JRM is a class act. Must be raising his profile in a positive way after last night.
I thought it was very impressive (if perhaps foolish) the way he tried to talk to those protestors.
He definitely handled himself better than the usual whining politicians. Even today he was saying they were well justified to protest etc and not whining and crying like the usual big babies when they are asked tough questions. Perhaps under that poncy exterior is a real politician.
Brexit is a flaming bag left by the voters on the doorstep of Downing Street, and the Brexit Ultras in the Tory party are complaining that the PM isn't stamping hard enough
There is no "good" Brexit. There is only minimising the mess.
There is no good Brexit for you because you dont accept democracy.Actually Brexit is wonderful. It means that the UK is independent from the Orwellian superstate of the EU. You think we should be under the control of a foreign power -fine. But remember people died to prevent that.
But, Brexit isn't really about that. For the most fervent campaigners, on both sides, it's about values and principles, which is why it's so visceral.
Not just the fervent. The decision on how to vote was often based on 'values' - not economic calculus - which is why i) so few have changed their minds, either way, ii) Project Fear didn't work and iii)Project Fear 2 won't work either.....
But equally the divide is going to persist.
The divide has been there for a long time - just this time the "wrong" people won.
The over 40's outvoted the under 40's, the working classes outvoted the middle classes, and nationalists outvoted internationalists.
It's a bit trickier than this. The substantive negotiations are AFTER we leave and probably won't be finished by the end of the current transition period. For this to work, people need to have a clear idea of what Leave means in practice and decide they don't like it. That won't happen until well into the transition period. Having said that, if we indicate we might want to stay in the EU and the EU are happy to go along with it, they will agree to extend the transition until we make up our minds. So it could be Leave with cliff edge or Remain(rejoin) with continuity, thereby shifting nervous people to Remain.
Don't underestimate the difference between 'rejoin via an incomplete transition' and 'remain'. Rejoining means a full accession treaty, to be signed off by all other member states and their parliaments; remaining 'just' means finding some process within the rules that prevents A50 from becoming fully activated and getting agreement from the Council. A full accession treaty opens up all the questions about whether the UK could retain its former opt-outs.
Correct. Rejoining is a "mixed treaty" that requires ratification by all EU27 governments. What people haven't taken on board is that any "transition period" extension also requires ratification by all EU27 governments. We will definitely need another one. A sensible UK government would aim to build a mechanism into the A50 WA to allow the parties to extend on A50 terms. This one doesn't because of the message that would be sent. Given that the transition/extension will the be the critical issue and it will be a huge mess, the extra work to "rejoin" on current terms is probably not a huge extra step. It could be beneficial because it includes that all important extension.
I am not saying we will rejoin/effectively never leave the EU, but with Edmund's idea I can see a realistic pathway to doing so.
Putting aside our minor disagreement on independence Angus Robertson was a decent sort who made interesting contributions at PMQs which rarely got the attention or consideration that they deserved. The SNP had a long string of people who would have been missed rather less.
on A50 being revocable, which is untested legal territory
There is a petition at the High Court in Edinburgh this week seeking to test it
There is. But that doesn't change the fact that it remains untested so far. In any case, the best that the petition might get is a referral to the ECJ. Even if they achieve that, it's entirely possible that the European Court won't rule quickly enough for it to influence the UK's exit.
JRM is a class act. Must be raising his profile in a positive way after last night.
He's certainly an upper class act!
Nice one Ben - but he is becoming a genuine prospect for the leadership.
Good on him for trying to talk down last night’s protesters. But making unfounded accusations against civil servants unable to defend themselves is far less impressive.
Putting aside our minor disagreement on independence Angus Robertson was a decent sort who made interesting contributions at PMQs which rarely got the attention or consideration that they deserved. The SNP had a long string of people who would have been missed rather less.
Running down the boroughs, i'd rate the Conservatives' chances at 99% in Bromley and Bexley, 80% in Havering, 75% in Hillingdon, 66% in Wandsworth and Westminster, 60% in Barnet, 50% in Richmond, Kingston and Sutton, 20% in Harrow. I can't make any assessment about Kensington.
FWIW the Standard has become sharply critical of Labour again, and has had a go at Khan, who they've largely left in peace since he was elected, on the entirely spurious grounds that he's swung left to avoid being deselected (he is in reality 101% certain of reselection). They still rubbish the Government at every opportunity, but if readers are paying attention the message seems to be to vote anti-Labour locally, worry about the next General Election later. Because the Standard doesn't routinely advertise its politics, it's arguably more effective than the Mail, the most hardened readers of which might say "There they go agani" on their political coverage.
The fact that it's even being discussed is indicative of what a shit show Brexit has become. Even leaving aside the question of whether Brexit is a good or not (it's not) or whether it's even possible to have a good Brexit (it's not) the whole thing was made much more difficult by having DD in charge of it. He is too old, lazy, stupid and pissed for an epoch defining and transformational challenge like Brexit.
Your first sentence may or may not be true - I am inclined to the former - but it does not meet David's arguments as to why a second referendum is unlikely to happen. As to your second sentence (and avoiding the potentially libellous elements), I'd be interested to hear your comments as to whether or not a 77-year-old Kenneth Clarke would be materially better than a 69-year-old David Davis (or for that matter a 61-year-old Theresa May or 68-year-old Jeremy Corbyn). Is there an age by which senilitude renders all of us unfit for office? Or do you have an ad personam basis for the suggestion that David Davis is "too old"?
I would put an age limit on being a MP or someone being able to vote in elections. The logical figure would be 75 which I believe is the exemption age for jury service. If we exclude from voting the under 18s then it is reasonable to apply an upper age limit.
Why? (I'm not being rude by my terseness, just interested.)
My thoughts were in relation to the comment "is there an age by which senilitude renders all of us unfit for office". A logical extension to this would be "is there an age by which senilitude renders us unfit to choose those who seek office". As one can see 75 is considered too old, by their exclusion from jury service, to be able to make consistent, logical and rational decisions then surely we ought to treat voting in the same way? If not then why not?
No taxation without representation. That’s why not.
Unless you’re also proposing that those over 75 should pay no income tax, council tax or inheritance tax or VAT......
JRM is a class act. Must be raising his profile in a positive way after last night.
He's certainly an upper class act!
Nice one Ben - but he is becoming a genuine prospect for the leadership.
Good on him for trying to talk down last night’s protesters. But making unfounded accusations against civil servants unable to defend themselves is far less impressive.
He said this morning that George Osborne distrusted the civil service post Gordon Brown and introduced the OBR for that specific reason and there is no reason to believe that anything has changed with them since those days.
on A50 being revocable, which is untested legal territory
There is a petition at the High Court in Edinburgh this week seeking to test it
There is. But that doesn't change the fact that it remains untested so far. In any case, the best that the petition might get is a referral to the ECJ. Even if they achieve that, it's entirely possible that the European Court won't rule quickly enough for it to influence the UK's exit.
The EU Commission has already said that they believe the only court able to make a decision on whether or not A50 is revocable is the ECJ. As you say the court case really is a waste of time and money to the extent that whatever the ruling it is bound to end up with the ECJ anyway.
Brexit is a flaming bag left by the voters on the doorstep of Downing Street, and the Brexit Ultras in the Tory party are complaining that the PM isn't stamping hard enough
There is no "good" Brexit. There is only minimising the mess.
There is no good Brexit for you because you dont accept democracy.Actually Brexit is wonderful. It means that the UK is independent from the Orwellian superstate of the EU. You think we should be under the control of a foreign power -fine. But remember people died to prevent that.
But, Brexit isn't really about that. For the most fervent campaigners, on both sides, it's about values and principles, which is why it's so visceral.
Not just the fervent. The decision on how to vote was often based on 'values' - not economic calculus - which is why i) so few have changed their minds, either way, ii) Project Fear didn't work and iii)Project Fear 2 won't work either.....
But equally the divide is going to persist.
The divide has been there for a long time - just this time the "wrong" people won.
The over 40's outvoted the under 40's, the working classes outvoted the middle classes, and nationalists outvoted internationalists.
The non-workers outvoted the workers.
Workers split about 50/50, unless one counts students as workers.
Putting aside our minor disagreement on independence Angus Robertson was a decent sort who made interesting contributions at PMQs which rarely got the attention or consideration that they deserved. The SNP had a long string of people who would have been missed rather less.
Agree - he often asked the most astute questions at PMQs (when he wasn’t going on about you know what...) I hope nothing sinister lies behind his abrupt departure.
JRM is a class act. Must be raising his profile in a positive way after last night.
He's certainly an upper class act!
Nice one Ben - but he is becoming a genuine prospect for the leadership.
Good on him for trying to talk down last night’s protesters. But making unfounded accusations against civil servants unable to defend themselves is far less impressive.
He said this morning that George Osborne distrusted the civil service post Gordon Brown and introduced the OBR for that specific reason and there is no reason to believe that anything has changed with them since those days.
Fair comment ?
Has he withdrawn his specific accusations?
He might want to check out the OBR’s Brexit projections.
on A50 being revocable, which is untested legal territory
There is a petition at the High Court in Edinburgh this week seeking to test it
There is. But that doesn't change the fact that it remains untested so far. In any case, the best that the petition might get is a referral to the ECJ. Even if they achieve that, it's entirely possible that the European Court won't rule quickly enough for it to influence the UK's exit.
I really don't get the timing on this either. If Lord Docherty rules in favour of a full hearing (as I think he will) there will be a few months before that hearing is held. It is then very likely to go to Avizandum, for a written decision some months after that. If the decision is for a remit there is very likely to be an appeal to the Inner House which again will take some months. Even if there is no further appeal to the Supreme Court (which requires leave) by the parties, the Court then has to draft the remit with input from the parties, particularly about the questions which are to be put. In my limited experience this also is not a quick process. Once the question is sent to the CJE there has to be a fairly lengthy procedure during which interested parties, which in this case is likely to include the Commission and quite a number of Member States, can make representations. An Opinion is then produced by the Advocate General and somewhat later a decision by the Judges themselves.
Somewhere in the middle of this lengthy process, even without falling at any of the hurdles, the UK is likely to have left.
on A50 being revocable, which is untested legal territory
There is a petition at the High Court in Edinburgh this week seeking to test it
There is. But that doesn't change the fact that it remains untested so far. In any case, the best that the petition might get is a referral to the ECJ. Even if they achieve that, it's entirely possible that the European Court won't rule quickly enough for it to influence the UK's exit.
The EU Commission has already said that they believe the only court able to make a decision on whether or not A50 is revocable is the ECJ. As you say the court case really is a waste of time and money to the extent that whatever the ruling it is bound to end up with the ECJ anyway.
Why? If the council accept the revocation who is going to challenge it?
JRM is a class act. Must be raising his profile in a positive way after last night.
He's certainly an upper class act!
Nice one Ben - but he is becoming a genuine prospect for the leadership.
Good on him for trying to talk down last night’s protesters. But making unfounded accusations against civil servants unable to defend themselves is far less impressive.
He said this morning that George Osborne distrusted the civil service post Gordon Brown and introduced the OBR for that specific reason and there is no reason to believe that anything has changed with them since those days.
Fair comment ?
Has he withdrawn his specific accusations?
He might want to check out the OBR’s Brexit projections.
I do not know but that is his comments today on Sky news
The fact that it's even being discussed is indicative of what a shit show Brexit has become. Even leaving aside the question of whether Brexit is a good or not (it's not) or whether it's even possible to have a good Brexit (it's not) the whole thing was made much more difficult by having DD in charge of it. He is too old, lazy, stupid and pissed for an epoch defining and transformational challenge like Brexit.
Your first sentence may or may not be true - I am inclined to the former - but it does not meet David's arguments as to why a second referendum is unlikely to happen. As to your second sentence (and avoiding the potentially libellous elements), I'd be interested to hear your comments as to whether or not a 77-year-old Kenneth Clarke would be materially better than a 69-year-old David Davis (or for that matter a 61-year-old Theresa May or 68-year-old Jeremy Corbyn). Is there an age by which senilitude renders all of us unfit for office? Or do you have an ad personam basis for the suggestion that David Davis is "too old"?
I would put an age limit on being a MP or someone being able to vote in elections. The logical figure would be 75 which I believe is the exemption age for jury service. If we exclude from voting the under 18s then it is reasonable to apply an upper age limit.
Why? (I'm not being rude by my terseness, just interested.)
My thoughts were in relation to the comment "is there an age by which senilitude renders all of us unfit for office". A logical extension to this would be "is there an age by which senilitude renders us unfit to choose those who seek office". As one can see 75 is considered too old, by their exclusion from jury service, to be able to make consistent, logical and rational decisions then surely we ought to treat voting in the same way? If not then why not?
No taxation without representation. That’s why not.
Unless you’re also proposing that those over 75 should pay no income tax, council tax or inheritance tax or VAT......
Surely only the dead pay inheritance tax? and I would want to discourage the dead from voting.
on A50 being revocable, which is untested legal territory
There is a petition at the High Court in Edinburgh this week seeking to test it
There is. But that doesn't change the fact that it remains untested so far. In any case, the best that the petition might get is a referral to the ECJ. Even if they achieve that, it's entirely possible that the European Court won't rule quickly enough for it to influence the UK's exit.
The EU Commission has already said that they believe the only court able to make a decision on whether or not A50 is revocable is the ECJ. As you say the court case really is a waste of time and money to the extent that whatever the ruling it is bound to end up with the ECJ anyway.
Why? If the council accept the revocation who is going to challenge it?
I'm sure it would be theoretically possible to pay for and organise sending out ballots by post to every household, and also for someone to count them. But would both the format and the voting method be politically acceptable and legally watertight?
Either way the vote went, it would be open to all sorts of challenges on the grounds of potential fraud and manipulation. It wouldn't settle anything and would just make divisions and cries of betrayal worse.
Any second referendum not held on precisely the same basis as the first is asking for trouble.
This came up in Australia last year. The courts held the postal referendum to be lawful.
Whether it settled anything would depend on the margin. As I have said repeatedly on this thread, I don't see any case for a second referendum at present precisely because it would settle nothing.
Australia has just held a postal referendum without legislation. Can't see why that wouldn't work here.
Would it be brilliant? No. Would it do the trick? Probably.
That was a glorified opinion poll and was subject to legal challenge. The same would apply here, it would be an almighty mess and would not be viewed as having the same legitimacy as a referendum legislated for by parliament.
Could it happen? Yes. Would it create more problems than it would solve? Yes.
If a referendum happens it will be underpinned by legislation. If you'd like a wager on it I'd be very happy to oblige.
No bet. In the unlikely event that a second referendum was politically required, the threat of a postal referendum would be used as the stick to beat the donkeys into waving a referendum bill quickly through Parliament. This threat would probably work.
My point is that David Herdson's logic doesn't hold up because an Act of Parliament isn't absolutely necessary. If speed ever becomes of the essence, a means will be found.
It's a bit trickier than this. The substantive negotiations are AFTER we leave and probably won't be finished by the end of the current transition period. For this to work, people need to have a clear idea of what Leave means in practice and decide they don't like it. That won't happen until well into the transition period. Having said that, if we indicate we might want to stay in the EU and the EU are happy to go along with it, they will agree to extend the transition until we make up our minds. So it could be Leave with cliff edge or Remain(rejoin) with continuity, thereby shifting nervous people to Remain.
Don't underestimate the difference between 'rejoin via an incomplete transition' and 'remain'. Rejoining means a full accession treaty, to be signed off by all other member states and their parliaments; remaining 'just' means finding some process within the rules that prevents A50 from becoming fully activated and getting agreement from the Council. A full accession treaty opens up all the questions about whether the UK could retain its former opt-outs.
Correct. Rejoining is a "mixed treaty" that requires ratification by all EU27 governments. What people haven't taken on board is that any "transition period" extension also requires ratification by all EU27 governments. We will definitely need another one. A sensible UK government would aim to build a mechanism into the A50 WA to allow the parties to extend on A50 terms. This one doesn't because of the message that would be sent. Given that the transition/extension will the be the critical issue and it will be a huge mess, the extra work to "rejoin" on current terms is probably not a huge extra step. It could be beneficial because it includes that all important extension.
I am not saying we will rejoin/effectively never leave the EU, but with Edmund's idea I can see a realistic pathway to doing so.
If we have not agreed a formal extension to the negotiations by March 2019 then we will Leave anyway. Since nothing will have been formally agreed and ratified by that point (in those circumstances) then it is debatable whether the transition period will even exist. As far as the Lisbon Treaty is concerned at that point we are no longer members of the EU and negotiations under Article 50 are void.
Just to make clear I am not saying this is a good thing, but that is I believe the legal position.
Running down the boroughs, i'd rate the Conservatives' chances at 99% in Bromley and Bexley, 80% in Havering, 75% in Hillingdon, 66% in Wandsworth and Westminster, 60% in Barnet, 50% in Richmond, Kingston and Sutton, 20% in Harrow. I can't make any assessment about Kensington.
FWIW the Standard has become sharply critical of Labour again, and has had a go at Khan, who they've largely left in peace since he was elected, on the entirely spurious grounds that he's swung left to avoid being deselected (he is in reality 101% certain of reselection). They still rubbish the Government at every opportunity, but if readers are paying attention the message seems to be to vote anti-Labour locally, worry about the next General Election later. Because the Standard doesn't routinely advertise its politics, it's arguably more effective than the Mail, the most hardened readers of which might say "There they go agani" on their political coverage.
The Standard under Osborne is a lot more balanced than it used to be, probably because Osborne can’t pretend to be anything other than what he is. But it’s still clearly what it’s alwsys been: a Tory paper. But with fewer reporters and pages dedicated to politics, I am not sure it will be as decisive as it has been in previous London elections.
on A50 being revocable, which is untested legal territory
There is a petition at the High Court in Edinburgh this week seeking to test it
There is. But that doesn't change the fact that it remains untested so far. In any case, the best that the petition might get is a referral to the ECJ. Even if they achieve that, it's entirely possible that the European Court won't rule quickly enough for it to influence the UK's exit.
The EU Commission has already said that they believe the only court able to make a decision on whether or not A50 is revocable is the ECJ. As you say the court case really is a waste of time and money to the extent that whatever the ruling it is bound to end up with the ECJ anyway.
Why? If the council accept the revocation who is going to challenge it?
Anyone in the EU would have that right. That would include anyone in the UK. You really think someone would NOT take it to the ECJ?
Putting aside our minor disagreement on independence Angus Robertson was a decent sort who made interesting contributions at PMQs which rarely got the attention or consideration that they deserved. The SNP had a long string of people who would have been missed rather less.
Agree - he often asked the most astute questions at PMQs (when he wasn’t going on about you know what...) I hope nothing sinister lies behind his abrupt departure.
JRM is a class act. Must be raising his profile in a positive way after last night.
He's certainly an upper class act!
Nice one Ben - but he is becoming a genuine prospect for the leadership.
Good on him for trying to talk down last night’s protesters. But making unfounded accusations against civil servants unable to defend themselves is far less impressive.
He said this morning that George Osborne distrusted the civil service post Gordon Brown and introduced the OBR for that specific reason and there is no reason to believe that anything has changed with them since those days.
Fair comment ?
Has he withdrawn his specific accusations?
He might want to check out the OBR’s Brexit projections.
I do not know but that is his comments today on Sky news
The fact that it's even being discussed is indicative of what a shit show Brexit has become. Even leaving aside the question of whether Brexit is a good or not (it's not) or whether it's even possible to have a good Brexit (it's not) the whole thing was made much more difficult by having DD in charge of it. He is too old, lazy, stupid and pissed for an epoch defining and transformational challenge like Brexit.
Your first sentence may or may not be true - I am inclined to the former - but it does not meet David's arguments as to why a second referendum is unlikely to happen. As to your second sentence (and avoiding the potentially libellous elements), I'd be interested to hear your comments as to whether or not a 77-year-old Kenneth Clarke would be materially better than a 69-year-old David Davis (or for that matter a 61-year-old Theresa May or 68-year-old Jeremy Corbyn). Is there an age by which senilitude renders all of us unfit for office? Or do you have an ad personam basis for the suggestion that David Davis is "too old"?
I would put an age limit on being a MP or someone being able to vote in elections. The logical figure would be 75 which I believe is the exemption age for jury service. If we exclude from voting the under 18s then it is reasonable to apply an upper age limit.
Why? (I'm not being rude by my terseness, just interested.)
My thoughts were in relation to the comment "is there an age by which senilitude renders all of us unfit for office". A logical extension to this would be "is there an age by which senilitude renders us unfit to choose those who seek office". As one can see 75 is considered too old, by their exclusion from jury service, to be able to make consistent, logical and rational decisions then surely we ought to treat voting in the same way? If not then why not?
No taxation without representation. That’s why not.
Unless you’re also proposing that those over 75 should pay no income tax, council tax or inheritance tax or VAT......
Surely only the dead pay inheritance tax? and I would want to discourage the dead from voting.
ii) Project Fear didn't work and iii)Project Fear 2 won't work either.....
I see the Unionist attempt to expunge the original Project Fear from their memories is well under way.
True , they were happy for Project Fear for our Scottish friends .In fact on here , they cheered it on day after day..
Indeed, the real disaster of the Scottish Referendum campaign may have been that Cameron and Osborne were persuaded such a strategy would work, so they doubled down on it. The legacy had it not been for the SNPs misfortunes in 2017 might easily have been an independent Scotland.
It nearly did work for the referendum in 2016.In my humble opinion , I was undecided to the last minute but voted remain because of it.However I believe a lot of Labour supporters voted leave to give Cameron a kicking, not clever in the circumstances , but that is the problem with referendums , people vote for differing reasons to the question asked.
People felt free to vote to kick Cameron, because everybody was sure that Remain would win. The whole referendum idea was stupid from the beginning.
Not everyone. There are a few of us on PB who were certain enough that Leave would win that we bet accordingly.
You only bet when you're certain of the outcome?
I bet on leave, a week out @ 3/1 as the value side of a coinflip. I also lost, backing leave 55%+ @ >20/1 just after the Sunderland result.
Both were value bets and I regret neither. I've learnt to resist the urge to weave my winning bets, my political convictions and actual political outcomes into an "i woz right, and my bets prove it" narrative, however tempting....
JRM is a class act. Must be raising his profile in a positive way after last night.
He's certainly an upper class act!
Nice one Ben - but he is becoming a genuine prospect for the leadership.
Good on him for trying to talk down last night’s protesters. But making unfounded accusations against civil servants unable to defend themselves is far less impressive.
He said this morning that George Osborne distrusted the civil service post Gordon Brown and introduced the OBR for that specific reason and there is no reason to believe that anything has changed with them since those days.
Fair comment ?
Has he withdrawn his specific accusations?
He might want to check out the OBR’s Brexit projections.
I do not know but that is his comments today on Sky news
It really hurts to write this as a United fan but it is a genuine privilege to watch this City side play. Pep has produced another truly remarkable side.
on A50 being revocable, which is untested legal territory
There is a petition at the High Court in Edinburgh this week seeking to test it
There is. But that doesn't change the fact that it remains untested so far. In any case, the best that the petition might get is a referral to the ECJ. Even if they achieve that, it's entirely possible that the European Court won't rule quickly enough for it to influence the UK's exit.
The EU Commission has already said that they believe the only court able to make a decision on whether or not A50 is revocable is the ECJ. As you say the court case really is a waste of time and money to the extent that whatever the ruling it is bound to end up with the ECJ anyway.
Why? If the council accept the revocation who is going to challenge it?
Anyone. It may not even be a UK citizen. If a decision in the Council or Parliament is swayed one way or the other on British votes, anyone who objects to the measure (or to the rejection of the measure) could appeal that the wrong decision was reached.
Or it may be a Brit who takes a prosecution against them for breach of European law to the ECJ, on the basis that European law no longer applies to them.
Or it could be *any* UK case that ends up at the European Courts which prompts the justices to face the question as to whether they have jurisdiction to hear the case.
It really hurts to write this as a United fan but it is a genuine privilege to watch this City side play. Pep has produced another truly remarkable side.
He is a brilliant coach - give him unlimited resources and he’ll put together a magical team. But we’ll never find out how good a manager he might be.
I'm sure it would be theoretically possible to pay for and organise sending out ballots by post to every household, and also for someone to count them. But would both the format and the voting method be politically acceptable and legally watertight?
Either way the vote went, it would be open to all sorts of challenges on the grounds of potential fraud and manipulation. It wouldn't settle anything and would just make divisions and cries of betrayal worse.
Any second referendum not held on precisely the same basis as the first is asking for trouble.
This came up in Australia last year. The courts held the postal referendum to be lawful.
Whether it settled anything would depend on the margin. As I have said repeatedly on this thread, I don't see any case for a second referendum at present precisely because it would settle nothing.
Australia has just held a postal referendum without legislation. Can't see why that wouldn't work here.
Would it be brilliant? No. Would it do the trick? Probably.
That was a glorified opinion poll and was subject to legal challenge. The same would apply here, it would be an almighty mess and would not be viewed as having the same legitimacy as a referendum legislated for by parliament.
Could it happen? Yes. Would it create more problems than it would solve? Yes.
If a referendum happens it will be underpinned by legislation. If you'd like a wager on it I'd be very happy to oblige.
No bet. In the unlikely event that a second referendum was politically required, the threat of a postal referendum would be used as the stick to beat the donkeys into waving a referendum bill quickly through Parliament. This threat would probably work.
My point is that David Herdson's logic doesn't hold up because an Act of Parliament isn't absolutely necessary. If speed ever becomes of the essence, a means will be found.
I have to agree with Alastair. None of this is going to happen without a very large swing in public opinion (which is why it's very unlikely), but given a situation where there was such a swing, a way would be found. To proceed with Brexit if (for instance) 60% of the electorate was opposing it would be untenable. To arrange a scratch referendum in those circumstances very easy.
It really hurts to write this as a United fan but it is a genuine privilege to watch this City side play. Pep has produced another truly remarkable side.
Agreed and they should present the trophy now.
It is 60 years ago on Tuesday that I returned home from school for my Grandmother to tell me my beloved 'babes' had been killed in a plane crash in Munich. The memory still brings a tear to my eye as the 'babes' were so young and talented and had the football world at their feet.
It was a national disaster and the tv pictures of Matt Busby in his oxygen tent, the subsequent death of Duncan Edwards 15 days later, the blank team sheets, and that years cup final v Bolton created the legend that is the greatest football club in the world
Correct. Rejoining is a "mixed treaty" that requires ratification by all EU27 governments. What people haven't taken on board is that any "transition period" extension also requires ratification by all EU27 governments. We will definitely need another one. A sensible UK government would aim to build a mechanism into the A50 WA to allow the parties to extend on A50 terms. This one doesn't because of the message that would be sent. Given that the transition/extension will the be the critical issue and it will be a huge mess, the extra work to "rejoin" on current terms is probably not a huge extra step. It could be beneficial because it includes that all important extension.
I am not saying we will rejoin/effectively never leave the EU, but with Edmund's idea I can see a realistic pathway to doing so.
If we have not agreed a formal extension to the negotiations by March 2019 then we will Leave anyway. Since nothing will have been formally agreed and ratified by that point (in those circumstances) then it is debatable whether the transition period will even exist. As far as the Lisbon Treaty is concerned at that point we are no longer members of the EU and negotiations under Article 50 are void.
Just to make clear I am not saying this is a good thing, but that is I believe the legal position.
That's correct. I was referring to an extension to the "transition" AFTER December 2020. We are currently aiming for a "Canada Plus" treaty. By the end of 2019 I believe we will realise a) we won't get a Canada deal before the "transition" runs out or indeed any time soon and b) it won't be a good deal anyway. Effectively we would commit to the obligations of Norway without the benefits, although there might some concessions on FoM and payments. We will be looking at the cliff edge again. My assumption up to now is that we will swing behind "Norway" at that point. I can now conceive we might effectively stay in the EU. The imperative at this point is put the Brexit thing to bed. Norway is a lot less drawn out than Canada. Effectively remaining in the EU is an immediate decision however. That might decide it. Even Norway requires a substantial negotiation and that won't even start under this scenario until we are heading into our second transition, ie in 2020.
The fact that it's even being discussed is indicative of what a shit show Brexit has become. Even leaving aside the question of whether Brexit is a good or not (it's not) or whether it's even possible to have a good Brexit (it's not) the whole thing was made much more difficult by having DD in charge of it. He is too old, lazy, stupid and pissed for an epoch defining and transformational challenge like Brexit.
Your first sentence may or may not be true - I am inclined to the former - but it does not meet David's arguments as to why a second referendum is unlikely to happen. As to your second sentence (and avoiding the potentially libellous elements), I'd be interested to hear your comments as to whether or not a 77-year-old Kenneth Clarke would be materially better than a 69-year-old David Davis (or for that matter a 61-year-old Theresa May or 68-year-old Jeremy Corbyn). Is there an age by which senilitude renders all of us unfit for office? Or do you have an ad personam basis for the suggestion that David Davis is "too old"?
I would put an age limit on being a MP or someone being able to vote in elections. The logical figure would be 75 which I believe is the exemption age for jury service. If we exclude from voting the under 18s then it is reasonable to apply an upper age limit.
Why? (I'm not being rude by my terseness, just interested.)
My thoughts were in relation to the comment "is there an age by which senilitude renders all of us unfit for office". A logical extension to this would be "is there an age by which senilitude renders us unfit to choose those who seek office". As one can see 75 is considered too old, by their exclusion from jury service, to be able to make consistent, logical and rational decisions then surely we ought to treat voting in the same way? If not then why not?
No taxation without representation. That’s why not.
Unless you’re also proposing that those over 75 should pay no income tax, council tax or inheritance tax or VAT......
Surely only the dead pay inheritance tax? and I would want to discourage the dead from voting.
Inheritance tax can, in some circumstances, be paid by the living. And it is paid by the estate of the person who has died so that person should have the vote, regardless of their age.
I do not see any basis for removing the vote from people because they have reached some arbitrary age. At the other end the vote should be given when people become legally adult - and we might want to equalise the laws about when that is since they are not consistent.
I am not "rottenborough" but as the thread has deteriorated yet again into BrexiteersWanking.com, it is one of the few questions here that I am inclined to answer. The reasons/events why I bet on political outcomes are:
1) when I feel that the event is reasonably certain to happen, and/or 2) when I wish to insure myself against the outcome, and/or 3) to keep my hand in
Betting is scary. As I work away from home I bet via High Street betting shops, which is traumatic: the counter staff are more used to £10 on a horse to win, instead of my usual three figures on a political event, and frequently experience cognitive stress and confusion - "we don't bet on the French President!" "Er, you do, see here (holds up screen print)" - requiring the back manager to be called in. Since the back manager is usually well-informed things usually proceed smoothly at that point, but it's not easy and makes a difficult situation - I am notoriously risk-averse with money - worse.
Brexit and Trump were two events which I thought had a high probability of happening and I wished to insure against them, so the bets on those were higher and the returns were higher. My 2016 profits were four figures.
The only times when I thought the election event was certain was the 201? French Presidential, when the far-left candidate had zero chance of winning but non-zero odds, and the 201? London Mayorality, when Khan was certain to win but non-zero odds. As the odds were low the returns were much lower for the stake. In the case of the French presidential it was my only use of spread betting and the potential losses were four figures, which caused considerable anxiety and leads me to eschew that method hereforward.
In the middle were the 2017 French presidential (Macron) and the 201? London mayorality (Boris), where I didn't care much for the outcome and it was more an academic exercise, a three-finger taradiddle to keep my hand in and show willing.
Things are a bit quiet at the moment: hitherto it's been more fun than serious, but to upgrade to try to ensure, say, four figures per year will require serious research commitment and I have time constraints (more than one job), so I don't know what will happen over the next year or two. I am aware that there are some punters who are very good at this (@DoubleCarpet (Paul Maggs) springs to mind, as does @isam, and of course @Dromedary won six figures in one night) so although become rich is unrealistic, getting enough for - say - a good laptop should be achievable. Plus there is also the intellectual challenge: political betting, unlike sports betting, has too few punters and too many emotionally-attached and wealthy punters to act as a perfect market and should be vulnerable to analysis.
But it's the old problem: too busy fencing to see the machine-gun salesman...
The fact that it's even being discussed is indicative of what a shit show Brexit has become. Even leaving aside the question of whether Brexit is a good or not (it's not) or whether it's even possible to have a good Brexit (it's not) the whole thing was made much more difficult by having DD in charge of it. He is too old, lazy, stupid and pissed for an epoch defining and transformational challenge like Brexit.
Your first sentence may or may not be true - I am inclined to the former - but it does not meet David's arguments as to why a second referendum is unlikely to happen. As to your second sentence (and avoiding the potentially libellous elements), I'd be interested to hear your comments as to whether or not a 77-year-old Kenneth Clarke would be materially better than a 69-year-old David Davis (or for that matter a 61-year-old Theresa May or 68-year-old Jeremy Corbyn). Is there an age by which senilitude renders all of us unfit for office? Or do you have an ad personam basis for the suggestion that David Davis is "too old"?
I would put an age limit on being a MP or someone being able to vote in elections. The logical figure would be 75 which I believe is the exemption age for jury service. If we exclude from voting the under 18s then it is reasonable to apply an upper age limit.
Why? (I'm not being rude by my terseness, just interested.)
My thoughts were in relation to the
No taxation without representation. That’s why not.
Unless you’re also proposing that those over 75 should pay no income tax, council tax or inheritance tax or VAT......
Surely only the dead pay inheritance tax? and I would want to discourage the dead from voting.
Inheritance tax can, in some circumstances, be paid by the living. And it is paid by the estate of the person who has died so that person should have the vote, regardless of their age.
I do not see any basis for removing yhe vote from people because they have reached some arbitrary age. At the other end the vote should be given when people become legally adult - and we might want to equalise the laws about when that is since they are not consistent.
I was just teasing but many taxpayers are denied the vote, such as foreign nationals, unless Irish or Commonwealth, or the young.
I would not put an age qualification on voting, though a mental capacity one may have its merits.
'To proceed with Brexit if 60 per cent of the electorate were opposed to it would be untenable'
Didn't stop Mrs Thatcher implementing her policies or Blair or many governments in our recent history?
On referendum night Populus issued a poll saying remain were going to win by 55 to 45 per cent. Not that far off 60 per cent. Should we have cancelled out the votes of 35 million people cast before 10pm because afterwards a poll came out saying remain was the preferred choice.
So in essence let's not bother having actual votes lets just let ICM or You gov decide. It would save a lot of money not hsving any more actual elections - we could spend the cash saved on the NHS!
Brexit is a flaming bag left by the voters on the doorstep of Downing Street, and the Brexit Ultras in the Tory party are complaining that the PM isn't stamping hard enough
There is no "good" Brexit. There is only minimising the mess.
There is no good Brexit for you because you dont accept democracy.Actually Brexit is wonderful. It means that the UK is independent from the Orwellian superstate of the EU. You think we should be under the control of a foreign power -fine. But remember people died to prevent that.
But, Brexit isn't really about that. For the most fervent campaigners, on both sides, it's about values and principles, which is why it's so visceral.
Not just the fervent. The decision on how to vote was often based on 'values' - not economic calculus - which is why i) so few have changed their minds, either way, ii) Project Fear didn't work and iii)Project Fear 2 won't work either.....
But equally the divide is going to persist.
The divide has been there for a long time - just this time the "wrong" people won.
The over 40's outvoted the under 40's, the working classes outvoted the middle classes, and nationalists outvoted internationalists.
'To proceed with Brexit if 60 per cent of the electorate were opposed to it would be untenable'
Didn't stop Mrs Thatcher implementing her policies or Blair or many governments in our recent history?
On referendum night Populus issued a poll saying remain were going to win by 55 to 45 per cent. Not that far off 60 per cents
Brexit is such a big project to initiate with such a low level of support is very unwise. The leavers should have stepped back and spent some time winning people around before they started. There was nothing about timing on the ballot paper. It would have been perfectly legitimate to have set an 8-10 year programme going. That would have enabled a proper debate, and it would have meant Brexit getting one or even two general election endorsements along the way.
He said this morning that George Osborne distrusted the civil service post Gordon Brown and introduced the OBR for that specific reason and there is no reason to believe that anything has changed with them since those days.
Fair comment ?
Um, point of order. The people who work for the OBR *are* civil servants - yes I know the body is operationally independent but that doesn't dictate how the staff are employed. I think they're even "badged-in". "Badged-in" is the practice where the staff in category X automatically become members of the requisite Government Service: so the statisticians become members of GSS, the operational researchers become members of GORS, and so on. This helps an enormous lot with professional accreditation.
Happy to be contradicted, but I think it's a false dichotomy.
'To proceed with Brexit if 60 per cent of the electorate were opposed to it would be untenable'
Didn't stop Mrs Thatcher implementing her policies or Blair or many governments in our recent history?
On referendum night Populus issued a poll saying remain were going to win by 55 to 45 per cent. Not that far off 60 per cents
Brexit is such a big project to initiate with such a low level of support is very unwise. The leavers should have stepped back and spent some time winning people around before they started. There was nothing about timing on the ballot paper. It would have been perfectly legitimate to have set an 8-10 year programme going. That would have enabled a proper debate, and it would have meant Brexit getting one or even two general election endorsements along the way.
It's not too late to switch to this plan.
We had a proper debate. It was the referendum.
The government of Cameron had pledged to invoke Article 50 the day after the referendum if Leave won so actually we have had a longer implementation already.
'To proceed with Brexit if 60 per cent of the electorate were opposed to it would be untenable'
Didn't stop Mrs Thatcher implementing her policies or Blair or many governments in our recent history?
On referendum night Populus issued a poll saying remain were going to win by 55 to 45 per cent. Not that far off 60 per cents
Brexit is such a big project to initiate with such a low level of support is very unwise. The leavers should have stepped back and spent some time winning people around before they started. There was nothing about timing on the ballot paper. It would have been perfectly legitimate to have set an 8-10 year programme going. That would have enabled a proper debate, and it would have meant Brexit getting one or even two general election endorsements along the way.
It's not too late to switch to this plan.
Overriding Brexit with such a low level of support is even more unwise. Forget the 52-48 Brexit result itself. We have had a much more recent poll where the people of the UK voted over 86% for parties committed to implementing Brexit. June 2016 in fact.
The party that wanted to give us a second referendum got 12 seats. I'll use that as my benchmark for just how unwise not implementing Brexit would be for democracy.
Brexit is a flaming bag left by the voters on the doorstep of Downing Street, and the Brexit Ultras in the Tory party are complaining that the PM isn't stamping hard enough
There is no "good" Brexit. There is only minimising the mess.
There is no good Brexit for you because you dont accept democracy.Actually Brexit is wonderful. It means that the UK is independent from the Orwellian superstate of the EU. You think we should be under the control of a foreign power -fine. But remember people died to prevent that.
But, Brexit isn't really about that. For the most fervent campaigners, on both sides, it's about values and principles, which is why it's so visceral.
Not just the fervent. The decision on how to vote was often based on 'values' - not economic calculus - which is why i) so few have changed their minds, either way, ii) Project Fear didn't work and iii)Project Fear 2 won't work either.....
But equally the divide is going to persist.
The divide has been there for a long time - just this time the "wrong" people won.
The over 40's outvoted the under 40's, the working classes outvoted the middle classes, and nationalists outvoted internationalists.
The non-workers outvoted the workers.
The uneducated outvoted the educated.
And that afer 13 years of Blair's education, education, education. There's ingratitude for you.
'To proceed with Brexit if 60 per cent of the electorate were opposed to it would be untenable'
Didn't stop Mrs Thatcher implementing her policies or Blair or many governments in our recent history?
On referendum night Populus issued a poll saying remain were going to win by 55 to 45 per cent. Not that far off 60 per cents
Brexit is such a big project to initiate with such a low level of support is very unwise. The leavers should have stepped back and spent some time winning people around before they started. There was nothing about timing on the ballot paper. It would have been perfectly legitimate to have set an 8-10 year programme going. That would have enabled a proper debate, and it would have meant Brexit getting one or even two general election endorsements along the way.
It's not too late to switch to this plan.
Overriding Brexit with such a low level of support is even more unwise. Forget the 52-48 Brexit result itself. We have had a much more recent poll where the people of the UK voted over 86% for parties committed to implementing Brexit. June 2016 in fact.
The party that wanted to give us a second referendum got 12 seats. I'll use that as my benchmark for just how unwise not implementing Brexit would be for democracy.
You won't see a bigger vote for Brexit than Kate Hoey's 31000+ votes in Vauxhall at the GE, one of the most pro remain seats in the country at the referendum
'To proceed with Brexit if 60 per cent of the electorate were opposed to it would be untenable'
Didn't stop Mrs Thatcher implementing her policies or Blair or many governments in our recent history?
On referendum night Populus issued a poll saying remain were going to win by 55 to 45 per cent. Not that far off 60 per cents
Brexit is such a big project to initiate with such a low level of support is very unwise. The leavers should have stepped back and spent some time winning people around before they started. There was nothing about timing on the ballot paper. It would have been perfectly legitimate to have set an 8-10 year programme going. That would have enabled a proper debate, and it would have meant Brexit getting one or even two general election endorsements along the way.
It's not too late to switch to this plan.
Overriding Brexit with such a low level of support is even more unwise. Forget the 52-48 Brexit result itself. We have had a much more recent poll where the people of the UK voted over 86% for parties committed to implementing Brexit. June 2016 in fact.
The party that wanted to give us a second referendum got 12 seats. I'll use that as my benchmark for just how unwise not implementing Brexit would be for democracy.
You won't see a bigger vote for Brexit than Kate Hoey's 31000+ votes in Vauxhall at the GE, one of the most pro remain seats in the country at the referendum
And there's the problem right there. You can't win an argument with rhetorical tricks like that. If you want to win people over you have to address their concerns directly.
Are they aware the Nyholm room was named after a white male Australian chemist. Will they have to retreat to the safe space because the room they are using was named after a member of the patriarchy who almost certainly exhibited white privilege, was a knight of the racist and white supremacist British empire and whose ancestors may have persecuted members of the indigenous population.
Overriding Brexit with such a low level of support is even more unwise. Forget the 52-48 Brexit result itself. We have had a much more recent poll where the people of the UK voted over 86% for parties committed to implementing Brexit. June 2016 in fact.
The party that wanted to give us a second referendum got 12 seats. I'll use that as my benchmark for just how unwise not implementing Brexit would be for democracy.
Except that everybody who voted Conservative at the general election were really voting against Corbyn. Just as everybody who voted Labour was really voting against a May dictatorship.
Nobody was voting on the future of our relationship with the EU.
Brexit is a flaming bag left by the voters on the doorstep of Downing Street, and the Brexit Ultras in the Tory party are complaining that the PM isn't stamping hard enough
There is no "good" Brexit. There is only minimising the mess.
There is no good Brexit for you because you dont accept democracy.Actually Brexit is wonderful. It means that the UK is independent from the Orwellian superstate of the EU. You think we should be under the control of a foreign power -fine. But remember people died to prevent that.
But, Brexit isn't really about that. For the most fervent campaigners, on both sides, it's about values and principles, which is why it's so visceral.
Not just the fervent. The decision on how to vote was often based on 'values' - not economic calculus - which is why i) so few have changed their minds, either way, ii) Project Fear didn't work and iii)Project Fear 2 won't work either.....
But equally the divide is going to persist.
The divide has been there for a long time - just this time the "wrong" people won.
The over 40's outvoted the under 40's, the working classes outvoted the middle classes, and nationalists outvoted internationalists.
The non-workers outvoted the workers.
The uneducated outvoted the educated.
The benefit of only having to write a 'X' on the ballot paper, not an essay.
Overriding Brexit with such a low level of support is even more unwise. Forget the 52-48 Brexit result itself. We have had a much more recent poll where the people of the UK voted over 86% for parties committed to implementing Brexit. June 2016 in fact.
The party that wanted to give us a second referendum got 12 seats. I'll use that as my benchmark for just how unwise not implementing Brexit would be for democracy.
Except that everybody who voted Conservative at the general election were really voting against Corbyn. Just as everybody who voted Labour was really voting against a May dictatorship. a second referendum were wasted? Thank for clarifying th Nobody was voting on the future of our relationship with the EU.
So those voting LibDem for a second Referendum were a wasted vote? Thanks for clarifying that......
Hmm, not sure about that. This is what "successful" conservatism looks like. In normal times (pre-brexit) the right would react to this by reducing statutory duties then squeezing budgets further.
They've sacrificed austerity/fiscal restraint for brexit, though, so shit like this is coming at them fast from every direction and will continue for the foreseeable future.
ii) Project Fear didn't work and iii)Project Fear 2 won't work either.....
I see the Unionist attempt to expunge the original Project Fear from their memories is well under way.
True , they were happy for Project Fear for our Scottish friends .In fact on here , they cheered it on day after day..
Indeed, the real disaster of the Scottish Referendum campaign may have been that Cameron and Osborne were persuaded such a strategy would work, so they doubled down on it. The legacy had it not been for the SNPs misfortunes in 2017 might easily have been an independent Scotland.
It nearly did work for the referendum in 2016.In my humble opinion , I was undecided to the last minute but voted remain because of it.However I believe a lot of Labour supporters voted leave to give Cameron a kicking, not clever in the circumstances , but that is the problem with referendums , people vote for differing reasons to the question asked.
People felt free to vote to kick Cameron, because everybody was sure that Remain would win. The whole referendum idea was stupid from the beginning.
Not everyone. There are a few of us on PB who were certain enough that Leave would win that we bet accordingly.
Overriding Brexit with such a low level of support is even more unwise. Forget the 52-48 Brexit result itself. We have had a much more recent poll where the people of the UK voted over 86% for parties committed to implementing Brexit. June 2016 in fact.
The party that wanted to give us a second referendum got 12 seats. I'll use that as my benchmark for just how unwise not implementing Brexit would be for democracy.
Except that everybody who voted Conservative at the general election were really voting against Corbyn. Just as everybody who voted Labour was really voting against a May dictatorship. a second referendum were wasted? Thank for clarifying th Nobody was voting on the future of our relationship with the EU.
So those voting LibDem for a second Referendum were a wasted vote? Thanks for clarifying that......
Not at all. Those people who voted Lib Dem were clearly not panicked into voting anti-Corbyn or anti-May. They were, among other things, voting against the two-party tyrany.
JRM is a class act. Must be raising his profile in a positive way after last night.
He's certainly an upper class act!
Nice one Ben - but he is becoming a genuine prospect for the leadership.
Good on him for trying to talk down last night’s protesters. But making unfounded accusations against civil servants unable to defend themselves is far less impressive.
He said this morning that George Osborne distrusted the civil service post Gordon Brown and introduced the OBR for that specific reason and there is no reason to believe that anything has changed with them since those days.
Fair comment ?
Has he withdrawn his specific accusations?
He might want to check out the OBR’s Brexit projections.
I do not know but that is his comments today on Sky news
He was awful on R4.
Yes, the reasons why he has never been appointed to any sort of government office are starting to become clearer.
Overriding Brexit with such a low level of support is even more unwise. Forget the 52-48 Brexit result itself. We have had a much more recent poll where the people of the UK voted over 86% for parties committed to implementing Brexit. June 2016 in fact.
The party that wanted to give us a second referendum got 12 seats. I'll use that as my benchmark for just how unwise not implementing Brexit would be for democracy.
Except that everybody who voted Conservative at the general election were really voting against Corbyn. Just as everybody who voted Labour was really voting against a May dictatorship. a second referendum were wasted? Thank for clarifying th Nobody was voting on the future of our relationship with the EU.
So those voting LibDem for a second Referendum were a wasted vote? Thanks for clarifying that......
Not at all. Those people who voted Lib Dem were clearly not panicked into voting anti-Corbyn or anti-May. They were, among other things, voting against the two-party tyrany.
JRM is a class act. Must be raising his profile in a positive way after last night.
He's certainly an upper class act!
Nice one Ben - but he is becoming a genuine prospect for the leadership.
Good on him for trying to talk down last night’s protesters. But making unfounded accusations against civil servants unable to defend themselves is far less impressive.
He said this morning that George Osborne distrusted the civil service post Gordon Brown and introduced the OBR for that specific reason and there is no reason to believe that anything has changed with them since those days.
Fair comment ?
Has he withdrawn his specific accusations?
He might want to check out the OBR’s Brexit projections.
I do not know but that is his comments today on Sky news
He was awful on R4.
Yes, the reasons why he has never been appointed to any sort of government office are starting to become clearer.
Yet if Tory MPs are mad enough to put in him in the final two, then he walks it imho.
Indeed, I am beginning to wonder whether there will be so much pressure from the membership that they'll have to put him in. But I'm not in the party.
JRM is a class act. Must be raising his profile in a positive way after last night.
He's certainly an upper class act!
Nice one Ben - but he is becoming a genuine prospect for the leadership.
Good on him for trying to talk down last night’s protesters. But making unfounded accusations against civil servants unable to defend themselves is far less impressive.
He said this morning that George Osborne distrusted the civil service post Gordon Brown and introduced the OBR for that specific reason and there is no reason to believe that anything has changed with them since those days.
Fair comment ?
Has he withdrawn his specific accusations?
He might want to check out the OBR’s Brexit projections.
I do not know but that is his comments today on Sky news
He was awful on R4.
Yes, the reasons why he has never been appointed to any sort of government office are starting to become clearer.
Theresa May has been a fairly astute judge of the character of the wilder Leavers, given the constraints that she operates within. She also squelched Daniel Hannan’s chances of getting a safe seat last year.
JRM is a class act. Must be raising his profile in a positive way after last night.
He's certainly an upper class act!
Nice one Ben - but he is becoming a genuine prospect for the leadership.
Good on him for trying to talk down last night’s protesters. But making unfounded accusations against civil servants unable to defend themselves is far less impressive.
He said this morning that George Osborne distrusted the civil service post Gordon Brown and introduced the OBR for that specific reason and there is no reason to believe that anything has changed with them since those days.
Fair comment ?
Has he withdrawn his specific accusations?
He might want to check out the OBR’s Brexit projections.
I do not know but that is his comments today on Sky news
He was awful on R4.
Yes, the reasons why he has never been appointed to any sort of government office are starting to become clearer.
Yet if Tory MPs are mad enough to put in him in the final two, then he walks it imho.
Indeed, I am beginning to wonder whether there will be so much pressure from the membership that they'll have to put him in. But I'm not in the party.
JRM is a class act. Must be raising his profile in a positive way after last night.
He's certainly an upper class act!
Nice one Ben - but he is becoming a genuine prospect for the leadership.
Good on him for trying to talk down last night’s protesters. But making unfounded accusations against civil servants unable to defend themselves is far less impressive.
He said this morning that George Osborne distrusted the civil service post Gordon Brown and introduced the OBR for that specific reason and there is no reason to believe that anything has changed with them since those days.
Fair comment ?
Has he withdrawn his specific accusations?
He might want to check out the OBR’s Brexit projections.
I do not know but that is his comments today on Sky news
He was awful on R4.
Yes, the reasons why he has never been appointed to any sort of government office are starting to become clearer.
Theresa May has been a fairly astute judge of the character of the wilder Leavers, given the constraints that she operates within. She also squelched Daniel Hannan’s chances of getting a safe seat last year.
But Rentoul has just pointed out that by not making him a junior minister, she allowed him to be instantly elected leader of the Europe Research Group of loony brexiteer MPs and thus to have a soapbox as big as a house for the next 12 months or so.
ii) Project Fear didn't work and iii)Project Fear 2 won't work either.....
I see the Unionist attempt to expunge the original Project Fear from their memories is well under way.
True , they were happy for Project Fear for our Scottish friends .In fact on here , they cheered it on day after day..
Indeed, the real disaster of the Scottish Referendum campaign may have been that Cameron and Osborne were persuaded such a strategy would work, so they doubled down on it. The legacy had it not been for the SNPs misfortunes in 2017 might easily have been an independent Scotland.
It nearly did work for the referendum in 2016.In my humble opinion , I was undecided to the last minute but voted remain because of it.However I believe a lot of Labour supporters voted leave to give Cameron a kicking, not clever in the circumstances , but that is the problem with referendums , people vote for differing reasons to the question asked.
People felt free to vote to kick Cameron, because everybody was sure that Remain would win. The whole referendum idea was stupid from the beginning.
Not everyone. There are a few of us on PB who were certain enough that Leave would win that we bet accordingly.
You only bet when you're certain of the outcome?
If only.
My book for last year overall was a car crash.
My betting record for events I am really, really confident about is awful.
ii) Project Fear didn't work and iii)Project Fear 2 won't work either.....
I see the Unionist attempt to expunge the original Project Fear from their memories is well under way.
True , they were happy for Project Fear for our Scottish friends .In fact on here , they cheered it on day after day..
Indeed, the real disaster of the Scottish Referendum campaign may have been that Cameron and Osborne were persuaded such a strategy would work, so they doubled down on it. The legacy had it not been for the SNPs misfortunes in 2017 might easily have been an independent Scotland.
It nearly did work for the referendum in 2016.In my humble opinion , I was undecided to the last minute but voted remain because of it.However I believe a lot of Labour supporters voted leave to give Cameron a kicking, not clever in the circumstances , but that is the problem with referendums , people vote for differing reasons to the question asked.
People felt free to vote to kick Cameron, because everybody was sure that Remain would win. The whole referendum idea was stupid from the beginning.
Not everyone. There are a few of us on PB who were certain enough that Leave would win that we bet accordingly.
You only bet when you're certain of the outcome?
If only.
My book for last year overall was a car crash.
My betting record for events I am really, really confident about is awful.
I’ve come to the conclusion that I’m not very good at predictions but I’m slightly faster than most at recognising when I’ve screwed up. Not a very glorious boast but it seems to be how I make my betting money.
There is a lot of talk about Jacob Rees Mogg becoming prime minister after Theresa May.
It wont happen, and the reason is simple.
The Tories have a better way of electing a leader. Unlike Labour the Tories recognise that the members of any political party are always going to be out of touch with the voters in the country. Therefore they give far more power to MPs before putting candidates to the members. Tory MPs filter out the more extreme outliers and only put two candidates to the country -unlike Labour which allows all candidates with a minimum amount among MPs to stand -even less now. The result for Labour is the disastrous Corbyn.
But Tory MPs would never allow Mogg to get into the final two. He would be filtered out long before members voted. Mogg will never become Tory leader.
ii) Project Fear didn't work and iii)Project Fear 2 won't work either.....
I see the Unionist attempt to expunge the original Project Fear from their memories is well under way.
True , they were happy for Project Fear for our Scottish friends .In fact on here , they cheered it on day after day..
Indeed, the real disaster of the Scottish Referendum campaign may have been that Cameron and Osborne were persuaded such a strategy would work, so they doubled down on it. The legacy had it not been for the SNPs misfortunes in 2017 might easily have been an independent Scotland.
It nearly did work for the referendum in 2016.In my humble opinion , I was undecided to the last minute but voted remain because of it.However I believe a lot of Labour supporters voted leave to give Cameron a kicking, not clever in the circumstances , but that is the problem with referendums , people vote for differing reasons to the question asked.
People felt free to vote to kick Cameron, because everybody was sure that Remain would win. The whole referendum idea was stupid from the beginning.
Not everyone. There are a few of us on PB who were certain enough that Leave would win that we bet accordingly.
You only bet when you're certain of the outcome?
If only.
My book for last year overall was a car crash.
My betting record for events I am really, really confident about is awful.
I’ve come to the conclusion that I’m not very good at predictions but I’m slightly faster than most at recognising when I’ve screwed up. Not a very glorious boast but it seems to be how I make my betting money.
My successful bets tend to be: Events where I am dispassionate Events where I understand the rules better than a significant chunk of the market Value bets against prevailing media commentary When something has already happened but the market hasn’t realised yet
Sadly these criteria don’t seem to match the bets I make all that often...
There is a lot of talk about Jacob Rees Mogg becoming prime minister after Theresa May.
It wont happen, and the reason is simple.
The Tories have a better way of electing a leader. Unlike Labour the Tories recognise that the members of any political party are always going to be out of touch with the voters in the country. Therefore they give far more power to MPs before putting candidates to the members. Tory MPs filter out the more extreme outliers and only put two candidates to the country -unlike Labour which allows all candidates with a minimum amount among MPs to stand -even less now. The result for Labour is the disastrous Corbyn.
But Tory MPs would never allow Mogg to get into the final two. He would be filtered out long before members voted. Mogg will never become Tory leader.
I'm not convinced. The pressure to put JRM in the final two may be too much.
There is a lot of talk about Jacob Rees Mogg becoming prime minister after Theresa May.
It wont happen, and the reason is simple.
The Tories have a better way of electing a leader. Unlike Labour the Tories recognise that the members of any political party are always going to be out of touch with the voters in the country. Therefore they give far more power to MPs before putting candidates to the members. Tory MPs filter out the more extreme outliers and only put two candidates to the country -unlike Labour which allows all candidates with a minimum amount among MPs to stand -even less now. The result for Labour is the disastrous Corbyn.
But Tory MPs would never allow Mogg to get into the final two. He would be filtered out long before members voted. Mogg will never become Tory leader.
I'm not convinced. The pressure to put JRM in the final two may be too much.
It's a secret ballot of MPs. So I don't buy the pressure argument.
ii) Project Fear didn't work and iii)Project Fear 2 won't work either.....
I see the Unionist attempt to expunge the original Project Fear from their memories is well under way.
True , they were happy for Project Fear for our Scottish friends .In fact on here , they cheered it on day after day..
Indeed, the real disaster of the Scottish Referendum campaign may have been that Cameron and Osborne were persuaded such a strategy would work, so they doubled down on it. The legacy had it not been for the SNPs misfortunes in 2017 might easily have been an independent Scotland.
It nearly did work for the referendum in 2016.In my humble opinion , I was undecided to the last minute but voted remain because of it.However I believe a lot of Labour supporters voted leave to give Cameron a kicking, not clever in the circumstances , but that is the problem with referendums , people vote for differing reasons to the question asked.
People felt free to vote to kick Cameron, because everybody was sure that Remain would win. The whole referendum idea was stupid from the beginning.
Not everyone. There are a few of us on PB who were certain enough that Leave would win that we bet accordingly.
You only bet when you're certain of the outcome?
If only.
My book for last year overall was a car crash.
My betting record for events I am really, really confident about is awful.
I’ve come to the conclusion that I’m not very good at predictions but I’m slightly faster than most at recognising when I’ve screwed up. Not a very glorious boast but it seems to be how I make my betting money.
Yep, it pays to be fast in getting out of holes. I scrambled towards Trump in the early hours as it started to become clear from FL that he might actually do the unthinkable. Not enough to stop a loss, but enough to stop an absolute pasting.
Clinton to be POTUS was one of the 'certain' events that I bet large on. Wrong.
There is a lot of talk about Jacob Rees Mogg becoming prime minister after Theresa May.
It wont happen, and the reason is simple.
The Tories have a better way of electing a leader. Unlike Labour the Tories recognise that the members of any political party are always going to be out of touch with the voters in the country. Therefore they give far more power to MPs before putting candidates to the members. Tory MPs filter out the more extreme outliers and only put two candidates to the country -unlike Labour which allows all candidates with a minimum amount among MPs to stand -even less now. The result for Labour is the disastrous Corbyn.
But Tory MPs would never allow Mogg to get into the final two. He would be filtered out long before members voted. Mogg will never become Tory leader.
I'm not convinced. The pressure to put JRM in the final two may be too much.
Pressure by whom? By members of the Tory party? How will they exert that pressure? What will be the consequences for Tory MPs for not putting him in the final two?
There is a lot of talk about Jacob Rees Mogg becoming prime minister after Theresa May.
It wont happen, and the reason is simple.
The Tories have a better way of electing a leader. Unlike Labour the Tories recognise that the members of any political party are always going to be out of touch with the voters in the country. Therefore they give far more power to MPs before putting candidates to the members. Tory MPs filter out the more extreme outliers and only put two candidates to the country -unlike Labour which allows all candidates with a minimum amount among MPs to stand -even less now. The result for Labour is the disastrous Corbyn.
But Tory MPs would never allow Mogg to get into the final two. He would be filtered out long before members voted. Mogg will never become Tory leader.
I'm not convinced. The pressure to put JRM in the final two may be too much.
I think Tory MPs won’t put him on the ballot - there are other leavers like Gove or Boris who would be preferred.
But JRM is going to find the Brexit transition intolerable. He can’t keep blaming faceless civil servants. At some point he will have to either call for May to go, leave the Tory party or just be a big hypocrite.
There is a lot of talk about Jacob Rees Mogg becoming prime minister after Theresa May.
It wont happen, and the reason is simple.
The Tories have a better way of electing a leader. Unlike Labour the Tories recognise that the members of any political party are always going to be out of touch with the voters in the country. Therefore they give far more power to MPs before putting candidates to the members. Tory MPs filter out the more extreme outliers and only put two candidates to the country -unlike Labour which allows all candidates with a minimum amount among MPs to stand -even less now. The result for Labour is the disastrous Corbyn.
But Tory MPs would never allow Mogg to get into the final two. He would be filtered out long before members voted. Mogg will never become Tory leader.
I'm not convinced. The pressure to put JRM in the final two may be too much.
It's a secret ballot of MPs. So I don't buy the pressure argument.
I hope you are right. The last thing this country needs is a GE that is JRM vs Corbyn.
Although I suppose it might engender some kind of Macron-style new party if it comes to that, but as has been repeated on here many time, the system is against such a thing.
An interesting bit of trivia: Lord Pannick represented William Rees-Mogg in a court case challenging the legality of the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty.
Comments
I am not saying we will rejoin/effectively never leave the EU, but with Edmund's idea I can see a realistic pathway to doing so.
Unless you’re also proposing that those over 75 should pay no income tax, council tax or inheritance tax or VAT......
Yet another fine article, David, thank you.
Fair comment ?
Edit - looks like he’s looking to “life after politics”
https://twitter.com/angusrobertson/status/959774296074784769
He might want to check out the OBR’s Brexit projections.
Once the question is sent to the CJE there has to be a fairly lengthy procedure during which interested parties, which in this case is likely to include the Commission and quite a number of Member States, can make representations. An Opinion is then produced by the Advocate General and somewhat later a decision by the Judges themselves.
Somewhere in the middle of this lengthy process, even without falling at any of the hurdles, the UK is likely to have left.
Whether it settled anything would depend on the margin. As I have said repeatedly on this thread, I don't see any case for a second referendum at present precisely because it would settle nothing.
No bet. In the unlikely event that a second referendum was politically required, the threat of a postal referendum would be used as the stick to beat the donkeys into waving a referendum bill quickly through Parliament. This threat would probably work.
My point is that David Herdson's logic doesn't hold up because an Act of Parliament isn't absolutely necessary. If speed ever becomes of the essence, a means will be found.
Just to make clear I am not saying this is a good thing, but that is I believe the legal position.
Both were value bets and I regret neither. I've learnt to resist the urge to weave my winning bets, my political convictions and actual political outcomes into an "i woz right, and my bets prove it" narrative, however tempting....
Or it may be a Brit who takes a prosecution against them for breach of European law to the ECJ, on the basis that European law no longer applies to them.
Or it could be *any* UK case that ends up at the European Courts which prompts the justices to face the question as to whether they have jurisdiction to hear the case.
To proceed with Brexit if (for instance) 60% of the electorate was opposing it would be untenable. To arrange a scratch referendum in those circumstances very easy.
Anyone below that age who is spending money is spending their parents’ money. And is legally a child.
It is 60 years ago on Tuesday that I returned home from school for my Grandmother to tell me my beloved 'babes' had been killed in a plane crash in Munich. The memory still brings a tear to my eye as the 'babes' were so young and talented and had the football world at their feet.
It was a national disaster and the tv pictures of Matt Busby in his oxygen tent, the subsequent death of Duncan Edwards 15 days later, the blank team sheets, and that years cup final v Bolton created the legend that is the greatest football club in the world
I do not see any basis for removing the vote from people because they have reached some arbitrary age. At the other end the vote should be given when people become legally adult - and we might want to equalise the laws about when that is since they are not consistent.
1) when I feel that the event is reasonably certain to happen, and/or
2) when I wish to insure myself against the outcome, and/or
3) to keep my hand in
Betting is scary. As I work away from home I bet via High Street betting shops, which is traumatic: the counter staff are more used to £10 on a horse to win, instead of my usual three figures on a political event, and frequently experience cognitive stress and confusion - "we don't bet on the French President!" "Er, you do, see here (holds up screen print)" - requiring the back manager to be called in. Since the back manager is usually well-informed things usually proceed smoothly at that point, but it's not easy and makes a difficult situation - I am notoriously risk-averse with money - worse.
Brexit and Trump were two events which I thought had a high probability of happening and I wished to insure against them, so the bets on those were higher and the returns were higher. My 2016 profits were four figures.
The only times when I thought the election event was certain was the 201? French Presidential, when the far-left candidate had zero chance of winning but non-zero odds, and the 201? London Mayorality, when Khan was certain to win but non-zero odds. As the odds were low the returns were much lower for the stake. In the case of the French presidential it was my only use of spread betting and the potential losses were four figures, which caused considerable anxiety and leads me to eschew that method hereforward.
In the middle were the 2017 French presidential (Macron) and the 201? London mayorality (Boris), where I didn't care much for the outcome and it was more an academic exercise, a three-finger taradiddle to keep my hand in and show willing.
Things are a bit quiet at the moment: hitherto it's been more fun than serious, but to upgrade to try to ensure, say, four figures per year will require serious research commitment and I have time constraints (more than one job), so I don't know what will happen over the next year or two. I am aware that there are some punters who are very good at this (@DoubleCarpet (Paul Maggs) springs to mind, as does @isam, and of course @Dromedary won six figures in one night) so although become rich is unrealistic, getting enough for - say - a good laptop should be achievable. Plus there is also the intellectual challenge: political betting, unlike sports betting, has too few punters and too many emotionally-attached and wealthy punters to act as a perfect market and should be vulnerable to analysis.
But it's the old problem: too busy fencing to see the machine-gun salesman...
I would not put an age qualification on voting, though a mental capacity one may have its merits.
Didn't stop Mrs Thatcher implementing her policies or Blair or many governments in our recent history?
On referendum night Populus issued a poll saying remain were going to win by 55 to 45 per cent. Not that far off 60 per cent. Should we have cancelled out the votes of 35 million people cast before 10pm because afterwards a poll came out saying remain was the preferred choice.
So in essence let's not bother having actual votes lets just let ICM or You gov decide. It would save a lot of money not hsving any more actual elections - we could spend the cash saved on the NHS!
It's not too late to switch to this plan.
Happy to be contradicted, but I think it's a false dichotomy.
The government of Cameron had pledged to invoke Article 50 the day after the referendum if Leave won so actually we have had a longer implementation already.
The party that wanted to give us a second referendum got 12 seats. I'll use that as my benchmark for just how unwise not implementing Brexit would be for democracy.
https://twitter.com/mrwtch/status/959713708850151424
http://www.chem.ucl.ac.uk/resources/history/people/nyholm.html
Let's call the whole event off!
Nobody was voting on the future of our relationship with the EU.
https://twitter.com/rachellybee/status/959709447382761472
They've sacrificed austerity/fiscal restraint for brexit, though, so shit like this is coming at them fast from every direction and will continue for the foreseeable future.
Was this oppression by the patriarchy?
https://twitter.com/AlexC93/status/959780613413883904
My book for last year overall was a car crash.
https://twitter.com/ChristianJMay/status/959795356191125505
Indeed, I am beginning to wonder whether there will be so much pressure from the membership that they'll have to put him in. But I'm not in the party.
Each toilet in our house is classified two ways: by the sex of the person allowed to use it, and by the their social class*.
This means that each of our toilets falls into one of eight categories.
* In our house, we have two social classes: my wife, and everyone else.
LibDems back from the brink?
It wont happen, and the reason is simple.
The Tories have a better way of electing a leader. Unlike Labour the Tories recognise that the members of any political party are always going to be out of touch with the voters in the country. Therefore they give far more power to MPs before putting candidates to the members. Tory MPs filter out the more extreme outliers and only put two candidates to the country -unlike Labour which allows all candidates with a minimum amount among MPs to stand -even less now. The result for Labour is the disastrous Corbyn.
But Tory MPs would never allow Mogg to get into the final two. He would be filtered out long before members voted. Mogg will never become Tory leader.
Edit. And immediately I write that they go and score a try. Scant consolation though.
Events where I am dispassionate
Events where I understand the rules better than a significant chunk of the market
Value bets against prevailing media commentary
When something has already happened but the market hasn’t realised yet
Sadly these criteria don’t seem to match the bets I make all that often...
Clinton to be POTUS was one of the 'certain' events that I bet large on. Wrong.
But JRM is going to find the Brexit transition intolerable. He can’t keep blaming faceless civil servants. At some point he will have to either call for May to go, leave the Tory party or just be a big hypocrite.
Unless I’ve missed something.
Although I suppose it might engender some kind of Macron-style new party if it comes to that, but as has been repeated on here many time, the system is against such a thing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/rees-moggs-maastricht-plea-rejected-legal-challenge-may-continue-despite-defeat-in-high-court-1488238.html