> Remain did beat the most extreme form of Leave thanks to votes from people ineligible to take part in the referendum,
You can't prove that. Also, given how many polls had it reversed, as you reminded people several times, an acknowledgement from you that your side fell short of that would be sporting.
Otherwise why bother if you can't admit when the facts don't go your way?
> > The Brexit Party completely boss the election and end up as the largest individual party in the whole EU parliament. And yet the establishment creates it's own vote totals, supported actively by Sky and the BBC, to create the narrative that remain won.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > And they wonder why the Brexit Party won?
>
> >
>
> > Remain did beat the most extreme form of Leave thanks to votes from people ineligible to take part in the referendum, but it’s disingenous to class No Deal as Leave.
>
>
>
> This is going to be the excuse now, is it? Foreigners.
>
>
>
> Beyond parody.
>
> It’s true actually
>
> Shame you backed your opinion with a price when I asked
You say it's true, but what's the evidence? The gap between Remain parties and No Deal parties is 5.5% by my reckoning.
If you're claiming that 1 in 20 of voters were ineligible to vote in a referendum you need to back it up with a number.
Actually I didn’t mean it to sound like the Remain parties beat no deal only because of the ineligible referendum voters votes, just that they helped
> @Richard_Tyndall said: > > No it is a fair point and I am not sure how you factor it into the calculations. How many of those voting in the EU elections on Thursday will be eligible to vote in any referendum revote in the future? EU citizens were eligible to vote in these elections and probably did so in reasonable numbers. They will not be eligible to vote in any future revote. What difference does that make? -------
EU citizens should be able to vote in any second referendum to correct the injustice of 2016.
> @solarflare said: > It's funny watching lots of people try to pretend the Conservatives somehow aren't pro-Brexit. What have they been doing these last few years?
What they've been doing is watching the brextremists loudly declaim the Tories as failing to honour the referendum. FWIW of course the Tories are a Brexit party. But that's not how the likes of Farage have been trying to paint it.
> @kjohnw said: > If parliament tries to block no deal half of Tory party will defect to brexit party and force GE and brexit party will win under ftpt and no deal will happen either way
Stopping no deal requires the Government to legislate for it. The next leader of the conservative party facilitates no deal through inertia .
> @isam said: > > @isam said: > > > > @isam said: > > > > > > > The Brexit Party completely boss the election and end up as the largest individual party in the whole EU parliament. And yet the establishment creates it's own vote totals, supported actively by Sky and the BBC, to create the narrative that remain won. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And they wonder why the Brexit Party won? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Remain did beat the most extreme form of Leave thanks to votes from people ineligible to take part in the referendum, but it’s disingenous to class No Deal as Leave. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is going to be the excuse now, is it? Foreigners. > > > > > > > > > > > > Beyond parody. > > > > > > It’s true actually > > > > > > Shame you backed your opinion with a price when I asked > > > > You say it's true, but what's the evidence? The gap between Remain parties and No Deal parties is 5.5% by my reckoning. > > > > If you're claiming that 1 in 20 of voters were ineligible to vote in a referendum you need to back it up with a number. > > Actually I didn’t mean it to sound like the Remain parties beat no deal only because of the ineligible referendum voters votes, just that they helped
It's what you said: "Remain did beat the most extreme form of Leave thanks to votes from people ineligible to take part in the referendum ..."
> Some people will object to this but it's shrewd imo. This is the only election BXP will ever fight without a current or part policy platform. They're going to have to come up with some policies and next time there's a national vote they can actually get some proper scrutiny that isn't about their funding or Farage's weird history.
> BXP will be revealed to be an unstable coalition of far-right illiberals, misguided globalisers, nativists, anti-establishment types, Country Lifers, disaster capitalists, libertarians, and baldy immigrant baiters.
>
> The only hope of keeping them together is to say absolutely nothing about anything other than Brexit. Because like the original leave vote, such a mix is to fissile to withstand anything other than a single policy. But failing to produce policies for a domestic election will not be tolerated by the wider public.
-----------------
Not sure about this. The SNP has been pretty successful at keeping a similarly disparate coalition going on a single policy. It takes a lot of discipline and they have had their bad patches too.
But the SNP has a boringly leftish-centrist policy platform that appeals across the spectrum.
Bit of a pity then that the LibDems didn't predict the best ever results in a Euro election.
Instead we got talk of the best result since 1910 and a million LibDem votes in London.
Hm. I can't find anything predicting that on a Google News search for "LibDems best result since 1910". I can't find anything on the Lib Dems' website either.
You appear to be elevating Twitter scuttlebutt, which could equally come from an overenthusiastic town councillor or indeed someone from a different party, to the official party line. I think that's called "setting them up to fail".
> @kjohnw said: > If parliament tries to block no deal half of Tory party will defect to brexit party and force GE and brexit party will win under ftpt and no deal will happen either way
One benefit would be thes plitting of the two party system
> @Theuniondivvie said: > > @Richard_Tyndall said: > > > @Dura_Ace said: > > > > @brokenwheel said: > > > > > > > The Australian Labor Party has elected leftwinger Anthony Albanese unopposed to succeed Bill Shorten as Labor leader following its recent election defeat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-48362272 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Doubling down on the culture wars... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is he hard left?? if so another defeat will beckon... > > > > > > He's a completely unreconstructed anti-monarchist and loves The Smiths. He gets the DA imprimatur. > > > > Hmmm. Given Morrisey's apparent views these days is loving the Smiths still a viable cultural choice for an aspiring Marxist leader? > > > Stalin's early albums were pretty good until Holodomor and The Great Terror. Even Great Patriotic War didn't make up for those turkeys.
My favourite remains his classic duet "Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites" with Zinoviev. Great base line.
> @Pulpstar said: > > @Benpointer said: > > > @TOPPING said: > > > The critical question is as follows. If Stewart, Rudd et al are so adamant that they will not support a no dealer how would that translate into action should a no dealer become PM? > > > > > > VONC support would mean deselection and near certain job loss. > > > > > > How many are there willing to do this? Grieve we know would be one. How many others? > > > > Doesn't it only need two Con defectors in theory? > > The Peterborough MP will have a decision to make.
If you look at the list of MPs who voted for the Letwin amendment and google their quotes, most say they will put the country ahead of the party if push comes to shove on no deal. I would expect up to 20 would be willing to VONC if they are the marginal voter but they might get together and choose 5-10 who are happy to sacrifice their relationship with the Tory party and protect the others.
> @edmundintokyo said: > Life is so weird, imagine you'd been told 15 years ago that Labour would bury itself alive through increasingly unconvincing triangulation, you'd have said, "those blairites"
One of the ironies of Corbyns Labour is that they run the party in a more Blairite way than Blair. Not only the triangulation of policy, but leading it from one extreme wing of the party dragging the rest of it along. They are just less successful.
> @williamglenn said: > > @Richard_Tyndall said: > > > > No it is a fair point and I am not sure how you factor it into the calculations. How many of those voting in the EU elections on Thursday will be eligible to vote in any referendum revote in the future? EU citizens were eligible to vote in these elections and probably did so in reasonable numbers. They will not be eligible to vote in any future revote. What difference does that make? > ------- > > EU citizens should be able to vote in any second referendum to correct the injustice of 2016.
> > > > The Australian Labor Party has elected leftwinger Anthony Albanese unopposed to succeed Bill Shorten as Labor leader following its recent election defeat
> @williamglenn said: > > @Richard_Tyndall said: > > > > No it is a fair point and I am not sure how you factor it into the calculations. How many of those voting in the EU elections on Thursday will be eligible to vote in any referendum revote in the future? EU citizens were eligible to vote in these elections and probably did so in reasonable numbers. They will not be eligible to vote in any future revote. What difference does that make? > ------- > > EU citizens should be able to vote in any second referendum to correct the injustice of 2016.
Why? You've no right just to rig any future vote in your favour.
> Remain did beat the most extreme form of Leave thanks to votes from people ineligible to take part in the referendum,
You can't prove that. Also, given how many polls had it reversed, as you reminded people several times, an acknowledgement from you that your side fell short of that would be sporting.
Otherwise why bother if you can't admit when the facts don't go your way?
Yes I didn’t mean that without the ineligible referendum voters votes No deal would have beaten Leave, sorry, just that they helped
> @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > @kjohnw said: > > If parliament tries to block no deal half of Tory party will defect to brexit party and force GE and brexit party will win under ftpt and no deal will happen either way > > Stopping no deal requires the Government to legislate for it. The next leader of the conservative party facilitates no deal through inertia .
Did we not hear all this back in December? The exact mechanism for stopping no deal is unknown now but parliamentary sovereignty has been affirmed by the attorney general who said it would be illegal for the PM to act against parliament on Brexit. If needed it will be a VONC, more likely the likes of Grieve, Letwin, Clarke et al will find a more elegant way.
> @Floater said: > > They absolutely should not be. > -------
Why not? Why is it fair that Commonwealth citizens can vote on EU membership but not EU citizens? Surely the pro-Brexit camp should see them as a key audience to make their case against political integration.
Ruth Davidson's own constituency in Edinburgh overwhelmingly rejected the Tories and backed the SNP. They sent a message, just not the one she wanted: The SNP: 33.4% (+10.3) Tories: 10.0% (-9.4)
> @Floater said: > > @williamglenn said: > > > @Richard_Tyndall said: > > > > > > No it is a fair point and I am not sure how you factor it into the calculations. How many of those voting in the EU elections on Thursday will be eligible to vote in any referendum revote in the future? EU citizens were eligible to vote in these elections and probably did so in reasonable numbers. They will not be eligible to vote in any future revote. What difference does that make? > > ------- > > > > EU citizens should be able to vote in any second referendum to correct the injustice of 2016. > > They absolutely should not be. > >
Except some of them were allowed. Irish, Maltese too I believe. Utterly wrong that people who live legally in a country shouldn't have a say over their future. Nativist bollocks in fact.
> > > The Brexit Party completely boss the election and end up as the largest individual party in the whole EU parliament. And yet the establishment creates it's own vote totals, supported actively by Sky and the BBC, to create the narrative that remain won.
> > > And they wonder why the Brexit Party won?
> > > Remain did beat the most extreme form of Leave thanks to votes from people ineligible to take part in the referendum, but it’s disingenous to class No Deal as Leave.
> > This is going to be the excuse now, is it? Foreigners.
> > Beyond parody.
>
> >
>
> > It’s true actually
>
> >
>
> > Shame you backed your opinion with a price when I asked
>
>
>
> You say it's true, but what's the evidence? The gap between Remain parties and No Deal parties is 5.5% by my reckoning.
>
>
>
> If you're claiming that 1 in 20 of voters were ineligible to vote in a referendum you need to back it up with a number.
>
> Actually I didn’t mean it to sound like the Remain parties beat no deal only because of the ineligible referendum voters votes, just that they helped
It's what you said: "Remain did beat the most extreme form of Leave thanks to votes from people ineligible to take part in the referendum ..."
Yes I know what I said, that’s why I later said “I didn’t mean it to sound like...”
> @Sean_F said: > > Why? You've no right just to rig any future vote in your favour. -------------
Can EU citizens not be in favour of Brexit? We keep being told how a wave of Euroscepticism is sweeping the EU. Surely giving non-UK EU citizens a voice would turn the vote into a true test for the people versus Brussels.
> @kjohnw said: > If parliament tries to block no deal half of Tory party will defect to brexit party and force GE and brexit party will win under ftpt and no deal will happen either way
My diagnosis is that you have a bad case of HY disease
> @El_Capitano said: > Bit of a pity then that the LibDems didn't predict the best ever results in a Euro election. > > > > Instead we got talk of the best result since 1910 and a million LibDem votes in London. > > Hm. I can't find anything predicting that on a Google News search for "LibDems best result since 1910". I can't find anything on the Lib Dems' website either. > > You appear to be elevating Twitter scuttlebutt, which could equally come from an overenthusiastic town councillor or indeed someone from a different party, to the official party line. I think that's called "setting them up to fail".
You can find it among the PB comments.
Start off with those from Cicero.
As OGH himself said, LibDem expectations management was piss poor.
> @ah009 said: > > @Floater said: > > > @williamglenn said: > > > > @Richard_Tyndall said: > > > > > > > > No it is a fair point and I am not sure how you factor it into the calculations. How many of those voting in the EU elections on Thursday will be eligible to vote in any referendum revote in the future? EU citizens were eligible to vote in these elections and probably did so in reasonable numbers. They will not be eligible to vote in any future revote. What difference does that make? > > > ------- > > > > > > EU citizens should be able to vote in any second referendum to correct the injustice of 2016. > > > > They absolutely should not be. > > > > > > Except some of them were allowed. Irish, Maltese too I believe. > Utterly wrong that people who live legally in a country shouldn't have a say over their future. Nativist bollocks in fact.
It’s called citizenship. It’s confers rights and duties for a reason. The Maltese etc is a daft anomaly that should be gone, true, but if you think we’re divided now wait till EU citizens voted in an in out EU referendum and Remain won by 1%.
The present impasse would be a vicarage tea party I fear.
> @williamglenn said: > > @Sean_F said: > > > > Why? You've no right just to rig any future vote in your favour. > ------------- > > Can EU citizens not be in favour of Brexit? We keep being told how a wave of Euroscepticism is sweeping the EU. Surely giving non-UK EU citizens a voice would turn the vote into a true test for the people versus Brussels.
They are not citizens. If it were down to me, I wouldn't give Commonwealth citizens the vote in UK elections.
> @ah009 said: > > @Floater said: > > > @williamglenn said: > > > > @Richard_Tyndall said: > > > > > > > > No it is a fair point and I am not sure how you factor it into the calculations. How many of those voting in the EU elections on Thursday will be eligible to vote in any referendum revote in the future? EU citizens were eligible to vote in these elections and probably did so in reasonable numbers. They will not be eligible to vote in any future revote. What difference does that make? > > > ------- > > > > > > EU citizens should be able to vote in any second referendum to correct the injustice of 2016. > > > > They absolutely should not be. > > > > > > Except some of them were allowed. Irish, Maltese too I believe. > Utterly wrong that people who live legally in a country shouldn't have a say over their future. Nativist bollocks in fact.
It is quite confusing to me why a UK passport holder who has lived abroad their working life and never paid taxes or contributed gets a vote whereas someone from the EU who might have worked, contributed and paid taxes here for twenty years or more does not.
Obviously lines have to be drawn somewhere and everyone will have a different view, personally I would be inclined to allow people of any nationality who have lived here for 5 years or more a vote, and cut off expat voting after 10 years away.
> @noneoftheabove said: > > @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > > @kjohnw said: > > > If parliament tries to block no deal half of Tory party will defect to brexit party and force GE and brexit party will win under ftpt and no deal will happen either way > > > > Stopping no deal requires the Government to legislate for it. The next leader of the conservative party facilitates no deal through inertia . > > Did we not hear all this back in December? The exact mechanism for stopping no deal is unknown now but parliamentary sovereignty has been affirmed by the attorney general who said it would be illegal for the PM to act against parliament on Brexit. If needed it will be a VONC, more likely the likes of Grieve, Letwin, Clarke et al will find a more elegant way.
But it is not acting against Parliament. 498 mps voted for A50 with a default no deal and it is the law of the land.
To stop it it has to be legislated for or a deal agreed
> @Alistair said: > > @ah009 said: > > > > @Scott_P said: > > > > https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1132920728108654600 > > > > > > > > Some people will object to this but it's shrewd imo. This is the only election BXP will ever fight without a current or part policy platform. They're going to have to come up with some policies and next time there's a national vote they can actually get some proper scrutiny that isn't about their funding or Farage's weird history. > > > BXP will be revealed to be an unstable coalition of far-right illiberals, misguided globalisers, nativists, anti-establishment types, Country Lifers, disaster capitalists, libertarians, and baldy immigrant baiters. > > > > > > The only hope of keeping them together is to say absolutely nothing about anything other than Brexit. Because like the original leave vote, such a mix is to fissile to withstand anything other than a single policy. But failing to produce policies for a domestic election will not be tolerated by the wider public. > > > > ----------------- > > > > Not sure about this. The SNP has been pretty successful at keeping a similarly disparate coalition going on a single policy. It takes a lot of discipline and they have had their bad patches too. > > But the SNP has a boringly leftish-centrist policy platform that appeals across the spectrum. > > The Brexit party will bring back hanging.
Plus, the SNP has had existing policy platforms, and later rallied a plurality to its independence banner. BXP has a Brexit banner and will then need to sell policies to the allsorts milling around it. There will be nasty surprises there, where there haven't really been any for SNPers. If Farage goes full Farage on the NHS, he'll fuck the Brexit Party for good.
That is a strange way of looking at the vote, as it is exceedingly difficult to know exactly how the voters who stuck with Labour and the Conservatives might split in terms of leave/remain.
I think it’s more reasonable to conclude that the country is still split more or less down the middle on Brexit, but with around a third of the electorate not feeling as strongly about it as the two thirds which do.
Any predictions are naturally further complicated by the likelihood of a higher turnout in any general election or referendum.
A few days ago I published on here my proposed model for turning the Euro results into an equivalent EU Ref2 outcome.
There were some minor quibbles regarding the methodology and assumptions, but if you recall I made the relevant adjustments where necessary, based on the copious and intelligent feedback received, and we ended up with something that all agreed was about as good as it is possible to get.
I have now crunched the actual numbers and below is the 'Referendum' result.
Easy solution .... Give the Speaker the casting vote ....
Retires swiftly with tin helmet ....
☺☺ Seriously though, this looks like hell in aspic. Perhaps Michael Gove can bust us out of it employing his formidable and darkly devious intellect. If not, I really don't know what is to become of us.
Labour has whipped in favour of second referendums already and it forms an official part of their policy platform, they are a pro-PV party already they just don't want to admit it. See no reason not to put them in the People vote column if we add Tories to Brexit one.
Of course the whole exercise is silly, given the turnout compared to EUref we can't extrapolate a couple % points one way or the other to translate to overall support. Clear that the country is largely split down the middle
> @ah009 said: > > @Floater said: > > > @williamglenn said: > > > > @Richard_Tyndall said: > > > > > > > > No it is a fair point and I am not sure how you factor it into the calculations. How many of those voting in the EU elections on Thursday will be eligible to vote in any referendum revote in the future? EU citizens were eligible to vote in these elections and probably did so in reasonable numbers. They will not be eligible to vote in any future revote. What difference does that make? > > > ------- > > > > > > EU citizens should be able to vote in any second referendum to correct the injustice of 2016. > > > > They absolutely should not be. > > > > > > Except some of them were allowed. Irish, Maltese too I believe. > Utterly wrong that people who live legally in a country shouldn't have a say over their future. Nativist bollocks in fact.
Nope. If they want to take a genuine part in the future of this country and show they are invested in it long term then they can take British citizenship. Then of course they have every right to vote on decisions that will have a long term impact on this country. If they are not willing to do that then they should not get to vote.
> @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > @noneoftheabove said: > > > @Big_G_NorthWales said: > > > > @kjohnw said: > > > > If parliament tries to block no deal half of Tory party will defect to brexit party and force GE and brexit party will win under ftpt and no deal will happen either way > > > > > > Stopping no deal requires the Government to legislate for it. The next leader of the conservative party facilitates no deal through inertia . > > > > Did we not hear all this back in December? The exact mechanism for stopping no deal is unknown now but parliamentary sovereignty has been affirmed by the attorney general who said it would be illegal for the PM to act against parliament on Brexit. If needed it will be a VONC, more likely the likes of Grieve, Letwin, Clarke et al will find a more elegant way. > > But it is not acting against Parliament. 498 mps voted for A50 with a default no deal and it is the law of the land. > > To stop it it has to be legislated for or a deal agreed
This was the argument back in December but May was told she could not no deal by her attorney general. Short of proroguing parliament I am confident in the Grieve/Letwin/Clarke/Boles/Cooper gang to assert the will of parliament, if needs be with a VONC and temporary PM but much more likely with more finesse.
> @welshowl said: > > @ah009 said: > > > @Floater said: > > > > @williamglenn said: > > > > > @Richard_Tyndall said: > > > > > > > > > > No it is a fair point and I am not sure how you factor it into the calculations. How many of those voting in the EU elections on Thursday will be eligible to vote in any referendum revote in the future? EU citizens were eligible to vote in these elections and probably did so in reasonable numbers. They will not be eligible to vote in any future revote. What difference does that make? > > > > ------- > > > > > > > > EU citizens should be able to vote in any second referendum to correct the injustice of 2016. > > > > > > They absolutely should not be. > > > > > > > > > > Except some of them were allowed. Irish, Maltese too I believe. > > Utterly wrong that people who live legally in a country shouldn't have a say over their future. Nativist bollocks in fact. > > It’s called citizenship. It’s confers rights and duties for a reason. The Maltese etc is a daft anomaly that should be gone, true, but if you think we’re divided now wait till EU citizens voted in an in out EU referendum and Remain won by 1%. > > The present impasse would be a vicarage tea party I fear.
EU citizens living in the UK are bound by the same duties as UK citizens here. They abide by the same laws, pay the same taxes, breathe the same air and drink the same water. Yet their rights are curtailed. I can't find a good reason for it.
> @Nigelb said: > @Scott_P said: > > > > https://twitter.com/jennirsl/status/1132943056456560641 > > > > > That is a strange way of looking at the vote, as it is exceedingly difficult to know exactly how the voters who stuck with Labour and the Conservatives might split in terms of leave/remain. > > I think it’s more reasonable to conclude that the country is still split more or less down the middle on Brexit, but with around a third of the electorate not feeling as strongly about it as the two thirds which do. > > Any predictions are naturally further complicated by the likelihood of a higher turnout in any general election or referendum.
It is fair to say not all Labour or Tory voters want a compromise brexit, there will be splits between remain, compromise, no deal and indifference, but from the opinion polling it is pretty clear that within the Labour & Tory combined vote remain > leave.
> @ah009 said: > > @welshowl said: > > > @ah009 said: > > > > @Floater said: > > > > > @williamglenn said: > > > > > > @Richard_Tyndall said: > > > > > > > > > > > > No it is a fair point and I am not sure how you factor it into the calculations. How many of those voting in the EU elections on Thursday will be eligible to vote in any referendum revote in the future? EU citizens were eligible to vote in these elections and probably did so in reasonable numbers. They will not be eligible to vote in any future revote. What difference does that make? > > > > > ------- > > > > > > > > > > EU citizens should be able to vote in any second referendum to correct the injustice of 2016. > > > > > > > > They absolutely should not be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Except some of them were allowed. Irish, Maltese too I believe. > > > Utterly wrong that people who live legally in a country shouldn't have a say over their future. Nativist bollocks in fact. > > > > It’s called citizenship. It’s confers rights and duties for a reason. The Maltese etc is a daft anomaly that should be gone, true, but if you think we’re divided now wait till EU citizens voted in an in out EU referendum and Remain won by 1%. > > > > The present impasse would be a vicarage tea party I fear. > > EU citizens living in the UK are bound by the same duties as UK citizens here. They abide by the same laws, pay the same taxes, breathe the same air and drink the same water. > Yet their rights are curtailed. I can't find a good reason for it.
> @Richard_Tyndall said: > > Nope. If they want to take a genuine part in the future of this country and show they are invested in it long term then they can take British citizenship. Then of course they have every right to vote on decisions that will have a long term impact on this country. If they are not willing to do that then they should not get to vote. --------------
So you don't believe Brexit is about the future of the EU as a whole?
> @welshowl said: > > @ah009 said: > > > @welshowl said: > > > > @ah009 said: > > > > > @Floater said: > > > > > > @williamglenn said: > > > > > > > @Richard_Tyndall said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No it is a fair point and I am not sure how you factor it into the calculations. How many of those voting in the EU elections on Thursday will be eligible to vote in any referendum revote in the future? EU citizens were eligible to vote in these elections and probably did so in reasonable numbers. They will not be eligible to vote in any future revote. What difference does that make? > > > > > > ------- > > > > > > > > > > > > EU citizens should be able to vote in any second referendum to correct the injustice of 2016. > > > > > > > > > > They absolutely should not be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Except some of them were allowed. Irish, Maltese too I believe. > > > > Utterly wrong that people who live legally in a country shouldn't have a say over their future. Nativist bollocks in fact. > > > > > > It’s called citizenship. It’s confers rights and duties for a reason. The Maltese etc is a daft anomaly that should be gone, true, but if you think we’re divided now wait till EU citizens voted in an in out EU referendum and Remain won by 1%. > > > > > > The present impasse would be a vicarage tea party I fear. > > > > EU citizens living in the UK are bound by the same duties as UK citizens here. They abide by the same laws, pay the same taxes, breathe the same air and drink the same water. > > Yet their rights are curtailed. I can't find a good reason for it. > > I can. They are not British citizens.
Ah, you missed the word "good". That's merely a reason. In fact, as detailed earlier it's not even a reason that's used. Malta, Ireland are not Britain.
> @Jonathan said: > They do not have to prorogue. All Raab has to do is call a GE. Labour will back it and the job is done.
What job is done? Are you suggesting the timing of the GE is to block parliament from stopping no deal? That would not get anywhere near two thirds support!!
> @kamski said: > > @DavidL said: > > I mean I know no one (not even remainers) really cares but does anyone have a good summary of how the rest of the EU voted last night? I thought that the BBC coverage was incredibly parochial given the nature of the election. > > Well, here in Germany the Greens did well, about 20% - coming 2nd after CDU-CSU. I wouldn't expect people to vote particularly differently in a general election (unlike in the UK). The SPD continue to decline, and I do wonder what the point of them is these days, at least at the federal level. The AfD got 10% which was a big gain on the last Euros, but a decline on the 2017 federal elections, so they seem to be going backwards. > > Turnout was a high 61% - does anyone have any explanation for the wildly different turnouts in different EU countries? > > The number of MEPS each party gets is decided according to the Sainte-Laguë method, which is similar to D'Hondt, but is a bit more favorable to small parties (I think). The whole of Germany is one constituency for the purpose of allocating numbers of seats per party. And there is a closed party list system for deciding which individuals get to be MEPs. However, each Bundesland has its own party lists, and how many MEPs each Bundesland gets is determined by how many votes there are in each region, as I understand it. So the candidates at the top of the party lists here in NRW get to be the MEPS for NRW (despite Germany being one constituency). At least that's how I think it works. Clever, in a way, and certainly much more proportional than the UK system, while retaining a sense of regional representation. > > It also avoids having to think about tactically voting - except for the very small parties. This time 3 parties that got 0.7% of the national vote ended up with one MEP each. There seem to have been 4 different animal rights parties on the ballot, the biggest one got 1.4% and one MEP, the others got no MEPs, but if they had managed to all get together I guess they would have got 2 MEPs.
Many thanks. It seems to me that Merkel's grip continues to fail but the person to replace her is yet to be identified. These results, though poor, suggests someone from her own party for the lack of a viable alternative.
> @ah009 said: > > @welshowl said: > > > @ah009 said: > > > > @Floater said: > > > > > @williamglenn said: > > > > > > @Richard_Tyndall said: > > > > > > > > > > > > No it is a fair point and I am not sure how you factor it into the calculations. How many of those voting in the EU elections on Thursday will be eligible to vote in any referendum revote in the future? EU citizens were eligible to vote in these elections and probably did so in reasonable numbers. They will not be eligible to vote in any future revote. What difference does that make? > > > > > ------- > > > > > > > > > > EU citizens should be able to vote in any second referendum to correct the injustice of 2016. > > > > > > > > They absolutely should not be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Except some of them were allowed. Irish, Maltese too I believe. > > > Utterly wrong that people who live legally in a country shouldn't have a say over their future. Nativist bollocks in fact. > > > > It’s called citizenship. It’s confers rights and duties for a reason. The Maltese etc is a daft anomaly that should be gone, true, but if you think we’re divided now wait till EU citizens voted in an in out EU referendum and Remain won by 1%. > > > > The present impasse would be a vicarage tea party I fear. > > EU citizens living in the UK are bound by the same duties as UK citizens here. They abide by the same laws, pay the same taxes, breathe the same air and drink the same water. > Yet their rights are curtailed. I can't find a good reason for it.
Because they have chosen not to take the steps that would allow them to vote by taking British citizenship. It shows they are not invested in the future of this country.
> That is a strange way of looking at the vote, as it is exceedingly difficult to know exactly how the voters who stuck with Labour and the Conservatives might split in terms of leave/remain.
>
> I think it’s more reasonable to conclude that the country is still split more or less down the middle on Brexit, but with around a third of the electorate not feeling as strongly about it as the two thirds which do.
>
> Any predictions are naturally further complicated by the likelihood of a higher turnout in any general election or referendum.
It is fair to say not all Labour or Tory voters want a compromise brexit, there will be splits between remain, compromise, no deal and indifference, but from the opinion polling it is pretty clear that within the Labour & Tory combined vote remain > leave.
And equally clear from polling that the country as a whole is split more or less down the middle, with only a minority prepared to compromise one way or the other to some extent.
> > If parliament tries to block no deal half of Tory party will defect to brexit party and force GE and brexit party will win under ftpt and no deal will happen either way
>
> Stopping no deal requires the Government to legislate for it. The next leader of the conservative party facilitates no deal through inertia .
Did we not hear all this back in December? The exact mechanism for stopping no deal is unknown now but parliamentary sovereignty has been affirmed by the attorney general who said it would be illegal for the PM to act against parliament on Brexit. If needed it will be a VONC, more likely the likes of Grieve, Letwin, Clarke et al will find a more elegant way.
Just as with @NickPalmer's astute half a dozen Lab MPs voting for the deal, so is the boot now on the other foot. Half a dozen Cons MPs would do it. Thing is would the threat of them doing so be enough to see off a no dealer?
The critical question is as follows. If Stewart, Rudd et al are so adamant that they will not support a no dealer how would that translate into action should a no dealer become PM?
VONC support would mean deselection and near certain job loss.
How many are there willing to do this? Grieve we know would be one. How many others?
So let me get this right. We were told that the LibDems would get their best result since 1910. Instead the LibDems got their best result since 2010. Only a century out.
There were two general elections in 1910. The HoC had 670 seats at the time.
* The Libs lost 123 out of 397 seats in Jan 1910, leaving them with 274 * The Libs lost 2 out of 274 seats in Dec 2010, leaving them with 272
Am I correct in thinking that the person who told you that "the LibDems would get their best result since 1910" was a) not on PB and b) didn't actually know what they were talking about?
> @Richard_Tyndall said: > > @ah009 said: > > > @Floater said: > > > > @williamglenn said: > > > > > @Richard_Tyndall said: > > > > > > > > > > No it is a fair point and I am not sure how you factor it into the calculations. How many of those voting in the EU elections on Thursday will be eligible to vote in any referendum revote in the future? EU citizens were eligible to vote in these elections and probably did so in reasonable numbers. They will not be eligible to vote in any future revote. What difference does that make? > > > > ------- > > > > > > > > EU citizens should be able to vote in any second referendum to correct the injustice of 2016. > > > > > > They absolutely should not be. > > > > > > > > > > Except some of them were allowed. Irish, Maltese too I believe. > > Utterly wrong that people who live legally in a country shouldn't have a say over their future. Nativist bollocks in fact. > > Nope. If they want to take a genuine part in the future of this country and show they are invested in it long term then they can take British citizenship. Then of course they have every right to vote on decisions that will have a long term impact on this country. If they are not willing to do that then they should not get to vote.
It makes much more sense that peope who live legally in the UK have the vote than UK citizens who do not live in the country.
> @Richard_Tyndall said: > > Because they have chosen not to take the steps that would allow them to vote by taking British citizenship. It shows they are not invested in the future of this country. > ------------
It's offensive to say that people who in some cases have lived here for decades with British children are not "invested in the future of this country". Shame on you.
> @ah009 said: > > @welshowl said: > > > @ah009 said: > > > > @welshowl said: > > > > > @ah009 said: > > > > > > @Floater said: > > > > > > > @williamglenn said: > > > > > > > > @Richard_Tyndall said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No it is a fair point and I am not sure how you factor it into the calculations. How many of those voting in the EU elections on Thursday will be eligible to vote in any referendum revote in the future? EU citizens were eligible to vote in these elections and probably did so in reasonable numbers. They will not be eligible to vote in any future revote. What difference does that make? > > > > > > > ------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > EU citizens should be able to vote in any second referendum to correct the injustice of 2016. > > > > > > > > > > > > They absolutely should not be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Except some of them were allowed. Irish, Maltese too I believe. > > > > > Utterly wrong that people who live legally in a country shouldn't have a say over their future. Nativist bollocks in fact. > > > > > > > > It’s called citizenship. It’s confers rights and duties for a reason. The Maltese etc is a daft anomaly that should be gone, true, but if you think we’re divided now wait till EU citizens voted in an in out EU referendum and Remain won by 1%. > > > > > > > > The present impasse would be a vicarage tea party I fear. > > > > > > EU citizens living in the UK are bound by the same duties as UK citizens here. They abide by the same laws, pay the same taxes, breathe the same air and drink the same water. > > > Yet their rights are curtailed. I can't find a good reason for it. > > > > I can. They are not British citizens. > > Ah, you missed the word "good". > That's merely a reason. In fact, as detailed earlier it's not even a reason that's used. Malta, Ireland are not Britain.
I said Malta should not be etc. It is a good reason. Citizenship is discriminatory. It’s meant to be. I can get called up to fight in extremis. I get to vote though. For instance.
Sorry this is the reddest of red lines. Otherwise we cease to exist.
So let me get this right. We were told that the LibDems would get their best result since 1910. Instead the LibDems got their best result since 2010. Only a century out.
There were two general elections in 1910. The HoC had 670 seats at the time.
* The Libs lost 123 out of 397 seats in Jan 1910, leaving them with 274 * The Libs lost 2 out of 274 seats in Dec 2010, leaving them with 272
Am I correct in thinking that the person who told you that "the LibDems would get their best result since 1910" was a) not on PB and b) didn't actually know what they were talking about?
Someone did make the 100 year claim, either here or in another place, it’s not really an issue to worry about or even get excited about
> @welshowl said: > > I said Malta should not be etc. It is a good reason. Citizenship is discriminatory. It’s meant to be. I can get called up to fight in extremis. I get to vote though. For instance. > > Sorry this is the reddest of red lines. Otherwise we cease to exist. --------------------
Except it isn't a red line. People without British citizenship are allowed to vote in our General Elections every time.
> @Richard_Tyndall said: > > @ah009 said: > > > @welshowl said: > > > > @ah009 said: > > > > > @Floater said: > > > > > > @williamglenn said: > > > > > > > @Richard_Tyndall said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No it is a fair point and I am not sure how you factor it into the calculations. How many of those voting in the EU elections on Thursday will be eligible to vote in any referendum revote in the future? EU citizens were eligible to vote in these elections and probably did so in reasonable numbers. They will not be eligible to vote in any future revote. What difference does that make? > > > > > > ------- > > > > > > > > > > > > EU citizens should be able to vote in any second referendum to correct the injustice of 2016. > > > > > > > > > > They absolutely should not be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Except some of them were allowed. Irish, Maltese too I believe. > > > > Utterly wrong that people who live legally in a country shouldn't have a say over their future. Nativist bollocks in fact. > > > > > > It’s called citizenship. It’s confers rights and duties for a reason. The Maltese etc is a daft anomaly that should be gone, true, but if you think we’re divided now wait till EU citizens voted in an in out EU referendum and Remain won by 1%. > > > > > > The present impasse would be a vicarage tea party I fear. > > > > EU citizens living in the UK are bound by the same duties as UK citizens here. They abide by the same laws, pay the same taxes, breathe the same air and drink the same water. > > Yet their rights are curtailed. I can't find a good reason for it. > > Because they have chosen not to take the steps that would allow them to vote by taking British citizenship. It shows they are not invested in the future of this country. >
People born here are given the vote without taking any "steps". Why would you assume that someone is invested in a place because of where they are born rather than where they've chosen to live? Seems like making a choice to move somewhere is a bigger act of endorsement than being born there.
> @not_on_fire said: > 2014 Remain (Lab, LD, Green, SDP, PC) 41% > 2019 Remain (LD, Green, SDP, PC) 40.4% > > 2014 Leave (UKIP, BNP, AIFE) 29.1% > 2019 Leave (BXP, UKIP) 34.9% > > The critical question is as follows. If Stewart, Rudd et al are so adamant that they will not support a no dealer how would that translate into action should a no dealer become PM? > > VONC support would mean deselection and near certain job loss. > > How many are there willing to do this? Grieve we know would be one. How many others? > > https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1132941705416761344 > > > > Agreed, it’s nonsense to exclude the SNP from the Remain tally.
It is all semantics.
The Country is divided virtually down the middle and arguing otherwise is getting tedious
> @MarqueeMark said: > > @FF43 said: > > The Brexit Party have unquestionably done well. They are the voice of one third of the electorate. > > And that's really the way to beat the Brexit Party.... Raise the dead on the electoral roll to your cause. > > You are the Night King and I claim my five souls.
--------
No. I mean it's an impressive result for the Brexit Party. I think they are bad for British politics. But if so, people like that badness.
> @welshowl said: > > @ah009 said: > > > @welshowl said: > > > > @ah009 said: > > > > > @welshowl said: > > > > > > @ah009 said: > > > > > > > @Floater said: > > > > > > > > @williamglenn said: > > > > > > > > > @Richard_Tyndall said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No it is a fair point and I am not sure how you factor it into the calculations. How many of those voting in the EU elections on Thursday will be eligible to vote in any referendum revote in the future? EU citizens were eligible to vote in these elections and probably did so in reasonable numbers. They will not be eligible to vote in any future revote. What difference does that make? > > > > > > > > ------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > EU citizens should be able to vote in any second referendum to correct the injustice of 2016. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They absolutely should not be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Except some of them were allowed. Irish, Maltese too I believe. > > > > > > Utterly wrong that people who live legally in a country shouldn't have a say over their future. Nativist bollocks in fact. > > > > > > > > > > It’s called citizenship. It’s confers rights and duties for a reason. The Maltese etc is a daft anomaly that should be gone, true, but if you think we’re divided now wait till EU citizens voted in an in out EU referendum and Remain won by 1%. > > > > > > > > > > The present impasse would be a vicarage tea party I fear. > > > > > > > > EU citizens living in the UK are bound by the same duties as UK citizens here. They abide by the same laws, pay the same taxes, breathe the same air and drink the same water. > > > > Yet their rights are curtailed. I can't find a good reason for it. > > > > > > I can. They are not British citizens. > > > > Ah, you missed the word "good". > > That's merely a reason. In fact, as detailed earlier it's not even a reason that's used. Malta, Ireland are not Britain. > > I said Malta should not be etc. It is a good reason. Citizenship is discriminatory. It’s meant to be. I can get called up to fight in extremis. I get to vote though. For instance. > > Sorry this is the reddest of red lines. Otherwise we cease to exist.
Fight? Oh, its that what this is about? Can't trust the Dutch, we might need to fight them. Righto, I'm beginning to understand.
It is clear that the country is split roughly 50/50.
In those circumstances, the only way out of our dilemma is to have another vote on the options now available or for there to be the softest sort of Brexit ie tear up May’s red lines and renegotiate.
What there should not be is a departure from the EU in the most extreme way possible. There is no mandate for that: the referendum in 2016 was not a mandate for that nor were last night’s results.
However, in panic and fear cool rational analysis finds it hard to prevail especially when there is such a paucity of leadership. So I fear that No Deal is now more likely. We are not prepared for it. I suspect that it will be worse than we expect - though I very much hope I am wrong on this. It will not settle the EU question. We will not move on from Brexit as we will spend all the time after a No Deal departure dealing with the thousands of questions that will arise. There will be no consensus for it.
> @williamglenn said: > > @Richard_Tyndall said: > > > > Because they have chosen not to take the steps that would allow them to vote by taking British citizenship. It shows they are not invested in the future of this country. > > > ------------ > > It's offensive to say that people who in some cases have lived here for decades with British children are not "invested in the future of this country". Shame on you.
It shows a complete lack of understanding for how different people view nationality. Some will think it more important than others. Some people living here may see applying for nationality as an admin hassle. Others may prefer to keep a connection with their original nationality but at the same time be invested in the future of the UK. Some choose passports simply on the basis of minimising queues for airport immigration rather than which country they are most invested in.
You may think those reasons are all flimsy and therefore there votes should not count but that is the reality of modern life, you claim to believe in democracy but only on your terms, not when others have different perspectives.
I think 5 years residency or NI contributions or similar would be far more reflective of who is invested in the future of the country than your passport flavour.
> Because they have chosen not to take the steps that would allow them to vote by taking British citizenship. It shows they are not invested in the future of this country.
>
------------
It's offensive to say that people who in some cases have lived here for decades with British children are not "invested in the future of this country". Shame on you.
> @williamglenn said: > > @Richard_Tyndall said: > > > > Because they have chosen not to take the steps that would allow them to vote by taking British citizenship. It shows they are not invested in the future of this country. > > > ------------ > > It's offensive to say that people who in some cases have lived here for decades with British children are not "invested in the future of this country". Shame on you.
Nope shame on you for once again trying to Gerrymander the system in your favour. It is no wonder no one trusts hypocrites like you when you will say and do anything, no matter how dishonest to get your way.
> > Because they have chosen not to take the steps that would allow them to vote by taking British citizenship. It shows they are not invested in the future of this country.
> >
> ------------
>
> It's offensive to say that people who in some cases have lived here for decades with British children are not "invested in the future of this country". Shame on you.
Nope shame on you for once again trying to Gerrymander the system in your favour. It is no wonder no one trusts hypocrites like you when you will say and do anything, no matter how dishonest to get your way.
What about people with dual nationality? Should they be allowed to vote? Are they not sufficiently invested in the future of the country?
> @Cyclefree said: > > @Richard_Tyndall said: > > > > > > Because they have chosen not to take the steps that would allow them to vote by taking British citizenship. It shows they are not invested in the future of this country. > > > > > ------------ > > > > It's offensive to say that people who in some cases have lived here for decades with British children are not "invested in the future of this country". Shame on you. > > Well said.
Funny that no other major country in the EU allows non citizens to vote in national elections but Remainers want a special deal for EU citizens here. Like I said, hypocrites.
> @Richard_Tyndall said: > > @williamglenn said: > > > @Richard_Tyndall said: > > > > > > Because they have chosen not to take the steps that would allow them to vote by taking British citizenship. It shows they are not invested in the future of this country. > > > > > ------------ > > > > It's offensive to say that people who in some cases have lived here for decades with British children are not "invested in the future of this country". Shame on you. > > Nope shame on you for once again trying to Gerrymander the system in your favour. It is no wonder no one trusts hypocrites like you when you will say and do anything, no matter how dishonest to get your way.
It's already gerrymandered. Denying the vote selectively is a policy designed to further empower the parochial, conservative and nativist forces. It's deeply wrong and founded on a myth of nationalist loyalty. It regards people as unthinking agents of a tribe, to be boosted or suppressed depending on the convenience of those in power. It's reminiscent of the anti-Catholic laws in the darker centuries of this country's past.
Nope. If they want to take a genuine part in the future of this country and show they are invested in it long term then they can take British citizenship. Then of course they have every right to vote on decisions that will have a long term impact on this country. If they are not willing to do that then they should not get to vote.
Where do you stand on Ireland (the other bit)? Not in the UK, not in the Commonwealth, still in the EU, still gets to vote in UK including referenda.
> @Richard_Tyndall said: > > @Cyclefree said: > > > @Richard_Tyndall said: > > > > > > > > > > Because they have chosen not to take the steps that would allow them to vote by taking British citizenship. It shows they are not invested in the future of this country. > > > > > > > > > ------------ > > > > > > > > It's offensive to say that people who in some cases have lived here for decades with British children are not "invested in the future of this country". Shame on you. > > > > Well said. > > Funny that no other major country in the EU allows non citizens to vote in national elections but Remainers want a special deal for EU citizens here. Like I said, hypocrites.
They should too. There's no hypocrisy. Brits in Spain should also have the vote where they live. Also, "everyone else is doing it" is no argument for the rightness of a policy. If it is, we should stay members of the EU
> @not_on_fire said: > 2014 Remain (Lab, LD, Green, SDP, PC) 41% > 2019 Remain (LD, Green, SDP, PC) 40.4% > > 2014 Leave (UKIP, BNP, AIFE) 29.1% > 2019 Leave (BXP, UKIP) 34.9% > > The critical question is as follows. If Stewart, Rudd et al are so adamant that they will not support a no dealer how would that translate into action should a no dealer become PM? > > VONC support would mean deselection and near certain job loss. > > How many are there willing to do this? Grieve we know would be one. How many others? > > https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1132941705416761344 > > > > Agreed, it’s nonsense to exclude the SNP from the Remain tally.
Mr. W, ha. Reminds me a bit of Gompertz wibbling about whether or not anyone would want to visit an art gallery in Hull, or the incredulous here-there-be-dragons tone of voice when a reporter said HS2 would eventually go as far north as Leeds.
> @viewcode said: > Nope. If they want to take a genuine part in the future of this country and show they are invested in it long term then they can take British citizenship. Then of course they have every right to vote on decisions that will have a long term impact on this country. If they are not willing to do that then they should not get to vote. > > Where do you stand on Ireland (the other bit)? Not in the UK, not in the Commonwealth, still in the EU, still gets to vote in UK including referenda.
They shouldn't. It is an historical anomaly that should end.
> @Richard_Tyndall said: > > @williamglenn said: > > > @Richard_Tyndall said: > > > > > > Because they have chosen not to take the steps that would allow them to vote by taking British citizenship. It shows they are not invested in the future of this country. > > > > > ------------ > > > > It's offensive to say that people who in some cases have lived here for decades with British children are not "invested in the future of this country". Shame on you. > > Nope shame on you for once again trying to Gerrymander the system in your favour. It is no wonder no one trusts hypocrites like you when you will say and do anything, no matter how dishonest to get your way.
Oh really, isn't this pathetic? Just because you were expecting some great Brexit Party victory, and it didn't happen.
So we start arguing about whether we should calculate UK percentage or GB percentages, or which parties are against Brexit, or whether we should exclude the SNP because there hasn't been an official declaration, or whether the bloody foreigners should be allowed to vote, or worse still the bloody Irish.
Let's not lose sight of the fact that this whole thing originated in cynical wheeze dreamed up by a desperate politician who wanted to boost his poll ratings by 5 or 6 points, and it's ended up probably destroying his party.
Blame him if you must blame anyone. Don't try to blame foreigners. That's just pathetic.
> @MattW said: > > @not_on_fire said: > > 2014 Remain (Lab, LD, Green, SDP, PC) 41% > > 2019 Remain (LD, Green, SDP, PC) 40.4% > > > > 2014 Leave (UKIP, BNP, AIFE) 29.1% > > 2019 Leave (BXP, UKIP) 34.9% > > > > The critical question is as follows. If Stewart, Rudd et al are so adamant that they will not support a no dealer how would that translate into action should a no dealer become PM? > > > > VONC support would mean deselection and near certain job loss. > > > > How many are there willing to do this? Grieve we know would be one. How many others? > > > > https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1132941705416761344 > > > > > > > > Agreed, it’s nonsense to exclude the SNP from the Remain tally. > > This is Metro Central - Scotland does not exist.
It all assumes that everyone who voted for a party agrees with their position on Brexit. Some Greens and Lib Dems - not many but some - will back Brexit but prefer those parties positions on other issues e.g. climate change. The only Green member of the House of Lords - Jenny Jones - campaigned for leave in 2016.
> @Benpointer said: > Am I right in thinking that the Brexit party has won about 32% of a 36.5% turnout election... so fully 11% of the electorate have supported them? > > The overwhelming will of the people and all that!
If you're eligible to vote but can't be arsed, don't moan when the winners do stuff you don't like. It's the same in strike ballots.
> @Richard_Tyndall said: > > @viewcode said: > > Nope. If they want to take a genuine part in the future of this country and show they are invested in it long term then they can take British citizenship. Then of course they have every right to vote on decisions that will have a long term impact on this country. If they are not willing to do that then they should not get to vote. > > > > Where do you stand on Ireland (the other bit)? Not in the UK, not in the Commonwealth, still in the EU, still gets to vote in UK including referenda. > > They shouldn't. It is an historical anomaly that should end.
Ireland is an oddity but is one of the few that should continue due to reciprocality. UK citizens resident in Ireland can vote in Dail elections - and vice versa.
If it works both ways I have no issue with it. But why we continue to allow notionally up to 1.5 billion Commonwealth citizens the vote in UK general elections when - with one or two exceptions with conditions - we cannot vote in their countries' national elections is beyond me.
I think it should be based on reciprocality - if our citizens cannot vote in general elections in your country they cannot vote in ours. Ireland meets that criteria - few Commonwealth nations do.
Comments
> Remain did beat the most extreme form of Leave thanks to votes from people ineligible to take part in the referendum,
You can't prove that. Also, given how many polls had it reversed, as you reminded people several times, an acknowledgement from you that your side fell short of that would be sporting.
Otherwise why bother if you can't admit when the facts don't go your way?
>
> No it is a fair point and I am not sure how you factor it into the calculations. How many of those voting in the EU elections on Thursday will be eligible to vote in any referendum revote in the future? EU citizens were eligible to vote in these elections and probably did so in reasonable numbers. They will not be eligible to vote in any future revote. What difference does that make?
-------
EU citizens should be able to vote in any second referendum to correct the injustice of 2016.
> It's funny watching lots of people try to pretend the Conservatives somehow aren't pro-Brexit. What have they been doing these last few years?
What they've been doing is watching the brextremists loudly declaim the Tories as failing to honour the referendum.
FWIW of course the Tories are a Brexit party. But that's not how the likes of Farage have been trying to paint it.
> If parliament tries to block no deal half of Tory party will defect to brexit party and force GE and brexit party will win under ftpt and no deal will happen either way
Stopping no deal requires the Government to legislate for it. The next leader of the conservative party facilitates no deal through inertia .
> > @isam said:
>
> > > @isam said:
>
> >
>
> > > The Brexit Party completely boss the election and end up as the largest individual party in the whole EU parliament. And yet the establishment creates it's own vote totals, supported actively by Sky and the BBC, to create the narrative that remain won.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > And they wonder why the Brexit Party won?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Remain did beat the most extreme form of Leave thanks to votes from people ineligible to take part in the referendum, but it’s disingenous to class No Deal as Leave.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > This is going to be the excuse now, is it? Foreigners.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Beyond parody.
>
> >
>
> > It’s true actually
>
> >
>
> > Shame you backed your opinion with a price when I asked
>
>
>
> You say it's true, but what's the evidence? The gap between Remain parties and No Deal parties is 5.5% by my reckoning.
>
>
>
> If you're claiming that 1 in 20 of voters were ineligible to vote in a referendum you need to back it up with a number.
>
> Actually I didn’t mean it to sound like the Remain parties beat no deal only because of the ineligible referendum voters votes, just that they helped
It's what you said: "Remain did beat the most extreme form of Leave thanks to votes from people ineligible to take part in the referendum ..."
The overwhelming will of the people and all that!
The Brexit party will bring back hanging.
You appear to be elevating Twitter scuttlebutt, which could equally come from an overenthusiastic town councillor or indeed someone from a different party, to the official party line. I think that's called "setting them up to fail".
> If parliament tries to block no deal half of Tory party will defect to brexit party and force GE and brexit party will win under ftpt and no deal will happen either way
One benefit would be thes plitting of the two party system
> > @Richard_Tyndall said:
> > > @Dura_Ace said:
> > > > @brokenwheel said:
> > >
> > > > The Australian Labor Party has elected leftwinger Anthony Albanese unopposed to succeed Bill Shorten as Labor leader following its recent election defeat
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-48362272
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Doubling down on the culture wars...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Is he hard left?? if so another defeat will beckon...
> > >
> > > He's a completely unreconstructed anti-monarchist and loves The Smiths. He gets the DA imprimatur.
> >
> > Hmmm. Given Morrisey's apparent views these days is loving the Smiths still a viable cultural choice for an aspiring Marxist leader?
>
>
> Stalin's early albums were pretty good until Holodomor and The Great Terror. Even Great Patriotic War didn't make up for those turkeys.
My favourite remains his classic duet "Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites" with Zinoviev. Great base line.
> > @Benpointer said:
> > > @TOPPING said:
> > > The critical question is as follows. If Stewart, Rudd et al are so adamant that they will not support a no dealer how would that translate into action should a no dealer become PM?
> > >
> > > VONC support would mean deselection and near certain job loss.
> > >
> > > How many are there willing to do this? Grieve we know would be one. How many others?
> >
> > Doesn't it only need two Con defectors in theory?
>
> The Peterborough MP will have a decision to make.
If you look at the list of MPs who voted for the Letwin amendment and google their quotes, most say they will put the country ahead of the party if push comes to shove on no deal. I would expect up to 20 would be willing to VONC if they are the marginal voter but they might get together and choose 5-10 who are happy to sacrifice their relationship with the Tory party and protect the others.
> Life is so weird, imagine you'd been told 15 years ago that Labour would bury itself alive through increasingly unconvincing triangulation, you'd have said, "those blairites"
One of the ironies of Corbyns Labour is that they run the party in a more Blairite way than Blair. Not only the triangulation of policy, but leading it from one extreme wing of the party dragging the rest of it along. They are just less successful.
> > @Richard_Tyndall said:
> >
> > No it is a fair point and I am not sure how you factor it into the calculations. How many of those voting in the EU elections on Thursday will be eligible to vote in any referendum revote in the future? EU citizens were eligible to vote in these elections and probably did so in reasonable numbers. They will not be eligible to vote in any future revote. What difference does that make?
> -------
>
> EU citizens should be able to vote in any second referendum to correct the injustice of 2016.
They absolutely should not be.
https://twitter.com/bbradleymp/status/1132628410675736578
"MP with 'Stand Up 4 Brexit' in his profile pic says that the only future for the Conservatives is to get Brexit done"
In other news, furries don't use campsite toilets.
> > @Richard_Tyndall said:
> >
> > No it is a fair point and I am not sure how you factor it into the calculations. How many of those voting in the EU elections on Thursday will be eligible to vote in any referendum revote in the future? EU citizens were eligible to vote in these elections and probably did so in reasonable numbers. They will not be eligible to vote in any future revote. What difference does that make?
> -------
>
> EU citizens should be able to vote in any second referendum to correct the injustice of 2016.
Why? You've no right just to rig any future vote in your favour.
> > @brokenwheel said:
> > Oh and look what slipped by without a mention from our resident Remainiacs...
> >
> > Airbus now wants to remain in UK regardless of Brexit outcome
> > https://www.euractiv.com/section/aviation/news/airbus-now-wants-to-remain-in-uk-regardless-of-brexit-outcome/
>
> Nothing to see here, move along , look squirrel
More remain lies? shocked I tell you.
> > @kjohnw said:
> > If parliament tries to block no deal half of Tory party will defect to brexit party and force GE and brexit party will win under ftpt and no deal will happen either way
>
> Stopping no deal requires the Government to legislate for it. The next leader of the conservative party facilitates no deal through inertia .
Did we not hear all this back in December? The exact mechanism for stopping no deal is unknown now but parliamentary sovereignty has been affirmed by the attorney general who said it would be illegal for the PM to act against parliament on Brexit. If needed it will be a VONC, more likely the likes of Grieve, Letwin, Clarke et al will find a more elegant way.
>
> They absolutely should not be.
>
-------
Why not? Why is it fair that Commonwealth citizens can vote on EU membership but not EU citizens? Surely the pro-Brexit camp should see them as a key audience to make their case against political integration.
> > https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/1132863548047187968
> >
> >
>
> So before the election the LibDems say that Labour and the Conservatives are pro-Brexit and after the election they say they are not.
>
>
>
> https://twitter.com/tomhfh?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed&ref_url=http://
Yes, I'm not sure why the Conservatives have been excluded from the pro-Brexit total.
Ruth Davidson's own constituency in Edinburgh overwhelmingly rejected the Tories and backed the SNP. They sent a message, just not the one she wanted: The SNP: 33.4% (+10.3) Tories: 10.0% (-9.4)
> > @williamglenn said:
> > > @Richard_Tyndall said:
> > >
> > > No it is a fair point and I am not sure how you factor it into the calculations. How many of those voting in the EU elections on Thursday will be eligible to vote in any referendum revote in the future? EU citizens were eligible to vote in these elections and probably did so in reasonable numbers. They will not be eligible to vote in any future revote. What difference does that make?
> > -------
> >
> > EU citizens should be able to vote in any second referendum to correct the injustice of 2016.
>
> They absolutely should not be.
>
>
Except some of them were allowed. Irish, Maltese too I believe.
Utterly wrong that people who live legally in a country shouldn't have a say over their future. Nativist bollocks in fact.
>
> Why? You've no right just to rig any future vote in your favour.
-------------
Can EU citizens not be in favour of Brexit? We keep being told how a wave of Euroscepticism is sweeping the EU. Surely giving non-UK EU citizens a voice would turn the vote into a true test for the people versus Brussels.
> If parliament tries to block no deal half of Tory party will defect to brexit party and force GE and brexit party will win under ftpt and no deal will happen either way
My diagnosis is that you have a bad case of HY disease
> Bit of a pity then that the LibDems didn't predict the best ever results in a Euro election.
>
>
>
> Instead we got talk of the best result since 1910 and a million LibDem votes in London.
>
> Hm. I can't find anything predicting that on a Google News search for "LibDems best result since 1910". I can't find anything on the Lib Dems' website either.
>
> You appear to be elevating Twitter scuttlebutt, which could equally come from an overenthusiastic town councillor or indeed someone from a different party, to the official party line. I think that's called "setting them up to fail".
You can find it among the PB comments.
Start off with those from Cicero.
As OGH himself said, LibDem expectations management was piss poor.
> > @Floater said:
> > > @williamglenn said:
> > > > @Richard_Tyndall said:
> > > >
> > > > No it is a fair point and I am not sure how you factor it into the calculations. How many of those voting in the EU elections on Thursday will be eligible to vote in any referendum revote in the future? EU citizens were eligible to vote in these elections and probably did so in reasonable numbers. They will not be eligible to vote in any future revote. What difference does that make?
> > > -------
> > >
> > > EU citizens should be able to vote in any second referendum to correct the injustice of 2016.
> >
> > They absolutely should not be.
> >
> >
>
> Except some of them were allowed. Irish, Maltese too I believe.
> Utterly wrong that people who live legally in a country shouldn't have a say over their future. Nativist bollocks in fact.
It’s called citizenship. It’s confers rights and duties for a reason. The Maltese etc is a daft anomaly that should be gone, true, but if you think we’re divided now wait till EU citizens voted in an in out EU referendum and Remain won by 1%.
The present impasse would be a vicarage tea party I fear.
> > @Sean_F said:
> >
> > Why? You've no right just to rig any future vote in your favour.
> -------------
>
> Can EU citizens not be in favour of Brexit? We keep being told how a wave of Euroscepticism is sweeping the EU. Surely giving non-UK EU citizens a voice would turn the vote into a true test for the people versus Brussels.
They are not citizens. If it were down to me, I wouldn't give Commonwealth citizens the vote in UK elections.
> > @Floater said:
> > > @williamglenn said:
> > > > @Richard_Tyndall said:
> > > >
> > > > No it is a fair point and I am not sure how you factor it into the calculations. How many of those voting in the EU elections on Thursday will be eligible to vote in any referendum revote in the future? EU citizens were eligible to vote in these elections and probably did so in reasonable numbers. They will not be eligible to vote in any future revote. What difference does that make?
> > > -------
> > >
> > > EU citizens should be able to vote in any second referendum to correct the injustice of 2016.
> >
> > They absolutely should not be.
> >
> >
>
> Except some of them were allowed. Irish, Maltese too I believe.
> Utterly wrong that people who live legally in a country shouldn't have a say over their future. Nativist bollocks in fact.
It is quite confusing to me why a UK passport holder who has lived abroad their working life and never paid taxes or contributed gets a vote whereas someone from the EU who might have worked, contributed and paid taxes here for twenty years or more does not.
Obviously lines have to be drawn somewhere and everyone will have a different view, personally I would be inclined to allow people of any nationality who have lived here for 5 years or more a vote, and cut off expat voting after 10 years away.
> > @Big_G_NorthWales said:
> > > @kjohnw said:
> > > If parliament tries to block no deal half of Tory party will defect to brexit party and force GE and brexit party will win under ftpt and no deal will happen either way
> >
> > Stopping no deal requires the Government to legislate for it. The next leader of the conservative party facilitates no deal through inertia .
>
> Did we not hear all this back in December? The exact mechanism for stopping no deal is unknown now but parliamentary sovereignty has been affirmed by the attorney general who said it would be illegal for the PM to act against parliament on Brexit. If needed it will be a VONC, more likely the likes of Grieve, Letwin, Clarke et al will find a more elegant way.
But it is not acting against Parliament. 498 mps voted for A50 with a default no deal and it is the law of the land.
To stop it it has to be legislated for or a deal agreed
> > @ah009 said:
>
> > > @Scott_P said:
>
> > > https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1132920728108654600
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Some people will object to this but it's shrewd imo. This is the only election BXP will ever fight without a current or part policy platform. They're going to have to come up with some policies and next time there's a national vote they can actually get some proper scrutiny that isn't about their funding or Farage's weird history.
>
> > BXP will be revealed to be an unstable coalition of far-right illiberals, misguided globalisers, nativists, anti-establishment types, Country Lifers, disaster capitalists, libertarians, and baldy immigrant baiters.
>
> >
>
> > The only hope of keeping them together is to say absolutely nothing about anything other than Brexit. Because like the original leave vote, such a mix is to fissile to withstand anything other than a single policy. But failing to produce policies for a domestic election will not be tolerated by the wider public.
>
>
>
> -----------------
>
>
>
> Not sure about this. The SNP has been pretty successful at keeping a similarly disparate coalition going on a single policy. It takes a lot of discipline and they have had their bad patches too.
>
> But the SNP has a boringly leftish-centrist policy platform that appeals across the spectrum.
>
> The Brexit party will bring back hanging.
Plus, the SNP has had existing policy platforms, and later rallied a plurality to its independence banner. BXP has a Brexit banner and will then need to sell policies to the allsorts milling around it. There will be nasty surprises there, where there haven't really been any for SNPers. If Farage goes full Farage on the NHS, he'll fuck the Brexit Party for good.
> >
That is a strange way of looking at the vote, as it is exceedingly difficult to know exactly how the voters who stuck with Labour and the Conservatives might split in terms of leave/remain.
I think it’s more reasonable to conclude that the country is still split more or less down the middle on Brexit, but with around a third of the electorate not feeling as strongly about it as the two thirds which do.
Any predictions are naturally further complicated by the likelihood of a higher turnout in any general election or referendum.
They finished some time ago. Has Hoey not been paying attention? Oh, goodie.
Vote for me and I’ll ignore Parliament. And the man has the nerve to call himself a Tory.
Seriously though, this looks like hell in aspic.
Perhaps Michael Gove can bust us out of it employing his formidable and darkly devious intellect.
If not, I really don't know what is to become of us.
Of course the whole exercise is silly, given the turnout compared to EUref we can't extrapolate a couple % points one way or the other to translate to overall support. Clear that the country is largely split down the middle
> > @Floater said:
> > > @williamglenn said:
> > > > @Richard_Tyndall said:
> > > >
> > > > No it is a fair point and I am not sure how you factor it into the calculations. How many of those voting in the EU elections on Thursday will be eligible to vote in any referendum revote in the future? EU citizens were eligible to vote in these elections and probably did so in reasonable numbers. They will not be eligible to vote in any future revote. What difference does that make?
> > > -------
> > >
> > > EU citizens should be able to vote in any second referendum to correct the injustice of 2016.
> >
> > They absolutely should not be.
> >
> >
>
> Except some of them were allowed. Irish, Maltese too I believe.
> Utterly wrong that people who live legally in a country shouldn't have a say over their future. Nativist bollocks in fact.
Nope. If they want to take a genuine part in the future of this country and show they are invested in it long term then they can take British citizenship. Then of course they have every right to vote on decisions that will have a long term impact on this country. If they are not willing to do that then they should not get to vote.
> > @noneoftheabove said:
> > > @Big_G_NorthWales said:
> > > > @kjohnw said:
> > > > If parliament tries to block no deal half of Tory party will defect to brexit party and force GE and brexit party will win under ftpt and no deal will happen either way
> > >
> > > Stopping no deal requires the Government to legislate for it. The next leader of the conservative party facilitates no deal through inertia .
> >
> > Did we not hear all this back in December? The exact mechanism for stopping no deal is unknown now but parliamentary sovereignty has been affirmed by the attorney general who said it would be illegal for the PM to act against parliament on Brexit. If needed it will be a VONC, more likely the likes of Grieve, Letwin, Clarke et al will find a more elegant way.
>
> But it is not acting against Parliament. 498 mps voted for A50 with a default no deal and it is the law of the land.
>
> To stop it it has to be legislated for or a deal agreed
This was the argument back in December but May was told she could not no deal by her attorney general. Short of proroguing parliament I am confident in the Grieve/Letwin/Clarke/Boles/Cooper gang to assert the will of parliament, if needs be with a VONC and temporary PM but much more likely with more finesse.
> > @ah009 said:
> > > @Floater said:
> > > > @williamglenn said:
> > > > > @Richard_Tyndall said:
> > > > >
> > > > > No it is a fair point and I am not sure how you factor it into the calculations. How many of those voting in the EU elections on Thursday will be eligible to vote in any referendum revote in the future? EU citizens were eligible to vote in these elections and probably did so in reasonable numbers. They will not be eligible to vote in any future revote. What difference does that make?
> > > > -------
> > > >
> > > > EU citizens should be able to vote in any second referendum to correct the injustice of 2016.
> > >
> > > They absolutely should not be.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Except some of them were allowed. Irish, Maltese too I believe.
> > Utterly wrong that people who live legally in a country shouldn't have a say over their future. Nativist bollocks in fact.
>
> It’s called citizenship. It’s confers rights and duties for a reason. The Maltese etc is a daft anomaly that should be gone, true, but if you think we’re divided now wait till EU citizens voted in an in out EU referendum and Remain won by 1%.
>
> The present impasse would be a vicarage tea party I fear.
EU citizens living in the UK are bound by the same duties as UK citizens here. They abide by the same laws, pay the same taxes, breathe the same air and drink the same water.
Yet their rights are curtailed. I can't find a good reason for it.
> @Scott_P said:
>
> > > https://twitter.com/jennirsl/status/1132943056456560641
>
>
>
>
> That is a strange way of looking at the vote, as it is exceedingly difficult to know exactly how the voters who stuck with Labour and the Conservatives might split in terms of leave/remain.
>
> I think it’s more reasonable to conclude that the country is still split more or less down the middle on Brexit, but with around a third of the electorate not feeling as strongly about it as the two thirds which do.
>
> Any predictions are naturally further complicated by the likelihood of a higher turnout in any general election or referendum.
It is fair to say not all Labour or Tory voters want a compromise brexit, there will be splits between remain, compromise, no deal and indifference, but from the opinion polling it is pretty clear that within the Labour & Tory combined vote remain > leave.
> > @welshowl said:
> > > @ah009 said:
> > > > @Floater said:
> > > > > @williamglenn said:
> > > > > > @Richard_Tyndall said:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No it is a fair point and I am not sure how you factor it into the calculations. How many of those voting in the EU elections on Thursday will be eligible to vote in any referendum revote in the future? EU citizens were eligible to vote in these elections and probably did so in reasonable numbers. They will not be eligible to vote in any future revote. What difference does that make?
> > > > > -------
> > > > >
> > > > > EU citizens should be able to vote in any second referendum to correct the injustice of 2016.
> > > >
> > > > They absolutely should not be.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Except some of them were allowed. Irish, Maltese too I believe.
> > > Utterly wrong that people who live legally in a country shouldn't have a say over their future. Nativist bollocks in fact.
> >
> > It’s called citizenship. It’s confers rights and duties for a reason. The Maltese etc is a daft anomaly that should be gone, true, but if you think we’re divided now wait till EU citizens voted in an in out EU referendum and Remain won by 1%.
> >
> > The present impasse would be a vicarage tea party I fear.
>
> EU citizens living in the UK are bound by the same duties as UK citizens here. They abide by the same laws, pay the same taxes, breathe the same air and drink the same water.
> Yet their rights are curtailed. I can't find a good reason for it.
I can. They are not British citizens.
>
> Nope. If they want to take a genuine part in the future of this country and show they are invested in it long term then they can take British citizenship. Then of course they have every right to vote on decisions that will have a long term impact on this country. If they are not willing to do that then they should not get to vote.
--------------
So you don't believe Brexit is about the future of the EU as a whole?
> > @ah009 said:
> > > @welshowl said:
> > > > @ah009 said:
> > > > > @Floater said:
> > > > > > @williamglenn said:
> > > > > > > @Richard_Tyndall said:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No it is a fair point and I am not sure how you factor it into the calculations. How many of those voting in the EU elections on Thursday will be eligible to vote in any referendum revote in the future? EU citizens were eligible to vote in these elections and probably did so in reasonable numbers. They will not be eligible to vote in any future revote. What difference does that make?
> > > > > > -------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > EU citizens should be able to vote in any second referendum to correct the injustice of 2016.
> > > > >
> > > > > They absolutely should not be.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Except some of them were allowed. Irish, Maltese too I believe.
> > > > Utterly wrong that people who live legally in a country shouldn't have a say over their future. Nativist bollocks in fact.
> > >
> > > It’s called citizenship. It’s confers rights and duties for a reason. The Maltese etc is a daft anomaly that should be gone, true, but if you think we’re divided now wait till EU citizens voted in an in out EU referendum and Remain won by 1%.
> > >
> > > The present impasse would be a vicarage tea party I fear.
> >
> > EU citizens living in the UK are bound by the same duties as UK citizens here. They abide by the same laws, pay the same taxes, breathe the same air and drink the same water.
> > Yet their rights are curtailed. I can't find a good reason for it.
>
> I can. They are not British citizens.
Ah, you missed the word "good".
That's merely a reason. In fact, as detailed earlier it's not even a reason that's used. Malta, Ireland are not Britain.
> They do not have to prorogue. All Raab has to do is call a GE. Labour will back it and the job is done.
What job is done? Are you suggesting the timing of the GE is to block parliament from stopping no deal? That would not get anywhere near two thirds support!!
> > @DavidL said:
> > I mean I know no one (not even remainers) really cares but does anyone have a good summary of how the rest of the EU voted last night? I thought that the BBC coverage was incredibly parochial given the nature of the election.
>
> Well, here in Germany the Greens did well, about 20% - coming 2nd after CDU-CSU. I wouldn't expect people to vote particularly differently in a general election (unlike in the UK). The SPD continue to decline, and I do wonder what the point of them is these days, at least at the federal level. The AfD got 10% which was a big gain on the last Euros, but a decline on the 2017 federal elections, so they seem to be going backwards.
>
> Turnout was a high 61% - does anyone have any explanation for the wildly different turnouts in different EU countries?
>
> The number of MEPS each party gets is decided according to the Sainte-Laguë method, which is similar to D'Hondt, but is a bit more favorable to small parties (I think). The whole of Germany is one constituency for the purpose of allocating numbers of seats per party. And there is a closed party list system for deciding which individuals get to be MEPs. However, each Bundesland has its own party lists, and how many MEPs each Bundesland gets is determined by how many votes there are in each region, as I understand it. So the candidates at the top of the party lists here in NRW get to be the MEPS for NRW (despite Germany being one constituency). At least that's how I think it works. Clever, in a way, and certainly much more proportional than the UK system, while retaining a sense of regional representation.
>
> It also avoids having to think about tactically voting - except for the very small parties. This time 3 parties that got 0.7% of the national vote ended up with one MEP each. There seem to have been 4 different animal rights parties on the ballot, the biggest one got 1.4% and one MEP, the others got no MEPs, but if they had managed to all get together I guess they would have got 2 MEPs.
Many thanks. It seems to me that Merkel's grip continues to fail but the person to replace her is yet to be identified. These results, though poor, suggests someone from her own party for the lack of a viable alternative.
> > @welshowl said:
> > > @ah009 said:
> > > > @Floater said:
> > > > > @williamglenn said:
> > > > > > @Richard_Tyndall said:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No it is a fair point and I am not sure how you factor it into the calculations. How many of those voting in the EU elections on Thursday will be eligible to vote in any referendum revote in the future? EU citizens were eligible to vote in these elections and probably did so in reasonable numbers. They will not be eligible to vote in any future revote. What difference does that make?
> > > > > -------
> > > > >
> > > > > EU citizens should be able to vote in any second referendum to correct the injustice of 2016.
> > > >
> > > > They absolutely should not be.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Except some of them were allowed. Irish, Maltese too I believe.
> > > Utterly wrong that people who live legally in a country shouldn't have a say over their future. Nativist bollocks in fact.
> >
> > It’s called citizenship. It’s confers rights and duties for a reason. The Maltese etc is a daft anomaly that should be gone, true, but if you think we’re divided now wait till EU citizens voted in an in out EU referendum and Remain won by 1%.
> >
> > The present impasse would be a vicarage tea party I fear.
>
> EU citizens living in the UK are bound by the same duties as UK citizens here. They abide by the same laws, pay the same taxes, breathe the same air and drink the same water.
> Yet their rights are curtailed. I can't find a good reason for it.
Because they have chosen not to take the steps that would allow them to vote by taking British citizenship. It shows they are not invested in the future of this country.
> Why's Corbyn being interviewed in a hedge on the BBC?
Because he's pro leaf
* The Libs lost 123 out of 397 seats in Jan 1910, leaving them with 274
* The Libs lost 2 out of 274 seats in Dec 2010, leaving them with 272
Am I correct in thinking that the person who told you that "the LibDems would get their best result since 1910" was a) not on PB and b) didn't actually know what they were talking about?
> > @ah009 said:
> > > @Floater said:
> > > > @williamglenn said:
> > > > > @Richard_Tyndall said:
> > > > >
> > > > > No it is a fair point and I am not sure how you factor it into the calculations. How many of those voting in the EU elections on Thursday will be eligible to vote in any referendum revote in the future? EU citizens were eligible to vote in these elections and probably did so in reasonable numbers. They will not be eligible to vote in any future revote. What difference does that make?
> > > > -------
> > > >
> > > > EU citizens should be able to vote in any second referendum to correct the injustice of 2016.
> > >
> > > They absolutely should not be.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Except some of them were allowed. Irish, Maltese too I believe.
> > Utterly wrong that people who live legally in a country shouldn't have a say over their future. Nativist bollocks in fact.
>
> Nope. If they want to take a genuine part in the future of this country and show they are invested in it long term then they can take British citizenship. Then of course they have every right to vote on decisions that will have a long term impact on this country. If they are not willing to do that then they should not get to vote.
It makes much more sense that peope who live legally in the UK have the vote than UK citizens who do not live in the country.
>
> Because they have chosen not to take the steps that would allow them to vote by taking British citizenship. It shows they are not invested in the future of this country.
>
------------
It's offensive to say that people who in some cases have lived here for decades with British children are not "invested in the future of this country". Shame on you.
> > @welshowl said:
> > > @ah009 said:
> > > > @welshowl said:
> > > > > @ah009 said:
> > > > > > @Floater said:
> > > > > > > @williamglenn said:
> > > > > > > > @Richard_Tyndall said:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No it is a fair point and I am not sure how you factor it into the calculations. How many of those voting in the EU elections on Thursday will be eligible to vote in any referendum revote in the future? EU citizens were eligible to vote in these elections and probably did so in reasonable numbers. They will not be eligible to vote in any future revote. What difference does that make?
> > > > > > > -------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > EU citizens should be able to vote in any second referendum to correct the injustice of 2016.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They absolutely should not be.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Except some of them were allowed. Irish, Maltese too I believe.
> > > > > Utterly wrong that people who live legally in a country shouldn't have a say over their future. Nativist bollocks in fact.
> > > >
> > > > It’s called citizenship. It’s confers rights and duties for a reason. The Maltese etc is a daft anomaly that should be gone, true, but if you think we’re divided now wait till EU citizens voted in an in out EU referendum and Remain won by 1%.
> > > >
> > > > The present impasse would be a vicarage tea party I fear.
> > >
> > > EU citizens living in the UK are bound by the same duties as UK citizens here. They abide by the same laws, pay the same taxes, breathe the same air and drink the same water.
> > > Yet their rights are curtailed. I can't find a good reason for it.
> >
> > I can. They are not British citizens.
>
> Ah, you missed the word "good".
> That's merely a reason. In fact, as detailed earlier it's not even a reason that's used. Malta, Ireland are not Britain.
I said Malta should not be etc. It is a good reason. Citizenship is discriminatory. It’s meant to be. I can get called up to fight in extremis. I get to vote though. For instance.
Sorry this is the reddest of red lines. Otherwise we cease to exist.
>
> I said Malta should not be etc. It is a good reason. Citizenship is discriminatory. It’s meant to be. I can get called up to fight in extremis. I get to vote though. For instance.
>
> Sorry this is the reddest of red lines. Otherwise we cease to exist.
--------------------
Except it isn't a red line. People without British citizenship are allowed to vote in our General Elections every time.
> > @ah009 said:
> > > @welshowl said:
> > > > @ah009 said:
> > > > > @Floater said:
> > > > > > @williamglenn said:
> > > > > > > @Richard_Tyndall said:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No it is a fair point and I am not sure how you factor it into the calculations. How many of those voting in the EU elections on Thursday will be eligible to vote in any referendum revote in the future? EU citizens were eligible to vote in these elections and probably did so in reasonable numbers. They will not be eligible to vote in any future revote. What difference does that make?
> > > > > > -------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > EU citizens should be able to vote in any second referendum to correct the injustice of 2016.
> > > > >
> > > > > They absolutely should not be.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Except some of them were allowed. Irish, Maltese too I believe.
> > > > Utterly wrong that people who live legally in a country shouldn't have a say over their future. Nativist bollocks in fact.
> > >
> > > It’s called citizenship. It’s confers rights and duties for a reason. The Maltese etc is a daft anomaly that should be gone, true, but if you think we’re divided now wait till EU citizens voted in an in out EU referendum and Remain won by 1%.
> > >
> > > The present impasse would be a vicarage tea party I fear.
> >
> > EU citizens living in the UK are bound by the same duties as UK citizens here. They abide by the same laws, pay the same taxes, breathe the same air and drink the same water.
> > Yet their rights are curtailed. I can't find a good reason for it.
>
> Because they have chosen not to take the steps that would allow them to vote by taking British citizenship. It shows they are not invested in the future of this country.
>
People born here are given the vote without taking any "steps".
Why would you assume that someone is invested in a place because of where they are born rather than where they've chosen to live? Seems like making a choice to move somewhere is a bigger act of endorsement than being born there.
> 2014 Remain (Lab, LD, Green, SDP, PC) 41%
> 2019 Remain (LD, Green, SDP, PC) 40.4%
>
> 2014 Leave (UKIP, BNP, AIFE) 29.1%
> 2019 Leave (BXP, UKIP) 34.9%
>
> The critical question is as follows. If Stewart, Rudd et al are so adamant that they will not support a no dealer how would that translate into action should a no dealer become PM?
>
> VONC support would mean deselection and near certain job loss.
>
> How many are there willing to do this? Grieve we know would be one. How many others?
>
> https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1132941705416761344
>
>
>
> Agreed, it’s nonsense to exclude the SNP from the Remain tally.
It is all semantics.
The Country is divided virtually down the middle and arguing otherwise is getting tedious
> > @FF43 said:
> > The Brexit Party have unquestionably done well. They are the voice of one third of the electorate.
>
> And that's really the way to beat the Brexit Party.... Raise the dead on the electoral roll to your cause.
>
> You are the Night King and I claim my five souls.
--------
No. I mean it's an impressive result for the Brexit Party. I think they are bad for British politics. But if so, people like that badness.
I don't think the best possible circumstances include record high employment, rising real sages, and constant if anaemic economic growth for a decade.
Do this again during a recession and we'll see.
> > @ah009 said:
> > > @welshowl said:
> > > > @ah009 said:
> > > > > @welshowl said:
> > > > > > @ah009 said:
> > > > > > > @Floater said:
> > > > > > > > @williamglenn said:
> > > > > > > > > @Richard_Tyndall said:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No it is a fair point and I am not sure how you factor it into the calculations. How many of those voting in the EU elections on Thursday will be eligible to vote in any referendum revote in the future? EU citizens were eligible to vote in these elections and probably did so in reasonable numbers. They will not be eligible to vote in any future revote. What difference does that make?
> > > > > > > > -------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > EU citizens should be able to vote in any second referendum to correct the injustice of 2016.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > They absolutely should not be.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Except some of them were allowed. Irish, Maltese too I believe.
> > > > > > Utterly wrong that people who live legally in a country shouldn't have a say over their future. Nativist bollocks in fact.
> > > > >
> > > > > It’s called citizenship. It’s confers rights and duties for a reason. The Maltese etc is a daft anomaly that should be gone, true, but if you think we’re divided now wait till EU citizens voted in an in out EU referendum and Remain won by 1%.
> > > > >
> > > > > The present impasse would be a vicarage tea party I fear.
> > > >
> > > > EU citizens living in the UK are bound by the same duties as UK citizens here. They abide by the same laws, pay the same taxes, breathe the same air and drink the same water.
> > > > Yet their rights are curtailed. I can't find a good reason for it.
> > >
> > > I can. They are not British citizens.
> >
> > Ah, you missed the word "good".
> > That's merely a reason. In fact, as detailed earlier it's not even a reason that's used. Malta, Ireland are not Britain.
>
> I said Malta should not be etc. It is a good reason. Citizenship is discriminatory. It’s meant to be. I can get called up to fight in extremis. I get to vote though. For instance.
>
> Sorry this is the reddest of red lines. Otherwise we cease to exist.
Fight? Oh, its that what this is about? Can't trust the Dutch, we might need to fight them. Righto, I'm beginning to understand.
In those circumstances, the only way out of our dilemma is to have another vote on the options now available or for there to be the softest sort of Brexit ie tear up May’s red lines and renegotiate.
What there should not be is a departure from the EU in the most extreme way possible. There is no mandate for that: the referendum in 2016 was not a mandate for that nor were last night’s results.
However, in panic and fear cool rational analysis finds it hard to prevail especially when there is such a paucity of leadership. So I fear that No Deal is now more likely. We are not prepared for it. I suspect that it will be worse than we expect - though I very much hope I am wrong on this. It will not settle the EU question. We will not move on from Brexit as we will spend all the time after a No Deal departure dealing with the thousands of questions that will arise. There will be no consensus for it.
Troubled times ahead for some time I fear.
> > @Richard_Tyndall said:
> >
> > Because they have chosen not to take the steps that would allow them to vote by taking British citizenship. It shows they are not invested in the future of this country.
> >
> ------------
>
> It's offensive to say that people who in some cases have lived here for decades with British children are not "invested in the future of this country". Shame on you.
It shows a complete lack of understanding for how different people view nationality. Some will think it more important than others. Some people living here may see applying for nationality as an admin hassle. Others may prefer to keep a connection with their original nationality but at the same time be invested in the future of the UK. Some choose passports simply on the basis of minimising queues for airport immigration rather than which country they are most invested in.
You may think those reasons are all flimsy and therefore there votes should not count but that is the reality of modern life, you claim to believe in democracy but only on your terms, not when others have different perspectives.
I think 5 years residency or NI contributions or similar would be far more reflective of who is invested in the future of the country than your passport flavour.
> > @Richard_Tyndall said:
> >
> > Because they have chosen not to take the steps that would allow them to vote by taking British citizenship. It shows they are not invested in the future of this country.
> >
> ------------
>
> It's offensive to say that people who in some cases have lived here for decades with British children are not "invested in the future of this country". Shame on you.
Nope shame on you for once again trying to Gerrymander the system in your favour. It is no wonder no one trusts hypocrites like you when you will say and do anything, no matter how dishonest to get your way.
> > @Richard_Tyndall said:
>
> >
>
> > Because they have chosen not to take the steps that would allow them to vote by taking British citizenship. It shows they are not invested in the future of this country.
>
> >
>
> ------------
>
>
>
> It's offensive to say that people who in some cases have lived here for decades with British children are not "invested in the future of this country". Shame on you.
>
> Well said.
Funny that no other major country in the EU allows non citizens to vote in national elections but Remainers want a special deal for EU citizens here. Like I said, hypocrites.
> > @williamglenn said:
> > > @Richard_Tyndall said:
> > >
> > > Because they have chosen not to take the steps that would allow them to vote by taking British citizenship. It shows they are not invested in the future of this country.
> > >
> > ------------
> >
> > It's offensive to say that people who in some cases have lived here for decades with British children are not "invested in the future of this country". Shame on you.
>
> Nope shame on you for once again trying to Gerrymander the system in your favour. It is no wonder no one trusts hypocrites like you when you will say and do anything, no matter how dishonest to get your way.
It's already gerrymandered. Denying the vote selectively is a policy designed to further empower the parochial, conservative and nativist forces. It's deeply wrong and founded on a myth of nationalist loyalty. It regards people as unthinking agents of a tribe, to be boosted or suppressed depending on the convenience of those in power. It's reminiscent of the anti-Catholic laws in the darker centuries of this country's past.
> > @Cyclefree said:
> > > @Richard_Tyndall said:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Because they have chosen not to take the steps that would allow them to vote by taking British citizenship. It shows they are not invested in the future of this country.
> >
> > >
> >
> > ------------
> >
> >
> >
> > It's offensive to say that people who in some cases have lived here for decades with British children are not "invested in the future of this country". Shame on you.
> >
> > Well said.
>
> Funny that no other major country in the EU allows non citizens to vote in national elections but Remainers want a special deal for EU citizens here. Like I said, hypocrites.
They should too. There's no hypocrisy. Brits in Spain should also have the vote where they live.
Also, "everyone else is doing it" is no argument for the rightness of a policy. If it is, we should stay members of the EU
> 2014 Remain (Lab, LD, Green, SDP, PC) 41%
> 2019 Remain (LD, Green, SDP, PC) 40.4%
>
> 2014 Leave (UKIP, BNP, AIFE) 29.1%
> 2019 Leave (BXP, UKIP) 34.9%
>
> The critical question is as follows. If Stewart, Rudd et al are so adamant that they will not support a no dealer how would that translate into action should a no dealer become PM?
>
> VONC support would mean deselection and near certain job loss.
>
> How many are there willing to do this? Grieve we know would be one. How many others?
>
> https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1132941705416761344
>
>
>
> Agreed, it’s nonsense to exclude the SNP from the Remain tally.
This is Metro Central - Scotland does not exist.
> Nope. If they want to take a genuine part in the future of this country and show they are invested in it long term then they can take British citizenship. Then of course they have every right to vote on decisions that will have a long term impact on this country. If they are not willing to do that then they should not get to vote.
>
> Where do you stand on Ireland (the other bit)? Not in the UK, not in the Commonwealth, still in the EU, still gets to vote in UK including referenda.
They shouldn't. It is an historical anomaly that should end.
> > @williamglenn said:
> > > @Richard_Tyndall said:
> > >
> > > Because they have chosen not to take the steps that would allow them to vote by taking British citizenship. It shows they are not invested in the future of this country.
> > >
> > ------------
> >
> > It's offensive to say that people who in some cases have lived here for decades with British children are not "invested in the future of this country". Shame on you.
>
> Nope shame on you for once again trying to Gerrymander the system in your favour. It is no wonder no one trusts hypocrites like you when you will say and do anything, no matter how dishonest to get your way.
Oh really, isn't this pathetic? Just because you were expecting some great Brexit Party victory, and it didn't happen.
So we start arguing about whether we should calculate UK percentage or GB percentages, or which parties are against Brexit, or whether we should exclude the SNP because there hasn't been an official declaration, or whether the bloody foreigners should be allowed to vote, or worse still the bloody Irish.
Let's not lose sight of the fact that this whole thing originated in cynical wheeze dreamed up by a desperate politician who wanted to boost his poll ratings by 5 or 6 points, and it's ended up probably destroying his party.
Blame him if you must blame anyone. Don't try to blame foreigners. That's just pathetic.
> > @not_on_fire said:
> > 2014 Remain (Lab, LD, Green, SDP, PC) 41%
> > 2019 Remain (LD, Green, SDP, PC) 40.4%
> >
> > 2014 Leave (UKIP, BNP, AIFE) 29.1%
> > 2019 Leave (BXP, UKIP) 34.9%
> >
> > The critical question is as follows. If Stewart, Rudd et al are so adamant that they will not support a no dealer how would that translate into action should a no dealer become PM?
> >
> > VONC support would mean deselection and near certain job loss.
> >
> > How many are there willing to do this? Grieve we know would be one. How many others?
> >
> > https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1132941705416761344
> >
> >
> >
> > Agreed, it’s nonsense to exclude the SNP from the Remain tally.
>
> This is Metro Central - Scotland does not exist.
It all assumes that everyone who voted for a party agrees with their position on Brexit. Some Greens and Lib Dems - not many but some - will back Brexit but prefer those parties positions on other issues e.g. climate change. The only Green member of the House of Lords - Jenny Jones - campaigned for leave in 2016.
> Am I right in thinking that the Brexit party has won about 32% of a 36.5% turnout election... so fully 11% of the electorate have supported them?
>
> The overwhelming will of the people and all that!
If you're eligible to vote but can't be arsed, don't moan when the winners do stuff you don't like. It's the same in strike ballots.
> > @viewcode said:
> > Nope. If they want to take a genuine part in the future of this country and show they are invested in it long term then they can take British citizenship. Then of course they have every right to vote on decisions that will have a long term impact on this country. If they are not willing to do that then they should not get to vote.
> >
> > Where do you stand on Ireland (the other bit)? Not in the UK, not in the Commonwealth, still in the EU, still gets to vote in UK including referenda.
>
> They shouldn't. It is an historical anomaly that should end.
Ireland is an oddity but is one of the few that should continue due to reciprocality. UK citizens resident in Ireland can vote in Dail elections - and vice versa.
If it works both ways I have no issue with it. But why we continue to allow notionally up to 1.5 billion Commonwealth citizens the vote in UK general elections when - with one or two exceptions with conditions - we cannot vote in their countries' national elections is beyond me.
I think it should be based on reciprocality - if our citizens cannot vote in general elections in your country they cannot vote in ours. Ireland meets that criteria - few Commonwealth nations do.