An MPs behaviour – now the main trigger for Westminster by-elections – politicalbetting.com

Pulpstar said:

Theuniondivvie said:

JosiasJessop said:

In other news, Camila Batmanghelidjh has died.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67868843

I cannot help but think that she was very hard done by. At worst she was incompetent; I cannot help but think that she was very well-meaning. Some people should be hanging their heads in shame over the way she was treated.

Istr the clamour against her on here was pretty noisy.

Rightly so given Chris Cook's report. RIP.

Which may say more about Chris Cook than Camila Batmanghelidjh . There was an absolute witch-hunt against her.

Pulpstar said:

Blimey, some eye watering devaluation changes for used EVs.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/electriccars/article-12837223/The-30-used-EVs-plunged-value-2023-year-old-cars-worth-half-much.html

Never buy a brand-new car. Just don't. It's throwing money out of the window.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

isam said:

The BBC have been reading PB, they’re inventing ‘culture wars’! Jon Sopel corrected them



You sure you’ve got this headline right? What brought her down was her inability to say that calling for a holocaust would be offensive to Jewish students. Condemned by left and right. And then plagiarism claims. Calling it ‘culture wars’ is lazy and misleading methinks

https://x.com/jonsopel/status/1742468959734055285?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

A BBC news man expressing a quasi-political opinion on Twitter? The anti-Lineker mob will surely be calling for his dismissal. /s

He’s not expressing a political opinion. He’s simply querying whether the headline properly reflects the facts of the case.

Why are they both called Luke? The darts finalists, Luke Littler v Luke Humphries. I've never met a Luke but suddenly they come along like darts-playing buses. Was there a famous Luke around the turn of the century?

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Why are they both called Luke? The darts finalists, Luke Littler v Luke Humphries. I've never met a Luke but suddenly they come along like darts-playing buses. Was there a famous Luke around the turn of the century?

Dunno, but there was a fairly famous Luke around the turn of the zeroth millennium...

DecrepiterJohnL said:

isam said:

The BBC have been reading PB, they’re inventing ‘culture wars’! Jon Sopel corrected them



You sure you’ve got this headline right? What brought her down was her inability to say that calling for a holocaust would be offensive to Jewish students. Condemned by left and right. And then plagiarism claims. Calling it ‘culture wars’ is lazy and misleading methinks

https://x.com/jonsopel/status/1742468959734055285?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

A BBC news man expressing a quasi-political opinion on Twitter? The anti-Lineker mob will surely be calling for his dismissal. /s

He left the BBC in 2022 apparently

bondegezou said:

david_herdson said:

bondegezou said:

david_herdson said:

Stuartinromford said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?

Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?

Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?

Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?

They want to flush that great Brexit turd.

You see youre obsessed.

Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.

So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.

Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.

Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.

You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.

Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?

No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.

It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare

AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)

Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea

We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.

In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.

As David Davis put it,

If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.


https://www.daviddavismp.com/david-davis-mp-delivers-speech-on-the-opportunities-for-a-referendum-on-europe/

If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.

Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.

There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.

1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment?
2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public?
3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner?
4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately?
5. Is the result implemented?

A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.

But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.

I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?

It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?

The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?

The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.

Various things here.

Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.

On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.

And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.

The text of the European Union Referendum Act 2015 is at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents Nothing there says that a result will lead to an outcome.

In contrast, the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 has a section specifically saying what happens if there is a "yes" vote: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/1/part/1/crossheading/result-of-the-referendum/enacted

Anyone can say they will respect the result of a referendum, but the Act that is democratically passed says what is legally required. It would have been entirely legal to ignore the "yes" vote of the 2015 Act. It would not for the 2011 Act. The 2015 Act didn't say anything about how to leave the EU, what timeframe to use, etc., whereas the 2011 Act details what happens as soon as there is a "yes" vote.

Sure. But just because something is legal doesn't mean it's the general consensus beforehand, or that it's right, or fair, or even constitutional.

When all sides say they will respect the result beforehand, the public has the right to expect that they will do so after the event too, whether they're legally bound to or not.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Why are they both called Luke? The darts finalists, Luke Littler v Luke Humphries. I've never met a Luke but suddenly they come along like darts-playing buses. Was there a famous Luke around the turn of the century?

Their fathers were brought up on Star Wars (released 1977) and wanted to have the chance to say "Luke, I am your father". Apparently that is really, actually the reason.

[edit: not them specofically!]

RochdalePioneers said:

Pulpstar said:

Blimey, some eye watering devaluation changes for used EVs.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/electriccars/article-12837223/The-30-used-EVs-plunged-value-2023-year-old-cars-worth-half-much.html

Not a huge surprise. There are a lot of falling car prices in general - the market has been transformed by Covid. But that top 30 EV fallers? Look at the top 10. Cars which are old, cynical, crap, or all 3.
10. Renault Zoe. 12 years old design
9. Corsa-e. Overpriced & cynical (£32k base price vs £19k for the petrol one)
8. MX-30. Family car with a range of about 3 feet
7. Nissan Leaf. 12 years old design.
6. Jaguar i-Pace. Expensive, old, breaks a lot
5. Mokka-e. Don't. Just don't.
4. EQA. Outrageously expensive, cynical and preposterously thirsty
3. EQC. See EQA
2. u-UP. 12 years old design
1. Miie. 12 years old design

Plus a load of new EVs (and new production capacity) are coming on to the market over the next 12 to 18 months, with significantly better technology in them - and some of China's offerings are relatively cheap.

Nigelb said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Pulpstar said:

Blimey, some eye watering devaluation changes for used EVs.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/electriccars/article-12837223/The-30-used-EVs-plunged-value-2023-year-old-cars-worth-half-much.html

Not a huge surprise. There are a lot of falling car prices in general - the market has been transformed by Covid. But that top 30 EV fallers? Look at the top 10. Cars which are old, cynical, crap, or all 3.
10. Renault Zoe. 12 years old design
9. Corsa-e. Overpriced & cynical (£32k base price vs £19k for the petrol one)
8. MX-30. Family car with a range of about 3 feet
7. Nissan Leaf. 12 years old design.
6. Jaguar i-Pace. Expensive, old, breaks a lot
5. Mokka-e. Don't. Just don't.
4. EQA. Outrageously expensive, cynical and preposterously thirsty
3. EQC. See EQA
2. u-UP. 12 years old design
1. Miie. 12 years old design

Plus a load of new EVs (and new production capacity) are coming on to the market over the next 12 to 18 months, with significantly better technology in them - and some of China's offerings are relatively cheap.

There was a huge shortage of EVs for a while - remember when Tesla had people piling in to order cars that were a year or more away?

bondegezou said:

Theuniondivvie said:

malcolmg said:

MattW said:

OT: I see that the Epstein "associates" names are due for release soon in New York.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67861498

I wonder which ones will be there, or not there, I wonder?

delayed yet again for 30 days

Jeff, just grab ‘em by the etc.

Donald Trump on Epstein: “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

The Trump winged monkeys are already abroad on TwitterX claiming this photo is shopped, no doubt they'll also be claiming the quote is fake.
It's probably been already observed but the greatest influence AI etc will have in the short term is to cast doubt on the authenticity of absolutely everything.

Not many famous Lukes. Skywalker and the evangelist already noted. Who else?

TimS said:

Not many famous Lukes. Skywalker and the evangelist already noted. Who else?

Cool hand Luke?

david_herdson said:

bondegezou said:

david_herdson said:

bondegezou said:

david_herdson said:

Stuartinromford said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?

Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?

Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?

Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?

They want to flush that great Brexit turd.

You see youre obsessed.

Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.

So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.

Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.

Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.

You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.

Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?

No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.

It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare

AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)

Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea

We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.

In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.

As David Davis put it,

If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.


https://www.daviddavismp.com/david-davis-mp-delivers-speech-on-the-opportunities-for-a-referendum-on-europe/

If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.

Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.

There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.

1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment?
2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public?
3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner?
4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately?
5. Is the result implemented?

A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.

But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.

I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?

It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?

The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?

The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.

Various things here.

Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.

On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.

And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.

The text of the European Union Referendum Act 2015 is at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents Nothing there says that a result will lead to an outcome.

In contrast, the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 has a section specifically saying what happens if there is a "yes" vote: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/1/part/1/crossheading/result-of-the-referendum/enacted

Anyone can say they will respect the result of a referendum, but the Act that is democratically passed says what is legally required. It would have been entirely legal to ignore the "yes" vote of the 2015 Act. It would not for the 2011 Act. The 2015 Act didn't say anything about how to leave the EU, what timeframe to use, etc., whereas the 2011 Act details what happens as soon as there is a "yes" vote.

Sure. But just because something is legal doesn't mean it's the general consensus beforehand, or that it's right, or fair, or even constitutional.

When all sides say they will respect the result beforehand, the public has the right to expect that they will do so after the event too, whether they're legally bound to or not.

I agree that the public had a right to expect that there would be a serious attempt made to implement the outcome of the referendum. I was contesting the argument you put forth that a second referendum would have necessarily been undemocratic.

Pulpstar said:

pm215 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Why are they both called Luke? The darts finalists, Luke Littler v Luke Humphries. I've never met a Luke but suddenly they come along like darts-playing buses. Was there a famous Luke around the turn of the century?

Dunno, but there was a fairly famous Luke around the turn of the zeroth millennium...

Ah yes I remember the names from scripture - Michael, Phil, Luke & Eric.

Sharon Magdalene?

Luckyguy1983 said:

...

bondegezou said:

Theuniondivvie said:

malcolmg said:

MattW said:

OT: I see that the Epstein "associates" names are due for release soon in New York.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67861498

I wonder which ones will be there, or not there, I wonder?

delayed yet again for 30 days

Jeff, just grab ‘em by the etc.

Donald Trump on Epstein: “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

Pretty sure Bill Clinton was more in Epstein's line.

Epstein's line was the rich and powerful. As a combination of clients of his evil, cover, scam victims and useful contacts.

Sorting out which was which will take a long time.

Luke Perry, recently deceased.

bondegezou said:

Stocky said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

david_herdson said:

Stuartinromford said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?

Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?

Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?

Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?

They want to flush that great Brexit turd.

You see youre obsessed.

Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.

So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.

Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.

Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.

You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.

Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?

No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.

It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare

AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)

Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea

We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.

In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.

As David Davis put it,

If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.


https://www.daviddavismp.com/david-davis-mp-delivers-speech-on-the-opportunities-for-a-referendum-on-europe/

If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.

Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.

There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.

1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment?
2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public?
3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner?
4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately?
5. Is the result implemented?

A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.

But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.

Not really, given that the implementation of a general election result is legally binding, but the implementation of the EU referendum was not. Obviously it would have been politically suicidal for the conservatives to have not implemented the referendum result, but there was no legal obligation for them to do so.

That would mean that MPs voted for there to be a referendum (which they did on all sides with the notable exception of the SNP) disingenuously.

If parliament knocks a difficult constitutional issue back to the electorate it must accept the verdict. The mistake was voting for the referendum in the first place which, as is now obvious, they did (some Con, almost all Lab and all LD) with insincerity and dishonesty.

I think that if a parliament knocks a difficult constitutional issue back to the electorate it must accept the verdict. But no parliament can bind a future parliament. In all other matters, it is accepted that a general election resets everything. If you have an election and parties saying "let's stop going down this path" win, then you stop going down that path.

David is quite right.

Those who argue otherwise are simply those who hated the referendum result and didn't want it to be implemented in the first place.

It's a very good thing for British democracy that they didn't win out.

twistedfirestopper3 said:

I'm currently sitting in a cafe in Southborne, watching our house flood 160 miles away via our Ring camera system.

I'm in Somerset on the way home and lots of flooding here.

Farming on the levels must be becoming increasingly impractical.

One of the critics of Claudine Gay is political scientist Carol M. Swain:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_M._Swain
"Swain grew up in poverty, living in a shack without running water, and sharing two beds with her eleven siblings.[1] She did not have shoes and thus missed school whenever it snowed.[1] She did not finish high school, dropping out in ninth grade.
. . .
Swain received tenure as an associate professor of politics and public policy at Princeton University."

She has had an interesting life, to say the least:

And some years ago said she had faced more discrimination at Princeton as an evangelical -- than as a black woman.

Pulpstar said:

Leon said:

david_herdson said:

bondegezou said:

david_herdson said:

Stuartinromford said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?

Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?

Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?

Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?

They want to flush that great Brexit turd.

You see youre obsessed.

Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.

So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.

Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.

Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.

You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.

Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?

No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.

It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare

AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)

Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea

We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.

In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.

As David Davis put it,

If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.


https://www.daviddavismp.com/david-davis-mp-delivers-speech-on-the-opportunities-for-a-referendum-on-europe/

If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.

Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.

There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.

1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment?
2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public?
3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner?
4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately?
5. Is the result implemented?

A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.

But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.

I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?

It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?

The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?

The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.

Various things here.

Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.

On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.

And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.

The whole "it was advisory" and "a 2nd referendum would have been democratic" bollocks is - I am now sure - advanced by people who are, in retrospect, ashamed and uncomfortable that they supported a 2nd vote. Ashamed because it was so clearly foolish, immoral and dangerous as a policy

The problem was that the whole "advisory" narrative surfaced AFTER the referendum took place. That was incredibly damaging to any sort of rejoin cause in the medium - long term (Obviously we did need to leave).
A far better tack would have been for remain inclined MPs to say "OK we accept the result, we will leave. And the day after we have left we will campaign to rejoin". The 17-19 parliament did not do this. They attempted to block us from leaving which was complete strategic folly.
Imagine we'd voted for Corbyn in the 2017 referendum and instead of leaving Downing Street May had set up another poll to be sure we wanted Corbyn and remained in Downing Street.
I hope we do go back in at some point, I believe we'll be more prosperous as a nation for it but the 2017-19 parliament was as bad as Trump.

Agree with all of that, except the first line of the final paragraph.

Our economic performance if we'd Remained in the EU as opposed to how it is now, today, would be utterly indistinguishable and no-one spun round from 2015 and inserted in 2024 would be able to tell any difference.

Casino_Royale said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

I'm currently sitting in a cafe in Southborne, watching our house flood 160 miles away via our Ring camera system.

I'm in Somerset on the way home and lots of flooding here.

Farming on the levels must be becoming increasingly impractical.

Maybe switch to rice?

I feel Labour are taking the nebulous plan for government thing a bit too far.

david_herdson said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

david_herdson said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

david_herdson said:

Stuartinromford said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?

Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?

Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?

Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?

They want to flush that great Brexit turd.

You see youre obsessed.

Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.

So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.

Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.

Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.

You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.

Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?

No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.

It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare

AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)

Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea

We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.

In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.

As David Davis put it,

If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.


https://www.daviddavismp.com/david-davis-mp-delivers-speech-on-the-opportunities-for-a-referendum-on-europe/

If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.

Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.

There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.

1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment?
2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public?
3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner?
4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately?
5. Is the result implemented?

A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.

But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.

Not really, given that the implementation of a general election result is legally binding, but the implementation of the EU referendum was not. Obviously it would have been politically suicidal for the conservatives to have not implemented the referendum result, but there was no legal obligation for them to do so.

The implementation of a general election result is not legally binding. All an election does is elect MPs. Constitutional convention - and the dynamics and pressures of practical politics - requires the government not to have the express opposition of a majority of MPs on a confidence vote but that's not a legal obligation. Legally, there is nothing to stop the existing (and defeated) government staying on, the king not dismissing them, and a new election being called.

That's not correct.

The whole point of the Miller II case just before the 2019 election was that it established exercise of prerogative powers (in that case prorogation) is justicable by reference to common law principles, and that accountability of a government to Parliament was such a principle that the court would protect. Leaving Brexit completely aside, that's the legal and constitutional significance of the case.

It's not tested as to how this would be applied in the situation you describe (which is unlikely although, as Johnson's prorogation attempt shows, nothing is impossible). But it's certainly justicable, and indeed I'm pretty confident a court would find that the monarch was legally obliged to implement a general election result by dismissing the defeated PM and appointing the leader of the victorious party (assuming it was indeed clear that the individual could command a majority).

That's quite a bold assertion. Dissolutions and government forming are regarded as reserve powers of the monarch, unlike prorogation. ISTR (but may be wrong) that whether the act was done on ministerial advice played a role in the judgment.

Anyway, in such a scenario, I'd expect the public to scale up Winchester 1997 as a reaction against such an abuse rather than have the government dismissed on contestable judicial fiat.

Again, you're simply not correct in your reading of Miller II.

The courts make no such distinction between prerogative powers - dissolution, prorogation, dismissing and appointing PMs, are all prerogative powers and are all justicable by reference to common law principles. That's not my weird little spin on it - that is the whole point of the Supreme Court judgment in Miller II!

In relation to ministerial advice, you do indeed misremember. The point there was that Johnson' Government could have run a second line of defence saying, effectively, "even if this is justicable, you'll see that actually as we explained to Her Majesty, we were in no way seeking to undermine the principle of accountability to Parliament and actually had entirely legitimate reasons to do so". However, they didn't do so, and it was the glaring, unspoken truth that no minister would sign a statement of truth on that basis - essentially, they'd happily lied to the Queen but doing so in court would expose them to prosecution for perjury. That was shameful and scandalous, but wasn't the reason for the court's decision. Once they'd decided it was justicable, the Government had simply chosen not to provide any reason why the court shouldn't decide against them.

I agree with you it would be highly unlikely to arise in practice. Charles III or whoever the monarch is will always just call on the person who can command a majority following an election (i.e. the "winner"), dismissing the PM who has lost. So no need to go to court. But that simply wasn't your claim. You said "that's not a legal obligation". That statement isn't legally tested, but is very, very likely to be false for the reasons I explained. Certainly it's justicable (that's precisely what Miller II means) and very probably the court would find that the monarch was obliged to exercise his prerogative to appoint the "winner" in the absence of some incredibly compelling argument.

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

Leon said:

david_herdson said:

bondegezou said:

david_herdson said:

Stuartinromford said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?

Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?

Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?

Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?

They want to flush that great Brexit turd.

You see youre obsessed.

Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.

So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.

Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.

Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.

You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.

Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?

No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.

It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare

AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)

Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea

We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.

In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.

As David Davis put it,

If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.


https://www.daviddavismp.com/david-davis-mp-delivers-speech-on-the-opportunities-for-a-referendum-on-europe/

If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.

Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.

There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.

1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment?
2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public?
3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner?
4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately?
5. Is the result implemented?

A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.

But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.

I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?

It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?

The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?

The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.

Various things here.

Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.

On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.

And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.

The whole "it was advisory" and "a 2nd referendum would have been democratic" bollocks is - I am now sure - advanced by people who are, in retrospect, ashamed and uncomfortable that they supported a 2nd vote. Ashamed because it was so clearly foolish, immoral and dangerous as a policy

The problem was that the whole "advisory" narrative surfaced AFTER the referendum took place. That was incredibly damaging to any sort of rejoin cause in the medium - long term (Obviously we did need to leave).
A far better tack would have been for remain inclined MPs to say "OK we accept the result, we will leave. And the day after we have left we will campaign to rejoin". The 17-19 parliament did not do this. They attempted to block us from leaving which was complete strategic folly.
Imagine we'd voted for Corbyn in the 2017 referendum and instead of leaving Downing Street May had set up another poll to be sure we wanted Corbyn and remained in Downing Street.
I hope we do go back in at some point, I believe we'll be more prosperous as a nation for it but the 2017-19 parliament was as bad as Trump.

Agree with all of that, except the first line of the final paragraph.

Our economic performance if we'd Remained in the EU as opposed to how it is now, today, would be utterly indistinguishable and no-one spun round from 2015 and inserted in 2024 would be able to tell any difference.

Neither of us can be sure, but generally having unfettered access to a larger market is better for economies. The USA does this with even less friction than the EU entirely internally since it is one nation; but having full access to a market of 500 million is better than 70.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Casino_Royale said:

bondegezou said:

Stocky said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

david_herdson said:

Stuartinromford said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?

Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?

Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?

Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?

They want to flush that great Brexit turd.

You see youre obsessed.

Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.

So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.

Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.

Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.

You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.

Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?

No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.

It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare

AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)

Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea

We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.

In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.

As David Davis put it,

If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.


https://www.daviddavismp.com/david-davis-mp-delivers-speech-on-the-opportunities-for-a-referendum-on-europe/

If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.

Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.

There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.

1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment?
2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public?
3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner?
4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately?
5. Is the result implemented?

A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.

But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.

Not really, given that the implementation of a general election result is legally binding, but the implementation of the EU referendum was not. Obviously it would have been politically suicidal for the conservatives to have not implemented the referendum result, but there was no legal obligation for them to do so.

That would mean that MPs voted for there to be a referendum (which they did on all sides with the notable exception of the SNP) disingenuously.

If parliament knocks a difficult constitutional issue back to the electorate it must accept the verdict. The mistake was voting for the referendum in the first place which, as is now obvious, they did (some Con, almost all Lab and all LD) with insincerity and dishonesty.

I think that if a parliament knocks a difficult constitutional issue back to the electorate it must accept the verdict. But no parliament can bind a future parliament. In all other matters, it is accepted that a general election resets everything. If you have an election and parties saying "let's stop going down this path" win, then you stop going down that path.

David is quite right.

Those who argue otherwise are simply those who hated the referendum result and didn't want it to be implemented in the first place.

It's a very good thing for British democracy that they didn't win out.

No it isn't. The problem with Brexit is that David Cameron asked the question before nailing down what shape Brexit would take. That is why it was so hard to implement. Even those who'd spent decades campaigning for Brexit had no clue what they wanted to happen next, just a set of more-or-less incompatible and often unattainable unicorns. That is how we found Leave MPs, including Boris, voting against leaving.

A deal or no deal referendum on whatever agreement was hammered out would have been a logical next step, but even better would be using a time machine and having Cameron ask the right question in the first place.

Cameron organised a kind of democratic abortion.
The more time that passes, the more reprehensible his lazy contempt for constitutional safeguarding.

Nobody knew precisely what they were voting for, and it failed to carry critical constituencies (London, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the young).

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Stereodog said:

In hindsight it would have been better to have had a more precisely worded referendum in 2016. Something along the lines of “Should Britain trigger Article 50 to negotiate leaving the EU”. Then a second referendum in the actual terms of the negotiation versus remaining would have been democratically proper.

I believed at the time that it was logical to allow voters to endorse the actual exit deal before it’s implementation because it was impossible to know what shape it would take during the first referendum as there were so many different options available.

I think that a purely consultative referendum (subject to a later second vote) would have resulted in a huge win for Leave, because it was a free hit. But that would then have generated huge momentum in favour of Brexit.

What's funny is that so many of its proponents operate on the assumption people would have "seen the light".

They'd have been even more angry at the reality, and no doubt expanded their list of malign influencers, actors and invective.

No, that was always going to require experiencing the reality.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Why are they both called Luke? The darts finalists, Luke Littler v Luke Humphries. I've never met a Luke but suddenly they come along like darts-playing buses. Was there a famous Luke around the turn of the century?

Luke "look, I'm really only 16, honest, guv" Littler

Pulpstar said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

Leon said:

david_herdson said:

bondegezou said:

david_herdson said:

Stuartinromford said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?

Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?

Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?

Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?

They want to flush that great Brexit turd.

You see youre obsessed.

Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.

So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.

Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.

Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.

You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.

Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?

No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.

It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare

AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)

Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea

We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.

In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.

As David Davis put it,

If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.


https://www.daviddavismp.com/david-davis-mp-delivers-speech-on-the-opportunities-for-a-referendum-on-europe/

If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.

Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.

There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.

1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment?
2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public?
3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner?
4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately?
5. Is the result implemented?

A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.

But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.

I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?

It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?

The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?

The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.

Various things here.

Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.

On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.

And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.

The whole "it was advisory" and "a 2nd referendum would have been democratic" bollocks is - I am now sure - advanced by people who are, in retrospect, ashamed and uncomfortable that they supported a 2nd vote. Ashamed because it was so clearly foolish, immoral and dangerous as a policy

The problem was that the whole "advisory" narrative surfaced AFTER the referendum took place. That was incredibly damaging to any sort of rejoin cause in the medium - long term (Obviously we did need to leave).
A far better tack would have been for remain inclined MPs to say "OK we accept the result, we will leave. And the day after we have left we will campaign to rejoin". The 17-19 parliament did not do this. They attempted to block us from leaving which was complete strategic folly.
Imagine we'd voted for Corbyn in the 2017 referendum and instead of leaving Downing Street May had set up another poll to be sure we wanted Corbyn and remained in Downing Street.
I hope we do go back in at some point, I believe we'll be more prosperous as a nation for it but the 2017-19 parliament was as bad as Trump.

Agree with all of that, except the first line of the final paragraph.

Our economic performance if we'd Remained in the EU as opposed to how it is now, today, would be utterly indistinguishable and no-one spun round from 2015 and inserted in 2024 would be able to tell any difference.

Neither of us can be sure, but generally having unfettered access to a larger market is better for economies. The USA does this with even less friction than the EU entirely internally since it is one nation; but having full access to a market of 500 million is better than 70.

British export performance has been very poor since the referendum, it’s about as “sure” as it’s possible to find in economics.

DavidL said:

Casino_Royale said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

I'm currently sitting in a cafe in Southborne, watching our house flood 160 miles away via our Ring camera system.

I'm in Somerset on the way home and lots of flooding here.

Farming on the levels must be becoming increasingly impractical.

Maybe switch to rice?

The thing I only discovered later in life about rice farming is that you don’t need the waterlogged fields. Rice grows fine without that. It’s just that the waterlogged fields are good at killing off weeds and the rice doesn’t mind.

Endillion said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

Leon said:

david_herdson said:

bondegezou said:

david_herdson said:

Stuartinromford said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?

Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?

Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?

Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?

They want to flush that great Brexit turd.

You see youre obsessed.

Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.

So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.

Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.

Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.

You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.

Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?

No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.

It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare

AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)

Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea

We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.

In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.

As David Davis put it,

If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.


https://www.daviddavismp.com/david-davis-mp-delivers-speech-on-the-opportunities-for-a-referendum-on-europe/

If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.

Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.

There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.

1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment?
2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public?
3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner?
4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately?
5. Is the result implemented?

A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.

But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.

I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?

It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?

The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?

The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.

Various things here.

Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.

On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.

And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.

The whole "it was advisory" and "a 2nd referendum would have been democratic" bollocks is - I am now sure - advanced by people who are, in retrospect, ashamed and uncomfortable that they supported a 2nd vote. Ashamed because it was so clearly foolish, immoral and dangerous as a policy

The problem was that the whole "advisory" narrative surfaced AFTER the referendum took place. That was incredibly damaging to any sort of rejoin cause in the medium - long term (Obviously we did need to leave).
A far better tack would have been for remain inclined MPs to say "OK we accept the result, we will leave. And the day after we have left we will campaign to rejoin". The 17-19 parliament did not do this. They attempted to block us from leaving which was complete strategic folly.
Imagine we'd voted for Corbyn in the 2017 referendum and instead of leaving Downing Street May had set up another poll to be sure we wanted Corbyn and remained in Downing Street.
I hope we do go back in at some point, I believe we'll be more prosperous as a nation for it but the 2017-19 parliament was as bad as Trump.

Agree with all of that, except the first line of the final paragraph.

Our economic performance if we'd Remained in the EU as opposed to how it is now, today, would be utterly indistinguishable and no-one spun round from 2015 and inserted in 2024 would be able to tell any difference.

I believe the kids call it “copium”.

This claim is commonly made by Brexity posters, because the alternative is conceding that you voted to economically damage your own country.

I voted to economically damage my country, and have no problem with that.

I figured the medium term political and social benefits would more than offset the short term economic damage, and there might even be longer term economic benefits as well.

Nothing that's happened since the referendum has changed my view on any of that.

Fair, and in my opinion the only reasonable “Brexitism”.

TimS said:

I think @Leon suggested a quiz question for biggest black swan of 2024.

Well…https://x.com/gesfandiari/status/1742524707084063192?s=46

20 dead, 40+ injured and no obvious suspect group

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

Leon said:

david_herdson said:

bondegezou said:

david_herdson said:

Stuartinromford said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?

Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?

Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?

Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?

They want to flush that great Brexit turd.

You see youre obsessed.

Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.

So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.

Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.

Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.

You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.

Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?

No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.

It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare

AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)

Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea

We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.

In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.

As David Davis put it,

If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.


https://www.daviddavismp.com/david-davis-mp-delivers-speech-on-the-opportunities-for-a-referendum-on-europe/

If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.

Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.

There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.

1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment?
2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public?
3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner?
4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately?
5. Is the result implemented?

A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.

But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.

I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?

It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?

The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?

The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.

Various things here.

Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.

On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.

And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.

The whole "it was advisory" and "a 2nd referendum would have been democratic" bollocks is - I am now sure - advanced by people who are, in retrospect, ashamed and uncomfortable that they supported a 2nd vote. Ashamed because it was so clearly foolish, immoral and dangerous as a policy

The problem was that the whole "advisory" narrative surfaced AFTER the referendum took place. That was incredibly damaging to any sort of rejoin cause in the medium - long term (Obviously we did need to leave).
A far better tack would have been for remain inclined MPs to say "OK we accept the result, we will leave. And the day after we have left we will campaign to rejoin". The 17-19 parliament did not do this. They attempted to block us from leaving which was complete strategic folly.
Imagine we'd voted for Corbyn in the 2017 referendum and instead of leaving Downing Street May had set up another poll to be sure we wanted Corbyn and remained in Downing Street.
I hope we do go back in at some point, I believe we'll be more prosperous as a nation for it but the 2017-19 parliament was as bad as Trump.

Agree with all of that, except the first line of the final paragraph.

Our economic performance if we'd Remained in the EU as opposed to how it is now, today, would be utterly indistinguishable and no-one spun round from 2015 and inserted in 2024 would be able to tell any difference.

I believe the kids call it “copium”.

This claim is commonly made by Brexity posters, because the alternative is conceding that you voted to economically damage your own country.

The claim from Brexit supporters at the time was that it would actively improve economic performance (breaking free from shackles of Brussels, trade deals etc).

In a sense, that's fair enough - I don't agree with it but get the argument.

Casino's argument is the really odd one - essentially saying without evidence that fundamentally changing the trading relationship with by far our most significant trading partner would make no discernible difference one way or the other. Nobody was arguing a major policy intervention would basically have zero economic impact - it's a bizarre view.

eek said:

TimS said:

I think @Leon suggested a quiz question for biggest black swan of 2024.

Well…https://x.com/gesfandiari/status/1742524707084063192?s=46

20 dead, 40+ injured and no obvious suspect group

It’s not generally reported much in the West, but there have been attacks like this with some regularity in Iran: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_and_terrorism_in_Iran

Gardenwalker said:

Pulpstar said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

Leon said:

david_herdson said:

bondegezou said:

david_herdson said:

Stuartinromford said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?

Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?

Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?

Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?

They want to flush that great Brexit turd.

You see youre obsessed.

Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.

So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.

Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.

Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.

You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.

Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?

No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.

It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare

AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)

Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea

We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.

In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.

As David Davis put it,

If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.


https://www.daviddavismp.com/david-davis-mp-delivers-speech-on-the-opportunities-for-a-referendum-on-europe/

If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.

Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.

There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.

1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment?
2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public?
3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner?
4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately?
5. Is the result implemented?

A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.

But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.

I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?

It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?

The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?

The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.

Various things here.

Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.

On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.

And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.

The whole "it was advisory" and "a 2nd referendum would have been democratic" bollocks is - I am now sure - advanced by people who are, in retrospect, ashamed and uncomfortable that they supported a 2nd vote. Ashamed because it was so clearly foolish, immoral and dangerous as a policy

The problem was that the whole "advisory" narrative surfaced AFTER the referendum took place. That was incredibly damaging to any sort of rejoin cause in the medium - long term (Obviously we did need to leave).
A far better tack would have been for remain inclined MPs to say "OK we accept the result, we will leave. And the day after we have left we will campaign to rejoin". The 17-19 parliament did not do this. They attempted to block us from leaving which was complete strategic folly.
Imagine we'd voted for Corbyn in the 2017 referendum and instead of leaving Downing Street May had set up another poll to be sure we wanted Corbyn and remained in Downing Street.
I hope we do go back in at some point, I believe we'll be more prosperous as a nation for it but the 2017-19 parliament was as bad as Trump.

Agree with all of that, except the first line of the final paragraph.

Our economic performance if we'd Remained in the EU as opposed to how it is now, today, would be utterly indistinguishable and no-one spun round from 2015 and inserted in 2024 would be able to tell any difference.

Neither of us can be sure, but generally having unfettered access to a larger market is better for economies. The USA does this with even less friction than the EU entirely internally since it is one nation; but having full access to a market of 500 million is better than 70.

British export performance has been very poor since the referendum, it’s about as “sure” as it’s possible to find in economics.

The loss of ability to triangulate goods within the EU at zero rating (Without some serious and expensive hoop jumping) has barely had a mention post Brexit. Perhaps it's because our manufacturing sector is so moribund no one really notices it.

On the plus side the weakness of sterling has helped export

Cicero said:

TOPPING said:

The Penn State woman made a pretty heartfelt apology the following day.

UPenn. Elite school. Penn State is a state college, not a part of UPenn

Penn State = Pennsylvania State University (main campus just outside State College, PA in University Park)

U of Penn = University of Pennsylvania (in Philadelphia, founded by Ben Franklin, befouled by Donald Trump)

Leon said:

TimS said:

I think @Leon suggested a quiz question for biggest black swan of 2024.

Well…https://x.com/gesfandiari/status/1742524707084063192?s=46

TBH it’s not quite Alien Invasion, is it?

It’s what it leads to. Particularly if there’s a Mossad angle (which there may or may not be).

slade said:

TimS said:

Not many famous Lukes. Skywalker and the evangelist already noted. Who else?

TimS said:

Not many famous Lukes. Skywalker and the evangelist already noted. Who else?

Like Rowe - British cyclist.

slade said:

TimS said:

Not many famous Lukes. Skywalker and the evangelist already noted. Who else?

TimS said:

Not many famous Lukes. Skywalker and the evangelist already noted. Who else?

Like Rowe - British cyclist.

I like Luke Rowe!

viewcode said:

Pulpstar said:

Blimey, some eye watering devaluation changes for used EVs.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/electriccars/article-12837223/The-30-used-EVs-plunged-value-2023-year-old-cars-worth-half-much.html

Never buy a brand-new car. Just don't. It's throwing money out of the window.

3 years ago we bought a brand new car. It was an outgoing model, so we got it with such a big discount that we paid less than we were expecting to pay for a 1 year old vehicle.

Leon said:

Endillion said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

Leon said:

david_herdson said:

bondegezou said:

david_herdson said:

Stuartinromford said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?

Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?

Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?

Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?

They want to flush that great Brexit turd.

You see youre obsessed.

Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.

So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.

Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.

Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.

You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.

Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?

No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.

It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare

AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)

Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea

We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.

In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.

As David Davis put it,

If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.


https://www.daviddavismp.com/david-davis-mp-delivers-speech-on-the-opportunities-for-a-referendum-on-europe/

If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.

Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.

There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.

1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment?
2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public?
3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner?
4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately?
5. Is the result implemented?

A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.

But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.

I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?

It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?

The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?

The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.

Various things here.

Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.

On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.

And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.

The whole "it was advisory" and "a 2nd referendum would have been democratic" bollocks is - I am now sure - advanced by people who are, in retrospect, ashamed and uncomfortable that they supported a 2nd vote. Ashamed because it was so clearly foolish, immoral and dangerous as a policy

The problem was that the whole "advisory" narrative surfaced AFTER the referendum took place. That was incredibly damaging to any sort of rejoin cause in the medium - long term (Obviously we did need to leave).
A far better tack would have been for remain inclined MPs to say "OK we accept the result, we will leave. And the day after we have left we will campaign to rejoin". The 17-19 parliament did not do this. They attempted to block us from leaving which was complete strategic folly.
Imagine we'd voted for Corbyn in the 2017 referendum and instead of leaving Downing Street May had set up another poll to be sure we wanted Corbyn and remained in Downing Street.
I hope we do go back in at some point, I believe we'll be more prosperous as a nation for it but the 2017-19 parliament was as bad as Trump.

Agree with all of that, except the first line of the final paragraph.

Our economic performance if we'd Remained in the EU as opposed to how it is now, today, would be utterly indistinguishable and no-one spun round from 2015 and inserted in 2024 would be able to tell any difference.

I believe the kids call it “copium”.

This claim is commonly made by Brexity posters, because the alternative is conceding that you voted to economically damage your own country.

I voted to economically damage my country, and have no problem with that.

I figured the medium term political and social benefits would more than offset the short term economic damage, and there might even be longer term economic benefits as well.

Nothing that's happened since the referendum has changed my view on any of that.

Me, likewise

Brexit is like having a baby. My God it hurts, and you will look and feel worse afterwards, for quite a long time

Then Liz Truss hands you a bouncing baby trade deal allowing for pork pie exports to Namibia at slightly reduced tariffs, and it all seems worth it.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

Leon said:

david_herdson said:

bondegezou said:

david_herdson said:

Stuartinromford said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?

Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?

Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?

Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?

They want to flush that great Brexit turd.

You see youre obsessed.

Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.

So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.

Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.

Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.

You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.

Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?

No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.

It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare

AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)

Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea

We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.

In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.

As David Davis put it,

If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.


https://www.daviddavismp.com/david-davis-mp-delivers-speech-on-the-opportunities-for-a-referendum-on-europe/

If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.

Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.

There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.

1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment?
2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public?
3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner?
4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately?
5. Is the result implemented?

A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.

But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.

I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?

It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?

The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?

The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.

Various things here.

Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.

On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.

And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.

The whole "it was advisory" and "a 2nd referendum would have been democratic" bollocks is - I am now sure - advanced by people who are, in retrospect, ashamed and uncomfortable that they supported a 2nd vote. Ashamed because it was so clearly foolish, immoral and dangerous as a policy

The problem was that the whole "advisory" narrative surfaced AFTER the referendum took place. That was incredibly damaging to any sort of rejoin cause in the medium - long term (Obviously we did need to leave).
A far better tack would have been for remain inclined MPs to say "OK we accept the result, we will leave. And the day after we have left we will campaign to rejoin". The 17-19 parliament did not do this. They attempted to block us from leaving which was complete strategic folly.
Imagine we'd voted for Corbyn in the 2017 referendum and instead of leaving Downing Street May had set up another poll to be sure we wanted Corbyn and remained in Downing Street.
I hope we do go back in at some point, I believe we'll be more prosperous as a nation for it but the 2017-19 parliament was as bad as Trump.

Agree with all of that, except the first line of the final paragraph.

Our economic performance if we'd Remained in the EU as opposed to how it is now, today, would be utterly indistinguishable and no-one spun round from 2015 and inserted in 2024 would be able to tell any difference.

I believe the kids call it “copium”.

This claim is commonly made by Brexity posters, because the alternative is conceding that you voted to economically damage your own country.

The claim from Brexit supporters at the time was that it would actively improve economic performance (breaking free from shackles of Brussels, trade deals etc).

In a sense, that's fair enough - I don't agree with it but get the argument.

Casino's argument is the really odd one - essentially saying without evidence that fundamentally changing the trading relationship with by far our most significant trading partner would make no discernible difference one way or the other. Nobody was arguing a major policy intervention would basically have zero economic impact - it's a bizarre view.

I was and continue to do so. Those who claimed otherwise claimed that we would suffer long term declines in our exports and trade performance with the EU.

The statistics simply do not bear that out. In fact other than a very short term effect at the end of the transition period both our exports and imports from the EU have remained remarkably stable.
There is a table on p31 of this report which shows the month by month figures:https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7851/CBP-7851.pdf

Anyone who thought about our trade with non EU countries would have realised that this was likely to be the case, even in a no deal scenario, let alone the deals we currently have. The lack of a trade deal with the US did not stop them being our largest single trading partner or indeed us running a surplus with them.

The really grim thing is that the chronic trade deficit we built up whilst in the EU single market has not materially diminished. We continue to import far more (roughly £90bn a year) from them than we export. This continues to impoverish our country in a frankly unsustainable way.

The firm consensus amongst the British population is that Brexit was a mistake. The only relevant question now is what, if anything, you are going to do to fix or mitigate that mistake?

TimS said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TimS said:

Not many famous Lukes. Skywalker and the evangelist already noted. Who else?

When I was at nursery school my four best friends were called Matthew, Mark, Luke and Bruce, apparently. I'm still in touch with Matthew and Luke.

The lost Australian Gospel. “Take this Jacob’s creek, for this is my blood”.

Who can forget when Jesus threw a bonza barbie with just two prawns and five Tim Tams?

DavidL said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

Leon said:

david_herdson said:

bondegezou said:

david_herdson said:

Stuartinromford said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?

Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?

Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?

Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?

They want to flush that great Brexit turd.

You see youre obsessed.

Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.

So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.

Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.

Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.

You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.

Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?

No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.

It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare

AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)

Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea

We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.

In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.

As David Davis put it,

If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.


https://www.daviddavismp.com/david-davis-mp-delivers-speech-on-the-opportunities-for-a-referendum-on-europe/

If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.

Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.

There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.

1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment?
2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public?
3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner?
4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately?
5. Is the result implemented?

A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.

But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.

I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?

It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?

The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?

The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.

Various things here.

Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.

On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.

And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.

The whole "it was advisory" and "a 2nd referendum would have been democratic" bollocks is - I am now sure - advanced by people who are, in retrospect, ashamed and uncomfortable that they supported a 2nd vote. Ashamed because it was so clearly foolish, immoral and dangerous as a policy

The problem was that the whole "advisory" narrative surfaced AFTER the referendum took place. That was incredibly damaging to any sort of rejoin cause in the medium - long term (Obviously we did need to leave).
A far better tack would have been for remain inclined MPs to say "OK we accept the result, we will leave. And the day after we have left we will campaign to rejoin". The 17-19 parliament did not do this. They attempted to block us from leaving which was complete strategic folly.
Imagine we'd voted for Corbyn in the 2017 referendum and instead of leaving Downing Street May had set up another poll to be sure we wanted Corbyn and remained in Downing Street.
I hope we do go back in at some point, I believe we'll be more prosperous as a nation for it but the 2017-19 parliament was as bad as Trump.

Agree with all of that, except the first line of the final paragraph.

Our economic performance if we'd Remained in the EU as opposed to how it is now, today, would be utterly indistinguishable and no-one spun round from 2015 and inserted in 2024 would be able to tell any difference.

I believe the kids call it “copium”.

This claim is commonly made by Brexity posters, because the alternative is conceding that you voted to economically damage your own country.

The claim from Brexit supporters at the time was that it would actively improve economic performance (breaking free from shackles of Brussels, trade deals etc).

In a sense, that's fair enough - I don't agree with it but get the argument.

Casino's argument is the really odd one - essentially saying without evidence that fundamentally changing the trading relationship with by far our most significant trading partner would make no discernible difference one way or the other. Nobody was arguing a major policy intervention would basically have zero economic impact - it's a bizarre view.

I was and continue to do so. Those who claimed otherwise claimed that we would suffer long term declines in our exports and trade performance with the EU.

The statistics simply do not bear that out. In fact other than a very short term effect at the end of the transition period both our exports and imports from the EU have remained remarkably stable.
There is a table on p31 of this report which shows the month by month figures:https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7851/CBP-7851.pdf

Anyone who thought about our trade with non EU countries would have realised that this was likely to be the case, even in a no deal scenario, let alone the deals we currently have. The lack of a trade deal with the US did not stop them being our largest single trading partner or indeed us running a surplus with them.

The really grim thing is that the chronic trade deficit we built up whilst in the EU single market has not materially diminished. We continue to import far more (roughly £90bn a year) from them than we export. This continues to impoverish our country in a frankly unsustainable way.

Perhaps you meant to reference a different report, as the one linked does not contain that graph.

In any case, the relevant analysis is to compare the UK with other economies.

As for the long-standing trade deficit, that is a result of the UK preferring consumption to savings. It has essentially been Britain’s economic model for the last 40 years; I agree it’s effects are pernicious.

DavidL said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

Leon said:

david_herdson said:

bondegezou said:

david_herdson said:

Stuartinromford said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?

Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?

Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?

Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?

They want to flush that great Brexit turd.

You see youre obsessed.

Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.

So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.

Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.

Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.

You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.

Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?

No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.

It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare

AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)

Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea

We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.

In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.

As David Davis put it,

If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.


https://www.daviddavismp.com/david-davis-mp-delivers-speech-on-the-opportunities-for-a-referendum-on-europe/

If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.

Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.

There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.

1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment?
2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public?
3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner?
4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately?
5. Is the result implemented?

A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.

But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.

I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?

It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?

The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?

The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.

Various things here.

Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.

On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.

And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.

The whole "it was advisory" and "a 2nd referendum would have been democratic" bollocks is - I am now sure - advanced by people who are, in retrospect, ashamed and uncomfortable that they supported a 2nd vote. Ashamed because it was so clearly foolish, immoral and dangerous as a policy

The problem was that the whole "advisory" narrative surfaced AFTER the referendum took place. That was incredibly damaging to any sort of rejoin cause in the medium - long term (Obviously we did need to leave).
A far better tack would have been for remain inclined MPs to say "OK we accept the result, we will leave. And the day after we have left we will campaign to rejoin". The 17-19 parliament did not do this. They attempted to block us from leaving which was complete strategic folly.
Imagine we'd voted for Corbyn in the 2017 referendum and instead of leaving Downing Street May had set up another poll to be sure we wanted Corbyn and remained in Downing Street.
I hope we do go back in at some point, I believe we'll be more prosperous as a nation for it but the 2017-19 parliament was as bad as Trump.

Agree with all of that, except the first line of the final paragraph.

Our economic performance if we'd Remained in the EU as opposed to how it is now, today, would be utterly indistinguishable and no-one spun round from 2015 and inserted in 2024 would be able to tell any difference.

I believe the kids call it “copium”.

This claim is commonly made by Brexity posters, because the alternative is conceding that you voted to economically damage your own country.

The claim from Brexit supporters at the time was that it would actively improve economic performance (breaking free from shackles of Brussels, trade deals etc).

In a sense, that's fair enough - I don't agree with it but get the argument.

Casino's argument is the really odd one - essentially saying without evidence that fundamentally changing the trading relationship with by far our most significant trading partner would make no discernible difference one way or the other. Nobody was arguing a major policy intervention would basically have zero economic impact - it's a bizarre view.

I was and continue to do so. Those who claimed otherwise claimed that we would suffer long term declines in our exports and trade performance with the EU.

The statistics simply do not bear that out. In fact other than a very short term effect at the end of the transition period both our exports and imports from the EU have remained remarkably stable.
There is a table on p31 of this report which shows the month by month figures:https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7851/CBP-7851.pdf

Anyone who thought about our trade with non EU countries would have realised that this was likely to be the case, even in a no deal scenario, let alone the deals we currently have. The lack of a trade deal with the US did not stop them being our largest single trading partner or indeed us running a surplus with them.

The really grim thing is that the chronic trade deficit we built up whilst in the EU single market has not materially diminished. We continue to import far more (roughly £90bn a year) from them than we export. This continues to impoverish our country in a frankly unsustainable way.

Doubling the number of foreign students would get rid of about a third of that......just saying......

TimS said:

Not many famous Lukes. Skywalker and the evangelist already noted. Who else?

Luke Duke. A Good Old Boy.

Luke Goss. When will he be famous?

RochdalePioneers said:

Just been on another 2.5k power walk. I know that HIIT training is about smashing your heartrate up for short intense bursts with cool down spells in-between. I think my village 2.5k walk does that. There are several short but steep bits, so lets just say my heart is pumping hard having got to here from low street just out of shot in the distance...

https://maps.app.goo.gl/bxektEVnGHaHicdf8

"Power walk" - a walk while carrying a water bottle.

noneoftheabove said:

DavidL said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

Leon said:

david_herdson said:

bondegezou said:

david_herdson said:

Stuartinromford said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?

Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?

Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?

Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?

They want to flush that great Brexit turd.

You see youre obsessed.

Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.

So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.

Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.

Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.

You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.

Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?

No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.

It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare

AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)

Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea

We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.

In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.

As David Davis put it,

If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.


https://www.daviddavismp.com/david-davis-mp-delivers-speech-on-the-opportunities-for-a-referendum-on-europe/

If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.

Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.

There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.

1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment?
2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public?
3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner?
4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately?
5. Is the result implemented?

A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.

But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.

I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?

It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?

The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?

The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.

Various things here.

Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.

On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.

And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.

The whole "it was advisory" and "a 2nd referendum would have been democratic" bollocks is - I am now sure - advanced by people who are, in retrospect, ashamed and uncomfortable that they supported a 2nd vote. Ashamed because it was so clearly foolish, immoral and dangerous as a policy

The problem was that the whole "advisory" narrative surfaced AFTER the referendum took place. That was incredibly damaging to any sort of rejoin cause in the medium - long term (Obviously we did need to leave).
A far better tack would have been for remain inclined MPs to say "OK we accept the result, we will leave. And the day after we have left we will campaign to rejoin". The 17-19 parliament did not do this. They attempted to block us from leaving which was complete strategic folly.
Imagine we'd voted for Corbyn in the 2017 referendum and instead of leaving Downing Street May had set up another poll to be sure we wanted Corbyn and remained in Downing Street.
I hope we do go back in at some point, I believe we'll be more prosperous as a nation for it but the 2017-19 parliament was as bad as Trump.

Agree with all of that, except the first line of the final paragraph.

Our economic performance if we'd Remained in the EU as opposed to how it is now, today, would be utterly indistinguishable and no-one spun round from 2015 and inserted in 2024 would be able to tell any difference.

I believe the kids call it “copium”.

This claim is commonly made by Brexity posters, because the alternative is conceding that you voted to economically damage your own country.

The claim from Brexit supporters at the time was that it would actively improve economic performance (breaking free from shackles of Brussels, trade deals etc).

In a sense, that's fair enough - I don't agree with it but get the argument.

Casino's argument is the really odd one - essentially saying without evidence that fundamentally changing the trading relationship with by far our most significant trading partner would make no discernible difference one way or the other. Nobody was arguing a major policy intervention would basically have zero economic impact - it's a bizarre view.

I was and continue to do so. Those who claimed otherwise claimed that we would suffer long term declines in our exports and trade performance with the EU.

The statistics simply do not bear that out. In fact other than a very short term effect at the end of the transition period both our exports and imports from the EU have remained remarkably stable.
There is a table on p31 of this report which shows the month by month figures:https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7851/CBP-7851.pdf

Anyone who thought about our trade with non EU countries would have realised that this was likely to be the case, even in a no deal scenario, let alone the deals we currently have. The lack of a trade deal with the US did not stop them being our largest single trading partner or indeed us running a surplus with them.

The really grim thing is that the chronic trade deficit we built up whilst in the EU single market has not materially diminished. We continue to import far more (roughly £90bn a year) from them than we export. This continues to impoverish our country in a frankly unsustainable way.

Doubling the number of foreign students would get rid of about a third of that......just saying......

Which is a major reason why the government are so reluctant to act in respect of our largest single source of legal immigrants. Bluntly, we need the money.

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

Leon said:

david_herdson said:

bondegezou said:

david_herdson said:

Stuartinromford said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Can anybody explain why PB and the country seem obsessed with a pub game at this time of the year?

Why not shove ha'penny or Scottish football if we're obsessing about pub games/pub leagues?

Can anyone explain why half the country is still obsessed with a vote 8 years ago ?

Because most of the country thinks it has turned out shit?

They want to flush that great Brexit turd.

You see youre obsessed.

Why not just chill out and come to terms with it.

So if Lab wins the next election the country should just call it a day and say well that's that done with and settle down to a Lab govt for the next 50 years.

Is that how you are saying democracy should operate.

Youre mixing up a referndum with a parliamentary election. I'd say give it a generation same as Indyref.

You'd say, would you? Good to know. Meanwhile taking back control surely means nothing unless it means giving the people the opportunity to vote in line with their beliefs. A "generation" is just wishful thinking.

Who's stopping you voting in line with your beliefs ?

No one. That is my point. In 2017 people voted in line with their beliefs and had there been a second referendum, apart from being impractical and an administrative nightmare, it would have been a perfect example of democracy in action.

It would have been a democratic outrage, it would have smashed public consensus to pieces, half the country would have abstained in the fraudulent second referendum - leaving us where, exactly.: still inside Europe on a 40% turnout without ever having enacted the Leave vote? Imagine the aftermath of THAT. The urgent, militant calls for a THIRD vote, and so on, and so on: a pure, unending nightmare

AND it might well have caused severe civil unrest (if they can ignore your vote, what is left but violence?) and it would have destroyed British democracy for two generations, as people abandoned voting in elections as well (again, what is the point if your vote can be flatly ignored or overruled?)

Other than that, a 2nd referendum was a great idea

We are certainly not going to spend the day discussing this so I will help out with the last word on the matter.

In 2017 the UK electorate (me, you, a few others) voted in a parliament that was divided on the matter. Hence the subsequent chaos was voted for directly by us. Perfectly democratic. If Lab had gained power on the promise of a second referendum then that again would have been perfectly democratic. As would the second referendum. If you are saying votes by the UK public do not constitute democracy then I'm not quite sure why you are qualified to post on this site and perhaps you should stick to the Knappers' Gazette which, I am told, pays you for your efforts.

As David Davis put it,

If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.


https://www.daviddavismp.com/david-davis-mp-delivers-speech-on-the-opportunities-for-a-referendum-on-europe/

If the mind of the majority is to reverse Brexit, that will be the democratic thing to do. That wasn't the case in 2017-9, and I'm not sure it's the case now. It may never be the case, but every "oh, you'll never get support for that" barrier is being crossed, one at a time.

Don't worry, Leon. You'll still go down in history.

There are five stages to a fair democratic process. You need a 'yes' to all five for democracy to take place.

1. Can candidates, electors and parties register fairly and freely, without undue impediment?
2. Can candidates and parties campaign fairly, with reasonable access to the media and the public?
3. Can voters cast their votes equitably and in a simple and timely manner?
4. Are votes counted speedily and the result declared accurately?
5. Is the result implemented?

A second referendum before the first was implemented - other than on the nature of what Brexit would be - would have violated the fifth condition. Once Britain voted to leave, it was necessary that we left to complete that democratic exercise. Now we have left, that mandate is expired and if people want to rejoin that's an entirely legitimate campaign for them to engage in.

But not carrying out Brexit would have been like holding a general election, not changing the govt after it lost, and holding a second election instead.

I'm not convinced by this reasoning. There are numerous policies in any party's referendum that are never implemented after they win a general election. Does that mean we don't live in a democracy?

It takes time to implement results. If you set out to implement a result, but there's then another vote, is that democracy thwarted or followed?

The House of Commons voted not to accept the report into Owen Paterson on 3 November 2021. It subsequently voted again and accepted the report on 16 November. Was that a democratic process?

The challenge here is the difference between general elections and referendums, and how referendums are unusual in the UK system. The Brexit referendum was explicitly an advisory referendum, whereas other referendums have been self-executing.

Various things here.

Winning an election does not mean an automatic right to implement the entire manifesto without opposition; it means the right to form a government. The right to implement policies is still a grey area and governments have to persuade parliament that the details are right and workable.

On Paterson, the Commons didn't vote to reject the report; it parked it. Going on from there to subsequently accept it isn't an abuse - indeed, it's exactly what yo'd expect at some point.

And the Brexit referendum wasn't "explicitly advisory". On the contrary. All sides said beforehand that they'd respect the result.

The whole "it was advisory" and "a 2nd referendum would have been democratic" bollocks is - I am now sure - advanced by people who are, in retrospect, ashamed and uncomfortable that they supported a 2nd vote. Ashamed because it was so clearly foolish, immoral and dangerous as a policy

The problem was that the whole "advisory" narrative surfaced AFTER the referendum took place. That was incredibly damaging to any sort of rejoin cause in the medium - long term (Obviously we did need to leave).
A far better tack would have been for remain inclined MPs to say "OK we accept the result, we will leave. And the day after we have left we will campaign to rejoin". The 17-19 parliament did not do this. They attempted to block us from leaving which was complete strategic folly.
Imagine we'd voted for Corbyn in the 2017 referendum and instead of leaving Downing Street May had set up another poll to be sure we wanted Corbyn and remained in Downing Street.
I hope we do go back in at some point, I believe we'll be more prosperous as a nation for it but the 2017-19 parliament was as bad as Trump.

Agree with all of that, except the first line of the final paragraph.

Our economic performance if we'd Remained in the EU as opposed to how it is now, today, would be utterly indistinguishable and no-one spun round from 2015 and inserted in 2024 would be able to tell any difference.

I believe the kids call it “copium”.

This claim is commonly made by Brexity posters, because the alternative is conceding that you voted to economically damage your own country.

Because the alternative is wrong.

Britain's economic performance is indistinguishable from its neighbours and such failings as we do have are our own, and not dependent on our political relationship with out neighbours.