F1: suspect value may be hard to find. Might see what odds a Verstappen podium.
FPT: thanks, Miss JGP. I was a bit surprised the article went up so quickly as it's less time dependent than the Ipsus article I wrote a few weeks ago.
I’m with you on being utterly confused as to what might happen in the race tomorrow. The weather could be anything (and the forecasters were wrong about it raining today). I can’t see past either Leclerc or Hamilton for the win, depending on which strategy is faster.
Am thinking of small-stakes silly bets like 50/50 on the safety car, Kvyat and Albon to score points from the back, Mercedes to outscore Ferrari, lay Verstappen for top 6...
I hope that Verstappen lay was a joke - and if it was it was very deftly done
Not a joke, remember he starts 10th with a grid penalty. He’ll be heavily odds-on to do it, and there’s more chance of him messing up from the midfield. He got stuck in 8th last time he started out of position, couldn’t pass the McLarens.
Don't do it!
I’ll see what the odds are first. Am expecting 1.2 or something close, so 5/1 that he doesn’t finish 6th. Won’t be for as much as a pint.
For understandable reasons this thread header looks through the polarised prism of Brexit. But nothing lasts forever, even if it feels like it. If we can move past this I think that we will find Boris a fairly centrist and liberal PM, more inclined to spend than the average Tory, socially liberal and pretty content with the status quo. Such a party will welcome back the likes of David Herdson, TSE, Richard and possibly even David Gauke
Johnson was a liberal Tory when it suited him. Now over half his cabinet voted against gay marriage and his MPs believe the government should have the right to close Parliament for as long as it wishes. Meanwhile, in Tory constituency parties the hard right is in the ascendent - Parliamentary candidates will do as they are told or be deselected. Even if Johnson wanted to take the party back to the centre he couldn’t. As Alastair says, there is no coming back from this. When Brexit is done the Tories will not be able to turn round and say “actually, we didn’t mean any of it”. They won’t want to and even if they did no-one will believe them.
But, have the Conservatives simply not gone where the voters have gone?
I now think this has all been a very long time coming. Economic growth dropped sharply across the West after 2000 (compared to the 1950-2000 period) ; the Great Financial Crash discredited the political class in most countries, and a lot of people in wealthier countries have been pushing back against globalisation. The United Kingdom fits in with other Western countries, instead of standing out.
Of course in 2001 and 2005 the Tories also ran pretty populist campaigns against the EU and the Euro and immigration under Hague and Howard while Blair presented himself as leader of a sound competent New Labour government even before the crash
And, they failed. Now public opinion has moved towards where the Conservatives were in 2001 and 2005 (and also moved towards the Labour left position). Blair would crash and burn today.
The Tories got 31% in 2001 and 32% in 2005 about the same as they are on today under Boris (albeit some more of the Brexit Party vote might go back to the Tories).
I would suspect many of those who voted for Blair and New Labour in 2001 and 2005 are now voting Liberal Democrat and many of those who voted for Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats in 2001 and 2005 are now voting for Corbyn Labour
F1: suspect value may be hard to find. Might see what odds a Verstappen podium.
FPT: thanks, Miss JGP. I was a bit surprised the article went up so quickly as it's less time dependent than the Ipsus article I wrote a few weeks ago.
I’m with you on being utterly confused as to what might happen in the race tomorrow. The weather could be anything (and the forecasters were wrong about it raining today). I can’t see past either Leclerc or Hamilton for the win, depending on which strategy is faster.
Am thinking of small-stakes silly bets like 50/50 on the safety car, Kvyat and Albon to score points from the back, Mercedes to outscore Ferrari, lay Verstappen for top 6...
I hope that Verstappen lay was a joke - and if it was it was very deftly done
Not a joke, remember he starts 10th with a grid penalty. He’ll be heavily odds-on to do it, and there’s more chance of him messing up from the midfield. He got stuck in 8th last time he started out of position, couldn’t pass the McLarens.
Don't do it!
I’ll see what the odds are first. Am expecting 1.2 or something close, so 5/1 that he doesn’t finish 6th. Won’t be for as much as a pint.
Okay dokey - you heard my advice, and Morris wants him for podium at the right odds (you could both be right under the value rule?)
Good article Alastair I think how the LibDems answer your question will go a long way to determining who wins our bet on St Albans !
I make St Albans turning yellow highly likely even if the Tories are near 400 seats.
I actually think it is more likely if the Tories look like getting 400 seats than if it were hung parliament territory. My thesis is that a strongly remain affluent community like St Albans doesn't want the LibDems to put JC in Downing Street, and if it comes to it enough would hold their nose and vote for a Brexit Tory MP again. Alastair sees it differently (as do the bookies) hence our charity bet.
... sadly, it feels unlikely. There's the small matter of what policies other than extend and 2nd ref it could agree on.
For a year, does it need many? Pass the question of what kind of Brexit to put to a referendum to a Rory Stewart / Archbishop of Canterbury style jury-panel, and use the time to do various non-party-controversial incremental improvements to life. Private Member's Bills turned up to 11, if you like. Otherwise, care and maintenance.
But then basic point is sound. No 10 clearly wants an quick election while there is anger about lack of Brexit. So any anti-BoJo coalition needs to be robust enough to hold on to things for long enough to calm the National Mood and have some sensible accomplishments to show.
The analysis as a snapshot by Meeks is not unreasonable but the conclusions in the longer term are muddled.
Once the WA is agreed, and a deal voted through, the Conservatives will gradually return to being a broad church which is their default. Europe as a 40+ year internal party issue is finally going to be resolved which electorally is going to be a huge positive.
Labour on the other hand are in a death spiral without an escape exit. They seem to be firmly under the control of the far left without realistic prospect of dragging themselves back to the centre. They will always be there polling 15%-25% but their prospects of forming a government are disappearing in to the distance. There will be an ongoing internal war over whether to make a manifesto commitment to rejoining the EU.
The LD's will be able to hoover up those voters who feel so strongly about the EU that they would prioritize rejoining over other political issues. I don't know what sort of figure this would be but I don't think 15%-20% is unrealistic.
So to summarize I think Meeks has probably correctly called the immediate issues but failed to understand the longer term impacts.
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* there is another referendum. I know the No Dealers will hate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once it happened.
I really hate Brexit, I don't think there should have been a referendum in the first place, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
Here's a linguistic matter I've been puzzling over: at what point did we stop using the word thrice? Surely having a word for 'three times' is almost as useful as having a word for 'two times', yet 'thrice', unlike 'twice', has become largely obsolete. When? Why?
One of the reasons that Meeks, along with so many others on here, is wrong is because he claims, as he does in this article, that decisions of the Supreme Court should not be challenged, questioned or disagreed with. From the header;
" The government decided that the Supreme Court had got the law wrong and only its current inability to place itself above it meant that it would grudgingly comply with it. No apologies, no contrition for unconstitutionally suspending democracy."
And yet there are many legal experts who, like the Government, believe the SC was wrong and overstepped it's authority. This, for example, is from the UK Constitutional Law website;
Moreover there are many more who think the SC were right but that they have, through their decision, in effect changed or clarified the law by delineating powers that were not previously defined. In this case to say that the Government acted illegally is not true. Until the SC judgement there was no clear legal position to be breached.
As it happens and as I have said before I welcome the SC decision as there was clearly scope for abuse in the previous murk. But to then claim that this means the Government purposefully broke the law is simply dishonest and wrong. That will only spply if they are stupid enough to try it again.
By the way there are lots of good articles on that UKCL website in support of the SC decision as well. It is well worth a look for anyone interested in our constitutional arrangements.
The analysis as a snapshot by Meeks is not unreasonable but the conclusions in the longer term are muddled.
Once the WA is agreed, and a deal voted through, the Conservatives will gradually return to being a broad church which is their default. Europe as a 40+ year internal party issue is finally going to be resolved which electorally is going to be a huge positive.
Labour on the other hand are in a death spiral without an escape exit. They seem to be firmly under the control of the far left without realistic prospect of dragging themselves back to the centre. They will always be there polling 15%-25% but their prospects of forming a government are disappearing in to the distance. There will be an ongoing internal war over whether to make a manifesto commitment to rejoining the EU.
The LD's will be able to hoover up those voters who feel so strongly about the EU that they would prioritize rejoining over other political issues. I don't know what sort of figure this would be but I don't think 15%-20% is unrealistic.
So to summarize I think Meeks has probably correctly called the immediate issues but failed to understand the longer term impacts.
Your mistake is in thinking the question of Europe is going to be resolved any time soon. The Conservatives’ pitch to former Remainers of “we hate and despise you, now vote for us you quislings and traitors” is unlikely to prove particularly enticing.
Here's a linguistic matter I've been puzzling over: at what point did we stop using the word thrice? Surely having a word for 'three times' is almost as useful as having a word for 'two times', yet 'thrice', unlike 'twice', has become largely obsolete. When? Why?
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* there is another referendum. I know the No Dealers will hate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once it happened.
I really hate Brexit, I don't think there should have been a referendum in the first place, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
No, it really doesn't... if in the next referendum Remain is an option that wins (or if the LDs win a majority).
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* there is another referendum. I know the No Dealers will hate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once it happened.
I really hate Brexit, I don't think there should have been a referendum in the first place, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
I can't see how a 2nd referendum can not have no deal as an option.
The only way to avoid it looking like an establishment stitch-up would be something like;
One of the reasons that Meeks, along with so many others on here, is wrong is because he claims, as he does in this article, that decisions of the Supreme Court should not be challenged, questioned or disagreed with. From the header;
" The government decided that the Supreme Court had got the law wrong and only its current inability to place itself above it meant that it would grudgingly comply with it. No apologies, no contrition for unconstitutionally suspending democracy."
And yet there are many legal experts who, like the Government, believe the SC was wrong and overstepped it's authority. This, for example, is from the UK Constitutional Law website;
Moreover there are many more who think the SC were right but that they have, through their decision, in effect changed or clarified the law by delineating powers that were not previously defined. In this case to say that the Government acted illegally is not true. Until the SC judgement there was no clear legal position to be breached.
As it happens and as I have said before I welcome the SC decision as there was clearly scope for abuse in the previous murk. But to then claim that this means the Government purposefully broke the law is simply dishonest and wrong. That will only spply if they are stupid enough to try it again.
By the way there are lots of good articles on that UKCL website in support of the SC decision as well. It is well worth a look for anyone interested in our constitutional arrangements.
The Supreme Court decides the law. Saying it got it wrong is by definition a mistake. (You can dislike its decision, of course.)
You are also wrong to dispute that the government acted illegally. Ignorance is no excuse for the law, a doctrine that applies to Prime Ministers as much as to scallies.
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* there is another referendum. I know the No Dealers will hate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once it happened.
I really hate Brexit, I don't think there should have been a referendum in the first place, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
No, it really doesn't... if in the next referendum Remain is an option that wins (or if the LDs win a majority).
Both would still be undemocratic given Parliament had refused to implement the previous decision.
Mr. Borough, it's alarming, but not new. The bridge to a Conservative conference with dangling effigies and a 'Hang the Tories' banner springs to mind.
One MP (Wollaston?) had a coffin waiting by her constituency office, I think.
Mr. Dawning, some of us still use 'thrice'. And 'murderess'. And 'flittermice'!
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* there is another referendum. I know the No Dealers will hate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once it happened.
I really hate Brexit, I don't think there should have been a referendum in the first place, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
Why is having a permanent solution versus a temporary transition a good idea?
I know politics is important and all, and I hate to break the flow, but...did you just diss "The Tommyknockers??" It's one of my favourite King books!
It was written when King was coked and drunk out of his head, and (like many of his books) he was writing more than one at a time (check out the publication dates for Misery and It). It's a parable on addiction, it highlights the dangers of logistics and tactics over strategy (the alien possessors are technically skilled but strategically stupid, never making the leap from DC batteries to AC mains current) and I quite like it.
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* there is another referendum. I know the No Dealers will hate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once it happened.
I really hate Brexit, I don't think there should have been a referendum in the first place, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
I can't see how a 2nd referendum can not have no deal as an option.
The only way to avoid it looking like an establishment stitch-up would be something like;
Q1. Do you want to leave/remain
Q2. If leave: 1. May's deal or 2. No deal
You're referendum question(s) are so well worded and make sense politically and constitutionally that I doubt it would ever get passed the Electoral Commision
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* there is another referendum. I know the No Dealers will hate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once it happened.
I really hate Brexit, I don't think there should have been a referendum in the first place, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
No, it really doesn't... if in the next referendum Remain is an option that wins (or if the LDs win a majority).
Both would still be undemocratic given Parliament had refused to implement the previous advisory decision.
The analysis as a snapshot by Meeks is not unreasonable but the conclusions in the longer term are muddled.
Once the WA is agreed, and a deal voted through, the Conservatives will gradually return to being a broad church which is their default. Europe as a 40+ year internal party issue is finally going to be resolved which electorally is going to be a huge positive.
Labour on the other hand are in a death spiral without an escape exit. They seem to be firmly under the control of the far left without realistic prospect of dragging themselves back to the centre. They will always be there polling 15%-25% but their prospects of forming a government are disappearing in to the distance. There will be an ongoing internal war over whether to make a manifesto commitment to rejoining the EU.
The LD's will be able to hoover up those voters who feel so strongly about the EU that they would prioritize rejoining over other political issues. I don't know what sort of figure this would be but I don't think 15%-20% is unrealistic.
So to summarize I think Meeks has probably correctly called the immediate issues but failed to understand the longer term impacts.
Your mistake is in thinking the question of Europe is going to be resolved any time soon. The Conservatives’ pitch to former Remainers of “we hate and despise you, now vote for us you quislings and traitors” is unlikely to prove particularly enticing.
Apart from that, the relationship with the EU in terms of FTA, Customs and other agreements are likely to produce endless bile filled euro disputes. This is true for both WA and No Deal scenarios.
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* there is another referendum. I know the No Dealers will hate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once it happened.
I really hate Brexit, I don't think there should have been a referendum in the first place, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
No, it really doesn't... if in the next referendum Remain is an option that wins (or if the LDs win a majority).
I think it's too late to have another referendum. If it had been proposed the day after the last one, then maybe. But look at all the anger that is coming from people. You could say that we should "just ignore it, they'll be angry no mater what, we shouldn't cave in to their threats", but I think the consequences of ending up remaining would just be too severe.
Indeed in the late 1840s, 1850s and 1860s or the late 1900s and early 1910s it was the Liberals of Russell and Palmerston (joined by Peelite defectors from the Tories) or Asquith and Lloyd George who presented themselves as the competent party of the urban middle class against the Tories as the party of the rural and landed classes and nationalist populism.
It may be the Liberals are presenting themselves again as the party for middle class professionals and those who want 'competent' government against the populism of the Boris Tories or Corbyn Labour and already a few anti Brexit Cameroon Tories like Lee and Wollaston (the modern day heirs to the Peelites with Cameron or May as Peel and Boris as Derby or Disraeli?) and anti Corbyn Labour MPs like Umunna and Berger have joined them on that basis
When you say the Liberals "presented themselves as the competent party of the urban middle class against the Tories as the party of the rural and landed classes and nationalist populism" you really mean that the Liberals then were (not just "presented themselves as") the party for the majority of the population.
The Tories were the party of the very wealthy landowners, and they fully exploited their jingoism and imperialist expansionism. That was not "populist", except among the ill-educated poor, and also money-grubbing capitalists.
And this is where we are today, isn`t it? It is only the Liberal Democrats who are offering strong and stable government. The Labour and Conservative Parties have been taken over by unmitigated scoundrels, whose only ambition is to destroy the country and exploit its inhabitants in the interests of foreign powers..
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* there is another referendum. I know the No Dealers will hate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once it happened.
I really hate Brexit, I don't think there should have been a referendum in the first place, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
I’m a revoker but if EEA/EFTA was a viable option I’d support that.
One of the reasons that Meeks, along with so many others on here, is wrong is because he claims, as he does in this article, that decisions of the Supreme Court should not be challenged, questioned or disagreed with. From the header;
" The government decided that the Supreme Court had got the law wrong and only its current inability to place itself above it meant that it would grudgingly comply with it. No apologies, no contrition for unconstitutionally suspending democracy."
And yet there are many legal experts who, like the Government, believe the SC was wrong and overstepped it's authority. This, for example, is from the UK Constitutional Law website;
Moreover there are many more who think the SC were right but that they have, through their decision, in effect changed or clarified the law by delineating powers that were not previously defined. In this case to say that the Government acted illegally is not true. Until the SC judgement there was no clear legal position to be breached.
As it happens and as I have said before I welcome the SC decision as there was clearly scope for abuse in the previous murk. But to then claim that this means the Government purposefully broke the law is simply dishonest and wrong. That will only spply if they are stupid enough to try it again.
By the way there are lots of good articles on that UKCL website in support of the SC decision as well. It is well worth a look for anyone interested in our constitutional arrangements.
The Supreme Court decides the law. Saying it got it wrong is by definition a mistake. (You can dislike its decision, of course.)
You are also wrong to dispute that the government acted illegally. Ignorance is no excuse for the law, a doctrine that applies to Prime Ministers as much as to scallies.
Wrong. For example in a split decision the dissenting judges are by definition saying the SC got it wrong. That is not an argument for ignoring the decision but to claim one should not demur from the decision whilst at the same time abiding by it is ridiculous and the argument of a demagogue.
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* there is another referendum. I know the No Dealers will hate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once it happened.
I really hate Brexit, I don't think there should have been a referendum in the first place, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
I can't see how a 2nd referendum can not have no deal as an option.
The only way to avoid it looking like an establishment stitch-up would be something like;
Q1. Do you want to leave/remain
Q2. If leave: 1. May's deal or 2. No deal
Sorry that won't do. If I answer Remain to Q1 it appears I cannot answer Q2 at all.
Indeed in the late 1840s, 1850s and 1860s or the late 1900s and early 1910s it was the Liberals of Russell and Palmerston (joined by Peelite defectors from the Tories) or Asquith and Lloyd George who presented themselves as the competent party of the urban middle class against the Tories as the party of the rural and landed classes and nationalist populism.
It may be the Liberals are presenting themselves again as the party for middle class professionals and those who want 'competent' government against the populism of the Boris Tories or Corbyn Labour and already a few anti Brexit Cameroon Tories like Lee and Wollaston (the modern day heirs to the Peelites with Cameron or May as Peel and Boris as Derby or Disraeli?) and anti Corbyn Labour MPs like Umunna and Berger have joined them on that basis
When you say the Liberals "presented themselves as the competent party of the urban middle class against the Tories as the party of the rural and landed classes and nationalist populism" you really mean that the Liberals then were (not just "presented themselves as") the party for the majority of the population.
The Tories were the party of the very wealthy landowners, and they fully exploited their jingoism and imperialist expansionism. That was not "populist", except among the ill-educated poor, and also money-grubbing capitalists.
And this is where we are today, isn`t it? It is only the Liberal Democrats who are offering strong and stable government. The Labour and Conservative Parties have been taken over by unmitigated scoundrels, whose only ambition is to destroy the country and exploit its inhabitants in the interests of foreign powers..
I dont think the I'll educated poor got the vote until later in British history.
One of the reasons that Meeks, along with so many others on here, is wrong is because he claims, as he does in this article, that decisions of the Supreme Court should not be challenged, questioned or disagreed with. From the header;
" The government decided that the Supreme Court had got the law wrong and only its current inability to place itself above it meant that it would grudgingly comply with it. No apologies, no contrition for unconstitutionally suspending democracy."
And yet there are many legal experts who, like the Government, believe the SC was wrong and overstepped it's authority. This, for example, is from the UK Constitutional Law website;
Moreover there are many more who think the SC were right but that they have, through their decision, in effect changed or clarified the law by delineating powers that were not previously defined. In this case to say that the Government acted illegally is not true. Until the SC judgement there was no clear legal position to be breached.
As it happens and as I have said before I welcome the SC decision as there was clearly scope for abuse in the previous murk. But to then claim that this means the Government purposefully broke the law is simply dishonest and wrong. That will only spply if they are stupid enough to try it again.
By the way there are lots of good articles on that UKCL website in support of the SC decision as well. It is well worth a look for anyone interested in our constitutional arrangements.
The Supreme Court decides the law. Saying it got it wrong is by definition a mistake. (You can dislike its decision, of course.)
You are also wrong to dispute that the government acted illegally. Ignorance is no excuse for the law, a doctrine that applies to Prime Ministers as much as to scallies.
Wrong. For example in a split decision the dissenting judges are by definition saying the SC got it wrong. That is not an argument for ignoring the decision but to claim one should not demur from the decision whilst at the same time abiding by it is ridiculous and the argument of a demagogue.
Evidently you can’t fix stupid. I have tried to explain but if you won’t listen you can keep making a fool of yourself - be my guest.
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* there is another referendum. I know the No Dealers will hate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once it happened.
I really hate Brexit, I don't think there should have been a referendum in the first place, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
Why is having a permanent solution versus a temporary transition a good idea?
We could have another referendum, but not for a few years. I think 10 years would be long enough, especially considering the tightness of the result.
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* there is another referendum. I know the No Dealers will hate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once it happened.
I really hate Brexit, I don't think there should have been a referendum in the first place, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
I’m a revoker but if EEA/EFTA was a viable option I’d support that.
The analysis as a snapshot by Meeks is not unreasonable but the conclusions in the longer term are muddled.
Once the WA is agreed, and a deal voted through, the Conservatives will gradually return to being a broad church which is their default. Europe as a 40+ year internal party issue is finally going to be resolved which electorally is going to be a huge positive.
Labour on the other hand are in a death spiral without an escape exit. They seem to be firmly under the control of the far left without realistic prospect of dragging themselves back to the centre. They will always be there polling 15%-25% but their prospects of forming a government are disappearing in to the distance. There will be an ongoing internal war over whether to make a manifesto commitment to rejoining the EU.
The LD's will be able to hoover up those voters who feel so strongly about the EU that they would prioritize rejoining over other political issues. I don't know what sort of figure this would be but I don't think 15%-20% is unrealistic.
So to summarize I think Meeks has probably correctly called the immediate issues but failed to understand the longer term impacts.
Your mistake is in thinking the question of Europe is going to be resolved any time soon. The Conservatives’ pitch to former Remainers of “we hate and despise you, now vote for us you quislings and traitors” is unlikely to prove particularly enticing.
Don't forget a begrudging vote counts just as much as an enthusiastic one, and last weeks Labour conference in Brighton had very little to appeal to (and much to horrify) otherwise Conservative minded voters. And if the LibDems give the impression that they might in some circumstances be prepared to support a government with those policies (say in exchange for PR)...
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* there is another referendum. I know the No Dealers will hate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once it happened.
I really hate Brexit, I don't think there should have been a referendum in the first place, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
I can't see how a 2nd referendum can not have no deal as an option.
The only way to avoid it looking like an establishment stitch-up would be something like;
Q1. Do you want to leave/remain
Q2. If leave: 1. May's deal or 2. No deal
Sorry that won't do. If I answer Remain to Q1 it appears I cannot answer Q2 at all.
STV with the 3 options is the only way.
You can’t have no deal on the ballot paper. You just can’t.
1. It means nothing. 2. Its everything to everyone. 3. You can’t criticise an abstract, unknown concept. 4. It’s repeating the same mistake as the first referendum.
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* there is another referendum. I know the No Dealers will hate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once it happened.
I really hate Brexit, I don't think there should have been a referendum in the first place, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
No, it really doesn't... if in the next referendum Remain is an option that wins (or if the LDs win a majority).
Both would still be undemocratic given Parliament had refused to implement the previous advisory decision.
You missed out an important word.
Immaterial. Given how the Remain side continuously told us the decision was irreversible, claiming it was only advisory once you lost is feeble. If you weren't willing to abide by the result you should not have asked the question in the first place.
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* there is another referendum. I know the No Dealers will hate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once it happened.
I really hate Brexit, I don't think there should have been a referendum in the first place, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
No, it really doesn't... if in the next referendum Remain is an option that wins (or if the LDs win a majority).
I think it's too late to have another referendum. If it had been proposed the day after the last one, then maybe. But look at all the anger that is coming from people. You could say that we should "just ignore it, they'll be angry no mater what, we shouldn't cave in to their threats", but I think the consequences of ending up remaining would just be too severe.
No, honestly, I think the vast majority (>95%) of the population will shrug their shoulders and get on with, it whether it goes they way they want or not. Don't forget only 37% of the population actually voted for Leave - and most of those are not extreme EU haters.
Your mistake is in thinking the question of Europe is going to be resolved any time soon. The Conservatives’ pitch to former Remainers of “we hate and despise you, now vote for us you quislings and traitors” is unlikely to prove particularly enticing.
Once the WA is voted through the only people still getting exercised by the subject will be the extremist fringes.
If you, and your families, ongoing interests are best served by the Conservatives why would you be still harking on about Brexit? You wouldn't unless the EU still dominated your life in which case the LD's would provide the vehicle for you.
It seems to me that there are a number of cognitive biases at play in your thinking which are leading you down the wrong path to your conclusions.
One of the reasons that Meeks, along with so many others on here, is wrong is because he claims, as he does in this article, that decisions of the Supreme Court should not be challenged, questioned or disagreed with. From the header;
" The government decided that the Supreme Court had got the law wrong and only its current inability to place itself above it meant that it would grudgingly comply with it. No apologies, no contrition for unconstitutionally suspending democracy."
And yet there are many legal experts who, like the Government, believe the SC was wrong and overstepped it's authority. This, for example, is from the UK Constitutional Law website;
Moreover there are many more who think the SC were right but that they have, through their decision, in effect changed or clarified the law by delineating powers that were not previously defined. In this case to say that the Government acted illegally is not true. Until the SC judgement there was no clear legal position to be breached.
As it happens and as I have said before I welcome the SC decision as there was clearly scope for abuse in the previous murk. But to then claim that this means the Government purposefully broke the law is simply dishonest and wrong. That will only spply if they are stupid enough to try it again.
By the way there are lots of good articles on that UKCL website in support of the SC decision as well. It is well worth a look for anyone interested in our constitutional arrangements.
The Supreme Court decides the law. Saying it got it wrong is by definition a mistake. (You can dislike its decision, of course.)
You are also wrong to dispute that the government acted illegally. Ignorance is no excuse for the law, a doctrine that applies to Prime Ministers as much as to scallies.
Wrong. For example in a split decision the dissenting judges are by definition saying the SC got it wrong. That is not an argument for ignoring the decision but to claim one should not demur from the decision whilst at the same time abiding by it is ridiculous and the argument of a demagogue.
Evidently you can’t fix stupid. I have tried to explain but if you won’t listen you can keep making a fool of yourself - be my guest.
LOL. So when you have no answer you just crawl away. It is no wonder you are held in such contempt.
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* there is another referendum. I know the No Dealers will hate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once it happened.
I really hate Brexit, I don't think there should have been a referendum in the first place, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
No, it really doesn't... if in the next referendum Remain is an option that wins (or if the LDs win a majority).
Both would still be undemocratic given Parliament had refused to implement the previous advisory decision.
You missed out an important word.
Immaterial. Given how the Remain side continuously told us the decision was irreversible, claiming it was only advisory once you lost is feeble. If you weren't willing to abide by the result you should not have asked the question in the first place.
I did not want, or vote for, the question to be asked in the first place!
Your mistake is in thinking the question of Europe is going to be resolved any time soon. The Conservatives’ pitch to former Remainers of “we hate and despise you, now vote for us you quislings and traitors” is unlikely to prove particularly enticing.
Once the WA is voted through the only people still getting exercised by the subject will be the extremist fringes.
If your and your families ongoing interests are best served by the Conservatives why would you be still harking on about Brexit? You wouldn't unless the EU still dominated your life in which case the LD's would provide the vehicle for you.
It seems to me that there are a number of cognitive biases at play in your thinking which is leading you down the wrong path to your conclusions.
Just my opinion.
What are you on about? If the WA passes we then have to continue discussing Brexit constantly whilst we agree on what our actual relationship with Europe will be. Nothing changes. Brexit still continues.
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* there is another referendum. I know the No Dealers will hate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once it happened.
I really hate Brexit, I don't think there should have been a referendum in the first place, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
No, it really doesn't... if in the next referendum Remain is an option that wins (or if the LDs win a majority).
Both would still be undemocratic given Parliament had refused to implement the previous advisory decision.
You missed out an important word.
Immaterial. Given how the Remain side continuously told us the decision was irreversible, claiming it was only advisory once you lost is feeble. If you weren't willing to abide by the result you should not have asked the question in the first place.
If you agree that context is necessary to determine the extent to which a nominally advisory vote was in fact advisory, you must also accept that context is necessary to determine how the nominal instruction on the ballot paper is to be interpreted?
Indeed in the late 1840s, 1850s and 1860s or the late 1900s and early 1910s it was the Liberals of Russell and Palmerston (joined by Peelite defectors from the Tories) or Asquith and Lloyd George who presented themselves as the competent party of the urban middle class against the Tories as the party of the rural and landed classes and nationalist populism.
It may be the Liberals are presenting themselves again as the party for middle class professionals and those who want 'competent' government against the populism of the Boris Tories or Corbyn Labour and already a few anti Brexit Cameroon Tories like Lee and Wollaston (the modern day heirs to the Peelites with Cameron or May as Peel and Boris as Derby or Disraeli?) and anti Corbyn Labour MPs like Umunna and Berger have joined them on that basis
When you say the Liberals "presented themselves as the competent party of the urban middle class against the Tories as the party of the rural and landed classes and nationalist populism" you really mean that the Liberals then were (not just "presented themselves as") the party for the majority of the population.
The Tories were the party of the very wealthy landowners, and they fully exploited their jingoism and imperialist expansionism. That was not "populist", except among the ill-educated poor, and also money-grubbing capitalists.
And this is where we are today, isn`t it? It is only the Liberal Democrats who are offering strong and stable government. The Labour and Conservative Parties have been taken over by unmitigated scoundrels, whose only ambition is to destroy the country and exploit its inhabitants in the interests of foreign powers..
'Money grubbing capitalists' as you put it were more likely to vote Whig or Liberal than Tory in the 19th century, it was the landed gentry and farmers who formed the bulk of the Tory vote (the poor did not get the vote until 1918)
One of the reasons that Meeks, along with so many others on here, is wrong is because he claims, as he does in this article, that decisions of the Supreme Court should not be challenged, questioned or disagreed with. From the header;
" The government decided that the Supreme Court had got the law wrong and only its current inability to place itself above it meant that it would grudgingly comply with it. No apologies, no contrition for unconstitutionally suspending democracy."
And yet there are many legal experts who, like the Government, believe the SC was wrong and overstepped it's authority. This, for example, is from the UK Constitutional Law website;
Moreover there are many more who think the SC were right but that they have, through their decision, in effect changed or clarified the law by delineating powers that were not previously defined. In this case to say that the Government acted illegally is not true. Until the SC judgement there was no clear legal position to be breached.
As it happens and as I have said before I welcome the SC decision as there was clearly scope for abuse in the previous murk. But to then claim that this means the Government purposefully broke the law is simply dishonest and wrong. That will only spply if they are stupid enough to try it again.
By the way there are lots of good articles on that UKCL website in support of the SC decision as well. It is well worth a look for anyone interested in our constitutional arrangements.
The Supreme Court decides the law. Saying it got it wrong is by definition a mistake. (You can dislike its decision, of course.)
You are also wrong to dispute that the government acted illegally. Ignorance is no excuse for the law, a doctrine that applies to Prime Ministers as much as to scallies.
Wrong. For example in a split decision the dissenting judges are by definition saying the SC got it wrong. That is not an argument for ignoring the decision but to claim one should not demur from the decision whilst at the same time abiding by it is ridiculous and the argument of a demagogue.
Evidently you can’t fix stupid. I have tried to explain but if you won’t listen you can keep making a fool of yourself - be my guest.
LOL. So when you have no answer you just crawl away. It is no wonder you are held in such contempt.
I gave you the answer. You failed to understand it.
Incidentally on the prior thread about Lindsay Hoyle, Chorley is the kind of marginalish Northern Labour leave seat that the Tory Cummings campaign would otherwise presumably be targeting. Would we expect them to stand a candidate if Hoyle was speaker ?
One of the reasons that Meeks, along with so many others on here, is wrong is because he claims, as he does in this article, that decisions of the Supreme Court should not be challenged, questioned or disagreed with. From the header;
" The government decided that the Supreme Court had got the law wrong and only its current inability to place itself above it meant that it would grudgingly comply with it. No apologies, no contrition for unconstitutionally suspending democracy."
And yet there are many legal experts who, like the Government, believe the SC was wrong and overstepped it's authority. This, for example, is from the UK Constitutional Law website;
Moreover there are many more who think the SC were right but that they have, through their decision, in effect changed or clarified the law by delineating powers that were not previously defined. In this case to say that the Government acted illegally is not true. Until the SC judgement there was no clear legal position to be breached.
As it happens and as I have said before I welcome the SC decision as there was clearly scope for abuse in the previous murk. But to then claim that this means the Government purposefully broke the law is simply dishonest and wrong. That will only spply if they are stupid enough to try it again.
By the way there are lots of good articles on that UKCL website in support of the SC decision as well. It is well worth a look for anyone interested in our constitutional arrangements.
The Supreme Court decides the law. Saying it got it wrong is by definition a mistake. (You can dislike its decision, of course.)
You are also wrong to dispute that the government acted illegally. Ignorance is no excuse for the law, a doctrine that applies to Prime Ministers as much as to scallies.
Wrong. For example in a split decision the dissenting judges are by definition saying the SC got it wrong. That is not an argument for ignoring the decision but to claim one should not demur from the decision whilst at the same time abiding by it is ridiculous and the argument of a demagogue.
Evidently you can’t fix stupid. I have tried to explain but if you won’t listen you can keep making a fool of yourself - be my guest.
LOL. So when you have no answer you just crawl away. It is no wonder you are held in such contempt.
I gave you the answer. You failed to understand it.
You did not give an answer. You simply ignored the question entirely. Just as you always do when you are in the wrong.
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* there is another referendum. I know the No Dealers will hate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once it happened.
I really hate Brexit, I don't think there should have been a referendum in the first place, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
I can't see how a 2nd referendum can not have no deal as an option.
The only way to avoid it looking like an establishment stitch-up would be something like;
Q1. Do you want to leave/remain
Q2. If leave: 1. May's deal or 2. No deal
Q1 was asked already in 2016, so move straight to Q2.
If you agree that context is necessary to determine the extent to which a nominally advisory vote was in fact advisory, you must also accept that context is necessary to determine how the nominal instruction on the ballot paper is to be interpreted?
I'm sorry but this is just obfuscation and bluster masquerading as an answer.
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* there is another referendum. I know the No Dealers will hate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once it happened.
I really hate Brexit, I don't think there should have been a referendum in the first place, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
No, it really doesn't... if in the next referendum Remain is an option that wins (or if the LDs win a majority).
Both would still be undemocratic given Parliament had refused to implement the previous advisory decision.
You missed out an important word.
Immaterial. Given how the Remain side continuously told us the decision was irreversible, claiming it was only advisory once you lost is feeble. If you weren't willing to abide by the result you should not have asked the question in the first place.
You rejected voting for a Eurosceptic settlement including never joining the Euro in favour of rolling the dice. You have no right to complain that your numbers didn’t come up.
At least we are now clear on where Meeks stands regarding the law.
Not only must it always be obeyed (which is fair enough) but it can also never be wrong, never be criticised and never be challenged. I am extremely glad the limit of his influence is the comments section of this website. His views would make the Stalinists blanche.
The Supreme Court decides the law. Saying it got it wrong is by definition a mistake. (You can dislike its decision, of course.)
You are also wrong to dispute that the government acted illegally. Ignorance is no excuse for the law, a doctrine that applies to Prime Ministers as much as to scallies.
Wrong. For example in a split decision the dissenting judges are by definition saying the SC got it wrong. That is not an argument for ignoring the decision but to claim one should not demur from the decision whilst at the same time abiding by it is ridiculous and the argument of a demagogue.
Evidently you can’t fix stupid. I have tried to explain but if you won’t listen you can keep making a fool of yourself - be my guest.
LOL. So when you have no answer you just crawl away. It is no wonder you are held in such contempt.
I gave you the answer. You failed to understand it.
You did not give an answer. You simply ignored the question entirely. Just as you always do when you are in the wrong.
Once again. The Supreme Court decides the law. Once it has done so, that is the law. It simply cannot get it wrong. You can dislike it or seek to have it changed by Act of Parliament, but what it produces is the law. Dissenting judges can argue that it should decide the case differently but from that point on the law is set.
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* there is another referendum. I know the No Dealers will hate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once it happened.
I really hate Brexit, I don't think there should have been a referendum in the first place, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
No, it really doesn't... if in the next referendum Remain is an option that wins (or if the LDs win a majority).
Both would still be undemocratic given Parliament had refused to implement the previous advisory decision.
You missed out an important word.
Immaterial. Given how the Remain side continuously told us the decision was irreversible, claiming it was only advisory once you lost is feeble. If you weren't willing to abide by the result you should not have asked the question in the first place.
You rejected voting for a Eurosceptic settlement including never joining the Euro in favour of rolling the dice. You have no right to complain that your numbers didn’t come up.
There was no Eurosceptic settlement. That is just another Eutophile lie.
At least we are now clear on where Meeks stands regarding the law.
Not only must it always be obeyed (which is fair enough) but it can also never be wrong, never be criticised and never be challenged. I am extremely glad the limit of his influence is the comments section of this website. His views would make the Stalinists blanche.
If you actually put forward logical and reasoned arguments rather than just frothing anger and hatred then maybe people could engage with you.
At least we are now clear on where Meeks stands regarding the law.
Not only must it always be obeyed (which is fair enough) but it can also never be wrong, never be criticised and never be challenged. I am extremely glad the limit of his influence is the comments section of this website. His views would make the Stalinists blanche.
To be pedantic - his limits are not the comments section; he's above the line all the time.
I tend to read PB using the vanilla site on the chrome browser on my android phone. This works well.
If I read PB using the vanilla site using Firefox on my phone, I can read the comments but the embedded tweets do not display, just their Web address.
Does anyone how to solve this, or is it a vanilla querk?
Do you have an adblock running?
That's what stopped me seeing Tweets - I had to exempt them from adblock. Although these days I have canned adblock; the ads on PB are not too intrusive.
If you agree that context is necessary to determine the extent to which a nominally advisory vote was in fact advisory, you must also accept that context is necessary to determine how the nominal instruction on the ballot paper is to be interpreted?
I'm sorry but this is just obfuscation and bluster masquerading as an answer.
At least we are now clear on where Meeks stands regarding the law.
Not only must it always be obeyed (which is fair enough) but it can also never be wrong, never be criticised and never be challenged. I am extremely glad the limit of his influence is the comments section of this website. His views would make the Stalinists blanche.
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* there is another referendum. I know the No Dealers will hate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once it happened.
I really hate Brexit, I don't think there should have been a referendum in the first place, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
No, it really doesn't... if in the next referendum Remain is an option that wins (or if the LDs win a majority).
Both would still be undemocratic given Parliament had refused to implement the previous advisory decision.
You missed out an important word.
Immaterial. Given how the Remain side continuously told us the decision was irreversible, claiming it was only advisory once you lost is feeble. If you weren't willing to abide by the result you should not have asked the question in the first place.
If you agree that context is necessary to determine the extent to which a nominally advisory vote was in fact advisory, you must also accept that context is necessary to determine how the nominal instruction on the ballot paper is to be interpreted?
Interpretation is not synonymous with rejection. I am very content with a soft interpretation of the vote. Explicitly refusing to implement it is not interpretation.
What are you on about? If the WA passes we then have to continue discussing Brexit constantly whilst we agree on what our actual relationship with Europe will be. Nothing changes. Brexit still continues.
Brexit as a point of contention will be over, we will be out of the EU.
What will be left is the discussion about how the UK stands up for itself in negotiations with not just the EU but globally.
Labour and the LD's going in to bat for the EU against their own country will be an electoral gold mine for the Tories at every subsequent GE.
And the press WILL hammer any party for supporting the opposition in trade negotiations regardless of the nuances around the subject.
Remainers have been given hell for, legitimately in my view, pushing back against the referendum result whilst there is still a chance of overturning the decision.
There will be absolutely no excuse for supporting the EU in future negotiations and it would be political suicide to be seen doing so...surely you must see that?
At least we are now clear on where Meeks stands regarding the law.
Not only must it always be obeyed (which is fair enough) but it can also never be wrong, never be criticised and never be challenged. I am extremely glad the limit of his influence is the comments section of this website. His views would make the Stalinists blanche.
I never said any such thing. Deary me.
That is exactly what you have said in attacking the Government for saying the ruling was wrong
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* there is another referendum. I know the No Dealers will hate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once it happened.
I really hate Brexit, I don't think there should have been a referendum in the first place, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
No, it really doesn't... if in the next referendum Remain is an option that wins (or if the LDs win a majority).
Both would still be undemocratic given Parliament had refused to implement the previous advisory decision.
You missed out an important word.
Immaterial. Given how the Remain side continuously told us the decision was irreversible, claiming it was only advisory once you lost is feeble. If you weren't willing to abide by the result you should not have asked the question in the first place.
If you agree that context is necessary to determine the extent to which a nominally advisory vote was in fact advisory, you must also accept that context is necessary to determine how the nominal instruction on the ballot paper is to be interpreted?
Interpretation is not synonymous with rejection. I am very content with a soft interpretation of the vote. Explicitly refusing to implement it is not interpretation.
Your team has pushed further and further to the extreme of Brexit. Why are you surprised that Remainers are now pushing directly to revoke?
If May had taken the bull by the horns and tried to actually bring the country together we would have already left.
The reason why we haven’t already left the EU is because of the Conservative Party. That’s it.
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* there is another referendum. I know the No Dealers will hate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once it happened.
I really hate Brexit, I don't think there should have been a referendum in the first place, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
I can't see how a 2nd referendum can not have no deal as an option.
The only way to avoid it looking like an establishment stitch-up would be something like;
Q1. Do you want to leave/remain
Q2. If leave: 1. May's deal or 2. No deal
Sorry that won't do. If I answer Remain to Q1 it appears I cannot answer Q2 at all.
STV with the 3 options is the only way.
You can’t have no deal on the ballot paper. You just can’t.
1. It means nothing. 2. Its everything to everyone. 3. You can’t criticise an abstract, unknown concept. 4. It’s repeating the same mistake as the first referendum.
1. Eh? It means leaving, without a deal 2. Then why doesn't it have 100% support? 3. That's Remain's problem to deal with 4. Asking the consent of the people isn't a mistake
What are you on about? If the WA passes we then have to continue discussing Brexit constantly whilst we agree on what our actual relationship with Europe will be. Nothing changes. Brexit still continues.
Brexit as a point of contention will be over, we will be out of the EU.
What will be left is the discussion about how the UK stands up for itself in negotiations with not just the EU but globally.
Labour and the LD's going in to bat for the EU against their own country will be an electoral gold mine for the Tories at every subsequent GE.
And the press WILL hammer any party for supporting the opposition in trade negotiations regardless of the nuances around the subject.
Remainers have been given hell for, legitimately in my view, pushing back against the referendum result whilst there is still a chance of overturning the decision.
There will be absolutely no excuse for supporting the EU in future negotiations and it would be political suicide to be seen doing so...surely you must see that?
I see you went straight for the ‘traitor’ angle so let’s end the discussion here.
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* there is another referendum. I know the No Dealers will hate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once it happened.
I really hate Brexit, I don't think there should have been a referendum in the first place, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
No, it really doesn't... if in the next referendum Remain is an option that wins (or if the LDs win a majority).
Both would still be undemocratic given Parliament had refused to implement the previous advisory decision.
You missed out an important word.
Immaterial. Given how the Remain side continuously told us the decision was irreversible, claiming it was only advisory once you lost is feeble. If you weren't willing to abide by the result you should not have asked the question in the first place.
If you agree that context is necessary to determine the extent to which a nominally advisory vote was in fact advisory, you must also accept that context is necessary to determine how the nominal instruction on the ballot paper is to be interpreted?
Interpretation is not synonymous with rejection. I am very content with a soft interpretation of the vote. Explicitly refusing to implement it is not interpretation.
You miss my point. To work out what the vote meant, it is to be understood in the context of the campaign fought.
It turns out, the prospectus offered was a false prospectus. The correct remedy is not to proceed as if the lies were true but to proceed on the basis of what would have happened if the public had been given a more accurate prospectus. That is sufficiently uncertain as to require a fresh mandate.
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* there is another referendum. I know the No Dealers will hate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once it happened.
I really hate Brexit, I don't think there should have been a referendum in the first place, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
I can't see how a 2nd referendum can not have no deal as an option.
The only way to avoid it looking like an establishment stitch-up would be something like;
Q1. Do you want to leave/remain
Q2. If leave: 1. May's deal or 2. No deal
Sorry that won't do. If I answer Remain to Q1 it appears I cannot answer Q2 at all.
STV with the 3 options is the only way.
You can’t have no deal on the ballot paper. You just can’t.
1. It means nothing. 2. Its everything to everyone. 3. You can’t criticise an abstract, unknown concept. 4. It’s repeating the same mistake as the first referendum.
1. Eh? It means leaving, without a deal 2. Then why doesn't it have 100% support? 3. That's Remain's problem to deal with 4. Asking the consent of the people isn't a mistake
[A year-long GNU] sadly, it feels unlikely. There's the small matter of what policies other than extend and 2nd ref it could agree on.
By the end of a year, if Remain or EEA/EFTA won the ref, the GNU would have morphed into LDs/Nats/Greens plus Real Conservatives and Real Social Democrats. Since the Parliament could last till 2022 and we'd be more or less Remaining till then, the parties could use the two years to realign themselves - and abstain from any other gratuitous legislation.
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* there is another referendum. I know the No Dealers will hate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once it happened.
I really hate Brexit, I don't think there should have been a referendum in the first place, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
No, it really doesn't... if in the next referendum Remain is an option that wins (or if the LDs win a majority).
Both would still be undemocratic given Parliament had refused to implement the previous advisory decision.
You missed out an important word.
Immaterial. Given how the Remain side continuously told us the decision was irreversible, claiming it was only advisory once you lost is feeble. If you weren't willing to abide by the result you should not have asked the question in the first place.
You rejected voting for a Eurosceptic settlement including never joining the Euro in favour of rolling the dice. You have no right to complain that your numbers didn’t come up.
There was no Eurosceptic settlement. That is just another Eutophile lie.
There was and you rejected it. Cameron's deal was a far more intellectually coherent Eurosceptic position than the nonsense of Richard North that you treat as gospel.
At least we are now clear on where Meeks stands regarding the law.
Not only must it always be obeyed (which is fair enough) but it can also never be wrong, never be criticised and never be challenged. I am extremely glad the limit of his influence is the comments section of this website. His views would make the Stalinists blanche.
I never said any such thing. Deary me.
That is exactly what you have said in attacking the Government for saying the ruling was wrong
The ruling is not wrong. By definition, it is a correct statement of the law.
The government may not like it. I’m not surprised: a government that sought to suspend democracy might well be annoyed that it has not been allowed to do so. But that’s a very different thing from saying that the Supreme Court got the law wrong.
An EFTA/EAA vs May's Deal referendum would be the way to go, *if* there is another referendum. I know the No Dealers will hate it, but they would hate anything, probably even No Deal once it happened.
I really hate Brexit, I don't think there should have been a referendum in the first place, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
I can't see how a 2nd referendum can not have no deal as an option.
The only way to avoid it looking like an establishment stitch-up would be something like;
Q1. Do you want to leave/remain
Q2. If leave: 1. May's deal or 2. No deal
Sorry that won't do. If I answer Remain to Q1 it appears I cannot answer Q2 at all.
STV with the 3 options is the only way.
You can’t have no deal on the ballot paper. You just can’t.
1. It means nothing. 2. Its everything to everyone. 3. You can’t criticise an abstract, unknown concept. 4. It’s repeating the same mistake as the first referendum.
1. Eh? It means leaving, without a deal 2. Then why doesn't it have 100% support? 3. That's Remain's problem to deal with 4. Asking the consent of the people isn't a mistake
We leave the EU without a deal. Then what?
We realise that was a big mistake and swiftly seek to rejoin.
[A year-long GNU] sadly, it feels unlikely. There's the small matter of what policies other than extend and 2nd ref it could agree on.
By the end of a year, if Remain or EEA/EFTA won the ref, the GNU would have morphed into LDs/Nats/Greens plus Real Conservatives and Real Social Democrats. Since the Parliament could last till 2022 and we'd be more or less Remaining till then, the parties could use the two years to realign themselves - and abstain from any other gratuitous legislation.
Would the SNP be happy with no 2nd Sindy ref during this GNU?
I can't see how a 2nd referendum can not have no deal as an option.
The only way to avoid it looking like an establishment stitch-up would be something like;
Q1. Do you want to leave/remain
Q2. If leave: 1. May's deal or 2. No deal
The problem with that, apart from nobody knowing how to implement No Deal (the proponents of that say they're going to have lots of "mini-deals" but if they're right good luck getting voters who think they voted for No Deal to accept those compromises), is that you're asking people to Leave or Remain without defining Leave. It's worse because they's *so close* to having Leave at least half defined: They just to need to know the outcome of the question they're about to vote on.
So if you really want a referendum with an option for a vague but probably disastrous thing, you need to do it the other way around: The first round defines leaving (Deal or No Deal) and the second round confirms you want to do it (Leave or Remain). You could get similar results with ranked choice voting or something, but seperate rounds are probably harder to demagogue.
Comments
I would suspect many of those who voted for Blair and New Labour in 2001 and 2005 are now voting Liberal Democrat and many of those who voted for Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats in 2001 and 2005 are now voting for Corbyn Labour
https://order-order.com/2019/09/27/tory-conference-slogan-get-brexit-done/
https://twitter.com/MatesJacob/status/1177689190177415168
But then basic point is sound. No 10 clearly wants an quick election while there is anger about lack of Brexit. So any anti-BoJo coalition needs to be robust enough to hold on to things for long enough to calm the National Mood and have some sensible accomplishments to show.
Once the WA is agreed, and a deal voted through, the Conservatives will gradually return to being a broad church which is their default. Europe as a 40+ year internal party issue is finally going to be resolved which electorally is going to be a huge positive.
Labour on the other hand are in a death spiral without an escape exit. They seem to be firmly under the control of the far left without realistic prospect of dragging themselves back to the centre. They will always be there polling 15%-25% but their prospects of forming a government are disappearing in to the distance. There will be an ongoing internal war over whether to make a manifesto commitment to rejoining the EU.
The LD's will be able to hoover up those voters who feel so strongly about the EU that they would prioritize rejoining over other political issues. I don't know what sort of figure this would be but I don't think 15%-20% is unrealistic.
So to summarize I think Meeks has probably correctly called the immediate issues but failed to understand the longer term impacts.
I really hate Brexit, I don't think there should have been a referendum in the first place, but sadly it does need to be implemented.
" The government decided that the Supreme Court had got the law wrong and only its current inability to place itself above it meant that it would grudgingly comply with it. No apologies, no contrition for unconstitutionally suspending democracy."
And yet there are many legal experts who, like the Government, believe the SC was wrong and overstepped it's authority. This, for example, is from the UK Constitutional Law website;
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2019/09/25/danny-nicol-supreme-court-against-the-people/
Moreover there are many more who think the SC were right but that they have, through their decision, in effect changed or clarified the law by delineating powers that were not previously defined. In this case to say that the Government acted illegally is not true. Until the SC judgement there was no clear legal position to be breached.
As it happens and as I have said before I welcome the SC decision as there was clearly scope for abuse in the previous murk. But to then claim that this means the Government purposefully broke the law is simply dishonest and wrong. That will only spply if they are stupid enough to try it again.
By the way there are lots of good articles on that UKCL website in support of the SC decision as well. It is well worth a look for anyone interested in our constitutional arrangements.
The only way to avoid it looking like an establishment stitch-up would be something like;
Q1. Do you want to leave/remain
Q2. If leave: 1. May's deal or 2. No deal
You are also wrong to dispute that the government acted illegally. Ignorance is no excuse for the law, a doctrine that applies to Prime Ministers as much as to scallies.
One MP (Wollaston?) had a coffin waiting by her constituency office, I think.
Mr. Dawning, some of us still use 'thrice'. And 'murderess'. And 'flittermice'!
It was written when King was coked and drunk out of his head, and (like many of his books) he was writing more than one at a time (check out the publication dates for Misery and It). It's a parable on addiction, it highlights the dangers of logistics and tactics over strategy (the alien possessors are technically skilled but strategically stupid, never making the leap from DC batteries to AC mains current) and I quite like it.
Honestly, PB. Tut...
The Tories were the party of the very wealthy landowners, and they fully exploited their jingoism and imperialist expansionism. That was not "populist", except among the ill-educated poor, and also money-grubbing capitalists.
And this is where we are today, isn`t it? It is only the Liberal Democrats who are offering strong and stable government. The Labour and Conservative Parties have been taken over by unmitigated scoundrels, whose only ambition is to destroy the country and exploit its inhabitants in the interests of foreign powers..
STV with the 3 options is the only way.
You're right, however, that many would see that as a stitch-up, with the options being Remain versus Leave In Name Only.
1. It means nothing.
2. Its everything to everyone.
3. You can’t criticise an abstract, unknown concept.
4. It’s repeating the same mistake as the first referendum.
“No deal” means nothing.
If you, and your families, ongoing interests are best served by the Conservatives why would you be still harking on about Brexit? You wouldn't unless the EU still dominated your life in which case the LD's would provide the vehicle for you.
It seems to me that there are a number of cognitive biases at play in your thinking which are leading you down the wrong path to your conclusions.
Just my opinion.
If I read PB using the vanilla site using Firefox on my phone, I can read the comments but the embedded tweets do not display, just their Web address.
Does anyone how to solve this, or is it a vanilla querk?
Not only must it always be obeyed (which is fair enough) but it can also never be wrong, never be criticised and never be challenged. I am extremely glad the limit of his influence is the comments section of this website. His views would make the Stalinists blanche.
https://twitter.com/Happy_Misery/status/1177623915230826497
What will be left is the discussion about how the UK stands up for itself in negotiations with not just the EU but globally.
Labour and the LD's going in to bat for the EU against their own country will be an electoral gold mine for the Tories at every subsequent GE.
And the press WILL hammer any party for supporting the opposition in trade negotiations regardless of the nuances around the subject.
Remainers have been given hell for, legitimately in my view, pushing back against the referendum result whilst there is still a chance of overturning the decision.
There will be absolutely no excuse for supporting the EU in future negotiations and it would be political suicide to be seen doing so...surely you must see that?
If May had taken the bull by the horns and tried to actually bring the country together we would have already left.
The reason why we haven’t already left the EU is because of the Conservative Party. That’s it.
2. Then why doesn't it have 100% support?
3. That's Remain's problem to deal with
4. Asking the consent of the people isn't a mistake
It turns out, the prospectus offered was a false prospectus. The correct remedy is not to proceed as if the lies were true but to proceed on the basis of what would have happened if the public had been given a more accurate prospectus. That is sufficiently uncertain as to require a fresh mandate.
The government may not like it. I’m not surprised: a government that sought to suspend democracy might well be annoyed that it has not been allowed to do so. But that’s a very different thing from saying that the Supreme Court got the law wrong.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7512509/My-Little-Book-Brexiteers-Want-Stab-notepad-advertised-Amazon.html
So if you really want a referendum with an option for a vague but probably disastrous thing, you need to do it the other way around: The first round defines leaving (Deal or No Deal) and the second round confirms you want to do it (Leave or Remain). You could get similar results with ranked choice voting or something, but seperate rounds are probably harder to demagogue.