Good to see the Remainers busy panicking today about which cunning scheme they can use to ignore the will of the people. What they are beginning to realise is that JRM's threat to vote down soft Brexit may very well work, because there is no reason why Labour would support the Government. Which is what I have been saying for months.
Of course, in all the scenarios they present (almost all of which involve the elite getting together and forcing their preferred option on the people) they miss the obvious one - that May or her replacement will have to go back to CETA as the solution.
As soon as May's plan has contact with the EU, they will demand more concessions and the events of the past few days show she cannot make them. So then we are looking at No Deal. And at that stage, hopefully wiser heads prevail and Boris and co will be busy pointing out that there is a perfectly obvious solution which would pass Parliament and not divide the people - CETA plus. With the added benefit that the useful idiot Varadkar will need to get thrown under the bus.
Good to see the current extent of aspirations of Leavers: the supermarkets will probably have food on the shelves. Not that the past sturdy pronouncements of Leavers mean that much faith can be put in those assurances.
Considering that PB Remainers were claiming last summer that people would now be actually starving as the food banks emptied its easy to see who's been proved wrong.
Not to mention another PBer who thought there were no strawberries in the supermarkets last month.
Citation needed for either of those assertions.
PB Leavers have a long track record of making up claims about what their opponents said and then believing their own falsehoods.
volcanopete 03/08/17:
' More evidence from the Bank of England today that the economy was "sluggish" which means the many are going to be worse off.This drip drip drip of austerity-inspired penury from a small crazed sect of small-staters will eke away at the Tories poll rating as each bill comes through the doors bigger than before.As the Foodbanks run out of food,I predict food riots too. '
I don't have the time to track down any more right now but I'll let you have this as a bonus:
' In the meantime, Britain’s Standard & Poors credit rating has dropped two notches, the pound has suffered its biggest fall in one day against the dollar ever, markets around the world have crashed and recession is beckoning with a dark cloak, a skeletal finger and a voice that speaks in block capitals. '
Her breathtaking incompetence makes the gelatinous Cameron look like Henry V by comparison. When her autobiography is written, it should be published as a loose sheaf of unbound pages — no spine. That would make it inconvenient to read, but who would want to do so in the first place? Students of mediocrity?
You think the referendum was needless. You were quite happy with the status quo.
That seems at odds with many of your posts...
I think the referendum was totally needless. UK governments had ignored the electorate for years and could still have done so. Furthermore the general discontent was probably starting to work in Cons favour as UKIP were beginning to erode Labour support as much as conservative.
And while Im happy with eventually getting a vote on issues that should have been put to the electorate in 2009 if as remainers say staying in was the most important thing for the nation Cameron shouldn't have called the vote. However he was more interested in internal party politics. And not very good at it.
The rebellion against the Chequers proposals is pretty much over. No one's going to be much moved if another PPS resigns. Things may change if the government accepts free movement.
Her breathtaking incompetence makes the gelatinous Cameron look like Henry V by comparison. When her autobiography is written, it should be published as a loose sheaf of unbound pages — no spine. That would make it inconvenient to read, but who would want to do so in the first place? Students of mediocrity?
You think the referendum was needless. You were quite happy with the status quo.
That seems at odds with many of your posts...
I think the referendum was totally needless. UK governments had ignored the electorate for years and could still have done so. Furthermore the general discontent was probably starting to work in Cons favour as UKIP were beginning to erode Labour support as much as conservative.
And while Im happy with eventually getting a vote on issues that should have been put to the electorate in 2009 if as remainers say staying in was the most important thing for the nation Cameron shouldn't have called the vote. However he was more interested in internal party politics. And not very good at it.
With the benefit of hindsight, I think that's correct. But, it didn't look like that in 2013.
Probably if Cameron had held firm against a referendum, UKIP would now be on 20% or so, but as you say, hurting Labour as much as the Tories.
The rebellion against the Chequers proposals is pretty much over. No one's going to be much moved if another PPS resigns. Things may change if the government accepts free movement.
I think everyone is satisfied with services and FoM being left. If she concedes on either she will lose Raab and Gove.
You think the referendum was needless. You were quite happy with the status quo.
That seems at odds with many of your posts...
I think the referendum was totally needless. UK governments had ignored the electorate for years and could still have done so. Furthermore the general discontent was probably starting to work in Cons favour as UKIP were beginning to erode Labour support as much as conservative.
And while Im happy with eventually getting a vote on issues that should have been put to the electorate in 2009 if as remainers say staying in was the most important thing for the nation Cameron shouldn't have called the vote. However he was more interested in internal party politics. And not very good at it.
With the benefit of hindsight, I think that's correct. But, it didn't look like that in 2013.
Probably if Cameron had held firm against a referendum, UKIP would now be on 20% or so, but as you say, hurting Labour as much as the Tories.
under FPTP that wouldn't make much of a difference to the outcome. But again Cameron could have held off UKIP if he hadn't made such a point of pissing off his core support. While modernisation needed a bit of blood on the carpet from slaughtering a few sacred cows, there also came a point when it had to stop but he kept going.
You think the referendum was needless. You were quite happy with the status quo.
That seems at odds with many of your posts...
I think the referendum was totally needless. UK governments had ignored the electorate for years and could still have done so. Furthermore the general discontent was probably starting to work in Cons favour as UKIP were beginning to erode Labour support as much as conservative.
And while Im happy with eventually getting a vote on issues that should have been put to the electorate in 2009 if as remainers say staying in was the most important thing for the nation Cameron shouldn't have called the vote. However he was more interested in internal party politics. And not very good at it.
With the benefit of hindsight, I think that's correct. But, it didn't look like that in 2013.
Probably if Cameron had held firm against a referendum, UKIP would now be on 20% or so, but as you say, hurting Labour as much as the Tories.
under FPTP that wouldn't make much of a difference to the outcome. But again Cameron could have held off UKIP if he hadn't made such a point of pissing off his core support. While modernisation needed a bit of blood on the carpet from slaughtering a few sacred cows, there also came a point when it had to stop but he kept going.
UKIP would likely have gained Hartlepool, Thurrock, Thanet South, Dagenham & Rainham.
Good to see the Remainers busy panicking today about which cunning scheme they can use to ignore the will of the people. What they are beginning to realise is that JRM's threat to vote down soft Brexit may very well work, because there is no reason why Labour would support the Government. Which is what I have been saying for months.
Of course, in all the scenarios they present (almost all of which involve the elite getting together and forcing their preferred option on the people) they miss the obvious one - that May or her replacement will have to go back to CETA as the solution.
As soon as May's plan has contact with the EU, they will demand more concessions and the events of the past few days show she cannot make them. So then we are looking at No Deal. And at that stage, hopefully wiser heads prevail and Boris and co will be busy pointing out that there is a perfectly obvious solution which would pass Parliament and not divide the people - CETA plus. With the added benefit that the useful idiot Varadkar will need to get thrown under the bus.
I note the Union Jack boxer short keyboard warrior is launching another attack, from his desk in Australia.
Good to see the current extent of aspirations of Leavers: the supermarkets will probably have food on the shelves. Not that the past sturdy pronouncements of Leavers mean that much faith can be put in those assurances.
Considering that PB Remainers were claiming last summer that people would now be actually starving as the food banks emptied its easy to see who's been proved wrong.
Not to mention another PBer who thought there were no strawberries in the supermarkets last month.
Citation needed for either of those assertions.
PB Leavers have a long track record of making up claims about what their opponents said and then believing their own falsehoods.
volcanopete 03/08/17:
' More evidence from the Bank of England today that the economy was "sluggish" which means the many are going to be worse off.This drip drip drip of austerity-inspired penury from a small crazed sect of small-staters will eke away at the Tories poll rating as each bill comes through the doors bigger than before.As the Foodbanks run out of food,I predict food riots too. '
I don't have the time to track down any more right now but I'll let you have this as a bonus:
' In the meantime, Britain’s Standard & Poors credit rating has dropped two notches, the pound has suffered its biggest fall in one day against the dollar ever, markets around the world have crashed and recession is beckoning with a dark cloak, a skeletal finger and a voice that speaks in block capitals. '
Great claims require great evidence. Since that was a crap claim on your part, I suppose I'm going to have to accept crap evidence.
If we all listen carefully we can hear you grinding your teeth.
Have a good day AM.
Have a good day too. I shall keenly await the outcome of your fruitless endeavour.
Very good but not fruitless today:
' I'm enjoying the seamless transition of the Brexit extremists from "fruit picking problems are fake news" to "hurrah that we have no strawberries". '
You think the referendum was needless. You were quite happy with the status quo.
That seems at odds with many of your posts...
I think the referendum was totally needless. UK governments had ignored the electorate for years and could still have done so. Furthermore the general discontent was probably starting to work in Cons favour as UKIP were beginning to erode Labour support as much as conservative.
And while Im happy with eventually getting a vote on issues that should have been put to the electorate in 2009 if as remainers say staying in was the most important thing for the nation Cameron shouldn't have called the vote. However he was more interested in internal party politics. And not very good at it.
With the benefit of hindsight, I think that's correct. But, it didn't look like that in 2013.
Probably if Cameron had held firm against a referendum, UKIP would now be on 20% or so, but as you say, hurting Labour as much as the Tories.
Interesting that May seems to be copying Gordon Brown (and Blair) and totally detaching herself from the concerns of the wider voter.
F1: apparently there's to be discussion of allowing 3 and 1 car teams, as well as the usual 2.
Seems daft to me. Richer teams will be able to afford a third car, pushing the midfield out of the points. Far better to have a fairer distribution of income.
You think the referendum was needless. You were quite happy with the status quo.
That seems at odds with many of your posts...
I think the referendum was totally needless. UK governments had ignored the electorate for years and could still have done so. Furthermore the general discontent was probably starting to work in Cons favour as UKIP were beginning to erode Labour support as much as conservative.
And while Im happy with eventually getting a vote on issues that should have been put to the electorate in 2009 if as remainers say staying in was the most important thing for the nation Cameron shouldn't have called the vote. However he was more interested in internal party politics. And not very good at it.
With the benefit of hindsight, I think that's correct. But, it didn't look like that in 2013.
Probably if Cameron had held firm against a referendum, UKIP would now be on 20% or so, but as you say, hurting Labour as much as the Tories.
under FPTP that wouldn't make much of a difference to the outcome. But again Cameron could have held off UKIP if he hadn't made such a point of pissing off his core support. While modernisation needed a bit of blood on the carpet from slaughtering a few sacred cows, there also came a point when it had to stop but he kept going.
UKIP would likely have gained Hartlepool, Thurrock, Thanet South, Dagenham & Rainham.
Hartlepool ! Roger would be delighted :-)
However as the slaughter of the LDs showed Cameron could still get a majority especially if he had spent more time sorting out Scotland
any way must go now. Brooke Juniors graduation beckons. Enjoy the football.
F1: apparently there's to be discussion of allowing 3 and 1 car teams, as well as the usual 2.
Seems daft to me. Richer teams will be able to afford a third car, pushing the midfield out of the points. Far better to have a fairer distribution of income.
Morris Dancer finally yields to socialism. Truly the end of times is upon us.
Good to see the Remainers busy panicking today about which cunning scheme they can use to ignore the will of the people. What they are beginning to realise is that JRM's threat to vote down soft Brexit may very well work, because there is no reason why Labour would support the Government. Which is what I have been saying for months.
Of course, in all the scenarios they present (almost all of which involve the elite getting together and forcing their preferred option on the people) they miss the obvious one - that May or her replacement will have to go back to CETA as the solution.
As soon as May's plan has contact with the EU, they will demand more concessions and the events of the past few days show she cannot make them. So then we are looking at No Deal. And at that stage, hopefully wiser heads prevail and Boris and co will be busy pointing out that there is a perfectly obvious solution which would pass Parliament and not divide the people - CETA plus. With the added benefit that the useful idiot Varadkar will need to get thrown under the bus.
I note the Union Jack boxer short keyboard warrior is launching another attack, from his desk in Australia.
Do you work for Facebook ? The level of stalking detail is creepy..
Good to see the Remainers busy panicking today about which cunning scheme they can use to ignore the will of the people. What they are beginning to realise is that JRM's threat to vote down soft Brexit may very well work, because there is no reason why Labour would support the Government. Which is what I have been saying for months.
Of course, in all the scenarios they present (almost all of which involve the elite getting together and forcing their preferred option on the people) they miss the obvious one - that May or her replacement will have to go back to CETA as the solution.
As soon as May's plan has contact with the EU, they will demand more concessions and the events of the past few days show she cannot make them. So then we are looking at No Deal. And at that stage, hopefully wiser heads prevail and Boris and co will be busy pointing out that there is a perfectly obvious solution which would pass Parliament and not divide the people - CETA plus. With the added benefit that the useful idiot Varadkar will need to get thrown under the bus.
"the will of" 52% of "the people" two years ago.
"will of the people" is becoming the new "two world wars and one world cup" isn't it?
' I'm enjoying the seamless transition of the Brexit extremists from "fruit picking problems are fake news" to "hurrah that we have no strawberries". '
I'm not sure why you want to advertise the deranged enthusiasm with which you and your fellow Leavers welcomed problems British agriculture faces, but it is a helpful reminder of just how batshit mental the cultists are. That comment was accurate reportage of Leavers' state of what one must I guess call "mind" on that thread.
You think the referendum was needless. You were quite happy with the status quo.
That seems at odds with many of your posts...
I think the referendum was totally needless. UK governments had ignored the electorate for years and could still have done so. Furthermore the general discontent was probably starting to work in Cons favour as UKIP were beginning to erode Labour support as much as conservative.
And while Im happy with eventually getting a vote on issues that should have been put to the electorate in 2009 if as remainers say staying in was the most important thing for the nation Cameron shouldn't have called the vote. However he was more interested in internal party politics. And not very good at it.
With the benefit of hindsight, I think that's correct. But, it didn't look like that in 2013.
Probably if Cameron had held firm against a referendum, UKIP would now be on 20% or so, but as you say, hurting Labour as much as the Tories.
under FPTP that wouldn't make much of a difference to the outcome. But again Cameron could have held off UKIP if he hadn't made such a point of pissing off his core support. While modernisation needed a bit of blood on the carpet from slaughtering a few sacred cows, there also came a point when it had to stop but he kept going.
UKIP would likely have gained Hartlepool, Thurrock, Thanet South, Dagenham & Rainham.
Hartlepool ! Roger would be delighted :-)
However as the slaughter of the LDs showed Cameron could still get a majority especially if he had spent more time sorting out Scotland
any way must go now. Brooke Juniors graduation beckons. Enjoy the football.
Threatening to block other Government legislation would work in terms of making life impossible for Mrs May. Even the most anti-Corbyn and Europhile Opposition MP will not hesitate to vote against the Government on unrelated legislation, such as the Budget. I'm sceptical about the threat, though.
Britain's all budgeted up until April, 2019, right? Aside from Brexit, is there anything else the government really, really needs to pass?
There are lots of Brexit-connected Bills in the pipeline which look technical but which would be very inconvenient to lose: Agriculture, Trade, Customs, ...
Mr. rkrkrk, it isn't socialist to believe it's silly to pay Ferrari just for turning up.
Mr. Seller, it's not outrageous for people to think a democratic vote should have weight in a democracy.
A democratic vote should definitely have weight in a democracy, on that we're both agreed. But a democracy isn't frozen in aspic. You can't step in the same river twice, etc. What is the statute of limitations on "the will of the people"?
You think the referendum was needless. You were quite happy with the status quo.
That seems at odds with many of your posts...
I think the referendum was totally needless. UK governments had ignored the electorate for years and could still have done so. Furthermore the general discontent was probably starting to work in Cons favour as UKIP were beginning to erode Labour support as much as conservative.
And while Im happy with eventually getting a vote on issues that should have been put to the electorate in 2009 if as remainers say staying in was the most important thing for the nation Cameron shouldn't have called the vote. However he was more interested in internal party politics. And not very good at it.
With the benefit of hindsight, I think that's correct. But, it didn't look like that in 2013.
Probably if Cameron had held firm against a referendum, UKIP would now be on 20% or so, but as you say, hurting Labour as much as the Tories.
under FPTP that wouldn't make much of a difference to the outcome. But again Cameron could have held off UKIP if he hadn't made such a point of pissing off his core support. While modernisation needed a bit of blood on the carpet from slaughtering a few sacred cows, there also came a point when it had to stop but he kept going.
Such as?
I can't think of a single modernisation thing that Cameron did in later years that wasn't entirely appropriate and the right thing to do.
If anything most of the modernisation agenda actually fell away following the global financial crisis to be replaced with austerity.
Mr. rkrkrk, it isn't socialist to believe it's silly to pay Ferrari just for turning up.
Mr. Seller, it's not outrageous for people to think a democratic vote should have weight in a democracy.
A democratic vote should definitely have weight in a democracy, on that we're both agreed. But a democracy isn't frozen in aspic. You can't step in the same river twice, etc. What is the statute of limitations on "the will of the people"?
It can be ignored but politicians that do so can expect to receive the verdict of the voters.
Mr. rkrkrk, it isn't socialist to believe it's silly to pay Ferrari just for turning up.
Mr. Seller, it's not outrageous for people to think a democratic vote should have weight in a democracy.
A democratic vote should definitely have weight in a democracy, on that we're both agreed. But a democracy isn't frozen in aspic. You can't step in the same river twice, etc. What is the statute of limitations on "the will of the people"?
You think the referendum was needless. You were quite happy with the status quo.
That seems at odds with many of your posts...
I think the referendum was totally needless. UK governments had ignored the electorate for years and could still have done so. Furthermore the general discontent was probably starting to work in Cons favour as UKIP were beginning to erode Labour support as much as conservative.
And while Im happy with eventually getting a vote on issues that should have been put to the electorate in 2009 if as remainers say staying in was the most important thing for the nation Cameron shouldn't have called the vote. However he was more interested in internal party politics. And not very good at it.
With the benefit of hindsight, I think that's correct. But, it didn't look like that in 2013.
Probably if Cameron had held firm against a referendum, UKIP would now be on 20% or so, but as you say, hurting Labour as much as the Tories.
under FPTP that wouldn't make much of a difference to the outcome. But again Cameron could have held off UKIP if he hadn't made such a point of pissing off his core support. While modernisation needed a bit of blood on the carpet from slaughtering a few sacred cows, there also came a point when it had to stop but he kept going.
Such as?
I can't think of a single modernisation thing that Cameron did in later years that wasn't entirely appropriate and the right thing to do.
If anything most of the modernisation agenda actually fell away following the global financial crisis to be replaced with austerity.
Also interested in this question.
It's a frequent criticism of Cameron, but what are the areas of his modernisation that Tories actually want to reverse?
I see grammar schools (if you'd count that) as an area where they've changed tack. Perhaps many would like to scrap the foreign aid target. But do they really want to ban same-sex marriage? Or repeal some of the equalities legislation?
Mr. rkrkrk, it isn't socialist to believe it's silly to pay Ferrari just for turning up.
Mr. Seller, it's not outrageous for people to think a democratic vote should have weight in a democracy.
A democratic vote should definitely have weight in a democracy, on that we're both agreed. But a democracy isn't frozen in aspic. You can't step in the same river twice, etc. What is the statute of limitations on "the will of the people"?
What was it in 1975 ? 40 years maybe ?
What - 40 years of hurt? Arf.
But what you say is true - it's a bit too nuanced for the current political climate, but there's a philosophical point here. Does a referendum set the course for 'x' years, or do we just have endless referendums (referenda?) whenever we want to cut Gordian Knots? That's the problem with subverting parliamentary democracy, you rather set a precedent.
Mr. rkrkrk, it isn't socialist to believe it's silly to pay Ferrari just for turning up.
Mr. Seller, it's not outrageous for people to think a democratic vote should have weight in a democracy.
A democratic vote should definitely have weight in a democracy, on that we're both agreed. But a democracy isn't frozen in aspic. You can't step in the same river twice, etc. What is the statute of limitations on "the will of the people"?
What was it in 1975 ? 40 years maybe ?
Labour felt able to propose that Britain leave the EU in 1983, which was the election after next after the referendum.
So one of the main parties could propose rejoining the EU at the next election, yes?
Focus now turning to Trump at NATO as he rips into them over funding, and he is not joking. Lots of worried looks but on this I agree with him
Can't see the military threat in Europe. He wants to pull out some troops? Spend less on new weapons? Fine.
He is effectively threatening to wind up NATO and remove the umbrella of US security that an ungrateful lot have lived under on the cheap since WW2. The US needs to bring all its military resources to bear in the Pacific. China is building aircraft carriers at a frightening rate. The US no longer has resources to waste on an irrelevant backwater like Europe. If they want security they can pay for it themselves.
As you know, I think that the Russian threat is massively overstated but the States with boundaries with it are right to be apprehensive about what happens next. Its a pity that they have chosen this time to fall out with the most effective military power in Europe isn't it?
Mr. rkrkrk, it isn't socialist to believe it's silly to pay Ferrari just for turning up.
Mr. Seller, it's not outrageous for people to think a democratic vote should have weight in a democracy.
A democratic vote should definitely have weight in a democracy, on that we're both agreed. But a democracy isn't frozen in aspic. You can't step in the same river twice, etc. What is the statute of limitations on "the will of the people"?
What was it in 1975 ? 40 years maybe ?
No, Labour had withdrawal in their manifesto in 1983. Had they won, that vote would have trumped the 1975 referendum (despite the other parties backing remaining and almost certainly having more votes).
The 1975 referendum mandate lasted until 1979. However, no party until 2015 won an election on a mandate of either outright withdrawal or on putting the question to the people.
Mr. rkrkrk, it isn't socialist to believe it's silly to pay Ferrari just for turning up.
Mr. Seller, it's not outrageous for people to think a democratic vote should have weight in a democracy.
A democratic vote should definitely have weight in a democracy, on that we're both agreed. But a democracy isn't frozen in aspic. You can't step in the same river twice, etc. What is the statute of limitations on "the will of the people"?
What was it in 1975 ? 40 years maybe ?
What - 40 years of hurt? Arf.
But what you say is true - it's a bit too nuanced for the current political climate, but there's a philosophical point here. Does a referendum set the course for 'x' years, or do we just have endless referendums (referenda?) whenever we want to cut Gordian Knots? That's the problem with subverting parliamentary democracy, you rather set a precedent.
A mandate lasts for as long until it is overturned by either a party or parties winning a majority of seats at a general election on a platform to overturn the original mandate or if there’s another referendum voting to overturn the original result.
Had Foot won the 1983 election the 1975 referendum result would have been overturned without the need for another referendum.
Mr. rkrkrk, it isn't socialist to believe it's silly to pay Ferrari just for turning up.
Mr. Seller, it's not outrageous for people to think a democratic vote should have weight in a democracy.
A democratic vote should definitely have weight in a democracy, on that we're both agreed. But a democracy isn't frozen in aspic. You can't step in the same river twice, etc. What is the statute of limitations on "the will of the people"?
What was it in 1975 ? 40 years maybe ?
Labour felt able to propose that Britain leave the EU in 1983, which was the election after next after the referendum.
So one of the main parties could propose rejoining the EU at the next election, yes?
Mr. rkrkrk, it isn't socialist to believe it's silly to pay Ferrari just for turning up.
Mr. Seller, it's not outrageous for people to think a democratic vote should have weight in a democracy.
A democratic vote should definitely have weight in a democracy, on that we're both agreed. But a democracy isn't frozen in aspic. You can't step in the same river twice, etc. What is the statute of limitations on "the will of the people"?
What was it in 1975 ? 40 years maybe ?
Labour felt able to propose that Britain leave the EU in 1983, which was the election after next after the referendum.
So one of the main parties could propose rejoining the EU at the next election, yes?
I don't think there's any theoretical restriction on what any political party might choose to include in its manifesto - as we already know, manifestos mean little, so it's worth a punt. At some point, Labour might choose to back re-joining. However, I doubt the EU would touch us with a bargepole.
Given the close result of EUref and the passions provoked on both sides, it's puzzling that the Lib Dems haven't benefited. But then most of British politics is a puzzlement to me ces jours-ci.
Mr. rkrkrk, it isn't socialist to believe it's silly to pay Ferrari just for turning up.
Mr. Seller, it's not outrageous for people to think a democratic vote should have weight in a democracy.
A democratic vote should definitely have weight in a democracy, on that we're both agreed. But a democracy isn't frozen in aspic. You can't step in the same river twice, etc. What is the statute of limitations on "the will of the people"?
What was it in 1975 ? 40 years maybe ?
Labour felt able to propose that Britain leave the EU in 1983, which was the election after next after the referendum.
So one of the main parties could propose rejoining the EU at the next election, yes?
The lib dems did at the last GE.
This is what I'm thinking. In terms of how our parliamentary system works, you first need your UKIP, to build up a head of steam and hollow out one of the major parties, trigger the referendum and that's the mandate.
It took UKIP 20 years, so I think that's the timescale we're looking at (to get back in I mean). Also, we need to see the impact of Brexit on the EU itself, and the restructuring of the international order. Unless Brexit really does cause hardship at a level where people are on the street (e.g. no food, unlikely). Anyway, I shall redouble my support for the LibDems.
Mr. rkrkrk, it isn't socialist to believe it's silly to pay Ferrari just for turning up.
Mr. Seller, it's not outrageous for people to think a democratic vote should have weight in a democracy.
A democratic vote should definitely have weight in a democracy, on that we're both agreed. But a democracy isn't frozen in aspic. You can't step in the same river twice, etc. What is the statute of limitations on "the will of the people"?
What was it in 1975 ? 40 years maybe ?
What - 40 years of hurt? Arf.
But what you say is true - it's a bit too nuanced for the current political climate, but there's a philosophical point here. Does a referendum set the course for 'x' years, or do we just have endless referendums (referenda?) whenever we want to cut Gordian Knots? That's the problem with subverting parliamentary democracy, you rather set a precedent.
Oh, tosh. Referendums have been around for almost 50 years, and have been discussed as a credible method for longer still.
In reality, 'parliamentary sovereignty' ceased to be a meaningful concept when the franchise became universal. At that point - once it was recognised that the vote was an inherent right rather than a privilege to be earned or granted by position and status - parliament's sovereignty ceased to be intrinsic and became delegated from the people every five (or whatever) years; the people themselves became sovereign. As such, it naturally follows that for the very biggest questions, parliament does not have the sovereignty necessary to take the decision and they have to be referred upwards to the ultimate authority: the people themselves.
Mr. rkrkrk, it isn't socialist to believe it's silly to pay Ferrari just for turning up.
Mr. Seller, it's not outrageous for people to think a democratic vote should have weight in a democracy.
A democratic vote should definitely have weight in a democracy, on that we're both agreed. But a democracy isn't frozen in aspic. You can't step in the same river twice, etc. What is the statute of limitations on "the will of the people"?
What was it in 1975 ? 40 years maybe ?
Labour felt able to propose that Britain leave the EU in 1983, which was the election after next after the referendum.
So one of the main parties could propose rejoining the EU at the next election, yes?
I don't think there's any theoretical restriction on what any political party might choose to include in its manifesto - as we already know, manifestos mean little, so it's worth a punt. At some point, Labour might choose to back re-joining. However, I doubt the EU would touch us with a bargepole.
Given the close result of EUref and the passions provoked on both sides, it's puzzling that the Lib Dems haven't benefited. But then most of British politics is a puzzlement to me ces jours-ci.
Oh I absolutely agree that the EU wouldn't touch Britain with a bargepole in the short term after it had left the EU. Nor should it until Britain has got through its collective nervous breakdown.
Firstly, I don't think that there is any doubt that the vast majority of the population is bored to tears with it. I have doubts at this stage about anyone getting a hearing, no matter what their position. Boris is a witty and entertaining speaker but if he is seriously set to talk about Brexit on his bus tour I would expect small audiences.
Secondly, May has finally come off the fence and shown her remainerist tendencies. The proposal she has made is an extremely soft Brexit giving the EU an absurd amount of say over our domestic and international affairs. But it is still a Brexit and it remains a fact that there was no detail on the ballot paper.
Thirdly, the way in which the government has handled these negotiations has been incompetent beyond belief. The EU refused to negotiate before the Article 50 notice was served. Stupid but there we are. It did not stop the government working out what the hell they wanted. The meeting at Chequers last Friday should have occurred before the notice was even served. The deal last December was a disaster because of the backstop in NI. That was really not thought through. The failure to make provision for no deal was incompetent. I genuinely believe that a competent government that had been clear about what they wanted and what they were prepared to accept would have a better deal for the UK than we have proposed. But we are where we are.
Fourthly, there is no obvious alternative. Given where we have got to in the negotiations, given what we have already signed up for and given the proximity of the time limit I do not see anyone from the ERG or who has recently departed the Cabinet with a better, realistic plan of how we go forward from here. They wish it was otherwise. So do we all but if wishes were fishes we'd all cast nets.
I think now we have no choice but to hope that May can get a deal along the lines that she has set out after Chequers. I won't pretend to like it but incompetence has consequences and my word have we been incompetent (not that the EU has done much better). It's disappointing but it is the best we are going to get. Just get it done.
There is nothing in the Conservative Party constitution that mandates the current leadership process. All that is required is that the MPs present a choice of candidates to the membership (assuming that there is more than one candidate available), and that the winning candidate receives more than 50% of the vote. How you get there is left to the discretion of the 1922 Committee.
In other words, if time is an issue - and if there were an election this summer, it would be - then we can't assume that the election would necessarily be held under exhaustive ballot, as in the past. Possible variations, in increasing order of radicalness, include:
- Exhaustive ballot, with votes held on consecutive days (rather than just Tuesdays and Thursdays); - The MPs vote held under AV; - The MPs vote held under FPTP (or F2PTP) i.e. a one-off vote with the top two going to the membership; - The entire election being thrown direct to the membership, to be held under AV.
The 1922 Committee might also require tighter restrictions on nomination requirements, which historically have been very lax due to the MPs' vote serving to filter out candidates with little support.
There is nothing in the Conservative Party constitution that mandates the current leadership process. All that is required is that the MPs present a choice of candidates to the membership (assuming that there is more than one candidate available), and that the winning candidate receives more than 50% of the vote. How you get there is left to the discretion of the 1922 Committee.
In other words, if time is an issue - and if there were an election this summer, it would be - then we can't assume that the election would necessarily be held under exhaustive ballot, as in the past. Possible variations, in increasing order of radicalness, include:
- Exhaustive ballot, with votes held on consecutive days (rather than just Tuesdays and Thursdays); - The MPs vote held under AV; - The MPs vote held under FPTP (or F2PTP) i.e. a one-off vote with the top two going to the membership; - The entire election being thrown direct to the membership, to be held under AV.
The 1922 Committee might also require tighter restrictions on nomination requirements, which historically have been very lax due to the MPs' vote serving to filter out candidates with little support.
That's really interesting.
So last time around they presented a choice of two candidates to the membership and one of them then dropped out. Technically I don't suppose there's anything to stop them doing the same thing again: First have the proper election to choose your actual leader, then elect your designated drop-out.
For all the talk we've heard in the past, isn't the key problem that's creating the problems around Brexit is UK politicians appeasing the Republican terrorists in Northern Irelend?
Focus now turning to Trump at NATO as he rips into them over funding, and he is not joking. Lots of worried looks but on this I agree with him
Can't see the military threat in Europe. He wants to pull out some troops? Spend less on new weapons? Fine.
You can't see the threat in Europe? Seriously?
Putin has sanctioned wars against former USSR territories first in the Caucasus and then in Ukraine. He has annexed Crimea. Russia was almost certainly behind a major cyber attack that shut down much of Estonia's IT infrastructure and facilities.
You don't think that he poses a similar threat to the Baltic states (which geo-politically are more important even than the Crimea)? If you don't, it's because you don't want to think about it and your conclusions are driving your reasoning rather than vice-versa.
Oh, tosh. Referendums have been around for almost 50 years, and have been discussed as a credible method for longer still.
In reality, 'parliamentary sovereignty' ceased to be a meaningful concept when the franchise became universal. At that point - once it was recognised that the vote was an inherent right rather than a privilege to be earned or granted by position and status - parliament's sovereignty ceased to be intrinsic and became delegated from the people every five (or whatever) years; the people themselves became sovereign. As such, it naturally follows that for the very biggest questions, parliament does not have the sovereignty necessary to take the decision and they have to be referred upwards to the ultimate authority: the people themselves.
There is a problem though in that we have no definition of when to hold a referendum and for what type of changes.
In Ireland it is simple, there is a referendum for changes to the constitution and if a referendum passes then the constitution changes. Most of our referendums have followed this pattern: do you want a Scottish Parliament with these powers? Do you want to use the AV voting system?
The Brexit referendum was not like that, because there was no way of putting to the public a specific alternative to EU membership to vote on. So there is no specific mandate to implement. This is why we now have these interminable arguments about the will of the people, and supposedly subverting democracy if we leave the EU in a way contrary to an individual's ideology.
It would be as though instead of the AV referendum in 2011 we had a referendum on "introducing a fairer electoral system" and, had that passed, we then had to spend years arguing over whether that was a mandate for AV, STV, AV+, MMTV or LBGTQI.
It was an ill-posed question and we should never let politicians hide from complicated questions by proposing to resolve them with a referendum.
Boom! We've got 8 tickets to Hyde Park! We were hoping for 12 but the four extras aren't long suffering supporters so they gracefully bowed out. Absolutely buzzing right now!
In Ireland it is simple, there is a referendum for changes to the constitution and if a referendum passes then the constitution changes. Most of our referendums have followed this pattern: do you want a Scottish Parliament with these powers? Do you want to use the AV voting system?
The Brexit referendum was not like that, because there was no way of putting to the public a specific alternative to EU membership to vote on. So there is no specific mandate to implement.
This point was made previously.
In Ireland, they had decided they wanted to do a thing, figured out how to do it, then asked the people if they should.
Here, we didn't want to do anything, had no idea how to do anything, and asked the people if we should.
There is a problem though in that we have no definition of when to hold a referendum and for what type of changes.
Yes we do. Whenever Parliament deems there should be one.
It's obscure and unclear and largely based on what seems reasonable and precedent, rather than hard and fast rules. Like most of our Constitution in fact.
For all the talk we've heard in the past, isn't the key problem that's creating the problems around Brexit is UK politicians appeasing the Republican terrorists in Northern Irelend?
What an ignorant comment. There's been what you call a terrorist problem in Ireland for well over a century and that should have been solved in 1912 when Parliament voted to give the whole island independence. That was never implemented primarily because of the reaction of the Protestant community in the North.
There is a problem though in that we have no definition of when to hold a referendum and for what type of changes.
Yes we do. Whenever Parliament deems there should be one.
It's obscure and unclear and largely based on what seems reasonable and precedent, rather than hard and fast rules. Like most of our Constitution in fact.
This is the same thing. The EU referendum was held for the purpose of internal Conservative party management.
If Cameron had actually wanted to take the UK out of the EU then we wouldn't have the problems we now have.
There is a problem though in that we have no definition of when to hold a referendum and for what type of changes.
Yes we do. Whenever Parliament deems there should be one.
It's obscure and unclear and largely based on what seems reasonable and precedent, rather than hard and fast rules. Like most of our Constitution in fact.
This is the same thing. The EU referendum was held for the purpose of internal Conservative party management.
If Cameron had actually wanted to take the UK out of the EU then we wouldn't have the problems we now have.
We had a referendum not because Cameron wanted one but because in 2015 a majority of MPs were elected on a pledge to have one. Incidentally was not a majority of votes cast for parties that wanted one too? Although the latter is irrelevant in our system it is worth noting.
For all the talk we've heard in the past, isn't the key problem that's creating the problems around Brexit is UK politicians appeasing the Republican terrorists in Northern Irelend?
What an ignorant comment. There's been what you call a terrorist problem in Ireland for well over a century and that should have been solved in 1912 when Parliament voted to give the whole island independence. That was never implemented primarily because of the reaction of the Protestant community in the North.
It's not ignorant - it's a fact. Whatever the history - we cannot establish a hard border on the island of Ireland because of security implications much as we cannot have a notional border in the Irish Sea for fear of loyalist terrorism
Thirdly, the way in which the government has handled these negotiations has been incompetent beyond belief. The EU refused to negotiate before the Article 50 notice was served. Stupid but there we are. It did not stop the government working out what the hell they wanted. The meeting at Chequers last Friday should have occurred before the notice was even served. The deal last December was a disaster because of the backstop in NI. That was really not thought through. The failure to make provision for no deal was incompetent. I genuinely believe that a competent government that had been clear about what they wanted and what they were prepared to accept would have a better deal for the UK than we have proposed. But we are where we are.
Fourthly, there is no obvious alternative. Given where we have got to in the negotiations, given what we have already signed up for and given the proximity of the time limit I do not see anyone from the ERG or who has recently departed the Cabinet with a better, realistic plan of how we go forward from here. They wish it was otherwise. So do we all but if wishes were fishes we'd all cast nets.
I think now we have no choice but to hope that May can get a deal along the lines that she has set out after Chequers. I won't pretend to like it but incompetence has consequences and my word have we been incompetent (not that the EU has done much better). It's disappointing but it is the best we are going to get. Just get it done.
Morning.
We are giving the world a masterclass in how not to effect radical change. It is very shaming.
The only alternative is do something like what @Gardenwalker described upthread: extend Article 50, move to EEA and take time to decide what sort of relationship we want with Continental Europe.
Much as I dislike many aspects of the EU, I’m beginning to feel that Remain should be a seriously considered option in light of what we now know:-
- disentangling economies and relationships grown together over 40 years takes time, delicacy, skill and emotional intelligence, none of which have been on show. - the Brexiteer cheerleaders have no plan other than to oppose. First the EU, then the government. That is not a plan but a whinge. - May’s deal will leave us following rules we have no input into, which is an absurd position to be in forever. - it does nothing for services. - we have not prepared for a hard Brexit and time is running out. - Trump, Nato and Russia worry me. Being alone in a world where previous strategic verities are being undermined scares me. - Corbyn as PM is not some free hit against the Tories but a man with appalling judgment who should be nowhere near government. - the big challenges we face: mass migration, terrorism etc are better dealt with in concert with others.
Asking people to think again in the light of changed facts does not undermine democracy.
There is a problem though in that we have no definition of when to hold a referendum and for what type of changes.
Yes we do. Whenever Parliament deems there should be one.
It's obscure and unclear and largely based on what seems reasonable and precedent, rather than hard and fast rules. Like most of our Constitution in fact.
This is the same thing. The EU referendum was held for the purpose of internal Conservative party management.
If Cameron had actually wanted to take the UK out of the EU then we wouldn't have the problems we now have.
We had a referendum not because Cameron wanted one but because in 2015 a majority of MPs were elected on a pledge to have one. Incidentally was not a majority of votes cast for parties that wanted one too? Although the latter is irrelevant in our system it is worth noting.
Cameron wrote that pledge, because he didn't have the guts not to.
There is a problem though in that we have no definition of when to hold a referendum and for what type of changes.
Yes we do. Whenever Parliament deems there should be one.
It's obscure and unclear and largely based on what seems reasonable and precedent, rather than hard and fast rules. Like most of our Constitution in fact.
This is the same thing. The EU referendum was held for the purpose of internal Conservative party management.
If Cameron had actually wanted to take the UK out of the EU then we wouldn't have the problems we now have.
We had a referendum not because Cameron wanted one but because in 2015 a majority of MPs were elected on a pledge to have one. Incidentally was not a majority of votes cast for parties that wanted one too? Although the latter is irrelevant in our system it is worth noting.
Cameron wrote that pledge, because he didn't have the guts not to.
Cameron may have written that pledge but if the public didn't vote for it that would have been moot.
The public voted for the pledge. That is why we had the vote.
Firstly, I don't think that there is any doubt that the vast majority of the population is bored to tears with it. I have doubts at this stage about anyone getting a hearing, no matter what their position. Boris is a witty and entertaining speaker but if he is seriously set to talk about Brexit on his bus tour I would expect small audiences.
Secondly, May has finally come off the fence and shown her remainerist tendencies. The proposal she has made is an extremely soft Brexit giving the EU an absurd amount of say over our domestic and international affairs. But it is still a Brexit and it remains a fact that there was no detail on the ballot paper.
Thirdly, the way in which the government has handled these negotiations has been incompetent beyond belief. The EU refused to negotiate before the Article 50 notice was served. Stupid but there we are. It did not stop the government working out what the hell they wanted. The meeting at Chequers last Friday should have occurred before the notice was even served. The deal last December was a disaster because of the backstop in NI. That was really not thought through. The failure to make provision for no deal was incompetent. I genuinely believe that a competent government that had been clear about what they wanted and what they were prepared to accept would have a better deal for the UK than we have proposed. But we are where we are.
Fourthly, there is no obvious alternative. Given where we have got to in the negotiations, given what we have already signed up for and given the proximity of the time limit I do not see anyone from the ERG or who has recently departed the Cabinet with a better, realistic plan of how we go forward from here. They wish it was otherwise. So do we all but if wishes were fishes we'd all cast nets.
I think now we have no choice but to hope that May can get a deal along the lines that she has set out after Chequers. I won't pretend to like it but incompetence has consequences and my word have we been incompetent (not that the EU has done much better). It's disappointing but it is the best we are going to get. Just get it done.
I think reasonable remainers and leavers ought to agree with most of that. Particular the judgment of incompetence.
The EU has been not so much incompetent as unnecessarily intransigent, to the likely detriment of both sides.
For all the talk we've heard in the past, isn't the key problem that's creating the problems around Brexit is UK politicians appeasing the Republican terrorists in Northern Irelend?
What an ignorant comment. There's been what you call a terrorist problem in Ireland for well over a century and that should have been solved in 1912 when Parliament voted to give the whole island independence. That was never implemented primarily because of the reaction of the Protestant community in the North.
It's not ignorant - it's a fact. Whatever the history - we cannot establish a hard border on the island of Ireland because of security implications much as we cannot have a notional border in the Irish Sea for fear of loyalist terrorism
It's not mostly about terrorism. It's about our commitments under the Good Friday Agreement.
In that agreement we acknowledged that it is legitimate for people in Northern Ireland to consider themselves Irish and to aspire to a United Ireland. To an extent, people in Northern Ireland have been able to exist with Schroedinger's statehood. Leaving the Single Market and Customs Union collapses the superposition.
The only solution, in the absence of a fresh mandate to stay in the EU, or for a United Ireland, or an England independent of the UK, is to leave the EU and remain in the Single Market and Customs Union. We will have left the CFP, CAP and all the political bollocks. It's a compromise between the 52% and the 48%. It respects the letter of the referendum question and the GFA.
Thirdly, the way in which the government has handled these negotiations has been incompetent beyond belief. The deal last December was a disaster because of the backstop in NI. That was really not thought through. The failure to make provision for no deal was incompetent. I genuinely believe that a competent government that had been clear about what they wanted and what they were prepared to accept would have a better deal for the UK than we have proposed. But we are where we are.
Fourthly, there is no obvious alternative. Given where we have got to in the negotiations, given what we have already signed up for and given the proximity of the time limit I do not see anyone from the ERG or who has recently departed the Cabinet with a better, realistic plan of how we go forward from here. They wish it was otherwise. So do we all but if wishes were fishes we'd all cast nets.
I think now we have no choice but to hope that May can get a deal along the lines that she has set out after Chequers. I won't pretend to like it but incompetence has consequences and my word have we been incompetent (not that the EU has done much better). It's disappointing but it is the best we are going to get. Just get it done.
Morning.
We are giving the world a masterclass in how not to effect radical change. It is very shaming.
The only alternative is do something like what @Gardenwalker described upthread: extend Article 50, move to EEA and take time to decide what sort of relationship we want with Continental Europe.
Much as I dislike many aspects of the EU, I’m beginning to feel that Remain should be a seriously considered option in light of what we now know:-
- disentangling economies and relationships grown together over 40 years takes time, delicacy, skill and emotional intelligence, none of which have been on show. - the Brexiteer cheerleaders have no plan other than to oppose. First the EU, then the government. That is not a plan but a whinge. - May’s deal will leave us following rules we have no input into, which is an absurd position to be in forever. - it does nothing for services. - we have not prepared for a hard Brexit and time is running out. - Trump, Nato and Russia worry me. Being alone in a world where previous strategic verities are being undermined scares me. - Corbyn as PM is not some free hit against the Tories but a man with appalling judgment who should be nowhere near government. - the big challenges we face: mass migration, terrorism etc are better dealt with in concert with others.
Asking people to think again in the light of changed facts does not undermine democracy.
These aren’t changed facts. They were blindingly obvious facts in June 2016.
Firstly, I don't think that there is any doubt that the vast majority of the population is bored to tears with it. I have doubts at this stage about anyone getting a hearing, no matter what their position. Boris is a witty and entertaining speaker but if he is seriously set to talk about Brexit on his bus tour I would expect small audiences.
Secondly, May has finally come off the fence and shown her remainerist tendencies. The proposal she has made is an extremely soft Brexit giving the EU an absurd amount of say over our domestic and international affairs. But it is still a Brexit and it remains a fact that there was no detail on the ballot paper.
Thirdly, the way in which the government has handled these negotiations has been incompetent beyond belief. The EU refused to negotiate before the Article 50 notice was served. Stupid but there we are. It did not stop the government working out what the hell they wanted. The meeting at Chequers last Friday should have occurred before the notice was even served. The deal last December was a disaster because of the backstop in NI. That was really not thought through. The failure to make provision for no deal was incompetent. I genuinely believe that a competent government that had been clear about what they wanted and what they were prepared to accept would have a better deal for the UK than we have proposed. But we are where we are.
Fourthly, there is no obvious alternative. Given where we have got to in the negotiations, given what we have already signed up for and given the proximity of the time limit I do not see anyone from the ERG or who has recently departed the Cabinet with a better, realistic plan of how we go forward from here. They wish it was otherwise. So do we all but if wishes were fishes we'd all cast nets.
I think now we have no choice but to hope that May can get a deal along the lines that she has set out after Chequers. I won't pretend to like it but incompetence has consequences and my word have we been incompetent (not that the EU has done much better). It's disappointing but it is the best we are going to get. Just get it done.
I think reasonable remainers and leavers ought to agree with most of that. Particular the judgment of incompetence.
The EU has been not so much incompetent as unnecessarily intransigent, to the likely detriment of both sides.
Thirdly, the way in which the government has handled these negotiations has been incompetent beyond belief. The deal last December was a disaster because of the backstop in NI. That was really not thought through. The failure to make provision for no deal was incompetent. I genuinely believe that a competent government that had been clear about what they wanted and what they were prepared to accept would have a better deal for the UK than we have proposed. But we are where we are.
Fourthly, there is no obvious alternative. Given where we have got to in the negotiations, given what we have already signed up for and given the proximity of the time limit I do not see anyone from the ERG or who has recently departed the Cabinet with a better, realistic plan of how we go forward from here. They wish it was otherwise. So do we all but if wishes were fishes we'd all cast nets.
I think now we have no choice but to hope that May can get a deal along the lines that she has set out after Chequers. I won't pretend to like it but incompetence has consequences and my word have we been incompetent (not that the EU has done much better). It's disappointing but it is the best we are going to get. Just get it done.
Morning.
We are giving the world a masterclass in how not to effect radical change. It is very shaming.
The only alternative is do something like what @Gardenwalker described upthread: extend Article 50, move to EEA and take time to decide what sort of relationship we want with Continental Europe.
Much as I dislike many aspects of the EU, I’m beginning to feel that Remain should be a seriously considered option in light of what we now know:-
- disentangling economies and relationships grown together over 40 years takes time, delicacy, skill and emotional intelligence, none of which have been on show. - the Brexiteer cheerleaders have no plan other than to oppose. First the EU, then the government. That is not a plan but a whinge. - May’s deal will leave us following rules we have no input into, which is an absurd position to be in forever. - it does nothing for services. - we have not prepared for a hard Brexit and time is running out. - Trump, Nato and Russia worry me. Being alone in a world where previous strategic verities are being undermined scares me. - Corbyn as PM is not some free hit against the Tories but a man with appalling judgment who should be nowhere near government. - the big challenges we face: mass migration, terrorism etc are better dealt with in concert with others.
Asking people to think again in the light of changed facts does not undermine democracy.
These aren’t changed facts. They were blindingly obvious facts in June 2016.
Comments
Her breathtaking incompetence makes the gelatinous Cameron look like Henry V by comparison. When her autobiography is written, it should be published as a loose sheaf of unbound pages — no spine. That would make it inconvenient to read, but who would want to do so in the first place? Students of mediocrity?
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/theresa-may-must-go-uk-deserves-better-leader-to-handle-brexit/
And while Im happy with eventually getting a vote on issues that should have been put to the electorate in 2009 if as remainers say staying in was the most important thing for the nation Cameron shouldn't have called the vote. However he was more interested in internal party politics. And not very good at it.
Probably if Cameron had held firm against a referendum, UKIP would now be on 20% or so, but as you say, hurting Labour as much as the Tories.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5938743/Italy-turns-away-ITALIAN-ship-ports-rescued-migrants.html
And has one of the most decrepit and useless armed forces in Nato.
Germans should be embarrassed that they need Trump to point out some home truths.
' I'm enjoying the seamless transition of the Brexit extremists from "fruit picking problems are fake news" to "hurrah that we have no strawberries". '
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/05/31/__trashed-4/#vanilla-comments
And now some work.
Am sure it will be a raging success in elections.
Seems daft to me. Richer teams will be able to afford a third car, pushing the midfield out of the points. Far better to have a fairer distribution of income.
However as the slaughter of the LDs showed Cameron could still get a majority especially if he had spent more time sorting out Scotland
any way must go now. Brooke Juniors graduation beckons. Enjoy the football.
Mr. Seller, it's not outrageous for people to think a democratic vote should have weight in a democracy.
https://twitter.com/HuffPostUKPol/status/1016959666608320512
I can't think of a single modernisation thing that Cameron did in later years that wasn't entirely appropriate and the right thing to do.
If anything most of the modernisation agenda actually fell away following the global financial crisis to be replaced with austerity.
It's a frequent criticism of Cameron, but what are the areas of his modernisation that Tories actually want to reverse?
I see grammar schools (if you'd count that) as an area where they've changed tack. Perhaps many would like to scrap the foreign aid target. But do they really want to ban same-sex marriage? Or repeal some of the equalities legislation?
We are members of the EU, until we voted not to be.
And we are leaving the EU, until we vote not to...
But what you say is true - it's a bit too nuanced for the current political climate, but there's a philosophical point here. Does a referendum set the course for 'x' years, or do we just have endless referendums (referenda?) whenever we want to cut Gordian Knots? That's the problem with subverting parliamentary democracy, you rather set a precedent.
So one of the main parties could propose rejoining the EU at the next election, yes?
As you know, I think that the Russian threat is massively overstated but the States with boundaries with it are right to be apprehensive about what happens next. Its a pity that they have chosen this time to fall out with the most effective military power in Europe isn't it?
The 1975 referendum mandate lasted until 1979. However, no party until 2015 won an election on a mandate of either outright withdrawal or on putting the question to the people.
Had Foot won the 1983 election the 1975 referendum result would have been overturned without the need for another referendum.
https://twitter.com/PFisherHerald/status/1016595137588232192
https://twitter.com/iaindale/status/1016913307687686144?s=21
https://youtu.be/2vfJPk8isQQ
Given the close result of EUref and the passions provoked on both sides, it's puzzling that the Lib Dems haven't benefited. But then most of British politics is a puzzlement to me ces jours-ci.
It took UKIP 20 years, so I think that's the timescale we're looking at (to get back in I mean). Also, we need to see the impact of Brexit on the EU itself, and the restructuring of the international order. Unless Brexit really does cause hardship at a level where people are on the street (e.g. no food, unlikely). Anyway, I shall redouble my support for the LibDems.
In reality, 'parliamentary sovereignty' ceased to be a meaningful concept when the franchise became universal. At that point - once it was recognised that the vote was an inherent right rather than a privilege to be earned or granted by position and status - parliament's sovereignty ceased to be intrinsic and became delegated from the people every five (or whatever) years; the people themselves became sovereign. As such, it naturally follows that for the very biggest questions, parliament does not have the sovereignty necessary to take the decision and they have to be referred upwards to the ultimate authority: the people themselves.
Firstly, I don't think that there is any doubt that the vast majority of the population is bored to tears with it. I have doubts at this stage about anyone getting a hearing, no matter what their position. Boris is a witty and entertaining speaker but if he is seriously set to talk about Brexit on his bus tour I would expect small audiences.
Secondly, May has finally come off the fence and shown her remainerist tendencies. The proposal she has made is an extremely soft Brexit giving the EU an absurd amount of say over our domestic and international affairs. But it is still a Brexit and it remains a fact that there was no detail on the ballot paper.
Thirdly, the way in which the government has handled these negotiations has been incompetent beyond belief. The EU refused to negotiate before the Article 50 notice was served. Stupid but there we are. It did not stop the government working out what the hell they wanted. The meeting at Chequers last Friday should have occurred before the notice was even served. The deal last December was a disaster because of the backstop in NI. That was really not thought through. The failure to make provision for no deal was incompetent. I genuinely believe that a competent government that had been clear about what they wanted and what they were prepared to accept would have a better deal for the UK than we have proposed. But we are where we are.
Fourthly, there is no obvious alternative. Given where we have got to in the negotiations, given what we have already signed up for and given the proximity of the time limit I do not see anyone from the ERG or who has recently departed the Cabinet with a better, realistic plan of how we go forward from here. They wish it was otherwise. So do we all but if wishes were fishes we'd all cast nets.
I think now we have no choice but to hope that May can get a deal along the lines that she has set out after Chequers. I won't pretend to like it but incompetence has consequences and my word have we been incompetent (not that the EU has done much better). It's disappointing but it is the best we are going to get. Just get it done.
There is nothing in the Conservative Party constitution that mandates the current leadership process. All that is required is that the MPs present a choice of candidates to the membership (assuming that there is more than one candidate available), and that the winning candidate receives more than 50% of the vote. How you get there is left to the discretion of the 1922 Committee.
In other words, if time is an issue - and if there were an election this summer, it would be - then we can't assume that the election would necessarily be held under exhaustive ballot, as in the past. Possible variations, in increasing order of radicalness, include:
- Exhaustive ballot, with votes held on consecutive days (rather than just Tuesdays and Thursdays);
- The MPs vote held under AV;
- The MPs vote held under FPTP (or F2PTP) i.e. a one-off vote with the top two going to the membership;
- The entire election being thrown direct to the membership, to be held under AV.
The 1922 Committee might also require tighter restrictions on nomination requirements, which historically have been very lax due to the MPs' vote serving to filter out candidates with little support.
So last time around they presented a choice of two candidates to the membership and one of them then dropped out. Technically I don't suppose there's anything to stop them doing the same thing again: First have the proper election to choose your actual leader, then elect your designated drop-out.
Putin has sanctioned wars against former USSR territories first in the Caucasus and then in Ukraine. He has annexed Crimea. Russia was almost certainly behind a major cyber attack that shut down much of Estonia's IT infrastructure and facilities.
You don't think that he poses a similar threat to the Baltic states (which geo-politically are more important even than the Crimea)? If you don't, it's because you don't want to think about it and your conclusions are driving your reasoning rather than vice-versa.
While she's at it why not call a General Election against Corbyn?
What could possibly go wrong?
In Ireland it is simple, there is a referendum for changes to the constitution and if a referendum passes then the constitution changes. Most of our referendums have followed this pattern: do you want a Scottish Parliament with these powers? Do you want to use the AV voting system?
The Brexit referendum was not like that, because there was no way of putting to the public a specific alternative to EU membership to vote on. So there is no specific mandate to implement. This is why we now have these interminable arguments about the will of the people, and supposedly subverting democracy if we leave the EU in a way contrary to an individual's ideology.
It would be as though instead of the AV referendum in 2011 we had a referendum on "introducing a fairer electoral system" and, had that passed, we then had to spend years arguing over whether that was a mandate for AV, STV, AV+, MMTV or LBGTQI.
It was an ill-posed question and we should never let politicians hide from complicated questions by proposing to resolve them with a referendum.
In Ireland, they had decided they wanted to do a thing, figured out how to do it, then asked the people if they should.
Here, we didn't want to do anything, had no idea how to do anything, and asked the people if we should.
https://youtu.be/P3SsM1RYdI4
It's obscure and unclear and largely based on what seems reasonable and precedent, rather than hard and fast rules. Like most of our Constitution in fact.
If Cameron had actually wanted to take the UK out of the EU then we wouldn't have the problems we now have.
We are giving the world a masterclass in how not to effect radical change. It is very shaming.
The only alternative is do something like what @Gardenwalker described upthread: extend Article 50, move to EEA and take time to decide what sort of relationship we want with Continental Europe.
Much as I dislike many aspects of the EU, I’m beginning to feel that Remain should be a seriously considered option in light of what we now know:-
- disentangling economies and relationships grown together over 40 years takes time, delicacy, skill and emotional intelligence, none of which have been on show.
- the Brexiteer cheerleaders have no plan other than to oppose. First the EU, then the government. That is not a plan but a whinge.
- May’s deal will leave us following rules we have no input into, which is an absurd position to be in forever.
- it does nothing for services.
- we have not prepared for a hard Brexit and time is running out.
- Trump, Nato and Russia worry me. Being alone in a world where previous strategic verities are being undermined scares me.
- Corbyn as PM is not some free hit against the Tories but a man with appalling judgment who should be nowhere near government.
- the big challenges we face: mass migration, terrorism etc are better dealt with in concert with others.
Asking people to think again in the light of changed facts does not undermine democracy.
The public voted for the pledge. That is why we had the vote.
Particular the judgment of incompetence.
The EU has been not so much incompetent as unnecessarily intransigent, to the likely detriment of both sides.
In that agreement we acknowledged that it is legitimate for people in Northern Ireland to consider themselves Irish and to aspire to a United Ireland. To an extent, people in Northern Ireland have been able to exist with Schroedinger's statehood. Leaving the Single Market and Customs Union collapses the superposition.
The only solution, in the absence of a fresh mandate to stay in the EU, or for a United Ireland, or an England independent of the UK, is to leave the EU and remain in the Single Market and Customs Union. We will have left the CFP, CAP and all the political bollocks. It's a compromise between the 52% and the 48%. It respects the letter of the referendum question and the GFA.
https://ico.org.uk/media/2259363/emmas-diary-noi-redacted.pdf
https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1016947986545471489