1. You don't have to eligible to vote to sign the petition - simply a UK resident
2. The vast majority of those signing it will be voters for non-Conservative parties already.
I'm not sure 2 is true at all. From my twitter feed it seems to have coursed its way through the previously Tory-voting professional classes to an astonishing degree. People who I would not have imagined signing it have been touting it enthusiastically.
For those that have me pegged as an extreme Remainer, I should point out that I would not sign this petition on principle.
I was amused to see Mark Field come out as being open to revocation. He's clearly noticed that more people in his constituency have signed the petition than voted for him last time.
I signed it. I did so not because I believe in revoking A50 (that would be wrong in principle and in practice), but because I saw it as a way of registering my total disgust at the way in which Brexit has been handled by the Conservative party and for Theresa May's contempt for Parliamentary democracy.
My take is that, once Leave won the referendum, whoever was PM should have done a deal with the EU and that was that. Parliament should not have had any say on it. Our relationship with the EU will change from govt to govt as our relationships with other countries do. Giving MPs the chance to filibuster the process was ultimately too tempting for them.
I am repeating myself from when I was posting in 2017; If May's deal was exactly the same as Cameron's that we would have had if Remain had won, that would have done for now. We just needed to get out, then at the next GE we could vote for a party whose manifesto offered our preferred future relationship with the EU.
That is not only your take it is also mine. Sorry.
The REF was an instruction to the UK govt to take us out of the EU on the best terms that it could in practice negotiate. No other interpretation is valid.
It has done that negotiation. It is not a clean break (didums) and it is not remain (double didums) - it is leaving the EU under the best terms that the UK govt could in practice negotiate. Or it would be if parliament were not fannying about and giving it the big I am.
That's a very good thread and makes a lot of sense. Mark Scott's response about the English Civil War seems apt too. Thanks for the link.
Yes an excellent thread which provides a new perspective. Cognitive fatigue rather than passion is driving the popularity of the extreme options of crash out and revoke.
Nope. We already asked them. Once we have enacted that first instruction we can ask them again. Its called democracy.
So we know what they thought three years ago; an infallible guide to what they want and think now.
Anfd you can't make things true by repeating them. The idea that the public is capable of making up its mind but incapable of changing it is antidemocratic nonsense, which is why you never produce a precedent or rationale for it. You just keep saying it.
Tyndall trots out this line so often, he is basically trolling.
Quite clearly if people have changed their mind (which is an 'if'), it makes no sense to press ahead with something that is no longer wanted.
I do have a little bit of sympathy for Mr Tyndall in this argument. He's right, it would be mildly undemocratic to offer the people a vote on something, promise that "the Government will implement your choice", and then not do so.
I say "mildly" for several reasons. If the question had to be asked at all (which, outside the fevered confines of the Conservative Party it didn't), it shouldn't have been a glib, binary choice for such a nuanced issue. If "the Government" promised something, that Government should have at least stuck around to implement it, rather than calling an unnecessary (but, as it turned out, fairly hilarious) election for a new Government. And most of all, if the referendum had asked the question "Do you want to be fellated by unicorns?" and 52% of people voted yes, we wouldn't freeze up all Government for the next n years until we had found some unicorns willing to fellate everyone.
But on the British 0-10 scale of "undemocratic", this merits about a 2, a 3 at best. The fact that a voter in Orkney & Shetland has three times the say in Westminster of one on the Isle of Wight (33,000 electors for one MP, vs 105,000)? That's undemocratic. The fact that a voter in Buckingham has no say at all? That's undemocratic. The fact that half of Northern Ireland is without representation because their views on the Queen have been deemed unacceptable? That's undemocratic.
The fact that a conservative in an urban area, or a progressive in a rural area, will never have a vote that can in any way change the Government? That's undemocratic.
I see Richard Tyndall's point. I just fail to get remotely worked up about it. If we're talking about what's "undemocratic", let's sort the other stuff out before we get onto the fellating unicorns.
That's a very good thread and makes a lot of sense. Mark Scott's response about the English Civil War seems apt too. Thanks for the link.
Yes an excellent thread which provides a new perspective. Cognitive fatigue rather than passion is driving the popularity of the extreme options of crash out and revoke.
I've thought for some time that there are a lot of parallels with the 17th Century's conflict. They were messed up by the Irish dimension, too.
1. You don't have to eligible to vote to sign the petition - simply a UK resident
2. The vast majority of those signing it will be voters for non-Conservative parties already.
I'm not sure 2 is true at all. From my twitter feed it seems to have coursed its way through the previously Tory-voting professional classes to an astonishing degree. People who I would not have imagined signing it have been touting it enthusiastically.
For those that have me pegged as an extreme Remainer, I should point out that I would not sign this petition on principle.
I was amused to see Mark Field come out as being open to revocation. He's clearly noticed that more people in his constituency have signed the petition than voted for him last time.
What is difficult for me to understand is why those who wish to Remain are angry with politicians?
If the status quo was a the UK as a country that was very strict on immigration, then we had a referendum on joining the EU and accepting FOM which was won by the EU side, & 3 years later we were still a country that was very strict on immigration and looking more likely not to join the EU every day, those who lost would surely be happy, if slightly embarrassed at Parliaments shenanigans
Nope. We already asked them. Once we have enacted that first instruction we can ask them again. Its called democracy.
So we know what they thought three years ago; an infallible guide to what they want and think now.
Anfd you can't make things true by repeating them. The idea that the public is capable of making up its mind but incapable of changing it is antidemocratic nonsense, which is why you never produce a precedent or rationale for it. You just keep saying it.
Tyndall trots out this line so often, he is basically trolling.
Quite clearly if people have changed their mind (which is an 'if'), it makes no sense to press ahead with something that is no longer wanted.
I do have a little bit of sympathy for Mr Tyndall in this argument. He's right, it would be mildly undemocratic to offer the people a vote on something, promise that "the Government will implement your choice", and then not do so.
I say "mildly" for several reasons. If the question had to be asked at all (which, outside the fevered confines of the Conservative Party it didn't), it shouldn't have been a glib, binary choice for such a nuanced issue. If "the Government" promised something, that Government should have at least stuck around to implement it, rather than calling an unnecessary (but, as it turned out, fairly hilarious) election for a new Government. And most of all, if the referendum had asked the question "Do you want to be fellated by unicorns?" and 52% of people voted yes, we wouldn't freeze up all Government for the next n years until we had found some unicorns willing to fellate everyone.
But on the British 0-10 scale of "undemocratic", this merits about a 2, a 3 at best. The fact that a voter in Orkney & Shetland has three times the say in Westminster of one on the Isle of Wight (33,000 electors for one MP, vs 105,000)? That's undemocratic. The fact that a voter in Buckingham has no say at all? That's undemocratic. The fact that half of Northern Ireland is without representation because their views on the Queen have been deemed unacceptable? That's undemocratic.
The fact that a conservative in an urban area, or a progressive in a rural area, will never have a vote that can in any way change the Government? That's undemocratic.
I see Richard Tyndall's point. I just fail to get remotely worked up about it. If we're talking about what's "undemocratic", let's sort the other stuff out before we get onto the fellating unicorns.
Nope. We already asked them. Once we have enacted that first instruction we can ask them again. Its called democracy.
So we know what they thought three years ago; an infallible guide to what they want and think now.
Anfd you can't make things true by repeating them. The idea that the public is capable of making up its mind but incapable of changing it is antidemocratic nonsense, which is why you never produce a precedent or rationale for it. You just keep saying it.
Tyndall trots out this line so often, he is basically trolling.
Quite clearly if people have changed their mind (which is an 'if'), it makes no sense to press ahead with something that is no longer wanted.
I do have a little bit of sympathy for Mr Tyndall in this argument. He's right, it would be mildly undemocratic to offer the people a vote on something, promise that "the Government will implement your choice", and then not do so.
I say "mildly" for several reasons. If the question had to be asked at all (which, outside the fevered confines of the Conservative Party it didn't), it shouldn't have been a glib, binary choice for such a nuanced issue. If "the Government" promised something, that Government should have at least stuck around to implement it, rather than calling an unnecessary (but, as it turned out, fairly hilarious) election for a new Government. And most of all, if the referendum had asked the question "Do you want to be fellated by unicorns?" and 52% of people voted yes, we wouldn't freeze up all Government for the next n years until we had found some unicorns willing to fellate everyone.
But on the British 0-10 scale of "undemocratic", this merits about a 2, a 3 at best. The fact that a voter in Orkney & Shetland has three times the say in Westminster of one on the Isle of Wight (33,000 electors for one MP, vs 105,000)? That's undemocratic. The fact that a voter in Buckingham has no say at all? That's undemocratic. The fact that half of Northern Ireland is without representation because their views on the Queen have been deemed unacceptable? That's undemocratic.
The fact that a conservative in an urban area, or a progressive in a rural area, will never have a vote that can in any way change the Government? That's undemocratic.
I see Richard Tyndall's point. I just fail to get remotely worked up about it. If we're talking about what's "undemocratic", let's sort the other stuff out before we get onto the fellating unicorns.
My take is that, once Leave won the referendum, whoever was PM should have done a deal with the EU and that was that. Parliament should not have had any say on it. Our relationship with the EU will change from govt to govt as our relationships with other countries do. Giving MPs the chance to filibuster the process was ultimately too tempting for them.
I am repeating myself from when I was posting in 2017; If May's deal was exactly the same as Cameron's that we would have had if Remain had won, that would have done for now. We just needed to get out, then at the next GE we could vote for a party whose manifesto offered our preferred future relationship with the EU.
The problem with May's deal is that there is no unilateral exit from it. May is binding her successors which defeats the entire point.
The whole premise of taking back control is that we elect Parliament and that no Parliament binds its successors but the EU - and now May's deal - seek to do precisely that. An popular PM can pass an unpopular deal [Lisbon/Backstop] without a mandate and then we remain stuck with it.
I guess so, but my belief is that, if May's deal takes us out of FOM, the majority of Leave voters wouldn't really care if we are bound by the rest of it. If it hadn't been for mass immigration we wouldnt have had the rise of UKIP leading to a manifesto commitment to a referendum that facilitated a Leave victory. I dont think most people care that much about most the rest of it, it's quite a niche thing.
Whisper that on here, Sam. There is a phalanx of Leavers who will tell you the vote had nothing to do with immigration.
For the way they cast their vote, sure. No need to whisper.
okay.
THE LEAVE VOTE WAS ALL ABOUT IMMIGRATION.
No. It was the second most important factor in the Leave vote.
But it was an important factor.
Exactly. It was most important for many, many, and a subsidiary factor for many others.
And I LOVE Salt n'Shake - reminds me of the treat we got as a child with the little blue twist of salt that always found its way to the bottom of the bag....
It's a poll of people who watch channel 5 out of choice.
I'm surprised bananas aren't on there somewhere...
I like the top ones but also mini cheddars
I think you have identified the flaw in the analysis. Show me someone who doesn't like mini-cheddars. Especially Red Leicester ones.
1. You don't have to eligible to vote to sign the petition - simply a UK resident
2. The vast majority of those signing it will be voters for non-Conservative parties already.
I'm not sure 2 is true at all. From my twitter feed it seems to have coursed its way through the previously Tory-voting professional classes to an astonishing degree. People who I would not have imagined signing it have been touting it enthusiastically.
For those that have me pegged as an extreme Remainer, I should point out that I would not sign this petition on principle.
I was amused to see Mark Field come out as being open to revocation. He's clearly noticed that more people in his constituency have signed the petition than voted for him last time.
I signed it. I did so not because I believe in revoking A50 (that would be wrong in principle and in practice), but because I saw it as a way of registering my total disgust at the way in which Brexit has been handled by the Conservative party and for Theresa May's contempt for Parliamentary democracy.
Didn't it bother you that the person who started the petition had such horrendous views re getting hold of guns and killing Theresa May? I know she was probably joking, but as an MP was killed by a nutter not long ago it seemed to be accepted too readily as just a bit of fun
Nope. We already asked them. Once we have enacted that first instruction we can ask them again. Its called democracy.
So we know what they thought three years ago; an infallible guide to what they want and think now.
Anfd you can't make things true by repeating them. The idea that the public is capable of making up its mind but incapable of changing it is antidemocratic nonsense, which is why you never produce a precedent or rationale for it. You just keep saying it.
Tyndall trots out this line so often, he is basically trolling.
Quite clearly if people have changed their mind (which is an 'if'), it makes no sense to press ahead with something that is no longer wanted.
I do have a little bit of sympathy for Mr Tyndall in this argument. He's right, it would be mildly undemocratic to offer the people a vote on something, promise that "the Government will implement your choice", and then not do so.
I say "mildly" for several reasons. If the question had to be asked at all (which, outside the fevered confines of the Conservative Party it didn't), it shouldn't have been a glib, binary choice for such a nuanced issue. If "the Government" promised something, that Government should have at least stuck around to implement it, rather than calling an unnecessary (but, as it turned out, fairly hilarious) election for a new Government. And most of all, if the referendum had asked the question "Do you want to be fellated by unicorns?" and 52% of people voted yes, we wouldn't freeze up all Government for the next n years until we had found some unicorns willing to fellate everyone.
But on the British 0-10 scale of "undemocratic", this merits about a 2, a 3 at best. The fact that a voter in Orkney & Shetland has three times the say in Westminster of one on the Isle of Wight (33,000 electors for one MP, vs 105,000)? That's undemocratic. The fact that a voter in Buckingham has no say at all? That's undemocratic. The fact that half of Northern Ireland is without representation because their views on the Queen have been deemed unacceptable? That's undemocratic.
The fact that a conservative in an urban area, or a progressive in a rural area, will never have a vote that can in any way change the Government? That's undemocratic.
I see Richard Tyndall's point. I just fail to get remotely worked up about it. If we're talking about what's "undemocratic", let's sort the other stuff out before we get onto the fellating unicorns.
How does 13% of the vote for 0.15% of Parliamentary seats rate?
1. You don't have to eligible to vote to sign the petition - simply a UK resident
2. The vast majority of those signing it will be voters for non-Conservative parties already.
I'm not sure 2 is true at all. From my twitter feed it seems to have coursed its way through the previously Tory-voting professional classes to an astonishing degree. People who I would not have imagined signing it have been touting it enthusiastically.
For those that have me pegged as an extreme Remainer, I should point out that I would not sign this petition on principle.
I was amused to see Mark Field come out as being open to revocation. He's clearly noticed that more people in his constituency have signed the petition than voted for him last time.
What is difficult for me to understand is why those who wish to Remain are angry with politicians?
If the status quo was a the UK as a country that was very strict on immigration, then we had a referendum on joining the EU and accepting FOM which was won by the EU side, & 3 years later we were still a country that was very strict on immigration and looking more likely not to join the EU every day, those who lost would surely be happy, if slightly embarrassed at Parliaments shenanigans
EU immigration is looking after itself. EU citizens have got the message that they are not wanted in the UK and so they are no longer coming in the numbers they did previously. The problem is that we still need immigrants, so the numbers from elsewhere are going up to compensate. All we have done so far is sacrificed a lot of rights that UK citizens have enjoyed for no discernible change in overall immigration numbers.
1. You don't have to eligible to vote to sign the petition - simply a UK resident
2. The vast majority of those signing it will be voters for non-Conservative parties already.
I'm not sure 2 is true at all. From my twitter feed it seems to have coursed its way through the previously Tory-voting professional classes to an astonishing degree. People who I would not have imagined signing it have been touting it enthusiastically.
For those that have me pegged as an extreme Remainer, I should point out that I would not sign this petition on principle.
I was amused to see Mark Field come out as being open to revocation. He's clearly noticed that more people in his constituency have signed the petition than voted for him last time.
What is difficult for me to understand is why those who wish to Remain are angry with politicians?
If the status quo was a the UK as a country that was very strict on immigration, then we had a referendum on joining the EU and accepting FOM which was won by the EU side, & 3 years later we were still a country that was very strict on immigration and looking more likely not to join the EU every day, those who lost would surely be happy, if slightly embarrassed at Parliaments shenanigans
As a Remainer I am cross (not gammon-faced with anger) at the politicians playing silly beggars ever since deciding on the Referendum. And that includes the people who ran the Remain campaign. You wouldn't think there were people who knew about evaluating advertising in a commercial situation on the Remain side, would you.
Nope. We already asked them. Once we have enacted that first instruction we can ask them again. Its called democracy.
So we know what they thought three years ago; an infallible guide to what they want and think now.
Anfd you can't make things true by repeating them. The idea that the public is capable of making up its mind but incapable of changing it is antidemocratic nonsense, which is why you never produce a precedent or rationale for it. You just keep saying it.
Tyndall trots out this line so often, he is basically trolling.
Quite clearly if people have changed their mind (which is an 'if'), it makes no sense to press ahead with something that is no longer wanted.
I do have a little bit of sympathy for Mr Tyndall in this argument. He's right, it would be mildly undemocratic to offer the people a vote on something, promise that "the Government will implement your choice", and then not do so.
I say "mildly" for several reasons. If the question had to be asked at all (which, outside the fevered confines of the Conservative Party it didn't), it shouldn't have been a glib, binary choice for such a nuanced issue. If "the Government" promised something, that Government should have at least stuck around to implement it, rather than calling an unnecessary (but, as it turned out, fairly hilarious) election for a new Government. And most of all, if the referendum had asked the question "Do you want to be fellated by unicorns?" and 52% of people voted yes, we wouldn't freeze up all Government for the next n years until we had found some unicorns willing to fellate everyone.
But on the British 0-10 scale of "undemocratic", this merits about a 2, a 3 at best. The fact that a voter in Orkney & Shetland has three times the say in Westminster of one on the Isle of Wight (33,000 electors for one MP, vs 105,000)? That's undemocratic. The fact that a voter in Buckingham has no say at all? That's undemocratic. The fact that half of Northern Ireland is without representation because their views on the Queen have been deemed unacceptable? That's undemocratic.
The fact that a conservative in an urban area, or a progressive in a rural area, will never have a vote that can in any way change the Government? That's undemocratic.
I see Richard Tyndall's point. I just fail to get remotely worked up about it. If we're talking about what's "undemocratic", let's sort the other stuff out before we get onto the fellating unicorns.
Yep. The fact that the Lords still exists as well.
How would you know how you feel? Well if you don't know, nobody does.
Responses like that will fuel the ScottBot conspiracists, pal!
Spectacularly missed the point. Upgrade your code...
I know how I feel now, but I can't objectively claim I am more or less angry than I was 5 years ago. And nor can anyone else.
I get angry about different stuff. I am occasionally angry about Brexit. I wasn't 5 years ago...
That last time I recall shouting and swearing in anger a colleague had put a very heavy box somewhere I didn't want it. I don't do that so much anymore.
Am I more or less angry?
How the fuck should I know?
Ah, yes I see. I have added another algorithm via my AI protocol... should do better next time.
Still wondering why you think you need to measure how you feel or felt objectively though. Is your subjectivity simulation module not functioning properly?
1. You don't have to eligible to vote to sign the petition - simply a UK resident
2. The vast majority of those signing it will be voters for non-Conservative parties already.
I'm not sure 2 is true at all. From my twitter feed it seems to have coursed its way through the previously Tory-voting professional classes to an astonishing degree. People who I would not have imagined signing it have been touting it enthusiastically.
For those that have me pegged as an extreme Remainer, I should point out that I would not sign this petition on principle.
I was amused to see Mark Field come out as being open to revocation. He's clearly noticed that more people in his constituency have signed the petition than voted for him last time.
I signed it. I did so not because I believe in revoking A50 (that would be wrong in principle and in practice), but because I saw it as a way of registering my total disgust at the way in which Brexit has been handled by the Conservative party and for Theresa May's contempt for Parliamentary democracy.
Didn't it bother you that the person who started the petition had such horrendous views re getting hold of guns and killing Theresa May? I know she was probably joking, but as an MP was killed by a nutter not long ago it seemed to be accepted too readily as just a bit of fun
I had no idea. If she is someone who is making pronouncements about killing Theresa May then that is clearly wrong. However, she does not own the petition or any data it generates, so I cannot see any lasting harm my signing it has done.
The difference as I see it - and I do recognise my purist view is not shared by many - is that at a GE we do not vote for any individual policy, we vote for an individual representative. As long as that representative is allowed to take their seat in Parliament the contract with the electorate has been fulfilled. If subsequently there is a recall and a new vote because the MP turns out to be unfit to hold office it is not a problem as the original vote was respected.
In the referendum we voted for a particular policy. Until such times as that policy is enacted we have not fulfilled the contract. As I keep repeating (ad nauseum I know) democracy is not just about asking a question, it is about abiding by the answer.
Once we have left then it would clearly be ridiculous to refuse another referendum if that is what is wanted. And if Remain won then we would be duty bound to rejoin the EU under whatever conditions they ask before asking the public again.
Hmm. We vote for individuals yes, but we do so in order for them to enact a set of promises which have been described in a manifesto.
And of course your "as long as they take their seat in parliament" point counters any criticism of remain-inclined MPs in Leave constituencies.
No, it counters any legitimate cause to remove them before they have served their term. It does not counter any criticism of them for dishonesty if they promised to abide by the referendum to get elected (eg Soubry) .
Nope. We already asked them. Once we have enacted that first instruction we can ask them again. Its called democracy.
So we know what they thought three years ago; an infallible guide to what they want and think now.
Anfd you can't make things true by repeating them. The idea that the public is capable of making up its mind but incapable of changing it is antidemocratic nonsense, which is why you never produce a precedent or rationale for it. You just keep saying it.
Tyndall trots out this line so often, he is basically trolling.
Quite cles ahead with something that is no longer wanted.
I do have a little bit of sympathy for Mr Tyndall in this argument. He's right, it would be mildly undemocratic to offer the people a vote on something, promise that "the Government will implement your choice", and then not do so.
I say "mildly" for several reasons. If the question had to be asked at all (which, outside the fevered confines of the Conservative Party it didn't), it shouldn't have been a glib, binary choice for such a nuanced issue. If "the Government" promised something, that Government should have at least stuck around to implement it, rather than calling an unnecessary (but, as it turned out, fairly hilarious) election for a new Government. And most of all, if the referendum had asked the question "Do you want to be fellated by unicorns?" and 52% of people voted yes, we wouldn't freeze up all Government for the next n years until we had found some unicorns willing to fellate everyone.
But on the British 0-10 scale of "undemocratic", this merits about a 2, a 3 at best. The fact that a voter in Orkney & Shetland has three times the say in Westminster of one on the Isle of Wight (33,000 electors for one MP, vs 105,000)? That's undemocratic. The fact that a voter in Buckingham has no say at all? That's undemocratic. The fact that half of Northern Ireland is without representation because their views on the Queen have been deemed unacceptable? That's undemocratic.
The fact that a conservative in an urban area, or a progressive in a rural area, will never have a vote that can in any way change the Government? That's undemocratic.
I see Richard Tyndall's point. I just fail to get remotely worked up about it. If we're talking about what's "undemocratic", let's sort the other stuff out before we get onto the fellating unicorns.
Nailed.
It is also why I don't get so worked up about all this superstate stuff (while supporting reform) when our own democracy is so hopelessly flawed.
Most supposed political high principle masks partisan self interest, anyway, and Tyndall's is no different. He just wants to see Brexit done before people can change their mind.
Nope. We already asked them. Once we have enacted that first instruction we can ask them again. Its called democracy.
So we know what they thought three years ago; an infallible guide to what they want and think now.
Anfd you can't make things true by repeating them. The idea that the public is capable of making up its mind but incapable of changing it is antidemocratic nonsense, which is why you never produce a precedent or rationale for it. You just keep saying it.
Tyndall trots out this line so often, he is basically trolling.
Quite clearly if people have changed their mind (which is an 'if'), it makes no sense to press ahead with something that is no longer wanted.
I do have a little bit of sympathy for Mr Tyndall in this argument. He's right, it would be mildly undemocratic to offer the people a vote on something, promise that "the Government will implement your choice", and then not do so.
I say "mildly" for several reasons. If the question had to be asked at all (which, outside the fevered confines of the Conservative Party it didn't), it shouldn't have been a glib, binary choice for such a nuanced issue. If "the Government" promised something, that Government should have at least stuck around to implement it, rather than calling an unnecessary (but, as it turned out, fairly hilarious) election for a new Government. And most of all, if the referendum had asked the question "Do you want to be fellated by unicorns?" and 52% of people voted yes, we wouldn't freeze up all Government for the next n years until we had found some unicorns willing to fellate everyone.
But on the British 0-10 scale of "undemocratic", this merits about a 2, a 3 at best. The fact that a voter in Orkney & Shetland has three times the say in Westminster of one on the Isle of Wight (33,000 electors for one MP, vs 105,000)? That's undemocratic. The fact that a voter in Buckingham has no say at all? That's undemocratic. The fact that half of Northern Ireland is without representation because their views on the Queen have been deemed unacceptable? That's undemocratic.
The fact that a conservative in an urban area, or a progressive in a rural area, will never have a vote that can in any way change the Government? That's undemocratic.
I see Richard Tyndall's point. I just fail to get remotely worked up about it. If we're talking about what's "undemocratic", let's sort the other stuff out before we get onto the fellating unicorns.
Great examples of 'what aboutism' that in no way undermine my point.
1. You don't have to eligible to vote to sign the petition - simply a UK resident
2. The vast majority of those signing it will be voters for non-Conservative parties already.
I'm not sure 2 is true at all. From my twitter feed it seems to have coursed its way through the previously Tory-voting professional classes to an astonishing degree. People who I would not have imagined signing it have been touting it enthusiastically.
For those that have me pegged as an extreme Remainer, I should point out that I would not sign this petition on principle.
I was amused to see Mark Field come out as being open to revocation. He's clearly noticed that more people in his constituency have signed the petition than voted for him last time.
I signed it. I did so not because I believe in revoking A50 (that would be wrong in principle and in practice), but because I saw it as a way of registering my total disgust at the way in which Brexit has been handled by the Conservative party and for Theresa May's contempt for Parliamentary democracy.
Didn't it bother you that the person who started the petition had such horrendous views re getting hold of guns and killing Theresa May? I know she was probably joking, but as an MP was killed by a nutter not long ago it seemed to be accepted too readily as just a bit of fun
I had no idea. If she is someone who is making pronouncements about killing Theresa May then that is clearly wrong. However, she does not own the petition or any data it generates, so I cannot see any lasting harm my signing it has done.
Nope. We already asked them. Once we have enacted that first instruction we can ask them again. Its called democracy.
So we know what they thought three years ago; an infallible guide to what they want and think now.
Anfd you can't make things true by repeating them. The idea that the public is capable of making up its mind but incapable of changing it is antidemocratic nonsense, which is why you never produce a precedent or rationale for it. You just keep saying it.
Tyndall trots out this line so often, he is basically trolling.
Quite clearly if people have changed their mind (which is an 'if'), it makes no sense to press ahead with something that is no longer wanted.
I do have a little bit of sympathy for Mr Tyndall in this argument. He's right, it would be mildly undemocratic to offer the people a vote on something, promise that "the Government will implement your choice", and then not do so.
I say "mildly" for several reasons. If the question had to be asked at all (which, outside the fevered confines of the Conservative Party it didn't), it shouldn't have been a glib, binary choice for such a nuanced issue. If "the Government" promised something, that Government should have at least stuck around to implement it, rather than calling an unnecessary (but, as it turned out, fairly hilarious) election for a new Government. And most of all, if the referendum had asked the question "Do you want to be fellated by unicorns?" and 52% of people voted yes, we wouldn't freeze up all Government for the next n years until we had found some unicorns willing to fellate everyone.
But on the British 0-10 scale of "undemocratic", this merits about a 2, a 3 at best. The fact that a voter in Orkney & Shetland has three times the say in Westminster of one on the Isle of Wight (33,000 electors for one MP, vs 105,000)? That's undemocratic. The fact that a voter in Buckingham has no say at all? That's undemocratic. The fact that half of Northern Ireland is without representation because their views on the Queen have been deemed unacceptable? That's undemocratic.
The fact that a conservative in an urban area, or a progressive in a rural area, will never have a vote that can in any way change the Government? That's undemocratic.
I see Richard Tyndall's point. I just fail to get remotely worked up about it. If we're talking about what's "undemocratic", let's sort the other stuff out before we get onto the fellating unicorns.
Precisely. The idea that having a second vote is undemocratic is orwellian nonsense. It might not be desirable for all sorts of reasons, but a lack of democracy is not one of them.
1. You don't have to eligible to vote to sign the petition - simply a UK resident
2. The vast majority of those signing it will be voters for non-Conservative parties already.
I'm not sure 2 is true at all. From my twitter feed it seems to have coursed its way through the previously Tory-voting professional classes to an astonishing degree. People who I would not have imagined signing it have been touting it enthusiastically.
For those that have me pegged as an extreme Remainer, I should point out that I would not sign this petition on principle.
I was amused to see Mark Field come out as being open to revocation. He's clearly noticed that more people in his constituency have signed the petition than voted for him last time.
Oh, but if you look at the distribution of signatures, they are heavily weighted towards non-Conservative voting constituencies (69 out of the top 100).
Sorry to quibble, especially as you are making money out of it, and kindly helping others with your tip. But. Surely, the following is possible too, certainly non zero. We leave. The process goes badly, the government is shown to have been negligent in a number of key areas. The pro- EU movement continues and grows. Labour finally comes out for ref 2 and leads the polls handily. A handful more Tories move to TIG, meaning no majority. Government accepts ref as an alternative to VONC and probable Corbyn led government. A lot there, but not zero chance.
Not sure I follow. If we leave and it goes badly there could indeed be a REF to rejoin but surely not this year?
Quite right. Seeing those grisly, moth-eaten Leaver men roll up for their secret meeting at a country retreat was enough to give you the horrors - looked like some sort of mafia sit-down.
1. You don't have to eligible to vote to sign the petition - simply a UK resident
2. The vast majority of those signing it will be voters for non-Conservative parties already.
I'm not sure 2 is true at all. From my twitter feed it seems to have coursed its way through the previously Tory-voting professional classes to an astonishing degree. People who I would not have imagined signing it have been touting it enthusiastically.
For those that have me pegged as an extreme Remainer, I should point out that I would not sign this petition on principle.
I was amused to see Mark Field come out as being open to revocation. He's clearly noticed that more people in his constituency have signed the petition than voted for him last time.
I signed it. I did so not because I believe in revoking A50 (that would be wrong in principle and in practice), but because I saw it as a way of registering my total disgust at the way in which Brexit has been handled by the Conservative party and for Theresa May's contempt for Parliamentary democracy.
Didn't it bother you that the person who started the petition had such horrendous views re getting hold of guns and killing Theresa May? I know she was probably joking, but as an MP was killed by a nutter not long ago it seemed to be accepted too readily as just a bit of fun
I had no idea. If she is someone who is making pronouncements about killing Theresa May then that is clearly wrong. However, she does not own the petition or any data it generates, so I cannot see any lasting harm my signing it has done.
1. You don't have to eligible to vote to sign the petition - simply a UK resident
2. The vast majority of those signing it will be voters for non-Conservative parties already.
I'm not sure 2 is true at all. From my twitter feed it seems to have coursed its way through the previously Tory-voting professional classes to an astonishing degree. People who I would not have imagined signing it have been touting it enthusiastically.
For those that have me pegged as an extreme Remainer, I should point out that I would not sign this petition on principle.
I was amused to see Mark Field come out as being open to revocation. He's clearly noticed that more people in his constituency have signed the petition than voted for him last time.
Oh, but if you look at the distribution of signatures, they are heavily weighted towards non-Conservative voting constituencies (69 out of the top 100).
Perhaps those where there are street stalls and local election campaigns spreading the word?
1. You don't have to eligible to vote to sign the petition - simply a UK resident
2. The vast majority of those signing it will be voters for non-Conservative parties already.
I'm not sure 2 is true at all. From my twitter feed it seems to have coursed its way through the previously Tory-voting professional classes to an astonishing degree. People who I would not have imagined signing it have been touting it enthusiastically.
For those that have me pegged as an extreme Remainer, I should point out that I would not sign this petition on principle.
I was amused to see Mark Field come out as being open to revocation. He's clearly noticed that more people in his constituency have signed the petition than voted for him last time.
I signed it. I did so not because I believe in revoking A50 (that would be wrong in principle and in practice), but because I saw it as a way of registering my total disgust at the way in which Brexit has been handled by the Conservative party and for Theresa May's contempt for Parliamentary democracy.
Didn't it bother you that the person who started the petition had such horrendous views re getting hold of guns and killing Theresa May? I know she was probably joking, but as an MP was killed by a nutter not long ago it seemed to be accepted too readily as just a bit of fun
I had no idea. If she is someone who is making pronouncements about killing Theresa May then that is clearly wrong. However, she does not own the petition or any data it generates, so I cannot see any lasting harm my signing it has done.
1. You don't have to eligible to vote to sign the petition - simply a UK resident
2. The vast majority of those signing it will be voters for non-Conservative parties already.
I'm not sure 2 is true at all. From my twitter feed it seems to have coursed its way through the previously Tory-voting professional classes to an astonishing degree. People who I would not have imagined signing it have been touting it enthusiastically.
For those that have me pegged as an extreme Remainer, I should point out that I would not sign this petition on principle.
I was amused to see Mark Field come out as being open to revocation. He's clearly noticed that more people in his constituency have signed the petition than voted for him last time.
I signed it. I did so not because I believe in revoking A50 (that would be wrong in principle and in practice), but because I saw it as a way of registering my total disgust at the way in which Brexit has been handled by the Conservative party and for Theresa May's contempt for Parliamentary democracy.
Didn't it bother you that the person who started the petition had such horrendous views re getting hold of guns and killing Theresa May? I know she was probably joking, but as an MP was killed by a nutter not long ago it seemed to be accepted too readily as just a bit of fun
I had no idea. If she is someone who is making pronouncements about killing Theresa May then that is clearly wrong. However, she does not own the petition or any data it generates, so I cannot see any lasting harm my signing it has done.
EU really piling it on this lunchtime confirming no deal is no transistion and the UK becomes a third country on the 12th April. Tariffs upto 40% to apply and farming and the car industry heavily hit
The EU exit bill will become payable, though less, but will pursue the UK for all the money
The difference as I see it - and I do recognise my purist view is not shared by many - is that at a GE we do not vote for any individual policy, we vote for an individual representative. As long as that representative is allowed to take their seat in Parliament the contract with the electorate has been fulfilled. If subsequently there is a recall and a new vote because the MP turns out to be unfit to hold office it is not a problem as the original vote was respected.
In the referendum we voted for a particular policy. Until such times as that policy is enacted we have not fulfilled the contract. As I keep repeating (ad nauseum I know) democracy is not just about asking a question, it is about abiding by the answer.
Once we have left then it would clearly be ridiculous to refuse another referendum if that is what is wanted. And if Remain won then we would be duty bound to rejoin the EU under whatever conditions they ask before asking the public again.
Hmm. We vote for individuals yes, but we do so in order for them to enact a set of promises which have been described in a manifesto.
And of course your "as long as they take their seat in parliament" point counters any criticism of remain-inclined MPs in Leave constituencies.
No, it counters any legitimate cause to remove them before they have served their term. It does not counter any criticism of them for dishonesty if they promised to abide by the referendum to get elected (eg Soubry) .
Yes criticise away very happy with that. Equally, the point about the manifesto still stands. You are in effect saying that unless and until every manifesto promise is enacted we shouldn't have another GE.
I agree it was the biggest driver, but I don't think she had to make it a red line. She should have just done whatever she liked, and at the next GE (which would probably have been very soon after such a deal) we could have voted for parties that offered a harder or softer line on FOM, and I don't think either side could have complained with the result.
I think that in the immediate aftermath of the referendum it would have taken enormous courage for the PM to have announced that we were technically leaving the EU but keeping FOM.
It would have been a great decision but it is unreasonable to have expected it.
I would liken it to people saying that Gordon Brown as Chancellor should have gone full square against the prevailing consensus and acted to kill the City bonus culture.
It does. She's the voice of reason within the ERG.
"Mad" Nad is actually a supreme realist. The mad members of ERG seem to be working on the basis that if A50 is revoked that will prompt a GE and popular anger will see a slew of Leaver MPs elected to parliament to reinvoke A50 and the no deal nirvana they're after. Bonkers.
Sorry to quibble, especially as you are making money out of it, and kindly helping others with your tip. But. Surely, the following is possible too, certainly non zero. We leave. The process goes badly, the government is shown to have been negligent in a number of key areas. The pro- EU movement continues and grows. Labour finally comes out for ref 2 and leads the polls handily. A handful more Tories move to TIG, meaning no majority. Government accepts ref as an alternative to VONC and probable Corbyn led government. A lot there, but not zero chance.
Not sure I follow. If we leave and it goes badly there could indeed be a REF to rejoin but surely not this year?
Pushing it, but almost anything is possible. Particularly if the Conservatives being in power is at stake.
Shouldn't that be correctly written as PM going to lose MV3 tomorrow?
There's no obvious rationality to this, other than another day's survival for May, and another day for the Cabinet to dither over what to do.
Optimistically, you could argue that keeping her in place will allow greater focus on the indicative votes, but she seems to want to pre-rig and mess up that process anyway - so far.
Shouldn't that be correctly written as PM going to lose MV3 tomorrow?
There's no obvious rationality to this, other than another day's survival for May, and another day for the Cabinet to dither over what to do.
Optimistically, you could argue that keeping her in place will allow greater focus on the indicative votes, but she seems to want to pre-rig them and mess them up anyway - so far.
Perhaps the cabinet have told her; you've got tomorrow to sort it and then we take over.
I agree it was the biggest driver, but I don't think she had to make it a red line. She should have just done whatever she liked, and at the next GE (which would probably have been very soon after such a deal) we could have voted for parties that offered a harder or softer line on FOM, and I don't think either side could have complained with the result.
I think that in the immediate aftermath of the referendum it would have taken enormous courage for the PM to have announced that we were technically leaving the EU but keeping FOM.
It would have been a great decision but it is unreasonable to have expected it.
I would liken it to people saying that Gordon Brown as Chancellor should have gone full square against the prevailing consensus and acted to kill the City bonus culture.
Yes and EU migration to the UK would not have fallen as it has for the last 3 years, which ironically makes the Norway+ option now more viable
I repeat the line because, as I have just discussed with Topping, it is both logical and right. You may think democracy is something that is only worth abiding by if you are winning, I do not. If you go down this road then you destroy people's faith in the democratic process and the whole thing becomes worthless.
In campaigning for Leave you inpliedly undertook that you could deliver a liveable-with version of brexit. You have been given a reasonable amount of time to prove that you can, and it is now clear that you can't. Your claim is easily demolished by absurdity: even you will presumably not claim that if we have still not exited by 2025 and polls then show 95% of the population in favour of remaining, democracy obliges us to brexit. So it is just a matter of judgment as to what is a reasonable time for you to make good your claim. I think you have already had it.
I have made very clear that I am content with the version of Brexit on offer so your argument is, once again, mistaken.
EU really piling it on this lunchtime confirming no deal is no transistion and the UK becomes a third country on the 12th April. Tariffs upto 40% to apply and farming and the car industry heavily hit
The EU exit bill will become payable, though less, but will pursue the UK for all the money
End of the line
Time for TM deal or revoke
What I think many people supporting 'no deal' fail to understand (and that includes lots who really should know better) is that if we crash out without a deal, the legal room for manoeuvre of the EU itself will become very limited. It's all very well saying that in practice they'd agree various 'mini-deals' because it's in everyone's interest to do so, or that they'd come back with some new offer on the withdrawal agreement, but they can only act within the powers and procedures defined by the treaties. So they wouldn't be able to come back with some new or even identical offer on the withdrawal agreement (the power to do so falls away when the Article 50 notification period ends and the treaties no longer apply to the UK), and they wouldn't be able to do mini-deals unless there is some explicit treaty provision enabling them to do so.
In practice, agreeing any kind of new status from a position where we'd crashed out would become a political nightmare and a protracted process, probably involving formal ratification by all 27 countries. This is one of the reasons why crashing out with no deal and no transition period is unthinkable (even if we do, alas, have to think it).
I do have a little bit of sympathy for Mr Tyndall in this argument. He's right, it would be mildly undemocratic to offer the people a vote on something, promise that "the Government will implement your choice", and then not do so.
I say "mildly" for several reasons. If the question had to be asked at all (which, outside the fevered confines of the Conservative Party it didn't), it shouldn't have been a glib, binary choice for such a nuanced issue. If "the Government" promised something, that Government should have at least stuck around to implement it, rather than calling an unnecessary (but, as it turned out, fairly hilarious) election for a new Government. And most of all, if the referendum had asked the question "Do you want to be fellated by unicorns?" and 52% of people voted yes, we wouldn't freeze up all Government for the next n years until we had found some unicorns willing to fellate everyone.
But on the British 0-10 scale of "undemocratic", this merits about a 2, a 3 at best. The fact that a voter in Orkney & Shetland has three times the say in Westminster of one on the Isle of Wight (33,000 electors for one MP, vs 105,000)? That's undemocratic. The fact that a voter in Buckingham has no say at all? That's undemocratic. The fact that half of Northern Ireland is without representation because their views on the Queen have been deemed unacceptable? That's undemocratic.
The fact that a conservative in an urban area, or a progressive in a rural area, will never have a vote that can in any way change the Government? That's undemocratic.
I see Richard Tyndall's point. I just fail to get remotely worked up about it. If we're talking about what's "undemocratic", let's sort the other stuff out before we get onto the fellating unicorns.
Absolutely. Electing people to posts is dead easy. At an election, the course of action for which the majority has voted is carried out in its entirety by the Returning Officer within hours of the vote. When you vote for something more substantive to be done, you need an escape route for when it turns out to be impossible. Two years ago Trump wanted to send a manned mission to Mars during his second term of office. What if he had put it to a referendum and won, and it then transpired that this would cost 25% of GDP and your astronauts would have died of cosmic rays before they were half way there?
There is I suppose a case for distinguishing between the electorate just changing its mind, and the electorate changing its mind because the facts have changed, and saying a re-vote is only legitimate in the second case. But any leaver claiming this is not a change of facts is implicitly claiming that they foresaw, and were happy with the possibility of, the 5 star chateau bottled clusterfuck we are in today, and I'd be inclined not to believe that.
The difference as I see it - and I do recognise my purist view is not shared by many - is that at a GE we do not vote for any individual policy, we vote for an individual representative. As long as that representative is allowed to take their seat in Parliament the contract with the electorate has been fulfilled. If subsequently there is a recall and a new vote because the MP turns out to be unfit to hold office it is not a problem as the original vote was respected.
In the referendum we voted for a particular policy. Until such times as that policy is enacted we have not fulfilled the contract. As I keep repeating (ad nauseum I know) democracy is not just about asking a question, it is about abiding by the answer.
Once we have left then it would clearly be ridiculous to refuse another referendum if that is what is wanted. And if Remain won then we would be duty bound to rejoin the EU under whatever conditions they ask before asking the public again.
Hmm. We vote for individuals yes, but we do so in order for them to enact a set of promises which have been described in a manifesto.
And of course your "as long as they take their seat in parliament" point counters any criticism of remain-inclined MPs in Leave constituencies.
No, it counters any legitimate cause to remove them before they have served their term. It does not counter any criticism of them for dishonesty if they promised to abide by the referendum to get elected (eg Soubry) .
Yes criticise away very happy with that. Equally, the point about the manifesto still stands. You are in effect saying that unless and until every manifesto promise is enacted we shouldn't have another GE.
No I a really not because I have always maintained we elect individual MPs not parties. As such as long as the elected MP can take their seat the contract has been fulfilled.
If MV3 fails tomorrow and indicative votes on Wednesday show a majority for BINO e.g. permanent Customs Union and/or Single Market then May could call a snap general election on her Deal or BINO with Corbyn
The only reason to have MV3 is if the DUP have got on board. There’s a small chance she could squeak it through if so (although unlikely). There’s no chance if not.
So what’s the betting she doesn’t have the DUP on board?
If MV3 fails tomorrow and indicative votes on Wednesday show a majority for BINO e.g. permanent Customs Union and/or Single Market then May could call a snap general election on her Deal or BINO with Corbyn
If MV3 fails tomorrow and indicative votes on Wednesday show a majority for BINO e.g. permanent Customs Union and/or Single Market then May could call a snap general election on her Deal or BINO with Corbyn
Nope. We already asked them. Once we have enacted that first instruction we can ask them again. Its called democracy.
So we know what they thought three years ago; an infallible guide to what they want and think now.
Anfd you can't make things true by repeating them. The idea that the public is capable of making up its mind but incapable of changing it is antidemocratic nonsense, which is why you never produce a precedent or rationale for it. You just keep saying it.
Tyndall trots out this line so often, he is basically trolling.
Quite clearly if people have changed their mind (which is an 'if'), it makes no sense to press ahead with something that is no longer wanted.
I do have a little bit of sympathy for Mr Tyndall in this argument. He's right, it would be mildly undemocratic to offer the people a vote on something, promise that "the Government will implement your choice", and then not do so.
I say "mildly" for several reasons. If the question had to be asked at all (which, outside the fevered confines of the Conservative Party it didn't), it shouldn't have been a glib, binary choice for such a nuanced issue. If "the Government" promised something, that Government should have at least stuck around to implement it, rather than calling an unnecessary (but, as it turned out, fairly hilarious) election for a new Government. And most of all, if the referendum had asked the question "Do you want to be fellated by unicorns?" and 52% of people voted yes, we wouldn't freeze up all Government for the next n years until we had found some unicorns willing to fellate everyone.
But on the British 0-10 scale of "undemocratic", this merits about a 2, a 3 at best. The fact that a voter in Orkney & Shetland has three times the say in Westminster of one on the Isle of Wight (33,000 electors for one MP, vs 105,000)? That's undemocratic. The fact that a voter in Buckingham has no say at all? That's undemocratic. The fact that half of Northern Ireland is without representation because their views on the Queen have been deemed unacceptable? That's undemocratic.
The fact that a conservative in an urban area, or a progressive in a rural area, will never have a vote that can in any way change the Government? That's undemocratic.
I see Richard Tyndall's point. I just fail to get remotely worked up about it. If we're talking about what's "undemocratic", let's sort the other stuff out before we get onto the fellating unicorns.
As a response, 'fellating unicorns' definitely beats 'zzzz'.
And I LOVE Salt n'Shake - reminds me of the treat we got as a child with the little blue twist of salt that always found its way to the bottom of the bag....
Bottom of the bag or - even better - when you buy a six pack one of them will have no salt bag at all and another will have TWO.
If MV3 fails tomorrow and indicative votes on Wednesday show a majority for BINO e.g. permanent Customs Union and/or Single Market then May could call a snap general election on her Deal or BINO with Corbyn
1. You don't have to eligible to vote to sign the petition - simply a UK resident
2. The vast majority of those signing it will be voters for non-Conservative parties already.
I'm not sure 2 is true at all. From my twitter feed it seems to have coursed its way through the previously Tory-voting professional classes to an astonishing degree. People who I would not have imagined signing it have been touting it enthusiastically.
For those that have me pegged as an extreme Remainer, I should point out that I would not sign this petition on principle.
I was amused to see Mark Field come out as being open to revocation. He's clearly noticed that more people in his constituency have signed the petition than voted for him last time.
I signed it. I did so not because I believe in revoking A50 (that would be wrong in principle and in practice), but because I saw it as a way of registering my total disgust at the way in which Brexit has been handled by the Conservative party and for Theresa May's contempt for Parliamentary democracy.
Didn't it bother you that the person who started the petition had such horrendous views re getting hold of guns and killing Theresa May? I know she was probably joking, but as an MP was killed by a nutter not long ago it seemed to be accepted too readily as just a bit of fun
I had no idea. If she is someone who is making pronouncements about killing Theresa May then that is clearly wrong. However, she does not own the petition or any data it generates, so I cannot see any lasting harm my signing it has done.
..but not greatly relevant to the success of her petition. What people have signed makes no reference to her personal background or views.
Yep, particularly because the petition had been around for a whole before it took off so really has little to do with her directly. It's like saying the previous petition that got 4.1 million was tainted or invalid because it was originally started by a Leaver.
If MV3 fails tomorrow and indicative votes on Wednesday show a majority for BINO e.g. permanent Customs Union and/or Single Market then May could call a snap general election on her Deal or BINO with Corbyn
My take is that, once Leave won the referendum, whoever was PM should have done a deal with the EU and that was that. Parliament should not have had any say on it. Our relationship with the EU will change from govt to govt as our relationships with other countries do. Giving MPs the chance to filibuster the process was ultimately too tempting for them.
I am repeating myself from when I was posting in 2017; If May's deal was exactly the same as Cameron's that we would have had if Remain had won, that would have done for now. We just needed to get out, then at the next GE we could vote for a party whose manifesto offered our preferred future relationship with the EU.
The problem with May's deal is that there is no unilateral exit from it. May is binding her successors which defeats the entire point.
The whole premise of taking back control is that we elect Parliament and that no Parliament binds its successors but the EU - and now May's deal - seek to do precisely that. An popular PM can pass an unpopular deal [Lisbon/Backstop] without a mandate and then we remain stuck with it.
I guess so, but my belief is that, if May's deal takes us out of FOM, the majority of Leave voters wouldn't really care if we are bound by the rest of it. If it hadn't been for mass immigration we wouldnt have had the rise of UKIP leading to a manifesto commitment to a referendum that facilitated a Leave victory. I dont think most people care that much about most the rest of it, it's quite a niche thing.
Whisper that on here, Sam. There is a phalanx of Leavers who will tell you the vote had nothing to do with immigration.
For the way they cast their vote, sure. No need to whisper.
okay.
THE LEAVE VOTE WAS ALL ABOUT IMMIGRATION.
No it wasnt.
It was an issue for some, it was not an issue for others. All by definition is then wrong.
yeah. All is wrong. But only by a rounding error.
like the approach
so using rounding 100% of theUK population voted to Leave and nobody wants to remain
really cant see what all the fuss is about :-)
Considerably less than 50% of the UK population voted to Leave, so using rounding none of them did.
The difference as I see it - and I do recognise my purist view is not shared by many - is that at a GE we do not vote for any individual policy, we vote for an individual representative. As long as that representative is allowed to take their seat in Parliament the contract with the electorate has been fulfilled. If subsequently there is a recall and a new vote because the MP turns out to be unfit to hold office it is not a problem as the original vote was respected.
In the referendum we voted for a particular policy. Until such times as that policy is enacted we have not fulfilled the contract. As I keep repeating (ad nauseum I know) democracy is not just about asking a question, it is about abiding by the answer.
Once we have left then it would clearly be ridiculous to refuse another referendum if that is what is wanted. And if Remain won then we would be duty bound to rejoin the EU under whatever conditions they ask before asking the public again.
Hmm. We vote for individuals yes, but we do so in order for them to enact a set of promises which have been described in a manifesto.
And of course your "as long as they take their seat in parliament" point counters any criticism of remain-inclined MPs in Leave constituencies.
No, it counters any legitimate cause to remove them before they have served their term. It does not counter any criticism of them for dishonesty if they promised to abide by the referendum to get elected (eg Soubry) .
Yes criticise away very happy with that. Equally, the point about the manifesto still stands. You are in effect saying that unless and until every manifesto promise is enacted we shouldn't have another GE.
No I a really not because I have always maintained we elect individual MPs not parties. As such as long as the elected MP can take their seat the contract has been fulfilled.
Well you might have maintained it but I think it is accepted that an individual MP is elected "on his/her(/their?) party's manifesto".
The difference as I see it - and I do recognise my purist view is not shared by many - is that at a GE we do not vote for any individual policy, we vote for an individual representative. As long as that representative is allowed to take their seat in Parliament the contract with the electorate has been fulfilled. If subsequently there is a recall and a new vote because the MP turns out to be unfit to hold office it is not a problem as the original vote was respected.
In the referendum we voted for a particular policy. Until such times as that policy is enacted we have not fulfilled the contract. As I keep repeating (ad nauseum I know) democracy is not just about asking a question, it is about abiding by the answer.
Once we have left then it would clearly be ridiculous to refuse another referendum if that is what is wanted. And if Remain won then we would be duty bound to rejoin the EU under whatever conditions they ask before asking the public again.
Hmm. We vote for individuals yes, but we do so in order for them to enact a set of promises which have been described in a manifesto.
And of course your "as long as they take their seat in parliament" point counters any criticism of remain-inclined MPs in Leave constituencies.
No, it counters any legitimate cause to remove them before they have served their term. It does not counter any criticism of them for dishonesty if they promised to abide by the referendum to get elected (eg Soubry) .
Yes criticise away very happy with that. Equally, the point about the manifesto still stands. You are in effect saying that unless and until every manifesto promise is enacted we shouldn't have another GE.
No I a really not because I have always maintained we elect individual MPs not parties. As such as long as the elected MP can take their seat the contract has been fulfilled.
If MV3 fails tomorrow and indicative votes on Wednesday show a majority for BINO e.g. permanent Customs Union and/or Single Market then May could call a snap general election on her Deal or BINO with Corbyn
It's way too late. Would need 9month extention.
We'd have to legislate for EU elections and get a longer extension. I guess the idea is that in that situation both she and Corbyn woulld support that so they should be able to bring parliament along with them. In practice I can't imagine it working that way
If MV3 fails tomorrow and indicative votes on Wednesday show a majority for BINO e.g. permanent Customs Union and/or Single Market then May could call a snap general election on her Deal or BINO with Corbyn
But that essentially gifts Corbyn the remain vote.
The difference as I see it - and I do recognise my purist view is not shared by many - is that at a GE we do not vote for any individual policy, we vote for an individual representative. As long as that representative is allowed to take their seat in Parliament the contract with the electorate has been fulfilled. If subsequently there is a recall and a new vote because the MP turns out to be unfit to hold office it is not a problem as the original vote was respected.
In the referendum we voted for a particular policy. Until such times as that policy is enacted we have not fulfilled the contract. As I keep repeating (ad nauseum I know) democracy is not just about asking a question, it is about abiding by the answer.
Once we have left then it would clearly be ridiculous to refuse another referendum if that is what is wanted. And if Remain won then we would be duty bound to rejoin the EU under whatever conditions they ask before asking the public again.
Hmm. We vote for individuals yes, but we do so in order for them to enact a set of promises which have been described in a manifesto.
And of course your "as long as they take their seat in parliament" point counters any criticism of remain-inclined MPs in Leave constituencies.
No, it counters any legitimate cause to remove them before they have served their term. It does not counter any criticism of them for dishonesty if they promised to abide by the referendum to get elected (eg Soubry) .
Yes criticise away very happy with that. Equally, the point about the manifesto still stands. You are in effect saying that unless and until every manifesto promise is enacted we shouldn't have another GE.
No I a really not because I have always maintained we elect individual MPs not parties. As such as long as the elected MP can take their seat the contract has been fulfilled.
So if we had a system where an MP would take their seat for a day then be replaced through some non-democratic system immediately afterwards, that would be fine?
EU really piling it on this lunchtime confirming no deal is no transistion and the UK becomes a third country on the 12th April. Tariffs upto 40% to apply and farming and the car industry heavily hit
The EU exit bill will become payable, though less, but will pursue the UK for all the money
End of the line
Time for TM deal or revoke
What I think many people supporting 'no deal' fail to understand (and that includes lots who really should know better) is that if we crash out without a deal, the legal room for manoeuvre of the EU itself will become very limited. It's all very well saying that in practice they'd agree various 'mini-deals' because it's in everyone's interest to do so, or that they'd come back with some new offer on the withdrawal agreement, but they can only act within the powers and procedures defined by the treaties. So they wouldn't be able to come back with some new or even identical offer on the withdrawal agreement (the power to do so falls away when the Article 50 notification period ends and the treaties no longer apply to the UK), and they wouldn't be able to do mini-deals unless there is some explicit treaty provision enabling them to do so.
In practice, agreeing any kind of new status from a position where we'd crashed out would become a political nightmare and a protracted process, probably involving formal ratification by all 27 countries. This is one of the reasons why crashing out with no deal and no transition period is unthinkable (even if we do, alas, have to think it).
Yes, No Deal would be horrific. However, those advocating it either are completely oblivious or reckon they can deflect enough of the blame to the EU/Theresa/the Civil Service etc. to keep their own reputations relatively unscathed. How successful they are in the deflection business will probably determine the look of British politics for the next generation.
The only reason to have MV3 is if the DUP have got on board. There’s a small chance she could squeak it through if so (although unlikely). There’s no chance if not.
So what’s the betting she doesn’t have the DUP on board?
I think it will be a bigger defeat than MV1 never mind MV2.
I don't know what is funnier. That May is still resolutely clinging to the one more push idea. Or that the cowards in the Tory Party are too afraid of each other to actually remove her.
One thing is clear. Its all the fault of Jeremy Corbyn. if we had a Labour leader who wasn't a useless twunt, the Tories would be shit scared of the political reality that divided incompetent governments get OBLITERATED at the election that follows.
The ONLY reason that May is still anywhere near the controls is that they know faced with a choice of a cruel incompetent divided islamophobic rabble of a Tory Party or a deluded incompetent anti-semitic Labour Party, the only question at the next election is does turnout drop to a record low and which party loses the least number of voters? Tories can still win if Labour collapse even more than the Tories will
I think it will be a bigger defeat than MV1 never mind MV2.
I don't know what is funnier. That May is still resolutely clinging to the one more push idea. Or that the cowards in the Tory Party are too afraid of each other to actually remove her.
One thing is clear. Its all the fault of Jeremy Corbyn. if we had a Labour leader who wasn't a useless twunt, the Tories would be shit scared of the political reality that divided incompetent governments get OBLITERATED at the election that follows.
The ONLY reason that May is still anywhere near the controls is that they know faced with a choice of a cruel incompetent divided islamophobic rabble of a Tory Party or a deluded incompetent anti-semitic Labour Party, the only question at the next election is does turnout drop to a record low and which party loses the least number of voters? Tories can still win if Labour collapse even more than the Tories will
Oh, for a second there I thought you were going to say it was Corbyn's fault for doing unexpectedly well at the last election and denying May the majority she needs to get her deal through.
If MV3 fails tomorrow and indicative votes on Wednesday show a majority for BINO e.g. permanent Customs Union and/or Single Market then May could call a snap general election on her Deal or BINO with Corbyn
It's way too late. Would need 9month extention.
As we already do. Even Mrs May got that far, before she was nobbled
Comments
The REF was an instruction to the UK govt to take us out of the EU on the best terms that it could in practice negotiate. No other interpretation is valid.
It has done that negotiation. It is not a clean break (didums) and it is not remain (double didums) - it is leaving the EU under the best terms that the UK govt could in practice negotiate. Or it would be if parliament were not fannying about and giving it the big I am.
I say "mildly" for several reasons. If the question had to be asked at all (which, outside the fevered confines of the Conservative Party it didn't), it shouldn't have been a glib, binary choice for such a nuanced issue. If "the Government" promised something, that Government should have at least stuck around to implement it, rather than calling an unnecessary (but, as it turned out, fairly hilarious) election for a new Government. And most of all, if the referendum had asked the question "Do you want to be fellated by unicorns?" and 52% of people voted yes, we wouldn't freeze up all Government for the next n years until we had found some unicorns willing to fellate everyone.
But on the British 0-10 scale of "undemocratic", this merits about a 2, a 3 at best. The fact that a voter in Orkney & Shetland has three times the say in Westminster of one on the Isle of Wight (33,000 electors for one MP, vs 105,000)? That's undemocratic. The fact that a voter in Buckingham has no say at all? That's undemocratic. The fact that half of Northern Ireland is without representation because their views on the Queen have been deemed unacceptable? That's undemocratic.
The fact that a conservative in an urban area, or a progressive in a rural area, will never have a vote that can in any way change the Government? That's undemocratic.
I see Richard Tyndall's point. I just fail to get remotely worked up about it. If we're talking about what's "undemocratic", let's sort the other stuff out before we get onto the fellating unicorns.
If the status quo was a the UK as a country that was very strict on immigration, then we had a referendum on joining the EU and accepting FOM which was won by the EU side, & 3 years later we were still a country that was very strict on immigration and looking more likely not to join the EU every day, those who lost would surely be happy, if slightly embarrassed at Parliaments shenanigans
Office manager: "I think we should implement a 2 sheet limit on wees"
You wouldn't think there were people who knew about evaluating advertising in a commercial situation on the Remain side, would you.
Still wondering why you think you need to measure how you feel or felt objectively though. Is your subjectivity simulation module not functioning properly?
If it wasn't for Adonis and his like I would support revoke before the 12th April and before it is too late
It is also why I don't get so worked up about all this superstate stuff (while supporting reform) when our own democracy is so hopelessly flawed.
Most supposed political high principle masks partisan self interest, anyway, and Tyndall's is no different. He just wants to see Brexit done before people can change their mind.
She has denied it mind you.
The EU exit bill will become payable, though less, but will pursue the UK for all the money
End of the line
Time for TM deal or revoke
It would have been a great decision but it is unreasonable to have expected it.
I would liken it to people saying that Gordon Brown as Chancellor should have gone full square against the prevailing consensus and acted to kill the City bonus culture.
Optimistically, you could argue that keeping her in place will allow greater focus on the indicative votes, but she seems to want to pre-rig and mess up that process anyway - so far.
In practice, agreeing any kind of new status from a position where we'd crashed out would become a political nightmare and a protracted process, probably involving formal ratification by all 27 countries. This is one of the reasons why crashing out with no deal and no transition period is unthinkable (even if we do, alas, have to think it).
'Some' can be more appropriately used for the sovereignty wonks - massively over represented on here.
(Salt'n'Shake should NOT be in the bottom tier of crisps. That is ridiculous. So is the complete absence from the survey of Pipers.)
There is I suppose a case for distinguishing between the electorate just changing its mind, and the electorate changing its mind because the facts have changed, and saying a re-vote is only legitimate in the second case. But any leaver claiming this is not a change of facts is implicitly claiming that they foresaw, and were happy with the possibility of, the 5 star chateau bottled clusterfuck we are in today, and I'd be inclined not to believe that.
So what’s the betting she doesn’t have the DUP on board?
That's awesome when that happens.
I don't know what is funnier. That May is still resolutely clinging to the one more push idea. Or that the cowards in the Tory Party are too afraid of each other to actually remove her.
One thing is clear. Its all the fault of Jeremy Corbyn. if we had a Labour leader who wasn't a useless twunt, the Tories would be shit scared of the political reality that divided incompetent governments get OBLITERATED at the election that follows.
The ONLY reason that May is still anywhere near the controls is that they know faced with a choice of a cruel incompetent divided islamophobic rabble of a Tory Party or a deluded incompetent anti-semitic Labour Party, the only question at the next election is does turnout drop to a record low and which party loses the least number of voters? Tories can still win if Labour collapse even more than the Tories will
https://twitter.com/mbrennanchina/status/1109741811310837760?s=19
If she does then we need a plan b, and we need it quick. Otherwise we have to assume that government policy is no-deal, which would be terrible.