Didn't I read in a Guardian article that said the youth vote "came out in force".... one for the corrections & clarifications dept.
10,000's of them were seen wandering around Glastonbury looking for the polling station.
Yeah, that explains 1 or 2%, at a stretch.
The noisy tweeters intv'd all over the media represent a fraction of those who could've voted and didn't bother.
I'm frankly sick to death of the media sucking up to yoof voters as if their opinions mattered more.
They don't. And if they can't be arsed - well they should shut up.
You're saying that all young people who disagree with you should shut up because a poll found many 18-24 year olds didn't vote.
It's an extremely intolerant attitude.
Sorry Remainers have been ranting about leavers as racists for months on here and a Remain poster today on this political site has called for the referendum to be ignored because he didn't like the choice and will of the people.
I would describe that as "intolerant" rather than a bunch of students bleating about a result they couldn't be bothered even to fill three lines on a free postal vote.
Next....
We, as in everyone in UK, should worry why young people don't vote. Where does that leave democracy in twenty years time?
With a great concern. They have to feel their vote counts, means something but when only 35% bother and then the younger people complain?
Perhaps it needs to be taught in schools I don't know it's not my area but it is good to see young people on this site like EPG expressing their opinions. It's a start perhaps and keeps us older ones focuses on what the young people feel.
To state the bleeding obvious, the ones that voted should not be criticised.
Any voter who whinges that the side he or she voted for lost and therefore that there should be another vote should definitely be criticised, for they have completely failed to grasp the meaning of democracy.
One lesson the entire world should be learning right now is that significant, irreversible change probably shouldn't be decided through a one-off referendum with absolutely no qualification conditions attached.
If a re-run were to be held next Thursday there's every chance the result would be different. And that makes a mockery of the original result. Essentially it's so close that it comes down to luck. Weather, disingenuous tactical voting, and other trivial factors can tip the result one way or another, and it's preposterous that this can decide something with a long-lasting impact that is fundamentally irreversible.
This would be equally true in the event of a narrow Remain win. Ideally for change to be enacted, you need to be looking at at least a 60-40 majority to pass - something solid enough that it couldn't swing the other way with a few factors of happenstance turning out differently.
What total cobblers. When you've had one vote - then re-run it again, it changes opinions because those who didn't bother stick their oar in knowing what the result was. And those who are pissed off at being asked again.
When this was tried in Winchester - it ended in tears.
The 1997 Winchester by-election was a by-election to the UK House of Commons in the constituency of Winchester, Hampshire.
After an unclear (and extremely close) result in Winchester at the general election on 1 May 1997, a new election was allowed by the High Court.
The by-election, held on 20 November, was won by Mark Oaten (Liberal Democrat) with a majority of 21,556.
The reason Mark Oaten won the by-election was because Richard Huggett stood as a Literal Democrat and fooled many people into voting for him and consequently Oaten won the first election by just two votes. In the second by-election, people were wise to the fact that they had been fooled and gave Oaten a massive majority. Many Brexiters now know they were fooled in the referendum and won't be fooled again.
Eh? I thought the Literal Democrat thing happened for the euro parliament in the West Country, when it used to be done by FPTP
A Mail on Sunday poll showed seven per cent of those who voted Leave, equal to more than one million people, now regret having done so. Four per cent of Remain voters also regretted their decision
Interestingly, surveys show 97% of statistics are made up.
One lesson the entire world should be learning right now is that significant, irreversible change probably shouldn't be decided through a one-off referendum with absolutely no qualification conditions attached.
If a re-run were to be held next Thursday there's every chance the result would be different. And that makes a mockery of the original result. Essentially it's so close that it comes down to luck. Weather, disingenuous tactical voting, and other trivial factors can tip the result one way or another, and it's preposterous that this can decide something with a long-lasting impact that is fundamentally irreversible.
This would be equally true in the event of a narrow Remain win. Ideally for change to be enacted, you need to be looking at at least a 60-40 majority to pass - something solid enough that it couldn't swing the other way with a few factors of happenstance turning out differently.
What total cobblers. When you've had one vote - then re-run it again, it changes opinions because those who didn't bother stick their oar in knowing what the result was. And those who are pissed off at being asked again.
When this was tried in Winchester - it ended in tears.
The 1997 Winchester by-election was a by-election to the UK House of Commons in the constituency of Winchester, Hampshire.
After an unclear (and extremely close) result in Winchester at the general election on 1 May 1997, a new election was allowed by the High Court.
The by-election, held on 20 November, was won by Mark Oaten (Liberal Democrat) with a majority of 21,556.
The reason Mark Oaten won the by-election was because Richard Huggett stood as a Literal Democrat and fooled many people into voting for him and consequently Oaten won the first election by just two votes. In the second by-election, people were wise to the fact that they had been fooled and gave Oaten a massive majority. Many Brexiters now know they were fooled in the referendum and won't be fooled again.
Do you want me to gauge the pulse of the Brexit heartlands if we rerun the referendum ?
Thanks for the offer but I don't think it will be necessary to rerun it. Parliament says thanks for your advice. It was a close run thing and on balance we are going to remain.
If Scotland quits the UK she is immediately bankrupt. And there's an end to it.
Which is bankrupt, Scotland or the UK?
I've just spent the evening with old friends in Soho.
It was quite an amazing juxtaposition. Me and my pals are all grizzled old fucks - a bunch of men and women aged 45-55. We go back yonks. We reminisce.
We went from the Coach and Horses to the Groucho to some weird French bar. A lot of our time - when we weren't talking about sex (mainly wistfully), drugs (regretfully) or football (critically) was spent talking about the VOTE.
One of us, a Bremainer, was in total despair. Thought it heralded the end of days. He was - is - a very smart lawyer. The rest - even the lefties - were oddly neutral. For them it was good and bad, London property was madly overpriced, a reduction would be good, shame about Scotland but who cares really.
In the end it was just me and the despairing Bremainer who really cared, and in the end we got drunk and stopped caring.
And outside London Pride weekend went on, people of all races, ages and genders basically copulating in the streets. A true bacchanal.
I couldn't work out whether this meant England, Britain, London - will endure, as it always has - or whether this was a final decadent free for all, like Paris just before the Blitzkrieg.
I didn't know you hung out with Mr Meeks on weekends ;-)
I was joking on my expected over reaction at a major uni I was visiting on Friday. In reality, there was of course grumbling, but surprisingly it didn't seem much more than that and was business as usual. Egg heads being egg heads.
There was no talking people down off the roofs or EU academics chaining themselves to their desks in protest.
ALL the Millennials I know are just doing a great big shrug and saying Meh, life will go on. It's the 40 and 50 somethings who are weeping, or exulting.
Most unexpected.
Is it because we are wiser and see the great importance of these events, or do the young have a natural ability to discern the triviality of politics - in an age when technology can change lives in a a second?
Hmm. My mate's daughters (millennials) are hopping mad. The quote was: "our economic futures have been stolen by a plague of miserable racist pensioners".
You may have misheard. it was actually:
"our economic futures have been stolen by people like my dad's mate who's a miserable racist rottenborough ."
If Scotland quits the UK she is immediately bankrupt. And there's an end to it.
Which is bankrupt, Scotland or the UK?
I've just spent the evening with old friends in Soho.
It was quite an amazing juxtaposition. Me and my pals are all grizzled old fucks - a bunch of men and women aged 45-55. We go back yonks. We reminisce.
We went from the Coach and Horses to the Groucho to some weird French bar. A lot of our time - when we weren't talking about sex (mainly wistfully), drugs (regretfully) or football (critically) was spent talking about the VOTE.
One of us, a Bremainer, was in total despair. Thought it heralded the end of days. He was - is - a very smart lawyer. The rest - even the lefties - were oddly neutral. For them it was good and bad, London property was madly overpriced, a reduction would be good, shame about Scotland but who cares really.
In the end it was just me and the despairing Bremainer who really cared, and in the end we got drunk and stopped caring.
And outside London Pride weekend went on, people of all races, ages and genders basically copulating in the streets. A true bacchanal.
I couldn't work out whether this meant England, Britain, London - will endure, as it always has - or whether this was a final decadent free for all, like Paris just before the Blitzkrieg.
I didn't know you hung out with Mr Meeks on weekends ;-)
I was joking on my expected over reaction at a major uni I was visiting on Friday. In reality, there was of course grumbling, but surprisingly it didn't seem much more than that and was business as usual. Egg heads being egg heads.
There was no talking people down off the roofs or EU academics chaining themselves to their desks in protest.
ALL the Millennials I know are just doing a great big shrug and saying Meh, life will go on. It's the 40 and 50 somethings who are weeping, or exulting.
Most unexpected.
Is it because we are wiser and see the great importance of these events, or do the young have a natural ability to discern the triviality of politics - in an age when technology can change lives in a a second?
Hmm. My mate's daughters (millennials) are hopping mad. The quote was: "our economic futures have been stolen by a plague of miserable racist pensioners".
A Mail on Sunday poll showed seven per cent of those who voted Leave, equal to more than one million people, now regret having done so. Four per cent of Remain voters also regretted their decision
The first thing mentioned was that the EU law specified Shall and it may be interpreted as Will.
This was established in Scots Law by RBS vs Wilson where the High Court ruled that the term "Shall" means "Will". So the delay in triggering Article 50 may be illegal and enforced by the EU.
How? HMG hasn't formally decided to leave yet. They have just held a consultive referendum which does not constitute an article 50 declaration.
I'm just reporting what I heard on the Newsnight special. Which as I said has already been decided in Scots Law. Shall means Will. If the argument goes that the Referendum means the UK Shall trigger Article 50, then it Will trigger Article 50 (under Scots law, etc, etc).
I would suggest the stress on Shall means Will is very much the EU referring to RBS vs Wilson and with legal advice.
A Mail on Sunday poll showed seven per cent of those who voted Leave, equal to more than one million people, now regret having done so. Four per cent of Remain voters also regretted their decision
Not enough to change the result, but it would be tight - 50.2% leave to 49.8% remain. Assuming those who regretted it wanted to vote the other way rather than abstain.
One lesson the entire world should be learning right now is that significant, irreversible change probably shouldn't be decided through a one-off referendum with absolutely no qualification conditions attached.
If a re-run were to be held next Thursday there's every chance the result would be different. And that makes a mockery of the original result. Essentially it's so close that it comes down to luck. Weather, disingenuous tactical voting, and other trivial factors can tip the result one way or another, and it's preposterous that this can decide something with a long-lasting impact that is fundamentally irreversible.
This would be equally true in the event of a narrow Remain win. Ideally for change to be enacted, you need to be looking at at least a 60-40 majority to pass - something solid enough that it couldn't swing the other way with a few factors of happenstance turning out differently.
What total cobblers. When you've had one vote - then re-run it again, it changes opinions because those who didn't bother stick their oar in knowing what the result was. And those who are pissed off at being asked again.
When this was tried in Winchester - it ended in tears.
The 1997 Winchester by-election was a by-election to the UK House of Commons in the constituency of Winchester, Hampshire.
After an unclear (and extremely close) result in Winchester at the general election on 1 May 1997, a new election was allowed by the High Court.
The by-election, held on 20 November, was won by Mark Oaten (Liberal Democrat) with a majority of 21,556.
The reason Mark Oaten won the by-election was because Richard Huggett stood as a Literal Democrat and fooled many people into voting for him and consequently Oaten won the first election by just two votes. In the second by-election, people were wise to the fact that they had been fooled and gave Oaten a massive majority. Many Brexiters now know they were fooled in the referendum and won't be fooled again.
Eh? I thought the Literal Democrat thing happened for the euro parliament in the West Country, when it used to be done by FPTP
The first thing mentioned was that the EU law specified Shall and it may be interpreted as Will.
This was established in Scots Law by RBS vs Wilson where the High Court ruled that the term "Shall" means "Will". So the delay in triggering Article 50 may be illegal and enforced by the EU.
Run it by me again, how Scots case law binds a consultative referendum undertaken by the UK Government out of Westminster?
The first thing mentioned was that the EU law specified Shall and it may be interpreted as Will.
This was established in Scots Law by RBS vs Wilson where the High Court ruled that the term "Shall" means "Will". So the delay in triggering Article 50 may be illegal and enforced by the EU.
How? HMG hasn't formally decided to leave yet. They have just held a consultive referendum which does not constitute an article 50 declaration.
I'm just reporting what I heard on the Newsnight special. Which as I said has already been decided in Scots Law. Shall means Will. If the argument goes that the Referendum means the UK Shall trigger Article 50, then it Will trigger Article 50 (under Scots law, etc, etc).
As it is consultative, doesn't the referendum mean it "could" trigger 50?
A Mail on Sunday poll showed seven per cent of those who voted Leave, equal to more than one million people, now regret having done so. Four per cent of Remain voters also regretted their decision
Ahhhh.. Remainer tabloid runs poll that oddly gets just enough to create doubt within the actual referendum result or a difference of 3% (whatever gets you closer to the next winge about the actual outcome. )
If Scotland quits the UK she is immediately bankrupt. And there's an end to it.
Which is bankrupt, Scotland or the UK?
I've just spent the evening with old friends in Soho.
It was quite an amazing juxtaposition. Me and my pals are all grizzled old fucks - a bunch of men and women aged 45-55. We go back yonks. We reminisce.
We went from the Coach and Horses to the Groucho to some weird French bar. A lot of our time - when we weren't talking about sex (mainly wistfully), drugs (regretfully) or football (critically) was spent talking about the VOTE.
I didn't know you hung out with Mr Meeks on weekends ;-)
I was joking on my expected over reaction at a major uni I was visiting on Friday. In reality, there was of course grumbling, but surprisingly it didn't seem much more than that and was business as usual. Egg heads being egg heads.
There was no talking people down off the roofs or EU academics chaining themselves to their desks in protest.
ALL the Millennials I know are just doing a great big shrug and saying Meh, life will go on. It's the 40 and 50 somethings who are weeping, or exulting.
Most unexpected.
Is it because we are wiser and see the great importance of these events, or do the young have a natural ability to discern the triviality of politics - in an age when technology can change lives in a a second?
Hmm. My mate's daughters (millennials) are hopping mad. The quote was: "our economic futures have been stolen by a plague of miserable racist pensioners".
You may have misheard. it was actually:
"our economic futures have been stolen by people like my dad's mate who's a miserable racist rottenborough ."
If Scotland quits the UK she is immediately bankrupt. And there's an end to it.
Which is bankrupt, Scotland or the UK?
I've just spent the evening with old friends in Soho.
It was quite an amazing juxtaposition. Me and my pals are all grizzled old fucks - a bunch of men and women aged 45-55. We go back yonks. We reminisce.
We went from the Coach and Horses to the Groucho to some weird French bar. A lot of our time - when we weren't talking about sex (mainly wistfully), drugs (regretfully) or football (critically) was spent talking about the VOTE.
One of us, a Bremainer, was in total despair. Thought it heralded the end of days. He was - is - a very smart lawyer. The rest - even the lefties - were oddly neutral. For them it was good and bad, London property was madly overpriced, a reduction would be good, shame about Scotland but who cares really.
In the end it was just me and the despairing Bremainer who really cared, and in the end we got drunk and stopped caring.
And outside London Pride weekend went on, people of all races, ages and genders basically copulating in the streets. A true bacchanal.
I couldn't work out whether this meant England, Britain, London - will endure, as it always has - or whether this was a final decadent free for all, like Paris just before the Blitzkrieg.
I didn't know you hung out with Mr Meeks on weekends ;-)
I was joking on my expected over reaction at a major uni I was visiting on Friday. In reality, there was of course grumbling, but surprisingly it didn't seem much more than that and was business as usual. Egg heads being egg heads.
There was no talking people down off the roofs or EU academics chaining themselves to their desks in protest.
ALL the Millennials I know are just doing a great big shrug and saying Meh, life will go on. It's the 40 and 50 somethings who are weeping, or exulting.
Most unexpected.
Is it because we are wiser and see the great importance of these events, or do the young have a natural ability to discern the triviality of politics - in an age when technology can change lives in a a second?
Hmm. My mate's daughters (millennials) are hopping mad. The quote was: "our economic futures have been stolen by a plague of miserable racist pensioners".
I wish I could have got a pension at 40
I retired at 35. You make you're own luck...
Well done !!
. I pursued a dream. ..........Took longer than I thought.
If Scotland quits the UK she is immediately bankrupt. And there's an end to it.
Which is bankrupt, Scotland or the UK?
I've just spent the evening with old friends in Soho.
It was quite an amazing juxtaposition. Me and my pals are all grizzled old fucks - a bunch of men and women aged 45-55. We go back yonks. We reminisc One of us, a Bremainer, was in total despair. Thought it heralded the end of days. He was - is - a very smart lawyer. The rest - even the lefties - were oddly neutral. For them it was good and bad, London property was madly overpriced, a reduction would be good, shame about Scotland but who cares really.
In the end it was just me and the despairing Bremainer who really cared, and in th
I couldn't work out whether this meant England, Britain, London - will endure, as it always has - or whether this was a final decadent free for all, like Paris just before the Blitzkrieg.
I didn't know you hung out with Mr Meeks on weekends ;-)
I was joking on my expected over reaction at a major uni I was visiting on Friday. In reality, there was of course grumbling, but surprisingly it didn't seem much more than that and was business as usual. Egg heads being egg heads.
There was no talking people down off the roofs or EU academics chaining themselves to their desks in protest.
ALL the Millennials I know are just doing a great big shrug and saying Meh, life will go on. It's the 40 and 50 somethings who are weeping, or exulting.
Most unexpected.
Is it because we are wiser and see the great importance of these events, or do the young have a natural ability to discern the triviality of politics - in an age when technology can change lives in a a second?
Hmm. My mate's daughters (millennials) are hopping mad. The quote was: "our economic futures have been stolen by a plague of miserable racist pensioners".
Sure, there is a minority who are hopping mad, but most Remain voters seem to be either apathetic or in some cases are now happy about the result, getting caught up in the excitement and wanting to believe things are going to change for the better.
The polling was pretty clear in the run-up that most Remain voters were unenthusiastic.
Isn't there a Populus poll doing that rounds that shows 48% happy with the result, 43% unhappy? Been in London this evening and there has been no gnashing of teeth, people seem to have moved on to the next thing already (football, Pride, shopping...).
What do you mean, enough of this nonsense? It's much more nonsensical of the EU to pretend that Scotland is really the UK and nothing has changed then to agree to Scotland's accession in its own right, which is entirely feasible in the timeframe, if people want it to be.
The United Nations pretended that Taiwan (a tiny island of 15m people) was China for 26 years. China had a population over 500 times that during the period.
The EU could easily pretend that Scotland is the UK.
Surely that was because ROC was an ally of the US, whereas POC was communist.
That's part of the point, RoC could not be Veto'd by the Security Council. It had to be a majority vote of the UN General Assembly. This took till 1971 when the General Assembly removed RoC as "China" and RoC could not Veto it.
This has no relevance whatsoever. You have managed to contort yourself into a view that it is a "fantasy" to think that the UN would decide that the continuator country of the UK would be Scotland instead of the UK of England and NI. If you were arguing the theoretical possibility of that happening then fair enough, but you went a bit further than that and said it "WILL NOT HAPPEN".
One lesson the entire world should be learning right now is that significant, irreversible change probably shouldn't be decided through a one-off referendum with absolutely no qualification conditions attached.
If a re-run were to be held next Thursday there's every chance the result would be different. And that makes a mockery of the original result. Essentially it's so close that it comes down to luck. Weather, disingenuous tactical voting, and other trivial factors can tip the result one way or another, and it's preposterous that this can decide something with a long-lasting impact that is fundamentally irreversible.
This would be equally true in the event of a narrow Remain win. Ideally for change to be enacted, you need to be looking at at least a 60-40 majority to pass - something solid enough that it couldn't swing the other way with a few factors of happenstance turning out differently.
What total cobblers. When you've had one vote - then re-run it again, it changes opinions because those who didn't bother stick their oar in knowing what the result was. And those who are pissed off at being asked again.
When this was tried in Winchester - it ended in tears.
The 1997 Winchester by-election was a by-election to the UK House of Commons in the constituency of Winchester, Hampshire.
After an unclear (and extremely close) result in Winchester at the general election on 1 May 1997, a new election was allowed by the High Court.
The by-election, held on 20 November, was won by Mark Oaten (Liberal Democrat) with a majority of 21,556.
need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.
Selective quoting of Gove there. He said:
"Our shared mission is clear: securing the best possible terms for Britain and, of course, informal discussions should proceed our formal negotiations."
Implying article 50 would be invoked.
And also, "on and on", really? He mentioned it once.
I can see why this might be a problem for a remainer, or someone who kept their distance from the referendum campaign. But surely Boris and Gove have gone too far to have such second thoughts now? Both of them, particularly Boris, already have the outcome of the vote as their responsibility, since without the two of them few people will have expected the Leave campaign to have won. OK we know Boris may not have believed his own decision, but it's too late for that now.
I've seen numerous people saying on here that the fundamental problems remain for Scottish independence. That may be true, but it's irrelevant.
Project Fear has just failed (as a campaigning tool). The Scots won't be swayed by any unionist warnings on the economy.
They have the simpler, better message, like Leave did. Hell, they could probably just reuse the slogan - Take Control! The equivalent of leave's immigration push will be to stir up anti-english sentiment via 'dogwhistle' tactics. "Do you really want to chain yourselves to those racist english?"
The establishment in westminster will be preoccupied with brexit negotiations. In Scotland, scottish newspapers already showing warming to independence. Only Ruth Davidson is likely to explicitly reject independence, and even then I doubt she will campaign hard for it (she has to say no because of the Holyrood campaign). Labour and Lib Dems neutral or supportive.
People saying the EU won't be supportive of SNP efforts - but if the UK continues to do nothing, not triggering article 50 etc, the EU could very well decide a plan separately with scotland. Spain is the only real threat, and they are so caught up in their own problems I doubt Scotland is first thing on their minds.
Polls saying 59% support independence. Others here saying they expected more - maybe so but considering how Leave turned it around, that's a good starting point.
Sturgeon can do this, win independence, but she needs to move quickly, seize the moment.
To clarify, I'm english so this isn't my fight, but the writing's on the wall.
It's still bollocks tho.
Scotland is now in deep fiscal deficit. The oil is gone, over, finished.
If Scotland votes for independence - and good luck to them if they do- they will do it knowing that they will face immediate and enormous tax hikes, incredible austerity, a massive spike in unemployment etc. This isn't guesswork, this is just the case.
Who the hell would vote for that, despite the understandable emotional spasm that yearns for freedom?
Edinburgh replacing London as the US-EU link would sort their finances overnight. What does London actually make that can't be replaced elsewhere ?
One lesson the entire world should be learning right now is that significant, irreversible change probably shouldn't be decided through a one-off referendum with absolutely no qualification conditions attached.
If a re-run were to be held next Thursday there's every chance the result would be different. And that makes a mockery of the original result. Essentially it's so close that it comes down to luck. Weather, disingenuous tactical voting, and other trivial factors can tip the result one way or another, and it's preposterous that this can decide something with a long-lasting impact that is fundamentally irreversible.
This would be equally true in the event of a narrow Remain win. Ideally for change to be enacted, you need to be looking at at least a 60-40 majority to pass - something solid enough that it couldn't swing the other way with a few factors of happenstance turning out differently.
What total cobblers. When you've had one vote - then re-run it again, it changes opinions because those who didn't bother stick their oar in knowing what the result was. And those who are pissed off at being asked again.
When this was tried in Winchester - it ended in tears.
The 1997 Winchester by-election was a by-election to the UK House of Commons in the constituency of Winchester, Hampshire.
After an unclear (and extremely close) result in Winchester at the general election on 1 May 1997, a new election was allowed by the High Court.
The by-election, held on 20 November, was won by Mark Oaten (Liberal Democrat) with a majority of 21,556.
The reason Mark Oaten won the by-election was because Richard Huggett stood as a Literal Democrat and fooled many people into voting for him and consequently Oaten won the first election by just two votes. In the second by-election, people were wise to the fact that they had been fooled and gave Oaten a massive majority. Many Brexiters now know they were fooled in the referendum and won't be fooled again.
Do you want me to gauge the pulse of the Brexit heartlands if we rerun the referendum ?
Thanks for the offer but I don't think it will be necessary to rerun it. Parliament says thanks for your advice. It was a close run thing and on balance we are going to remain.
The EU isn't going to allow us to remain even if we wanted to so it's all a bit of wishful thinking.
Hmm. My mate's daughters (millennials) are hopping mad. The quote was: "our economic futures have been stolen by a plague of miserable racist pensioners".
Those "miserable racist pensioners" will have had 40 years of paying tax. They have a helluva lot more skin in the game than lippy teens and twenty somethings.
Someone tell her the future isn't handed to them on a plate. Want a better future? Bloody well work for it then, rather than waiting for it to fall into her lap.
Oh, and learn to vote if you want an outcome. Brexit would not have happened if more of the under thirties had not been fully signed up members of the Can't Be Arsed Party.
Fox jr feels the same, and he voted so has every right to complain.
His generation are going to have a different attitude to the elderly than my own. This is only part of it, baby boomers have feathered their own nests very nicely and expect the young to pay for their lifestyle, while loading his generation with debts.
I am more philosophical, I am used to seeing the country make crap decisions in elections. Life goes on.
The Boomers have truly destroyed this country's future and yet it is very hard to argue against your granny or mum. My parents live in cost free palace, 5 bedrooms, a place I could never afford while getting £22 a year from pensions no-one of my generation will have access to and its topped up by £12k a year of state pensions.
Plus they don't pay for their TV license, get free bus travel, discounts in lots of shops, etc.
Both their private pensions were actually from public sector employment and therefore tax consuming and never actually paid for. The whole thing is broken. But who the hell is gonna tell their mum and dad they shouldn't get all this money they didn't earn. It's their mum and dad!
One lesson the entire world should be learning right now is that significant, irreversible change probably shouldn't be decided through a one-off referendum with absolutely no qualification conditions attached.
If a re-run were to be held next Thursday there's every chance the result would be different. And that makes a mockery of the original result. Essentially it's so close that it comes down to luck. Weather, disingenuous tactical voting, and other trivial factors can tip the result one way or another, and it's preposterous that this can decide something with a long-lasting impact that is fundamentally irreversible.
This would be equally true in the event of a narrow Remain win. Ideally for change to be enacted, you need to be looking at at least a 60-40 majority to pass - something solid enough that it couldn't swing the other way with a few factors of happenstance turning out differently.
What total cobblers. When you've had one vote - then re-run it again, it changes opinions because those who didn't bother stick their oar in knowing what the result was. And those who are pissed off at being asked again.
When this was tried in Winchester - it ended in tears.
The 1997 Winchester by-election was a by-election to the UK House of Commons in the constituency of Winchester, Hampshire.
After an unclear (and extremely close) result in Winchester at the general election on 1 May 1997, a new election was allowed by the High Court.
The by-election, held on 20 November, was won by Mark Oaten (Liberal Democrat) with a majority of 21,556.
The reason Mark Oaten won the by-election was because Richard Huggett stood as a Literal Democrat and fooled many people into voting for him and consequently Oaten won the first election by just two votes. In the second by-election, people were wise to the fact that they had been fooled and gave Oaten a massive majority. Many Brexiters now know they were fooled in the referendum and won't be fooled again.
Do you want me to gauge the pulse of the Brexit heartlands if we rerun the referendum ?
Thanks for the offer but I don't think it will be necessary to rerun it. Parliament says thanks for your advice. It was a close run thing and on balance we are going to remain.
The EU isn't going to allow us to remain even if we wanted to so it's all a bit of wishful thinking.
We haven't invoked Article 50 yet so we remain a member of the EU until we do (if we do).
Hmm. My mate's daughters (millennials) are hopping mad. The quote was: "our economic futures have been stolen by a plague of miserable racist pensioners".
Those "miserable racist pensioners" will have had 40 years of paying tax. They have a helluva lot more skin in the game than lippy teens and twenty somethings.
Someone tell her the future isn't handed to them on a plate. Want a better future? Bloody well work for it then, rather than waiting for it to fall into her lap.
Oh, and learn to vote if you want an outcome. Brexit would not have happened if more of the under thirties had not been fully signed up members of the Can't Be Arsed Party.
The first thing mentioned was that the EU law specified Shall and it may be interpreted as Will.
This was established in Scots Law by RBS vs Wilson where the High Court ruled that the term "Shall" means "Will". So the delay in triggering Article 50 may be illegal and enforced by the EU.
How? HMG hasn't formally decided to leave yet. They have just held a consultive referendum which does not constitute an article 50 declaration.
I'm just reporting what I heard on the Newsnight special. Which as I said has already been decided in Scots Law. Shall means Will. If the argument goes that the Referendum means the UK Shall trigger Article 50, then it Will trigger Article 50 (under Scots law, etc, etc).
As it is consultative, doesn't the referendum mean it "could" trigger 50?
IANAL.
The wording was very specific. Shall means Will (as I understand it) is a big thing in Scots Law since RBS vs Wilson and again as I understand it, legal principles can be taken across jurisdiction. The EU appear to be arguing that the Scots Law decision of RBS vs Wilson applies to the EU Ref.
I've seen numerous people saying on here that the fundamental problems remain for Scottish independence. That may be true, but it's irrelevant.
Project Fear has just failed (as a campaigning tool). The Scots won't be swayed by any unionist warnings on the economy.
They have the simpler, better message, like Leave did. Hell, they could probably just reuse the slogan - Take Control! The equivalent of leave's immigration push will be to stir up anti-english sentiment via 'dogwhistle' tactics. "Do you really want to chain yourselves to those racist english?"
The establishment in westminster will be preoccupied with brexit negotiations. In Scotland, scottish newspapers already showing warming to independence. Only Ruth Davidson is likely to explicitly reject independence, and even then I doubt she will campaign hard for it (she has to say no because of the Holyrood campaign). Labour and Lib Dems neutral or supportive.
People saying the EU won't be supportive of SNP efforts - but if the UK continues to do nothing, not triggering article 50 etc, the EU could very well decide a plan separately with scotland. Spain is the only real threat, and they are so caught up in their own problems I doubt Scotland is first thing on their minds.
Polls saying 59% support independence. Others here saying they expected more - maybe so but considering how Leave turned it around, that's a good starting point.
Sturgeon can do this, win independence, but she needs to move quickly, seize the moment.
To clarify, I'm english so this isn't my fight, but the writing's on the wall.
It's still bollocks tho.
Scotland is now in deep fiscal deficit. The oil is gone, over, finished.
If Scotland votes for independence - and good luck to them if they do- they will do it knowing that they will face immediate and enormous tax hikes, incredible austerity, a massive spike in unemployment etc. This isn't guesswork, this is just the case.
Who the hell would vote for that, despite the understandable emotional spasm that yearns for freedom?
Edinburgh replacing London as the US-EU link would sort their finances overnight. What does London actually make that can't be replaced elsewhere ?
Yup. I don't know if it's plausible or not that this might actually happen but it's a great story. I don't really see how the nats can lose this time.
So, is leaving the EU worth losing Scotland? Discuss.
I always liked the sound of one nation conservatism, thinking it meant nice conservatives trying to bring everyone together. I never realised it meant only England would be left.
The first thing mentioned was that the EU law specified Shall and it may be interpreted as Will.
This was established in Scots Law by RBS vs Wilson where the High Court ruled that the term "Shall" means "Will". So the delay in triggering Article 50 may be illegal and enforced by the EU.
How? HMG hasn't formally decided to leave yet. They have just held a consultive referendum which does not constitute an article 50 declaration.
I'm just reporting what I heard on the Newsnight special. Which as I said has already been decided in Scots Law. Shall means Will. If the argument goes that the Referendum means the UK Shall trigger Article 50, then it Will trigger Article 50 (under Scots law, etc, etc).
As it is consultative, doesn't the referendum mean it "could" trigger 50?
IANAL.
The wording was very specific. Shall means Will (as I understand it) is a big thing in Scots Law since RBS vs Wilson and again as I understand it, legal principles can be taken across jurisdiction. The EU appear to be arguing that the Scots Law decision of RBS vs Wilson applies to the EU Ref.
But, again, IDK, I'm not a lawyer.
I'm not sure changing the wording to "A member state which decided to withdraw *will* notify..." changes anything. The key word in that sentence is actually "decided", which is done by HMG, by formally notifying the council.
I've seen numerous people saying on here that the fundamental problems remain for Scottish independence. That may be true, but it's irrelevant.
Project Fear has just failed (as a campaigning tool). The Scots won't be swayed by any unionist warnings on the economy.
They have the simpler, better message, like Leave did. Hell, they could probably just reuse the slogan - Take Control! The equivalent of leave's immigration push will be to stir up anti-english sentiment via 'dogwhistle' tactics. "Do you really want to chain yourselves to those racist english?"
The establishment in westminster will be preoccupied with brexit negotiations. In Scotland, scottish newspapers already showing warming to independence. Only Ruth Davidson is likely to explicitly reject independence, and even then I doubt she will campaign hard for it (she has to say no because of the Holyrood campaign). Labour and Lib Dems neutral or supportive.
People saying the EU won't be supportive of SNP efforts - but if the UK continues to do nothing, not triggering article 50 etc, the EU could very well decide a plan separately with scotland. Spain is the only real threat, and they are so caught up in their own problems I doubt Scotland is first thing on their minds.
Polls saying 59% support independence. Others here saying they expected more - maybe so but considering how Leave turned it around, that's a good starting point.
Sturgeon can do this, win independence, but she needs to move quickly, seize the moment.
To clarify, I'm english so this isn't my fight, but the writing's on the wall.
It's still bollocks tho.
Scotland is now in deep fiscal deficit. The oil is gone, over, finished.
If Scotland votes for independence - and good luck to them if they do- they will do it knowing that they will face immediate and enormous tax hikes, incredible austerity, a massive spike in unemployment etc. This isn't guesswork, this is just the case.
Who the hell would vote for that, despite the understandable emotional spasm that yearns for freedom?
The UK just voted for Brexit despite knowing the short-term pain and the pound duly plummeted but longer term it will work out as it will for Scotland because emotionally the Scots do not want to be part of the UK just as the English and Welsh did not want to be part of the EU. That 59% poll rating for independence today is a death knell for Unionists north of the border https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/746808764041469952
What do you mean, enough of this nonsense? It's much more nonsensical of the EU to pretend that Scotland is really the UK and nothing has changed then to agree to Scotland's accession in its own right, which is entirely feasible in the timeframe, if people want it to be.
The United Nations pretended that Taiwan (a tiny island of 15m people) was China for 26 years. China had a population over 500 times that during the period.
The EU could easily pretend that Scotland is the UK.
Surely that was because ROC was an ally of the US, whereas POC was communist.
That's part of the point, RoC could not be Veto'd by the Security Council. It had to be a majority vote of the UN General Assembly. This took till 1971 when the General Assembly removed RoC as "China" and RoC could not Veto it.
This has no relevance whatsoever. You have managed to contort yourself into a view that it is a "fantasy" to think that the UN would decide that the continuator country of the UK would be Scotland instead of the UK of England and NI. If you were arguing the theoretical possibility of that happening then fair enough, but you went a bit further than that and said it "WILL NOT HAPPEN".
I never said that.
I said the UN would decide there was NO continuing country. Which is not just reasonably but likely given the clamour for Security Council reform.
Deep thought: If Scotland vote for independence, that changes the situation for rUK, which now has a large land border with the EU. Parliament won't want a re-run of EURef under current conditions, but I wonder if Scottish independence might give them the excuse they need.
The EU only makes you have another referendum when you don't provide the "correct" result. As far as the EU is concerned we HAVE provided the correct result - that's why they are urging us to get on and start the exit negotiations.
I've seen numerous people saying on here that the fundamental problems remain for Scottish independence. That may be true, but it's irrelevant.
Project Fear has just failed (as a campaigning tool). The Scots won't be swayed by any unionist warnings on the economy.
They have the simpler, better message, like Leave did. Hell, they could probably just reuse the slogan - Take Control! The equivalent of leave's immigration push will be to stir up anti-english sentiment via 'dogwhistle' tactics. "Do you really want to chain yourselves to those racist english?"
The establishment in westminster will be preoccupied with brexit negotiations. In Scotland, scottish newspapers already showing warming to independence. Only Ruth Davidson is likely to explicitly reject independence, and even then I doubt she will campaign hard for it (she has to say no because of the Holyrood campaign). Labour and Lib Dems neutral or supportive.
People saying the EU won't be supportive of SNP efforts - but if the UK continues to do nothing, not triggering article 50 etc, the EU could very well decide a plan separately with scotland. Spain is the only real threat, and they are so caught up in their own problems I doubt Scotland is first thing on their minds.
Polls saying 59% support independence. Others here saying they expected more - maybe so but considering how Leave turned it around, that's a good starting point.
Sturgeon can do this, win independence, but she needs to move quickly, seize the moment.
To clarify, I'm english so this isn't my fight, but the writing's on the wall.
It's still bollocks tho.
Scotland is now in deep fiscal deficit. The oil is gone, over, finished.
If Scotland votes for independence - and good luck to them if they do- they will do it knowing that they will face immediate and enormous tax hikes, incredible austerity, a massive spike in unemployment etc. This isn't guesswork, this is just the case.
Who the hell would vote for that, despite the understandable emotional spasm that yearns for freedom?
Edinburgh replacing London as the US-EU link would sort their finances overnight. What does London actually make that can't be replaced elsewhere ?
London Gin is quite nice. Is it actually made in London?
The EU only makes you have another referendum when you don't provide the "correct" result. As far as the EU is concerned we HAVE provided the correct result - that's why they are urging us to get on and start the exit negotiations.
There will now be Labour leadership election. Sacking Benn who was organizing a mass resignation is the end for Corbyn.
Wouldn't Corbyn be re-elected by the membership unless he steps aside?
Corbyn to be gone before Cameron??
I don't think it's a given now. Support base had a lot of middle-class remainers and I've seen evidence of a few previous sympathisers turning in the last 48 hours. Enough? I reckon so.
Hmm. My mate's daughters (millennials) are hopping mad. The quote was: "our economic futures have been stolen by a plague of miserable racist pensioners".
Those "miserable racist pensioners" will have had 40 years of paying tax. They have a helluva lot more skin in the game than lippy teens and twenty somethings.
Someone tell her the future isn't handed to them on a plate. Want a better future? Bloody well work for it then, rather than waiting for it to fall into her lap.
Oh, and learn to vote if you want an outcome. Brexit would not have happened if more of the under thirties had not been fully signed up members of the Can't Be Arsed Party.
Couldn't agree more.
I'm 32 in August so not ancient and so feel I have a bit of a right to say this: my generation and below probably contains some of the most ignorant, self-obsessed, self-entitled, spoilt, selfish and intolerant people ever to have walked this earth. I blame the parents, whose pandering to their every whim is a form of abuse - both on their children who never learn that they can't always get what they want, and on the rest of society, which has to deal with the consequences. This petition is a classic example of this: they don't like the result of an election and so want to keep re-running it until they get the result they agree with. We are basically fucked as a species.
There will now be Labour leadership election. Sacking Benn who was organizing a mass resignation is the end for Corbyn.
Wouldn't Corbyn be re-elected by the membership unless he steps aside?
Corbyn to be gone before Cameron??
I don't think it's a given now. Support base had a lot of middle-class remainers and I've seen evidence of a few previous sympathisers turning in the last 48 hours. Enough? I reckon so.
It's worth testing. He is so utterly crap that even the disciples must be starting to wake up. Plus Polly will be telling them every day for the next three months to get rid of the spineless idiot.
The EU only makes you have another referendum when you don't provide the "correct" result. As far as the EU is concerned we HAVE provided the correct result - that's why they are urging us to get on and start the exit negotiations.
Right, but: 1) Is anyone on the UK side actually going to pull the trigger? 2) Assuming they do, given the amount of everybody's wealth Brexit destroys, would the EU really stand firm against taksies-backsies? I know at that point you need unanimity which is a high hurdle, but all those governments will be able to point to some of their own constituents who are screwed by Brexit, and unanimity over the status quo is much easier than unanimity over change.
FWIW, I think it's highly fanciful that anyone winning election as Tory leader won't have had to promise the (membership) electorate to do it on day/week one in the job. And even if they dodged that, the Poll Tax riots would look like a tea party in comparison to what followed. Tories dropping the ball would leave them unelectable, even with Corbyn in the red corner! But it does demonstrate the massive V-sign Cameron's flicked at his opponents. This wasn't just a magnanimous loser making way for the winners. Definitely "right.. here are the keys.. you lot can sort this out. I'm off with John Major to the cricket".
I think the only* democratically legitimate hope that Remainers could cling to is the scenario mentioned below with a snap election and a credible party offering to bin the result.
* - not just 'only', but also 'incredibly remote': I'm still not sure how the maths/strategy would stack up under the FTPA for an early election even if BoJo wants one. But in any case, Farron or Corbyn couldn't muster the votes. You'd either need a massively-electable Labour leader with a fully-costed plan for lots more goodies than staying in the EU, a rainbow electoral pact putting up one candidate against the Brexiteers in each seat, or the Blairite-Cameroons uniting.. pretty much this week... in an SDP-style centre force which gets on telly a lot. Any of whom would be roundly-attacked by New (dark blue) Tory for subverting democracy. (Reading that paragraph back now, I can't really see it!)
Erm, hold on -- as much as I wouldn't want him (or one of the other "moderates" who thought enthusiastically campaigning for the EU was a good idea) to be leader, I don't want a shadow cabinet which is entirely composed by Corbyn acolytes, either.
"Shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn is orchestrating a mass resignation of Jeremy Corbyn's senior team in a bid to remove the Labour leader, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal. Mr Benn is understood to have called shadow cabinet ministers yesterday afternoon to ask for their support to demand Mr Corbyn's resignation and to gauge numbers for a planned mass resignation if he refuses to step down. "
The first thing mentioned was that the EU law specified Shall and it may be interpreted as Will.
This was established in Scots Law by RBS vs Wilson where the High Court ruled that the term "Shall" means "Will". So the delay in triggering Article 50 may be illegal and enforced by the EU.
How? HMG hasn't formally decided to leave yet. They have just held a consultive referendum which does not constitute an article 50 declaration.
I'm just reporting what I heard on the Newsnight special. Which as I said has already been decided in Scots Law. Shall means Will. If the argument goes that the Referendum means the UK Shall trigger Article 50, then it Will trigger Article 50 (under Scots law, etc, etc).
As it is consultative, doesn't the referendum mean it "could" trigger 50?
IANAL.
The wording was very specific. Shall means Will (as I understand it) is a big thing in Scots Law
Scotsman accidentally falls into The Serpentine in London.
'I will drown and nobody shall save me!' he wails.
Passers-by gaze nonchalantly at the unfolding spectacle...
A Mail on Sunday poll showed seven per cent of those who voted Leave, equal to more than one million people, now regret having done so. Four per cent of Remain voters also regretted their decision
Wouldn't have affected the result.
Try it with the 7% rounded from 7.49% and the 4% from 3.51% I get a 1.4% majority for Remain. That's assuming all of the regretters then vote the other way rather than abstain.
The United Nations pretended that Taiwan (a tiny island of 15m people) was China for 26 years. China had a population over 500 times that during the period.
The EU could easily pretend that Scotland is the UK.
The China thing happened because of the US vetoing recognition of the communist government, didn't it? If David Cameron was chased to Edinburgh by pitchfork-wielding Kippers from Lincolnshire, then a UK govt in Scotland might get protection as a continuing nation.
But in modern-day EU politics, I don't see what's in it for Brussels to do that for Nicola. Britain's opt-outs and rebates are to keep one of the big contributors happy and avoid it flouncing out (how's that going, by the way?). I'm sure a nascent independent Scotland would be welcome as part of the infinite expansion of the EU, but I wouldn't imagine it would be on special terms.
By the way, I agree there's a massive groundswell which Ms Sturgeon will want to harness. But I wouldn't under-estimate electoral fatigue. And even more dangerously for her, the UK's just taken a massive leap into the dark with unanswered economic questions apparently coming back to bite Mail and Sun readers in the arse. And her unanswered ones from last time (currency, borders and economic viability) have got a lot more unanswered since 2014.. indeed since last Thursday!
Didn't I read in a Guardian article that said the youth vote "came out in force".... one for the corrections & clarifications dept.
10,000's of them were seen wandering around Glastonbury looking for the polling station.
Yeah, that explains 1 or 2%, at a stretch.
The noisy tweeters intv'd all over the media represent a fraction of those who could've voted and didn't bother.
I'm frankly sick to death of the media sucking up to yoof voters as if their opinions mattered more.
They don't. And if they can't be arsed - well they should shut up.
What was 18-24 turnout at the Scottish Indy referendum?
More precisely, according to ICM’s survey, 75% of 16 and 17 year olds voted, compared with 54% of 18-24 year olds and 72% of 25-34 year olds. The turnout in all three groups is markedly lower than the estimate for 35-54 year olds (85%) and those aged 55 and over (92%).
The 18-24 demographic in Scottish IndyRef is screwey to the large number of outside of university students many of whom isn't think it was 'right' for themselves to vote.
Comments
chortle.
I would suggest the stress on Shall means Will is very much the EU referring to RBS vs Wilson and with legal advice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_by-election,_1997
Good night
. I pursued a dream. ..........Took longer than I thought.
Is there going to be a Show Trial?
Or he's actually shown he has some bollocks
Someone tell her the future isn't handed to them on a plate. Want a better future? Bloody well work for it then, rather than waiting for it to fall into her lap.
Oh, and learn to vote if you want an outcome. Brexit would not have happened if more of the under thirties had not been fully signed up members of the Can't Be Arsed Party.
Plus they don't pay for their TV license, get free bus travel, discounts in lots of shops, etc.
Both their private pensions were actually from public sector employment and therefore tax consuming and never actually paid for. The whole thing is broken. But who the hell is gonna tell their mum and dad they shouldn't get all this money they didn't earn. It's their mum and dad!
The wording was very specific. Shall means Will (as I understand it) is a big thing in Scots Law since RBS vs Wilson and again as I understand it, legal principles can be taken across jurisdiction. The EU appear to be arguing that the Scots Law decision of RBS vs Wilson applies to the EU Ref.
But, again, IDK, I'm not a lawyer.
No, scrub that
In any case Brexit signalled the English are not bothered about Scotland going anyway79% of Leave voters saw themselves as more English than British
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/#more-14746
Corbyn to be gone before Cameron??
I said the UN would decide there was NO continuing country. Which is not just reasonably but likely given the clamour for Security Council reform.
The EU only makes you have another referendum when you don't provide the "correct" result. As far as the EU is concerned we HAVE provided the correct result - that's why they are urging us to get on and start the exit negotiations.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/746860813525319680
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
I'm 32 in August so not ancient and so feel I have a bit of a right to say this: my generation and below probably contains some of the most ignorant, self-obsessed, self-entitled, spoilt, selfish and intolerant people ever to have walked this earth. I blame the parents, whose pandering to their every whim is a form of abuse - both on their children who never learn that they can't always get what they want, and on the rest of society, which has to deal with the consequences. This petition is a classic example of this: they don't like the result of an election and so want to keep re-running it until they get the result they agree with. We are basically fucked as a species.
1) Is anyone on the UK side actually going to pull the trigger?
2) Assuming they do, given the amount of everybody's wealth Brexit destroys, would the EU really stand firm against taksies-backsies? I know at that point you need unanimity which is a high hurdle, but all those governments will be able to point to some of their own constituents who are screwed by Brexit, and unanimity over the status quo is much easier than unanimity over change.
http://jackofkent.com/2016/06/why-the-article-50-notification-is-important/
FWIW, I think it's highly fanciful that anyone winning election as Tory leader won't have had to promise the (membership) electorate to do it on day/week one in the job. And even if they dodged that, the Poll Tax riots would look like a tea party in comparison to what followed. Tories dropping the ball would leave them unelectable, even with Corbyn in the red corner! But it does demonstrate the massive V-sign Cameron's flicked at his opponents. This wasn't just a magnanimous loser making way for the winners. Definitely "right.. here are the keys.. you lot can sort this out. I'm off with John Major to the cricket".
I think the only* democratically legitimate hope that Remainers could cling to is the scenario mentioned below with a snap election and a credible party offering to bin the result.
* - not just 'only', but also 'incredibly remote': I'm still not sure how the maths/strategy would stack up under the FTPA for an early election even if BoJo wants one. But in any case, Farron or Corbyn couldn't muster the votes. You'd either need a massively-electable Labour leader with a fully-costed plan for lots more goodies than staying in the EU, a rainbow electoral pact putting up one candidate against the Brexiteers in each seat, or the Blairite-Cameroons uniting.. pretty much this week... in an SDP-style centre force which gets on telly a lot. Any of whom would be roundly-attacked by New (dark blue) Tory for subverting democracy. (Reading that paragraph back now, I can't really see it!)
"Shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn is orchestrating a mass resignation of Jeremy Corbyn's senior team in a bid to remove the Labour leader, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.
Mr Benn is understood to have called shadow cabinet ministers yesterday afternoon to ask for their support to demand Mr Corbyn's resignation and to gauge numbers for a planned mass resignation if he refuses to step down. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/25/jeremy-corbyn-i-will-fight-for-labour-leadership/
'I will drown and nobody shall save me!' he wails.
Passers-by gaze nonchalantly at the unfolding spectacle...
But in modern-day EU politics, I don't see what's in it for Brussels to do that for Nicola. Britain's opt-outs and rebates are to keep one of the big contributors happy and avoid it flouncing out (how's that going, by the way?). I'm sure a nascent independent Scotland would be welcome as part of the infinite expansion of the EU, but I wouldn't imagine it would be on special terms.
By the way, I agree there's a massive groundswell which Ms Sturgeon will want to harness. But I wouldn't under-estimate electoral fatigue. And even more dangerously for her, the UK's just taken a massive leap into the dark with unanswered economic questions apparently coming back to bite Mail and Sun readers in the arse. And her unanswered ones from last time (currency, borders and economic viability) have got a lot more unanswered since 2014.. indeed since last Thursday!