Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.
I understand citizens assemblies have been successful in Ireland in dealing with controversial topics, in particular abortion. It seems when tasked with getting to a consensus, these assemblies will actually come to some kind of common ground. I haven't followed the topic closely, however.
And however you dress it up it's an impossible difference to split. It's a binary choice.
La Fin.
It really isn't and it never was. There is a world of difference between leaving the EU with a deal and quite possibly a CU and leaving without one in dispute about the bills left behind. What we need is a deal that in the view of remainers mitigates the damage they perceive that we will suffer from leaving the EU whilst at the same time satisfies the majority of leavers that we have actually left. In short we need a compromise.
May's deal could have been that deal but her complete failure to build a consensus doomed a reasonable resolution to defeat and rejection by both sides. The challenge is how do we get back there again when, as Alastair says, people have become so entrenched? I am not sure about a Citizens Assembly but I confess other ideas about how we build that consensus are painfully thin on the ground.
We are either going to remain Europeans or become a satellite of the US. With Boris it's more obvious but that was always the choice.
Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.
I understand citizens assemblies have been successful in Ireland in dealing with controversial topics, in particular abortion. It seems when tasked with getting to a consensus, these assemblies will actually come to some kind of common ground. I haven't followed the topic closely, however.
And however you dress it up it's an impossible difference to split. It's a binary choice.
La Fin.
It really isn't and it never was. There is a world of difference between leaving the EU with a deal and quite possibly a CU and leaving without one in dispute about the bills left behind. What we need is a deal that in the view of remainers mitigates the damage they perceive that we will suffer from leaving the EU whilst at the same time satisfies the majority of leavers that we have actually left. In short we need a compromise.
May's deal could have been that deal but her complete failure to build a consensus doomed a reasonable resolution to defeat and rejection by both sides. The challenge is how do we get back there again when, as Alastair says, people have become so entrenched? I am not sure about a Citizens Assembly but I confess other ideas about how we build that consensus are painfully thin on the ground.
The deal is dead. If it somehow gets adopted it will have no legitimacy for anyone and will be political poison for generations. I’m afraid I now see no alternative to a referendum between Remain and No Deal.
That is deeply unattractive with both options undesirable. May's government is dead killed by her incompetence but the deal is still there. This is not just for us to sort out, the EU also have a part to play and they want the deal too.
As for generations May's deal will last 2-3 years after which it will be superseded by a comprehensive FTA (which will in fairness look awfully like the WA). And after that if a government is elected that wants to change it they will.
Any inadequacies in the future relationship would be blamed on May’s deal (rather than Brexit itself) leaving us with no leverage.
I am not sure that even makes sense. If the future relationship is perceived to be inadequate we change it. Nothing is set in stone here.
Of course, the self-proclaimed moderate Leavers are really no such thing. Faced with abundant evidence that no deal Brexit would be really bad for the country, they nevertheless have persuaded themselves that it is preferable to pausing Brexit.
Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.
The ironic thing is that both sides are in a minority - I think there’s a clear majority for “just make it stop”
The only option that is capable of making it stop is Remain.
Indeed, and via Revoke rather than a Peoples Vote...
With respect, do you really think that would make it stop. I would like to think so but I have very real concerns that it would turn very nasty. The only honest way is to leave and campaign to rejoin or a second referendum with all the options including no deal
Politicians would be very reluctant (understatement) to put something as damaging as no deal to a referendum, and it would be exceptionally difficult to define what it means or write the question in a way that was clear.
The less lunatic of its advocates are already talking about "mini-deals" and arguably 'no deal' is simply a short transitional period before we retreat to a deal that probably looks a lot like the one currently on offer.
Of course, the self-proclaimed moderate Leavers are really no such thing. Faced with abundant evidence that no deal Brexit would be really bad for the country, they nevertheless have persuaded themselves that it is preferable to pausing Brexit.
And however you dress it up it's an impossible difference to split. It's a binary choice.
La Fin.
It really isn't and it never was. There is a world of difference between leaving the EU with a deal and quite possibly a CU and leaving without one in dispute about the bills left behind. What we need is a deal that in the view of remainers mitigates the damage they perceive that we will suffer from leaving the EU whilst at the same time satisfies the majority of leavers that we have actually left. In short we need a compromise.
May's deal could have been that deal but her complete failure to build a consensus doomed a reasonable resolution to defeat and rejection by both sides. The challenge is how do we get back there again when, as Alastair says, people have become so entrenched? I am not sure about a Citizens Assembly but I confess other ideas about how we build that consensus are painfully thin on the ground.
The deal is dead. If it somehow gets adopted it will have no legitimacy for anyone and will be political poison for generations. I’m afraid I now see no alternative to a referendum between Remain and No Deal.
That is deeply unattractive with both options undesirable. May's government is dead killed by her incompetence but the deal is still there. This is not just for us to sort out, the EU also have a part to play and they want the deal too.
As for generations May's deal will last 2-3 years after which it will be superseded by a comprehensive FTA (which will in fairness look awfully like the WA). And after that if a government is elected that wants to change it they will.
The essential problem is that the self-proclaimed moderate Leavers have consistently pandered to the hardliners rather than confronting them. As a result, the idea of any Brexit that does not meet the aspirations of hardliners has been delegitimised. It’s far too late to turn that round.
I agree that has been a problem. I don't agree it is too late. The CA is a possible route back.
Of course, the self-proclaimed moderate Leavers are really no such thing. Faced with abundant evidence that no deal Brexit would be really bad for the country, they nevertheless have persuaded themselves that it is preferable to pausing Brexit.
Has Rory said whether it would be within the remit of his Citizen's Jury to revoke Brexit?
May's deal could have been that deal but her complete failure to build a consensus doomed a reasonable resolution to defeat and rejection by both sides.
The real mistake (in a crowded field) was not to involve Labour supporters in the process of developing our position and negotiating the terms of the deal. I argued vociferously on here that we should have asked Mandelson, Benn, Starmer etc to be involved along with Sturgeon, the DUP and some Labour muppet from Wales. This needed to be a national effort not a party one, especially after May had thrown her majority away.
Yes, immediately after the election they should have established a cross-party body to take Brexit forward. But that is hardly the Tory way and certainly wasn't Mrs M's.
Of course, the self-proclaimed moderate Leavers are really no such thing. Faced with abundant evidence that no deal Brexit would be really bad for the country, they nevertheless have persuaded themselves that it is preferable to pausing Brexit.
Has Rory said whether it would be within the remit of his Citizen's Jury to revoke Brexit?
AIUI they are free to recommend (non-binding) any outcome at all, but with encouragement to avoid unicorns.
I understand citizens assemblies have been successful in Ireland in dealing with controversial topics, in particular abortion. It seems when tasked with getting to a consensus, these assemblies will actually come to some kind of common ground. I haven't followed the topic closely, however.
And however you dress it up it's an impossible difference to split. It's a binary choice.
La Fin.
It really isn't and it never was. There is a world of difference between leaving the EU with a deal and quite possibly a CU and leaving without one in dispute about the bills left behind. What we need is a deal that in the view of remainers mitigates the damage they perceive that we will suffer from leaving the EU whilst at the same time satisfies the majority of leavers that we have actually left. In short we need a compromise.
May's deal could have been that deal but her complete failure to build a consensus doomed a reasonable resolution to defeat and rejection by both sides. The challenge is how do we get back there again when, as Alastair says, people have become so entrenched? I am not sure about a Citizens Assembly but I confess other ideas about how we build that consensus are painfully thin on the ground.
The deal is dead. If it somehow gets adopted it will have no legitimacy for anyone and will be political poison for generations. I’m afraid I now see no alternative to a referendum between Remain and No Deal.
That is deeply unattractive with both options undesirable. May's government is dead killed by her incompetence but the deal is still there. This is not just for us to sort out, the EU also have a part to play and they want the deal too.
As for generations May's deal will last 2-3 years after which it will be superseded by a comprehensive FTA (which will in fairness look awfully like the WA). And after that if a government is elected that wants to change it they will.
The essential problem is that the self-proclaimed moderate Leavers have consistently pandered to the hardliners rather than confronting them. As a result, the idea of any Brexit that does not meet the aspirations of hardliners has been delegitimised. It’s far too late to turn that round.
In the long run, this is what will drive us towards full membership on the same terms as France and Germany. If anything short of No Deal is considered “Remain”, we might as well do it properly.
Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.
I understand citizens assemblies have been successful in Ireland in dealing with controversial topics, in particular abortion. It seems when tasked with getting to a consensus, these assemblies will actually come to some kind of common ground. I haven't followed the topic closely, however.
That requires people not already to have become entrenched.
And views weren’t entrenched on abortion ?
While it’s quite possible a CA would not work, it’s also possible that it would. I think you may be conflating the views of the Tory party with those of the wider electorate - and even with the former, it seems only around half are actively insane.
I never really thought I would need to plan for a hard brexit and Scottish independence but now that almost seems like the most likely route. How will the border at Carlisle look? Will the English allow us to use the £ and do we want to? What happens to the British army? Will there be a wave of English heading to Scotland ?
There are plenty of countries that pin their currency to the US Dollar. England could not stop Scotland doing that. I think also that the Irish Pund was linked to the Sterling Pound for some years.
I think facing Gove could also be equally probing for Boris and would not rule out that prospect either and that would at least ensure 2 Leavers in the final 2 albeit with different visions of how to Leave.
Boris will be taking part in the BBC debate tonight
May's deal could have been that deal but her complete failure to build a consensus doomed a reasonable resolution to defeat and rejection by both sides.
The real mistake (in a crowded field) was not to involve Labour supporters in the process of developing our position and negotiating the terms of the deal. I argued vociferously on here that we should have asked Mandelson, Benn, Starmer etc to be involved along with Sturgeon, the DUP and some Labour muppet from Wales. This needed to be a national effort not a party one, especially after May had thrown her majority away.
Yes, immediately after the election they should have established a cross-party body to take Brexit forward. But that is hardly the Tory way and certainly wasn't Mrs M's.
Even now, in this leadership election, the theme of getting one over on Labour is still the primary concern of many Tories.
They’re like Japanese soldiers in the jungle still fighting WW2.
Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.
I understand citizens assemblies have been successful in Ireland in dealing with controversial topics, in particular abortion. It seems when tasked with getting to a consensus, these assemblies will actually come to some kind of common ground. I haven't followed the topic closely, however.
And however you dress it up it's an impossible difference to split. It's a binary choice.
La Fin.
It really isn't and it never was. There is a world of difference between leaving the EU with a deal and quite possibly a CU and leaving without one in dispute about the bills left behind. What we need is a deal that in the view of remainers mitigates the damage they perceive that we will suffer from leaving the EU whilst at the same time satisfies the majority of leavers that we have actually left. In short we need a compromise.
May's deal could have been that deal but her complete failure to build a consensus doomed a reasonable resolution to defeat and rejection by both sides. The challenge is how do we get back there again when, as Alastair says, people have become so entrenched? I am not sure about a Citizens Assembly but I confess other ideas about how we build that consensus are painfully thin on the ground.
We are either going to remain Europeans or become a satellite of the US. With Boris it's more obvious but that was always the choice.
A satellite of the US surrounded by Europeans, once Scotland and Northern Ireland quit the UK.
May's deal could have been that deal but her complete failure to build a consensus doomed a reasonable resolution to defeat and rejection by both sides.
The real mistake (in a crowded field) was not to involve Labour supporters in the process of developing our position and negotiating the terms of the deal. I argued vociferously on here that we should have asked Mandelson, Benn, Starmer etc to be involved along with Sturgeon, the DUP and some Labour muppet from Wales. This needed to be a national effort not a party one, especially after May had thrown her majority away.
Yes, immediately after the election they should have established a cross-party body to take Brexit forward. But that is hardly the Tory way and certainly wasn't Mrs M's.
May put party unity, and as Alastair says, the resultant willingness to indulge the loons in the ERG, ahead of national unity. She should and could have outflanked them by building a national consensus and she chose not to. Its lamentable but we are where we are as one brilliant consensus builder once said. For all its deficiencies Stewart's idea is one way back. I'm not seeing many others.
Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.
I understand citizens assemblies have been successful in Ireland in dealing with controversial topics, in particular abortion. It seems when tasked with getting to a consensus, these assemblies will actually come to some kind of common ground. I haven't followed the topic closely, however.
And however you dress it up it's an impossible difference to split. It's a binary choice.
La Fin.
It really isn't and it never was. There is a world of difference between leaving the EU with a deal and quite possibly a CU and leaving without one in dispute about the bills left behind. What we need is a deal that in the view of remainers mitigates the damage they perceive that we will suffer from leaving the EU whilst at the same time satisfies the majority of leavers that we have actually left. In short we need a compromise.
May's deal could have been that deal but her complete failure to build a consensus doomed a reasonable resolution to defeat and rejection by both sides. The challenge is how do we get back there again when, as Alastair says, people have become so entrenched? I am not sure about a Citizens Assembly but I confess other ideas about how we build that consensus are painfully thin on the ground.
The key issue, and this really is for Leavers, is how to reconcile a close subsidiary relationship to the EU with the idea of "taking control", which was the main motivation for voting Leave. May never addressed that issue, which is why her deal hasn't gone anywhere, but frankly no Leaver has either.
I never really thought I would need to plan for a hard brexit and Scottish independence but now that almost seems like the most likely route. How will the border at Carlisle look? Will the English allow us to use the £ and do we want to? What happens to the British army? Will there be a wave of English heading to Scotland ?
Boris is now considering a referendum on the backstop for NI and a FTA for GB, avoids ultra hard Brexit and more acceptable to Scots than No Deal as it likely ensures a Deal and FTA and also lets the people of NI not the DUP decide on the backstop
May's deal could have been that deal but her complete failure to build a consensus doomed a reasonable resolution to defeat and rejection by both sides.
The real mistake (in a crowded field) was not to involve Labour supporters in the process of developing our position and negotiating the terms of the deal. I argued vociferously on here that we should have asked Mandelson, Benn, Starmer etc to be involved along with Sturgeon, the DUP and some Labour muppet from Wales. This needed to be a national effort not a party one, especially after May had thrown her majority away.
Yes, immediately after the election they should have established a cross-party body to take Brexit forward. But that is hardly the Tory way and certainly wasn't Mrs M's.
May put party unity, and as Alastair says, the resultant willingness to indulge the loons in the ERG, ahead of national unity. She should and could have outflanked them by building a national consensus and she chose not to. Its lamentable but we are where we are as one brilliant consensus builder once said. For all its deficiencies Stewart's idea is one way back. I'm not seeing many others.
There is no way back. It’s now about managing the consequences of division.
Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.
The ironic thing is that both sides are in a minority - I think there’s a clear majority for “just make it stop”
The only option that is capable of making it stop is Remain.
Indeed, and via Revoke rather than a Peoples Vote...
With respect, do you really think that would make it stop. I would like to think so but I have very real concerns that it would turn very nasty. The only honest way is to leave and campaign to rejoin or a second referendum with all the options including no deal
Nothing will stop the debate, but Revoke is the only way to have the timetable back in our hands. Revoke allows us to Take Back Control of the process.
May's deal could have been that deal but her complete failure to build a consensus doomed a reasonable resolution to defeat and rejection by both sides.
The real mistake (in a crowded field) was not to involve Labour supporters in the process of developing our position and negotiating the terms of the deal. I argued vociferously on here that we should have asked Mandelson, Benn, Starmer etc to be involved along with Sturgeon, the DUP and some Labour muppet from Wales. This needed to be a national effort not a party one, especially after May had thrown her majority away.
Labour cannot even agree amongst themselves on Brexit, #sacktomwatson trending on Twitter last night after he dares to back EUref2 and they would have added nothing to Brexit talks other than party politics as May discovered when she tried to tell to Corbyn
I have to laugh. 4 Tory candidates are waving their imagined massive cocks saying "I WILL DEFEAT EUROPE". The missing one suggests he will also out-cock Barnier but is then telling everyone we leave with no deal. Penrith's James Bond says the opposite - we have to have the deal.
Of the candidates only Johnson and Stewart are in the real world. No deal is possible. The deal is possible. Renegotiation is not possible, and the more that otherwise intelligent people say it the stupider they look.
The ultimate problem for Johnson is that he doesn't seem to want to accept that his position is know deal, knowing that if he says that it shatters his coalition of pretense that has sane Tories and insane Tories on board. Similarly the ultimate problem for Stewart is that he doesn't have an answer to how to get the deal through that isn't a referendum, which "people's assembly" is a patsy for.
Ultimately, Tory members like so many Tory voters want to be told fairy stories. They don't know what Brexit would be apart from a massive orgasm, nor do they know what they will do after they clean the splooge off themselves. But they know they want it by rights goddamnit and woe betide anyone who tells them no.
Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.
The ironic thing is that both sides are in a minority - I think there’s a clear majority for “just make it stop”
The only option that is capable of making it stop is Remain.
Indeed, and via Revoke rather than a Peoples Vote...
With respect, do you really think that would make it stop. I would like to think so but I have very real concerns that it would turn very nasty. The only honest way is to leave and campaign to rejoin or a second referendum with all the options including no deal
But 'no deal' is not an option. 'No deal' requires lots of 'little deals' in order to work. If 'no deal' was selected for in a referendum, we'd still be where we are now, arguing about which of the 'little deals' results in the one true Brexit.
I think facing Gove could also be equally probing for Boris and would not rule out that prospect either and that would at least ensure 2 Leavers in the final 2 albeit with different visions of how to Leave.
Boris will be taking part in the BBC debate tonight
If you want to stop BoJo as PM, then the only candidate who can beat him head to head is Raab.
Now, for many, the cure will be worse than the illness. But Raab is the only candidate against whom BoJo can't deploy the nuclear option of saying they would backtrack on Brexit. Moreover (1) Raab has been pushing a low tax agenda, which would also be popular amongst the members and (2) since his resignation, he has been touring the members, which would put him in good stead.
I'm sure BoJo realises at least the first of these points which is why he will try to push Raab out of the contest. The question is whether the Brexiteers trust him enough to essentially rely on him as the Brexit candidate in a run-off.
The counter to Mike's lead is the contest between IDS and Ken Clarke in 2001. Then a very ideological divide allowed a candidate so weak to emerge victorious that they later had to be deposed before contesting a general election.
The idea that the contest made IDS a better leader is somewhat terrifying. He could have been worse?
The Tories had had a poll lead with Yougov when IDS was deposed, IDS may even have done better than Howard in 2005
I never really thought I would need to plan for a hard brexit and Scottish independence but now that almost seems like the most likely route. How will the border at Carlisle look? Will the English allow us to use the £ and do we want to? What happens to the British army? Will there be a wave of English heading to Scotland ?
Boris is now considering a referendum on the backstop for NI and a FTA for GB, avoids ultra hard Brexit and more acceptable to Scots than No Deal as it likely ensures a Deal and FTA and also lets the people of NI not the DUP decide on the backstop
Any news on how he's going to do all this before 31 October?
If Remainers has worked constructively* to try to achieve the best possible Brexit in their view - say EFTA or Norway+ - and we’d ended up where we had today the their might be an argument. As it is, far too many have just looked for clever ways to frustrate the outcome the voters chose. It is virtually important not to reward bad behaviour because that creates perverse incentives. As I’m sure @Cyclefree could tell you
* Yes @AlastairMeeks feel free to rant now. But reflect: is your response constructive or just seeking to assign blame. If the latter then, really, what’s the point? We all know your views.
Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.
I understand citizens assemblies have been successful in Ireland in dealing with controversial topics, in particular abortion. It seems when tasked with getting to a consensus, these assemblies will actually come to some kind of common ground. I haven't followed the topic closely, however.
And however you dress it up it's an impossible difference to split. It's a binary choice.
La Fin.
It really isn't and it never was. There is a world of difference between leaving the EU with a deal and quite possibly a CU and leaving without one in dispute about the bills left behind. What we need is a deal that in the view of remainers mitigates the damage they perceive that we will suffer from leaving the EU whilst at the same time satisfies the majority of leavers that we have actually left. In short we need a compromise.
May's deal could have been that deal but her complete failure to build a consensus doomed a reasonable resolution to defeat and rejection by both sides. The challenge is how do we get back there again when, as Alastair says, people have become so entrenched? I am not sure about a Citizens Assembly but I confess other ideas about how we build that consensus are painfully thin on the ground.
We are either going to remain Europeans or become a satellite of the US. With Boris it's more obvious but that was always the choice.
A satellite of the US surrounded by Europeans, once Scotland and Northern Ireland quit the UK.
A satellite of a US which might have little interest in us.
Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.
The ironic thing is that both sides are in a minority - I think there’s a clear majority for “just make it stop”
The only option that is capable of making it stop is Remain.
Indeed, and via Revoke rather than a Peoples Vote...
With respect, do you really think that would make it stop. I would like to think so but I have very real concerns that it would turn very nasty. The only honest way is to leave and campaign to rejoin or a second referendum with all the options including no deal
Nothing will stop the debate, but Revoke is the only way to have the timetable back in our hands. Revoke allows us to Take Back Control of the process.
Proving my point. These people would eat grass rather than compromise.
I don’t think it does. “Brexit” is not defined. As it become more and more hair-shirted the costs go up and the benefits down.
So, for example, EFTA and May’s Deal absolutely I would take even at the cost of the above.
No Deal on balance yes
Full hair shirted autarky is a lot less compelling
There is room to compromise once you get people in a room. A huge portion of the Leaver voters want to Brexit because that’s what the result of the vote was. They are not as fussed by the form. A CA dilutes (hopefully!) the nutter-quotient
And again Leavers shift the goalposts. No deal is now the moderate option? Heaven help us.
No, that’s not what I said.
No deal is less extreme than “full hair shirted autarky”. But it’s not the moderate option.
Read and think rather than lashing out would be my advice
Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.
The ironic thing is that both sides are in a minority - I think there’s a clear majority for “just make it stop”
The only option that is capable of making it stop is Remain.
Indeed, and via Revoke rather than a Peoples Vote...
With respect, do you really think that would make it stop. I would like to think so but I have very real concerns that it would turn very nasty. The only honest way is to leave and campaign to rejoin or a second referendum with all the options including no deal
Politicians would be very reluctant (understatement) to put something as damaging as no deal to a referendum, and it would be exceptionally difficult to define what it means or write the question in a way that was clear.
The less lunatic of its advocates are already talking about "mini-deals" and arguably 'no deal' is simply a short transitional period before we retreat to a deal that probably looks a lot like the one currently on offer.
In my naive days 9 months ago, I had assumed that "No Deal Brexit" really meant "Emergency Deal Brexit" or call it "Brexit Mini-Deals" if you want.
I had assumed that if no deal became likely, then in early February the attention would have been focussed on the immediate, urgent and important stuff like the status of UK citizens abroad, of EU citizens in the UK, supply of medicines and Flight timetables. But no, No Deal was used as a lever and as such had to really be "Sudden and Unplanned No Deal" for it to be any threat at all. For me this approach is totally disgraceful and is playing politics with the rights of millions of people, regardless of leave/remain/lect/right/centre political opinion.
I think pretty much the opposite is true to the premise of this thread. Remain ultra Tories want a candidate who will not be murdered by Boris with the membership and thus leave them completely marginalised. Stewart would lose whatever Boris does and most likely by a humiliating margin. It'd be like Kate Hoey being the standard bearer for the Labour right.
Involving Labour in negotiations would mean involving another split party. Kinnock junior was yesterday trying to square the circle again by endorsing May's deal
Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.
The ironic thing is that both sides are in a minority - I think there’s a clear majority for “just make it stop”
The only option that is capable of making it stop is Remain.
Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.
The ironic thing is that both sides are in a minority - I think there’s a clear majority for “just make it stop”
The only option that is capable of making it stop is Remain.
Indeed, and via Revoke rather than a Peoples Vote...
With respect, do you really think that would make it stop. I would like to think so but I have very real concerns that it would turn very nasty. The only honest way is to leave and campaign to rejoin or a second referendum with all the options including no deal
Nothing will stop the debate, but Revoke is the only way to have the timetable back in our hands. Revoke allows us to Take Back Control of the process.
So does a voluntary no deal.
Both sides can make the same arguments.
No deal means no trade deals with either the EU or the USA until we agree a solution with the EU on the Irish border. Meanwhile we our currency would likely lose further value and many jobs would likely be lost. Some control that is.
May's deal could have been that deal but her complete failure to build a consensus doomed a reasonable resolution to defeat and rejection by both sides.
The real mistake (in a crowded field) was not to involve Labour supporters in the process of developing our position and negotiating the terms of the deal. I argued vociferously on here that we should have asked Mandelson, Benn, Starmer etc to be involved along with Sturgeon, the DUP and some Labour muppet from Wales. This needed to be a national effort not a party one, especially after May had thrown her majority away.
Labour cannot even agree amongst themselves on Brexit, #sacktomwatson trending on Twitter last night after he dares to back EUref2 and they would have added nothing to Brexit talks other than party politics as May discovered when she tried to tell to Corbyn
Labour cannot even agree amongst themselves on Brexit
Proving my point. These people would eat grass rather than compromise.
I don’t think it does. “Brexit” is not defined. As it become more and more hair-shirted the costs go up and the benefits down.
So, for example, EFTA and May’s Deal absolutely I would take even at the cost of the above.
No Deal on balance yes
Full hair shirted autarky is a lot less compelling
There is room to compromise once you get people in a room. A huge portion of the Leaver voters want to Brexit because that’s what the result of the vote was. They are not as fussed by the form. A CA dilutes (hopefully!) the nutter-quotient
And again Leavers shift the goalposts. No deal is now the moderate option? Heaven help us.
No, that’s not what I said.
No deal is less extreme than “full hair shirted autarky”. But it’s not the moderate option.
Read and think rather than lashing out would be my advice
I read and thought and saw that you contrasted no deal Brexit with a hypothetical more severe alternative to obscure the fact that you are falling in behind a batshit mental idea.
Proving my point. These people would eat grass rather than compromise.
I don’t think it does. “Brexit” is not defined. As it become more and more hair-shirted the costs go up and the benefits down.
So, for example, EFTA and May’s Deal absolutely I would take even at the cost of the above.
No Deal on balance yes
Full hair shirted autarky is a lot less compelling
There is room to compromise once you get people in a room. A huge portion of the Leaver voters want to Brexit because that’s what the result of the vote was. They are not as fussed by the form. A CA dilutes (hopefully!) the nutter-quotient
What is “full hair shirted autarky” I think no deal is a disaster what could be worse?
Somewhere between No Deal and PRK I guess!
The point was “no deal” does not mean “no deal ever”. It really just means no transition.
Whatever the blowhards say, we will protect citizens rights and pay our legal liabilities
I never really thought I would need to plan for a hard brexit and Scottish independence but now that almost seems like the most likely route. How will the border at Carlisle look? Will the English allow us to use the £ and do we want to? What happens to the British army? Will there be a wave of English heading to Scotland ?
There are plenty of countries that pin their currency to the US Dollar. England could not stop Scotland doing that. I think also that the Irish Pund was linked to the Sterling Pound for some years.
The markets would stop it instantly unless all the Scottish pounds were backed by reserves, i.e. they were in fact GBP.
Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.
The ironic thing is that both sides are in a minority - I think there’s a clear majority for “just make it stop”
The only option that is capable of making it stop is Remain.
And yet in an Orwellian contortion Leavers argue that enabling the people to vote on that option is somehow undemocratic.
War is peace Voting is undemocratic Brexit means Brexit
Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.
The ironic thing is that both sides are in a minority - I think there’s a clear majority for “just make it stop”
The only option that is capable of making it stop is Remain.
Indeed, and via Revoke rather than a Peoples Vote...
With respect, do you really think that would make it stop. I would like to think so but I have very real concerns that it would turn very nasty. The only honest way is to leave and campaign to rejoin or a second referendum with all the options including no deal
Nothing will stop the debate, but Revoke is the only way to have the timetable back in our hands. Revoke allows us to Take Back Control of the process.
So does a voluntary no deal.
Both sides can make the same arguments.
No it doesn't. No Deal means instant disruption and a beggars position in negotiating mini deals to alleviate the damage.
Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.
I understand citizens assemblies have been successful in Ireland in dealing with controversial topics, in particular abortion. It seems when tasked with getting to a consensus, these assemblies will actually come to some kind of common ground. I haven't followed the topic closely, however.
And however you dress it up it's an impossible difference to split. It's a binary choice.
La Fin.
It really isn't and it never was. There is a world of difference between leaving the EU with a deal and quite possibly a CU and leaving without one in dispute about the bills left behind. What we need is a deal that in the view of remainers mitigates the damage they perceive that we will suffer from leaving the EU whilst at the same time satisfies the majority of leavers that we have actually left. In short we need a compromise.
May's deal could have been that deal but her complete failure to build a consensus doomed a reasonable resolution to defeat and rejection by both sides. The challenge is how do we get back there again when, as Alastair says, people have become so entrenched? I am not sure about a Citizens Assembly but I confess other ideas about how we build that consensus are painfully thin on the ground.
We are either going to remain Europeans or become a satellite of the US. With Boris it's more obvious but that was always the choice.
A satellite of the US surrounded by Europeans, once Scotland and Northern Ireland quit the UK.
A satellite of a US which might have little interest in us.
A satellite of China surrounded by liberal democratic European states has more prospects than the US right now.
I never really thought I would need to plan for a hard brexit and Scottish independence but now that almost seems like the most likely route. How will the border at Carlisle look? Will the English allow us to use the £ and do we want to? What happens to the British army? Will there be a wave of English heading to Scotland ?
Boris is now considering a referendum on the backstop for NI and a FTA for GB, avoids ultra hard Brexit and more acceptable to Scots than No Deal as it likely ensures a Deal and FTA and also lets the people of NI not the DUP decide on the backstop
Oh look, it’s a new @HYUFD fantasy which he’ll spam us with incessantly - until he thinks of a new one in a week or two.
Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.
I understand citizens assemblies have been successful in Ireland in dealing with controversial topics, in particular abortion. It seems when tasked with getting to a consensus, these assemblies will actually come to some kind of common ground. I haven't followed the topic closely, however.
And however you dress it up it's an impossible difference to split. It's a binary choice.
La Fin.
It really isn't and it never was.
May's deal could have been that deal but her complete failure to build a consensus doomed a reasonable resolution to defeat and rejection by both sides. The challenge is how do we get back there again when, as Alastair says, people have become so entrenched? I am not sure about a Citizens Assembly but I confess other ideas about how we build that consensus are painfully thin on the ground.
The deal is dead. If it somehow gets adopted it will have no legitimacy for anyone and will be political poison for generations. I’m afraid I now see no alternative to a referendum between Remain and No Deal.
That is deeply unattractive with both options undesirable. May's government is dead killed by her incompetence but the deal is still there. This is not just for us to sort out, the EU also have a part to play and they want the deal too.
As for generations May's deal will last 2-3 years after which it will be superseded by a comprehensive FTA (which will in fairness look awfully like the WA). And after that if a government is elected that wants to change it they will.
The essential problem is that the self-proclaimed moderate Leavers have consistently pandered to the hardliners rather than confronting them. As a result, the idea of any Brexit that does not meet the aspirations of hardliners has been delegitimised. It’s far too late to turn that round.
It's never too late.
It might be harder, tougher and much more difficult but with strong and inspiring leadership there's always an opportunity to turn things round.
I remember at an institution I was once a member, a Bursar imposed a new set of highly unpopular financial regulations. (The members of the institution loved to spend money).
There was a furious outcry. A year or so of brutal, internal warfare. Finally, the Bursar was forced to step down (with a severance package that was generous).
A new Bursar was appointed. He was able to implement the financial regulations of his predecessor without a smallest, tiniest yip of protest.
I would not be entirely surprised if Boris the Chameleon manages exactly this trick.
Sometimes, a group or institution can only move on once there has been a bloodbath and someone has paid for their collective sins.
Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.
The ironic thing is that both sides are in a minority - I think there’s a clear majority for “just make it stop”
The only option that is capable of making it stop is Remain.
And yet in an Orwellian contortion Leavers argue that enabling the people to vote on that option is somehow undemocratic.
War is peace Voting is undemocratic Brexit means Brexit
Rewarding bad behaviour encourages it
This is why it is imperative that those who deceived the public to win the referendum get politically crushed.
Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.
I understand citizens assemblies have been successful in Ireland in dealing with controversial topics, in particular abortion. It seems when tasked with getting to a consensus, these assemblies will actually come to some kind of common ground. I haven't followed the topic closely, however.
And however you dress it up it's an impossible difference to split. It's a binary choice.
La Fin.
It really isn't and it never was. There is a world of difference between leaving the EU with a deal and quite possibly a CU and leaving without one in dispute about the bills left behind. What we need is a deal that in the view of remainers mitigates the damage they perceive that we will suffer from leaving the EU whilst at the same time satisfies the majority of leavers that we have actually left. In short we need a compromise.
May's deal could have been that deal but her complete failure to build a consensus doomed a reasonable resolution to defeat and rejection by both sides. The challenge is how do we get back there again when, as Alastair says, people have become so entrenched? I am not sure about a Citizens Assembly but I confess other ideas about how we build that consensus are painfully thin on the ground.
We are either going to remain Europeans or become a satellite of the US. With Boris it's more obvious but that was always the choice.
A satellite of the US surrounded by Europeans, once Scotland and Northern Ireland quit the UK.
A satellite of a US which might have little interest in us.
Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.
I understand citizens assemblies have been successful in Ireland in dealing with controversial topics, in particular abortion. It seems when tasked with getting to a consensus, these assemblies will actually come to some kind of common ground. I haven't followed the topic closely, however.
And however you dress it up it's an impossible difference to split. It's a binary choice.
La Fin.
It really isn't and it never was. There is a world of difference between leaving the EU with a deal and quite possibly a CU and leaving without one in dispute about the bills left behind. What we need is a deal that in the view of remainers mitigates the damage they perceive that we will suffer from leaving the EU whilst at the same time satisfies the majority of leavers that we have actually left. In short we need a compromise.
May's deal could have been that deal but her complete failure to build a consensus doomed a reasonable resolution to defeat and rejection by both sides. The challenge is how do we get back there again when, as Alastair says, people have become so entrenched? I am not sure about a Citizens Assembly but I confess other ideas about how we build that consensus are painfully thin on the ground.
We are either going to remain Europeans or become a satellite of the US. With Boris it's more obvious but that was always the choice.
A satellite of the US surrounded by Europeans, once Scotland and Northern Ireland quit the UK.
A satellite of a US which might have little interest in us.
And is actively opposed by half of the residual population of England and Wales.
Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.
I understand citizens assemblies have been successful in Ireland in dealing with controversial topics, in particular abortion. It seems when tasked with getting to a consensus, these assemblies will actually come to some kind of common ground. I haven't followed the topic closely, however.
And however you dress it up it's an impossible difference to split. It's a binary choice.
La Fin.
It really isn't and it never was. There is a world of difference between leaving the EU with a deal and quite possibly a CU and leaving without one in dispute about the bills left behind. What we need is a deal that in the view of remainers mitigates the damage they perceive that we will suffer from leaving the EU whilst at the same time satisfies the majority of leavers that we have actually left. In short we need a compromise.
May's deal could have been that deal but her complete failure to build a consensus doomed a reasonable resolution to defeat and rejection by both sides. The challenge is how do we get back there again when, as Alastair says, people have become so entrenched? I am not sure about a Citizens Assembly but I confess other ideas about how we build that consensus are painfully thin on the ground.
The deal is dead. If it somehow gets adopted it will have no legitimacy for anyone and will be political poison for generations. I’m afraid I now see no alternative to a referendum between Remain and No Deal.
I suspect that the main reason why Boris Johnson is following a Garbo strategy for his leadership campaign is not the one commonly assumed. He’s very capable of handling interviews and debates. But if he is grilled, he is going to have to disappoint some of the supporters to whom he has implied different things - and further antagonise some of his opponents. If he lost even a handful of MPs from the Conservative party he might not get to be Prime Minister, but if he didn’t appal them most of his electorate would feel betrayed. The problem is not becoming next Conservative leader but next Prime Minister.
I think this very perceptive (though it is also true that he is sufficiently erratic not to handle debate well).
Johnson could well end up being despised by some of those who voted for him more than he is by those who won’t.
Given the very wide range of support he has that is a given. He cannot give all of them what they want.
I never really thought I would need to plan for a hard brexit and Scottish independence but now that almost seems like the most likely route. How will the border at Carlisle look? Will the English allow us to use the £ and do we want to? What happens to the British army? Will there be a wave of English heading to Scotland ?
Boris is now considering a referendum on the backstop for NI and a FTA for GB, avoids ultra hard Brexit and more acceptable to Scots than No Deal as it likely ensures a Deal and FTA and also lets the people of NI not the DUP decide on the backstop
Any news on how he's going to do all this before 31 October?
May's deal could have been that deal but her complete failure to build a consensus doomed a reasonable resolution to defeat and rejection by both sides.
The real mistake (in a crowded field) was not to involve Labour supporters in the process of developing our position and negotiating the terms of the deal. I argued vociferously on here that we should have asked Mandelson, Benn, Starmer etc to be involved along with Sturgeon, the DUP and some Labour muppet from Wales. This needed to be a national effort not a party one, especially after May had thrown her majority away.
Labour cannot even agree amongst themselves on Brexit, #sacktomwatson trending on Twitter last night after he dares to back EUref2 and they would have added nothing to Brexit talks other than party politics as May discovered when she tried to tell to Corbyn
Labour cannot even agree amongst themselves on Brexit
To quote Theresa May, remind you of anyone?
Under Boris the Tories will be largely united on Brexit bar a handful of diehard Remainer Tory MPs, the Labour leadership and Labour MPs from Remain or Leave seats though will still be split down the middle
Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.
I understand citizens assemblies have been successful in Ireland in dealing with controversial topics, in particular abortion. It seems when tasked with getting to a consensus, these assemblies will actually come to some kind of common ground. I haven't followed the topic closely, however.
And however you dress it up it's an impossible difference to split. It's a binary choice.
La Fin.
It really isn't and it never was. There is a world of difference between leaving the EU with a deal and quite possibly a CU and leaving without one in dispute about the bills left behind. What we need is a deal that in the view of remainers mitigates the damage they perceive that we will suffer from leaving the EU whilst at the same time satisfies the majority of leavers that we have actually left. In short we need a compromise.
May's deal could have been that deal but her complete failure to build a consensus doomed a reasonable resolution to defeat and rejection by both sides. The challenge is how do we get back there again when, as Alastair says, people have become so entrenched? I am not sure about a Citizens Assembly but I confess other ideas about how we build that consensus are painfully thin on the ground.
We are either going to remain Europeans or become a satellite of the US. With Boris it's more obvious but that was always the choice.
A satellite of the US surrounded by Europeans, once Scotland and Northern Ireland quit the UK.
A satellite of a US which might have little interest in us.
And is actively opposed by half of the residual population of England and Wales.
I never really thought I would need to plan for a hard brexit and Scottish independence but now that almost seems like the most likely route. How will the border at Carlisle look? Will the English allow us to use the £ and do we want to? What happens to the British army? Will there be a wave of English heading to Scotland ?
Boris is now considering a referendum on the backstop for NI and a FTA for GB, avoids ultra hard Brexit and more acceptable to Scots than No Deal as it likely ensures a Deal and FTA and also lets the people of NI not the DUP decide on the backstop
Oh look, it’s a new @HYUFD fantasy which he’ll spam us with incessantly - until he thinks of a new one in a week or two.
It's not such a terrible idea - it won't get through the current parliament because the DUP obviously aren't going to vote for a referendum on whether they should be humiliated, but it's a much better policy to run on for a snap general election than This Deal, No Deal or New Deal I Will Get By Negotiating Sternly.
If citizens assemblies are so awesome - why do we need MPs ?
A big part of the case for a CA is that the participants aren't worrying about their career or their party or how they personally would look advocating this or that.
I think facing Gove could also be equally probing for Boris and would not rule out that prospect either and that would at least ensure 2 Leavers in the final 2 albeit with different visions of how to Leave.
Boris will be taking part in the BBC debate tonight
If you want to stop BoJo as PM, then the only candidate who can beat him head to head is Raab.
Now, for many, the cure will be worse than the illness. But Raab is the only candidate against whom BoJo can't deploy the nuclear option of saying they would backtrack on Brexit. Moreover (1) Raab has been pushing a low tax agenda, which would also be popular amongst the members and (2) since his resignation, he has been touring the members, which would put him in good stead.
I'm sure BoJo realises at least the first of these points which is why he will try to push Raab out of the contest. The question is whether the Brexiteers trust him enough to essentially rely on him as the Brexit candidate in a run-off.
I agree only Raab likely can beat Boris with members
I never really thought I would need to plan for a hard brexit and Scottish independence but now that almost seems like the most likely route. How will the border at Carlisle look? Will the English allow us to use the £ and do we want to? What happens to the British army? Will there be a wave of English heading to Scotland ?
Boris is now considering a referendum on the backstop for NI and a FTA for GB, avoids ultra hard Brexit and more acceptable to Scots than No Deal as it likely ensures a Deal and FTA and also lets the people of NI not the DUP decide on the backstop
Oh look, it’s a new @HYUFD fantasy which he’ll spam us with incessantly - until he thinks of a new one in a week or two.
Not a fantasy reported on here last night and on twitter
Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.
I understand citizens assemblies have been successful in Ireland in dealing with controversial topics, in particular abortion. It seems when tasked with getting to a consensus, these assemblies will actually come to some kind of common ground. I haven't followed the topic closely, however.
And however you dress it up it's an impossible difference to split. It's a binary choice.
La Fin.
It really isn't and it never was. There is a world of difference between leaving the EU with a deal and quite possibly a CU and leaving without one in dispute about the bills left behind. What we need is a deal that in the view of remainers mitigates the damage they perceive that we will suffer from leaving the EU whilst at the same time satisfies the majority of leavers that we have actually left. In short we need a compromise.
May's deal could have been that deal but her complete failure to build a consensus doomed a reasonable resolution to defeat and rejection by both sides. The challenge is how do we get back there again when, as Alastair says, people have become so entrenched? I am not sure about a Citizens Assembly but I confess other ideas about how we build that consensus are painfully thin on the ground.
The deal is dead. If it somehow gets adopted it will have no legitimacy for anyone and will be political poison for generations. I’m afraid I now see no alternative to a referendum between Remain and No Deal.
I never really thought I would need to plan for a hard brexit and Scottish independence but now that almost seems like the most likely route. How will the border at Carlisle look? Will the English allow us to use the £ and do we want to? What happens to the British army? Will there be a wave of English heading to Scotland ?
Boris is now considering a referendum on the backstop for NI and a FTA for GB, avoids ultra hard Brexit and more acceptable to Scots than No Deal as it likely ensures a Deal and FTA and also lets the people of NI not the DUP decide on the backstop
Oh look, it’s a new @HYUFD fantasy which he’ll spam us with incessantly - until he thinks of a new one in a week or two.
It's not such a terrible idea - it won't get through the current parliament because the DUP obviously aren't going to vote for a referendum on whether they should be humiliated, but it's a much better policy to run on for a snap general election than This Deal, No Deal or New Deal I Will Get By Negotiating Sternly.
Plus it enables a FTA with the EU for GB and removes the temporary Customs Union
When Boris makes his pre-ordained walk out of the door of Number 10 to give his first speech to the nation - can we have a book on what will he be wearing?
a) one of Churchill's Henry Poole and Co. suits, a cigar and a V-sign
b) an exact copy of Laurence Oliviers' Henry V tunic and armour. And haircut.
c) full Viking bezerker gear, with twin blood axes
d) Eton uniform of black tailcoat and black waistcoat, a starched stiff collar and black pinstriped trousers
e) full Liverpool kit
f) an England three lions shirt embroidered by nanny with "These colours don't run"
I think facing Gove could also be equally probing for Boris and would not rule out that prospect either and that would at least ensure 2 Leavers in the final 2 albeit with different visions of how to Leave.
Boris will be taking part in the BBC debate tonight
I wonder whether you have any idea of the revulsion the Gove/Johnson combo would create among the 48% if they appear on TV every night for a month? Regina might have forgiven their red bus but plenty of the public wont have
Another referendum is democratic? How about a third one? Then a fourth? How about general elections? If you don't like the result, we won't implement it - we'll have another one.
There was only two years between the last two general elections and many predict another one this year.
Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.
I understand citizens assemblies have been successful in Ireland in dealing with controversial topics, in particular abortion. It seems when tasked with getting to a consensus, these assemblies will actually come to some kind of common ground. I haven't followed the topic closely, however.
And however you dress it up it's an impossible difference to split. It's a binary choice.
La Fin.
It really isn't and it never was. There is a world of difference between leaving the EU with a deal and quite possibly a CU and leaving without one in dispute about the bills left behind. What we need is a deal that in the view of remainers mitigates the damage they perceive that we will suffer from leaving the EU whilst at the same time satisfies the majority of leavers that we have actually left. In short we need a compromise.
May's deal could have been that deal but her complete failure to build a consensus doomed a reasonable resolution to defeat and rejection by both sides. The challenge is how do we get back there again when, as Alastair says, people have become so entrenched? I am not sure about a Citizens Assembly but I confess other ideas about how we build that consensus are painfully thin on the ground.
The deal is dead. If it somehow gets adopted it will have no legitimacy for anyone and will be political poison for generations. I’m afraid I now see no alternative to a referendum between Remain and No Deal.
Unfortunately so. (Though I think we will get a GE first as it kicks the can). With all but one leadership candidate essentially saying the deal will only come back once they change it it has no chance if they cannot pull off that miracle.
I think facing Gove could also be equally probing for Boris and would not rule out that prospect either and that would at least ensure 2 Leavers in the final 2 albeit with different visions of how to Leave.
Boris will be taking part in the BBC debate tonight
If you want to stop BoJo as PM, then the only candidate who can beat him head to head is Raab.
Now, for many, the cure will be worse than the illness. But Raab is the only candidate against whom BoJo can't deploy the nuclear option of saying they would backtrack on Brexit. Moreover (1) Raab has been pushing a low tax agenda, which would also be popular amongst the members and (2) since his resignation, he has been touring the members, which would put him in good stead.
I'm sure BoJo realises at least the first of these points which is why he will try to push Raab out of the contest. The question is whether the Brexiteers trust him enough to essentially rely on him as the Brexit candidate in a run-off.
I agree only Raab likely can beat Boris with members
Raab cannot win MPs by threatening them with a prorogued Parliament. You don't get votes by suspending people.
BBC R4 - On second ballot -candid from Javid - "Rory taking support from all candidates"
If it's really true that support has moved to Stewart not only from the 3 who have dropped out but also from the other 6 who remain, and considering Hunt and Stewart were separated by only about 24 votes - or just 8% of the total - in the first round, it's not impossible that Stewart could move into second place in today's ballot.
Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.
I understand citizens assemblies have been successful in Ireland in dealing with controversial topics, in particular abortion. It seems when tasked with getting to a consensus, these assemblies will actually come to some kind of common ground. I haven't followed the topic closely, however.
And however you dress it up it's an impossible difference to split. It's a binary choice.
La Fin.
It really isn't and it never was. There is a world of difference between leaving the EU with a deal and quite possibly a CU and leaving without one in dispute about the bills left behind. What we need is a deal that in the view of remainers mitigates the damage they perceive that we will suffer from leaving the EU whilst at the same time satisfies the majority of leavers that we have actually left. In short we need a compromise.
May's deal could have been that deal but her complete failure to build a consensus doomed a reasonable resolution to defeat and rejection by both sides. The challenge is how do we get back there again when, as Alastair says, people have become so entrenched? I am not sure about a Citizens Assembly but I confess other ideas about how we build that consensus are painfully thin on the ground.
The deal is dead. If it somehow gets adopted it will have no legitimacy for anyone and will be political poison for generations. I’m afraid I now see no alternative to a referendum between Remain and No Deal.
I never really thought I would need to plan for a hard brexit and Scottish independence but now that almost seems like the most likely route. How will the border at Carlisle look? Will the English allow us to use the £ and do we want to? What happens to the British army? Will there be a wave of English heading to Scotland ?
Boris is now considering a referendum on the backstop for NI and a FTA for GB, avoids ultra hard Brexit and more acceptable to Scots than No Deal as it likely ensures a Deal and FTA and also lets the people of NI not the DUP decide on the backstop
Any news on how he's going to do all this before 31 October?
Call and win a general election
Exactly. There is time for an election before Halloween. Stick in the manifesto whatever the exit plan is, state that a vote for Boris is a vote to immediately deliver that plan, and then get on with it*
*The minor problem being that unless the plan is immediate no deal, simply stating "the election gives us a mandate to renegotiate/arbitrarily dictate changes" doesn't make that actually possible. Just as a no deal default on EU payments shaft the Irish Brexit (the current Tory wank fantasy) doesn't make those better than current free trade deals with the likes of America anything other than impossible.
We are about to see the splat of Brexiteer splooge against the wall of reality. Wear something white, its going to get messy.
Plus it enables a FTA with the EU for GB and removes the temporary Customs Union
I guess the obvious question is, since you need to win a general election with a DUP-free majority to do this anyhow, why not just go ahead and do it without the referendum.
Good interview from Javid with John Humphrys on "Today". However I think it very unlikely he'll make the threshold especially given his concession that he's losing votes to Rory Stewart.
Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.
The ironic thing is that both sides are in a minority - I think there’s a clear majority for “just make it stop”
The only option that is capable of making it stop is Remain.
Indeed, and via Revoke rather than a Peoples Vote...
Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.
The ironic thing is that both sides are in a minority - I think there’s a clear majority for “just make it stop”
The only option that is capable of making it stop is Remain.
And yet in an Orwellian contortion Leavers argue that enabling the people to vote on that option is somehow undemocratic.
War is peace Voting is undemocratic Brexit means Brexit
Rewarding bad behaviour encourages it
So you propose punishing the country for the bad behaviour of a handful of MPs?
I have met Rory Stewart several times and have always been a fan.
I cannot however make sense of his proposals to resolve Brexit via a citizens' assembly. He gives no indication as to how our parliamentary democracy would be bound by the views of such an assembly, when it refuses to be bound by the views of the assembly that occurred on 23 June 2016.
The proposed number of attendees for the assembly also seems to be growing in number, to the point that it now has the distinct whiff of becoming a second referendum.
The remit of a citizens assembly would be to propose a workable Brexit, so it would be a constructive result.
The referendum was either Remain or Leave and so not constructive at all.
Didn't the Irish have one on abortion and it (?they) came up with a workable solution. I can see how the idea would work with a country with a population the size of RoI; I'm less sure about how it work with a population ten or so times bigger.
How is the population size of any relevance?
Increased sorts and conditions of men (and women and.........)
Nah
Why? Genuine question.
From statistics we know that the size of the population is irrelevant to the representativeness of the sample. Sample size is what matters.
On the politics I don’t believe there is a greater spread or complexity of view on Brexit in the Uk than on abortion in Ireland
That said, relatively few of the recommendations of the various CAs that have been tried have subsequently found favour with either politicians or referendums. I am sceptical that it offers the magic bullet to our particular situation.
Take the first point. You've given me something else to dig into when I've finished the couple of dozen things already on my to-do list! I accept that I may well be slowing down a bit but I really don't know, with so many interesting things in the world, how I ever had time to go to work!
Anyway, Rory Stewart’s idea of citizens’ assemblies to resolve Brexit is a bad one. The public has already divided in two. Neither is ready to compromise. Citizens’ assemblies might well have been helpful before the referendum in clarifying voters’ thinking. But they’ve done their thinking now and both sides think they are now in a majority to get everything they want. They’re not going to split the difference.
I understand citizens assemblies have been successful in Ireland in dealing with controversial topics, in particular abortion. It seems when tasked with getting to a consensus, these assemblies will actually come to some kind of common ground. I haven't followed the topic closely, however.
And however you dress it up it's an impossible difference to split. It's a binary choice.
La Fin.
It really isn't and it never was. There is a world of difference between leaving the EU with a deal and quite possibly a CU and leaving without one in dispute about the bills left behind. What we need is a deal that in the view of remainers mitigates the damage they perceive that we will suffer from leaving the EU whilst at the same time satisfies the majority of leavers that we have actually left. In short we need a compromise.
May's deal could have been that deal but her complete failure to build a consensus doomed a reasonable resolution to defeat and rejection by both sides. The challenge is how do we get back there again when, as Alastair says, people have become so entrenched? I am not sure about a Citizens Assembly but I confess other ideas about how we build that consensus are painfully thin on the ground.
The deal is dead. If it somehow gets adopted it will have no legitimacy for anyone and will be political poison for generations. I’m afraid I now see no alternative to a referendum between Remain and No Deal.
BBC R4 - On second ballot -candid from Javid - "Rory taking support from all candidates"
If it's really true that support has moved to Stewart not only from the 3 who have dropped out but also from the other 6 who remain, and considering Hunt and Stewart were separated by only about 24 votes - or just 8% of the total - in the first round, it's not impossible that Stewart could move into second place in today's ballot.
Possible .... but but but .... remember that in leadership election battles the Conservative MP selectorate are by common consent the most duplicitous group imaginable.
I believe Stewart will make the cut. After that frankly he might get anything from 33-60 votes. Rather fascinating but I'm staying out of that market.
I'm glad (and slightly surprised) he's made it this far. He's shown that there is still some sanity within the Conservative Party.
I'm not expecting him to get past today, although I will be delighted if he does. However hopefully he's done himself and the party some good for the future.
Totally O/t, but there's just been a piece on BBC about the new runway at Heathrow, Given Boris' perviously strongly asserted position on the proposal, what will happen to it if he does become PM?
Totally O/t, but there's just been a piece on BBC about the new runway at Heathrow, Given Boris' perviously strongly asserted position on the proposal, what will happen to it if he does become PM?
He'll wave it through of course. This is Boris we are talking about.
Comments
The less lunatic of its advocates are already talking about "mini-deals" and arguably 'no deal' is simply a short transitional period before we retreat to a deal that probably looks a lot like the one currently on offer.
While it’s quite possible a CA would not work, it’s also possible that it would. I think you may be conflating the views of the Tory party with those of the wider electorate - and even with the former, it seems only around half are actively insane.
Boris will be taking part in the BBC debate tonight
They’re like Japanese soldiers in the jungle still fighting WW2.
Of the candidates only Johnson and Stewart are in the real world. No deal is possible. The deal is possible. Renegotiation is not possible, and the more that otherwise intelligent people say it the stupider they look.
The ultimate problem for Johnson is that he doesn't seem to want to accept that his position is know deal, knowing that if he says that it shatters his coalition of pretense that has sane Tories and insane Tories on board. Similarly the ultimate problem for Stewart is that he doesn't have an answer to how to get the deal through that isn't a referendum, which "people's assembly" is a patsy for.
Ultimately, Tory members like so many Tory voters want to be told fairy stories. They don't know what Brexit would be apart from a massive orgasm, nor do they know what they will do after they clean the splooge off themselves. But they know they want it by rights goddamnit and woe betide anyone who tells them no.
If 'no deal' was selected for in a referendum, we'd still be where we are now, arguing about which of the 'little deals' results in the one true Brexit.
Now, for many, the cure will be worse than the illness. But Raab is the only candidate against whom BoJo can't deploy the nuclear option of saying they would backtrack on Brexit. Moreover (1) Raab has been pushing a low tax agenda, which would also be popular amongst the members and (2) since his resignation, he has been touring the members, which would put him in good stead.
I'm sure BoJo realises at least the first of these points which is why he will try to push Raab out of the contest. The question is whether the Brexiteers trust him enough to essentially rely on him as the Brexit candidate in a run-off.
If Remainers has worked constructively* to try to achieve the best possible Brexit in their view - say EFTA or Norway+ - and we’d ended up where we had today the their might be an argument. As it is, far too many have just looked for clever ways to frustrate the outcome the voters chose. It is virtually important not to reward bad behaviour because that creates perverse incentives. As I’m sure @Cyclefree could tell you
* Yes @AlastairMeeks feel free to rant now. But reflect: is your response constructive or just seeking to assign blame. If the latter then, really, what’s the point? We all know your views.
Both sides can make the same arguments.
No deal is less extreme than “full hair shirted autarky”. But it’s not the moderate option.
Read and think rather than lashing out would be my advice
I had assumed that if no deal became likely, then in early February the attention would have been focussed on the immediate, urgent and important stuff like the status of UK citizens abroad, of EU citizens in the UK, supply of medicines and Flight timetables. But no, No Deal was used as a lever and as such had to really be "Sudden and Unplanned No Deal" for it to be any threat at all. For me this approach is totally disgraceful and is playing politics with the rights of millions of people, regardless of leave/remain/lect/right/centre political opinion.
To quote Theresa May, remind you of anyone?
The point was “no deal” does not mean “no deal ever”. It really just means no transition.
Whatever the blowhards say, we will protect citizens rights and pay our legal liabilities
Therein lies the problem.
It might be harder, tougher and much more difficult but with strong and inspiring leadership there's always an opportunity to turn things round.
There was a furious outcry. A year or so of brutal, internal warfare. Finally, the Bursar was forced to step down (with a severance package that was generous).
A new Bursar was appointed. He was able to implement the financial regulations of his predecessor without a smallest, tiniest yip of protest.
I would not be entirely surprised if Boris the Chameleon manages exactly this trick.
Sometimes, a group or institution can only move on once there has been a bloodbath and someone has paid for their collective sins.
*The minor problem being that unless the plan is immediate no deal, simply stating "the election gives us a mandate to renegotiate/arbitrarily dictate changes" doesn't make that actually possible. Just as a no deal default on EU payments shaft the Irish Brexit (the current Tory wank fantasy) doesn't make those better than current free trade deals with the likes of America anything other than impossible.
We are about to see the splat of Brexiteer splooge against the wall of reality. Wear something white, its going to get messy.
And yes they did see that as brexiting as did 90% of Tory MPs.
I accept that I may well be slowing down a bit but I really don't know, with so many interesting things in the world, how I ever had time to go to work!
I believe Stewart will make the cut. After that frankly he might get anything from 33-60 votes. Rather fascinating but I'm staying out of that market.
I'm glad (and slightly surprised) he's made it this far. He's shown that there is still some sanity within the Conservative Party.
I'm not expecting him to get past today, although I will be delighted if he does. However hopefully he's done himself and the party some good for the future.