politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Nunc dimittis: Theresa May’s exit approaches

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

OK let me spell it out for everyone one last time.

There cannot be no deal (NI, some degree of economic disruption not to say chaos).
There will not be another referendum (Not appropriate, no time, impossible options).
There will not be a GE (Although mad, the Cons are not that mad).
There cannot be Norway Plus (FoM, no time).
There cannot be no Brexit (A50 nightmare, not appropriate).

Which leaves...The Deal.

Now, you say, all those idiots oppose it or say they oppose it. But, simply, the law of physics, common sense, general equilibrium and sanity cannot be violated.

Theresa's Deal it will be.

There cannot be this deal (Irish backstop is an abomination).

Which leaves amending the backstop and having Deal-

QED. Your view is mirrored by many MPs. And is the view of someone who really, really doesn't get it.

No it's the view of someone who really, really disagrees with you.

Anything is better than ending democracy. Literally anything. My grandparents and great-grandparents generations sacrificed their lives for our freedoms. I'm not prepared to sacrifice anyone's freedoms to either avoid economic carnage or terrorism.

I would rather risk violence than risk losing democracy. If my grandparents generation could face down Nazis to protect our freedoms, I'm prepared to face down potential terrorists or the risk we might have disruption at Dover.

ralphmalph said:

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

grabcocque said:

Stereotomy said:

I suppose it's possible that the exact same shift could have taken place if somehow the population had stayes the same, with nobody aging, dying, or being born, but I feel like it wouldn't have

Around about 60% of people vote for the same party their entire life.

Which puts a remarkable 40% who don't. That's a hefty chunk.

In my life I have voted:

Plaid Cymru
Liberal Democrat
Conservative
Labour
Green
Independent

I wonder how many people can say that in just 17 years of holding the franchise?

Have you ever drawn a box with NOTA next to it and ticked that?

No - I try to use my vote positively, even if I vote for no-hope candidates.

That said, I've always had a sneaking regard for this person:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/32658907/election-2015-mp-thanks-voter-for-penis-ballot-paper-mark

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

grabcocque said:

Stereotomy said:

I suppose it's possible that the exact same shift could have taken place if somehow the population had stayes the same, with nobody aging, dying, or being born, but I feel like it wouldn't have

Around about 60% of people vote for the same party their entire life.

Which puts a remarkable 40% who don't. That's a hefty chunk.

In my life I have voted:

Plaid Cymru
Liberal Democrat
Conservative
Labour
Green
Independent

I wonder how many people can say that in just 17 years of holding the franchise?

For me (I think!); I first voted in 1992):
Conservative
Labour
Lib Dem
Green
Independent

Sometimes at the same visit to the polling station (e.g. locals, GE).

Basically, most parties available in my part of England aside from UKIP. And I am so glad I never soiled myself by associating myself via a vote with that party.

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

SquareRoot said:

TOPPING said:

OK let me spell it out for everyone one last time.

There cannot be no deal (NI, some degree of economic disruption not to say chaos).
There will not be another referendum (Not appropriate, no time, impossible options).
There will not be a GE (Although mad, the Cons are not that mad).
There cannot be Norway Plus (FoM, no time).
There cannot be no Brexit (A50 nightmare, not appropriate).

Which leaves...The Deal.

Now, you say, all those idiots oppose it or say they oppose it. But, simply, the law of physics, common sense, general equilibrium and sanity cannot be violated.

Theresa's Deal it will be.

If it proves so, I will admire her even more... yet people on here keep slagging her off for being useless.

She is definitely useless.

Just after the vote she instiuted her idiotic red lines instead of doing what she has tried to do this week - inviting in those "from all sides of the House". If she had set off on this path listening less to Bill Cash and more to Hilary Benn we would probably have got to a better place.

Then again, to her credit although it's all too late, she has identified the central issue of Brexit (NI) and has constructed a (the only) deal which squares that particular circle.

By disenfranchising NI and subjecting the people who live their to a life where they have to follow other people's laws and regulation without having a say in them? That was maybe acceptable in the 18th century.

Democracy means more to me. If NI wants to follow EU rules they can vote that way. If they want to diverge they must be allowed to do so unilaterally.

No one is disenfranchising NI. According to the poll @TSE cited they support the deal. It is one more of the very strange phenomena about NI that makes it such a "special" place. It comes with the territory and sensible people, especially those that live there who don't need your ill-informed and misguided support, realise it.

I don't believe in setting laws by opinion polls and even if they do back the deal they can firstly vote for it and secondly must have the right to unilaterally undo voting for it. Currently they have neither. This is being forced on them "for their own good" and they have no rights to vote ever again unless others deem it OK.

We used to rule on behalf of colonial "savages" because it was "for their own good". I trust the people of NI to retain their vote.

Suppose May promptly resigns on the 11th Dec as per above article. Conservatives would want successor to appear properly elected, else what mandate does successor have for changing Brexit strategy? Also want prompt replacement. Therefore do all candidates say they will withdraw if they do not get most votes in first round and if they don't say this then they get very few votes and are eliminated in first round?

If this were to happen, what would the timetable look like? Might the deadline for putting name forward be as soon as Dec 14 and first round of voting Dec 20 so we get new PM by Dec 20 (when commons rises) or would timetable be more protracted and first round vote be in the New Year?

crandles said:

Suppose May promptly resigns on the 11th Dec as per above article. Conservatives would want successor to appear properly elected, else what mandate does successor have for changing Brexit strategy? Also want prompt replacement. Therefore do all candidates say they will withdraw if they do not get most votes in first round and if they don't say this then they get very few votes and are eliminated in first round?

If this were to happen, what would the timetable look like? Might the deadline for putting name forward be as soon as Dec 14 and first round of voting Dec 20 so we get new PM by Dec 20 (when commons rises) or would timetable be more protracted and first round vote be in the New Year?

Testing Tory devotion to FPTnP to the limit!

Xenon said:

Pulpstar said:

There is a real problem with what to put on the ballot against remain. Parliament won't countenance no deal, and they'll have just rejected a sensible deal brought forward

Have just remain on the ballot paper. If they want to look more democratic they could have remain on there twice or even 3 times using AV.

This will settle the outcome for a generation.

That’s outrageous. You can have the same choices 3 times. Under AV your choices are:

1. Remain
2. Stay
3. Revoke

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I don't believe in setting laws by opinion polls and even if they do back the deal they can firstly vote for it and secondly must have the right to unilaterally undo voting for it. Currently they have neither. This is being forced on them "for their own good" and they have no rights to vote ever again unless others deem it OK.

We used to rule on behalf of colonial "savages" because it was "for their own good". I trust the people of NI to retain their vote.

The particular attributes of Northern Ireland mean that there is no other option. That is the missing link of your impassioned plea, misguided as it is. You may want a world of owls and marshmallow ponies but you need to recognise the reality and the realpolitik of the situation.

Democracy is not owls and marshmallow ponies. It is a fundamental human right that can not be sacrificed by others.

TOPPING said:

OK let me spell it out for everyone one last time.

There cannot be no deal (NI, some degree of economic disruption not to say chaos).
There will not be another referendum (Not appropriate, no time, impossible options).
There will not be a GE (Although mad, the Cons are not that mad).
There cannot be Norway Plus (FoM, no time).
There cannot be no Brexit (A50 nightmare, not appropriate).

Which leaves...The Deal.

Now, you say, all those idiots oppose it or say they oppose it. But, simply, the law of physics, common sense, general equilibrium and sanity cannot be violated.

Theresa's Deal it will be.

Alternatively this is a good illustration of why an extension to A50 cannot be written off.

RobD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sounds like Graham Brady is suggesting that TM should agree for an amendment to the deal to be laid to make the deal subject to the backstop being time limited or some similar mechanism

He said that if she needs a few more days the vote can be postponed

Except Parliament has no say over the EU's negotiators.

But it gives May leverage (should she choose to use it)

“We will only approve with this change” forces the EU to choose

justin124 said:

Pulpstar said:

grabcocque said:

Stereotomy said:

I suppose it's possible that the exact same shift could have taken place if somehow the population had stayes the same, with nobody aging, dying, or being born, but I feel like it wouldn't have

Around about 60% of people vote for the same party their entire life.

I think the Labour vote is the most tribal of the lot. Come Blair or Corbyn, Hartlepool or Islington out they trot to the polling station.
At GE17 it was remarkably resilient to leave/remain differences unlike the Tories.

The Labour vote was much lower in 1983 than was the case in 1997.

Also Labour voters, prior to 2010 at least, are more receptive to voting tactically than are Tories.

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I don't believe in setting laws by opinion polls and even if they do back the deal they can firstly vote for it and secondly must have the right to unilaterally undo voting for it. Currently they have neither. This is being forced on them "for their own good" and they have no rights to vote ever again unless others deem it OK.

We used to rule on behalf of colonial "savages" because it was "for their own good". I trust the people of NI to retain their vote.

The particular attributes of Northern Ireland mean that there is no other option. That is the missing link of your impassioned plea, misguided as it is. You may want a world of owls and marshmallow ponies but you need to recognise the reality and the realpolitik of the situation.

Democracy is not owls and marshmallow ponies. It is a fundamental human right that can not be sacrificed by others.

*sob*

yes but no one is sacrificing it or them. We are instituting a pragmatic harmonised widget regulatory environment compromise that suits everyone.

Except people who are blissfully and admirably (your pronouncements all sound great) unaware of the realities of life and politics.

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I don't believe in setting laws by opinion polls and even if they do back the deal they can firstly vote for it and secondly must have the right to unilaterally undo voting for it. Currently they have neither. This is being forced on them "for their own good" and they have no rights to vote ever again unless others deem it OK.

We used to rule on behalf of colonial "savages" because it was "for their own good". I trust the people of NI to retain their vote.

The particular attributes of Northern Ireland mean that there is no other option. That is the missing link of your impassioned plea, misguided as it is. You may want a world of owls and marshmallow ponies but you need to recognise the reality and the realpolitik of the situation.

Democracy is not owls and marshmallow ponies. It is a fundamental human right that can not be sacrificed by others.

*sob*

yes but no one is sacrificing it or them. We are instituting a pragmatic harmonised widget regulatory environment compromise that suits everyone.

Except people who are blissfully and admirably (your pronouncements all sound great) unaware of the realities of life and politics.

Who votes for the regulations that set the "pragmatic harmonised widget regulatory environment"?

grabcocque said:

I was just watching a video on YouTube and it did something I'd never seen before. There was a warning underneath the video that said "RT is owned and funded in whole or in part by the Government of Russia" and a link to RT's Wikipedia page.

Are you a Cambridge Graduate?

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I don't believe in setting laws by opinion polls and even if they do back the deal they can firstly vote for it and secondly must have the right to unilaterally undo voting for it. Currently they have neither. This is being forced on them "for their own good" and they have no rights to vote ever again unless others deem it OK.

We used to rule on behalf of colonial "savages" because it was "for their own good". I trust the people of NI to retain their vote.

The particular attributes of Northern Ireland mean that there is no other option. That is the missing link of your impassioned plea, misguided as it is. You may want a world of owls and marshmallow ponies but you need to recognise the reality and the realpolitik of the situation.

Democracy is not owls and marshmallow ponies. It is a fundamental human right that can not be sacrificed by others.

*sob*

yes but no one is sacrificing it or them. We are instituting a pragmatic harmonised widget regulatory environment compromise that suits everyone.

Except people who are blissfully and admirably (your pronouncements all sound great) unaware of the realities of life and politics.

Who votes for the regulations that set the "pragmatic harmonised widget regulatory environment"?

It will have been agreed by the democratically-elected Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that the EU will take the lead in widget harmonisation.

ITV scrap their debate:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46476324

But Channel 4 continue with theirs: probably between a social justice warrior from Hackney, a Tommy Robinson supporter who cannot string two coherent sentences together, a discredited politician (Mr T. Blair) and an amoeba who will just stay still in a glass of water.

My money would be on the amoeba ...

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I don't believe in setting laws by opinion polls and even if they do back the deal they can firstly vote for it and secondly must have the right to unilaterally undo voting for it. Currently they have neither. This is being forced on them "for their own good" and they have no rights to vote ever again unless others deem it OK.

We used to rule on behalf of colonial "savages" because it was "for their own good". I trust the people of NI to retain their vote.

The particular attributes of Northern Ireland mean that there is no other option. That is the missing link of your impassioned plea, misguided as it is. You may want a world of owls and marshmallow ponies but you need to recognise the reality and the realpolitik of the situation.

Democracy is not owls and marshmallow ponies. It is a fundamental human right that can not be sacrificed by others.

*sob*

yes but no one is sacrificing it or them. We are instituting a pragmatic harmonised widget regulatory environment compromise that suits everyone.

Except people who are blissfully and admirably (your pronouncements all sound great) unaware of the realities of life and politics.

Who votes for the regulations that set the "pragmatic harmonised widget regulatory environment"?

It will have been agreed by the democratically-elected Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that the EU will take the lead in widget harmonisation.

And if the people of Northern Ireland want change that who do they elect?

They are part of the UK. If the people of Cornwall wanted a different income tax regime then sadly that wouldn't be possible.

ralphmalph said:

grabcocque said:

I was just watching a video on YouTube and it did something I'd never seen before. There was a warning underneath the video that said "RT is owned and funded in whole or in part by the Government of Russia" and a link to RT's Wikipedia page.

Are you a Cambridge Graduate?

Are you?

Mrs May is a very courageous woman. As the ever more egocentric John Humphrys preened himself between patronising questions I started to get the feeling that she was far too good for her shitty party.

Then this evening I heard David Davis who had single handedly landed her in this mess slagging her off I couldn't believe it. She was to even too polite to ask the back-stabbing slimeball what he had been doing these last two years.

Roger said:

Mrs May is a very courageous woman. As the ever more egocentric John Humphrys preened himself between patronising questions I started to get the feeling that she was far too good for her shitty party.

Then this evening I heard David Davis who had single handedly landed her in this mess slagging her off I couldn't believe it. She was to even too polite to ask the back-stabbing slimeball what he had been doing these last two years.

Being over-ridden and undermined by her.

That's the problem.....

Richard_Tyndall said:

I agree. I am not advocating voting No Deal. I am saying since it is clearly a well supported (if minority) outcome it needs to be on the ballot. Personally of course I think if there is a ballot it should just be a Deal/No Deal choice since we already decided the Leave/Remain question but the bad losers won't let that happen.

The only things that should be on the ballot should pass the EC - which no deal probably wouldn't due to apparent significant confusion over what it means. No deal also fails the parliamentary democracy test - there's no support for it in Parliament and it kind fails the test of the duty of MPs to not completely screw the company it.

And as I said above - a third of people are going to be upset regardless. So we should only be looking at options that have a reasonable chance of majority support, and ideally 60+% support. It's hard to see that ever being true for no deal.

As for "deciding the question" - well by your logic we should just accept the result of the 1975 referendum and leave it at that. The electorate is entitled to change its mind, and politicians should accept such changes. The polling suggests that there was only a brief period around the referendum when Leave was in the lead, and it seems reasonable to formally ask the question again to see if that polling is correct. After all, politicians should obey the will of the people, and the politicians should change if the will of the people changes.

Even Rees-Mogg was a fan of a second referendum back in 2011
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111024/debtext/111024-0003.htm#111024-0003.htm_spnew96
"The other two points that do not add up to much were, first, that a three-way referendum is confusing. However, that is not a problem because the motion calls for a Bill in the next Session, which can deal with any confusion. We can, in our wisdom, work out how to phrase a referendum—or series of referendums, if necessary —that will be understandable....Indeed, we could have two referendums. As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed."

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

All I did was campaign for and vote Leave. I remain immensely proud of that fact Whatever happens in the short term we will Leave. It just depends if it is relatively painless now or extremely painful in a few years. I can also say I am pleased I did not vote for May - although in my particular constituency that made bugger al difference. I detested her long before Brexit came along and all she has done is confirm my worst opinions of her.

So no, I don't think that I, nor anyone who voted Leave, has anything at all to be sorry about.

Actually, you do. You are totally one-eyed on the EU, that they cannot do any good - and that is fair enough. You admit to having spent decades in that mindset. But in the process you forget that this involved real people. As an example:

"It just depends if it is relatively painless now or extremely painful in a few years"

This says it all: that pain may not effect you (or you may not care), but it will hurt others. It may hurt my son. Or your daughter. One of the infuriating things pre-referendum was Brexiteers putting their wet dreams ahead of the consequences of those dreams. All cfor some vague and nebulous 'advantage'.

And now you warn in guarded tones about violence if leaves' impossible dreams are unfulfilled (which, due to the way it occurred, is inevitable. That violence too will affect people.

No what I am saying is that there will be pain no matter what happens. Right now it is bearable. In a few years it will be excruciating and life threatening. Anyone who thinks otherwise is burying their head in the sand.

As an aside my daughter is strongly pro Brexit.

I fear you've buried your head in the sand for far too long in your hatred of the EU. And again you mention violence.

Too late too edit. Apologies to Richard: I've noticed he didn't mention violence again - at least directly ('life threatening' could potentially mean non-violence). I shall withdraw for the night.

Have fun everyone.

JosiasJessop said:

ITV scrap their debate:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46476324

But Channel 4 continue with theirs: probably between a social justice warrior from Hackney, a Tommy Robinson supporter who cannot string two coherent sentences together, a discredited politician (Mr T. Blair) and an amoeba who will just stay still in a glass of water.

My money would be on the amoeba ...

The amoeba can't make it as he has just been elected leader of the Labour Party in Wales.

IanB2 said:

ydoethur said:

IanB2 said:

justin124 said:

Pulpstar said:

grabcocque said:

Stereotomy said:

I suppose it's possible that the exact same shift could have taken place if somehow the population had stayes the same, with nobody aging, dying, or being born, but I feel like it wouldn't have

Around about 60% of people vote for the same party their entire life.

I think the Labour vote is the most tribal of the lot. Come Blair or Corbyn, Hartlepool or Islington out they trot to the polling station.
At GE17 it was remarkably resilient to leave/remain differences unlike the Tories.

The Labour vote was much lower in 1983 than was the case in 1997.

Also Labour voters, prior to 2010 at least, are more receptive to voting tactically than are Tories.

A lot of them define themselves quite negatively though, don't they? They are not for Labour so much as against the Tories.

As a result, casting a vote for a candidate to crush the Tories is almost as satisfying as casting one for the Idoelogically Pure Great Leader For Ever (who was there, but wasn't involved).

In my experience Tory negativity about Labour is at least as strong. For whatever reason this doesn't drive them to vote tactically in such large numbers (although obviously it does happen, in seats like Clegg's for example.

Perhaps because they want to win, while Labour have always (with the exception of Blair) seen winning as at best one among many goals?

justin124 said:

Pulpstar said:

grabcocque said:

Stereotomy said:

I suppose it's possible that the exact same shift could have taken place if somehow the population had stayes the same, with nobody aging, dying, or being born, but I feel like it wouldn't have

Around about 60% of people vote for the same party their entire life.

I think the Labour vote is the most tribal of the lot. Come Blair or Corbyn, Hartlepool or Islington out they trot to the polling station.
At GE17 it was remarkably resilient to leave/remain differences unlike the Tories.

The Labour vote was much lower in 1983 than was the case in 1997.

Yes, I don't think it's all that resilient, but it is, by and large, not very interested in Brexit. The Tory mistake (which they are STILL making) was to believe that they could win seats like Bolsover by banging on about Brexit. Lots of working-class Labour voters agree with them on the subject, but they care more about bread and butter issues. And who is to say they're wrong?

I guess Topping has gone offline. For everyone claiming "this is want NI population wants" there is a simple way to back that up. Devolve the matter to Stormont and then call a fresh election for Stormont. If Stormont chooses to align with the EU they did so democratically. If Stormont chooses to align with the UK they did so democratically. If today's NI population makes a mistake the people of NI can reverse it at future elections.

That's democracy. Shame some don't respect it.

grabcocque said:

Corbyn op-ed takes another big step towards Labour backing a 2nd ref, without actually doing so.

Labour could do a better Brexit deal. Give us the chance – or give the people another vote

Jeremy Corbyn

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/06/jeremy-corbyn-general-election-brexit-labour-theresa-may?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

That looks like mischief-making from the headline writer. The article doesn't budge Labour's position a millimetre.

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I don't believe in setting laws by opinion polls and even if they do back the deal they can firstly vote for it and secondly must have the right to unilaterally undo voting for it. Currently they have neither. This is being forced on them "for their own good" and they have no rights to vote ever again unless others deem it OK.

We used to rule on behalf of colonial "savages" because it was "for their own good". I trust the people of NI to retain their vote.

The particular attributes of Northern Ireland mean that there is no other option. That is the missing link of your impassioned plea, misguided as it is. You may want a world of owls and marshmallow ponies but you need to recognise the reality and the realpolitik of the situation.

Democracy is not owls and marshmallow ponies. It is a fundamental human right that can not be sacrificed by others.

*sob*

yes but no one is sacrificing it or them. We are instituting a pragmatic harmonised widget regulatory environment compromise that suits everyone.

Except people who are blissfully and admirably (your pronouncements all sound great) unaware of the realities of life and politics.

Who votes for the regulations that set the "pragmatic harmonised widget regulatory environment"?

It will have been agreed by the democratically-elected Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that the EU will take the lead in widget harmonisation.

And if the people of Northern Ireland want change that who do they elect?

They are part of the UK. If the people of Cornwall wanted a different income tax regime then sadly that wouldn't be possible.

If the people of the UK elect a new government the tax rate can be changed unilaterally by the UK?

So you're saying if the people of the UK elect a new government then NI's widget regulations could be changed unilaterally? That's the comparison you're making right?

Oh Jesus Christ.

If the people of the UK elect a new government then the whole or individual parts of the UK will be subject to whatever the government decides.

That's democracy for you.

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I don't believe in setting laws by opinion polls and even if they do back the deal they can firstly vote for it and secondly must have the right to unilaterally undo voting for it. Currently they have neither. This is being forced on them "for their own good" and they have no rights to vote ever again unless others deem it OK.

We used to rule on behalf of colonial "savages" because it was "for their own good". I trust the people of NI to retain their vote.

So i
The particular attributes of Northern Ireland mean that there is no other option. That is the missing link of your impassioned plea, misguided as it is. You may want a world of owls and marshmallow ponies but you need to recognise the reality and the realpolitik of the situation.

Democracy is not owls and marshmallow ponies. It is a fundamental human right that can not be sacrificed by others.

*sob*

yes but no one is sacrificing it or them. We are instituting a pragmatic harmonised widget regulatory environment compromise that suits everyone.

Except people who are blissfully and admirably (your pronouncements all sound great) unaware of the realities of life and politics.

Who votes for the regulations that set the "pragmatic harmonised widget regulatory environment"?

It will have been agreed by the democratically-elected Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that the EU will take the lead in widget harmonisation.

And if the people of Northern Ireland want change that who do they elect?

They are part of the UK. If the people of Cornwall wanted a different income tax regime then sadly that wouldn't be possible.

If the people of the UK elect a new government the tax rate can be changed unilaterally by the UK?

So you're saying if the people of the UK elect a new government then NI's widget regulations could be changed unilaterally? That's the comparison you're making right?

Oh Jesus Christ.

If the people of the UK elect a new government then the whole or individual parts of the UK will be subject to whatever the government decides.

That's democracy for you.

Oh Jesus Christ.

So if in a future election the people of the UK (including Northern Ireland) elects a new government that decides on new widget regulations the whole of the UK (including Northern Ireland) will be subject to it?

That's democracy for you.

Philip_Thompson said:

Andy_Cooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

SquareRoot said:

If it proves so, I will admire her even more... yet people on here keep slagging her off for being useless.

She is definitely useless.

Just after the vote she instiuted her idiotic red lines instead of doing what she has tried to do this week - inviting in those "from all sides of the House". If she had set off on this path listening less to Bill Cash and more to Hilary Benn we would probably have got to a better place.

Then again, to her credit although it's all too late, she has identified the central issue of Brexit (NI) and has constructed a (the only) deal which squares that particular circle.

By disenfranchising NI and subjecting the people who live their to a life where they have to follow other people's laws and regulation without having a say in them? That was maybe acceptable in the 18th century.

Democracy means more to me. If NI wants to follow EU rules they can vote that way. If they want to diverge they must be allowed to do so unilaterally.

No one is disenfranchising NI. According to the poll @TSE cited they support the deal. It is one more of the very strange phenomena about NI that makes it such a "special" place. It comes with the territory and sensible people, especially those that live there who don't need your ill-informed and misguided support, realise it.

I don't believe in setting laws by opinion polls and even if they do back the deal they can firstly vote for it and secondly must have the right to unilaterally undo voting for it. .

Wait, what?
Surely allowing a vote to change their mind and undo their first vote would be totally undemocratic...

At a future election? No its not, not after the first has been implemented.

If after we leave at a future election post-Brexit a party is elected seeking to undo Brexit then that would be fine by me.

Say, during the transition period?
As we would, after all, have left at that point.q

As an aside, was Baldwin undemocratic in 1923? You know, when he decided to repudiate the previous Conservative manifesto and go for protectionism, and decided to call an election to get a mandate to do that?

Philip_Thompson said:

I guess Topping has gone offline. For everyone claiming "this is want NI population wants" there is a simple way to back that up. Devolve the matter to Stormont and then call a fresh election for Stormont. If Stormont chooses to align with the EU they did so democratically. If Stormont chooses to align with the UK they did so democratically. If today's NI population makes a mistake the people of NI can reverse it at future elections.

That's democracy. Shame some don't respect it.

Given the quirks in Northern Irish decision making I’m not sure you’re going to get a consensus at Stormont on the way forward - it’s hard enough forming an executive at the moment.

williamglenn said:

grabcocque said:

Corbyn op-ed takes another big step towards Labour backing a 2nd ref, without actually doing so.

Labour could do a better Brexit deal. Give us the chance – or give the people another vote

Jeremy Corbyn

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/06/jeremy-corbyn-general-election-brexit-labour-theresa-may?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

That looks like mischief-making from the headline writer. The article doesn't budge Labour's position a millimetre.

The'r position, and where it will end up, has been very obvious for some time. Like the government officially ruling out a referendum the stated position is true, but everyone knows that will change as the circumstances change. We might disagree on how it will change, but that it will change is certain.

El_Sid said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

I agree. I am not advocating voting No Deal. I am saying since it is clearly a well supported (if minority) outcome it needs to be on the ballot. Personally of course I think if there is a ballot it should just be a Deal/No Deal choice since we already decided the Leave/Remain question but the bad losers won't let that happen.

The only things that should be on the ballot should pass the EC - which no deal probably wouldn't due to apparent significant confusion over what it means. No deal also fails the parliamentary democracy test - there's no support for it in Parliament and it kind fails the test of the duty of MPs to not completely screw the company it.

And as I said above - a third of people are going to be upset regardless. So we should only be looking at options that have a reasonable chance of majority support, and ideally 60+% support. It's hard to see that ever being true for no deal.

As for "deciding the question" - well by your logic we should just accept the result of the 1975 referendum and leave it at that. The electorate is entitled to change its mind, and politicians should accept such changes. The polling suggests that there was only a brief period around the referendum when Leave was in the lead, and it seems reasonable to formally ask the question again to see if that polling is correct. After all, politicians should obey the will of the people, and the politicians should change if the will of the people changes.

Even Rees-Mogg was a fan of a second referendum back in 2011
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111024/debtext/111024-0003.htm#111024-0003.htm_spnew96
"The other two points that do not add up to much were, first, that a three-way referendum is confusing. However, that is not a problem because the motion calls for a Bill in the next Session, which can deal with any confusion. We can, in our wisdom, work out how to phrase a referendum—or series of referendums, if necessary —that will be understandable....Indeed, we could have two referendums. As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed."

Am I alone in thinking that our democracy is actually functioning extremely well at the moment?

We have a crisis, parliament is split into several factions with seemingly too few with any common ground to reach an agreement, the population of the country is deeply divided. And yet we/they continue to argue their/our various corners with what seems to me a reassuring reliance on recognised process and procedure.

Good evening, everyone.

JosiasJessop said:

TOPPING said:

OK let me spell it out for everyone one last time.

There cannot be no deal (NI, some degree of economic disruption not to say chaos).
There will not be another referendum (Not appropriate, no time, impossible options).
There will not be a GE (Although mad, the Cons are not that mad).
There cannot be Norway Plus (FoM, no time).
There cannot be no Brexit (A50 nightmare, not appropriate).

Which leaves...The Deal.

Now, you say, all those idiots oppose it or say they oppose it. But, simply, the law of physics, common sense, general equilibrium and sanity cannot be violated.

Theresa's Deal it will be.

I'd like to agree with you, but I fear that MPs might not see the bigger picture and try to defy gravity.

Wouldn't have been so bad if, in their fervour for remain/no deal/a unicorn, they had a little more wiggle room in their opposition to allow a reconsideration, should they need to wake up.

Now (unless we are lucky and they are right about the EU bending) even if they realise they cannot defy gravity, they are too far over the edge to pull back.

TOPPING said:

Now, you say, all those idiots oppose it or say they oppose it. But, simply, the law of physics, common sense, general equilibrium and sanity cannot be violated.

Sure they can.

I think you overlook a terrible outcome occurring by accident. Things might get pushed too far. It's like firing a gun and then immediately regretting it; too late now. (No doubt some will say that is analogous to brexit as a whole)

AnneJGP said:

El_Sid said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

I agree. I am not advocating voting No Deal. I am saying since it is clearly a well supported (if minority) outcome it needs to be on the ballot. Personally of course I think if there is a ballot it should just be a Deal/No Deal choice since we already decided the Leave/Remain question but the bad losers won't let that happen.

The only things that should be on the ballot should pass the EC - which no deal probably wouldn't due to apparent significant confusion over what it means. No deal also fails the parliamentary democracy test - there's no support for it in Parliament and it kind fails the test of the duty of MPs to not completely screw the company it.

And as I said above - a third of people are going to be upset regardless. So we should only be looking at options that have a reasonable chance of majority support, and ideally 60+% support. It's hard to see that ever being true for no deal.

As for "deciding the question" - well by your logic we should just accept the result of the 1975 referendum and leave it at that. The electorate is entitled to change its mind, and politicians should accept such changes. The polling suggests that there was only a brief period around the referendum when Leave was in the lead, and it seems reasonable to formally ask the question again to see if that polling is correct. After all, politicians should obey the will of the people, and the politicians should change if the will of the people changes.

Even Rees-Mogg was a fan of a second referendum back in 2011
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111024/debtext/111024-0003.htm#111024-0003.htm_spnew96
"The other two points that do not add up to much were, first, that a three-way referendum is confusing. However, that is not a problem because the motion calls for a Bill in the next Session, which can deal with any confusion. We can, in our wisdom, work out how to phrase a referendum—or series of referendums, if necessary —that will be understandable....Indeed, we could have two referendums. As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed."

Am I alone in thinking that our democracy is actually functioning extremely well at the moment?

We have a crisis, parliament is split into several factions with seemingly too few with any common ground to reach an agreement, the population of the country is deeply divided. And yet we/they continue to argue their/our various corners with what seems to me a reassuring reliance on recognised process and procedure.

Good evening, everyone.

And we're getting the "nation has never been so divided" trope.

Errr, how about the Civil War for starters?

grabcocque said:

AnneJGP said:

Am I alone in thinking that our democracy is actually functioning extremely well at the moment?

I am delighted to see Parliament Taking Back Control. I'm sure this exactly what Mrs May intended.

Since it has not actually come up with any alternative solutions yet, parliament has not taken back control of anything.

AnneJGP said:

El_Sid said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

I agree. I am not advocating voting No Deal. I am saying since it is clearly a well supported (if minority) outcome it needs to be on the ballot. Personally of course I think if there is a ballot it should just be a Deal/No Deal choice since we already decided the Leave/Remain question but the bad losers won't let that happen.

The only things that should be on the ballot should pass the EC - which no deal probably wouldn't due to apparent significant confusion over what it means. No deal also fails the parliamentary democracy test - there's no support for it in Parliament and it kind fails the test of the duty of MPs to not completely screw the company it.

And as I said above - a third of people are going to be upset regardless. So we should only be looking at options that have a reasonable chance of majority support, and ideally 60+% support. It's hard to see that ever being true for no deal.

Even Rees-Mogg was a fan of a second referendum back in 2011
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111024/debtext/111024-0003.htm#111024-0003.htm_spnew96
"The other two points that do not add up to much were, first, that a three-way referendum is confusing. However, that is not a problem because the motion calls for a Bill in the next Session, which can deal with any confusion. We can, in our wisdom, work out how to phrase a referendum—or series of referendums, if necessary —that will be understandable....Indeed, we could have two referendums. As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed."

Am I alone in thinking that our democracy is actually functioning extremely well at the moment?

We have a crisis, parliament is split into several factions with seemingly too few with any common ground to reach an agreement, the population of the country is deeply divided. And yet we/they continue to argue their/our various corners with what seems to me a reassuring reliance on recognised process and procedure.

Good evening, everyone.

The main problem is it is a matter of national significance and yet for the most part it's still being focused through the prism of inter and intra party relations.

kle4 said:

TOPPING said:

Now, you say, all those idiots oppose it or say they oppose it. But, simply, the law of physics, common sense, general equilibrium and sanity cannot be violated.

Sure they can.

I think you overlook a terrible outcome occurring by accident. Things might get pushed too far. It's like firing a gun and then immediately regretting it; too late now. (No doubt some will say that is analogous to brexit as a whole)

The problem as you identify is that the rebels have no or little way back from their stated position. They need to be offered a route to a face-saving climb down.

TOPPING said:

kle4 said:

TOPPING said:

Now, you say, all those idiots oppose it or say they oppose it. But, simply, the law of physics, common sense, general equilibrium and sanity cannot be violated.

Sure they can.

I think you overlook a terrible outcome occurring by accident. Things might get pushed too far. It's like firing a gun and then immediately regretting it; too late now. (No doubt some will say that is analogous to brexit as a whole)

The problem as you identify is that the rebels have no or little way back from their stated position. They need to be offered a route to a face-saving climb down.

No the EU need to be offered a route to a face-saving climb down to make this backstop bulls**t go away. There was never a backstop before now, there isn't one now. We need to work together in good faith.

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I guess Topping has gone offline. For everyone claiming "this is want NI population wants" there is a simple way to back that up. Devolve the matter to Stormont and then call a fresh election for Stormont. If Stormont chooses to align with the EU they did so democratically. If Stormont chooses to align with the UK they did so democratically. If today's NI population makes a mistake the people of NI can reverse it at future elections.

That's democracy. Shame some don't respect it.

Still here. just. The point is that NI is a part of the UK. As is Slough. The UK government might decide to let the EU determine widget regs in Slough and build a third runway in Northern Ireland.

All perfectly democratic.

Yes and what the UK does the UK can undo. The UK government can say the third runway needs to be closed and offer appropriate compensation and then its gone. Unless there is a route for NI voters to undo the backstop it is a wholy undemocratic abomination that is worse than any problem it is purported to fix.

Philip_Thompson said:

No the UK need to be offered a route to a face-saving climb down to make this Brexit bulls**t go away. There was never a Brexit before now, there isn't one now. We need to work together in good faith.

Fixed it for you, as they say.

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I guess Topping has gone offline. For everyone claiming "this is want NI population wants" there is a simple way to back that up. Devolve the matter to Stormont and then call a fresh election for Stormont. If Stormont chooses to align with the EU they did so democratically. If Stormont chooses to align with the UK they did so democratically. If today's NI population makes a mistake the people of NI can reverse it at future elections.

That's democracy. Shame some don't respect it.

Still here. just. The point is that NI is a part of the UK. As is Slough. The UK government might decide to let the EU determine widget regs in Slough and build a third runway in Northern Ireland.

All perfectly democratic.

Yes and what the UK does the UK can undo. The UK government can say the third runway needs to be closed and offer appropriate compensation and then its gone. Unless there is a route for NI voters to undo the backstop it is a wholy undemocratic abomination that is worse than any problem it is purported to fix.

Now I am off.

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

All I did was campaign for and vote Leave. I remain immensely proud of that fact Whatever happens in the short term we will Leave. It just depends if it is relatively painless now or extremely painful in a few years. I can also say I am pleased I did not vote for May - although in my particular constituency that made bugger al difference. I detested her long before Brexit came along and all she has done is confirm my worst opinions of her.

So no, I don't think that I, nor anyone who voted Leave, has anything at all to be sorry about.

Actually, you do. You are totally one-eyed on the EU, that they cannot do any good - and that is fair enough. You admit to having spent decades in that mindset. But in the process you forget that this involved real people. As an example:

"It just depends if it is relatively painless now or extremely painful in a few years"

This says it all: that pain may not effect you (or you may not care), but it will hurt others. It may hurt my son. Or your daughter. One of the infuriating things pre-referendum was Brexiteers putting their wet dreams ahead of the consequences of those dreams. All cfor some vague and nebulous 'advantage'.

And now you warn in guarded tones about violence if leaves' impossible dreams are unfulfilled (which, due to the way it occurred, is inevitable. That violence too will affect people.

No what I am saying is that there will be pain no matter what happens. Right now it is bearable. In a few years it will be excruciating and life threatening. Anyone who thinks otherwise is burying their head in the sand.

As an aside my daughter is strongly pro Brexit.

I fear you've buried your head in the sand for far too long in your hatred of the EU. And again you mention violence.

Nope. Life threatening does not need to mean violence. Diseases are life threatening. The EU is a disease afflicting the body politic.

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I guess Topping has gone offline. For everyone claiming "this is want NI population wants" there is a simple way to back that up. Devolve the matter to Stormont and then call a fresh election for Stormont. If Stormont chooses to align with the EU they did so democratically. If Stormont chooses to align with the UK they did so democratically. If today's NI population makes a mistake the people of NI can reverse it at future elections.

That's democracy. Shame some don't respect it.

Still here. just. The point is that NI is a part of the UK. As is Slough. The UK government might decide to let the EU determine widget regs in Slough and build a third runway in Northern Ireland.

All perfectly democratic.

Yes and what the UK does the UK can undo. The UK government can say the third runway needs to be closed and offer appropriate compensation and then its gone. Unless there is a route for NI voters to undo the backstop it is a wholy undemocratic abomination that is worse than any problem it is purported to fix.

Now I am off.

That's your choice.

If your disgraceful disenfranchisement of Northern Irish voters goes through, they will never again have a choice unless others deign them worthy of regaining one.

JosiasJessop said:

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

All I did was campaign for and vote Leave. I remain immensely proud of that fact Whatever happens in the short term we will Leave. It just depends if it is relatively painless now or extremely painful in a few years. I can also say I am pleased I did not vote for May - although in my particular constituency that made bugger al difference. I detested her long before Brexit came along and all she has done is confirm my worst opinions of her.

So no, I don't think that I, nor anyone who voted Leave, has anything at all to be sorry about.

Actually, you do. You are totally one-eyed on the EU, that they cannot do any good - and that is fair enough. You admit to having spent decades in that mindset. But in the process you forget that this involved real people. As an example:

"It just depends if it is relatively painless now or extremely painful in a few years"

This says it all: that pain may not effect you (or you may not care), but it will hurt others. It may hurt my son. Or your daughter. One of the infuriating things pre-referendum was Brexiteers putting their wet dreams ahead of the consequences of those dreams. All cfor some vague and nebulous 'advantage'.

And now you warn in guarded tones about violence if leaves' impossible dreams are unfulfilled (which, due to the way it occurred, is inevitable. That violence too will affect people.

No what I am saying is that there will be pain no matter what happens. Right now it is bearable. In a few years it will be excruciating and life threatening. Anyone who thinks otherwise is burying their head in the sand.

As an aside my daughter is strongly pro Brexit.

I fear you've buried your head in the sand for far too long in your hatred of the EU. And again you mention violence.

Too late too edit. Apologies to Richard: I've noticed he didn't mention violence again - at least directly ('life threatening' could potentially mean non-violence). I shall withdraw for the night.

Have fun everyone.

Don't withdraw old chap. I don't take these arguments personally or seriously unless there is a conscious attempt to misrepresent. It is all part of the game on here.

El_Sid said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

I agree. I am not advocating voting No Deal. I am saying since it is clearly a well supported (if minority) outcome it needs to be on the ballot. Personally of course I think if there is a ballot it should just be a Deal/No Deal choice since we already decided the Leave/Remain question but the bad losers won't let that happen.

The only things that should be on the ballot should pass the EC - which no deal probably wouldn't due to apparent significant confusion over what it means. No deal also fails the parliamentary democracy test - there's no support for it in Parliament and it kind fails the test of the duty of MPs to not completely screw the company it.

And as I said above - a third of people are going to be upset regardless. So we should only be looking at options that have a reasonable chance of majority support, and ideally 60+% support. It's hard to see that ever being true for no deal.

As for "deciding the question" - well by your logic we should just accept the result of the 1975 referendum and leave it at that. The electorate is entitled to change its mind, and politicians should accept such changes. The polling suggests that there was only a brief period around the referendum when Leave was in the lead, and it seems reasonable to formally ask the question again to see if that polling is correct. After all, politicians should obey the will of the people, and the politicians should change if the will of the people changes.

Even Rees-Mogg was a fan of a second referendum back in 2011
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111024/debtext/111024-0003.htm#111024-0003.htm_spnew96
"The other two points that do not add up to much were, first, that a three-way referendum is confusing. However, that is not a problem because the motion calls for a Bill in the next Session, which can deal with any confusion. We can, in our wisdom, work out how to phrase a referendum—or series of referendums, if necessary —that will be understandable....Indeed, we could have two referendums. As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed."

We did accept it for 45 years. By the end of which the EU was a very different body from the EEC we voted to remain in.

Now if you are advocating waiting another 45 years before we have the second referendum I can certainly go for that.