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.
Haha.
Can I say how much I've appreciated your posts over the past few days? I hope you've been made to feel welcome and can be tempted to stay
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.
Everything Corbyn has said publicly on the referendum is pretty much
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.
Is Labour supposed to ban self deprecating jokes ?
Reading that article, the bad pun by itself seems fairly harmless, although not in very good taste, but making a joke of the Martin Niemöller poem is vile.
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.
When and where in history and geography is the example of where a boycott of a democratic vote actually made any difference?
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.
When and where in history and geography is the example of where a boycott of a democratic vote actually made any difference?
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.
But then, so did their opponents. Neither side holds the moral high ground.
Mr. Mark, the suggestion I heard here a few weeks ago was that there'd be a concerted campaign for high turnout, but with stronger Leavers spoiling their ballots in a bit to have the number of spoilt ballots exceed the margin of victory, if not the actual total of the winning result (in the event of the options being Remain or May's Deal).
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.
When and where in history and geography is the example of where a boycott of a democratic vote actually made any difference?
Quite a few, actually.
But, I agree that in this case, we'd only be playing into the hands of Remain if we boycotted it, so why do what your opponents want?
Mr. Mark, the suggestion I heard here a few weeks ago was that there'd be a concerted campaign for high turnout, but with stronger Leavers spoiling their ballots in a bit to have the number of spoilt ballots exceed the margin of victory, if not the actual total of the winning result (in the event of the options being Remain or May's Deal).
That would be excellent. We'd get a nice clear three-way result, showing how little support there was for leaving with no deal, without the trouble of having a three-way referendum.
Blaming Cameron for the incoherence of the Leave proposition is quite delightfully bonkers!
Sadly, no it isn't. He manifestly failed to prepare government for an entirely foreseeable outcome; he resigned as PM when he had given no indication that he was not prepared to lead either outcome; he came back with a lousy renegotiation deal and sold it as if it amounted to something; he presided over a terrible, fearful and negative campaign.
Remainers have had 44 years, since 1975, of almost unbroken party consensus to build an impregnable case for the EU, fulfil some of its ideals and to shape it in accord with popular opinion. Their failure is lamentable. Mr Cameron, tragically, is part of that problem.
Of course there is more than one 'Leave' proposition, and it would be incoherent to try to do them all at the same time. So what? There are several competing visions for the EU's future too.
Parliament has one job, of sorting it out thoughtfully. I'm just trying to remember how that project is getting on.
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.
But then, so did their opponents. Neither side holds the moral high ground.
It is easy to level the charge of lying. I think it is more accurate to call it irresponsible speculation or guessing, some of which was highly improbable, such as "the easiest deal in history". What is clear is that the complication now is that there is no mandate to leave without a deal in place. This is what leave promised in order to squeak their victory. To claim otherwise is a lie.
So Leave areas get 1.6 billion spread over 7 years . Whilst NI could get bunged over a billion for a tiny fraction of the population over a much shorter timeframe .
So Leave areas get 1.6 billion spread over 7 years . Whilst NI could get bunged over a billion for a tiny fraction of the population over a much shorter timeframe .
This really could be another May own goal.
In her position, I'd increase the £1.6bn by a factor of ten.
So Leave areas get 1.6 billion spread over 7 years . Whilst NI could get bunged over a billion for a tiny fraction of the population over a much shorter timeframe .
Blaming Cameron for the incoherence of the Leave proposition is quite delightfully bonkers!
Sadly, no it isn't. He manifestly failed to prepare government for an entirely foreseeable outcome; he resigned as PM when he had given no indication that he was not prepared to lead either outcome; he came back with a lousy renegotiation deal and sold it as if it amounted to something; he presided over a terrible, fearful and negative campaign.
Remainers have had 44 years, since 1975, of almost unbroken party consensus to build an impregnable case for the EU, fulfil some of its ideals and to shape it in accord with popular opinion. Their failure is lamentable. Mr Cameron, tragically, is part of that problem.
Of course there is more than one 'Leave' proposition, and it would be incoherent to try to do them all at the same time. So what? There are several competing visions for the EU's future too.
Parliament has one job, of sorting it out thoughtfully. I'm just trying to remember how that project is getting on.
It's patently absurd to argue that Cameron could have defined the Leave case for them. They can't even define it for themselves after three years of intensive negotiation and discussion. Any attempt by him to do so would immediately have been denounced as a bunch of lies designed to discredit the Leave position.
Cameron is the last person to blame. He at least campaigned vigorously and full-throatedly for Remain, which is more than can be said for anyone in Labour or indeed anywhere else.
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.
What demands do you think they should make?
I wasn't recommending that they make demands. I was pointing out that they were in a position to do so but had putatively chosen one that would not be productive and would arguably make things worse.
I'm just wondering if maybe the demands you think are more reasonable fall under "or soften Brexit"
I didn't characterise the alternative demands as reasonable nor unreasonable. I did point out that the demand they were allegedly making (a second referendum) was unlikely to succeed and would arguably make things worse.
So Leave areas get 1.6 billion spread over 7 years . Whilst NI could get bunged over a billion for a tiny fraction of the population over a much shorter timeframe .
This really could be another May own goal.
In her position, I'd increase the £1.6bn by a factor of ten.
It seems that she has grown a socialist type magic money tree. We all know where that ends.
Here lies the remains of the Conservative Party reputation for economic competence. Died of a rabid fever called Brexit. RIP. 1979-2016.
So Leave areas get 1.6 billion spread over 7 years . Whilst NI could get bunged over a billion for a tiny fraction of the population over a much shorter timeframe .
This really could be another May own goal.
They could also get nothing.
Or we could leave without a deal and they could get £39bn.
So Leave areas get 1.6 billion spread over 7 years . Whilst NI could get bunged over a billion for a tiny fraction of the population over a much shorter timeframe .
This really could be another May own goal.
In her position, I'd increase the £1.6bn by a factor of ten.
Problem for the Tories is that by accepting those areas suffered highlights it was them inflicting the suffering .
You’re right though, if you’re going to bung some money make sure it’s a lot with not too many strings attached .
Mr. Dawning, there is something in that, but politicians and journalists do seem to think there's a magic algorithm that can just make bad things go away, and there isn't.
The EU's Article 13 approach is to **** things, seemingly, for huge numbers of people. We'll find out shortly if it's as bad as everyone thinks (my own view is it probably will be).
So Leave areas get 1.6 billion spread over 7 years . Whilst NI could get bunged over a billion for a tiny fraction of the population over a much shorter timeframe .
This really could be another May own goal.
In her position, I'd increase the £1.6bn by a factor of ten.
It seems that she has grown a socialist type magic money tree. We all know where that ends.
Here lies the remains of the Conservative Party reputation for economic competence. Died of a rabid fever called Brexit. RIP. 1979-2016.
Actually Phil Hammond has a few billion up his sleeve, so it's hardly magic money. In any case, a bribe would be cheaper than the alternative.
So Leave areas get 1.6 billion spread over 7 years . Whilst NI could get bunged over a billion for a tiny fraction of the population over a much shorter timeframe .
Blaming Cameron for the incoherence of the Leave proposition is quite delightfully bonkers!
Sadly, no it isn't. He manifestly failed to prepare government for an entirely foreseeable outcome; he resigned as PM when he had given no indication that he was not prepared to lead either outcome; he came back with a lousy renegotiation deal and sold it as if it amounted to something; he presided over a terrible, fearful and negative campaign.
Remainers have had 44 years, since 1975, of almost unbroken party consensus to build an impregnable case for the EU, fulfil some of its ideals and to shape it in accord with popular opinion. Their failure is lamentable. Mr Cameron, tragically, is part of that problem.
Of course there is more than one 'Leave' proposition, and it would be incoherent to try to do them all at the same time. So what? There are several competing visions for the EU's future too.
Parliament has one job, of sorting it out thoughtfully. I'm just trying to remember how that project is getting on.
It's patently absurd to argue that Cameron could have defined the Leave case for them. They can't even define it for themselves after three years of intensive negotiation and discussion. Any attempt by him to do so would immediately have been denounced as a bunch of lies designed to discredit the Leave position.
Cameron is the last person to blame. He at least campaigned vigorously and full-throatedly for Remain, which is more than can be said for anyone in Labour or indeed anywhere else.
Yes, but like a lot of other Tories he had been on the "trash the EU" bandwagon for quite a while that undermined his case. He is the man that risked the country's prosperity on black and it came up red.
I voted for him in the leadership election, and in every other way I thought him a good leader, except for THAT decision. It wasn't leadership, it was shear folly.
So Leave areas get 1.6 billion spread over 7 years . Whilst NI could get bunged over a billion for a tiny fraction of the population over a much shorter timeframe .
This really could be another May own goal.
They could also get nothing.
Or we could leave without a deal and they could get £39bn.
(Yes I know it’s more complicated than that).
Half of that is for previous obligations . The UK can save around half with no deal but then the EU will play hard ball on signing mini deals to alleviate the no deal issues .
So Leave areas get 1.6 billion spread over 7 years . Whilst NI could get bunged over a billion for a tiny fraction of the population over a much shorter timeframe .
This really could be another May own goal.
In her position, I'd increase the £1.6bn by a factor of ten.
It seems that she has grown a socialist type magic money tree. We all know where that ends.
Here lies the remains of the Conservative Party reputation for economic competence. Died of a rabid fever called Brexit. RIP. 1979-2016.
Well, as others have put it, when you're singing karaoke, you belt it out with as much conviction as you can. The voters in general worry much less about philosophical consistency than we do.
Blaming Cameron for the incoherence of the Leave proposition is quite delightfully bonkers!
Sadly, no it isn't. He manifestly failed to prepare government for an entirely foreseeable outcome; he resigned as PM when he had given no indication that he was not prepared to lead either outcome; he came back with a lousy renegotiation deal and sold it as if it amounted to something; he presided over a terrible, fearful and negative campaign.
Remainers have had 44 years, since 1975, of almost unbroken party consensus to build an impregnable case for the EU, fulfil some of its ideals and to shape it in accord with popular opinion. Their failure is lamentable. Mr Cameron, tragically, is part of that problem.
Of course there is more than one 'Leave' proposition, and it would be incoherent to try to do them all at the same time. So what? There are several competing visions for the EU's future too.
Parliament has one job, of sorting it out thoughtfully. I'm just trying to remember how that project is getting on.
It's patently absurd to argue that Cameron could have defined the Leave case for them. They can't even define it for themselves after three years of intensive negotiation and discussion. Any attempt by him to do so would immediately have been denounced as a bunch of lies designed to discredit the Leave position.
Cameron is the last person to blame. He at least campaigned vigorously and full-throatedly for Remain, which is more than can be said for anyone in Labour or indeed anywhere else.
Yes, but like a lot of other Tories he had been on the "trash the EU" bandwagon for quite a while that undermined his case. He is the man that risked the country's prosperity on black and it came up red.
I voted for him in the leadership election, and in every other way I thought him a good leader, except for THAT decision. It wasn't leadership, it was shear folly.
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.
It's an interesting debate - the transition period (should the deal pass) remains a danger zone for brexiteers because we will have left the EU technically, which would take the sting out of the argument that a second ref is antidemocratic, but we would still be closely enough aligned to the EU that it could be easy enough to call the whole thing off (hard to say on balance how the EU would react to a demand to reverse brexit given it would be seen as admitting that brexit has failed they would probably make it relatively easy for us)
Blaming Cameron for the incoherence of the Leave proposition is quite delightfully bonkers!
Sadly, no it isn't. He manifestly failed to prepare government for an entirely foreseeable outcome; he resigned as PM when he had given no indication that he was not prepared to lead either outcome; he came back with a lousy renegotiation deal and sold it as if it amounted to something; he presided over a terrible, fearful and negative campaign.
Remainers have had 44 years, since 1975, of almost unbroken party consensus to build an impregnable case for the EU, fulfil some of its ideals and to shape it in accord with popular opinion. Their failure is lamentable. Mr Cameron, tragically, is part of that problem.
Of course there is more than one 'Leave' proposition, and it would be incoherent to try to do them all at the same time. So what? There are several competing visions for the EU's future too.
Parliament has one job, of sorting it out thoughtfully. I'm just trying to remember how that project is getting on.
It's patently absurd to argue that Cameron could have defined the Leave case for them. They can't even define it for themselves after three years of intensive negotiation and discussion. Any attempt by him to do so would immediately have been denounced as a bunch of lies designed to discredit the Leave position.
Cameron is the last person to blame. He at least campaigned vigorously and full-throatedly for Remain, which is more than can be said for anyone in Labour or indeed anywhere else.
Yes, but like a lot of other Tories he had been on the "trash the EU" bandwagon for quite a while that undermined his case. He is the man that risked the country's prosperity on black and it came up red.
I voted for him in the leadership election, and in every other way I thought him a good leader, except for THAT decision. It wasn't leadership, it was shear folly.
He didn't have any choice, though. Don't forget the James Wharton bill, for example.
So Leave areas get 1.6 billion spread over 7 years . Whilst NI could get bunged over a billion for a tiny fraction of the population over a much shorter timeframe .
This really could be another May own goal.
They could also get nothing.
Or we could leave without a deal and they could get £39bn.
(Yes I know it’s more complicated than that).
Half of that is for previous obligations . The UK can save around half with no deal but then the EU will play hard ball on signing mini deals to alleviate the no deal issues .
Yes of course, it’s simply highlighting the inconsistency in some of the numbers bandied around by various groups. The suggestion of £1.6bn in regional aid was a mistake given the size of all the other numbers.
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.
It's an interesting debate - the transition period (should the deal pass) remains a danger zone for brexiteers because we will have left the EU technically, which would take the sting out of the argument that a second ref is antidemocratic, but we would still be closely enough aligned to the EU that it could be easy enough to call the whole thing off (hard to say on balance how the EU would react to a demand to reverse brexit given it would be seen as admitting that brexit has failed they would probably make it relatively easy for us)
Yes, in many ways the WA period is the best timing for a #peoplesvote.
So Leave areas get 1.6 billion spread over 7 years . Whilst NI could get bunged over a billion for a tiny fraction of the population over a much shorter timeframe .
This really could be another May own goal.
In her position, I'd increase the £1.6bn by a factor of ten.
It seems that she has grown a socialist type magic money tree. We all know where that ends.
Here lies the remains of the Conservative Party reputation for economic competence. Died of a rabid fever called Brexit. RIP. 1979-2016.
Actually Phil Hammond has a few billion up his sleeve, so it's hardly magic money. In any case, a bribe would be cheaper than the alternative.
The DUP sat and listened to Hammond's Spring Statement thinking "Oh really....."
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.
It's an interesting debate - the transition period (should the deal pass) remains a danger zone for brexiteers because we will have left the EU technically, which would take the sting out of the argument that a second ref is antidemocratic, but we would still be closely enough aligned to the EU that it could be easy enough to call the whole thing off (hard to say on balance how the EU would react to a demand to reverse brexit given it would be seen as admitting that brexit has failed they would probably make it relatively easy for us)
Yes, in many ways the WA period is the best timing for a #peoplesvote.
Is it? If May’s deal does pass Ito be steady as she goes in terms of trading etc. with the EU. All of the doom-mongering about Brexit will be discredited without the UK having actually left.
Interesting. From what I hear, a lot of people would deliberately boycott any second referendum. It would store up huge legitimacy issues.
Interesting that people being denied a vote last time is "legitimate", but people not being arsed to vote would make it "illegitimate"...
EU citizens, you mean? If they cared so deeply about the UK they could have become citizens.
Will you be saying the same for UK nationals in the EU . Some countries don’t allow duel nationality and people were using their freedom of movement rights . And why would people who could avoid it now take a UK passport given it’s going to restrict their rights .
Blaming Cameron for the incoherence of the Leave proposition is quite delightfully bonkers!
Sadly, no it isn't. He manifestly failed to prepare government for an entirely foreseeable outcome; he resigned as PM when he had given no indication that he was not prepared to lead either outcome; he came back with a lousy renegotiation deal and sold it as if it amounted to something; he presided over a terrible, fearful and negative campaign.
Remainers have had 44 years, since 1975, of almost unbroken party consensus to build an impregnable case for the EU, fulfil some of its ideals and to shape it in accord with popular opinion. Their failure is lamentable. Mr Cameron, tragically, is part of that problem.
Of course there is more than one 'Leave' proposition, and it would be incoherent to try to do them all at the same time. So what? There are several competing visions for the EU's future too.
Parliament has one job, of sorting it out thoughtfully. I'm just trying to remember how that project is getting on.
It's patently absurd to argue that Cameron could have defined the Leave case for them. They can't even define it for themselves after three years of intensive negotiation and discussion. Any attempt by him to do so would immediately have been denounced as a bunch of lies designed to discredit the Leave position.
Cameron is the last person to blame. He at least campaigned vigorously and full-throatedly for Remain, which is more than can be said for anyone in Labour or indeed anywhere else.
No its not. He could have followed the precedent of John Howard. Instead of betting the farm on a renegotiation then a referendum, he could have called a Royal Commission to determine what form Brexit would take (WTO, EEA etc) and then put that to a vote against remaining.
John Howard was a monarchist who forced a definition of what an Australian republic would look like, then defeated that definition putting the issue to rest. That precedent could have been quite simply followed.
Interesting. From what I hear, a lot of people would deliberately boycott any second referendum. It would store up huge legitimacy issues.
Interesting that people being denied a vote last time is "legitimate", but people not being arsed to vote would make it "illegitimate"...
EU citizens, you mean? If they cared so deeply about the UK they could have become citizens.
Will you be saying the same for UK nationals in the EU . Some countries don’t allow duel nationality and people were using their freedom of movement rights . And why would people who could avoid it now take a UK passport given it’s going to restrict their rights .
I think the majority of EU countries don’t allow non-citizens to 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?
Because unlike Cameron Leave have never been in charge.
Interesting. From what I hear, a lot of people would deliberately boycott any second referendum. It would store up huge legitimacy issues.
Interesting that people being denied a vote last time is "legitimate", but people not being arsed to vote would make it "illegitimate"...
EU citizens, you mean? If they cared so deeply about the UK they could have become citizens.
Will you be saying the same for UK nationals in the EU . Some countries don’t allow duel nationality and people were using their freedom of movement rights . And why would people who could avoid it now take a UK passport given it’s going to restrict their rights .
Yes I would. If a Brit emigrates to Spain but refuses to take Spanish nationality then absolutely they shouldn't vote in a Spanish election or referendum.
Think it's a slightly odd complaint that non-citizens, who come from the EU, should've been able to vote as to whether or not we stayed in.
The Remain side(s) had significant advantages, and it's worth remembering the Leave campaigns were pretty rubbish too. Yet somehow they contrived to lose.
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.
It's an interesting debate - the transition period (should the deal pass) remains a danger zone for brexiteers because we will have left the EU technically, which would take the sting out of the argument that a second ref is antidemocratic, but we would still be closely enough aligned to the EU that it could be easy enough to call the whole thing off (hard to say on balance how the EU would react to a demand to reverse brexit given it would be seen as admitting that brexit has failed they would probably make it relatively easy for us)
Yes, in many ways the WA period is the best timing for a #peoplesvote.
Is it? If May’s deal does pass Ito be steady as she goes in terms of trading etc. with the EU. All of the doom-mongering about Brexit will be discredited without the UK having actually left.
It is only steady as it goes for the duration of the WA, the same arguements that we have currently then become sharper. CU +/- SM are the logical outcome. Why not want a say?
Then there are the issues of demography, incuding naturalisation of a good percentage of our 3 million EU residents, and of buyers remorse, which already is a significant factor.
Blaming Cameron for the incoherence of the Leave proposition is quite delightfully bonkers!
Sadly, no it isn't. He manifestly failed to prepare government for an entirely foreseeable outcome; he resigned as PM when he had given no indication that he was not prepared to lead either outcome; he came back with a lousy renegotiation deal and sold it as if it amounted to something; he presided over a terrible, fearful and negative campaign.
Remainers have had 44 years, since 1975, of almost unbroken party consensus to build an impregnable case for the EU, fulfil some of its ideals and to shape it in accord with popular opinion. Their failure is lamentable. Mr Cameron, tragically, is part of that problem.
Of course there is more than one 'Leave' proposition, and it would be incoherent to try to do them all at the same time. So what? There are several competing visions for the EU's future too.
Parliament has one job, of sorting it out thoughtfully. I'm just trying to remember how that project is getting on.
It's patently absurd to argue that Cameron could have defined the Leave case for them. They can't even define it for themselves after three years of intensive negotiation and discussion. Any attempt by him to do so would immediately have been denounced as a bunch of lies designed to discredit the Leave position.
Cameron is the last person to blame. He at least campaigned vigorously and full-throatedly for Remain, which is more than can be said for anyone in Labour or indeed anywhere else.
No its not. He could have followed the precedent of John Howard. Instead of betting the farm on a renegotiation then a referendum, he could have called a Royal Commission to determine what form Brexit would take (WTO, EEA etc) and then put that to a vote against remaining.
John Howard was a monarchist who forced a definition of what an Australian republic would look like, then defeated that definition putting the issue to rest. That precedent could have been quite simply followed.
Yes, with hindsight that was the right way to proceed. For example, a question “Should we remain in the EU, or should we leave the EU and join the EEA?” - having made the required preparations with the EEA beforehand.
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.
It's an interesting debate - the transition period (should the deal pass) remains a danger zone for brexiteers because we will have left the EU technically, which would take the sting out of the argument that a second ref is antidemocratic, but we would still be closely enough aligned to the EU that it could be easy enough to call the whole thing off (hard to say on balance how the EU would react to a demand to reverse brexit given it would be seen as admitting that brexit has failed they would probably make it relatively easy for us)
I think it would be reasonable enough to make the case for a referendum for rejoining after March 29th (or whatever the equivalent leaving date ends up being). At that point we would be outside the EU and the transition to being 'fully' out would be both very extended and probably difficult to define.
I am not sure it would be an easy case to make (rejoining I mean not the referendum) as it would bring the various EU accession rules into play and commit us to joining the Euro which is now a treaty requirement for any new members.
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.
It's an interesting debate - the transition period (should the deal pass) remains a danger zone for brexiteers because we will have left the EU technically, which would take the sting out of the argument that a second ref is antidemocratic, but we would still be closely enough aligned to the EU that it could be easy enough to call the whole thing off (hard to say on balance how the EU would react to a demand to reverse brexit given it would be seen as admitting that brexit has failed they would probably make it relatively easy for us)
Yes, in many ways the WA period is the best timing for a #peoplesvote.
Is it? If May’s deal does pass Ito be steady as she goes in terms of trading etc. with the EU. All of the doom-mongering about Brexit will be discredited without the UK having actually left.
It is only steady as it goes for the duration of the WA, the same arguements that we have currently then become sharper. CU +/- SM are the logical outcome. Why not want a say?
Then there are the issues of demography, incuding naturalisation of a good percentage of our 3 million EU residents, and of buyers remorse, which already is a significant factor.
Yes, but you were saying the WA period was the perfect time for another referendum. My point is things will be relatively unchanged if May’s deal is signed. So people will be told we have left, and wondering why we should bother spending another five years going back in.
Blaming Cameron for the incoherence of the Leave proposition is quite delightfully bonkers!
Sadly, no it isn't. He manifestly failed to prepare government for an entirely foreseeable outcome; he resigned as PM when he had given no indication that he was not prepared to lead either outcome; he came back with a lousy renegotiation deal and sold it as if it amounted to something; he presided over a terrible, fearful and negative campaign.
Remainers have had 44 years, since 1975, of almost unbroken party consensus to build an impregnable case for the EU, fulfil some of its ideals and to shape it in accord with popular opinion. Their failure is lamentable. Mr Cameron, tragically, is part of that problem.
Of course there is more than one 'Leave' proposition, and it would be incoherent to try to do them all at the same time. So what? There are several competing visions for the EU's future too.
Parliament has one job, of sorting it out thoughtfully. I'm just trying to remember how that project is getting on.
It's patently absurd to argue that Cameron could have defined the Leave case for them. They can't even define it for themselves after three years of intensive negotiation and discussion. Any attempt by him to do so would immediately have been denounced as a bunch of lies designed to discredit the Leave position.
Cameron is the last person to blame. He at least campaigned vigorously and full-throatedly for Remain, which is more than can be said for anyone in Labour or indeed anywhere else.
No its not. He could have followed the precedent of John Howard. Instead of betting the farm on a renegotiation then a referendum, he could have called a Royal Commission to determine what form Brexit would take (WTO, EEA etc) and then put that to a vote against remaining.
John Howard was a monarchist who forced a definition of what an Australian republic would look like, then defeated that definition putting the issue to rest. That precedent could have been quite simply followed.
Yes, with hindsight that was the right way to proceed. For example, a question “Should we remain in the EU, or should we leave the EU and join the EEA?” - having made the required preparations with the EEA beforehand.
Interesting. From what I hear, a lot of people would deliberately boycott any second referendum. It would store up huge legitimacy issues.
Interesting that people being denied a vote last time is "legitimate", but people not being arsed to vote would make it "illegitimate"...
EU citizens, you mean? If they cared so deeply about the UK they could have become citizens.
Will you be saying the same for UK nationals in the EU . Some countries don’t allow duel nationality and people were using their freedom of movement rights . And why would people who could avoid it now take a UK passport given it’s going to restrict their rights .
I think the majority of EU countries don’t allow non-citizens to vote.
Fine that’s fair enough I’m not arguing that point. Simply the way you conflate a passport with loyalty to the country or caring for it . As if people living in the UK from the EU don’t care about the country .
Interesting. From what I hear, a lot of people would deliberately boycott any second referendum. It would store up huge legitimacy issues.
Interesting that people being denied a vote last time is "legitimate", but people not being arsed to vote would make it "illegitimate"...
EU citizens, you mean? If they cared so deeply about the UK they could have become citizens.
One of the most stupid and ignorant comments I have seen on here. Have all the Brits in Spain become Spanish? Duh!
No but there is certainly an argument for saying they should. If you are going to make a new life in a new country then personally I think you should show commitment to that country.
I know in Australia a few years ago they raised this as an issue and there were proposals to strip voting rights from the 160,000 Brits who had not taken out Australian citizenship.
Interesting. From what I hear, a lot of people would deliberately boycott any second referendum. It would store up huge legitimacy issues.
Interesting that people being denied a vote last time is "legitimate", but people not being arsed to vote would make it "illegitimate"...
EU citizens, you mean? If they cared so deeply about the UK they could have become citizens.
Will you be saying the same for UK nationals in the EU . Some countries don’t allow duel nationality and people were using their freedom of movement rights . And why would people who could avoid it now take a UK passport given it’s going to restrict their rights .
I think the majority of EU countries don’t allow non-citizens to vote.
Fine that’s fair enough I’m not arguing that point. Simply the way you conflate a passport with loyalty to the country or caring for it . As if people living in the UK from the EU don’t care about the country .
You literally have to swear an oath of loyalty when you get citizenship. No conflating involved.
Interesting. From what I hear, a lot of people would deliberately boycott any second referendum. It would store up huge legitimacy issues.
Interesting that people being denied a vote last time is "legitimate", but people not being arsed to vote would make it "illegitimate"...
EU citizens, you mean? If they cared so deeply about the UK they could have become citizens.
One of the most stupid and ignorant comments I have seen on here. Have all the Brits in Spain become Spanish? Duh!
No but there is certainly an argument for saying they should. If you are going to make a new life in a new country then personally I think you should show commitment to that country.
I know in Australia a few years ago they raised this as an issue and there were proposals to strip voting rights from the 160,000 Brits who had not taken out Australian citizenship.
@Sandpit can tell us the citizenry requirements of Dubai. I'm sure he has swotted up on the mandatory test.
Interesting. From what I hear, a lot of people would deliberately boycott any second referendum. It would store up huge legitimacy issues.
Interesting that people being denied a vote last time is "legitimate", but people not being arsed to vote would make it "illegitimate"...
EU citizens, you mean? If they cared so deeply about the UK they could have become citizens.
One of the most stupid and ignorant comments I have seen on here. Have all the Brits in Spain become Spanish? Duh!
No but there is certainly an argument for saying they should. If you are going to make a new life in a new country then personally I think you should show commitment to that country.
I know in Australia a few years ago they raised this as an issue and there were proposals to strip voting rights from the 160,000 Brits who had not taken out Australian citizenship.
@Sandpit can tell us the citizenry requirements of Dubai. I'm sure he has swotted up on the mandatory test.
Has he expressed a desire to vote in elections in Dubai?
Yes, with hindsight that was the right way to proceed. For example, a question “Should we remain in the EU, or should we leave the EU and join the EEA?” - having made the required preparations with the EEA beforehand.
Aren't we already in the EEA?
So the question should have been “Should we remain in the EU, or should we leave the EU but remain in the EEA?”
Well the EU is a member of the EEA. From memory I think we leave EEA membership when we joined the EU as the EU as a whole is a member. The point is that the actual question had one fixed option (remain under Cameron's negotiated terms) or leave (for any ideal fantasy of leave anyone could imagine). So the question probably give leave an advantage due to unicorns in 2 million different colours and sizes.
Blaming Cameron for the incoherence of the Leave proposition is quite delightfully bonkers!
Sadly, no it isn't. He manifestly failed to prepare government for an entirely foreseeable outcome; he resigned as PM when he had given no indication that he was not prepared to lead either outcome; he came back with a lousy renegotiation deal and sold it as if it amounted to something; he presided over a terrible, fearful and negative campaign.
Remainers have had 44 years, since 1975, of almost unbroken party consensus to build an impregnable case for the EU, fulfil some of its ideals and to shape it in accord with popular opinion. Their failure is lamentable. Mr Cameron, tragically, is part of that problem.
Of course there is more than one 'Leave' proposition, and it would be incoherent to try to do them all at the same time. So what? There are several competing visions for the EU's future too.
Parliament has one job, of sorting it out thoughtfully. I'm just trying to remember how that project is getting on.
It's patently absurd to argue that Cameron could have defined the Leave case for them. They can't even define it for themselves after three years of intensive negotiation and discussion. Any attempt by him to do so would immediately have been denounced as a bunch of lies designed to discredit the Leave position.
Cameron is the last person to blame. He at least campaigned vigorously and full-throatedly for Remain, which is more than can be said for anyone in Labour or indeed anywhere else.
No its not. He could have followed the precedent of John Howard. Instead of betting the farm on a renegotiation then a referendum, he could have called a Royal Commission to determine what form Brexit would take (WTO, EEA etc) and then put that to a vote against remaining.
John Howard was a monarchist who forced a definition of what an Australian republic would look like, then defeated that definition putting the issue to rest. That precedent could have been quite simply followed.
Yes, with hindsight that was the right way to proceed. For example, a question “Should we remain in the EU, or should we leave the EU and join the EEA?” - having made the required preparations with the EEA beforehand.
Aren't we already in the EEA?
Only as members of the EU. There was some debate on this point in advance of the referendum, the conclusion being that we could have moved from EU to EEA with permission of the other EEA countries.
Interesting. From what I hear, a lot of people would deliberately boycott any second referendum. It would store up huge legitimacy issues.
Interesting that people being denied a vote last time is "legitimate", but people not being arsed to vote would make it "illegitimate"...
EU citizens, you mean? If they cared so deeply about the UK they could have become citizens.
One of the most stupid and ignorant comments I have seen on here. Have all the Brits in Spain become Spanish? Duh!
Perhaps they don’t care deeply about Spain? Many EU countries restrict vote to only citizens. The U.K. is quite unusual in that respect.
The only thing unique about the UK is that it extends the Parliamentary franchise to resident Commonwealth citizens (a legacy of the former common “United Kingdom and colonies” citizenship) and resident Irish citizens (because the Ireland Act 1949 requires them to be treated as if they were British citizens). In every other respect the UK follows the minimum required by the EU which is that resident EU citizens get to vote in local (including regional) and European elections.
Interesting. From what I hear, a lot of people would deliberately boycott any second referendum. It would store up huge legitimacy issues.
Interesting that people being denied a vote last time is "legitimate", but people not being arsed to vote would make it "illegitimate"...
EU citizens, you mean? If they cared so deeply about the UK they could have become citizens.
Will you be saying the same for UK nationals in the EU . Some countries don’t allow duel nationality and people were using their freedom of movement rights . And why would people who could avoid it now take a UK passport given it’s going to restrict their rights .
I think the majority of EU countries don’t allow non-citizens to vote.
We have an unusual situation wrt to Ireland whereby nationals of Ireland can vote in local and and national representative elections and vv. What Ireland doesn’t do is permit non-Irish citizens to vote in national referendums. And rightly so.
Yes, with hindsight that was the right way to proceed. For example, a question “Should we remain in the EU, or should we leave the EU and join the EEA?” - having made the required preparations with the EEA beforehand.
Aren't we already in the EEA?
So the question should have been “Should we remain in the EU, or should we leave the EU but remain in the EEA?”
Well the EU is a member of the EEA. From memory I think we leave EEA membership when we joined the EU as the EU as a whole is a member. The point is that the actual question had one fixed option (remain under Cameron's negotiated terms) or leave (for any ideal fantasy of leave anyone could imagine). So the question probably give leave an advantage due to unicorns in 2 million different colours and sizes.
No we didn't. We were members of the EEA as individual signatories both in EFTA and in the EEC/EU. All EU members are also individual members of the EEA but that membership depends on them being in either the EU or EFTA.
Interesting. From what I hear, a lot of people would deliberately boycott any second referendum. It would store up huge legitimacy issues.
Interesting that people being denied a vote last time is "legitimate", but people not being arsed to vote would make it "illegitimate"...
EU citizens, you mean? If they cared so deeply about the UK they could have become citizens.
Will you be saying the same for UK nationals in the EU . Some countries don’t allow duel nationality and people were using their freedom of movement rights . And why would people who could avoid it now take a UK passport given it’s going to restrict their rights .
I think the majority of EU countries don’t allow non-citizens to vote.
Fine that’s fair enough I’m not arguing that point. Simply the way you conflate a passport with loyalty to the country or caring for it . As if people living in the UK from the EU don’t care about the country .
You literally have to swear an oath of loyalty when you get citizenship. No conflating involved.
An oath of loyalty is just words . It’s actions that count . Anyone can stand there giving an oath . You seem to think a passport is a judge of character . There are loads of Brits with passports who couldn’t give a fig about the country or their fellow citizens .
Interesting. From what I hear, a lot of people would deliberately boycott any second referendum. It would store up huge legitimacy issues.
Interesting that people being denied a vote last time is "legitimate", but people not being arsed to vote would make it "illegitimate"...
EU citizens, you mean? If they cared so deeply about the UK they could have become citizens.
One of the most stupid and ignorant comments I have seen on here. Have all the Brits in Spain become Spanish? Duh!
No but there is certainly an argument for saying they should. If you are going to make a new life in a new country then personally I think you should show commitment to that country.
I know in Australia a few years ago they raised this as an issue and there were proposals to strip voting rights from the 160,000 Brits who had not taken out Australian citizenship.
@Sandpit can tell us the citizenry requirements of Dubai. I'm sure he has swotted up on the mandatory test.
Has he expressed a desire to vote in elections in Dubai?
@Tyndall: " If you are going to make a new life in a new country then personally I think you should show commitment to that country."
Interesting. From what I hear, a lot of people would deliberately boycott any second referendum. It would store up huge legitimacy issues.
Interesting that people being denied a vote last time is "legitimate", but people not being arsed to vote would make it "illegitimate"...
EU citizens, you mean? If they cared so deeply about the UK they could have become citizens.
One of the most stupid and ignorant comments I have seen on here. Have all the Brits in Spain become Spanish? Duh!
No but there is certainly an argument for saying they should. If you are going to make a new life in a new country then personally I think you should show commitment to that country.
I know in Australia a few years ago they raised this as an issue and there were proposals to strip voting rights from the 160,000 Brits who had not taken out Australian citizenship.
@Sandpit can tell us the citizenry requirements of Dubai. I'm sure he has swotted up on the mandatory test.
I still advocate Norway's approach. Basically they welcome immigrants but anyone wanting to settle has to take 300 hours of language and culture lessons and sit exams. There are also severe restrictions on what they can and cannot do in civic terms of they don't take citizenship. As I said during the Brevik discussions earlier, as a result they are one of the most integrated countries I have ever visited.
Interesting. From what I hear, a lot of people would deliberately boycott any second referendum. It would store up huge legitimacy issues.
Interesting that people being denied a vote last time is "legitimate", but people not being arsed to vote would make it "illegitimate"...
EU citizens, you mean? If they cared so deeply about the UK they could have become citizens.
One of the most stupid and ignorant comments I have seen on here. Have all the Brits in Spain become Spanish? Duh!
Perhaps they don’t care deeply about Spain? Many EU countries restrict vote to only citizens. The U.K. is quite unusual in that respect.
The only thing unique about the UK is that it extends the Parliamentary franchise to resident Commonwealth citizens (a legacy of the former common “United Kingdom and colonies” citizenship) and resident Irish citizens (because the Ireland Act 1949 requires them to be treated as if they were British citizens). In every other respect the UK follows the minimum required by the EU which is that resident EU citizens get to vote in local (including regional) and European elections.
I’d say that’s quite unusual, given how big that grouping of counties is.
Interesting. From what I hear, a lot of people would deliberately boycott any second referendum. It would store up huge legitimacy issues.
Interesting that people being denied a vote last time is "legitimate", but people not being arsed to vote would make it "illegitimate"...
EU citizens, you mean? If they cared so deeply about the UK they could have become citizens.
Will you be saying the same for UK nationals in the EU . Some countries don’t allow duel nationality and people were using their freedom of movement rights . And why would people who could avoid it now take a UK passport given it’s going to restrict their rights .
I think the majority of EU countries don’t allow non-citizens to vote.
Fine that’s fair enough I’m not arguing that point. Simply the way you conflate a passport with loyalty to the country or caring for it . As if people living in the UK from the EU don’t care about the country .
You literally have to swear an oath of loyalty when you get citizenship. No conflating involved.
An oath of loyalty is just words . It’s actions that count . Anyone can stand there giving an oath . You seem to think a passport is a judge of character . There are loads of Brits with passports who couldn’t give a fig about the country or their fellow citizens .
Interesting. From what I hear, a lot of people would deliberately boycott any second referendum. It would store up huge legitimacy issues.
Interesting that people being denied a vote last time is "legitimate", but people not being arsed to vote would make it "illegitimate"...
EU citizens, you mean? If they cared so deeply about the UK they could have become citizens.
One of the most stupid and ignorant comments I have seen on here. Have all the Brits in Spain become Spanish? Duh!
No but there is certainly an argument for saying they should. If you are going to make a new life in a new country then personally I think you should show commitment to that country.
I know in Australia a few years ago they raised this as an issue and there were proposals to strip voting rights from the 160,000 Brits who had not taken out Australian citizenship.
@Sandpit can tell us the citizenry requirements of Dubai. I'm sure he has swotted up on the mandatory test.
Has he expressed a desire to vote in elections in Dubai?
@Tyndall: " If you are going to make a new life in a new country then personally I think you should show commitment to that country."
nothing about voting.
Indeed but I have no idea if Sandpit is intending staying in Dubai permanently or just temporarily.
Yes, with hindsight that was the right way to proceed. For example, a question “Should we remain in the EU, or should we leave the EU and join the EEA?” - having made the required preparations with the EEA beforehand.
Aren't we already in the EEA?
So the question should have been “Should we remain in the EU, or should we leave the EU but remain in the EEA?”
Well the EU is a member of the EEA. From memory I think we leave EEA membership when we joined the EU as the EU as a whole is a member. The point is that the actual question had one fixed option (remain under Cameron's negotiated terms) or leave (for any ideal fantasy of leave anyone could imagine). So the question probably give leave an advantage due to unicorns in 2 million different colours and sizes.
No we didn't. We were members of the EEA as individual signatories both in EFTA and in the EEC/EU. All EU members are also individual members of the EEA but that membership depends on them being in either the EU or EFTA.
Fair enough so the question should have been
“Should we remain in the EU, or should we leave the EU and join the EFTA so that we remain within the EEA?”
Which I suspect is a question where you and me might have been some of the few to go for the leave option...
I am not surprised. It is the nature of the system as it stands and even though I disagree with them I would not look upon it as a reflection of their own abilities or popularity.
Interesting. From what I hear, a lot of people would deliberately boycott any second referendum. It would store up huge legitimacy issues.
Interesting that people being denied a vote last time is "legitimate", but people not being arsed to vote would make it "illegitimate"...
EU citizens, you mean? If they cared so deeply about the UK they could have become citizens.
One of the most stupid and ignorant comments I have seen on here. Have all the Brits in Spain become Spanish? Duh!
No but there is certainly an argument for saying they should. If you are going to make a new life in a new country then personally I think you should show commitment to that country.
I know in Australia a few years ago they raised this as an issue and there were proposals to strip voting rights from the 160,000 Brits who had not taken out Australian citizenship.
@Sandpit can tell us the citizenry requirements of Dubai. I'm sure he has swotted up on the mandatory test.
Has he expressed a desire to vote in elections in Dubai?
@Tyndall: " If you are going to make a new life in a new country then personally I think you should show commitment to that country."
nothing about voting.
I’m not sure he was keen on staying there permanently. So probably best he doesn’t have the right to vote in referenda concerning that country’s medium and long-term future.
Yes, with hindsight that was the right way to proceed. For example, a question “Should we remain in the EU, or should we leave the EU and join the EEA?” - having made the required preparations with the EEA beforehand.
Aren't we already in the EEA?
So the question should have been “Should we remain in the EU, or should we leave the EU but remain in the EEA?”
Well the EU is a member of the EEA. From memory I think we leave EEA membership when we joined the EU as the EU as a whole is a member. The point is that the actual question had one fixed option (remain under Cameron's negotiated terms) or leave (for any ideal fantasy of leave anyone could imagine). So the question probably give leave an advantage due to unicorns in 2 million different colours and sizes.
No we didn't. We were members of the EEA as individual signatories both in EFTA and in the EEC/EU. All EU members are also individual members of the EEA but that membership depends on them being in either the EU or EFTA.
Fair enough so the question should have been
“Should we remain in the EU, or should we leave the EU and join the EFTA so that we remain within the EEA?”
Which I suspect is a question where you and me might have been some of the few to go for the leave option...
Interesting. From what I hear, a lot of people would deliberately boycott any second referendum. It would store up huge legitimacy issues.
Interesting that people being denied a vote last time is "legitimate", but people not being arsed to vote would make it "illegitimate"...
EU citizens, you mean? If they cared so deeply about the UK they could have become citizens.
One of the most stupid and ignorant comments I have seen on here. Have all the Brits in Spain become Spanish? Duh!
No but there is certainly an argument for saying they should. If you are going to make a new life in a new country then personally I think you should show commitment to that country.
I know in Australia a few years ago they raised this as an issue and there were proposals to strip voting rights from the 160,000 Brits who had not taken out Australian citizenship.
@Sandpit can tell us the citizenry requirements of Dubai. I'm sure he has swotted up on the mandatory test.
My two nephews were born in Dubai and have lived here all their short lives. They will never be Emirati, not even if they marry Emirati women.
Blaming Cameron for the incoherence of the Leave proposition is quite delightfully bonkers!
Sadly, no it isn't. He manifestly failed to prepare government for an entirely foreseeable outcome; he resigned as PM when he had given no indication that he was not prepared to lead either outcome; he came back with a lousy renegotiation deal and sold it as if it amounted to something; he presided over a terrible, fearful and negative campaign.
Remainers have had 44 years, since 1975, of almost unbroken party consensus to build an impregnable case for the EU, fulfil some of its ideals and to shape it in accord with popular opinion. Their failure is lamentable. Mr Cameron, tragically, is part of that problem.
Of course there is more than one 'Leave' proposition, and it would be incoherent to try to do them all at the same time. So what? There are several competing visions for the EU's future too.
Parliament has one job, of sorting it out thoughtfully. I'm just trying to remember how that project is getting on.
It's patently absurd to argue that Cameron could have defined the Leave case for them. They can't even define it for themselves after three years of intensive negotiation and discussion. Any attempt by him to do so would immediately have been denounced as a bunch of lies designed to discredit the Leave position.
Cameron is the last person to blame. He at least campaigned vigorously and full-throatedly for Remain, which is more than can be said for anyone in Labour or indeed anywhere else.
Yes, but like a lot of other Tories he had been on the "trash the EU" bandwagon for quite a while that undermined his case. He is the man that risked the country's prosperity on black and it came up red.
I voted for him in the leadership election, and in every other way I thought him a good leader, except for THAT decision. It wasn't leadership, it was shear folly.
And that single catastrophic misjudgement will be his epitaph, nothing else he did will rate as much as a footnote in the history books. Who now remembers Neville Chamberlain's successful period as Minister of Health or Anthony Eden's principled opposition to appeasement.
Interesting. From what I hear, a lot of people would deliberately boycott any second referendum. It would store up huge legitimacy issues.
Interesting that people being denied a vote last time is "legitimate", but people not being arsed to vote would make it "illegitimate"...
EU citizens, you mean? If they cared so deeply about the UK they could have become citizens.
One of the most stupid and ignorant comments I have seen on here. Have all the Brits in Spain become Spanish? Duh!
No but there is certainly an argument for saying they should. If you are going to make a new life in a new country then personally I think you should show commitment to that country.
I know in Australia a few years ago they raised this as an issue and there were proposals to strip voting rights from the 160,000 Brits who had not taken out Australian citizenship.
@Sandpit can tell us the citizenry requirements of Dubai. I'm sure he has swotted up on the mandatory test.
I still advocate Norway's approach. Basically they welcome immigrants but anyone wanting to settle has to take 300 hours of language and culture lessons and sit exams. There are also severe restrictions on what they can and cannot do in civic terms of they don't take citizenship. As I said during the Brevik discussions earlier, as a result they are one of the most integrated countries I have ever visited.
One reason why the UK is such a popular country for immigration is that most people speaks English (to some extent). An obscure language allows companies in the Netherlands and elsewhere (merely picking them as I know more examples than elsewhere) to be racist in a legal way (language proficiency) that we just cannot use.
Interesting. From what I hear, a lot of people would deliberately boycott any second referendum. It would store up huge legitimacy issues.
Interesting that people being denied a vote last time is "legitimate", but people not being arsed to vote would make it "illegitimate"...
EU citizens, you mean? If they cared so deeply about the UK they could have become citizens.
One of the most stupid and ignorant comments I have seen on here. Have all the Brits in Spain become Spanish? Duh!
No but there is certainly an argument for saying they should. If you are going to make a new life in a new country then personally I think you should show commitment to that country.
I know in Australia a few years ago they raised this as an issue and there were proposals to strip voting rights from the 160,000 Brits who had not taken out Australian citizenship.
@Sandpit can tell us the citizenry requirements of Dubai. I'm sure he has swotted up on the mandatory test.
Has he expressed a desire to vote in elections in Dubai?
@Tyndall: " If you are going to make a new life in a new country then personally I think you should show commitment to that country."
nothing about voting.
Indeed but I have no idea if Sandpit is intending staying in Dubai permanently or just temporarily.
Very few foreigners have the right to live in the sandpit permanently.
Blaming Cameron for the incoherence of the Leave proposition is quite delightfully bonkers!
Sadly, no it isn't. He manifestly failed to prepare government for an entirely foreseeable outcome; he resigned as PM when he had given no indication that he was not prepared to lead either outcome; he came back with a lousy renegotiation deal and sold it as if it amounted to something; he presided over a terrible, fearful and negative campaign.
Remainers have had 44 years, since 1975, of almost unbroken party consensus to build an impregnable case for the EU, fulfil some of its ideals and to shape it in accord with popular opinion. Their failure is lamentable. Mr Cameron, tragically, is part of that problem.
Of course there is more than one 'Leave' proposition, and it would be incoherent to try to do them all at the same time. So what? There are several competing visions for the EU's future too.
Parliament has one job, of sorting it out thoughtfully. I'm just trying to remember how that project is getting on.
It's patently absurd to argue that Cameron could have defined the Leave case for them. They can't even define it for themselves after three years of intensive negotiation and discussion. Any attempt by him to do so would immediately have been denounced as a bunch of lies designed to discredit the Leave position.
Cameron is the last person to blame. He at least campaigned vigorously and full-throatedly for Remain, which is more than can be said for anyone in Labour or indeed anywhere else.
No its not. He could have followed the precedent of John Howard. Instead of betting the farm on a renegotiation then a referendum, he could have called a Royal Commission to determine what form Brexit would take (WTO, EEA etc) and then put that to a vote against remaining.
John Howard was a monarchist who forced a definition of what an Australian republic would look like, then defeated that definition putting the issue to rest. That precedent could have been quite simply followed.
Yes, the Leavers were really, really keen on that idea. I remember them stridently demanding it.
Blaming Cameron for the incoherence of the Leave proposition is quite delightfully bonkers!
Sadly, no it isn't. He manifestly failed to prepare government for an entirely foreseeable outcome; he resigned as PM when he had given no indication that he was not prepared to lead either outcome; he came back with a lousy renegotiation deal and sold it as if it amounted to something; he presided over a terrible, fearful and negative campaign.
Remainers have had 44 years, since 1975, of almost unbroken party consensus to build an impregnable case for the EU, fulfil some of its ideals and to shape it in accord with popular opinion. Their failure is lamentable. Mr Cameron, tragically, is part of that problem.
Of course there is more than one 'Leave' proposition, and it would be incoherent to try to do them all at the same time. So what? There are several competing visions for the EU's future too.
Parliament has one job, of sorting it out thoughtfully. I'm just trying to remember how that project is getting on.
It's patently absurd to argue that Cameron could have defined the Leave case for them. They can't even define it for themselves after three years of intensive negotiation and discussion. Any attempt by him to do so would immediately have been denounced as a bunch of lies designed to discredit the Leave position.
Cameron is the last person to blame. He at least campaigned vigorously and full-throatedly for Remain, which is more than can be said for anyone in Labour or indeed anywhere else.
Preparation for outcomes is a central government and civil service task.
Yes, with hindsight that was the right way to proceed. For example, a question “Should we remain in the EU, or should we leave the EU and join the EEA?” - having made the required preparations with the EEA beforehand.
Aren't we already in the EEA?
So the question should have been “Should we remain in the EU, or should we leave the EU but remain in the EEA?”
Well the EU is a member of the EEA. From memory I think we leave EEA membership when we joined the EU as the EU as a whole is a member. The point is that the actual question had one fixed option (remain under Cameron's negotiated terms) or leave (for any ideal fantasy of leave anyone could imagine). So the question probably give leave an advantage due to unicorns in 2 million different colours and sizes.
No we didn't. We were members of the EEA as individual signatories both in EFTA and in the EEC/EU. All EU members are also individual members of the EEA but that membership depends on them being in either the EU or EFTA.
Fair enough so the question should have been
“Should we remain in the EU, or should we leave the EU and join the EFTA so that we remain within the EEA?”
Which I suspect is a question where you and me might have been some of the few to go for the leave option...
Except the EEA treaty does not permit that.
As you well know that is a matter that we long debated and never settled.
Comments
Can I say how much I've appreciated your posts over the past few days? I hope you've been made to feel welcome and can be tempted to stay
But, I agree that in this case, we'd only be playing into the hands of Remain if we boycotted it, so why do what your opponents want?
Remainers have had 44 years, since 1975, of almost unbroken party consensus to build an impregnable case for the EU, fulfil some of its ideals and to shape it in accord with popular opinion. Their failure is lamentable. Mr Cameron, tragically, is part of that problem.
Of course there is more than one 'Leave' proposition, and it would be incoherent to try to do them all at the same time. So what? There are several competing visions for the EU's future too.
Parliament has one job, of sorting it out thoughtfully. I'm just trying to remember how that project is getting on.
This really could be another May own goal.
Cameron is the last person to blame. He at least campaigned vigorously and full-throatedly for Remain, which is more than can be said for anyone in Labour or indeed anywhere else.
Here lies the remains of the Conservative Party reputation for economic competence. Died of a rabid fever called Brexit. RIP. 1979-2016.
https://medium.com/@RyanCaseyWA/trumps-monty-hall-problem-d7873f757545
(Yes I know it’s more complicated than that).
You’re right though, if you’re going to bung some money make sure it’s a lot with not too many strings attached .
The EU's Article 13 approach is to **** things, seemingly, for huge numbers of people. We'll find out shortly if it's as bad as everyone thinks (my own view is it probably will be).
I voted for him in the leadership election, and in every other way I thought him a good leader, except for THAT decision. It wasn't leadership, it was shear folly.
John Howard was a monarchist who forced a definition of what an Australian republic would look like, then defeated that definition putting the issue to rest. That precedent could have been quite simply followed.
The Remain side(s) had significant advantages, and it's worth remembering the Leave campaigns were pretty rubbish too. Yet somehow they contrived to lose.
Then there are the issues of demography, incuding naturalisation of a good percentage of our 3 million EU residents, and of buyers remorse, which already is a significant factor.
I am not sure it would be an easy case to make (rejoining I mean not the referendum) as it would bring the various EU accession rules into play and commit us to joining the Euro which is now a treaty requirement for any new members.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/03/brexit-has-left-british-political-class-trapped-its-own-history
I know in Australia a few years ago they raised this as an issue and there were proposals to strip voting rights from the 160,000 Brits who had not taken out Australian citizenship.
Well the EU is a member of the EEA. From memory I think we leave EEA membership when we joined the EU as the EU as a whole is a member.
The point is that the actual question had one fixed option (remain under Cameron's negotiated terms) or leave (for any ideal fantasy of leave anyone could imagine). So the question probably give leave an advantage due to unicorns in 2 million different colours and sizes.
https://medium.com/@cerifowler/how-might-the-independent-group-fare-in-a-general-election-1dc61a48b1f
nothing about voting.
“Should we remain in the EU, or should we leave the EU and join the EFTA so that we remain within the EEA?”
Which I suspect is a question where you and me might have been some of the few to go for the leave option...