The animosity, hurt, vitriol and lingering sense of unfairness felt by the losing side in elections (and by people or causes that lose in other spheres of life) is becoming an unpleasant feature of our society.
What is the root cause of the inability to accept defeat? Are we now reaping the rewards of the 'We can't have losers' mentality in education for the last 30 or so years? Do we have a generation of quasi adults ill equipped to deal with the realities losing or rejection after a cosseted and protected childhood, education and introduction to safe spaces?
Have we produced a society that easily feels cheated and is unable to accept rejection? A society that demands rights without recognising the responsibilities on the other side of the equasion?
There is increasing bitterness in the reaction exhibited by some in Labour / Momentum, and some Remainers. You see it in a wide sphere of life these days, aided by Internet exposure and single issue campaigns.
Sad to see our humanity so devalued and intolerant..
Should we all accept whoever or whatever won a particular election or referendum and shut up? If Corbyn wins the next election will you do so?
Of course.
I may spend the next 5 years slating him - as with Gordon Brown - but I won't be bleating about the campaign if he kept within the rules.
No problems with remainers wailing about the doom of Brexit (still yet to happen..) but attempts to reverse the result - which was won fair and square - are pathetic.
The animosity, hurt, vitriol and lingering sense of unfairness felt by the losing side in elections (and by people or causes that lose in other spheres of life) is becoming an unpleasant feature of our society.
Ummmm, look at the reaction to last night's vote
It's the "winners" who have been completely unhinged.
I think it is more about accepting the result. Leavers and Remainers are both capable of not accepting a result.
I'm not saying one side is worse than the other, but pointing out that people don't accept losing anymore, be they leavers or remainers.
As usual, Stephen Bush gets it right. The last sentence is key: the right wing press - and May’s decision to pander to it - is what cost the Tories their majority in June. The Daily Mail does not speak for England.
Yes, Bush is correct. The hysteria and downright unpleasantness from the likes of the Daily Mail, Dorries, Montgomery etc. can't be earning the Tories any friends. Okay, it might keep the Ultras foamingly loyal, but how many of these are there? And surely the imperative is to woo new followers as the bored and disconsolate drift away over the years, as they always do. The Tories risk becoming Billy-no-Mates over all this.
@hugorifkind: So deselection is good when it happens to sane Tories but bad when it happens to sane Labour and democracy is good when it might lead to mad Brexit but bad when it might lead to mad Corbyn. Am I getting this right?
@hugorifkind: So deselection is good when it happens to sane Tories but bad when it happens to sane Labour and democracy is good when it might lead to mad Brexit but bad when it might lead to mad Corbyn. Am I getting this right?
The animosity, hurt, vitriol and lingering sense of unfairness felt by the losing side in elections (and by people or causes that lose in other spheres of life) is becoming an unpleasant feature of our society.
What is the root cause of the inability to accept defeat? Are we now reaping the rewards of the 'We can't have losers' mentality in education for the last 30 or so years? Do we have a generation of quasi adults ill equipped to deal with the realities losing or rejection after a cosseted and protected childhood, education and introduction to safe spaces?
Have we produced a society that easily feels cheated and is unable to accept rejection? A society that demands rights without recognising the responsibilities on the other side of the equasion?
There is increasing bitterness in the reaction exhibited by some in Labour / Momentum, and some Remainers. You see it in a wide sphere of life these days, aided by Internet exposure and single issue campaigns.
Sad to see our humanity so devalued and intolerant..
Should we all accept whoever or whatever won a particular election or referendum and shut up? If Corbyn wins the next election will you do so?
Is the point Leavers miss.
What on earth, on a politics blog of all places, do people expect?
Do they think I or, say, @Casino_Royale, on Day One of a Corbyn Government, would make posts saying: good call UK not my choice but fair play to you all, I see now it was the right thing to do: let's get to it; those PLCs aren't going to nationalise themselves.
If Corbyn wins a majority, he has a right to govern. That's what the Salisbury Convention, among other constitutional principles, is about. Of course, if he can't get his legislation through the Commons, where the MPs have as much of a mandate as he does and where his government's mandate rests, that's a different matter. It's on that basis that opposition parties have a right and to an extent a duty to oppose.
Following the discussion on sovereignty in the last thread, I'm not sure it's such hypocrisy for Leavers to be exasperated or concerned about the vote yesterday. The HoC chose to hold the referendum, designed it, voted it through, and figures of all major parties loudly spoke of how the referendum result would be followed whatever it was.
In my personal opinion this whole thing is parliament's mess first of all, and though the vote last night was probably for the best in terms of holding the government's handling of Brexit accountable it has also raised the possibility of a bigger mess if parliament does end up rejecti g the whole process after all.
I think that the frustration is due to a lack of trust in the remainer Tory MPs - many suspect playing the "sovereignty" card is just an excuse to try and block Brexit and "get one up" Mrs May for following the result of the referendum.
Why does it still need saying that the result of the referendum didn't mandate any particular type of Brexit. It does make a difference what is decided by May and the three Brexiteers. It does need scrutiny and it does need the HoC to take control and vote on it.
Amazing that this needs repeating.
Does Norway have FOM? Yes Does Norway take part in the Single Market? Yes Is Norway a member of the EU? No
Does Norway have to pay a lot for the privilege? Does Norway have to take EU regulations directly in order to retain that privilege?
No and No.
Really? My understanding was that Norway paid the EU €400m a year, which for a country with a population only one-twelfth that of the UK's (albeit a richer one), would equate to about €5bn for one the UK's size. That's quite 'a lot' to me.
The amount paid is not based on population size. It is based on GDP. Furthermore in the case of Norway most of the payments they make, excepting those for specific projects, are voluntary. Both Robert Smithson and I went through the numbers prior to the referendum when we were pushing hard for the Norway option and came up with a figure of around £2 billion a year if we were to match Norway's position.
How much is Canada paying for their trade deal with the EU?
Since the Canada trade deal is in no way comparable with EEA membership, not least in the inclusion of Services, that is a moot point. And like Norway Canada still pays for access to specific programmes as will we after we leave no matter what arrangement we have with the EU.
@hugorifkind: So deselection is good when it happens to sane Tories but bad when it happens to sane Labour and democracy is good when it might lead to mad Brexit but bad when it might lead to mad Corbyn. Am I getting this right?
Traitors, not sane.
Using the language of Thomas Mair is never a good look in this context.
Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore released a video message on YouTube in which he appeared to refuse to admit defeat and railed against "immorality" in the U.S.
Moore looks to have lost the Alabama Senate election race which took place Tuesday. With 99 percent of the vote in, NBC News projected Wednesday that Democrat Doug Jones was the winner with a margin of more than 20,000 votes.
But in an online video on Wednesday, Moore appeared to still be resisting any concession to Jones, insisting that there was still a chance he could win the closely-run vote.
"In this race, we have not received the final count to include military and provisional ballots. This has been a very close race and we are awaiting certification by the Secretary of State," he said in the video.
In the rest of the message, Moore said he was "concerned about the future of our country — both financially and morally." He then continued to speak on abortion, homosexuality, drugs, transgender rights and materialism, saying "immorality sweeps over our land."
"Today, we no longer recognize the universal truth that God is the author of our life and liberty," he said in the video.
"Abortion, sodomy, and materialism have taken the place of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
You're a Tory voter. What do the Tories gain from the rebels' victory? The government is seen to be weaker, the EU negotiators gain confidence, and Jezza can crow about his victory.
The only explanation is the rebels believe they can influence things - in a bad way for Leave. I don't believe Soubry for one would ever vote to accept any deal which results in us leaving. Labour would be pleased to vote against and blame the splits in the Tory party for it.
If nothing else, they can delay things more.
if I were a fanatic Remainer, my cunning plan would be to rubbish our negotiations, complain it's all too difficult, make it as difficult as possible and hope with the media advantage to erode the will to leave.
I don't think I'd have the brass neck to claim it's all on behalf of democracy, though.
Mr Meeks is still in his Mr Hyde mode. Dr Jekyll may not return for some time.
You're a Tory voter. What do the Tories gain from the rebels' victory? The government is seen to be weaker, the EU negotiators gain confidence, and Jezza can crow about his victory.
The only explanation is the rebels believe they can influence things - in a bad way for Leave. I don't believe Soubry for one would ever vote to accept any deal which results in us leaving. Labour would be pleased to vote against and blame the splits in the Tory party for it.
If nothing else, they can delay things more.
if I were a fanatic Remainer, my cunning plan would be to rubbish our negotiations, complain it's all too difficult, make it as difficult as possible and hope with the media advantage to erode the will to leave.
I don't think I'd have the brass neck to claim it's all on behalf of democracy, though.
Mr Meeks is still in his Mr Hyde mode. Dr Jekyll may not return for some time.
I'm a Tory activist, and the rest of your post proceeds from a false premise.
The animosity, hurt, vitriol and lingering sense of unfairness felt by the losing side in elections (and by people or causes that lose in other spheres of life) is becoming an unpleasant feature of our society.
What is the root cause of the inability to accept defeat? Are we now reaping the rewards of the 'We can't have losers' mentality in education for the last 30 or so years? Do we have a generation of quasi adults ill equipped to deal with the realities losing or rejection after a cosseted and protected childhood, education and introduction to safe spaces?
Have we produced a society that easily feels cheated and is unable to accept rejection? A society that demands rights without recognising the responsibilities on the other side of the equasion?
There is increasing bitterness in the reaction exhibited by some in Labour / Momentum, and some Remainers. You see it in a wide sphere of life these days, aided by Internet exposure and single issue campaigns.
Sad to see our humanity so devalued and intolerant..
+1 Excellent post.
Could it not be that people are no longer prepared to give up on their principles at the first defeat, and argue for what they feel is right, even when a majority (of whatever size) are against them; and attempt to win the argument on what they perceive as its merits regardless of the prevailing mood. (c.f. anti-EU campaign since at least 1974)
Mr. Eagles, didn't see it upon first glance. His quote does not mean they agreed with the migration line, though.
Yeah right.
Oh man that really was a great poster. It will be up there with "Labour isn't working" in the annals of political history. Agree with it or not (and I didn't) the poster we absolutely brilliant at getting it's point across, especially by highlighting Syria and Iraq which preyed on people's fear of terrorists. Along with the £350m claim, it made the remain camp's job incredibly difficult.
But its point was a lie. A tourist visa-waiver programme for the Schengen zone for qualifying Turkish citizens doesn't change anything for the UK as we're not in the Schengen zone.
Makes it easier to get from Ankara to Calais, though.
@hugorifkind: So deselection is good when it happens to sane Tories but bad when it happens to sane Labour and democracy is good when it might lead to mad Brexit but bad when it might lead to mad Corbyn. Am I getting this right?
Traitors, not sane.
Using the language of Thomas Mair is never a good look in this context.
It doesn't make them not traitors. Their allegiance is to an organisation which is not the Crown. By definition they are traitors.
The animosity, hurt, vitriol and lingering sense of unfairness felt by the losing side in elections (and by people or causes that lose in other spheres of life) is becoming an unpleasant feature of our society.
What is the root cause of the inability to accept defeat? Are we now reaping the rewards of the 'We can't have losers' mentality in education for the last 30 or so years? Do we have a generation of quasi adults ill equipped to deal with the realities losing or rejection after a cosseted and protected childhood, education and introduction to safe spaces?
Have we produced a society that easily feels cheated and is unable to accept rejection? A society that demands rights without recognising the responsibilities on the other side of the equasion?
There is increasing bitterness in the reaction exhibited by some in Labour / Momentum, and some Remainers. You see it in a wide sphere of life these days, aided by Internet exposure and single issue campaigns.
Sad to see our humanity so devalued and intolerant..
Should we all accept whoever or whatever won a particular election or referendum and shut up? If Corbyn wins the next election will you do so?
Is the point Leavers miss.
What on earth, on a politics blog of all places, do people expect?
Do they think I or, say, @Casino_Royale, on Day One of a Corbyn Government, would make posts saying: good call UK not my choice but fair play to you all, I see now it was the right thing to do: let's get to it; those PLCs aren't going to nationalise themselves.
If Corbyn wins a majority, he has a right to govern. That's what the Salisbury Convention, among other constitutional principles, is about. Of course, if he can't get his legislation through the Commons, where the MPs have as much of a mandate as he does and where his government's mandate rests, that's a different matter. It's on that basis that opposition parties have a right and to an extent a duty to oppose.
And of course Tezza didn't win a majority. And also the Tory party has been split for decades about Europe and the Party didn't get sufficient votes to marginalise such dissenters (of course we don't know whether it is the Soubries or the Redwoods who are the dissenters).
So the whole right to govern thing falls down when we the public don't give anyone a mandate. Which we didn't last time round, to @Richard_Nabavi's endless chagrin.
You're a Tory voter. What do the Tories gain from the rebels' victory? The government is seen to be weaker, the EU negotiators gain confidence, and Jezza can crow about his victory.
The only explanation is the rebels believe they can influence things - in a bad way for Leave. I don't believe Soubry for one would ever vote to accept any deal which results in us leaving. Labour would be pleased to vote against and blame the splits in the Tory party for it.
If nothing else, they can delay things more.
if I were a fanatic Remainer, my cunning plan would be to rubbish our negotiations, complain it's all too difficult, make it as difficult as possible and hope with the media advantage to erode the will to leave.
I don't think I'd have the brass neck to claim it's all on behalf of democracy, though.
Mr Meeks is still in his Mr Hyde mode. Dr Jekyll may not return for some time.
I'm a Tory activist, and the rest of your post proceeds from a false premise.
Given the average age of Conservative members, is "activist" appropriate terminology anymore, excepting yourself of course?
The animosity, hurt, vitriol and lingering sense of unfairness felt by the losing side in elections (and by people or causes that lose in other spheres of life) is becoming an unpleasant feature of our society.
What is the root cause of the inability to accept defeat? Are we now reaping the rewards of the 'We can't have losers' mentality in education for the last 30 or so years? Do we have a generation of quasi adults ill equipped to deal with the realities losing or rejection after a cosseted and protected childhood, education and introduction to safe spaces?
Have we produced a society that easily feels cheated and is unable to accept rejection? A society that demands rights without recognising the responsibilities on the other side of the equasion?
There is increasing bitterness in the reaction exhibited by some in Labour / Momentum, and some Remainers. You see it in a wide sphere of life these days, aided by Internet exposure and single issue campaigns.
Sad to see our humanity so devalued and intolerant..
+1 Excellent post.
Could it not be that people are no longer prepared to give up on their principles at the first defeat, and argue for what they feel is right, even when a majority (of whatever size) are against them; and attempt to win the argument on what they perceive as its merits regardless of the prevailing mood. (c.f. anti-EU campaign since at least 1974)
Quite so. It is perfectly legitimate for anyone to campaign for or against anything that is legal in a democratic society. The fact that a majority might not agree with them is irrelevant.
There have been many referendums in history which have taken bad decisions based on incomplete information - a case can certainly be made that the EU referendum has done the same.
The animosity, hurt, vitriol and lingering sense of unfairness felt by the losing side in elections (and by people or causes that lose in other spheres of life) is becoming an unpleasant feature of our society.
What is the root cause of the inability to accept defeat? Are we now reaping the rewards of the 'We can't have losers' mentality in education for the last 30 or so years? Do we have a generation of quasi adults ill equipped to deal with the realities losing or rejection after a cosseted and protected childhood, education and introduction to safe spaces?
Have we produced a society that easily feels cheated and is unable to accept rejection? A society that demands rights without recognising the responsibilities on the other side of the equasion?
There is increasing bitterness in the reaction exhibited by some in Labour / Momentum, and some Remainers. You see it in a wide sphere of life these days, aided by Internet exposure and single issue campaigns.
Sad to see our humanity so devalued and intolerant..
+1 Excellent post.
Could it not be that people are no longer prepared to give up on their principles at the first defeat, and argue for what they feel is right, even when a majority (of whatever size) are against them; and attempt to win the argument on what they perceive as its merits regardless of the prevailing mood. (c.f. anti-EU campaign since at least 1974)
It could be. But the line between not accepting a democratic decision (I'm not just talking eu referendum) and intolerance and non acceptance of the decision is thin.
Clarity is blurred by the conflation between principles and virtue signalling. Cyber bullying muddies waters and along with peer group pressure, are we actually allowed to say what we think. If it engenders a negative and vitriolic reaction is it best unsaid?
Following the discussion on sovereignty in the last thread, I'm not sure it's such hypocrisy for Leavers to be exasperated or concerned about the vote yesterday. The HoC chose to hold the referendum, designed it, voted it through, and figures of all major parties loudly spoke of how the referendum result would be followed whatever it was.
In my personal opinion this whole thing is parliament's mess first of all, and though the vote last night was probably for the best in terms of holding the government's handling of Brexit accountable it has also raised the possibility of a bigger mess if parliament does end up rejecti g the whole process after all.
I think that the frustration is due to a lack of trust in the remainer Tory MPs - many suspect playing the "sovereignty" card is just an excuse to try and block Brexit and "get one up" Mrs May for following the result of the referendum.
Why does it still need saying that the result of the referendum didn't mandate any particular type of Brexit. It does make a difference what is decided by May and the three Brexiteers. It does need scrutiny and it does need the HoC to take control and vote on it.
Amazing that this needs repeating.
Does Norway have FOM? Yes Does Norway take part in the Single Market? Yes Is Norway a member of the EU? No
Does Norway have to pay a lot for the privilege? Does Norway have to take EU regulations directly in order to retain that privilege?
No and No.
Really? My understanding was that Norway paid the EU €400m a year, which for a country with a population only one-twelfth that of the UK's (albeit a richer one), would equate to about €5bn for one the UK's size. That's quite 'a lot' to me.
Why do people persist in ignorantly basing the EEA membership costs on population when they're explicitly based on GDP? It comes over as being deliberately misleading. Given our economy is just over 7 times the size of Norway's, the equivalent calculation would be about 2.9bn euros. It's a scale error similar to the 350-million-bus one, and comes across as being quite as deliberate.
Why do people persist in ignorantly basing the EEA membership costs on population when they're explicitly based on GDP? It comes over as being deliberately misleading. Given our economy is just over 7 times the size of Norway's, the equivalent calculation would be about 2.9bn euros. It's a scale error similar to the 350-million-bus one, and comes across as being quite as deliberate.
It doesn't matter what the figure might be. You don't purchase a trade deficit. It is simply insane.
@hugorifkind: So deselection is good when it happens to sane Tories but bad when it happens to sane Labour and democracy is good when it might lead to mad Brexit but bad when it might lead to mad Corbyn. Am I getting this right?
Traitors, not sane.
Using the language of Thomas Mair is never a good look in this context.
It doesn't make them not traitors. Their allegiance is to an organisation which is not the Crown. By definition they are traitors.
I do not take the view that everyone who voted remain is a treacherous vandal who wants to tear down centuries of democratic tradition and replace it with a flimsy, semi-democratic bureaucratic superstate which rides roughshod over the views of its wider citizenship. Unlike some posters I shan't name, I understand that not everyone who voted a certain way can be tarred with the same brush.
Remain was a wide spectrum of views. I suspect that a goodly percentage of the remain vote was "well, I don't like the EU, I don't want to become part of a federal superstate, but I don't want to risk the economic pain of separation - that's more important to me." Still more would have found Dave's semi-detached deal acceptable, others were OK with the status quo. Some, nobly, believed we could reform from within.
Most leavers and remainers voted out of what they felt was a duty to their country. I am proud to have voted with what I felt were my country's best interests at heart, and as such, have a clean conscience.
Importantly: I believe the vast majority of people who voted remain can say the same thing.
However, Max is right that there is one particular word that describes those whose allegiance is to the EU *over and above* their country, just as it would have been once for those looking to subvert democracy and have the UK become a satellite of the USSR.
I'll refrain from using it - because it stirs up too much emotion - nonetheless, it is hard to think of a more appropriate word for those who are willing to try every trick in the book to drag us kicking and screaming into a federal superstate, an outcome which has been roundly rejected by the electorate. And make no mistake - that is the ultimate destination of EU membership. To say otherwise is a far bigger lie than anything that's been written on the side of a bus.
Following the discussion on sovereignty in the last thread, I'm not sure it's such hypocrisy for Leavers to be exasperated or concerned about the vote yesterday. The HoC chose to hold the referendum, designed it, voted it through, and figures of all major parties loudly spoke of how the referendum result would be followed whatever it was.
In my personal opinion this whole thing is parliament's mess first of all, and though the vote last night was probably for the best in terms of holding the government's handling of Brexit accountable it has also raised the possibility of a bigger mess if parliament does end up rejecti g the whole process after all.
I think that the frustration is due to a lack of trust in the remainer Tory MPs - many suspect playing the "sovereignty" card is just an excuse to try and block Brexit and "get one up" Mrs May for following the result of the referendum.
Why does it still need saying that the result of the referendum didn't mandate any particular type of Brexit. It does make a difference what is decided by May and the three Brexiteers. It does need scrutiny and it does need the HoC to take control and vote on it.
Amazing that this needs repeating.
Does Norway have FOM? Yes Does Norway take part in the Single Market? Yes Is Norway a member of the EU? No
Does Norway have to pay a lot for the privilege? Does Norway have to take EU regulations directly in order to retain that privilege?
No and No.
Really? My understanding was that Norway paid the EU €400m a year, which for a country with a population only one-twelfth that of the UK's (albeit a richer one), would equate to about €5bn for one the UK's size. That's quite 'a lot' to me.
Why do people persist in ignorantly basing the EEA membership costs on population when they're explicitly based on GDP? It comes over as being deliberately misleading. Given our economy is just over 7 times the size of Norway's, the equivalent calculation would be about 2.9bn euros. It's a scale error similar to the 350-million-bus one, and comes across as being quite as deliberate.
Genuine mistake: I didn't realise Norway's GDP-per-head was that much higher. I did flag up that it was a richer one in my earlier post but assumed that the gap was small enough to make a comparison based on population broadly equivalent.
@hugorifkind: So deselection is good when it happens to sane Tories but bad when it happens to sane Labour and democracy is good when it might lead to mad Brexit but bad when it might lead to mad Corbyn. Am I getting this right?
Traitors, not sane.
Using the language of Thomas Mair is never a good look in this context.
It doesn't make them not traitors. Their allegiance is to an organisation which is not the Crown. By definition they are traitors.
I do not take the view that everyone who voted remain is a treacherous vandal who wants to tear down centuries of democratic tradition and replace it with a flimsy, semi-democratic bureaucratic superstate which rides roughshod over the views of its wider citizenship. Unlike some posters I shan't name, I understand that not everyone who voted a certain way can be tarred with the same brush.
Remain was a wide spectrum of views. I suspect that a goodly percentage of the remain vote was "well, I don't like the EU, I don't want to become part of a federal superstate, but I don't want to risk the economic pain of separation - that's more important to me." Still more would have found Dave's semi-detached deal acceptable, others were OK with the status quo. Some, nobly, believed we could reform from within.
Most leavers and remainers voted out of what they felt was a duty to their country. I am proud to have voted with what I felt were my country's best interests at heart, and as such, have a clean conscience.
Importantly: I believe the vast majority of people who voted remain can say the same thing.
However, Max is right that there is one particular word that describes those whose allegiance is to the EU *over and above* their country, just as it would have been once for those looking to subvert democracy and have the UK become a satellite of the USSR.
I'll refrain from using it - because it stirs up too much emotion - nonetheless, it is hard to think of a more appropriate word for those who are willing to try every trick in the book to drag us kicking and screaming into a federal superstate, an outcome which has been roundly rejected by the electorate. And make no mistake - that is the ultimate destination of EU membership. To say otherwise is a far bigger lie than anything that's been written on the side of a bus.
I was talking specifically about the Soubry, Grieve rebels. Their allegiance is towards the EU and making the UK a part of the EU super state. They are traitors.
@hugorifkind: So deselection is good when it happens to sane Tories but bad when it happens to sane Labour and democracy is good when it might lead to mad Brexit but bad when it might lead to mad Corbyn. Am I getting this right?
Traitors, not sane.
Using the language of Thomas Mair is never a good look in this context.
It doesn't make them not traitors. Their allegiance is to an organisation which is not the Crown. By definition they are traitors.
I do not take the view that everyone who voted remain is a treacherous vandal who wants to tear down centuries of democratic tradition and replace it with a flimsy, semi-democratic bureaucratic superstate which rides roughshod over the views of its wider citizenship. Unlike some posters I shan't name, I understand that not everyone who voted a certain way can be tarred with the same brush.
Remain was a wide spectrum of views. I suspect that a goodly percentage of the remain vote was "well, I don't like the EU, I don't want to become part of a federal superstate, but I don't want to risk the economic pain of separation - that's more important to me." Still more would have found Dave's semi-detached deal acceptable, others were OK with the status quo. Some, nobly, believed we could reform from within.
Most leavers and remainers voted out of what they felt was a duty to their country. I am proud to have voted with what I felt were my country's best interests at heart, and as such, have a clean conscience.
Importantly: I believe the vast majority of people who voted remain can say the same thing.
However, Max is right that there is one particular word that describes those whose allegiance is to the EU *over and above* their country, just as it would have been once for those looking to subvert democracy and have the UK become a satellite of the USSR.
I'll refrain from using it - because it stirs up too much emotion - nonetheless, it is hard to think of a more appropriate word for those who are willing to try every trick in the book to drag us kicking and screaming into a federal superstate, an outcome which has been roundly rejected by the electorate. And make no mistake - that is the ultimate destination of EU membership. To say otherwise is a far bigger lie than anything that's been written on the side of a bus.
Find me someone whose "allegiance is to the EU over and above their country".
Need some pretty explicit wording/quoting here pls.
The animosity, hurt, vitriol and lingering sense of unfairness felt by the losing side in elections (and by people or causes that lose in other spheres of life) is becoming an unpleasant feature of our society.
What is the root cause of the inability to accept defeat? Are we now reaping the rewards of the 'We can't have losers' mentality in education for the last 30 or so years? Do we have a generation of quasi adults ill equipped to deal with the realities losing or rejection after a cosseted and protected childhood, education and introduction to safe spaces?
Have we produced a society that easily feels cheated and is unable to accept rejection? A society that demands rights without recognising the responsibilities on the other side of the equasion?
There is increasing bitterness in the reaction exhibited by some in Labour / Momentum, and some Remainers. You see it in a wide sphere of life these days, aided by Internet exposure and single issue campaigns.
Sad to see our humanity so devalued and intolerant..
Should we all accept whoever or whatever won a particular election or referendum and shut up? If Corbyn wins the next election will you do so?
Of course.
I may spend the next 5 years slating him - as with Gordon Brown - but I won't be bleating about the campaign if he kept within the rules.
No problems with remainers wailing about the doom of Brexit (still yet to happen..) but attempts to reverse the result - which was won fair and square - are pathetic.
Looking forward to you 'shutting up' if Corbyn is elected then, although it's difficult to see how you can 'slate him' silently. You speak as though the result of the referendum was clear, there was a small majority for Leave but no clear agreement on what that means.
@hugorifkind: So deselection is good when it happens to sane Tories but bad when it happens to sane Labour and democracy is good when it might lead to mad Brexit but bad when it might lead to mad Corbyn. Am I getting this right?
Traitors, not sane.
Using the language of Thomas Mair is never a good look in this context.
It doesn't make them not traitors. Their allegiance is to an organisation which is not the Crown. By definition they are traitors.
I do not take the view that everyone who voted remain is a treacherous vandal who wants to tear down centuries of democratic tradition and replace it with a flimsy, semi-democratic bureaucratic superstate which rides roughshod over the views of its wider citizenship. Unlike some posters I shan't name, I understand that not everyone who voted a certain way can be tarred with the same brush.
Remain was a wide spectrum of views. I suspect that a goodly percentage of the remain vote was "well, I don't like the EU, I don't want to become part of a federal superstate, but I don't want to risk the economic pain of separation - that's more important to me." Still more would have found Dave's semi-detached deal acceptable, others were OK with the status quo. Some, nobly, believed we could reform from within.
Most leavers and remainers voted out of what they felt was a duty to their country. I am proud to have voted with what I felt were my country's best interests at heart, and as such, have a clean conscience.
Importantly: I believe the vast majority of people who voted remain can say the same thing.
However, Max is right that there is one particular word that describes those whose allegiance is to the EU *over and above* their country, just as it would have been once for those looking to subvert democracy and have the UK become a satellite of the USSR.
I'll refrain from using it - because it stirs up too much emotion - nonetheless, it is hard to think of a more appropriate word for those who are willing to try every trick in the book to drag us kicking and screaming into a federal superstate, an outcome which has been roundly rejected by the electorate. And make no mistake - that is the ultimate destination of EU membership. To say otherwise is a far bigger lie than anything that's been written on the side of a bus.
Find me someone whose "allegiance is to the EU over and above their country".
Need some pretty explicit wording/quoting here pls.
You're a Tory voter. What do the Tories gain from the rebels' victory? The government is seen to be weaker, the EU negotiators gain confidence, and Jezza can crow about his victory.
The only explanation is the rebels believe they can influence things - in a bad way for Leave. I don't believe Soubry for one would ever vote to accept any deal which results in us leaving. Labour would be pleased to vote against and blame the splits in the Tory party for it.
If nothing else, they can delay things more.
if I were a fanatic Remainer, my cunning plan would be to rubbish our negotiations, complain it's all too difficult, make it as difficult as possible and hope with the media advantage to erode the will to leave.
I don't think I'd have the brass neck to claim it's all on behalf of democracy, though.
Mr Meeks is still in his Mr Hyde mode. Dr Jekyll may not return for some time.
I'm a Tory activist, and the rest of your post proceeds from a false premise.
Given the average age of Conservative members, is "activist" appropriate terminology anymore, excepting yourself of course?
Not that old chesnut.
The average age of Conservative Party members is 57 – four years older than Labour ones.
The animosity, hurt, vitriol and lingering sense of unfairness felt by the losing side in elections (and by people or causes that lose in other spheres of life) is becoming an unpleasant feature of our society.
What is the root cause of the inability to accept defeat? Are we now reaping the rewards of the 'We can't have losers' mentality in education for the last 30 or so years? Do we have a generation of quasi adults ill equipped to deal with the realities losing or rejection after a cosseted and protected childhood, education and introduction to safe spaces?
Have we produced a society that easily feels cheated and is unable to accept rejection? A society that demands rights without recognising the responsibilities on the other side of the equasion?
There is increasing bitterness in the reaction exhibited by some in Labour / Momentum, and some Remainers. You see it in a wide sphere of life these days, aided by Internet exposure and single issue campaigns.
Sad to see our humanity so devalued and intolerant..
+1 Excellent post.
Could it not be that people are no longer prepared to give up on their principles at the first defeat, and argue for what they feel is right, even when a majority (of whatever size) are against them; and attempt to win the argument on what they perceive as its merits regardless of the prevailing mood. (c.f. anti-EU campaign since at least 1974)
It could be. But the line between not accepting a democratic decision (I'm not just talking eu referendum) and intolerance and non acceptance of the decision is thin.
Clarity is blurred by the conflation between principles and virtue signalling. Cyber bullying muddies waters and along with peer group pressure, are we actually allowed to say what we think. If it engenders a negative and vitriolic reaction is it best unsaid?
Just glad I'm no longer a youngster!
I absolutely agree with this - there will always be those who are expressing their opinion; those who are expressing the (perhaps distorted) opinions of those with whom they would like to be associated; those who just like an argument; and those who are spoiling for a fight.
I think that the frustration is due to a lack of trust in the remainer Tory MPs - many suspect playing the "sovereignty" card is just an excuse to try and block Brexit and "get one up" Mrs May for following the result of the referendum.
Why does it still need saying that the result of the referendum didn't mandate any particular type of Brexit. It does make a difference what is decided by May and the three Brexiteers. It does need scrutiny and it does need the HoC to take control and vote on it.
Amazing that this needs repeating.
Does Norway have FOM? Yes Does Norway take part in the Single Market? Yes Is Norway a member of the EU? No
Does Norway have to pay a lot for the privilege? Does Norway have to take EU regulations directly in order to retain that privilege?
No and No.
Really? My understanding was that Norway paid the EU €400m a year, which for a country with a population only one-twelfth that of the UK's (albeit a richer one), would equate to about €5bn for one the UK's size. That's quite 'a lot' to me.
Why do people persist in ignorantly basing the EEA membership costs on population when they're explicitly based on GDP? It comes over as being deliberately misleading. Given our economy is just over 7 times the size of Norway's, the equivalent calculation would be about 2.9bn euros. It's a scale error similar to the 350-million-bus one, and comes across as being quite as deliberate.
Genuine mistake: I didn't realise Norway's GDP-per-head was that much higher. I did flag up that it was a richer one in my earlier post but assumed that the gap was small enough to make a comparison based on population broadly equivalent.
Not that it matters anyway. The EU can chose whatever metric it likes to decide on the cost of the UK's access to the Single Market, given that we are looking at a bespoke deal rather than EEA membership.
The animosity, hurt, vitriol and lingering sense of unfairness felt by the losing side in elections (and by people or causes that lose in other spheres of life) is becoming an unpleasant feature of our society.
What is the root cause of the inability to accept defeat? Are we now reaping the rewards of the 'We can't have losers' mentality in education for the last 30 or so years?
......the one that only exists in the pages of the Daily Mail? I specifically remember awards being given out for academic high achievers and I went to school under New Labour.
Do we have a generation of quasi adults ill equipped to deal with the realities losing or rejection after a cosseted and protected childhood, education and introduction to safe spaces?
No. 'Sore losers' are on both sides, look at the "Enemies of the People" front page, Gina Miller death threats, etc.
Have we produced a society that easily feels cheated and is unable to accept rejection? A society that demands rights without recognising the responsibilities on the other side of the equasion?
Like "I should be able to live and do business in the UK but hide my wealth offshore"?
There is increasing bitterness in the reaction exhibited by some in Labour / Momentum, and some Remainers. You see it in a wide sphere of life these days, aided by Internet exposure and single issue campaigns.
How many pro-Leave MPs have been killed in the street? How many articles criticising "Remoaners" as "Traitors"? Polarisation has two sides.
@ThatTimWalker: The ugliness of the language being used about the Tory Brexit rebels shows the ugliness of the Brextremists and the ugliness of their cause.
@ThatTimWalker: The ugliness of the language being used about the Tory Brexit rebels shows the ugliness of the Brextremists and the ugliness of their cause.
Yup, Leavers all have micro penises, and need to over compensate via Brexit.
I think that the frustration is due to a lack of trust in the remainer Tory MPs - many suspect playing the "sovereignty" card is just an excuse to try and block Brexit and "get one up" Mrs May for following the result of the referendum.
Why does it still need saying that the result of the referendum didn't mandate any particular type of Brexit. It does make a difference what is decided by May and the three Brexiteers. It does need scrutiny and it does need the HoC to take control and vote on it.
Amazing that this needs repeating.
Does Norway have FOM? Yes Does Norway take part in the Single Market? Yes Is Norway a member of the EU? No
Does Norway have to pay a lot for the privilege? Does Norway have to take EU regulations directly in order to retain that privilege?
No and No.
Really? My understanding was that Norway paid the EU €400m a year, which for a country with a population only one-twelfth that of the UK's (albeit a richer one), would equate to about €5bn for one the UK's size. That's quite 'a lot' to me.
Why do people persist in ignorantly basing the EEA membership costs on population when they're explicitly based on GDP? It comes over as being deliberately misleading. Given our economy is just over 7 times the size of Norway's, the equivalent calculation would be about 2.9bn euros. It's a scale error similar to the 350-million-bus one, and comes across as being quite as deliberate.
Genuine mistake: I didn't realise Norway's GDP-per-head was that much higher. I did flag up that it was a richer one in my earlier post but assumed that the gap was small enough to make a comparison based on population broadly equivalent.
Not that it matters anyway. The EU can chose whatever metric it likes to decide on the cost of the UK's access to the Single Market, given that we are looking at a bespoke deal rather than EEA membership.
But the argument was specifically about EEA membership. Yes of course outside of that the EU - and the UK - can decide what they want the agreement to be. But I still maintain the most sensible solution was and is EEA membership via EFTA.
@hugorifkind: So deselection is good when it happens to sane Tories but bad when it happens to sane Labour and democracy is good when it might lead to mad Brexit but bad when it might lead to mad Corbyn. Am I getting this right?
Traitors, not sane.
Using the language of Thomas Mair is never a good look in this context.
It doesn't make them not traitors. Their allegiance is to an organisation which is not the Crown. By definition they are traitors.
I do not take the view that everyone wcitih the same brush.
Remain was a wide spectrum of views. I suspect that a goodly percentage of the remain vote was "well, I don't like the EU, I don't want to become part of a federal superstate, but I don't want to risk the economic pain of separation - that's more important to me." Still more would have found Dave's semi-detached deal acceptable, others were OK with the status quo. Some, nobly, believed we could reform from within.
Most leavers and remainers voted out of what they felt was a duty to their country. I am proud to have voted with what I felt were my country's best interests at heart, and as such, have a clean conscience.
Importantly: I believe the vast majority of people who voted remain can say the same thing.
However, Max is right that there is one particular word that describes those whose allegiance is to the EU *over and above* their country, just as it would have been once for those looking to subvert democracy and have the UK become a satellite of the USSR.
I'll refrain from using it - because it stirs up too much emotion - nonetheless, it is hard to think of a more appropriate word for those who are willing to try every trick in the book to drag us kicking and screaming into a federal superstate, an outcome which has been roundly rejected by the electorate. And make no mistake - that is the ultimate destination of EU membership. To say otherwise is a far bigger lie than anything that's been written on the side of a bus.
Find me someone whose "allegiance is to the EU over and above their country".
Need some pretty explicit wording/quoting here pls.
Willamglenn of this parish!
What are the quotes that show this? I know William has very strong views, but I'm not sure that his "allegiance is to the EU over and above [his] country".
Edit: if he believes the UK should become part of an EU superstate (and I've no idea if that is the case) that doesn't mean his allegiance is not to the UK or is to the EU over the UK (cf. Scotland).
I think that the frustration is due to a lack of trust in the remainer Tory MPs - many suspect playing the "sovereignty" card is just an excuse to try and block Brexit and "get one up" Mrs May for following the result of the referendum.
Why does it still need saying that the result of the referendum didn't mandate any particular type of Brexit. It does make a difference what is decided by May and the three Brexiteers. It does need scrutiny and it does need the HoC to take control and vote on it.
Amazing that this needs repeating.
Does Norway have FOM? Yes Does Norway take part in the Single Market? Yes Is Norway a member of the EU? No
Does Norway have to pay a lot for the privilege? Does Norway have to take EU regulations directly in order to retain that privilege?
No and No.
Really? My understanding was that Norway paid the EU €400m a year, which for a country with a population only one-twelfth that of the UK's (albeit a richer one), would equate to about €5bn for one the UK's size. That's quite 'a lot' to me.
Why do people persist in ignorantly basing the EEA membership costs on population when they're explicitly based on GDP? It comes over as being deliberately misleading. Given our economy is just over 7 times the size of Norway's, the equivalent calculation would be about 2.9bn euros. It's a scale error similar to the 350-million-bus one, and comes across as being quite as deliberate.
Genuine mistake: I didn't realise Norway's GDP-per-head was that much higher. I did flag up that it was a richer one in my earlier post but assumed that the gap was small enough to make a comparison based on population broadly equivalent.
Not that it matters anyway. The EU can chose whatever metric it likes to decide on the cost of the UK's access to the Single Market, given that we are looking at a bespoke deal rather than EEA membership.
But the argument was specifically about EEA membership. Yes of course outside of that the EU - and the UK - can decide what they want the agreement to be. But I still maintain the most sensible solution was and is EEA membership via EFTA.
But I thought EEA membership requires freedom of movement which, I thought, had been ruled out?
Find me someone whose "allegiance is to the EU over and above their country".
Need some pretty explicit wording/quoting here pls.
Without getting too much into the whole traitor argument, Williamglenn has made clear on several occasions that he does not believe in the nation state and would like to see the UK subsumed into a federal EU. That would seem to match what you are asking for pretty explicitly.
Find me someone whose "allegiance is to the EU over and above their country".
Need some pretty explicit wording/quoting here pls.
Without getting too much into the whole traitor argument, Williamglenn has made clear on several occasions that he does not believe in the nation state and would like to see the UK subsumed into a federal EU. That would seem to match what you are asking for pretty explicitly.
What about those Scottish people that don't favour Scottish independence, are they traitors also?
Great news for geeks as The Avengers, X-Men, and The Fantastic Four all now have the same rights owner.
Suspect Sky will be changing.
Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox has agreed to sell its entertainment assets to Disney in a $66bn (£49bn) deal that transforms his media empire by offloading a 39% stake in Sky.
The takeover involves the 86-year-old tycoon and his family taking a 5% stake in Disney with assets including the 20th Century Fox film studio, the controlling stake in Britain’s biggest pay-TV broadcaster and a number of cable channels going in the other direction. Murdoch will retain control of the profitable, and controversial, Fox News channel.
You're a Tory voter. What do the Tories gain from the rebels' victory? The government is seen to be weaker, the EU negotiators gain confidence, and Jezza can crow about his victory.
The only explanation is the rebels believe they can influence things - in a bad way for Leave. I don't believe Soubry for one would ever vote to accept any deal which results in us leaving. Labour would be pleased to vote against and blame the splits in the Tory party for it.
If nothing else, they can delay things more.
if I were a fanatic Remainer, my cunning plan would be to rubbish our negotiations, complain it's all too difficult, make it as difficult as possible and hope with the media advantage to erode the will to leave.
I don't think I'd have the brass neck to claim it's all on behalf of democracy, though.
Mr Meeks is still in his Mr Hyde mode. Dr Jekyll may not return for some time.
I'm a Tory activist, and the rest of your post proceeds from a false premise.
Given the average age of Conservative members, is "activist" appropriate terminology anymore, excepting yourself of course?
Not that old chesnut.
The average age of Conservative Party members is 57 – four years older than Labour ones.
"Although 57 (Conservative average age) is heading towards the retirement age, SNP, Labour, and Lib Dem members aren’t much younger. Their members’ average ages are 54, 53 and 52 respectively, according to the Queen Mary research.
What this tells us is that “People who join political parties are abnormal”, Professor Bale says."
Find me someone whose "allegiance is to the EU over and above their country".
Need some pretty explicit wording/quoting here pls.
Without getting too much into the whole traitor argument, Williamglenn has made clear on several occasions that he does not believe in the nation state and would like to see the UK subsumed into a federal EU. That would seem to match what you are asking for pretty explicitly.
What about those Scottish people that don't favour Scottish independence, are they traitors also?
I was not the one using that word. I was simply pointing out that Williamglenn fits your request for someone whose "allegiance is to the EU over and above their country".
Of course I am at the other extreme. I would like to see the breakup of the UK into its constituent countries. For anyone who values the UK over England or Scotland I would be a traitor I suppose.
But I thought EEA membership requires freedom of movement which, I thought, had been ruled out?
It has been ruled out by our Remain voting PM. Until such times as the actual agreement is finalised I would suggest it is still possible she could see the light and realise there is a compromise to be made.
What are the quotes that show this? I know William has very strong views, but I'm not sure that his "allegiance is to the EU over and above [his] country".
Edit: if he believes the UK should become part of an EU superstate (and I've no idea if that is the case) that doesn't mean his allegiance is not to the UK or is to the EU over the UK (cf. Scotland).
He has argued on here in the past that the Nation State is dead - or perhaps that it should be dead - and we should move 'beyond it'. Of course I fundamentally disagree.
I think that the frustration is due to a lack of trust in the remainer Tory MPs - many suspect playing the "sovereignty" card is just an excuse to try and block Brexit and "get one up" Mrs May for following the result of the referendum.
Why does it still need saying that the result of the referendum didn't mandate any particular type of Brexit. It does make a difference what is decided by May and the three Brexiteers. It does need scrutiny and it does need the HoC to take control and vote on it.
Amazing that this needs repeating.
Does Norway have FOM? Yes Does Norway take part in the Single Market? Yes Is Norway a member of the EU? No
Does Norway have to pay a lot for the privilege? Does Norway have to take EU regulations directly in order to retain that privilege?
No and No.
Really? My understanding was that Norway paid the EU €400m a year, which for a country with a population only one-twelfth that of the UK's (albeit a richer one), would equate to about €5bn for one the UK's size. That's quite 'a lot' to me.
Why do people persist in ignorantly basing the EEA membership costs on population when they're explicitly based on GDP? It comes over as being deliberately misleading. Given our economy is just over 7 times the size of Norway's, the equivalent calculation would be about 2.9bn euros. It's a scale error similar to the 350-million-bus one, and comes across as being quite as deliberate.
Genuine mistake: I didn't realise Norway's GDP-per-head was that much higher. I did flag up that it was a richer one in my earlier post but assumed that the gap was small enough to make a comparison based on population broadly equivalent.
Not that it matters anyway. The EU can chose whatever metric it likes to decide on the cost of the UK's access to the Single Market, given that we are looking at a bespoke deal rather than EEA membership.
And the UK can decide the cost to the EU of their access to the UK market.
But I thought EEA membership requires freedom of movement which, I thought, had been ruled out?
It has been ruled out by our Remain voting PM. Until such times as the actual agreement is finalised I would suggest it is still possible she could see the light and realise there is a compromise to be made.
It was ruled out by Gove and Johnson during the campaign.
Reports also say both threatened to resign if Mrs May kept FOM.
Find me someone whose "allegiance is to the EU over and above their country".
Need some pretty explicit wording/quoting here pls.
Without getting too much into the whole traitor argument, Williamglenn has made clear on several occasions that he does not believe in the nation state and would like to see the UK subsumed into a federal EU. That would seem to match what you are asking for pretty explicitly.
What about those Scottish people that don't favour Scottish independence, are they traitors also?
I was not the one using that word. I was simply pointing out that Williamglenn fits your request for someone whose "allegiance is to the EU over and above their country".
Of course I am at the other extreme. I would like to see the breakup of the UK into its constituent countries. For anyone who values the UK over England or Scotland I would be a traitor I suppose.
Is Scottish unionists' allegiance to the UK over Scotland? Not sure it is.
Not sure they see it in those terms. They (I imagine) are very comfortable being Scottish patriots, and also are very happy to be part of the UK. Don't you agree?
Find me someone whose "allegiance is to the EU over and above their country".
Need some pretty explicit wording/quoting here pls.
Without getting too much into the whole traitor argument, Williamglenn has made clear on several occasions that he does not believe in the nation state and would like to see the UK subsumed into a federal EU. That would seem to match what you are asking for pretty explicitly.
What about those Scottish people that don't favour Scottish independence, are they traitors also?
Nope they are good British citizens. When you fail to understand the difference between the nature of the UK and the nature of Scotland all your other arguments fall.
The animosity, hurt, vitriol and lingering sense of unfairness felt by the losing side in elections (and by people or causes that lose in other spheres of life) is becoming an unpleasant feature of our society.
What is the root cause of the inability to accept defeat? Are we now reaping the rewards of the 'We can't have losers' mentality in education for the last 30 or so years? Do we have a generation of quasi adults ill equipped to deal with the realities losing or rejection after a cosseted and protected childhood, education and introduction to safe spaces?
Have we produced a society that easily feels cheated and is unable to accept rejection? A society that demands rights without recognising the responsibilities on the other side of the equasion?
There is increasing bitterness in the reaction exhibited by some in Labour / Momentum, and some Remainers. You see it in a wide sphere of life these days, aided by Internet exposure and single issue campaigns.
Sad to see our humanity so devalued and intolerant..
Should we all accept whoever or whatever won a particular election or referendum and shut up? If Corbyn wins the next election will you do so?
Of course.
I may spend the next 5 years slating him - as with Gordon Brown - but I won't be bleating about the campaign if he kept within the rules.
No problems with remainers wailing about the doom of Brexit (still yet to happen..) but attempts to reverse the result - which was won fair and square - are pathetic.
Looking forward to you 'shutting up' if Corbyn is elected then, although it's difficult to see how you can 'slate him' silently. You speak as though the result of the referendum was clear, there was a small majority for Leave but no clear agreement on what that means.
You need to re - read.
If Corbo wins fair and square I will spend 5 years slagging off his bonkers policies - loudly.
But I won't be appealing to the high court to overrule the GE if he wins within the rules.
You're a Tory voter. What do the Tories gain from the rebels' victory? The government is seen to be weaker, the EU negotiators gain confidence, and Jezza can crow about his victory.
The only explanation is the rebels believe they can influence things - in a bad way for Leave. I don't believe Soubry for one would ever vote to accept any deal which results in us leaving. Labour would be pleased to vote against and blame the splits in the Tory party for it.
If nothing else, they can delay things more.
if I were a fanatic Remainer, my cunning plan would be to rubbish our negotiations, complain it's all too difficult, make it as difficult as possible and hope with the media advantage to erode the will to leave.
I don't think I'd have the brass neck to claim it's all on behalf of democracy, though.
Mr Meeks is still in his Mr Hyde mode. Dr Jekyll may not return for some time.
I'm a Tory activist, and the rest of your post proceeds from a false premise.
Given the average age of Conservative members, is "activist" appropriate terminology anymore, excepting yourself of course?
Not that old chesnut.
The average age of Conservative Party members is 57 – four years older than Labour ones.
The mean age isn't so different between parties, but the distribution seems to be. 44% of conservative members are over 65, compared with 30% for the other two main parties. Labour is very middle aged, Lib Dems have more than third under 45.
Find me someone whose "allegiance is to the EU over and above their country".
Need some pretty explicit wording/quoting here pls.
Without getting too much into the whole traitor argument, Williamglenn has made clear on several occasions that he does not believe in the nation state and would like to see the UK subsumed into a federal EU. That would seem to match what you are asking for pretty explicitly.
Indeed, he would be the only poster on this site who has explictly expressed a view that the Uk should be subsumed into a Federal EU and I understand it is because he believes the nation state is dead, Westphalian sovereignty doesn't work in the 21st century, etc.
So I would prefer to avoid bandying the T-word about with regards to specific people. However, if you look at the wider debate on Twitter and soforth you will find people who believe passionately in a federal superstate.
It is my view that anyone who wishes to see the UK's democratic institutions destroyed by being folded into a federal superstate should be regarded in the same way as communists who wished the UK to become part of the USSR - that their allegiance is to a foreign power and a hostile one at that. Therefore the T-word can be appropriate, although it should be used sparingly, especially when disloyal or misguided would do.
I think even the most fanatical remainers believe they have the country's best interests at heart, although it is also my view that remaining in the EU will lead us into a federal superstate that will destroy centuries of hard won democratic freedom.
A federal superstate is the stated end goal of the EU as stated by many key figures - Martin Schulz said he wanted "a united states of Europe by 2025" only last week. And in my view the meaning of "ever closer union" is clear. How else do you define it?
Thus I find it hard to square the circle between voting in what you think are the best interests of your country and choosing an outcome that will see it destroyed.
Find me someone whose "allegiance is to the EU over and above their country".
Need some pretty explicit wording/quoting here pls.
Without getting too much into the whole traitor argument, Williamglenn has made clear on several occasions that he does not believe in the nation state and would like to see the UK subsumed into a federal EU. That would seem to match what you are asking for pretty explicitly.
Indeed, he would be the only poster on this site who has explictly expressed a view that the Uk should be subsumed into a Federal EU and I understand it is because he believes the nation state is dead, Westphalian sovereignty doesn't work in the 21st century, etc.
So I would prefer to avoid bandying the T-word about with regards to specific people. However, if you look at the wider debate on Twitter and soforth you will find people who believe passionately in a federal superstate.
It is my view that anyone who wishes to see the UK's democratic institutions destroyed by being folded into a federal superstate should be regarded in the same way as communists who wished the UK to become part of the USSR - that their allegiance is to a foreign power and a hostile one at that. Therefore the T-word can be appropriate, although it should be used sparingly, especially when disloyal or misguided would do.
I think even the most fanatical remainers believe they have the country's best interests at heart, although it is also my view that remaining in the EU will lead us into a federal superstate that will destroy centuries of hard won democratic freedom.
A federal superstate is the stated end goal of the EU as stated by many key figures - Martin Schulz said he wanted "a united states of Europe by 2025" only last week. And in my view the meaning of "ever closer union" is clear. How else do you define it?
Thus I find it hard to square the circle between voting in what you think are the best interests of your country and choosing an outcome that will see it destroyed.
There are those of us whose first priority is the well-being of our family, friends and fellow human beings rather than the maintenance of the institutions of the state. If that well-being is best served by the abolition of the nation state (though I'm not yet fully convinced that it is), then so be it.
Find me someone whose "allegiance is to the EU over and above their country".
Need some pretty explicit wording/quoting here pls.
Without getting too much into the whole traitor argument, Williamglenn has made clear on several occasions that he does not believe in the nation state and would like to see the UK subsumed into a federal EU. That would seem to match what you are asking for pretty explicitly.
What about those Scottish people that don't favour Scottish independence, are they traitors also?
Nope they are good British citizens. When you fail to understand the difference between the nature of the UK and the nature of Scotland all your other arguments fall.
Mr. Eagles, very cruel of that poster to agree with David Cameron's position on Turkey.
See willianglenn's post at 11:07 to see why that poster was a lie.
It wasn't.
The UK has a border with schengen.
If Turkey has a deal with Schengen allowing for unimpeded tourist transit then, de facto, the Turkish border is the only check between the UK and Syria/Iraq.
It's misleading but within the norms of political knockabout
Indeed, he would be the only poster on this site who has explictly expressed a view that the Uk should be subsumed into a Federal EU and I understand it is because he believes the nation state is dead, Westphalian sovereignty doesn't work in the 21st century, etc.
So I would prefer to avoid bandying the T-word about with regards to specific people. However, if you look at the wider debate on Twitter and soforth you will find people who believe passionately in a federal superstate.
It is my view that anyone who wishes to see the UK's democratic institutions destroyed by being folded into a federal superstate should be regarded in the same way as communists who wished the UK to become part of the USSR - that their allegiance is to a foreign power and a hostile one at that. Therefore the T-word can be appropriate, although it should be used sparingly, especially when disloyal or misguided would do.
I think even the most fanatical remainers believe they have the country's best interests at heart, although it is also my view that remaining in the EU will lead us into a federal superstate that will destroy centuries of hard won democratic freedom.
A federal superstate is the stated end goal of the EU as stated by many key figures - Martin Schulz said he wanted "a united states of Europe by 2025" only last week. And in my view the meaning of "ever closer union" is clear. How else do you define it?
Thus I find it hard to square the circle between voting in what you think are the best interests of your country and choosing an outcome that will see it destroyed.
There are those of us whose first priority is the well-being of our family, friends and fellow human beings rather than the maintenance of the institutions of the state. If that well-being is best served by the abolition of the nation state (though I'm not yet fully convinced that it is), then so be it.
Yes. I come here to listen to people with different points of view, argue with them, but ultimately try to understand them. And that is certainly one point of view. "I think Brexit will be an economic disaster, I will lose my job and not be able to feed my family, that is rather more important to me than the UK's democratic institutions" is a valid point of view, albeit one I disagree with - a strong democracy is such an important guarantor of individual liberty I would personally be prepared to suffer short term economic consequences if I felt it was the only way to preserve them.
People see through populist demagogues like Trump, Farage and Corbyn in the end. Interesting that Corbyn uses almost the exact phrases and words that Trump uses like "rigged".
The animosity, hurt, vitriol and lingering sense of unfairness felt by the losing side in elections (and by people or causes that lose in other spheres of life) is becoming an unpleasant feature of our society.
What is the root cause of the inability to accept defeat? Are we now reaping the rewards of the 'We can't have losers' mentality in education for the last 30 or so years? Do we have a generation of quasi adults ill equipped to deal with the realities losing or rejection after a cosseted and protected childhood, education and introduction to safe spaces?
Have we produced a society that easily feels cheated and is unable to accept rejection? A society that demands rights without recognising the responsibilities on the other side of the equasion?
There is increasing bitterness in the reaction exhibited by some in Labour / Momentum, and some Remainers. You see it in a wide sphere of life these days, aided by Internet exposure and single issue campaigns.
Sad to see our humanity so devalued and intolerant..
Should we all accept whoever or whatever won a particular election or referendum and shut up? If Corbyn wins the next election will you do so?
Of course.
I may spend the next 5 years slating him - as with Gordon Brown - but I won't be bleating about the campaign if he kept within the rules.
No problems with remainers wailing about the doom of Brexit (still yet to happen..) but attempts to reverse the result - which was won fair and square - are pathetic.
Looking forward to you 'shutting up' if Corbyn is elected then, although it's difficult to see how you can 'slate him' silently. You speak as though the result of the referendum was clear, there was a small majority for Leave but no clear agreement on what that means.
You need to re - read.
If Corbo wins fair and square I will spend 5 years slagging off his bonkers policies - loudly.
But I won't be appealing to the high court to overrule the GE if he wins within the rules.
I wish we could expect the same of Labour's 'moderate' MPs.
I'm still bitter they got away with flagrantly changing leadership election rules to hurt Corbyn, like changing the cooling off period before new members could vote. Blair's election it was two weeks, Miliband's four weeks, Corbyn's first election two weeks, his second election nine months backdated. The thousands of spurious suspensions etc.
If you dislike these 11 Tory Remainers, you'll understand why some want to deselect this lot who are just waiting for another chance to stick the knife in at the first spot of bother.
Well, I have not been reading PB this am and have no idea what has been going on.
But can I recommend to any stressed or depressed PB'ers that a couple of hours in the garden, pruning, mulching, viewing the growth of spring bulbs and winter-flowering bushes (my viburnum and hollies are full of colour) not to mention the bizarre sight of two spring-flowering clematis in flower) and generally enjoying the fresh air, as I have just been doing, is enough to soothe the most fractious soul.
I have also decorated the Xmas tree and this afternoon will be setting up our magnificent Neapolitan crib, complete with proper Neapolitan pizza makers (no pineapple anywhere in our crib, I can assure you!) before sinking into a comfy sofa in front of a proper fire to watch The Crown.
Why do people persist in ignorantly basing the EEA membership costs on population when they're explicitly based on GDP? It comes over as being deliberately misleading. Given our economy is just over 7 times the size of Norway's, the equivalent calculation would be about 2.9bn euros. It's a scale error similar to the 350-million-bus one, and comes across as being quite as deliberate.
It doesn't matter what the figure might be. You don't purchase a trade deficit. It is simply insane.
You do if you're a small business with a Booker's card, of course.
Well, I have not been reading PB this am and have no idea what has been going on.
But can I recommend to any stressed or depressed PB'ers that a couple of hours in the garden, pruning, mulching, viewing the growth of spring bulbs and winter-flowering bushes (my viburnum and hollies are full of colour) not to mention the bizarre sight of two spring-flowering clematis in flower) and generally enjoying the fresh air, as I have just been doing, is enough to soothe the most fractious soul.
I have also decorated the Xmas tree and this afternoon will be setting up our magnificent Neapolitan crib, complete with proper Neapolitan pizza makers (no pineapple anywhere in our crib, I can assure you!) before sinking into a comfy sofa in front of a proper fire to watch The Crown.
There is more to life than politics........
**.....runs and hides.....**
You didn't even think of AV once? Not even a little?
Well, I have not been reading PB this am and have no idea what has been going on.
But can I recommend to any stressed or depressed PB'ers that a couple of hours in the garden, pruning, mulching, viewing the growth of spring bulbs and winter-flowering bushes (my viburnum and hollies are full of colour) not to mention the bizarre sight of two spring-flowering clematis in flower) and generally enjoying the fresh air, as I have just been doing, is enough to soothe the most fractious soul.
I have also decorated the Xmas tree and this afternoon will be setting up our magnificent Neapolitan crib, complete with proper Neapolitan pizza makers (no pineapple anywhere in our crib, I can assure you!) before sinking into a comfy sofa in front of a proper fire to watch The Crown.
People see through populist demagogues like Trump, Farage and Corbyn in the end. Interesting that Corbyn uses almost the exact phrases and words that Trump uses like "rigged".
Mr. Eagles, very cruel of that poster to agree with David Cameron's position on Turkey.
See willianglenn's post at 11:07 to see why that poster was a lie.
It wasn't.
The UK has a border with schengen.
If Turkey has a deal with Schengen allowing for unimpeded tourist transit then, de facto, the Turkish border is the only check between the UK and Syria/Iraq.
It's misleading but within the norms of political knockabout
Sorry Charles but the UK has no land border with Schengen if that is what you were implying.
Sorry Max you miss the point. Davis's argument in 2002 and mine now are that, by effectively asking for voters to answer a single question which can have no single answer, Cameron has made it almost impossible to get a Brexit that is agreeable to a wide range of people. Everyone read something different into what they were being asked and trying to square that circle now means that significant numbers of people will be able to claim the spirit of the referendum is not being met.
This is why governments don't usually hold referendums on things they're not actually advocating doing. A better process for a change is to have a party propose something, wait for the voters to elect them as the government and, if it's a big change, go to the voters for permission to do it. That way they can answer questions about what they'll do if the voters vote to accept it, and they're accountable for the way it works out in practice.
I was watching a documentary on Jefferson this morning.
The highlighted his belief - which underpinned the deceleration of independence - that "good government can only exist with the explicit consent of the people"
This is the root cause of the vote to Leave - the view that the EU today is not the EU we voted to join (even if some argue the end destination was always know I think it still fails the "explicit consent" criteria) and that we were not asked to re-endorse the decision along the way.
It's also at the root of why there is such a hostile reaction to what are perceived as attempts to create the ability to frustrate the outcome of the referendum. There is a fundamental lack of trust that Remainers - who decry the referendum, the campaign, the result and the subsequent negotiation - will not try to ignore the result if they had half a chance
Well, I have not been reading PB this am and have no idea what has been going on.
But can I recommend to any stressed or depressed PB'ers that a couple of hours in the garden, pruning, mulching, viewing the growth of spring bulbs and winter-flowering bushes (my viburnum and hollies are full of colour) not to mention the bizarre sight of two spring-flowering clematis in flower) and generally enjoying the fresh air, as I have just been doing, is enough to soothe the most fractious soul.
I have also decorated the Xmas tree and this afternoon will be setting up our magnificent Neapolitan crib, complete with proper Neapolitan pizza makers (no pineapple anywhere in our crib, I can assure you!) before sinking into a comfy sofa in front of a proper fire to watch The Crown.
There is more to life than politics........
**.....runs and hides.....**
Yes there’s also The Last Jedi.
Star Wars is like Wagner's operas: people in weird costumes, very loud music with only one good tune to be heard, complicated plots, good and evil, fanatical followers, interminably long and incomprehensible to anyone with.....well.....a life to lead.
(Oooh!! I really am going to have to hide now.......)
Mr. Eagles, very cruel of that poster to agree with David Cameron's position on Turkey.
See willianglenn's post at 11:07 to see why that poster was a lie.
It wasn't.
The UK has a border with schengen.
If Turkey has a deal with Schengen allowing for unimpeded tourist transit then, de facto, the Turkish border is the only check between the UK and Syria/Iraq.
It's misleading but within the norms of political knockabout
Sorry Charles but the UK has no land border with Schengen if that is what you were implying.
Following the discussion on sovereignty in the last thread, I'm not sure it's such hypocrisy for Leavers to be exasperated or concerned about the vote yesterday. The HoC chose to hold the referendum, designed it, voted it through, and figures of all major parties loudly spoke of how the referendum result would be followed whatever it was.
In my personal opinion this whole thing is parliament's mess first of all, and though the vote last night was probably for the best in terms of holding the government's handling of Brexit accountable it has also raised the possibility of a bigger mess if parliament does end up rejecti g the whole process after all.
I think that the frustration is due to a lack of trust in the remainer Tory MPs - many suspect playing the "sovereignty" card is just an excuse to try and block Brexit and "get one up" Mrs May for following the result of the referendum.
Why does it still need saying that the result of the referendum didn't mandate any particular type of Brexit. It does make a difference what is decided by May and the three Brexiteers. It does need scrutiny and it does need the HoC to take control and vote on it.
Amazing that this needs repeating.
Does Norway have FOM? Yes Does Norway take part in the Single Market? Yes Is Norway a member of the EU? No
Does Norway have to pay a lot for the privilege? Does Norway have to take EU regulations directly in order to retain that privilege?
No and No.
Really? My understanding was that Norway paid the EU €400m a year, which for a country with a population only one-twelfth that of the UK's (albeit a richer one), would equate to about €5bn for one the UK's size. That's quite 'a lot' to me.
Yes but remember that more than half of Norway's contribution is not for "cohesion payments", but for membership of specific EU administered bodies - such as the European Medicines Agency, Erasmus, Gallileo, the ESA, etc.
It's quite possible that we - like Switzerland, Norway or Turkey - pays money to be a member of Erasmus down the line. (I think there's also a very good case for continuing to be a member of Gallileo.)
People see through populist demagogues like Trump, Farage and Corbyn in the end. Interesting that Corbyn uses almost the exact phrases and words that Trump uses like "rigged".
Sanders is more Corbyn and Farage more Trump
Thats the way that Corbyn and his supporters would like to see it. In reality Corbyn is the British Trump. Sanders was no Corbyn. Sanders is much more intelligent and thoughtful than Corbyn. Corbyn, like Trump tries to appeal to people by empty demagoguery, using words like "rigged" Corbyn is very much the British Trump. If he ever gets power -and I doubt he will -he will end up as the most hated politician in the UK, just as Trump is going down in the same way.
There are those of us whose first priority is the well-being of our family, friends and fellow human beings rather than the maintenance of the institutions of the state. If that well-being is best served by the abolition of the nation state (though I'm not yet fully convinced that it is), then so be it.
I would suggest that applies to the vast majority of us and I would look askance at anyone for whom that was not the case.
But personally I think the best way to ensure that well being is to make sure that our political representatives are close and answerable to us. That, for me, means nation states rather than larger federal (or other) agglomerations. The more remote our governing institutions are, the less accountable and representative they become which is good for no one - except the elites themselves of course. It is why I think a Federal EU is not in our interests and also don't believe that the United Kingdom is necessarily in the interests of Scotland.
Sorry Max you miss the point. Davis's argument in 2002 and mine now are that, by effectively asking for voters to answer a single question which can have no single answer, Cameron has made it almost impossible to get a Brexit that is agreeable to a wide range of people. Everyone read something different into what they were being asked and trying to square that circle now means that significant numbers of people will be able to claim the spirit of the referendum is not being met.
This is why governments don't usually hold referendums on things they're not actually advocating doing. A better process for a change is to have a party propose something, wait for the voters to elect them as the government and, if it's a big change, go to the voters for permission to do it. That way they can answer questions about what they'll do if the voters vote to accept it, and they're accountable for the way it works out in practice.
Yes, although that wasn't really possible in this case for several reasons.
Firstly, the government did recommend something in the referendum but whereas usually the alternative is 'no change', here it wasn't. That was unusual.
Secondly, even if the government had been advocating Brexit, while it could have put forward a preferred model (as indeed it since has, if in general terms), it still couldn't guarantee the delivery of that because it was dependent on the other EU members.
Thirdly, there wasn't the usual possibility of having a referendum at the end to endorse the process because once A50 is triggered, there's no ability return to the status quo ante (well, there is but the process is so politically unlikely - most likely involving a simultaneous application to rejoin at the moment of exit - that it can be discounted).
Brexit, even had it been the government's plan, would always have been something of a leap in the dark. But to start that process was such a big step that it was nonetheless right that it was put to a public vote.
I was watching a documentary on Jefferson this morning.
The highlighted his belief - which underpinned the deceleration of independence - that "good government can only exist with the explicit consent of the people"
This is the root cause of the vote to Leave - the view that the EU today is not the EU we voted to join (even if some argue the end destination was always know I think it still fails the "explicit consent" criteria) and that we were not asked to re-endorse the decision along the way.
It's also at the root of why there is such a hostile reaction to what are perceived as attempts to create the ability to frustrate the outcome of the referendum. There is a fundamental lack of trust that Remainers - who decry the referendum, the campaign, the result and the subsequent negotiation - will not try to ignore the result if they had half a chance
J.B. Macpherson's book on Possessive Individualism is quite a good historical critique of this, how it's a meaningless phrase really - 'the people' being an entirely unreal construction that only ever held for these thinkers if you excluded most human beings.
This whole lovely picture of rational individuals working out their will, then cohering into 'the people' with a popular will that can be expressed through parliament - surely we all know by now our state just doesn't work that way.
People see through populist demagogues like Trump, Farage and Corbyn in the end. Interesting that Corbyn uses almost the exact phrases and words that Trump uses like "rigged".
Sanders is more Corbyn and Farage more Trump
Thats the way that Corbyn and his supporters would like to see it. In reality Corbyn is the British Trump. Sanders was no Corbyn. Sanders is much more intelligent and thoughtful than Corbyn. Corbyn, like Trump tries to appeal to people by empty demagoguery, using words like "rigged" Corbyn is very much the British Trump. If he ever gets power -and I doubt he will -he will end up as the most hated politician in the UK, just as Trump is going down in the same way.
Sanders represents the same anti globalisation, anti capitalism creed as Corbyn does. Farage is already the most hated politician in the UK.
People see through populist demagogues like Trump, Farage and Corbyn in the end. Interesting that Corbyn uses almost the exact phrases and words that Trump uses like "rigged".
Sanders is more Corbyn and Farage more Trump
Thats the way that Corbyn and his supporters would like to see it. In reality Corbyn is the British Trump. Sanders was no Corbyn. Sanders is much more intelligent and thoughtful than Corbyn. Corbyn, like Trump tries to appeal to people by empty demagoguery, using words like "rigged" Corbyn is very much the British Trump. If he ever gets power -and I doubt he will -he will end up as the most hated politician in the UK, just as Trump is going down in the same way.
Yes. I come here to listen to people with different points of view, argue with them, but ultimately try to understand them. And that is certainly one point of view. "I think Brexit will be an economic disaster, I will lose my job and not be able to feed my family, that is rather more important to me than the UK's democratic institutions" is a valid point of view, albeit one I disagree with - a strong democracy is such an important guarantor of individual liberty I would personally be prepared to suffer short term economic consequences if I felt it was the only way to preserve them.
It would also be reasonable to argue (in this country at least) that no-one particularly owes "allegiance" to the place where by a combination of accident-of-birth, convenience, indolence, economic or political constraint, and various forms of self-interest you happen to be allied or embedded in your daily life. If those balances are not working for you, there should be no stigma in seeking other options.
In fact, I don't see how this is any different to the argument in favour of leaving the EU. Anyone in this country under the age of 43, by an accident of birth etc., has been a part of that institution for their entire lives. Choosing to seek another path away from it isn't "treachery". The institutions of the (modern) UK state are roughly 5-6 times older, but that's nothing in the great scheme of things.
People see through populist demagogues like Trump, Farage and Corbyn in the end. Interesting that Corbyn uses almost the exact phrases and words that Trump uses like "rigged".
Sanders is more Corbyn and Farage more Trump
Thats the way that Corbyn and his supporters would like to see it. In reality Corbyn is the British Trump. Sanders was no Corbyn. Sanders is much more intelligent and thoughtful than Corbyn. Corbyn, like Trump tries to appeal to people by empty demagoguery, using words like "rigged" Corbyn is very much the British Trump. If he ever gets power -and I doubt he will -he will end up as the most hated politician in the UK, just as Trump is going down in the same way.
You would be slagging off Sanders if you were in tbe USA I'm sure. If it matters he also used 'rigged', as have politicians of every stripe for ever.
You're a Tory voter. What do the Tories gain from the rebels' victory? The government is seen to be weaker, the EU negotiators gain confidence, and Jezza can crow about his victory.
The only explanation is the rebels believe they can influence things - in a bad way for Leave. I don't believe Soubry for one would ever vote to accept any deal which results in us leaving. Labour would be pleased to vote against and blame the splits in the Tory party for it.
If nothing else, they can delay things more.
if I were a fanatic Remainer, my cunning plan would be to rubbish our negotiations, complain it's all too difficult, make it as difficult as possible and hope with the media advantage to erode the will to leave.
I don't think I'd have the brass neck to claim it's all on behalf of democracy, though.
Mr Meeks is still in his Mr Hyde mode. Dr Jekyll may not return for some time.
I'm a Tory activist, and the rest of your post proceeds from a false premise.
Given the average age of Conservative members, is "activist" appropriate terminology anymore, excepting yourself of course?
Not that old chesnut.
The average age of Conservative Party members is 57 – four years older than Labour ones.
As you well know, that is an estimate, not a fact.
As it was concocted from a YouGov survey, it seems plausible to assume that it would have missed out the majority of the oldest armchair Tory party members.
Bow Group estimates suggested the average age was 72 and that does seem more in line with common sense.
Comments
I may spend the next 5 years slating him - as with Gordon Brown - but I won't be bleating about the campaign if he kept within the rules.
No problems with remainers wailing about the doom of Brexit (still yet to happen..) but attempts to reverse the result - which was won fair and square - are pathetic.
Leavers and Remainers are both capable of not accepting a result.
I'm not saying one side is worse than the other, but pointing out that people don't accept losing anymore, be they leavers or remainers.
Moore looks to have lost the Alabama Senate election race which took place Tuesday. With 99 percent of the vote in, NBC News projected Wednesday that Democrat Doug Jones was the winner with a margin of more than 20,000 votes.
But in an online video on Wednesday, Moore appeared to still be resisting any concession to Jones, insisting that there was still a chance he could win the closely-run vote.
"In this race, we have not received the final count to include military and provisional ballots. This has been a very close race and we are awaiting certification by the Secretary of State," he said in the video.
In the rest of the message, Moore said he was "concerned about the future of our country — both financially and morally." He then continued to speak on abortion, homosexuality, drugs, transgender rights and materialism, saying "immorality sweeps over our land."
"Today, we no longer recognize the universal truth that God is the author of our life and liberty," he said in the video.
"Abortion, sodomy, and materialism have taken the place of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/14/roy-moore-rails-against-us-immorality-in-4-minute-youtube-video.html
You're a Tory voter. What do the Tories gain from the rebels' victory? The government is seen to be weaker, the EU negotiators gain confidence, and Jezza can crow about his victory.
The only explanation is the rebels believe they can influence things - in a bad way for Leave. I don't believe Soubry for one would ever vote to accept any deal which results in us leaving. Labour would be pleased to vote against and blame the splits in the Tory party for it.
If nothing else, they can delay things more.
if I were a fanatic Remainer, my cunning plan would be to rubbish our negotiations, complain it's all too difficult, make it as difficult as possible and hope with the media advantage to erode the will to leave.
I don't think I'd have the brass neck to claim it's all on behalf of democracy, though.
Mr Meeks is still in his Mr Hyde mode. Dr Jekyll may not return for some time.
So the whole right to govern thing falls down when we the public don't give anyone a mandate. Which we didn't last time round, to @Richard_Nabavi's endless chagrin.
There have been many referendums in history which have taken bad decisions based on incomplete information - a case can certainly be made that the EU referendum has done the same.
Clarity is blurred by the conflation between principles and virtue signalling. Cyber bullying muddies waters and along with peer group pressure, are we actually allowed to say what we think. If it engenders a negative and vitriolic reaction is it best unsaid?
Just glad I'm no longer a youngster!
It comes over as being deliberately misleading.
Given our economy is just over 7 times the size of Norway's, the equivalent calculation would be about 2.9bn euros. It's a scale error similar to the 350-million-bus one, and comes across as being quite as deliberate.
That's going to be a fun debate.
Remain was a wide spectrum of views. I suspect that a goodly percentage of the remain vote was "well, I don't like the EU, I don't want to become part of a federal superstate, but I don't want to risk the economic pain of separation - that's more important to me." Still more would have found Dave's semi-detached deal acceptable, others were OK with the status quo. Some, nobly, believed we could reform from within.
Most leavers and remainers voted out of what they felt was a duty to their country. I am proud to have voted with what I felt were my country's best interests at heart, and as such, have a clean conscience.
Importantly: I believe the vast majority of people who voted remain can say the same thing.
However, Max is right that there is one particular word that describes those whose allegiance is to the EU *over and above* their country, just as it would have been once for those looking to subvert democracy and have the UK become a satellite of the USSR.
I'll refrain from using it - because it stirs up too much emotion - nonetheless, it is hard to think of a more appropriate word for those who are willing to try every trick in the book to drag us kicking and screaming into a federal superstate, an outcome which has been roundly rejected by the electorate. And make no mistake - that is the ultimate destination of EU membership. To say otherwise is a far bigger lie than anything that's been written on the side of a bus.
Need some pretty explicit wording/quoting here pls.
You speak as though the result of the referendum was clear, there was a small majority for Leave but no clear agreement on what that means.
The average age of Conservative Party members is 57 – four years older than Labour ones.
https://fullfact.org/news/how-old-average-conservative-party-member/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMA_No._1
The exact same words often appear in each case!
'Sore losers' are on both sides, look at the "Enemies of the People" front page, Gina Miller death threats, etc. Like "I should be able to live and do business in the UK but hide my wealth offshore"? How many pro-Leave MPs have been killed in the street?
How many articles criticising "Remoaners" as "Traitors"?
Polarisation has two sides. ......
Edit: if he believes the UK should become part of an EU superstate (and I've no idea if that is the case) that doesn't mean his allegiance is not to the UK or is to the EU over the UK (cf. Scotland).
Suspect Sky will be changing.
Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox has agreed to sell its entertainment assets to Disney in a $66bn (£49bn) deal that transforms his media empire by offloading a 39% stake in Sky.
The takeover involves the 86-year-old tycoon and his family taking a 5% stake in Disney with assets including the 20th Century Fox film studio, the controlling stake in Britain’s biggest pay-TV broadcaster and a number of cable channels going in the other direction. Murdoch will retain control of the profitable, and controversial, Fox News channel.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/dec/14/rupert-murdochs-60bn-disney-deal-reshapes-his-media-empire?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
"Although 57 (Conservative average age) is heading towards the retirement age, SNP, Labour, and Lib Dem members aren’t much younger. Their members’ average ages are 54, 53 and 52 respectively, according to the Queen Mary research.
What this tells us is that “People who join political parties are abnormal”, Professor Bale says."
Of course I am at the other extreme. I would like to see the breakup of the UK into its constituent countries. For anyone who values the UK over England or Scotland I would be a traitor I suppose.
Reports also say both threatened to resign if Mrs May kept FOM.
Not sure they see it in those terms. They (I imagine) are very comfortable being Scottish patriots, and also are very happy to be part of the UK. Don't you agree?
If Corbo wins fair and square I will spend 5 years slagging off his bonkers policies - loudly.
But I won't be appealing to the high court to overrule the GE if he wins within the rules.
So I would prefer to avoid bandying the T-word about with regards to specific people. However, if you look at the wider debate on Twitter and soforth you will find people who believe passionately in a federal superstate.
It is my view that anyone who wishes to see the UK's democratic institutions destroyed by being folded into a federal superstate should be regarded in the same way as communists who wished the UK to become part of the USSR - that their allegiance is to a foreign power and a hostile one at that. Therefore the T-word can be appropriate, although it should be used sparingly, especially when disloyal or misguided would do.
I think even the most fanatical remainers believe they have the country's best interests at heart, although it is also my view that remaining in the EU will lead us into a federal superstate that will destroy centuries of hard won democratic freedom.
A federal superstate is the stated end goal of the EU as stated by many key figures - Martin Schulz said he wanted "a united states of Europe by 2025" only last week. And in my view the meaning of "ever closer union" is clear. How else do you define it?
Thus I find it hard to square the circle between voting in what you think are the best interests of your country and choosing an outcome that will see it destroyed.
LDEM: 37.8% (+37.8)
CON: 35.0% (-6.5)
LAB: 21.5% (-4.6)
GRN: 5.7% (+5.7)
Newtown & St Leonard's (Exeter) result:
LAB: 54.6% (+1.2)
CON: 26.8% (+1.5)
LDEM: 9.4% (+9.4)
GRN: 7.2% (-5.7)
UKIP: 2.1% (-3.2)
They took votes away from other parties in the Borough Council election as follows:
Con -6 Lab -11 Lib Dem – 28
Full figures
Town: LD 294 Con 252 Lab 162 (winning margin 42)
Borough: LD 266 Con 246 Lab 151 Green 40 (winning margin 20)
The UK has a border with schengen.
If Turkey has a deal with Schengen allowing for unimpeded tourist transit then, de facto, the Turkish border is the only check between the UK and Syria/Iraq.
It's misleading but within the norms of political knockabout
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQ4XmrjWkAYkWAY.jpg
Today they're doing the job themselves.
I'm still bitter they got away with flagrantly changing leadership election rules to hurt Corbyn, like changing the cooling off period before new members could vote. Blair's election it was two weeks, Miliband's four weeks, Corbyn's first election two weeks, his second election nine months backdated. The thousands of spurious suspensions etc.
If you dislike these 11 Tory Remainers, you'll understand why some want to deselect this lot who are just waiting for another chance to stick the knife in at the first spot of bother.
/grumble over.
But can I recommend to any stressed or depressed PB'ers that a couple of hours in the garden, pruning, mulching, viewing the growth of spring bulbs and winter-flowering bushes (my viburnum and hollies are full of colour) not to mention the bizarre sight of two spring-flowering clematis in flower) and generally enjoying the fresh air, as I have just been doing, is enough to soothe the most fractious soul.
I have also decorated the Xmas tree and this afternoon will be setting up our magnificent Neapolitan crib, complete with proper Neapolitan pizza makers (no pineapple anywhere in our crib, I can assure you!) before sinking into a comfy sofa in front of a proper fire to watch The Crown.
There is more to life than politics........
**.....runs and hides.....**
The highlighted his belief - which underpinned the deceleration of independence - that "good government can only exist with the explicit consent of the people"
This is the root cause of the vote to Leave - the view that the EU today is not the EU we voted to join (even if some argue the end destination was always know I think it still fails the "explicit consent" criteria) and that we were not asked to re-endorse the decision along the way.
It's also at the root of why there is such a hostile reaction to what are perceived as attempts to create the ability to frustrate the outcome of the referendum. There is a fundamental lack of trust that Remainers - who decry the referendum, the campaign, the result and the subsequent negotiation - will not try to ignore the result if they had half a chance
(Oooh!! I really am going to have to hide now.......)
In my view Dover/Calais is a border
It's quite possible that we - like Switzerland, Norway or Turkey - pays money to be a member of Erasmus down the line. (I think there's also a very good case for continuing to be a member of Gallileo.)
But personally I think the best way to ensure that well being is to make sure that our political representatives are close and answerable to us. That, for me, means nation states rather than larger federal (or other) agglomerations. The more remote our governing institutions are, the less accountable and representative they become which is good for no one - except the elites themselves of course. It is why I think a Federal EU is not in our interests and also don't believe that the United Kingdom is necessarily in the interests of Scotland.
Firstly, the government did recommend something in the referendum but whereas usually the alternative is 'no change', here it wasn't. That was unusual.
Secondly, even if the government had been advocating Brexit, while it could have put forward a preferred model (as indeed it since has, if in general terms), it still couldn't guarantee the delivery of that because it was dependent on the other EU members.
Thirdly, there wasn't the usual possibility of having a referendum at the end to endorse the process because once A50 is triggered, there's no ability return to the status quo ante (well, there is but the process is so politically unlikely - most likely involving a simultaneous application to rejoin at the moment of exit - that it can be discounted).
Brexit, even had it been the government's plan, would always have been something of a leap in the dark. But to start that process was such a big step that it was nonetheless right that it was put to a public vote.
This whole lovely picture of rational individuals working out their will, then cohering into 'the people' with a popular will that can be expressed through parliament - surely we all know by now our state just doesn't work that way.
In fact, I don't see how this is any different to the argument in favour of leaving the EU. Anyone in this country under the age of 43, by an accident of birth etc., has been a part of that institution for their entire lives. Choosing to seek another path away from it isn't "treachery". The institutions of the (modern) UK state are roughly 5-6 times older, but that's nothing in the great scheme of things.
As it was concocted from a YouGov survey, it seems plausible to assume that it would have missed out the majority of the oldest armchair Tory party members.
Bow Group estimates suggested the average age was 72 and that does seem more in line with common sense.