If the EU wants to ensure its survival, it will have to make far-reaching changes to the way it responds to migration, fights climate change and poverty, manages its security and common currency. For this, it must become easier to govern, easier to understand and more democratic.
The last thing the EU needs, faced with these huge tasks, is a traumatized U.K. using its power and diplomatic savoir-faire to freeze the EU in its present state. Its painful deadlock over Brexit may be diminishing the U.K.’s standing in Europe, but its diplomatic machine remains a formidable one. The U.K.’s soft power is probably unmatched for a mid-size country.
Basically, the EU is going to get bigger, more powerful within Europe, demand more money, etc. The UK would continued to be seen as causing this to drag more than necessary, but wouldn't be able to stop it, we wouldn't be remaining to experience the status quo, it would be all aboard the train to ever closer union while still been seen as a passenger who doesn't really want to be onboard.
This is spot on. I am more and more convinced the EU would very much come to regret keytjng the UK revoke. We will never be comfortable with the direction of travel and all we would be doing is ensuring the same conflict goes on for decades, ruining UK politics and paralyzing the EU in terms of its ability to deal with inevitable crisis.
The UK will be much enfeebled diplomatically after it has revoked, though not as enfeebled as it would be outside the EU. It will take many years to rebuild the influence we had before 2016, though I would expect this to be achieved eventually. If the US continues to disappear up its own fundament other EU countries will be relieved that the UK is still on board and will avoid too much triumphalism.
The idea that whilst we were a member we had any influence in what the EU would consider as a positive manner is a joke. We only had the power to disrupt and block. The bottom line is that we have no interest in the EU's aspirations and do not share their goals. As such I would think they would be very pleased to see the back of us.
The way you've set up your concepts assumes the EU was always a foreign power, so it is not surprising what conclusions you reach.
If the EU wants to ensure its survival, it will have to make far-reaching changes to the way it responds to migration, fights climate change and poverty, manages its security and common currency. For this, it must become easier to govern, easier to understand and more democratic.
The last thing the EU needs, faced with these huge tasks, is a traumatized U.K. using its power and diplomatic savoir-faire to freeze the EU in its present state. Its painful deadlock over Brexit may be diminishing the U.K.’s standing in Europe, but its diplomatic machine remains a formidable one. The U.K.’s soft power is probably unmatched for a mid-size country.
Basically, the EU is going to get bigger, more powerful within Europe, demand more money, etc. The UK would continued to be seen as causing this to drag more than necessary, but wouldn't be able to stop it, we wouldn't be remaining to experience the status quo, it would be all aboard the train to ever closer union while still been seen as a passenger who doesn't really want to be onboard.
This is spot on. I am more and more convinced the EU would very much come to regret keytjng the UK revoke. We will never be comfortable with the direction of travel and all we would be doing is ensuring the same conflict goes on for decades, ruining UK politics and paralyzing the EU in terms of its ability to deal with inevitable crisis.
The UK will be much enfeebled diplomatically after it has revoked, though not as enfeebled as it would be outside the EU. It will take many years to rebuild the influence we had before 2016, though I would expect this to be achieved eventually. If the US continues to disappear up its own fundament other EU countries will be relieved that the UK is still on board and will avoid too much triumphalism.
The idea that whilst we were a member we had any influence in what the EU would consider as a positive manner is a joke. We only had the power to disrupt and block. The bottom line is that we have no interest in the EU's aspirations and do not share their goals. As such I would think they would be very pleased to see the back of us.
The UK was the prime mover behind two of the three biggest developments in the EU over the last generation, the eastward expansion and the single market (the third one being the Euro). The idea that we had no influence is patently absurd.
If the EU wants to ensure its survival, it will have to make far-reaching changes to the way it responds to migration, fights climate change and poverty, manages its security and common currency. For this, it must become easier to govern, easier to understand and more democratic.
The last thing the EU needs, faced with these huge tasks, is a traumatized U.K. using its power and diplomatic savoir-faire to freeze the EU in its present state. Its painful deadlock over Brexit may be diminishing the U.K.’s standing in Europe, but its diplomatic machine remains a formidable one. The U.K.’s soft power is probably unmatched for a mid-size country.
Basically, the EU is going to get bigger, more powerful within Europe, demand more money, etc. The UK would continued to be seen as causing this to drag more than necessary, but wouldn't be able to stop it, we wouldn't be remaining to experience the status quo, it would be all aboard the train to ever closer union while still been seen as a passenger who doesn't really want to be onboard.
This is spot on. I am more and more convinced the EU would very much come to regret keytjng the UK revoke. We will never be comfortable with the direction of travel and all we would be doing is ensuring the same conflict goes on for decades, ruining UK politics and paralyzing the EU in terms of its ability to deal with inevitable crisis.
The UK will be much enfeebled diplomatically after it has revoked, though not as enfeebled as it would be outside the EU. It will take many years to rebuild the influence we had before 2016, though I would expect this to be achieved eventually. If the US continues to disappear up its own fundament other EU countries will be relieved that the UK is still on board and will avoid too much triumphalism.
The idea that whilst we were a member we had any influence in what the EU would consider as a positive manner is a joke. We only had the power to disrupt and block. The bottom line is that we have no interest in the EU's aspirations and do not share their goals. As such I would think they would be very pleased to see the back of us.
The way you've set up your concepts assumes the EU was always a foreign power, so it is not surprising what conclusions you reach.
If the EU wants to ensure its survival, it will have to make far-reaching changes to the way it responds to migration, fights climate change and poverty, manages its security and common currency. For this, it must become easier to govern, easier to understand and more democratic.
The last thing the EU needs, faced with these huge tasks, is a traumatized U.K. using its power and diplomatic savoir-faire to freeze the EU in its present state. Its painful deadlock over Brexit may be diminishing the U.K.’s standing in Europe, but its diplomatic machine remains a formidable one. The U.K.’s soft power is probably unmatched for a mid-size country.
Basically, the EU is going to get bigger, more powerful within Europe, demand more money, etc. The UK would continued to be seen as causing this to drag more than necessary, but wouldn't be able to stop it, we wouldn't be remaining to experience the status quo, it would be all aboard the train to ever closer union while still been seen as a passenger who doesn't really want to be onboard.
This is spot on. I am more and more convinced the EU would very much come to regret keytjng the UK revoke. We will never be comfortable with the direction of travel and all we would be doing is ensuring the same conflict goes on for decades, ruining UK politics and paralyzing the EU in terms of its ability to deal with inevitable crisis.
The UK will be much enfeebled diplomatically after it has revoked, though not as enfeebled as it would be outside the EU. It will take many years to rebuild the influence we had before 2016, though I would expect this to be achieved eventually. If the US continues to disappear up its own fundament other EU countries will be relieved that the UK is still on board and will avoid too much triumphalism.
The idea that whilst we were a member we had any influence in what the EU would consider as a positive manner is a joke. We only had the power to disrupt and block. The bottom line is that we have no interest in the EU's aspirations and do not share their goals. As such I would think they would be very pleased to see the back of us.
The UK was the prime mover behind two of the three biggest developments in the EU over the last generation, the eastward expansion and the single market (the third one being the Euro). The idea that we had no influence is patently absurd.
God, I'm sick of this bollocks from the Brexiteers.
If we were in a situation where there had been no effort made to enact the referendum result, it was still a short time since then, and there was any prospect of one side holding a third, fourth, fifth, or whatever number referendum until the "right" result was achieved, I'd be sympathetic.
None of those is true.
It's been longer than the interval between the last two General Elections, all we've seemed to do since 2016 has been bloody Brexiting (ignoring the paranoia about May deliberately intending to derail Brexit and implicitly being willing to sacrifice the Conservative Party to do so), and if a referendum results in "Sign the Deal", it's damned well over. Once the Withdrawal Agreement is signed, we cease to be an EU member.
So what's the route to "voting until we give the right answer" if the Deal wins? If the Deal wins, It's over and out
The Leavers can make a decent case - and I'd be sympathetic to a four-way referendum after the Deal is signed, to be honest, as well - but this line that implies that a win for the Deal would still be ignored afterwards is such steaming dogshite that it damages the case.
If we have a referendum on the result, it'd be a good three years after the original one, with all the work being completed, but it looks pretty shitty compared to all the promises thanks to the campaign being such as to be seemingly designed to win the battle while losing the war, due to promising so much mutually inconsistent stuff (well done, Dominic Cummings - you've poisoned your own well, and it looks very much to me like we're going to leave the EU while the people overall actually want us to stay in, damaged us economically for the long term, and divided the country in such a way that we still can't see a prospect of it healing. And he thinks he's some kind of genius?). The vote wasn't ignored, it was never ignored, it was never going to be ignored, and we'll be reaping the crop from it whatever happens for bloody ages.
I've tried to be as objective as possible (seeing that I was originally pro-Leave before the campaign, it's actually still a default position for me), but I'm sick and tired of tripe like this coming up.
Sorry but that is utterly wrong. No matter what result a referendum produces we do not actually leave with a deal until Parliament passes it. Only if they actually say yes to the WA in a specific vote does it actually get enacted. So it is perfectly possible that if we vote anything other than remain at another referendum Parliament could still refuse to pass it.
If the EU wants to ensure its survival, it will have to make far-reaching changes to the way it responds to migration, fights climate change and poverty, manages its security and common currency. For this, it must become easier to govern, easier to understand and more democratic.
The last thing the EU needs, faced with these huge tasks, is a traumatized U.K. using its power and diplomatic savoir-faire to freeze the EU in its present state. Its painful deadlock over Brexit may be diminishing the U.K.’s standing in Europe, but its diplomatic machine remains a formidable one. The U.K.’s soft power is probably unmatched for a mid-size country.
Basically, the EU is going to get bigger, more powerful within Europe, demand more money, etc. The UK would continued to be seen as causing this to drag more than necessary, but wouldn't be able to stop it, we wouldn't be remaining to experience the status quo, it would be all aboard the train to ever closer union while still been seen as a passenger who doesn't really want to be onboard.
This is spot on. I am more and more convinced the EU would very much come to regret keytjng the UK revoke. We will never be comfortable with the direction of travel and all we would be doing is ensuring the same conflict goes on for decades, ruining UK politics and paralyzing the EU in terms of its ability to deal with inevitable crisis.
The UK will be much enfeebled diplomatically after it has revoked, though not as enfeebled as it would be outside the EU. It will take many years to rebuild the influence we had before 2016, though I would expect this to be achieved eventually. If the US continues to disappear up its own fundament other EU countries will be relieved that the UK is still on board and will avoid too much triumphalism.
The idea that whilst we were a member we had any influence in what the EU would consider as a positive manner is a joke. We only had the power to disrupt and block. The bottom line is that we have no interest in the EU's aspirations and do not share their goals. As such I would think they would be very pleased to see the back of us.
The UK was the prime mover behind two of the three biggest developments in the EU over the last generation, the eastward expansion and the single market (the third one being the Euro). The idea that we had no influence is patently absurd.
If the EU wants to ensure its survival, it will have to make far-reaching changes to the way it responds to migration, fights climate change and poverty, manages its security and common currency. For this, it must become easier to govern, easier to understand and more democratic.
The last thing the EU needs, faced with these huge tasks, is a traumatized U.K. using its power and diplomatic savoir-faire to freeze the EU in its present state. Its painful deadlock over Brexit may be diminishing the U.K.’s standing in Europe, but its diplomatic machine remains a formidable one. The U.K.’s soft power is probably unmatched for a mid-size country.
Basically, the EU is going to get bigger, more powerful within Europe, demand more money, etc. The UK would continued to be seen as causing this to drag more than necessary, but wouldn't be able to stop it, we wouldn't be remaining to experience the status quo, it would be all aboard the train to ever closer union while still been seen as a passenger who doesn't really want to be onboard.
This is spot on. I am more and more convinced the EU would very much come to regret keytjng the UK revoke. We will never be comfortable with the direction of travel and all we would be doing is ensuring the same conflict goes on for decades, ruining UK politics and paralyzing the EU in terms of its ability to deal with inevitable crisis.
The UK will be much enfeebled diplomatically after it has revoked, though not as enfeebled as it would be outside the EU. It will take many years to rebuild the influence we had before 2016, though I would expect this to be achieved eventually. If the US continues to disappear up its own fundament other EU countries will be relieved that the UK is still on board and will avoid too much triumphalism.
The idea that whilst we were a member we had any influence in what the EU would consider as a positive manner is a joke. We only had the power to disrupt and block. The bottom line is that we have no interest in the EU's aspirations and do not share their goals. As such I would think they would be very pleased to see the back of us.
The way you've set up your concepts assumes the EU was always a foreign power, so it is not surprising what conclusions you reach.
Richard uses the royal 'we'. Any British person who disagrees with him gets othered.
If the EU wants to ensure its survival, it will have to make far-reaching changes to the way it responds to migration, fights climate change and poverty, manages its security and common currency. For this, it must become easier to govern, easier to understand and more democratic.
The last thing the EU needs, faced with these huge tasks, is a traumatized U.K. using its power and diplomatic savoir-faire to freeze the EU in its present state. Its painful deadlock over Brexit may be diminishing the U.K.’s standing in Europe, but its diplomatic machine remains a formidable one. The U.K.’s soft power is probably unmatched for a mid-size country.
Basically, the EU is going to get bigger, more powerful within Europe, demand more money, etc. The UK would continued to be seen as causing this to drag more than necessary, but wouldn't be able to stop it, we wouldn't be remaining to experience the status quo, it would be all aboard the train to ever closer union while still been seen as a passenger who doesn't really want to be onboard.
This is spot on. I am more and more convinced the EU would very much come to regret keytjng the UK revoke. We will never be comfortable with the direction of travel and all we would be doing is ensuring the same conflict goes on for decades, ruining UK politics and paralyzing the EU in terms of its ability to deal with inevitable crisis.
The UK will be much enfeebled diplomatically after it has revoked, though not as enfeebled as it would be outside the EU. It will take many years to rebuild the influence we had before 2016, though I would expect this to be achieved eventually. If the US continues to disappear up its own fundament other EU countries will be relieved that the UK is still on board and will avoid too much triumphalism.
The idea that whilst we were a member we had any influence in what the EU would consider as a positive manner is a joke. We only had the power to disrupt and block. The bottom line is that we have no interest in the EU's aspirations and do not share their goals. As such I would think they would be very pleased to see the back of us.
In saying that you are simply exhibiting your ignorance.
If the EU wants to ensure its survival, it will have to make far-reaching changes to the way it responds to migration, fights climate change and poverty, manages its security and common currency. For this, it must become easier to govern, easier to understand and more democratic.
The last thing the EU needs, faced with these huge tasks, is a traumatized U.K. using its power and diplomatic savoir-faire to freeze the EU in its present state. Its painful deadlock over Brexit may be diminishing the U.K.’s standing in Europe, but its diplomatic machine remains a formidable one. The U.K.’s soft power is probably unmatched for a mid-size country.
Basically, the EU is going to get bigger, more powerful within Europe, demand more money, etc. The UK would continued to be seen as causing this to drag more than necessary, but wouldn't be able to stop it, we wouldn't be remaining to experience the status quo, it would be all aboard the train to ever closer union while still been seen as a passenger who doesn't really want to be onboard.
This is spot on. I am more and more convinced the EU would very much come to regret keytjng the UK revoke. We will never be comfortable with the direction of travel and all we would be doing is ensuring the same conflict goes on for decades, ruining UK politics and paralyzing the EU in terms of its ability to deal with inevitable crisis.
The UK will be much enfeebled diplomatically after it has revoked, though not as enfeebled as it would be outside the EU. It will take many years to rebuild the influence we had before 2016, though I would expect this to be achieved eventually. If the US continues to disappear up its own fundament other EU countries will be relieved that the UK is still on board and will avoid too much triumphalism.
The idea that whilst we were a member we had any influence in what the EU would consider as a positive manner is a joke. We only had the power to disrupt and block. The bottom line is that we have no interest in the EU's aspirations and do not share their goals. As such I would think they would be very pleased to see the back of us.
The way you've set up your concepts assumes the EU was always a foreign power, so it is not surprising what conclusions you reach.
It is a foreign power.
No it is not. It is a membership organisation and Free Trade Area.
It is beginning to look like the Tories are determined to leap off the cliff and take the rest of us with them.
Only some of them... the government have already come to a deal with the EU.
Yes and a deal that is reviled by a significant proportion of them, thus ensuring it will never pass. Just remember that the cliff edge awaits as they twaddle around banging on about the cakes they want or the cherries they would like to pick.
The silly sods will still be fighting about what they cannot have when we run out of time.
If the EU wants to ensure its survival, it will have to make far-reaching changes to the way it responds to migration, fights climate change and poverty, manages its security and common currency. For this, it must become easier to govern, easier to understand and more democratic.
The last thing the EU needs, faced with these huge tasks, is a traumatized U.K. using its power and diplomatic savoir-faire to freeze the EU in its present state. Its painful deadlock over Brexit may be diminishing the U.K.’s standing in Europe, but its diplomatic machine remains a formidable one. The U.K.’s soft power is probably unmatched for a mid-size country.
Basically, the EU is going to get bigger, more powerful within Europe, demand more money, etc. The UK would continued to be seen as causing this to drag more than necessary, but wouldn't be able to stop it, we wouldn't be remaining to experience the status quo, it would be all aboard the train to ever closer union while still been seen as a passenger who doesn't really want to be onboard.
This is spot on. I am more and more convinced the EU would very much come to regret keytjng the UK revoke. We will never be comfortable with the direction of travel and all we would be doing is ensuring the same conflict goes on for decades, ruining UK politics and paralyzing the EU in terms of its ability to deal with inevitable crisis.
The UK will be much enfeebled diplomatically after it has revoked, though not as enfeebled as it would be outside the EU. It will take many years to rebuild the influence we had before 2016, though I would expect this to be achieved eventually. If the US continues to disappear up its own fundament other EU countries will be relieved that the UK is still on board and will avoid too much triumphalism.
The idea that whilst we were a member we had any influence in what the EU would consider as a positive manner is a joke. We only had the power to disrupt and block. The bottom line is that we have no interest in the EU's aspirations and do not share their goals. As such I would think they would be very pleased to see the back of us.
The way you've set up your concepts assumes the EU was always a foreign power, so it is not surprising what conclusions you reach.
It is a foreign power.
No it is not. It is a membership organisation and Free Trade Area.
If the EU wants to ensure its survival, it will have to make far-reaching changes to the way it responds to migration, fights climate change and poverty, manages its security and common currency. For this, it must become easier to govern, easier to understand and more democratic.
The last thing the EU needs, faced with these huge tasks, is a traumatized U.K. using its power and diplomatic savoir-faire to freeze the EU in its present state. Its painful deadlock over Brexit may be diminishing the U.K.’s standing in Europe, but its diplomatic machine remains a formidable one. The U.K.’s soft power is probably unmatched for a mid-size country.
Basically, the EU is going to get bigger, more powerful within Europe, demand more money, etc. The UK would continued to be seen as causing this to drag more than necessary, but wouldn't be able to stop it, we wouldn't be remaining to experience the status quo, it would be all aboard the train to ever closer union while still been seen as a passenger who doesn't really want to be onboard.
This is spot on. I am more and more convinced the EU would very much come to regret keytjng the UK revoke. We will never be comfortable with the direction of travel and all we would be doing is ensuring the same conflict goes on for decades, ruining UK politics and paralyzing the EU in terms of its ability to deal with inevitable crisis.
The UK will be much enfeebled diplomatically after it has revoked, It will take many years to rebuild the influence we had before 2016, though I would expect this to be achieved eventually. If the US continues to disappear up its own fundament other EU countries will be relieved that the UK is still on board and will avoid too much triumphalism.
The idea that whilst we were a member we had any influence in what the EU would consider as a positive manner is a joke. We only had the power to disrupt and block. The bottom line is that we have no interest in the EU's aspirations and do not share their goals. As such I would think they would be very pleased to see the back of us.
The way you've set up your concepts assumes the EU was always a foreign power, so it is not surprising what conclusions you reach.
It is a foreign power.
No it is not. It is a membership organisation and Free Trade Area.
An organisation intent on ever closer union that we’ve said we’re leaving.
If the EU wants to ensure its survival, it will have to make far-reaching changes to the way it responds to migration, fights climate change and poverty, manages its security and common currency. For this, it must become easier to govern, easier to understand and more democratic.
The last thing the EU needs, faced with these huge tasks, is a traumatized U.K. using its power and diplomatic savoir-faire to freeze the EU in its present state. Its painful deadlock over Brexit may be diminishing the U.K.’s standing in Europe, but its diplomatic machine remains a formidable one. The U.K.’s soft power is probably unmatched for a mid-size country.
Basically, the EU is going to get bigger, more powerful within Europe, demand more money, etc. The UK would continued to be seen as causing this to drag more than necessary, but wouldn't be able to stop it, we wouldn't be remaining to experience the status quo, it would be all aboard the train to ever closer union while still been seen as a passenger who doesn't really want to be onboard.
This is spot on. I am more and more convinced the EU would very much come to regret keytjng the UK revoke. We will never be comfortable with the direction of travel and all we would be doing is ensuring the same conflict goes on for decades, ruining UK politics and paralyzing the EU in terms of its ability to deal with inevitable crisis.
The UK will be much enfeebled diplomatically after it has revoked, though not as enfeebled as it would be outside the EU. It will take many years to rebuild the influence we had before 2016, though I would expect this to be achieved eventually. If the US continues to disappear up its own fundament other EU countries will be relieved that the UK is still on board and will avoid too much triumphalism.
The idea that whilst we were a member we had any influence in what the EU would consider as a positive manner is a joke. We only had the power to disrupt and block. The bottom line is that we have no interest in the EU's aspirations and do not share their goals. As such I would think they would be very pleased to see the back of us.
The way you've set up your concepts assumes the EU was always a foreign power, so it is not surprising what conclusions you reach.
It is a foreign power.
No it is not. It is a membership organisation and Free Trade Area.
God, I'm sick of this bollocks from the Brexiteers.
If we were in a situation where there had been no effort made to enact the referendum result, it was still a short time since then, and there was any prospect of one side holding a third, fourth, fifth, or whatever number referendum until the "right" result was achieved, I'd be sympathetic.
None of those is true.
It's been longer than the interval between the last two General Elections, all we've seemed to do since 2016 has been bloody Brexiting (ignoring the paranoia about May deliberately intending to derail Brexit and implicitly being willing to sacrifice the Conservative Party to do so), and if a referendum results in "Sign the Deal", it's damned well over. Once the Withdrawal Agreement is signed, we cease to be an EU member.
So what's the route to "voting until we give the right answer" if the Deal wins? If the Deal wins, It's over and out
The Leavers can make a decent case - and I'd be sympathetic to a four-way referendum after the Deal is signed, to be honest, as well - but this line that implies that a win for the Deal would still be ignored afterwards is such steaming dogshite that it damages the case.
If we have a referendum on the result, it'd be a good three years after the original one, with all the work being completed, but it looks pretty shitty compared to all the promises thanks to the campaign being such as to be seemingly designed to win the battle while losing the war, due to promising so much mutually inconsistent stuff (well done, Dominic Cummings - you've poisoned your own well, and it looks very much to me like we're going to leave the EU while the people overall actually want us to stay in, damaged us economically for the long term, and divided the country in such a way that we still can't see a prospect of it healing. And he thinks he's some kind of genius?). The vote wasn't ignored, it was never ignored, it was never going to be ignored, and we'll be reaping the crop from it whatever happens for bloody ages.
I've tried to be as objective as possible (seeing that I was originally pro-Leave before the campaign, it's actually still a default position for me), but I'm sick and tired of tripe like this coming up.
Sorry but that is utterly wrong. No matter what result a referendum produces we do not actually leave with a deal until Parliament passes it. Only if they actually say yes to the WA in a specific vote does it actually get enacted. So it is perfectly possible that if we vote anything other than remain at another referendum Parliament could still refuse to pass it.
They'd probably make this one binding like the AV one, since like that one it's partly designed to create a majority from groups of mutually-distrusting MPs.
There will be no second referendum with Remain as an option while May is PM.
I am not even convinced that if a referendum were to be held on deal vs not deal, Parliament would alter no deal to Remain.
There won't be a deal no deal referendum, there is absolutely no point, and Parliament would never vote for it.
Why not?
No-one can stop the Government from introducing such a bill. On a 3-line whip, I would expect no more than 10 Tory MPs to support a Remain amendment. I would expect at least 20 Labour MPs to abstain or vote against a Remain amendment. Therefore, it will pass.
Arguments about the Electoral Commission guidance etc are not fundamental roadblocks. They can all be overridden in the Act to legislate for the referendum.
Any MP (excluding the ERG fruitloops) that thinks it a sensible proposition can just as well vote for May's deal, saving us all from the uncertainty, delay, and potential turmoil of another referendum campaign, which nobody really wants. The only argument for another public vote is that it is the only way to overturn the previous one.
Indeed. That is the lie that very few will admit to. They are not interested in the people's opinion unless it is to stop Brexit. That has always been the only real reason for a second referendum no matter what its advocates might claim.
It's the other way around. All of the options other than Remain can be decided by Parliament, without the need for another referendum, which has downsides that we all recognise. Only the decision to stick with the deal we currently have requires (in my view) the public to be asked to confirm that the whole sorry saga set in train after the 2016 vote was, in hindsight, a monumental mistake.
Well you would say that as you disagree with the result of the first decision.
Remoaners like you claim we did not know which form of Brexit we were being asked to vote on in 2016. You also claim that since Parliament cannot make a decision we should ask the people.
Well, we are now being offered the choice between the two types of Brexit, soft and hard. I am perfectly happy with a referendum on which form we should choose and believe it should be binding ion Parliament so both arguments would be resolved. If you actually cared about democracy you would agree to that. But as you said, the only real reason people want a repeat referendum is to try and reverse the result of the first.
Surely one problem for those wanting to force change this way is that the markets have already priced in the risk of this deal being rejected and a possible hard Brexit. Plus the markets will continue to dribble in that direction rather than having a single shocking move.
Once we have the certainty of No Deal the markets might even recover somewhat.
10/10 for fantasy world.
No deal could create a mighty crash, but the fundamentals are there along with pent up demand. A bounce back is not unlikely at all.
Just look at what happened after we left the ERM in 1992.
It’s quite possible that, following a brief period of adjustment and with the right government in place, no-deal Brexit could be the firing of the starting gun on a decade of economic growth. The EU are absolutely terrified of that happening.
It could be.
But the UK economy in 1992 was fundamentally healthy, and had just gone through a nice cleansing recession. The savings rate was at a fifty year high and had room to come down. The UK was still a large net creditor to the world, and it was us who - net - received dividend, rent and interest payments. And consumer debt was a fraction of current levels.
The New Labour years, and in particular the period from about 2001 on, saw the UK spend through an incredible inheritance.
The UK economy is one of the most unbalanced in the world. Who's really to blame for this? Mostly New Labour from 2001 on. But who will actually be blamed when the UK goes through the inevitable adjustments?
God, I'm sick of this bollocks from the Brexiteers.
If we were in a situation where there had been no effort made to enact the referendum result, it was still a short time since then, and there was any prospect of one side holding a third, fourth, fifth, or whatever number referendum until the "right" result was achieved, I'd be sympathetic.
None of those is true.
It's been longer than the interval between the last two General Elections, all we've seemed to do since 2016 has been bloody Brexiting (ignoring the paranoia about May deliberately intending to derail Brexit and implicitly being willing to sacrifice the Conservative Party to do so), and if a referendum results in "Sign the Deal", it's damned well over. Once the Withdrawal Agreement is signed, we cease to be an EU member.
So what's the route to "voting until we give the right answer" if the Deal wins? If the Deal wins, It's over and out
The Leavers can make a decent case - and I'd be sympathetic to a four-way referendum after the Deal is signed, to be honest, as well - but this line that implies that a win for the Deal would still be ignored afterwards is such steaming dogshite that it damages the case.
If we have a referendum on the result, it'd be a good three years after the original one, with all the work being completed, but it looks pretty shitty compared to all the promises thanks to the campaign being such as to be seemingly designed to win the battle while losing the war, due to promising so much mutually inconsistent stuff (well done, Dominic Cummings - you've poisoned your own well, and it looks very much to me like we're going to leave the EU while the people overall actually want us to stay in, damaged us economically for the long term, and divided the country in such a way that we still can't see a prospect of it healing. And he thinks he's some kind of genius?). The vote wasn't ignored, it was never ignored, it was never going to be ignored, and we'll be reaping the crop from it whatever happens for bloody ages.
I've tried to be as objective as possible (seeing that I was originally pro-Leave before the campaign, it's actually still a default position for me), but I'm sick and tired of tripe like this coming up.
Sorry but that is utterly wrong. No matter what result a referendum produces we do not actually leave with a deal until Parliament passes it. Only if they actually say yes to the WA in a specific vote does it actually get enacted. So it is perfectly possible that if we vote anything other than remain at another referendum Parliament could still refuse to pass it.
DUP will never support this deal with a backstop.
May passes the deal with Labour support then there will be a GE.
If the EU wants to ensure its survival, it will have to make far-reaching changes to the way it responds to migration, fights climate change and poverty, manages its security and common currency. For this, it must become easier to govern, easier to understand and more
Basically, the EU is going to get bigger, more powerful within Europe, demand more money, etc. The UK would continued to be seen as causing this to drag more than necessary, but wouldn't be able to stop it, we wouldn't be remaining to experience the status quo, it would be all aboard the train to ever closer union while still been seen as a passenger who doesn't really want to be onboard.
This is spot on. I am more and more convinced the EU would very much come to regret keytjng the UK revoke. We will never be comfortable with the direction of travel and all we would be doing is ensuring the same conflict goes on for decades, ruining UK politics and paralyzing the EU in terms of its ability to deal with inevitable crisis.
The UK will be much enfeebled diplomatically after it has revoked, though not as enfeebled as it would be outside the EU. It will take many years to rebuild the influence we had before 2016, though I would expect this to be achieved eventually. If the US continues to disappear up its own fundament other EU countries will be relieved that the UK is still on board and will avoid too much triumphalism.
The idea that whilst we were a member we had any influence in what the EU would consider as a positive manner is a joke. We only had the power to disrupt and block. The bottom line is that we have no interest in the EU's aspirations and do not share their goals. As such I would think they would be very pleased to see the back of us.
The UK was the prime mover behind two of the three biggest developments in the EU over the last generation, the eastward expansion and the single market (the third one being the Euro). The idea that we had no influence is patently absurd.
Try asking Cameron whether we had any influence. If we were on board with the EU agenda, we had influence. If we weren’t we didn’t. That’s the EU way - as Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy, Poland, Hungary etc have found out. Even France was told to go away and think again when they initially came up with the wrong answer on the Lisbon Treaty
Sorry but that is utterly wrong. No matter what result a referendum produces we do not actually leave with a deal until Parliament passes it. Only if they actually say yes to the WA in a specific vote does it actually get enacted. So it is perfectly possible that if we vote anything other than remain at another referendum Parliament could still refuse to pass it.
If they were willing to do that - say "lol, no", then why would they ever bother with another referendum in the first place?
And, in any case, we could always have it as a confirmatory referendum, like the AV one. Write it into law (and the alternative), both subject to referendum result, and then do the referendum. Easy enough.
Surely one problem for those wanting to force change this way is that the markets have already priced in the risk of this deal being rejected and a possible hard Brexit. Plus the markets will continue to dribble in that direction rather than having a single shocking move.
Once we have the certainty of No Deal the markets might even recover somewhat.
10/10 for fantasy world.
No deal could create a mighty crash, but the fundamentals are there along with pent up demand. A bounce back is not unlikely at all.
Just look at what happened after we left the ERM in 1992.
It’s quite possible that, following a brief period of adjustment and with the right government in place, no-deal Brexit could be the firing of the starting gun on a decade of economic growth. The EU are absolutely terrified of that happening.
The practical consequence of leaving the ERM was a cut in interest rates. If a no deal Brexit seems remotely analogous to that then I think you're missing something...
Surely one problem for those wanting to force change this way is that the markets have already priced in the risk of this deal being rejected and a possible hard Brexit. Plus the markets will continue to dribble in that direction rather than having a single shocking move.
Once we have the certainty of No Deal the markets might even recover somewhat.
10/10 for fantasy world.
No deal could create a mighty crash, but the fundamentals are there along with pent up demand. A bounce back is not unlikely at all.
Just look at what happened after we left the ERM in 1992.
It’s quite possible that, following a brief period of adjustment and with the right government in place, no-deal Brexit could be the firing of the starting gun on a decade of economic growth. The EU are absolutely terrified of that happening.
It could be.
But the UK economy in 1992 was fundamentally healthy, and had just gone through a nice cleansing recession. The savings rate was at a fifty year high and had room to come down. The UK was still a large net creditor to the world, and it was us who - net - received dividend, rent and interest payments. And consumer debt was a fraction of current levels.
The New Labour years, and in particular the period from about 2001 on, saw the UK spend through an incredible inheritance.
The UK economy is one of the most unbalanced in the world. Who's really to blame for this? Mostly New Labour from 2001 on. But who will actually be blamed when the UK goes through the inevitable adjustments?
If the EU wants to ensure its survival, it will have to make far-reaching changes to the way it responds to migration, fights climate change and poverty, manages its security and common currency. For this, it must become easier to govern, easier to understand and more democratic.
The last thing the EU needs, faced with these huge tasks, is a traumatized U.K. using its power and diplomatic savoir-faire to freeze the EU in its present state. Its painful deadlock over Brexit may be diminishing the U.K.’s standing in Europe, but its diplomatic machine remains a formidable one. The U.K.’s soft power is probably unmatched for a mid-size country.
Basically, the EU is going to get bigger, more powerful within Europe, demand more money, etc. The UK would continued to be seen as causing this to drag more than necessary, but wouldn't be able to stop it, we wouldn't be remaining to experience the status quo, it would be all aboard the train to ever closer union while still been seen as a passenger who doesn't really want to be onboard.
This is spot on. I am more and more convinced the EU would very much come to regret keytjng the UK revoke. We will never be comfortable with the direction of travel and all we would be doing is ensuring the same conflict goes on for decades, ruining UK politics and paralyzing the EU in terms of its ability to deal with inevitable crisis.
The UK will be much enfeebled diplomatically after it has revoked, though not as enfeebled as it would be outside the EU. It will take many years to rebuild the influence we had before 2016, though I would expect this to be achieved eventually. If the US continues to disappear up its own fundament other EU countries will be relieved that the UK is still on board and will avoid too much triumphalism.
The idea that whilst we were a member we had any influence in what the EU would consider as a positive manner is a joke. We only had the power to disrupt and block. The bottom line is that we have no interest in the EU's aspirations and do not share their goals. As such I would think they would be very pleased to see the back of us.
The way you've set up your concepts assumes the EU was always a foreign power, so it is not surprising what conclusions you reach.
Richard uses the royal 'we'. Any British person who disagrees with him gets othered.
Making stuff up as usual William. I would have thought by now you were getting tired of being called out for that.
There will be no second referendum with Remain as an option while May is PM.
I am not even convinced that if a referendum were to be held on deal vs not deal, Parliament would alter no deal to Remain.
There won't be a deal no deal referendum, there is absolutely no point, and Parliament would never vote for it.
Why not?
No-one can stop the Government from introducing such a bill. On a 3-line whip, I would expect no more than 10 Tory MPs to support a Remain amendment. I would expect at least 20 Labour MPs to abstain or vote against a Remain amendment. Therefore, it will pass.
Arguments about the Electoral Commission guidance etc are not fundamental roadblocks. They can all be overridden in the Act to legislate for the referendum.
Any MP (excluding the ERG fruitloops) that thinks it a sensible proposition can just as well vote for May's deal, saving us all from the uncertainty, delay, and potential turmoil of another referendum campaign, which nobody really wants. The only argument for another public vote is that it is the only way to overturn the previous one.
Indeed. That is the lie that very few will admit to. They are not interested in the people's opinion unless it is to stop Brexit. That has always been the only real reason for a second referendum no matter what its advocates might claim.
It's the other way around. All of the options other than Remain can be decided by Parliament, without the need for another referendum, which has downsides that we all recognise. Only the decision to stick with the deal we currently have requires (in my view) the public to be asked to confirm that the whole sorry saga set in train after the 2016 vote was, in hindsight, a monumental mistake.
Well you would say that as you disagree with the result of the first decision.
Remoaners like you claim we did not know which form of Brexit we were being asked to vote on in 2016. You also claim that since Parliament cannot make a decision we should ask the people.
Well, we are now being offered the choice between the two types of Brexit, soft and hard. I am perfectly happy with a referendum on which form we should choose and believe it should be binding ion Parliament so both arguments would be resolved. If you actually cared about democracy you would agree to that. But as you said, the only real reason people want a repeat referendum is to try and reverse the result of the first.
If you care about democracy, you shouldn't be scared of asking the people. Two and half years on and facts have changed.
Surely one problem for those wanting to force change this way is that the markets have already priced in the risk of this deal being rejected and a possible hard Brexit. Plus the markets will continue to dribble in that direction rather than having a single shocking move.
Once we have the certainty of No Deal the markets might even recover somewhat.
10/10 for fantasy world.
No deal could create a mighty crash, but the fundamentals are there along with pent up demand. A bounce back is not unlikely at all.
Just look at what happened after we left the ERM in 1992.
It’s quite possible that, following a brief period of adjustment and with the right government in place, no-deal Brexit could be the firing of the starting gun on a decade of economic growth. The EU are absolutely terrified of that happening.
It could be.
But the UK economy in 1992 was fundamentally healthy, and had just gone through a nice cleansing recession. The savings rate was at a fifty year high and had room to come down. The UK was still a large net creditor to the world, and it was us who - net - received dividend, rent and interest payments. And consumer debt was a fraction of current levels.
The New Labour years, and in particular the period from about 2001 on, saw the UK spend through an incredible inheritance.
The UK economy is one of the most unbalanced in the world. Who's really to blame for this? Mostly New Labour from 2001 on. But who will actually be blamed when the UK goes through the inevitable adjustments?
What strikes me is how little we got in return for the binge. Growth from 2001 to 2008 was not bad but nothing special. All we really got was a huge rise in house prices.
Owen Patterson chucked in his letter which might have sent it over the top. Brady did a top job of keeping the true number completely confidential so the plotters were somewhat in the dark all along I think
Parliament complains bitterly about being ignored by the Executive, yet Parliament is perfectly happy, nay overjoyed, to ignore the electorate. The referendum asked, "Leave or Remain" and "Leave" came the reply, albeit narrowly. But FPTP is the basis of our democratic structure and the margin is immaterial unless specifically stated to be subject to qualification.
"Leave" was the unconditional decision of the electorate. All of the shenanigans about the electorate not knowing what it was voting for is not just grossly condescending but arrant nonsense – what’s not to know about leaving? The electorate voted for Hard Brexit. Everything happening now is about Remainers trying to get as close to remaining as they can, with actual physical remaining still to go for by whatever means. Ironically, those shenanigans look like they might achieve that which their heart least desires.
It wasn't unconditional by choice. It was unconditional because the question was unconditional. Would you like one of the sweeties I've got in this bag? Oh look, they're special turd sweeties, but you said yes so now you've got to have it. Yes to sweetie means yes to sweetie. You could have said no, so don't blame me.
But then you say "The electorate voted for Hard Brexit". Nothing like kidding yourself. "What’s not to know about leaving?" A damned lot, even at this stage.
God, I'm sick of this bollocks from the Brexiteers.
If we were in a situation where there had been no effort made to enact the referendum result, it was still a short time since then, and there was any prospect of one side holding a third, fourth, fifth, or whatever number referendum until the "right" result was achieved, I'd be sympathetic.
None of those is true.
It's been longer than the interval between the last two General Elections, all we've seemed to do since 2016 has been bloody Brexiting (ignoring the paranoia about May deliberately intending to derail Brexit and implicitly being willing to sacrifice the Conservative Party to do so), and if a referendum results in "Sign the Deal", it's damned well over. Once the Withdrawal Agreement is signed, we cease to be an EU member.
So what's the route to "voting until we give the right answer" if the Deal wins? If the Deal wins, It's over and out
The Leavers can make a decent case - and I'd be sympathetic to a four-way referendum after the Deal is signed, to be honest, as well - but this line that implies that a win for the Deal would still be ignored afterwards is such steaming dogshite that it damages the case.
I've tried to be as objective as possible (seeing that I was originally pro-Leave before the campaign, it's actually still a default position for me), but I'm sick and tired of tripe like this coming up.
Sorry but that is utterly wrong. No matter what result a referendum produces we do not actually leave with a deal until Parliament passes it. Only if they actually say yes to the WA in a specific vote does it actually get enacted. So it is perfectly possible that if we vote anything other than remain at another referendum Parliament could still refuse to pass it.
DUP will never support this deal with a backstop.
May passes the deal with Labour support then there will be a GE.
Who in Labour is going to support the deal to give her a majority. That thought is just pure fantasy.
The idea that whilst we were a member we had any influence in what the EU would consider as a positive manner is a joke. We only had the power to disrupt and block. The bottom line is that we have no interest in the EU's aspirations and do not share their goals. As such I would think they would be very pleased to see the back of us.
The way you've set up your concepts assumes the EU was always a foreign power, so it is not surprising what conclusions you reach.
Richard uses the royal 'we'. Any British person who disagrees with him gets othered.
Making stuff up as usual William. I would have thought by now you were getting tired of being called out for that.
"The bottom line is that we have no interest in the EU's aspirations and do not share their goals."
Which we are you talking about? It's not one that includes me, that's for sure.
There will be no second referendum with Remain as an option while May is PM.
I am not even convinced that if a referendum were to be held on deal vs n, Parliament would alter no deal to Remain.
There won't be a deal no deal referendumt.
Why not?
No-one can stop the
Arguments about the Electoral Commission guidance etc are not fundamental roadblocks. They.
Any MP (excluding the ERG fruitloops) that thinks it a sensible proposition can just as well vote for May's deal, saving us all from the uncertainty, delay, and potential turmoil of another referendum campaign, which nobody really wants. The only argument for another public vote is that it is the only way to overturn the previous one.
Indeed. That is the lie that very few will admit to. They are not interested in the people's opinion unless it is to stop Brexit. That has always been the only real reason for a second referendum no matter what its advocates might claim.
It's the other way around. All of the options other than Remain can be decided by Parliament, without the need for another referendum, which has downsides that we all recognise. Only the decision to stick with the deal we currently have requires (in my view) the public to be asked to confirm that the whole sorry saga set in train after the 2016 vote was, in hindsight, a monumental mistake.
Well you would say that as you disagree with the result of the first decision.
Remoaners like you claim we did not know which form of Brexit we were being asked to vote on in 2016. You also claim that since Parliament cannot make a decision we should ask the people.
Well, we are now being offered the choice between the two types of Brexit, soft and hard. I am perfectly happy with a referendum on which form we should choose and believe it should be binding ion Parliament so both arguments would be resolved. If you actually cared about democracy you would agree to that. But as you said, the only real reason people want a repeat referendum is to try and reverse the result of the first.
You seem obsessed with dragging everything back to your own, very partisan, personal opinion. Neither of us has any significant say over this. It's fairly clear that, if there is any referendum at all (which is a long way from decided), Parliament would support a deal/Remain vote and reject a deal/no deal one. A 3-way isn't impossible, I guess, although the combined challenges of defining what no deal actually means and an understandable reluctance to gamble the country's economy by putting all our chips on black make it very unlikely imho.
Sorry but that is utterly wrong. No matter what result a referendum produces we do not actually leave with a deal until Parliament passes it. Only if they actually say yes to the WA in a specific vote does it actually get enacted. So it is perfectly possible that if we vote anything other than remain at another referendum Parliament could still refuse to pass it.
If they were willing to do that - say "lol, no", then why would they ever bother with another referendum in the first place?
And, in any case, we could always have it as a confirmatory referendum, like the AV one. Write it into law (and the alternative), both subject to referendum result, and then do the referendum. Easy enough.
The trouble is Andy, it would have to be those same Parliamentarians who did that. And the intent of a repeat referendum is to try and get some faux democratic legitimacy for a decision they already want to take anyway.
No it is not. It is a membership organisation and Free Trade Area.
An organisation intent on ever closer union that we’ve said we’re leaving.
And making a total pig's ear of doing so.
What do you expect. Brexit is in the hands of Remainers who see this purely as matter of immigration control, who have failed to prepare for it, and don’t have a clue what to do when it happens.
Owen Patterson chucked in his letter which might have sent it over the top. Brady did a top job of keeping the true number completely confidential so the plotters were somewhat in the dark all along I think
Are you saying Brady moved the goalposts?
Innocent face
It's not Brady's job to provide a running commentary on how many letters he's received. Brady made it clear it's up to the letter writer to decide to make their letter public.
Surely one problem for those wanting to force change this way is that the markets have already priced in the risk of this deal being rejected and a possible hard Brexit. Plus the markets will continue to dribble in that direction rather than having a single shocking move.
Once we have the certainty of No Deal the markets might even recover somewhat.
10/10 for fantasy world.
No deal could create a mighty crash, but the fundamentals are there along with pent up demand. A bounce back is not unlikely at all.
Just look at what happened after we left the ERM in 1992.
It’s quite possible that, following a brief period of adjustment and with the right government in place, no-deal Brexit could be the firing of the starting gun on a decade of economic growth. The EU are absolutely terrified of that happening.
It could be.
But the UK economy in 1992 was fundamentally healthy, and had just gone through a nice cleansing recession. The savings rate was at a fifty year high and had room to come down. The UK was still a large net creditor to the world, and it was us who - net - received dividend, rent and interest payments. And consumer debt was a fraction of current levels.
The New Labour years, and in particular the period from about 2001 on, saw the UK spend through an incredible inheritance.
The UK economy is one of the most unbalanced in the world. Who's really to blame for this? Mostly New Labour from 2001 on. But who will actually be blamed when the UK goes through the inevitable adjustments?
What strikes me is how little we got in return for the binge. Growth from 2001 to 2008 was not bad but nothing special. All we really got was a huge rise in house prices.
The idea that whilst we were a member we had any influence in what the EU would consider as a positive manner is a joke. We only had the power to disrupt and block. The bottom line is that we have no interest in the EU's aspirations and do not share their goals. As such I would think they would be very pleased to see the back of us.
The way you've set up your concepts assumes the EU was always a foreign power, so it is not surprising what conclusions you reach.
Richard uses the royal 'we'. Any British person who disagrees with him gets othered.
Making stuff up as usual William. I would have thought by now you were getting tired of being called out for that.
"The bottom line is that we have no interest in the EU's aspirations and do not share their goals."
Which we are you talking about? It's not one that includes me, that's for sure.
One that is repeatedly confirmed by both politicians and the public in this country year after year. You are certainly not representative given your views on the nation state and your fanatical Europhilia.
Surely one problem for those wanting to force change this way is that the markets have already priced in the risk of this deal being rejected and a possible hard Brexit. Plus the markets will continue to dribble in that direction rather than having a single shocking move.
Once we have the certainty of No Deal the markets might even recover somewhat.
10/10 for fantasy world.
No deal could create a mighty crash, but the fundamentals are there along with pent up demand. A bounce back is not unlikely at all.
Just look at what happened after we left the ERM in 1992.
It’s quite possible that, following a brief period of adjustment and with the right government in place, no-deal Brexit could be the firing of the starting gun on a decade of economic growth. The EU are absolutely terrified of that happening.
Do things really look like that from thousands of miles away?
The biggest issue is the uncertainty. Business doesn’t like uncertainty, and spending the next decade arguing with the EU just adds more of it. It’s better to leave cleanly and spend the money on short term support for industries that require it.
The biggest issue for me is that those in charge (Mrs May and the civil service) don’t see Brexit as an opportunity. The feeling among my group of expat friends before the referendum was 50/50, but since then it’s been almost universal that having made the decision we should get out properly and not be held hostage by those who will actively wish ill on us. Everyone is expecting a pile of EU legislation specifically targeted at the U.K. from 30th March next year, probably starting with some sort of financial services tax.
I’ll be back in U.K. next week for a wedding and family Christmas, it will be interesting to hear the views of those I meet there.
"The bottom line is that we have no interest in the EU's aspirations and do not share their goals."
Which we are you talking about? It's not one that includes me, that's for sure.
One that is repeatedly confirmed by both politicians and the public in this country year after year. You are certainly not representative given your views on the nation state and your fanatical Europhilia.
Based on the EUCO communique today, it seems the EU's goals are fighting climate change, sanctions against Russia and ignoring Theresa May.
Surely one problem for those wanting to force change this way is that the markets have already priced in the risk of this deal being rejected and a possible hard Brexit. Plus the markets will continue to dribble in that direction rather than having a single shocking move.
Once we have the certainty of No Deal the markets might even recover somewhat.
10/10 for fantasy world.
No deal could create a mighty crash, but the fundamentals are there along with pent up demand. A bounce back is not unlikely at all.
Just look at what happened after we left the ERM in 1992.
It’s quite possible that, following a brief period of adjustment and with the right government in place, no-deal Brexit could be the firing of the starting gun on a decade of economic growth. The EU are absolutely terrified of that happening.
It could be.
But the UK economy in 1992 was fundamentally healthy, and had just gone through a nice cleansing recession. The savings rate was at a fifty year high and had room to come down. The UK was still a large net creditor to the world, and it was us who - net - received dividend, rent and interest payments. And consumer debt was a fraction of current levels.
The New Labour years, and in particular the period from about 2001 on, saw the UK spend through an incredible inheritance.
The UK economy is one of the most unbalanced in the world. Who's really to blame for this? Mostly New Labour from 2001 on. But who will actually be blamed when the UK goes through the inevitable adjustments?
What strikes me is how little we got in return for the binge. Growth from 2001 to 2008 was not bad but nothing special. All we really got was a huge rise in house prices.
The high house prices were part of the problem. They convinced people they had savings (in the Bank of Bricks and Mortar) and that meant they didn't need to squirrel any of their salaries away for a rainy day (or retirement).
To me, the biggest single factor in favour of Brexit is that it de-infantilises politics. Our elected representatives can no longer shrug and blame someone else. It is their responsibility, and theirs alone, to guide the ship of state.
Right now, they're not filling me with a lot of confidence.
Surely one problem for those wanting to force change this way is that the markets have already priced in the risk of this deal being rejected and a possible hard Brexit. Plus the markets will continue to dribble in that direction rather than having a single shocking move.
Once we have the certainty of No Deal the markets might even recover somewhat.
10/10 for fantasy world.
No deal could create a mighty crash, but the fundamentals are there along with pent up demand. A bounce back is not unlikely at all.
Just look at what happened after we left the ERM in 1992.
It’s quite possible that, following a brief period of adjustment and with the right government in place, no-deal Brexit could be the firing of the starting gun on a decade of economic growth. The EU are absolutely terrified of that happening.
Do things really look like that from thousands of miles away?
The biggest issue is the uncertainty. Business doesn’t like uncertainty, and spending the next decade arguing with the EU just adds more of it. It’s better to leave cleanly and spend the money on short term support for industries that require it.
The biggest issue for me is that those in charge (Mrs May and the civil service) don’t see Brexit as an opportunity. The feeling among my group of expat friends before the referendum was 50/50, but since then it’s been almost universal that having made the decision we should get out properly and not be held hostage by those who will actively wish ill on us. Everyone is expecting a pile of EU legislation specifically targeted at the U.K. from 30th March next year, probably starting with some sort of financial services tax.
I’ll be back in U.K. next week for a wedding and family Christmas, it will be interesting to hear the views of those I meet there.
I'll offer you 2-1 on a financial services tax if you want
Still much talk about another referendum, but who's going to put it forward?
Corbyn is unlikely to. May is unlikely to. Is there another route to said referendum?
May's approach seems to be to offer her deal, or nothing, rather than another vote.
I'm not sure another referendum would resolve anything.
I agree. I think the govt should simply revoke A50. I would find it highly entertaining listening to Leaver's heads explode with outrage and their inflamed prostates going *pop*
Parliament complains bitterly about being ignored by the Executive, yet Parliament is perfectly happy, nay overjoyed, to ignore the electorate. The referendum asked, "Leave or Remain" and "Leave" came the reply, albeit narrowly. But FPTP is the basis of our democratic structure and the margin is immaterial unless specifically stated to be subject to qualification.
"Leave" was the unconditional decision of the electorate. All of the shenanigans about the electorate not knowing what it was voting for is not just grossly condescending but arrant nonsense – what’s not to know about leaving? The electorate voted for Hard Brexit. Everything happening now is about Remainers trying to get as close to remaining as they can, with actual physical remaining still to go for by whatever means. Ironically, those shenanigans look like they might achieve that which their heart least desires.
It wasn't unconditional by choice. It was unconditional because the question was unconditional. Would you like one of the sweeties I've got in this bag? Oh look, they're special turd sweeties, but you said yes so now you've got to have it. Yes to sweetie means yes to sweetie. You could have said no, so don't blame me.
But then you say "The electorate voted for Hard Brexit". Nothing like kidding yourself. "What’s not to know about leaving?" A damned lot, even at this stage.
"a damned lot" - elaborate please
Whether there will be a customs union, what flavour of land border Britain will have with the EU, and more broadly where on the spectrum between BINO and rock-hard Brexit the relationship between Britain and the EU will bed down.
Surely one problem for those wanting to force change this way is that the markets have already priced in the risk of this deal being rejected and a possible hard Brexit. Plus the markets will continue to dribble in that direction rather than having a single shocking move.
Once we have the certainty of No Deal the markets might even recover somewhat.
10/10 for fantasy world.
No deal could create a mighty crash, but the fundamentals are there along with pent up demand. A bounce back is not unlikely at all.
Just look at what happened after we left the ERM in 1992.
It’s quite possible that, following a brief period of adjustment and with the right government in place, no-deal Brexit could be the firing of the starting gun on a decade of economic growth. The EU are absolutely terrified of that happening.
It could be.
But the UK economy in 1992 was fundamentally healthy, and had just gone through a nice cleansing recession. The savings rate was at a fifty year high and had room to come down. The UK was still a large net creditor to the world, and it was us who - net - received dividend, rent and interest payments. And consumer debt was a fraction of current levels.
The New Labour years, and in particular the period from about 2001 on, saw the UK spend through an incredible inheritance.
The UK economy is one of the most unbalanced in the world. Who's really to blame for this? Mostly New Labour from 2001 on. But who will actually be blamed when the UK goes through the inevitable adjustments?
What strikes me is how little we got in return for the binge. Growth from 2001 to 2008 was not bad but nothing special. All we really got was a huge rise in house prices.
QE did that, from 2011/12 on
QE may have supported house prices, but doesn't seem to have pushed them up by much.
Prices rose 320% from 1996 to 2007, 20% from 2008 to date. In much of the country, house prices are lower than in 2007.
If you care about democracy, you shouldn't be scared of asking the people. Two and half years on and facts have changed.
Democracy is not just about asking the people. It is about actually doing what they ask once you have asked them. Nor have the facts changed. We have a soft and a hard option in front of us and it would be perfectly reasonable to ask ;people to choose between the two. But not repeat the question they already answered in 2016.
Tusk says the January summit May wants probably won't happen.
`‘we are ready to reconfirm our assurances and good will and good faith when it comes to the backstop - I have no mandate to organise any further negotiations`
There will be no second referendum with Remain as an option while May is PM.
Why not?
No-one can stop the Government from introducing such a bill. On a 3-line whip, I would expect no more than 10 Tory MPs to support a Remain amendment. I would expect at least 20 Labour MPs to abstain or vote against a Remain amendment. Therefore, it will pass.
Arguments about the Electoral Commission guidance etc are not fundamental roadblocks. They can all be overridden in the Act to legislate for the referendum.
Any MP (excluding the ERG fruitloops) that thinks it a sensible proposition can just as well vote for May's deal, saving us all from the uncertainty, delay, and potential turmoil of another referendum campaign, which nobody really wants. The only argument for another public vote is that it is the only way to overturn the previous one.
Indeed. That is the lie that very few will admit to. They are not interested in the people's opinion unless it is to stop Brexit. That has always been the only real reason for a second referendum no matter what its advocates might claim.
It's the other way around. All of the options other than Remain can be decided by Parliament, without the need for another referendum, which has downsides that we all recognise. Only the decision to stick with the deal we currently have requires (in my view) the public to be asked to confirm that the whole sorry saga set in train after the 2016 vote was, in hindsight, a monumental mistake.
Well you would say that as you disagree with the result of the first decision.
Remoaners like you claim we did not know which form of Brexit we were being asked to vote on in 2016. You also claim that since Parliament cannot make a decision we should ask the people.
Well, we are now being offered the choice between the two types of Brexit, soft and hard. I am perfectly happy with a referendum on which form we should choose and believe it should be binding ion Parliament so both arguments would be resolved. If you actually cared about democracy you would agree to that. But as you said, the only real reason people want a repeat referendum is to try and reverse the result of the first.
It's simpler than that. 30 months on and the only proposal is some form of national suttee. Withdraw A50. Lock all the leading Brexiteers in the Tower and give them three years to come up with a feasible plan. Then a 2nd referendum. Stay or leave with an actual agreed plan. And if we vote to stay leave the Brexiteers in the Tower.
No it is not. It is a membership organisation and Free Trade Area.
An organisation intent on ever closer union that we’ve said we’re leaving.
And making a total pig's ear of doing so.
What do you expect. Brexit is in the hands of Remainers who see this purely as matter of immigration control, who have failed to prepare for it, and don’t have a clue what to do when it happens.
No - it is in the hands of Leavers (Davis, Fox, Johnson) some of whom have legged it and left a ex-Remainer tin-earred PM who is charging us determinately towards WTO Brexit, all assisted by a Parliament who, to date, have backed every law, act or motion to take us out.
Sorry but that is utterly wrong. No matter what result a referendum produces we do not actually leave with a deal until Parliament passes it. Only if they actually say yes to the WA in a specific vote does it actually get enacted. So it is perfectly possible that if we vote anything other than remain at another referendum Parliament could still refuse to pass it.
If they were willing to do that - say "lol, no", then why would they ever bother with another referendum in the first place?
And, in any case, we could always have it as a confirmatory referendum, like the AV one. Write it into law (and the alternative), both subject to referendum result, and then do the referendum. Easy enough.
The trouble is Andy, it would have to be those same Parliamentarians who did that. And the intent of a repeat referendum is to try and get some faux democratic legitimacy for a decision they already want to take anyway.
If May said "Yes, all right then, but it's got to be a confirmatory referendum", it'd happen that way. The pro-referendum campaigners wouldn't block it while saying "No, we need the ability to ignore it if it doesn't go our way." And, I'd say it would be actual democratic legitimacy for whichever side won.
Hmm. To ramble further: Suppose May gets back, nothing's changed (ahem), the vote is actually held, and she loses, massively. Grieve's meaningful vote has amendments regarding a second referendum, which wins.
Tusk says the January summit May wants probably won't happen.
`‘we are ready to reconfirm our assurances and good will and good faith when it comes to the backstop - I have no mandate to organise any further negotiations`
twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1073605119533551621
That would appear to be that.
Indeed. I agree with Tusk. There appears to be nothing further to talk about. Mrs May needs to stay here and sort out her Brexit.
The problem is: how to you hold a referendum on the EU without it being coloured by voters' opinions on all sorts of other concerns? Maybe one way would be to either hold a referendum on the same day as a general election, or soon afterwards. That way voters could express their normal political opinions at the GE and concentrate solely on the EU in the referendum.
Owen Patterson chucked in his letter which might have sent it over the top. Brady did a top job of keeping the true number completely confidential so the plotters were somewhat in the dark all along I think
Are you saying Brady moved the goalposts?
Innocent face
It's not Brady's job to provide a running commentary on how many letters he's received. Brady made it clear it's up to the letter writer to decide to make their letter public.
I always did wonder but forgot to ask. Was Brady allowed to put in a letter? If he was so minded and knew that the number was at 47 would he have been able to put in one himself to either force the ERG hand knowing they would lose or to support them believing they might win?
Surely one problem for those wanting to force change this way is that the markets have already priced in the risk of this deal being rejected and a possible hard Brexit. Plus the markets will continue to dribble in that direction rather than having a single shocking move.
Once we have the certainty of No Deal the markets might even recover somewhat.
10/10 for fantasy world.
No deal could create a mighty crash, but the fundamentals are there along with pent up demand. A bounce back is not unlikely at all.
Just look at what happened after we left the ERM in 1992.
It’s quite possible that, following a brief period of adjustment and with the right government in place, no-deal Brexit could be the firing of the starting gun on a decade of economic growth. The EU are absolutely terrified of that happening.
It could be.
But the UK economy in 1992 was fundamentally healthy, and had just gone through a nice cleansing recession. The savings rate was at a fifty year high and had room to come down. The UK was still a large net creditor to the world, and it was us who - net - received dividend, rent and interest payments. And consumer debt was a fraction of current levels.
The New Labour years, and in particular the period from about 2001 on, saw the UK spend through an incredible inheritance.
The UK economy is one of the most unbalanced in the world. Who's really to blame for this? Mostly New Labour from 2001 on. But who will actually be blamed when the UK goes through the inevitable adjustments?
Oh indeed. Who would have predicted that for the last half decade of fifteen years of uninterrupted economic growth, we’d be running a budget deficit, as well as another £300bn borrowed on the PFI never-never? Brown’s boom was completely unsustainable, and he ended up with comparatively little to show to for it that didn’t have a mortgage attached.
Hopefully the post-Brexit Chancellor can be a little more like Ken Clarke and a little less like Gordon Brown. I’d nominate Michael Gove, not afraid to ruffle a few feathers.
If we lurch, despite Parliament wishing to avoid it, towards a “no deal”, with delusions it can be “managed” into a quick and dirty FTA, that will not end happily or quickly.
I am in no position to second guess those who have to try and model the macro effects of such a scenario. No developed country has left a trade bloc before, let alone in disorderly fashion, and let alone one which has become a lot more than a trade bloc.
But I do fully understand the legal realities. And because so-called “WTO rules” deliver precisely no continuity in multiple key sectors of the economy, we could expect disruption on a scale and of a length that no-one has experienced in the developed world in the last couple of generations.
The complacency that such things cannot and would not ever really happen in modern economies is staggering. Mercifully, it is not shared in either Whitehall or the Berlaymont. But these are outcomes which proper political leadership is about both understanding, contingency planning against – and avoiding.
Markets continue to react, or have until this week, as if something must turn up and that “no deal” is a virtually unimaginable scenario for politicians professing to be serious, to contemplate. That risk has therefore been seriously underpriced for a year or more, because we are dealing with a political generation which has no serious experience of bad times and is frankly cavalier about precipitating events they could not then control, but feel they might exploit.
Nothing is more redolent of the pre First World War era, when very few believed that a very long period of European peace and equilibrium could be shattered in months.
No it is not. It is a membership organisation and Free Trade Area.
An organisation intent on ever closer union that we’ve said we’re leaving.
And making a total pig's ear of doing so.
What do you expect. Brexit is in the hands of Remainers who see this purely as matter of immigration control, who have failed to prepare for it, and don’t have a clue what to do when it happens.
No - it is in the hands of Leavers (Davis, Fox, Johnson) some of whom have legged it and left a ex-Remainer tin-earred PM who is charging us determinately towards WTO Brexit, all assisted by a Parliament who, to date, have backed every law, act or motion to take us out.
Remainers? Where?
Davis, Fox etc were never in charge. May always had absolute control of the Government position in the negotiations.
Owen Patterson chucked in his letter which might have sent it over the top. Brady did a top job of keeping the true number completely confidential so the plotters were somewhat in the dark all along I think
Are you saying Brady moved the goalposts?
Innocent face
It's not Brady's job to provide a running commentary on how many letters he's received. Brady made it clear it's up to the letter writer to decide to make their letter public.
I always did wonder but forgot to ask. Was Brady allowed to put in a letter? If he was so minded and knew that the number was at 47 would he have been able to put in one himself to either force the ERG hand knowing they would lose or to support them believing they might win?
Yes, Brady was allowed to write a letter to himself, and also would not have to reveal that he had done so.
(Brady is against May's deal so maybe he did, who knows!)
No it is not. It is a membership organisation and Free Trade Area.
An organisation intent on ever closer union that we’ve said we’re leaving.
And making a total pig's ear of doing so.
What do you expect. Brexit is in the hands of Remainers who see this purely as matter of immigration control, who have failed to prepare for it, and don’t have a clue what to do when it happens.
No - it is in the hands of Leavers (Davis, Fox, Johnson) some of whom have legged it and left a ex-Remainer tin-earred PM who is charging us determinately towards WTO Brexit, all assisted by a Parliament who, to date, have backed every law, act or motion to take us out.
Remainers? Where?
Davis, Fox etc were never in charge. May always had absolute control of the Government position in the negotiations.
I do wish we'd stop with this ridiculous nonsense of a No Deal referendum.
Any referendum will require the unanimous approval of the Council to extend A50. Does this seem like an EU that's prepared to let the UK spend another six months fannying about before crashing out?
Plus "no deal" would not pass muster with the electoral commission either.
The only possible referendum that can pass the triple lock of Parliament, Electoral Commission and European Council is Deal vs Remain.
No it is not. It is a membership organisation and Free Trade Area.
An organisation intent on ever closer union that we’ve said we’re leaving.
And making a total pig's ear of doing so.
What do you expect. Brexit is in the hands of Remainers who see this purely as matter of immigration control, who have failed to prepare for it, and don’t have a clue what to do when it happens.
No - it is in the hands of Leavers (Davis, Fox, Johnson) some of whom have legged it and left a ex-Remainer tin-earred PM who is charging us determinately towards WTO Brexit, all assisted by a Parliament who, to date, have backed every law, act or motion to take us out.
Remainers? Where?
Name one Leaver who has any influence on May, Hammond or Robbins ! May, Hammond, Rudd, Javid, Hunt, Hancock, Brokenshire etc are all Remainers as are a majority of MPs. Fox has no mandate in the negotiations or influence in the Cabinet and neither do Gove or Mordaunt as far as I can see.
The idea that whilst we were a member we had any influence in what the EU would consider as a positive manner is a joke. We only had the power to disrupt and block. The bottom line is that we have no interest in the EU's aspirations and do not share their goals. As such I would think they would be very pleased to see the back of us.
The way you've set up your concepts assumes the EU was always a foreign power, so it is not surprising what conclusions you reach.
Richard uses the royal 'we'. Any British person who disagrees with him gets othered.
Making stuff up as usual William. I would have thought by now you were getting tired of being called out for that.
"The bottom line is that we have no interest in the EU's aspirations and do not share their goals."
Which we are you talking about? It's not one that includes me, that's for sure.
Conversely, I have zero interest in living in a Federal Europe. That’s the inevitable end game for Eurozone members. At least you’re an honest federalist.
Surely one problem for those wanting to force change this way is that the markets have already priced in the risk of this deal being rejected and a possible hard Brexit. Plus the markets will continue to dribble in that direction rather than having a single shocking move.
Once we have the certainty of No Deal the markets might even recover somewhat.
10/10 for fantasy world.
No deal could create a mighty crash, but the fundamentals are there along with pent up demand. A bounce back is not unlikely at all.
Just look at what happened after we left the ERM in 1992.
It’s quite possible that, following a brief period of adjustment and with the right government in place, no-deal Brexit could be the firing of the starting gun on a decade of economic growth. The EU are absolutely terrified of that happening.
It could be.
But the UK economy in 1992 was fundamentally healthy, and had just gone through a nice cleansing recession. The savings rate was at a fifty year high and had room to come down. The UK was still a large net creditor to the world, and it was us who - net - received dividend, rent and interest payments. And consumer debt was a fraction of current levels.
The New Labour years, and in particular the period from about 2001 on, saw the UK spend through an incredible inheritance.
The UK economy is one of the most unbalanced in the world. Who's really to blame for this? Mostly New Labour from 2001 on. But who will actually be blamed when the UK goes through the inevitable adjustments?
What strikes me is how little we got in return for the binge. Growth from 2001 to 2008 was not bad but nothing special. All we really got was a huge rise in house prices.
The high house prices were part of the problem. They convinced people they had savings (in the Bank of Bricks and Mortar) and that meant they didn't need to squirrel any of their salaries away for a rainy day (or retirement).
To me, the biggest single factor in favour of Brexit is that it de-infantilises politics. Our elected representatives can no longer shrug and blame someone else. It is their responsibility, and theirs alone, to guide the ship of state.
Right now, they're not filling me with a lot of confidence.
Recent events have demonstrated that, across the board, our politicians are not fit for purpose.
If we lurch, despite Parliament wishing to avoid it, towards a “no deal”, with delusions it can be “managed” into a quick and dirty FTA, that will not end happily or quickly.
I am in no position to second guess those who have to try and model the macro effects of such a scenario. No developed country has left a trade bloc before, let alone in disorderly fashion, and let alone one which has become a lot more than a trade bloc.
But I do fully understand the legal realities. And because so-called “WTO rules” deliver precisely no continuity in multiple key sectors of the economy, we could expect disruption on a scale and of a length that no-one has experienced in the developed world in the last couple of generations.
The complacency that such things cannot and would not ever really happen in modern economies is staggering. Mercifully, it is not shared in either Whitehall or the Berlaymont. But these are outcomes which proper political leadership is about both understanding, contingency planning against – and avoiding.
Markets continue to react, or have until this week, as if something must turn up and that “no deal” is a virtually unimaginable scenario for politicians professing to be serious, to contemplate. That risk has therefore been seriously underpriced for a year or more, because we are dealing with a political generation which has no serious experience of bad times and is frankly cavalier about precipitating events they could not then control, but feel they might exploit.
Nothing is more redolent of the pre First World War era, when very few believed that a very long period of European peace and equilibrium could be shattered in months.
God, I'm sick of this bollocks from the Brexiteers.
If we were in a situation where there had been no effort made to enact the referendum result, it was still a short time since then, and there was any prospect of one side holding a third, fourth, fifth, or whatever number referendum until the "right" result was achieved, I'd be sympathetic.
None of those is true.
It's been longer than the interval between the last two General Elections, all we've seemed to do since 2016 has been bloody Brexiting (ignoring the paranoia about May deliberately intending to derail Brexit and implicitly being willing to sacrifice the Conservative Party to do so), and if a referendum results in "Sign the Deal", it's damned well over. Once the Withdrawal Agreement is signed, we cease to be an EU member.
So what's the route to "voting until we give the right answer" if the Deal wins? If the Deal wins, It's over and out
The Leavers can make a decent case - and I'd be sympathetic to a four-way referendum after the Deal is signed, to be honest, as well - but this line that implies that a win for the Deal would still be ignored afterwards is such steaming dogshite that it damages the case.
I've tried to be as objective as possible (seeing that I was originally pro-Leave before the campaign, it's actually still a default position for me), but I'm sick and tired of tripe like this coming up.
Sorry but that is utterly wrong. No matter what result a referendum produces we do not actually leave with a deal until Parliament passes it. Only if they actually say yes to the WA in a specific vote does it actually get enacted. So it is perfectly possible that if we vote anything other than remain at another referendum Parliament could still refuse to pass it.
DUP will never support this deal with a backstop.
May passes the deal with Labour support then there will be a GE.
Who in Labour is going to support the deal to give her a majority. That thought is just pure fantasy.
Indeed. It is now a 3 way game of chicken - who blinks first. Mrs May, Labour centrist melts or the DUP.
"Sweden starts laying the groundwork for snap election
Sweden's government talks are set to continue after parliament on Friday rejected Stefan Löfven as prime minister, with the threat of a snap election looming larger on the horizon."
"Parliament voted 200 to 116 against giving Lofven, currently caretaker prime minister, a new term. It had already voted once for Lofven's ouster in a mandatory vote in September, but has also rejected centre-right leader Ulf Kristersson as prime minister, leaving the way forward unclear.
"We are heading toward a new election at high speed," Ulf Kristersson, leader of the Moderate Party, said just before the vote."
Surely one problem for those wanting to force change this way is that the markets have already priced in the risk of this deal being rejected and a possible hard Brexit. Plus the markets will continue to dribble in that direction rather than having a single shocking move.
Once we have the certainty of No Deal the markets might even recover somewhat.
10/10 for fantasy world.
No deal could create a mighty crash, but the fundamentals are there along with pent up demand. A bounce back is not unlikely at all.
Just look at what happened after we left the ERM in 1992.
It’s quite possible that, following a brief period of adjustment and with the right government in place, no-deal Brexit could be the firing of the starting gun on a decade of economic growth. The EU are absolutely terrified of that happening.
Do things really look like that from thousands of miles away?
The biggest issue is the uncertainty. Business doesn’t like uncertainty, and spending the next decade arguing with the EU just adds more of it. It’s better to leave cleanly and spend the money on short term support for industries that require it.
The biggest issue for me is that those in charge (Mrs May and the civil service) don’t see Brexit as an opportunity. The feeling among my group of expat friends before the referendum was 50/50, but since then it’s been almost universal that having made the decision we should get out properly and not be held hostage by those who will actively wish ill on us. Everyone is expecting a pile of EU legislation specifically targeted at the U.K. from 30th March next year, probably starting with some sort of financial services tax.
I’ll be back in U.K. next week for a wedding and family Christmas, it will be interesting to hear the views of those I meet there.
I'll offer you 2-1 on a financial services tax if you want
So you reckon there’s a 33% chance of it next year? That’s worrying.
I’ll think of a way to frame the bet, but I’m on for a tenner that there will be a serious proposal for an FTT. If I win you can give it to your hosting provider.
I do wish we'd stop with this ridiculous nonsense of a No Deal referendum.
Any referendum will require the unanimous approval of the Council to extend A50. Does this seem like an EU that's prepared to spend another six months fannying about before crashing out?
Plus "no deal" would not pass muster with the electoral commission either.
The only possible referendum that can pass the triple lock of Parliament, Electoral Commission and European Council is Deal vs Remain.
I do wish we'd stop with this ridiculous nonsense of a No Deal referendum.
Any referendum will require the unanimous approval of the Council to extend A50. Does this seem like an EU that's prepared to let the UK spend another six months fannying about before crashing out?
Plus "no deal" would not pass muster with the electoral commission either.
The only possible referendum that can pass the triple lock of Parliament, Electoral Commission and European Council is Deal vs Remain.
That risk has therefore been seriously underpriced for a year or more, because we are dealing with a political generation which has no serious experience of bad times and is frankly cavalier about precipitating events they could not then control, but feel they might exploit.
I think this is a key point, and is also very relevant to the referendum result itself. It is often said that people voted Leave because they were dissatisfied and angry about the 2008/9 crash. But I think it's more the converse: they were complacent and thought nothing much was at risk. After all, they'd just lived through what was billed as the worst financial crash since at least the 1930s, and nothing terribly awful seemed to have happened; the economy still worked, no banks were allowed to fail, cash machines still churned out bank notes, unemployment remained low. The only problem they could see was that (as it seemed) other people were doing much better than they were.
I do wish we'd stop with this ridiculous nonsense of a No Deal referendum.
Any referendum will require the unanimous approval of the Council to extend A50. Does this seem like an EU that's prepared to let the UK spend another six months fannying about before crashing out?
Plus "no deal" would not pass muster with the electoral commission either.
The only possible referendum that can pass the triple lock of Parliament, Electoral Commission and European Council is Deal vs Remain.
It seems this needs to be posted every 20 minutes so the thicko leavers get it into their skulls.
There doesn't seem to be any facility to write posts in crayon because that might be a route into their consciousness.
Mr. Freggles, maybe. In the short term, most people are burnt out on the EU.
Longer term, I agree that Farage's new I Can't Believe It's Not UKIP party would be doing well.
Well, there are apparently 25% who say they would feel 'betrayed', perhaps it would be more like 20%. I suppose it depends how culpable the Tories are seen as being. A Farage + some of the ERG party would do well.
The idea that whilst we were a member we had any influence in what the EU would consider as a positive manner is a joke. We only had the power to disrupt and block. The bottom line is that we have no interest in the EU's aspirations and do not share their goals. As such I would think they would be very pleased to see the back of us.
The way you've set up your concepts assumes the EU was always a foreign power, so it is not surprising what conclusions you reach.
Richard uses the royal 'we'. Any British person who disagrees with him gets othered.
Making stuff up as usual William. I would have thought by now you were getting tired of being called out for that.
"The bottom line is that we have no interest in the EU's aspirations and do not share their goals."
Which we are you talking about? It's not one that includes me, that's for sure.
Conversely, I have zero interest in living in a Federal Europe. That’s the inevitable end game for Eurozone members. At least you’re an honest federalist.
If only...if only...we had had some kind of a get out clause. Something which we could have used to avoid that ever closer union...non-discrimination for non-Eurozone members...you know, that sort of thing. If only.
"Sweden starts laying the groundwork for snap election
Sweden's government talks are set to continue after parliament on Friday rejected Stefan Löfven as prime minister, with the threat of a snap election looming larger on the horizon."
"Parliament voted 200 to 116 against giving Lofven, currently caretaker prime minister, a new term. It had already voted once for Lofven's ouster in a mandatory vote in September, but has also rejected centre-right leader Ulf Kristersson as prime minister, leaving the way forward unclear.
"We are heading toward a new election at high speed," Ulf Kristersson, leader of the Moderate Party, said just before the vote."
I do wish we'd stop with this ridiculous nonsense of a No Deal referendum.
Any referendum will require the unanimous approval of the Council to extend A50. Does this seem like an EU that's prepared to let the UK spend another six months fannying about before crashing out?
Plus "no deal" would not pass muster with the electoral commission either.
The only possible referendum that can pass the triple lock of Parliament, Electoral Commission and European Council is Deal vs Remain.
It seems this needs to be posted every 20 minutes so the thicko leavers get it into their skulls.
There doesn't seem to be any facility to write posts in crayon because that might be a route into their consciousness.
It doesn't matter as there is no longer time for a referendum or election to occur in time to stop things heading off a cliff on March 29th.
As I seem to have to repeat the issue is now in Parliament's hands (God help us as no one else is going to)...
I do wish we'd stop with this ridiculous nonsense of a No Deal referendum.
Any referendum will require the unanimous approval of the Council to extend A50. Does this seem like an EU that's prepared to let the UK spend another six months fannying about before crashing out?
Plus "no deal" would not pass muster with the electoral commission either.
The only possible referendum that can pass the triple lock of Parliament, Electoral Commission and European Council is Deal vs Remain.
No it is not. It is a membership organisation and Free Trade Area.
An organisation intent on ever closer union that we’ve said we’re leaving.
And making a total pig's ear of doing so.
What do you expect. Brexit is in the hands of Remainers who see this purely as matter of immigration control, who have failed to prepare for it, and don’t have a clue what to do when it happens.
No - it is in the hands of Leavers (Davis, Fox, Johnson) some of whom have legged it and left a ex-Remainer tin-earred PM who is charging us determinately towards WTO Brexit, all assisted by a Parliament who, to date, have backed every law, act or motion to take us out.
Remainers? Where?
Davis, Fox etc were never in charge. May always had absolute control of the Government position in the negotiations.
"Leave" is getting Brexit. Stop moaning.
But you want to stop it. Hence the concern. I am content with May's Brexit for all its faults. It is you who are desperate to ignore the vote and just cancel it.
What is it with the EU demanding that countries vote until they give the right answer?
God, I'm sick of this bollocks from the Brexiteers.
If we were in a situation where there had been no effort made to enact the referendum result, it was still a short time since then, and there was any prospect of one side holding a third, fourth, fifth, or whatever number referendum until the "right" result was achieved, I'd be sympathetic.
None of those is true.
It's been longer than the interval between the last two General Elections, all we've seemed to do since 2016 has been bloody Brexiting (ignoring the paranoia about May deliberately intending to derail Brexit and implicitly being willing to sacrifice the Conservative Party to do so), and if a referendum results in "Sign the Deal", it's damned well over. Once the Withdrawal Agreement is signed, we cease to be an EU member.
So what's the route to "voting until we give the right answer" if the Deal wins? If the Deal wins, It's over and out
No it is not. It is a membership organisation and Free Trade Area.
An organisation intent on ever closer union that we’ve said we’re leaving.
And making a total pig's ear of doing so.
What do you expect. Brexit is in the hands of Remainers who see this purely as matter of immigration control, who have failed to prepare for it, and don’t have a clue what to do when it happens.
No - it is in the hands of Leavers (Davis, Fox, Johnson) some of whom have legged it and left a ex-Remainer tin-earred PM who is charging us determinately towards WTO Brexit, all assisted by a Parliament who, to date, have backed every law, act or motion to take us out.
Remainers? Where?
Name one Leaver who has any influence on May, Hammond or Robbins ! May, Hammond, Rudd, Javid, Hunt, Hancock, Brokenshire etc are all Remainers as are a majority of MPs. Fox has no mandate in the negotiations or influence in the Cabinet and neither do Gove or Mordaunt as far as I can see.
Davis, Fox and Johnson made a pig's ear of their portfolios. The Leavers failed to organise themselves effectively. FFS they cannot even organise a No Confidence vote which they should have done years ago.
The truth is that the Leave Camp is filled with politicians who like the sound of their own voice rather than ones with ability. They sit around and chat and waffle.
Owen Patterson chucked in his letter which might have sent it over the top. Brady did a top job of keeping the true number completely confidential so the plotters were somewhat in the dark all along I think
Are you saying Brady moved the goalposts?
Innocent face
It's not Brady's job to provide a running commentary on how many letters he's received. Brady made it clear it's up to the letter writer to decide to make their letter public.
I always did wonder but forgot to ask. Was Brady allowed to put in a letter? If he was so minded and knew that the number was at 47 would he have been able to put in one himself to either force the ERG hand knowing they would lose or to support them believing they might win?
Yes, Brady was allowed to write a letter to himself, and also would not have to reveal that he had done so.
(Brady is against May's deal so maybe he did, who knows!)
That will be the same Ivan Rogers whose lack of objectivity and impartiality saw him forced to quit the Civil Service.
Yes, he committed the unforgivable crime of knowing what he was talking about.
If there is something up with which a Brexiteer will not put it is some smart arse in possession of "facts" and a "grasp of the details".
And also, in Ivan Rogers' case, a superb understanding of how the EU were likely to behave in the negotiations. It's a great pity that we lost his expertise at the start,
No it is not. It is a membership organisation and Free Trade Area.
An organisation intent on ever closer union that we’ve said we’re leaving.
And making a total pig's ear of doing so.
What do you expect. Brexit is in the hands of Remainers who see this purely as matter of immigration control, who have failed to prepare for it, and don’t have a clue what to do when it happens.
No - it is in the hands of Leavers (Davis, Fox, Johnson) some of whom have legged it and left a ex-Remainer tin-earred PM who is charging us determinately towards WTO Brexit, all assisted by a Parliament who, to date, have backed every law, act or motion to take us out.
Remainers? Where?
Davis, Fox etc were never in charge. May always had absolute control of the Government position in the negotiations.
I have yet to see a Leave politician who had ability rather than bluster. None of them are worth tuppence.
That will be the same Ivan Rogers whose lack of objectivity and impartiality saw him forced to quit the Civil Service.
Yes, he committed the unforgivable crime of knowing what he was talking about.
Looking at our public life across the piece - transport, defence, overseas aid, welfare, immigration, economy etc - doesn’t really support the myth of the Rolls Royce Civil Service. If May hadn’t played into EU hands by wanting a special relationship with them post Brexit, that they clearly don’t want, then things would have turned out very different.
No it is not. It is a membership organisation and Free Trade Area.
An organisation intent on ever closer union that we’ve said we’re leaving.
And making a total pig's ear of doing so.
What do you expect. Brexit is in the hands of Remainers who see this purely as matter of immigration control, who have failed to prepare for it, and don’t have a clue what to do when it happens.
No - it is in the hands of Leavers (Davis, Fox, Johnson) some of whom have legged it and left a ex-Remainer tin-earred PM who is charging us determinately towards WTO Brexit, all assisted by a Parliament who, to date, have backed every law, act or motion to take us out.
Remainers? Where?
Davis, Fox etc were never in charge. May always had absolute control of the Government position in the negotiations.
I have yet to see a Leave politician who had ability rather than bluster. None of them are worth tuppence.
Gove.
The man can start an argument in an empty lift, but everybody who has encountered him during his time as a minister won't deny that he means what he says, reads up on his subject and gets stuff done.
The "blob" hated that, but since them his next two jobs, the industry have spoken very positively of his approach.
I do wish we'd stop with this ridiculous nonsense of a No Deal referendum.
Any referendum will require the unanimous approval of the Council to extend A50. Does this seem like an EU that's prepared to let the UK spend another six months fannying about before crashing out?
Plus "no deal" would not pass muster with the electoral commission either.
The only possible referendum that can pass the triple lock of Parliament, Electoral Commission and European Council is Deal vs Remain.
It seems this needs to be posted every 20 minutes so the thicko leavers get it into their skulls.
There doesn't seem to be any facility to write posts in crayon because that might be a route into their consciousness.
It doesn't matter as there is no longer time for a referendum or election to occur in time to stop things heading off a cliff on March 29th.
As I seem to have to repeat the issue is now in Parliament's hands (God help us as no one else is going to)...
TMay unilaterally extends A50 (can she? I know she can't ratify the WA on her own) for a few months and there's your referendum.
That will be the same Ivan Rogers whose lack of objectivity and impartiality saw him forced to quit the Civil Service.
Yes, he committed the unforgivable crime of knowing what he was talking about.
If there is something up with which a Brexiteer will not put it is some smart arse in possession of "facts" and a "grasp of the details".
If we crash out with no deal, not only will history wreak its revenge on these people's reputations, but the electorate will destroy their careers at the first opportunity.
The ultra unicorn hunters are utterly deluded if they think Leave voters will say thankee very much sir, when the shelves are bare.
God, I'm sick of this bollocks from the Brexiteers.
If we were in a situation where there had been no effort made to enact the referendum result, it was still a short time since then, and there was any prospect of one side holding a third, fourth, fifth, or whatever number referendum until the "right" result was achieved, I'd be sympathetic.
None of those is true.
It's been longer than the interval between the last two General Elections, all we've seemed to do since 2016 has been bloody Brexiting (ignoring the paranoia about May deliberately intending to derail Brexit and implicitly being willing to sacrifice the Conservative Party to do so), and if a referendum results in "Sign the Deal", it's damned well over. Once the Withdrawal Agreement is signed, we cease to be an EU member.
So what's the route to "voting until we give the right answer" if the Deal wins? If the Deal wins, It's over and out
The Leavers can make a decent case - and I'd be sympathetic to a four-way referendum after the Deal is signed, to be honest, as well - but this line that implies that a win for the Deal would still be ignored afterwards is such steaming dogshite that it damages the case.
I've tried to be as objective as possible (seeing that I was originally pro-Leave before the campaign, it's actually still a default position for me), but I'm sick and tired of tripe like this coming up.
Sorry but that is utterly wrong. No matter what result a referendum produces we do not actually leave with a deal until Parliament passes it. Only if they actually say yes to the WA in a specific vote does it actually get enacted. So it is perfectly possible that if we vote anything other than remain at another referendum Parliament could still refuse to pass it.
DUP will never support this deal with a backstop.
May passes the deal with Labour support then there will be a GE.
Who in Labour is going to support the deal to give her a majority. That thought is just pure fantasy.
Indeed. It is now a 3 way game of chicken - who blinks first. Mrs May, Labour centrist melts or the DUP.
My money is on one of the first two.
Speaking to my local Labour MP the centralists won't melt - they don't need to, as a lot of their MPs can claim they are merely following through their constituents desire that we leave.
While No Deal is likely to be a problem their Party won't be getting the blame and there is a big advantage if it destroys the Tories...
Comments
The silly sods will still be fighting about what they cannot have when we run out of time.
Remoaners like you claim we did not know which form of Brexit we were being asked to vote on in 2016. You also claim that since Parliament cannot make a decision we should ask the people.
Well, we are now being offered the choice between the two types of Brexit, soft and hard. I am perfectly happy with a referendum on which form we should choose and believe it should be binding ion Parliament so both arguments would be resolved. If you actually cared about democracy you would agree to that. But as you said, the only real reason people want a repeat referendum is to try and reverse the result of the first.
But the UK economy in 1992 was fundamentally healthy, and had just gone through a nice cleansing recession. The savings rate was at a fifty year high and had room to come down. The UK was still a large net creditor to the world, and it was us who - net - received dividend, rent and interest payments. And consumer debt was a fraction of current levels.
The New Labour years, and in particular the period from about 2001 on, saw the UK spend through an incredible inheritance.
The UK economy is one of the most unbalanced in the world. Who's really to blame for this? Mostly New Labour from 2001 on. But who will actually be blamed when the UK goes through the inevitable adjustments?
May passes the deal with Labour support then there will be a GE.
And we are leaving it to set up our rival version, headed by Liam Fox.
And, in any case, we could always have it as a confirmatory referendum, like the AV one. Write it into law (and the alternative), both subject to referendum result, and then do the referendum. Easy enough.
Two and half years on and facts have changed.
Innocent face
Which we are you talking about? It's not one that includes me, that's for sure.
The biggest issue for me is that those in charge (Mrs May and the civil service) don’t see Brexit as an opportunity. The feeling among my group of expat friends before the referendum was 50/50, but since then it’s been almost universal that having made the decision we should get out properly and not be held hostage by those who will actively wish ill on us. Everyone is expecting a pile of EU legislation specifically targeted at the U.K. from 30th March next year, probably starting with some sort of financial services tax.
I’ll be back in U.K. next week for a wedding and family Christmas, it will be interesting to hear the views of those I meet there.
Corbyn is unlikely to. May is unlikely to. Is there another route to said referendum?
May's approach seems to be to offer her deal, or nothing, rather than another vote.
I can get behind all of these things.
To me, the biggest single factor in favour of Brexit is that it de-infantilises politics. Our elected representatives can no longer shrug and blame someone else. It is their responsibility, and theirs alone, to guide the ship of state.
Right now, they're not filling me with a lot of confidence.
Prices rose 320% from 1996 to 2007, 20% from 2008 to date. In much of the country, house prices are lower than in 2007.
Democracy is not just about asking the people. It is about actually doing what they ask once you have asked them. Nor have the facts changed. We have a soft and a hard option in front of us and it would be perfectly reasonable to ask ;people to choose between the two. But not repeat the question they already answered in 2016.
It would resolve this for starters.
`‘we are ready to reconfirm our assurances and good will and good faith when it comes to the backstop - I have no mandate to organise any further negotiations`
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1073605119533551621
That would appear to be that.
Remainers? Where?
And, I'd say it would be actual democratic legitimacy for whichever side won.
"A lot were called to Bxls at short notice and I don’t think theyd be willing to come to Bxls again unless they really had to. "
https://twitter.com/mattholehouse/status/1073606602282950661
Suppose May gets back, nothing's changed (ahem), the vote is actually held, and she loses, massively. Grieve's meaningful vote has amendments regarding a second referendum, which wins.
Does she go along with that?
Hopefully the post-Brexit Chancellor can be a little more like Ken Clarke and a little less like Gordon Brown. I’d nominate Michael Gove, not afraid to ruffle a few feathers.
If we lurch, despite Parliament wishing to avoid it, towards a “no deal”, with delusions it can be “managed” into a quick and dirty FTA, that will not end happily or quickly.
I am in no position to second guess those who have to try and model the macro effects of such a scenario. No developed country has left a trade bloc before, let alone in disorderly fashion, and let alone one which has become a lot more than a trade bloc.
But I do fully understand the legal realities. And because so-called “WTO rules” deliver precisely no continuity in multiple key sectors of the economy, we could expect disruption on a scale and of a length that no-one has experienced in the developed world in the last couple of generations.
The complacency that such things cannot and would not ever really happen in modern economies is staggering. Mercifully, it is not shared in either Whitehall or the Berlaymont. But these are outcomes which proper political leadership is about both understanding, contingency planning against – and avoiding.
Markets continue to react, or have until this week, as if something must turn up and that “no deal” is a virtually unimaginable scenario for politicians professing to be serious, to contemplate. That risk has therefore been seriously underpriced for a year or more, because we are dealing with a political generation which has no serious experience of bad times and is frankly cavalier about precipitating events they could not then control, but feel they might exploit.
Nothing is more redolent of the pre First World War era, when very few believed that a very long period of European peace and equilibrium could be shattered in months.
https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/12/13/full-speech-sir-ivan-rogers-on-brexit/
If Deal won, MPs would not be able to say "it's not the Brexit we voted for" and would have to vote it through.
If No Deal won, we would do that and at least we would have a few months to prepare/emigrate.
(Brady is against May's deal so maybe he did, who knows!)
Longer term, I agree that Farage's new I Can't Believe It's Not UKIP party would be doing well.
Any referendum will require the unanimous approval of the Council to extend A50. Does this seem like an EU that's prepared to let the UK spend another six months fannying about before crashing out?
Plus "no deal" would not pass muster with the electoral commission either.
The only possible referendum that can pass the triple lock of Parliament, Electoral Commission and European Council is Deal vs Remain.
My money is on one of the first two.
Sweden's government talks are set to continue after parliament on Friday rejected Stefan Löfven as prime minister, with the threat of a snap election looming larger on the horizon."
https://www.thelocal.se/20181214/sweden-starts-laying-the-groundwork-for-snap-election
"Parliament voted 200 to 116 against giving Lofven, currently caretaker prime minister, a new term. It had already voted once for Lofven's ouster in a mandatory vote in September, but has also rejected centre-right leader Ulf Kristersson as prime minister, leaving the way forward unclear.
"We are heading toward a new election at high speed," Ulf Kristersson, leader of the Moderate Party, said just before the vote."
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/swedish-parliament-rejects-lofven-in-pm-vote-as-deadlock-lingers-11032276
I’ll think of a way to frame the bet, but I’m on for a tenner that there will be a serious proposal for an FTT. If I win you can give it to your hosting provider.
"Do you wish to revoke A50? Yes/ No."
There doesn't seem to be any facility to write posts in crayon because that might be a route into their consciousness.
A Farage + some of the ERG party would do well.
As I seem to have to repeat the issue is now in Parliament's hands (God help us as no one else is going to)...
The truth is that the Leave Camp is filled with politicians who like the sound of their own voice rather than ones with ability. They sit around and chat and waffle.
That is why an ex-Remain PM is driving Brexit.
The man can start an argument in an empty lift, but everybody who has encountered him during his time as a minister won't deny that he means what he says, reads up on his subject and gets stuff done.
The "blob" hated that, but since them his next two jobs, the industry have spoken very positively of his approach.
The ultra unicorn hunters are utterly deluded if they think Leave voters will say thankee very much sir, when the shelves are bare.
While No Deal is likely to be a problem their Party won't be getting the blame and there is a big advantage if it destroys the Tories...