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.
The reason being that this way failed anyway.
It should have been devolution in 79 if the crooked labour Westminster MPs had not fiddled it. They are no different now, they will lie and cheat to get their way. Thre should be no fixing of votes before they are held, we are very close to banana republic politics in UK nowadays.
Only very close?
I am in a good mood , sitting in the sunshine , relaxed and mellow.
Heavy fog here, sitting inside with my son on the first day of Easter holidays, waiting for a garage to pick up my car after they utterly failed to fix it on Friday.
I am on holiday, so in Hamelyn, at least 20 degrees and lovely. Sitting on the balcony in the sun listening to birdsong and having continental breakfast, long live the EU.
Wait Malc, didn't you vote to leave ?
Yes but only to get a referendum and get back in via an independent Scotland
Morning all. The Welsh poll is very interesting. UKIP on 3% behind Brexit despite having AMs and standing in Newport...... euro election bettors take note. Change on 9% is frankly astonishing given recent invisibility, they are ahead of the Lib Dems! Brecon potential bettors take note! Would hate yo try and call Welsh seats in a GE, could see some weird gains
The one upside from all this is the next election being more random and unpredictable than the last, with lots of betting opportunities for the clever and brave
It would have been a clear instruction to the government that no further integration was not acceptable and that it should seek to bring powers back. Pulling out of the treaty would not have been possible although a brave government could have threatened to trigger Article 50 if no reforms were forthcoming
Really? It would have been exactly the same mess that we're seeing now, with leavers of all levels of (in)sanity saying it backs up their particular views. It would have been as clear as mud.
The lessons of the Brexit referendum are clear: if you want a referendum on something, be clear to the public what the result means - don't hold it on something vague and nebulous on the hope of winning, and then claim it means something different.
If you wanted a referendum on no further integration and bringing powers back, then that should have been what the referendum said - and there should have been a workable plan on how we would have got there.
A referendum on a signed Lisbon Treaty was unimplementable and chaotic. It was madness.
I'd say the lesson of the 2016 referendum is, if you want a referendum, don't let MPs have a say on what happens if the result goes against them.
The lesson is to ask a sensible question. One with real proposals that can be done.
And, if a major and significant change is being floated, make it a process with several hurdles to make sure the change has broad consent, rather than a gamble on a single vote on a single day.
Perhaps Ted Heath, Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown should have though about this as they signed up to integration.
In a process that took place over several decades, consented to at every step by parliament, including governments of both parties? I think it's the Brexiteers who should take lessons from that.
I went to a briefing by Ben Page of Ipsos Mori a couple of months ago. At it he made the argument that opinion polling showed that Londoners were opposed to the Congestion Charge. But Ken Livingstone was still re-elected so that must mean that Londoners really supported the Congestion Charge. Funnily enough, he didn't make the same argument about the Iraq War and the 2005 General Election.
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.
Maybe it would help if instead of just assuming that all Leavers won't accept responsibility; that it would be better to look around and realise the situation we are in today is the fault of British politicians (of all strips and parties) and not one 'type' of politician.
It wasn't a Leaver who called the referendum. It wasn't a Leaver who sodded off after losing it. It wasn't a Leaver who has been PM during the entire negotiating period.
That said, it wasn't a Remainer who has been totally incompetent during their times as Brexit secretary to get anything done. AND it is both Remainers and Leavers who are currently preventing the Government getting their 34 additional votes to get the withdrawal deal through Parliament.
At GEs where we usually have a choice between two morons where the EU is scarcely mentioned. I usually voted for the moron who would do least harm even if both were often Europhiles.
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.
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?
Part of the problem with the Brexit debate is that both sides are hyperbolic with their language which is one of the reasons we have found ourselves in a constitutional crisis. Window ledge and mad hobbyhorse make it sound apocalyptic for the country if we leave. Leaving should be a strategic policy decision, just as remaining would be. Unfortunately both sides have made it appear like an existential crisis.
For me, one of the interesting things about the process of leaving is the revelation of just how entwined in EU membership we have become over the past 45 years with relatively little public debate. That we have got ourselves so deeply enmeshed in a multilateral institution that it is a genuine argument that it is too difficult to leave is something deeply worrying and confirms my desire to leave.
As for the time horizon, I'm a medieval historian so I'm used to working in long timeframes! However, given that we've been a member for 45 years, I would think that a quarter of that time might allow us to come to a sensible decision about whether we made the right decision or not.
For god's sake let's not have another historian-off.
But although I speed read your first post it did seem to say that the EU never ruled over us and that all our problems are our own.
In which case why the burning desire to leave?
What I meant was that the EU did not 'rule' us in the crude characterisation of 'EUSSR' that some people presented. Our problems our are own but EU membership prevents us from trying to enact things that many would like to try (from immigration control to state aid) in order to solve them. What EU membership brings is a constraint on democratic action because we have signed up to the rules of the EU in various (and growing) areas in return for the benefits that EU membership brings. While I appreciated the benefits of EU membership, my own view is that they aren't worth the costs to democratic accountability. I appreciate that it isn't everyone's view but the referendum gave us the chance to express a direct view on 45 years of membership.
So today is the crucial day.... when nothing will happen.
May will say one thing in her home-vid and then do the opposite in the negotiations.
Nothing may happen. Or alternatively:
Cooper-Letwin is due to pass the Lords by 8pm. Some potentially interesting amendments up for debate. Then it returns to the Commons this evening - potentially another knife-edge vote, and potential for games if there are any Lords amendments of significance.
The rumoured binding-indicative votes seem to have dropped back until tomorrow, although the Government may say something about them in its Business Statement today.
There were rumours at the weekend of a bid to use the Commons's emergency debate provisions this afternoon to move a vote on the People's Vote
And it's always possible something comes of Corbyn/May, or alternatively that it collapses
It would have been a clear instruction to the government that no further integration was not acceptable and that it should seek to bring powers back. Pulling out of the treaty would not have been possible although a brave government could have threatened to trigger Article 50 if no reforms were forthcoming
Really? It would have been exactly the same mess that we're seeing now, with leavers of all levels of (in)sanity saying it backs up their particular views. It would have been as clear as mud.
The lessons of the Brexit referendum are clear: if you want a referendum on something, be clear to the public what the result means - don't hold it on something vague and nebulous on the hope of winning, and then claim it means something different.
If you wanted a referendum on no further integration and bringing powers back, then that should have been what the referendum said - and there should have been a workable plan on how we would have got there.
A referendum on a signed Lisbon Treaty was unimplementable and chaotic. It was madness.
I'd say the lesson of the 2016 referendum is, if you want a referendum, don't let MPs have a say on what happens if the result goes against them.
The lesson is to ask a sensible question. One with real proposals that can be done.
And, if a major and significant change is being floated, make it a process with several hurdles to make sure the change has broad consent, rather than a gamble on a single vote on a single day.
Perhaps Ted Heath, Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown should have though about this as they signed up to integration.
Progress achieved progressively through time and subject to parliamentary consent. A more sensible approach than a referendum.
I would have been perfectly happy to see a gradual process of disengagement from the EU over time. Sadly, that was never on offer.
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 are affirming our glorious age-old (1975) tradition of direct democracy, and simultaneously establishing the principle that anyone politely suggesting another instance of it is the sort of morally repugnant scum who would defecate on the grave of the Queen Mother. So there really is something here for everyone.
Very interesting indeed - and complex as to how this could affect seats if the same happened in England.
Yes - for the Euro elections the pro-Brexit parties are falling back and votes moving to anti-Brexit TIG and the LibDems. I can see the same happening UK-wide: I wouldn't bet on UKIP topping the poll.
UKIP and the Brexit Party were on 21% combined for the Euro elections compared to 19% for the LDs, CUK and Greens combined
I would predict with some confidence that if we do take part in the EU elections, they will produce the highest ever vote share for anti-EU parties.
It would have been a clear instruction to the government that no further integration was not acceptable and that it should seek to bring powers back. Pulling out of the treaty would not have been possible although a brave government could have threatened to trigger Article 50 if no reforms were forthcoming
Really? It would have been exactly the same mess that we're seeing now, with leavers of all levels of (in)sanity saying it backs up their particular views. It would have been as clear as mud.
The lessons of the Brexit referendum are clear: if you want a referendum on something, be clear to the public what the result means - don't hold it on something vague and nebulous on the hope of winning, and then claim it means something different.
If you wanted a referendum on no further integration and bringing powers back, then that should have been what the referendum said - and there should have been a workable plan on how we would have got there.
A referendum on a signed Lisbon Treaty was unimplementable and chaotic. It was madness.
I'd say the lesson of the 2016 referendum is, if you want a referendum, don't let MPs have a say on what happens if the result goes against them.
The lesson is to ask a sensible question. One with real proposals that can be done.
And, if a major and significant change is being floated, make it a process with several hurdles to make sure the change has broad consent, rather than a gamble on a single vote on a single day.
Perhaps Ted Heath, Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown should have though about this as they signed up to integration.
Progress achieved progressively through time and subject to parliamentary consent. A more sensible approach than a referendum.
I would have been perfectly happy to see a gradual process of disengagement from the EU over time. Sadly, that was never on offer.
Jake Mogg's belated realisation says it all. Brexit always should have been seen as a process, but these obsessives wanted a cathartic event, regardless of the damage.
Morning all. The Welsh poll is very interesting. UKIP on 3% behind Brexit despite having AMs and standing in Newport...... euro election bettors take note. Change on 9% is frankly astonishing given recent invisibility, they are ahead of the Lib Dems! Brecon potential bettors take note! Would hate yo try and call Welsh seats in a GE, could see some weird gains
The one upside from all this is the next election being more random and unpredictable than the last, with lots of betting opportunities for the clever and brave
Quite! It's one where reading anything into the Sunderland results at midnight may be utterly fruitless!
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.
Part of the problem with the Brexit debate is that both sides are hyperbolic with their language which is one of the reasons we have found ourselves in a constitutional crisis. Window ledge and mad hobbyhorse make it sound apocalyptic for the country if we leave. Leaving should be a strategic policy decision, just as remaining would be. Unfortunately both sides have made it appear like an existential crisis.
For me, one of the interesting things about the process of leaving is the revelation of just how entwined in EU membership we have become over the past 45 years with relatively little public debate. That we have got ourselves so deeply enmeshed in a multilateral institution that it is a genuine argument that it is too difficult to leave is something deeply worrying and confirms my desire to leave.
As for the time horizon, I'm a medieval historian so I'm used to working in long timeframes! However, given that we've been a member for 45 years, I would think that a quarter of that time might allow us to come to a sensible decision about whether we made the right decision or not.
For god's sake let's not have another historian-off.
But although I speed read your first post it did seem to say that the EU never ruled over us and that all our problems are our own.
In which case why the burning desire to leave?
What I meant was that the EU did not 'rule' us in the crude characterisation of 'EUSSR' that some people presented. Our problems our are own but EU membership prevents us from trying to enact things that many would like to try (from immigration control to state aid) in order to solve them. What EU membership brings is a constraint on democratic action because we have signed up to the rules of the EU in various (and growing) areas in return for the benefits that EU membership brings. While I appreciated the benefits of EU membership, my own view is that they aren't worth the costs to democratic accountability. I appreciate that it isn't everyone's view but the referendum gave us the chance to express a direct view on 45 years of membership.
Should we be leaving the UN too, since that also brings is a constraint on democratic action because we have signed up to its rules?
Very interesting indeed - and complex as to how this could affect seats if the same happened in England.
Yes - for the Euro elections the pro-Brexit parties are falling back and votes moving to anti-Brexit TIG and the LibDems. I can see the same happening UK-wide: I wouldn't bet on UKIP topping the poll.
UKIP and the Brexit Party were on 21% combined for the Euro elections compared to 19% for the LDs, CUK and Greens combined
I would predict with some confidence that if we do take part in the EU elections, they will produce the highest ever vote share for anti-EU parties.
I'd be on the other side of that bet. Farage envisaged hundreds of thousands gathering in London for the end of his Brexit march; instead he got derisory numbers whilst (up to) a million turned out for Remain.
Morning all. The Welsh poll is very interesting. UKIP on 3% behind Brexit despite having AMs and standing in Newport...... euro election bettors take note. Change on 9% is frankly astonishing given recent invisibility, they are ahead of the Lib Dems! Brecon potential bettors take note! Would hate yo try and call Welsh seats in a GE, could see some weird gains
The one upside from all this is the next election being more random and unpredictable than the last, with lots of betting opportunities for the clever and brave
Quite! It's one where reading anything into the Sunderland results at midnight may be utterly fruitless!
On the contrary, betting against the early trend is likely to be a way to make good money
It's a thoughtful article, but are Oborne's thoughts worth more than any other man in this nation on Brexit though ?
Agreed, but as you say this seems like another example of overstating the vote of the politically engaged.
True, but My Sweetie and I have noticed something interesting when passing newsstands recently. The traditional supporters of Brexit - Mail, Express, Sun etc - have stopped putting it on their front page. They have returned to their more traditional themes.
Morning all. The Welsh poll is very interesting. UKIP on 3% behind Brexit despite having AMs and standing in Newport...... euro election bettors take note. Change on 9% is frankly astonishing given recent invisibility, they are ahead of the Lib Dems! Brecon potential bettors take note! Would hate yo try and call Welsh seats in a GE, could see some weird gains
The one upside from all this is the next election being more random and unpredictable than the last, with lots of betting opportunities for the clever and brave
Quite! It's one where reading anything into the Sunderland results at midnight may be utterly fruitless!
On the contrary, betting against the early trend is likely to be a way to make good money
That's kinda what I meant tbh - a good Tory showing in Sunderland wont be a guide to Canterbury and Kensington etcm or may be an opposite guide as it were
It would have been a clear instruction to the government that no further integration was not acceptable and that it should seek to bring powers back. Pulling out of the treaty would not have been possible although a brave government could have threatened to trigger Article 50 if no reforms were forthcoming
Really? It would have been exactly the same mess that we're seeing now, with leavers of all levels of (in)sanity saying it backs up their particular views. It would have been as clear as mud.
The lessons of the Brexit referendum are clear: if you want a referendum on something, be clear to the public what the result means - don't hold it on something vague and nebulous on the hope of winning, and then claim it means something different.
If you wanted a referendum on no further integration and bringing powers back, then that should have been what the referendum said - and there should have been a workable plan on how we would have got there.
A referendum on a signed Lisbon Treaty was unimplementable and chaotic. It was madness.
I'd say the lesson of the 2016 referendum is, if you want a referendum, don't let MPs have a say on what happens if the result goes against them.
The lesson is to ask a sensible question. One with real proposals that can be done.
And, if a major and significant change is being floated, make it a process with several hurdles to make sure the change has broad consent, rather than a gamble on a single vote on a single day.
Perhaps Ted Heath, Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown should have though about this as they signed up to integration.
Progress achieved progressively through time and subject to parliamentary consent. A more sensible approach than a referendum.
I would have been perfectly happy to see a gradual process of disengagement from the EU over time. Sadly, that was never on offer.
Jake Mogg's belated realisation says it all. Brexit always should have been seen as a process, but these obsessives wanted a cathartic event, regardless of the damage.
As I've said many times on here pre-referendum there was always a refusal from leavers to spell out details on their preferred deal, saying it was down to the government of the day to decide the details. So here we are - right royally stuffed!
It would have been a clear instruction to the government that no further integration was not acceptable and that it should seek to bring powers back. Pulling out of the treaty would not have been possible although a brave government could have threatened to trigger Article 50 if no reforms were forthcoming
Really? It would have been exactly the same mess that we're seeing now, with leavers of all levels of (in)sanity saying it backs up their particular views. It would have been as clear as mud.
The lessons of the Brexit referendum are clear: if you want a referendum on something, be clear to the public what the result means - don't hold it on something vague and nebulous on the hope of winning, and then claim it means something different.
If you wanted a referendum on no further integration and bringing powers back, then that should have been what the referendum said - and there should have been a workable plan on how we would have got there.
A referendum on a signed Lisbon Treaty was unimplementable and chaotic. It was madness.
I disagree
The instruction was clear: leave the EU. Everything else is a detail that should be up to government (the problem is the legislature willy waving)
In your hypothetical I don’t think it would have been the same because there wouldn’t have been a cathartic event (“leave”). So it would be a statement of intent to the government. The only case which would have a similar outcome would be a yes/no vote on whether to abrogate the Lisbon Treaty
Early GE tip, Chloe has no chance of defending Norwich North unless the blue fortunes change dramatically, Norwich is trending further and further from the Tories even as Norfolk dyes ever bluer
How do you square your belief that referenda should always be enacted, with your previous desire for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty after Brown had signed it? That would have been an unenactable (and pointless) referendum.
It would have been a clear instruction to the government that no further integration was not acceptable and that it should seek to bring powers back. Pulling out of the treaty would not have been possible although a brave government could have threatened to trigger Article 50 if no reforms were forthcoming
"no further integration was not acceptable"
I believe that's what people voted for in 2016 when they rejected Cameron's "ever closer union" opt out.
I had it right first time and then edited in the “not”...
What I meant was that the EU did not 'rule' us in the crude characterisation of 'EUSSR' that some people presented. Our problems our are own but EU membership prevents us from trying to enact things that many would like to try (from immigration control to state aid) in order to solve them. What EU membership brings is a constraint on democratic action because we have signed up to the rules of the EU in various (and growing) areas in return for the benefits that EU membership brings. While I appreciated the benefits of EU membership, my own view is that they aren't worth the costs to democratic accountability. I appreciate that it isn't everyone's view but the referendum gave us the chance to express a direct view on 45 years of membership.
Immigration is of course an interesting one as the UK, for better or for worse, seems to have settled upon a level of immigration regardless of the EU. We all know that we, the UK chose not to implement some controls, that the tens of thousands pledge was simply disingenuous, and also that non-EU immigration as we have seen has risen as EU immigration has fallen.
Ever since Windrush and before (Jews, Huguenots, Ugandan Asians) the UK has had a difficult relationship with the concept of immigration and I really don't think the EU had or now has anything whatsoever to do with it.
Jake Mogg's belated realisation says it all. Brexit always should have been seen as a process, but these obsessives wanted a cathartic event, regardless of the damage.
The problem with the "process" approach is that it only works while the UK has a government of shit-for-brains tories. A sane government would immediately halt or rewind it. So the leavers have to get as far out as fast as possible before the reeking mess of a government collapses.
So if May is going to ask for an extension on Wednesday, when exactly is parliament going to pass required legislation for EU elections? I thought the EU's position was they wouldn't give us any extension past May 22nd without being sure we'd take part
So today is the crucial day.... when nothing will happen.
May will say one thing in her home-vid and then do the opposite in the negotiations.
She was pulling strange faces in that video. She was either limbering up for the gurning competition at Egremont Crab Fair or she had a wasp in her clout.
It would have been a clear instruction to the government that no further integration was not acceptable and that it should seek to bring powers back. Pulling out of the treaty would not have been possible although a brave government could have threatened to trigger Article 50 if no reforms were forthcoming
Really? It would have been exactly the same mess that we're seeing now, with leavers of all levels of (in)sanity saying it backs up their particular views. It would have been as clear as mud.
The lessons of the Brexit referendum are clear: if you want a referendum on something, be clear to the public what the result means - don't hold it on something vague and nebulous on the hope of winning, and then claim it means something different.
If you wanted a referendum on no further integration and bringing powers back, then that should have been what the referendum said - and there should have been a workable plan on how we would have got there.
A referendum on a signed Lisbon Treaty was unimplementable and chaotic. It was madness.
I'd say the lesson of the 2016 referendum is, if you want a referendum, don't let MPs have a say on what happens if the result goes against them.
The lesson is to ask a sensible question. One with real proposals that can be done.
And, if a major and significant change is being floated, make it a process with several hurdles to make sure the change has broad consent, rather than a gamble on a single vote on a single day.
Perhaps Ted Heath, Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown should have though about this as they signed up to integration.
Progress achieved progressively through time and subject to parliamentary consent. A more sensible approach than a referendum.
I would have been perfectly happy to see a gradual process of disengagement from the EU over time. Sadly, that was never on offer.
Jake Mogg's belated realisation says it all. Brexit always should have been seen as a process, but these obsessives wanted a cathartic event, regardless of the damage.
Really? It would have been exactly the same mess that we're seeing now, with leavers of all levels of (in)sanity saying it backs up their particular views. It would have been as clear as mud.
The lessons of the Brexit referendum are clear: if you want a referendum on something, be clear to the public what the result means - don't hold it on something vague and nebulous on the hope of winning, and then claim it means something different.
If you wanted a referendum on no further integration and bringing powers back, then that should have been what the referendum said - and there should have been a workable plan on how we would have got there.
A referendum on a signed Lisbon Treaty was unimplementable and chaotic. It was madness.
I disagree
The instruction was clear: leave the EU. Everything else is a detail that should be up to government (the problem is the legislature willy waving)
In your hypothetical I don’t think it would have been the same because there wouldn’t have been a cathartic event (“leave”). So it would be a statement of intent to the government. The only case which would have a similar outcome would be a yes/no vote on whether to abrogate the Lisbon Treaty
The mess goes back partly to Cameron's reason for calling the 2016 referendum. It wasn't because he wanted the UK to leave the EU, it was to try and retain support from the anti-EU wing of the conservatives (and avoid losing votes to UKIP).
It made no sense for the conservatives to promise in 2015 an in-out referendum, and on the same page in the manifesto promise to safeguard the UK's place in the Single Market (unless they actually intended an "out" win to mean leaving the EU but staying in the Single Market - which would be a reasonable compromise at this point).
Compare to the Scottish 2014 referendum. The SNP won a majority in the Scottish parliament, and were united in wanting Scottish independence hence the policy of calling a referendum on it. If Yes had won, there would obviously have been a majority in the Scottish parliament in favour, so avoiding this kind of mess.
Plus, because the Scottish government was actually proposing this constitutional change, during the referendum people could ask questions that the government had to give a specific answer to - what currency will we use? will we stay in the EU? who will be head of state? unlike in the EU referendum, where the government didn't have to answer any difficult questions (because leaving wasn't their policy), so Leave just meant "do you want to change our relationship with the EU to whatever you fantasise it should become?"
The instruction was clear: leave the EU. Everything else is a detail that should be up to government (the problem is the legislature willy waving)
In your hypothetical I don’t think it would have been the same because there wouldn’t have been a cathartic event (“leave”). So it would be a statement of intent to the government. The only case which would have a similar outcome would be a yes/no vote on whether to abrogate the Lisbon Treaty
No, it was not clear. Because 'moderate' leavers such as yourself wanted to win, you debased yourselves by allying with the loons and fruitcakes whose vision of 'leave' was *very* different.
Local election tip. Norwich - no blues as ever, the greens have been going backwards since having a large double figures presence on the council, and there is no reason to suspect long term that trend will end. However given the decline of the big two nationally, Norwich being a remain area (and jezza vacillating on this) and some negative press around Clive Lewis lately, the city wards, especially near the university are ones to watch for Green activity and possible gains
So if May is going to ask for an extension on Wednesday, when exactly is parliament going to pass required legislation for EU elections? I thought the EU's position was they wouldn't give us any extension past May 22nd without being sure we'd take part
I don't think it needs legislation. And at the moment all they need to do is promise to continue to prepare. Which they are already doing, as are all the political parties.
Sympathetic; trying to sort out with BT why my new fibre broadband doesn't work. Been best part of a week now. Accessing the net via BTWiFi-with-Fon.
Have you had an engineer out yet? My move to fibre broadband a few years back was ballsed up by the contractor BT openreach used plugging my line into the wrong port in the fibre cabinet. Fortunately I used Zen as my ISP so they quickly got an engineer out & fixed it. Quite a common problem he claimed, as there was one particular guy who had done something similar multiple times...
Jake Mogg's belated realisation says it all. Brexit always should have been seen as a process, but these obsessives wanted a cathartic event, regardless of the damage.
The problem with the "process" approach is that it only works while the UK has a government of shit-for-brains tories. A sane government would immediately halt or rewind it. So the leavers have to get as far out as fast as possible before the reeking mess of a government collapses.
Yes, I've said before that the whole point of no deal is to get beyond the point of no return before sanity returns, and to make sure the bridge is burned in the process.
It's a thoughtful article, but are Oborne's thoughts worth more than any other man in this nation on Brexit though ?
Agreed, but as you say this seems like another example of overstating the vote of the politically engaged.
True, but My Sweetie and I have noticed something interesting when passing newsstands recently. The traditional supporters of Brexit - Mail, Express, Sun etc - have stopped putting it on their front page. They have returned to their more traditional themes.
Hmmmmm.....mood out there changing?
I’d say there was a big market for media that doesn’t mention the B word.
It's a thoughtful article, but are Oborne's thoughts worth more than any other man in this nation on Brexit though ?
Agreed, but as you say this seems like another example of overstating the vote of the politically engaged.
True, but My Sweetie and I have noticed something interesting when passing newsstands recently. The traditional supporters of Brexit - Mail, Express, Sun etc - have stopped putting it on their front page. They have returned to their more traditional themes.
Hmmmmm.....mood out there changing?
I’d say there was a big market for media that doesn’t mention the B word.
So if May is going to ask for an extension on Wednesday, when exactly is parliament going to pass required legislation for EU elections? I thought the EU's position was they wouldn't give us any extension past May 22nd without being sure we'd take part
I don't think it needs legislation. And at the moment all they need to do is promise to continue to prepare. Which they are already doing, as are all the political parties.
Yes I saw Faisal confirm it can be done via orders in council, no legislation needed
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.
Nope wrong again. The public asked for one thing and that was to Leave. When it suits you, you are more than ready to point out that no one can actually decide what that form of Leave should be as it was not made explicit in the vote.
Moreover I have said numerous times that I consider my form of Leave to have a lack of support and so to be unlikely to happen. Unlike you I actually do believe in democracy. Or did until Parliament killed a crazy experiment in direct democracy nearly killed it.
Corrected that for you.
You're welcome.
Wrong again. You are remarkably bad at basic logic aren't you.
So today is the crucial day.... when nothing will happen.
May will say one thing in her home-vid and then do the opposite in the negotiations.
She was pulling strange faces in that video. She was either limbering up for the gurning competition at Egremont Crab Fair or she had a wasp in her clout.
Somebody should tell her how weirdly she comes across.
A referendum on a signed Lisbon Treaty was unimplementable and chaotic. It was madness.
I disagree
The instruction was clear: leave the EU. Everything else is a detail that should be up to government (the problem is the legislature willy waving)
In your hypothetical I don’t think it would have been the same because there wouldn’t have been a cathartic event (“leave”). So it would be a statement of intent to the government. The only case which would have a similar outcome would be a yes/no vote on whether to abrogate the Lisbon Treaty
The mess goes back partly to Cameron's reason for calling the 2016 referendum. It wasn't because he wanted the UK to leave the EU, it was to try and retain support from the anti-EU wing of the conservatives (and avoid losing votes to UKIP).
It made no sense for the conservatives to promise in 2015 an in-out referendum, and on the same page in the manifesto promise to safeguard the UK's place in the Single Market (unless they actually intended an "out" win to mean leaving the EU but staying in the Single Market - which would be a reasonable compromise at this point).
Compare to the Scottish 2014 referendum. The SNP won a majority in the Scottish parliament, and were united in wanting Scottish independence hence the policy of calling a referendum on it. If Yes had won, there would obviously have been a majority in the Scottish parliament in favour, so avoiding this kind of mess.
Plus, because the Scottish government was actually proposing this constitutional change, during the referendum people could ask questions that the government had to give a specific answer to - what currency will we use? will we stay in the EU? who will be head of state? unlike in the EU referendum, where the government didn't have to answer any difficult questions (because leaving wasn't their policy), so Leave just meant "do you want to change our relationship with the EU to whatever you fantasise it should become?"
The system that gave UKIP 0.15% of the seats for 13% of the 2015 vote has a lot to do with that. Had there been 20 Kippers in Parliament, the argument would have been had. An incredible injustice that it suited the establishment not to worry about, but is as responsible as anything for the current mess,
Early GE tip, Chloe has no chance of defending Norwich North unless the blue fortunes change dramatically, Norwich is trending further and further from the Tories even as Norfolk dyes ever bluer
I'm in a true blue rural seat (Witney / West Oxfordshire) and fully expect it to be a marginal within 20 years. It's not just the age thing, but basically the Londonisation of the South-East. Rural Oxfordshire is getting 100,000 new houses by 2031, which are effectively "Greater Oxford" overspill. These new residents are going to vote as Oxford votes, and Oxford votes as London votes.
Canterbury was an early harbinger of this. We are going to see much of the rural South-East turn gradually red, yellow, and whatever-colour-TIG-chooses over the next 20 years. The question is whether the post-industrial north will turn blue to balance it.
Maybe it would help if instead of just assuming that all Leavers won't accept responsibility; that it would be better to look around and realise the situation we are in today is the fault of British politicians (of all strips and parties) and not one 'type' of politician.
It wasn't a Leaver who called the referendum. It wasn't a Leaver who sodded off after losing it. It wasn't a Leaver who has been PM during the entire negotiating period.
That said, it wasn't a Remainer who has been totally incompetent during their times as Brexit secretary to get anything done. AND it is both Remainers and Leavers who are currently preventing the Government getting their 34 additional votes to get the withdrawal deal through Parliament.
Politicians have a lot to answer for.
Leavers screamed and screeched for a referendum. Leavers spent decades poisoning political debate in this country. Leavers refused to agree on what a 'leave result would mean (because they wanted a wide constituency in order to win). Leavers allied themselves with all sorts of nasty scum in order to win.
Then they won.
Now, leavers cannot agree on what a 'leave' result means. Now, leavers refuse to accept responsibility. It's all someone else's fault.
Really? It would have been exactly the same mess that we're seeing now, with leavers of all levels of (in)sanity saying it backs up their particular views. It would have been as clear as mud.
The lessons of the Brexit referendum are clear: if you want a referendum on something, be clear to the public what the result means - don't hold it on something vague and nebulous on the hope of winning, and then claim it means something different.
If you wanted a referendum on no further integration and bringing powers back, then that should have been what the referendum said - and there should have been a workable plan on how we would have got there.
A referendum on a signed Lisbon Treaty was unimplementable and chaotic. It was madness.
I disagree
The instruction was clear: leave the EU. Everything else is a detail that should be up to government (the problem is the legislature willy waving)
In your hypothetical I don’t think it would have been the same because there wouldn’t have been a cathartic event (“leave”). So it would be a statement of intent to the government. The only case which would have a similar outcome would be a yes/no vote on whether to abrogate the Lisbon Treaty
The mess goes back partly to Cameron's reason for calling the 2016 referendum. It wasn't because he wanted the UK to leave the EU, it was to try and retain support from the anti-EU wing of the conservatives (and avoid losing votes to UKIP).
It made no sense for the conservatives to promise in 2015 an in-out referendum, and on the same page in the manifesto promise to safeguard the UK's place in the Single Market (unless they actually intended an "out" win to mean leaving the EU but staying in the Single Market - which would be a reasonable compromise at this point).
Compare to the Scottish 2014 referendum. The SNP won a majority in the Scottish parliament, and were united in wanting Scottish independence hence the policy of calling a referendum on it. If Yes had won, there would obviously have been a majority in the Scottish parliament in favour, so avoiding this kind of mess.
Plus, because the Scottish government was actually proposing this constitutional change, during the referendum people could ask questions that the government had to give a specific answer to - what currency will we use? will we stay in the EU? who will be head of state? unlike in the EU referendum, where the government didn't have to answer any difficult questions (because leaving wasn't their policy), so Leave just meant "do you want to change our relationship with the EU to whatever you fantasise it should become?"
A referendum on a signed Lisbon Treaty was unimplementable and chaotic. It was madness.
I disagree
The instruction was clear: leave the EU. Everything else is a detail that should be up to government (the problem is the legislature willy waving)
In your hypothetical I don’t think it would have been the same because there wouldn’t have been a cathartic event (“leave”). So it would be a statement of intent to the government. The only case which would have a similar outcome would be a yes/no vote on whether to abrogate the Lisbon Treaty
The mess goes back partly to Cameron's reason for calling the 2016 referendum. It wasn't because he wanted the UK to leave the EU, it was to try and retain support from the anti-EU wing of the conservatives (and avoid losing votes to UKIP).
It made no sense for the conservatives to promise in 2015 an in-out referendum, and on the same page in the manifesto promise to safeguard the UK's place in the Single Market (unless they actually intended an "out" win to mean leaving the EU but staying in the Single Market - which would be a reasonable compromise at this point).
Compare to the Scottish 2014 referendum. The SNP won a majority in the Scottish parliament, and were united in wanting Scottish independence hence the policy of calling a referendum on it. If Yes had won, there would obviously have been a majority in the Scottish parliament in favour, so avoiding this kind of mess.
Plus, because the Scottish government was actually proposing this constitutional change, during the referendum people could ask questions that the government had to give a specific answer to - what currency will we use? will we stay in the EU? who will be head of state? unlike in the EU referendum, where the government didn't have to answer any difficult questions (because leaving wasn't their policy), so Leave just meant "do you want to change our relationship with the EU to whatever you fantasise it should become?"
The system that gave UKIP 0.15% of the seats for 13% of the 2015 vote has a lot to do with that. Had there been 20 Kippers in Parliament, the argument would have been had. An incredible injustice that it suited the establishment not to worry about, but is as responsible as anything for the current mess,
Certainly *an* argument would have been had, but it wouldn't have enlightened much about our membership of the EU. Which potential UKIP MPs do you think would have changed things?
It would have been a clear instruction to the government that no further integration was not acceptable and that it should seek to bring powers back. Pulling out of the treaty would not have been possible although a brave government could have threatened to trigger Article 50 if no reforms were forthcoming
Really? It would have been exactly the same mess that we're seeing now, with leavers of all levels of (in)sanity saying it backs up their particular views. It would have been as clear as mud.
The lessons of the Brexit referendum are clear: if you want a referendum on something, be clear to the public what the result means - don't hold it on something vague and nebulous on the hope of winning, and then claim it means something different.
If you wanted a referendum on no further integration and bringing powers back, then that should have been what the referendum said - and there should have been a workable plan on how we would have got there.
A referendum on a signed Lisbon Treaty was unimplementable and chaotic. It was madness.
I disagree
The instruction was clear: leave the EU. Everything else is a detail that should be up to government (the problem is the legislature willy waving)
In your hypothetical I don’t think it would have been the same because there wouldn’t have been a cathartic event (“leave”). So it would be a statement of intent to the government. The only case which would have a similar outcome would be a yes/no vote on whether to abrogate the Lisbon Treaty
Was there a rogue constitutional history teacher at your school who decided to troll the country by misleading Cameron and you about how the system works? The constitution is pretty much encapsulated in the following eight words: *nobody* gives "instructions" to the Crown in Parliament.
So today is the crucial day.... when nothing will happen.
May will say one thing in her home-vid and then do the opposite in the negotiations.
She was pulling strange faces in that video. She was either limbering up for the gurning competition at Egremont Crab Fair or she had a wasp in her clout.
Early GE tip, Chloe has no chance of defending Norwich North unless the blue fortunes change dramatically, Norwich is trending further and further from the Tories even as Norfolk dyes ever bluer
I'm in a true blue rural seat (Witney / West Oxfordshire) and fully expect it to be a marginal within 20 years. It's not just the age thing, but basically the Londonisation of the South-East. Rural Oxfordshire is getting 100,000 new houses by 2031, which are effectively "Greater Oxford" overspill. These new residents are going to vote as Oxford votes, and Oxford votes as London votes.
Canterbury was an early harbinger of this. We are going to see much of the rural South-East turn gradually red, yellow, and whatever-colour-TIG-chooses over the next 20 years. The question is whether the post-industrial north will turn blue to balance it.
Indeed. I think the political set up will need to radically change to suit the new demographics - new parties tailored to jt
A referendum on a signed Lisbon Treaty was unimplementable and chaotic. It was madness.
I disagree
The instruction was clear: leave the EU. Everything else is a detail that should be up to government (the problem is the legislature willy waving)
In your hypothetical I don’t think it would have been the same because there wouldn’t have been a cathartic event (“leave”). So it would be a statement of intent to the government. The only case which would have a similar outcome would be a yes/no vote on whether to abrogate the Lisbon Treaty
The mess goes back partly to Cameron's reason for calling the 2016 referendum. It wasn't because he wanted the UK to leave the EU, it was to try and retain support from the anti-EU wing of the conservatives (and avoid losing votes to UKIP).
It made no sense for the conservatives to promise in 2015 an in-out referendum, and on the same page in the manifesto promise to safeguard the UK's place in the Single Market (unless they actually intended an "out" win to mean leaving the EU but staying in the Single Market - which would be a reasonable compromise at this point).
Compare to the Scottish 2014 referendum. The SNP won a majority in the Scottish parliament, and were united in wanting Scottish independence hence the policy of calling a referendum on it. If Yes had won, there would obviously have been a majority in the Scottish parliament in favour, so avoiding this kind of mess.
Plus, because the Scottish government was actually proposing this constitutional change, during the referendum people could ask questions that the government had to give a specific answer to - what currency will we use? will we stay in the EU? who will be head of state? unlike in the EU referendum, where the government didn't have to answer any difficult questions (because leaving wasn't their policy), so Leave just meant "do you want to change our relationship with the EU to whatever you fantasise it should become?"
The system that gave UKIP 0.15% of the seats for 13% of the 2015 vote has a lot to do with that. Had there been 20 Kippers in Parliament, the argument would have been had. An incredible injustice that it suited the establishment not to worry about, but is as responsible as anything for the current mess,
Certainly *an* argument would have been had, but it wouldn't have enlightened much about our membership of the EU. Which potential UKIP MPs do you think would have changed things?
There being a group of MPs hellbent on leaving would have provoked more debate on how to leave. It doesn’t matter who they were
Maybe it would help if instead of just assuming that all Leavers won't accept responsibility; that it would be better to look around and realise the situation we are in today is the fault of British politicians (of all strips and parties) and not one 'type' of politician.
It wasn't a Leaver who called the referendum. It wasn't a Leaver who sodded off after losing it. It wasn't a Leaver who has been PM during the entire negotiating period.
That said, it wasn't a Remainer who has been totally incompetent during their times as Brexit secretary to get anything done. AND it is both Remainers and Leavers who are currently preventing the Government getting their 34 additional votes to get the withdrawal deal through Parliament.
Politicians have a lot to answer for.
Leavers screamed and screeched for a referendum. Leavers spent decades poisoning political debate in this country. Leavers refused to agree on what a 'leave result would mean (because they wanted a wide constituency in order to win). Leavers allied themselves with all sorts of nasty scum in order to win.
Then they won.
Now, leavers cannot agree on what a 'leave' result means. Now, leavers refuse to accept responsibility. It's all someone else's fault.
Leavers have no control over what sort of Leave we get. How is it our responsibility when it is you Remain maniacs who have been in charge all the way through the process and have fucked it all up?
Maybe it would help if instead of just assuming that all Leavers won't accept responsibility; that it would be better to look around and realise the situation we are in today is the fault of British politicians (of all strips and parties) and not one 'type' of politician.
It wasn't a Leaver who called the referendum. It wasn't a Leaver who sodded off after losing it. It wasn't a Leaver who has been PM during the entire negotiating period.
That said, it wasn't a Remainer who has been totally incompetent during their times as Brexit secretary to get anything done. AND it is both Remainers and Leavers who are currently preventing the Government getting their 34 additional votes to get the withdrawal deal through Parliament.
Politicians have a lot to answer for.
Leavers screamed and screeched for a referendum. Leavers spent decades poisoning political debate in this country. Leavers refused to agree on what a 'leave result would mean (because they wanted a wide constituency in order to win). Leavers allied themselves with all sorts of nasty scum in order to win.
Then they won.
Now, leavers cannot agree on what a 'leave' result means. Now, leavers refuse to accept responsibility. It's all someone else's fault.
Leavers have no control over what sort of Leave we get. How is it our responsibility when it is you Remain maniacs who have been in charge all the way through the process and have fucked it all up?
For the first time in three years I think there's now a reasonable chance Brexit wont happen. The realisation that it will produce no beneficial results seems to have suddenly hit people. After three years no one is under any illusion that life will be better by brexiting. As Jonathan says the only justification for going ahead is that three years ago 17 million people voted for it.
There is a wind of change blowing which can even be felt on PB. The zeitgeist has shifted
For the first time in three years I think there's now a reasonable chance Brexit wont happen. The realisation that it will produce no beneficial results seems to have suddenly hit people. After three years no one is under any illusion that life will be better by brexiting. As Jonathan says the only justification for going ahead is that three years ago 17 million people voted for it.
There is a wind of change blowing which can even be felt on PB. The zeitgeist has shifted
In fact PB is about the only place online people aren't assuming Brexit is about to be cancelled.
Early GE tip, Chloe has no chance of defending Norwich North unless the blue fortunes change dramatically, Norwich is trending further and further from the Tories even as Norfolk dyes ever bluer
I'm in a true blue rural seat (Witney / West Oxfordshire) and fully expect it to be a marginal within 20 years. It's not just the age thing, but basically the Londonisation of the South-East. Rural Oxfordshire is getting 100,000 new houses by 2031, which are effectively "Greater Oxford" overspill. These new residents are going to vote as Oxford votes, and Oxford votes as London votes.
Canterbury was an early harbinger of this. We are going to see much of the rural South-East turn gradually red, yellow, and whatever-colour-TIG-chooses over the next 20 years. The question is whether the post-industrial north will turn blue to balance it.
Indeed. I think the political set up will need to radically change to suit the new demographics - new parties tailored to jt
This seems to reflect what I mentioned yesterday. The new R/L divide (R/L, get it?) is between the socially-liberal well-educated haves and the other half. The former don't know how the other half live. They need to understand and act on it.
I think it's more reversible than the old R/L divide because other European countries seemingly managed to avoid regions becoming 'left behind'. Limburg, aka the Maastricht region of the Netherlands, closed all its coal mines 45-50 yrs ago using non-Thatcherite methods and apparently is now as prosperous as Surrey/Sussex. Really?!
Maybe it would help if instead of just assuming that all Leavers won't accept responsibility; that it would be better to look around and realise the situation we are in today is the fault of British politicians (of all strips and parties) and not one 'type' of politician.
It wasn't a Leaver who called the referendum. It wasn't a Leaver who sodded off after losing it. It wasn't a Leaver who has been PM during the entire negotiating period.
That said, it wasn't a Remainer who has been totally incompetent during their times as Brexit secretary to get anything done. AND it is both Remainers and Leavers who are currently preventing the Government getting their 34 additional votes to get the withdrawal deal through Parliament.
Politicians have a lot to answer for.
Leavers screamed and screeched for a referendum. Leavers spent decades poisoning political debate in this country. Leavers refused to agree on what a 'leave result would mean (because they wanted a wide constituency in order to win). Leavers allied themselves with all sorts of nasty scum in order to win.
Then they won.
Now, leavers cannot agree on what a 'leave' result means. Now, leavers refuse to accept responsibility. It's all someone else's fault.
Leavers have no control over what sort of Leave we get. How is it our responsibility when it is you Remain maniacs who have been in charge all the way through the process and have fucked it all up?
"you Remain maniacs"
(Sighs theatrically)
Richard, you apparently have not noticed, but although I somewhat reluctantly voted remain, I have criticised the EU many times, have argued against a second referendum as being pointless, and am in favour of May's deal.
If that makes me a 'remain maniac', I suggest you read a dictionary to reacquaint yourself with the meaning of some rather basic words.
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.
I am aware of how it works - and PB was probably the culprit.
However, and this is the point: an animated show that is one of the top answers when you enter 'childrens science show' (or somesuch) shouldn't display such ads.
It's in their interests as well: if their algorithms worked better, they'd be able to produce ads targeted at kids rather than age-inappropriate ones.
Given all their self-vaunted work on AI and machine learning, you'd think they'd pout it first on the thing that actually earns them income. Instead the ad placement algorithms appear particularly thick (although in some cases that might be because of a lack of suitable advertisers in a sector).
YouTube has completely messed up children’s videos, even their supposedly curated “YouTube Kids” section is full of unsuitable content, and they seem either unwilling or unable to do anything about it.
Large internet companies (for which read Google and Facebook) are going to be on the receiving end of some serious regulation in many countries if they can’t sort out the problem.
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.
I am aware of how it works - and PB was probably the culprit.
However, and this is the point: an animated show that is one of the top answers when you enter 'childrens science show' (or somesuch) shouldn't display such ads.
It's in their interests as well: if their algorithms worked better, they'd be able to produce ads targeted at kids rather than age-inappropriate ones.
Given all their self-vaunted work on AI and machine learning, you'd think they'd pout it first on the thing that actually earns them income. Instead the ad placement algorithms appear particularly thick (although in some cases that might be because of a lack of suitable advertisers in a sector).
YouTube has completely messed up children’s videos, even their supposedly curated “YouTube Kids” section is full of unsuitable content, and they seem either unwilling or unable to do anything about it.
Large internet companies (for which read Google and Facebook) are going to be on the receiving end of some serious regulation in many countries if they can’t sort out the problem.
Thanks for that. It seems they haven't made much progress ...
Maybe it would help if instead of just assuming that all Leavers won't accept responsibility; that it would be better to look around and realise the situation we are in today is the fault of British politicians (of all strips and parties) and not one 'type' of politician.
It wasn't a Leaver who called the referendum. It wasn't a Leaver who sodded off after losing it. It wasn't a Leaver who has been PM during the entire negotiating period.
That said, it wasn't a Remainer who has been totally incompetent during their times as Brexit secretary to get anything done. AND it is both Remainers and Leavers who are currently preventing the Government getting their 34 additional votes to get the withdrawal deal through Parliament.
Politicians have a lot to answer for.
Leavers screamed and screeched for a referendum. Leavers spent decades poisoning political debate in this country. Leavers refused to agree on what a 'leave result would mean (because they wanted a wide constituency in order to win). Leavers allied themselves with all sorts of nasty scum in order to win.
Then they won.
Now, leavers cannot agree on what a 'leave' result means. Now, leavers refuse to accept responsibility. It's all someone else's fault.
Leavers have no control over what sort of Leave we get. How is it our responsibility when it is you Remain maniacs who have been in charge all the way through the process and have fucked it all up?
Quite
I'd forgotten that Fox, David Davis, Boris Johnson et al were remainers ...
What I meant was that the EU did not 'rule' us in the crude characterisation of 'EUSSR' that some people presented. Our problems our are own but EU membership prevents us from trying to enact things that many would like to try (from immigration control to state aid) in order to solve them. What EU membership brings is a constraint on democratic action because we have signed up to the rules of the EU in various (and growing) areas in return for the benefits that EU membership brings. While I appreciated the benefits of EU membership, my own view is that they aren't worth the costs to democratic accountability. I appreciate that it isn't everyone's view but the referendum gave us the chance to express a direct view on 45 years of membership.
Immigration is of course an interesting one as the UK, for better or for worse, seems to have settled upon a level of immigration regardless of the EU. We all know that we, the UK chose not to implement some controls, that the tens of thousands pledge was simply disingenuous, and also that non-EU immigration as we have seen has risen as EU immigration has fallen.
Ever since Windrush and before (Jews, Huguenots, Ugandan Asians) the UK has had a difficult relationship with the concept of immigration and I really don't think the EU had or now has anything whatsoever to do with it.
Around 50,000 Huguenots came to Britain over a period of about 40 years - that's equivalent to our current immigration levels for about 6 weeks. A mere 27,000 Ugandan Asians came here - around one month's net immigration in recent years. In the late 1960s even London was still 95% plus white British - nearly 20 years after Windrush.
In no way is that comparable to the level of immigration we have seen in the last 20 years - and particularly since 2004. Whether people approve of it or not is another matter - but to suggest recent years are typical of the past is rather dishonest.
Maybe it would help if instead of just assuming that all Leavers won't accept responsibility; that it would be better to look around and realise the situation we are in today is the fault of British politicians (of all strips and parties) and not one 'type' of politician.
It wasn't a Leaver who called the referendum. It wasn't a Leaver who sodded off after losing it. It wasn't a Leaver who has been PM during the entire negotiating period.
That said, it wasn't a Remainer who has been totally incompetent during their times as Brexit secretary to get anything done. AND it is both Remainers and Leavers who are currently preventing the Government getting their 34 additional votes to get the withdrawal deal through Parliament.
Politicians have a lot to answer for.
Leavers screamed and screeched for a referendum. Leavers spent decades poisoning political debate in this country. Leavers refused to agree on what a 'leave result would mean (because they wanted a wide constituency in order to win). Leavers allied themselves with all sorts of nasty scum in order to win.
Then they won.
Now, leavers cannot agree on what a 'leave' result means. Now, leavers refuse to accept responsibility. It's all someone else's fault.
Bar in 1983 leavers of course had no party to vote for in a general election as every party on the ballot paper in 90% of the country was pro staying in the EU. That remained the case until 2015. Perhaps if their voice had been heard before 2014-16 we might not have voted to leave.
Comments
May will say one thing in her home-vid and then do the opposite in the negotiations.
It wasn't a Leaver who called the referendum. It wasn't a Leaver who sodded off after losing it.
It wasn't a Leaver who has been PM during the entire negotiating period.
That said, it wasn't a Remainer who has been totally incompetent during their times as Brexit secretary to get anything done. AND it is both Remainers and Leavers who are currently preventing the Government getting their 34 additional votes to get the withdrawal deal through Parliament.
Politicians have a lot to answer for.
"subject to parliamentary consent."
At GEs where we usually have a choice between two morons where the EU is scarcely mentioned. I usually voted for the moron who would do least harm even if both were often Europhiles.
Referendums - true democracy.
Cooper-Letwin is due to pass the Lords by 8pm. Some potentially interesting amendments up for debate. Then it returns to the Commons this evening - potentially another knife-edge vote, and potential for games if there are any Lords amendments of significance.
The rumoured binding-indicative votes seem to have dropped back until tomorrow, although the Government may say something about them in its Business Statement today.
There were rumours at the weekend of a bid to use the Commons's emergency debate provisions this afternoon to move a vote on the People's Vote
And it's always possible something comes of Corbyn/May, or alternatively that it collapses
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qf7rntVimhw
Hmmmmm.....mood out there changing?
The instruction was clear: leave the EU. Everything else is a detail that should be up to government (the problem is the legislature willy waving)
In your hypothetical I don’t think it would have been the same because there wouldn’t have been a cathartic event (“leave”). So it would be a statement of intent to the government. The only case which would have a similar outcome would be a yes/no vote on whether to abrogate the Lisbon Treaty
Ever since Windrush and before (Jews, Huguenots, Ugandan Asians) the UK has had a difficult relationship with the concept of immigration and I really don't think the EU had or now has anything whatsoever to do with it.
It made no sense for the conservatives to promise in 2015 an in-out referendum, and on the same page in the manifesto promise to safeguard the UK's place in the Single Market (unless they actually intended an "out" win to mean leaving the EU but staying in the Single Market - which would be a reasonable compromise at this point).
Compare to the Scottish 2014 referendum. The SNP won a majority in the Scottish parliament, and were united in wanting Scottish independence hence the policy of calling a referendum on it. If Yes had won, there would obviously have been a majority in the Scottish parliament in favour, so avoiding this kind of mess.
Plus, because the Scottish government was actually proposing this constitutional change, during the referendum people could ask questions that the government had to give a specific answer to - what currency will we use? will we stay in the EU? who will be head of state? unlike in the EU referendum, where the government didn't have to answer any difficult questions (because leaving wasn't their policy), so Leave just meant "do you want to change our relationship with the EU to whatever you fantasise it should become?"
I'm in a true blue rural seat (Witney / West Oxfordshire) and fully expect it to be a marginal within 20 years. It's not just the age thing, but basically the Londonisation of the South-East. Rural Oxfordshire is getting 100,000 new houses by 2031, which are effectively "Greater Oxford" overspill. These new residents are going to vote as Oxford votes, and Oxford votes as London votes.
Canterbury was an early harbinger of this. We are going to see much of the rural South-East turn gradually red, yellow, and whatever-colour-TIG-chooses over the next 20 years. The question is whether the post-industrial north will turn blue to balance it.
Leavers spent decades poisoning political debate in this country.
Leavers refused to agree on what a 'leave result would mean (because they wanted a wide constituency in order to win).
Leavers allied themselves with all sorts of nasty scum in order to win.
Then they won.
Now, leavers cannot agree on what a 'leave' result means.
Now, leavers refuse to accept responsibility. It's all someone else's fault.
Time for everyone to depart in an orderly fashion via the exits...
Unless we decide to "revoke" the new thread in which case we'll just stay in this thread in perpetuity...
There is a wind of change blowing which can even be felt on PB. The zeitgeist has shifted
I think it's more reversible than the old R/L divide because other European countries seemingly managed to avoid regions becoming 'left behind'. Limburg, aka the Maastricht region of the Netherlands, closed all its coal mines 45-50 yrs ago using non-Thatcherite methods and apparently is now as prosperous as Surrey/Sussex. Really?!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_regions_by_GDP
I can't find the link to the R4 programme that explained this, sorry. I listened live. But it was very good. If anyone finds it, do let us know ...
(Sighs theatrically)
Richard, you apparently have not noticed, but although I somewhat reluctantly voted remain, I have criticised the EU many times, have argued against a second referendum as being pointless, and am in favour of May's deal.
If that makes me a 'remain maniac', I suggest you read a dictionary to reacquaint yourself with the meaning of some rather basic words.
YouTube has completely messed up children’s videos, even their supposedly curated “YouTube Kids” section is full of unsuitable content, and they seem either unwilling or unable to do anything about it.
Large internet companies (for which read Google and Facebook) are going to be on the receiving end of some serious regulation in many countries if they can’t sort out the problem.
In no way is that comparable to the level of immigration we have seen in the last 20 years - and particularly since 2004. Whether people approve of it or not is another matter - but to suggest recent years are typical of the past is rather dishonest.
A leaver voting Lib Dem or SNP can hardly complain - but if they voted Labour they might have some grounds for grievance.