Well count me down as one of those weird people. Allowing people to vote without implementing what they decided is not democratic. The vote must be implemented first, then if people want to call another vote to rejoin then that would be perfectly democratic.
Why is it not democratic? That is a claim that needs justifying rather than just making. If I ask for tea then change my mind and say, actually, coffee, what is the point in making me drink the tea first before I get the coffee?
Technically it was an advisory referendum so therefore no need to implement it but when the government who called the referendum promise, in government literature, said specifically that what the people decide will be implemented, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the result will be implemented, and to claim that disregarding the first result in the hope of getting the right result second time is somehow more democratic than implementing the first result first is misleading at best.
It has long been my view that if the people make a mistake, then that mistake must be delivered fully. The strongest and most productive governments of my lifetime have come on the back of bad times and possibly mistakes. The winter of discontent yielded Thatcher, the dysfunctionality of the Major years yielded the boom around the Millennium and the successful early Blair years, the 2008 financialne who thinks the deal is awful and No Deal a reckless risk, at least in the short term. The long term implications of revoke, however, I believe to be much much worse.
I cannot see that any basic democratic principle is being infringed. The deomcratic obligation was to pay due attention to the result and to give Leave a reasonable amount of time to demonstrate that the result was capable of enactment. We have done all that.
Technically you are correct but I'm not concerned about technicalities. I'm concerned about what people will do if it is proven that their democratic voice counts for nothing. How do you expect people to react when the ballot box ceases to be a viable way of expressing one's opinion?
With a great big "Meh."
A society is as strong as its institutions. It’s not a free hit ignoring the democratic will. It has consequences for the nation, when you weaken those institutions you weaken the nation.
For the first time I think it's actually going to be a No Deal on Friday isn't it?
This is August 1914. Not many actually want war/no deal, but everyone is too entrenched and stubborn to compromise to avoid it.
Mark Francois looked delighted about it.
I still can't actually believe that so many Remainers are playing his game. There's a deal there, has been for months, I was certain - certain - that Remainers would accept such a soft Brexit transition deal to avoid risk of no deal.
PM Farsge takes us out no deal, no referendum, no negotiation
PM Farage would come up against the limits of state power just as May has. It's not possible to 'no deal' without the two year Article 50 period.
Incorrect. There is no need for a two year period. It is only there if negotiation is required
That's not true under EU law. The only way to bring forward the exit date is via a negotiated agreement. 'No Deal' by definition is the absence of an agreement and only happens after the two years.
Well, technically but PM Farage says 'we are leaving with no deal and until you agree an immediate date I will veto everything etc etc'
The idea that the Brexit Party will win election seats is unlikely - it's not like the Tories won't be standing as a leave party...
.... which won't stand up if we've just revoked (which was the premise of the original post).
Won't it were Boris to be the leader?
If we've revoked under May then the remaining six members of the Tory party can unanimously elect Grieve as leader.
True but remember this is a game of avoiding the blame. May's deal is dead as a Dodo (in fact I suspect resurrecting the Dodo is more likely) which leaves No Deal or revoke as the options left.
Given those options which one has more recovery options...
Both make a fair few people very upset but one damages real lives whereas the other leaves things be.
Yep - if the Tories think Revoke is bad, wait until they see the result of No Deal is 1 year down the line...
Similar to us crashing out of the ERM?
Not again. The problem with these "remainers crying wolf" type arguments is that they fail to take into account what happened at the end of that particular fable.
The problem we remainers have is that counterfactuals don't make the news, the press never turns up when the plane lands safely, but I've seen enough evidence to convince me that the cumulative small effects of a no-deal scenario would be an absolute disaster. The only way I can"prove" that is to let it happen. Which clearly I don't want.
Reading the thread there are many well intentioned ideas how to resolve the issue including revoke, as a second referendum is now all but impossible with the EU elections in May and our need to pass legislation to participate which is unlikely between now and the 11th April
The only realistic choices are TM deal - no deal - revoke and all in a week
Our mps have to make a decision and stick to it
We run out of time on the 22nd May altogether
I think we run out of time next week if TM's deal is not passed. The EU will not extend unless they have that guarantee.
They have an emergency head of state meeting penciled in for next Thursday and that is the crisis meeting for everyone, as no deal happens next day
I expect them to agree a transition period to no deal at that time
How would you expect that to work? Are we still members and subject to the Treaties (in which case, to all intents and purposes, it becomes a faffing extension during which we can still revoke or, probably, come up with Unicorns Plus). I thought everyone had been very clear that a transition period only applies to Deal - this is the first suggestion I've seen otherwise.. apart from Davis getting it arse-about-face in some Q&A.
(And if we're not actual members, then I suspect there are a lot of laws which aren't in place for any sort of special third country status).
I expect we would be out and emergency measures agreed for a one to two year period to mitigate the damage across Europe
Well count me down as one of those weird people. Allowing people to vote without implementing what they decided is not democratic. The vote must be implemented first, then if people want to call another vote to rejoin then that would be perfectlmocratic.
Why is it not democratic? That is a claim that needs justifying rather than just making. If I ask for tea then change my mind and say, actually, coffee, what is the point in making me drink the tea first before I get the coffee?
Technically it was an advisory referendum so therefore no need to implement it but when the government who called the referendum promise, in government literature, said specifically that what the people decide will be implemented, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the result will be implemented, and to claim that disregarding the first result in the hope of getting the right result second time is somehow more democratic than implementing the first result first is misleading at best.
It has long been my view that if the people make a mistake, then that mistake must be delivered fully. The strongest and most productive governments of my lifetime have come on the back of bad times and possibly mistakes. The winter of discontent yielded Thatcher, the dysfunctionality of the Major years yielded the boom around the Millennium and the successful early Blair years, the 2008 financial crisis yielded a highly competent coalition government.
It really worries me how many people are happy to ditch basic democratic principles because they don't like a decision the people have made, and expect that by doing so, that precedent will not be used against them in the future and there will be no long term effect of such a decision. And I say this as someone who thinks the deal is awful and No Deal a reckless risk, at least in the short term. The long term implications of revoke, however, I believe to be much much worse.
I cannot see that any basic democratic principle is being infringed. The deomcratic obligation was to pay due attention to the result and to give Leave a reasonable amount of time to demonstrate that the result was capable of enactment. We have done all that.
Technically you are correct but I'm not concerned about technicalities. I'm concerned about what people will do if it is proven that their democratic voice counts for nothing. How do you expect people to react when the ballot box ceases to be a viable way of expressing one's opinion?
Plunging us through three years of political crisis is hardly nothing
Well count me down as one of those weird people. Allowing people to vote without implementing what they decided is not democratic. The vote must be implemented first, then if people want to call another vote to rejoin then that would be perfectly democratic.
Why is it not democratic? That is a claim that needs justifying rather than just making. If I ask for tea then change my mind and say, actually, coffee, what is the point in making me drink the tea first before I get the coffee?
Technically it was an advisory referendum so therefore no need to implement it but when the government who called the referendum promise, in government literature, said specifically that what the people decide will be implemented, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the result will be implemented, and to claim that disregarding the first result in the hope of getting the right result second time is somehow more democratic than implementing the first result first is misleading at best.
It has long been my view that if the people make a mistake, then that mistake must be delivered fully. The strongest and most productive governments of my lifetime have come on the back of bad times and possibly mistakes. The winter of discontent yielded Thatcher, the dysfunctionality of the Major years yielded the boom around the Millennium and the successful early Blair years, the 2008 financialne who thinks the deal is awful and No Deal a reckless risk, at least in the short term. The long term implications of revoke, however, I believe to be much much worse.
I cannot see that any basic democratic principle is being infringed. The deomcratic obligation was to pay due attention to the result and to give Leave a reasonable amount of time to demonstrate that the result was capable of enactment. We have done all that.
Technically you are correct but I'm not concerned about technicalities. I'm concerned about what people will do if it is proven that their democratic voice counts for nothing. How do you expect people to react when the ballot box ceases to be a viable way of expressing one's opinion?
With a great big "Meh."
A society is as strong as its institutions. It’s not a free hit ignoring the democratic will. It has consequences for the nation, when you weaken those institutions you weaken the nation.
Obviously right. We are looking for the least bad solution, not a good solution.
I actually don't understand the stance of Labour in all of this. They are sleepwalking into No Deal and about to take the blame for it. The mind boggles.
Well count me down as one of those weird people. Allowing people to vote without implementing what they decided is not democratic. The vote must be implemented first, then if people want to call another vote to rejoin then that would be perfectly democratic.
Why is it not democratic? That is a claim that needs justifying rather than just making. If I ask for tea then change my mind and say, actually, coffee, what is the point in making me drink the tea first before I get the coffee?
Technically it was an advisory referendum so therefore no need to implement it but when the government who called the referendum promise, in government literature, said specifically that what the people decide will be implemented, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the result will be implemented, and to claim that disregarding the first result in the hope of getting the right result second time is somehow more democratic than implementing the first result first is misleading at best.
It has long been my view that if the people make a mistake, then that mistake must be delivered fully. The strongest and most d No Deal a reckless risk, at least in the short term. The long term implications of revoke, however, I believe to be much much worse.
I cannot see that any basic democratic principle is being infringed. The deomcratic obligation was to pay due attention to the result and to give Leave a reasonable amount of time to demonstrate that the result was capable of enactment. We have done all that.
Technically you are correct but I'm not concerned about technicalities. I'm concerned about what people will do if it is proven that their democratic voice counts for nothing. How do you expect people to react when the ballot box ceases to be a viable way of expressing one's opinion?
It will be perfectly valid as the ballot box will be used to ASK THE SAME PEOPLE.
Sorry to shout but many anti-second reffers act as though a completely different set of people will be asked. The Dutch, say, or that recently-discovered tribe in Papua New Guinea. Whereas it will be the very same British people. How on earth can that be undemocratic?
Hope they'd be as flippant about Sindy being reversed if it all just proves too difficult.
If nothing else Brexit has shown what a Scottish independence referendum victory will actually be like, except it will be this times 10, or maybe a 100.
I actually don't understand the stance of Labour in all of this. They are sleepwalking into No Deal and about to take the blame for it. The mind boggles.
Its what Corbyn wants, and he think he won't get the blame for it.
Well count me down as one of those weird people. Allowing people to vote without implementing what they decided is not democratic. The vote must be implemented first, then if people want to call another vote to rejoin then that would be perfectly democratic.
Why is it not democratic? That is a claim that needs justifying rather than just making. If I ask for tea then change my mind and say, actually, coffee, what is the point in making me drink the tea first before I get the coffee?
Technically it was an advisory referendum so therefore no need to implement it but when the government who called the referendum promise, in government literature, said specifically that what the people decide will be implemented, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the result will be implemented, and to claim that disregarding the first result in the hope of getting the right result second time is somehow more democratic than implementing the first result first is misleading at best.
It has long been my view that if the people make a mistake, then that mistake must be delivered fully. The strongest and most productive governments of my lifetime have come on the back of bad times and possibly mistakes. The winter of discontent yielded Thatcher, the dysfunctionality of the Major years yielded the boom around the Millennium and the successful early Blair years, the 2008 financial crisis yielded a highly competent coalition government.
It really worries me how many people are happy to ditch basic democratic principles because they don't like a decision the people have made, and expect that by doing so, that precedent will not be used against them in the future and there will be no long term effect of such a decision. And I say this as someone who thinks the deal is awful and No Deal a reckless risk, at least in the short term. The long term implications of revoke, however, I believe to be much much worse.
I cannot see that any basic democratic principle is being infringed. The deomcratic obligation was to pay due attention to the result and to give Leave a reasonable amount of time to demonstrate that the result was capable of enactment. We have done all that.
The so-called 'deal' is a pile of shite. I'd rather like a referendum to ratify it - or not, proving my point - but it appears that this won't happen.
Why is it not democratic? That is a claim that needs justifying rather than just making. If I ask for tea then change my mind and say, actually, coffee, what is the point in making me drink the tea first before I get the coffee?
Technically it was an advisory referendum so therefore no need to implement it but when the government who called the referendum promise, in government literature, said specifically that what the people decide will be implemented, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the result will be implemented, and to claim that disregarding the first result in the hope of getting the right result second time is somehow more democratic than implementing the first result first is misleading at best.
It has long been my view that if the people make a mistake, then that mistake must be delivered fully. The strongest and most productive governments of my lifetime have come on the back of bad times and possibly mistakes. The winter of discontent yielded Thatcher, the dysfunctionality of the Major years yielded the boom around the Millennium and the successful early Blair years, the 2008 financialne who thinks the deal is awful and No Deal a reckless risk, at least in the short term. The long term implications of revoke, however, I believe to be much much worse.
I cannot see that any basic democratic principle is being infringed. The deomcratic obligation was to pay due attention to the result and to give Leave a reasonable amount of time to demonstrate that the result was capable of enactment. We have done all that.
Technically you are correct but I'm not concerned about technicalities. I'm concerned about what people will do if it is proven that their democratic voice counts for nothing. How do you expect people to react when the ballot box ceases to be a viable way of expressing one's opinion?
With a great big "Meh."
A society is as strong as its institutions. It’s not a free hit ignoring the democratic will. It has consequences for the nation, when you weaken those institutions you weaken the nation.
You will no doubt be able to speedily point out the posts you made making the same point when the judiciary were attacked by Leavers as enemies of the people, and when Leavers attacked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Governor of the Bank of England, the BBC, the House of Lords, the Speaker and every other institution that raised points that were inconvenient to Leavers at one point or another.
I actually don't understand the stance of Labour in all of this. They are sleepwalking into No Deal and about to take the blame for it. The mind boggles.
They will spin it as May's crap deal, if only the Tories had listened to our much much better deal. That is why even now Jezza is still pushing this line of short delay to totally renegotiate the whole thing.
For the first time I think it's actually going to be a No Deal on Friday isn't it?
This is August 1914. Not many actually want war/no deal, but everyone is too entrenched and stubborn to compromise to avoid it.
Mark Francois looked delighted about it.
I still can't actually believe that so many Remainers are playing his game. There's a deal there, has been for months, I was certain - certain - that Remainers would accept such a soft Brexit transition deal to avoid risk of no deal.
I was wrong.
The overwhelming majority of the HoC are either May dealers (250 odd) or even softer Brexiteers (Lucy Powell and some others) or remainers, so the ERG wing's desire for a no deal ought to be dead in the water by now..
My simile between some premiership footballers and MPs is stronger than I thought. On one side, footballers earning a £100,000 a week stop playing for a manager because he's not nice enough to them, never mind the fans who pay their wages. And now we have MPs who will vote against a deal to spite the PM who's not nice enough to them, never mind the country.
One lot are seen as spoilt children, the other lot retain some sympathy because they wear the right shirt on match day. Who is the most childish? A tricky one.
For the first time I think it's actually going to be a No Deal on Friday isn't it?
This is August 1914. Not many actually want war/no deal, but everyone is too entrenched and stubborn to compromise to avoid it.
Mark Francois looked delighted about it.
I still can't actually believe that so many Remainers are playing his game. There's a deal there, has been for months, I was certain - certain - that Remainers would accept such a soft Brexit transition deal to avoid risk of no deal.
Hope they'd be as flippant about Sindy being reversed if it all just proves too difficult.
Even taking into account that we're in a 'weirdly unified in purpose SNP' rather than 'SNP civil war' media cycle, there's zero chance in the event of indy of the SNP being anywhere close to the level of the fissiparous, self immolating, incompetent Tory party.
For the first time I think it's actually going to be a No Deal on Friday isn't it?
This is August 1914. Not many actually want war/no deal, but everyone is too entrenched and stubborn to compromise to avoid it.
Most people involved think they can win total victory over their opponents.
Will they still think that and act that way right to us going over the cliff?
Unlike the Italian Job we can't just wrap up the credits at 10.59pm next Friday leaving this never resolved.
People who want no deal will be delighted. Many Remainers will also be delighted, because they think that if we're eating grass for a few months, it will bring us to our senses.
Why is it not democratic? That is a claim that needs justifying rather than just making. If I ask for tea then change my mind and say, actually, coffee, what is the point in making me drink the tea first before I get the coffee?
Technically it was an advisory referendum so therefore no need to implement it but when the government who called the referendum promise, in government literature, said specifically that what the people decide will be implemented, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the result will be implemented, and to claim that disregarding the first result in the hope of getting the right result second time is somehow more democratic than implementing the first result first is misleading at best.
It has long been my view that if the people make a mistake, then that mistake must be delivered fully. The strongest and most productive governments of my lifetime have come onncialne who thinks the deal is awful and No Deal a reckless risk, at least in the short term. The long term implications of revoke, however, I believe to be much much worse.
I cannot see that any basic democratic principle is being infringed. The deomcratic obligation was to pay due attention to the result and to give Leave a reasonable amount of time to demonstrate that the result was capable of enactment. We have done all that.
Technically you are correct but I'm not concerned about technicalities. I'm concerned about what people will do if it is proven that their democratic voice counts for nothing. How do you expect people to react when the ballot box ceases to be a viable way of expressing one's opinion?
With a great big "Meh."
A society is as strong as its institutions. It’s not a free hit ignoring the democratic will. It has consequences for the nation, when you weaken those institutions you weaken the nation.
You will no doubt be able to speedily point out the posts you made making the same point when the judiciary were attacked by Leavers as enemies of the people, and when Leavers attacked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Governor of the Bank of England, the BBC, the House of Lords, the Speaker and every other institution that raised points that were inconvenient to Leavers at one point or another.
All those things are right, they all attack the institutions and they all chip away at them. Revoking Brexit (rather then just having a second referendum) is to not chip away. But to smash it to pieces with a gigantic mallet.
My simile between some premiership footballers and MPs is stronger than I thought. On one side, footballers earning a £100,000 a week stop playing for a manager because he's not nice enough to them, never mind the fans who pay their wages. And now we have MPs who will vote against a deal to spite the PM who's not nice enough to them, never mind the country.
One lot are seen as spoilt children, the other lot retain some sympathy because they wear the right shirt on match day. Who is the most childish? A tricky one.
MPs like footballers (because clubs consider them an asset) are far too hard to sack, and so they get away with behaviour that would result in most of us being fired.
MP should, and only should vote on what is provided in front of them, witht he best judgement of what is best.
If they're not doing that, and we have a no-deal, which the vast majority of them don't want, and the public don't want, then it will be failure of both government and parliment.
Thats very very very serious, as how can the public have faith in any MP, and any party if this happens.
Technically it was an advisory referendum so therefore no need to implement it but when the government who called the referendum promise, in government literature, said specifically that what the people decide will be implemented, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the result will be implemented, and to claim that disregarding the first result in the hope of getting the right result second time is somehow more democratic than implementing the first result first is misleading at best.
It has long been my view that if the people make a mistake, then that mistake must be delivered fully. The strongest and most productive governments of my lifetime have come onncialne who thinks the deal is awful and No Deal a reckless risk, at least in the short term. The long term implications of revoke, however, I believe to be much much worse.
I cannot see that any basic democratic principle is being infringed. The deomcratic obligation was to pay due attention to the result and to give Leave a reasonable amount of time to demonstrate that the result was capable of enactment. We have done all that.
Technically you are correct but I'm not concerned about technicalities. I'm concerned about what people will do if it is proven that their democratic voice counts for nothing. How do you expect people to react when the ballot box ceases to be a viable way of expressing one's opinion?
With a great big "Meh."
A society is as strong as its institutions. It’s not a free hit ignoring the democratic will. It has consequences for the nation, when you weaken those institutions you weaken the nation.
You will no doubt be able to speedily point out the posts you made making the same point when the judiciary were attacked by Leavers as enemies of the people, and when Leavers attacked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Governor of the Bank of England, the BBC, the House of Lords, the Speaker and every other institution that raised points that were inconvenient to Leavers at one point or another.
All those things are right, they all attack the institutions and they all chip away at them. Revoking Brexit (rather then just having a second referendum) is to not chip away. But to smash it to pieces with a gigantic mallet.
I see. So things that don’t bother you are ok and things that do bother you are not ok.
Remarkably, it seems that the one group that will not get the blame is the EU27. Whatever happens now our politicians have ensured that they will own it. I am pretty sure that was not supposed to be the plan!
That might not be true in their own countries, of course.
I don't understand why May said what she did last night? She could have made a similar message but phrased it a bit differently and come across completely different.
She should have simply said that the time for negotiations and indecision is over so Parliament needs to make a decision. She has written to the EU to request an extension to Article 50 and they have said they will give one if Parliament backs the deal. So her deal will be put one last time on Friday (22nd) and if it passes then we will leave with a deal, if it doesn't pass then the government will immediately invoke Operation Yellowhammer and spend the final 7 days preparing for no deal. She urges Parliament to choose a deal over no deal.
For the first time I think it's actually going to be a No Deal on Friday isn't it?
This is August 1914. Not many actually want war/no deal, but everyone is too entrenched and stubborn to compromise to avoid it.
I referred to this a few weeks ago as "railway timetable theory". There is a semiserious theory that once the troops had mobilised ww1 became unstoppable because they had to catch the right trains to get to the front.
Remarkably, it seems that the one group that will not get the blame is the EU27. Whatever happens now our politicians have ensured that they will own it. I am pretty sure that was not supposed to be the plan!
That might not be true in their own countries, of course.
In Denmark the only criticism of the government is being slow to prepare for no deal but even that is muted - this is seen as the UK going nuts and every single Dane I know is bemused and sad about the UK leaving but I haven't seen any criticism of EU behaviour.
For the first time I think it's actually going to be a No Deal on Friday isn't it?
This is August 1914. Not many actually want war/no deal, but everyone is too entrenched and stubborn to compromise to avoid it.
Most people involved think they can win total victory over their opponents.
Will they still think that and act that way right to us going over the cliff?
Unlike the Italian Job we can't just wrap up the credits at 10.59pm next Friday leaving this never resolved.
People who want no deal will be delighted. Many Remainers will also be delighted, because they think that if we're eating grass for a few months, it will bring us to our senses.
I can assure you that I will not be delighted by no-deal. I will be repulsed.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to not reward demagoguery. If MPs voted for her deal now, it would be a lesson to all future PMs that the way to scare MPs is to go full on speaking for the "volk".
For the first time I think it's actually going to be a No Deal on Friday isn't it?
This is August 1914. Not many actually want war/no deal, but everyone is too entrenched and stubborn to compromise to avoid it.
I referred to this a few weeks ago as "railway timetable theory". There is a semiserious theory that once the troops had mobilised ww1 became unstoppable because they had to catch the right trains to get to the front.
For the first time I think it's actually going to be a No Deal on Friday isn't it?
This is August 1914. Not many actually want war/no deal, but everyone is too entrenched and stubborn to compromise to avoid it.
Most people involved think they can win total victory over their opponents.
Will they still think that and act that way right to us going over the cliff?
Unlike the Italian Job we can't just wrap up the credits at 10.59pm next Friday leaving this never resolved.
People who want no deal will be delighted. Many Remainers will also be delighted, because they think that if we're eating grass for a few months, it will bring us to our senses.
I can assure you that I will not be delighted by no-deal. I will be repulsed.
I won't be delighted. I expect the scare stories are overblown, but I think No Deal will cause hardship for some people, quite unnecessarily.
I actually don't understand the stance of Labour in all of this. They are sleepwalking into No Deal and about to take the blame for it. The mind boggles.
Its what Corbyn wants, and he think he won't get the blame for it.
Which is why the one-third should have the cojones to resign. Even someone as tin-eared as May would have difficulty "keeping buggering on" if her Chancellor, inter alia, resigned.
But putting trust in Philip Hammond's dynamism is a fool's errand.
Technically it was an advisory referendum so therefore no need to implement it but when the government who called the referendum promise, in government literature, said specifically that what the people decide will be implemented, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the result will be implemented, and to claim that disregarding the first result in the hope of getting the right result second time is somehow moreand No Deal a reckless risk, at least in the short term. The long term implications of revoke, however, I believe to be much much worse.
I cannot see that any basic We have done all that.
Technically you are correct but I'm not concerned about technicalities. I'm concerned about what people will do if it is proven that their democratic voice counts for nothing. How do you expect people to react when the ballot box ceases to be a viable way of expressing one's opinion?
With a great big "Meh."
A society is as strong as its institutions. It’s not a free hit ignoring the democratic will. It has consequences for the nation, when you weaken those institutions you weaken the nation.
You will no doubt be able to speedily point out the posts you made making the same point when the judiciary were attacked by Leavers as enemies of er.
All those things are right, they all attack the institutions and they all chip away at them. Revoking Brexit (rather then just having a second referendum) is to not chip away. But to smash it to pieces with a gigantic mallet.
I see. So things that don’t bother you are ok and things that do bother you are not ok.
In the event of a revoke of article 50 there will be great vengeance and furious anger on those who have facilitated it, unlike anything we have witnessed in this country for the last 350 years.
Some things just undermine trust, in an accumulative way, such as governments reneging on manifesto commitments, even a second referendum resulting in a different result. All go towards this. But on such a divisive issue as this, to have a referendum and then to wilfully ignore and revoke the result is unprecedented.
Reference was made a few posts down to the SINDY referendum. If in an alternative universe the Scots had voted to leave the UK, and the UK government just decided that it no longer should carry out the will of the Scots people.
I actually don't understand the stance of Labour in all of this. They are sleepwalking into No Deal and about to take the blame for it. The mind boggles.
Its what Corbyn wants, and he think he won't get the blame for it.
Exactly
He and his inner circle think it will be seen as Tory No Deal chaotic exit and the empty shelves will guarantee him the keys to No.10.
Cynical beyond words, who knows if they are right.
I actually don't understand the stance of Labour in all of this. They are sleepwalking into No Deal and about to take the blame for it. The mind boggles.
Its what Corbyn wants, and he think he won't get the blame for it.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to not reward demagoguery. If MPs voted for her deal now, it would be a lesson to all future PMs that the way to scare MPs is to go full on speaking for the "volk".
She doesn't even speak for the volk, seeing as 50%* of us don't want any of this crap.
For the first time I think it's actually going to be a No Deal on Friday isn't it?
This is August 1914. Not many actually want war/no deal, but everyone is too entrenched and stubborn to compromise to avoid it.
I referred to this a few weeks ago as "railway timetable theory". There is a semiserious theory that once the troops had mobilised ww1 became unstoppable because they had to catch the right trains to get to the front.
Technically you are correct but I'm not concerned about technicalities. I'm concerned about what people will do if it is proven that their democratic voice counts for nothing. How do you expect people to react when the ballot box ceases to be a viable way of expressing one's opinion?
With a great big "Meh."
A society is as strong as its institutions. It’s not a free hit ignoring the democratic will. It has consequences for the nation, when you weaken those institutions you weaken the nation.
You will no doubt be able to speedily point out the posts you made making the same point when the judiciary were attacked by Leavers as enemies of er.
All those things are right, they all attack the institutions and they all chip away at them. Revoking Brexit (rather then just having a second referendum) is to not chip away. But to smash it to pieces with a gigantic mallet.
I see. So things that don’t bother you are ok and things that do bother you are not ok.
In the event of a revoke of article 50 there will be great vengeance and furious anger on those who have facilitated it, unlike anything we have witnessed in this country for the last 350 years.
Some things just undermine trust, in an accumulative way, such as governments reneging on manifesto commitments, even a second referendum resulting in a different result. All go towards this. But on such a divisive issue as this, to have a referendum and then to wilfully ignore and revoke the result is unprecedented.
Reference was made a few posts down to the SINDY referendum. If in an alternative universe the Scots had voted to leave the UK, and the UK government just decided that it no longer should carry out the will of the Scots people.
What do you think the outcome would be?
I think the striking inconsistency that Leavers show, having spent the last three years seeking to dismantle every aspect of civic life that might offer the least impediment to their malign fantasy, and now worrying about this, amounts to stinking hypocrisy.
For the first time I think it's actually going to be a No Deal on Friday isn't it?
This is August 1914. Not many actually want war/no deal, but everyone is too entrenched and stubborn to compromise to avoid it.
I referred to this a few weeks ago as "railway timetable theory". There is a semiserious theory that once the troops had mobilised ww1 became unstoppable because they had to catch the right trains to get to the front.
A J P Taylor, wasn't it? More than _semi_ serious, I think.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to not reward demagoguery. If MPs voted for her deal now, it would be a lesson to all future PMs that the way to scare MPs is to go full on speaking for the "volk".
She doesn't even speak for the volk, seeing as 50%* of us don't want any of this crap.
* and rising.
That's the point. No one can claim to speak for the people. The entire "will of the people" nonsense is fash 101. She should not be rewarded for that.
13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say. In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view—one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. To have a good instance of qualitative populism we no longer need the Piazza Venezia in Rome or the Nuremberg Stadium. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.
Because of its qualitative populism Ur-Fascism must be against “rotten” parliamentary governments. One of the first sentences uttered by Mussolini in the Italian parliament was “I could have transformed this deaf and gloomy place into a bivouac for my maniples”—“maniples” being a subdivision of the traditional Roman legion. As a matter of fact, he immediately found better housing for his maniples, but a little later he liquidated the parliament. Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism.
6 by-elections today. Labour defences in Basildon, Kensington, Newcastle under Lyme, and Southend, LD defence in Durham, and Ind (former UKIP) in Thurrock. So unusually no Con defences.
13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say. In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view—one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. To have a good instance of qualitative populism we no longer need the Piazza Venezia in Rome or the Nuremberg Stadium. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.
Because of its qualitative populism Ur-Fascism must be against “rotten” parliamentary governments. One of the first sentences uttered by Mussolini in the Italian parliament was “I could have transformed this deaf and gloomy place into a bivouac for my maniples”—“maniples” being a subdivision of the traditional Roman legion. As a matter of fact, he immediately found better housing for his maniples, but a little later he liquidated the parliament. Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism.
Mr. Gin, the only surprising thing about notes on lines to take for ministers being interviewed is that some journalists are apparently surprised by it.
For the first time I think it's actually going to be a No Deal on Friday isn't it?
This is August 1914. Not many actually want war/no deal, but everyone is too entrenched and stubborn to compromise to avoid it.
Most people involved think they can win total victory over their opponents.
Will they still think that and act that way right to us going over the cliff?
Unlike the Italian Job we can't just wrap up the credits at 10.59pm next Friday leaving this never resolved.
People who want no deal will be delighted. Many Remainers will also be delighted, because they think that if we're eating grass for a few months, it will bring us to our senses.
I can assure you that I will not be delighted by no-deal. I will be repulsed.
I won't be delighted. I expect the scare stories are overblown, but I think No Deal will cause hardship for some people, quite unnecessarily.
We just don't know what will happen, do we? That's why Theresa May's behaviour is so absolutely irresponsible.
Our modern, high-tech society is oh-so efficient, but oh-so fragile. There's only one way of finding out just how much of our infrastructure will stop working if we leave with No Deal in eight days' time. It looks as though our government is going to answer that question for us.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to not reward demagoguery. If MPs voted for her deal now, it would be a lesson to all future PMs that the way to scare MPs is to go full on speaking for the "volk".
She doesn't even speak for the volk, seeing as 50%* of us don't want any of this crap.
* and rising.
That's the point. No one can claim to speak for the people. The entire "will of the people" nonsense is fash 101. She should not be rewarded for that.
Thatcher and Blair never much cared for the 57% who didn't vote for them. The majority of voters hated much of what Thatcher did - and did she care as she did what she thought was right for the country.
No one speaks for the people - just the people who originally voted for them. But we did have two recent national votes - one in which 85% of voters backed parties pledging to leave the EU and another in which voters decided by 52 to 48 per cent to leave the EU. But apparently polls - most of which got both elections badly wrong - online petitions and marches now out rank those votes of 35 odd million people?
If the majority of pollsters had got it right remain would have won by up to 10% (as populus predicted on 23 June 2016) and Mrs May would now have a 100 seat plus majority. And none of the issues we face today would be happening.
Shame we have to have actual elections isn't it.....
I think it is perfectly reasonable to not reward demagoguery. If MPs voted for her deal now, it would be a lesson to all future PMs that the way to scare MPs is to go full on speaking for the "volk".
She doesn't even speak for the volk, seeing as 50%* of us don't want any of this crap.
* and rising.
That's the point. No one can claim to speak for the people. The entire "will of the people" nonsense is fash 101. She should not be rewarded for that.
Thatcher and Blair never much cared for the 57% who didn't vote for them. The majority of voters hated much of what Thatcher did - and did she care as she did what she thought was right for the country.
No one speaks for the people - just the people who originally voted for them. But we did have two recent national votes - one in which 85% of voters backed parties pledging to leave the EU and another in which voters decided by 52 to 48 per cent to leave the EU. But apparently polls - most of which got both elections badly wrong - online petitions and marches now out rank those votes of 35 odd million people?
If the majority of pollsters had got it right remain would have won by up to 10% (as populus predicted on 23 June 2016) and Mrs May would now have a 100 seat plus majority. And none of the issues we face today would be happening.
Shame we have to have actual elections isn't it.....
As a Remain voter, I think the best thing to do is Leave. Softly. That is what a 52% / 48% vote for leave suggests, as does the Tories losing their majority. The government, until this week, has not sincerely tried to engage the other parties. That is necessary in a hung parliament. This backwards thinking that Hunt came out with this morning, that a hung parliament means MPs should defer even MORE to the government line, is totally stupid.
Comments
I was wrong.
The problem we remainers have is that counterfactuals don't make the news, the press never turns up when the plane lands safely, but I've seen enough evidence to convince me that the cumulative small effects of a no-deal scenario would be an absolute disaster. The only way I can"prove" that is to let it happen. Which clearly I don't want.
Sorry to shout but many anti-second reffers act as though a completely different set of people will be asked. The Dutch, say, or that recently-discovered tribe in Papua New Guinea. Whereas it will be the very same British people. How on earth can that be undemocratic?
Drugs kingpin who partied in clubs, drove speedboats, supercars and a hoverboard and supplied £2m of cocaine to the South East is jailed for 15 years
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6834007/Drugs-kingpin-jailed-15-years-supplying-2m-cocaine.html
Unlike the Italian Job we can't just wrap up the credits at 10.59pm next Friday leaving this never resolved.
One lot are seen as spoilt children, the other lot retain some sympathy because they wear the right shirt on match day. Who is the most childish? A tricky one.
No extension without deal signed
No extension for further negotiations
An extension for a GE or referendum only if we take part in the EU elections in May and limited to 31st Dec 2019
That would be interesting
If they're not doing that, and we have a no-deal, which the vast majority of them don't want, and the public don't want, then it will be failure of both government and parliment.
Thats very very very serious, as how can the public have faith in any MP, and any party if this happens.
She should have simply said that the time for negotiations and indecision is over so Parliament needs to make a decision. She has written to the EU to request an extension to Article 50 and they have said they will give one if Parliament backs the deal. So her deal will be put one last time on Friday (22nd) and if it passes then we will leave with a deal, if it doesn't pass then the government will immediately invoke Operation Yellowhammer and spend the final 7 days preparing for no deal. She urges Parliament to choose a deal over no deal.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/07/25/brace-yourselves-for-the-impending-train-wreck-of-the-brexit-negotiations/
But putting trust in Philip Hammond's dynamism is a fool's errand.
And this government is nowhere near as ruthless at it as Bad Al was.
Some things just undermine trust, in an accumulative way, such as governments reneging on manifesto commitments, even a second referendum resulting in a different result. All go towards this. But on such a divisive issue as this, to have a referendum and then to wilfully ignore and revoke the result is unprecedented.
Reference was made a few posts down to the SINDY referendum. If in an alternative universe the Scots had voted to leave the UK, and the UK government just decided that it no longer should carry out the will of the Scots people.
What do you think the outcome would be?
He and his inner circle think it will be seen as Tory No Deal chaotic exit and the empty shelves will guarantee him the keys to No.10.
Cynical beyond words, who knows if they are right.
Oppositions do not as in 1992.
* and rising.
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/
13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say. In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view—one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. To have a good instance of qualitative populism we no longer need the Piazza Venezia in Rome or the Nuremberg Stadium. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.
Because of its qualitative populism Ur-Fascism must be against “rotten” parliamentary governments. One of the first sentences uttered by Mussolini in the Italian parliament was “I could have transformed this deaf and gloomy place into a bivouac for my maniples”—“maniples” being a subdivision of the traditional Roman legion. As a matter of fact, he immediately found better housing for his maniples, but a little later he liquidated the parliament. Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism.
This is what May tried to do last night.
https://twitter.com/DanielHewittITV/status/1108698000682041345
https://twitter.com/DanielHewittITV/status/1108698001663582208
Our modern, high-tech society is oh-so efficient, but oh-so fragile. There's only one way of finding out just how much of our infrastructure will stop working if we leave with No Deal in eight days' time. It looks as though our government is going to answer that question for us.
No one speaks for the people - just the people who originally voted for them. But we did have two recent national votes - one in which 85% of voters backed parties pledging to leave the EU and another in which voters decided by 52 to 48 per cent to leave the EU. But apparently polls - most of which got both elections badly wrong - online petitions and marches now out rank those votes of 35 odd million people?
If the majority of pollsters had got it right remain would have won by up to 10% (as populus predicted on 23 June 2016) and Mrs May would now have a 100 seat plus majority. And none of the issues we face today would be happening.
Shame we have to have actual elections isn't it.....