I think it has changed. Why not a #peoplesvote to resolve our disagreement.
If the mood has changed so be it., and if it hasn't changed Brexiteers have nothing to fear.
Because the people voted - having been promised this was it, this was the decision - and saying "you got it wrong, vote again" is a terrible, terrible idea.
If Remain win a #peoplesvote it would be because the people agree that they got it wrong first time.
Brexiteers have nothing to fear if the mood hasn't changed.
Democrats have everything to fear. What if a future government is voted out at a general election but uses this precedent to demand a new election?
You are literally calling for the nullification of democracy. The discarding of the people's decision. Setting the precedent that the people voting for something is no longer enough for it to happen. For the politicians to be the bosses of the people, not the other way round.
And why?
Because thirty months on you still haven't got over the fact that we had a referendum, the rules of which were clear - this is it, no second chances - and you lost.
And you don't even have the guts to call for what you really want - the politicians to just ignore the vote themselves. You think that making the people vote again because the stupid racist plebs got it wrong the first time applies some sort of democratic veneer to your attempted coup.
You are a disgrace.
You just don't want it because you will lose.
It is not anti-democratic to have a vote, and is anti democratic to deny it.
We had a vote. I want the result of that vote to be implemented. Had it been 52/48 the other way I would have accepted it and called for the UK to make the most of EU membership.
There is nothing democratic about having a vote and then saying "you got it wrong, vote again". Especially when the bad losers demanding infinite bites at the cherry - they only have to be lucky once, after all - still refuse to acknowledge what EU membership is about. Because they know if they'd run an honest campaign in 2016 they'd have lost by close to 2:1.
Not dead yet, but I expect some big names to go under during the winter.
Restaurants, too, if my contacts are right. Very sad. London seems to be suffering most of all.
I was on Oxford Street this arvo, the last Thursday before Christmas, nice crisp weather, no hint of rain. Perfect for jolly shopping. Normally Oxford Circus would be jammed, there'd be police barriers to prevent accidents, and people directing traffic.
It was like any old Thursday in mid March. Lots of space on the pavement, no sense of crowds. Positively odd. Never seen it so uncrowded so close to Xmas.
Yet retail sales are up....
And London house prices are falling.
Things do seem to be economically more cheerful elsewhere with lots of spending and lots of construction.
Not dead yet, but I expect some big names to go under during the winter.
By 'Not dead yet' do you mean 'at an all time high' ?
Because that's what retail spending is at.
And yes there will be big names to go under as big names have gone under before and as big names will go under in the future.
I admire you stoicism and optimism but the mood music I am hearing is genuinely bad. I wonder if this is a specifically London thing, which explains the discrepancy.
Do the headline figures include Amazon and other online sales?
Not dead yet, but I expect some big names to go under during the winter.
By 'Not dead yet' do you mean 'at an all time high' ?
Because that's what retail spending is at.
And yes there will be big names to go under as big names have gone under before and as big names will go under in the future.
If my spending is anything to go by (and as I have a high street shop, I feel like I do have a bit of insight into this from the retailer perspective too), the advance purchases have been online and the last minute ones in person. But the last minute ones are generally perishable and low value. Stocking fillers and food.
If I were still a retail consultant I’d be very worried about the mid market - department stores, homeware stores, non luxury or value clothing. Oh, and chain restaurants that serve Italian food and expensive burgers....
I think the point is simply that far more people feel passionately against the EU than for it, which is why remainers should be fearful of calling a second referendum. Nothing has changed since the first one.
I don't remember 700,000 people ever marching in the UK in support of the EU before the referendum. Do you?
There are probably around 3m people who feel REALLY passionate about REMAINING. That's a lot, and they've been energised by the vote.
Trouble is, there must be twice as many, at least, who feel REALLY passionate about LEAVING.
Not dead yet, but I expect some big names to go under during the winter.
By 'Not dead yet' do you mean 'at an all time high' ?
Because that's what retail spending is at.
And yes there will be big names to go under as big names have gone under before and as big names will go under in the future.
I admire you stoicism and optimism but the mood music I am hearing is genuinely bad. I wonder if this is a specifically London thing, which explains the discrepancy.
I'm not optimistic.
We're due a cyclical recession and a lot of the spending and construction looks dubious to me.
But at the moment things are going very well for lots of people in most of the country.
Yep Jezza should have just confessed to a moment of madness, apologized and moved on.
You can quite clearly see that Corbyn says W-O-M-A-N not P-E-O-P-L-E and so it moves on from being a story about Corbyn being rude to Theresa May to Corbyn being rude to Theresa May and a liar and someone who takes the public for fools.
Not dead yet, but I expect some big names to go under during the winter.
By 'Not dead yet' do you mean 'at an all time high' ?
Because that's what retail spending is at.
And yes there will be big names to go under as big names have gone under before and as big names will go under in the future.
If my spending is anything to go by (and as I have a high street shop, I feel like I do have a bit of insight into this from the retailer perspective too), the advance purchases have been online and the last minute ones in person. But the last minute ones are generally perishable and low value. Stocking fillers and food.
If I were still a retail consultant I’d be very worried about the mid market - department stores, homeware stores, non luxury or value clothing. Oh, and chain restaurants that serve Italian food and expensive burgers....
The 'mediocre middle' in both retail and restaurants will continue to have a hard time.
I think the point is simply that far more people feel passionately against the EU than for it, which is why remainers should be fearful of calling a second referendum. Nothing has changed since the first one.
I don't remember 700,000 people ever marching in the UK in support of the EU before the referendum. Do you?
Yep Jezza should have just confessed to a moment of madness, apologized and moved on.
You can quite clearly see that Corbyn says W-O-M-A-N not P-E-O-P-L-E and so it moves on from being a story about Corbyn being rude to Theresa May to Corbyn being rude to Theresa May and a liar and someone who takes the public for fools.
I still think it is 'people'.
But in a sense, that's irrelevant. He's fed the fire by making it about his integrity, and also about 'media bias' (which is clearly not true) and as he can't actually prove what he said (and it was a really, really foolish remark whatever he said) he's just making matters worse. It would have been much more sensible to apologise and move on.
I think it has changed. Why not a #peoplesvote to resolve our disagreement.
If the mood has changed so be it., and if it hasn't changed Brexiteers have nothing to fear.
My view is that parliament made a mistake in allowing the people to make a mistake. What they should now do implement the mistake and not make the mistake of not learning from the mistake that they made. Pass the deal, negotiate the FTA, find out what leave means in the only way possible, by leaving, and then take it from there.
He was only muttering what most people were thinking as she launched into that cruel and bullying pantomime routine. She was mocking him. Mocking him in front of his own MPs and inviting her own MPs to laugh along. Hardly surprising that Jeremy felt the need to retaliate. I bet what he really wanted to do was get up and slap her round the chops. Yet he did not do that. No violence whatsoever. Mark of the man.
Still, to be serious, has he not stood up and lied to the House of Commons? Yes, he undeniably has. Therefore could this not, trivial as it seems to many, lead to a scandal which grows and grows until the only way to end it is for him to stand down as Labour leader? Unlikely. Very unlikely indeed. But not impossible.
If so, what a time for that to happen, right slap bang in the middle of the biggest political crisis that this country has seen for many a year!
A new Labour leader, or even Tom Watson as interim leader would be a very interesting development.
Though I think the real significance of the row is to make some sort of negotiated Labour support for the Deal even less likely. An olive branch would have been better from TM, but she is too partisan.
The word of Brexit was revealed to Theresa May and to Theresa May alone. And she has a direct line to the views of the vast mority of the "British People'!
She just isn't interested in what anyone else, who hasn't had the benefit of that revelation, hs to say.
I believe TM knew the two extremes of no deal and no brexit were not possible so she set herself on a course that delivers a business friendly brexit which is leaving but also is not remain
It is a brave course and she may not succeed but she will always go down as the British PM who obtained a legal brexit treaty with the EU
I think I'd take evens that she succeeds. None of the other alternatives look possible.
So you think votes should be weighted by the intensity of the voter? I dislike that stance intensely...
...which is ironic when you think about it...
It's quite a thought, but no obviously. My point was more that the British People (all hail) in 2016 were rather more in favour of leaving the EU than 52/48 implies.
As regards weighting of votes, and if it were possible, I would like it to be done on the basis of people's character, in particular the quality of kindness. The vote of a person who is very kind should count multiple times more than that of a person who is heartless and cruel.
So you think votes should be weighted by the intensity of the voter? I dislike that stance intensely...
...which is ironic when you think about it...
It's quite a thought, but no obviously. My point was more that the British People (all hail) in 2016 were rather more in favour of leaving the EU than 52/48 implies.
As regards weighting of votes, and if it were possible, I would like it to be done on the basis of people's character, in particular the quality of kindness. The vote of a person who is very kind should count multiple times more than that of a person who is heartless and cruel.
So you think votes should be weighted by the intensity of the voter? I dislike that stance intensely...
...which is ironic when you think about it...
It's quite a thought, but no obviously. My point was more that the British People (all hail) in 2016 were rather more in favour of leaving the EU than 52/48 implies.
The test of that theory was whether polls swung heavily in favour of the result after the referendum, and there wasn't really any evidence of that.
Someone had their tongue in their cheek when they were imagining Brian (52% of the active electorate in 2016 did not consist of Ukip district councillors,) but the general point is true: an awful lot of people loathed the EU, not many loved it. That's the entire reason why it was so vulnerable to rejection as soon as it began to struggle.
Bit of licence, sure, often can't help myself, but I think you do get my point. Most of the 'not that bothered one way or another' people would have gone with Remain, plus almost the whole of the establishment, political, business, arts & crafts, were steering the result that way.
And yet it went 52% the other way. So IMO the mood* of the people was very clear, and certainly much more definitive than 52/48. It was a landslide for Leave, in a sense.
* I use the word 'mood' with great care. It was a mood not a view. View implies all sorts of carefully calibrated and worked out things. This was a mood.
And has it changed materially? Has it hell.
I think it has changed. Why not a #peoplesvote to resolve our disagreement.
If the mood has changed so be it., and if it hasn't changed Brexiteers have nothing to fear.
Because the people voted - having been promised this was it, this was the decision - and saying "you got it wrong, vote again" is a terrible, terrible idea.
If Remain win a #peoplesvote it would be because the people agree that they got it wrong first time.
Brexiteers have nothing to fear if the mood hasn't changed.
Democrats have everything to fear. What if a future government is voted out at a general election but uses this precedent to demand a new election?
You are literally calling for the nullification of democracy. The discarding of the people's decision. Setting the precedent that the people voting for something is no longer enough for it to happen. For the politicians to be the bosses of the people, not the other way round.
And why?
Because thirty months on you still haven't got over the fact that we had a referendum, the rules of which were clear - this is it, no second chances - and you lost.
And you don't even have the guts to call for what you really want - the politicians to just ignore the vote themselves. You think that making the people vote again because the stupid racist plebs got it wrong the first time applies some sort of democratic veneer to your attempted coup.
Yep Jezza should have just confessed to a moment of madness, apologized and moved on.
You can quite clearly see that Corbyn says W-O-M-A-N not P-E-O-P-L-E and so it moves on from being a story about Corbyn being rude to Theresa May to Corbyn being rude to Theresa May and a liar and someone who takes the public for fools.
I still think it is 'people'...
It’s the new blue dress / yellow dress meme. With added politics.
Restaurants, too, if my contacts are right. Very sad. London seems to be suffering most of all.
I was on Oxford Street this arvo, the last Thursday before Christmas, nice crisp weather, no hint of rain. Perfect for jolly shopping. Normally Oxford Circus would be jammed, there'd be police barriers to prevent accidents, and people directing traffic.
It was like any old Thursday in mid March. Lots of space on the pavement, no sense of crowds. Positively odd. Never seen it so uncrowded so close to Xmas.
Yet retail sales are up....
Have to say Westfield at Stratford wasn't that busy either at lunchtime today.
East Ham High Street is probably atypical - we have no high-end or indeed mediocre middle shops. It's discount retailing central and I have to say Lidl, Poundland and the other discount retailers all seem to be busy. Bargainbuys has replaced Poundworld but it's hard to see the difference and Primark remains very busy.
The next big change will be the FOBT reduction and we'll see how the gambling establishment in East Ham reacts.
I think it has changed. Why not a #peoplesvote to resolve our disagreement.
If the mood has changed so be it., and if it hasn't changed Brexiteers have nothing to fear.
Because the people voted - having been promised this was it, this was the decision - and saying "you got it wrong, vote again" is a terrible, terrible idea.
If Remain win a #peoplesvote it would be because the people agree that they got it wrong first time.
Brexiteers have nothing to fear if the mood hasn't changed.
Demo You are a disgrace.
You just don't want it because you will lose.
It is not anti-democratic to have a vote, and is anti democratic to deny it.
We had a vote. I want the result of that vote to be implemented. Had it been 52/48 the other way I would have accepted it and called for the UK to make the most of EU membership.
There is nothing democratic about having a vote and then saying "you got it wrong, vote again". Especially when the bad losers demanding infinite bites at the cherry - they only have to be lucky once, after all - still refuse to acknowledge what EU membership is about. Because they know if they'd run an honest campaign in 2016 they'd have lost by close to 2:1.
I am potentially open to a 2nd vote as a way out of the mess, but it really doesn't look good, and Remoaners should admit this, rather than deny it. One of the main arguments for Leavers, on the sovereignty issue, was that the EU has a dreadful anti-democratic habit of making voters vote again, in repeated referendums, until they eventually agree with what Brussels wants, and then the referendums magically stop. Or, even worse, Brussels simply ignores and overrides referendums, as it did with France and Holland and the EU Constitution.
Now here's a bunch of EU-lovers proposing that the EU, or its supporters in the UK, should do exactly what many Leavers hate about the EU. Engineer a 2nd vote because it disliked the result of the 1st.
Some People's Vote dudes are so dim they don't even understand how wretched and rotten this appears. They'd be better off saying Yes, it doesn't look good, it is not democracy as we know it, it's really not ideal, but given the chaos, it is our best option. That might persuade some more people to back them.
Honesty.
Hate to say it, Sean, but I’m tending to agree with you this evening.
But I do think a second referendum is not an avenue which should be closed off by what is essentially is a filibuster, as only a small percentage of the electorate actually want a no deal Brexit.
Let me answer that question by asking you one. How does such a story solve his dilemmas over Brexit, or advance his policy agenda, or heal the gaping divisions in his party?
I don't think he minds talking about things other than Brexit. Quite the opposite, he would never mention the B word if he could get away with it. And getting visibly irritated with Theresa as she did that pantomime thing might well put him in tune with many of the men and women on the Clapham omnibus. Which is rarely bad for a politician.
Have any of the MPs looking for a second referendum because polling has moved resigned as MPs and triggered a by-election yet? Y'know, just to check the people haven't changed their minds about them now they've abandoned their manifesto pledge and/or one of the principles of democracy??
No, I thought not.
Anyway, are we allowed to talk about the tribulations of the Hon. Member for Peterborough? Sentencing adjourned sine die and likely an SDT hearing to come, so caution might still be wise.
Let me answer that question by asking you one. How does such a story solve his dilemmas over Brexit, or advance his policy agenda, or heal the gaping divisions in his party?
I don't think he minds talking about things other than Brexit. Quite the opposite, he would never mention the B word if he could get away with it. And getting visibly irritated with Theresa as she did that pantomime thing might well put him in tune with many of the men and women on the Clapham omnibus. Which is rarely bad for a politician.
It's not Clapham he needs to appeal to. It's the smaller towns and cities where he's at best controversial and at worst deeply loathed. Do you think that seeing him trying to explain an alleged sexist remark and dodging key issues will help?
Someone had their tongue in their cheek when they were imagining Brian (52% of the active electorate in 2016 did not consist of Ukip district councillors,) but the general point is true: an awful lot of people loathed the EU, not many loved it. That's the entire reason why it was so vulnerable to rejection as soon as it began to struggle.
Bit of licence, sure, often can't help myself, but I think you do get my point. Most of the 'not that bothered one way or another' people would have gone with Remain, plus almost the whole of the establishment, political, business, arts & crafts, were steering the result that way.
And yet it went 52% the other way. So IMO the mood* of the people was very clear, and certainly much more definitive than 52/48. It was a landslide for Leave, in a sense.
* I use the word 'mood' with great care. It was a mood not a view. View implies all sorts of carefully calibrated and worked out things. This was a mood.
And has it changed materially? Has it hell.
I think it has changed. Why not a #peoplesvote to resolve our disagreement.
If the mood has changed so be it., and if it hasn't changed Brexiteers have nothing to fear.
Because the people voted - having been promised this was it, this was the decision - and saying "you got it wrong, vote again" is a terrible, terrible idea.
If Remain win a #peoplesvote it would be because the people agree that they got it wrong first time.
Brexiteers have nothing to fear if the mood hasn't changed.
Democrats have everything to fear. What if a future government is voted out at a general election but uses this precedent to demand a new election?
You are literally calling for the nullification of democracy. The discarding of the people's decision. Setting the precedent that the people voting for something is no longer enough for it to happen. For the politicians to be the bosses of the people, not the other way round.
And why?
Because thirty months on you still haven't got over the fact that we had a referendum, the rules of which were clear - this is it, no second chances - and you lost.
And you don't even have the guts to call for what you really want - the politicians to just ignore the vote themselves. You think that making the people vote again because the stupid racist plebs got it wrong the first time applies some sort of democratic veneer to your attempted coup.
Have any of the MPs looking for a second referendum because polling has moved resigned as MPs and triggered a by-election yet? Y'know, just to check the people haven't changed their minds about them now they've abandoned their manifesto pledge and/or one of the principles of democracy??
No, I thought not.
Anyway, are we allowed to talk about the tribulations of the Hon. Member for Peterborough? Sentencing adjourned sine die and likely an SDT hearing to come, so caution might still be wise.
Given she has been spending the day comparing herself to Biblical figures, this seems the right response: https://youtu.be/SJUhlRoBL8M
Someone had their tongue in their cheek when they were imagining Brian (52% of the active electorate in 2016 did not consist of Ukip district councillors,) but the general point is true: an awful lot of people loathed the EU, not many loved it. That's the entire reason why it was so vulnerable to rejection as soon as it began to struggle.
Bit of licence, sure, often can't help myself, but I think you do get my point. Most of the 'not that bothered one way or another' people would have gone with Remain, plus almost the whole of the establishment, political, business, arts & crafts, were steering the result that way.
And yet it went 52% the other way. So IMO the mood* of the people was very clear, and certainly much more definitive than 52/48. It was a landslide for Leave, in a sense.
* I use the word 'mood' with great care. It was a mood not a view. View implies all sorts of carefully calibrated and worked out things. This was a mood.
And has it changed materially? Has it hell.
I think it has changed. Why not a #peoplesvote to resolve our disagreement.
If the mood has changed so be it., and if it hasn't changed Brexiteers have nothing to fear.
Because the people voted - having been promised this was it, this was the decision - and saying "you got it wrong, vote again" is a terrible, terrible idea.
If Remain win a #peoplesvote it would be because the people agree that they got it wrong first time.
Brexiteers have nothing to fear if the mood hasn't changed.
Democrats have everything to fear. What if a future government is voted out at a general election but uses this precedent to demand a new election?
You are literally calling for the nullification of democracy. The discarding of the people's decision. Setting the precedent that the people voting for something is no longer enough for it to happen. For the politicians to be the bosses of the people, not the other way round.
And why?
Because thirty months on you still haven't got over the fact that we had a referendum, the rules of which were clear - this is it, no second chances - and you lost.
And you don't even have the guts to call for what you really want - the politicians to just ignore the vote themselves. You think that making the people vote again because the stupid racist plebs got it wrong the first time applies some sort of democratic veneer to your attempted coup.
You are a disgrace.
A laughably specious argument. The ENTIRE POINT of General Elections is to allow the people to change their mind about who should be governing them from what they chose at the last election.
Someone had their tongue in their cheek when they were imagining Brian (52% of the active electorate in 2016 did not consist of Ukip district councillors,) but the general point is true: an awful lot of people loathed the EU, not many loved it. That's the entire reason why it was so vulnerable to rejection as soon as it began to struggle.
Bit of licence, sure, often can't help myself, but I think you do get my point. Most of the 'not that bothered one way or another' people would have gone with Remain, plus almost the whole of the establishment, political, business, arts & crafts, were steering the result that way.
And yet it went 52% the other way. So IMO the mood* of the people was very clear, and certainly much more definitive than 52/48. It was a landslide for Leave, in a sense.
* I use the word 'mood' with great care. It was a mood not a view. View implies all sorts of carefully calibrated and worked out things. This was a mood.
And has it changed materially? Has it hell.
I think it has changed. Why not a #peoplesvote to resolve our disagreement.
If the mood has changed so be it., and if it hasn't changed Brexiteers have nothing to fear.
Because the people voted - having been promised this was it, this was the decision - and saying "you got it wrong, vote again" is a terrible, terrible idea.
If Remain win a #peoplesvote it would be because the people agree that they got it wrong first time.
Brexiteers have nothing to fear if the mood hasn't changed.
Democrats have everything to fear. What if a future government is voted out at a general election but uses this precedent to demand a new election?
You are literally calling for the nullification of democracy. The discarding of the people's decision. Setting the precedent that the people voting for something is no longer enough for it to happen. For the politicians to be the bosses of the people, not the other way round.
And why?
Because thirty months on you still haven't got over the fact that we had a referendum, the rules of which were clear - this is it, no second chances - and you lost.
And you don't even have the guts to call for what you really want - the politicians to just ignore the vote themselves. You think that making the people vote again because the stupid racist plebs got it wrong the first time applies some sort of democratic veneer to your attempted coup.
You are a disgrace.
Are you Cheese Truss by any chance ?
Who? (so, probably, no.)
Liz 'that (stat on cheese) is a disgrace' Truss, I assume.
Hate to say it, Sean, but I’m tending to agree with you this evening.
But I do think a second referendum is not an avenue which should be closed off by what is essentially is a filibuster, as only a small percentage of the electorate actually want a no deal Brexit.
The problem is, there is the WA or No Deal. Everything else is obfuscation - Parliament can vote against No Deal but IF the WA falls, No Deal is where we are heading.
The alternative is for the Conservative Government to revoke A50 (and let's see YouGov do some hypothetical polling on that).
Hate to say it, Sean, but I’m tending to agree with you this evening.
But I do think a second referendum is not an avenue which should be closed off by what is essentially is a filibuster, as only a small percentage of the electorate actually want a no deal Brexit.
The problem is, there is the WA or No Deal. Everything else is obfuscation - Parliament can vote against No Deal but IF the WA falls, No Deal is where we are heading.
The alternative is for the Conservative Government to revoke A50 (and let's see YouGov do some hypothetical polling on that).
A referendum would be the last resort. He hopes that parliament can take over from the executive to come forward with a Brexit plan that protects jobs and the economy.
By that does he mean that a VONC brings down the govt and a JC minority govt is formed without a GE?
Or does he mean this govt of national unity coalition type thing?
My impression is that the May government would nominally still be running the country, but would be sidelined with respect to Brexit. An unofficial coalition of Labour, Tory 'wets' and others would take control of the policy and renegotiate to get a consensual deal that is acceptable to parliament.
I think it has changed. Why not a #peoplesvote to resolve our disagreement.
If the mood has changed so be it., and if it hasn't changed Brexiteers have nothing to fear.
Because the people voted - having been promised this was it, this was the decision - and saying "you got it wrong, vote again" is a terrible, terrible idea.
If Remain win a #peoplesvote it would be because the people agree that they got it wrong first time.
Brexiteers have nothing to fear if the mood hasn't changed.
Democrats have everything to fear. What if a future government is voted out at a general election but uses this precedent to demand a new election?
You are literally calling for the nullification of democracy. The discarding of the people's decision. Setting the precedent that the people voting for something is no longer enough for it to happen. For the politicians to be the bosses of the people, not the other way round.
And why?
Because thirty months on you still haven't got over the fact that we had a referendum, the rules of which were clear - this is it, no second chances - and you lost.
And you don't even have the guts to call for what you really want - the politicians to just ignore the vote themselves. You think that making the people vote again because the stupid racist plebs got it wrong the first time applies some sort of democratic veneer to your attempted coup.
You are a disgrace.
A laughably specious argument. The ENTIRE POINT of General Elections is to allow the people to change their mind about who should be governing them from what they chose at the last election.
Democracy works when you respect the rules and implement the results. If Corbyn wins a GE I will be mortified, but I will respect the result of the election. I wouldn't try to prevent him from becoming Prime Minister. Nor would I expect to demand the right to a re-vote to prevent him from taking office.
When you stop respecting democracy, you poison the well for a generation or more. People literally taught that their vote doesn't count. That there's no point showing up. Why bother.
The corrosive effect on our democracy of a second referendum won by remain would be incalculable.
Bit of licence, sure, often can't help myself, but I think you do get my point. Most of the 'not that bothered one way or another' people would have gone with Remain, plus almost the whole of the establishment, political, business, arts & crafts, were steering the result that way.
And yet it went 52% the other way. So IMO the mood* of the people was very clear, and certainly much more definitive than 52/48. It was a landslide for Leave, in a sense.
* I use the word 'mood' with great care. It was a mood not a view. View implies all sorts of carefully calibrated and worked out things. This was a mood.
And has it changed materially? Has it hell.
I think it has changed. Why not a #peoplesvote to resolve our disagreement.
If the mood has changed so be it., and if it hasn't changed Brexiteers have nothing to fear.
Because the people voted - having been promised this was it, this was the decision - and saying "you got it wrong, vote again" is a terrible, terrible idea.
If Remain win a #peoplesvote it would be because the people agree that they got it wrong first time.
Brexiteers have nothing to fear if the mood hasn't changed.
Democrats have everything to fear. What if a future government is voted out at a general election but uses this precedent to demand a new election?
You are literally calling for the nullification of democracy. The discarding of the people's decision. Setting the precedent that the people voting for something is no longer enough for it to happen. For the politicians to be the bosses of the people, not the other way round.
And why?
Because thirty months on you still haven't got over the fact that we had a referendum, the rules of which were clear - this is it, no second chances - and you lost.
And you don't even have the guts to call for what you really want - the politicians to just ignore the vote themselves. You think that making the people vote again because the stupid racist plebs got it wrong the first time applies some sort of democratic veneer to your attempted coup.
You are a disgrace.
I think that if thirty months have elapsed and a new Government hasn't yet been formed despite every effort being taken, it would probably be legitimate to vote again.
BUT WE WON! IT'S NOT FAIR! NOT ALLOWED TO CHANGE YOUR MIND!
And therefore you argue that we must be taken out of the EU despite the people wanting to stay, at the point where we actually exit and can know what we're getting into.
Democracy works when you respect the rules and implement the results. If Corbyn wins a GE I will be mortified, but I will respect the result of the election. I wouldn't try to prevent him from becoming Prime Minister. Nor would I expect to demand the right to a re-vote to prevent him from taking office.
If Corbyn won running on the Communist manifesto, you probably would argue against it, explain why it won't work, and generally try to frustrate its implementation. That's normal democratic opposition.
But I'm talking about the mood of the people not the view of the people.
Let's say (allah forbid) that we have the 2nd referendum, trashed and rejected deal versus oh ok then we won't leave.
There's only one result to that. It's match fixing. Remain by a distance. So, then such will be the view of the people that we stay in the EU after all. No argument with that.
But the mood of the people will still be that they want to leave. They want to leave but it has turned out not to be possible. What they want they cannot have. Now that's life, of course, it's the very definition of life for most people. But it's not democracy.
Bit of licence, sure, often can't help myself, but I think you do get my point. Most of the 'not that bothered one way or another' people would have gone with Remain, plus almost the whole of the establishment, political, business, arts & crafts, were steering the result that way.
And yet it went 52% the other way. So IMO the mood* of the people was very clear, and certainly much more definitive than 52/48. It was a landslide for Leave, in a sense.
* I use the word 'mood' with great care. It was a mood not a view. View implies all sorts of carefully calibrated and worked out things. This was a mood.
And has it changed materially? Has it hell.
I think it has changed. Why not a #peoplesvote to resolve our disagreement.
If the mood has changed so be it., and if it hasn't changed Brexiteers have nothing to fear.
Because the people voted - having been promised this was it, this was the decision - and saying "you got it wrong, vote again" is a terrible, terrible idea.
If Remain win a #peoplesvote it would be because the people agree that they got it wrong first time.
Brexiteers have nothing to fear if the mood hasn't changed.
Democrats have everything to fear. What if a future government is voted out at a general election but uses this precedent to demand a new election?
You are literally calling for the nullification of democracy. The discarding of the people's decision. Setting the precedent that the people voting for something is no longer enough for it to happen. For the politicians to be the bosses of the people, not the other way round.
And why?
Because thirty months on you still haven't got over the fact that we had a referendum, the rules of which were clear - this is it, no second chances - and you lost.
And you don't even have the guts to call for what you really want - the politicians to just ignore the vote themselves. You think that making the people vote again because the stupid racist plebs got it wrong the first time applies some sort of democratic veneer to your attempted coup.
You are a disgrace.
I think that if thirty months have elapsed and a new Government hasn't yet been formed despite every effort being taken, it would probably be legitimate to vote again.
BUT WE WON! IT'S NOT FAIR! NOT ALLOWED TO CHANGE YOUR MIND!
And therefore you argue that we must be taken out of the EU despite the people wanting to stay, at the point where we actually exit and can know what we're getting into.
That analogy might be more accurate if the government had been sitting on the withdrawal arrangement for 30 months.
Bit of licence, sure, often can't help myself, but I think you do get my point. Most of the 'not that bothered one way or another' people would have gone with Remain, plus almost the whole of the establishment, political, business, arts & crafts, were steering the result that way.
And yet it went 52% the other way. So IMO the mood* of the people was very clear, and certainly much more definitive than 52/48. It was a landslide for Leave, in a sense.
* I use the word 'mood' with great care. It was a mood not a view. View implies all sorts of carefully calibrated and worked out things. This was a mood.
And has it changed materially? Has it hell.
I think it has changed. Why not a #peoplesvote to resolve our disagreement.
If the mood has changed so be it., and if it hasn't changed Brexiteers have nothing to fear.
Because the people voted - having been promised this was it, this was the decision - and saying "you got it wrong, vote again" is a terrible, terrible idea.
If Remain win a #peoplesvote it would be because the people agree that they got it wrong first time.
Brexiteers have nothing to fear if the mood hasn't changed.
Democrats have everything to fear. What if a future government is voted out at a general election but uses this precedent to demand a new election?
You are literally calling for the nullification of democracy. The discarding of the people's decision. Setting the precedent that the people voting for something is no longer enough for it to happen. For the politicians to be the bosses of the people, not the other way round.
And why?
Because thirty months on you still haven't got over the fact that we had a referendum, the rules of which were clear - this is it, no second chances - and you lost.
And you don't even have the guts to call for what you really want - the politicians to just ignore the vote themselves. You think that making the people vote again because the stupid racist plebs got it wrong the first time applies some sort of democratic veneer to your attempted coup.
You are a disgrace.
I think that if thirty months have elapsed and a new Government hasn't yet been formed despite every effort being taken, it would probably be legitimate to vote again.
BUT WE WON! IT'S NOT FAIR! NOT ALLOWED TO CHANGE YOUR MIND!
And therefore you argue that we must be taken out of the EU despite the people wanting to stay, at the point where we actually exit and can know what we're getting into.
Article 50 was always going to be a two year process after it was triggered though.
Survation polling of Tory councillors has persuaded me to increase my exposure to a Javid win in the next Tory leader market.I'm off to Betfred in the morning to take the best priced 13-2.The polling is on the Survaion websire available on You tube.
It's not scientific, certainly not provable in any way, but I do sense that if votes were weighted by the quality of character of the voter (and in particular how kind they are) then many of the poorer decisions taken in elections over the piece would have been avoided.
But I'm talking about the mood of the people not the view of the people.
Let's say (allah forbid) that we have the 2nd referendum, trashed and rejected deal versus oh ok then we won't leave.
There's only one result to that. It's match fixing. Remain by a distance. So, then such will be the view of the people that we stay in the EU after all. No argument with that.
But the mood of the people will still be that they want to leave. They want to leave but it has turned out not to be possible. What they want they cannot have. Now that's life, of course, it's the very definition of life for most people. But it's not democracy.
Actually it is democracy. What you're talking about is a form of fascism, where a strong leader implements what the people really want, and that only he is able to interpret.
A referendum would be the last resort. He hopes that parliament can take over from the executive to come forward with a Brexit plan that protects jobs and the economy.
By that does he mean that a VONC brings down the govt and a JC minority govt is formed without a GE?
Or does he mean this govt of national unity coalition type thing?
My impression is that the May government would nominally still be running the country, but would be sidelined with respect to Brexit. An unofficial coalition of Labour, Tory 'wets' and others would take control of the policy and renegotiate to get a consensual deal that is acceptable to parliament.
What delicious delusion. Such a coup would need a leader. You think the Tory Remainers will loyally follow the unthinking, irascible and ignorant anti-Semite your Party has chosen as its leader?
Just seen Corbyns twitter video. I know I'm biased but I believe him. I also believe the print media, Mail, Sun etc are becoming largely irrelevant. What is said on social media is far more important.
I’m quite sure that if it happened at an NYC-area airport the Port Authority police would shoot them out of the sky with machine guns, and never mind any collateral damage.
It's not scientific, certainly not provable in any way, but I do sense that if votes were weighted by the quality of character of the voter (and in particular how kind they are) then many of the poorer decisions taken in elections over the piece would have been avoided.
Do you not agree with that?
The issue is that kindness is subjective, for example, the kindest thing IMO to do to the Mediterranean migrants would have been to return them to POD, instead of accepting them and encouraging thousands more to risk their lives in order to cross. Many would disagree with me.
I think it has changed. Why not a #peoplesvote to resolve our disagreement.
If the mood has changed so be it., and if it hasn't changed Brexiteers have nothing to fear.
Because the people voted - having been promised this was it, this was the decision - and saying "you got it wrong, vote again" is a terrible, terrible idea.
If Remain win a #peoplesvote it would be because the people agree that they got it wrong first time.
Brexiteers have nothing to fear if the mood hasn't changed.
Democrats have everything to fear. What if a future government is voted out at a general election but uses this precedent to demand a new election?
You are literally calling for the nullification of democracy. The discarding of the people's decision. Setting the precedent that the people voting for something is no longer enough for it to happen. For the politicians to be the bosses of the people, not the other way round.
And why?
Because thirty months on you still haven't got over the fact that we had a referendum, the rules of which were clear - this is it, no second chances - and you lost.
And you don't even have the guts to call for what you really want - the politicians to just ignore the vote themselves. You think that making the people vote again because the stupid racist plebs got it wrong the first time applies some sort of democratic veneer to your attempted coup.
You are a disgrace.
I think that if thirty months have elapsed and a new Government hasn't yet been formed despite every effort being taken, it would probably be legitimate to vote again.
BUT WE WON! IT'S NOT FAIR! NOT ALLOWED TO CHANGE YOUR MIND!
And therefore you argue that we must be taken out of the EU despite the people wanting to stay, at the point where we actually exit and can know what we're getting into.
That analogy might be more accurate if the government had been sitting on the withdrawal arrangement for 30 months.
Actually, the original analogy would be more accurate in that case (Government refusing to implement the vote). And you gloss over the bullshit inherent in the original rant, I note.
On topic: I think Corbyn is telling the truth. People think he's lieing because of the media kangaroo court that's taken place with this incident.
The reason people think he's lying is because that's what he inavariably does when he's done something embarrassing and/or stupid. See Traingate, Wreathgate, IRA, Eisen, etc etc.
The irony is that he may for once be telling the truth, but nobody now believes him. A bit like Blair in his later years.
I think it has changed. Why not a #peoplesvote to resolve our disagreement.
If the mood has changed so be it., and if it hasn't changed Brexiteers have nothing to fear.
Because the people voted - having been promised this was it, this was the decision - and saying "you got it wrong, vote again" is a terrible, terrible idea.
If Remain win a #peoplesvote it would be because the people agree that they got it wrong first time.
Brexiteers have nothing to fear if the mood hasn't changed.
Democrats have everything to fear. What if a future government is voted out at a general election but uses this precedent to demand a new election?
You are literally calling for the nullification of democracy. The discarding of the people's decision. Setting the precedent that the people voting for something is no longer enough for it to happen. For the politicians to be the bosses of the people, not the other way round.
And why?
Because thirty months on you still haven't got over the fact that we had a referendum, the rules of which were clear - this is it, no second chances - and you lost.
And you don't even have the guts to call for what you really want - the politicians to just ignore the vote themselves. You think that making the people vote again because the stupid racist plebs got it wrong the first time applies some sort of democratic veneer to your attempted coup.
You are a disgrace.
I think that if thirty months have elapsed and a new Government hasn't yet been formed despite every effort being taken, it would probably be legitimate to vote again.
BUT WE WON! IT'S NOT FAIR! NOT ALLOWED TO CHANGE YOUR MIND!
And therefore you argue that we must be taken out of the EU despite the people wanting to stay, at the point where we actually exit and can know what we're getting into.
Article 50 was always going to be a two year process after it was triggered though.
Two year limit. Not requirement. Could have been implemented in a few months with a version of, say, the EEA Agreement.
It's not scientific, certainly not provable in any way, but I do sense that if votes were weighted by the quality of character of the voter (and in particular how kind they are) then many of the poorer decisions taken in elections over the piece would have been avoided.
Do you not agree with that?
Have you read Nevil Shute's In The Wet? It put forward a multiple voting system based on ability and experience.
The conclusion was that all politicians are opportunistic and lying tossers whom nobody sane would vote for, and they get their come-uppance when sensible people get more votes.
Actually it is democracy. What you're talking about is a form of fascism, where a strong leader implements what the people really want, and that only he is able to interpret.
Not at all. The referendum mandated the government to take us out of the EU on the best terms that it could in practice negotiate. Almost every MP ratified that by voting to trigger article 50. The government has now negotiated such a deal. Ratification thereof and exit should logically follow. All else is special pleading.
I think it has changed. Why not a #peoplesvote to resolve our disagreement.
If the mood has changed so be it., and if it hasn't changed Brexiteers have nothing to fear.
Because the people voted - having been promised this was it, this was the decision - and saying "you got it wrong, vote again" is a terrible, terrible idea.
If Remain win a #peoplesvote it would be because the people agree that they got it wrong first time.
Brexiteers have nothing to fear if the mood hasn't changed.
Democrats have everything to fear. What if a future government is voted out at a general election but uses this precedent to demand a new election?
You are literally calling for the nullification of democracy. The discarding of the people's decision. Setting the precedent that the people voting for something is no longer enough for it to happen. For the politicians to be the bosses of the people, not the other way round.
And why?
Because thirty months on you still haven't got over the fact that we had a referendum, the rules of which were clear - this is it, no second chances - and you lost.
And you don't even have the guts to call for what you really want - the politicians to just ignore the vote themselves. You think that making the people vote again because the stupid racist plebs got it wrong the first time applies some sort of democratic veneer to your attempted coup.
You are a disgrace.
I think that if thirty months have elapsed and a new Government hasn't yet been formed despite every effort being taken, it would probably be legitimate to vote again.
BUT WE WON! IT'S NOT FAIR! NOT ALLOWED TO CHANGE YOUR MIND!
And therefore you argue that we must be taken out of the EU despite the people wanting to stay, at the point where we actually exit and can know what we're getting into.
Article 50 was always going to be a two year process after it was triggered though.
Two year limit. Not requirement. Could have been implemented in a few months with a version of, say, the EEA Agreement.
The Government could have taken the UKIP approach and simply repealed the 1972 European Communities Act and not bothered with A50 at all.
I think it has changed. Why not a #peoplesvote to resolve our disagreement.
If the mood has changed so be it., and if it hasn't changed Brexiteers have nothing to fear.
Because the people voted - having been promised this was it, this was the decision - and saying "you got it wrong, vote again" is a terrible, terrible idea.
If Remain win a #peoplesvote it would be because the people agree that they got it wrong first time.
Brexiteers have nothing to fear if the mood hasn't changed.
Democrats have everything to fear. What if a future government is voted out at a general election but uses this precedent to demand a new election?
You are literally calling for the nullification of democracy. The discarding of the people's decision. Setting the precedent that the people voting for something is no longer enough for it to happen. For the politicians to be the bosses of the people, not the other way round.
And why?
Because thirty months on you still haven't got over the fact that we had a referendum, the rules of which were clear - this is it, no second chances - and you lost.
And you don't even have the guts to call for what you really want - the politicians to just ignore the vote themselves. You think that making the people vote again because the stupid racist plebs got it wrong the first time applies some sort of democratic veneer to your attempted coup.
You are a disgrace.
A laughably specious argument. The ENTIRE POINT of General Elections is to allow the people to change their mind about who should be governing them from what they chose at the last election.
In which of the sixty-odd GEs the UK has had since 1800 has the election of the new government precluded the outgoing government from having formed a government? That's what you're asking for. Donny is absolutely right; Foxy's position is an affront to democracy.
I’m quite sure that if it happened at an NYC-area airport the Port Authority police would shoot them out of the sky with machine guns, and never mind any collateral damage.
I think it has changed. Why not a #peoplesvote to resolve our disagreement.
If the mood has changed so be it., and if it hasn't changed Brexiteers have nothing to fear.
Because the people voted - having been promised this was it, this was the decision - and saying "you got it wrong, vote again" is a terrible, terrible idea.
If Remain win a #peoplesvote it would be because the people agree that they got it wrong first time.
Brexiteers have nothing to fear if the mood hasn't changed.
Democrats have everything to fear. What if a future government is voted out at a general election but uses this precedent to demand a new election?
You are literally calling for the nullification of democracy. The discarding of the people's decision. Setting the precedent that the people voting for something is no longer enough for it to happen. For the politicians to be the bosses of the people, not the other way round.
And why?
Because thirty months on you still haven't got over the fact that we had a referendum, the rules of which were clear - this is it, no second chances - and you lost.
And you don't even have the guts to call for what you really want - the politicians to just ignore the vote themselves. You think that making the people vote again because the stupid racist plebs got it wrong the first time applies some sort of democratic veneer to your attempted coup.
You are a disgrace.
I think that if thirty months have elapsed and a new Government hasn't yet been formed despite every effort being taken, it would probably be legitimate to vote again.
BUT WE WON! IT'S NOT FAIR! NOT ALLOWED TO CHANGE YOUR MIND!
And therefore you argue that we must be taken out of the EU despite the people wanting to stay, at the point where we actually exit and can know what we're getting into.
Article 50 was always going to be a two year process after it was triggered though.
Two year limit. Not requirement. Could have been implemented in a few months with a version of, say, the EEA Agreement.
The Government could have taken the UKIP approach and simply repealed the 1972 European Communities Act and not bothered with A50 at all.
And the government could nuke Moscow in response to Salisbury.
It's just there are some things that are more damaging than others.
My impression is that the May government would nominally still be running the country, but would be sidelined with respect to Brexit. An unofficial coalition of Labour, Tory 'wets' and others would take control of the policy and renegotiate to get a consensual deal that is acceptable to parliament.
Interesting you should say that. I have heard the very same idea from somebody else. From somebody out here in the physical world. A flesh & blood unit who I know. I poured cold water on it but, mmm, perhaps I was too hasty.
Bit of licence, sure, often can't help myself, but I think you do get my point. Most of the 'not that bothered one way or another' people would have gone with Remain, plus almost the whole of the establishment, political, business, arts & crafts, were steering the result that way.
And yet it went 52% the other way. So IMO the mood* of the people was very clear, and certainly much more definitive than 52/48. It was a landslide for Leave, in a sense.
* I use the word 'mood' with great care. It was a mood not a view. View implies all sorts of carefully calibrated and worked out things. This was a mood.
And has it changed materially? Has it hell.
I think it has changed. Why not a #peoplesvote to resolve our disagreement.
If the mood has changed so be it., and if it hasn't changed Brexiteers have nothing to fear.
Because the people voted - having been promised this was it, this was the decision - and saying "you got it wrong, vote again" is a terrible, terrible idea.
If Remain win a #peoplesvote it would be because the people agree that they got it wrong first time.
Brexiteers have nothing to fear if the mood hasn't changed.
Democrats have everything to fear. What if a future government is voted out at a general election but uses this precedent to demand a new election?
You are literally calling for the nullification of democracy. The discarding of the people's decision. Setting the precedent that the people voting for something is no longer enough for it to happen. For the politicians to be the bosses of the people, not the other way round.
And why?
Because thirty months on you still haven't got over the fact that we had a referendum, the rules of which were clear - this is it, no second chances - and you lost.
And you don't even have the guts to call for what you really want - the politicians to just ignore the vote themselves. You think that making the people vote again because the stupid racist plebs got it wrong the first time applies some sort of democratic veneer to your attempted coup.
You are a disgrace.
A laughably specious argument. The ENTIRE POINT of General Elections is to allow the people to change their mind about who should be governing them from what they chose at the last election.
False analogy, as the result of each general election is implemented before the next one is called. The correct analogy to general elections is to have a Rejoin referendum after we leave.
Hate to say it, Sean, but I’m tending to agree with you this evening.
But I do think a second referendum is not an avenue which should be closed off by what is essentially is a filibuster, as only a small percentage of the electorate actually want a no deal Brexit.
The problem is, there is the WA or No Deal. Everything else is obfuscation - Parliament can vote against No Deal but IF the WA falls, No Deal is where we are heading.
The alternative is for the Conservative Government to revoke A50 (and let's see YouGov do some hypothetical polling on that).
Not ‘everything else’. Some of us have proposed a referendum to avoid the circumstance where no deal is about to be imposed by default.
It respects the referendum result by giving May’s WA as the first option, and only if this is rejected by the electorate, a subsequent choice between no deal and remain.
Imposing the will of perhaps 20% of the electorate, without a further vote, on everyone else doesn’t seem like democracy to me, either.
I think it has changed. Why not a #peoplesvote to resolve our disagreement.
If the mood has changed so be it., and if it hasn't changed Brexiteers have nothing to fear.
Because the people voted - having been promised this was it, this was the decision - and saying "you got it wrong, vote again" is a terrible, terrible idea.
If Remain win a #peoplesvote it would be because the people agree that they got it wrong first time.
Brexiteers have nothing to fear if the mood hasn't changed.
Democrats have everything to fear. What if a future government is voted out at a general election but uses this precedent to demand a new election?
You are literally calling for the nullification of democracy. The discarding of the people's decision. Setting the precedent that the people voting for something is no longer enough for it to happen. For the politicians to be the bosses of the people, not the other way round.
And why?
Because thirty months on you still haven't got over the fact that we had a referendum, the rules of which were clear - this is it, no second chances - and you lost.
And you don't even have the guts to call for what you really want - the politicians to just ignore the vote themselves. You think that making the people vote again because the stupid racist plebs got it wrong the first time applies some sort of democratic veneer to your attempted coup.
You are a disgrace.
A laughably specious argument. The ENTIRE POINT of General Elections is to allow the people to change their mind about who should be governing them from what they chose at the last election.
Democracy works when you respect the rules and implement the results. If Corbyn wins a GE I will be mortified, but I will respect the result of the election. I wouldn't try to prevent him from becoming Prime Minister. Nor would I expect to demand the right to a re-vote to prevent him from taking office.
When you stop respecting democracy, you poison the well for a generation or more. People literally taught that their vote doesn't count. That there's no point showing up. Why bother.
The corrosive effect on our democracy of a second referendum won by remain would be incalculable.
And yet the effect of a second referendum won by Leave would be similarly bad, especially if it led to calls for a third referendum.
False analogy, as the result of each general election is implemented before the next one is called. The correct analogy to general elections is to have a Rejoin referendum after we leave.
Yes.
But refusing to ratify the deal in the hope of getting a no deal exit is almost as big an affront to the 2016 referendum as arguing for another one.
It's not Clapham he needs to appeal to. It's the smaller towns and cities where he's at best controversial and at worst deeply loathed. Do you think that seeing him trying to explain an alleged sexist remark and dodging key issues will help?
No, true. London is not his problem. Truth is I don't know about anywhere apart from Hampstead. But I do sense very strongly that the Corbyn team like this story and they are not fools. My take is that muttering 'stupid woman' (which he did, no question, it is not 'people') in response to her acting like a stupid woman is something they think will play quite well. No substitute for a Brexit policy though. If they think that they ARE fools.
Comments
There is nothing democratic about having a vote and then saying "you got it wrong, vote again". Especially when the bad losers demanding infinite bites at the cherry - they only have to be lucky once, after all - still refuse to acknowledge what EU membership is about. Because they know if they'd run an honest campaign in 2016 they'd have lost by close to 2:1.
Things do seem to be economically more cheerful elsewhere with lots of spending and lots of construction.
But High Streets are looking tatty everywhere.
If I were still a retail consultant I’d be very worried about the mid market - department stores, homeware stores, non luxury or value clothing. Oh, and chain restaurants that serve Italian food and expensive burgers....
But there's no shortage of spending taking place elsewhere.
We're due a cyclical recession and a lot of the spending and construction looks dubious to me.
But at the moment things are going very well for lots of people in most of the country.
You can quite clearly see that Corbyn says W-O-M-A-N not P-E-O-P-L-E and so it moves on from being a story about Corbyn being rude to Theresa May to Corbyn being rude to Theresa May and a liar and someone who takes the public for fools.
Because it wasn’t 700,000, or anywhere close.
But in a sense, that's irrelevant. He's fed the fire by making it about his integrity, and also about 'media bias' (which is clearly not true) and as he can't actually prove what he said (and it was a really, really foolish remark whatever he said) he's just making matters worse. It would have been much more sensible to apologise and move on.
As regards weighting of votes, and if it were possible, I would like it to be done on the basis of people's character, in particular the quality of kindness. The vote of a person who is very kind should count multiple times more than that of a person who is heartless and cruel.
With added politics.
East Ham High Street is probably atypical - we have no high-end or indeed mediocre middle shops. It's discount retailing central and I have to say Lidl, Poundland and the other discount retailers all seem to be busy. Bargainbuys has replaced Poundworld but it's hard to see the difference and Primark remains very busy.
The next big change will be the FOBT reduction and we'll see how the gambling establishment in East Ham reacts.
But I do think a second referendum is not an avenue which should be closed off by what is essentially is a filibuster, as only a small percentage of the electorate actually want a no deal Brexit.
No, I thought not.
Anyway, are we allowed to talk about the tribulations of the Hon. Member for Peterborough? Sentencing adjourned sine die and likely an SDT hearing to come, so caution might still be wise.
https://youtu.be/SJUhlRoBL8M
The alternative is for the Conservative Government to revoke A50 (and let's see YouGov do some hypothetical polling on that).
When you stop respecting democracy, you poison the well for a generation or more. People literally taught that their vote doesn't count. That there's no point showing up. Why bother.
The corrosive effect on our democracy of a second referendum won by remain would be incalculable.
I tend to remember her as the only Minister of Agriculture who was ploughed by a Field...
BUT WE WON! IT'S NOT FAIR! NOT ALLOWED TO CHANGE YOUR MIND!
And therefore you argue that we must be taken out of the EU despite the people wanting to stay, at the point where we actually exit and can know what we're getting into.
Sure, the polls.
But I'm talking about the mood of the people not the view of the people.
Let's say (allah forbid) that we have the 2nd referendum, trashed and rejected deal versus oh ok then we won't leave.
There's only one result to that. It's match fixing. Remain by a distance. So, then such will be the view of the people that we stay in the EU after all. No argument with that.
But the mood of the people will still be that they want to leave. They want to leave but it has turned out not to be possible. What they want they cannot have. Now that's life, of course, it's the very definition of life for most people. But it's not democracy.
Do you not agree with that?
Dream on.
And you gloss over the bullshit inherent in the original rant, I note.
The irony is that he may for once be telling the truth, but nobody now believes him. A bit like Blair in his later years.
Could have been implemented in a few months with a version of, say, the EEA Agreement.
The conclusion was that all politicians are opportunistic and lying tossers whom nobody sane would vote for, and they get their come-uppance when sensible people get more votes.
https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-rafael-to-sell-6-anti-drone-systems-to-uk-1001250393
Unfortunately the systems we’ve bought don’t yet appear to have the lasers fitted.
NEW THREAD
It's just there are some things that are more damaging than others.
Some of us have proposed a referendum to avoid the circumstance where no deal is about to be imposed by default.
It respects the referendum result by giving May’s WA as the first option, and only if this is rejected by the electorate, a subsequent choice between no deal and remain.
Imposing the will of perhaps 20% of the electorate, without a further vote, on everyone else doesn’t seem like democracy to me, either.
But refusing to ratify the deal in the hope of getting a no deal exit is almost as big an affront to the 2016 referendum as arguing for another one.
(In The Wet. I might check that out.)