Mr T is quite fond of sharing his apparently liberal policies, which he insists evidence his tolerant outlook, while deriding anyone who disagrees with him as tyrants, extremists and idiots.
It’s a funny kind of liberalism.
Not at all. Challenging those who threaten democracy in the way you do is perfectly in keeping with liberalism.
The trouble is you seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is “threatening democracy”.
Nope wrong yet again. I have made very clear that democracy is a process of both asking a question and enacting the result. Not asking a question and then ignoring the result because you dont like it.
Once the result of the referendum has been enacted and we have left the EU then I have no problem at all with people campaigning for a vote to rejoin. That would be democratic. Having a second vote before the first is enacted is certainly not democratic.
Forcing through a major and potentially deleterious change to our country on the basis of a single vote three years ago which didn't set out either a proposition or its implications certainly isn't democratic. It's Cameron's fault for not setting an appropriate threshold and/or process, but holding a confirmatory vote once the proposition for change has been defined is certainly more democratic than proceeding regardless of the cost and regardless of whether the change retains public support or not.
Wasn't the outcome of the 2017 general election confirmation enough?
Certainly you'd think that the government going to the country asking for a Brexit mandate and coming away losing its majority would have been a powerful hint.
And how many people voted for parties that promised to revoke brexit or offer a second referendum, exactly?
We elect individuals to represent us, and it may well be that a majority of the people we elected decide to do just that.
And occasionally those individuals we elect to represent us then defer back to us in the form of a referendum, and once they've done that they should have the good grace to enact what we've told them to do.
If only anyone knew what that was, and how it could be done.
It's the essence of Tragedy, and of humanity apparently, that friction between opposing forces reaches a momentum of its own and culminating in a cataclysm when common sense and detachment might have de-fused the problem. We are dangerous.
It's a fairly open secret that Vince is desperate for one of the women to step up so he can step down. Hopefully this is a sign that she is starting to feel ready.
Existing terms would have been rejected by an even bigger margin given the latent frustration with the denial of a say on the Lisbon Treaty.
It's possible but bearing in mind that you would have supported Remain until the Bloomberg speech and subsequent negotiation, I don't think you should underestimate how the whole saga drove many Conservatives over to the other side.
Existing terms would have been rejected by an even bigger margin given the latent frustration with the denial of a say on the Lisbon Treaty.
It's possible but bearing in mind that you would have supported Remain until the Bloomberg speech and subsequent negotiation, I don't think you should underestimate how the whole saga drove many Conservatives over to the other side.
That’s not correct. I would have only supported Remain had Cameron’s points, as contained in his Bloomberg speech, been very seriously addressed.
Mr T is quite fond of sharing his apparently liberal policies, which he insists evidence his tolerant outlook, while deriding anyone who disagrees with him as tyrants, extremists and idiots.
It’s a funny kind of liberalism.
Not at all. Challenging those who threaten democracy in the way you do is perfectly in keeping with liberalism.
The trouble is you seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is “threatening democracy”.
Nope wrong yet again. I have made very clear that democracy is a process of both asking a question and enacting the result. Not asking a question and then ignoring the result because you dont like it.
Once the result of the referendum has been enacted and we have left the EU then I have no problem at all with people campaigning for a vote to rejoin. That would be democratic. Having a second vote before the first is enacted is certainly not democratic.
Forcing through a major and potentially deleterious change to our country on the basis of a single vote three years ago which didn't set out either a proposition or its implications certainly isn't democratic. It's Cameron's fault for not setting an appropriate threshold and/or process, but holding a confirmatory vote once the proposition for change has been defined is certainly more democratic than proceeding regardless of the cost and regardless of whether the change retains public support or not.
Wasn't the outcome of the 2017 general election confirmation enough?
Certainly you'd think that the government going to the country asking for a Brexit mandate and coming away losing its majority would have been a powerful hint.
And how many people voted for parties that promised to revoke brexit or offer a second referendum, exactly?
We elect individuals to represent us, and it may well be that a majority of the people we elected decide to do just that.
And occasionally those individuals we elect to represent us then defer back to us in the form of a referendum, and once they've done that they should have the good grace to enact what we've told them to do.
If only anyone knew what that was, and how it could be done.
Existing terms would have been rejected by an even bigger margin given the latent frustration with the denial of a say on the Lisbon Treaty.
It's possible but bearing in mind that you would have supported Remain until the Bloomberg speech and subsequent negotiation, I don't think you should underestimate how the whole saga drove many Conservatives over to the other side.
That’s not correct. I would have only supported Remain had Cameron’s points, as contained in his Bloomberg speech, been very seriously addressed.
Had he never given the speech, those points wouldn't have become red lines for you. You said yourself that it was the perception they didn't respond to it adequately that changed your mind.
If Remain had won you could envisage them having the same attitude to revisiting the decision the first time there was a significant change to the EU structures.
Not.
Rank hypocrisy I’m afraid.
Actually, I think that would have been a good idea - much like the Irish did. And would be if Britain remained or rejoined.
I seem to remember we were promised a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon.
And I seem to remember that when it got voted down the EU revised it.
It was not the EU's fault we did not get a vote on it.
Which is fundamentally why Leavers don’t trust Remainers on this point
They know that if a second referendum votes to remain - no matter the margin or the turn out - they will never ever be asked again
Exactly. A vote to Remain would be taken as a mandate for everything to come, including an EU army and the EU Commission having tax raising powers which it’s now “started a debate” on.
I wonder how Leavers might feel if, one of the conditions of an FTA is that Britain must maintain the same corporate tax rates as in the EU.
Inside the EU, Britain would have a veto on a decision to go to QMV for tax matters. And would likely be supported by Ireland in doing so. Outside it won't have any vote at all.
Of course, it would have the option of not having an FTA at all.
Is that what the more ardent Leavers on here think that those who voted Leave wanted or thought would happen?
You were making similar arguments yourself prior to the vote from the Leave perspective.
I don’t believe in such vetoes. We’ve surrendered every one so far.
I imagine that particular one would be a dealbreaker for an FTA.
If still available 9/1 for Chris Grayling to be next minister out is value. I am going to do it but it will be a bet I'll be delighted to lose. If I were the PM I would certainly not sack him. I think the guy gets way too much stick. He has become an all too easy target for lazy bullying abuse. Not clever and not nice. He has such a pleasant kind face too, you can tell the sort of well meaning chap he is just by looking at it. You can also, if you look hard enough, detect the hurt in the eyes from all the insults he has no choice but to hear. It touches me, and I'm sure others too. I hear that Jeremy Corbyn had a 'great PMQs' today where he ruthlessly targeted everybody's favourite whipping boy - surprise surprise Grayling - with some choice cutting remarks. Well good for you, Jeremy, I guess you have to, but I for one am glad I didn't see it and I will not be watching the highlights.
I wasn't delighted myself, particularly winced when someone shouted out failing Grayling during the laughter afterwards.
I don’t accept that a vote to Remain would have been seen as a green light for hard Remain.
As a Remain supporter I would not have supported the Euro etc and would have been appalled if my vote was hijacked in that way .
Leavers use this hard Remain argument to defend the fact that their vote has now been hijacked , they are now being told only a Pure Brexit will do .
The refusal to accept some have been duped is a way to avoid facing upto reality . The Leave vote meant different things to people in terms of expectations as was clearly highlighted by polls after the vote .
Forcing through a major and potentially deleterious change to our country on the basis of a single vote three years ago which didn't set out either a proposition or its implications certainly isn't democratic. It's Cameron's fault for not setting an an.
The referendum result was a reflection of our concerns about the EU's direction of travel. Even people like me were concerned about that. My answer to Casino would be that I would hope the EU would learn from the searing experience of Brexit that it needs to think again about that direction of travel. It particularly needs to ask questions about the fundamental principle of FOM, for example, and also practical ones, like how do you police a border 9,000 miles long.
Juncker put the whole EU project at risk in turning a deaf ear to such concerns, notably as expressed by Cameron and his unsuccessful attempts at wringing concessions. I suspect the EU will not be so tin-eared in future.
What do we do? Fight from within or without the EU? I'm a Remainer so I would sooner fight from within, but we shall see. Maybe we serve the EU project best by leaving. Not sure. But if we did, it would be a price worth paying.
Is that what happened? As I remember it Cameron concocted some not very convincing theatre about needing to reform something or other. Nobody outside the Tory party had the faintest idea of what the problem was. He did a few photo opportunities and came back with some sort of package of nothing and entirely predictably claimed it all as a great success. He then proceeded to go into campaign mode as if we should all care. I for one didn't.
Now the actual debate once it got started did take on a life of its own. But it didn't seem to have much to do with whatever the heck went on in the negotiations the preceded it. I don't think the metal from which the EU's ear was made had any impact on the outcome.
I don’t accept that a vote to Remain would have been seen as a green light for hard Remain.
As a Remain supporter I would not have supported the Euro etc and would have been appalled if my vote was hijacked in that way .
Leavers use this hard Remain argument to defend the fact that their vote has now been hijacked , they are now being told only a Pure Brexit will do .
The refusal to accept some have been duped is a way to avoid facing upto reality . The Leave vote meant different things to people in terms of expectations as was clearly highlighted by polls after the vote .
If Remain had won you could envisage them having the same attitude to revisiting the decision the first time there was a significant change to the EU structures.
Not.
Rank hypocrisy I’m afraid.
Actually, I think that would have been a good idea - much like the Irish did. And would be if Britain remained or rejoined.
I seem to remember we were promised a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon.
And I seem to remember that when it got voted down the EU revised it.
It was not the EU's fault we did not get a vote on it.
Which is fundamentally why Leavers don’t trust Remainers on this point
They know that if a second referendum votes to remain - no matter the margin or the turn out - they will never ever be asked again
Surely, a vote - on revisiting the referendum result (either before of after exit), or on EU membership in general - is simply contingent on whether there are lots of votes in it.
If Mrs May thought that a second referendum would be good for her and the Conservative Party (and the country, for that matter), then I have no doubt she would go for it.
So, if the polls were regularly posting 66:33 leads for Remain, and the Conservatives were languishing at 25% in the polls, while a Remain-friendly party topped the polls, and won every council by-election in sight, then I have little doubt she would support another referendum.
But they're not. There won't be another referendum, because neither the government nor the official opposition sees mileage in it.
Yes - but the question is why Leavers are opposed to a second referendum. It’s because politicians are lying shysters
If Remain had won you could envisage them having the same attitude to revisiting the decision the first time there was a significant change to the EU structures.
Not.
Rank hypocrisy I’m afraid.
Actually, I think that would have been a good idea - much like the Irish did. And would be if Britain remained or rejoined.
I seem to remember we were promised a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon.
And I seem to remember that when it got voted down the EU revised it.
It was not the EU's fault we did not get a vote on it.
Which is fundamentally why Leavers don’t trust Remainers on this point
They know that if a second referendum votes to remain - no matter the margin or the turn out - they will never ever be asked again
Exactly. A vote to Remain would be taken as a mandate for everything to come, including an EU army and the EU Commission having tax raising powers which it’s now “started a debate” on.
I wonder how Leavers might feel if, one of the conditions of an FTA is that Britain must maintain the same corporate tax rates as in the EU.
Inside the EU, Britain would have a veto on a decision to go to QMV for tax matters. And would likely be supported by Ireland in doing so. Outside it won't have any vote at all.
Of course, it would have the option of not having an FTA at all.
Is that what the more ardent Leavers on here think that those who voted Leave wanted or thought would happen?
You have no FTA. That’s ridiculous hypothetical overreach
So good of the UK to donate so many jobs to the Netherlands and Ireland also looks to cash in on the Brexit bonus as 500 jobs are created there by Bank of America .
Oh well at least those pesky fellow Europeans with similar values can be kept out and just get replaced by those who don’t !
Brexit yes it’s absurd and gets more so by the day !
If Remain had won you could envisage them having the same attitude to revisiting the decision the first time there was a significant change to the EU structures.
Not.
Rank hypocrisy I’m afraid.
Actually, I think that would have been a good idea - much like the Irish did. And would be if Britain remained or rejoined.
I seem to remember we were promised a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon.
And I seem to remember that when it got voted down the EU revised it.
It was not the EU's fault we did not get a vote on it.
Which is fundamentally why Leavers don’t trust Remainers on this point
They know that if a second referendum votes to remain - no matter the margin or the turn out - they will never ever be asked again
Surely, a vote - on revisiting the referendum result (either before of after exit), or on EU membership in general - is simply contingent on whether there are lots of votes in it.
If Mrs May thought that a second referendum would be good for her and the Conservative Party (and the country, for that matter), then I have no doubt she would go for it.
So, if the polls were regularly posting 66:33 leads for Remain, and the Conservatives were languishing at 25% in the polls, while a Remain-friendly party topped the polls, and won every council by-election in sight, then I have little doubt she would support another referendum.
But they're not. There won't be another referendum, because neither the government nor the official opposition sees mileage in it.
Yes - but the question is why Leavers are opposed to a second referendum. It’s because politicians are lying shysters they know they will lose now everyone knows what a shitfest Brexit is.
Comments
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/02/13/john-mcdonnell-brands-winston-churchill-villain/
😇
We could always start with that.
I don’t believe in such vetoes. We’ve surrendered every one so far.
I imagine that particular one would be a dealbreaker for an FTA.
As a Remain supporter I would not have supported the Euro etc and would have been appalled if my vote was hijacked in that way .
Leavers use this hard Remain argument to defend the fact that their vote has now been hijacked , they are now being told only a Pure Brexit will do .
The refusal to accept some have been duped is a way to avoid facing upto reality . The Leave vote meant different things to people in terms of expectations as was clearly highlighted by polls after the vote .
Now the actual debate once it got started did take on a life of its own. But it didn't seem to have much to do with whatever the heck went on in the negotiations the preceded it. I don't think the metal from which the EU's ear was made had any impact on the outcome.
Thanks. That’s kind.
Oh well at least those pesky fellow Europeans with similar values can be kept out and just get replaced by those who don’t !
Brexit yes it’s absurd and gets more so by the day !