, you say, all those idiots oppose it or say they oppose it. But, simply, the law of physics, common sense, general equilibrium and sanity cannot be violated.
Theresa's Deal it will be.
Alternatively this is a good illustration of why an extension to A50 cannot be written off.
UK: Look we're acting in good faith. Here's GBP39bn
Might we really imagine
EU: Hahahaha - you're trapped! Any gold in your teeth?
I think not, and if they arse about then I definitely want the money back.
Mrs May is thinking quite clearly and well. Her deal is awful, but she's basically said that anyway. Quite why leaving this wonderful club is so awful hasn't been explained.
There is no other way to go than approve Mrs May's deal.
What we know about the deal is
It works in the short-term It can be set aside at the drop of a hat
Sounds like Graham Brady is suggesting that TM should agree for an amendment to the deal to be laid to make the deal subject to the backstop being time limited or some similar mechanism
He said that if she needs a few more days the vote can be postponed
Except Parliament has no say over the EU's negotiators.
But it gives May leverage (should she choose to use it)
“We will only approve with this change” forces the EU to choose
I don't believe in setting laws by opinion polls and even if they do back the deal they can firstly vote for it and secondly must have the right to unilaterally undo voting for it. Currently they have neither. This is being forced on them "for their own good" and they have no rights to vote ever again unless others deem it OK.
We used to rule on behalf of colonial "savages" because it was "for their own good". I trust the people of NI to retain their vote.
The particular attributes of Northern Ireland mean that there is no other option. That is the missing link of your impassioned plea, misguided as it is. You may want a world of owls and marshmallow ponies but you need to recognise the reality and the realpolitik of the situation.
Democracy is not owls and marshmallow ponies. It is a fundamental human right that can not be sacrificed by others.
How can it be a "fundamental" human right if it requires the forbearance of others to enable, and if it may also be restrained by others?
I suppose it's possible that the exact same shift could have taken place if somehow the population had stayes the same, with nobody aging, dying, or being born, but I feel like it wouldn't have
Around about 60% of people vote for the same party their entire life.
I think the Labour vote is the most tribal of the lot. Come Blair or Corbyn, Hartlepool or Islington out they trot to the polling station. At GE17 it was remarkably resilient to leave/remain differences unlike the Tories.
The Labour vote was much lower in 1983 than was the case in 1997.
Also Labour voters, prior to 2010 at least, are more receptive to voting tactically than are Tories.
I don't believe in setting laws by opinion polls and even if they do back the deal they can firstly vote for it and secondly must have the right to unilaterally undo voting for it. Currently they have neither. This is being forced on them "for their own good" and they have no rights to vote ever again unless others deem it OK.
We used to rule on behalf of colonial "savages" because it was "for their own good". I trust the people of NI to retain their vote.
The particular attributes of Northern Ireland mean that there is no other option. That is the missing link of your impassioned plea, misguided as it is. You may want a world of owls and marshmallow ponies but you need to recognise the reality and the realpolitik of the situation.
Democracy is not owls and marshmallow ponies. It is a fundamental human right that can not be sacrificed by others.
How can it be a "fundamental" human right if it requires the forbearance of others to enable, and if it may also be restrained by others?
Because maintaining even fundamental rights isn't automatic, it requires eternal vigilance.
I don't believe in setting laws by opinion polls and even if they do back the deal they can firstly vote for it and secondly must have the right to unilaterally undo voting for it. Currently they have neither. This is being forced on them "for their own good" and they have no rights to vote ever again unless others deem it OK.
We used to rule on behalf of colonial "savages" because it was "for their own good". I trust the people of NI to retain their vote.
The particular attributes of Northern Ireland mean that there is no other option. That is the missing link of your impassioned plea, misguided as it is. You may want a world of owls and marshmallow ponies but you need to recognise the reality and the realpolitik of the situation.
Democracy is not owls and marshmallow ponies. It is a fundamental human right that can not be sacrificed by others.
*sob*
yes but no one is sacrificing it or them. We are instituting a pragmatic harmonised widget regulatory environment compromise that suits everyone.
Except people who are blissfully and admirably (your pronouncements all sound great) unaware of the realities of life and politics.
All I did was campaign for and vote Leave. I remain immensely proud of that fact Whatever happens in the short term we will Leave. It just depends if it is relatively painless now or extremely painful in a few years. I can also say I am pleased I did not vote for May - although in my particular constituency that made bugger al difference. I detested her long before Brexit came along and all she has done is confirm my worst opinions of her.
So no, I don't think that I, nor anyone who voted Leave, has anything at all to be sorry about.
Actually, you do. You are totally one-eyed on the EU, that they cannot do any good - and that is fair enough. You admit to having spent decades in that mindset. But in the process you forget that this involved real people. As an example:
"It just depends if it is relatively painless now or extremely painful in a few years"
This says it all: that pain may not effect you (or you may not care), but it will hurt others. It may hurt my son. Or your daughter. One of the infuriating things pre-referendum was Brexiteers putting their wet dreams ahead of the consequences of those dreams. All cfor some vague and nebulous 'advantage'.
And now you warn in guarded tones about violence if leaves' impossible dreams are unfulfilled (which, due to the way it occurred, is inevitable. That violence too will affect people.
No what I am saying is that there will be pain no matter what happens. Right now it is bearable. In a few years it will be excruciating and life threatening. Anyone who thinks otherwise is burying their head in the sand.
As an aside my daughter is strongly pro Brexit.
I fear you've buried your head in the sand for far too long in your hatred of the EU. And again you mention violence.
I don't believe in setting laws by opinion polls and even if they do back the deal they can firstly vote for it and secondly must have the right to unilaterally undo voting for it. Currently they have neither. This is being forced on them "for their own good" and they have no rights to vote ever again unless others deem it OK.
We used to rule on behalf of colonial "savages" because it was "for their own good". I trust the people of NI to retain their vote.
The particular attributes of Northern Ireland mean that there is no other option. That is the missing link of your impassioned plea, misguided as it is. You may want a world of owls and marshmallow ponies but you need to recognise the reality and the realpolitik of the situation.
Democracy is not owls and marshmallow ponies. It is a fundamental human right that can not be sacrificed by others.
*sob*
yes but no one is sacrificing it or them. We are instituting a pragmatic harmonised widget regulatory environment compromise that suits everyone.
Except people who are blissfully and admirably (your pronouncements all sound great) unaware of the realities of life and politics.
Who votes for the regulations that set the "pragmatic harmonised widget regulatory environment"?
I was just watching a video on YouTube and it did something I'd never seen before. There was a warning underneath the video that said "RT is owned and funded in whole or in part by the Government of Russia" and a link to RT's Wikipedia page.
I was just watching a video on YouTube and it did something I'd never seen before. There was a warning underneath the video that said "RT is owned and funded in whole or in part by the Government of Russia" and a link to RT's Wikipedia page.
I suppose it's possible that the exact same shift could have taken place if somehow the population had stayes the same, with nobody aging, dying, or being born, but I feel like it wouldn't have
Around about 60% of people vote for the same party their entire life.
Which puts a remarkable 40% who don't. That's a hefty chunk.
In my life I have voted:
Plaid Cymru Liberal Democrat Conservative Labour Green Independent
I wonder how many people can say that in just 17 years of holding the franchise?
For me (I think!); I first voted in 1992): Conservative Labour Lib Dem Green Independent
Sometimes at the same visit to the polling station (e.g. locals, GE).
Basically, most parties available in my part of England aside from UKIP. And I am so glad I never soiled myself by associating myself via a vote with that party.
Im hopeful the Social Democratic party might be in the next euro elections
I don't believe in setting laws by opinion polls and even if they do back the deal they can firstly vote for it and secondly must have the right to unilaterally undo voting for it. Currently they have neither. This is being forced on them "for their own good" and they have no rights to vote ever again unless others deem it OK.
We used to rule on behalf of colonial "savages" because it was "for their own good". I trust the people of NI to retain their vote.
The particular attributes of Northern Ireland mean that there is no other option. That is the missing link of your impassioned plea, misguided as it is. You may want a world of owls and marshmallow ponies but you need to recognise the reality and the realpolitik of the situation.
Democracy is not owls and marshmallow ponies. It is a fundamental human right that can not be sacrificed by others.
*sob*
yes but no one is sacrificing it or them. We are instituting a pragmatic harmonised widget regulatory environment compromise that suits everyone.
Except people who are blissfully and admirably (your pronouncements all sound great) unaware of the realities of life and politics.
Who votes for the regulations that set the "pragmatic harmonised widget regulatory environment"?
It will have been agreed by the democratically-elected Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that the EU will take the lead in widget harmonisation.
OK let me spell it out for everyone one last time.
There cannot be no deal (NI, some degree of economic disruption not to say chaos). There will not be another referendum (Not appropriate, no time, impossible options). There will not be a GE (Although mad, the Cons are not that mad). There cannot be Norway Plus (FoM, no time). There cannot be no Brexit (A50 nightmare, not appropriate).
Which leaves...The Deal.
Now, you say, all those idiots oppose it or say they oppose it. But, simply, the law of physics, common sense, general equilibrium and sanity cannot be violated.
Theresa's Deal it will be.
Alternatively this is a good illustration of why an extension to A50 cannot be written off.
The extension requires unanimity. And it is only going to be agreed by Macron as a way to further trash Les Rosbifs.... He has no other way to regain his credibility domestically.
But Channel 4 continue with theirs: probably between a social justice warrior from Hackney, a Tommy Robinson supporter who cannot string two coherent sentences together, a discredited politician (Mr T. Blair) and an amoeba who will just stay still in a glass of water.
I don't believe in setting laws by opinion polls and even if they do back the deal they can firstly vote for it and secondly must have the right to unilaterally undo voting for it. Currently they have neither. This is being forced on them "for their own good" and they have no rights to vote ever again unless others deem it OK.
We used to rule on behalf of colonial "savages" because it was "for their own good". I trust the people of NI to retain their vote.
The particular attributes of Northern Ireland mean that there is no other option. That is the missing link of your impassioned plea, misguided as it is. You may want a world of owls and marshmallow ponies but you need to recognise the reality and the realpolitik of the situation.
Democracy is not owls and marshmallow ponies. It is a fundamental human right that can not be sacrificed by others.
*sob*
yes but no one is sacrificing it or them. We are instituting a pragmatic harmonised widget regulatory environment compromise that suits everyone.
Except people who are blissfully and admirably (your pronouncements all sound great) unaware of the realities of life and politics.
Who votes for the regulations that set the "pragmatic harmonised widget regulatory environment"?
It will have been agreed by the democratically-elected Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that the EU will take the lead in widget harmonisation.
And if the people of Northern Ireland want change that who do they elect?
I don't believe in setting laws by opinion polls and even if they do back the deal they can firstly vote for it and secondly must have the right to unilaterally undo voting for it. Currently they have neither. This is being forced on them "for their own good" and they have no rights to vote ever again unless others deem it OK.
We used to rule on behalf of colonial "savages" because it was "for their own good". I trust the people of NI to retain their vote.
The particular attributes of Northern Ireland mean that there is no other option. That is the missing link of your impassioned plea, misguided as it is. You may want a world of owls and marshmallow ponies but you need to recognise the reality and the realpolitik of the situation.
Democracy is not owls and marshmallow ponies. It is a fundamental human right that can not be sacrificed by others.
*sob*
yes but no one is sacrificing it or them. We are instituting a pragmatic harmonised widget regulatory environment compromise that suits everyone.
Except people who are blissfully and admirably (your pronouncements all sound great) unaware of the realities of life and politics.
Who votes for the regulations that set the "pragmatic harmonised widget regulatory environment"?
It will have been agreed by the democratically-elected Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that the EU will take the lead in widget harmonisation.
And if the people of Northern Ireland want change that who do they elect?
They are part of the UK. If the people of Cornwall wanted a different income tax regime then sadly that wouldn't be possible.
I suppose it's possible that the exact same shift could have taken place if somehow the population had stayes the same, with nobody aging, dying, or being born, but I feel like it wouldn't have
Around about 60% of people vote for the same party their entire life.
I think the Labour vote is the most tribal of the lot. Come Blair or Corbyn, Hartlepool or Islington out they trot to the polling station. At GE17 it was remarkably resilient to leave/remain differences unlike the Tories.
The Labour vote was much lower in 1983 than was the case in 1997.
Also Labour voters, prior to 2010 at least, are more receptive to voting tactically than are Tories.
A lot of them define themselves quite negatively though, don't they? They are not for Labour so much as against the Tories.
As a result, casting a vote for a candidate to crush the Tories is almost as satisfying as casting one for the Idoelogically Pure Great Leader For Ever (who was there, but wasn't involved).
I was just watching a video on YouTube and it did something I'd never seen before. There was a warning underneath the video that said "RT is owned and funded in whole or in part by the Government of Russia" and a link to RT's Wikipedia page.
I don't believe in setting laws by opinion polls and even if they do back the deal they can firstly vote for it and secondly must have the right to unilaterally undo voting for it. Currently they have neither. This is being forced on them "for their own good" and they have no rights to vote ever again unless others deem it OK.
We used to rule on behalf of colonial "savages" because it was "for their own good". I trust the people of NI to retain their vote.
The particular attributes of Northern Ireland mean that there is no other option. That is the missing link of your impassioned plea, misguided as it is. You may want a world of owls and marshmallow ponies but you need to recognise the reality and the realpolitik of the situation.
Democracy is not owls and marshmallow ponies. It is a fundamental human right that can not be sacrificed by others.
*sob*
yes but no one is sacrificing it or them. We are instituting a pragmatic harmonised widget regulatory environment compromise that suits everyone.
Except people who are blissfully and admirably (your pronouncements all sound great) unaware of the realities of life and politics.
Who votes for the regulations that set the "pragmatic harmonised widget regulatory environment"?
It will have been agreed by the democratically-elected Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that the EU will take the lead in widget harmonisation.
And if the people of Northern Ireland want change that who do they elect?
They are part of the UK. If the people of Cornwall wanted a different income tax regime then sadly that wouldn't be possible.
If the people of the UK elect a new government the tax rate can be changed unilaterally by the UK?
So you're saying if the people of the UK elect a new government then NI's widget regulations could be changed unilaterally? That's the comparison you're making right?
Mrs May is a very courageous woman. As the ever more egocentric John Humphrys preened himself between patronising questions I started to get the feeling that she was far too good for her shitty party.
Then this evening I heard David Davis who had single handedly landed her in this mess slagging her off I couldn't believe it. She was to even too polite to ask the back-stabbing slimeball what he had been doing these last two years.
I don't believe in setting laws by opinion polls and even if they do back the deal they can firstly vote for it and secondly must have the right to unilaterally undo voting for it. Currently they have neither. This is being forced on them "for their own good" and they have no rights to vote ever again unless others deem it OK.
We used to rule on behalf of colonial "savages" because it was "for their own good". I trust the people of NI to retain their vote.
The particular attributes of Northern Ireland mean that there is no other option. That is the missing link of your impassioned plea, misguided as it is. You may want a world of owls and marshmallow ponies but you need to recognise the reality and the realpolitik of the situation.
Democracy is not owls and marshmallow ponies. It is a fundamental human right that can not be sacrificed by others.
*sob*
yes but no one is sacrificing it or them. We are instituting a pragmatic harmonised widget regulatory environment compromise that suits everyone.
Except people who are blissfully and admirably (your pronouncements all sound great) unaware of the realities of life and politics.
Who votes for the regulations that set the "pragmatic harmonised widget regulatory environment"?
It will have been agreed by the democratically-elected Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that the EU will take the lead in widget harmonisation.
And if the people of Northern Ireland want change that who do they elect?
Mrs May is a very courageous woman. As the ever more egocentric John Humphrys preened himself between patronising questions I started to get the feeling that she was far too good for her shitty party.
Then this evening I heard David Davis who had single handedly landed her in this mess slagging her off I couldn't believe it. She was to even too polite to ask the back-stabbing slimeball what he had been doing these last two years.
Mrs May is a very courageous woman. As the ever more egocentric John Humphrys preened himself between patronising questions I started to get the feeling that she was far too good for her shitty party.
Then this evening I heard David Davis who had single handedly landed her in this mess slagging her off I couldn't believe it. She was to even too polite to ask the back-stabbing slimeball what he had been doing these last two years.
I agree. I am not advocating voting No Deal. I am saying since it is clearly a well supported (if minority) outcome it needs to be on the ballot. Personally of course I think if there is a ballot it should just be a Deal/No Deal choice since we already decided the Leave/Remain question but the bad losers won't let that happen.
The only things that should be on the ballot should pass the EC - which no deal probably wouldn't due to apparent significant confusion over what it means. No deal also fails the parliamentary democracy test - there's no support for it in Parliament and it kind fails the test of the duty of MPs to not completely screw the company it.
And as I said above - a third of people are going to be upset regardless. So we should only be looking at options that have a reasonable chance of majority support, and ideally 60+% support. It's hard to see that ever being true for no deal.
As for "deciding the question" - well by your logic we should just accept the result of the 1975 referendum and leave it at that. The electorate is entitled to change its mind, and politicians should accept such changes. The polling suggests that there was only a brief period around the referendum when Leave was in the lead, and it seems reasonable to formally ask the question again to see if that polling is correct. After all, politicians should obey the will of the people, and the politicians should change if the will of the people changes.
Even Rees-Mogg was a fan of a second referendum back in 2011 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111024/debtext/111024-0003.htm#111024-0003.htm_spnew96 "The other two points that do not add up to much were, first, that a three-way referendum is confusing. However, that is not a problem because the motion calls for a Bill in the next Session, which can deal with any confusion. We can, in our wisdom, work out how to phrase a referendum—or series of referendums, if necessary —that will be understandable....Indeed, we could have two referendums. As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed."
I suppose it's possible that the exact same shift could have taken place if somehow the population had stayes the same, with nobody aging, dying, or being born, but I feel like it wouldn't have
Around about 60% of people vote for the same party their entire life.
I think the Labour vote is the most tribal of the lot. Come Blair or Corbyn, Hartlepool or Islington out they trot to the polling station. At GE17 it was remarkably resilient to leave/remain differences unlike the Tories.
The Labour vote was much lower in 1983 than was the case in 1997.
Also Labour voters, prior to 2010 at least, are more receptive to voting tactically than are Tories.
A lot of them define themselves quite negatively though, don't they? They are not for Labour so much as against the Tories.
As a result, casting a vote for a candidate to crush the Tories is almost as satisfying as casting one for the Idoelogically Pure Great Leader For Ever (who was there, but wasn't involved).
In my experience Tory negativity about Labour is at least as strong. For whatever reason this doesn't drive them to vote tactically in such large numbers (although obviously it does happen, in seats like Clegg's for example.
All I did was campaign for and vote Leave. I remain immensely proud of that fact Whatever happens in the short term we will Leave. It just depends if it is relatively painless now or extremely painful in a few years. I can also say I am pleased I did not vote for May - although in my particular constituency that made bugger al difference. I detested her long before Brexit came along and all she has done is confirm my worst opinions of her.
So no, I don't think that I, nor anyone who voted Leave, has anything at all to be sorry about.
Actually, you do. You are totally one-eyed on the EU, that they cannot do any good - and that is fair enough. You admit to having spent decades in that mindset. But in the process you forget that this involved real people. As an example:
"It just depends if it is relatively painless now or extremely painful in a few years"
This says it all: that pain may not effect you (or you may not care), but it will hurt others. It may hurt my son. Or your daughter. One of the infuriating things pre-referendum was Brexiteers putting their wet dreams ahead of the consequences of those dreams. All cfor some vague and nebulous 'advantage'.
And now you warn in guarded tones about violence if leaves' impossible dreams are unfulfilled (which, due to the way it occurred, is inevitable. That violence too will affect people.
No what I am saying is that there will be pain no matter what happens. Right now it is bearable. In a few years it will be excruciating and life threatening. Anyone who thinks otherwise is burying their head in the sand.
As an aside my daughter is strongly pro Brexit.
I fear you've buried your head in the sand for far too long in your hatred of the EU. And again you mention violence.
Too late too edit. Apologies to Richard: I've noticed he didn't mention violence again - at least directly ('life threatening' could potentially mean non-violence). I shall withdraw for the night.
Mrs May is a very courageous woman. As the ever more egocentric John Humphrys preened himself between patronising questions I started to get the feeling that she was far too good for her shitty party.
Then this evening I heard David Davis who had single handedly landed her in this mess slagging her off I couldn't believe it. She was to even too polite to ask the back-stabbing slimeball what he had been doing these last two years.
Davis is a dismal little shit.
He's the Brown of the Tory party. Aspiration over ability.
But Channel 4 continue with theirs: probably between a social justice warrior from Hackney, a Tommy Robinson supporter who cannot string two coherent sentences together, a discredited politician (Mr T. Blair) and an amoeba who will just stay still in a glass of water.
My money would be on the amoeba ...
The amoeba can't make it as he has just been elected leader of the Labour Party in Wales.
I suppose it's possible that the exact same shift could have taken place if somehow the population had stayes the same, with nobody aging, dying, or being born, but I feel like it wouldn't have
Around about 60% of people vote for the same party their entire life.
I think the Labour vote is the most tribal of the lot. Come Blair or Corbyn, Hartlepool or Islington out they trot to the polling station. At GE17 it was remarkably resilient to leave/remain differences unlike the Tories.
The Labour vote was much lower in 1983 than was the case in 1997.
Also Labour voters, prior to 2010 at least, are more receptive to voting tactically than are Tories.
A lot of them define themselves quite negatively though, don't they? They are not for Labour so much as against the Tories.
As a result, casting a vote for a candidate to crush the Tories is almost as satisfying as casting one for the Idoelogically Pure Great Leader For Ever (who was there, but wasn't involved).
In my experience Tory negativity about Labour is at least as strong. For whatever reason this doesn't drive them to vote tactically in such large numbers (although obviously it does happen, in seats like Clegg's for example.
Perhaps because they want to win, while Labour have always (with the exception of Blair) seen winning as at best one among many goals?
I agree. I am not advocating voting No Deal. I am saying since it is clearly a well supported (if minority) outcome it needs to be on the ballot. Personally of course I think if there is a ballot it should just be a Deal/No Deal choice since we already decided the Leave/Remain question but the bad losers won't let that happen.
The only things that should be on the ballot should pass the EC - which no deal probably wouldn't due to apparent significant confusion over what it means. No deal also fails the parliamentary democracy test - there's no support for it in Parliament and it kind fails the test of the duty of MPs to not completely screw the company it.
And as I said above - a third of people are going to be upset regardless. So we should only be looking at options that have a reasonable chance of majority support, and ideally 60+% support. It's hard to see that ever being true for no deal.
As for "deciding the question" - well by your logic we should just accept the result of the 1975 referendum and leave it at that. The electorate is entitled to change its mind, and politicians should accept such changes. The polling suggests that there was only a brief period around the referendum when Leave was in the lead, and it seems reasonable to formally ask the question again to see if that polling is correct. After all, politicians should obey the will of the people, and the politicians should change if the will of the people changes.
Even Rees-Mogg was a fan of a second referendum back in 2011 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111024/debtext/111024-0003.htm#111024-0003.htm_spnew96 "The other two points that do not add up to much were, first, that a three-way referendum is confusing. However, that is not a problem because the motion calls for a Bill in the next Session, which can deal with any confusion. We can, in our wisdom, work out how to phrase a referendum—or series of referendums, if necessary —that will be understandable....Indeed, we could have two referendums. As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed."
There is way too much hot air around this subject. It is still more likely than not that there won't be another referendum. If there is one, it'll be deal (current or slightly amended) v Remain, because it is the only vote that a large enough block of MPs and people want. This only changes if a new 'deal' such as some Norway variant emerges as a possibility in discussion with the EU. No deal isn't going to be on any ballot.
I suppose it's possible that the exact same shift could have taken place if somehow the population had stayes the same, with nobody aging, dying, or being born, but I feel like it wouldn't have
Around about 60% of people vote for the same party their entire life.
I think the Labour vote is the most tribal of the lot. Come Blair or Corbyn, Hartlepool or Islington out they trot to the polling station. At GE17 it was remarkably resilient to leave/remain differences unlike the Tories.
The Labour vote was much lower in 1983 than was the case in 1997.
Yes, I don't think it's all that resilient, but it is, by and large, not very interested in Brexit. The Tory mistake (which they are STILL making) was to believe that they could win seats like Bolsover by banging on about Brexit. Lots of working-class Labour voters agree with them on the subject, but they care more about bread and butter issues. And who is to say they're wrong?
OK let me spell it out for everyone one last time.
There cannot be no deal (NI, some degree of economic disruption not to say chaos). There will not be another referendum (Not appropriate, no time, impossible options). There will not be a GE (Although mad, the Cons are not that mad). There cannot be Norway Plus (FoM, no time). There cannot be no Brexit (A50 nightmare, not appropriate).
Which leaves...The Deal.
Now, you say, all those idiots oppose it or say they oppose it. But, simply, the law of physics, common sense, general equilibrium and sanity cannot be violated.
Theresa's Deal it will be.
If it proves so, I will admire her even more... yet people on here keep slagging her off for being useless.
May will deserve a medal if somehow she gets her deal through Parliament. I broadly agree with Topping, it's hard to see any other sensible way forward, but I've no idea how May can pull it off.
I guess Topping has gone offline. For everyone claiming "this is want NI population wants" there is a simple way to back that up. Devolve the matter to Stormont and then call a fresh election for Stormont. If Stormont chooses to align with the EU they did so democratically. If Stormont chooses to align with the UK they did so democratically. If today's NI population makes a mistake the people of NI can reverse it at future elections.
One of the (many) problems with Boris all the way through his career is that he would make Corbyn look like a man of integrity. It is worth remembering that his first job was on the Times - and his own godfather sacked him for falsifying a quote.
Admittedly it was not quite Jayston Blair or Johann Hari, but it set the scene for his later career.
Given his ability, his charisma, his masterful campaigning skills and his almost surreal talent for spinning memorable (sometimes, too memorable) phrases, it is a shame that he is so fundamentally dishonest he simply cannot be trusted with anything serious.
How is this dishonest? Was he keeping his column in the Telegraph a secret? I think even their diminished readership would make that difficult. This is incompetent, careless and lazy but I don't see dishonesty in this one.
Well, that would rule him out anyway. In fact, more dramatically. Both Bill Clinton and Lloyd George were just as bad as Boris (arguably Kennedy was worse) but at least the two first named had extraordinary executive talent.
You think being incompetent, careless and lazy is a bar to a successful political career? Have you been watching the last 2 years at all?
OK let me spell it out for everyone one last time.
There cannot be no deal (NI, some degree of economic disruption not to say chaos). There will not be another referendum (Not appropriate, no time, impossible options). There will not be a GE (Although mad, the Cons are not that mad). There cannot be Norway Plus (FoM, no time). There cannot be no Brexit (A50 nightmare, not appropriate).
Which leaves...The Deal.
Now, you say, all those idiots oppose it or say they oppose it. But, simply, the law of physics, common sense, general equilibrium and sanity cannot be violated.
Theresa's Deal it will be.
If it proves so, I will admire her even more... yet people on here keep slagging her off for being useless.
She is definitely useless.
Just after the vote she instiuted her idiotic red lines instead of doing what she has tried to do this week - inviting in those "from all sides of the House". If she had set off on this path listening less to Bill Cash and more to Hilary Benn we would probably have got to a better place.
Then again, to her credit although it's all too late, she has identified the central issue of Brexit (NI) and has constructed a (the only) deal which squares that particular circle.
By disenfranchising NI and subjecting the people who live their to a life where they have to follow other people's laws and regulation without having a say in them? That was maybe acceptable in the 18th century.
Democracy means more to me. If NI wants to follow EU rules they can vote that way. If they want to diverge they must be allowed to do so unilaterally.
No one is disenfranchising NI. According to the poll @TSE cited they support the deal. It is one more of the very strange phenomena about NI that makes it such a "special" place. It comes with the territory and sensible people, especially those that live there who don't need your ill-informed and misguided support, realise it.
I don't believe in setting laws by opinion polls and even if they do back the deal they can firstly vote for it and secondly must have the right to unilaterally undo voting for it. .
Wait, what? Surely allowing a vote to change their mind and undo their first vote would be totally undemocratic...
OK let me spell it out for everyone one last time.
There cannot be no deal (NI, some degree of economic disruption not to say chaos). There will not be another referendum (Not appropriate, no time, impossible options). There will not be a GE (Although mad, the Cons are not that mad). There cannot be Norway Plus (FoM, no time). There cannot be no Brexit (A50 nightmare, not appropriate).
Which leaves...The Deal.
Now, you say, all those idiots oppose it or say they oppose it. But, simply, the law of physics, common sense, general equilibrium and sanity cannot be violated.
Theresa's Deal it will be.
If it proves so, I will admire her even more... yet people on here keep slagging her off for being useless.
She is definitely useless.
Just after the vote she instiuted her idiotic red lines instead of doing what she has tried to do this week - inviting in those "from all sides of the House". If she had set off on this path listening less to Bill Cash and more to Hilary Benn we would probably have got to a better place.
Then again, to her credit although it's all too late, she has identified the central issue of Brexit (NI) and has constructed a (the only) deal which squares that particular circle.
By disenfranchising NI and subjecting the people who live their to a life where they have to follow other people's laws and regulation without having a say in them? That was maybe acceptable in the 18th century.
Democracy means more to me. If NI wants to follow EU rules they can vote that way. If they want to diverge they must be allowed to do so unilaterally.
No one is disenfranchising NI. According to the poll @TSE cited they support the deal. It is one more of the very strange phenomena about NI that makes it such a "special" place. It comes with the territory and sensible people, especially those that live there who don't need your ill-informed and misguided support, realise it.
I don't believe in setting laws by opinion polls and even if they do back the deal they can firstly vote for it and secondly must have the right to unilaterally undo voting for it. .
Wait, what? Surely allowing a vote to change their mind and undo their first vote would be totally undemocratic...
At a future election? No its not, not after the first has been implemented.
If after we leave at a future election post-Brexit a party is elected seeking to undo Brexit then that would be fine by me.
I don't believe in setting laws by opinion polls and even if they do back the deal they can firstly vote for it and secondly must have the right to unilaterally undo voting for it. Currently they have neither. This is being forced on them "for their own good" and they have no rights to vote ever again unless others deem it OK.
We used to rule on behalf of colonial "savages" because it was "for their own good". I trust the people of NI to retain their vote.
The particular attributes of Northern Ireland mean that there is no other option. That is the missing link of your impassioned plea, misguided as it is. You may want a world of owls and marshmallow ponies but you need to recognise the reality and the realpolitik of the situation.
Democracy is not owls and marshmallow ponies. It is a fundamental human right that can not be sacrificed by others.
*sob*
yes but no one is sacrificing it or them. We are instituting a pragmatic harmonised widget regulatory environment compromise that suits everyone.
Except people who are blissfully and admirably (your pronouncements all sound great) unaware of the realities of life and politics.
Who votes for the regulations that set the "pragmatic harmonised widget regulatory environment"?
It will have been agreed by the democratically-elected Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that the EU will take the lead in widget harmonisation.
And if the people of Northern Ireland want change that who do they elect?
They are part of the UK. If the people of Cornwall wanted a different income tax regime then sadly that wouldn't be possible.
If the people of the UK elect a new government the tax rate can be changed unilaterally by the UK?
So you're saying if the people of the UK elect a new government then NI's widget regulations could be changed unilaterally? That's the comparison you're making right?
Oh Jesus Christ.
If the people of the UK elect a new government then the whole or individual parts of the UK will be subject to whatever the government decides.
I don't believe in setting laws by opinion polls and even if they do back the deal they can firstly vote for it and secondly must have the right to unilaterally undo voting for it. Currently they have neither. This is being forced on them "for their own good" and they have no rights to vote ever again unless others deem it OK.
We used to rule on behalf of colonial "savages" because it was "for their own good". I trust the people of NI to retain their vote.
So i The particular attributes of Northern Ireland mean that there is no other option. That is the missing link of your impassioned plea, misguided as it is. You may want a world of owls and marshmallow ponies but you need to recognise the reality and the realpolitik of the situation.
Democracy is not owls and marshmallow ponies. It is a fundamental human right that can not be sacrificed by others.
*sob*
yes but no one is sacrificing it or them. We are instituting a pragmatic harmonised widget regulatory environment compromise that suits everyone.
Except people who are blissfully and admirably (your pronouncements all sound great) unaware of the realities of life and politics.
Who votes for the regulations that set the "pragmatic harmonised widget regulatory environment"?
It will have been agreed by the democratically-elected Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that the EU will take the lead in widget harmonisation.
And if the people of Northern Ireland want change that who do they elect?
They are part of the UK. If the people of Cornwall wanted a different income tax regime then sadly that wouldn't be possible.
If the people of the UK elect a new government the tax rate can be changed unilaterally by the UK?
So you're saying if the people of the UK elect a new government then NI's widget regulations could be changed unilaterally? That's the comparison you're making right?
Oh Jesus Christ.
If the people of the UK elect a new government then the whole or individual parts of the UK will be subject to whatever the government decides.
That's democracy for you.
Oh Jesus Christ.
So if in a future election the people of the UK (including Northern Ireland) elects a new government that decides on new widget regulations the whole of the UK (including Northern Ireland) will be subject to it?
Mrs May is a very courageous woman. As the ever more egocentric John Humphrys preened himself between patronising questions I started to get the feeling that she was far too good for her shitty party.
Then this evening I heard David Davis who had single handedly landed her in this mess slagging her off I couldn't believe it. She was to even too polite to ask the back-stabbing slimeball what he had been doing these last two years.
Being over-ridden and undermined by her.
That's the problem.....
How do you know? She uses 'I' and 'me' too regularly but I now think that's because she's had experience at first hand what a duplicitous cabinet and party she's leading
If it proves so, I will admire her even more... yet people on here keep slagging her off for being useless.
She is definitely useless.
Just after the vote she instiuted her idiotic red lines instead of doing what she has tried to do this week - inviting in those "from all sides of the House". If she had set off on this path listening less to Bill Cash and more to Hilary Benn we would probably have got to a better place.
Then again, to her credit although it's all too late, she has identified the central issue of Brexit (NI) and has constructed a (the only) deal which squares that particular circle.
By disenfranchising NI and subjecting the people who live their to a life where they have to follow other people's laws and regulation without having a say in them? That was maybe acceptable in the 18th century.
Democracy means more to me. If NI wants to follow EU rules they can vote that way. If they want to diverge they must be allowed to do so unilaterally.
No one is disenfranchising NI. According to the poll @TSE cited they support the deal. It is one more of the very strange phenomena about NI that makes it such a "special" place. It comes with the territory and sensible people, especially those that live there who don't need your ill-informed and misguided support, realise it.
I don't believe in setting laws by opinion polls and even if they do back the deal they can firstly vote for it and secondly must have the right to unilaterally undo voting for it. .
Wait, what? Surely allowing a vote to change their mind and undo their first vote would be totally undemocratic...
At a future election? No its not, not after the first has been implemented.
If after we leave at a future election post-Brexit a party is elected seeking to undo Brexit then that would be fine by me.
Say, during the transition period? As we would, after all, have left at that point.q
As an aside, was Baldwin undemocratic in 1923? You know, when he decided to repudiate the previous Conservative manifesto and go for protectionism, and decided to call an election to get a mandate to do that?
Mrs May is a very courageous woman. As the ever more egocentric John Humphrys preened himself between patronising questions I started to get the feeling that she was far too good for her shitty party.
Then this evening I heard David Davis who had single handedly landed her in this mess slagging her off I couldn't believe it. She was to even too polite to ask the back-stabbing slimeball what he had been doing these last two years.
Being over-ridden and undermined by her.
That's the problem.....
How do you know? She uses 'I' and 'me' too regularly but I now think that's because she's had experience at first hand what a duplicitous cabinet and party she's leading
And she is primus inter pares. Hmm....
In fairness she is trying her best at the moment but it is all too late and the damage was done long ago.
I guess Topping has gone offline. For everyone claiming "this is want NI population wants" there is a simple way to back that up. Devolve the matter to Stormont and then call a fresh election for Stormont. If Stormont chooses to align with the EU they did so democratically. If Stormont chooses to align with the UK they did so democratically. If today's NI population makes a mistake the people of NI can reverse it at future elections.
That's democracy. Shame some don't respect it.
Given the quirks in Northern Irish decision making I’m not sure you’re going to get a consensus at Stormont on the way forward - it’s hard enough forming an executive at the moment.
So if in a future election the people of the UK (including Northern Ireland) elects a new government that decides on new widget regulations the whole of the UK (including Northern Ireland) will be subject to it?
That's democracy for you.
What you're ignoring is that the Good Friday Agreement has constitutional status. It's not something that can be played around with as a political football.
That looks like mischief-making from the headline writer. The article doesn't budge Labour's position a millimetre.
The'r position, and where it will end up, has been very obvious for some time. Like the government officially ruling out a referendum the stated position is true, but everyone knows that will change as the circumstances change. We might disagree on how it will change, but that it will change is certain.
I don't believe in setting laws by opinion polls and even if they do back the decolonial "savages" because it was "for their own good". I trust the people of NI to retain their vote.
So i The particular attributes of Northern Ireland mean that there is no other option. That is the missing link of your impassioned plea, misguided as it is. You may want a world of owls and marshmallow ponies but you need to recognise the reality and the realpolitik of the situation.
Democracy is not owls and marshmallow ponies. It is a fundamental human right that can not be sacrificed by others.
*sob*
yes but no one is sacrificing it or them. We are instituting a pragmatic harmonised widget regulatory environment compromise that suits everyone.
Except people who are blissfully and admirably (your pronouncements all sound great) unaware of the realities of life and politics.
Who votes for the regulations that set the "pragmatic harmonised widget regulatory environment"?
It will have been agreed by the democratically-elected Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that the EU will take the lead in widget harmonisation.
And if the people of Northern Ireland want change that who do they elect?
They are part of the UK. If the people of Cornwall wanted a different income tax regime then sadly that wouldn't be possible.
If the people of the UK elect a new government the tax rate can be changed unilaterally by the UK?
So you're saying if the people of the UK elect a new government then NI's widget regulations could be changed unilaterally? That's the comparison you're making right?
Oh Jesus Christ.
If the people of the UK elect a new government then the whole or individual parts of the UK will be subject to whatever the government decides.
That's democracy for you.
Oh Jesus Christ.
So if in a future election the people of the UK (including Northern Ireland) elects a new government that decides on new widget regulations the whole of the UK (including Northern Ireland) will be subject to it?
That's democracy for you.
Depends. If they don't like the arrangement they can change it. But it is likely that they too will realise the utility of the outsourcing.
Just like the government today could decide to put up a hard border in Northern Ireland. But it has decided not to do so.
I suppose it's possible that the exact same shift could have taken place if somehow the population had stayes the same, with nobody aging, dying, or being born, but I feel like it wouldn't have
Around about 60% of people vote for the same party their entire life.
I think the Labour vote is the most tribal of the lot. Come Blair or Corbyn, Hartlepool or Islington out they trot to the polling station. At GE17 it was remarkably resilient to leave/remain differences unlike the Tories.
The Labour vote was much lower in 1983 than was the case in 1997.
Also Labour voters, prior to 2010 at least, are more receptive to voting tactically than are Tories.
Not so sure about that. Until the 2014 Referendum many Tories voted SNP on an anti-Labour tactical basis. Tactical Tory votes will also have helped the LibDems hold seats such as Bermondsey - Rochdale - and Cardiff Central -in the past.
But Channel 4 continue with theirs: probably between a social justice warrior from Hackney, a Tommy Robinson supporter who cannot string two coherent sentences together, a discredited politician (Mr T. Blair) and an amoeba who will just stay still in a glass of water.
My money would be on the amoeba ...
The amoeba can't make it as he has just been elected leader of the Labour Party in Wales.
I agree. I am not advocating voting No Deal. I am saying since it is clearly a well supported (if minority) outcome it needs to be on the ballot. Personally of course I think if there is a ballot it should just be a Deal/No Deal choice since we already decided the Leave/Remain question but the bad losers won't let that happen.
The only things that should be on the ballot should pass the EC - which no deal probably wouldn't due to apparent significant confusion over what it means. No deal also fails the parliamentary democracy test - there's no support for it in Parliament and it kind fails the test of the duty of MPs to not completely screw the company it.
And as I said above - a third of people are going to be upset regardless. So we should only be looking at options that have a reasonable chance of majority support, and ideally 60+% support. It's hard to see that ever being true for no deal.
As for "deciding the question" - well by your logic we should just accept the result of the 1975 referendum and leave it at that. The electorate is entitled to change its mind, and politicians should accept such changes. The polling suggests that there was only a brief period around the referendum when Leave was in the lead, and it seems reasonable to formally ask the question again to see if that polling is correct. After all, politicians should obey the will of the people, and the politicians should change if the will of the people changes.
Even Rees-Mogg was a fan of a second referendum back in 2011 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111024/debtext/111024-0003.htm#111024-0003.htm_spnew96 "The other two points that do not add up to much were, first, that a three-way referendum is confusing. However, that is not a problem because the motion calls for a Bill in the next Session, which can deal with any confusion. We can, in our wisdom, work out how to phrase a referendum—or series of referendums, if necessary —that will be understandable....Indeed, we could have two referendums. As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed."
Am I alone in thinking that our democracy is actually functioning extremely well at the moment?
We have a crisis, parliament is split into several factions with seemingly too few with any common ground to reach an agreement, the population of the country is deeply divided. And yet we/they continue to argue their/our various corners with what seems to me a reassuring reliance on recognised process and procedure.
I guess Topping has gone offline. For everyone claiming "this is want NI population wants" there is a simple way to back that up. Devolve the matter to Stormont and then call a fresh election for Stormont. If Stormont chooses to align with the EU they did so democratically. If Stormont chooses to align with the UK they did so democratically. If today's NI population makes a mistake the people of NI can reverse it at future elections.
That's democracy. Shame some don't respect it.
Still here. just. The point is that NI is a part of the UK. As is Slough. The UK government might decide to let the EU determine widget regs in Slough and build a third runway in Northern Ireland.
OK let me spell it out for everyone one last time.
There cannot be no deal (NI, some degree of economic disruption not to say chaos). There will not be another referendum (Not appropriate, no time, impossible options). There will not be a GE (Although mad, the Cons are not that mad). There cannot be Norway Plus (FoM, no time). There cannot be no Brexit (A50 nightmare, not appropriate).
Which leaves...The Deal.
Now, you say, all those idiots oppose it or say they oppose it. But, simply, the law of physics, common sense, general equilibrium and sanity cannot be violated.
Theresa's Deal it will be.
I'd like to agree with you, but I fear that MPs might not see the bigger picture and try to defy gravity.
Wouldn't have been so bad if, in their fervour for remain/no deal/a unicorn, they had a little more wiggle room in their opposition to allow a reconsideration, should they need to wake up.
Now (unless we are lucky and they are right about the EU bending) even if they realise they cannot defy gravity, they are too far over the edge to pull back.
I agree. I am not advocating voting No Deal. I am saying since it is clearly a well supported (if minority) outcome it needs to be on the ballot. Personally of course I think if there is a ballot it should just be a Deal/No Deal choice since we already decided the Leave/Remain question but the bad losers won't let that happen.
The only things that should be on the ballot should pass the EC - which no deal probably wouldn't due to apparent significant confusion over what it means. No deal also fails the parliamentary democracy test - there's no support for it in Parliament and it kind fails the test of the duty of MPs to not completely screw the company it.
And as I said above - a third of people are going to be upset regardless. So we should only be looking at options that have a reasonable chance of majority support, and ideally 60+% support. It's hard to see that ever being true for no deal.
As for "deciding the question" - well by your logic we should just accept the result of the 1975 referendum and leave it at that. The electorate is entitled to change its mind, and politicians should accept such changes. The polling suggests that there was only a brief period around the referendum when Leave was in the lead, and it seems reasonable to formally ask the question again to see if that polling is correct. After all, politicians should obey the will of the people, and the politicians should change if the will of the people changes.
Even Rees-Mogg was a fan of a second referendum back in 2011 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111024/debtext/111024-0003.htm#111024-0003.htm_spnew96 "The other two points that do not add up to much were, first, that a three-way referendum is confusing. However, that is not a problem because the motion calls for a Bill in the next Session, which can deal with any confusion. We can, in our wisdom, work out how to phrase a referendum—or series of referendums, if necessary —that will be understandable....Indeed, we could have two referendums. As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed."
Am I alone in thinking that our democracy is actually functioning extremely well at the moment?
We have a crisis, parliament is split into several factions with seemingly too few with any common ground to reach an agreement, the population of the country is deeply divided. And yet we/they continue to argue their/our various corners with what seems to me a reassuring reliance on recognised process and procedure.
Good evening, everyone.
No you are not, I agree it is good that this is all being debated so vigorously.
Now, you say, all those idiots oppose it or say they oppose it. But, simply, the law of physics, common sense, general equilibrium and sanity cannot be violated.
Sure they can.
I think you overlook a terrible outcome occurring by accident. Things might get pushed too far. It's like firing a gun and then immediately regretting it; too late now. (No doubt some will say that is analogous to brexit as a whole)
I agree. I am not advocating voting No Deal. I am saying since it is clearly a well supported (if minority) outcome it needs to be on the ballot. Personally of course I think if there is a ballot it should just be a Deal/No Deal choice since we already decided the Leave/Remain question but the bad losers won't let that happen.
The only things that should be on the ballot should pass the EC - which no deal probably wouldn't due to apparent significant confusion over what it means. No deal also fails the parliamentary democracy test - there's no support for it in Parliament and it kind fails the test of the duty of MPs to not completely screw the company it.
And as I said above - a third of people are going to be upset regardless. So we should only be looking at options that have a reasonable chance of majority support, and ideally 60+% support. It's hard to see that ever being true for no deal.
As for "deciding the question" - well by your logic we should just accept the result of the 1975 referendum and leave it at that. The electorate is entitled to change its mind, and politicians should accept such changes. The polling suggests that there was only a brief period around the referendum when Leave was in the lead, and it seems reasonable to formally ask the question again to see if that polling is correct. After all, politicians should obey the will of the people, and the politicians should change if the will of the people changes.
Even Rees-Mogg was a fan of a second referendum back in 2011 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111024/debtext/111024-0003.htm#111024-0003.htm_spnew96 "The other two points that do not add up to much were, first, that a three-way referendum is confusing. However, that is not a problem because the motion calls for a Bill in the next Session, which can deal with any confusion. We can, in our wisdom, work out how to phrase a referendum—or series of referendums, if necessary —that will be understandable....Indeed, we could have two referendums. As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed."
Am I alone in thinking that our democracy is actually functioning extremely well at the moment?
We have a crisis, parliament is split into several factions with seemingly too few with any common ground to reach an agreement, the population of the country is deeply divided. And yet we/they continue to argue their/our various corners with what seems to me a reassuring reliance on recognised process and procedure.
Good evening, everyone.
And we're getting the "nation has never been so divided" trope.
I suppose it's possible that the exact same shift could have taken place if somehow the population had stayes the same, with nobody aging, dying, or being born, but I feel like it wouldn't have
Around about 60% of people vote for the same party their entire life.
I think the Labour vote is the most tribal of the lot. Come Blair or Corbyn, Hartlepool or Islington out they trot to the polling station. At GE17 it was remarkably resilient to leave/remain differences unlike the Tories.
The Labour vote was much lower in 1983 than was the case in 1997.
Yes, I don't think it's all that resilient, but it is, by and large, not very interested in Brexit. The Tory mistake (which they are STILL making) was to believe that they could win seats like Bolsover by banging on about Brexit. Lots of working-class Labour voters agree with them on the subject, but they care more about bread and butter issues. And who is to say they're wrong?
I have made similar points myself. It has to be said though that there was a big anti-Labour swing in seats such as Bolsover - with the Tories winning NEDerbyshire - Walsall North - Mansfield -Stoke seat - and coming very close in Ashfield. I strongly suspect that attitudes to Corbyn in such traditional white working class areas were far more important than views related to Brexit.
I agree. I am not advocating voting No Deal. I am saying since it is clearly a well supported (if minority) outcome it needs to be on the ballot. Personally of course I think if there is a ballot it should just be a Deal/No Deal choice since we already decided the Leave/Remain question but the bad losers won't let that happen.
The only things that should be on the ballot should pass the EC - which no deal probably wouldn't due to apparent significant confusion over what it means. No deal also fails the parliamentary democracy test - there's no support for it in Parliament and it kind fails the test of the duty of MPs to not completely screw the company it.
And as I said above - a third of people are going to be upset regardless. So we should only be looking at options that have a reasonable chance of majority support, and ideally 60+% support. It's hard to see that ever being true for no deal.
Even Rees-Mogg was a fan of a second referendum back in 2011 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111024/debtext/111024-0003.htm#111024-0003.htm_spnew96 "The other two points that do not add up to much were, first, that a three-way referendum is confusing. However, that is not a problem because the motion calls for a Bill in the next Session, which can deal with any confusion. We can, in our wisdom, work out how to phrase a referendum—or series of referendums, if necessary —that will be understandable....Indeed, we could have two referendums. As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed."
Am I alone in thinking that our democracy is actually functioning extremely well at the moment?
We have a crisis, parliament is split into several factions with seemingly too few with any common ground to reach an agreement, the population of the country is deeply divided. And yet we/they continue to argue their/our various corners with what seems to me a reassuring reliance on recognised process and procedure.
Good evening, everyone.
The main problem is it is a matter of national significance and yet for the most part it's still being focused through the prism of inter and intra party relations.
I suppose it's possible that the exact same shift could have taken place if somehow the population had stayes the same, with nobody aging, dying, or being born, but I feel like it wouldn't have
Around about 60% of people vote for the same party their entire life.
I think the Labour vote is the most tribal of the lot. Come Blair or Corbyn, Hartlepool or Islington out they trot to the polling station. At GE17 it was remarkably resilient to leave/remain differences unlike the Tories.
The Labour vote was much lower in 1983 than was the case in 1997.
Also Labour voters, prior to 2010 at least, are more receptive to voting tactically than are Tories.
Not so sure about that. Until the 2014 Referendum many Tories voted SNP on an anti-Labour tactical basis. Tactical Tory votes will also have helped the LibDems hold seats such as Bermondsey - Rochdale - and Cardiff Central -in the past.
Birmingham Yardley also comes to mind - as does Cambridge!.
Now, you say, all those idiots oppose it or say they oppose it. But, simply, the law of physics, common sense, general equilibrium and sanity cannot be violated.
Sure they can.
I think you overlook a terrible outcome occurring by accident. Things might get pushed too far. It's like firing a gun and then immediately regretting it; too late now. (No doubt some will say that is analogous to brexit as a whole)
The problem as you identify is that the rebels have no or little way back from their stated position. They need to be offered a route to a face-saving climb down.
And we're getting the "nation has never been so divided" trope.
Errr, how about the Civil War for starters?
Political debate has to allow for a certain level of exaggeration without automatically making irrelevant any associated point. Even if someone says we have never been so divided yes that's wrong, but unless they are being specifically hyperbolistic like 'worst crisis in 700 years' or something, I think we can reasonably assume people are not necessarily speaking literally, or are referring to in recent memory as a default. The same way when people on here talk about calling for a GE, they usually mean, unspoken, in following the necessary provisions of the FTPA.
Now, you say, all those idiots oppose it or say they oppose it. But, simply, the law of physics, common sense, general equilibrium and sanity cannot be violated.
Sure they can.
I think you overlook a terrible outcome occurring by accident. Things might get pushed too far. It's like firing a gun and then immediately regretting it; too late now. (No doubt some will say that is analogous to brexit as a whole)
The problem as you identify is that the rebels have no or little way back from their stated position. They need to be offered a route to a face-saving climb down.
No the EU need to be offered a route to a face-saving climb down to make this backstop bulls**t go away. There was never a backstop before now, there isn't one now. We need to work together in good faith.
I suppose it's possible that the exact same shift could have taken place if somehow the population had stayes the same, with nobody aging, dying, or being born, but I feel like it wouldn't have
Around about 60% of people vote for the same party their entire life.
I think the Labour vote is the most tribal of the lot. Come Blair or Corbyn, Hartlepool or Islington out they trot to the polling station. At GE17 it was remarkably resilient to leave/remain differences unlike the Tories.
The Labour vote was much lower in 1983 than was the case in 1997.
Yes, I don't think it's all that resilient, but it is, by and large, not very interested in Brexit. The Tory mistake (which they are STILL making) was to believe that they could win seats like Bolsover by banging on about Brexit. Lots of working-class Labour voters agree with them on the subject, but they care more about bread and butter issues. And who is to say they're wrong?
You'd have to find out how many Labour supporters are traditional working class. You'll know better than me but from those Labour voters that I know Brexit is THE defining issue and without it Corbyn's Labour would take a not insignificant hit.
I guess Topping has gone offline. For everyone claiming "this is want NI population wants" there is a simple way to back that up. Devolve the matter to Stormont and then call a fresh election for Stormont. If Stormont chooses to align with the EU they did so democratically. If Stormont chooses to align with the UK they did so democratically. If today's NI population makes a mistake the people of NI can reverse it at future elections.
That's democracy. Shame some don't respect it.
Still here. just. The point is that NI is a part of the UK. As is Slough. The UK government might decide to let the EU determine widget regs in Slough and build a third runway in Northern Ireland.
All perfectly democratic.
Yes and what the UK does the UK can undo. The UK government can say the third runway needs to be closed and offer appropriate compensation and then its gone. Unless there is a route for NI voters to undo the backstop it is a wholy undemocratic abomination that is worse than any problem it is purported to fix.
Now, you say, all those idiots oppose it or say they oppose it. But, simply, the law of physics, common sense, general equilibrium and sanity cannot be violated.
Sure they can.
I think you overlook a terrible outcome occurring by accident. Things might get pushed too far. It's like firing a gun and then immediately regretting it; too late now. (No doubt some will say that is analogous to brexit as a whole)
The problem as you identify is that the rebels have no or little way back from their stated position. They need to be offered a route to a face-saving climb down.
I cannot see one. They've been so clear about how apocalyptically bad it is. Without a major concession like losing the backstop I don't see what could enable them to back down and save face (plus they still need to get Lab MPs on board). Some believe the EU will concede it if we push back now, but if they are wrong what else could possibly induce a change? A threat of no Brexit doesn't seem to be doing it.
No the UK need to be offered a route to a face-saving climb down to make this Brexit bulls**t go away. There was never a Brexit before now, there isn't one now. We need to work together in good faith.
Depends. If they don't like the arrangement they can change it. But it is likely that they too will realise the utility of the outsourcing.
Just like the government today could decide to put up a hard border in Northern Ireland. But it has decided not to do so.
No they can't change it, that's the point. It takes an agreement between the UK and EU to change it. The voters in NI are permanently disenfranchised with no say in either Brussels MEPs or Westminster MPs on who sets their laws.
I guess Topping has gone offline. For everyone claiming "this is want NI population wants" there is a simple way to back that up. Devolve the matter to Stormont and then call a fresh election for Stormont. If Stormont chooses to align with the EU they did so democratically. If Stormont chooses to align with the UK they did so democratically. If today's NI population makes a mistake the people of NI can reverse it at future elections.
That's democracy. Shame some don't respect it.
Still here. just. The point is that NI is a part of the UK. As is Slough. The UK government might decide to let the EU determine widget regs in Slough and build a third runway in Northern Ireland.
All perfectly democratic.
Yes and what the UK does the UK can undo. The UK government can say the third runway needs to be closed and offer appropriate compensation and then its gone. Unless there is a route for NI voters to undo the backstop it is a wholy undemocratic abomination that is worse than any problem it is purported to fix.
If it proves so, I will admire her even more... yet people on here keep slagging her off for being useless.
She is definitely useless.
Just after the vote she instiuted her idiotic red lines instead of doing what she has tried to do this week - inviting in those "from all sides of the House". If she had set off on this path listening less to Bill Cash and more to Hilary Benn we would probably have got to a better place.
Then again, to her credit although it's all too late, she has identified the central issue of Brexit (NI) and has constructed a (the only) deal which squares that particular circle.
By disenfranchising NI and subjecting the people who live their to a life where they have to follow other people's laws and regulation without having a say in them? That was maybe acceptable in the 18th century.
Democracy means more to me. If NI wants to follow EU rules they can vote that way. If they want to diverge they must be allowed to do so unilaterally.
No one is disenfranchising NI. According to the poll @TSE cited they support the deal. It is one more of the very strange phenomena about NI that makes it such a "special" place. It comes with the territory and sensible people, especially those that live there who don't need your ill-informed and misguided support, realise it.
I don't believe in setting laws by opinion polls and even if they do back the deal they can firstly vote for it and secondly must have the right to unilaterally undo voting for it. .
Wait, what? Surely allowing a vote to change their mind and undo their first vote would be totally undemocratic...
At a future election? No its not, not after the first has been implemented.
If after we leave at a future election post-Brexit a party is elected seeking to undo Brexit then that would be fine by me.
Say, during the transition period? As we would, after all, have left at that point.q
As an aside, was Baldwin undemocratic in 1923? You know, when he decided to repudiate the previous Conservative manifesto and go for protectionism, and decided to call an election to get a mandate to do that?
Yes if an election was held during the transition and a party elected during the transition on a manifesto to undo Brexit that would be perfectly democratic.
1923: No because there was a General Election in-between. There has been no general election yet on an undo Brexit manifesto.
All I did was campaign for and vote Leave. I remain immensely proud of that fact Whatever happens in the short term we will Leave. It just depends if it is relatively painless now or extremely painful in a few years. I can also say I am pleased I did not vote for May - although in my particular constituency that made bugger al difference. I detested her long before Brexit came along and all she has done is confirm my worst opinions of her.
So no, I don't think that I, nor anyone who voted Leave, has anything at all to be sorry about.
Actually, you do. You are totally one-eyed on the EU, that they cannot do any good - and that is fair enough. You admit to having spent decades in that mindset. But in the process you forget that this involved real people. As an example:
"It just depends if it is relatively painless now or extremely painful in a few years"
This says it all: that pain may not effect you (or you may not care), but it will hurt others. It may hurt my son. Or your daughter. One of the infuriating things pre-referendum was Brexiteers putting their wet dreams ahead of the consequences of those dreams. All cfor some vague and nebulous 'advantage'.
And now you warn in guarded tones about violence if leaves' impossible dreams are unfulfilled (which, due to the way it occurred, is inevitable. That violence too will affect people.
No what I am saying is that there will be pain no matter what happens. Right now it is bearable. In a few years it will be excruciating and life threatening. Anyone who thinks otherwise is burying their head in the sand.
As an aside my daughter is strongly pro Brexit.
I fear you've buried your head in the sand for far too long in your hatred of the EU. And again you mention violence.
Nope. Life threatening does not need to mean violence. Diseases are life threatening. The EU is a disease afflicting the body politic.
Be fascinated to hear what the EU thinks of Mrs May's attempts to derogate from the backstop before it's even approved.
I think it is fascinating how so many MPs, left and right, are convinced if they legislate for something it will basically be able to impose that on the EU.
I guess Topping has gone offline. For everyone claiming "this is want NI population wants" there is a simple way to back that up. Devolve the matter to Stormont and then call a fresh election for Stormont. If Stormont chooses to align with the EU they did so democratically. If Stormont chooses to align with the UK they did so democratically. If today's NI population makes a mistake the people of NI can reverse it at future elections.
That's democracy. Shame some don't respect it.
Still here. just. The point is that NI is a part of the UK. As is Slough. The UK government might decide to let the EU determine widget regs in Slough and build a third runway in Northern Ireland.
All perfectly democratic.
Yes and what the UK does the UK can undo. The UK government can say the third runway needs to be closed and offer appropriate compensation and then its gone. Unless there is a route for NI voters to undo the backstop it is a wholy undemocratic abomination that is worse than any problem it is purported to fix.
Now I am off.
That's your choice.
If your disgraceful disenfranchisement of Northern Irish voters goes through, they will never again have a choice unless others deign them worthy of regaining one.
Depends. If they don't like the arrangement they can change it. But it is likely that they too will realise the utility of the outsourcing.
Just like the government today could decide to put up a hard border in Northern Ireland. But it has decided not to do so.
No they can't change it, that's the point. It takes an agreement between the UK and EU to change it. The voters in NI are permanently disenfranchised with no say in either Brussels MEPs or Westminster MPs on who sets their laws.
So let the voters of Northern Ireland have a referendum on the backstop.
What's hilarious about the goverment's amendment is, having realised that the backstop is a disaster, and being unwilling or unable to negiotiate it away, they now want the house to simpy vote to pretend that it does not exist.
Be fascinated to hear what the EU thinks of Mrs May's attempts to derogate from the backstop before it's even approved.
I think it is fascinating how so many MPs, left and right, are convinced if they legislate for something it will basically be able to impose that on the EU.
This amendment basically says "if we all wish REALLY HARD maybe the backstop will just cease to exist?"
All I did was campaign for and vote Leave. I remain immensely proud of that fact Whatever happens in the short term we will Leave. It just depends if it is relatively painless now or extremely painful in a few years. I can also say I am pleased I did not vote for May - although in my particular constituency that made bugger al difference. I detested her long before Brexit came along and all she has done is confirm my worst opinions of her.
So no, I don't think that I, nor anyone who voted Leave, has anything at all to be sorry about.
Actually, you do. You are totally one-eyed on the EU, that they cannot do any good - and that is fair enough. You admit to having spent decades in that mindset. But in the process you forget that this involved real people. As an example:
"It just depends if it is relatively painless now or extremely painful in a few years"
This says it all: that pain may not effect you (or you may not care), but it will hurt others. It may hurt my son. Or your daughter. One of the infuriating things pre-referendum was Brexiteers putting their wet dreams ahead of the consequences of those dreams. All cfor some vague and nebulous 'advantage'.
And now you warn in guarded tones about violence if leaves' impossible dreams are unfulfilled (which, due to the way it occurred, is inevitable. That violence too will affect people.
No what I am saying is that there will be pain no matter what happens. Right now it is bearable. In a few years it will be excruciating and life threatening. Anyone who thinks otherwise is burying their head in the sand.
As an aside my daughter is strongly pro Brexit.
I fear you've buried your head in the sand for far too long in your hatred of the EU. And again you mention violence.
Too late too edit. Apologies to Richard: I've noticed he didn't mention violence again - at least directly ('life threatening' could potentially mean non-violence). I shall withdraw for the night.
Have fun everyone.
Don't withdraw old chap. I don't take these arguments personally or seriously unless there is a conscious attempt to misrepresent. It is all part of the game on here.
What's hilarious about the goverment's amendment is, having realised that the backstop is a disaster, and being unwilling or unable to negiotiate it away, they now want the house to simpy vote to pretend that it does not exist.
Have we not been told that in reality no one will be putting up a hard border anyway, so in that case maybe MPs pretending the backstop is not there is the right way to go? Pass the deal, then just pretend there's no backstop even if no deal is agree later.
I agree. I am not advocating voting No Deal. I am saying since it is clearly a well supported (if minority) outcome it needs to be on the ballot. Personally of course I think if there is a ballot it should just be a Deal/No Deal choice since we already decided the Leave/Remain question but the bad losers won't let that happen.
The only things that should be on the ballot should pass the EC - which no deal probably wouldn't due to apparent significant confusion over what it means. No deal also fails the parliamentary democracy test - there's no support for it in Parliament and it kind fails the test of the duty of MPs to not completely screw the company it.
And as I said above - a third of people are going to be upset regardless. So we should only be looking at options that have a reasonable chance of majority support, and ideally 60+% support. It's hard to see that ever being true for no deal.
As for "deciding the question" - well by your logic we should just accept the result of the 1975 referendum and leave it at that. The electorate is entitled to change its mind, and politicians should accept such changes. The polling suggests that there was only a brief period around the referendum when Leave was in the lead, and it seems reasonable to formally ask the question again to see if that polling is correct. After all, politicians should obey the will of the people, and the politicians should change if the will of the people changes.
Even Rees-Mogg was a fan of a second referendum back in 2011 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111024/debtext/111024-0003.htm#111024-0003.htm_spnew96 "The other two points that do not add up to much were, first, that a three-way referendum is confusing. However, that is not a problem because the motion calls for a Bill in the next Session, which can deal with any confusion. We can, in our wisdom, work out how to phrase a referendum—or series of referendums, if necessary —that will be understandable....Indeed, we could have two referendums. As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed."
We did accept it for 45 years. By the end of which the EU was a very different body from the EEC we voted to remain in.
Now if you are advocating waiting another 45 years before we have the second referendum I can certainly go for that.
What's hilarious about the goverment's amendment is, having realised that the backstop is a disaster, and being unwilling or unable to negiotiate it away, they now want the house to simpy vote to pretend that it does not exist.
Have we not been told that in reality no one will be putting up a hard border anyway, so in that case maybe MPs pretending the backstop is not there is the right way to go? Pass the deal, then just pretend there's no backstop even if no deal is agree later.
I mean, the government isn't thinking more than an hour ahead, right? At some point somebody from the EU is going to see this amendment, get on the phone to May, and remind her that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and that therefore maybe trying to remove the backstop without telling the EU isn't actually so great an idea, yeah?
Comments
Anything is better than ending democracy. Literally anything. My grandparents and great-grandparents generations sacrificed their lives for our freedoms. I'm not prepared to sacrifice anyone's freedoms to either avoid economic carnage or terrorism.
I would rather risk violence than risk losing democracy. If my grandparents generation could face down Nazis to protect our freedoms, I'm prepared to face down potential terrorists or the risk we might have disruption at Dover.
That said, I've always had a sneaking regard for this person:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/32658907/election-2015-mp-thanks-voter-for-penis-ballot-paper-mark
As mentioned above, noble as you may see yourself, sword and shield in hand, you aren't sacrifcing anyone's freedoms. The people of NI who you would so quickly (or maybe not so quickly) ride into battle on a white charger to save, disagree with you also.
Conservative
Labour
Lib Dem
Green
Independent
Sometimes at the same visit to the polling station (e.g. locals, GE).
Basically, most parties available in my part of England aside from UKIP. And I am so glad I never soiled myself by associating myself via a vote with that party.
We used to rule on behalf of colonial "savages" because it was "for their own good". I trust the people of NI to retain their vote.
If this were to happen, what would the timetable look like? Might the deadline for putting name forward be as soon as Dec 14 and first round of voting Dec 20 so we get new PM by Dec 20 (when commons rises) or would timetable be more protracted and first round vote be in the New Year?
As an aside my daughter is strongly pro Brexit.
And who gave them the right to sacrifice the right of others in NI to elect those who set their laws in perpetuity?
1. Remain
2. Stay
3. Revoke
Might we really imagine
EU: Hahahaha - you're trapped! Any gold in your teeth?
I think not, and if they arse about then I definitely want the money back.
Mrs May is thinking quite clearly and well. Her deal is awful, but she's basically said that anyway. Quite why leaving this wonderful club is so awful hasn't been explained.
There is no other way to go than approve Mrs May's deal.
What we know about the deal is
It works in the short-term
It can be set aside at the drop of a hat
“We will only approve with this change” forces the EU to choose
yes but no one is sacrificing it or them. We are instituting a pragmatic harmonised widget regulatory environment compromise that suits everyone.
Except people who are blissfully and admirably (your pronouncements all sound great) unaware of the realities of life and politics.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46476324
But Channel 4 continue with theirs: probably between a social justice warrior from Hackney, a Tommy Robinson supporter who cannot string two coherent sentences together, a discredited politician (Mr T. Blair) and an amoeba who will just stay still in a glass of water.
My money would be on the amoeba ...
As a result, casting a vote for a candidate to crush the Tories is almost as satisfying as casting one for the Idoelogically Pure Great Leader For Ever (who was there, but wasn't involved).
So you're saying if the people of the UK elect a new government then NI's widget regulations could be changed unilaterally? That's the comparison you're making right?
Then this evening I heard David Davis who had single handedly landed her in this mess slagging her off I couldn't believe it. She was to even too polite to ask the back-stabbing slimeball what he had been doing these last two years.
That's the problem.....
And as I said above - a third of people are going to be upset regardless. So we should only be looking at options that have a reasonable chance of majority support, and ideally 60+% support. It's hard to see that ever being true for no deal.
As for "deciding the question" - well by your logic we should just accept the result of the 1975 referendum and leave it at that. The electorate is entitled to change its mind, and politicians should accept such changes. The polling suggests that there was only a brief period around the referendum when Leave was in the lead, and it seems reasonable to formally ask the question again to see if that polling is correct. After all, politicians should obey the will of the people, and the politicians should change if the will of the people changes.
Even Rees-Mogg was a fan of a second referendum back in 2011
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111024/debtext/111024-0003.htm#111024-0003.htm_spnew96
"The other two points that do not add up to much were, first, that a three-way referendum is confusing. However, that is not a problem because the motion calls for a Bill in the next Session, which can deal with any confusion. We can, in our wisdom, work out how to phrase a referendum—or series of referendums, if necessary —that will be understandable....Indeed, we could have two referendums. As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed."
Have fun everyone.
He's the Brown of the Tory party. Aspiration over ability.
Labour voters split 70% Remain, 16% No Deal and 15% Deal.
LD voters split 70% Remain, 14% Deal, 7% No Deal.
UKIP voters split 67% No Deal, 28% Deal, 5% Remain.
Green voters split 67% Remain, 18% No Deal, 15% Deal.
SNP voters split 78% Remain, 8% Deal, 13% No Deal.
PC voters split 65% Remain, 14% Deal, 20% No Deal.
Using preferences joint top for Tories is Deal then No Deal then Remain on 34% and No Deal then Deal then Remain also on 34%.
56% of Labour voters favour Remain then Deal then No Deal.
70% of LDs favour Remain then Deal then No Deal.
62% of UKIP voters favour No Deal then Deal then Remain.
54% of Greens favour Remain then Deal then No Deal.
59% of SNP voters favour Remain then Deal then No Deal.
52% of PC voters favour Remain then Deal then No Deal.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/24pikzv1u7/Ben Lauderdale Brexit deal MRP report.pdf
That's democracy. Shame some don't respect it.
Labour could do a better Brexit deal. Give us the chance – or give the people another vote
Jeremy Corbyn
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/06/jeremy-corbyn-general-election-brexit-labour-theresa-may?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Surely allowing a vote to change their mind and undo their first vote would be totally undemocratic...
If after we leave at a future election post-Brexit a party is elected seeking to undo Brexit then that would be fine by me.
If the people of the UK elect a new government then the whole or individual parts of the UK will be subject to whatever the government decides.
That's democracy for you.
So if in a future election the people of the UK (including Northern Ireland) elects a new government that decides on new widget regulations the whole of the UK (including Northern Ireland) will be subject to it?
That's democracy for you.
As we would, after all, have left at that point.q
As an aside, was Baldwin undemocratic in 1923? You know, when he decided to repudiate the previous Conservative manifesto and go for protectionism, and decided to call an election to get a mandate to do that?
In fairness she is trying her best at the moment but it is all too late and the damage was done long ago.
Just like the government today could decide to put up a hard border in Northern Ireland. But it has decided not to do so.
We have a crisis, parliament is split into several factions with seemingly too few with any common ground to reach an agreement, the population of the country is deeply divided. And yet we/they continue to argue their/our various corners with what seems to me a reassuring reliance on recognised process and procedure.
Good evening, everyone.
Still here. just. The point is that NI is a part of the UK. As is Slough. The UK government might decide to let the EU determine widget regs in Slough and build a third runway in Northern Ireland.
All perfectly democratic.
Now (unless we are lucky and they are right about the EU bending) even if they realise they cannot defy gravity, they are too far over the edge to pull back.
I think you overlook a terrible outcome occurring by accident. Things might get pushed too far. It's like firing a gun and then immediately regretting it; too late now. (No doubt some will say that is analogous to brexit as a whole)
Errr, how about the Civil War for starters?
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1070773611789729794
Be fascinated to hear what the EU thinks of Mrs May's attempts to derogate from the backstop before it's even approved.
1923: No because there was a General Election in-between. There has been no general election yet on an undo Brexit manifesto.
If your disgraceful disenfranchisement of Northern Irish voters goes through, they will never again have a choice unless others deign them worthy of regaining one.
It's the hope that kills you.
Now if you are advocating waiting another 45 years before we have the second referendum I can certainly go for that.