If, as I suspect, there's an amendment or indicative calling for a 2nd referendum next week which PV supports, my prediction is that Labour will whip in favour. What's yours?
That will depend on the outcome of the battles within Labour. At the moment they are still maintaining the ludicrous pretence that there's some other withdrawal deal, unknown to the EU, which could be offered to voters in a referendum. Absurd though that nonsense is, I rather expect they will stick with it - after all, Corbyn wants Brexit, he wants as much chaos as possible, and he wants the Conservative Party to be as split as possible. But it's true that his hand might be forced.
IMO every single sentence of that post is mistaken, each in a different way (it's an achievement!). Stereotomy is IMO a better guide to Labour politics.
There seems to be a lot of denial on PB in general about the idea that Corbyn could (reluctantly) support Remain, even though that's exactly what he did in the referendum. It seems pretty clear to me that he's just not that animated by Brexit or questions of the EU in general, and is motivated much more by electoral politics (in which either full-throated Leave or Remain support would be damaging for Labour), and likely by internal power struggles in the party. But I can understand why people who for the past couple of years have thought that Corbyn was an ultra-Brexiteer would be finding it hard to recalibrate to his current position.
Those are good points. I had a chance to do a blind tasting of Brexit options with some non-aligned people last night. All 7 preferred Labour's version of Brexit to the May one - I didn't say which party came up with them. I think all 7 would be either Conservatives or non-voters, and all were over 50.
It just struck me how trivially easy it would be to get Brexit through if the Tories had been prepared to switch to supporting the customs union and offering up some non-binding waffle about workers' rights. We could even have got out on time if they had done that before Christmas.
I know she is popular with the public right now but I think history is going to be pretty hard on May.
Isn't the difference between the two policies that the EU have agreed to May's one?
There is also the pretty well off the shelf Norway model.
And I'm claiming that it's much more likely that they were not honest than that they didn't see a huge defeat coming.
I'm sure they did see a huge defeat coming. In what way is it dishonest to vote for something just because you know that it won't be successful?
It's not even particularly cynical to try to damage Labour either, given that its backbenches are stuffed with MPs who think their leader should never be Prime Minister.
Indeed. Clearly they want to put pressure on Labour to support a referendum, and there's nothing wrong with that. Why should Labour expect to be given a free pass to face in two directions? It's not up to the TIGgers to help Corbyn deceive his voters.
If, as I suspect, there's an amendment or indicative calling for a 2nd referendum next week which PV supports, my prediction is that Labour will whip in favour. What's yours?
They will whip in favour but face 50 or more rebels or abstainers unwilling to subvert democracy and it will fall. A lot of those happy yo be whipped to abstain will not be happy to be whipped in support
There are many reasons why holding a second vote is not a particularly good idea but the notion that asking people to vote is a subversion of democracy is positively orwellian.
I think if voters are presented with a series of choices it will lance the boil that this is a re-run. One of those options could be May's deal, another No deal, another Remain etc.
It could be framed as an AV or STV.
It's the only way out of this impasse. And it would be binding on Parliament.
If, as I suspect, there's an amendment or indicative calling for a 2nd referendum next week which PV supports, my prediction is that Labour will whip in favour. What's yours?
That will depend on the outcome of the battles within Labour. At the moment they are still maintaining the ludicrous pretence that there's some other withdrawal deal, unknown to the EU, which could be offered to voters in a referendum. Absurd though that nonsense is, I rather expect they will stick with it - after all, Corbyn wants Brexit, he wants as much chaos as possible, and he wants the Conservative Party to be as split as possible. But it's true that his hand might be forced.
IMO every single sentence of that post is mistaken, each in a different way (it's an achievement!). Stereotomy is IMO a better guide to Labour politics.
There seems to be a lot of denial on PB in general about the idea that Corbyn could (reluctantly) support Remain, even though that's exactly what he did in the referendum. It seems pretty clear to me that he's just not that animated by Brexit or questions of the EU in general, and is motivated much more by electoral politics (in which either full-throated Leave or Remain support would be damaging for Labour), and likely by internal power struggles in the party. But I can understand why people who for the past couple of years have thought that Corbyn was an ultra-Brexiteer would be finding it hard to recalibrate to his current position.
Those are good points. I had a chance to do a blind tasting of Brexit options with some non-aligned people last night. All 7 preferred Labour's version of Brexit to the May one - I didn't say which party came up with them. I think all 7 would be either Conservatives or non-voters, and all were over 50.
It just struck me how trivially easy it would be to get Brexit through if the Tories had been prepared to switch to supporting the customs union and offering up some non-binding waffle about workers' rights. We could even have got out on time if they had done that before Christmas.
I know she is popular with the public right now but I think history is going to be pretty hard on May.
Isn't the difference between the two policies that the EU have agreed to May's one?
Yes but British membership of the Customs Union is a win-win proposition. We are better off in it and the EU is better off with us in it. It would be an easy matter to get it agreed to, and with both Corbyn and May supporting it it would be the easiest trade deal in history.
... But it's just a fact about JC that he says what he thinks (or, if persuaded, possibly refrains from further comment, as with Trident), and what he thinks is that Brexit needs to be resolved with membership or referendum or soft Brexit but other issues are more important. It would be better for Labour in the current climate if he pretended that it was his consuming passion and gave interviews on it every day, but that's not how he works.
I do wonder at your mental gymnastics, Nick. You can't simultaneously argue that Corbyn says what he thinks and then deny that he thinks what he has repeatedly said. He has been completely consistent for decades in supporting Brexit, has said he did "not want to live in a European empire of the 21st century.” and saying he doesn't want a second referendum:
Do you think anyone who voted leave had any real idea what they were voting for? I don't.
I did.
And based on your previous post, you see what you voted for as a spectrum of possibilities, which as a person of great foresight must have included the possibility that Brexit wouldn't happen.
... Independents: people I know who are switched onto politics (including two centrist Labour MPs who they might have fancied attracting) are pretty annoyed about their cynical pushing of the referendum against the wishes of the referendum campaigners - really obvious that they're more about damaging Labour than stopping Brexit. I think this will have passed most people by, but they then have the other problem that most people are starting to forget they exist. ..
What was cynical about it? They believe there should be a referendum, so they voted for it. Pretty much the diametric opposite of cynical, in contrast to those who pretend they might support a referendum in order not to fool their own voters and party members.
Why do you think People's Vote and Best for Britain didn't want the amendment? Why do you think TIG ignored them?
The cynically-named 'People's Vote' campaign don't think it's the right time. The TIGgers do. It's called a difference of opinion.
One of the best* parts of Brexit is the alternate way one day it is parliament that is sovereign, and the next "the people" should be ultimate arbiters. Both leave and remain playing this particular hokey kokey.
That's the point, there was zilch about what leave actually meant. No definition of it. No clarification. No timetable. No tabling of options. It was presented as a ludicrously simplistic binary choice.
Absolute shame on David Cameron. Most of the fault is right there.
If, as I suspect, there's an amendment or indicative calling for a 2nd referendum next week which PV supports, my prediction is that Labour will whip in favour. What's yours?
That will depend on the outcome of the battles within Labour. At the moment they are still maintaining the ludicrous pretence that there's some other withdrawal deal, unknown to the EU, which could be offered to voters in a referendum. Absurd though that nonsense is, I rather expect they will stick with it - after all, Corbyn wants Brexit, he wants as much chaos as possible, and he wants the Conservative Party to be as split as possible. But it's true that his hand might be forced.
IMO every single sentence of that post is mistaken, each in a different way (it's an achievement!). Stereotomy is IMO a better guide to Labour politics.
There seems to be a lot of denial on PB in general about the idea that Corbyn could (reluctantly) support Remain, even though that's exactly what he did in the referendum. It seems pretty clear to me that he's just not that animated by Brexit or questions of the EU in general, and is motivated much more by electoral politics (in which either full-throated Leave or Remain support would be damaging for Labour), and likely by internal power struggles in the party. But I can understand why people who for the past couple of years have thought that Corbyn was an ultra-Brexiteer would be finding it hard to recalibrate to his current position.
Those are good points. I had a chance to do a blind tasting of Brexit options with some non-aligned people last night. All 7 preferred Labour's version of Brexit to the May one - I didn't say which party came up with them. I think all 7 would be either Conservatives or non-voters, and all were over 50.
It just struck me how trivially easy it would be to get Brexit through if the Tories had been prepared to switch to supporting the customs union and offering up some non-binding waffle about workers' rights. We could even have got out on time if they had done that before Christmas.
I know she is popular with the public right now but I think history is going to be pretty hard on May.
Isn't the difference between the two policies that the EU have agreed to May's one?
There is also the pretty well off the shelf Norway model.
It’s not off the shelf because it works with Norway because Norway is Norway. They are not the second largest economy on Europe. The EEA becomes a counter to the EU not a subservient principality. But it’s a lot better than what we have so far.
I'd be very interested to know how the DUP could be persuaded to switch sides. Blocking the backstop must surely be more important to the DUP than getting Brexit.
Yes. Very few people have commented on this important point. Brexit wasn't a Northern Ireland preference and it's not the DUP's.
It still had 44% support, including 70% of Unionists, so a lot of their constituency back it.
227,084 out of 444,881, or 51% of, voters in the 10 DUP constituencies voted to leave.
And how many would vote for no deal ?
Everybody who voted to leave voted for the possibility of no deal, whether they realised it or not. Rather similar to all those MPs who voted for A50.
Do you think anyone who voted leave had any real idea what they were voting for? I don't.
I think they were voting to leave the EU (and most knew that much).
When you consider that 99.8% of the sitting MPs at the time of the referendum were representing parties that officially backed remain, it was impossible for the leave campaign to do anything other than speculate on what might happen in the event of a leave victory because those campaigning had absolutely no mandate to carry any of the promises that were being made.
I'm still staggered on how literally some of the electorate took them for their word.
... Independents: people I know who are switched onto politics (including two centrist Labour MPs who they might have fancied attracting) are pretty annoyed about their cynical pushing of the referendum against the wishes of the referendum campaigners - really obvious that they're more about damaging Labour than stopping Brexit. I think this will have passed most people by, but they then have the other problem that most people are starting to forget they exist. ..
What was cynical about it? They believe there should be a referendum, so they voted for it. Pretty much the diametric opposite of cynical, in contrast to those who pretend they might support a referendum in order not to fool their own voters and party members.
Why do you think People's Vote and Best for Britain didn't want the amendment? Why do you think TIG ignored them?
The cynically-named 'People's Vote' campaign don't think it's the right time. The TIGgers do. It's called a difference of opinion.
One of the best* parts of Brexit is the alternate way one day it is parliament that is sovereign, and the next "the people" should be ultimate arbiters. Both leave and remain playing this particular hokey kokey.
Presumably Gina Miller would be happy that Parliament asserted its control by rejecting a second referendum.
I hope everyone is happy that parliament took control by deciding it didn't want control right now.
Yes, you can always tell the anti- democrats by their enthusiasm for giving the electorate the opportunity to vote on something crucially affecting its entire future. And the democrats by their distaste for same.
I am not actually wedded to the idea of a second referendum, just pointing out the justification for one. Perhaps you would like to dial down the boorishness a notch or two and let us know whether there are or should be any rules analogous to ftpa governing the duration of a referendum result?
For the hard of understanding I will repeat once again. Democracy is not just about asking a question, it is about acting on the response. As for boorishness, you confuse it with genuine disgust and contempt at the attitude of people like yourself who think that votes are a convenient smokescreen for getting what you want. I am not surprised you are happy to stay in the EU. It is an attitude they have in spades.
The officer class of the US military has always been far more of a meritocracy than in European nations where social class was important so educational acheivment was good way to distguish an ambitious officer from their peers. Also, many officers elect for a military career as a way of financing an education they otherwise could not afford so they naturally get some bookish types that way.
The XO of my USN squadron had a Master's in International Relations from Georgetown. His counterpart in the RN would probably have A Level Geography grade C.
The obsession with academic acheivment has its pros and cons but it was a definite point of cultural differences that I found quite surprising.
There is also the pretty well off the shelf Norway model.
It’s not off the shelf because it works with Norway because Norway is Norway. They are not the second largest economy on Europe. The EEA becomes a counter to the EU not a subservient principality. But it’s a lot better than what we have so far.
We tried to turn EFTA into a counterweight to the EEC when EFTA had 7 members and the EEC had 6. It did not work, because the political vision and coherence of the EEC was so much more compelling.
... Independents: people I know who are switched onto politics (including two centrist Labour MPs who they might have fancied attracting) are pretty annoyed about their cynical pushing of the referendum against the wishes of the referendum campaigners - really obvious that they're more about damaging Labour than stopping Brexit. I think this will have passed most people by, but they then have the other problem that most people are starting to forget they exist. ..
What was cynical about it? They believe there should be a referendum, so they voted for it. Pretty much the diametric opposite of cynical, in contrast to those who pretend they might support a referendum in order not to fool their own voters and party members.
Why do you think People's Vote and Best for Britain didn't want the amendment? Why do you think TIG ignored them?
The cynically-named 'People's Vote' campaign don't think it's the right time. The TIGgers do. It's called a difference of opinion.
One of the best* parts of Brexit is the alternate way one day it is parliament that is sovereign, and the next "the people" should be ultimate arbiters. Both leave and remain playing this particular hokey kokey.
Yes, pretty Inconsistent to say the least.
Corbyn et al do a similar sidestep where they are responding the demands of either their "members" or their "communities" whichever provides the required answer for given topic. its quite handy for their position on Ref2
And I'm claiming that it's much more likely that they were not honest than that they didn't see a huge defeat coming.
I'm sure they did see a huge defeat coming. In what way is it dishonest to vote for something just because you know that it won't be successful?
It's not even particularly cynical to try to damage Labour either, given that its backbenches are stuffed with MPs who think their leader should never be Prime Minister.
Indeed. Clearly they want to put pressure on Labour to support a referendum, and there's nothing wrong with that. Why should Labour expect to be given a free pass to face in two directions? It's not up to the TIGgers to help Corbyn deceive his voters.
If, as I suspect, there's an amendment or indicative calling for a 2nd referendum next week which PV supports, my prediction is that Labour will whip in favour. What's yours?
They will whip in favour but face 50 or more rebels or abstainers unwilling to subvert democracy and it will fall. A lot of those happy yo be whipped to abstain will not be happy to be whipped in support
There are many reasons why holding a second vote is not a particularly good idea but the notion that asking people to vote is a subversion of democracy is positively orwellian.
I think if voters are presented with a series of choices it will lance the boil that this is a re-run. One of those options could be May's deal, another No deal, another Remain etc.
It could be framed as an AV or STV.
It's the only way out of this impasse. And it would be binding on Parliament.
There was a very vocal element on QT last night wondering why politicians find it so difficult to understand that WE HAVE VOTED TO LEAVE. They were loudly cheered.
Rigging a second vote to engineer a Remain outcome will not go as well as you imagine.
Yes but British membership of the Customs Union is a win-win proposition. We are better off in it and the EU is better off with us in it. It would be an easy matter to get it agreed to, and with both Corbyn and May supporting it it would be the easiest trade deal in history.
British membership of the Customs Union long term (after the backstop) is not on offer. Membership of The Customs Union is intimately entwined with EU membership which is why the EU did not want to offer it to the whole UK as even a short term solution (as part of the backstop) but agreed for the sake of the negotiations. Long term it is a non starter.
And I'm claiming that it's much more likely that they were not honest than that they didn't see a huge defeat coming.
I'm sure they did see a huge defeat coming. In what way is it dishonest to vote for something just because you know that it won't be successful?
It's not even particularly cynical to try to damage Labour either, given that its backbenches are stuffed with MPs who think their leader should never be Prime Minister.
Indeed. Clearly they want to put pressure on Labour to support a referendum, and there's nothing wrong with that. Why should Labour expect to be given a free pass to face in two directions? It's not up to the TIGgers to help Corbyn deceive his voters.
If, as I suspect, there's an amendment or indicative calling for a 2nd referendum next week which PV supports, my prediction is that Labour will whip in favour. What's yours?
They will whip in favour but face 50 or more rebels or abstainers unwilling to subvert democracy and it will fall. A lot of those happy yo be whipped to abstain will not be happy to be whipped in support
There are many reasons why holding a second vote is not a particularly good idea but the notion that asking people to vote is a subversion of democracy is positively orwellian.
I think if voters are presented with a series of choices it will lance the boil that this is a re-run. One of those options could be May's deal, another No deal, another Remain etc.
It could be framed as an AV or STV.
It's the only way out of this impasse. And it would be binding on Parliament.
There was a very vocal element on QT last night wondering why politicians find it so difficult to understand that WE HAVE VOTED TO LEAVE. They were loudly cheered.
Rigging a second vote to engineer a Remain outcome will not go as well as you imagine.
Yes, you can always tell the anti- democrats by their enthusiasm for giving the electorate the opportunity to vote on something crucially affecting its entire future. And the democrats by their distaste for same.
I am not actually wedded to the idea of a second referendum, just pointing out the justification for one. Perhaps you would like to dial down the boorishness a notch or two and let us know whether there are or should be any rules analogous to ftpa governing the duration of a referendum result?
For the hard of understanding I will repeat once again. Democracy is not just about asking a question, it is about acting on the response.
For the stubborn let me repeat. The initial question was clearly inadequate. Some of the campaigning was with hindsight borderline illegal. Those alone would be reasons to question the 'result.'
Throw into the mix the 52-48% split, the fact that Parliament has been incapable of finding an agreement, the evidential shift in attitudes and you have a compelling case for a new vote.
Democracy means listening to the will of the people and if there's a shift, which is clearly the case, we need to respond to that.
If, as I suspect, there's an amendment or indicative calling for a 2nd referendum next week which PV supports, my prediction is that Labour will whip in favour. What's yours?
That will depend on the outcome of the battles within Labour. At the moment they are still maintaining the ludicrous pretence that there's some other withdrawal deal, unknown to the EU, which could be offered to voters in a referendum. Absurd though that nonsense is, I rather expect they will stick with it - after all, Corbyn wants Brexit, he wants as much chaos as possible, and he wants the Conservative Party to be as split as possible. But it's true that his hand might be forced.
IMO every single sentence of that post is mistaken, each in a different way (it's an achievement!). Stereotomy is IMO a better guide to Labour politics.
There seems to be a lot of denial on PB in general about the idea that Corbyn could (reluctantly) support Remain, even though that's exactly what he did in the referendum. It seems pretty clear to me that he's just not that animated by Brexit or questions of the EU in general, and is motivated much more by electoral politics (in which either full-throated Leave or Remain support would be damaging for Labour), and likely by internal power struggles in the party. But I can understand why people who for the past couple of years have thought that Corbyn was an ultra-Brexiteer would be finding it hard to recalibrate to his current position.
I know she is popular with the public right now but I think history is going to be pretty hard on May.
Depends on whether she eventually gets the deal through and how Brexit pans out.
I think if deal go through and UK goes on to be relatively unscathed economically - history will focus on the incredible determination and durability.
If the deal fails and we end up with a softer or no Brexit, history will view her Premiership as abject failure, even against a backdrop of a more favourable outcome for the country as a whole
Forget to say that, lastly, the US invests far more in developing their officers once they have them than other nations but that's just a function of money.
The European Union is poised to tell Theresa May that she must hold a second referendum or soften Brexit in return for them granting a lengthy delay to Britain’s departure date.
The Times understands that the prime minister has been told by senior EU officials and other European leaders that conditions for an extension to the Article 50 exit process would include the option of a second vote on EU membership.
Mrs May is expected to ask a summit of EU leaders next week for a delay to Brexit. Unless the House of Commons has ratified the withdrawal agreement by then momentum is growing across the EU for a lengthy postponement to give Britain a “long reflection period”.
I am saddened by this, as it's too much of an overreach by the EU. They are in a good position to make demands, so throwing it all away by demanding a second referendum is stupid: it won't win and arguably it shouldn't be held, at least not without an improvement on Cameron's deal. Everybody, Leavers and Remainers alike, are twisting on 18 and it's annoying the (redacted) out of me.
I very much doubt they would stipulate "a referendum" - more "a period for reflection" - which could involve reverting to the electorate in a manner the UK felt was appropriate - or even just the HoC reaching a stable consensus. They know an "EU ordered referendum" would face an uphill battle.
And I'm claiming that it's much more likely that they were not honest than that they didn't see a huge defeat coming.
I'm sure they did see a huge defeat coming. In what way is it dishonest to vote for something just because you know that it won't be successful?
It's not even particularly cynical to try to damage Labour either, given that its backbenches are stuffed with MPs who think their leader should never be Prime Minister.
Indeed. Clearly they want to put pressure on Labour to support a referendum, and there's nothing wrong with that. Why should Labour expect to be given a free pass to face in two directions? It's not up to the TIGgers to help Corbyn deceive his voters.
If, as I suspect, there's an amendment or indicative calling for a 2nd referendum next week which PV supports, my prediction is that Labour will whip in favour. What's yours?
They will whip in favour but face 50 or more rebels or abstainers unwilling to subvert democracy and it will fall. A lot of those happy yo be whipped to abstain will not be happy to be whipped in support
There are many reasons why holding a second vote is not a particularly good idea but the notion that asking people to vote is a subversion of democracy is positively orwellian.
I think if voters are presented with a series of choices it will lance the boil that this is a re-run. One of those options could be May's deal, another No deal, another Remain etc.
It could be framed as an AV or STV.
It's the only way out of this impasse. And it would be binding on Parliament.
There was a very vocal element on QT last night wondering why politicians find it so difficult to understand that WE HAVE VOTED TO LEAVE. They were loudly cheered.
Rigging a second vote to engineer a Remain outcome will not go as well as you imagine.
Sorry mate but we voted to stay in in 1975.
In the EEC of nine members. Unfortunately, that no longer exists.
Slab -> SNP swing of 1% or over = Slab reduced to Ian Murray's Edinburgh Sth seat.
SNP to SCon - any widening of the gap delivers Stirling, but a difference of 14% is needed to start making inroads into seats like Gordon, Angus etc. Even a 20% difference could leave the Conservatives with 4 or 5 seats, so a repeat of 2015 is virtually impossible.
The SNP has underperformed its poll ratings in recent years. I expect that to happen again at a Westminster election.
And I'm claiming that it's much more likely that they were not honest than that they didn't see a huge defeat coming.
I'm sure they did see a huge defeat coming. In what way is it dishonest to vote for something just because you know that it won't be successful?
It's not even particularly cynical to try to damage Labour either, given that its backbenches are stuffed with MPs who think their leader should never be Prime Minister.
Indeed. Clearly they want to put pressure on Labour to support a referendum, and there's nothing wrong with that. Why should Labour expect to be given a free pass to face in two directions? It's not up to the TIGgers to help Corbyn deceive his voters.
If, as I suspect, there's an amendment or indicative calling for a 2nd referendum next week which PV supports, my prediction is that Labour will whip in favour. What's yours?
They will whip in favour but face 50 or more rebels or abstainers unwilling to subvert democracy and it will fall. A lot of those happy yo be whipped to abstain will not be happy to be whipped in support
There are many reasons why holding a second vote is not a particularly good idea but the notion that asking people to vote is a subversion of democracy is positively orwellian.
I think if voters are presented with a series of choices it will lance the boil that this is a re-run. One of those options could be May's deal, another No deal, another Remain etc.
It could be framed as an AV or STV.
It's the only way out of this impasse. And it would be binding on Parliament.
There was a very vocal element on QT last night wondering why politicians find it so difficult to understand that WE HAVE VOTED TO LEAVE. They were loudly cheered.
Rigging a second vote to engineer a Remain outcome will not go as well as you imagine.
And I'm claiming that it's much more likely that they were not honest than that they didn't see a huge defeat coming.
I'm sure they did see a huge defeat coming. In what way is it dishonest to vote for something just because you know that it won't be successful?
It's not even particularly cynical to try to damage Labour either, given that its backbenches are stuffed with MPs who think their leader should never be Prime Minister.
Indeed. Clearly they want to put pressure on Labour to support a referendum, and there's nothing wrong with that. Why should Labour expect to be given a free pass to face in two directions? It's not up to the TIGgers to help Corbyn deceive his voters.
If, as I suspect, there's an amendment or indicative calling for a 2nd referendum next week which PV supports, my prediction is that Labour will whip in favour. What's yours?
They will whip in favour but face 50 or more rebels or abstainers unwilling to subvert democracy and it will fall. A lot of those happy yo be whipped to abstain will not be happy to be whipped in support
There are many reasons why holding a second vote is not a particularly good idea but the notion that asking people to vote is a subversion of democracy is positively orwellian.
I think if voters are presented with a series of choices it will lance the boil that this is a re-run. One of those options could be May's deal, another No deal, another Remain etc.
It could be framed as an AV or STV.
It's the only way out of this impasse. And it would be binding on Parliament.
There was a very vocal element on QT last night wondering why politicians find it so difficult to understand that WE HAVE VOTED TO LEAVE. They were loudly cheered.
Rigging a second vote to engineer a Remain outcome will not go as well as you imagine.
Sorry mate but we voted to stay in in 1975.
In the EEC of nine members. Unfortunately, that no longer exists.
You regret the fact that Margaret Thatcher's dream of a community that included Prague, Budapest and Warsaw became a reality?
That's the point, there was zilch about what leave actually meant. No definition of it. No clarification. No timetable. No tabling of options. It was presented as a ludicrously simplistic binary choice.
Absolute shame on David Cameron. Most of the fault is right there.
I know someone who was working with Cameron in No.10 and he said at the time there was absolutely NO preparation for the contingency of Leave winning. None whatsoever. No plan B. Zero. Zilch. When he said this I was incredulous and he said, 'I promise it's true. We have no plans in place for Leave winning.'
Cameron won over in Indy Scotland and arrogantly thought we'd vote to Remain.
The whole thing has been an unmitigated cock up and Cameron must take much of the blame.
"I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump – I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough — until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad,"...
No. “The inciter must intend the others to engage in the behaviour constituting the offence, including any consequences which may result, and must know or believe (or possibly suspect) that those others will have the relevant mens rea“
So unless in what he said he intended these people to go and commit mass murder like they did, then no there’s no grounds for incitement.
I thought it fairly clear that the question wasn’t about prima facie grounds for criminal charge.
But I do have serious concerns about Trump’s intentions.
Anyone who isn’t concerned about Trump needs to give their head a wobble. But this isn’t incitement, neither is criticism of Islam, even criticism of Muslims. Even visceral and unpleasant criticism is not incitement. Some of the things Tommy Robinson (apparently I heard a rumour it’s not his own name) might flirt with incitement. But even then it’s a stretch.
People have their own agency, and their own capacity to reason in their mind. If they do not have that reason that is their problem.
Freedom of speech should not be curtailed because people do unpleasant things.
Yes, you can always tell the anti- democrats by their enthusiasm for giving the electorate the opportunity to vote on something crucially affecting its entire future. And the democrats by their distaste for same.
I am not actually wedded to the idea of a second referendum, just pointing out the justification for one. Perhaps you would like to dial down the boorishness a notch or two and let us know whether there are or should be any rules analogous to ftpa governing the duration of a referendum result?
For the hard of understanding I will repeat once again. Democracy is not just about asking a question, it is about acting on the response.
For the stubborn let me repeat. The initial question was clearly inadequate. Some of the campaigning was with hindsight borderline illegal. Those alone would be reasons to question the 'result.'
Throw into the mix the 52-48% split, the fact that Parliament has been incapable of finding an agreement, the evidential shift in attitudes and you have a compelling case for a new vote.
Democracy means listening to the will of the people and if there's a shift, which is clearly the case, we need to respond to that.
By borderline illegal you mean legal then. Thanks for clarifying that. The question was clear and agreed by the Electoral Commission. If it had been more complex the chances are they would not have agreed it. The Deal May has brought in reflects the closeness of the result as being a soft Brexit. And you can ask as many questions as you like but if you don't act on the results it is not democracy.
And I'm claiming that it's much more likely that they were not honest than that they didn't see a huge defeat coming.
I'm sure they did see a huge defeat coming. In what way is it dishonest to vote for something just because you know that it won't be successful?
It's not even particularly cynical to try to damage Labour either, given that its backbenches are stuffed with MPs who think their leader should never be Prime Minister.
Indeed. Clearly they want to put pressure on Labour to support a referendum, and there's nothing wrong with that. Why should Labour expect to be given a free pass to face in two directions? It's not up to the TIGgers to help Corbyn deceive his voters.
If, as I suspect, there's an amendment or indicative calling for a 2nd referendum next week which PV supports, my prediction is that Labour will whip in favour. What's yours?
They will whip in favour but face 50 or more rebels or abstainers unwilling to subvert democracy and it will fall. A lot of those happy yo be whipped to abstain will not be happy to be whipped in support
Yeah, this I agree with (doubt it'd be quite so many, but I wouldn't be totally shocked either). And if, in that situation, TIG wanted to send out a newsletter mocking Labour for its splits and saying that many of the MPs were betraying the members by not going along with the leadership, I'd have no particular quarrel with that. It'd be interesting to see if they actually do that, given that TIG despises the leadership, not the PLP.
The eventual TIG strategy in an election v labour is a fascinating aside to the current turmoil
TIG will have little entitlement to airtime by Broadcasters in an election campaign - indeed they have already pretty well disappeared from view.
And I'm claiming that it's much more likely that they were not honest than that they didn't see a huge defeat coming.
I'm sure they did see a huge defeat coming. In what way is it dishonest to vote for something just because you know that it won't be successful?
It's not even particularly cynical to try to damage Labour either, given that its backbenches are stuffed with MPs who think their leader should never be Prime Minister.
Indeed. Clearly they want to put pressure on Labour to support a referendum, and there's nothing wrong with that. Why should Labour expect to be given a free pass to face in two directions? It's not up to the TIGgers to help Corbyn deceive his voters.
If, as I suspect, there's an amendment or indicative calling for a 2nd referendum next week which PV supports, my prediction is that Labour will whip in favour. What's yours?
They will whip in favour but face 50 or more rebels or abstainers unwilling to subvert democracy and it will fall. A lot of those happy yo be whipped to abstain will not be happy to be whipped in support
There are many reasons why holding a second vote is not a particularly good idea but the notion that asking people to vote is a subversion of democracy is positively orwellian.
I think if voters are presented with a series of choices it will lance the boil that this is a re-run. One of those options could be May's deal, another No deal, another Remain etc.
It could be framed as an AV or STV.
It's the only way out of this impasse. And it would be binding on Parliament.
There was a very vocal element on QT last night wondering why politicians find it so difficult to understand that WE HAVE VOTED TO LEAVE. They were loudly cheered.
Rigging a second vote to engineer a Remain outcome will not go as well as you imagine.
Sorry mate but we voted to stay in in 1975.
And acted upon that result mate.
I have always said that once we leave, Remainers are obviously free to campaign to rejoin. But until we do leave your comparisons with 1975 are false.
Yes, you can always tell the anti- democrats by their enthusiasm for giving the electorate the opportunity to vote on something crucially affecting its entire future. And the democrats by their distaste for same.
I am not actually wedded to the idea of a second referendum, just pointing out the justification for one. Perhaps you would like to dial down the boorishness a notch or two and let us know whether there are or should be any rules analogous to ftpa governing the duration of a referendum result?
For the hard of understanding I will repeat once again. Democracy is not just about asking a question, it is about acting on the response.
For the stubborn let me repeat. The initial question was clearly inadequate. Some of the campaigning was with hindsight borderline illegal. Those alone would be reasons to question the 'result.'
Throw into the mix the 52-48% split, the fact that Parliament has been incapable of finding an agreement, the evidential shift in attitudes and you have a compelling case for a new vote.
Democracy means listening to the will of the people and if there's a shift, which is clearly the case, we need to respond to that.
By borderline illegal you mean legal then. Thanks for clarifying that.
No I mean it's pretty clear that Leave lied. As Mike Smithson has pointed out on here, it's very dubious. Obviously I don't wish to run a litigious gauntlet as that's already in the hands of authorities but don't be pig-headed about this. You know as well as I do that Farage and Johnson lied, lied and lied again.
I'd be very interested to know how the DUP could be persuaded to switch sides. Blocking the backstop must surely be more important to the DUP than getting Brexit.
Not really if you think about what the backstop is designed to do and not do. Well yes of course it's a divergence but if you get over the "trapped in it forever" idea then it is pretty unremarkable and even quite pragmatic.
Exactly. The UK is likely to be in some kind of permanent customs union with the EU whatever happens, so in practical terms the backstop is largely irrelevant.
When you read someone like Richard_Tyndall below, no offence, it's worth remembering that of the 33 million or so who voted, 10 million are diehard remain, 10 million leave (like Tyndall) and then there's the rest of us: those in the middle many of whom now feel, with hindsight, that they were cajoled or suckered into something manifestly wrong for this country.
That's the point, there was zilch about what leave actually meant. No definition of it. No clarification. No timetable. No tabling of options. It was presented as a ludicrously simplistic binary choice.
Absolute shame on David Cameron. Most of the fault is right there.
The whole thing has been an unmitigated cock up and Cameron must take much of the blame.
Not preparing for a leave outcome was unforgivable
but on the subject of Cameron holding the referendum he was boxed in politically. Had he not promised it - UKIP would have been polling mid to late 20%s - had he promised it and not delivered it (a la G.Brown) UKIP would have been 30%s and rising.
Yes, you can always tell the anti- democrats by their enthusiasm for giving the electorate the opportunity to vote on something crucially affecting its entire future. And the democrats by their distaste for same.
I am not actually wedded to the idea of a second referendum, just pointing out the justification for one. Perhaps you would like to dial down the boorishness a notch or two and let us know whether there are or should be any rules analogous to ftpa governing the duration of a referendum result?
For the hard of understanding I will repeat once again. Democracy is not just about asking a question, it is about acting on the response.
For the stubborn let me repeat. The initial question was clearly inadequate. Some of the campaigning was with hindsight borderline illegal. Those alone would be reasons to question the 'result.'
Throw into the mix the 52-48% split, the fact that Parliament has been incapable of finding an agreement, the evidential shift in attitudes and you have a compelling case for a new vote.
Democracy means listening to the will of the people and if there's a shift, which is clearly the case, we need to respond to that.
By borderline illegal you mean legal then. Thanks for clarifying that.
No I mean it's pretty clear that Leave lied. As Mike Smithson has pointed out on here, it's very dubious. Obviously I don't wish to run a litigious gauntlet as that's already in the hands of authorities but don't be pig-headed about this. You know as well as I do that Farage and Johnson lied, lied and lied again.
I have always said that once we leave, Remainers are obviously free to campaign to rejoin. But until we do leave your comparisons with 1975 are false.
The problem with your view is that you don't get to decide when it becomes legitimate to campaign for Remain/Rejoin again. You might be happy to say that date would be March 30th after our official exit, but the next Brexiteer might think it's still a betrayal of the will of the people until we're *really* out, which is a constantly moving goalpost.
Yes, you can always tell the anti- democrats by their enthusiasm for giving the electorate the opportunity to vote on something crucially affecting its entire future. And the democrats by their distaste for same.
I am not actually wedded to the idea of a second referendum, just pointing out the justification for one. Perhaps you would like to dial down the boorishness a notch or two and let us know whether there are or should be any rules analogous to ftpa governing the duration of a referendum result?
For the hard of understanding I will repeat once again. Democracy is not just about asking a question, it is about acting on the response.
For the stubborn let me repeat. The initial question was clearly inadequate. Some of the campaigning was with hindsight borderline illegal. Those alone would be reasons to question the 'result.'
Throw into the mix the 52-48% split, the fact that Parliament has been incapable of finding an agreement, the evidential shift in attitudes and you have a compelling case for a new vote.
Democracy means listening to the will of the people and if there's a shift, which is clearly the case, we need to respond to that.
By borderline illegal you mean legal then. Thanks for clarifying that.
No I mean it's pretty clear that Leave lied. As Mike Smithson has pointed out on here, it's very dubious. Obviously I don't wish to run a litigious gauntlet as that's already in the hands of authorities but don't be pig-headed about this. You know as well as I do that Farage and Johnson lied, lied and lied again.
Yeah but why believe someone that doesn't have a mandate (and never will) to act on their lies.
Some of the blame lies with the person believing the lie, for being so stupid.
That's the point, there was zilch about what leave actually meant. No definition of it. No clarification. No timetable. No tabling of options. It was presented as a ludicrously simplistic binary choice.
Absolute shame on David Cameron. Most of the fault is right there.
I know someone who was working with Cameron in No.10 and he said at the time there was absolutely NO preparation for the contingency of Leave winning. None whatsoever. No plan B. Zero. Zilch. When he said this I was incredulous and he said, 'I promise it's true. We have no plans in place for Leave winning.'
Cameron won over in Indy Scotland and arrogantly thought we'd vote to Remain.
The whole thing has been an unmitigated cock up and Cameron must take much of the blame.
Frankly he should take all of the blame. The fact that the Johnson and Gove can take opposing views as to whether May’s deal honours the result of the referendum is proof enough that asking that specific question, with no plan to implement it prior to it being asked, is the root of this mess. Everything else flows from it.
I once worked in a pub in Canterbury and a lady of some years asked me for a pint of beer. I asked her which, of the many varieties of beer we had on offer, she would like. “Young man - I have asked for a pint of beer. Please serve me one” was the reply. Barking. The referendum question reminded me strongly of that.
For those wondering I have her a pint of lager. Can’t remember which. She didn’t like it.
I have always said that once we leave, Remainers are obviously free to campaign to rejoin. But until we do leave your comparisons with 1975 are false.
The problem with your view is that you don't get to decide when it becomes legitimate to campaign for Remain/Rejoin again. You might be happy to say that date would be March 30th after our official exit, but the next Brexiteer might think it's still a betrayal of the will of the people until we're *really* out, which is a constantly moving goalpost.
Anything we ever say on here is personal opinion including (whisper it in case anyone hears) you.
And I'm claiming that it's much more likely that they were not honest than that they didn't see a huge defeat coming.
I'm sure they did see a huge defeat coming. In what way is it dishonest to vote for something just because you know that it won't be successful?
It's not even particularly cynical to try to damage Labour either, given that its backbenches are stuffed with MPs who think their leader should never be Prime Minister.
Indeed. Clearly they want to put pressure on Labour to support a referendum, and there's nothing wrong with that. Why should Labour expect to be given a free pass to face in two directions? It's not up to the TIGgers to help Corbyn deceive his voters.
If, as I suspect, there's an amendment or indicative calling for a 2nd referendum next week which PV supports, my prediction is that Labour will whip in favour. What's yours?
They will whip in favour but face 50 or more rebels or abstainers unwilling to subvert democracy and it will fall. A lot of those happy yo be whipped to abstain will not be happy to be whipped in support
There are many reasons why holding a second vote is not a particularly good idea but the notion that asking people to vote is a subversion of democracy is positively orwellian.
I think if voters are presented with a series of choices it will lance the boil that this is a re-run. One of those options could be May's deal, another No deal, another Remain etc.
It could be framed as an AV or STV.
It's the only way out of this impasse. And it would be binding on Parliament.
There was a very vocal element on QT last night wondering why politicians find it so difficult to understand that WE HAVE VOTED TO LEAVE. They were loudly cheered.
Rigging a second vote to engineer a Remain outcome will not go as well as you imagine.
Sorry mate but we voted to stay in in 1975.
In the EEC of nine members. Unfortunately, that no longer exists.
You regret the fact that Margaret Thatcher's dream of a community that included Prague, Budapest and Warsaw became a reality?
That's the point, there was zilch about what leave actually meant. No definition of it. No clarification. No timetable. No tabling of options. It was presented as a ludicrously simplistic binary choice.
Absolute shame on David Cameron. Most of the fault is right there.
The whole thing has been an unmitigated cock up and Cameron must take much of the blame.
Not preparing for a leave outcome was unforgivable
but on the subject of Cameron holding the referendum he was boxed in politically. Had he not promised it - UKIP would have been polling mid to late 20%s - had he promised it and not delivered it (a la G.Brown) UKIP would have been 30%s and rising.
UKIP did have several polls in the mid 20%s but not until after Cameron promised the referendum. I think the evidence is the other way round on that point.
If, as I suspect, there's an amendment or indicative calling for a 2nd referendum next week which PV supports, my prediction is that Labour will whip in favour. What's yours?
That will depend on the outcome of the battles within Labour. At the moment they are still maintaining the ludicrous pretence that there's some other withdrawal deal, unknown to the EU, which could be offered to voters in a referendum. Absurd though that nonsense is, I rather expect they will stick with it - after all, Corbyn wants Brexit, he wants as much chaos as possible, and he wants the Conservative Party to be as split as possible. But it's true that his hand might be forced.
IMO every single sentence of that post is mistaken, each in a different way (it's an achievement!). Stereotomy is IMO a better guide to Labour politics.
There seems to be a lot of denial on PB in general about the idea that Corbyn could (reluctantly) support Remain, even though that's exactly what he did in the referendum. It seems pretty clear to me that he's just not that animated by Brexit or questions of the EU in general, and is motivated much more by electoral politics (in which either full-throated Leave or Remain support would be damaging for Labour), and likely by internal power struggles in the party. But I can understand why people who for the past couple of years have thought that Corbyn was an ultra-Brexiteer would be finding it hard to recalibrate to his current position.
For all his faults, Jezza is not someone afraid of publically stating his opinions, and doing so frankly even when potentially turning off his voters. I believe him when he says he is a reluctant Remainer. In reality his political interests lie elsewhere and he sees Brexit as a colossal distraction.
Yup it interferes with his key interests in anti-semitism and supporting terrorists at every opportunity.
Yes, you can always tell the anti- democrats by their enthusiasm for giving the electorate the opportunity to vote on something crucially affecting its entire future. And the democrats by their distaste for same.
I am not actually wedded to the idea of a second referendum, just pointing out the justification for one. Perhaps you would like to dial down the boorishness a notch or two and let us know whether there are or should be any rules analogous to ftpa governing the duration of a referendum result?
For the hard of understanding I will repeat once again. Democracy is not just about asking a question, it is about acting on the response. As for boorishness, you confuse it with genuine disgust and contempt at the attitude of people like yourself who think that votes are a convenient smokescreen for getting what you want. I am not surprised you are happy to stay in the EU. It is an attitude they have in spades.
You can *say* that till your buttocks turn blue without it becoming true. The vonc route out of a ftpa five year term is not put on hold till the government has done everything in its manifesto. Why should different rules apply to referendums? Really all you are demonstrating is that the man who is ahead at the end of lap 1 would dearly like it to be a one lap race. Understandable, but lacking in intellectual underpinnings.
I have always said that once we leave, Remainers are obviously free to campaign to rejoin. But until we do leave your comparisons with 1975 are false.
The problem with your view is that you don't get to decide when it becomes legitimate to campaign for Remain/Rejoin again. You might be happy to say that date would be March 30th after our official exit, but the next Brexiteer might think it's still a betrayal of the will of the people until we're *really* out, which is a constantly moving goalpost.
Anything we ever say on here is personal opinion including (whisper it in case anyone hears) you.
The difference is that your personal opinions tend to be misattributed to the pronoun 'we'.
My point was that given that there will be a range of opinions, the only position that a pure democrat should take is that it was legitimate to campaign to remain from the very next day after the referendum.
That's the point, there was zilch about what leave actually meant. No definition of it. No clarification. No timetable. No tabling of options. It was presented as a ludicrously simplistic binary choice.
Absolute shame on David Cameron. Most of the fault is right there.
The whole thing has been an unmitigated cock up and Cameron must take much of the blame.
Not preparing for a leave outcome was unforgivable
but on the subject of Cameron holding the referendum he was boxed in politically. Had he not promised it - UKIP would have been polling mid to late 20%s - had he promised it and not delivered it (a la G.Brown) UKIP would have been 30%s and rising.
UKIP did have several polls in the mid 20%s but not until after Cameron promised the referendum. I think the evidence is the other way round on that point.
Yes but that graph shows that UKIP’s rise in support, which he was reacting to, had already begun.
And I'm claiming that it's much more likely that they were not honest than that they didn't see a huge defeat coming.
I'm sure they did see a huge defeat coming. In what way is it dishonest to vote for something just because you know that it won't be successful?
It's not even particularly cynical to try to damage Labour either, given that its backbenches are stuffed with MPs who think their leader should never be Prime Minister.
Indeed. Clearly they want to put pressure on Labour to support a referendum, and there's nothing wrong with that. Why should Labour expect to be given a free pass to face in two directions? It's not up to the TIGgers to help Corbyn deceive his voters.
If, as I suspect, there's an amendment or indicative calling for a 2nd referendum next week which PV supports, my prediction is that Labour will whip in favour. What's yours?
They will whip in favour but face 50 or more rebels or abstainers unwilling to subvert democracy and it will fall. A lot of those happy yo be whipped to abstain will not be happy to be whipped in support
There are many reasons why holding a second vote is not a particularly good idea but the notion that asking people to vote is a subversion of democracy is positively orwellian.
I think if voters are presented with a series of choices it will lance the boil that this is a re-run. One of those options could be May's deal, another No deal, another Remain etc.
It could be framed as an AV or STV.
It's the only way out of this impasse. And it would be binding on Parliament.
There was a very vocal element on QT last night wondering why politicians find it so difficult to understand that WE HAVE VOTED TO LEAVE. They were loudly cheered.
Rigging a second vote to engineer a Remain outcome will not go as well as you imagine.
Sorry mate but we voted to stay in in 1975.
In the EEC of nine members. Unfortunately, that no longer exists.
You regret the fact that Margaret Thatcher's dream of a community that included Prague, Budapest and Warsaw became a reality?
De Gaulle's vision was the Atlantic to the Urals. He might get it in the end.
That's the point, there was zilch about what leave actually meant. No definition of it. No clarification. No timetable. No tabling of options. It was presented as a ludicrously simplistic binary choice.
Absolute shame on David Cameron. Most of the fault is right there.
The whole thing has been an unmitigated cock up and Cameron must take much of the blame.
Not preparing for a leave outcome was unforgivable
but on the subject of Cameron holding the referendum he was boxed in politically. Had he not promised it - UKIP would have been polling mid to late 20%s - had he promised it and not delivered it (a la G.Brown) UKIP would have been 30%s and rising.
Very unlikely I suspect. In reality much of UKIP's support was an anti -Establishment protest vote not particularly related to the EU per se. They were significant beneficiaries from the LibDems having entered the Coalition - and so having become part of the Erstablishment - in that a new protest vehicle had to be found . The Greens also benefiited from that. At a general election much of the protest vote would have returned home to the major parties.
That's the point, there was zilch about what leave actually meant. No definition of it. No clarification. No timetable. No tabling of options. It was presented as a ludicrously simplistic binary choice.
Absolute shame on David Cameron. Most of the fault is right there.
The whole thing has been an unmitigated cock up and Cameron must take much of the blame.
Not preparing for a leave outcome was unforgivable
but on the subject of Cameron holding the referendum he was boxed in politically. Had he not promised it - UKIP would have been polling mid to late 20%s - had he promised it and not delivered it (a la G.Brown) UKIP would have been 30%s and rising.
UKIP did have several polls in the mid 20%s but not until after Cameron promised the referendum. I think the evidence is the other way round on that point.
Yes, you can always tell the anti- democrats by their enthusiasm for giving the electorate the opportunity to vote on something crucially affecting its entire future. And the democrats by their distaste for same.
I am not actually wedded to the idea of a second referendum, just pointing out the justification for one. Perhaps you would like to dial down the boorishness a notch or two and let us know whether there are or should be any rules analogous to ftpa governing the duration of a referendum result?
For the hard of understanding I will repeat once again. Democracy is not just about asking a question, it is about acting on the response. As for boorishness, you confuse it with genuine disgust and contempt at the attitude of people like yourself who think that votes are a convenient smokescreen for getting what you want. I am not surprised you are happy to stay in the EU. It is an attitude they have in spades.
You can *say* that till your buttocks turn blue without it becoming true. The vonc route out of a ftpa five year term is not put on hold till the government has done everything in its manifesto. Why should different rules apply to referendums? Really all you are demonstrating is that the man who is ahead at the end of lap 1 would dearly like it to be a one lap race. Understandable, but lacking in intellectual underpinnings.
For this one? Because it was made abundantly clear during the campaign that it would be the only vote on the matter.
Forget to say that, lastly, the US invests far more in developing their officers once they have them than other nations but that's just a function of money.
The HMF officer class is far more edjumacated than it was a few years ago. Try getting in now without a degree and a year off beforehand.
That's the point, there was zilch about what leave actually meant. No definition of it. No clarification. No timetable. No tabling of options. It was presented as a ludicrously simplistic binary choice.
Absolute shame on David Cameron. Most of the fault is right there.
The whole thing has been an unmitigated cock up and Cameron must take much of the blame.
Not preparing for a leave outcome was unforgivable
but on the subject of Cameron holding the referendum he was boxed in politically. Had he not promised it - UKIP would have been polling mid to late 20%s - had he promised it and not delivered it (a la G.Brown) UKIP would have been 30%s and rising.
UKIP did have several polls in the mid 20%s but not until after Cameron promised the referendum. I think the evidence is the other way round on that point.
Probably the referendum announcement focussed minds and brought leaving the EU more into the consciousness of people. However I have no doubt that had it been promised and not delivered there would have been multiple defections to UKIP and with each one, an uptick in their poll ratings.
Ironically, UKIPs best outcome electorally would have been a narrow remain win. They would have swatted Corbyn led Labour like aside in the northern and midlands towns away from Metropolitan areas, probably to the tune of 60-70 seats.
That's the point, there was zilch about what leave actually meant. No definition of it. No clarification. No timetable. No tabling of options. It was presented as a ludicrously simplistic binary choice.
Absolute shame on David Cameron. Most of the fault is right there.
The whole thing has been an unmitigated cock up and Cameron must take much of the blame.
Not preparing for a leave outcome was unforgivable
but on the subject of Cameron holding the referendum he was boxed in politically. Had he not promised it - UKIP would have been polling mid to late 20%s - had he promised it and not delivered it (a la G.Brown) UKIP would have been 30%s and rising.
UKIP did have several polls in the mid 20%s but not until after Cameron promised the referendum. I think the evidence is the other way round on that point.
He made the mistake of feeding the troll.
It worked, didn’t it? Last time I checked UKIP were near 0%
And I'm claiming that it's much more likely that they were not honest than that they didn't see a huge defeat coming.
I'm sure they did see a huge defeat coming. In what way is it dishonest to vote for something just because you know that it won't be successful?
It's not even particularly cynical to try to damage Labour either, given that its backbenches are stuffed with MPs who think their leader should never be Prime Minister.
Indeed. Clearly they want to put pressure on Labour to support a referendum, and there's nothing wrong with that. Why should Labour expect to be given a free pass to face in two directions? It's not up to the TIGgers to help Corbyn deceive his voters.
If, as I suspect, there's an amendment or indicative calling for a 2nd referendum next week which PV supports, my prediction is that Labour will whip in favour. What's yours?
They will whip in favour but face 50 or more rebels or abstainers unwilling to subvert democracy and it will fall. A lot of those happy yo be whipped to abstain will not be happy to be whipped in support
There are many reasons why holding a second vote is not a particularly good idea but the notion that asking people to vote is a subversion of democracy is positively orwellian.
I think if voters are presented with a series of choices it will lance the boil that this is a re-run. One of those options could be May's deal, another No deal, another Remain etc.
It could be framed as an AV or STV.
It's the only way out of this impasse. And it would be binding on Parliament.
There was a very vocal element on QT last night wondering why politicians find it so difficult to understand that WE HAVE VOTED TO LEAVE. They were loudly cheered.
Rigging a second vote to engineer a Remain outcome will not go as well as you imagine.
Sorry mate but we voted to stay in in 1975.
In the EEC of nine members. Unfortunately, that no longer exists.
You regret the fact that Margaret Thatcher's dream of a community that included Prague, Budapest and Warsaw became a reality?
Whether another EU vote happens why do the media keep peddling the line that attitudes haven’t changed.
It’s like they haven’t looked at every single poll for the last 18 months. Every single one has remain ahead .
Didn’t they all have Remain ahead before the polls closed?
No another myth peddled . There were loads of polls showing leave ahead. Don’t take my word for it google Eu ref polls and wiki shows you all the polls .
That's the point, there was zilch about what leave actually meant. No definition of it. No clarification. No timetable. No tabling of options. It was presented as a ludicrously simplistic binary choice.
Absolute shame on David Cameron. Most of the fault is right there.
The whole thing has been an unmitigated cock up and Cameron must take much of the blame.
It has been a cock up but as with the debate around EURef2 I find it difficult to say that asking the people what they want is ever, can ever be undemocratic. As I seem to keep repeating, it's not as though we are asking a different set of people. It is the same UK electorate, adjusted a bit as age cohorts have moved up a bit.
Yes but British membership of the Customs Union is a win-win proposition. We are better off in it and the EU is better off with us in it. It would be an easy matter to get it agreed to, and with both Corbyn and May supporting it it would be the easiest trade deal in history.
British membership of the Customs Union long term (after the backstop) is not on offer. Membership of The Customs Union is intimately entwined with EU membership which is why the EU did not want to offer it to the whole UK as even a short term solution (as part of the backstop) but agreed for the sake of the negotiations. Long term it is a non starter.
That's the point, there was zilch about what leave actually meant. No definition of it. No clarification. No timetable. No tabling of options. It was presented as a ludicrously simplistic binary choice.
Absolute shame on David Cameron. Most of the fault is right there.
I know someone who was working with Cameron in No.10 and he said at the time there was absolutely NO preparation for the contingency of Leave winning. None whatsoever. No plan B. Zero. Zilch. When he said this I was incredulous and he said, 'I promise it's true. We have no plans in place for Leave winning.'
Cameron won over in Indy Scotland and arrogantly thought we'd vote to Remain.
The whole thing has been an unmitigated cock up and Cameron must take much of the blame.
Frankly he should take all of the blame. The fact that the Johnson and Gove can take opposing views as to whether May’s deal honours the result of the referendum is proof enough that asking that specific question, with no plan to implement it prior to it being asked, is the root of this mess. Everything else flows from it.
I once worked in a pub in Canterbury and a lady of some years asked me for a pint of beer. I asked her which, of the many varieties of beer we had on offer, she would like. “Young man - I have asked for a pint of beer. Please serve me one” was the reply. Barking. The referendum question reminded me strongly of that.
For those wondering I gave her a pint of lager. Can’t remember which. She didn’t like it.
You regret the fact that Margaret Thatcher's dream of a community that included Prague, Budapest and Warsaw became a reality?
Of a "Common Market" not of a "Union"
In her speech opening the campaign for a Yes vote in the 1975 referendum, Thatcher doesn't use the phrase "Common Market" at all but refers to it as the Community, and says, "The Conservative Party has been pursuing the European vision almost as long as we have existed as a Party. "
That's the point, there was zilch about what leave actually meant. No definition of it. No clarification. No timetable. No tabling of options. It was presented as a ludicrously simplistic binary choice.
Absolute shame on David Cameron. Most of the fault is right there.
The whole thing has been an unmitigated cock up and Cameron must take much of the blame.
Not preparing for a leave outcome was unforgivable
but on the subject of Cameron holding the referendum he was boxed in politically. Had he not promised it - UKIP would have been polling mid to late 20%s - had he promised it and not delivered it (a la G.Brown) UKIP would have been 30%s and rising.
UKIP did have several polls in the mid 20%s but not until after Cameron promised the referendum. I think the evidence is the other way round on that point.
He made the mistake of feeding the troll.
If you are referring to me, I'm neither a troll nor a UKIP supporter.
Yes but British membership of the Customs Union is a win-win proposition. We are better off in it and the EU is better off with us in it. It would be an easy matter to get it agreed to, and with both Corbyn and May supporting it it would be the easiest trade deal in history.
British membership of the Customs Union long term (after the backstop) is not on offer. Membership of The Customs Union is intimately entwined with EU membership which is why the EU did not want to offer it to the whole UK as even a short term solution (as part of the backstop) but agreed for the sake of the negotiations. Long term it is a non starter.
This! The sort of “Permanent Customs Union” being discussed and loved by Corbyn*, would be a Turkey arrangement, which is literally the worst of all worlds.
*I’m not even sure that Corbyn and his acolytes understand what “A” CU is or means, they just love the idea because the Tories are utterly opposed to it.
Whether another EU vote happens why do the media keep peddling the line that attitudes haven’t changed.
It’s like they haven’t looked at every single poll for the last 18 months. Every single one has remain ahead .
Didn’t they all have Remain ahead before the polls closed?
No another myth peddled . There were loads of polls showing leave ahead. Don’t take my word for it google Eu ref polls and wiki shows you all the polls .
Ten of the thirteen polls in the final days had remain ahead, up to as much as 10%. How big are the Remain leads now?
Yes, you can always tell the anti- democrats by their enthusiasm for giving the electorate the opportunity to vote on something crucially affecting its entire future. And the democrats by their distaste for same.
I am not actually wedded to the idea of a second referendum, just pointing out the justification for one. Perhaps you would like to dial down the boorishness a notch or two and let us know whether there are or should be any rules analogous to ftpa governing the duration of a referendum result?
For the hard of understanding I will repeat once again. Democracy is not just about asking a question, it is about acting on the response. As for boorishness, you confuse it with genuine disgust and contempt at the attitude of people like yourself who think that votes are a convenient smokescreen for getting what you want. I am not surprised you are happy to stay in the EU. It is an attitude they have in spades.
You can *say* that till your buttocks turn blue without it becoming true. The vonc route out of a ftpa five year term is not put on hold till the government has done everything in its manifesto. Why should different rules apply to referendums? Really all you are demonstrating is that the man who is ahead at the end of lap 1 would dearly like it to be a one lap race. Understandable, but lacking in intellectual underpinnings.
For this one? Because it was made abundantly clear during the campaign that it would be the only vote on the matter.
Not even the European Union Referendum Act 2015 could "make that clear" because parliament cannot bind its successors. So if anyone else told you that, they were lying.
Govt: "How about idea #89453425?" DUP: No Govt: "How about idea #89453426?" DUP: No Govt: "How about idea #89453427?" DUP: No Govt: "How about idea #89453428?" DUP: No .....
Govt: "How about idea #89453428 and another couple of billion quid..." ?
Or £350,000,000 and we'll throw in the coach as well
I'd be very interested to know how the DUP could be persuaded to switch sides. Blocking the backstop must surely be more important to the DUP than getting Brexit.
Yes. Very few people have commented on this important point. Brexit wasn't a Northern Ireland preference and it's not the DUP's.
It still had 44% support, including 70% of Unionists, so a lot of their constituency back it.
227,084 out of 444,881, or 51% of, voters in the 10 DUP constituencies voted to leave.
And how many would vote for no deal ?
Everybody who voted to leave voted for the possibility of no deal, whether they realised it or not. Rather similar to all those MPs who voted for A50.
Do you think anyone who voted leave had any real idea what they were voting for? I don't.
I did.
But did you? You knew that you would be effectively voting for Theresa May's deal?
That's the point, there was zilch about what leave actually meant. No definition of it. No clarification. No timetable. No tabling of options. It was presented as a ludicrously simplistic binary choice.
Absolute shame on David Cameron. Most of the fault is right there.
I didn't know that May would be PM, but I knew that whoever the PM was would be negotiating long and hard with the EU and returning with an imperfect deal.
The thing that I definitely voted for, and I'm still awaiting, was the billion job losses that the Treasury promised us we'd get immediately after a vote for Brexit.
Yes, you can always tell the anti- democrats by their enthusiasm for giving the electorate the opportunity to vote on something crucially affecting its entire future. And the democrats by their distaste for same.
I am not actually wedded to the idea of a second referendum, just pointing out the justification for one. Perhaps you would like to dial down the boorishness a notch or two and let us know whether there are or should be any rules analogous to ftpa governing the duration of a referendum result?
For the hard of understanding I will repeat once again. Democracy is not just about asking a question, it is about acting on the response. As for boorishness, you confuse it with genuine disgust and contempt at the attitude of people like yourself who think that votes are a convenient smokescreen for getting what you want. I am not surprised you are happy to stay in the EU. It is an attitude they have in spades.
You can *say* that till your buttocks turn blue without it becoming true. The vonc route out of a ftpa five year term is not put on hold till the government has done everything in its manifesto. Why should different rules apply to referendums? Really all you are demonstrating is that the man who is ahead at the end of lap 1 would dearly like it to be a one lap race. Understandable, but lacking in intellectual underpinnings.
For this one? Because it was made abundantly clear during the campaign that it would be the only vote on the matter.
Not even the European Union Referendum Act 2015 could "make that clear" because parliament cannot bind its successors. So if anyone else told you that, they were lying.
I was listening to the prime minister at the time, actually.
That's the point, there was zilch about what leave actually meant. No definition of it. No clarification. No timetable. No tabling of options. It was presented as a ludicrously simplistic binary choice.
Absolute shame on David Cameron. Most of the fault is right there.
The whole thing has been an unmitigated cock up and Cameron must take much of the blame.
Not preparing for a leave outcome was unforgivable
but on the subject of Cameron holding the referendum he was boxed in politically. Had he not promised it - UKIP would have been polling mid to late 20%s - had he promised it and not delivered it (a la G.Brown) UKIP would have been 30%s and rising.
UKIP did have several polls in the mid 20%s but not until after Cameron promised the referendum. I think the evidence is the other way round on that point.
He made the mistake of feeding the troll.
If you are referring to me, I'm neither a troll nor a UKIP supporter.
Think he’s taking about Cameron feeding the UKIP troll.
And I'm claiming that it's much more likely that they were not honest than that they didn't see a huge defeat coming.
I'm sure they did see a huge defeat coming. In what way is it dishonest to vote for something just because you know that it won't be successful?
It's not even particularly cynical to try to damage Labour either, given that its backbenches are stuffed with MPs who think their leader should never be Prime Minister.
Indeed. Clearly they want to put pressure on Labour to support a referendum, and there's nothing wrong with that. Why should Labour expect to be given a free pass to face in two directions? It's not up to the TIGgers to help Corbyn deceive his voters.
If, as I suspect, there's an amendment or indicative calling for a 2nd referendum next week which PV supports, my prediction is that Labour will whip in favour. What's yours?
They will whip in favour but face 50 or more rebels or abstainers unwilling to subvert democracy and it will fall. A lot of those happy yo be whipped to abstain will not be happy to be whipped in support
There are many reasons why holding a second vote is not a particularly good idea but the notion that asking people to vote is a subversion of democracy is positively orwellian.
I think if voters are presented with a series of choices it will lance the boil that this is a re-run. One of those options could be May's deal, another No deal, another Remain etc.
It could be framed as an AV or STV.
It's the only way out of this impasse. And it would be binding on Parliament.
There was a very vocal element on QT last night wondering why politicians find it so difficult to understand that WE HAVE VOTED TO LEAVE. They were loudly cheered.
Rigging a second vote to engineer a Remain outcome will not go as well as you imagine.
Sorry mate but we voted to stay in in 1975.
In the EEC of nine members. Unfortunately, that no longer exists.
You regret the fact that Margaret Thatcher's dream of a community that included Prague, Budapest and Warsaw became a reality?
De Gaulle's vision was the Atlantic to the Urals. He might get it in the end.
Whether another EU vote happens why do the media keep peddling the line that attitudes haven’t changed.
It’s like they haven’t looked at every single poll for the last 18 months. Every single one has remain ahead .
Didn’t they all have Remain ahead before the polls closed?
No another myth peddled . There were loads of polls showing leave ahead. Don’t take my word for it google Eu ref polls and wiki shows you all the polls .
Ten of the thirteen polls in the final days had remain ahead, up to as much as 10%. How big are the Remain leads now?
18 of the 28 polls before Jo Cox's murder had Leave ahead by as much as 10%. I suspect the polls after that may have suffered from a shy Leaver effect.
Yes, you can always tell the anti- democrats by their enthusiasm for giving the electorate the opportunity to vote on something crucially affecting its entire future. And the democrats by their distaste for same.
I am not actually wedded to the idea of a second referendum, just pointing out the justification for one. Perhaps you would like to dial down the boorishness a notch or two and let us know whether there are or should be any rules analogous to ftpa governing the duration of a referendum result?
For the hard of understanding I will repeat once again. Democracy is not just about asking a question, it is about acting on the response. As for boorishness, you confuse it with genuine disgust and contempt at the attitude of people like yourself who think that votes are a convenient smokescreen for getting what you want. I am not surprised you are happy to stay in the EU. It is an attitude they have in spades.
You can *say* that till your buttocks turn blue without it becoming true. The vonc route out of a ftpa five year term is not put on hold till the government has done everything in its manifesto. Why should different rules apply to referendums? Really all you are demonstrating is that the man who is ahead at the end of lap 1 would dearly like it to be a one lap race. Understandable, but lacking in intellectual underpinnings.
For this one? Because it was made abundantly clear during the campaign that it would be the only vote on the matter.
Not even the European Union Referendum Act 2015 could "make that clear" because parliament cannot bind its successors. So if anyone else told you that, they were lying.
I was listening to the prime minister at the time, actually.
So you think the prime minister can settle the future of the country by off the cuff remarks, in ways which would not be valid even if contained in legislation? Golly.
There was a very vocal element on QT last night wondering why politicians find it so difficult to understand that WE HAVE VOTED TO LEAVE. They were loudly cheered.
Rigging a second vote to engineer a Remain outcome will not go as well as you imagine.
My profoundly apolitical poker circle had a fierce discussion on this last night - I remained silent (too much like the day job - I don't play cards to talk politics) and eventually the host had to ask them all to shut up "because we're friends with different opinions and don't want to fall out". But if it's reaching people like that who normally only talk footie and movies, it's certainly cutting through.
Yes, you can always tell the anti- democrats by their enthusiasm for giving the electorate the opportunity to vote on something crucially affecting its entire future. And the democrats by their distaste for same.
I am not actually wedded to the idea of a second referendum, just pointing out the justification for one. Perhaps you would like to dial down the boorishness a notch or two and let us know whether there are or should be any rules analogous to ftpa governing the duration of a referendum result?
For the hard of understanding I will repeat once again. Democracy is not just about asking a question, it is about acting on the response. As for boorishness, you confuse it with genuine disgust and contempt at the attitude of people like yourself who think that votes are a convenient smokescreen for getting what you want. I am not surprised you are happy to stay in the EU. It is an attitude they have in spades.
You can *say* that till your buttocks turn blue without it becoming true. The vonc route out of a ftpa five year term is not put on hold till the government has done everything in its manifesto. Why should different rules apply to referendums? Really all you are demonstrating is that the man who is ahead at the end of lap 1 would dearly like it to be a one lap race. Understandable, but lacking in intellectual underpinnings.
For this one? Because it was made abundantly clear during the campaign that it would be the only vote on the matter.
Not even the European Union Referendum Act 2015 could "make that clear" because parliament cannot bind its successors. So if anyone else told you that, they were lying.
I was listening to the prime minister at the time, actually.
So you think the prime minister can settle the future of the country by off the cuff remarks, in ways which would not be valid even if contained in legislation? Golly.
Yes, it was a political statement and not a legal one. But still, it was made clear that there would be no second vote and no renegotiation.
That's the point, there was zilch about what leave actually meant. No definition of it. No clarification. No timetable. No tabling of options. It was presented as a ludicrously simplistic binary choice.
Absolute shame on David Cameron. Most of the fault is right there.
The whole thing has been an unmitigated cock up and Cameron must take much of the blame.
Not preparing for a leave outcome was unforgivable
but on the subject of Cameron holding the referendum he was boxed in politically. Had he not promised it - UKIP would have been polling mid to late 20%s - had he promised it and not delivered it (a la G.Brown) UKIP would have been 30%s and rising.
UKIP did have several polls in the mid 20%s but not until after Cameron promised the referendum. I think the evidence is the other way round on that point.
Yes but that graph shows that UKIP’s rise in support, which he was reacting to, had already begun.
Whether another EU vote happens why do the media keep peddling the line that attitudes haven’t changed.
It’s like they haven’t looked at every single poll for the last 18 months. Every single one has remain ahead .
Didn’t they all have Remain ahead before the polls closed?
No another myth peddled . There were loads of polls showing leave ahead. Don’t take my word for it google Eu ref polls and wiki shows you all the polls .
Ten of the thirteen polls in the final days had remain ahead, up to as much as 10%. How big are the Remain leads now?
18 of the 28 polls before Jo Cox's murder had Leave ahead by as much as 10%. I suspect the polls after that may have suffered from a shy Leaver effect.
Blaming Cameron for the incoherence of the Leave proposition is quite delightfully bonkers!
Lots of people quite legitimately thought that if Leave was so disastrous and the government didn't know how to implement it, they wouldn't offer it to them in a vote.
Yes, you can always tell the anti- democrats by their enthusiasm for giving the electorate the opportunity to vote on something crucially affecting its entire future. And the democrats by their distaste for same.
I am not actually wedded to the idea of a second referendum, just pointing out the justification for one. Perhaps you would like to dial down the boorishness a notch or two and let us know whether there are or should be any rules analogous to ftpa governing the duration of a referendum result?
For the hard of understanding I will repeat once again. Democracy is not just about asking a question, it is about acting on the response. As for boorishness, you confuse it with genuine disgust and contempt at the attitude of people like yourself who think that votes are a convenient smokescreen for getting what you want. I am not surprised you are happy to stay in the EU. It is an attitude they have in spades.
You can *say* that till your buttocks turn blue without it becoming true. The vonc route out of a ftpa five year term is not put on hold till the government has done everything in its manifesto. Why should different rules apply to referendums? Really all you are demonstrating is that the man who is ahead at the end of lap 1 would dearly like it to be a one lap race. Understandable, but lacking in intellectual underpinnings.
For this one? Because it was made abundantly clear during the campaign that it would be the only vote on the matter.
Not even the European Union Referendum Act 2015 could "make that clear" because parliament cannot bind its successors. So if anyone else told you that, they were lying.
I was listening to the prime minister at the time, actually.
So you think the prime minister can settle the future of the country by off the cuff remarks, in ways which would not be valid even if contained in legislation? Golly.
Yes, it was a political statement and not a legal one. But still, it was made clear that there would be no second vote and no renegotiation.
The context of Cameron's remarks was a rebuttal of what the Leave campaign were saying at the time, which was that after a Leave vote, there could be a renegotiation and a second referendum. Leave won, so why are Cameron's words gospel rather than the Leave campaign's?
When you read someone like Richard_Tyndall below, no offence, it's worth remembering that of the 33 million or so who voted, 10 million are diehard remain, 10 million leave (like Tyndall) and then there's the rest of us: those in the middle many of whom now feel, with hindsight, that they were cajoled or suckered into something manifestly wrong for this country.
To be clear - your "something" was the EEC/EU? Or Brexit? Or both???
Yes, you can always tell the anti- democrats by their enthusiasm for giving the electorate the opportunity to vote on something crucially affecting its entire future. And the democrats by their distaste for same.
I am not actually wedded to the idea of a second referendum, just pointing out the justification for one. Perhaps you would like to dial down the boorishness a notch or two and let us know whether there are or should be any rules analogous to ftpa governing the duration of a referendum result?
For the hard of understanding I will repeat once again. Democracy is not just about asking a question, it is about acting on the response. As for boorishness, you confuse it with genuine disgust and contempt at the attitude of people like yourself who think that votes are a convenient smokescreen for getting what you want. I am not surprised you are happy to stay in the EU. It is an attitude they have in spades.
You can *say* that till your buttocks turn blue without it becoming true. The vonc route out of a ftpa five year term is not put on hold till the government has done everything in its manifesto. Why should different rules apply to referendums? Really all you are demonstrating is that the man who is ahead at the end of lap 1 would dearly like it to be a one lap race. Understandable, but lacking in intellectual underpinnings.
For this one? Because it was made abundantly clear during the campaign that it would be the only vote on the matter.
Not even the European Union Referendum Act 2015 could "make that clear" because parliament cannot bind its successors. So if anyone else told you that, they were lying.
I was listening to the prime minister at the time, actually.
So you think the prime minister can settle the future of the country by off the cuff remarks, in ways which would not be valid even if contained in legislation? Golly.
Yes, it was a political statement and not a legal one. But still, it was made clear that there would be no second vote and no renegotiation.
Yes, but nobody has the right to "make that clear". If Cameron said it, that would be a cracking ad hominem point against him if he then we th back on it, but that is not where we are.
There was a very vocal element on QT last night wondering why politicians find it so difficult to understand that WE HAVE VOTED TO LEAVE. They were loudly cheered.
Rigging a second vote to engineer a Remain outcome will not go as well as you imagine.
My profoundly apolitical poker circle had a fierce discussion on this last night - I remained silent (too much like the day job - I don't play cards to talk politics) and eventually the host had to ask them all to shut up "because we're friends with different opinions and don't want to fall out". But if it's reaching people like that who normally only talk footie and movies, it's certainly cutting through.
Everyone is talking about now. I don't think the campaign itself ever impinged on my offline life at all.
Blaming Cameron for the incoherence of the Leave proposition is quite delightfully bonkers!
In fact it's the Leavers who are entirely to blame for the lack of preparation. Whatever anyone did would have been denounced as 'Project Fear' and actually fed the Leave propaganda machine. No wonder the government shied away - they would have helped the enemy by allowing themselves to be labelled as scaremongers.
You regret the fact that Margaret Thatcher's dream of a community that included Prague, Budapest and Warsaw became a reality?
Of a "Common Market" not of a "Union"
In her speech opening the campaign for a Yes vote in the 1975 referendum, Thatcher doesn't use the phrase "Common Market" at all but refers to it as the Community, and says, "The Conservative Party has been pursuing the European vision almost as long as we have existed as a Party. "
Is here a way of staying in, on existing terms, with democratic legitimacy, a stable settlement, not getting Corbyn as PM and not creating a long lived impetus to right wing nationalism? If so I'm for it. If I can't be convinced that is a reasonable prospect than I would fall back to May's approach. I feel like weeping when contemplating the contribution of ERG and the Labour leadership to the current situation.
There was a very vocal element on QT last night wondering why politicians find it so difficult to understand that WE HAVE VOTED TO LEAVE. They were loudly cheered.
Rigging a second vote to engineer a Remain outcome will not go as well as you imagine.
My profoundly apolitical poker circle had a fierce discussion on this last night - I remained silent (too much like the day job - I don't play cards to talk politics) and eventually the host had to ask them all to shut up "because we're friends with different opinions and don't want to fall out". But if it's reaching people like that who normally only talk footie and movies, it's certainly cutting through.
Interesting. From what I hear, a lot of people would deliberately boycott any second referendum. It would store up huge legitimacy issues.
Comments
It could be framed as an AV or STV.
It's the only way out of this impasse. And it would be binding on Parliament.
https://www.markpack.org.uk/153744/jeremy-corbyn-brexit/
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/watch-jeremy-corbyn-describes-eu-as-massive-great-frankenstein-1-5879503
Was that some other Jeremy Corbyn speaking?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6777131/Basil-Ghost-sixth-man-convicted-25m-Hatton-Garden.html
When you consider that 99.8% of the sitting MPs at the time of the referendum were representing parties that officially backed remain, it was impossible for the leave campaign to do anything other than speculate on what might happen in the event of a leave victory because those campaigning had absolutely no mandate to carry any of the promises that were being made.
I'm still staggered on how literally some of the electorate took them for their word.
The XO of my USN squadron had a Master's in International Relations from Georgetown. His counterpart in the RN would probably have A Level Geography grade C.
The obsession with academic acheivment has its pros and cons but it was a definite point of cultural differences that I found quite surprising.
F1: intrigued to see how the various teams stack up in qualifying tomorrow. And whether I remember to wake up in time for the 6am start.
Rigging a second vote to engineer a Remain outcome will not go as well as you imagine.
Throw into the mix the 52-48% split, the fact that Parliament has been incapable of finding an agreement, the evidential shift in attitudes and you have a compelling case for a new vote.
Democracy means listening to the will of the people and if there's a shift, which is clearly the case, we need to respond to that.
I think if deal go through and UK goes on to be relatively unscathed economically - history will focus on the incredible determination and durability.
If the deal fails and we end up with a softer or no Brexit, history will view her Premiership as abject failure, even against a backdrop of a more favourable outcome for the country as a whole
http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/ban-lawyer-bought-chemsex-drugs-killed-lover/
I know someone who was working with Cameron in No.10 and he said at the time there was absolutely NO preparation for the contingency of Leave winning. None whatsoever. No plan B. Zero. Zilch. When he said this I was incredulous and he said, 'I promise it's true. We have no plans in place for Leave winning.'
Cameron won over in Indy Scotland and arrogantly thought we'd vote to Remain.
The whole thing has been an unmitigated cock up and Cameron must take much of the blame.
Anyone who isn’t concerned about Trump needs to give their head a wobble. But this isn’t incitement, neither is criticism of Islam, even criticism of Muslims. Even visceral and unpleasant criticism is not incitement.
Some of the things Tommy Robinson (apparently I heard a rumour it’s not his own name) might flirt with incitement. But even then it’s a stretch.
People have their own agency, and their own capacity to reason in their mind. If they do not have that reason that is their problem.
Freedom of speech should not be curtailed because people do unpleasant things.
The question was clear and agreed by the Electoral Commission. If it had been more complex the chances are they would not have agreed it.
The Deal May has brought in reflects the closeness of the result as being a soft Brexit.
And you can ask as many questions as you like but if you don't act on the results it is not democracy.
So your points are all... pointless.
I have always said that once we leave, Remainers are obviously free to campaign to rejoin. But until we do leave your comparisons with 1975 are false.
but on the subject of Cameron holding the referendum he was boxed in politically. Had he not promised it - UKIP would have been polling mid to late 20%s - had he promised it and not delivered it (a la G.Brown) UKIP would have been 30%s and rising.
Your comments are still pointless.
Some of the blame lies with the person believing the lie, for being so stupid.
I once worked in a pub in Canterbury and a lady of some years asked me for a pint of beer. I asked her which, of the many varieties of beer we had on offer, she would like. “Young man - I have asked for a pint of beer. Please serve me one” was the reply. Barking. The referendum question reminded me strongly of that.
For those wondering I have her a pint of lager. Can’t remember which. She didn’t like it.
It’s like they haven’t looked at every single poll for the last 18 months. Every single one has remain ahead .
They had Miliband and Cameron tied for six months straight. They had May 20 points ahead.
My point was that given that there will be a range of opinions, the only position that a pure democrat should take is that it was legitimate to campaign to remain from the very next day after the referendum.
Ironically, UKIPs best outcome electorally would have been a narrow remain win. They would have swatted Corbyn led Labour like aside in the northern and midlands towns away from Metropolitan areas, probably to the tune of 60-70 seats.
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/102675
*I’m not even sure that Corbyn and his acolytes understand what “A” CU is or means, they just love the idea because the Tories are utterly opposed to it.
The thing that I definitely voted for, and I'm still awaiting, was the billion job losses that the Treasury promised us we'd get immediately after a vote for Brexit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum#2016
As for the Remain leads now, the last Kantar one had Remain 12% ahead.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/596426141847711745
https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1106537173808021504
That's what you call a crackdown.....