This coupled with Putin’s troll army revelations, we must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting Brexit.
Mr Eagles, I am deeply disappointed. You start quoting Enoch Powell, and then leave out the classical reference at the end. I would never have thought somebody of your classical bent would miss the opportunity to refer to the Aeneid.
I'm tired and deaf at the moment, and I have to go Blackpool to watch Strictly live this afternoon/evening.
I don't have the energy to remember that part of the speech, or rather quote it verbatim.
I'm very surprised David Herdson wrote this blogpost, rather than OGH.
The idea that a bit of grubby money about a grubby man like Aaron Banks could be used as (yet another) excuse to stop Brexit in its tracks is not only fanciful, it's extremely dangerous.
I have no doubt that in every election there has ever been there have been both substantial illicit overspend and substantial vote fraud, because we live in an imperfect world. If we start voiding election results for these reasons we end up quite shortly in a Ruritania where the ultimate ruler is the Supreme Court.
Secondly, vote fraud is one thing and overspend is another. There's no dispute about what the effect of a vote fraud is; but with overspend, so what? Most-to-all elections would go they way they go with a watertight advertising ban in place from the day the election is called. The more extreme dowager-with-a-scalded-fanny posters like to get excited over Farage's Walking Dead Turkey poster, but they always turn out to think that the Leave voting public are all horrid racist moron proles anyway, so what is the poster meant to have achieved?
The argument that this is a special case because of the A 50 wording is ingenious, but otoh we like GE results to be in accordance with our constitutional requirements too, so it doesn't actually make any difference.
If there is a second referendum because it becomes obvious to a majority that Brexit is going to be immensely difficult and damaging to implement, in a scenario where Labour plumps for it as a way off its fence, there is a reasonable prospect that the decision to Leave will be overturned.
If there is a second referendum in David's scenario, where the Leave campaign is faulted on what many will see as a technicality, then the Winchester effect will come into play, and a second vote will return another, larger, Leave majority.
I would imagine that anyone clutching at David's straw will be well aware of this, which is why it won't happen.
The 'best' outcome is that any adverse finding against Leave.eu becomes another chip off the credibility of the whole exercise. But it will be public and political opinion that drives us towards a second vote, not the lawyers and the courts.
Most of the debate on a second referendum seems to focus on how the reality of Leave would play in the campaign.
Far fewer people ask the question about what Remain would mean for the UK, in a second referendum, where the ground has already changed.
Mr. P, interesting use of psychology, and I agree changing minds, or being seen to, is difficult.
The bitterness of the issue doesn't make it easier, however. If Remainers want to reverse the result they should be embarking on a charm offensive and get cover from the EU (as I said a year or so ago. An increased rebate or something comparable could be used as a carrot).
Don't forget, Cameron banned the civil service from providing any support for leave whilst allowing it to support the government position of remain. Worth £m's more than anything reported to have been spent.
Hence Cameron's huge shock at the result when he'd done so much to stack the whole machinery of the state behind remain.
This was before the official campaign period started, and is akin to any council or government using the state to publicise its policies. Campaign expenditure can only be totted up for actions taken when there is an actual official campaign.
lol
just bollocks
From the Electoral Commission: "In the runup to a referendum, there is a formal campaigning period called the ‘referendum period’. During this period, referendum campaign spending limits and rules apply.".
really go play the fuckwit wit someone else
Cameron had the whole power of the state, the City, big business which he used as his proxies. He had a so called truce period in the cabinet in which he cheated, He had a panoply of world leaders he wheeled in to do his dirty work.
You lost despite having all the advantages, get over it and show some maturiity for once in your life.
Mr. Royale, the problem is that a departure is a stark and sudden change, like getting out of a warm bed when it's bloody freezing. Staying in is more comfortable, and the changes more slight and gradual. Like a frog, slowly boiling.
This seems a nonsensical legal argument to me although David tries gamely to make the case. Probably therefore it will turn out to be somehow legally correct.
I doubt anyone will care that much about campaign finance and I strongly suspect Remainers like myself won’t even see this as a particularly powerful argument.
If you compare to the 30 or so Tory MPs in trouble for battle buses - as far as I recall it was barely mentioned by Labour in the last election. Doubt this will cut through either.
I tend to agree - the case for saying that the Conservative Party has won seats by illegitimate bending of spending rules, possibly altering the overall election result, seems to me more direct and stronger. David's article is an interesting thought experiment, but doesn't convince me.
That said, both British and to a lesser extent European politics is primarily political rather than judicial. If in late 2018 popular opinion has turned strongly against Brexit, a way will be found to stop it - very senior EU figures have repeatedly made it clear that if we wanted to forget the whole thing, we could, without penalties, and British Governments are famous for their ability to find legally-valid reasons for doing whatever they want. The belief by some Leavers that the law will prevent a U-turn is based on sand - that's not how politics works. To make Brexit work, they need to prevent a clear change of mood in the electorate.
Agree entirely.
Remainers need to be ready so that if public opinion does change - we have viable options to stay or rejoin swiftly. The rejoin swiftly bit is trickiest and doesn’t seem to be a focus of thinking at the moment.
B: Will of the people. One vote's enough. R: So, 1975 stands. B: People must be allowed to change their minds esp where they were lied to. R: Go on ...
I voted to remain, but I think the biggest piece of propaganda through the whole campaign, and the closest to 'cheating' was the gov't issued puff piece before the start of the official campaign. During the campaign, leave's claims and leaflets were definitely more full of bullshit than remain.
So overall I'd say it was about a tie.
The Government and the EU managed to lose the referendum all by themselves. They failed to sell a poor product, which didn't address public concerns on immigration, or deliver a meaningful change in sovereignty for eurosceptics.
The Leave campaign was led by mainstream politicians from across the political divide, with a number of senior business leaders, and elder statesman, supporting it.
If (and it's a massive if) a few Russians in St.Petersburg left a few comments on Facebook, or bought Aaron Banks a few decent lunches, it was pissing in the wind next to that.
So Arron Banks is a grubby little man. Nigel Farage always was a tough sell and is now an embarrassment since he started fixating about the Jews. IDS was always hopeless. Owen Paterson was outwitted by badgers. Jacob Rees-Mogg has yet to reach the 20th century, let alone the 21st. Boris Johnson's parabola is now firmly in its downward phase, him having been definitively shown to be a lazy chancer. Andrea Leadsom, mother status aside, seems rated only by herself. Michael Gove is too weird, Priti Patel is too duplicitous. David Davis has gamely tried to make a go of Brexit but like Boxer the Horse is finding that blind loyalty isn't enough - sometimes he who dares loses.
Who then is the Leaver who is going to lead the Brexiteers to the promised land?
As Mr Brooke says, Remain had all the advantages. the BBC (apart from the small window before the referendum when it had to be impartial), the great and the good (in the their own mind), the poshos in general, and the young (always willing to give you the benefit of their inexperience).
All the people who aren't used to losing. So unused to losing, a proportion decided that democracy was no longer fit for purpose. It must be stopped, lest the weasels and the stoats from the wildwood are allowed to get their own way for once.
Unthinkable.
These tortuous machinations are evidence of that.
As for the negotiations, we'll get no sense out of the EU until we actually leave. They cannot allow us to be seen to gain from it, even if it hurts themselves. Once we're free, political reality will return. For now, it's a matter of principle. The media elite (both here and abroad) can't be seen to be wrong.
Many leavers think this, and the relentless response from the media reinforces it.
There was a slight chance of staying, had the EU made overtures and if the die-hard leavers in the UK didn't go into hysterical mode.
I have wondered about this concept of official and unofficial spending often before and I believe we had a discussion about this many years ago on here at the time of the 2010 GE.
If you are someone with wealth and, for example, you wanted to use any means to prevent Theresa May (or another MP in a safe seat) being re-elected as MP, what is to stop you spending huge sums of money illegally (but secretly) in support of her campaign and then, once she has run, making a complaint to the police about illegal spending? Of course you would have to be sure you would not get caught yourself but as far as the law goes it seems that the MP would have to account for the spending even though they themselves would claim they had nothing to do with it and the election result could be set aside.
In this instance there was absolutely nothing the official Leave campaign could do to stop Banks spending huge sums of money and yet in effect what David is saying is that they might be punished for it (by having the result rendered null and void).
Don't forget, Cameron banned the civil service from providing any support for leave whilst allowing it to support the government position of remain. Worth £m's more than anything reported to have been spent.
Hence Cameron's huge shock at the result when he'd done so much to stack the whole machinery of the state behind remain.
This was before the official campaign period started, and is akin to any council or government using the state to publicise its policies. Campaign expenditure can only be totted up for actions taken when there is an actual official campaign.
Your vehemence on this subject when in the spotlight is quite thought-provoking....
I am not vehement about it, it's a simple fact.
As I said in my original post on the lead, I don't see David's scenario leading anywhere.
To be fair, I say that myself too. But we should be aware of the possibility.
I also say that the inevitable consequence would be a second referendum. I agree that there would be an immense outcry if the exercise were cancelled due to a technicality with no provision for a re-run. However, I'm not convinced the Winchester factor would apply. This is such a big decision with such great consequences flowing from it that I think most people would again address it on what they see as the merits. That's not to say some ex-Remainers wouldn't vote to uphold the first vote but I think their number would be few.
I totally disagree David. I think you've got this completely wrong.
The evidence threshold for the referendum to be cancelled over 18 months since it was held, with the UK in the middle of the Brexit negotiations, would have to be extraordinary. And the link between that and the result (which was carried by well over a million votes) clearly established beyond reasonable doubt.
I expect it would fail on both grounds, even if Banks is as guilty as hell.
I am enjoying the current phase of Putin's useful idiots telling themselves that the machinations that they angrily denied at the time might have had any influence on the result.
car manufacturers moan, its what they do, there has never been a point when the car manufacturers arent complaining about something, it helps them get subsidies
of all the car plants only Honda looks wobbly and thats because they have a shit model range and nothing to do with Brexit.
as for the outcry there was none when
Ford Dagenham closed Ford Southampton closed Peugeot Ryton closed LDV Birmingham closed Vauxhall Luton stopped car production Jaguar Coventry closed AGCO Coventry closed
only Rover Longbrdge had a bit of hooha and that was primarily Midlands based
this sudden concerns by remainers for manufacturing is all a bit late, you should have made a fuss when we were in the EU of WTF why are all our jobs going to Europe ?
That is simple.
In the UK we copied American neo-liberalism. The purpose in a business is to return the highest return to the shareholders now and forget the future. So we don't invest, we don't train, we letbthe stock market dictate based on quarterly returns vs treating the business as a long term asset. We could stop foreign owners closing factories - not selling them would be a good start. We could offer subsidy as other governments do - EU rules only seem to prevent that according to the UK A government as every other EU government invests because subsidising manufacturing jobs is value for money.
It used to be that investment was a basic principle of capitalism. Grow a business. Borrow against that asset to invest for growth and deliver return on investment. But not in the UK because borrowing and investment is communism or something. We won't invest so precious few others will invest, or only at crazy rates. There's enough of a return in nuclear power for foreign governments to borrow to invest in, but apparently we can't borrow to make that investment because communism.
We have had a 30 year problem with industry where we seem to have decided as a nation that Tesco is a better industry than manufacturing. So why do I protest these forthcoming job losses? Because they are entirely avoidable. These manufacturers are here and want to be here and have invested heavily to remain here. And now our dipshit supposedly free trade Tory government is going to egregiously cripple free trade And make their factories uneconomical vs the competition. Which will close them.
Your response to these factories will close is "so what, factories close". Having bemoaned factories closing you seem indifferent to factories closing...
I have wondered about this concept of official and unofficial spending often before and I believe we had a discussion about this many years ago on here at the time of the 2010 GE.
If you are someone with wealth and, for example, you wanted to use any means to prevent Theresa May (or another MP in a safe seat) being re-elected as MP, what is to stop you spending huge sums of money illegally (but secretly) in support of her campaign and then, once she has run, making a complaint to the police about illegal spending? Of course you would have to be sure you would not get caught yourself but as far as the law goes it seems that the MP would have to account for the spending even though they themselves would claim they had nothing to do with it and the election result could be set aside.
In this instance there was absolutely nothing the official Leave campaign could do to stop Banks spending huge sums of money and yet in effect what David is saying is that they might be punished for it (by having the result rendered null and void).
It's David's worse article in a very long time.
Normally, he speaks nothing but common sense with fantastic insight, and is respectful of the result, whilst able to gently critique both sides.
This morning, he's crossing back into Remoaner territory - a place I thought he'd left months ago.
On the topic of David Cameron marking the deck for the referendum - I agree on the leaflet. He also I think initially was tempted to be a bit sly on the question, but quite rightly the electoral commission came up with something Fair.
Given all that - why didn’t he give 16yolds the vote? Much more justifiable.
I think Will Straw said it would have been enough to swing the result if 1/4 had swung the votes of their parents or something like that.
I have no doubt that in every election there has ever been there have been both substantial illicit overspend and substantial vote fraud, because we live in an imperfect world. If we start voiding election results for these reasons we end up quite shortly in a Ruritania where the ultimate ruler is the Supreme Court.
Secondly, vote fraud is one thing and overspend is another. There's no dispute about what the effect of a vote fraud is; but with overspend, so what? Most-to-all elections would go they way they go with a watertight advertising ban in place from the day the election is called. The more extreme dowager-with-a-scalded-fanny posters like to get excited over Farage's Walking Dead Turkey poster, but they always turn out to think that the Leave voting public are all horrid racist moron proles anyway, so what is the poster meant to have achieved?
The argument that this is a special case because of the A 50 wording is ingenious, but otoh we like GE results to be in accordance with our constitutional requirements too, so it doesn't actually make any difference.
Remainers would be better to spend their time thinking how to persuade the public that it is time to 'think again' and outlining the benefits of the EU rather than continuously rehashing the arguments about the campaign. It's gone. Nothing, not even the Electoral Commission will bring it back.
Mr. Royale, the problem is that a departure is a stark and sudden change, like getting out of a warm bed when it's bloody freezing. Staying in is more comfortable, and the changes more slight and gradual. Like a frog, slowly boiling.
Indeed so. The Remainers know the process of Leaving is their last chance, because once we're out, and a new status quo is established, we're out for good.
I have no doubt that in every election there has ever been there have been both substantial illicit overspend and substantial vote fraud, because we live in an imperfect world. If we start voiding election results for these reasons we end up quite shortly in a Ruritania where the ultimate ruler is the Supreme Court.
Secondly, vote fraud is one thing and overspend is another. There's no dispute about what the effect of a vote fraud is; but with overspend, so what? Most-to-all elections would go they way they go with a watertight advertising ban in place from the day the election is called. The more extreme dowager-with-a-scalded-fanny posters like to get excited over Farage's Walking Dead Turkey poster, but they always turn out to think that the Leave voting public are all horrid racist moron proles anyway, so what is the poster meant to have achieved?
The argument that this is a special case because of the A 50 wording is ingenious, but otoh we like GE results to be in accordance with our constitutional requirements too, so it doesn't actually make any difference.
I think it highly unlikely there was substantial voter fraud - certainly no where near to the extent that it would have changed the result.
Mr. Royale, the problem is that a departure is a stark and sudden change, like getting out of a warm bed when it's bloody freezing. Staying in is more comfortable, and the changes more slight and gradual. Like a frog, slowly boiling.
Indeed so. The Remainers know the process of Leaving is their last chance, because once we're out, and a new status quo is established, we're out for good.
And they smell blood.
The question you should ask yourself is why unreconciled Remain supporters smell blood. Any answer that doesn't involve consideration of why they remain unreconciled and the rank incompetence of the post-referendum Leave effort will get a failing grade.
On the topic of David Cameron marking the deck for the referendum - I agree on the leaflet. He also I think initially was tempted to be a bit sly on the question, but quite rightly the electoral commission came up with something Fair.
Given all that - why didn’t he give 16yolds the vote? Much more justifiable.
I think Will Straw said it would have been enough to swing the result if 1/4 had swung the votes of their parents or something like that.
This was strongly opposed by Leavers during discussion on the Referendum bill. They wanted, remember, to fix the franchise to give Leave the best chance and Cameron was not ready to fight that.
Mr. rkrkrk, I'd sooner raise than lower the voting age.
If you're still at school, you're too young to vote.
Well I don’t agree at all.
But the challenges of restricting the franchise are exceptional. It seems to me to be very dangerous to take votes away from people - and likely to stir up a lot of resentment.
The financing of the referendum is irrelevant. It was only advisory as we were repeatedly told by remainers. Eventually Supreme Court, courtesy of the remain campaign and Maria Miller, told us that parliament that had to make the decision. Parliament decided. We are leaving.
On the topic of David Cameron marking the deck for the referendum - I agree on the leaflet. He also I think initially was tempted to be a bit sly on the question, but quite rightly the electoral commission came up with something Fair.
Given all that - why didn’t he give 16yolds the vote? Much more justifiable.
I think Will Straw said it would have been enough to swing the result if 1/4 had swung the votes of their parents or something like that.
This was strongly opposed by Leavers during discussion on the Referendum bill. They wanted, remember, to fix the franchise to give Leave the best chance and Cameron was not ready to fight that.
Do you think he would have lost that argument? I think he could easily have got Lab and SNP support to pass a bill with 16yolds voting.
I have no doubt that in every election there has ever been there have been both substantial illicit overspend and substantial vote fraud, because we live in an imperfect world. If we start voiding election results for these reasons we end up quite shortly in a Ruritania where the ultimate ruler is the Supreme Court.
Secondly, vote fraud is one thing and overspend is another. There's no dispute about what the effect of a vote fraud is; but with overspend, so what? Most-to-all elections would go they way they go with a watertight advertising ban in place from the day the election is called. The more extreme dowager-with-a-scalded-fanny posters like to get excited over Farage's Walking Dead Turkey poster, but they always turn out to think that the Leave voting public are all horrid racist moron proles anyway, so what is the poster meant to have achieved?
The argument that this is a special case because of the A 50 wording is ingenious, but otoh we like GE results to be in accordance with our constitutional requirements too, so it doesn't actually make any difference.
I think it highly unlikely there was substantial voter fraud - certainly no where near to the extent that it would have changed the result.
One of the issues here is historic. In the past (and possibly now) the police weren't in the slightest interested. They wanted to catch 'real' criminals and not deal with bickering activists of political opponents claiming about misdeeds by the others, in many cases without foundation, just to waste the time of the opponents people. Many frauds at a local level just got ignored or put on the backburner and then dropped. Also the law is an ass in many circumstances (I commented on an example a week or two ago) making it completely ineffective when real dishonesty in the electoral process has taken place.
I'm sure everything will be smoothed over when whichever of the two superb candidates for leader is proclaimed branch manager this morning.
That sounds like an odd story. Or is it a very bizarre euphemism?
Kezia is going on I'm a Celebrity. Apparently.
Now that is funny. Imagining different politicians doing the show.
Rory Stewart would win. Certainly when presented with some diced monkey brains or a locust desert he would probably say 'Oh yes, I ate that with the xxx tribe in outer mongolia once".
A question sometimes worth asking in these circumstances is: who benefits? Or in this case: who gains from such stories about the Brexit Secretary? (The paper also contains an attack on him today from Charles Moore.) His relations with the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary are very patchy indeed.
I have no doubt that in every election there has ever been there have been both substantial illicit overspend and substantial vote fraud, because we live in an imperfect world. If we start voiding election results for these reasons we end up quite shortly in a Ruritania where the ultimate ruler is the Supreme Court.
Secondly, vote fraud is one thing and overspend is another. There's no dispute about what the effect of a vote fraud is; but with overspend, so what? Most-to-all elections would go they way they go with a watertight advertising ban in place from the day the election is called. The more extreme dowager-with-a-scalded-fanny posters like to get excited over Farage's Walking Dead Turkey poster, but they always turn out to think that the Leave voting public are all horrid racist moron proles anyway, so what is the poster meant to have achieved?
The argument that this is a special case because of the A 50 wording is ingenious, but otoh we like GE results to be in accordance with our constitutional requirements too, so it doesn't actually make any difference.
I think it highly unlikely there was substantial voter fraud - certainly no where near to the extent that it would have changed the result.
One of the issues here is historic. In the past (and possibly now) the police weren't in the slightest interested. They wanted to catch 'real' criminals and not deal with bickering activists of political opponents claiming about misdeeds by the others, in many cases without foundation, just to waste the time of the opponents people. Many frauds at a local level just got ignored or put on the backburner and then dropped. Also the law is an ass in many circumstances (I commented on an example a week or two ago) making it completely ineffective when real dishonesty in the electoral process has taken place.
I’m sure you’re right for loval level. But a national referendum probably has the worst risk/return reward for voter fraud.
Labour are riding a dangerous stallion, but they're doing it very well at the moment.
The North has many Labour Leavers - my own constituency has a 20,000 Labour majority and was 58% Leave. Labour's ideal scenario would be that the metropolitan elite manages to stop Brexit. The Southern softies in labour will get their way, and the Northern Neanderthals will blame the Poshos.
That's where the tribal voters in labour come from. The Poshos* are out to do them down at every opportunity.
*Poshos = Tories.
Corbyn's route to a ten year true socialist revolution.
I wonder who funds the CRC? - Interestingly the DUP spent a big chunk of it on the Metro ad:
" The party had paid for an expensive four-page Vote To Leave EU advertisement in the Metro newspaper. The freesheet is available in London and other cities, but not in Northern Ireland. "
I will tell you what really worries me about this article: it reveals the sheer extent of how far those who at the end of the day are not democrats and wish to frustrate the democratic will of the British people are prepared to go.
Then the referendum is re run and Leave wins again - what then? But then presumably the establishment will do a better job of rigging the next one.
The next Leave campaign writes itself, its several weeks of banging on about how the establishment is trying to overturn the last referendum, how the government is trying to find an excuse to fold to EU Blackmail, and how the great and the good are trying to ignore the man in the street. Economics won't get a look in. Leave will win by 15%.
On the topic of David Cameron marking the deck for the referendum - I agree on the leaflet. He also I think initially was tempted to be a bit sly on the question, but quite rightly the electoral commission came up with something Fair.
Given all that - why didn’t he give 16yolds the vote? Much more justifiable.
I think Will Straw said it would have been enough to swing the result if 1/4 had swung the votes of their parents or something like that.
This was strongly opposed by Leavers during discussion on the Referendum bill. They wanted, remember, to fix the franchise to give Leave the best chance and Cameron was not ready to fight that.
Do you think he would have lost that argument? I think he could easily have got Lab and SNP support to pass a bill with 16yolds voting.
The outcome would have been closer if 16 year olds had been given the vote, but it would not have changed it.
I'm not sure why 16 year olds ought to have been given the vote, though.
Have I missed something. Why has DDavis next CON leader price collapsed overnight?
The other night in front of German business leaders he emphatically denied wanting to be Prime Minister and said he'd step down after Brexit. That may have something to do with it.
On the topic of David Cameron marking the deck for the referendum - I agree on the leaflet. He also I think initially was tempted to be a bit sly on the question, but quite rightly the electoral commission came up with something Fair.
Given all that - why didn’t he give 16yolds the vote? Much more justifiable.
I think Will Straw said it would have been enough to swing the result if 1/4 had swung the votes of their parents or something like that.
This was strongly opposed by Leavers during discussion on the Referendum bill. They wanted, remember, to fix the franchise to give Leave the best chance and Cameron was not ready to fight that.
Do you think he would have lost that argument? I think he could easily have got Lab and SNP support to pass a bill with 16yolds voting.
The outcome would have been closer if 16 year olds had been given the vote, but it would not have changed it.
I'm not sure why 16 year olds ought to have been given the vote, though.
Even if my 16 year old son had the vote there isn't the faintest chance he would have got off up his backside and stopped from playing League of Legends and Skyping his mates to use it. With an online vote possibly, but we all know the problems with them.
Mr. Royale, the problem is that a departure is a stark and sudden change, like getting out of a warm bed when it's bloody freezing. Staying in is more comfortable, and the changes more slight and gradual. Like a frog, slowly boiling.
Indeed so. The Remainers know the process of Leaving is their last chance, because once we're out, and a new status quo is established, we're out for good.
We're not out for good. We'll be back in all but name in a couple of years. It might take 10 years more to make it official.
Mr. Royale, the problem is that a departure is a stark and sudden change, like getting out of a warm bed when it's bloody freezing. Staying in is more comfortable, and the changes more slight and gradual. Like a frog, slowly boiling.
Indeed so. The Remainers know the process of Leaving is their last chance, because once we're out, and a new status quo is established, we're out for good.
We're not out for good. We'll be back in all but name in a couple of years. It might take 10 years more to make it official.
Not if rejoining means Schengen and the Euro we wont.
I will tell you what really worries me about this article: it reveals the sheer extent of how far those who at the end of the day are not democrats and wish to frustrate the democratic will of the British people are prepared to go.
On the topic of David Cameron marking the deck for the referendum - I agree on the leaflet. He also I think initially was tempted to be a bit sly on the question, but quite rightly the electoral commission came up with something Fair.
Given all that - why didn’t he give 16yolds the vote? Much more justifiable.
I think Will Straw said it would have been enough to swing the result if 1/4 had swung the votes of their parents or something like that.
This was strongly opposed by Leavers during discussion on the Referendum bill. They wanted, remember, to fix the franchise to give Leave the best chance and Cameron was not ready to fight that.
So the Remain campaign wanting to give 16-year olds the vote was not an attempt to fix the franchise to give Remain the best chance?
I voted to remain but I was very much against giving 16-year olds the vote in the referendum. I could see no valid argument for making the referendum franchise any different to the general election franchise.
car manufacturers moan, its what they do, there has never been a point when the car manufacturers arent complaining about something, it helps them get subsidies
of all the car plants only Honda looks wobbly and thats because they have a shit model range and nothing to do with Brexit.
as for the outcry there was none when
Ford Dagenham closed Ford Southampton closed Peugeot Ryton closed LDV Birmingham closed Vauxhall Luton stopped car production Jaguar Coventry closed AGCO Coventry closed
only Rover Longbrdge had a bit of hooha and that was primarily Midlands based
this sudden concerns by remainers for manufacturing is all a bit late, you should have made a fuss when we were in the EU of WTF why are all our jobs going to Europe ?
We have had a 30 year problem with industry
Which would you prefer.
The UK's car industry in 2017 or The UK's car industry in 1987?
Have I missed something. Why has DDavis next CON leader price collapsed overnight?
The other night in front of German business leaders he emphatically denied wanting to be Prime Minister and said he'd step down after Brexit. That may have something to do with it.
Has his price collapsed? I'm seeing 8.6 at BF at moment. iirc that is roughly what it has been for a while now, give or take a notch. Or am I mistaken?
I have no doubt that in every election there has ever been there have been both substantial illicit overspend and substantial vote fraud, because we live in an imperfect world. If we start voiding election results for these reasons we end up quite shortly in a Ruritania where the ultimate ruler is the Supreme Court.
Secondly, vote fraud is one thing and overspend is another. There's no dispute about what the effect of a vote fraud is; but with overspend, so what? Most-to-all elections would go they way they go with a watertight advertising ban in place from the day the election is called. The more extreme dowager-with-a-scalded-fanny posters like to get excited over Farage's Walking Dead Turkey poster, but they always turn out to think that the Leave voting public are all horrid racist moron proles anyway, so what is the poster meant to have achieved?
The argument that this is a special case because of the A 50 wording is ingenious, but otoh we like GE results to be in accordance with our constitutional requirements too, so it doesn't actually make any difference.
I think it highly unlikely there was substantial voter fraud - certainly no where near to the extent that it would have changed the result.
One of the issues here is historic. In the past (and possibly now) the police weren't in the slightest interested. They wanted to catch 'real' criminals and not deal with bickering activists of political opponents claiming about misdeeds by the others, in many cases without foundation, just to waste the time of the opponents people. Many frauds at a local level just got ignored or put on the backburner and then dropped. Also the law is an ass in many circumstances (I commented on an example a week or two ago) making it completely ineffective when real dishonesty in the electoral process has taken place.
I’m sure you’re right for loval level. But a national referendum probably has the worst risk/return reward for voter fraud.
Yes. I wasn't trying to extrapolate to the Referendum level, but expressing my frustration that a lot of the current stuff (2015 election onwards) would not have happened if: a) The police had taken all the smaller earlier stuff in previous decades seriously b) The laws and rules were better
One could argue it is all the fault of the political activist, but if a) and b) were in place they wouldn't be playing silly buggers.
Have I missed something. Why has DDavis next CON leader price collapsed overnight?
The other night in front of German business leaders he emphatically denied wanting to be Prime Minister and said he'd step down after Brexit. That may have something to do with it.
Exclusive: David Davis could quit because 'he is being frozen out on Brexit strategy' by civil servants
A friendless declining decrepit wreck on the fringes of Europe - that vision is close to the mark. The UK (or rather England & Wales) voted for Brexit despite the clear warnings of economic doom clearly laid out by GO et al. They were only wrong in the timing, as firms are currently hanging on hoping for a soft Brexit that seems increasingly unlikely.
On the topic of David Cameron marking the deck for the referendum - I agree on the leaflet. He also I think initially was tempted to be a bit sly on the question, but quite rightly the electoral commission came up with something Fair.
Given all that - why didn’t he give 16yolds the vote? Much more justifiable.
I think Will Straw said it would have been enough to swing the result if 1/4 had swung the votes of their parents or something like that.
This was strongly opposed by Leavers during discussion on the Referendum bill. They wanted, remember, to fix the franchise to give Leave the best chance and Cameron was not ready to fight that.
I voted to remain but I was very much against giving 16-year olds the vote in the referendum. I could see no valid argument for making the referendum franchise any different to the general election franchise.
And would have re-opened SindyRef where the SNP argued for extending the franchise to 16 for base political gain for unimpeachable altruistic motives....
Have I missed something. Why has DDavis next CON leader price collapsed overnight?
The other night in front of German business leaders he emphatically denied wanting to be Prime Minister and said he'd step down after Brexit. That may have something to do with it.
Exclusive: David Davis could quit because 'he is being frozen out on Brexit strategy' by civil servants
I'm sure everything will be smoothed over when whichever of the two superb candidates for leader is proclaimed branch manager this morning.
That sounds like an odd story. Or is it a very bizarre euphemism?
Kezia is going on I'm a Celebrity. Apparently.
Ah, thank you. I hadn't heard that as I don't actually watch it. I was wondering if it was some very weird commentary on the gay marriage vote in Oz the other day.
On the topic of David Cameron marking the deck for the referendum - I agree on the leaflet. He also I think initially was tempted to be a bit sly on the question, but quite rightly the electoral commission came up with something Fair.
Given all that - why didn’t he give 16yolds the vote? Much more justifiable.
I think Will Straw said it would have been enough to swing the result if 1/4 had swung the votes of their parents or something like that.
This was strongly opposed by Leavers during discussion on the Referendum bill. They wanted, remember, to fix the franchise to give Leave the best chance and Cameron was not ready to fight that.
Both sides wanted to fix it in their favour. The difference is that underlying it all, giving 16 year olds the vote in any election is a really dumb idea.
One of Europe’s biggest banks has admitted the UK’s economic outlook is ‘not as bleak as many think’ after previously issuing dire warnings over the impact of Brexit. Economists at UBS Wealth Management, an arm of Swiss bank UBS, are now saying that the economy will grow faster than expected. They have forecast 1.1pc growth next year, still well behind other estimates, but up from an earlier projection of 0.7pc......
.......The bank also claimed at one point it could move 1,000 jobs from the City of London to the Continent. But UBS chief executive Sergio Ermotti admitted last month it was ‘more and more unlikely’ the move would ever happen. New research published yesterday found British bankers could face a hefty pay cut if they relocate to the likes of Paris or Frankfurt after Brexit. Salary benchmarking website Emolument said on average associates in London earned £109,000 including bonuses, while their counterparts in Frankfurt pocketed £89,000, those in Paris earned £81,000 and employees in Italy’s financial hub £52,000.
Have I missed something. Why has DDavis next CON leader price collapsed overnight?
The other night in front of German business leaders he emphatically denied wanting to be Prime Minister and said he'd step down after Brexit. That may have something to do with it.
Exclusive: David Davis could quit because 'he is being frozen out on Brexit strategy' by civil servants
I'm very surprised David Herdson wrote this blogpost, rather than OGH.
The idea that a bit of grubby money about a grubby man like Aaron Banks could be used as (yet another) excuse to stop Brexit in its tracks is not only fanciful, it's extremely dangerous.
Nowhere do I say it could be used as such. What I say is that it could trigger a chain of events that results in Brexit being stopped. I also say that this is unlikely and that one stage would have to be the calling of a second referendum and that that vote would have to be carried by Remain.
The point is not that Brexit will (or should) be stopped. The former is unlikely and I am agnostic on the latter pending further evidence. The point is that the door has opened a touch.
Have I missed something. Why has DDavis next CON leader price collapsed overnight?
The other night in front of German business leaders he emphatically denied wanting to be Prime Minister and said he'd step down after Brexit. That may have something to do with it.
Exclusive: David Davis could quit because 'he is being frozen out on Brexit strategy' by civil servants
Like Boris, Davis is a big picture man. In other words, he cannot be bothered to put in the work. The last year has been quite steep learning curve for the Minister for Winging It, as it turns out we do not hold all the cards, the EU is not desperate for a deal and German car manufacturers are not forcing Merkel to sit down and negotiate. Then there are all those free trade deals he confidently claimed would be lined up for signing the day after Brexit, but are not going to happen. It would be no surprise if he is now seeking to blame others for his own manifest inadequacies.
Mr. Royale, the problem is that a departure is a stark and sudden change, like getting out of a warm bed when it's bloody freezing. Staying in is more comfortable, and the changes more slight and gradual. Like a frog, slowly boiling.
Indeed so. The Remainers know the process of Leaving is their last chance, because once we're out, and a new status quo is established, we're out for good.
We're not out for good. We'll be back in all but name in a couple of years. It might take 10 years more to make it official.
Not if rejoining means Schengen and the Euro we wont.
car manufacturers moan, its what they do, there has never been a point when the car manufacturers arent complaining about something, it helps them get subsidies
of all the car plants only Honda looks wobbly and thats because they have a shit model range and nothing to do with Brexit.
as for the outcry there was none when
Ford Dagenham closed Ford Southampton closed Peugeot Ryton closed LDV Birmingham closed Vauxhall Luton stopped car production Jaguar Coventry closed AGCO Coventry closed
only Rover Longbrdge had a bit of hooha and that was primarily Midlands based
this sudden concerns by remainers for manufacturing is all a bit late, you should have made a fuss when we were in the EU of WTF why are all our jobs going to Europe ?
We have had a 30 year problem with industry
Which would you prefer.
The UK's car industry in 2017 or The UK's car industry in 1987?
Yep, the single market and customs union have significantly benefited the car industry in the UK.
One of Europe’s biggest banks has admitted the UK’s economic outlook is ‘not as bleak as many think’ after previously issuing dire warnings over the impact of Brexit. Economists at UBS Wealth Management, an arm of Swiss bank UBS, are now saying that the economy will grow faster than expected. They have forecast 1.1pc growth next year, still well behind other estimates, but up from an earlier projection of 0.7pc......
.......The bank also claimed at one point it could move 1,000 jobs from the City of London to the Continent. But UBS chief executive Sergio Ermotti admitted last month it was ‘more and more unlikely’ the move would ever happen. New research published yesterday found British bankers could face a hefty pay cut if they relocate to the likes of Paris or Frankfurt after Brexit. Salary benchmarking website Emolument said on average associates in London earned £109,000 including bonuses, while their counterparts in Frankfurt pocketed £89,000, those in Paris earned £81,000 and employees in Italy’s financial hub £52,000.
Have I missed something. Why has DDavis next CON leader price collapsed overnight?
The other night in front of German business leaders he emphatically denied wanting to be Prime Minister and said he'd step down after Brexit. That may have something to do with it.
Exclusive: David Davis could quit because 'he is being frozen out on Brexit strategy' by civil servants
So Arron Banks is a grubby little man. Nigel Farage always was a tough sell and is now an embarrassment since he started fixating about the Jews. IDS was always hopeless. Owen Paterson was outwitted by badgers. Jacob Rees-Mogg has yet to reach the 20th century, let alone the 21st. Boris Johnson's parabola is now firmly in its downward phase, him having been definitively shown to be a lazy chancer. Andrea Leadsom, mother status aside, seems rated only by herself. Michael Gove is too weird, Priti Patel is too duplicitous. David Davis has gamely tried to make a go of Brexit but like Boxer the Horse is finding that blind loyalty isn't enough - sometimes he who dares loses.
Who then is the Leaver who is going to lead the Brexiteers to the promised land?
I will tell you what really worries me about this article: it reveals the sheer extent of how far those who at the end of the day are not democrats and wish to frustrate the democratic will of the British people are prepared to go.
The only way we can stay in the EU is if the British people allow it. That is as it should be. Nothing in David's article contradicts that.
car manufacturers moan, its what they do, there has never been a point when the car manufacturers arent complaining about something, it helps them get subsidies
of all the car plants only Honda looks wobbly and thats because they have a shit model range and nothing to do with Brexit.
as for the outcry there was none when
Ford Dagenham closed Ford Southampton closed Peugeot Ryton closed LDV Birmingham closed Vauxhall Luton stopped car production Jaguar Coventry closed AGCO Coventry closed
only Rover Longbrdge had a bit of hooha and that was primarily Midlands based
this sudden concerns by remainers for manufacturing is all a bit late, you should have made a fuss when we were in the EU of WTF why are all our jobs going to Europe ?
That is simple.
In the UK we copied American neo-liberalism. The purpose in a business is to return the highest return to the shareholders now and forget the future. So we don't invest, we don't train, we letbthe stock market dictate based on quarterly returns vs treating the business as a long term asset. We could stop foreign owners closing factories - not selling them would be a good start. We could offer subsidy as other governments do - EU rules only seem to prevent that according to the UK A government as every other EU government invests because subsidising manufacturing jobs is value for money.
It used to be that investment was a basic principle of capitalism. Grow a business. Borrow against that asset to invest for growth and deliver return on investment. But not in the UK because borrowing and investment is communism or something. We won't invest so precious few others will invest, or only at crazy rates. There's enough of a return in nuclear power for foreign governments to borrow to invest in, but apparently we can't borrow to make that investment because communism.
We have had a 30 year problem with industry where we seem to have decided as a nation that Tesco is a better industry than manufacturing. So why do I protest these forthcoming job losses? Because they are entirely avoidable. These manufacturers are here and want to be here and have invested heavily to remain here. And now our dipshit supposedly free trade Tory government is going to egregiously cripple free trade And make their factories uneconomical vs the competition. Which will close them.
Your response to these factories will close is "so what, factories close". Having bemoaned factories closing you seem indifferent to factories closing...
Absolutely spot on - except for one thing: this is a problem that has been going on for a lot longer than the last 30 years. It is the perennial British disease: operate quarter to quarter, cut costs and invest as little as possible.
Yes, that's well-put, and I don't recall ever agreeing with Scruton before. I'm a metropolitan type who dislikes nationalism and is wary of overt patriotism, but I'm happy with Scruton's concept.
Nah - this is just as powerful as other excuse that might be used to set aside the referendum result.
And it will be seen as an excuse.
The consequences for democracy if the referendum result is seen to be 'set aside' will not be pretty......
I would agree with that, but the consequences for democracy of ignoring the desires of 48% of the population are not going to be pretty either. At best they will be disengaged from politics, at worst at daggers drawn with the Leavers. Democracy that ignores such a substantial minority carries a poison that may be fatal.
A sensible government would try to broker a package that would be a sensible compromise, but we do not have a sensible government. It may well be that no sensible compromise is possible, but a Soft Brexit that respects the vote, but also the desire of the 48% to continue being part of European institutions is the only way of squaring the circle. EEA with the 4 freedoms containing is the only way for this. We should explore the subtleties of the differences between EU and EEA in terms of Freedom of Movement.
You're conflating 2 separate things
We had a referendum. The decision was to Leave. To set that aside is to abbrogate democracy.
The precise mechanics - the extent to which the government takes into account the wishes of the 48% - are within the framework of democracy. The government would be perfectly within its rights - if unwise - to ignore them completely
I think most Remainers are now resigned to Brexit happening, the faux outrage of Leavers seeing conspiracies to block it here there and everywhere are really just attempts at rallying the troops.
Somebody (I forget who) said at the time that the only antidote to Brexit is Brexit itself. I am firmly in that camp, Let's see it through and then judge it. I wonder sometimes how many Leavers would be privately quite pleased if it somehow got stopped and never got put to the test.
The idea that the Toru government would even consider abandoning a Brexit most of its members and voters are committed to bevause of an investigation into Leave.eu's funding, when it was not even the official Leave campaign, or alleged Russian involvement is preposterous.
Even if Brexit was abandoned Tory Leave voters would lend their votes to UKIP in droves at the next general election, probably joined by a fair few Labour Leave voters and UKIP could well end up holding the balance of power as a result.
I have always thought that we need to have a soft Brexit. To do otherwise is to ignore the apparent wishes of a very significant part of our population. Once we are out it will be for future generations to evolve the relationship with the EU.
My guess is that we will drift away over time with less of our trade there, less interest in continental machinations, a mild relief that we don't have those UKIP idiots somehow managing to embarrass us in the most embarrassing Parliament north of Harare and increasing differences in our laws over time. But I could be wrong. We may go the other way and end up being members again in all but name.
The point is that we surely all want a relatively undisruptive Brexit now. That is what the government should be working towards and seeking to build a consensus on. Between the rants we do see glimpses of this, primarily from Mrs May interestingly enough. Here's hoping she can deliver.
Nah - this is just as powerful as other excuse that might be used to set aside the referendum result.
And it will be seen as an excuse.
The consequences for democracy if the referendum result is seen to be 'set aside' will not be pretty......
I would agree with that, but the consequences for democracy of ignoring the desires of 48% of the population are not going to be pretty either. At best they will be disengaged from politics, at worst at daggers drawn with the Leavers. Democracy that ignores such a substantial minority carries a poison that may be fatal.
A sensible government would try to broker a package that would be a sensible compromise, but we do not have a sensible government. It may well be that no sensible compromise is possible, but a Soft Brexit that respects the vote, but also the desire of the 48% to continue being part of European institutions is the only way of squaring the circle. EEA with the 4 freedoms containing is the only way for this. We should explore the subtleties of the differences between EU and EEA in terms of Freedom of Movement.
You're conflating 2 separate things
We had a referendum. The decision was to Leave. To set that aside is to abbrogate democracy.
The precise mechanics - the extent to which the government takes into account the wishes of the 48% - are within the framework of democracy. The government would be perfectly within its rights - if unwise - to ignore them completely
But to ignore them entirely is exactly what the government has chosen to do. There could have been a Brexit middle ground around which most of us could have coalesced, but the May strategy has been to chase positive headlines in the Daily Mail instead. It has been a disastrous choice for the country.
car manufacturers moan, its what they do, there has never been a point when the car manufacturers arent complaining about something, it helps them get subsidies
of all the car plants only Honda looks wobbly and thats because they have a shit model range and nothing to do with Brexit.
as for the outcry there was none when
Ford Dagenham closed Ford Southampton closed Peugeot Ryton closed LDV Birmingham closed Vauxhall Luton stopped car production Jaguar Coventry closed AGCO Coventry closed
only Rover Longbrdge had a bit of hooha and that was primarily Midlands based
this sudden concerns by remainers for manufacturing is all a bit late, you should have made a fuss when we were in the EU of WTF why are all our jobs going to Europe ?
That is simple.
In the UK we copied American neo-liberalism. The purpose in a business is to return the highest return to the shareholders now and forget the future. So we don't invest, we don't train, we letbthe stock market dictate based on quarterly returns vs treating the business as a long term asset. We could stop foreign owners closing factories - not selling them would be a good start. We could offer subsidy as other governments do - EU rules only seem to prevent that according to the UK A government as every other EU government invests because subsidising manufacturing jobs is value for money.
It used to be that investment was a basic principle of capitalism. Grow a business. Borrow against that asset to invest for growth and deliver return on investment. But not in the UK because borrowing and investment is communism or something. We won't invest so precious few others will invest, or only at crazy rates. There's enough of a return in nuclear power for foreign governments to borrow to invest in, but apparently we can't borrow to make that investment because communism.
We have had a 30 year problem with industry where we seem to have decided as a nation that Tesco is a better industry than manufacturing. So why do I protest these forthcoming job losses? Because they are entirely avoidable. These manufacturers are here and want to be here and have invested heavily to remain here. And now our dipshit supposedly free trade Tory government is going to egregiously cripple free trade And make their factories uneconomical vs the competition. Which will close them.
Your response to these factories will close is "so what, factories close". Having bemoaned factories closing you seem indifferent to factories closing...
au contraire
having seen that factories closing is guaranteed while in the EU Id rather try something different
I have always thought that we need to have a soft Brexit. To do otherwise is to ignore the apparent wishes of a very significant part of our population. Once we are out it will be for future generations to evolve the relationship with the EU.
My guess is that we will drift away over time with less of our trade there, less interest in continental machinations, a mild relief that we don't have those UKIP idiots somehow managing to embarrass us in the most embarrassing Parliament north of Harare and increasing differences in our laws over time. But I could be wrong. We may go the other way and end up being members again in all but name.
The point is that we surely all want a relatively undisruptive Brexit now. That is what the government should be working towards and seeking to build a consensus on. Between the rants we do see glimpses of this, primarily from Mrs May interestingly enough. Here's hoping she can deliver.
Who is this we? The we who voted for a hard anti-immigration Brexit or the we who didn't vote for Brexit at all? You want to betray both groups to achieve your own aspiration.
One of Europe’s biggest banks has admitted the UK’s economic outlook is ‘not as bleak as many think’ after previously issuing dire warnings over the impact of Brexit. Economists at UBS Wealth Management, an arm of Swiss bank UBS, are now saying that the economy will grow faster than expected. They have forecast 1.1pc growth next year, still well behind other estimates, but up from an earlier projection of 0.7pc......
.......The bank also claimed at one point it could move 1,000 jobs from the City of London to the Continent. But UBS chief executive Sergio Ermotti admitted last month it was ‘more and more unlikely’ the move would ever happen. New research published yesterday found British bankers could face a hefty pay cut if they relocate to the likes of Paris or Frankfurt after Brexit. Salary benchmarking website Emolument said on average associates in London earned £109,000 including bonuses, while their counterparts in Frankfurt pocketed £89,000, those in Paris earned £81,000 and employees in Italy’s financial hub £52,000.
Have I missed something. Why has DDavis next CON leader price collapsed overnight?
The other night in front of German business leaders he emphatically denied wanting to be Prime Minister and said he'd step down after Brexit. That may have something to do with it.
He could even end up PM before Brexit if May goes before then. He has never been popular with some Leavers like Carswell etc and that has probably fed through to any Telegraph stories this morning, the Telegraph and Carswell are both fiercely pro Boris and Gove.
Something which does need to be investigated is that Treasury prediction of an immediate and severe recession after a Leave vote.
Considering that the Treasury has never managed to predict a recession which actually happened (see the 2008 Budget speech as an example) its forecast of a recession which didn't happen is a real standout.
Now how might the Treasury have produced some an inept forecast ?
Its possible that the Treasury is utterly incompetent or perhaps it produced a forecast in line with political instructions - something which I believe would be illegal.
Either way we need to know how the Treasury operates.
One of Europe’s biggest banks has admitted the UK’s economic outlook is ‘not as bleak as many think’ after previously issuing dire warnings over the impact of Brexit. Economists at UBS Wealth Management, an arm of Swiss bank UBS, are now saying that the economy will grow faster than expected. They have forecast 1.1pc growth next year, still well behind other estimates, but up from an earlier projection of 0.7pc......
.......The bank also claimed at one point it could move 1,000 jobs from the City of London to the Continent. But UBS chief executive Sergio Ermotti admitted last month it was ‘more and more unlikely’ the move would ever happen. New research published yesterday found British bankers could face a hefty pay cut if they relocate to the likes of Paris or Frankfurt after Brexit. Salary benchmarking website Emolument said on average associates in London earned £109,000 including bonuses, while their counterparts in Frankfurt pocketed £89,000, those in Paris earned £81,000 and employees in Italy’s financial hub £52,000.
I have always thought that we need to have a soft Brexit. To do otherwise is to ignore the apparent wishes of a very significant part of our population. Once we are out it will be for future generations to evolve the relationship with the EU.
My guess is that we will drift away over time with less of our trade there, less interest in continental machinations, a mild relief that we don't have those UKIP idiots somehow managing to embarrass us in the most embarrassing Parliament north of Harare and increasing differences in our laws over time. But I could be wrong. We may go the other way and end up being members again in all but name.
The point is that we surely all want a relatively undisruptive Brexit now. That is what the government should be working towards and seeking to build a consensus on. Between the rants we do see glimpses of this, primarily from Mrs May interestingly enough. Here's hoping she can deliver.
There's majority support for a hard Brexit on some things (immigration for example) and a soft Brexit on some other things.
As the last three general elections and the Referendum have all resulted in support for reducing net immigration to the tens of thousands that really needs to finally be applied.
Comments
I don't have the energy to remember that part of the speech, or rather quote it verbatim.
Secondly, vote fraud is one thing and overspend is another. There's no dispute about what the effect of a vote fraud is; but with overspend, so what? Most-to-all elections would go they way they go with a watertight advertising ban in place from the day the election is called. The more extreme dowager-with-a-scalded-fanny posters like to get excited over Farage's Walking Dead Turkey poster, but they always turn out to think that the Leave voting public are all horrid racist moron proles anyway, so what is the poster meant to have achieved?
The argument that this is a special case because of the A 50 wording is ingenious, but otoh we like GE results to be in accordance with our constitutional requirements too, so it doesn't actually make any difference.
Far fewer people ask the question about what Remain would mean for the UK, in a second referendum, where the ground has already changed.
The bitterness of the issue doesn't make it easier, however. If Remainers want to reverse the result they should be embarking on a charm offensive and get cover from the EU (as I said a year or so ago. An increased rebate or something comparable could be used as a carrot).
Remainers need to be ready so that if public opinion does change - we have viable options to stay or rejoin swiftly. The rejoin swiftly bit is trickiest and doesn’t seem to be a focus of thinking at the moment.
B: Will of the people. One vote's enough.
R: So, 1975 stands.
B: People must be allowed to change their minds esp where they were lied to.
R: Go on ...
The Leave campaign was led by mainstream politicians from across the political divide, with a number of senior business leaders, and elder statesman, supporting it.
If (and it's a massive if) a few Russians in St.Petersburg left a few comments on Facebook, or bought Aaron Banks a few decent lunches, it was pissing in the wind next to that.
Who then is the Leaver who is going to lead the Brexiteers to the promised land?
All the people who aren't used to losing. So unused to losing, a proportion decided that democracy was no longer fit for purpose. It must be stopped, lest the weasels and the stoats from the wildwood are allowed to get their own way for once.
Unthinkable.
These tortuous machinations are evidence of that.
As for the negotiations, we'll get no sense out of the EU until we actually leave. They cannot allow us to be seen to gain from it, even if it hurts themselves. Once we're free, political reality will return. For now, it's a matter of principle. The media elite (both here and abroad) can't be seen to be wrong.
Many leavers think this, and the relentless response from the media reinforces it.
There was a slight chance of staying, had the EU made overtures and if the die-hard leavers in the UK didn't go into hysterical mode.
That chance has now gone.
If you are someone with wealth and, for example, you wanted to use any means to prevent Theresa May (or another MP in a safe seat) being re-elected as MP, what is to stop you spending huge sums of money illegally (but secretly) in support of her campaign and then, once she has run, making a complaint to the police about illegal spending? Of course you would have to be sure you would not get caught yourself but as far as the law goes it seems that the MP would have to account for the spending even though they themselves would claim they had nothing to do with it and the election result could be set aside.
In this instance there was absolutely nothing the official Leave campaign could do to stop Banks spending huge sums of money and yet in effect what David is saying is that they might be punished for it (by having the result rendered null and void).
The evidence threshold for the referendum to be cancelled over 18 months since it was held, with the UK in the middle of the Brexit negotiations, would have to be extraordinary. And the link between that and the result (which was carried by well over a million votes) clearly established beyond reasonable doubt.
I expect it would fail on both grounds, even if Banks is as guilty as hell.
Wouldn't be the end of the story, of course...
In the UK we copied American neo-liberalism. The purpose in a business is to return the highest return to the shareholders now and forget the future. So we don't invest, we don't train, we letbthe stock market dictate based on quarterly returns vs treating the business as a long term asset. We could stop foreign owners closing factories - not selling them would be a good start. We could offer subsidy as other governments do - EU rules only seem to prevent that according to the UK A government as every other EU government invests because subsidising manufacturing jobs is value for money.
It used to be that investment was a basic principle of capitalism. Grow a business. Borrow against that asset to invest for growth and deliver return on investment. But not in the UK because borrowing and investment is communism or something. We won't invest so precious few others will invest, or only at crazy rates. There's enough of a return in nuclear power for foreign governments to borrow to invest in, but apparently we can't borrow to make that investment because communism.
We have had a 30 year problem with industry where we seem to have decided as a nation that Tesco is a better industry than manufacturing. So why do I protest these forthcoming job losses? Because they are entirely avoidable. These manufacturers are here and want to be here and have invested heavily to remain here. And now our dipshit supposedly free trade Tory government is going to egregiously cripple free trade And make their factories uneconomical vs the competition. Which will close them.
Your response to these factories will close is "so what, factories close". Having bemoaned factories closing you seem indifferent to factories closing...
Normally, he speaks nothing but common sense with fantastic insight, and is respectful of the result, whilst able to gently critique both sides.
This morning, he's crossing back into Remoaner territory - a place I thought he'd left months ago.
He also I think initially was tempted to be a bit sly on the question, but quite rightly the electoral commission came up with something Fair.
Given all that - why didn’t he give 16yolds the vote? Much more justifiable.
I think Will Straw said it would have been enough to swing the result if 1/4 had swung the votes of their parents or something like that.
https://twitter.com/blairmcdougall/status/931669513216626689
I'm sure everything will be smoothed over when whichever of the two superb candidates for leader is proclaimed branch manager this morning.
And they smell blood.
If you're still at school, you're too young to vote.
But the challenges of restricting the franchise are exceptional.
It seems to me to be very dangerous to take votes away from people - and likely to stir up a lot of resentment.
I think he could easily have got Lab and SNP support to pass a bill with 16yolds voting.
Rory Stewart would win. Certainly when presented with some diced monkey brains or a locust desert he would probably say 'Oh yes, I ate that with the xxx tribe in outer mongolia once".
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/11/claims-that-davis-may-resign-are-simply-wrong-who-gains-from-media-briefing-against-him.html
A question sometimes worth asking in these circumstances is: who benefits? Or in this case: who gains from such stories about the Brexit Secretary? (The paper also contains an attack on him today from Charles Moore.) His relations with the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary are very patchy indeed.
But a national referendum probably has the worst risk/return reward for voter fraud.
The North has many Labour Leavers - my own constituency has a 20,000 Labour majority and was 58% Leave. Labour's ideal scenario would be that the metropolitan elite manages to stop Brexit. The Southern softies in labour will get their way, and the Northern Neanderthals will blame the Poshos.
That's where the tribal voters in labour come from. The Poshos* are out to do them down at every opportunity.
*Poshos = Tories.
Corbyn's route to a ten year true socialist revolution.
" The party had paid for an expensive four-page Vote To Leave EU advertisement in the Metro newspaper. The freesheet is available in London and other cities, but not in Northern Ireland. "
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland-assembly-election/revealed-group-that-funded-dups-425000-brexit-ad-campaign-35477951.html
I'm not sure why 16 year olds ought to have been given the vote, though.
I voted to remain but I was very much against giving 16-year olds the vote in the referendum. I could see no valid argument for making the referendum franchise any different to the general election franchise.
The UK's car industry in 2017 or
The UK's car industry in 1987?
a) The police had taken all the smaller earlier stuff in previous decades seriously
b) The laws and rules were better
One could argue it is all the fault of the political activist, but if a) and b) were in place they wouldn't be playing silly buggers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/17/time-get-annoyed-david-davis-has-accomplished/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/17/exclusive-david-davis-could-quit-frozen-brexit-strategy-civil/
See Paul Goodman rebuttal:
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/11/claims-that-davis-may-resign-are-simply-wrong-who-gains-from-media-briefing-against-him.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/17/exclusive-david-davis-could-quit-frozen-brexit-strategy-civil/
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/931677997245042688
.......The bank also claimed at one point it could move 1,000 jobs from the City of London to the Continent. But UBS chief executive Sergio Ermotti admitted last month it was ‘more and more unlikely’ the move would ever happen. New research published yesterday found British bankers could face a hefty pay cut if they relocate to the likes of Paris or Frankfurt after Brexit. Salary benchmarking website Emolument said on average associates in London earned £109,000 including bonuses, while their counterparts in Frankfurt pocketed £89,000, those in Paris earned £81,000 and employees in Italy’s financial hub £52,000.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5094863/Top-bank-boosts-UK-s-economic-future-post-Brexit.html
Tories don’t like flouncers.
The point is not that Brexit will (or should) be stopped. The former is unlikely and I am agnostic on the latter pending further evidence. The point is that the door has opened a touch.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/1854073/kezia-dugdale-im-a-celeb/
We had a referendum. The decision was to Leave. To set that aside is to abbrogate democracy.
The precise mechanics - the extent to which the government takes into account the wishes of the 48% - are within the framework of democracy. The government would be perfectly within its rights - if unwise - to ignore them completely
Somebody (I forget who) said at the time that the only antidote to Brexit is Brexit itself. I am firmly in that camp, Let's see it through and then judge it. I wonder sometimes how many Leavers would be privately quite pleased if it somehow got stopped and never got put to the test.
Even if Brexit was abandoned Tory Leave voters would lend their votes to UKIP in droves at the next general election, probably joined by a fair few Labour Leave voters and UKIP could well end up holding the balance of power as a result.
My guess is that we will drift away over time with less of our trade there, less interest in continental machinations, a mild relief that we don't have those UKIP idiots somehow managing to embarrass us in the most embarrassing Parliament north of Harare and increasing differences in our laws over time. But I could be wrong. We may go the other way and end up being members again in all but name.
The point is that we surely all want a relatively undisruptive Brexit now. That is what the government should be working towards and seeking to build a consensus on. Between the rants we do see glimpses of this, primarily from Mrs May interestingly enough. Here's hoping she can deliver.
having seen that factories closing is guaranteed while in the EU Id rather try something different
Considering that the Treasury has never managed to predict a recession which actually happened (see the 2008 Budget speech as an example) its forecast of a recession which didn't happen is a real standout.
Now how might the Treasury have produced some an inept forecast ?
Its possible that the Treasury is utterly incompetent or perhaps it produced a forecast in line with political instructions - something which I believe would be illegal.
Either way we need to know how the Treasury operates.
employment is at an alltime high, which jobs have gone ?
the issue isnt jobs it's remuneration
As the last three general elections and the Referendum have all resulted in support for reducing net immigration to the tens of thousands that really needs to finally be applied.