If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
This was the problem of electing May in 2016 - she felt that as a previous Remain supporter she had to pander to the Leavers. Actually, it's worse than that - to her perception of Leavers.
I'm not sure Boris had much option - by the time he got to be PM he had to force through any Brexit possible, and there was only one Brexit possible at that point.
The fundamental problem was, and still is, that all possible Brexits were bad, just bad in different ways. Anything else was always just Cakism.
I have benefitted from brexit in higher wages, most on this board were better off when we were in the eu. Your experience was not the experience for most of the country so frankly we don't give a shit
We are heading for 1/3 Brexit, 2/3 Brejoin, which is astonishing really.
"Rejoin", if not properly qualified in the question, will be inferred as "under the previous terms of membership" by the vast majority of people answering the question, who won't realise those terms are no longer available. So this polling, whilst not quite as bogus as treating a negative response to "in hindsight, should we have left" as equivalent to wanting to rejoin, is still sufficiently bogus to be not worth the paper it's written on. And it's on a screen not on paper.
And we couldn’t possibly have a referendum where people don’t fully understand what they are voting for, right?
Anyhow, who is to say what terms would be available. The hurdle will be their wanting to accept us back, rather than any technicalities around the terms. If we get to a point where they genuinely want us back, any issues around the terms will be easily resolved. If they don’t want us back, it’s all academic.
The point is that even if they do genuinely want us back, they'll make absolutely certain that we can't change our mind again a few years down the line.
I can’t see any type of Treaty where you’re locked in for infinity . So I don’t see that happening . There’s no point to re-joining unless there’s a very large majority in favour so that the issue doesn’t continue to fester .
Personally I think too much has happened now and re-join needs to be kicked into the long grass . There are many things that UK governments can do to have closer ties without membership. But that needs the ERG and right wing press to stop shouting Brexit betrayal anytime closer links are mentioned . I come from this as a staunch Remainer but we can’t revisit all that division again so soon .
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
This was the problem of electing May in 2016 - she felt that as a previous Remain supporter she had to pander to the Leavers. Actually, it's worse than that - to her perception of Leavers.
I'm not sure Boris had much option - by the time he got to be PM he had to force through any Brexit possible, and there was only one Brexit possible at that point.
The fundamental problem was, and still is, that all possible Brexits were bad, just bad in different ways. Anything else was always just Cakism.
I have benefitted from brexit in higher wages, most on this board were better off when we were in the eu. Your experience was not the experience for most of the country so frankly we don't give a shit
The most sensible Brexit has always been an EEA-style. It would have been supported by well over half of the country
True, and yet somehow our elected leaders failed to steer the country to that destination. Blame all round for that, I think.
Agreed entirely. The problem was probably the way the referendum was designed - Cameron leaving "Leave" officially undefined by the government gave VL the opportunity to define it as they wanted, and May's weakness as a Remain supporter/lack of understanding of Leavers/etc. made her unwilling to go against that.
In an ideal world, Cameron would have recognised that there were three essential destinations - full EU membership, EEA membership, and membership of neither (notably absent: the unsustainable status quo) - and then found a way for that to have been decided on the single referendum ballot paper.
Had he done so, I suspect that EEA would have won convincingly. His failure to do is one reason why I said earlier his design of the referendum was deliberatley to maximise the chance of Remain winning.
Rest of South Lab 51% Con 28% LD 10% Grn 5% Ref 4%
Midlands and Wales Lab 48% Con 25% LD 10% Ref 7% Grn 5% PC 2%
North Lab 55% Con 18% Ref 10% Grn 6% LD 4%
Scotland SNP 57% Lab 21% Con 13% LD 4% Grn 2% Ref 2%
(PeoplePolling/GB News; 1,270; 24 January)
Awful results for the Tories in the north. I more and more think they should split, and join the advocates for PR, with future coalitions in mind . It would benefit them more than Labour in the near future.
Undemocratic Starmer trying to take us back into the single market ! Give us our vote on a new voting system to stop this travesty !
Starmer pro-single market? Huh? Gotta link?
Regarding the North of England, these findings - Lab 55% Con 18% Ref 10% Grn 6% LD 4% - are fairly consistent across pollsters, and for a long time now. They ain’t gonna suddenly change. Although it would be lovely with some proper English regional polling, especially for the South West. We haven’t even had a proper England poll for over a year.
I can’t understand why there isn’t more regional (or national, if you want to be knicker-knotty about it) polling.
When was the last Welsh poll, for example?
25 Nov - 1 Dec YouGov/ITV Cymru Wales; Cardiff University
Not often I ‘Like’ a Gardenwalker post, but yes, Lol.
Hi mate. Hope you are keeping well
Hi CHB. Yes thank you. I am in rude good health. Spectating agog as Prime Minister Kristersson goofs up. The Swedish Social Democrats can hardly contain their glee.
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
This was the problem of electing May in 2016 - she felt that as a previous Remain supporter she had to pander to the Leavers. Actually, it's worse than that - to her perception of Leavers.
I'm not sure Boris had much option - by the time he got to be PM he had to force through any Brexit possible, and there was only one Brexit possible at that point.
The fundamental problem was, and still is, that all possible Brexits were bad, just bad in different ways.
As I said earlier. The point that goes along with that is that Remain was bad too.
Even nowadays, the Elizabeth Line was open, but without some stations on routes, for quite a while before it fully opened.
Bond Street was the only late-comer, opening five months after the others, last October.
I used the Elizabeth Line a few times this week. It's still bloody miraculous. We need to just get on and build infrastructure like HS2. It is transformational.
I challenge anyone sceptical of HS2 to travel from, say, Oxford Circus to Canterbury and back, using the old line one way and HS1 the other, and then tell me it doesn't matter which you use.
Yes, if you nitpick away at the financials, or listen to special pleading and vested interests, then it's never the right time to do these projects. Always some supposedly better way to spend the money, always looks a stupidly big number, always bound to go overtime and overbudget, always possible to not do it and just get by instead, spend less and focus it on more immediate things, but you keep on doing that and what happens is you slide ever so gradually - frog boiling fashion - into a state of disrepair until one day it dawns on you, oh shit nothing works properly, other places seem much better at all this stuff. Which I fear is close to where we are.
Put it this way it's going to require millions (or some sort of clemancy) to get the courts back to a vaguely fair justice systems where justice is served wthin Months rather than years and that's one tiny area.
You then have education, higher education where because fees haven't risen finances are running tight, local Government .... Basically everywhere you look the public sector is on it's last legs desperately trying to keep going.
The only realistic option is to abandon lots of cases. That will probably do a lot of damage to the Tories credibility, but in a lot of these cases a fair trial will no longer be possible.
Despite Chancellor Jeremy Hunt claiming that Brexit ‘can be an incredible success’, voters don’t seem to share his optimism in our latest Brexit sentiment tracker:
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
This was the problem of electing May in 2016 - she felt that as a previous Remain supporter she had to pander to the Leavers. Actually, it's worse than that - to her perception of Leavers.
I'm not sure Boris had much option - by the time he got to be PM he had to force through any Brexit possible, and there was only one Brexit possible at that point.
The fundamental problem was, and still is, that all possible Brexits were bad, just bad in different ways. Anything else was always just Cakism.
I have benefitted from brexit in higher wages, most on this board were better off when we were in the eu. Your experience was not the experience for most of the country so frankly we don't give a shit
Sure, there are always some people that do well out of disasters. Salvage merchants and undertakers for example.
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
This was the problem of electing May in 2016 - she felt that as a previous Remain supporter she had to pander to the Leavers. Actually, it's worse than that - to her perception of Leavers.
I'm not sure Boris had much option - by the time he got to be PM he had to force through any Brexit possible, and there was only one Brexit possible at that point.
The fundamental problem was, and still is, that all possible Brexits were bad, just bad in different ways. Anything else was always just Cakism.
I have benefitted from brexit in higher wages, most on this board were better off when we were in the eu. Your experience was not the experience for most of the country so frankly we don't give a shit
Those workers on strike must have been imaginary
Workers are striking across the eu it has nothing to do with brexit. Don't try and make it so as it just makes you seem more stupid than people think you are
We are heading for 1/3 Brexit, 2/3 Brejoin, which is astonishing really.
"Rejoin", if not properly qualified in the question, will be inferred as "under the previous terms of membership" by the vast majority of people answering the question, who won't realise those terms are no longer available. So this polling, whilst not quite as bogus as treating a negative response to "in hindsight, should we have left" as equivalent to wanting to rejoin, is still sufficiently bogus to be not worth the paper it's written on. And it's on a screen not on paper.
And we couldn’t possibly have a referendum where people don’t fully understand what they are voting for, right?
Anyhow, who is to say what terms would be available. The hurdle will be their wanting to accept us back, rather than any technicalities around the terms. If we get to a point where they genuinely want us back, any issues around the terms will be easily resolved. If they don’t want us back, it’s all academic.
The point is that even if they do genuinely want us back, they'll make absolutely certain that we can't change our mind again a few years down the line.
I can’t see any type of Treaty where you’re locked in for infinity . So I don’t see that happening . There’s no point to re-joining unless there’s a very large majority in favour so that the issue doesn’t continue to fester .
Personally I think too much has happened now and re-join needs to be kicked into the long grass . There are many things that UK governments can do to have closer ties without membership. But that needs the ERG and right wing press to stop shouting Brexit betrayal anytime closer links are mentioned . I come from this as a staunch Remainer but we can’t revisit all that division again so soon .
Euro membership - not legally locked in forever, but effectively so.
Rest of South Lab 51% Con 28% LD 10% Grn 5% Ref 4%
Midlands and Wales Lab 48% Con 25% LD 10% Ref 7% Grn 5% PC 2%
North Lab 55% Con 18% Ref 10% Grn 6% LD 4%
Scotland SNP 57% Lab 21% Con 13% LD 4% Grn 2% Ref 2%
(PeoplePolling/GB News; 1,270; 24 January)
Awful results for the Tories in the north. I more and more think they should split, and join the advocates for PR, with future coalitions in mind . It would benefit them more than Labour in the near future.
Undemocratic Starmer trying to take us back into the single market ! Give us our vote on a new voting system to stop this travesty !
Starmer pro-single market? Huh? Gotta link?
Regarding the North of England, these findings - Lab 55% Con 18% Ref 10% Grn 6% LD 4% - are fairly consistent across pollsters, and for a long time now. They ain’t gonna suddenly change. Although it would be lovely with some proper English regional polling, especially for the South West. We haven’t even had a proper England poll for over a year.
I can’t understand why there isn’t more regional (or national, if you want to be knicker-knotty about it) polling.
When was the last Welsh poll, for example?
25 Nov - 1 Dec YouGov/ITV Cymru Wales; Cardiff University
Not often I ‘Like’ a Gardenwalker post, but yes, Lol.
Hi mate. Hope you are keeping well
Hi CHB. Yes thank you. I am in rude good health. Spectating agog as Prime Minister Kristersson goofs up. The Swedish Social Democrats can hardly contain their glee.
For the first time in more than 30 years I got what is apparently called a wage slip today. A deeply depressing document. A small number at the top from which numerous deductions are made leaving an even smaller number at the bottom.
I am seriously perplexed we don’t have more revolutions in this country.
Worse still is realising how little we get for it. The UK is a classic example of the state doing too much and doing it badly, the last few years of big government conservatism should become a learning experience for all other countries to avoid going down the same path that Theresa May set us on.
And it’s getting worse. Yesterday my M-in-L had an online appointment for old age psychiatry. This is not a joke. She does not have internet or a computer so she had to be brought to our house to do the call.
After this travesty, which inevitably concluded that a face to face meeting was required, in 3 months time, my wife gets a form to complete confirming how wonderful this service was. Negative answers were not allowed. So, for example, you could record how many miles you had saved. A negative number, as in our case, was not permitted. Every question was slanted this way but no doubt this will be “evidence” in due course of how wonderful this is.
My MiL is suffering delusions which are scaring her to the point she doesn’t feel safe in her own home. A crap meeting like this, where she struggled to hear, and a 3 month wait. These are what these deductions from my pay slip are for?
You’ve continually voted for this, though. Austerity, then Brexit, then Johnson.
Edit: this sound like a personal attack, not especially. “You” is the general public.
You forget that I live in Scotland and live under the glory of the Scottish government which has never had a Tory element. The fact that it provides services which are at least as bad despite spending more per capita should really get a lot more thought by those deluding themselves that a Labour government is going to make it better.
The SNP must be the most effective political party ever, the situation with public servies in Scotland seems to be worse than in England, yet they, as the governing party, never get the blame for it. A remarkable feat.
I'm curious if they deny it is as bad (obviously I've no idea if it is), or acknowledge it is but blame Westminster for that.
No idea, but the stats indicate that it is worse. Think of what happened this morning, a made up story about HS2 and Euston and people are outraged, "fucking useless tories" etc etc. They never seems to happen to the SNP. They have even got away with the prison rapist stuff.
But who made up the story ? The suggestion is that it was a deliberate distraction exercise by government. Someone senior briefed it, since the BBC also took it seriously, first thing this morning.
I wouldn't be surprised if the HS2 service did start initially at Old Oak Common. It is a fairly common approach to projects that are late and over budget. Get something working to buy time and generate at least some cash.
It is actually surprisingly common historically; there have been loads of 'temporary' terminuses. Who remembers Minories (13 years until Fenchurch Street was built)? Devonshire Street (Mile End - a temporary terminus for the line to Bishopsgate, which operated as a terminus for a year). Bishop’s Bridge Road - the first Paddington, whilst Paddington was built? And they're just from London.
Even nowadays, the Elizabeth Line was open, but without some stations on routes, for quite a while before it fully opened.
But in the case of HS2, it's unlikely, as OOC is not suited for a terminus - there could only be a very limited number of trains.
I haven't been following HS2 closely but it seems as it is (ie Nov 22) that Old Oak Common with six platforms was targeted to be the initial London terminus from about 2030, and designed as such, with the revamped Euston Station following on about five years later. I can see both dates pushing to the right.
I'd be fascinated to know your reasoning on that.
Six sub-surface platforms [at Old Oak Common station] will serve the high-speed HS2 services to the Midlands, North and Scotland, with services to Euston in nine minutes and to Birmingham Curzon Street in 38. These platforms will be capable of being operated as a London terminus, ahead of the completion of works at Euston. https://www.railengineer.co.uk/the-station-now-arriving-old-oak-common-interchange/
HS2 services between London and Birmingham are due to start running between 2029 and 2033, with a target date of 2030. Trains will initially run between the new stations at Old Oak Common and Birmingham Curzon Street ... The plans [for Euston Station] were changed on government orders — at a cost of £105.6 million — from an 11-platform design, which would have opened in two stages, to a 10-platform scheme that is due for completion between 2031 and 2036. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/euston-tube-station-upgrade-plans-hs2-architects-design-london-train-b1043757.html
There seems to be a planned gap between initial service from Old Oak Station to the full service from Euston. My guess is that gap will get longer.
Sad news about the firefighter today. You could smell the fire and see the smoke from my office, and all the more grim given Jenners is empty (conversion to a hotel).
A colleagues husband is a firefighter in Edinburgh, and they recently had a baby. What a mix of emotions they must be going through as a couple today.
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
This was the problem of electing May in 2016 - she felt that as a previous Remain supporter she had to pander to the Leavers. Actually, it's worse than that - to her perception of Leavers.
I'm not sure Boris had much option - by the time he got to be PM he had to force through any Brexit possible, and there was only one Brexit possible at that point.
The fundamental problem was, and still is, that all possible Brexits were bad, just bad in different ways. Anything else was always just Cakism.
I have benefitted from brexit in higher wages, most on this board were better off when we were in the eu. Your experience was not the experience for most of the country so frankly we don't give a shit
Sure, there are always some people that do well out of disasters. Salvage merchants and undertakers for example.
Ok name the benefits the lower 50% of the country gained from being in the eu....they couldn't afford nannies before, they werent using freedom of movement, erasmus was pretty much an upper middle class jolly....all we got was increased pressure on housing due to immigration, increased pressure on already stress services and middle class arseholes waving their hands and going you are racist.
Despite Chancellor Jeremy Hunt claiming that Brexit ‘can be an incredible success’, voters don’t seem to share his optimism in our latest Brexit sentiment tracker:
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
This was the problem of electing May in 2016 - she felt that as a previous Remain supporter she had to pander to the Leavers. Actually, it's worse than that - to her perception of Leavers.
I'm not sure Boris had much option - by the time he got to be PM he had to force through any Brexit possible, and there was only one Brexit possible at that point.
The fundamental problem was, and still is, that all possible Brexits were bad, just bad in different ways.
As I said earlier. The point that goes along with that is that Remain was bad too.
Even as a remainer, I see there are some potential benefits.
We could have much tighter environmental and food quality controls, for example. Or better employment rights than before. Or insist that all government contracts must only be let to UK-owned companies providing goods or services produced in the UK. Or that all electronic cars sold in the UK must be fitted with batteries made in the UK.
And no, I'm not necessarily advocating any of those, as the costs might outweigh the benefits. But there must be some where it wouldn't. I'm just saying we could do them if we wanted to but I don't hear anybody proposing anything like that.
The problem is that the Brexiteers don't know what they what, or rather, they want different things. Take for example your first point: environmental legislation. One set of Brexiteers would indeed like much tighter environmental and food quality controls, but another set would prefer looser environmental and quality controls. So taking advantage of our new-found freedom isn't going to be easy - any divergence from the current standards will be wildly unpopular with a substantial number of the very people that voted for the freedom to diverge. In addition, any move in either direction from EU standards comes with its own cost in terms of trade, making divergence even more difficult.
It doesn't matter what 'the Brexiteers' want. Now that we have left the EU we have the ability, as a country, to decide what we want in terms of environmental legislation, employment rights and the awarding of contracts. That is the whole point. What 'Brexiteers' want is irrelevant as they have no more right to decide than any other section of our society. If public opinion is for tighter environmental and quality controls and that is what they vote for then that is what will happen irrespective of what 'Brexiteers' might want.
This comes back to what I said a few weeks ago. Brexit is currently unpopular because the Government is unpopular and the people who are supposed to be taking advantage of Brexit on our behalf are inept and corrupt. If Starmer does win then there will be a sea change in attitude in Government towards Brexit. It will be much closer to what I and many others wanted with compromise and negotiation not grandstanding. I don't expect that everyone will suddenly be happy with Brexit - too many irreconcilable Remainers will still whine about it to their dying days. But removing from power/influence the extremist ERG mindset will defuse a lot of the conflict and allow the Government to rule for the benefit of the country rather than just a small fanatical clique.
And if you want a Brexit benefit. It has destroyed the Tory party in the long term and that is something I can be very happy with and I am sure you can be too.
Mighty fine comment & insight.
Am struggling to find something to dissent from, can only say that I'm personally skeptical (from afar) that Brexit can live up to your own post-Brexiteer hopes.
But won't be too bummed out IF you're proven correct.
We are heading for 1/3 Brexit, 2/3 Brejoin, which is astonishing really.
"Rejoin", if not properly qualified in the question, will be inferred as "under the previous terms of membership" by the vast majority of people answering the question, who won't realise those terms are no longer available. So this polling, whilst not quite as bogus as treating a negative response to "in hindsight, should we have left" as equivalent to wanting to rejoin, is still sufficiently bogus to be not worth the paper it's written on. And it's on a screen not on paper.
I don’t agree. It’s all about the trend. And the trend is BAAAAD for Brexit.
Brexit is a part of history, a given fact, an axiom. "The trend" is not some force of nature that will continue unabated - if Rejoin is to happen then at some point, its advocates have to win a referendum based on actual new terms of membership and not just by saying "leaving in 2016 was a mistake". Remain failed in 2016 solely because its advocates wouldn't - more likely couldn't - articulate a single actual positive reason to vote for continued membership. If the EU supporters don't learn that lesson, they won't win a Rejoin referendum, and no irrelevant perceived "trend" a few years in the past will help them.
Sure, for the time being, Brexit means Brexit. The interesting question is- what does this do to the British State of Mind. What will it be like to be in a country where there's something fundamental that a majority of voters don't like but don't think can be changed. A minority can be expected to get over it and make the best of it. But a majority? That's going to be odd and not in a good way.
As for the future? I suspect that a lot of the views that most of us have are about emoition and identity rather than reasoned weighing up of pros and cons. 2016 was just the moment where the generation who have always been suspicious of Europe (see the age breakdown from 1975) were in the ascendancy. A bit like the way that 2024 looks like it won't be about the relative details of the manifestoes, more that people are fed up with this government and not afraid of the alternative.
The short term effect of polling is that the Tories are chained to a corpse, and one that is beginning to get quite pungent. They won't be electable by a majority of voters until they accept Brexit was a mistake, and we need to reconcile with the EU.
The Tories have got it all wrong on pretty much all fronts.
Personally I don't imagine that their woefulness on Brexit delivery reflects anything about a general regret.
This is a bit of a different way for the Tories to get things wrong. Labour have traditionally just spent the caution. This time though there's nothing to spend.
The polling on Brexit is so strongly that it was a mistake, and Brexit is so tied to the Tories as a policy that it is once again going to decide an election, only this time for the Tories to be buried.
I have my doubts. Brexit is such a complicated issue (and I think we all agree there) that people really will want to leave it alone.
Sure but the stench of Brexit hanging over the country will reflect badly on the Tories whether we Rejoin or not.
I say they are chained to that corpse because this side of a couple of election defeats they cannot leave it behind, as the Brexit vote is their core vote.
The Tory core vote is just what it is and it's not about Brexit. Labour's core vote isn't about Brexit either, and I'd suggest that the issue has manhandled their fortunes more viciously.
It is not so much Brexit itself that is the Tory core vote, nor Remain for the other parties, but rather the set of cultural values that Brexit represents. We either look at at the inward looking autarchy of Brexit positively or find it anathema.
Basically everything you would hope you and those close to you weren't......
With swings of 17.5-20.5% across England it's little surprise Labour are strong favourites to win most seats. The Techne poll this week was little changed on last week and while the Conservatives have trimmed the Labour lead in the latest Omnisis poll, it's still 24 points and a 19% national poll swing from Conservative to Labour.
I've not seen the Omnisis data tables but the Techne tables (such as they are) tell a familiar tale. 53% of the 2019 Conservative vote staying loyal, 16% Labour, 16% Uncertain/Won't Vote and 9% to Reform.
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
This was the problem of electing May in 2016 - she felt that as a previous Remain supporter she had to pander to the Leavers. Actually, it's worse than that - to her perception of Leavers.
I'm not sure Boris had much option - by the time he got to be PM he had to force through any Brexit possible, and there was only one Brexit possible at that point.
The fundamental problem was, and still is, that all possible Brexits were bad, just bad in different ways. Anything else was always just Cakism.
I have benefitted from brexit in higher wages, most on this board were better off when we were in the eu. Your experience was not the experience for most of the country so frankly we don't give a shit
Good point, certainly re: your own situation. And re: UK PBers?
Would be interesting to see a (reasonably) objective analysis re: Brexit winners & losers, in terms of percentages of workers/owners/whatever (ditto households & communities) with subsets by demography & geography.
Despite Chancellor Jeremy Hunt claiming that Brexit ‘can be an incredible success’, voters don’t seem to share his optimism in our latest Brexit sentiment tracker:
So still less than 50% want to rejoin the EU including DKs
The issue that’s not addressed in these polls is what type of re-join . I know many Remainers who think Brexits been a disaster but think it’s far too soon to revisit the issue . That’s basically where I’m at .
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
This was the problem of electing May in 2016 - she felt that as a previous Remain supporter she had to pander to the Leavers. Actually, it's worse than that - to her perception of Leavers.
I'm not sure Boris had much option - by the time he got to be PM he had to force through any Brexit possible, and there was only one Brexit possible at that point.
The fundamental problem was, and still is, that all possible Brexits were bad, just bad in different ways. Anything else was always just Cakism.
I have benefitted from brexit in higher wages, most on this board were better off when we were in the eu. Your experience was not the experience for most of the country so frankly we don't give a shit
Good point, certainly re: your own situation. And re: UK PBers?
Would be interesting to see a (reasonably) objective analysis re: Brexit winners & losers, in terms of percentages of workers/owners/whatever (ditto households & communities) with subsets by demography & geography.
It would indeed. Like any changes brexit has winners and losers. A lot on this board I suspect are losers from it and losers always shout louder. Most of this country weren't seeing any benefits from being the EU. Will brexit deliver them frankly for me yes...for all that voted out no idea however most people from c2 to e categories saw a declining standard of living while in the EU...did they believe brexit would deliver, some did, some were not sure. However all of them believed carrying on was not going to help in anyway because those like foxy didn't see a problem they were doing well. It was a very british revolution
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
This was the problem of electing May in 2016 - she felt that as a previous Remain supporter she had to pander to the Leavers. Actually, it's worse than that - to her perception of Leavers.
I'm not sure Boris had much option - by the time he got to be PM he had to force through any Brexit possible, and there was only one Brexit possible at that point.
The fundamental problem was, and still is, that all possible Brexits were bad, just bad in different ways. Anything else was always just Cakism.
I have benefitted from brexit in higher wages, most on this board were better off when we were in the eu. Your experience was not the experience for most of the country so frankly we don't give a shit
Those workers on strike must have been imaginary
I thought that the aggressive demands for pay by the evil nurses should defeated by importing lots of cheap Labour
There was a positive case for Remain. It was just drowned out by lies and immigration from Leave
What was it?
It's easy - the dream of the EU, of a collaboration of nations etc etc, has always been a good one. It was the practical realities that many of us had an issue with, but the positive case was simple enough.
Now of course people go too far on the positive and imply it would solve every problem in existence.
Even as a remainer, I see there are some potential benefits.
We could have much tighter environmental and food quality controls, for example. Or better employment rights than before. Or insist that all government contracts must only be let to UK-owned companies providing goods or services produced in the UK. Or that all electronic cars sold in the UK must be fitted with batteries made in the UK.
And no, I'm not necessarily advocating any of those, as the costs might outweigh the benefits. But there must be some where it wouldn't. I'm just saying we could do them if we wanted to but I don't hear anybody proposing anything like that.
The problem is that the Brexiteers don't know what they what, or rather, they want different things. Take for example your first point: environmental legislation. One set of Brexiteers would indeed like much tighter environmental and food quality controls, but another set would prefer looser environmental and quality controls. So taking advantage of our new-found freedom isn't going to be easy - any divergence from the current standards will be wildly unpopular with a substantial number of the very people that voted for the freedom to diverge. In addition, any move in either direction from EU standards comes with its own cost in terms of trade, making divergence even more difficult.
It doesn't matter what 'the Brexiteers' want. Now that we have left the EU we have the ability, as a country, to decide what we want in terms of environmental legislation, employment rights and the awarding of contracts. That is the whole point. What 'Brexiteers' want is irrelevant as they have no more right to decide than any other section of our society. If public opinion is for tighter environmental and quality controls and that is what they vote for then that is what will happen irrespective of what 'Brexiteers' might want.
This comes back to what I said a few weeks ago. Brexit is currently unpopular because the Government is unpopular and the people who are supposed to be taking advantage of Brexit on our behalf are inept and corrupt. If Starmer does win then there will be a sea change in attitude in Government towards Brexit. It will be much closer to what I and many others wanted with compromise and negotiation not grandstanding. I don't expect that everyone will suddenly be happy with Brexit - too many irreconcilable Remainers will still whine about it to their dying days. But removing from power/influence the extremist ERG mindset will defuse a lot of the conflict and allow the Government to rule for the benefit of the country rather than just a small fanatical clique.
And if you want a Brexit benefit. It has destroyed the Tory party in the long term and that is something I can be very happy with and I am sure you can be too.
Mighty fine comment & insight.
Am struggling to find something to dissent from, can only say that I'm personally skeptical (from afar) that Brexit can live up to your own post-Brexiteer hopes.
But won't be too bummed out IF you're proven correct.
I would add that they are, as you say, hopes. I don't deal in certainties. At least not where politics is concerned.
Despite Chancellor Jeremy Hunt claiming that Brexit ‘can be an incredible success’, voters don’t seem to share his optimism in our latest Brexit sentiment tracker:
So still less than 50% want to rejoin the EU including DKs
The issue that’s not addressed in these polls is what type of re-join . I know many Remainers who think Brexits been a disaster but think it’s far too soon to revisit the issue . That’s basically where I’m at .
Sure, no one expects Rejoin any time soon, except perhaps SNP and SF. It won't be something that English voters can vote for in 2024, but I expect it will be in a major party manifesto in 2029 to join EEA+.
I am deeply, deeply saddened at having missed another day's intellectual cut and thrust on Brexit.
I may also not be the most sarcastic person in Western Europe at this moment.
Hope you are doing well
I've had a very good day running around a load of Herefordshire castles that are open access to the public.
Was vaguely thinking of doing a podcast series on castles that are beautiful, historic and interesting but nobody visits because they're either very remote or they've just never heard of them.
With swings of 17.5-20.5% across England it's little surprise Labour are strong favourites to win most seats. The Techne poll this week was little changed on last week and while the Conservatives have trimmed the Labour lead in the latest Omnisis poll, it's still 24 points and a 19% national poll swing from Conservative to Labour.
I've not seen the Omnisis data tables but the Techne tables (such as they are) tell a familiar tale. 53% of the 2019 Conservative vote staying loyal, 16% Labour, 16% Uncertain/Won't Vote and 9% to Reform.
The odds on Labour most seats are so short that I’ve easily managed to green out across the board, without giving up that much of the prospective winnings. I reckon that’s the right strategy now - it ensures no possible loss while allowing a renewed lay on the Tories should events somehow swing back a little in their favour. If somehow the LibDems get most seats, that’ll be a result, and not just for the country!
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
This was the problem of electing May in 2016 - she felt that as a previous Remain supporter she had to pander to the Leavers. Actually, it's worse than that - to her perception of Leavers.
I'm not sure Boris had much option - by the time he got to be PM he had to force through any Brexit possible, and there was only one Brexit possible at that point.
The fundamental problem was, and still is, that all possible Brexits were bad, just bad in different ways. Anything else was always just Cakism.
I have benefitted from brexit in higher wages, most on this board were better off when we were in the eu. Your experience was not the experience for most of the country so frankly we don't give a shit
Those workers on strike must have been imaginary
I thought that the aggressive demands for pay by the evil nurses should defeated by importing lots of cheap Labour
The heroic truckers deserve their increased pay.
Or have I got that the wrong way round?
One of the problems with recruitment in the public sector is that when looking at jobs people look at the headline salary. If you include pension contribution they might think differently for example currently
you get a job as a teacher you see a salary of 30k you see a private sector job you can apply for thats 35k
There was a positive case for Remain. It was just drowned out by lies and immigration from Leave
What was it?
It's easy - the dream of the EU, of a collaboration of nations etc etc, has always been a good one. It was the practical realities that many of us had an issue with, but the positive case was simple enough.
But what was it? All you've said is that "the positive case for EU was that it was good", which is rather circular.
It doesn't matter what 'the Brexiteers' want. Now that we have left the EU we have the ability, as a country, to decide what we want in terms of environmental legislation, employment rights and the awarding of contracts. That is the whole point.
This is still Brexit fantasy.
What "we" want is the highest standard of environmental protection at the lowest cost to the consumer, maximum employment rights with minimal public inconvenience, protectionism for local industry with maximum consumer choice.
That is what Brexiteers voted for.
If any Government, of any stripe, in any Country at any time, had any way to deliver these wildly incompatible aims, we wouldn't be having this debate.
That is what everyone voted for - both Leavers and Remainers. They all want that. It is just a case of how much compromise people are willing to make in each direction.
Despite Chancellor Jeremy Hunt claiming that Brexit ‘can be an incredible success’, voters don’t seem to share his optimism in our latest Brexit sentiment tracker:
So still less than 50% want to rejoin the EU including DKs
The issue that’s not addressed in these polls is what type of re-join . I know many Remainers who think Brexits been a disaster but think it’s far too soon to revisit the issue . That’s basically where I’m at .
Heck, I think this is a mistake and the point of democracy is that mistakes get reversed, but I think this is too soon.
And yes, the UK's mind is not settled on the issue, and yes, adding the downsides to the question reduces the enthusiasm for rejoin. But the striking thing about the People Polling recently was how small an effect that has.
So, given that Sunak has 18-24 months before the next election, and given the recent trend in the polling, what should the government do to protect its key entry in the history books?
Agents Corbyn and Swinson delivered the Tories their majority.
No surprise at all that when they left Labour started winning again. Johnson and the Tories have never been popular
They have, in fact. Indeed, they have been the most popular political party in the UK for 4 GEs in a row, albeit on a reduced timescale.
Yes, yes, the opposition they faced, that's absolutely true and valid, and to question how strong the positive support they have is also reasonable, but you don't win as big as they did in 2019 without pull factors toward you as well as push factors away from your opponents. I don't think it is fair to suggest they were not popular - at least as we define these things for political parties and individuals, net positive ratings are unusual.
Today leaders in the North East are sitting down with @michaelgove to sign their devo deal. The full text came out just after Christmas, so you might have missed it.
Here's a🧵on the key bits of the deal text. This one has a bunch of interesting elements… (1/20)
I am deeply, deeply saddened at having missed another day's intellectual cut and thrust on Brexit.
I may also not be the most sarcastic person in Western Europe at this moment.
Hope you are doing well
I've had a very good day running around a load of Herefordshire castles that are open access to the public.
Was vaguely thinking of doing a podcast series on castles that are beautiful, historic and interesting but nobody visits because they're either very remote or they've just never heard of them.
I would listen to that. Let us know if you do one ...
There was a positive case for Remain. It was just drowned out by lies and immigration from Leave
What was it?
It's easy - the dream of the EU, of a collaboration of nations etc etc, has always been a good one. It was the practical realities that many of us had an issue with, but the positive case was simple enough.
But what was it? All you've said is that "the positive case for EU was that it was good", which is rather circular.
I generalised, since there's no need to itemise every potential benefit, but all the various EU wide programs, and institutions, and of the very nature of international cooperation, are powerful and valud cases. Cases don't need to be incredibly specific.
I voted Leave because I felt the direction of the EU and its reality was not the dream it was trying to sell, but I think it is pretty silly to pretend there was no positive case that could have been made, even though the Remain campaign declined by and large to make it.
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
This was the problem of electing May in 2016 - she felt that as a previous Remain supporter she had to pander to the Leavers. Actually, it's worse than that - to her perception of Leavers.
I'm not sure Boris had much option - by the time he got to be PM he had to force through any Brexit possible, and there was only one Brexit possible at that point.
The fundamental problem was, and still is, that all possible Brexits were bad, just bad in different ways. Anything else was always just Cakism.
I have benefitted from brexit in higher wages, most on this board were better off when we were in the eu. Your experience was not the experience for most of the country so frankly we don't give a shit
Those workers on strike must have been imaginary
I thought that the aggressive demands for pay by the evil nurses should defeated by importing lots of cheap Labour
The heroic truckers deserve their increased pay.
Or have I got that the wrong way round?
One of the problems with recruitment in the public sector is that when looking at jobs people look at the headline salary. If you include pension contribution they might think differently for example currently
you get a job as a teacher you see a salary of 30k you see a private sector job you can apply for thats 35k
One thing we could probably do is offer both, you can have the job and you can either get private sector salary and pension or public sector salary and pension. What many public sector workers seem to want is private sector wages and public sector pensions and sorry no life doesnt work like that. Its pure cakism
The net result is that the two lower quintiles of tax filers, rather than paying federal income taxes, get money from the federal government at income tax time.
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
This was the problem of electing May in 2016 - she felt that as a previous Remain supporter she had to pander to the Leavers. Actually, it's worse than that - to her perception of Leavers.
I'm not sure Boris had much option - by the time he got to be PM he had to force through any Brexit possible, and there was only one Brexit possible at that point.
The fundamental problem was, and still is, that all possible Brexits were bad, just bad in different ways. Anything else was always just Cakism.
I have benefitted from brexit in higher wages, most on this board were better off when we were in the eu. Your experience was not the experience for most of the country so frankly we don't give a shit
Those workers on strike must have been imaginary
I thought that the aggressive demands for pay by the evil nurses should defeated by importing lots of cheap Labour
The heroic truckers deserve their increased pay.
Or have I got that the wrong way round?
One of the problems with recruitment in the public sector is that when looking at jobs people look at the headline salary. If you include pension contribution they might think differently for example currently
you get a job as a teacher you see a salary of 30k you see a private sector job you can apply for thats 35k
One thing we could probably do is offer both, you can have the job and you can either get private sector salary and pension or public sector salary and pension. What many public sector workers seem to want is private sector wages and public sector pensions and sorry no life doesnt work like that. Its pure cakism
In addition it also distorts pay demand is another point a teacher on 30k who gets a 10% payrise so earns 33k is in fact getting 10% on their wages and 10% on state sector contributions
so his salary is going from 30k + 7.2k
to 33k + 7.92
yes still a 10% overall but a lot of the extra cost being hidden
I am deeply, deeply saddened at having missed another day's intellectual cut and thrust on Brexit.
I may also not be the most sarcastic person in Western Europe at this moment.
Hope you are doing well
I've had a very good day running around a load of Herefordshire castles that are open access to the public.
Was vaguely thinking of doing a podcast series on castles that are beautiful, historic and interesting but nobody visits because they're either very remote or they've just never heard of them.
The old ruined marches ones like Goodrich or Wgmore, or the newer furnished ones like Croft?
The current coalition Government is made up of Reform, Pro Patria and the Social Democrats. The Centre Party was part of the Government until its mInisters were sacked by Reform last summer - Centre had been equivocal in its position on the Russian invasion of Ukraine (and has always had roots in the Russian-speaking minority).
The other main opposition parties are the Conservative People's party and Estonia 200.
The latest Kantar Emor poll as follows (changes from the 2019 election):
Reform: 31.5% (+2.6) Conservative People's Party: 19.1% (+1.3) Centre: 16.0% (-7.1) Estonia 200: 12.4% (+8.0) Social Democrats: 7.6% (-2.2) Pro Patria: 5.6% (-5.8)
The government parties have 44.7% and the opposition parties 47.5%. I wonder if the Reform Prime minister would be happier to have E200 in the Government and Pro Patria (even if they clear the 5% threshold) on the outside.
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
This was the problem of electing May in 2016 - she felt that as a previous Remain supporter she had to pander to the Leavers. Actually, it's worse than that - to her perception of Leavers.
I'm not sure Boris had much option - by the time he got to be PM he had to force through any Brexit possible, and there was only one Brexit possible at that point.
The fundamental problem was, and still is, that all possible Brexits were bad, just bad in different ways. Anything else was always just Cakism.
I have benefitted from brexit in higher wages, most on this board were better off when we were in the eu. Your experience was not the experience for most of the country so frankly we don't give a shit
Those workers on strike must have been imaginary
I thought that the aggressive demands for pay by the evil nurses should defeated by importing lots of cheap Labour
The heroic truckers deserve their increased pay.
Or have I got that the wrong way round?
One of the problems with recruitment in the public sector is that when looking at jobs people look at the headline salary. If you include pension contribution they might think differently for example currently
you get a job as a teacher you see a salary of 30k you see a private sector job you can apply for thats 35k
One thing we could probably do is offer both, you can have the job and you can either get private sector salary and pension or public sector salary and pension. What many public sector workers seem to want is private sector wages and public sector pensions and sorry no life doesnt work like that. Its pure cakism
Sorry, but that is how life works.
If the nation wants more teachers, it's going to have to put up more money. By all means, highlight the pension arrangements more, but the nation doesn't get to force people to work for them.
Say "take it or leave it" if you like, but the evidence is that people are choosing to leave it, and getting cross with them won't change that.
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
This was the problem of electing May in 2016 - she felt that as a previous Remain supporter she had to pander to the Leavers. Actually, it's worse than that - to her perception of Leavers.
I'm not sure Boris had much option - by the time he got to be PM he had to force through any Brexit possible, and there was only one Brexit possible at that point.
The fundamental problem was, and still is, that all possible Brexits were bad, just bad in different ways. Anything else was always just Cakism.
I have benefitted from brexit in higher wages, most on this board were better off when we were in the eu. Your experience was not the experience for most of the country so frankly we don't give a shit
Those workers on strike must have been imaginary
I thought that the aggressive demands for pay by the evil nurses should defeated by importing lots of cheap Labour
The heroic truckers deserve their increased pay.
Or have I got that the wrong way round?
One of the problems with recruitment in the public sector is that when looking at jobs people look at the headline salary. If you include pension contribution they might think differently for example currently
you get a job as a teacher you see a salary of 30k you see a private sector job you can apply for thats 35k
One thing we could probably do is offer both, you can have the job and you can either get private sector salary and pension or public sector salary and pension. What many public sector workers seem to want is private sector wages and public sector pensions and sorry no life doesnt work like that. Its pure cakism
Not sure. People know there is a pension difference, but they assume it'll be okay in the end because you'll have a house and the government will stump up the difference to OAPs. Indeed this is how life seems to work. No use having a slightly larger pension flow when you are old with no large outgoings.
The most sensible Brexit has always been an EEA-style. It would have been supported by well over half of the country
At the time after the referendum I think yes, but as I keep repeating detailed polling now suggests it wouldn't be supported.
I think the indicative votes, possibly the most farcical parliamentary process of my lifetime, torpedoed any potential compromise. People commentating on the process said "you won't get a second referendum you'll get a rubbish deal" and that is exactly what happened as a result.
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
This was the problem of electing May in 2016 - she felt that as a previous Remain supporter she had to pander to the Leavers. Actually, it's worse than that - to her perception of Leavers.
I'm not sure Boris had much option - by the time he got to be PM he had to force through any Brexit possible, and there was only one Brexit possible at that point.
The fundamental problem was, and still is, that all possible Brexits were bad, just bad in different ways. Anything else was always just Cakism.
I have benefitted from brexit in higher wages, most on this board were better off when we were in the eu. Your experience was not the experience for most of the country so frankly we don't give a shit
Those workers on strike must have been imaginary
I thought that the aggressive demands for pay by the evil nurses should defeated by importing lots of cheap Labour
The heroic truckers deserve their increased pay.
Or have I got that the wrong way round?
One of the problems with recruitment in the public sector is that when looking at jobs people look at the headline salary. If you include pension contribution they might think differently for example currently
you get a job as a teacher you see a salary of 30k you see a private sector job you can apply for thats 35k
One thing we could probably do is offer both, you can have the job and you can either get private sector salary and pension or public sector salary and pension. What many public sector workers seem to want is private sector wages and public sector pensions and sorry no life doesnt work like that. Its pure cakism
Sorry, but that is how life works.
If the nation wants more teachers, it's going to have to put up more money. By all means, highlight the pension arrangements more, but the nation doesn't get to force people to work for them.
Say "take it or leave it" if you like, but the evidence is that people are choosing to leave it, and getting cross with them won't change that.
my suggestion is they get offered private wages and private pensions. How is that forcing them. I was merely suggesting more people would apply if their wages were 35k a year and a dc pension than 30k a year + a public pension benefit. Those taking the private route would actually be worse off long term but I bet you would get more applying
For the first time in more than 30 years I got what is apparently called a wage slip today. A deeply depressing document. A small number at the top from which numerous deductions are made leaving an even smaller number at the bottom.
I am seriously perplexed we don’t have more revolutions in this country.
Worse still is realising how little we get for it. The UK is a classic example of the state doing too much and doing it badly, the last few years of big government conservatism should become a learning experience for all other countries to avoid going down the same path that Theresa May set us on.
And it’s getting worse. Yesterday my M-in-L had an online appointment for old age psychiatry. This is not a joke. She does not have internet or a computer so she had to be brought to our house to do the call.
After this travesty, which inevitably concluded that a face to face meeting was required, in 3 months time, my wife gets a form to complete confirming how wonderful this service was. Negative answers were not allowed. So, for example, you could record how many miles you had saved. A negative number, as in our case, was not permitted. Every question was slanted this way but no doubt this will be “evidence” in due course of how wonderful this is.
My MiL is suffering delusions which are scaring her to the point she doesn’t feel safe in her own home. A crap meeting like this, where she struggled to hear, and a 3 month wait. These are what these deductions from my pay slip are for?
You’ve continually voted for this, though. Austerity, then Brexit, then Johnson.
Edit: this sound like a personal attack, not especially. “You” is the general public.
You forget that I live in Scotland and live under the glory of the Scottish government which has never had a Tory element. The fact that it provides services which are at least as bad despite spending more per capita should really get a lot more thought by those deluding themselves that a Labour government is going to make it better.
The SNP must be the most effective political party ever, the situation with public servies in Scotland seems to be worse than in England, yet they, as the governing party, never get the blame for it. A remarkable feat.
I'm curious if they deny it is as bad (obviously I've no idea if it is), or acknowledge it is but blame Westminster for that.
No idea, but the stats indicate that it is worse. Think of what happened this morning, a made up story about HS2 and Euston and people are outraged, "fucking useless tories" etc etc. They never seems to happen to the SNP. They have even got away with the prison rapist stuff.
But who made up the story ? The suggestion is that it was a deliberate distraction exercise by government. Someone senior briefed it, since the BBC also took it seriously, first thing this morning.
I wouldn't be surprised if the HS2 service did start initially at Old Oak Common. It is a fairly common approach to projects that are late and over budget. Get something working to buy time and generate at least some cash.
It is actually surprisingly common historically; there have been loads of 'temporary' terminuses. Who remembers Minories (13 years until Fenchurch Street was built)? Devonshire Street (Mile End - a temporary terminus for the line to Bishopsgate, which operated as a terminus for a year). Bishop’s Bridge Road - the first Paddington, whilst Paddington was built? And they're just from London.
Even nowadays, the Elizabeth Line was open, but without some stations on routes, for quite a while before it fully opened.
But in the case of HS2, it's unlikely, as OOC is not suited for a terminus - there could only be a very limited number of trains.
I haven't been following HS2 closely but it seems as it is (ie Nov 22) that Old Oak Common with six platforms was targeted to be the initial London terminus from about 2030, and designed as such, with the revamped Euston Station following on about five years later. I can see both dates pushing to the right.
I'd be fascinated to know your reasoning on that.
(Snip)
HS2 services between London and Birmingham are due to start running between 2029 and 2033, with a target date of 2030. Trains will initially run between the new stations at Old Oak Common and Birmingham Curzon Street ... The plans [for Euston Station] were changed on government orders — at a cost of £105.6 million — from an 11-platform design, which would have opened in two stages, to a 10-platform scheme that is due for completion between 2031 and 2036. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/euston-tube-station-upgrade-plans-hs2-architects-design-london-train-b1043757.html
There seems to be a planned gap between initial service from Old Oak Station to the full service from Euston. My guess is that gap will get longer.
Thanks, I have also been keeping up fairly well with the project (or thought I had...) and had not seen that claim in the Standard.
The problem with operating a terminus at OOC - even a temporary one - is that it really limits the numbers of trains that can be run. That may be acceptable for a short period, but not an appreciable amount of time.
Is that Standard claim available in any official format?
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
When did the euphiles ever take eurosceptics into account in the last 40 years when they tied us to mastriicht, the lisbon abomination, blair giving away our rebate for nothing, the lack of a moratorium for free movement form new accession states. If they had maybe brexit voters might not be sticking up two fingers and calling remainer folk "C****"
Britain is not divided into Europhiles and Eurosceptics, who make up two clearly defined groups locked in perpetual competition.
Britain has devoted Europhiles, massive Eurosceptics, and the vast majority of people in between.
You are arguing that because one group had been c*nts, that you should ignore the vast majority of the people in the middle.
The most sensible Brexit has always been an EEA-style. It would have been supported by well over half of the country
At the time after the referendum I think yes, but as I keep repeating detailed polling now suggests it wouldn't be supported.
I think the indicative votes, possibly the most farcical parliamentary process of my lifetime, torpedoed any potential compromise. People commentating on the process said "you won't get a second referendum you'll get a rubbish deal" and that is exactly what happened as a result.
We can thank Theresa May. Who refused to consider EEA when she had the ability to deliver it
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
This was the problem of electing May in 2016 - she felt that as a previous Remain supporter she had to pander to the Leavers. Actually, it's worse than that - to her perception of Leavers.
I'm not sure Boris had much option - by the time he got to be PM he had to force through any Brexit possible, and there was only one Brexit possible at that point.
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
Something I advocated in a thread header on here the day after the vote. There was a golden opportunity for Cameron - or certainly May - to say that they wanted the widest possible support and acceptance of the new direction and the best way to achieve that, in light of how close the vote was, was to look at compromise. Apply to EFTA as a first step and then see how things developed from there. That wouldn't even have needed Freedom of Movement but it would have indicated a willingness to travel towards a new, realistic relationship with the EU based on cooperation.
But May had to be the hardest of Brexiteers because she fundamentally misunderstood the attitude of both Parliament and the country as a whole. Hence no compromise on anything.
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
When did the euphiles ever take eurosceptics into account in the last 40 years when they tied us to mastriicht, the lisbon abomination, blair giving away our rebate for nothing, the lack of a moratorium for free movement form new accession states. If they had maybe brexit voters might not be sticking up two fingers and calling remainer folk "C****"
Britain is not divided into Europhiles and Eurosceptics, who make up two clearly defined groups locked in perpetual competition.
Britain has devoted Europhiles, massive Eurosceptics, and the vast majority of people in between.
You are arguing that because one group had been c*nts, that you should ignore the vast majority of the people in the middle.
That's pretty shameful.
Did you proclaim it shameful when we were in the eu and europhiles ignored the people in the middle?
Despite Chancellor Jeremy Hunt claiming that Brexit ‘can be an incredible success’, voters don’t seem to share his optimism in our latest Brexit sentiment tracker:
So still less than 50% want to rejoin the EU including DKs
The issue that’s not addressed in these polls is what type of re-join . I know many Remainers who think Brexits been a disaster but think it’s far too soon to revisit the issue . That’s basically where I’m at .
Heck, I think this is a mistake and the point of democracy is that mistakes get reversed, but I think this is too soon.
And yes, the UK's mind is not settled on the issue, and yes, adding the downsides to the question reduces the enthusiasm for rejoin. But the striking thing about the People Polling recently was how small an effect that has.
So, given that Sunak has 18-24 months before the next election, and given the recent trend in the polling, what should the government do to protect its key entry in the history books?
Interestingly that MPs voted overwhemingly Remain. Even the Tories voted by a reasonably large majority. Interesting that Sunak voted against his leaders which has proved a poor judgement
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
When did the euphiles ever take eurosceptics into account in the last 40 years when they tied us to mastriicht, the lisbon abomination, blair giving away our rebate for nothing, the lack of a moratorium for free movement form new accession states. If they had maybe brexit voters might not be sticking up two fingers and calling remainer folk "C****"
If that’s how they want to spend the tail end of their lives on this planet, good luck to them….
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
When did the euphiles ever take eurosceptics into account in the last 40 years when they tied us to mastriicht, the lisbon abomination, blair giving away our rebate for nothing, the lack of a moratorium for free movement form new accession states. If they had maybe brexit voters might not be sticking up two fingers and calling remainer folk "C****"
Britain is not divided into Europhiles and Eurosceptics, who make up two clearly defined groups locked in perpetual competition.
Britain has devoted Europhiles, massive Eurosceptics, and the vast majority of people in between.
You are arguing that because one group had been c*nts, that you should ignore the vast majority of the people in the middle.
That's pretty shameful.
Did you proclaim it shameful when we were in the eu and europhiles ignored the people in the middle?
As I recall eurosceptic were widely reviled as bigots, xenophobes, racists etc in the main stream press and even here your father dismissed us because no one cares about the eu.
Have we done the same back except on blogs like this? No don't think so mainstream media is still using our heads as a septic tank
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
When did the euphiles ever take eurosceptics into account in the last 40 years when they tied us to mastriicht, the lisbon abomination, blair giving away our rebate for nothing, the lack of a moratorium for free movement form new accession states. If they had maybe brexit voters might not be sticking up two fingers and calling remainer folk "C****"
If that’s how they want to spend the tail end of their lives on this planet, good luck to them….
Well you would know the definition of futility being a lib dem
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
When did the euphiles ever take eurosceptics into account in the last 40 years when they tied us to mastriicht, the lisbon abomination, blair giving away our rebate for nothing, the lack of a moratorium for free movement form new accession states. If they had maybe brexit voters might not be sticking up two fingers and calling remainer folk "C****"
Britain is not divided into Europhiles and Eurosceptics, who make up two clearly defined groups locked in perpetual competition.
Britain has devoted Europhiles, massive Eurosceptics, and the vast majority of people in between.
You are arguing that because one group had been c*nts, that you should ignore the vast majority of the people in the middle.
That's pretty shameful.
Did you proclaim it shameful when we were in the eu and europhiles ignored the people in the middle?
Are you OK?
Normally you are a sensible, intelligent poster.
What I found shameful was you advocating that the people in the middle should be ignored.
That is profoundly undemocratic and you genuinely should be ashamed of yourself.
For the record, and as anyone whose read this board over significant periods, I was (and am) pro-Brexit, on the basis that small and nimble beats big and bureaucratic every day of the week, and because I believe that political decisions are best made as near to the people as possible. The EU fails on both counts.
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
Something I advocated in a thread header on here the day after the vote. There was a golden opportunity for Cameron - or certainly May - to say that they wanted the widest possible support and acceptance of the new direction and the best way to achieve that, in light of how close the vote was, was to look at compromise. Apply to EFTA as a first step and then see how things developed from there. That wouldn't even have needed Freedom of Movement but it would have indicated a willingness to travel towards a new, realistic relationship with the EU based on cooperation.
But May had to be the hardest of Brexiteers because she fundamentally misunderstood the attitude of both Parliament and the country as a whole. Hence no compromise on anything.
May's Lancaster House speech pretty much made any compromise impossible and ironically ended up being a time bomb which destroyed her premiership. It effectively made a soft Brexit impossible (because the ERG would accept nothing other than a hard Brexit thereafter) and made Remainers feel their concerns and wishes were going to be ignored.
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
When did the euphiles ever take eurosceptics into account in the last 40 years when they tied us to mastriicht, the lisbon abomination, blair giving away our rebate for nothing, the lack of a moratorium for free movement form new accession states. If they had maybe brexit voters might not be sticking up two fingers and calling remainer folk "C****"
Britain is not divided into Europhiles and Eurosceptics, who make up two clearly defined groups locked in perpetual competition.
Britain has devoted Europhiles, massive Eurosceptics, and the vast majority of people in between.
You are arguing that because one group had been c*nts, that you should ignore the vast majority of the people in the middle.
That's pretty shameful.
Did you proclaim it shameful when we were in the eu and europhiles ignored the people in the middle?
We’ll they didn’t did they.
We opted out of the Euro. We opted out of Schengen. All Freedom, security and justice directives. The social chapter. “Ever closer Union”. We basically spent the good part of 2 decades pandering to Eurosceptics. As a result we got semi skimmed EU membership.
Britain’s latter day membership of the EU was a case study in not ignoring those people in the middle.
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
Something I advocated in a thread header on here the day after the vote. There was a golden opportunity for Cameron - or certainly May - to say that they wanted the widest possible support and acceptance of the new direction and the best way to achieve that, in light of how close the vote was, was to look at compromise. Apply to EFTA as a first step and then see how things developed from there. That wouldn't even have needed Freedom of Movement but it would have indicated a willingness to travel towards a new, realistic relationship with the EU based on cooperation.
But May had to be the hardest of Brexiteers because she fundamentally misunderstood the attitude of both Parliament and the country as a whole. Hence no compromise on anything.
May understood that Efta would have divided her party, perhaps blown it in half. That's why she couldn't contemplate it. Every step of the process - calling the referendum, May's red lines, the refusal to compromise in parliament, Johnson's signing up to a Brexit deal in bad faith - has been determined by the goal of Tory Party unity, over the interests of the country. And it has failed because the Eurosceptic right of the Tory party can never be satisfied, as they are at war with reality.
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
When did the euphiles ever take eurosceptics into account in the last 40 years when they tied us to mastriicht, the lisbon abomination, blair giving away our rebate for nothing, the lack of a moratorium for free movement form new accession states. If they had maybe brexit voters might not be sticking up two fingers and calling remainer folk "C****"
Britain is not divided into Europhiles and Eurosceptics, who make up two clearly defined groups locked in perpetual competition.
Britain has devoted Europhiles, massive Eurosceptics, and the vast majority of people in between.
You are arguing that because one group had been c*nts, that you should ignore the vast majority of the people in the middle.
That's pretty shameful.
Did you proclaim it shameful when we were in the eu and europhiles ignored the people in the middle?
As I recall eurosceptic were widely reviled as bigots, xenophobes, racists etc in the main stream press and even here your father dismissed us because no one cares about the eu.
Have we done the same back except on blogs like this? No don't think so mainstream media is still using our heads as a septic tank
It's a well known fact that all the mainstream press continually advocated closer EU integration.
So long as you define popular press to mean The Guardian. And the Independent.
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
When did the euphiles ever take eurosceptics into account in the last 40 years when they tied us to mastriicht, the lisbon abomination, blair giving away our rebate for nothing, the lack of a moratorium for free movement form new accession states. If they had maybe brexit voters might not be sticking up two fingers and calling remainer folk "C****"
Britain is not divided into Europhiles and Eurosceptics, who make up two clearly defined groups locked in perpetual competition.
Britain has devoted Europhiles, massive Eurosceptics, and the vast majority of people in between.
You are arguing that because one group had been c*nts, that you should ignore the vast majority of the people in the middle.
That's pretty shameful.
Did you proclaim it shameful when we were in the eu and europhiles ignored the people in the middle?
We'd have joined the Euro and Schengen if the 'europhiles' had got what they wanted. We didn't and weren't going to.
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
Something I advocated in a thread header on here the day after the vote. There was a golden opportunity for Cameron - or certainly May - to say that they wanted the widest possible support and acceptance of the new direction and the best way to achieve that, in light of how close the vote was, was to look at compromise. Apply to EFTA as a first step and then see how things developed from there. That wouldn't even have needed Freedom of Movement but it would have indicated a willingness to travel towards a new, realistic relationship with the EU based on cooperation.
But May had to be the hardest of Brexiteers because she fundamentally misunderstood the attitude of both Parliament and the country as a whole. Hence no compromise on anything.
I don't think you can blame May for this.
Yes, there is an honourable Liberal Leave way of thinking, and you epitomise the best of that. The UK is an odd European country, and arrangements that work for the rest of the continent are a bit clunky for us. Norway and Switzerland have worked out where they need to do things differently, and where they are willing to tag along after Brussels, and that can be made to work. And maybe there is an arrangement to be done like that. Maybe.
But to get above 50%, Leave needs a lot of other people. And a lot of them weren't willing to compromise. Farage wasn't, Cummings wasn't, Johnson wasn't really. It would have been elegant to chuck them overboard and go for an arrangement that satisfied soft Leavers and reluctant Remainers, but it wasn't practical poltics, ever. May said it out loud, but it was just describing reality.
"You have to dance with the one who brung ya", as Ronald Regan put it.
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
When did the euphiles ever take eurosceptics into account in the last 40 years when they tied us to mastriicht, the lisbon abomination, blair giving away our rebate for nothing, the lack of a moratorium for free movement form new accession states. If they had maybe brexit voters might not be sticking up two fingers and calling remainer folk "C****"
Britain is not divided into Europhiles and Eurosceptics, who make up two clearly defined groups locked in perpetual competition.
Britain has devoted Europhiles, massive Eurosceptics, and the vast majority of people in between.
You are arguing that because one group had been c*nts, that you should ignore the vast majority of the people in the middle.
That's pretty shameful.
Did you proclaim it shameful when we were in the eu and europhiles ignored the people in the middle?
Are you OK?
Normally you are a sensible, intelligent poster.
What I found shameful was you advocating that the people in the middle should be ignored.
That is profoundly undemocratic and you genuinely should be ashamed of yourself.
For the record, and as anyone whose read this board over significant periods, I was (and am) pro-Brexit, on the basis that small and nimble beats big and bureaucratic every day of the week, and because I believe that political decisions are best made as near to the people as possible. The EU fails on both counts.
I am fine I have just lost faith in democracy to sort out the issues for not only our country but throughout the west. The decisions that need to be made wont be because any politician being straight about them wont get elected. I love democracy sadly its not fit for purpose if we want to sort the issues we, and the west have and I don't see any easy answers. It is a hard place to be in.
Due to this yes I believe people have to be ignored for a decade or two and someone needs to sort the issues before we return to a democracy. At the same time I would hate that as well. Shrugs where do you go?
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
Something I advocated in a thread header on here the day after the vote. There was a golden opportunity for Cameron - or certainly May - to say that they wanted the widest possible support and acceptance of the new direction and the best way to achieve that, in light of how close the vote was, was to look at compromise. Apply to EFTA as a first step and then see how things developed from there. That wouldn't even have needed Freedom of Movement but it would have indicated a willingness to travel towards a new, realistic relationship with the EU based on cooperation.
But May had to be the hardest of Brexiteers because she fundamentally misunderstood the attitude of both Parliament and the country as a whole. Hence no compromise on anything.
May understood that Efta would have divided her party, perhaps blown it in half. That's why she couldn't contemplate it. Every step of the process - calling the referendum, May's red lines, the refusal to compromise in parliament, Johnson's signing up to a Brexit deal in bad faith - has been determined by the goal of Tory Party unity, over the interests of the country. And it has failed because the Eurosceptic right of the Tory party can never be satisfied, as they are at war with reality.
History does indeed teach us that feeding the wingnuts never works. You’ll never be right wing enough for the true believers of the right, and you’ll never be left wing enough for the true believers of the left.
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
When did the euphiles ever take eurosceptics into account in the last 40 years when they tied us to mastriicht, the lisbon abomination, blair giving away our rebate for nothing, the lack of a moratorium for free movement form new accession states. If they had maybe brexit voters might not be sticking up two fingers and calling remainer folk "C****"
Britain is not divided into Europhiles and Eurosceptics, who make up two clearly defined groups locked in perpetual competition.
Britain has devoted Europhiles, massive Eurosceptics, and the vast majority of people in between.
You are arguing that because one group had been c*nts, that you should ignore the vast majority of the people in the middle.
That's pretty shameful.
Did you proclaim it shameful when we were in the eu and europhiles ignored the people in the middle?
Are you OK?
Normally you are a sensible, intelligent poster.
What I found shameful was you advocating that the people in the middle should be ignored.
That is profoundly undemocratic and you genuinely should be ashamed of yourself.
For the record, and as anyone whose read this board over significant periods, I was (and am) pro-Brexit, on the basis that small and nimble beats big and bureaucratic every day of the week, and because I believe that political decisions are best made as near to the people as possible. The EU fails on both counts.
I am fine I have just lost faith in democracy to sort out the issues for not only our country but throughout the west. The decisions that need to be made wont be because any politician being straight about them wont get elected. I love democracy sadly its not fit for purpose if we want to sort the issues we, and the west have and I don't see any easy answers. It is a hard place to be in.
Due to this yes I believe people have to be ignored for a decade or two and someone needs to sort the issues before we return to a democracy. At the same time I would hate that as well. Shrugs where do you go?
What this country needs is a patriotic strongman, right?
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
When did the euphiles ever take eurosceptics into account in the last 40 years when they tied us to mastriicht, the lisbon abomination, blair giving away our rebate for nothing, the lack of a moratorium for free movement form new accession states. If they had maybe brexit voters might not be sticking up two fingers and calling remainer folk "C****"
Britain is not divided into Europhiles and Eurosceptics, who make up two clearly defined groups locked in perpetual competition.
Britain has devoted Europhiles, massive Eurosceptics, and the vast majority of people in between.
You are arguing that because one group had been c*nts, that you should ignore the vast majority of the people in the middle.
That's pretty shameful.
Did you proclaim it shameful when we were in the eu and europhiles ignored the people in the middle?
Are you OK?
Normally you are a sensible, intelligent poster.
What I found shameful was you advocating that the people in the middle should be ignored.
That is profoundly undemocratic and you genuinely should be ashamed of yourself.
For the record, and as anyone whose read this board over significant periods, I was (and am) pro-Brexit, on the basis that small and nimble beats big and bureaucratic every day of the week, and because I believe that political decisions are best made as near to the people as possible. The EU fails on both counts.
I am fine I have just lost faith in democracy to sort out the issues for not only our country but throughout the west. The decisions that need to be made wont be because any politician being straight about them wont get elected. I love democracy sadly its not fit for purpose if we want to sort the issues we, and the west have and I don't see any easy answers. It is a hard place to be in.
Due to this yes I believe people have to be ignored for a decade or two and someone needs to sort the issues before we return to a democracy. At the same time I would hate that as well. Shrugs where do you go?
If the majority doesn't get over it and want to make the best of it
We do want to make the best of it, by reversing as much as possible
Then why did Sir Keir lead Labour in choosing Boris's deal over May's?
The two were not on the table at the same time, so your question is bunk.
No, it really isn't. He certainly should have known in leading his party against May's deal that if he was successful in defeating it, something very much like Boris's deal was inevitable. Certainly the ERG realised that!
This is all hindsight chat.
May’s deal even unto itself was a “hard” Brexit, as that term was understood in the early post-vote period.
Remainer opponents of May’s deal hoped first and foremost to swing Brexit toward terms thought more favourable to Remainers (48% of the population, lest we forget).
Even if Labour (which was led by Corbyn at the time) HAD voted for May’s deal, she would just as likely have been deposed by her own party to prevent its execution and in retaliation at the disgrace of trying to pass a deal over the heads of the large rump of Tory backbenchers.
Far too great a chunk of *influential* (press, MPs etc) Remainer thinking was on reversal. They went max, and lost. Again.
They learned nothing from the actual campaign.
Sure the FBPE guys and the People's Vote guys, and the like were scum,
But I don't remember the clamour of offers from our side for a compromise Brexit.
Before the referendum, when it looked like a narrow Remain win was likely, Dominic Raab gave a little speech, where he said that a narrow win for one side should mean that we shouldn't discount the losers.
His point was that if Remain won narrowly, it shouldn't be taken as a sign that the British were gung ho for further integration, but rather that it was narrowly balanced, and we should make sure the tens of millions of people who voted Leave were not forgotten.
And he was right.
But that cuts both ways too. While there was no serious effort from the losers to find a compromise, nor was their any effort from May or Johnson to reach out to the muddy middle.
When did the euphiles ever take eurosceptics into account in the last 40 years when they tied us to mastriicht, the lisbon abomination, blair giving away our rebate for nothing, the lack of a moratorium for free movement form new accession states. If they had maybe brexit voters might not be sticking up two fingers and calling remainer folk "C****"
Britain is not divided into Europhiles and Eurosceptics, who make up two clearly defined groups locked in perpetual competition.
Britain has devoted Europhiles, massive Eurosceptics, and the vast majority of people in between.
You are arguing that because one group had been c*nts, that you should ignore the vast majority of the people in the middle.
That's pretty shameful.
Did you proclaim it shameful when we were in the eu and europhiles ignored the people in the middle?
Are you OK?
Normally you are a sensible, intelligent poster.
What I found shameful was you advocating that the people in the middle should be ignored.
That is profoundly undemocratic and you genuinely should be ashamed of yourself.
For the record, and as anyone whose read this board over significant periods, I was (and am) pro-Brexit, on the basis that small and nimble beats big and bureaucratic every day of the week, and because I believe that political decisions are best made as near to the people as possible. The EU fails on both counts.
I am fine I have just lost faith in democracy to sort out the issues for not only our country but throughout the west. The decisions that need to be made wont be because any politician being straight about them wont get elected. I love democracy sadly its not fit for purpose if we want to sort the issues we, and the west have and I don't see any easy answers. It is a hard place to be in.
Due to this yes I believe people have to be ignored for a decade or two and someone needs to sort the issues before we return to a democracy. At the same time I would hate that as well. Shrugs where do you go?
What this country needs is a patriotic strongman, right?
No not saying that either, as I said I believe in democracy I have just reached a point where I look at problems we have and most western countries have the same and realise fixing those problems can't be done in a democracy unless politicians lie about their intent or we dont go democratic for a few years. Personally I prefer politician do not tarnish their already low credibility further.
so two questions for you and second is only if you say no to the first
1) Do you see the problems in the western countries solvable by any politician being honest and still getting elected?
2) If no politician can get elected on what needs to be done what do you think should be done
Comments
Personally I think too much has happened now and re-join needs to be kicked into the long grass . There are many things that UK governments can do to have closer ties without membership. But that needs the ERG and right wing press to stop shouting Brexit betrayal anytime closer links are mentioned . I come from this as a staunch Remainer but we can’t revisit all that division again so soon .
In an ideal world, Cameron would have recognised that there were three essential destinations - full EU membership, EEA membership, and membership of neither (notably absent: the unsustainable status quo) - and then found a way for that to have been decided on the single referendum ballot paper.
Had he done so, I suspect that EEA would have won convincingly. His failure to do is one reason why I said earlier his design of the referendum was deliberatley to maximise the chance of Remain winning.
* All *
🇬🇧 Stay Out: 29% (-2)
🇪🇺 Re-join: 49% (+2)
* Exc DKs*
🇬🇧 Stay Out: 37% (-3)
🇪🇺 Re-join: 63% (+3)
https://twitter.com/omnisis/status/1618992143133216769?s=46&t=gPzmaqJN5Wk7KM4wk77DpQ
Still balls deep in England winning the World Cup this year.
https://www.railengineer.co.uk/the-station-now-arriving-old-oak-common-interchange/
HS2 services between London and Birmingham are due to start running between 2029 and 2033, with a target date of 2030. Trains will initially run between the new stations at Old Oak Common and Birmingham Curzon Street ... The plans [for Euston Station] were changed on government orders — at a cost of £105.6 million — from an 11-platform design, which would have opened in two stages, to a 10-platform scheme that is due for completion between 2031 and 2036.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/euston-tube-station-upgrade-plans-hs2-architects-design-london-train-b1043757.html
There seems to be a planned gap between initial service from Old Oak Station to the full service from Euston. My guess is that gap will get longer.
A colleagues husband is a firefighter in Edinburgh, and they recently had a baby. What a mix of emotions they must be going through as a couple today.
https://twitter.com/danneidle/status/1619004131729113095?s=46&t=gPzmaqJN5Wk7KM4wk77DpQ
You got told fuck you deal with it
Am struggling to find something to dissent from, can only say that I'm personally skeptical (from afar) that Brexit can live up to your own post-Brexiteer hopes.
But won't be too bummed out IF you're proven correct.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1468-4446.12790
With swings of 17.5-20.5% across England it's little surprise Labour are strong favourites to win most seats. The Techne poll this week was little changed on last week and while the Conservatives have trimmed the Labour lead in the latest Omnisis poll, it's still 24 points and a 19% national poll swing from Conservative to Labour.
I've not seen the Omnisis data tables but the Techne tables (such as they are) tell a familiar tale. 53% of the 2019 Conservative vote staying loyal, 16% Labour, 16% Uncertain/Won't Vote and 9% to Reform.
Would be interesting to see a (reasonably) objective analysis re: Brexit winners & losers, in terms of percentages of workers/owners/whatever (ditto households & communities) with subsets by demography & geography.
The heroic truckers deserve their increased pay.
Or have I got that the wrong way round?
Now of course people go too far on the positive and imply it would solve every problem in existence.
I may also not be the most sarcastic person in Western Europe at this moment.
Busy week and glad it's Friday evening.
Was vaguely thinking of doing a podcast series on castles that are beautiful, historic and interesting but nobody visits because they're either very remote or they've just never heard of them.
you get a job as a teacher you see a salary of 30k
you see a private sector job you can apply for thats 35k
most go for the private sector job
when you include the pension contribution however
teacher = 30k * 24% = 37.2k
private sector = 35k * 4% = 36.4K
And yes, the UK's mind is not settled on the issue, and yes, adding the downsides to the question reduces the enthusiasm for rejoin. But the striking thing about the People Polling recently was how small an effect that has.
So, given that Sunak has 18-24 months before the next election, and given the recent trend in the polling, what should the government do to protect its key entry in the history books?
Yes, yes, the opposition they faced, that's absolutely true and valid, and to question how strong the positive support they have is also reasonable, but you don't win as big as they did in 2019 without pull factors toward you as well as push factors away from your opponents. I don't think it is fair to suggest they were not popular - at least as we define these things for political parties and individuals, net positive ratings are unusual.
Today leaders in the North East are sitting down with @michaelgove to sign their devo deal. The full text came out just after Christmas, so you might have missed it.
Here's a🧵on the key bits of the deal text. This one has a bunch of interesting elements… (1/20)
https://twitter.com/ahawksbee/status/1618895974671486976
I voted Leave because I felt the direction of the EU and its reality was not the dream it was trying to sell, but I think it is pretty silly to pretend there was no positive case that could have been made, even though the Remain campaign declined by and large to make it.
The net result is that the two lower quintiles of tax filers, rather than paying federal income taxes, get money from the federal government at income tax time.
Or to have had tickets to a cricket match that got rained off completely, despite being in Dubai…
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/international-league-t20-2022-23-1326657/gulf-giants-vs-mi-emirates-18th-match-1346933/live-cricket-score
so his salary is going from 30k + 7.2k
to 33k + 7.92
yes still a 10% overall but a lot of the extra cost being hidden
The current coalition Government is made up of Reform, Pro Patria and the Social Democrats. The Centre Party was part of the Government until its mInisters were sacked by Reform last summer - Centre had been equivocal in its position on the Russian invasion of Ukraine (and has always had roots in the Russian-speaking minority).
The other main opposition parties are the Conservative People's party and Estonia 200.
The latest Kantar Emor poll as follows (changes from the 2019 election):
Reform: 31.5% (+2.6)
Conservative People's Party: 19.1% (+1.3)
Centre: 16.0% (-7.1)
Estonia 200: 12.4% (+8.0)
Social Democrats: 7.6% (-2.2)
Pro Patria: 5.6% (-5.8)
The government parties have 44.7% and the opposition parties 47.5%. I wonder if the Reform Prime minister would be happier to have E200 in the Government and Pro Patria (even if they clear the 5% threshold) on the outside.
As a result Huge Manatees have been banned instead
If the nation wants more teachers, it's going to have to put up more money. By all means, highlight the pension arrangements more, but the nation doesn't get to force people to work for them.
Say "take it or leave it" if you like, but the evidence is that people are choosing to leave it, and getting cross with them won't change that.
Works for train drivers
I think the indicative votes, possibly the most farcical parliamentary process of my lifetime, torpedoed any potential compromise. People commentating on the process said "you won't get a second referendum you'll get a rubbish deal" and that is exactly what happened as a result.
The problem with operating a terminus at OOC - even a temporary one - is that it really limits the numbers of trains that can be run. That may be acceptable for a short period, but not an appreciable amount of time.
Is that Standard claim available in any official format?
Britain has devoted Europhiles, massive Eurosceptics, and the vast majority of people in between.
You are arguing that because one group had been c*nts, that you should ignore the vast majority of the people in the middle.
That's pretty shameful.
But May had to be the hardest of Brexiteers because she fundamentally misunderstood the attitude of both Parliament and the country as a whole. Hence no compromise on anything.
Another reason to hope he loses the next election
If that’s how they want to spend the tail end of their lives on this planet, good luck to them….
Have we done the same back except on blogs like this? No don't think so mainstream media is still using our heads as a septic tank
Normally you are a sensible, intelligent poster.
What I found shameful was you advocating that the people in the middle should be ignored.
That is profoundly undemocratic and you genuinely should be ashamed of yourself.
For the record, and as anyone whose read this board over significant periods, I was (and am) pro-Brexit, on the basis that small and nimble beats big and bureaucratic every day of the week, and because I believe that political decisions are best made as near to the people as possible. The EU fails on both counts.
We opted out of the Euro. We opted out of Schengen. All Freedom, security and justice directives. The social chapter. “Ever closer Union”. We basically spent the good part of 2 decades pandering to Eurosceptics. As a result we got semi skimmed EU membership.
Britain’s latter day membership of the EU was a case study in not ignoring those people in the middle.
So long as you define popular press to mean The Guardian. And the Independent.
We didn't and weren't going to.
New Thread With 100% Less Craziness
Yes, there is an honourable Liberal Leave way of thinking, and you epitomise the best of that. The UK is an odd European country, and arrangements that work for the rest of the continent are a bit clunky for us. Norway and Switzerland have worked out where they need to do things differently, and where they are willing to tag along after Brussels, and that can be made to work. And maybe there is an arrangement to be done like that. Maybe.
But to get above 50%, Leave needs a lot of other people. And a lot of them weren't willing to compromise. Farage wasn't, Cummings wasn't, Johnson wasn't really. It would have been elegant to chuck them overboard and go for an arrangement that satisfied soft Leavers and reluctant Remainers, but it wasn't practical poltics, ever. May said it out loud, but it was just describing reality.
"You have to dance with the one who brung ya", as Ronald Regan put it.
Due to this yes I believe people have to be ignored for a decade or two and someone needs to sort the issues before we return to a democracy. At the same time I would hate that as well. Shrugs where do you go?
Oh boy!
so two questions for you and second is only if you say no to the first
1) Do you see the problems in the western countries solvable by any politician being honest and still getting elected?
2) If no politician can get elected on what needs to be done what do you think should be done