But the awkward question that Leavers have no answer for is what is Brexit improving? Because it certainly isn’t helping build a united country, civic structures or improve the nation’s standing.
Hmm, The *process* of Brexit is certainly doing none of those things but I think you are conflating the process with the result. It was always going to be difficult actually to leave the EU even if the vote had been more decisive. So much of the running of the country is bound up in the reality of EU membership (and I don't mean by that the EU was "running the country", just that EU membership and what that entails was a constant factor in many areas of life), that the process of unravelling that was going to take time and be painful. It was also going to meet fierce opposition both from principled opposition and from vested interests who stand to lose (or at the least have to make disruptive adjustments to current practice), all of which has made leaving more difficult than Leavers would have liked (or anticipated).
If we ever do leave then, whatever form that takes, companies, institutions and citizens will adapt to the new reality with varying degrees of speed but the inherent advantages and problems that Britain possess will still be there. From a Leaver's perspective, I would say that we would then be in a position respectively to maximise and tackle those on a national level which is, in my view the best and most democratic way of doing so (though I recognise that other regard multilateralism as the best way).
In short, Leavers take the long view. The long view of remaining, especially after trying unsuccessfully to leave does not seem rosy to me, either internally (given the bitterness it will cause among frustrated leavers) nor externally (our national standing will be much more damaged both within and without the EU if we back down now).
When you stand on a window ledge you shouldn’t jump just because everyone is trying to talk you down.
Leaving the EU was presented by its proponents as easy. And now we’re expected to take their guidance now even its proponents admit it would be hard? I
n the long run we all die. On what time horizon do you expect this mad hobbyhorse to be judged?
I suspect Michael Gove is one of the MPs Oborne knows have changed their minds.
I suspect Cameron's memoirs will be devastating for Gove's reputation.
I think Mrs Gove may have a few mentions too
I doubt we will ever see Cameron's memoirs. He doesn't need the money and it cannot be much fun writing about how everything went bad.
The last page does rather spoil the story. At least with Thatcher and Blair there are significant legacies to look back on in the narrative and the struggle to achieve them offers a potentially interesting read, even as we see the poll tax and Iraq respectively starting to loom.
What does Cameron have as a legacy? Apart from the obvious. The only potentially interesting thing about his book would be his inside track on making the coalition work.
One legacy will be the knowledge that we can have competent, sane government in hard times. As it looks like we're heading towards either a hard right Boris / Jacob Rees Worm or hard left anti-Semitic Corbynite government, that would be an important message to keep.
The Remainers will have very successfully poisoned the well so that even when the EU proves to be the nightmare we have claimed, the memory of this last 3 years will stop anyone wanting to repeat it.
Unbelievable. It's like the Iraq War. They never, ever take responsibility for anything. Brexit is a massive shitshow full of bullshit and internal contradictions, and it's somehow the fault of the people who predicted this for somehow "poisoning the well".
Nope it is very believable. Look at the poll on the front page of tomorrow's Times. 54% of respondents would now prefer a 'strong leader who breaks the rules' over our current Parliamentary democracy. As I have warned all along, if Parliamentarians scorn the views and votes of the public then eventually the public will decide they are no longer fit for purpose. My only surprise is how quickly it has hsppened. By trying to thwart Brexit, Parliament have broken democracy.
Even if this is true, and you're right that it's the fault of remainer MPs and nothing to do with the parliamentary brexit enthusiasts who consider your preferred form of brexit a betrayal and a non-brexit, how would that stop you doing brexit under your hypothetical strong leader?
As we're increasingly seeing with leavers, it's all someone else's fault. It's never their fault.
The project should have worked. If it hasn't, then it's not the project's fault, but those who are implementing it. The project is perfect.
But the awkward question that Leavers have no answer for is what is Brexit improving? Because it certainly isn’t helping build a united country, civic structures or improve the nation’s standing.
Hmm, The *process* of Brexit is certainly doing none of those things but I think you are conflating the process with the result. It was always going to be difficult actually to leave the EU even if the vote had been more decisive. So much of the running of the country is bound up in the reality of EU membership (and I don't mean by that the EU was "running the country", just that EU membership and what that entails was a constant factor in many areas of life), that the process of unravelling that was going to take time and be painful. It was also going to meet fierce opposition both from principled opposition and from vested interests who stand to lose (or at the least have to make disruptive adjustments to current practice), all of which has made leaving more difficult than Leavers would have liked (or anticipated).
If we ever do leave then, whatever form that takes, companies, institutions and citizens will adapt to the new reality with varying degrees of speed but the inherent advantages and problems that Britain possess will still be there. From a Leaver's perspective, I would say that we would then be in a position respectively to maximise and tackle those on a national level which is, in my view the best and most democratic way of doing so (though I recognise that other regard multilateralism as the best way).
In short, Leavers take the long view. The long view of remaining, especially after trying unsuccessfully to leave does not seem rosy to me, either internally (given the bitterness it will cause among frustrated leavers) nor externally (our national standing will be much more damaged both within and without the EU if we back down now).
When you stand on a window ledge you shouldn’t jump just because everyone is trying to talk you down.
Leaving the EU was presented by its proponents as easy. And now we’re expected to take their guidance now even its proponents admit it would be hard? I
n the long run we all die. On what time horizon do you expect this mad hobbyhorse to be judged?
And where does this rosy view of our democracy come from, anyway? Half our Parliament isn't elected at all and got there in various unwholesome ways. And the system we use to elect the other half provides the majority of its occupants with safe jobs for life whilst excluding the majority of the population from any meaningful electoral participation.
Something needed to be done. I'm not one of those who is fighting for the right of 3-year-olds to watch porn.
As an example, just yesterday my son was watching a Dr. Binocs (*) show on YouTube. In the middle of this childrens' program, it put a couple of online casino adverts. That would not be allowable on broadcast TV.
There have been worse as well: watching cartoons and the next suggestion for a video is something (ahem) not age-appropriate. So much so that disabling autoplay of next video is a rather good idea.
Then there are the scum who are putting age-inappropriate content embedded within videos aimed at children.
(*) Dr. Binocs is an animated program for children about science - not as good as Science Max, but good.
But the awkward question that Leavers have no answer for is what is Brexit improving? Because it certainly isn’t helping build a united country, civic structures or improve the nation’s standing.
Hmm, The *process* of Brexit is certainly doing none of those things but I think you are conflating the process with the result. It was always going to be difficult actually to leave the EU even if the vote had been more decisive. So much of the running of the country is bound up in the reality of EU membership (and I don't mean by that the EU was "running the country", just that EU membership and what that entails was a constant factor in many areas of life), that the process of unravelling that was going to take time and be painful. It was also going to meet fierce opposition both from principled opposition and from vested interests who stand to lose (or at the least have to make disruptive adjustments to current practice), all of which has made leaving more difficult than Leavers would have liked (or anticipated).
If we ever do leave then, whatever form that takes, companies, institutions and citizens will adapt to the new reality with varying degrees of speed but the inherent advantages and problems that Britain possess will still be there. From a Leaver's perspective, I would say that we would then be in a position respectively to maximise and tackle those on a national level which is, in my view the best and most democratic way of doing so (though I recognise that other regard multilateralism as the best way).
In short, Leavers take the long view. The long view of remaining, especially after trying unsuccessfully to leave does not seem rosy to me, either internally (given the bitterness it will cause among frustrated leavers) nor externally (our national standing will be much more damaged both within and without the EU if we back down now).
When you stand on a window ledge you shouldn’t jump just because everyone is trying to talk you down.
Leaving the EU was presented by its proponents as easy. And now we’re expected to take their guidance now even its proponents admit it would be hard? I
n the long run we all die. On what time horizon do you expect this mad hobbyhorse to be judged?
And where does this rosy view of our democracy come from, anyway? Half our Parliament isn't elected at all and got there in various unwholesome ways. And the system we use to elect the other half provides the majority of its occupants with safe jobs for life whilst excluding the majority of the population from any meaningful electoral participation.
On the Brexiteers view our Parliament isn't elected at all, because more members are not elected than are.
I read his article with interest, but I don't think the economic doom that was predicted has in fact materialised. Nor has Brexit provided a boost to Scottish nationalism.
The points about hyperbolic language and the GFA are reasonable ones.
I agree. Oborne to me had gone from one hysteria to another. First of all Brexit was going to solve all problems known to man, now it is going to be a total disaster. Neither is correct.
What he is right to point out is that the "shrill" nonsense from the ERG in particular has been massively overstated, delusional and, frankly, lunatic. The idea that it was a compromise of the idea of leaving the EU's political structures to have a trading relationship involving some rules with our largest customers and suppliers was and is idiotic. This is why sensible leavers have been supporting May's deal for months and are willing to compromise further, if necessary, to achieve a sustainable Brexit.
The alternatives are not the UK isolated and alone trying to survive in hostile seas or some form of vassal state. The sensible choice is having a close working relationship with the EU, looking to piggy back on their current deals that we took a part in making, seeking to do as little as possible to disrupt current trade patterns but to leave the political structures of the EU.
It will not be a triumph, it will not solve all our problems, it will not be a disaster. We just need to be pragmatic about it.
I read his article with interest, but I don't think the economic doom that was predicted has in fact materialised. Nor has Brexit provided a boost to Scottish nationalism.
The points about hyperbolic language and the GFA are reasonable ones.
I agree. Oborne to me had gone from one hysteria to another. First of all Brexit was going to solve all problems known to man, now it is going to be a total disaster. Neither is correct.
What he is right to point out is that the "shrill" nonsense from the ERG in particular has been massively overstated, delusional and, frankly, lunatic. The idea that it was a compromise of the idea of leaving the EU's political structures to have a trading relationship involving some rules with our largest customers and suppliers was and is idiotic. This is why sensible leavers have been supporting May's deal for months and are willing to compromise further, if necessary, to achieve a sustainable Brexit.
The alternatives are not the UK isolated and alone trying to survive in hostile seas or some form of vassal state. The sensible choice is having a close working relationship with the EU, looking to piggy back on their current deals that we took a part in making, seeking to do as little as possible to disrupt current trade patterns but to leave the political structures of the EU.
It will not be a triumph, it will not solve all our problems, it will not be a disaster. We just need to be pragmatic about it.
"sensible leavers" should have been having these arguments with the idiotic ones before the referendum, not after. But then they wouldn't have won.
One wonders where the hell Oborne has been all these years frankly. This stuff seems 101 to me, like, e.g., my god, I had no idea, but it seems the workers of the NE will lose out.
And that's why you've been expecting imminent economic disaster for the last 33 months.
Yet the real world hasn't obliged.
The economy's 3% smaller than it would have been and your money is worth 20% less, and it hasn't even happened yet.
It's implausible to argue that economic growth would have jumped to 3% p.a., had we voted to Remain.
Its rather amazing that they can make such claims when much of Europe is struggling economically.
And any such level of growth in the UK would likely have seen an inflationary bubble, balance of payments crisis and significant interest rate rises.
Something needed to be done. I'm not one of those who is fighting for the right of 3-year-olds to watch porn.
As an example, just yesterday my son was watching a Dr. Binocs (*) show on YouTube. In the middle of this childrens' program, it put a couple of online casino adverts. That would not be allowable on broadcast TV.
There have been worse as well: watching cartoons and the next suggestion for a video is something (ahem) not age-appropriate. So much so that disabling autoplay of next video is a rather good idea.
Then there are the scum who are putting age-inappropriate content embedded within videos aimed at children.
(*) Dr. Binocs is an animated program for children about science - not as good as Science Max, but good.
I met Bill Nye the other day. (For real.)
It was at a party, and he asked if I could pass him a Coke. So I reached over, opened a can, and poured it into a glass for him.
I passed it to him, and said:
"Would you like any Menthos with that?"
He'd probably heard the joke 100 times. But he laughed, and explained that he always did the Coke and Menthos thing with Diet Coke, because regular Coke just resulted in lots of horrible sticky residue.
True story.
I have a selfie shot of the two of us. (I'm shallow like that.)
One wonders where the hell Oborne has been all these years frankly. This stuff seems 101 to me, like, e.g., my god, I had no idea, but it seems the workers of the NE will lose out.
And that's why you've been expecting imminent economic disaster for the last 33 months.
Yet the real world hasn't obliged.
The economy's 3% smaller than it would have been and your money is worth 20% less, and it hasn't even happened yet.
It's implausible to argue that economic growth would have jumped to 3% p.a., had we voted to Remain.
Its rather amazing that they can make such claims when much of Europe is struggling economically.
And any such level of growth in the UK would likely have seen an inflationary bubble, balance of payments crisis and significant interest rate rises.
Don’t forget Europe is still printing money
That depends on how you count it.
They are rolling over existing QE (i.e. when they are repaid on a bond they'd bought, they buy a new one). But are not a net buyer of bonds.
those on a national level which is, in my view the best and most democratic way of doing so (though I recognise that other regard multilateralism as the best way).
In short, Leavers take the long view. The long view of remaining, especially after trying unsuccessfully to leave does not seem rosy to me, either internally (given the bitterness it will cause among frustrated leavers) nor externally (our national standing will be much more damaged both within and without the EU if we back down now).
And where does this rosy view of our democracy come from, anyway? Half our Parliament isn't elected at all and got there in various unwholesome ways. And the system we use to elect the other half provides the majority of its occupants with safe jobs for life whilst excluding the majority of the population from any meaningful electoral participation.
That is rather back to front. We could be a direct democracy if we wanted to be (at least we could have a referendum about it!) But we don't because direct democracy is a really bad idea and degenerates into government by demagogue - imagine Nigel Farage campaigning in, lets say, a referendum on reintroducing the death penalty. It's notable that there is in fact no campaign for direct democracy going on and that both sides of the EU debate are strongly opposed to it. Remainers want one more referendum to reverse this one, and the leavers want no more ever and become more and more comical with every day that passes in their insistence that the most undemocratic thing in the world would be to hold another one.
Direct democracy really, really sucks, and the bugs you diagnose in our current system are actually features, which is why the leaver Did Magna Carta die in vain shtick is so ridiculous.
I read his article with interest, but I don't think the economic doom that was predicted has in fact materialised. Nor has Brexit provided a boost to Scottish nationalism.
The points about hyperbolic language and the GFA are reasonable ones.
I agree. Oborne to me had gone from one hysteria to another. First of all Brexit was going to solve all problems known to man, now it is going to be a total disaster. Neither is correct.
What he is right to point out is that the "shrill" nonsense from the ERG in particular has been massively overstated, delusional and, frankly, lunatic. The idea that it was a compromise of the idea of leaving the EU's political structures to have a trading relationship involving some rules with our largest customers and suppliers was and is idiotic. This is why sensible leavers have been supporting May's deal for months and are willing to compromise further, if necessary, to achieve a sustainable Brexit.
The alternatives are not the UK isolated and alone trying to survive in hostile seas or some form of vassal state. The sensible choice is having a close working relationship with the EU, looking to piggy back on their current deals that we took a part in making, seeking to do as little as possible to disrupt current trade patterns but to leave the political structures of the EU.
It will not be a triumph, it will not solve all our problems, it will not be a disaster. We just need to be pragmatic about it.
Well, yes.
But right now, we're heading towards either Revoke or No Deal - both of which will have severe negative consequences for the UK.
I read his article with interest, but I don't think the economic doom that was predicted has in fact materialised. Nor has Brexit provided a boost to Scottish nationalism.
The points about hyperbolic language and the GFA are reasonable ones.
I agree. Oborne to me had gone from one hysteria to another. First of all Brexit was going to solve all problems known to man, now it is going to be a total disaster. Neither is correct.
What he is right to point out is that the "shrill" nonsense from the ERG in particular has been massively overstated, delusional and, frankly, lunatic. The idea that it was a compromise of the idea of leaving the EU's political structures to have a trading relationship involving some rules with our largest customers and suppliers was and is idiotic. This is why sensible leavers have been supporting May's deal for months and are willing to compromise further, if necessary, to achieve a sustainable Brexit.
The alternatives are not the UK isolated and alone trying to survive in hostile seas or some form of vassal state. The sensible choice is having a close working relationship with the EU, looking to piggy back on their current deals that we took a part in making, seeking to do as little as possible to disrupt current trade patterns but to leave the political structures of the EU.
It will not be a triumph, it will not solve all our problems, it will not be a disaster. We just need to be pragmatic about it.
"sensible leavers" should have been having these arguments with the idiotic ones before the referendum, not after. But then they wouldn't have won.
Possibly they should have but they were too busy laughing at those that claimed a leave vote would cause an immediate recession. There was a lot of hyperbole on both sides. It's why I am not wanting to see any more referendums for a while.
those on a national level which is, in my view the best and most democratic way of doing so (though I recognise that other regard multilateralism as the best way).
In short, Leavers take the long view. The long view of remaining, especially after trying unsuccessfully to leave does not seem rosy to me, either internally (given the bitterness it will cause among frustrated leavers) nor externally (our national standing will be much more damaged both within and without the EU if we back down now).
And where does this rosy view of our democracy come from, anyway? Half our Parliament isn't elected at all and got there in various unwholesome ways. And the system we use to elect the other half provides the majority of its occupants with safe jobs for life whilst excluding the majority of the population from any meaningful electoral participation.
That is rather back to front. We could be a direct democracy if we wanted to be (at least we could have a referendum about it!) But we don't because direct democracy is a really bad idea and degenerates into government by demagogue - imagine Nigel Farage campaigning in, lets say, a referendum on reintroducing the death penalty. It's notable that there is in fact no campaign for direct democracy going on and that both sides of the EU debate are strongly opposed to it. Remainers want one more referendum to reverse this one, and the leavers want no more ever and become more and more comical with every day that passes in their insistence that the most undemocratic thing in the world would be to hold another one.
Direct democracy really, really sucks, and the bugs you diagnose in our current system are actually features, which is why the leaver Did Magna Carta die in vain shtick is so ridiculous.
those on a national level which is, in my view the best and most democratic way of doing so (though I recognise that other regard multilateralism as the best way).
In short, Leavers take the long view. The long view of remaining, especially after trying unsuccessfully to leave does not seem rosy to me, either internally (given the bitterness it will cause among frustrated leavers) nor externally (our national standing will be much more damaged both within and without the EU if we back down now).
And where does this rosy view of our democracy come from, anyway? Half our Parliament isn't elected at all and got there in various unwholesome ways. And the system we use to elect the other half provides the majority of its occupants with safe jobs for life whilst excluding the majority of the population from any meaningful electoral participation.
That is rather back to front. We could be a direct democracy if we wanted to be (at least we could have a referendum about it!) But we don't because direct democracy is a really bad idea and degenerates into government by demagogue - imagine Nigel Farage campaigning in, lets say, a referendum on reintroducing the death penalty. It's notable that there is in fact no campaign for direct democracy going on and that both sides of the EU debate are strongly opposed to it. Remainers want one more referendum to reverse this one, and the leavers want no more ever and become more and more comical with every day that passes in their insistence that the most undemocratic thing in the world would be to hold another one.
Direct democracy really, really sucks, and the bugs you diagnose in our current system are actually features, which is why the leaver Did Magna Carta die in vain shtick is so ridiculous.
We don't need to go that far. Just a system where people feel properly represented would be a start. And where politicians campaigned in the whole country rather than ignoring the vast majority of it.
Interesting Oborne says the main beneficiaries from Brexit will be financial speculators and the far left and the biggest losers working class people in manufacturing areas, while also pointing out the threat to the Union.
'Indirectly we will all be disadvantaged. The biggest and immediate losers, however, will be working-class people from England’s north-east, who are widely said to support Brexit. Some of them currently enjoy relatively well-paid and secure jobs thanks to foreign investment. A lot of those jobs will slowly vanish
I can’t help noticing that those most vocal in advocating Brexit are two opposing camps. On the one hand traders in financial assets – in particular hedge-fund managers – relish the speculative opportunities created by Brexit volatility. The city state of Singapore is held up as one economic model. The United States is another. I cannot see that there is any popular desire for us to follow the business and employment cultures of such countries.
On the other side we have the far Left, which wants out of the European Union for the exact opposite reason. The Left sees the EU as a capitalist conspiracy because of the protections it offers for private property and the restraints against centralised economic power, in particular state aid. A very substantial faction around Jeremy Corbyn, including former members of the Communist Party, is looking forward to British departure from the EU because they rightly see that the EU prevents the imposition of socialism.
When hedge-fund managers and the Communist Party see eye-to-eye on any question, it’s time to be concerned.
If Brexiteers are clear-eyed about the economic consequences of Brexit, a further question arises. Do they really think that the economic disruption that lies ahead – along with the serious threat to our own union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – is worth it'
One wonders where the hell Oborne has been all these years frankly. This stuff seems 101 to me, like, e.g., my god, I had no idea, but it seems the workers of the NE will lose out.
And that's why you've been expecting imminent economic disaster for the last 33 months.
Yet the real world hasn't obliged.
The economy's 3% smaller than it would have been and your money is worth 20% less, and it hasn't even happened yet.
It's implausible to argue that economic growth would have jumped to 3% p.a., had we voted to Remain.
Isn’t our economy growing faster than France and Germany?
I read his article with interest, but I don't think the economic doom that was predicted has in fact materialised. Nor has Brexit provided a boost to Scottish nationalism.
The points about hyperbolic language and the GFA are reasonable ones.
I agree. Oborne to me had gone from one hysteria to another. First of all Brexit was going to solve all problems known to man, now it is going to be a total disaster. Neither is correct.
What he is right to point out is that the "shrill" nonsense from the ERG in particular has been massively overstated, delusional and, frankly, lunatic. The idea that it was a compromise of the idea of leaving the EU's political structures to have a trading relationship involving some rules with our largest customers and suppliers was and is idiotic. This is why sensible leavers have been supporting May's deal for months and are willing to compromise further, if necessary, to achieve a sustainable Brexit.
The alternatives are not the UK isolated and alone trying to survive in hostile seas or some form of vassal state. The sensible choice is having a close working relationship with the EU, looking to piggy back on their current deals that we took a part in making, seeking to do as little as possible to disrupt current trade patterns but to leave the political structures of the EU.
It will not be a triumph, it will not solve all our problems, it will not be a disaster. We just need to be pragmatic about it.
Well, yes.
But right now, we're heading towards either Revoke or No Deal - both of which will have severe negative consequences for the UK.
That is why I am so angry with our politicians in general and the ERG in particular. Neither revoke nor no deal are good options. This week is the last chance to choose a sensible alternative. I'm not holding my breath.
Regarding the discussion about movies with dubious premises, may I submit "The Breakfast Club", in which a beautiful proto-Goth (it was the 80's, they were American, one makes allowances) is forced thru peer pressure to dress like a normal person in order to be accepted by the local jock. As opposed to kicking him in the nuts and telling them to fuck off, the bastards. Ally Sheedy. It was that, then "War Games", then a string of forgettable stuff. Oh, no ironic reappraisal, no Tarantino cameo, just a guest spot on "X-Men: Apocalypse" gawdelpus.
Fifteen years later, they pulled off the same stupidity with "The Faculty". Seriously! This was a thing in American movies. Grrrr!
And don't get me started on "Pretty in Pink". Nice poor girl ignores her poor best friend in favour of first one, then the other local rich kid whilst the poor best friend is left alone. Seriously, was it rewritten after previews? The ending doesn't match the rest of the film! Besides, Ducky should have gotten off with Annie Potts, then they could have gone to New York and temp'd for the Ghostbusters. I would have watched the shit out of that film. But oh no, she had to go with James Fucking Spader: hello, I have floppy hair and Daddy bought me a Beemer. Well he's old and fat and bald now, so fuck him. Aaargh!
Pause.
Anyhoo, back with the betting. Brexit, huh? What's that about, eh?
(I think I got away with it: nobody noticed, what a relief... )
The makeover of Ally Sheedy in Breakfast Club, and sellout ending of Pretty in Pink are very dischordant. Both films still quite watcheable and popular despite those Reagan era materialist obsessions. The socio-cultural change of eighties is like the sixties in reverse. The Eighties start with an explosion of individuality and creativity, and finish with the dull corporatism of the neo-liberal capitalists.
those on a national level which is, in my view the best and most democratic way of doing so (though I recognise that other regard multilateralism as the best way).
In short, Leavers take the long view. The long view of remaining, especially after trying unsuccessfully to leave does not seem rosy to me, either internally (given the bitterness it will cause among frustrated leavers) nor externally (our national standing will be much more damaged both within and without the EU if we back down now).
And where does this rosy view of our democracy come from, anyway? Half our Parliament isn't elected at all and got there in various unwholesome ways. And the system we use to elect the other half provides the majority of its occupants with safe jobs for life whilst excluding the majority of the population from any meaningful electoral participation.
That is rather back to front. We could be a direct democracy if we wanted to be (at least we could have a referendum about it!) But we don't because direct democracy is a really bad idea and degenerates into government by demagogue - imagine Nigel Farage campaigning in, lets say, a referendum on reintroducing the death penalty. It's notable that there is in fact no campaign for direct democracy going on and that both sides of the EU debate are strongly opposed to it. Remainers want one more referendum to reverse this one, and the leavers want no more ever and become more and more comical with every day that passes in their insistence that the most undemocratic thing in the world would be to hold another one.
Direct democracy really, really sucks, and the bugs you diagnose in our current system are actually features, which is why the leaver Did Magna Carta die in vain shtick is so ridiculous.
We don't need to go that far. Just a system where people feel properly represented would be a start. And where politicians campaigned in the whole country rather than ignoring the vast majority of it.
What have you done to the quotes?
Yes sorry complete and utter cock up, trying to do this on a phone.
Something needed to be done. I'm not one of those who is fighting for the right of 3-year-olds to watch porn.
As an example, just yesterday my son was watching a Dr. Binocs (*) show on YouTube. In the middle of this childrens' program, it put a couple of online casino adverts. That would not be allowable on broadcast TV.
There have been worse as well: watching cartoons and the next suggestion for a video is something (ahem) not age-appropriate. So much so that disabling autoplay of next video is a rather good idea.
Then there are the scum who are putting age-inappropriate content embedded within videos aimed at children.
(*) Dr. Binocs is an animated program for children about science - not as good as Science Max, but good.
I met Bill Nye the other day. (For real.)
It was at a party, and he asked if I could pass him a Coke. So I reached over, opened a can, and poured it into a glass for him.
I passed it to him, and said:
"Would you like any Menthos with that?"
He'd probably heard the joke 100 times. But he laughed, and explained that he always did the Coke and Menthos thing with Diet Coke, because regular Coke just resulted in lots of horrible sticky residue.
True story.
I have a selfie shot of the two of us. (I'm shallow like that.)
I didn't ask him about Brexit.
That's cool. I heard an interview with Nye recently wrt space (he is the CEO of the planetary society). With all the stuff he has done, he is rather proud of the fact he designed a small part of the Boeing 747!
He comes across as one of those guys who is genuinely nice.
One wonders where the hell Oborne has been all these years frankly. This stuff seems 101 to me, like, e.g., my god, I had no idea, but it seems the workers of the NE will lose out.
And that's why you've been expecting imminent economic disaster for the last 33 months.
Yet the real world hasn't obliged.
The economy's 3% smaller than it would have been and your money is worth 20% less, and it hasn't even happened yet.
It's implausible to argue that economic growth would have jumped to 3% p.a., had we voted to Remain.
Isn’t our economy growing faster than France and Germany?
Germany has slowed to close to zero, so we're beating them. France's economy has accelerated of late, so we've dropped behind them. Q4 numbers are:
Spain 0.6% US 0.6% Netherlands 0.5% Portugal 0.4% France 0.3% Belgium 0.3% UK 0.2% Greece -0.1% Italy -0.1% Germany -0.2%
Interesting Oborne says the main beneficiaries from Brexit will be financial speculators and the far left and the biggest losers working class people in manufacturing areas, while also pointing out the threat to the Union.
'Indirectly we will all be disadvantaged. The biggest and immediate losers, however, will be working-class people from England’s north-east, who are widely said to support Brexit. Some of them currently enjoy relatively well-paid and secure jobs thanks to foreign investment. A lot of those jobs will slowly vanish
I can’t help noticing that those most vocal in advocating Brexit are two opposing camps. On the one hand traders in financial assets – in particular hedge-fund managers – relish the speculative opportunities created by Brexit volatility. The city state of Singapore is held up as one economic model. The United States is another. I cannot see that there is any popular desire for us to follow the business and employment cultures of such countries.
On the other side we have the far Left, which wants out of the European Union for the exact opposite reason. The Left sees the EU as a capitalist conspiracy because of the protections it offers for private property and the restraints against centralised economic power, in particular state aid. A very substantial faction around Jeremy Corbyn, including former members of the Communist Party, is looking forward to British departure from the EU because they rightly see that the EU prevents the imposition of socialism.
If Brexiteers are clear-eyed about the economic consequences of Brexit, a further question arises. Do they really think that the economic disruption that lies ahead – along with the serious threat to our own union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – is worth it'
One wonders where the hell Oborne has been all these years frankly. This stuff seems 101 to me, like, e.g., my god, I had no idea, but it seems the workers of the NE will lose out.
And that's why you've been expecting imminent economic disaster for the last 33 months.
Yet the real world hasn't obliged.
The economy's 3% smaller than it would have been and your money is worth 20% less, and it hasn't even happened yet.
It's implausible to argue that economic growth would have jumped to 3% p.a., had we voted to Remain.
Isn’t our economy growing faster than France and Germany?
Isn't it argued, at least in some quarters, that that growth is due to stockpiling and the negative effects of Brexit?
The Remainers will have very successfully poisoned the well so that even when the EU proves to be the nightmare we have claimed, the memory of this last 3 years will stop anyone wanting to repeat it.
Unbelievable. It's like the Iraq War. They never, ever take responsibility for anything. Brexit is a massive shitshow full of bullshit and internal contradictions, and it's somehow the fault of the people who predicted this for somehow "poisoning the well".
Nope it is very believable. Look at the poll on the front page of tomorrow's Times. 54% of respondents would now prefer a 'strong leader who breaks the rules' over our current Parliamentary democracy. As I have warned all along, if Parliamentarians scorn the views and votes of the public then eventually the public will decide they are no longer fit for purpose. My only surprise is how quickly it has hsppened. By trying to thwart Brexit, Parliament have broken democracy.
Something needed to be done. I'm not one of those who is fighting for the right of 3-year-olds to watch porn.
As an example, just yesterday my son was watching a Dr. Binocs (*) show on YouTube. In the middle of this childrens' program, it put a couple of online casino adverts. That would not be allowable on broadcast TV.
There have been worse as well: watching cartoons and the next suggestion for a video is something (ahem) not age-appropriate. So much so that disabling autoplay of next video is a rather good idea.
Then there are the scum who are putting age-inappropriate content embedded within videos aimed at children.
(*) Dr. Binocs is an animated program for children about science - not as good as Science Max, but good.
I met Bill Nye the other day. (For real.)
It was at a party, and he asked if I could pass him a Coke. So I reached over, opened a can, and poured it into a glass for him.
I passed it to him, and said:
"Would you like any Menthos with that?"
He'd probably heard the joke 100 times. But he laughed, and explained that he always did the Coke and Menthos thing with Diet Coke, because regular Coke just resulted in lots of horrible sticky residue.
True story.
I have a selfie shot of the two of us. (I'm shallow like that.)
I didn't ask him about Brexit.
That's cool. I heard an interview with Nye recently wrt space (he is the CEO of the planetary society). With all the stuff he has done, he is rather proud of the fact he designed a small part of the Boeing 747!
He comes across as one of those guys who is genuinely nice.
But the awkward question that Leavers have no answer for is what is Brexit improving? Because it certainly isn’t helping build a united country, civic structures or improve the nation’s standing.
Hmm, The *process* of Brexit is certainly doing none of those things but I think you are conflating the process with the result. It was always going to be difficult actually to leave the EU even if the vote had been more decisive. So much of the running of the country is bound up in the reality of EU membership (and I don't mean by that the EU was "running the country", just that EU membership and what that entails was a constant factor in many areas of life), that the process of unravelling that was going to take time and be painful. It was also going to meet fierce opposition both from principled opposition and from vested interests who stand to lose (or at the least have to make disruptive adjustments to current practice), all of which has made leaving more difficult than Leavers would have liked (or anticipated).
If we ever do leave then, whatever form that takes, companies, institutions and citizens will adapt to the new reality with varying degrees of speed but the inherent advantages and problems that Britain possess will still be there. From a Leaver's perspective, I would say that we would then be in a position respectively to maximise and tackle those on a national level which is, in my view the best and most democratic way of doing so (though I recognise that other regard multilateralism as the best way).
In short, Leavers take the long view. The long view of remaining, especially after trying unsuccessfully to leave does not seem rosy to me, either internally (given the bitterness it will cause among frustrated leavers) nor externally (our national standing will be much more damaged both within and without the EU if we back down now).
I think we'll be fine if we stay. The Prodigal Son did okay.
those on a national level which is, in my view the best and most democratic way of doing so (though I recognise that other regard multilateralism as the best way).
In short, Leavers take the long view. The long view of remaining, especially after trying unsuccessfully to leave does not seem rosy to me, either internally (given the bitterness it will cause among frustrated leavers) nor externally (our national standing will be much more damaged both within and without the EU if we back down now).
And where does this rosy view of our democracy come from, anyway? Half our Parliament isn't elected at all and got there in various unwholesome ways. And the system we use to elect the other half provides the majority of its occupants with safe jobs for life whilst excluding the majority of the population from any meaningful electoral participation.
That is rather back to front. We could be a direct democracy if we wanted to be (at least we could have a referendum about it!) But we don't because direct democracy is a really bad idea and degenerates into government by demagogue - imagine Nigel Farage campaigning in, lets say, a referendum on reintroducing the death penalty. It's notable that there is in fact no campaign for direct democracy going on and that both sides of the EU debate are strongly opposed to it. Remainers want one more referendum to reverse this one, and the leavers want no more ever and become more and more comical with every day that passes in their insistence that the most undemocratic thing in the world would be to hold another one.
Direct democracy really, really sucks, and the bugs you diagnose in our current system are actually features, which is why the leaver Did Magna Carta die in vain shtick is so ridiculous.
Thank God we're not Switzerland, eh?
Thank God we are not ancient Athens merrily voting for genocide in the Mitylene debate. What suits one country doesn't suit another. Mass gun ownership is fine in Switzerland, less so in the USA
And if we did it Swiss style the result would have been remain anyway, because they would demand a majority in each of the UK nations as well as overall.
One wonders where the hell Oborne has been all these years frankly. This stuff seems 101 to me, like, e.g., my god, I had no idea, but it seems the workers of the NE will lose out.
And that's why you've been expecting imminent economic disaster for the last 33 months.
Yet the real world hasn't obliged.
The economy's 3% smaller than it would have been and your money is worth 20% less, and it hasn't even happened yet.
It's implausible to argue that economic growth would have jumped to 3% p.a., had we voted to Remain.
Isn’t our economy growing faster than France and Germany?
Isn't it argued, at least in some quarters, that that growth is due to stockpiling and the negative effects of Brexit?
There's been about a 0.5-0.6% *annual* boost to GDP from stockpiling, but most of that will have come in 1Q19, not in Q4. It's hard to see how it could have added more than 0.1-0.2% to Q4.
)With all the stuff he has done, he is rather proud of the fact he designed a small part of the Boeing 747!
Sadly in future years software engineers will not be able to say the same about the 737 MAX.
Spouse as they enter a party in Seattle:
'Now remember dear, the reason you haven't been around is the police arrested you for being a Russian agent fixing the 2016 election. You had NOTHING to do with the 737 Max. Got that?'
One wonders where the hell Oborne has been all these years frankly. This stuff seems 101 to me, like, e.g., my god, I had no idea, but it seems the workers of the NE will lose out.
And that's why you've been expecting imminent economic disaster for the last 33 months.
Yet the real world hasn't obliged.
The economy's 3% smaller than it would have been and your money is worth 20% less, and it hasn't even happened yet.
It's implausible to argue that economic growth would have jumped to 3% p.a., had we voted to Remain.
Isn’t our economy growing faster than France and Germany?
Germany has slowed to close to zero, so we're beating them. France's economy has accelerated of late, so we've dropped behind them. Q4 numbers are:
Spain 0.6% US 0.6% Netherlands 0.5% Portugal 0.4% France 0.3% Belgium 0.3% UK 0.2% Greece -0.1% Italy -0.1% Germany -0.2%
If only they'd been some "seer" on PB who told everyone that Spain has reformed and was going to see some incredible economic growth...
Abject apology I have completely screwed the quoting in conversation with IanB2 below and can't unscramble it on a phone. So what looks like me is him in some contexts and vice versa
Abject apology I have completely screwed the quoting in conversation with IanB2 below and can't unscramble it on a phone. So what looks like me is him in some contexts and vice versa
I tried to fix it but made it worse, very topical.
I read his article with interest, but I don't think the economic doom that was predicted has in fact materialised. Nor has Brexit provided a boost to Scottish nationalism.
The points about hyperbolic language and the GFA are reasonable ones.
I agree. Oborne to me had gone from one hysteria to another. First of all Brexit was going to solve all problems known to man, now it is going to be a total disaster. Neither is correct.
Oborne rather does hysteria, which isn't obvious because he writes in a readable, lucid way without obviously extreme language. But like other newspaper pundits (Simon Jenkins is similar in this way), his trade is to write intriguing articles that people quote and discuss, and adopting extreme views on an issue is the way to do that.
Oborne's article on Gove is similar. He starts by saying that he's known him for 20 years and likes him. He then trashes him comprehensively, offering rather slender evidence for his views - I'm nowhere near Gove politically, but it seems to me a hatchet job akin to the Mail holding forth about Corbyn.
We all know that the tabloids live by sensational stories ("Simplify, then exaggerate"). But it's easy to forget that individual commentators often do the same.
What then happens to the desire of those who have spent the last three years arguing for a compromise to account for the divided nation and the large minority who wanted to remain? Will they argue for a new settlement with the EU to account for the divided nation and the small majority who wanted to leave?
What then happens to the desire of those who have spent the last three years arguing for a compromise to account for the divided nation and the large minority who wanted to remain? Will they argue for a new settlement with the EU to account for the divided nation and the small majority who wanted to leave?
Absolutely. There will need to be a new settlement.
The big question is whether Peter Oborne has expressed what lots of Brexiteers are thinking. It's very hard to admit you were seriously, dangerously wrong.
Peter Oborne is a publicity seeker. His history is one of finding a contrary view to what is expected from him so that people will talk about him. Sad in this instance because I agree with him.
The truth is that when this thing resolves itself and we Brexit the leading Brexiteers will start eating themselves as always happens after a revolution. That's now the part i'm looking forward to.
What then happens to the desire of those who have spent the last three years arguing for a compromise to account for the divided nation and the large minority who wanted to remain? Will they argue for a new settlement with the EU to account for the divided nation and the small majority who wanted to leave?
What then happens to the desire of those who have spent the last three years arguing for a compromise to account for the divided nation and the large minority who wanted to remain? Will they argue for a new settlement with the EU to account for the divided nation and the small majority who wanted to leave?
Not sure the common purpose Remainery types have thought that far ahead but if you can sweep a war on a dodgy dossier under the carpet then a referendum shouldn’t be too tough.
The only good thing about Brexit is that it has us watching Parliament more. Hitherto unknown MPs have become household names.
But as far as I can tell, that’s the net add of Brexit. Everything else - the economics, the politics, the impact on society, our global standing, the strength of the union - has taken a lesser or greater hit. Our country is weaker, more divided, and poorer.
Brexit is the Jimmy Savile of policies - it’s abject depravity is hiding in plain sight.
One wonders where the hell Oborne has been all these years frankly. This stuff seems 101 to me, like, e.g., my god, I had no idea, but it seems the workers of the NE will lose out.
And that's why you've been expecting imminent economic disaster for the last 33 months.
Yet the real world hasn't obliged.
The economy's 3% smaller than it would have been and your money is worth 20% less, and it hasn't even happened yet.
It's implausible to argue that economic growth would have jumped to 3% p.a., had we voted to Remain.
Isn’t our economy growing faster than France and Germany?
Germany has slowed to close to zero, so we're beating them. France's economy has accelerated of late, so we've dropped behind them. Q4 numbers are:
Spain 0.6% US 0.6% Netherlands 0.5% Portugal 0.4% France 0.3% Belgium 0.3% UK 0.2% Greece -0.1% Italy -0.1% Germany -0.2%
If only they'd been some "seer" on PB who told everyone that Spain has reformed and was going to see some incredible economic growth...
Lol - were doing OK in Spain but unemployment is still very high, the politics is a mess..., however there is still 'mucho sol'.
What then happens to the desire of those who have spent the last three years arguing for a compromise to account for the divided nation and the large minority who wanted to remain? Will they argue for a new settlement with the EU to account for the divided nation and the small majority who wanted to leave?
They will be issued with a copies of The Iron Heel by Jack London and small strips of tape to put over the words 'Union européenne' on their passports.
The only good thing about Brexit is that it has us watching Parliament more. Hitherto unknown MPs have become household names.
Albeit by revealing why they were obscure.
In what sense is it a 'good' thing to see MPs behaving like three-year-olds? In the sense that we will now cleanse the Augean stables?
I have a sneaking affection for Mark Francois. At least he says what he believes.
Ditto Steve "Brexit Hardman" Baker. I have a lot more respect for those two than elapids like JRM or Boris. At least they have been principled, consistent and honest.
One wonders where the hell Oborne has been all these years frankly. This stuff seems 101 to me, like, e.g., my god, I had no idea, but it seems the workers of the NE will lose out.
And that's why you've been expecting imminent economic disaster for the last 33 months.
Yet the real world hasn't obliged.
The economy's 3% smaller than it would have been and your money is worth 20% less, and it hasn't even happened yet.
It's implausible to argue that economic growth would have jumped to 3% p.a., had we voted to Remain.
Isn’t our economy growing faster than France and Germany?
Germany has slowed to close to zero, so we're beating them. France's economy has accelerated of late, so we've dropped behind them. Q4 numbers are:
Spain 0.6% US 0.6% Netherlands 0.5% Portugal 0.4% France 0.3% Belgium 0.3% UK 0.2% Greece -0.1% Italy -0.1% Germany -0.2%
If only they'd been some "seer" on PB who told everyone that Spain has reformed and was going to see some incredible economic growth...
Lol - were doing OK in Spain but unemployment is still very high, the politics is a mess..., however there is still 'mucho sol'.
True. But since the beginning of 1999 (i.e. the start of the Euro), no other developed country has added more jobs (or increased their labour participation rate so much).
I read his article with interest, but I don't think the economic doom that was predicted has in fact materialised. Nor has Brexit provided a boost to Scottish nationalism.
The points about hyperbolic language and the GFA are reasonable ones.
I agree. Oborne to me had gone from one hysteria to another. First of all Brexit was going to solve all problems known to man, now it is going to be a total disaster. Neither is correct.
What he is right to point out is that the "shrill" nonsense from the ERG in particular has been massively overstated, delusional and, frankly, lunatic. The idea that it was a compromise of the idea of leaving the EU's political structures to have a trading relationship involving some rules with our largest customers and suppliers was and is idiotic. This is why sensible leavers have been supporting May's deal for months and are willing to compromise further, if necessary, to achieve a sustainable Brexit.
The alternatives are not the UK isolated and alone trying to survive in hostile seas or some form of vassal state. The sensible choice is having a close working relationship with the EU, looking to piggy back on their current deals that we took a part in making, seeking to do as little as possible to disrupt current trade patterns but to leave the political structures of the EU.
It will not be a triumph, it will not solve all our problems, it will not be a disaster. We just need to be pragmatic about it.
It ought to be redundant to point out that had leave campaigned in that basis, the vote would have gone the other way. Nothing about Brexit has been sensible.
One wonders where the hell Oborne has been all these years frankly. This stuff seems 101 to me, like, e.g., my god, I had no idea, but it seems the workers of the NE will lose out.
And that's why you've been expecting imminent economic disaster for the last 33 months.
Yet the real world hasn't obliged.
The economy's 3% smaller than it would have been and your money is worth 20% less, and it hasn't even happened yet.
It's implausible to argue that economic growth would have jumped to 3% p.a., had we voted to Remain.
Isn’t our economy growing faster than France and Germany?
Germany has slowed to close to zero, so we're beating them. France's economy has accelerated of late, so we've dropped behind them. Q4 numbers are:
Spain 0.6% US 0.6% Netherlands 0.5% Portugal 0.4% France 0.3% Belgium 0.3% UK 0.2% Greece -0.1% Italy -0.1% Germany -0.2%
If only they'd been some "seer" on PB who told everyone that Spain has reformed and was going to see some incredible economic growth...
Lol - were doing OK in Spain but unemployment is still very high, the politics is a mess..., however there is still 'mucho sol'.
True. But since the beginning of 1999 (i.e. the start of the Euro), no other developed country has added more jobs (or increased their labour participation rate so much).
Which tends to demonstrate what a good deal we had.
The only good thing about Brexit is that it has us watching Parliament more. Hitherto unknown MPs have become household names.
Albeit by revealing why they were obscure.
In what sense is it a 'good' thing to see MPs behaving like three-year-olds? In the sense that we will now cleanse the Augean stables?
I have a sneaking affection for Mark Francois. At least he says what he believes.
I think of him as a cheeky schoolboy. I should be telling him off, but I just give him a bag of wine gums and let go out to play in the garden with his toy guns.
Thank God we are not ancient Athens merrily voting for genocide in the Mitylene debate. What suits one country doesn't suit another. Mass gun ownership is fine in Switzerland, less so in the USA
And if we did it Swiss style the result would have been remain anyway, because they would demand a majority in each of the UK nations as well as overall.
Not really - they require a majority of cantons - they could be all the German-speaking ones, for instance.
I think direct democracy works pretty well in Switzerland - of course sometimes you get a result that some of us dislike, but that's too bad. But there are several hurdles.
First, it needs a politically aware population who have become used to scrutinising proposals. They vote every 3 months on this and that, and it's a common family pastime to set aside an evening to look over the information booklet setting out the views of each side plus the Government's recommendation.
Second, there's a distinction between referendums (which challenge Government decisions) and initiatives (which are harder to bring about and propose something new).
Third, there's a settled consensus that if the result is narrow, the Government will seek to accommodate the minority. In Brexit terms, that could mean agreeing from the start that withdrawal with very close association (yes, for instance, a customs union) was the way to acknowledge the concerns of the 48% while respecting the decision. That applies even if the proposal seems quite extreme. Over 40% voted to abolish the armed forces ("Who's the enemy? Why are we wasting money on it?"). The armed forces are still there, but on a much-reduced budget.
The main benefit is that it makes people feel they own the decisions and their consequences, in a way that really doesn't happen here. I knew an elderly man with heart trouble who used to trudge upstairs every day rather than use the lift - "I voted against nuclear power and we have to try to be consistent".
We could do much worse, perhaps with thresholds (60%?) before any popular decision became mandatory.
F1: markets not up yet, excepting to win. Interestingly, Vettel's favourite to outscore Leclerc in the title race (1.8 versus 1.95) but Leclerc has shorted odds to win the title (3.75 versus 4.33). Not advocating backing any of that, just think it's a bit unusual.
What then happens to the desire of those who have spent the last three years arguing for a compromise to account for the divided nation and the large minority who wanted to remain? Will they argue for a new settlement with the EU to account for the divided nation and the small majority who wanted to leave?
They will be issued with a copies of The Iron Heel by Jack London and small strips of tape to put over the words 'Union européenne' on their passports.
One wonders where the hell Oborne has been all these years frankly. This stuff seems 101 to me, like, e.g., my god, I had no idea, but it seems the workers of the NE will lose out.
And that's why you've been expecting imminent economic disaster for the last 33 months.
Yet the real world hasn't obliged.
The economy's 3% smaller than it would have been and your money is worth 20% less, and it hasn't even happened yet.
It's implausible to argue that economic growth would have jumped to 3% p.a., had we voted to Remain.
Isn’t our economy growing faster than France and Germany?
Germany has slowed to close to zero, so we're beating them. France's economy has accelerated of late, so we've dropped behind them. Q4 numbers are:
Spain 0.6% US 0.6% Netherlands 0.5% Portugal 0.4% France 0.3% Belgium 0.3% UK 0.2% Greece -0.1% Italy -0.1% Germany -0.2%
If only they'd been some "seer" on PB who told everyone that Spain has reformed and was going to see some incredible economic growth...
Lol - were doing OK in Spain but unemployment is still very high, the politics is a mess..., however there is still 'mucho sol'.
True. But since the beginning of 1999 (i.e. the start of the Euro), no other developed country has added more jobs (or increased their labour participation rate so much).
Not sure that the average Spaniard feels very positive about things. Many barely manage.
What then happens to the desire of those who have spent the last three years arguing for a compromise to account for the divided nation and the large minority who wanted to remain? Will they argue for a new settlement with the EU to account for the divided nation and the small majority who wanted to leave?
Your point being? We will still have a democracy and leave will still be a policy option. Leavers should spend their time coming up with and campaigning for a viable plan to leave. Much the same as remainers would have had to do so for rejoining had we left.
F1: markets not up yet, excepting to win. Interestingly, Vettel's favourite to outscore Leclerc in the title race (1.8 versus 1.95) but Leclerc has shorted odds to win the title (3.75 versus 4.33). Not advocating backing any of that, just think it's a bit unusual.
Leclerc is using the same engine as the last race which had a problem which although fixed could go wrong again
We could do much worse, perhaps with thresholds (60%?) before any popular decision became mandatory.
An awful lot of trouble could have been avoided had the Scottish Referendum Clause - 40% of eligible voters had to approve a change - been included.
That would surely have put an end to further integration and led to a gradual loosening, while missing out on the epochal mess of the last three years.
It wouldn't have reconciled the fanatics, of course, but even leaving doesn't appear to do that so I don't see the problem.
One wonders where the hell Oborne has been all these years frankly. This stuff seems 101 to me, like, e.g., my god, I had no idea, but it seems the workers of the NE will lose out.
And that's why you've been expecting imminent economic disaster for the last 33 months.
Yet the real world hasn't obliged.
The economy's 3% smaller than it would have been and your money is worth 20% less, and it hasn't even happened yet.
It's implausible to argue that economic growth would have jumped to 3% p.a., had we voted to Remain.
Isn’t our economy growing faster than France and Germany?
Germany has slowed to close to zero, so we're beating them. France's economy has accelerated of late, so we've dropped behind them. Q4 numbers are:
Spain 0.6% US 0.6% Netherlands 0.5% Portugal 0.4% France 0.3% Belgium 0.3% UK 0.2% Greece -0.1% Italy -0.1% Germany -0.2%
If only they'd been some "seer" on PB who told everyone that Spain has reformed and was going to see some incredible economic growth...
Lol - were doing OK in Spain but unemployment is still very high, the politics is a mess..., however there is still 'mucho sol'.
True. But since the beginning of 1999 (i.e. the start of the Euro), no other developed country has added more jobs (or increased their labour participation rate so much).
Not sure that the average Spaniard feels very positive about things. Many barely manage.
Of course. And Spain has massive geographical disparities. I own a small stake in a business just South of Barcelona , and the CEO bitches nonstop about the inability of getting staff (of any kind).
Thank God we are not ancient Athens merrily voting for genocide in the Mitylene debate. What suits one country doesn't suit another. Mass gun ownership is fine in Switzerland, less so in the USA
And if we did it Swiss style the result would have been remain anyway, because they would demand a majority in each of the UK nations as well as overall.
Not really - they require a majority of cantons - they could be all the German-speaking ones, for instance.
I think direct democracy works pretty well in Switzerland - of course sometimes you get a result that some of us dislike, but that's too bad. But there are several hurdles.
First, it needs a politically aware population who have become used to scrutinising proposals. They vote every 3 months on this and that, and it's a common family pastime to set aside an evening to look over the information booklet setting out the views of each side plus the Government's recommendation.
Second, there's a distinction between referendums (which challenge Government decisions) and initiatives (which are harder to bring about and propose something new).
Third, there's a settled consensus that if the result is narrow, the Government will seek to accommodate the minority. In Brexit terms, that could mean agreeing from the start that withdrawal with very close association (yes, for instance, a customs union) was the way to acknowledge the concerns of the 48% while respecting the decision. That applies even if the proposal seems quite extreme. Over 40% voted to abolish the armed forces ("Who's the enemy? Why are we wasting money on it?"). The armed forces are still there, but on a much-reduced budget.
The main benefit is that it makes people feel they own the decisions and their consequences, in a way that really doesn't happen here. I knew an elderly man with heart trouble who used to trudge upstairs every day rather than use the lift - "I voted against nuclear power and we have to try to be consistent".
We could do much worse, perhaps with thresholds (60%?) before any popular decision became mandatory.
Sorry yes it's a majority of Cantons. But the point still applies in that we had a tie between the 4 countries, majority remain if you count Gibraltar separately.
What then happens to the desire of those who have spent the last three years arguing for a compromise to account for the divided nation and the large minority who wanted to remain? Will they argue for a new settlement with the EU to account for the divided nation and the small majority who wanted to leave?
Your point being? We will still have a democracy and leave will still be a policy option. Leavers should spend their time coming up with and campaigning for a viable plan to leave. Much the same as remainers would have had to do so for rejoining had we left.
It won't be an option whilstever there is a majority in the House of Commons that will block it.
Brexiteers will have to make a move to supporting an English parliament, with powers for England to leave the EU. That will almost certainly require the formal break up of the UK into its constituent countries.
Mr. eek, yeah, although the failure sounds like a freak one-off rather than (hopefully) an ongoing, systemic problem.
Mr. Recidivist, my point being that if the political class argues for compromise for a losing minority then common sense and honesty dictates they do likewise for a winning majority they've decided to ignore.
The concept it's ok to ignore a majority vote but a minority must be catered for with compromises is illogical, and contemptible.
Thank God we are not ancient Athens merrily voting for genocide in the Mitylene debate. What suits one country doesn't suit another. Mass gun ownership is fine in Switzerland, less so in the USA
And if we did it Swiss style the result would have been remain anyway, because they would demand a majority in each of the UK nations as well as overall.
Not really - they require a majority of cantons - they could be all the German-speaking ones, for instance.
I think direct democracy works pretty well in Switzerland - of course sometimes you get a result that some of us dislike, but that's too bad. But there are several hurdles.
First, it needs a politically aware population who have become used to scrutinising proposals. They vote every 3 months on this and that, and it's a common family pastime to set aside an evening to look over the information booklet setting out the views of each side plus the Government's recommendation.
Second, there's a distinction between referendums (which challenge Government decisions) and initiatives (which are harder to bring about and propose something new).
Third, there's a settled consensus that if the result is narrow, the Government will seek to accommodate the minority. In Brexit terms, that could mean agreeing from the start that withdrawal with very close association (yes, for instance, a customs union) was the way to acknowledge the concerns of the 48% while respecting the decision. That applies even if the proposal seems quite extreme. Over 40% voted to abolish the armed forces ("Who's the enemy? Why are we wasting money on it?"). The armed forces are still there, but on a much-reduced budget.
The main benefit is that it makes people feel they own the decisions and their consequences, in a way that really doesn't happen here. I knew an elderly man with heart trouble who used to trudge upstairs every day rather than use the lift - "I voted against nuclear power and we have to try to be consistent".
We could do much worse, perhaps with thresholds (60%?) before any popular decision became mandatory.
Sorry yes it's a majority of Cantons. But the point still applies in that we had a tie between the 4 countries, majority remain if you count Gibraltar separately.
"It's a common family pastime" to scrutinise government referendum papers.
Is this the same knowledge that told us that many of your friends and associates are forever asking what obscure European political groupings think about one policy or another?
Something needed to be done. I'm not one of those who is fighting for the right of 3-year-olds to watch porn.
What about the right of 21yr olds to watch porn? What about the right of 21yr olds to access a wide range of information on any subject they wished without having to ask permission from the government first? I don't remember giving Theresa May the right to be my mother. When did you?
Neither side will let this rest if the other side "wins"
Indeed. Which is why it is in everybody's interest if we play for the draw. Hence the deal.
That is not in everybody's interest, it is a pile of crap. Why would we go in to purgatory in the vain hope the EU will be nice and give us a decent trade deal, get a grip. Man up and either get out or stay in.
The Remainers will have very successfully poisoned the well so that even when the EU proves to be the nightmare we have claimed, the memory of this last 3 years will stop anyone wanting to repeat it.
Unbelievable. It's like the Iraq War. They never, ever take responsibility for anything. Brexit is a massive shitshow full of bullshit and internal contradictions, and it's somehow the fault of the people who predicted this for somehow "poisoning the well".
Nope it is very believable. Look at the poll on the front page of tomorrow's Times. 54% of respondents would now prefer a 'strong leader who breaks the rules' over our current Parliamentary democracy. As I have warned all along, if Parliamentarians scorn the views and votes of the public then eventually the public will decide they are no longer fit for purpose. My only surprise is how quickly it has hsppened. By trying to thwart Brexit, Parliament have broken democracy.
Even if this is true, and you're right that it's the fault of remainer MPs and nothing to do with the parliamentary brexit enthusiasts who consider your preferred form of brexit a betrayal and a non-brexit, how would that stop you doing brexit under your hypothetical strong leader?
Richard wanted parliament to scorn the views of the public and impose his preferred form of Brexit. There's no chance of a hypothetical strong leader doing that.
The strong leader we need is someone who does what Oborne has done and tells us we are making a huge mistake.
Is there any stupid fool in the country that needed some journalist to tell them that?
The only good thing about Brexit is that it has us watching Parliament more. Hitherto unknown MPs have become household names.
Albeit by revealing why they were obscure.
In what sense is it a 'good' thing to see MPs behaving like three-year-olds? In the sense that we will now cleanse the Augean stables?
I have a sneaking affection for Mark Francois. At least he says what he believes.
Ditto Steve "Brexit Hardman" Baker. I have a lot more respect for those two than elapids like JRM or Boris. At least they have been principled, consistent and honest.
We're into 'One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest' territory. Who are the REALLY bonkers ones.
But the awkward question that Leavers have no answer for is what is Brexit improving? Because it certainly isn’t helping build a united country, civic structures or improve the nation’s standing.
Hmm, The *process* of Brexit is certainly doing none of those things but I think you are conflating the process with the result. It was always going to be difficult actually to leave the EU even if the vote had been more decisive. So much of the running of the country is bound up in the reality of EU membership (and I don't mean by that the EU was "running the country", just that EU membership and what that entails was a constant factor in many areas of life), that the process of unravelling that was going to take time and be painful. It was also going to meet fierce opposition both from principled opposition and from vested interests who stand to lose (or at the least have to make disruptive adjustments to current practice), all of which has made leaving more difficult than Leavers would have liked (or anticipated).
If we ever do leave then, whatever form that takes, companies, institutions and citizens will adapt to the new reality with varying degrees of speed but the inherent advantages and problems that Britain possess will still be there. From a Leaver's perspective, I would say that we would then be in a position respectively to maximise and tackle those on a national level which is, in my view the best and most democratic way of doing so (though I recognise that other regard multilateralism as the best way).
In short, Leavers take the long view. The long view of remaining, especially after trying unsuccessfully to leave does not seem rosy to me, either internally (given the bitterness it will cause among frustrated leavers) nor externally (our national standing will be much more damaged both within and without the EU if we back down now).
For a start, England's the only one of the four nations denied its own devolved political body. Yorkshire actively wants a single mayor but the government, in its infinite wisdom, refuses to agree.
What then happens to the desire of those who have spent the last three years arguing for a compromise to account for the divided nation and the large minority who wanted to remain? Will they argue for a new settlement with the EU to account for the divided nation and the small majority who wanted to leave?
Your point being? We will still have a democracy and leave will still be a policy option. Leavers should spend their time coming up with and campaigning for a viable plan to leave. Much the same as remainers would have had to do so for rejoining had we left.
It won't be an option whilstever there is a majority in the House of Commons that will block it.
Brexiteers will have to make a move to supporting an English parliament, with powers for England to leave the EU. That will almost certainly require the formal break up of the UK into its constituent countries.
The bar to cross is getting a programme agreed by a political party and getting that party a majority in the House of Commons. It might not be easy, but it isn't impossible. If you are spending your time thinking up short cuts you aren't using it well.
What then happens to the desire of those who have spent the last three years arguing for a compromise to account for the divided nation and the large minority who wanted to remain? Will they argue for a new settlement with the EU to account for the divided nation and the small majority who wanted to leave?
Your point being? We will still have a democracy and leave will still be a policy option. Leavers should spend their time coming up with and campaigning for a viable plan to leave. Much the same as remainers would have had to do so for rejoining had we left.
It won't be an option whilstever there is a majority in the House of Commons that will block it.
Brexiteers will have to make a move to supporting an English parliament, with powers for England to leave the EU. That will almost certainly require the formal break up of the UK into its constituent countries.
It would also require either a majority of English voters voting to break away from the UK in a referendum or a party winning a General election or an English Parliament election with a commitment to English independence in its manifesto.
An English Parliament at York is the natural profession of the devolution we have had since 1999 in the UK but on its own does not lead to independence just a more Federal UK with Westminster becoming the Federal UK Parliament
But the awkward question that Leavers have no answer for is what is Brexit improving? Because it certainly isn’t helping build a united country, civic structures or improve the nation’s standing.
Hmm, The *process* of Brexit is certainly doing none of those things but I think you are conflating the process with the result. It was always going to be difficult actually to leave the EU even if the vote had been more decisive. So much of the running of the country is bound up in the reality of EU membership (and I don't mean by that the EU was "running the country", just that EU membership and what that entails was a constant factor in many areas of life), that the process of unravelling that was going to take time and be painful. It was also going to meet fierce opposition both from principled opposition and from vested interests who stand to lose (or at the least have to make disruptive adjustments to current practice), all of which has made leaving more difficult than Leavers would have liked (or anticipated).
If we ever do leave then, whatever form that takes, companies, institutions and citizens will adapt to the new reality with varying degrees of speed but the inherent advantages and problems that Britain possess will still be there. From a Leaver's perspective, I would say that we would then be in a position respectively to maximise and tackle those on a national level which is, in my view the best and most democratic way of doing so (though I recognise that other regard multilateralism as the best way).
In short, Leavers take the long view. The long view of remaining, especially after trying unsuccessfully to leave does not seem rosy to me, either internally (given the bitterness it will cause among frustrated leavers) nor externally (our national standing will be much more damaged both within and without the EU if we back down now).
I don't see a scintilla of evidence that they "take the long view" any more than those who voted remain. One could argue with equal justification that a desire for instant gratification was one of the drivers of the Brexit vote.
Has equal blame for May and the Government and MPs for Brexit problems, both on 39%.
Labour still leads at both Westminster and Welsh Assembly level but down, the Tories still second at Westminster and Plaid now second at Assembly level. The Brexit Party also projected to win 4 Assembly seats and UKIP one
Something needed to be done. I'm not one of those who is fighting for the right of 3-year-olds to watch porn.
As an example, just yesterday my son was watching a Dr. Binocs (*) show on YouTube. In the middle of this childrens' program, it put a couple of online casino adverts. That would not be allowable on broadcast TV.
Your child got adverts for casinos because somebody in your house was looking at betting websites. The YouTube algorithm looks at your browser history and its internal memory of stuff that has been accessed from your home and suggests ads based on your interests. It wasn't clever enough to distinguish between your child and you.
Since we’re going to Brexit, someone needs to remind us (or make up some new) benefits of Brexit. At present the only argument with any currency left is that we voted for it, so we must do it. Everything else has been lost or has been revealed to not be true.
So in the light of economic harm, reputation damage, less global influence and a split nation what’s the good news?
We could do much worse, perhaps with thresholds (60%?) before any popular decision became mandatory.
An awful lot of trouble could have been avoided had the Scottish Referendum Clause - 40% of eligible voters had to approve a change - been included.
That would surely have put an end to further integration and led to a gradual loosening, while missing out on the epochal mess of the last three years.
It wouldn't have reconciled the fanatics, of course, but even leaving doesn't appear to do that so I don't see the problem.
Yes why not fix the result like they did in 79, just count dead people as against, real democracy UK style.
What then happens to the desire of those who have spent the last three years arguing for a compromise to account for the divided nation and the large minority who wanted to remain? Will they argue for a new settlement with the EU to account for the divided nation and the small majority who wanted to leave?
Your point being? We will still have a democracy and leave will still be a policy option. Leavers should spend their time coming up with and campaigning for a viable plan to leave. Much the same as remainers would have had to do so for rejoining had we left.
It won't be an option whilstever there is a majority in the House of Commons that will block it.
Brexiteers will have to make a move to supporting an English parliament, with powers for England to leave the EU. That will almost certainly require the formal break up of the UK into its constituent countries.
It would also require either a majority of English voters voting to break away from the UK in a referendum or a party winning a General election or an English Parliament election with a commitment to English independence in its manifesto.
An English Parliament at York is the natural profession of the devolution we have had since 1999 in the UK but on its own does not lead to independence just a more Federal UK with Westminster becoming the Federal UK Parliament
We will never be that lucky , not while they are still finding stacks of oil at least.
We could do much worse, perhaps with thresholds (60%?) before any popular decision became mandatory.
An awful lot of trouble could have been avoided had the Scottish Referendum Clause - 40% of eligible voters had to approve a change - been included.
That would surely have put an end to further integration and led to a gradual loosening, while missing out on the epochal mess of the last three years.
It wouldn't have reconciled the fanatics, of course, but even leaving doesn't appear to do that so I don't see the problem.
Yes why not fix the result like they did in 79, just count dead people as against, real democracy UK style.
Logic is definitely missing in politics. Parliament asks for a decision by the people. They give it. Parliament demands the last say and proceeds to meddle. The losers demands another go because they are special and know better. On what evidence? Because they think so, despite evidence that most people believe they have better judgement than average, despite this being impossible.
Economists predict with certainty and suddenly find themselves in recessions they never saw coming.
Politicians embody all these faults and multiply them. You haven't any clothes matey, you never had any. The wisdom of crowds is an alien concept to you. You believe you were elected to educate the voters, not to take any notice of them.
York is already disgustingly busy and handles a volume of people it was not designed to handle. Having a parliament in the city is a terrible idea.
I disagree, it was the traditional capital of the North in the Middle Ages and would be an ideal site, otherwise Birmingham as the second city in England
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdviJzEwShE&feature=youtu.be
Leaving the EU was presented by its proponents as easy. And now we’re expected to take their guidance now even its proponents admit it would be hard? I
n the long run we all die. On what time horizon do you expect this mad hobbyhorse to be judged?
The project should have worked. If it hasn't, then it's not the project's fault, but those who are implementing it. The project is perfect.
There have been worse as well: watching cartoons and the next suggestion for a video is something (ahem) not age-appropriate. So much so that disabling autoplay of next video is a rather good idea.
Then there are the scum who are putting age-inappropriate content embedded within videos aimed at children.
(*) Dr. Binocs is an animated program for children about science - not as good as Science Max, but good.
What he is right to point out is that the "shrill" nonsense from the ERG in particular has been massively overstated, delusional and, frankly, lunatic. The idea that it was a compromise of the idea of leaving the EU's political structures to have a trading relationship involving some rules with our largest customers and suppliers was and is idiotic. This is why sensible leavers have been supporting May's deal for months and are willing to compromise further, if necessary, to achieve a sustainable Brexit.
The alternatives are not the UK isolated and alone trying to survive in hostile seas or some form of vassal state. The sensible choice is having a close working relationship with the EU, looking to piggy back on their current deals that we took a part in making, seeking to do as little as possible to disrupt current trade patterns but to leave the political structures of the EU.
It will not be a triumph, it will not solve all our problems, it will not be a disaster. We just need to be pragmatic about it.
It was at a party, and he asked if I could pass him a Coke. So I reached over, opened a can, and poured it into a glass for him.
I passed it to him, and said:
"Would you like any Menthos with that?"
He'd probably heard the joke 100 times. But he laughed, and explained that he always did the Coke and Menthos thing with Diet Coke, because regular Coke just resulted in lots of horrible sticky residue.
True story.
I have a selfie shot of the two of us. (I'm shallow like that.)
I didn't ask him about Brexit.
They are rolling over existing QE (i.e. when they are repaid on a bond they'd bought, they buy a new one). But are not a net buyer of bonds.
Direct democracy really, really sucks, and the bugs you diagnose in our current system are actually features, which is why the leaver Did Magna Carta die in vain shtick is so ridiculous.
But right now, we're heading towards either Revoke or No Deal - both of which will have severe negative consequences for the UK.
Direct democracy really, really sucks, and the bugs you diagnose in our current system are actually features, which is why the leaver Did Magna Carta die in vain shtick is so ridiculous.
We don't need to go that far. Just a system where people feel properly represented would be a start. And where politicians campaigned in the whole country rather than ignoring the vast majority of it.
What have you done to the quotes?
What have you done to the quotes?
Yes sorry complete and utter cock up, trying to do this on a phone.
He comes across as one of those guys who is genuinely nice.
Spain 0.6%
US 0.6%
Netherlands 0.5%
Portugal 0.4%
France 0.3%
Belgium 0.3%
UK 0.2%
Greece -0.1%
Italy -0.1%
Germany -0.2%
How many days left as PM does Mrs May have ? 6 ?
And if we did it Swiss style the result would have been remain anyway, because they would demand a majority in each of the UK nations as well as overall.
Spouse as they enter a party in Seattle:
'Now remember dear, the reason you haven't been around is the police arrested you for being a Russian agent fixing the 2016 election. You had NOTHING to do with the 737 Max. Got that?'
Oborne's article on Gove is similar. He starts by saying that he's known him for 20 years and likes him. He then trashes him comprehensively, offering rather slender evidence for his views - I'm nowhere near Gove politically, but it seems to me a hatchet job akin to the Mail holding forth about Corbyn.
We all know that the tabloids live by sensational stories ("Simplify, then exaggerate"). But it's easy to forget that individual commentators often do the same.
suppose we end up remaining.
What then happens to the desire of those who have spent the last three years arguing for a compromise to account for the divided nation and the large minority who wanted to remain? Will they argue for a new settlement with the EU to account for the divided nation and the small majority who wanted to leave?
The truth is that when this thing resolves itself and we Brexit the leading Brexiteers will start eating themselves as always happens after a revolution. That's now the part i'm looking forward to.
But as far as I can tell, that’s the net add of Brexit. Everything else - the economics, the politics, the impact on society, our global standing, the strength of the union - has taken a lesser or greater hit. Our country is weaker, more divided, and poorer.
Brexit is the Jimmy Savile of policies - it’s abject depravity is hiding in plain sight.
Except of course you can lose Iowa and still win, but I needed a date to pin on it.
In what sense is it a 'good' thing to see MPs behaving like three-year-olds? In the sense that we will now cleanse the Augean stables?
Nothing about Brexit has been sensible.
Brexit can't happen because a few MPs have principles - that's why it's failed - if only they could agree to be bought off we would be out.
And remember to refer to them as having mental health issues : "loons" , "nutjobs" or thick "dim".
I think direct democracy works pretty well in Switzerland - of course sometimes you get a result that some of us dislike, but that's too bad. But there are several hurdles.
First, it needs a politically aware population who have become used to scrutinising proposals. They vote every 3 months on this and that, and it's a common family pastime to set aside an evening to look over the information booklet setting out the views of each side plus the Government's recommendation.
Second, there's a distinction between referendums (which challenge Government decisions) and initiatives (which are harder to bring about and propose something new).
Third, there's a settled consensus that if the result is narrow, the Government will seek to accommodate the minority. In Brexit terms, that could mean agreeing from the start that withdrawal with very close association (yes, for instance, a customs union) was the way to acknowledge the concerns of the 48% while respecting the decision. That applies even if the proposal seems quite extreme. Over 40% voted to abolish the armed forces ("Who's the enemy? Why are we wasting money on it?"). The armed forces are still there, but on a much-reduced budget.
The main benefit is that it makes people feel they own the decisions and their consequences, in a way that really doesn't happen here. I knew an elderly man with heart trouble who used to trudge upstairs every day rather than use the lift - "I voted against nuclear power and we have to try to be consistent".
We could do much worse, perhaps with thresholds (60%?) before any popular decision became mandatory.
*sips Victory gin*
That would surely have put an end to further integration and led to a gradual loosening, while missing out on the epochal mess of the last three years.
It wouldn't have reconciled the fanatics, of course, but even leaving doesn't appear to do that so I don't see the problem.
But in Malaga, there wouldn't be this problem.
Brexiteers will have to make a move to supporting an English parliament, with powers for England to leave the EU. That will almost certainly require the formal break up of the UK into its constituent countries.
I see the government's compromise strategy seems to have been let's have a meeting wherein you can agree with my position.
On topic. Oborne - arf.
Mr. Recidivist, my point being that if the political class argues for compromise for a losing minority then common sense and honesty dictates they do likewise for a winning majority they've decided to ignore.
The concept it's ok to ignore a majority vote but a minority must be catered for with compromises is illogical, and contemptible.
"It's a common family pastime" to scrutinise government referendum papers.
Is this the same knowledge that told us that many of your friends and associates are forever asking what obscure European political groupings think about one policy or another?
It was one voter, one vote, one 'constituency'. A majority voted to leave.
*grabs tinfoil hat and ducks*
More seriously I was thinking of those regions with devolution, which London has, rather than the rest of England, which does not.
For a start, England's the only one of the four nations denied its own devolved political body. Yorkshire actively wants a single mayor but the government, in its infinite wisdom, refuses to agree.
https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2019-04-08/poll-finds-westminster-blamed-for-brexit-deadlock-as-support-for-conservatives-and-labour-falls/
EDIT with the thoughts of the doyen of Welsh polling, Roger Awan-Scully:
https://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/electionsinwales/2019/04/08/the-april-welsh-political-barometer-poll/
An English Parliament at York is the natural profession of the devolution we have had since 1999 in the UK but on its own does not lead to independence just a more Federal UK with Westminster becoming the Federal UK Parliament
One could argue with equal justification that a desire for instant gratification was one of the drivers of the Brexit vote.
Labour still leads at both Westminster and Welsh Assembly level but down, the Tories still second at Westminster and Plaid now second at Assembly level. The Brexit Party also projected to win 4 Assembly seats and UKIP one
So in the light of economic harm, reputation damage, less global influence and a split nation what’s the good news?
There and then, I pulled out my whiteboard pen (stop giggling at the back) and proved that philosophically speaking two plus two can equal five.
Funnily enough, I wasn't asked again.
Logic is definitely missing in politics. Parliament asks for a decision by the people. They give it. Parliament demands the last say and proceeds to meddle. The losers demands another go because they are special and know better. On what evidence? Because they think so, despite evidence that most people believe they have better judgement than average, despite this being impossible.
Economists predict with certainty and suddenly find themselves in recessions they never saw coming.
Politicians embody all these faults and multiply them. You haven't any clothes matey, you never had any. The wisdom of crowds is an alien concept to you. You believe you were elected to educate the voters, not to take any notice of them.