(When a party with no MPs elected on its manifesto wins a nationwide election, there is a message there somewhere.)
The message being that pledging an in/out referendum had legitimised the loons instead of marginalising them as Cameron had hoped.
The same message would have been sent even if he hadn't promised that kind of referendum. But if he'd heard the message when the 2014 election results came in, he could have pondered about the causes.
But Mrs May will tell MPs on Monday: "Let us not break faith with the British people by trying to stage another referendum.
"Another vote which would do irreparable damage to the integrity of our politics, because it would say to millions who trusted in democracy, that our democracy does not deliver.
"Another vote which would likely leave us no further forward than the last.
"And another vote which would further divide our country at the very moment we should be working to unite it."
Does John Bercow think it's acceptable for a government minister to release the text of their Commons speech to the media before they deliver it to the Commons?
OT. Facebook on course for rehabilitation after banning Yair Netanyahu for calling for the expulsion of all Muslims from Israel in his facebook page "Have you ever wondered why there is no violence in Iceland and Japan' Benjamin's son asked?
Sam Gyimah is suggesting that he knows what Number 10's current thinking is.
1) Meaningful Vote. They expect to lose, hard. 2) They agree a series of indicative votes, in conference with the other party leaders, to be put the house. 3) If no winner emerges, least popular choices will be eliminated and the process repeated (an exhaustive ballot, essentially) 4) All the party leaders (including the PM) will agree, beforehand, the the votes will be free votes, and the party's whips will agree to be bound by the result of the indicative votes.
Wasn’t this the idea that was hatched on here several days back?
Can MPs have some of these votes by secret ballot or must they traipse through the lobbies, causing some to change their vote out of sheer fear of the mob? That's what 'respecting the vote' is code for.
Divisions are a matter of record. Mainly so that voters know what their MP did while in the Commons.
Well, at a time of threats to MPs, especially female ones, and intimations of mob rule, I won't be surprised if some Labour MPs for rough northern seats change their vote from 'rescind A50' to 'accept the deal'.
If VONCs in the PM can take place by secret ballot, it's disappointing that an exception can't be made for this vote.
Nah an MP is accountable to their constituents. Nearly 85% of Constiuencies in England voted leave.
As the Kaiser Chiefs would say. I predict a riot.
Riots maybe, but probably a bit muted. Not the kind of thing average leaver really does. They’ll be some civil disobedience. And then we’ll start to get information about growing radicalism. Google + sense of grievance = something very very ugly
Half a dozen people with the right motivation....
There has been a sharp rise in far right extremism since the Brexit vote. If giving the knuckle draggers what they want encourages them, there doesn’t seem any downside on that front from not giving them what they want.
If Britain really wants to see a reduction in far right extremism then it needs to tackle the root cause, which is the willingness of slightly softer right figures to indulge in martial language, stirring up the real extremists, and the complicity of the rest of the Leave camp tolerating the far right and its tropes because something else is seen as more important.
If Brexit is abandoned the soft right might look towards the extremists with a “I wouldn’t do that, but I don’t blame them”.
Nah an MP is accountable to their constituents. Nearly 85% of Constiuencies in England voted leave.
As the Kaiser Chiefs would say. I predict a riot.
Riots maybe, but probably a bit muted. Not the kind of thing average leaver really does. They’ll be some civil disobedience. And then we’ll start to get information about growing radicalism. Google + sense of grievance = something very very ugly
Half a dozen people with the right motivation....
There has been a sharp rise in far right extremism since the Brexit vote. If giving the knuckle draggers what they want encourages them, there doesn’t seem any downside on that front from not giving them what they want.
If Britain really wants to see a reduction in far right extremism then it needs to tackle the root cause, which is the willingness of slightly softer right figures to indulge in martial language, stirring up the real extremists, and the complicity of the rest of the Leave camp tolerating the far right and its tropes because something else is seen as more important.
If Brexit is abandoned the soft right might look towards the extremists with a “I wouldn’t do that, but I don’t blame them”.
Nah an MP is accountable to their constituents. Nearly 85% of Constiuencies in England voted leave.
As the Kaiser Chiefs would say. I predict a riot.
Riots maybe, but probably a bit muted. Not the kind of thing average leaver really does. They’ll be some civil disobedience. And then we’ll start to get information about growing radicalism. Google + sense of grievance = something very very ugly
Half a dozen people with the right motivation....
There has been a sharp rise in far right extremism since the Brexit vote. If giving the knuckle draggers what they want encourages them, there doesn’t seem any downside on that front from not giving them what they want.
If Britain really wants to see a reduction in far right extremism then it needs to tackle the root cause, which is the willingness of slightly softer right figures to indulge in martial language, stirring up the real extremists, and the complicity of the rest of the Leave camp tolerating the far right and its tropes because something else is seen as more important.
If Brexit is abandoned the soft right might look towards the extremists with a “I wouldn’t do that, but I don’t blame them”.
You weren't whining when Brown forced the Lisbon treaty down our throats, so stop whining now.
May is trying to get MP's to agree to her proposals. That's democracy.
People voting is also democracy, as in 'People's Vote'.
they already voted.. OUT
They voted for £350m a week and to take back control, they didn’t vote to pay £38B and be rule takers in perpetuity.
Turns out the promises of 2016 were unicorns, we can leave but only with economic damage or losing control of our laws. Let rich or less control than remaining.
We can do that, but that’s materially different to what was on offer in 2016.
You weren't whining when Brown forced the Lisbon treaty down our throats, so stop whining now.
May is trying to get MP's to agree to her proposals. That's democracy.
People voting is also democracy, as in 'People's Vote'.
they already voted.. OUT
They voted for £350m a week and to take back control, they didn’t vote to pay £38B and be rule takers in perpetuity.
Turns out the promises of 2016 were unicorns, we can leave but only with economic damage or losing control of our laws. Let rich or less control than remaining.
We can do that, but that’s materially different to what was on offer in 2016.
So let’s do the vote.
No, they voted for the UK to Leave the EU. That is all that was on the ballot paper.
Then they voted overwhelmingly at a general election for parties that promised to implement that result.
How many more times are they going to have to vote for it before it actually happens?
You weren't whining when Brown forced the Lisbon treaty down our throats, so stop whining now.
May is trying to get MP's to agree to her proposals. That's democracy.
People voting is also democracy, as in 'People's Vote'.
But not the first time they do it, it seems.....
New information deserves a new vote.
The new information caused you to,change your vote?
After a lot of thought I voted Remain on the basis that Westminster/Whitehall wasn’t up to the job. What has happened since has understandably hardened my opinion considerably.
You weren't whining when Brown forced the Lisbon treaty down our throats, so stop whining now.
May is trying to get MP's to agree to her proposals. That's democracy.
People voting is also democracy, as in 'People's Vote'.
But not the first time they do it, it seems.....
New information deserves a new vote.
The new information caused you to,change your vote?
After a lot of thought I voted Remain on the basis that Westminster/Whitehall wasn’t up to the job. What has happened since has understandably hardened my opinion considerably.
You weren't whining when Brown forced the Lisbon treaty down our throats, so stop whining now.
May is trying to get MP's to agree to her proposals. That's democracy.
People voting is also democracy, as in 'People's Vote'.
they already voted.. OUT
They voted for £350m a week and to take back control, they didn’t vote to pay £38B and be rule takers in perpetuity.
Turns out the promises of 2016 were unicorns, we can leave but only with economic damage or losing control of our laws. Let rich or less control than remaining.
We can do that, but that’s materially different to what was on offer in 2016.
So let’s do the vote.
No, they voted for the UK to Leave the EU. That is all that was on the ballot paper.
Then they voted overwhelmingly at a general election for parties that promised to implement that result.
How many more times are they going to have to vote for it before it actually happens?
Keep telling yourself the same old spin.
The promises made in the referendum campaign do matter. Ballots never detail everything. It wasn’t Leave whatever the cost.
People vote for parties for all sorts of reasons, you can infer nothing about support for any policy.
You weren't whining when Brown forced the Lisbon treaty down our throats, so stop whining now.
May is trying to get MP's to agree to her proposals. That's democracy.
People voting is also democracy, as in 'People's Vote'.
they already voted.. OUT
They voted for £350m a week and to take back control, they didn’t vote to pay £38B and be rule takers in perpetuity.
Turns out the promises of 2016 were unicorns, we can leave but only with economic damage or losing control of our laws. Let rich or less control than remaining.
We can do that, but that’s materially different to what was on offer in 2016.
So let’s do the vote.
No, they voted for the UK to Leave the EU. That is all that was on the ballot paper.
Then they voted overwhelmingly at a general election for parties that promised to implement that result.
How many more times are they going to have to vote for it before it actually happens?
Keep telling yourself the same old spin.
The promises made in the referendum campaign do matter.
You weren't whining when Brown forced the Lisbon treaty down our throats, so stop whining now.
May is trying to get MP's to agree to her proposals. That's democracy.
People voting is also democracy, as in 'People's Vote'.
But not the first time they do it, it seems.....
New information deserves a new vote.
The new information caused you to,change your vote?
After a lot of thought I voted Remain on the basis that Westminster/Whitehall wasn’t up to the job. What has happened since has understandably hardened my opinion considerably.
Considering this is just about leaving and remaining it is somewhat confusing that May pulled her deal being voted on because of all the opposition from Conservative leavers.
It is almost as if there is a little bit more to it than that....
You weren't whining when Brown forced the Lisbon treaty down our throats, so stop whining now.
May is trying to get MP's to agree to her proposals. That's democracy.
People voting is also democracy, as in 'People's Vote'.
But not the first time they do it, it seems.....
New information deserves a new vote.
The new information caused you to,change your vote?
After a lot of thought I voted Remain on the basis that Westminster/Whitehall wasn’t up to the job. What has happened since has understandably hardened my opinion considerably.
There's no way a re-run of the referendum will be seen as anything other than the Establishment wanting another go. Not only by the UK, but by the other countries in the world.
At least with the Irish re-run, the EU tweaked the offer a little. We still laughed at them, though. Do you really think the Leavers will meekly accept this?
The only way forward is to progress to Brexit and see how it goes. If it proves genuinely problematic then you have the chance to re-join later. Not giving it a chance will produce a running sore that will never heal.
If you start this anti-democratic game, what comes next? A Jeremy Corbyn win at a GE declared illegal and having to be re-run because "It will produce a Venezuela, and no one voted for that"? I'd have some sympathy for that view, but it wold ensure anarchy.
You weren't whining when Brown forced the Lisbon treaty down our throats, so stop whining now.
May is trying to get MP's to agree to her proposals. That's democracy.
People voting is also democracy, as in 'People's Vote'.
they already voted.. OUT
They voted for £350m a week and to take back control, they didn’t vote to pay £38B and be rule takers in perpetuity.
Turns out the promises of 2016 were unicorns, we can leave but only with economic damage or losing control of our laws. Let rich or less control than remaining.
We can do that, but that’s materially different to what was on offer in 2016.
So let’s do the vote.
No, they voted for the UK to Leave the EU. That is all that was on the ballot paper.
Then they voted overwhelmingly at a general election for parties that promised to implement that result.
How many more times are they going to have to vote for it before it actually happens?
The current government are unable to agree on how to implement the result. There is a large majority in Parliament against a no deal Brexit - and quite possibly a significant majority in the country against it. In those circumstances stalemate no deal Brexit is also an affront to democracy.
You weren't whining when Brown forced the Lisbon treaty down our throats, so stop whining now.
May is trying to get MP's to agree to her proposals. That's democracy.
People voting is also democracy, as in 'People's Vote'.
But not the first time they do it, it seems.....
New information deserves a new vote.
The new information caused you to,change your vote?
After a lot of thought I voted Remain on the basis that Westminster/Whitehall wasn’t up to the job. What has happened since has understandably hardened my opinion considerably.
So after a lot of thought, you came to the conclusion that the UK's best democratic interests were served by Jean Claude Juncker?
There's no way a re-run of the referendum will be seen as anything other than the Establishment wanting another go. Not only by the UK, but by the other countries in the world.
At least with the Irish re-run, the EU tweaked the offer a little. We still laughed at them, though. Do you really think the Leavers will meekly accept this?
The only way forward is to progress to Brexit and see how it goes. If it proves genuinely problematic then you have the chance to re-join later. Not giving it a chance will produce a running sore that will never heal.
If you start this anti-democratic game, what comes next? A Jeremy Corbyn win at a GE declared illegal and having to be re-run because "It will produce a Venezuela, and no one voted for that"? I'd have some sympathy for that view, but it wold ensure anarchy.
General election results are reversible every five years. Brexit isn’t.
I will go for your upgrade. My daughter regularly travels from Abergele/Rhyl to Bridgend and Llanelli for meetings and not only does she have to stay in a hotel overnight, she has chaotic delays and cancellations all via the new Wales government franchise
You weren't whining when Brown forced the Lisbon treaty down our throats, so stop whining now.
May is trying to get MP's to agree to her proposals. That's democracy.
People voting is also democracy, as in 'People's Vote'.
But not the first time they do it, it seems.....
New information deserves a new vote.
The new information caused you to,change your vote?
After a lot of thought I voted Remain on the basis that Westminster/Whitehall wasn’t up to the job. What has happened since has understandably hardened my opinion considerably.
Or, in other words, "no".
Given the democratic choice I would vote
1 Remain 2 WTO 3 No Deal
But I am not allowed a choice.
2 and 3 are the same.
WTO doesn’t actually mean anything in this context. It is merely a common set of rules for resolving trade disputes, and within which trade agreements are made, to which we are signed up.
There's no way a re-run of the referendum will be seen as anything other than the Establishment wanting another go. Not only by the UK, but by the other countries in the world.
At least with the Irish re-run, the EU tweaked the offer a little. We still laughed at them, though. Do you really think the Leavers will meekly accept this?
The only way forward is to progress to Brexit and see how it goes. If it proves genuinely problematic then you have the chance to re-join later. Not giving it a chance will produce a running sore that will never heal.
If you start this anti-democratic game, what comes next? A Jeremy Corbyn win at a GE declared illegal and having to be re-run because "It will produce a Venezuela, and no one voted for that"? I'd have some sympathy for that view, but it wold ensure anarchy.
Surely any referendum is likely to be on something like May's deal, remain and maybe no deal rather than a rerun of the leave remain referendum of 2016?
Edit: Also if 3 years after Corbyn won an election parliament voted him down he probably would have to go to the people for a vote or even leave office.
You weren't whining when Brown forced the Lisbon treaty down our throats, so stop whining now.
May is trying to get MP's to agree to her proposals. That's democracy.
People voting is also democracy, as in 'People's Vote'.
they already voted.. OUT
They voted for £350m a week and to take back control, they didn’t vote to pay £38B and be rule takers in perpetuity.
Turns out the promises of 2016 were unicorns, we can leave but only with economic damage or losing control of our laws. Let rich or less control than remaining.
We can do that, but that’s materially different to what was on offer in 2016.
So let’s do the vote.
No, they voted for the UK to Leave the EU. That is all that was on the ballot paper.
Then they voted overwhelmingly at a general election for parties that promised to implement that result.
How many more times are they going to have to vote for it before it actually happens?
And the government has found it impossible to negotiate a deal promised before the referendum that enables us to be better off. Indeed the only remaining options to "honour" the referendum is one that makes us worse off and another that makes us so badly off that the government has been forced to pay a minister to secure food supplies.
Going back to people seems sensible. "We told you if you voted x that y would happen. It transpires that y isn't available only z - do you still wish to proceed "
There's no way a re-run of the referendum will be seen as anything other than the Establishment wanting another go. Not only by the UK, but by the other countries in the world.
At least with the Irish re-run, the EU tweaked the offer a little. We still laughed at them, though. Do you really think the Leavers will meekly accept this?
The only way forward is to progress to Brexit and see how it goes. If it proves genuinely problematic then you have the chance to re-join later. Not giving it a chance will produce a running sore that will never heal.
If you start this anti-democratic game, what comes next? A Jeremy Corbyn win at a GE declared illegal and having to be re-run because "It will produce a Venezuela, and no one voted for that"? I'd have some sympathy for that view, but it wold ensure anarchy.
What would have happened if the Scots voted for independence, but the vote was considered ill informed and it was best all round to stay in the UK?
You weren't whining when Brown forced the Lisbon treaty down our throats, so stop whining now.
May is trying to get MP's to agree to her proposals. That's democracy.
People voting is also democracy, as in 'People's Vote'.
But not the first time they do it, it seems.....
New information deserves a new vote.
If any MP wants to concede they are not up to the job of deciding Brexit, then let them resign from Parliament. Then each of those by-elections for somebody else who is prepared to do the job can be " a new vote".
You weren't whining when Brown forced the Lisbon treaty down our throats, so stop whining now.
May is trying to get MP's to agree to her proposals. That's democracy.
People voting is also democracy, as in 'People's Vote'.
they already voted.. OUT
They voted for £350m a week and to take back control, they didn’t vote to pay £38B and be rule takers in perpetuity.
Turns out the promises of 2016 were unicorns, we can leave but only with economic damage or losing control of our laws. Let rich or less control than remaining.
We can do that, but that’s materially different to what was on offer in 2016.
So let’s do the vote.
No, they voted for the UK to Leave the EU. That is all that was on the ballot paper.
Then they voted overwhelmingly at a general election for parties that promised to implement that result.
How many more times are they going to have to vote for it before it actually happens?
The current government are unable to agree on how to implement the result. There is a large majority in Parliament against a no deal Brexit - and quite possibly a significant majority in the country against it. In those circumstances stalemate no deal Brexit is also an affront to democracy.
The government is agreed on how to implement the result.
Meanwhile the Commons are playing silly games rather than judging the deal on its merits.
You weren't whining when Brown forced the Lisbon treaty down our throats, so stop whining now.
May is trying to get MP's to agree to her proposals. That's democracy.
People voting is also democracy, as in 'People's Vote'.
But not the first time they do it, it seems.....
New information deserves a new vote.
The new information caused you to,change your vote?
After a lot of thought I voted Remain on the basis that Westminster/Whitehall wasn’t up to the job. What has happened since has understandably hardened my opinion considerably.
Or, in other words, "no".
Given the democratic choice I would vote
1 Remain 2 WTO 3 No Deal
But I am not allowed a choice.
2 and 3 are the same.
WTO doesn’t actually mean anything in this context. It is merely a common set of rules for resolving trade disputes, and within which trade agreements are made, to which we are signed up.
If WTO is so great, why are all Leavers banging on about great trade deals?
You weren't whining when Brown forced the Lisbon treaty down our throats, so stop whining now.
May is trying to get MP's to agree to her proposals. That's democracy.
People voting is also democracy, as in 'People's Vote'.
they already voted.. OUT
They voted for £350m a week and to take back control, they didn’t vote to pay £38B and be rule takers in perpetuity.
Turns out the promises of 2016 were unicorns, we can leave but only with economic damage or losing control of our laws. Let rich or less control than remaining.
We can do that, but that’s materially different to what was on offer in 2016.
So let’s do the vote.
No, they voted for the UK to Leave the EU. That is all that was on the ballot paper.
Then they voted overwhelmingly at a general election for parties that promised to implement that result.
How many more times are they going to have to vote for it before it actually happens?
And the government has found it impossible to negotiate a deal promised before the referendum that enables us to be better off. Indeed the only remaining options to "honour" the referendum is one that makes us worse off and another that makes us so badly off that the government has been forced to pay a minister to secure food supplies.
Going back to people seems sensible. "We told you if you voted x that y would happen. It transpires that y isn't available only z - do you still wish to proceed "
There's no way a re-run of the referendum will be seen as anything other than the Establishment wanting another go. Not only by the UK, but by the other countries in the world.
At least with the Irish re-run, the EU tweaked the offer a little. We still laughed at them, though. Do you really think the Leavers will meekly accept this?
The only way forward is to progress to Brexit and see how it goes. If it proves genuinely problematic then you have the chance to re-join later. Not giving it a chance will produce a running sore that will never heal.
If you start this anti-democratic game, what comes next? A Jeremy Corbyn win at a GE declared illegal and having to be re-run because "It will produce a Venezuela, and no one voted for that"? I'd have some sympathy for that view, but it wold ensure anarchy.
Surely any referendum is likely to be on something like May's deal, remain and maybe no deal rather than a rerun of the leave remain referendum of 2016?
Edit: Also if 3 years after Corbyn won an election parliament voted him down he probably would have to go to the people for a vote or even leave office.
You weren't whining when Brown forced the Lisbon treaty down our throats, so stop whining now.
May is trying to get MP's to agree to her proposals. That's democracy.
People voting is also democracy, as in 'People's Vote'.
they already voted.. OUT
They voted for £350m a week and to take back control, they didn’t vote to pay £38B and be rule takers in perpetuity.
Turns out the promises of 2016 were unicorns, we can leave but only with economic damage or losing control of our laws. Let rich or less control than remaining.
We can do that, but that’s materially different to what was on offer in 2016.
So let’s do the vote.
No, they voted for the UK to Leave the EU. That is all that was on the ballot paper.
Then they voted overwhelmingly at a general election for parties that promised to implement that result.
How many more times are they going to have to vote for it before it actually happens?
And the government has found it impossible to negotiate a deal promised before the referendum that enables us to be better off. Indeed the only remaining options to "honour" the referendum is one that makes us worse off and another that makes us so badly off that the government has been forced to pay a minister to secure food supplies.
Going back to people seems sensible. "We told you if you voted x that y would happen. It transpires that y isn't available only z - do you still wish to proceed "
"You got it wrong, vote again".
"WE (the government) got it wrong and the promised option is no longer available. Do you want to vote for what we managed to get (May's deal) or call the whole thing off?"
There's no way a re-run of the referendum will be seen as anything other than the Establishment wanting another go. Not only by the UK, but by the other countries in the world.
At least with the Irish re-run, the EU tweaked the offer a little. We still laughed at them, though. Do you really think the Leavers will meekly accept this?
The only way forward is to progress to Brexit and see how it goes. If it proves genuinely problematic then you have the chance to re-join later. Not giving it a chance will produce a running sore that will never heal.
If you start this anti-democratic game, what comes next? A Jeremy Corbyn win at a GE declared illegal and having to be re-run because "It will produce a Venezuela, and no one voted for that"? I'd have some sympathy for that view, but it wold ensure anarchy.
What would have happened if the Scots voted for independence, but the vote was considered ill informed and it was best all round to stay in the UK?
Would anyone think that if Scotland chose to be independent (via a referendum) that once they have negotiated the terms to leave the UK that having a referendum to see if people wanted to leave on those terms would be unacceptable or anti democratic?
I can see that arguments could be made both ways on whether they should or not but someone insisting that is fundamentally wrong is just beyond me TBH.
I have actually been meaning to asking one or two of our SNP supporters on here about their views on it.
You weren't whining when Brown forced the Lisbon treaty down our throats, so stop whining now.
May is trying to get MP's to agree to her proposals. That's democracy.
People voting is also democracy, as in 'People's Vote'.
But not the first time they do it, it seems.....
New information deserves a new vote.
The new information caused you to,change your vote?
After a lot of thought I voted Remain on the basis that Westminster/Whitehall wasn’t up to the job. What has happened since has understandably hardened my opinion considerably.
So after a lot of thought, you came to the conclusion that the UK's best democratic interests were served by Jean Claude Juncker?
A niche view.
The deal puts Junker in charge of U.K. regs and taxes with the U.K. having no say or route out. That’s Mays plan.
I certainly considered my vote, and thus by implication the entire vote and result binding when I placed my X. A referendum on the agreed deal Vs leaving without a deal would be fair. After all people didn't know what kind of leave we were voting for.
You weren't whining when Brown forced the Lisbon treaty down our throats, so stop whining now.
May is trying to get MP's to agree to her proposals. That's democracy.
People voting is also democracy, as in 'People's Vote'.
But not the first time they do it, it seems.....
New information deserves a new vote.
The new information caused you to,change your vote?
After a lot of thought I voted Remain on the basis that Westminster/Whitehall wasn’t up to the job. What has happened since has understandably hardened my opinion considerably.
Or, in other words, "no".
Given the democratic choice I would vote
1 Remain 2 WTO 3 No Deal
But I am not allowed a choice.
2 and 3 are the same.
WTO doesn’t actually mean anything in this context. It is merely a common set of rules for resolving trade disputes, and within which trade agreements are made, to which we are signed up.
If WTO is so great, why are all Leavers banging on about great trade deals?
WTO is the zero hours contract equivalent of international commerce. Better than nothing. But grim, with very little recourse to bad faith.
You weren't whining when Brown forced the Lisbon treaty down our throats, so stop whining now.
May is trying to get MP's to agree to her proposals. That's democracy.
People voting is also democracy, as in 'People's Vote'.
But not the first time they do it, it seems.....
New information deserves a new vote.
The new information caused you to,change your vote?
After a lot of thought I voted Remain on the basis that Westminster/Whitehall wasn’t up to the job. What has happened since has understandably hardened my opinion considerably.
Or, in other words, "no".
Given the democratic choice I would vote
1 Remain 2 WTO 3 No Deal
But I am not allowed a choice.
2 and 3 are the same.
WTO doesn’t actually mean anything in this context. It is merely a common set of rules for resolving trade disputes, and within which trade agreements are made, to which we are signed up.
If WTO is so great, why are all Leavers banging on about great trade deals?
Perhaps they have spoken to the WTO... The suggestion seems to be that WTO means we do what we want when we want it and nobody can stop us and we follow no rules and no court can tell us off. Which is of course utter nonsense.
WTO means a different court of arbitration and so many more countries who can block what we want and so many more rules we have to conform to. The WTO is such a good arrangement for other advanced economies like Japan that they have spent years negotiating improved deals with the EU and the TPP countries
The few good Tories who could satisfyingly lead the country are not yet in Cabinet or even in Westminster.
I'd say Gove's capricious nature if more significant than his being an ideologue.
I'd say his hubris and administrative incompetence are bigger issues.
That, and the fact that he sees experts who dare to disagree with him as 'the enemy'.
Wasn't he just being critical of specific experts not expertise in general?
Not even that. He was being critical of pretended experts who keep coming up with the wrong answer but are somehow still touted as experts.
Like himself and Adonis, you mean?
I don't care whether he said any such thing - I don't know if he did. I'm telling you how he acts. He sees anyone who disagrees with him as the enemy. Even and perhaps especially when they are proved right, as they have been over both education and Brexit.
That is why he would be a dreadful choice as Prime Minister, a slightly less principled and considerably more arrogant version of Corbyn.
Brexit isn't over. On education, Gove has been consistently vindicated.
He would be a poor choice of Conservative leader because they need an election winner, voters are fickle, and he has a punchable face. If the question were one of merit, he'd be right up there.
@oldpolitics I am sick of being lectured on education by people who know fuck all about it, starting with you.
Do you think it is appropriate that because of the kack handed way Gove handled education, the majority of GCSE grades in the majority of subjects were no better than guesses and based on criteria that university professors disowned as meaningless?
Do you think that is fair on children? If yes, you're a fool. If no, you're a bigger fool for supporting it.
As for the research, it's meaningless and will continue to be meaningless until we get grading sorted out. At that point I fully expect to see the gap widen from what there was before.
There's no way a re-run of the referendum will be seen as anything other than the Establishment wanting another go. Not only by the UK, but by the other countries in the world.
At least with the Irish re-run, the EU tweaked the offer a little. We still laughed at them, though. Do you really think the Leavers will meekly accept this?
The only way forward is to progress to Brexit and see how it goes. If it proves genuinely problematic then you have the chance to re-join later. Not giving it a chance will produce a running sore that will never heal.
If you start this anti-democratic game, what comes next? A Jeremy Corbyn win at a GE declared illegal and having to be re-run because "It will produce a Venezuela, and no one voted for that"? I'd have some sympathy for that view, but it wold ensure anarchy.
Surely any referendum is likely to be on something like May's deal, remain and maybe no deal rather than a rerun of the leave remain referendum of 2016?
Edit: Also if 3 years after Corbyn won an election parliament voted him down he probably would have to go to the people for a vote or even leave office.
If Remain is on the ballot paper it is a re-run.
If it isn't the same referendum it isn't a re-run.
You could argue remain has already been eliminated, but that is a different argument.
You weren't whining when Brown forced the Lisbon treaty down our throats, so stop whining now.
May is trying to get MP's to agree to her proposals. That's democracy.
People voting is also democracy, as in 'People's Vote'.
But not the first time they do it, it seems.....
New information deserves a new vote.
The new information caused you to,change your vote?
After a lot of thought I voted Remain on the basis that Westminster/Whitehall wasn’t up to the job. What has happened since has understandably hardened my opinion considerably.
So after a lot of thought, you came to the conclusion that the UK's best democratic interests were served by Jean Claude Juncker?
A niche view.
The deal puts Junker in charge of U.K. regs and taxes with the U.K. having no say or route out. That’s Mays plan.
You weren't whining when Brown forced the Lisbon treaty down our throats, so stop whining now.
May is trying to get MP's to agree to her proposals. That's democracy.
People voting is also democracy, as in 'People's Vote'.
But not the first time they do it, it seems.....
New information deserves a new vote.
The new information caused you to,change your vote?
After a lot of thought I voted Remain on the basis that Westminster/Whitehall wasn’t up to the job. What has happened since has understandably hardened my opinion considerably.
If there is another referendum, any attempt to exclude the option that is polling far ahead of any other single option would be a democratic atrocity.
If Leavers think that the option of Remaining should have been long put aside, they should ask themselves why they have been so unpersuasive in the intervening period.
You weren't whining when Brown forced the Lisbon treaty down our throats, so stop whining now.
May is trying to get MP's to agree to her proposals. That's democracy.
People voting is also democracy, as in 'People's Vote'.
But not the first time they do it, it seems.....
New information deserves a new vote.
The new information caused you to,change your vote?
After a lot of thought I voted Remain on the basis that Westminster/Whitehall wasn’t up to the job. What has happened since has understandably hardened my opinion considerably.
So after a lot of thought, you came to the conclusion that the UK's best democratic interests were served by Jean Claude Juncker?
A niche view.
The deal puts Junker in charge of U.K. regs and taxes with the U.K. having no say or route out. That’s Mays plan.
No it doesn't. In a worst case scenario, it might give his successor limited influence over Northern Ireland's regulations, not its tax polices.
The reason some, but not all, Leavers do not want a second vote is that after making such a Horlicks of it they think they will lose. They roll out increasingly spurious arguments in defence of that position. It’s quite transparent.
Of course Remainers have nothing to lose from a second vote. It gives them hope.
But now things have crystallised and there is more information and given each option will damage a large number of people it seems sensible to get a mandate for whatever happens next
Sam Gyimah is suggesting that he knows what Number 10's current thinking is.
1) Meaningful Vote. They expect to lose, hard. 2) They agree a series of indicative votes, in conference with the other party leaders, to be put the house. 3) If no winner emerges, least popular choices will be eliminated and the process repeated (an exhaustive ballot, essentially) 4) All the party leaders (including the PM) will agree, beforehand, the the votes will be free votes, and the party's whips will agree to be bound by the result of the indicative votes.
Wasn’t this the idea that was hatched on here several days back?
Can MPs have some of these votes by secret ballot or must they traipse through the lobbies, causing some to change their vote out of sheer fear of the mob? That's what 'respecting the vote' is code for.
Divisions are a matter of record. Mainly so that voters know what their MP did while in the Commons.
Well, at a time of threats to MPs, especially female ones, and intimations of mob rule, I won't be surprised if some Labour MPs for rough northern seats change their vote from 'rescind A50' to 'accept the deal'.
If VONCs in the PM can take place by secret ballot, it's disappointing that an exception can't be made for this vote.
Nah an MP is accountable to their constituents. Nearly 85% of Constiuencies in England voted leave.
As the Kaiser Chiefs would say. I predict a riot.
Riots maybe, but probably a bit muted. Not the kind of thing average leaver really does. They’ll be some civil disobedience. And then we’ll start to get information about growing radicalism. Google + sense of grievance = something very very ugly
Half a dozen people with the right motivation....
There has been a sharp rise in far right extremism since the Brexit vote. If giving the knuckle draggers what they want encourages them, there doesn’t seem any downside on that front from not giving them what they want.
If Britain really wants to see a reduction in far right extremism then it needs to tackle the root cause, which is the willingness of slightly softer right figures to indulge in martial language, stirring up the real extremists, and the complicity of the rest of the Leave camp tolerating the far right and its tropes because something else is seen as more important.
Yes, well put. It’s noticeable how quickly some invoke the prospect of pitchforks.
You weren't whining when Brown forced the Lisbon treaty down our throats, so stop whining now.
May is trying to get MP's to agree to her proposals. That's democracy.
People voting is also democracy, as in 'People's Vote'.
But not the first time they do it, it seems.....
New information deserves a new vote.
The new information caused you to,change your vote?
After a lot of thought I voted Remain on the basis that Westminster/Whitehall wasn’t up to the job. What has happened since has understandably hardened my opinion considerably.
Or, in other words, "no".
Given the democratic choice I would vote
1 Remain 2 WTO 3 No Deal
But I am not allowed a choice.
You were and we voted out.
Nope. We were offered unicorns and people voted for them.
You weren't whining when Brown forced the Lisbon treaty down our throats, so stop whining now.
May is trying to get MP's to agree to her proposals. That's democracy.
People voting is also democracy, as in 'People's Vote'.
they already voted.. OUT
They voted for £350m a week and to take back control, they didn’t vote to pay £38B and be rule takers in perpetuity.
Turns out the promises of 2016 were unicorns, we can leave but only with economic damage or losing control of our laws. Let rich or less control than remaining.
We can do that, but that’s materially different to what was on offer in 2016.
So let’s do the vote.
No, they voted for the UK to Leave the EU. That is all that was on the ballot paper.
Then they voted overwhelmingly at a general election for parties that promised to implement that result.
How many more times are they going to have to vote for it before it actually happens?
And the government has found it impossible to negotiate a deal promised before the referendum that enables us to be better off. Indeed the only remaining options to "honour" the referendum is one that makes us worse off and another that makes us so badly off that the government has been forced to pay a minister to secure food supplies.
Going back to people seems sensible. "We told you if you voted x that y would happen. It transpires that y isn't available only z - do you still wish to proceed "
"You got it wrong, vote again".
"WE (the government) got it wrong and the promised option is no longer available. Do you want to vote for what we managed to get (May's deal) or call the whole thing off?"
You weren't whining when Brown forced the Lisbon treaty down our throats, so stop whining now.
May is trying to get MP's to agree to her proposals. That's democracy.
People voting is also democracy, as in 'People's Vote'.
But not the first time they do it, it seems.....
New information deserves a new vote.
The new information caused you to,change your vote?
After a lot of thought I voted Remain on the basis that Westminster/Whitehall wasn’t up to the job. What has happened since has understandably hardened my opinion considerably.
So after a lot of thought, you came to the conclusion that the UK's best democratic interests were served by Jean Claude Juncker?
A niche view.
The deal puts Junker in charge of U.K. regs and taxes with the U.K. having no say or route out. That’s Mays plan.
No Deal it is then.
If you value democratic freedom above the economy then yes. If you value the economy then Remain.
If you value neither and just want a quiet life when the technocrats take over back the deal.
You weren't whining when Brown forced the Lisbon treaty down our throats, so stop whining now.
May is trying to get MP's to agree to her proposals. That's democracy.
People voting is also democracy, as in 'People's Vote'.
they already voted.. OUT
They voted for £350m a week and to take back control, they didn’t vote to pay £38B and be rule takers in perpetuity.
Turns out the promises of 2016 were unicorns, we can leave but only with economic damage or losing control of our laws. Let rich or less control than remaining.
We can do that, but that’s materially different to what was on offer in 2016.
So let’s do the vote.
No, they voted for the UK to Leave the EU. That is all that was on the ballot paper.
Then they voted overwhelmingly at a general election for parties that promised to implement that result.
How many more times are they going to have to vote for it before it actually happens?
And the government has found it impossible to negotiate a deal promised before the referendum that enables us to be better off. Indeed the only remaining options to "honour" the referendum is one that makes us worse off and another that makes us so badly off that the government has been forced to pay a minister to secure food supplies.
Going back to people seems sensible. "We told you if you voted x that y would happen. It transpires that y isn't available only z - do you still wish to proceed "
"You got it wrong, vote again".
"WE (the government) got it wrong and the promised option is no longer available. Do you want to vote for what we managed to get (May's deal) or call the whole thing off?"
"Edit: Also if 3 years after Corbyn won an election parliament voted him down he probably would have to go to the people for a vote or even leave office."
In your example, he'd have had three years of putting his policies into effect. This is akin to Corbyn winning a GE and Parliament refusing to let him form a government in the first place.
"New information"? An extension of project fear? Certainly. Planes falling from the sky and mass starvation was also advanced before the vote. Severe economic damage predictions were also popular when we considered not going into the Euro scheme.
The reason some, but not all, Leavers do not want a second vote is that after making such a Horlicks of it they think they will lose. They roll out increasingly spurious arguments in defence of that position. It’s quite transparent.
Of course Remainers have nothing to lose from a second vote. It gives them hope.
But now things have crystallised and there is more information and given each option will damage a large number of people it seems sensible to get a mandate for whatever happens next
The reason most, but not all, Remainers want a second vote is BECAUSE THE CRY-BABY LOSERS LOST THE FIRST ONE. They NEVER had the experience of losing before. And they fucking HATE it.
There's no way a re-run of the referendum will be seen as anything other than the Establishment wanting another go. Not only by the UK, but by the other countries in the world.
At least with the Irish re-run, the EU tweaked the offer a little. We still laughed at them, though. Do you really think the Leavers will meekly accept this?
The only way forward is to progress to Brexit and see how it goes. If it proves genuinely problematic then you have the chance to re-join later. Not giving it a chance will produce a running sore that will never heal.
If you start this anti-democratic game, what comes next? A Jeremy Corbyn win at a GE declared illegal and having to be re-run because "It will produce a Venezuela, and no one voted for that"? I'd have some sympathy for that view, but it wold ensure anarchy.
Surely any referendum is likely to be on something like May's deal, remain and maybe no deal rather than a rerun of the leave remain referendum of 2016?
Edit: Also if 3 years after Corbyn won an election parliament voted him down he probably would have to go to the people for a vote or even leave office.
If Remain is on the ballot paper it is a re-run.
If it isn't the same referendum it isn't a re-run.
You could argue remain has already been eliminated, but that is a different argument.
If Remain is put back on the ballot paper it's the same referendum. People who want to leave have to vote for a third time to make it happen (with no guarantee it will be enough). People who want to remain get yet another bite at the cherry in the full knowledge that they only need to scrape over the line once to win forever.
@oldpolitics I am sick of being lectured on education by people who know fuck all about it, starting with you.
Do you think it is appropriate that because of the kack handed way Gove handled education, the majority of GCSE grades in the majority of subjects were no better than guesses and based on criteria that university professors disowned as meaningless?
Do you think that is fair on children? If yes, you're a fool. If no, you're a bigger fool for supporting it.
As for the research, it's meaningless and will continue to be meaningless until we get grading sorted out. At that point I fully expect to see the gap widen from what there was before.
+1 - the new exams are a memory test in a world where your main skill is reading quickly to be able to identify the appropriate words for a google search.
My twins suffered the new GCSEs last year. They had to learn a set of physics equations off by heart that will be provided on a crib sheet in their A level exams...
Now as a minister I like Gove (he actually does things), but he has a tendency of not listening and the GCSEs are a prime example of that.
You weren't whining when Brown forced the Lisbon treaty down our throats, so stop whining now.
May is trying to get MP's to agree to her proposals. That's democracy.
People voting is also democracy, as in 'People's Vote'.
they already voted.. OUT
They voted for £350m a week and to take back control, they didn’t vote to pay £38B and be rule takers in perpetuity.
Turns out the promises of 2016 were unicorns, we can leave but only with economic damage or losing control of our laws. Let rich or less control than remaining.
We can do that, but that’s materially different to what was on offer in 2016.
So let’s do the vote.
No, they voted for the UK to Leave the EU. That is all that was on the ballot paper.
Then they voted overwhelmingly at a general election for parties that promised to implement that result.
How many more times are they going to have to vote for it before it actually happens?
And the government has found it impossible to negotiate a deal promised before the referendum that enables us to be better off. Indeed the only remaining options to "honour" the referendum is one that makes us worse off and another that makes us so badly off that the government has been forced to pay a minister to secure food supplies.
Going back to people seems sensible. "We told you if you voted x that y would happen. It transpires that y isn't available only z - do you still wish to proceed "
"You got it wrong, vote again".
"WE (the government) got it wrong and the promised option is no longer available. Do you want to vote for what we managed to get (May's deal) or call the whole thing off?"
"You got it wrong, vote again".
Yes, debate isn't your strongest suit is it?
People advocating a further referendum need to accept that this is exactly how it will be seen, whatever justifications are found for it.
If there is another referendum, any attempt to exclude the option that is polling far ahead of any other single option would be a democratic atrocity.
If Leavers think that the option of Remaining should have been long put aside, they should ask themselves why they have been so unpersuasive in the intervening period.
Some people are unpersuadable. They tend to be very certain of themselves and have prominent platforms.
If there is another referendum, any attempt to exclude the option that is polling far ahead of any other single option would be a democratic atrocity.
If Leavers think that the option of Remaining should have been long put aside, they should ask themselves why they have been so unpersuasive in the intervening period.
If there's a second referendum, it will only pass with Remainer votes, so there's no doubt Remain will be on the ballot. I must admit I never thought we would get here, but now May is officially denying it... Its much closer than I thought possible.
Remain vs TM deal looks the simplest and most likely option. She would get the votes in Parliament but it will need the mother of all u-turns.
The reason some, but not all, Leavers do not want a second vote is that after making such a Horlicks of it they think they will lose. They roll out increasingly spurious arguments in defence of that position. It’s quite transparent.
Of course Remainers have nothing to lose from a second vote. It gives them hope.
But now things have crystallised and there is more information and given each option will damage a large number of people it seems sensible to get a mandate for whatever happens next
The reason most, but not all, Remainers want a second vote is BECAUSE THE CRY-BABY LOSERS LOST THE FIRST ONE. They NEVER had the experience of losing before. And they fucking HATE it.
So please vacate the moral high ground.
Who’s crying? Good you of caps before 9am. That’s the beauty of Brexit.
How do the Scots see a referendum being over-ruled when it suits the establishment? A practice run for another Scottish Independence referendum if they vote to leave the UK?
@oldpolitics I am sick of being lectured on education by people who know fuck all about it, starting with you.
Do you think it is appropriate that because of the kack handed way Gove handled education, the majority of GCSE grades in the majority of subjects were no better than guesses and based on criteria that university professors disowned as meaningless?
Do you think that is fair on children? If yes, you're a fool. If no, you're a bigger fool for supporting it.
As for the research, it's meaningless and will continue to be meaningless until we get grading sorted out. At that point I fully expect to see the gap widen from what there was before.
+1 - the new exams are a memory test in a world where your main skill is reading quickly to be able to identify the appropriate words for a google search.
My twins suffered the new GCSEs last year. They had to learn a set of physics equations off by heart that will be provided on a crib sheet in their A level exams...
Now as a minister I like Gove (he actually does things), but he has a tendency of not listening and the GCSEs are a prime example of that.
If they were a test, at least they would have some value even if that's perhaps not the most useful of skills.
The real disaster was that because the markschemes had to be altered due to the numerous mistakes found in them, which the DfE set its face against admitting until it was too late, some questions were literally unanswerable. That's how one AQA History combination ended up with an average mark of 27%.
We also have the bizarre situation that the Maths A-level is so difficult anyone with a Maths GCSE can't do it, and about half of all teachers can't actually teach it because their degrees didn't equip them with the necessary knowledge. Now, I'm all for academic rigour. But what is the point of a qualification that we all agree is really important and should be more widespread if nobody can do it?
"Edit: Also if 3 years after Corbyn won an election parliament voted him down he probably would have to go to the people for a vote or even leave office."
In your example, he'd have had three years of putting his policies into effect. This is akin to Corbyn winning a GE and Parliament refusing to let him form a government in the first place.
"New information"? An extension of project fear? Certainly. Planes falling from the sky and mass starvation was also advanced before the vote. Severe economic damage predictions were also popular when we considered not going into the Euro scheme.
The example is also a bit dodgy because the election wouldn't have been for a Corbyn government, it would have been rejecting something, so not a Conservative/Labour government say, which if you take the latter was almost the result of the 2017 election, which seems to have involved almost nothing the 'not Labour' referendum winners voted for happening and a probable re-run of the vote a short time later...
The problems came when it turned out the various strands that won it for not Labour didn't have a coherent not Labour plan. Soon it seems Labour will have another shot despite not Labour not really getting to do what they promised.
@oldpolitics I am sick of being lectured on education by people who know fuck all about it, starting with you.
Do you think it is appropriate that because of the kack handed way Gove handled education, the majority of GCSE grades in the majority of subjects were no better than guesses and based on criteria that university professors disowned as meaningless?
Do you think that is fair on children? If yes, you're a fool. If no, you're a bigger fool for supporting it.
As for the research, it's meaningless and will continue to be meaningless until we get grading sorted out. At that point I fully expect to see the gap widen from what there was before.
+1 - the new exams are a memory test in a world where your main skill is reading quickly to be able to identify the appropriate words for a google search.
My twins suffered the new GCSEs last year. They had to learn a set of physics equations off by heart that will be provided on a crib sheet in their A level exams...
Now as a minister I like Gove (he actually does things), but he has a tendency of not listening and the GCSEs are a prime example of that.
Bar the Cameron special adviser, most are pretty negative. But its telling that even those who liked some of his reforms felt alienated. That's not a recipe for success.
Didn't back Thomas (around 3.5 or 4.5) for SPOTY last night. Mildly annoyed with myself, but this betting business would be rather easier with hindsight.
There's no way a re-run of the referendum will be seen as anything other than the Establishment wanting another go. Not only by the UK, but by the other countries in the world.
At least with the Irish re-run, the EU tweaked the offer a little. We still laughed at them, though. Do you really think the Leavers will meekly accept this?
The only way forward is to progress to Brexit and see how it goes. If it proves genuinely problematic then you have the chance to re-join later. Not giving it a chance will produce a running sore that will never heal.
If you start this anti-democratic game, what comes next? A Jeremy Corbyn win at a GE declared illegal and having to be re-run because "It will produce a Venezuela, and no one voted for that"? I'd have some sympathy for that view, but it wold ensure anarchy.
Surely any referendum is likely to be on something like May's deal, remain and maybe no deal rather than a rerun of the leave remain referendum of 2016?
Edit: Also if 3 years after Corbyn won an election parliament voted him down he probably would have to go to the people for a vote or even leave office.
If Remain is on the ballot paper it is a re-run.
If it isn't the same referendum it isn't a re-run.
You could argue remain has already been eliminated, but that is a different argument.
If Remain is put back on the ballot paper it's the same referendum. People who want to leave have to vote for a third time to make it happen (with no guarantee it will be enough). People who want to remain get yet another bite at the cherry in the full knowledge that they only need to scrape over the line once to win forever.
It isn't the same referendum unless it has the same options. Obviously the same options as last time but simply renamed as stay and leave would also be the same referendum. That is a different referendum.
The reason we are doing Brexit is because people wanted it, if people don't want the deal we have made to Brexit then it is okay for them not to take it.
You could make the argument that people who voted to leave voted happily to accept the deal to leave that was going to be brought back.
Although if that was the case then the deal would probably be passing through parliament so I'm not sure it holds much value.
I accept there is also a good argument for saying remain should be eliminated and Britain should leave on any terms and the discussion should just be about that.
What I don't accept is that there isn't any kind of argument for either side.
@oldpolitics I am sick of being lectured on education by people who know fuck all about it, starting with you.
Do you think it is appropriate that because of the kack handed way Gove handled education, the majority of GCSE grades in the majority of subjects were no better than guesses and based on criteria that university professors disowned as meaningless?
Do you think that is fair on children? If yes, you're a fool. If no, you're a bigger fool for supporting it.
As for the research, it's meaningless and will continue to be meaningless until we get grading sorted out. At that point I fully expect to see the gap widen from what there was before.
+1 - the new exams are a memory test in a world where your main skill is reading quickly to be able to identify the appropriate words for a google search.
My twins suffered the new GCSEs last year. They had to learn a set of physics equations off by heart that will be provided on a crib sheet in their A level exams...
Now as a minister I like Gove (he actually does things), but he has a tendency of not listening and the GCSEs are a prime example of that.
Gove had the right (radical) ideas at Justice, unfortunately cut short by May. Everyone seems to like what he is doing in Defra.
At education everything he did was toxic. An terrible legacy.
Hmm. Tick down on the UK voting Remain in a theoretical referendum, has slipped from 4 to 3.5. Surprised a little as it's still 2.2/1.66 for there to be/not to be a referendum (Ladbrokes).
F1: just under two months until the Ferrari is unveiled (15 February, I think).
You weren't whining when Brown forced the Lisbon treaty down our throats, so stop whining now.
May is trying to get MP's to agree to her proposals. That's democracy.
People voting is also democracy, as in 'People's Vote'.
But not the first time they do it, it seems.....
New information deserves a new vote.
The new information caused you to,change your vote?
After a lot of thought I voted Remain on the basis that Westminster/Whitehall wasn’t up to the job. What has happened since has understandably hardened my opinion considerably.
So after a lot of thought, you came to the conclusion that the UK's best democratic interests were served by Jean Claude Juncker?
A niche view.
The deal puts Junker in charge of U.K. regs and taxes with the U.K. having no say or route out. That’s Mays plan.
No Deal it is then.
100 points for a PB Leaver cliche. Would you like to go for Double Jeopardy with “you lost, get over it” when the scores can really change?
The reason some, but not all, Leavers do not want a second vote is that after making such a Horlicks of it they think they will lose. They roll out increasingly spurious arguments in defence of that position. It’s quite transparent.
Of course Remainers have nothing to lose from a second vote. It gives them hope.
But now things have crystallised and there is more information and given each option will damage a large number of people it seems sensible to get a mandate for whatever happens next
The reason most, but not all, Remainers want a second vote is BECAUSE THE CRY-BABY LOSERS LOST THE FIRST ONE. They NEVER had the experience of losing before. And they fucking HATE it.
Comments
https://gfycat.com/relievedregularantipodesgreenparakeet
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/12/27/alastair-meeks-and-his-predictions-for-2018/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2018/12/16/mueller-exposes-putins-hold-over-trump/
In its current form
Thanks, Mr n-o-f for recovring them.
Turns out the promises of 2016 were unicorns, we can leave but only with economic damage or losing control of our laws. Let rich or less control than remaining.
We can do that, but that’s materially different to what was on offer in 2016.
So let’s do the vote.
Then they voted overwhelmingly at a general election for parties that promised to implement that result.
How many more times are they going to have to vote for it before it actually happens?
The promises made in the referendum campaign do matter. Ballots never detail everything. It wasn’t Leave whatever the cost.
People vote for parties for all sorts of reasons, you can infer nothing about support for any policy.
But you know both these things.
I whined rather a lot when Brown forced Lisbon through. I stilll voted remain.
https://twitter.com/carriesymonds/status/1074341700527710209
1 Remain
2 WTO
3 No Deal
But I am not allowed a choice.
It is almost as if there is a little bit more to it than that....
At least with the Irish re-run, the EU tweaked the offer a little. We still laughed at them, though. Do you really think the Leavers will meekly accept this?
The only way forward is to progress to Brexit and see how it goes. If it proves genuinely problematic then you have the chance to re-join later. Not giving it a chance will produce a running sore that will never heal.
If you start this anti-democratic game, what comes next? A Jeremy Corbyn win at a GE declared illegal and having to be re-run because "It will produce a Venezuela, and no one voted for that"? I'd have some sympathy for that view, but it wold ensure anarchy.
There is a large majority in Parliament against a no deal Brexit - and quite possibly a significant majority in the country against it. In those circumstances stalemate no deal Brexit is also an affront to democracy.
A niche view.
Edit: Also if 3 years after Corbyn won an election parliament voted him down he probably would have to go to the people for a vote or even leave office.
Going back to people seems sensible. "We told you if you voted x that y would happen. It transpires that y isn't available only z - do you still wish to proceed "
Meanwhile the Commons are playing silly games rather than judging the deal on its merits.
I can see that arguments could be made both ways on whether they should or not but someone insisting that is fundamentally wrong is just beyond me TBH.
I have actually been meaning to asking one or two of our SNP supporters on here about their views on it.
WTO means a different court of arbitration and so many more countries who can block what we want and so many more rules we have to conform to. The WTO is such a good arrangement for other advanced economies like Japan that they have spent years negotiating improved deals with the EU and the TPP countries
Do you think it is appropriate that because of the kack handed way Gove handled education, the majority of GCSE grades in the majority of subjects were no better than guesses and based on criteria that university professors disowned as meaningless?
Do you think that is fair on children? If yes, you're a fool. If no, you're a bigger fool for supporting it.
As for the research, it's meaningless and will continue to be meaningless until we get grading sorted out. At that point I fully expect to see the gap widen from what there was before.
You could argue remain has already been eliminated, but that is a different argument.
If Leavers think that the option of Remaining should have been long put aside, they should ask themselves why they have been so unpersuasive in the intervening period.
Of course Remainers have nothing to lose from a second vote. It gives them hope.
But now things have crystallised and there is more information and given each option will damage a large number of people it seems sensible to get a mandate for whatever happens next
If you value neither and just want a quiet life when the technocrats take over back the deal.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2018/12/16/01003-20181216ARTFIG00138--l-etranger-l-image-de-macron-et-de-la-france-est-endommagee.php
so not just us then
"Edit: Also if 3 years after Corbyn won an election parliament voted him down he probably would have to go to the people for a vote or even leave office."
In your example, he'd have had three years of putting his policies into effect. This is akin to Corbyn winning a GE and Parliament refusing to let him form a government in the first place.
"New information"? An extension of project fear? Certainly. Planes falling from the sky and mass starvation was also advanced before the vote. Severe economic damage predictions were also popular when we considered not going into the Euro scheme.
So please vacate the moral high ground.
My twins suffered the new GCSEs last year. They had to learn a set of physics equations off by heart that will be provided on a crib sheet in their A level exams...
Now as a minister I like Gove (he actually does things), but he has a tendency of not listening and the GCSEs are a prime example of that.
As I said earlier, the attitude that voters are wrong and they must be saved from themselves. True democracy for some Remainers.
Remain vs TM deal looks the simplest and most likely option. She would get the votes in Parliament but it will need the mother of all u-turns.
The real disaster was that because the markschemes had to be altered due to the numerous mistakes found in them, which the DfE set its face against admitting until it was too late, some questions were literally unanswerable. That's how one AQA History combination ended up with an average mark of 27%.
We also have the bizarre situation that the Maths A-level is so difficult anyone with a Maths GCSE can't do it, and about half of all teachers can't actually teach it because their degrees didn't equip them with the necessary knowledge. Now, I'm all for academic rigour. But what is the point of a qualification that we all agree is really important and should be more widespread if nobody can do it?
The problems came when it turned out the various strands that won it for not Labour didn't have a coherent not Labour plan. Soon it seems Labour will have another shot despite not Labour not really getting to do what they promised.
Bar the Cameron special adviser, most are pretty negative. But its telling that even those who liked some of his reforms felt alienated. That's not a recipe for success.
Having a vote is undemocratic.
Didn't back Thomas (around 3.5 or 4.5) for SPOTY last night. Mildly annoyed with myself, but this betting business would be rather easier with hindsight.
The reason we are doing Brexit is because people wanted it, if people don't want the deal we have made to Brexit then it is okay for them not to take it.
You could make the argument that people who voted to leave voted happily to accept the deal to leave that was going to be brought back.
Although if that was the case then the deal would probably be passing through parliament so I'm not sure it holds much value.
I accept there is also a good argument for saying remain should be eliminated and Britain should leave on any terms and the discussion should just be about that.
What I don't accept is that there isn't any kind of argument for either side.
At education everything he did was toxic. An terrible legacy.
F1: just under two months until the Ferrari is unveiled (15 February, I think).
And I just remembered I scheduled but never posted the link to my latest F1 blog: http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2018/12/f1-trials-and-tribulations.html
It's about the sport's future, audiences, pay walls, sponsorship, etc.
NEW THREAD
Did a grown man write this?
No Deal is impossible so cannot be on the ballot.
If we must have another referendum Deal vs Remain.
I think Deal would win, actually.