But Richard, it is your problem not Remainers'. Remainers don't have any interest in seeing Brexit work.
And that’s where the concern arises
The country has chosen to leave the EU, however that is defined
Within that framework you have a moral obligation to try and make the country as prosperous and successful as possible.
Of course you have the right to argue we should rejoin the EU at some point in the future but your argument implies that it is ok to either undermine the UK or to seek to ignore a democratic vote
I'm arguing neither of those things. When Leavers are still painting themselves in woad and labelling anyone who argues for any form of engagement with the EU as traitors, there is no obligation on those who do not subscribe to the cult to lend their shoulders to the wheel. If you assess that the best way of making the country as prosperous and successful as possible is to let this fiasco sink under its own weight, that's a respectable position. Let Leavers prove you wrong.
Let the muppets show themselves up. They've certainly managed that.
No. You said very simply that you have no interest in making the democratic choice of the country workable
Your arrogance is distasteful, sir
If you don't think it's workable as secured there is no moral requirement to engage in a fools' errand, especially one won in such a malign fashion. If those who won the referendum have no interest in your perspective, there is no moral requirement to offer it when it is unwanted.
You can't force people who think that the chosen course of action is malign and idiotic to assist you. You especially can't force them if you're calling them quislings and doubting their patriotism.
There is a moral requirement to accept the democratic result of a referendum and to seek to optimise the outcome within the framework voted for.
To accept it? Yes. To work to optimise something you consider misconceived and malign? No.
Optimise the outcome *for the country* within the constraints set. Not the same.
For example I believe it was a tragedy that Ireland was ever divided. But now it has been, so long as NI wants to remain part of the U.K. it should be able to.
And I will work to optimise the outcome for the U.K. within the constraint of a divided island.
Tony Blair claims that TIG demonstrates there's a "big open space of land that's fertile" in the centre of British politics. If anything they seem to be well on their way to proving the opposite.
What is so frustrating is that there are some of us on the Leave side who proposed exactly what Alastair is talking about within a day or so of the referendum. But of course we have no power and no political ambition so were never going to be listened to.
It is also worth pointing out that some Remainers' answer to the suggestion that we should treat this as a cross party/cross opinion issue was to say stuff that this will be your problem not ours. Which is hardly on keeping with the sort of reconciliation that Alastair talks about.
But Richard, it is your problem not Remainers'. Remainers don't have any interest in seeing Brexit work.
And that’s where the concern arises
The country has chosen to leave the EU, however that is defined
Within that framework you have a moral obligation to try and make the country as prosperous and successful as possible.
Of course you have the right to argue we should rejoin the EU at some point in the future but your argument implies that it is ok to either undermine the UK or to seek to ignore a democratic vote
I'm arguing neither of those things. When Leavers are still painting themselves in woad and labelling anyone who argues for any form of engagement with the EU as traitors, there is no obligation on those who do not subscribe to the cult to lend their shoulders to the wheel. If you assess that the best way of making the country as prosperous and successful as possible is to let this fiasco sink under its own weight, that's a respectable position. Let Leavers prove you wrong.
Let the muppets show themselves up. They've certainly managed that.
No. You said very simply that you have no interest in making the democratic choice of the country workable
Your arrogance is distasteful, sir
If you don't think it's workable as secured there is no moral requirement to engage in a fools' errand, especially one won in such a malign fashion. If those who won the referendum have no interest in your perspective, there is no moral requirement to offer it when it is unwanted.
You can't force people who think that the chosen course of action is malign and idiotic to assist you. You especially can't force them if you're calling them quislings and doubting their patriotism.
There is a moral requirement to accept the democratic result of a referendum and to seek to optimise the outcome within the framework voted for.
Would you like to tell the ERG that, please?
I have. Repeatedly. (They aren’t talking to me anymore)
He's turning into quite a handsome chap. Most late-middle-age men who lose weight turn into a poorly mummified eighty something woman, like Nigel Lawson did. Does he do exercise?
Optimise the outcome *for the country* within the constraints set. Not the same.
For example I believe it was a tragedy that Ireland was ever divided. But now it has been, so long as NI wants to remain part of the U.K. it should be able to.
And I will work to optimise the outcome for the U.K. within the constraint of a divided island.
I think.it is worth reminding Alastair that a few days after the referendum he wrote that .
"The thread of allegiance has been broken."
He turned his back on the country as soon as it voted to Leave and his petulance has continued ever since.
I'm arguing neither of those things. When Leavers are still painting themselves in woad and labelling anyone who argues for any form of engagement with the EU as traitors, there is no obligation on those who do not subscribe to the cult to lend their shoulders to the wheel. If you assess that the best way of making the country as prosperous and successful as possible is to let this fiasco sink under its own weight, that's a respectable position. Let Leavers prove you wrong.
Let the muppets show themselves up. They've certainly managed that.
No. You said very simply that you have no interest in making the democratic choice of the country workable
Your arrogance is distasteful, sir
If you don't think it's workable as secured there is no moral requirement to engage in a fools' errand, especially one won in such a malign fashion. If those who won the referendum have no interest in your perspective, there is no moral requirement to offer it when it is unwanted.
You can't force people who think that the chosen course of action is malign and idiotic to assist you. You especially can't force them if you're calling them quislings and doubting their patriotism.
There is a moral requirement to accept the democratic result of a referendum and to seek to optimise the outcome within the framework voted for.
To accept it? Yes. To work to optimise something you consider misconceived and malign? No.
Optimise the outcome *for the country* within the constraints set. Not the same.
For example I believe it was a tragedy that Ireland was ever divided. But now it has been, so long as NI wants to remain part of the U.K. it should be able to.
And I will work to optimise the outcome for the U.K. within the constraint of a divided island.
But I think the optimal outcome for Britain, given the referendum campaign fought, is for it to fail under its own contradictions. This judgement has been reinforced by the way in which those who gleefully pandered to xenophobia have conducted themselves since. So I will watch and wait for that.
Optimise the outcome *for the country* within the constraints set. Not the same.
For example I believe it was a tragedy that Ireland was ever divided. But now it has been, so long as NI wants to remain part of the U.K. it should be able to.
And I will work to optimise the outcome for the U.K. within the constraint of a divided island.
I think.it is worth reminding Alastair that a few days after the referendum he wrote that .
"The thread of allegiance has been broken."
He turned his back on the country as soon as it voted to Leave and his petulance has continued ever since.
I stand by that. The country that could vote for such a vile campaign is not the country I once loved. The fiasco since springs from that.
Optimise the outcome *for the country* within the constraints set. Not the same.
For example I believe it was a tragedy that Ireland was ever divided. But now it has been, so long as NI wants to remain part of the U.K. it should be able to.
And I will work to optimise the outcome for the U.K. within the constraint of a divided island.
I think.it is worth reminding Alastair that a few days after the referendum he wrote that .
"The thread of allegiance has been broken."
He turned his back on the country as soon as it voted to Leave and his petulance has continued ever since.
I stand by that. The country that could vote for such a vile campaign is not the country I once loved. The fiasco since springs from that.
Well in that case your article is sanctimonious, hypocritical rubbish. You don't get to say you have turned your back on the country and then moan when no one reaches out to you.
Whats happened to t'petition stuck on 3,420,786 for 15 mins now
The deep state.
It has passed 3.5 million
As I mentioned earlier, at the current rate - assuming a lot, but perfectly possible - it will reach 17.4 million after the original deadline, but before the Macron deadline - in about a fortnight.
Not sure about the maths there. The rate of votes added is around 1 million every 12 hours. At that rate the 17.4 million will hit on the 29th March late evening.
At some point we will hit saturation in certain areas. Bristol West is now at 16% and leads closely from Edinburgh North. Areas such as South Yorkshire are the home of Brexit and sit at around 2%.
I stand corrected - I thought it was collecting one million every 24 hours. It would be richly ironic if it reaches around 17.4 million just around the time of the original deadline.
Optimise the outcome *for the country* within the constraints set. Not the same.
For example I believe it was a tragedy that Ireland was ever divided. But now it has been, so long as NI wants to remain part of the U.K. it should be able to.
And I will work to optimise the outcome for the U.K. within the constraint of a divided island.
I think.it is worth reminding Alastair that a few days after the referendum he wrote that .
"The thread of allegiance has been broken."
He turned his back on the country as soon as it voted to Leave and his petulance has continued ever since.
I stand by that. The country that could vote for such a vile campaign is not the country I once loved. The fiasco since springs from that.
Well in that case your article is sanctimonious, hypocritical rubbish. You don't get to say you have turned your back on the country and then moan when no one reaches out to you.
As I say, this is the winners’ problem. You can rail at me personally as much as you like and at the end it will still be the same problem for the winners that none of them have engaged with in three years.
Optimise the outcome *for the country* within the constraints set. Not the same.
For example I believe it was a tragedy that Ireland was ever divided. But now it has been, so long as NI wants to remain part of the U.K. it should be able to.
And I will work to optimise the outcome for the U.K. within the constraint of a divided island.
I think.it is worth reminding Alastair that a few days after the referendum he wrote that .
"The thread of allegiance has been broken."
He turned his back on the country as soon as it voted to Leave and his petulance has continued ever since.
I stand by that. The country that could vote for such a vile campaign is not the country I once loved. The fiasco since springs from that.
Well in that case your article is sanctimonious, hypocritical rubbish. You don't get to say you have turned your back on the country and then moan when no one reaches out to you.
I think his response to the Leave campaign's lies and barely-disguised xenophobia was entirely valid. Having won a narrow victory based on that campaign it was the duty of Leavers to reach out. Of course they didn't, because it's not in their nature. They have now fucked up their project through incompetence and stupidity. If they want to rescue something from the rubble, they need to reach out now. I'm not holding my breath.
Optimise the outcome *for the country* within the constraints set. Not the same.
For example I believe it was a tragedy that Ireland was ever divided. But now it has been, so long as NI wants to remain part of the U.K. it should be able to.
And I will work to optimise the outcome for the U.K. within the constraint of a divided island.
I think.it is worth reminding Alastair that a few days after the referendum he wrote that .
"The thread of allegiance has been broken."
He turned his back on the country as soon as it voted to Leave and his petulance has continued ever since.
I stand by that. The country that could vote for such a vile campaign is not the country I once loved. The fiasco since springs from that.
Well in that case your article is sanctimonious, hypocritical rubbish. You don't get to say you have turned your back on the country and then moan when no one reaches out to you.
As I say, this is the winners’ problem. You can rail at me personally as much as you like and at the end it will still be the same problem for the winners that none of them have engaged with in three years.
Clearly that is yet another false statement from you given that I and other Leavers on here have tried to find a consensus ever since the referendum but you and your closed mind simply weren't interested in any form of compromise. You reveal your hypocrisy in every posting.
That means not only that the current deal is dead, but also that they they won't vote for any deal which includes the backstop, and therefore that they won't vote for any deal at all. But they say they "want a deal which delivers on the referendum result and which works for all parts of the UK and for the EU as well." It's unicorn-hunting.
Therefore, if we are to find a way out of the impasse, it's going to have to be done without DUP votes. Is that possible? I'd have thought very difficult indeed (and that's without even considering whether they then withdraw support from the Conservative minority government).
None of this bodes well for any kind of orderly resolution of the current stalemate.
What is so frustrating is that there are some of us on the Leave side who proposed exactly what Alastair is talking about within a day or so of the referendum. But of course we have no power and no political ambition so were never going to be listened to.
I
But Richard, it is your problem not Remainers'. Remainers don't have any interest in seeing Brexit work.
Let the muppets show themselves up. They've certainly managed that.
No. You said very simply that you have no interest in making the democratic choice of the country workable
Your arrogance is distasteful, sir
Brexit became unworkable on 29 March 2017. May lost the chance to get remainers on board a few months earlier with “citizens of nowhere”. You call people disloyal, traitorous even, and then act offended when they don’t do as you wish?
Bollocks
Malign individuals deliberately misrepresented what she meant by “citizens of nowhere” - it was tax-dodging individuals and companies not ordinary Remain voters. Sadly people like you fell for it.
Don’t give me that crap. Go you think I’m green? Can you point me to the reference to tax in the paragraph that read -
“If you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ means.”.
Yes, there was a reference to international tax dodgers, but that came later in the speech. Here she was making a very deliberate nationalistic point that came from a long line of “rootless cosmopolitan” tropes that only lead one way. Remainers have been maligned and told they don’t count since the referendum. How many posts here have started with “as a leave voter I didn’t vote for...”? Our views have been discounted from day one “Remoaners”, “Suck it up”, “We didn’t vote for a deal”. How do we work with that? EEA? Not “real” Brexit? Customs Union? Same. Now, seemingly, only leaving with no deal honours the result
In a democracy or a dictatorship you have a duty to oppose where you think that a mistake has been made, even if you are outnumbered 65 million to one. There is no duty to aid and abet a catastrophe.
Optimise the outcome *for the country* within the constraints set. Not the same.
For example I believe it was a tragedy that Ireland was ever divided. But now it has been, so long as NI wants to remain part of the U.K. it should be able to.
And I will work to optimise the outcome for the U.K. within the constraint of a divided island.
I think.it is worth reminding Alastair that a few days after the referendum he wrote that .
"The thread of allegiance has been broken."
He turned his back on the country as soon as it voted to Leave and his petulance has continued ever since.
I stand by that. The country that could vote for such a vile campaign is not the country I once loved. The fiasco since springs from that.
Well in that case your article is sanctimonious, hypocritical rubbish. You don't get to say you have turned your back on the country and then moan when no one reaches out to you.
As I say, this is the winners’ problem. You can rail at me personally as much as you like and at the end it will still be the same problem for the winners that none of them have engaged with in three years.
Clearly that is yet another false statement from you given that I and other Leavers on here have tried to find a consensus ever since the referendum but you and your closed mind simply weren't interested in any form of compromise. You reveal your hypocrisy in every posting.
Yeah, you can feel the consensus-building on a daily basis, here and in the nation at large. Those poor Leavers, they’re like a cross between St Francis of Assisi and Mother Bloody Theresa. If it wasn’t for the stuff about traitors, quislings, enemies of the people, citizens of nowhere and crushing saboteurs...
Malign individuals deliberately misrepresented what she meant by “citizens of nowhere” - it was tax-dodging individuals and companies not ordinary Remain voters. Sadly people like you fell for it.
That's bollocks. I watched the speech live in its entirety. I have never dodged a penny in tax. I heard the speech as a petty-minded attack on people who are open to the world, and I can tell you that work colleagues and friends heard it in exactly those terms too. People from abroad who have made their home here and pay their taxes told me they never imagined they'd hear a British PM say something like that. It was a watershed moment for many (not me, I've had May's number for years).
That means not only that the current deal is dead, but also that they they won't vote for any deal which includes the backstop, and therefore that they won't vote for any deal at all. But they say they "want a deal which delivers on the referendum result and which works for all parts of the UK and for the EU as well." It's unicorn-hunting.
Therefore, if we are to find a way out of the impasse, it's going to have to be done without DUP votes. Is that possible? I'd have thought very difficult indeed (and that's without even considering whether they then withdraw support from the Conservative minority government).
None of this bodes well for any kind of orderly resolution of the current stalemate.
I really hate this phrase unicorn-hunting. One country being in control of its own customs and not trapped in a "backstop" with its neighbours isn't a unicorn, its normal status quo.
The backstop is the real unicorn. I've asked many times and never had a reply can you name me ANY nation in the world which is trapped whereby it is legally bound to follow another nations (or group of nations) customs and regulations without getting a say in them and without a right to exit that arrangement?
Optimise the outcome *for the country* within the constraints set. Not the same.
For example I believe it was a tragedy that Ireland was ever divided. But now it has been, so long as NI wants to remain part of the U.K. it should be able to.
And I will work to optimise the outcome for the U.K. within the constraint of a divided island.
I think.it is worth reminding Alastair that a few days after the referendum he wrote that .
"The thread of allegiance has been broken."
He turned his back on the country as soon as it voted to Leave and his petulance has continued ever since.
I stand by that. The country that could vote for such a vile campaign is not the country I once loved. The fiasco since springs from that.
Well in that case your article is sanctimonious, hypocritical rubbish. You don't get to say you have turned your back on the country and then moan when no one reaches out to you.
As I say, this is the winners’ problem. You can rail at me personally as much as you like and at the end it will still be the same problem for the winners that none of them have engaged with in three years.
Clearly that is yet another false statement from you given that I and other Leavers on here have tried to find a consensus ever since the referendum but you and your closed mind simply weren't interested in any form of compromise. You reveal your hypocrisy in every posting.
Richard, you might have done many things since the referendum, but 'consensus building' isn't one of them.
Screaming at people and insulting them, yes. I think you'll agree that that's an odd way to build a consensus.
Malign individuals deliberately misrepresented what she meant by “citizens of nowhere” - it was tax-dodging individuals and companies not ordinary Remain voters. Sadly people like you fell for it.
That's bollocks. I watched the speech live in its entirety. I have never dodged a penny in tax. I heard the speech as a petty-minded attack on people who are open to the world, and I can tell you that work colleagues and friends heard it in exactly those terms too. People from abroad who have made their home here and pay their taxes told me they never imagined they'd hear a British PM say something like that. It was a watershed moment for many (not me, I've had May's number for years).
Here you go:
But we also value something else: the spirit of citizenship.
That spirit that means you respect the bonds and obligations that make our society work. That means a commitment to the men and women who live around you, who work for you, who buy the goods and services you sell.
That spirit that means recognising the social contract that says you train up local young people before you take on cheap labour from overseas.
That spirit that means you do as others do, and pay your fair share of tax.
But today, too many people in positions of power behave as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road, the people they employ, the people they pass in the street.
But if you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ means.
So if you’re a boss who earns a fortune but doesn’t look after your staff…
An international company that treats tax laws as an optional extra…
A household name that refuses to work with the authorities even to fight terrorism…
A director who takes out massive dividends while knowing that the company pension is about to go bust…
I’m putting you on warning. This can’t go on anymore.
A change has got to come. And this party – the Conservative Party – is going to make that change.
Charles was entirely right. It's a disgrace that so many people have chosen to misrepresent what Theresa May said.
That means not only that the current deal is dead, but also that they they won't vote for any deal which includes the backstop, and therefore that they won't vote for any deal at all. But they say they "want a deal which delivers on the referendum result and which works for all parts of the UK and for the EU as well." It's unicorn-hunting.
Therefore, if we are to find a way out of the impasse, it's going to have to be done without DUP votes. Is that possible? I'd have thought very difficult indeed (and that's without even considering whether they then withdraw support from the Conservative minority government).
None of this bodes well for any kind of orderly resolution of the current stalemate.
I really hate this phrase unicorn-hunting. One country being in control of its own customs and not trapped in a "backstop" with its neighbours isn't a unicorn, its normal status quo.
The backstop is the real unicorn. I've asked many times and never had a reply can you name me ANY nation in the world which is trapped whereby it is legally bound to follow another nations (or group of nations) customs and regulations without getting a say in them and without a right to exit that arrangement?
You can hate what you like, but an orderly exit is not available without the backstop.
Malign individuals deliberately misrepresented what she meant by “citizens of nowhere” - it was tax-dodging individuals and companies not ordinary Remain voters. Sadly people like you fell for it.
That's bollocks. I watched the speech live in its entirety. I have never dodged a penny in tax. I heard the speech as a petty-minded attack on people who are open to the world, and I can tell you that work colleagues and friends heard it in exactly those terms too. People from abroad who have made their home here and pay their taxes told me they never imagined they'd hear a British PM say something like that. It was a watershed moment for many (not me, I've had May's number for years).
But we also value something else: the spirit of citizenship.
That spirit that means you respect the bonds and obligations that make our society work. That means a commitment to the men and women who live around you, who work for you, who buy the goods and services you sell.
That spirit that means recognising the social contract that says you train up local young people before you take on cheap labour from overseas.
That spirit that means you do as others do, and pay your fair share of tax.
But today, too many people in positions of power behave as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road, the people they employ, the people they pass in the street.
But if you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ means.
So if you’re a boss who earns a fortune but doesn’t look after your staff…
An international company that treats tax laws as an optional extra…
A household name that refuses to work with the authorities even to fight terrorism…
A director who takes out massive dividends while knowing that the company pension is about to go bust…
I’m putting you on warning. This can’t go on anymore.
A change has got to come. And this party – the Conservative Party – is going to make that change.
I'm arguing neither of those things. When Leavers are still painting themselves in woad and labelling anyone who argues for any form of engagement with the EU as traitors, there is no obligation on those who do not subscribe to the cult to lend their shoulders to the wheel. If you assess that the best way of making the country as prosperous and successful as possible is to let this fiasco sink under its own weight, that's a respectable position. Let Leavers prove you wrong.
Let the muppets show themselves up. They've certainly managed that.
No. You said very simply that you have no interest in making the democratic choice of the country workable
Your arrogance is distasteful, sir
If you don't think it's workable as secured there is no moral requirement to engage in a fools' errand, especially one won in such a malign fashion. If those who won the referendum have no interest in your perspective, there is no moral requirement to offer it when it is unwanted.
You can't force people who think that the chosen course of action is malign and idiotic to assist you. You especially can't force them if you're calling them quislings and doubting their patriotism.
There is a moral requirement to accept the democratic result of a referendum and to seek to optimise the outcome within the framework voted for.
To accept it? Yes. To work to optimise something you consider misconceived and malign? No.
Optimise the outcome *for the country* within the constraints set. Not the same.
For example I believe it was a tragedy that Ireland was ever divided. But now it has been, so long as NI wants to remain part of the U.K. it should be able to.
And I will work to optimise the outcome for the U.K. within the constraint of a divided island.
But I think the optimal outcome for Britain, given the referendum campaign fought, is for it to fail under its own contradictions. This judgement has been reinforced by the way in which those who gleefully pandered to xenophobia have conducted themselves since. So I will watch and wait for that.
To desire the country to fail, because it is leaving a set of treaties is, to put it kindly, a niche view. Many Americans are big fans of NAFTA I am sure, but wouldn't desire America to fail if it left.
That means not only that the current deal is dead, but also that they they won't vote for any deal which includes the backstop, and therefore that they won't vote for any deal at all. But they say they "want a deal which delivers on the referendum result and which works for all parts of the UK and for the EU as well." It's unicorn-hunting.
Therefore, if we are to find a way out of the impasse, it's going to have to be done without DUP votes. Is that possible? I'd have thought very difficult indeed (and that's without even considering whether they then withdraw support from the Conservative minority government).
None of this bodes well for any kind of orderly resolution of the current stalemate.
I really hate this phrase unicorn-hunting. One country being in control of its own customs and not trapped in a "backstop" with its neighbours isn't a unicorn, its normal status quo.
The backstop is the real unicorn. I've asked many times and never had a reply can you name me ANY nation in the world which is trapped whereby it is legally bound to follow another nations (or group of nations) customs and regulations without getting a say in them and without a right to exit that arrangement?
You can hate what you like, but an orderly exit is not available without the backstop.
If that's the case it is only because the EU are demanding the impossible. They're demanding unicorns. Again can you name any nation in the world in that situation?
Unicorns don't exist, so the backstop can't exist either. So its either no deal, or no exit.
I'm arguing neither of those things. When Leavers are still painting themselves in woad and labelling anyone who argues for any form of engagement with the EU as traitors, there is no obligation on those who do not subscribe to the cult to lend their shoulders to the wheel. If you assess that the best way of making the country as prosperous and successful as possible is to let this fiasco sink under its own weight, that's a respectable position. Let Leavers prove you wrong.
Let the muppets show themselves up. They've certainly managed that.
No. You said very simply that you have no interest in making the democratic choice of the country workable
Your arrogance is distasteful, sir
If you don't think it's workable as secured there is no moral requirement to engage in a fools' errand, especially one won in such a malign fashion. If those who won the referendum have no interest in your perspective, there is no moral requirement to offer it when it is unwanted.
You can't force people who think that the chosen course of action is malign and idiotic to assist you. You especially can't force them if you're calling them quislings and doubting their patriotism.
There is a moral requirement to accept the democratic result of a referendum and to seek to optimise the outcome within the framework voted for.
To accept it? Yes. To work to optimise something you consider misconceived and malign? No.
Optimise the outcome *for the country* within the constraints set. Not the same.
For example I believe it was a tragedy that Ireland was ever divided. But now it has been, so long as NI wants to remain part of the U.K. it should be able to.
And I will work to optimise the outcome for the U.K. within the constraint of a divided island.
But I think the optimal outcome for Britain, given the referendum campaign fought, is for it to fail under its own contradictions. This judgement has been reinforced by the way in which those who gleefully pandered to xenophobia have conducted themselves since. So I will watch and wait for that.
To desire the country to fail, because it is leaving a set of treaties is, to put it kindly, a niche view. Many Americans are big fans of NAFTA I am sure, but wouldn't desire America to fail if it left.
I'm arguing neither of those things. When Leavers are still painting themselves in woad and labelling anyone who argues for any form of engagement with the EU as traitors, there is no obligation on those who do not subscribe to the cult to lend their shoulders to the wheel. If you assess that the best way of making the country as prosperous and successful as possible is to let this fiasco sink under its own weight, that's a respectable position. Let Leavers prove you wrong.
Let the muppets show themselves up. They've certainly managed that.
No. You said very simply that you have no interest in making the democratic choice of the country workable
Your arrogance is distasteful, sir
If you don't think it's workable as secured there is no moral requirement to engage in a fools' errand, especially one won in such a malign fashion. If those who won the referendum have no interest in your perspective, there is no moral requirement to offer it when it is unwanted.
You can't force people who think that the chosen course of action is malign and idiotic to assist you. You especially can't force them if you're calling them quislings and doubting their patriotism.
There is a moral requirement to accept the democratic result of a referendum and to seek to optimise the outcome within the framework voted for.
To accept it? Yes. To work to optimise something you consider misconceived and malign? No.
Optimise the outcome *for the country* within the constraints set. Not the same.
For example I believe it was a tragedy that Ireland was ever divided. But now it has been, so long as NI wants to remain part of the U.K. it should be able to.
And I will work to optimise the outcome for the U.K. within the constraint of a divided island.
But I think the optimal outcome for Britain, given the referendum campaign fought, is for it to fail under its own contradictions. This judgement has been reinforced by the way in which those who gleefully pandered to xenophobia have conducted themselves since. So I will watch and wait for that.
To desire the country to fail, because it is leaving a set of treaties is, to put it kindly, a niche view. Many Americans are big fans of NAFTA I am sure, but wouldn't desire America to fail if it left.
I'm arguing neither of those things. When Leavers are still painting themselves in woad and labelling anyone who argues for any form of engagement with the EU as traitors, there is no obligation on those who do not subscribe to the cult to lend their shoulders to the wheel. If you assess that the best way of making the country as prosperous and successful as possible is to let this fiasco sink under its own weight, that's a respectable position. Let Leavers prove you wrong.
Let the muppets show themselves up. They've certainly managed that.
No. You said very simply that you have no interest in making the democratic choice of the country workable
Your arrogance is distasteful, sir
If you don't think it's workable as secured there is no moral requirement to engage in a fools' errand, especially one won in such a malign fashion. If those who won the referendum have no interest in your perspective, there is no moral requirement to offer it when it is unwanted.
You can't force people who think that the chosen course of action is malign and idiotic to assist you. You especially can't force them if you're calling them quislings and doubting their patriotism.
There is a moral requirement to accept the democratic result of a referendum and to seek to optimise the outcome within the framework voted for.
To accept it? Yes. To work to optimise something you consider misconceived and malign? No.
Optimise the outcome *for the country* within the constraints set. Not the same.
For example I believe it was a tragedy that Ireland was ever divided. But now it has been, so long as NI wants to remain part of the U.K. it should be able to.
And I will work to optimise the outcome for the U.K. within the constraint of a divided island.
But I think the optimal outcome for Britain, given the referendum campaign fought, is for it to fail under its own contradictions. This judgement has been reinforced by the way in which those who gleefully pandered to xenophobia have conducted themselves since. So I will watch and wait for that.
To desire the country to fail, because it is leaving a set of treaties is, to put it kindly, a niche view. Many Americans are big fans of NAFTA I am sure, but wouldn't desire America to fail if it left.
That's a misreading, I think, Lucky. He means for Brexit to fail.
It's a view I have some sympathy with and why I have become calmer recently about the prospect of No Deal. Sometimes we just have to learn things the hard way.
Tony Blair claims that TIG demonstrates there's a "big open space of land that's fertile" in the centre of British politics. If anything they seem to be well on their way to proving the opposite.
The gap is not there. The gap is in the area of centre left/social democrat economics combined with social traditionalism/conservatism. It is too often called populism. (Matthew Goodwin explains it well).
That means not only that the current deal is dead, but also that they they won't vote for any deal which includes the backstop, and therefore that they won't vote for any deal at all. But they say they "want a deal which delivers on the referendum result and which works for all parts of the UK and for the EU as well." It's unicorn-hunting.
Therefore, if we are to find a way out of the impasse, it's going to have to be done without DUP votes. Is that possible? I'd have thought very difficult indeed (and that's without even considering whether they then withdraw support from the Conservative minority government).
None of this bodes well for any kind of orderly resolution of the current stalemate.
I really hate this phrase unicorn-hunting. One country being in control of its own customs and not trapped in a "backstop" with its neighbours isn't a unicorn, its normal status quo.
The backstop is the real unicorn. I've asked many times and never had a reply can you name me ANY nation in the world which is trapped whereby it is legally bound to follow another nations (or group of nations) customs and regulations without getting a say in them and without a right to exit that arrangement?
You can hate what you like, but an orderly exit is not available without the backstop.
If that's the case it is only because the EU are demanding the impossible. They're demanding unicorns. Again can you name any nation in the world in that situation?
Unicorns don't exist, so the backstop can't exist either. So its either no deal, or no exit.
In that case no exit is the only remaining option which any responsible government could go for, although for my part I really can't see what the fuss is about. The backstop is an exceptionally good deal from our point of view, what used to be called the 'common market' without the freedom of movement obligations, the CAP, the CFP, ever-closer union, the political structures - and without having to pay a centime in fees. What's not to like? The only drawback is that we wouldn't have a say in regulations which the Leavers claim we don't have any real say in anyway, and which in practice we'll follow even if there's no deal at all.
Tony Blair claims that TIG demonstrates there's a "big open space of land that's fertile" in the centre of British politics. If anything they seem to be well on their way to proving the opposite.
The gap is not there. The gap is in the area of centre left/social democrat economics combined with social traditionalism/conservatism.
So you don't think social nothing combined with economic nothing is a winner?
Tony Blair claims that TIG demonstrates there's a "big open space of land that's fertile" in the centre of British politics. If anything they seem to be well on their way to proving the opposite.
The gap is not there. The gap is in the area of centre left/social democrat economics combined with social traditionalism/conservatism.
Like a kind of National but also Socialist kind of party? Sounds great! What would you call it?
Remain probably means the ERG will win the war within the Tories to be honest.
If the Tories are serious about remaining the Party of Government, they should shrug of the ERG and its allies.
Absolutely. But we largely seem to have forgotten wanting to be a serious party of government. Unfortunately Labour have also chosen the same moment to do the same.
Malign individuals deliberately misrepresented what she meant by “citizens of nowhere” - it was tax-dodging individuals and companies not ordinary Remain voters. Sadly people like you fell for it.
That's bollocks. I watched the speech live in its entirety. I have never dodged a penny in tax. I heard the speech as a petty-minded attack on people who are open to the world, and I can tell you that work colleagues and friends heard it in exactly those terms too. People from abroad who have made their home here and pay their taxes told me they never imagined they'd hear a British PM say something like that. It was a watershed moment for many (not me, I've had May's number for years).
But we also value something else: the spirit of citizenship.
That spirit that means you respect the bonds and obligations that make our society work. That means a commitment to the men and women who live around you, who work for you, who buy the goods and services you sell.
That spirit that means recognising the social contract that says you train up local young people before you take on cheap labour from overseas.
That spirit that means you do as others do, and pay your fair share of tax.
But today, too many people in positions of power behave as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road, the people they employ, the people they pass in the street.
But if you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ means.
So if you’re a boss who earns a fortune but doesn’t look after your staff…
An international company that treats tax laws as an optional extra…
A household name that refuses to work with the authorities even to fight terrorism…
A director who takes out massive dividends while knowing that the company pension is about to go bust…
I’m putting you on warning. This can’t go on anymore.
A change has got to come. And this party – the Conservative Party – is going to make that change.
That means not only that the current deal is dead, but also that they they won't vote for any deal which includes the backstop, and therefore that they won't vote for any deal at all. But they say they "want a deal which delivers on the referendum result and which works for all parts of the UK and for the EU as well." It's unicorn-hunting.
Therefore, if we are to find a way out of the impasse, it's going to have to be done without DUP votes. Is that possible? I'd have thought very difficult indeed (and that's without even considering whether they then withdraw support from the Conservative minority government).
None of this bodes well for any kind of orderly resolution of the current stalemate.
1) Pro-deal Tories vote for Kyle-Wilson or similar to get brexit done 2) Brexit with deal, or don't, depending on the result
This is the only known way out of the treacle, as has been clear since at least the first MV.
As Kwasi Kwarteng made clear today if the Deal is rejected again the Government will allow free votes on all alternative options from revoke, EUref2, single market and/or Customs Union or No Deal and Parliament will decide whether Brexit goes ahead if at all
Tony Blair claims that TIG demonstrates there's a "big open space of land that's fertile" in the centre of British politics. If anything they seem to be well on their way to proving the opposite.
The gap is not there. The gap is in the area of centre left/social democrat economics combined with social traditionalism/conservatism. It is too often called populism. (Matthew Goodwin explains it well).
Corbynism combined with the ERG and UKIP/The Brexit Party then
What is so frustrating is that there are some of us on the Leave side who proposed exactly what Alastair is talking about within a day or so of the referendum. But of course we have no power and no political ambition so were never going to be listened to.
I
But Richard, it is your problem not Remainers'. Remainers don't have any interest in seeing Brexit work.
Let the muppets show themselves up. They've certainly managed that.
No. You said very simply that you have no interest in making the democratic choice of the country workable
Your arrogance is distasteful, sir
Brexit became unworkable on 29 March 2017. May lost the chance to get remainers on board a few months earlier with “citizens of nowhere”. You call people disloyal, traitorous even, and then act offended when they don’t do as you wish?
Bollocks
Malign individuals deliberately misrepresented what she meant by “citizens of nowhere” - it was tax-dodging individuals and companies not ordinary Remain voters. Sadly people like you fell for it.
Don’t give me that crap. Go you think I’m green? Can you point me to the reference to tax in the paragraph that read -
“If you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ means.”.
Yes, there was a reference to international tax dodgers, but that came later in the speech. Here she was making a very deliberate nationalistic point that came from a long line of “rootless cosmopolitan” tropes that only lead one way. Remainers have been maligned and told they don’t count since the referendum. How many posts here have started with “as a leave voter I didn’t vote for...”? Our views have been discounted from day one “Remoaners”, “Suck it up”, “We didn’t vote for a deal”. How do we work with that? EEA? Not “real” Brexit? Customs Union? Same. Now, seemingly, only leaving with no deal honours the result
In a democracy or a dictatorship you have a duty to oppose where you think that a mistake has been made, even if you are outnumbered 65 million to one. There is no duty to aid and abet a catastrophe.
First paragraph of the link (I think intelligence squared is unbiased) sums it up
Malign individuals deliberately misrepresented what she meant by “citizens of nowhere” - it was tax-dodging individuals and companies not ordinary Remain voters. Sadly people like you fell for it.
That's bollocks. I watched the speech live in its entirety. I have never dodged a penny in tax. I heard the speech as a petty-minded attack on people who are open to the world, and I can tell you that work colleagues and friends heard it in exactly those terms too. People from abroad who have made their home here and pay their taxes told me they never imagined they'd hear a British PM say something like that. It was a watershed moment for many (not me, I've had May's number for years).
Here you go:
But we also value something else: the spirit of citizenship.
That spirit that means you respect the bonds and obligations that make our society work. That means a commitment to the men and women who live around you, who work for you, who buy the goods and services you sell.
That spirit that means recognising the social contract that says you train up local young people before you take on cheap labour from overseas.
That spirit that means you do as others do, and pay your fair share of tax.
But today, too many people in positions of power behave as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road, the people they employ, the people they pass in the street.
But if you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ means.
So if you’re a boss who earns a fortune but doesn’t look after your staff…
An international company that treats tax laws as an optional extra…
A household name that refuses to work with the authorities even to fight terrorism…
A director who takes out massive dividends while knowing that the company pension is about to go bust…
I’m putting you on warning. This can’t go on anymore.
A change has got to come. And this party – the Conservative Party – is going to make that change.
Charles was entirely right. It's a disgrace that so many people have chosen to misrepresent what Theresa May said.
"Patriots should stop hating people from other countries."
See a problem with that statement? I said "patriots", but I meant "xenophobes". I bet that people who self-identify as patriots but dislike xenophobia would be pretty unhappy about hearing that, right? So how do you think somebody who self-identifies as "citizen of the world" but doesn't like tax-dodging would feel about what May said?
1) Pro-deal Tories vote for Kyle-Wilson or similar to get brexit done 2) Brexit with deal, or don't, depending on the result
This is the only known way out of the treacle, as has been clear since at least the first MV.
I used to think that was a way out, but having seen the hardening of attitudes in the Conservative party, plus the evident opposition of the Labour leadership and quite a number of Labour MPs, I'm sceptical that it's feasible or that it would even pass the first hurdle of a vote in parliament. It's near-impossible for parliament to impose a referendum on an executive which doesn't want one, and even if that weren't the case there would be guerrilla warfare by the hard-liners to stop it.
It would be nice, as a thought exercise, to see if there's really any common ground between hardcore remainers and leavers on PB, on even the blandest and most inoffensive aspirations. For example, we appear to both want the country to be wealthy. We appear to both want the country to be outward looking. Perhaps there are more examples of common ground.
1) Pro-deal Tories vote for Kyle-Wilson or similar to get brexit done 2) Brexit with deal, or don't, depending on the result
This is the only known way out of the treacle, as has been clear since at least the first MV.
I used to think that was a way out, but having seen the hardening of attitudes in the Conservative party, plus the evident opposition of the Labour leadership and quite a number of Labour MPs, I'm sceptical that it's feasible. It's near-impossible for parliament to impose a referendum on an executive which doesn't want one, and even if that weren't the case there would be guerrilla warfare by the hard-liners to stop it.
But who knows? All options look impossible.
This is also true, you need the PM to at best actively support it, or at least tacitly condone it.
Failing that I think we're just looking at indefinite extensions (Gimp Remain).
"Patriots should stop hating people from other countries."
See a problem with that statement? I said "patriots", but I meant "xenophobes". I bet that people who self-identify as patriots but dislike xenophobia would be pretty unhappy about hearing that, right? So how do you think somebody who self-identifies as "citizen of the world" but doesn't like tax-dodging would feel about what May said?
Oh, it was a silly speech. That's no reason to take one phrase out of context and try to pretend it referred to people that it quite unambiguously didn't refer to.
It would be nice, as a thought exercise, to see if there's really any common ground between hardcore remainers and leavers on PB, on even the blandest and most inoffensive aspirations. For example, we appear to both want the country to be wealthy. We appear to both want the country to be outward looking. Perhaps there are more examples of common ground.
There is plenty of evidence that a lot of Leavers want the country to be inward looking and are willing to sacrifice wealth for leaving the EU. So even your bland examples fall down.
As Kwasi Kwarteng made clear today if the Deal is rejected again the Government will allow free votes on all alternative options from revoke, EUref2, single market and/or Customs Union or No Deal and Parliament will decide whether Brexit goes ahead if at all
My guess (at this stage) is that all of them will fail. Those wanting 'no deal' have an incentive to vote against everything except that (which won't pass) and those who want revoke (eg; SNP/PC) have an incentive to vote against everything except that (which also won't pass). So that takes roughly 150-200 votes out of the equation before we start looking at preferences.
It would be nice, as a thought exercise, to see if there's really any common ground between hardcore remainers and leavers on PB, on even the blandest and most inoffensive aspirations. For example, we appear to both want the country to be wealthy. We appear to both want the country to be outward looking. Perhaps there are more examples of common ground.
We appear to enjoy attacking each other on niche political websites.
Malign individuals deliberately misrepresented what she meant by “citizens of nowhere” - it was tax-dodging individuals and companies not ordinary Remain voters. Sadly people like you fell for it.
That's bollocks. I watched the speech live in its entirety. I have never dodged a penny in tax. I heard the speech as a petty-minded attack on people who are open to the world, and I can tell you that work colleagues and friends heard it in exactly those terms too. People from abroad who have made their home here and pay their taxes told me they never imagined they'd hear a British PM say something like that. It was a watershed moment for many (not me, I've had May's number for years).
But we also value something else: the spirit of citizenship.
That spirit that means you respect the bonds and obligations that make our society work. That means a commitment to the men and women who live around you, who work for you, who buy the goods and services you sell.
That spirit that means recognising the social contract that says you train up local young people before you take on cheap labour from overseas.
That spirit that means you do as others do, and pay your fair share of tax.
But today, too many people in positions of power behave as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road, the people they employ, the people they pass in the street.
But if you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ means.
So if you’re a boss who earns a fortune but doesn’t look after your staff…
An international company that treats tax laws as an optional extra…
A household name that refuses to work with the authorities even to fight terrorism…
A director who takes out massive dividends while knowing that the company pension is about to go bust…
I’m putting you on warning. This can’t go on anymore.
A change has got to come. And this party – the Conservative Party – is going to make that change.
You thought that was aimed at you?
I believe I am a citizen of the world. So yes.
First time I've ever seen the full text. It's obscene.
Tony Blair claims that TIG demonstrates there's a "big open space of land that's fertile" in the centre of British politics. If anything they seem to be well on their way to proving the opposite.
The gap is not there. The gap is in the area of centre left/social democrat economics combined with social traditionalism/conservatism. It is too often called populism. (Matthew Goodwin explains it well).
Corbynism combined with the ERG and UKIP/The Brexit Party then
DUP that is. Wonder how they'd fare running candidates over the water?
A week to go till the Tories insane porno ban isnt it ?
It is not a porno ban, just an age vericatio requirement to access it e.g. with driving license etc which 70% of the public supports
Watch that percentage drop like a stone as a big chunk of the adult male population realises they need to tell the government before they have a hand shandy.
If that's the case it is only because the EU are demanding the impossible. They're demanding unicorns. Again can you name any nation in the world in that situation?
Unicorns don't exist, so the backstop can't exist either. So its either no deal, or no exit.
In that case no exit is the only remaining option which any responsible government could go for, although for my part I really can't see what the fuss is about. The backstop is an exceptionally good deal from our point of view, what used to be called the 'common market' without the freedom of movement obligations, the CAP, the CFP, ever-closer union, the political structures - and without having to pay a centime in fees. What's not to like? The only drawback is that we wouldn't have a say in regulations which the Leavers claim we don't have any real say in anyway, and which in practice we'll follow even if there's no deal at all.
Or customs, or have a right to exit the arrangement.
It is an undemocratic atrocity. If there was a right to exit it, then yes I'd agree. But to give up our right to elect the people who set our regulations . . . forever . . . is not something I am prepared to do.
"Patriots should stop hating people from other countries."
See a problem with that statement? I said "patriots", but I meant "xenophobes". I bet that people who self-identify as patriots but dislike xenophobia would be pretty unhappy about hearing that, right? So how do you think somebody who self-identifies as "citizen of the world" but doesn't like tax-dodging would feel about what May said?
Oh, it was a silly speech. That's no reason to take one phrase out of context and try to pretend it referred to people that it quite unambiguously didn't refer to.
You can hardly call it unambiguous if different people watched the same speech and took entirely different messages from it. It's all part and parcel of May's repulsive provincial Little Englander mindset. It is also of course the most breathtaking hypocrisy as the Tory party exists to enable the kind of people May was referring to, or "our donors" as she calls them behind closed doors.
Considering oneself a “citizen of the world” is a niche hobby and I say that working in an office which is genuinely multinational. But the May speech sought to associate anyone who disagreed with her vision of a quasi-totalitarian state (if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn’t be worried etc) with being the enemy. To disagree is to be a traitor. That’s my take of the context.
She’s the small minded bigot inadvertently promoted to the big stage, Corbyn’s Labour would be no different. In both their hands there’s nothing liberal about democracy - both seek to draw their authority from “the people” in the most malevolent way possible.
A week to go till the Tories insane porno ban isnt it ?
It is not a porno ban, just an age vericatio requirement to access it e.g. with driving license etc which 70% of the public supports
Watch that percentage drop like a stone as a big chunk of the adult male population realises they need to tell the government before they have a hand shandy.
It would be nice, as a thought exercise, to see if there's really any common ground between hardcore remainers and leavers on PB, on even the blandest and most inoffensive aspirations. For example, we appear to both want the country to be wealthy. We appear to both want the country to be outward looking. Perhaps there are more examples of common ground.
There is plenty of evidence that a lot of Leavers want the country to be inward looking and are willing to sacrifice wealth for leaving the EU. So even your bland examples fall down.
I don't want to rehearse the arguments, but I don't know any leaver who thinks we will be poorer in the long term. We just have very different views on the optimal circumstances for wealth creation. At any rate, we must concede that we can potentially prosper inside or outside, it would be silly to argue otherwise.
Perhaps leavers do want us to be more inward looking as a trend than outward looking.
Perhaps there is more common ground in that both groups are in favour of rigorously upholding the law.
Considering oneself a “citizen of the world” is a niche hobby and I say that working in an office which is genuinely multinational. But the May speech sought to associate anyone who disagreed with her vision of a quasi-totalitarian state (if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn’t be worried etc) with being the enemy. To disagree is to be a traitor. That’s my take of the context.
She’s the small minded bigot inadvertently promoted to the big stage, Corbyn’s Labour would be no different. In both their hands there’s nothing liberal about democracy - both seek to draw their authority from “the people” in the most malevolent way possible.
It would be nice, as a thought exercise, to see if there's really any common ground between hardcore remainers and leavers on PB, on even the blandest and most inoffensive aspirations. For example, we appear to both want the country to be wealthy. We appear to both want the country to be outward looking. Perhaps there are more examples of common ground.
We appear to enjoy attacking each other on niche political websites.
The strangest experience is walking from other parts of Bristol into Bristol West. It's almost like another country, let alone a different city. A pint costs about double what it does in the city centre.
"Patriots should stop hating people from other countries."
See a problem with that statement? I said "patriots", but I meant "xenophobes". I bet that people who self-identify as patriots but dislike xenophobia would be pretty unhappy about hearing that, right? So how do you think somebody who self-identifies as "citizen of the world" but doesn't like tax-dodging would feel about what May said?
Oh, it was a silly speech. That's no reason to take one phrase out of context and try to pretend it referred to people that it quite unambiguously didn't refer to.
You can hardly call it unambiguous if different people watched the same speech and took entirely different messages from it. It's all part and parcel of May's repulsive provincial Little Englander mindset. It is also of course the most breathtaking hypocrisy as the Tory party exists to enable the kind of people May was referring to, or "our donors" as she calls them behind closed doors.
Of course it's unambiguous. She helpfully gives a bunch of examples of what she means,and she explains exactly what the context is.
Sure, people who dislike her or dislike the Tories or hate Brexit decided to take offence by deliberately misunderstanding or (more likely) not even bothering to find out what she actually said. And it's true that a smarter politician would have been careful to give them less scope for such misrepresentation. But it's still misrepresentation.
A week to go till the Tories insane porno ban isnt it ?
It is not a porno ban, just an age vericatio requirement to access it e.g. with driving license etc which 70% of the public supports
Watch that percentage drop like a stone as a big chunk of the adult male population realises they need to tell the government before they have a hand shandy.
Only 28% of those who watch porn every day and only 48% of those who watch it 1 to 3 times a week back the proposals anyway but as most of the population do not watch porn that frequently 67% of all voters back the plans
It would be nice, as a thought exercise, to see if there's really any common ground between hardcore remainers and leavers on PB, on even the blandest and most inoffensive aspirations. For example, we appear to both want the country to be wealthy. We appear to both want the country to be outward looking. Perhaps there are more examples of common ground.
There is plenty of evidence that a lot of Leavers want the country to be inward looking and are willing to sacrifice wealth for leaving the EU. So even your bland examples fall down.
I don't want to rehearse the arguments, but I don't know any leaver who thinks we will be poorer in the long term. We just have very different views on the optimal circumstances for wealth creation. At any rate, we must concede that we can potentially prosper inside or outside, it would be silly to argue otherwise.
Perhaps leavers do want us to be more inward looking as a trend than outward looking.
Perhaps there is more common ground in that both groups are in favour of rigorously upholding the law.
I don’t notice that either. In the last two years Leavers have labelled judges enemies of the people and sought to abolish the House of Lords when they acted in a manner Leavers didn’t like.
I'm arguing neither of those things. When Leavers are still painting themselves in woad and labelling anyone
No. You said very simply that you have no interest in making the democratic choice of the country workable
Your arrogance is distasteful, sir
If you don't think it's workable as secured there is no moral requirement to engage in a fools' errand, especially one won in such a malign fashion. If those who won the referendum have no interest in your perspective, there is no moral requirement to offer it when it is unwanted.
You can't force people who think that the chosen course of action is malign and idiotic to assist you. You especially can't force them if you're calling them quislings and doubting their patriotism.
There is a moral requirement to accept the democratic result of a referendum and to seek to optimise the outcome within the framework voted for.
To accept it? Yes. To work to optimise something you consider misconceived and malign? No.
Optimise the outcome *for the country* within the constraints set. Not the same.
For example I believe it was a tragedy that Ireland was ever divided. But now it has been, so long as NI wants to remain part of the U.K. it should be able to.
And I will work to optimise the outcome for the U.K. within the constraint of a divided island.
But I think the optimal outcome for Britain, given the referendum campaign fought, is for it to fail under its own contradictions. This judgement has been reinforced by the way in which those who gleefully pandered to xenophobia have conducted themselves since. So I will watch and wait for that.
To desire the country to fail, because it is leaving a set of treaties is, to put it kindly, a niche view. Many Americans are big fans of NAFTA I am sure, but wouldn't desire America to fail if it left.
That's a misreading, I think, Lucky. He means for Brexit to fail.
It's a view I have some sympathy with and why I have become calmer recently about the prospect of No Deal. Sometimes we just have to learn things the hard way.
His original argument was that because he disagreed with the decision to leave he had no obligation to help the country prosper
He can receive letters but they can't be officially tallied until 12 months after the previous vote of confidence.
Would be interesting if 51% of MPs signed an open letter calling for her to go.
Though I imagine to get to 51% might take some payroll vote MPs so that probably can't happen.
May is irrelevant and given last December's vote cannot be challenged until the Brexit process is over, Parliament is about to take control and move towards BINO as Kwarteng made clear today
A week to go till the Tories insane porno ban isnt it ?
I thought they were still trying to figure out how it would actually work.
Oh, Is it on hold - unlike MTD !
Not on hold exactly, but the date and exact arrangements haven't yet been finalised:
The legislation to introduce the age restriction was approved by parliament two years ago but the implementation date has been repeatedly delayed. Despite speculation the ban could be implemented on 1 April, those with knowledge of the process say there is no chance of that date being met.
If you don't think it's workable as secured there is no moral requirement to engage in a fools' errand, especially one won in such a malign fashion. If those who won the referendum have no interest in your perspective, there is no moral requirement to offer it when it is unwanted.
You can't force people who think that the chosen course of action is malign and idiotic to assist you. You especially can't force them if you're calling them quislings and doubting their patriotism.
There is a moral requirement to accept the democratic result of a referendum and to seek to optimise the outcome within the framework voted for.
To accept it? Yes. To work to optimise something you consider misconceived and malign? No.
Optimise the outcome *for the country* within the constraints set. Not the same.
For example I believe it was a tragedy that Ireland was ever divided. But now it has been, so long as NI wants to remain part of the U.K. it should be able to.
And I will work to optimise the outcome for the U.K. within the constraint of a divided island.
But I think the optimal outcome for Britain, given the referendum campaign fought, is for it to fail under its own contradictions. This judgement has been reinforced by the way in which those who gleefully pandered to xenophobia have conducted themselves since. So I will watch and wait for that.
To desire the country to fail, because it is leaving a set of treaties is, to put it kindly, a niche view. Many Americans are big fans of NAFTA I am sure, but wouldn't desire America to fail if it left.
That's a misreading, I think, Lucky. He means for Brexit to fail.
It's a view I have some sympathy with and why I have become calmer recently about the prospect of No Deal. Sometimes we just have to learn things the hard way.
His original argument was that because he disagreed with the decision to leave he had no obligation to help the country prosper
I have no obligation to help Brexit prosper. I don’t.
I would argue that you had a much clearer obligation not to fall in behind xenophobic lies in the referendum campaign. But Leavers en masse decided that was ok in the circumstances.
A week to go till the Tories insane porno ban isnt it ?
I thought they were still trying to figure out how it would actually work.
Oh, Is it on hold - unlike MTD !
Not on hold exactly, but the date and exact arrangements haven't yet been finalised:
The legislation to introduce the age restriction was approved by parliament two years ago but the implementation date has been repeatedly delayed. Despite speculation the ban could be implemented on 1 April, those with knowledge of the process say there is no chance of that date being met.
Of course it's unambiguous. She helpfully gives a bunch of examples of what she means,and she explains exactly what the context is.
Sure, people who dislike her or dislike the Tories or hate Brexit decided to take offence by deliberately misunderstanding or (more likely) not even bothering to find out what she actually said. And it's true that a smarter politician would have been careful to give them less scope for such misrepresentation. But it's still misrepresentation.
The same happened with Thatcher of course and the famous "no such thing as society" quote. Listen to the full quote and nobody reasonable could disagree with it. Take it out of context and its twisted to mean the opposite of what she was saying.
I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—“It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it”. That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people: “All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!” but when people come and say: “But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!” You say: “Look! It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!”
There is also something else I should say to them: “If that does not give you a basic standard, you know, there are ways in which we top up the standard. You can get your housing benefit.”
He can receive letters but they can't be officially tallied until 12 months after the previous vote of confidence.
Would be interesting if 51% of MPs signed an open letter calling for her to go.
Though I imagine to get to 51% might take some payroll vote MPs so that probably can't happen.
May is irrelevant and given last December's vote cannot be challenged until the Brexit process is over, Parliament is about to take control and move towards BINO as Kwarteng made clear today
Very hard to imagine parliament voting for any actual version of BINO. I mean, they may vote to do BINO, but once you negotiate an actual thing you still have to pass it, and any gain you make on the left you'll lose on the right.
But it went too far. If children have a problem, it is society that is at fault. There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate. And the worst things we have in life, in my view, are where children who are a great privilege and a trust—they are the fundamental great trust, but they do not ask to come into the world, we bring them into the world, they are a miracle, there is nothing like the miracle of life—we have these little innocents and the worst crime in life is when those children, who would naturally have the right to look to their parents for help, for comfort, not only just for the food and shelter but for the time, for the understanding, turn round and not only is that help not forthcoming, but they get either neglect or worse than that, cruelty.
Very strange — the total number of signatures has increased several times but Bristol West has been stuck on 23,087.
They have turned the auto-update off to reduce the load on the site. My guess is that the gross total is being updated more often than the constituency breakdown.
Comments
https://youtu.be/jWKtoG_a_hE
https://twitter.com/LabourList/status/1109152980576534528
For example I believe it was a tragedy that Ireland was ever divided. But now it has been, so long as NI wants to remain part of the U.K. it should be able to.
And I will work to optimise the outcome for the U.K. within the constraint of a divided island.
Gove 5.2 / 6.4
Johnson 5.5 / 5.7
Hunt 9.8 / 10.5
Raab 11 / 11.5
Javid 12.5 / 14.5
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.125574963
"The thread of allegiance has been broken."
He turned his back on the country as soon as it voted to Leave and his petulance has continued ever since.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2019/mar/22/brexit-latest-news-eu-summit-extend-delay-article-50-eu-says-uk-will-leave-in-three-weeks-with-no-deal-unless-mps-back-agreement-or-decide-plan-b-politics-live?page=with:block-5c94fefce4b0a5422e639bb8#block-5c94fefce4b0a5422e639bb8
That means not only that the current deal is dead, but also that they they won't vote for any deal which includes the backstop, and therefore that they won't vote for any deal at all. But they say they "want a deal which delivers on the referendum result and which works for all parts of the UK and for the EU as well." It's unicorn-hunting.
Therefore, if we are to find a way out of the impasse, it's going to have to be done without DUP votes. Is that possible? I'd have thought very difficult indeed (and that's without even considering whether they then withdraw support from the Conservative minority government).
None of this bodes well for any kind of orderly resolution of the current stalemate.
The backstop is the real unicorn. I've asked many times and never had a reply can you name me ANY nation in the world which is trapped whereby it is legally bound to follow another nations (or group of nations) customs and regulations without getting a say in them and without a right to exit that arrangement?
Screaming at people and insulting them, yes. I think you'll agree that that's an odd way to build a consensus.
But we also value something else: the spirit of citizenship.
That spirit that means you respect the bonds and obligations that make our society work. That means a commitment to the men and women who live around you, who work for you, who buy the goods and services you sell.
That spirit that means recognising the social contract that says you train up local young people before you take on cheap labour from overseas.
That spirit that means you do as others do, and pay your fair share of tax.
But today, too many people in positions of power behave as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road, the people they employ, the people they pass in the street.
But if you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ means.
So if you’re a boss who earns a fortune but doesn’t look after your staff…
An international company that treats tax laws as an optional extra…
A household name that refuses to work with the authorities even to fight terrorism…
A director who takes out massive dividends while knowing that the company pension is about to go bust…
I’m putting you on warning. This can’t go on anymore.
A change has got to come. And this party – the Conservative Party – is going to make that change.
Charles was entirely right. It's a disgrace that so many people have chosen to misrepresent what Theresa May said.
That spirit that means you respect the bonds and obligations that make our society work. That means a commitment to the men and women who live around you, who work for you, who buy the goods and services you sell.
That spirit that means recognising the social contract that says you train up local young people before you take on cheap labour from overseas.
That spirit that means you do as others do, and pay your fair share of tax.
But today, too many people in positions of power behave as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road, the people they employ, the people they pass in the street.
But if you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ means.
So if you’re a boss who earns a fortune but doesn’t look after your staff…
An international company that treats tax laws as an optional extra…
A household name that refuses to work with the authorities even to fight terrorism…
A director who takes out massive dividends while knowing that the company pension is about to go bust…
I’m putting you on warning. This can’t go on anymore.
A change has got to come. And this party – the Conservative Party – is going to make that change.
You thought that was aimed at you?
Unicorns don't exist, so the backstop can't exist either. So its either no deal, or no exit.
It's a view I have some sympathy with and why I have become calmer recently about the prospect of No Deal. Sometimes we just have to learn things the hard way.
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/stop-seeking-the-brexit-holy-grail-and-we-might-just-resolve-this-mess-a4098531.html
2) Brexit with deal, or don't, depending on the result
This is the only known way out of the treacle, as has been clear since at least the first MV.
See a problem with that statement? I said "patriots", but I meant "xenophobes". I bet that people who self-identify as patriots but dislike xenophobia would be pretty unhappy about hearing that, right? So how do you think somebody who self-identifies as "citizen of the world" but doesn't like tax-dodging would feel about what May said?
But who knows? All options look impossible.
Failing that I think we're just looking at indefinite extensions (Gimp Remain).
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/technology/articles-reports/2019/03/18/britains-porn-watchers-likely-be-caught-their-pant
It is an undemocratic atrocity. If there was a right to exit it, then yes I'd agree. But to give up our right to elect the people who set our regulations . . . forever . . . is not something I am prepared to do.
She’s the small minded bigot inadvertently promoted to the big stage, Corbyn’s Labour would be no different. In both their hands there’s nothing liberal about democracy - both seek to draw their authority from “the people” in the most malevolent way possible.
Perhaps leavers do want us to be more inward looking as a trend than outward looking.
Perhaps there is more common ground in that both groups are in favour of rigorously upholding the law.
Though I imagine to get to 51% might take some payroll vote MPs so that probably can't happen.
Sure, people who dislike her or dislike the Tories or hate Brexit decided to take offence by deliberately misunderstanding or (more likely) not even bothering to find out what she actually said. And it's true that a smarter politician would have been careful to give them less scope for such misrepresentation. But it's still misrepresentation.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/technology/articles-reports/2019/03/18/britains-porn-watchers-likely-be-caught-their-pant
The legislation to introduce the age restriction was approved by parliament two years ago but the implementation date has been repeatedly delayed. Despite speculation the ban could be implemented on 1 April, those with knowledge of the process say there is no chance of that date being met.
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/mar/16/uk-online-porn-age-verification-launch
I would argue that you had a much clearer obligation not to fall in behind xenophobic lies in the referendum campaign. But Leavers en masse decided that was ok in the circumstances.
I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—“It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it”. That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people: “All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!” but when people come and say: “But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!” You say: “Look! It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!”
There is also something else I should say to them: “If that does not give you a basic standard, you know, there are ways in which we top up the standard. You can get your housing benefit.”
Hit character limit.