politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Chris Grayling must surely be a good bet to be next Cabinet mi
Comments
-
"They haven't gone away, you know!"Cyclefree said:Apparently Remainers are now like the IRA according to some on here.
0 -
Remainers are not "like the IRA".Cyclefree said:Apparently Remainers are now like the IRA according to some on here.
Really, take a good look at yourselves if you really think that a sensible statement.
And try, too, to distinguish between a referendum which asks the question "Do you want to leave or Remain in the EU" and a question which asks "Do you want to leave the EU on the basis of the Withdrawal Agreement agreed between the EU and the British government on "x" date or Remain in the EU?
They are not the same question.
If I now prefer Remain - and my view on the original question was much more 50/50 than it seems to have been for many on here - it is because of the behaviour of Leavers and those who have embraced the cause (yes, I mean you, Mrs M) in the time since the referendum.
You promised us the easiest deal in history. Now you think the only possible true Brexit is for us to have no deal at all and hang the consequences.
Do you think if you'd been frank about that and about what it meant - as we are now learning (body bags, medicines being stockpiled etc) - you'd have won the referendum? And if you do, why are you so scared of confirming that?
I merely stated that their actions remind me of the IRA statement that "you have to get lucky every time, we only have to get lucky once".
Do you honestly think that, if remain had won 52/48 back in 2016, we would be here talking about second referendums and delaying the result of the vote? Of course not. It would be settled for a generation, or more, perhaps forever - as we hurtled beyond the event horizon of a federal superstate.
My point is a very simple one. There is no "no" that remainers will take for an answer. I say - my country, my choice!0 -
Well, there's lots of administrative and engineering work, like inventing the internet, but a particle accelerator is a bit of a one-trick pony. What sort of non-physics research would you like to see carried out there?Recidivist said:
They can't only have physicists there surely? There must be some work for other disciplines.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Good thing I'm not a physicist, eh?Recidivist said:Some details on the Swiss freedom of movement story.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/no-deal-brexit_british-expats-face-quotas-in-switzerland/44752826
There are about 45,000 Brits living in Switzerland so if churn is about 5%(?) it seems like the limit has been set to be noticeable but not constricting. So if you want to move there you'll probably get in but it it might be tight if you pick the wrong time.
So bad news for academic scientists like SUNIL who might want a spell a CERN. But not a body blow to most of us.
BTW I have been to CERN, as a tourist, back in 2014.0 -
Well Tim Berners-Lee's degree is in physics, but he was working as a software engineer at CERN when he came up with the idea of the web.Recidivist said:
They can't only have physicists there surely? There must be some work for other disciplines.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Good thing I'm not a physicist, eh?Recidivist said:Some details on the Swiss freedom of movement story.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/no-deal-brexit_british-expats-face-quotas-in-switzerland/44752826
There are about 45,000 Brits living in Switzerland so if churn is about 5%(?) it seems like the limit has been set to be noticeable but not constricting. So if you want to move there you'll probably get in but it it might be tight if you pick the wrong time.
So bad news for academic scientists like SUNIL who might want a spell a CERN. But not a body blow to most of us.
BTW I have been to CERN, as a tourist, back in 2014.0 -
Does anybody know if there is a betting market on Labour splitting?0
-
How about a referendum of the Maastricht treaty - after all John Major is now in favour of referendums.Pulpstar said:If we have a second referendum on leaving, we should probably all get a FIRST one on the Lisbon treaty. Fairs fair and all that
0 -
Some engineers and a random applied mathematician maybe but it'll be overwhelmingly physicists.Recidivist said:
They can't only have physicists there surely? There must be some work for other disciplines.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Good thing I'm not a physicist, eh?Recidivist said:Some details on the Swiss freedom of movement story.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/no-deal-brexit_british-expats-face-quotas-in-switzerland/44752826
There are about 45,000 Brits living in Switzerland so if churn is about 5%(?) it seems like the limit has been set to be noticeable but not constricting. So if you want to move there you'll probably get in but it it might be tight if you pick the wrong time.
So bad news for academic scientists like SUNIL who might want a spell a CERN. But not a body blow to most of us.
BTW I have been to CERN, as a tourist, back in 2014.0 -
The trouble is you seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is “threatening democracy”.Richard_Tyndall said:
Not at all. Challenging those who threaten democracy in the way you do is perfectly in keeping with liberalism.Gardenwalker said:
Mr T is quite fond of sharing his apparently liberal policies, which he insists evidence his tolerant outlook, while deriding anyone who disagrees with him as tyrants, extremists and idiots.
It’s a funny kind of liberalism.0 -
Al Gore worked at CERN? TIL.Ishmael_Z said:
Well, there's lots of administrative and engineering work, like inventing the internet, but a particle accelerator is a bit of a one-trick pony. What sort of non-physics research would you like to see carried out there?Recidivist said:
They can't only have physicists there surely? There must be some work for other disciplines.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Good thing I'm not a physicist, eh?Recidivist said:Some details on the Swiss freedom of movement story.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/no-deal-brexit_british-expats-face-quotas-in-switzerland/44752826
There are about 45,000 Brits living in Switzerland so if churn is about 5%(?) it seems like the limit has been set to be noticeable but not constricting. So if you want to move there you'll probably get in but it it might be tight if you pick the wrong time.
So bad news for academic scientists like SUNIL who might want a spell a CERN. But not a body blow to most of us.
BTW I have been to CERN, as a tourist, back in 2014.0 -
There is no Remain.Cyclefree said:Apparently Remainers are now like the IRA according to some on here.
Really, take a good look at yourselves if you really think that a sensible statement.
And try, too, to distinguish between a referendum which asks the question "Do you want to leave or Remain in the EU" and a question which asks "Do you want to leave the EU on the basis of the Withdrawal Agreement agreed between the EU and the British government on "x" date or Remain in the EU?
They are not the same question.
If I now prefer Remain - and my view on the original question was much more 50/50 than it seems to have been for many on here - it is because of the behaviour of Leavers and those who have embraced the cause (yes, I mean you, Mrs M) in the time since the referendum.
You promised us the easiest deal in history. Now you think the only possible true Brexit is for us to have no deal at all and hang the consequences.
Do you think if you'd been frank about that and about what it meant - as we are now learning (body bags, medicines being stockpiled etc) - you'd have won the referendum? And if you do, why are you so scared of confirming that?
There is EverCloserUnion.0 -
Perhaps you could point out when it was approved by a UK referendum.Recidivist said:
And I seem to remember that when it got voted down the EU revised it.another_richard said:
I seem to remember we were promised a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon.Cyclefree said:
Actually, I think that would have been a good idea - much like the Irish did. And would be if Britain remained or rejoined.SunnyJim said:If Remain had won you could envisage them having the same attitude to revisiting the decision the first time there was a significant change to the EU structures.
Not.
Rank hypocrisy I’m afraid.0 -
Oooh, that's quite clever.bigjohnowls said:
I see no shipsBob__Sykes said:Struggling to see why Grayling need resign over Seaborne, or why Mike thinks Corbyn played a blinder at PMQs. At least the DfT has been making some real contingency plans here to protect us in the event of the worst case outcome. They ran an abridged procurement process (the Eurotunnel challenge will tell us whether it passed muster, but prima facie I am minded to back to Govt on that), awarded a contract and then found the contracting party couldnt deliver on what it promised. So they terminated.
Had they been determined to let Seaborne carry on in the face of the obvious "no ships" issue, then that would have been a different, and resigning, matter.
Of course, I am a lawyer not a politician. It may be that, politically, Corbyn does have Grayling on the ropes over this, however harsh that may be.
0 -
This is where I am, well said !nico67 said:Politicians are currently part of the problem not the solution.
The majority of the public understand that you’re not going to get everything you want but would probably be happy to get 80%.
But they’ve been told by the ERG nutjobs that only a Pure Brexit is acceptable . Equally on the other side the People’s Vote are wasting time and effort flogging a dead horse .
I say this as an ardent Remainer . People need to accept the battles they have a chance of winning and not continue waging a battle that has already been lost .
Efforts should have been aimed at getting a softer Brexit not no Brexit. The EU at this point just want to move on . They don’t want to be used as a continual scapegoat for the UKs problems and don’t want to have to put up with years more of the Tory psychodrama over the EU .
Unfortunately the Commons has descended into open warfare with each faction willing to burn the whole house down to get what they want .
The people who will suffer is the average voter who will end up as collateral damage .0 -
He could do with being in an organisation where he has the support of 26 friends when times are tough.MarqueeMark said:
It is no surprise, when their PM seems to have a tenuous connection with the reality of what happens to his country if the UK has a No Deal Brexit.another_richard said:Some pretty shocking industrial production numbers for the Eurozone:
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/9571785/4-13022019-AP-EN.pdf/83142383-24fb-463d-9c33-62dd7fa1bd2a
While we already knew that France, Germany, Italy and Spain were down year on year its interesting to see that the biggest fall was Ireland at -19.8%.
Though Ireland's economic data often has only a tenuous connection with reality.0 -
How do you define splitting ?MikeSmithson said:Does anybody know if there is a betting market on Labour splitting?
0 -
deleted -- too slow.0
-
Rejoin is a very different decision to Remain precisely because the terms would be different. We can close off options, of course. But that seems to me to be a stupid decision. It may well be that people, if asked, might prefer to remain on current terms, than to leave or, in future, rejoin on different terms.TheAncientMariner said:
I think that the terms of readmission to the EU would be interesting. Once 'remainers' actually find out how much it would cost to rejoin the EU (no rebate of course, a commitment to joining the Euro) then they would say 'thanks but no thanks'.Recidivist said:
True. And it works the other way around as well. We might get out for a while, but it only takes a winning party to have put rejoining in its manifesto and we are back in.kyf_100 said:
Charming, aren't you?TOPPING said:
What the fuck would you know about the IRA?kyf_100 said:
What if one person really really wanted to get married, but the other person didn't, and despite the two parties agreeing to get married, just kept asking "are you sure you want to get married? are you sure? are you really, really sure?" over and over again until they got the result they wanted?Andy_Cooke said:
If you've got engaged, you should always follow it through. Using the analogy, you can always get divorced afterwards.Endillion said:
If you've decided to divorce, you shouldn't be allowed to have second thoughts. You should enact the divorce in full before you can change your mind. You can always get remarried afterwards.
But you MUST complete the decision first. No second thoughts until it is fully enacted.
Hmm.
Remainers remind me of the IRA, in the sense that "you have to get lucky every time, we only have to get lucky once..."
My point is that remainers seem to think one vote to remain in the EU settles the matter forever, but so long as people vote leave the question can be put to them year after year after year.
And of course Remainers would fully cost this and present it in front of the British Populace - wouldn't they?
You can imagine the buses.
"Let's starve the NHS of £400 million a week and fund our EU membership Instead"
But it is the Leavers who are intent on closing off all options and going down one route only despite having no support for it in Parliament and not knowing whether the people they claim to care about would support it or not.0 -
At such glacial rates that we’ll all be dead IF and WHEN anyone actually notices any TANGIBLE manifestiation, from which David Cameron achieved an OPT OUT, and which the U.K. (and others) was able to slow, block or reverse through its influence INSIDE.another_richard said:
There is no Remain.Cyclefree said:Apparently Remainers are now like the IRA according to some on here.
Really, take a good look at yourselves if you really think that a sensible statement.
And try, too, to distinguish between a referendum which asks the question "Do you want to leave or Remain in the EU" and a question which asks "Do you want to leave the EU on the basis of the Withdrawal Agreement agreed between the EU and the British government on "x" date or Remain in the EU?
They are not the same question.
If I now prefer Remain - and my view on the original question was much more 50/50 than it seems to have been for many on here - it is because of the behaviour of Leavers and those who have embraced the cause (yes, I mean you, Mrs M) in the time since the referendum.
You promised us the easiest deal in history. Now you think the only possible true Brexit is for us to have no deal at all and hang the consequences.
Do you think if you'd been frank about that and about what it meant - as we are now learning (body bags, medicines being stockpiled etc) - you'd have won the referendum? And if you do, why are you so scared of confirming that?
There is EverCloserUnion.0 -
Which would work well if the NHS is perceived to have been better funded after leaving the EU than it was during out membership. A big ask you'll agree.TheAncientMariner said:
I think that the terms of readmission to the EU would be interesting. Once 'remainers' actually find out how much it would cost to rejoin the EU (no rebate of course, a commitment to joining the Euro) then they would say 'thanks but no thanks'.Recidivist said:
True. And it works the other way around as well. We might get out for a while, but it only takes a winning party to have put rejoining in its manifesto and we are back in.kyf_100 said:
Charming, aren't you?TOPPING said:
What the fuck would you know about the IRA?kyf_100 said:
?Andy_Cooke said:
If you've got engaged, you should always follow it through. Using the analogy, you can always get divorced afterwards.Endillion said:
More like forcing a couple to stay married by making the divorce process as unpleasant and long-winded as possible, no?Foxy said:
So more like breaking off an engagement before the big day, rather than a divorce.SunnyJim said:
False analogies.
There will be perpetual opportunities to reverse the referendum decision at each and every subsequent General Election.
Your analogy is more akin to having a GE and not allowing the winning party to take office because the result is unpopular with the losers.
If you've decided to divorce, you shouldn't be allowed to have second thoughts. You should enact the divorce in full before you can change your mind. You can always get remarried afterwards.
But you MUST complete the decision first. No second thoughts until it is fully enacted.
Hmm.
Remainers remind me of the IRA, in the sense that "you have to get lucky every time, we only have to get lucky once..."
My point is that remainers seem to think one vote to remain in the EU settles the matter forever, but so long as people vote leave the question can be put to them year after year after year.
And of course Remainers would fully cost this and present it in front of the British Populace - wouldn't they?
You can imagine the buses.
"Let's starve the NHS of £400 million a week and fund our EU membership Instead"
I think joining the Euro will look a lot more appealing after a few years of the pound drifting down against other currencies - but there will be no need to accept the Euro if we don't want to. Even with the pasting our economy is likely to get from tearing up 40 years of membership, we will still be big enough to negotiate a decent set of entry terms. Don't talk our country down.0 -
It kind of was, actually, given that the UK, France and the Netherlands (possibly others?) were all denied (further) votes on the same grounds: that the EU had "listened", addressed concerns and therefore there was no need for further votes. It all felt very centrally orchestrated at the time. This does not excuse Gordon Brown's actions, but it was pretty clear that the EU had, shall we say, had quite enough of referendums.Cyclefree said:
It was not the EU's fault we did not get a vote on it.Recidivist said:
And I seem to remember that when it got voted down the EU revised it.another_richard said:
I seem to remember we were promised a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon.Cyclefree said:
Actually, I think that would have been a good idea - much like the Irish did. And would be if Britain remained or rejoined.SunnyJim said:If Remain had won you could envisage them having the same attitude to revisiting the decision the first time there was a significant change to the EU structures.
Not.
Rank hypocrisy I’m afraid.0 -
Some friends them....Fenman said:
He could do with being in an organisation where he has the support of 26 friends when times are tough.MarqueeMark said:
It is no surprise, when their PM seems to have a tenuous connection with the reality of what happens to his country if the UK has a No Deal Brexit.another_richard said:Some pretty shocking industrial production numbers for the Eurozone:
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/9571785/4-13022019-AP-EN.pdf/83142383-24fb-463d-9c33-62dd7fa1bd2a
While we already knew that France, Germany, Italy and Spain were down year on year its interesting to see that the biggest fall was Ireland at -19.8%.
Though Ireland's economic data often has only a tenuous connection with reality.0 -
May had over 300 people to choose from and she chose Grayling - and sticks with him. I just find that extraordinary on so many levels.0
-
This is what I’ve been saying.Richard_Nabavi said:An interesting thread on the state of play:
https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1095454588285652992
(Apparently the EU won't be reopening the Withdrawal Agreement but might do some last-minute keyhole surgery on it!)0 -
That’s totally the point.Cyclefree said:
Rejoin is a very different decision to Remain precisely because the terms would be different. We can close off options, of course. But that seems to me to be a stupid decision. It may well be that people, if asked, might prefer to remain on current terms, than to leave or, in future, rejoin on different terms.TheAncientMariner said:
And of course Remainers would fully cost this and present it in front of the British Populace - wouldn't they?Recidivist said:
True. And it works the other way around as well. We might get out for a while, but it only takes a winning party to have put rejoining in its manifesto and we are back in.kyf_100 said:
Charming, aren't you?TOPPING said:
What the fuck would you know about the IRA?kyf_100 said:
What if one person really really wanted to get married, but the other person didn't, and despite the two parties agreeing to get married, just kept asking "are you sure you want to get married? are you sure? are you really, really sure?" over and over again until they got the result they wanted?Andy_Cooke said:
If you've got engaged, you should always follow it through. Using the analogy, you can always get divorced afterwards.Endillion said:
If you've decided to divorce, you shouldn't be allowed to have second thoughts. You should enact the divorce in full before you can change your mind. You can always get remarried afterwards.
But you MUST complete the decision first. No second thoughts until it is fully enacted.
Hmm.
Remainers remind me of the IRA, in the sense that "you have to get lucky every time, we only have to get lucky once..."
My point is that remainers seem to think one vote to remain in the EU settles the matter forever, but so long as people vote leave the question can be put to them year after year after year.
You can imagine the buses.
"Let's starve the NHS of £400 million a week and fund our EU membership Instead"
But it is the Leavers who are intent on closing off all options and going down one route only despite having no support for it in Parliament and not knowing whether the people they claim to care about would support it or not.
It’s by no means clear that THIS Brexit has any support in the country, and polling has been 55 / 45 AGAINST any Brexit for quite a long time now.
Brexiters are all about democracy, until it’s not, at which point Parliament, the judiciary, and the voters themselves can go hang.0 -
I think it would have been quite possible that there would have been similar arguments, partly because of the Act which Cameron brought in about having to agree to future changes and, very likely, because of actions by the EU. And, of course, the Leavers did say that the fight would go on.kyf_100 said:
Remainers are not "like the IRA".Cyclefree said:Apparently Remainers are now like the IRA according to some on here.
Really, take a good look at yourselves if you really think that a sensible statement.
And try, too, to distinguish between a referendum which asks the question "Do you want to leave or Remain in the EU" and a question which asks "Do you want to leave the EU on the basis of the Withdrawal Agreement agreed between the EU and the British government on "x" date or Remain in the EU?
They are not the same question.
If I now prefer Remain - and my view on the original question was much more 50/50 than it seems to have been for many on here - it is because of the behaviour of Leavers and those who have embraced the cause (yes, I mean you, Mrs M) in the time since the referendum.
You promised us the easiest deal in history. Now you think the only possible true Brexit is for us to have no deal at all and hang the consequences.
Do you think if you'd been frank about that and about what it meant - as we are now learning (body bags, medicines being stockpiled etc) - you'd have won the referendum? And if you do, why are you so scared of confirming that?
I merely stated that their actions remind me of the IRA statement that "you have to get lucky every time, we only have to get lucky once".
Do you honestly think that, if remain had won 52/48 back in 2016, we would be here talking about second referendums and delaying the result of the vote? Of course not. It would be settled for a generation, or more, perhaps forever - as we hurtled beyond the event horizon of a federal superstate.
My point is a very simple one. There is no "no" that remainers will take for an answer. I say - my country, my choice!
So - no - I don't think the question of Britain's relationship with the EU would or, indeed, should have ended on 23 June 2016 if the result had gone the other way.
And this is largely because the focus has all been on a binary question - leave or stay - which is the wrong question rather than working out what Britain's European strategy should be and then working out what that means in practice.
But I am repeating myself. And beginning to bore myself, as well as others I expect.0 -
Me too.Pulpstar said:
This is where I am, well said !nico67 said:Politicians are currently part of the problem not the solution.
The majority of the public understand that you’re not going to get everything you want but would probably be happy to get 80%.
But they’ve been told by the ERG nutjobs that only a Pure Brexit is acceptable . Equally on the other side the People’s Vote are wasting time and effort flogging a dead horse .
I say this as an ardent Remainer . People need to accept the battles they have a chance of winning and not continue waging a battle that has already been lost .
Efforts should have been aimed at getting a softer Brexit not no Brexit. The EU at this point just want to move on . They don’t want to be used as a continual scapegoat for the UKs problems and don’t want to have to put up with years more of the Tory psychodrama over the EU .
Unfortunately the Commons has descended into open warfare with each faction willing to burn the whole house down to get what they want .
The people who will suffer is the average voter who will end up as collateral damage .0 -
Perhaps it's only costing £40 million because they are both on the same side of the river.JosiasJessop said:
You can spend any amount of money on anything, if you're not spending your own money and don't care about the expense.Cyclefree said:
How can you spend £53 mio on a plan for a bridge? How?FrancisUrquhart said:A failed plan to build a bridge covered with trees and flowers over the River Thames in central London cost a total of £53m, it has been revealed.
A Transport for London investigation showed The Garden Bridge Trust spent £161,000 on a website and £417,000 on a gala event for the abandoned project.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-47228698
Were they doing the drawings in gold leaf?
Everyone involved with the garden bridge project, at any level should be hanging their heads in shame and refunding the public purse the money. It never made any sense and was just one massive vanity project. The report into the debacle is a classic.
By rights, it should also be the wooden spike in the undead corpse of Boris's leadership ambitions.
As a comparison, a new bridge across the Thames from Battersea to Nine Elms is expected to cost £40 million, and is at least partially being paid for by developers.0 -
On topic, Grayling won’t be out until May goes
He was one of her first supporters and she needs him on side until Brexit is passed.
Bad bet. I’d bet on a cabinet level Remainer instead, which could pay out over the next 6 weeks.0 -
Gore was involved with some stuff which enabled Internet things (like TCP/IP?)rpjs said:
Al Gore worked at CERN? TIL.Ishmael_Z said:
Well, there's lots of administrative and engineering work, like inventing the internet, but a particle accelerator is a bit of a one-trick pony. What sort of non-physics research would you like to see carried out there?Recidivist said:
They can't only have physicists there surely? There must be some work for other disciplines.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Good thing I'm not a physicist, eh?Recidivist said:Some details on the Swiss freedom of movement story.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/no-deal-brexit_british-expats-face-quotas-in-switzerland/44752826
There are about 45,000 Brits living in Switzerland so if churn is about 5%(?) it seems like the limit has been set to be noticeable but not constricting. So if you want to move there you'll probably get in but it it might be tight if you pick the wrong time.
So bad news for academic scientists like SUNIL who might want a spell a CERN. But not a body blow to most of us.
BTW I have been to CERN, as a tourist, back in 2014.
Tim Berners-Lee was involved with Web things (like http or html?)
The Internet and the Web are not the same thing.
The Web is the interactive human-readable interface that you are looking at right now. It links you to the Internet. The Internet is the network of cables and radio waves thru which the information is sent, and the agreed standards on how to send it and in what format.0 -
On topic, Grayling won’t be out until May goes
He was one of her first supporters and she needs him on side until Brexit is passed.
Bad bet. I’d bet on a cabinet level Remainer instead, which could pay out over the next 6 weeks.0 -
Someone was asking earlier this week about price change differentials between different types of property:
Semi-detached +3.3%
Detached +3.1%
Overall +2.5%
Terraced +2.5%
Apartments -0.4%
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47223988
0 -
That was me, thanks for this. When I speak to people my age and younger, I say that they should try to skip the first rung of the ladder as moving house is incredibly expensive.another_richard said:Someone was asking earlier this week about price change differentials between different types of property:
Semi-detached +3.3%
Detached +3.1%
Overall +2.5%
Terraced +2.5%
Apartments -0.4%
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-472239880 -
Gardenwalker said:Cyclefree said:TheAncientMariner said:
If you are correct then a party supporting rejoining would win a GE comfortably and take the UK back in to the EU but this time at the centre of the project driving the continent towards ever closer union.Recidivist said:
That’s totally the point.kyf_100 said:
Rejoin is a very different decision to Remain precisely because the terms would be different. We can close off options, of course. But that seems to me to be a stupid decision. It may well be that people, if asked, might prefer to remain on current terms, than to leave or, in future, rejoin on different terms.TOPPING said:
And of course Remainers would fully cost this and present it in front of the British Populace - wouldn't they?kyf_100 said:Andy_Cooke said:
If you've got engaged, you should always follow it through. Using the analogy, you can always get divorced afterwards.Endillion said:
If you've decided to divorce, you shouldn't be allowed to have second thoughts. You should enact the divorce in full before you can change your mind. You can always get remarried afterwards.
But you MUST complete the decision first. No second thoughts until it is fully enacted.
Hmm.
And it works the other way around as well. We might get out for a while, but it only takes a winning party to have put rejoining in its manifesto and we are back in.
You can imagine the buses.
"Let's starve the NHS of £400 million a week and fund our EU membership Instead"
But it is the Leavers who are intent on closing off all options and going down one route only despite having no support for it in Parliament and not knowing whether the people they claim to care about would support it or not.
It’s by no means clear that THIS Brexit has any support in the country, and polling has been 55 / 45 AGAINST any Brexit for quite a long time now.
Brexiters are all about democracy, until it’s not, at which point Parliament, the judiciary, and the voters themselves can go hang.
This would have to be a far preferable option than the referendum result being overturned and future PM’s being terrified of an electorate even more hostile to the EU than it was pre-referendum.
And yet remainers are so desperate that they would prefer the latter option. I can only surmise they are terrified that their predictions of doom will turn out to be mostly hot air and any any enthusiasm to rejoin will disappear.
Remainers would sacrifice the very bedrock of UK democracy just to indulge their EU fetishism.0 -
It does surprise me how a second referendum does not have the support in the HOC despite all the efforts the peoples vote have put into it, including the 750,000 marching in London , and daily negative headlines on brexitGardenwalker said:
That’s totally the point.Cyclefree said:
Rejoin is a very different decision to Remain precisely because the terms would be different. We can close off options, of course. But that seems to me to be a stupid decision. It may well be that people, if asked, might prefer to remain on current terms, than to leave or, in future, rejoin on different terms.TheAncientMariner said:
And of course Remainers would fully cost this and present it in front of the British Populace - wouldn't they?Recidivist said:
True. And it works the other way around as well. We might get out for a while, but it only takes a winning party to have put rejoining in its manifesto and we are back in.kyf_100 said:
Charming, aren't you?TOPPING said:
What the fuck would you know about the IRA?kyf_100 said:
What if one person really really wanted to get married,Andy_Cooke said:
Remainers remind me of the IRA, in the sense that "you have to get lucky every time, we only have to get lucky once..."
My point is that remainers seem to think one vote to remain in the EU settles the matter forever, but so long as people vote leave the question can be put to them year after year after year.
You can imagine the buses.
"Let's starve the NHS of £400 million a week and fund our EU membership Instead"
But it is the Leavers who are intent on closing off all options and going down one route only despite having no support for it in Parliament and not knowing whether the people they claim to care about would support it or not.
It’s by no means clear that THIS Brexit has any support in the country, and polling has been 55 / 45 AGAINST any Brexit for quite a long time now.
Brexiters are all about democracy, until it’s not, at which point Parliament, the judiciary, and the voters themselves can go hang.
To be honest the responsibility is entirely Corbyn's who wants brexit, the harder the better as long as he is not blamed, and is 100 % against. Imagine if he had come out fully committed to it, you would no doubt be relieved as it would almost certainly pass the HOC with lib dem, snp, plaid and rebel conservatives in favour0 -
Good catch.Fenman said:
Perhaps it's only costing £40 million because they are both on the same side of the river.JosiasJessop said:
You can spend any amount of money on anything, if you're not spending your own money and don't care about the expense.Cyclefree said:
How can you spend £53 mio on a plan for a bridge? How?FrancisUrquhart said:A failed plan to build a bridge covered with trees and flowers over the River Thames in central London cost a total of £53m, it has been revealed.
A Transport for London investigation showed The Garden Bridge Trust spent £161,000 on a website and £417,000 on a gala event for the abandoned project.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-47228698
Were they doing the drawings in gold leaf?
Everyone involved with the garden bridge project, at any level should be hanging their heads in shame and refunding the public purse the money. It never made any sense and was just one massive vanity project. The report into the debacle is a classic.
By rights, it should also be the wooden spike in the undead corpse of Boris's leadership ambitions.
As a comparison, a new bridge across the Thames from Battersea to Nine Elms is expected to cost £40 million, and is at least partially being paid for by developers.
That was what I put into my search engine to bring up the details. Sadly I had a brain fart, but at least people understood what I meant.
0 -
I’d assume there were reservation fees - they were under time pressure because of the Thames sewer so needed to construct in a specific windowanothernick said:
Even more extraordinary is that the largest part of the £53m went on construction contracts - despite the fact that nothing was actually constructed.JosiasJessop said:
You can spend any amount of money on anything, if you're not spending your own money and don't care about the expense.Cyclefree said:
How can you spend £53 mio on a plan for a bridge? How?FrancisUrquhart said:A failed plan to build a bridge covered with trees and flowers over the River Thames in central London cost a total of £53m, it has been revealed.
A Transport for London investigation showed The Garden Bridge Trust spent £161,000 on a website and £417,000 on a gala event for the abandoned project.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-47228698
Were they doing the drawings in gold leaf?
Everyone involved with the garden bridge project, at any level should be hanging their heads in shame and refunding the public purse the money. It never made any sense and was just one massive vanity project. The report into the debacle is a classic.
By rights, it should also be the wooden spike in the undead corpse of Boris's leadership ambitions.
As a comparison, a new bridge across the Thames from Battersea to Nine Elms is expected to cost £40 million, and is at least partially being paid for by developers.0 -
Buying and selling is also immensely stressful too, being at the bottom of the ladder is definitely better.tlg86 said:
That was me, thanks for this. When I speak to people my age and younger, I say that they should try to skip the first rung of the ladder as moving house is incredibly expensive.another_richard said:Someone was asking earlier this week about price change differentials between different types of property:
Semi-detached +3.3%
Detached +3.1%
Overall +2.5%
Terraced +2.5%
Apartments -0.4%
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-472239880 -
Just received this invite and as a leap year baby I still qualify
I am excited to be able to tell you that applications are now open for young people to apply to join the Welsh Conservative Shadow Youth Cabinet.
This is a fantastic opportunity for younger members of the Party to engage with our top team, the Shadow Cabinet in the Senedd, to learn more about the Party, to help shape policy, and to develop a range of valuable skills and knowledge, including public speaking.
As a member of our Shadow Youth Cabinet, you will have the opportunity to:
Attend Annual Meetings with the Welsh Conservative Shadow Cabinet in the Senedd
Attend Shadow Ministerial visits throughout Wales
Attend Big Ideas events and the Welsh Conservatives’ annual Conference
Speak and participate in policy events and panels
Give feedback on policy ideas
Any member aged 16-21 years can apply. So if you’re interested, please send your CV and a covering letter to info@welshconservatives.com telling us why you would like to be considered for the role of a Shadow Youth Cabinet Member.
The deadline for applications is 31 March 2019 and we will announce the membership of the Shadow Youth Cabinet at our Welsh Party Conference in May.
Please spread the news about this exciting opportunity.
Kind regards and best wishes to all candidates!
Yours,
Paul Davies AM
Leader of the Welsh Conservatives in the National Assembly for Wales
0 -
Do you have me down as a Corbyn-sympathiser? He is one of the fathers of Brexit.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It does surprise me how a second referendum does not have the support in the HOC despite all the efforts the peoples vote have put into it, including the 750,000 marching in London , and daily negative headlines on brexitGardenwalker said:
That’s totally the point.Cyclefree said:
Rejoin is a very different decision to Remain precisely because the terms would be different. We can close off options, of course. But that seems to me to be a stupid decision. It may well be that people, if asked, might prefer to remain on current terms, than to leave or, in future, rejoin on different terms.TheAncientMariner said:
But it is the Leavers who are intent on closing off all options and going down one route only despite having no support for it in Parliament and not knowing whether the people they claim to care about would support it or not.
It’s by no means clear that THIS Brexit has any support in the country, and polling has been 55 / 45 AGAINST any Brexit for quite a long time now.
Brexiters are all about democracy, until it’s not, at which point Parliament, the judiciary, and the voters themselves can go hang.
To be honest the responsibility is entirely Corbyn's who wants brexit, the harder the better as long as he is not blamed, and is 100 % against. Imagine if he had come out fully committed to it, you would no doubt be relieved as it would almost certainly pass the HOC with lib dem, snp, plaid and rebel conservatives in favour
Although Brexit is most strongly argued against on logical and utilitarian grounds - that it makes us weaker and poorer - one can also argue against Brexit simply because it seems to be supported by all the worst people in public life: Corbyn, Johnson, Rees-Mogg, Dorries and Francois, Farage, Bannon, Putin.
On the Remain side we have Juncker and AC Grayling of course but it’s thin gruel in comparison.0 -
No - they are saying they won’t vote for it because they opposed Spelman originallyChris said:
They object to the House reiterating its support for the approach expressed by the House a fortnight ago?Scott_P said:
Yes, that should send a useful message to the world about doing business with Britain.0 -
Because it creates perverse incentives and allows the agents to get away with shirking their responsibilities.Cyclefree said:
Actually, I have quite often told the regulator that I have done something they asked because it was a crap idea and come up with suggestions for how to do it better.Charles said:
Not what you are suggestingCyclefree said:Charles said:Cyclefree said:
Failing to implement a regulatory change is, in my experience, vanishingly unlikely to result in a heavy fine - certainly not immediately - let alone a prison sentence.
Or take a specific example I was involved in a few years back - regarding taping of mobile phones. The regulator had made changes to the rules on taping of landlines. It then proposed to introduce taping of mobile phones in a short time frame and despite it being abundantly clear that there was no effective method of doing this within the time frame required. If it had gone ahead, it would have been a mess. The regulator pulled back, thought again and eventually, after proper consultation, review, consideration and other changes a different proposal was implemented which dealt with the mischief everyone was concerned about.
You are going back to the regulator and saying we didn’t do it because it’s a crap idea like we told you.
If you were proposing a delay then it would be arguable (actually that’s what the deal is - a transition).
And lived to tell the tale.
But no - a referendum puts the proposed WA before the people and asks them if they want to go ahead on this basis or do they want to stay on the existing basis. If people vote to go ahead, fine. If they vote to remain, also fine.
I don't understand why people who voted Leave and still think this is the right thing to do are so against doing this. All in favour of the people in theory but not in favour of the people voting on the actual deal as opposed to the promises made. Now call me cynical but I do wonder why that might be.
Or as I put it recently in a header - "Would it be unkind to suggest that there is a touch of fear in those who argue so fervently in favour of implementing one vote and equally fervently against asking the people to confirm that decision? A fear that perhaps the people might not do this, might not have been impressed by how their representatives have behaved, a fear that the Brexiteers’ vision might be found wanting. It would certainly not be unkind to suggest that many of those most in favour of a People’s Vote now were much less keen on the People voting once the result of the first vote came out."0 -
This is something that will amuse Cyclefree, it amused me, although I'd use the excuse of I was testing the system to see how easy it was break the law.
Lawyer In Charge of Apple’s Insider-Trading Policy Accused of Insider Trading.
At Apple Inc., former top lawyer Gene Daniel Levoff was responsible for making sure employees didn’t violate insider-trading laws. It turns out he was the one who was buying and selling shares illegally, according to U.S. authorities.
Levoff, who until last year was Apple’s senior director of corporate law, traded on advance knowledge of revenue-and-earnings figures multiple times dating back to 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission and federal prosecutors said Wednesday. The illegal investments led to about $227,000 in profits, while allowing him to avoid $377,000 of losses, according to the U.S. attorney’s office in Newark, New Jersey, which filed criminal charges against Levoff.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-13/ex-top-apple-lawyer-levoff-accused-by-sec-of-insider-trading0 -
Do you what the half life is of the Labour Party?MikeSmithson said:Does anybody know if there is a betting market on Labour splitting?
0 -
I'd be astonished if this guy didn't go far in national politics.
https://twitter.com/MagicMagid/status/10957077399412080660 -
No I know you are not. The point is valid though, Corbyn is the road blockGardenwalker said:
Do you have me down as a Corbyn-sympathiser? He is one of the fathers of Brexit.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It does surprise me how a second referendum does not have the support in the HOC despite all the efforts the peoples vote have put into it, including the 750,000 marching in London , and daily negative headlines on brexitGardenwalker said:
That’s totally the point.Cyclefree said:
Rejoin is a very different decision to Remain precisely because the terms would be different. We can close off options, of course. But that seems to me to be a stupid decision. It may well be that people, if asked, might prefer to remain on current terms, than to leave or, in future, rejoin on different terms.TheAncientMariner said:
But it is the Leavers who are intent on closing off all options and going down one route only despite having no support for it in Parliament and not knowing whether the people they claim to care about would support it or not.
It’s by no means clear that THIS Brexit has any support in the country, and polling has been 55 / 45 AGAINST any Brexit for quite a long time now.
Brexiters are all about democracy, until it’s not, at which point Parliament, the judiciary, and the voters themselves can go hang.
To be honest the responsibility is entirely Corbyn's who wants brexit, the harder the better as long as he is not blamed, and is 100 % against. Imagine if he had come out fully committed to it, you would no doubt be relieved as it would almost certainly pass the HOC with lib dem, snp, plaid and rebel conservatives in favour
Although Brexit is most strongly argued against on logical and utilitarian grounds - that it makes us weaker and poorer - one can also argue against Brexit simply because it seems to be supported by all the worst people in public life: Corbyn, Johnson, Rees-Mogg, Dorries and Francois, Farage, Bannon, Putin.
On the Remain side we have Juncker and AC Grayling of course but it’s thin gruel in comparison.0 -
Nope wrong yet again. I have made very clear that democracy is a process of both asking a question and enacting the result. Not asking a question and then ignoring the result because you dont like it.Gardenwalker said:
The trouble is you seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is “threatening democracy”.Richard_Tyndall said:
Not at all. Challenging those who threaten democracy in the way you do is perfectly in keeping with liberalism.Gardenwalker said:
Mr T is quite fond of sharing his apparently liberal policies, which he insists evidence his tolerant outlook, while deriding anyone who disagrees with him as tyrants, extremists and idiots.
It’s a funny kind of liberalism.
Once the result of the referendum has been enacted and we have left the EU then I have no problem at all with people campaigning for a vote to rejoin. That would be democratic. Having a second vote before the first is enacted is certainly not democratic.
0 -
Or not being on the ladder at allPulpstar said:
Buying and selling is also immensely stressful too, being at the bottom of the ladder is definitely better.tlg86 said:
That was me, thanks for this. When I speak to people my age and younger, I say that they should try to skip the first rung of the ladder as moving house is incredibly expensive.another_richard said:Someone was asking earlier this week about price change differentials between different types of property:
Semi-detached +3.3%
Detached +3.1%
Overall +2.5%
Terraced +2.5%
Apartments -0.4%
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47223988 0 -
-
Which is fundamentally why Leavers don’t trust Remainers on this pointCyclefree said:
It was not the EU's fault we did not get a vote on it.Recidivist said:
And I seem to remember that when it got voted down the EU revised it.another_richard said:
I seem to remember we were promised a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon.Cyclefree said:
Actually, I think that would have been a good idea - much like the Irish did. And would be if Britain remained or rejoined.SunnyJim said:If Remain had won you could envisage them having the same attitude to revisiting the decision the first time there was a significant change to the EU structures.
Not.
Rank hypocrisy I’m afraid.
They know that if a second referendum votes to remain - no matter the margin or the turn out - they will never ever be asked again0 -
No of seats at next election?MikeSmithson said:Does anybody know if there is a betting market on Labour splitting?
0 -
Roses are red,TheScreamingEagles said:I'd be astonished if this guy didn't go far in national politics.
https://twitter.com/MagicMagid/status/1095707739941208066
Violets are blue
We voted leave
So goodbye E.U.0 -
Forcing through a major and potentially deleterious change to our country on the basis of a single vote three years ago which didn't set out either a proposition or its implications certainly isn't democratic. It's Cameron's fault for not setting an appropriate threshold and/or process, but holding a confirmatory vote once the proposition for change has been defined is certainly more democratic than proceeding regardless of the cost and regardless of whether the change retains public support or not.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope wrong yet again. I have made very clear that democracy is a process of both asking a question and enacting the result. Not asking a question and then ignoring the result because you dont like it.Gardenwalker said:
The trouble is you seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is “threatening democracy”.Richard_Tyndall said:
Not at all. Challenging those who threaten democracy in the way you do is perfectly in keeping with liberalism.Gardenwalker said:
Mr T is quite fond of sharing his apparently liberal policies, which he insists evidence his tolerant outlook, while deriding anyone who disagrees with him as tyrants, extremists and idiots.
It’s a funny kind of liberalism.
Once the result of the referendum has been enacted and we have left the EU then I have no problem at all with people campaigning for a vote to rejoin. That would be democratic. Having a second vote before the first is enacted is certainly not democratic.0 -
Roses are redkyf_100 said:
Roses are red,TheScreamingEagles said:I'd be astonished if this guy didn't go far in national politics.
https://twitter.com/MagicMagid/status/1095707739941208066
Violets are blue
We voted leave
So goodbye E.U.
Violets are magenta
By the time we’ve Brexited
It’ll be time to Bre-enter0 -
Also, Tony Blair, Alistair Campbell, Peter Mandelson, Berlusconi, Adonis.Gardenwalker said:
Do you have me down as a Corbyn-sympathiser? He is one of the fathers of Brexit.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It does surprise me how a second referendum does not have the support in the HOC despite all the efforts the peoples vote have put into it, including the 750,000 marching in London , and daily negative headlines on brexitGardenwalker said:
That’s totally the point.Cyclefree said:
Rejoin is a very different decision to Remain precisely because the terms would be different. We can close off options, of course. But that seems to me to be a stupid decision. It may well be that people, if asked, might prefer to remain on current terms, than to leave or, in future, rejoin on different terms.TheAncientMariner said:
But it is the Leavers who are intent on closing off all options and going down one route only despite having no support for it in Parliament and not knowing whether the people they claim to care about would support it or not.
It’s by no means clear that THIS Brexit has any support in the country, and polling has been 55 / 45 AGAINST any Brexit for quite a long time now.
Brexiters are all about democracy, until it’s not, at which point Parliament, the judiciary, and the voters themselves can go hang.
To be honest the responsibility is entirely Corbyn's who wants brexit, the harder the better as long as he is not blamed, and is 100 % against. Imagine if he had come out fully committed to it, you would no doubt be relieved as it would almost certainly pass the HOC with lib dem, snp, plaid and rebel conservatives in favour
Although Brexit is most strongly argued against on logical and utilitarian grounds - that it makes us weaker and poorer - one can also argue against Brexit simply because it seems to be supported by all the worst people in public life: Corbyn, Johnson, Rees-Mogg, Dorries and Francois, Farage, Bannon, Putin.
On the Remain side we have Juncker and AC Grayling of course but it’s thin gruel in comparison.0 -
Wasn't the outcome of the 2017 general election confirmation enough?IanB2 said:
Forcing through a major and potentially deleterious change to our country on the basis of a single vote three years ago which didn't set out either a proposition or its implications certainly isn't democratic. It's Cameron's fault for not setting an appropriate threshold and/or process, but holding a confirmatory vote once the proposition for change has been defined is certainly more democratic than proceeding regardless of the cost and regardless of whether the change retains public support or not.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope wrong yet again. I have made very clear that democracy is a process of both asking a question and enacting the result. Not asking a question and then ignoring the result because you dont like it.Gardenwalker said:
The trouble is you seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is “threatening democracy”.Richard_Tyndall said:
Not at all. Challenging those who threaten democracy in the way you do is perfectly in keeping with liberalism.Gardenwalker said:
Mr T is quite fond of sharing his apparently liberal policies, which he insists evidence his tolerant outlook, while deriding anyone who disagrees with him as tyrants, extremists and idiots.
It’s a funny kind of liberalism.
Once the result of the referendum has been enacted and we have left the EU then I have no problem at all with people campaigning for a vote to rejoin. That would be democratic. Having a second vote before the first is enacted is certainly not democratic.0 -
I’m happy with those, mostly.Sean_F said:
Also, Tony Blair, Alistair Campbell, Peter Mandelson, Berlusconi, Adonis.Gardenwalker said:
Do you have me down as a Corbyn-sympathiser? He is one of the fathers of Brexit.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It does surprise me how a snp, plaid and rebel conservatives in favourGardenwalker said:Cyclefree said:
Rejoin is a very different decision to Remain precisely because the terms would be different. We can close off options, of course. But that seems.TheAncientMariner said:
Although Brexit is most strongly argued against on logical and utilitarian grounds - that it makes us weaker and poorer - one can also argue against Brexit simply because it seems to be supported by all the worst people in public life: Corbyn, Johnson, Rees-Mogg, Dorries and Francois, Farage, Bannon, Putin.
On the Remain side we have Juncker and AC Grayling of course but it’s thin gruel in comparison.
Blair, despite serious flaws, is one of outstanding statesmen of his generation. He is deeply thoughtful on this subject. Mandelson, likewise, one of the best administrators and strategists of the New Labour era. Alistair Campbell I struggle to loathe as I once did. He cuts an older, more wistful and wiser figure these days. Adonis seems to get up some people’s noses but not mine. His passion and energy on Brexit I find admirable.
Berlusconi is the odd one out. I had no idea he had even had a view on Brexit, and if he once said something he’s hardly been a notable critic. I don’t think it’s relevant to cite him.
My point remains, Brexit are the guys from the Mitchell and Webb show who are surprised to learn they are the baddies - at least that’s how it appears to most people under the age of 50.0 -
Gardenwalker said:
I’m happy with those, mostly.Sean_F said:
Also, Tony Blair, Alistair Campbell, Peter Mandelson, Berlusconi, Adonis.Gardenwalker said:
Do you have me down as a Corbyn-sympathiser? He is one of the fathers of Brexit.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It does surprise me how a snp, plaid and rebel conservatives in favourGardenwalker said:Cyclefree said:
Rejoin is a very different decision to Remain precisely because the terms would be different. We can close off options, of course. But that seems.TheAncientMariner said:
Although Brexit is most strongly argued against on logical and utilitarian grounds - that it makes us weaker and poorer - one can also argue against Brexit simply because it seems to be supported by all the worst people in public life: Corbyn, Johnson, Rees-Mogg, Dorries and Francois, Farage, Bannon, Putin.
On the Remain side we have Juncker and AC Grayling of course but it’s thin gruel in comparison.
Blair, despite serious flaws, is one of outstanding statesmen of his generation.
...snip...
My point remains, Brexit are the guys from the Mitchell and Webb show who are surprised to learn they are the baddies - at least that’s how it appears to most people under the age of 50.
My... sides...
Blair... is a goodie... Brexit... are the baddies. I have a war to sell you...0 -
Sturgeon, Salmond, Gerry Adams, Selmayr and Verhofstadht.Sean_F said:
Also, Tony Blair, Alistair Campbell, Peter Mandelson, Berlusconi, Adonis.Gardenwalker said:
Do you have me down as a Corbyn-sympathiser? He is one of the fathers of Brexit.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It does surprise me how a second referendum does not have the support in the HOC despite all the efforts the peoples vote have put into it, including the 750,000 marching in London , and daily negative headlines on brexitGardenwalker said:
That’s totally the point.Cyclefree said:
Rejoin is a very different decision to Remain precisely because the terms would be different. We can close off optionsTheAncientMariner said:
But it is the Leavers who are intent on closing off all options and going down one route only despite having no support for it in Parliament and not knowing whether the people they claim to care about would support it or not.
It’s by no means clear that THIS Brexit has any support in the country, and polling has been 55 / 45 AGAINST any Brexit for quite a long time now.
Brexiters are all about democracy, until it’s not, at which point Parliament, the judiciary, and the voters themselves can go hang.
To be honest the responsibility is entirely Corbyn's who wants brexit, the harder the better as long as he is not blamed, and is 100 % against. Imagine if he had come out fully committed to it, you would no doubt be relieved as it would almost certainly pass the HOC with lib dem, snp, plaid and rebel conservatives in favour
Although Brexit is most strongly argued against on logical and utilitarian grounds - that it makes us weaker and poorer - one can also argue against Brexit simply because it seems to be supported by all the worst people in public life: Corbyn, Johnson, Rees-Mogg, Dorries and Francois, Farage, Bannon, Putin.
On the Remain side we have Juncker and AC Grayling of course but it’s thin gruel in comparison.0 -
Exactly. A vote to Remain would be taken as a mandate for everything to come, including an EU army and the EU Commission having tax raising powers which it’s now “started a debate” on.Charles said:
Which is fundamentally why Leavers don’t trust Remainers on this pointCyclefree said:
It was not the EU's fault we did not get a vote on it.Recidivist said:
And I seem to remember that when it got voted down the EU revised it.another_richard said:
I seem to remember we were promised a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon.Cyclefree said:
Actually, I think that would have been a good idea - much like the Irish did. And would be if Britain remained or rejoined.SunnyJim said:If Remain had won you could envisage them having the same attitude to revisiting the decision the first time there was a significant change to the EU structures.
Not.
Rank hypocrisy I’m afraid.
They know that if a second referendum votes to remain - no matter the margin or the turn out - they will never ever be asked again0 -
Why do you think the mortal lover of the Greek goddess Aphrodite supports Remain?Sean_F said:
Also, Tony Blair, Alistair Campbell, Peter Mandelson, Berlusconi, Adonis.Gardenwalker said:
Do you have me down as a Corbyn-sympathiser? He is one of the fathers of Brexit.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It does surprise me how a second referendum does not have the support in the HOC despite all the efforts the peoples vote have put into it, including the 750,000 marching in London , and daily negative headlines on brexitGardenwalker said:
That’s totally the point.Cyclefree said:
Rejoin is a very different decision to Remain precisely because the terms would be different. We can close off options, of course. But that seems to me to be a stupid decision. It may well be that people, if asked, might prefer to remain on current terms, than to leave or, in future, rejoin on different terms.TheAncientMariner said:Recidivist said:
True.kyf_100 said:
.TOPPING said:
What the fuck would you know about the IRA?kyf_100 said:Andy_Cooke said:If you've got engaged, you should always follow it through.
Hmm.
"Let's starve the NHS of £400 million a week and fund our EU membership Instead"
But it is the Leavers who are intent on closing off all options and going down one route only despite having no support for it in Parliament and not knowing whether the people they claim to care about would support it or not.
It’s by no means clear that THIS Brexit has any support in the country, and polling has been 55 / 45 AGAINST any Brexit for quite a long time now.
Brexiters are all about democracy, until it’s not, at which point Parliament, the judiciary, and the voters themselves can go hang.
To be honest the responsibility is entirely Corbyn's who wants brexit, the harder the better as long as he is not blamed, and is 100 % against. Imagine if he had come out fully committed to it, you would no doubt be relieved as it would almost certainly pass the HOC with lib dem, snp, plaid and rebel conservatives in favour
Although Brexit is most strongly argued against on logical and utilitarian grounds - that it makes us weaker and poorer - one can also argue against Brexit simply because it seems to be supported by all the worst people in public life: Corbyn, Johnson, Rees-Mogg, Dorries and Francois, Farage, Bannon, Putin.
On the Remain side we have Juncker and AC Grayling of course but it’s thin gruel in comparison.0 -
The one with an indecisive result and the second largest party advocating Customs Union?TudorRose said:
Wasn't the outcome of the 2017 general election confirmation enough?IanB2 said:
Forcing through a major and potentially deleterious change to our country on the basis of a single vote three years ago which didn't set out either a proposition or its implications certainly isn't democratic. It's Cameron's fault for not setting an appropriate threshold and/or process, but holding a confirmatory vote once the proposition for change has been defined is certainly more democratic than proceeding regardless of the cost and regardless of whether the change retains public support or not.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope wrong yet again. I have made very clear that democracy is a process of both asking a question and enacting the result. Not asking a question and then ignoring the result because you dont like it.Gardenwalker said:
The trouble is you seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is “threatening democracy”.Richard_Tyndall said:
Not at all. Challenging those who threaten democracy in the way you do is perfectly in keeping with liberalism.Gardenwalker said:
Mr T is quite fond of sharing his apparently liberal policies, which he insists evidence his tolerant outlook, while deriding anyone who disagrees with him as tyrants, extremists and idiots.
It’s a funny kind of liberalism.
Once the result of the referendum has been enacted and we have left the EU then I have no problem at all with people campaigning for a vote to rejoin. That would be democratic. Having a second vote before the first is enacted is certainly not democratic.0 -
Certainly you'd think that the government going to the country asking for a Brexit mandate and coming away losing its majority would have been a powerful hint.TudorRose said:
Wasn't the outcome of the 2017 general election confirmation enough?IanB2 said:
Forcing through a major and potentially deleterious change to our country on the basis of a single vote three years ago which didn't set out either a proposition or its implications certainly isn't democratic. It's Cameron's fault for not setting an appropriate threshold and/or process, but holding a confirmatory vote once the proposition for change has been defined is certainly more democratic than proceeding regardless of the cost and regardless of whether the change retains public support or not.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope wrong yet again. I have made very clear that democracy is a process of both asking a question and enacting the result. Not asking a question and then ignoring the result because you dont like it.Gardenwalker said:
The trouble is you seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is “threatening democracy”.Richard_Tyndall said:
Not at all. Challenging those who threaten democracy in the way you do is perfectly in keeping with liberalism.Gardenwalker said:
Mr T is quite fond of sharing his apparently liberal policies, which he insists evidence his tolerant outlook, while deriding anyone who disagrees with him as tyrants, extremists and idiots.
It’s a funny kind of liberalism.
Once the result of the referendum has been enacted and we have left the EU then I have no problem at all with people campaigning for a vote to rejoin. That would be democratic. Having a second vote before the first is enacted is certainly not democratic.0 -
And how many people voted for parties that promised to revoke brexit or offer a second referendum, exactly?IanB2 said:
Certainly you'd think that the government going to the country asking for a Brexit mandate and coming away losing its majority would have been a powerful hint.TudorRose said:
Wasn't the outcome of the 2017 general election confirmation enough?IanB2 said:
Forcing through a major and potentially deleterious change to our country on the basis of a single vote three years ago which didn't set out either a proposition or its implications certainly isn't democratic. It's Cameron's fault for not setting an appropriate threshold and/or process, but holding a confirmatory vote once the proposition for change has been defined is certainly more democratic than proceeding regardless of the cost and regardless of whether the change retains public support or not.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope wrong yet again. I have made very clear that democracy is a process of both asking a question and enacting the result. Not asking a question and then ignoring the result because you dont like it.Gardenwalker said:
The trouble is you seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is “threatening democracy”.Richard_Tyndall said:
Not at all. Challenging those who threaten democracy in the way you do is perfectly in keeping with liberalism.Gardenwalker said:
Mr T is quite fond of sharing his apparently liberal policies, which he insists evidence his tolerant outlook, while deriding anyone who disagrees with him as tyrants, extremists and idiots.
It’s a funny kind of liberalism.
Once the result of the referendum has been enacted and we have left the EU then I have no problem at all with people campaigning for a vote to rejoin. That would be democratic. Having a second vote before the first is enacted is certainly not democratic.0 -
Thanks . The current situation is like the band on the Titanic taking requests as the ship is sinking ! MPs want to avoid any responsibility and just sit there waiting for a miracle to turn up . Corbyn has been hopeless and May is deranged and living in a fantasy world .Pulpstar said:
This is where I am, well said !nico67 said:Politicians are currently part of the problem not the solution.
The majority of the public understand that you’re not going to get everything you want but would probably be happy to get 80%.
But they’ve been told by the ERG nutjobs that only a Pure Brexit is acceptable . Equally on the other side the People’s Vote are wasting time and effort flogging a dead horse .
I say this as an ardent Remainer . People need to accept the battles they have a chance of winning and not continue waging a battle that has already been lost .
Efforts should have been aimed at getting a softer Brexit not no Brexit. The EU at this point just want to move on . They don’t want to be used as a continual scapegoat for the UKs problems and don’t want to have to put up with years more of the Tory psychodrama over the EU .
Unfortunately the Commons has descended into open warfare with each faction willing to burn the whole house down to get what they want .
The people who will suffer is the average voter who will end up as collateral damage .
0 -
You think that’s bad. Wait until HS2 is cancelled.anothernick said:
Even more extraordinary is that the largest part of the £53m went on construction contracts - despite the fact that nothing was actually constructed.JosiasJessop said:
You can spend any amount of money on anything, if you're not spending your own money and don't care about the expense.Cyclefree said:
How can you spend £53 mio on a plan for a bridge? How?FrancisUrquhart said:A failed plan to build a bridge covered with trees and flowers over the River Thames in central London cost a total of £53m, it has been revealed.
A Transport for London investigation showed The Garden Bridge Trust spent £161,000 on a website and £417,000 on a gala event for the abandoned project.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-47228698
Were they doing the drawings in gold leaf?
Everyone involved with the garden bridge project, at any level should be hanging their heads in shame and refunding the public purse the money. It never made any sense and was just one massive vanity project. The report into the debacle is a classic.
By rights, it should also be the wooden spike in the undead corpse of Boris's leadership ambitions.
As a comparison, a new bridge across the Thames from Battersea to Nine Elms is expected to cost £40 million, and is at least partially being paid for by developers.
0 -
A lot voted to ensure the saboteurs remained uncrushed. They succeeded in that ambition.kyf_100 said:
And how many people voted for parties that promised to revoke brexit or offer a second referendum, exactly?IanB2 said:
Certainly you'd think that the government going to the country asking for a Brexit mandate and coming away losing its majority would have been a powerful hint.TudorRose said:
Wasn't the outcome of the 2017 general election confirmation enough?IanB2 said:
Forcing through a major and potentially deleterious change to our country on the basis of a single vote three years ago which didn't set out either a proposition or its implications certainly isn't democratic. It's Cameron's fault for not setting an appropriate threshold and/or process, but holding a confirmatory vote once the proposition for change has been defined is certainly more democratic than proceeding regardless of the cost and regardless of whether the change retains public support or not.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope wrong yet again. I have made very clear that democracy is a process of both asking a question and enacting the result. Not asking a question and then ignoring the result because you dont like it.Gardenwalker said:
The trouble is you seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is “threatening democracy”.Richard_Tyndall said:
Not at all. Challenging those who threaten democracy in the way you do is perfectly in keeping with liberalism.Gardenwalker said:
Mr T is quite fond of sharing his apparently liberal policies, which he insists evidence his tolerant outlook, while deriding anyone who disagrees with him as tyrants, extremists and idiots.
It’s a funny kind of liberalism.
Once the result of the referendum has been enacted and we have left the EU then I have no problem at all with people campaigning for a vote to rejoin. That would be democratic. Having a second vote before the first is enacted is certainly not democratic.0 -
I'm getting flashbacks of being unable to cancel the aircraft carrier contracts because it'd cost more than building them.Casino_Royale said:
You think that’s bad. Wait until HS2 is cancelled.anothernick said:
Even more extraordinary is that the largest part of the £53m went on construction contracts - despite the fact that nothing was actually constructed.JosiasJessop said:
You can spend any amount of money on anything, if you're not spending your own money and don't care about the expense.Cyclefree said:
How can you spend £53 mio on a plan for a bridge? How?FrancisUrquhart said:A failed plan to build a bridge covered with trees and flowers over the River Thames in central London cost a total of £53m, it has been revealed.
A Transport for London investigation showed The Garden Bridge Trust spent £161,000 on a website and £417,000 on a gala event for the abandoned project.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-47228698
Were they doing the drawings in gold leaf?
Everyone involved with the garden bridge project, at any level should be hanging their heads in shame and refunding the public purse the money. It never made any sense and was just one massive vanity project. The report into the debacle is a classic.
By rights, it should also be the wooden spike in the undead corpse of Boris's leadership ambitions.
As a comparison, a new bridge across the Thames from Battersea to Nine Elms is expected to cost £40 million, and is at least partially being paid for by developers.0 -
We elect individuals to represent us, and it may well be that a majority of the people we elected decide to do just that.kyf_100 said:
And how many people voted for parties that promised to revoke brexit or offer a second referendum, exactly?IanB2 said:
Certainly you'd think that the government going to the country asking for a Brexit mandate and coming away losing its majority would have been a powerful hint.TudorRose said:
Wasn't the outcome of the 2017 general election confirmation enough?IanB2 said:
Forcing through a major and potentially deleterious change to our country on the basis of a single vote three years ago which didn't set out either a proposition or its implications certainly isn't democratic. It's Cameron's fault for not setting an appropriate threshold and/or process, but holding a confirmatory vote once the proposition for change has been defined is certainly more democratic than proceeding regardless of the cost and regardless of whether the change retains public support or not.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope wrong yet again. I have made very clear that democracy is a process of both asking a question and enacting the result. Not asking a question and then ignoring the result because you dont like it.Gardenwalker said:
The trouble is you seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is “threatening democracy”.Richard_Tyndall said:
Not at all. Challenging those who threaten democracy in the way you do is perfectly in keeping with liberalism.Gardenwalker said:
Mr T is quite fond of sharing his apparently liberal policies, which he insists evidence his tolerant outlook, while deriding anyone who disagrees with him as tyrants, extremists and idiots.
It’s a funny kind of liberalism.
Once the result of the referendum has been enacted and we have left the EU then I have no problem at all with people campaigning for a vote to rejoin. That would be democratic. Having a second vote before the first is enacted is certainly not democratic.0 -
Thank Goodness. Or we’d have no real global blue-water strike capability.kle4 said:
I'm getting flashbacks of being unable to cancel the aircraft carrier contracts because it'd cost more than building them.Casino_Royale said:
You think that’s bad. Wait until HS2 is cancelled.anothernick said:
Even more extraordinary is that the largest part of the £53m went on construction contracts - despite the fact that nothing was actually constructed.JosiasJessop said:
You can spend any amount of money on anything, if you're not spending your own money and don't care about the expense.Cyclefree said:
How can you spend £53 mio on a plan for a bridge? How?FrancisUrquhart said:A failed plan to build a bridge covered with trees and flowers over the River Thames in central London cost a total of £53m, it has been revealed.
A Transport for London investigation showed The Garden Bridge Trust spent £161,000 on a website and £417,000 on a gala event for the abandoned project.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-47228698
Were they doing the drawings in gold leaf?
Everyone involved with the garden bridge project, at any level should be hanging their heads in shame and refunding the public purse the money. It never made any sense and was just one massive vanity project. The report into the debacle is a classic.
By rights, it should also be the wooden spike in the undead corpse of Boris's leadership ambitions.
As a comparison, a new bridge across the Thames from Battersea to Nine Elms is expected to cost £40 million, and is at least partially being paid for by developers.
An example of a decision that went the other way is the Nimrod MRA4, which we’re now scrabbling around for a replacement for from Boeing.0 -
Sucks to be us I guess.nico67 said:Politicians are currently part of the problem not the solution.
The majority of the public understand that you’re not going to get everything you want but would probably be happy to get 80%.
But they’ve been told by the ERG nutjobs that only a Pure Brexit is acceptable . Equally on the other side the People’s Vote are wasting time and effort flogging a dead horse .
I say this as an ardent Remainer . People need to accept the battles they have a chance of winning and not continue waging a battle that has already been lost .
Efforts should have been aimed at getting a softer Brexit not no Brexit. The EU at this point just want to move on . They don’t want to be used as a continual scapegoat for the UKs problems and don’t want to have to put up with years more of the Tory psychodrama over the EU .
Unfortunately the Commons has descended into open warfare with each faction willing to burn the whole house down to get what they want .
The people who will suffer is the average voter who will end up as collateral damage .
Ah, the 'EU will help May get it through somehow'' theory which has been proven to be nonsense for half a year and more.Richard_Nabavi said:An interesting thread on the state of play:
https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1095454588285652992
(Apparently the EU won't be reopening the Withdrawal Agreement but might do some last-minute keyhole surgery on it!)0 -
And occasionally those individuals we elect to represent us then defer back to us in the form of a referendum, and once they've done that they should have the good grace to enact what we've told them to do.IanB2 said:
We elect individuals to represent us, and it may well be that a majority of the people we elected decide to do just that.kyf_100 said:
And how many people voted for parties that promised to revoke brexit or offer a second referendum, exactly?IanB2 said:
Certainly you'd think that the government going to the country asking for a Brexit mandate and coming away losing its majority would have been a powerful hint.TudorRose said:
Wasn't the outcome of the 2017 general election confirmation enough?IanB2 said:
Forcing through a major and potentially deleterious change to our country on the basis of a single vote three years ago which didn't set out either a proposition or its implications certainly isn't democratic. It's Cameron's fault for not setting an appropriate threshold and/or process, but holding a confirmatory vote once the proposition for change has been defined is certainly more democratic than proceeding regardless of the cost and regardless of whether the change retains public support or not.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope wrong yet again. I have made very clear that democracy is a process of both asking a question and enacting the result. Not asking a question and then ignoring the result because you dont like it.Gardenwalker said:
The trouble is you seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is “threatening democracy”.Richard_Tyndall said:
Not at all. Challenging those who threaten democracy in the way you do is perfectly in keeping with liberalism.Gardenwalker said:
Mr T is quite fond of sharing his apparently liberal policies, which he insists evidence his tolerant outlook, while deriding anyone who disagrees with him as tyrants, extremists and idiots.
It’s a funny kind of liberalism.
Once the result of the referendum has been enacted and we have left the EU then I have no problem at all with people campaigning for a vote to rejoin. That would be democratic. Having a second vote before the first is enacted is certainly not democratic.0 -
The Brexit mandate had a majority, across the UK.IanB2 said:
Certainly you'd think that the government going to the country asking for a Brexit mandate and coming away losing its majority would have been a powerful hint.TudorRose said:
Wasn't the outcome of the 2017 general election confirmation enough?IanB2 said:
Forcing through a major and potentially deleterious change to our country on the basis of a single vote three years ago which didn't set out either a proposition or its implications certainly isn't democratic. It's Cameron's fault for not setting an appropriate threshold and/or process, but holding a confirmatory vote once the proposition for change has been defined is certainly more democratic than proceeding regardless of the cost and regardless of whether the change retains public support or not.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope wrong yet again. I have made very clear that democracy is a process of both asking a question and enacting the result. Not asking a question and then ignoring the result because you dont like it.Gardenwalker said:
The trouble is you seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is “threatening democracy”.Richard_Tyndall said:
Not at all. Challenging those who threaten democracy in the way you do is perfectly in keeping with liberalism.Gardenwalker said:
Mr T is quite fond of sharing his apparently liberal policies, which he insists evidence his tolerant outlook, while deriding anyone who disagrees with him as tyrants, extremists and idiots.
It’s a funny kind of liberalism.
Once the result of the referendum has been enacted and we have left the EU then I have no problem at all with people campaigning for a vote to rejoin. That would be democratic. Having a second vote before the first is enacted is certainly not democratic.0 -
You may be happy with them. Most voters are not.Gardenwalker said:
I’m happy with those, mostly.Sean_F said:
Also, Tony Blair, Alistair Campbell, Peter Mandelson, Berlusconi, Adonis.Gardenwalker said:
Do you have me down as a Corbyn-sympathiser? He is one of the fathers of Brexit.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It does surprise me how a snp, plaid and rebel conservatives in favourGardenwalker said:Cyclefree said:
Rejoin is a very different decision to Remain precisely because the terms would be different. We can close off options, of course. But that seems.TheAncientMariner said:
Although Brexit is most strongly argued against on logical and utilitarian grounds - that it makes us weaker and poorer - one can also argue against Brexit simply because it seems to be supported by all the worst people in public life: Corbyn, Johnson, Rees-Mogg, Dorries and Francois, Farage, Bannon, Putin.
On the Remain side we have Juncker and AC Grayling of course but it’s thin gruel in comparison.
Blair, despite serious flaws, is one of outstanding statesmen of his generation. He is deeply thoughtful on this subject. Mandelson, likewise, one of the best administrators and strategists of the New Labour era. Alistair Campbell I struggle to loathe as I once did. He cuts an older, more wistful and wiser figure these days. Adonis seems to get up some people’s noses but not mine. His passion and energy on Brexit I find admirable.
Berlusconi is the odd one out. I had no idea he had even had a view on Brexit, and if he once said something he’s hardly been a notable critic. I don’t think it’s relevant to cite him.
My point remains, Brexit are the guys from the Mitchell and Webb show who are surprised to learn they are the baddies - at least that’s how it appears to most people under the age of 50.
Personally, I think Francois is a twat, and Johnson is an amoral, sociopathic snake, but they speak for lots of voters.0 -
https://www.politico.eu/article/john-mcdonnell-forcing-a-uk-general-election-now-unlikely/
Said tonight about an hour ago. Text messages from politburo indicate re-education camp required.0 -
The problem with Brexit is Brexit !
No amount of blaming Remainers , or the EU will wash .
Having said this I do accept the country has to leave but something this complex needed a plan and politicians with the competence to carry it out .
Neither have appeared sadly !0 -
More voted for parties against a no deal and against the Tories' deal than voted for Brexit.kyf_100 said:
And how many people voted for parties that promised to revoke brexit or offer a second referendum, exactly?IanB2 said:
Certainly you'd think that the government going to the country asking for a Brexit mandate and coming away losing its majority would have been a powerful hint.TudorRose said:
Wasn't the outcome of the 2017 general election confirmation enough?IanB2 said:
Forcing through a major and potentially deleterious change to our country on the basis of a single vote three years ago which didn't set out either a proposition or its implications certainly isn't democratic. It's Cameron's fault for not setting an appropriate threshold and/or process, but holding a confirmatory vote once the proposition for change has been defined is certainly more democratic than proceeding regardless of the cost and regardless of whether the change retains public support or not.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope wrong yet again. I have made very clear that democracy is a process of both asking a question and enacting the result. Not asking a question and then ignoring the result because you dont like it.Gardenwalker said:
The trouble is you seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is “threatening democracy”.Richard_Tyndall said:
Not at all. Challenging those who threaten democracy in the way you do is perfectly in keeping with liberalism.Gardenwalker said:
Mr T is quite fond of sharing his apparently liberal policies, which he insists evidence his tolerant outlook, while deriding anyone who disagrees with him as tyrants, extremists and idiots.
It’s a funny kind of liberalism.
Once the result of the referendum has been enacted and we have left the EU then I have no problem at all with people campaigning for a vote to rejoin. That would be democratic. Having a second vote before the first is enacted is certainly not democratic.0 -
Or the time when we asked for the catapult option that was supposed to be in the contracts, and got quoted an additional 2 billion. Per ship.kle4 said:
I'm getting flashbacks of being unable to cancel the aircraft carrier contracts because it'd cost more than building them.
0 -
The worst PPB for Labour I've ever seen. If I was doing a remake of A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich i'd use it as a template. The most turgid miserable vision anyone could imagine. Probably set in Hartlepool0
-
Blair "outstandingly" took us into a war we had no business being in, a war that was ultimately explained as something like "a terrorist group backed by Saudi Arabia blew up an American skyscraper, so let's go invade Iraq because America is pissed off and we want to back them no matter how absurd this war sounds".Gardenwalker said:
Blair, despite serious flaws, is one of outstanding statesmen of his generation. He is deeply thoughtful on this subject. Mandelson, likewise, one of the best administrators and strategists of the New Labour era. Alistair Campbell I struggle to loathe as I once did. He cuts an older, more wistful and wiser figure these days. Adonis seems to get up some people’s noses but not mine. His passion and energy on Brexit I find admirable.
Berlusconi is the odd one out. I had no idea he had even had a view on Brexit, and if he once said something he’s hardly been a notable critic. I don’t think it’s relevant to cite him.
My point remains, Brexit are the guys from the Mitchell and Webb show who are surprised to learn they are the baddies - at least that’s how it appears to most people under the age of 50.
The only thing "outstanding" about Blair is his summons to a war crimes tribunal.
My point remains. If people like Blair are the "goodies" please excuse me if I treat your attempt to portray brexiteers as the "baddies" with the contempt it - and you - deserve.
0 -
There was a bank, a big one, which once employed as its Global General Counsel a well-known and well-regarded US lawyer, with good links to the then US administration, essential for a bank which had recently been fined $100 million by the Federal Reserve.TheScreamingEagles said:This is something that will amuse Cyclefree, it amused me, although I'd use the excuse of I was testing the system to see how easy it was break the law.
Lawyer In Charge of Apple’s Insider-Trading Policy Accused of Insider Trading.
At Apple Inc., former top lawyer Gene Daniel Levoff was responsible for making sure employees didn’t violate insider-trading laws. It turns out he was the one who was buying and selling shares illegally, according to U.S. authorities.
Levoff, who until last year was Apple’s senior director of corporate law, traded on advance knowledge of revenue-and-earnings figures multiple times dating back to 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission and federal prosecutors said Wednesday. The illegal investments led to about $227,000 in profits, while allowing him to avoid $377,000 of losses, according to the U.S. attorney’s office in Newark, New Jersey, which filed criminal charges against Levoff.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-13/ex-top-apple-lawyer-levoff-accused-by-sec-of-insider-trading
This General Counsel was not particularly well-liked by his staff.
A few years later that same General Counsel decided to do some insider dealing in securities which had been traded by the bank and which the GC held, after having learnt some non-public information about those securities which meant their value was worthless. He sold them, the day after learning this information.
When this came to light, he left the bank. He paid a fine and and was made to disgorge the profits he had made. He was also banned from working as a lawyer or in financial services for 5 years.
There was much amusement among his staff.
Remarkably, he was not prosecuted and did not go to prison. He is now working as a partner in a US law firm.
The bank? Ah, that would be telling..... 0 -
Yes, I get that. But that's the phrase they are objecting to, isn't it? They don't agree with the House reiterating what it voted for two weeks ago.Charles said:
No - they are saying they won’t vote for it because they opposed Spelman originallyChris said:
They object to the House reiterating its support for the approach expressed by the House a fortnight ago?Scott_P said:
Yes, that should send a useful message to the world about doing business with Britain.0 -
In fact over 53% voted for parties that wanted to stay in 'a' or 'the' customs union.Foxy said:
The one with an indecisive result and the second largest party advocating Customs Union?TudorRose said:
Wasn't the outcome of the 2017 general election confirmation enough?IanB2 said:
Forcing through a major and potentially deleterious change to our country on the basis of a single vote three years ago which didn't set out either a proposition or its implications certainly isn't democratic. It's Cameron's fault for not setting an appropriate threshold and/or process, but holding a confirmatory vote once the proposition for change has been defined is certainly more democratic than proceeding regardless of the cost and regardless of whether the change retains public support or not.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope wrong yet again. I have made very clear that democracy is a process of both asking a question and enacting the result. Not asking a question and then ignoring the result because you dont like it.Gardenwalker said:
The trouble is you seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is “threatening democracy”.Richard_Tyndall said:
Not at all. Challenging those who threaten democracy in the way you do is perfectly in keeping with liberalism.Gardenwalker said:
Mr T is quite fond of sharing his apparently liberal policies, which he insists evidence his tolerant outlook, while deriding anyone who disagrees with him as tyrants, extremists and idiots.
It’s a funny kind of liberalism.
Once the result of the referendum has been enacted and we have left the EU then I have no problem at all with people campaigning for a vote to rejoin. That would be democratic. Having a second vote before the first is enacted is certainly not democratic.0 -
I can’t remember who it was but one poster put it well when they said there are extreme centrists as well as extreme left and extreme right.Sean_F said:
You may be happy with them. Most voters are not.Gardenwalker said:
Berlusconi is the odd one out. I had no idea he had even had a view on Brexit, and if he once said something he’s hardly been a notable critic. I don’t think it’s relevant to cite him.Sean_F said:
Also, Tony Blair, Alistair Campbell, Peter Mandelson, Berlusconi, Adonis.Gardenwalker said:
Do you have me down as a Corbyn-sympathiser? He is one of the fathers of Brexit.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It does surprise me how a snp, plaid and rebel conservatives in favourGardenwalker said:Cyclefree said:
Rejoin is a very different decision to Remain precisely because the terms would be different. We can close off options, of course. But that seems.TheAncientMariner said:
Although Brexit is most strongly argued against on logical and utilitarian grounds - that it makes us weaker and poorer - one can also argue against Brexit simply because it seems to be supported by all the worst people in public life: Corbyn, Johnson, Rees-Mogg, Dorries and Francois, Farage, Bannon, Putin.
On the Remain side we have Juncker and AC Grayling of course but it’s thin gruel in comparison.
My point remains, Brexit are the guys from the Mitchell and Webb show who are surprised to learn they are the baddies - at least that’s how it appears to most people under the age of 50.
Personally, I think Francois is a twat, and Johnson is an amoral, sociopathic snake, but they speak for lots of voters.0 -
Surely, a vote - on revisiting the referendum result (either before of after exit), or on EU membership in general - is simply contingent on whether there are lots of votes in it.Charles said:
Which is fundamentally why Leavers don’t trust Remainers on this pointCyclefree said:
It was not the EU's fault we did not get a vote on it.Recidivist said:
And I seem to remember that when it got voted down the EU revised it.another_richard said:
I seem to remember we were promised a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon.Cyclefree said:
Actually, I think that would have been a good idea - much like the Irish did. And would be if Britain remained or rejoined.SunnyJim said:If Remain had won you could envisage them having the same attitude to revisiting the decision the first time there was a significant change to the EU structures.
Not.
Rank hypocrisy I’m afraid.
They know that if a second referendum votes to remain - no matter the margin or the turn out - they will never ever be asked again
If Mrs May thought that a second referendum would be good for her and the Conservative Party (and the country, for that matter), then I have no doubt she would go for it.
So, if the polls were regularly posting 66:33 leads for Remain, and the Conservatives were languishing at 25% in the polls, while a Remain-friendly party topped the polls, and won every council by-election in sight, then I have little doubt she would support another referendum.
But they're not. There won't be another referendum, because neither the government nor the official opposition sees mileage in it.0 -
On the contrary it allows an opportunity for them to be held to account. They will have to state a clear position, either in favour of Brexit as is, or they will have to renounce their previous position and back Remain (movement can also happen in the other direction).Charles said:
Because it creates perverse incentives and allows the agents to get away with shirking their responsibilities.Cyclefree said:
Actually, I have quite often told the regulator that I have done something they asked because it was a crap idea and come up with suggestions for how to do it better.
And lived to tell the tale.
But no - a referendum puts the proposed WA before the people and asks them if they want to go ahead on this basis or do they want to stay on the existing basis. If people vote to go ahead, fine. If they vote to remain, also fine.
I don't understand why people who voted Leave and still think this is the right thing to do are so against doing this. All in favour of the people in theory but not in favour of the people voting on the actual deal as opposed to the promises made. Now call me cynical but I do wonder why that might be.
Or as I put it recently in a header - "Would it be unkind to suggest that there is a touch of fear in those who argue so fervently in favour of implementing one vote and equally fervently against asking the people to confirm that decision? A fear that perhaps the people might not do this, might not have been impressed by how their representatives have behaved, a fear that the Brexiteers’ vision might be found wanting. It would certainly not be unkind to suggest that many of those most in favour of a People’s Vote now were much less keen on the People voting once the result of the first vote came out."0 -
The vote was against remaining in the EU on existing terms, certainly, and also that Cameron’s renegotiation was insufficient.MarqueeMark said:
The Brexit mandate had a majority, across the UK.IanB2 said:
Certainly you'd think that the government going to the country asking for a Brexit mandate and coming away losing its majority would have been a powerful hint.TudorRose said:
Wasn't the outcome of the 2017 general election confirmation enough?IanB2 said:
Forcing through a major and potentially deleterious change to our country on the basis of a single vote three years ago which didn't set out either a proposition or its implications certainly isn't democratic. It's Cameron's fault for not setting an appropriate threshold and/or process, but holding a confirmatory vote once the proposition for change has been defined is certainly more democratic than proceeding regardless of the cost and regardless of whether the change retains public support or not.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope wrong yet again. I have made very clear that democracy is a process of both asking a question and enacting the result. Not asking a question and then ignoring the result because you dont like it.Gardenwalker said:
The trouble is you seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is “threatening democracy”.Richard_Tyndall said:
Not at all. Challenging those who threaten democracy in the way you do is perfectly in keeping with liberalism.Gardenwalker said:
Mr T is quite fond of sharing his apparently liberal policies, which he insists evidence his tolerant outlook, while deriding anyone who disagrees with him as tyrants, extremists and idiots.
It’s a funny kind of liberalism.
Once the result of the referendum has been enacted and we have left the EU then I have no problem at all with people campaigning for a vote to rejoin. That would be democratic. Having a second vote before the first is enacted is certainly not democratic.
Any Remain that’s sustainable has to address that first rather than just say to the voters, “have you learnt your lesson, yet?”0 -
It will be exactly the same tweaking the Political Agreement that has happened every month since December 2017kle4 said:
Sucks to be us I guess.nico67 said:Politicians are currently part of the problem not the solution.
The majority of the public understand that you’re not going to get everything you want but would probably be happy to get 80%.
But they’ve been told by the ERG nutjobs that only a Pure Brexit is acceptable . Equally on the other side the People’s Vote are wasting time and effort flogging a dead horse .
I say this as an ardent Remainer . People need to accept the battles they have a chance of winning and not continue waging a battle that has already been lost .
Efforts should have been aimed at getting a softer Brexit not no Brexit. The EU at this point just want to move on . They don’t want to be used as a continual scapegoat for the UKs problems and don’t want to have to put up with years more of the Tory psychodrama over the EU .
Unfortunately the Commons has descended into open warfare with each faction willing to burn the whole house down to get what they want .
The people who will suffer is the average voter who will end up as collateral damage .
Ah, the 'EU will help May get it through somehow'' theory which has been proven to be nonsense for half a year and more.Richard_Nabavi said:An interesting thread on the state of play:
https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1095454588285652992
(Apparently the EU won't be reopening the Withdrawal Agreement but might do some last-minute keyhole surgery on it!)0 -
The existing terms were not put to the public, only the result of six years of Cameron's botched relations with the EU. It was rightly rejected because the UK shouldn't be consigned to the kind of permanently second-tier status Cameron tried to lock in.Casino_Royale said:
The vote was against remaining in the EU on existing terms, certainly, and also that Cameron’s renegotiation was insufficient.MarqueeMark said:
The Brexit mandate had a majority, across the UK.IanB2 said:
Certainly you'd think that the government going to the country asking for a Brexit mandate and coming away losing its majority would have been a powerful hint.TudorRose said:
Wasn't the outcome of the 2017 general election confirmation enough?IanB2 said:
Forcing through a major and potentially deleterious change to our country on the basis of a single vote three years ago which didn't set out either a proposition or its implications certainly isn't democratic. It's Cameron's fault for not setting an appropriate threshold and/or process, but holding a confirmatory vote once the proposition for change has been defined is certainly more democratic than proceeding regardless of the cost and regardless of whether the change retains public support or not.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope wrong yet again. I have made very clear that democracy is a process of both asking a question and enacting the result. Not asking a question and then ignoring the result because you dont like it.Gardenwalker said:
The trouble is you seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is “threatening democracy”.Richard_Tyndall said:
Not at all. Challenging those who threaten democracy in the way you do is perfectly in keeping with liberalism.Gardenwalker said:
Mr T is quite fond of sharing his apparently liberal policies, which he insists evidence his tolerant outlook, while deriding anyone who disagrees with him as tyrants, extremists and idiots.
It’s a funny kind of liberalism.
Once the result of the referendum has been enacted and we have left the EU then I have no problem at all with people campaigning for a vote to rejoin. That would be democratic. Having a second vote before the first is enacted is certainly not democratic.
Any Remain that’s sustainable has to address that first rather than just say to the voters, “have you learnt your lesson, yet?”0 -
Existing terms would have been rejected by an even bigger margin given the latent frustration with the denial of a say on the Lisbon Treaty.williamglenn said:
The existing terms were not put to the public, only the result of six years of Cameron's botched relations with the EU. It was rightly rejected because the UK shouldn't be consigned to the kind of permanently second-tier status Cameron tried to lock in.Casino_Royale said:
The vote was against remaining in the EU on existing terms, certainly, and also that Cameron’s renegotiation was insufficient.MarqueeMark said:
The Brexit mandate had a majority, across the UK.IanB2 said:
Certainly you'd think that the government going to the country asking for a Brexit mandate and coming away losing its majority would have been a powerful hint.TudorRose said:
Wasn't the outcome of the 2017 general election confirmation enough?IanB2 said:
Forcing through a major and potentially deleterious change to our country on the basis of a single vote three years ago which didn't set out either a proposition or its implications certainly isn't democratic. It's Cameron's fault for not setting an appropriate threshold and/or process, but holding a confirmatory vote once the proposition for change has been defined is certainly more democratic than proceeding regardless of the cost and regardless of whether the change retains public support or not.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope wrong yet again. I have made very clear that democracy is a process of both asking a question and enacting the result. Not asking a question and then ignoring the result because you dont like it.Gardenwalker said:
The trouble is you seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is “threatening democracy”.Richard_Tyndall said:
Not at all. Challenging those who threaten democracy in the way you do is perfectly in keeping with liberalism.Gardenwalker said:
Mr T is quite fond of sharing his apparently liberal policies, which he insists evidence his tolerant outlook, while deriding anyone who disagrees with him as tyrants, extremists and idiots.
It’s a funny kind of liberalism.
Once the result of the referendum has been enacted and we have left the EU then I have no problem at all with people campaigning for a vote to rejoin. That would be democratic. Having a second vote before the first is enacted is certainly not democratic.
Any Remain that’s sustainable has to address that first rather than just say to the voters, “have you learnt your lesson, yet?”0 -
Yeah, I gather most of the spoiled ballots were from people articulating exactly this point.williamglenn said:
The existing terms were not put to the public, only the result of six years of Cameron's botched relations with the EU. It was rightly rejected because the UK shouldn't be consigned to the kind of permanently second-tier status Cameron tried to lock in.Casino_Royale said:
The vote was against remaining in the EU on existing terms, certainly, and also that Cameron’s renegotiation was insufficient.MarqueeMark said:
The Brexit mandate had a majority, across the UK.IanB2 said:
Certainly you'd think that the government going to the country asking for a Brexit mandate and coming away losing its majority would have been a powerful hint.TudorRose said:
Wasn't the outcome of the 2017 general election confirmation enough?IanB2 said:
Forcing through a major and potentially deleterious change to our country on the basis of a single vote three years ago which didn't set out either a proposition or its implications certainly isn't democratic. It's Cameron's fault for not setting an appropriate threshold and/or process, but holding a confirmatory vote once the proposition for change has been defined is certainly more democratic than proceeding regardless of the cost and regardless of whether the change retains public support or not.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope wrong yet again. I have made very clear that democracy is a process of both asking a question and enacting the result. Not asking a question and then ignoring the result because you dont like it.Gardenwalker said:
The trouble is you seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is “threatening democracy”.Richard_Tyndall said:
Not at all. Challenging those who threaten democracy in the way you do is perfectly in keeping with liberalism.Gardenwalker said:
Mr T is quite fond of sharing his apparently liberal policies, which he insists evidence his tolerant outlook, while deriding anyone who disagrees with him as tyrants, extremists and idiots.
It’s a funny kind of liberalism.
Once the result of the referendum has been enacted and we have left the EU then I have no problem at all with people campaigning for a vote to rejoin. That would be democratic. Having a second vote before the first is enacted is certainly not democratic.
Any Remain that’s sustainable has to address that first rather than just say to the voters, “have you learnt your lesson, yet?”0 -
Quite: they're not doing it for party reasons not because of some great attachment to democratic principles.rcs1000 said:
Surely, a vote - on revisiting the referendum result (either before of after exit), or on EU membership in general - is simply contingent on whether there are lots of votes in it.Charles said:
Which is fundamentally why Leavers don’t trust Remainers on this pointCyclefree said:
It was not the EU's fault we did not get a vote on it.Recidivist said:
And I seem to remember that when it got voted down the EU revised it.another_richard said:
I seem to remember we were promised a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon.Cyclefree said:
Actually, I think that would have been a good idea - much like the Irish did. And would be if Britain remained or rejoined.SunnyJim said:If Remain had won you could envisage them having the same attitude to revisiting the decision the first time there was a significant change to the EU structures.
Not.
Rank hypocrisy I’m afraid.
They know that if a second referendum votes to remain - no matter the margin or the turn out - they will never ever be asked again
If Mrs May thought that a second referendum would be good for her and the Conservative Party (and the country, for that matter), then I have no doubt she would go for it.
So, if the polls were regularly posting 66:33 leads for Remain, and the Conservatives were languishing at 25% in the polls, while a Remain-friendly party topped the polls, and won every council by-election in sight, then I have little doubt she would support another referendum.
But they're not. There won't be another referendum, because neither the government nor the official opposition sees mileage in it.0 -
Intriguing. The official Lib Dem Press account drawing people's attention to an interview in which Layla Moran didn't rule out standing for leader:
https://twitter.com/LibDemPress/status/10957719578434109450 -
williamglenn said:Casino_Royale said:MarqueeMark said:
I'm with Casino on this, William.IanB2 said:
The existing terms were not put to the public, only the result of six years of Cameron's botched relations with the EU. It was rightly rejected because the UK shouldn't be consigned to the kind of permanently second-tier status Cameron tried to lock in.TudorRose said:
The vote was against remaining in the EU on existing terms, certainly, and also that Cameron’s renegotiation was insufficient.IanB2 said:
The Brexit mandate had a majority, across the UK.Richard_Tyndall said:
Certainly you'd think that the government going to the country asking for a Brexit mandate and coming away losing its majority would have been a powerful hint.Gardenwalker said:
Wasn't the outcome of the 2017 general election confirmation enough?Richard_Tyndall said:
oposition for change has been defined is certainly more democratic than proceeding regardless of the cost and regardless of whether the change retains public support or not.Gardenwalker said:
Mr T is quite fond of sharing his apparently liberal policies, which he insists evidence his tolerant outlook, while deriding anyone who disagrees with him as tyrants, extremists and idiots.
It’s a funny kind of liberalism.
Any Remain that’s sustainable has to address that first rather than just say to the voters, “have you learnt your lesson, yet?”
The referendum result was a reflection of our concerns about the EU's direction of travel. Even people like me were concerned about that. My answer to Casino would be that I would hope the EU would learn from the searing experience of Brexit that it needs to think again about that direction of travel. It particularly needs to ask questions about the fundamental principle of FOM, for example, and also practical ones, like how do you police a border 9,000 miles long.
Juncker put the whole EU project at risk in turning a deaf ear to such concerns, notably as expressed by Cameron and his unsuccessful attempts at wringing concessions. I suspect the EU will not be so tin-eared in future.
What do we do? Fight from within or without the EU? I'm a Remainer so I would sooner fight from within, but we shall see. Maybe we serve the EU project best by leaving. Not sure. But if we did, it would be a price worth paying.0 -
You have a greater faith in Nigel Farage and the ERG's ability to STFU than I do.kyf_100 said:Do you honestly think that, if remain had won 52/48 back in 2016, we would be here talking about second referendums and delaying the result of the vote? Of course not. It would be settled for a generation, or more, perhaps forever - as we hurtled beyond the event horizon of a federal superstate.
0 -
Forcing through a major and potentially deleterious change to our country on the basis of a single vote three years ago which didn't set out either a proposition or its implications certainly isn't democratic. It's Cameron's fault for not setting an an.
*************************************************************
I'm with Casino on this, William.
The referendum result was a reflection of our concerns about the EU's direction of travel. Even people like me were concerned about that. My answer to Casino would be that I would hope the EU would learn from the searing experience of Brexit that it needs to think again about that direction of travel. It particularly needs to ask questions about the fundamental principle of FOM, for example, and also practical ones, like how do you police a border 9,000 miles long.
Juncker put the whole EU project at risk in turning a deaf ear to such concerns, notably as expressed by Cameron and his unsuccessful attempts at wringing concessions. I suspect the EU will not be so tin-eared in future.
What do we do? Fight from within or without the EU? I'm a Remainer so I would sooner fight from within, but we shall see. Maybe we serve the EU project best by leaving. Not sure. But if we did, it would be a price worth paying.0 -
I wonder how Leavers might feel if, one of the conditions of an FTA is that Britain must maintain the same corporate tax rates as in the EU.Casino_Royale said:
Exactly. A vote to Remain would be taken as a mandate for everything to come, including an EU army and the EU Commission having tax raising powers which it’s now “started a debate” on.Charles said:
Which is fundamentally why Leavers don’t trust Remainers on this pointCyclefree said:
It was not the EU's fault we did not get a vote on it.Recidivist said:
And I seem to remember that when it got voted down the EU revised it.another_richard said:
I seem to remember we were promised a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon.Cyclefree said:
Actually, I think that would have been a good idea - much like the Irish did. And would be if Britain remained or rejoined.SunnyJim said:If Remain had won you could envisage them having the same attitude to revisiting the decision the first time there was a significant change to the EU structures.
Not.
Rank hypocrisy I’m afraid.
They know that if a second referendum votes to remain - no matter the margin or the turn out - they will never ever be asked again
Inside the EU, Britain would have a veto on a decision to go to QMV for tax matters. And would likely be supported by Ireland in doing so. Outside it won't have any vote at all.
Of course, it would have the option of not having an FTA at all.
Is that what the more ardent Leavers on here think that those who voted Leave wanted or thought would happen?0 -
Wor Layla 👌El_Capitano said:Intriguing. The official Lib Dem Press account drawing people's attention to an interview in which Layla Moran didn't rule out standing for leader:
https://twitter.com/LibDemPress/status/10957719578434109450 -
*************************************************************Peter_the_Punter said:Forcing through a major and potentially deleterious change to our country on the basis of a single vote three years ago which didn't set out either a proposition or its implications certainly isn't democratic. It's Cameron's fault for not setting an an.
I'm with Casino on this, William.
The referendum result was a reflection of our concerns about the EU's direction of travel. Even people like me were concerned about that. My answer to Casino would be that I would hope the EU would learn from the searing experience of Brexit that it needs to think again about that direction of travel. It particularly needs to ask questions about the fundamental principle of FOM, for example, and also practical ones, like how do you police a border 9,000 miles long.
Juncker put the whole EU project at risk in turning a deaf ear to such concerns, notably as expressed by Cameron and his unsuccessful attempts at wringing concessions. I suspect the EU will not be so tin-eared in future.
What do we do? Fight from within or without the EU? I'm a Remainer so I would sooner fight from within, but we shall see. Maybe we serve the EU project best by leaving. Not sure. But if we did, it would be a price worth paying.
*****************************************************************
In response to @Peter_the_Punter:-
Varoufakis made much the same point on the radio the other day. But he said that the utterly inept way Britain had gone about Brexit has allowed the EU not to do the necessary self-reflection it badly needed to to do on its attitude to democracy, differences in countries' cultures and approaches to questions like FoM etc.
The manner of Britain's departure has provided cover for those within the EU who do not want to ask themselves whether their own behaviour might have had quite a lot to do with why the British voted to leave. Rather than stimulate a much needed debate on both sides of the Channel (remember Gove's grandiloquent claims when he first came out for Leave) all it has meant is that the EU feels more defensive than ever and convinced it is right and can point to Britain as the reason why it feels like this.
Meanwhile Britain has turned into one of those unhappily married couples, forced to live in the same house but constantly bitching and sniping at each other and embarrassing their friends, while their children hide in their rooms counting the days until they can leave.0 -
The EU has missed so many opportunities for reform. Even now, no sign. the same faces, the same stichups. It's not about how the EU is handling Brexit, it's about where it sees itself in the future.
*************************************************************Peter_the_Punter said:Forcing through a major and potentially deleterious change to our country on the basis of a single vote three years ago which didn't set out either a proposition or its implications certainly isn't democratic. It's Cameron's fault for not setting an an.
I'm with Casino on this, William.
The referendum result was a reflection of our concerns about the EU's direction of travel. Even people like me were concerned about that. My answer to Casino would be that I would hope the EU would learn from the searing experience of Brexit that it needs to think again about that direction of travel. It particularly needs to ask questions about the fundamental principle of FOM, for example, and also practical ones, like how do you police a border 9,000 miles long.
Juncker put the whole EU project at risk in turning a deaf ear to such concerns, notably as expressed by Cameron and his unsuccessful attempts at wringing concessions. I suspect the EU will not be so tin-eared in future.
What do we do? Fight from within or without the EU? I'm a Remainer so I would sooner fight from within, but we shall see. Maybe we serve the EU project best by leaving. Not sure. But if we did, it would be a price worth paying.
I gave it another chance in 2016, but I honestly don't know if I would so the same.
0 -
*************************************************************Peter_the_Punter said:Forcing through a major and potentially deleterious change to our country on the basis of a single vote three years ago which didn't set out either a proposition or its implications certainly isn't democratic. It's Cameron's fault for not setting an an.
I'm with Casino on this, William.
The referendum result was a reflection of our concerns about the EU's direction of travel. Even people like me were concerned about that. My answer to Casino would be that I would hope the EU would learn from the searing experience of Brexit that it needs to think again about that direction of travel. It particularly needs to ask questions about the fundamental principle of FOM, for example, and also practical ones, like how do you police a border 9,000 miles long.
Juncker put the whole EU project at risk in turning a deaf ear to such concerns, notably as expressed by Cameron and his unsuccessful attempts at wringing concessions. I suspect the EU will not be so tin-eared in future.
What do we do? Fight from within or without the EU? I'm a Remainer so I would sooner fight from within, but we shall see. Maybe we serve the EU project best by leaving. Not sure. But if we did, it would be a price worth paying.
Is that what happened? As I remember it Cameron concocted some not very convincing theatre about needing to reform something or other. Nobody outside the Tory party had the faintest idea of what the problem was. He did a few photo opportunities and came back with some sort of package of nothing and entirely predictably claimed it all as a great success. He then proceeded to go into campaign mode as if we should all care. I for one didn't.
Now the actual debate once it got started did take on a life of its own. But it didn't seem to have much to do with whatever the heck went on in the negotiations the preceded it. I don't think the metal from which the EU's ear was made had any impact on the outcome.0
