The Remainers will have very successfully poisoned the well so that even when the EU proves to be the nightmare we have claimed, the memory of this last 3 years will stop anyone wanting to repeat it.
Unbelievable. It's like the Iraq War. They never, ever take responsibility for anything. Brexit is a massive shitshow full of bullshit and internal contradictions, and it's somehow the fault of the people who predicted this for somehow "poisoning the well".
Nope it is very believable. Look at the poll on the front page of tomorrow's Times. 54% of respondents would now prefer a 'strong leader who breaks the rules' over our current Parliamentary democracy. As I have warned all along, if Parliamentarians scorn the views and votes of the public then eventually the public will decide they are no longer fit for purpose. My only surprise is how quickly it has hsppened. By trying to thwart Brexit, Parliament have broken democracy.
Even if this is true, and you're right that it's the fault of remainer MPs and nothing to do with the parliamentary brexit enthusiasts who consider your preferred form of brexit a betrayal and a non-brexit, how would that stop you doing brexit under your hypothetical strong leader?
Richard wanted parliament to scorn the views of the public and impose his preferred form of Brexit. There's no chance of a hypothetical strong leader doing that.
Nope wrong again. The public asked for one thing and that was to Leave. When it suits you, you are more than ready to point out that no one can actually decide what that form of Leave should be as it was not made explicit in the vote.
Moreover I have said numerous times that I consider my form of Leave to have a lack of support and so to be unlikely to happen. Unlike you I actually do believe in democracy. Or did until Parliament killed it.
York is already disgustingly busy and handles a volume of people it was not designed to handle. Having a parliament in the city is a terrible idea.
I disagree, it was the traditional capital of the North in the Middle Ages and would be an ideal site, otherwise Birmingham as the second city in England
Nah, Lichfield would be better. Much easier to get to.
York is already disgustingly busy and handles a volume of people it was not designed to handle. Having a parliament in the city is a terrible idea.
I disagree, it was the traditional capital of the North in the Middle Ages and would be an ideal site, otherwise Birmingham as the second city in England
History is irrelevant. Have you been to York recently?
What then happens to the desire of those who have spent the last three years arguing for a compromise to account for the divided nation and the large minority who wanted to remain? Will they argue for a new settlement with the EU to account for the divided nation and the small majority who wanted to leave?
Your point being? We will still have a democracy and leave will still be a policy option. Leavers should spend their time coming up with and campaigning for a viable plan to leave. Much the same as remainers would have had to do so for rejoining had we left.
It won't be an option whilstever there is a majority in the House of Commons that will block it.
Brexiteers will have to make a move to supporting an English parliament, with powers for England to leave the EU. That will almost certainly require the formal break up of the UK into its constituent countries.
It would also require either a majority of English voters voting to break away from the UK in a referendum or a party winning a General election or an English Parliament election with a commitment to English independence in its manifesto.
An English Parliament at York is the natural profession of the devolution we have had since 1999 in the UK but on its own does not lead to independence just a more Federal UK with Westminster becoming the Federal UK Parliament
We will never be that lucky , not while they are still finding stacks of oil at least.
Scotland has more oil and renewables than England but no reason England should not follow Scotland's lead on that, particularly in terms of renewables e.g. there are already projects on the Thames Estuary and in Cornwall and plenty if wind farms
Something needed to be done. I'm not one of those who is fighting for the right of 3-year-olds to watch porn.
As an example, just yesterday my son was watching a Dr. Binocs (*) show on YouTube. In the middle of this childrens' program, it put a couple of online casino adverts. That would not be allowable on broadcast TV.
Your child got adverts for casinos because somebody in your house was looking at betting websites. The YouTube algorithm looks at your browser history and its internal memory of stuff that has been accessed from your home and suggests ads based on your interests. It wasn't clever enough to distinguish between your child and you.
I am aware of how it works - and PB was probably the culprit.
However, and this is the point: an animated show that is one of the top answers when you enter 'childrens science show' (or somesuch) shouldn't display such ads.
It's in their interests as well: if their algorithms worked better, they'd be able to produce ads targeted at kids rather than age-inappropriate ones.
Given all their self-vaunted work on AI and machine learning, you'd think they'd pout it first on the thing that actually earns them income. Instead the ad placement algorithms appear particularly thick (although in some cases that might be because of a lack of suitable advertisers in a sector).
The Remainers will have very successfully poisoned the well so that even when the EU proves to be the nightmare we have claimed, the memory of this last 3 years will stop anyone wanting to repeat it.
Unbelievable. It's like the Iraq War. They never, ever take responsibility for anything. Brexit is a massive shitshow full of bullshit and internal contradictions, and it's somehow the fault of the people who predicted this for somehow "poisoning the well".
Nope it is very believable. Look at the poll on the front page of tomorrow's Times. 54% of respondents would now prefer a 'strong leader who breaks the rules' over our current Parliamentary democracy. As I have warned all along, if Parliamentarians scorn the views and votes of the public then eventually the public will decide they are no longer fit for purpose. My only surprise is how quickly it has hsppened. By trying to thwart Brexit, Parliament have broken democracy.
Even if this is true, and you're right that it's the fault of remainer MPs and nothing to do with the parliamentary brexit enthusiasts who consider your preferred form of brexit a betrayal and a non-brexit, how would that stop you doing brexit under your hypothetical strong leader?
I don't want this hypothetical strong leader. I am not the one now in favour of it. I am merely pointing out how those who decided it was okay to ignore the public view and the public vote have brought us to the point where they feel it would be better to have a dictatorial figure than Parliamentary Democracy. This is what the Remain campaign to stop Brexit has done.
The Remainers will have very successfully poisoned the well so that even when the EU proves to be the nightmare we have claimed, the memory of this last 3 years will stop anyone wanting to repeat it.
Unbelievable. It's like the Iraq War. They never, ever take responsibility for anything. Brexit is a massive shitshow full of bullshit and internal contradictions, and it's somehow the fault of the people who predicted this for somehow "poisoning the well".
Nope it is very believable. Look at the poll on the front page of tomorrow's Times. 54% of respondents would now prefer a 'strong leader who breaks the rules' over our current Parliamentary democracy. As I have warned all along, if Parliamentarians scorn the views and votes of the public then eventually the public will decide they are no longer fit for purpose. My only surprise is how quickly it has hsppened. By trying to thwart Brexit, Parliament have broken democracy.
Even if this is true, and you're right that it's the fault of remainer MPs and nothing to do with the parliamentary brexit enthusiasts who consider your preferred form of brexit a betrayal and a non-brexit, how would that stop you doing brexit under your hypothetical strong leader?
I don't want this hypothetical strong leader. I am not the one now in favour of it. I am merely pointing out how those who decided it was okay to ignore the public view and the public vote have brought us to the point where they feel it would be better to have a dictatorial figure than Parliamentary Democracy. This is what the Remain campaign to stop Brexit has done.
Very interesting indeed - and complex as to how this could affect seats if the same happened in England.
It reflects the recent Yougov and BMG polls and the Newport West by election, support for Labour and the Tories down, support for the LDs and UKIP up (or the Brexit Party and CUK when included). In Wales Plaid also benefiting a little
The Remainers will have very successfully poisoned the well so that even when the EU proves to be the nightmare we have claimed, the memory of this last 3 years will stop anyone wanting to repeat it.
Unbelievable. It's like the Iraq War. They never, ever take responsibility for anything. Brexit is a massive shitshow full of bullshit and internal contradictions, and it's somehow the fault of the people who predicted this for somehow "poisoning the well".
Nope it is very believable. Look at the poll on the front page of tomorrow's Times. 54% of respondents would now prefer a 'strong leader who breaks the rules' over our current Parliamentary democracy. As I have warned all along, if Parliamentarians scorn the views and votes of the public then eventually the public will decide they are no longer fit for purpose. My only surprise is how quickly it has hsppened. By trying to thwart Brexit, Parliament have broken democracy.
Even if this is true, and you're right that it's the fault of remainer MPs and nothing to do with the parliamentary brexit enthusiasts who consider your preferred form of brexit a betrayal and a non-brexit, how would that stop you doing brexit under your hypothetical strong leader?
Richard wanted parliament to scorn the views of the public and impose his preferred form of Brexit. There's no chance of a hypothetical strong leader doing that.
Nope wrong again. The public asked for one thing and that was to Leave. When it suits you, you are more than ready to point out that no one can actually decide what that form of Leave should be as it was not made explicit in the vote.
Moreover I have said numerous times that I consider my form of Leave to have a lack of support and so to be unlikely to happen. Unlike you I actually do believe in democracy. Or did until Parliament killed a crazy experiment in direct democracy nearly killed it.
We could do much worse, perhaps with thresholds (60%?) before any popular decision became mandatory.
An awful lot of trouble could have been avoided had the Scottish Referendum Clause - 40% of eligible voters had to approve a change - been included.
That would surely have put an end to further integration and led to a gradual loosening, while missing out on the epochal mess of the last three years.
It wouldn't have reconciled the fanatics, of course, but even leaving doesn't appear to do that so I don't see the problem.
Yes why not fix the result like they did in 79, just count dead people as against, real democracy UK style.
The reason being that this way failed anyway.
It should have been devolution in 79 if the crooked labour Westminster MPs had not fiddled it. They are no different now, they will lie and cheat to get their way. Thre should be no fixing of votes before they are held, we are very close to banana republic politics in UK nowadays.
The Remainers will have very successfully poisoned the well so that even when the EU proves to be the nightmare we have claimed, the memory of this last 3 years will stop anyone wanting to repeat it.
Unbelievable. It's like the Iraq War. They never, ever take responsibility for anything. Brexit is a massive shitshow full of bullshit and internal contradictions, and it's somehow the fault of the people who predicted this for somehow "poisoning the well".
Nope it is very believable. Look at the poll on the front page of tomorrow's Times. 54% of respondents would now prefer a 'strong leader who breaks the rules' over our current Parliamentary democracy. As I have warned all along, if Parliamentarians scorn the views and votes of the public then eventually the public will decide they are no longer fit for purpose. My only surprise is how quickly it has hsppened. By trying to thwart Brexit, Parliament have broken democracy.
Even if this is true, and you're right that it's the fault of remainer MPs and nothing to do with the parliamentary brexit enthusiasts who consider your preferred form of brexit a betrayal and a non-brexit, how would that stop you doing brexit under your hypothetical strong leader?
I don't want this hypothetical strong leader. I am not the one now in favour of it. I am merely pointing out how those who decided it was okay to ignore the public view and the public vote have brought us to the point where they feel it would be better to have a dictatorial figure than Parliamentary Democracy. This is what the Remain campaign to stop Brexit has done.
How do you square your belief that referenda should always be enacted, with your previous desire for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty after Brown had signed it? That would have been an unenactable (and pointless) referendum.
We could do much worse, perhaps with thresholds (60%?) before any popular decision became mandatory.
An awful lot of trouble could have been avoided had the Scottish Referendum Clause - 40% of eligible voters had to approve a change - been included.
That would surely have put an end to further integration and led to a gradual loosening, while missing out on the epochal mess of the last three years.
It wouldn't have reconciled the fanatics, of course, but even leaving doesn't appear to do that so I don't see the problem.
Yes why not fix the result like they did in 79, just count dead people as against, real democracy UK style.
The reason being that this way failed anyway.
It should have been devolution in 79 if the crooked labour Westminster MPs had not fiddled it. They are no different now, they will lie and cheat to get their way. Thre should be no fixing of votes before they are held, we are very close to banana republic politics in UK nowadays.
Since we’re going to Brexit, someone needs to remind us (or make up some new) benefits of Brexit. At present the only argument with any currency left is that we voted for it, so we must do it. Everything else has been lost or has been revealed to not be true.
So in the light of economic harm, reputation damage, less global influence and a split nation what’s the good news?
But the awkward question that Leavers have no answer for is what is Brexit improving? Because it certainly isn’t helping build a united country, civic structures or improve the nation’s standing.
Hmm, The *process* of Brexit is certainly doing none of those things but I think you are conflating the process with the result. It was always going to be difficult actually to leave the EU even if the vote had been more decisive. So much of the running of the country is bound up in the reality of EU membership (and I don't mean by that the EU was "running the country", just that EU membership and what that entails was a constant factor in many areas of life), that the process of unravelling that was going to take time and be painful. It was also going to meet fierce opposition both from principled opposition and from vested interests who stand to lose (or at the least have to make disruptive adjustments to current practice), all of which has made leaving more difficult than Leavers would have liked (or anticipated).
If we ever do leave then, whatever form that takes, companies, institutions and citizens will adapt to the new reality with varying degrees of speed but the inherent advantages and problems that Britain possess will still be there. From a Leaver's perspective, I would say that we would then be in a position respectively to maximise and tackle those on a national level which is, in my view the best and most democratic way of doing so (though I recognise that other regard multilateralism as the best way).
In short, Leavers take the long view. The long view of remaining, especially after trying unsuccessfully to leave does not seem rosy to me, either internally (given the bitterness it will cause among frustrated leavers) nor externally (our national standing will be much more damaged both within and without the EU if we back down now).
So they nevery ruled us and all our problems are our own but we will be better off out?
The Remainers will have very successfully poisoned the well so that even when the EU proves to be the nightmare we have claimed, the memory of this last 3 years will stop anyone wanting to repeat it.
Unbelievable. It's like the Iraq War. They never, ever take responsibility for anything. Brexit is a massive shitshow full of bullshit and internal contradictions, and it's somehow the fault of the people who predicted this for somehow "poisoning the well".
Nope it is very believable. Look at the poll on the front page of tomorrow's Times. 54% of respondents would now prefer a 'strong leader who breaks the rules' over our current Parliamentary democracy. As I have warned all along, if Parliamentarians scorn the views and votes of the public then eventually the public will decide they are no longer fit for purpose. My only surprise is how quickly it has hsppened. By trying to thwart Brexit, Parliament have broken democracy.
Even if this is true, and you're right that it's the fault of remainer MPs and nothing to do with the parliamentary brexit enthusiasts who consider your preferred form of brexit a betrayal and a non-brexit, how would that stop you doing brexit under your hypothetical strong leader?
I don't want this hypothetical strong leader. I am not the one now in favour of it. I am merely pointing out how those who decided it was okay to ignore the public view and the public vote have brought us to the point where they feel it would be better to have a dictatorial figure than Parliamentary Democracy. This is what the Remain campaign to stop Brexit has done.
And, as below, one could argue with equal or more justification that the clusterfuck that is the leave project has brought us to where we are. And it wouldn't be any more helpful.
The reality is that a hung parliament attempting to implement a contested policy (and I note that only this morning, Boris Johnson was referring to a soft Brexit as 'betrayal'), was destined to end up where we are.
Your attempt to ascribe all the blame to those who wish to remain in the EU is otiose.
What then happens to the desire of those who have spent the last three years arguing for a compromise to account for the divided nation and the large minority who wanted to remain? Will they argue for a new settlement with the EU to account for the divided nation and the small majority who wanted to leave?
Absolutely. There will need to be a new settlement.
Don’t you think that should be agreed before we decide to remain?
We could do much worse, perhaps with thresholds (60%?) before any popular decision became mandatory.
An awful lot of trouble could have been avoided had the Scottish Referendum Clause - 40% of eligible voters had to approve a change - been included.
That would surely have put an end to further integration and led to a gradual loosening, while missing out on the epochal mess of the last three years.
It wouldn't have reconciled the fanatics, of course, but even leaving doesn't appear to do that so I don't see the problem.
Yes why not fix the result like they did in 79, just count dead people as against, real democracy UK style.
The reason being that this way failed anyway.
It should have been devolution in 79 if the crooked labour Westminster MPs had not fiddled it. They are no different now, they will lie and cheat to get their way. Thre should be no fixing of votes before they are held, we are very close to banana republic politics in UK nowadays.
Only very close?
I am in a good mood , sitting in the sunshine , relaxed and mellow.
But the awkward question that Leavers have no answer for is what is Brexit improving? Because it certainly isn’t helping build a united country, civic structures or improve the nation’s standing.
Hmm, The *process* of Brexit is certainly doing none of those things but I think you are conflating the process with the result. It was always going to be difficult actually to leave the EU even if the vote had been more decisive. So much of the running of the country is bound up in the reality of EU membership (and I don't mean by that the EU was "running the country", just that EU membership and what that entails was a constant factor in many areas of life), that the process of unravelling that was going to take time and be painful. It was also going to meet fierce opposition both from principled opposition and from vested interests who stand to lose (or at the least have to make disruptive adjustments to current practice), all of which has made leaving more difficult than Leavers would have liked (or anticipated).
If we ever do leave then, whatever form that takes, companies, institutions and citizens will adapt to the new reality with varying degrees of speed but the inherent advantages and problems that Britain possess will still be there. From a Leaver's perspective, I would say that we would then be in a position respectively to maximise and tackle those on a national level which is, in my view the best and most democratic way of doing so (though I recognise that other regard multilateralism as the best way).
In short, Leavers take the long view. The long view of remaining, especially after trying unsuccessfully to leave does not seem rosy to me, either internally (given the bitterness it will cause among frustrated leavers) nor externally (our national standing will be much more damaged both within and without the EU if we back down now).
I think we'll be fine if we stay. The Prodigal Son did okay.
The other son wasn’t happy and we don’t hear how the story goes on to the bitter fued after the parents die
We could do much worse, perhaps with thresholds (60%?) before any popular decision became mandatory.
An awful lot of trouble could have been avoided had the Scottish Referendum Clause - 40% of eligible voters had to approve a change - been included.
That would surely have put an end to further integration and led to a gradual loosening, while missing out on the epochal mess of the last three years.
It wouldn't have reconciled the fanatics, of course, but even leaving doesn't appear to do that so I don't see the problem.
Yes why not fix the result like they did in 79, just count dead people as against, real democracy UK style.
The reason being that this way failed anyway.
It should have been devolution in 79 if the crooked labour Westminster MPs had not fiddled it. They are no different now, they will lie and cheat to get their way. Thre should be no fixing of votes before they are held, we are very close to banana republic politics in UK nowadays.
Only very close?
I am in a good mood , sitting in the sunshine , relaxed and mellow.
What then happens to the desire of those who have spent the last three years arguing for a compromise to account for the divided nation and the large minority who wanted to remain? Will they argue for a new settlement with the EU to account for the divided nation and the small majority who wanted to leave?
Absolutely. There will need to be a new settlement.
Don’t you think that should be agreed before we decide to remain?
You're in favour of a 12 month extension too, then ?
Since we’re going to Brexit, someone needs to remind us (or make up some new) benefits of Brexit. At present the only argument with any currency left is that we voted for it, so we must do it. Everything else has been lost or has been revealed to not be true.
So in the light of economic harm, reputation damage, less global influence and a split nation what’s the good news?
We are affirming our glorious age-old (1975) tradition of direct democracy, and simultaneously establishing the principle that anyone politely suggesting another instance of it is the sort of morally repugnant scum who would defecate on the grave of the Queen Mother. So there really is something here for everyone.
We could do much worse, perhaps with thresholds (60%?) before any popular decision became mandatory.
An awful lot of trouble could have been avoided had the Scottish Referendum Clause - 40% of eligible voters had to approve a change - been included.
That would surely have put an end to further integration and led to a gradual loosening, while missing out on the epochal mess of the last three years.
It wouldn't have reconciled the fanatics, of course, but even leaving doesn't appear to do that so I don't see the problem.
Yes why not fix the result like they did in 79, just count dead people as against, real democracy UK style.
The reason being that this way failed anyway.
It should have been devolution in 79 if the crooked labour Westminster MPs had not fiddled it. They are no different now, they will lie and cheat to get their way. Thre should be no fixing of votes before they are held, we are very close to banana republic politics in UK nowadays.
Only very close?
I am in a good mood , sitting in the sunshine , relaxed and mellow.
Are you sure that's you, malcolm ?
Surely his account has been hacked; alert the mods?
Since we’re going to Brexit, someone needs to remind us (or make up some new) benefits of Brexit. At present the only argument with any currency left is that we voted for it, so we must do it. Everything else has been lost or has been revealed to not be true.
So in the light of economic harm, reputation damage, less global influence and a split nation what’s the good news?
The low paid don’t have to compete quite as hard with the lower paid from the rest of Europe to make corporate businessmen richer
The Remainers will have very successfully poisoned the well so that even when the EU proves to be the nightmare we have claimed, the memory of this last 3 years will stop anyone wanting to repeat it.
Unbelievable. It's like the Iraq War. They never, ever take responsibility for anything. Brexit is a massive shitshow full of bullshit and internal contradictions, and it's somehow the fault of the people who predicted this for somehow "poisoning the well".
Nope it is very believable. Look at the poll on the front page of tomorrow's Times. 54% of respondents would now prefer a 'strong leader who breaks the rules' over our current Parliamentary democracy. As I have warned all along, if Parliamentarians scorn the views and votes of the public then eventually the public will decide they are no longer fit for purpose. My only surprise is how quickly it has hsppened. By trying to thwart Brexit, Parliament have broken democracy.
Even if this is true, and you're right that it's the fault of remainer MPs and nothing to do with the parliamentary brexit enthusiasts who consider your preferred form of brexit a betrayal and a non-brexit, how would that stop you doing brexit under your hypothetical strong leader?
I don't want this hypothetical strong leader. I am not the one now in favour of it. I am merely pointing out how those who decided it was okay to ignore the public view and the public vote have brought us to the point where they feel it would be better to have a dictatorial figure than Parliamentary Democracy. This is what the Remain campaign to stop Brexit has done.
And, as below, one could argue with equal or more justification that the clusterfuck that is the leave project has brought us to where we are. And it wouldn't be any more helpful.
The reality is that a hung parliament attempting to implement a contested policy (and I note that only this morning, Boris Johnson was referring to a soft Brexit as 'betrayal'), was destined to end up where we are.
Your attempt to ascribe all the blame to those who wish to remain in the EU is otiose.
The inflammatory talk is coming mostly from leavers. Preaching or predicting discontent as the last resort of a failing project.
Something needed to be done. I'm not one of those who is fighting for the right of 3-year-olds to watch porn.
As an example, just yesterday my son was watching a Dr. Binocs (*) show on YouTube. In the middle of this childrens' program, it put a couple of online casino adverts. That would not be allowable on broadcast TV.
Your child got adverts for casinos because somebody in your house was looking at betting websites. The YouTube algorithm looks at your browser history and its internal memory of stuff that has been accessed from your home and suggests ads based on your interests. It wasn't clever enough to distinguish between your child and you.
I am aware of how it works - and PB was probably the culprit.
However, and this is the point: an animated show that is one of the top answers when you enter 'childrens science show' (or somesuch) shouldn't display such ads.
It's in their interests as well: if their algorithms worked better, they'd be able to produce ads targeted at kids rather than age-inappropriate ones.
Given all their self-vaunted work on AI and machine learning, you'd think they'd pout it first on the thing that actually earns them income. Instead the ad placement algorithms appear particularly thick (although in some cases that might be because of a lack of suitable advertisers in a sector).
Unless your son is surfing betting websites when you’re not looking...
We could do much worse, perhaps with thresholds (60%?) before any popular decision became mandatory.
An awful lot of trouble could have been avoided had the Scottish Referendum Clause - 40% of eligible voters had to approve a change - been included.
That would surely have put an end to further integration and led to a gradual loosening, while missing out on the epochal mess of the last three years.
It wouldn't have reconciled the fanatics, of course, but even leaving doesn't appear to do that so I don't see the problem.
Yes why not fix the result like they did in 79, just count dead people as against, real democracy UK style.
The reason being that this way failed anyway.
It should have been devolution in 79 if the crooked labour Westminster MPs had not fiddled it. They are no different now, they will lie and cheat to get their way. Thre should be no fixing of votes before they are held, we are very close to banana republic politics in UK nowadays.
Only very close?
I am in a good mood , sitting in the sunshine , relaxed and mellow.
Heavy fog here, sitting inside with my son on the first day of Easter holidays, waiting for a garage to pick up my car after they utterly failed to fix it on Friday.
We could do much worse, perhaps with thresholds (60%?) before any popular decision became mandatory.
An awful lot of trouble could have been avoided had the Scottish Referendum Clause - 40% of eligible voters had to approve a change - been included.
That would surely have put an end to further integration and led to a gradual loosening, while missing out on the epochal mess of the last three years.
It wouldn't have reconciled the fanatics, of course, but even leaving doesn't appear to do that so I don't see the problem.
Yes why not fix the result like they did in 79, just count dead people as against, real democracy UK style.
The reason being that this way failed anyway.
It should have been devolution in 79 if the crooked labour Westminster MPs had not fiddled it. They are no different now, they will lie and cheat to get their way. Thre should be no fixing of votes before they are held, we are very close to banana republic politics in UK nowadays.
Only very close?
I am in a good mood , sitting in the sunshine , relaxed and mellow.
Are you sure that's you, malcolm ?
Surely his account has been hacked; alert the mods?
Something needed to be done. I'm not one of those who is fighting for the right of 3-year-olds to watch porn.
As an example, just yesterday my son was watching a Dr. Binocs (*) show on YouTube. In the middle of this childrens' program, it put a couple of online casino adverts. That would not be allowable on broadcast TV.
Your child got adverts for casinos because somebody in your house was looking at betting websites. The YouTube algorithm looks at your browser history and its internal memory of stuff that has been accessed from your home and suggests ads based on your interests. It wasn't clever enough to distinguish between your child and you.
I am aware of how it works - and PB was probably the culprit.
However, and this is the point: an animated show that is one of the top answers when you enter 'childrens science show' (or somesuch) shouldn't display such ads.
It's in their interests as well: if their algorithms worked better, they'd be able to produce ads targeted at kids rather than age-inappropriate ones.
Given all their self-vaunted work on AI and machine learning, you'd think they'd pout it first on the thing that actually earns them income. Instead the ad placement algorithms appear particularly thick (although in some cases that might be because of a lack of suitable advertisers in a sector).
Unless your son is surfing betting websites when you’re not looking...
He's under five, so I doubt that's the case. I'd be impressed (and slightly concerned) if it was true ...
The Remainers will have very successfully poisoned the well so that even when the EU proves to be the nightmare we have claimed, the memory of this last 3 years will stop anyone wanting to repeat it.
Unbelievable. It's like the Iraq War. They never, ever take responsibility for anything. Brexit is a massive shitshow full of bullshit and internal contradictions, and it's somehow the fault of the people who predicted this for somehow "poisoning the well".
Nope it is very believable. Look at the poll on the front page of tomorrow's Times. 54% of respondents would now prefer a 'strong leader who breaks the rules' over our current Parliamentary democracy. As I have warned all along, if Parliamentarians scorn the views and votes of the public then eventually the public will decide they are no longer fit for purpose. My only surprise is how quickly it has hsppened. By trying to thwart Brexit, Parliament have broken democracy.
Even if this is true, and you're right that it's the fault of remainer MPs and nothing to do with the parliamentary brexit enthusiasts who consider your preferred form of brexit a betrayal and a non-brexit, how would that stop you doing brexit under your hypothetical strong leader?
I don't want this hypothetical strong leader. I am not the one now in favour of it. I am merely pointing out how those who decided it was okay to ignore the public view and the public vote have brought us to the point where they feel it would be better to have a dictatorial figure than Parliamentary Democracy. This is what the Remain campaign to stop Brexit has done.
How do you square your belief that referenda should always be enacted, with your previous desire for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty after Brown had signed it? That would have been an unenactable (and pointless) referendum.
It would have been a clear instruction to the government that no further integration was not acceptable and that it should seek to bring powers back. Pulling out of the treaty would not have been possible although a brave government could have threatened to trigger Article 50 if no reforms were forthcoming
Since we’re going to Brexit, someone needs to remind us (or make up some new) benefits of Brexit. At present the only argument with any currency left is that we voted for it, so we must do it. Everything else has been lost or has been revealed to not be true.
So in the light of economic harm, reputation damage, less global influence and a split nation what’s the good news?
The low paid don’t have to compete quite as hard with the lower paid from the rest of Europe to make corporate businessmen richer
It would be considerably more accurate (ie not particularly so) to describe the low paid as being in a state of vassalage than to claim that of the UK, as the wilder Brexiteers do.
Since we’re going to Brexit, someone needs to remind us (or make up some new) benefits of Brexit. At present the only argument with any currency left is that we voted for it, so we must do it. Everything else has been lost or has been revealed to not be true.
So in the light of economic harm, reputation damage, less global influence and a split nation what’s the good news?
The low paid don’t have to compete quite as hard with the lower paid from the rest of Europe to make corporate businessmen richer
Mainly because many of them won’t have jobs any more.
We could do much worse, perhaps with thresholds (60%?) before any popular decision became mandatory.
An awful lot of trouble could have been avoided had the Scottish Referendum Clause - 40% of eligible voters had to approve a change - been included.
That would surely have put an end to further integration and led to a gradual loosening, while missing out on the epochal mess of the last three years.
It wouldn't have reconciled the fanatics, of course, but even leaving doesn't appear to do that so I don't see the problem.
Yes why not fix the result like they did in 79, just count dead people as against, real democracy UK style.
The reason being that this way failed anyway.
It should have been devolution in 79 if the crooked labour Westminster MPs had not fiddled it. They are no different now, they will lie and cheat to get their way. Thre should be no fixing of votes before they are held, we are very close to banana republic politics in UK nowadays.
Only very close?
I am in a good mood , sitting in the sunshine , relaxed and mellow.
Heavy fog here, sitting inside with my son on the first day of Easter holidays, waiting for a garage to pick up my car after they utterly failed to fix it on Friday.
I am on holiday, so in Hamelyn, at least 20 degrees and lovely. Sitting on the balcony in the sun listening to birdsong and having continental breakfast, long live the EU.
What then happens to the desire of those who have spent the last three years arguing for a compromise to account for the divided nation and the large minority who wanted to remain? Will they argue for a new settlement with the EU to account for the divided nation and the small majority who wanted to leave?
Absolutely. There will need to be a new settlement.
Don’t you think that should be agreed before we decide to remain?
You're in favour of a 12 month extension too, then ?
Very interesting indeed - and complex as to how this could affect seats if the same happened in England.
Yes - for the Euro elections the pro-Brexit parties are falling back and votes moving to anti-Brexit TIG and the LibDems. I can see the same happening UK-wide: I wouldn't bet on UKIP topping the poll.
Something needed to be done. I'm not one of those who is fighting for the right of 3-year-olds to watch porn.
As an example, just yesterday my son was watching a Dr. Binocs (*) show on YouTube. In the middle of this childrens' program, it put a couple of online casino adverts. That would not be allowable on broadcast TV.
Your child got adverts for casinos because somebody in your house was looking at betting websites. The YouTube algorithm looks at your browser history and its internal memory of stuff that has been accessed from your home and suggests ads based on your interests. It wasn't clever enough to distinguish between your child and you.
I am aware of how it works - and PB was probably the culprit.
However, and this is the point: an animated show that is one of the top answers when you enter 'childrens science show' (or somesuch) shouldn't display such ads.
It's in their interests as well: if their algorithms worked better, they'd be able to produce ads targeted at kids rather than age-inappropriate ones.
Given all their self-vaunted work on AI and machine learning, you'd think they'd pout it first on the thing that actually earns them income. Instead the ad placement algorithms appear particularly thick (although in some cases that might be because of a lack of suitable advertisers in a sector).
Unless your son is surfing betting websites when you’re not looking...
He's under five, so I doubt that's the case. I'd be impressed (and slightly concerned) if it was true ...
We could do much worse, perhaps with thresholds (60%?) before any popular decision became mandatory.
An awful lot of trouble could have been avoided had the Scottish Referendum Clause - 40% of eligible voters had to approve a change - been included.
That would surely have put an end to further integration and led to a gradual loosening, while missing out on the epochal mess of the last three years.
It wouldn't have reconciled the fanatics, of course, but even leaving doesn't appear to do that so I don't see the problem.
Yes why not fix the result like they did in 79, just count dead people as against, real democracy UK style.
The reason being that this way failed anyway.
It should have been devolution in 79 if the crooked labour Westminster MPs had not fiddled it. They are no different now, they will lie and cheat to get their way. Thre should be no fixing of votes before they are held, we are very close to banana republic politics in UK nowadays.
Only very close?
I am in a good mood , sitting in the sunshine , relaxed and mellow.
Heavy fog here, sitting inside with my son on the first day of Easter holidays, waiting for a garage to pick up my car after they utterly failed to fix it on Friday.
Sympathetic; trying to sort out with BT why my new fibre broadband doesn't work. Been best part of a week now. Accessing the net via BTWiFi-with-Fon.
Very interesting indeed - and complex as to how this could affect seats if the same happened in England.
Yes - for the Euro elections the pro-Brexit parties are falling back and votes moving to anti-Brexit TIG and the LibDems. I can see the same happening UK-wide: I wouldn't bet on UKIP topping the poll.
Can’t see this. The cult will vote Labour regardless and not the Tory enablers or the Blairites...
All these problems disentangling from a union we've been in for less than 50 years. How would we cope disentangling from a union we've been in since 1707? . Obviously, those nice, paternalistic, UK MPs would need to help out by interpreting what you really, really meant if you vote for independence.
We could do much worse, perhaps with thresholds (60%?) before any popular decision became mandatory.
An awful lot of trouble could have been avoided had the Scottish Referendum Clause - 40% of eligible voters had to approve a change - been included.
That would surely have put an end to further integration and led to a gradual loosening, while missing out on the epochal mess of the last three years.
It wouldn't have reconciled the fanatics, of course, but even leaving doesn't appear to do that so I don't see the problem.
Yes why not fix the result like they did in 79, just count dead people as against, real democracy UK style.
The reason being that this way failed anyway.
It should have been devolution in 79 if the crooked labour Westminster MPs had not fiddled it. They are no different now, they will lie and cheat to get their way. Thre should be no fixing of votes before they are held, we are very close to banana republic politics in UK nowadays.
Only very close?
I am in a good mood , sitting in the sunshine , relaxed and mellow.
Heavy fog here, sitting inside with my son on the first day of Easter holidays, waiting for a garage to pick up my car after they utterly failed to fix it on Friday.
I am on holiday, so in Hamelyn, at least 20 degrees and lovely. Sitting on the balcony in the sun listening to birdsong and having continental breakfast, long live the EU.
Re local elections, I now understand the number of seats is well down, due to local government reorganisation, at 8,374.
The Conservatives are contesting 97% of seats, Labour 77%, Lib Dems 53%, Greens 31%, UKIP 18%.
How come Labour are contesting barely three-quarters of the seats? Even allowing for the fact this isn't the most productive cycle for them, that really is pathetic, and doesn't support all this we keep hearing about the largest political party in Europe with a fired up activist base.
Or is it just that the activists all live in a few places and don't know about or care about the rest of the country?
We could do much worse, perhaps with thresholds (60%?) before any popular decision became mandatory.
An awful lot of trouble could have been avoided had the Scottish Referendum Clause - 40% of eligible voters had to approve a change - been included.
That would surely have put an end to further integration and led to a gradual loosening, while missing out on the epochal mess of the last three years.
It wouldn't have reconciled the fanatics, of course, but even leaving doesn't appear to do that so I don't see the problem.
Yes why not fix the result like they did in 79, just count dead people as against, real democracy UK style.
The reason being that this way failed anyway.
It should have been devolution in 79 if the crooked labour Westminster MPs had not fiddled it. They are no different now, they will lie and cheat to get their way. Thre should be no fixing of votes before they are held, we are very close to banana republic politics in UK nowadays.
Only very close?
I am in a good mood , sitting in the sunshine , relaxed and mellow.
Heavy fog here, sitting inside with my son on the first day of Easter holidays, waiting for a garage to pick up my car after they utterly failed to fix it on Friday.
Sympathetic; trying to sort out with BT why my new fibre broadband doesn't work. Been best part of a week now. Accessing the net via BTWiFi-with-Fon.
Isn't Fon just the public slice of your own Broadband supply?
All these problems disentangling from a union we've been in for less than 50 years. How would we cope disentangling from a union we've been in since 1707? . Obviously, those nice, paternalistic, UK MPs would need to help out by interpreting what you really, really meant if you vote for independence.
Straight out Mr CD13, no shilly shallying , transition period till we split the family silver etc , behave like human beings and agree who gets what etc and then remain bosum buddies, simple. We would try not to be that much better than you at football etc , so as not to upset you.
But the awkward question that Leavers have no answer for is what is Brexit improving? Because it certainly isn’t helping build a united country, civic structures or improve the nation’s standing.
When you stand on a window ledge you shouldn’t jump just because everyone is trying to talk you down.
Leaving the EU was presented by its proponents as easy. And now we’re expected to take their guidance now even its proponents admit it would be hard? I
n the long run we all die. On what time horizon do you expect this mad hobbyhorse to be judged?
Part of the problem with the Brexit debate is that both sides are hyperbolic with their language which is one of the reasons we have found ourselves in a constitutional crisis. Window ledge and mad hobbyhorse make it sound apocalyptic for the country if we leave. Leaving should be a strategic policy decision, just as remaining would be. Unfortunately both sides have made it appear like an existential crisis.
For me, one of the interesting things about the process of leaving is the revelation of just how entwined in EU membership we have become over the past 45 years with relatively little public debate. That we have got ourselves so deeply enmeshed in a multilateral institution that it is a genuine argument that it is too difficult to leave is something deeply worrying and confirms my desire to leave.
As for the time horizon, I'm a medieval historian so I'm used to working in long timeframes! However, given that we've been a member for 45 years, I would think that a quarter of that time might allow us to come to a sensible decision about whether we made the right decision or not.
We could do much worse, perhaps with thresholds (60%?) before any popular decision became mandatory.
An awful lot of trouble could have been avoided had the Scottish Referendum Clause - 40% of eligible voters had to approve a change - been included.
That would surely have put an end to further integration and led to a gradual loosening, while missing out on the epochal mess of the last three years.
It wouldn't have reconciled the fanatics, of course, but even leaving doesn't appear to do that so I don't see the problem.
Yes why not fix the result like they did in 79, just count dead people as against, real democracy UK style.
The reason being that this way failed anyway.
It should have been devolution in 79 if the crooked labour Westminster MPs had not fiddled it. They are no different now, they will lie and cheat to get their way. Thre should be no fixing of votes before they are held, we are very close to banana republic politics in UK nowadays.
Only very close?
I am in a good mood , sitting in the sunshine , relaxed and mellow.
Heavy fog here, sitting inside with my son on the first day of Easter holidays, waiting for a garage to pick up my car after they utterly failed to fix it on Friday.
I am on holiday, so in Hamelyn, at least 20 degrees and lovely. Sitting on the balcony in the sun listening to birdsong and having continental breakfast, long live the EU.
Birdsong not the Pied Piper then?
Birdsong OKC but hopefully get a sighting the Piper and some rats later.
We could do much worse, perhaps with thresholds (60%?) before any popular decision became mandatory.
An awful lot of trouble could have been avoided had the Scottish Referendum Clause - 40% of eligible voters had to approve a change - been included.
That would surely have put an end to further integration and led to a gradual loosening, while missing out on the epochal mess of the last three years.
It wouldn't have reconciled the fanatics, of course, but even leaving doesn't appear to do that so I don't see the problem.
Yes why not fix the result like they did in 79, just count dead people as against, real democracy UK style.
The reason being that this way failed anyway.
It should have been devolution in 79 if the crooked labour Westminster MPs had not fiddled it. They are no different now, they will lie and cheat to get their way. Thre should be no fixing of votes before they are held, we are very close to banana republic politics in UK nowadays.
Only very close?
I am in a good mood , sitting in the sunshine , relaxed and mellow.
Heavy fog here, sitting inside with my son on the first day of Easter holidays, waiting for a garage to pick up my car after they utterly failed to fix it on Friday.
Sympathetic; trying to sort out with BT why my new fibre broadband doesn't work. Been best part of a week now. Accessing the net via BTWiFi-with-Fon.
Isn't Fon just the public slice of your own Broadband supply?
Have to log in. Works though. Have now found that the sub-contractor (apparently) who tried and failed to install on Saturday didn't, although he said he did, make an appointment for today. So now it's tomorrow. Have been given a £20 credit, though!
It would have been a clear instruction to the government that no further integration was not acceptable and that it should seek to bring powers back. Pulling out of the treaty would not have been possible although a brave government could have threatened to trigger Article 50 if no reforms were forthcoming
Really? It would have been exactly the same mess that we're seeing now, with leavers of all levels of (in)sanity saying it backs up their particular views. It would have been as clear as mud.
The lessons of the Brexit referendum are clear: if you want a referendum on something, be clear to the public what the result means - don't hold it on something vague and nebulous on the hope of winning, and then claim it means something different.
If you wanted a referendum on no further integration and bringing powers back, then that should have been what the referendum said - and there should have been a workable plan on how we would have got there.
A referendum on a signed Lisbon Treaty was unimplementable and chaotic. It was madness.
Mr. Borough, the public wanting a 'strong' single ruler rather than democracy is in line with Polybius model of democracy degenerating into anarchy, leading to monarchy (which then becomes tyranny, gets replaced with aristocracy, which degenerates to oligarchy and is, in turn, replaced by democracy).
Who would've ever guessed, or repeatedly posted about on an internet forum, that the political class being incompetent and showing contempt for democracy might not be terrible clever?
It would have been a clear instruction to the government that no further integration was not acceptable and that it should seek to bring powers back. Pulling out of the treaty would not have been possible although a brave government could have threatened to trigger Article 50 if no reforms were forthcoming
Really? It would have been exactly the same mess that we're seeing now, with leavers of all levels of (in)sanity saying it backs up their particular views. It would have been as clear as mud.
The lessons of the Brexit referendum are clear: if you want a referendum on something, be clear to the public what the result means - don't hold it on something vague and nebulous on the hope of winning, and then claim it means something different.
If you wanted a referendum on no further integration and bringing powers back, then that should have been what the referendum said - and there should have been a workable plan on how we would have got there.
A referendum on a signed Lisbon Treaty was unimplementable and chaotic. It was madness.
First rule of question writing; be clear and unambiguous.
Unless you're writing the confuser in an MCQ, of course.
Mr. Gin, I for one look forward to receiving my Free Expression Permit and Fap Licence, once I've satisfied the state I'm worthy by passing the I Believe In Rightthink and One Handed Typist tests. And paid the relevant fees, of course.
But the awkward question that Leavers have no answer for is what is Brexit improving? Because it certainly isn’t helping build a united country, civic structures or improve the nation’s standing.
When you stand on a window ledge you shouldn’t jump just because everyone is trying to talk you down.
Leaving the EU was presented by its proponents as easy. And now we’re expected to take their guidance now even its proponents admit it would be hard? I
n the long run we all die. On what time horizon do you expect this mad hobbyhorse to be judged?
Part of the problem with the Brexit debate is that both sides are hyperbolic with their language which is one of the reasons we have found ourselves in a constitutional crisis. Window ledge and mad hobbyhorse make it sound apocalyptic for the country if we leave. Leaving should be a strategic policy decision, just as remaining would be. Unfortunately both sides have made it appear like an existential crisis.
For me, one of the interesting things about the process of leaving is the revelation of just how entwined in EU membership we have become over the past 45 years with relatively little public debate. That we have got ourselves so deeply enmeshed in a multilateral institution that it is a genuine argument that it is too difficult to leave is something deeply worrying and confirms my desire to leave.
As for the time horizon, I'm a medieval historian so I'm used to working in long timeframes! However, given that we've been a member for 45 years, I would think that a quarter of that time might allow us to come to a sensible decision about whether we made the right decision or not.
For god's sake let's not have another historian-off.
But although I speed read your first post it did seem to say that the EU never ruled over us and that all our problems are our own.
But the awkward question that Leavers have no answer for is what is Brexit improving? Because it certainly isn’t helping build a united country, civic structures or improve the nation’s standing.
Hmm, The *process* of Brexit is certainly doing none of those things but I think you are conflating the process with the result. It was always going to be difficult actually to leave the EU even if the vote had been more decisive. So much of the running of the country is bound up in the reality of EU membership (and I don't mean by that the EU was "running the country", just that EU membership and what that entails was a constant factor in many areas of life), that the process of unravelling that was going to take time and be painful. It was also going to meet fierce opposition both from principled opposition and from vested interests who stand to lose (or at the least have to make disruptive adjustments to current practice), all of which has made leaving more difficult than Leavers would have liked (or anticipated).
If we ever do leave then, whatever form that takes, companies, institutions and citizens will adapt to the new reality with varying degrees of speed but the inherent advantages and problems that Britain possess will still be there. From a Leaver's perspective, I would say that we would then be in a position respectively to maximise and tackle those on a national level which is, in my view the best and most democratic way of doing so (though I recognise that other regard multilateralism as the best way).
In short, Leavers take the long view. The long view of remaining, especially after trying unsuccessfully to leave does not seem rosy to me, either internally (given the bitterness it will cause among frustrated leavers) nor externally (our national standing will be much more damaged both within and without the EU if we back down now).
I think we'll be fine if we stay. The Prodigal Son did okay.
In the short term, yes, everyone would be happy but we never get the full story in that Parable. The EU isn't Heaven and Member States would tend to behave more like the older brother than the benevolent father I think. Our influence would be much reduced even with a pro-EU PM as what incentive would member states have to listen to our concerns? If we remain after all, the fundamental problem of our relationship with the EU (that we're generally ok with the economic side of membership but not with the political project) would remain unresolved. It's why I've always bought the argument that both sides would be better off with us as a friendly neighbour than as a noisy, recalcitrant tenant. We're outside the Eurozone and likely to remain so and the EU is increasingly run in the interests of Eurozone members (especially the big ones).
It would have been a clear instruction to the government that no further integration was not acceptable and that it should seek to bring powers back. Pulling out of the treaty would not have been possible although a brave government could have threatened to trigger Article 50 if no reforms were forthcoming
Really? It would have been exactly the same mess that we're seeing now, with leavers of all levels of (in)sanity saying it backs up their particular views. It would have been as clear as mud.
The lessons of the Brexit referendum are clear: if you want a referendum on something, be clear to the public what the result means - don't hold it on something vague and nebulous on the hope of winning, and then claim it means something different.
If you wanted a referendum on no further integration and bringing powers back, then that should have been what the referendum said - and there should have been a workable plan on how we would have got there.
A referendum on a signed Lisbon Treaty was unimplementable and chaotic. It was madness.
It would have been a clear instruction to the government that no further integration was not acceptable and that it should seek to bring powers back. Pulling out of the treaty would not have been possible although a brave government could have threatened to trigger Article 50 if no reforms were forthcoming
Really? It would have been exactly the same mess that we're seeing now, with leavers of all levels of (in)sanity saying it backs up their particular views. It would have been as clear as mud.
The lessons of the Brexit referendum are clear: if you want a referendum on something, be clear to the public what the result means - don't hold it on something vague and nebulous on the hope of winning, and then claim it means something different.
If you wanted a referendum on no further integration and bringing powers back, then that should have been what the referendum said - and there should have been a workable plan on how we would have got there.
A referendum on a signed Lisbon Treaty was unimplementable and chaotic. It was madness.
I'd say the lesson of the 2016 referendum is, if you want a referendum, don't let MPs have a say on what happens if the result goes against them.
How do you square your belief that referenda should always be enacted, with your previous desire for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty after Brown had signed it? That would have been an unenactable (and pointless) referendum.
It would have been a clear instruction to the government that no further integration was not acceptable and that it should seek to bring powers back. Pulling out of the treaty would not have been possible although a brave government could have threatened to trigger Article 50 if no reforms were forthcoming
"no further integration was not acceptable"
I believe that's what people voted for in 2016 when they rejected Cameron's "ever closer union" opt out.
It would have been a clear instruction to the government that no further integration was not acceptable and that it should seek to bring powers back. Pulling out of the treaty would not have been possible although a brave government could have threatened to trigger Article 50 if no reforms were forthcoming
Really? It would have been exactly the same mess that we're seeing now, with leavers of all levels of (in)sanity saying it backs up their particular views. It would have been as clear as mud.
The lessons of the Brexit referendum are clear: if you want a referendum on something, be clear to the public what the result means - don't hold it on something vague and nebulous on the hope of winning, and then claim it means something different.
If you wanted a referendum on no further integration and bringing powers back, then that should have been what the referendum said - and there should have been a workable plan on how we would have got there.
A referendum on a signed Lisbon Treaty was unimplementable and chaotic. It was madness.
I'd say the lesson of the 2016 referendum is, if you want a referendum, don't let MPs have a say on what happens if the result goes against them.
The lesson is to ask a sensible question. One with real proposals that can be done.
And, if a major and significant change is being floated, make it a process with several hurdles to make sure the change has broad consent, rather than a gamble on a single vote on a single day.
We could do much worse, perhaps with thresholds (60%?) before any popular decision became mandatory.
An awful lot of trouble could have been avoided had the Scottish Referendum Clause - 40% of eligible voters had to approve a change - been included.
That would surely have put an end to further integration and led to a gradual loosening, while missing out on the epochal mess of the last three years.
It wouldn't have reconciled the fanatics, of course, but even leaving doesn't appear to do that so I don't see the problem.
Yes why not fix the result like they did in 79, just count dead people as against, real democracy UK style.
The reason being that this way failed anyway.
It should have been devolution in 79 if the crooked labour Westminster MPs had not fiddled it. They are no different now, they will lie and cheat to get their way. Thre should be no fixing of votes before they are held, we are very close to banana republic politics in UK nowadays.
Only very close?
I am in a good mood , sitting in the sunshine , relaxed and mellow.
We could do much worse, perhaps with thresholds (60%?) before any popular decision became mandatory.
An awful lot of trouble could have been avoided had the Scottish Referendum Clause - 40% of eligible voters had to approve a change - been included.
That would surely have put an end to further integration and led to a gradual loosening, while missing out on the epochal mess of the last three years.
It wouldn't have reconciled the fanatics, of course, but even leaving doesn't appear to do that so I don't see the problem.
Yes why not fix the result like they did in 79, just count dead people as against, real democracy UK style.
The reason being that this way failed anyway.
It should have been devolution in 79 if the crooked labour Westminster MPs had not fiddled it. They are no different now, they will lie and cheat to get their way. Thre should be no fixing of votes before they are held, we are very close to banana republic politics in UK nowadays.
Only very close?
I am in a good mood , sitting in the sunshine , relaxed and mellow.
Heavy fog here, sitting inside with my son on the first day of Easter holidays, waiting for a garage to pick up my car after they utterly failed to fix it on Friday.
I am on holiday, so in Hamelyn, at least 20 degrees and lovely. Sitting on the balcony in the sun listening to birdsong and having continental breakfast, long live the EU.
More likely either May suggests a CU Deal on Wednesday and the EU agrees the extension or MPs vote to revoke Article 50 on Thursday or Friday.
May made clear in her video message it is now likely either a Deal or no Brexit at all from her viewpoint
Will MPs really vote to Revoke, when faced with actually having to walk through the division?
I am far from convinced.
I think it depends how the question is phrased. If it is do you vote for a "No Deal" Brexit, with the presumptive response to a "No" being Revoke; that would make it a lot easier.....
"I'd say the lesson of the 2016 referendum is, if you want a referendum, don't let MPs have a say on what happens if the result goes against them."
Exactly, and it's something for the Scots to bear in mind if they ever want another independence referendum. Specify that it doesn't mean a little more devolution, and ban the MPs from interfering.
Very interesting indeed - and complex as to how this could affect seats if the same happened in England.
Yes - for the Euro elections the pro-Brexit parties are falling back and votes moving to anti-Brexit TIG and the LibDems. I can see the same happening UK-wide: I wouldn't bet on UKIP topping the poll.
UKIP and the Brexit Party were on 21% combined for the Euro elections compared to 19% for the LDs, CUK and Greens combined
Very interesting indeed - and complex as to how this could affect seats if the same happened in England.
Yes - for the Euro elections the pro-Brexit parties are falling back and votes moving to anti-Brexit TIG and the LibDems. I can see the same happening UK-wide: I wouldn't bet on UKIP topping the poll.
Can’t see this. The cult will vote Labour regardless and not the Tory enablers or the Blairites...
The 'cult' is a very small proportion of Labour voters.
It would have been a clear instruction to the government that no further integration was not acceptable and that it should seek to bring powers back. Pulling out of the treaty would not have been possible although a brave government could have threatened to trigger Article 50 if no reforms were forthcoming
Really? It would have been exactly the same mess that we're seeing now, with leavers of all levels of (in)sanity saying it backs up their particular views. It would have been as clear as mud.
The lessons of the Brexit referendum are clear: if you want a referendum on something, be clear to the public what the result means - don't hold it on something vague and nebulous on the hope of winning, and then claim it means something different.
If you wanted a referendum on no further integration and bringing powers back, then that should have been what the referendum said - and there should have been a workable plan on how we would have got there.
A referendum on a signed Lisbon Treaty was unimplementable and chaotic. It was madness.
I'd say the lesson of the 2016 referendum is, if you want a referendum, don't let MPs have a say on what happens if the result goes against them.
The lesson is to ask a sensible question. One with real proposals that can be done.
And, if a major and significant change is being floated, make it a process with several hurdles to make sure the change has broad consent, rather than a gamble on a single vote on a single day.
This. And make sure the Government supports the proposed change so are willing to carry it out with a coherent and clear plan.
It would have been a clear instruction to the government that no further integration was not acceptable and that it should seek to bring powers back. Pulling out of the treaty would not have been possible although a brave government could have threatened to trigger Article 50 if no reforms were forthcoming
Really? It would have been exactly the same mess that we're seeing now, with leavers of all levels of (in)sanity saying it backs up their particular views. It would have been as clear as mud.
The lessons of the Brexit referendum are clear: if you want a referendum on something, be clear to the public what the result means - don't hold it on something vague and nebulous on the hope of winning, and then claim it means something different.
If you wanted a referendum on no further integration and bringing powers back, then that should have been what the referendum said - and there should have been a workable plan on how we would have got there.
A referendum on a signed Lisbon Treaty was unimplementable and chaotic. It was madness.
I'd say the lesson of the 2016 referendum is, if you want a referendum, don't let MPs have a say on what happens if the result goes against them.
But for that to be the case, the result need to be clear and unambiguous. The Brexit referendum was not - which is why leavers (the winners, after all), cannot agree on what it means.
In that situation, it should not be for the government to decide what the people meant for a whole host of reasons.
Very few people - yet alone MPs - come out of this mess looking good.
Very interesting indeed - and complex as to how this could affect seats if the same happened in England.
Yes - for the Euro elections the pro-Brexit parties are falling back and votes moving to anti-Brexit TIG and the LibDems. I can see the same happening UK-wide: I wouldn't bet on UKIP topping the poll.
UKIP and the Brexit Party were on 21% combined for the Euro elections compared to 19% for the LDs, CUK and Greens combined
Down from 27% and up from 11% last time respectively.
It would have been a clear instruction to the government that no further integration was not acceptable and that it should seek to bring powers back. Pulling out of the treaty would not have been possible although a brave government could have threatened to trigger Article 50 if no reforms were forthcoming
Really? It would have been exactly the same mess that we're seeing now, with leavers of all levels of (in)sanity saying it backs up their particular views. It would have been as clear as mud.
The lessons of the Brexit referendum are clear: if you want a referendum on something, be clear to the public what the result means - don't hold it on something vague and nebulous on the hope of winning, and then claim it means something different.
If you wanted a referendum on no further integration and bringing powers back, then that should have been what the referendum said - and there should have been a workable plan on how we would have got there.
A referendum on a signed Lisbon Treaty was unimplementable and chaotic. It was madness.
I'd say the lesson of the 2016 referendum is, if you want a referendum, don't let MPs have a say on what happens if the result goes against them.
The lesson is to ask a sensible question. One with real proposals that can be done.
And, if a major and significant change is being floated, make it a process with several hurdles to make sure the change has broad consent, rather than a gamble on a single vote on a single day.
Perhaps Ted Heath, Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown should have though about this as they signed up to integration.
Morning all. Good article by Oborne but surely no surprise that as it becomes increasingly apparent that Brexit, evaluated as practical project rather than ethereal thought experiment, is a great big bag of stupid, a large number of people who voted Leave are now consumed by regret and hoping against hope for either long pause or cancellation.
However, in the interests of balance, let us also note that others have moved the other way. There are people who voted Remain who now say that if they had their time again they would vote Leave. And what's more these include some prominent people. So prominent, in fact, that most of them are expected to run very shortly for leadership of the Conservative Party.
More likely either May suggests a CU Deal on Wednesday and the EU agrees the extension or MPs vote to revoke Article 50 on Thursday or Friday.
May made clear in her video message it is now likely either a Deal or no Brexit at all from her viewpoint
Will MPs really vote to Revoke, when faced with actually having to walk through the division?
I am far from convinced.
If it goes on the same lines as the Cooper vote yes, Hammond, Rudd, Gauke etc from the Cabinet voted against Cooper but would abstain on a revoke or No Deal vote.
As I said before I expect a narrow majority of English MPs would vote against revoking Article 50 as would the DUP but it would narrowly pass thanks to the SNP and Welsh Labour MPs
It would have been a clear instruction to the government that no further integration was not acceptable and that it should seek to bring powers back. Pulling out of the treaty would not have been possible although a brave government could have threatened to trigger Article 50 if no reforms were forthcoming
Really? It would have been exactly the same mess that we're seeing now, with leavers of all levels of (in)sanity saying it backs up their particular views. It would have been as clear as mud.
The lessons of the Brexit referendum are clear: if you want a referendum on something, be clear to the public what the result means - don't hold it on something vague and nebulous on the hope of winning, and then claim it means something different.
If you wanted a referendum on no further integration and bringing powers back, then that should have been what the referendum said - and there should have been a workable plan on how we would have got there.
A referendum on a signed Lisbon Treaty was unimplementable and chaotic. It was madness.
I'd say the lesson of the 2016 referendum is, if you want a referendum, don't let MPs have a say on what happens if the result goes against them.
The lesson is to ask a sensible question. One with real proposals that can be done.
And, if a major and significant change is being floated, make it a process with several hurdles to make sure the change has broad consent, rather than a gamble on a single vote on a single day.
Perhaps Ted Heath, Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown should have though about this as they signed up to integration.
In a process that took place over several decades, consented to at every step by parliament, including governments of both parties? I think it's the Brexiteers who should take lessons from that.
But the awkward question that Leavers have no answer for is what is Brexit improving? Because it certainly isn’t helping build a united country, civic structures or improve the nation’s standing.
Hmm, The *process* of Brexit is certainly doing none of those things but I think you are conflating the process with the result. It was always going to be difficult actually to leave the EU even if the vote had been more decisive. So much of the running of the country is bound up in the reality of EU membership (and I don't mean by that the EU was "running the country", just that EU membership and what that entails was a constant factor in many areas of life), that the process of unravelling that was going to take time and be painful. It was also going to meet fierce opposition both from principled opposition and from vested interests who stand to lose (or at the least have to make disruptive adjustments to current practice), all of which has made leaving more difficult than Leavers would have liked (or anticipated).
If we ever do leave then, whatever form that takes, companies, institutions and citizens will adapt to the new reality with varying degrees of speed but the inherent advantages and problems that Britain possess will still be there. From a Leaver's perspective, I would say that we would then be in a position respectively to maximise and tackle those on a national level which is, in my view the best and most democratic way of doing so (though I recognise that other regard multilateralism as the best way).
In short, Leavers take the long view. The long view of remaining, especially after trying unsuccessfully to leave does not seem rosy to me, either internally (given the bitterness it will cause among frustrated leavers) nor externally (our national standing will be much more damaged both within and without the EU if we back down now).
I don't see a scintilla of evidence that they "take the long view" any more than those who voted remain. One could argue with equal justification that a desire for instant gratification was one of the drivers of the Brexit vote.
Fair point, I can't speak for all Leavers, only for myself and the small number of Leavers that I know in the overwhelmingly Remain area where I work. I agree that many Remainers have taken a long view of what is in the best interests of the country, though the main thrust of the Remain campaign was on the short-term economic consequences of leaving, just as the main arguments against No Deal are now.
It would have been a clear instruction to the government that no further integration was not acceptable and that it should seek to bring powers back. Pulling out of the treaty would not have been possible although a brave government could have threatened to trigger Article 50 if no reforms were forthcoming
Really? It would have been exactly the same mess that we're seeing now, with leavers of all levels of (in)sanity saying it backs up their particular views. It would have been as clear as mud.
The lessons of the Brexit referendum are clear: if you want a referendum on something, be clear to the public what the result means - don't hold it on something vague and nebulous on the hope of winning, and then claim it means something different.
If you wanted a referendum on no further integration and bringing powers back, then that should have been what the referendum said - and there should have been a workable plan on how we would have got there.
A referendum on a signed Lisbon Treaty was unimplementable and chaotic. It was madness.
I'd say the lesson of the 2016 referendum is, if you want a referendum, don't let MPs have a say on what happens if the result goes against them.
The lesson is to ask a sensible question. One with real proposals that can be done.
And, if a major and significant change is being floated, make it a process with several hurdles to make sure the change has broad consent, rather than a gamble on a single vote on a single day.
Perhaps Ted Heath, Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown should have though about this as they signed up to integration.
Progress achieved progressively through time and subject to parliamentary consent. A more sensible approach than a referendum.
Morning all. The Welsh poll is very interesting. UKIP on 3% behind Brexit despite having AMs and standing in Newport...... euro election bettors take note. Change on 9% is frankly astonishing given recent invisibility, they are ahead of the Lib Dems! Brecon potential bettors take note! Would hate yo try and call Welsh seats in a GE, could see some weird gains
We could do much worse, perhaps with thresholds (60%?) before any popular decision became mandatory.
An awful lot of trouble could have been avoided had the Scottish Referendum Clause - 40% of eligible voters had to approve a change - been included.
That would surely have put an end to further integration and led to a gradual loosening, while missing out on the epochal mess of the last three years.
It wouldn't have reconciled the fanatics, of course, but even leaving doesn't appear to do that so I don't see the problem.
Yes why not fix the result like they did in 79, just count dead people as against, real democracy UK style.
The reason being that this way failed anyway.
It should have been devolution in 79 if the crooked labour Westminster MPs had not fiddled it. They are no different now, they will lie and cheat to get their way. Thre should be no fixing of votes before they are held, we are very close to banana republic politics in UK nowadays.
Only very close?
I am in a good mood , sitting in the sunshine , relaxed and mellow.
Heavy fog here, sitting inside with my son on the first day of Easter holidays, waiting for a garage to pick up my car after they utterly failed to fix it on Friday.
I am on holiday, so in Hamelyn, at least 20 degrees and lovely. Sitting on the balcony in the sun listening to birdsong and having continental breakfast, long live the EU.
Wait Malc, didn't you vote to leave ?
And so he has. Having breakfast at 10am local time, lazy sod.
Comments
Moreover I have said numerous times that I consider my form of Leave to have a lack of support and so to be unlikely to happen. Unlike you I actually do believe in democracy. Or did until Parliament killed it.
However, and this is the point: an animated show that is one of the top answers when you enter 'childrens science show' (or somesuch) shouldn't display such ads.
It's in their interests as well: if their algorithms worked better, they'd be able to produce ads targeted at kids rather than age-inappropriate ones.
Given all their self-vaunted work on AI and machine learning, you'd think they'd pout it first on the thing that actually earns them income. Instead the ad placement algorithms appear particularly thick (although in some cases that might be because of a lack of suitable advertisers in a sector).
"We talk about it for 20 minutes and then we decide I was right”
You're welcome.
Uh-huh.
The reality is that a hung parliament attempting to implement a contested policy (and I note that only this morning, Boris Johnson was referring to a soft Brexit as 'betrayal'), was destined to end up where we are.
Your attempt to ascribe all the blame to those who wish to remain in the EU is otiose.
The right wing press attempts to dump everything on the EU has been a total failure.
"The right wing press attempts to dump everything on the EU has been a total failure."
It's the UK MPs who are being blamed, and rightly so. The EU is keeping its head down.
The Conservatives are contesting 97% of seats, Labour 77%, Lib Dems 53%, Greens 31%, UKIP 18%.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexit-emily-thornberry-demands-new-referendum-dbtl7z5vz
Hmm. Remind me what Major and Blair said about the Irish border?
Accessing the net via BTWiFi-with-Fon.
All these problems disentangling from a union we've been in for less than 50 years. How would we cope disentangling from a union we've been in since 1707? . Obviously, those nice, paternalistic, UK MPs would need to help out by interpreting what you really, really meant if you vote for independence.
Or is it just that the activists all live in a few places and don't know about or care about the rest of the country?
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/politics/opinion-polls/news/103094/disenchanted-voters-would-back-strong-rule-breaking
MPs need to wake up to the damage they are doing to our democracy and stop playing their own sad games.
For me, one of the interesting things about the process of leaving is the revelation of just how entwined in EU membership we have become over the past 45 years with relatively little public debate. That we have got ourselves so deeply enmeshed in a multilateral institution that it is a genuine argument that it is too difficult to leave is something deeply worrying and confirms my desire to leave.
As for the time horizon, I'm a medieval historian so I'm used to working in long timeframes!
Wonder whether that will mean prison for moron MPs like Matt Hancock who can't even create an app without buggering up people's privacy?
#LockHimUp
Have been given a £20 credit, though!
The lessons of the Brexit referendum are clear: if you want a referendum on something, be clear to the public what the result means - don't hold it on something vague and nebulous on the hope of winning, and then claim it means something different.
If you wanted a referendum on no further integration and bringing powers back, then that should have been what the referendum said - and there should have been a workable plan on how we would have got there.
A referendum on a signed Lisbon Treaty was unimplementable and chaotic. It was madness.
Who would've ever guessed, or repeatedly posted about on an internet forum, that the political class being incompetent and showing contempt for democracy might not be terrible clever?
Unless you're writing the confuser in an MCQ, of course.
Freedom! Yeah!
But although I speed read your first post it did seem to say that the EU never ruled over us and that all our problems are our own.
In which case why the burning desire to leave?
May made clear in her video message it is now likely either a Deal or no Brexit at all from her viewpoint
I believe that's what people voted for in 2016 when they rejected Cameron's "ever closer union" opt out.
And, if a major and significant change is being floated, make it a process with several hurdles to make sure the change has broad consent, rather than a gamble on a single vote on a single day.
I am far from convinced.
"I'd say the lesson of the 2016 referendum is, if you want a referendum, don't let MPs have a say on what happens if the result goes against them."
Exactly, and it's something for the Scots to bear in mind if they ever want another independence referendum. Specify that it doesn't mean a little more devolution, and ban the MPs from interfering.
In that situation, it should not be for the government to decide what the people meant for a whole host of reasons.
Very few people - yet alone MPs - come out of this mess looking good.
May really has been a ghastly PM.
However, in the interests of balance, let us also note that others have moved the other way. There are people who voted Remain who now say that if they had their time again they would vote Leave. And what's more these include some prominent people. So prominent, in fact, that most of them are expected to run very shortly for leadership of the Conservative Party.
" We would try not to be that much better than you at football etc , so as not to upset you."
I think you might have taken that too far now.
As I said before I expect a narrow majority of English MPs would vote against revoking Article 50 as would the DUP but it would narrowly pass thanks to the SNP and Welsh Labour MPs