Who is head of the centre for European studies and a strong advocate of Norway joining the EU. Hmm. Not exactly an unbiased source on Norwegian attitudes to the EU.
Erik O. Eriksen is research director of the Norwegian Research Council-funded project EuroDiv
Eriksen was research director of the Norwegian Research Council-funded five-year project EuroTrans
Erik Oddvar Eriksen was the scientific coordinator of the EU funded Integrated Project RECON - Reconstituting Democracy in Europe
“Reconstituting democracy” sounds like you melt it down to make something different
He is talking rubbish. There is not a single word in the GFA that refers to the border and its status. There may be good reasons for not having a hard border (actually there are good reasons) but they have nothing at all to do with the GFA. He is just clutching at straws.
The core of the Good Friday Agreement is the recognition that a United Ireland is a legitimate aspiration for people living in Northern Ireland to the extent, for example, that they are allowed to reject British citizenship and hold Irish citizenship in preference with no detriment to them.
It simply is not credible to say that putting a hard border between the six counties and the rest of the country is at all consistent with that recognition. How would you react to a hard border between Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire?
They are indeed able to hold those aspirations. But the hard border does not change the CTA nor does it change the status of Northern Ireland. I am not advocating one which is why I support the Deal but the idea there is any legal impediment in the GFA to it is just rubbish
Extraordinary misunderstanding of the geopolitics of NI.
Going into administration seems an overdue outcome. They need to sort out what the hell has gone on as between fraud and just bad managment - resolve what the true value of the business might be and whether there is enough there to be salvaged.
Old Compton Street won't be the same again.
You go there for the cake? 🍩
What else is going on there?
Trying to be more coy than a Japanese carp doesn't work....
Won't the bookies just replace Fixed odds terminals with a bunch of cartoon horse racing ? (Yes it's a thing...)
It's not nearly as profitable, although it too should be banned on the basis that it is not possible for the punter to win.
My grandfather was a street bookie. This was an illegal activity of course. The introduction of betting shops was a wholly beneficial development as it largely removed the activity from the underworld and all its attendant criminal associations. For many years the shops prospered and were widely experienced as lively and safe havens in which to pursue a fairly harmless pastime. They went into decline with the arrival of the internet and the traditional skills of the bookmaker went into decline with them, as the big firms found they could only achieve satisfactory results by turning the shops into amusement arcades filled with the modern successors to the old fruit machines, or 'one-armed bandits' as they were widely and accurately known.
It's difficult to make money from betting but not impossible. It is impossible to make money from the machines. They represent legalised robbery, and there is no need or place for them on the High Street. The sooner they disappear the better, and the shops that harbour them can go too - with absolutely zero downside to the general public.
Of course it's not true to say that it's not possible to win. It's possible to put in £2 and win £10, for example. What you mean is that, as a total, more goes into the machines than comes out. But that is true of so many things in the world of gambling, eg. roulette or the National Lottery. It doesn't mean they should be banned.
Going into administration seems an overdue outcome. They need to sort out what the hell has gone on as between fraud and just bad managment - resolve what the true value of the business might be and whether there is enough there to be salvaged.
Old Compton Street won't be the same again.
You go there for the cake? 🍩
What else is going on there?
Trying to be more coy than a Japanese carp doesn't work....
Well in the old days the almond croissants were to die for.
Is he in some kind of incompetence competition with Theresa May?
She's still winning.
There's a certain pleasing symmetry to their positons - both claiming to be avowedly against the outcome made most likely by their respective actions....
Yes, and one does have to wonder are they truly that blind to not see that, or too weak to roll back from the positions that have led to this, or are they simply dishonest.
I expect the usual suspects will be on soon saying that the Tories can do without centrist voters.....
Depends if they can tie up those 17.4m Leave voters....
Isn't that what the Tories rather arrogantly thought in 2017? That they could put all those UKIP voters in their column. Turns out they couldn't.
The Tories are behaving like Labour in the early 1980's: prizing ideological purity above common-sense, trying to appease those who will never be satisfied, coming across as obsessed and a bit deranged, and looking irrelevant to the concerns of most voters. Plus they are in the process of destroying their main USP - that they are competent and can be trusted to run the economy more efficiently than Labour.
Currently, they can't be trusted to tie their own shoelaces.
Except, in 2017, we had the two main parties pledging to implement Brexit....there wasn't a fag paper between them, so it wasn't a Brexit election at all.
Next time? Next time there will be 17.4m pissed off voters if those pledges haven't been honoured. Let's see how good Magic Grandpa's tricks are next time.
I can assure you that two of those 17.4 million - members of my wider family - are not going to be putting a cross next to the Tories next time.
Unsafe to assume that the Tories can count on getting the votes of all Leave voters.
Sky and Faisal Islam bringing up the dire border force warnings leaked to them today in the way only Faisal Islam does. Armageddon, each point worse than the previous, and all as if he is convinced he can single handed stop brexit, his ultimate goal
Sadly for him, it is not cutting through other than to those who are already in that group but it is reach for the 'mute' time as soon as he hoves into view
Sky throughout Brexit have engaged in generally poor journalism and the night before's debate from Leeds with 50 voters, none of whom had changed their minds from the way they voted, was a waste of time and just a nonsense
Our mps are pitiful and most journalists and broadcast presenters are way out of their depth
Having said that there are some journalists who do contribute to the debate including Tim Shipman, John Rentoul, and others but they are a minority
Who is head of the centre for European studies and a strong advocate of Norway joining the EU. Hmm. Not exactly an unbiased source on Norwegian attitudes to the EU.
Erik O. Eriksen is research director of the Norwegian Research Council-funded project EuroDiv
Eriksen was research director of the Norwegian Research Council-funded five-year project EuroTrans
Erik Oddvar Eriksen was the scientific coordinator of the EU funded Integrated Project RECON - Reconstituting Democracy in Europe
“Reconstituting democracy” sounds like you melt it down to make something different
Was your reference to Dr "No Deals" Fox tongue in cheek?
"Hello Doctor, I think I have haemorrhoids, could you examine me please? Tell me, do you know anything about haemorrhoids?"
"Well I have looked them up in a book. I am actually a professionally trained trade negotiator with an MBA in business and 20 years working for the EU trade commission, so I am quite a clever chap, and should be excellent at this GP stuff. Now bend over for me will you...."
I would rather have him doing trade deals than probing up my bum, if I can perhaps leave it at that.
10/10 !! One of the funniest posts I have seen in a while, albeit, if by inference, a little homophobic!
Genuine question:
I thought “homophobia” was an irrational dislike of homosexuals. Does it now extend to a dislike for the action in a personal context?
Won't the bookies just replace Fixed odds terminals with a bunch of cartoon horse racing ? (Yes it's a thing...)
It's not nearly as profitable, although it too should be banned on the basis that it is not possible for the punter to win.
My grandfather was a street bookie. This was an illegal activity of course. The introduction of betting shops was a wholly beneficial development as it largely removed the activity from the underworld and all its attendant criminal associations. For many years the shops prospered and were widely experienced as lively and safe havens in which to pursue a fairly harmless pastime. They went into decline with the arrival of the internet and the traditional skills of the bookmaker went into decline with them, as the big firms found they could only achieve satisfactory results by turning the shops into amusement arcades filled with the modern successors to the old fruit machines, or 'one-armed bandits' as they were widely and accurately known.
It's difficult to make money from betting but not impossible. It is impossible to make money from the machines. They represent legalised robbery, and there is no need or place for them on the High Street. The sooner they disappear the better, and the shops that harbour them can go too - with absolutely zero downside to the general public.
I remember many years ago going into a betting shop in Fulham. There was this old, very old boy in there looking at one of the monitors. We got chatting. He was 93 an ex-17th Lancer and he came every day to watch the racing. Didn't bet just enjoyed watching it all still.
Was your reference to Dr "No Deals" Fox tongue in cheek?
"Hello Doctor, I think I have haemorrhoids, could you examine me please? Tell me, do you know anything about haemorrhoids?"
"Well I have looked them up in a book. I am actually a professionally trained trade negotiator with an MBA in business and 20 years working for the EU trade commission, so I am quite a clever chap, and should be excellent at this GP stuff. Now bend over for me will you...."
I would rather have him doing trade deals than probing up my bum, if I can perhaps leave it at that.
10/10 !! One of the funniest posts I have seen in a while, albeit, if by inference, a little homophobic!
Genuine question:
I thought “homophobia” was an irrational dislike of homosexuals. Does it now extend to a dislike for the action in a personal context?
It’s a bit rich of Nigel to throw that accusation around too given he was only responding to him mentioning haemorrhoids and Liam Fox asking him to bend over.
Only 4/1 that we could be heading for fuel rationing?
Will we end up playing Monopoly by candlelight several nights a week, and it will indeed be the early 70s once again?
I was a student in Liverpool during the power cuts in the early 70s. One day I met a fellow student, whom I knew to be fairly militant atheist, coming out of the Catholic Cathedral which was opposite the Students Union. When I asked him what he'd been up to, he said the Cathedral was a really good source of candles.
So there you are. Top tip for the coming blackouts - move near a RC Church.
By chance I found a load of candles at the bottom of a drawer just yesterday. So in one respect at least I am prepared for no deal. Just the food, bottled water and shotgun to go....
Make sure you get food that can be cooked by a candle, of course.
Camping stove, pasta and tinned tomatoes all in the garage, next to the tinned rice pudding.
Rice pudding is probably my least favourite food in the whole world !
All I ever see from this campaign is threats and blackmail towards Labour about what would supposedly happen if we don't do as they say, rather than any positive arguments for their idea. Seemingly they learnt nothing from the original referendum campaign about what does and doesn't persuade people.
It's strange but the second referendumers are in some ways aligned with No Dealers. Their best chance of winning such a vote is for the vote to be between Remain and No Deal.
A soft Brexit both muddies the waters in terms of distinguishing between Remain and Brexit, but also makes it harder to get the votes needed for a referendum.
I know others disagree, but the most likely way I see that we will end up with a really disastrous hard Brexit or No Deal, is if we have a second referendum and Remain loses.
You seem to imagine that a 'soft Brexit' is an option. It was overwhelmingly rejected by Parliament recently, and there is no reason to suppose some variant is going to alter enough minds for it to be passed. The choices therefore come down to No Deal, GE, or a 2nd Ref (which could of course offer 'soft Brexit' as a choice.)
The simplest and fairest of these seems to me to be 2nd Ref, although the other two choices are fine by me also.
All I ever see from this campaign is threats and blackmail towards Labour about what would supposedly happen if we don't do as they say, rather than any positive arguments for their idea. Seemingly they learnt nothing from the original referendum campaign about what does and doesn't persuade people.
It's strange but the second referendumers are in some ways aligned with No Dealers. Their best chance of winning such a vote is for the vote to be between Remain and No Deal.
A soft Brexit both muddies the waters in terms of distinguishing between Remain and Brexit, but also makes it harder to get the votes needed for a referendum.
I know others disagree, but the most likely way I see that we will end up with a really disastrous hard Brexit or No Deal, is if we have a second referendum and Remain loses.
You seem to imagine that a 'soft Brexit' is an option. It was overwhelmingly rejected by Parliament recently, and there is no reason to suppose some variant is going to alter enough minds for it to be passed. The choices therefore come down to No Deal, GE, or a 2nd Ref (which could of course offer 'soft Brexit' as a choice.)
The simplest and fairest of these seems to me to be 2nd Ref, although the other two choices are fine by me also.
And what are your reasons for thinking a second referendum would result in a Remain vote, or indeed for anything other than the 'hardest' Brexit that's on the ballot paper?
All I ever see from this campaign is threats and blackmail towards Labour about what would supposedly happen if we don't do as they say, rather than any positive arguments for their idea. Seemingly they learnt nothing from the original referendum campaign about what does and doesn't persuade people.
It's strange but the second referendumers are in some ways aligned with No Dealers. Their best chance of winning such a vote is for the vote to be between Remain and No Deal.
A soft Brexit both muddies the waters in terms of distinguishing between Remain and Brexit, but also makes it harder to get the votes needed for a referendum.
I know others disagree, but the most likely way I see that we will end up with a really disastrous hard Brexit or No Deal, is if we have a second referendum and Remain loses.
You seem to imagine that a 'soft Brexit' is an option. It was overwhelmingly rejected by Parliament recently, and there is no reason to suppose some variant is going to alter enough minds for it to be passed. The choices therefore come down to No Deal, GE, or a 2nd Ref (which could of course offer 'soft Brexit' as a choice.)
The simplest and fairest of these seems to me to be 2nd Ref, although the other two choices are fine by me also.
And what are your reasons for thinking a second referendum would result in a Remain vote, or indeed for anything other than the 'hardest' Brexit that's on the ballot paper?
I have no more idea than anybody else whether a second Ref would result in a Remain vote. My guess is that it would but if it didn't the ensuing departure from the EU would have unquestionable legitimacy.
I expect the usual suspects will be on soon saying that the Tories can do without centrist voters.....
Depends if they can tie up those 17.4m Leave voters....
Isn't that what the Tories rather arrogantly thought in 2017? That they could put all those UKIP voters in their column. Turns out they couldn't.
The Tories are behaving like Labour in the early 1980's: prizing ideological purity above common-sense, trying to appease those who will never be satisfied, coming across as obsessed and a bit deranged, and looking irrelevant to the concerns of most voters. Plus they are in the process of destroying their main USP - that they are competent and can be trusted to run the economy more efficiently than Labour.
Currently, they can't be trusted to tie their own shoelaces.
Except, in 2017, we had the two main parties pledging to implement Brexit....there wasn't a fag paper between them, so it wasn't a Brexit election at all.
Next time? Next time there will be 17.4m pissed off voters if those pledges haven't been honoured. Let's see how good Magic Grandpa's tricks are next time.
I can assure you that two of those 17.4 million - members of my wider family - are not going to be putting a cross next to the Tories next time.
Unsafe to assume that the Tories can count on getting the votes of all Leave voters.
I don't think you could read my comment as the Tories getting ALL of them!
Dysons are shit. You may as well roll a beachball over the carpet for all the good it does.
I’ve no idea how they get so high up the consumer league tables.
My Dyson cleaner worked like a dream for 14 years, worth every penny. Couldn't afford a Dyson for the new one, it's broken within the year. Bad luck on my part, but Dyson's worked well for me at least.
I'm curious why Dyson, who must have already been considering such a move in summer 2016, chose to be so high profile about leaving?
He must have know this would look bloody terrible.
You missed out P&O re-registering all its British vessels in Cyprus
Genuine question for someone who knows - does vessel registration matter much? Didn't they all used to be in Panama?
Not having any tonnage registered to your flag makes it much harder to requisition such if needed. The decline in British-flagged tonnage since 1982 is one of the reasons why a repeat of the Falklands Task Force would be impossible today.
(Yes I know we actually have a defence force in the Falklands now; I mean in the context of having no effective defence in the islands and so starting from a point where they'd been occupied and there is no longer any territory in the area to operate from.)
All I ever see from this campaign is threats and blackmail towards Labour about what would supposedly happen if we don't do as they say, rather than any positive arguments for their idea. Seemingly they learnt nothing from the original referendum campaign about what does and doesn't persuade people.
It's strange but the second referendumers are in some ways aligned with No Dealers. Their best chance of winning such a vote is for the vote to be between Remain and No Deal.
A soft Brexit both muddies the waters in terms of distinguishing between Remain and Brexit, but also makes it harder to get the votes needed for a referendum.
I know others disagree, but the most likely way I see that we will end up with a really disastrous hard Brexit or No Deal, is if we have a second referendum and Remain loses.
You seem to imagine that a 'soft Brexit' is an option. It was overwhelmingly rejected by Parliament recently, and there is no reason to suppose some variant is going to alter enough minds for it to be passed. The choices therefore come down to No Deal, GE, or a 2nd Ref (which could of course offer 'soft Brexit' as a choice.)
The simplest and fairest of these seems to me to be 2nd Ref, although the other two choices are fine by me also.
I see May's deal as a hard Brexit since it takes us out of single market and customs union. Perhaps I'm using the term incorrectly. I certainly think it is possible for the UK to get an extension to A50 and to renegotiate a closer relationship - provided Theresa May is removed.
In response to your last statement - I don't agree that a 2nd Ref is simple. It's not clear what the question should be, how many options and how to choose between them.
I don't like Williamson, but he's a supporter of the leadership not the leadership, right? He's someone who was cut out from it in fact?
Officially he asked to stand down so he could pursue views that weren't necessarily Labour policy. But yes, not part of the leadership (and Nick Cohen must know that).
I'm curious why Dyson, who must have already been considering such a move in summer 2016, chose to be so high profile about leaving?
He must have know this would look bloody terrible.
You missed out P&O re-registering all its British vessels in Cyprus
Genuine question for someone who knows - does vessel registration matter much? Didn't they all used to be in Panama?
In disputes, it determines the laws to be applied aboard the ships and it also determines any tax issues involving the ship, salvage rights and employment rights for the ships personnel.
I expect the usual suspects will be on soon saying that the Tories can do without centrist voters.....
Depends if they can tie up those 17.4m Leave voters....
Isn't that what the Tories rather arrogantly thought in 2017? That they could put all those UKIP voters in their column. Turns out they couldn't.
The Tories are behaving like Labour in the early 1980's: prizing ideological purity above common-sense, trying to appease those who will never be satisfied, coming across as obsessed and a bit deranged, and looking irrelevant to the concerns of most voters. Plus they are in the process of destroying their main USP - that they are competent and can be trusted to run the economy more efficiently than Labour.
Currently, they can't be trusted to tie their own shoelaces.
Except, in 2017, we had the two main parties pledging to implement Brexit....there wasn't a fag paper between them, so it wasn't a Brexit election at all.
Next time? Next time there will be 17.4m pissed off voters if those pledges haven't been honoured. Let's see how good Magic Grandpa's tricks are next time.
I can assure you that two of those 17.4 million - members of my wider family - are not going to be putting a cross next to the Tories next time.
Unsafe to assume that the Tories can count on getting the votes of all Leave voters.
I don't think you could read my comment as the Tories getting ALL of them!
Under what scenario have pledges not been honoured but it's entirely Labour's fault, not the Conservatives'?
I'm curious why Dyson, who must have already been considering such a move in summer 2016, chose to be so high profile about leaving?
He must have know this would look bloody terrible.
You missed out P&O re-registering all its British vessels in Cyprus
Genuine question for someone who knows - does vessel registration matter much? Didn't they all used to be in Panama?
The Telegraph said being flagged Cyrpus means they keep paying the EU tonnage tax. Implication being that the EU charges non EU countries more but they did not specify that.
All I ever see from this campaign is threats and blackmail towards Labour about what would supposedly happen if we don't do as they say, rather than any positive arguments for their idea. Seemingly they learnt nothing from the original referendum campaign about what does and doesn't persuade people.
It's strange but the second referendumers are in some ways aligned with No Dealers. Their best chance of winning such a vote is for the vote to be between Remain and No Deal.
A soft Brexit both muddies the waters in terms of distinguishing between Remain and Brexit, but also makes it harder to get the votes needed for a referendum.
I know others disagree, but the most likely way I see that we will end up with a really disastrous hard Brexit or No Deal, is if we have a second referendum and Remain loses.
You seem to imagine that a 'soft Brexit' is an option. It was overwhelmingly rejected by Parliament recently, and there is no reason to suppose some variant is going to alter enough minds for it to be passed. The choices therefore come down to No Deal, GE, or a 2nd Ref (which could of course offer 'soft Brexit' as a choice.)
The simplest and fairest of these seems to me to be 2nd Ref, although the other two choices are fine by me also.
You're looking for a referendum between any two of (1) a remain deal which is worse than the remain deal that has already lost, (2) a WA deal which has been voted down by Parliament more heavily than any govt motion ever, (3) no deal, which might beat that record if put to Parliament. And to get to it you need to overturn a handful of constitutional maxims, a couple of standing orders of the house and the largest electoral mandate in the country's history.
All I ever see from this campaign is threats and blackmail towards Labour about what would supposedly happen if we don't do as they say, rather than any positive arguments for their idea. Seemingly they learnt nothing from the original referendum campaign about what does and doesn't persuade people.
It's strange but the second referendumers are in some ways aligned with No Dealers. Their best chance of winning such a vote is for the vote to be between Remain and No Deal.
A soft Brexit both muddies the waters in terms of distinguishing between Remain and Brexit, but also makes it harder to get the votes needed for a referendum.
I know others disagree, but the most likely way I see that we will end up with a really disastrous hard Brexit or No Deal, is if we have a second referendum and Remain loses.
You seem to imagine that a 'soft Brexit' is an option. It was overwhelmingly rejected by Parliament recently, and there is no reason to suppose some variant is going to alter enough minds for it to be passed. The choices therefore come down to No Deal, GE, or a 2nd Ref (which could of course offer 'soft Brexit' as a choice.)
The simplest and fairest of these seems to me to be 2nd Ref, although the other two choices are fine by me also.
I see May's deal as a hard Brexit since it takes us out of single market and customs union. Perhaps I'm using the term incorrectly. I certainly think it is possible for the UK to get an extension to A50 and to renegotiate a closer relationship - provided Theresa May is removed.
In response to your last statement - I don't agree that a 2nd Ref is simple. It's not clear what the question should be, how many options and how to choose between them.
The word I used was 'simplest'. It's certainly simpler than the other two!
Extending A50 isn't a solution as such. It just kicks the can down the road again. Yes, you can do that, but you still have to find a permanent solution, and that requires one of the three options I mentioned.
I expect the usual suspects will be on soon saying that the Tories can do without centrist voters.....
Depends if they can tie up those 17.4m Leave voters....
Isn't that what the Tories rather arrogantly thought in 2017? That they could put all those UKIP voters in their column. Turns out they couldn't.
The Tories are behaving like Labour in the early 1980's: prizing ideological purity above common-sense, trying to appease those who will never be satisfied, coming across as obsessed and a bit deranged, and looking irrelevant to the concerns of most voters. Plus they are in the process of destroying their main USP - that they are competent and can be trusted to run the economy more efficiently than Labour.
Currently, they can't be trusted to tie their own shoelaces.
Except, in 2017, we had the two main parties pledging to implement Brexit....there wasn't a fag paper between them, so it wasn't a Brexit election at all.
Next time? Next time there will be 17.4m pissed off voters if those pledges haven't been honoured. Let's see how good Magic Grandpa's tricks are next time.
I can assure you that two of those 17.4 million - members of my wider family - are not going to be putting a cross next to the Tories next time.
Unsafe to assume that the Tories can count on getting the votes of all Leave voters.
I don't think you could read my comment as the Tories getting ALL of them!
Under what scenario have pledges not been honoured but it's entirely Labour's fault, not the Conservatives'?
Say May's Deal get's re-animated and (following deals with ERG and DUP) is very close to crossing the line - but Corbyn issues a 3-line whip not to support it. A bill to block Brexit gets passed instead, where May is obliged to rescind the Article 50 notice.
Admittedly, it would need some hold-out Remainer Tories playing games too, but the public would be seeing Labour as the party that blocked Brexit.
All I ever see from this campaign is threats and blackmail towards Labour about what would supposedly happen if we don't do as they say, rather than any positive arguments for their idea. Seemingly they learnt nothing from the original referendum campaign about what does and doesn't persuade people.
It's strange but the second referendumers are in some ways aligned with No Dealers. Their best chance of winning such a vote is for the vote to be between Remain and No Deal.
A soft Brexit both muddies the waters in terms of distinguishing between Remain and Brexit, but also makes it harder to get the votes needed for a referendum.
I know others disagree, but the most likely way I see that we will end up with a really disastrous hard Brexit or No Deal, is if we have a second referendum and Remain loses.
You seem to imagine that a 'soft Brexit' is an option. It was overwhelmingly rejected by Parliament recently, and there is no reason to suppose some variant is going to alter enough minds for it to be passed. The choices therefore come down to No Deal, GE, or a 2nd Ref (which could of course offer 'soft Brexit' as a choice.)
The simplest and fairest of these seems to me to be 2nd Ref, although the other two choices are fine by me also.
And what are your reasons for thinking a second referendum would result in a Remain vote, or indeed for anything other than the 'hardest' Brexit that's on the ballot paper?
I have no more idea than anybody else whether a second Ref would result in a Remain vote. My guess is that it would but if it didn't the ensuing departure from the EU would have unquestionable legitimacy.
That couldn't be a bad thing.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time? We'd still only be dealing with predictions about what Brexit would mean this time, just like last time, since nothing tangible would've changed at the time of the vote happening - so if "people didn't know what they were voting for" the first time, then I don't see how it would be any different this time.
And if the argument is that the first one didn't have "legitimacy" because Boris Johnson lied, then......what's stopping him doing the same again?
All I ever see from this campaign is threats and blackmail towards Labour about what would supposedly happen if we don't do as they say, rather than any positive arguments for their idea. Seemingly they learnt nothing from the original referendum campaign about what does and doesn't persuade people.
It's strange but the second referendumers are in some ways aligned with No Dealers. Their best chance of winning such a vote is for the vote to be between Remain and No Deal.
A soft Brexit both muddies the waters in terms of distinguishing between Remain and Brexit, but also makes it harder to get the votes needed for a referendum.
I know others disagree, but the most likely way I see that we will end up with a really disastrous hard Brexit or No Deal, is if we have a second referendum and Remain loses.
You ser 'soft Brexit' as a choice.)
The simplest and fairest of these seems to me to be 2nd Ref, although the other two choices are fine by me also.
Anr?
I have no more idea than anybody else whether a second Ref would result in a Remain vote. My guess is that it would but if it didn't the ensuing departure from the EU would have unquestionable legitimacy.
That couldn't be a bad thing.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time? We'd still only be dealing with predictions about what Brexit would mean this time, just like last time, since nothing tangible would've changed at the time of the vote happening - so if "people didn't know what they were voting for" the first time, then I don't see how it would be any different this time.
Good grief, you are one for putting words in people's mouths! I didn't write that. I didn't even think that.
Yes, of course the first referendum was legitimate, but we are two and a half years on. Much has happened. Much has been learned. It would be perfectly reasonable to ask again - 'You sure, folks, now you know all this and have had the intervening period to reflect?'
If we weren't stuck in a log-jam, it wouldn't be necessary or appropriate, but we are - so it's a way out. It's not entirely satisfactory, I know, but what is? Parliament won't pass The Deal, so there are only three options, as I wrote.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time? We'd still only be dealing with predictions about what Brexit would mean this time, just like last time, since nothing tangible would've changed at the time of the vote happening - so if "people didn't know what they were voting for" the first time, then I don't see how it would be any different this time.
I hate the people didn't know what they were voting for line
People knew what they were voting for, the problem is, many people don't believe that what has happened does represent what they voted for.
Whether they are right or wrong on that is another question. If we take May's deal as Brexit then it is now more clear to people what Brexit is and in the case of some Brexit voters they know it isn't what they voted for.
Whether we should have another referendum or not is another question but I think if we are to take May's deal or even leave with no deal as Brexit then this is more clarity than we originally had with the leave vote which includes a number of possible outcomes.
As for criticism of the people's vote campaign I feel like at one point, for some anyway, the strategy was to attack Corbyn in an attempt to get what they want, combine with suspicions about a new party and the PV campaign was attacking one of the most obvious large source of supporters in terms of MPs and voters.
I'm curious why Dyson, who must have already been considering such a move in summer 2016, chose to be so high profile about leaving?
He must have know this would look bloody terrible.
You missed out P&O re-registering all its British vessels in Cyprus
Genuine question for someone who knows - does vessel registration matter much? Didn't they all used to be in Panama?
The Telegraph said being flagged Cyrpus means they keep paying the EU tonnage tax. Implication being that the EU charges non EU countries more but they did not specify that.
Good grief, you are one for putting words in people's mouths! I didn't write that. I didn't even think that.
Yes, of course the first referendum was legitimate, but we are two and a half years on. Much has happened. Much has been learned. It would be perfectly reasonable to ask again - 'You sure, folks, now you know all this and have had the intervening period to reflect?'
If we weren't stuck in a log-jam, it wouldn't be necessary or appropriate, but we are - so it's a way out. It's not entirely satisfactory, I know, but what is? Parliament won't pass The Deal, so there are only three options, as I wrote.
You said a second Leave vote would mean "the ensuing departure from the EU would have unquestionable legitimacy", which does imply you think it doesn't have legitimacy from the first referendum alone.
And you say "now we know all this", but we don't know anything that we didn't know at the time of the first referendum. The only Remain arguments still are dire predictions about what Brexit will mean. They're predictions that I (largely) believe, but for the people who didn't, why would the same predictions that weren't enough to convince them last time be enough this time?
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
I'm curious why Dyson, who must have already been considering such a move in summer 2016, chose to be so high profile about leaving?
He must have know this would look bloody terrible.
Perhaps, like Cameron, he assumed Remain would win, and then he could present the move as a big FU to the EU.
I'm no supporter of Dyson, far from it, but if your suggestion was true he would surely have waited until one of: A50 delay, A50 revocation, or we left on May's Deal before making his announcement.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
Yeah, and if that's what Leave does mean in a second referendum, IMO it would win. Which is partly why it's such a terrible idea. There's less chance of No Deal if it's kept in MPs' hands I think.
I receive fund raising e mails on a regular basis and have done over the last six months
There frequency does not seem to have changed but the amount of communication I receive from the party including in Wales has rocketed since the referendum
I'm curious why Dyson, who must have already been considering such a move in summer 2016, chose to be so high profile about leaving?
He must have know this would look bloody terrible.
Perhaps, like Cameron, he assumed Remain would win, and then he could present the move as a big FU to the EU.
I'm no supporter of Dyson, far from it, but if your suggestion was true he would surely have waited until one of: A50 delay, A50 revocation, or we left on May's Deal before making his announcement.
He supported Brexit, i.e it is reasonable to assume that he believes Brexit is the best option for his business. He has watched the over the last two years the majority of MP's and civil servants of this country do everything possible to stay in the EU. It is entirely logical that he decides to make his cars and move his HQ to Asia. I am a leaver and I understand his decision. Leave a slow growth, regulation ridden that is against you (see his battles with the EU) for a dynamic growth area where business is respected. No brainer as they say.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
Not if May's Deal won a second Leave vote
Very good to hear about your father. That's great news.
I'm curious why Dyson, who must have already been considering such a move in summer 2016, chose to be so high profile about leaving?
He must have know this would look bloody terrible.
Perhaps, like Cameron, he assumed Remain would win, and then he could present the move as a big FU to the EU.
I'm no supporter of Dyson, far from it, but if your suggestion was true he would surely have waited until one of: A50 delay, A50 revocation, or we left on May's Deal before making his announcement.
He supported Brexit, i.e it is reasonable to assume that he believes Brexit is the best option for his business. He has watched the over the last two years the majority of MP's and civil servants of this country do everything possible to stay in the EU. It is entirely logical that he decides to make his cars and move his HQ to Asia. I am a leaver and I understand his decision. Leave a slow growth, regulation ridden that is against you (see his battles with the EU) for a dynamic growth area where business is respected. No brainer as they say.
Yes, it's the 'Singapore-on-speed' argument. Get us away from all that tedious regulation and let business rip.
It's a view, as too is the view that it is neither practical, nor desirable.
The fact they are issuing statements and still ignoring that the EU have said today there will be a hard border in no deal circumstances looks like a panic is setting in
Good grief, you are one for putting words in people's mouths! I didn't write that. I didn't even think that.
Yes, of course the first referendum was legitimate, but we are two and a half years on. Much has happened. Much has been learned. It would be perfectly reasonable to ask again - 'You sure, folks, now you know all this and have had the intervening period to reflect?'
If we weren't stuck in a log-jam, it wouldn't be necessary or appropriate, but we are - so it's a way out. It's not entirely satisfactory, I know, but what is? Parliament won't pass The Deal, so there are only three options, as I wrote.
You said a second Leave vote would mean "the ensuing departure from the EU would have unquestionable legitimacy", which does imply you think it doesn't have legitimacy from the first referendum alone.
And you say "now we know all this", but we don't know anything that we didn't know at the time of the first referendum. The only Remain arguments still are dire predictions about what Brexit will mean. They're predictions that I (largely) believe, but for the people who didn't, why would the same predictions that weren't enough to convince them last time be enough this time?
Funnily enough Danny, I wrote what I meant, and meant what I wrote.
I'm curious why Dyson, who must have already been considering such a move in summer 2016, chose to be so high profile about leaving?
He must have know this would look bloody terrible.
Perhaps, like Cameron, he assumed Remain would win, and then he could present the move as a big FU to the EU.
I'm no supporter of Dyson, far from it, but if your suggestion was true he would surely have waited until one of: A50 delay, A50 revocation, or we left on May's Deal before making his announcement.
He supported Brexit, i.e it is reasonable to assume that he believes Brexit is the best option for his business. He has watched the over the last two years the majority of MP's and civil servants of this country do everything possible to stay in the EU. It is entirely logical that he decides to make his cars and move his HQ to Asia. I am a leaver and I understand his decision. Leave a slow growth, regulation ridden that is against you (see his battles with the EU) for a dynamic growth area where business is respected. No brainer as they say.
It probably passed most people's attention, but Dyson actually won his case on vacuum cleaner labelling in the European courts.
I'm curious why Dyson, who must have already been considering such a move in summer 2016, chose to be so high profile about leaving?
He must have know this would look bloody terrible.
Perhaps, like Cameron, he assumed Remain would win, and then he could present the move as a big FU to the EU.
I'm no supporter of Dyson, far from it, but if your suggestion was true he would surely have waited until one of: A50 delay, A50 revocation, or we left on May's Deal before making his announcement.
He supported Brexit, i.e it is reasonable to assume that he believes Brexit is the best option for his business. He has watched the over the last two years the majority of MP's and civil servants of this country do everything possible to stay in the EU. It is entirely logical that he decides to make his cars and move his HQ to Asia. I am a leaver and I understand his decision. Leave a slow growth, regulation ridden that is against you (see his battles with the EU) for a dynamic growth area where business is respected. No brainer as they say.
Yes, it's the 'Singapore-on-speed' argument. Get us away from all that tedious regulation and let business rip.
It's a view, as too is the view that it is neither practical, nor desirable.
Your view is fine for people to hold, but then those people should not moan or complain when people of the other view move their businesses.
A statement rivaling May's in its pointlessness. No deal is very very real and relying on statements that people don't want a border don't mean shit if that happens. It seems potentially possible that Ireland's incredible insouciance around no deal is precisely because they don't believe it matters, regarding the border at least.
Sky and Faisal Islam bringing up the dire border force warnings leaked to them today in the way only Faisal Islam does. Armageddon, each point worse than the previous, and all as if he is convinced he can single handed stop brexit, his ultimate goal
Sadly for him, it is not cutting through other than to those who are already in that group but it is reach for the 'mute' time as soon as he hoves into view
Sky throughout Brexit have engaged in generally poor journalism and the night before's debate from Leeds with 50 voters, none of whom had changed their minds from the way they voted, was a waste of time and just a nonsense
Our mps are pitiful and most journalists and broadcast presenters are way out of their depth
Having said that there are some journalists who do contribute to the debate including Tim Shipman, John Rentoul, and others but they are a minority
Channel 4 news at 7pm was in Wales . The Welsh assembly were discussing a no deal Brexit. It seemed very dire .
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
Not if May's Deal won a second Leave vote
It does surprise me how many think TM's deal is dead when it is becoming increasingly likely it is the safest way out of this mess.
If you were wondering why almost all of the OECD, BoE and HMT predictions about the post-referendum economy were wrong, here's a paper by some tab dons who have had a look at the institutions' assumptions and workings-out.
tldr; they probably weren't even trying to get it right. Each of the two dozen or so schoolboy macroeconomic assumption fails was in the direction of pessimism about leaving the EU, and HMT wouldn't even release its sums until pulled up in Parliament about it.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
Yeah, and if that's what Leave does mean in a second referendum, IMO it would win. Which is partly why it's such a terrible idea. There's less chance of No Deal if it's kept in MPs' hands I think.
If the country votes WTO then there are no doubts, no further messing about in Parliament. There can be no misinterpretations, no "the public meant this, not that" arguments. It is clear, defined and definite.
If they vote "Remain" that too is clear, defined and definite.
A second referendum cuts through the mess. The result is whatever the result is, but there can be no excuses.
All I ever see from this campaign is threats and blackmail towards Labour about what would supposedly happen if we don't do as they say, rather than any positive arguments for their idea. Seemingly they learnt nothing from the original referendum campaign about what does and doesn't persuade people.
It's strange but the second referendumers are in some ways aligned with No Dealers. Their best chance of winning such a vote is for the vote to be between Remain and No Deal.
A soft Brexit both muddies the waters in terms of distinguishing between Remain and Brexit, but also makes it harder to get the votes needed for a referendum.
I know others disagree, but the most likely way I see that we will end up with a really disastrous hard Brexit or No Deal, is if we have a second referendum and Remain loses.
You seem to imagine that a 'soft Brexit' is an option. It was overwhelmingly rejected by Parliament recently, and there is no reason to suppose some variant is going to alter enough minds for it to be passed. The choices therefore come down to No Deal, GE, or a 2nd Ref (which could of course offer 'soft Brexit' as a choice.)
The simplest and fairest of these seems to me to be 2nd Ref, although the other two choices are fine by me also.
I see May's deal as a hard Brexit since it takes us out of single market and customs union. Perhaps I'm using the term incorrectly. I certainly think it is possible for the UK to get an extension to A50 and to renegotiate a closer relationship - provided Theresa May is removed.
In response to your last statement - I don't agree that a 2nd Ref is simple. It's not clear what the question should be, how many options and how to choose between them.
May's deal doesn't take us anywhere - it will be the permanent arrangement which will do that.
I'm curious why Dyson, who must have already been considering such a move in summer 2016, chose to be so high profile about leaving?
He must have know this would look bloody terrible.
Perhaps, like Cameron, he assumed Remain would win, and then he could present the move as a big FU to the EU.
I'm no supporter of Dyson, far from it, but if your suggestion was true he would surely have waited until one of: A50 delay, A50 revocation, or we left on May's Deal before making his announcement.
Good grief, you are one for putting words in people's mouths! I didn't write that. I didn't even think that.
Yes, of course the first referendum was legitimate, but we are two and a half years on. Much has happened. Much has been learned. It would be perfectly reasonable to ask again - 'You sure, folks, now you know all this and have had the intervening period to reflect?'
If we weren't stuck in a log-jam, it wouldn't be necessary or appropriate, but we are - so it's a way out. It's not entirely satisfactory, I know, but what is? Parliament won't pass The Deal, so there are only three options, as I wrote.
You said a second Leave vote would mean "the ensuing departure from the EU would have unquestionable legitimacy", which does imply you think it doesn't have legitimacy from the first referendum alone.
And you say "now we know all this", but we don't know anything that we didn't know at the time of the first referendum. The only Remain arguments still are dire predictions about what Brexit will mean. They're predictions that I (largely) believe, but for the people who didn't, why would the same predictions that weren't enough to convince them last time be enough this time?
We do know that we cannot have all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downsides, that we do not hold all the negotiating cards and that a deal will not be the easiest to do in history.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
Not if May's Deal won a second Leave vote
Very good to hear about your father. That's great news.
Good grief, you are one for putting words in people's mouths! I didn't write that. I didn't even think that.
Yes, of course the first referendum was legitimate, but we are two and a half years on. Much has happened. Much has been learned. It would be perfectly reasonable to ask again - 'You sure, folks, now you know all this and have had the intervening period to reflect?'
If we weren't stuck in a log-jam, it wouldn't be necessary or appropriate, but we are - so it's a way out. It's not entirely satisfactory, I know, but what is? Parliament won't pass The Deal, so there are only three options, as I wrote.
You said a second Leave vote would mean "the ensuing departure from the EU would have unquestionable legitimacy", which does imply you think it doesn't have legitimacy from the first referendum alone.
And you say "now we know all this", but we don't know anything that we didn't know at the time of the first referendum. The only Remain arguments still are dire predictions about what Brexit will mean. They're predictions that I (largely) believe, but for the people who didn't, why would the same predictions that weren't enough to convince them last time be enough this time?
We do know that we cannot have all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downsides, that we do not hold all the negotiating cards and that a deal will not be the easiest to do in history.
I think it's naive to think the average Leave voter now "knows" all this.
If there's a second referendum with No Deal on the ballot, I guarantee the likes of Boris will be saying things like "it won't really be No Deal, the EU will offer us a deal at the last minute if we really looked like we were going to walk, they need us more than we need them, we just haven't gone in tough enough yet".
It would be all be bullshit of course, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be believed. There seems to be a cognitive dissonance with some of the "People's Vote" crew where they believe the first referendum was only won with bullshit, yet a similar brand of bullshit somehow wouldn't be effective the second time.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
Not if May's Deal won a second Leave vote
It does surprise me how many think TM's deal is dead when it is becoming increasingly likely it is the safest way out of this mess.
I would say it is in 'resus' at present
As Nadine Dorries and Mogg are starting to realise the alternative to May's Deal might not be No Deal but permanent Customs Union or even a Deal v Remain referendum now Remain and soft Brexit MPs are flexing their muscles
Sky and Faisal Islam bringing up the dire border force warnings leaked to them today in the way only Faisal Islam does. Armageddon, each point worse than the previous, and all as if he is convinced he can single handed stop brexit, his ultimate goal
Sadly for him, it is not cutting through other than to those who are already in that group but it is reach for the 'mute' time as soon as he hoves into view
Sky throughout Brexit have engaged in generally poor journalism and the night before's debate from Leeds with 50 voters, none of whom had changed their minds from the way they voted, was a waste of time and just a nonsense
Our mps are pitiful and most journalists and broadcast presenters are way out of their depth
Having said that there are some journalists who do contribute to the debate including Tim Shipman, John Rentoul, and others but they are a minority
Channel 4 news at 7pm was in Wales . The Welsh assembly were discussing a no deal Brexit. It seemed very dire .
Forgive me if you think by my posting of my musings about Sky and Faisal Islam that I want a no deal brexit. Far from it, TM deal or amended deal and if not remain are my positions on this mess
The point I was trying to make is that Faisal Islam's executive class project fear just adds to the anger of the growing number of 'no dealers' in the country, outside of London
I'm curious why Dyson, who must have already been considering such a move in summer 2016, chose to be so high profile about leaving?
He must have know this would look bloody terrible.
Perhaps, like Cameron, he assumed Remain would win, and then he could present the move as a big FU to the EU.
I'm no supporter of Dyson, far from it, but if your suggestion was true he would surely have waited until one of: A50 delay, A50 revocation, or we left on May's Deal before making his announcement.
He supported Brexit, i.e it is reasonable to assume that he believes Brexit is the best option for his business. He has watched the over the last two years the majority of MP's and civil servants of this country do everything possible to stay in the EU. It is entirely logical that he decides to make his cars and move his HQ to Asia. I am a leaver and I understand his decision. Leave a slow growth, regulation ridden that is against you (see his battles with the EU) for a dynamic growth area where business is respected. No brainer as they say.
I appreciate all that but given his beliefs and aims wouldn't he have been better to time his announcement after an A50 delay/revocation or after an exit on May's terms?
If you were wondering why almost all of the OECD, BoE and HMT predictions about the post-referendum economy were wrong, here's a paper by some tab dons who have had a look at the institutions' assumptions and workings-out.
tldr; they probably weren't even trying to get it right. Each of the two dozen or so schoolboy macroeconomic assumption fails was in the direction of pessimism about leaving the EU, and HMT wouldn't even release its sums until pulled up in Parliament about it.
Like David Cameron, I'm mildly surprised that the economic effect of the referendum vote hasn't been more severe. We have however seen a hefty devaluation of sterling, and a knock to our credit rating. There have also been a number of business departures which may or may not have been wholly or in part due to the referendum result. We haven't seen much coming in the other direction.
Is that enough damage for you, or do we have to see people dying in the street? Personally I don't think it will get that bad, but then I cannot imagine how it actually gets better.
Come on, I need cheering up. Tell me the upsides - I mean real, practical stuff, no abstactions please. (Sorry but if one more person talks to me about 'Sovereignity' they may get a punch.)
Sky and Faisal Islam bringing up the dire border force warnings leaked to them today in the way only Faisal Islam does. Armageddon, each point worse than the previous, and all as if he is convinced he can single handed stop brexit, his ultimate goal
Sadly for him, it is not cutting through other than to those who are already in that group but it is reach for the 'mute' time as soon as he hoves into view
Sky throughout Brexit have engaged in generally poor journalism and the night before's debate from Leeds with 50 voters, none of whom had changed their minds from the way they voted, was a waste of time and just a nonsense
Our mps are pitiful and most journalists and broadcast presenters are way out of their depth
Having said that there are some journalists who do contribute to the debate including Tim Shipman, John Rentoul, and others but they are a minority
Channel 4 news at 7pm was in Wales . The Welsh assembly were discussing a no deal Brexit. It seemed very dire .
It usually is and I can't imagine Mark Drakeford has raised the tone much.
Sky and Faisal Islam bringing up the dire border force warnings leaked to them today in the way only Faisal Islam does. Armageddon, each point worse than the previous, and all as if he is convinced he can single handed stop brexit, his ultimate goal
Sadly for him, it is not cutting through other than to those who are already in that group but it is reach for the 'mute' time as soon as he hoves into view
Sky throughout Brexit have engaged in generally poor journalism and the night before's debate from Leeds with 50 voters, none of whom had changed their minds from the way they voted, was a waste of time and just a nonsense
Our mps are pitiful and most journalists and broadcast presenters are way out of their depth
Having said that there are some journalists who do contribute to the debate including Tim Shipman, John Rentoul, and others but they are a minority
Channel 4 news at 7pm was in Wales . The Welsh assembly were discussing a no deal Brexit. It seemed very dire .
It is very dire. That is why nobody with an ounce of sense wants a WTO Brexit. Read Sir Ivan Rogers's latest speech. It is clear that No-Deal Brexit is back to the Stone Age compared to what we have now, and unlike the ERG and other swivel-eyed loons, he actually knows what he is talking about.
Good grief, you are one for putting words in people's mouths! I didn't write that. I didn't even think that.
Yes, of course the first referendum was legitimate, but we are two and a half years on. Much has happened. Much has been learned. It would be perfectly reasonable to ask again - 'You sure, folks, now you know all this and have had the intervening period to reflect?'
If we weren't stuck in a log-jam, it wouldn't be necessary or appropriate, but we are - so it's a way out. It's not entirely satisfactory, I know, but what is? Parliament won't pass The Deal, so there are only three options, as I wrote.
You said a second Leave vote would mean "the ensuing departure from the EU would have unquestionable legitimacy", which does imply you think it doesn't have legitimacy from the first referendum alone.
And you say "now we know all this", but we don't know anything that we didn't know at the time of the first referendum. The only Remain arguments still are dire predictions about what Brexit will mean. They're predictions that I (largely) believe, but for the people who didn't, why would the same predictions that weren't enough to convince them last time be enough this time?
We do know that we cannot have all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downsides, that we do not hold all the negotiating cards and that a deal will not be the easiest to do in history.
There seems to be a cognitive dissonance with some of the "People's Vote" crew where they believe the first referendum was only won with bullshit, yet a similar brand of bullshit somehow wouldn't be effective the second time.
This is I think one of the most important points to make. And I don't think it is dissonance, I think it is very deliberate, saying people were fools who were fooled, but that this time they won't be fooled...for some reason.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
If you were wondering why almost all of the OECD, BoE and HMT predictions about the post-referendum economy were wrong, here's a paper by some tab dons who have had a look at the institutions' assumptions and workings-out.
tldr; they probably weren't even trying to get it right. Each of the two dozen or so schoolboy macroeconomic assumption fails was in the direction of pessimism about leaving the EU, and HMT wouldn't even release its sums until pulled up in Parliament about it.
Like David Cameron, I'm mildly surprised that the economic effect of the referendum vote hasn't been more severe. We have however seen a hefty devaluation of sterling, and a knock to our credit rating. There have also been a number of business departures which may or may not have been wholly or in part due to the referendum result. We haven't seen much coming in the other direction.
Is that enough damage for you, or do we have to see people dying in the street? Personally I don't think it will get that bad, but then I cannot imagine how it actually gets better.
Come on, I need cheering up. Tell me the upsides - I mean real, practical stuff, no abstactions please. (Sorry but if one more person talks to me about 'Independence' they may get a punch.)
Hi Peter - Spring and Summer are on the way. That will cheer us all up
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....
Think I have a solution to the Brexit dilemma: 2nd referendum, which remain will win. Then, since we have established the principle that referendums are to be ignored, we go ahead and leave anyway.
OK, it doesn't solve much, but Grayling and Adonis would explode, so well worth it.
“Even in no deal there will not be a return to the border”
Great. Let’s have some constructive discussions
Isn't the whole point of the "backstop" to avoid a border. If you can avoid a border in the event of no deal, then what is the purpose of the backstop?
This is I think one of the most important points to make. And I don't think it is dissonance, I think it is very deliberate, saying people were fools who were fooled, but that this time they won't be fooled...for some reason.
Is it possible that the likes of Adonis, Campbell, James Chapman, the LibDems and the Greens, who have basically spent their lives bullshitting people, actually can't deal emotionally with the fact they have come up against people who bullshit more effectively than they do?
And perhaps all their fury is simply an inability to deal with the simple fact that after so many years of power and prestige nobody pays the slightest attention to them any more?
I'm curious why Dyson, who must have already been considering such a move in summer 2016, chose to be so high profile about leaving?
He must have know this would look bloody terrible.
Perhaps, like Cameron, he assumed Remain would win, and then he could present the move as a big FU to the EU.
I'm no supporter of Dyson, far from it, but if your suggestion was true he would surely have waited until one of: A50 delay, A50 revocation, or we left on May's Deal before making his announcement.
He supported Brexit, i.e it is reasonable to assume that he believes Brexit is the best option for his business. He has watched the over the last two years the majority of MP's and civil servants of this country do everything possible to stay in the EU. It is entirely logical that he decides to make his cars and move his HQ to Asia. I am a leaver and I understand his decision. Leave a slow growth, regulation ridden that is against you (see his battles with the EU) for a dynamic growth area where business is respected. No brainer as they say.
I appreciate all that but given his beliefs and aims wouldn't he have been better to time his announcement after an A50 delay/revocation or after an exit on May's terms?
Maybe or perhaps he is sending a message to MP's that businesses leaving works both ways.
Sky and Faisal Islam bringing up the dire border force warnings leaked to them today in the way only Faisal Islam does. Armageddon, each point worse than the previous, and all as if he is convinced he can single handed stop brexit, his ultimate goal
Sadly for him, it is not cutting through other than to those who are already in that group but it is reach for the 'mute' time as soon as he hoves into view
Sky throughout Brexit have engaged in generally poor journalism and the night before's debate from Leeds with 50 voters, none of whom had changed their minds from the way they voted, was a waste of time and just a nonsense
Our mps are pitiful and most journalists and broadcast presenters are way out of their depth
Having said that there are some journalists who do contribute to the debate including Tim Shipman, John Rentoul, and others but they are a minority
Channel 4 news at 7pm was in Wales . The Welsh assembly were discussing a no deal Brexit. It seemed very dire .
It is very dire. That is why nobody with an ounce of sense wants a WTO Brexit. Read Sir Ivan Rogers's latest speech. It is clear that No-Deal Brexit is back to the Stone Age compared to what we have now, and unlike the ERG and other swivel-eyed loons, he actually knows what he is talking about.
The EU and most of the Commons (leavers and remainers) seem to disagree with you about how dire no deal would be, they believe it will not be so bad as to be worth compromising for. The Irish seem pretty sanguine about that too.
If there is one thing I am completely sick of it is MPs and the EU treating us all like idiots when their words demonstrate they may not prefer no deal, but they really do not mind it, yet they spew the same dishonesty words about fearing it. It's an insult every time they do that, and incredibly shameless to boot.
“Even in no deal there will not be a return to the border”
Great. Let’s have some constructive discussions
The EU have dropped a great big problem into the brexit negotiations and Ireland are in a panic and will be constantly challenged over their solution, as the declaration by the EU was a public statement to the world's press and unequivocal
Maybe Poland and others are working behind the scenes with the EU to move Ireland towards a compromise.
Conspiracy theory yes, possible yes, who knows yes
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Parliament isnt going to put no deal to a vote, quite obviously. The new information is the deal and the question, if there is one, is whether people want it now they've seen it. Or not.
Comments
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1087677890832011265
Unsafe to assume that the Tories can count on getting the votes of all Leave voters.
Sadly for him, it is not cutting through other than to those who are already in that group but it is reach for the 'mute' time as soon as he hoves into view
Sky throughout Brexit have engaged in generally poor journalism and the night before's debate from Leeds with 50 voters, none of whom had changed their minds from the way they voted, was a waste of time and just a nonsense
Our mps are pitiful and most journalists and broadcast presenters are way out of their depth
Having said that there are some journalists who do contribute to the debate including Tim Shipman, John Rentoul, and others but they are a minority
I thought “homophobia” was an irrational dislike of homosexuals. Does it now extend to a dislike for the action in a personal context?
Some might say he was virtue signalling, in fact.
Semolina with melted jam is rather nice
The simplest and fairest of these seems to me to be 2nd Ref, although the other two choices are fine by me also.
I’ve no idea how they get so high up the consumer league tables.
That couldn't be a bad thing.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/the-campaign-for-a-peoples-vote-on-brexit-has-descended?utm_source=dynamic&utm_campaign=bfsharetwitter&utm_term=.aiJ38drvB
(Yes I know we actually have a defence force in the Falklands now; I mean in the context of having no effective defence in the islands and so starting from a point where they'd been occupied and there is no longer any territory in the area to operate from.)
In response to your last statement - I don't agree that a 2nd Ref is simple. It's not clear what the question should be, how many options and how to choose between them.
Simplicity and fairness exemplified.
Extending A50 isn't a solution as such. It just kicks the can down the road again. Yes, you can do that, but you still have to find a permanent solution, and that requires one of the three options I mentioned.
Admittedly, it would need some hold-out Remainer Tories playing games too, but the public would be seeing Labour as the party that blocked Brexit.
And if the argument is that the first one didn't have "legitimacy" because Boris Johnson lied, then......what's stopping him doing the same again?
Yes, of course the first referendum was legitimate, but we are two and a half years on. Much has happened. Much has been learned. It would be perfectly reasonable to ask again - 'You sure, folks, now you know all this and have had the intervening period to reflect?'
If we weren't stuck in a log-jam, it wouldn't be necessary or appropriate, but we are - so it's a way out. It's not entirely satisfactory, I know, but what is? Parliament won't pass The Deal, so there are only three options, as I wrote.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
People knew what they were voting for, the problem is, many people don't believe that what has happened does represent what they voted for.
Whether they are right or wrong on that is another question. If we take May's deal as Brexit then it is now more clear to people what Brexit is and in the case of some Brexit voters they know it isn't what they voted for.
Whether we should have another referendum or not is another question but I think if we are to take May's deal or even leave with no deal as Brexit then this is more clarity than we originally had with the leave vote which includes a number of possible outcomes.
As for criticism of the people's vote campaign I feel like at one point, for some anyway, the strategy was to attack Corbyn in an attempt to get what they want, combine with suspicions about a new party and the PV campaign was attacking one of the most obvious large source of supporters in terms of MPs and voters.
And you say "now we know all this", but we don't know anything that we didn't know at the time of the first referendum. The only Remain arguments still are dire predictions about what Brexit will mean. They're predictions that I (largely) believe, but for the people who didn't, why would the same predictions that weren't enough to convince them last time be enough this time?
Or Labour's, for that matter
There frequency does not seem to have changed but the amount of communication I receive from the party including in Wales has rocketed since the referendum
It is entirely logical that he decides to make his cars and move his HQ to Asia.
I am a leaver and I understand his decision. Leave a slow growth, regulation ridden that is against you (see his battles with the EU) for a dynamic growth area where business is respected. No brainer as they say.
It's a view, as too is the view that it is neither practical, nor desirable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PxpHNXIKnY
Can't help you, mate.
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1087776810325213184
The Welsh assembly were discussing a no deal Brexit.
It seemed very dire .
I would say it is in 'resus' at present
https://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/centre-for-business-research/downloads/working-papers/wp493.pdf
tldr; they probably weren't even trying to get it right. Each of the two dozen or so schoolboy macroeconomic assumption fails was in the direction of pessimism about leaving the EU, and HMT wouldn't even release its sums until pulled up in Parliament about it.
If they vote "Remain" that too is clear, defined and definite.
A second referendum cuts through the mess. The result is whatever the result is, but there can be no excuses.
If there's a second referendum with No Deal on the ballot, I guarantee the likes of Boris will be saying things like "it won't really be No Deal, the EU will offer us a deal at the last minute if we really looked like we were going to walk, they need us more than we need them, we just haven't gone in tough enough yet".
It would be all be bullshit of course, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be believed. There seems to be a cognitive dissonance with some of the "People's Vote" crew where they believe the first referendum was only won with bullshit, yet a similar brand of bullshit somehow wouldn't be effective the second time.
Great. Let’s have some constructive discussions
The point I was trying to make is that Faisal Islam's executive class project fear just adds to the anger of the growing number of 'no dealers' in the country, outside of London
Is that enough damage for you, or do we have to see people dying in the street? Personally I don't think it will get that bad, but then I cannot imagine how it actually gets better.
Come on, I need cheering up. Tell me the upsides - I mean real, practical stuff, no abstactions please. (Sorry but if one more person talks to me about 'Sovereignity' they may get a punch.)
Oh, sorry, you meant the no-deal Brexit?
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
The bakery chain's shares were suspended last October after "potentially fraudulent" accounting irregularities were discovered."
https://news.sky.com/story/bakery-chain-patisserie-valerie-collapses-into-administration-11614744
Why do I subject myself to this place?
OK, it doesn't solve much, but Grayling and Adonis would explode, so well worth it.
And perhaps all their fury is simply an inability to deal with the simple fact that after so many years of power and prestige nobody pays the slightest attention to them any more?
If there is one thing I am completely sick of it is MPs and the EU treating us all like idiots when their words demonstrate they may not prefer no deal, but they really do not mind it, yet they spew the same dishonesty words about fearing it. It's an insult every time they do that, and incredibly shameless to boot.
Maybe Poland and others are working behind the scenes with the EU to move Ireland towards a compromise.
Conspiracy theory yes, possible yes, who knows yes