Brexit has been headline news for the past 3 years, 5-6 weeks of an election campaign is nothing. it will be the only topic as everything else is so dependent on it.
Like it was in 2017?
Well Boris isn't going to be stupid enough to introduce a death tax as May did.
Add to that Jo won't get hung up on the Pet Shop Boys' 1987 summer hit and Corbyn isn't the New Kid on the Block he was in 2017 either.
Some of the BBC news commentary was interesting: that the EU was taking the PM much more seriously.
Originally they viewed him as a buffoon. They they view him as (a) serious and intelligent and (b) fully prepared to go for no deal if the backstop is not eliminated. This has apparently led to the hints of possible softening on their end.
It's very much the mystery of Johnson: he is both the buffoon, and intelligent/capable. Unlike Trump, he has the potential to grow into the job …. although self-interest and a lack of principles mean he'll never be well suited to it.
Some of the BBC news commentary was interesting: that the EU was taking the PM much more seriously.
Originally they viewed him as a buffoon. They they view him as (a) serious and intelligent and (b) fully prepared to go for no deal if the backstop is not eliminated. This has apparently led to the hints of possible softening on their end.
It's very much the mystery of Johnson: he is both the buffoon, and intelligent/capable. Unlike Trump, he has the potential to grow into the job …. although self-interest and a lack of principles mean he'll never be well suited to it.
self-interest and a lack of principles mean he'll never be well suited to it.
Wrong. For example the EU privileges the migration rights of a Lithuanian fruit picker over a Tanzanian computer scientist. Brexit would allow a liberal government to treat all foreign nationals as equals, not allowed at the moment.
This idea of treating all foreigners as equal is such wretched cant. I've never found anybody who genuinely believes it. Do you want the same rules for Irish citizens as for people from Tanzania?
Irish is a special case for reasons going back 800 years. It is a local anomaly. But I absolutely support the general principle of treating all foreign nationals according to a single set of rules, and not privileging a particular 450,000,000 of them. And I accept it works both ways.
No reciprocal deals on migration with any countries at all? If Australia offered free movement with the UK, you would object to it on principle?
It would be popular but I am not sure it would be right in principle. I think we would end up with something as ethnically racist as the EU at its worst. The Tanzanian computer scientist (see above) by the way is a real person, a friend of mine, now back in Tanzania because of the policy of the Home Office, with racist overtones, which has to be ludicrously tough on skilled people from outside the EU as so many EU unskilled people were coming into the UK.
I'd be in favour of free movement between the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
But not any Commonwealth countries where brown and black people live, I’ll wager.
Yes, the analysis that Corbyn does well out of no deal is wrong. He is going to get a lot of the blame. I'd expect a Labour leadership challenge pretty soon after, and wouldn't be surprised if he lost.
Wow. Just saw today's chilling Daily Express headline about Boris's plan to stuff parliament with puppet legislators. This sort of behaviour would shame a banana republic.
Well our democratically elected politicians had a meeting today on plans to subvert a democratic vote.
Do you mean that indicative, non-binding referendum with a very small majority? The one that talked of taking back control to our parliamentary system? The vote that was based on us being able to get a deal that would be the easiest in history? No they are not trying to subvert a democratic vote, simply attempting to prevent shysters from misrepresent and distort what that vote meant.
Because she is opposed to no deal and that was the pragmatic way forward?
The problem is the Deal - the more I think about it the more I think May equivocated between a Deal which would pass the Commons and a Deal which would pass the Conservative Party and ended up with the worst of all world - a Deal which satisfied neither.
Had she gone for an overt BINO it might have been supported by enough opposition MPs to get through.
There's a bigger political problem - IF a Deal had been passed, it would have been used cynically to the electoral advantage of the Conservative Party, May would have walked and the new PM would have immediately gone to the country on a platform of "vote for the Conservatives, we delivered Brexit" and amid much euphoria would have gained an election victory.
I don't want a Conservative Government - I don't want a Labour Government either - so why should I (were I an opposition MP) pass a bad deal just to make the Conservatives election winners? It's cynical I know but it's how the political game operates.
Weird on WATO today - a cosy interview with Swinson about 'stopping no deal' with neither Swinson nor interviewer acknowledging that government policy is to do a deal, that these people have consistently voted against a deal, and that they have no agreed policy apart from a negative one. Too late for this nonsense; and the BBC is being exceedingly co-conspiratorial about it all.
A question along the lines of, "so do you regret voting against May's deal 3x then?" might not have gone amiss.
To be fair David , Swinson did not want Brexit Leave , under any circumstances. So why would she vote for May's deal, or any deal.
Because she is opposed to no deal and that was the pragmatic way forward?
Yes. And parliament voted overwhelmingly to trigger Art 50 at a time when it was thought revocation would not be lawfully possible, so parliament intended either a deal or crash out. Swinson so far is a true dog in the manger, less impressive as leader in a national crisis than I expected.
She is not alone in this. Let's suppose that Boris gets a deal which either solves or even just shows a credible path to solving the NI border issue and brings what is effectively May's deal back to the House with that change. How many of those so committed to preventing no deal today would support that deal? If the answer is none, as I believe it to be, then this is not opposition to no deal, it is opposition to leaving at all.
It may or may not be but as Keir Starmer has long pointed out, it is not beholden upon the opposition to support a government policy, any government policy as it would make a mockery of our political system if governments could choose the areas where no opposition is allowed.
The Labour view is, legitimately for once, that they wouldn't have started from here. They would have negotiated a completely different deal and whether this could have been the case or not is irrelevant. Because no doubt they would have. Had they been in government and had the numbers in parliament and...and...
Such supposition is allowed from the opposition. And positively unavoidable if a large swathe of the government's own party and its allies likewise vote against a deal.
If Boris does as you suggest and brings back a workable deal then it will continue to be up to the Conservative Party and the DUP to vote it through.
Some of the BBC news commentary was interesting: that the EU was taking the PM much more seriously.
Originally they viewed him as a buffoon. They they view him as (a) serious and intelligent and (b) fully prepared to go for no deal if the backstop is not eliminated. This has apparently led to the hints of possible softening on their end.
It's very much the mystery of Johnson: he is both the buffoon, and intelligent/capable. Unlike Trump, he has the potential to grow into the job …. although self-interest and a lack of principles mean he'll never be well suited to it.
self-interest and a lack of principles mean he'll never be well suited to it.
Blair got elected three times
Indeed, though via an election of the whole electorate, of whom only a small number were swivel-eyed.
Wow. Just saw today's chilling Daily Express headline about Boris's plan to stuff parliament with puppet legislators. This sort of behaviour would shame a banana republic.
Well our democratically elected politicians had a meeting today on plans to subvert a democratic vote.
You mean to subvert a referendum result, Curry.
There should be a special place in hell for those who speak of referendums as if identical with democracy.
Mr. Topping, they have to vote, one way or another. They can't oppose everything then complain that the Consequences of Their Actions have arrived and they don't like them.
For all the (often correct) criticism of the ERG, they've voted for what they want. Labour, the Lib Dems, and others have voted against the only deal that was available at the time, and spent the time since bitching about the very thing they supported in Parliament.
Some of the BBC news commentary was interesting: that the EU was taking the PM much more seriously.
Originally they viewed him as a buffoon. They they view him as (a) serious and intelligent and (b) fully prepared to go for no deal if the backstop is not eliminated. This has apparently led to the hints of possible softening on their end.
It's very much the mystery of Johnson: he is both the buffoon, and intelligent/capable. Unlike Trump, he has the potential to grow into the job …. although self-interest and a lack of principles mean he'll never be well suited to it.
self-interest and a lack of principles mean he'll never be well suited to it.
Blair got elected three times
Indeed, though via an election of the whole electorate, of whom only a small number were swivel-eyed.
any chance your reading might expand beyond Harry Potter ?
Wow. Just saw today's chilling Daily Express headline about Boris's plan to stuff parliament with puppet legislators. This sort of behaviour would shame a banana republic.
Well our democratically elected politicians had a meeting today on plans to subvert a democratic vote.
You mean to subvert a referendum result, Curry.
There should be a special place in hell for those who speak of referendums as if identical with democracy.
I am sure when people voted they were quite happy to know that their vote would just be ignored. If we voted to remain and then left would you be happy as obvoiusly it was just a referendum and not democracy.
Wow. Just saw today's chilling Daily Express headline about Boris's plan to stuff parliament with puppet legislators. This sort of behaviour would shame a banana republic.
Well our democratically elected politicians had a meeting today on plans to subvert a democratic vote.
You mean to subvert a referendum result, Curry.
There should be a special place in hell for those who speak of referendums as if identical with democracy.
Currystardog demonstrates in one comment why democracies should never use referendums to settle internal party issues.
Wow. Just saw today's chilling Daily Express headline about Boris's plan to stuff parliament with puppet legislators. This sort of behaviour would shame a banana republic.
Well our democratically elected politicians had a meeting today on plans to subvert a democratic vote.
You mean to subvert a referendum result, Curry.
There should be a special place in hell for those who speak of referendums as if identical with democracy.
I am sure when people voted they were quite happy to know that their vote would just be ignored. If we voted to remain and then left would you be happy as obvoiusly it was just a referendum and not democracy.
We voted to leave but then in a subsequent general election demonstrated that we didn't quite mean to vote that way.
Now the mess that general election created means leaving is proving rather harder than we expected but those politicians all have mandates from after the referendum result..
Weird on WATO today - a cosy interview with Swinson about 'stopping no deal' Too late for this nonsense; and the BBC is being exceedingly co-conspiratorial about it all.
A question along the lines of, "so do you regret voting against May's deal 3x then?" might not have gone amiss.
To be fair David , Swinson did not want Brexit Leave , under any circumstances. So why would she vote for May's deal, or any deal.
Because she is opposed to no deal and that was the pragmatic way forward?
Yes. And parliament voted overwhelmingly to trigger Art 50 at a time when it was thought revocation would not be lawfully possible, so parliament intended either a deal or crash out. Swinson so far is a true dog in the manger, less impressive as leader in a national crisis than I expected.
She is not alone in this. Let's suppose that Boris gets a deal which either solves or even just shows a credible path to solving the NI border issue and brings what is effectively May's deal back to the House with that change. How many of those so committed to preventing no deal today would support that deal? If the answer is none, as I believe it to be, then this is not opposition to no deal, it is opposition to leaving at all.
It may or may not be but as Keir Starmer has long pointed out, it is not beholden upon the opposition to support a government policy, any government policy as it would make a mockery of our political system if governments could choose the areas where no opposition is allowed.
The Labour view is, legitimately for once, that they wouldn't have started from here. They would have negotiated a completely different deal and whether this could have been the case or not is irrelevant. Because no doubt they would have. Had they been in government and had the numbers in parliament and...and...
Such supposition is allowed from the opposition. And positively unavoidable if a large swathe of the government's own party and its allies likewise vote against a deal.
If Boris does as you suggest and brings back a workable deal then it will continue to be up to the Conservative Party and the DUP to vote it through.
Starmer also says there is nothing he would change about the WA. So why continually vote against it?
Wow. Just saw today's chilling Daily Express headline about Boris's plan to stuff parliament with puppet legislators. This sort of behaviour would shame a banana republic.
Well our democratically elected politicians had a meeting today on plans to subvert a democratic vote.
You mean to subvert a referendum result, Curry.
There should be a special place in hell for those who speak of referendums as if identical with democracy.
Currystardog demonstrates in one comment why democracies should never use referendums to settle internal party issues.
Wow. Just saw today's chilling Daily Express headline about Boris's plan to stuff parliament with puppet legislators. This sort of behaviour would shame a banana republic.
Well our democratically elected politicians had a meeting today on plans to subvert a democratic vote.
You mean to subvert a referendum result, Curry.
There should be a special place in hell for those who speak of referendums as if identical with democracy.
Referendums are probably the purest form of democracy.
Mr. Topping, they have to vote, one way or another. They can't oppose everything then complain that the Consequences of Their Actions have arrived and they don't like them.
For all the (often correct) criticism of the ERG, they've voted for what they want. Labour, the Lib Dems, and others have voted against the only deal that was available at the time, and spent the time since bitching about the very thing they supported in Parliament.
Labour at least (and maybe some Lib Dems) voted for soft Brexit options. The Clarke or Boles amendments were in keeping with the EU's red lines.
Wow. Just saw today's chilling Daily Express headline about Boris's plan to stuff parliament with puppet legislators. This sort of behaviour would shame a banana republic.
Well our democratically elected politicians had a meeting today on plans to subvert a democratic vote.
You mean to subvert a referendum result, Curry.
There should be a special place in hell for those who speak of referendums as if identical with democracy.
I am sure when people voted they were quite happy to know that their vote would just be ignored. If we voted to remain and then left would you be happy as obvoiusly it was just a referendum and not democracy.
We voted to leave but then in a subsequent general election demonstrated that we didn't quite mean to vote that way.
Now the mess that general election created means leaving is proving rather harder than we expected but those politicians all have mandates from after the referendum result..
Sorry but 86% of the voters supported parties who said that they would respect the referendum result!!!!
Weird on WATO today - a cosy interview with Swinson about 'stopping no deal' with neither Swinson nor interviewer acknowledging that government policy is to do a deal, that these people have consistently voted against a deal, and that they have no agreed policy apart from a negative one. Too late for this nonsense; and the BBC is being exceedingly co-conspiratorial about it all.
A question along the lines of, "so do you regret voting against May's deal 3x then?" might not have gone amiss.
To be fair David , Swinson did not want Brexit Leave , under any circumstances. So why would she vote for May's deal, or any deal.
Because she is opposed to no deal and that was the pragmatic way forward?
Yes. And parliament voted overwhelmingly to trigger Art 50 at a time when it was thought revocation would not be lawfully possible, so parliament intended either a deal or crash out. Swinson so far is a true dog in the manger, less impressive as leader in a national crisis than I expected.
She to leaving at all.
It may or may not be but as Keir Starmer has long pointed out, it is not beholden upon the opposition to support a government policy, any government policy as it would make a mockery of our political system if governments could choose the areas where no opposition is allowed.
The Labour view is, legitimately for once, that they wouldn't have started from here. They would have negotiated a completely different deal and whether this could have been the case or not is irrelevant. Because no doubt they would have. Had they been in government and had the numbers in parliament and...and...
Such supposition is allowed from the opposition. And positively unavoidable if a large swathe of the government's own party and its allies likewise vote against a deal.
If Boris does as you suggest and brings back a workable deal then it will continue to be up to the Conservative Party and the DUP to vote it through.
Quite, Topping. Nobody blames the Conservatives for Iraq, and rightly so. They were not the Government at the time.
Btw, I read your piece on N Ireland and enjoyed it very much. I was too busy to comment at the time but it confirmed my view that many of the thread headers here are at least as good if not better than what we pay good money for in the quality Press.
Wow. Just saw today's chilling Daily Express headline about Boris's plan to stuff parliament with puppet legislators. This sort of behaviour would shame a banana republic.
Well our democratically elected politicians had a meeting today on plans to subvert a democratic vote.
You mean to subvert a referendum result, Curry.
There should be a special place in hell for those who speak of referendums as if identical with democracy.
Referendums are probably the purest form of democracy.
Nope - they result in people voting on issues which they may not fully bother to understand.
Politicians exist and are paid to ensure they fully research issues and then vote for what is best for their constituents.
Wow. Just saw today's chilling Daily Express headline about Boris's plan to stuff parliament with puppet legislators. This sort of behaviour would shame a banana republic.
Well our democratically elected politicians had a meeting today on plans to subvert a democratic vote.
You mean to subvert a referendum result, Curry.
There should be a special place in hell for those who speak of referendums as if identical with democracy.
Referendums are probably the purest form of democracy.
Not if they produce a result you do not agree with. In that case they should be ignored.
Wow. Just saw today's chilling Daily Express headline about Boris's plan to stuff parliament with puppet legislators. This sort of behaviour would shame a banana republic.
Well our democratically elected politicians had a meeting today on plans to subvert a democratic vote.
You mean to subvert a referendum result, Curry.
There should be a special place in hell for those who speak of referendums as if identical with democracy.
I am sure when people voted they were quite happy to know that their vote would just be ignored. If we voted to remain and then left would you be happy as obvoiusly it was just a referendum and not democracy.
We voted to leave but then in a subsequent general election demonstrated that we didn't quite mean to vote that way.
Now the mess that general election created means leaving is proving rather harder than we expected but those politicians all have mandates from after the referendum result..
Sorry but 86% of the voters supported parties who said that they would respect the referendum result!!!!
Respecting the result and delivering Brexit are not the same thing.
Weird on WATO today - a cosy interview with Swinson about 'stopping no deal' Too late for this nonsense; and the BBC is being exceedingly co-conspiratorial about it all.
A question along the lines of, "so do you regret voting against May's deal 3x then?" might not have gone amiss.
To be fair David , Swinson did not want Brexit Leave , under any circumstances. So why would she vote for May's deal, or any deal.
Because she is opposed to no deal and that was the pragmatic way forward?
Yes. And parliament voted overwhelmingly to trigger Art 50 at a time when it was thought revocation would not be lawfully possible, so parliament intended either a deal or crash out. Swinson so far is a true dog in the manger, less impressive as leader in a national crisis than I expected.
She is not alone in this. Let's suppose that Boris gets a deal which either solves or even just shows a credible path to solving the NI border issue and brings what is effectively May's deal back to the House with that change. How many of those so committed to preventing no deal today would support that deal? If the answer is none, as I believe it to be, then this is not opposition to no deal, it is opposition to leaving at all.
It may or may not be but as Keir Starmer has long pointed out, it is not beholden upon the opposition to support a government policy, any government policy as it would make a mockery of our political system if governments could choose the areas where no opposition is allowed.
The Labour view is, legitimately for once, that they wouldn't have started from here. They would have negotiated a completely different deal and whether this could have been the case or not is irrelevant. Because no doubt they would have. Had they been in government and had the numbers in parliament and...and...
Such supposition is allowed from the opposition. And positively unavoidable if a large swathe of the government's own party and its allies likewise vote against a deal.
If Boris does as you suggest and brings back a workable deal then it will continue to be up to the Conservative Party and the DUP to vote it through.
Starmer also says there is nothing he would change about the WA. So why continually vote against it?
Didn't he want changes to the PD? Plus a vote? The deal = WA + PD.
Wow. Just saw today's chilling Daily Express headline about Boris's plan to stuff parliament with puppet legislators. This sort of behaviour would shame a banana republic.
Well our democratically elected politicians had a meeting today on plans to subvert a democratic vote.
You mean to subvert a referendum result, Curry.
There should be a special place in hell for those who speak of referendums as if identical with democracy.
Referendums are probably the purest form of democracy.
Nope - they result in people voting on issues which they may not fully bother to understand.
Politicians exist and are paid to ensure they fully research issues and then vote for what is best for their constituents.
What do you mean 'Nope' ? Referendums are, by definition, the purest form of democracy.
Our representative democracy is only a democracy of sorts. (Not to mention the horrendous House of Lords situation)
Wow. Just saw today's chilling Daily Express headline about Boris's plan to stuff parliament with puppet legislators. This sort of behaviour would shame a banana republic.
Well our democratically elected politicians had a meeting today on plans to subvert a democratic vote.
You mean to subvert a referendum result, Curry.
There should be a special place in hell for those who speak of referendums as if identical with democracy.
Referendums are probably the purest form of democracy.
Weird on WATO today - a cosy interview with Swinson about 'stopping no deal' with neither Swinson nor interviewer acknowledging that government policy is to do a deal, that these people have consistently voted against a deal, and that they have no agreed policy apart from a negative one. Too late for this nonsense; and the BBC is being exceedingly co-conspiratorial about it all.
A question along the lines of, "so do you regret voting against May's deal 3x then?" might not have gone amiss.
To be fair David , Swinson did not want Brexit Leave , under any circumstances. So why would she vote for May's deal, or any deal.
Because she is opposed to no deal and that was the pragmatic way forward?
Yes. And parliament voted overwhelmingly to trigger Art 50 at a time when it was thought revocation would not be lawfully possible, so parliament intended either a deal or crash out. Swinson so far is a true dog in the manger, less impressive as leader in a national crisis than I expected.
She to leaving at all.
It may or may not be but as Keir Starmer has long pointed out, it is not beholden upon the opposition to support a government policy, any government policy as it would make a mockery of our political system if governments could choose the areas where no opposition is allowed.
The Labour view is, legitimately for once, that they wouldn't have started from here. They would have negotiated a completely different deal and whether this could have been the case or not is irrelevant. Because no doubt they would have. Had they been in government and had the numbers in parliament and...and...
Such supposition is allowed from the opposition. And positively unavoidable if a large swathe of the government's own party and its allies likewise vote against a deal.
If Boris does as you suggest and brings back a workable deal then it will continue to be up to the Conservative Party and the DUP to vote it through.
Not the same as normal opposition. The deal losing means in the end No Deal.
Surely you're not suggesting a politician seeks to alter the electoral system to benefit their own side?! Sacre bleu!
Mr. rkrkrk, oh, aye, they brought themselves to vote for some bloody stupid ideas, but not the thing that would've delivered a deal.
They had that opportunity three times.
Getting another referendum would, despite other drawbacks, also offer progress to endorse a deal, or reject it firmly, or to remain. Instead, MPs have faffed about, opposing everything, voting for things they don't even want, and behaving irresponsibly.
Glad to see so many people would cast the net of blame so widely. It's deserved.
Quite, Topping. Nobody blames the Conservatives for Iraq, and rightly so. They were not the Government at the time.
Btw, I read your piece on N Ireland and enjoyed it very much. I was too busy to comment at the time but it confirmed my view that many of the thread headers here are at least as good if not better than what we pay good money for in the quality Press.
Wow. Just saw today's chilling Daily Express headline about Boris's plan to stuff parliament with puppet legislators. This sort of behaviour would shame a banana republic.
Well our democratically elected politicians had a meeting today on plans to subvert a democratic vote.
You mean to subvert a referendum result, Curry.
There should be a special place in hell for those who speak of referendums as if identical with democracy.
Referendums are probably the purest form of democracy.
Nope - they result in people voting on issues which they may not fully bother to understand.
Politicians exist and are paid to ensure they fully research issues and then vote for what is best for their constituents.
if you think people understand the issues and vote accordingly at GEs let me introduce you to the tribal vote
Well our democratically elected politicians had a meeting today on plans to subvert a democratic vote.
You mean to subvert a referendum result, Curry.
There should be a special place in hell for those who speak of referendums as if identical with democracy.
Yes, it's time to nail this "respecting the democratic result" nonsense with a bucketful of nails.
I voted LEAVE - what I didn't do was sign a blank cheque to the Conservative Party (for whom running a bath is a major undertaking never mind running the country) to arrange whatever version of leaving the EU they wanted and assume it had my support.
Only 26% support No Deal according to YouGov so that means half of those who voted LEAVE in 2016 don't back it so where is there any legitimacy for a No Deal exit on 31/10? The only reasons therefore for Johnson's obduracy must be a) his own political survival and b) the political survival of the Conservative Party neither or which interest me or many other people.
Surely you're not suggesting a politician seeks to alter the electoral system to benefit their own side?! Sacre bleu!
Mr. rkrkrk, oh, aye, they brought themselves to vote for some bloody stupid ideas, but not the thing that would've delivered a deal.
They had that opportunity three times.
Getting another referendum would, despite other drawbacks, also offer progress to endorse a deal, or reject it firmly, or to remain. Instead, MPs have faffed about, opposing everything, voting for things they don't even want, and behaving irresponsibly.
Glad to see so many people would cast the net of blame so widely. It's deserved.
Oh, the Show Trial will be a delight. Morris.
We start at the top - Juncker and the EU elite and work our way down. Hanging will be too good for them. The great unwashed however should be allowed to escape with minor fines and community service.
I voted LEAVE - what I didn't do was sign a blank cheque to the Conservative Party (for whom running a bath is a major undertaking never mind running the country) to arrange whatever version of leaving the EU they wanted and assume it had my support.
To be fair, this isn't an entirely unsurprising outcome given that you voted Leave while the Conservative Party was in power.
As an aside, Ocasio-Cortez has been making comments about shifting the presidential election to a popular vote, removing the electoral college.
Doubt it'll have an impact, but an interesting comment.
Most Democrats have been in favour of making the change for a long time. They've only lost the popular vote once since 1990.
It was probably not such a big deal pre-Cambridge Analytica.
Btw, does anyone know who Cummings is using now that CA are in liquidation?
The democrats have no power to change the Electoral College as it would require a constitutional amendment or the interstate popular vote compact to pass. The Republicans and the smaller swing states have no incentive to vote for either.
Well our democratically elected politicians had a meeting today on plans to subvert a democratic vote.
You mean to subvert a referendum result, Curry.
There should be a special place in hell for those who speak of referendums as if identical with democracy.
Yes, it's time to nail this "respecting the democratic result" nonsense with a bucketful of nails.
I voted LEAVE - what I didn't do was sign a blank cheque to the Conservative Party (for whom running a bath is a major undertaking never mind running the country) to arrange whatever version of leaving the EU they wanted and assume it had my support.
Only 26% support No Deal according to YouGov so that means half of those who voted LEAVE in 2016 don't back it so where is there any legitimacy for a No Deal exit on 31/10? The only reasons therefore for Johnson's obduracy must be a) his own political survival and b) the political survival of the Conservative Party neither or which interest me or many other people.
Not really fair to say 26% support no deal. Surely its just 26% in that poll have No Deal as their first choice. I'd say the majority view (or at least a very large minority) is in line with what Johnson is doing ie. wants a deal as his first choice but if one cannot be agreed then no deal is his second choice. That represents my viewpoint too.
As an aside, Ocasio-Cortez has been making comments about shifting the presidential election to a popular vote, removing the electoral college.
Doubt it'll have an impact, but an interesting comment.
Most Democrats have been in favour of making the change for a long time. They've only lost the popular vote once since 1990.
It was probably not such a big deal pre-Cambridge Analytica.
Btw, does anyone know who Cummings is using now that CA are in liquidation?
Cummings never used CA for Vote Leave. He hired his own people, Physicists he described them on his blog. So i would imagine he has done the same again,
Wow. Just saw today's chilling Daily Express headline about Boris's plan to stuff parliament with puppet legislators. This sort of behaviour would shame a banana republic.
Well our democratically elected politicians had a meeting today on plans to subvert a democratic vote.
You mean to subvert a referendum result, Curry.
There should be a special place in hell for those who speak of referendums as if identical with democracy.
Referendums are probably the purest form of democracy.
Nope - they result in people voting on issues which they may not fully bother to understand.
Politicians exist and are paid to ensure they fully research issues and then vote for what is best for their constituents.
if you think people understand the issues and vote accordingly at GEs let me introduce you to the tribal vote
I know but at least (some) MPs or at least someone in the Party's policy / leadership team understands things before a decision is made.
Surely you're not suggesting a politician seeks to alter the electoral system to benefit their own side?! Sacre bleu!
Mr. rkrkrk, oh, aye, they brought themselves to vote for some bloody stupid ideas, but not the thing that would've delivered a deal.
They had that opportunity three times.
Getting another referendum would, despite other drawbacks, also offer progress to endorse a deal, or reject it firmly, or to remain. Instead, MPs have faffed about, opposing everything, voting for things they don't even want, and behaving irresponsibly.
Glad to see so many people would cast the net of blame so widely. It's deserved.
Labour backed Boles, Clarke and Ref2. All of those would have been agreeable to the EU and I suspect all would have passed the Commons if May had whipped in favour.
You might call them bloody stupid, but others would see them as workable compromises given the divided nature of our nation on the issue.
Well our democratically elected politicians had a meeting today on plans to subvert a democratic vote.
You mean to subvert a referendum result, Curry.
There should be a special place in hell for those who speak of referendums as if identical with democracy.
Yes, it's time to nail this "respecting the democratic result" nonsense with a bucketful of nails.
I voted LEAVE - what I didn't do was sign a blank cheque to the Conservative Party (for whom running a bath is a major undertaking never mind running the country) to arrange whatever version of leaving the EU they wanted and assume it had my support.
Only 26% support No Deal according to YouGov so that means half of those who voted LEAVE in 2016 don't back it so where is there any legitimacy for a No Deal exit on 31/10? The only reasons therefore for Johnson's obduracy must be a) his own political survival and b) the political survival of the Conservative Party neither or which interest me or many other people.
Presumably this exact outcome figured in your deliberations before you voted Leave? Surely you did not vote Leave without accepting that it might come to precisely this? Because to have done so would be crazy.
Well our democratically elected politicians had a meeting today on plans to subvert a democratic vote.
You mean to subvert a referendum result, Curry.
There should be a special place in hell for those who speak of referendums as if identical with democracy.
Yes, it's time to nail this "respecting the democratic result" nonsense with a bucketful of nails.
I voted LEAVE - what I didn't do was sign a blank cheque to the Conservative Party (for whom running a bath is a major undertaking never mind running the country) to arrange whatever version of leaving the EU they wanted and assume it had my support.
Only 26% support No Deal according to YouGov so that means half of those who voted LEAVE in 2016 don't back it so where is there any legitimacy for a No Deal exit on 31/10? The only reasons therefore for Johnson's obduracy must be a) his own political survival and b) the political survival of the Conservative Party neither or which interest me or many other people.
Strongly agree, Mr Stodge. I could not care less about the survival of the Conservative Party, and the tax-dodgers and vulture capital gamblers who back it. Not about the interests of the American corporations who want to tear this country apart.
Once upon a time, the Conservative Party could claim that it stood up for the interests of ordinary British people. Not any more, I fear.
Well our democratically elected politicians had a meeting today on plans to subvert a democratic vote.
You mean to subvert a referendum result, Curry.
There should be a special place in hell for those who speak of referendums as if identical with democracy.
Yes, it's time to nail this "respecting the democratic result" nonsense with a bucketful of nails.
I voted LEAVE - what I didn't do was sign a blank cheque to the Conservative Party (for whom running a bath is a major undertaking never mind running the country) to arrange whatever version of leaving the EU they wanted and assume it had my support.
Only 26% support No Deal according to YouGov so that means half of those who voted LEAVE in 2016 don't back it so where is there any legitimacy for a No Deal exit on 31/10? The only reasons therefore for Johnson's obduracy must be a) his own political survival and b) the political survival of the Conservative Party neither or which interest me or many other people.
Stodge, to be fair the Conservative Government called the referendum to obtain the views of the people on whether they wanted to stay in the EU, so surely it's understandable that that Government, or one of that Party, should decide on how to implement the result.
Weird on WATO today - a cosy interview with Swinson about 'stopping no deal' Too late for this nonsense; and the BBC is being exceedingly co-conspiratorial about it all.
A question along the lines of, "so do you regret voting against May's deal 3x then?" might not have gone amiss.
To be fair David , Swinson did not want Brexit Leave , under any circumstances. So why would she vote for May's deal, or any deal.
Because she is opposed to no deal and that was the pragmatic way forward?
She is not alone in this. Let's suppose that Boris gets a deal which either solves or even just shows a credible path to solving the NI border issue and brings what is effectively May's deal back to the House with that change. How many of those so committed to preventing no deal today would support that deal? If the answer is none, as I believe it to be, then this is not opposition to no deal, it is opposition to leaving at all.
It may or may not be but as Keir Starmer has long pointed out, it is not beholden upon the opposition to support a government policy, any government policy as it would make a mockery of our political system if governments could choose the areas where no opposition is allowed.
The Labour view is, legitimately for once, that they wouldn't have started from here. They would have negotiated a completely different deal and whether this could have been the case or not is irrelevant. Because no doubt they would have. Had they been in government and had the numbers in parliament and...and...
Such supposition is allowed from the opposition. And positively unavoidable if a large swathe of the government's own party and its allies likewise vote against a deal.
If Boris does as you suggest and brings back a workable deal then it will continue to be up to the Conservative Party and the DUP to vote it through.
Starmer also says there is nothing he would change about the WA. So why continually vote against it?
Didn't he want changes to the PD? Plus a vote? The deal = WA + PD.
Because the PD was not binding the fear at the time was that anything that was put into the PD (draft) to make the WA more acceptable would just be ripped up and thrown out by the incoming Tory leader, probably Johnson.
Wow. Just saw today's chilling Daily Express headline about Boris's plan to stuff parliament with puppet legislators. This sort of behaviour would shame a banana republic.
Well our democratically elected politicians had a meeting today on plans to subvert a democratic vote.
You mean to subvert a referendum result, Curry.
There should be a special place in hell for those who speak of referendums as if identical with democracy.
Referendums are probably the purest form of democracy.
Nope - they result in people voting on issues which they may not fully bother to understand.
Politicians exist and are paid to ensure they fully research issues and then vote for what is best for their constituents.
What do you mean 'Nope' ? Referendums are, by definition, the purest form of democracy.
Our representative democracy is only a democracy of sorts. (Not to mention the horrendous House of Lords situation)
Whose definition, for heaven's sake?
Referendums and democracy have been with us for thousands of years. They have been debated by the wisest and sharpest minds, yet you will find no unanimity as to the meaning of either. And the relationship between the two can only be described as complex to put it mildly.
As an aside, Ocasio-Cortez has been making comments about shifting the presidential election to a popular vote, removing the electoral college.
Doubt it'll have an impact, but an interesting comment.
Most Democrats have been in favour of making the change for a long time. They've only lost the popular vote once since 1990.
It was probably not such a big deal pre-Cambridge Analytica.
Btw, does anyone know who Cummings is using now that CA are in liquidation?
The data is still there - somewhere. You are not telling me that it will not be used. The people who have money have got the data. Directed emails will be sent as well as "ads" in Facebook etc.
Weird on WATO today - a cosy interview with Swinson about 'stopping no deal' Too late for this nonsense; and the BBC is being exceedingly co-conspiratorial about it all.
A question along the lines of, "so do you regret voting against May's deal 3x then?" might not have gone amiss.
To be fair David , Swinson did not want Brexit Leave , under any circumstances. So why would she vote for May's deal, or any deal.
Because she is opposed to no deal and that was the pragmatic way forward?
She is not alone in this. Let's suppose that Boris gets a deal which either solves or even just shows a credible path to solving the NI border issue and brings what is effectively May's deal back to the House with that change. How many of those so committed to preventing no deal today would support that deal? If the answer is none, as I believe it to be, then this is not opposition to no deal, it is opposition to leaving at all.
It may or may not be but as Keir Starmer has long pointed out, it is not beholden upon the opposition to su.
If Boris does as you suggest and brings back a workable deal then it will continue to be up to the Conservative Party and the DUP to vote it through.
Starmer also says there is nothing he would change about the WA. So why continually vote against it?
Didn't he want changes to the PD? Plus a vote? The deal = WA + PD.
Because the PD was not binding the fear at the time was that anything that was put into the PD (draft) to make the WA more acceptable would just be ripped up and thrown out by the incoming Tory leader, probably Johnson.
Yes - we had of course the same charge made against Dave's deal (the EU would throw it out). But Starmer was right even if it was a bit of tricksy politics. It would have been difficult for an opposition to make such a concession with no certainty that it would be honoured.
Wow. Just saw today's chilling Daily Express headline about Boris's plan to stuff parliament with puppet legislators. This sort of behaviour would shame a banana republic.
Well our democratically elected politicians had a meeting today on plans to subvert a democratic vote.
You mean to subvert a referendum result, Curry.
There should be a special place in hell for those who speak of referendums as if identical with democracy.
Referendums are probably the purest form of democracy.
And that is what is wrong with them; they lead to government by Sun headline. They are alien to our constitution and incompatible with the competing oligarchies system which is our version of democracy and the only proper way to proceed is to subvert, abrogate or otherwise nullify the 2016 result and never, ever hold one again.
Mr. rkrkrk, leaving the EU and staying in the customs union is dafter than a mongoose wearing a fez. It's bloody ludicrous.
You'd have to be stark raving mad to support something like that.
Or an MP.
[Morris Dancer does not support leaving the EU and staying in the customs union].
And thus the extremists on the issue denigrate the moderates. Oh well, we tried to find a compromise, indeed proposed multiple alternatives. Clearly we failed.
Well our democratically elected politicians had a meeting today on plans to subvert a democratic vote.
You mean to subvert a referendum result, Curry.
There should be a special place in hell for those who speak of referendums as if identical with democracy.
Yes, it's time to nail this "respecting the democratic result" nonsense with a bucketful of nails.
I voted LEAVE - what I didn't do was sign a blank cheque to the Conservative Party (for whom running a bath is a major undertaking never mind running the country) to arrange whatever version of leaving the EU they wanted and assume it had my support.
Only 26% support No Deal according to YouGov so that means half of those who voted LEAVE in 2016 don't back it so where is there any legitimacy for a No Deal exit on 31/10? The only reasons therefore for Johnson's obduracy must be a) his own political survival and b) the political survival of the Conservative Party neither or which interest me or many other people.
Presumably this exact outcome figured in your deliberations before you voted Leave? Surely you did not vote Leave without accepting that it might come to precisely this? Because to have done so would be crazy.
But why would anyone think no deal would be the outcome when they were told we would never leave without a deal, it would be the easiest deal in history, we held all the cards...... even my own MP assured me, Fysh Of ERG infamy wrote to me three months before the referendum to assure me we would never leave EEA/EFTA.
It's a convienient fiction for plenty of the Letwin, Hammond, Soames "soft remain" brigade in the Tories to buy into though - less so the "hard remain" Grieve, Lee, Bebbs mind.
Agree on the whole with your 'remain' categories but I sense Hammond is going hard now.
Wouldn't shock me if he was anyway. He has a look about him.
Mr. rkrkrk, it's pish to consider me an extremist.
Even before the result came in, and afterwards, I said there was a broad spectrum of leaving deals that I thought could be satisfactory (even single market membership, potentially). The solitary red line I had, and retain, is customs union membership. It makes no sense to stay in that whilst leaving the EU. It's utterly irrational.
Wow. Just saw today's chilling Daily Express headline about Boris's plan to stuff parliament with puppet legislators. This sort of behaviour would shame a banana republic.
Well our democratically elected politicians had a meeting today on plans to subvert a democratic vote.
You mean to subvert a referendum result, Curry.
There should be a special place in hell for those who speak of referendums as if identical with democracy.
Referendums are probably the purest form of democracy.
Nope - they result in people voting on issues which they may not fully bother to understand.
Politicians exist and are paid to ensure they fully research issues and then vote for what is best for their constituents.
What do you mean 'Nope' ? Referendums are, by definition, the purest form of democracy.
Our representative democracy is only a democracy of sorts. (Not to mention the horrendous House of Lords situation)
Whose definition, for heaven's sake?
Referendums and democracy have been with us for thousands of years. They have been debated by the wisest and sharpest minds, yet you will find no unanimity as to the meaning of either. And the relationship between the two can only be described as complex to put it mildly.
Come off it - the English language is only so malleable.
Well our democratically elected politicians had a meeting today on plans to subvert a democratic vote.
You mean to subvert a referendum result, Curry.
There should be a special place in hell for those who speak of referendums as if identical with democracy.
Yes, it's time to nail this "respecting the democratic result" nonsense with a bucketful of nails.
I voted LEAVE - what I didn't do was sign a blank cheque to the Conservative Party (for whom running a bath is a major undertaking never mind running the country) to arrange whatever version of leaving the EU they wanted and assume it had my support.
Only 26% support No Deal according to YouGov so that means half of those who voted LEAVE in 2016 don't back it so where is there any legitimacy for a No Deal exit on 31/10? The only reasons therefore for Johnson's obduracy must be a) his own political survival and b) the political survival of the Conservative Party neither or which interest me or many other people.
Presumably this exact outcome figured in your deliberations before you voted Leave? Surely you did not vote Leave without accepting that it might come to precisely this? Because to have done so would be crazy.
But why would anyone think no deal would be the outcome when they were told we would never leave without a deal, it would be the easiest deal in history, we held all the cards...... even my own MP assured me, Fysh Of ERG infamy wrote to me three months before the referendum to assure me we would never leave EEA/EFTA.
Because politics is fluid and several scenarios might transpire like, oh I don't know, an election called and a majority lost, a faction of the ruling party that decides to rebel, party political shenanigans from the opposition (that would have been a tough one to forecast), any number of things.
As I said, precisely the current situation should have been in any sensible person's scenario analysis. Especially given the famed "question on the ballot paper". For people to be surprised that we have ended up here for me is the more egregious act than voting Leave in the first place yet being prepared (cf @Richard_Tyndall ) for anything that transpired as long as we were out.
Well our democratically elected politicians had a meeting today on plans to subvert a democratic vote.
You mean to subvert a referendum result, Curry.
There should be a special place in hell for those who speak of referendums as if identical with democracy.
Yes, it's time to nail this "respecting the democratic result" nonsense with a bucketful of nails.
I voted LEAVE - what I didn't do was sign a blank cheque to the Conservative Party (for whom running a bath is a major undertaking never mind running the country) to arrange whatever version of leaving the EU they wanted and assume it had my support.
Only 26% support No Deal according to YouGov so that means half of those who voted LEAVE in 2016 don't back it so where is there any legitimacy for a No Deal exit on 31/10? The only reasons therefore for Johnson's obduracy must be a) his own political survival and b) the political survival of the Conservative Party neither or which interest me or many other people.
Presumably this exact outcome figured in your deliberations before you voted Leave? Surely you did not vote Leave without accepting that it might come to precisely this? Because to have done so would be crazy.
It's rare to delegate a decision to the people, but they did. In voting leave (or Remain) it is accepted that people have a mixture of incompatible motives, just as we do when electing a government. Parliament did not, and cannot, delegate to the people the fine tuning of how we leave (or how we would remain) any more than a Yes in the IndyRef would have meant that the Scottish people decide how the deed would be done. The problem is that parliament has a job to do and has done it badly and not at all so far. In any event taking it back to the people won't make parliament a better body of people. They will still have their job to do. There is just a chance that Boris and co intend actually to do it, using the sort of methods with parliament (like facing up to the realities of choice, and the actuality of what they, over the years have done) that TM did not use. Not least because she bottled out of hardball negotiating taken to the wire.
Well our democratically elected politicians had a meeting today on plans to subvert a democratic vote.
You mean to subvert a referendum result, Curry.
There should be a special place in hell for those who speak of referendums as if identical with democracy.
Yes, it's time to nail this "respecting the democratic result" nonsense with a bucketful of nails.
I voted LEAVE - what I didn't do was sign a blank cheque to the Conservative Party (for whom running a bath is a major undertaking never mind running the country) to arrange whatever version of leaving the EU they wanted and assume it had my support.
Only 26% support No Deal according to YouGov so that means half of those who voted LEAVE in 2016 don't back it so where is there any legitimacy for a No Deal exit on 31/10? The only reasons therefore for Johnson's obduracy must be a) his own political survival and b) the political survival of the Conservative Party neither or which interest me or many other people.
Stodge, to be fair the Conservative Government called the referendum to obtain the views of the people on whether they wanted to stay in the EU, so surely it's understandable that that Government, or one of that Party, should decide on how to implement the result.
Yes, and one can understand that. The trouble was that the basic idea was unsound. If however the winning side had had a coherent plan and means of implementation, it could have worked.
Some decent Leaders would have helped too, but in that respect if no other, both sides were deficient.
Well our democratically elected politicians had a meeting today on plans to subvert a democratic vote.
You mean to subvert a referendum result, Curry.
There should be a special place in hell for those who speak of referendums as if identical with democracy.
Yes, it's time to nail this "respecting the democratic result" nonsense with a bucketful of nails.
I voted LEAVE - what I didn't do was sign a blank cheque to the Conservative Party (for whom running a bath is a major undertaking never mind running the country) to arrange whatever version of leaving the EU they wanted and assume it had my support.
Only 26% support No Deal according to YouGov so that means half of those who voted LEAVE in 2016 don't back it so where is there any legitimacy for a No Deal exit on 31/10? The only reasons therefore for Johnson's obduracy must be a) his own political survival and b) the political survival of the Conservative Party neither or which interest me or many other people.
Presumably this exact outcome figured in your deliberations before you voted Leave? Surely you did not vote Leave without accepting that it might come to precisely this? Because to have done so would be crazy.
But why would anyone think no deal would be the outcome when they were told we would never leave without a deal, it would be the easiest deal in history, we held all the cards...... even my own MP assured me, Fysh Of ERG infamy wrote to me three months before the referendum to assure me we would never leave EEA/EFTA.
Because politics is fluid and several scenarios might transpire like, oh I don't know, an election called and a majority lost, a faction of the ruling party that decides to rebel, party political shenanigans from the opposition (that would have been a tough one to forecast), any number of things.
As I said, precisely the current situation should have been in any sensible person's scenario analysis. Especially given the famed "question on the ballot paper". For people to be surprised that we have ended up here for me is the more egregious act than voting Leave in the first place yet being prepared (cf @Richard_Tyndall ) for anything that transpired as long as we were out.
Good chance of No Deal only because so many want Remain and won't compromise.
Wow. Just saw today's chilling Daily Express headline about Boris's plan to stuff parliament with puppet legislators. This sort of behaviour would shame a banana republic.
Well our democratically elected politicians had a meeting today on plans to subvert a democratic vote.
You mean the vote that according to Farage today can only be satisfied by a No Deal. Shame he didn't manage to inform us of that little nugget before we voted.
Parliament (elected after the referendum) has every right to try to stop a form of Brexit that we were promised would not happen by the leavers themselves.
Wow. Just saw today's chilling Daily Express headline about Boris's plan to stuff parliament with puppet legislators. This sort of behaviour would shame a banana republic.
Well our democratically elected politicians had a meeting today on plans to subvert a democratic vote.
You mean to subvert a referendum result, Curry.
There should be a special place in hell for those who speak of referendums as if identical with democracy.
Referendums are probably the purest form of democracy.
Nope - they result in people voting on issues which they may not fully bother to understand.
Politicians exist and are paid to ensure they fully research issues and then vote for what is best for their constituents.
What do you mean 'Nope' ? Referendums are, by definition, the purest form of democracy.
Our representative democracy is only a democracy of sorts. (Not to mention the horrendous House of Lords situation)
Whose definition, for heaven's sake?
Referendums and democracy have been with us for thousands of years. They have been debated by the wisest and sharpest minds, yet you will find no unanimity as to the meaning of either. And the relationship between the two can only be described as complex to put it mildly.
Come off it - the English language is only so malleable.
Good chance of No Deal only because so many want Remain and won't compromise.
Good chance of no deal because, of the set of all possible outcomes No Deal had a relatively high probability. Increased further by and after the 2017 GE.
If every Conservative and DUP MP had voted for the deal to leave we would have been out for six months by now. To say that the Labour or any other opposition party should have supported the government is to misunderstand British politics and is, if I may say, slightly naive.
Bury are facing expulsion from the English Football League after the company attempting to buy the club, C&N Sporting Risk, said it was unable to proceed with its takeover.
Well our democratically elected politicians had a meeting today on plans to subvert a democratic vote.
You mean to subvert a referendum result, Curry.
There should be a special place in hell for those who speak of referendums as if identical with democracy.
Yes, it's time to nail this "respecting the democratic result" nonsense with a bucketful of nails.
I voted LEAVE - what I didn't do was sign a blank cheque to the Conservative Party (for whom running a bath is a major undertaking never mind running the country) to arrange whatever version of leaving the EU they wanted and assume it had my support.
Only 26% support No Deal according to YouGov so that means half of those who voted LEAVE in 2016 don't back it so where is there any legitimacy for a No Deal exit on 31/10? The only reasons therefore for Johnson's obduracy must be a) his own political survival and b) the political survival of the Conservative Party neither or which interest me or many other people.
Presumably this exact outcome figured in your deliberations before you voted Leave? Surely you did not vote Leave without accepting that it might come to precisely this? Because to have done so would be crazy.
But why would anyone think no deal would be the outcome when they were told we would never leave without a deal, it would be the easiest deal in history, we held all the cards...... even my own MP assured me, Fysh Of ERG infamy wrote to me three months before the referendum to assure me we would never leave EEA/EFTA.
Because politics is fluid and several scenarios might transpire like, oh I don't know, an election called and a majority lost, a faction of the ruling party that decides to rebel, party political shenanigans from the opposition (that would have been a tough one to forecast), any number of things.
As I said, precisely the current situation should have been in any sensible person's scenario analysis. Especially given the famed "question on the ballot paper". For people to be surprised that we have ended up here for me is the more egregious act than voting Leave in the first place yet being prepared (cf @Richard_Tyndall ) for anything that transpired as long as we were out.
Good chance of No Deal only because so many want Remain and won't compromise.
I see Scotland as relevant to a GE in its negative effects. By that I mean that the Tories might well lose 10 seats making their overall target of a majority more difficult. In contrast I would say their upside is probably 2 more, possibly 3. Labour may well lose 6-7. At the moment it is very hard to imagine them gaining any but there are quite a number of SNP seats in the west with razor thin majorities. The overall effects on Labour are likely to be negative but modest.
The Lib Dem’s will have high hopes of gaining 1-2 more seats but also have seats at risk, notably their leader. I can’t see things changing materially but I would probably have said that before 2015 as well.
Labour's performance in Scotland will dependant on what happens GB wide. If we find the parties neck and neck - or a small Labour lead - I can see Labour picking up SNP seats in Glasgow and the Central Belt.
To be honest I can't. Scottish Labour are in a very bad place. For them to pick up these seats they would need a sharp fall in the SNP vote and that is looking unlikely.
Scotland is the most Anti Brexit region of the UK. This has not changed since the referendum. Any election that is based on a hard Brexit will be bad for the Tories.
In many ways over the last decade Scotland has become more European than England. It does not do Marxism anymore or even big Government. It is very Scandinavian in its feel.
Well we will no doubt see but I think that you are wrong. The remain vote is split between the SNP, the Lib Dems, the Greens and (on certain days of the week) Labour. The leave vote, just over 1m votes, is likely to be largely uncontested although some SNP supporters also voted leave. I will be amazed if either UKIP or TBP get anywhere near a full slate up here.
Surely 2017 was the high-water mark for the Tories in Scotland in terms of monopolising the Brexit and pro-union votes.
Probably but it is not certain. Ruth is the face of Unionism in Scotland, that is why our SNP friends give her so much abuse on here. Labour have no equivalent any more. Kezia was close, Leonard is invisible.
As a remainer herself Brexit is more complicated but Tory MPs don't seem to find it so. The ponds in which they are fishing are smaller but there are far fewer anglers throwing out bait.
David, we gave her abuse because she is rank rotten, only utterances ever are SNPBAD , no indyref2. Dugdale was worse, she was Davidson with her brains knocked out.
I see Scotland as relevant to a GE in its negative effects. By that I mean that the Tories might well lose 10 seats making their overall target of a majority more difficult. In contrast I would say their upside is probably 2 more, possibly 3. Labour may well lose 6-7. At the moment it is very hard to imagine them gaining any but there are quite a number of SNP seats in the west with razor thin majorities. The overall effects on Labour are likely to be negative but modest.
The Lib Dem’s will have high hopes of gaining 1-2 more seats but also have seats at risk, notably their leader. I can’t see things changing materially but I would probably have said that before 2015 as well.
Labour's performance in Scotland will dependant on what happens GB wide. If we find the parties neck and neck - or a small Labour lead - I can see Labour picking up SNP seats in Glasgow and the Central Belt.
To be honest I can't. Scottish Labour are in a very bad place. For them to pick up these seats they would need a sharp fall in the SNP vote and that is looking unlikely.
Scotland is the most Anti Brexit region of the UK. This has not changed since the referendum. Any election that is based on a hard Brexit will be bad for the Tories.
In many ways over the last decade Scotland has become more European than England. It does not do Marxism anymore or even big Government. It is very Scandinavian in its feel.
Well we will no doubt see but I think that you are wrong. The remain vote is split between the SNP, the Lib Dems, the Greens and (on certain days of the week) Labour. The leave vote, just over 1m votes, is likely to be largely uncontested although some SNP supporters also voted leave. I will be amazed if either UKIP or TBP get anywhere near a full slate up here.
Surely 2017 was the high-water mark for the Tories in Scotland in terms of monopolising the Brexit and pro-union votes.
Those 2017 tory votes were anti-separatist (Davidson's a remainer remember)
2015 was peak SNP
It's only downwards for broken sleazy Separatists.
Dear dear , still on your belly I see Brisket, unable to function on your own , need to be 100% looked after. Is it any wonder the UK is in such a state.
Mr. rkrkrk, leaving the EU and staying in the customs union is dafter than a mongoose wearing a fez. It's bloody ludicrous.
You'd have to be stark raving mad to support something like that.
Or an MP.
[Morris Dancer does not support leaving the EU and staying in the customs union].
Leaving the single market to move to WTO terms is bloody ludicrous but that's where we are heading, even more ludicrous that the likes of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, and other great wallahs of Vote Leave said during the referendum campaign that moving to WTO terms was Project Fear.
Well our democratically elected politicians had a meeting today on plans to subvert a democratic vote.
You mean to subvert a referendum result, Curry.
There should be a special place in hell for those who speak of referendums as if identical with democracy.
Yes, it's time to nail this "respecting the democratic result" nonsense with a bucketful of nails.
I voted LEAVE - what I didn't do was sign a blank cheque to the Conservative Party (for whom running a bath is a major undertaking never mind running the country) to arrange whatever version of leaving the EU they wanted and assume it had my support.
Only 26% support No Deal according to YouGov so that means half of those who voted LEAVE in 2016 don't back it so where is there any legitimacy for a No Deal exit on 31/10? The only reasons therefore for Johnson's obduracy must be a) his own political survival and b) the political survival of the Conservative Party neither or which interest me or many other people.
Presumably this exact outcome figured in your deliberations before you voted Leave? Surely you did not vote Leave without accepting that it might come to precisely this? Because to have done so would be crazy.
But why would anyone think no deal would be the outcome when they were told we would never leave without a deal, it would be the easiest deal in history, we held all the cards...... even my own MP assured me, Fysh Of ERG infamy wrote to me three months before the referendum to assure me we would never leave EEA/EFTA.
Bury are facing expulsion from the English Football League after the company attempting to buy the club, C&N Sporting Risk, said it was unable to proceed with its takeover.
So that's both Bolton and Bury gone.
I would claim to be sad about it but it's happened before to Darlington, Maidstone, and Aldershot to name a few.
Well our democratically elected politicians had a meeting today on plans to subvert a democratic vote.
You mean to subvert a referendum result, Curry.
There should be a special place in hell for those who speak of referendums as if identical with democracy.
Yes, it's time to nail this "respecting the democratic result" nonsense with a bucketful of nails.
I voted LEAVE - what I didn't do was sign a blank cheque to the Conservative Party (for whom running a bath is a major undertaking never mind running the country) to arrange whatever version of leaving the EU they wanted and assume it had my support.
Only 26% support No Deal according to YouGov so that means half of those who voted LEAVE in 2016 don't back it so where is there any legitimacy for a No Deal exit on 31/10? The only reasons therefore for Johnson's obduracy must be a) his own political survival and b) the political survival of the Conservative Party neither or which interest me or many other people.
Well actually yes, signing a blank cheque is precisely what you were doing. Cameron's the one responsible for presenting you with such a stupid decision by not having the vote be on a specific vision for Remain, but you're responsible for the choice you made
Wrong. For example the EU privileges the migration rights of a Lithuanian fruit picker over a Tanzanian computer scientist. Brexit would allow a liberal government to treat all foreign nationals as equals, not allowed at the moment.
This idea of treating all foreigners as equal is such wretched cant. I've never found anybody who genuinely believes it. Do you want the same rules for Irish citizens as for people from Tanzania?
Irish is a special case for reasons going back 800 years. It is a local anomaly. But I absolutely support the general principle of treating all foreign nationals according to a single set of rules, and not privileging a particular 450,000,000 of them. And I accept it works both ways.
No reciprocal deals on migration with any countries at all? If Australia offered free movement with the UK, you would object to it on principle?
It would be popular but I am not sure it would be right in principle. I think we would end up with something as ethnically racist as the EU at its worst. The Tanzanian computer scientist (see above) by the way is a real person, a friend of mine, now back in Tanzania because of the policy of the Home Office, with racist overtones, which has to be ludicrously tough on skilled people from outside the EU as so many EU unskilled people were coming into the UK.
As an aside, Ocasio-Cortez has been making comments about shifting the presidential election to a popular vote, removing the electoral college.
Doubt it'll have an impact, but an interesting comment.
Most Democrats have been in favour of making the change for a long time. They've only lost the popular vote once since 1990.
The colossal, almost guaranteed, weight of Democrat votes in California makes this a no brainer for the Democrats. The GOP has nowhere else that makes up for it - in fact AL, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, OK, TX, WV, WY combined equal the Dem vote majority in California, which is worth 99 ECVs as opposed to 55.
I see Scotland as relevant to a GE in its negative effects. By that I mean that the Tories might well lose 10 seats making their overall target of a majority more difficult. In contrast I would say their upside is probably 2 more, possibly 3. Labour may well lose 6-7. At the moment it is very hard to imagine them gaining any but there are quite a number of SNP seats in the west with razor thin majorities. The overall effects on Labour are likely to be negative but modest.
The Lib Dem’s will have high hopes of gaining 1-2 more seats but also have seats at risk, notably their leader. I can’t see things changing materially but I would probably have said that before 2015 as well.
Labour's performance in Scotland will dependant on what happens GB wide. If we find the parties neck and neck - or a small Labour lead - I can see Labour picking up SNP seats in Glasgow and the Central Belt.
To be honest I can't. Scottish Labour are in a very bad place. For them to pick up these seats they would need a sharp fall in the SNP vote and that is looking unlikely.
Labour's polling in Scotland is not as low as back in April 2017. The Labour recovery which then occurred surprised - almost - everybody.At an election held today, I could see Labour polling circa 20% there - with the Tories at a similar level. The potential is still there ,however, for Labour to get to circa 30% with the SNP polling no more than 35%.
That will be the SNP Manifesto that boldly says it will implement Prohibition? Can't think of many other ways they drop to 35%.....
Really? They only polled 37% in 2017 and the most recent poll gives them 38%. In a Westminster election, I expect their vote share to slip.
Bury are facing expulsion from the English Football League after the company attempting to buy the club, C&N Sporting Risk, said it was unable to proceed with its takeover.
So that's both Bolton and Bury gone.
I would claim to be sad about it but it's happened before to Darlington, Maidstone, and Aldershot to name a few.
I'm sadden by it, it could happen to anyone, we had awful owners who took Liverpool from Champions league finalists to hours of administration in three years.
Wow. Just saw today's chilling Daily Express headline about Boris's plan to stuff parliament with puppet legislators. This sort of behaviour would shame a banana republic.
Well our democratically elected politicians had a meeting today on plans to subvert a democratic vote.
You mean to subvert a referendum result, Curry.
There should be a special place in hell for those who speak of referendums as if identical with democracy.
Referendums are probably the purest form of democracy.
Nope - they result in people voting on issues which they may not fully bother to understand.
Politicians exist and are paid to ensure they fully research issues and then vote for what is best for their constituents.
What do you mean 'Nope' ? Referendums are, by definition, the purest form of democracy.
Our representative democracy is only a democracy of sorts. (Not to mention the horrendous House of Lords situation)
Whose definition, for heaven's sake?
Referendums and democracy have been with us for thousands of years. They have been debated by the wisest and sharpest minds, yet you will find no unanimity as to the meaning of either. And the relationship between the two can only be described as complex to put it mildly.
Come off it - the English language is only so malleable.
Why do you think more democracy is automatically better than less? The best documented direct democracy in history is ancient Athens. This was a group of people so sophisticated that they went en masse to watch fucking Euripidean tragedy *for pleasure,* and they mindlessly voted for wholesale judicial murder of their own fellow citizens and foreign women and children, time and time again, on the basis of Sun editorials (or equivalent). And to make things worse, Cameron's stupid wheeze in the AV vote has weaponised the repulsive national mawkishness over the NHS in such a way that referendums are even more easily subverted than they were before. Let's take the cost of a third runway, or of HS2, or of keeping lifers for life rather than hanging them, and give it to the NHS.
I see Scotland as relevant to a GE in its negative effects. By that I mean that the Tories might well lose 10 seats making their overall target of a majority more difficult. In contrast I would say their upside is probably 2 more, possibly 3. Labour may well lose 6-7. At the moment it is very hard to imagine them gaining any but there are quite a number of SNP seats in the west with razor thin majorities. The overall effects on Labour are likely to be negative but modest.
The Lib Dem’s will have high hopes of gaining 1-2 more seats but also have seats at risk, notably their leader. I can’t see things changing materially but I would probably have said that before 2015 as well.
Labour's performance in Scotland will dependant on what happens GB wide. If we find the parties neck and neck - or a small Labour lead - I can see Labour picking up SNP seats in Glasgow and the Central Belt.
To be honest I can't. Scottish Labour are in a very bad place. For them to pick up these seats they would need a sharp fall in the SNP vote and that is looking unlikely.
Labour's polling in Scotland is not as low as back in April 2017. The Labour recovery which then occurred surprised - almost - everybody.At an election held today, I could see Labour polling circa 20% there - with the Tories at a similar level. The potential is still there ,however, for Labour to get to circa 30% with the SNP polling no more than 35%.
That will be the SNP Manifesto that boldly says it will implement Prohibition? Can't think of many other ways they drop to 35%.....
Given their nanny-stataism I wouldn't rule it out. They won't be happy until all we're left with is Irn Bru and BBC Scotland.
Bury are facing expulsion from the English Football League after the company attempting to buy the club, C&N Sporting Risk, said it was unable to proceed with its takeover.
It's all very sad and everything, but the sight of football fans being sad/angry/devastated/gutted/bereaved/cross/despairing and looking for someone to blame when after all this time other people's money has finally run out and they are unable to locate another mug foolish enough to pour loads more down this communal black hole, coupled with their conspicuous lack of willingness to put up their house/job or sell their children into slavery to own it themselves is fine theatre of its sort. And as with so many things the BBC manages to ask all the questions except the hard ones.
Bury are facing expulsion from the English Football League after the company attempting to buy the club, C&N Sporting Risk, said it was unable to proceed with its takeover.
Is there any way Steve Dale can be bankrupted by the whole process ?
Wow. Just saw today's chilling Daily Express headline about Boris's plan to stuff parliament with puppet legislators. This sort of behaviour would shame a banana republic.
Well our democratically elected politicians had a meeting today on plans to subvert a democratic vote.
You mean to subvert a referendum result, Curry.
There should be a special place in hell for those who speak of referendums as if identical with democracy.
Referendums are probably the purest form of democracy.
Nope - they result in people voting on issues which they may not fully bother to understand.
Politicians exist and are paid to ensure they fully research issues and then vote for what is best for their constituents.
What do you mean 'Nope' ? Referendums are, by definition, the purest form of democracy.
Our representative democracy is only a democracy of sorts. (Not to mention the horrendous House of Lords situation)
Whose definition, for heaven's sake?
Referendums and democracy have been with us for thousands of years. They have been debated by the wisest and sharpest minds, yet you will find no unanimity as to the meaning of either. And the relationship between the two can only be described as complex to put it mildly.
Come off it - the English language is only so malleable.
Why do you think more democracy is automatically better than less? The best documented direct democracy in history is ancient Athens. This was a group of people so sophisticated that they went en masse to watch fucking Euripidean tragedy *for pleasure,* and they mindlessly voted for wholesale judicial murder of their own fellow citizens and foreign women and children, time and time again, on the basis of Sun editorials (or equivalent). And to make things worse, Cameron's stupid wheeze in the AV vote has weaponised the repulsive national mawkishness over the NHS in such a way that referendums are even more easily subverted than they were before. Let's take the cost of a third runway, or of HS2, or of keeping lifers for life rather than hanging them, and give it to the NHS.
Is that how you want to be governed?
I never said that more democracy is better than less. In fact when I'm LPII this might well be what happens.
I see Scotland as relevant to a GE in its negative effects. By that I mean that the Tories might well lose 10 seats making their overall target of a majority more difficult. In contrast I would say their upside is probably 2 more, possibly 3. Labour may well lose 6-7. At the moment it is very hard to imagine them gaining any but there are quite a number of SNP seats in the west with razor thin majorities. The overall effects on Labour are likely to be negative but modest.
The Lib Dem’s will have high hopes of gaining 1-2 more seats but also have seats at risk, notably their leader. I can’t see things changing materially but I would probably have said that before 2015 as well.
Labour's performance in Scotland will dependant on what happens GB wide. If we find the parties neck and neck - or a small Labour lead - I can see Labour picking up SNP seats in Glasgow and the Central Belt.
To be honest I can't. Scottish Labour are in a very bad place. For them to pick up these seats they would need a sharp fall in the SNP vote and that is looking unlikely.
Labour's polling in Scotland is not as low as back in April 2017. The Labour recovery which then occurred surprised - almost - everybody.At an election held today, I could see Labour polling circa 20% there - with the Tories at a similar level. The potential is still there ,however, for Labour to get to circa 30% with the SNP polling no more than 35%.
That will be the SNP Manifesto that boldly says it will implement Prohibition? Can't think of many other ways they drop to 35%.....
Given their nanny-stataism I wouldn't rule it out. They won't be happy until all we're left with is Irn Bru and BBC Scotland.
Bollox
It's all going in one direction Malky. Don't rule out your Irn bru and BBC Scotland lifestyle happening (even under devolution)
Soubrey and the other dipshits will look awful if Boris gets a deal despite their best efforts. I mean shockingly, iredeemably awful. SNP are going to look especially bad.Teehee.
Soubrey and the other dipshits will look awful if Boris gets a deal despite their best efforts. I mean shockingly, iredeemably awful. SNP are going to look especially bad.Teehee.
And the EU of course. It has been unswervingly opposed to any deal other than the one negotiated with the British Prime Minister, Theresa May.
It will look effing stupid if it offers Boris Johnson something better.
Bury are facing expulsion from the English Football League after the company attempting to buy the club, C&N Sporting Risk, said it was unable to proceed with its takeover.
Is there any way Steve Dale can be bankrupted by the whole process ?
I doubt it... remember he packaged up club debt and sold debt to a family member.
Bury are facing expulsion from the English Football League after the company attempting to buy the club, C&N Sporting Risk, said it was unable to proceed with its takeover.
So that's both Bolton and Bury gone.
I would claim to be sad about it but it's happened before to Darlington, Maidstone, and Aldershot to name a few.
I'm sadden by it, it could happen to anyone, we had awful owners who took Liverpool from Champions league finalists to hours of administration in three years.
As i said last night, my own club crewe who have traditionally been very well run financially, made a silly mistake by taking investment from an individual who in turn put in a load of financial obligations to enrich himself.
The club is still on the hook for them and cant even buy him / them out for a reasonable price and so every year £100ks goes out the door.
Bury are facing expulsion from the English Football League after the company attempting to buy the club, C&N Sporting Risk, said it was unable to proceed with its takeover.
It's all very sad and everything, but the sight of football fans being sad/angry/devastated/gutted/bereaved/cross/despairing and looking for someone to blame when after all this time other people's money has finally run out and they are unable to locate another mug foolish enough to pour loads more down this communal black hole, coupled with their conspicuous lack of willingness to put up their house/job or sell their children into slavery to own it themselves is fine theatre of its sort. And as with so many things the BBC manages to ask all the questions except the hard ones.
It'd be moving heaven and earth to make it so, but I wonder if a tiered franchise structure might be the way to go ? It'd be the equivalent of the Apollo program to implement one which encompasses promotion and relegation, but I doubt that would be the main issue. Greedy agents losing out and the difficulty in creating a sound Europe wide structure (Which would be needed) are the intractables, not promotion and relegation.
Soubrey and the other dipshits will look awful if Boris gets a deal despite their best efforts. I mean shockingly, iredeemably awful. SNP are going to look especially bad.Teehee.
And the EU of course. It has been unswervingly opposed to any deal other than the one negotiated with the British Prime Minister, Theresa May.
It will look effing stupid if it offers Boris Johnson something better.
Comments
It's very much the mystery of Johnson: he is both the buffoon, and intelligent/capable. Unlike Trump, he has the potential to grow into the job …. although self-interest and a lack of principles mean he'll never be well suited to it.
The problem is that May reframed the whole debate to put a hard brexit against a no deal brexit.
This is May’s fault.
Blair got elected three times
What is it with their aversion to Scottish threads?
Had she gone for an overt BINO it might have been supported by enough opposition MPs to get through.
There's a bigger political problem - IF a Deal had been passed, it would have been used cynically to the electoral advantage of the Conservative Party, May would have walked and the new PM would have immediately gone to the country on a platform of "vote for the Conservatives, we delivered Brexit" and amid much euphoria would have gained an election victory.
I don't want a Conservative Government - I don't want a Labour Government either - so why should I (were I an opposition MP) pass a bad deal just to make the Conservatives election winners? It's cynical I know but it's how the political game operates.
The Labour view is, legitimately for once, that they wouldn't have started from here. They would have negotiated a completely different deal and whether this could have been the case or not is irrelevant. Because no doubt they would have. Had they been in government and had the numbers in parliament and...and...
Such supposition is allowed from the opposition. And positively unavoidable if a large swathe of the government's own party and its allies likewise vote against a deal.
If Boris does as you suggest and brings back a workable deal then it will continue to be up to the Conservative Party and the DUP to vote it through.
Doubt it'll have an impact, but an interesting comment.
There should be a special place in hell for those who speak of referendums as if identical with democracy.
For all the (often correct) criticism of the ERG, they've voted for what they want. Labour, the Lib Dems, and others have voted against the only deal that was available at the time, and spent the time since bitching about the very thing they supported in Parliament.
https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Alastor_Moody
Now the mess that general election created means leaving is proving rather harder than we expected but those politicians all have mandates from after the referendum result..
Btw, I read your piece on N Ireland and enjoyed it very much. I was too busy to comment at the time but it confirmed my view that many of the thread headers here are at least as good if not better than what we pay good money for in the quality Press.
Thank you and well done.
Politicians exist and are paid to ensure they fully research issues and then vote for what is best for their constituents.
Irish population changes from last year.More brits mvoing to Ireland, more Irish mving to UK and US isnt that interesting
https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/abroad/more-irish-emigrants-leaving-the-country-than-returning-again-1.3998770
Our representative democracy is only a democracy of sorts. (Not to mention the horrendous House of Lords situation)
Surely you're not suggesting a politician seeks to alter the electoral system to benefit their own side?! Sacre bleu!
Mr. rkrkrk, oh, aye, they brought themselves to vote for some bloody stupid ideas, but not the thing that would've delivered a deal.
They had that opportunity three times.
Getting another referendum would, despite other drawbacks, also offer progress to endorse a deal, or reject it firmly, or to remain. Instead, MPs have faffed about, opposing everything, voting for things they don't even want, and behaving irresponsibly.
Glad to see so many people would cast the net of blame so widely. It's deserved.
Btw, does anyone know who Cummings is using now that CA are in liquidation?
I voted LEAVE - what I didn't do was sign a blank cheque to the Conservative Party (for whom running a bath is a major undertaking never mind running the country) to arrange whatever version of leaving the EU they wanted and assume it had my support.
Only 26% support No Deal according to YouGov so that means half of those who voted LEAVE in 2016 don't back it so where is there any legitimacy for a No Deal exit on 31/10? The only reasons therefore for Johnson's obduracy must be a) his own political survival and b) the political survival of the Conservative Party neither or which interest me or many other people.
We start at the top - Juncker and the EU elite and work our way down. Hanging will be too good for them. The great unwashed however should be allowed to escape with minor fines and community service.
When you're hurtling through space towards the heart of the sun, nobody can hear you pretend being pissed is a case of sciatica.
Not really fair to say 26% support no deal. Surely its just 26% in that poll have No Deal as their first choice. I'd say the majority view (or at least a very large minority) is in line with what Johnson is doing ie. wants a deal as his first choice but if one cannot be agreed then no deal is his second choice. That represents my viewpoint too.
You might call them bloody stupid, but others would see them as workable compromises given the divided nature of our nation on the issue.
Once upon a time, the Conservative Party could claim that it stood up for the interests of ordinary British people. Not any more, I fear.
You'd have to be stark raving mad to support something like that.
Or an MP.
[Morris Dancer does not support leaving the EU and staying in the customs union].
Referendums and democracy have been with us for thousands of years. They have been debated by the wisest and sharpest minds, yet you will find no unanimity as to the meaning of either. And the relationship between the two can only be described as complex to put it mildly.
Oh well, we tried to find a compromise, indeed proposed multiple alternatives.
Clearly we failed.
Wouldn't shock me if he was anyway. He has a look about him.
Heat of battle stiffens the resolve.
Even before the result came in, and afterwards, I said there was a broad spectrum of leaving deals that I thought could be satisfactory (even single market membership, potentially). The solitary red line I had, and retain, is customs union membership. It makes no sense to stay in that whilst leaving the EU. It's utterly irrational.
Anyway, I must be off. Delenda est Marxism.
As I said, precisely the current situation should have been in any sensible person's scenario analysis. Especially given the famed "question on the ballot paper". For people to be surprised that we have ended up here for me is the more egregious act than voting Leave in the first place yet being prepared (cf @Richard_Tyndall ) for anything that transpired as long as we were out.
Some decent Leaders would have helped too, but in that respect if no other, both sides were deficient.
Parliament (elected after the referendum) has every right to try to stop a form of Brexit that we were promised would not happen by the leavers themselves.
If every Conservative and DUP MP had voted for the deal to leave we would have been out for six months by now. To say that the Labour or any other opposition party should have supported the government is to misunderstand British politics and is, if I may say, slightly naive.
Btw, was that during the campaign or after?
I would claim to be sad about it but it's happened before to Darlington, Maidstone, and Aldershot to name a few.
The GOP has nowhere else that makes up for it - in fact AL, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, OK, TX, WV, WY combined equal the Dem vote majority in California, which is worth 99 ECVs as opposed to 55.
Is that how you want to be governed?
It will look effing stupid if it offers Boris Johnson something better.
The club is still on the hook for them and cant even buy him / them out for a reasonable price and so every year £100ks goes out the door.
It'd be the equivalent of the Apollo program to implement one which encompasses promotion and relegation, but I doubt that would be the main issue. Greedy agents losing out and the difficulty in creating a sound Europe wide structure (Which would be needed) are the intractables, not promotion and relegation.