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.
Most of us would consider it unreasonable if the SNP were to argue it had a mandate for UDI, by virtue of winning most Scottish seats in 2015 and 2017, regardless of the fact that most Scots oppose independence.
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.
I don't think the facts have changed particularly.
I could live with the proposals that Theresa May has put forward, and think they are consistent with the result.
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.
Trump had not been elected in June 2016. Nor was Corbyn seen as a likely PM then. I never much rated May but I thought she would be more competent at the process of Brexit than she has been. The sequencing of talks was not known then nor May's proposal etc.
This might well have been foreseeable. But it has now come to pass. So I see no good reason not to ask people to reconsider in light of the situation now.
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.
I'm not saying it's admirable, but if one negotiating side is 'incompetent beyond belief' it's probably nigh on impossible for the other not to succumb to intransigence.
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.
Trump had not been elected in June 2016. Nor was Corbyn seen as a likely PM then. I never much rated May but I thought she would be more competent at the process of Brexit than she has been. The sequencing of talks was not known then nor May's proposal etc.
This might well have been foreseeable. But it has now come to pass. So I see no good reason not to ask people to reconsider in light of the situation now.
Trump, hell bent on selling out Europe to Russia I get, but I don’t see the relevance of Corbyn to the decision on whether we should leave the EU.
In the words of Robin Day interviewing John Nott, he’s a here today, gone tomorrow politician.
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.
Trump had not been elected in June 2016. Nor was Corbyn seen as a likely PM then. I never much rated May but I thought she would be more competent at the process of Brexit than she has been. The sequencing of talks was not known then nor May's proposal etc.
This might well have been foreseeable. But it has now come to pass. So I see no good reason not to ask people to reconsider in light of the situation now.
Some of us spotted the start of the Trump train back in '15. By June 2016 he was well on his way.
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.
Agree with some of that.
The transitional period is going to be agony enough with the constant debate and moaning by both sides. The last thing we need is to extend it.
We don't need to disentangle our economies if we have a FTA. We have to disentangle our laws but that is mainly our problem (the EU will need to give us some reciprocal rights as a non member state).
Obviously do agree that the way we have gone about this is not much short of disastrous.
Also agree that May's proposals simply cannot be the long term and that service access to the SIngle Market is far more important to us than goods.
I think our strategic position is relatively safe for the foreseeable future. Putin is a bad neighbour but we are not neighbours.
Completely agree about Corbyn but it is the job of the Tories to have a credible alternative. So far that situation is vacant.
I do agree we need to continue working with our neighbours on many of the challenges that we face but that does not require us to be subjugated to a different legal system.
I completely disagree that we can be invited to "change our minds" before Brexit is implemented. We were asked and gave an answer. If our political system is to survive we must respect that.
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.
I don't think the facts have changed particularly.
I could live with the proposals that Theresa May has put forward, and think they are consistent with the result.
Trouble is: lots of versions of Brexit are consistent with the result. Including the one suggested down thread (staying in the SM and CU) to resolve the Northern Ireland problem.
Of course we could live with this. But that isn't what the Brexiteers promised. And it highlights very painfully that we will have even less control than before - we will have no input into rules we will need to follow. That is absurd if the argument for Brexit was to have more control over your own laws.
I honestly don't know what the answer is. But there is something sinister about this calling people traitors and insisting that the will of the people be followed when even those who wanted Brexit can't spell out any sort of plan for enacting it - any sort of plan that doesn't melt away into mist the moment it makes contact with the real world.
We have not left yet. It is not traitorous or absurd or too late to take a deep breath and ask ourselves as a nation, knowing what we do - now - about our options, the real ones, our constraints, the consequences of this proposal, of no deal etc - and what is going on in the world if this is what we really want to do.
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.
Most of us would consider it unreasonable if the SNP were to argue it had a mandate for UDI, by virtue of winning most Scottish seats in 2015 and 2017, regardless of the fact that most Scots oppose independence.
As indeed do the SNP themselves, who once argued that to win a majority of Scottish seats constituted a mandate for independence.
I completely disagree that we can be invited to "change our minds" before Brexit is implemented. We were asked and gave an answer. If our political system is to survive we must respect that.
If there were good evidence that the public had decisively changed its minds before Brexit were implemented (perhaps caused by the rank incompetence and weaselly self-serving venality of its proponents) then I would disagree with you.
For now, however, there is no such evidence and the country must go over Niagara in a barrel unless public opinion shifts abruptly in a very few months.
I completely disagree that we can be invited to "change our minds" before Brexit is implemented. We were asked and gave an answer. If our political system is to survive we must respect that.
The worst possible argument for not giving people a chance to have the final say is that the political class would lose face if they didn't deliver something called "Brexit" come what may.
I'm not saying it's admirable, but if one negotiating side is 'incompetent beyond belief' it's probably nigh on impossible for the other not to succumb to intransigence.
I can see the risk but the truth is that they have not thought to what sort of relationship they want with the UK going forward either. They obsessed about relatively trivial sums of money for 18 months and then allowed Ireland to take most sensible discussion off the table. Do they want access to our market? Presumably yes. On what basis? Err...
It's easy to sit and laugh and I can see the temptation but often in negotiation where one party seems incapable of framing the issues you need to do it for them.
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.
The problem is that achieving any such outcome would require competent and determined leadership - and if we had that, we wouldn't be in the current situation.
I completely disagree that we can be invited to "change our minds" before Brexit is implemented. We were asked and gave an answer. If our political system is to survive we must respect that.
The worst possible argument for not giving people a chance to have the final say is that the political class would lose face if they didn't deliver something called "Brexit" come what may.
Miss Cyclefree, also not comfortable with the use of language around treason etc. The other side liberally spraying around accusations of racism is also less than helpful.
I think I have found the solution, however. We can, together, enjoy unfettered economic access, self-governance, close co-operation with the EU and the right to strike our own deals, and the Irish border won't be a problem.
We don't need to disentangle our economies if we have a FTA. We have to disentangle our laws but that is mainly our problem (the EU will need to give us some reciprocal rights as a non member state).
No. Economic entanglement requires a common rule of law, a court of arbitration if you will. Some laws are therefore necessarily entwined.
As an aside, that doesn't mean every law. Italy does not have a law against foxhunting as we do.
I completely disagree that we can be invited to "change our minds" before Brexit is implemented. We were asked and gave an answer. If our political system is to survive we must respect that.
The transitional period is going to be agony enough with the constant debate and moaning by both sides. The last thing we need is to extend it.
We don't need to disentangle our economies if we have a FTA. We have to disentangle our laws but that is mainly our problem (the EU will need to give us some reciprocal rights as a non member state).
Obviously do agree that the way we have gone about this is not much short of disastrous.
Also agree that May's proposals simply cannot be the long term and that service access to the SIngle Market is far more important to us than goods.
I think our strategic position is relatively safe for the foreseeable future. Putin is a bad neighbour but we are not neighbours.
Completely agree about Corbyn but it is the job of the Tories to have a credible alternative. So far that situation is vacant.
I do agree we need to continue working with our neighbours on many of the challenges that we face but that does not require us to be subjugated to a different legal system.
I completely disagree that we can be invited to "change our minds" before Brexit is implemented. We were asked and gave an answer. If our political system is to survive we must respect that.
I see the last point as a bit like a cooling off period. You've decided to do something. You are given time to digest the implications. Then you're asked to confirm whether or not you do want to go ahead.
I understand the concerns about not respecting the vote. My concerns are that people were missold a prospectus. When it becomes apparent that Brexit does not mean what they thought - when people start losing jobs etc, for instance - they could turn on the government, whoever is in charge, and say you did not tell us about this. The damage to our polity from, say, serious economic harm could be just as harmful to our political system as the damage from continuing with a policy without asking the voters if they really want to go through with this, knowing what they know now - and did not know - in June 2016.
I completely disagree that we can be invited to "change our minds" before Brexit is implemented. We were asked and gave an answer. If our political system is to survive we must respect that.
The worst possible argument for not giving people a chance to have the final say is that the political class would lose face if they didn't deliver something called "Brexit" come what may.
Why
Because the national interest comes before the reputations of individual politicians, or even the political class in general.
We can see from the Telegraph story that even if we deliver "Brexit", a meaningful number of people will regard it as a treasonous betrayal of what they thought they were voting for.
I completely disagree that we can be invited to "change our minds" before Brexit is implemented. We were asked and gave an answer. If our political system is to survive we must respect that.
If there were good evidence that the public had decisively changed its minds before Brexit were implemented (perhaps caused by the rank incompetence and weaselly self-serving venality of its proponents) then I would disagree with you.
For now, however, there is no such evidence and the country must go over Niagara in a barrel unless public opinion shifts abruptly in a very few months.
Yes, I would accept that qualification. If there was something like 70:30 in favour of remaining in the polling then there may be an argument although I think the consequences for trust in politics and politicians would be severe. It is also open to question, of course, on what terms we would be remaining. Cameron's deal, such as it was, is off the table but there is no guarantee that the rebate would remain or that the EU would even say yes.
The transitional period is going to be agony enough with the constant debate and moaning by both sides. The last thing we need is to extend it.
We don't need to disentangle our economies if we have a FTA. We have to disentangle our laws but that is mainly our problem (the EU will need to give us some reciprocal rights as a non member state).
Obviously do agree that the way we have gone about this is not much short of disastrous.
Also agree that May's proposals simply cannot be the long term and that service access to the SIngle Market is far more important to us than goods.
I think our strategic position is relatively safe for the foreseeable future. Putin is a bad neighbour but we are not neighbours.
Completely agree about Corbyn but it is the job of the Tories to have a credible alternative. So far that situation is vacant.
I do agree we need to continue working with our neighbours on many of the challenges that we face but that does not require us to be subjugated to a different legal system.
I completely disagree that we can be invited to "change our minds" before Brexit is implemented. We were asked and gave an answer. If our political system is to survive we must respect that.
I see the last point as a bit like a cooling off period. You've decided to do something. You are given time to digest the implications. Then you're asked to confirm whether or not you do want to go ahead.
I understand the concerns about not respecting the vote. My concerns are that people were missold a prospectus. When it becomes apparent that Brexit does not mean what they thought - when people start losing jobs etc, for instance - they could turn on the government, whoever is in charge, and say you did not tell us about this. The damage to our polity from, say, serious economic harm could be just as harmful to our political system as the damage from continuing with a policy without asking the voters if they really want to go through with this, knowing what they know now - and did not know - in June 2016.
It would confirm that the only type of Referendum that is deemed binding is one that delivers more Europe.
If euro membership had been passed in a referendum, Tony Blair would never have said, let's have another vote in two years' time.
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.
It's a well-made point, thank you.
I think my 'subversion of parliamentary democracy' comment was more to do with the way UKIP ate away at the Tories (and to some extent Labour) which then allowed them to leverage the sitting government to get the referendum tabled - rather than trying to get their party voted into power (which they singularly failed to do under FPTP).
However, you could argue they were subverting a broken system anyway. Maybe under PR, UKIP would've got a referendum sooner?
I'm just interested into how we get back into the EU, and I think you have to "do a UKIP" over a similar (20 year) horizon.
Mr. F, that is the problem of a second referendum (and calling it a People's Vote, as if that means something else, is just dumb).
However, I do think the least damaging way for a reverse would be a second vote. The alternative is the Commons doing it which would be even worse.
The suspicion, not without cause, that a referendum only counts if the electorate are deemed wise enough to agree with the political class/EU is not good for the state of our democracy. Any referendum against the EU gets a drive for a second vote, any referendum for the EU gets banked. The ratchet only turns one way.
Hard to escape the thought that if Corbyn wasn't Corbyn and was say Stamer a believable Remainer who let it be known that in the event of a Labour victory the Referendum would be re-run that May would lose a vote of confidence and Labour would get a Blair sized landslide.
As it is however incompetent May and co and whatever version of Brexit they come up with the Tories would still gain a working majority.
Mr. F, that is the problem of a second referendum (and calling it a People's Vote, as if that means something else, is just dumb).
However, I do think the least damaging way for a reverse would be a second vote. The alternative is the Commons doing it which would be even worse.
The suspicion, not without cause, that a referendum only counts if the electorate are deemed wise enough to agree with the political class/EU is not good for the state of our democracy. Any referendum against the EU gets a drive for a second vote, any referendum for the EU gets banked. The ratchet only turns one way.
That's what a ratchet is. If it turned both ways, or neither, it'd be something else.
"I could live with the proposals that Theresa May has put forward, and think they are consistent with the result."
I don't regard myself as an arbiter, but I'd suggest setting our own immigration rules and trade deals would be a bare minimum.
The problem will be getting a straight answer from the EU. Remember we are negotiating with a mouthpiece only. Delay after delay is a bureaucrat's stock-in-trade.
We don't need to disentangle our economies if we have a FTA. We have to disentangle our laws but that is mainly our problem (the EU will need to give us some reciprocal rights as a non member state).
No. Economic entanglement requires a common rule of law, a court of arbitration if you will. Some laws are therefore necessarily entwined.
As an aside, that doesn't mean every law. Italy does not have a law against foxhunting as we do.
I completely disagree that we can be invited to "change our minds" before Brexit is implemented. We were asked and gave an answer. If our political system is to survive we must respect that.
Tell the SNP you can't ask the public again...
Our largest single trading partner is the US. We have almost no common rule of law or a court of arbitration. We are dependent on the Hague Conventions for implementation of decrees, for example, and those conventions are limited in their application. I would accept that the limitations of such arrangements is shown by the current trade wars but it is not essential.
I completely disagree that we can be invited to "change our minds" before Brexit is implemented. We were asked and gave an answer. If our political system is to survive we must respect that.
The worst possible argument for not giving people a chance to have the final say is that the political class would lose face if they didn't deliver something called "Brexit" come what may.
Why
Because the national interest comes before the reputations of individual politicians, or even the political class in general.
We can see from the Telegraph story that even if we deliver "Brexit", a meaningful number of people will regard it as a treasonous betrayal of what they thought they were voting for.
And if we remain it would be a massive betrayal without first having left
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.
It's a well-made point, thank you.
I think my 'subversion of parliamentary democracy' comment was more to do with the way UKIP ate away at the Tories (and to some extent Labour) which then allowed them to leverage the sitting government to get the referendum tabled - rather than trying to get their party voted into power (which they singularly failed to do under FPTP).
However, you could argue they were subverting a broken system anyway. Maybe under PR, UKIP would've got a referendum sooner?
[snip]
Under PR, I expect that the referendum result would have come about at around the same time - the 2015 election would likely have been a Con-UKIP coalition / S&C arrangement.
On the other hand, had PR been introduced earlier, we might have had the referendum on Lisbon and that might have lanced the boil that led to a full in/out vote.
May now carries Brexit just as Brown carried the global financial crash, Blair the Iraq War and Major the events of September 1992.
For her, A50 is not only her cross but her legacy. As long as she carries it alone, it leaves others clean to carry on afterward. The logic for the Conservatives of retaining May in office through the A50 process and into Transition is inescapable - to change now would force someone else to take the responsibility of the poisoned chalice.
May can now be blamed personally for anything that goes wrong from here on - having re-invoked collective responsibility, she stands as primus inter pares for every decision or non-decision. Yet she has encouraged this by taking Ministers out of the equation and falling back on "advisers".
As for the football, I did my cajones on Saturday opposing England - a three figure loss on the football became a modest two figure loss thanks to some more judicious horse racing bets.
I'm really uncertain about tonight - England are overdue a poor performance and I wonder how we would react to going behind. That said, Croatia have ridden their luck against Denmark and Russia while we looked for the most part comfortable against a poor Swedish side.
I've backed the draw at 90 minutes at 21/10 but only to small money as it's not a match about which I have any confidence.
Remember that most Labour MPs have leave-voting constituencies. To state in a manifesto that their vote and opinions are wrong would get a 'fuck-you' response. There's no point getting a massive majority in Islington if you lose the North.
And in case anyone remains in doubt about the importance of the NI issue, I see that our premier statesman of the age, Prince Megharry is today visiting Croke Park.
I completely disagree that we can be invited to "change our minds" before Brexit is implemented. We were asked and gave an answer. If our political system is to survive we must respect that.
If there were good evidence that the public had decisively changed its minds before Brexit were implemented (perhaps caused by the rank incompetence and weaselly self-serving venality of its proponents) then I would disagree with you.
For now, however, there is no such evidence and the country must go over Niagara in a barrel unless public opinion shifts abruptly in a very few months.
Yes, I would accept that qualification. If there was something like 70:30 in favour of remaining in the polling then there may be an argument although I think the consequences for trust in politics and politicians would be severe. It is also open to question, of course, on what terms we would be remaining. Cameron's deal, such as it was, is off the table but there is no guarantee that the rebate would remain or that the EU would even say yes.
If the EU played silly beggars about the terms for remaining, that hypothesiced 70-30 split wouldn't last long.
I completely disagree that we can be invited to "change our minds" before Brexit is implemented. We were asked and gave an answer. If our political system is to survive we must respect that.
The worst possible argument for not giving people a chance to have the final say is that the political class would lose face if they didn't deliver something called "Brexit" come what may.
Why
Because the national interest comes before the reputations of individual politicians, or even the political class in general.
We can see from the Telegraph story that even if we deliver "Brexit", a meaningful number of people will regard it as a treasonous betrayal of what they thought they were voting for.
And if we remain it would be a massive betrayal without first having left
As I keep telling our good EUphile friend, if the party ever put remain back on a ballot paper, we'd be out of power for a generation, if we somehow allowed Parliament to keep us in, we'd be out of power for a generation. Anything which doesn't take us out of the EU would cause an existential crisis for the party. Almost no Tory MPs would vote for putting remain back on the agenda. I can only come up with three or maybe four names.
And that says it all about the uselessness of Corbyn
So useless he has Labour polling at 39%? Within margin of error of Tony Blair in 2001!
Corbyn has drawbacks as leader certainly, but he has transformed Labour's fortunes and done better electorally than Brown or Miliband. Whoever takes over from him will inherit a much healthier Labour party than he did IMO.
I completely disagree that we can be invited to "change our minds" before Brexit is implemented. We were asked and gave an answer. If our political system is to survive we must respect that.
The worst possible argument for not giving people a chance to have the final say is that the political class would lose face if they didn't deliver something called "Brexit" come what may.
Why
Because the national interest comes before the reputations of individual politicians, or even the political class in general.
We can see from the Telegraph story that even if we deliver "Brexit", a meaningful number of people will regard it as a treasonous betrayal of what they thought they were voting for.
And if we remain it would be a massive betrayal without first having left
As I keep telling our good EUphile friend, if the party ever put remain back on a ballot paper, we'd be out of power for a generation, if we somehow allowed Parliament to keep us in, we'd be out of power for a generation. Anything which doesn't take us out of the EU would cause an existential crisis for the party. Almost no Tory MPs would vote for putting remain back on the agenda. I can only come up with three or maybe four names.
I don't see why asking the question would be so corrosive. I mean I happen not to think that a second referendum is a good idea for all kinds of reasons, but I don't see how, by asking the question, there is such an egregious sin being committed.
It slightly puts you into the Ed Miliband camp of not wanting a referendum in the first place. There is no god-given mandate of minimum time elapsed between referendums.
It would confirm that the only type of Referendum that is deemed binding is one that delivers more Europe.
If euro membership had been passed in a referendum, Tony Blair would never have said, let's have another vote in two years' time.
Not true. If in a parallel universe remain had won, you can bet there would be pressure to have a second vote, or reverse the decision. That's what happens when you are split down the middle, and for all the joking about Schroedinger's Brexit, there's plenty of other physics laws you could bring into play: complementarity and symmetry for a start. We just happen to be in this universe...
I completely disagree that we can be invited to "change our minds" before Brexit is implemented. We were asked and gave an answer. If our political system is to survive we must respect that.
If there were good evidence that the public had decisively changed its minds before Brexit were implemented (perhaps caused by the rank incompetence and weaselly self-serving venality of its proponents) then I would disagree with you.
For now, however, there is no such evidence and the country must go over Niagara in a barrel unless public opinion shifts abruptly in a very few months.
Yes, I would accept that qualification. If there was something like 70:30 in favour of remaining in the polling then there may be an argument although I think the consequences for trust in politics and politicians would be severe. It is also open to question, of course, on what terms we would be remaining. Cameron's deal, such as it was, is off the table but there is no guarantee that the rebate would remain or that the EU would even say yes.
If the EU played silly beggars about the terms for remaining, that hypothesiced 70-30 split wouldn't last long.
Indeed. Last time we didn't know what Brexit looked like other than a few pipedreams. The next time we may not know what Bremain would look like. This could go on forever which is why I have reservations about the EU saying yes.
@stodge I've backed England to win in 90 minutes. Both sides have defensive weaknesses and England look better up front.
btw Alastair where in the country are you moving to? And did you decide upon a car?
I have a house just outside Colchester. We're still considering what car to get. However, my head is being melted with discussions about paint colours first. I can't even say "terracotta" because one of the rooms which we're looking to redecorate is currently painted terracotta.
I completely disagree that we can be invited to "change our minds" before Brexit is implemented. We were asked and gave an answer. If our political system is to survive we must respect that.
The worst possible argument for not giving people a chance to have the final say is that the political class would lose face if they didn't deliver something called "Brexit" come what may.
Why
Because the national interest comes before the reputations of individual politicians, or even the political class in general.
We can see from the Telegraph story that even if we deliver "Brexit", a meaningful number of people will regard it as a treasonous betrayal of what they thought they were voting for.
And if we remain it would be a massive betrayal without first having left
As I keep telling our good EUphile friend, if the party ever put remain back on a ballot paper, we'd be out of power for a generation, if we somehow allowed Parliament to keep us in, we'd be out of power for a generation. Anything which doesn't take us out of the EU would cause an existential crisis for the party. Almost no Tory MPs would vote for putting remain back on the agenda. I can only come up with three or maybe four names.
I don't see why asking the question would be so corrosive. I mean I happen not to think that a second referendum is a good idea for all kinds of reasons, but I don't see how, by asking the question, there is such an egregious sin being committed.
It slightly puts you into the Ed Miliband camp of not wanting a referendum in the first place. There is no god-given mandate of minimum time elapsed between referendums.
I think the current referendum mandate has to be fulfilled before we can ever put EU membership back on the ballot paper. A future Tory party may think it is worth it at some point (something TSE has previously trolled about), but for now if the party contrives to keep the nation in the EU then we'd lose 10m voters overnight. Remember, the majority of leave voters were Conservative voters and and even bigger majority of Con voters are leave voters and supporters.
@stodge I've backed England to win in 90 minutes. Both sides have defensive weaknesses and England look better up front.
btw Alastair where in the country are you moving to? And did you decide upon a car?
I have a house just outside Colchester. We're still considering what car to get. However, my head is being melted with discussions about paint colours first. I can't even say "terracotta" because one of the rooms which we're looking to redecorate is currently painted terracotta.
Very nice - as to the car there seem to be zillions of offers out there and I'm sure the right one will come along.
"If in a parallel universe remain had won, you can bet there would be pressure to have a second vote, or reverse the decision."
No doubt, which had been the case for a couple of decades beforehand, and had been totally ignored. Now the sleeping dogs have been wakened, and they were beginning to rouse anyway, you have to feed them. If they choke on the meal, that is the time to suggest reversal.
I completely disagree that we can be invited to "change our minds" before Brexit is implemented. We were asked and gave an answer. If our political system is to survive we must respect that.
The worst possible argument for not giving people a chance to have the final say is that the political class would lose face if they didn't deliver something called "Brexit" come what may.
Why
Because the national interest comes before the reputations of individual politicians, or even the political class in general.
We can see from the Telegraph story that even if we deliver "Brexit", a meaningful number of people will regard it as a treasonous betrayal of what they thought they were voting for.
And if we remain it would be a massive betrayal without first having left
As I keep telling our good EUphile friend, if the party ever put remain back on a ballot paper, we'd be out of power for a generation, if we somehow allowed Parliament to keep us in, we'd be out of power for a generation. Anything which doesn't take us out of the EU would cause an existential crisis for the party. Almost no Tory MPs would vote for putting remain back on the agenda. I can only come up with three or maybe four names.
I don't see why asking the question would be so corrosive. I mean I happen not to think that a second referendum is a good idea for all kinds of reasons, but I don't see how, by asking the question, there is such an egregious sin being committed.
It slightly puts you into the Ed Miliband camp of not wanting a referendum in the first place. There is no god-given mandate of minimum time elapsed between referendums.
I think the current referendum mandate has to be fulfilled before we can ever put EU membership back on the ballot paper. A future Tory party may think it is worth it at some point (something TSE has previously trolled about), but for now if the party contrives to keep the nation in the EU then we'd lose 10m voters overnight. Remember, the majority of leave voters were Conservative voters and and even bigger majority of Con voters are leave voters and supporters.
I see that but I also see @Cyclefree's point that it is reasonable to recognise the sh*tshow that this has all become. I happen to think that another referendum would deliver a resounding Leave vote again but I can see how it could be justified.
"If in a parallel universe remain had won, you can bet there would be pressure to have a second vote, or reverse the decision."
No doubt, which had been the case for a couple of decades beforehand, and had been totally ignored. Now the sleeping dogs have been wakened, and they were beginning to rouse anyway, you have to feed them. If they choke on the meal, that is the time to suggest reversal.
Yes if Remain had won there wouldn't have been another thought of a vote for decades. cf AV.
I think the current referendum mandate has to be fulfilled before we can ever put EU membership back on the ballot paper. A future Tory party may think it is worth it at some point (something TSE has previously trolled about), but for now if the party contrives to keep the nation in the EU then we'd lose 10m voters overnight. Remember, the majority of leave voters were Conservative voters and and even bigger majority of Con voters are leave voters and supporters.
Leave or Remain isn't a sectarian divide but a political divide which can be resolved by a sea change in opinion. The idea that the Tory party would suffer for the rest of time for having asked the question twice, even if we were in a country that regarded the question of EU membership as settled doesn't add up. On the contrary you might find it helped rebuild the Tory party's previous reputation for being the safer pair of hands.
I see that but I also see @Cyclefree's point that it is reasonable to recognise the sh*tshow that this has all become. I happen to think that another referendum would deliver a resounding Leave vote again but I can see how it could be justified.
I think if it were a straight leave/remain vote, then yes. It would be a 60/40 win for leave, just on the basis of people vs elites. I think if the party contrived to make it Chequers vs remain it would be a lot closer and that's when we lose the vast majority of leave supporters for a generation. The only referendum that works is Chequers vs No deal and I expect Chequers would win fairly handily, though I wouldn't want to tempt fate.
Edit: Why do you think all of the EUphiles like William Glenn are trying to push the Chequers/Remain option, they know its the only winnable option available. I expect a lot of EUphiles will start pushing this option. Though the party will remain firm for the reasons I've laid out.
I see that but I also see @Cyclefree's point that it is reasonable to recognise the sh*tshow that this has all become. I happen to think that another referendum would deliver a resounding Leave vote again but I can see how it could be justified.
I think if it were a straight leave/remain vote, then yes. It would be a 60/40 win for leave, just on the basis of people vs elites. I think if the party contrived to make it Chequers vs remain it would be a lot closer and that's when we lose the vast majority of leave supporters for a generation. The only referendum that works is Chequers vs No deal and I expect Chequers would win fairly handily, though I wouldn't want to tempt fate.
Thing is, and the reason this is moot and we're in the barrel, is because it would have to be vs remain (incl Dave's Deal) and I don't think that would be on the cards, although maybe it would be.
I think the current referendum mandate has to be fulfilled before we can ever put EU membership back on the ballot paper. A future Tory party may think it is worth it at some point (something TSE has previously trolled about), but for now if the party contrives to keep the nation in the EU then we'd lose 10m voters overnight. Remember, the majority of leave voters were Conservative voters and and even bigger majority of Con voters are leave voters and supporters.
Leave or Remain isn't a sectarian divide but a political divide which can be resolved by a sea change in opinion. The idea that the Tory party would suffer for the rest of time for having asked the question twice, even if we were in a country that regarded the question of EU membership as settled doesn't add up. On the contrary you might find it helped rebuild the Tory party's previous reputation for being the safer pair of hands.
This comment alone shows how little you understand the dynamics of the Tory party and why you shouldn't comment on how it thinks.
@stodge I've backed England to win in 90 minutes. Both sides have defensive weaknesses and England look better up front.
btw Alastair where in the country are you moving to? And did you decide upon a car?
I have a house just outside Colchester. We're still considering what car to get. However, my head is being melted with discussions about paint colours first. I can't even say "terracotta" because one of the rooms which we're looking to redecorate is currently painted terracotta.
I'd have thought the Hay Wain would look nice on your walls.
Mr. L, it's also partly a choice by Merkel. She had an earlier daft knee-jerk reaction (before the migration one) after the Fukushima[sp] incident. That time, she decided that Germany's well-known predilection for earthquakes and tsunamis meant they should axe all nuclear power.
I think the current referendum mandate has to be fulfilled before we can ever put EU membership back on the ballot paper. A future Tory party may think it is worth it at some point (something TSE has previously trolled about), but for now if the party contrives to keep the nation in the EU then we'd lose 10m voters overnight. Remember, the majority of leave voters were Conservative voters and and even bigger majority of Con voters are leave voters and supporters.
Leave or Remain isn't a sectarian divide but a political divide which can be resolved by a sea change in opinion. The idea that the Tory party would suffer for the rest of time for having asked the question twice, even if we were in a country that regarded the question of EU membership as settled doesn't add up. On the contrary you might find it helped rebuild the Tory party's previous reputation for being the safer pair of hands.
This comment alone shows how little you understand the dynamics of the Tory party and why you shouldn't comment on how it thinks.
I'm talking about the dynamics in the country and arguing that it won't matter if people like you leave the Tory party.
@stodge I've backed England to win in 90 minutes. Both sides have defensive weaknesses and England look better up front.
btw Alastair where in the country are you moving to? And did you decide upon a car?
I have a house just outside Colchester. We're still considering what car to get. However, my head is being melted with discussions about paint colours first. I can't even say "terracotta" because one of the rooms which we're looking to redecorate is currently painted terracotta.
I'd have thought the Hay Wain would look nice on your walls.
Or maybe just hay and mud - kinda wattle and dauby - good way to blend in with the more yokely neighbours unless they're all city types slumming it.
This comment alone shows how little you understand the dynamics of the Tory party and why you shouldn't comment on how it thinks.
His posts always need to be read along the lines of "what does the most Europhile person in Britain" think, he's a world away from the average Remainer never mind the average Tory.
Mr. Max, a specific problem with such a vote would be the suspicion (which I first raised a long time ago, probably years now) that the political class deliberately negotiated a terrible deal to try and force the electorate into a choice between This Terrible Deal and Remaining Because We've Learnt Our Lesson.
Paul Krugman discusses Brexit and trade agreements in the NY Times, and an economic concept called gravity which may explain Theresa May's recent conversion to Brexit Means BINO.
Krugman is probably the world's leading authority on the economics of trade, for which he won the Nobel Prize. Despite that (actually, probably because of that) he makes the core points as briefly and clearly as I've seen.
I think the current referendum mandate has to be fulfilled before we can ever put EU membership back on the ballot paper. A future Tory party may think it is worth it at some point (something TSE has previously trolled about), but for now if the party contrives to keep the nation in the EU then we'd lose 10m voters overnight. Remember, the majority of leave voters were Conservative voters and and even bigger majority of Con voters are leave voters and supporters.
Leave or Remain isn't a sectarian divide but a political divide which can be resolved by a sea change in opinion. The idea that the Tory party would suffer for the rest of time for having asked the question twice, even if we were in a country that regarded the question of EU membership as settled doesn't add up. On the contrary you might find it helped rebuild the Tory party's previous reputation for being the safer pair of hands.
This comment alone shows how little you understand the dynamics of the Tory party and why you shouldn't comment on how it thinks.
I'm talking about the dynamics in the country and arguing that it won't matter if people like you leave the Tory party.
Yes, the dynamics of a country where 17.4m people voted to leave your beloved EU. Clueless, as ever.
Mr. Max, a specific problem with such a vote would be the suspicion (which I first raised a long time ago, probably years now) that the political class deliberately negotiated a terrible deal to try and force the electorate into a choice between This Terrible Deal and Remaining Because We've Learnt Our Lesson.
Which is why no one in the party would propose such a referendum, it would leave us out of power for a generation.
@stodge I've backed England to win in 90 minutes. Both sides have defensive weaknesses and England look better up front.
btw Alastair where in the country are you moving to? And did you decide upon a car?
I have a house just outside Colchester. We're still considering what car to get. However, my head is being melted with discussions about paint colours first. I can't even say "terracotta" because one of the rooms which we're looking to redecorate is currently painted terracotta.
I'd have thought the Hay Wain would look nice on your walls.
Art works are another bone of contention. I'm not currently contemplating a heist on the National Gallery though.
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.
And the Conservative traitors at Westminster, Mike.
Mr. Tokyo, a three option referendum would be... potentially terrible. If the 'winning' option has under 50%, as seems likely, it makes the mandate questionable at best. Plus, there are two leave options. If we stay in, it'll be argued, legitimately, that the ballot paper was designed to split the leave vote and unify the remain vote. If we go for the deal (the middle option) it could be argued that the ballot paper was designed to deliver to middle option as there's a bias, in odd-numbered multiple choice surveys, towards the middle (the not too hot, not too cold slant).
Agreed. The use of a two-stage referendum is not unknown (see the New Zealand 1993 referendum on voting systems). I'd recommend:
Question One: Do you wish to the UK to: Accept the Deal [_] Reject the Deal [_]
Question Two: If the Deal is rejected, would you prefer the UK to: Leave the European Union without a deal [_] Remain in the European Union [_]
Mr. Tokyo, a three option referendum would be... potentially terrible. If the 'winning' option has under 50%, as seems likely, it makes the mandate questionable at best. Plus, there are two leave options. If we stay in, it'll be argued, legitimately, that the ballot paper was designed to split the leave vote and unify the remain vote. If we go for the deal (the middle option) it could be argued that the ballot paper was designed to deliver to middle option as there's a bias, in odd-numbered multiple choice surveys, towards the middle (the not too hot, not too cold slant).
Agreed. The use of a two-stage referendum is not unknown (see the New Zealand 1993 referendum on voting systems). I'd recommend:
Question One: Do you wish to the UK to: Accept the Deal [_] Reject the Deal [_]
Question Two: If the Deal is rejected, would you prefer the UK to: Leave the European Union without a deal [_] Remain in the European Union [_]
That looks a fair method of deciding. It'd have the curious effect of uniting intelligent hardcore remainers and leavers on the first question. Crucially it does not default to either remain or leave.
Can't argue with that. What's surprising is how all these No-Deal Brexit Ultras have emerged from the shadows since the referendum to orchestrate a hostile takeover bid of the entire Leave movement. I suppose the Ultras have been so successful in creating a climate of fear that no moderate Leaver now dares speak out against their imposed orthodoxy.
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.
And the Conservative traitors at Westminster, Mike.
The use of 'traitor' as a term of abuse is being seriously undervalued. Shouldn't you be at school?
@stodge I've backed England to win in 90 minutes. Both sides have defensive weaknesses and England look better up front.
btw Alastair where in the country are you moving to? And did you decide upon a car?
I have a house just outside Colchester. We're still considering what car to get. However, my head is being melted with discussions about paint colours first. I can't even say "terracotta" because one of the rooms which we're looking to redecorate is currently painted terracotta.
Didn't Colchester vote to Leave...are you going to be ok around all those xenophobic leave supporters?
Jeremy Hunt set to overtake Jacob Rees-Mogg in the next Con leader market on Betfair.
My legendary modesty etc.
What price to start laying you reckon?
I am irrationally tempted to hold since if he did win it would more than wipe out all of my Trump losses. But pragmatically, he has a new and more formidable rival in the Remain vote/Leave talk stakes in Javid.
Hard to escape the thought that if Corbyn wasn't Corbyn and was say Stamer a believable Remainer who let it be known that in the event of a Labour victory the Referendum would be re-run that May would lose a vote of confidence and Labour would get a Blair sized landslide.
As it is however incompetent May and co and whatever version of Brexit they come up with the Tories would still gain a working majority.
@stodge I've backed England to win in 90 minutes. Both sides have defensive weaknesses and England look better up front.
btw Alastair where in the country are you moving to? And did you decide upon a car?
I have a house just outside Colchester. We're still considering what car to get. However, my head is being melted with discussions about paint colours first. I can't even say "terracotta" because one of the rooms which we're looking to redecorate is currently painted terracotta.
If you don't mind me asking, do you have a good-sized garden? I find a garden is wonderful to relax in, after work.
Jeremy Hunt set to overtake Jacob Rees-Mogg in the next Con leader market on Betfair.
My legendary modesty etc.
His challenge will be to remain relevant. As Health Secretary he could be on the news any and every day if he wanted. As FS he can disappear somewhat. Boris didn't because he kept doing or saying really stupid things. Not an ideal model.
Ideally, from his point of view, May will involve him in the Brexit deal negotiations.
Comments
I could live with the proposals that Theresa May has put forward, and think they are consistent with the result.
https://order-order.com/2018/07/11/john-cleese-hes-leaving-britain/
This might well have been foreseeable. But it has now come to pass. So I see no good reason not to ask people to reconsider in light of the situation now.
In the words of Robin Day interviewing John Nott, he’s a here today, gone tomorrow politician.
What is it about the Scottish Conservatives that so attracts sexists, racists and religious bigots?
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/12/20/pulpstar-on-the-republican-nomination/
The transitional period is going to be agony enough with the constant debate and moaning by both sides. The last thing we need is to extend it.
We don't need to disentangle our economies if we have a FTA. We have to disentangle our laws but that is mainly our problem (the EU will need to give us some reciprocal rights as a non member state).
Obviously do agree that the way we have gone about this is not much short of disastrous.
Also agree that May's proposals simply cannot be the long term and that service access to the SIngle Market is far more important to us than goods.
I think our strategic position is relatively safe for the foreseeable future. Putin is a bad neighbour but we are not neighbours.
Completely agree about Corbyn but it is the job of the Tories to have a credible alternative. So far that situation is vacant.
I do agree we need to continue working with our neighbours on many of the challenges that we face but that does not require us to be subjugated to a different legal system.
I completely disagree that we can be invited to "change our minds" before Brexit is implemented. We were asked and gave an answer. If our political system is to survive we must respect that.
Of course we could live with this. But that isn't what the Brexiteers promised. And it highlights very painfully that we will have even less control than before - we will have no input into rules we will need to follow. That is absurd if the argument for Brexit was to have more control over your own laws.
I honestly don't know what the answer is. But there is something sinister about this calling people traitors and insisting that the will of the people be followed when even those who wanted Brexit can't spell out any sort of plan for enacting it - any sort of plan that doesn't melt away into mist the moment it makes contact with the real world.
We have not left yet. It is not traitorous or absurd or too late to take a deep breath and ask ourselves as a nation, knowing what we do - now - about our options, the real ones, our constraints, the consequences of this proposal, of no deal etc - and what is going on in the world if this is what we really want to do.
For now, however, there is no such evidence and the country must go over Niagara in a barrel unless public opinion shifts abruptly in a very few months.
Slouching towards Brexit...
Otherwise, agreed.
I think I have found the solution, however. We can, together, enjoy unfettered economic access, self-governance, close co-operation with the EU and the right to strike our own deals, and the Irish border won't be a problem.
All we have to do is conquer the EU.
As an aside, that doesn't mean every law. Italy does not have a law against foxhunting as we do. Tell the SNP you can't ask the public again...
I understand the concerns about not respecting the vote. My concerns are that people were missold a prospectus. When it becomes apparent that Brexit does not mean what they thought - when people start losing jobs etc, for instance - they could turn on the government, whoever is in charge, and say you did not tell us about this. The damage to our polity from, say, serious economic harm could be just as harmful to our political system as the damage from continuing with a policy without asking the voters if they really want to go through with this, knowing what they know now - and did not know - in June 2016.
https://twitter.com/bernardjenkin/status/1016969238223912960
We can see from the Telegraph story that even if we deliver "Brexit", a meaningful number of people will regard it as a treasonous betrayal of what they thought they were voting for.
If euro membership had been passed in a referendum, Tony Blair would never have said, let's have another vote in two years' time.
I think my 'subversion of parliamentary democracy' comment was more to do with the way UKIP ate away at the Tories (and to some extent Labour) which then allowed them to leverage the sitting government to get the referendum tabled - rather than trying to get their party voted into power (which they singularly failed to do under FPTP).
However, you could argue they were subverting a broken system anyway. Maybe under PR, UKIP would've got a referendum sooner?
I'm just interested into how we get back into the EU, and I think you have to "do a UKIP" over a similar (20 year) horizon.
However, I do think the least damaging way for a reverse would be a second vote. The alternative is the Commons doing it which would be even worse.
The suspicion, not without cause, that a referendum only counts if the electorate are deemed wise enough to agree with the political class/EU is not good for the state of our democracy. Any referendum against the EU gets a drive for a second vote, any referendum for the EU gets banked. The ratchet only turns one way.
As it is however incompetent May and co and whatever version of Brexit they come up with the Tories would still gain a working majority.
"I could live with the proposals that Theresa May has put forward, and think they are consistent with the result."
I don't regard myself as an arbiter, but I'd suggest setting our own immigration rules and trade deals would be a bare minimum.
The problem will be getting a straight answer from the EU. Remember we are negotiating with a mouthpiece only. Delay after delay is a bureaucrat's stock-in-trade.
Haven't yet read it up.
On the other hand, had PR been introduced earlier, we might have had the referendum on Lisbon and that might have lanced the boil that led to a full in/out vote.
A number of observations this late morning. Brian Montieth (ex Conservative MSP I believe) has turned against the Prime Minister with a vengeance:
http://www.cityam.com/289062/number-10-downing-street-no-place-brexit-betrayer
May now carries Brexit just as Brown carried the global financial crash, Blair the Iraq War and Major the events of September 1992.
For her, A50 is not only her cross but her legacy. As long as she carries it alone, it leaves others clean to carry on afterward. The logic for the Conservatives of retaining May in office through the A50 process and into Transition is inescapable - to change now would force someone else to take the responsibility of the poisoned chalice.
May can now be blamed personally for anything that goes wrong from here on - having re-invoked collective responsibility, she stands as primus inter pares for every decision or non-decision. Yet she has encouraged this by taking Ministers out of the equation and falling back on "advisers".
As for the football, I did my cajones on Saturday opposing England - a three figure loss on the football became a modest two figure loss thanks to some more judicious horse racing bets.
I'm really uncertain about tonight - England are overdue a poor performance and I wonder how we would react to going behind. That said, Croatia have ridden their luck against Denmark and Russia while we looked for the most part comfortable against a poor Swedish side.
I've backed the draw at 90 minutes at 21/10 but only to small money as it's not a match about which I have any confidence.
Remember that most Labour MPs have leave-voting constituencies. To state in a manifesto that their vote and opinions are wrong would get a 'fuck-you' response. There's no point getting a massive majority in Islington if you lose the North.
PS Embrace your inner-Hartlepool.
Ha
Corbyn has drawbacks as leader certainly, but he has transformed Labour's fortunes and done better electorally than Brown or Miliband. Whoever takes over from him will inherit a much healthier Labour party than he did IMO.
It slightly puts you into the Ed Miliband camp of not wanting a referendum in the first place. There is no god-given mandate of minimum time elapsed between referendums.
Merkel will be seriously unused to being lectured like this. She won't like it.
That is a genius line.
"If in a parallel universe remain had won, you can bet there would be pressure to have a second vote, or reverse the decision."
No doubt, which had been the case for a couple of decades beforehand, and had been totally ignored. Now the sleeping dogs have been wakened, and they were beginning to rouse anyway, you have to feed them. If they choke on the meal, that is the time to suggest reversal.
Edit: Why do you think all of the EUphiles like William Glenn are trying to push the Chequers/Remain option, they know its the only winnable option available. I expect a lot of EUphiles will start pushing this option. Though the party will remain firm for the reasons I've laid out.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/jim-jordan-is-wrestling-with-the-truth-of-osu-abuse-allegations.html?
Not terribly clever.
In contrast the Lib Dems are static.
Krugman is probably the world's leading authority on the economics of trade, for which he won the Nobel Prize. Despite that (actually, probably because of that) he makes the core points as briefly and clearly as I've seen.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/10/opinion/brexit-meets-gravity.html
I'm sure that thought had never crossed their minds.
Maybe not in London, but it's one that lies only just below the surface around here.
Question One: Do you wish to the UK to:
Accept the Deal [_]
Reject the Deal [_]
Question Two: If the Deal is rejected, would you prefer the UK to:
Leave the European Union without a deal [_]
Remain in the European Union [_]
My legendary modesty etc.
https://twitter.com/AgentP22/status/1016938529316892674
I am irrationally tempted to hold since if he did win it would more than wipe out all of my Trump losses. But pragmatically, he has a new and more formidable rival in the Remain vote/Leave talk stakes in Javid.
Ideally, from his point of view, May will involve him in the Brexit deal negotiations.