Would be fascinated to see the movement. Locally it feels like we're losing support on our right flank because of a)restrictions, lockdowns etc and b) this obsession with greenie stuff and bans...
Swing from Tory to Labour it seems plus a bit of Green movement back to Starmer
My concern with the kneeling before every game is what is it to represent? Anti racism? Football already has the kick it out programme. It seems to specifically relate to police killings of black men in the United States. Is that such a major issue (particularly considering everything we're dealing with right now) that it should be THE cause that football attaches itself to? In my opinion no.
Of course racists are gonna boo because that's what racists do. Doesn't make it a good idea though.
Maybe some of the booers are racist . maybe some are just sick to death of virtue signalling when they are supposed to be at a sport event .Dion Dublin is wrong to say they people are racists if they don't support taking a knee and BLM. Keep politics out of sport used to be an accepted mantra (and a sensible one)
Actively booing taking a knee likely to be strongly correlated to racism. Difficult to think otherwise.
A lot more people are opposed to virtue signalling than are racist so maybe it is not that difficult to think
Do Millwall fans generally understand the concept of virtue signalling?
The name is misleading to a point. The Centre Party in Norway is the new name for the old Farmers' Party set up in 1920.
It is strongly opposed to Norway joining the EU and is protectionist and nationalist. It has in recent times supported Labour as a "Red-Green Coalition" (Centre's colour, confusingly, is green). Before that, it never supported Labour and always supported centre-right Government.
The current Centre leader is playing the populist card and the party's slogan is "Naer til folk" (close to people). The next election to the Storting is September next year.
At one point it would have been easy-peasy-Japanesy to steer the UK into the softest of softsoap Brexits, the EEA or EFTA or both and a 20 year transition deal. blah blah
A combination of Remainer stupidity, Brexiteer silliness, and arrogant overconfidence in Brussels (and Paris) has brought us to this precipice
What has this got to do with (former) Remainers? We hung up our blue, with 28 gold stars Euro trousers at the end of last year.
Blame the EU, if you must, but Remainers? We weren't there squire.
It was the push for a 2nd referendum (or just Revoke!!!)) which totally poisoned the debate and polarised everyone. Brexiteers thought they might not get any Brexit at all, so began to accept No Deal as better than nowt
Bollocks was it. It was May's failure to try and build a consensus that poisoned the debate, well before any talk of a 2nd referendum and "revoke". Brexit means Brexit.
None of that helped.
But... Once Leave won on a "no downsides, considerable upsides" prospectus, there was no good way out.
The May deal was a reasonable stab at "minimal harm while controlling immigrants". But hard enough to be worth arguing against.
But the only way to get all the freedoms Brexit promised was to give up all the access Brembership gave, which is roughly where we've ended up.
And then the temptation to be the "just a bit harder" siren voice was impossible for BoJo to resist, because he's a terrible person. And what conmen do is promise their victims something for nothing...
I was at the seemingly controversial (due to Nottingham being in tier 3) Christmas Market today - Of course it was busy, which to my mind shows a lot of people have had enough of OTT restrictions . Still get the people taking photos though and then moaning on social media whilst not getting that they are calling out their hypocrisy in being there themselves . Also the anti lockdown demo did not actually help themselves by calling the passer bys sheep (for generally going along with lockdown) etc when the passer by people were actually getting out there and supporting the important fair to both the economy and for mental health of people and could have been a sympathetic audience given where they were
IF Macron really is trying to collapse this into No Deal (I am not entirely convinced he has the gonads of De Gaulle) then he is making a serious mistake.
The idea, in his mind, will surely be to terrorise and pauperise the British people and government into a swift surrender, as the lorries are parked seven deep, all over Kent, and people in Croydon die for lack of Camembert.
This is not how it will happen, this is not human nature.
If Britain is pushed into No Deal we will, as a nation, hunker down and say Feck you, and snarl in anger across the Channel. We will not surrender. Johnson will get all Churchillian and sombre and blood sweat and tears-esque. "Very well, alone". And enough people will rally to the flag as Britain is apparently persecuted by the evil continentals.
No Deal could go on for a very long time, and eventually become permanent (with adjustments)
Those gullible enough are already spouting the propaganda line - IF there is a Deal, it will (irrespective and probably in spite of the detail) be hailed as a "triumph" for Boris and all the Union Jack flags will be out and somehow Britain will have "won" again (doesn't it always?).
Obviously, no one will look at the detail of the Deal and anyone who even suggests the UK might have given away quite a lot will be shouted down as not being appropriately patriotic and supportive.
IF there is No Deal, we can always blame the French and wheel out the ludicrous stereotypes and caricatures which get an airing every time we want to divert attention from our own failings and blame someone else. Perhaps a cheese-related comment will get an airing - it often does.
That's the thing with the loyalist - everything is a triumph and if it isn't there's always someone to blame, be it the French or dodgy software or voter fraud.
As things stand, it does look like the EU will be more to blame for No Deal (should that happen). Their demands are pretty outrageous. 10 years no change in fishing? - then payments to them if we want more share. The EU allowed to subsidise industries, yet we are not. And so on.
It is probably just theatre. Macron playing hard to please his voters, with an election not that far away. Merkel, by contrast, is retiring and would like a sensible Brexit to add to her achievements
But even if it is just theatre you can see how one unintended slip could lead to calamity
Once we voted for Brexit there was always a significant likelihood that we would exit No Deal, even if it only came about by chance.
It wasn't necessary, and certainly not desireable, but it was always a risk.
At one point it would have been easy-peasy-Japanesy to steer the UK into the softest of softsoap Brexits, the EEA or EFTA or both and a 20 year transition deal. blah blah
A combination of Remainer stupidity, Brexiteer silliness, and arrogant overconfidence in Brussels (and Paris) has brought us to this precipice
Classic Brexitism passive aggression.
"Now look what you made me do"
But I am right. If we do, amazingly, lurch into No Deal, none of the players involved could have achieved this remarkably extreme outcome by themselves.
The Brexiteers had to be insanely cavalier and complacent about the risks of No Deal The Remainers has to be mulishly stupid, stubborn and self harming (eg by targeting a 2nd referendum) thereby cornering the Brexiteers into overreacting The EU had to overplay its excellent hand, demanding too much on fish and LPF and possibly trying for a No Deal (cf Macron) hoping that the UK will surrender soon after (we won't)
AND on top of all that we needed Teresa May with her Conference Red Lines. If she hadn't made that calamitous speech we would likely not be here now
You can blame some of those parties for making mistakes. Remainers maybe shouldn't have opposed May's Deal. On the other hand they did the sensible thing of voting Remain in the first place. Maybe Theresa May shouldn't have rejected Soft Brexit. However she also voted Remain and did try to put a serious deal together.
Only Johnson has made the wrong call. Every. Single. Time.
And he is in charge of this shitshow. God help us all.
not know whether to laugh or cry at this sort of survey ! Sunak is surprising that he was not more in the nice camp (and wait till next year when he has to reign in the spending) .
No deal it will be. They didn't want Singapore-on-Thames. But that's what they're driving towards. France gets the EU purged of Anglo-Saxon influences but has to endure the ignominy of English as the EU's lingua franca. And German car makers lose their Treasure Island. But they can retaliate with null points when Eurovision comes around.
As things stand, it does look like the EU will be more to blame for No Deal (should that happen). Their demands are pretty outrageous. 10 years no change in fishing? - then payments to them if we want more share. The EU allowed to subsidise industries, yet we are not. And so on.
It is probably just theatre. Macron playing hard to please his voters, with an election not that far away. Merkel, by contrast, is retiring and would like a sensible Brexit to add to her achievements
But even if it is just theatre you can see how one unintended slip could lead to calamity
12,000 fishermen working on just under 6,000 UK-registered vessels.
Okay - 13.500 jobs at risk with the collapse of Arcadia.
I'm trying not to equate apples and haddock but we've seen industries and communities deliberately hollowed out by Government action and accidentally by changes in economic culture and technology.
Is every boat sacred? Is every job in High Street retail sacred?
What do we do if we end the current arrangements - do we start over-fishing again and depleting stocks? Do we accept current quotas? Do we not want, as an ideal, ALL fishermen to be supported whether in the UK or EU? The status quo pending some further negotiations seems eminently reasonable. We do need a practical and sensible arrangement for fishing going forward - on that I do agree.
As for subsidising industries - here I do agree. As a sovereign country (there's that word again), we should be able to determine for ourselves the line on workers' rights and state aid. I'd like to think our workers and environmental protection would be superior to the EU but that's our decision to make, not theirs. I don't imagine the EU telling China or Russia or India they have to abide by EU legislation.
My concern with the kneeling before every game is what is it to represent? Anti racism? Football already has the kick it out programme. It seems to specifically relate to police killings of black men in the United States. Is that such a major issue (particularly considering everything we're dealing with right now) that it should be THE cause that football attaches itself to? In my opinion no.
Of course racists are gonna boo because that's what racists do. Doesn't make it a good idea though.
Maybe some of the booers are racist . maybe some are just sick to death of virtue signalling when they are supposed to be at a sport event .Dion Dublin is wrong to say they people are racists if they don't support taking a knee and BLM. Keep politics out of sport used to be an accepted mantra (and a sensible one)
Actively booing taking a knee likely to be strongly correlated to racism. Difficult to think otherwise.
A lot more people are opposed to virtue signalling than are racist so maybe it is not that difficult to think
Do Millwall fans generally understand the concept of virtue signalling?
Probably more than you assume. Its the liberal left who dont get the concept imo
The name is misleading to a point. The Centre Party in Norway is the new name for the old Farmers' Party set up in 1920.
It is strongly opposed to Norway joining the EU and is protectionist and nationalist. It has in recent times supported Labour as a "Red-Green Coalition" (Centre's colour, confusingly, is green). Before that, it never supported Labour and always supported centre-right Government.
The current Centre leader is playing the populist card and the party's slogan is "Naer til folk" (close to people). The next election to the Storting is September next year.
That is a terrible slogan during Covid. Haven't they heard of Social Distancing?
As things stand, it does look like the EU will be more to blame for No Deal (should that happen). Their demands are pretty outrageous. 10 years no change in fishing? - then payments to them if we want more share. The EU allowed to subsidise industries, yet we are not. And so on.
It is probably just theatre. Macron playing hard to please his voters, with an election not that far away. Merkel, by contrast, is retiring and would like a sensible Brexit to add to her achievements
But even if it is just theatre you can see how one unintended slip could lead to calamity
12,000 fishermen working on just under 6,000 UK-registered vessels.
Okay - 13.500 jobs at risk with the collapse of Arcadia.
I'm trying not to equate apples and haddock but we've seen industries and communities deliberately hollowed out by Government action and accidentally by changes in economic culture and technology.
Is every boat sacred? Is every job in High Street retail sacred?
What do we do if we end the current arrangements - do we start over-fishing again and depleting stocks? Do we accept current quotas? Do we not want, as an ideal, ALL fishermen to be supported whether in the UK or EU? The status quo pending some further negotiations seems eminently reasonable. We do need a practical and sensible arrangement for fishing going forward - on that I do agree.
As for subsidising industries - here I do agree. As a sovereign country (there's that word again), we should be able to determine for ourselves the line on workers' rights and state aid. I'd like to think our workers and environmental protection would be superior to the EU but that's our decision to make, not theirs. I don't imagine the EU telling China or Russia or India they have to abide by EU legislation.
As a matter of interest, what percent of the 12000 are immigrants? I understand that some offshore boats have to recruit Filipino and East Europeans to crew them, and a lot of the processing plants are big recruiters of immigrants too.
Is there anything less exciting than reporting 'the Centre Party' has taken a poll lead in Norway?
The Centre Party is rather misnamed. It used to be the Farmers Party, and has a nationalist populist approach. It favours leaving the EEA and Schengen and protectionist tariffs.
My concern with the kneeling before every game is what is it to represent? Anti racism? Football already has the kick it out programme. It seems to specifically relate to police killings of black men in the United States. Is that such a major issue (particularly considering everything we're dealing with right now) that it should be THE cause that football attaches itself to? In my opinion no.
Of course racists are gonna boo because that's what racists do. Doesn't make it a good idea though.
Maybe some of the booers are racist . maybe some are just sick to death of virtue signalling when they are supposed to be at a sport event .Dion Dublin is wrong to say they people are racists if they don't support taking a knee and BLM. Keep politics out of sport used to be an accepted mantra (and a sensible one)
Actively booing taking a knee likely to be strongly correlated to racism. Difficult to think otherwise.
A lot more people are opposed to virtue signalling than are racist so maybe it is not that difficult to think
Do Millwall fans generally understand the concept of virtue signalling?
You kidding? They don't even understand the concept of football.
Would be fascinated to see the movement. Locally it feels like we're losing support on our right flank because of a)restrictions, lockdowns etc and b) this obsession with greenie stuff and bans...
Confirmation bias.
Losing support on your right flank to... er, Labour? Right.
At one point it would have been easy-peasy-Japanesy to steer the UK into the softest of softsoap Brexits, the EEA or EFTA or both and a 20 year transition deal. blah blah
A combination of Remainer stupidity, Brexiteer silliness, and arrogant overconfidence in Brussels (and Paris) has brought us to this precipice
What has this got to do with (former) Remainers? We hung up our blue, with 28 gold stars Euro trousers at the end of last year.
Blame the EU, if you must, but Remainers? We weren't there squire.
It was the push for a 2nd referendum (or just Revoke!!!)) which totally poisoned the debate and polarised everyone. Brexiteers thought they might not get any Brexit at all, so began to accept No Deal as better than nowt
Bollocks was it. It was May's failure to try and build a consensus that poisoned the debate, well before any talk of a 2nd referendum and "revoke". Brexit means Brexit.
It was both. TMay was a catastrophe with her red lines, but so was the clamour for a "2nd referendum" which came soon after the result.
I have just read Sasha Swire's diverting Diary of a Tory MP's Wife
She reveals that at one point David Cameron was supporting a 2nd referendum. He wanted to annul the result of his own referendum, before it had even be enacted, and have a new one, hoping to overturn democracy.
I find that extraordinary. The prime minister who called the referendum wanted to ignore the same vote he called, and run it again, because he didn't like the result. How does that make him any different from Trump wanting to upend the US Election?
Cameron will not come out well in the history books.
Cameron did not come out well in his own history book. A terribly dull read.
It must hurt to sit in that shepherd's hut, mulling over that he could have told the EU to "give me a meaningful deal I can sell, or fuck off and have me campaign to Leave". OK, he was surrounded by a coterie of EU-flunkies in our civil service and diplomatic service telling him nothing was achievable. But that doesn't excuse the fact that he could have stood back, grown a spine and fought - hard.
If he had campaigned to Leave, he would have won by at least 60-40. The EU would have seen that we were going, there was no possibility of us sliding into a second referendum - and overturning our decision. And then we might have got a decent and rapid divorce settlement.
He would have lost Osborne in the process of going for Leave, but he would probably still be PM if he had wanted, implementing his own distinct brand of socially liberal Conservatism. More importantly, he could probably have overseen a transition to a decent working relationship between the UK and the EU.
Instead, he will be remembered as the guy who is ultimately responsible for poisoned UK-EU relations - and has probably hastened the end of the UK by decades. That is one shit legacy.
At one point it would have been easy-peasy-Japanesy to steer the UK into the softest of softsoap Brexits, the EEA or EFTA or both and a 20 year transition deal. blah blah
A combination of Remainer stupidity, Brexiteer silliness, and arrogant overconfidence in Brussels (and Paris) has brought us to this precipice
Nothing to do with you, of course, oh no.
I am fairly confident that the "Role of G. Lady (lesbian Hampstead newtpainter)" will be a vanishingly small footnote when they come to write the History of Brexit
My point, possibly poorly made, is your willingness to blame everyone else.
In reality if we end up with no deal the blame will fall squarely on Boris Johnson and the 14 million people who voted for his party in December 2019 (which I suspect includes a certain pulp fiction author formerly known as SeanT).
At one point it would have been easy-peasy-Japanesy to steer the UK into the softest of softsoap Brexits, the EEA or EFTA or both and a 20 year transition deal. blah blah
A combination of Remainer stupidity, Brexiteer silliness, and arrogant overconfidence in Brussels (and Paris) has brought us to this precipice
What has this got to do with (former) Remainers? We hung up our blue, with 28 gold stars Euro trousers at the end of last year.
Blame the EU, if you must, but Remainers? We weren't there squire.
It was the push for a 2nd referendum (or just Revoke!!!)) which totally poisoned the debate and polarised everyone. Brexiteers thought they might not get any Brexit at all, so began to accept No Deal as better than nowt
Bollocks was it. It was May's failure to try and build a consensus that poisoned the debate, well before any talk of a 2nd referendum and "revoke". Brexit means Brexit.
It was both. TMay was a catastrophe with her red lines, but so was the clamour for a "2nd referendum" which came soon after the result.
I have just read Sasha Swire's diverting Diary of a Tory MP's Wife
She reveals that at one point David Cameron was supporting a 2nd referendum. He wanted to annul the result of his own referendum, before it had even be enacted, and have a new one, hoping to overturn democracy.
I find that extraordinary. The prime minister who called the referendum wanted to ignore the same vote he called, and run it again, because he didn't like the result. How does that make him any different from Trump wanting to upend the US Election?
Cameron will not come out well in the history books.
Cameron did not come out well in his own history book. A terribly dull read.
It must hurt to sit in that shepherd's hut, mulling over that he could have told the EU to "give me a meaningful deal I can sell, or fuck off and have me campaign to Leave". OK, he was surrounded by a coterie of EU-flunkies in our civil service and diplomatic service telling him nothing was achievable. But that doesn't excuse the fact that he could have stood back, grown a spine and fought - hard.
If he had campaigned to Leave, he would have won by at least 60-40. The EU would have seen that we were going, there was no possibility of us sliding into a second referendum - and overturning our decision. And then we might have got a decent and rapid divorce settlement.
He would have lost Osborne in the process of going for Leave, but he would probably still be PM if he had wanted, implementing his own distinct brand of socially liberal Conservatism. More importantly, he could probably have overseen a transition to a decent working relationship between the UK and the EU.
Instead, he will be remembered as the guy who is ultimately responsible for poisoned UK-EU relations - and has probably hastened the end of the UK by decades. That is one shit legacy.
That overlooks the rather significant point that he thought leaving the EU would be a very bad thing indeed.
I've become resigned to the fact that this, at some point, and at least since Maastricht if not before, had to happen. The pro-Europe Parliamentary Tory Party was gutted in the 1997 rout and there has been no enthousiastic right of centre pro-EU voice to speak to a generally right of centre country ever since.
If you look at the longue (or at least medium) durée then No Deal is actually the best thing that could happen to the pro-European movement in this country. When a country is divided then it needs the practical real world conseqenses of one side's actions before healing can occur. The divisions in this country over Europe these last 40 or 50 years remind of the division of France into pro-republican, anticlerical Dreyfusards and pro-Army, mostly Catholic, often Monarchist "anti-Dreyfusards" who morphed over 30 years into Republicans and Nationalists. It embittered French politics until the anti-Dreyfusard (now Nationalist) side finally got their chance when Petain took over. That didn't work out so well so you haven't seen many of them about since 1945. For Petain read Johnson.
Economic damage is bad but can be repaired but the country has to face the consequences of the choice it made or was led into. As much as they would like to deflect blame onto former-Remainers, Johnson is the face of the Brexit movement, and has been since that famous article in 2016. He, and his 80 seat majority, own this. The practical consequences of No Deal will get Labout in with a promise to rejoin the Customs Union in 2024. After that EEA and, if it's still around, rejoining the EU.
At one point it would have been easy-peasy-Japanesy to steer the UK into the softest of softsoap Brexits, the EEA or EFTA or both and a 20 year transition deal. blah blah
A combination of Remainer stupidity, Brexiteer silliness, and arrogant overconfidence in Brussels (and Paris) has brought us to this precipice
What has this got to do with (former) Remainers? We hung up our blue, with 28 gold stars Euro trousers at the end of last year.
Blame the EU, if you must, but Remainers? We weren't there squire.
It was the push for a 2nd referendum (or just Revoke!!!)) which totally poisoned the debate and polarised everyone. Brexiteers thought they might not get any Brexit at all, so began to accept No Deal as better than nowt
You're remembering uncharacteristically poorly here. The push for a second referendum began after May's infamous "red lines" began to raise the prospect of no deal, which she then sought to use, and not at all before.
At one point it would have been easy-peasy-Japanesy to steer the UK into the softest of softsoap Brexits, the EEA or EFTA or both and a 20 year transition deal. blah blah
A combination of Remainer stupidity, Brexiteer silliness, and arrogant overconfidence in Brussels (and Paris) has brought us to this precipice
What has this got to do with (former) Remainers? We hung up our blue, with 28 gold stars Euro trousers at the end of last year.
Blame the EU, if you must, but Remainers? We weren't there squire.
It was the push for a 2nd referendum (or just Revoke!!!)) which totally poisoned the debate and polarised everyone. Brexiteers thought they might not get any Brexit at all, so began to accept No Deal as better than nowt
Bollocks was it. It was May's failure to try and build a consensus that poisoned the debate, well before any talk of a 2nd referendum and "revoke". Brexit means Brexit.
It was both. TMay was a catastrophe with her red lines, but so was the clamour for a "2nd referendum" which came soon after the result.
I have just read Sasha Swire's diverting Diary of a Tory MP's Wife
She reveals that at one point David Cameron was supporting a 2nd referendum. He wanted to annul the result of his own referendum, before it had even be enacted, and have a new one, hoping to overturn democracy.
I find that extraordinary. The prime minister who called the referendum wanted to ignore the same vote he called, and run it again, because he didn't like the result. How does that make him any different from Trump wanting to upend the US Election?
Cameron will not come out well in the history books.
Cameron did not come out well in his own history book. A terribly dull read.
It must hurt to sit in that shepherd's hut, mulling over that he could have told the EU to "give me a meaningful deal I can sell, or fuck off and have me campaign to Leave". OK, he was surrounded by a coterie of EU-flunkies in our civil service and diplomatic service telling him nothing was achievable. But that doesn't excuse the fact that he could have stood back, grown a spine and fought - hard.
If he had campaigned to Leave, he would have won by at least 60-40. The EU would have seen that we were going, there was no possibility of us sliding into a second referendum - and overturning our decision. And then we might have got a decent and rapid divorce settlement.
He would have lost Osborne in the process of going for Leave, but he would probably still be PM if he had wanted, implementing his own distinct brand of socially liberal Conservatism. More importantly, he could probably have overseen a transition to a decent working relationship between the UK and the EU.
Instead, he will be remembered as the guy who is ultimately responsible for poisoned UK-EU relations - and has probably hastened the end of the UK by decades. That is one shit legacy.
That overlooks the rather significant point that he thought leaving the EU would be a very bad thing indeed.
Quite why he wanted to lead a party, which contained a not insignificant number of members who wanted to leave the EU, is beyond me.
At one point it would have been easy-peasy-Japanesy to steer the UK into the softest of softsoap Brexits, the EEA or EFTA or both and a 20 year transition deal. blah blah
A combination of Remainer stupidity, Brexiteer silliness, and arrogant overconfidence in Brussels (and Paris) has brought us to this precipice
What has this got to do with (former) Remainers? We hung up our blue, with 28 gold stars Euro trousers at the end of last year.
Blame the EU, if you must, but Remainers? We weren't there squire.
It was the push for a 2nd referendum (or just Revoke!!!)) which totally poisoned the debate and polarised everyone. Brexiteers thought they might not get any Brexit at all, so began to accept No Deal as better than nowt
You're remembering uncharacteristically poorly here. The push for a second referendum began after May's infamous "red lines" began to raise the prospect of no deal, which she then sought to use, and not at all before.
I have to disagree - this misremembering is entirely characteristic of @LadyG.
Would be fascinated to see the movement. Locally it feels like we're losing support on our right flank because of a)restrictions, lockdowns etc and b) this obsession with greenie stuff and bans...
Confirmation bias.
Losing support on your right flank to... er, Labour? Right.
Thats why I'd love to see the actual churn, not the headline figures.
At one point it would have been easy-peasy-Japanesy to steer the UK into the softest of softsoap Brexits, the EEA or EFTA or both and a 20 year transition deal. blah blah
A combination of Remainer stupidity, Brexiteer silliness, and arrogant overconfidence in Brussels (and Paris) has brought us to this precipice
What has this got to do with (former) Remainers? We hung up our blue, with 28 gold stars Euro trousers at the end of last year.
Blame the EU, if you must, but Remainers? We weren't there squire.
It was the push for a 2nd referendum (or just Revoke!!!)) which totally poisoned the debate and polarised everyone. Brexiteers thought they might not get any Brexit at all, so began to accept No Deal as better than nowt
Bollocks was it. It was May's failure to try and build a consensus that poisoned the debate, well before any talk of a 2nd referendum and "revoke". Brexit means Brexit.
It was both. TMay was a catastrophe with her red lines, but so was the clamour for a "2nd referendum" which came soon after the result.
I have just read Sasha Swire's diverting Diary of a Tory MP's Wife
She reveals that at one point David Cameron was supporting a 2nd referendum. He wanted to annul the result of his own referendum, before it had even be enacted, and have a new one, hoping to overturn democracy.
I find that extraordinary. The prime minister who called the referendum wanted to ignore the same vote he called, and run it again, because he didn't like the result. How does that make him any different from Trump wanting to upend the US Election?
Cameron will not come out well in the history books.
Cameron did not come out well in his own history book. A terribly dull read.
It must hurt to sit in that shepherd's hut, mulling over that he could have told the EU to "give me a meaningful deal I can sell, or fuck off and have me campaign to Leave". OK, he was surrounded by a coterie of EU-flunkies in our civil service and diplomatic service telling him nothing was achievable. But that doesn't excuse the fact that he could have stood back, grown a spine and fought - hard.
If he had campaigned to Leave, he would have won by at least 60-40. The EU would have seen that we were going, there was no possibility of us sliding into a second referendum - and overturning our decision. And then we might have got a decent and rapid divorce settlement.
He would have lost Osborne in the process of going for Leave, but he would probably still be PM if he had wanted, implementing his own distinct brand of socially liberal Conservatism. More importantly, he could probably have overseen a transition to a decent working relationship between the UK and the EU.
Instead, he will be remembered as the guy who is ultimately responsible for poisoned UK-EU relations - and has probably hastened the end of the UK by decades. That is one shit legacy.
That overlooks the rather significant point that he thought leaving the EU would be a very bad thing indeed.
Quite why he wanted to lead a party, which contained a not insignificant number of members who wanted to leave the EU, is beyond me.
There was a time where being a Eurosceptic didn't mean Brexitism. There were always a few nutters but it only became so after the 2010 GE. I remember when Phil Hammond was considered Eurosceptic for example.
I'd be pretty surprised if Johnson actively chooses no deal, although events can sometimes start to derail under their own steam, obviously. His whole life has been both about avoiding conflict, in the slightly more generous interpretation, and avoiding responsibility, in the more critical one. No deal would mean both immediately greater conflict and immediately greater personal responsibility.
At one point it would have been easy-peasy-Japanesy to steer the UK into the softest of softsoap Brexits, the EEA or EFTA or both and a 20 year transition deal. blah blah
A combination of Remainer stupidity, Brexiteer silliness, and arrogant overconfidence in Brussels (and Paris) has brought us to this precipice
What has this got to do with (former) Remainers? We hung up our blue, with 28 gold stars Euro trousers at the end of last year.
Blame the EU, if you must, but Remainers? We weren't there squire.
It was the push for a 2nd referendum (or just Revoke!!!)) which totally poisoned the debate and polarised everyone. Brexiteers thought they might not get any Brexit at all, so began to accept No Deal as better than nowt
Bollocks was it. It was May's failure to try and build a consensus that poisoned the debate, well before any talk of a 2nd referendum and "revoke". Brexit means Brexit.
It was both. TMay was a catastrophe with her red lines, but so was the clamour for a "2nd referendum" which came soon after the result.
I have just read Sasha Swire's diverting Diary of a Tory MP's Wife
She reveals that at one point David Cameron was supporting a 2nd referendum. He wanted to annul the result of his own referendum, before it had even be enacted, and have a new one, hoping to overturn democracy.
I find that extraordinary. The prime minister who called the referendum wanted to ignore the same vote he called, and run it again, because he didn't like the result. How does that make him any different from Trump wanting to upend the US Election?
Cameron will not come out well in the history books.
Cameron did not come out well in his own history book. A terribly dull read.
It must hurt to sit in that shepherd's hut, mulling over that he could have told the EU to "give me a meaningful deal I can sell, or fuck off and have me campaign to Leave". OK, he was surrounded by a coterie of EU-flunkies in our civil service and diplomatic service telling him nothing was achievable. But that doesn't excuse the fact that he could have stood back, grown a spine and fought - hard.
If he had campaigned to Leave, he would have won by at least 60-40. The EU would have seen that we were going, there was no possibility of us sliding into a second referendum - and overturning our decision. And then we might have got a decent and rapid divorce settlement.
He would have lost Osborne in the process of going for Leave, but he would probably still be PM if he had wanted, implementing his own distinct brand of socially liberal Conservatism. More importantly, he could probably have overseen a transition to a decent working relationship between the UK and the EU.
Instead, he will be remembered as the guy who is ultimately responsible for poisoned UK-EU relations - and has probably hastened the end of the UK by decades. That is one shit legacy.
That overlooks the rather significant point that he thought leaving the EU would be a very bad thing indeed.
Quite why he wanted to lead a party, which contained a not insignificant number of members who wanted to leave the EU, is beyond me.
Dave thought he could stop the Party "Banging on about Europe".
The Party thought they would be OK with this-far-no-further, or Switzerland at a pinch.
At one point it would have been easy-peasy-Japanesy to steer the UK into the softest of softsoap Brexits, the EEA or EFTA or both and a 20 year transition deal. blah blah
A combination of Remainer stupidity, Brexiteer silliness, and arrogant overconfidence in Brussels (and Paris) has brought us to this precipice
What has this got to do with (former) Remainers? We hung up our blue, with 28 gold stars Euro trousers at the end of last year.
Blame the EU, if you must, but Remainers? We weren't there squire.
It was the push for a 2nd referendum (or just Revoke!!!)) which totally poisoned the debate and polarised everyone. Brexiteers thought they might not get any Brexit at all, so began to accept No Deal as better than nowt
Bollocks was it. It was May's failure to try and build a consensus that poisoned the debate, well before any talk of a 2nd referendum and "revoke". Brexit means Brexit.
It was both. TMay was a catastrophe with her red lines, but so was the clamour for a "2nd referendum" which came soon after the result.
I have just read Sasha Swire's diverting Diary of a Tory MP's Wife
She reveals that at one point David Cameron was supporting a 2nd referendum. He wanted to annul the result of his own referendum, before it had even be enacted, and have a new one, hoping to overturn democracy.
I find that extraordinary. The prime minister who called the referendum wanted to ignore the same vote he called, and run it again, because he didn't like the result. How does that make him any different from Trump wanting to upend the US Election?
Cameron will not come out well in the history books.
Cameron did not come out well in his own history book. A terribly dull read.
It must hurt to sit in that shepherd's hut, mulling over that he could have told the EU to "give me a meaningful deal I can sell, or fuck off and have me campaign to Leave". OK, he was surrounded by a coterie of EU-flunkies in our civil service and diplomatic service telling him nothing was achievable. But that doesn't excuse the fact that he could have stood back, grown a spine and fought - hard.
If he had campaigned to Leave, he would have won by at least 60-40. The EU would have seen that we were going, there was no possibility of us sliding into a second referendum - and overturning our decision. And then we might have got a decent and rapid divorce settlement.
He would have lost Osborne in the process of going for Leave, but he would probably still be PM if he had wanted, implementing his own distinct brand of socially liberal Conservatism. More importantly, he could probably have overseen a transition to a decent working relationship between the UK and the EU.
Instead, he will be remembered as the guy who is ultimately responsible for poisoned UK-EU relations - and has probably hastened the end of the UK by decades. That is one shit legacy.
That overlooks the rather significant point that he thought leaving the EU would be a very bad thing indeed.
Cameron's three options were:
1. Have no Referendum, despite his Manifesto pledge. The resulting rise of UKIP would have been spectacular - and end up spiting his every political sensibility. It could also quite possibly have destroyed the Conservative Party. Not really an option.
2. Get a meaningful renegotiation of the UK's relationship with Brussels. That required them to believe he would walk - and support Leave.
3. Get a meaningless renegotiation of the UK's relationship with Brussels. That risked pissing off enough people to lose the referendum - and his own political demise.
He chose 3. Or rather, it was the inevitable outcome of the EU knowing he thought leaving the EU would be a very bad thing indeed. Which he did little or nothing to counter.
People are always happy to claim Boris is lazy. But at least his strategic thinking got him into Number 10. Cameron's lack of it got him out of Number 10.
At one point it would have been easy-peasy-Japanesy to steer the UK into the softest of softsoap Brexits, the EEA or EFTA or both and a 20 year transition deal. blah blah
A combination of Remainer stupidity, Brexiteer silliness, and arrogant overconfidence in Brussels (and Paris) has brought us to this precipice
What has this got to do with (former) Remainers? We hung up our blue, with 28 gold stars Euro trousers at the end of last year.
Blame the EU, if you must, but Remainers? We weren't there squire.
It was the push for a 2nd referendum (or just Revoke!!!)) which totally poisoned the debate and polarised everyone. Brexiteers thought they might not get any Brexit at all, so began to accept No Deal as better than nowt
You're remembering uncharacteristically poorly here. The push for a second referendum began after May's infamous "red lines" began to raise the prospect of no deal, which she then sought to use, and not at all before.
Utter, provable bollocks. Here is a senior Labour figure calling for a 2nd referendum on.... Sunday June 26, 2016
That's, er, FOUR DAYS after the first referendum. And it already contained all the classic elements of the genre
"The referendum was advisory and non-binding, in contrast to the referendum on electoral reform in 2011 which imposed a legal obligation on the government to legislate. Almost 500 members of parliament declared themselves in favour of remain, and it is within their powers to stop this madness through a vote in parliament."
With their crass, self-regarding stupidity, Remainers like Lammy immediately made Leavers into hostile enemies, afraid of seeing their vote completely ignored. FOUR DAYS AFTER THE FIRST VOTE.
The petition for a 2nd referendum - signed by millions - was started about a week after the first referendum
I'd be very surprised if Johnson actively chooses no deal, although events can sometimes start to derail under their own steam, obviously. His whole life has been both about avoiding conflict, in the slightly more generous interpretation, and avoiding responsibility, in the more critical one. No deal means both immediately greater conflict and immediately greater responsibility.
His desire for power is greater than his desire to avoid conflict. He thinks No Deal will shore up his base. I'm not convinced he's thought the reprecussions through.
At one point it would have been easy-peasy-Japanesy to steer the UK into the softest of softsoap Brexits, the EEA or EFTA or both and a 20 year transition deal. blah blah
A combination of Remainer stupidity, Brexiteer silliness, and arrogant overconfidence in Brussels (and Paris) has brought us to this precipice
What has this got to do with (former) Remainers? We hung up our blue, with 28 gold stars Euro trousers at the end of last year.
Blame the EU, if you must, but Remainers? We weren't there squire.
It was the push for a 2nd referendum (or just Revoke!!!)) which totally poisoned the debate and polarised everyone. Brexiteers thought they might not get any Brexit at all, so began to accept No Deal as better than nowt
Bollocks was it. It was May's failure to try and build a consensus that poisoned the debate, well before any talk of a 2nd referendum and "revoke". Brexit means Brexit.
It was both. TMay was a catastrophe with her red lines, but so was the clamour for a "2nd referendum" which came soon after the result.
I have just read Sasha Swire's diverting Diary of a Tory MP's Wife
She reveals that at one point David Cameron was supporting a 2nd referendum. He wanted to annul the result of his own referendum, before it had even be enacted, and have a new one, hoping to overturn democracy.
I find that extraordinary. The prime minister who called the referendum wanted to ignore the same vote he called, and run it again, because he didn't like the result. How does that make him any different from Trump wanting to upend the US Election?
Cameron will not come out well in the history books.
Cameron did not come out well in his own history book. A terribly dull read.
It must hurt to sit in that shepherd's hut, mulling over that he could have told the EU to "give me a meaningful deal I can sell, or fuck off and have me campaign to Leave". OK, he was surrounded by a coterie of EU-flunkies in our civil service and diplomatic service telling him nothing was achievable. But that doesn't excuse the fact that he could have stood back, grown a spine and fought - hard.
If he had campaigned to Leave, he would have won by at least 60-40. The EU would have seen that we were going, there was no possibility of us sliding into a second referendum - and overturning our decision. And then we might have got a decent and rapid divorce settlement.
He would have lost Osborne in the process of going for Leave, but he would probably still be PM if he had wanted, implementing his own distinct brand of socially liberal Conservatism. More importantly, he could probably have overseen a transition to a decent working relationship between the UK and the EU.
Instead, he will be remembered as the guy who is ultimately responsible for poisoned UK-EU relations - and has probably hastened the end of the UK by decades. That is one shit legacy.
That overlooks the rather significant point that he thought leaving the EU would be a very bad thing indeed.
Quite why he wanted to lead a party, which contained a not insignificant number of members who wanted to leave the EU, is beyond me.
For 5 out of 6 years Cameron was PM he led a coalition government with the LDs, it was only after the Tories won a majority in 2015 it went wrong for him and he was out of No 10 a year later, in retrospect for Cameron at least another hung parliament in 2015 with the Tories largest party and the LDs holding more of their South West seats so Clegg remained Deputy PM and without requiring an EU referendum as the Tory manifesto promised if they had won a majority would have been better for him.
Indeed Cameron might only have stepped down as PM and then handed over to Osborne or May this year after 10 years as PM and in the Thatcher and Blair league rather than the second rank down he ended up with
At one point it would have been easy-peasy-Japanesy to steer the UK into the softest of softsoap Brexits, the EEA or EFTA or both and a 20 year transition deal. blah blah
A combination of Remainer stupidity, Brexiteer silliness, and arrogant overconfidence in Brussels (and Paris) has brought us to this precipice
What has this got to do with (former) Remainers? We hung up our blue, with 28 gold stars Euro trousers at the end of last year.
Blame the EU, if you must, but Remainers? We weren't there squire.
It was the push for a 2nd referendum (or just Revoke!!!)) which totally poisoned the debate and polarised everyone. Brexiteers thought they might not get any Brexit at all, so began to accept No Deal as better than nowt
You're remembering uncharacteristically poorly here. The push for a second referendum began after May's infamous "red lines" began to raise the prospect of no deal, which she then sought to use, and not at all before.
Yes, the first "Peoplesvote" March in London was June 2018 as I recall, 2 years after the Brexit vote when clearly Soft Brexit was ruled out.
Really quite scary (or would be if I were the Argentine finance minister) that only 12k people have assets above $2.5m
Here we apparently have around 2.5m millionaires.....
Thats 12k people who declare they have or their house is so massive they have to...remember how many economic collapses they have had. I.am sure plenty more have money stashed in Panama. With the history of most Latin American countries, it is the sensible thing to do (and the tax man has a very hard job finding it).
At one point it would have been easy-peasy-Japanesy to steer the UK into the softest of softsoap Brexits, the EEA or EFTA or both and a 20 year transition deal. blah blah
A combination of Remainer stupidity, Brexiteer silliness, and arrogant overconfidence in Brussels (and Paris) has brought us to this precipice
What has this got to do with (former) Remainers? We hung up our blue, with 28 gold stars Euro trousers at the end of last year.
Blame the EU, if you must, but Remainers? We weren't there squire.
It was the push for a 2nd referendum (or just Revoke!!!)) which totally poisoned the debate and polarised everyone. Brexiteers thought they might not get any Brexit at all, so began to accept No Deal as better than nowt
Bollocks was it. It was May's failure to try and build a consensus that poisoned the debate, well before any talk of a 2nd referendum and "revoke". Brexit means Brexit.
It was both. TMay was a catastrophe with her red lines, but so was the clamour for a "2nd referendum" which came soon after the result.
I have just read Sasha Swire's diverting Diary of a Tory MP's Wife
She reveals that at one point David Cameron was supporting a 2nd referendum. He wanted to annul the result of his own referendum, before it had even be enacted, and have a new one, hoping to overturn democracy.
I find that extraordinary. The prime minister who called the referendum wanted to ignore the same vote he called, and run it again, because he didn't like the result. How does that make him any different from Trump wanting to upend the US Election?
Cameron will not come out well in the history books.
Cameron did not come out well in his own history book. A terribly dull read.
It must hurt to sit in that shepherd's hut, mulling over that he could have told the EU to "give me a meaningful deal I can sell, or fuck off and have me campaign to Leave". OK, he was surrounded by a coterie of EU-flunkies in our civil service and diplomatic service telling him nothing was achievable. But that doesn't excuse the fact that he could have stood back, grown a spine and fought - hard.
If he had campaigned to Leave, he would have won by at least 60-40. The EU would have seen that we were going, there was no possibility of us sliding into a second referendum - and overturning our decision. And then we might have got a decent and rapid divorce settlement.
He would have lost Osborne in the process of going for Leave, but he would probably still be PM if he had wanted, implementing his own distinct brand of socially liberal Conservatism. More importantly, he could probably have overseen a transition to a decent working relationship between the UK and the EU.
Instead, he will be remembered as the guy who is ultimately responsible for poisoned UK-EU relations - and has probably hastened the end of the UK by decades. That is one shit legacy.
To be fair to Cameron he won the 2014 Scottish independence referendum with 55% of the vote
Or 222 do not want to be primaried by a Trumpster in the next election, at the end of the day they want to keep the Congressional paycheque and expenses
Would be fascinated to see the movement. Locally it feels like we're losing support on our right flank because of a)restrictions, lockdowns etc and b) this obsession with greenie stuff and bans...
Confirmation bias.
Losing support on your right flank to... er, Labour? Right.
Thats why I'd love to see the actual churn, not the headline figures.
Where do you think your lost support on the right flank might have gone to?
(Hint: UKIP has risen from 2.46% to 2.55% since the previous Opinium on 19/11; the Brexit Party is unchanged on 0%.)
At one point it would have been easy-peasy-Japanesy to steer the UK into the softest of softsoap Brexits, the EEA or EFTA or both and a 20 year transition deal. blah blah
A combination of Remainer stupidity, Brexiteer silliness, and arrogant overconfidence in Brussels (and Paris) has brought us to this precipice
What has this got to do with (former) Remainers? We hung up our blue, with 28 gold stars Euro trousers at the end of last year.
Blame the EU, if you must, but Remainers? We weren't there squire.
It was the push for a 2nd referendum (or just Revoke!!!)) which totally poisoned the debate and polarised everyone. Brexiteers thought they might not get any Brexit at all, so began to accept No Deal as better than nowt
Bollocks was it. It was May's failure to try and build a consensus that poisoned the debate, well before any talk of a 2nd referendum and "revoke". Brexit means Brexit.
It was both. TMay was a catastrophe with her red lines, but so was the clamour for a "2nd referendum" which came soon after the result.
I have just read Sasha Swire's diverting Diary of a Tory MP's Wife
She reveals that at one point David Cameron was supporting a 2nd referendum. He wanted to annul the result of his own referendum, before it had even be enacted, and have a new one, hoping to overturn democracy.
I find that extraordinary. The prime minister who called the referendum wanted to ignore the same vote he called, and run it again, because he didn't like the result. How does that make him any different from Trump wanting to upend the US Election?
Cameron will not come out well in the history books.
Cameron did not come out well in his own history book. A terribly dull read.
It must hurt to sit in that shepherd's hut, mulling over that he could have told the EU to "give me a meaningful deal I can sell, or fuck off and have me campaign to Leave". OK, he was surrounded by a coterie of EU-flunkies in our civil service and diplomatic service telling him nothing was achievable. But that doesn't excuse the fact that he could have stood back, grown a spine and fought - hard.
If he had campaigned to Leave, he would have won by at least 60-40. The EU would have seen that we were going, there was no possibility of us sliding into a second referendum - and overturning our decision. And then we might have got a decent and rapid divorce settlement.
He would have lost Osborne in the process of going for Leave, but he would probably still be PM if he had wanted, implementing his own distinct brand of socially liberal Conservatism. More importantly, he could probably have overseen a transition to a decent working relationship between the UK and the EU.
Instead, he will be remembered as the guy who is ultimately responsible for poisoned UK-EU relations - and has probably hastened the end of the UK by decades. That is one shit legacy.
To be fair to Cameron he won the 2014 Scottish independence referendum with 55% of the vote
To be fair in 2014 the SNP had no answers to a raft of basic questions. On currency, sovereignty, jobs etc etc etc.
They still don't, but that now seems to matter less.
At one point it would have been easy-peasy-Japanesy to steer the UK into the softest of softsoap Brexits, the EEA or EFTA or both and a 20 year transition deal. blah blah
A combination of Remainer stupidity, Brexiteer silliness, and arrogant overconfidence in Brussels (and Paris) has brought us to this precipice
What has this got to do with (former) Remainers? We hung up our blue, with 28 gold stars Euro trousers at the end of last year.
Blame the EU, if you must, but Remainers? We weren't there squire.
It was the push for a 2nd referendum (or just Revoke!!!)) which totally poisoned the debate and polarised everyone. Brexiteers thought they might not get any Brexit at all, so began to accept No Deal as better than nowt
You're remembering uncharacteristically poorly here. The push for a second referendum began after May's infamous "red lines" began to raise the prospect of no deal, which she then sought to use, and not at all before.
Utter, provable bollocks. Here is a senior Labour figure calling for a 2nd referendum on.... Sunday June 26, 2016
That's, er, FOUR DAYS after the first referendum. And it already contained all the classic elements of the genre
"The referendum was advisory and non-binding, in contrast to the referendum on electoral reform in 2011 which imposed a legal obligation on the government to legislate. Almost 500 members of parliament declared themselves in favour of remain, and it is within their powers to stop this madness through a vote in parliament."
With their crass, self-regarding stupidity, Remainers like Lammy immediately made Leavers into hostile enemies, afraid of seeing their vote completely ignored. FOUR DAYS AFTER THE FIRST VOTE.
The petition for a 2nd referendum - signed by millions - was started about a week after the first referendum
My concern with the kneeling before every game is what is it to represent? Anti racism? Football already has the kick it out programme. It seems to specifically relate to police killings of black men in the United States. Is that such a major issue (particularly considering everything we're dealing with right now) that it should be THE cause that football attaches itself to? In my opinion no.
Of course racists are gonna boo because that's what racists do. Doesn't make it a good idea though.
Maybe some of the booers are racist . maybe some are just sick to death of virtue signalling when they are supposed to be at a sport event .Dion Dublin is wrong to say they people are racists if they don't support taking a knee and BLM. Keep politics out of sport used to be an accepted mantra (and a sensible one)
Actively booing taking a knee likely to be strongly correlated to racism. Difficult to think otherwise.
A lot more people are opposed to virtue signalling than are racist so maybe it is not that difficult to think
I can buy that. But few of those would start booing.
Would be fascinated to see the movement. Locally it feels like we're losing support on our right flank because of a)restrictions, lockdowns etc and b) this obsession with greenie stuff and bans...
Confirmation bias.
Losing support on your right flank to... er, Labour? Right.
Thats why I'd love to see the actual churn, not the headline figures.
Where do you think your lost support on the right flank might have gone to?
(Hint: UKIP has risen from 2.46% to 2.55% since the previous Opinium on 19/11; the Brexit Party is unchanged on 0%.)
Would be fascinated to see the movement. Locally it feels like we're losing support on our right flank because of a)restrictions, lockdowns etc and b) this obsession with greenie stuff and bans...
Confirmation bias.
Losing support on your right flank to... er, Labour? Right.
Thats why I'd love to see the actual churn, not the headline figures.
Where do you think your lost support on the right flank might have gone to?
(Hint: UKIP has risen from 2.46% to 2.55% since the previous Opinium on 19/11; the Brexit Party is unchanged on 0%.)
To none of the above? You can have parties up/down by the same amount without them transferring any voters between them.
At one point it would have been easy-peasy-Japanesy to steer the UK into the softest of softsoap Brexits, the EEA or EFTA or both and a 20 year transition deal. blah blah
A combination of Remainer stupidity, Brexiteer silliness, and arrogant overconfidence in Brussels (and Paris) has brought us to this precipice
What has this got to do with (former) Remainers? We hung up our blue, with 28 gold stars Euro trousers at the end of last year.
Blame the EU, if you must, but Remainers? We weren't there squire.
It was the push for a 2nd referendum (or just Revoke!!!)) which totally poisoned the debate and polarised everyone. Brexiteers thought they might not get any Brexit at all, so began to accept No Deal as better than nowt
You're remembering uncharacteristically poorly here. The push for a second referendum began after May's infamous "red lines" began to raise the prospect of no deal, which she then sought to use, and not at all before.
Utter, provable bollocks. Here is a senior Labour figure calling for a 2nd referendum on.... Sunday June 26, 2016
That's, er, FOUR DAYS after the first referendum. And it already contained all the classic elements of the genre
"The referendum was advisory and non-binding, in contrast to the referendum on electoral reform in 2011 which imposed a legal obligation on the government to legislate. Almost 500 members of parliament declared themselves in favour of remain, and it is within their powers to stop this madness through a vote in parliament."
With their crass, self-regarding stupidity, Remainers like Lammy immediately made Leavers into hostile enemies, afraid of seeing their vote completely ignored. FOUR DAYS AFTER THE FIRST VOTE.
The petition for a 2nd referendum - signed by millions - was started about a week after the first referendum
Exactly. The drive to annul the vote started almost immediately after the result was in....
Remember the Mortimer golden rule of Brexit: anything that cheers remainers ends up, eventually, undermining their cause:
'How about EEA/EFTA', 'Lets stay in the Single Market and Customs Union', 'OK, just the customs Union', Gina Miller lawsuit, everything Letwin and Grieve touched, Boris Johnson's resignation, 'We really ought to have a second referendum', changing HoC standing orders, overturning the prorogation, blocking the election, indicative votes, people's vote, revoke, Jo Swinson Next PM, Bercow....
Every single one forced the argument towards a harder Brexit.
At one point it would have been easy-peasy-Japanesy to steer the UK into the softest of softsoap Brexits, the EEA or EFTA or both and a 20 year transition deal. blah blah
A combination of Remainer stupidity, Brexiteer silliness, and arrogant overconfidence in Brussels (and Paris) has brought us to this precipice
What has this got to do with (former) Remainers? We hung up our blue, with 28 gold stars Euro trousers at the end of last year.
Blame the EU, if you must, but Remainers? We weren't there squire.
It was the push for a 2nd referendum (or just Revoke!!!)) which totally poisoned the debate and polarised everyone. Brexiteers thought they might not get any Brexit at all, so began to accept No Deal as better than nowt
You're remembering uncharacteristically poorly here. The push for a second referendum began after May's infamous "red lines" began to raise the prospect of no deal, which she then sought to use, and not at all before.
Yes, the first "Peoplesvote" March in London was June 2018 as I recall, 2 years after the Brexit vote when clearly Soft Brexit was ruled out.
IF Macron really is trying to collapse this into No Deal (I am not entirely convinced he has the gonads of De Gaulle) then he is making a serious mistake.
The idea, in his mind, will surely be to terrorise and pauperise the British people and government into a swift surrender, as the lorries are parked seven deep, all over Kent, and people in Croydon die for lack of Camembert.
This is not how it will happen, this is not human nature.
If Britain is pushed into No Deal we will, as a nation, hunker down and say Feck you, and snarl in anger across the Channel. We will not surrender. Johnson will get all Churchillian and sombre and blood sweat and tears-esque. "Very well, alone". And enough people will rally to the flag as Britain is apparently persecuted by the evil continentals.
No Deal could go on for a very long time, and eventually become permanent (with adjustments)
Those gullible enough are already spouting the propaganda line - IF there is a Deal, it will (irrespective and probably in spite of the detail) be hailed as a "triumph" for Boris and all the Union Jack flags will be out and somehow Britain will have "won" again (doesn't it always?).
Obviously, no one will look at the detail of the Deal and anyone who even suggests the UK might have given away quite a lot will be shouted down as not being appropriately patriotic and supportive.
IF there is No Deal, we can always blame the French and wheel out the ludicrous stereotypes and caricatures which get an airing every time we want to divert attention from our own failings and blame someone else. Perhaps a cheese-related comment will get an airing - it often does.
That's the thing with the loyalist - everything is a triumph and if it isn't there's always someone to blame, be it the French or dodgy software or voter fraud.
As things stand, it does look like the EU will be more to blame for No Deal (should that happen). Their demands are pretty outrageous. 10 years no change in fishing? - then payments to them if we want more share. The EU allowed to subsidise industries, yet we are not. And so on.
It is probably just theatre. Macron playing hard to please his voters, with an election not that far away. Merkel, by contrast, is retiring and would like a sensible Brexit to add to her achievements
But even if it is just theatre you can see how one unintended slip could lead to calamity
This is about the 4th time we have heard that Macron is about to kibosh a Brexit deal.
My concern with the kneeling before every game is what is it to represent? Anti racism? Football already has the kick it out programme. It seems to specifically relate to police killings of black men in the United States. Is that such a major issue (particularly considering everything we're dealing with right now) that it should be THE cause that football attaches itself to? In my opinion no.
Of course racists are gonna boo because that's what racists do. Doesn't make it a good idea though.
Maybe some of the booers are racist . maybe some are just sick to death of virtue signalling when they are supposed to be at a sport event .Dion Dublin is wrong to say they people are racists if they don't support taking a knee and BLM. Keep politics out of sport used to be an accepted mantra (and a sensible one)
Actively booing taking a knee likely to be strongly correlated to racism. Difficult to think otherwise.
A lot more people are opposed to virtue signalling than are racist so maybe it is not that difficult to think
I can buy that. But few of those would start booing.
I can only imagine that those who believe that virtue signalling is a greater problem that racism have had a very different experience of life in the UK than I've had. Frankly the mind boggles.
At one point it would have been easy-peasy-Japanesy to steer the UK into the softest of softsoap Brexits, the EEA or EFTA or both and a 20 year transition deal. blah blah
A combination of Remainer stupidity, Brexiteer silliness, and arrogant overconfidence in Brussels (and Paris) has brought us to this precipice
What has this got to do with (former) Remainers? We hung up our blue, with 28 gold stars Euro trousers at the end of last year.
Blame the EU, if you must, but Remainers? We weren't there squire.
It was the push for a 2nd referendum (or just Revoke!!!)) which totally poisoned the debate and polarised everyone. Brexiteers thought they might not get any Brexit at all, so began to accept No Deal as better than nowt
You're remembering uncharacteristically poorly here. The push for a second referendum began after May's infamous "red lines" began to raise the prospect of no deal, which she then sought to use, and not at all before.
Utter, provable bollocks. Here is a senior Labour figure calling for a 2nd referendum on.... Sunday June 26, 2016
That's, er, FOUR DAYS after the first referendum. And it already contained all the classic elements of the genre
"The referendum was advisory and non-binding, in contrast to the referendum on electoral reform in 2011 which imposed a legal obligation on the government to legislate. Almost 500 members of parliament declared themselves in favour of remain, and it is within their powers to stop this madness through a vote in parliament."
With their crass, self-regarding stupidity, Remainers like Lammy immediately made Leavers into hostile enemies, afraid of seeing their vote completely ignored. FOUR DAYS AFTER THE FIRST VOTE.
The petition for a 2nd referendum - signed by millions - was started about a week after the first referendum
I'd be very surprised if Johnson actively chooses no deal, although events can sometimes start to derail under their own steam, obviously. His whole life has been both about avoiding conflict, in the slightly more generous interpretation, and avoiding responsibility, in the more critical one. No deal means both immediately greater conflict and immediately greater responsibility.
His desire for power is greater than his desire to avoid conflict. He thinks No Deal will shore up his base. I'm not convinced he's thought the reprecussions through.
I think his lust for power, as a psychoanalyst would have it, is the most regressed and undifferentiated part of him - very unreflective and immediate. Whenever he ponders anything more properly for any length of time, he always seems to pick the more avoidant path. He would be breaking the habit of a lifetime here by going for the most divisive option of something he's had four years to think about, i think , but who knows.
At one point it would have been easy-peasy-Japanesy to steer the UK into the softest of softsoap Brexits, the EEA or EFTA or both and a 20 year transition deal. blah blah
A combination of Remainer stupidity, Brexiteer silliness, and arrogant overconfidence in Brussels (and Paris) has brought us to this precipice
What has this got to do with (former) Remainers? We hung up our blue, with 28 gold stars Euro trousers at the end of last year.
Blame the EU, if you must, but Remainers? We weren't there squire.
It was the push for a 2nd referendum (or just Revoke!!!)) which totally poisoned the debate and polarised everyone. Brexiteers thought they might not get any Brexit at all, so began to accept No Deal as better than nowt
Bollocks was it. It was May's failure to try and build a consensus that poisoned the debate, well before any talk of a 2nd referendum and "revoke". Brexit means Brexit.
It was both. TMay was a catastrophe with her red lines, but so was the clamour for a "2nd referendum" which came soon after the result.
I have just read Sasha Swire's diverting Diary of a Tory MP's Wife
She reveals that at one point David Cameron was supporting a 2nd referendum. He wanted to annul the result of his own referendum, before it had even be enacted, and have a new one, hoping to overturn democracy.
I find that extraordinary. The prime minister who called the referendum wanted to ignore the same vote he called, and run it again, because he didn't like the result. How does that make him any different from Trump wanting to upend the US Election?
Cameron will not come out well in the history books.
Cameron did not come out well in his own history book. A terribly dull read.
It must hurt to sit in that shepherd's hut, mulling over that he could have told the EU to "give me a meaningful deal I can sell, or fuck off and have me campaign to Leave". OK, he was surrounded by a coterie of EU-flunkies in our civil service and diplomatic service telling him nothing was achievable. But that doesn't excuse the fact that he could have stood back, grown a spine and fought - hard.
If he had campaigned to Leave, he would have won by at least 60-40. The EU would have seen that we were going, there was no possibility of us sliding into a second referendum - and overturning our decision. And then we might have got a decent and rapid divorce settlement.
He would have lost Osborne in the process of going for Leave, but he would probably still be PM if he had wanted, implementing his own distinct brand of socially liberal Conservatism. More importantly, he could probably have overseen a transition to a decent working relationship between the UK and the EU.
Instead, he will be remembered as the guy who is ultimately responsible for poisoned UK-EU relations - and has probably hastened the end of the UK by decades. That is one shit legacy.
That overlooks the rather significant point that he thought leaving the EU would be a very bad thing indeed.
Quite why he wanted to lead a party, which contained a not insignificant number of members who wanted to leave the EU, is beyond me.
For 5 out of 6 years Cameron was PM he led a coalition government with the LDs, it was only after the Tories won a majority in 2015 it went wrong for him and he was out of No 10 a year later, in retrospect for Cameron at least another hung parliament in 2015 with the Tories largest party and the LDs holding more of their South West seats so Clegg remained Deputy PM and without requiring an EU referendum as the Tory manifesto promised if they had won a majority would have been better for him.
Indeed Cameron might only have stepped down as PM and then handed over to Osborne or May this year after 10 years as PM and in the Thatcher and Blair league rather than the second rank down he ended up with
Heck, he might have handed over to Johnson in a "Leave lost, Johnson had a good war, but the UK's "just inside" status is settled and Dominic... Oh, I used to know him, is he writing blogs now? How interesting." way.
Would be fascinated to see the movement. Locally it feels like we're losing support on our right flank because of a)restrictions, lockdowns etc and b) this obsession with greenie stuff and bans...
Confirmation bias.
Losing support on your right flank to... er, Labour? Right.
Thats why I'd love to see the actual churn, not the headline figures.
Where do you think your lost support on the right flank might have gone to?
(Hint: UKIP has risen from 2.46% to 2.55% since the previous Opinium on 19/11; the Brexit Party is unchanged on 0%.)
None of the above.
When there is a vaguely competent opposition, Tories tend to lose when we needlessly tack for the centre, because we lose our right flank to the 'sitting at home not voting till we have proper Tory policy' party.
At one point it would have been easy-peasy-Japanesy to steer the UK into the softest of softsoap Brexits, the EEA or EFTA or both and a 20 year transition deal. blah blah
A combination of Remainer stupidity, Brexiteer silliness, and arrogant overconfidence in Brussels (and Paris) has brought us to this precipice
What has this got to do with (former) Remainers? We hung up our blue, with 28 gold stars Euro trousers at the end of last year.
Blame the EU, if you must, but Remainers? We weren't there squire.
It was the push for a 2nd referendum (or just Revoke!!!)) which totally poisoned the debate and polarised everyone. Brexiteers thought they might not get any Brexit at all, so began to accept No Deal as better than nowt
You're remembering uncharacteristically poorly here. The push for a second referendum began after May's infamous "red lines" began to raise the prospect of no deal, which she then sought to use, and not at all before.
Utter, provable bollocks. Here is a senior Labour figure calling for a 2nd referendum on.... Sunday June 26, 2016
That's, er, FOUR DAYS after the first referendum. And it already contained all the classic elements of the genre
"The referendum was advisory and non-binding, in contrast to the referendum on electoral reform in 2011 which imposed a legal obligation on the government to legislate. Almost 500 members of parliament declared themselves in favour of remain, and it is within their powers to stop this madness through a vote in parliament."
With their crass, self-regarding stupidity, Remainers like Lammy immediately made Leavers into hostile enemies, afraid of seeing their vote completely ignored. FOUR DAYS AFTER THE FIRST VOTE.
The petition for a 2nd referendum - signed by millions - was started about a week after the first referendum
At one point it would have been easy-peasy-Japanesy to steer the UK into the softest of softsoap Brexits, the EEA or EFTA or both and a 20 year transition deal. blah blah
A combination of Remainer stupidity, Brexiteer silliness, and arrogant overconfidence in Brussels (and Paris) has brought us to this precipice
What has this got to do with (former) Remainers? We hung up our blue, with 28 gold stars Euro trousers at the end of last year.
Blame the EU, if you must, but Remainers? We weren't there squire.
It was the push for a 2nd referendum (or just Revoke!!!)) which totally poisoned the debate and polarised everyone. Brexiteers thought they might not get any Brexit at all, so began to accept No Deal as better than nowt
You're remembering uncharacteristically poorly here. The push for a second referendum began after May's infamous "red lines" began to raise the prospect of no deal, which she then sought to use, and not at all before.
Utter, provable bollocks. Here is a senior Labour figure calling for a 2nd referendum on.... Sunday June 26, 2016
That's, er, FOUR DAYS after the first referendum. And it already contained all the classic elements of the genre
"The referendum was advisory and non-binding, in contrast to the referendum on electoral reform in 2011 which imposed a legal obligation on the government to legislate. Almost 500 members of parliament declared themselves in favour of remain, and it is within their powers to stop this madness through a vote in parliament."
With their crass, self-regarding stupidity, Remainers like Lammy immediately made Leavers into hostile enemies, afraid of seeing their vote completely ignored. FOUR DAYS AFTER THE FIRST VOTE.
The petition for a 2nd referendum - signed by millions - was started about a week after the first referendum
It was started, but it had zero momentum or coverage ; just check back through the coverage. That all began in late 2017, as I said.
It only really took off after the first #Peoplesvote march in June 2018 got a surprisingly high turnout, which then set up the massive one in October 2018.
I really enjoyed the marches. It was great to be amongst so many people enthusiastic for Europe. It all was more than a couple of years too late. A more positive campaign could have won in 2016.
"The EU is crap, but still better than the alternative" was the subtext of Cameron's campaign, and Corbyn was even less keen.
At one point it would have been easy-peasy-Japanesy to steer the UK into the softest of softsoap Brexits, the EEA or EFTA or both and a 20 year transition deal. blah blah
A combination of Remainer stupidity, Brexiteer silliness, and arrogant overconfidence in Brussels (and Paris) has brought us to this precipice
What has this got to do with (former) Remainers? We hung up our blue, with 28 gold stars Euro trousers at the end of last year.
Blame the EU, if you must, but Remainers? We weren't there squire.
It was the push for a 2nd referendum (or just Revoke!!!)) which totally poisoned the debate and polarised everyone. Brexiteers thought they might not get any Brexit at all, so began to accept No Deal as better than nowt
You're remembering uncharacteristically poorly here. The push for a second referendum began after May's infamous "red lines" began to raise the prospect of no deal, which she then sought to use, and not at all before.
Yes, the first "Peoplesvote" March in London was June 2018 as I recall, 2 years after the Brexit vote when clearly Soft Brexit was ruled out.
The Remainers began agitating for a new vote within DAYS of the first
You're wrong. That petition was set up ahead of the EU referendum and specifically called for a 2nd referendum whether Leave or Remain won, if the result was by a narrow majority or on a low turnout:
"We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the remain or leave vote is less than 60%, based on a turnout of less than 75%, there should be another referendum."
It was really about the stupidity of making major constitutional change via referendums, without a significant threshhold.
At one point it would have been easy-peasy-Japanesy to steer the UK into the softest of softsoap Brexits, the EEA or EFTA or both and a 20 year transition deal. blah blah
A combination of Remainer stupidity, Brexiteer silliness, and arrogant overconfidence in Brussels (and Paris) has brought us to this precipice
What has this got to do with (former) Remainers? We hung up our blue, with 28 gold stars Euro trousers at the end of last year.
Blame the EU, if you must, but Remainers? We weren't there squire.
It was the push for a 2nd referendum (or just Revoke!!!)) which totally poisoned the debate and polarised everyone. Brexiteers thought they might not get any Brexit at all, so began to accept No Deal as better than nowt
Bollocks was it. It was May's failure to try and build a consensus that poisoned the debate, well before any talk of a 2nd referendum and "revoke". Brexit means Brexit.
It was both. TMay was a catastrophe with her red lines, but so was the clamour for a "2nd referendum" which came soon after the result.
I have just read Sasha Swire's diverting Diary of a Tory MP's Wife
She reveals that at one point David Cameron was supporting a 2nd referendum. He wanted to annul the result of his own referendum, before it had even be enacted, and have a new one, hoping to overturn democracy.
I find that extraordinary. The prime minister who called the referendum wanted to ignore the same vote he called, and run it again, because he didn't like the result. How does that make him any different from Trump wanting to upend the US Election?
Cameron will not come out well in the history books.
Cameron did not come out well in his own history book. A terribly dull read.
It must hurt to sit in that shepherd's hut, mulling over that he could have told the EU to "give me a meaningful deal I can sell, or fuck off and have me campaign to Leave". OK, he was surrounded by a coterie of EU-flunkies in our civil service and diplomatic service telling him nothing was achievable. But that doesn't excuse the fact that he could have stood back, grown a spine and fought - hard.
If he had campaigned to Leave, he would have won by at least 60-40. The EU would have seen that we were going, there was no possibility of us sliding into a second referendum - and overturning our decision. And then we might have got a decent and rapid divorce settlement.
He would have lost Osborne in the process of going for Leave, but he would probably still be PM if he had wanted, implementing his own distinct brand of socially liberal Conservatism. More importantly, he could probably have overseen a transition to a decent working relationship between the UK and the EU.
Instead, he will be remembered as the guy who is ultimately responsible for poisoned UK-EU relations - and has probably hastened the end of the UK by decades. That is one shit legacy.
To be fair to Cameron he won the 2014 Scottish independence referendum with 55% of the vote
To be fair in 2014 the SNP had no answers to a raft of basic questions. On currency, sovereignty, jobs etc etc etc.
They still don't, but that now seems to matter less.
Cameron was on course to lose Scotland with his trademark negative campaigning (too wee, too poor, too stupid) until Ruth Davidson and Gordon Brown intervened to put the positive case. He saved the pound, he saved the world, he saved the union. But Cameron learned nothing from almost casting Scotland adrift and embarked on Project Fear. It failed.
At one point it would have been easy-peasy-Japanesy to steer the UK into the softest of softsoap Brexits, the EEA or EFTA or both and a 20 year transition deal. blah blah
A combination of Remainer stupidity, Brexiteer silliness, and arrogant overconfidence in Brussels (and Paris) has brought us to this precipice
What has this got to do with (former) Remainers? We hung up our blue, with 28 gold stars Euro trousers at the end of last year.
Blame the EU, if you must, but Remainers? We weren't there squire.
It was the push for a 2nd referendum (or just Revoke!!!)) which totally poisoned the debate and polarised everyone. Brexiteers thought they might not get any Brexit at all, so began to accept No Deal as better than nowt
You're remembering uncharacteristically poorly here. The push for a second referendum began after May's infamous "red lines" began to raise the prospect of no deal, which she then sought to use, and not at all before.
Yes, the first "Peoplesvote" March in London was June 2018 as I recall, 2 years after the Brexit vote when clearly Soft Brexit was ruled out.
At one point it would have been easy-peasy-Japanesy to steer the UK into the softest of softsoap Brexits, the EEA or EFTA or both and a 20 year transition deal. blah blah
A combination of Remainer stupidity, Brexiteer silliness, and arrogant overconfidence in Brussels (and Paris) has brought us to this precipice
What has this got to do with (former) Remainers? We hung up our blue, with 28 gold stars Euro trousers at the end of last year.
Blame the EU, if you must, but Remainers? We weren't there squire.
It was the push for a 2nd referendum (or just Revoke!!!)) which totally poisoned the debate and polarised everyone. Brexiteers thought they might not get any Brexit at all, so began to accept No Deal as better than nowt
You're remembering uncharacteristically poorly here. The push for a second referendum began after May's infamous "red lines" began to raise the prospect of no deal, which she then sought to use, and not at all before.
Utter, provable bollocks. Here is a senior Labour figure calling for a 2nd referendum on.... Sunday June 26, 2016
That's, er, FOUR DAYS after the first referendum. And it already contained all the classic elements of the genre
"The referendum was advisory and non-binding, in contrast to the referendum on electoral reform in 2011 which imposed a legal obligation on the government to legislate. Almost 500 members of parliament declared themselves in favour of remain, and it is within their powers to stop this madness through a vote in parliament."
With their crass, self-regarding stupidity, Remainers like Lammy immediately made Leavers into hostile enemies, afraid of seeing their vote completely ignored. FOUR DAYS AFTER THE FIRST VOTE.
The petition for a 2nd referendum - signed by millions - was started about a week after the first referendum
It was started, but it had zero momentum or coverage ; just check back through the coverage. That all began in late 2017, as I said.
Four million people signed the 2nd referendum petition, in the first three weeks after the vote, you ludicrous moron
Rubbish, and that kind of abusiveness should get you banned.
You made a ludicrous and clearly moronic statement. You claimed that the movement towards a 2nd vote had zero coverage and momentum until about late 2017
I have just shown you a petition signed by FOUR MILLION people demanding a 2nd vote, in the immediate weeks after the vote in July 2016. It's quite an achievement to get FOUR MILLION signatories on a petition, in about a month, with "zero coverage" and "no momentum"
You're just wrong. You are, also, embarrassingly wrong. And now you are embarrassed. My advice is to choose another topic to debate.
At one point it would have been easy-peasy-Japanesy to steer the UK into the softest of softsoap Brexits, the EEA or EFTA or both and a 20 year transition deal. blah blah
A combination of Remainer stupidity, Brexiteer silliness, and arrogant overconfidence in Brussels (and Paris) has brought us to this precipice
What has this got to do with (former) Remainers? We hung up our blue, with 28 gold stars Euro trousers at the end of last year.
Blame the EU, if you must, but Remainers? We weren't there squire.
It was the push for a 2nd referendum (or just Revoke!!!)) which totally poisoned the debate and polarised everyone. Brexiteers thought they might not get any Brexit at all, so began to accept No Deal as better than nowt
You're remembering uncharacteristically poorly here. The push for a second referendum began after May's infamous "red lines" began to raise the prospect of no deal, which she then sought to use, and not at all before.
Utter, provable bollocks. Here is a senior Labour figure calling for a 2nd referendum on.... Sunday June 26, 2016
That's, er, FOUR DAYS after the first referendum. And it already contained all the classic elements of the genre
"The referendum was advisory and non-binding, in contrast to the referendum on electoral reform in 2011 which imposed a legal obligation on the government to legislate. Almost 500 members of parliament declared themselves in favour of remain, and it is within their powers to stop this madness through a vote in parliament."
With their crass, self-regarding stupidity, Remainers like Lammy immediately made Leavers into hostile enemies, afraid of seeing their vote completely ignored. FOUR DAYS AFTER THE FIRST VOTE.
The petition for a 2nd referendum - signed by millions - was started about a week after the first referendum
It was started, but it had zero momentum or coverage ; just check back through the coverage. That all began in late 2017, as I said.
This is all noise. The internal logic of both camps before and during the referendum began the polarisation which only continued thereafter, until we now reach the moment of truth. It would have happened whoever won. Farage said that if Remain won he would keep pushing for another vote - and I'm convinced a Remain victory may well have led to an bounce for UKIP (or whatever vanity project he was in at the time) in reaction to their loss in the same vein as the SNP got a bounce after the No win in 2014.
By February 1st one side or the other will be discredited - either we get massive disruption or the armageddon predicted by Remain won't have happened. This is the only way it could. or should, have played out. We are finally seeing a release of the pressure that has been building since at least 1992. Leavers wanted this and their poster boy, Johnson, is finally delivering it.
At one point it would have been easy-peasy-Japanesy to steer the UK into the softest of softsoap Brexits, the EEA or EFTA or both and a 20 year transition deal. blah blah
A combination of Remainer stupidity, Brexiteer silliness, and arrogant overconfidence in Brussels (and Paris) has brought us to this precipice
What has this got to do with (former) Remainers? We hung up our blue, with 28 gold stars Euro trousers at the end of last year.
Blame the EU, if you must, but Remainers? We weren't there squire.
It was the push for a 2nd referendum (or just Revoke!!!)) which totally poisoned the debate and polarised everyone. Brexiteers thought they might not get any Brexit at all, so began to accept No Deal as better than nowt
You're remembering uncharacteristically poorly here. The push for a second referendum began after May's infamous "red lines" began to raise the prospect of no deal, which she then sought to use, and not at all before.
Yes, the first "Peoplesvote" March in London was June 2018 as I recall, 2 years after the Brexit vote when clearly Soft Brexit was ruled out.
The Remainers began agitating for a new vote within DAYS of the first
You're wrong. That petition was set up ahead of the EU referendum and specifically called for a 2nd referendum whether Leave or Remain won, if the result was by a narrow majority or on a low turnout:
"We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the remain or leave vote is less than 60%, based on a turnout of less than 75%, there should be another referendum."
It was really about the stupidity of making major constitutional change via referendums, without a significant threshhold.
lol. You honestly think those 4m voters were high minded Leavers? Oh FFS
At one point it would have been easy-peasy-Japanesy to steer the UK into the softest of softsoap Brexits, the EEA or EFTA or both and a 20 year transition deal. blah blah
A combination of Remainer stupidity, Brexiteer silliness, and arrogant overconfidence in Brussels (and Paris) has brought us to this precipice
What has this got to do with (former) Remainers? We hung up our blue, with 28 gold stars Euro trousers at the end of last year.
Blame the EU, if you must, but Remainers? We weren't there squire.
It was the push for a 2nd referendum (or just Revoke!!!)) which totally poisoned the debate and polarised everyone. Brexiteers thought they might not get any Brexit at all, so began to accept No Deal as better than nowt
You're remembering uncharacteristically poorly here. The push for a second referendum began after May's infamous "red lines" began to raise the prospect of no deal, which she then sought to use, and not at all before.
Utter, provable bollocks. Here is a senior Labour figure calling for a 2nd referendum on.... Sunday June 26, 2016
That's, er, FOUR DAYS after the first referendum. And it already contained all the classic elements of the genre
"The referendum was advisory and non-binding, in contrast to the referendum on electoral reform in 2011 which imposed a legal obligation on the government to legislate. Almost 500 members of parliament declared themselves in favour of remain, and it is within their powers to stop this madness through a vote in parliament."
With their crass, self-regarding stupidity, Remainers like Lammy immediately made Leavers into hostile enemies, afraid of seeing their vote completely ignored. FOUR DAYS AFTER THE FIRST VOTE.
The petition for a 2nd referendum - signed by millions - was started about a week after the first referendum
It was started, but it had zero momentum or coverage ; just check back through the coverage. That all began in late 2017, as I said.
Four million people signed the 2nd referendum petition, in the first three weeks after the vote, you ludicrous moron
Rubbish, and that kind of abusiveness should get you banned.
You made a ludicrous and clearly moronic statement. You claimed that the movement towards a 2nd vote had zero coverage and momentum until about late 2017
I have just shown you a petition signed by FOUR MILLION people demanding a 2nd vote, in the immediate weeks after the vote in July 2016. It's quite an achievement to get FOUR MILLION signatories on a petition, in about a month, with "zero coverage" and "no momentum"
You're just wrong. You are, also, embarrassingly wrong. And now you are embarrassed. My advice is to choose another topic to debate.
The petition dates from BEFORE the referendum you idiot.
Lockdownsceptics has a letter from a GP who says, of the vaccine:
"Is it also worth noting that it is only temporary authorisation that has been granted – the vaccine does not yet have marketing authorisation in the UK. This effectively means it is “unlicensed” and as such the prescriber has a duty to explain this to the patient. In usual practice this means that the liability in case of adverse effects lies with the prescriber, not with the pharmaceutical company."
At one point it would have been easy-peasy-Japanesy to steer the UK into the softest of softsoap Brexits, the EEA or EFTA or both and a 20 year transition deal. blah blah
A combination of Remainer stupidity, Brexiteer silliness, and arrogant overconfidence in Brussels (and Paris) has brought us to this precipice
What has this got to do with (former) Remainers? We hung up our blue, with 28 gold stars Euro trousers at the end of last year.
Blame the EU, if you must, but Remainers? We weren't there squire.
It was the push for a 2nd referendum (or just Revoke!!!)) which totally poisoned the debate and polarised everyone. Brexiteers thought they might not get any Brexit at all, so began to accept No Deal as better than nowt
You're remembering uncharacteristically poorly here. The push for a second referendum began after May's infamous "red lines" began to raise the prospect of no deal, which she then sought to use, and not at all before.
Utter, provable bollocks. Here is a senior Labour figure calling for a 2nd referendum on.... Sunday June 26, 2016
That's, er, FOUR DAYS after the first referendum. And it already contained all the classic elements of the genre
"The referendum was advisory and non-binding, in contrast to the referendum on electoral reform in 2011 which imposed a legal obligation on the government to legislate. Almost 500 members of parliament declared themselves in favour of remain, and it is within their powers to stop this madness through a vote in parliament."
With their crass, self-regarding stupidity, Remainers like Lammy immediately made Leavers into hostile enemies, afraid of seeing their vote completely ignored. FOUR DAYS AFTER THE FIRST VOTE.
The petition for a 2nd referendum - signed by millions - was started about a week after the first referendum
It was started, but it had zero momentum or coverage ; just check back through the coverage. That all began in late 2017, as I said.
Four million people signed the 2nd referendum petition, in the first three weeks after the vote, you ludicrous moron
Rubbish, and that kind of abusiveness should get you banned.
You made a ludicrous and clearly moronic statement. You claimed that the movement towards a 2nd vote had zero coverage and momentum until about late 2017
I have just shown you a petition signed by FOUR MILLION people demanding a 2nd vote, in the immediate weeks after the vote in July 2016. It's quite an achievement to get FOUR MILLION signatories on a petition, in about a month, with "zero coverage" and "no momentum"
You're just wrong. You are, also, embarrassingly wrong. And now you are embarrassed. My advice is to choose another topic to debate.
The petition dates from BEFORE the referendum you idiot.
Are you really trying to claim that the petition went ballistic, right after the result, because Leavers were outraged a 60% threshold was not crossed, and their victory should be ignored?
At one point it would have been easy-peasy-Japanesy to steer the UK into the softest of softsoap Brexits, the EEA or EFTA or both and a 20 year transition deal. blah blah
A combination of Remainer stupidity, Brexiteer silliness, and arrogant overconfidence in Brussels (and Paris) has brought us to this precipice
What has this got to do with (former) Remainers? We hung up our blue, with 28 gold stars Euro trousers at the end of last year.
Blame the EU, if you must, but Remainers? We weren't there squire.
It was the push for a 2nd referendum (or just Revoke!!!)) which totally poisoned the debate and polarised everyone. Brexiteers thought they might not get any Brexit at all, so began to accept No Deal as better than nowt
You're remembering uncharacteristically poorly here. The push for a second referendum began after May's infamous "red lines" began to raise the prospect of no deal, which she then sought to use, and not at all before.
Utter, provable bollocks. Here is a senior Labour figure calling for a 2nd referendum on.... Sunday June 26, 2016
That's, er, FOUR DAYS after the first referendum. And it already contained all the classic elements of the genre
"The referendum was advisory and non-binding, in contrast to the referendum on electoral reform in 2011 which imposed a legal obligation on the government to legislate. Almost 500 members of parliament declared themselves in favour of remain, and it is within their powers to stop this madness through a vote in parliament."
With their crass, self-regarding stupidity, Remainers like Lammy immediately made Leavers into hostile enemies, afraid of seeing their vote completely ignored. FOUR DAYS AFTER THE FIRST VOTE.
The petition for a 2nd referendum - signed by millions - was started about a week after the first referendum
It was started, but it had zero momentum or coverage ; just check back through the coverage. That all began in late 2017, as I said.
Four million people signed the 2nd referendum petition, in the first three weeks after the vote, you ludicrous moron
Rubbish, and that kind of abusiveness should get you banned.
You made a ludicrous and clearly moronic statement. You claimed that the movement towards a 2nd vote had zero coverage and momentum until about late 2017
I have just shown you a petition signed by FOUR MILLION people demanding a 2nd vote, in the immediate weeks after the vote in July 2016. It's quite an achievement to get FOUR MILLION signatories on a petition, in about a month, with "zero coverage" and "no momentum"
You're just wrong. You are, also, embarrassingly wrong. And now you are embarrassed. My advice is to choose another topic to debate.
There's nothing to be embarassed about, because you're wrong ; you should be embarassed about your moments of rudeness, though.
2.5 million people, not four, signed a pre-set up running and already petition in the first four weeks, and unlike in the period from late 2017-18 onwards, this was considered important by virtually no one in the political or media class of the time. All the momentum picked up after the conservative party and government botched any prospect of a soft Brexit and put patching up internal divisions ahead of bringing the country along in any moderate consensus, as in some of your more honest moments you've admitted yourself.
Lockdownsceptics has a letter from a GP who says, of the vaccine:
"Is it also worth noting that it is only temporary authorisation that has been granted – the vaccine does not yet have marketing authorisation in the UK. This effectively means it is “unlicensed” and as such the prescriber has a duty to explain this to the patient. In usual practice this means that the liability in case of adverse effects lies with the prescriber, not with the pharmaceutical company."
Yes, that is correct. Emergency authorisation is not a product licence. Until the EMA licences it, or we Brexit, that is the legal position.
Prescribing unlicensed drugs is quite common though.
At one point it would have been easy-peasy-Japanesy to steer the UK into the softest of softsoap Brexits, the EEA or EFTA or both and a 20 year transition deal. blah blah
A combination of Remainer stupidity, Brexiteer silliness, and arrogant overconfidence in Brussels (and Paris) has brought us to this precipice
What has this got to do with (former) Remainers? We hung up our blue, with 28 gold stars Euro trousers at the end of last year.
Blame the EU, if you must, but Remainers? We weren't there squire.
It was the push for a 2nd referendum (or just Revoke!!!)) which totally poisoned the debate and polarised everyone. Brexiteers thought they might not get any Brexit at all, so began to accept No Deal as better than nowt
You're remembering uncharacteristically poorly here. The push for a second referendum began after May's infamous "red lines" began to raise the prospect of no deal, which she then sought to use, and not at all before.
Utter, provable bollocks. Here is a senior Labour figure calling for a 2nd referendum on.... Sunday June 26, 2016
That's, er, FOUR DAYS after the first referendum. And it already contained all the classic elements of the genre
"The referendum was advisory and non-binding, in contrast to the referendum on electoral reform in 2011 which imposed a legal obligation on the government to legislate. Almost 500 members of parliament declared themselves in favour of remain, and it is within their powers to stop this madness through a vote in parliament."
With their crass, self-regarding stupidity, Remainers like Lammy immediately made Leavers into hostile enemies, afraid of seeing their vote completely ignored. FOUR DAYS AFTER THE FIRST VOTE.
The petition for a 2nd referendum - signed by millions - was started about a week after the first referendum
Exactly. The drive to annul the vote started almost immediately after the result was in....
Remember the Mortimer golden rule of Brexit: anything that cheers remainers ends up, eventually, undermining their cause:
'How about EEA/EFTA', 'Lets stay in the Single Market and Customs Union', 'OK, just the customs Union', Gina Miller lawsuit, everything Letwin and Grieve touched, Boris Johnson's resignation, 'We really ought to have a second referendum', changing HoC standing orders, overturning the prorogation, blocking the election, indicative votes, people's vote, revoke, Jo Swinson Next PM, Bercow....
Every single one forced the argument towards a harder Brexit.
Rubbish. Johnson has had an 80 seat majority for a year now to achieve a deal. He has failed to do so. He is the face of Brexit, always has been, and with the majority to achieve whatever he wanted he has still failed to reach a deal. Remainers lost, finally, in 2019. We got beat. The ball has been in your court ever since. You have failed to play it. You can't blame us for a fiasco that is taking place on your watch. This is yours, and yours alone.
At one point it would have been easy-peasy-Japanesy to steer the UK into the softest of softsoap Brexits, the EEA or EFTA or both and a 20 year transition deal. blah blah
A combination of Remainer stupidity, Brexiteer silliness, and arrogant overconfidence in Brussels (and Paris) has brought us to this precipice
What has this got to do with (former) Remainers? We hung up our blue, with 28 gold stars Euro trousers at the end of last year.
Blame the EU, if you must, but Remainers? We weren't there squire.
It was the push for a 2nd referendum (or just Revoke!!!)) which totally poisoned the debate and polarised everyone. Brexiteers thought they might not get any Brexit at all, so began to accept No Deal as better than nowt
Bollocks was it. It was May's failure to try and build a consensus that poisoned the debate, well before any talk of a 2nd referendum and "revoke". Brexit means Brexit.
It was both. TMay was a catastrophe with her red lines, but so was the clamour for a "2nd referendum" which came soon after the result.
I have just read Sasha Swire's diverting Diary of a Tory MP's Wife
She reveals that at one point David Cameron was supporting a 2nd referendum. He wanted to annul the result of his own referendum, before it had even be enacted, and have a new one, hoping to overturn democracy.
I find that extraordinary. The prime minister who called the referendum wanted to ignore the same vote he called, and run it again, because he didn't like the result. How does that make him any different from Trump wanting to upend the US Election?
Cameron will not come out well in the history books.
Cameron did not come out well in his own history book. A terribly dull read.
It must hurt to sit in that shepherd's hut, mulling over that he could have told the EU to "give me a meaningful deal I can sell, or fuck off and have me campaign to Leave". OK, he was surrounded by a coterie of EU-flunkies in our civil service and diplomatic service telling him nothing was achievable. But that doesn't excuse the fact that he could have stood back, grown a spine and fought - hard.
If he had campaigned to Leave, he would have won by at least 60-40. The EU would have seen that we were going, there was no possibility of us sliding into a second referendum - and overturning our decision. And then we might have got a decent and rapid divorce settlement.
He would have lost Osborne in the process of going for Leave, but he would probably still be PM if he had wanted, implementing his own distinct brand of socially liberal Conservatism. More importantly, he could probably have overseen a transition to a decent working relationship between the UK and the EU.
Instead, he will be remembered as the guy who is ultimately responsible for poisoned UK-EU relations - and has probably hastened the end of the UK by decades. That is one shit legacy.
That overlooks the rather significant point that he thought leaving the EU would be a very bad thing indeed.
Cameron's three options were:
1. Have no Referendum, despite his Manifesto pledge. The resulting rise of UKIP would have been spectacular - and end up spiting his every political sensibility. It could also quite possibly have destroyed the Conservative Party. Not really an option.
2. Get a meaningful renegotiation of the UK's relationship with Brussels. That required them to believe he would walk - and support Leave.
3. Get a meaningless renegotiation of the UK's relationship with Brussels. That risked pissing off enough people to lose the referendum - and his own political demise.
He chose 3. Or rather, it was the inevitable outcome of the EU knowing he thought leaving the EU would be a very bad thing indeed. Which he did little or nothing to counter.
People are always happy to claim Boris is lazy. But at least his strategic thinking got him into Number 10. Cameron's lack of it got him out of Number 10.
I like your options, but not convinced by your analysis of (1). Modern politics has shown that if you’re brave you can survive almost anything. If Cameron had adopted Boris’s approach of you’re either with me or you lose the whip, I wonder what the result would have been?
Sir Keir Starmer is competent at being Leader of the Opposition. That is a move onwards from Corbyn, who wasn't even that.
It doesn't make him competent as a Prime Minister.
Well no one will know that until he is in Downing Street.
We now know that Johnson is utterly unsuited to the top job, although many of us already suspected this some time ago. He's the worst PM of my lifetime by a country mile.
At one point it would have been easy-peasy-Japanesy to steer the UK into the softest of softsoap Brexits, the EEA or EFTA or both and a 20 year transition deal. blah blah
A combination of Remainer stupidity, Brexiteer silliness, and arrogant overconfidence in Brussels (and Paris) has brought us to this precipice
What has this got to do with (former) Remainers? We hung up our blue, with 28 gold stars Euro trousers at the end of last year.
Blame the EU, if you must, but Remainers? We weren't there squire.
It was the push for a 2nd referendum (or just Revoke!!!)) which totally poisoned the debate and polarised everyone. Brexiteers thought they might not get any Brexit at all, so began to accept No Deal as better than nowt
You're remembering uncharacteristically poorly here. The push for a second referendum began after May's infamous "red lines" began to raise the prospect of no deal, which she then sought to use, and not at all before.
Utter, provable bollocks. Here is a senior Labour figure calling for a 2nd referendum on.... Sunday June 26, 2016
That's, er, FOUR DAYS after the first referendum. And it already contained all the classic elements of the genre
"The referendum was advisory and non-binding, in contrast to the referendum on electoral reform in 2011 which imposed a legal obligation on the government to legislate. Almost 500 members of parliament declared themselves in favour of remain, and it is within their powers to stop this madness through a vote in parliament."
With their crass, self-regarding stupidity, Remainers like Lammy immediately made Leavers into hostile enemies, afraid of seeing their vote completely ignored. FOUR DAYS AFTER THE FIRST VOTE.
The petition for a 2nd referendum - signed by millions - was started about a week after the first referendum
It was started, but it had zero momentum or coverage ; just check back through the coverage. That all began in late 2017, as I said.
Four million people signed the 2nd referendum petition, in the first three weeks after the vote, you ludicrous moron
Rubbish, and that kind of abusiveness should get you banned.
You made a ludicrous and clearly moronic statement. You claimed that the movement towards a 2nd vote had zero coverage and momentum until about late 2017
I have just shown you a petition signed by FOUR MILLION people demanding a 2nd vote, in the immediate weeks after the vote in July 2016. It's quite an achievement to get FOUR MILLION signatories on a petition, in about a month, with "zero coverage" and "no momentum"
You're just wrong. You are, also, embarrassingly wrong. And now you are embarrassed. My advice is to choose another topic to debate.
There's nothing to be embarassed about, because you're wrong ; you should be embarassed about your moments of rudeness, though.
2.5 million people, not four, signed a pre-set up running and already petition in the first four weeks, and unlike in the period from late 2017-18 onwards, this was considered important by virtually no one in the political class or media of the time. All the momentum picked up after the conservative party and government botched any prospect of a soft Brexit and put patching up its own internal divisions ahead of bringing the country along in a moderate consensus, as in some of your more honest moments you've admitted yourself.
Here's the history of that petition
"A House of Commons spokeswoman said the petition was created on 24 May. There were 22 signatures on it at the time the referendum result was announced."
22 people signed it
Within a fortnight of the result?
"More than 2.5 million people have signed a petition calling for a second EU referendum, after the vote to leave.
It has more signatures than any other on the parliamentary website and as it has passed 100,000, Parliament will consider it for a debate."
Comments
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1335313815144189953?s=20
It is strongly opposed to Norway joining the EU and is protectionist and nationalist. It has in recent times supported Labour as a "Red-Green Coalition" (Centre's colour, confusingly, is green). Before that, it never supported Labour and always supported centre-right Government.
The current Centre leader is playing the populist card and the party's slogan is "Naer til folk" (close to people). The next election to the Storting is September next year.
But... Once Leave won on a "no downsides, considerable upsides" prospectus, there was no good way out.
The May deal was a reasonable stab at "minimal harm while controlling immigrants". But hard enough to be worth arguing against.
But the only way to get all the freedoms Brexit promised was to give up all the access Brembership gave, which is roughly where we've ended up.
And then the temptation to be the "just a bit harder" siren voice was impossible for BoJo to resist, because he's a terrible person. And what conmen do is promise their victims something for nothing...
Also the anti lockdown demo did not actually help themselves by calling the passer bys sheep (for generally going along with lockdown) etc when the passer by people were actually getting out there and supporting the important fair to both the economy and for mental health of people and could have been a sympathetic audience given where they were
It wasn't necessary, and certainly not desireable, but it was always a risk.
Senators passed the one-off levy - dubbed the "millionaire's tax" - by 42 votes to 26 on Friday.
Those with assets worth more than 200 million pesos ($2.5m; £1.8m) - some 12,000 people - will have to pay.
Those affected will pay a progressive rate of up to 3.5% on wealth in Argentina and up to 5.25% on that outside the country.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-55199058
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9020737/Drinkers-head-weekend-restrictions-eased-millions-expected-hit-high-streets.html
Only Johnson has made the wrong call. Every. Single. Time.
And he is in charge of this shitshow. God help us all.
And it's a good thing that the Prime Minister doesn't have anything controversial to get past the public soon, eh?
Oh.
They didn't want Singapore-on-Thames. But that's what they're driving towards. France gets the EU purged of Anglo-Saxon influences but has to endure the ignominy of English as the EU's lingua franca. And German car makers lose their Treasure Island. But they can retaliate with null points when Eurovision comes around.
Okay - 13.500 jobs at risk with the collapse of Arcadia.
I'm trying not to equate apples and haddock but we've seen industries and communities deliberately hollowed out by Government action and accidentally by changes in economic culture and technology.
Is every boat sacred? Is every job in High Street retail sacred?
What do we do if we end the current arrangements - do we start over-fishing again and depleting stocks? Do we accept current quotas? Do we not want, as an ideal, ALL fishermen to be supported whether in the UK or EU? The status quo pending some further negotiations seems eminently reasonable. We do need a practical and sensible arrangement for fishing going forward - on that I do agree.
As for subsidising industries - here I do agree. As a sovereign country (there's that word again), we should be able to determine for ourselves the line on workers' rights and state aid. I'd like to think our workers and environmental protection would be superior to the EU but that's our decision to make, not theirs. I don't imagine the EU telling China or Russia or India they have to abide by EU legislation.
Losing support on your right flank to... er, Labour? Right.
It must hurt to sit in that shepherd's hut, mulling over that he could have told the EU to "give me a meaningful deal I can sell, or fuck off and have me campaign to Leave". OK, he was surrounded by a coterie of EU-flunkies in our civil service and diplomatic service telling him nothing was achievable. But that doesn't excuse the fact that he could have stood back, grown a spine and fought - hard.
If he had campaigned to Leave, he would have won by at least 60-40. The EU would have seen that we were going, there was no possibility of us sliding into a second referendum - and overturning our decision. And then we might have got a decent and rapid divorce settlement.
He would have lost Osborne in the process of going for Leave, but he would probably still be PM if he had wanted, implementing his own distinct brand of socially liberal Conservatism. More importantly, he could probably have overseen a transition to a decent working relationship between the UK and the EU.
Instead, he will be remembered as the guy who is ultimately responsible for poisoned UK-EU relations - and has probably hastened the end of the UK by decades. That is one shit legacy.
Harder for those who started off with hydro or nuclear.
Haven't we heard that somewhere before?
In reality if we end up with no deal the blame will fall squarely on Boris Johnson and the 14 million people who voted for his party in December 2019 (which I suspect includes a certain pulp fiction author formerly known as SeanT).
If you look at the longue (or at least medium) durée then No Deal is actually the best thing that could happen to the pro-European movement in this country. When a country is divided then it needs the practical real world conseqenses of one side's actions before healing can occur. The divisions in this country over Europe these last 40 or 50 years remind of the division of France into pro-republican, anticlerical Dreyfusards and pro-Army, mostly Catholic, often Monarchist "anti-Dreyfusards" who morphed over 30 years into Republicans and Nationalists. It embittered French politics until the anti-Dreyfusard (now Nationalist) side finally got their chance when Petain took over. That didn't work out so well so you haven't seen many of them about since 1945. For Petain read Johnson.
Economic damage is bad but can be repaired but the country has to face the consequences of the choice it made or was led into. As much as they would like to deflect blame onto former-Remainers, Johnson is the face of the Brexit movement, and has been since that famous article in 2016. He, and his 80 seat majority, own this. The practical consequences of No Deal will get Labout in with a promise to rejoin the Customs Union in 2024. After that EEA and, if it's still around, rejoining the EU.
Maximum chaos and hardship for no gain.
Opens the door to "hard rejoin"
No need for gradualism
Here we apparently have around 2.5m millionaires.....
The Party thought they would be OK with this-far-no-further, or Switzerland at a pinch.
Both were wrong.
1. Have no Referendum, despite his Manifesto pledge. The resulting rise of UKIP would have been spectacular - and end up spiting his every political sensibility. It could also quite possibly have destroyed the Conservative Party. Not really an option.
2. Get a meaningful renegotiation of the UK's relationship with Brussels. That required them to believe he would walk - and support Leave.
3. Get a meaningless renegotiation of the UK's relationship with Brussels. That risked pissing off enough people to lose the referendum - and his own political demise.
He chose 3. Or rather, it was the inevitable outcome of the EU knowing he thought leaving the EU would be a very bad thing indeed. Which he did little or nothing to counter.
People are always happy to claim Boris is lazy. But at least his strategic thinking got him into Number 10. Cameron's lack of it got him out of Number 10.
That's, er, FOUR DAYS after the first referendum. And it already contained all the classic elements of the genre
"The referendum was advisory and non-binding, in contrast to the referendum on electoral reform in 2011 which imposed a legal obligation on the government to legislate. Almost 500 members of parliament declared themselves in favour of remain, and it is within their powers to stop this madness through a vote in parliament."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/commentisfree/2016/jun/26/second-referendum-consequences-brexit-grave
With their crass, self-regarding stupidity, Remainers like Lammy immediately made Leavers into hostile enemies, afraid of seeing their vote completely ignored. FOUR DAYS AFTER THE FIRST VOTE.
The petition for a 2nd referendum - signed by millions - was started about a week after the first referendum
https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/131215
And so on.
Indeed Cameron might only have stepped down as PM and then handed over to Osborne or May this year after 10 years as PM and in the Thatcher and Blair league rather than the second rank down he ended up with
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/peoples-vote-march-2018-one-hundred-thousand-turn-up-to-demand-final-say-on-brexit-deal-a3870286.html
I am not too bothered by No Deal. I think the hardliners need to see it, before we can move back to a more sensible relationship to our neighbours.
https://twitter.com/gregpmiller/status/1335235022853464064
(Hint: UKIP has risen from 2.46% to 2.55% since the previous Opinium on 19/11; the Brexit Party is unchanged on 0%.)
They still don't, but that now seems to matter less.
Remember the Mortimer golden rule of Brexit: anything that cheers remainers ends up, eventually, undermining their cause:
'How about EEA/EFTA', 'Lets stay in the Single Market and Customs Union', 'OK, just the customs Union', Gina Miller lawsuit, everything Letwin and Grieve touched, Boris Johnson's resignation, 'We really ought to have a second referendum', changing HoC standing orders, overturning the prorogation, blocking the election, indicative votes, people's vote, revoke, Jo Swinson Next PM, Bercow....
Every single one forced the argument towards a harder Brexit.
Here it is again
The first petition for a 2nd vote: July 2016. 4m million signed it
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36754376
The Remainers began agitating for a new vote within DAYS of the first
It doesn't make him competent as a Prime Minister.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/11/05/deal-oven-ready-get-brexit-done-take-country-forward/
Boris might have preferred that, too.
When there is a vaguely competent opposition, Tories tend to lose when we needlessly tack for the centre, because we lose our right flank to the 'sitting at home not voting till we have proper Tory policy' party.
I really enjoyed the marches. It was great to be amongst so many people enthusiastic for Europe. It all was more than a couple of years too late. A more positive campaign could have won in 2016.
"The EU is crap, but still better than the alternative" was the subtext of Cameron's campaign, and Corbyn was even less keen.
"We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the remain or leave vote is less than 60%, based on a turnout of less than 75%, there should be another referendum."
It was really about the stupidity of making major constitutional change via referendums, without a significant threshhold.
I have just shown you a petition signed by FOUR MILLION people demanding a 2nd vote, in the immediate weeks after the vote in July 2016. It's quite an achievement to get FOUR MILLION signatories on a petition, in about a month, with "zero coverage" and "no momentum"
You're just wrong. You are, also, embarrassingly wrong. And now you are embarrassed. My advice is to choose another topic to debate.
By February 1st one side or the other will be discredited - either we get massive disruption or the armageddon predicted by Remain won't have happened. This is the only way it could. or should, have played out. We are finally seeing a release of the pressure that has been building since at least 1992. Leavers wanted this and their poster boy, Johnson, is finally delivering it.
"Is it also worth noting that it is only temporary authorisation that has been granted – the vaccine does not yet have marketing authorisation in the UK. This effectively means it is “unlicensed” and as such the prescriber has a duty to explain this to the patient. In usual practice this means that the liability in case of adverse effects lies with the prescriber, not with the pharmaceutical company."
I mean, come on. Please. It's so mad it's dull.
2.5 million people, not four, signed a pre-set up running and already petition in the first four weeks, and unlike in the period from late 2017-18 onwards, this was considered important by virtually no one in the political or media class of the time. All the momentum picked up after the conservative party and government botched any prospect of a soft Brexit and put patching up internal divisions ahead of bringing the country along in any moderate consensus, as in some of your more honest moments you've admitted yourself.
Prescribing unlicensed drugs is quite common though.
We now know that Johnson is utterly unsuited to the top job, although many of us already suspected this some time ago. He's the worst PM of my lifetime by a country mile.
"A House of Commons spokeswoman said the petition was created on 24 May. There were 22 signatures on it at the time the referendum result was announced."
22 people signed it
Within a fortnight of the result?
"More than 2.5 million people have signed a petition calling for a second EU referendum, after the vote to leave.
It has more signatures than any other on the parliamentary website and as it has passed 100,000, Parliament will consider it for a debate."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36629324