No amount of constitutional jiggary pokery from those passionate lovers of the EU that May has surrounded herself with can change the fact that this Parliament cannot bind the hands of another Parliament
We will never get another leavers' parliament. Miss this open goal and you will never get another shot.
Democracy allows for further consideration of the same question. Lord knows enough time has been spent on this one and Leavers have proven themselves singularly clueless about what they actually want, as opposed to what they don’t want.
Democracy allows for further consideration once the first vote has been enacted. Otherwise it is simply Oligarchy.
Different people define enacting the first vote in different ways. If May's deal went through and we went into transition, would you regard the first vote as having been enacted? Millions wouldn't, which is why you have no right to set yourself up as the arbiter of this question. It is always legitimate to oppose a policy by democratic means, no matter how many people have voted for it.
LOL. More desperate spinning. I doubt you will find many voters of either camp who think revoking means we have enacted the referendum result even if they are glad that is the outcome. You may fool yourself with that sort of thinking but you wont fool many other people.
Presenting a Brexit deal to the public against the option of Remain delivers on the result. If people don't like the reality, that's their choice.
Nope. Presenting the Deal against No Deal would deliver on the result (and also fulfils the apparent desire from Remainers for a confirmatory referendum on the type of Brexit we have since they feel it was not articulated clearly enough).
Asking them about Remain again does not deliver on the result.
Denying the public the opportunity to vote on an option that is apparently far more popular than either of the options you would offer them would be a travesty of democracy.
Democracy allows for further consideration of the same question. Lord knows enough time has been spent on this one and Leavers have proven themselves singularly clueless about what they actually want, as opposed to what they don’t want.
Democracy allows for further consideration once the first vote has been enacted. Otherwise it is simply Oligarchy.
Different people define enacting the first vote in different ways. If May's deal went through and we went into transition, would you regard the first vote as having been enacted? Millions wouldn't, which is why you have no right to set yourself up as the arbiter of this question. It is always legitimate to oppose a policy by democratic means, no matter how many people have voted for it.
LOL. More desperate spinning. I doubt you will find many voters of either camp who think revoking means we have enacted the referendum result even if they are glad that is the outcome. You may fool yourself with that sort of thinking but you wont fool many other people.
Presenting a Brexit deal to the public against the option of Remain delivers on the result. If people don't like the reality, that's their choice.
Nope. Presenting the Deal against No Deal would deliver on the result (and also fulfils the apparent desire from Remainers for a confirmatory referendum on the type of Brexit we have since they feel it was not articulated clearly enough).
Asking them about Remain again does not deliver on the result.
Denying the public the opportunity to vote on an option that is apparently far more popular than either of the options you would offer them would be a travesty of democracy.
But ignoring a previous vote to Leave would be hunky dory?
Devoting all our governmental and parliamentary resources to something for the best part of three years counts as ignoring it, does it?
If the outcome is not leaving, then the previous vote would indeed have been ignored no matter how much time was spent discussing how and whether to leave in the preceding period. The question is whether it is ignored because of a new demoncratic mandate or not.
No amount of constitutional jiggary pokery from those passionate lovers of the EU that May has surrounded herself with can change the fact that this Parliament cannot bind the hands of another Parliament
We will never get another leavers' parliament. Miss this open goal and you will never get another shot.
Well clearly I think you are wrong both in terms of effect of Brexit on the country and the ability to implement it. But that is immatetial. Circumstances have not changed. We always had all those warnings of catastrophe before the refetenfum and they turned out to be rubbish. Trying to pull the ssme stunt again just shows how desperate you are to stop our leaving.
But I am not and never have been. I voted remain in 2016, but only because I was so undecided that I asked my 17 y.o. what he wanted to do, and voted as his proxy. And if you think this is still about "warnings of catastrophe" you haven't been keeping up with current events. The condition of the country now is a present and actual catastrophe, and you are afraid to admit it because you know you, and a lot of c@@ts like Rees Mogg, got us here by promising what you could not deliver.
You had your chance, Gorman.
As I have said many times before you are clearly deluded, both about the implications of Brexit and the serious consequences of revoking. I suspect you will come to regret it if you get your way.
I’m impressed with you’re self belief, there is no other way than you’re way
Not at all. I am not in favour of the Customs Union as it is stupid idea that will tie our hands and put us at an enormous disadvantage in terms of trade. Nor do I particularly like May's deal in some aspects. But I have been willing to compromise on those because, even if I don't like them, they are still clearly Brexit.
But in the end if we do not leave then the democratic process has failed completely and I do not look forward to the consequences of that which so many Remainers seem to be blind to. .
I think I quite like the idea of having a customs union with the EU. I'm profoundly suspicious of all these wonderful 'trade deals' that are going to make us so wealthy, I think they're likely to be terrible for the consumer, and if anything like the same negotiating skills we've seen up until now are employed, we should all be worried.
It comes back to that question of 'the' CU vs 'a' CU. And again it still denies us a seat in many of the organisations that are actually making the rules above the level of the EU.
A seat at the table is somewhat overrated imo. Our answer is always going to be 'I vote with America'. If the contrary can be shown, I'm interested to see it.
Eh, maybe. I'm genuinely surprised no big beasts quit over May opening up negotiations with Corbyn, and don't know if that is because any who intend to are waiting to see what formally comes out of it, if anything, or if because they think nothing will come out of it they see the harm in remaining in government as she tries to be less than damaging to their careers than saying that even attempting to compromise is unacceptable.
I think the suspicion is that nothing will come of it and they're waiting for Theresa to go the EU and get an extension at which point the Cabinet will move against her - Soon as she gets that extension its game over.
Cabinet will throw her under the proverbial and then Con leadership contest will be all about what to do with the extension and Brexit more generally.
Democracy allows for further consideration of the same question. Lord knows enough time has been spent on this one and Leavers have proven themselves singularly clueless about what they actually want, as opposed to what they don’t want.
Democracy allows for further consideration once the first vote has been enacted. Otherwise it is simply Oligarchy.
Different people define enacting the first vote in different ways. If May's deal went through and we went into transition, would you regard the first vote as having been enacted? Millions wouldn't, which is why you have no right to set yourself up as the arbiter of this question. It is always legitimate to oppose a policy by democratic means, no matter how many people have voted for it.
LOL. More desperate spinning. I doubt you will find many voters of either camp who think revoking means we have enacted the referendum result even if they are glad that is the outcome. You may fool yourself with that sort of thinking but you wont fool many other people.
Presenting a Brexit deal to the public against the option of Remain delivers on the result. If people don't like the reality, that's their choice.
Nope. Presenting the Deal against No Deal would deliver on the result (and also fulfils the apparent desire from Remainers for a confirmatory referendum on the type of Brexit we have since they feel it was not articulated clearly enough).
Asking them about Remain again does not deliver on the result.
Denying the public the opportunity to vote on an option that is apparently far more popular than either of the options you would offer them would be a travesty of democracy.
But ignoring a previous vote to Leave would be hunky dory?
Devoting all our governmental and parliamentary resources to something for the best part of three years counts as ignoring it, does it?
Yes. The leaflet said ‘your decision’ not ‘your decision, then we’ll faff around for a few years and decide you didn’t really want to leave’.
Yes. Anything printed in a leaflet must be true. Also, you mean "those who most advocated leave will faff around for a few years preventing it from actually happening, and then we will ask you whether you still want to leave."
Well clearly I think you are wrong both in terms of effect of Brexit on the country and the ability to implement it. But that is immatetial. Circumstances have not changed. We always had all those warnings of catastrophe before the refetenfum and they turned out to be rubbish. Trying to pull the ssme stunt again just shows how desperate you are to stop our leaving.
But I am not and never have been. I voted remain in 2016, but only because I was so undecided that I asked my 17 y.o. what he wanted to do, and voted as his proxy. And if you think this is still about "warnings of catastrophe" you haven't been keeping up with current events. The condition of the country now is a present and actual catastrophe, and you are afraid to admit it because you know you, and a lot of c@@ts like Rees Mogg, got us here by promising what you could not deliver.
You had your chance, Gorman.
As I have said many times before you are clearly deluded, both about the implications of Brexit and the serious consequences of revoking. I suspect you will come to regret it if you get your way.
I’m impressed with you’re self belief, there is no other way than you’re way
Not at all. I am not in favour of the Customs Union as it is stupid idea that will tie our hands and put us at an enormous disadvantage in terms of trade. Nor do I particularly like May's deal in some aspects. But I have been willing to compromise on those because, even if I don't like them, they are still clearly Brexit.
But in the end if we do not leave then the democratic process has failed completely and I do not look forward to the consequences of that which so many Remainers seem to be blind to. .
I think I quite like the idea of having a customs union with the EU. I'm profoundly suspicious of all these wonderful 'trade deals' that are going to make us so wealthy, I think they're likely to be terrible for the consumer, and if anything like the same negotiating skills we've seen up until now are employed, we should all be worried.
I am told that Turkey objects to the asymmetry of third party trade deals in A customs union, but on the other hand their manufacturing seems to be doing very very well in some areas, for instance it been very acquisitive of EU domestic appliance brands.
They were concerned enough about the asymmetry that they warned that if TTIP had been passed they would have had no alternative but to pull out of the Customs Union with the EU. They simply couldn't afford to have the US have free access to their markets without reciprocal agreements.
Democracy allows for further consideration of the same question. Lord knows enough time has been spent on this one and Leavers have proven themselves singularly clueless about what they actually want, as opposed to what they don’t want.
Democracy allows for further consideration once the first vote has been enacted. Otherwise it is simply Oligarchy.
Different people define enacting the first vote in different ways. If May's deal went through and we went into transition, would you regard the first vote as having been enacted? Millions wouldn't, which is why you have no right to set yourself up as the arbiter of this question. It is always legitimate to oppose a policy by democratic means, no matter how many people have voted for it.
LOL. More desperate spinning. I doubt you will find many voters of either camp who think revoking means we have enacted the referendum result even if they are glad that is the outcome. You may fool yourself with that sort of thinking but you wont fool many other people.
Presenting a Brexit deal to the public against the option of Remain delivers on the result. If people don't like the reality, that's their choice.
Nope. Presenting the Deal against No Deal would deliver on the result (and also fulfils the apparent desire from Remainers for a confirmatory referendum on the type of Brexit we have since they feel it was not articulated clearly enough).
Asking them about Remain again does not deliver on the result.
Denying the public the opportunity to vote on an option that is apparently far more popular than either of the options you would offer them would be a travesty of democracy.
Well clearly I think you are wrong both in terms of effect of Brexit on the country and the ability to implement it. But that is immatetial. Circumstances have not changed. We always had all those warnings of catastrophe before the refetenfum and they turned out to be rubbish. Trying to pull the ssme stunt again just shows how desperate you are to stop our leaving.
But I am not and never have been. I voted remain in 2016, but only because I was so undecided that I asked my 17 y.o. what he wanted to do, and voted as his proxy. And if you think this is still about "warnings of catastrophe" you haven't been keeping up with current events. The condition of the country now is a present and actual catastrophe, and you are afraid to admit it because you know you, and a lot of c@@ts like Rees Mogg, got us here by promising what you could not deliver.
You had your chance, Gorman.
As I have said many times before you are clearly deluded, both about the implications of Brexit and the serious consequences of revoking. I suspect you will come to regret it if you get your way.
I’m impressed with you’re self belief, there is no other way than you’re way
Not at all. I am not in favour of the Customs Union as it is stupid idea that will tie our hands and put us at an enormous disadvantage in terms of trade. Nor do I particularly like May's deal in some aspects. But I have been willing to compromise on those because, even if I don't like them, they are still clearly Brexit.
But in the end if we do not leave then the democratic process has failed completely and I do not look forward to the consequences of that which so many Remainers seem to be blind to. .
I think I quite like the idea of having a customs union with the EU. I'm profoundly suspicious of all these wonderful 'trade deals' that are going to make us so wealthy, I think they're likely to be terrible for the consumer, and if anything like the same negotiating skills we've seen up until now are employed, we should all be worried.
It comes back to that question of 'the' CU vs 'a' CU. And again it still denies us a seat in many of the organisations that are actually making the rules above the level of the EU.
A seat at the table is somewhat overrated imo. Our answer is always going to be 'I vote with America'. If the contrary can be shown, I'm interested to see it.
We can't know of course because we have never been given the opportunity.
Democracy allows for further consideration of the same question. Lord knows enough time has been spent on this one and Leavers have proven themselves singularly clueless about what they actually want, as opposed to what they don’t want.
Democracy allows for further consideration once the first vote has been enacted. Otherwise it is simply Oligarchy.
st vote as having been enacted? Millions wouldn't, which is why you have no right to set yourself up as the arbiter of this question. It is always legitimate to oppose a policy by democratic means, no matter how many people have voted for it.
LOL. More desperate spinning. I doubt you
Presenting a Brexit deal to the public against the option of Remain delivers on the result. If people don't like the reality, that's their choice.
Nope. Presenting the Deal against No Deal would deliver on the result (and also fulfils the apparent desire from Remainers for a confirmatory referendum on the type of Brexit we have since they feel it was not articulated clearly enough).
Asking them about Remain again does not deliver on the result.
Denying the public the opportunity to vote on an option that is apparently far more popular than either of the options you would offer them would be a travesty of democracy.
But ignoring a previous vote to Leave would be hunky dory?
Devoting all our governmental and parliamentary resources to something for the best part of three years counts as ignoring it, does it?
Yes. The leaflet said ‘your decision’ not ‘your decision, then we’ll faff around for a few years and decide you didn’t really want to leave’.
Yes. Anything printed in a leaflet must be true. Also, you mean "those who most advocated leave will faff around for a few years preventing it from actually happening, and then we will ask you whether you still want to leave."
What have you got against democracy?
I believe choices should be enacted rather than scoffed at.
I am just as angry at those Tory MPs voting against the deal as Grieve et al.
Democracy allows for further consideration of the same question. Lord knows enough time has been spent on this one and Leavers have proven themselves singularly clueless about what they actually want, as opposed to what they don’t want.
Democracy allows for further consideration once the first vote has been enacted. Otherwise it is simply Oligarchy.
Different people define enacting the first vote in different ways. If May's deal went through and we went into transition, would you regard the first vote as having been enacted? Millions wouldn't, which is why you have no right to set yourself up as the arbiter of this question. It is always legitimate to oppose a policy by democratic means, no matter how many people have voted for it.
LOL. More desperate spinning. I doubt you will find many voters of either camp who think revoking means we have enacted the referendum result even if they are glad that is the outcome. You may fool yourself with that sort of thinking but you wont fool many other people.
Presenting a Brexit deal to the public against the option of Remain delivers on the result. If people don't like the reality, that's their choice.
Nope. Presenting the Deal against No Deal would deliver on the result (and also fulfils the apparent desire from Remainers for a confirmatory referendum on the type of Brexit we have since they feel it was not articulated clearly enough).
Asking them about Remain again does not deliver on the result.
Denying the public the opportunity to vote on an option that is apparently far more popular than either of the options you would offer them would be a travesty of democracy.
They already voted on that option.
Why don't you admit that your position is, that it's pushing it to expect them to make the same mistake twice?
The word "final" is doing some work in that question. The PV people should be pushing the concept of a *binding* referendum with a remain option. The Remain side genuinely don't intend to try to remain if they lose it, but leavers often don't believe this: They think they could win the next referendum too and they still wouldn't get their brexit.
Bit if a different to what @bunnco was reporting earlier?
If you mean the UKIP wing then so be it.
“There are no tanks in Baghdad” I think you vastly underestimate the damage this is doing to the Tory base
It may but the party is broader than a hard right grouping
I am staggered by the broad base of support for no deal. (Note, I would vote for the deal, were I an mp)
The Remain establishment have played this wrong. Again.
Trying to stop us leaving has made people want to leave harder, and quicker.
No deal is growing in popularity the more the MPs speak against it
We seem to see contradictory views from the public on wanting no deal or wanting another say, and so on.
Right now it looks like May is trying to soft-Brexit, so some no dealers may have moved to support a confirmatory referendum simply to prevent such a stitch-up. So these polls are not necessarily contradictory.
The word "final" is doing some work in that question. The PV people should be pushing the concept of a *binding* referendum with a remain option. The Remain side genuinely don't intend to try to remain if they lose it, but leavers often don't believe this: They think they could win the next referendum too and they still wouldn't get their brexit.
Of course we don’t trust those already wanting to subvert democracy.
Bit if a different to what @bunnco was reporting earlier?
If you mean the UKIP wing then so be it.
“There are no tanks in Baghdad” I think you vastly underestimate the damage this is doing to the Tory base
It may but the party is broader than a hard right grouping
At least 70% of the Tory members would prefer no deal , if they are classed as hard right then your party has an existential problem
We can survive the loss of fair weather supporters like Big G.
I think the only event that could break the party completely would be Revoke sans second referendum. A second referendum that led to Remain would be ugly but manageable.
Such arrogance is beyond belief. I was asked to be a conservative county councillor at the age of 22 but my new business prevented me taking on the role. I actively assisted the party in all the elections in the late 1960s 1970s 1980s and was the personal driver for Lord Wyn Roberts in his campaigns and David Jones in the 2010 GE.
I would suggest I have a record of support for my party that entitles me to some respect
It was a rhetorical question. The answer is yes. 'The British public having the final vote' is total spin for 'a second referendum'. It's 'people's vote' speak. If you weren't paying attention, you could even miss the reference to a second referendum completely.
I’m not going to think about it because it’s not going to happen.
On topic, the Tory Party isn’t going anywhere. Even if we suffer another 1997, we will still be able to choke anyone trying to replace us on the centre-right, thanks to FPTP.
Scottish Labour say hello.
Who would be the rival that could inflict such a result on the Conservatives?
I don't see UKIP or the Brexit Party being the SNP equivalent.
The fact that there is both the Brexit Party and UKIP rather limits their chances...
You also need to be careful what you wish for: a fracturing on the right might end up letting a surprising number of LibDems in.
An increased proportion of people voting for Brexity parties may lead to more pro-EUites in parliament...
To be honest Robert if we don't leave this time it no longer matters what the makeup of Parliament is.
Does parliament serve no purpose other than to facilitate your nationalist dreams?
If we do not leave then Parliament has lost its democratic legitimacy. (Snip)
I really don't see that.
Extreme Leavers believe that democracy stopped on 23 June 2016.
Nope. The belief is that democracy is based on a basic principle of asking a question and enacting the result. I said on numerous occasions before the referendum that as long as Remain won I would give no further support to another referendum. It is called principle and you singularly lack it as a quality.
Democracy allows for further consideration of the same question. Lord knows enough time has been spent on this one and Leavers have proven themselves singularly clueless about what they actually want, as opposed to what they don’t want.
Democracy allows for further consideration once the first vote has been enacted. Otherwise it is simply Oligarchy.
An operable deal was offered. Leavers turned it down. At that point, Remainers can reasonably regard their duty to implement Brexit as discharged.
Given most Remainers voted against the deal while most Leavers supported it I don’t see how you reach that conclusion
Democracy allows for further consideration of the same question. Lord knows enough time has been spent on this one and Leavers have proven themselves singularly clueless about what they actually want, as opposed to what they don’t want.
Democracy allows for further consideration once the first vote has been enacted. Otherwise it is simply Oligarchy.
Different people define enacting the first vote in different ways. If May's deal went through and we went into transition, would you regard the first vote as having been enacted? Millions wouldn't, which is why you have no right to set yourself up as the arbiter of this question. It is always legitimate to oppose a policy by democratic means, no matter how many people have voted for it.
LOL. More desperate spinning. I doubt you will find many voters of either camp who think revoking means we have enacted the referendum result even if they are glad that is the outcome. You may fool yourself with that sort of thinking but you wont fool many other people.
Presenting a Brexit deal to the public against the option of Remain delivers on the result. If people don't like the reality, that's their choice.
Nope. Presenting the Deal against No Deal would deliver on the result (and also fulfils the apparent desire from Remainers for a confirmatory referendum on the type of Brexit we have since they feel it was not articulated clearly enough).
Asking them about Remain again does not deliver on the result.
Denying the public the opportunity to vote on an option that is apparently far more popular than either of the options you would offer them would be a travesty of democracy.
They already voted on that option.
Why don't you admit that your position is, that it's pushing it to expect them to make the same mistake twice?
How can that be my position when I don't think its a mistake? Why don't you just admit that the reason you want a second referendum is nothing to do with 'confirming' a deal but entirely to reverse the first result before it can be enacted?
Democracy allows for further consideration once the first vote has been enacted. Otherwise it is simply Oligarchy.
It would be a YUGE leap forward for mankind if you were to justify that claim rather than just repeating it. Because democracy means letting the people decide things, and your position is that the people must be prevented at all costs from deciding the most pressing question du jour, which looks paradoxicaI to me.
I have pointed you to the fact that ancient Athens, a rather effective direct democracy, was happy to vote on the same substantive issue on two consecutive days.
So what, actually, is your *reasoned* case?
The reasoned case is that the sovereign people gave an instruction. (“Leave the EU”)
The Executive have negotiated a deal. People may not like the deal but the Executive has done its job
The Legislature has taken it upon itself to prevent the executive doing its job and to frustrate the decision of the sovereign authority.
Democracy allows for further consideration of the same question. Lord knows enough time has been spent on this one and Leavers have proven themselves singularly clueless about what they actually want, as opposed to what they don’t want.
Democracy allows for further consideration once the first vote has been enacted. Otherwise it is simply Oligarchy.
Different people define enacting the first vote in different ways. If May's deal went through and we went into transition, would you regard the first vote as having been enacted? Millions wouldn't, which is why you have no right to set yourself up as the arbiter of this question. It is always legitimate to oppose a policy by democratic means, no matter how many people have voted for it.
LOL. More desperate spinning. I doubt you will find many voters of either camp who think revoking means we have enacted the referendum result even if they are glad that is the outcome. You may fool yourself with that sort of thinking but you wont fool many other people.
Presenting a Brexit deal to the public against the option of Remain delivers on the result. If people don't like the reality, that's their choice.
Nope. Presenting the Deal against No Deal would deliver on the result (and also fulfils the apparent desire from Remainers for a confirmatory referendum on the type of Brexit we have since they feel it was not articulated clearly enough).
Asking them about Remain again does not deliver on the result.
Denying the public the opportunity to vote on an option that is apparently far more popular than either of the options you would offer them would be a travesty of democracy.
They already voted on that option.
Why don't you admit that your position is, that it's pushing it to expect them to make the same mistake twice?
It has not been shown to be any kind of mistake, as we haven't left. All that has happened is that the dire consequences of merely voting for Brexit have failed to materialise.
Bit if a different to what @bunnco was reporting earlier?
If you mean the UKIP wing then so be it.
“There are no tanks in Baghdad” I think you vastly underestimate the damage this is doing to the Tory base
It may but the party is broader than a hard right grouping
At least 70% of the Tory members would prefer no deal , if they are classed as hard right then your party has an existential problem
We can survive the loss of fair weather supporters like Big G.
I think the only event that could break the party completely would be Revoke sans second referendum. A second referendum that led to Remain would be ugly but manageable.
Such arrogance is beyond belief. I was asked to be a conservative county councillor at the age of 22 but my new business prevented me taking on the role. I actively assisted the party in all the elections in the late 1960s 1970s 1980s and was the personal driver for Lord Wyn Roberts in his campaigns and David Jones in the 2010 GE.
I would suggest I have a record of support for my party that entitles me to some respect
The record that saw you voting for Blair twice in 1997 and 2001 whilst the rest of us were loyally pounding the streets?
Democracy allows for further consideration once the first vote has been enacted. Otherwise it is simply Oligarchy.
It would be a YUGE leap forward for mankind if you were to justify that claim rather than just repeating it. Because democracy means letting the people decide things, and your position is that the people must be prevented at all costs from deciding the most pressing question du jour, which looks paradoxicaI to me.
I have pointed you to the fact that ancient Athens, a rather effective direct democracy, was happy to vote on the same substantive issue on two consecutive days.
So what, actually, is your *reasoned* case?
The reasoned case is that the sovereign people gave an instruction. (“Leave the EU”)
The Executive have negotiated a deal. People may not like the deal but the Executive has done its job
The Legislature has taken it upon itself to prevent the executive doing its job and to frustrate the decision of the sovereign authority.
You say it with so much more style than I do Charles
Democracy allows for further consideration of the same question. Lord knows enough time has been spent on this one and Leavers have proven themselves singularly clueless about what they actually want, as opposed to what they don’t want.
Democracy allows for further consideration once the first vote has been enacted. Otherwise it is simply Oligarchy.
Different people define enacting the first vote in different ways. If May's deal went through and we went into transition, would you regard the first vote as having been enacted? Millions wouldn't, which is why you have no right to set yourself up as the arbiter of this question. It is always legitimate to oppose a policy by democratic means, no matter how many people have voted for it.
LOL. More desperate spinning. I doubt you will find many voters of either camp who think revoking means we have enacted the referendum result even if they are glad that is the outcome. You may fool yourself with that sort of thinking but you wont fool many other people.
Presenting a Brexit deal to the public against the option of Remain delivers on the result. If people don't like the reality, that's their choice.
Nope. Presenting the Deal against No Deal would deliver on the result (and also fulfils the apparent desire from Remainers for a confirmatory referendum on the type of Brexit we have since they feel it was not articulated clearly enough).
Asking them about Remain again does not deliver on the result.
Denying the public the opportunity to vote on an option that is apparently far more popular than either of the options you would offer them would be a travesty of democracy.
They already voted on that option.
Why don't you admit that your position is, that it's pushing it to expect them to make the same mistake twice?
How can that be my position when I don't think its a mistake? Why don't you just admit that the reason you want a second referendum is nothing to do with 'confirming' a deal but entirely to reverse the first result before it can be enacted?
I have explained that i would be equally happy with a competently executed brexit as with remaining. And anyway if a properly conducted second referendum reverses the first, that is the people reversing the first. And what the people want is what the people want, not what they wanted three years ago. Why do you hate democracy?
Well clearly I think you are wrong both in terms of effect of Brexit on the country and the ability to implement it. But that is immatetial. Circumstances have not changed. We always had all those warnings of catastrophe before the refetenfum and they turned out to be rubbish. Trying to pull the ssme stunt again just shows how desperate you are to stop our leaving.
But I am not and never have been. I voted remain in 2016, but only because I was so undecided that I asked my 17 y.o. what he wanted to do, and voted as his proxy. And if you think this is still about "warnings of catastrophe" you haven't been keeping up with current events. The condition of the country now is a present and actual catastrophe, and you are afraid to admit it because you know you, and a lot of c@@ts like Rees Mogg, got us here by promising what you could not deliver.
You had your chance, Gorman.
Hey, Ishmael, don't worry! Me and my squad of ultimate Brexiteers will protect you! Check it out! Independently targeting particle-beam phalanx. WHAP! Fry half a parliamentary constituency with this puppy. We got tactical smart missiles, phase plasma pulse rifles, RPGs. We got sonic, electronic, ball-breakers! We got nukes, we got knives, sharp sticks...
The Remain side genuinely don't intend to try to remain if they lose it,
Haha!!!!
See, Leave voters are so sure on this point that I got two consecutive emojis...
We're finally at the point where a referendum would make tactical sense for Leave supporters, but we need them to shift enough to make Tory MPs feel like they can vote for it without upsetting their members. To make that happen, we need to work out how to reassure them that if they win, they will actually get their thing.
I have explained that i would be equally happy with a competently executed brexit as with remaining. And anyway if a properly conducted second referendum reverses the first, that is the people reversing the first. And what the people want is what the people want, not what they wanted three years ago. Why do you hate democracy?
You apparently don't even understand what the word means.
Democracy allows for further consideration once the first vote has been enacted. Otherwise it is simply Oligarchy.
It would be a YUGE leap forward for mankind if you were to justify that claim rather than just repeating it. Because democracy means letting the people decide things, and your position is that the people must be prevented at all costs from deciding the most pressing question du jour, which looks paradoxicaI to me.
I have pointed you to the fact that ancient Athens, a rather effective direct democracy, was happy to vote on the same substantive issue on two consecutive days.
So what, actually, is your *reasoned* case?
The reasoned case is that the sovereign people gave an instruction. (“Leave the EU”)
The Executive have negotiated a deal. People may not like the deal but the Executive has done its job
The Legislature has taken it upon itself to prevent the executive doing its job and to frustrate the decision of the sovereign authority.
In this country, sovereignty rests with the Crown in parliament. You can fantasize as much as you like about sovereign people; i don't much care for alternate histories.
Bit if a different to what @bunnco was reporting earlier?
If you mean the UKIP wing then so be it.
“There are no tanks in Baghdad” I think you vastly underestimate the damage this is doing to the Tory base
It may but the party is broader than a hard right grouping
At least 70% of the Tory members would prefer no deal , if they are classed as hard right then your party has an existential problem
We can survive the loss of fair weather supporters like Big G.
I think the only event that could break the party completely would be Revoke sans second referendum. A second referendum that led to Remain would be ugly but manageable.
Such arrogance is beyond belief. I was asked to be a conservative county councillor at the age of 22 but my new business prevented me taking on the role. I actively assisted the party in all the elections in the late 1960s 1970s 1980s and was the personal driver for Lord Wyn Roberts in his campaigns and David Jones in the 2010 GE.
I would suggest I have a record of support for my party that entitles me to some respect
The record that saw you voting for Blair twice in 1997 and 2001 whilst the rest of us were loyally pounding the streets?
You have been unusually personal to me in the last few days. At the time Blair attracted support as the conservative party was exhausted, much like the way it is going today
My service to the party over 55 years stands up to your criticsm and anyway I do not have to justify myself to you
No my position is clear and always has been. If you ask a question of the electorate and then do not act according to their direction then it is not democracy.
So not bringing in an Australian-style points system for EU citizens would be undemocratic?
Nope because that wasnt the question on the ballot paper. The question was Remain or Leave. As such anything that meant we were no longer legally a member of the EU would fulfill the mandate. Of course you know tnis as you have asked the same question in different forms many times before and always got the same snswer. I do worry about your mental state sometimes. It seems your memory is failing badly.
You can't resort to arguments like "read the small print" without also acknowledging that the referendum was advisory and did not constitute a mandate for anything in particular.
It would be an interesting court case
The law says it is advisory but you get into reasonable expectations territory - “the man on the Clapham Omnibus” would have believe the statement of both campaigns that the result would have been implemented
The Remain side genuinely don't intend to try to remain if they lose it,
Haha!!!!
See, Leave voters are so sure on this point that I got two consecutive emojis...
We're finally at the point where a referendum would make tactical sense for Leave supporters, but we need them to shift enough to make Tory MPs feel like they can vote for it without upsetting their members. To make that happen, we need to work out how to reassure them that if they win, they will actually get their thing.
Binding binding binding
In all honesty even if it were absolutely certain to return a vote of 90% in favour of Leave I would still oppose it on principle. Just as it would have been fundamentally wrong to rerun the vote if Remain had won. It sets a precedent that is far too dangerous to allow.
If that is the case then that is a very good result.
Edit: My big concern is that May has history of making statements about agreements that turn out to be false. I would have been far more comfortable that this was real if Corbyn and May had made a joint statement.
Democracy allows for further consideration once the first vote has been enacted. Otherwise it is simply Oligarchy.
It would be a YUGE leap forward for mankind if you were to justify that claim rather than just repeating it. Because democracy means letting the people decide things, and your position is that the people must be prevented at all costs from deciding the most pressing question du jour, which looks paradoxicaI to me.
I have pointed you to the fact that ancient Athens, a rather effective direct democracy, was happy to vote on the same substantive issue on two consecutive days.
So what, actually, is your *reasoned* case?
The reasoned case is that the sovereign people gave an instruction. (“Leave the EU”)
The Executive have negotiated a deal. People may not like the deal but the Executive has done its job
The Legislature has taken it upon itself to prevent the executive doing its job and to frustrate the decision of the sovereign authority.
If this was the established constitutional process then it would be an incredibly terrible process: The point of the sovereign people giving an instruction is so they can get what they want, so it's all gone horribly wrong if they don't want what they get when they get it.
But it's not an established constitutional process, it's something David Cameron pulled out if his arse, and fortunately in the British constitution parliament isn't bound by the brainfarts of failed former prime ministers.
Amazing it took three years to identify the basis for a compromise and realise Brexit was not fought (entirely) on party lines.
Well, we'll see. The weekends have typically been the part of the Brexit cycle for optimism, before hopes are dashed in the midweek. Merits of a deal are secondary to how people think the politics of one would play out - will enough people on both sides see the benefit to themselves in any proposal?
If that is the case then that is a very good result.
Edit: My big concern is that May has history of making statements about agreements that turn out to be false. I would have been far more comfortable that this was real if Corbyn and May had made a joint statement.
If it is ‘a’ customs union Agreement will we still get access to the existing EU trade deals with third parties
If that is the case then that is a very good result.
Edit: My big concern is that May has history of making statements about agreements that turn out to be false. I would have been far more comfortable that this was real if Corbyn and May had made a joint statement.
It's a pretty vague statement that doesn't really say much yet. I think we need to wait for some more of the nitty gritty.
If that is the case then that is a very good result.
Edit: My big concern is that May has history of making statements about agreements that turn out to be false. I would have been far more comfortable that this was real if Corbyn and May had made a joint statement.
Good point. Without Corbyn's approval it isn't an agreement. Given May's previous form it is probably a cack-handed attempt to bounce him into something which will make him even more determined not to agree when he sees it on the telly along with everyone else.
If that is the case then that is a very good result.
Edit: My big concern is that May has history of making statements about agreements that turn out to be false. I would have been far more comfortable that this was real if Corbyn and May had made a joint statement.
Ha, indeed. I'm also concerned that this is supposedly (we'll see what Labour say) the 'basis' for a compromise, which leads me to think questions of process have not yet been settled even if Labour agree this as a basis.
Given the misuse of words like comfirmatory who knows what they all think the words they say mean.
If that is the case then that is a very good result.
Edit: My big concern is that May has history of making statements about agreements that turn out to be false. I would have been far more comfortable that this was real if Corbyn and May had made a joint statement.
If it is ‘a’ customs union Agreement will we still get access to the existing EU trade deals with third parties
I have no idea. Turkey don't but I assume it would depend entirely on the nature of the deal worked out. I would be surprised if the EU agreed to that as it would be a huge concession on their part. But all along they have played things with a straight bat and shown far more reasonable behaviour than the UK side so there must be some hope.
Amazing it took three years to identify the basis for a compromise and realise Brexit was not fought (entirely) on party lines.
Well, we'll see. The weekends have typically been the part of the Brexit cycle for optimism, before hopes are dashed in the midweek. Merits of a deal are secondary to how people think the politics of one would play out - will enough people on both sides see the benefit to themselves in any proposal?
If this is true and leads to a breakthrough this week, ERG DUP and remainers will be furious but we leave and the bonus for ERG is that TM will almost certainly trigger an election for her succession
No my position is clear and always has been. If you ask a question of the electorate and then do not act according to their direction then it is not democracy.
So not bringing in an Australian-style points system for EU citizens would be undemocratic?
Nope because that wasnt the question on the ballot paper. The question was Remain or Leave. As such anything that meant we were no longer legally a member of the EU would fulfill the mandate. Of course you know tnis as you have asked the same question in different forms many times before and always got the same snswer. I do worry about your mental state sometimes. It seems your memory is failing badly.
You can't resort to arguments like "read the small print" without also acknowledging that the referendum was advisory and did not constitute a mandate for anything in particular.
It would be an interesting court case
The law says it is advisory but you get into reasonable expectations territory - “the man on the Clapham Omnibus” would have believe the statement of both campaigns that the result would have been implemented
But the man on the Clapham omnibus also had the reasonable expectation that those advocating leave had a clear view of what they wanted and the means of achieving it. The leave vote would have been decimated if those campaigning for it had made a full and frank disclosure about their being a collection of lying, cretinous wankers.
If that is the case then that is a very good result.
Edit: My big concern is that May has history of making statements about agreements that turn out to be false. I would have been far more comfortable that this was real if Corbyn and May had made a joint statement.
It's a pretty vague statement that doesn't really say much yet. I think we need to wait for some more of the nitty gritty.
Indeed.
Sadly, on the basis of earlier promising May statements it will shortly be followed by denials from those who are supposed to have agreed, pressure from cabinet, and a return to ‘nothing has chnaged’
If that is the case then that is a very good result.
Edit: My big concern is that May has history of making statements about agreements that turn out to be false. I would have been far more comfortable that this was real if Corbyn and May had made a joint statement.
Good point. Without Corbyn's approval it isn't an agreement. Given May's previous form it is probably a cack-handed attempt to bounce him into something which will make him even more determined not to agree when he sees it on the telly along with everyone else.
Or trying to bounce the EU into a short extension - "look, Corbyn and I agree, so we don't need a long extension here"?
No my position is clear and always has been. If you ask a question of the electorate and then do not act according to their direction then it is not democracy.
So not bringing in an Australian-style points system for EU citizens would be undemocratic?
Nope because that wasnt the question on the ballot paper. The question was Remain or Leave. As such anything that meant we were no longer legally a member of the EU would fulfill the mandate. Of course you know tnis as you have asked the same question in different forms many times before and always got the same snswer. I do worry about your mental state sometimes. It seems your memory is failing badly.
You can't resort to arguments like "read the small print" without also acknowledging that the referendum was advisory and did not constitute a mandate for anything in particular.
It would be an interesting court case
The law says it is advisory but you get into reasonable expectations territory - “the man on the Clapham Omnibus” would have believe the statement of both campaigns that the result would have been implemented
But the man on the Clapham omnibus also had the reasonable expectation that those advocating leave had a clear view of what they wanted and the means of achieving it. The leave vote would have been decimated if those campaigning for it had made a full and frank disclosure about their being a collection of lying, cretinous wankers.
It makes me wonder how many more people will have drawn similar conclusions? I'm given to understand that the by-election turnout on Thursday wasn't so bad, so perhaps I'm the only one? It's quite possible that, in a few years' time, everything will have gone back to how it was and all that has transpired between 2016 and now will be naught but an increasingly distant, half-remembered nightmare. Whatever. It's just a spectator sport, after all.
Very much from previous thread, but I rarely post so when I see something good, by the time I've got around to commenting it can be hours or days later.
I'd very much agree with Black Rook's comments from this morning. If we end up Remaining, even via a second referendum, it will show the lie that voting makes any real sort of difference.
It's a bit like 'Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition'. You can have any policy you like, but you support the Monarchy no matter what. Well, it'll be you can any position you like on foreign affairs, but you support staying in the EU no matter what.
My wife voted Remain, and is still a very much staunch Remain supporter. She says those who voted Leave were thick idiots who didn't know what they were voting for. She also, when pushed about what she would do about the referendum result just says, "Ignore it. It was silly, so ignore it."
I agree that economically, staying in the EU was always the best option for the UK (well, at least in the short to medium term - who really knows in the long term) but I doubted politically and democratically it was, hence a vote for Leave from me. I don't know where we are going to go from here, but if I had to guess I suspect by the end of the week we'll agree a year long extension.... which will then turn into the Outlawries bill each year. The UK, a member permanently under the A50 process to leave but never actually does so.
Staunch remainers will no doubt be cock-a-hoop about any outcome that delivers Remain after all, but I suspect a lot of the population will, quietly and slightly worriedly, realise that the UK has lost something about itself the day this happens.
There are no good outcomes this week, which now boil down to Revoke and remain; extend (and pretend); take the Deal or No Deal exit, but of the four the 'best' option would be to take the Deal. As we should have done in December.
If that is the case then that is a very good result.
Edit: My big concern is that May has history of making statements about agreements that turn out to be false. I would have been far more comfortable that this was real if Corbyn and May had made a joint statement.
Good point. Without Corbyn's approval it isn't an agreement. Given May's previous form it is probably a cack-handed attempt to bounce him into something which will make him even more determined not to agree when he sees it on the telly along with everyone else.
Yes. And let's not forget he's already being subjected to public bounce attempts from his own party.
If this is another attempt from the government to try to shift blame onto Labour for things, rather than actually something that was discussed as a possibility, then we'll see a bullish statement from Labour shortly I am sure.
In May 2009 Conservatives had 13-22% lead in the polls which pointed to a clear Majority in 2010.
Con win by 7% and Hung parliament
There were 44 polls in May 2014. 93% had Labour ahead.
Conservative majority in May 2015 with a 6 winning point margin
In 2015 there were 69 opinion polls on Brexit. 86% of them had Remain winning, with an average margin of 8%...
Leave win by 4%
From Jan 2017 until she announced the GE in April that year, Theresa May’s Tories had an average poll lead of 15% which pointed toward a landslide.
Result was a 2.5% win, majority lost & supply & confidence with the DUP
Long term hypothetical Opinion polls have an incredible record at being at odds with the eventual result, yet are now being used as evidence that public opinion on Brexit has turned so much that the whole thing should be run again.
No my position is clear and always has been. If you ask a question of the electorate and then do not act according to their direction then it is not democracy.
So not bringing in an Australian-style points system for EU citizens would be undemocratic?
Nope because that wasnt the question on the ballot paper. The question was Remain or Leave. As such anything that meant we were no longer legally a member of the EU would fulfill the mandate. Of course you know tnis as you have asked the same question in different forms many times before and always got the same snswer. I do worry about your mental state sometimes. It seems your memory is failing badly.
You can't resort to arguments like "read the small print" without also acknowledging that the referendum was advisory and did not constitute a mandate for anything in particular.
It would be an interesting court case
The law says it is advisory but you get into reasonable expectations territory - “the man on the Clapham Omnibus” would have believe the statement of both campaigns that the result would have been implemented
But the man on the Clapham omnibus also had the reasonable expectation that those advocating leave had a clear view of what they wanted and the means of achieving it. The leave vote would have been decimated if those campaigning for it had made a full and frank disclosure about their being a collection of lying, cretinous wankers.
To be fair, those advocating Leave have never had the chance to implement the kind of Leave that they wanted. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor were both on the Remain side. While Leavers have had prominent positions in Cabinet, the vision of Leave that the Government has tried to implement was that of the PM constrained, especially after the GE, by what the Chancellor permitted.
Amazing it took three years to identify the basis for a compromise and realise Brexit was not fought (entirely) on party lines.
Well, we'll see. The weekends have typically been the part of the Brexit cycle for optimism, before hopes are dashed in the midweek. Merits of a deal are secondary to how people think the politics of one would play out - will enough people on both sides see the benefit to themselves in any proposal?
If this is true and leads to a breakthrough this week, ERG DUP and remainers will be furious but we leave and the bonus for ERG is that TM will almost certainly trigger an election for her succession
Staunch remainers will no doubt be cock-a-hoop about any outcome that delivers Remain after all, but I suspect a lot of the population will, quietly and slightly worriedly, realise that the UK has lost something about itself the day this happens.
It already lost it, it doesn't matter whether we remain or leave now, that damage has already been done.
In May 2009 Conservatives had 13-22% lead in the polls which pointed to a clear Majority in 2010.
Con win by 7% and Hung parliament
There were 44 polls in May 2014. 93% had Labour ahead.
Conservative majority in May 2015 with a 6 winning point margin
In 2015 there were 69 opinion polls on Brexit. 86% of them had Remain winning, with an average margin of 8%...
Leave win by 4%
From Jan 2017 until she announced the GE in April that year, Theresa May’s Tories had an average poll lead of 15% which pointed toward a landslide.
Result was a 2.5% win, majority lost & supply & confidence with the DUP
Long term hypothetical Opinion polls have an incredible record at being at odds with the eventual result, yet are now being used as evidence that public opinion on Brexit has turned so much that the whole thing should be run again.
While I do suspect opinion has turned I do think it is a fair point, and I do wonder, for instance, what the polls would show for, say, Remain, 2 months from now if we do leave by then.
In May 2009 Conservatives had 13-22% lead in the polls which pointed to a clear Majority in 2010.
Con win by 7% and Hung parliament
There were 44 polls in May 2014. 93% had Labour ahead.
Conservative majority in May 2015 with a 6 winning point margin
In 2015 there were 69 opinion polls on Brexit. 86% of them had Remain winning, with an average margin of 8%...
Leave win by 4%
From Jan 2017 until she announced the GE in April that year, Theresa May’s Tories had an average poll lead of 15% which pointed toward a landslide.
Result was a 2.5% win, majority lost & supply & confidence with the DUP
Long term hypothetical Opinion polls have an incredible record at being at odds with the eventual result, yet are now being used as evidence that public opinion on Brexit has turned so much that the whole thing should be run again.
Everyone loves the ones that show their side is winning
Amazing it took three years to identify the basis for a compromise and realise Brexit was not fought (entirely) on party lines.
Well, we'll see. The weekends have typically been the part of the Brexit cycle for optimism, before hopes are dashed in the midweek. Merits of a deal are secondary to how people think the politics of one would play out - will enough people on both sides see the benefit to themselves in any proposal?
If this is true and leads to a breakthrough this week, ERG DUP and remainers will be furious but we leave and the bonus for ERG is that TM will almost certainly trigger an election for her succession
For me it would be the best outcome
Why would the DUP be furious?
They're the DUP. And something passing without their being the swing vote for the government would hit their pride probably.
In May 2009 Conservatives had 13-22% lead in the polls which pointed to a clear Majority in 2010.
Con win by 7% and Hung parliament
There were 44 polls in May 2014. 93% had Labour ahead.
Conservative majority in May 2015 with a 6 winning point margin
In 2015 there were 69 opinion polls on Brexit. 86% of them had Remain winning, with an average margin of 8%...
Leave win by 4%
From Jan 2017 until she announced the GE in April that year, Theresa May’s Tories had an average poll lead of 15% which pointed toward a landslide.
Result was a 2.5% win, majority lost & supply & confidence with the DUP
Long term hypothetical Opinion polls have an incredible record at being at odds with the eventual result, yet are now being used as evidence that public opinion on Brexit has turned so much that the whole thing should be run again.
That's a very good point.
But it isn't just opinion polls is it. There are regular demonstrations up and down the country, a million strong one just a few weeks ago. There was a multi-million petition. And everybody is talking about it.
When was the last time Theresa May spoke to anyone on the doorstep?
She’s an active campaigner - knocks on doors most Saturdays. As many of us do, as members of political parties.
I realise even in a busy job there's time for other matters, but is that really the best use of the PM's time right now?
Absolutely yes. It's one of the great features of our democracy.
I don't doubt the PM doing so generally is great, particularly as she still has a constituency to represent - I would like former PMs to stick around in the Commons again, who knows even after a time return to a Cabinet post - but it is specifically because of the current crisis that I questioned it.
"James claimed locals did not want to work in the fields, saying he only had ten applications this year. Of those, eight were offered jobs but only two turned up and they did not last their first week."
In May 2009 Conservatives had 13-22% lead in the polls which pointed to a clear Majority in 2010.
Con win by 7% and Hung parliament
There were 44 polls in May 2014. 93% had Labour ahead.
Conservative majority in May 2015 with a 6 winning point margin
In 2015 there were 69 opinion polls on Brexit. 86% of them had Remain winning, with an average margin of 8%...
Leave win by 4%
From Jan 2017 until she announced the GE in April that year, Theresa May’s Tories had an average poll lead of 15% which pointed toward a landslide.
Result was a 2.5% win, majority lost & supply & confidence with the DUP
Long term hypothetical Opinion polls have an incredible record at being at odds with the eventual result, yet are now being used as evidence that public opinion on Brexit has turned so much that the whole thing should be run again.
Everyone loves the ones that show their side is winning
In May 2009 Conservatives had 13-22% lead in the polls which pointed to a clear Majority in 2010.
Con win by 7% and Hung parliament
There were 44 polls in May 2014. 93% had Labour ahead.
Conservative majority in May 2015 with a 6 winning point margin
In 2015 there were 69 opinion polls on Brexit. 86% of them had Remain winning, with an average margin of 8%...
Leave win by 4%
From Jan 2017 until she announced the GE in April that year, Theresa May’s Tories had an average poll lead of 15% which pointed toward a landslide.
Result was a 2.5% win, majority lost & supply & confidence with the DUP
Long term hypothetical Opinion polls have an incredible record at being at odds with the eventual result, yet are now being used as evidence that public opinion on Brexit has turned so much that the whole thing should be run again.
That's a very good point.
But it isn't just opinion polls is it. There are regular demonstrations up and down the country, a million strong one just a few weeks ago. There was a multi-million petition. And everybody is talking about it.
Anyway, is the timing of this new statement not slightly random? Why late on a Saturday night? Reacting to something in the Sunday papers or trying to change the agenda?
Anyway, is the timing of this new statement not slightly random? Why late on a Saturday night? Reacting to something in the Sunday papers or trying to change the agenda?
Preparing the way for the Sunday AM political shows? Testing the water there to see how much Labour pushback there is?
In May 2009 Conservatives had 13-22% lead in the polls which pointed to a clear Majority in 2010.
Con win by 7% and Hung parliament
There were 44 polls in May 2014. 93% had Labour ahead.
Conservative majority in May 2015 with a 6 winning point margin
In 2015 there were 69 opinion polls on Brexit. 86% of them had Remain winning, with an average margin of 8%...
Leave win by 4%
From Jan 2017 until she announced the GE in April that year, Theresa May’s Tories had an average poll lead of 15% which pointed toward a landslide.
Result was a 2.5% win, majority lost & supply & confidence with the DUP
Long term hypothetical Opinion polls have an incredible record at being at odds with the eventual result, yet are now being used as evidence that public opinion on Brexit has turned so much that the whole thing should be run again.
That's a very good point.
But it isn't just opinion polls is it. There are regular demonstrations up and down the country, a million strong one just a few weeks ago. There was a multi-million petition. And everybody is talking about it.
#fakenews it was emphatically not a million.
Well my estimate was 950,000 - but that is pretty close.
"James claimed locals did not want to work in the fields, saying he only had ten applications this year. Of those, eight were offered jobs but only two turned up and they did not last their first week."
Presumably SeanT was busy.
Full Employment is s bugger. Where’s a labour government when you need one?
Bit if a different to what @bunnco was reporting earlier?
If you mean the UKIP wing then so be it.
“There are no tanks in Baghdad” I think you vastly underestimate the damage this is doing to the Tory base
It may but the party is broader than a hard right grouping
At least 70% of the Tory members would prefer no deal , if they are classed as hard right then your party has an existential problem
We can survive the loss of fair weather supporters like Big G.
I think the only event that could break the party completely would be Revoke sans second referendum. A second referendum that led to Remain would be ugly but manageable.
Such arrogance is beyond belief. I was asked to be a conservative county councillor at the age of 22 but my new business prevented me taking on the role. I actively assisted the party in all the elections in the late 1960s 1970s 1980s and was the personal driver for Lord Wyn Roberts in his campaigns and David Jones in the 2010 GE.
I would suggest I have a record of support for my party that entitles me to some respect
Loyalty implies sticking with someone or something through thick and thin. You have manifestly not done this. You claim entitlement to respect, but label the more Eurosceptic wing of the party ‘UKIP’ or the ‘hard right’. If you want to dish it out, you can take it as well.
Of course, if St Theresa delivers a lovely soft squishy Brexit that (nearly) everyone is ok with, that agreement to leave won't be worth the paper it's been printed on. And nor will the party (bar a few) want to get rid of her. Hey ho.
In May 2009 Conservatives had 13-22% lead in the polls which pointed to a clear Majority in 2010.
Con win by 7% and Hung parliament
There were 44 polls in May 2014. 93% had Labour ahead.
Conservative majority in May 2015 with a 6 winning point margin
In 2015 there were 69 opinion polls on Brexit. 86% of them had Remain winning, with an average margin of 8%...
Leave win by 4%
From Jan 2017 until she announced the GE in April that year, Theresa May’s Tories had an average poll lead of 15% which pointed toward a landslide.
Result was a 2.5% win, majority lost & supply & confidence with the DUP
Long term hypothetical Opinion polls have an incredible record at being at odds with the eventual result, yet are now being used as evidence that public opinion on Brexit has turned so much that the whole thing should be run again.
Public opinion has become more volatile in recent years.
Whether there is support for a second referendum turns on how the pollster asks the question.
Anyway, is the timing of this new statement not slightly random? Why late on a Saturday night? Reacting to something in the Sunday papers or trying to change the agenda?
It might become clear when we see what gets said on the interviews tomorrow - but agree it is a bit weird.
Comments
https://twitter.com/hthjones/status/1114637831773851651?s=21
Cabinet will throw her under the proverbial and then Con leadership contest will be all about what to do with the extension and Brexit more generally.
What have you got against democracy?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexit-revoke-article-50-if-deal-fails-theresa-may-urged-7gd2z3l3r
I am just as angry at those Tory MPs voting against the deal as Grieve et al.
That isn’t the real world of doorstep conversations and ballot boxes.
I would suggest I have a record of support for my party that entitles me to some respect
The Executive have negotiated a deal. People may not like the deal but the Executive has done its job
The Legislature has taken it upon itself to prevent the executive doing its job and to frustrate the decision of the sovereign authority.
TM agrees a customs union style arrangement with labour subject to control of free movement of labour and the WDA is agree and we leave
And anyway if a properly conducted second referendum reverses the first, that is the people reversing the first. And what the people want is what the people want, not what they wanted three years ago. Why do you hate democracy?
We're finally at the point where a referendum would make tactical sense for Leave supporters, but we need them to shift enough to make Tory MPs feel like they can vote for it without upsetting their members. To make that happen, we need to work out how to reassure them that if they win, they will actually get their thing.
Binding binding binding
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/bbcnews
https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/cornish-daffodils-left-rot-lack-2716754?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar
My service to the party over 55 years stands up to your criticsm and anyway I do not have to justify myself to you
The law says it is advisory but you get into reasonable expectations territory - “the man on the Clapham Omnibus” would have believe the statement of both campaigns that the result would have been implemented
Edit: My big concern is that May has history of making statements about agreements that turn out to be false. I would have been far more comfortable that this was real if Corbyn and May had made a joint statement.
Grayling, Adonis, Baker, Francois ....... they're all going to go ballistic.
But it's not an established constitutional process, it's something David Cameron pulled out if his arse, and fortunately in the British constitution parliament isn't bound by the brainfarts of failed former prime ministers.
Well, we'll see. The weekends have typically been the part of the Brexit cycle for optimism, before hopes are dashed in the midweek. Merits of a deal are secondary to how people think the politics of one would play out - will enough people on both sides see the benefit to themselves in any proposal?
Given the misuse of words like comfirmatory who knows what they all think the words they say mean.
For me it would be the best outcome
Sadly, on the basis of earlier promising May statements it will shortly be followed by denials from those who are supposed to have agreed, pressure from cabinet, and a return to ‘nothing has chnaged’
I’ve suggested to you before that it might be a good idea. You might realise how niche your views on Europe are
I'd very much agree with Black Rook's comments from this morning. If we end up Remaining, even via a second referendum, it will show the lie that voting makes any real sort of difference.
It's a bit like 'Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition'. You can have any policy you like, but you support the Monarchy no matter what. Well, it'll be you can any position you like on foreign affairs, but you support staying in the EU no matter what.
My wife voted Remain, and is still a very much staunch Remain supporter. She says those who voted Leave were thick idiots who didn't know what they were voting for. She also, when pushed about what she would do about the referendum result just says, "Ignore it. It was silly, so ignore it."
I agree that economically, staying in the EU was always the best option for the UK (well, at least in the short to medium term - who really knows in the long term) but I doubted politically and democratically it was, hence a vote for Leave from me. I don't know where we are going to go from here, but if I had to guess I suspect by the end of the week we'll agree a year long extension.... which will then turn into the Outlawries bill each year. The UK, a member permanently under the A50 process to leave but never actually does so.
Staunch remainers will no doubt be cock-a-hoop about any outcome that delivers Remain after all, but I suspect a lot of the population will, quietly and slightly worriedly, realise that the UK has lost something about itself the day this happens.
There are no good outcomes this week, which now boil down to Revoke and remain; extend (and pretend); take the Deal or No Deal exit, but of the four the 'best' option would be to take the Deal. As we should have done in December.
If this is another attempt from the government to try to shift blame onto Labour for things, rather than actually something that was discussed as a possibility, then we'll see a bullish statement from Labour shortly I am sure.
Con win by 7% and Hung parliament
There were 44 polls in May 2014. 93% had Labour ahead.
Conservative majority in May 2015 with a 6 winning point margin
In 2015 there were 69 opinion polls on Brexit. 86% of them had Remain winning, with an average margin of 8%...
Leave win by 4%
From Jan 2017 until she announced the GE in April that year, Theresa May’s Tories had an average poll lead of 15% which pointed toward a landslide.
Result was a 2.5% win, majority lost & supply & confidence with the DUP
Long term hypothetical Opinion polls have an incredible record at being at odds with the eventual result, yet are now being used as evidence that public opinion on Brexit has turned so much that the whole thing should be run again.
But it isn't just opinion polls is it. There are regular demonstrations up and down the country, a million strong one just a few weeks ago. There was a multi-million petition. And everybody is talking about it.
Presumably SeanT was busy.
Between now and next friday something has to happen, maybe even TM deal with Corbyn but I wait to hear more detail
I wish everyone a pleasant nights rest
Good night folks
Whether there is support for a second referendum turns on how the pollster asks the question.