I may be wrong, but I don't see any real pull for a second vote. The People's Vote have succeeded in neutralising the idea that the referendum result must be treated as Holy Writ, because there is an option of confirmation, that may be withheld. But they really want to revoke, not have a second vote. The population is generally fed up with Brexit so politicians are not likely to see much upside in imposing another messy referendum on voter. Brexit will therefore need to be dealt with by parliament.
Sensible parliamentarians (most of them although some are keeping quiet about it) won't want to be associated with the fallout from No Deal. There isn't either the bandwidth or the political will for a long term Brexit resolution in the short or medium term. Which makes the most likely outcomes either revoke with a promise to find a Brexit solution some time in the vague future or Blind Brexit and trust to the transition period going on, essentially forever.
Previously I strongly believed we were headed to permanent transition (Blind Brexit), but now I think Brexit Review (Revoke) is a serious possibility
Ironically that may be Boris's only real (if slim) chance of becoming leader,
That conversion would take him from no chance to zero.
The country is in desperate need of some real political leadership. Yet it is only journalists so far that have been willing to admit that they were wrong.
In Boris's case he should have done it right after the referendum result, rather than running away into hiding.
Leadership would be identifying a deal to leave that is acceptable to the house and the EU.
The people have been consulted - the EU and MPs are the roadblocks to progress.
I refer you to the comments made by West Midlands MEP Siôn Simon, when he stated that "Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us for the century since 1906."
I am referring this matter to you on the basis that this statement was manifestly untrue. There was no such election, no "decade of strong, confident, consensual Labour government".
Yours faithfully
TheWhiteRabbit
What are these comments by Siôn Simon? I've never seen them posted on PB.
A cause for optimism that occurred to me whilst noticing, and being mildly annoyed by, the inaccurate assertion, via audiobook, that the Battle of Poitiers was fought in 1355 (it was 1356, obviously):
King John's rubbishness gave us Magna Carta. Maybe the festering mountain of excrement that is politics today will be the fertiliser from constitutional roses?
No, I don't believe that either. But then, John was bloody rubbish.
Isn't the Magna Carta somewhat over-rated as a signifcant pillar of our modern rights and freedoms? I thought it had more to do with the rights of medieval barons.
More significant in what people perceive it to be about than its intention was perhaps. Which can be even more important than reality.
It is a symbol of the first ever break with the concept of an absolute monarchy.
The untold story is quite how humanity worked itself from tribal elders who led by consensus to the concept of the divine all powerful monarch in the first place.
But it should be noted that the statute of limitations for the Swedish allegations - no matter what happens - runs out in mid-August 2020.
That statute of limitations gives Assange an incentive to challenge any Swedish EAW until the time runs out. If the UK leaves the EU without a deal, he will have extra opportunities to do so. Ordinary extradition law will apply, so Sweden could issue a standard non-EU-based extradition request like the US has. However, ordinary requests take more time on average to process than EAWs.
Surely he'd much prefer a short process to a longer one, for the Swedish case? It's hardly as if any judge is going to bail him while they work through it!
I think I'd prefer to take my chances with the Swedish justice system over the US regarding the various charges. He stayed in the embassy for 7 years for a reason.
Mr. Eagles, Mr. F is entirely correct. Gerrymandering the franchise to include children and foreigners because the dastardly adult British electorate gave the 'wrong' answer would be a boon for new parties and cause potentially mortal harm to the Conservative Party.
These foreigners can vote in other UK elections, some of them even vote in general elections.
Allowing non-nationals to vote defeats the very concept of citizenship to me.
Applying that strictly, why should a 36 year old with a UK passport who has lived and worked abroad for 14 years since university be able to vote when someone who was born in NI, chooses an Irish passport and citizenship, has always lived and paid taxes in the UK would not be able to vote?
Even if we allow for exceptions for Irish passport holders, it still seems just that someone who is a long standing resident and tax payer here would have at least similar voting rights as long term ex pats who live abroad and may be out of touch with UK reality.
Because the UK passport holder has an allegiance to the country and is part of the nation in a way that the person that has given his allegiance to Ireland has not. That is what a nation is: a national community of people that are travelling together.
It doesn't feel very much like Britain is a "national community of people that are travelling together" at the moment.
Nationhood is much over-rated imo, and patriotism is both pointless and potentially dangerous.
Mr. Eagles, Mr. F is entirely correct. Gerrymandering the franchise to include children and foreigners because the dastardly adult British electorate gave the 'wrong' answer would be a boon for new parties and cause potentially mortal harm to the Conservative Party.
These foreigners can vote in other UK elections, some of them even vote in general elections.
Allowing non-nationals to vote defeats the very concept of citizenship to me.
Applying that strictly, why should a 36 year old with a UK passport who has lived and worked abroad for 14 years since university be able to vote when someone who was born in NI, chooses an Irish passport and citizenship, has always lived and paid taxes in the UK would not be able to vote?
Even if we allow for exceptions for Irish passport holders, it still seems just that someone who is a long standing resident and tax payer here would have at least similar voting rights as long term ex pats who live abroad and may be out of touch with UK reality.
Because the UK passport holder has an allegiance to the country and is part of the nation in a way that the person that has given his allegiance to Ireland has not. That is what a nation is: a national community of people that are travelling together.
It doesn't feel very much like Britain is a "national community of people that are travelling together" at the moment.
Nationhood is much over-rated imo, and patriotism is both pointless and dangerous.
But it should be noted that the statute of limitations for the Swedish allegations - no matter what happens - runs out in mid-August 2020.
That statute of limitations gives Assange an incentive to challenge any Swedish EAW until the time runs out. If the UK leaves the EU without a deal, he will have extra opportunities to do so. Ordinary extradition law will apply, so Sweden could issue a standard non-EU-based extradition request like the US has. However, ordinary requests take more time on average to process than EAWs.
Surely he'd much prefer a short process to a longer one, for the Swedish case? It's hardly as if any judge is going to bail him while they work through it!
He stayed in the embassy for 7 years for a reason.
Mr. Eagles, Mr. F is entirely correct. Gerrymandering the franchise to include children and foreigners because the dastardly adult British electorate gave the 'wrong' answer would be a boon for new parties and cause potentially mortal harm to the Conservative Party.
These foreigners can vote in other UK elections, some of them even vote in general elections.
Allowing non-nationals to vote defeats the very concept of citizenship to me.
Applying that strictly, why should a 36 year old with a UK passport who has lived and worked abroad for 14 years since university be able to vote when someone who was born in NI, chooses an Irish passport and citizenship, has always lived and paid taxes in the UK would not be able to vote?
Even if we allow for exceptions for Irish passport holders, it still seems just that someone who is a long standing resident and tax payer here would have at least similar voting rights as long term ex pats who live abroad and may be out of touch with UK reality.
Because the UK passport holder has an allegiance to the country and is part of the nation in a way that the person that has given his allegiance to Ireland has not. That is what a nation is: a national community of people that are travelling together.
It doesn't feel very much like Britain is a "national community of people that are travelling together" at the moment.
Nationhood is much over-rated imo, and patriotism is both pointless and dangerous.
But pro European nationhood is ok?
Ther is no single European nation.
I support a close European federation of regions and countries with appropriate pan-European standards and room for regional and local differences.
Mr. Eagles, Mr. F is entirely correct. Gerrymandering the franchise to include children and foreigners because the dastardly adult British electorate gave the 'wrong' answer would be a boon for new parties and cause potentially mortal harm to the Conservative Party.
These foreigners can vote in other UK elections, some of them even vote in general elections.
Allowing non-nationals to vote defeats the very concept of citizenship to me.
Applying that strictly, why should a 36 year old with a UK passport who has lived and worked abroad for 14 years since university be able to vote when someone who was born in NI, chooses an Irish passport and citizenship, has always lived and paid taxes in the UK would not be able to vote?
Even if we allow for exceptions for Irish passport holders, it still seems just that someone who is a long standing resident and tax payer here would have at least similar voting rights as long term ex pats who live abroad and may be out of touch with UK reality.
Because the UK passport holder has an allegiance to the country and is part of the nation in a way that the person that has given his allegiance to Ireland has not. That is what a nation is: a national community of people that are travelling together.
It doesn't feel very much like Britain is a "national community of people that are travelling together" at the moment.
Nationhood is much over-rated imo, and patriotism is both pointless and potentially dangerous.
No. it doesn't and that is because of the decline in national sentiment, reducing the sense of community. You are entitled to your view but I think the vast majority of your fellow citizens would disagree with you.
Hello. I am the complainant in this case, this poll was flagged by the Telegraph as evidence and my counter was that it asks "What should the PM/MPs do next" and not "What type of Brexit is preferred"
Trust me, they had absolutely nothing they could defend their claim with and IPSO agreed.
The full question asked for that series of poll was:
"In the event of Parliament voting down the Brexit deal that the Government negotiates with the European Union, what do you think should happen next?"
That doesn't ask what you think MPs or PMs should do, it asks what should happen next.
Johnson's quote was about the clear preference in polling a certain type of Brexit. What type of Brexit is "Call a General Election"?
There is also a plurality in all of those responses for a referendum if you add those two options together, something the Telegraph did often when referring to other polling.
I've counted all these points when they came from the publication and IPSO found in my favour. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Politicians are never going to risk putting no deal to voters, for the same reason that there has never been a referendum on the death penalty. Sometimes we do need politicians to save us from ourselves.
Exactly. Most MPs believe that no deal would be suicidal. And they are supported in this belief by every independent economic forecast, business, the unions, the devolved administrations, all friendly overseas governments etc etc etc.
If someone says they are going to commit suicide the normal human reaction is to stop them, even though the person concerned might have a strong desire to go through with it and a firm belief that it is the best way forward. So it is with no deal Brexit - the fact that some people might tell pollsters that they are in favour of it is not going to change the minds of MP - their duty is to prevent it. Enough damage has been done already.
Mr. Pointer, it was directed at the content of Scott P's post, specifically a tweet indicating that May might well be heading for a customs union. It wasn't direct against you, or Mr. P.
Mr. Doof, everyone having a vote on everything is unnecessary. I don't object to EU citizens voting in local elections, but being able to determine whether we remain in the EU or leave is indefensible nonsense.
Mr. Eagles, Mr. F is entirely correct. Gerrymandering the franchise to include children and foreigners because the dastardly adult British electorate gave the 'wrong' answer would be a boon for new parties and cause potentially mortal harm to the Conservative Party.
These foreigners can vote in other UK elections, some of them even vote in general elections.
Allowing non-nationals to vote defeats the very concept of citizenship to me.
Applying that strictly, why should a 36 year old with a UK passport who has lived and worked abroad for 14 years since university be able to vote when someone who was born in NI, chooses an Irish passport and citizenship, has always lived and paid taxes in the UK would not be able to vote?
Even if we allow for exceptions for Irish passport holders, it still seems just that someone who is a long standing resident and tax payer here would have at least similar voting rights as long term ex pats who live abroad and may be out of touch with UK reality.
Would your proposals embrace reciprocal arrangements?
I am not making any proposals beyond saying it is complicated! And that citizenship should be one factor to help decide who can vote, not the only one, long term residency should be another.
Then it was a complicated post on complication which, for me anyway, did not illuminate the complication.
Can those of you who object to putting May's deal to a referendum versus Remain explain to me what the objection is please?
I get the 'we shouldn't have a 2nd referendum until we have implemented the 1st' line but the fact is Parliament has not, and in all probability, will never pass the Deal as it stands while the EU has been consistent in saying it will not renegotiate the Deal.
It seems to me Leavers' best chance of achieving Brexit is now to get voters to approve the Deal.
How about Mays deal vs Remain without FOM?
You mean May's Deal versus a Unicorn.
Wtff is the point of presenting the country with an option the EU won't agree to!?!
I know it’s not possible, I’m just trying to illustrate the absurdity of Remain vs a version of Leave that a lot of leavers don’t like
Then leavers had better come up with a realistic form of Leave, then. Which is likely to be softer than where we are with May's deal. The risks of no deal are such that it is never going to be allowed to happen, however much the obsessives keep ranting about it. It's like the death penalty in that its supporters may choose to overlook the risks from the safety of their armchairs, but no responsible government is ever going to introduce it.
Leavers would have been a lot better off if they had accepted the impossibility of no deal at the outset.
"never's" a little word fighting above its weight, particularly on here. Might "unlikely" be more appropriate with an optional "most"?
Not when so many spent so long assuring us that the PM meant it when she said that no deal was better than a bad deal, then she got briefed on the economic and political implications of no deal and has striven to avoid it, as any PM would. Same for the EU. So it only happens by some horrendous accident.
How does your last sentence sit with "never"?
It sits happily next to "allowed". An accident enables the unallowable.
Politicians are never going to risk putting no deal to voters, for the same reason that there has never been a referendum on the death penalty. Sometimes we do need politicians to save us from ourselves.
Exactly. Most MPs believe that no deal would be suicidal. And they are supported in this belief by every independent economic forecast, business, the unions, the devolved administrations, all friendly overseas governments etc etc etc.
If someone says they are going to commit suicide the normal human reaction is to stop them, even though the person concerned might have a strong desire to go through with it and a firm belief that it is the best way forward. So it is with no deal Brexit - the fact that some people might tell pollsters that they are in favour of it is not going to change the minds of MP - their duty is to prevent it. Enough damage has been done already.
Most businesses, unions, academics, foreign governments etc also thought it was economically sensible to join the Euro. Turns out they were wrong and the public were right.
Mr. Eagles, Mr. F is entirely correct. Gerrymandering the franchise to include children and foreigners because the dastardly adult British electorate gave the 'wrong' answer would be a boon for new parties and cause potentially mortal harm to the Conservative Party.
These foreigners can vote in other UK elections, some of them even vote in general elections.
Allowing non-nationals to vote defeats the very concept of citizenship to me.
Applying that strictly, why should a 36 year old with a UK passport who has lived and worked abroad for 14 years since university be able to vote when someone who was born in NI, chooses an Irish passport and citizenship, has always lived and paid taxes in the UK would not be able to vote?
Even if we allow for exceptions for Irish passport holders, it still seems just that someone who is a long standing resident and tax payer here would have at least similar voting rights as long term ex pats who live abroad and may be out of touch with UK reality.
Because the UK passport holder has an allegiance to the country and is part of the nation in a way that the person that has given his allegiance to Ireland has not. That is what a nation is: a national community of people that are travelling together.
This is rubbish. A UK passport holder is nothing more than a person who holds a UK passport. Peoples opinions and attidudes are very varied independent of what passport(s) they hold.
Mr. Eagles, Mr. F is entirely correct. Gerrymandering the franchise to include children and foreigners because the dastardly adult British electorate gave the 'wrong' answer would be a boon for new parties and cause potentially mortal harm to the Conservative Party.
These foreigners can vote in other UK elections, some of them even vote in general elections.
Allowing non-nationals to vote defeats the very concept of citizenship to me.
Applying that strictly, why should a 36 year old with a UK passport who has lived and worked abroad for 14 years since university be able to vote when someone who was born in NI, chooses an Irish passport and citizenship, has always lived and paid taxes in the UK would not be able to vote?
Even if we allow for exceptions for Irish passport holders, it still seems just that someone who is a long standing resident and tax payer here would have at least similar voting rights as long term ex pats who live abroad and may be out of touch with UK reality.
Because the UK passport holder has an allegiance to the country and is part of the nation in a way that the person that has given his allegiance to Ireland has not. That is what a nation is: a national community of people that are travelling together.
It doesn't feel very much like Britain is a "national community of people that are travelling together" at the moment.
Nationhood is much over-rated imo, and patriotism is both pointless and dangerous.
But pro European nationhood is ok?
Ther is no single European nation.
I support a close European federation of regions and countries with appropriate pan-European standards and room for regional and local differences.
Given the EU's penchant for harmonisation, it might not be the club for you.
Mr. Eagles, Mr. F is entirely correct. Gerrymandering the franchise to include children and foreigners because the dastardly adult British electorate gave the 'wrong' answer would be a boon for new parties and cause potentially mortal harm to the Conservative Party.
These foreigners can vote in other UK elections, some of them even vote in general elections.
Allowing non-nationals to vote defeats the very concept of citizenship to me.
Applying that strictly, why should a 36 year old with a UK passport who has lived and worked abroad for 14 years since university be able to vote when someone who was born in NI, chooses an Irish passport and citizenship, has always lived and paid taxes in the UK would not be able to vote?
Even if we allow for exceptions for Irish passport holders, it still seems just that someone who is a long standing resident and tax payer here would have at least similar voting rights as long term ex pats who live abroad and may be out of touch with UK reality.
Because the UK passport holder has an allegiance to the country and is part of the nation in a way that the person that has given his allegiance to Ireland has not. That is what a nation is: a national community of people that are travelling together.
From a technical perspective, an Irish citizens are not considered foreign (i.e. aliens). They have all the same rights as Brits.
We could change that, but it would mean repealing and replacing the Ireland Act of 1949.
Hello. I am the complainant in this case, this poll was flagged by the Telegraph as evidence and my counter was that it asks "What should the PM/MPs do next" and not "What type of Brexit is preferred"
Trust me, they had absolutely nothing they could defend their claim with and IPSO agreed.
The full question asked for that series of poll was:
"In the event of Parliament voting down the Brexit deal that the Government negotiates with the European Union, what do you think should happen next?"
That doesn't ask what you think MPs or PMs should do, it asks what should happen next.
Johnson's quote was about the clear preference in polling a certain type of Brexit. What type of Brexit is "Call a General Election"?
There is also a plurality in all of those responses for a referendum if you add those two options together, something the Telegraph did often when referring to other polling.
I've counted all these points when they came from the publication and IPSO found in my favour. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Combining multiple responses is the same as a forced choice question. That doesn't tell you what people prefer, rather what they would select if only given two options.
Mr. Eagles, Mr. F is entirely correct. Gerrymandering the franchise to include children and foreigners because the dastardly adult British electorate gave the 'wrong' answer would be a boon for new parties and cause potentially mortal harm to the Conservative Party.
These foreigners can vote in other UK elections, some of them even vote in general elections.
Allowing non-nationals to vote defeats the very concept of citizenship to me.
Applying that strictly, why should a 36 year old with a UK passport who has lived and worked abroad for 14 years since university be able to vote when someone who was born in NI, chooses an Irish passport and citizenship, has always lived and paid taxes in the UK would not be able to vote?
Even if we allow for exceptions for Irish passport holders, it still seems just that someone who is a long standing resident and tax payer here would have at least similar voting rights as long term ex pats who live abroad and may be out of touch with UK reality.
Because the UK passport holder has an allegiance to the country and is part of the nation in a way that the person that has given his allegiance to Ireland has not. That is what a nation is: a national community of people that are travelling together.
It doesn't feel very much like Britain is a "national community of people that are travelling together" at the moment.
Nationhood is much over-rated imo, and patriotism is both pointless and potentially dangerous.
That's brave of you. I can already feel the turnips heading your way from Ayrshire...(and I hate to think what TUD will say).
Politicians are never going to risk putting no deal to voters, for the same reason that there has never been a referendum on the death penalty. Sometimes we do need politicians to save us from ourselves.
Exactly. Most MPs believe that no deal would be suicidal. .
I believe a Corbyn government would be suicidal but if a majority of votes were cast for it would a Letwin-Cooper bill to prevent him becoming PM be acceptable ?
Mr. Eagles, Mr. F is entirely correct. Gerrymandering the franchise to include children and foreigners because the dastardly adult British electorate gave the 'wrong' answer would be a boon for new parties and cause potentially mortal harm to the Conservative Party.
These foreigners can vote in other UK elections, some of them even vote in general elections.
Allowing non-nationals to vote defeats the very concept of citizenship to me.
Applying that strictly, why should a 36 year old with a UK passport who has lived and worked abroad for 14 years since university be able to vote when someone who was born in NI, chooses an Irish passport and citizenship, has always lived and paid taxes in the UK would not be able to vote?
Even if we allow for exceptions for Irish passport holders, it still seems just that someone who is a long standing resident and tax payer here would have at least similar voting rights as long term ex pats who live abroad and may be out of touch with UK reality.
Because the UK passport holder has an allegiance to the country and is part of the nation in a way that the person that has given his allegiance to Ireland has not. That is what a nation is: a national community of people that are travelling together.
It doesn't feel very much like Britain is a "national community of people that are travelling together" at the moment.
Nationhood is much over-rated imo, and patriotism is both pointless and dangerous.
But pro European nationhood is ok?
Ther is no single European nation.
I support a close European federation of regions and countries with appropriate pan-European standards and room for regional and local differences.
Given the EU's penchant for harmonisation, it might not be the club for you.
I can't think of anything they have harmonised that didn't make sense to me.
E.g: This time last year a tremendous fuss was bing made about the 'imposition' of GDPR; it was going to ruin the internet and be a total disaster made in Brussels. A year on we seemed to have survived somehow and I for one get a lot less spam.
Mike, you must get really pissed off by some of the posts on here then 😀
Mike is as guilty of this as anyone else on here. It was he who spent years telling us that the fact that the EU featured in 7th or 8th place in a poll asking people to list their priorities meant that no one gave a Monkey's about the EU as an issue.
It was obvious at the time - as some of us regularly pointed out - that this was a gross misrepresentation of what the polls were saying but he would never listen and carried on making the same erroneous claims based on that poll set.
Why do you think Mike was wrong? You are doing the marketers a disservice. It is their job first and foremost to raise the profile of the issue. Having done that they then try to sell their particular brand. Before the Referendum no one did give a monkeys about the EU. I'm surprised it came in the top eight
Politicians are never going to risk putting no deal to voters, for the same reason that there has never been a referendum on the death penalty. Sometimes we do need politicians to save us from ourselves.
Exactly. Most MPs believe that no deal would be suicidal. And they are supported in this belief by every independent economic forecast, business, the unions, the devolved administrations, all friendly overseas governments etc etc etc.
If someone says they are going to commit suicide the normal human reaction is to stop them, even though the person concerned might have a strong desire to go through with it and a firm belief that it is the best way forward. So it is with no deal Brexit - the fact that some people might tell pollsters that they are in favour of it is not going to change the minds of MP - their duty is to prevent it. Enough damage has been done already.
Most businesses, unions, academics, foreign governments etc also thought it was economically sensible to join the Euro. Turns out they were wrong and the public were right.
(Putting my contrarian hat on for a second, most Eurozone countries have shown stronger employment growth than the US since the beginning of 1999. The only exceptions, I think, are Italy and Greece.)
Politicians are never going to risk putting no deal to voters, for the same reason that there has never been a referendum on the death penalty. Sometimes we do need politicians to save us from ourselves.
Exactly. Most MPs believe that no deal would be suicidal. And they are supported in this belief by every independent economic forecast, business, the unions, the devolved administrations, all friendly overseas governments etc etc etc.
If someone says they are going to commit suicide the normal human reaction is to stop them, even though the person concerned might have a strong desire to go through with it and a firm belief that it is the best way forward. So it is with no deal Brexit - the fact that some people might tell pollsters that they are in favour of it is not going to change the minds of MP - their duty is to prevent it. Enough damage has been done already.
I'm not sure dehumanising the Swiss serves your point.
Mr. Eagles, Mr. F is entirely correct. Gerrymandering the franchise to include children and foreigners because the dastardly adult British electorate gave the 'wrong' answer would be a boon for new parties and cause potentially mortal harm to the Conservative Party.
These foreigners can vote in other UK elections, some of them even vote in general elections.
Allowing non-nationals to vote defeats the very concept of citizenship to me.
Applying that strictly, why should a 36 year old with a UK passport who has lived and worked abroad for 14 years since university be able to vote when someone who was born in NI, chooses an Irish passport and citizenship, has always lived and paid taxes in the UK would not be able to vote?
Even if we allow for exceptions for Irish passport holders, it still seems just that someone who is a long standing resident and tax payer here would have at least similar voting rights as long term ex pats who live abroad and may be out of touch with UK reality.
Because the UK passport holder has an allegiance to the country and is part of the nation in a way that the person that has given his allegiance to Ireland has not. That is what a nation is: a national community of people that are travelling together.
It doesn't feel very much like Britain is a "national community of people that are travelling together" at the moment.
Nationhood is much over-rated imo, and patriotism is both pointless and dangerous.
But pro European nationhood is ok?
Ther is no single European nation.
I support a close European federation of regions and countries with appropriate pan-European standards and room for regional and local differences.
Given the EU's penchant for harmonisation, it might not be the club for you.
I can't think of anything they have harmonised that didn't make sense to me.
E.g: This time last year a tremendous fuss was bing made about the 'imposition' of GDPR; it was going to ruin the internet and be a total disaster made in Brussels. A year on we seemed to have survived somehow and I for one get a lot less spam.
Politicians are never going to risk putting no deal to voters, for the same reason that there has never been a referendum on the death penalty. Sometimes we do need politicians to save us from ourselves.
Exactly. Most MPs believe that no deal would be suicidal. .
I believe a Corbyn government would be suicidal but if a majority of votes were cast for it would a Letwin-Cooper bill to prevent him becoming PM be acceptable ?
Hello. I am the complainant in this case, this poll was flagged by the Telegraph as evidence and my counter was that it asks "What should the PM/MPs do next" and not "What type of Brexit is preferred"
Trust me, they had absolutely nothing they could defend their claim with and IPSO agreed.
Well done, mate, and all power to your elbow.
It won't affect support for Boris though. It's the same with him as it is for Trump. To his supporters, he may be a liar, but he's 'our kind of liar', so he's ok.
Politicians are never going to risk putting no deal to voters, for the same reason that there has never been a referendum on the death penalty. Sometimes we do need politicians to save us from ourselves.
Exactly. Most MPs believe that no deal would be suicidal. And they are supported in this belief by every independent economic forecast, business, the unions, the devolved administrations, all friendly overseas governments etc etc etc.
If someone says they are going to commit suicide the normal human reaction is to stop them, even though the person concerned might have a strong desire to go through with it and a firm belief that it is the best way forward. So it is with no deal Brexit - the fact that some people might tell pollsters that they are in favour of it is not going to change the minds of MP - their duty is to prevent it. Enough damage has been done already.
Most businesses, unions, academics, foreign governments etc also thought it was economically sensible to join the Euro. Turns out they were wrong and the public were right.
I thought we didn't join the Euro because Brown wanted to fuck over Blair
Mr. Eagles, Mr. F is entirely correct. Gerrymandering the franchise to include children and foreigners because the dastardly adult British electorate gave the 'wrong' answer would be a boon for new parties and cause potentially mortal harm to the Conservative Party.
These foreigners can vote in other UK elections, some of them even vote in general elections.
Allowing non-nationals to vote defeats the very concept of citizenship to me.
Applying that strictly, why should a 36 year old with a UK passport who has lived and worked abroad for 14 years since university be able to vote when someone who was born in NI, chooses an Irish passport and citizenship, has always lived and paid taxes in the UK would not be able to vote?
Even if we allow for exceptions for Irish passport holders, it still seems just that someone who is a long standing resident and tax payer here would have at least similar voting rights as long term ex pats who live abroad and may be out of touch with UK reality.
Because the UK passport holder has an allegiance to the country and is part of the nation in a way that the person that has given his allegiance to Ireland has not. That is what a nation is: a national community of people that are travelling together.
It doesn't feel very much like Britain is a "national community of people that are travelling together" at the moment.
Nationhood is much over-rated imo, and patriotism is both pointless and dangerous.
But pro European nationhood is ok?
Ther is no single European nation.
I support a close European federation of regions and countries with appropriate pan-European standards and room for regional and local differences.
Given the EU's penchant for harmonisation, it might not be the club for you.
I can't think of anything they have harmonised that didn't make sense to me.
E.g: This time last year a tremendous fuss was bing made about the 'imposition' of GDPR; it was going to ruin the internet and be a total disaster made in Brussels. A year on we seemed to have survived somehow and I for one get a lot less spam.
To cite a popular complaint, the tampon tax.
But harmonising sales taxes on the WHOLE has been an improvement (VAT, of course, was an EEC invention)
Mr. Eagles, Mr. F is entirely correct. Gerrymandering the franchise to include children and foreigners because the dastardly adult British electorate gave the 'wrong' answer would be a boon for new parties and cause potentially mortal harm to the Conservative Party.
These foreigners can vote in other UK elections, some of them even vote in general elections.
Allowing non-nationals to vote defeats the very concept of citizenship to me.
Applying that strictly, why should a 36 year old with a UK passport who has lived and worked abroad for 14 years since university be able to vote when someone who was born in NI, chooses an Irish passport and citizenship, has always lived and paid taxes in the UK would not be able to vote?
Even if we allow for exceptions for Irish passport holders, it still seems just that someone who is a long standing resident and tax payer here would have at least similar voting rights as long term ex pats who live abroad and may be out of touch with UK reality.
Because the UK passport holder has an allegiance to the country and is part of the nation in a way that the person that has given his allegiance to Ireland has not. That is what a nation is: a national community of people that are travelling together.
It doesn't feel very much like Britain is a "national community of people that are travelling together" at the moment.
Nationhood is much over-rated imo, and patriotism is both pointless and potentially dangerous.
That's brave of you. I can already feel the turnips heading your way from Ayrshire...(and I hate to think what TUD will say).
I have no issue with anyone celebrating their culture or history; I do it myself.
Politicians are never going to risk putting no deal to voters, for the same reason that there has never been a referendum on the death penalty. Sometimes we do need politicians to save us from ourselves.
Exactly. Most MPs believe that no deal would be suicidal. .
I believe a Corbyn government would be suicidal but if a majority of votes were cast for it would a Letwin-Cooper bill to prevent him becoming PM be acceptable ?
Mr. Eagles, Mr. F is entirely correct. Gerrymandering the franchise to include children and foreigners because the dastardly adult British electorate gave the 'wrong' answer would be a boon for new parties and cause potentially mortal harm to the Conservative Party.
These foreigners can vote in other UK elections, some of them even vote in general elections.
Allowing non-nationals to vote defeats the very concept of citizenship to me.
Applying that strictly, why should a 36 year old with a UK passport who has lived and worked abroad for 14 years since university be able to vote when someone who was born in NI, chooses an Irish passport and citizenship, has always lived and paid taxes in the UK would not be able to vote?
Even if we allow for exceptions for Irish passport holders, it still seems just that someone who is a long standing resident and tax payer here would have at least similar voting rights as long term ex pats who live abroad and may be out of touch with UK reality.
Because the UK passport holder has an allegiance to the country and is part of the nation in a way that the person that has given his allegiance to Ireland has not. That is what a nation is: a national community of people that are travelling together.
An ex pat may or may not have allegiance to the country, there is no reason to assume it merely from a passport. They typically gain citizenship by accidents of birth and decisions made by their parents rather than any conscious acts of allegiance. Even if they do have high levels of allegiance, I am still unclear as to why allegiance to a community trumps contribution to a community when it comes to voting though. Both are of some use to the future of the community.
Politicians are never going to risk putting no deal to voters, for the same reason that there has never been a referendum on the death penalty. Sometimes we do need politicians to save us from ourselves.
Exactly. Most MPs believe that no deal would be suicidal. .
I believe a Corbyn government would be suicidal but if a majority of votes were cast for it would a Letwin-Cooper bill to prevent him becoming PM be acceptable ?
The sad reality of FPTnP is that a majority isn't necessary.
Indeed a bunch of former Tories switching to UKIP or the Brexit Party is all that is required.
Mr. Doof, everyone having a vote on everything is unnecessary. I don't object to EU citizens voting in local elections, but being able to determine whether we remain in the EU or leave is indefensible nonsense.
I will defend it. People who have lived in the UK for a long time in my opinion deserve have a say in the future and the direction of the country, whether it be local government, national government or referenda. BUT if that group of people are denied the right to vote, then the converse group (UK citizens living abroad) must be given the vote, as is the current situation.
Anything else is a disenfranchisement, where hundreds of millions of people around the world, who are living in and are a citizens of democratic countries, not being allowed to vote for any national govenment.
Politicians are never going to risk putting no deal to voters, for the same reason that there has never been a referendum on the death penalty. Sometimes we do need politicians to save us from ourselves.
Exactly. Most MPs believe that no deal would be suicidal. And they are supported in this belief by every independent economic forecast, business, the unions, the devolved administrations, all friendly overseas governments etc etc etc.
If someone says they are going to commit suicide the normal human reaction is to stop them, even though the person concerned might have a strong desire to go through with it and a firm belief that it is the best way forward. So it is with no deal Brexit - the fact that some people might tell pollsters that they are in favour of it is not going to change the minds of MP - their duty is to prevent it. Enough damage has been done already.
Most businesses, unions, academics, foreign governments etc also thought it was economically sensible to join the Euro. Turns out they were wrong and the public were right.
(Putting my contrarian hat on for a second, most Eurozone countries have shown stronger employment growth than the US since the beginning of 1999. The only exceptions, I think, are Italy and Greece.)
This kind of comparison depends on where you start and, surprise surprise, the resulting starting place invariably provides "proof" of the manipulator's proposition.
Politicians are never going to risk putting no deal to voters, for the same reason that there has never been a referendum on the death penalty. Sometimes we do need politicians to save us from ourselves.
Exactly. Most MPs believe that no deal would be suicidal. .
I believe a Corbyn government would be suicidal but if a majority of votes were cast for it would a Letwin-Cooper bill to prevent him becoming PM be acceptable ?
To my mind - yes
Perhaps we are living in a post-democracy nation ?
Mr. Pointer, it was directed at the content of Scott P's post, specifically a tweet indicating that May might well be heading for a customs union. It wasn't direct against you, or Mr. P.
Mr. Doof, everyone having a vote on everything is unnecessary. I don't object to EU citizens voting in local elections, but being able to determine whether we remain in the EU or leave is indefensible nonsense.
Politicians are never going to risk putting no deal to voters, for the same reason that there has never been a referendum on the death penalty. Sometimes we do need politicians to save us from ourselves.
Exactly. Most MPs believe that no deal would be suicidal. And they are supported in this belief by every independent economic forecast, business, the unions, the devolved administrations, all friendly overseas governments etc etc etc.
If someone says they are going to commit suicide the normal human reaction is to stop them, even though the person concerned might have a strong desire to go through with it and a firm belief that it is the best way forward. So it is with no deal Brexit - the fact that some people might tell pollsters that they are in favour of it is not going to change the minds of MP - their duty is to prevent it. Enough damage has been done already.
Most businesses, unions, academics, foreign governments etc also thought it was economically sensible to join the Euro. Turns out they were wrong and the public were right.
We often hear this said, but is it true?
I remember only a few isolated voices in favour of the UK joining.
Mr. Doof, everyone having a vote on everything is unnecessary. I don't object to EU citizens voting in local elections, but being able to determine whether we remain in the EU or leave is indefensible nonsense.
I will defend it. People who have lived in the UK for a long time in my opinion deserve have a say in the future and the direction of the country, whether it be local government, national government or referenda. BUT if that group of people are denied the right to vote, then the converse group (UK citizens living abroad) must be given the vote, as is the current situation.
Anything else is a disenfranchisement, where hundreds of millions of people around the world, who are living in and are a citizens of democratic countries, not being allowed to vote for any national govenment.
They can apply to become citizens. Citizenship should mean something,
Mr. Eagles, Mr. F is entirely correct. Gerrymandering the franchise to include children and foreigners because the dastardly adult British electorate gave the 'wrong' answer would be a boon for new parties and cause potentially mortal harm to the Conservative Party.
These foreigners can vote in other UK elections, some of them even vote in general elections.
Allowing non-nationals to vote defeats the very concept of citizenship to me.
Mr. Eagles, Mr. F is entirely correct. Gerrymandering the franchise to include children and foreigners because the dastardly adult British electorate gave the 'wrong' answer would be a boon for new parties and cause potentially mortal harm to the Conservative Party.
These foreigners can vote in other UK elections, some of them even vote in general elections.
Allowing non-nationals to vote defeats the very concept of citizenship to me.
Applying that strictly, why should a 36 year old with a UK passport who has lived and worked abroad for 14 years since university be able to vote when someone who was born in NI, chooses an Irish passport and citizenship, has always lived and paid taxes in the UK would not be able to vote?
Even if we allow for exceptions for Irish passport holders, it still seems just that someone who is a long standing resident and tax payer here would have at least similar voting rights as long term ex pats who live abroad and may be out of touch with UK reality.
Because the UK passport holder has an allegiance to the country and is part of the nation in a way that the person that has given his allegiance to Ireland has not. That is what a nation is: a national community of people that are travelling together.
Lots of dual citizenships are possible. I'm sure you find that a difficult concept to come to terms with but there it is.
Politicians are never going to risk putting no deal to voters, for the same reason that there has never been a referendum on the death penalty. Sometimes we do need politicians to save us from ourselves.
Exactly. Most MPs believe that no deal would be suicidal. .
I believe a Corbyn government would be suicidal but if a majority of votes were cast for it would a Letwin-Cooper bill to prevent him becoming PM be acceptable ?
To my mind - yes
Perhaps we are living in a post-democracy nation ?
But I'd be protecting democracy from Corbyn who would steal it!
Mr. Doof, everyone having a vote on everything is unnecessary. I don't object to EU citizens voting in local elections, but being able to determine whether we remain in the EU or leave is indefensible nonsense.
I will defend it. People who have lived in the UK for a long time in my opinion deserve have a say in the future and the direction of the country, whether it be local government, national government or referenda. BUT if that group of people are denied the right to vote, then the converse group (UK citizens living abroad) must be given the vote, as is the current situation.
Anything else is a disenfranchisement, where hundreds of millions of people around the world, who are living in and are a citizens of democratic countries, not being allowed to vote for any national govenment.
They can apply to become citizens. Citizenship should mean something,
Would you remove the right to vote from Commonwealth citizens?
Politicians are never going to risk putting no deal to voters, for the same reason that there has never been a referendum on the death penalty. Sometimes we do need politicians to save us from ourselves.
Exactly. Most MPs believe that no deal would be suicidal. And they are supported in this belief by every independent economic forecast, business, the unions, the devolved administrations, all friendly overseas governments etc etc etc.
If someone says they are going to commit suicide the normal human reaction is to stop them, even though the person concerned might have a strong desire to go through with it and a firm belief that it is the best way forward. So it is with no deal Brexit - the fact that some people might tell pollsters that they are in favour of it is not going to change the minds of MP - their duty is to prevent it. Enough damage has been done already.
It would cause unnecessary harm. It would not be suicidal.
I would not bar people from voting for left wing parties, even though I think their policies often cause unnecessary harm.
But harmonising sales taxes on the WHOLE has been an improvement (VAT, of course, was an EEC invention)
I wonder how they will feel when other tax codes are harmonised. Suspect the Irish won't enjoy that all too much.
A lot of corporation tax is now harmonised. We've taken a fair step towards a system where only the rates vary - like VAT, indeed.
ONLY????
Not sure what you mean.
If you're an international business, it's running multiple sets of accounting practices (and associated incentivises etc) which is expensive, more so than a couple of pence on the pound.
Mr. Doof, everyone having a vote on everything is unnecessary. I don't object to EU citizens voting in local elections, but being able to determine whether we remain in the EU or leave is indefensible nonsense.
I will defend it. People who have lived in the UK for a long time in my opinion deserve have a say in the future and the direction of the country, whether it be local government, national government or referenda. BUT if that group of people are denied the right to vote, then the converse group (UK citizens living abroad) must be given the vote, as is the current situation.
Anything else is a disenfranchisement, where hundreds of millions of people around the world, who are living in and are a citizens of democratic countries, not being allowed to vote for any national govenment.
They can apply to become citizens. Citizenship should mean something,
Would you remove the right to vote from Commonwealth citizens?
Ideally, yes. Trying to pretend that the British Empire still existed when it was being wound up was silly.
Because the UK passport holder has an allegiance to the country and is part of the nation in a way that the person that has given his allegiance to Ireland has not. That is what a nation is: a national community of people that are travelling together.
A moist eyed sentiment that unfortunately is often accompanied by a moist chin.
But harmonising sales taxes on the WHOLE has been an improvement (VAT, of course, was an EEC invention)
I wonder how they will feel when other tax codes are harmonised. Suspect the Irish won't enjoy that all too much.
A lot of corporation tax is now harmonised. We've taken a fair step towards a system where only the rates vary - like VAT, indeed.
ONLY????
Not sure what you mean.
If you're an international business, it's running multiple sets of accounting practices (and associated incentivises etc) which is expensive, more so than a couple of pence on the pound.
That's utter rubbish - "a couple of pence in the pound" less important than how you fill out the forms?
Politicians are never going to risk putting no deal to voters, for the same reason that there has never been a referendum on the death penalty. Sometimes we do need politicians to save us from ourselves.
Exactly. Most MPs believe that no deal would be suicidal. .
I believe a Corbyn government would be suicidal but if a majority of votes were cast for it would a Letwin-Cooper bill to prevent him becoming PM be acceptable ?
To my mind - yes
Perhaps we are living in a post-democracy nation ?
But I'd be protecting democracy from Corbyn who would steal it!
Letwin and Cooper have already been there done that..
Politicians are never going to risk putting no deal to voters, for the same reason that there has never been a referendum on the death penalty. Sometimes we do need politicians to save us from ourselves.
Exactly. Most MPs believe that no deal would be suicidal. And they are supported in this belief by every independent economic forecast, business, the unions, the devolved administrations, all friendly overseas governments etc etc etc.
If someone says they are going to commit suicide the normal human reaction is to stop them, even though the person concerned might have a strong desire to go through with it and a firm belief that it is the best way forward. So it is with no deal Brexit - the fact that some people might tell pollsters that they are in favour of it is not going to change the minds of MP - their duty is to prevent it. Enough damage has been done already.
Most businesses, unions, academics, foreign governments etc also thought it was economically sensible to join the Euro. Turns out they were wrong and the public were right.
We often hear this said, but is it true?
I remember only a few isolated voices in favour of the UK joining.
Er no. There was a massive movement in favour of it including many of those Elder statesmen who keep being rolled out to say how terrible an idea Brexit is. Clarke, Heseltine, Blair, Patton, Mandelson, practically the whole of the Lib Dem leadership and large swathes of industry were all saying we had to join. Various companies including Nissan, Ford and Peugeot all said they would have to pull out of the UK if we didn't join. It was a very long way from a few isolated voices.
Politicians are never going to risk putting no deal to voters, for the same reason that there has never been a referendum on the death penalty. Sometimes we do need politicians to save us from ourselves.
Exactly. Most MPs believe that no deal would be suicidal. .
I believe a Corbyn government would be suicidal but if a majority of votes were cast for it would a Letwin-Cooper bill to prevent him becoming PM be acceptable ?
To my mind - yes
Perhaps we are living in a post-democracy nation ?
But I'd be protecting democracy from Corbyn who would steal it!
Letwin and Cooper have already been there done that..
I was reading another report that where the Tory MP is a vocal leaver then the canvassing has been going much better. As the article states when the candidate shows the angry voter photos of him campaigning for leave the bloke clams down. Perhaps Tracy Crouch needs to become a no dealer pronto.
Mike, you must get really pissed off by some of the posts on here then 😀
Mike is as guilty of this as anyone else on here. It was he who spent years telling us that the fact that the EU featured in 7th or 8th place in a poll asking people to list their priorities meant that no one gave a Monkey's about the EU as an issue.
It was obvious at the time - as some of us regularly pointed out - that this was a gross misrepresentation of what the polls were saying but he would never listen and carried on making the same erroneous claims based on that poll set.
Why do you think Mike was wrong? You are doing the marketers a disservice. It is their job first and foremost to raise the profile of the issue. Having done that they then try to sell their particular brand. Before the Referendum no one did give a monkeys about the EU. I'm surprised it came in the top eight
Mike was clearly wrong as subsequent events proved.
Moreover as I pointed out repeatedly at the time, issues such as defence, animal welfare, care for the elderly and the environment repeatedly came in below the EU on the same issues polls and no one in their right minds would claim that people didn't give a Monkey's about those issues.
Politicians are never going to risk putting no deal to voters, for the same reason that there has never been a referendum on the death penalty. Sometimes we do need politicians to save us from ourselves.
Exactly. Most MPs believe that no deal would be suicidal. And they are supported in this belief by every independent economic forecast, business, the unions, the devolved administrations, all friendly overseas governments etc etc etc.
If someone says they are going to commit suicide the normal human reaction is to stop them, even though the person concerned might have a strong desire to go through with it and a firm belief that it is the best way forward. So it is with no deal Brexit - the fact that some people might tell pollsters that they are in favour of it is not going to change the minds of MP - their duty is to prevent it. Enough damage has been done already.
Most businesses, unions, academics, foreign governments etc also thought it was economically sensible to join the Euro. Turns out they were wrong and the public were right.
(Putting my contrarian hat on for a second, most Eurozone countries have shown stronger employment growth than the US since the beginning of 1999. The only exceptions, I think, are Italy and Greece.)
This kind of comparison depends on where you start and, surprise surprise, the resulting starting place invariably provides "proof" of the manipulator's proposition.
I'm starting at the point of the creation of the Eurozone. I don't think any other point makes sense.
But harmonising sales taxes on the WHOLE has been an improvement (VAT, of course, was an EEC invention)
I wonder how they will feel when other tax codes are harmonised. Suspect the Irish won't enjoy that all too much.
A lot of corporation tax is now harmonised. We've taken a fair step towards a system where only the rates vary - like VAT, indeed.
ONLY????
Not sure what you mean.
If you're an international business, it's running multiple sets of accounting practices (and associated incentivises etc) which is expensive, more so than a couple of pence on the pound.
That's utter rubbish - "a couple of pence in the pound" less important than how you fill out the forms?
I mean is, there are plenty of companies that operate in say two countries (A and which would prefer both A and B to operate on the same basis, at say 23%, than on completely different bases, but at 21% and 23%.
I may be wrong, but I don't see any real pull for a second vote. The People's Vote have succeeded in neutralising the idea that the referendum result must be treated as Holy Writ, because there is an option of confirmation, that may be withheld. But they really want to revoke, not have a second vote. The population is generally fed up with Brexit so politicians are not likely to see much upside in imposing another messy referendum on voter. Brexit will therefore need to be dealt with by parliament.
Sensible parliamentarians (most of them although some are keeping quiet about it) won't want to be associated with the fallout from No Deal. There isn't either the bandwidth or the political will for a long term Brexit resolution in the short or medium term. Which makes the most likely outcomes either revoke with a promise to find a Brexit solution some time in the vague future or Blind Brexit and trust to the transition period going on, essentially forever.
Previously I strongly believed we were headed to permanent transition (Blind Brexit), but now I think Brexit Review (Revoke) is a serious possibility
It is still too early. Politics doesn't operate in a vacuum, and a significant shift in public opinion is needed to provide cover for the politicians. I think the surprise of the Euro elections may well be the Remain rather than leave sentiment, but probably not sufficient to put the matter to bed as both extremes are likely to gain at the expense of the old parties.
The other possibility is that Boris or Gove does an Oborne and shows some leadership by advocating we stay in. Ironically that may be Boris's only real (if slim) chance of becoming leader, but he is too far gone down his flight of fancy to be able to see it.
I think it would be dressed up as a Review rather cancellation. Royal Commissions are useful ways of punting stuff to the long grass. I still think Brexit is more likely because MPS will want to be seen to be doing something, but it is getting clearer to more people as time passes that Brexit won't resolve anything at all. If we do Leave I doubt there will be any appetite for anything than minimum change. Leavers will be told,you got what you voted for.
Mike, you must get really pissed off by some of the posts on here then 😀
Mike is as guilty of this as anyone else on here. It was he who spent years telling us that the fact that the EU featured in 7th or 8th place in a poll asking people to list their priorities meant that no one gave a Monkey's about the EU as an issue.
It was obvious at the time - as some of us regularly pointed out - that this was a gross misrepresentation of what the polls were saying but he would never listen and carried on making the same erroneous claims based on that poll set.
Why do you think Mike was wrong? You are doing the marketers a disservice. It is their job first and foremost to raise the profile of the issue. Having done that they then try to sell their particular brand. Before the Referendum no one did give a monkeys about the EU. I'm surprised it came in the top eight
Mike was clearly wrong as subsequent events proved.
Moreover as I pointed out repeatedly at the time, issues such as defence, animal welfare, care for the elderly and the environment repeatedly came in below the EU on the same issues polls and no one in their right minds would claim that people didn't give a Monkey's about those issues.
... and immigration was in the top 2, Ukip were getting 15-20%...
Combining multiple responses is the same as a forced choice question. That doesn't tell you what people prefer, rather what they would select if only given two options.
Which is pretty much what I said to them.
All they needed to do to make me withdraw my complaint was find a poll by a BPC member that backed up the end of Johnson's claim;
Of all the options suggested by pollsters – staying in the EU, coming out on Theresa May’ terms, or coming out on World Trade terms – it is the last, the so-called no-deal option, that is gaining in popularity.
“In spite of – or perhaps because of – everything they have been told, it is this future that is by some margin preferred by the British public.”
They looked for it, spent some time and effort doing so and came back with nothing.
If he'd stopped that paragraph before the last sentence, I wouldn't have complained. If he'd not mentioned polling in the lead-in, I'd not have complained. If he didn't frame the debate around a three-way run-off, I'd not have complained and if The Telegraph hadn't have written it up as news on it's front page when it is "clearly comically polemical, and could not be reasonably read as a serious, empirical, in-depth analysis of hard factual matters" (Not my words, the words of [s]Top Gear Magazine[/s] The Daily Telegraph.) I'd not have complained.
At no point did they offer a correction until forced and now here we are. I think we should give IPSO and everyone else involved in the process a little more credit than to think G***o has owned them and me with three minutes worth of Google on a Friday afternoon when the collective process has taken three months and my final submission of evidence that was 2,500 words long.
Politicians are never going to risk putting no deal to voters, for the same reason that there has never been a referendum on the death penalty. Sometimes we do need politicians to save us from ourselves.
Exactly. Most MPs believe that no deal would be suicidal. And they are supported in this belief by every independent economic forecast, business, the unions, the devolved administrations, all friendly overseas governments etc etc etc.
If someone says they are going to commit suicide the normal human reaction is to stop them, even though the person concerned might have a strong desire to go through with it and a firm belief that it is the best way forward. So it is with no deal Brexit - the fact that some people might tell pollsters that they are in favour of it is not going to change the minds of MP - their duty is to prevent it. Enough damage has been done already.
It would cause unnecessary harm. It would not be suicidal.
I would not bar people from voting for left wing parties, even though I think their policies often cause unnecessary harm.
No Deal won't be suicidal for the UK. It would be for MPs' careers to be associated with the fallout from it. Hence the reluctance from sensible MPs to have anything to do withit (and most MPs are sensible as far as their own careers are concerned).
This idea that vast swathes of the country are now consumed by an burning sense of betrayal is starting to sound overdone. I can't believe that Theresa's honeymoon poll surge was driven by the belief that she was a wonky-eyed Hard Brexit absolutist. Anyway, the British tendency to delay things while we fumble around for a fix is one of our most endearing traits surely? Who wouldn't allow for a bit of typical British faffing?
Not when so many spent so long assuring us that the PM meant it when she said that no deal was better than a bad deal, then she got briefed on the economic and political implications of no deal and has striven to avoid it, as any PM would. Same for the EU. So it only happens by some horrendous accident.
Or if a new Hard Brexit Tory leader calls and wins a general election on that platform. Which cannot be ruled out.
But on the central point you are surely correct. No Deal, were it not to prove catastrophic, would be a dreamboat outcome for the Tory party. The fact that Mrs May, who you cut her and she bleeds the party, privy to the reality of the prospect refuses to countenance it tells us all we need to know. It would be catastrophic. As any semblance of rational thought would tell us in any case.
Mr. Dawning, a problem we'll face interpreting the EU election results is if the main parties do poorly that could legitimately be due to either their positions on leaving the EU, or on their general incompetence.
Not to mention low turnout makes things a bit different to a General Election.
Politicians are never going to risk putting no deal to voters, for the same reason that there has never been a referendum on the death penalty. Sometimes we do need politicians to save us from ourselves.
Exactly. Most MPs believe that no deal would be suicidal. And they are supported in this belief by every independent economic forecast, business, the unions, the devolved administrations, all friendly overseas governments etc etc etc.
If someone says they are going to commit suicide the normal human reaction is to stop them, even though the person concerned might have a strong desire to go through with it and a firm belief that it is the best way forward. So it is with no deal Brexit - the fact that some people might tell pollsters that they are in favour of it is not going to change the minds of MP - their duty is to prevent it. Enough damage has been done already.
It would cause unnecessary harm. It would not be suicidal.
Not to England, maybe, but it would be to the United Kingdom and Great Britain as united polities.
Remember it was all going to blow over according to some on here the other day.
I'm worried these voters will turn to Brexit Party or worse.
The geography of these contests is weighted towards Leave-voting England. Greater London, Scotland, Wales, do not have local elections, this year. Nor do Bristol and Oxford, strongly Remain-voting areas. As against that, Shropshire, Isle of Wight, Cornwall, and Northamptonshire aren't voting either, and they were strongly Leave. Birmingham and the posh parts of Buckinghamshire were 50/50 and are not voting.
By my calculation, the parts of England that are voting this year backed Leave by 55.6% to 44.4%. About 6,800 of the 8,374 seats being contested are in Leave-voting authorities.
Potentially, that leaves the Conservatives vulnerable to angry Leave voters, but also makes it unlikely that Labour, the Lib Dems, and the Greens will pick up many switchers. UKIP and Independents may pick up more switchers, but they're only standing in a minority of seats.
From a moral perspective, it's clear that we should be trying to find the Concordet winner. Which is the option that beats out every other option in a head-to-head.
Therefore, we simply need to either have everyone do "ranked choice", or we ask the three questions.
It is wrong to remove an option supported by 40% of the population (say No Deal), and it is also wrong to remove Remain. (Imagine if we'd had an election in 2011 on whether to keep FPTP - that would be stupid, right? You need to have a defined outcome, and - as I predicted at the time, and loudly on here - this was always going to come back and bit us on the arse.)
So: simples. Three pairs of questions. No Deal might win. So might Remain. And so might Mrs May's Withdrawal agreement.
Act of pedantry: it's "Condorcet" not "Concordet", as much as the latter sounds better!
This idea that vast swathes of the country are now consumed by an burning sense of betrayal is starting to sound overdone. I can't believe that Theresa's honeymoon poll surge was driven by the belief that she was a wonky-eyed Hard Brexit absolutist. Anyway, the British tendency to delay things while we fumble around for a fix is one of our most endearing traits surely? Who wouldn't allow for a bit of typical British faffing?
It's worth remembering just how much of a bubble most of us live in. Social media echo chambers, etc. The illusion of greater connectedness to one another when in fact all the evidence of recent years points to the opposite being true.
FWIW I doubt the country is buring with a sense of Brexit betrayal, but what I do get from talking to people is a sense of utter despair at the hopelessness of the current lot of politicians - a contempt for the incompetence of the political class more than anything else. It is a contempt that began with the expenses scandal nearly a decade ago and has been simmering ever since. It is this contempt - rather than any "brexit betrayal" that has now reached boiling point.
This idea that vast swathes of the country are now consumed by an burning sense of betrayal is starting to sound overdone. I can't believe that Theresa's honeymoon poll surge was driven by the belief that she was a wonky-eyed Hard Brexit absolutist. Anyway, the British tendency to delay things while we fumble around for a fix is one of our most endearing traits surely? Who wouldn't allow for a bit of typical British faffing?
It's worth remembering just how much of a bubble most of us live in. Social media echo chambers, etc. The illusion of greater connectedness to one another when in fact all the evidence of recent years points to the opposite being true.
FWIW I doubt the country is buring with a sense of Brexit betrayal, but what I do get from talking to people is a sense of utter despair at the hopelessness of the current lot of politicians - a contempt for the incompetence of the political class more than anything else. It is a contempt that began with the expenses scandal nearly a decade ago and has been simmering ever since. It is this contempt - rather than any "brexit betrayal" that has now reached boiling point.
I look forward to the canvas reports from the likes of NickP over next couple of weeks. But what I hear from people I bump into is real anger at the current crop of MPs, as you say.
That anger may come to nothing. Or it may lead to real trouble.
This idea that vast swathes of the country are now consumed by an burning sense of betrayal is starting to sound overdone. I can't believe that Theresa's honeymoon poll surge was driven by the belief that she was a wonky-eyed Hard Brexit absolutist. Anyway, the British tendency to delay things while we fumble around for a fix is one of our most endearing traits surely? Who wouldn't allow for a bit of typical British faffing?
FWIW I doubt the country is buring with a sense of Brexit betrayal,
I doubt the Con share being down 10% is due anything else.
Mr. Eagles, Mr. F is entirely correct. Gerrymandering the franchise to include children and foreigners because the dastardly adult British electorate gave the 'wrong' answer would be a boon for new parties and cause potentially mortal harm to the Conservative Party.
These foreigners can vote in other UK elections, some of them even vote in general elections.
Allowing non-nationals to vote defeats the very concept of citizenship to me.
Applying that strictly, why should a 36 year old with a UK passport who has lived and worked abroad for 14 years since university be able to vote when someone who was born in NI, chooses an Irish passport and citizenship, has always lived and paid taxes in the UK would not be able to vote?
Even if we allow for exceptions for Irish passport holders, it still seems just that someone who is a long standing resident and tax payer here would have at least similar voting rights as long term ex pats who live abroad and may be out of touch with UK reality.
Because the UK passport holder has an allegiance to the country and is part of the nation in a way that the person that has given his allegiance to Ireland has not. That is what a nation is: a national community of people that are travelling together.
It doesn't feel very much like Britain is a "national community of people that are travelling together" at the moment.
Nationhood is much over-rated imo, and patriotism is both pointless and potentially dangerous.
That's brave of you. I can already feel the turnips heading your way from Ayrshire...(and I hate to think what TUD will say).
He'd agree very much that it doesn't feel very much like Britain is a national community of people that are travelling together at the moment, and he'd leave 'patriotism' to those dimwits who have Union flags & #Brexitnow all over their twitter profiles while stridently claiming not to be nationalists.
Politicians are never going to risk putting no deal to voters, for the same reason that there has never been a referendum on the death penalty. Sometimes we do need politicians to save us from ourselves.
Exactly. Most MPs believe that no deal would be suicidal. And they are supported in this belief by every independent economic forecast, business, the unions, the devolved administrations, all friendly overseas governments etc etc etc.
If someone says they are going to commit suicide the normal human reaction is to stop them, even though the person concerned might have a strong desire to go through with it and a firm belief that it is the best way forward. So it is with no deal Brexit - the fact that some people might tell pollsters that they are in favour of it is not going to change the minds of MP - their duty is to prevent it. Enough damage has been done already.
Most businesses, unions, academics, foreign governments etc also thought it was economically sensible to join the Euro. Turns out they were wrong and the public were right.
(Putting my contrarian hat on for a second, most Eurozone countries have shown stronger employment growth than the US since the beginning of 1999. The only exceptions, I think, are Italy and Greece.)
This kind of comparison depends on where you start and, surprise surprise, the resulting starting place invariably provides "proof" of the manipulator's proposition.
I'm starting at the point of the creation of the Eurozone. I don't think any other point makes sense.
As an aside, there is a long-term trend. Essentially, employment ratios in the US (as in the percentage of the population in work) have been in a long-term decline from high levels, while in Europe they have been rising from very low levels. The result of this is that in 1991, the US was "top of the class", with only Sweden and Switzerland having higher employment ratios in Europe.
Now, it lags Germany, the Netherland, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, the UK, Denmark, and is only a smidgen above half a dozen others.
On the topic of novel things that have not previously been discussed here, have you heard of this rather wondrous voting system called the Alternative Vote?
There maybe a thread on AV this weekend.
'Now that the inevitability of Brexit is a lot like virginity, once it is gone it is difficult to get back, so how will Brexit be deflowered? Let me introduce to you the concept of a confirmatory referendum with multiple options.'
with these AV threads you are really spoiling us.
I’m not sure I want to read about TSE multiple ways to deflower. Would Mrs May approve?
Remember it was all going to blow over according to some on here the other day.
I'm worried these voters will turn to Brexit Party or worse.
The geography of these contests is weighted towards Leave-voting England. Greater London, Scotland, Wales, do not have local elections, this year. Nor do Bristol and Oxford, strongly Remain-voting areas. As against that, Shropshire, Isle of Wight, Cornwall, and Northamptonshire aren't voting either, and they were strongly Leave. Birmingham and the posh parts of Buckinghamshire were 50/50 and are not voting.
By my calculation, the parts of England that are voting this year backed Leave by 55.6% to 44.4%. About 6,800 of the 8,374 seats being contested are in Leave-voting authorities.
Potentially, that leaves the Conservatives vulnerable to angry Leave voters, but also makes it unlikely that Labour, the Lib Dems, and the Greens will pick up many switchers. UKIP and Independents may pick up more switchers, but they're only standing in a minority of seats.
The difficulty with the locals will be getting Tory campaigners out to knock on doors - local elections are however local and many people will be voting for local issues (for instance my vote will be anti the current party in power) as we do need a change and that will mean voting Tory.
The difficulty for the Euros is that as well as Tory campaigners not going out and knocking on doors there is little likelihood in Tory voters going out and voting. I suspect those who will vote will tend towards the extremes and that may favour Chuk as that vote is far likely to be split in the way Brexit / UKIP vote will be split.
Mr. Doof, everyone having a vote on everything is unnecessary. I don't object to EU citizens voting in local elections, but being able to determine whether we remain in the EU or leave is indefensible nonsense.
I will defend it. People who have lived in the UK for a long time in my opinion deserve have a say in the future and the direction of the country, whether it be local government, national government or referenda. BUT if that group of people are denied the right to vote, then the converse group (UK citizens living abroad) must be given the vote, as is the current situation.
Anything else is a disenfranchisement, where hundreds of millions of people around the world, who are living in and are a citizens of democratic countries, not being allowed to vote for any national govenment.
They can apply to become citizens. Citizenship should mean something,
Would you remove the right to vote from Commonwealth citizens?
It's absurd that - for example - the right of British citizens living in India to vote has been removed, while we continue to give that right to Indians in the UK.
I would not remove it from members of the Commonwealth where governments have maintained reciprocity.
But it is! Annunciata Rees Mogg joined the Conservative Party at the age of 5 and was actively canvassing at 8. Now in middle age she has forsaken them for another. That harrowing tale is no doubt replicated in its tens of thousands, just that we get to hear more about her because of her celebrated sibling.
I'm not sure which loss is the more wrenching, the party losing its most passionate lifelong supporters or those aforesaid supporters losing their faith in the party.
Comments
The people have been consulted - the EU and MPs are the roadblocks to progress.
The untold story is quite how humanity worked itself from tribal elders who led by consensus to the concept of the divine all powerful monarch in the first place.
Nationhood is much over-rated imo, and patriotism is both pointless and potentially dangerous.
I support a close European federation of regions and countries with appropriate pan-European standards and room for regional and local differences.
There is also a plurality in all of those responses for a referendum if you add those two options together, something the Telegraph did often when referring to other polling.
I've counted all these points when they came from the publication and IPSO found in my favour. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If someone says they are going to commit suicide the normal human reaction is to stop them, even though the person concerned might have a strong desire to go through with it and a firm belief that it is the best way forward. So it is with no deal Brexit - the fact that some people might tell pollsters that they are in favour of it is not going to change the minds of MP - their duty is to prevent it. Enough damage has been done already.
Mr. Doof, everyone having a vote on everything is unnecessary. I don't object to EU citizens voting in local elections, but being able to determine whether we remain in the EU or leave is indefensible nonsense.
We could change that, but it would mean repealing and replacing the Ireland Act of 1949.
E.g: This time last year a tremendous fuss was bing made about the 'imposition' of GDPR; it was going to ruin the internet and be a total disaster made in Brussels. A year on we seemed to have survived somehow and I for one get a lot less spam.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/11/buttigieg-iowa-poll-2020-election-1270246
It won't affect support for Boris though. It's the same with him as it is for Trump. To his supporters, he may be a liar, but he's 'our kind of liar', so he's ok.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1116450533055836167?s=19
Indeed a bunch of former Tories switching to UKIP or the Brexit Party is all that is required.
Anything else is a disenfranchisement, where hundreds of millions of people around the world, who are living in and are a citizens of democratic countries, not being allowed to vote for any national govenment.
EDIT: Unlike this post, which was too slooooooooooowww
I remember only a few isolated voices in favour of the UK joining.
No. You're definitely not jack.
https://www.gov.uk/dual-citizenship
I would not bar people from voting for left wing parties, even though I think their policies often cause unnecessary harm.
If you're an international business, it's running multiple sets of accounting practices (and associated incentivises etc) which is expensive, more so than a couple of pence on the pound.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/04/12/will-betrayed-leaver-heartlands-ever-forgive-tories/
How to get through the time?
Remember it was all going to blow over according to some on here the other day.
Moreover as I pointed out repeatedly at the time, issues such as defence, animal welfare, care for the elderly and the environment repeatedly came in below the EU on the same issues polls and no one in their right minds would claim that people didn't give a Monkey's about those issues.
But on the central point you are surely correct. No Deal, were it not to prove catastrophic, would be a dreamboat outcome for the Tory party. The fact that Mrs May, who you cut her and she bleeds the party, privy to the reality of the prospect refuses to countenance it tells us all we need to know. It would be catastrophic. As any semblance of rational thought would tell us in any case.
Not to mention low turnout makes things a bit different to a General Election.
It doesn't need everyone to stop voting Con - just a big slice and they are rooked.
And completely self inflicted - by their glorious leader.
By my calculation, the parts of England that are voting this year backed Leave by 55.6% to 44.4%. About 6,800 of the 8,374 seats being contested are in Leave-voting authorities.
Potentially, that leaves the Conservatives vulnerable to angry Leave voters, but also makes it unlikely that Labour, the Lib Dems, and the Greens will pick up many switchers. UKIP and Independents may pick up more switchers, but they're only standing in a minority of seats.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method
The Marquis himself took his name from this little village in Drôme.
FWIW I doubt the country is buring with a sense of Brexit betrayal, but what I do get from talking to people is a sense of utter despair at the hopelessness of the current lot of politicians - a contempt for the incompetence of the political class more than anything else. It is a contempt that began with the expenses scandal nearly a decade ago and has been simmering ever since. It is this contempt - rather than any "brexit betrayal" that has now reached boiling point.
That anger may come to nothing. Or it may lead to real trouble.
That would more than do it.
Now, it lags Germany, the Netherland, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, the UK, Denmark, and is only a smidgen above half a dozen others.
The difficulty for the Euros is that as well as Tory campaigners not going out and knocking on doors there is little likelihood in Tory voters going out and voting. I suspect those who will vote will tend towards the extremes and that may favour Chuk as that vote is far likely to be split in the way Brexit / UKIP vote will be split.
I would not remove it from members of the Commonwealth where governments have maintained reciprocity.
I'm not sure which loss is the more wrenching, the party losing its most passionate lifelong supporters or those aforesaid supporters losing their faith in the party.