Imagine the furore and outrage if another school had caved into pressure from protesters and stopped teaching classes on Islam...
An utter disgrace.
It is
If I were 25 years old, I would emigrate tomorrow. Britain is finished. Europe is finished. Stagnation and religious strife await.
I’d go to America. Where English freedoms and the Enlightenment are still, thank god, protected by that Constitution. And I’d buy lots of guns.
Or I’d go to Asia. The future.
You might want to look more closely at American news before making that decision.
I follow American news closely. They too have culture wars, and they too have a weird class of people using identity politics to deconstruct their own hardwon freedoms. BUT they have that Constituion. A vital bulwark against the madness. Plus they have a more vibrant economy. Especially in California, where I’d go. Maybe Santa Barbara.
California is generally badly run. Its schools are on a par with those of Mississippi, it has almost the highest State taxes in the USA, its infrastructure is falling apart, it's overregulated, and over-unionised.
It's great if you've got enough money to ignore these failings.
That’s true about all of the US: it’s a great place to live if you have money.
Even if you have money, in tghe US you often have to work longer hours, commute for longer and have half the annual leave compared to comparable work in the UK and Europe.
Not necessarily, I work similar hours, get as much, if not more vacation than I did in the UK, and my commute is infinitely less stressful as it no longer involves Southeastern (the subway is worse than the tube I grant you). OK, so my employer is a European company, but my T&Cs were pretty much the same at my last job which was an American company.
Your individual case does not invalidate the general observation.
Did the ludicrous Cox bellow in everyone's earhole?
Maybe, what if he did? He finally showed something beyond his presentation this week by not taking an easier political choice at the expense of his legal professionalism.
ERG adding names to Woolly amendment to ensure its voted on. Politics is now broken lol
Why is it that I get the genuine impression that practically every person on PB is several magnitudes brighter than practically every MP in Parliament?
And that is not me being sarcastic. I believe that the vast majority of people on here, including all those I rant against daily, have a better understanding pf politics, the EU, real life and business than almost everyone sat in the Commons.
We are led by imbeciles.
Think yourself lucky we haven't got 650 Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezs
Why? – nowt wrong with AOC. She has got serious game and would one considered a centre-left moderate were she European.
She represents America's future far more than Trump and his base do.
As far as I can tell, even in most of Europe, she would be well to the Left of centre left.
Imagine the furore and outrage if another school had caved into pressure from protesters and stopped teaching classes on Islam...
An utter disgrace.
It is
If I were 25 years old, I would emigrate tomorrow. Britain is finished. Europe is finished. Stagnation and religious strife await.
I’d go to America. Where English freedoms and the Enlightenment are still, thank god, protected by that Constitution. And I’d buy lots of guns.
Or I’d go to Asia. The future.
You might want to look more closely at American news before making that decision.
I follow American news closely. They too have culture wars, and they too have a weird class of people using identity politics to deconstruct their own hardwon freedoms. BUT they have that Constituion. A vital bulwark against the madness. Plus they have a more vibrant economy. Especially in California, where I’d go. Maybe Santa Barbara.
California is generally badly run. Its schools are on a par with those of Mississippi, it has almost the highest State taxes in the USA, its infrastructure is falling apart, it's overregulated, and over-unionised.
It's great if you've got enough money to ignore these failings.
That’s true about all of the US: it’s a great place to live if you have money.
Even if you have money, in tghe US you often have to work longer hours, commute for longer and have half the annual leave compared to comparable work in the UK and Europe.
Not necessarily, I work similar hours, get as much, if not more vacation than I did in the UK, and my commute is infinitely less stressful as it no longer involves Southeastern (the subway is worse than the tube I grant you). OK, so my employer is a European company, but my T&Cs were pretty much the same at my last job which was an American company.
Overall, the standard of living is about a third higher in the US than it is here, but probably worse there the bottom quarter of the population than it is here.
When I worked for a US Company in Germany (in '85), the US Citizens there got 2 weeks holiday, the Brits got 4 weeks and the Germans got 6 weeks as per their home company's arrangements.
On both potential Wollaston-2 and MV3 being ineligible because they've already been asked, hasn't a customs union been voted down about 5 times by the house already ?
As has No Deal
So that leaves Revoke...
I might be misremembering but I'm sure SNP amendments to revoke article 50 have been defeated before now.
So really things already considered have to be allowed back I guess.
Well yes, but the House of Commons' own expressed view on the subject is clearly going to be a highly relevant consideration for the chair. The Bryant amendment seems highly risky to me for that reason.
So...if the Speaker is consistent in his rulings* then by calling Wollaston's amendemnt, ERG could have found a way to rule out both a second referendum AND MV3?
ERG adding names to Woolly amendment to ensure its voted on. Politics is now broken lol
Why is it that I get the genuine impression that practically every person on PB is several magnitudes brighter than practically every MP in Parliament?
And that is not me being sarcastic. I believe that the vast majority of people on here, including all those I rant against daily, have a better understanding pf politics, the EU, real life and business than almost everyone sat in the Commons.
We are led by imbeciles.
Think yourself lucky we haven't got 650 Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezs
Why? – nowt wrong with AOC. She has got serious game and would one considered a centre-left moderate were she European.
She represents America's future far more than Trump and his base do.
What? Completely lacking in knowledge of pretty much anything, and unqualified for the job? That's just same-old same-old.
ERG adding names to Woolly amendment to ensure its voted on. Politics is now broken lol
Why is it that I get the genuine impression that practically every person on PB is several magnitudes brighter than practically every MP in Parliament?
And that is not me being sarcastic. I believe that the vast majority of people on here, including all those I rant against daily, have a better understanding pf politics, the EU, real life and business than almost everyone sat in the Commons.
We are led by imbeciles.
Think yourself lucky we haven't got 650 Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezs
Why? – nowt wrong with AOC. She has got serious game and would one considered a centre-left moderate were she European.
She represents America's future far more than Trump and his base do.
As far as I can tell, even in most of Europe, she would be well to the Left of centre left.
On ethno-cultural issues, I would say maybe , but on social-economic ones, I'd say she might closer to the social democratic European mainstream.
On both potential Wollaston-2 and MV3 being ineligible because they've already been asked, hasn't a customs union been voted down about 5 times by the house already ?
As has No Deal
So that leaves Revoke...
I might be misremembering but I'm sure SNP amendments to revoke article 50 have been defeated before now.
Well yes, but the House of Commons' own expressed view on the subject is clearly going to be a highly relevant consideration for the chair. The Bryant amendment seems highly risky to me for that reason.
So...if the Speaker is consistent in his rulings* then by calling Wollaston's amendemnt, ERG could have found a way to rule out both a second referendum AND MV3?
*planet-sized if, naturally
For MV3 I'd say yes. The deal would then be definitively dead, I'd say.
A second referendum might get a further chance if circumstances changed further in the coming days. Indeed, if MV3 is blocked, Theresa May might conceivably throw her weight behind it, given that no deal is ruled out.
Imagine the furore and outrage if another school had caved into pressure from protesters and stopped teaching classes on Islam...
An utter disgrace.
It is
If I were 25 years old, I would emigrate tomorrow. Britain is finished. Europe is finished. Stagnation and religious strife await.
I’d go to America. Where English freedoms and the Enlightenment are still, thank god, protected by that Constitution. And I’d buy lots of guns.
Or I’d go to Asia. The future.
You might want to look more closely at American news before making that decision.
I follow American news closely. They too have culture wars, and they too have a weird class of people using identity politics to deconstruct their own hardwon freedoms. BUT they have that Constituion. A vital bulwark against the madness. Plus they have a more vibrant economy. Especially in California, where I’d go. Maybe Santa Barbara.
California is generally badly run. Its schools are on a par with those of Mississippi, it has almost the highest State taxes in the USA, its infrastructure is falling apart, it's overregulated, and over-unionised.
It's great if you've got enough money to ignore these failings.
That’s true about all of the US: it’s a great place to live if you have money.
Even if you have money, in tghe US you often have to work longer hours, commute for longer and have half the annual leave compared to comparable work in the UK and Europe.
Not necessarily, I work similar hours, get as much, if not more vacation than I did in the UK, and my commute is infinitely less stressful as it no longer involves Southeastern (the subway is worse than the tube I grant you). OK, so my employer is a European company, but my T&Cs were pretty much the same at my last job which was an American company.
Overall, the standard of living is about a third higher in the US than it is here, but probably worse there the bottom quarter of the population than it is here.
ERG adding names to Woolly amendment to ensure its voted on. Politics is now broken lol
Why is it that I get the genuine impression that practically every person on PB is several magnitudes brighter than practically every MP in Parliament?
And that is not me being sarcastic. I believe that the vast majority of people on here, including all those I rant against daily, have a better understanding pf politics, the EU, real life and business than almost everyone sat in the Commons.
We are led by imbeciles.
Think yourself lucky we haven't got 650 Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezs
Why? – nowt wrong with AOC. She has got serious game and would one considered a centre-left moderate were she European.
Imagine the furore and outrage if another school had caved into pressure from protesters and stopped teaching classes on Islam...
An utter disgrace.
It is
If I were 25 years old, I would emigrate tomorrow. Britain is finished. Europe is finished. Stagnation and religious strife await.
I’d go to America. Where English freedoms and the Enlightenment are still, thank god, protected by that Constitution. And I’d buy lots of guns.
Or I’d go to Asia. The future.
You might want to look more closely at American news before making that decision.
I follow American news closely. They too have culture wars, and they too have a weird class of people using identity politics to deconstruct their own hardwon freedoms. BUT they have that Constituion. A vital bulwark against the madness. Plus they have a more vibrant economy. Especially in California, where I’d go. Maybe Santa Barbara.
California is generally badly run. Its schools are on a par with those of Mississippi, it has almost the highest State taxes in the USA, its infrastructure is falling apart, it's overregulated, and over-unionised.
It's great if you've got enough money to ignore these failings.
That’s true about all of the US: it’s a great place to live if you have money.
Even if you have money, in tghe US you often have to work longer hours, commute for longer and have half the annual leave compared to comparable work in the UK and Europe.
Not necessarily, I work similar hours, get as much, if not more vacation than I did in the UK, and my commute is infinitely less stressful as it no longer involves Southeastern (the subway is worse than the tube I grant you). OK, so my employer is a European company, but my T&Cs were pretty much the same at my last job which was an American company.
Overall, the standard of living is about a third higher in the US than it is here, but probably worse there the bottom quarter of the population than it is here.
Perhaps I’m alone in my view, but I think it’s dangerous to conflate GDP per capita and standard of living.
I think it’s worse for the bottom 80-90% in terms of lived experience.
ERG adding names to Woolly amendment to ensure its voted on. Politics is now broken lol
Why is it that I get the genuine impression that practically every person on PB is several magnitudes brighter than practically every MP in Parliament?
And that is not me being sarcastic. I believe that the vast majority of people on here, including all those I rant against daily, have a better understanding pf politics, the EU, real life and business than almost everyone sat in the Commons.
We are led by imbeciles.
Think yourself lucky we haven't got 650 Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezs
Why? – nowt wrong with AOC. She has got serious game and would one considered a centre-left moderate were she European.
She represents America's future far more than Trump and his base do.
What? Completely lacking in knowledge of pretty much anything, and unqualified for the job? That's just same-old same-old.
She's young, female and non-white. That's America's future.
With the ERG's political nous, the other MPs will probably pass it - just to spite them.....
I wonder if a backbench rebellion forcing a second referendum in the teeth of opposition from both front benches might be just what both May and Corbyn secretly desire. "Wasn't my fault guv."
If MV3 is refused because it’s the same as MV2 I’m sure the government could get another bit of paper from Brussels to tack on the end as an Appendix or something (Illustrative Flowchart of Backstop Extraction Options maybe?)
It's TIG, the Lib Dems, Plaid and the SNP, plus two strongly anti-Corbyn Labour MPs (Coyle and Geraint Davies).
It isn't meant to succeed. It's so that when Corbyn finds some magic excuse not to back a second referendum ever, which frankly he will, the others can throw this at him/Labour.
It is, basically, Focus leaflet fodder (or the modern equivalent, viral Facebook clips). If/when everything goes to sh-t and we end up in a General Election, this is going to be thrown at every Labour candidate in the land: you refused this, you own Brexit.
ERG adding names to Woolly amendment to ensure its voted on. Politics is now broken lol
Why is it that I get the genuine impression that practically every person on PB is several magnitudes brighter than practically every MP in Parliament?
And that is not me being sarcastic. I believe that the vast majority of people on here, including all those I rant against daily, have a better understanding pf politics, the EU, real life and business than almost everyone sat in the Commons.
We are led by imbeciles.
Think yourself lucky we haven't got 650 Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezs
Why? – nowt wrong with AOC. She has got serious game and would one considered a centre-left moderate were she European.
She represents America's future far more than Trump and his base do.
What? Completely lacking in knowledge of pretty much anything, and unqualified for the job? That's just same-old same-old.
She's young, female and non-white. That's America's future.
I hate this argument. In any democracy people take decisions that will impact people who weren’t able to vote at that time, or will impact some people differently than themselves.
It's TIG, the Lib Dems, Plaid and the SNP, plus two strongly anti-Corbyn Labour MPs (Coyle and Geraint Davies).
It isn't meant to succeed. It's so that when Corbyn finds some magic excuse not to back a second referendum ever, which frankly he will, the others can throw this at him/Labour.
It is, basically, Focus leaflet fodder (or the modern equivalent, viral Facebook clips). If/when everything goes to sh-t and we end up in a General Election, this is going to be thrown at every Labour candidate in the land: you refused this, you own Brexit.
ERG adding names to Woolly amendment to ensure its voted on. Politics is now broken lol
Why is it that I get the genuine impression that practically every person on PB is several magnitudes brighter than practically every MP in Parliament?
And that is not me being sarcastic. I believe that the vast majority of people on here, including all those I rant against daily, have a better understanding pf politics, the EU, real life and business than almost everyone sat in the Commons.
We are led by imbeciles.
Think yourself lucky we haven't got 650 Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezs
Why? – nowt wrong with AOC. She has got serious game and would one considered a centre-left moderate were she European.
She represents America's future far more than Trump and his base do.
What? Completely lacking in knowledge of pretty much anything, and unqualified for the job? That's just same-old same-old.
She's young, female and non-white. That's America's future.
I'd hope more than just being ethnically representative of the nation is desired. Truthfully I haven't seen why she upsets so many on the right though. If she's useless she wont continue to make waves as she has to date. I'd assume it was too early to tell on substance but she presents well.
I hate this argument. In any democracy people take decisions that will impact people who weren’t able to vote at that time, or will impact some people differently than themselves.
So many better arguments for a second referendum.
Agreed. We should never implement anything on that basis. It also undermines itself because any new consent will exclude a new group of non voters.
ERG adding names to Woolly amendment to ensure its voted on. Politics is now broken lol
Why is it that I get the genuine impression that practically every person on PB is several magnitudes brighter than practically every MP in Parliament?
And that is not me being sarcastic. I believe that the vast majority of people on here, including all those I rant against daily, have a better understanding pf politics, the EU, real life and business than almost everyone sat in the Commons.
We are led by imbeciles.
Think yourself lucky we haven't got 650 Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezs
Why? – nowt wrong with AOC. She has got serious game and would one considered a centre-left moderate were she European.
She represents America's future far more than Trump and his base do.
What? Completely lacking in knowledge of pretty much anything, and unqualified for the job? That's just same-old same-old.
She's young, female and non-white. That's America's future.
It is this way of thinking that will ruin the USA.
Imagine the furore and outrage if another school had caved into pressure from protesters and stopped teaching classes on Islam...
An utter disgrace.
It is
If I were 25 years old, I would emigrate tomorrow. Britain is finished. Europe is finished. Stagnation and religious strife await.
I’d go to America. Where English freedoms and the Enlightenment are still, thank god, protected by that Constitution. And I’d buy lots of guns.
Or I’d go to Asia. The future.
You might want to look more closely at American news before making that decision.
I follow American news closely. They too have culture wars, and they too have a weird class of people using identity politics to deconstruct their own hardwon freedoms. BUT they have that Constituion. A vital bulwark against the madness. Plus they have a more vibrant economy. Especially in California, where I’d go. Maybe Santa Barbara.
California is generally badly run. Its schools are on a par with those of Mississippi, it has almost the highest State taxes in the USA, its infrastructure is falling apart, it's overregulated, and over-unionised.
It's great if you've got enough money to ignore these failings.
That’s true about all of the US: it’s a great place to live if you have money.
Even if you have money, in tghe US you often have to work longer hours, commute for longer and have half the annual leave compared to comparable work in the UK and Europe.
Not necessarily, I work similar hours, get as much, if not more vacation than I did in the UK, and my commute is infinitely less stressful as it no longer involves Southeastern (the subway is worse than the tube I grant you). OK, so my employer is a European company, but my T&Cs were pretty much the same at my last job which was an American company.
Your individual case does not invalidate the general observation.
No, but my point is that it varies widely by location and industry. Certainly there is much more market forces at play in the US in terms of what ts&cs people with sought-after skills can get.
I hate this argument. In any democracy people take decisions that will impact people who weren’t able to vote at that time, or will impact some people differently than themselves.
So many better arguments for a second referendum.
Indeed.
And by the same argument there will be people in Dr Wollaston's contingency who not only thought they were voting for a Conservative MP on a manifesto to implement Brexit but also people who were not old enough to vote her in 2017...
So Dr W should put her money where her mouth is and hold a by election.
ERG adding names to Woolly amendment to ensure its voted on. Politics is now broken lol
Why is it that I get the genuine impression that practically every person on PB is several magnitudes brighter than practically every MP in Parliament?
And that is not me being sarcastic. I believe that the vast majority of people on here, including all those I rant against daily, have a better understanding pf politics, the EU, real life and business than almost everyone sat in the Commons.
We are led by imbeciles.
Think yourself lucky we haven't got 650 Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezs
Why? – nowt wrong with AOC. She has got serious game and would one considered a centre-left moderate were she European.
She represents America's future far more than Trump and his base do.
What? Completely lacking in knowledge of pretty much anything, and unqualified for the job? That's just same-old same-old.
She's young, female and non-white. That's America's future.
I'd hope more than just being ethnically representative of the nation is desired. Truthfully I haven't seen why she upsets so many on the right though. If she's useless she wont continue to make waves as she has to date. I'd assume it was too early to tell on substance but she presents well.
She doesn't upset them, she's just an easy target. You should watch some of the long-form interviews she has done.
ERG adding names to Woolly amendment to ensure its voted on. Politics is now broken lol
Why is it that I get the genuine impression that practically every person on PB is several magnitudes brighter than practically every MP in Parliament?
And that is not me being sarcastic. I believe that the vast majority of people on here, including all those I rant against daily, have a better understanding pf politics, the EU, real life and business than almost everyone sat in the Commons.
We are led by imbeciles.
Think yourself lucky we haven't got 650 Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezs
Why? – nowt wrong with AOC. She has got serious game and would one considered a centre-left moderate were she European.
She represents America's future far more than Trump and his base do.
What? Completely lacking in knowledge of pretty much anything, and unqualified for the job? That's just same-old same-old.
She's young, female and non-white. That's America's future.
It is this way of thinking that will ruin the USA.
I voted to leave. I did not vote to ask the EU for permission to leave. Yet, it has been all along as if the UK electorate voted for the latter, the final straw being the vote to rule out the so called "no deal". The EU's decision to offer utterly punitive withdrawal terms amounts to their saying no to a request from the UK to ask for permission to leave. Their aim is to keep the UK in the EU, either as now or under May's BINO arrangement which would be even more advantageous to them than the current status quo.
With a resolute PM determined to leave, the exact opposite of what we have, the starting point for negotiations should have been for the UK to declare that it would be leaving, and that the EU could only choose whether to reach agreement with the UK on future trading arrangements before or after we left. We would make clear that we knew we could get better terms after leaving and that if the EU failed to negotiate seriously (which it signalled at the outset with the insistence on the backstop) we would walk away until after March 29th 2019. The UK would have declared that it did not accept that the EU would fail to negotiate after that date, and made it clear to all the world that the UK was perfectly prepared to wait because we knew we would get better terms after we were out. We would, because the question of whether or not the UK leaves would be off the table. We would publish draft tariff schedules that were as punitive as they could be to EU imports under the limitations of WTO terms, declaring that we hoped that they would last no more than a few weeks once the EU stance changed to a goal of negotiating a trade settlement in its interests, rather than of offering nothing to dissuade the UK from leaving. When the EU retailiated with plans for similar tariffs of their own, we would react with equinimity, pointing out that it was EU manufactured goods that were primarily at risk given the vast imbalance in trade between us. If bottlenecks developed at UK ports, on account of all the empty lorries leaving the UK, we would announced that priority would be given to those which were actually loaded. We would publish how the UK would use the short term tariffs on EU imported goods to offset the increased costs on UK consumers and businesses, such as through reductions or new exemptions from VAT. We would have started a public information campaign to highlight UK manufacturing and encourage the public to make informed choices (such as, for example, drawing attention to which cars are assembled in the UK). And I think public opinion would have hardened against remaining in those circumstances.
I think it’s worse for the bottom 80-90% in terms of lived experience.
Yes there's something in that. Although food is cheaper in the US the quality is dismal compared to Europe. And as for healthcare......
It's mindblowing going onto Reddit and reading "life pro tips" about how to avoid having an ambulance called for you if you have an accident so that you can avoid the cost.
It's TIG, the Lib Dems, Plaid and the SNP, plus two strongly anti-Corbyn Labour MPs (Coyle and Geraint Davies).
It isn't meant to succeed. It's so that when Corbyn finds some magic excuse not to back a second referendum ever, which frankly he will, the others can throw this at him/Labour.
It is, basically, Focus leaflet fodder (or the modern equivalent, viral Facebook clips). If/when everything goes to sh-t and we end up in a General Election, this is going to be thrown at every Labour candidate in the land: you refused this, you own Brexit.
The basic rundown of that is they care more about playing politics than they do getting a second referendum, which is why supporters of a second referendum don't support their actions.
I hate this argument. In any democracy people take decisions that will impact people who weren’t able to vote at that time, or will impact some people differently than themselves.
So many better arguments for a second referendum.
Are we in a "democracy"? Very old Greek word. Means lots of things to lots of people, depending on whether it supports their argument. I think we are a constitutional monarchy with a number of democratic institutions, an unwritten constitution and a decent appreciation for the rule of law. Not a democracy though. The clearest indication of that is that people seen terrified of having another referendum. If we were a "democracy" we would have already had one on the outcome of the negotiations! we certainly would not be walking blind into no-Deal Brexit for which there is no mandate, democratic or otherwise.
theyre not young people theyre adults and they couldnt be arsed to vote
About 1.5 million young people have turned 18 since the referendum.
and ?
How did you expect them to vote?
I didnt, votes are called at a point in time under law, The same rules applied to me. You get to vote when you have reached an age where youre deemed a respo0nsible adult.
I voted to leave. I did not vote to ask the EU for permission to leave. Yet, it has been all along as if the UK electorate voted for the latter, the final straw being the vote to rule out the so called "no deal". The EU's decision to offer utterly punitive withdrawal terms amounts to their saying no to a request from the UK to ask for permission to leave. Their aim is to keep the UK in the EU, either as now or under May's BINO arrangement which would be even more advantageous to them than the current status quo.
With a resolute PM determined to leave, the exact opposite of what we have, the starting point for negotiations should have been for the UK to declare that it would be leaving, and that the EU could only choose whether to reach agreement with the UK on future trading arrangements before or after we left. We would make clear that we knew we could get better terms after leaving and that if the EU failed to negotiate seriously (which it signalled at the outset with the insistence on the backstop) we would walk away until after March 29th 2019. The UK would have declared that it did not accept that the EU would fail to negotiate after that date, and made it clear to all the world that the UK was perfectly prepared to wait because we knew we would get better terms after we were out. We would, because the question of whether or not the UK leaves would be off the table. We would publish draft tariff schedules that were as punitive as they could be to EU imports under the limitations of WTO terms, declaring that we hoped that they would last no more than a few weeks once the EU stance changed to a goal of negotiating a trade settlement in its interests, rather than of offering nothing to dissuade the UK from leaving. When the EU retailiated with plans for similar tariffs of their own, we would react with equinimity, pointing out that it was EU manufactured goods that were primarily at risk given the vast imbalance in trade between us. If bottlenecks developed at UK ports, on account of all the empty lorries leaving the UK, we would announced that priority would be given to those which were actually loaded. We would publish how the UK would use the short term tariffs on EU imported goods to offset the increased costs on UK consumers and businesses, such as through reductions or new exemptions from VAT. We would have started a public information campaign to highlight UK manufacturing and encourage the public to make informed choices (such as, for example, drawing attention to which cars are assembled in the UK). And I think public opinion would have hardened against remaining in those circumstances.
But Vote Leave repeatedly said No Deal wouldn’t happen.
It's TIG, the Lib Dems, Plaid and the SNP, plus two strongly anti-Corbyn Labour MPs (Coyle and Geraint Davies).
It isn't meant to succeed. It's so that when Corbyn finds some magic excuse not to back a second referendum ever, which frankly he will, the others can throw this at him/Labour.
It is, basically, Focus leaflet fodder (or the modern equivalent, viral Facebook clips). If/when everything goes to sh-t and we end up in a General Election, this is going to be thrown at every Labour candidate in the land: you refused this, you own Brexit.
The basic rundown of that is they care more about playing politics than they do getting a second referendum, which is why supporters of a second referendum don't support their actions.
TIG is the Chuka vanity project.
As opposed to the current Labour Party which is a Jeremy Corbyn vanity project
I hate this argument. In any democracy people take decisions that will impact people who weren’t able to vote at that time, or will impact some people differently than themselves.
So many better arguments for a second referendum.
Are we in a "democracy"? Very old Greek word. Means lots of things to lots of people, depending on whether it supports their argument. I think we are a constitutional monarchy with a number of democratic institutions, an unwritten constitution and a decent appreciation for the rule of law. Not a democracy though. The clearest indication of that is that people seen terrified of having another referendum. If we were a "democracy" we would have already had one on the outcome of the negotiations! we certainly would not be walking blind into no-Deal Brexit for which there is no mandate, democratic or otherwise.
The Greeks would have called our constitution a disguised oligarchy. Democratic decisions were taken by votes in assemblies, and citizens could call as many votes as they wanted on the same subject. But, they did exclude women, slaves, and non-citizens.
I voted to leave. I did not vote to ask the EU for permission to leave. Yet, it has been all along as if the UK electorate voted for the latter, the final straw being the vote to rule out the so called "no deal". The EU's decision to offer utterly punitive withdrawal terms amounts to their saying no to a request from the UK to ask for permission to leave. Their aim is to keep the UK in the EU, either as now or under May's BINO arrangement which would be even more advantageous to them than the current status quo.
With a resolute PM determined to leave, the exact opposite of what we have, the starting point for negotiations should have been for the UK to declare that it would be leaving, and that the EU could only choose whether to reach agreement with the UK on future trading arrangements before or after we left. We would make clear that we knew we could get better terms after leaving and that if the EU failed to negotiate seriously (which it signalled at the outset with the insistence on the backstop) we would walk away until after March 29th 2019. The UK would have declared that it did not accept that the EU would fail to negotiate after that date, and made it clear to all the world that the UK was perfectly prepared to wait because we knew we would get better terms after we were out. We would, because the question of whether or not the UK leaves would be off the table. We would publish draft tariff schedules that were as punitive as they could be to EU imports under the limitations of WTO terms, declaring that we hoped that they would last no more than a few weeks once the EU stance changed to a goal of negotiating a trade settlement in its interests, rather than of offering nothing to dissuade the UK from leaving. When the EU retailiated with plans for similar tariffs of their own, we would react with equinimity, pointing out that it was EU manufactured goods that were primarily at risk given the vast imbalance in trade between us. If bottlenecks developed at UK ports, on account of all the empty lorries leaving the UK, we would announced that priority would be given to those which were actually loaded. We would publish how the UK would use the short term tariffs on EU imported goods to offset the increased costs on UK consumers and businesses, such as through reductions or new exemptions from VAT. We would have started a public information campaign to highlight UK manufacturing and encourage the public to make informed choices (such as, for example, drawing attention to which cars are assembled in the UK). And I think public opinion would have hardened against remaining in those circumstances.
Tl;dr?
Leaver shocked at entirely predictable events following Leave vote.
I hate this argument. In any democracy people take decisions that will impact people who weren’t able to vote at that time, or will impact some people differently than themselves.
So many better arguments for a second referendum.
Are we in a "democracy"? Very old Greek word. Means lots of things to lots of people, depending on whether it supports their argument. I think we are a constitutional monarchy with a number of democratic institutions, an unwritten constitution and a decent appreciation for the rule of law. Not a democracy though. The clearest indication of that is that people seen terrified of having another referendum. If we were a "democracy" we would have already had one on the outcome of the negotiations! we certainly would not be walking blind into no-Deal Brexit for which there is no mandate, democratic or otherwise.
The Greeks would have called our constitution a disguised oligarchy. Democratic decisions were taken by votes in assemblies, and citizens could call as many votes as they wanted on the same subject. But, they did exclude women, slaves, and non-citizens.
That would mean Theresa May couldn't participate..........
I hate this argument. In any democracy people take decisions that will impact people who weren’t able to vote at that time, or will impact some people differently than themselves.
So many better arguments for a second referendum.
Are we in a "democracy"? Very old Greek word. Means lots of things to lots of people, depending on whether it supports their argument. I think we are a constitutional monarchy with a number of democratic institutions, an unwritten constitution and a decent appreciation for the rule of law. Not a democracy though. The clearest indication of that is that people seen terrified of having another referendum. If we were a "democracy" we would have already had one on the outcome of the negotiations! we certainly would not be walking blind into no-Deal Brexit for which there is no mandate, democratic or otherwise.
The Greeks would have called our constitution a disguised oligarchy. Democratic decisions were taken by votes in assemblies, and citizens could call as many votes as they wanted on the same subject. But, they did exclude women, slaves, and non-citizens.
Yes, agreed Mr. F. Our system continues to offer enough democracy to people to make them continue to believe they are part of a genuine democracy. Still, much preferred to many other systems, particularly when one considers Nigel Farage's mate in Russia, or Mr. Thicky's chum in Venezuela
Athenian democracy was actually closer, in terms of democratic immediacy, to the kind of anarchist ideas of continual participatory decision-making that would give many conservatives a fright.
Nice damaging result for the second referendum, I'm sure the people votes lot are delighted with the Tiggers.
They might have something to say about Labour abstentions too.
Kier quoted a spokesperson when clarifying Labour's position, as they want a second referendum more than they want Chuka to be king of the universe they knew that now wasn't the time to go...
Athenian democracy was actually closer, in terms of democratic immediacy, to the kind of anarchist ideas of continual participatory decision-making that would give many conservatives a fright.
The ERG would probably feel they were more aligned to the less democratic and favoured model of many right wingers, the Spartans with Rees-Mogg fancying himself as a puny version of Leonidis dying a heroic death in Thermopylae against the hoards of Remainers, Europeans and mercenary immigrants from Persia
Of course the big secret the elite won't acknowledge is that the working class generally want out, are aware they get screwed whoever rules and in a deal, a no deal or remain and couldn't give a shit about what benefits business and the middle classes and their 3 holidays a year.
Athenian democracy was actually closer, in terms of democratic immediacy, to the kind of anarchist ideas of continual participatory decision-making that would give many conservatives a fright.
Indeed. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mytilenian_Debate for a vote to commit genocide, followed by a vote the other way on exactly the same subject the following day. It was like being governed by Sun headline writers. Athens was not the wonder it was cracked up to be; look what it did to Socrates.
It is nonsense to claim that the Leave campaign was based on the condition that the UK would only leave once an agreement was in place, and that if that could not happen then we would stay in the EU indefinitely. Was the Leave campaign really saying that the UK should fail to serve A50 in perpetuity if the EU failed to come to the negotiating table in good faith? Do you really believe that?
I read that paragraph as being conditional on the assumption that the EU would act in good faith. When it turned out very quickly that the EU were instead behaving as utter b******s, due to an early correct appreciation that their negotiating opponent was a weak jellyfish, their main negotiating goal being to bring the UK to a position when it changed its mind by offering nothing, then it was implicit that Plan B would need to kick in and A50 would have to be served.
Somehow I can't quite imagine Theresa "going batshit" at anyone...
Most PMs don't ever need to go "batshit".
They just replace the offending Cabinet members. Otherwise, you no longer have collective responsibility of Cabinet. Anyone who can't accept that should be invited to walk out.
It is nonsense to claim that the Leave campaign was based on the condition that the UK would only leave once an agreement was in place, and that if that could not happen then we would stay in the EU indefinitely. Was the Leave campaign really saying that the UK should fail to serve A50 in perpetuity if the EU failed to come to the negotiating table in good faith? Do you really believe that?
I read that paragraph as being conditional on the assumption that the EU would act in good faith. When it turned out very quickly that the EU were instead behaving as utter b******s, due to an early correct appreciation that their negotiating opponent was a weak jellyfish, their main negotiating goal being to bring the UK to a position when it changed its mind by offering nothing, then it was implicit that Plan B would need to kick in and A50 would have to be served.
Of course the big secret the elite won't acknowledge is that the working class generally want out, are aware they get screwed whoever rules and in a deal, a no deal or remain and couldn't give a shit about what benefits business and the middle classes and their 3 holidays a year.
Hilariously so. “But what about Tarquin’s Erasmus overseas study in Berlin?”
You voted to leave. So f*cking what? What you DON'T get, as a leave voter, is some God given right to dictate the manner of the departure to everyone, remainer, leaver, abstainer or ineligible. The idea that May as a "Remainer" (debatable in itself) is unqualified to negotiate exit for that reason is symptomatic of the desire of leave voters (a status it is impossible to verify) to disenfranchise the remain electorate as to the manner of departure. May is as capable and more, given the party she leads got the most votes in the 2017 election, entitled to manage the departure them anyone else. More so than most prominent leavers who ran when their utopia didn't emerge. Lord knows I will never vote Tory but at least she has tried to leave in a manner that will not entrench bitterness in an already deeply divided country.
The fact that your side treated the 2016 result as a Holy Writ to impose on the whole country your version of what it should mean, whatever the consequences, has provoked a backlash and is why your side is losing the peace. Given your side showed, and are showing, no magnanimity in victory, you cannot expect graciousness in defeat. You won but that was not enough. You want to rub the losing side's noses in it. Such attitudes rarely end well.
The backstop is there because we, 70 years ago, imposed a border where a border had never been before, cutting across long established communities in the North West of Ireland, esp. in the border counties, which has created instability in that part of the EU. The EU, via Ireland, don't trust our assurances not to reimpose a "hard border". Why should they given our history towards Ireland and attitudes like yours that suggest that the issue is not "serious"? This is serious to them. The fact you say the Irish border issue is "Not serious" shows a total lack of understanding at the depth of feeling in the matter in the EU state to our west.
Good, I'd quite like a second referendum but if those who want one prioritise damaging Labour above having one then I'd rather we just got on with a soft brexit.
I voted to leave. I did not vote to ask the EU for permission to leave. Yet, it has been all along as if the UK electorate voted for the latter, the final straw being the vote to rule out the so called "no deal". The EU's decision to offer utterly punitive withdrawal terms amounts to their saying no to a request from the UK to ask for permission to leave. Their aim is to keep the UK in the EU, either as now or under May's BINO arrangement which would be even more advantageous to them than the current status quo.
With a resolute PM determined to leave, the exact opposite of what we have, the starting point for negotiations should have been for the UK to declare that it would be leaving, and that the EU could only choose whether to reach agreement with the UK on future trading arrangements before or after we left. We would make clear that we knew we could get better terms after leaving and that if the EU failed to negotiate seriously (which it signalled at the outset with the insistence on the backstop) we would walk away until after March 29th 2019. The UK would have declared that it did not accept that the EU would fail to negotiate after that date, and made it clear to all the world that the UK was perfectly prepared to wait because we knew we would get better terms after we were out. We would, because the question of whether or not the UK leaves would be off the table. We would publish draft tariff schedules that were as punitive as they could be to EU imports under the limitations of WTO terms, declaring that we hoped that they would last no more than a few weeks once the EU stance changed to a goal of negotiating a trade settlement in its interests, rather than of offering nothing to dissuade the UK from leaving. When the EU retailiated with plans for similar tariffs of their own, we would react with equinimity, pointing out that it was EU manufactured goods that were primarily at risk given the vast imbalance in trade between us. If bottlenecks developed at UK ports, on account of all the empty lorries leaving the UK, we would announced that priority would be given to those which were actually loaded. We would publish how the UK would use the short term tariffs on EU imported goods to offset the increased costs on UK consumers and businesses, such as through reductions or new exemptions from VAT. We would have started a public information campaign to highlight UK manufacturing and encourage the public to make informed choices (such as, for example, drawing attention to which cars are assembled in the UK). And I think public opinion would have hardened against remaining in those circumstances.
Tl;dr?
Leaver shocked at entirely predictable events following Leave vote.
I am not shocked at the actions of the EU elite. I am not even shocked that a Remain supporting PM let them get away with it. I am just angry that she did.
Comments
*planet-sized if, naturally
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47524760
A second referendum might get a further chance if circumstances changed further in the coming days. Indeed, if MV3 is blocked, Theresa May might conceivably throw her weight behind it, given that no deal is ruled out.
I think it’s worse for the bottom 80-90% in terms of lived experience.
https://twitter.com/ChukaUmunna/status/1106087013890043904
It's TIG, the Lib Dems, Plaid and the SNP, plus two strongly anti-Corbyn Labour MPs (Coyle and Geraint Davies).
It isn't meant to succeed. It's so that when Corbyn finds some magic excuse not to back a second referendum ever, which frankly he will, the others can throw this at him/Labour.
It is, basically, Focus leaflet fodder (or the modern equivalent, viral Facebook clips). If/when everything goes to sh-t and we end up in a General Election, this is going to be thrown at every Labour candidate in the land: you refused this, you own Brexit.
So many better arguments for a second referendum.
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1106233925603606530
The Cohen testimony was almost art.
https://twitter.com/elliotttimes/status/1106226181643341825
The implication that votes are worth relatively less if cast by the elderly is a wretched one.
Some apostrophes for you.
Are you claiming that there are no young people in the country?
And by the same argument there will be people in Dr Wollaston's contingency who not only thought they were voting for a Conservative MP on a manifesto to implement Brexit but also people who were not old enough to vote her in 2017...
So Dr W should put her money where her mouth is and hold a by election.
ps apostophe opportunity for you.
With a resolute PM determined to leave, the exact opposite of what we have, the starting point for negotiations should have been for the UK to declare that it would be leaving, and that the EU could only choose whether to reach agreement with the UK on future trading arrangements before or after we left. We would make clear that we knew we could get better terms after leaving and that if the EU failed to negotiate seriously (which it signalled at the outset with the insistence on the backstop) we would walk away until after March 29th 2019. The UK would have declared that it did not accept that the EU would fail to negotiate after that date, and made it clear to all the world that the UK was perfectly prepared to wait because we knew we would get better terms after we were out. We would, because the question of whether or not the UK leaves would be off the table. We would publish draft tariff schedules that were as punitive as they could be to EU imports under the limitations of WTO terms, declaring that we hoped that they would last no more than a few weeks once the EU stance changed to a goal of negotiating a trade settlement in its interests, rather than of offering nothing to dissuade the UK from leaving. When the EU retailiated with plans for similar tariffs of their own, we would react with equinimity, pointing out that it was EU manufactured goods that were primarily at risk given the vast imbalance in trade between us. If bottlenecks developed at UK ports, on account of all the empty lorries leaving the UK, we would announced that priority would be given to those which were actually loaded. We would publish how the UK would use the short term tariffs on EU imported goods to offset the increased costs on UK consumers and businesses, such as through reductions or new exemptions from VAT. We would have started a public information campaign to highlight UK manufacturing and encourage the public to make informed choices (such as, for example, drawing attention to which cars are assembled in the UK). And I think public opinion would have hardened against remaining in those circumstances.
TIG is the Chuka vanity project.
But, wages are higher and the cost of living lower, so people can afford better housing, more food, and better consumer goods.
They also said we’d know this.
https://twitter.com/fleetstreetfox/status/1105048571039150080?s=21
Leaver shocked at entirely predictable events following Leave vote.
Brilliant.
That's what they'll be saying down at t'boozer tonight
https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/1106241566832844802
I read that paragraph as being conditional on the assumption that the EU would act in good faith. When it turned out very quickly that the EU were instead behaving as utter b******s, due to an early correct appreciation that their negotiating opponent was a weak jellyfish, their main negotiating goal being to bring the UK to a position when it changed its mind by offering nothing, then it was implicit that Plan B would need to kick in and A50 would have to be served.
They just replace the offending Cabinet members. Otherwise, you no longer have collective responsibility of Cabinet. Anyone who can't accept that should be invited to walk out.
Oh dear
Noes: 334
Few votes for the People's Vote.....
I wonder if this will FINALLY stop this delusion that Corbyn could trigger a second referendum if only he snapped his fingers.
You voted to leave. So f*cking what? What you DON'T get, as a leave voter, is some God given right to dictate the manner of the departure to everyone, remainer, leaver, abstainer or ineligible. The idea that May as a "Remainer" (debatable in itself) is unqualified to negotiate exit for that reason is symptomatic of the desire of leave voters (a status it is impossible to verify) to disenfranchise the remain electorate as to the manner of departure. May is as capable and more, given the party she leads got the most votes in the 2017 election, entitled to manage the departure them anyone else. More so than most prominent leavers who ran when their utopia didn't emerge. Lord knows I will never vote Tory but at least she has tried to leave in a manner that will not entrench bitterness in an already deeply divided country.
The fact that your side treated the 2016 result as a Holy Writ to impose on the whole country your version of what it should mean, whatever the consequences, has provoked a backlash and is why your side is losing the peace. Given your side showed, and are showing, no magnanimity in victory, you cannot expect graciousness in defeat. You won but that was not enough. You want to rub the losing side's noses in it. Such attitudes rarely end well.
The backstop is there because we, 70 years ago, imposed a border where a border had never been before, cutting across long established communities in the North West of Ireland, esp. in the border counties, which has created instability in that part of the EU. The EU, via Ireland, don't trust our assurances not to reimpose a "hard border". Why should they given our history towards Ireland and attitudes like yours that suggest that the issue is not "serious"? This is serious to them. The fact you say the Irish border issue is "Not serious" shows a total lack of understanding at the depth of feeling in the matter in the EU state to our west.