politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The “Led by Donkeys” billboards probably won’t stop Brexit but they’ll undermine many political reputations
In 2017 the movie,Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, won a host of awards and was a good demonstration of the power of this form of advertising. It is in relative terms cheap and can be focussed geographically.
As political parties have discovered over the couple of decades, the greater benefit of a good poster is getting it on TV or spread on social media (usually by putting up one printed copy!).
These have done well on that score - possibly ironically given they started off on social media!
Perhaps. But these people were largely thought to be donkeys before the referendum campaign was held. The general public can't be absolved from responsibility: they chose to be led by these donkeys. Hell mend them.
One reputation in particular has crashed in the intervening period: that of Boris Johnson. His popularity has taken a swallow dive. That preceded this poster campaign.
Are any of these actual Tweets or are they all fake?
The Fox one for instance is taken out of context from an interview where he says it should be easy but ... 'a deal would probably not be easy in practice. “The only reason that we wouldn’t come to a free and open agreement is because politics gets in the way of economics,” Fox said.'
I think the billboards will probably be effective in reinforcing the views of low-information remainers but you would expect the more intelligent to apply context, nuance and, frankly, the actions of the remainer establishment in their assessment.
As I say though, for the thicker end of the argument they are catnip.
The most egregious is Gove - all the more so because he is often held up as a powerful intellect and thinker. Nobody could say that about Davis, Raab or Corbyn.
Perhaps. But these people were largely thought to be donkeys before the referendum campaign was held. The general public can't be absolved from responsibility: they chose to be led by these donkeys. Hell mend them.
One reputation in particular has crashed in the intervening period: that of Boris Johnson. His popularity has taken a swallow dive. That preceded this poster campaign.
If these billboards mean that we never hear from these chancers again, they will have achieved something.
Unfortunately, it looks as if these chancers will get what they want and we'll have to hear them explaining why it wasn't their fault / all the fault of the wicked Europeans / saboteurs etc - that is when prats like David Davis can tear themselves away from earning money as consultants for JCBamford.
Clearly they are destructive of political reputations.
And then there is also this, from the official Vote leave campaign: "Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to leave."
If they were not actual tweets it will say so. The words are accurate.
Actually though, it doesn't appear to do so on the Liam Fox one (or any others.. eg Raab on the ports which was in a speech)
Reading this, it seems they're a guerilla outfit who are pasting their own posters on other people's billboards. Which means they probably haven't been through an ASA-approved compliance process!
I think the billboards will probably be effective in reinforcing the views of low-information remainers but you would expect the more intelligent to apply context, nuance and, frankly, the actions of the remainer establishment in their assessment.
Kindly do so for this one: "Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to leave." -
Let's just reflect on who has delivered the current mess. We are led by a Remainer PM, willing to jump as high as the EU tells her to. Her Cabinet contains a majority of Remainers, the key Leavers long since having left on account of her duplicity, with Hammond left playing the pivotal role of promoting Project Fear. Our Parliament is overwhelmingly dominated by Remainers. Almost all of them wish to frustrate Brexit if they can, some openly, others covertly so long as they can avoid the electoral consequences of doing so. Those posters are just part of the operation to try and shift the blame.
The most egregious is Gove - all the more so because he is often held up as a powerful intellect and thinker. Nobody could say that about Davis, Raab or Corbyn.
In fact what Gove said was almost right. The day after the referendum we did hold a lot of cards. If Article 50 had been invoked within 24 hours and we had gone straight in with the Brexit we wanted, we'd have set the agenda and could have got the talks started on the ground we wanted them on.
We were always going to be at a disadvantage in the long run, but speed and élan could have overcome it to a great extent. After all, nobody on the EU side thought Leave were going to win.
O/T - a casual chat column by Guardian sketch writer John Crace veers off in the Friday entry into terrifying territory that will be familiar to SeanT and perhaps others here:
Oh dear. The absolute worst of these, the one which 'context' cannot come close to rescuing, is -
"The day after we vote to leave, we hold all the cards."
Michael Gove.
My biggest bet for next Tory leader, that is. He's my man. He is the guy who TM will appoint Brexit Czar after we have left the EU and are into transition. The guy who will handle the trade talks. The guy who will take over in a virtual coronation from TM in 2021. The most talented politician of his generation. Britain's next prime minister.
Perhaps. But these people were largely thought to be donkeys before the referendum campaign was held. The general public can't be absolved from responsibility: they chose to be led by these donkeys. Hell mend them.
One reputation in particular has crashed in the intervening period: that of Boris Johnson. His popularity has taken a swallow dive. That preceded this poster campaign.
Most of the general public don't follow politics closely. It's not unreasonable of them to assume that Cabinet Ministers and experienced politicians had some understanding of the political and legal structures of an organisation we have been a part of and issues such as trade rules / customs unions and NI.
And given that the polls now seem to be showing that Remain has a lead it appears that some of the public have changed their mind.
It has certainly been a revelation to me - and I admit that I have perhaps been naive in this - how utterly ignorant so many senior politicians are and how unwilling to learn they have been.
Let's just reflect on who has delivered the current mess. We are led by a Remainer PM, willing to jump as high as the EU tells her to. Her Cabinet contains a majority of Remainers, the key Leavers long since having left on account of her duplicity, with Hammond left playing the pivotal role of promoting Project Fear. Our Parliament is overwhelmingly dominated by Remainers. Almost all of them wish to frustrate Brexit if they can, some openly, others covertly so long as they can avoid the electoral consequences of doing so. Those posters are just part of the operation to try and shift the blame.
Oh dear. The absolute worst of these, the one which 'context' cannot come close to rescuing, is -
"The day after we vote to leave, we hold all the cards."
Michael Gove.
My biggest bet for next Tory leader, that is. He's my man. He is the guy who TM will appoint Brexit Czar after we have left the EU and are into transition. The guy who will handle the trade talks. The guy who will take over in a virtual coronation from TM in 2021. The most talented politician of his generation. Britain's next prime minister.
I'm closing out.
He was absolutely correct.
Trouble is they were Tarot cards, and all should death and starvation from lack of fresh salads.
The most egregious is Gove - all the more so because he is often held up as a powerful intellect and thinker. Nobody could say that about Davis, Raab or Corbyn.
In fact what Gove said was almost right. The day after the referendum we did hold a lot of cards. If Article 50 had been invoked within 24 hours and we had gone straight in with the Brexit we wanted, we'd have set the agenda and could have got the talks started on the ground we wanted them on.
We were always going to be at a disadvantage in the long run, but speed and élan could have overcome it to a great extent. After all, nobody on the EU side thought Leave were going to win.
Unfortunately, neither did Leave.
If A50 had been invoked within 24 hours, who would have led those talks?
The most egregious is Gove - all the more so because he is often held up as a powerful intellect and thinker. Nobody could say that about Davis, Raab or Corbyn.
In fact what Gove said was almost right. The day after the referendum we did hold a lot of cards. If Article 50 had been invoked within 24 hours and we had gone straight in with the Brexit we wanted, we'd have set the agenda and could have got the talks started on the ground we wanted them on.
We were always going to be at a disadvantage in the long run, but speed and élan could have overcome it to a great extent. After all, nobody on the EU side thought Leave were going to win.
Unfortunately, neither did Leave.
If A50 had been invoked within 24 hours, who would have led those talks?
If only the civil service hadn't been banned from prepping for a leave vote.
The most egregious is Gove - all the more so because he is often held up as a powerful intellect and thinker. Nobody could say that about Davis, Raab or Corbyn.
In fact what Gove said was almost right. The day after the referendum we did hold a lot of cards. If Article 50 had been invoked within 24 hours and we had gone straight in with the Brexit we wanted, we'd have set the agenda and could have got the talks started on the ground we wanted them on.
We were always going to be at a disadvantage in the long run, but speed and élan could have overcome it to a great extent. After all, nobody on the EU side thought Leave were going to win.
Unfortunately, neither did Leave.
If A50 had been invoked within 24 hours, who would have led those talks?
If only the civil service hadn't been banned from prepping for a leave vote.
You think the victorious Brexiteers would have used Cameron's plans?
I think the billboards will probably be effective in reinforcing the views of low-information remainers but you would expect the more intelligent to apply context, nuance and, frankly, the actions of the remainer establishment in their assessment....
And they might reinforce the view of a few low information leavers, too...
At the time, the Bangladesh Caterers Association was worried about an average of four restaurants closing a week, rising rents and soaring business rates. Both Priti Patel and Boris Johnson approached us to collaborate with and support the Save Our Curry Houses campaign set up by Vote Leave. They said if we were to support the leave campaign, they would ensure we were able to get more chefs from south Asia by relaxing immigration rules with lower salary thresholds to hire staff from outside the EU.
The most egregious is Gove - all the more so because he is often held up as a powerful intellect and thinker. Nobody could say that about Davis, Raab or Corbyn.
In fact what Gove said was almost right. The day after the referendum we did hold a lot of cards. If Article 50 had been invoked within 24 hours and we had gone straight in with the Brexit we wanted, we'd have set the agenda and could have got the talks started on the ground we wanted them on.
We were always going to be at a disadvantage in the long run, but speed and élan could have overcome it to a great extent. After all, nobody on the EU side thought Leave were going to win.
Unfortunately, neither did Leave.
If A50 had been invoked within 24 hours, who would have led those talks?
If only the civil service hadn't been banned from prepping for a leave vote.
You think the victorious Brexiteers would have used Cameron's plans?
They hypothetical being A50 was triggered immediately.
That is the rational course for the UK to be following now. Namely, for the UK to leave on 29th March with the proviso that it makes a take it or leave it offer to the EU where the UK would continue as now for an agreed temporary period, perhaps for 3 or 6 months or even longer. If the EU did not play ball the UK would resort to the default of leaving on WTO terms. The EU might reject those terms up to 29th March in order to call our bluff, but they would accept them within a few days of our leaving.
In April, negotiations over a permanent deal could then resume. The difference would be that the negotiations would take place in a context where the UK had already left. By accepting that Brexit was a reality, the EU would for the first time be required to negotiate in good faith, rather than from the aim of trying to persuade the UK not to leave by simply offering the worst possible terms that we are bound to reject.
There is no such thing as "No Deal" Brexit. The question is whether a deal is reached before or after the UK leaves.
There is certainly such a thing as a potential 'No Deal' Brexit, the chaos of which would be immediate and extremely damaging. Of course you are right that the UK would then have to attempt to reach some other deal with the EU (albeit from a position of extreme weakness), but that would be extremely difficult because we'd no longer be working under the Article 50 provisions. Instead we'd be creating a new relationship from scratch (in EU treaty terms), and that would require a new treaty involving formal ratification by all 27 EU countries and including all the complications of getting it past the Walloon parliament and all that rigmarole. Ain't no way that can be done in a hurry.
A position of weakness? When the EU wish to continue to export twice the volume of goods to the UK than we do to them? When a significant part of their export surplus is in the form of perishable agricultural goods, and so subject to quite significant WTO tariffs as well as being at risk from any significant delays? When there is the added threat of disruption from rapidly changing UK consumer preferences when EU exporters lose their advantages over other world agricultural markets? When there are not going to be capacity issues with the goods leaving the UK, since a lot of lorries leave our country empty while the ports have to be set up to handle the much higher volumes coming in the other direction from the EU?
Nor is your picture of the difficulties of effecting a short term fix correct. The business lobby across the EU will be crying out on 29th March for the can to be kicked down the road while longer term arrangements can be thrashed out.
The one of Rees-Mogg about a second referendum is a bit unfair, because he was referring to holding a pointless mandate referendum before Cameron's negotiation with the EU, with the second referendum being the referendum that we did hold after that negotiation.
Not so good for me, but then I have influences from the South and the North.
What about the midlands, me duck?
When I said North, I should have said Midlands. I don't use the word duck, but it's a word I heard a lot when growing up.
Duck was used a lot at my school, but where I actually lived — which was only 10 miles away — it wasn't used at all and people would think you were a bit weird if you did use it.
Context is everything. I would use words which I thought were 'proper' but heard 'improper' words around me all the time. Partly this was a class thing I suppose. You would also use some words to refer to other people but not oneself -nesh for example. But generally the result was pretty accurate for me.
Good, but a little imprecise for me, my most likely area cuts a sizeable inland swathe from below Preston to Stoke, despite localising muffin and wag off (for which I would suggest 'wag it' as more accurate) very much to a correct laser point East of Manchester. And gratifying to see, despite my years in Huddersfield, a proper hard border on my speech remaining resolutely west of the Pennines.
Room T is IIRC a very small meeting room, suitable for a dozen or so people. I suspect that it was for something innocuous. The Macmillan Room is indeed bigger.
Room T is IIRC a very small meeting room, suitable for a dozen or so people. I suspect that it was for something innocuous. The Macmillan Room is indeed bigger.
A room for a dozen people? Sounds like they were planning on joining the LibDems.
Nor is your picture of the difficulties of effecting a short term fix correct. The business lobby across the EU will be crying out on 29th March for the can to be kicked down the road while longer term arrangements can be thrashed out.
They can cry out as much as they like, but if the treaty structure dictates that any deal requires unanimous formal ratification, then it requires unanimous formal ratification. The intensity of the crying out is 100% irrelevant to that point.
(Of course if David H is right that the Article 50 wording allows the Withdrawal Agreement to be concluded even after leaving, then that slightly alters things. Even then it seems very unlikely that that would give us much grace, and in practice the EU would just say: 'Sign the deal that's on the table, pay up, and then we'll talk').
The most egregious is Gove - all the more so because he is often held up as a powerful intellect and thinker. Nobody could say that about Davis, Raab or Corbyn.
I suppose - and I'm contorting painfully here because I love him - it is not too surprising that he should make such an assertion in the heat of battle. It was a political war, after all, and he was fighting to win. Or to put it another way, one could hardly expect him, even if he suspected it to be closer to the truth, to declaim - "I tell you now, and please trust me on this, on the day after we vote to Leave, the European Union will hold all the cards. They are much bigger and more powerful than us, much better at negotiating, and they need our trade far less than we need theirs."
He'd have looked a total plonker, wouldn't he, saying that as the Chairman of Vote Leave?
Perhaps. But these people were largely thought to be donkeys before the referendum campaign was held. The general public can't be absolved from responsibility: they chose to be led by these donkeys. Hell mend them.
One reputation in particular has crashed in the intervening period: that of Boris Johnson. His popularity has taken a swallow dive. That preceded this poster campaign.
Most of the general public don't follow politics closely. It's not unreasonable of them to assume that Cabinet Ministers and experienced politicians had some understanding of the political and legal structures of an organisation we have been a part of and issues such as trade rules / customs unions and NI.
And given that the polls now seem to be showing that Remain has a lead it appears that some of the public have changed their mind.
It has certainly been a revelation to me - and I admit that I have perhaps been naive in this - how utterly ignorant so many senior politicians are and how unwilling to learn they have been.
It is perfectly possible that a number of people have switched to 'Remain' in what they say to pollsters not because they have seriously changed their fundamental ideals but because they no longer believe that we are competent to run a genuinely sovereign state. The referendum gave us a brief moment of genuine if flawed discussions of ends, purposes and ideals. That moment is over for now.
Not so good for me, but then I have influences from the South and the North.
What about the midlands, me duck?
When I said North, I should have said Midlands. I don't use the word duck, but it's a word I heard a lot when growing up.
Duck was used a lot at my school, but where I actually lived — which was only 10 miles away — it wasn't used at all and people would think you were a bit weird if you did use it.
Context is everything. I would use words which I thought were 'proper' but heard 'improper' words around me all the time. Partly this was a class thing I suppose. You would also use some words to refer to other people but not oneself -nesh for example. But generally the result was pretty accurate for me.
Good, but a little imprecise for me, my most likely area cuts a sizeable inland swathe from below Preston to Stoke, despite localising muffin and wag off (for which I would suggest 'wag it' as more accurate) very much to a correct laser point East of Manchester. And gratifying to see, despite my years in Huddersfield, a proper hard border on my speech remaining resolutely west of the Pennines.
Also, what districting is that map using?
I am, apparently, a native of either Gloucester, Peterborough or London - or all three. None of which is/are true.
Most of the current mess was delivered by leaders long ago who incrementally took us into something almost impossible to get out of without our wholehearted consent.
The most egregious is Gove - all the more so because he is often held up as a powerful intellect and thinker. Nobody could say that about Davis, Raab or Corbyn.
I suppose - and I'm contorting painfully here because I love him - it is not too surprising that he should make such an assertion in the heat of battle. It was a political war, after all, and he was fighting to win. Or to put it another way, one could hardly expect him, even if he suspected it to be closer to the truth, to declaim - "I tell you now, and please trust me on this, on the day after we vote to Leave, the European Union will hold all the cards. They are much bigger and more powerful than us, much better at negotiating, and they need our trade far less than we need theirs."
He'd have looked a total plonker, wouldn't he, saying that as the Chairman of Vote Leave?
As opposed, as a current cabinet minister, too looking... ?
Perhaps. But these people were largely thought to be donkeys before the referendum campaign was held. The general public can't be absolved from responsibility: they chose to be led by these donkeys. Hell mend them.
One reputation in particular has crashed in the intervening period: that of Boris Johnson. His popularity has taken a swallow dive. That preceded this poster campaign.
Most of the general public don't follow politics closely. It's not unreasonable of them to assume that Cabinet Ministers and experienced politicians had some understanding of the political and legal structures of an organisation we have been a part of and issues such as trade rules / customs unions and NI.
And given that the polls now seem to be showing that Remain has a lead it appears that some of the public have changed their mind.
It has certainly been a revelation to me - and I admit that I have perhaps been naive in this - how utterly ignorant so many senior politicians are and how unwilling to learn they have been.
It is perfectly possible that a number of people have switched to 'Remain' in what they say to pollsters not because they have seriously changed their fundamental ideals but because they no longer believe that we are competent to run a genuinely sovereign state. The referendum gave us a brief moment of genuine if flawed discussions of ends, purposes and ideals. That moment is over for now.
I refer you to the Bangladeshi restauranteur cited below.
The most egregious is Gove - all the more so because he is often held up as a powerful intellect and thinker. Nobody could say that about Davis, Raab or Corbyn.
In fact what Gove said was almost right. The day after the referendum we did hold a lot of cards. If Article 50 had been invoked within 24 hours and we had gone straight in with the Brexit we wanted, we'd have set the agenda and could have got the talks started on the ground we wanted them on.
We were always going to be at a disadvantage in the long run, but speed and élan could have overcome it to a great extent. After all, nobody on the EU side thought Leave were going to win.
Unfortunately, neither did Leave.
If A50 had been invoked within 24 hours, who would have led those talks?
If only the civil service hadn't been banned from prepping for a leave vote.
You think the victorious Brexiteers would have used Cameron's plans?
They hypothetical being A50 was triggered immediately.
There's no such thing as 'The Brexit we wanted'. It's another unicorn
The most egregious is Gove - all the more so because he is often held up as a powerful intellect and thinker. Nobody could say that about Davis, Raab or Corbyn.
In fact what Gove said was almost right. The day after the referendum we did hold a lot of cards. If Article 50 had been invoked within 24 hours and we had gone straight in with the Brexit we wanted, we'd have set the agenda and could have got the talks started on the ground we wanted them on.
We were always going to be at a disadvantage in the long run, but speed and élan could have overcome it to a great extent. After all, nobody on the EU side thought Leave were going to win.
Unfortunately, neither did Leave.
If A50 had been invoked within 24 hours, who would have led those talks?
If only the civil service hadn't been banned from prepping for a leave vote.
You think the victorious Brexiteers would have used Cameron's plans?
They hypothetical being A50 was triggered immediately.
There's no such thing as 'The Brexit we wanted'. It's another unicorn
Different people want different things, not too surprising.
Mr. Kirk, indeed. Politicians dragging us ever closer, making sceptical noises in opposition then being pro-EU in office was a dereliction of duty, as well as being contemptible.
Lisbon would've been a good opportunity for the electorate to indicate its position, but Brown decided reneging upon a manifesto commitment was wiser than holding a referendum.
The most egregious is Gove - all the more so because he is often held up as a powerful intellect and thinker. Nobody could say that about Davis, Raab or Corbyn.
I suppose - and I'm contorting painfully here because I love him - it is not too surprising that he should make such an assertion in the heat of battle. It was a political war, after all, and he was fighting to win. Or to put it another way, one could hardly expect him, even if he suspected it to be closer to the truth, to declaim - "I tell you now, and please trust me on this, on the day after we vote to Leave, the European Union will hold all the cards. They are much bigger and more powerful than us, much better at negotiating, and they need our trade far less than we need theirs."
He'd have looked a total plonker, wouldn't he, saying that as the Chairman of Vote Leave?
If he really believed the opposite of what he was saying in public then he's a hypocritical scumbag who deserves no sympathy. But actually I think he, and a lot of other leavers, really did believe that the EU would fold if the UK voted to leave. There is a certain group in the population who are very anglocentric, probably do not travel abroad much and certainly do not understand foreigners (Gove is known to hate flying) and find it hard to imagine themselves on the other side of a negotiation process and so do not understand where their interlocutors are coming from. I think Gove is one such person.
Mr. Kirk, indeed. Politicians dragging us ever closer, making sceptical noises in opposition then being pro-EU in office was a dereliction of duty, as well as being contemptible.
Lisbon would've been a good opportunity for the electorate to indicate its position, but Brown decided reneging upon a manifesto commitment was wiser than holding a referendum.
The funereal expressions on their faces at the moment of victory tell us all we need to know.
They knew they could not deliver what had been promised.
In the moment of Cameron's resignation, you mean?
Don't understand that argument, which would only work if they had just heard, say, that Cameron had had a fatal heart attack. Cameron's resignation was a clearly foreseeable consequence of brexit - he had already said he would have resigned over losing indyref - so it's just more evidence of failing to think through the consequences of brexit. Plus, PMs are for 5 or 10 years but brexit is forever, so you'd expect sheer joy at the outcome to overcome any momentary regret over Cameron. Plus plus, for senior cabinet members with direct or indirect PM ambitions, which we know these two had, the resignation of the current PM is never a cause of unalloyed sorrow.
A position of weakness? When the EU wish to continue to export twice the volume of goods to the UK than we do to them? When a significant part of their export surplus is in the form of perishable agricultural goods, and so subject to quite significant WTO tariffs as well as being at risk from any significant delays? When there is the added threat of disruption from rapidly changing UK consumer preferences when EU exporters lose their advantages over other world agricultural markets? When there are not going to be capacity issues with the goods leaving the UK, since a lot of lorries leave our country empty while the ports have to be set up to handle the much higher volumes coming in the other direction from the EU?
Nor is your picture of the difficulties of effecting a short term fix correct. The business lobby across the EU will be crying out on 29th March for the can to be kicked down the road while longer term arrangements can be thrashed out.
I would invite you to consider and make a choice between the following 2 statements. They cannot both be true.
1) The original Common Market may have been primarily about facilitating business and commerce across the continent but it has changed beyond recognition since then. The European Union in its present guise is above all a political project, with the full political will of its powerful core thrown squarely behind its ever more intrusive institutions.
2) In the event of a chaotic No Deal Brexit, the business lobby across the EU will be up in arms about the damage being caused to businesses across the continent - the resulting pressure will force Brussels to sue for a deal with the UK in very short order.
"A British woman who fled to Syria as a schoolgirl to join the Islamic State group could be prevented from returning to the UK, the home secretary has said.
"My message is clear," Sajid Javid told the Times: "If you have supported terrorist organisations abroad I will not hesitate to prevent your return.""
Mr. Kirk, indeed. Politicians dragging us ever closer, making sceptical noises in opposition then being pro-EU in office was a dereliction of duty, as well as being contemptible.
Politicians being sceptical in opposition (Labour in 74 and 83, Tories in 2001, 2005, 2010) then being more Pro- EU in office is not evidence of mendacity, it is the change one would expect to see in any intelligent adminstration when fully informed of the facts. As indeed we see now repeating itself even with unintelligent administrations.
The funereal expressions on their faces at the moment of victory tell us all we need to know.
They knew they could not deliver what had been promised.
In the moment of Cameron's resignation, you mean?
Don't understand that argument, which would only work if they had just heard, say, that Cameron had had a fatal heart attack. Cameron's resignation was a clearly foreseeable consequence of brexit - he had already said he would have resigned over losing indyref - so it's just more evidence of failing to think through the consequences of brexit. Plus, PMs are for 5 or 10 years but brexit is forever, so you'd expect sheer joy at the outcome to overcome any momentary regret over Cameron. Plus plus, for senior cabinet members with direct or indirect PM ambitions, which we know these two had, the resignation of the current PM is never a cause of unalloyed sorrow.
Its a case of being respectful. Coming across as overly triumphant and jubilistic at the time their friend, colleague and boss had just resigned would have been deemed inappropriate.
A position of weakness? When the EU wish to continue to export twice the volume of goods to the UK than we do to them? When a significant part of their export surplus is in the form of perishable agricultural goods, and so subject to quite significant WTO tariffs as well as being at risk from any significant delays? When there is the added threat of disruption from rapidly changing UK consumer preferences when EU exporters lose their advantages over other world agricultural markets? When there are not going to be capacity issues with the goods leaving the UK, since a lot of lorries leave our country empty while the ports have to be set up to handle the much higher volumes coming in the other direction from the EU?
Nor is your picture of the difficulties of effecting a short term fix correct. The business lobby across the EU will be crying out on 29th March for the can to be kicked down the road while longer term arrangements can be thrashed out.
I would invite you to consider and make a choice between the following 2 statements. They cannot both be true.
1) The original Common Market may have been primarily about facilitating business and commerce across the continent but it has changed beyond recognition since then. The European Union in its present guise is above all a political project, with the full political will of its powerful core thrown squarely behind its ever more intrusive institutions.
2) In the event of a chaotic No Deal Brexit, the business lobby across the EU will be up in arms about the damage being caused to businesses across the continent - the resulting pressure will force Brussels to sue for a deal with the UK in very short order.
I hope it’s true. Are you prepared to bet your house, car and pension fund on it though?
All the billboards of not showing actual tweets show the context in the left hand corner.
To be fair, I think this is a practice they started partway through the run. The first billboards didn't have the context.
On the topic of JRM, I hadn't realised until today that his seat isn't entirely impregnable. Labour-held in 2005 (well, not quite the same seat, but projected) and substantially under the combined Labour/Lib Dem vote in 2010. He's piled up votes since then, but in the event of a no-deal disaster, they might just as easily vanish again.
Most of the current mess was delivered by leaders long ago who incrementally took us into something almost impossible to get out of without our wholehearted consent.
There are two flawed assumptions in that though:-
1. It's impossible to get out of the EU. That is not true. It is possible to do so provided we are willing to accept the consequences and costs of doing so. What is not possible is to leave the EU while keeping some of its advantages or doing so without any adverse consequences/costs.
2. Membership of the EU and the various treaties and changes since we first joined has been pretty much on the manifestos of all the major parties (and the only party which had Leave in its manifesto - Labour in 1983 - lost heavily). And all those treaties and changes were voted on by our MP, who we elected to power.
So under our Parliamentary system of government our MPs did have our consent.
If what you mean is that there should have been some additional specific popular consent - something akin to the Irish votes on new treaties - yes, that was missing and it might well have been wise - with hindsight - to have had that. But that is not how politics has ever really been done in this country. So under the system we have had in place for a very long time consent was given.
It turns out that that was not enough. But maybe it was not the lack of consent which was the problem but, possibly, that our leaders should have explained what the EU was and we had a genuine discussion about its costs and benefits rather than making it the scapegoat for all our ills.
As we are now learning, though, inserting plebiscitary democracy into the middle of a Parliamentary democracy is not without its problems.
In retrospect, too many took the EU and its advantages for granted and forgot how to argue for them. That does not mean, though, that departure - let alone departure on bad terms - is the right thing to do.
The funereal expressions on their faces at the moment of victory tell us all we need to know.
They knew they could not deliver what had been promised.
In the moment of Cameron's resignation, you mean?
Don't understand that argument, which would only work if they had just heard, say, that Cameron had had a fatal heart attack. Cameron's resignation was a clearly foreseeable consequence of brexit - he had already said he would have resigned over losing indyref - so it's just more evidence of failing to think through the consequences of brexit. Plus, PMs are for 5 or 10 years but brexit is forever, so you'd expect sheer joy at the outcome to overcome any momentary regret over Cameron. Plus plus, for senior cabinet members with direct or indirect PM ambitions, which we know these two had, the resignation of the current PM is never a cause of unalloyed sorrow.
Its a case of being respectful. Coming across as overly triumphant and jubilistic at the time their friend, colleague and boss had just resigned would have been deemed inappropriate.
Those facial expressions do not say "respectful" to me, they say gutted and terrified.
And Blair was PM when Lisbon was rejigged after the French and Dutch rejected the proposed constitution, and Blair who decided the referendum was no longer justified.
The funereal expressions on their faces at the moment of victory tell us all we need to know.
They knew they could not deliver what had been promised.
In the moment of Cameron's resignation, you mean?
Don't understand that argument, which would only work if they had just heard, say, that Cameron had had a fatal heart attack. Cameron's resignation was a clearly foreseeable consequence of brexit - he had already said he would have resigned over losing indyref - so it's just more evidence of failing to think through the consequences of brexit. Plus, PMs are for 5 or 10 years but brexit is forever, so you'd expect sheer joy at the outcome to overcome any momentary regret over Cameron. Plus plus, for senior cabinet members with direct or indirect PM ambitions, which we know these two had, the resignation of the current PM is never a cause of unalloyed sorrow.
Its a case of being respectful. Coming across as overly triumphant and jubilistic at the time their friend, colleague and boss had just resigned would have been deemed inappropriate.
Those facial expressions do not say "respectful" to me, they say gutted and terrified.
Its a case of being respectful. Coming across as overly triumphant and jubilistic at the time their friend, colleague and boss had just resigned would have been deemed inappropriate.
Their entire campaign was inappropriate
Why would they abandon it at their moment of triumph?
They were terrified of the result. It was exactly the opposite of what BoZo wanted. A narrow defeat would have made him leader within week. Now it will never happen.
Mr. JohnL, even so, it was Brown's responsibility.
Miss Cyclefree, when the Government gives away power it was entrusted with by the electorate, and does so on a continual basis without any reference to the electorate, I do think that's a serious problem.
Other decisions can be changed (lowering or raising taxes etc) but once a power is given away, it's gone for a very long time and, as we're seeing, regained only with the greatest difficulty.
The problem is the political consensus and Westminster centre ground travelled ever further from common ground with the electorate. We see the same, writ small and in a far less serious area, with the great and glorious virtue of spending billions in foreign aid.
Most of the current mess was delivered by leaders long ago who incrementally took us into something almost impossible to get out of without our wholehearted consent.
There are two flawed assumptions in that though:-
1. It's impossible to get out of the EU. That is not true. It is possible to do so provided we are willing to accept the consequences and costs of doing so. What is not possible is to leave the EU while keeping some of its advantages or doing so without any adverse consequences/costs.
2. Membership of the EU and the various treaties and changes since we first joined has been pretty much on the manifestos of all the major parties (and the only party which had Leave in its manifesto - Labour in 1983 - lost heavily). And all those treaties and changes were voted on by our MP, who we elected to power.
So under our Parliamentary system of government our MPs did have our consent.
If what you mean is that there should have been some additional specific popular consent - something akin to the Irish votes on new treaties - yes, that was missing and it might well have been wise - with hindsight - to have had that. But that is not how politics has ever really been done in this country. So under the system we have had in place for a very long time consent was given.
It turns out that that was not enough. But maybe it was not the lack of consent which was the problem but, possibly, that our leaders should have explained what the EU was and we had a genuine discussion about its costs and benefits rather than making it the scapegoat for all our ills.
As we are now learning, though, inserting plebiscitary democracy into the middle of a Parliamentary democracy is not without its problems.
In retrospect, too many took the EU and its advantages for granted and forgot how to argue for them. That does not mean, though, that departure - let alone departure on bad terms - is the right thing to do.
Point 2 is not true though is it?
Yes the EU Constitution was in manifestos but it was done so with a clear commitment by all major parties to have a referendum on it. After the French and Dutch rejected it though the Treaty was rebranded and rushed through without a referendum in a clear breach of the manifesto commitments.
Had Labour pledged to ratify the Treaty without a referendum then that'd be fair enough but they pledged one thing and then did the opposite.
I'm no lawyer but when declaring a national emergency surely it undermines your justification for doing so to say "I didn't need to do this" out loud in front of the press?
I'm no lawyer but when declaring a national emergency surely it undermines your justification for doing so to say "I didn't need to do this" out loud in front of the press?
He's perhaps thinking it as advance justification for appointing more judges who agree that he should be allowed to do anything he wants ?
I'm no lawyer but when declaring a national emergency surely it undermines your justification for doing so to say "I didn't need to do this" out loud in front of the press?
That's the thing about emergencies, the panic can cause you to say regrettable things.
As opposed, as a current cabinet minister, too looking... ?
Well it does rather beg that question, I agree.
I guess the saving grace for Michael - and even then only in the unlikely event of me being right about his glittering future - is that he will get the chance to redeem himself.
If what you mean is that there should have been some additional specific popular consent - something akin to the Irish votes on new treaties - yes, that was missing and it might well have been wise - with hindsight - to have had that. But that is not how politics has ever really been done in this country. So under the system we have had in place for a very long time consent was given.
It turns out that that was not enough. But maybe it was not the lack of consent which was the problem but, possibly, that our leaders should have explained what the EU was and we had a genuine discussion about its costs and benefits rather than making it the scapegoat for all our ills.
As we are now learning, though, inserting plebiscitary democracy into the middle of a Parliamentary democracy is not without its problems.
In retrospect, too many took the EU and its advantages for granted and forgot how to argue for them. That does not mean, though, that departure - let alone departure on bad terms - is the right thing to do.
Point 2 is not true though is it?
Yes the EU Constitution was in manifestos but it was done so with a clear commitment by all major parties to have a referendum on it. After the French and Dutch rejected it though the Treaty was rebranded and rushed through without a referendum in a clear breach of the manifesto commitments.
Had Labour pledged to ratify the Treaty without a referendum then that'd be fair enough but they pledged one thing and then did the opposite.
True. But I think that was relatively late in the day. Many of the issues which have concerned people arose from the Maastricht treaty. Far more than Lisbon, in retrospect, that was the one which needed both popular consent and a real explanation of what it meant. Instead, it was pushed through by dint of hand to hand combat in Parliament and the opportunity was lost. The Parliamentary victory was a Pyrrhic one. They won the battle, not the war i.e. for people's hearts and minds for what this meant. It is no coincidence that the battles now involve some of the people involved then - at least on the Tory side.
Lisbon was the last chance and it was stupid of Labour to renege on their promise. But the reason it was given was because politicians realised that there was already concern which needed to be addressed. Had they done so we might have avoided ending up where we are.
The most egregious is Gove - all the more so because he is often held up as a powerful intellect and thinker. Nobody could say that about Davis, Raab or Corbyn.
In fact what Gove said was almost right. The day after the referendum we did hold a lot of cards. If Article 50 had been invoked within 24 hours and we had gone straight in with the Brexit we wanted, we'd have set the agenda and could have got the talks started on the ground we wanted them on.
We were always going to be at a disadvantage in the long run, but speed and élan could have overcome it to a great extent. After all, nobody on the EU side thought Leave were going to win.
Unfortunately, neither did Leave.
If A50 had been invoked within 24 hours, who would have led those talks?
I'm no lawyer but when declaring a national emergency surely it undermines your justification for doing so to say "I didn't need to do this" out loud in front of the press?
I think it's pretty much perfect if he doesn't actually want to build the wall, but wants to point to an establishment that is preventing him from building his wall - thus needing the renewed support of voters in 2020 to drain the swamp in DC.
This after all would explain why a Republican controlled Congress didn't pass funding for his wall for two years, but as soon as the Democrats won the mid-terms it became urgent enough to warrant a record duration government shutdown.
The funereal expressions on their faces at the moment of victory tell us all we need to know.
They knew they could not deliver what had been promised.
In the moment of Cameron's resignation, you mean?
Don't understand that argument, which would only work if they had just heard, say, that Cameron had had a fatal heart attack. Cameron's resignation was a clearly foreseeable consequence of brexit - he had already said he would have resigned over losing indyref - so it's just more evidence of failing to think through the consequences of brexit. Plus, PMs are for 5 or 10 years but brexit is forever, so you'd expect sheer joy at the outcome to overcome any momentary regret over Cameron. Plus plus, for senior cabinet members with direct or indirect PM ambitions, which we know these two had, the resignation of the current PM is never a cause of unalloyed sorrow.
He had said he wouldn’t resign in the event of a Leave vote though.
Most of the current mess was delivered by leaders long ago who incrementally took us into something almost impossible to get out of without our wholehearted consent.
There are two flawed assumptions in that though:-
1. It's impossible to get out of the EU. That is not true. It is possible to do so provided we are willing to accept the consequences and costs of doing so. What is not possible is to leave the EU while keeping some of its advantages or doing so without any adverse consequences/costs.
2. Membership of the EU and the various treaties and changes since we first joined has been pretty much on the manifestos of all the major parties (and the only party which had Leave in its manifesto - Labour in 1983 - lost heavily). And all those treaties and changes were voted on by our MP, who we elected to power.
So under our Parliamentary system of government our MPs did have our consent.
If what you mean is that there should have been some additional specific popular consent - something akin to the Irish votes on new treaties - yes, that was missing and it might well have been wise - with hindsight - to have had that. But that is not how politics has ever really been done in this country. So under the system we have had in place for a very long time consent was given.
It turns out that that was not enough. But maybe it was not the lack of consent which was the problem but, possibly, that our leaders should have explained what the EU was and we had a genuine discussion about its costs and benefits rather than making it the scapegoat for all our ills.
As we are now learning, though, inserting plebiscitary democracy into the middle of a Parliamentary democracy is not without its problems.
In retrospect, too many took the EU and its advantages for granted and forgot how to argue for them. That does not mean, though, that departure - let alone departure on bad terms - is the right thing to do.
Point 2 is not true though is it?
Yes the EU Constitution was in manifestos but it was done so with a clear commitment by all major parties to have a referendum on it. After the French and Dutch rejected it though the Treaty was rebranded and rushed through without a referendum in a clear breach of the manifesto commitments.
Both referendums on the constitution were within a month of the 2005 General Election, and the Lisbon Treaty was only ratified three years later. Is that rushing it through?
Most of the current mess was delivered by leaders long ago who incrementally took us into something almost impossible to get out of without our wholehearted consent.
There are two flawed assumptions in that though:-
1. It's impossible to get out of the EU. That is not true. It is possible to do so provided we are willing to accept the consequences and costs of doing so. What is not possible is to leave the EU while keeping some of its advantages or doing so without any adverse consequences/costs.
2. Membership of the EU and the various treaties and changes since we first joined has been pretty much on the manifestos of all the major parties (and the only party which had Leave in its manifesto - Labour in 1983 - lost heavily). And all those treaties and changes were voted on by our MP, who we elected to power.
So under our Parliamentary system of government our MPs did have our consent.
If what you mean is that there should have been some additional specific popular consent - something akin to the Irish votes on new treaties - yes, that was missing and it might well have been wise - with hindsight - to have had that. But that is not how politics has ever really been done in this country. So under the system we have had in place for a very long time consent was given.
It turns out that that was not enough. But maybe it was not the lack of consent which was the problem but, possibly, that our leaders should have explained what the EU was and we had a genuine discussion about its costs and benefits rather than making it the scapegoat for all our ills.
As we are now learning, though, inserting plebiscitary democracy into the middle of a Parliamentary democracy is not without its problems.
In retrospect, too many took the EU and its advantages for granted and forgot how to argue for them. That does not mean, though, that departure - let alone departure on bad terms - is the right thing to do.
Point 2 is not true though is it?
Yes the EU Constitution was in manifestos but it was done so with a clear commitment by all major parties to have a referendum on it. After the French and Dutch rejected it though the Treaty was rebranded and rushed through without a referendum in a clear breach of the manifesto commitments.
Had Labour pledged to ratify the Treaty without a referendum then that'd be fair enough but they pledged one thing and then did the opposite.
Comments
These have done well on that score - possibly ironically given they started off on social media!
PS - first?
One reputation in particular has crashed in the intervening period: that of Boris Johnson. His popularity has taken a swallow dive. That preceded this poster campaign.
The Fox one for instance is taken out of context from an interview where he says it should be easy but ... 'a deal would probably not be easy in practice. “The only reason that we wouldn’t come to a free and open agreement is because politics gets in the way of economics,” Fox said.'
As I say though, for the thicker end of the argument they are catnip.
If these billboards mean that we never hear from these chancers again, they will have achieved something.
Unfortunately, it looks as if these chancers will get what they want and we'll have to hear them explaining why it wasn't their fault / all the fault of the wicked Europeans / saboteurs etc - that is when prats like David Davis can tear themselves away from earning money as consultants for JCBamford.
And then there is also this, from the official Vote leave campaign:
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to leave."
Reading this, it seems they're a guerilla outfit who are pasting their own posters on other people's billboards. Which means they probably haven't been through an ASA-approved compliance process!
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/16/billboard-campaign-reminds-voters-of-mps-brexit-promises
https://libertarianweb.wordpress.com/2019/01/18/the-twitter-billboard-campaign-a-new-low-in-fake-news/
"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden step - we will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to leave." -
We were always going to be at a disadvantage in the long run, but speed and élan could have overcome it to a great extent. After all, nobody on the EU side thought Leave were going to win.
Unfortunately, neither did Leave.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/15/award-most-incompetent-minister-chris-grayling-liam-fox-john-crace-digested-week
It's brave of him to talk about it.
"The day after we vote to leave, we hold all the cards."
Michael Gove.
My biggest bet for next Tory leader, that is. He's my man. He is the guy who TM will appoint Brexit Czar after we have left the EU and are into transition. The guy who will handle the trade talks. The guy who will take over in a virtual coronation from TM in 2021. The most talented politician of his generation. Britain's next prime minister.
I'm closing out.
And given that the polls now seem to be showing that Remain has a lead it appears that some of the public have changed their mind.
It has certainly been a revelation to me - and I admit that I have perhaps been naive in this - how utterly ignorant so many senior politicians are and how unwilling to learn they have been.
Trouble is they were Tarot cards, and all should death and starvation from lack of fresh salads.
A grifters' charter, is it ?
They knew they could not deliver what had been promised.
All the words were said by the idiots/charlatans/fantasists involved
There was a press conference and instant action from the BoE.
Don't you remember?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/15/brexit-lies-curry-vote-leave-restaurant-industry
...I also bear some responsibility, as the head of an organisation that urged our 150,000 members and 12,000 restaurants to vote leave.
At the time, the Bangladesh Caterers Association was worried about an average of four restaurants closing a week, rising rents and soaring business rates. Both Priti Patel and Boris Johnson approached us to collaborate with and support the Save Our Curry Houses campaign set up by Vote Leave. They said if we were to support the leave campaign, they would ensure we were able to get more chefs from south Asia by relaxing immigration rules with lower salary thresholds to hire staff from outside the EU.
And we made the mistake of believing them...
But context, nuance, etc...
Nor is your picture of the difficulties of effecting a short term fix correct. The business lobby across the EU will be crying out on 29th March for the can to be kicked down the road while longer term arrangements can be thrashed out.
But since when has Rees-Mogg been fair?
Last time I checked the BoE was independent.
Also, what districting is that map using?
(Of course if David H is right that the Article 50 wording allows the Withdrawal Agreement to be concluded even after leaving, then that slightly alters things. Even then it seems very unlikely that that would give us much grace, and in practice the EU would just say: 'Sign the deal that's on the table, pay up, and then we'll talk').
"I tell you now, and please trust me on this, on the day after we vote to Leave, the European Union will hold all the cards. They are much bigger and more powerful than us, much better at negotiating, and they need our trade far less than we need theirs."
He'd have looked a total plonker, wouldn't he, saying that as the Chairman of Vote Leave?
None of which is/are true.
Most of the current mess was delivered by leaders long ago who incrementally took us into something almost impossible to get out of without our wholehearted consent.
Lisbon would've been a good opportunity for the electorate to indicate its position, but Brown decided reneging upon a manifesto commitment was wiser than holding a referendum.
1) The original Common Market may have been primarily about facilitating business and commerce across the continent but it has changed beyond recognition since then. The European Union in its present guise is above all a political project, with the full political will of its powerful core thrown squarely behind its ever more intrusive institutions.
2) In the event of a chaotic No Deal Brexit, the business lobby across the EU will be up in arms about the damage being caused to businesses across the continent - the resulting pressure will force Brussels to sue for a deal with the UK in very short order.
"My message is clear," Sajid Javid told the Times: "If you have supported terrorist organisations abroad I will not hesitate to prevent your return.""
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47248555
On the topic of JRM, I hadn't realised until today that his seat isn't entirely impregnable. Labour-held in 2005 (well, not quite the same seat, but projected) and substantially under the combined Labour/Lib Dem vote in 2010. He's piled up votes since then, but in the event of a no-deal disaster, they might just as easily vanish again.
1. It's impossible to get out of the EU. That is not true. It is possible to do so provided we are willing to accept the consequences and costs of doing so. What is not possible is to leave the EU while keeping some of its advantages or doing so without any adverse consequences/costs.
2. Membership of the EU and the various treaties and changes since we first joined has been pretty much on the manifestos of all the major parties (and the only party which had Leave in its manifesto - Labour in 1983 - lost heavily). And all those treaties and changes were voted on by our MP, who we elected to power.
So under our Parliamentary system of government our MPs did have our consent.
If what you mean is that there should have been some additional specific popular consent - something akin to the Irish votes on new treaties - yes, that was missing and it might well have been wise - with hindsight - to have had that. But that is not how politics has ever really been done in this country. So under the system we have had in place for a very long time consent was given.
It turns out that that was not enough. But maybe it was not the lack of consent which was the problem but, possibly, that our leaders should have explained what the EU was and we had a genuine discussion about its costs and benefits rather than making it the scapegoat for all our ills.
As we are now learning, though, inserting plebiscitary democracy into the middle of a Parliamentary democracy is not without its problems.
In retrospect, too many took the EU and its advantages for granted and forgot how to argue for them. That does not mean, though, that departure - let alone departure on bad terms - is the right thing to do.
RIchard Nixon's speechwriter has died.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/obituaries/raymond-k-price-jr-dead.html
Why would they abandon it at their moment of triumph?
They were terrified of the result. It was exactly the opposite of what BoZo wanted. A narrow defeat would have made him leader within week. Now it will never happen.
Bummer...
Miss Cyclefree, when the Government gives away power it was entrusted with by the electorate, and does so on a continual basis without any reference to the electorate, I do think that's a serious problem.
Other decisions can be changed (lowering or raising taxes etc) but once a power is given away, it's gone for a very long time and, as we're seeing, regained only with the greatest difficulty.
The problem is the political consensus and Westminster centre ground travelled ever further from common ground with the electorate. We see the same, writ small and in a far less serious area, with the great and glorious virtue of spending billions in foreign aid.
Yes the EU Constitution was in manifestos but it was done so with a clear commitment by all major parties to have a referendum on it. After the French and Dutch rejected it though the Treaty was rebranded and rushed through without a referendum in a clear breach of the manifesto commitments.
Had Labour pledged to ratify the Treaty without a referendum then that'd be fair enough but they pledged one thing and then did the opposite.
no change there then
I guess the saving grace for Michael - and even then only in the unlikely event of me being right about his glittering future - is that he will get the chance to redeem himself.
This after all would explain why a Republican controlled Congress didn't pass funding for his wall for two years, but as soon as the Democrats won the mid-terms it became urgent enough to warrant a record duration government shutdown.
https://www.indy100.com/article/jeremy-corbyn-brexit-billboard-led-by-donkeys-campaign-north-islington-8775351