That sort of tweet is just irritating because it shows no such thing. I think enough people have changed their minds and remain would now win, but we never had 17m people march in the streets for Leave but it still won. Really big marches are not irrelevant, but they also don't show what people deliberately pretend they show too.
I do think the stories on the end of May are a bit strange, acting like it is a surprise. Her going is not even necessarily a huge failure (though it has a higher chance of that than other options) since it depends what actually happens with Brexit. Her deal, or something close to it, with her going would be a victory for her. I don't expect that, but it feels like some commentators are only focusing on the end of her premiership and not what the situation of that end will be re Brexit that matters.
That sort of tweet is just irritating because it shows no such thing. I think enough people have changed their minds and remain would now win, but we never had 17m people march in the streets for Leave but it still won. Really big marches are not irrelevant, but they also don't show what people deliberately pretend they show too.
The point is we don’t have to guess. Let’s find out with a vote.
That sort of tweet is just irritating because it shows no such thing. I think enough people have changed their minds and remain would now win, but we never had 17m people march in the streets for Leave but it still won. Really big marches are not irrelevant, but they also don't show what people deliberately pretend they show too.
The point is we don’t have to guess. Let’s find out with a vote.
The point is that is not the point. A vote is our best option right now, but they were still asserting that march size indicates will of the people has changed, and that's dumb as hell when things without marches can and do have plenty of support. Will they return to their tweet if we have a vote and the will of the people has not changed after all? Of course not, they're just trying to imply proof through a comparison that is not valid.
I don't think Con can have another leader that's not voted for by the membership.
This is caretaker talk, not permanent leader. A leadership election would be held over the summer I imagine.
So it probably would be Liddington, if this comes to pass. Gove and Hunt will want to be in the real race.
It would probably be Lidington to agree a BINO Brexit with the EU, then Boris or another Leaver would win the membership to fight a general election on a hard Brexit platform
I have backed Lidington but one can't help wondering why these particular names have been chosen. To change the subject completely, Michael Gove's been in the papers a lot
That sort of tweet is just irritating because it shows no such thing. I think enough people have changed their minds and remain would now win, but we never had 17m people march in the streets for Leave but it still won. Really big marches are not irrelevant, but they also don't show what people deliberately pretend they show too.
You are indeed correct, but it's really funny...
Fair point. And better than Jonathan's tying himself in knots to pretend it was making the point he wished it was making rather than the one it was actually making.
I don't understand the point being made there whatever the merits of or significance of either march.
Also, I've not been following things - is it officially a 'revokeA50' march or a 'people's vote' march?
Well, in the clip posted below, Dominic Grieve said "I will vote for the PM's agreement as long as it is put to a People's Vote as long as remain is an option".
I have held off from criticising the PM until now because she was doing everything I wanted to deliver Brexit, but now it's all turned to shit I need a scapegoat so people don't start questioning the project rather than the delivery...
+1. I've said many times that May has been disappointing but not for the problems with Brexit. Her deal is as good as anyone could have achieved given the brief.
Have to run but a genuine question her should they organise another march for mid-late April? These things probably take longer to plan and organise than that, but given we may well face 2 more weeks of the Commons faffing about with the potential of no deal not ruled out, it cannot be a bad idea to keep pushing the momentum.
I'm not sure replacing Theresa May with David Lidington someone who Tory Leavers rightfully view with extreme suspicion would solve the leadership conundrum if it were to arise.
It's a good point to hammer home, but of course just because a democracy can change its mind doesn't mean it has or should do so.
And a democracy normally implements a decision of a democratic election first. If the people then vote for something else after the first vote has been implemented then it can of course change its mind.
Keep voting until you deliver the result I want isn't quite the same thing!
"And a democracy normally implements a decision of a democratic election first." Can you produce any authority or rationale for that, or are you just saying it? Of course it is boringly true in this country in that 99% of democratic decisions in this country involve appointing people to things, which is easy and unproblematic and practically self-fulfilling. But why do you say it is what a democracy "normally" does in other cases?
Let's make it absolutely clear then. If you do not implement what the people voted for in a single issue vote then it is not democracy. It is just a smokescreen for a technocracy. And if you start down that road why should any of us abide by any 'democratic' decision in the future. Pretty soon you have slid into 'might is right'.
A “historic” march in favour of a second Brexit referendum was attended by just a third of the number that its organisers claimed, according to an official estimate.
A debriefing document prepared by the Greater London Authority put the number of attendees at October's People’s Vote rally at 250,000 - significantly below the campaign group's claim that they were joined by more than 700,000 people.
Last night the group was accused of attempting to mislead politicians and voters about its level of support.
First, many thanks to David whose Saturday columns have long been an integral part of PB. As usual with his domestic political contributions, I disagree with large parts of it.
The problem was the rancorous and divisive 6-month campaign leading to the 6/16 vote left the British public emotionally exhausted. The murder of Jo Cox illustrated how divisive the campaign had become and the vote was perhaps cathartic for many but as with most cathartic experiences, it left people emotionally and mentally drained.
The notion of starting a second national debate about what kind of Brexit we wanted was the least thing people wanted in late June 2016. People wanted life to get back to normal, they didn't want to hear from politicians, they wanted to enjoy the weather, their holidays, the sport, all the aspects of summer life.
Along comes Theresa May and whether by accident or (I believe) design tapped into this national mood of ennui and fatigue. "Leave it to me, trust me, I'll sort it all out" was effectively May's message. We didn't need to worry - all we needed to do was come together in the great tent of her Conservative Party (plenty of room for those worried about that nasty Mr Corbyn).
So we, the people, abdicated Brexit to Theresa May and her inner cabal. We gave up responsibility and even emotional involvement to May relying on her to sort it all out and make it work. After months of seemingly preparing us for leaving, she launched A50 in March 2017 and it was clear then it was all in hand or so we were told. We would leave - the democratic will of the people as expressed on 23/6/16 would be observed.
On that basis she then decided to go to the country to get her own landslide, the people's approval to do as she saw fit but something went wrong, Enough of us failed to heed the message to leave May and the Conservatives dependent on DUP votes.
From June 2017 to now, however, May has spent more time appeasing the DUP and the ERG than she has genuinely seeking to define Brexit in the national interest. A Conservative can justify breaking the Conservative Party if it can be proved to be in the national interest - May cannot do that.
That political stance has antagonised the forces who might under other circumstances have come to her aid. Her inability to be pragmatic beyond the confines of the Conservative Party have turned allies to enemies and culminated in last Wednesday's bizarre national statement.
I do agree with David the indicative votes on options are largely meaningless. Nothing has changed since before Christmas - we either accept the WA, revoke or leave with No Deal. I could imagine a Conservative PM revoking and arguing it was in the national interest to stop the process, take further time to consider what the UK really wanted and then re-commence the process - I can't imagine May doing it.
It's not about persuading Leavers — Remainers haven't even tried that as yet — it's about demonstrating their "superiority". You only have to look at Scott_P's posts to see how cloth-eared Remainers are.
This is Hillary's "basket of deplorables" times about a million or so.
WEXFORD, Ireland (Reuters) - Ireland’s agriculture minister Michael Creed on Saturday promised farmers a “substantial” aid package if they suffer losses as a result of new UK tariffs under a no-deal Brexit.
The Irish Farmers Association estimates that WTO tariffs on Ireland’s beef and livestock sector will impose a direct cost of 800 million euro per year, devastating the 3-billion-euro industry and putting thousands of farmers out of business.
The beef sector is especially exposed to new tariffs, with half of all exports going to the UK.
It's not about persuading Leavers — Remainers haven't even tried that as yet — it's about demonstrating their "superiority". You only have to look at Scott_P's posts to see how cloth-eared Remainers are.
This is Hillary's "basket of deplorables" times about a million or so.
Or Mr Meeks is another prime example.
Leave voters are racists who should be ashamed by association with any other racists who voted Leave . . . Oh and why haven't those Leave racists reached out yet?
Surely a leadership challenge would mean a longer delay .
I can’t see Lidington pushing for a no deal and he wouldn’t be say time is needed for a new leader to reset the negotiations and decide the way forward .
It's not about persuading Leavers — Remainers haven't even tried that as yet — it's about demonstrating their "superiority". You only have to look at Scott_P's posts to see how cloth-eared Remainers are.
This is Hilary's "basket of deplorables" times about a million or so.
The strongest group which voted Remain was upper middle class ABs, so no surprise there.
"To my mind, betting markets, parliamentarians and commentators alike are underrating the risk of No Deal. If it is to be stopped, it has to be stopped. At the moment, there aren’t enough people willing to do so."
This sums up where my thinking is at the moment. Parliament has had nearly three years to come up with a positive Brexit proposal (as distinct from the negative assertion that they don't want No Deal, without coming to any conclusion as to how to prevent it from happening,) and it seems no closer to coalescing around any such proposal now than it was then.
Meanwhile, No Deal is still the law, even if the date is about to be pushed back by a token period.
Unless MPs can come up with the kind of workable plan in the next three weeks that has eluded them for the previous three years - Revocation, passing the Deal, or one that will persuade the EU to grant a long extension (i.e. a Deal/Remain referendum or an outline plan for a softer Brexit) - then No Deal will still come about by default. It therefore remains the most likely outcome of the Brexit process.
It's not about persuading Leavers — Remainers haven't even tried that as yet — it's about demonstrating their "superiority". You only have to look at Scott_P's posts to see how cloth-eared Remainers are.
This is Hillary's "basket of deplorables" times about a million or so.
It's good that in London we have peaceful protests whereas in Paris they have violent protests with people losing hands and eyes thanks to the well-known brutality of the French riot police.
Within weeks, the Tory party could choose one of the leaders of the Vote Leave campaign – Boris Johnson or Michael Gove – to be prime minister. But whoever becomes prime minister would be trying to secure a form of Brexit that is even less likely to get through parliament than May’s deal.
Which is why I think that, if we do not leave the EU in the next few weeks, we never will.
It's not about persuading Leavers — Remainers haven't even tried that as yet — it's about demonstrating their "superiority". You only have to look at Scott_P's posts to see how cloth-eared Remainers are.
This is Hillary's "basket of deplorables" times about a million or so.
Snowflake...
It's more exasperation than taking offence, I'm bored of repetitive and stupid arguments from Remainers who are surprised that Leavers aren't coming over to their side. Most Remainers are every bit as ill-informed and bigoted as they repeatedly accuse Leavers of being.
It's not about persuading Leavers — Remainers haven't even tried that as yet — it's about demonstrating their "superiority". You only have to look at Scott_P's posts to see how cloth-eared Remainers are.
This is Hilary's "basket of deplorables" times about a million or so.
The strongest group which voted Remain was upper middle class ABs, so no surprise there.
The quickest way to be ostracised from the Islington and Cotswolds dinner party set is to say you were a Leaver
The real power in this country is exercised by billionaires meeting Tory politicians for lunch in Mayfair not by a secret cabal of Polly Toynbee, Professor Brian Cox and Richard Curtis plotting Liberal world domination over a butternut squash lasagna in a North London basement kitchen. There is some crazy cultural inferiority complex stuff going on here.
I've just come from central London. Quite a lot of foreign accents in the mix of those protesting. I'm not entirely sure I'd be out marching if I lived in another country.
Don't really object of course, and the general mood of those I saw seemed to be that it was a fun day out. I hope they have an enjoyable day. I hope too we get on with the business of Brexit!
Oh, and PS - Happy 15th Birthday PB, and hats off to Mike and the others who've made PB such a jewel of the internet.
A fantasy figure claimed by march organisers and a good number of them not British and not even qualified to vote here.
Within weeks, the Tory party could choose one of the leaders of the Vote Leave campaign – Boris Johnson or Michael Gove – to be prime minister. But whoever becomes prime minister would be trying to secure a form of Brexit that is even less likely to get through parliament than May’s deal.
Has anyone ever seen a good Leaver sign? Even the official signs on Farage's little thing look like Tesco value labels. It is weird how in these kind of conflicts one side always produces better artwork. Republican murals usually look much better than Loyalist ones. Weimar art much better than Nazi art. I think I tend to sympathise with the side with the better art but hopefully not for aesthetic reasons.
A crowd of 300,000 will have better placards than a crowd of 30.
There will also be way more stupid ones but it's the best (and worst) that go viral.
@MaxPB , You may be interested in Mark Senior's valediction (right word?) from Mike. It's here:[1] There is also an online obituary but I can't find it...
@Casino_Royale Plato died at home of natural causes aged 51 on 29th June 2018. Her IRL name was Phillippa She had apparently been unwell for some time, but had refused to see a doctor. @Gadfly had emailed her brother and posted[2] the info on PB on November 14th 2018. I think this was her old blog[4]. @Gadfly also paraphrased a quote from her brother, thus:
...It was such a shock to me to be called by the police. Philippa was enjoying living in her new place having moved 10 months earlier, beautiful setting and safe. She was an extremely private person really but I think could have done whatever she wanted including running the country. She always described herself as a man in a woman's body ready for any challenge and I suspect the high stress of her earlier high octane life took its toll on her health.
It was a privilege to have known her and I suspect given a few breaks she could have been a fantastic leader albeit terrifying to anyone in opposition. Our parents were the same highly intelligent no compromise people so I'm not surprised she had an effect wherever she went.
I'm trying to arrange a scattering of ashes in Jesmond Dene in Newcastle where my parents were scattered I will let you know of the date...
Over the 15 years of PB (and what a great 15 years it's been!) one of the most common mistakes of posters has been to think that everyone else in the public is interested in what they personally are interested in.
We see this with all the detailed arguments re Brexit - at least 90% of people who voted Leave have no interest whatsoever in the detail (except immigration) - they just want to Leave - because they think it's the right thing to do and will make them feel good. Which is why if May's deal (or any deal which the ERG don't like) goes through the Leave voting public will be content.
They'll happily accept a Single Market or Common Market. Why? Well everyone was happy with the Common Market in the 70s and 80s. Even Mrs Thatcher was happy with the Common Market. If it was good enough for Mrs T it will certainly be good enough for 90%+ of Con Leave voters.
I've just come from central London. Quite a lot of foreign accents in the mix of those protesting. I'm not entirely sure I'd be out marching if I lived in another country.
Don't really object of course, and the general mood of those I saw seemed to be that it was a fun day out. I hope they have an enjoyable day. I hope too we get on with the business of Brexit!
Oh, and PS - Happy 15th Birthday PB, and hats off to Mike and the others who've made PB such a jewel of the internet.
A fantasy figure claimed by march organisers and a good number of them not British and not even qualified to vote here.
"To my mind, betting markets, parliamentarians and commentators alike are underrating the risk of No Deal. If it is to be stopped, it has to be stopped. At the moment, there aren’t enough people willing to do so."
This sums up where my thinking is at the moment. Parliament has had nearly three years to come up with a positive Brexit proposal (as distinct from the negative assertion that they don't want No Deal, without coming to any conclusion as to how to prevent it from happening,) and it seems no closer to coalescing around any such proposal now than it was then.
Meanwhile, No Deal is still the law, even if the date is about to be pushed back by a token period.
Unless MPs can come up with the kind of workable plan in the next three weeks that has eluded them for the previous three years - Revocation, passing the Deal, or one that will persuade the EU to grant a long extension (i.e. a Deal/Remain referendum or an outline plan for a softer Brexit) - then No Deal will still come about by default. It therefore remains the most likely outcome of the Brexit process.
No, firstly as the March 29th Brexit date has now been removed from the statute book via statutory instrument with no date to replace it and second as the EU have said provided we contest the EU Parliament elections we can have a lengthy extension and the Commons will vote to contest those elections and for a lengthy extension over No Deal. If Brexit with a Deal is not agreed soon the likelihood is more we never leave the EU at all than No Deal
I've just come from central London. Quite a lot of foreign accents in the mix of those protesting. I'm not entirely sure I'd be out marching if I lived in another country.
Don't really object of course, and the general mood of those I saw seemed to be that it was a fun day out. I hope they have an enjoyable day. I hope too we get on with the business of Brexit!
Oh, and PS - Happy 15th Birthday PB, and hats off to Mike and the others who've made PB such a jewel of the internet.
A fantasy figure claimed by march organisers and a good number of them not British and not even qualified to vote here.
Makes the real British turnout even lower.
Real British.
.
Yes, real British = British citizens registered here to vote and eligible to vote in a second referendum, as per the original vote, as opposed to EU citizens joining the march out of strong sympathy, who aren’t.
Don’t try and insinuate something that isn’t there.
Has anyone ever seen a good Leaver sign? Even the official signs on Farage's little thing look like Tesco value labels. It is weird how in these kind of conflicts one side always produces better artwork. Republican murals usually look much better than Loyalist ones. Weimar art much better than Nazi art. I think I tend to sympathise with the side with the better art but hopefully not for aesthetic reasons.
A crowd of 300,000 will have better placards than a crowd of 30.
There will also be way more stupid ones but it's the best (and worst) that go viral.
It’s probably 300-400k.
I correctly predicted the spin of a million+ this morning.
This lot are so predictable I was greatly amused rather than surprised.
On topic, I totally agree with David’s well argued article. Some people are getting way ahead of themselves here.
Clean brexit isn’t engineered by brexiteers from here. IT ALREADY HAS BEEN ENGINEERED BY PEOPLE WHO DISLIKE CLEAN BREXIT BUT VOTED IN LOBBY WITH ERG TO MAKE IT LAW.
and how is it stopped?
Bunter, in comment piece on Sky says weak May is now elbowed aside. You go along with That?
May is not alone in her stance. You are elbowing Gove, Leadsome, and all the people in the cabinet, government, party and the country who support either this stance or Boris and ERG too. That’s going to take memorably bloody bit of elbowing to prevent a Clean brexit.
The EU are speaking clear and honestly to us in my opinion, its their WA and they want it passed, if not they want to go to Clean brexit rather than kick cliff edge down the road. They have set it up as they did simply to put the blame for no deal in London’s court. They know how Politics works here, parliament powerless versus the executive, and Conservative Party unable to back down. The conservatives cannot revoke.
Can Conservative Party go for long extension and taking part in EU elections? Unless that happens every indicative vote is a complete and utter waste of time as well as every single step of every single marcher in London today as waste of time. HOW DO YOU HOLD A REMAIN REFERENDUM IF YOU ARE NO LONGER IN IT?
The only way to stop Clean Brexit and prolong the fight is pass the WA. Anything else is blinkered, naive, immature, dangerous thinking
It's not about persuading Leavers — Remainers haven't even tried that as yet — it's about demonstrating their "superiority". You only have to look at Scott_P's posts to see how cloth-eared Remainers are.
This is Hilary's "basket of deplorables" times about a million or so.
The strongest group which voted Remain was upper middle class ABs, so no surprise there.
The quickest way to be ostracised from the Islington and Cotswolds dinner party set is to say you were a Leaver
The real power in this country is exercised by billionaires meeting Tory politicians for lunch in Mayfair not by a secret cabal of Polly Toynbee, Professor Brian Cox and Richard Curtis plotting Liberal world domination over a butternut squash lasagna in a North London basement kitchen. There is some crazy cultural inferiority complex stuff going on here.
Plenty of billionaires voted Remain, including Sir Richard Branson who is again calling for EUref2 or revocation of Article 50
"Yes, real British = British citizens registered here to vote and eligible to vote in a second referendum, as per the original vote, as opposed to EU citizens joining the march out of strong sympathy, who aren’t.
Don’t try and insinuate something that isn’t there."
Some EU citizens can vote though in referendums and national elections - if they are Cypriot, Maltese or Irish. As applies to Commonwealth citizens plus the Irish generally.
Of course very few Commonwealth nations return the favour if we move there - although Brits in Ireland can vote in Dail elections.
I don't think Con can have another leader that's not voted for by the membership.
This is caretaker talk, not permanent leader. A leadership election would be held over the summer I imagine.
So it probably would be Liddington, if this comes to pass. Gove and Hunt will want to be in the real race.
The problem the Tories have is that membership campaigns and ballots - and the type of fresh new leader that often emerges from such - is what they need, but they only work in opposition. The only way to choose a new sitting PM is quickly and in Parliament.
They can have People's Vote's right now (well within the next few weeks) by calling by elections in their constituency's?
But they are happy with the result of the people's vote they were elected on. Its just people's votes they didn't like the result of that they want re run!
"Yes, real British = British citizens registered here to vote and eligible to vote in a second referendum, as per the original vote, as opposed to EU citizens joining the march out of strong sympathy, who aren’t.
Don’t try and insinuate something that isn’t there."
Some EU citizens can vote though in referendums and national elections - if they are Cypriot, Maltese or Irish. As applies to Commonwealth citizens plus the Irish generally.
Of course very few Commonwealth nations return the favour if we move there - although Brits in Ireland can vote in Dail elections.
That’s a fair point but my point is that a good number on the march wouldn’t be eligible to vote.
I don't think Con can have another leader that's not voted for by the membership.
This is caretaker talk, not permanent leader. A leadership election would be held over the summer I imagine.
So it probably would be Liddington, if this comes to pass. Gove and Hunt will want to be in the real race.
The problem the Tories have is that membership campaigns and ballots - and the type of fresh new leader that often emerges from such - is what they need, but they only work in opposition. The only way to choose a new sitting PM is quickly and in Parliament.
I think the original idea was that such powers would lead to more people joining to become members - as it made membership more modern and attractive - so that the party became more representative of the voters, and then elected leaders accordingly.
That hasn’t happened. It hasn’t happened for Labour either.
"To my mind, betting markets, parliamentarians and commentators alike are underrating the risk of No Deal. If it is to be stopped, it has to be stopped. At the moment, there aren’t enough people willing to do so."
This sums up where my thinking is at the moment. Parliament has had nearly three years to come up with a positive Brexit proposal (as distinct from the negative assertion that they don't want No Deal, without coming to any conclusion as to how to prevent it from happening,) and it seems no closer to coalescing around any such proposal now than it was then.
Meanwhile, No Deal is still the law, even if the date is about to be pushed back by a token period.
Unless MPs can come up with the kind of workable plan in the next three weeks that has eluded them for the previous three years - Revocation, passing the Deal, or one that will persuade the EU to grant a long extension (i.e. a Deal/Remain referendum or an outline plan for a softer Brexit) - then No Deal will still come about by default. It therefore remains the most likely outcome of the Brexit process.
No, firstly as the March 29th Brexit date has now been removed from the statute book via statutory instrument with no date to replace it and second as the EU have said provided we contest the EU Parliament elections we can have a lengthy extension and the Commons will vote to contest those elections and for a lengthy extension over No Deal. If Brexit with a Deal is not agreed soon the likelihood is more we never leave the EU at all than No Deal
Exactly. The take away is look how easy it was to avoid a no deal exit next Friday. No votes or nothing. Yet some people seem to think a no deal exit is still likely.
Whoever it was that was putting round thousands up on Betfair for a no deal 29/3 exit a couple of weekends back is about to lose a lot of money.
"To my mind, betting markets, parliamentarians and commentators alike are underrating the risk of No Deal. If it is to be stopped, it has to be stopped. At the moment, there aren’t enough people willing to do so."
This sums up where my thinking is at the moment. Parliament has had nearly three years to come up with a positive Brexit proposal (as distinct from the negative assertion that they don't want No Deal, without coming to any conclusion as to how to prevent it from happening,) and it seems no closer to coalescing around any such proposal now than it was then.
Meanwhile, No Deal is still the law, even if the date is about to be pushed back by a token period.
Unless MPs can come up with the kind of workable plan in the next three weeks that has eluded them for the previous three years - Revocation, passing the Deal, or one that will persuade the EU to grant a long extension (i.e. a Deal/Remain referendum or an outline plan for a softer Brexit) - then No Deal will still come about by default. It therefore remains the most likely outcome of the Brexit process.
No, firstly as the March 29th Brexit date has now been removed from the statute book via statutory instrument with no date to replace it and second as the EU have said provided we contest the EU Parliament elections we can have a lengthy extension and the Commons will vote to contest those elections and for a lengthy extension over No Deal. If Brexit with a Deal is not agreed soon the likelihood is more we never leave the EU at all than No Deal
Exactly. The take away is look how easy it was to avoid a no deal exit next Friday. No votes or nothing. Yet some people seem to think a no deal exit is still likely.
Whoever it was that was putting round thousands up on Betfair for a no deal 29/3 exit a couple of weekends back is about to lose a lot of money.
Indeed, the only realistic Brexit was with a Deal, without that the odds favour Remain, Remainers are united while Leavers are divided between Dealers and No Dealers and increasingly the latter make up the majority of them and would rather put purity over pragmatism and become a protest movement than actually be able to deliver Brexit it seems
a) Bearing in mind you were replying to my post where I was congratulating Mike and his team and mourning the loss of SDS, Mark Senior, Plato and others do you not think your post was highly inappropriate and in very poor taste?
b) I have now reached out to you twice to reconcile and you have spurned those attempts each time - you can really hold a grudge can't you?
c) Again with your usual foresight you anticipate I will again exaggerate the numbers. Well as I have (to the best of my knowledge and if I have I will have been wrong) never attempted to calculate the numbers, because unlike you I actually do not have the foggiest idea what they are, I will not be doing so and so you will be wrong.
d) For someone who says they do not care, you do post an awful lot about the numbers. Dare I suggest you really, really do care. A lot in fact.
e) It appears you were unable to take what was intended to be friendly advice the other day (but which you interpreted as belittling you, which wasn't what was intended at all) and continue to open yourself up to, at best harmless fun, and at worst, ridicule. I was just trying to be helpful and to have a bit of fun.
"To my mind, betting markets, parliamentarians and commentators alike are underrating the risk of No Deal. If it is to be stopped, it has to be stopped. At the moment, there aren’t enough people willing to do so."
This sums up where my thinking is at the moment. Parliament has had nearly three years to come up with a positive Brexit proposal (as distinct from the negative assertion that they don't want No Deal, without coming to any conclusion as to how to prevent it from happening,) and it seems no closer to coalescing around any such proposal now than it was then.
Meanwhile, No Deal is still the law, even if the date is about to be pushed back by a token period.
Unless MPs can come up with the kind of workable plan in the next three weeks that has eluded them for the previous three years - Revocation, passing the Deal, or one that will persuade the EU to grant a long extension (i.e. a Deal/Remain referendum or an outline plan for a softer Brexit) - then No Deal will still come about by default. It therefore remains the most likely outcome of the Brexit process.
No, firstly as the March 29th Brexit date has now been removed from the statute book via statutory instrument with no date to replace it and second as the EU have said provided we contest the EU Parliament elections we can have a lengthy extension and the Commons will vote to contest those elections and for a lengthy extension over No Deal. If Brexit with a Deal is not agreed soon the likelihood is more we never leave the EU at all than No Deal
Except that everything we have heard to date suggests that the EU wants this sorted. I imagine that, on balance, they would still like us to stay in after all, but failing that they want us gone. Not years and years of endless can kicking.
AFAIK the Brexit date in UK legislation hasn't yet been amended, but then again this hardly matters: because the two year A50 notice period ends on March 29th, any extension of the Brexit date beyond then is entirely in the gift of the EU27. They have set a limit to Parliament's faffing about time of April 12th, and there is no indication that any further prevarication will be tolerated unless MPs can find a majority for a positive alternative course of action. Absent such action, No Deal will happen by default.
The irony is that they’re more than happy to get what they want by undemocratic ends.
Indeed, we can see that already 2nd Referendum is rapidly being replaced by Revoke. What next?
I’m afraid they win, probably. They are united and determined and have sympathy on their side.
My side is divided, dogmatic and has no vision or leaders that are explaining what they’d do with it.
That'll be the takeaway when this is all over. The fact that a whole load of politicians spent their lives obsessing and agitating to leave the EU, yet never did any serious work to map out a plan and process to achieve their lifetime's dream, coupled with their inability to take the bird in hand, will sink their project.
It's a good point to hammer home, but of course just because a democracy can change its mind doesn't mean it has or should do so.
And a democracy normally implements a decision of a democratic election first. If the people then vote for something else after the first vote has been implemented then it can of course change its mind.
Keep voting until you deliver the result I want isn't quite the same thing!
"And a democracy normally implements a decision of a democratic election first." Can you produce any authority or rationale for that, or are you just saying it? Of course it is boringly true in this country in that 99% of democratic decisions in this country involve appointing people to things, which is easy and unproblematic and practically self-fulfilling. But why do you say it is what a democracy "normally" does in other cases?
Let's make it absolutely clear then. If you do not implement what the people voted for in a single issue vote then it is not democracy. It is just a smokescreen for a technocracy. And if you start down that road why should any of us abide by any 'democratic' decision in the future. Pretty soon you have slid into 'might is right'.
You are just making up rules out of whole cloth to suit your case, and hedging them about with pompous flimflam on the lines of "Let's make it absolutely clear then" to make it look as if they are self-evident. We have no express rules for direct democracy (we should have had, before we started) and we therefore have to look to what is reasonable. It seems to me a reasonable rule that the proponents of a plan should be given a reasonable time to demonstrate that it is capable of execution. Leave have now had that. Your claim that the plan must actually be executed at no matter what cost, in a charge of the light brigade kinda way, is just risible.
"To my mind, betting markets, parliamentarians and commentators alike are underrating the risk of No Deal. If it is to be stopped, it has to be stopped. At the moment, there aren’t enough people willing to do so."
This sums up where my thinking is at the moment. Parliament has had nearly three years to come up with a positive Brexit proposal (as distinct from the negative assertion that they don't want No Deal, without coming to any conclusion as to how to prevent it from happening,) and it seems no closer to coalescing around any such proposal now than it was then.
Meanwhile, No Deal is still the law, even if the date is about to be pushed back by a token period.
Unless MPs can come up with the kind of workable plan in the next three weeks that has eluded them for the previous three years - Revocation, passing the Deal, or one that will persuade the EU to grant a long extension (i.e. a Deal/Remain referendum or an outline plan for a softer Brexit) - then No Deal will still come about by default. It therefore remains the most likely outcome of the Brexit process.
No, firstly as the March 29th Brexit date has now been removed from the statute book via statutory instrument with no date to replace it and second as the EU have said provided we contest the EU Parliament elections we can have a lengthy extension and the Commons will vote to contest those elections and for a lengthy extension over No Deal. If Brexit with a Deal is not agreed soon the likelihood is more we never leave the EU at all than No Deal
Exactly. The take away is look how easy it was to avoid a no deal exit next Friday. No votes or nothing. Yet some people seem to think a no deal exit is still likely.
Whoever it was that was putting round thousands up on Betfair for a no deal 29/3 exit a couple of weekends back is about to lose a lot of money.
"Yes, real British = British citizens registered here to vote and eligible to vote in a second referendum, as per the original vote, as opposed to EU citizens joining the march out of strong sympathy, who aren’t.
Don’t try and insinuate something that isn’t there."
Some EU citizens can vote though in referendums and national elections - if they are Cypriot, Maltese or Irish. As applies to Commonwealth citizens plus the Irish generally.
Of course very few Commonwealth nations return the favour if we move there - although Brits in Ireland can vote in Dail elections.
That’s a fair point but my point is that a good number on the march wouldn’t be eligible to vote.
There were quite a few people who came over from Germany and France to say please don’t leave . Which I think was wonderful , regardless of what happens the PV March today was conducted in good spirits , and was a joyous occasion where Brits and other EU nationals came together.
It's not about persuading Leavers — Remainers haven't even tried that as yet — it's about demonstrating their "superiority". You only have to look at Scott_P's posts to see how cloth-eared Remainers are.
This is Hilary's "basket of deplorables" times about a million or so.
The strongest group which voted Remain was upper middle class ABs, so no surprise there.
The quickest way to be ostracised from the Islington and Cotswolds dinner party set is to say you were a Leaver
The real power in this country is exercised by billionaires meeting Tory politicians for lunch in Mayfair not by a secret cabal of Polly Toynbee, Professor Brian Cox and Richard Curtis plotting Liberal world domination over a butternut squash lasagna in a North London basement kitchen. There is some crazy cultural inferiority complex stuff going on here.
Plenty of billionaires voted Remain, including Sir Richard Branson who is again calling for EUref2 or revocation of Article 50
The billionaires were on both sides although the ones I've met have tended to the Leave side. The point I was making is that it's absurd to rail against the 'Liberal elite' because the Liberal left have had no political power for almost a decade and the kind of well-educated people that you seem to be targeting for your scorn are mostly just ordinary people on modest incomes who happened to do well enough at school and went to university.
Has anyone ever seen a good Leaver sign? Even the official signs on Farage's little thing look like Tesco value labels. It is weird how in these kind of conflicts one side always produces better artwork. Republican murals usually look much better than Loyalist ones. Weimar art much better than Nazi art. I think I tend to sympathise with the side with the better art but hopefully not for aesthetic reasons.
A crowd of 300,000 will have better placards than a crowd of 30.
There will also be way more stupid ones but it's the best (and worst) that go viral.
It’s probably 300-400k.
I correctly predicted the spin of a million+ this morning.
This lot are so predictable I was greatly amused rather than surprised.
I've just come from central London. Quite a lot of foreign accents in the mix of those protesting. I'm not entirely sure I'd be out marching if I lived in another country.
Don't really object of course, and the general mood of those I saw seemed to be that it was a fun day out. I hope they have an enjoyable day. I hope too we get on with the business of Brexit!
Oh, and PS - Happy 15th Birthday PB, and hats off to Mike and the others who've made PB such a jewel of the internet.
A fantasy figure claimed by march organisers and a good number of them not British and not even qualified to vote here.
Makes the real British turnout even lower.
There were dogs as well. So better chop them out of the numbers because they can't vote either. For goodness sake stop harping on about the numbers and get a life.
It's a good point to hammer home, but of course just because a democracy can change its mind doesn't mean it has or should do so.
And a democracy normally implements a decision of a democratic election first. If the people then vote for something else after the first vote has been implemented then it can of course change its mind.
Keep voting until you deliver the result I want isn't quite the same thing!
"And a democracy normally implements a decision of a democratic election first." Can you produce any authority or rationale for that, or are you just saying it? Of course it is boringly true in this country in that 99% of democratic decisions in this country involve appointing people to things, which is easy and unproblematic and practically self-fulfilling. But why do you say it is what a democracy "normally" does in other cases?
Let's make it absolutely clear then. If you do not implement what the people voted for in a single issue vote then it is not democracy. It is just a smokescreen for a technocracy. And if you start down that road why should any of us abide by any 'democratic' decision in the future. Pretty soon you have slid into 'might is right'.
You are just making up rules out of whole cloth to suit your case, and hedging them about with pompous flimflam on the lines of "Let's make it absolutely clear then" to make it look as if they are self-evident. We have no express rules for direct democracy (we should have had, before we started) and we therefore have to look to what is reasonable. It seems to me a reasonable rule that the proponents of a plan should be given a reasonable time to demonstrate that it is capable of execution. Leave have now had that. Your claim that the plan must actually be executed at no matter what cost, in a charge of the light brigade kinda way, is just risible.
You had your chance, Gorman.
Yes. It is hardly as if the referendum was put aside and ignored the day after the vote. We have spent three years with a government committed to delivering it, and look at the shambles that has arisen as a result, with the most ardent supporters continually voting down their own side's Brexit plan. That is respect enough.
Tyndall is someone who would argue that if you've proposed marriage on a drunken night out and then sober up to realise what a dreadful mistake it is going to be, you still have to go through with it before starting divorce proceedings the following day, regardless of whether she walks off with a chunk of your pension.
"Yes, real British = British citizens registered here to vote and eligible to vote in a second referendum, as per the original vote, as opposed to EU citizens joining the march out of strong sympathy, who aren’t.
Don’t try and insinuate something that isn’t there."
Some EU citizens can vote though in referendums and national elections - if they are Cypriot, Maltese or Irish. As applies to Commonwealth citizens plus the Irish generally.
Of course very few Commonwealth nations return the favour if we move there - although Brits in Ireland can vote in Dail elections.
That’s a fair point but my point is that a good number on the march wouldn’t be eligible to vote.
There were a lot of children, so yes. A few EU citizens, but not many. Mostly a rich tapestry of British citizens.
a) Bearing in mind you were replying to my post where I was congratulating Mike and his team and mourning the loss of SDS, Mark Senior, Plato and others do you not think your post was highly inappropriate and in very poor taste?
b) I have now reached out to you twice to reconcile and you have spurned those attempts each time - you can really hold a grudge can't you?
c) Again with your usual foresight you anticipate I will again exaggerate the numbers. Well as I have (to the best of my knowledge and if I have I will have been wrong) never attempted to calculate the numbers, because unlike you I actually do not have the foggiest idea what they are, I will not be doing so and so you will be wrong.
d) For someone who says they do not care, you do post an awful lot about the numbers. Dare I suggest you really, really do care. A lot in fact.
e) It appears you were unable to take what was intended to be friendly advice the other day (but which you interpreted as belittling you, which wasn't what was intended at all) and continue to open yourself up to, at best harmless fun, and at worst, ridicule. I was just trying to be helpful and to have a bit of fun.
I care about misrepresenting numbers for political ends. I keep “going on” about it because I don’t like to see them unchallenged. And I am not wrong about them. You will hear more from me on this when I know more.
I always welcome advice but am not going to shut up about it just because you might want me to do so. I think this is important as it has an important bearing on the debate over the biggest issue currently facing British politics.
I’m sorry about your first point where you’ve decided to try and mount a high horse. I can only recommend you don’t mix messages and arguments in your posts because it makes it impossible to engage with them without potential misunderstanding.
As you know, I didn’t realise about Plato and am rather upset about it.
"And a democracy normally implements a decision of a democratic election first." Can you produce any authority or rationale for that, or are you just saying it? Of course it is boringly true in this country in that 99% of democratic decisions in this country involve appointing people to things, which is easy and unproblematic and practically self-fulfilling. But why do you say it is what a democracy "normally" does in other cases?
see the referendums on scottish and welsh devolution and the good friday agreement. and (thus far) the votes against scottish independence and av have been followed.
perhaps it would have been wiser to set the leaving date in advance of the referendum and to have pledged to put any negotiated withdrawal agreement to the people (with the alternative of leaving without an agreement).
Has anyone ever seen a good Leaver sign? Even the official signs on Farage's little thing look like Tesco value labels. It is weird how in these kind of conflicts one side always produces better artwork. Republican murals usually look much better than Loyalist ones. Weimar art much better than Nazi art. I think I tend to sympathise with the side with the better art but hopefully not for aesthetic reasons.
A crowd of 300,000 will have better placards than a crowd of 30.
There will also be way more stupid ones but it's the best (and worst) that go viral.
It’s probably 300-400k.
I correctly predicted the spin of a million+ this morning.
This lot are so predictable I was greatly amused rather than surprised.
And your conclusions, based on - what, exactly? - aren't influenced at all by your having spent the morning confidently assuring us that the turnout would be well below a million? For sure.
I also was at the march. Heseltine was very good. My impression was quite a large number of reasonably educated and politically engaged people actually from outside London- banners from places such as devon were common ; many of student age from across the country; and about 10 % continental europeans, particularly italians and french. A positive and civilised, but also impassioned and sometimes defiant, atmosphere.
The contrast between the civility of today's march and the death threats against Ms Georgiadou, as the petition organiser, couldn't be starker.
Wasn't she the one who allegedly posted controversial remarks about Mrs May?
According to Guido, yes: she wanted to shoot her in the face. She says that she cannot remember any such posts (although, again, according to Guido, two have since been deleted).
"To my mind, betting markets, parliamentarians and commentators alike are underrating the risk of No Deal. If it is to be stopped, it has to be stopped. At the moment, there aren’t enough people willing to do so."
This sums up where my thinking is at the moment. Parliament has had nearly three years to come up with a positive Brexit proposal (as distinct from the negative assertion that they don't want No Deal, without coming to any conclusion as to how to prevent it from happening,) and it seems no closer to coalescing around any such proposal now than it was then.
Meanwhile, No Deal is still the law, even if the date is about to be pushed back by a token period.
Unless MPs can come up with the kind of workable plan in the next three weeks that has eluded them for the previous three years - Revocation, passing the Deal, or one that will persuade the EU to grant a long extension (i.e. a Deal/Remain referendum or an outline plan for a softer Brexit) - then No Deal will still come about by default. It therefore remains the most likely outcome of the Brexit process.
No, firsl
Except that everything we have heard to date suggests that the EU wants this sorted. I imagine that, on balance, they would still like us to stay in after all, but failing that they want us gone. Not years and years of endless can kicking.
AFAIK the Brexit date in UK legislation hasn't yet been amended, but then again this hardly matters: because the two year A50 notice period ends on March 29th, any extension of the Brexit date beyond then is entirely in the gift of the EU27. They have set a limit to Parliament's faffing about time of April 12th, and there is no indication that any further prevarication will be tolerated unless MPs can find a majority for a positive alternative course of action. Absent such action, No Deal will happen by default.
No, the summit outcome last week made clear the EU are fine with endless can kicking, they saw the UK Parliament voted to rule out No Deal forever and do not want the hassle of No Deal with all the other problems they have to deal with which is why the EU Council made clear as long as the UK agrees to contest the European Parliament elections it can extend Article 50 as long as it wants and Parliament would vote for that over No Deal even if it cannot yet commit to an alternative Deal or revoking Art 50 or EUref2. The default is increasingly we stay in the EU indefinitely not No Deal.
"Yes, real British = British citizens registered here to vote and eligible to vote in a second referendum, as per the original vote, as opposed to EU citizens joining the march out of strong sympathy, who aren’t.
Don’t try and insinuate something that isn’t there."
Some EU citizens can vote though in referendums and national elections - if they are Cypriot, Maltese or Irish. As applies to Commonwealth citizens plus the Irish generally.
Of course very few Commonwealth nations return the favour if we move there - although Brits in Ireland can vote in Dail elections.
That’s a fair point but my point is that a good number on the march wouldn’t be eligible to vote.
There were a lot of children, so yes. A few EU citizens, but not many. Mostly a rich tapestry of British citizens.
A coach usually carries a maximum of 60. PV claims 180 coaches, so that’s about 11,000 by coach. Let’s be generous and round up.
A ten coach train can carry about 800 seated in 10 x 80 seat coaches. With standing it can get up to about 1,200. Let’s say 25% of these were PV marchers (it won’t be anything like the majority of the train and most will be regular travellers) and say about 50 such trains arrived this morning, which would have disproportionately concentrated on the Oxford, Bristol, Cambridge and Brighton lines. I’ll double it for good measure. That’s 30,000 by train.
Let’s also say another 10,000 (complete guess) drive or fly in - rare to central London, but not impossible.
I make that about 50,000 adults from rUK travelling into London for the march. The rest would have been from zones 1-6. Deducting about 20% for EU citizens and 10% for kids (again I’m being generous) I reckon you have ...
c.400k marchers of which 120k were non eligible voters, including 40k kids, 280k were and 230k were from Greater London and 50k from elsewhere in the UK
Very impressive but not representative of the “people’s voice” nationwide.
Comments
I do think the stories on the end of May are a bit strange, acting like it is a surprise. Her going is not even necessarily a huge failure (though it has a higher chance of that than other options) since it depends what actually happens with Brexit. Her deal, or something close to it, with her going would be a victory for her. I don't expect that, but it feels like some commentators are only focusing on the end of her premiership and not what the situation of that end will be re Brexit that matters.
Well, in the clip posted below, Dominic Grieve said "I will vote for the PM's agreement as long as it is put to a People's Vote as long as remain is an option".
I know it's intended to be pro-Remain. But it doesn't fit that narrative at all.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=p19pCVq31Mg
A “historic” march in favour of a second Brexit referendum was attended by just a third of the number that its organisers claimed, according to an official estimate.
A debriefing document prepared by the Greater London Authority put the number of attendees at October's People’s Vote rally at 250,000 - significantly below the campaign group's claim that they were joined by more than 700,000 people.
Last night the group was accused of attempting to mislead politicians and voters about its level of support.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/01/05/peoples-vote-march-attended-third-number-organisers-claimed/
Just one pair of posters - just one tweet. But its hardly a sign of a coming together any time soon is it?
First, many thanks to David whose Saturday columns have long been an integral part of PB. As usual with his domestic political contributions, I disagree with large parts of it.
The problem was the rancorous and divisive 6-month campaign leading to the 6/16 vote left the British public emotionally exhausted. The murder of Jo Cox illustrated how divisive the campaign had become and the vote was perhaps cathartic for many but as with most cathartic experiences, it left people emotionally and mentally drained.
The notion of starting a second national debate about what kind of Brexit we wanted was the least thing people wanted in late June 2016. People wanted life to get back to normal, they didn't want to hear from politicians, they wanted to enjoy the weather, their holidays, the sport, all the aspects of summer life.
Along comes Theresa May and whether by accident or (I believe) design tapped into this national mood of ennui and fatigue. "Leave it to me, trust me, I'll sort it all out" was effectively May's message. We didn't need to worry - all we needed to do was come together in the great tent of her Conservative Party (plenty of room for those worried about that nasty Mr Corbyn).
So we, the people, abdicated Brexit to Theresa May and her inner cabal. We gave up responsibility and even emotional involvement to May relying on her to sort it all out and make it work. After months of seemingly preparing us for leaving, she launched A50 in March 2017 and it was clear then it was all in hand or so we were told. We would leave - the democratic will of the people as expressed on 23/6/16 would be observed.
On that basis she then decided to go to the country to get her own landslide, the people's approval to do as she saw fit but something went wrong, Enough of us failed to heed the message to leave May and the Conservatives dependent on DUP votes.
From June 2017 to now, however, May has spent more time appeasing the DUP and the ERG than she has genuinely seeking to define Brexit in the national interest. A Conservative can justify breaking the Conservative Party if it can be proved to be in the national interest - May cannot do that.
That political stance has antagonised the forces who might under other circumstances have come to her aid. Her inability to be pragmatic beyond the confines of the Conservative Party have turned allies to enemies and culminated in last Wednesday's bizarre national statement.
I do agree with David the indicative votes on options are largely meaningless. Nothing has changed since before Christmas - we either accept the WA, revoke or leave with No Deal. I could imagine a Conservative PM revoking and arguing it was in the national interest to stop the process, take further time to consider what the UK really wanted and then re-commence the process - I can't imagine May doing it.
This is Hillary's "basket of deplorables" times about a million or so.
The Irish Farmers Association estimates that WTO tariffs on Ireland’s beef and livestock sector will impose a direct cost of 800 million euro per year, devastating the 3-billion-euro industry and putting thousands of farmers out of business.
The beef sector is especially exposed to new tariffs, with half of all exports going to the UK.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-ireland/ireland-promises-substantial-aid-to-farmers-in-no-deal-brexit-idUSKCN1R40M8?il=0
https://www.instagram.com/p/BvWtNN0BFrc/
Leave voters are racists who should be ashamed by association with any other racists who voted Leave . . . Oh and why haven't those Leave racists reached out yet?
I can’t see Lidington pushing for a no deal and he wouldn’t be say time is needed for a new leader to reset the negotiations and decide the way forward .
According to Mori ABs voted 59% Remain 41% Leave compared to the country as a whole which voted 52% Leave and 48% Remain (C2s voted 62% Leave and 38% Remain and DEs 64% Leave and 36% Remain).
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2016-eu-referendum
The quickest way to be ostracised from the Islington and Cotswolds dinner party set is to say you were a Leaver
https://twitter.com/ReutersUK/status/1109511590867619840
This sums up where my thinking is at the moment. Parliament has had nearly three years to come up with a positive Brexit proposal (as distinct from the negative assertion that they don't want No Deal, without coming to any conclusion as to how to prevent it from happening,) and it seems no closer to coalescing around any such proposal now than it was then.
Meanwhile, No Deal is still the law, even if the date is about to be pushed back by a token period.
Unless MPs can come up with the kind of workable plan in the next three weeks that has eluded them for the previous three years - Revocation, passing the Deal, or one that will persuade the EU to grant a long extension (i.e. a Deal/Remain referendum or an outline plan for a softer Brexit) - then No Deal will still come about by default. It therefore remains the most likely outcome of the Brexit process.
Within weeks, the Tory party could choose one of the leaders of the Vote Leave campaign – Boris Johnson or Michael Gove – to be prime minister. But whoever becomes prime minister would be trying to secure a form of Brexit that is even less likely to get through parliament than May’s deal.
Which is why I think that, if we do not leave the EU in the next few weeks, we never will.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-march-theresa-may-election-michael-gove-boris-johnson-a8836741.html
Makes the real British turnout even lower.
There will also be way more stupid ones but it's the best (and worst) that go viral.
That’s a touching tribute, and it’s very sad to learn what happened to her.
Wise words.
.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/seeing-bright-side-brexit-behind-scenes-telegraph-cartoonists/
Don’t try and insinuate something that isn’t there.
And mostly furriners and Islington types.
https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1109505960643620864?s=21
I correctly predicted the spin of a million+ this morning.
This lot are so predictable I was greatly amused rather than surprised.
Clean brexit isn’t engineered by brexiteers from here. IT ALREADY HAS BEEN ENGINEERED BY PEOPLE WHO DISLIKE CLEAN BREXIT BUT VOTED IN LOBBY WITH ERG TO MAKE IT LAW.
and how is it stopped?
Bunter, in comment piece on Sky says weak May is now elbowed aside. You go along with That?
May is not alone in her stance. You are elbowing Gove, Leadsome, and all the people in the cabinet, government, party and the country who support either this stance or Boris and ERG too. That’s going to take memorably bloody bit of elbowing to prevent a Clean brexit.
The EU are speaking clear and honestly to us in my opinion, its their WA and they want it passed, if not they want to go to Clean brexit rather than kick cliff edge down the road. They have set it up as they did simply to put the blame for no deal in London’s court. They know how Politics works here, parliament powerless versus the executive, and Conservative Party unable to back down. The conservatives cannot revoke.
Can Conservative Party go for long extension and taking part in EU elections? Unless that happens every indicative vote is a complete and utter waste of time as well as every single step of every single marcher in London today as waste of time.
HOW DO YOU HOLD A REMAIN REFERENDUM IF YOU ARE NO LONGER IN IT?
The only way to stop Clean Brexit and prolong the fight is pass the WA. Anything else is blinkered, naive, immature, dangerous thinking
I’m afraid they win, probably. They are united and determined and have sympathy on their side.
My side is divided, dogmatic and has no vision or leaders that are explaining what they’d do with it.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/richard-branson-uk-dangerously-close-to-full-scale-brexit-disaster-1-4894352
"Yes, real British = British citizens registered here to vote and eligible to vote in a second referendum, as per the original vote, as opposed to EU citizens joining the march out of strong sympathy, who aren’t.
Don’t try and insinuate something that isn’t there."
Some EU citizens can vote though in referendums and national elections - if they are Cypriot, Maltese or Irish. As applies to Commonwealth citizens plus the Irish generally.
Of course very few Commonwealth nations return the favour if we move there - although Brits in Ireland can vote in Dail elections.
That hasn’t happened. It hasn’t happened for Labour either.
Whoever it was that was putting round thousands up on Betfair for a no deal 29/3 exit a couple of weekends back is about to lose a lot of money.
a) Bearing in mind you were replying to my post where I was congratulating Mike and his team and mourning the loss of SDS, Mark Senior, Plato and others do you not think your post was highly inappropriate and in very poor taste?
b) I have now reached out to you twice to reconcile and you have spurned those attempts each time - you can really hold a grudge can't you?
c) Again with your usual foresight you anticipate I will again exaggerate the numbers. Well as I have (to the best of my knowledge and if I have I will have been wrong) never attempted to calculate the numbers, because unlike you I actually do not have the foggiest idea what they are, I will not be doing so and so you will be wrong.
d) For someone who says they do not care, you do post an awful lot about the numbers. Dare I suggest you really, really do care. A lot in fact.
e) It appears you were unable to take what was intended to be friendly advice the other day (but which you interpreted as belittling you, which wasn't what was intended at all) and continue to open yourself up to, at best harmless fun, and at worst, ridicule. I was just trying to be helpful and to have a bit of fun.
AFAIK the Brexit date in UK legislation hasn't yet been amended, but then again this hardly matters: because the two year A50 notice period ends on March 29th, any extension of the Brexit date beyond then is entirely in the gift of the EU27. They have set a limit to Parliament's faffing about time of April 12th, and there is no indication that any further prevarication will be tolerated unless MPs can find a majority for a positive alternative course of action. Absent such action, No Deal will happen by default.
You had your chance, Gorman.
https://twitter.com/HenryNewman/status/1109429055886188545
Whatever gets you through the night.
Tyndall is someone who would argue that if you've proposed marriage on a drunken night out and then sober up to realise what a dreadful mistake it is going to be, you still have to go through with it before starting divorce proceedings the following day, regardless of whether she walks off with a chunk of your pension.
https://order-order.com/2019/03/22/revoke-article-50-petition-creator-threatened-may-discussed-buy-legal-guns-take-commons/
I always welcome advice but am not going to shut up about it just because you might want me to do so. I think this is important as it has an important bearing on the debate over the biggest issue currently facing British politics.
I’m sorry about your first point where you’ve decided to try and mount a high horse. I can only recommend you don’t mix messages and arguments in your posts because it makes it impossible to engage with them without potential misunderstanding.
As you know, I didn’t realise about Plato and am rather upset about it.
perhaps it would have been wiser to set the leaving date in advance of the referendum and to have pledged to put any negotiated withdrawal agreement to the people (with the alternative of leaving without an agreement).
Male__ 45 55
Female 51 49
By age
18-24 75 25
25-34 60 40
35-44 55 45
45-54 44 56
55-64 39 61
65-74 34 06
75-XX 37 63
By social class
AB 59 41
C1 52 48
C2 38 62
DE 36 64
GE 2015 Vote
Con 41 59
Lab 64 36
Lib 69 31
UKI 1 99
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2016-eu-referendum
A ten coach train can carry about 800 seated in 10 x 80 seat coaches. With standing it can get up to about 1,200. Let’s say 25% of these were PV marchers (it won’t be anything like the majority of the train and most will be regular travellers) and say about 50 such trains arrived this morning, which would have disproportionately concentrated on the Oxford, Bristol, Cambridge and Brighton lines. I’ll double it for good measure. That’s 30,000 by train.
Let’s also say another 10,000 (complete guess) drive or fly in - rare to central London, but not impossible.
I make that about 50,000 adults from rUK travelling into London for the march. The rest would have been from zones 1-6. Deducting about 20% for EU citizens and 10% for kids (again I’m being generous) I reckon you have ...
c.400k marchers of which 120k were non eligible voters, including 40k kids, 280k were and 230k were from Greater London and 50k from elsewhere in the UK
Very impressive but not representative of the “people’s voice” nationwide.