>> But, for example, it would be completely wrong to forbid children to take part in lessons where they learn about the existence of other religions (and atheism) and learn tolerance for those different practises. Our country is supposed to be all about tolerance and understanding and it is those values that should be taught in school to ALL children.
>
> Well that IS happening, as my example shows.
>
> My girlfriend works at a non religious school that is closed in a fortnight for a day for Eid, because no one will turn up. Is that ok?
Islam is either already the largest religion in the UK or will overtake Anglicanism within less than five years. The 'White British' population is already below 50% in four towns,will drop below 50% in Birmingham by 2020, and will fall below 50% in the UK as a whole in 2060. People saying 'our country' have, with all due respect, completely missed the point.
People mistakenly, and rather arrogantly, thought ‘diversity’ was people from all over the world with different belief systems coming to Britain and adopting British belief systems. A kind of multi coloured Britain with different dress senses but where everyone thought the same. But diversity means trying to cobble together a load of different belief systems without it all kicking off. Real life is not a Benetton advert
I have some sympathy with some parts of that point. But the thing that is all too rarely talked about is that the big gainer is atheism/irreligiousity which is now in the majority in the UK despite the increasingly desperate attempts of the superstition-wallahs of all stripes to indoctrinate the population from a young age.
Whip religion out of schools and we might see further benefit in this regard, which will go a long way to fostering the sort of integration you allude to in your post. Certainly, promoting a raft of opposing belief systems in schools is a provably failed system – one needs only to look at the insanity of the segregated schools system in Northern Ireland for a longitudinal study in the misery of embedding differences via miseducation.
> @notme2 said: > > @IanB2 said: > > > @Scott_P said: > > > https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1131175303907348480 > > > > > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1131175517464481792 > > > > A vote on a referendum was always coming, such an amendment being inevitable. Tory MPs need to calm down. That said, the media is all talking about a second vote now, and it is hard to believe May didn’t know that would be the inevitable consequence of her raising it in her speech. But it is rumoured she was blocked by cabinet from putting it on the face of the bill, and this is her revenge. > > > > Another vote is starting to look inevitable. Quite a change in mood from the day I suggested we could end up here, back in early 2017, to the scorn of many PB’ers. If I could be bothered to look it would be fun to find that thread again. > > I still just cant figure out how it is considered acceptable to ask again. What has become of us?
Because it would be the first time people have been asked about a specific proposition. Leaving without our confirming agreement to the proposed path would be unacceptable.
> @Jonathan said: > > @williamglenn said: > > > @Pulpstar said: > > > I don't know what it is but something irks me personally far more about Boris than either Farage or Corbyn. > > > > I can imagine him being more gung ho about sending people into battle for the sake of his own image. > > Farage and Corbyn believe in something other than themselves. > Boris believes in one thing, Boris.
Yes. This is another face of his disingenuousness and insincerity ; like a fascinating character of many levels, with nothing at the bottom.
> > I think they should be allowed to pull their kids from lessons they disagreee with, not stop the lessons being taught.
>
> People should not be allowed to opt out of legal requirements because they disagree with them. I disagree with the current speeding laws and the current tax policies but would fully expect to be prosecuted if I was driving at 85 on a motorway or did not pay my tax.
There were kids at my primary school who were Jehovah's Witnesses and they were excused from assembly due to the religious nature of some assemblies.
Whereas I had to sit through them, bored out of my brains, then got a bollocking when I said that what there were banging on about was a load of rubbish. There's a clear answer: get rid of faith teaching in state schools. Given that most British people are not religious I don't see why this would even be that hard to enact, if the will was there.
There's something to be said for a modicum of boredom in education (the odd hour each week, though, not every lesson...). The realisation that figures of authority spout nonsense from time to time is also of some benefit. It doesn't appear to have done you any lasting harm.
Ha! I'm sure other PBers would stridently disagree with you, but thanks.
Your second point is a good one – "the realisation that figures of authority spout nonsense from time to time is also of some benefit" – that is certainly true!
> @Scott_P said: > You implement the decision first. > > We did. > > We have spent 3 years of blood and treasure. > > A democracy does not dictate the number or timing of votes
> >> But, for example, it would be completely wrong to forbid children to take part in lessons where they learn about the existence of other religions (and atheism) and learn tolerance for those different practises. Our country is supposed to be all about tolerance and understanding and it is those values that should be taught in school to ALL children.
> >
> > Well that IS happening, as my example shows.
> >
> > My girlfriend works at a non religious school that is closed in a fortnight for a day for Eid, because no one will turn up. Is that ok?
>
> Islam is either already the largest religion in the UK or will overtake Anglicanism within less than five years. The 'White British' population is already below 50% in four towns,will drop below 50% in Birmingham by 2020, and will fall below 50% in the UK as a whole in 2060. People saying 'our country' have, with all due respect, completely missed the point.
Christianity (including evangelicals, Catholics and Anglicans combined) is still comfortably larger than Islam in the UK.
Globally though they are about tied now on a third of the global population each
The biggest sector by far is atheism – a clear majority of the UK now. Perhaps it's time for those who believe in science to stand up and make their voice heard?
There is no democratic deficit if you are asking the same people. If you ship in a load of other folk, the French for example, to vote on it then yes, democratic outrage. But you are asking exactly the same people to vote hence their view is about as democratic as you can get.
> > This has always been a mixed race nation, going back thousands of years. 'We ourselves' were seafaring and internationalist, conquering 1/3rd of the globe. And in many cases 'we' welcomed with open arms those from other countries.
> >
> > Britain is mixed race. Always has been. Always will be. Chasing after some nostalgic white Anglo-Saxon identity is fool's gold.
> >
> >
> Indeed it is - the genetic roots of Britons actually go back to the original settlers of the islands (1), with Anglo-Saxon DNA present in only half the samples, and amounting to about 10 - 40% of their genome. The idea that 'Britain is mixed race' flies in the face of the distinct genetic clusters (2) which still make up the island, formed precisely because moment within Britain - let alone across the globe - was so rare until the very recent past.
I am afraid that New Scientist article is very much now out of date.
To start with the end of the Neolithic/start of the Bronze Age was marked by an almost total extinction of the population and its replacement by a new group of settlers. According to the latest research over 90% of the population of the British Isles was wiped out within a generation - probably as a result of a plague - and replaced by the Beaker Culture.
If you can get hold of a copy then the paper on this is
"The Beaker phenomenon and the genomic transformation of northwest Europe" by Olalde et al published last year in Nature. There has been lots of coverage of it in places like New Scientist.
What Boris Johnson does have is some sort of importantly misdirected creativity. Without the assumptions of power of his background, particularly Eton and Oxford, he could have been an interesting artist of some sort, if he'd been born somewhere else. What he should not be in is any position of political power and responsibility.
> @IanB2 said: > > @notme2 said: > > > @IanB2 said: > > > > @Scott_P said: > > > > https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1131175303907348480 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1131175517464481792 > > > > > > A vote on a referendum was always coming, such an amendment being inevitable. Tory MPs need to calm down. That said, the media is all talking about a second vote now, and it is hard to believe May didn’t know that would be the inevitable consequence of her raising it in her speech. But it is rumoured she was blocked by cabinet from putting it on the face of the bill, and this is her revenge. > > > > > > Another vote is starting to look inevitable. Quite a change in mood from the day I suggested we could end up here, back in early 2017, to the scorn of many PB’ers. If I could be bothered to look it would be fun to find that thread again. > > > > I still just cant figure out how it is considered acceptable to ask again. What has become of us? > > Because it would be the first time people have been asked about a specific proposition. Leaving without our confirming agreement to the proposed path would be unacceptable.
Butter it up how you want, however it makes you sleep at night. I dont just hold those remainers who have done their hardest to frustrate and block the process of leaving, but those leavers who decided the WA was not leavy enough.
> > This has always been a mixed race nation, going back thousands of years. 'We ourselves' were seafaring and internationalist, conquering 1/3rd of the globe. And in many cases 'we' welcomed with open arms those from other countries.
> >
> > Britain is mixed race. Always has been. Always will be. Chasing after some nostalgic white Anglo-Saxon identity is fool's gold.
> >
> >
> Indeed it is - the genetic roots of Britons actually go back to the original settlers of the islands (1
I am afraid that New Scientist article is very much now out of date.
To start with the end of the Neolithic/start of the Bronze Age was marked by an almost total extinction of the population and its replacement by a new group of settlers. According to the latest research over 90% of the population of the British Isles was wiped out within a generation - probably as a result of a plague - and replaced by the Beaker Culture.
If you can get hold of a copy then the paper on this is
"The Beaker phenomenon and the genomic transformation of northwest Europe" by Olalde et al published last year in Nature. There has been lots of coverage of it in places like New Scientist.
Though undeniably the gene pool of Britain has changed more in the last 70 years than in previous millenia. I am comfortable with that, but clearly a lot of other Britons are not.
> > Slipped under my usually efficient radar, but in recent weeks, Epsom in Surrey, and Cuffley, Bayford and Hertford North have come under the London Oyster Card scheme, meaning you can use Oyster or a Contactless bank card on journeys to and from any station in London.
> >
> > Potters Bar and Radlett to follow later this summer. And I think Luton Airport and Reading should be reachable by Oyster by the end of the year.
> >
> > Also, there's more! A brand new station near Tottenham, Meridian Water, is due to open next Tuesday, replacing the nearby Angel Road, which is currently the least used station in London. The new station is in a more accessible location, opposite a big Tesco's and there will be new housing next door.
> >
> >
> > All this, whilst the Tyne and Wear Metro rots.
> >
> >
> > I've done the Metro, two years back! But I think you're supposed to get some brand new trains within the next few years?
> >
> > Only about 10 years too late. We need more trains, new stations, and new lines. The scale of house building on Tyneside is insane but no investment at all in local transport.
> >
> > Plenty of money for London but none for the provinces.
>
> The purpose of the regional mayors was to provide a place for such conversations to take place and allow such schemes to be created.
>
> Down south of you, we have a mayor focusing on keeping the airport viable and improving links across the Tees Valley. Given the mess the councils South of the Tyne made by voting against a regional mayor I suspect the metro won't be expanded at any time in the future.
Would be ironic, and fitting, and good for me, if the Metro was extended north of the Tyne only.
Meanwhile. Prudhoe to Newcastle is 12 miles. There are NO trains before 09:55 or after 21:23 on Sundays. It is therefore impossible to work either an early shift, or a late one in Toon, or at the Metro Centre. Unsurprisingly the roads and pollution suffer.
Quality of trains is one thing. Their total absence is another matter.
At some point, someone will have to take one for the team and merge the councils up there into a single Greater Newcastle mayoralty. This farcical "North of Tyne" mayor should never have been allowed to happen. Just merge them and have done.
> @Scott_P said: > You implement the decision first. > > We did. > > We have spent 3 years of blood and treasure. > > A democracy does not dictate the number or timing of votes
Democracy is asking people to vote and then enacting their decision. We have not left and therefore have not enacted their decision. Holding another vote before the result of the vote has been enacted completely destroys the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country.
This is just a theory, but maybe the reason why we are essentially seeing a split by different polling companies vis-a-vis TBP, Labour etc scores is over engaged voters. The polling from those companies that give higher Labour scores and lower TBP scores looks a lot like a mix of the subsamples from Yougov who have medium to low attention to politics.
> @notme2 said: > > @IanB2 said: > > > @notme2 said: > > > > @IanB2 said: > > > > > @Scott_P said: > > > > > https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1131175303907348480 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1131175517464481792 > > > > > > > > A vote on a referendum was always coming, such an amendment being inevitable. Tory MPs need to calm down. That said, the media is all talking about a second vote now, and it is hard to believe May didn’t know that would be the inevitable consequence of her raising it in her speech. But it is rumoured she was blocked by cabinet from putting it on the face of the bill, and this is her revenge. > > > > > > > > Another vote is starting to look inevitable. Quite a change in mood from the day I suggested we could end up here, back in early 2017, to the scorn of many PB’ers. If I could be bothered to look it would be fun to find that thread again. > > > > > > I still just cant figure out how it is considered acceptable to ask again. What has become of us? > > > > Because it would be the first time people have been asked about a specific proposition. Leaving without our confirming agreement to the proposed path would be unacceptable. > > Butter it up how you want, however it makes you sleep at night. I dont just hold those remainers who have done their hardest to frustrate and block the process of leaving, but those leavers who decided the WA was not leavy enough. > > There is going to be a reckoning.
Unfortunately for you, while there was a majority for Leave at the referendum, there was no majority for the eventual form of Leave negotiated, either in the House of Commons or, it seems, among the voters. Foaming and moaning is not going to change that.
Leavers never ask themselves why they have been so unpersuasive. They won the referendum and should have been able to use that mandate to build a consensus, however grudging, around it. But they haven't. Their unwillingness to examine their failure is a major impediment to them moving forward.
Democracy is asking people to vote and then enacting their decision. We have not left and therefore have not enacted their decision. Holding another vote before the result of the vote has been enacted completely destroys the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country.
We have enacted their decision to the best of the collective ability of the HoC.
If a general election results in mo government being formed, we vote again.
The failure to form a government does not completely destroy the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country
> I don't know what it is but something irks me personally far more about Boris than either Farage or Corbyn.
I don't like Boris much either. Again from All Out War, apparently one of the things that made Gove ditch him last time was that he remembers nothing. You'd have a conversation with him one day and then two days later it's like the conversation never happened.
Memory isn't a skill that tends to get talked about much. In fact, people often deride examinations as being memory tests. But I think it is important for a leader to be able to handle a fair amount of information - at least at a high level.
I had a boss like that once, but learned to play it to my advantage.
We'd have to meet every Tuesday morning, whereupon he would suggest some barmy idea that had zero chance of success. I'd simply nod politely then decline to implement it.
By the next week, he had forgotten all about his request and suggested another idea. I'd simply nod politely then decline to implement it.
> @Scott_P said: > You implement the decision first. > > We did. > > We have spent 3 years of blood and treasure. > > A democracy does not dictate the number or timing of votes
Deep down I think you know you're wrong, it's not a great argument and I'm sure you wish you didn't have to defend the indefensible but sadly that's where we are at.
Democracy is asking people to vote and then enacting their decision. We have not left and therefore have not enacted their decision. Holding another vote before the result of the vote has been enacted completely destroys the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country.
It is many things, most of them sub-optimal, and I agree that ideally we should leave first. Holding a vote where you ask the same people to vote again is unfortunate, irritating, frustrating, ridiculous, but not anti-democratic.
> Except the debt is denominated almost entirely one would think in Dollars, for which the US Govt has the sole issuing rights. Sure bond yields might spike big time, and inflation might be horrible but but the Chinese could see the real value of the debt they hold inflate away. A touch of the old "you owe the bank £1000 you have a problem. You owe the bank £1million the bank has a problem." > > The US simply cannot "run out" of US Dollars. >
If the Chinese were to take that action then anyone holding US dollars would suffer. Surely that would destroy the credibility of the US dollar as a reserve currency?
> @OblitusSumMe said: > > @welshowl said: > > > Except the debt is denominated almost entirely one would think in Dollars, for which the US Govt has the sole issuing rights. Sure bond yields might spike big time, and inflation might be horrible but but the Chinese could see the real value of the debt they hold inflate away. A touch of the old "you owe the bank £1000 you have a problem. You owe the bank £1million the bank has a problem." > > > > The US simply cannot "run out" of US Dollars. > > > > If the Chinese were to take that action then anyone holding US dollars would suffer. Surely that would destroy the credibility of the US dollar as a reserve currency?
Probably. But it's not going to reduce the US military budget to "miniscule levels" as was claimed.
> @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > @GIN1138 said: > > The usual course would be for Theresa May to announce her resignation as Con leader, thus triggering a leadership contest but for her to remain as Prime Minister until a successor is chosen. > > Most likely
Apl - Jun 2019 trading at 2.92 seems rather low to me. Fools not realising the likely transition time? or is there really as much as 34% chance of transition complete by end of June?
> @Scott_P said: > Democracy is asking people to vote and then enacting their decision. We have not left and therefore have not enacted their decision. Holding another vote before the result of the vote has been enacted completely destroys the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country. > > We have enacted their decision to the best of the collective ability of the HoC. > > If a general election results in mo government being formed, we vote again. > > The failure to form a government does not completely destroy the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country
No we have not enacted it at all. We have seen a succession of attempts to thwart it all leading to the point where the politicians feel they can get away with saying it can't happen. It has been like asking a bunch of vegans to run the meat marketing board.
And we do not elect Governments, we elect individual MPs. The correct analogy is actually having the voters elect an MP and then asking them to vote again because you don't like who they chose.
> @TOPPING said: > Democracy is asking people to vote and then enacting their decision. We have not left and therefore have not enacted their decision. Holding another vote before the result of the vote has been enacted completely destroys the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country. > > It is many things, most of them sub-optimal, and I agree that ideally we should leave first. Holding a vote where you ask the same people to vote again is unfortunate, irritating, frustrating, ridiculous, but not anti-democratic.
I disagree. And so will somewhere around 50% of the population. Those supporting a referendum are destroying the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country.
> @Scott_P said: > Deep down I think you know you're wrong, it's not a great argument and I'm sure you wish you didn't have to defend the indefensible > > Defending democracy is not wrong, deep down or otherwise. I am happy to defend it always
You are not defending it. You are ripping it up.
I find it ironic that those who rail most against the rise of Farage are the ones who will do the most to facilitate his success.
> @Scott_P said: > Deep down I think you know you're wrong, it's not a great argument and I'm sure you wish you didn't have to defend the indefensible > > Defending democracy is not wrong, deep down or otherwise. I am happy to defend it always
Obviously you may have your own idea of democracy and it's out of step with how a lot of people might see it, but I just sense from a lot of your tweets and posts there is a burden you hold when defending your arguments, one you wouldn't have to bear if Remain had won in 2016 - because put it this way, I don't think you'd be arguing this case if Leave had lost.
I thought May was very good in the Commons - not quite a tour de force but a bravura performance in the face of overwhelming opposition bordering on derision.
I'm no supporter of her or her Party but I respect what I believe she was trying to do in July 2016. She saw a country polarised and divided by months of increasingly rancorous debate which culminated in the murder of a fellow MP. I think May saw her primary objective as re-unifying the country and the Party (not sure in which order), calming things down, allowing time to cool heads and for political life to try to return to normal.
"Brexit means Brexit" can be seen in that context. It's the ultimate non-statement onto which anyone and everyone could project their reality of what Brexit meant from the softest possible to bricking up the Channel Tunnel. Getting any Deal through Parliament was risky with a majority of 12 but with the polls showing the majority of LEAVE voters happy to sit in the May camp the election looked to have little risk - with a majority of 50-100 and a raft of new MPs beholden to her, May could have got any Deal through the Commons.
Once the election gambit spectacularly failed, the trap began to close. Forced to try to reconcile irreconcilable positions she inevitably ended up antagonising all sides and was effectively finished on January 15th. Since then she has staggered on, an increasingly irrelevant and powerless figure.
The irony is she's right in that passing the WA would be the quickest and cleanest way for the UK to leave the EU - it always has been. However, by trying to play both sides, she's ended up with a WA which, whatever the reality, has become politically toxic. Could another PM have presented the same WA and got it through?
> @notme2 said: > > @Scott_P said: > > I still just cant figure out how it is considered acceptable to ask again. What has become of us? > > > > You mean a democracy? > > You implement the decision first. Could you explain why that is the case? We have seen it baldly stated any amount of times, but never explained or justified. If it is based on authority, point us to the authority; if on principles, expound the principles.
> A vote on a referendum was always coming, such an amendment being inevitable. Tory MPs need to calm down. That said, the media is all talking about a second vote now, and it is hard to believe May didn’t know that would be the inevitable consequence of her raising it in her speech. But it is rumoured she was blocked by cabinet from putting it on the face of the bill, and this is her revenge.
>
> Another vote is starting to look inevitable. Quite a change in mood from the day I suggested we could end up here, back in early 2017, to the scorn of many PB’ers. If I could be bothered to look it would be fun to find that thread again.
I still just cant figure out how it is considered acceptable to ask again. What has become of us?
People who voted leave were lied to; they were promised whatever they wanted, and the contradictory positions proved unreconcilable and undeliverable. May tried to produce a middle ground that resolved many of those contradictions, but too many hardcore leavers - the same people who made those lies, and many of whom are looking to their own careers rather than the good of the country - were not willing to compromise.
Hence we are in a stalemate that is damaging to the country.
> Democracy is asking people to vote and then enacting their decision. We have not left and therefore have not enacted their decision. Holding another vote before the result of the vote has been enacted completely destroys the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country.
I fundamentally disagree. Firstly, the public are entitled to change their mind. If public opinion were to move decisively against Brexit it would be absurd to insist that the public had to be bound by their vote in 2016.
Secondly, the question to be asked now, when some of the details of what Brexit will mean are clearer would be a different question. It would not simply be a re-run.
I'm not personally in favour of a second referendum, mainly because I think they're a very bad way of making these sorts of decisions. I still favour a citizens assembly. However, I do not see a second referendum as being and any more of a democratic abomination then the first. Democracy did not end on June 23rd 2016.
> @stodge said: > Afternoon all > > I thought May was very good in the Commons - not quite a tour de force but a bravura performance in the face of overwhelming opposition bordering on derision. > > I'm no supporter of her or her Party but I respect what I believe she was trying to do in July 2016. She saw a country polarised and divided by months of increasingly rancorous debate which culminated in the murder of a fellow MP. I think May saw her primary objective as re-unifying the country and the Party (not sure in which order), calming things down, allowing time to cool heads and for political life to try to return to normal. > > "Brexit means Brexit" can be seen in that context. It's the ultimate non-statement onto which anyone and everyone could project their reality of what Brexit meant from the softest possible to bricking up the Channel Tunnel. Getting any Deal through Parliament was risky with a majority of 12 but with the polls showing the majority of LEAVE voters happy to sit in the May camp the election looked to have little risk - with a majority of 50-100 and a raft of new MPs beholden to her, May could have got any Deal through the Commons. > > Once the election gambit spectacularly failed, the trap began to close. Forced to try to reconcile irreconcilable positions she inevitably ended up antagonising all sides and was effectively finished on January 15th. Since then she has staggered on, an increasingly irrelevant and powerless figure. > > The irony is she's right in that passing the WA would be the quickest and cleanest way for the UK to leave the EU - it always has been. However, by trying to play both sides, she's ended up with a WA which, whatever the reality, has become politically toxic. Could another PM have presented the same WA and got it through?
Way too charitable. Even with her slim pre-2017 majority, the number of Tory rebels is such that she always needed a cross-party compromise solution, and she should both have realised and set out to deliver such from the outset.
> @stodge said: > Afternoon all > > I thought May was very good in the Commons - not quite a tour de force but a bravura performance in the face of overwhelming opposition bordering on derision. > > I'm no supporter of her or her Party but I respect what I believe she was trying to do in July 2016. She saw a country polarised and divided by months of increasingly rancorous debate which culminated in the murder of a fellow MP. I think May saw her primary objective as re-unifying the country and the Party (not sure in which order), calming things down, allowing time to cool heads and for political life to try to return to normal. > > "Brexit means Brexit" can be seen in that context. It's the ultimate non-statement onto which anyone and everyone could project their reality of what Brexit meant from the softest possible to bricking up the Channel Tunnel. Getting any Deal through Parliament was risky with a majority of 12 but with the polls showing the majority of LEAVE voters happy to sit in the May camp the election looked to have little risk - with a majority of 50-100 and a raft of new MPs beholden to her, May could have got any Deal through the Commons. > > Once the election gambit spectacularly failed, the trap began to close. Forced to try to reconcile irreconcilable positions she inevitably ended up antagonising all sides and was effectively finished on January 15th. Since then she has staggered on, an increasingly irrelevant and powerless figure. > > The irony is she's right in that passing the WA would be the quickest and cleanest way for the UK to leave the EU - it always has been. However, by trying to play both sides, she's ended up with a WA which, whatever the reality, has become politically toxic. Could another PM have presented the same WA and got it through?
What direction can a future leader have? What could they achieve that she couldnt? I think two years ago before it really became defined as to what kind of brexit people wanted she could have pushed a norway for now suck it and see approach and introduce a series of domestic measures aimed at satisfying those concerned of wage undermining by unskilled unlimited migration.
But now, everything that isnt the magical WTO is a betrayal.
> @IanB2 said: > Pretty clear hint from Kyle there that the bill would get through if a referendum is attached to the Bill
It would get closer, but I think it would still fail. She would get very few Conservative votes and probably a fair few Labour MPs wouldn't back it either. Worth a try though as a final two-fingered salute to the ERG.
> A democracy does not dictate the number or timing of votes
Democracy is asking people to vote and then enacting their decision. We have not left and therefore have not enacted their decision. Holding another vote before the result of the vote has been enacted completely destroys the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country.
I disagree. And so will somewhere around 50% of the population. Those supporting a referendum are destroying the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country.
> @Richard_Tyndall said: > > @TOPPING said: > > Democracy is asking people to vote and then enacting their decision. We have not left and therefore have not enacted their decision. Holding another vote before the result of the vote has been enacted completely destroys the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country. > > > > It is many things, most of them sub-optimal, and I agree that ideally we should leave first. Holding a vote where you ask the same people to vote again is unfortunate, irritating, frustrating, ridiculous, but not anti-democratic. > > I disagree. And so will somewhere around 50% of the population. Those supporting a referendum are destroying the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country.
Your usual nonsense. Imposing something very significant upon people when they don’t want it, or don’t want it any more, without asking first, would be the negation of democracy.
Anyhow, it looks like MPs may be deciding the matter in a couple of weeks.
I disagree. And so will somewhere around 50% of the population. Those supporting a referendum are destroying the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country.
How is asking the people to vote anti-democratic?
Asking them the same question repeatedly until you get the answer you want seems a touch anti-democratic.
I disagree. And so will somewhere around 50% of the population. Those supporting a referendum are destroying the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country.
How is asking the people to vote anti-democratic?
Asking them the same question repeatedly until you get the answer you want seems a touch anti-democratic.
If it were a different set of people each time then yes of course. If it is the same set of people then no.
As I said, it is slightly preposterous, but then the circumstances wherein it is being contemplated are preposterous. But it is not undemocratic.
If six of them resign, could she find replacements from the backbenches to get her through the recess about to begin? Damian Green would surely be happy to return - maybe Stephen Crabb!
> @AlastairMeeks said: > > @notme2 said: > > > @IanB2 said: > > > > @notme2 said: > > > > > @IanB2 said: > > > > > > @Scott_P said: > > > > > > https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1131175303907348480 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1131175517464481792 > > > > > > > > > > A vote on a referendum was always coming, such an amendment being inevitable. Tory MPs need to calm down. That said, the media is all talking about a second vote now, and it is hard to believe May didn’t know that would be the inevitable consequence of her raising it in her speech. But it is rumoured she was blocked by cabinet from putting it on the face of the bill, and this is her revenge. > > > > > > > > > > Another vote is starting to look inevitable. Quite a change in mood from the day I suggested we could end up here, back in early 2017, to the scorn of many PB’ers. If I could be bothered to look it would be fun to find that thread again. > > > > > > > > I still just cant figure out how it is considered acceptable to ask again. What has become of us? > > > > > > Because it would be the first time people have been asked about a specific proposition. Leaving without our confirming agreement to the proposed path would be unacceptable. > > > > Butter it up how you want, however it makes you sleep at night. I dont just hold those remainers who have done their hardest to frustrate and block the process of leaving, but those leavers who decided the WA was not leavy enough. > > > > There is going to be a reckoning. > > Unfortunately for you, while there was a majority for Leave at the referendum, there was no majority for the eventual form of Leave negotiated, either in the House of Commons or, it seems, among the voters. Foaming and moaning is not going to change that. > > Leavers never ask themselves why they have been so unpersuasive. They won the referendum and should have been able to use that mandate to build a consensus, however grudging, around it. But they haven't. Their unwillingness to examine their failure is a major impediment to them moving forward.
But remainers seem to not only dislike the result but the kind of people who voted for it. We can see the Jeremy Kyle comparison here. It wasnt Jeremy Kyle that so offended people, it was the participants who willingly went on there (and watched it).
These silly working class northern voters, these decrepit pension stealers of todays youth, influenced by russia/trump/facebook adverts/the daily mail. If only we stopped brexit we can go back to ignoring them.
> @RobD said: > I disagree. And so will somewhere around 50% of the population. Those supporting a referendum are destroying the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country. > > How is asking the people to vote anti-democratic? > > Asking them the same question repeatedly until you get the answer you want seems a touch anti-democratic.
It is anti-democratic to get the answer you wanted, but didn't expect, and then try and claim it said something it didn't, then refuse the populace an opportunity to endorse the new reality. Now THAT really is anti-democratic. If the democratic will of the electorate is believed to be self harming crash out of the EU it needs to be tested. That concept was not in any way tested in 2016. Those that claim it was are lying through their teeth.
It's a very sad sight, but she has had plenty of opportunities to resign with honour on something like her own terms. Whilst she's right on the fundamentals, and changing leader probably won't help, neither is there any point her carrying on.
> @Nigel_Foremain said: > > @RobD said: > > I disagree. And so will somewhere around 50% of the population. Those supporting a referendum are destroying the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country. > > > > How is asking the people to vote anti-democratic? > > > > Asking them the same question repeatedly until you get the answer you want seems a touch anti-democratic. > > It is anti-democratic to get the answer you wanted, but didn't expect, and then try and claim it said something it didn't, then refuse the populace an opportunity to endorse the new reality. Now THAT really is anti-democratic. If the democratic will of the electorate is believed to be self harming crash out of the EU it needs to be tested. That concept was not in any way tested in 2016. Those that claim it was are lying through their teeth.
It's not about testing but a second throw of the dice. You want a do over. If the choice at a second referendum was on how to implement the decision that would be fine. But that isnt what you want, is it?
> @RobD said: > I disagree. And so will somewhere around 50% of the population. Those supporting a referendum are destroying the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country. > > How is asking the people to vote anti-democratic? > > Asking them the same question repeatedly until you get the answer you want seems a touch anti-democratic.
It is quite normal in many walks of life to check and confirm and reconfirm that someone is happy with a very major decision before going ahead. Particularly when all the critical information only became apparent after the first time you were asked.
I disagree. And so will somewhere around 50% of the population. Those supporting a referendum are destroying the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country.
That is pernicious hyperbole.
That said, I can fully understand a large number of people finding it deeply irksome - but the deep damage is being done to the established parties, as a result of the bind the electorate put parliament in thanks to the 2017 GE vote, and the inability of the two major parties to talk to each other.
I’m not at all convinced that any of this destroys the legitimacy of the democratic process any more than those who say if they don’t get their way they’ll never vote again does.
I disagree. And so will somewhere around 50% of the population. Those supporting a referendum are destroying the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country.
How is asking the people to vote anti-democratic?
Asking them the same question repeatedly until you get the answer you want seems a touch anti-democratic.
But nobody proposes that another vote will be, either in wording or in substance, on the same question as the 2016 one. So that disposes of that point, unless your claim is that your rules excluse both a question already asked and also any other question which (you being the sole arbiter of this) is in any way cognate with the 2016 question.
With a plethora (we need a new collective word) of elections upcoming, a quick word on the Danish election on June 5th with two new polls out.
Four polls out this morning and while there are slight variations, there is a common theme with the centre-left bloc still having a decisive advantage over the centre-right:
The fragmentation of the Dansk Folkeparti vote has severely weakened the centre-right while the Social Democrats have improved and reach 30% in one of the morning's polls. As mentioned before, the combined Venstre-Dansk Folkeparti vote share in 2015 was 40.6% - it is now 27-32%.
> @Nigelb said: > I disagree. And so will somewhere around 50% of the population. Those supporting a referendum are destroying the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country. > > That is pernicious hyperbole. > > That said, I can fully understand a large number of people finding it deeply irksome - but the deep damage is being done to the established parties, as a result of the bind the electorate put parliament in thanks to the 2017 GE vote, and the inability of the two major parties to talk to each other. > > I’m not at all convinced that any of this destroys the legitimacy of the democratic process any more than those who say if they don’t get their way they’ll never vote again does.
Not hyperbole at all. Once you show people that their vote no longer matters and can be ignored or reversed at the whim of the politicians then why should they continue to have faith in the democratic process?
> I disagree. And so will somewhere around 50% of the population. Those supporting a referendum are destroying the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country.
>
> How is asking the people to vote anti-democratic?
>
> Asking them the same question repeatedly until you get the answer you want seems a touch anti-democratic.
It is quite normal in many walks of life to check and confirm and reconfirm that someone is happy with a very major decision before going ahead. Particularly when all the critical information only became apparent after the first time you were asked.
Yes, all that checking and confirmation that happened before those big EU treaties that are signed.
> @OblitusSumMe said: > > @williamglenn said: > > If she faces them down, what can they do? > > Ultimately they can vote her down in a VONC and then support one of their own in a subsequent confidence motion.
They can't guarantee one of their own would be able to win a subsequent confidence motion and avoid a snap general election.
> These silly working class northern voters, these decrepit pension stealers of todays youth, influenced by russia/trump/facebook adverts/the daily mail. If only we stopped brexit we can go back to ignoring them.
Do you think all the 48% fall in that category?
Leave did not need to persuade all Remainers. One in three would have been enough to establish a broad consensus. But they have essentially persuaded none of them at all to accept their prospectus. If anything, the tide is flowing the other way.
Thoughtful Leavers would ask themselves why they have failed so totally.
> @justin124 said: > > @maaarsh said: > > > @williamglenn said: > > > If she faces them down, what can they do? > > > > Change the rules and no-con vote. > > But not before the recess - so no vote until June.
There's a 1922 exec meeting in 90 minutes. If they really wanted to, they could get it all over and done with tonight - they clearly won't, but there are no built in timescales here.
> @Ishmael_Z said: > I disagree. And so will somewhere around 50% of the population. Those supporting a referendum are destroying the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country. > > How is asking the people to vote anti-democratic? > > Asking them the same question repeatedly until you get the answer you want seems a touch anti-democratic. > > But nobody proposes that another vote will be, either in wording or in substance, on the same question as the 2016 one. So that disposes of that point, unless your claim is that your rules excluse both a question already asked and also any other question which (you being the sole arbiter of this) is in any way cognate with the 2016 question. > > Why do you hate democracy, boy?
The will-o-the-people must be preserved in aspic. They must never be allowed the opportunity to say that "they" have changed "their" mind. This is how populism and fascism work.
Mein gott, can we please not do the PB Groundhog Day of "it's anti-democratic" / "no it isn't" / "but enact the decision" / "but voting can never be anti-democratic" yet again.
No-one is going to change their mind on this and it's all been said a thousand times before.
There are much more enjoyable things to talk about right now, like the possibility of a Prime Minister being forced out the day before the European elections.
> @TOPPING said: > I disagree. And so will somewhere around 50% of the population. Those supporting a referendum are destroying the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country. > > How is asking the people to vote anti-democratic?
Telling them their previous vote no longer counts is certainly anti-democratic.
> @notme2 said: > > @Nigel_Foremain said: > > > @RobD said: > > > I disagree. And so will somewhere around 50% of the population. Those supporting a referendum are destroying the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country. > > > > > > How is asking the people to vote anti-democratic? > > > > > > Asking them the same question repeatedly until you get the answer you want seems a touch anti-democratic. > > > > It is anti-democratic to get the answer you wanted, but didn't expect, and then try and claim it said something it didn't, then refuse the populace an opportunity to endorse the new reality. Now THAT really is anti-democratic. If the democratic will of the electorate is believed to be self harming crash out of the EU it needs to be tested. That concept was not in any way tested in 2016. Those that claim it was are lying through their teeth. > > It's not about testing but a second throw of the dice. You want a do over. If the choice at a second referendum was on how to implement the decision that would be fine. But that isnt what you want, is it?
Too right. I want people to have a chance to change their decision. That is very democratic, particularly given the impasse and the fact that the Brexit that is now offered is completely different to the fantasy offered in 2016.
> @williamglenn said: > > @OblitusSumMe said: > > > @williamglenn said: > > > If she faces them down, what can they do? > > > > Ultimately they can vote her down in a VONC and then support one of their own in a subsequent confidence motion. > > They can't guarantee one of their own would be able to win a subsequent confidence motion and avoid a snap general election.
No, but if that's the risk they have to take then that's what they have to do. It depends on how much support they believe they have relative to the PM.
Thoughtful Leavers would ask themselves why they have failed so totally.
Saying that if Remainers don't repent they are "destroying the legitimacy of the democratic process" is just a form of anti-democratic coercion. Individual citizens have no obligations to change their political beliefs in response to a vote.
Mein gott, can we please not do the PB Groundhog Day of "it's anti-democratic" / "no it isn't" / "but enact the decision" / "but voting can never be anti-democratic" yet again.
No-one is going to change their mind on this and it's all been said a thousand times before.
There are much more enjoyable things to talk about right now, like the possibility of a Prime Minister being forced out the day before the European elections.
> @maaarsh said: > > @justin124 said: > > > @maaarsh said: > > > > @williamglenn said: > > > > If she faces them down, what can they do? > > > > > > Change the rules and no-con vote. > > > > But not before the recess - so no vote until June. > > There's a 1922 exec meeting in 90 minutes. If they really wanted to, they could get it all over and done with tonight - they clearly won't, but there are no built in timescales here.
But MPs hardly have time to vote today. Even if there were to be an avalanche of letters sent in to Brady , difficult to see a vote this week. Possibility of a legal challenge to any rule change has also been raised.
> @Ishmael_Z said: > I disagree. And so will somewhere around 50% of the population. Those supporting a referendum are destroying the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country. > > How is asking the people to vote anti-democratic? > > Asking them the same question repeatedly until you get the answer you want seems a touch anti-democratic. > > But nobody proposes that another vote will be, either in wording or in substance, on the same question as the 2016 one. So that disposes of that point, unless your claim is that your rules excluse both a question already asked and also any other question which (you being the sole arbiter of this) is in any way cognate with the 2016 question. > > Why do you hate democracy, boy?
You don't even understand what the word means. You seem to think that the mere act of asking the question satisfies the definition even when you then ignore the result.
> @crandles said: > > @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > > @GIN1138 said: > > > The usual course would be for Theresa May to announce her resignation as Con leader, thus triggering a leadership contest but for her to remain as Prime Minister until a successor is chosen. > > > > Most likely > > Apl - Jun 2019 trading at 2.92 seems rather low to me. Fools not realising the likely transition time? or is there really as much as 34% chance of transition complete by end of June? >
I think it's a good lay because: 1) there's a chance TM vote gets delayed, pushing back her presumed defeat. 2) I think she will want to oversee contest, especially as there are suggestions of changing rules to send top 3/4 to members to help Boris. 3) she may still try to cling on for a bit and there still isn't a clear way of removing her 4) seems likely it will need a members ballot this time which will take time to organize.
> @El_Capitano said: > Mein gott, can we please not do the PB Groundhog Day of "it's anti-democratic" / "no it isn't" / "but enact the decision" / "but voting can never be anti-democratic" yet again.
I know. Sorry. It's so hard to let RT have the final word.
Comments
Whip religion out of schools and we might see further benefit in this regard, which will go a long way to fostering the sort of integration you allude to in your post. Certainly, promoting a raft of opposing belief systems in schools is a provably failed system – one needs only to look at the insanity of the segregated schools system in Northern Ireland for a longitudinal study in the misery of embedding differences via miseducation.
> I still just cant figure out how it is considered acceptable to ask again. What has become of us?
>
> You mean a democracy?
You implement the decision first.
> https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1131177995077652483
Is David Miliband finally going to be leader of the Labour party?
> https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1131177219085275137
Labour would give their right arm for that result.
> > @IanB2 said:
> > > @Scott_P said:
> > > https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1131175303907348480
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1131175517464481792
> >
> > A vote on a referendum was always coming, such an amendment being inevitable. Tory MPs need to calm down. That said, the media is all talking about a second vote now, and it is hard to believe May didn’t know that would be the inevitable consequence of her raising it in her speech. But it is rumoured she was blocked by cabinet from putting it on the face of the bill, and this is her revenge.
> >
> > Another vote is starting to look inevitable. Quite a change in mood from the day I suggested we could end up here, back in early 2017, to the scorn of many PB’ers. If I could be bothered to look it would be fun to find that thread again.
>
> I still just cant figure out how it is considered acceptable to ask again. What has become of us?
Because it would be the first time people have been asked about a specific proposition. Leaving without our confirming agreement to the proposed path would be unacceptable.
> > @williamglenn said:
> > > @Pulpstar said:
> > > I don't know what it is but something irks me personally far more about Boris than either Farage or Corbyn.
> >
> > I can imagine him being more gung ho about sending people into battle for the sake of his own image.
>
> Farage and Corbyn believe in something other than themselves.
> Boris believes in one thing, Boris.
Yes. This is another face of his disingenuousness and insincerity ; like a fascinating character of many levels, with nothing at the bottom.
Ha! I'm sure other PBers would stridently disagree with you, but thanks.
Your second point is a good one – "the realisation that figures of authority spout nonsense from time to time is also of some benefit" – that is certainly true!
> > @CarlottaVance said:
> > https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1131177995077652483
>
> Is David Miliband finally going to be leader of the Labour party?
I hear Lord Falconer is going to resign.
We have spent 3 years of blood and treasure.
A democracy does not dictate the number or timing of votes
> https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1131177995077652483
A new series of GoT?
> You implement the decision first.
>
> We did.
>
> We have spent 3 years of blood and treasure.
>
> A democracy does not dictate the number or timing of votes
Brexit has been implemented?
> > @Jonathan said:
> > > @CarlottaVance said:
> > > https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1131177995077652483
> >
> > Is David Miliband finally going to be leader of the Labour party?
>
> I hear Lord Falconer is going to resign.
Lol - some gags on pb never get old.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_(Muppet)
> > @notme2 said:
> > > @IanB2 said:
> > > > @Scott_P said:
> > > > https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1131175303907348480
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1131175517464481792
> > >
> > > A vote on a referendum was always coming, such an amendment being inevitable. Tory MPs need to calm down. That said, the media is all talking about a second vote now, and it is hard to believe May didn’t know that would be the inevitable consequence of her raising it in her speech. But it is rumoured she was blocked by cabinet from putting it on the face of the bill, and this is her revenge.
> > >
> > > Another vote is starting to look inevitable. Quite a change in mood from the day I suggested we could end up here, back in early 2017, to the scorn of many PB’ers. If I could be bothered to look it would be fun to find that thread again.
> >
> > I still just cant figure out how it is considered acceptable to ask again. What has become of us?
>
> Because it would be the first time people have been asked about a specific proposition. Leaving without our confirming agreement to the proposed path would be unacceptable.
Butter it up how you want, however it makes you sleep at night. I dont just hold those remainers who have done their hardest to frustrate and block the process of leaving, but those leavers who decided the WA was not leavy enough.
There is going to be a reckoning.
The charlatans and fraudsters who sold Brexit as anything other than a catastrophe should be held to account
> You implement the decision first.
>
> We did.
>
> We have spent 3 years of blood and treasure.
>
> A democracy does not dictate the number or timing of votes
Democracy is asking people to vote and then enacting their decision. We have not left and therefore have not enacted their decision. Holding another vote before the result of the vote has been enacted completely destroys the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country.
> > @IanB2 said:
> > > @notme2 said:
> > > > @IanB2 said:
> > > > > @Scott_P said:
> > > > > https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1131175303907348480
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1131175517464481792
> > > >
> > > > A vote on a referendum was always coming, such an amendment being inevitable. Tory MPs need to calm down. That said, the media is all talking about a second vote now, and it is hard to believe May didn’t know that would be the inevitable consequence of her raising it in her speech. But it is rumoured she was blocked by cabinet from putting it on the face of the bill, and this is her revenge.
> > > >
> > > > Another vote is starting to look inevitable. Quite a change in mood from the day I suggested we could end up here, back in early 2017, to the scorn of many PB’ers. If I could be bothered to look it would be fun to find that thread again.
> > >
> > > I still just cant figure out how it is considered acceptable to ask again. What has become of us?
> >
> > Because it would be the first time people have been asked about a specific proposition. Leaving without our confirming agreement to the proposed path would be unacceptable.
>
> Butter it up how you want, however it makes you sleep at night. I dont just hold those remainers who have done their hardest to frustrate and block the process of leaving, but those leavers who decided the WA was not leavy enough.
>
> There is going to be a reckoning.
Unfortunately for you, while there was a majority for Leave at the referendum, there was no majority for the eventual form of Leave negotiated, either in the House of Commons or, it seems, among the voters. Foaming and moaning is not going to change that.
Leavers never ask themselves why they have been so unpersuasive. They won the referendum and should have been able to use that mandate to build a consensus, however grudging, around it. But they haven't. Their unwillingness to examine their failure is a major impediment to them moving forward.
If a general election results in mo government being formed, we vote again.
The failure to form a government does not completely destroy the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country
We'd have to meet every Tuesday morning, whereupon he would suggest some barmy idea that had zero chance of success. I'd simply nod politely then decline to implement it.
By the next week, he had forgotten all about his request and suggested another idea. I'd simply nod politely then decline to implement it.
And so on, and so forth.
> You implement the decision first.
>
> We did.
>
> We have spent 3 years of blood and treasure.
>
> A democracy does not dictate the number or timing of votes
Deep down I think you know you're wrong, it's not a great argument and I'm sure you wish you didn't have to defend the indefensible but sadly that's where we are at.
> Except the debt is denominated almost entirely one would think in Dollars, for which the US Govt has the sole issuing rights. Sure bond yields might spike big time, and inflation might be horrible but but the Chinese could see the real value of the debt they hold inflate away. A touch of the old "you owe the bank £1000 you have a problem. You owe the bank £1million the bank has a problem."
>
> The US simply cannot "run out" of US Dollars.
>
If the Chinese were to take that action then anyone holding US dollars would suffer. Surely that would destroy the credibility of the US dollar as a reserve currency?
> https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1131180881228513282
Surprisingly strong result for Leave given how out of line that pollster is on Brexit Party support
> > @welshowl said:
>
> > Except the debt is denominated almost entirely one would think in Dollars, for which the US Govt has the sole issuing rights. Sure bond yields might spike big time, and inflation might be horrible but but the Chinese could see the real value of the debt they hold inflate away. A touch of the old "you owe the bank £1000 you have a problem. You owe the bank £1million the bank has a problem."
> >
> > The US simply cannot "run out" of US Dollars.
> >
>
> If the Chinese were to take that action then anyone holding US dollars would suffer. Surely that would destroy the credibility of the US dollar as a reserve currency?
Probably. But it's not going to reduce the US military budget to "miniscule levels" as was claimed.
> > @GIN1138 said:
> > The usual course would be for Theresa May to announce her resignation as Con leader, thus triggering a leadership contest but for her to remain as Prime Minister until a successor is chosen.
>
> Most likely
Apl - Jun 2019 trading at 2.92 seems rather low to me. Fools not realising the likely transition time? or is there really as much as 34% chance of transition complete by end of June?
> Democracy is asking people to vote and then enacting their decision. We have not left and therefore have not enacted their decision. Holding another vote before the result of the vote has been enacted completely destroys the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country.
>
> We have enacted their decision to the best of the collective ability of the HoC.
>
> If a general election results in mo government being formed, we vote again.
>
> The failure to form a government does not completely destroy the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country
No we have not enacted it at all. We have seen a succession of attempts to thwart it all leading to the point where the politicians feel they can get away with saying it can't happen. It has been like asking a bunch of vegans to run the meat marketing board.
And we do not elect Governments, we elect individual MPs. The correct analogy is actually having the voters elect an MP and then asking them to vote again because you don't like who they chose.
> Democracy is asking people to vote and then enacting their decision. We have not left and therefore have not enacted their decision. Holding another vote before the result of the vote has been enacted completely destroys the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country.
>
> It is many things, most of them sub-optimal, and I agree that ideally we should leave first. Holding a vote where you ask the same people to vote again is unfortunate, irritating, frustrating, ridiculous, but not anti-democratic.
I disagree. And so will somewhere around 50% of the population. Those supporting a referendum are destroying the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country.
> Deep down I think you know you're wrong, it's not a great argument and I'm sure you wish you didn't have to defend the indefensible
>
> Defending democracy is not wrong, deep down or otherwise. I am happy to defend it always
You are not defending it. You are ripping it up.
I find it ironic that those who rail most against the rise of Farage are the ones who will do the most to facilitate his success.
> Deep down I think you know you're wrong, it's not a great argument and I'm sure you wish you didn't have to defend the indefensible
>
> Defending democracy is not wrong, deep down or otherwise. I am happy to defend it always
Obviously you may have your own idea of democracy and it's out of step with how a lot of people might see it, but I just sense from a lot of your tweets and posts there is a burden you hold when defending your arguments, one you wouldn't have to bear if Remain had won in 2016 - because put it this way, I don't think you'd be arguing this case if Leave had lost.
I thought May was very good in the Commons - not quite a tour de force but a bravura performance in the face of overwhelming opposition bordering on derision.
I'm no supporter of her or her Party but I respect what I believe she was trying to do in July 2016. She saw a country polarised and divided by months of increasingly rancorous debate which culminated in the murder of a fellow MP. I think May saw her primary objective as re-unifying the country and the Party (not sure in which order), calming things down, allowing time to cool heads and for political life to try to return to normal.
"Brexit means Brexit" can be seen in that context. It's the ultimate non-statement onto which anyone and everyone could project their reality of what Brexit meant from the softest possible to bricking up the Channel Tunnel. Getting any Deal through Parliament was risky with a majority of 12 but with the polls showing the majority of LEAVE voters happy to sit in the May camp the election looked to have little risk - with a majority of 50-100 and a raft of new MPs beholden to her, May could have got any Deal through the Commons.
Once the election gambit spectacularly failed, the trap began to close. Forced to try to reconcile irreconcilable positions she inevitably ended up antagonising all sides and was effectively finished on January 15th. Since then she has staggered on, an increasingly irrelevant and powerless figure.
The irony is she's right in that passing the WA would be the quickest and cleanest way for the UK to leave the EU - it always has been. However, by trying to play both sides, she's ended up with a WA which, whatever the reality, has become politically toxic. Could another PM have presented the same WA and got it through?
> > @Scott_P said:
> > I still just cant figure out how it is considered acceptable to ask again. What has become of us?
> >
> > You mean a democracy?
>
> You implement the decision first.
Could you explain why that is the case? We have seen it baldly stated any amount of times, but never explained or justified. If it is based on authority, point us to the authority; if on principles, expound the principles.
Hence we are in a stalemate that is damaging to the country.
> Democracy is asking people to vote and then enacting their decision. We have not left and therefore have not enacted their decision. Holding another vote before the result of the vote has been enacted completely destroys the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country.
I fundamentally disagree. Firstly, the public are entitled to change their mind. If public opinion were to move decisively against Brexit it would be absurd to insist that the public had to be bound by their vote in 2016.
Secondly, the question to be asked now, when some of the details of what Brexit will mean are clearer would be a different question. It would not simply be a re-run.
I'm not personally in favour of a second referendum, mainly because I think they're a very bad way of making these sorts of decisions. I still favour a citizens assembly. However, I do not see a second referendum as being and any more of a democratic abomination then the first. Democracy did not end on June 23rd 2016.
> Afternoon all
>
> I thought May was very good in the Commons - not quite a tour de force but a bravura performance in the face of overwhelming opposition bordering on derision.
>
> I'm no supporter of her or her Party but I respect what I believe she was trying to do in July 2016. She saw a country polarised and divided by months of increasingly rancorous debate which culminated in the murder of a fellow MP. I think May saw her primary objective as re-unifying the country and the Party (not sure in which order), calming things down, allowing time to cool heads and for political life to try to return to normal.
>
> "Brexit means Brexit" can be seen in that context. It's the ultimate non-statement onto which anyone and everyone could project their reality of what Brexit meant from the softest possible to bricking up the Channel Tunnel. Getting any Deal through Parliament was risky with a majority of 12 but with the polls showing the majority of LEAVE voters happy to sit in the May camp the election looked to have little risk - with a majority of 50-100 and a raft of new MPs beholden to her, May could have got any Deal through the Commons.
>
> Once the election gambit spectacularly failed, the trap began to close. Forced to try to reconcile irreconcilable positions she inevitably ended up antagonising all sides and was effectively finished on January 15th. Since then she has staggered on, an increasingly irrelevant and powerless figure.
>
> The irony is she's right in that passing the WA would be the quickest and cleanest way for the UK to leave the EU - it always has been. However, by trying to play both sides, she's ended up with a WA which, whatever the reality, has become politically toxic. Could another PM have presented the same WA and got it through?
Way too charitable. Even with her slim pre-2017 majority, the number of Tory rebels is such that she always needed a cross-party compromise solution, and she should both have realised and set out to deliver such from the outset.
> Afternoon all
>
> I thought May was very good in the Commons - not quite a tour de force but a bravura performance in the face of overwhelming opposition bordering on derision.
>
> I'm no supporter of her or her Party but I respect what I believe she was trying to do in July 2016. She saw a country polarised and divided by months of increasingly rancorous debate which culminated in the murder of a fellow MP. I think May saw her primary objective as re-unifying the country and the Party (not sure in which order), calming things down, allowing time to cool heads and for political life to try to return to normal.
>
> "Brexit means Brexit" can be seen in that context. It's the ultimate non-statement onto which anyone and everyone could project their reality of what Brexit meant from the softest possible to bricking up the Channel Tunnel. Getting any Deal through Parliament was risky with a majority of 12 but with the polls showing the majority of LEAVE voters happy to sit in the May camp the election looked to have little risk - with a majority of 50-100 and a raft of new MPs beholden to her, May could have got any Deal through the Commons.
>
> Once the election gambit spectacularly failed, the trap began to close. Forced to try to reconcile irreconcilable positions she inevitably ended up antagonising all sides and was effectively finished on January 15th. Since then she has staggered on, an increasingly irrelevant and powerless figure.
>
> The irony is she's right in that passing the WA would be the quickest and cleanest way for the UK to leave the EU - it always has been. However, by trying to play both sides, she's ended up with a WA which, whatever the reality, has become politically toxic. Could another PM have presented the same WA and got it through?
What direction can a future leader have? What could they achieve that she couldnt? I think two years ago before it really became defined as to what kind of brexit people wanted she could have pushed a norway for now suck it and see approach and introduce a series of domestic measures aimed at satisfying those concerned of wage undermining by unskilled unlimited migration.
But now, everything that isnt the magical WTO is a betrayal.
> Pretty clear hint from Kyle there that the bill would get through if a referendum is attached to the Bill
It would get closer, but I think it would still fail. She would get very few Conservative votes and probably a fair few Labour MPs wouldn't back it either. Worth a try though as a final two-fingered salute to the ERG.
> > @TOPPING said:
> > Democracy is asking people to vote and then enacting their decision. We have not left and therefore have not enacted their decision. Holding another vote before the result of the vote has been enacted completely destroys the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country.
> >
> > It is many things, most of them sub-optimal, and I agree that ideally we should leave first. Holding a vote where you ask the same people to vote again is unfortunate, irritating, frustrating, ridiculous, but not anti-democratic.
>
> I disagree. And so will somewhere around 50% of the population. Those supporting a referendum are destroying the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country.
Your usual nonsense. Imposing something very significant upon people when they don’t want it, or don’t want it any more, without asking first, would be the negation of democracy.
Anyhow, it looks like MPs may be deciding the matter in a couple of weeks.
> https://twitter.com/dpjhodges/status/1131182927222587393?s=21
> @Tissue_Price said:
> https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1131186316107034624
#herewego
#popcorn
> > @williamglenn said:
> > https://twitter.com/dpjhodges/status/1131182927222587393?s=21
>
> > @Tissue_Price said:
> > https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1131186316107034624
>
> #herewego
>
> #popcorn
>
>
REG: Right! This calls for immediate discussion!
COMMANDO #1: Yeah.
JUDITH: What?!
COMMANDO #2: Immediate.
COMMANDO #1: Right.
LORETTA: New motion?
REG: Completely new motion, eh, that, ah-- that there be, ah, immediate action--
FRANCIS: Ah, once the vote has been taken.
REG: Well, obviously once the vote's been taken. You can't act another resolution till you've voted on it...
JUDITH: Reg, for God's sake, let's go now!
REG: Yeah. Yeah.
JUDITH: Please!
REG: Right. Right.
FRANCIS: Fine.
REG: In the-- in the light of fresh information from, ahh, sibling Judith--
As I said, it is slightly preposterous, but then the circumstances wherein it is being contemplated are preposterous. But it is not undemocratic.
> > @williamglenn said:
> > https://twitter.com/dpjhodges/status/1131182927222587393?s=21
>
> > @Tissue_Price said:
> > https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1131186316107034624
>
> #herewego
>
> #popcorn
>
>
If six of them resign, could she find replacements from the backbenches to get her through the recess about to begin? Damian Green would surely be happy to return - maybe Stephen Crabb!
> > @notme2 said:
> > > @IanB2 said:
> > > > @notme2 said:
> > > > > @IanB2 said:
> > > > > > @Scott_P said:
> > > > > > https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1131175303907348480
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1131175517464481792
> > > > >
> > > > > A vote on a referendum was always coming, such an amendment being inevitable. Tory MPs need to calm down. That said, the media is all talking about a second vote now, and it is hard to believe May didn’t know that would be the inevitable consequence of her raising it in her speech. But it is rumoured she was blocked by cabinet from putting it on the face of the bill, and this is her revenge.
> > > > >
> > > > > Another vote is starting to look inevitable. Quite a change in mood from the day I suggested we could end up here, back in early 2017, to the scorn of many PB’ers. If I could be bothered to look it would be fun to find that thread again.
> > > >
> > > > I still just cant figure out how it is considered acceptable to ask again. What has become of us?
> > >
> > > Because it would be the first time people have been asked about a specific proposition. Leaving without our confirming agreement to the proposed path would be unacceptable.
> >
> > Butter it up how you want, however it makes you sleep at night. I dont just hold those remainers who have done their hardest to frustrate and block the process of leaving, but those leavers who decided the WA was not leavy enough.
> >
> > There is going to be a reckoning.
>
> Unfortunately for you, while there was a majority for Leave at the referendum, there was no majority for the eventual form of Leave negotiated, either in the House of Commons or, it seems, among the voters. Foaming and moaning is not going to change that.
>
> Leavers never ask themselves why they have been so unpersuasive. They won the referendum and should have been able to use that mandate to build a consensus, however grudging, around it. But they haven't. Their unwillingness to examine their failure is a major impediment to them moving forward.
But remainers seem to not only dislike the result but the kind of people who voted for it.
We can see the Jeremy Kyle comparison here. It wasnt Jeremy Kyle that so offended people, it was the participants who willingly went on there (and watched it).
These silly working class northern voters, these decrepit pension stealers of todays youth, influenced by russia/trump/facebook adverts/the daily mail. If only we stopped brexit we can go back to ignoring them.
Or they could resign en-masse - but do they trust each other enough to do that?
> If she faces them down, what can they do?
Change the rules and no-con vote.
> I disagree. And so will somewhere around 50% of the population. Those supporting a referendum are destroying the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country.
>
> How is asking the people to vote anti-democratic?
>
> Asking them the same question repeatedly until you get the answer you want seems a touch anti-democratic.
It is anti-democratic to get the answer you wanted, but didn't expect, and then try and claim it said something it didn't, then refuse the populace an opportunity to endorse the new reality. Now THAT really is anti-democratic. If the democratic will of the electorate is believed to be self harming crash out of the EU it needs to be tested. That concept was not in any way tested in 2016. Those that claim it was are lying through their teeth.
> > @RobD said:
> > I disagree. And so will somewhere around 50% of the population. Those supporting a referendum are destroying the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country.
> >
> > How is asking the people to vote anti-democratic?
> >
> > Asking them the same question repeatedly until you get the answer you want seems a touch anti-democratic.
>
> It is anti-democratic to get the answer you wanted, but didn't expect, and then try and claim it said something it didn't, then refuse the populace an opportunity to endorse the new reality. Now THAT really is anti-democratic. If the democratic will of the electorate is believed to be self harming crash out of the EU it needs to be tested. That concept was not in any way tested in 2016. Those that claim it was are lying through their teeth.
It's not about testing but a second throw of the dice. You want a do over. If the choice at a second referendum was on how to implement the decision that would be fine. But that isnt what you want, is it?
> I disagree. And so will somewhere around 50% of the population. Those supporting a referendum are destroying the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country.
>
> How is asking the people to vote anti-democratic?
>
> Asking them the same question repeatedly until you get the answer you want seems a touch anti-democratic.
It is quite normal in many walks of life to check and confirm and reconfirm that someone is happy with a very major decision before going ahead. Particularly when all the critical information only became apparent after the first time you were asked.
That said, I can fully understand a large number of people finding it deeply irksome - but the deep damage is being done to the established parties, as a result of the bind the electorate put parliament in thanks to the 2017 GE vote, and the inability of the two major parties to talk to each other.
I’m not at all convinced that any of this destroys the legitimacy of the democratic process any more than those who say if they don’t get their way they’ll never vote again does.
Why do you hate democracy, boy?
> If she faces them down, what can they do?
Ultimately they can vote her down in a VONC and then support one of their own in a subsequent confidence motion.
Four polls out this morning and while there are slight variations, there is a common theme with the centre-left bloc still having a decisive advantage over the centre-right:
Epinion: 57-43
Voxmeter: 55-45
YouGov: 55-45
Gallup: 54-46
The fragmentation of the Dansk Folkeparti vote has severely weakened the centre-right while the Social Democrats have improved and reach 30% in one of the morning's polls. As mentioned before, the combined Venstre-Dansk Folkeparti vote share in 2015 was 40.6% - it is now 27-32%.
> I disagree. And so will somewhere around 50% of the population. Those supporting a referendum are destroying the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country.
>
> That is pernicious hyperbole.
>
> That said, I can fully understand a large number of people finding it deeply irksome - but the deep damage is being done to the established parties, as a result of the bind the electorate put parliament in thanks to the 2017 GE vote, and the inability of the two major parties to talk to each other.
>
> I’m not at all convinced that any of this destroys the legitimacy of the democratic process any more than those who say if they don’t get their way they’ll never vote again does.
Not hyperbole at all. Once you show people that their vote no longer matters and can be ignored or reversed at the whim of the politicians then why should they continue to have faith in the democratic process?
> > @williamglenn said:
> > If she faces them down, what can they do?
>
> Change the rules and no-con vote.
But not before the recess - so no vote until June.
> > @williamglenn said:
> > If she faces them down, what can they do?
>
> Ultimately they can vote her down in a VONC and then support one of their own in a subsequent confidence motion.
They can't guarantee one of their own would be able to win a subsequent confidence motion and avoid a snap general election.
> These silly working class northern voters, these decrepit pension stealers of todays youth, influenced by russia/trump/facebook adverts/the daily mail. If only we stopped brexit we can go back to ignoring them.
Do you think all the 48% fall in that category?
Leave did not need to persuade all Remainers. One in three would have been enough to establish a broad consensus. But they have essentially persuaded none of them at all to accept their prospectus. If anything, the tide is flowing the other way.
Thoughtful Leavers would ask themselves why they have failed so totally.
> > @maaarsh said:
> > > @williamglenn said:
> > > If she faces them down, what can they do?
> >
> > Change the rules and no-con vote.
>
> But not before the recess - so no vote until June.
There's a 1922 exec meeting in 90 minutes. If they really wanted to, they could get it all over and done with tonight - they clearly won't, but there are no built in timescales here.
> > @williamglenn said:
> > If she faces them down, what can they do?
>
> Change the rules and no-con vote.
I have been saying this for some time.
> I disagree. And so will somewhere around 50% of the population. Those supporting a referendum are destroying the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country.
>
> How is asking the people to vote anti-democratic?
>
> Asking them the same question repeatedly until you get the answer you want seems a touch anti-democratic.
>
> But nobody proposes that another vote will be, either in wording or in substance, on the same question as the 2016 one. So that disposes of that point, unless your claim is that your rules excluse both a question already asked and also any other question which (you being the sole arbiter of this) is in any way cognate with the 2016 question.
>
> Why do you hate democracy, boy?
The will-o-the-people must be preserved in aspic. They must never be allowed the opportunity to say that "they" have changed "their" mind. This is how populism and fascism work.
No-one is going to change their mind on this and it's all been said a thousand times before.
There are much more enjoyable things to talk about right now, like the possibility of a Prime Minister being forced out the day before the European elections.
> I disagree. And so will somewhere around 50% of the population. Those supporting a referendum are destroying the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country.
>
> How is asking the people to vote anti-democratic?
Telling them their previous vote no longer counts is certainly anti-democratic.
> > @Nigel_Foremain said:
> > > @RobD said:
> > > I disagree. And so will somewhere around 50% of the population. Those supporting a referendum are destroying the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country.
> > >
> > > How is asking the people to vote anti-democratic?
> > >
> > > Asking them the same question repeatedly until you get the answer you want seems a touch anti-democratic.
> >
> > It is anti-democratic to get the answer you wanted, but didn't expect, and then try and claim it said something it didn't, then refuse the populace an opportunity to endorse the new reality. Now THAT really is anti-democratic. If the democratic will of the electorate is believed to be self harming crash out of the EU it needs to be tested. That concept was not in any way tested in 2016. Those that claim it was are lying through their teeth.
>
> It's not about testing but a second throw of the dice. You want a do over. If the choice at a second referendum was on how to implement the decision that would be fine. But that isnt what you want, is it?
Too right. I want people to have a chance to change their decision. That is very democratic, particularly given the impasse and the fact that the Brexit that is now offered is completely different to the fantasy offered in 2016.
> > @OblitusSumMe said:
> > > @williamglenn said:
> > > If she faces them down, what can they do?
> >
> > Ultimately they can vote her down in a VONC and then support one of their own in a subsequent confidence motion.
>
> They can't guarantee one of their own would be able to win a subsequent confidence motion and avoid a snap general election.
No, but if that's the risk they have to take then that's what they have to do. It depends on how much support they believe they have relative to the PM.
https://twitter.com/caprosser/status/1131188526593249282
> > @justin124 said:
> > > @maaarsh said:
> > > > @williamglenn said:
> > > > If she faces them down, what can they do?
> > >
> > > Change the rules and no-con vote.
> >
> > But not before the recess - so no vote until June.
>
> There's a 1922 exec meeting in 90 minutes. If they really wanted to, they could get it all over and done with tonight - they clearly won't, but there are no built in timescales here.
But MPs hardly have time to vote today. Even if there were to be an avalanche of letters sent in to Brady , difficult to see a vote this week. Possibility of a legal challenge to any rule change has also been raised.
> I disagree. And so will somewhere around 50% of the population. Those supporting a referendum are destroying the legitimacy of the democratic process in this country.
>
> How is asking the people to vote anti-democratic?
>
> Asking them the same question repeatedly until you get the answer you want seems a touch anti-democratic.
>
> But nobody proposes that another vote will be, either in wording or in substance, on the same question as the 2016 one. So that disposes of that point, unless your claim is that your rules excluse both a question already asked and also any other question which (you being the sole arbiter of this) is in any way cognate with the 2016 question.
>
> Why do you hate democracy, boy?
You don't even understand what the word means. You seem to think that the mere act of asking the question satisfies the definition even when you then ignore the result.
> > @Big_G_NorthWales said:
> > > @GIN1138 said:
> > > The usual course would be for Theresa May to announce her resignation as Con leader, thus triggering a leadership contest but for her to remain as Prime Minister until a successor is chosen.
> >
> > Most likely
>
> Apl - Jun 2019 trading at 2.92 seems rather low to me. Fools not realising the likely transition time? or is there really as much as 34% chance of transition complete by end of June?
>
I think it's a good lay because:
1) there's a chance TM vote gets delayed, pushing back her presumed defeat.
2) I think she will want to oversee contest, especially as there are suggestions of changing rules to send top 3/4 to members to help Boris.
3) she may still try to cling on for a bit and there still isn't a clear way of removing her
4) seems likely it will need a members ballot this time which will take time to organize.
> Mein gott, can we please not do the PB Groundhog Day of "it's anti-democratic" / "no it isn't" / "but enact the decision" / "but voting can never be anti-democratic" yet again.
I know. Sorry. It's so hard to let RT have the final word.