The Wire came out in 2002; the Sopranos in 1999. Both totemic, revolutionary works of art. Perhaps at that time you were working towards your affluence so didn't have the time. You should watch them now.
Yes, that is the actual reason - work, pub, home, crash, work, repeat - watch sport and bet at the w/e.
Probably I will binge watch most of those top 5s at some point. It's the modern equivalent of reading 'those books*' you've failed to find time for when you were younger.
* We all know the ones.
I've been meaning to get round to this one for some time. I'm sure yours is well-thumbed.
The Lib Dem policy has the merits of candour and clarity. We know that you stupid people voted to leave but we don’t care. We know better. And actually a good chunk of those that voted remain will do us just fine, thank you very much.
It’s undemocratic and morally questionable but it might well work.
Why is it undemocratic to put a policy in your manifesto and implement it if you win a majority?
Because we were asked and we answered. That’s how democracy works.
But the LDs can only get a majority if there is a democratic election and they win it.
Why would it be a democratic election? If they don't respect democratic referendums then what happens if the opposition don't respect democratic general elections and ensures the result is invalid. Having a policy for if you win a vote doesn't carry quite the same weight if you have previously been selective about what votes are actually worth respecting.
The Lib Dem policy has the merits of candour and clarity. We know that you stupid people voted to leave but we don’t care. We know better. And actually a good chunk of those that voted remain will do us just fine, thank you very much.
It’s undemocratic and morally questionable but it might well work.
Why is it undemocratic to put a policy in your manifesto and implement it if you win a majority?
The argument would be that proposing explicitly overriding a majority vote on a single question with a plurality vote on a swathe of issues (which could, in a 4+ Party FPTP system, be as low as the high twenties) can look rather antidemocratic, especially for a party which has long decried plurality votes providing complete power and campaigned against such for over a century.
Unlike many other policies, this one would be in the face of a very specific referendum result which has not yet been completely enacted. Thus throwing the democratic question into stark relief.
Of course, one ironic positive is that for a Party who does maintain that plurality votes should provide complete power to challenge that makes them equally as hypocritical and antidemocratic (because they previously benefited from FPTP majorities on plurality votes).
If this is a cunning ploy to highlight the need for electoral reform, then it's very well done.
I might buy that argument if the government was not currently arguing that 17.4 million people voted to leave the EU without a deal.
Overheard at the gym yesterday, conversation two people regarding Brexit, you know its getting like 1641," aye, Johnson will be in the Tower if he is not careful", the other," the Tower I would send him to Tower HIll!". He is not that popular it would seem.
Lib Dem General Elelction strategy just seems to be endorsing "Bollocks to Brexit", cannot see the differenece myself. All strategies have a risk element, this seems to have less risk than Cons or Labour, frankly do not know where Lucas is coming from or what she is doing. My experience of the Greens is that they are in rather autocratic.
Certainly true - despite the Greens’ policies on localism and the like and their co-leaders and the rest, they take a very autocratic line within the party. A Green councillor is required to vote the way they are told by the local party, and not according to their own personal opinion (something that puts them in an interesting position with the law in some circumstances) and round my way they lost a councillor who became independent when he realised this.
Hes not wrong. Baker knows he and his ate more powerful than the Grievers even if fewer were expelled.
Certainly. The Tory grassroots and the BXP would go into full betrayal mode if any ERGers are expelled. Johnson would be swept away in the resulting malestrom.
If they vote against a deal that Boris has won from the EU, and Boris mkes it a confidence issue, they will have very little support in the Tory grassroots if they vote against.
Can you name one other party more extreme than the Lib Dems with their revoke without a referendum policy?
It'd be like UKIP having had a "leave without a referendum" policy pre-referendum.
No it would be like UKIP having a "leave without a referendum" policy at the GE, getting a thumping majority, and then, er, leaving without a referendum.
Didn't half the current Lib Dem MPs vote to have the referendum and vote to back Article 50 bill? And then you have the leader a decade ago calling for a referendum.
I understand people change their minds but I think to the majority of folk the Lib Dems appear to only listen if they hear the answer they want from the public. Until this weekend their Brexit policy was another referendum although Swinson had said she wouldn't respect that vote if Leave won. it's all a bit silly.
Yes it is "agile" to say the least. But presumably they have workshopped it, or Wetherspooned it or whatever they do and agreed that it represents a way forward which might attract more votes than hitherto.
Can you name one other party more extreme than the Lib Dems with their revoke without a referendum policy?
It'd be like UKIP having had a "leave without a referendum" policy pre-referendum.
No it would be like UKIP having a "leave without a referendum" policy at the GE, getting a thumping majority, and then, er, leaving without a referendum.
Or, um, Boris "Bodger" Johnson calling a general election on a 'out 31 Oct – deal or no deal' ticket, winning a majority, then leaving, deal or no deal.
The best approach would be to revoke first and have another referendum afterwards, one that isn’t advisory and triggers A50 automatically in the event of a leave result, and one based on a reasonably specific path to leave.
The three years of chaos and national humiliation that leavers have inflicted upon us all trying to find a way to leave after the referendum vote is honour quite enough for its result.
But then we will have all the referendums are only advisory shit all over again if it's a close result, you cant have non advisory referendums under our system. Plus a fresh 2 year negotiating period with the EU. Joyous.
Actually, you certainly can have non-advisory referendums under our system. They're called "confirmatory" referendums, where both outcomes are written into law beforehand and stated as coming into force dependent on which referendum outcome occurs. They are passed completely through both Houses of Parliament prior to holding the referendum and Parliament has no further input. The AV Referendum was of this type.
The best approach would be to revoke first and have another referendum afterwards, one that isn’t advisory and triggers A50 automatically in the event of a leave result, and one based on a reasonably specific path to leave.
The three years of chaos and national humiliation that leavers have inflicted upon us all trying to find a way to leave after the referendum vote is honour quite enough for its result.
But then we will have all the referendums are only advisory shit all over again if it's a close result, you cant have non advisory referendums under our system. Plus a fresh 2 year negotiating period with the EU. Joyous.
For such a significant change there should also have been a hurdle to clear, either in terms of vote share or percentage of the electorate, although I recognise it will be near impossible to add this in at this late stage.
Non-advisory referendums are possible under our system, if the bill is appropriately drafted. The AV referendum was binding. It does need a relatively simply action to follow as a consequence - but notifying the EU under A50 fits the bill.
The best approach would be to revoke first and have another referendum afterwards, one that isn’t advisory and triggers A50 automatically in the event of a leave result, and one based on a reasonably specific path to leave. (edit/ i.e. what Cammo should have done in the first place)
The three years of chaos and national humiliation that leavers have inflicted upon us all trying to find a way to leave after the referendum vote is honour quite enough for its result.
I mean I am super-strongly against revoke. It would be wrong imo but if the LDs campaign on it, and are given a mandate for it at the next GE then it would imo be perfectly legitimate.
In the absence of any other way forward it is as good or bad as any.
Overheard at the gym yesterday, conversation two people regarding Brexit, you know its getting like 1641," aye, Johnson will be in the Tower if he is not careful", the other," the Tower I would send him to Tower HIll!". He is not that popular it would seem.
...amongst two people who go to your gym. Do you really want this place bogged down with micro-samples of anecdotes? Because I got 'em too...
I'm sure it'll attract affluent remain luvvies, which is a sensible demographic for the LDs to go for. Might even gain back those Tory seats they lost in GE15, when the Tories spooked the aforementioned luvvies by saying that Ed Miliband and Nicola Sturgeon will take all their gold.
I do think they're vulnerable on the doorstep though to Labours policy. "Let us negotiate then you have the final say" leaves a better taste in the mouth than "Elect a LD government theand cancel the largest mandate in British political history!"
The Lib Dem policy has the merits of candour and clarity. We know that you stupid people voted to leave but we don’t care. We know better. And actually a good chunk of those that voted remain will do us just fine, thank you very much.
It’s undemocratic and morally questionable but it might well work.
Why is it undemocratic to put a policy in your manifesto and implement it if you win a majority?
The argument would be that proposing explicitly overriding a majority vote on a single question with a plurality vote on a swathe of issues (which could, in a 4+ Party FPTP system, be as low as the high twenties) can look rather antidemocratic, especially for a party which has long decried plurality votes providing complete power and campaigned against such for over a century.
Unlike many other policies, this one would be in the face of a very specific referendum result which has not yet been completely enacted. Thus throwing the democratic question into stark relief.
Of course, one ironic positive is that for a Party who does maintain that plurality votes should provide complete power to challenge that makes them equally as hypocritical and antidemocratic (because they previously benefited from FPTP majorities on plurality votes).
If this is a cunning ploy to highlight the need for electoral reform, then it's very well done.
Long long long term that may well be very good news for leave. The polite fiction that only a referendum can overturn the previous referendum is blown out the water by the new Lib Dem policy, though the way the remain side has gone on about 'parliamentary sovereignty' as though it has some overriding divinity was trending anyway.
Overheard at the gym yesterday, conversation two people regarding Brexit, you know its getting like 1641," aye, Johnson will be in the Tower if he is not careful", the other," the Tower I would send him to Tower HIll!". He is not that popular it would seem.
I listened to WatO today, and couldn't figure out how what Chukka was saying was remotely consistent with the new LibDem policy on Revoke. Anybody else hear it?
Overheard at the gym yesterday, conversation two people regarding Brexit, you know its getting like 1641," aye, Johnson will be in the Tower if he is not careful", the other," the Tower I would send him to Tower HIll!". He is not that popular it would seem.
What a pair of ludicrously curious individuals
Who managed to find their way to the gym at the Groucho Club.
The best approach would be to revoke first and have another referendum afterwards, one that isn’t advisory and triggers A50 automatically in the event of a leave result, and one based on a reasonably specific path to leave.
The three years of chaos and national humiliation that leavers have inflicted upon us all trying to find a way to leave after the referendum vote is honour quite enough for its result.
But then we will have all the referendums are only advisory shit all over again if it's a close result, you cant have non advisory referendums under our system. Plus a fresh 2 year negotiating period with the EU. Joyous.
Actually, you certainly can have non-advisory referendums under our system. They're called "confirmatory" referendums, where both outcomes are written into law beforehand and stated as coming into force dependent on which referendum outcome occurs. They are passed completely through both Houses of Parliament prior to holding the referendum and Parliament has no further input. The AV Referendum was of this type.
I genuinely don’t get the issue here. If the LibDems win a majority in a general election with Revoke in their manifesto then they will have the mandate to deliver. If they don’t, then they won’t.
In a way I'd prefer revoke over a 2nd ref as a leaver so I understand their position. However Liberals have spent a number of years suggesting they understand and care for those communities who voted leave. To ignore the referendum suggests they have narrowed their base to the 25% of largely privileged people who see things only through the prism of stopping Brexit and will do absolutely nothing in power to try and help the so-called 'left behind'.
There is a problem, which would get noticed here, that it is possible for something aroun d 35+% of the vote to give you a mandate to 'Remain' or whatever in a GE; whereas 49.9% of the vote doesn't give you such a mandate in a referendum.
Having said that, the LDs are right to take this simple position, as there is only a tiny chance of them winning a majority (not zero but close) and if they did win a GE by some tidal wave of opinion shifting it would be so momentous that the notable nature of their promise would be lost in the general crush of remainers cashing in as the Establishment closes ranks around the new establishment.
The Tories would take a majority won on 35% of the vote as a mandate for a No Deal Brexit.
The Lib Dem policy has the merits of candour and clarity. We know that you stupid people voted to leave but we don’t care. We know better. And actually a good chunk of those that voted remain will do us just fine, thank you very much.
It’s undemocratic and morally questionable but it might well work.
Bollocks. They have a clear position. It is not so much we know you stupid people voted to leave as vote for us if you want this particular outcome. What are they supposed to do? Do an @HYUFD and agree with whomever won the last election regardless of their own views?
I personally wondered if their approach here might be too blatant and not nuanced enough as well, but based on my wife's unprompted reaction (who is not massively political at all) it might perhaps work.
Her comment was "great news on the LD policy, I will definitely vote for them now" - I don't think she has ever referenced them before....
One other thing I think will play well about the Lib Dem move is they can campaign on "Make Brexit go away" Both Lab and Con policy will ensure that Brexit will dominate the 2020s. There's a growing realisation that no-deal means years and years of talking about little else while we try to find our way in the world again from a standing start. We can make Brexit go away is superficially very tempting.
Cancelling article 50 unilaterally guarantees Brexit is at the very centre of an increasingly divided nations arguments, protests and action for the full 5 year parliament
Hmmmm...back in 2012 we had a hotly contested local issue. (Parish boundaries!) Review group for months, consultations on end, couldn't agree some controversial proposals so a further extension just to look at this/that area. Finally couldn't be fudged any longer, came to a full council vote, lots of acrimony but decision made. The losers took legal advice, launched a JR, and won on an technicality to everyone's surprise.
The 'winners' spat blood, determined to re-run the whole process to avoid the procedural irregularity that the JR was won on...……
......and no-one has touched it since, the boundaries are happily unchanged and everyone has moved on. When you are in the middle you have to find a way through. When you have to start again after such a process, even the most ardent fans think twice.
Overheard at the gym yesterday, conversation two people regarding Brexit, you know its getting like 1641," aye, Johnson will be in the Tower if he is not careful", the other," the Tower I would send him to Tower HIll!". He is not that popular it would seem.
What a pair of ludicrously curious individuals
Who managed to find their way to the gym at the Groucho Club.
It's the voters who see a strong correlation with 1641 demographic that will decide the election.
I'm sure it'll attract affluent remain luvvies, which is a sensible demographic for the LDs to go for. Might even gain back those Tory seats they lost in GE15, when the Tories spooked the aforementioned luvvies by saying that Ed Miliband and Nicola Sturgeon will take all their gold.
I do think they're vulnerable on the doorstep though to Labours policy. "Let us negotiate then you have the final say" leaves a better taste in the mouth than "Cancel the largest mandate in British political history, elect a LD government!"
You need to read the comment in The Times today by John Curtice. "It is far from clear for example that the [LibDem]'s new electoral profile will leave it well placed to win back former southwest strongholds such as North Cornwall (where 60% voted Leave) or North Devon (57%)."
The Lib Dem policy has the merits of candour and clarity. We know that you stupid people voted to leave but we don’t care. We know better. And actually a good chunk of those that voted remain will do us just fine, thank you very much.
It’s undemocratic and morally questionable but it might well work.
Why is it undemocratic to put a policy in your manifesto and implement it if you win a majority?
The argument would be that proposing explicitly overriding a majority vote on a single question with a plurality vote on a swathe of issues (which could, in a 4+ Party FPTP system, be as low as the high twenties) can look rather antidemocratic, especially for a party which has long decried plurality votes providing complete power and campaigned against such for over a century.
Unlike many other policies, this one would be in the face of a very specific referendum result which has not yet been completely enacted. Thus throwing the democratic question into stark relief.
Of course, one ironic positive is that for a Party who does maintain that plurality votes should provide complete power to challenge that makes them equally as hypocritical and antidemocratic (because they previously benefited from FPTP majorities on plurality votes).
If this is a cunning ploy to highlight the need for electoral reform, then it's very well done.
"n the face of a very specific referendum result" Well, no the referendum was nowhere near specific enough. It was way too vague and that has caused all the problems.
I must say I’m surprised by the strength of opposition to unilateral revocation by the likes of Andrew Adonis and Caroline Lucas. I didn’t think they’d bat an eyelid.
I’m even more surprised by the apologising for it from @stodge too, our resident LD Leaver, who went through all sorts of contortions last night to justify it, the upshot of it being that the LDs were honourable and sensible, whilst the Tories were beastly.
Overheard at the gym yesterday, conversation two people regarding Brexit, you know its getting like 1641," aye, Johnson will be in the Tower if he is not careful", the other," the Tower I would send him to Tower HIll!". He is not that popular it would seem.
What a pair of ludicrously curious individuals
There have been a few on here talking up the similarities between these chaotic days and that particular period of English history. So it's not as ludicrous as it may first seem. Personally I don't go in for it, but it's a surprisingly common theme lately.
As a Lib Dem member, although not at conference, this position concerns me. In the unlikely event that Jo became priminister, it in-conceivable that the Lib Dems would gain over 50% of the vote. Therefore the mandate to revoke would be un-democratic. I would much prefer a second referendum with the option to revoke or leave with no deal (which is where Boris is going anyway).
As a Lib Dem member, although not at conference, this position concerns me. In the unlikely event that Jo became priminister, it in-conceivable that the Lib Dems would gain over 50% of the vote. Therefore the mandate to revoke would be un-democratic. I would much prefer a second referendum with the option to revoke or leave with no deal (which is where Boris is going anyway).
Why criticise a British political party for adhering to the British political system?
The Lib Dem policy has the merits of candour and clarity. We know that you stupid people voted to leave but we don’t care. We know better. And actually a good chunk of those that voted remain will do us just fine, thank you very much.
It’s undemocratic and morally questionable but it might well work.
Why is it undemocratic to put a policy in your manifesto and implement it if you win a majority?
The argument would be that proposing explicitly overriding a majority vote on a single question with a plurality vote on a swathe of issues (which could, in a 4+ Party FPTP system, be as low as the high twenties) can look rather antidemocratic, especially for a party which has long decried plurality votes providing complete power and campaigned against such for over a century.
Unlike many other policies, this one would be in the face of a very specific referendum result which has not yet been completely enacted. Thus throwing the democratic question into stark relief.
Of course, one ironic positive is that for a Party who does maintain that plurality votes should provide complete power to challenge that makes them equally as hypocritical and antidemocratic (because they previously benefited from FPTP majorities on plurality votes).
If this is a cunning ploy to highlight the need for electoral reform, then it's very well done.
"n the face of a very specific referendum result" Well, no the referendum was nowhere near specific enough. It was way too vague and that has caused all the problems.
Your point is taken that the "out" result was too unspecific as to the route to be taken.
However, I find it hard to argue against the point that the vote was specifically on EU membership and resulted in a "Leave" outcome, and that is far more specific than any General Election, which invariably result in offerings across the entire sphere (even the 2017 one which was ostensibly called on Brexit was decided on dementia tax, nationalisation, and taxation, with a sprinkling of gay sex sin questions)
One other thing I think will play well about the Lib Dem move is they can campaign on "Make Brexit go away" Both Lab and Con policy will ensure that Brexit will dominate the 2020s. There's a growing realisation that no-deal means years and years of talking about little else while we try to find our way in the world again from a standing start. We can make Brexit go away is superficially very tempting.
Cancelling article 50 unilaterally guarantees Brexit is at the very centre of an increasingly divided nations arguments, protests and action for the full 5 year parliament
Hmmmm...back in 2012 we had a hotly contested local issue. (Parish boundaries!) Review group for months, consultations on end, couldn't agree some controversial proposals so a further extension just to look at this/that area. Finally couldn't be fudged any longer, came to a full council vote, lots of acrimony but decision made. The losers took legal advice, launched a JR, and won on an technicality to everyone's surprise.
The 'winners' spat blood, determined to re-run the whole process to avoid the procedural irregularity that the JR was won on...……
......and no-one has touched it since, the boundaries are happily unchanged and everyone has moved on. When you are in the middle you have to find a way through. When you have to start again after such a process, even the most ardent fans think twice.
I must say I’m surprised by the strength of opposition to unilateral revocation by the likes of Andrew Adonis and Caroline Lucas. I didn’t think they’d bat an eyelid.
I’m even more surprised by the apologising for it from @stodge too, our resident LD Leaver, who went through all sorts of contortions last night to justify it, the upshot of it being that the LDs were honourable and sensible, whilst the Tories were beastly.
Or something like that.
In the much more likely event of another referendum rather than unilateral revocation, the leave side has carte blanche following the LD logic to ignore that further referendum and take us out even if the further referendum is lost by the leave side. I think this is what Lucas has spotted, Adonis' main concern seems to be the LDs are not a junior partner to Labour though !
As a Lib Dem member, although not at conference, this position concerns me. In the unlikely event that Jo became priminister, it in-conceivable that the Lib Dems would gain over 50% of the vote. Therefore the mandate to revoke would be un-democratic. I would much prefer a second referendum with the option to revoke or leave with no deal (which is where Boris is going anyway).
The amendment I knew of (which was rejected by the Party leadership and not put to the Conference) was to add that it would only be seen as a mandate for unilateral revoke should it result from a vote share of 50% or greater.
As a Lib Dem member, although not at conference, this position concerns me. In the unlikely event that Jo became priminister, it in-conceivable that the Lib Dems would gain over 50% of the vote. Therefore the mandate to revoke would be un-democratic. I would much prefer a second referendum with the option to revoke or leave with no deal (which is where Boris is going anyway).
Presumably you think every policy implemented pre-2010 and post-2015 was also undemocratic? Because all those governments had minorities too.
Can you name one other party more extreme than the Lib Dems with their revoke without a referendum policy?
It'd be like UKIP having had a "leave without a referendum" policy pre-referendum.
No it would be like UKIP having a "leave without a referendum" policy at the GE, getting a thumping majority, and then, er, leaving without a referendum.
Didn't half the current Lib Dem MPs vote to have the referendum and vote to back Article 50 bill? And then you have the leader a decade ago calling for a referendum.
I understand people change their minds but I think to the majority of folk the Lib Dems appear to only listen if they hear the answer they want from the public. Until this weekend their Brexit policy was another referendum although Swinson had said she wouldn't respect that vote if Leave won. it's all a bit silly.
I don't agree with the LD policy at all, but GEs are an important opportunity to reset policies, and parties are entitled to change and develop their prospectus. Their policy would of course give justification to any party wanting to leave in the future without a referendum (if we Remain for now).
As a Lib Dem member, although not at conference, this position concerns me. In the unlikely event that Jo became priminister, it in-conceivable that the Lib Dems would gain over 50% of the vote. Therefore the mandate to revoke would be un-democratic. I would much prefer a second referendum with the option to revoke or leave with no deal (which is where Boris is going anyway).
Presumably you think every policy implemented pre-2010 and post-2015 was also undemocratic? Because all those governments had minorities too.
Well, yes - that's sort of the key thing behind the drive for PR.
As a Lib Dem member, although not at conference, this position concerns me. In the unlikely event that Jo became priminister, it in-conceivable that the Lib Dems would gain over 50% of the vote. Therefore the mandate to revoke would be un-democratic. I would much prefer a second referendum with the option to revoke or leave with no deal (which is where Boris is going anyway).
The amendment I knew of (which was rejected by the Party leadership and not put to the Conference) was to add that it would only be seen as a mandate for unilateral revoke should it result from a vote share of 50% or greater.
Under FPTP we don't demand any other policy needs a party to receive a majority of the vote for them to implement their manifesto. Sure, this is a special case where a referendum was already held, but I contend that a LD majority would be more extraordinary than the Leave result.
On topic: I think the LibDems have made a misstep here, but it's a fairly minor one. My biggest criticism of it is that, far from being simple, it's over-complicated: they are saying that they'd revoke Article 50 without a referendum if they won a majority, but they are not ruling out supporting a referendum if they don't (!) win a majority. That's approaching a Corbynesque level of sophistry, and I think it will lead to them getting tied up in knots trying to explain it in interviews.
I must say I’m surprised by the strength of opposition to unilateral revocation by the likes of Andrew Adonis and Caroline Lucas. I didn’t think they’d bat an eyelid.
I’m even more surprised by the apologising for it from @stodge too, our resident LD Leaver, who went through all sorts of contortions last night to justify it, the upshot of it being that the LDs were honourable and sensible, whilst the Tories were beastly.
Or something like that.
In the much more likely event of another referendum rather than unilateral revocation, the leave side has carte blanche following the LD logic to ignore that further referendum and take us out even if the further referendum is lost by the leave side. I think this is what Lucas has spotted, Adonis' main concern seems to be the LDs are not a junior partner to Labour though !
They already had that opportunity. Majority governments elected on minorities of the vote have been doing this for decades. EU membership is no different.
As a Lib Dem member, although not at conference, this position concerns me. In the unlikely event that Jo became priminister, it in-conceivable that the Lib Dems would gain over 50% of the vote. Therefore the mandate to revoke would be un-democratic. I would much prefer a second referendum with the option to revoke or leave with no deal (which is where Boris is going anyway).
The amendment I knew of (which was rejected by the Party leadership and not put to the Conference) was to add that it would only be seen as a mandate for unilateral revoke should it result from a vote share of 50% or greater.
Under FPTP we don't demand any other policy needs a party to receive a majority of the vote for them to implement their manifesto. Sure, this is a special case where a referendum was already held, but I contend that a LD majority would be more extraordinary than the Leave result.
OTOH A Tory majority on a leave platform after another referendum isn't.
THis also sets up err... potentially interesting future Scottish precedents.
On topic: I think the LibDems have made a misstep here, but it's a fairly minor one. My biggest criticism of it is that, far from being simple, it's over-complicated: they are saying that they'd revoke Article 50 without a referendum if they won a majority, but they are not ruling out supporting a referendum if they don't (!) win a majority. That's approaching a Corbynesque level of sophistry, and I think it will lead to them getting tied up in knots trying to explain it in interviews.
How is it complicated?! 1. Our first choice is... 2. If we can't get that then we'll...
On topic: I think the LibDems have made a misstep here, but it's a fairly minor one. My biggest criticism of it is that, far from being simple, it's over-complicated: they are saying that they'd revoke Article 50 without a referendum if they won a majority, but they are not ruling out supporting a referendum if they don't (!) win a majority. That's approaching a Corbynesque level of sophistry, and I think it will lead to them getting tied up in knots trying to explain it in interviews.
How is it complicated?! 1. Our first choice is... 2. If we can't get that then we'll...
The Lib Dem policy has the merits of candour and clarity. We know that you stupid people voted to leave but we don’t care. We know better. And actually a good chunk of those that voted remain will do us just fine, thank you very much.
It’s undemocratic and morally questionable but it might well work.
Bollocks. They have a clear position. It is not so much we know you stupid people voted to leave as vote for us if you want this particular outcome. What are they supposed to do? Do an @HYUFD and agree with whomever won the last election regardless of their own views?
I personally wondered if their approach here might be too blatant and not nuanced enough as well, but based on my wife's unprompted reaction (who is not massively political at all) it might perhaps work.
Her comment was "great news on the LD policy, I will definitely vote for them now" - I don't think she has ever referenced them before....
I'm sure there are very many voters who think that "Brexit is bad for the country", want to have their message heard, and so will vote LD. Likewise I do not expect many 2017 LD voters to be lost, due to the LD policy on Brexit going against the 2016 Referendum result.
The politicos can argue (or argue against) that the LDs are "playing a dangerous game with democracy", but it will almost crtainly be a net vote winner.
On topic: I think the LibDems have made a misstep here, but it's a fairly minor one. My biggest criticism of it is that, far from being simple, it's over-complicated: they are saying that they'd revoke Article 50 without a referendum if they won a majority, but they are not ruling out supporting a referendum if they don't (!) win a majority. That's approaching a Corbynesque level of sophistry, and I think it will lead to them getting tied up in knots trying to explain it in interviews.
The LibDems have decided that those opposed to a No Deal will still vote LibDem to stop one because they will see No Deal as a greater present danger than a LibDem majority in Parliament.
The Lib Dem policy has the merits of candour and clarity. We know that you stupid people voted to leave but we don’t care. We know better. And actually a good chunk of those that voted remain will do us just fine, thank you very much.
It’s undemocratic and morally questionable but it might well work.
Bollocks. They have a clear position. It is not so much we know you stupid people voted to leave as vote for us if you want this particular outcome. What are they supposed to do? Do an @HYUFD and agree with whomever won the last election regardless of their own views?
I personally wondered if their approach here might be too blatant and not nuanced enough as well, but based on my wife's unprompted reaction (who is not massively political at all) it might perhaps work.
Her comment was "great news on the LD policy, I will definitely vote for them now" - I don't think she has ever referenced them before....
I'm sure there are very many voters who think that "Brexit is bad for the country", want to have their message heard, and so will vote LD. Likewise I do not expect many 2017 LD voters to be lost, due to the LD policy on Brexit going against the 2016 Referendum result.
The politicos can argue (or argue against) that the LDs are "playing a dangerous game with democracy", but it will almost crtainly be a net vote winner.
It could well have the effect of putting a ceiling on the LD and Labour %s as they divvy up remainers between them and leavers migrate to the BXP and Tory columns
(Summary: not sure that revoking without a specific vote from voters is good idea but may work.)
Onto important stuff. Have only seen all the way through only 2 of Top 20 programmes (Fleabag and The Vietnam War) and only bits of 2 others.
Life is too short: only programmes I watch regularly are Gardeners World and the racing + documentaries. I still regularly watch Frasier - which was superb. I need to be ill in bed to sit still long enough to watch anything all the way through. I am saving all these programmes up for my decrepit 90’s.
Straight revoke is clearly undemocratic, but I don't see how it is any less democratic than cancelling it via a referendum on Remain vs soft Brexit, which deliberately excludes the position of most Leave supporters.
On topic: I think the LibDems have made a misstep here, but it's a fairly minor one. My biggest criticism of it is that, far from being simple, it's over-complicated: they are saying that they'd revoke Article 50 without a referendum if they won a majority, but they are not ruling out supporting a referendum if they don't (!) win a majority. That's approaching a Corbynesque level of sophistry, and I think it will lead to them getting tied up in knots trying to explain it in interviews.
They will campaign for "no Brexit".
Should there be a referendum they will campaign for,.... wait for it ..... "no Brexit".
On topic: I think the LibDems have made a misstep here, but it's a fairly minor one. My biggest criticism of it is that, far from being simple, it's over-complicated: they are saying that they'd revoke Article 50 without a referendum if they won a majority, but they are not ruling out supporting a referendum if they don't (!) win a majority. That's approaching a Corbynesque level of sophistry, and I think it will lead to them getting tied up in knots trying to explain it in interviews.
How is it complicated?! 1. Our first choice is... 2. If we can't get that then we'll...
Would that all parties talk this way!
Lib Dems living the AV dream there
Nothing wrong with that. The British people are not uniquely thick that they can't understand that.
On topic: I think the LibDems have made a misstep here, but it's a fairly minor one. My biggest criticism of it is that, far from being simple, it's over-complicated: they are saying that they'd revoke Article 50 without a referendum if they won a majority, but they are not ruling out supporting a referendum if they don't (!) win a majority. That's approaching a Corbynesque level of sophistry, and I think it will lead to them getting tied up in knots trying to explain it in interviews.
The LibDems have decided that those opposed to a No Deal will still vote LibDem to stop one because they will see No Deal as a greater present danger than a LibDem majority in Parliament.
Yes, that's right. especially as no-one thinks there's more than a snowflake's chance in hell of them winning a majority. So in that sense this now-flagship policy is a load of, err, bollocks, to use the favoured LibDem technical term.
The Lib Dem policy has the merits of candour and clarity. We know that you stupid people voted to leave but we don’t care. We know better. And actually a good chunk of those that voted remain will do us just fine, thank you very much.
It’s undemocratic and morally questionable but it might well work.
Why is it undemocratic to put a policy in your manifesto and implement it if you win a majority?
The argument would be that proposing explicitly overriding a majority vote on a single question with a plurality vote on a swathe of issues (which could, in a 4+ Party FPTP system, be as low as the high twenties) can look rather antidemocratic, especially for a party which has long decried plurality votes providing complete power and campaigned against such for over a century.
Unlike many other policies, this one would be in the face of a very specific referendum result which has not yet been completely enacted. Thus throwing the democratic question into stark relief.
Of course, one ironic positive is that for a Party who does maintain that plurality votes should provide complete power to challenge that makes them equally as hypocritical and antidemocratic (because they previously benefited from FPTP majorities on plurality votes).
If this is a cunning ploy to highlight the need for electoral reform, then it's very well done.
You can certainly throw it back at all those who support FPTP. "You support a system that allows a party to do what it wants with a minority of the vote, but you don't like it when the system doesn't deliver for you?"
On topic: I think the LibDems have made a misstep here, but it's a fairly minor one. My biggest criticism of it is that, far from being simple, it's over-complicated: they are saying that they'd revoke Article 50 without a referendum if they won a majority, but they are not ruling out supporting a referendum if they don't (!) win a majority. That's approaching a Corbynesque level of sophistry, and I think it will lead to them getting tied up in knots trying to explain it in interviews.
How is it complicated?! 1. Our first choice is... 2. If we can't get that then we'll...
Would that all parties talk this way!
Lib Dems living the AV dream there
Nothing wrong with that. The British people are not uniquely thick that they can't understand that.
I really see no issue with the LibDem policy of Revoke without referendum.
They are making a policy statement before any democratic mandate is given, so the electors can vote with knowledge of the position they will take.
There is no problem with holding a view that is divergent to that which you supported in the past, circumstances, information and deliverability may all have changed.
I do have a problem with changing the policy on a regular and short term basis to court popularity and after a democratic mandate is delivered, unless there is good and incontrovertible evidence to push the need for change.
Is it a good policy?
There we will see many different opinions. Mine is that Revoke without addressing the myriad of issues that drove anti EU opinion and rhetoric will enlarge energise the anti EU cheer leaders. I would expect Revoke to result in Leave unless we embrace the EU with full participation in Euro, Shengen etc.
On topic: I think the LibDems have made a misstep here, but it's a fairly minor one. My biggest criticism of it is that, far from being simple, it's over-complicated: they are saying that they'd revoke Article 50 without a referendum if they won a majority, but they are not ruling out supporting a referendum if they don't (!) win a majority. That's approaching a Corbynesque level of sophistry, and I think it will lead to them getting tied up in knots trying to explain it in interviews.
I don't see your problem with it. If they win a GE, they'd revoke without a referendum.
Winning a GE is not something they can automatically make happen (*). If it doesn't happen, then they're in no position to revoke. The chances of getting whoever is the major party in power to revoke without a referendum is negligible, but they're more likely to get a referendum. AIUI in that situation they'll support a referendum, and campaign to remain.
It's simple - and beats the current offerings from Labour and Conservative in terms of clarity.
Noting Mike's comments on campaigning to rejoin. That will be an intensely difficult sell. The terms on which we would be readmitted would be very very different to the terms we have now. I'm also not sure the EU would countenance it whilst there is still a Brexit strand in the UK of strength. So not for at least 10 years imo.
Yes, nullifying democracy is "all about the branding".
Horrible. Ugh. Puke.
Standing for election on a manifesto platform is, and never will be, nullifying democracy. I'm sad for you if you really believe that, because I always had you down as malign, not stupid. Now I worry you might be both.
And, since I'm now likely to be voting LibDem, perhaps Ms Swinson might care to listen to some friendly advice from me? For God's sake drop this 'I am a potential PM' line. It simply comes over as deluded, arrogant, and self-important.
And, since I'm now likely to be voting LibDem, perhaps Ms Swinson might care to listen to some friendly advice from me? For God's sake drop this 'I am a potential PM' line. It simply comes over as deluded, arrogant, and self-important.
"Baldrick.. go back to your kitchen sink and prepare for government"
The Lib Dem policy has the merits of candour and clarity. We know that you stupid people voted to leave but we don’t care. We know better. And actually a good chunk of those that voted remain will do us just fine, thank you very much.
It’s undemocratic and morally questionable but it might well work.
Why is it undemocratic to put a policy in your manifesto and implement it if you win a majority?
The argument would be that proposing explicitly overriding a majority vote on a single question with a plurality vote on a swathe of issues (which could, in a 4+ Party FPTP system, be as low as the high twenties) can look rather antidemocratic, especially for a party which has long decried plurality votes providing complete power and campaigned against such for over a century.
Unlike many other policies, this one would be in the face of a very specific referendum result which has not yet been completely enacted. Thus throwing the democratic question into stark relief.
Of course, one ironic positive is that for a Party who does maintain that plurality votes should provide complete power to challenge that makes them equally as hypocritical and antidemocratic (because they previously benefited from FPTP majorities on plurality votes).
If this is a cunning ploy to highlight the need for electoral reform, then it's very well done.
"n the face of a very specific referendum result" Well, no the referendum was nowhere near specific enough. It was way too vague and that has caused all the problems.
Your point is taken that the "out" result was too unspecific as to the route to be taken.
However, I find it hard to argue against the point that the vote was specifically on EU membership and resulted in a "Leave" outcome, and that is far more specific than any General Election, which invariably result in offerings across the entire sphere (even the 2017 one which was ostensibly called on Brexit was decided on dementia tax, nationalisation, and taxation, with a sprinkling of gay sex sin questions)
A second referendum would be appropriate, in my view, to confirm which Leave option the public really wanted. It would respect the fact the original decision was to Leave but as it was also unexpected that the Government needed to define the options first, and then take further instructions.
However, in reality, it has largely been framed as a chance for a second roll of the dice by the losing side, which has caused all sorts of problems in making it look like a highly partisan move.
As a Lib Dem member, although not at conference, this position concerns me. In the unlikely event that Jo became priminister, it in-conceivable that the Lib Dems would gain over 50% of the vote. Therefore the mandate to revoke would be un-democratic. I would much prefer a second referendum with the option to revoke or leave with no deal (which is where Boris is going anyway).
The amendment I knew of (which was rejected by the Party leadership and not put to the Conference) was to add that it would only be seen as a mandate for unilateral revoke should it result from a vote share of 50% or greater.
Under FPTP we don't demand any other policy needs a party to receive a majority of the vote for them to implement their manifesto. Sure, this is a special case where a referendum was already held, but I contend that a LD majority would be more extraordinary than the Leave result.
OTOH A Tory majority on a leave platform after another referendum isn't.
THis also sets up err... potentially interesting future Scottish precedents.
I don't quite get what you mean by saying "A Tory majority on a leave platform after another referendum isn't"? Is that in reference to extraordinary results?
As for Scotland, yeah, the LD position creates a fun space for the SNP. They could easily put in their manifesto that a majority for them at Hollyrood = independence, no referendum needed. But that would probably hinder them more than help. It could also be used in the futur. Should an Indyref ever win and turn into Brexit 2.0, a future non Indy party may like the idea of a Hollyrood election substituting a referendum, hell, Tories, Labour and LD could always put in their manifestos that the moment there is a majority in Hollyrood across multiple parties for sacking independence (should a referendum ever go for independence) they would do it. That is the point of elections...
Yes, nullifying democracy is "all about the branding".
Horrible. Ugh. Puke.
Its like when people nullified democracy and voted for a Labour/Tory government. Didn't they KNOW that the Will of the People was a Tory/Labour government? We had a vote, we don't need another one.
The argument that a 2016 vote overrules votes in 2017 or 2019 is an argument for dictatorship. Democracy isn't a One Time only thing. It repeats. It renews. How dare a LibDem conference state that if ELECTED into GOVERNMENT that it would do the thing that the majority of voters voted for. HOW UNDEMOCRATIC.
On topic: I think the LibDems have made a misstep here, but it's a fairly minor one. My biggest criticism of it is that, far from being simple, it's over-complicated: they are saying that they'd revoke Article 50 without a referendum if they won a majority, but they are not ruling out supporting a referendum if they don't (!) win a majority. That's approaching a Corbynesque level of sophistry, and I think it will lead to them getting tied up in knots trying to explain it in interviews.
I don't see your problem with it. If they win a GE, they'd revoke without a referendum.
Winning a GE is not something they can automatically make happen (*). If it doesn't happen, then they're in no position to revoke. The chances of getting whoever is the major party in power to revoke without a referendum is negligible, but they're more likely to get a referendum. AIUI in that situation they'll support a referendum, and campaign to remain.
It's simple - and beats the current offerings from Labour and Conservative in terms of clarity.
As a Lib Dem member, although not at conference, this position concerns me. In the unlikely event that Jo became priminister, it in-conceivable that the Lib Dems would gain over 50% of the vote. Therefore the mandate to revoke would be un-democratic. I would much prefer a second referendum with the option to revoke or leave with no deal (which is where Boris is going anyway).
The amendment I knew of (which was rejected by the Party leadership and not put to the Conference) was to add that it would only be seen as a mandate for unilateral revoke should it result from a vote share of 50% or greater.
Yes, the problem would come if the Lib Dems (should it ever happen) win an overall majority with 32% of the vote and 9 million votes, and proceeded to use that as a mandate for Revoke.
Can you name one other party more extreme than the Lib Dems with their revoke without a referendum policy?
It'd be like UKIP having had a "leave without a referendum" policy pre-referendum.
No it would be like UKIP having a "leave without a referendum" policy at the GE, getting a thumping majority, and then, er, leaving without a referendum.
Didn't half the current Lib Dem MPs vote to have the referendum and vote to back Article 50 bill? And then you have the leader a decade ago calling for a referendum.
I understand people change their minds but I think to the majority of folk the Lib Dems appear to only listen if they hear the answer they want from the public. Until this weekend their Brexit policy was another referendum although Swinson had said she wouldn't respect that vote if Leave won. it's all a bit silly.
I Just looked it up. 7 LDs voted against triggering Article 50. No LDs voted for triggering Article 50. It looked like Norman Lamb was the other LD MP, who did not vote.
Yes, nullifying democracy is "all about the branding".
Horrible. Ugh. Puke.
Does every GE not, in some sense, nullify democracy? At one point the public wanted x, then the next lot get rid of x once voted in. If the LDs get an absolute majority in the House, that will be more extraordinary than the Leave vote winning and will probably suggest that, yes, we should just revoke.
I must say I’m surprised by the strength of opposition to unilateral revocation by the likes of Andrew Adonis and Caroline Lucas. I didn’t think they’d bat an eyelid.
I’m even more surprised by the apologising for it from @stodge too, our resident LD Leaver, who went through all sorts of contortions last night to justify it, the upshot of it being that the LDs were honourable and sensible, whilst the Tories were beastly.
Or something like that.
In the much more likely event of another referendum rather than unilateral revocation, the leave side has carte blanche following the LD logic to ignore that further referendum and take us out even if the further referendum is lost by the leave side. I think this is what Lucas has spotted, Adonis' main concern seems to be the LDs are not a junior partner to Labour though !
Noting Mike's comments on campaigning to rejoin. That will be an intensely difficult sell. The terms on which we would be readmitted would be very very different to the terms we have now. I'm also not sure the EU would countenance it whilst there is still a Brexit strand in the UK of strength. So not for at least 10 years imo.
But the question of rejoining is dependent on just how much of a horlicks is made of leaving in the first place. If it's all overstated Project Fear and life goes on without a hitch, then I agree.
However, if some of the yellowhammer stuff comes to pass for any length of time, banking or cars bugger off to any extent and/or there's a recession (consequent or otherwise) which dulls the sunlit uplands, it may not be as laughable as it now seems. Or to put it another way.. "it's not all about the economy.. look at my shiny blue passport" is an easier sell when the economy's doing OK.
On topic: I think the LibDems have made a misstep here, but it's a fairly minor one. My biggest criticism of it is that, far from being simple, it's over-complicated: they are saying that they'd revoke Article 50 without a referendum if they won a majority, but they are not ruling out supporting a referendum if they don't (!) win a majority. That's approaching a Corbynesque level of sophistry, and I think it will lead to them getting tied up in knots trying to explain it in interviews.
I don't see your problem with it. If they win a GE, they'd revoke without a referendum.
Winning a GE is not something they can automatically make happen (*). If it doesn't happen, then they're in no position to revoke. The chances of getting whoever is the major party in power to revoke without a referendum is negligible, but they're more likely to get a referendum. AIUI in that situation they'll support a referendum, and campaign to remain.
It's simple - and beats the current offerings from Labour and Conservative in terms of clarity.
(*) And IMO is unlikely.
If they can't make it happen, why mention it?
Acres of media coverage and the first time the LDs have been in the spotlight for years. But of course you knew that!
Noting Mike's comments on campaigning to rejoin. That will be an intensely difficult sell. The terms on which we would be readmitted would be very very different to the terms we have now. I'm also not sure the EU would countenance it whilst there is still a Brexit strand in the UK of strength. So not for at least 10 years imo.
But the question of rejoining is dependent on just how much of a horlicks is made of leaving in the first place. If it's all overstated Project Fear and life goes on without a hitch, then I agree.
However, if some of the yellowhammer stuff comes to pass for any length of time, banking or cars bugger off to any extent and/or there's a recession (consequent or otherwise) which dulls the sunlit uplands, it may not be as laughable as it now seems. Or to put it another way.. "it's not all about the economy.. look at my shiny blue passport" is an easier sell when the economy's doing OK.
The EU are very very unlikely to consider UK membership for a very long time in the event of a no deal Brexit, decades rather than years
Yes, nullifying democracy is "all about the branding".
Horrible. Ugh. Puke.
Being elected on a policy platform in a free and fair election, and then enacting those policies is "nullifying democracy".
Right. Got it.
If they get more than 17 million I suppose you’d have a point.
Right, so unless a party gets more votes than a previous government, they have to keep following the previous government's policies because they have a smaller mandate. Despite winning the election.
I look forward to all the people criticising the Lib Dems for not agreeing to an early general election as undemocratic now deciding that the Lib Dems having a distinctive policy for the next general election is undemocratic. If you don’t like it, don’t vote for it. Plenty will.
You’d have thought that the Euro election would have shown Labour and the Conservatives that nuance on Brexit is not a vote winner.
Although when Carloine Lucas is baulking at your anti Brexit position he might have the kernel of a point
Probably just upset because the LDs got in there first. Given her conceipt that the Greens represent the will of the people as seen 5 minutes after the 2015 GE, I find it hard to believe she genuinely has a concern about ignoring votes she doesn't like.
Noting Mike's comments on campaigning to rejoin. That will be an intensely difficult sell. The terms on which we would be readmitted would be very very different to the terms we have now. I'm also not sure the EU would countenance it whilst there is still a Brexit strand in the UK of strength. So not for at least 10 years imo.
But the question of rejoining is dependent on just how much of a horlicks is made of leaving in the first place. If it's all overstated Project Fear and life goes on without a hitch, then I agree.
However, if some of the yellowhammer stuff comes to pass for any length of time, banking or cars bugger off to any extent and/or there's a recession (consequent or otherwise) which dulls the sunlit uplands, it may not be as laughable as it now seems. Or to put it another way.. "it's not all about the economy.. look at my shiny blue passport" is an easier sell when the economy's doing OK.
The "Yellowhammer stuff" is predicated on No Deal. If Boris gets a deal through the House, then Rejoin is deader than a great big dead thing.
And all the LibDems will have managed is to look not very democratic.
Boris getting a deal massively wrong-foots all the other parties. That is the prize.
In the wake of changing her party's Brexit policy, could Swinson also this week please get around to changing her party's name?
Continued reference to her party as "Democrats" is frankly unwarranted. It is clearly not a party that believes in participatory democracy except where it generates the right result. Nor does it appear to believe in representative democracy, in so far as it has just helped block a general election that would have established whether the country was still willing to be governed by parliamentary representatives mostly at odds with the policy that 52% of their constituents voted for. And to make exercises in representative democracy as rare as possible, her party was also instrumental in putting in place a 2/3rds rather than majority threshold to try and avoid those exercises more than once every 5 years.
Whatever they choose to call themselves, for now on for me it's "Liberals" or "Libs" or "Swinson's Party" but not "Liberal Democrats" or "Lib Dems" or even just "LDs".
The Lib Dem policy has the merits of candour and clarity. We know that you stupid people voted to leave but we don’t care. We know better. And actually a good chunk of those that voted remain will do us just fine, thank you very much.
It’s undemocratic and morally questionable but it might well work.
Why is it undemocratic to put a policy in your manifesto and implement it if you win a majority?
It isn't. Whether it is a good idea given the context of the referendum and it not even having been implemented is a different matter, but it's clearly not undemocratic to pursue a policy after winning a GE, the way almost all changes are made.
Noting Mike's comments on campaigning to rejoin. That will be an intensely difficult sell. The terms on which we would be readmitted would be very very different to the terms we have now. I'm also not sure the EU would countenance it whilst there is still a Brexit strand in the UK of strength. So not for at least 10 years imo.
But the question of rejoining is dependent on just how much of a horlicks is made of leaving in the first place. If it's all overstated Project Fear and life goes on without a hitch, then I agree.
However, if some of the yellowhammer stuff comes to pass for any length of time, banking or cars bugger off to any extent and/or there's a recession (consequent or otherwise) which dulls the sunlit uplands, it may not be as laughable as it now seems. Or to put it another way.. "it's not all about the economy.. look at my shiny blue passport" is an easier sell when the economy's doing OK.
The "Yellowhammer stuff" is predicate don No Deal. If Boris gets a deal through the House, then Rejoin is deader than a great big dead thing.
And all the LibDems will have managed is to look not very democratic.
Boris getting a deal massively wrong-foots all the other parties. That is the prize.
That's also a reason that MPs from other parties might not be wise to vote for such a deal. In any case, I'm not sure anything is likely to come back with Boris other than May v1.01
Let's say the Lib Dems won the election and did this.
Presumably all the PB Remainers, bending arse over tit to justify this grotesque Lib Dem policy, would be OK with a future Tory or UKIP government taking us OUT of the EU at the next election, or making us the 51st state, or adopting the dollar as a currency, or expelling Scotland from the UK, or reducing parliament to 10 constituencies, just as long as it was in their manifesto?
Because that is the precedent being set. For a start, at the next election, and ever after, the Tories would campaign on: vote for us and we Leave. So we'd Leave, without a referendum, at some point in the next ten years, anyway.
Thereafter governments could do what they want. It is hideous. And most of the people defending this are the same idiots who moaned for days about the constitutional horror of a mere prorogation.
I'm also not sure the EU would countenance it whilst there is still a Brexit strand in the UK of strength. So not for at least 10 years imo.
The Germans want the UK to be in the EU, the French want the UK to be in the EU, the Irish want the UK to be in the UK, amd I'm pretty sure many other countries do too. I just can't see the EU rejecting the UK joining the EU in the future.
The issues around re-entry will certainly come from the British side, not least because the current opt-outs will not be re-negotiable.
Yes, nullifying democracy is "all about the branding".
Horrible. Ugh. Puke.
Being elected on a policy platform in a free and fair election, and then enacting those policies is "nullifying democracy".
Right. Got it.
If they get more than 17 million I suppose you’d have a point.
Right, so unless a party gets more votes than a previous government, they have to keep following the previous government's policies because they have a smaller mandate. Despite winning the election.
It's surely too early for you all to be pissed.
Votes at GEs are not for specific policies, so I don’t think the comparison is sound.
Plenty of very good fare omitted from the top 100 list - The Simpsons is a weirdly iconic miss even if you consider Futurama or Rick & Morty too niche. South Park the only animated feature that makes it.
Whilst the Big Bang Theory is rightly excluded no Friends or Seinfeld either.
Chernobyl omitted too...
At least Mrs Browns boys didn't make it so that's something I suppose.
The Wire was brilliant but pretty draining. We still have to watch the last two series (or "seasons" as I believe we're meant to call them). The Sopranos was too violent, we couldn't watch it. Fleabag obviously massively over-rated, this being the Guardian. Peep Show should have been #1.
The Lib Dem policy has the merits of candour and clarity. We know that you stupid people voted to leave but we don’t care. We know better. And actually a good chunk of those that voted remain will do us just fine, thank you very much.
It’s undemocratic and morally questionable but it might well work.
Why is it undemocratic to put a policy in your manifesto and implement it if you win a majority?
It isn't. Whether it is a good idea given the context of the referendum and it not even having been implemented is a different matter, but it's clearly not undemocratic to pursue a policy after winning a GE, the way almost all changes are made.
Yep, but that's a very different argument. My guess is that most of those opposed to a No Deal will be largely voting on that basis, rather than on the policies of the party they choose to support.
Noting Mike's comments on campaigning to rejoin. That will be an intensely difficult sell. The terms on which we would be readmitted would be very very different to the terms we have now. I'm also not sure the EU would countenance it whilst there is still a Brexit strand in the UK of strength. So not for at least 10 years imo.
But the question of rejoining is dependent on just how much of a horlicks is made of leaving in the first place. If it's all overstated Project Fear and life goes on without a hitch, then I agree.
However, if some of the yellowhammer stuff comes to pass for any length of time, banking or cars bugger off to any extent and/or there's a recession (consequent or otherwise) which dulls the sunlit uplands, it may not be as laughable as it now seems. Or to put it another way.. "it's not all about the economy.. look at my shiny blue passport" is an easier sell when the economy's doing OK.
The "Yellowhammer stuff" is predicate don No Deal. If Boris gets a deal through the House, then Rejoin is deader than a great big dead thing.
And all the LibDems will have managed is to look not very democratic.
Boris getting a deal massively wrong-foots all the other parties. That is the prize.
That's also a reason that MPs from other parties might not be wise to vote for such a deal. In any case, I'm not sure anything is likely to come back with Boris other than May v1.01
If he comes back with a deal and (crucially) no further extension, the only other games in town are 1) revoke or 2) No Deal.
His deal gets through, no ifs, no buts. Which is what the EU wants to hear.
I must say I’m surprised by the strength of opposition to unilateral revocation by the likes of Andrew Adonis and Caroline Lucas. I didn’t think they’d bat an eyelid.
Same here, which I suppose is a good thing as it means politics is not completely predictable. I can't tell if its more about party positioning than anything else.
Comments
https://amazon.co.uk/Unofficial-Jeremy-Corbyn-Annual-Annuals/dp/1911622099
All hypothetical, obviously.
They're called "confirmatory" referendums, where both outcomes are written into law beforehand and stated as coming into force dependent on which referendum outcome occurs. They are passed completely through both Houses of Parliament prior to holding the referendum and Parliament has no further input.
The AV Referendum was of this type.
Non-advisory referendums are possible under our system, if the bill is appropriately drafted. The AV referendum was binding. It does need a relatively simply action to follow as a consequence - but notifying the EU under A50 fits the bill.
In the absence of any other way forward it is as good or bad as any.
I do think they're vulnerable on the doorstep though to Labours policy. "Let us negotiate then you have the final say" leaves a better taste in the mouth than "Elect a LD government theand cancel the largest mandate in British political history!"
Her comment was "great news on the LD policy, I will definitely vote for them now" - I don't think she has ever referenced them before....
The 'winners' spat blood, determined to re-run the whole process to avoid the procedural irregularity that the JR was won on...……
......and no-one has touched it since, the boundaries are happily unchanged and everyone has moved on. When you are in the middle you have to find a way through. When you have to start again after such a process, even the most ardent fans think twice.
"Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson urged to sack wannabe MP who called for Boris Johnson to be chopped up and 'burned at the stake'" Sun
Well, no the referendum was nowhere near specific enough. It was way too vague and that has caused all the problems.
I’m even more surprised by the apologising for it from @stodge too, our resident LD Leaver, who went through all sorts of contortions last night to justify it, the upshot of it being that the LDs were honourable and sensible, whilst the Tories were beastly.
Or something like that.
Personally I don't go in for it, but it's a surprisingly common theme lately.
The Lib Dems had practically the whole Remain territory to themselves and have ceded the referendum/democratic half to Labour.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think this is a serious mistake by the yellows.
However, I find it hard to argue against the point that the vote was specifically on EU membership and resulted in a "Leave" outcome, and that is far more specific than any General Election, which invariably result in offerings across the entire sphere (even the 2017 one which was ostensibly called on Brexit was decided on dementia tax, nationalisation, and taxation, with a sprinkling of gay sex sin questions)
I think this is what Lucas has spotted, Adonis' main concern seems to be the LDs are not a junior partner to Labour though !
THis also sets up err... potentially interesting future Scottish precedents.
1. Our first choice is...
2. If we can't get that then we'll...
Would that all parties talk this way!
The politicos can argue (or argue against) that the LDs are "playing a dangerous game with democracy", but it will almost crtainly be a net vote winner.
(Summary: not sure that revoking without a specific vote from voters is good idea but may work.)
Onto important stuff. Have only seen all the way through only 2 of Top 20 programmes (Fleabag and The Vietnam War) and only bits of 2 others.
Life is too short: only programmes I watch regularly are Gardeners World and the racing + documentaries. I still regularly watch Frasier - which was superb. I need to be ill in bed to sit still long enough to watch anything all the way through. I am saving all these programmes up for my decrepit 90’s.
Should there be a referendum they will campaign for,.... wait for it ..... "no Brexit".
Horrible. Ugh. Puke.
They are making a policy statement before any democratic mandate is given, so the electors can vote with knowledge of the position they will take.
There is no problem with holding a view that is divergent to that which you supported in the past, circumstances, information and deliverability may all have changed.
I do have a problem with changing the policy on a regular and short term basis to court popularity and after a democratic mandate is delivered, unless there is good and incontrovertible evidence to push the need for change.
Is it a good policy?
There we will see many different opinions. Mine is that Revoke without addressing the myriad of issues that drove anti EU opinion and rhetoric will enlarge energise the anti EU cheer leaders. I would expect Revoke to result in Leave unless we embrace the EU with full participation in Euro, Shengen etc.
Winning a GE is not something they can automatically make happen (*). If it doesn't happen, then they're in no position to revoke. The chances of getting whoever is the major party in power to revoke without a referendum is negligible, but they're more likely to get a referendum. AIUI in that situation they'll support a referendum, and campaign to remain.
It's simple - and beats the current offerings from Labour and Conservative in terms of clarity.
(*) And IMO is unlikely.
However, in reality, it has largely been framed as a chance for a second roll of the dice by the losing side, which has caused all sorts of problems in making it look like a highly partisan move.
Right. Got it.
As for Scotland, yeah, the LD position creates a fun space for the SNP. They could easily put in their manifesto that a majority for them at Hollyrood = independence, no referendum needed. But that would probably hinder them more than help. It could also be used in the futur. Should an Indyref ever win and turn into Brexit 2.0, a future non Indy party may like the idea of a Hollyrood election substituting a referendum, hell, Tories, Labour and LD could always put in their manifestos that the moment there is a majority in Hollyrood across multiple parties for sacking independence (should a referendum ever go for independence) they would do it. That is the point of elections...
The argument that a 2016 vote overrules votes in 2017 or 2019 is an argument for dictatorship. Democracy isn't a One Time only thing. It repeats. It renews. How dare a LibDem conference state that if ELECTED into GOVERNMENT that it would do the thing that the majority of voters voted for. HOW UNDEMOCRATIC.
Yes, the problem would come if the Lib Dems (should it ever happen) win an overall majority with 32% of the vote and 9 million votes, and proceeded to use that as a mandate for Revoke.
7 LDs voted against triggering Article 50.
No LDs voted for triggering Article 50.
It looked like Norman Lamb was the other LD MP, who did not vote.
However, if some of the yellowhammer stuff comes to pass for any length of time, banking or cars bugger off to any extent and/or there's a recession (consequent or otherwise) which dulls the sunlit uplands, it may not be as laughable as it now seems. Or to put it another way.. "it's not all about the economy.. look at my shiny blue passport" is an easier sell when the economy's doing OK.
It's surely too early for you all to be pissed.
You’d have thought that the Euro election would have shown Labour and the Conservatives that nuance on Brexit is not a vote winner.
And all the LibDems will have managed is to look not very democratic.
Boris getting a deal massively wrong-foots all the other parties. That is the prize.
Continued reference to her party as "Democrats" is frankly unwarranted. It is clearly not a party that believes in participatory democracy except where it generates the right result. Nor does it appear to believe in representative democracy, in so far as it has just helped block a general election that would have established whether the country was still willing to be governed by parliamentary representatives mostly at odds with the policy that 52% of their constituents voted for. And to make exercises in representative democracy as rare as possible, her party was also instrumental in putting in place a 2/3rds rather than majority threshold to try and avoid those exercises more than once every 5 years.
Whatever they choose to call themselves, for now on for me it's "Liberals" or "Libs" or "Swinson's Party" but not "Liberal Democrats" or "Lib Dems" or even just "LDs".
In any case, I'm not sure anything is likely to come back with Boris other than May v1.01
Presumably all the PB Remainers, bending arse over tit to justify this grotesque Lib Dem policy, would be OK with a future Tory or UKIP government taking us OUT of the EU at the next election, or making us the 51st state, or adopting the dollar as a currency, or expelling Scotland from the UK, or reducing parliament to 10 constituencies, just as long as it was in their manifesto?
Because that is the precedent being set. For a start, at the next election, and ever after, the Tories would campaign on: vote for us and we Leave. So we'd Leave, without a referendum, at some point in the next ten years, anyway.
Thereafter governments could do what they want. It is hideous. And most of the people defending this are the same idiots who moaned for days about the constitutional horror of a mere prorogation.
The issues around re-entry will certainly come from the British side, not least because the current opt-outs will not be re-negotiable.
His deal gets through, no ifs, no buts. Which is what the EU wants to hear.