Mr. Jonathan, to be fair to Cameron, he was responding to a change in the political situation. If Brown hadn't reneged upon his referendum, things would've been far less fraught.
Anyway, those two aren't in charge any more, and their respective successors are bloody awful. Corbyn might be succeeded by someone worse, but I'm hopeful May's successor will be, at least, less awful than her.
I did toy, a month or two ago, with backing Ken Clarke for next PM, as leader of a Con-Lab, pro-EU movement. Didn't go for it, though.
No one should fear a second referendum, least of all Leavers.
Why give someone a second flip of the coin? They wouldn’t had done if the situation was reversed.
If the situation had been reversed we would not have had a hugely disruptive situation pencilled into the calendar and we would not have had arguments about what remaining meant. And Farage explicitly said that he would continue to campaign for a second referendum if the first one didn't deliver what he wanted.
Was it not May’s redlines that made such a move impossible? She ruled out free movement and ECJ jurisdiction before any Brexiteers got stuck in.
They’d already got stuck in.
Or were you comatose during the referendum campaign to take back control of our laws and borders?
Want me to post all the gushing from the Brexiteers following her Lancaster House speech?
But these were *her* red lines. I’ve pointed out on here over and over that her position closed off membership of the single market and that freedom of movement of labour was a non negotiable part of its integrity. Before she articulated her position and was riding high in the polls, again we participated on here discussions about at some point she’s going to have to upset a great body of people, by either not restiricting free movement and staying in the single market, or disrupting business and many of the other treaties that could be assigned to us in a close cooperation model offered by efta/EEA.
She decided that single market membership was incompatible with the referendum result.
Mr. Jonathan, to be fair to Cameron, he was responding to a change in the political situation. If Brown hadn't reneged upon his referendum, things would've been far less fraught.
Anyway, those two aren't in charge any more, and their respective successors are bloody awful. Corbyn might be succeeded by someone worse, but I'm hopeful May's successor will be, at least, less awful than her.
I did toy, a month or two ago, with backing Ken Clarke for next PM, as leader of a Con-Lab, pro-EU movement. Didn't go for it, though.
All paths eventually go back to either Blair or Brown, Brown was of course the worst of the 2 if you ignore illegal wars, but don't say that to Jonathan, He has a picture of Brown in his bedroom.
Was it not May’s redlines that made such a move impossible? She ruled out free movement and ECJ jurisdiction before any Brexiteers got stuck in.
They’d already got stuck in.
Or were you comatose during the referendum campaign to take back control of our laws and borders?
Want me to post all the gushing from the Brexiteers following her Lancaster House speech?
But these were *her* red lines. I’ve pointed out on here over and over that her position closed off membership of the single market and that freedom of movement of labour was a non negotiable part of its integrity. Before she articulated her position and was riding high in the polls, again we participated on here discussions about at some point she’s going to have to upset a great body of people, by either not restiricting free movement and staying in the single market, or disrupting business and many of the other treaties that could be assigned to us in a close cooperation model offered by efta/EEA.
She decided that single market membership was incompatible with the referendum result.
Vote Leave said we were leaving both the Single Market and the supremacy of EU law.
She didn’t decide to leave the Single Market, Vote Leave did.
BBC reports May as having a real go at Tony Blair for advocating a second referendum. She’s not at all happy. BBC’s Chris Mason says her criticism is ‘striking’. Describes his call as an ‘insult to the office he once held’!
Is her conscience troubling her?
May won't allow a 2nd referendum while she is still PM, as she (like most people) expects Remain to win. The government can't be forced to legislate for a referendum, so the only way to force one is to bring down the government via a VONC. In order to do this, the DUP's votes are required, but they are only likely to bring down the government once the MV is held, so delaying it as long as possible helps the PM.
May recognises that Brexit must be delivered in some form or other; no deal will be better in the long-term for England than revoking article 50 and remaining in the evolving United States of Europe, even if the transition is painful.
I note you equate the UK as England. How appropriate. At least we will have a way out and will be back in EU fairly quickly.
Mr. Eagles, from Thatcher to May. Rather depressing downturn.
Kinnock to Corbyn may be even worse.
It's profoundly unfortunate we have a significant political task facing the nation and the leaders of the two main parties are bloody dreadful.
Chicken and egg. Smarter politicians than Cameron would have avoided this mess in he first place.
My most troubled thought, is that much as we now look back on Milliband as not that bad, the trend will continue and one day May and Corbyn will look relatively good.
May will never look good , a talentless, pig-headed , nasty piece of work.
Trying to curry favour with Corbyn and nutters on the far left that bang on about Blair possibly.
More likely, she’s upset he is moe influential than she is. Including with her cabinet and deputy. It’s personal.
As it often is with May; look at her and Osborn. She's probably worrying that her handling of Brexit will go down in the history book on the same page as Blair and Iraq.
And Cameron’s of our relationship with the EU.
That deserves a whole chapter to itself. Rarely has a PM so blithely led a country into such a disaster (and solely for internal party management, too); I know comparisons are made with Suez, but that was a foreign affairs matter, with only short run consequ than confirming what we already should have known. Brexit is in a class of its own, and is going to be a political case study across the world for years to come, however it ends.
It was politics. A large part of the electorate (4m strong) was agitating for one particular policy; a policy which no party had hitherto offered.
One of the parties in order to achieve electoral success decided to include that policy in its manifesto. That's what pressure groups are designed for and UKIP is the most successful pressure group of recent times.
And the rest is (and will be written about in) history.
Nevertheless there is a stack of ways he could have managed things differently and avoided such a poor outcome; indeed it isn't difficult to see how, with a bit of effort and preparation, he could have got the outcome he wanted.
All Brexits are inadvisable.
However the ONE sane Brexit was discussed on PB even before the referendum which was effectively an exit to EFTA en route to a broader FTA.
However this requires patience and a willingness to address reality. The Brexit campaigns themselves look to have destroyed Brexit.
Was it not May’s redlines that made such a move impossible? She ruled out free movement and ECJ jurisdiction before any Brexiteers got stuck in.
Leavers shouldn’t have founded their campaign on an anti-immigration platform if they regret that. As I have said once or twice, the Leave victory based on pandering to xenophobia is a defining fact of current politics.
It’s almost as if not all people who voted leave did so for the same reason, it’s also possibly equally bizzare that all but about 25 of the 17 million who did vote to leave played no part in the forming of the strategy of the campaign platform used by the Leave campaign.
Labour isn't going to be able to oppose a second referendum, on grounds of respecting the first, and then swing behind Remain (reflecting its member and voter base) when it comes. That would be a pivot too far for Corbyn.
He can say they wanted to renegotiate or have a GE but the evil Tories prevented it. He can then say the party will be neutral and everyone has a free vote, ensuring almost every labour mp and activist campaigns for remain while formally the party took no stance.
I think the only thing that can stop a referendum now is a group of extreme remainers holding out for the referendum ++ option.
There are major obstacles to holding another referendum before 29/3/19.
The present government won't enact legislation for a referendum and doesn't intend to revoke or delay implementation of A50. Therefore, it would need to be brought down by a VONC, and replaced by one that would do so, at least a few weeks before 29/3/19, which is easier said than done.
The clock is ticking, and running the clock down is clearly May's current strategy.
I find the notion of a PM holding the nation to ransom by running down the clock actually upsetting.
It is coercive. It transgresses the Parliamentary norms of due process. It is deeply anti-democratic as a result.
As it often is with May; look at her and Osborn. She's probably worrying that her handling of Brexit will go down in the history book on the same page as Blair and Iraq.
And Cameron’s of our relationship with the EU.
That deserves a whole chapter to itself. Rarely has a PM so blithely led a country into such a disaster (and solely for internal party management, too); I know comparisons are made with Suez, but that was a foreign affairs matter, with only short run consequ than confirming what we already should have known. Brexit is in a class of its own, and is going to be a political case study across the world for years to come, however it ends.
It was politics. A large part of the electorate (4m strong) was agitating for one particular policy; a policy which no party had hitherto offered.
One of the parties in order to achieve electoral success decided to include that policy in its manifesto. That's what pressure groups are designed for and UKIP is the most successful pressure group of recent times.
And the rest is (and will be written about in) history.
Nevertheless there is a stack of ways he could have managed things differently and avoided such a poor outcome; indeed it isn't difficult to see how, with a bit of effort and preparation, he could have got the outcome he wanted.
All Brexits are inadvisable.
However the ONE sane Brexit was discussed on PB even before the referendum which was effectively an exit to EFTA en route to a broader FTA.
However this requires patience and a willingness to address reality. The Brexit campaigns themselves look to have destroyed Brexit.
Was it not May’s redlines that made such a move impossible? She ruled out free movement and ECJ jurisdiction before any Brexiteers got stuck in.
Leavers shouldn’t have founded their campaign on an anti-immigration platform if they regret that. As I have said once or twice, the Leave victory based on pandering to xenophobia is a defining fact of current politics.
It’s almost as if not all people who voted leave did so for the same reason, it’s also possibly equally bizzare that all but about 25 of the 17 million who did vote to leave played no part in the forming of the strategy of the campaign platform used by the Leave campaign.
Not In My Name Brexit is one of the saddest phenomena. The complaints from Leavers that the campaigns were stealing their Brexit were conspicuous by their absence before the result.
Was it not May’s redlines that made such a move impossible? She ruled out free movement and ECJ jurisdiction before any Brexiteers got stuck in.
They’d already got stuck in.
Or were you comatose during the referendum campaign to take back control of our laws and borders?
Want me to post all the gushing from the Brexiteers following her Lancaster House speech?
But these were *her* red lines. I’ve pointed out on here over and over that her position closed off membership of the single market and that freedom of movement of labour was a non negotiable part of its integrity. Before she articulated her position and was riding high in the polls, again we participated on here discussions about at some point she’s going to have to upset a great body of people, by either not restiricting free movement and staying in the single market, or disrupting business and many of the other treaties that could be assigned to us in a close cooperation model offered by efta/EEA.
She decided that single market membership was incompatible with the referendum result.
Vote Leave said we were leaving both the Single Market and the supremacy of EU law.
She didn’t decide to leave the Single Market, Vote Leave did.
BBC reports May as having a real go at Tony Blair for advocating a second referendum. She’s not at all happy. BBC’s Chris Mason says her criticism is ‘striking’. Describes his call as an ‘insult to the office he once held’!
Is her conscience troubling her?
May won't allow a 2nd referendum while she is still PM, as she (like most people) expects Remain to win. The government can't be forced to legislate for a referendum, so the only way to force one is to bring down the government via a VONC. In order to do this, the DUP's votes are required, but they are only likely to bring down the government once the MV is held, so delaying it as long as possible helps the PM.
May recognises that Brexit must be delivered in some form or other; no deal will be better in the long-term for England than revoking article 50 and remaining in the evolving United States of Europe, even if the transition is painful.
There is no way she, or any PM, will take us over the edge without a deal.
Please explain to me how a "no deal" exit can be stopped, if she is still PM.
She will blink and ask for extension or revocation if we agree nothing else before the clock runs out.
BBC reports May as having a real go at Tony Blair for advocating a second referendum. She’s not at all happy. BBC’s Chris Mason says her criticism is ‘striking’. Describes his call as an ‘insult to the office he once held’!
Is her conscience troubling her?
May won't allow a 2nd referendum while she is still PM, as she (like most people) expects Remain to win. The government can't be forced to legislate for a referendum, so the only way to force one is to bring down the government via a VONC. In order to do this, the DUP's votes are required, but they are only likely to bring down the government once the MV is held, so delaying it as long as possible helps the PM.
May recognises that Brexit must be delivered in some form or other; no deal will be better in the long-term for England than revoking article 50 and remaining in the evolving United States of Europe, even if the transition is painful.
I note you equate the UK as England. How appropriate. At least we will have a way out and will be back in EU fairly quickly.
The UK isn't England. I fully support Scotland having a further independence referendum and rejoining the EU if that is what the Scottish people want. They were lied to in 2014 by the unionist party leaders who stated that the only way to stay in the EU was to vote NO, whereas the opposite has turned out to be true.
Mr. Jonathan, to be fair to Cameron, he was responding to a change in the political situation. If Brown hadn't reneged upon his referendum, things would've been far less fraught.
Anyway, those two aren't in charge any more, and their respective successors are bloody awful. Corbyn might be succeeded by someone worse, but I'm hopeful May's successor will be, at least, less awful than her.
I did toy, a month or two ago, with backing Ken Clarke for next PM, as leader of a Con-Lab, pro-EU movement. Didn't go for it, though.
Was it not May’s redlines that made such a move impossible? She ruled out free movement and ECJ jurisdiction before any Brexiteers got stuck in.
They’d already got stuck in.
Or were you comatose during the referendum campaign to take back control of our laws and borders?
Want me to post all the gushing from the Brexiteers following her Lancaster House speech?
But these were *her* red lines. I’ve pointed out on here over and over that her position closed off membership of the single market and that freedom of movement of labour was a non negotiable part of its integrity. Before she articulated her position and was riding high in the polls, again we participated on here discussions about at some point she’s going to have to upset a great body of people, by either not restiricting free movement and staying in the single market, or disrupting business and many of the other treaties that could be assigned to us in a close cooperation model offered by efta/EEA.
She decided that single market membership was incompatible with the referendum result.
Vote Leave said we were leaving both the Single Market and the supremacy of EU law.
She didn’t decide to leave the Single Market, Vote Leave did.
Parliament asked the voters to make the decision. The voters did so.
This came as shock to Parliament who hoped and expected they wouldn't do this. So they tried to take back control without seeming to do so. Every criticism of the result was balanced with "But obviously, we must still honour the referendum result." They had no intention of doing so.
Does anyone think they did? Seriously. Parliament (as a whole) never wanted Brexit, and they were always going to stall as long as possible and claim we'd changed our minds whether we had done or not.
They had two options, Bite the bullet and revoke art 50, or send it back for another go in the hope we'd change our minds after a couple of years of Project Fear (no exaggeration too silly).
This very un-cunning plan would fool only the fanatics who wanted to be fooled. But the self-appointed superior people never really fuss about democracy as long as they get their own way. It may not work but it's their best shot.
Why not be honest? Because dishonesty is more effective sometimes. Has this brought Parliament into disrepute? Without a doubt, but that's not the voters' fault, it's Parliament's.
The LDs may be undemocratic but they are. at least, honest, even if their 'Democrat' label is dishonest.
I think if the leave camp were less divided the continuity remainer campaign in parliament would not now be so blatant. It is very very apparent that people like JoJo and various others were never going to vote for any deal they were just waiting for the opportunity to remain. People like him should never have triggered A50.
The Telegraph worries that David Cameron has filled British infrastructure with Chinese spyware.
Today, Cameron’s legacy is viewed through the lens of something different: Brexit and his decision to hold a referendum just nine months later. In the long run, however, Cameron’s eager courting of Beijing and his decision to throw open the doors to Chinese investment in Britain’s national infrastructure – from nuclear power stations at Hinkley Point and Bradwell to broadband and 5G networks – could turn out to be an equally important legacy and one which could be just as toxic. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/12/12/chinese-security-risk-woven-uks-networks/3
May will be gone as soon as the Brexit denouement is finally played out.
She has to decide now whether she wishes to depart with some semblance of control (a referendum on her Deal which has a 50/50 chance of winning), or whether she wants to be ousted after taking the country over Niagara in a barrel.
This is her last decision. It’s become clear there is no runway left.
She clearly believes that there is magical bit of text. A few sentences so powerful, so persuasive, so technically perfect that when read, all doubts about her deal will immediately evaporate. Her MPs will rally around her and a grateful nation will be cheering her and her wonderful deal in March 29.
If only. Fudged wording can get a few votes sometimes I'm sure, but far too little too late. People barely bother to attack the deal now since it's already dead, they just argue over the plan b's.
Parliament asked the voters to make the decision. The voters did so.
This came as shock to Parliament who hoped and expected they wouldn't do this. So they tried to take back control without seeming to do so. Every criticism of the result was balanced with "But obviously, we must still honour the referendum result." They had no intention of doing so.
Does anyone think they did? Seriously. Parliament (as a whole) never wanted Brexit, and they were always going to stall as long as possible and claim we'd changed our minds whether we had done or not.
They had two options, Bite the bullet and revoke art 50, or send it back for another go in the hope we'd change our minds after a couple of years of Project Fear (no exaggeration too silly).
This very un-cunning plan would fool only the fanatics who wanted to be fooled. But the self-appointed superior people never really fuss about democracy as long as they get their own way. It may not work but it's their best shot.
Why not be honest? Because dishonesty is more effective sometimes. Has this brought Parliament into disrepute? Without a doubt, but that's not the voters' fault, it's Parliament's.
The LDs may be undemocratic but they are. at least, honest, even if their 'Democrat' label is dishonest.
I think if the leave camp were less divided the continuity remainer campaign in parliament would not now be so blatant. It is very very apparent that people like JoJo and various others were never going to vote for any deal they were just waiting for the opportunity to remain. People like him should never have triggered A50.
Yes, the parallel universe is one where the principal leavers had a plan for progressing Brexit after the referendum and worked effectively together to deliver a deal as close to that as possible, then got behind whatever they had agreed, as the best available compromise, and saw it through Parliament. In that universe suggestions that the whole thing is a mess best departed from wouldn't be getting such a hearing.
I am wondering if a new party may have to be created in Parliament composed of MPs who support a second referendum or who would be willing to support a VONC in the government. This could be necessary if JC is too paralysed to act to avoid a no deal Brexit.
The advantage of this is that if this party had enough MPs it would become the Opposition in the House of Commons and its leader would be the Leader of the Opposition, giving it additional parliamentary options as the date for a no deal Brexit approaches.
This has already happened. It is the "WhatsApp" party and my understanding is that it's members take the whip of all parties in the house bar the DUP. It has been formed because of several unavoidable facts: 1. There is a majority of MPs determined to stop the UK crashing out of the EU on 29th March 2. Both the Labour and Tory leaders are neutered. May "leads" a cabinet with 4 factions in it - loyalists, Norwayists, Referendumists, and Managed No Dealists. Its not much better on the Labour side with Corbyn "leading" a Leninist Disaster Capitalism camp, Starmer leading the Referendumists, with perhaps John McDonnell and Tom Watson loosely associated with either camp but doing their own thing 3. Neither May nor Corbyn are removable from their respective offices 4. MPs have realised they need to take back control, that a government without a majority can be outvoted and that legislation can be forced on the government politically. The Grieve amendment - and the not yet tabled Benn amendment - were crafted by the WhatsApp party to give it control
It is a de facto Government of National Unity - not de more as it is not a government. But it is in power.
I think it was one of the reasons remain lost, Britain follows every bloody rule to the letter whereas the continent tends to just ignore those they don't, or make up convenient fictions (French protectionist gambling for instance).
There are other examples, freedom of movement in Belgium! is alot more qualified than here.
People say oh this and that doesn't matter, it seems a mentality that is particularly prevalent in the public sector (Oh the extra billion a year due to PFI from the counterfactual of proper public borrowing or w/e for the NHS doesn't REALLY matter) but little things add up, inches become miles, billions become trillions.
Very tenuously related, but there'd have been an uproar if we'd banned Danish/Dutch pork products on account of their lower animal welfare standards. A single market should mean just that, or its meaningless.
Failed by both its major parties, betrayed Britain lurches towards the abyss
It is clear what ought to happen now. Before the clock runs down, the sensible MPs who care about their country need to take the initiative and establish a mechanism to determine which, if any, of the possible resolutions to the Brexit nightmare might command majority support. Ken Clarke, a sane voice in a deranged world, is absolutely right about this. Yet most MPs are still too trapped in partisan tribalisms and the pursuit of short-term term tactical advantage to initiate the cross-party pursuit of a solution that is urgently required.
There may be all sorts of complicated explanations for Labour’s failure, but I think the root cause is pretty simple. The party’s leadership has been rumbled. Labour’s own version of fantasy Brexit has been to pretend that it could negotiate a deal that gave Britain all the benefits of EU membership from the outside. The voters aren’t buying this bogus prospectus. Despite it all, the public trusts Mr Corbyn with Brexit even less than it trusts Mrs May. People can see that the Labour leadership obsesses about Brexit process questions because it doesn’t want to grip the issues of principle. The endless ducking and diving about when they might call a no-confidence vote against the government makes Labour look like opportunists desperately hoping to luck into office on the back of Brexit turmoil rather than a party with the national interest at heart.
The last bit is true, the focus on getting into office rather than brexit is blatant as there's no more beneficial outcome from a GE thana referendum or parliament fixing the issue itself.
But while they are pushing it the labour leadership can still pivot, and we know what Starmer is working toward. For the party the leadership will have to get off the fence soon. And given their members and public momentum, they're only choosing one side.
Come to think of it in the two years since the vote, the silence of the remain campaign and hard thinking as to why they lost has been deafening. It's been all illegal leave this, Russia leave that. When will prominent remainers start to acknowledge the reasons they lost last time ?
Was it not May’s redlines that made such a move impossible? She ruled out free movement and ECJ jurisdiction before any Brexiteers got stuck in.
They’d already got stuck in.
Or were you comatose during the referendum campaign to take back control of our laws and borders?
Want me to post all the gushing from the Brexiteers following her Lancaster House speech?
But these were *her* red lines. I’ve pointed out on here over staying in the single market, or disrupting business and many of the other treaties that could be assigned to us in a close cooperation model offered by efta/EEA.
She decided that single market membership was incompatible with the referendum result.
Vote Leave said we were leaving both the Single Market and the supremacy of EU law.
She didn’t decide to leave the Single Market, Vote Leave did.
No. You can be outside of the Eu and participate as members of the single market, and sign up to its obligations. I have not advocated Cakism.
But you are not the referendum campaign.
Who should Theresa May listen to?
You? Or the official Leave campaign?
She shouldn’t listen to either of them. The ballot paper asked a very simple question “should the uk remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?”. That is all that I was asked. I don’t remember any question on immigration, sovereignty or other trade agreements.
The rest was entirely up to the executive with parliament to decide. Neither remain or leave were parties with manifestos. The Tory party played no role in either leave or remain and forbid any resources been used for that purpose.
She listened to people she trusts I guess along with her own gut instinct and made that the basis of her negotiating position. She created red lines that were going to end up crossed. The EU would have been much more amenable to us been within their influence as a SM member and subject to ECJ, so not a Singapore off the tip of the continent. Our more traditional allies in the north and east of the continent who look to shared values and histories with us if we didn’t come across as utterly disgusted at the thought of their people coming to live and work in the uk.
I guess we came across like some of those labour members who wear “never kissed a Tory” t shirts. Thinking it’s funny but failing to realise that you are signalling to those who might be sympathetic to your cause that you are an utter cock.
Come to think of it in the two years since the vote, the silence of the remain campaign and hard thinking as to why they lost has been deafening. It's been all illegal leave this, Russia leave that. When will prominent remainers start to acknowledge the reasons they lost last time ?
They lost because the electorate is comprised of racist simpletons, you big silly. No further analysis required.
Mr. Pioneers, and yet, there's no proposition in the Commons for a second referendum.
There will be. It's the only path which provides at least the possibility of most labour and many Tory mps getting what they want. The big questions are do they dare to leave no deal off, and if it is remain vs deal and deal wins can the DUP justify not bringing down the gov as if was the people who approved it (I doubt it) and so will there be a GE.
Come to think of it in the two years since the vote, the silence of the remain campaign and hard thinking as to why they lost has been deafening. It's been all illegal leave this, Russia leave that. When will prominent remainers start to acknowledge the reasons they lost last time ?
This is one of the reasons I'm not in favour of another referendum.
Best thing for Rejoin is for the country to experience No Deal.
As it often is with May; look at her and Osborn. She's probably worrying that her handling of Brexit will go down in the history book on the same page as Blair and Iraq.
And Cameron’s of our relationship with the EU.
That deserves a whole chapter to itself. Rarely has a PM so blithely led a country into such a disaster (and solely for internal party management, too); Ihan confirming what we already should have known. Brexit is in a class of its own, and is going to beer it ends.
It was politics. A large part of the electorate (4m strong) was agitating for one particular policy; a policy which no party had hitherto offered.
One of the parties in order to achieve electoral success decided to include that policy in its manifesto. That's what pressure groups are designed for and UKIP is the most successful pressure group of recent times.
And the rest is (and will be written about in) history.
Nevertheless there is a stack of ways he could have managed things differently and avoided such a poor outcome; indeed it isn't difficult to see how, with a bit of effort and preparation, he could have got the outcome he wanted.
All Brexits are inadvisable.
However the ONE sane Brexit was discussed on PB even before the referendum which was effectively an exit to EFTA en route to a broader FTA.
However this requires patience and a willingness to address reality. The Brexit campaigns themselves look to have destroyed Brexit.
Was it not May’s redlines that made such a move impossible? She ruled out free movement and ECJ jurisdiction before any Brexiteers got stuck in.
Leavers shouldn’t have founded their campaign on an anti-immigration platform if they regret that. As I have said once or twice, the Leave victory based on pandering to xenophobia is a defining fact of current politics.
It’s almost as if not all people who voted leave did so for the same reason, it’s also possibly equally bizzare that all but about 25 of the 17 million who did vote to leave played no part in the forming of the strategy of the campaign platform used by the Leave campaign.
Not In My Name Brexit is one of the saddest phenomena. The complaints from Leavers that the campaigns were stealing their Brexit were conspicuous by their absence before the result.
As normally a pretty frequent leaflet deliverer and campaigner. I did not lift a single finger to assist their campaign or advocate anyone else did.
Come to think of it in the two years since the vote, the silence of the remain campaign and hard thinking as to why they lost has been deafening. It's been all illegal leave this, Russia leave that. When will prominent remainers start to acknowledge the reasons they lost last time ?
They lost because the electorate is comprised of racist simpletons, you big silly. No further analysis required.
Come to think of it in the two years since the vote, the silence of the remain campaign and hard thinking as to why they lost has been deafening. It's been all illegal leave this, Russia leave that. When will prominent remainers start to acknowledge the reasons they lost last time ?
This is one of the reasons I'm not in favour of another referendum.
Best thing for Rejoin is for the country to experience No Deal.
It'll turn the country into EU federalists.
Maybe, but we'd never get the good deal we had, rebate and opt outs etc.
Mr. Pioneers, and yet, there's no proposition in the Commons for a second referendum.
Not yet. It's coming. Essentially once the remaining options are crash disaster Brexit - opposed by the majority of MPs- and remain, then the final question is do MPs want democratic cover for rescinding Article 50 or not?
The reason why most Labour and Tory MPs fear a new election is what they are supposed to campaign on. May - despite her assurances - would lead the Tory Party. What would she write about Brexit in the manifesto - that the election of a Tory or Tory led government would be the affirmation of her deal. Corbyn would lead the Labour Party. What would he write in his manifesto? That Labour would deliver Unicorn Cake having taken the UK out of the Single Market and Customs Union.
Neither party wants an election because the manifesto pledges would be unacceptable to the majority of their MPs. Which leaves the gamble of a referendum - with presumably a carefully managed question - or the gamble of no referendum and damn the consequences.
Come to think of it in the two years since the vote, the silence of the remain campaign and hard thinking as to why they lost has been deafening. It's been all illegal leave this, Russia leave that. When will prominent remainers start to acknowledge the reasons they lost last time ?
This is one of the reasons I'm not in favour of another referendum.
Best thing for Rejoin is for the country to experience No Deal.
It'll turn the country into EU federalists.
Right, EU federalists who can't get back into the EU because their application's queued up behind the parking bill in the Estonian Senate.
Come to think of it in the two years since the vote, the silence of the remain campaign and hard thinking as to why they lost has been deafening. It's been all illegal leave this, Russia leave that. When will prominent remainers start to acknowledge the reasons they lost last time ?
I agree, indeed I did a thread header about this a couple of weeks ago:
Come to think of it in the two years since the vote, the silence of the remain campaign and hard thinking as to why they lost has been deafening. It's been all illegal leave this, Russia leave that. When will prominent remainers start to acknowledge the reasons they lost last time ?
This is one of the reasons I'm not in favour of another referendum.
Best thing for Rejoin is for the country to experience No Deal.
It'll turn the country into EU federalists.
Right, EU federalists who can't get back into the EU because their application's queued up behind the parking bill in the Estonian Senate.
They'll want back one of the biggest net contributors.
Come to think of it in the two years since the vote, the silence of the remain campaign and hard thinking as to why they lost has been deafening. It's been all illegal leave this, Russia leave that. When will prominent remainers start to acknowledge the reasons they lost last time ?
This is one of the reasons I'm not in favour of another referendum.
Best thing for Rejoin is for the country to experience No Deal.
It'll turn the country into EU federalists.
Maybe I should campaign for remain if EUref 2 comes up.
"Yes I agree it's a disgusting betrayal of democracy that we're in this situation, I can't quite believe it myself. However in all probability our overall economic prospects are, ceteris paribus, enhanced by being in the EU particularly in the short to medium term as our economies are inherently intwined within the single market and customs union right now."
I think that'd be the line to win over the floating voters of Worksop or Coventry.
Come to think of it in the two years since the vote, the silence of the remain campaign and hard thinking as to why they lost has been deafening. It's been all illegal leave this, Russia leave that. When will prominent remainers start to acknowledge the reasons they lost last time ?
They had a narrow defeat against an mendacious and deeply racist opponent campaign that was able to offer unicorns against the status quo. That is not to say Remain campaign was much good, it wasn’t. But your insinuation that Remainers should indulge in collective self flagellation is faintly absurd.
Come to think of it in the two years since the vote, the silence of the remain campaign and hard thinking as to why they lost has been deafening. It's been all illegal leave this, Russia leave that. When will prominent remainers start to acknowledge the reasons they lost last time ?
They lost because the electorate is comprised of racist simpletons, you big silly. No further analysis required.
Don't forget the old who have not died yet.
Ah, but there are reasons for optimism, as this fine example of a human being points out:
Come to think of it in the two years since the vote, the silence of the remain campaign and hard thinking as to why they lost has been deafening. It's been all illegal leave this, Russia leave that. When will prominent remainers start to acknowledge the reasons they lost last time ?
I agree, indeed I did a thread header about this a couple of weeks ago:
Politicians really do themselves no favours. Asked by Sophy Ridge whether cabinet has discussed a second referendum, Damien Hinds says no.
They might have rejected it, but the idea that they have never discussed it is an obvious lie.
Exactly. The referendum is the big issue at the moment.
Brexit is.
The referendum is an issue for obsessives who don't accept they lost first time. None of those (except maybe Hammond and Rudd) are in the Cabinet.
I've had many people at work and elsewhere bring up Brexit. None for a rerun of the referendum.
Whereas most people I know who have brought it up do want one. Those that don't want parliament to just cancel brexit, and one chap thinks EFTA is the way to go as the destination if the backstop goes on too long.
Most referendum supporters want a rerun, it is very shameless and obvious and plenty are clear it's because they think the right side would win not out of a genuine belief the people need to speak again. But bottom line is if we accept that most mps will take action to avoid no deal they need some way to agree on something. What gives them the cover to compromise which they are unwilling to do at the moment, while also giving those who never intended us to leave a chance? A referendum.
On Monday coming I have corralled my CLP executive into an emergency party meeting debating the emergency motion on a people's vote that was touched on earlier as being circulated. The motion originated with Momentum who since the anti-semitism crisis of the summer have broken with Corbyn to no longer parrot what the Great Leader says.
Nobody bar the remaining few ultraloyalists trusts Jezbollah on Brexit. His stated position is directly contrary to party policy set at conference, and despite screaming demands for May to step out of the way he has shown he is frit when it comes to a VONC.
I want neither a new election nor a new referendum - but if that's what it takes to stop us crashing out at the end of March so be it.
Come to think of it in the two years since the vote, the silence of the remain campaign and hard thinking as to why they lost has been deafening. It's been all illegal leave this, Russia leave that. When will prominent remainers start to acknowledge the reasons they lost last time ?
This is one of the reasons I'm not in favour of another referendum.
Best thing for Rejoin is for the country to experience No Deal.
It'll turn the country into EU federalists.
Right, EU federalists who can't get back into the EU because their application's queued up behind the parking bill in the Estonian Senate.
They'll want back one of the biggest net contributors.
They may well want to let us stew awhile, to be sure that we do not continue the hokey cokey of Brexit.
Was it not May’s redlines that made such a move impossible? She ruled out free movement and ECJ jurisdiction before any Brexiteers got stuck in.
They’d already got stuck in.
Or were you comatose during the referendum campaign to take back control of our laws and borders?
Want me to post all the gushing from the Brexiteers following her Lancaster House speech?
But these were *her* red lines. I’ve pointed out on here over and over that her position closed off membership of the single market and that freedom of movement of labour was a non negotiable part of its integrity. Before she articulated her position and was riding high in the polls, again we participated on here discussions about at some point she’s going to have to upset a great body of people, by either not restiricting free movement and staying in the single market, or disrupting business and many of the other treaties that could be assigned to us in a close cooperation model offered by efta/EEA.
She decided that single market membership was incompatible with the referendum result.
Vote Leave said we were leaving both the Single Market and the supremacy of EU law.
She didn’t decide to leave the Single Market, Vote Leave did.
It's more akin to a couple who never loved each other and have admitted defeat and decided to divorce - but are being told they will have to live together for ever because the lawyers have ballsed up the paperwork.
We were never expecting blow-jobs. Maybe Cameron and Osborne missed a trick there.
Come to think of it in the two years since the vote, the silence of the remain campaign and hard thinking as to why they lost has been deafening. It's been all illegal leave this, Russia leave that. When will prominent remainers start to acknowledge the reasons they lost last time ?
This is one of the reasons I'm not in favour of another referendum.
Best thing for Rejoin is for the country to experience No Deal.
It'll turn the country into EU federalists.
Right, EU federalists who can't get back into the EU because their application's queued up behind the parking bill in the Estonian Senate.
They'll want back one of the biggest net contributors.
They may well want to let us stew awhile, to be sure that we do not continue the hokey cokey of Brexit.
Our ascension treaty will specify we cannot leave for the first 99 years.
Mr. Pioneers, and yet, there's no proposition in the Commons for a second referendum.
Not yet. It's coming. Essentially once the remaining options are crash disaster Brexit - opposed by the majority of MPs- and remain, then the final question is do MPs want democratic cover for rescinding Article 50 or not?
The reason why most Labour and Tory MPs fear a new election is what they are supposed to campaign on. May - despite her assurances - would lead the Tory Party. What would she write about Brexit in the manifesto - that the election of a Tory or Tory led government would be the affirmation of her deal. Corbyn would lead the Labour Party. What would he write in his manifesto? That Labour would deliver Unicorn Cake having taken the UK out of the Single Market and Customs Union.
Neither party wants an election because the manifesto pledges would be unacceptable to the majority of their MPs. Which leaves the gamble of a referendum - with presumably a carefully managed question - or the gamble of no referendum and damn the consequences.
I think you totally underestimate Mrs May's determination to end freedom of movement for UK and EU citizens. If she has ever believed in anything, it is that - and she will do whatever it takes to secure its possibility. Meanwhile, the Labour leadership actively wants a Tory-owned No Deal Brexit. We are heading in only one direction from here.
Well, that's all right then because Theresa May does not want a no deal Brexit either. Gauke is merely positioning himself for what happens after Theresa May's deal finally shuffles off this mortal coil (or is accepted). It is the same as Jeremy Hunt saying we can prosper with no deal but a deal would be better and he warned Theresa May her deal was doomed and by the way he'd quite like to be prime minister himself. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/15/jeremy-hunt-interview-every-mp-would-like-like-have-crack-top/
Well, that's all right then because Theresa May does not want a no deal Brexit either. Gauke is merely positioning himself for what happens after Theresa May's deal finally shuffles off this mortal coil (or is accepted). It is the same as Jeremy Hunt saying we can prosper with no deal but a deal would be better and he warned Theresa May her deal was doomed and by the way he'd quite like to be prime minister himself. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/15/jeremy-hunt-interview-every-mp-would-like-like-have-crack-top/
Come to think of it in the two years since the vote, the silence of the remain campaign and hard thinking as to why they lost has been deafening. It's been all illegal leave this, Russia leave that. When will prominent remainers start to acknowledge the reasons they lost last time ?
This is one of the reasons I'm not in favour of another referendum.
Best thing for Rejoin is for the country to experience No Deal.
It'll turn the country into EU federalists.
Maybe I should campaign for remain if EUref 2 comes up.
"Yes I agree it's a disgusting betrayal of democracy that we're in this situation, I can't quite believe it myself. However in all probability our overall economic prospects are, ceteris paribus, enhanced by being in the EU particularly in the short to medium term as our economies are inherently intwined within the single market and customs union right now."
I think that'd be the line to win over the floating voters of Worksop or Coventry.
Politicians really do themselves no favours. Asked by Sophy Ridge whether cabinet has discussed a second referendum, Damien Hinds says no.
They might have rejected it, but the idea that they have never discussed it is an obvious lie.
Exactly. The referendum is the big issue at the moment.
Brexit is.
The referendum is an issue for obsessives who don't accept they lost first time. None of those (except maybe Hammond and Rudd) are in the Cabinet.
I've had many people at work and elsewhere bring up Brexit. None for a rerun of the referendum.
The game charger is the prospect of no deal - that ultimately makes a referendum a preferable alternative for a substantial majority vs no deal. It's the reality unless the ERG / rebels get behind her in parliament and start to put pressure on the others.
Mr. kle4/Mr. Pioneers, it needs someone to put it forward. Not clear if anyone other than May can do that.
I think she will.
Nothing she can get will sway 100+ Mps to back the deal and I don't buy the idea anyone will abstain.
She can do nothing, her preferred tactic, but fear of no deal might even bring down her government.
So she needs a resolution, which requires Labour votes. What can she offer them?
A GE? Maybe, but their pretext for one includes to renegotiate Brexit so they cannot pass brexit.
So a referendum instead. Increasing numbers of Tories want it, many in labour want It, and while mps could still ignore it there is a hope that they would act on deal or remain if either won.
No other play gets May even a chance of what she wants.
Come to think of it in the two years since the vote, the silence of the remain campaign and hard thinking as to why they lost has been deafening. It's been all illegal leave this, Russia leave that. When will prominent remainers start to acknowledge the reasons they lost last time ?
This is one of the reasons I'm not in favour of another referendum.
Best thing for Rejoin is for the country to experience No Deal.
It'll turn the country into EU federalists.
Right, EU federalists who can't get back into the EU because their application's queued up behind the parking bill in the Estonian Senate.
They'll want back one of the biggest net contributors.
Mr. Pioneers, and yet, there's no proposition in the Commons for a second referendum.
Not yet. It's coming. Essentially once the remaining options are crash disaster Brexit - opposed by the majority of MPs- and remain, then the final question is do MPs want democratic cover for rescinding Article 50 or not?
The reason why most Labour and Tory MPs fear a new election is what they are supposed to campaign on. May - despite her assurances - would lead the Tory Party. What would she write about Brexit in the manifesto - that the election of a Tory or Tory led government would be the affirmation of her deal. Corbyn would lead the Labour Party. What would he write in his manifesto? That Labour would deliver Unicorn Cake having taken the UK out of the Single Market and Customs Union.
Neither party wants an election because the manifesto pledges would be unacceptable to the majority of their MPs. Which leaves the gamble of a referendum - with presumably a carefully managed question - or the gamble of no referendum and damn the consequences.
I think you totally underestimate Mrs May's determination to end freedom of movement for UK and EU citizens. If she has ever believed in anything, it is that - and she will do whatever it takes to secure its possibility. Meanwhile, the Labour leadership actively wants a Tory-owned No Deal Brexit. We are heading in only one direction from here.
Not just May- Corbyn as well. My point was that the government is no longer in power - she will not be able to resist much longer the vote to kill her deal and after that the Grieve amendment outs the WhatsApp party in power. Which negates whatever "power" May and Corbyn think they have. It doesn't matter of the half dozen loyalists to both leaders agree with them as they have already lost the majority of backbenchers and the other factions in their cabinets.
I no longer care what May or Corbyn want - both are irrelevant and no longer in control
Come to think of it in the two years since the vote, the silence of the remain campaign and hard thinking as to why they lost has been deafening. It's been all illegal leave this, Russia leave that. When will prominent remainers start to acknowledge the reasons they lost last time ?
They had a narrow defeat against an mendacious and deeply racist opponent campaign that was able to offer unicorns against the status quo. That is not to say Remain campaign was much good, it wasn’t. But your insinuation that Remainers should indulge in collective self flagellation is faintly absurd.
A racist campaign can only succeed with a racist electorate, is that not so?
Maybe that should be Remain's slogan next time:
'We know you're old, poor and racist, but do you want to be *really* poor, old and racist you dumb fuckers?'.
Politicians really do themselves no favours. Asked by Sophy Ridge whether cabinet has discussed a second referendum, Damien Hinds says no.
They might have rejected it, but the idea that they have never discussed it is an obvious lie.
Nah it's quite a believable "elephant in the room" that hasn't been discussed.
Nope.
Absolute and complete mythology.
A complete lie.
I imagine it was not an item on the agenda and so it was not technically discussed even if someone mentioned it, or the mentions were brief and don't really count as discussion.
I'm sure in the casual sense of the word it's a lie though.
Mr. Pioneers, and yet, there's no proposition in the Commons for a second referendum.
Not yet. It's coming. Essentially once the remaining options are crash disaster Brexit - opposed by the majority of MPs- and remain, then the final question is do MPs want democratic cover for rescinding Article 50 or not?
The reason why most Labour and Tory MPs fear a new election is what they are supposed to campaign on. May - despite her assurances - would lead the Tory Party. What would she write about Brexit in the manifesto - that the election of a Tory or Tory led government would be the affirmation of her deal. Corbyn would lead the Labour Party. What would he write in his manifesto? That Labour would deliver Unicorn Cake having taken the UK out of the Single Market and Customs Union.
Neither party wants an election because the manifesto pledges would be unacceptable to the majority of their MPs. Which leaves the gamble of a referendum - with presumably a carefully managed question - or the gamble of no referendum and damn the consequences.
I think you totally underestimate Mrs May's determination to end freedom of movement for UK and EU citizens. If she has ever believed in anything, it is that - and she will do whatever it takes to secure its possibility. Meanwhile, the Labour leadership actively wants a Tory-owned No Deal Brexit. We are heading in only one direction from here.
Not just May- Corbyn as well. My point was that the government is no longer in power - she will not be able to resist much longer the vote to kill her deal and after that the Grieve amendment outs the WhatsApp party in power. Which negates whatever "power" May and Corbyn think they have. It doesn't matter of the half dozen loyalists to both leaders agree with them as they have already lost the majority of backbenchers and the other factions in their cabinets.
I no longer care what May or Corbyn want - both are irrelevant and no longer in control
I actually think Corbyn is coming out of this much worse than May - impressive work. He is delusional.
Was it not May’s redlines that made such a move impossible? She ruled out free movement and ECJ jurisdiction before any Brexiteers got stuck in.
They’d already got stuck in.
Or were you comatose during the referendum campaign to take back control of our laws and borders?
Want me to post all the gushing from the Brexiteers following her Lancaster House speech?
But these were *her* red lines. I’ve pointed out on here over and over that her position closed off membership of the single market and that freedom of movement of labour was a non negotiable part of its integrity. Before she articulated her position and was riding high in the polls, again we participated on here discussions about at some point she’s going to have to upset a great body of people, by either not restiricting free movement and staying in the single market, or disrupting business and many of the other treaties that could be assigned to us in a close cooperation model offered by efta/EEA.
She decided that single market membership was incompatible with the referendum result.
Vote Leave said we were leaving both the Single Market and the supremacy of EU law.
She didn’t decide to leave the Single Market, Vote Leave did.
It's more akin to a couple who never loved each other and have admitted defeat and decided to divorce - but are being told they will have to live together for ever because the lawyers have ballsed up the paperwork.
And because it will upset the kids if they split, which is always a good reason not to divide.
Politicians really do themselves no favours. Asked by Sophy Ridge whether cabinet has discussed a second referendum, Damien Hinds says no.
They might have rejected it, but the idea that they have never discussed it is an obvious lie.
Nah it's quite a believable "elephant in the room" that hasn't been discussed.
Nope.
Absolute and complete mythology.
A complete lie.
I imagine it was not an item on the agenda and so it was not technically discussed even if someone mentioned it, or the mentions were brief and don't really count as discussion.
I'm sure in the casual sense of the word it's a lie though.
Mr. Pioneers, and yet, there's no proposition in the Commons for a second referendum.
Not yet. It's coming. Essentially once the remaining options are crash disaster Brexit - opposed by the majority of MPs- and remain, then the final question is do MPs want democratic cover for rescinding Article 50 or not?
The reason why most Labour and Tory MPs fear a new election is what they are supposed to campaign on. May - despite her assurances - would lead the Tory Party. What would she write about Brexit in the manifesto - that the election of a Tory or Tory led government would be the affirmation of her deal. Corbyn would lead the Labour Party. What would he write in his manifesto? That Labour would deliver Unicorn Cake having taken the UK out of the Single Market and Customs Union.
Neither party wants an election because the manifesto pledges would be unacceptable to the majority of their MPs. Which leaves the gamble of a referendum - with presumably a carefully managed question - or the gamble of no referendum and damn the consequences.
I think you totally underestimate Mrs May's determination to end freedom of movement for UK and EU citizens. If she has ever believed in anything, it is that - and she will do whatever it takes to secure its possibility. Meanwhile, the Labour leadership actively wants a Tory-owned No Deal Brexit. We are heading in only one direction from here.
Not just May- Corbyn as well. My point was that the government is no longer in power - she will not be able to resist much longer the vote to kill her deal and after that the Grieve amendment outs the WhatsApp party in power. Which negates whatever "power" May and Corbyn think they have. It doesn't matter of the half dozen loyalists to both leaders agree with them as they have already lost the majority of backbenchers and the other factions in their cabinets.
I no longer care what May or Corbyn want - both are irrelevant and no longer in control
I actually think Corbyn is coming out of this much worse than May - impressive work. He is delusional.
He at least has a way out . If he does what Starmer wants there will be enough people thrilled with him they'll look past the fence sitting prevarications.
Regular reminder: It doesn't make the blindest bit of difference whom the Prime Minister is if no approach to Brexit can command a majority in the House of Commons.
By which I mean, of course, an approach that a majority is willing actually to force through by any means necessary, rather than to shout about despairingly, mutter about disconsolately, or pass toothless, worthless resolutions in favour of. WTO, No Backstop, Norway+, EEA-, Second Referendum, Renegotiation, Revocation... no consensus around any of it.
Either one is found or No Deal happens by default next March. All else is noise.
Time remaining to Brexit: 103 days, 13 hours and 13 minutes. Tick tock tick tock.
Come to think of it in the two years since the vote, the silence of the remain campaign and hard thinking as to why they lost has been deafening. It's been all illegal leave this, Russia leave that. When will prominent remainers start to acknowledge the reasons they lost last time ?
On a second referendum Leavers are wrong in principle (there's nothing inherently wrong with having another vote) and Remainers are wrong in practice (there's no point in having another vote before they've won the public debate for making a different choice).
Politicians really do themselves no favours. Asked by Sophy Ridge whether cabinet has discussed a second referendum, Damien Hinds says no.
They might have rejected it, but the idea that they have never discussed it is an obvious lie.
Nah it's quite a believable "elephant in the room" that hasn't been discussed.
Nope.
Absolute and complete mythology.
A complete lie.
I imagine it was not an item on the agenda and so it was not technically discussed even if someone mentioned it, or the mentions were brief and don't really count as discussion.
I'm sure in the casual sense of the word it's a lie though.
Yes it was a lie, really that is all.
You do not attend Cabinet presumably, you don't know that. No matter how implausible we might find it you cannot guarantee it is a lie. It's political speak. Put him under oath and he could probably truthfully claim it wasn't (formally) discussed since the question gives him wiggle room. I don't see the purpose of being stunned that politicians use creative interpretations to make misleading comments.
Not In My Name Brexit is one of the saddest phenomena. The complaints from Leavers that the campaigns were stealing their Brexit were conspicuous by their absence before the result.
On that same basis, I assume you agree that everyone who voted either Labour or Conservative in 2001 are DIRECTLY responsible for the Iraq war?
What's that? You don't because REASONS? That reason can't be applied to the 2016 referendum vote though eh Alastair? Oh no. All Leavers are racists xenophobes. All Remainers are virtuous saints.
Politicians really do themselves no favours. Asked by Sophy Ridge whether cabinet has discussed a second referendum, Damien Hinds says no.
They might have rejected it, but the idea that they have never discussed it is an obvious lie.
Nah it's quite a believable "elephant in the room" that hasn't been discussed.
Nope.
Absolute and complete mythology.
A complete lie.
I imagine it was not an item on the agenda and so it was not technically discussed even if someone mentioned it, or the mentions were brief and don't really count as discussion.
I'm sure in the casual sense of the word it's a lie though.
Yes it was a lie, really that is all.
You do not attend Cabinet presumably, you don't know that. No matter how implausible we might find it you cannot guarantee it is a lie. It's political speak. Put him under oath and he could probably truthfully claim it wasn't (formally) discussed since the question gives him wiggle room. I don't see the purpose of being stunned that politicians use creative interpretations to make misleading comments.
Politicians really do themselves no favours. Asked by Sophy Ridge whether cabinet has discussed a second referendum, Damien Hinds says no.
They might have rejected it, but the idea that they have never discussed it is an obvious lie.
Nah it's quite a believable "elephant in the room" that hasn't been discussed.
Nope.
Absolute and complete mythology.
A complete lie.
I imagine it was not an item on the agenda and so it was not technically discussed even if someone mentioned it, or the mentions were brief and don't really count as discussion.
I'm sure in the casual sense of the word it's a lie though.
Yes it was a lie, really that is all.
You do not attend Cabinet presumably, you don't know that. No matter how implausible we might find it you cannot guarantee it is a lie. It's political speak. Put him under oath and he could probably truthfully claim it wasn't (formally) discussed since the question gives him wiggle room. I don't see the purpose of being stunned that politicians use creative interpretations to make misleading comments.
A simple lie, I am afraid.
There are reports suggesting otherwise? Remember how long they went before discussing anything relating to Chequers?
BBC reports May as having a real go at Tony Blair for advocating a second referendum. She’s not at all happy. BBC’s Chris Mason says her criticism is ‘striking’. Describes his call as an ‘insult to the office he once held’!
Is her conscience troubling her?
May won't allow a 2nd referendum while she is still PM, as she (like most people) expects Remain to win. The government can't be forced to legislate for a referendum, so the only way to force one is to bring down the government via a VONC. In order to do this, the DUP's votes are required, but they are only likely to bring down the government once the MV is held, so delaying it as long as possible helps the PM.
May recognises that Brexit must be delivered in some form or other; no deal will be better in the long-term for England than revoking article 50 and remaining in the evolving United States of Europe, even if the transition is painful.
I note you equate the UK as England. How appropriate. At least we will have a way out and will be back in EU fairly quickly.
The UK isn't England. I fully support Scotland having a further independence referendum and rejoining the EU if that is what the Scottish people want. They were lied to in 2014 by the unionist party leaders who stated that the only way to stay in the EU was to vote NO, whereas the opposite has turned out to be true.
Good to hear some people believe in democracy , obviously you are not a Tory.
Politicians really do themselves no favours. Asked by Sophy Ridge whether cabinet has discussed a second referendum, Damien Hinds says no.
They might have rejected it, but the idea that they have never discussed it is an obvious lie.
Nah it's quite a believable "elephant in the room" that hasn't been discussed.
Nope.
Absolute and complete mythology.
A complete lie.
I imagine it was not an item on the agenda and so it was not technically discussed even if someone mentioned it, or the mentions were brief and don't really count as discussion.
I'm sure in the casual sense of the word it's a lie though.
Yes it was a lie, really that is all.
You do not attend Cabinet presumably, you don't know that. No matter how implausible we might find it you cannot guarantee it is a lie. It's political speak. Put him under oath and he could probably truthfully claim it wasn't (formally) discussed since the question gives him wiggle room. I don't see the purpose of being stunned that politicians use creative interpretations to make misleading comments.
A simple lie, I am afraid.
There are reports suggesting otherwise? Remember how long they went before discussing anything relating to Chequers?
When these Tories move their lips you know they are lying , the whole cabinet is tarred with the same brush.
Not In My Name Brexit is one of the saddest phenomena. The complaints from Leavers that the campaigns were stealing their Brexit were conspicuous by their absence before the result.
On that same basis, I assume you agree that everyone who voted either Labour or Conservative in 2001 are DIRECTLY responsible for the Iraq war?
What's that? You don't because REASONS? That reason can't be applied to the 2016 referendum vote though eh Alastair? Oh no. All Leavers are racists xenophobes. All Remainers are virtuous saints.
I’m sure that makes sense somewhere in your mind.
If Leavers disagreed with the mandate the Leave campaigns were seeking, they should have said so at the time. They conspicuously didn’t and indeed enthusiastically fell in behind it.
Complaining now that the Prime Minister has sought to implement the mandate sought is about the most disingenuous act of all of Leavers, and that’s a high bar.
Politicians really do themselves no favours. Asked by Sophy Ridge whether cabinet has discussed a second referendum, Damien Hinds says no.
They might have rejected it, but the idea that they have never discussed it is an obvious lie.
Nah it's quite a believable "elephant in the room" that hasn't been discussed.
Nope.
Absolute and complete mythology.
A complete lie.
I imagine it was not an item on the agenda and so it was not technically discussed even if someone mentioned it, or the mentions were brief and don't really count as discussion.
I'm sure in the casual sense of the word it's a lie though.
Yes it was a lie, really that is all.
You do not attend Cabinet presumably, you don't know that. No matter how implausible we might find it you cannot guarantee it is a lie. It's political speak. Put him under oath and he could probably truthfully claim it wasn't (formally) discussed since the question gives him wiggle room. I don't see the purpose of being stunned that politicians use creative interpretations to make misleading comments.
A simple lie, I am afraid.
There are reports suggesting otherwise? Remember how long they went before discussing anything relating to Chequers?
I imagine most of us have been in formal meetings, with agendas and minutes and whatnot. If it's not on the agenda and hence minuted, it has not been discussed, no matter the content of sidebar conversations over coffee (which is, in my experience, where the real action happens).
Politicians really do themselves no favours. Asked by Sophy Ridge whether cabinet has discussed a second referendum, Damien Hinds says no.
They might have rejected it, but the idea that they have never discussed it is an obvious lie.
Nah it's quite a believable "elephant in the room" that hasn't been discussed.
Nope.
Absolute and complete mythology.
A complete lie.
I imagine it was not an item on the agenda and so it was not technically discussed even if someone mentioned it, or the mentions were brief and don't really count as discussion.
I'm sure in the casual sense of the word it's a lie though.
Yes it was a lie, really that is all.
You do not attend Cabinet presumably, you don't know that. No matter how implausible we might find it you cannot guarantee it is a lie. It's political speak. Put him under oath and he could probably truthfully claim it wasn't (formally) discussed since the question gives him wiggle room. I don't see the purpose of being stunned that politicians use creative interpretations to make misleading comments.
A simple lie, I am afraid.
There are reports suggesting otherwise? Remember how long they went before discussing anything relating to Chequers?
When these Tories move their lips you know they are lying , the whole cabinet is tarred with the same brush.
Stop stating the obvious malc. Being a lying scumbag is one of the requirements for being a Tory.
Well, that's all right then because Theresa May does not want a no deal Brexit either. Gauke is merely positioning himself for what happens after Theresa May's deal finally shuffles off this mortal coil (or is accepted). It is the same as Jeremy Hunt saying we can prosper with no deal but a deal would be better and he warned Theresa May her deal was doomed and by the way he'd quite like to be prime minister himself. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/15/jeremy-hunt-interview-every-mp-would-like-like-have-crack-top/
Finally, a promotion for Rory might come about !
When they are down to promoting the very dregs , you know their time is almost up. When will they be getting down to the toilet cleaners.
Come to think of it in the two years since the vote, the silence of the remain campaign and hard thinking as to why they lost has been deafening. It's been all illegal leave this, Russia leave that. When will prominent remainers start to acknowledge the reasons they lost last time ?
This is one of the reasons I'm not in favour of another referendum.
Best thing for Rejoin is for the country to experience No Deal.
It'll turn the country into EU federalists.
Maybe I should campaign for remain if EUref 2 comes up.
"Yes I agree it's a disgusting betrayal of democracy that we're in this situation, I can't quite believe it myself. However in all probability our overall economic prospects are, ceteris paribus, enhanced by being in the EU particularly in the short to medium term as our economies are inherently intwined within the single market and customs union right now."
I think that'd be the line to win over the floating voters of Worksop or Coventry.
Landslide for Remain.
I think Deal would win against Remain.
Several of my Tory friends have moved from Remain to supporting Mrs May's deal. I think it is mainly down to loyalty to their party, or specifically to Mrs May who they admire for her tenacity. I can't find supporting data in the polls but I believe that Tory supporters overall have become more Leave than they were at the referendum.
But overall there has been a slight movement to Remain. This must mean that Labour Leave supporters are moving to Remain. So under the surface there may be a lot of switching going on.
I think the new Tory Leavers are much more likely to turn out to vote for Mrs May's Deal than the new Labour Remainers to turn out to vote to Remain.
So Deal would win on a differential turnout. I don't know if this makes any sense?
Mr. Pioneers, and yet, there's no proposition in the Commons for a second referendum.
Not yet. It's coming. Essentially once the remaining options are crash disaster Brexit - opposed by the majority of MPs- and remain, then the final question is do MPs want democratic cover for rescinding Article 50 or not?
The reason why most Labour and Tory MPs fear a new election is what they are supposed to campaign on. May - despite her assurances - would lead the Tory Party. What would she write about Brexit in the manifesto - that the election of a Tory or Tory led government would be the affirmation of her deal. Corbyn would lead the Labour Party. What would he write in his manifesto? That Labour would deliver Unicorn Cake having taken the UK out of the Single Market and Customs Union.
Neither party wants an election because the manifesto pledges would be unacceptable to the majority of their MPs. Which leaves the gamble of a referendum - with presumably a carefully managed question - or the gamble of no referendum and damn the consequences.
I think you totally underestimate Mrs May's determination to end freedom of movement for UK and EU citizens. If she has ever believed in anything, it is that - and she will do whatever it takes to secure its possibility. Meanwhile, the Labour leadership actively wants a Tory-owned No Deal Brexit. We are heading in only one direction from here.
Not just May- Corbyn as well. My point was that the government is no longer in power - she will not be able to resist much longer the vote to kill her deal and after that the Grieve amendment outs the WhatsApp party in power. Which negates whatever "power" May and Corbyn think they have. It doesn't matter of the half dozen loyalists to both leaders agree with them as they have already lost the majority of backbenchers and the other factions in their cabinets.
I no longer care what May or Corbyn want - both are irrelevant and no longer in control
May controls the Parliamentary calendar. Corbyn is in total control of the Labour party. That's all we need to know. I hope to God you are right, but I just cannot see how No Deal will be avoided.
On another note, I think that Jeremy Hunt may be even more transparently self-interested than Boris Johnson. Is there any senior Tory anywhere who does not see Brexit through the prism of their own career opportunities?
A complaint about the sort of thing that (some) Leave voters wanted to get shot of back in 2016, from the pages of The Observer of all places:
"The contrast between the EU’s treatment of Italy and that of France is revealing. Until last year, France had broken the EU deficit rule every year since 2008. It has never been sanctioned. President Emmanuel Macron’s recent capitulation to the gilets jaunes protesters, promising to raise the minimum wage and cancelling tax increases for low-income pensioners, makes it likely that France will break the 3% rule again next year. As early as 2003, the European court of justice ruled that EU finance ministers were negligent in not penalising France and Germany for continually flouting eurozone rules. Fifteen years on, the EU’s big beasts remain free to trample over the rules, while smaller nations (even ones as large as Italy) have to suffer democratic and social penalties...
...In 2013, having been ejected from office by the Italian electorate, Monti, in a valedictory statement to a EU summit, observed that “public support… for the European Union is dramatically declining”. To counter “the mounting wave of populism and disaffection with the European Union”, he added, the EU must start “listening to people’s concerns”. It wasn’t listening then. It’s not listening now."
The EU as Austria-Hungary: a dual monarchy presiding over a collection of discontent and restive provinces, ready to shatter at the next serious shock?
Politicians really do themselves no favours. Asked by Sophy Ridge whether cabinet has discussed a second referendum, Damien Hinds says no.
They might have rejected it, but the idea that they have never discussed it is an obvious lie.
Nah it's quite a believable "elephant in the room" that hasn't been discussed.
Nope.
Absolute and complete mythology.
A complete lie.
I imagine it was not an item on the agenda and so it was not technically discussed even if someone mentioned it, or the mentions were brief and don't really count as discussion.
I'm sure in the casual sense of the word it's a lie though.
Yes it was a lie, really that is all.
You do not attend Cabinet presumably, you don't know that. No matter how implausible we might find it you cannot guarantee it is a lie. It's political speak. Put him under oath and he could probably truthfully claim it wasn't (formally) discussed since the question gives him wiggle room. I don't see the purpose of being stunned that politicians use creative interpretations to make misleading comments.
A simple lie, I am afraid.
There are reports suggesting otherwise? Remember how long they went before discussing anything relating to Chequers?
When these Tories move their lips you know they are lying , the whole cabinet is tarred with the same brush.
Stop stating the obvious malc. Being a lying scumbag is one of the requirements for being a Tory.
Sorry Rob, I cannot help myself reminding some of the posters on here, unfortunately that means I may upset people like your good self for whom the penny has dropped. Still some on here who do not get it.
Comments
Anyway, those two aren't in charge any more, and their respective successors are bloody awful. Corbyn might be succeeded by someone worse, but I'm hopeful May's successor will be, at least, less awful than her.
I did toy, a month or two ago, with backing Ken Clarke for next PM, as leader of a Con-Lab, pro-EU movement. Didn't go for it, though.
She decided that single market membership was incompatible with the referendum result.
She didn’t decide to leave the Single Market, Vote Leave did.
You are this husband.
https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/722391453599723520?s=21
Who should Theresa May listen to?
You? Or the official Leave campaign?
Today, Cameron’s legacy is viewed through the lens of something different: Brexit and his decision to hold a referendum just nine months later. In the long run, however, Cameron’s eager courting of Beijing and his decision to throw open the doors to Chinese investment in Britain’s national infrastructure – from nuclear power stations at Hinkley Point and Bradwell to broadband and 5G networks – could turn out to be an equally important legacy and one which could be just as toxic.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/12/12/chinese-security-risk-woven-uks-networks/3
1. There is a majority of MPs determined to stop the UK crashing out of the EU on 29th March
2. Both the Labour and Tory leaders are neutered. May "leads" a cabinet with 4 factions in it - loyalists, Norwayists, Referendumists, and Managed No Dealists. Its not much better on the Labour side with Corbyn "leading" a Leninist Disaster Capitalism camp, Starmer leading the Referendumists, with perhaps John McDonnell and Tom Watson loosely associated with either camp but doing their own thing
3. Neither May nor Corbyn are removable from their respective offices
4. MPs have realised they need to take back control, that a government without a majority can be outvoted and that legislation can be forced on the government politically. The Grieve amendment - and the not yet tabled Benn amendment - were crafted by the WhatsApp party to give it control
It is a de facto Government of National Unity - not de more as it is not a government. But it is in power.
They might have rejected it, but the idea that they have never discussed it is an obvious lie.
But while they are pushing it the labour leadership can still pivot, and we know what Starmer is working toward. For the party the leadership will have to get off the fence soon. And given their members and public momentum, they're only choosing one side.
When will prominent remainers start to acknowledge the reasons they lost last time ?
The rest was entirely up to the executive with parliament to decide. Neither remain or leave were parties with manifestos. The Tory party played no role in either leave or remain and forbid any resources been used for that purpose.
She listened to people she trusts I guess along with her own gut instinct and made that the basis of her negotiating position. She created red lines that were going to end up crossed. The EU would have been much more amenable to us been within their influence as a SM member and subject to ECJ, so not a Singapore off the tip of the continent. Our more traditional allies in the north and east of the continent who look to shared values and histories with us if we didn’t come across as utterly disgusted at the thought of their people coming to live and work in the uk.
I guess we came across like some of those labour members who wear “never kissed a Tory” t shirts. Thinking it’s funny but failing to realise that you are signalling to those who might be sympathetic to your cause that you are an utter cock.
Best thing for Rejoin is for the country to experience No Deal.
It'll turn the country into EU federalists.
The referendum is an issue for obsessives who don't accept they lost first time. None of those (except maybe Hammond and Rudd) are in the Cabinet.
I've had many people at work and elsewhere bring up Brexit. None for a rerun of the referendum.
https://twitter.com/Laura_K_Hughes/status/1074234200021188609
Death stare around the room.
There is no discussion of a second referendum.
Absolute and complete mythology.
A complete lie.
The reason why most Labour and Tory MPs fear a new election is what they are supposed to campaign on. May - despite her assurances - would lead the Tory Party. What would she write about Brexit in the manifesto - that the election of a Tory or Tory led government would be the affirmation of her deal. Corbyn would lead the Labour Party. What would he write in his manifesto? That Labour would deliver Unicorn Cake having taken the UK out of the Single Market and Customs Union.
Neither party wants an election because the manifesto pledges would be unacceptable to the majority of their MPs. Which leaves the gamble of a referendum - with presumably a carefully managed question - or the gamble of no referendum and damn the consequences.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/12/05/take-two-how-would-a-fresh-referendum-play-out/
"Yes I agree it's a disgusting betrayal of democracy that we're in this situation, I can't quite believe it myself. However in all probability our overall economic prospects are, ceteris paribus, enhanced by being in the EU particularly in the short to medium term as our economies are inherently intwined within the single market and customs union right now."
I think that'd be the line to win over the floating voters of Worksop or Coventry.
https://twitter.com/sonofr/status/1073640012456124422
From Opinium.
Most referendum supporters want a rerun, it is very shameless and obvious and plenty are clear it's because they think the right side would win not out of a genuine belief the people need to speak again. But bottom line is if we accept that most mps will take action to avoid no deal they need some way to agree on something. What gives them the cover to compromise which they are unwilling to do at the moment, while also giving those who never intended us to leave a chance? A referendum.
Nobody bar the remaining few ultraloyalists trusts Jezbollah on Brexit. His stated position is directly contrary to party policy set at conference, and despite screaming demands for May to step out of the way he has shown he is frit when it comes to a VONC.
I want neither a new election nor a new referendum - but if that's what it takes to stop us crashing out at the end of March so be it.
We were never expecting blow-jobs. Maybe Cameron and Osborne missed a trick there.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/15/jeremy-hunt-interview-every-mp-would-like-like-have-crack-top/
A cabal, if you like.
Over to you, Mrs May.....
Nothing she can get will sway 100+ Mps to back the deal and I don't buy the idea anyone will abstain.
She can do nothing, her preferred tactic, but fear of no deal might even bring down her government.
So she needs a resolution, which requires Labour votes. What can she offer them?
A GE? Maybe, but their pretext for one includes to renegotiate Brexit so they cannot pass brexit.
So a referendum instead. Increasing numbers of Tories want it, many in labour want It, and while mps could still ignore it there is a hope that they would act on deal or remain if either won.
No other play gets May even a chance of what she wants.
Mr. kle4, we'll see. So far, a pigheaded attempt to avoid the vote and run down the clock unless the numbers change seems to be her strategy.
I no longer care what May or Corbyn want - both are irrelevant and no longer in control
Maybe that should be Remain's slogan next time:
'We know you're old, poor and racist, but do you want to be *really* poor, old and racist you dumb fuckers?'.
I'm sure in the casual sense of the word it's a lie though.
Utter rubbish.
By which I mean, of course, an approach that a majority is willing actually to force through by any means necessary, rather than to shout about despairingly, mutter about disconsolately, or pass toothless, worthless resolutions in favour of. WTO, No Backstop, Norway+, EEA-, Second Referendum, Renegotiation, Revocation... no consensus around any of it.
Either one is found or No Deal happens by default next March. All else is noise.
Time remaining to Brexit: 103 days, 13 hours and 13 minutes. Tick tock tick tock.
What's that? You don't because REASONS? That reason can't be applied to the 2016 referendum vote though eh Alastair? Oh no. All Leavers are racists xenophobes. All Remainers are virtuous saints.
If Leavers disagreed with the mandate the Leave campaigns were seeking, they should have said so at the time. They conspicuously didn’t and indeed enthusiastically fell in behind it.
Complaining now that the Prime Minister has sought to implement the mandate sought is about the most disingenuous act of all of Leavers, and that’s a high bar.
Several of my Tory friends have moved from Remain to supporting Mrs May's deal. I think it is mainly down to loyalty to their party, or specifically to Mrs May who they admire for her tenacity. I can't find supporting data in the polls but I believe that Tory supporters overall have become more Leave than they were at the referendum.
But overall there has been a slight movement to Remain. This must mean that Labour Leave supporters are moving to Remain. So under the surface there may be a lot of switching going on.
I think the new Tory Leavers are much more likely to turn out to vote for Mrs May's Deal than the new Labour Remainers to turn out to vote to Remain.
So Deal would win on a differential turnout. I don't know if this makes any sense?
"The contrast between the EU’s treatment of Italy and that of France is revealing. Until last year, France had broken the EU deficit rule every year since 2008. It has never been sanctioned. President Emmanuel Macron’s recent capitulation to the gilets jaunes protesters, promising to raise the minimum wage and cancelling tax increases for low-income pensioners, makes it likely that France will break the 3% rule again next year. As early as 2003, the European court of justice ruled that EU finance ministers were negligent in not penalising France and Germany for continually flouting eurozone rules. Fifteen years on, the EU’s big beasts remain free to trample over the rules, while smaller nations (even ones as large as Italy) have to suffer democratic and social penalties...
...In 2013, having been ejected from office by the Italian electorate, Monti, in a valedictory statement to a EU summit, observed that “public support… for the European Union is dramatically declining”. To counter “the mounting wave of populism and disaffection with the European Union”, he added, the EU must start “listening to people’s concerns”. It wasn’t listening then. It’s not listening now."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/16/europes-merciless-treatment-of-italy-only-hardens-popular-resentment
The EU as Austria-Hungary: a dual monarchy presiding over a collection of discontent and restive provinces, ready to shatter at the next serious shock?